•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Santa Clara University's Law Clinic was established over twenty-five years ago. From January 1995 through May 1996, we experimented with a fee-generating model at the Clinic which consisted of an employment law project operating in conjunction with the criminal defense clinic already in place. Our results exceeded our expectations and offer an encouraging new model for a clinical program that can generate substantial fees without compromising the goals and values of clinical educators. In recent years a lively and often heated debate has arisen in clinical scholarship about the feasibility and utility of implementing fee-generating legal clinics. This debate has been fueled by publication of the Report of the Task Force on Law Schools and the Profession: Narrowing the Gap (MacCrate Report), a 1992 study done by the American Bar Association. The MacCrate Report stressed the concern that the curricula offered in most American law schools do not adequately prepare students for the practice of law. Specifically, the report emphasizes that law graduates lack the skills and values needed to practice law. The MacCrate Report is only the most recent acknowledgement of the serious gap that exists between the theory taught in law schools and the practice skills needed in the real-world representation of clients. As one commentator observed: "Many law teachers - especially clinicians - agree with the main message of the MacCrate report; the question is what to do and how to pay for it." To the extent that clinicians have taken issue with the MacCrate Report, it is because it offers no suggestions for funding the expensive training it mandates.

Publication Title

Clinical Law Review

Volume

3

Issue

2

First Page

439

Download

Share

COinS