•  
  •  
 

Abstract

One of the most important contributions of the critical legal scholarship movement has been its recognition of the fundamental importance of perspective in understanding the law. In a related phenomenon, a number of law professors have begun the work of widening the perspectives that are considered in the law school classroom. Nonetheless, law professors have not fully integrated "difference analysis" into paradigms of problem-solving on behalf of clients. This article will explore how law professors, and especially clinical law professors, can better integrate "difference analysis" into teaching law students the central skill of problem-solving. The primary purpose of teaching students this form of "difference analysis" is to teach them to engage in routine examinations of a diverse range of viewpoints when assisting a client rather than focusing primarily on options derived from the student's own world-view. Engaging in "difference analysis" is an important mindset early in a case, especially when differentiating the lawyer's view of the world from the client's. Part I of this article will explore the ways in which traditional conceptions of lawyering limit the viewpoints most lawyers consider when they begin to generate a set of options to assist clients. This section will first show that the common-law doctrine of standing limits which voices are heard in legal disputes, thereby affecting the range of perspectives lawyers consider. It will then demonstrate that two aspirational documents - the model rules of ethics and the MacCrate Report - fail to fully consider diverse perspectives particularly in their conceptions of the process of generating initial options in problem-solving. Part II will examine a different conception of lawyering in which the lawyer engages in "difference analysis" as the foundation for formulating options to present to a client. Part III will describe in some detail how a clinical course might integrate "difference analysis" into the teaching of problem-solving. It will describe specific exercises, reading assignments, practice choices and supervision techniques that integrate "difference analysis" throughout the course. Finally, Part IV will discuss some of the problems "difference analysis" might pose.

Publication Title

Clinical Law Review

Volume

4

Issue

1

First Page

65

Download

Share

COinS