Letsika, Q --- "Clinical Legal Education in Lesotho: Some Reflections on Experiences in Teaching Lawyering Skills" [2004] LegEdDig 51; (2004) 13(2) Legal Education Digest 4

Clinical Legal Education in Lesotho: Some Reflections on Experiences in Teaching Lawyering Skills

Q Letsika

[2004] LegEdDig 51; (2004) 13(2) Legal Education Digest 4

38 Law Teacher 2, 2004, pp 213–229

Law clinics serve a unique and peculiar educational role in legal education. Law schools use them to teach law students fundamental lawyering skills. Clinical work affords students ample opportunities to engage in interviewing, counselling, factual gathering, problem solving and negotiation. Law students are able to reflect on their experiential learning as a result of engaging in actual performance of the tasks an average lawyer would be expected to accomplish in practice.

Clinical legal education is not a novel teaching method in Lesotho, at least in the sense of teaching law students lawyering skills through experiential learning. The only disadvantage of these initiatives was seen to be that they did not engage students in real-life scenarios. This discussion aims to share experiences encountered from using clinical legal education as a method of teaching fundamental lawyering skills in an academic setting. In this regard it focuses on: (1) an overview of past initiatives in teaching lawyering skill; (2) contemporary methods of skills training; (3) integrating skills training in the law curriculum; and (4) challenges and problems facing clinical legal education.

A comprehensive system of clinical legal education found its way into the legal academy in 2000. Following in part from the recommendations made by clinical scholars at the workshop on curriculum review of the faculty of law and other previous initiatives, the Lesotho law school established a law clinic. The majority of legal subjects covered did little to expose law students to the practical challenges of legal practice. The only courses that introduced students to the ramifications of legal practice were civil procedure, conveyancing and notarial practice, criminal procedure and practical legal training.

As a standard procedure the law school issues a standard form containing specific questions which it asks the host institution to answer in relation to the performance of the student during his or her tenure as an intern. The emphasis is on three educational outcomes: (1) knowledge outcomes; (2) skills outcomes; and (3) value outcomes.

The law school assigns students faculty supervisors. The faculty supervisors are expected to review the learning progress of students on a regular basis. Internships offer a number of advantages for the learning of law students. In the first place, students get opportunities to interact with real life client scenarios. In the second place, law students get opportunities to observe for themselves the capacities and limitations of the justice system. In the third place, internships offer law students opportunities for experiential learning. In the fourth place, the exposure to how courts, lawyers and other institutions of justice function prepares students for understanding the fundamental essentials of good lawyering.

The major criticism levelled against this type of skills training program is that the quality of supervision provided by host institutions varies and there is little or no law school supervision. Participation of law students in the law clinic is compulsory with the clinical work involving them in a variety of activities. Students’ relationships with clients, file management, development of the case theory, reflective skills development and participation in weekly seminars form part of the criteria used for assessing and grading students’ performance. The other important dimension is that law students are required to participate in weekly seminars.

The involvement of students in clinical work offers a number of educational values. First, it introduces students to the problem-situations of the sort that confront lawyers in practice. Second, it makes students role players in the learning process. Third, it gives students an opportunity to interact with others in the process of identifying and solving clients’ concerns and legal problems. Fourth, it enables clinical teachers to foster cross-cultural dialogue. Fifth, it gives clinical teachers opportunities to evaluate and review students’ performances from an informed perspective. Sixth, it builds students’ confidence, particularly those who come from a previously disadvantaged social background, to function in a multi-cultural environment. Finally, it enables clinical teachers to give students intensive, critical and well-structured feedback on their performances.

It is common cause that most law schools worldwide use moot courts and simulations to teach fundamental lawyering skills. Given the nature of tutorials, it is difficult to argue with any sense of boldness that they are part and parcel of clinical legal education. Legal scholars share common views that theory and practice must be bridged. To achieve this purpose, proposals have been made to the effect that skills discourse should be incorporated into the traditional course. The Lesotho law school developed its curriculum in such a manner that most procedural courses cover legal skills necessary for legal practice, including: (1) legal methods and systems; (2) civil procedure; (3) practical legal training; and (4) clinical legal education.

Clinical legal education as a method of teaching lawyering skills is not without problems. Clinical legal education with its emphasis on experiential learning is expensive both in terms of manpower and financial resources. An integral component of clinical legal education is the fact that the teacher/student relationship must be more interactive to enable the clinical supervisor to discover each student’s weaknesses and strengths in order to be able to make recommendations for improvement based on sound information. If law clinics take more cases than is necessary, then this may lead to a situation whereby they may have to compromise the quality of clinical legal education. In contrast, if law clinics take few cases to meet the educational objectives of law schools, they will be compromising their social responsibility.

Clinical legal education is now firmly embedded in our law curriculum. The problems facing our communities when they try to enforce their legal and human rights in the courts of law pose critical questions. One of those questions relates to the responsiveness of legal education and law schools to the empowerment of the poor and disadvantaged social groups. The discussion has given a brief sketch of the historical development of clinical legal education in Lesotho and shares the experiences of using various skills training programs to equip law students with the necessary repertoire of fundamental lawyering skills to prepare them for legal practice. In final analysis it is undoubtedly evident that experiential learning provides ideal opportunities for trial and error.