By Prof Stephen Kwaku Asare (Kwaku Azar)
3/10/19
INTRODUCTION
Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo
recently declared, amidst applause, that as long as she has something to do
with it, she will not allow the “mass production” of lawyers in the country.
She justified her call by referring to the model used by the medical profession
and misconduct by some lawyers that could not be contemplated in the 1960s. She further added that,
“any attempt to allow the production of lawyers without efficient control,
checks and balances will be rejected irrespective of who is advocating it.”
Not long after her declaration,
the General Legal Council (Council) announced that only 128 of the 1,820 LLB
candidates passed the 2019 entrance examination. Of course, “mass failure” rate
is statistically anomalous, economically imprudent, legally problematic,
ethically questionable and is proof beyond reasonable doubt that we have a
classic case of regulatory failure.
It is statistically anomalous
because the Council failed to adjust the candidates’ raw scores, which is a
standard practice in such entrance examinations and was absolutely necessary
because of the reported low raw scores. Under the Council’s mechanical
application of the passing criteria, no students would be admitted to the
School if the highest score on the examination was 49.5. This, of course, is
absurd to anyone who understands examination scores, standardizing, curving,
and the rudiments of psychometrics.
It is economically imprudent
because it represents a substantial underutilization of the capacity of the
three campuses and the recently acquired capacity at UPSA and other places. It
is legally problematic because such mass failure is antithetical to the
Council’s core duty of providing opportunities to LLB candidates to pursue
professional education at the School or other alternative institutions.
It is
ethically questionable because coming so soon after her ladyship’s declaration,
it seems to be in furtherance of the preannounced agenda against the mass
production of lawyers. It is a classic case of regulatory failure because we
have a regulator, which runs a monopolist education provider, that also
determines the production level, prices, etc., is unresponsive to market needs,
has failed to innovate and seems eager to destroy value while legislators and
the executive seem disinterested, willfully blind and unconscionably silent.
Legal education has been
embroiled in controversy since 2012 when the General Legal Council (Council)
issued an administrative fiat that varied the entry requirement to the Ghana
School of Law (School). This fiat culminated in a lawsuit that declared the
fiat unconstitutional, the passage of LI 2235 by a shocking “viva voce” vote
(shocking, because the Nays seemed to outnumber the Yays), a 2018 illegal
supplementary examination following an entrance exam leakage, a change in the
duration of the qualifying program from 2 years to 1 year and back to 2 years
without reason or rhyme, massive failure of students in the qualifying
examinations, and the introduction of the Legal Profession Amendment Bill,
2018. More important, over 5,000 LLB graduates have been denied a mere
opportunity to enter the School, even though they are able to pay for the
education and are otherwise qualified for admission.
The CDD-Ghana, to its credit,
anticipated the 2019 problems and organized a roundtable to discuss the Bill.
Such roundtables, and other vehicles for eliciting stakeholders’ input, are
important as we fashion a way forward for legal education that takes into
account the extant increased demand for legal education and services while
maintaining quality and excellence. Such a participative process is important
by giving voice to various stakeholders, thereby allowing various perspectives
to be considered and building acceptance for the ultimate outcome. Broad
consultations have a higher likelihood of identifying a legal education model,
which is responsive to the needs of the country, and that allows us to maintain
the highest possible standard. Alas, the Council was a no show at the
roundtable.
The proposed Amendment bill extends the period of pupillage from six months to
one year for persons who have satisfactorily completed the Post-Call Law course
at the School. It also inserts a new subsection that allocates admission
quotas to Universities approved by the Council and provides statutory blessing
for the requirements of an entrance examination and an interview before a
person gains admission to the School. Lastly, it introduces an Independent
Examination Committee (IEC) to administer examinations at the School, to
provide for tenure of office of members of the Committee and to provide
allowances for the members.
THE CORE PROBLEM
In my opinion, neither the Chief
Justice’s commentary nor the proposed amendment addresses the core problem that
has plagued legal education. The core problem that has triggered the
aforementioned controversies is the increasing demand for access to
professional education at the School occasioned by a growth in the population, demand for legal services, and
an increase in the number of Law Faculties. When the School was set up in 1958
to offer professional legal education, only the then University College of Gold
Coast offered the LLB. Today, there are over 11 universities offering the LLB
and the problem is about trying to fit thousands of qualified students in a
School that has a capacity to hold only hundreds of students. In other words,
the problem is all about whether to retain the School, as the sole provider of
professional legal education, or to look for alternative models.
It is the Council’s inexplicable
desire to retain the School, as the sole provider of professional legal
education, that that has led to the proposed screening mechanisms, including
interviews, entrance examinations, quotas, increase in the number of Post-Call
candidates driven by excluded LLB degree holders who return to the country
after enrolling in other jurisdictions. A secondary problem is how to examine
students who are admitted to the School, considering the role of the School in
the legal education value chain.
Thus framed, it becomes apparent
that the problem is not about the mass production of lawyers. In fact, the
country suffers from anemic production of lawyers. The problem is not about the
production of lawyers without efficient control, checks and balances. No
serious person believes that should happen in any production system, let alone
training of professionals. The problem is not about lawyers’ misconduct, which
can and should be handled by the disciplinary committee. Nor is the problem
about asking lawyers to be produced in a manner that differs from how doctors
or accountants are produced. In fact, as it will become obvious, those who are
calling for reforms in legal education are rather asking the regulators adopt
the model in these other professions.
Rather, the problem lies in the
needless distinction between academic and professional education, the adoption
of a centralized mechanism (i.e., the School) for delivering professional
education, and failure to consider alternative mechanisms of delivering legal
education that improves access to so-called professional education while
maintaining excellence and quality.
ORIGINS AND PROBLEMS WITH
BIFURCATED MODEL
The current approach to training
lawyers relies on a bifurcated model that comprises of an academic component at
the Faculties followed by a professional component at the School. The School
was set up in 1958 to offer a program of evening instructions geared to Parts I
and II of the English Bar Examinations. Then Attorney General, Geoffrey Bing,
justified its setting up by arguing that Ghana needed quickly
a number of legally trained persons, not necessarily of University quality, who
could play important roles in national development through both Government
service and private practice; there are a large number of able people, both
interested in and qualified for the study of law, who lacked the financial
resources for study in Britain; and the existing Bar was economically and
politically conservative. To dilute the existing British-trained Bar by a
large influx of locally produced lawyers seemed to offer substantial political
as well as other advantages.
Independently,
the Council of the University College of the Gold Coast had in 1956 decided to
establish a department of Law, which accepted its first group of students in
October 1959. The International Advisory Committee to examine legal education
and to facilitate the implementation of the decision to establish a department
of law proposed that persons taking the LLB should be admitted to practice
after completing a one-year, full time practical Course at the School. Contemporaneously, the Denning Committee, appointed by the
Lord Chancellor of Great Britain to examine legal education in Africa, reached
a similar conclusion regarding the bifurcation of legal education – “In some
parts of the world a university degree in law is considered by itself a
qualification to practice. We do not take this view. … After a man has
taken his degree at the university, he should have a period of one year’s
practical training at a school of law where he can be taught such things as the
drawing of pleadings, trust accounts and bookkeeping, practical conveyancing,
etiquette and professional conduct.”
In 1960, the legislature
delegated the duty of establishing a system of legal education, which affords
students opportunities to read and to obtain practical experience in the
law and to qualify as lawyers, to the General Legal Council (ACT 32). To afford students this
opportunity, the Council is duty-bound to make arrangements for legal education
in such manner as it thinks fit and, in particular, either through a school of
law set up by the Council or through any educational institution. In
sum, the LLB was never conceptualized as a terminal
degree. Rather, its possession created a vested and non-severable interest to
take practical courses at the
School, or other alternative institutions, prior to enrolment at the Bar. In a
sense, the School was always considered as a “finishing school” --- a de facto
institute of the University existing to offer “practicals” to LLB degree
holders.
The Bifurcated model is,
therefore, an accident of history. There is nothing inherent in the study of
law that requires that some courses be taken at the Universities and others be
taken at a Professional School. Considering modern trends in legal education,
the distinction between academic and professional education, first drawn in
1959, is no longer relevant or useful. Currently, the School offers courses in
Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Law of Evidence, Advocacy and Legal
Ethics, Law of Taxation, Interpretation of
Deeds and Statutes, Company and Commercial Law Practice, Alternative Dispute
Resolution, Conveyancing and Drafting, Family Law and Practice, Law Practice
Management and Legal Accountancy.
A closer look at these courses
reveals that they are no more professional or less academic than those offered
at the approved Universities. All the courses offered at the School can and
should be offered by the Universities approved by the Council. The
Universities, with their interdisciplinary approach and emphasis on research,
are better equipped to teach these courses than the School. The School has no
comparative advantage in teaching these courses. Equally important, the course
sequencing detracts from, rather than enhances, the understanding of law. For
instance, there is no pedagogical reason for civil procedure to be taught in
the fifth year, when students take many early courses that assume familiarity,
if not good grasp of the subject. The same is true for criminal procedure and
evidence. Conveyancing needs not be divorced from property law. This illogical
sequencing exists largely, if not solely, because of the maintained, but
superfluous, distinction between academic and professional education.
Further, the distinction
amplifies the myth that there are discontinuities in academic and professional
legal education, with the former being theoretical and the latter being
practical in outlook. In fact, the two cannot be meaningfully disentangled
without impoverishing both. Legal education, in all its facets should train
lawyers to think. Students must not just be exposed to the positive law but
must be allowed to explore the law as a transformative tool. In this regard,
legal education must not be evaluated in terms of how well it serves the
expectations of the judiciary but rather how it contributes to a jurisprudence
that facilitates the legal, economic, social and political transformation of
the country. This transformative training can better be offered by the
Law Faculties, whose core mission is to train well-rounded lawyers and
thinkers. On the other hand, so called professional education at the School
focuses too much on the positive law and meeting the expectations of the
judiciary. The erratic and frequent shifts in the duration of the professional
program provide further evidence of the Council’s comparative disadvantage in
offering legal education.
Third, the current bifurcated
model leads to the unusual situation where passing the professional courses
offered at the School of Law becomes the basis for ultimate enrolment at the
Bar. As important as these professional courses are, I believe passing
examinations in the usual common law courses must be the acid test of Bar
enrolment. This is also another way to ensure quality control by requiring
students to integrate and synthesize core legal principles they have learnt
since matriculating at the Law Faculty. The Bar examination must evaluate
candidates’ proficiency in the understanding and application of core law
courses. Admission to the Bar must be based on demonstrated competence in
constitutional law, contracts, criminal law, etc. not on whether
candidates can pass an accounting examination or answer questions, such as “In 3 very
short paragraphs, outline 3 of the theories of management that has evolved
since Frederick Taylor (March 20, 1856 – March 21, 1915) propounded his management
theory.” This is not to deny the enrichment value of accounting and
scientific management in the study of law but merely to say that they are not
core law courses that must determine whether law candidates are enrolled at the
Bar. Nor should students be required to draft a writ of summons, as happened in
a recent civil procedure examination.
Fourth, even if the Ghana School
of Law is maintained to offer these so-called professional courses, Act 32 is
emphatic that there must be room for LLB degree holders to take these courses
from alternative institutions. This suggests that as far back as 1960, the
legislature anticipated that circumstances might require that other
institutions be enlisted to offer these courses. Increased population,
increased number of geographically dispersed Law Faculties, the corresponding
increase in the number of students seeking legal education, and increased
demand for legal services are examples of such circumstances. Thus, the notion
that there is a facilities shortage at the
School of Law that calls for curtailing the legal education of so many
qualified students is entirely unwarranted. As suggested below, the approved
Law Faculties must focus on delivering legal education while a newly created
regulatory agency to succeed the Council must focus on implementing rules
relating to Bar admissions, including the administration of a semi-annual Bar
examination.
Fifth, as a practical matter,
the distinction must fall due to the (i) increased demand for legal services, (ii)
growth in the population of students seeking legal education, (iii) technology
advancements, (iv) the establishment of well-resourced moot courts at the
Faculties, and (v) a variety of other factors. There is no good reason in 2019 for a student seeking to study
law must relocate to Accra. Thus, the historical distinction between academic
and professional programs is both a mirage and dysfunctional as an academic
matter and is no longer relevant or desirable.
Once it is recognized and
acknowledged that the distinction between professional and academic legal
education is vacuous and that the Law Faculties are best equipped to teach all
law courses, the facilities shortage argument wither away and open the door to
more modern solutions.
PROBLEMS WITH THE GENERAL
LEGAL COUNCIL
The Council is currently
comprised of the 4 most senior members of the Supreme Court. This is
problematic, especially since disputes between the Council and plaintiffs often
find their way to the Court. It does not augur well, at least for the
appearance of independence, when plaintiff faces a Court, whose most senior
members have made decisions that she is challenging. I faced the Court in Asare
v AG [2017, unreported] and found the situation to be both uncomfortable and untenable.
I imagine that the panel also may have felt similar emotions. For if they find
that the GLC has erred, they must then find the best way to tell 4 of their
most senior colleagues that they erred as a matter of law. It does not simplify
matters if the Chief Justice, who is the head of the Council, also chooses the
members to sit on the panel. As I write, I know
of a few disputes that are before the courts, challenging the mode of
delivering legal education. This is another reason why the Chief Justice’s
commentary is not only clearly unfortunate but could also be potentially
prejudicial.
We need to move to a new era
where Supreme Court Justices do not participate in agency decisions that they
can be called upon to adjudicate later. I must also state that being a Supreme
Court Justice is a full-time job that must not be made more difficult by
requiring them to serve on other agencies. How do we realistically expect one
person to be the administrative head of the judiciary, a full-time member of
the Supreme Court, chair the GLC and act in other capacities, including taking
petitions for the removal of judges and other public officials? This is work
overload that guarantees ineffectiveness and inefficiencies somewhere.
Then also is the untenable
situation of a regulator, here GLC, that controls the monopolist professional
education provider, here GSL, as well as the Bar examiner, here IEC, and is
responsible for determining curriculum, price, passing grades, location,
duration of study, and even dress code.
This is in addition to the regulator’s duty to accredit and
monitor quality of legal education in the Faculties. Predictably, the regulator
has become unresponsive to demand, charges excessive prices and cares very
little about quality beyond the lip service. Without competition, the GSL has
no incentive to innovate. This is an arrangement that guarantees regulatory
failure.
Another problem with the
composition of the GLC is that the University of Ghana is represented but other
Universities are not. Of course, when Act 32 was passed, the University of
Ghana was the only game for law education in town. But times have changed! In
fairness to all LLB granting Universities, they must have a chance of being
represented on the Council or a new regulatory body.
It does not help matters that
the GLC adopts an opaque process in formulating regulations. The general public
has no input in formulating these regulations and there is no evidence on how
the regulations are drafted or how the Council members vote on them. It does
not inspire confidence in the Council when the Chief Justice publicly declares
that she alone can stop reform. As regulations can only be varied by a
supermajority of parliamentarians, an opaque process is inherently unfair and
capricious.
Regrettably, the GLC and the IEC
have lost credibility as a result of being involved in a plethora of disputes,
illegalities, arbitrariness and examination leakages over the last few years.
These unfavorable events are well documented and have played out in the media
and the courtrooms starting from 2012 till now. The cumulative effect of these
negative activities has been devastating for legal education and, I dare say,
the legal profession as a whole. The country needs a regulatory body
with credibility to regulate the
legal profession.
COMPARATIVE
ADVANTAGE OF LAW FACULTIES
In today’s education landscape,
the Law Faculties and other disciplines across the
University campuses are fully
able to offer courses in pleadings, accounting, conveyancing, taxation, company
law, professional responsibilities and other so- called professional courses
that are currently offered at the School.
Law Faculties are best able to experiment with and design curriculum, course materials, legal writing programs, clinical education, etc. They also have more flexibility to adapt class sizes and physical architecture to provide the experiential learning that today’s lawyers need. To be successful, students must move beyond adjudication and the courtroom and acquire broader forms of knowledge and skills. I believe the Faculties are in the best position to meet this need as their inter-disciplinary and research environments allow them to offer courses on problem solving skills, negotiation, policy and transactional work.
The insistence on pupillage
requirements is another example of lack of innovation in methods for legal
training. I suggest that a good Law Faculty can through clinics and trial
practice courses simulate the practice of law, obviating the need for
pupillage. These clinics can and should afford students the opportunity to
regularly engage in legislative efforts, policy analysis, transactional work,
public education and should be the hub of structural-reform litigation. The
School is not similarly equipped to offer such rich experiential learning.
Education in the 21st century is not professional merely because it is taught
at the School of Law.
Consistent with the preceding
arguments, I suggest that curriculum development and delivery should be
entrusted in their entirety to the Law Faculties. Given their interdisciplinary
orientation, I believe the Universities, therefore the Law Faculties, are best
equipped to prepare students to “think like lawyers” in the socio-economic
environment in which they will occupy. Thinking like a lawyer transcends
practicing and litigating. It should also embrace problem solving and
leadership. That requires a team-oriented problem-solving education experience
that incorporates diverse perspectives. That requires students to learn not
only from law professors but also from some of the best professors in an
interdisciplinary university environment.
THE WAY FORWARD
I propose that a new body,
perhaps named as the Council for Legal Education and Practice (CLEP), be
created to succeed the Council. I also propose that CLEP be made up of 15
members, comprising of 3 representatives appointed by the Supreme Court (but
not Supreme Court Justices). The Attorney General must also nominate a representative.
The Ghana Bar Association and the Universities approved by the Council must
each elect 4 members with demonstrated interest in and excellence in legal
education. Lastly, there must be 3 public members with experience in areas such
as educational testing, statistical analysis, accounting, psychology, medicine
or related sciences that could be valuable to CLEP. These public members must
be sought and appointed by the Public Service Commission. Each member should
serve a 5-year renewable term. The CLEP should elect its own Chairman. The membership of CLEP should comprise of persons with
demonstrable scholarly attainments and an affirmative interest in legal
education and requirements for admission to the Bar.
The new CLEP should focus on
setting and enforcing standards relating to:
a.
Licensing, monitoring and accrediting Law
Faculties;
b.
Determining facility and technology
requirements for the Law Faculties (e.g., class sizes, faculty to student
ratio, minimum technology resources enabling access to cases; etc.);
c.
Determining core curricula that students need
before they can be called
(enrolled) to the Bar;
d.
The requirements for admission to the Bar;
e.
Administering the Bar Examination (I recommend
twice a year);
f.
Collecting, analyzing and publishing information
relating to legal education and training by the Faculties;
g.
Carrying out regular visits and inspections of
Law Faculties;
h.
Continuing Legal Education (CLE) to practicing
lawyers; and i. Ethical and Quality Control practices.
The CLEP must specify core
courses that must be covered at the Faculties and that will be tested on the
Bar Examination. I expect the courses to be tested on the Bar examination to
include (1) Constitutional Law; (2) Torts; (3) Contract; (4) Criminal law; (5)
Property; (6) Evidence; (7) Civil and Criminal Procedure; (8) Administrative
Law; (9) Estate Law; and (10) Business Associations, including Corporations. In
addition, students must pass an exam on Professional Responsibilities. This
reflects the importance of ethics and professionalism in the legal profession.
This practice of delegating
education to the universities whose products take common examination is hardly
novel and is used by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ghana as well as
Ghana’s Medical and Dental Council. As the
Chief Justice seems to like the
production model of the medical school, she should welcome this reform. Very
few will suggest that there is mass production of accountants and doctors
merely because these professions allow universities to handle education and
admit people based on a common examination.
The CLEP must meet no less than
4 times a year and must adopt an open process to issuing regulations. That is,
any proposed regulations must start in the form of an exposure draft eliciting
public input, be subject to public hearings with a recorded vote of its members
(with members desiring to state a rationale for their decisions allowed to
memorialize that). Consistent with the right to information, CLEP must maintain
a website that makes information about these
exposure drafts and their
activities available to the public. The information must include the public
notice of their meetings, lists of participants, written comments or other
material provided by participants, and meeting reports or minutes, and
transcripts if made.
I also propose that there be two
paths to acquiring the LLB and therefore becoming eligible to take the Bar
Examination. Students with a first degree in a non-Law area can enter the Law
Faculty where they are required to take 90 credits of classes, at least 90% of
which have to be Law Courses. A full-time student should be able to complete
these requirements in approximately 3 years. Students may also opt for a
joint undergraduate degree and Law Program (BS/LLB or BA/LLB). In this case,
they are required to take 180 credits, at least 90 of which must be in law
courses. The Law Faculties must be allowed to work with other University
Departments, such as College of Business, Department of Political Science,
College of Engineering, etc. to develop such Joint Programs. It is expected
that such a program will be completed in approximately six years.
Law Faculties should operate
clinics that offer pro bono services, initiate public interest and
structural-reform litigation as well as engage in policy debates, including
making submissions to and appearing before parliamentary sub-committees to
offer testimony. Students should be allowed to take increasing responsibilities
under the supervision of faculty. Such clinics should be offered at all levels
for interested students.
The CLEP must give the Faculties
some flexibility to offer other courses, legal and otherwise, taking into
accounts development in law and in society. Higher
quality Faculties who have innovative program and curricula are expected to
produce students who have a higher likelihood of passing the Bar examination,
thereby creating additional incentives for Law Faculties to innovate.
The
CLEP must set and enforce standards relating to continuing legal education. In
this regard, the CLEP must approve
organizations that hosts a broad spectrum of legal training events, including
CLE, conferences, seminars, in-company courses, other professional development
and legal education programmes for all kinds of lawyers in all fields of law.
As a transition matter, I
strongly recommend that students who have been unlawfully excluded from
qualifying as lawyers should be given an opportunity to qualify. They should be
given a chance to take their professional courses at schools of their choice,
including private tutoring entities, and take the Bar examination as specified
above. At the Ghana School of Law level, I also suggest a mandatory
regrading of all failed papers handled by the IEC. The
CLEP must stand by the law and must be seen to do justice to all at all times.
In my opinion, even the slightest hint that the CLEP endorses injustice does
substantial harm to its credibility.
In effect, I believe that the
current legal education model is outmoded and kept afloat
by entrenched stakeholders and
regulators who oppose change and who have woefully failed to deploy technology
to promote more efficient delivery of so-called professional education. Cost of
legal education, students’ attrition rates, duration of legal education, and stakeholders’
dissatisfaction are unacceptably high for the very simple reason that
the regulators have failed to
adapt to a changed marketplace.
By
the CJ’s own admission, the current bifurcated model that denies thousands of
qualified graduates an opportunity to complete their legal studies has failed
to produce quality lawyers. What then is the rational case for holding on to
this failed model? On the other hand, if the problem is the quality of lawyers,
the solution is a common Bar examination opened to all LLB graduates that
focuses on testing an applicant’s ability to
identify legal issues in a statement of facts, such as may be encountered in
the practice of law; to engage in reasoned analysis of the issues; and to
arrive at a logical solution by the application of fundamental legal
principles, in a manner that demonstrates thorough understanding of the
principles.
To sum up, I am proposing that:
a.
A new 15-person regulatory body be set up to succeed the GLC.
b.
The membership should comprise of persons with scholarly attainments and an
affirmative interest in legal education and requirements for admission to the
Bar.
c.
While the Supreme Court should nominate representatives to this body, justices
of the Court must not serve on the regulatory body.
d.
For the avoidance of doubt, the body must not be chaired by the
Chief Justice.
e.
The new regulatory body should focus on accrediting Law Faculties, setting
quality control standards, administering the Bar examination, approving state
of the art and market-driven continuing legal education programs, and setting
and enforcing ethical standards.
f.
Legal education must be entrusted to the Law Faculties.
g.
Legal education must be increasingly and permanently migrated to a post
baccalaureate professional degree. That is, it must be offered to students with
a Bachelor degree.
h.
All students who successfully complete their post baccalaureate law degree must
have the opportunity to take the Bar examination.
i.
The Bar examination must focus on testing an applicant’s ability to
identify
and analyze legal issues in a statement of facts and the application of
fundamental legal principles to address these issues.
j.
The Bar examination questions should be based on the basic and fundamental
subjects that are regularly taught in law schools, including constitutional
law, contracts, torts, property, criminal law, evidence, procedure,
administrative law, business associations, estate law, equity, agency law and
professional responsibilities. New courses can be added from time to time by
CLEP, provided that reasonable notice of the subject matter to be covered by
the examination should be made available to the law schools and the applicants.
k.
The sole purpose of the Bar examination must be to protect the public from
unqualified practitioners, not to limit the number of lawyers admitted to the
Bar.
l.
The Post-Call one-year class and one-year pupillage requirement must be replaced
by examinations in Ghana Legal Systems and Constitutional Law.
m.
The exorbitant Post-Call fee must be significantly reduced.
n.
The new framework must dispense with pupillage and emphasize more clinics and
courses in Trial Practice.
o.
The clinics must allow students to have increased responsibilities. It must
afford them the opportunity to not only initiate and complete important public
interest litigation but also to engage in structural-reform litigation and
policy debates.
Parliament
and interested stakeholders must embrace this opportunity to reform legal
education and not allow those who have supervised its obsolescence to stifle
the debate and reform.
No comments:
Post a Comment