Abstract
Abstract This paper will describe the methodology for teaching legal English used at the Fordham University School of Law’s Legal English Institute (LEI), a one-semester program for law students and attorneys. Reasonable minds may disagree about the most effective methodology for teaching legal English, or for that matter any other form of academic English, but we have developed an approach that is informed by both theory and practice. At LEI, we use a “modified CLIL” format, with four substantive classes on topics in U.S. law that run in parallel with a core class on legal English. All four substantive classes use authentic reading materials that are similar to those used in an LL.M. program, and these materials are recycled in the legal English class and form the basis of discussions about language issues. Our use of content classes (as opposed to explicit language classes) to elicit language issues has proven to be effective and it also helps keep students motivated, as students tend to have more intrinsic interest in legal topics than in language study per se.
Highlights
This summary describes a program model for teaching “legal English” to law students and lawyers who are non-native speakers of English
We suspected that students would receive more extrinsic motivation from a program that was legally-focused and labeled, as distinguished from yet another general or academic English class that the students or their peers might perceive as remedial. Taking all of these factors into consideration, we determined that something like Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) would provide the ideal balance between language and content
A law degree in the United States is primarily a form of professional education, rather than an academic discipline as it is in many other countries. This means that professors tend to be practicing attorneys rather than PhDs, law school programs involve heavy amounts of clinical and other forms of practical training, and law school is generally aimed much more at practicing lawyers than it is at perpetuating legal scholarship (Merryman, 1975, pp. 865–869)
Summary
This summary describes a program model for teaching “legal English” to law students and lawyers who are non-native speakers of English. We suspected that students would receive more extrinsic motivation from a program that was legally-focused and labeled (and housed in a law school), as distinguished from yet another general or academic English class that the students or their peers might perceive as remedial Taking all of these factors into consideration, we determined that something like CLIL would provide the ideal balance between language and content. It gives students a very basic introduction to reading case law, note-taking, and important background information about the ways in which U.S legal education differs from its equivalents in other countries These skills-based topics are intended to help students succeed in the rest of their classes in the program, all of which involve the use of these competencies. These classes serve as an excellent point of departure for the study of the numerous language difficulties that they are intended to elicit
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
