Abstract
<p>Lines between theory and practice have been blurred considerably in law teaching already, with the spreading influence of clinical legal education around the world.2 In this article, I address the implications of this trend on legal scholarship – the aspect of legal academia where theory-practice tensions tend to be strongest. Following a brief discussion of clinical education’s still uncertain place in the legal academy, I turn to the role of legal scholarship and the potential contributions of clinical education to legal academic literature. Rejecting the strongest criticisms voiced by some clinicians to the effect that scholarship adds little or no value to the primary mission of legal education, which is the training of future lawyers, I explore the many facets of an emerging “clinical scholarship” informed by clinical practice. I also reject the notion that scholarship is less important for clinicians than for other law faculty, by making the case that clinical scholarship strengthens clinical legal education by helping advance its two main goals of improving the quality of law practice and enhancing the public role of the profession.</p>
Highlights
There is an inherent tension in legal education between its academic and professional missions, sometimes characterised as a conflict between theory and practice
This tension is especially salient with respect to modern legal education, because the recent advent of clinical legal education presents the legal academy with a unique opportunity to cut across these traditional lines of conflict
Following a brief discussion of clinical education’s still uncertain place in the legal academy, I turn to the role of legal scholarship and the potential contributions of clinical education to legal academic literature
Summary
There is an inherent tension in legal education between its academic and professional missions, sometimes characterised as a conflict between theory and practice. A theory-practice tension is not unique to legal education, ; often in professional education there are deep differences of opinion concerning the relative importance of academic inquiry and research, on the one hand, and practical training and service delivery, on the other.[1] This tension is especially salient with respect to modern legal education, because the recent advent of clinical legal education presents the legal academy with a unique opportunity to cut across these traditional lines of conflict. Rejecting the strongest criticisms voiced by some clinicians to the effect that scholarship adds little or no value to the primary mission of legal education, which is the training of future lawyers, I explore the many facets of an emerging “clinical scholarship” informed by clinical practice. Rev. 231, 233 (1995) (discussing the distinction between the theory of the classroom and the reality of practice in professional education, legal education)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
