Suggestions for the Development of a Successful Practitioner Network Model 

The following suggestions for the development of a successful practitioner network model are based on the learning that has been gained from the experiences of the original network models: 

I.     Developing the Practitioner Network

 Have a Clearly Articulated Common Mission 

In developing a practitioner network, it is important that network members are able to commit to a clearly articulated common mission.  The experiences of the original schools indicate that the success of the networks is due in large part to the members’ sense of sharing a common mission of “doing good and doing well” – combining serving their communities and surviving financially. 

When discussing the benefits of network participation, members emphasize the importance of their shared commitment to providing low cost and free legal assistance.  One member stated that the network could be defined as a special interest group for developing a “doing good while doing well” model of practice.  Members take cases that other practitioners may not because of their commitment to serve their communities; they do not practice law solely to make money. 

Other law schools may wish to form practitioner networks focused on a different common mission - perhaps the common mission of becoming successful entrepreneurs or the common mission of bridging the skills gap between law school and practice.  What is clear, however, is that having a shared common mission is central to developing an effective and cohesive community of like-minded peers whose members are committed to the network and each other.

Engage in Targeted Outreach to Recruit Members 

Successful recruitment efforts require targeted, one-on-one outreach, rather than mass mailings to potential members.  Data about the tangible benefits experienced by current network members is useful for marketing the value of network participation.

Recruitment of network members initially was a challenge for each of the original law schools.  It was assumed that solo and small-firm practitioners would jump at the chance to participate in a network that would provide them with services and resources.  As one project director said: “Our initial concern was that we would be deluged with responses and that there would not be adequate resources to handle the needs of large numbers of interested graduates.” 

In fact, however, the deluge came only after the first year of the program.  At the beginning, in recruiting members for their networks, project directors found themselves in uncharted territory, developing and marketing a new and untested product.  They had no precedent to follow nor did they have proven results to tender.  Through their experience, project directors found that word-of-mouth, one-on-one recruitment, and other forms of targeted outreach are more effective than mass mailings to law school graduates.  

Now that the networks have become established, recruitment takes care of itself as satisfied members recruit their friends and colleagues.  In addition, there is now testimonial data from network members from each of the original models detailing what they found valuable about participating in the network.   

Targeted, one-on-one outreach can be successfully accomplished not only by current network members, but also by law school faculty members.  Faculty members with relationships with graduates can start by reaching out personally to inform them about the network and solicit their participation.  Many faculty members, especially clinicians, informally maintain a network of graduates who turn to them for advice and mentoring.  Formalizing these networks and creating a vehicle for these graduates to network amongst each other can provide significant benefits.   

Find Tangible Ways to Provide Value-Added to Network Members  

To attract and retain network participants, there has to be a clear sense on the part of practitioners that participation will result in a benefit to their capacity to develop an economically viable practice; there must be some value-added as a result of participation.  Understanding the day-to-day challenges solo and small-firm practitioners face is essential.  Successfully serving these practitioners involves educating them about how much they need and will benefit from the services being offered and why, therefore, they should be willing to take the time to learn about and take advantage of them.

Any new project must start with the understanding that until network members are able to make a living, it will be difficult for them to provide pro bono or reduced fee representation.  It is important to pay attention to the various ways that the network can provide economic and professional value to its members and make efforts to adequately market these deliverables to potential network members.  Among the benefits of most importance to solo and small-firm practitioners are:

• access to client referrals;
• training in marketing and client development;
• law office management training; and
• access to discounts on services and products such as malpractice insurance and legal research databases.[18]

It is clear that the same pressures that make running a solo and small-firm practice so challenging make network meeting attendance difficult as well.  It is hard for practitioners to take time away from their struggling practices to obtain the support they need.  Scheduling conflicts (especially for solo practitioners with litigation practices who have unpredictable schedules, in which hearings can run late, and trial preparation or client meetings may need to take place in the evenings) make meeting attendance a challenge.

It is crucial to make network participants understand the various ways that meeting attendance and network participation can enhance their practice.  Once members understand this, they conclude that meetings are worth the effort.  Members value the professional support they receive from each other as it helps to lessen the isolation of solo and small-firm practice.  They point out that network members help nurture each other’s practices by providing advice as well as referrals.  Members also value the network as providing a rich learning environment in which the shared knowledge base comes from the diversity and depth of knowledge of the network members, law school alumni, and faculty members.  

In addition, moral and emotional support from fellow members is an important incentive for meeting attendance.  Many members, particularly those who work in practices such as family law, value meeting attendance because it provides a unique forum in which to unwind, vent, and counter the “burn-out” their practices can create.  Meetings can provide a venue for members to “let down their hair” and raise questions about cases, difficult clients, adversaries, or the frustrations of practicing in emotionally challenging practices.  Members are able to freely share successes and failures with others in the group and are helpful at spotting ethical issues and brainstorming appropriate responses including referring members to appropriate professional organizations.   

Members also support each other outside the sphere of business.  One member commented that when happy events, such as the birth of a baby, are announced, the listserv “lights up like a switchboard” with congratulations.  Similarly, when members experience personal difficulties, they find nurturing support from fellow members.  The network is described as supportive, warm, and welcoming.    

Elements that are closely connected to active member participation in the practitioner networks are:

• the “deliverables” of the network, such as practical advice and mentoring, case referrals, professional development, moral support, and discounts on services that these practitioners want or need;
• the ability of project staff to adequately market and provide these deliverables; and
• the capacity of project staff to facilitate development of a cohesive and well-functioning group.

Take Time to Establish and Maintain a Sense of Community and Shared Trust Among Network Members 

As is true in the development of any group, it takes time for network members to gel into a cohesive and well-functioning group to enable the creation of a sense of community and shared trust.  

In developing the original networks and recruiting members to join them, project staff members were, in effect, marketing a new product; they were pioneers in uncharted territory.  Without a track record, it was difficult for them to clearly articulate to busy, struggling attorneys the value of the networks they were attempting to market.  The process of educating and persuading practitioners is, of necessity, a time-consuming one.  In addition, building a sense of community and shared trust among them takes time as well.   

Yet, this is critical to ensure continued participation in and commitment to the network.  Project directors must be able to provide leadership to facilitate this process.  As one network member aptly noted, the infrastructure created by project staff is “like an umbrella, [we] need someone to hold it up or we all get wet”.

In addition, once relationships have been established through face-to-face meetings, a listserv becomes an invaluable tool for maintaining communication between members and for serving to foster a sense of community in between in-person meetings.

Build Leadership Into the Network 

It is clear from the experiences of the original models that, for the practitioner networks to be effective and sustainable over time, coordination, facilitation, and leadership are essential.  It takes time to persuade practitioners of the value of participation in a network.  It also takes time for these practitioners to meet together for a long enough time to enable them to develop a sense of trust and community without which the peer mentoring and support cannot take place.   

Developing an environment in which this can take place requires facilitation and leadership skills.   Once members have been recruited and a sense of trust and community has been developed, the time required to maintain the network may be less intensive.  Nonetheless, new networks will need to factor the importance of leadership into their models.  Other necessary leadership skills include the capacity to sustain the project while building necessary internal support and engaging in fund-raising.

Based on the experiences to date, it appears that there are a number of characteristics that would help enable a law school to be successful in developing and maintaining a network of solo and small-firm practitioners that are supported by the law school.  The project director is key.  While no one individual could be expected to have all these characteristics, it will be important to keep them in mind in selecting project directors.  They are as follows:

• extensive private practice experience in a solo or small-firm setting to provide expertise, credibility, and a knowledge of challenges and solutions, and to 
  enable the project director to understand the economic pressures network members face;
• computer and technological skills to facilitate and encourage network members to develop these skills;
• networking skills to successfully recruit members and develop relationships with bar associations, legal services providers, and community organizations;
• some prior exposure to law school academia to enable navigation of the law school political environment;
• managerial and administrative skills to juggle and prioritize among multiple tasks;
• an ability to operate effectively in the different worlds of practice and academia;
• an ability to facilitate buy-in and ownership on the part of others (both the potential network members and members of the law school community);
• an ability to facilitate the creation of a sense of community among network members; and
• an ability to motivate others and provide encouragement to members who are struggling to succeed in a difficult practice setting. 

It may not be possible to find one individual who has all of the above-listed characteristics, but finding an individual, or a combination of individuals (from among the law school staff, faculty, and alumni), who, working together, can provide as many of them as possible would be beneficial.

Utilize Technology to the Fullest Extent Possible 

The use of technology, such as email communication, a listserv, and internet-based research, can provide enormous benefits to solo and small-firm practitioners.  It is essential that one of the criteria in practitioner selection is a willingness to use technology.  

Both CUNY and Maryland found that simple email communication helps create and maintain a sense of community among network members, providing them an important vehicle to obtain valuable advice and ideas.  This “electronic” support has proved vital to both these networks and has been an essential ingredient in relieving the isolation experienced by these solo and small-firm practitioners.  Both networks utilize a listserv through which members can ask questions, provide answers, receive referrals from the Project Director, and stay connected with other members.  Outside of regular in-person meetings, the listserv is the primary vehicle for communication among network members.  Members who do not utilize the listserv are not achieving the entire benefit of the network.  

In Maryland, having access to the Internet and having an email account were prerequisites for participation in the network.  Most of Maryland’s members came to the network able to use technology.  In the other schools, however, a number of the member practitioners were not used to using technology.  In fact, at first, some of them were somewhat resistant to using it.  Many solo and small-firm practitioners do not have the technological expertise to take advantage of the benefits of email, the Internet, and various legal software programs.  Such practitioners need to be educated as to the value of utilizing technology.  Providing practitioners with training in these areas enables them to streamline their practices, aiding in their being able to achieve economically viable practices, charge affordable fees, and provide pro bono service.  

At CUNY, for example, helping practitioners overcome their resistance to utilizing technology was a major task.  Some member practitioners either had no computer or were using computers that were basically obsolete.  Project staff made efforts to convince members to take advantage of legal software that would enable them to better manage their practices (such as the Amicus Attorney software), utilize the Internet to take advantage of the numerous resources and links included in the network’s extensive web site, and regularly use email.  In undertaking these efforts, they quickly realized that a prerequisite to members utilizing these tools was having adequate hardware and software.  Some practitioners needed assistance in obtaining affordable computers and software programs.  CUNY took great pains to bring network members up to speed to take advantage of the technology they were providing.   This assistance took the form not only of having the Project Librarian provide workshops on internet research, but having a member of the project staff make visits to network member’s offices to provide them with individual hands-on training in the use of computers, the Internet, and software.  CUNY project staff encouraged network members to utilize technology more effectively.  In fact, project staff provided network members with free Palm Pilots (donated by 3Com), free copies of and training in Amicus Attorney software (donated by Amicus Attorney), and negotiated with online legal services providers to secure annual legal research contracts at a reduced rate.

Project staff efforts were immensely successful.  When CUNY began, less than 30% of the project members had access to the Internet or email.  Now, 100% are online and communicate regularly with each other via email.  A number of network members admitted that without the prodding from project staff, they would never have begun to use email.  They are now well aware of the benefits of electronic communication and utilize it regularly.  One network member said it is just like having “partners…instead of walking down the hall to ask a question, I just send an email.”  Another member created her own web site and was able to pay for it from a case that came to her from that web site.  Members’ ability to use technology has enabled them to become more efficient, thereby saving time and enabling them to charge their clients less.  

Northeastern also provided its network members with access to and training in the use of office technology (including Amicus Attorney case management software, voice recognition software, etc.) to assist them in their practices. 

Utilize ListServs and Web-Based Databases Effectively 

When the original models were conceived, founding members thought web-based databases would be an invaluable way to provide solo and small-firm practitioners with easy access to information and resources.  The experience of most of the original models indicates that, rather than searching for answers on a web site, network practitioners prefer being able to ask questions and receive immediate answers either by telephone or email.  (And, network members are always willing to share information when requested.)  Thus, listservs appear to be more readily utilized as a means of receiving and sharing information than web sites that require individuals to proactively access information.

On the other hand, in the Northeastern DV model, during the course of the seminar, all practitioners communicated with one another through a dedicated web site that provided scheduling and assignment information for the seminar, domestic violence-related news stories, information on cases and legislative proposals, and other online resources.  Seminar participants appear to have utilized the site.  The DV model is not continuing to present the seminar but is dedicating energy and effort to maintain, expand, and update its extensive web site to make it an information center for practitioners and others who serve domestic violence survivors.  Project staff members found that developing an effective web-based database requires a great deal of time and resources.  They view the continued development and maintenance of the web site and a recently established listserv, as well as the presentation of an annual conference[19] and ad hoc training workshops, as the vehicles through which the network and sense of community will be maintained.   

Provide Network Members with Research Assistance 

When they have access to legal research assistance, solo and small-firm practitioners are able to improve the quality of their services and streamline their practices, making it possible for them to charge clients lower fees and engage in pro bono practice.

Both CUNY and Maryland staff negotiated with online legal research providers (such as Westlaw and Lexis) for special group discounts that enable network members to access these services at dramatically reduced rates.  CUNY also offers the services of a part-time Project Librarian who provides members with legal research assistance.

Provide Practitioners With Training in How to Delegate and Supervise Tasks 

Some solo and small-firm practitioners, like many legal services staff attorneys and others who do not have the large staff and administrative support enjoyed by many large law firm lawyers, are used to doing all their own work. They, therefore, do not have experience in delegating tasks, such as legal research.  Educating them about the benefit of delegation, and providing training in delegating if necessary, can enable members to take advantage of resources, such as student interns that can help them streamline their practices.

Although delegating does not come naturally to solo practitioners and others, it can be taught.  At CUNY, the Project Librarian found it necessary to actively market her services to network members and to demonstrate to practitioners the benefit of delegating their research needs.  Otherwise the network members were slow to utilize this very beneficial service.  Because of her efforts, network members have now come to see the value of this service, finding that it saves time and enables them to keep the fees they charge their clients reasonable. 

At Northeastern’s DV project, the Project Director designed and presented workshops on supervision and delegation to help practitioners learn to utilize resources, such as interns, that can help make their practices more efficient, and thereby more economically viable.  In the Northeastern DV model, the placement of students with the senior practitioners serving as faculty members (both as clinical and coop interns) was intended as a “reimbursement” for these practitioners’ time and commitment to the project.  However, prior to the workshop, some of the faculty practitioners, unused to receiving any assistance, experienced this more as a burden than a benefit.  It became clear through this process that many practitioners do not know how to delegate and supervise interns.  They become so mired in their practices that they are unable to delegate.  Workshops such as these can enable practitioners to learn about transferring responsibility, thus creating a more efficient practice. 

Create A Peer Setting in Which Practitioners Can Provide Each Other With Technical Assistance and Mentoring 

Having peers to look to for answers to practical and strategic questions provides an important sense of comfort for network members.  As described above, network members feel more comfortable asking each other for advice than participating in a formal bar association mentor program.

In the Northeastern DV model, project staff envisioned that providing junior practitioners with senior practitioner mentors would be a welcome resource.  Surprisingly, they found reluctance on the part of the junior practitioners to contact senior practitioners.  Some were hesitant for fear they would be “bothering” the senior practitioners.  Some may have feared they would look stupid.  Others, who ironically appeared to need the most supervision, seemed to think they were “doing just fine” on their own.  In this scenario, unlike network members in the other models, the junior practitioners may not have felt that they were in a “peer” setting that enabled them to feel comfortable asking questions.  Creating a setting in which network members can access peer technical assistance is vital. 

Maintain a Clear Focus on Identifying and Tapping into Fee-Generating Clients and Identifying Models of Economically Viable Practice Areas 

It is crucial to maintain a clear focus on identifying and tapping into fee-generating clients and identifying models for economically viable practice areas.  Without financially sustainable practices, attorneys cannot survive and thus cannot help their communities.  From the experiences of various participating law schools, it was learned that some substantive areas when engaged in solely without any diversity in the practice areas did not produce economically viable practices.

For instance, at Northeastern, project staff initiated the DV model with the hope that it would be possible to develop a model for an economically viable practice based on a caseload of domestic violence work serving low and moderate-income individuals.  Project staff concluded, however, that practitioners who solely took on domestic violence work, without also taking on other family law cases, for example, could not sustain an economically healthy practice.

They discovered that domestic violence practitioners (at least in Massachusetts) are economically challenged because: (1) the typical domestic violence client is poor and cannot afford to pay for legal services; (2) even though attorney’s fees may be awarded by the court, they are typically not awarded until after a case has gone to trial.  Often these cases do not reach trial and if they do, it may take years, by which time the perpetrator’s income has been completely spent; and (3) the courts do not allow attorneys to make limited appearances in these cases.  Thus, practitioners are forced to remain on a case once they make an appearance no matter how complex the case turns out to be and regardless of whether they are being paid.  Attorneys who attempt to do this work on a pro bono basis end up having to pay a significant amount of money in court fees out of their own pocket that they are never able to recoup.  As a result, a number of Massachusetts domestic violence practitioners are being forced out of practice altogether.  

This learning led to the development of new goals: (1) identifying and tapping into fee-generating clients in both the domestic violence and family law areas; (2) working to change how attorney fees are awarded; and (3) lobbying for allowing attorneys to make limited appearances in domestic violence cases.

Similarly, Maryland envisioned that the Demonstration Law Office it created would serve to model practice areas for solo and small-firm lawyers that would enable them to aid low and moderate-income individuals and communities, charge affordable fees, and still maintain a profitable practice.  Maryland thought that the Demonstration Law Office could illustrate, by its own involvement with fee-switching cases, that certain practice areas could prove to be economically viable ways to serve low and moderate-income individuals and communities. 

The Project Director made numerous attempts to generate cases that involved fee switching as a means for network members to generate income.  Early in its existence, it became involved in the surrounding community’s crisis involving predatory lending and real estate practices.  This is an area in much need of attention in Baltimore.  The Office’s involvement in these cases provided a great service to the surrounding community and gave the Law Office significant visibility.  The Law Office became a resource for individuals and organizations to refer resident victims of these practices.  The Law Office became actively involved in the Coalition to Prevent Predatory Real Estate practices, helping to shape the group’s legislative agenda.  The Coalition’s work, and the work of the Demonstration Law Office itself, attracted serious coverage of the issue by local media and U.S. government politicians.  This has resulted in the Department of Housing and Urban Development putting together a program that permits Baltimore victims of these real estate scams to get their existing Federal Housing Association insured mortgages written down to values more reflective of their actual market value.  The Law Office has also become involved in preventative work.  It set up an information booth at a local home buying fair, distributing literature about a program in which network lawyers provide a low flat fee rate for representation of first time home buyers, and worked with the Lawyer Referral Service of the Bar Association of Baltimore City to help set up a first time home buyer panel. 

The Office’s involvement in this area has clearly had a significant positive impact on the surrounding community.  It also became a vehicle for co-counseling arrangements with network attorneys who were interested in litigation issues.  Unfortunately, however, these cases turned out to be complex, paper-intensive lawsuits.  They involve multiple defendants and an enormous upfront investment of time and money.  Requiring a large upfront outlay of resources (both in terms of time and money), these cases were not suitable for solo and small-firm practitioners trying to build economically viable practices.  Thus, the hope that the casework of the law office would model practice areas appropriate for solo and small-firm practitioners did not pan out. 

To help solo and small-firm practitioners develop economically viable practices, it is important to identify fee-generating clients and develop models of economically viable practice areas.  And even though some practice areas do not generate income immediately, they can still be pursued as long as the attorney is able to diversity his or her practice to take on other matters that can provide necessary income in the meantime. 

II.     Integrating the Practitioner Network into the Institution 

In designing the Law School Consortium Project experiment, the founders envisioned practitioner networks becoming integral parts of law schools; part of their missions and core operations funded by the schools, their alumni, and other funders.  This extension of legal education to include support for graduates who enter solo and small-firm practice, the resulting synergies among educators, practitioners, and communities, and the impact on access to justice has the potential to transform legal education.  Thus, a Consortium project will not be successful in the long-term if it does not become part of the law school’s core program, supported broadly by the faculty and administration.  The experiences of the founding schools demonstrate that integrating networks into their respective law schools requires time and planning from the very inception of the project. Achieving these goals requires: 

• a clear strategic plan for developing institutional integration;
• initial broad-based institutional buy-in and support for the project;
• a clear understanding of how the project will meet the needs of the host
  institution;
• proactive, ongoing efforts to maintain and expand internal support;
• having an institutional “insider” lead the project;
• developing a model that can be sustained financially; and
• working to create institutional innovations and change. 

Design a Clear Strategic Plan for Developing Institutional Integration 

Successful integration requires the development of a multi-year strategic plan that focuses on creating internal buy-in and support, integration, and financial sustainability, while paying attention to the overall strategy and self-interest of the law school.  Such a strategy must include expectations for how the project will bear fruit for its host law school, so that the project, its institutional support, and its integration into the law school will expand over time.  

Some law schools may have the resources or alumni support to fund the program upfront.  Most will not, however.  Accordingly, the strategic plan must envision a step-by-step approach designed to gradually prove the benefit of, and thereby increase institutional support for, an expanded mission.  

Plans need to include specific strategies for an ongoing campaign of internal marketing to garner and maintain institutional support.  This campaign needs to be designed to ensure that others in the institution become and remain involved in and aware of the project, and understand how it is aligned with and in furtherance of existing institutional interests and needs.  Internal support cannot develop and be maintained unless project directors are able to make connections with, and continually demonstrate the value of their projects to, the tenured faculty and others at their institutions.

Further, it is important to identify an individual who will be assigned the role of implementing the strategic plan.  This individual should be the project director or a person selected to work closely with the project director.  In any event, project directors need to understand that among their primary job responsibilities are working to develop and maintain institutional support for and ensure the future financial viability of the project.

The institution’s strategic plan should include: 

• short-term and long-term goals;
• action steps to accomplish each of these goals;
• plans for garnering and maintaining necessary internal support, developing financial self-sustainability, and collecting necessary data;
• a set of deadlines and a clear delegation of responsibility to individual(s) for each of the action steps; and
• regular reporting to enable maximum learning from the project’s experience.

Develop Initial Broad-Based Institutional Buy-in and Support 

For integration to be successful, projects must develop broad-based institutional buy-in and support from their inception.  To initially develop broad-based institutional support, it is important to create a committee consisting of influential faculty members, deans, and administrators who are potential stakeholders in the project (such as Admissions, Alumni Affairs, Career Services, Public Affairs, and Development, etc.).  This committee should spearhead efforts to plan and develop the project and should meet regularly with the project director to ensure an ongoing, reciprocal flow of information.  

It is also important to find ways to involve faculty members with the project to enable them to appreciate the value of the project and begin, therefore, to anchor the project to the law school.  Efforts to increase faculty participation, interest, and eventually, ownership, are essential.  Curriculum enrichment and scholarship opportunities are two critical ways to tie the project into the law school.  Because scholarship is the “coin of the realm” in law schools, articulating the curriculum benefits and research and scholarship opportunities that can arise from involvement with the project is crucial to obtain necessary faculty buy-in.[20]  Faculty members’ more direct involvement in project planning and activities will enrich the project and maintain faculty support. 

In addition to faculty, it is important to reach out to the institutional administrative departments that are potential allies, and possible eventual financial supporters of the projects.  To successfully obtain support and cooperation from these departments, it is vital to educate them to operate in innovative ways.  For example, the Admissions, Alumni Affairs, Career Services, and Public Affairs Offices need to understand the potential benefits of the project.  For an Admissions Office, a school-supported network of solo and small-firm practitioners could be a selling point to attract applicants with an interest in eventually opening their own firms.[21]  The project could serve to enable the law school to compete more effectively in a competitive admissions environment.[22]  For the Alumni Affairs Office, the project could be a way to demonstrate the Law School’s ongoing commitment to its graduates.  And, alumni could become involved as mentors and financial supporters of the project.  For the Career Services Office, the project offers alternative employment opportunities for students interested in public interest work but not likely to obtain the few positions available with public interest organizations.  For the Public Affairs Office, the project has the potential to be a valuable public relations vehicle, demonstrating the law school’s commitment to its surrounding community.  This may be especially attractive to urban law schools.  Proactive, ongoing outreach to these offices is vital for successful integration. 

Develop a Clear Understanding of How the Project Will Meet the Needs of the Host Institution 

Strategic plans developed by new models need to specifically articulate how their projects will provide benefits that their institutions value.  Such benefits will depend entirely on the specific mission or institutional interests of the host institution.  Some law schools may see the project as providing a valuable admissions tool.  Others may see the project as enabling the institution to create a niche for itself in its competition with other schools.  Others may see the project as a vehicle to provide service to their students and alumni by identifying new career options.  Still others may see the project as a vehicle to provide faculty members with a window into the world of practice and access to real world case studies that can enhance their curriculum.  A clear alignment with existing institutional interests is, however, essential for integration to occur. 

Engage in Proactive, Ongoing Efforts to Maintain and Expand Internal Support 

As part of implementing the strategic plan for integration, schools need to engage in proactive, ongoing efforts to maintain and expand internal support within their institutions for the project.  This requires the development of an ongoing internal marketing campaign.  Failure to maintain this ongoing communication can leave a project vulnerable.  

A successful internal marketing campaign requires the project director to engage in proactive, ongoing outreach to others in the institution who can provide needed support.  There must be regular, close interaction with others in the institution and a conduit for information to flow:

• from the project to the dean, tenured faculty, and relevant senior administrators, providing information about the progress and developing benefits of the project, and
• from the dean, tenured faculty, and relevant senior administrators back to the project to provide leadership so as to set priorities that align with the interests of the law school.  Attention must be paid to creating and articulating ways that the project can  provide strategic value to the law school.  

Have an Institutional “Insider” Lead the Project  

Some of the project directors from the original schools were “outsiders”.  They came from outside the institution for the express purpose of developing the practitioner networks.  They are experienced practitioners, familiar with the problems of practice development, and are able to provide mentoring and advice.  As institutional outsiders, however, they were initially somewhat disconnected from the rest of the law school in terms of their status and ability to exert influence.  Similarly, they were not familiar with how change occurs in law schools.  They needed help navigating academia and learning how to build the support necessary to achieve integration.  It is beneficial, therefore, to have an institutional insider willing and able to lead the project to obtain the necessary institutional buy-in and ongoing support.  That individual needs to have the capacity to exert influence within the school based on his/her existing institutional relationships. 

In addition, it is vital that projects have the support of institutional insiders, such as deans and development administrators, who have contacts with local foundations and alumni and are willing and able to utilize those ties to solicit external financial support.

Develop a Model That Can Be Sustained Financially

When the Law School Consortium Project was funded, it was envisioned that the original networks would become integral parts of their respective institutions, supported by them financially.  Thus, much in the same way that law school clinical programs have become integral law school programs, to be fully integrated into their institutions, the networks need to become part of the institution’s core operating expenses, supported through a mixture of law school funds and outside funding. 

Cost containment must, therefore, be a primary focus in developing a Consortium project.  Developing a project that requires large amounts of ongoing external funding may create an obstacle both to institutional integration as well as long-term financial sustainability.  A more effective strategy may be to develop a project that starts small and gradually, over time, increases its capacity and budget, while working to build internal support and develop predictable funding sources.  This strategy may be more effective from a fund-raising perspective as well, since potential funders will expect projects to demonstrate how they anticipate developing financial sustainability over time.

The founding schools received financial support from a number of sources in addition to the original funding provided by the Open Society Institute’s Program on Law & Society and the in-kind support provided by their law schools.[23] They found that their projects tend to be more attractive to local funders, who are interested in providing funding that results in service to specific areas or communities, than to larger national funders.  Additional funding sources included grants from local and family foundations[24] 

Developing a project with lower initial expectations and an eye toward gradual and incremental growth in size, expectations, and achievements, can provide a path for developing a successful, financially viable, replicable, and, eventually, integrated network project. 

Work to Create Institutional Innovation and Change

The current paradigm for legal education presents a challenge to activities that serve practitioners.  Most law schools see their mission as providing students with a quality legal education focusing on legal analysis and critical thinking.  While many law schools have expanded skills training, particularly through clinics, teaching students the practical aspects of the practice of law is not a primary goal for most law schools.[25]  Attempting to expand the traditional educational mission of law schools requires working to create institutional innovation and change.

Obtaining the support, participation, and buy-in of a large number of faculty members requires focused time and effort.  Some may find it difficult to justify spending tuition dollars on graduate activities that do not appear to be directly related to serving students.  Moreover, a project so closely connected to law practice may not be popular among some faculty wary of activities that may make their institutions appear to be “trade schools” rather than academic and scholarly institutions.  Because scholarship and research are the “coin of the realm”, there are few incentives, if any, for faculty members seeking tenure to teach students about the actual practice of law.[26]  It is recognition of the fact that few law schools adequately prepare their graduates to practice law that so many “bridge the gap” programs are seen as necessary after law school. 

There are other challenges: the high value placed on large law firm practice and the U.S. News and World Report ranking that rates schools on graduates’ salaries and law school debt, to name a few.  Many law school faculty and administrators have not yet realized that many solo and small-firm practitioners not only engage in high quality practice, but often are on the frontlines working to provide access to justice for low and moderate-income individuals and communities.  In fact, such practitioners may be helped to develop “public interest practices” with the support of law school faculty, administrators, and alumni.  To develop that support, however, may require demonstrating to many law school faculty members the potential public interest contribution of solo and small-firm practitioners.  In addition, it might be useful if the U.S. News and World Report ranking took into account law schools’ involvement with efforts to increase access to justice. 

III.     Sustaining the Practitioner Network 

Ensure Partnership and Collaboration  

For new projects to be as effective as possible and ultimately financially sustainable, it is important to develop a plan that involves collaboration and partnership with other organizations that might be able to share financial responsibility and/or pool their strengths as well as their administrative and other resources.[27]   Such collaborations and partnerships could be with other law schools, bar associations, community organizations, legal services organizations, and practitioners with an interest in the success of these efforts.  For collaborative efforts to be successful, trust among the partners is essential.  And, just as it takes work to develop trust among network members, it will take time and energy to build trust among partners in a partnership or collaborative effort.  

Focus on Innovative Legal Services Delivery 

The legal profession is changing dramatically.  Many practitioners and organizations are engaging in new, innovative methods of legal services delivery ranging from holistic, multi-disciplinary, community-based practices to unbundling legal services delivery.  To help practitioners be as successful as possible, it is important to expose them to changes in the legal profession and innovations in the delivery of legal services. 

The Bar Association of San Francisco’s Volunteer Legal Services Program and others have done much recently to develop methods for implementing holistic practices.[28]  Organizations such as the East Bay Community Law Center in Berkeley, California, have begun to make community bridge-building and collaboration as much a part of the work they do as providing legal services.[29] 

In addition, Louise Trubek and Jennifer Farnham have recently completed valuable research on multidisciplinary, collaborative practices – practices that use collaboration between lawyers and non-lawyers to enable them to solve problems and change systems for the better.[30] 

A focus on innovative legal services delivery can serve a number of important purposes.  It can:

(1)  enrich law school curriculum: Law schools interested in being on the cutting edge of legal education and in touch with national trends in the legal profession can feed back to their classrooms information garnered from the practitioner network efforts.  Similarly, faculty members can use the network project as a laboratory for their ideas.  This link can help the projects achieve strong relationships with, and eventually integration into, their institutions.

(2) provide practitioners with a source of revitalization: Many practitioners are revitalized and excited about the possibilities of re-conceptualizing their practices and the way they serve their clients.[31]

(3) improve services to clients: For example, as lawyers adopt a holistic and problem-solving approach to assisting clients, and identify groups within their communities with whom they can partner, they better serve the needs of their clients.

(4) improve the likelihood of funding: While many funders may be reluctant to fund a project in which lawyers provide traditional legal services, funders may be interested in projects that involve lawyers working in collaboration with others, such as community groups, social service agencies, schools, business people, etc.  These partnerships are better able to serve the fundamental needs, legal and other, of individuals and their communities, (e.g., helping clients obtain affordable housing or gainful employment).[32]  

(5)  provide a vehicle for developing community leaders: When practitioners work in collaboration with others in the community, they can help develop new coalitions within the community and broker resources from a wide range of sources to meet community and individual needs.

(6)  provide a vehicle for law schools to develop a leadership role in their communities: By promoting community-based lawyering and by serving as the facilitator of new collaborative relationships among private practitioners, community organizations, bar associations, and others, law schools can become effective community participants in, and improve relationships with, their communities.

Have a Commitment to Experimentation and Shared Learning of Successes and Challenges 

There is much to be learned from sharing the experiences, successes, and challenges of developing new experimental projects.  To successfully develop an experimental project designed to enhance learning, however, requires that the individuals involved feel safe enough to be able to have candid discussions about, and engage in reflection on, not only their accomplishments, but also any challenges they face.  They need to be comfortable with and supported in communicating openly about the results of their efforts, including those that fall short of desired outcomes.  Experimentation, of necessity, involves trial, error, learning, and error correction.  Learning and correction can only take place when errors can be discussed openly. 

For example, the creation of this guidebook is the product of such data and sharing of documentation from:

(1)   on-site visits and individual phone interviews with deans, faculty members, and project staff of the law schools who created the original models;

(2)   regular biannual meetings of all individuals involved with each of the original models;

(3)   meetings and phone conferences with, and written surveys of, the project directors; and

(4)   focus group meetings and phone interviews with, and written surveys from, participating practitioners. 

Data collection and documentation can take many forms.  To be most effective, it is vital to articulate project goals and to build in a regular data collection and documentation process from the conception of a project.  These provide necessary incentives and accountability.

PART 1 2 3 4 5