Potential New Models
There is no “one-size-fits-all” model for a successful law school-supported practitioner network. The scenarios listed below, (by no means considered all-inclusive), describe how models might be created without a large amount of external funding. They provide examples of practitioner networks that could be, but need not be, organized and run by current law school personnel. This approach reduces initial administrative overhead costs and provides the benefit of having institutional “insiders” responsible for the projects.
While these staffing models may not be practical over time to accomplish all the benefits of a law school-supported practitioner network, it may make sense in the start-up phase as the project works on future expansion.
Network Created by a Faculty Member
In this model, one or more faculty members could create networks of like-minded solo and small-firm practitioners and provide them with the infrastructure, (including use of a listserv), that enables them to access peer mentoring and support.
Many faculty members already maintain contact with a significant number of graduates, such as those who were in their regular or clinical courses. Recruitment efforts might be easier for those faculty members who currently have such ongoing relationships, especially if conducted on a one-on-one basis, which proved most effective in the original projects’ recruitment efforts. By facilitating meetings among these practitioners, such faculty members will be creating an infrastructure that enables the graduates with whom they have maintained contact to continue to be in touch with that faculty member and to develop new relationships with each other as well. The common ground of their relationship with the particular faculty member as well as their common interest in access to justice will help facilitate the sense of trust that has been so vital to the success of the current models.
A faculty member who is already teaching or is interested in teaching a course on the legal profession may find it useful to have network members attend that course to provide a real world, practical perspective to their students. Similarly, a faculty member teaching a course on alternative kinds of practices, such as multi-disciplinary and collaborative practices, focusing on the skills necessary to engage in such fields, could have both students and network members attend class. In this way, the network members could have a forum for reflecting on their own practices, students would have the opportunity to learn an alternative model of law practice, and both network members and students could benefit from the practitioners sharing their real world experience. This would facilitate a richer discussion for the faculty member’s students while at the same time create a laboratory in which to test his/her theories about the profession. Further, a faculty member interested in working with other disciplines in the university could create a course in conjunction with the business school on law office management that both students and network members could attend. Any model such as this one that provides a mechanism for a direct connection between the network and the law school curriculum, thus serving the needs of students, is an important step in linking the project to the self-interest of the institution. This may be of particular interest to an institution that already focuses on providing students with skills-based courses.
Discussions with faculty members, network members, and others have netted varied opinions on the efficacy of models that do not include a full-time project director. Some maintain that a faculty member or other individual could fairly easily develop and facilitate such a network. Others fear that adding this responsibility to whatever current responsibilities the faculty member or other individual might have would be too much – especially for faculty members who run clinics. It will be vital, therefore, to ensure that individuals assigned to develop the networks have their workloads decreased in a meaningful fashion.
Many faculty members, network members, and others interviewed during the assessment process feel it is important that the individuals facilitating the practitioner network meetings have experience in a solo or small-firm practice. They believe that individuals with actual practice experience and thus a practitioner’s real world perspective, rather than people with idealized notions of doing good and doing well, provide important role models and are taken more seriously by the network members. Thus, a clinical faculty member or a faculty member with actual practice experience is preferable. Or, if the faculty member who is willing to create the necessary infrastructure does not have this requisite practice experience, it is possible to retain a practitioner on a part-time basis to facilitate the meetings of the network members and serve as a role model and mentor.
Network Created by an Administrator
In this model, one or more law school administrators, such as an Alumni or Career Services Offices staff member, could develop a practitioner network. As in the faculty model described above, such staff members could be given some release time and could receive the assistance of an experienced practitioner on a part-time basis. The benefit of this model is that it enables the network to be developed by an office whose departmental mission is directly related to graduates.
Network Hosted by a Bar Association/Legal Services Organization With Law School Support
In this model, a bar association or legal services organization could lead the project and obtain support from a law school. The benefit of this model is that the practitioner network would be developed by an organization whose mission involves serving practitioners in the case of the bar association or serving the community in the case of legal services organizations. There are a number of bar associations and legal services organizations across the nation currently involved in innovative legal services delivery. A number of them have already successfully established collaborative working relationships with other organizations in their communities, including law school clinics.
A project led by a bar association could take advantage of expertise that already exists, for example in the areas of law office management and continuing legal education. Similarly, a number of bar associations across the country, (the San Francisco Bar Association is just one example), have developed innovative pro bono programs that are based on collaborative relationships in their communities. It might be that establishing a practitioner network at such a bar association could effectively leverage existing relationships and resources and be a synergistic addition to an existing program, rather than require an entirely new start-up effort.
In addition, legal services organizations nationwide that wish to receive funds from the Legal Services Corporation are mandated to involve law schools and private practitioners in their statewide plans. A practitioner network could provide them a vehicle to expand their funding base. And, of course, most legal services offices engage in staff training in areas that will be beneficial for network members.
