Clinical programs in community legal centres, the Australian approach

Authors

  • Anna Cody University of New South Wales

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1344/re&d.v0i04.2211

Keywords:

Clinical legal program, law reform, legal education, law clinics, community legal centre

Abstract

This article argues that clinical programs situated within community legal centres can provide students with a rich learning experience. Drawing on a range of clinical course models, this article looks at the benefits of running clinics in community legal centres, including the opportunity for students to gain exposure to disadvantaged clients, engage in critical analysis of the legal system and the role of lawyers within it, and to develop skills in complex legal problem solving, collaborative team work, and law reform. Then, the limitations and challenges faced by combining clinical teaching with community legal centres are canvassed, including the skills demanded of students in work at community legal centres, such as high level emotional intelligence and casework skills, and the difficulties in doing effective law reform work. More specifically, the difficulty in balancing the urgency posed by individual client matters and the competing priority of addressing structural deficiencies in the law is discussed. The article posits that while clinics in community legal centres often struggle to achieve this balance, this should not preclude clinics from being based at community legal centres, but should rather be utilised as a basis for analysis of legal practice by students. The article concludes that while clinics situated in community legal centres face numerous challenges, the benefits of exposing students to community lawyering outweighs these limitations.

Author Biography

Anna Cody, University of New South Wales

Director Kingsford Legal Centre

Associate Professor of the University of New South Wales

Kensington

Australia

How to Cite

Cody, A. (2011). Clinical programs in community legal centres, the Australian approach. Education and Law Review, (04). https://doi.org/10.1344/re&d.v0i04.2211