This document discusses the longstanding tensions between legal academia and the legal profession regarding legal education. It traces some of the key events and debates around the purpose and content of legal education, including the Ormrod Committee's recommendation that a law degree should qualify students for vocational training, which was met with dissent. While there have been periods of disagreement, the document notes that in more recent times, such as with the 1991 Joint Announcement, the professions have been more willing to leave curriculum decisions to universities and recognize different approaches to legal education. An important takeaway is the need for clarity on the role of legal educators and purpose of education, as well as understanding of historical tensions, expertise in legal education, and political awareness

1. Of Wars, Skirmishes & Peaceful Interludes: the legal academy & the legal profession Fiona Cownie, Keele University

2. Longstanding tensions A.V. Dicey Inaugural Lecture 1883 ‘Can English Law be Taught at the Universities?’ 1909 Foundation of SPTL Professor Goudy Our posts as teachers…do not bring us any great emoluments or honours such as await success at the Bar and in other fields…but the dignity of our office we must …assert to be inferior to none

3. Political Decisions for the New Society Solicitors? Barristers? Clear intellectual justification vital.

4. Professional Standing …upon us undoubtedly rests, in considerable measure, responsibility for the future competency of our judges, barristers and solicitors, and to some extent also of our legislators, statesmen and administrators….

5. Differing Views W.T. Stallybrass, SPTL President 1948: Considering what the law ought to be ‘…gets us nearer to the field of Sociology’ Professor Montrose, QUB: the task of the law teacher is not confined to ‘descriptive exposition of legal rules’

6. Heads above the parapet Professor Gower, inaugural lecture at LSE, published in MLR 1950. Disagreement over abolition of December Bar Exam in 1960s. Second class performance had been required from students taking mixed degrees where law students had been asked for a third class performance in precisely the same paper.

7. Ormrod Committee Terms of Reference: To advance legal education in E & W by furthering co-operation between the different bodies now actively engaged in legal education. To consider …training for a legal professional qualification in the two branches of the profession, with particular reference to : a) The contribution which can be made by the universities…

8. Ormrod’s Recommendation A law degree, without more, should act as a qualification for entry to vocational training. Harry Arthurs: “Of all the issues raised by the report, none is more thoroughly explored and yet less clearly resolved, than that of the profession’s influence over the education of its prospective members.”

9. After Ormrod Ormrod Committee members resign Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee (LCAC) Second report of LCAC has note of dissent CLE issues discussion paper on Admin Law Response of eminent public lawyers

10. Get off our lawn We respectfully suggest..that the decision how to achieve a proper balance between constitutional and administrative law is an academic decision which should be left to those in universities and polytechnics whose expertise is likely to be the best available.

11. Marre Report We appreciate that a law degree cannot be regarded as a vocational course at university level….however, we consider that the universities have an obligation to recognise that most law students will enter the legal profession, and that the profession have a right to expect that such graduates should be properly equipped to enter the vocational stage of training.

12. A Peaceful Interlude We do not wish to impede the proper teaching of law at the first degree level, and we recognise the variety of approaches to any subject – whether comparative, jurisprudential, historical; emphasising policy and reform; contextual teaching ; or inter-disciplinary … (Introduction to Joint Announcement 1991)

13. ACLEC and after The professional bodies have given careful consideration to these recommendations and do not want to prescribe the content of law degrees generally, or to inhibit the development of the law curriculum. The professional bodies have no wish to extend their regulatory control beyond those areas which are of direct concern to them ….

14. What might we learn? Clarity about our role as legal educators and the purpose of legal education is vital. Understanding of the tensions between academia and the professions Confidence (not complacency) in our expertise Political awareness based on historical understanding. Never be complacent, but don’t panic!