Problematizing competence in clinical legal education: what do we mean by competence and how do we assess non-skill competencies?

Donald Nicolson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The special issue of this journal is about problematizing assessment. However, in this article I want to start further back and problematize what is meant by competence. I think it is fair to say that when law clinicians speak about assessing competence they usually have in mind the assessment of skills. By contrast, I will argue that competence goes well beyond skills, at least if we understand skills in the narrow sense of technical legal skills, and includes in addition a values dimension. Moreover, if this dimension is added to the notion of skills, and clinical legal education (CLE) is expanded to include an understanding of how lawyers’ skills are used, for whom and to what end, it might help reverse the traditional and still continuing antipathy in many law schools to CLE. For those like myself, who see law clinics as more about contributing to social justice than legal education (Nicolson 2006), the reluctance to embrace CLE is rooted (rightly or wrongly) in a political and moral stance. But for most academics, the antipathy - or, at best, apathy - towards CLE might be more to do with its association with skills training and the consequent assumption that it is unintellectual, unfit for the lofty heights of a liberal legal education and thus best left for the grubby business of preparing lawyers for practice (see eg Bradney 1995, 2003, Brownsword, 1999; Guth & Ashford, 2014).
LanguageEnglish
Pages69-110
Number of pages42
JournalInternational Journal of Clinical Legal Education
Volume23
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2016

Fingerprint

education
lawyer
apathy
Law
school law
social justice
Values

Keywords

  • clinical legal education
  • assessment
  • skills
  • ethics
  • values

Cite this

@article{6b58dd091c8743cb9e0ae56fd396e396,
title = "Problematizing competence in clinical legal education: what do we mean by competence and how do we assess non-skill competencies?",
abstract = "The special issue of this journal is about problematizing assessment. However, in this article I want to start further back and problematize what is meant by competence. I think it is fair to say that when law clinicians speak about assessing competence they usually have in mind the assessment of skills. By contrast, I will argue that competence goes well beyond skills, at least if we understand skills in the narrow sense of technical legal skills, and includes in addition a values dimension. Moreover, if this dimension is added to the notion of skills, and clinical legal education (CLE) is expanded to include an understanding of how lawyers’ skills are used, for whom and to what end, it might help reverse the traditional and still continuing antipathy in many law schools to CLE. For those like myself, who see law clinics as more about contributing to social justice than legal education (Nicolson 2006), the reluctance to embrace CLE is rooted (rightly or wrongly) in a political and moral stance. But for most academics, the antipathy - or, at best, apathy - towards CLE might be more to do with its association with skills training and the consequent assumption that it is unintellectual, unfit for the lofty heights of a liberal legal education and thus best left for the grubby business of preparing lawyers for practice (see eg Bradney 1995, 2003, Brownsword, 1999; Guth & Ashford, 2014).",
keywords = "clinical legal education, assessment, skills, ethics, values",
author = "Donald Nicolson",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "69--110",
journal = "International Journal of Clinical Legal Education",
issn = "1467-1069",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Problematizing competence in clinical legal education

T2 - International Journal of Clinical Legal Education

AU - Nicolson, Donald

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - The special issue of this journal is about problematizing assessment. However, in this article I want to start further back and problematize what is meant by competence. I think it is fair to say that when law clinicians speak about assessing competence they usually have in mind the assessment of skills. By contrast, I will argue that competence goes well beyond skills, at least if we understand skills in the narrow sense of technical legal skills, and includes in addition a values dimension. Moreover, if this dimension is added to the notion of skills, and clinical legal education (CLE) is expanded to include an understanding of how lawyers’ skills are used, for whom and to what end, it might help reverse the traditional and still continuing antipathy in many law schools to CLE. For those like myself, who see law clinics as more about contributing to social justice than legal education (Nicolson 2006), the reluctance to embrace CLE is rooted (rightly or wrongly) in a political and moral stance. But for most academics, the antipathy - or, at best, apathy - towards CLE might be more to do with its association with skills training and the consequent assumption that it is unintellectual, unfit for the lofty heights of a liberal legal education and thus best left for the grubby business of preparing lawyers for practice (see eg Bradney 1995, 2003, Brownsword, 1999; Guth & Ashford, 2014).

AB - The special issue of this journal is about problematizing assessment. However, in this article I want to start further back and problematize what is meant by competence. I think it is fair to say that when law clinicians speak about assessing competence they usually have in mind the assessment of skills. By contrast, I will argue that competence goes well beyond skills, at least if we understand skills in the narrow sense of technical legal skills, and includes in addition a values dimension. Moreover, if this dimension is added to the notion of skills, and clinical legal education (CLE) is expanded to include an understanding of how lawyers’ skills are used, for whom and to what end, it might help reverse the traditional and still continuing antipathy in many law schools to CLE. For those like myself, who see law clinics as more about contributing to social justice than legal education (Nicolson 2006), the reluctance to embrace CLE is rooted (rightly or wrongly) in a political and moral stance. But for most academics, the antipathy - or, at best, apathy - towards CLE might be more to do with its association with skills training and the consequent assumption that it is unintellectual, unfit for the lofty heights of a liberal legal education and thus best left for the grubby business of preparing lawyers for practice (see eg Bradney 1995, 2003, Brownsword, 1999; Guth & Ashford, 2014).

KW - clinical legal education

KW - assessment

KW - skills

KW - ethics

KW - values

UR - http://www.northumbriajournals.co.uk/index.php/ijcle/article/view/491

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 69

EP - 110

JO - International Journal of Clinical Legal Education

JF - International Journal of Clinical Legal Education

SN - 1467-1069

IS - 1

ER -