We recognize, however, that
what works well for "most students" may not work as
well for you. Therefore, we present these procedures
in Part I to you not as a system that is cast in stone
for your case team, but as proposals for at least
our first few weeks of work together, subject to serious
review, in whole or part, at any time you find that
a change would be helpful. In such a review we may
ask probing questions about why you want to make changes
in how we work together, and what alternatives you
have considered. If you have thought carefully about
what you want and why you want it, however, you will
probably be able to persuade us to make the change.
In that event, we might ask you to put it in writing,
just as we have put in writing the procedures that
we think are useful.
In a sense, these writings
(our stated Method, together with any changes we mutually
make) are "learning contracts," not in the sense that
they are always fully negotiated, but in two other
senses: they are efforts at careful, full disclosure
of what we expect and how we work, and they can be
negotiated and individualized if you want to make
modifications.
To help you understand the
thinking that has gone into the particular procedures
detailed in Part I of the formal statement of the
CALS Case Team Method, we have developed three paradigmatic
relationships that we try to avoid, and three that
we seek to foster. They outline some of the things
that we feel least, and most, able to offer you this
semester.
A. Bosses.
Fundamental to our pedagogical technique is a profound
reluctance to tell you what to do. We consider authoritarian
direction to be, in most instances, a grossly inefficient
method of education, and we also anticipate that,
quite early in the semester, you will become so close
to the cases (to both the facts and the particular
law involved) that we would be ill-placed to override
your judgment.
B. Partners.
We also don't want to be your partners regarding case-related
matters. The clients are fundamentally your clients
and case matters are fundamentally your responsibility.
We think of a case team not as people working equally
on a case but as two people (the students) working
on all aspects of the case and meeting frequently
with one or two others (the advisors) who have some
other defined and limited relationship to the matter.
This does not mean that we want to deter you
from asking questions (we underline this because
some students have misunderstood this point), using
our experience, or otherwise discussing case matters
with us. In fact, there are no areas we would exclude
from a case team's mandate -- we are perfectly willing
to discuss all aspects of your cases in as much detail
as you would like -- but it should be clear that the
primary responsibility for making decisions (including
the decision about how to use the advisors), for undertaking
actions, etc., is yours. And, as you will see when
you read the formal statement, we think that it is
often useful for us to propose turning a question
back to you, not because it was wrong of you to ask,
but because we think you can learn a lot from deciding
whether you really want an immediate answer (if we
happen to have one) rather than an opportunity to
work out the problem for yourselves.
C. Leaders. We
think that in general it is desirable for you, rather
than us, to exercise primary leadership within the
case team meetings on matters such as what the agenda
should be for a meeting, what preparatory work should
be undertaken by each member of the case team prior
to the next meeting, etc. In our view, control over
the agenda -- beginning with the first case
team meeting -- is one of the most important
forms of power a person may exercise in that setting.
For that reason, the agenda will be your responsibility.
We would like, however, to have the option to suggest
additions to your agenda for any particular session.
A. Resources.
One role that we want to fill is that of serving as
resources on a variety of topics. Each of us has certain
strengths, skills, experience, expertise, etc. that
we hope you will feel free to draw upon, and we will
strive to fill roles within the case teams that will
allow all of its members to take advantage of each
other's resources. Incidentally, advisors and students
who are not members of your case team (and the office
manager) may also have special expertise or experience
that make them useful resources.
B. Catalysts.
Although we as case team advisors do not want to do
your work for you, we do want to be able to assist
you. We would like our roles to include helping you
to pursue your individual goals. We can help you to
identify and refine unarticulated goals, to develop
a plan for achieving them, and to highlight behavior
that advances or is inconsistent with or destructive
of stated goals. We can also help you become a better
planner by asking you hundreds of questions about
your decisions and actions; questions that you are
increasingly likely, as time goes on, to begin to
ask yourself.
C. Consultants on
interpersonal issues. We would also
like to help you to learn about interpersonal issues
which involve your work as a lawyer. A clinic is a
particularly good setting in which to study five such
relationships: those that you will have with us, with
your partner, with your client (and witnesses), with
opposing counsel, and with adjudicators. In addition,
a clinic is a place in which you can examine your
feelings about the practice of law. These issues are
easy, but costly, to ignore. Unless you tell us otherwise,
we believe we have a special burden to encourage you
to think about these issues.
As noted, we consider the
cases to be your cases, not ours. Nevertheless, as
professionals, we also feel a responsibility to assure
ourselves that the clients are being adequately represented.
Part I of the Case Team Method therefore includes
a statement authorizing us to intervene to prevent
any major irreparable damage to the client. To that
extent, we serve as your safety net.
This is not a comprehensive
safety net. This standard is deliberately designed
to discourage our intervention in a situation in which
we simply feel that we would do the job differently
from or better than you. At a hearing, for example,
we will act only as observers and will not speak to
the judge. We will, however, be available to consult
with you, at your option, during any recess. Our safety
net will not prevent you from making mistakes -- even
mistakes that may affect your client. This may be
the most dramatic proof possible of the proposition
of student responsibility for the cases -- we will
give you the freedom to do the cases your own way,
even if the process produces anxiety and the consequences
are adverse. We are confident, because of the structure
of the Clinic and the quality of our students, that
our standards of representation are higher than those
of most practicing attorneys. Therefore we can afford
to allow you the freedom to make decisions and take
action on your cases. You may learn much more from
reflection on a "mistake" than from any amount of
prior direction.
We have considered alternatives
to this educational model. For example, the advisors
could be the ones principally responsible for the
cases, with the students acting as our clerks or assistants.
Or the cases could be yours, but we might intervene
frequently, directing your actions and trying to prevent
any errors. Each of these models has its advantages
and disadvantages, but in this Clinic, we subscribe
to the principle of student responsibility because
we believe that this model offers the richest learning
opportunities.
There may be times when
you feel we are withholding from you; when you feel
it is "artificial" for us to encourage you to pursue
answers yourself, rather than simply resolving the
issue for you. It may be useful to keep in mind that
CALS -- unlike law firms, government agencies, or
other places you may work -- is fundamentally an educational
institution and its mission is to help you learn.
There might be situations in which the client's litigation
interest could be better served by another method
of operation, but that reasoning would, at the extreme,
compel us, as the experienced professionals, to do
all the significant work, while the students did little.
Such an arrangement would hardly be educational and
would thus disserve both your interests and the interests
of your many, as-yet-unknown future clients for whom
you will need to call upon the expertise you develop
in this Clinic and elsewhere. The balance between
client service and student education is a difficult
one to strike, but in CALS you will be afforded a
large degree of responsibility.
A few discrete limitations
on student authority have already been discussed.
We will not, for example, permit serious damage to
clients nor will we abandon our responsibility for
requiring you to make hard choices. Other limitations
are specified in both Parts of the formal statement
of our Method and in the substantive law manual that
you will receive. Still others could emerge from discussions
within the case team. Nevertheless, while we will
hold you to high standards of practice, the CALS Case
Team Method is designed in part to accord you more
power than you exercise in other parts of the law
school and probably more power than you will exercise
in the early years of your professional life.
Please note that our Method
requires considerable student preparation for the
first case team meeting, including
