ABA Site Visits:
Everything You Ever Wanted to Know
by Peter Joy⁽¹⁾

American Bar Association Site Visits are often a mystery to many in legal education. These visits are designed to find facts concerning law schools' compliance with ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools.⁽²⁾ The purpose of this article is to remove the air of mystery by explaining the site visit process and by providing some tips for how anyone participating in any stage of the process can insure that the ABA site visit process best serves its stated purpose of insuring the quality of legal education at ABA approved law schools. Whether you teach at a law school undergoing a site visit, or are a relatively inexperienced member of a site team visiting a law school, there should be something in this article to help you to be more effective. This article assumes that the reader knows little about the entire process, and it primarily focuses upon issues concerning clinical and writing programs.⁽³⁾ This article begins with an overview of the ABA site visit process, outlines "eleven tips" for successfully serving on site visit teams, and it concludes with a short discussion of how the process and ABA Standards benefit legal education.

The Process

The Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (the "Council") is the accrediting agency for legal education recognized by the United States Department of Education. All states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico recognize ABA accreditation as satisfying the educational requirements necessary for the practice of law. As part of the accreditation process, law schools seeking to become ABA approved law schools - which is necessary for their graduates to become eligible to practice law in most jurisdictions - are evaluated every year until the law schools are approved. Upon receiving full approval by the ABA, a law school is then reviewed in the third year following the granting of full approval and every seventh year thereafter. In addition to these rules on the frequency of site visits, the Council or the ABA Accreditation Committee of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar may order additional site visits when either body determines that there is the need for additional site evaluations. Once a law school receives full approval by the ABA, site evaluations rarely occur more frequently than every seven years.

Prior to site visits, law schools must prepare a detailed site visit questionnaire and a Self-Study Report which address matters concerning the ABA Standards. Copies of these materials, which are usually 1.5 to 3 feet thick,⁽⁴⁾ are provided to each member of the site visit team, who are legal educators and other members of the legal profession. The typical site team consists of six or seven members: a chair, who is often a law school dean or former dean; one legal professional who is not a full time legal educator, usually a judge or practitioner active in bar activities; a law school librarian; a high ranking university administrator, usually a current or past university president, chancellor, or provost; and three or four others, usually current or former law school deans or associate deans and faculty members. If the law school is also a member of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS), one legal educator member of the team also serves as the AALS Summarian and prepares a separate report for the AALS concerning its membership standards.⁽⁵⁾

In recent years, usually one member of the site team is a faculty member or dean with clinical teaching experience.

During a site visit, the team meets with the law school dean and administrators, faculty, students, university administrators (if the law school is affiliated with a university), and alumni. These meetings assist the team in preparing the site visit report which consists of the following sections: introduction, history and organization of the law school, self-study process, program of legal education, faculty, students, law school administration, information resources (library), finances and resources, and facilities.

The first draft of sections of the report are normally due from team members approximately four to six weeks after the site visit. The chair assembles the sections and then usually circulates a draft of the final report to team members within two to four more weeks. Once the report is finalized, it is sent to the ABA Consultant on Legal Education, who reviews the report to insure that it conforms to the format and policies of the ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar. The Consultant then forwards the report to the school. The law school's dean reviews the report and has the opportunity to send a letter to the Consultant responding to the report. If the dean sends a letter responding to the report, the dean's letter is then sent to the team members who may make additional comments. The dean's letter and any additional comments from the team are then sent along with the original report to the ABA Accreditation Committee for consideration at its next meeting, which is usually at least sixty (60) days after the dean's letter is received.

The site teams are fact finding teams, and members of the teams do not reach conclusions that law schools are in compliance or out of compliance with ABA Standards. If there is not a consensus on certain findings or observations, the process does permit for the report to disclose that there was a difference of opinion among the site team members. Compliance issues are handled by the Accreditation Committee. If there are accreditation issues for law schools that are fully approved ABA law schools, the schools are provided a letter outlining the issues and provided with reasonable time to address the issues.

It is the policy of the ABA that the site evaluation report may not be disclosed by the ABA or any site team member unless first disclosed by the law school or university. Whether or not the site evaluation report is shared with faculty at the law school is a decision of the law school dean, or in some instances a university administrator. It is customary at most law schools for faculty either to receive copies of the site evaluation report and correspondence from the Accreditation Committee or for the report and correspondence to be made available for review by law faculty. This usually takes place three-six months after the site visit.

Eleven Tips for Successfully Serving on Site Visits

• Just Say Yes: When you are asked to serve on a site team, say "yes." If you cannot serve due to a conflict, discuss the possibility of an alternate site team. If it is impossible for you to serve in a particular year, contact the ABA Deputy Consultant on Legal Education in May of the following year and note your interest and availability. If you say "no" one year, it may knock you of the list in following years unless you note your continuing interest to serve. Finally, and most importantly, do not commit to a site visit and then back out at the last minute. If you do, you may be barred from serving on site visit teams in the future.
  
  
• Zero in on the Critical Material: Site team members receive a daunting amount of information. It is best to begin with the self-study submitted by the law school and the report of the last site team. It is also important to skim everything else, but to zero in on the materials that will be most important to your parts of the report. It is good to contact the chair of your site team and to volunteer for the section or sections you want. Clinical faculty who serve as site team members may wish to complete the curriculum section of the report, called the "Program of Legal Education." The Program of Legal Education includes the degrees offered, the first year and upper division curricula, legal research and writing program, professional skills instruction, study outside the classroom, professional responsibility instruction, grading and attendance policies, requirements for resident study, joint degree programs, degrees in addition to the J.D. degree, studies in foreign countries, and other law school institutes or programs. Because the Program of Legal Education includes information on all of the clinical courses, whether in-house or externships, as well as simulation courses, the person who is responsible for this portion of the report is able to discuss all of the skills and values courses in the context of the overall curriculum of the law school. Another section of the report, entitled "Faculty," includes an analysis of the status of faculty, scholarship, student-faculty ratio, teaching, service, governance, academic freedom, appointments, promotion, and tenure. If the site team chair prefers a team-approach to the portions of the report, it is also good to volunteer to work on the Faculty section because there is an interrelationship between the curriculum and faculty. Also, carefully review the instructions from the ABA concerning the conduct of the site teams. For example, site teams are not permitted to ask about salaries except where a team receives a complaint of discrimination based on race, gender, color, religion, or national origin.⁽⁶⁾
  
  
• Participate in the Pre-Visit Conference Call: Most site visit chairs arrange a conference call prior to the site visit with all of the team members to discuss assignments, the schedule for the site visit, and any initial impressions of the site team members. It is important to be on this call, because it will be your first introduction to other members of the team and it will alert you to issues that others see. If the chair asks if anyone has seen any issues that need further exploration, it is important for you to flag any issues you see in your section(s). This means that you have to prepare for the call by reviewing the relevant materials provided to you.
  
  
• Contact Important Persons Before the Site Visit: Once you have your assignment, contact the persons important to your sections before the visit. For example, if you are doing the Program of Legal Education, contact the directors of the clinical and research and writing programs to help to arrange for you to meet with those teaching in these areas. If the school has LL.M. programs, you will also want to be sure to meet with the directors of those programs. When you arrive for the site visit, team members will volunteer to meet with as many of the faculty as possible. By setting up some meetings in advance, particularly with those who teach in programs specifically identified for your section of the report, you will be able to make the most effective use of your time. This will also be important if the school has externship programs, because you will want to visit at least some of the externship placement sites and to meet with some of the field supervisors.
  
  
• Arrive Early and Depart Late During the Site Visit: Site visits take three full days, and usually run from early afternoon one day to the end of morning on the fourth day (e.g., Sunday afternoon through Wednesday morning). Effective team members arrive in time for the planning meeting in the afternoon of the first day where the materials are discussed, an agenda is set, and individual team member assignments are finalized. At the end of the site visit, there are exit interviews with the dean and, if the law school is part of a university, with the university president, chancellor, or provost. The pre-site visit planning meeting and the exit interviews are critical to the process. During both of these portions of the site visit, important issues are discussed, and it will be important for you to raise any issues that you see. An effective member of the site team commits to the entire site visit.
  
  
• Work Hard During the Site Visit: The site visits are hard work, so go prepared to work hard. Do not bring other work with you, and arrange things so you are not spending hours on a cell phone or at a computer doing other work. Here is the general schedule most site teams use: Day One, noon to 10:00 p.m., pre-meeting, tour of law school, reception with dean, senior administrators and faculty with administrative duties; Day Two, 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., team meeting breakfast, meeting with university officials, meetings with faculty and staff, class visits, lunch with faculty or alumni, more meetings and class visits, reception with alumni, team dinner and meeting; Day Three, 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., much like day two, though lunch with student leaders and a general "open forum" with students, if these events did not occur the previous day; Day Four, 7:30 a.m. to noon, final team breakfast meeting, separate exit interviews with law school dean, and if the law school is part of a university, university officials.
  
  
• Travel Light: The law school will provide the team with one or more copies of all of the materials that have been sent to the team, so you do not have to bring a lot with you. Still, it is a good idea to bring one binder containing the following materials: the previous site team report on the school; any correspondence between the ABA and the school since the last site visit; parts of the Self-Study Report relevant to your assignment; and copies of the ABA Standards and Interpretations relevant to your assignment. The law school will also make available at least one computer with an internet connection, so you can check e-mail without taking your own computer. The dress code is professional, so pack accordingly.
  
  
• Review the Accreditation Standards Carefully: Site teams "find facts" that are relevant to the ABA Accreditation Standards. Review the Accreditation Standards carefully before you go, particularly those important for the section(s) of the report you will be doing. While only the Accreditation Committee can determine if there are issues concerning a school being in or out of compliance, the facts found by the site team inform the Accreditation Committee. In addition to ABA Standards concerning clinical opportunities, clinical faculty status, and clinical faculty participation in law school governance, there are also relevant ABA Standards requiring law schools to maintain acceptable student/faculty ratios, to provide sufficient physical space and technical support, including staff support, for all of its programs, including clinical programs. Here are excerpts from some of the ABA Standards and Interpretations particularly relevant to clinical programs and clinical faculty:
  

A law school shall maintain an educational program that prepares its graduates for admission to the bar and to participate effectively and responsibly in the legal profession. Standard 301.

A law school shall offer . . . adequate opportunities for instruction in professional skills . . . [and] shall offer live-client or other real-life practice experiences. This might be accomplished through clinics or externships. A law school need not offer this experience to all students. Standard 302.⁽⁷⁾

A law school need not accommodate every student requesting enrollment in a particular professional skills course. Interpretation 302-2.

A field placement program shall be approved and periodically reviewed utilizing the following factors [lists ten factors that should be present] . . . . Additional requirements shall apply to field placement programs [lists four additional requirements, including an on-site visit by a faculty member and a required contemporaneous classroom or tutorial component if more than six credits per academic term are awarded] . . . . Standard 305.

A law school may not grant credit to a student for participation in a field placement program for which the student receives compensation. Interpretation 305-2.

(a) A law school that has a field placement program shall develop, publish and communicate to students and field instructors a statement that describes the educational objectives of the program.

(b) In a field placement program, as the number of students involved or the number of credits awarded increase, the level of instructional resources devoted to the program should also increase. Interpretation 305-3.

A law school shall have a sufficient number of full-time faculty to fulfill the requirements of the Standards and meet the needs of its educational program. Standard 402.⁽⁸⁾

In determining whether a law school complies with the Standards, the ratio of the number of full-time equivalent students to the number of full-time equivalent faculty members is considered.

(1) In computing the student/faculty ratio, full-time equivalent teachers are those who are employed as full-time teachers on tenure track or its equivalent who shall be counted as one each plus those who constitute "additional teaching resources" as defined below. No limit is imposed on the total number of teachers that a school may employ as additional teaching resources, but these additional teaching resources shall be counted at a fraction of less than 1 and may constitute in the aggregate up to 20 percent of the full-time faculty for purposes of calculating the student/faculty ratio.

(A) Additional teaching resources and the proportional weight assigned to each category include:

(i) teachers on tenure track or its equivalent who have administrative duties beyond those normally performed by full-time faculty members: 0.5;

(ii) clinicians and legal writing instructors not on tenure track or its equivalent who teach a full load: 0.7; and

(iii) adjuncts, emeriti faculty who teach, non-tenure track administrators who teach, librarians who teach, and teachers from other units of the university: 0.2 Interpretation 402-1.

Student/faculty ratios are considered in determining a law school's compliance with the Standards.

(1) A ratio of 20:1 or less presumptively indicates that a law school complies with the Standards. However, the educational effects shall be examined to determine whether the size and duties of the full-time faculty meet the Standards.

(2) A ratio of 30:1 or more presumptively indicates that a law school does not comply with the Standards. Interpretation 402-2.

A form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure includes a separate tenure track or a renewable long-term contract. Interpretation 405-6.

A law school should develop criteria for retention, promotion, and security of employment of full-time clinical faculty. Interpretation 405-7.

A law school shall afford to full-time clinical faculty members an opportunity to participate in law school governance in a manner reasonably similar to other full-time faculty members. This Interpretation does not apply to those persons referred to in the last sentence to Standard 405(c). Interpretation 405-8.

A law school shall have physical facilities and technical capacities that are adequate for both its current program of legal education and for growth anticipated in the immediate future. Standard 701.

Adequate physical facilities shall include: . . . (2) suitable space for conducting its professional skills courses and programs, including clinical, pretrial, trial, and appellate programs. Interpretation 701-2.

• Spot Issues: Understanding the ABA Standards will help you to spot issues. Some of the issues present at some schools related to clinical programs and faculty that should be discussed in the report include:
  

a) availability of clinical courses - Standard 302 provides that every ABA approved law school "shall offer live-client or other real-live practice experiences, although law schools are not currently required to provide these experiences to every law student. Yet, it will be helpful to the report for you to identify whether or not there is unmet student demand for professional skills and live-client clinical courses. Are there waiting lists? Are these courses oversubscribed and students turned away? Are there prerequisites that serve to limit enrollment? Are there credit limits on the total skills or clinical courses that students can take during law school? All of this information will help to describe the educational program of the law school.

b) study outside the classroom - Standard 305 provides criteria for field placement programs. As the Standard and Interpretations indicate, the educational objectives of the program must be published and communicated to law students and field instructors. It will helpful for the site team member preparing this portion of the report to review all of the materials, meet with the faculty, and to meet with some field supervisors and students to report accurately on this aspect of the curriculum.

c) calculating student/faculty ratio - Standard 402 and its Interpretations outline how to calculate the student/faculty ratio. Each full-time clinical faculty and writing instructor who carries a full teaching load should be counted as 0.7 of a faculty person if the clinician and writing instructors are not on tenure track or its equivalent. The report should note if the law school is departing from this formula.

d) security of position - Standard 405 provides that security of position for clinical faculty must be "reasonably similar to tenure," such as a unitary tenure track with non-clinical faculty, clinical tenure, or renewable long-term contracts.

e) non-compensatory perquisites - Standard 405 provides that non-compensatory perquisites for clinical faculty must be "reasonably similar to those provided other full-time faculty," such as adequate staff support, support for scholarship, if scholarship is expected, in the form of research assistants, pre-tenure or pre-contract review leaves, course relief or summer coverage, and sabbaticals.

f) participation in law school governance - Standard 405 provides that clinical faculty must participate in law school governance in a way that is "reasonably similar to other full-time faculty," such as serving on faculty and faculty-student committees, voting on committees, and having the rights to attend faculty meetings and to vote at faculty meetings.

g) physical facilities and technological capacities - Standard 701 requires adequate physical facilities and technological capacities for all programs of legal education, including adequate clinical space and equipment. This covers adequate computers and software, as well as adequate support staffing. In this respect, space, staffing, and equipment must also be sufficient to provide adequate representation to clients without compromises to any professional obligations owed to clients that may result, such as compromises to client confidentiality by sharing space and fax machines with other programs.

• Turn in Your Assignment on Time: After the site visit, you will have a deadline for turning in your assignment. Most team members keep to this deadline, and so should you. When you turn in your draft, tell the chair that if substantive matters in your section are changed by the chair, you want to discuss the changes before the report is finalized. Most chairs will circulate a proposed final copy to the entire team. If you find changes that do not comport with your findings, you will find it easier to talk through these matters if you have been a conscientious team member. Also, some chairs like to include a summary section that identifies "issues of concern" for the site team. If you have such issues, make sure they are included in the summary. By turning in a factually accurate, thorough, well-written, and prompt report, you will also keep yourself in good graces with the ABA - otherwise you may not be asked to participate on a site team in the future.
  

Understanding the Standards and Process

Some deans and law faculty realize that the ABA site visit is useful to the law school's progress. They will discuss issues of concern with the site teams. When law schools take this approach, the resulting site reports will be able to assess issues more completely, and, on occasion, identify resource or facilities needs that help the law schools make their cases for more university or alumni support for building and other fundraising campaigns. At times, the site reports are also able to identify innovative programs at the law school or other areas that can benefit from cooperative ventures with other parts of the university.

Similarly, clinical programs and clinical faculty benefit by discussing issues of concern with the ABA site visit teams. In terms of clinical faculty status and participation in law school governance, a change to ABA Standard 405 in 1996 now states that law schools "shall afford to full-time clinical faculty members a form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure, and non-compensatory perquisites reasonably similar to those provided other full-time faculty members." With respect to job security, this means either some form of tenure for full-time clinical faculty or renewable long-term contracts with a system for evaluation and promotion of clinical faculty. [Interpretations 405-6 and 405-7.] Standard 405 also requires law schools to provide full-time clinical faculty the "opportunity to participate in law school governance in a manner reasonably similar to other full-time faculty members." [Interpretation 405-8.] In terms of non-compensatory perquisites, these are generally regarded as including research assistants, pre-tenure or pre-contract review leaves for scholarship if scholarship is expected, equivalent teaching loads, equal opportunities summer research grants if scholarship is expected, summer coverage for on-going cases if scholarship is expected over the summer, and other "non-compensatory perquisites reasonably similar to those provided to other full-time faculty members."

Even though the guarantee of better treatment for clinical faculty was adopted by the ABA in 1996, responses to the ABA's fall 1998 annual questionnaire demonstrated that 22% of full-time clinical faculty still did not have the protections of 405(c). In each year since the strengthening of Standard 405, site visits at some law schools identify factual circumstances concerning the treatment of clinical faculty that lead the Accreditation Committee to make findings that some law schools have to improve the status of clinical faculty. In addition, many law schools have also begun the process of improving the status of clinical faculty in anticipation of site visits. Compliance with Standard 405 is one way of enhancing the quality of clinical programs and of clinical faculty by guaranteeing clinical faculty their academic freedom rights, security of position, perquisites, and participation in faculty governance. Such policies enable law schools to attract and to retain qualified law faculty, adequately provide for faculty development, and to create an environment for stable educational programs which benefit students.

Sometimes there is some friction between the ABA Standards and long-standing clinical programs. The ABA Standards, particularly those dealing with status of clinical faculty and externship program requirements, have evolved over time while some clinical programs have not. This sometimes means that some members of the law school are resistant to the ABA Standards that require improving the educational design of externship programs or the status of some clinical faculty. There are some instances where some clinical faculty resist changes. For example, some clinical faculty resist changes that would provide more security of employment and more rights to participate in law school governance because they fear that compliance with the ABA Standards may jeopardize their employment, burden them in ways that were not part of their original job descriptions, or is simply impossible to achieve at their institutions. Yet, compliance with the ABA Standards likely will lead to improving the educational experiences of law students.

The history of the enforcement of ABA Standards concerning clinical faculty demonstrates that in most law schools the improvement of status for clinical faculty has not come at the expense of either current clinical faculty or their programs. In fact, enforcement of ABA Standards often leads to improved clinical programs and either equal or improved treatment of clinical faculty. Over the last several years, more and more schools have implemented clinical tenure tracks, renewable long-term contracts, or unitary tenure tracks in a reasonable fashion without terminating the employment of experienced clinical faculty.⁽⁹⁾ Law schools have also seen that clinical faculty participation in law school governance has worked smoothly. Because participation in law school governance has to be "reasonably similar to other full-time faculty members," this usually means that clinical faculty fully participate on committees and vote on all matters except tenure decisions of non-clinical faculty unless the clinical faculty also have tenure.⁽¹⁰⁾

As a member of a site team, you should not become embroiled in any debates concerning the merits of ABA Standards at the law schools you visit. Your job is to report the facts accurately. For example, some law schools have a mixture of tenured or tenure-track faculty and contract and/or part-time faculty teaching clinical courses. The ABA Standards and Interpretations do not define what it means for a program to be "predominantly staffed by full-time faculty members" who have Standard 405(c) status. Site team members should not take a position on whether or not a particular program is "predominantly staffed" by 405(c) faculty. Rather, a site report should factually report the cumulative amount full-time 405(c) faculty time devote to the clinical courses and the cumulative amount of non-405(c) faculty time devote to the clinical courses. It will be up to the Accreditation Committee to make a decision on whether or not the law school is in compliance.

Conclusion

The ABA accreditation process is extremely important to the quality of legal education in the United States. The overarching goal of the ABA Standards is to improve the competence of those entering the legal profession. The site visit process is an essential feature of accreditation process because the site visits provide objective, first-hand information to the Accreditation Committee concerning the actual practices of individual member schools.

The ABA Standards have prompted an increasing number of law schools to value the contributions of clinical faculty and writing instructors. ABA site visits and Accreditation Committee letters to institutions concerning compliance with ABA Standards often lead to better facilities for clinical programs, and to guarantees of academic freedom and greater participation in law school governance for clinical faculty, and, at some schools, for writing instructors. All of these factors are helping to improve the quality of legal education in U.S. law schools. If your school is in the process of preparation for a site inspection, use this opportunity to raise issues relevant to the ABA Standards. Your law school and your students will benefit from programs and faculty which meet or exceed ABA Standards and Interpretations.

by Richard K. Neumann⁽¹¹⁾

The clinician on a site team is often asked to write the legal writing aspects of the report. The following Accreditation Standards⁽¹²⁾ pertain to legal writing instruction:

A law school shall offer to all students in its J.D. program:

(1) instruction in . . . legal research . . . and oral and written communication . . . [and]

(2) at least one rigorous writing experience . . . . Standard 302(a).

Under Standard 405(a), law schools employing full-time legal writing instructors or directors shall provide conditions sufficient to attract well-qualified legal writing instructors or directors. Standard 405(d)

As with professional skills instruction, the basic issues revolve around adequacy of the curriculum, faculty status, and resources. Are the curriculum and the allocated credit hours adequate for sufficient coverage of the skills involved? Where full-time teachers and directors are involved, are the terms of employment adequate to hire skilled and talented people? Even if the school relies on adjuncts, it will usually have a full-time director. In regard to resources, are there enough teachers to provide students with a sound learning experience? Some schools still have dysfunctionally high teacher/student ratios. And does each teacher have the type of office, computer equipment, and clerical and research assistant support needed to do a good job?

Generally, legal writing instruction can be found in three forms: (1) required writing courses, (2) an upper-class writing requirement, which can be satisfied through any of several elective courses, and (3) purely elective writing courses that satisfy no particular graduation requirement. The faculty status issues concern full-time instructors teaching the required courses and full-time directors, regardless of whether the teachers are full time. Curricular and resource issues can affect any of the three forms of instruction.

The ABA has published a Sourcebook on Legal Writing Programs,⁽¹³⁾ which can help you understand the difference between a strong writing program and a weak one. The Sourcebook was distributed to every law school library, dean's office, and legal writing director. At least one copy is in your law school, and the best place to look is probably in the library. The Sourcebook does not, however, interpret the ABA Accreditation Standards. It reports a consensus in the field about what is effective and what is not.⁽¹⁴⁾ It can help you understand a writing program, and citing to the Sourcebook in the site report is permitted.

Footnotes

1. Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Clinic, Washington University School of Law-St. Louis. This article is based upon my experiences of serving on two law school Self-Study Committees, and serving as an ABA Site Team member five times - four times at ABA approved law schools and one time at a law school seeking ABA approval. The opinions expressed in this article are my own and do not reflect the official policies of the ABA or any other organization to which I belong. I believe that everything in this article is consistent with ABA procedures and instructions for site team members in effect as of February 6, 2001. back to text

2. ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools, and Interpretations of the Standards, are available at the ABA website for the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar: http://www.abanet.org/legaled. back to text

3. This article focuses on issues concerning clinical and writing programs because the ABA Standards covering these programs have changed in recent years. back to text

4. In addition to reviewing the Self-Study Report submitted by the law school, the site team reviews the lengthy site visit questionnaire prepared by the law school, and other materials submitted by a law school. Some schools also include law admission and career services videos, as well as course descriptions, law admissions materials, and brochures on programs at the law school. back to text

5. The AALS has issued the following series of questions concerning law school externiships that Summarians are supposed to investigate during site visits:

a. What are the program's goals or objectives?

b. Are externships selected or approved by a full-time member of the faculty after careful consideration of its educational potential?

c. Are supervisors full-time or adjunct members of the faculty? Are the faculty supervisors fully apprised of and supportive of the educational goals justifying the externship? In this regard, is it made clear that no compensation is to be paid for work performed by the externs?

d. Is the extern's experience subject to regular faculty review by site visit, or through telephonic or written communication with the extern and the extern's supervisor? Are measures taken to adjust externships which appear not to be educationally valuable for the particular student, and to eliminate those externships where such adjustments have not been successful?

e. What is the academic component of the program and when does it occur? How is the academic component related to goals of the externship program?

f. What are the techniques by which the extern's achievements of the academic goals of the program are evaluated so as to justify the award of academic credit?

AALS, Issues to be Considered in Evaluating Externship Programs (1999). back to text

6. The ABA is forbidden by a consent decree from inquiring into monetary compensation except where a team receives a complaint of discrimination based on race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. See United States v. American Bar Ass'n, 934 F. Supp. 435, 436 (D. D.C. 1996). back to text

7. The Council is considering some changes that may affect Standard 302. If there are changes, they will not be adopted prior to August, 2001. back to text

8. Standard 402 and the Interpretations dealing with student/faculty ratios are just one example where the site team has to compare responses on the law school's site questionnaire with the practices at the law school. For example, clinical faculty and legal writing instructors not on tenure track or its equivalent who teach a full load count as 0.7 of a faculty person. Yet, a law school may list such clinical faculty or writing instructors as 1.0 full-time faculty. As a result, the student/faculty ratio may look lower than it is according to the ABA Standards and Interpretations. In such an instance, the site team will discuss this matter with the law school administration and then report both the site team's findings and the law school's rationale for why it believes it is entitled to count clinicians and legal writing instructors not on tenure track or its equivalent as if they were. back to text

9. There are some law schools that have required clinical faculty to reapply for their positions after the terms and conditions as well as status of the positions have been improved. At some of these law schools, some experienced clinical faculty have either resigned or have not been rehired. back to text

10. In at least one law school, where there are separate clinical tracks for clinical and non-clinical faculty, clinical faculty have fractional votes on appointment and tenure decisions for non-clinical faculty and non-clinical faculty have the same fractional votes on appointment and tenure decisions for clinical faculty. back to text

11. Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law, member of the ABA Communication Skills Committee, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Association of Legal Writing Instructors. back to text

12. The Council is considering changes that may affect the standards relating to the number of writing courses each student must take and, possibly, the status of or law school governance rights of legal writing faculty. If there are changes, they will not be adopted prior to August, 2001. back to text

13. Ralph L. Brill, Susan L. Brody, Christina L. Kunz, Richard K. Neumann, Jr. & Marilyn R. Walter, Sourcebook on Legal Writing Programs (1997) [hereinafter Sourcebook]. back to text

14. For example, the Sourcebook reports that in a legal writing course designed with adequate time for each teacher to prepare for class, teach, grade papers, and meet with students outside of class, the teacher should not have more than 40 to 45 students each semester. See Sourcebook at 61-62. If the writing teacher also teaches another course, then the number of students in the legal writing course should be reduced. See Sourcebook at 66. back to text