--Page 3--
MARY KAY KANE:
Thank you very much, Bob. I have to say I agreed with everything he said until he
got to the point, where -- I'm a Civil Procedure teacher -- he talked about not needing
jurisdiction anymore, and after that, I kind of lost it. I think that this gives you an
idea and, certainly, the beginning of the food-for-thought that we're going to explore
with more comments from a broader array of people after the break. Thank you, very much.
We're now going to look a little bit more
carefully on the licensing and training issues that need to be confronted in the future
and currently, as has just been described. For that purpose, we are most fortunate to have
with us today Dean Jack Kramer, from Tulane Law School. Dean Kramer is a well known,
highly skilled, and, I think, the best way to describe it, most provocative moderator. And
he is going to be challenging our panelist to debate some of the issues that must be
considered. Our panelists each bring special experience and some unique perspectives to
bear on these issues. Although each deserves a detailed introduction, in the interest of
time, let me just highlight for you their special international expertise, and what they
may have to offer us this afternoon.
Joining Professors Rhode and Berring, is Dean
John Sexton of NYU Law School. John is currently serving as the President of the
Association of American Law Schools and I should mention that actually, Professor Rhode
who spoke to us earlier, is the President-elect and will be taking over from John in
January. Undoubtedly as known to everyone in this room, given the incredible distribution
of the NYU Alumni Magazine, John is in the process of creating what he describes as the
first Global Law School, and so, need I say more?
Then, we are very pleased to have with us today,
Mr. Phillip Sycamore, who is the newly elected President of the Law Society of England and
Wales. The Law Society has long been working to lessen barriers to its members that
prevent them from practicing in the United States and elsewhere, and most certainly has
been grappling with how transnational practice can proceed without border restrictions in
light of the changes in the European Community. Thus, Mr. Sycamore brings to us not only
experience in this arena, but the perspective of a foreign lawyer on the American scene.
Next, is Diane Yu of the State Bar of California.
Diane, in addition to being a member of the Council of this Section, serves as the General
Counsel to the California State Bar, and in that role, she oversees all legal
representation for the Bar and, thus, brings to us some insights from the perspective of
the formalized bar and bar admissions in a state that may be second only to New York in
the number of foreign lawyers who would like to practice here.
And next, we have Mr. David Stretch of the Baker
& McKenzie law firm in Chicago. Now, I think as probably many would agree -- even the
competition -- Baker & McKenzie may be the most globalized of all of our law firms in
the United States today, and David is currently responsible for supervising the training
of its lawyers in its worldwide training program.
Then, we have Mr. Walter White. Walter White is
of the Steptoe-Johnson firm. Although the firm is based in Washington, D.C., Walter, in
addition to being the Vice Chair of the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities,
is one of our transnational American lawyers, because he currently practices with his firm
in Moscow. Thus, he brings the perspective of an American lawyer from abroad.
And finally at the end of our table, but not the
end of our discussion, is Mr. James Silkenat, of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts
in New York, where he coordinates the firm's international practice. I also should say,
that Mr. Silkenat, in addition to being a current member of the ABA Board of Governors and
the Chair of the New York City Bar Association Task Force on International Legal Service,
also has served as the Chair of the ABA Section of International Law & Practice, and
so he is, therefore, very much into the Bar Association's views and what can be done.
That's the array of people that we have to
interact with our moderator, and with that brief introduction I will turn over the program
to Dean Kramer.
DEAN KRAMER:
I don't have to be provocative with this topic. It's the question of why should any
of us exist? Why should this Section, which is putting the water up here and the
microphones, exist? Will it, if these changes are as profound as they are, continue? Why
should law schools exist? Why should practitioners retain the monopoly they now have? Why
should the state supreme courts control? Can they? What is the likelihood of the next ten
or fifteen years changing that?
About four years ago, a person applied to get an
L.L.M. at Tulane, who had gone to -- I forget the name of the law school he had gone to --
it's one on the non-accredited list. My admissions director came in to inquire. I said:
"Get him out of here. Forget about him." The rule at that time was that you
couldn't think about him anyway. I then got a phone call from the Tulane President's
Office. This guy's brother contributed lots of money to the medical school through a
significant foundation. I said: "I don't give a damn, I'm on the Council of the
Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar and the rules say no." The
President calls back. I had to write an explanatory letter. Then, all of a sudden, the
student wrote the Justice Department! They had just begun the process that lead to the
Consent Decree and, lo and behold, the Justice Department, which is very
consumer-oriented, put in the Consent Decree that we may not exclude from the pool of
possible admittees to L.L.M. programs, graduates of unaccredited law schools if you admit
graduates of foreign law schools. And so, he was admitted. He never came, thank God. But,
that is part of the Consent Decree under which we live.
We have already had repercussions this week from
that. The Massachusetts School of Law is arguing to many state supreme courts that if
you're going to let graduates of foreign law schools practice in State X, what's the
difference between them except that they went to school for three years at the age of
eighteen, and us, with three years of post-graduate legal education, however unaccredited
and unapproved. Who approved foreign law training in foreign universities? That issue
raises the question that if we open the doors and the flood gates come down, whether the
accreditation system can stand. What is the status difference between unapproved law
schools in America and unapproved legal training throughout the rest of the world? Of
course, that threatens the state supreme courts; it threatens, ultimately, our role as
legal educators. Why us? Why do they need us? Bob Berring has indicated that all you need
is Arthur Miller on a video to take home at night and go to sleep with over popcorn. You
don't need the rest of us. You're going to have a very small Civil Procedure faculty of
one. Maybe John Sexton would get a few videos in there as well. Jim, what is the future of
the accreditation process if globalization really comes into effect?
JAMES SILKENAT: This Section is at the
center of all of these issues and is facing pressure from all parts of the legal
profession, from the public, to try to deal with change, adapt to change. The question is
whether it is adapting to changes in the legal profession. The issue that I think is
coming up immediately for all of us and may, in fact, be the camel's nose under the tent,
is English lawyers looking to come to the United States and be admitted, or at least be
allowed to take the bar exam without having gone to law school and gotten a law degree and
done legal training in a university, an accredited law school. It's a very tough issue
whether or what amounts to equivalency. Does the English legal training amount to the same
sort of training as students receive in the United States? Even if it does, it raises the
issue of accreditation in a way that opens up the process to other American unaccredited
institutions. This Section's going to be at the center of this fight. I don't know what
the right answer is and, frankly, I'm not sure that the audience does.
DEAN KRAMER:
Phil, what challenges do British solicitors pose to this Section and accreditation?
PHILLIP SYCAMORE:
I think that you need us in the global economy of liberalization, which is a fact
of life. You are going to have to face up to it as a result of the GATT and the WTO
directives before very long. As common law jurisdictions speaking the same language, we
need each other and should work together. We've always been puzzled by the resistance to
reciprocal arrangements, given the very few restrictions which we actually apply in
England and Wales.
DEAN KRAMER:
What restrictions do you apply?
PHILLIP SYCAMORE:
On legal services. There are no restrictions on provision of advice and assistance
on matters of overseas law. We have faced up to the whole question of recognition of other
jurisdictions as a result of our EC obligations. We have danced around that for probably
seventeen of the last twenty years. This year we will see the draft Establishment
Directive go to the Council of Ministers for approval. That will provide, after three
years' establishment under home title, for a lawyer to be integrated into the profession
of the host country within the EC, subject only to an assessment of competence. We have
grappled with that in a community which is so disparate in terms of language, culture and
legal assistance, because remember we have both Civil and Common Law systems in the EC. It
seems to me that the sort of problems you have with a variety of states, all actually
speaking the same language, possibly different procedures, that is something you ought to
be able to grapple with. We would like to see a recognition that we ought to go forward
together and that same welcome to the English profession should be offered as we offer to
you. We are glad to receive American lawyers in London. We think that, by coming into our
country, you are bringing work which otherwise wouldn't be there under our jurisdiction
and that is healthy for us.
|
|
