The essays which follow were written by students from England, France, Mexico and The Netherlands following their first week of law school at the University of North Carolina School of Law in Fall, 1997. Students were asked to compare their impressions of legal education in the US with legal education in their home countries.
Chris
Boakes - student from Sussex University, England
Though
North America and England share much in their respective legal systems,
the manner in which the profession is taught differs in some aspects.
There differences can be summarized under three heads. Firstly the
educational structure, secondly the teaching methods and thirdly the broader
framework within which the education takes place.
The most obvious difference when comparing the systems is that Law is taught on an undergraduate level in England. The alternative route to a legal qualification in England does, however, mirror the system in the USA. After graduation a graduate may take what is known as a CPE, which effectively qualifies any graduate to embark on further legal training. At this point the similarities disappear. In English universities curriculum requirements are set by the LLB, the legal education council, and , substantively there is very little difference between the two systems' curriculum. Much of what is covered by the LLB regarding the standard facilities and materials is comparable to the American Association of Law Schools requirements. However, the LLB requires an unseen exam in all law exams; only part of the final grade coming from coursework.
Admission requirements for Law courses are relatively high in comparison to other degrees. Each University does, however, have control over the methods they adopt. My experience coming onto education again at twenty five involved a lengthy interview, academic record, employment and a short quiz on a few legal problems. The majority of candidates are selected from their a level results equivalent to the LSAT GPA. An increasing number of women have been attracted to law over the past two decades, and to a lesser extent ethnic minorities. The systems are comparable on gender mix, but England has far fewer ethnic minorities as percentage of the population and minorities are probably under represented in the Law Schools. As public schooling in both countries deteriorates the level of state schooled admissions have also dropped in England, and I assume due to the LSAT requirements America mirrors this.
Unlike America law graduates who must pass the bar exam after a short review course, English students after completing the degrees spend a further two to four years of study before the individual becomes a barrister or solicitor.
The teaching methods are fairly similar. Both systems rely on the "case method." Both systems also rely on a few major texts, however, from what I have experienced English students are required to cover a wider range of additional sources. The teaching environments are also quite similar, both relying on a mix of active and passive participation. It is, however, unique in my experience to encounter the lecture being utilized to challenge individuals through the Socratic method; unfortunate English students will occasionally encounter this method in seminars , however. One substantive observation is that American facilities are far better and the teaching is done with more enthusiasm, English law lecturers tending to fulfill the monotone stereotype. This may reflect the structural differences in faculties. They are similar in that they have a cross-disciplinary nature, however the faculty in England will have a very limited number of professors, the term solely applied to them. However the majority of law teachers in both countries are former lawyers.
When considering the broader framework I hope to cover the constitutional and vocational issues. Whereas US law students must take the constitution as their supreme law English students must now contend with the whim of the Parliament, and increasingly the effect of European legislation. In this way there are many similarities developing between the two systems. England recently acquired a Bill of Rights through Europe, and depending on the political current, a further sense of Federalism. Of course, this will only entail understanding two systems and not the fifty-one in America. However, the nationalist movements in Wales and Scotland are making progress, and regional assemblies are also within the imagination. Therefore as in America to practice law in Scotland (where a separate system applies) an English lawyer would have to pass their Bar Exam. A further recent development which has brought the English and American systems together is the development of a pro-bono fee system, a recent report (The Times, 9-23-97), estimated upwards of ten thousand cases per year with expected incremental increases.
What is uncommon between the two systems is the lack of any mandatory apprenticeship or "articles" period in America, though this lack of practical experience is being covered informally. The number of law graduates who continue as lawyers is particularly low in England compared with America, however, this is not altogether surprising considering that US law students are graduates, whereas English ones are not.
The majority of the differences are related to formal requirements and structural differences in the entrance to legal practice; substantively there is little difference. However, the lack of formal requirements for apprenticeship and absence of a two-tier system in America is distinct.
Arron
Dickens - student from Sussex University, England
The
most obvious difference between there two systems of legal education is
that in England and Wales law may be studied as an undergraduate
degree. However, in practice at Sussex University, at least, I have
found that it is not an especially popular course among students coming
to university straight from sixth form colleges (high school) but, rather
appeals to "mature" students, that is persons over 25 years of age who
are returning to education after having experienced the job market for
a number of years. Also, there is a significant number of foreign
students in my class, coming from a variety of nations including Nigeria,
Israel, Venezuela and there is even one French student, although he is
rather the exception to the rule. I would estimate that up to fifty
per cent of my year group in England were mature or foreign students.
This is a reflection of that fact that, despite its undergraduate status,
law is regarded as a "hard" degree. Indeed, a popular means of entering
the legal profession is to take the Common Professional Examination after
having read a degree other than law. As in America, no specific degree
subjects are preferred as qualifications for a career in law.
Being an undergraduate degree, acceptance to the course is not based upon the Grade Point Average of a previous degree, nor is anything similar to the American Law School Aptitude Test used. Instead in most English universities prospective students are judged solely upon the results of their "A" Level courses and possibly an interview. This may be partly explained by the general difference between American undergraduate degrees and those in England; undergraduate degrees in England are (usually) only three years long, there is no Freshman year as such and a student will always know before he or she goes to college what his or her "major" subject will be. Indeed, during his entire course a student may only study for his major (having no minor subjects) as there is no equivalent method of window shopping for subjects as is offered in American universities. Therefore, a student is not so much accepted to go to a particular university. It, therefore, seems more acceptable in England to evaluate whether a student suitable to read a law degree at eighteen from his high school grades that in America. The required grades to read law are normally set between BBB and AAA, depending upon the prestige of the institution. This high threshold acts primarily as a means of controlling the number of applications for law courses in a similar manner to the American requirement of holding a previous degree.
The case law method of study is not used in English universities to my knowledge, instead we have a mixture of regular lectures and fortnightly seminars for each subject, although, I suppose something similar to the Socratic method may be witnessed in a particularly lively seminar. (We have had a number of foreign course leaders, including one Canadian that held our tort class who attempted to introduce American methods of teaching.) Generally, seminars require a lot of preparation, the class teacher leading the students into discussion of the logic underlying the decisions of particular cases and the justifications for, or arguments against, certain lines of judicial public policy. As in America you must be well acquainted with the case law so as to perceive the general trends and peculiarities of the common law and contribute adequately to class discussion (we are partly graded upon class participation in seminars). Usually for any particular subject there is no one required textbook that each student must buy, instead on the course schedule a number of sources will be listed, in categories from recommended reading to background reading. It is most common for students to buy one textbook, but use a large number of other textbooks that are borrowed very frequently from the library. This stems from the belief that no one textbook is definitive or comprehensive, all authors have their areas of strength and weakness.
The legal education of an English law student after he has completed his degree also varies from that of an American student; due to the formal division of the industry into advocacy and office practice, a student must decide whether he wishes to study for the Bar Vocational Exam (to become a barrister) or the Legal Professional Examination (to become a solicitor) once he leaves university. These courses tend to be one to two years in length and may leave the student in considerable debt. Following the successful completion of one of these courses a student will either apply for articles, practicing in a solicitor’s firm or a pupilage, acting as an apprentice to a senior barrister. There is virtually no mobility between these two different aspects of legal practice so it is vital that the student obtain the correct sort of education.
Samantha
Hutchinson - exchange student from Manchester University, England
My
initial impression of the comparisons between the US and UK systems of
legal education is that despite the similar backgrounds of both systems,
the end product is very different.
The most apparent difference is the extensive use of the Socratic method in the US classrooms. This method, which appears to be designed to nurture quick-thinking and oration skills is merely employed in Tort classes in the UK. The questioning employed in these classes is more akin to the "avuncular Socratic method" - a gentler form of questioning which barely exposes students inadequate preparation. My analysis of this difference is that in the UK most law students who enter the legal profession become solicitors rather than barristers which does not depend on the skills nurtured by the case method. No such division of lawyers exists in the US.
The course options in both systems are comparatively similar - a required curriculum for the first year with upper level courses being elective.
The current trend for clinical education and teaching legal drafting is not pursued in the English legal system. Though during pupilage (the required training period for a barrister), the student shadows the barrister to learn how to put the legal theory he has acquired into practice. In contrast, law graduates in the US are not required to undergo any official apprenticeship period of study.
Unlike the US, students in the UK need not be graduates to study law, whereas in the US students must have a degree from a four year college or university. My initial impression is that this process attempts to weed out those seriously interested in the legal profession. I believe this reflects the esteem which lawyers are held in the US. It also provides students with more time to decide if law is really the career in which they wish to practice. It also seems that in the UK students are given the opportunity to begin to specialize earlier on in their career. While American students are in their Freshman Year studying a wide range of subjects, English students are already focussing on the three subjects they believe will be of use to them when they embark upon their Law Degree.
Throughout the UK, to qualify as a barrister, one need only take one exam to practice anywhere in the UK. In the US, by comparison, there are different Bar Exams for every state in which a lawyer wishes to practice.
Unfortunately, the chances of law graduates becoming practicing lawyers in the UK are substantially lower that the statistics presented by Burnham for American law students. Perhaps this reflects the American litigation-oriented mind, with a subsequent need for more lawyers. The US is different to the UK in that legal education is considered a general preparation for all kinds of work in the area of business or government services.
Finally, it appears that attending law school in the US is a considerable expense and that most students graduate with a significant amount of debt. In the UK, although tuition fees are pre-paid students are nonetheless required to apply for many loans to pay for accommodation, books, etc.
Caroline
Kleijer - exchange student from Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, The Netherlands
The
Dutch educational system is quite different from the American one, not
only on a university level, but also on the level of high school.
To understand the Dutch system better I think it’s necessary to start with
high school.
Unlike American high schools, Holland doesn’t have one basic high school which all pupils attend. There are four different levels in high school. After having finished elementary school, pupils get a recommendation from their teacher which high school to go to. The highest level (VWO or gymnasium) takes six years, unlike the other levels which take either four or five years. Once you have finished this high level, you are immediately admitted into a university. There are no more requirements, except for some courses (like chemistry when you want to study medicine). This means that there is no such thing in Holland as an undergraduate school which we must attend before being admitted into law school. Grades are also irrelevant to be admitted into any field of study.
At university itself, things are different as well. Tuition fees are the same for every university in Holland and there are no private universities. So the choice among different universities is usually not based on the name of the university, but on its location or the program it has to offer. Since there are no "bad" or "good" universities, universities try to distinguish themselves from other universities by offering different courses or methods of learning. The University of Nijmegen, for example, offers courses in European law, the University of Amsterdam in International law and the University of Maastricht teaches by using the case method.
During classes students usually don’t have to participate too much. Most classes are taught by a professor, who gives his lecture and students are only expected to take notes. Whether the student pays attention or not is up to him, just as long as he doesn’t disrupt the class. These classes are usually quite large with about 200 to 300 students. For certain courses there are smaller groups as well, but here students aren’t expected to participate fully either.
The idea behind this is that students are no longer in high school where they are "taken by the hand" and explained every little thing. As soon as students enter university they are expected to study and learn on their own. Of course questions can always be asked, but you’re supposed to try and finds things out by yourself. This is probably the main reason why many students drop out the first year at university. Many of them can’t handle all the sudden freedom and the way of studying, especially since you don’t really have to start studying until you’re first exams, which usually are at the end of the semester.
After a four-year program of law, you receive your master’s degree in law. You can then start working for the government or a business. But, if you want to become a lawyer or a judge, extra training is required. To become a lawyer, you usually apply for a job at a law firm. If you get the job, then the law firm will provide for further training. You usually to go class one day a week and the rest of the week you work at the law firm. This take three years during which you are also required to pass some exams. After this period you can start working as a real lawyer.
To become a judge you to go to a special "school". It’s a six year traineeship, which consists of two years of working with a "Officier van Justitie" (District Attorney", two years with a lawyer and two years with a judge. In the meanwhile you take classes and exams as well. The requirement that you work for these three different sides of the judiciary system is a way to get the new judges familiar with all aspects of the process.
Of course there are many more differences between the Dutch and American legal educational systems, but these are just some of the most apparent ones.
Melanie
Loos - exchange student from Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Legal
education in the United states is very different from legal education in
the Netherlands. After graduation from high school students in the
Netherlands go immediately to a university. For law there are no
requirements such as high grades or certain school subjects. Students
apply to the university that they prefer and normally everybody is admitted.
Today I think that there are even more women than men at Law School.
All students have to pay a tuition, without any difference between locals
or non-locals. The government does provide a scholarship for all
students to help them for paying all the expenses such as tuition, housing,
study material and food, but this is by far not enough. Therefore,
a lot of students have jobs.
Every university has its own curriculum but generally all the universities correspond very much. The method of instruction varies somewhat between different law schools., but generally courses are taught in lectures where the professor explains the basic theories and where students listen and make notes. Each course also has seminars where the students sit in smaller groups discussing cases. Usually each course ends with a final written or oral exam.
At the university of Nijmegen the first year is completely compulsory. After that students can choose among three directions: Dutch Law, European Law, or Notarian Law. This is basically a minor choice for the first two directions since the only difference lies in minor subjects. Notarial law is, however, required for students who want to become a notary. Everyone has to do the same compulsory main courses. After finishing the first three years students have completed the compulsory part of their law education. The last year consists of elective courses and a final thesis. After finishing these four years a student gets the degree Master in Law.
Now the Master of Law must decide where he wants to work, because there are several options. To become a lawyer, you first apply for a job at a law firm. Once you are hired you start working and one day a week you go to class. After three years and passing all the exams, you become a lawyer. To become a judge you must be admitted to a school where you get another six years of education. During this time you also work at the court as part of the education. The last option for a Master in Law is to apply for a job at a firm, business association, or any other place where they need your legal knowledge.
During their years of study students normally try to get a trainee post to gain some experience and to find the areas they are interested in. It has become very important in the Netherlands to be as active as possible as a student by joining associations, giving legal advice under supervision, by studying abroad, in order to be different from all the other graduating students. There are way too many Masters in Law so it is hard to find a job.
Claire
Peccoux - exchange student from Universite Jean Moulin - Lyon, France
The
last year of high school, students must pass an exam called "baccalaureate."
There is different kind of baccalaureate, in science, economics, literature,
and technologies. After this exam all students can go to any university
in France they want. Under general principles of law, education in
France must be gratuitous, free and equal for everybody. So it is
illegal to ask students to pass a competition before they enter the university
and university fees are limited (around $500, social security protection
included). There are some private schools but only for certain studies,
especially economics and science. If you want to study law you must
go to the public university. The first two years students can not
choose their courses. The most important courses are civil law, constitutional
law, legal history, economics, European law, administration structure,
criminal law, administrative law, and accounting. All these courses
are lecture courses but there are also three seminars in the major courses
like civil law, constitutional law, or administrative law. After
those two years students have a degree call DEUG, which permits them to
pass certain administrative competitions. But most of the time students
continue their studies. During the third year you must choose between
public and private law. During the fourth year you have to choose
a specific branch of law in private law or public law, like family law,
criminal law, public law for enterprises or public law for government.
During those tow years you also have both lectures and seminars.
At the end of the third and fourth years you can pass certain administrative
competitions but you must have your fourth year degree to pass the exams
to enter in the attorneys’ or judges’ school.
After
the fourth year degree called "maitrise" students can also continue law
studies to be allowed to teach or to study more specific areas of law,
like human rights, insurance law, or housing law. Those kind of degrees
are an entrance into professional life because lot of private enterprises
need legal advises in very special matters of law. To become a teacher
you must study during at least two years more and prepare a "thesis" which
is a memorandum about a topic you choose with your teacher, and read it
to a jury of law teachers specialized in the same part of the law.
Pedro
Velasco - exchange student from Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico
Since
long time ago lawyering in Mexico has been very popular. One of the
benefits that people find in studying law is the wide working field this
subject offers; but to become a lawyer is not easy.
Law in Mexico is a five year course in which both undergraduate and graduate education are included.
Programs in most universities are divided by semesters in which students have a 24 hours a week course. This means they have three-two hour classes a day for four days. For each semester, students may choose from a large range of courses the ones they would prefer, in accordance to their future labor expectations. Nevertheless, there are some obligatory courses that must be taken, in order to be ale to get enrolled in the optional ones.
The Mexican teaching system is very different from the American one as a consequence of the difference between the Roman (Mexico) and the Common Law (USA) systems. In Mexico, students are encouraged to analyze statutes and apply them in concrete cases instead of analyzing many concrete cases to see what kind of interpretation was the one that court did.
It is very common for Mexican students to start working in the legal field before they finish their studies. The intention of that is to enable them to apply the tings they have learned in real life, as well as to provide them with some legal experience.
Finally, when studies are finished students have to do a legal research, any legal topic can be chosen, and prepare a 140 pages paper. After such research is finished they must take an oral exam, which usually is given by three professors, and if they succeed at that, they become Mexican lawyers with jurisdiction all around the country.
Jill
Whalley - exchange student from University of Manchester, England
There
are numerous differences between the American and the British legal education
systems. Perhaps the main difference is that in America, law is a
graduate degree; whereas in England it is offered to undergraduates.
Furthermore, it is much more expensive to study in the United States as
students must pay their own tuition fees. Consequently, American
law students tend to be older and often more focused on entering a legal
career as they have considered it more thoroughly. A much higher
percentage of law graduates in America stay within the legal field, unlike
in England where under 50% of law students go on the practice law.
Law Students in the States have a greater choice of subjects. This may be because they generally study four subjects per semester rather than three, as in the UK. Also, American schools offer more practical courses, such as trial advocacy and clinics, whereas in England all the subjects are purely academic at the degree level. The practical elements are taught after the degree, either through the Legal Practice Course or the Bar Vocational Course.
Teaching methods also vary between the two systems. In the US law is taught using the case method whereby students learn legal principles through studying important cases. In addition, the Socratic method of instruction is used so students are expected to come to class prepared to join in discussion. However, in the UK the main method of instruction is the lecture; students are expected to attend nine lectures per week where they will be taught the legal principles and shown how they are interpreted and applied by the courts. Students must also attend one seminar for each subject every two weeks. These must be prepared for in advance and the student must be ready to answer questions and discuss problems, much like the American lecture. Examinations tend to be different too. In the UK students will almost always be examined by way of an externally marked three hour exam in which four essays must be written. In the US, exam format varies according to the professors’ preferences.
The length of the law degree is the same in both countries. However, continuing legal education is very different. In the US a lawyer must pass the bar exam to be a fully qualified lawyer. Continuing legal education is also required. In the UK there are two different areas of the law which lawyers can enter. They can either become a solicitor, who deals with the clients; or a barrister, who takes the case and argues it in court. To be a solicitor, law graduates must do another year at Law School and pass the LPC (Legal Practice Course). Then they must join a law firm and get two years training before they are fully qualified to practice independently. To be a barrister, law graduates must go to Bar School for a year to pass the bar. Then they must get their "articles" by joining a chamber of barristers and training with them.
The
two essays which follow were written by international exchange students
enrolled in an Introduction to American Law class, UNC-CH School of Law,
Fall 1996. Both students were visiting from England.
The
class visited the North Carolina Supreme Court in Raleigh, North Carolina.
The most striking impression I received from the visit to the state supreme court at Rayleigh was how similar the institution was to a high court in England. Although I realize that both court systems are under the common law system and essentially the American system was evolved from early influences of the English system I expected the American system to be more liberal and the environment to be more relaxed. I believe I had this expectation because of America’s lack of monarchical past which has most definitely affected the English judicial system. The format of the court, the attire and characteristics of the judge were almost identical to the English court system.
I
found the political element of judicial appointment the most interesting
point. The English system attempts to completely separate the judges
from the political arena claiming them to be politically neutral which
is a local impossibility. Judges are appointed for set terms as opposed
to being elected. On analysis I would say that there is just as much
political affecting of behavior in a system where judges are appointed
by a political election. In both cases the judge has to gain favor
from the appointee.
Sam
Slark
Sussex
University, Fall, 1996
Having never visited the English Court of Appeals or the House of Lords I have nothing to compare it with although I will note down my impressions. I was most surprised that such a prestigious court was located in such an unattractive and unimposing building and this would seen to lessen my respect for the court. I was amazed that there were no metal detectors in the lobby to screen for weapons or bombs although the fact that you cannot access the court floor without a key is some protection.
Although the actual court room had the traditionally high ceiling it was not very imposing and seemed to modern in it’s construction to command respect. The use of a tape recorder is in my view inappropriate because in England stenographers take down the verbatim, but then again you televise your trials here unlike in England.
The fact that the judges wear black robes seems unusual having been brought up in a jurisdiction where the higher members of the judiciary wear colorful robes. Black robes are generally the preserve of the barristers.
The judges seemed more approachable that I imagine them to be at either the CA or HL. This could however be due to the fact that the state judges are in fact political creatures as they are elected to their position. This seems strange because the Federal Constitution Act III provides that judges should be appointed for life to prevent politics influencing their decisions.
I do not think that judges in the UK have their own chamber in the court building, but rather have a room in a set of barrister chambers. Another difference is that I am positive that judges in England do not have individual clerks, but rather utilize the clerk of the chamber.
A
significant difference is that in the US only one judge tends to write
the majority decision and others may concur and add points, whereas in
the UK there are usually more than one majority opinion.
Bruce
Gavin
University
of Manchester, Fall, 1996
My initial impression upon entering the courtroom was that one could easily determine that this is one of the lower courts in terms of the hierarchy of the justice system. Having been to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, although the setting was not extremely dissimilar, there did not exist the same atmosphere of superiority or prestige.
The case being heard at that point involved a charge of driving while impaired. The defendant appeared to be very nervous and as a result contradicted himself on a number of occasions. His attorney attempted to deny the charge due to a number of technicalities but this appeared to put the defendant more out of favor with the judge, who seemed very disinterested in the case at hand and simply wanted to get the case out of his courtroom as quickly as possible. It appeared that the defendant had refused to take a breath test because he thought that, given that he was from out of state, he would be discriminated against. This did little to impress the judge and I believe had the defendants attorney thought more about the situation he would have omitted that point. This was simply another element pointing to the general impression that the defendant’s attorney did not seem well prepared for the case, and throughout the whole hearing appeared to be leafing through other cases.
The final result was that the defendant was found guilty and order to pay court costs, loss of license for one year, one-year probation and 30 days suspended sentence. He was also ordered to carry out 24 hours of community service and a fine of $150.
My
overall impression of the case is that there was a significant lack of
professionalism. Both the judge and the attorneys appeared to be
more preoccupied with getting through the rest of the cases that were due
to be heard that day rather than really listening to the facts of the case
at hand. The judge also appeared to be very arrogant and on many
occasions scorned the defendant and his attorney, making comments that
were inappropriate. Perhaps this is a consequence of the fact that
the lower courts are overwhelmed with cases such as this and are tired
of having their time wasted by defendants who will put forward any argument
so as to delay the inevitable.
Samantha Hutchinson
University of Manchester, Fall, 1997
The Prisoners’ rights organization here at UNC-Law School organized a trip for all those interested, to the maximum-security prison in Raleigh, NC. We went together with about 15 other American law students, whom were all as well shocked by the circumstances we saw there.
The N.C. State Prison is the only prison in N.C. where people on death row are being held. And actually that was the best part of the prison we have seen. After having been shocked both with the number of people of death row in N.C. (169) and seeing the gas chamber, our guide told us that these prisoners are best behaved and therefore have the most privileges. Since many of them are still waiting for their appeals they cannot afford it to make any trouble, while in prison.
This contrary to those kept in maximum security. These prisoners were only allowed 2 hours outside in the recreational area a week. Their “recreational area” consisted of a 10 by 10-yard cage in which they would still be handcuffed. Much more recreation as jumping up and down some push-ups, they couldn’t get. For the rest of the time they were confined to their cells.
But
what most shocked me was the amount of people in “ordinary” cells.
In little cells, which could probably reasonably not hold more as 3 people,
8 to 10 prisoners were being held. One place was so bad; it had one
recreation room and 5 adjoining rooms around. I think it was meant
to hold 20 people at a maximum, but instead there were about 50 prisoners
residing there. It was almost inhuman for the complete lack of privacy
and the unhygienic situation. Our guide even told us that they had
had 5 cases of leper, a disease I thought didn’t even exist anymore in
the Western World. Coming from a country where no more then one prisoner
per cell is allowed, I found this all quite shocking.
Caroline Kleijer
Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, The Netherlands, Fall, 1997
Return to the Introduction to American Law Home Page
To the UNC-CH Law Library Home Page
To the UNC-CH School of Law Home Page