The Clinical Mission of Justice Readiness

Abstract: Law schools strive to teach students to be practice ready. That noble goal, however, is not enough. Because of the powerful role that lawyers play in society, educators must also teach students to be "justice ready." Justice ready graduates are able to recognize injustice and appropriately evaluate the consequences of their actions in a way that mere practice readiness does not teach. The traditional law school curriculum fails to teach justice readiness, instead inculcating in students a penchant for the status quo-an unjust and unchanging social order. Clinical education is the solution for creating justice ready graduates. Its use of Transformative Learning Theory allows students to learn about justice through experience and creates a long-lasting understanding of the lawyer's role in society.IntroductionWhat is the purpose of clinical legal education? Should clinics aim to teach students awareness of injustice and the role that lawyers play in fighting it? Or is that not an essential component of clinical legal education? At one point, the debate over the purpose of clinics was whether to provide teaching or service.1 Educators, however, struck a balance between the two, and the debate switched to contemplating what to teach: skills or justice.2 This shiftindicates the progress in the debate, as clinical faculty members have embraced their role as teachers. Throughout these debates, however, one thing has stayed the same in the legal profession: justice and injustice are the backdrop. There is no such thing as neutrality; everything has just or unjust effects. Therefore, clinical legal education cannot avoid dealing with justice. The only question is whether to ignore justice issues that constantly emerge or prepare students to identify injustice when they see it and develop the skills and strategic thinking to remedy it. Clinics must move students beyond being just practice ready.Law school graduates enter a troubled world. The September 11 attacks still reverberate and the U.S. economy sinks as the greed born in the 1970s and fueled in the 1980s and '90s comes home to roost.3 This is a time of drone attacks on American citizens, roving wiretaps, secret tribunals issuing search warrants, and incarceration rates higher in the United States than in any other nation.4 The rich are sheltered from higher taxes and lobbyists try to convince the rest that this policy is for their benefit.5 The U.S. government enacts draconian immigration laws and fortifies the borders.6 Banks fail and people lose their homes because they received mortgages they could not afford.7 The wealthy enjoy comprehensive health insurance as millions of Americans remain one health problem away from economic crisis.8Law school faculty certify to practice and evaluate lawyers-the very people who introduced the torture memo, the war on terror, the resistance to the Kyoto Protocol, the invasion of Iraq, and the tax structure that rewards greed and avarice and abandons the poor. But law schools also educate and certify lawyers who work tirelessly for civil rights, try to create solutions for global poverty, and struggle for peace. Where does the difference between the two groups lie? Lawyers in the latter group feel a sense of responsibility to the world and resist invitations to act out of fear and self-indulgence.Part I of this Article argues that law school clinics ought to teach students not just to be practice ready but "justice ready" -to be aware of injustice and commit to fighting it in their legal careers. It then lays out some of the questions clinical faculty should ask in figuring out how to achieve that goal. Part II identifies the ways in which traditional law school courses work against inculcating justice readiness and instead teach students to reproduce an unjust social order. Part III explains that clinical legal education can teach justice readiness by encouraging students to reflect on their own experiences in a social justice context. …