The Cost of Clinical Legal Education

Abstract: Critics of clinical legal education often malign its expense and look to clinical budget cuts as the primary means of reducing costs in legal education. This narrow focus, however, ignores the important function that clinical legal education plays in training law students to be ready for practice and assumes other legal education expenses are more important. The 1992 MacCrate Report, the 2007 Carnegie Report, and other studies demonstrate that clinical education is necessary to produce a wellrounded and practice ready law student. Though clinical legal education should not be immune to cost constraints, neither should any other type of law school expenditure. To succeed in economically difficult and demanding times, law schools must put every aspect of legal education through a cost-benefit analysis for cost-saving potential.IntroductionWhen discussing the cost of legal education, few areas receive more attention than in-house clinics-wherein students represent clients under the supervision of faculty, usually in a law office within the law school. In-house clinical courses require low student-to-faculty ratios, with faculty working closely and intensively with students.1 Some suggest that one way to cut the cost of legal education would be to eliminate in-house clinics because they require more faculty resources than classroom courses.2 This suggestion is not new. In 1984, Professor Mark Tushnet observed, "When faculties feel pressure to reduce budgets or to restrain rates of increase, they look first to, and often not beyond, the clinical curriculum."3To contain costs, law school administrators should carefully consider budgetary restraint in every aspect of legal education, including in-house clinical courses. Educating law students to become practicing lawyers should be the primary objective of every law school. Anyone serious about defining a quality legal education must consider all allocations of resources within the law school and how to manage costs effectively without compromising law students' education.Unfortunately, those who question the cost of in-house clinics usually do not compare its cost to other costs within the law school. Nor do they consider factors like the law school's mission to prepare students for the effective and ethical practice of law, the role that in-house clinical legal education serves, or student demand for a real-life legal educational experience. Why not?This Article, consisting of three parts, addresses questions one should consider when examining the cost of legal education, including the cost of clinics. Part I examines the cost increases in legal education generally and some of the forces that have contributed to increased tuition. Part II discusses why in-house clinical legal education exists and situates it in the context of experiential education in law schools. Finally, Part III urges legal educators and administrators to adopt an appropriate methodology before cutting costs. Comparing the costs of various aspects of legal education before budgetary restructuring is crucial to maintaining a balanced law school program. Ultimately, the funding for in-house clinical legal education-like other aspects of legal education-remains a question of priority for law schools to assess before cost-cutting.I. Understanding Why Law Schools Increase TuitionJust as clinical education has to be viewed in the context of legal education, legal education has to be considered in light of university education.4 University tuitions have climbed dramatically but, at the same time, many law schools have imposed even steeper tuition increases. 5 Though schools' overall educational costs have increased, tuition hikes may have less to do with costs and more to do with perception of quality-essentially, supply and demand.6A. The Market for PrestigeFrom 1981 through 2010, tuition and fees at public and private colleges and universities increased sixfold while the consumer price index increased by a factor of 2. …