Here, the driving force is less the noble goal of an uninterested higher education and more the very real empirical inequality gap in the access to legal services despite constitutional guarantees to the contrary. Ī third group suggests instead that the legal industry’s hand(s) on legal education prevents the latter to cater for unmet needs in the market for legal services given the fact such needs are perceived to be neither profitable nor exciting. A plea for heightened justice, moral imagination, and recognition of the Other. įor others, this emphasis risks confirming McLuhan’s dictum “the medium is the message”, forgetting that what law, and thus legal education, requires is a more humane and humanistic re-orientation that breaks the servile relationship legal education displays vis-à-vis the market for legal services, thereby enabling the formation of critically oriented lawyers, not vocationally-trained legal professionals. Often, this stance is advanced by authors concerned with the growing gap between highly technological law firms and conservative law schools producing old-school curricula and failing to educate the lawyers the market (arguably) needs and is asking for.

Clearly, covid-19 accelerated the technological fix many were claiming should be applied to education in general advocating for more creative ways of engaging students, delivering contents, and fostering collaborative learning and work in the virtual world and digital classrooms. To say that legal education is in need of disruption is a truism these days.

Saga graphic novel