Sara Chandler, “Can Litigators Let Go? The Role of Practitioner-Supervisors in Clinical Legal Education Programmes”

This book examines affect through connections between legal education and neuroscience. The authors rely on the following definition of affect set out by Price, 1998:

“the affective domain involves the study of emotion: how they are expressed, how they are learned, how they arise, how they are experienced consciously and unconsciously how they are influenced by and influence behaviour, how they relate to intelligence, language, reason and morality” (2).

This book examines how new practitioners feel in their role as practitioner-supervisors, the challenges of the role, and whether they find their supervisory position rewarding.

Supervisors are consistently put in a position where they must balance control with autonomy. Generally, supervisors are committed to a style of supervision which is enabling rather than constraining, though some supervisors find this stressful, especially if they lacked support. In clinics, supervisors can choose a range of styles, including working alongside their students, giving them the respect of a colleague and enabling them to take a fully active and creative role.

Supervision styles were examined amongst new clinicians. A substantial number of supervisors (88.2%) reviewed every piece of written work done by students for the client and subsequently gave suggestions for amendments. Some supervisors (14.7%) asked students to amend the draft without suggestions. Most supervisors (91.2%) asked students to research the law and prepare a first draft of an advice letter, pleading or a document on their own. Most supervisors sought to avoid a prescriptive approach, allowing students to take ownership of a case. Only some supervisors included observation of the student in interviews or when they represented their clients. Most supervisors conducted meetings with their students throughout the stages of the case.

For many supervisors, making choices amidst constant uncertainty with respect to the extent and level of supervision induced stress and may impact their role. One supervisor referred to constant uncertainty with respect to supervision, writing:

“It is tremendously regarding although fraught with difficulty in that one often feels as though one should rewrite the document be it letter of advice or application whilst knowing that does not help the student. I believe because I regard myself as an ‘educator’ first, that I am more concerned with my students’ experience, process of, and understanding than a Principal engaged with trainees in a law firm would be consequently more aware of the denigrating effect that non-constructive criticism can have. The self-reflective element of Law Clinic is crucial” (97).

For practitioner-supervisors to sufficiently engage in a style of supervision that was enabling rather than constraining, they needed to feel confident of professional and institutional support, from the faculty, peers and practitioner organizations. Practitioner-supervisors should develop their strengths through their own reflective practice with respect to moments that gave them satisfaction but, also those where students received the best learning experiences. By way of these reflective practices and finding networks of support within their institutions and from the larger profession, practitioner-supervisors can “let go”.

Notably,  many supervisors noted that there was a positive benefit of the supervisory role particularly in seeing students develop in their skills.

Sara Chandler, “Can Litigators Let Go? The Role of Practitioner-Supervisors in Clinical Legal Education Programmes” in Paul Maharg & Caroline Maughan, eds, Affect and Legal Education, (England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011) 87.