George Critchlow, “Professional Responsibility, Student Practice, and the Clinical Teacher’s Duty to Intervene”

Similar to other American clinical legal education research on supervision, this article addresses when intervention is required in the student-client relationship. It is difficult for supervisors to know when they should intervene as they balance the student-teacher and the student-client relationship. Clinical teachers must consider client expectations, student competency, teacher competency, and the interests of the client and others in minimizing delay, financial costs, and emotional discomfort. This topic underlies American clinical legal educators’ concern with the pedagogical goals of their role.

The author defines intervention as the direct engagement by the clinical teacher with the client, adversary party, or adjudicative process in a way that the student’s authority and/or judgement are compromised. Intervention may lead students to feel that their judgement is being impugned or cause students to feel demoralized and inadequate. Intervention may also cause students to become overly dependent on the clinical teacher. Intervention may cause the client to feel as though they are receiving inept legal services.

At the time this article was written, various US guidelines set out minimum standards for teacher intervention: intervention is only required in cases where a student is in a position to cause harm to the client irreparably. Despite this standard, the level of intervention employed by clinical teachers differs from teacher to teacher. Some only intervene when required by the standard, whereas others intervene when they feel client services depart from the level of skill and judgment the teacher would bring to a particular case.

Intervention decisions should be determined by asking the following questions:

1. Is the client’s relationship primarily with the student or clinical teacher?
2. Has the client consented to primary representation by the law student and been adequately informed of the advantages and disadvantages of student representation?
3. Is the clinical teacher familiar with the personality type, technical skill, and overall competency of the law student?
4. Is the clinical teacher as fully apprised of the facts, law, and legal strategy as the student?
5. Will intervention by the clinical teacher, even if not required to prevent irreparable harm, significantly avoid the imposition of additional burdens on the client, court, and other interested parties?

George Critchlow, “Professional Responsibility, Student Practice, and the Clinical Teacher’s Duty to Intervene” (1990) 26:2 Gonz L Rev 415.