In this chapter, the author examines the regulatory supervision regimes, particularly within Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
Australia has no student practice rules for students engaged in experiential learning opportunities such as clinical programs. Often, these programs operate outside student practice rules; thus, the regulatory framework in place treaties law students the same way as law office support staff. On the other hand, PLT courses are courses that include short placements involving supervised work experience. The course is mandated by the PLT Competency Standards, thus holding legislative force. The Competency Standards require supervisors to face ‘substantial’ experience in the practice of law and require supervisors to assist students with mental health and well-being. However, these provisions are not closely linked.
In the United Kingdom, law students may also complete clinical programs but are required to complete a two-year training contract. The two-year training contract is supported by regulatory parameters that structure professional development and a limited amount of information relating to supervision.
In comparison, in the United States, there is no post-law degree practice-oriented qualification for traineeship. “Clinical legal education, which originated, and is prominent, in the United States, is the only thing filling the practical void in the legal education framework in the United States” (29).
Finally, he notes that pre-admission to the bar supervision carries a general supervisory duty. The duty to supervise is a general aspect of a lawyer’s professional obligation tied to the general obligation to manage and oversee all legal work they are responsible for. This duty stems from a lawyer’s “individual personal responsibility to a client and is described in terms of being ‘vigilant’” (35).
Michael John McNamara, Supervision in the Legal Profession Regulatory Framework (Singapore: Palgrace Macmillan, 2020) ch 2.
Leave a Reply