Robert L Jones Jr, Gerard F Glynn & John J Francis, “When Things Go Wrong in the Clinic: How to Prevent and Respond to Serious Student Misconduct”

This article provides clinical professors with information and an analytical framework to deal thoughtfully with situations of student misconduct in clinical settings. A survey of clinical professors found that most incidents of student misconduct fell into one of three categories: egregious neglect of case responsibilities, dishonest or deliberate misuse of a student practice license (including lack of maturity, substance abuse, etc.). All of these errors should be treated as teachable moments.

In order to mitigate the effects of serious misconduct, various clinic programs have developed methods to identify and monitor students who have been deemed likely to engage in wrongful conduct by instituting pre-screening methods and close monitoring of them once enrolled in the clinic. However, there are several concerns with respect to pre-screening restrictions on the admission of particular students into the clinical program, including issues under relevant disability legislation and privacy concerns. Appropriate pre-screening can allow supervisors to develop supervision methods that are shaped to each student’s needs, referred to as constructive pre-screening. 

The authors indicated that pre-screening can occur through communications with faculty and administration, reviewing students’ law school records or transcripts, or asking students directly to reveal issues of concern. Other pre-screening methods include asking prospective students to complete a questionnaire, pre-enrollment interviews, or requirements for character and fitness evaluations. Despite these procedures, there may be circumstances where misconduct occurs. Accordingly, clinics and supervisors should ensure policies and procedures are in place to intervene and respond constructively and appropriately.

Robert L Jones Jr, Gerard F Glynn & John J Francis, “When Things Go Wrong in the Clinic: How to Prevent and Respond to Serious Student Misconduct” (2012) 41:3 U Balt L Rev 441.