Mark Twain is often quoted as the source of the remark that  Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.  This quotation is appropriately used for many problems exclusive of the weather. It can also be applied to law school clinical experience and financial aid problems. As applied to weather and clinical programs, the quotation is not always quite accurate, as another often-quoted saying has been equally applicable:  It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.  Without question, many candles have been lighted in the clinical area. It is the purpose of this paper to expose another lighted candle by an explanation of one of the experimental programs at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law of Cleveland State University

Flaherty, James T.

English

Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

Cleveland State UniversityEngagedScholarship@CSUCleveland State Law Review Law Journals1970Clinical Experience and the College Work-StudyProgramJames T. FlahertyFollow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrevPart of the Legal Education CommonsHow does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion inCleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact library.es@csuohio.edu.Recommended CitationJames T. Flaherty, Clinical Experience and the College Work-Study Program, 19 Clev. St. L. Rev. 194 (1970)available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol19/iss1/23Clinical Experience and the CollegeWork-Study ProgramJames T. Flaherty*M ARK TWAIN IS OFTEN QUOTED as the source of the remark that"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anythingabout it." This quotation is appropriately used for many problems ex-clusive of the weather. It can also be applied to law school clinical ex-perience and financial aid problems.As applied to weather and clinical programs, the quotation is notalways quite accurate, as another often-quoted saying has been equallyapplicable: "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."Without question, many candles have been lighted in the clinicalarea. It is the purpose of this paper to expose another lighted candleby an explanation of one of the experimental programs at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law of Cleveland State University.The Clinical ProblemThere is no need to exhaustively review the popular literary areaon the clinical problem, except to note how it has faced law schools forquite a while, and its somewhat unfortunate metamorphosis.Legal education was originally clinically oriented. During the firsthalf of this century, a change of emphasis from the clinical (apprentice-ship) approach to the pure scholarly approach was fully effected. Thisdesigned metamorphosis did not produce the fully expected results, asthe necessity for some degree of clinical exposure became more evidentas the lack of it increased.The complete answer to the clinical problem may lie in the adoptionof a "fourth year" apprentice relationship, much like the medical train-ing programs.Finances, technology, precedent, and pride have thus far preventedthis possibly ultimate solution from becoming a reality. In the meantime,legal educators must continue to experiment with other solutions.In current vogue are the Legal Aid programs (sometimes calledLegal Services, Poverty Programs, Clinical Programs, etc.), some spon-sored by the law schools, but mostly funded by outside sources.These programs serve a dual purpose: limited clinical experiencefor the student, with a positive benefit to the socio-economic disadvan-taged. They are good programs and should be encouraged. They are,however, limited in clinical benefit, and can have value only as a con-tribution to the clinical problem rather than as a solution.* Asst. Dean & Prof. of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland StateUniv.1Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 1970LEGAL WORK-STUDYCleveland-Marshall participates in this type of program in conjunc-tion with the Cleveland Legal Aid Society, having some student volun-teers, others on compensation arrangements, still others on an academiccredit program, and finally, of course, the summer projects.Legal Aid programs cannot serve all students, and must then, as tothe clinical factor, remain only a contribution. Other programs and proj-ects must be developed, to suit the needs of other law students, whichare adaptable to the available facilities of the law school and the com-munity. This paper then, will serve to explain another experimental con-tribution which happens to suit the special needs of Cleveland-Marshall,its students, the City of Cleveland and its surrounding cities, towns, andthe county.The Financial Aid ProblemHistorically, the legal profession in America was open to rich andpoor, as any other occupation or profession. This century has produceda radical change in that American tradition.The curriculum change to academic emphasis at the graduate level,combined with the forced demise of part-time programs, changed the law(as well as medicine) to a profession increasingly confined to the socio-economic advantaged and elite. The current crash programs in force invirtually all law schools, designed solely to recruit those of lesser socio-economic status, bear witness to this unfortunate truth.Financial aid for the law students, although available in a very lim-ited degree, was never considered seriously enough to result in any majorprograms. Graduate school aid was generally developed in liberal arts,business and technology. Legal education remained aloof, for as long asthe laws of supply and demand (as to students) remained favorable tothe law school, there was no internal pressure for reform. The externalpressures are of recent origin. Twain's "weather principle" applied quitecomfortably to law school financial aid.Government programs similarly recognized no value in specific sup-port to legal education. Federal programs, for example, are available inscience, engineering, medicine, social work, economics, Egyptology, nurs-ing, mental health, and fur seal raising, but NOT in the law. It may beinteresting at this point to consider the possible relation between thecurrent status of those funded areas with the unfunded area of the law.Interesting also is the fact that the major single profession representedin the law-making process is that of the lawyer. Sadly, the only majorfederal attempt in this area, Title XI, PL 90-575, which authorized stud-ies in the legal area, has been relegated to limbo for lack of an appro-priation.Financial aid officials at law schools have contented themselves withstudent loan programs, especially the NDEA loan program. What has2https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol19/iss1/2319 CLEV. ST. L. R. (1)been generally ignored is that while the Law School NDEA applicantmay borrow (e.g. $6,000) to obtain his legal education, he almost alwayshas a similar outstanding loan from his undergraduate education. Thus,upon graduation, he would have a $10,000 to $15,000 LOAN outstandingwhich must be repaid. This is hardly a SOLUTION to the problem;rather, it is PART of the problem.College Work StudyThe Department of Health, Education and Welfare sponsors a Col-lege Work-Study Program (CWSP) which provides federal funding fora collegiate program allowing full-time college students to earn a portionof their total educational expenses through current employment.The student may work up to 15 hours per week during a regularterm, and 40 hours during any regular vacation period. He must be em-ployed in a non-profit company, agency, or association. Federal fundsmay be used to pay up to 80% of the cost of such (employment) pro-gram, virtually all of which is for student wages. This is not a co-operative program, since in CWSP, the earning and learning are con-current.The Cleveland-Marshall Grant ProposalGranted that since there is no perfect solution to the problems ex-pressed above, the next best approach is "A" solution.By a combination of the financial aid problem with the CWSP, acertain amount of financial aid is available to the low income law stu-dent. It also means however, on an "action-reaction" approach, thatthere now are up to 15 hours per week which the student will not haveavailable for legal studies, and this distraction is per se a bad thing whenconsidering legal education as a full time "jealous mistress." There maybe some validity to this argument, but it may be merely a question ofdegree.Studies conducted at the secondary school and college level showlittle effect on academic standing until outside activities (distractions)exceed 20 hours per week. OEO-funded projects at law schools haveutilized students in distractions (non-academic) for similar periods withno ill effect. It may be that the distraction theory was never really prop-erly tested at the law school level, and merely assumed to be true. Inany event, this maxim has been sufficiently shaken to allow experimen-tation.Look to the alternative: the economically deprived student will findsome way to earn additional income (which most do anyway); he willattend a part-time program (unavailable in many areas, or becoming lessavailable); or he will forsake legal education in favor of immediate em-ployment or further degree studies in another area.Jan. 19703Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 1970LEGAL WORK-STUDYSuppose, pro arguendo, the law students' employment could be con-trolled in such a way that it would COMPLEMENT his legal education,then much of the "distraction objection" would be removed, and theemployment may in fact prove to be beneficial to his total learning ex-perience.This is the Cleveland-Marshall theory, whereby the CWSP funds areutilized to finance employment opportunities in LAW RELATED areas.Thus, in addition to providing a partial solution to the student's financialproblem, it also gives to him simultaneously the experience of being in-volved in limited clinical experience.In November 1968, Cleveland-Marshall applied for CWSP fundingof a student employment program which would provide $180,000 forstudent salaries. Notice of the approval of the grant was received inMarch 1969, funding to be effective as of July 1, 1969.The proposal has a dual thrust as to financial aid: not only to thosecurrently IN school, but as incentive to those NOT in law school, toreconsider the possibility in the event low finances are a deterrent. Ineffect, the first year will serve as the experiment, with subsequent yearsperforming more and more service to those economically embarrassed.Students will earn $3.00 per hour for a maximum of 15 hours perweek while school is in session, and 40 hours per week while school isnot in session. Thus, they have potential earnings of $3400 per year.This is not a major sum, but to one in a critical financial situation itcould easily be decisive.The ProgramPreparations for a full program in July began immediately. Inaddition to designating a program director, the problem of staffing wasvery critical. The two acceptable possibilities were: to hire a full timeLawyer-Professor-Director to handle the program, as is done in OEOprojects; or to involve many individuals on a smaller scale. Since aqualified full-time professional would most likely be unavailable, thisalternate was not seriously considered. The latter plan was favored, andsubsequent events have shown this to have been the wiser of the twoalternates. One faculty member was recruited and given responsibilityfor publicity of the program, not only to enrolled students, but to thosefor whom the program was designed to reach: those who would other-wise have not considered a legal education solely for financial reasons.A second faculty member was recruited as the outside contact man.His function, to recruit potential employers and place them under con-tract, and later to follow the students in their employment to assure alearning experience, was originally considered to be most difficult. It didpresent some difficulty, but not as much as expected. Instead of a paucityof employers, he had to rapidly cease recruiting employers lest we have4https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol19/iss1/2319 CLEV. ST. L. R. (1)more employment vacancies than could be filled. Within a matter of afew weeks, notices of employment opportunities had inundated theschool.This aspect of the program exceeded all expectations and turned theproject from one of seeking law-related employment AT ALL, to seekingthe proper type of employment to meet the applicants needs and voca-tional objectives; in other words, a choice of position.The third faculty member was recruited to handle student inter-viewing and job referral, and as the resident tax professor (and CPA)to serve double duty as the expert on the CWSP regulations. This po-sition, originally conceived as relatively routine, has proved to be thenightmare of the entire project, as the plethora of regulations, forms,paperwork, and detail could not possibly have been preconceived by thehuman mind.These four faculty members, functioning as a team, began in April,and on July 1, the beginning date of the funded portion of the studentemployment, the program was launched; certainly not to perfection, butfunctioning.During the summer quarter, 27 students were employed under theprogram, earning an average of $1315. Some of these were enteringstudents who came to Law School Solely because CWSP was a decisivefinancial factor. During the current year 40 students are under CWSPcontracts, and can earn an average of $1940 for the academic year. Someof these 40 students would not otherwise be attending law school (orwould be in the longer evening program). Those participating on anannual basis will earn an average of $3255 per year.Since governmental units qualify as employers, and virtually all"non-profit" legal work is performed by such units, it would appear ap-propriate to have the students almost exclusively employed by thesegovernmental units. The Cleveland-Marshall CWSP students are cur-rently employed by: Municipal Court, City of Bedford; Municipal Court,City of Lakewood; Law Director, Bay Village; Law Director, City ofCleveland; Cuyahoga County Prosecutor; Lake County Prosecutor;Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court; Cuyahoga County JuvenileCourt; Public Defender; State of New Jersey (summer); Internal Rev-enue Service; and the Defense Supply Agency.Non-governmental employers include the Cleveland Bar Association,Cleveland Law Library, Lorain County Legal Aid Society, and theCleveland Legal Aid Society.Reports from these employers, to date, give every evidence of satis-faction. The participating students have reported enthusiastically in allcases as to both the financial and clinical aspects. The one common com-plaint to date has been one of concern over the routine. Some positionsare quickly learned and further continuance in such positions have lim-Jan. 19705Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 1970LEGAL WORK-STUDYited educational value. OEO projects involving law students had similarproblems.Discussions of this problem have led to two possible alternatives:abolition of that routine position, or development of rotating employ-ment schedules. No decision has been made as yet, as it is assumed thatother problems will arise, and a general revision rather than piecemealpatchwork is preferred.Financial aspects of the program have presented three problems todate. First, and most important, is the determination of student financialneed as a requirement of participation imposed by H.E.W. The publishedguidelines and experiences of H.E.W. in this area are mostly confined toundergraduate programs, and are of little value in determination of grad-uate student need criteria. What appear to be acceptable guidelines havebeen developed locally, but this is only a local development. Very littleother information is available for financial aid-need at this level.The only expression of confidence as to its accuracy has been theadoption of these locally-developed criteria by the financial aid officialsresponsible for graduate students at other universities.Reimbursement of administrative overhead, as being totally inade-quate, is the second problem. There is no question as to its inadequacy;it is designed to be so. The Cleveland-Marshall federal allocation foroverhead is (approx.) $4,500, to cover an estimated program cost of$10,000 to $15,000. The law school itself must provide the difference.This is a critical philosophy and policy issue which the law school hadto face on its own; whether or not to add an additional cost of $10,000to its operational budget for student financial aid overhead.If the concentration were on the $10,000, then the answer might havebeen negative. However, it was eventually considered as a $10,000 ex-penditure which will generate $160,000 in student financial aid, PLUSproducing a certain amount of clinical experience, which of course, pre-sented an entirely different and favorable perspective.The other problem area, payroll and accounting, represents a majorportion of the administrative overhead; but once it has been computer-ized, it may lessen. The problem was greatly reduced when Cleveland-Marshall elected and received permission for a payroll alternate to thefederal guidelines-payment on invoice by the employer; a small stepwith great impact.ConclusionsThis program is not a panacea. It has both advantages and cis-advantages. Any law school, considering the advantages of the financialaid and clinical experience factor, must also consider the disadvantageof the cost to the school, and the required dedication of the faculty andstaff, whose compensation for services to the program is nominal.6https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol19/iss1/23200 19 CLEV. ST. L. R. (1) Jan. 1970If viewed as a clinical experience device, it would be rated a failure.If viewed in its proper perspective, a financial aid program, it is an un-qualified success. Except for a few major university law schools, thereis little scholarship aid to needy students unless the applicant is in theupper academic deciles. This program is available to all students in goodstanding.If viewed as a distraction from the students' theoretically absoluteconcentration on the pure academic life, it is a failure, unless it is notedthat without such a program, the participants would have no academiclife in the law.There can be no absolutes in judging this program at this time. Itis a new and novel program, and as such must be considered as experi-mental. It requires work on the part of the student, the law school, andthe law faculty. Its rewards are confined solely to the student. Each lawschool must decide for itself. Fortunately, Cleveland-Marshall had allthe necessary ingredients, and decided to light another experimentalcandle.7Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 1970

Clinical Experience and the College Work-Study Program

EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University

Cleveland State University
EngagedScholarship@CSU
Cleveland State Law Review Law Journals
1970
Clinical Experience and the College Work-Study
Program
James T. Flaherty
Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev
Part of the Legal Education Commons
How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact library.es@csuohio.edu.
Recommended Citation
James T. Flaherty, Clinical Experience and the College Work-Study Program, 19 Clev. St. L. Rev. 194 (1970)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol19/iss1/23
Clinical Experience and the College
Work-Study Program
James T. Flaherty*
M ARK TWAIN IS OFTEN QUOTED as the source of the remark that
"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything
about it." This quotation is appropriately used for many problems ex-
clusive of the weather. It can also be applied to law school clinical ex-
perience and financial aid problems.
As applied to weather and clinical programs, the quotation is not
always quite accurate, as another often-quoted saying has been equally
applicable: "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
Without question, many candles have been lighted in the clinical
area. It is the purpose of this paper to expose another lighted candle
by an explanation of one of the experimental programs at Cleveland-
Marshall College of Law of Cleveland State University.
The Clinical Problem
There is no need to exhaustively review the popular literary area
on the clinical problem, except to note how it has faced law schools for
quite a while, and its somewhat unfortunate metamorphosis.
Legal education was originally clinically oriented. During the first
half of this century, a change of emphasis from the clinical (apprentice-
ship) approach to the pure scholarly approach was fully effected. This
designed metamorphosis did not produce the fully expected results, as
the necessity for some degree of clinical exposure became more evident
as the lack of it increased.
The complete answer to the clinical problem may lie in the adoption
of a "fourth year" apprentice relationship, much like the medical train-
ing programs.
Finances, technology, precedent, and pride have thus far prevented
this possibly ultimate solution from becoming a reality. In the meantime,
legal educators must continue to experiment with other solutions.
In current vogue are the Legal Aid programs (sometimes called
Legal Services, Poverty Programs, Clinical Programs, etc.), some spon-
sored by the law schools, but mostly funded by outside sources.
These programs serve a dual purpose: limited clinical experience
for the student, with a positive benefit to the socio-economic disadvan-
taged. They are good programs and should be encouraged. They are,
however, limited in clinical benefit, and can have value only as a con-
tribution to the clinical problem rather than as a solution.
* Asst. Dean & Prof. of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State
Univ.
1Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 1970
LEGAL WORK-STUDY
Cleveland-Marshall participates in this type of program in conjunc-
tion with the Cleveland Legal Aid Society, having some student volun-
teers, others on compensation arrangements, still others on an academic
credit program, and finally, of course, the summer projects.
Legal Aid programs cannot serve all students, and must then, as to
the clinical factor, remain only a contribution. Other programs and proj-
ects must be developed, to suit the needs of other law students, which
are adaptable to the available facilities of the law school and the com-
munity. This paper then, will serve to explain another experimental con-
tribution which happens to suit the special needs of Cleveland-Marshall,
its students, the City of Cleveland and its surrounding cities, towns, and
the county.
The Financial Aid Problem
Historically, the legal profession in America was open to rich and
poor, as any other occupation or profession. This century has produced
a radical change in that American tradition.
The curriculum change to academic emphasis at the graduate level,
combined with the forced demise of part-time programs, changed the law
(as well as medicine) to a profession increasingly confined to the socio-
economic advantaged and elite. The current crash programs in force in
virtually all law schools, designed solely to recruit those of lesser socio-
economic status, bear witness to this unfortunate truth.
Financial aid for the law students, although available in a very lim-
ited degree, was never considered seriously enough to result in any major
programs. Graduate school aid was generally developed in liberal arts,
business and technology. Legal education remained aloof, for as long as
the laws of supply and demand (as to students) remained favorable to
the law school, there was no internal pressure for reform. The external
pressures are of recent origin. Twain's "weather principle" applied quite
comfortably to law school financial aid.
Government programs similarly recognized no value in specific sup-
port to legal education. Federal programs, for example, are available in
science, engineering, medicine, social work, economics, Egyptology, nurs-
ing, mental health, and fur seal raising, but NOT in the law. It may be
interesting at this point to consider the possible relation between the
current status of those funded areas with the unfunded area of the law.
Interesting also is the fact that the major single profession represented
in the law-making process is that of the lawyer. Sadly, the only major
federal attempt in this area, Title XI, PL 90-575, which authorized stud-
ies in the legal area, has been relegated to limbo for lack of an appro-
priation.
Financial aid officials at law schools have contented themselves with
student loan programs, especially the NDEA loan program. What has
2https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol19/iss1/23
19 CLEV. ST. L. R. (1)
been generally ignored is that while the Law School NDEA applicant
may borrow (e.g. $6,000) to obtain his legal education, he almost always
has a similar outstanding loan from his undergraduate education. Thus,
upon graduation, he would have a $10,000 to $15,000 LOAN outstanding
which must be repaid. This is hardly a SOLUTION to the problem;
rather, it is PART of the problem.
College Work Study
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare sponsors a Col-
lege Work-Study Program (CWSP) which provides federal funding for
a collegiate program allowing full-time college students to earn a portion
of their total educational expenses through current employment.
The student may work up to 15 hours per week during a regular
term, and 40 hours during any regular vacation period. He must be em-
ployed in a non-profit company, agency, or association. Federal funds
may be used to pay up to 80% of the cost of such (employment) pro-
gram, virtually all of which is for student wages. This is not a co-
operative program, since in CWSP, the earning and learning are con-
current.
The Cleveland-Marshall Grant Proposal
Granted that since there is no perfect solution to the problems ex-
pressed above, the next best approach is "A" solution.
By a combination of the financial aid problem with the CWSP, a
certain amount of financial aid is available to the low income law stu-
dent. It also means however, on an "action-reaction" approach, that
there now are up to 15 hours per week which the student will not have
available for legal studies, and this distraction is per se a bad thing when
considering legal education as a full time "jealous mistress." There may
be some validity to this argument, but it may be merely a question of
degree.
Studies conducted at the secondary school and college level show
little effect on academic standing until outside activities (distractions)
exceed 20 hours per week. OEO-funded projects at law schools have
utilized students in distractions (non-academic) for similar periods with
no ill effect. It may be that the distraction theory was never really prop-
erly tested at the law school level, and merely assumed to be true. In
any event, this maxim has been sufficiently shaken to allow experimen-
tation.
Look to the alternative: the economically deprived student will find
some way to earn additional income (which most do anyway); he will
attend a part-time program (unavailable in many areas, or becoming less
available); or he will forsake legal education in favor of immediate em-
ployment or further degree studies in another area.
Jan. 1970
3Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 1970
LEGAL WORK-STUDY
Suppose, pro arguendo, the law students' employment could be con-
trolled in such a way that it would COMPLEMENT his legal education,
then much of the "distraction objection" would be removed, and the
employment may in fact prove to be beneficial to his total learning ex-
perience.
This is the Cleveland-Marshall theory, whereby the CWSP funds are
utilized to finance employment opportunities in LAW RELATED areas.
Thus, in addition to providing a partial solution to the student's financial
problem, it also gives to him simultaneously the experience of being in-
volved in limited clinical experience.
In November 1968, Cleveland-Marshall applied for CWSP funding
of a student employment program which would provide $180,000 for
student salaries. Notice of the approval of the grant was received in
March 1969, funding to be effective as of July 1, 1969.
The proposal has a dual thrust as to financial aid: not only to those
currently IN school, but as incentive to those NOT in law school, to
reconsider the possibility in the event low finances are a deterrent. In
effect, the first year will serve as the experiment, with subsequent years
performing more and more service to those economically embarrassed.
Students will earn $3.00 per hour for a maximum of 15 hours per
week while school is in session, and 40 hours per week while school is
not in session. Thus, they have potential earnings of $3400 per year.
This is not a major sum, but to one in a critical financial situation it
could easily be decisive.
The Program
Preparations for a full program in July began immediately. In
addition to designating a program director, the problem of staffing was
very critical. The two acceptable possibilities were: to hire a full time
Lawyer-Professor-Director to handle the program, as is done in OEO
projects; or to involve many individuals on a smaller scale. Since a
qualified full-time professional would most likely be unavailable, this
alternate was not seriously considered. The latter plan was favored, and
subsequent events have shown this to have been the wiser of the two
alternates. One faculty member was recruited and given responsibility
for publicity of the program, not only to enrolled students, but to those
for whom the program was designed to reach: those who would other-
wise have not considered a legal education solely for financial reasons.
A second faculty member was recruited as the outside contact man.
His function, to recruit potential employers and place them under con-
tract, and later to follow the students in their employment to assure a
learning experience, was originally considered to be most difficult. It did
present some difficulty, but not as much as expected. Instead of a paucity
of employers, he had to rapidly cease recruiting employers lest we have
4https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol19/iss1/23
19 CLEV. ST. L. R. (1)
more employment vacancies than could be filled. Within a matter of a
few weeks, notices of employment opportunities had inundated the
school.
This aspect of the program exceeded all expectations and turned the
project from one of seeking law-related employment AT ALL, to seeking
the proper type of employment to meet the applicants needs and voca-
tional objectives; in other words, a choice of position.
The third faculty member was recruited to handle student inter-
viewing and job referral, and as the resident tax professor (and CPA)
to serve double duty as the expert on the CWSP regulations. This po-
sition, originally conceived as relatively routine, has proved to be the
nightmare of the entire project, as the plethora of regulations, forms,
paperwork, and detail could not possibly have been preconceived by the
human mind.
These four faculty members, functioning as a team, began in April,
and on July 1, the beginning date of the funded portion of the student
employment, the program was launched; certainly not to perfection, but
functioning.
During the summer quarter, 27 students were employed under the
program, earning an average of $1315. Some of these were entering
students who came to Law School Solely because CWSP was a decisive
financial factor. During the current year 40 students are under CWSP
contracts, and can earn an average of $1940 for the academic year. Some
of these 40 students would not otherwise be attending law school (or
would be in the longer evening program). Those participating on an
annual basis will earn an average of $3255 per year.
Since governmental units qualify as employers, and virtually all
"non-profit" legal work is performed by such units, it would appear ap-
propriate to have the students almost exclusively employed by these
governmental units. The Cleveland-Marshall CWSP students are cur-
rently employed by: Municipal Court, City of Bedford; Municipal Court,
City of Lakewood; Law Director, Bay Village; Law Director, City of
Cleveland; Cuyahoga County Prosecutor; Lake County Prosecutor;
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court; Cuyahoga County Juvenile
Court; Public Defender; State of New Jersey (summer); Internal Rev-
enue Service; and the Defense Supply Agency.
Non-governmental employers include the Cleveland Bar Association,
Cleveland Law Library, Lorain County Legal Aid Society, and the
Cleveland Legal Aid Society.
Reports from these employers, to date, give every evidence of satis-
faction. The participating students have reported enthusiastically in all
cases as to both the financial and clinical aspects. The one common com-
plaint to date has been one of concern over the routine. Some positions
are quickly learned and further continuance in such positions have lim-
Jan. 1970
5Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 1970
LEGAL WORK-STUDY
ited educational value. OEO projects involving law students had similar
problems.
Discussions of this problem have led to two possible alternatives:
abolition of that routine position, or development of rotating employ-
ment schedules. No decision has been made as yet, as it is assumed that
other problems will arise, and a general revision rather than piecemeal
patchwork is preferred.
Financial aspects of the program have presented three problems to
date. First, and most important, is the determination of student financial
need as a requirement of participation imposed by H.E.W. The published
guidelines and experiences of H.E.W. in this area are mostly confined to
undergraduate programs, and are of little value in determination of grad-
uate student need criteria. What appear to be acceptable guidelines have
been developed locally, but this is only a local development. Very little
other information is available for financial aid-need at this level.
The only expression of confidence as to its accuracy has been the
adoption of these locally-developed criteria by the financial aid officials
responsible for graduate students at other universities.
Reimbursement of administrative overhead, as being totally inade-
quate, is the second problem. There is no question as to its inadequacy;
it is designed to be so. The Cleveland-Marshall federal allocation for
overhead is (approx.) $4,500, to cover an estimated program cost of
$10,000 to $15,000. The law school itself must provide the difference.
This is a critical philosophy and policy issue which the law school had
to face on its own; whether or not to add an additional cost of $10,000
to its operational budget for student financial aid overhead.
If the concentration were on the $10,000, then the answer might have
been negative. However, it was eventually considered as a $10,000 ex-
penditure which will generate $160,000 in student financial aid, PLUS
producing a certain amount of clinical experience, which of course, pre-
sented an entirely different and favorable perspective.
The other problem area, payroll and accounting, represents a major
portion of the administrative overhead; but once it has been computer-
ized, it may lessen. The problem was greatly reduced when Cleveland-
Marshall elected and received permission for a payroll alternate to the
federal guidelines-payment on invoice by the employer; a small step
with great impact.
Conclusions
This program is not a panacea. It has both advantages and cis-
advantages. Any law school, considering the advantages of the financial
aid and clinical experience factor, must also consider the disadvantage
of the cost to the school, and the required dedication of the faculty and
staff, whose compensation for services to the program is nominal.
6https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol19/iss1/23
200 19 CLEV. ST. L. R. (1) Jan. 1970
If viewed as a clinical experience device, it would be rated a failure.
If viewed in its proper perspective, a financial aid program, it is an un-
qualified success. Except for a few major university law schools, there
is little scholarship aid to needy students unless the applicant is in the
upper academic deciles. This program is available to all students in good
standing.
If viewed as a distraction from the students' theoretically absolute
concentration on the pure academic life, it is a failure, unless it is noted
that without such a program, the participants would have no academic
life in the law.
There can be no absolutes in judging this program at this time. It
is a new and novel program, and as such must be considered as experi-
mental. It requires work on the part of the student, the law school, and
the law faculty. Its rewards are confined solely to the student. Each law
school must decide for itself. Fortunately, Cleveland-Marshall had all
the necessary ingredients, and decided to light another experimental
candle.
7Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 1970


https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2730&amp;context=clevstlrev

Clinical Experience and the College Work-Study Program

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University