Socialization Effects of Professional School: The Law School Experience and Student Orientations to Public Interest Concerns

1978 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard S. Erlanger ◽  
Douglas A. Klegon
2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (6-7) ◽  
pp. 1087-1094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Leiper

“Eye-opening,” “disheartening,” and “inspiring” are some of the words used by law students who met in 2008–2009 to discuss their mosaic of experience in the field doing public interest work. These students had returned from placements under the first mandatory public interest requirement to be introduced in a Canadian law school (the Osgoode Public Interest Requirement, OPIR). OPIR arose from questions about the relationship between what is learned in law school and what is required to be a professional. Academics have challenged each other to do more to instill an “ethos of professionalism” during law school. Others have suggested that law students who do not receive exposure to the world outside the walls of the law school carry an “idealized conception of the profession” and are often unaware of the many practice contexts available to them. Others have warned that if ethical and professional responsibilities are not modeled and articulated for students, that teaching only the “law of lawyering” does not prepare students for becoming ethical lawyers. Teacher-educator Lee Shulman has bluntly accused law schools of “failing miserably” at connecting its lessons in how to “think like a lawyer” with how to “act like a lawyer.” For years, there have been similar concerns raised about the decline of professionalism among lawyers, both in Canada and in the U.S. A survey of Osgoode graduates revealed that students wanted more opportunities to engage with the community and to experience non-traditional forms of law practice. Osgoode Hall Law School grappled with many of these questions, and in 2007 it approved changes to the curriculum, including a new first year Ethics course (Ethical Lawyering in a Global Community, ELGC) and OPIR. In addition to the more traditional first year mandatory course load, Osgoode Hall law students must also complete ELGC, a minimum of 40 hours of public interest work and then engage in a discussion or written exercise reflecting on their experiences. These reflections are a valuable lens for seeing the profession and the administration of justice through the eyes of first and second year law students. Their experiences remind us in the profession that learning can flow in both directions.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Ray Watterson ◽  
Robert Cavanagh ◽  
John Boersig

<p>This article presents a case for law schools to undertake public interest advocacy. It argues that incorporating public interest advocacy into curricula and research enhances clinical legal education and enables law schools to make a distinctive and valuable contribution to justice and law reform. The article outlines an integrated model for law school based public interest advocacy based on the experience of one of Australia’s newest law schools at Newcastle in the Hunter region of New South Wales. The article then describes a recent public interest case undertaken by academics, clinicians and students at Newcastle law school, explaining their participation in the case and exploring the contributions made by the case to legal education, the correction of injustice and reform of the law.</p><p>The case, one of Australia’s most controversial deaths in custody, concerned the fatal shooting on Bondi Beach in Sydney in June 1997 of French photographer Roni Levi. The article examines the shooting, its investigation by police, a coroner and an independent commission of inquiry. It analyses the flaws in these legal investigations, considers their justice implications, and outlines the legal and policing reforms achieved through the case.</p><p>The article concludes with the suggestion that changes in law school culture as well as curriculum are needed to ensure that law schools embrace public interest advocacy and other forms of clinical legal education for the future benefit of the law and its students.</p>


Jurnal Hukum ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 1833
Author(s):  
Rihantoro Bayu Aji

 AbstractActually the existence of foreign investment in Indonesia is not new phenomenon, due to foreign investment exist since colonialism era.The existence of foreign investment is still continuing to Soeharto era until reformation era. Spirit of foreign investment in colonialism era, Soharto era, and reformation era are different. Foreign investment in colonialsm era just explore of nation asset and ignore of nation welfare, and this matter is different from the character of foreign investment in Soeharto era also reformation era. Eventhough the involvement of foreign investor have any benefits to the host country, but on the other hand foreign investment have business oriented only whether the investment is secure and may result of profit. Refer to The Law Number 25 Year of 2007 Concerning Investment (hereinafter called UUPM) can not be separated from various interest that become of politic background of the law, even the law tend to liberalism of investment. Liberalism in the investment sector particularly of foreign investment basically exist far from issuing of UUPM, and the spirit of liberalism also stipulate in several rules among others The Law Number 5 Year of 1999 Concerning Prohibitation of Anti Trust and Unfair Competition, The Law Number 22 Year of 2001 Concerning Oil and Gas, The Law Number 7 Year of 2004 Concerning Water Resource, and also The Law Number 30 Year of 2009 Concerning Electricity.   Many rules as mentioned above has liberalism character and also indicator opposite wit the right to manage of the state to nation asset that relate to public interest as stipulated in the Indonesia Constitution. Actually the issuing of UUPM in case of implementation of article 33 Indonesia Constitution (UUD NRI 1945). Due to opportunity by Government to foreign investment as stipulate by article 12 UUPM and also the existence of many rules as well as The Law Number 5 Year of 1999 Concerning Prohibitation of Anti Trust and Unfair Competition, The Law Number 22 Year of 2001 Concerning Oil and Gas, The Law Number 7 Year of 2004 Concerning Water Resource, and also The Law Number 30 Year of 2009 Concerning Electricity, so the foreign investment that relate to public service is more exist in Indonesia. The existence is reflected many foreign companies. Free of foreign investment relate to public service is opposite with spirit of article 33 Indonesia Constitution. Keywords: Foreign Investment, Right of  State, Article 33 Indonesia Consitution AbstrakEksistensi penanaman modal asing (investasi asing) di Indonesia sebenarnya bukan merupakan fenomena baru di Indonesia, mengingat modal asing telah hadir di Indonesia sejak zaman kolonial dahulu.   Eksistensi penanaman modal asing terus berlanjut pada era orde baru sampai dengan era reformasi. Tentunya semangat penanaman modal asing pada saat era kolonial, era orde baru, dan era reformasi adalah berbeda. Penanaman modal asing pada saat era kolonial memiliki karakter eksploitatif atas aset bangsa dan mengabaikan kesejahteraan rakyat, hal ini tentunya berbeda dengan karakter penanaman modal asing pada era orde baru, dan era reformasi. Sekalipun kehadiran investor membawa manfaat bagi negara penerima modal, di sisi lain investor yang hendak menanamkan modalnya juga tidak lepas dari orientasi bisnis (oriented business), apakah modal yang diinvestasikan aman dan bisa menghasilkan keuntungan. Melihat eksistensi Undang–Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal (UUPM) tidak dapat dilepaskan dari beragam kepentingan yang mendasari untuk diterbitkannya undang–undang tersebut, bahkan terdapat kecenderungan semangat dari UUPM lebih cenderung kepada liberalisasi investasi. Liberalisasi pada sektor investasi khususnya investasi asing pada dasarnya eksis jauh sebelum lahirnya UUPM ternyata juga tampak secara tersirat dalam beberapa peraturan perundang–undangan di Indonesia. Perundang–undangan tersebut antara lain Undang–Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat, Undang–Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak Dan Gas Bumi, Undang–Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2004 tentang Sumber Daya Air, dan Undang–Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009 tentang Ketenagalistrikan.Banyaknya peraturan perundang–undangan yang berkarakter liberal sebagaimana diuraikan di atas mengindikasikan bahwa hak menguasai negara atas aset bangsa yang berkaitan dengan hajat hidup orang banyak sebagaimana diamahkan oleh Undang–Undang Dasar 1945 (Konstitusi) mulai “dikebiri” dengan adanya undang–undang yang tidak selaras semangatnya. Padahal, UUPM diterbitkan dalam kerangka mengimplementasikan amanat Pasal 33 Undang–Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (UUD NRI 1945). Dengan adanya peluang yang diberikan oleh pemerintah kepada investor asing sebagaimana yang diatur dalam Pasal 12 UUPM ditambah lagi dengan adanya Undang–Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat, Undang–Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak Dan Gas Bumi, Undang–Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2004 tentang Sumber Daya Air, dan Undang–Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009 tentang Ketenagalistrikan, maka investasi asing yang berhubungan dengan cabang– cabang yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak semakin eksis di Indonesia. Terbukanya investasi asing atas cabang–cabang produksi yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak tentunya hal ini bertentangan dengan konsep hak menguasai negara sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 33 UUD NRI 1945. Kata Kunci: Investasi Asing, Hak Menguasai Negara, Pasal 33 UUD NRI Tahun          1945


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document