Abstract
The article examines clinical education in Chinese law schools for the purpose of understanding reasons for its under-development and proposing corresponding approaches for improvement. The article starts with a historical look at the origin of Chinese law clinics when Ford Foundation brought the concept of clinical education from American law schools, and asserts that this manner of beginning is fundamentally deficient in that there was no local impetus or acknowledgement of its dual mission—legal education reform and social justice. The article continues to compare the social, regulatory and systemic background where clinical education operated in China and in countries of the first wave of clinical movement, as well as differences in their source of funding, treatment of clinical faculty, operational mode. The article concludes that there need to be a recognition on the part of Chinese law schools and universities in general of the legitimacy and significance of clinical education, proper academic placement of clinical faculty who are now not part of the regular faculty system, broader source of funding, and a more interactive clinical network for exchange, collaboration and culture building. The article also calls for a stronger leadership role from Chinese Clinical Committee of Legal Educators, the only network of clinicians in China.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.