Colloquium of the Max Planck Institute and the Claussen Simon Foundation on the Education of Jurists and Judges.

MPI for Private Law, Hamburg 29.03.2008

On the occasion of his being conferred the „Preis für Mentorship“ (Mentorship Award) from the Claussen-Simon Foundation, Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Klaus J. Hopt hosted a colloquium featuring comparative law presentations on the education and training of jurists and judges. The conference addressed, in particular, the educational training of jurists in France, England, USA and Japan as well as Russia, Georgia and additional CIS nations. On a final note, the colloquium presented a model for training “European Jurists” as offered at the Humboldt-Universität Berlin in cooperation with foreign universities.

France

Katrin Deckert from the Université Paris-Assas Paris II portrayed legal training in France where the general legal training has since 2002 been divided into three independent sections. First, one completes the “license”, a program lasting three years and guaranteeing a comprehensive background. Thereafter one may pursue a “master” by undertaking a two-year supplemental course of study oriented upon either research or legal practice. Finally, the individual may complete the three-year “doctorat”, an effort which exclusively serves a research aim. Existing alongside the general system of legal education in France are special branches specific to the training of judges and lawyers as well as those pursuing careers in academia. Deckert viewed the French program of education somewhat sceptically: the study of law in France occurs on a massive scale with little opportunity to select the university of one’s choice; grant support is rarely available and the facilities and resources of many universities are deficient. On the positive side, she noted that the study of foreign languages and information technology is well supported in France.

Great Britain

Professor Eva Micheler, instructor at the London School of Economics as well as the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, spoke on the differences in legal education between the United Kingdom and Austria. Whereas in Great Britain less emphasis is placed on conveying content relative to the development of analytic capability, the Austrian student is required to learn key content by rote. Micheler exemplified this significant conceptual difference with a sample test question on the prerequisites for founding an incorporated company. Subsequently, she covered the employment possibilities and further educational avenues that present themselves upon completion of a university course of study. In particular, she made reference to the distinction between solicitors and barristers and explained how judges are appointed to the various levels of court.

USA

In her lecture on legal training in the USA, Professor Katharina Pistor from Columbia University initially outlined the historical background of legal training starting from the U.S. Civil War. Building upon this basis, she sketched a current picture of US legal education including the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) and the three-year juris doctor degree (JD). The presentation of Pistor highlighted four further points: first, there is a clearly recognized movement towards the teaching of national law rather than the law of individual states. Second, the decentralised organisation of the educational system is a feature specific to the USA. Furthermore, notwithstanding its innovativeness, the system is suffering from an increasingly observable fossilisation that, notably, also derives from the approach taken by students. Finally, she cited the growing reaction to globalisation and, by way of exemplification, pointed to a course she offers at Columbia which provides the students with a comparative perspective on foundational legal fields.

Japan

Privat-Dozent Dr. Harald Baum, leader of the Japan division at the Max Planck Institute for Private Law, offered an overview of the foundational reforms currently apace in Japanese legal education and their connection to a comprehensive realignment of Japan’s regulatory model. For decades the number of judges and attorneys has been artificially limited by severe barriers of entry to the Legal Training and Research Institute, a central organisation that is responsible for the practical training of law students (akin to the internships of the German “refendariat”) and whose successfully completed program is a prerequisite for traditional legal work. In the course of a transformation from an ex ante regulatory model - with bureaucratically determined market entry - to an ex post regulatory model - oriented upon market forces with violations sanctioned retrospectively by courts – Japan came to the realisation that the quantity and quality of practicing lawyers within the country was in need of an urgent and enduring amplification. Thus, between 2002 and 2004 nearly every law faculty in Japan established a US-style “law school” with the aim of guaranteeing a rigorous and more practice-oriented legal education in the future.

Russia, Georgia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)

Professor Lado Chanturia, Universities of Bremen und Tiflis, discussed the role of legal education reform as an essential precondition for the successful implementation of both law and court reform in Russia, Georgia and other nations of the CIS. In the Soviet conceptualisation of legal education, a course of study at the university was a necessary but, at the same time, fully sufficient perquisite for access to the various legal professions. The nations of the CIS are now increasingly introducing both suitability and entrance examinations as well as post-university academic institutions in order to enhance the requirements for individual legal careers. A growing Europeanisation is also observable in the university programs. Thus, the program of study in many of the CIS nations was conformed to the principles of the Bologna process and adjustments were made to incorporate bachelors and masters degrees. Chanturia explained that, in spite of the comprehensive reform of legal education and the attempt to introduce internationally recognized and accepted standards, these efforts have not yet satisfactorily impacted the methodology or content of instruction: university studies in the CIS nations are, traditionally, quite theoretical in nature and highly regimented, hence offering little room for consideration of the actual practice of law.

The „European Jurist“

Professor Stefan Grundmann from the Humboldt-Universität postulated how important an international program of legal training is for a unified Europe in light of the various norms among European judges; thus, he differentiated between the programmatically skilled judges of England, the social-scientist judges of France and the rather academically minded judiciary in Germany. In order to prepare young, highly qualified jurists for an international work environment, the European Law School was established; it comprises a network formed by the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, the Université Paris II (Panthéon-Assas) and the University of London (King’s College). Together these universities have created a novel program of study designed to educate the “European Jurist” and thus offer the first ever foundational program of study which integrates national and European modes of legal training. With an obligatory study abroad period at one of the named universities, the program meets the needs of the European reality. As a rule, German students complete three years of study within the law faculty at the Humboldt-Universität and then a year each in France and England. Alongside completion of the first German state law examination, the five year program also results in conferral of the French Master degree and the British LLM.