Home
Search
עברית
Board & Mission Statement
Why IAM?
About Us
Articles by IAM Associates
Ben-Gurion University
Hebrew University
University of Haifa
Tel Aviv University
Other Institutions
Boycott Calls Against Israel
Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities
Anti-Israel Petitions Supported by Israeli Academics
General Articles
Anti-Israel Conferences
Lawfare
Anti-Israel Academic Resolutions
Lectures Interrupted
Activists Profiles
Readers Forum
On the Brighter Side
How can I complain?
Contact Us / Subscribe
Donate
General Articles
Outline for Law School Clinics by the Council for Higher Education

27.12.18
Editorial Note

On the 23rd of December 2018, the Council for Higher Education (CHE) announced it has approved a new outline to regulate the Law School Clinics offered by universities and colleges to Law students. The Clinics provide practical training, and let students experiment legal counsel to various entities.  There are 110 Clinics operating in 13 universities and colleges in Israel. Until now, the Clinics were not regulated and mostly worked in favor of left-leaning organizations.  

To recall, IAM reported in September 2016 of the "CHE to Review the Law Schools Clinics," after approving the findings of an International Committee commissioned to evaluate academic standards in the law study programs, a standard practice and an integral role of the CHE.    The Committee included Prof. Edward B. Rock, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Committee Chair; Prof. Arye Edrei, Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law; Prof. Silvia Ferreri, University of Turin Law School; Prof. Lucie E. White, Harvard Law School; Prof. David Schizer, Colombia Law School; Prof. Stewart J. Schwab, Cornell University Law School.

The Committee recommended on several issues of the Law Clinics:  "It is desirable to establish that the budget of the Clinics should be taken from the institutions rather than from outside agencies; There is room to improve working conditions and the employment of staff in the clinics; There is a necessity of transparency in the selection process of the clinics' activities, especially when these are determined by external stakeholders; There should be an increased cooperation between clinic activity and staff at all the institutions and their research centers." When reviewing the University of Haifa clinic, the Committee concluded, "we found a lack of clarity vis-à-vis the goals and objectives and vis-à-vis the pedagogic func'tion of educational clinics. Some of the clinics clearly fun'ction as NGO social organizations, and the clinicians are uncertain about the need to help students acquire skills. We also heard from the students that they wish to receive more skills, professional development, and legal experience from the clinics."  The CHE announced that "In light of the recommendations by the International Commission with regards to the Law Clinics, the CHE is in a review process with reference to the above comments."  

Over the years, IAM reported on the one-sided political activism of some of the Law School Clinics. For example, in 2006 IAM reported that the TAU Law School set up a "Refugee Rights Clinic" involving the political organization "Physicians for Human Rights."  In 2008 IAM reported that the Clinics were involved with "Gisha," the Israeli NGO protecting the freedom of movement of Palestinians, when serving on its board a number of academics, such as Prof. Kenneth Mann (TAU, Law), Prof. Yishai Blank (TAU, Law), Prof. Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian (HUJ, Law), among others.   In 2009 IAM reported that the U of Haifa Law Clinic took on the State Prosecutor. The Prisoners Rights Clinic at the U of Haifa was run by Adv. Abeer Baker who co-authored the book Threat: Palestinian Political Prisoners in Israel with TAU Dr. Anat Matar.   Also in 2009, IAM reported that a number of Clinic staff spoke in a conference "Absence of Justice and State Accountability" of Adalah (the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel) designated for Arab Law students, with participants including Prof. Neta Ziv, the Director of Law Clinics at TAU; Prof. Michael Karayanni of the Faculty of Law, HUJ; Dr. Yousef Tayseer Jabareen, a Law lecturer at Haifa U; Dr. Hala Khoury-Bisharat of Haifa and Tel Aviv Universities and chair of the board of Adalah; as well as Adv. Abeer Baker. As described by Adalah, "Seventy law students from Israeli colleges and universities and Al Quds University and 25 human rights lawyers, academics and activists participated in the event."   In 2011 IAM reported that Prof. Ziv was due to represent the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement in Montreal. IAM later reported a legal case lead by the TAU Law Clinic, which petitioned against a proposed law intending to deduct 20 percent of salaries of asylum seekers and create a special fund to hold the sums until the refugees departure from Israel. Critics have questioned whether the TAU clinic should handle such a project.

IAM concluded the post by stating that if the CHE is reviewing the Universities' Law Clinics, it should make sure that their budget will be taken from the universities rather than from outside sources. This means that political groups will no longer determine the clinics' work. The need for transparency in selecting the Law Clinics' activities is highly important, as well as incorporating the work of the Law Clinics with that of the universities and other research centers. 

The following is the new outline adopted by the CHE to regulate the Law School clinics offered to Law students by universities and colleges: 
  1. Heading the clinic system will be a faculty member in a regular academic track, who is employed full-time by the Institution. The head of the system will report on the activity of the clinics system to the dean and the faculty teaching committee.
  2. Academic responsibility for each clinic will be in the hands of the academic institution through the "academic supervisor" who is a faculty member or an adjunct lecturer who will be appointed by the appointing body of external teachers (teaching committee, appointment committee, etc.). In exceptional cases, the head of the clinic may be the academic supervisor of the clinic. The responsibility of all the events in the clinic will be the responsibility of the academic supervisor (academic supervisor or head of the Law School clinic system), who will report annually to the head of the clinic system on the activity of the clinic under his responsibility. The grade for each student will be given by the academic supervisor who will report to the head of the clinic system.
  3. Academic training in the framework of Law School clinics will take place in general at the institution.
  4. The activity within the framework of the clinic will be restricted to activities related to legal issues in the broad sense.
  5. Due to academic training, as long as it is given in the clinic, a credit point will be awarded for each semester hour. Due to clinical activity, an additional credit point will be awarded for at least 3 hours of clinical work (fieldwork, practical training) at the institution or outside of it. The clinic can be run on a semester basis or annual. The possibility of granting credits for clinics is only for a graduate degree.
  6. Choosing the clinic will be a free choice of the student. Admission to the clinic will be the responsibility of the academic supervisor of the clinic. A student will not be compelled to participate in a clinic that is contrary to his personal views.
  7. In each clinic, up to 25 students will participate.
  8. The areas of activity and contents of the clinics will be determined each year by the faculty teaching committee in coordination with the head of the clinic system and with the approval of the Dean.
  9. The criteria for determining the areas of activity of the clinics will be their pedagogical value. Formulation of all areas of activity and content in clinics will be carried out in a way that will not discriminate against students for any reason, and in accordance with the institution's regulations. The institution will allow every student to integrate into them, while maintaining freedom of opinion and expression and subject to academic freedom.
  10. The institution of higher education will ensure that if an outside body contributes financially to the institution in the context of the clinic, it will not have any involvement, either before the establishment of the clinic or after its establishment, in determining the contents of the clinic and its conduct, in electing the academic supervisor or in granting benefits to the students[2]. It will made clear that in any activity and publication, the clinic is affiliated with and identified with the institution.
  11.  An appeal against a decision not to approve a clinic at the request of a body that has proposed it, will be transferred to the Dean's attention and decided by the authorized body at the institution which approves courses and curricula.
  12. The head of the institution will receive and coordinate the annual reports on the clinics that take place within the framework of the institution, including a report on bodies that proposed the establishment of new clinics, either approved or rejected during the year, and will transfer a copy of the report to the CHE.




23/12/2018  
מל”ג אישרה את המתווה להפעלת הקליניקות המשפטיות
 

סיו”ר מל”ג, פרופ’ אדו פרלמן: “הקליניקות המשפטיות מהוות הכשרה מעשית ומאפשרות לסטודנטים להיחשף למגוון רחב של נושאים בעלי חשיבות חברתית וציבורית והינן בעלות חשיבות רבה להכשרה של עורכי דין בישראל. המתווה החדש מסדיר לראשונה את עבודת הקליניקות ומוודא כי סטודנטים יוכלו לבחור באילו קליניקות להתנדב ומבלי שהדבר יפגע בהשקפת עולמם”.

מל”ג אישרה את המתווה החדש להפעלת הקליניקות המשפטיות במסגרת הלימודים לתואר ראשון במשפטים. על פי החלטת מל”ג הסטודנטים יהיו רשאים לבחור את הקליניקה שבה יעברו הכשרה מעשית.

קביעת תחומי הפעילות והתכנים של הקליניקות תיעשה על ידי ועדת ההוראה הפקולטית ובאישור הדיקן, זאת כדי למנוע מצב שבו עמותות בעלות זיקה פוליטית ישפיעו על התכנים ואופי הפעילות. בכל מקרה ההכשרה האקדמית תתקיים רק במוסד.

המתווה החדש כולל גם התייחסות לחבר סגל הפקולטה שיעמוד בראש מערך הקליניקות ואשר ידווח לדיקן באורח מפורט על פעילות הקליניקה. האחראים האקדמיים על הקליניקות יהיו אחראים ללימודים האקדמים והקליניים בקליניקה. קני המידה לקביעת תחומי הפעילות של הפקולטות יהיה ערכן הפדגוגי, ויעשה מאמץ לגוון את מבחר תחומי הפעילות כך שתלמידים מכל קשת הדעות יוכלו להשתלב בהן. פעילות הקליניקות תוגבל לנושאים משפטיים במובן הרחב.

יודגש כי הקליניקות המשפטיות הינן הכשרה מעשית של סטודנטים למשפטים המזכות בנקודות זיכוי אקדמיות, שכן הן מאפשרות לסטודנטים להתנסות במהלך לימודיהם בהיבטים מגוונים הנוגעים למתן ייעוץ וייצוג בתיקים שונים (לא כולל ייצוג בבתי משפט). בנוסף, הסטודנטים נחשפים במהלכן לנושאים חשובים ברמה הציבורית – חברתית. בישראל ישנם 13 מוסדות להשכלה גבוהה המפעילות קליניקות משפטיות במסגרת לימודי התואר הראשון במשפטים.

 

המתווה להפעלת הקליניקות המשפטיות:

  1. בראש מערך הקליניקות יעמוד חבר סגל ליבתי במסלול אקדמי רגיל, המועסק במשרה מלאה על ידי המוסד. ראש המערך, ידווח על פעילות מערך הקליניקות לדיקן ולוועדת הוראה פקולטית.
  2. האחריות האקדמית על כל קליניקה תהיה בידי  המוסד האקדמי באמצעות “המנחה האקדמי” שהינו חבר סגל ליבתי או מורה מן החוץ אשר ימונה על ידי הגורם הממנה מורים מן החוץ (ועדת הוראה, ועדת מינויים וכיו”ב). במקרים חריגים, יוכל ראש מערך הקליניקות לשמש כאחראי אקדמי לקליניקה. האחריות לכל המתרחש בקליניקה תהיה של האחראי האקדמי (מנחה אקדמי או ראש מערך הקליניקות), אשר ידווח מדי שנה לראש מערך הקליניקות על פעילות הקליניקה שבאחריותו. הציון לכל תלמיד יינתן על ידי האחראי האקדמי אשר ידווח לראש מערך הקליניקות.
  3. הכשרה אקדמית במסגרת מערך הקליניקות תתקיים ככלל במוסד.
  4. הפעילות במסגרת הקליניקה תוגבל לפעילות הקשורה לנושאים משפטיים במובן הרחב.
  5. בשל ההכשרה האקדמית, ככל שזו ניתנת בקליניקה, תוענק נקודת זכות לכל שעת כיתה סמסטריאלית. בשל פעילות קלינית תוענק נקודת זכות נוספת עבור לפחות  3 שעות של עבודה קלינית (עבודת שטח, הכשרה מעשית) במוסד או מחוצה לו. הקליניקה יכולה להיות סמסטריאלית או שנתית. אפשרות הענקת נ”ז עבור קליניקות הינה רק לתואר בוגר.
  6. בחירת הקליניקה תהיה בחירה חופשית של הסטודנט. הקבלה לקליניקה תהיה באחריות המנחה האקדמי של הקליניקה. סטודנט לא יוכרח להשתתף בקליניקה הנוגדת את השקפותיו האישיות.
  7. בכל קליניקה ישתתפו עד 25 סטודנטים.
  8. תחומי הפעילות והתכנים של הקליניקות ייקבעו מדי שנה ע”י וועדת ההוראה הפקולטית בתיאום עם ראש מערך הקליניקות ובאישור הדיקן.
  9. קני המידה לקביעת תחומי הפעילות של הקליניקות יהיו ערכן הפדגוגי. גיבוש כלל תחומי הפעילות והתכנים בקליניקות יבוצע בדרך שלא תפלה תלמידים מכל סיבה שהיא, ובהתאם לתקנוני המוסד. המוסד יאפשר לכל תלמיד להשתלב בהן, תוך שמירה על חופש הדעה והביטוי ובכפוף לחופש האקדמי.
  10. המוסד להשכלה גבוהה יבטיח כי ככל שגורם חיצוני למוסד תורם למוסד כסף בהקשר לקליניקה, לא תהיה לגורם זה שום מעורבות, קודם להקמת הקליניקה ואחרי הקמתה, בקביעת תכני הקליניקה והתנהלותה, בבחירת המנחה האקדמי או במתן הטבה כלשהי לתלמידים וכיוצא בזה[2]. יוקפד בכל פעילות וכל פרסום כי התנהלות הקליניקה תשויך למוסד ותזוהה עמו.
  11.  ערעור על החלטה שלא לאשר קליניקה לבקשת גוף שהציע זאת, תועבר לטיפול הדיקן ולהחלטה ע”י הגוף המוסמך במוסד לאישור קורסים ותכניות לימודים.
  12. ראש המוסד יקבל וירכז את הדיווחים השנתיים על הקליניקות המתקיימות במסגרת המוסד, כולל דיווח על גופים שהציעו הקמת קליניקות חדשות שאושרו או נדחו במהלך השנה ועל והנימוקים לקבלה ולדחייה, ויעביר העתק הדו”ח למל”ג.


Google Translate

The Council of Higher Education Approves an Outline for Operating the Law School Clinics


Prof. Ido Perlman, Deputy Chair of the CHE: "The Law School clinics provide practical training and enable students to be exposed to a wide-range of issues of social and public importance and are of great importance to the training of lawyers in Israel. The new outline regulates the work of the clinics for the first time and ensures that students can choose clinics to volunteer without hurting their worldview."

The CHE approved the new outline for the operation of the Law School clinics in the framework of studies for an undergraduate degree in law. According to the decision of the CHE, students will be entitled to choose the clinic where they will receive practical training.

Determining the areas of activity and contents of the clinics will be carried out by the faculty teaching committee and with the approval of the Dean, in order to prevent a situation in which organizations with a political intention will influence the content and nature of the activity. In any event, academic training will take place only at the institution.

The new outline also includes a reference to a faculty member who will head the clinic and who will report to the Dean in detail on the activity of the clinic. The academic supervisors of the clinics will be responsible for academic and clinical studies at the clinic. The criteria for determining the areas of activity of the faculties will be their pedagogical value, and an effort will be made to diversify the various fields of activity so that students from all walks of life can integrate in them. Clinical activity will be restricted to legal issues in a broad sense.

It should be emphasized that the Law School clinics are practical training for law students who are entitled to academic credit points, as they allow students to experience in various aspects of counseling and representation in various cases (not including court representation). In addition, students are exposed to important issues at the public-social level. In Israel, there are 13 institutions of higher education that run Law School clinics as part of their LLB studies.

The outline for the operation of the Law School clinics:

 

  1. Heading the clinic system will be a faculty member in a regular academic track, who is employed full-time by the Institution. The head of the system will report on the activity of the clinics system to the dean and the faculty teaching committee.
  2. Academic responsibility for each clinic will be in the hands of the academic institution through the "academic supervisor" who is a faculty member or an adjunct lecturer who will be appointed by the appointing body of external teachers (teaching committee, appointment committee, etc.). In exceptional cases, the head of the clinic may be the academic supervisor of the clinic. The responsibility of all the events in the clinic will be the responsibility of the academic supervisor (academic supervisor or head of the Law School clinic system), who will report annually to the head of the clinic system on the activity of the clinic under his responsibility. The grade for each student will be given by the academic supervisor who will report to the head of the clinic system.
  3. Academic training in the framework of Law School clinics will take place in general at the institution.
  4. The activity within the framework of the clinic will be restricted to activities related to legal issues in the broad sense.
  5. Due to academic training, as long as it is given in the clinic, a credit point will be awarded for each semester hour. Due to clinical activity, an additional credit point will be awarded for at least 3 hours of clinical work (fieldwork, practical training) at the institution or outside of it. The clinic can be run on a semester basis or annual. The possibility of granting credits for clinics is only for a graduate degree.
  6. Choosing the clinic will be a free choice of the student. Admission to the clinic will be the responsibility of the academic supervisor of the clinic. A student will not be compelled to participate in a clinic that is contrary to his personal views.
  7. In each clinic, up to 25 students will participate.
  8. The areas of activity and contents of the clinics will be determined each year by the faculty teaching committee in coordination with the head of the clinic system and with the approval of the Dean.
  9. The criteria for determining the areas of activity of the clinics will be their pedagogical value. Formulation of all areas of activity and content in clinics will be carried out in a way that will not discriminate against students for any reason, and in accordance with the institution's regulations. The institution will allow every student to integrate into them, while maintaining freedom of opinion and expression and subject to academic freedom.
  10. The institution of higher education will ensure that if an outside body contributes financially to the institution in the context of the clinic, it will not have any involvement, either before the establishment of the clinic or after its establishment, in determining the contents of the clinic and its conduct, in electing the academic supervisor or in granting benefits to the students[2]. It will made clear that in any activity and publication, the clinic is affiliated with and identified with the institution.
  11.  An appeal against a decision not to approve a clinic at the request of a body that has proposed it, will be transferred to the Dean's attention and decided by the authorized body at the institution which approves courses and curricula.
  12. The head of the institution will receive and coordinate the annual reports on the clinics that take place within the framework of the institution, including a report on bodies that proposed the establishment of new clinics, either approved or rejected during the year, and will transfer a copy of the report to the CHE.

 



==========================================================


החלטת מל"ג
בישיבתה ביום 28.6.16 דנה המועצה להשכלה גבוהה בדוחות הערכת האיכות בתחום המשפטים והחליטה כדלקמן:

(חלק שני)

2. קליניקות מקצועיות בלימודי משפטים

הוועדה הבינלאומית סברה כי:

רצוי לבסס את מערכי הקליניקות על תקציבי המוסדות יותר מאשר על מענקים מגורמי חוץ;
יש מקום לשפר את תנאי ההעסקה ודרג ההעסקה של סגל הקליניקות.
נחוצה שקיפות בתהליך הבחירה של תכני העיסוק של הקליניקות במיוחד כאשר אלה נקבעים על ידי בעלי עניין חיצוניים למוסדות.
יש להגביר את שיתוף הפעולה בין הפעילות הקלינית לבין כלל סגל המוסדות ומרכזי המחקר שלהם.

לאור המלצות הוועדה הבינלאומית המל”ג נמצאת בתהליך בדיקה של נושא הקליניקות, תוך התייחסות להערות אלה.


====================================================================


Tel Aviv University Clinical education

In the decade since its founding, the TAU Law School’s Clinical Program has become recognized as a global model for state of the art clinical legal education. Under the leadership of founding director, Professor Neta Ziv, the clinic has launched a number of creative clinical projects, each offering students an immersion in challenging policy issues, hands-on lawyering skills, and theoretical reflection. The school is now in a period of transition, as Professor Ziv, having created TAU’s world-class clinical program over more than a decade, has stepped down.

The range of the clinical project that the TAU clinic offers is quite impressive, as detailed in the Self-Study Report. These projects are many. They cover a wide swath of public issues, affecting people of every ethnic, religious, geographic, gender, and political affiliation. Several of these issues, such as a common need among all ethnic groups for affordable housing in Jaffa, enable students to work across ethnic, religious, and social divisions, often for the first time. Though some of the clinical projects relate to Israel’s greatest public challenges, others, such as working with low income women’s need for an adequate income or second-generation Holocaust survivors’ entitlement to post-Holocaust pensions, will draw students who may not want to grapple with the nation’s most divisive issues in their clinical projects.

The clinic deliberates carefully about how best to teach general lawyering skills through specialized legal clinics. Thus, regardless of the clinic’s substantive focus, it teaches its students several transferable legal skills in each clinic. Thus, some clinics teach client-oriented skills in an administrative law context. Others focus on transactional skills, such as the housing development clinic. Others focus on client legal rights education, claim analysis, investigation, or counseling, while others specialize in research and writing, with regard to legal doctrine, policy analysis, foundational constitutional interpretation, and international human rights contests. Some focus on the new field of community lawyering in complex settings. And though each clinic may emphasize just one core lawyering skill, it will also teach a range of others. And though students cannot represent clients in court, clients enter into their work both directly and through the policy issues their clinics address.

In our discussions with clinical faculty and students, we sensed some tension in the balance between pedagogical skills training and the social mission of individual clinics. In the design of an individual clinic, it is important that students be trained in all sides of the issue and that clinical activities be designed to ensure that students learn particular skills. Clinical activities should also be designed to push students to consider the individual lawyering activities within the larger political and policy contexts. For example, in an environmental clinic, a clinical seminar can introduce students to economic analysis of the costs and benefits of environmental regulation. In a refugee clinic, students can be exposed to broader policy debates about the complex economic as well as normative implications of absorbing refugees into a nation. Ideally, there should be a range of clinics within the clinical program that address issues across the political spectrum. We encourage TAU clinics to be more fully integrated with the sophisticated resources of the centers and workshops that address related issues.

Tel Aviv’s clinical program has fine-tuned the idea of blending theoretical and practice-based pedagogy. In addition to the policy and theory based clinical seminars, sometimes taught with tenured/tenure track faculty, each student receives intensive skill-based instruction and mentoring from the clinic’s instructor/supervisor.

Through our visit we came to understand that the clinic gets substantial funding from large, project-based philanthropic grants, which Professor Ziv has done a remarkable job of raising in a tight-budget period. Operational costs, which can be substantial, as well as clinical faculty lines are supplemented by the law school’s regular budget. We were not able to tell for sure, during our short visit, whether this funding was “softer” than that granted to more “’core” parts of the law school’s operation. Regardless, a clinic with the scope and aspiration of Tel Aviv’s can always use more funding, particularly as it moves into the era in which more clinical instruction is required of all students.

The major conclusion we drew from our meeting with Tel Aviv clinicians was its impressive quality, in terms of faculty capacity, curricular/pedagogical innovation, student satisfaction, and its laudable level of social engagement.

Nonetheless, we have several Observations, not formal Recommendations, worth mentioning:

Observations:

1. The law school’s leadership should further support its clinical program’s fund-raising activities, both by helping to identify likely clinic funders, and by working with the University’s central administration to ensure that the clinic’s budget is both secure over time and adequate for an excellent, and expanding, clinical program.

2. Any expansion of the clinic should not dilute the intense, high quality mentoring and instruction that the clinics now provide.

3. The clinical program should continue to identify projects that offer a range of lawyering skills as well as a range of substantively different kinds of social engagement.

4. The clinical program should maintain a good balance of clinics, so as to offer appropriate clinical options that will interest the full range of TAU’s law students, in terms of their ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender identification, wealth level, political commitments, and other factors. Specifically, the clinic should choose policy, or “cause lawyering,” issues that reflect a wide range of different “causes” that Israel’s residents might endorse.

5. In light of the above, the clinical program’s method of choosing the thematic focus of its new clinics should be transparent, perhaps with various stake-holders somehow involved.

6. Each clinic should expand its practice of collaboration with the law school’s remarkable range of academic Centers and programs, for example, through conferences, publications, jointly appointed post-doctoral fellows, and co-supervising graduate students.

Recommendations:

Advisable:

1. Joint programs are extremely valuable educationally but require a great deal of curricular and administrative coordination in order to achieve their potential. This is an area in which the university can play a useful role in helping the different faculties coordinate. In particular, a joint degree program will not be effective if it simply loads 50% more courses on to already over-committed students.

2. Clinical legal education has become a standard part of legal training. This means that the University needs to take the cost of clinical education into account in determining the cost of educating a lawyer, and, longer term, needs to figure out an appropriate status for clinical faculty. Ad hoc arrangements work during the launch period of a new initiative but not long term.


Back to "General Articles"Send Response
Top Page
    Developed by Sitebank & Powered by Blueweb Internet Services
    Visitors: 243610201Send to FriendAdd To FavoritesMake It HomepagePrint version
    blueweb