Oak Brook College Perspectives, Part 1

A Biblical Worldview
Students in Oak Brook College approach their legal studies knowing that the God of the Bible has established a standard of morality. In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers affirmed the existence of these "laws of nature and of nature's God" and proclaimed as "self-evident" the truth that God is the Creator of all people. Unless those in education, including legal education, look to the Creator God as the source of truth, they are left with the view that man establishes his own version of truth. Such "truth" is detached from any objective standard and thus is always subject to change. Without objective truth, there can be no objective morality. That is why humanistic teaching results in moral relativism, where every man does what is right in his own eyes.

Legal education cannot be based upon moral relativism because law, to be law, must be based upon certain, unchanging principles.

The crisis of the Western legal tradition is not merely a crisis in legal philosophy but also a crisis in law itself. Legal philosophers have always debated, and presumably always will debate, whether law is founded in reason and morality or whether it is only the will of the political ruler. It is not necessary to resolve that debate in order to conclude that as a matter of historical fact the legal systems of all the nations that are heirs to the Western legal tradition have been rooted in certain beliefs or postulates: that is, the legal systems themselves have presupposed the validity of those beliefs. Today those beliefs or postulates-such as the structural integrity of law, its ongoingness, its religious roots, its transcendent qualities-are rapidly disappearing, not only from the minds of philosophers, not only from the minds of lawmakers, judges, lawyers, law teachers, and other members of the legal profession, but from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediency and less to morality, concerned more with immediate consequences and less with consistency or continuity. Thus the historical soil of the Western legal tradition is being washed away in the twentieth century, and the tradition itself is threatened with collapse.1

Modern legal education, by its rejection of God and consequent digression from objective truth, has an amorphous standard of academic quality. In this context, often little emphasis is placed upon the understanding and the application of legal rules and standards, and more emphasis is placed on the evolution of law and how it can be best used to meet the needs of a modern progressive society.

Christian legal education approaches all moral and legal questions from the foundational premise that God is the Creator and thus we have a duty to enact laws and structure our legal systems in a manner consistent with His will. The great British jurist, Sir William Blackstone, stated that all human laws, to be valid, must be mediately or immediately derived from the will of the Maker. This truth, which was adhered to in the early history of our country, promotes academic quality in the same way that a good foundation supports the structure of a building. From this perspective, law students have an objective standard rather than personal predilection or selfish ambition as the basis for examining legal questions.

In every field of study there are universal, unchanging truths. For example, in science, gravity is a law of nature that is binding on all of us. Likewise, God has established principles of law that are fixed and unchanging. The common law was based on these principles, as were our nation's organic laws like the Declaration of Independence. The "laws of nature" which God imposed upon His creation and to which the Declaration makes reference are the basis for individual rights and responsibilities.

In fulfilling its purpose of providing an alternative to traditional legal education, the Oak Brook College program is based upon the premise that God is the Creator and Origin of correct legal principles. Students in the College are exposed to humanistic perspectives by their readings but are encouraged to "search the Scriptures" (John 5:39; Acts 17:11) and to "delight in the law of God after the inward man" (Psalm 1; Romans 7:22) in order to discern the error in these approaches to law. An organized and thorough presentation of legal subject matter is given, with the goal of preparing students for the bar examination and for legal practice, while at the same time teaching them to analyze legal issues from a Biblical worldview.

Emphasis on Practical Experience
An effective legal education has three essential elements: (1) practical skills, (2) analytical skills, and (3) knowledge of law.

During the founding of America, legal apprenticeship was the primary method of legal education. A quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson illustrates this philosophy: "All that is necessary for a [law] student is access to a library and directions in what order the books are to be read."2 The training of lawyers was not unlike the training of those in other professions through apprenticeship. Essentially, an aspiring law student would agree to work for a specified time as a clerk or secretary for an experienced attorney who, in exchange for services rendered, would tutor and lecture the apprentice in law. The quality of lawyers produced during this period of time says much about the effectiveness of apprenticeship.

This approach, however, was not without flaws. In fact, many promising legal careers were hampered by abuses within the system. Attorneys could very easily take advantage of an apprentice's service. For example, in the days before fax machines and photocopiers, legal work involved a tremendous amount of manual labor. Often apprentices would spend so much time running errands, delivering messages, or handwriting copies of court documents that their legal studies were greatly neglected. In essence, they learned the clerical skills of practicing law but were deprived of the academic side of the profession.

The law school model was developed to cure some of the "ailments" of apprenticeship and to provide a more theoretical means to study law. Many within and without the profession think that over the years the pendulum has swung so far in the scholastic direction that another dilemma has been created-students are well-versed in legal theory but lack many of the practical skills of "lawyering." In one study, 84 percent of the attorneys surveyed said that their law school education was only "fair" or "poor" in teaching them to "conduct a law practice on a businesslike basis."3 State bar officials are trying to remedy this problem when lawyers are admitted to the practice.

Many young lawyers enter legal practice in need of basic lawyering skills, often without the support of a large firm to assist them during those first transitional years. This lack of education and support is exacerbated by a "Rambo" approach to lawyering that, to newly admitted lawyers, may appear to be the norm rather than the exception. Many states have addressed these problems by instituting a mandatory practical skills and professionalism program for every newly admitted lawyer. These states recognize the need for practical skills training that is proactive and is provided after admission rather than in response to an already existing disciplinary problem. . . . Making an investment in this type of educational program is essential to the success of new lawyers and to the image of the legal profession as a whole.4

Many states have tried to remedy the problem with "bridge the gap" programs. Several states have taken a more aggressive mentoring approach. For example, Delaware requires bar applicants to complete a five month clerkship and a pre-admission bar program before being released as practicing lawyers. Vermont has a similar program that must be completed within two years of admission. The state of Georgia requires its new attorneys to be mentored by seasoned lawyers for a period of two years and attend several workshops. Other states that have established mentoring programs include Montana, South Carolina, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Michigan, Tennessee, Colorado and Idaho.5

One objective of the Oak Brook College of Law is to emphasize a balance of practical experience and scholastic instruction. Distance-learning accomplishes this by freeing students to pursue practical work experience while they receive academic instruction that will prepare them for the bar examination.

Reasonable Costs to Prevent Future Debt
Most states require a prospective lawyer to have a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university and a juris doctor degree from an ABA-approved law school before taking the bar examination. This normally takes seven years to accomplish. Apart from the cost of undergraduate education, few students are able to pay for three years of law school without incurring substantial debt, and the amount of student loans at ABA-approved schools continues to rise. In fact, it is not uncommon for a person to graduate from law school with student loan debts of $50,000-$75,000 It is interesting to note that law school graduates have the highest default rate on student loans of all professionals, and almost a fifth declare bankruptcy.6

This debt bondage drives law school graduates to work an excessive number of hours at their new jobs, often to the neglect of family relationships. Far too often, a new attorney's hourly rates are driven, not by the needs of their clients or by the market value of their services, but rather by the urgency of paying off their law school loans. With approximately fifty thousand prospective attorneys graduating each year, a growing number of law school graduates are unable to find any jobs that pay enough to meet their loan obligations.7 Thus, traditional law school education is one major cause of the escalating attorney fees presently plaguing the legal market and exacerbating the negative public perception of lawyers.

The current structure for financing legal education makes the most significant impact on students who intend to pursue a career in public interest law. These students, when faced with a career choice upon completion of their legal education, are compelled to forego their humanitarian pursuits and take the highest-paying job available in order to pay off student loans incurred during law school. Also, the pressure to pay off educational debt results in some attorneys taking on more cases than they can competently handle. Again, the public indirectly becomes the victim of exorbitant law school tuition. In its report, the Council of Chief Justices commented on this dilemma.

Increasingly, new lawyers enter legal practice with substantial debt as a result of their law school education. The financial strain that this creates prompts some new lawyers to engage in risk-taking behavior such as accepting a larger and more complex caseload than competent practice would ordinarily permit.8

Lastly, financial considerations can impact an attorney's ethical decisions and the handling of a client's case. An attorney who still has years of debt left to repay may wish to reject a settlement that would be in the best interest of the client, because it would result in a reduced fee. The opposite may also be true, with an attorney pushing for a settlement that is not in the best interest of the client. The same pressures are there with hourly billing, the most common form of billing used by attorneys. Debt laden attorneys are tempted to put unnecessary time into a case, or to bill the client for things that are only related to the case by tenuous links.

Oak Brook College of Law offers a juris doctor degree program with a very modest tuition of about one-tenth of the tuition at a traditional law school. The purpose of this low price is not only to benefit the student by preventing the need for student loans but also to protect the public from excessive attorney fees.

Utilization of Modern Technology
Educational institutions all over the world are realizing the value and potential of distance-learning. The extent to which the Information Age has transformed virtually every area of life continues to unfold each day. One of the less publicized, but no less dramatic transformations is in the area of distance-learning. Before the advent of the Internet and other technological advances, external degree programs were perceived as inferior. The Information Age in which we live is making distance-learning a viable, and in some cases, a superior, method of education. As technology continues to advance each day, the criticisms of distance education are systematically being negated.

One study that is especially relevant to this issue came out of the California State University at Northridge. The study divided a class of thirty-three students into two groups. One group learned in a traditional classroom setting, while the other group learned the materials via lessons posted on the Internet. The traditional classroom students met together three times per week, listened to lectures, were able to ask questions in class and to discuss legal questions, etc. The Internet students had access to e-mail so they too could discuss issues with their classmates. They also had a weekly discussion with their professor in an Internet chat room. The Internet students met together in a physical classroom only for an orientation meeting and to take their midterm and final examinations. None of the students, traditional or Internet, were aware they were taking part in this study. At the conclusion of the 14-week term, the Internet students scored 20 percent higher than the traditional classroom students.

Irrespective of such studies, traditional law schools have resisted distance-learning because of the philosophy that one cannot be trained to be a lawyer apart from the classroom experience. Critics of legal distance-learning claim that the teacher/student and student/student interactions are necessary to be trained in the law. This point has some merit when learning certain skills such as trial or appellate advocacy, but such interaction is not essential for learning substantive law and analytical thinking. The Oak Brook College approach is to provide in-class instruction for trial advocacy and appellate advocacy, but to be more creative in teaching substantive course material by using technology currently available. By using its Internet web site, which supports interactive communications and provides on-line course materials, e-mail interaction, and access to computer-assisted legal research services, Oak Brook College students can study at the time and in the manner most effective for them. We at Oak Brook College believe that the determinative factors in becoming a skilled lawyer are a desire to learn and self-discipline in one's academic studies. If a student has these characteristics, he or she can become an excellent lawyer by distance-learning.

Oak Brook College Perspectives, Part 2

     1. Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution at 39 (1983).

     2. Deborah L. Rhode, Interests of Justice: Reforming the Legal Profession at 185 (2000).

     3. Learning and Licensing: Law School and Bar Exams, 68 A.B.A. J. 544 (May 1982).

     4. Conference of Chief Justices, supra note 2, at 13.

     5. See generally id. at 14-15, 58.

     6. Rhode, at 191.

     7. Id.

     8. Conference of Chief Justices, supra at note 2, at 8.