Virtual Practice/Virtual Externships: Past, Present and Future

By: Dena Bauman, UC Davis; Gillian Dutton, Seattle University; Kendall Kerew, Georgia State; Chipo C. Nyambuya, Loyola Chicago; and Amy Sankaran, University of Michigan

When we proposed a concurrent session focused on remote externships in November 2019 for the March 2020 Externships 10 Conference, we expected to be exploring a novel field placement arrangement, that of students working from a different location than their supervisors, and/or remote from the physical site.  A few months later, at the very time the conference was originally scheduled, we found ourselves in a global pandemic. We were living in the environment we planned to explore.

Overnight, our “novel” work arrangement became reality. Students were working remotely from both the law school and from field placements and supervisors. We planned to “model” a Zoom supervision meeting for panel attendees. Overnight, virtually all law school faculty, law students and field supervisors were relying almost exclusively on Zoom and other video conferencing platforms for classes, work at field placements and site visits.

Survey on Working Remotely and “Best Practices” Template:

Per our November 2019 proposal, we planned to survey the externship community about their current practices and rationales regarding remote placements. We also planned to create and distribute a template to use in evaluating and making decisions about virtual externship sites and advising students. We are linking to the template.

We distributed a revised survey through the national externship list serv in September 2020 that took a “snapshot” of practices before and during COVID. It also asked externship clinicians to consider what they might do post-COVID. [1] We used the 81 responses to create a template for assessing potential virtual placements and distributed the template at our rescheduled panel on October 23, 2020 along with a brief summary of the survey.  We used these three definitions.

  1. Traditional remote placement: Student and site supervisor physically present at the site, but remote from the faculty member.
  2. Remote supervisor placement: Student physically at the site but separate from the supervisor.
  3. Virtual remote placement: Student physically separate from both the site and supervisor.

We are including several tables summarizing the primary survey findings. The complete data report is linked here.

Pre-Pandemic: Few Schools Allowed Virtual Remote Placements but Many Allowed Traditional Remote Placements

Type of Placement AllowedPercentageNumber
Virtual remote10.78%11
Traditional Remote60.78%62
Remote supervisor11.76%12
None of the above16.67%17
Reason for not permitting remote placementsPercentage of SchoolsNumber of Schools
Students would not have the same immersive experience30.59%52
Students would not get the same or complete learning opportunities36.47%45
Supervisors would not give adequate feedback17.06%29
Reasons for allowing remote placementsPercentage of schoolsNumber of Schools
Benefit part-time/evening students19.44%7
Supervisors work in a different location16.67%6
Evolution of law practice16.67%6
Student want to work in virtual environments13.89%5

During the Pandemic (as of date of survey):  No Schools are Barring Remote and/or Virtual Placements

In response to the pandemic, we asked schools whether they were permitting a traditional remote placement and/or a virtual remote placement. 80 schools, out of the 81 respondents, permit virtual remote placements. 69 schools are permitting students to work apart from the faculty but are on site with the supervisor also present.

Another question asked why they were permitting these new arrangements. The three top reasons were:

ReasonPercentage of SchoolsNumber of Schools
Externship sites are closed or ask students to work remotely45.65%63
Students asking to work remotely for caregiving or other reasons31.16%43
Law school requirements10.14%14

Law school comments included: students need to complete graduation requirements, confidence that students are getting adequate supervision and experience in a new work environment, distance and traffic, and public health and safety concerns.

Nearly ¾ of the law schools said the changes have been both beneficial and problematic. As the pandemic continues through the fall, likely into the spring, and perhaps beyond, we will continue to learn much more about those changes.

Post-Pandemic: Training will be a Priority in Permitting Virtual Placements

Schools predict that training requirements for law students and field supervisors will be an important condition for considering virtual placements after the pandemic has passed.

RequirementPercentage of SchoolsNumber of Schools
Externship program will train students in remote work 22.73%50
Sites must demonstrate training for attorneys and students12.27%27
Supervisors must agree on training from externship programs11.36%25

Faculty Anticipate a Case-by-Case Approach

Factors that schools would consider in assessing the virtual and remote placement include family, health, financial and geographical circumstances, as well as the availability of the experience.  Schools also noted that it is too early to know if and how law practice will change, but that consideration is important in preparing our students for their careers. Additionally, we also realized that we need to scrutinize and analyze this nearly overnight reliance on technology in practice. Our presentation discussed these issues, such as access to technology and roles at home.  We will discuss those issues, and how they will affect our preparation of students for their post-graduate careers, in another posting.

Summary:  We believe our survey is a good starting point for future assessments, even as the pandemic continues to upend legal education and law practice.  Our template, which was favorably received at our panel, will help externship clinicians make decisions for placements and students, gather reasonably consistent information that they can use, and share with the community to build a record of useful information. Post-pandemic, we will depend on each other to share information about what we are contemplating and are implementing regarding virtual placements.


[1] Thanks to Inga Laurent, Gonzaga University School of Law, Theodora Pina, Santa Clara University School of Law, Sue Schechter, UC Berkeley School of Law and June Tai, Iowa College of law for their review and suggestions regarding the survey instrument.

Refuting the False Trope on Clinical Courses and Bar Passage

Robert Kuehn, Washington University School of Law

It has been observed that “the fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.” Until recently, this could be said about the possible influence of enrollment in clinical courses on a student’s likelihood of passing the bar examination. While there was a shortage of empirical studies on any possible relationship, there have been plenty of opinions on how taking those courses might be harmful, opinions often reflected in graduation restrictions on clinical courses and requirements for bar subject-matter courses.

But, there are now significantly more facts to refute those opinions. Two recent, large-scale studies have both found no relationship between the number of law clinic or externship courses or credits a law graduate took and her likelihood of passing the bar exam.

In a forthcoming article in the Journal of Legal Education, academic records of ten years of law school graduates of Washington University in St. Louis and Wayne State University were reviewed for any relationship between the number of law clinic, externship, or, more generally, experiential courses or credits and bar passage. After first accounting for the possible influence of law school grades on bar passage (the most significant predictor of bar success), the study found no correlation at either school between law clinic or externship enrollment and bar passage — no relationship between participation in a law clinic or externship and passage, none between the number of clinical courses and passage, none between the number of clinical credits and passage, and no evidence that students graduating with lower GPAs were disproportionately enrolling in those courses as a way to avoid doctrinal courses (another not uncommon trope). This lack of any relationship was in spite of increased enrollment in experiential courses at both schools over the ten-year period and decreased enrollment in courses teaching material tested on the bar (referred to as bar subject-matter courses).

The article notes that nationwide data on experiential course enrollment and bar passage also belie any claim the two are related. That data indicate that as enrollment in experiential courses was increasing from 2006-2016, bar passage percentages were fairly steady and that the recent decline in passage coincided with decreased, not increased, enrollment in those courses.

A recent study commissioned by the California State Bar found a similar lack of relationship between law clinic and externship courses and bar exam performance. The study reviewed law school coursework and performance on three July exams for over 7,500 bar applicants from eleven California schools. It found no relationship between the number of academic credits from law clinic courses and exam performance, either across all schools or even when reviewing schools separately. Similarly, there was no relationship between the number of externship or internship credits and performance, again when examined across all schools or within schools. The broad range of entering credentials at the eleven schools, and lack of a relationship even within those schools, indicates that the results should be applicable to most law schools, including those with lower LSATs and undergraduate GPAs for entering students.

The study results from Washington University/Wayne State and the California State Bar are similar to smaller studies at Texas Tech and the University of Denver that also reported no statistically significant relationship between enrollment in a law clinic or externship course and bar passage.

The Washington University/Wayne State and California State Bar studies further revealed that opinions about the value of bar subject-matter courses should be moderated. There were small correlations at both schools between the number of bar subject courses and bar passage. But this result (explaining less than 5% of the variability in bar outcomes) was only for low performing students and additional courses showed no marginal benefit once students took the school’s average number of bar courses.

The California State Bar study focused on whether taking a specific course was related to performance on the bar exam topic taught in those courses. It found that neither attendance nor performance in courses covering any of the 13 bar-related topics was related to performance on the corresponding California bar exam or Multistate Bar Exam content covering that subject.

Studies at other schools also indicate that enrollment in bar subject-related courses do not support broad claims about the benefit of taking those courses.

It is time to put away the misinformed trope of participation in law clinic and externship courses harming a student’s chances of passing the bar exam and let the facts do the talking. Law schools should recognize and students should be told they can obtain valuable preparation for the practice of law by enrolling in clinical courses without affecting their likelihood of passing the bar exam.

%d bloggers like this: