I couldn´t believe anybody would be supposed to do in only three years what I am attempting to do with a complete loss of social life in four years at the moment- so I checked out the lignes directrices and some other sources; Jean-Francois, the new curriculum doesn´t expect students to do both degrees in three years, but in four years. Doing it in three years merely is an option and it actually sounds as if the four year approach will be encouraged. However, after having thought about this and about the kind of students that study law at McGill, I must assume that there will be students finishing the double degree in only three years. There certainly are reasons to attempt this, such as the fact that three years of law school simply are cheaper than four years. However, is it even possible to receive a full, reflected and good comparative legal education in such a short time? Won´t students just rush through their studies, focusing not on understanding, but on passing exams? And won´t this be contrary to the very core of the idea of a comparative approach?

The mere existence of students finishing in three years will considerably increase the pressure on others to do the same, no matter which approach is encouraged and, as Yves-Marie Morrissette, I am wondering whether students will actually “have the linguistic skills needed to absorb the new materials?” and whether the “student workload is realistic?”. Probably, it will be possible to do it and, knowing McGill students, there will be some able to do it with good grades- it is crucial to ask, however, at what price this “crash course legal education” comes. Extracurricular activities will suffer if too many people fast-track through in three years– what about the legal clinic, and the faculty clubs, and skit nite? We need students with a manageable course load to participate in these events and keep the faculty vibrant and alive!

Another aspect I would like to question is Anne-So´s assumption that ´this form of legal education will be useful in so many countries´. I am not sure about that. If any of you guys have read Professor Kasirer´s article you will know the distinction between Law´s Cosmos and Law´s Empire. He claims that “law students and their teachers often seem more naturally disposed to imperialism than cosmology”, meaning that they see legal education as means to an end. He holds that there is a “(…) sense of first-duty to the profession- that law schools must train lawyers rather than educate citizens”. This argument is a valid one. While it is nice to be an educated citizen, to have compared loads of systems, it is questionable whether this will actually be of any use in the ´real legal world´; and, let´s be honest, we all want a good job and we cannot all pursue a career in academia. Most of us will actually have to go out there and practice law- and I don´t think that many of our future clients will be interested in what would happen to them in another, foreign legal system. Also, let´s think about the bar; in order to pursue this career outside of university, we will need to pass the bar and we will need to do well; the envisaged McGill program does not sound like the optimal preparation for this challenge to me…

Marie U.

Hey there,

I would like to point out that the system as it has been since the reform of 1985 already pursues quite a comparative approach- at least, more comparative than any other law school! The direction we are heading now has therefore been clear for quite some time already and when choosing McGill, you must have known about this affiliation! If anything, the currently discussed reform of introducing a transsystemic McGill program will improve life and atmosphere at the faculty, it will be an improved version of our current system. Professor Macdonald holds in his book The National Law Programme at McGill: Origins, Establishment, Prospects that “neither the initial curriculum established in 1968, nor its second generation model put into place in the early 1970s, nor even its third generation model of the 1980s, was a fully bilingual and intellectually integrated, polyjural four-year tuition rooted in a universalist model of legal education".

Albeit having common law and civil law students and teachers so close together, we are indeed still far from being “fully (…) intellectually integrated”; Professor Daniel Jutras pointed out that “One of the key problems with the National Program was that there was labeling and branding. Students who entered in one stream would become attached to that tradition and reject the other tradition.” and he is right with this observation. We really are like two separate law faculties in one and I applaud Professor Jutras´ conclusion that “one single admissions pool with one single stream" is needed! Just imagine how enrichissant this will be: two languages, two legal systems, one legal education and students from all over the world, since this form of education will be useful in so many countries! 

Moreover, I am convinced that the curriculum would have a better structure. The way law is taught now, all students have to do first year courses again in their second year in order to get to know the other system; they basically have to start over again and we all have experienced how annoying that is! Under the new program, I imagine, both systems will be better integrated! I already am absolutely convinced of this new approach.

Anne-Sophie G.

PS: Maurice, really?!

Québec law schools ought to teach only civil law! Pro the abolition of common law education at McGill! Québec aux Québécois!

-Maurice

Law Students' Voice

Hey everybody!                

You all must have heard that a reform of our current curriculum at the law faculty at McGill is planned. From what I gathered, our National Program as it was established in 1968 and reformed in 1985 is to be replaced by what seems to be a mazy mix of education in civil law and education in common law. Students won´t be able to choose anymore which degree they want to obtain, or whether they want to obtain the second one in an additional fourth year, but will be expected to do both in only three years!

As Yves- Marie Morissette explains in her article “McGill´s Intergrated Civil and Common Law Program”, students under the current system can choose to either complete a “(1) B.C.L. (civil law degree) over 3 years and 95 credits, or (2) an LL.B (common law degree) over 3 years and 95 credits, or (3) completing seriatim the B.C.L. and LL.B. degrees over 4 years and 125 credits.”. She adds that “many students chose just one degree”. There is a reason for this choice! Law is not meant to be comparative, law is not meant to balance between two (or more!) legal systems, but law is meant to ensure justice, to improve justice. Legal education must train students with the purpose of equipping them with the tools they need in order to reach that goal and, moreover, reach that goal in the country or province where they intend to practice as lawyers. Being from Québec I am therefore interested in getting to know the civil law system as it exists and as it functions in Québec! When choosing to go to a law school in Québec, I expect this focus; planning to take the bar in Québec, I even need the focus to be there and three years are merely enough time to thoroughly get to know one system.

I am not against hearing from time to time about other civil law or common law systems- after all, we can learn from each other and we must coexist with the common law system here in Canada; equally, I can understand that students choose to study in the common law branch here at McGill and I can also understand that students choose to stay one additional year in law school in order to obtain a second degree. However, I am against forcing students from Québec, who intend to take the bar in Québec, to study common law in a law school in Québec if they do not want to.  McGill, albeit special due to its reputation and its affiliation to the English language, nonetheless is, in essence, nothing else but a law school in Québec and it must not undermine the legal system of the province it is located in. 

-Jean-Francois M.