Statements on Law Clinic Academic Freedom

The statements below set out the positions of the American Bar Association (ABA), Association of American Law Schools (AALS), and American Association of University Professors (AAUP) on the application of academic freedom principles to law clinic activities. Copies can be found at https://sites.wustl.edu/clinicinterferenceresources.

American Bar Association

Accreditation Standard 208 – Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression:

(a) A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies that protect academic freedom. A law school’s academic freedom policies shall:

(1) Apply to all full and part-time faculty, as well as to all others teaching in law school courses;

(2) Apply to conducting research, publishing scholarship, engaging in law school governance, participating in law related public service activities, curating library collections and providing information services, and exercising teaching responsibilities, including those related to client representation in clinical programs; and

(3) Afford due process, such as notice, hearing, and appeal rights, to assess any claim of a violation of the academic freedom policies.

Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, Managing Director’s Guidance Memo on Std. 208 (Apr. 2025):

In drafting this Standard, the Council considered traditional statements on the scope of academic freedom, such as the American Association of University Professors’ 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments (the “1940 Statement”).

Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, Report of Special Committee on Security of Position (May 2008):

Neither the [AAUP] 1915 Declaration nor the [AAUP] 1940 Statement says or implies that it might be permissible to discriminate among fields of study by allocating more academic freedom to some and less to others.

Council of ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, Statement – Interference in Law School Clinical Activities:

Improper attempts by persons or institutions outside law schools to interfere in the ongoing activities of law school clinical programs and courses have an adverse impact on the quality of the educational mission of affected law schools and jeopardize principles of law school self-governance, academic freedom, and ethical independence under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In appropriate ways, the Council shall assist law schools in preserving the independence of law school clinical programs and courses.

ABA House of Delegates, Resolution 100A (Feb. 14, 2011):

Resolved, That the American Bar Association reaffirms its support for the ethical independence of law school clinical programs and courses consistent with the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct;

Further Resolved, That the American Bar Association opposes attempts by persons or institutions outside law schools to interfere in the ongoing activities of law school clinical programs and courses; and

Further Resolved, That the American Bar Association will assist law schools, as appropriate, in preserving the independence of clinical programs and courses.

Association of American Law Schools

Bylaw 6-6(d):

A faculty member shall have academic freedom and tenure in accordance with the principles of the American Association of University Professors.

Executive Comm. Regulation 3.7 – Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure:

a. Definition of Faculty Member. For purposes of this section, “faculty member” means a professional who is or was tenured, on the tenure track, or, although not on the tenure track, engaged in teaching or scholarship, including work in a clinical or research and writing program at a member school. . . .

Statement of the Association of American Law Schools in Support of Academic Freedom for Clinical Faculty (Jan. 1, 2001):

The Association of American Law Schools has embraced from its very beginning the principle that law professors at member schools must enjoy the benefit of academic freedom to pursue effectively their teaching and research obligations. Bylaw 6-8(d) provides, “A faculty member shall have academic freedom and tenure in accordance with the principles of the American Association of University Professors.” For many years the Association has fully supported the principle that academic freedom applies equally to clinical law faculty and all other law faculty. The broad scope of Bylaw 6-8(d) is also made explicit by Executive Committee Regulation 6.2, which provides that the principles of academic freedom apply to all “engaged in teaching or scholarship, including work in a clinical or research and writing program at a member school” without regard to whether the position is eligible for a grant of tenure.

The resolve of the Association has been reflected in the public positions that it has taken in support of clinics at member schools that have been the subject of external pressure. The Association reaffirms that academic freedom is critical to achieving the objectives of clinical legal education and that the principle of academic freedom applies equally to clinical law faculty. Accordingly, clinical faculty have full access to the procedures available under Executive Committee Regulations, Chapter 6, to pursue claims based on alleged violations of the principles of academic freedom.

Brief for Amici Curiae Association of American Law Schools in Support of Appellee and Seeking Affirmance, Wishnatsky v. Rovner, No 04-3503 (7th Cir. Dec. 29, 2004):

“The choice of cases by the Clinic represents an exercise of academic judgment, and is, therefore, a decision protected by both AALS policy and the First Amendment right to academic freedom.”

Statement of Good Practices by Law Professors in the Discharge of their Ethical and Professional Responsibilities (2007) (deleted in 2024 amendments):

“The fact that a law professor’s income does not depend on serving the interests of private clients permits a law professor to take positions on issues as to which practicing lawyers may be more inhibited. With that freedom from economic pressure goes an enhanced obligation to pursue individual and social justice.”

American Association of University Professors

The Freedom to Teach (Nov. 2013):

The freedom to teach includes the right of faculty members to select the materials, determine the approach to the subject, make the assignments, and assess student academic performance in teaching activities for which they are individually responsible, without having their decisions subject to the veto of a department chair, dean, or other administrative officer. Teaching duties that are commonly shared among a number of faculty members require a significant amount of coordination and the imposition of a certain degree of structure, often involving a need for agreement on such matters as general course content, syllabi, and examinations.

Brief for Amici Curiae, the Association of American Law Schools, the American Association of University Professors, and the Clinical Legal Education Association in Support of Appellants and Seeking Reversal, Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Supreme Court of Louisiana, No. 99-30895 (5th Cir. Jan. 14, 2000):

“Yet existing authority establishes that the locus of teaching and learning does not bear on whether faculty and students enjoy academic freedom. Thus, the principles of academic freedom apply as equally to law school clinical courses as to Property, Torts, or Constitutional Law. Faculty and students have the same cognizable academic freedom rights whether the teaching and learning take place in a classroom, in a laboratory, or in any other location where teachers are teaching, students are learning, and scholarly activities take place.”

Jonathan R. Alger (AAUP Counsel), Academic Freedom in the “Real World” , Academe, Mar.-Apr. 2000, at 119:

If academic freedom is intended to protect the learning process and the search for truth, it cannot be a privilege enjoyed solely by faculty and students in traditional classrooms. Clinical education in law, medicine, and other fields is just one of many facets of higher education today. Colleges and universities are increasingly called on to provide relevant, hands-on educational opportunities both on and off campus. To remain in keeping with the mission of the modern university, the notion of academic freedom must be broad enough to encompass the full range of teaching and learning activities that make up the whole of higher education.

Letter from Gary Rhoades, General Secretary, AAUP, to Thomas V. “Mike” Miller, Jr., President, Maryland Senate (Apr. 7, 2010):

Ironically, in focusing on legal clinics the legislature [or other critics] has overlooked other University programs, units, and professional schools that serve a broad range of private concerns and interests. Business schools and economics departments use public monies for centers and programs that educate future entrepreneurs and managers and provide continuing education for current business leaders. Engineering schools along with geosciences and chemistry departments use public monies to interact with private firms in engineering, oil and gas, and petrochemical industries. Public monies are used by biology departments to serve, partner, and interact with the biotechnology industry.