Continuing & Post-graduate education in Computers & Law

Joseph A. CannataciMireille M. Caruana

Jeanne P. Mifsud Bonnici

Law & IT Research UnitUniversity of Malta

General Observations• No need to re-invent the wheel (Build on

existing consensus)• The Tuning Template as currently

formulated is NOT designed to harmonise continuing education and its structure needs to be modified

• It does not appear sensible to divorce continuing education from other forms of provision of education in computers and law

• 9 “Concrete Proposals”

Building on consensus

• Unlike many other areas of formal education, in the field of Computers & Law there exist previous attempts at harmonisation at European level

• Council of Europe Recommendation R(80)3• Council of Europe Recommendation R(92)15• These represent coherent attempts at “least

common denominator” approach to setting minimum standards of teaching in Computers & Law

A European stimulus?

• Recommendation R(80)3 Council of Europe• Spurt & Discussion / Trial & Error Period

– Nelson report– Belfast – LEXICAL at Queen’s University– Jackson Group– BILETA– LTC

• Recommendation R(92) 15 Council of Europe– Sweden – Peter Seipel– Norway – Jon Bing– Germany-Herbert Fiedler– Italy- Ettore Giannantonio– UK-Richard Jones

The process behind consensus

• Review of a ten year old Recommendation

• Process commences in 1989

• Completed in 1992

• LEFIS can take advantage of experienced pioneers used in 1989-1992 review cycle (3 of whom were present in BILETA2006 –LEFIS: Bing, Cannataci, Jones)

Concrete Proposal No. 1 re Tuning Template

• “Introduction to the Subject Area” is the first field in the Tuning Template

• LITRU proposes that this be completed by– Adopting text of Recommendation R(92)15– Adapting text of R(92)15 to reflect changes– Principal changes deal with Internet Law– And use of Internet as a research tool– The use of wireless telecommunications

• A drafting group of WG3 (not more than 3 members) by e-mail draft the amendments to this first field in the Tuning Template

Objectives vs. target audiences“Map of the professions”

• The pedagogical objectives of both post-graduate and continuing education are largely the same– Keeping law practitioners up-dated with the legal

applications and implications of technology

• The target audiences and means of delivery may be different– “Freshmen” vs. Up-grading of existing resources– Part-time vs. full-time– Distance learning vs. (or complementing) on-site

Concrete proposal No.2Identifying target audiences

• The current Tuning template is too restrictively intended for 1st, 2nd & 3rd cycle degrees

• There is no real intention to provide for continuing education

• This requires an agreed definition of continuing education (Is this synonymous to Continuing Professional Development?)

• The target audiences must be identified (practising solicitors, barristers, judges, legal administrators, in-house lawyers)

Defining characteristics of Continuing Education:

Dimensions of Time & Modularity• Rarely full-time• When full-time, delivered in a short, sharp

burst i.e. a “full-immersion” course of a few days or, maximum, a few weeks.

• Often part-time and delivered in once-or twice weekly evening sessions or a series of week-end sessions (often complemented by distance learning)

• Up-dating of previously learned materials• Modularity

The notion of complementarity

• In most undergraduate Law degrees around Europe, Computers & Law is taught in modules which complement teaching of basic core law modules

• In many post-graduate (2 & 3 cycle) degrees around Europe Computers & Law is taught as a “stand-alone” subject of specialisation which builds upon knowledge of core principles in law

Concrete Proposal No.3Complementarity & Modularity

• That the field in the Tuning Template in “Role of subject in other degree programmes” be described in terms of complementarity

• That the susceptibility of the subject to be broken down into stand-alone modules Eg. Data Protection Law, Computer Crime, Software & database protection makes it ideal for continuing education “digestible chunks”

Concrete Proposal No.4Periodic Review

• The speed of change in Technology Law means that the subject needs to be re-visited often

• The Tuning Template should therefore also deal with the periodicity of the review and refreshing of previously learnt materials

• In line with other instances e.g. R(87)15 the period of review should probably be somewhere in the region of 5-10 years (but no later)

A matter of resource-management

• The economics and human resource management issues of legal education gravitate around Law Schools

• In relative terms there are very few examples of legal education which is not provided by Law Schools

• Most of the best-qualified teaching resources to deliver BOTH or EITHER Post-graduate education and Continuing Legal Education are to be found in Law Schools and currently do so

Concrete proposal No.5Link Post-Graduate & Continuing

• Recognize that the same resources are often used to provide BOTH under-graduate AND post-graduate education AS WELL AS continuing education

• Many of the modules used in undergraduate and post-graduate education may be used in continuing education

“Harmonised” experiences at the University of Malta

• Erasmus students• Exchange & Visiting Professors• Visiting Judges• LITRU’s current students include

– 4 German students– 1 French student– 40 Maltese students

• These follow substantive law courses without difficulty

The subject lends itself to harmonisation…

& continuing education

• Students can follow same lectures across Europe– Data Protection Directive (EU 46/95)– Computer Crime (CoE Cybercrime Conv)– Database directive– Software directive– Data retention directive– Spam directive– Computer contracts

Concrete Proposal No.6Transborder Continuing Education

• Many of the modules used may be used across borders since much of Computer Law across Europe is harmonised

• This improves resource-management since expertise in certain areas should be shared across nations

• Law schools should be encouraged to carry out JOINT Continuing Education programmes across borders e.g for judges in Cybercrime or internet law

Concrete Proposal No. 7Modularity, Workload & ECTS

• Harmonised with Post-Graduate WG

• Typical ECTS– Data Protection & FoI - 4 credits– Computer Crime - 4 credits– Intellectual Property – 4 credits– System Projects & Contract – 4 credits

• Four or five year cycle in continuing education to comprise 4 credits per year

Concrete Proposal No 8Continuing Education & Mobility

• Objective: to improve mobility of legal professions across Europe

• Provision of legal education to persons trained in law in other European jurisdictions

• Use of continuing education to facilitate mobility from one jurisdiction to another

• Use of distance learning to deliver• WG3 sub-group should be tasked to study

lawyers directive and write it into Tuning

Concrete Proposal No.9Accreditation of Prior Learning

• The modularity of Computer & Law subjects lend themselves to accretion of credits and substantial build-up of knowledge

• The clear definition of modules in Continuing Education would then assist successful participants to receive accreditation for such learning in more formal learning structures such as masters degrees

Some problems ahead

• As Fernando Galindo said, there is no real, clearly defined, European POLICY on continuing education

• A greater difficulty is the fact that there is no Europe-wide common standard for requirements for continuing education for members of the legal professions

• Requirements may range from X hours per year to nothing at all

• Methods of assessment: presence and/or exams