If Lifelong Learning is the Solution, What is the Problem?

Abstract

This paper, prepared for a conference on lifelong learning in professionalism at the University of Toronto Centre for the Legal Profession, argues that if we are going to design programs for lifelong learning in professionalism, we had better first figure out what is meant by professionalism. In the American literature at least, there are two dominant themes. One is that law was formerly a profession and has devolved into a mere trade or business. The second is that unprofessional conduct is synonymous with incivility and adversarial excesses. There is a more substantive strand of the literature on professionalism, drawing from the sociology of the professions, which observes that professions claim a legitimate monopoly on the production of some service, and must justify this claim on the grounds of having some distinctive expertise that is not suitable for regulation by market forces. This is the most important conception of professionalism to consider if we are thinking about educating lawyers, either in law school or in post-graduate learning experiences. However, the distinctive professional capacity of exercising judgment (which I call reflection-in-action, borrowing from the philosopher of education Donald Schon) is not the sort of thing that can readily be taught in conventional educational settings. Judgment is best learned through practical experience, and unfortunately for the project of professionalism education (at least in the U.S.), practical learning is largely outside the control of legal educators and the organized bar. Whatever we do as educators is thus likely to be swamped by the socializing forces of the workplace.

Keywords: Professionalism