Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

In the News

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
February 26, 2014

An American Bar Association panel has recommended that the organization drop its prohibition against law students receiving both academic credit and money for internships and externships. The ABA's Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar still must approve the idea, but it would represent a significant departure from existing rules that forbid students from receiving monetary payment for field placements. The pay-for-field-placement rule is intended to open more opportunities within the private sector, said committee chair Jeff Lewis, a professor at Saint Louis University School of Law.

“Law schools won't place students in the private sector because those employers are required under federal law to pay,” Lewis said. “That's what everybody seems to believe, and they weren't willing to risk violating the law. It cuts off large swathes off the world for student field placements.”

In September 2013, the ABA sought and received clarification from the U.S. Department of Labor that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not prohibit law students from performing unpaid pro bono work at law firms, subject to certain restrictions.

The ABA's Law Student Division has been lobbying for the rule change, enlisting support from student bar associations around the country. The division argued in a letter to the committee that changing economic realities no longer allow students to pass up opportunities to be paid for their work. In a survey of students, 95% said they would be better encouraged to pursue externships if they could be paid and receive academic credit.

“I'm glad that that this is the committee's recommendation, and I think law students around the country will be very glad to learn that this is the next step in the process toward achieving our goal,” said Mathew Kerbis, chairman of the division's board of governors and a student at DePaul University College of Law.

' Karen Sloan, The National Law Journal

'

'

An American Bar Association panel has recommended that the organization drop its prohibition against law students receiving both academic credit and money for internships and externships. The ABA's Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar still must approve the idea, but it would represent a significant departure from existing rules that forbid students from receiving monetary payment for field placements. The pay-for-field-placement rule is intended to open more opportunities within the private sector, said committee chair Jeff Lewis, a professor at Saint Louis University School of Law.

“Law schools won't place students in the private sector because those employers are required under federal law to pay,” Lewis said. “That's what everybody seems to believe, and they weren't willing to risk violating the law. It cuts off large swathes off the world for student field placements.”

In September 2013, the ABA sought and received clarification from the U.S. Department of Labor that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not prohibit law students from performing unpaid pro bono work at law firms, subject to certain restrictions.

The ABA's Law Student Division has been lobbying for the rule change, enlisting support from student bar associations around the country. The division argued in a letter to the committee that changing economic realities no longer allow students to pass up opportunities to be paid for their work. In a survey of students, 95% said they would be better encouraged to pursue externships if they could be paid and receive academic credit.

“I'm glad that that this is the committee's recommendation, and I think law students around the country will be very glad to learn that this is the next step in the process toward achieving our goal,” said Mathew Kerbis, chairman of the division's board of governors and a student at DePaul University College of Law.

' Karen Sloan, The National Law Journal

'

'

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?