George Baboila and IPC Colleagues Present at Conference on Clinical Legal Education

May 19, 2015
Directors of the UST Interprofessional Center for Counseling and Legal Services
Virgil O. Wiebe, George V. Baboila, and Patricia Anne Stankovitch, Co-Directors of the IPC

George Baboila, Co-Director of the University of St. Thomas Interprofessional Center for Counseling and Legal Services and School of Social Work faculty member, presented with IPC colleagues at the Association of American Law Schools' 38th ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION:

Leading the New Normal:  Clinical Education at the Forefront of Change

May 4 – 7, 2015, Rancho Mirage, California

Where the Jobs Are Now and What They Require: Preparing Law Students for an Interprofessional World

  • George V. Baboila, Co-Director, University of St. Thomas Interprofessional Center for Counseling and Legal Services, St. Paul, Minnesota
  • Melissa Brown, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law
  • Yael Cannon, University of New Mexico School of Law
  • Michael J. Gregory, Harvard Law School
  • Yvonne Troya, University of California, Hastings College of Law
  • Julie K. Waterstone, Southwestern Law School
  • Carolyn Welty, University of California, Hastings College of the Law
  • Jennifer L. Wright, University of St. Thomas School of Law

The New Normal involves a move away from traditional legal practice and a new appreciation for the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration to leverage scarce resources, improve the delivery of legal services, and better prepare law students for a changing job market. This session will explore how an interdisciplinary clinical education works, why it is so effective, and what skills and competencies are necessary for successful interprofessional practice. Participants will learn about the challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration and then explore its many advantages from the perspectives of clinicians working across a range of interprofessional practice, including medical-legal partnerships, clinics integrating law students with learners of other disciplines, and projects focused on policy change, coalition-building, and joint scholarship. Specifically, participants will discover the pedagogical benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration as well as its advantages in the provision of legal services to children and older adults. In addition, participants will engage in a lively interactive exercise to help them consider best practices for interdisciplinary clinical education and how interprofessional skills and corresponding competencies can be effectively measured. Participants will also be encouraged to explore how they can effectively integrate an interprofessional focus and/or Interprofessional partnerships into their current clinical practice.

Competencies and Rubrics, What are they Good For?! Law, Social Work and Psychology Standards in an Interdisciplinary Context

  • George V. Baboila, Co-Director, University of St. Thomas Interprofessional Center for Counseling and Legal Services, St. Paul, Minnesota
  • Patricia Anne Stankovitch, Director of Psychology Clinic, University of St. Thomas Interprofessional Center for Counseling and Legal Services, St. Paul, Minnesota
  • Virgil O. Wiebe, University of St. Thomas School of Law

The revised ABA accreditation standards now require law schools to publish and measure competence over a range of learning outcomes. Legal education can learn lessons from other professional educators about the power and pitfalls of measurement tools like rubrics. At the Interprofessional Center for Counseling and Legal Services, we have adapted a set of interprofessional competencies from the health professions and have begun assessing student and supervisor performance. Our social work and psychology colleagues already have been required by accrediting bodies to measure competencies for some time now and will share the joys and pains of using rubrics. In addition, we will introduce other tools used by the health professions in the clinical context, including review of videotaped simulations, objective structured clinical examination, knowledge tests, multi-source assessment by team members, and implicit association tests.