우리나라 법교육의 현황과 당면과제에 관한 고찰

김종호 조선대학교 법학연구원 2017 法學論叢 Vol.24 No.3

In Korean universities, the faithful expectation of education and learning about law is not fully settled as legal education, and it is entering a new stage. It was the establishment of the Graduate School of Law and many studies have been conducted so far. The activities of many prior researchers suggesting the reform and implementation of legal education are advocating the dissemination of legal education centered on school education and the reform for legal education practice. On the other hand, in the reorganization of the curriculum of the Ministry of Education, it is clarified the enhancement of the learning about the law of the elementary and junior high schools and at the same time, many people participate in the legal education activities carried out by the Ministry of Justice. However, the effectiveness of the law education in the school field is low and it is not widely spread. In the background, there is a lack of awareness of the necessity of legal education at the school site, so there is a difficulty in legal education and a lack of teachers who can teach law education. Legal education in school education has been started in the 1990s as a classroom legal education for students and other general citizens by expert such as attorneys, solicitors. At the same time, the school has introduced the legal education system of the United States. Since the discussion of the judicial system reform, the legal education of Korea has been making an opportunity of education and learning about the new law in the kindergarten, elementary, middle and high school. It is emphasized that law education aims to acquire legal viewpoints, legal thinking ability, ability to solve legal problems, and fostering democratic citizens. However, it is necessary to understand the value of the Constitution and its principles, and there are various discussions on how to think about law and legal system and how to participate in law formation process. In the United States, in early stage, legal associations, including lawyers’ associations, have been interested in legal education, and the federal government has been promoting the development of textbooks through subsidies to nonprofit organizations working on legal education. The studying materials for legal educations are introduced in other countries. In particular, legal measures such as U.S. teen courts have been adopted, and legal education practices have been developed. Currently, there is not enough cooperation between lawyers and lawyers. In the school education, low priority of law education, problems related to upbringing are also pointed out as problems. For the development of future legal education in Korea, discussions should be made on the contents and methods of education, including the training of teachers responsible for law education and promotion of teacher training, effective partnership with teachers and legal experts, and development of legal education textbooks. In this paper, I tried to discuss not only the legal education of the kindergarten, elementary, middle, and high school but also the legal education of the undergraduate department of law and the legal education of the graduate school of law. 우리나라 대학에서는 법학에 관한 교육과 학습의 충실한 기대치가 법학교육으로서 충분히 자리 잡지 못하고 새로운 단계를 맞고 있다. 그 계기가 된 것이 법학전문대학원의 설치이며 법학교육의 기회를 둘러싼 많은 논란이 지금까지 진행되어 왔다. 법학교육의 개혁과 구체화 방안을 제시한 많은 선행연구자들의 활동은 학교교육을 중심으로 한 법학교육의 보급과 법학교육 실천을 위한 개혁을 주장하고 있다. 한편, 교육부의 교육과정 개편에서 초중고교의 법에 관한 충실한 학습을 명확히 하는 동시에 법무부가 실시하는 법교육 활동에 많은 사람들이 참여하고 있지만 현재는 학교현장에서의 법교육의 효과는 낮고 이마저도 널리 보급되지는 않았다. 그 배경에는 학교현장에서의 법교육의 필요성의 인식이 낮아 법교육의 어려움이 있고 또 법교육을 할 수 있는 교원의 부족 등이 있다고 한다. 학교 교육에서 이루어지는 법교육은 1990년대부터 변호사, 법무사 등 법률전문가가 일반시민과 학생을 대상으로 한 법률교실이라는 형태로 산발적으로 전개되어 온 동시에 교과과정에서도 사회과 교과목의 교육을 중심으로 미국의 법교육 제도의 소개를 통해서 이루어져 왔다. 사법제도 개혁논의 이후 오늘 우리나라의 법교육은 이들 활동과 제휴하면서도 초중고교 등에서의 새로운 법에 관한 교육과 학습의 기회를 만들고 있다. 법교육이 지향하는 것으로서 법적인 시각과 법적 사고의 습득, 법적 문제해결 능력의 함양, 민주시민의 육성 등이 강조되고 있지만 법교육의 목표, 내용, 방법 등을 둘러싸고 헌법의 가치와 그 원리의 이해, 법과 법 제도에 대한 생각, 법 형성과정의 참여방식 등 다양한 논의가 이루어지고 있다. 미국에서는 일찍부터 법조협회를 비롯한 법률관계 단체 등이 법교육에 관심을 기울였으며, 연방차원에서도 법교육에 임하는 비영리단체에 보조금 지급을 통해서 교재개발 등을 추진하여 왔다. 이러한 법교육 교재는 다른 나라에도 소개되어 있다. 특히 미국의 틴코트(teen court)를 비롯한 법교육 관련 정책도 채택되어 법교육 실천이 전개되어 왔지만 현재는 변호사 등 법률전문가의 협력이 충분하지 않으며, 학교교육에서 법교육의 낮은 우선순위, 교원의 육성 등에 관련된 과제도 문제점으로 지적되고 있다. 우리나라의 향후 법교육의 전개를 위한 과제로서는 법교육 실천을 담당하는 교원양성 및 교원연수의 촉진, 교원과 법률전문가와 효과적인 제휴 그리고 법교육 교재개발을 비롯한 교육의 내용과 방법에 관한 논의가 이루어져야 한다. 본고에서는 초중고교의 법교육뿐만 아니라 대학학부(과)의 법학교육 및 법학전문대학원의 법학교육에 이르기까지 법교육 및 법학교육 문제점까지 포괄적인 논의를 시도하였다.

로스쿨시대의 법학교육과 법조시장

손종학(Sohn, Jong Hak) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2017 法學硏究 Vol.28 No.1

다양성과 전문성 그리고 국제화를 특징으로 하는 21세기에는 사법시험을 통한 법조인 선발 제도로는 우리 사회가 요구하는 전문 법조인을 양성하기가 어렵다는 사회적 공감대 속에 ‘시험을 통한 법조인 선발’에서 ‘교육을 통한 전문 법조인 양성’으로 패러다임을 바꾸겠다는 정책적 결단 끝에 로스쿨이 출범하였다. 로스쿨 제도는 다양한 학부 전공자들이 로스쿨에 와서 법학교육을 받고 다시 송무영역을 포함한 다양한 전공영역으로 돌아가 법률 전문가로 활동하는 것을 바람직한 모습으로 상정하고 있는 제도이다. 그러나 로스쿨이 도입된 지 8년째, 변호사시험을 통한 법조인 배출이 5회째를 넘긴 시점에서 과연 로스쿨 제도가 ‘교육을 통한 전문 법조인 양성’이라는 본래의 목적에 부합되게 기능하고 있는지는 의문이며, 그 의문점으로 기성 법조인들이 가장 많이 지적하는 것은 로스쿨 출신 법조인의 ‘실력 부족’과 로스쿨 출신 법조인들로 인한 ‘법조시장의 포화’이다. 이러한 지적은 그 주장의 당부를 떠나 매우 심각한 문제로, 사실 이 두 가지 비판은 별개의 것이 아니라 상호 밀접한 연관성을 갖고 있다. 즉 위 둘은 동전의 양면과 같은 것이다. 그러므로 로스쿨이 새롭게 출범함에 있어 당연히 법학교육의 내용과 방법을 법조시장의 규모와 유사법조지역 정비 문제 등과 함께 연계시켜 논의하였어야 하는데 아쉽게도 우리는 이에 대한 깊은 논의와 준비 없이 정치권의 이해관계에 따라 로스쿨제도가 급작스럽게 도입되었음을 부인할 수 없다. 이제라도 그동안의 법학교육과 로스쿨 출신 법조인에 대한 사회의 평가를 되돌아보면서 우리가 나아갈 새로운 법학교육의 방향과 내용이 무엇인지를 로스쿨 법조인의 진출영역인 법조직역의 확충, 정비와 연계하여 논의할 필요가 있는바, 그 논의의 하나가 로스쿨시대에 걸 맞는 법학교육의 방향성과 내용을 정하는 것이고, 다른 하나는 로스쿨에서 교육을 받은 법조인들이 진출한 법조직역의 확충과 유사법조직역에 대한 정비 필요성으로 모아진다. 이를 구체적으로 살펴보면 우선 로스쿨시대에서의 법학교육의 방향을 문제해결능력을 갖춘 법조전문가를 양성하는 것으로 정할 필요가 있으며, 이 목표를 실현하기 위해서는 실체법과 절차법이 하나로 어우러지고, 이론과 실무가 동시에 이루어지는 소위 통합형 교육을 실시하여야 할 것이다. 다음으로 법과대학 시절과는 달리 실무법조인의 양성을 존재 목적으로 하는 로스쿨시대에서의 법학교육은 당연히 이들이 진출할 법조시장과 연계지어 교육 내용과 방법이 결정되어야 마땅하기에 로스쿨시대에걸 맞는 법조시장 환경의 조성과 정비가 당연히 전제되어야 할 것이다. 그런 점에서 변호사대리원칙의 강화와 변호사강제주의 도입, 국선변호인제 확대 실시 등을 통한 기존 법조시장의 확충과 함께 유사법조직역이라는 이름으로 법률전문가인 변호사가 수행할 업무를 대신 수행하고 있는 법무사, 세무사, 변리사 등의 직역에 대한 정비를 통하여 법률전문가인 변호사들만으로는 업무를 처리할 수 있도록 할 필요가 있다. 이처럼 법조직역의 확충과 정비를 통하여 로스쿨 출신 법조인들이 안정적으로 진출할 법조직역이 구축되고, 그 기반 위에서 법학교육의 방향을 문제해결능력의 제고에 두고 통합형 교육을 실시한다면 우리 로스쿨제도는 실력부족과 법조시장포화라는 어려움에서 벗어나 법학교육과 법조시장이 상호 유기적으로 연계되면서 성공적으로 우리나라에 정착될 수 있을 것이다. In the 21st century, characterized by diversity, professionalism and internationalization, the selection of lawyers through the judicial examination is not suitable for the training of professional lawyers required in our society. In this social consensus, the ‘law school’ was established after the policy decision to change the paradigm from the selection of the lawyer through the examination to the training of the professional lawyer through the education. ‘Law School’ is a system in which students majoring in various undergraduates are allowed to return to various major fields including law enforcement and act as legal experts after completing prescribed legal education courses. However, it is doubtful whether the law school system has functioned in conformity with the original purpose of ‘training of the professional lawyer through education’ in this day, since 8 years have passed after the introducing the law school and 5 times after first producing lawyers through the present bar examination. And in relation to such doubts, existing lawyers point out the lack of skills of lawyers from the law school and the saturation of the legal market due to them. This is a very serious issue, apart from the right and wrong of the claim. In fact, these two criticisms are not separate, but they are both sides of the coin, which are closely related. As we all know, when the law school was launched at the first time, we had to discuss the contents and method of legal education with regard to the scale of the legal market and the problem of the reorganization of similar legal profession. Unfortunately, we can not deny that the law school system was introduced suddenly according to the interests of political parties without deep discussion and preparation. Now, looking back on the general evaluation of our legal education and the lawyers from the law school, we have to discuss the direction and content of the new legal education that we will go through in connection with the expansion and restructure of the legal professions. Specially: Expanding the legal market such as strengthening the principle of acting as a lawyer, introducing the principle of mandatory representation by attorney, and expanding the public defender system. Reorganization of the legal services such as judicial scrivener, tax accountant, patent attorney, etc. And conducting the integrated education for cultivating problem solving ability. If these above are implemented, the law school system can be successfully settled in Korea in a mutual relationship between the legal education and the legal services market.

U.S. LEGAL EDUCATION METHODS AND IDEALS: APPLICATION TO THE JAPANESE AND KOREAN SYSTEMS

Matthew J. Wilson 경희대학교 법학연구소 2009 경희법학 Vol.44 No.3

Over the past decade, Japan and Korea have remodeled their legal education systems. As both countries struggled to counteract the economic malaise encountered in the mid-1990s, policy makers turned to the law for solutions. Japan and Korea devised and implemented substantial legal reforms. To further these reforms, both countries decided to increase their lawyer populations and implement “American-style” professional law schools designed to enhance lawyer competency and quality. The new professional law schools also constituted a response to criticism and dissatisfaction with the abstract nature of traditional legal education in both countries. In Japan and Korea, legal education at the university level has traditionally been an academic affair. Although many Japanese and Korean college students have engaged in legal studies at the undergraduate and graduate levels, university studies have not directly related to bar examination preparations or practical legal skills training. Rather, undergraduate law departments have taught general theory and legal principles. The graduate study of law has generally focused on raising academicians, instead of legal professionals. Most law graduates never become licensed attorneys. In fact, in the past, a law degree has not been required to sit for the Japanese or Korean national bar examinations. Japan and Korea have traditionally maintained very small and elite lawyer populations, and bar examination passage rates have typically averaged around three percent. * International Conference on Current Issues and Future Tasks for Educating Lawyers in the Age of Globalization, October 29-30, 2009. Kyung Hee Law Journal, Vol. 44 (No. 3), original publication Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, republication forthcoming. ** Associate Professor, University of Wyoming - College of Law. With the adoption of “American-style” professional law schools and reconfigured educational missions, Japan and Korea face the challenge of implementing new methodologies and ideals, some of which have been successfully used by U.S. law schools for over a century. Having rolled out professional law schools in April 2004, Japan is already five years into its experiment. It is struggling. Korea just recently implemented its new system in March 2009, and its challenges lie ahead. This Article explores the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of American legal education and training, provides an overview of the Japanese and Korean legal systems, and examines how Japan and Korea might maximize success and overcome challenges now that each country has decided to sculpt their legal education systems on the American model. If done correctly, Japan and Korea stand to benefit from the adoption of many of the ideals, methodologies, programs, and extra-curricular activities associated with an “American-style” legal education. At the same time, however, U.S. law schools are imperfect and require improvement. As such, Japan and Korea need to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the American legal education system and adapt their professional law schools accordingly. Over the past decade, Japan and Korea have remodeled their legal education systems. As both countries struggled to counteract the economic malaise encountered in the mid-1990s, policy makers turned to the law for solutions. Japan and Korea devised and implemented substantial legal reforms. To further these reforms, both countries decided to increase their lawyer populations and implement “American-style” professional law schools designed to enhance lawyer competency and quality. The new professional law schools also constituted a response to criticism and dissatisfaction with the abstract nature of traditional legal education in both countries. In Japan and Korea, legal education at the university level has traditionally been an academic affair. Although many Japanese and Korean college students have engaged in legal studies at the undergraduate and graduate levels, university studies have not directly related to bar examination preparations or practical legal skills training. Rather, undergraduate law departments have taught general theory and legal principles. The graduate study of law has generally focused on raising academicians, instead of legal professionals. Most law graduates never become licensed attorneys. In fact, in the past, a law degree has not been required to sit for the Japanese or Korean national bar examinations. Japan and Korea have traditionally maintained very small and elite lawyer populations, and bar examination passage rates have typically averaged around three percent. * International Conference on Current Issues and Future Tasks for Educating Lawyers in the Age of Globalization, October 29-30, 2009. Kyung Hee Law Journal, Vol. 44 (No. 3), original publication Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, republication forthcoming. ** Associate Professor, University of Wyoming - College of Law. With the adoption of “American-style” professional law schools and reconfigured educational missions, Japan and Korea face the challenge of implementing new methodologies and ideals, some of which have been successfully used by U.S. law schools for over a century. Having rolled out professional law schools in April 2004, Japan is already five years into its experiment. It is struggling. Korea just recently implemented its new system in March 2009, and its challenges lie ahead. This Article explores the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of American legal education and training, provides an overview of the Japanese and Korean legal systems, and examines how Japan and Korea might maximize success and overcome challenges now that each country has decided to sculpt their legal education systems on the American model. If done correctly, Japan and Korea stand to benefit from the adoption of many of the ideals, methodologies, programs, and extra-curricular activities associated with an “American-style” legal education. At the same time, however, U.S. law schools are imperfect and require improvement. As such, Japan and Korea need to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the American legal education system and adapt their professional law schools accordingly.

The Nature of Korean Legal Culture and Challenges of Law Related Education in Civic Education

박성혁 서울대학교 교육종합연구원 2009 The SNU Journal of Education Research Vol.18 No.-

Generally speaking, the legal culture influences validity and appropriateness of learning contents in law-related education. The purpose of this study is to comprehend marked characteristics of Korean legal culture and to seek implication for developing appropriate learning contents of law-related education in civic education. Because of the impact of Confucian ideas on Korean legal culture after Choson Dynasty, there is a little tendency to perceive that law is not a facilitative tool for protecting individual rights but simply a punitive tool for compelling ritual norms. Also Confucian ideas have an impact on Korean legal culture which regards private connection as important since private ritual norms are considered much more important than law. These characteristics of Korean legal culture remained up to now, because of unhappy historical experiences, for example, The Japanese colonial days, ideological conflict and social disorder after Liberation and Korean War. But these days, much changes are occurring in the cultural context of Korean society such as improvement of social structure, facing a multicultural society, emphasis on trust, emphasis on citizenship internalization, preparation the unification and globalization, and many others. According to these changes in the cultural context, for developing Korean civil society, law-related education in civic education should focus on reinforcement of learning legal cultural in formal curriculum, cultivation of positive legal consciousness, strengthening a participatory attitude, training a legal consideration, institutionalization of conflict resolve, and development of a legal consciousness in everyday life. Generally speaking, the legal culture influences validity and appropriateness of learning contents in law-related education. The purpose of this study is to comprehend marked characteristics of Korean legal culture and to seek implication for developing appropriate learning contents of law-related education in civic education. Because of the impact of Confucian ideas on Korean legal culture after Choson Dynasty, there is a little tendency to perceive that law is not a facilitative tool for protecting individual rights but simply a punitive tool for compelling ritual norms. Also Confucian ideas have an impact on Korean legal culture which regards private connection as important since private ritual norms are considered much more important than law. These characteristics of Korean legal culture remained up to now, because of unhappy historical experiences, for example, The Japanese colonial days, ideological conflict and social disorder after Liberation and Korean War. But these days, much changes are occurring in the cultural context of Korean society such as improvement of social structure, facing a multicultural society, emphasis on trust, emphasis on citizenship internalization, preparation the unification and globalization, and many others. According to these changes in the cultural context, for developing Korean civil society, law-related education in civic education should focus on reinforcement of learning legal cultural in formal curriculum, cultivation of positive legal consciousness, strengthening a participatory attitude, training a legal consideration, institutionalization of conflict resolve, and development of a legal consciousness in everyday life.

법치행정과 지방공무원의 공법교육

문상덕 한국공법학회 2011 공법연구 Vol.39 No.3

The Republic of Korea is a country governed by law. Therefore, the public adminstration in our country should be performed under the legal principles and limits. Public servants of central government and local governments who would like to accomplish the administrative purposes should have basic legal education and abundant knowledges of law such as the brief summaries of current(existing) laws, legal interpretation, legislation skill, etc. Nevertheless, we don't have the effective legal-education system for public servants yet. Legal education is being fulfilled just partially and non-systematically. Especially, local officials still don't have good and many opportunities of the education of public law such as constitutional law, administrative law, local government law etc. In the era of local government, the level of legal education and knowledge of local officials is very important for the reliability, fairness, accountability of the administration and the (local) resident's rights and interests. In this research, I made a thorough investigation into the real(actual) condition of legal education for local government servants and brought up some problems. And I suggested some improvements as follows. (1) We need to change the recognition of the public law education for legal officials from now. (2) We have to make the more systematic and synthetic plan of public law education. (3) The central and local government must provide more opportunities of legal education to public servants. (4) Most local governments form(set up) an exclusive organization for legal problems and services. 행정의 기본토대는 법이며, 행정작용은 원칙적으로 법의 원리와 한계 내에서 법의 이념과 목적을 실현하도록 수행되어야 한다. 따라서 행정 운영과 정책 입안에 참여하는 공무원들은, 공무 담당자로서의 기본적인 법적 소양은 물론이고 자신이 담당하는 직무관련 법규에 대한 이해와 함께 그에 대한 치밀한 해석능력, 정책입법능력, 법률분쟁에의 대응능력 등을 갖출 것이 요구된다. 하지만 그동안 공무원들이 이러한 법무능력 내지 법지식을 갖출 수 있도록 하는 법교육은 별로 이루어지지 못하였다. 특히 지방자치의 복원과 지방분권의 확대 등을 통하여 자치권이 확대되고 있는 지방자치단체의 공무원, 즉 지방공무원에 대한 법교육의 필요성 역시 점차 커지고 있음에도, 지방공무원에 대하여 행정조직․작용․행정구제 등과 불가분의 관계를 갖고 있는 헌법, 행정법, 지방자치법 등과 같은 공법에 관한 교육은 체계적이고 실효적으로 이루어지지 못하고 있다는 것이다. 지방행정의 주체인 지방자치단체의 공무원의 법치행정에 대한 소양과 법지식의 수준은, 지방행정의 신뢰성과 형평성, 책임성 등을 담보하고 주민의 권리의 보장과 복리의 증진에 있어 매우 중요한 의미를 갖는 것이기에, 지방공무원에 대한 공법교육의 미흡과 그로 인한 법지식의 부족은 민주법치국가의 구현을 이념으로 하는 헌법적 차원에서 적지 않은 문제가 아닐 수 없다. 본 논문은 이와 같은 문제의식을 바탕으로, 우리나라에 있어서 국가 내지 지방자치단체 차원에서 이루어지고 있는 지방공무원에 대한 공법교육의 현황과 실태를 파악하고 거기에서 확인되는 일정한 문제점들을 제기하였으며, 마지막으로 지방공무원에 대한 공법교육의 대책으로서 실효적인 공법교육의 개선방향을 제시하고자 하였다. 즉 지방공무원의 법교육에 대한 근본적 인식 전환의 필요성을 기초로, 법교육에 대한 종합적․체계적인 접근․설계가 요청된다는 점을 주장하였고, 국가나 지방자치단체 등의 각 교육주체별 공법교육의 양적·질적 개선이 폭넓고 심도 있게 이루어져야 하며, 지방자치단체의 법무전담조직의 신설 또는 강화를 통하여 평상적인 업무과정에서도 지속적으로 공법교육이 이루어져야 함을 강조하였다.

다원주의 시대의 시민교육과 법교육

노찬옥 ( Chan Ok Noh ) 한국사회과교육학회 2007 시민교육연구 Vol.39 No.4

The world society and national society today is pluralistic in character. In pluralistic society, increasing diversity challenges social Integrity. Therefore, citizenship education as main goal of social studies must explore the integrity of society in approval of social diversity. My thesis is to argue that citizenship education should pay attention to minimum universality in pluralistic society and this is the principle of justice that is agreed by everybody and legal education must focus on this principle. In chapter 2, I first trace two perspectives on pluralistic society. About pluralistic society, there are two contrasting perspectives : liberal pluralism and radical pluralism. But because liberal pluralism recognizes diverse cultural identities and explores minimum universality, it has more aptitude in world today. Because world today needs cooperation in confronting problems(environment, human right etc.), we must explore common interest. Citizenship education must center on minimum universality such as the principle of justice which is agreed by everybody or negative liberty. In such a situation, we can respect maximum diversity. When citizenship education selects social studies taught as reflective inquiry, it can reflect social change and respect social diversity. In chapter 3-4, I explore suggestions and teaching method of legal education in pluralistic society. Because legal education emphasizes observance of rule, it becomes core part of citizenship education in pluralistic age. Legal education in pluralistic society must focus on minimum universality such as the principle of justice, citizenship rights etc. Meanwhile, in teaching method, legal education must adopt discussion about legal system and legal concept. In open classroom climate, students can learn positive and active legal attitude and thinking skills.. In conclusion, citizenship education and legal education in pluralistic society must focus on minimum universality and the contents of that must be restricted to level of school grade. In this, reflective inquiry model has aptitude in both education. Of course, in legal education, legal key concepts is important, too. But reflective thinking skill is more important and for that we must focus on the principle of justice and citizenship right and controversial issues etc.

우리나라의 법학실무교육 개선방안

길준규(Kil, Joon-Kyu) 한국토지공법학회 2010 土地公法硏究 Vol.51 No.-

우리나라는 전통적으로 대학이 법학교육을 담당하고, 실무수습은 법원이 담당하는 이원화된 체제를 유지하여 발전하여 왔다. 그러나 변호사선발인원의 확대와 법학교육의 개선을 위하여 진지한 논의없이 갑자기 미국로스쿨을 받아 들여 법학교육을 개편한 결과 교육기관인 법학전문대학원이 미국식으로 법학교육과 실무수습을 동시에 진행하는 방식으로 전환되었다. 따라서 이러한 일원화된 새로운 체제하에서 어떻게 법학교육을 할 것인지, 특히 실무수습은 어떻게 하여야 하는지, 어떠한 범위까지 하여야 하는지가 문제될 수 밖에 없다. 이를 검토하기 위하여 우선 이론과 실무가 일원화되어 모범이 되는 미국의 법학교육과 실무수습 제도에 단순한 소개가 아닌 보다 정확한 이해가 선행되어야 한다. 물론 미국도 식민지 당시 도제에 의한 변호사양성으로 실무수습이 중심이 되었으나, 이후에 로스쿨 설립에 따라 로스쿨졸업이 변호사 자격요건이 되면서 특히 랭델의 사례학습법을 통하여 법학이론교육이 강화되었다. 이후 이론교육에 대하여 이의를 가진 실무가의 요구에 의하여 다시 실무수습이 법학교육내에 편입되는 역사적 과정을 겪었고, 여전히 미국에서도 실무가는 불만이다. 현재 미국에서 시행되는 실무교육제도(Clinical Legal Education)인 모의재판(Simulation), 협의의 Legal Clinic인 내부수습(Internship)과 외부수습제도(Extenship)의 의미와 수습방법, 교육방법과 평가 등에 대하여 상세하게 검토하였다. 그리고 우리나라처럼 여전히 존재하는 미국의 실무교육과 법학교육간의 괴리와 갈등관계에 대하여서도 설명하였다. 이에 따라서 현재 우리나라 법학전문대학원 내의 실무과목의 현황과 실무교육의 범위가 어디까지 해야 할 지를 검토하였다. 특히 미국에서 시행되었던 실무교육이 대륙법계인 우리나라에서 가지는 함의에 대하여서도 평가하였고, 실무교육의 주체인 실무교수는 미국처럼 실무과목에 한정하여 강의하여야 함을 강조하였다. 그리고 현재 시행되는 법조윤 리, 법률정보의 조사, 법문서의 작성, 실무과정에 대한 개선방안을 검토하였다. 이로써 법학전문대학원 법학교육에서 실무수습이 가지는 의미를 다시 한 번 자리매김할 수 있었다. In the Republic of Korea universities have traditionally been responsible for legal education and court for legal practice in lawyering. In order to expand the number of lawyers who passed the limited Bar-exam and to improve the Legal Education the legal education system has changed similarly with American Legal Education under the Law School. Therefore new Korean Law School must educate both legal education and legal practice. It are the problems in korean university how to teach the legal practice and what contents will be taught. To evaluate and criticise this problem american legal education and legal practice including skills for lawyering as a model should be researched and reviewed before introduction. It is origin that the lawyers practice in the United States had been trained in a private law office as clerkship, or had educated themselves by a course of reading. By 1900 it was quite clear that the law school would come to dominate legal education. American legal education was been enhanced by the Langdell' methode. In the 1960s the american law schools have introduced legal clinic program for professional skills. Most lawyering skills course often take form of “simulation”, “Internship” with live client, or Externship. ABA standard now require that law school offer courses providing live-client or other real-life practice experiences und supervision of law school faculty. After the description of clinical legal education in American law schools the problem of transferability of the concept to the Korean Legal Educations System is then analysed by insight of continental law. Finally improvement of legal practice education in Korea is presented.

Developments and Challenges ofClinical Legal Education in Japan

Shigeo Miyagawa 인하대학교 법학연구소 2012 法學硏究 Vol.15 No.1

Japan started the law school system in April 2004 with idealistic goals such as “bridging theory and practice” and transforming the legal education “from the point of testing knowledge at the bar examination to the process of developing lawyers,” and also started clinical legal education in the same year. However, the law school system has stagnated and not functioning as originally planned as the core institution for developing lawyers. Difficulties involved in law school education can be seen in the symbolic figures of the bar examination passage rate. It also is troubled with the lack of coordination between law school education and the judicial apprenticeship. Despite the difficult situation that Japanese law schools face today, the idea and the system of clinical legal education can be said to root in Japan. That is, there are several reasons for seeing a positive prospect such as (1) secure growth of clinical courses in Japan, (2) gradual increase of law-school-affiliated law office, (3) establishment of the Japan Clinical Legal Education Association. As for improving the law school system and clinical education in Japan, there should be a re-examination of law school curricula. Since Japanese law schools are currently under severe criticism from a variety of social sectors, those who are involved in clinical legal education must re-evaluate law school curricula, meet those challenges and improve law school education. In relation to this, the JCLEA (Japan Clinical Legal Education Association) proposed to make clinical courses required electives in the model curricula of law schools. A recent report by the Carnegie Endowment for the Advancement of Higher Education also points out the necessity of integrated pedagogy for legal education. “Immigration and Refugee Law Clinic” of Waseda Law School could be a good example. In this clinic, students can learn theories of constitutional law, administrative law, civil procedural law, and international law. They can also be trained in lawyer-client communication skills with the assistance of language interpreters. They can also learn the multi-dimensional nature of the legal system. They can develop a deeper understanding of the situation of foreigners and refugees. There is another kind of problem in Japan. Because there is no student practice rule, law students cannot directly provide legal services for real clients. For solving this matter, there have been some preliminary discussions between the Japan Federation of Bar Associations and the Ministry of Justice, and they continue their work to prepare for the adoption of a Japanese version of student practice rules. As another matter, law schools in Japan need the quality control of externship education. Externship training is the most prevalent clinical method that is being used at Japanese law schools. But many law schools just send students to law offices to have them experience legal practice on the job. They also need to develop a younger generation clinical teachers. Some law-school-affiliated law offices, such as Waseda University Legal Clinic Law Office, have begun to hire novice attorneys as clinical teaching assistants. It means there is a new entry of clinical teachers. So, senior clinical teachers are very much looking forward to seeing the new generation of clinical teachers contributes to the enhancement of legal education. Lastly, it is very important to use clinical pedagogy in the total process of developing lawyers. The involvement of law schools or university based institutes in judicial apprenticeship training and continuing legal education would make legal education a genuine “process of developing lawyers” from the outset to completion.

리걸 클리닉 교육의 활성화 방안 - 로스쿨 학생의 소송대리를 중심으로 -

이정원 법조협회 2020 法曹 Vol.69 No.1

In October 2019, the Korean Legal Clinic Council was formed to promote the realization and vitalization of the clinical legal education for all national law schools. This fact implies that there is a voluntary move within the law school to improve the student's education methodology as well as to improve it. As a way to revitalize the clinical legal education in Korean law schools, I would like to emphasize these proposals; ① the establishment of law offices in the school, ② the acceptance of lawyers as law school lecturers, ③ the increase in the number of faculties qualified as a lawyer, ④ securing financial support, ⑤ recommend a sufficient number of incidents necessary for the legal clinical educational needs, ⑥ dispersal of risks by way of the liability insurance for the students' legal liability, and ⑦ allow law school students to make legal arguments in the court. In fact, some of the above proposals need to be preceded by institutional improvements such as amendments to the legislation and agreement of the parties concerned for introduction at this point. However, in the long term, these are issues that need to be discussed to improve the quality of Korean law school practical education. In particular, the acceptance of legal arguments by law school students is considered to be at the peak of the clinical legal education. Therefore, The revitalization of the clinical legal education is possible only when various methods for revitalizing the clinical legal education are established, but on the contrary, the clinical legal education allows for the activation of the clinical legal education to some extent. However, it is still questionable as to whether the law school's practical education can be operated reliably if the above prerequisites for vitalizing the clinical legal education in the law school are met. At present, all matters concerning law school education in Korea cannot be discussed separately from the bar examination. Due to the falling rate of bar exams, law school students are devoted themselves to passing the bar exams and managing school grades only from the time of enrollment. This is not limited to non-bar exam subjects or specialized subjects within the law school, but also to the clinical legal education. There can be no question that our law school system is a copycat of the U.S. law school system. In introducing the US law school system in Korea, it is necessary to design and introduce a system as close to the original as possible in order to closely analyze the system and to suppress the adverse effects that may arise when introduced. If so, all parties involved should cooperate to ensure that the clinical legal education can be conducted in accordance with its original purpose and manner as far as possible. 2019년 10월경 전국 법전원의 리걸 클리닉 교육의 실질화와 활성화를 도모하기 위해 한국리걸클리닉협의회가 결성되었다는 사실은, 법학전문대학원(이하, ‘법전원’이라고 함) 내에서도 학생의 교육방법론에 대한 자성과 함께 개선을 도모하려는 자발적 움직임이 있다는 점에서 고무적이다. 우리 법전원의 리걸 클리닉 교육의 활성화를 위한 방안으로서 필자는 ① 교내 법률사무소의 설치, ② 법전원 실무경력교원의 변호사겸직의 허용, ③ 법전원 내 실무경력교원의 증원, ④ 재정적 지원의 확보, ⑤ 리걸 클리닉 교육수요에 충분한 수의 사건 확보, ⑥ 법적 책임의 보험에 의한 위험의 분산, ⑦ 법전원 학생 등의 법정변론 등 허용을 제안하고자 한다. 이러한 제안들 중 일부는 현 시점에서 도입을 위해 관련 당사자들의 합의와 함께 법령의 개정 등 제도개선이 선행될 필요가 있는 것이 다수이지만, 장기적으로는 우리 법전원 실무교육의 질적 향상을 위해 논의를 해 나가야 할 과제들이다. 특히 법전원 학생 등의 법정변론의 허용은 리걸 클리닉 교육의 정점에 위치한다고 생각되므로, 앞서 설명한 리걸 클리닉 교육 활성화를 위한 여러 가지 방안이 구축되어야만 가능하고, 반대로 법정변론의 허용을 통해 리걸 클리닉 교육의 활성화를 어느 정도 도모할 수도 있다고 본다. 그런데 과연 법전원 내 리걸 클리닉 교육 활성화를 위한 전술한 전제요건들이 충족된다면 법전원의 실무교육이 내실 있게 운영될 수 있을 것인가 하는 문제에 관해서는 여전히 의문이다. 현재 우리 법전원 교육에 관한 제반 문제는 변호사시험과 별도로 논의할 수 없다. 갈수록 떨어지는 변호사시험 합격률로 인해 법전원생들은 입학 때부터 오로지 변호사시험 합격과 학교성적 관리에 매진할 뿐, 나머지 다른 사항은 불필요하거나 오히려 해서는 안 될 금기사항으로 전락하고 있다. 이는 법전원 내 비변호사시험교과목 내지 특성화교과목에 한정되는 얘기가 아니라, 리걸 클리닉 교육에도 동일하게 해당된다. 우리 법전원 제도는 미국 로스쿨 제도를 모방하여 도입한 것이라는 사실은 의문의 여지가 없다. 미국 로스쿨 제도를 국내 도입함에 있어서도 해당 제도의 면밀한 분석과 함께 국내 도입 시 발생할 수 있는 역기능을 최대한 억제할 수 있는 한도 내에서는 원래의 제도의 취지에 부합하도록 최대한 원형에 가까운 제도를 설계 · 도입할 필요가 있다. 그렇다면 법전원의 리걸 클리닉 교육도 최대한 원대한 원래의 취지와 방식에 맞게 실시될 수 있도록 관련 주체 모두가 협력하여야 한다.

미국 로스쿨의 임상법학교육이론과 방법론 -우리나라 임상법학교육의 전망과 과제-

전해정 ( Hae Jeong Jun ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2008 서울대학교 法學 Vol.49 No.3

로여링(lawyering) 경험을 토대로 독자적인 학문영역을 구축하여 온 임상법학교육은 기존의 사례연습방법을 비판하면서 1890년대에 태동하여 1960년대와 1970년대 진보적인 개혁운동으로 확장되었다. 당시 학생들은 법을 사회변혁의 수단으로 보고 가난한 사람들을 돕고자 하였으며 각 로스쿨마다 이러한 학생들의 요구를 반영하여 인-하우스(in-house) 클리닉을 확산시켰다. 1990년대 이후 기술이 진보함에 따라 임상법학교육도 국제화되고 있으며 여러 전문분야와 연계하여 운영되고 있다. 임상법학교육의 종류에는 임상법학교육의 기준이 되며 클리닉의 교육적 효과를 강조하는 인-하우스 클리닉 이외에도 외부연수(externship)와 모의훈련(simulation)이 있다. 미국 임상법학교육 이론은 변호사 개인의 역할과 기능을 중시하는 미시이론과, 법제도의 역할이라는 관점에서 로여링을 이론화한 거시이론으로 구별된다. 특히, 개리 벨로우(Gary Bellow)는 1978년에 The Lawyering Process에서, 훌륭한 변호사(good lawyer)라는 이론을 개발하였고 로여링 방법론을 실체법과 통합시킴으로써 이론과 실천이 어떻게 결합될 수 있는지를 보여주었다. 경험, 비판적 성찰, 책임 윤리, 간학문적 학습이라는 임상법학교육방법론에 따라 학생들은 소외된 사람을 돕는 로여링 경험을 토대로 이를 비판적으로 성찰하면서 변호사로서 법제도속에서 어떠한 역할을 담당해야 하는지를 배운다. 학생들은 다른 학문 분야의 연구 및 협력을 통해 법과 정책에 대한 통찰력을 키우고 로여링에서 발생하는 윤리문제들을 성찰하면서 사회정의에 공헌하는 책임 있는 변호사로서 성장한다. 학생실습규칙(student practice rule)이 없는 한국의 현실을 고려할 때, 차선으로 바람직한 임상모델은 외부연수이다. 그러나 법학전문대학원에서 참여 학생들의 `교육`을 담당·강화함으로써 외부연수의 단점을 보완할 필요가 있다. The clinical legal education based on lawyering experience began in 1890s criticizing case methods and grew out of the progressive reform movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Law schools expanded their in-house clinic, which responded to students` desire to learn how to use law as an instrument of social change and serve the poor. Since 1990s the clinical legal education has adapted to the digital age or global era as collaborating other professions and cooperating local communities. Besides in-house clinics, there are externship programs and simulation courses. Among three different branches of clinical legal education in the United States, the standard clinical model is in-house clinic which focuses on legal education. The clinical legal education movement concerned with the question What is it that lawyers do? has suggested some new theories about the role of the lawyer and the practice of law. Most theories of what lawyers do may be divided into two categories-micro theories, which focus on the role and behaviors of the individual lawyer, and macro theories, which focus on the lawyer`s interaction with the legal system, and the impact of lawyers on the larger world. Gary Below, the theoretical father of clinical education, made contributions to developing theories of the good lawyer. His work combined the methods of learning with the substance of what they were teaching and illustrated how theory and practice can be integrated. Clinical education offers law students methods learning from experience, inter-disciplinary learning, critical reflection and responsibility. Students learn their role as a lawyer in the legal system as helping the excluded with other experts such as social workers, and as critically reflecting the lawyering experience and ethical issues in their practices so that they become responsible lawyers with insights about law and policy, who devote themselves to social justice. Even though in-house program focuses on the education so that it is better for legal education than any other clinics, the applicable clinical program to the so-called Korean law schools is externship clinic because Korea has no student practice rule like America. In order to reinforce and enhance the externship, however, it needs to be supervised by the schools which plays a critical role in educating clinic students.