Conclusion, on the Value of Crossing These Parallel Tracks

they might better belong. To the extent that DIA is operated independently of the law school (other than at the administrative level) DIA runs the risk of losing core law school support.

In a sense then, the isolation that provides the key benefit to DIA, also poses its greatest sets of risk. At its most independent, DIA can easily become unmoored from the American law school. It becomes something else—perhaps an institution with greater affinity to its European counter-parts than to its American roots. Isolating international, comparative and foreign law faculty, separating and isolating international, foreign and com-parative law programs tends to reduce rather than to increase the visibility and availability of these aspects of legal training to the average student.

It also draws faculty into ever tighter field-bound groups, reducing inter-field communication among law faculty. The inter-field becomes independent of the law school experience—something as different as the business school.

Lastly, DIA could lose touch with the essential teaching mission of the law school—the training of lawyers. The more closely that DIA comes to re-semble traditional graduate programs, the less useful it might appear to a professional school. In addition, there are fine graduate programs in the fields of international affairs that do much of what DIA attempts, perhaps more successfully so.

It should be remembered that a DIA model is expensive. It draws a tremendous amount of resources. It may be beyond the capacity of all but the largest institutions. The institutional resources necessary to ensure that a DIA remains tethered to the law school are probably large—in terms of labor resources and attention to changes in their respective evolution. To that extent, at least, the DIA model can serve only a very limited role in the incorporation of transnational elements into legal education. A DIA should not be undertaken lightly, and might well have to be supervised heavily. At its core, DIA may be hopelessly incompatible with the form or substance, and certainly inimical to the insights, ofEducating Lawyers.

5.5 Conclusion, on the Value of Crossing

three part integrative approach ofEducating Lawyerswill serve as another status marker among law schools. The second is that costs encourage form over substance. Even with respect to incorporation of the ideals of Educat-ing Lawyers, this tendency is apparent.

Reading carefully through the heart of the Carnegie Report, it becomes clear that the integrative approach encourages the development of a larger and better-respected class of clinical and writing faculty,²²⁰ with greater emphasis on professional responsibility and legal ethics.²²¹ This might value form over the intention of the authors,²²² but it represents a path left open, if only for the short-term.²²³ In either case, it appears that not every method of internationalization will prove useful in incorporating the integrative model advanced inEducating Lawyers. The integration model, may in fact be the least promising vehicle for incorporating the pedagogical framework ofEducating Lawyers successfully. The aggregation model of-fers a compromise, but might lack enough resources to bring in ethics and practice elements. Although both approaches would be likely to require substantially more resources, the segregation and immersion models may be better alternatives. In this respect the difficulties of incorporation par-allel the problems of adopting the integrative model ofEducating Lawyers within the domestic law curriculum.²²⁴

Internationalization of the legal curriculum is inevitable. So is the con-nection between legal education and the needs of the bench and bar. As the Georgetown University Law Center web site notes:

Although much of international legal practice may involve corporate or transac-tional work, litigators, too, are finding that their practices are more and more

“transnational” in the sense that their cases involve events and evidence from, or the law of, another country. Litigation is also increasingly “international” in that cases may be tried before international tribunals or panels of arbitrators or may be decided under international law.²²⁵

220Educating Lawyers, supranote 14 at 104–111, 120–122.

221Id. at 132–138, 148–151.

222“The problem demands their careful rethinking of both the existing curriculum and the pedagogies that law schools amply to produce a more coherent and integrated initi-ation into the life of the law.” Id. at 147.

223“However, in all movements for innovation, champions and leaders are essential fac-tors in determining whether or not a possibility becomes realized. Here the developing network of faculty and deans concerned with improving legal education is a key resource waiting to be developed further and put to good use.” Id. at 202.

224“However, as we have seen, there are major obstacles such a development will have to overcome. A trade-off between higher costs and greater educational effectiveness is one. Resistance to change in a largely successful and comfortable academic enterprise is another.” Id.

225Georgetown University Law Center, Global Law Scholars, Our Raison d’ ˆEtre, avail-able at http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gls/ (last accessed Feb. 15, 2008).

Many law schools have already begun to respond to this change in the environment in which lawyers must be trained. On the academic side, research that remains tied to a particular locale will be marginalized as increasingly parochial in the coming decades. Likewise, law schools that ignore the needs of the practicing bar will find themselves cut off from the profession. There are several possible responses to the need to integrate legal internationalization and the interests of the practicing bar within law schools.

Whatever model is chosen, whatever choice is made, it is clear that at some level, the character of American legal education is changing. Jonathan Cahn, a partner at Coudert Brothers at the time he wrote this, got it right when he suggested to legal academics:

Your challenge, as educators, is to learn enough about the global legal organization and the cross border disciplines they rely upon, to design courses that are rele-vant, that give your students mobility within the culture of those organizations.

Obviously, this task places an emphasis on both transferable disciplines and a capacity with comparative law that enables the lawyer to transfer these competen-cies (and individual experiences) across national borders from one legal system to another.²²⁶

Cahn identifies the core of the transnational element in law that many law schools have attempted to capture. These efforts have developed several different models for preparing students to meet the challenges of legal prob-lems that cross borders and jurisdictions. Whatever model is preferred will be likely to face some resistance from those whose current practices will be upset by a more “globalized” curriculum. But change cannot be avoided.

The Carnegie Report on Educating Lawyers suggests a method for evaluat-ing different approaches to internationalizevaluat-ing the curriculum, in the light of the needs of the practicing bar. If law school is to be relevant to lawyers, it would be wise for law schools to be sensitive to the Carnegie framework in fashioning their approach to legal internationalization. Law schools should consider the application of the principles in Educating Lawyersbecause the Carnegie Report reflects the attitudes and desires of the bar, which law schools must respect, even as they seek to change and improve them.

226Jonathan D. Cahn,The Global Legal Professional and the Challenges to Legal Edu-cation, 20 Penn St. Intl. L. Rev. 55, 61 (2001) (emphasis in the original).