investing in legal education

This article was downloaded by: [Arizona State University]On: 27 October 2014, At: 11:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Law TeacherPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ralt20

Investing in legal educationSusan Bright a & Maurice Sunkin ba Fellow at St. Hilda's College , Oxfordb Lecturer, University of EssexPublished online: 09 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Susan Bright & Maurice Sunkin (1992) Investing in legal education, The Law Teacher, 26:2, 118-129, DOI:10.1080/03069400.1992.9992834

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069400.1992.9992834

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ralt20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03069400.1992.9992834

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069400.1992.9992834

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

INVESTING IN LEGAL EDUCATION

By SUSAN BRIGHT* and MAURICE SUNKIN**

"Charity is giving without thought of any reward. Patronage is supportingwithout any commercial incentive. Sponsorship is a commercial arrangementthat is beneficial to both parties".PAT BOWMAN, 1987 Guide issued by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts.

INTRODUCTION

MOST LAW schools now receive some form of commercial sponsorship.This is a remarkable change from the picture four or five years ago whenit was exceptional to receive any significant level of commercial support.Why this dramatic growth? The search for private funding was largely theproduct of government policies: cutbacks in state funding of highereducation; pressure to increase student numbers and the imposition of amarket place philosophy on teaching institutions. At the same time ashigher education was coming under increasing financial constraintgeneral economic conditions were healthy and there was a rapid growthin legal services. Some law firms, anxious to promote their name andspecialisms to potential trainees and to tap into the expertise of theacademic community, responded generously—by 1990/91 law schoolswere receiving about one and a half million pounds from commercialsources. The outlook is now somewhat different. The pressures imposedby higher education policy remain but with the country locked intorecession it is less clear that the opportunities for sponsorship willcontinue to grow as they have done in the past. We have arguedelsewhere that commercial sponsorship touches upon key areas of policywithin legal education, including the relationship between public andprivate funding, academic freedom and departmental autonomy, thecontent of courses, the emphasis and style of teaching, and the longerterm planning and stability of departments.1 We have also speculatedupon whether commercial sponsorship will widen the gap betweenthose departments that are relatively well-resourced and those thatare not.

In this article, however, we want to examine more closely the benefitsthat sponsorship can bring to donors and donees. Without seeking todismiss the dangers of commercial sponsorship, the working assumptionof this article is that sponsorship can provide benefits to both parties tothe arrangement. In order that these are fully exploited, however, lawdepartments need to have a clearer idea not only of what they want out ofthe arrangements but also of the expectations of potential donors. It isunusual (although not unprecedented) for firms to provide support forsolely philanthropic reasons. Instead, sponsorship is more akin to acommercial joint venture. As law schools we need to learn to better* Fellow at St. Hilda's College, Oxford.

** Lecturer, University of Essex.118

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

zona

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

06 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

INVESTING IN LEGAL EDUCATION 119

prioritise our commercial objectives to ensure that sponsorship fits intoour academic plans for development. But an equally important task is thatof convincing donors that sponsorship can be more than a short termmarketing ploy. In short, it should be seen as an investment in legaleducation.

We shall look first at the patterns of sponsorship. We will thenspeculate as to why these patterns have emerged and the lessons that canbe drawn.

EXISTING PATTERNS OF INDIVIDUALSPONSORSHIP ARRANGEMENTS

During the academic year 1990/91 we conducted a survey ofcommercial sponsorship of legal education.2 The main research tool wasa questionnaire sent to all law schools in the United Kingdom teachinglaw at degree level (the law school survey).3 The aim of the questionnairewas to obtain as full a picture as possible of sponsorship and of attitudesto it within law departments. The law school survey was followed by aquestionnaire to the top-hundred firms of solicitors designed to focus ondonor attitudes to sponsorship and in particular their motivations forsponsoring or not doing so (the donor survey).4

The law school survey showed that whilst there was a variety ofsponsorship arrangements, certain common patterns were becomingapparent. These principally related to the types of institution beingsponsored, and the subjects areas involved.

The nature of sponsorship

Whilst about one quarter of sponsorship money was received forresearch projects and miscellaneous items (including significant sums forlibrary expansion) most sponsorship money is used to support theappointment of academic staff for teaching and research. Almost half ofour respondents (43 per cent) had some sponsorship of staffing and weestimated that by mid 1991 there had been at least 81 sponsored posts atlaw schools in the United Kingdom.5

The uneven distribution of sponsorship

One of the most striking findings of our research was the variation insponsorship levels between institutions. Amongst the respondents therewas a marked variation in the extent of staff sponsorship between thePolytechnics and Universities. The University respondents beetweenthem had 38 sponsored posts whereas the 14 respondent Polytechnicsbetween them had six posts (an average of 1.5 posts per University and0.4 posts per Polytechnic). Whilst four Universities had more than threesponsored posts, none of the respondent Polytechnics had more thanthree sponsored posts.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

zona

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

06 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

120 SUSAN BRIGHT AND MAURICE SUNKIN

This variation was confirmed when we examined information frompress sources. When added to the questionnaire returns this showed thatthe University and Polytechnic sectors had 68 and 13 sponsored postsrespectively. This represents an average of 1.7 posts per University and0.5 posts per Polytechnic.

Age, however, appears to be an even more significant factor than thebinary divide. We divided institutions into three categories: olderUniversities (established 1960 or earlier); newer Universities(established after 1960) and Polytechnics/Higher Education Colleges.6

We then looked at the average value of sponsorship7 of staff posts perrespondent institution in each class. We found that older universitiesreceived on average ten times the level of sponsorship of newerinstitutions. This is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: The Value of Sponsorship of Staff Posts by Age/Sector of Institution

Older Universities £46,400

Newer Universities £4,200

Polytechnics/F.E. Colleges £4,900

(Rounding to the nearest £100)

It is significant that the variation related not only to the number ofposts but also to the level of post and the proportion of the post's coststhat were borne by the sponsor. Amongst the respondents, for example,there were nine professorial posts known to have been fully financed(rather than 'topped-upO by donors and all of these were at olderuniversities.

Local/non-local sponsorship

It emerged from our study that there was also a difference between localand non-local sponsorship. We found that with very few exceptionssponsorship by non-London firms of solicitors of staff posts or ofmiscellaneous items involving more than £1,000 was given to a localinstitution. When we looked at sponsorship by London firms there wasno apparent geographical link. Whilst there has been substantialsponsorship of some London institutions by City firms this has probablymore to do with the nature of the institutions and the focus of the workbeing done than location as such.

The commercial bias of sponsorship

One of the concerns expressed about sponsorship is that it may distortthe balance of teaching and research interests within law departments.For this reason we looked at whether sponsored posts are related tospecific subject areas and, if so, what those subject areas were. We asked

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

zona

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

06 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


repondents which subjects, if any, were referred to in the advertisementfor the post. Not all posts were advertised, nor did all refer to subjectareas. However, it can be seen from the Table 2 (which includes postssupported by non-commercial donors such as charities and researchbodies) that there was a heavy commercial flavour to most of theadvertisements.

Table 2: Subject Areas of Sponsored Posts (teaching and research)

Subject

Commercial

Intellectual property

Environmental

Company

European law

Banking

Corporate

Commercial Property

Comparative

Tax (inc. international tax)

International trade

Professional practice

Consumer Protection

Maritime

Evidence

Human rights

Land law

Iibrarianship

Computer science

Commercial crime

No. of adverts withlaw subject identified

6

4

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

34(33 adverts*)

Notes: this table includes commercial and non-commercial sources.* one advertisement referred to Iibrarianship and computing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

zona

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

06 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Furthermore, in every instance of sponsorship by a solicitor's firmwith a known subject area, that area was commercially relevant. The onlycore subject referred to (land law) was for a research post and wassponsored by a non-commercial donor.

The short term nature of staff sponsorship

Most staff sponsorship is for relatively short term periods. Only five ofthe 36 posts we obtained full information on were endowed posts. Of theremainder, only seven were for periods in excess of five years. Thismeans that two-thirds of sponsorship arrangements are for relativelyshort periods of time. It may be, of course, that some of these fundingarrangements will eventually be renewed, but there is no guarantee thatthe outside funding will continue to be available.

EXPLAINING THE CURRENT PATTERNS OF SPONSORSHIP

Law Schools Needs: Why do law schools seek sponsorship?

It may be assumed that the general reason for seeking sponsorship is toobtain additional resources; but do law departments turn to commercialsources to support particular projects? We explored this issue in the lawschool survey by asking respondents to state how important each ofseven factors was to them in seeking sponsorship.28 The results showedthe most important factor to be the desire to increase resources generallyand the desire to attract highly qualified new staff. Shortage of staff inexisting option areas and in commercially oriented subjects were given amuch lower priority.

This assessment of departmental priorities seems to be understood bydonors. In the donor survey we asked the law firms how important theythought the same seven factors9 were for recipient institutions whenentering into sponsorship arrangements. A similar pattern of responseswas given. Given the commonly held perception that it is the desire toincrease resources generally that is paramount, does the commercial biasof sponsorship suggest that law schools are not yet getting what they feelthey need out of sponsorship arrangements? If sponsorship is to have arole in supporting the general resource base of law schools we need tounderstand why it has tended to focus on a relatively narrow band ofsubject areas. To understand this we need to look at why donorssponsor.

What motivates donors: why sponsor?

In the law school survey we asked respondents about their perceptions ofdonor motivations. They were asked to state on a scale of one to five howimportant they thought each of six factors was to donors.10 As can be seenfrom Table 3, the most important factors in staff sponsorshipwere perceived to be public relations and encouraging specialistdepartmental growth.11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

zona

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

06 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Table 3: Expressed motives of commercial donors—donors views

MOTIVATING FACTORSDonor's view (departmental perception)

rhibnUmpy FJt Recraitmtiit S|xc. growth Mukrttag Memorial!* SerrfoM

KEY: Philanthropy • Philanthropy; P.R. » Public Relations;Recruitment • aiding recruitment of article clerks;

Spec, growth - encouraging specialist departmental growth;Marketing • marketing the donor;

Memorialise » to memorialise the donor;Services - to obtain services, e.g., research/consultancy.

In the case of research projects and miscellaneous items sponsorshipwas thought to be motivated by a mixture of philanthropy, publicrelations and marketing—although only in a few cases was philanthropystated to be the most important factor. Most respondents ratedphilanthropy equal, or second to, public relations or marketing.

How does this compare with the survey of donors? Owing to thesmall sample it is difficult to generalise, but there is some evidence thatthe actual motivations of donors may differ from law school perceptions.

It appears that a distinction must be made between large scale andsmaller scale sponsorship. Amongst our sample of donors most of thelarge scale sponsorship (£20,000 or more) was for staff sponsorship. It isinteresting that as a rule, encouraging specialist departmental growth andobtaining services such as consultancy were given a higher prioritythan recruitment and public relations. Philanthropy was said to beunimportant in every case save one. If this reflects a general picture itseems that when donors are providing substantial sums they aremotivated by a desire to encourage departments to specialise with theexpectation that they will gain from this arrangement in the form ofservices or consultancies. This emphasis on the receipt of services (whichdid not figure so highly in law school perceptions) would go some way toexplaining why staff sponsorship has focussed so heavily oncommercially-related subjects. These after all are the areas of law that arerelevant to the day to day practice of the large-scale donors. If there is alink between the sponsorship and the expectation that services will be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

zona

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

06 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

124 SUSAN BRIGHT AND MAURICE SUNMN

provided to the donor it is, however, surprising that so few arrangementshave formal consultancy agreements built into them. In our law schoolsurvey only one quarter of the arrangements were said to involve theappointee to the sponsored post being expected to work for, or conductresearch for, the donor. It may be that donor and donee expectationsdiffer in this respect. It may be that both sides are aware (despite theevidence of the law school survey) that the donor expects to receive thebenefit of services, but the parties prefer (for whatever reason) not toformalise this aspect of the arrangement. It will be interesting to see howthe arrangements work over time: whether unexpected demands aremade on the department or on the appointees and whether thearrangements are in practice impinging upon departmental autonomyand adversely affecting academic freedom.

By way of contrast, where smaller sums were given in sponsorshippublic relations and aiding recruitment were almost always the mainreasons given by donors for their sponsorship.12 These smaller sumstended to be for student-centred activities such as such as mooting andstudent exchange programmes. These may be seen as a way of raising thefirm's profile amongst the student population.

Why sponsor a particular donee?In addition to asking why the sponsorship arrangement was entered intowe also asked donors how important various factors were in chooosingthe particular donee. Seven options were offered.13 The most commonanswer given—irrespective of what was being sponsored and whetherthe sponsorship was local—was that the firm was seeking to develop an'ongoing relationship' with the donee. This, together with therecruitment of articled clerks, was always said to be a significant factorwhere donors were sponsoring local institutions. In the case of some ofthe substantial sponsorship arrangements for staff, the donor said that itwas impressed with the public profile and/or research reputation of theinstitution, and in one case the sponsorship was clearly given inconsequence of the reputation of the sponsored individual. It wassurprising that generally the research reputation of the institution wasunimportant. It was also surprising that support of the alma mater appearsto be unimportant, even in the case of City sponsorship of the olderuniversities.14

It would be wrong to rely too heavily on these findings given thesmall sample. Nevertheless, is does seem that the general picturecomplements the views we put forward in our earlier Working Paper. Itremains the case that provincial firms tend to sponsor their localinstitution. When they do so recruitment needs are usually high on theiragenda. In addition, in the case of staff sponsorship there will often be a'spin-off' expected in the form of consultancy work and provision ofexpert knowledge. Non-local sponsorship generally emanates fromLondon firms and tends to be given to the older universities. It is unusual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

zona

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

06 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


for London firms to support newer institutions and where this hasoccurred the particular donee has been selected either because of itspublic profile in the sponsored area, or because it is itself based inLondon and it is hoped that there will be recruitment gains for the donor.In our Working Paper we suggested that City sponsorship went to theolder 'prestigious' universities because these are the institutions fromwhich they traditionally recruit. Whilst we feel that this is still the mainexplanation, the donor study suggests that the commercial value todonors of services such as consultancy are also very important. It ispresumably the older, larger and more prestigious institutions that areperceived to be best able to provide these services.

FAILED EXPECTATIONS?

In our donor survey we asked two open-ended questions to see whatthe firms thought to be the main benefits and disadvantages ofsponsorship arrangements they had entered into. The majority felt thatthere had been a benefit from the raised public profile of the firm. Somefirms sponsoring staff also referred to the provision of research andexpert knowledge. These findings are unsurprising.

What was surprising, however, was the response to the questionconcerning disadvantages. Here again the responses seemed to fall intotwo groups according to the scale and nature of sponsorship. Most firmsinvolved in larger scale sponsorship indicated that they saw nodisadvantages in the arrangements. However, virtually all of the firmsentering into 'miscellaneous' sponsorship arrangement for publicrelations and recruitment reasons expressed concern that sponsorshipgave a poor cost/benefit ratio. This type of sponsorship was seen as a badinvestment. The implication that substantial sums of sponsorship are infact seen to be a better investment may be due to the differentexpectations. When larger sums are involved tangible results can beseen—a new member of staff is appointed or a new course establishedand the service benefits can be monitored. Smaller sums tend to be givenin the hope of securing less tangible results, such as a public relationsedge, that are far more difficult to assess, particularly during a periodof recession.

These concerns about the investment value of sponsorship wereechoed when we looked at the reasons firms gave for not entering intosponsorship arrangements. Seventeen firms had not entered into anyindividual sponsorship arrangements (although four of these haddecided to channel sponsorship money through the collective Cityscheme15). The most common reason given for not sponsoring was thatsponsorship had a low priority when considering use of available fundsand that it provided a poor return on investment.16

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

zona

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

06 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


THE FUTURE OF SPONSORSHIP-CHANGING EXPECTATIONS

It is difficult to get a general picture of how much sponsorship there isnow. In our Working Paper we expressed the view that sponsorshipwould continue to grow. This view was based on the number ofarrangements entered into after the questionnaires were returned andalso the fact that when asked whether they were currently involved innegotiations for sponsorship 78 per cent of respondents said that theywere. Since our Working Paper, however, there have been relatively fewnew sponsorship arrangements announced, apart from the awards madeby the City Solicitors' Educational Trust. This may simply reflect a declinein the newsworthiness of sponsorship. Alternatively, it may be the casethat there are in fact fewer new arrangements—whether due to therecession, increasing perceptions that sponsorship is a poor investment,the establishment of the City Solicitors' Educational Trust, or the fact thatthe initial arrangements gave early sponsors a competitive edge and theattractiveness of sponsorship for other potential donors has nowdeclined.

Whatever the current trend, sponsorship remains a potentiallyvaluable source of finance for law schools. In our Working Paper weargued that the challenge for the future is to ensure that commercialsponsorship is utilised and managed in ways that are in the best interestsof the academic community as a whole.17 The donor survey suggests thatthe challenge differs according to whether we are looking at sponsorshipof staff (particularly in commercial areas) or whether we are looking atmore general miscellaneous sponsorship. With staff sponsorship themain concerns are to ensure that the commercial focus of sponsorshipdoes not lead to an imbalance within departments and that unspokenexpectations of donors are compatible with the longer term interests ofdepartments. Sponsorship should not undermine departmentalautonomy or academic freedom or longer term financial stability.

Other forms of sponsorship do not create such risks to departmentsbut they are nevertheless an important source of additional income. Herea major concern is that donors may become reluctant to continue theirsupport if it is true that they feel that they do not obtain a proper return interms of their profile or recruitment of trainees. In this context it isimportant for departments show that sponsorship does contribute to thequality of education. It should be important to firms to ensure not onlythat there are sufficient numbers of graduates, but also that they havereceived a high quality education. Teaching institutions are comingunder increasing pressure to increase student numbers and there is adanger that this will have an adverse effect of quality as staff-studentratios worsen. Hopefully law firms will come to see that sponsorship isnot only a way of obtaining a direct recruitment advantage but also as wayof supporting quality.

The establishment of the City Solicitors' Educational Trust provides a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

zona

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

06 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

INVESTING IN LEGAL EDUCATION 1 2 7

good example of a form of sponsorship that was set up with quality inmind. In addition the Trust's framework can be used to ensure that a moreeven distribution of sponsorship monies as between institutions.

The Trust was set up in 1990/91 as a charitable educational trustfunded by law firms in the City as a way of raising 'more substantial fundsthan any single firm could provide' and allocating 'those funds amongstthe teaching community on a systematic basis'. It has three majoradvantages over the traditional ad hoc approach to sponsorship: first, it isa fund from which all institutions can claim; secondly, the collectivenature of the Trust provides a bridge between the commercial sponsorsand departments and helps protect the autonomy of donees; and thirdly,its policy is to support 'essential' rather than specialised needs.18 In thisway it sees itself as a fund that is capable of providing longer terminvestment in legal education that is responsive to departmental needsand which provides longer term benefits for the profession as well. As thePress Release issued by the Trust makes clear, the legal profession needsto ensure a good quality pool of applicants:

"The City Solicitors' Educational Trust . . . was established as thedirect result of concern felt by City firms that, for lack of finance,teaching institutions were becoming unable to maintain, let aloneincrease, the output of good law graduates needed by the profession,at a time when the demand for those graduates was increasing".19

There have now been two rounds of awards made by the Trust.In what ways has the Trust been able to break away from the patterns

of individual sponsorship arrangements? In the first round of awardsmade in 1990/91 twenty-one awards were made: eleven for staffappointments and ten for library provision. In 1991/92 seventeen awardswere made: six for staff appointments; ten for library provision and onefor development of a new course. None of the lectureships was intendedfor commercial subjects.

In the first round of allocations the Trust still displayed some of thetraditional conservatism of the City when selecting institutions to receiveawards: fifteen of the awards went to older universities, one to a neweruniversity and three to polytechnics. Even these allocations spread thenet of sponsorship wider than City funds in individual arrangements.The latest round was even more encouraging for newer institutions: nineolder universities; two newer universities; and six polytechnics weresupported.

CONCLUSION

It is difficult to predict quite how sponsorship will develop in thefuture. It may well be that the establishment of legal practice courses willherald a new generation of sponsorship agreements where the 'servicespin-offs' will again be a strong motivating factor for donors. Given the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

zona

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

06 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


professional nature of the teaching programme there is perhaps less of adanger that the curriculum will be distored. At the academic stage, unlessmore collective models of sponsorship are created (involving local lawsocieties, sets of chambers and other interested concerns) the funda-mental question facing law schools seems to be whether they are willingto be service providers to professional donors. If not, the prospect ofsustained sponsorship of academic legal education looks doubtful.

1. S. Bright and M. Sunkin, Commercial Sponsorship of Legal Education, Institute ofAdvanced Legal Studies, Research Working Paper (1991); S. Bright and M. Sunkin,"What Price Sponsorship?" Jo. Law & Soc. Vol. 18 No. 4 (Winter 1991) p. 475.

2. The project was funded by a grant under the Nuffield small grants scheme and wasconducted under the aegis of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and theguidance of an advisory committee chaired by Professor Daintith. The committee wascomposed of a representative of the heads of polytechnics law schools (ProfessorDuncan Bloy) and the heads of the university law schools (Professor DavidSugarman), Mr Bob Lee (Director of Research and Development at Wilde Sapte) andthe two principal researchers. For the purposes of the survey, 'commercial'sponsorship was defined as being sponsorship derived from 'business andprofessional sources, including industry, solicitors' firms and professional bodies'.This excludes other forms of non-government funding such as charitable trusts,research foundations and overseas student fees. In this article we look primarily atsponsorship by solicitors' firms, as this forms the largest single category ofdonors.

3. The response rate was 58% For the full results, see S. Bright and M. Sunkinabove note 1.

4. The list of firms was taken from The Lawyer Top 100 contained in The Lawyer 24September 1991. The response rate was relatively low, 29%, and this makes it difficultto draw out firm conclusions from the study. Twelve of the respondents had enteredinto individual sponsorship arrangements.

5. This figure was obtained from questionnaire returns, press cuttings and informationon the allocations made by the City Solicitors' Educational Trust.

6. Any division based on age will to some extent be arbitrary. We took 1960 as asignificant date, signalling the post-Robbins expansion in higher education.

7. The value of sponsorship is a notional figure based on the average salary for each levelof post, taking into account employment costs such as national insurance andsuperannuation.

8. The seven options were: shortage of staff in core teaching/research areas; shortage ofstaff in commercially oriented subjects; a desire to increase resources generally; adesire to expand into new subject areas; a desire to retain existing staff; and a desire toattract highly qualified staff.

9. We also added an eighth, the desire to improve contacts between academia andpractice.

10. The six factors were: public relations; aiding recruitment of articled clerks;encouraging specialist departmental growth; marketing; memorialising the donor;and obtaining services, e.g., research/consultancy.

11. Table 3 was prepared by giving each rating (important; unimportant, etc.) a pointsequivalent and aggregating the points for each factor.

12. Philanthropy was the main factor in two instances.13. The seven options were: firms has long-standing ties with the donee; firm impressed

with donee's public profile; firm seeking to develop an on-going relationship with thedonee; donee operates within the locality of the firm; firm recruits (or wishes to) fromthe donee; senior figures in firm wishing to support alma mater; and firm impressedwith donee's research reputation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

zona

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

06 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


14. It was said to be important in only one instance.15. The City Solicitors' Educational Trust is looked at later in the article.16. Firms were asked to state which of the following best described their reasons for not

providing sponsorship: issue has never been considered; sponsorship had a lowpriority when considering use of available funds; unwilling to favour individualfaculties/institutions; sponsorship considered to provide a poor return oninvestment; subsidising legal education institutions not the role of private law firms;and particular sponsorship proposals received were considered unsuitable. In thedonor survey we only looked at sponsorship for items of £1,000 or more.

17. Working paper at p. 55.18. Instead of focusing on commercial subjects, the Trust provides support for core

teaching and infrastructure. The Trust leaflet explains:

". . . the City . . . will benefit most if the funds are used to assist the teaching of theconventional or core subjects. No matter how great the development of legaltechnology among the City law firms . . . experience has shown that the besttraining still revolves around the legal essentials—contract, tort, property law,equity and jurisprudence . . ." (Extract from the Pamphlet about the Trustcirculated to Law Schools).

Note that the 'essentials' do not coincide with the core subjects required forexemption from the professional examinations.

19. Press Release, February 1991.

The authors would like to thank Martin Lawson for his help with the donor survey,including analysis of the results.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

zona

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

06 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

investing in legal education

Documents