1. It varies dramatically school to school. As a recent graduate of UBC, courses with a practical element were outnumbered by “social issues” courses by a very large margin.

2. Most law school courses are taught by full time professors, most of whom have not practiced law in a very long time if at all. They are hardly in a position to impart practical skills.

3. The courses that do exist, be they far and few in some schools or plentiful in others, are optional. Thus, the amout of practical skills possessed by graduates (save for actual work experience) is governed largely by the number of practical courses that each graduate has taken, was able to get a seat in, or decided to forego altogether. Thus, even assuming that law schools have the capability to teach practical skills, they do not impart these skills on ALL graduates, which is exactly the purpose of the bar ads.

I have not read the entire report yet, although I plan to. However, I wonder how the comments made about the Ontario system would compare to the PLTC system used in BC where articling students must take a 10 week course covering corporate, commercial, real propetry, civil and criminal procedure, professional responsibility and practice management topics; pass one oral advocacy and thee written writing/drafting assessments (after several practice assignments); and pass two 3 hour exams covering the above topics. After this they must still article for 9 months, bringing the total articling time to 1 year.

From a beginner’s perspective the system appears to be working quite well with one noticeable flaw that in order to enroll in PLTC you must already have an articling position, shutting out those who would be willing to pay for PLTC themselves while continuing their search for a firm.