Project Complete Lawyer offers training and opportunities for young law graduates as they launch their legal practices. This mission carries a significant responsibility. How we discharge this duty is a question that demands a clear answer, and preparing a structured training methodology is a critical component. Conventionally, the method adopted has been Continuing Legal Education (CLE) sessions. In these sessions, senior members of the Bar explain the nuances of legal practice and share their professional experiences. However, the tangible impact of these sessions is rarely measured.
When we decided to launch the course "Navigating the High Court of Kerala," we initially considered this same conventional model. However, we faced immediate challenges. Identifying the right speakers was difficult, and even when a suitable expert was found, their availability remained uncertain. The third and most critical hurdle was aligning on the scope of the presentation. We required a specific script to ensure quality, but enforcing this with guest speakers proved difficult. Since our objective is to create a training protocol applicable across multiple colleges—not just a single institution—we realized that while the volunteers and trainers might change, the script must remain constant. Relying on the availability of the same speaker for every session was practically impossible, making a standardized curriculum essential.
In our journey to create this comprehensive script, we identified the predominant areas of practice before the High Court: Writ, Civil, Criminal, Matrimonial, and other miscellaneous jurisdictions. To ensure relevance, we adopted a need-based approach, asking a fundamental question: What specific skills does a High Court practitioner require? We determined that the training must cover the diagnosis of cases, identifying the correct provisions of law that confer jurisdiction, and understanding the specific nomenclature used by the High Court. Furthermore, the protocol must address the scope of jurisdiction, assistance in case management, pre- and post-filing research, and the formulation of submissions across various litigation stages. Crucially, this formulation of submissions is not limited to oral advocacy before the Court; it explicitly includes the drafting of specific grounds in the memoranda.
We experimented with several permutations and combinations for delivery, but initially, traditional lecture sessions dominated the agenda—a model that proved ineffective. Subjecting participants and faculty to continuous four-hour addresses was an arduous and often counterproductive task. Consequently, we restructured the entire session into three distinct parts. The first part involves a brief sharing of "hard facts" relevant to the topic. This is not intended to be an exhaustive briefing, but rather a guide to help participants identify where to look for the law relevant to a particular jurisdiction. For instance, in Civil Jurisdiction, we would highlight statutory provisions dealing with decrees, deemed decrees, appeals from orders, civil revisional jurisdiction, Regular First Appeals (RFA), and Second Appeals (RSA). With this preliminary briefing established, we proceed to the second session: case diagnosis and analysis for the purpose of formulating submissions.
We identified group discussion as the most effective method for this second session. With approximately 45 students attending the course at the Government Law College, Ernakulam, we facilitate this by dividing them into smaller, manageable groups. The core activity involves analyzing prepared legal scenarios designed to test their diagnosis and formulation of submissions. Each group is given specific scenarios and allotted time to deliberate on the correct legal diagnosis and draft the necessary grounds. Following this preparation, different members from each group present their findings. These presentations cover not just the challenge against the specific order, but also the submissions required at various stages of the proceedings before the High Court.
The third session serves as the corrective and concluding phase. Once the groups have presented their findings, the faculty steps in to evaluate the diagnosis and the drafted submissions. This is not merely a critique; it is a process of fine-tuning. The faculty highlights where the students’ diagnosis aligns with the correct legal position and, more importantly, identifies where it diverges. This session is designed to bridge the gap between a theoretical understanding and practical application. The faculty provides the "model" diagnosis and submissions as per the standardized script, ensuring that every participant leaves with a clear understanding of exactly how the case should be handled in the High Court.
While this standardized protocol forms the bedrock of our training, we recognize that the nuances of a successful career cannot be fully captured in a script alone. The experience of senior members of the Bar remains invaluable—the proverbial "icing on the cake." Therefore, complementary to the core modules, we integrate focused sessions with distinguished practitioners. Unlike the conventional model, these seniors are not tasked with teaching procedural basics. Instead, they are invited to showcase their specific domains of success, whether in high-stakes criminal defense, complex civil litigation, or specialized writ jurisdiction. By seeing the "world of practice" through their eyes, participants gain more than technical knowledge; they gain perspective. This exposure to varied successful models allows the young graduates to envision different career trajectories and make informed choices about their own areas of specialization.
By shifting from passive listening to active participation, this methodology addresses the core limitations of traditional legal education. We have moved beyond the dependency on individual speakers and anecdotal sharing to create a robust, standardized protocol. This "script" ensures that the quality of training remains consistent, whether delivered at the Government Law College, Ernakulam or any other institution across the state. In doing so, Project Complete Lawyer effectively discharges its responsibility not by merely offering a platform, but by providing a measurable, replicable blueprint for professional readiness. The transition from student to practitioner is no longer left to chance; it is now a guided, structured journey.
.jpeg)
Comments
Post a Comment