NZLS contests University of Auckland's proposed faculties combination

The combination would affect the Faculties of Law and Business & Economics

NZLS contests University of Auckland's proposed faculties combination

The New Zealand Law Society | Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa has contested the proposal to merge the University of Auckland’s Faculties of Law and Business & Economics.

In a submission to the university, the Law Society said that while it acknowledged the financial pressures faced by New Zealand universities, the proposal did not adequately highlight the merger’s economic benefits. It also did not address suggested benefits for research funding and resource availability especially for legal subjects beyond commercial and business law.

Reputational impact

The Law Society stressed the importance of legal education to the profession.

“Graduates of an LLB who are admitted as barristers and solicitors of the High Court have a fundamental obligation, irrespective of their job role, to uphold the rule of law and facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand”, Auckland vice president David Campbell wrote in the submission, referencing the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. “This is a constitutionally important role and responsibility, which goes beyond the mere vocational. For these reasons any proposal that might be perceived as threatening the quality and independence of legal education can elicit a strong response from the legal community”.

The organisation also pointed out that putting the Auckland Law School under the business and economics umbrella could negatively impact the Auckland Law School’s reputation, affecting graduates’ future prospects – especially overseas.

“We note that – for students within the Law School – the proposal largely speculates benefits of relevance to those focusing on commercial and business law subjects. The impact on other areas of legal study, positive or negative, remain unclear”, Campbell wrote in the submission.

The Law Society pointed out that similar combinations by other schools like the University of Canterbury had been undone partly because of accreditation requirements.

Private and public law split

The organisation also pushed back against the pitch to split the law school into the public and private law departments, largely due to a lack of clarity as to how the division would be executed.

“It would be unfortunate if the two schools lead to different standards (or availability of resources) between various courses or did not provide the breadth of legal education needed for good well-rounded lawyers,” Campbell wrote. “Any forced specialisation in the early years of a law student’s university life could potentially raise concerns around the breadth of education or limit graduates’ career pathways”.

The Law Society also pointed to the difficulty of clarifying the distinction between public and private law; for instance, contracts law has been influenced by public law.

Finally, the organisation flagged the potential impact of the merger on the law school dean role.

“The Law Society acknowledges the valuable contributions made by the deans of New Zealand law schools when important constitutional and public law issues arise”, Campbell wrote. “We would be concerned if the proposal meant the watering down of the mana of the role and a diminishing of a strong independent legal voice both within and outside of the university”.