Developing competence in legal argumentation among law students: the clinical education model in Western European Universities

Abstract

The article presents a comprehensive study of how competence in legal argumentation is developed among law students within the clinical legal education model, drawing on the experience of leading Western European universities. The relevance of the study is determined by the strategic goals of reforming higher legal education in Ukraine, which include strengthening the practical component of legal training and introducing clinical disciplines as a mandatory element of educational programmes. The author substantiates the argument that, in the context of the rapidly changing legal landscape and growing demands for the quality of legal services, the ability to construct persuasive legal arguments constitutes an indispensable professional competence of a modern lawyer – one that integrates critical thinking, factual and normative analysis, and the capacity to build a logically justified legal position.
The article reveals the conceptual content of the clinical education model as a practice-oriented method of learning by doing, which involves the active participation of students in advising real clients under the supervision of academic staff and practising lawyers, drafting legal opinions and procedural documents, and taking part in simulated court proceedings. Based on a comparative analysis, the specific features of clinical models in different countries are identified. In the United Kingdom, the emphasis is placed on Mooting and the tutorial system of instruction at Oxford, Cambridge, and Northumbria. In the Netherlands, training is organised around work in student law firms and hearings before real judges at the universities of Amsterdam and Utrecht. In Germany, particular significance is attached to specialised Refugee Law Clinics and oral advocacy competitions such as the Move Moot tournament. In Spain, the service-learning approach (Aprendizaje-Servicio) is applied, integrating real casework in partnership with non-governmental organisations and public authorities. The models of Italy and Norway are examined separately, where student clinics take the form of strategic public interest litigation monitoring and the provision of direct legal assistance in the field.
Considerable attention is devoted to the IRAC method (Issue – Rule – Application – Conclusion) as a universal tool for structuring legal analysis and developing both oral and written legal argumentation skills. The article highlights the role of the classroom component of the legal clinic – interactive techniques, role-play exercises, case-based discussions, and individual mentoring – in ensuring the comprehensive development of argumentation competences. The significance of institutional structures such as the Student Law Office at Northumbria University, the Amsterdam Law Firm, and the Jussbuss initiative at the University of Oslo is analysed as examples of effective integration of clinical practice into the formal educational process.
The findings of the study lead the author to conclude that effective competence-building in legal argumentation is ensured through the institutionalisation of clinical education as a mandatory component of law school curricula, combined with the use of live-client clinics, Moot Courts, and structured legal analysis methodologies. The article outlines prospects for applying the identified experience in Ukraine, including the normative entrenchment of clinical practice as a credit-bearing component of educational programmes, the development of specialised legal clinics, the adaptation of argumentation methodologies to domestic judicial practice and evidentiary frameworks, and the enhancement of interdisciplinary training with an emphasis on practical legal reasoning and professional communication skills.