Neil Sands
Staff at the University of Auckland’s Law School fear an exodus of experienced academics if a proposed merger with the business and economics faculty proceeds, jeopardising its status as New Zealand’s top-ranked institution for legal education.
In a submission to the university’s management, obtained by LawNews, staff voice “strong opposition” at plans unveiled in mid-November to combine the faculties, warning the Law School’s reputation will suffer if it is no longer independent.
The submission also criticises the “problematic” consultation process staged by the university and questions the “vague” case put forward for the merger, saying it lacks evidence or any attempt at cost-benefit-risk analysis.
The staff say the Law School is in danger of losing world-renowned experts in several non-commercial legal fields, including indigenous law, environmental law and criminal law, if the faculty is seen to be focusing on business as a result of the merger.
“There is a very serious risk that in a combined faculty (even one with some degree of formal sub-faculty autonomy), many would no longer feel that their interests were properly valued and recognised,” the submission says.
“There is a real risk of an exodus of academic staff to other institutions if the proposal goes ahead.”
The staff also voice concern that a business-orientated legal faculty would no longer attract the best students and say it could affect the job prospects of graduates who were not looking to work in a conventional commercial practice.
“Many of our students come to study law because of an interest in protecting their communities from both private and public power, through the study of fields such as human rights, social justice and Indigenous law.
“There is a particular risk that these students may go elsewhere if they perceive Auckland to be commercially driven.”
‘Not a fan’
The merger plan – understood to be the brainchild of business school dean Susan Watson and university vice-chancellor Dawn Freshwater – was publicly released on November 12, a day after the university began its summer break.
“This combined faculty would act as a gateway, where business leaders gain direct access to legal expertise and legal professionals draw on a range of commercial, corporate and related expertise,” the merger proposal document says.
The Law Association of New Zealand (TLANZ) has expressed “unequivocal opposition” to the merger and three retired judges – all alumni – have spoken out against it.
Incoming Waitangi Tribunal member and prominent blogger Philip Crump is the latest to join the groundswell of disapproval.
“I’m not a fan… my initial reaction is, I think the Law School should remain independent,” he told Law News, making clear he was speaking in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the tribunal.
“It’s a very good law school. I really enjoyed my time there. I’ve seen other Law School alumni write articles along the same lines. I would imagine the view of a lot of alumni would be that they’d like to keep it independent.”
Auckland barrister Jim Farmer KC, an alumnus and former part-time professor at the Law School, has also weighed in, saying the plan will add another level of administration with no tangible benefit.
“It is to be hoped that the University of Auckland abandons this unmeritorious proposal which will do harm and no good,” Farmer commented on his website.
‘Incalculable damage’
Auckland Law School, established in 1883, is easily the country’s top-ranked, sitting at 174 on SCImago Institute’s 500-point scale of law schools, more than 100 places above its nearest New Zealand rival, Otago, at 291.
It is number 55 on the QS University World Rankings of law schools and the staff submission points out that all the universities in the top 25 have standalone law schools.
“Our aim is to return to a position in the top 20-25 law faculties, where we were in the early 2010s, so that we can keep attracting and retaining worldclass scholars and excellent students,” it said.
“In order to do this, it is vital that the Faculty of Law remains a separate faculty.”
The rankings, compiled using surveys showing law schools’ reputations among academic and employers, represent more than bragging rights. They play a crucial role in attracting prospective students and securing research and collaboration opportunities.
The submission said Canterbury University’s ranking dropped when it merged its law and business faculties, then rose when they were eventually de-merged.
“The one New Zealand law school that is currently part of a business faculty, AUT (Auckland University of Technology), is unranked on both the QS and THE rankings in 2024. This is no example to emulate,” it adds.
Staff also questioned the use of the terms “merger” and “combined” in the university’s proposal document, suggesting a more accurate description would be “subsumed”.
“Our view is that any structure that would position the Auckland Law School as a department within the much-larger faculty of business and economics would be (in perception and reality) an acquisition, not a combination, and one that would incalculably damage the Law School,” it said.
Feedback on the proposal closed on January 20 and is due for consideration by a review committee on February 3.
According to the university’s timeline, there will be a Senate discussion on the proposal on February 24 and it is set to go to a council meeting on March 17.
If approved, the merger will take effect in the third quarter of 2025.
NOTE: An earlier version of this story referred to staff suggestions about maintaining a level of autonomy for the Law School if the merger proceeds. This information was contained in a draft version of the staff submission, not the final iteration sent to the university. The article has been amended accordingly.
0 Comments