The Federal courts' supervisory authority under statutes and rules of procedure over those who practice before them is analyzed to explain the courts' inherent authority over the bar and to justify the model rule's policy of granting the courts final authority to control clinical cases and clinical legal education. This is viewed as a manifestation of the authority that courts have always held to govern the conduct of cases, and hence of the lawyers appearing before them. A comparison of the model rule, the American Bar Association's (ABA) draft model rule of 1969, and published Federal student practice rules shows that they all prescribe a multistage screening process for student advocacy in a particular case or class of litigation. Such in-depth screening is not intended to be a formal inquisition on each case for each student, but rather its purpose is to eliminate professional incompetence claims. A major change in the new rule is court approval of the entire program in which the clinical advocate operates. Responsibility for ensuring that student practice programs accommodate themselves to normal court scheduling and that students can still meet their course attendance and academic requirements rests with the law schools and may require major curriculum, faculty, and scheduling changes in more traditional academic institutions. The conclusion states that the clinical movement's experimental stage is over and that courts considering adoption of a rule for the first time have a unique opportunity to make a fully informed decision on a clinical program that really serves all participants in the legal process. The model rule should be used by courts together with consideration of local student practice regulations and particular local situations. Above all, student practice should be viewed as an opportunity for law students to make a contribution especially valuable with respect to the legal representation of the poor. Footnotes containing references are included.