Harvard Law School appears the picture of serenity and timelessness. To the untrained eye, nothing could ever change there--behind the stone white walls, on which the names of the finest legal scholars are etched, the process of churning out a group of fine lawyers continues from year to year.

But this facade now hides what many hope--and others fear--will be a revolution, as the faculty reconsiders many of its basic policies. Recent weeks have seen a plethora of reports and recommendations, suggesting changes in everything from grading to admissions, and pointing out problems that newly-named dean James Vorenberg will have to face.

Last April, for example, a student-faculty committee headed by Frank I. Michelman. Professor of Law, issued its first report on grading and teacher feedback. It recommended that students be graded on a pass-fail basis for the first semester of their first year, and that professors make a greater attempt to work with students, by using practice tests and more section leaders.

Although major parts of the report, including the call for pass-fail grading, were rejected at a faculty meeting on May 13, the report indicates growing questions about practices long accepted as instrumental parts of a legal education.

The Michelman Committee, charged with examining virtually everything at the Law School will next winter issue another report on the grading system, and next fall it will examine the curriculum.

It will focus as well on the issue of minority admissions. Although the Law School has an affirmative action program, several faculty members have said they fear President Reagan's proposed cuts in student loans may keep underprivileged students from going to Law School. "The problem of racial justice is one of the fierce issues, facing not only the Law School, but the country, which may be aggravated with the budget cuts," Vorenberg said recently.

The spring, though, has seen progress in a related area--the task of bringing more women and minorities to the Law School faculty. In one fell swoop it appointed three women and a Black as assistant professors: Because of the School's tracking program, they each stand a good chance of becoming tenured professors.

Much of the Michelman Committee's work has been on curricular reform, and Albert M. Sacks, the retiring dean of the Law School, recently pointed to changes in the curriculum as the major innovation of his tenure.

Among other things, the Law School has increased its clinical education program, which focuses on field work. Under the program, law students actually practice, either in simulated situations or in a legal aid center in Jamaica Plain.

In addition, the Law School has increased the number of courses dealing with such "liberal arts" subjects as philosophy and history. The changes have come in an effort to make the second and third years of law school more interesting, but they have angered some professors who feel that the traditional emphasis on doctrine is being lost. "The development that is most important," Vorenberg said, "is molding doctrinal teaching with clinical work."

The Law School has also tried to increase its ties to the legal profession. A report approved by the faculty on April 29 encourages lawyers to come to the school as visiting fellows to work with students on projects. Starting in 1982, the school will offer a full load of courses exploring the legal profession and dealing with professional responsibility.

Perhaps the most radical change the Law School is considering is Professor Duncan Kennedy's "Utopian proposal." Kennedy calls the Law School curriculum "a simple minded, center-liberal indoctrination in questionable eternal verities, sugar-coated as professional expertise and lawyerly knack." He has called for courses in legal philosophy, and the increased use of computers and vidco tape instead of teachers for first year courses. Teachers, he says, should be used to advise students and not to lecture them. The most controversial of Kennedy's proposals is his plan to make admissions by lottery and equalize the salaries of all Law School employees.

Needless to say, Kennedy's proposal won't win faculty approval, but his analysis of the Law School is useful: Most proposals for curricular reform won't pass the faculty, Kennedy says, because "many of us have little to show except success at 'rigor,' as measured by grades and law review writing in our student days."

Kennedy, though, may be too gloomy. The Law School has shown a willingness to examine its main policies: The next few years will see whether it is actually willing to change.