The definitive statement of a law professor’s REAL mission, or once again Harvard Law retires the chutzpah title

Posted on December 31, 2013 by vmerton

I cannot improve upon Scott Fruehwald’s presentation of this happy news in a recent email:

“Harvard is offering this course in the spring:

BECOMING A LAW PROFESSOR

“There are many elements that go into becoming a law professor, but at the core of the process of moving from law student to law professor is scholarship.  How do you choose your topic?  How do you write an article?  What will become your area of expertise?  What have others written about this subject area, and how do you break new ground?  How do you engage with fellow scholars in the midst of the writing process?

This reading group will focus on the generative scholarly process that is at the center of the life of the law professor.  [Emphasis added.]  Each week, a member of the faculty will present a working draft of her or his scholarship, and that piece will be discussed by the group.  Discussions will focus in part on the genesis of the research project being presented, in order to demonstrate how articles develop from the first spark of an idea to final publication.  Students will also explore substantive issues raised in the pieces, the better to become familiar with the latest work being done across a variety of subject areas.  Students will also develop their own research and scholarly agendas as the semester progresses.

Admission is by application via email to Susannah Barton Tobin at stobin@law.harvard.edu by November 8, 2013.  Please include a paragraph expressing your interest in the reading group and a CV and transcript.

As is the norm with reading groups, there will be no examination or paper requirement, and the class will be graded credit/fail.” (http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/curriculum/catalog/index.html?term=Spring+2014&type=Clinic&type=Course&type=Reading+Group&type=Seminar&rows=10&year=2013-2014)

The course description says it all.

Happy New Year,  Scott Fruehwald  [If you are attending the AALS Conference, please come by the ABA Publishing table and look at my book, Think Like a Lawyer: Legal Reasoning for Law Students and Business Professionals (2013).]”

All right, I [VM] cannot resist adding one comment:  The best part of this deal is that the participating faculty actually get teaching credit for this!   Well, maybe no, teaching is probably not exactly a heavy load at HLS anyway; no, maybe the best part is that the selected students (or their parents/spouses, or the US government) are paying tuition for them to serve as extra unpaid research assistants.

Or perhaps the very best part of this course is the unabashed clarity of its focus exclusively on scholarship, without a shred of pretense, or allocation of even a single seminar to such irrelevancies  as teaching, advising, evaluating and assessing, mentoring, curriculum development, preparation for practice, or engaging (with and without students) in advocacy to improve and reform the law, our profession, or society — to mention only a few of the professorial roles one might name.   (Perhaps all these skills are innate for Harvard grads?)  This course was presumably approved by at least a bare majority of the Harvard faculty (assuming that they still bother to review course proposals) so I suppose it is an accurate  statement of that faculty’s priorities.

The truly sad part is that many of us, on Appointments Committees and as faculty members, will end up not merely voting to hire the graduates of this course, but trying everything in our power to lure them on to our faculties — including promises that as long as they churn out scholarship that is “cutting edge” (nothing as pedestrian as, say, realistic law reform proposals), no one will expect them to work as hard at learning how to teach effectively or fulfill any of the other aforementioned professorial functions.  And in the course of discussions about how to seduce these young superstars who wear the crimson “H” on to third-tier faculties (at least to start), no doubt someone will point out “Look, s/he took a course on law teaching at Harvard!  One with the evocative title of ‘Becoming A Law Professor’!  What could be a better indicator of serious commitment to teaching?”

Footnote:  Naturally, given the topic, I feel compelled to add at least one:  Of course, these remarks would be seriously misplaced if “Becoming A Professor” is one of several HLS courses or programs, some of which address the aspects of professorship that I am asserting Harvard neglects.  I can’t be sure — the hundreds of courses in the HLS catalog are just too daunting — but I did try searching the past three years for any course that included the terms “teach” “teaching” “education”  “educate” “professor” “school” and some others.  Only one item surfaced, a legal history course last spring entitled “American Legal Education,” taught by Visiting Professor Daniel Coquillette.  http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/curriculum/catalog/index.html?type=Clinic&type=Course&type=Reading+Group&type=Seminar&rows=10&year=2012-2013  It does sound fascinating, a course that I would recommend to students and enjoy myself.  While certainly it would be of use to anyone who aspires to the law professoriate, given its scope and format it does not quite occupy a curricular niche comparable to the new scholar-centric offering.

Filed under: Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices & Setting Goals | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Helpful commentary on the perennial problem of political backlash against law school clinics about their choice of clients

Posted on December 27, 2013 by vmerton

Tulane Environmental Law Clinic director Adam Babich has put together a helpful piece, rich with deftly chosen citations from the likes of Ted Olsen, John Adams, and Justice Souter, to demonstrate the necessity of law school clinic independence in client selection, both for educational and service purposes. It can be found here:

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/professional_lawyer/2013/volume_22_number_1/twenty_questions_and_answers_about_environmental_law_school_clinics.html

In a few pages and accessible Q & A format, it is just as applicable to and useful to share with many non-environmental clinics, such as immigration student attorneys, who handle similar work (“involving complex regulations, administrative law, and disputes involving lots of documents”) and face comparable issues: on the totem pole of public unpopularity, undocumented immigrants, especially those allegedly convicted of crimes, may rank even lower than environmental activists.

My one quibble in presenting the article to students would be to comment on the use of commonplace phrases like “take the case” or “accept the case” or “reject/turn down the case.” I try to teach our student attorneys to think more in terms of “making an offer of representation” or “not prepared to offer representation.” It’s a subtle difference, I know, but not unrelated to the thrust of the piece in terms of the nature of the lawyer’s role, and a small way to reinforce the central concept of client as decision-maker.

Vanessa

Filed under: Best Practices and Clinics, Teaching Methodology, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Occupy Law School

Posted on November 20, 2011 by vmerton

What Law Schools Don’t Teach Law Students: Lawyering

Nothing new.  Simple truths:

““The fundamental issue is that law schools are producing people who are not capable of being counselors,” . . .  “They are lawyers in the sense that they have law degrees, but they aren’t ready to be a provider of services.” ”

“Law schools . . . have added or expanded programs that provide practical training through legal clinics.  But almost all the cachet in legal academia goes to professors who produce law review articles, which gobble up huge amounts of time and tuition money.  The essential how-tos of daily practice are a subject that many in the faculty know nothing about — by design.  One 2010 study of hiring at top-tier law schools since 2000 found that the median amount of practical experience was one year, and that nearly half of faculty members had never practiced law for a single day.  If medical schools took the same approach, they’d be filled with professors who had never set foot in a hospital.”

” . . . there are few incentives for law professors to excel at teaching.  It might earn them the admiration of students, but it won’t win them any professional goodies, like tenure, a higher salary, prestige or competing offers from better schools.  For those, a professor must publish law review articles, the ticket to punch for any upwardly mobile scholar. ”

And of course not only is there a lack of incentives, there are numerous disincentives, for law faculty to engage in the more theoretical forms of teaching, such as curricular design and developing effective means of assessment that measure actual learning of professional competences.

So.  The emperors stand arrayed in all their naked glory on the front page of the New York Times, in what seems to have become almost a regular ritual of rather harsh exposure of their, ahem, shortcomings.

Will a single hiring decision, of the hundreds about to unfurl at this very moment in law schools across the country, change in the slightest?

Will a single prospective student in the process of deciding where to apply, modify his or her list of law schools one iota?

Will a single accreditation or government funding decision be even faintly affected ?

And, most important, will USNWR make any adjustment whatsoever to the solipsistic criteria that accord so much weight to the opinions of these very naked emperors of legal education?

No, no, no, and no — I’ll take whatever odds you’ll give.  Nothing is changing.  Not unless and until prospective law students finally realize how they are getting ripped off and stop showing up.  Which will not happen because each student is betting that she or he will land in the 1% who either does get a good education in law school — that is possible — or who despite an inadequate education, finds a meaningful and satisfying way to live and work after law school that justifies that student’s investment in law school — which is also possible, though rare.

Will the Occupy movement change the maldistribution of wealth and/or income disparities?

Will repeated denunciation of the self-serving structure of legal education transform — or even alter — that structure?

I’m not holding my breath.

Filed under: Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness | 3 Comments »

Law School Economics: Ka-Ching! from today’s Times

Posted on July 17, 2011 by vmerton

Condolences to the folks at NYLS . . .although this is more about the soon-to-depart Dean than the law school . . . nothing really new here except maybe the focus on Richard Matasar’s business interests and the incongruity of his actual policies with his frequent and fervent critiques of legal education . . . surprising this is considered newsworthy, really.

Filed under: Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Uncategorized | Comments Off on Law School Economics: Ka-Ching! from today’s Times

Talk about multi-competency assessment of professional qualifications . . . medical schools way ahead of us, again

Posted on July 12, 2011 by vmerton

Worth checking out:  “New for Aspiring Doctors, the People Skills Test“.   Eight US and 13 Canadian medical schools, including Stanford and UCLA, have adopted the “multiple mini interview,” or M.M.I.  This technique seeks to “test” medical school applicants for ethical and problem-solving acumen and even more importantly, ability to collaborate.   The schools invite applicants to engage in an admissions equivalent of speed-dating: a series of nine brief interviews that require them to demonstrate whether they have the social skills to navigate a health care system in which quality communication has become critical.   The interviewers are trained health care providers and community members who meet briefly with and assess certain attributes of the applicants.

On a Saturday, candidates for admission stand opposite a number of small rooms.  When a bell sounds, the applicants read a sheet of paper taped to each door that describes an ethical problem.  Two minutes later, the bell sounds again and the applicants rush into the rooms to find waiting interviewers.  The candidates have eight minutes to discuss that room’s situation.  Then the bell rings again and they move to the next room, the next surprise issue, and the next interviewer.  Interviewers score each applicant with a number and sometimes a brief note.

“[A]dministrators said they created questions that assessed how well candidates think on their feet and how willing they are to work in teams.  The most important part of the interviews are often not candidates’ initial responses — there are no right or wrong answers — but how well they respond when someone disagrees with them, something that happens when working in teams.  Candidates who jump to improper conclusions, fail to listen or are overly opinionated fare poorly because such behavior undermines teams.  Those who respond appropriately to the emotional tenor of the interviewer or ask for more information do well in the new admissions process because such tendencies are helpful not only with colleagues but also with patients.  ‘We are trying to weed out the students who look great on paper but haven’t developed the people or communication skills we think are important. . . .’  A survey by the Joint Commission, a hospital accreditation group, found communication woes to be among the leading causes of medical errors, which cause as many as 98,000 deaths each year. ”

“The system grew out of research that found that interviewers rarely change their scores after the first five minutes, that using multiple interviewers removes random bias, and that situational interviews rather than personal ones are more likely to reveal character flaws,” said Dr. Harold Reiter, the professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who developed the system.  “In fact, candidate scores on multiple mini interviews have proved highly predictive of scores on medical licensing exams three to five years later that test doctors’ decision-making, patient interactions and cultural competency,” Dr. Reiter said.

Most law schools have eliminated admissions interviews, even by alums, or very rarely use them, I believe.  I’ve heard it said that law schools have no resources for such a time-consuming process.  It seems more than a little bizarre that law school  faculty refuse to devote substantial time to the recruitment and selection of their incoming students — what, exactly, is more important for and predictive of the law school’s success? — but now the medical schools appear to have made it feasible to meaningfully augment the admissions process without the participation of large numbers of faculty and staff.   We could imagine refinements of this method that would similarly ask law school applicants to show us, rather than tell us about, their approaches to communication, collaboration, and problem-solving.  In an era when some law schools like to claim that, despite the US News pressures,  the LSAT and GPA are not the sole determinants  of readiness for the legal profession, here is an opportunity to objectively and systematically incorporate other attributes into the admissions rubric.  Are any law schools already on board?

Filed under: Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Best Practices, Outcomes & Assessment Techniques | 2 Comments »

And we think that we have it tough . . . consider the Japanese bar exam

Posted on July 12, 2011 by vmerton

As we count down toward this summer’s bar, trying to soothe our nervous-to-frantic recent grads, might want to suggest that they read “A Japanese Legal Exam That Sets the Bar High” (I realize that not everyone can access NY Times articles online for free, but won’t reproduce the whole article to avoid using up too much space, as my last post did.)

Japan recently “reformed” its bar examination process, ostensibly to increase the number of lawyers available for the under-served (within reason, mind — we’re talking an increase in overall number of lawyers admitted per year from 1000 to 3000).  But the folks from the Justice Ministry who draft and administer the test seem not to be on board with this objective: only 25% of test-takers passed last year.  Two law schools did not have a single graduate pass.  Perhaps the biggest change, and challenge: now candidates can take the bar exam only three times.

So we have to console ourselves: it could be worse.

Filed under: Best Practices, Outcomes & Assessment Techniques, Uncategorized | Comments Off on And we think that we have it tough . . . consider the Japanese bar exam

ABA JOURNAL GENERATES MASSIVE COMMENTARY ON C.J. ROBERTS’ CRITIQUE OF ACADEMIC LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP

Posted on July 9, 2011 by vmerton

Chief Justice Roberts’ scathing dismissal of the value of legal scholarship evoked a far greater outpouring of comments, mostly fervently agreeing with the Chief Justice, than I’ve ever seen in prior ABA Journal articles about law schools. Many commentators directly connect the irrelevance of most law review articles with the poor job they say law schools do of preparing their graduates for practice. A few law professors respond with intense defenses of academic scholarship and assertions about the educational effectiveness of law schools. It’s a rich mine for this perennial debate. The original article and all comments — there are many more — can be found at http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/law_prof_responds_after_chief_justice_roberts_disses_legal_scholarship/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email .

Law Prof Responds After Chief Justice Roberts Disses Legal Scholarship

Posted Jul 7, 2011 5:29 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has raised hackles with his suggestion that there is a disconnect between the scholarship of law professors and the work of practitioners.
Roberts knocked law professors and their work while answering questions at the 4th Circuit Judicial Conference in White Sulphur Springs, W. Va., at the end of June.

The American Constitution Society blog has Roberts’ quote: “Pick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria, or something, which I’m sure was of great interest to the academic that wrote it, but isn’t of much help to the bar.” C SPAN posted the interview.

University of Maryland law professor Sherrilyn Ifill responded in a blog post at Concurring Opinions. “Legal scholars will on occasion indeed take up Kant (and there’s no shame in that),” she wrote, “but more often than not, published law review articles offer muscular critiques of contemporary legal doctrine, alternative approaches to solving complex legal questions, and reflect a deep concern with the practical effect of legal decision-making on how law develops in the courtroom.”

Comments
1.
Atty
Jul 7, 2011 6:49 AM CDT
In my practice, I don’t have time to read dense 70 page articles concerning “muscular critiques of contemporary legal doctrine.”
2.
Adjunct.
Jul 7, 2011 7:02 AM CDT
The Chief is right on this. What’s even worse than the lack of relevancy of the academy to law (ie the practice of law) is the “syndication” of UK/US law programs around Europe and elsewhere, replete with European civil lawyers not trained in common law purporting to teach undergrads (ie potential future attorneys) common law. Education = nothing more than a dirty business for these colleges, and the Chief is right to remind faculties to stay focused, and stay relevant.
3.
B. McLeod
Jul 7, 2011 7:25 AM CDT
Seems to me that Roberts only said what most people already know. I Kant imagine why it is seem as a criticism.
4.
Timothy P. Flynn
Jul 7, 2011 7:36 AM CDT
Most lawyers would agree that a survey of European intellectual history, even a muscular one, has no application whatsoever to the contemporary practice of law and is really a luxury. I would love to have that kind of time; too busy, however, keeping up w/ deadlines and developments in my practice areas.
5.
Reason
Jul 7, 2011 8:05 AM CDT
Furthermore, these academics entirely fail to produce lawyers who can effectively represent clients upon graduation. Perhaps they should spend a bit more time studying their training techniques and a bit less on “muscular critiques”. It’s an absolute shame that law schools produce thousands of JD’s who’ve never seen the inside of a courthouse (let alone courtroom).
6.
Maryland Esquire
Jul 7, 2011 8:18 AM CDT
Well, I never thought I would say this, but I totally agree with Chief Justice Roberts.
7.
a.nonny.mous
Jul 7, 2011 8:29 AM CDT
Chief Justice FTW!
8.
Tim
Jul 7, 2011 8:54 AM CDT
While I agree that legal academia’s fascination with the esoteric serves noone particularly well, I wonder what the Chief Justice wishes they would focus on. There is, after all, no shortage of publications that are oriented toward the practice of law as craft, rather than as theoretical and social construct.
Does he wish a Scalia-esque inquiry into originalism? That’s an ideological position from the outset, and would undoubtedly swiflty devolve into arcane pieces on the role of 18th century English landscape painters on Jefferson’s view of a pastoral nation. Is that better?
It’s appropriate to point out the problems in legal scholarship. It’s also appropriate to ask the CJ, now that he has seized that particular pulpit, what now?
9.
review
Jul 7, 2011 9:34 AM CDT
Law review articles—-great for tenure for law school professors but useless for practical law.
10.
Pushkin
Jul 7, 2011 10:16 AM CDT
Looks like no one on this blog reads law reviews, or follows links in the posted stories, since Professor Ifill gives a number of examples to disprove Roberts’ claim. (The other possibility, of course, is that no one on this blog practices at a level where ideas are important). The complaint that law review articles are irrelevant to practice goes back to a famous Harry Edwards article (in a law review of course), in the mid nineties and has become kind of an urban legend since then. There have been several empirical studies of the issue in the last few years, and they have found that court usage of law review writing is at an all time high. This is particularly true for business law issues and Courts which specialize in them, such as the Delaware Supreme Court. For a good example of an article describing this phenomenon, with citations to other such articles, see James A. Catone & Michelle Harner, “Is Legal Scholarship Out of Touch? An Empirical Analysis of the Use of Scholarship in Business Law Cases” 19 University of Miami Business Law Review (2010). Roberts now has added ignorance to his growing list of under-qualifications for the job he holds. Cheap shots are the stock in trade of bullies and insecure yuppies, so I suppose no one should be surprised.
11.
W.R.T.
Jul 7, 2011 10:49 AM CDT
Pushkin @10
“The other possibility, of course, is that no one on this blog practices at a level where ideas are important”
“Cheap shots are the stock in trade of bullies and insecure yuppies, …”
So which one does that make you, Pushkin? Or should we add arrogant legal scholars to your list?
12.
Catherwood
Jul 7, 2011 10:56 AM CDT
The Chief seems inclined to unmoor the law from its intellectual and moral foundation. It is bad enough when freshly elected, inexperienced politicians try to do that, but for the Chief Justice of the United States to applaud any move in that direction is sad, indeed. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which the Chief finds such plain sailing, I can’t navigate, I’m no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I’m a forester.
13.
Steve
Jul 7, 2011 10:58 AM CDT
I agree. The only thing worse than a law review article is an opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States. For intelligent analysis, lawyers should read opinions from the Seventh Circuit.
14.
Scopes
Jul 7, 2011 11:24 AM CDT
I grew up in the mistaken belief that the Supreme Court represented the point where legal scholarship formed practical law and the Supremes were (at least theoretically) the greatest legal scholars in the land. Apparently I was wrong, they are just a bunch of ambulance chasers made big.
I can understand legal scholarship having no place in a storefront law firm. But if it has no place in the Supreme Court, where then? Isn’t that what separates us from Bulgaria?
Obviously I am not a lawyer
15.
Wave
Jul 7, 2011 11:42 AM CDT
Instead of getting defensive, listen to and implement the feedback.
16.
Spencer Neal
Jul 7, 2011 11:44 AM CDT
After reading Prof. Ifill’s article, I have to agree with her. There are many law review articles that the Chief Justice should but won’t read, especially the ones criticizing Supreme Court opinions like Iqbal.
17.
larbear1968
Jul 7, 2011 12:17 PM CDT
Hooah!!
18.
tenured but practical
Jul 7, 2011 12:37 PM CDT
I’m a law professor and in this rare case, agree with Justice Roberts. The so-called Legal Academy promotes obscure, mind-numbing legal scholarship over focused topical writings that can help judges, lawyers, students, and the profession. We have to start admitting that the Emperor has No Clothes.
19.
19. Jim-OH 2011-07-07 1432 -0400 [ ]
Jul 7, 2011 1:33 PM CDT
As I see it, some are well worth the read, some not.
20.
John Ruskin
Jul 7, 2011 1:44 PM CDT
19 Jim-OH has it exactly right. Some articles in law reviews are quite esoteric and of little use in the practice of law. Other articles in law reviews can be quite useful. Like all academic publishing, law review articles are all over the map.
So far, only Pushkin (@10) has cited any hard evidence that might indicate the current relevance or usefulness of law review articles.
21.
Plague
Jul 7, 2011 1:48 PM CDT
Tenure at Cooley does not constitute a real law professorship.
22.
Paul Bunyon
Jul 7, 2011 1:56 PM CDT
@ John Ruskin – but wasn’t Pushkin’s evidence written by law professors and compiled in a law review article – sounds like a potential bias and credibility issue. Seems to me that a couple of law profs spending time, at the expense of THE U,to study and write an article touting the relevance of the law review articles of their peers may be unintended evidence contradicting Pushkin’s position.
BTW can’t someone make an offhand remark at a conference of judges without pricking the thin skin of the tenured ivory tower set – or will they just write another article about it?
23.
Funyons
Jul 7, 2011 2:08 PM CDT
Think about it – how many busy practitioners would have the time to research and write a law review article enumerating and categorizing the law review articles that are inane and completely irrelevant to the practice of law? How many such articles, if written, would see publication? So it would seem that the deck is stacked and the articles will be written by professors, defending their own.
I enjoy philosophy and theoretical physics and understand the impact of philosophy on the drafting of the D of I and our Constitution, but really… I also enjoy a good whiskey – but not while I’m working.
24.
jbolaw
Jul 7, 2011 2:34 PM CDT
It’s hard to believe lawyers themselves disparaging legal scholarship, which forms the intellectual basis of our craft. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and scope of scholarly legal research.
Justice Roberts’ whining is more understandable. He has been an intellectual lightweight for his entire legal career and possibly knows less about the law than any of his modern predecessors as Chief Justice. His own decisions are informed by political concerns, not the law. That’s why he was nominated for appointment by the intellectual lightweight President who described the U.S. Constitution as just a “goddamned piece of paper.”
Perhaps C.J. Roberts would prefer more practical law review articles that emphasize “How to Wipe Your Butt With the Constitution,” or “How to Behave Unethically as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Get Away With It.” Those are Roberts’ specialties.
25.
middletown usa
Jul 7, 2011 2:48 PM CDT
Wow jbolaw, your comment clearly shows the depth of your scholarship and political neutrality – sometime, as with your comments, the best said is – nothing.
26.
John
Jul 7, 2011 3:38 PM CDT
I’ve used law review articles numerous times to aide in understanding areas of law new to me. I’ve also used them to help flesh out novel arguments and legal theories.
That doesn’t mean all articles are useful, but it’s impossible to say when an article is useful. It’s like art—usefulness is the in the eye of the user.
27.
Just the facts, Ma’am
Jul 7, 2011 5:55 PM CDT
@20
You wrote “Like all academic publishing, law review articles. . .”
You should not confuse law review articles with real academic publishing. In virtually all other disciplines journals are edited by accomplished scholars in the area. Law reviews are edited by law students. It’s a wonder they have any credibility at all.
28.
B. McLeod
Jul 7, 2011 6:03 PM CDT
Heh. I always figured Munchkin for the law review type.
29.
borisjimbo
Jul 8, 2011 2:13 AM CDT
What’s the point in doing real scholarship in even Supreme Court briefs if the justices merely scoff at it instead of rebutting it even though they’re in fact no more knowledgeable about the matter than anyone else?
30.
Professor Marc H. Greenberg
Jul 8, 2011 2:37 AM CDT
I practiced law, both litigation and transactional work, for twenty years before becoming a full time law professor, and I still do a small amount of practice. I bring my experience to my teaching and my legal scholarship, which often focuses on practical approaches. What is disappointing about the Chief Justice’s comment is its generalized nature – like lawyers, some legal scholarship is good, and some is worthless. The valuable work is cited regularly in appellate decisions and helps guide legal policy.
31.
Stephen R. Pelcher
Jul 8, 2011 5:08 AM CDT
As a general proposition, the observation of Justice Roberts is undoubtedly correct.
32.
Ed’s Law School Grad (evening division)
Jul 8, 2011 5:50 AM CDT
This is great. The clash of the Ivory towers. Of course the seed of this criticism from Chief Justice Roberts probably has nothing to do with his politcal views and that of many law professors—does it?
Anyway it is amusing to us members of the bar considered the “great unwashed” as we feel neither one of these two could tie there own shoes in the “real world” like in fromt of a jury or speaking to a battered spouse or assisting a small farmer being crushed by regulation .
SO you two Have at it and when I’m constipated or can’t sleep I’ll read about it.
ABA—-keep printing this stuff now that we’ve all forgotten about Casey Anthony WE NEED this information.
Got any Stories about Judges turned Pro Wrestlers or Law professors who are really superheros?
Why am I reading this ? I’ve got to got to work I guess I’m just jealous.
33.
donniem
Jul 8, 2011 6:04 AM CDT
@jbolaw – Loved your comment. I agree that more practical courses should be given at law school, but to practice without understanding the history and underpinnings of the law and legal theory is equally dangerous.
Roberts basically admitted that his Court doesn’t give a rat’s a** about the Constitution or the freedoms it was meant to protect. I wonder what he considers esoteric? Likely articles criticizing the lack of Constitutional bases for a number of decisions by the so -called “originalists.”
34.
Mark Carter
Jul 8, 2011 6:07 AM CDT
I’ve read, cited and written law review articles. So has John Roberts. A fair reading of his statement is that it makes a simple point; academics who study and write about arcane and antiquated legal principles offer little to the average practitioner who is focused on advocating in the here and now. I would add that assembling that knowledge does even less for the lawyer’s clients. These critiques, predictably, evidence a distaste for the Chief Justice’s philosophy more so than his intellect. Fortunately for our nation the critics whines are meaningless – ersatz upon an an anonymous and unseen palette of liberal woes. Perhaps they should all write law review articles about this and cite them to the US Supreme Court.
35.
hiwaves
Jul 8, 2011 6:36 AM CDT
There is a distinction not addressed in the commentary and it is found in the manner and content of legal argument in Europe where semantics can still win a case, as opposed to legal argument in the US where academics is not construed as entirely relevant.
This is valid comment because the reference to Kant and 18th Century Bulgaria is in effect a reference to semantics as practiced in legal argument in Europe. A European judge can be persuaded on the intellectual principals derived from legal history, and ancient and obscure case law, whereas in the US such an approach is considered subversive, an attempt to distract and divert the legal process.
A common response from an American judge to a largely academic brief might be “Do you expect me to read this?” where a British judge would embrace the academic principals and apply them to the case and allow substantial and unrestrained argument on the semantics.
So Chief Justice Roberts comments are valid to an extent but avoid the cultural history of the profession. Law was practiced for many thousands of years before the concept reached our shores. We did not design it or create it’s principals but we do pervert it to our efficient needs.
36.
Philip A. Byler
Jul 8, 2011 6:42 AM CDT
As a general matter, Chief Justice John Roberts is correct. There are exceptions as to law school professors and law review articles; a good law review article or legal book is wonderful to have for insight into a legal subject. But much of what I have seen law professors write in law review articles and in books is worse than worthless.
37.
Mary Frances Love
Jul 8, 2011 6:44 AM CDT
Chief Justice Roberts and I finally agree on something. Did a pig just fly by? Law professors are what’s wrong with recent law grads, too. I cringe when I have to interview a 2010 and 2011 grad. There are no jobs to be had and yet these kids are still arrogant.
38.
Prof. Muriel Morisey
Jul 8, 2011 6:53 AM CDT
I’ve been on the Temple law faculty for 20 years. I endorse the view of those who point out that the Chief Justice engaged in a gross generalization that is also inaccurate. Some legal scholarship has enormous utility for courts and those in practice. Some is not intended to have readily identifiable practical utility, but to contribute to the law’s ability to accommodate thoughtful critiques of existing doctrine and adapt to new circumstances and new ideas. Some are specialty journals with tremendous value in subject areas like the environment, civil rights and international law. No one is obligated to read something they don’t find useful. No one in practice is obligated to read esoteric material if it will come at the cost of devoting the appropriate amount of time to their clients’ concerns and legal needs. Ultimately, I wonder why the Chief Justice thought his remarks were worthwhile, particularly since they didn’t demonstrate research and thoughtful reflection.
39.
Connorblum
Jul 8, 2011 6:59 AM CDT
Pushkin’s post deserves careful reading. Most of the comments and the Chief’s remarks appear to misunderstand the purpose of and function fundamental research and scholarship. No physician reads reports on the intricacies of stem cell research as a means to improving her day-to-day practice. Nor should practicing lawyers expect to find many law review articles that will assist her in drafting a will or preparing for a deposition. That, after all, was never their purpose or function. But appellate attorneys and judges and legislators make use of the research and thought in law reviews routinely. More importantly, the work of the law review writers—like that of others doing fundamental research in any field—elevates the overall competence of the profession, whether a particular attorney ever reads a law review article.
As someone who spends much of my day reading scientific and scholarly articles from the social sciences, neuroscience, and other journals, I can attest that the level of scholarship in law reviews compares extremely well with that of other disciplines—something of which our profession should be proud. The Chief is off base here.
40.
Dan Bowling
Jul 8, 2011 7:02 AM CDT
Much of what abajournal.com writes about – and we comment upon – concerns the state of the legal profession and the life of its lawyers, topics more humanistic in nature than practical “how-to” guides on practice topics. As such, law review articles on jurisprudence, the history of legal education, philosophical influences on the development of the law, moral ethics vs. legal ethics, etc., are highly relevant to practice today – indeed, they are essential in understanding and addressing our professional malaise. Of course, as others have noted, much of what passes for legal scholarship is poorly written, overly dense, and useless for any purpose. However, one can find clearly written, well-argued, and fascinating articles on interesting topics – yes, maybe even about Kant’s influence on the law – if one looks hard enough.
41.
Pierre
Jul 8, 2011 7:15 AM CDT
Re hiwaves
Pity you seem unable to distinguish between “principles”-the word you should have used- and “principals” the word you misused.
On the broader topic, over my four decades of practice I have noted my decreasing use of law review articles, not because they are useless, though some are, but because the publication delays renders them untimely. I regularly keep up with the articles posted online in SSRN where the dates of submissions and of revisions are given.
It also seems to me that the need for Increasing speed of access to comments etc. Has propelled blogs by law professors and practioners into the forefront of usefulness thus displacing law reviews. Coporate law postings by professors Bainbridge and Ribstein are always worth reading, as is ,for example, the Securities Law Professor blog,and the comments on Delaware cases by Wm Allen or by Leo Strine. Now I rest.
42.
Diana Brehob
Jul 8, 2011 7:18 AM CDT
I obtained a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering 2 decades prior to attending law school. I am surprised at the widely-held opinion that a lawyer out of law school should be able to practice law. In engineering, it is widely understood that you learn the fundamentals of engineering and then learn your specialty on the job. There are so many unique areas that one could focus on that it is naive to think that your engineering undergraduate education could prepare you for your ultimate job. Instead, it provides a toolbox that you bring to bear on the job as you are guided by mentors in that specific field. I worked as a patent engineer and Patent Agent for 5 years before I went to law school. It was precisely for these fundamental principles that I attended law school. I explained it to engineering friends: one might learn how to design a heat exchanger without an engineering degree simply by working on the job, but one is not going to pick up the fundamentals of thermodynamics on the job. The same was true for me. I learned how to write and prosecute a patent application mostly by on-the-job training. But, I found myself frustrated in meetings with lawyers in which they spoke of fundamental legal concepts. Although they would try to explain it to me, my understanding was shallow having not read the underlying case law and essentially going through the rigors of law school. I am really quite taken aback by the nuts-and-bolts attitude of legal practitioners presented here. If a goal is for a law school graduate to to be able to practice out of the chute, then I recommend that law school be revamped to the engineering equivalent of technician training. One could have a 2-year program to specialize in Family Law and a 2-year program on Tax Law teaching one how to work through the practicalities of the legal system (appropriate documents, software tools, etc.). Forget the fundamentals and the broad understanding! My point is that you can learn the specifics of your field on the job, but not the fundamentals. That is the point of the educational system, i.e., push one to think beyond practicalities.

I will temper my comments by saying that I did not attend one of the more higher-ranked institutions for law school. Instead, I attended a school that does have a more balanced approach between theory and practical education, and gets penalized in rankings for that. Nevertheless, I may have a different view based on my feeling that I was exposed to enough of the fundamentals and theory to give me the appropriate background while also being exposed to practical law.
43.
Fred Flintstone
Jul 8, 2011 7:24 AM CDT
Interestingly, the comments here are mostly in agreement with the Chief Justice. That being said, it appears those in the academic world are out of touch with the profession.
While I would agree that theory and substance need to be a significant part of law school, it appears it is the only thing taught. Many race to make law school a 2.5 year experience by taking as many classes in a hurried fashion as they can. They learn about such theory that has no practical relevance to a practitioner. The hurried graduate can’t draft even the easiest Motion for an Extension of Time that is granted as a matter of right. I recall graduating in 2005 and after landing a job at a small firm wondering what I was supposed to do as a lawyer to advance a case. I had no idea and was blessed that the firm understood and was willing to teach what wasn’t taught at “law school”.
Instead of allowing the less than three year tenure at law school, the ABA and others should be looking to lengthen the experience so that there is some mandatory residency period to learn the profession. Imagine seeing a recent medical school graduate who has never touched a patient in the 4 years of medical school. They might know everything about the science, but if they can’t give an injection, they’re useless. Are you really comfortable being the guinea pig? Most law school grads spend their entire academic career in the hollowed brick and mortared halls and never speak to a client, never interview a witness, and never draft an appearance. Many law school professors have never practiced law. Schools will claim they have clinics, but only a minority of the students partake.
Rather than strengthening the profession, the ABA and law schools are softening the rules to increase the number being admitted. They are stuck in time in the belief that law school students will find jobs at Big Law where their practical training will take place. I believe to move forward, the ABA and law schools need to adopt a more practical approach to teaching law. It has to be theory coupled with practice. Only then would the Chief Justice’s practical and learned comments be rendered moot.
44.
hiwaves
Jul 8, 2011 7:25 AM CDT
Re: Pierre #41
Apologies, my attention deficit is acute at 3 A.M.
45.
Prof. Muriel Morisey
Jul 8, 2011 7:35 AM CDT
Many law schools do an excellent job of preparing students for practice. Temple, where I teach, and the University of Maryland, where Professor Ifill teaches, are examples. Some of this occurs in traditional classroom settings where professors bring the real world into the discussion of assigned cases. A great deal happens in clinicals where students get supervised experiences doing the things law practice will require. The overgeneralized assertion that law schools don’t combine theory and practice is refuted by even a cursory review of the course offerings of law schools, including the most prestigious ones. The question of legal scholarship’s utility is distinct from the question whether law schools prepare students to practice.
46.
Fred Flintstone
Jul 8, 2011 7:47 AM CDT
With all due respect Professor, I expected that response. I knew someone from the academic world would be unwilling to consider another approach, defending the status quo. There is no question that there is a distinct difference between the question of utility and practice. No one is arguing that.
I suggest the law schools need to model medical schools. Require that “residents” practice with a firm prior to being licensed. Until you do this, your classroom approach is not enough. I was in the law school clinic, I worked on a part of a single case. It didn’t prepare me for the profession in a semester’s time frame. That’s the underlying message here.
If you don’t want to hear the message it is ok. The majority here who are in practice, including myself, are suggesting that law school, even with the practical classes, did not prepare them for the profession. To balance the two, change must take place. In my opinion, the only way to do this is to lengthen the training with a mandatory residency.
47.
dcinsider
Jul 8, 2011 7:53 AM CDT
Isn’t there room enough in legal scholarship for both? Is there some kind of page limit? If an article is read, well received, and cited, it has met its purpose. If not, perhaps it was less than helpful, or too esoteric, or simply not important. It doesn’t mean that it should never have been published. Not every novel is a Stenbeck.
48.
dcinsider
Jul 8, 2011 7:53 AM CDT
or even a Steinbeck 😉
49.
Nor
Jul 8, 2011 7:54 AM CDT
If law review articles did what their descriptor implies, review new developments in the law and synthesize them into implied rules, they would all be useful. But many are really just articles on philosophy, economics, statistics, politics, history, etc.
50.
Marked Man
Jul 8, 2011 7:58 AM CDT
I used to be a law review articles editor in school, then a BigLaw associate, and now an in-house lawyer.
There is no doubt that scholarship in the law could be more relevant and focused. There is sometimes a drive to find some “new” topic that results in these inane articles that become trivial reads. When I was an articles editor, many times I had to question the point of the article when making a publication decision. When I was an associate, the best articles often were the student ones because they had the extensive footnotes that were a research goldmine. And now as in-house counsel I don’t have time to read many law review articles, I tend to rely on shorter pieces and if I do read one it’s usually a “hard” analysis of an issue that I am dealing with.
I’d prefer to see more focus on the things that matter rather than trying to find some interesting topic that lets the author come up with some pithy title.

Show 50 more • Show all

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off on ABA JOURNAL GENERATES MASSIVE COMMENTARY ON C.J. ROBERTS’ CRITIQUE OF ACADEMIC LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP

Another Conference on Experiential Learning in a Specialty Area: International Law Clinics, Externships, Internships, and Advanced Research — Pace Law School, May 6

Posted on April 26, 2011 by vmerton

The day after the May 5 “Practically Grounded” conference, a joint project of Pace and Albany Law Schools to be held at Pace Law School in White Plains, half an hour north of New York City (see entry below), Pace Law will host another experiential learning-oriented conference, this time on behalf of the Teaching International Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law and the American Branch of the International Law Association.  “Teaching International Law Beyond the Classroom: Engaging Students in Experiential Learning, in Web 2.0, and in Historical and Empirical Research”  will take place on Friday, May 6, 2011, from 8:45 am to 7:00 pm.

Noteworthy is the fact that at both Teaching Conferences, all participants will be offered a free copy of Best Practices for Legal Education: A Vision and A Road Map and the book will be referenced and used throughout by conference speakers and moderators.

The focus of this conference is getting both students and faculty involved in empirical research, historical research, Web 2.0, and experiential learning.  Beth Simmons of Harvard, one of the country’s leading empiricists in the field of international law, will be speaking along with Jordan Paust, Houston; Sital Kalantry, Cornell; Julian Ku, Hofstra; Peggy McGuiness, St. John’s; and Tom Lee, Fordham.  Anthony VanDuzer, of the Ottawa University Faculty of Law, will describe his NAFTA course, co-taught with a U.S. law professor and a Mexican law professor, using Skype to bring professors and students from the three countries together simultaneously.  Robert Van Lierop, former UN ambassador currently with the UN in Darfur, will discuss the externship program he supervises, in which Pace law students assist island countries with environmental issues at the United Nations.

A full schedule and additional information can be found here.

Filed under: International Initiatives and Models, Teaching Methodology, Uncategorized, Upcoming Events | 2 Comments »

From the Law School that, Indeed, Has Everything

Posted on March 27, 2011 by vmerton

These are difficult times on so many levels, I don’t think we can let this week pass without taking note of the bold leadership of Yale Law School, in this as in so many aspects of progressive and innovative legal education, with its new check-out-a-dog-from-the-Law-Library service for law students.  (Faculty apparently are not eligible, or at least not paying attention – see article below).  [Footnote also below.]

One (OK, I) can’t help wondering if spending half an hour with a dog you have no relationship or responsibility for will either build affective competence (I know, the rent-a-dog program is extra-curricular, but then, so were clinics in the beginning) or provide frantic law students with the desired sense of perspective on the comparative importance of grades and exams.  As an ailurophile myself, however, I’m undoubtedly the wrong person to summatively assess this concept.  (No cat would put up with such random encounters; if you were lucky, a rent-a-cat might deign to sleep on your nice warm computer, but hardly condescend to play or cuddle – certainly not on-demand with all comers.)

Yale does seem to be in the vanguard here; no other law schools are identified as offering rent-a-pets, but inquiring minds would like to know if your law school does.  While I for one am not positive that we want to accustom lawyers to finding solace and regeneration quite this way, advocating the half-hour pause to refresh – in some way other than Facebook or Halo — definitely seems salutary and instructive.  A half hour is too short for the classic serious exercise break involving changing clothes and showers – maybe one could get in some light yoga or tai chi at most — but should law schools suggest and try to facilitate, say, a chat or walk with another human being, even a fellow student, as opposed to a dog?  Or provide a game room for a quick set of Bananagrams or ping-pong or Crazy Eights?   Or a mini-kitchen/mini-studio where students (and faculty) could spend twenty minutes baking some cookies or making a sandwich (as opposed to the stress of standing on line for cafeteria food), or work on a water-color or play a piano . . . I’m guessing quite a few schools do offer meaningful mini-respite opportunities and facilities, probably at no more cost than Yale’s new mascot, and it’d be interesting to know what they are.  I see another faculty committee on the horizon: the Restorative Recreation Committee!

In light of the NYT’s new paywall policy, and since it is not egregiously long, here is a fair-use selection of excerpts from the article describing the program:

March 21, 2011

For Law Students With Everything, Dog Therapy for Stress
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS

* * * *

Yale Law School, renowned for competitiveness and its Supreme Court justices, is embarking on a pilot program next week in which students can check out a “therapy dog” named Monty along with the library’s collection of more than one million books.

While the law school is saying little so far about its dog-lending program, it has distributed a memo to students with the basics: that Monty will be available at the circulation desk to stressed-out students for 30 minutes at a time beginning Monday, for a three-day trial run.

“It is well documented that visits from therapy dogs have resulted in increased happiness, calmness and overall emotional well-being,” Blair Kauffman, the law librarian, wrote in an e-mail to students.

The school is not saying what sort of dog Monty is; what happens to him when school is out of session; or how Monty himself may be kept from becoming overstressed with all his play dates.

* * * *

Monty, according to the memo to students, is hypoallergenic and will be kept in a nonpublic space inside the library, presumably away from those who don’t much like dogs.

“We will need your feedback and comments to help us decide if this will be a permanent ongoing program available during stressful periods of the semester, for example, during examinations,” the note to students reads.

* * * *

Yale Law School has kept its dog-lending plan so quiet that some faculty members were not even aware of it.

* * * *
1. As far as I can tell from the article (having not made independent inquiry of Yale), no animal-rights advocates have given the program their imprimatur; I need to check my colleague David Cassuto’s Animal Blawg (http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/) to see whether concerns have been expressed.  Spending day after day of sequential half-hours soothing and reassuring overwrought law students does seem to skirt the verge of cruelty.  (Oh no, that can’t be right, that’s what WE do . . .)  I presume the program’s been approved by the Yale University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, although it doesn’t seem to publicly list approved protocols (no kidding!), so can’t be sure about that.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Just Imagine if You Were Trying to Get a Job as a Law School Teacher . . .

Posted on December 13, 2010 by vmerton

How would you prepare: 1) for the hiring process; and 2) for performing the job if hired?

Imagine, too, that your training and professional experience was as a lawyer: a professional problem-solver who depends on comprehensive, up-to-date research to become thoroughly familiar with the doctrinal and conceptual framework of any legal question you confront.

It’s that time of year again.  A succession of brilliant, credentialed, eager and charming faculty candidates, mostly young, are making their way through the process, culminating in the full day of small group interviews and the all-important “job talk,” rich with graphic slides and witty asides.  An enormous amount of time, on the part of both faculty and candidates, and not a small amount of money, are dedicated to this exercise.  And of course, the results matter profoundly to the schools’ future students and those students’ future clients.

Every candidate is poised and ready for the inevitable inquiry about his or her “scholarly agenda.”  All are well-versed about the “best” journals, how to entice student editors to bite, and which are the most strategically advantageous conferences and symposia to appear at.  They have assembled posses of high-profile mentors to whom they can direct the acknowledgments on their first pages.  As many have noted, it has become all but impossible for a mere lawyer, however accomplished and insightful, to be taken seriously as a faculty candidate unless s/he has already published a few major law review articles, and can convincingly describe a planned research trajectory of unremitting erudition and sophistication, emphatically not focused on problems in legal practice.  Especially in this market of shrinking firms, starving government, and defunded public interest, it is no wonder that law schools seem able to raise the bar for admission to the august ranks of academe higher, higher, and ever higher.

But exclusively, it seems, in terms of demonstrated capacity and hunger for the scholarly side of the professorial role.

How many of these candidates have significant teaching experience?  If they do, how many – unless being considered for a “special” slot — have taught anything other than a nonexperiential “podium” course or a specialized seminar as part of an LL.M.?

It’s one thing if a candidate has tried but never managed to land an opportunity to teach in any context, but does anyone on the Appointments Committee even ask whether, when, and how the candidate has decided that s/he wants to teach law students and prepare them for the effective and responsible practice of law?  Whether s/he has ever developed and submitted a course proposal or applied to work as an adjunct – and if not, why?  Ever been invited or sought to participate in a CLE program or a program for would-be pro bono lawyers?  Sure, rarely a candidate is asked to articulate his or her “teaching philosophy,” but no eyebrow is raised when the response is a vague or frankly vapid bromide about “varying the Socratic method with a few problems” or “I try to reach everyone in the class.” No specifics about the techniques to achieve these goals is proffered or expected.  The best-received answer often seems to be, “Well, I really try to involve students in my scholarship as much as I can.”

Certainly the candidates are right on top of “hot topics” in legal scholarship – many have already attended Law and Society conferences, frequent the most esoteric blogs, and can’t wait to start trading downloads and citations so they can ascend to an SSRN Top 10.  Wouldn’t you think, if you were being recruited for a position that ostensibly involves spending something like half your work-week as a teacher, that you’d also read some background material about the enterprise of legal/professional education?  Its history, its structure, its current issues?  And if you had, wouldn’t you want to demonstrate your solid grasp of these “hot topics”?  I have yet to hear a candidate express any familiarity with Best Practices for Legal Education (either the book or this blog), the Carnegie Report [Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law], The Law Teacher or its publisher the Institute for Law Teaching and Learning, the Law School Survey of Student Engagement (LSSSE), or even the MacCrate Report, let alone more esoteric subjects such as the ABA Curriculum Survey, now in the midst of update, or the proposed ABA standard on  outcomes assessment.  If a candidate is asked about some aspect of educational affairs during a group interview, faculty colleagues tend to react with dismay, casting displeased glances at the disruptive interrogator.

Yes, it’s true that the Appointments Committee will generally request the candidate’s teaching evaluations (the limitations of which deserve and have elsewhere received ample attention), syllabi, and classroom PowerPoints if available, but how often do those become the focus of discussion with the candidate or within the Committee?  Every publication of a candidate is scrutinized, but virtually never does a Committee seek arguably more illuminating embodiments of teaching prowess, such as examples of feedback on student essays and papers, grading rubrics, sample exams and “model answers”, evaluation or critique of student performance of lawyering tasks, or other assessment tools and supplemental course materials.  I have not yet had a chance to check out any of the official handbooks for candidates, such as Becoming a Law Professor: A Candidate’s Guide, by Brannon P. Denning, Marcia L. McCormick and Jeff M. Lipshaw, but I will be happily surprised if they suggest that candidates need assemble teaching portfolios of any significance.

Years ago, as an appointments committee chair, I added a step to the process: each called-back candidate not only gave a job talk, but taught a “class” the same day.  (No doubt others have made similar forays, I just don’t know of them).  To standardize, the assigned material was the same for all: a PR casebook excerpt on Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) and related items on the allocation of decision-making authority between lawyer and client.  Any member of a law faculty should be equipped to teach a class in basic, non-technical legal ethics, right?  And while it lasted, no candidate ever complained or protested and most managed to deliver a respectable class that was at least as instructive to the observing faculty (who could also watch a video) and to the student volunteers, who had prepared just as they would for any class.  The students also provided verbal and written feedback to the Committee –- and, if the candidate asked, to the candidate too.  Most impressive to me, naturally, were the candidates who not only solicited comments about their teaching from students and faculty, but wanted a copy of the video.

Limited in scope as it was, there is much one could say about the value of incorporating such an element into the appointments process: the message it conveyed to our students, who felt they were contributing a unique and useful perspective and having a meaningful say; the message conveyed to candidates about the importance attached to quality teaching at this institution, which helped establish whether there was a “good fit”; the substantive discussions about what constitutes good, better or best teaching practices that were precipitated among our faculty as we debated candidates; and the fact that many a candidate became entranced with our students, candidly confessing that they were far more impressive than anticipated -– a strong selling point for the Law School.  (No, the students were not randomly chosen).

But, this experiment, which I guess is what it was, did not long survive changes in committee membership, the faculty, dean, president, and zeitgeist. I mention it, I guess, only to say: it is possible.

Clearly, this post will be labeled the lament of a malcontent.  I am not deluded that it will spark changes in the operation of either side of the meat market.  Candidates, like all evolutionarily successful species, whatever their private predilections, will continue to display aggressively the characteristics most attractive to their quarry, law school appointments committees — up to and including bound feet and peacock tails.  Those committees, in turn, will continue to do the bidding of faculty and administrators starved for the validation and other benefits associated with scrambling even a step or two up the almighty USNWR ranking.  Law school faculties will include ever fewer members expert in and enthusiastic about the professional art, science, and literature of teaching.

In related news, Stanford Law School has jubilantly announced that it has secured something under a million dollars to spend on a massive, long-term, multifaceted research study “to describe and understand the state of the profession, including trends and emerging developments.” “The study will seek to develop policy recommendations to help law firms adapt their business models to better meet the needs of their clients and of a rapidly changing legal market.  It will also consider the implications of these changes for legal education.”

The press release insists that the profession is undergoing transformative change. “On the surface, things look relatively unchanged . . . but firms employ thousands rather than hundreds of lawyers, with offices around the world and dramatically different partner/associate ratios. Hourly rates have soared, while clients are less willing to underwrite the training of new associates.  Legal work has become increasingly specialized because clients have more sophisticated needs and expectations, and technology and globalization have only exacerbated these trends. The demand for profitability at firms has increased the need to bill hours and this pressure-cooker environment has caused associates to hopscotch among firms.”

Conspicuously absent in the entire long project description is any mention of: the frighteningly pervasive and growing lack of lawyers for the poor, the working-class, the middle-class, and almost anyone else but the very comfortable, with concomitant deep discouragement of law graduates who wish to undertake this work; the widespread incompetence and ignorance of lawyers about basic legal tasks, including decent legal research and problem-solving, and basic responsibilities to clients; the failures of the fundamental licensing, assessment, malpractice, and disciplinary institutions of the profession; or any of the myriad other problematic aspects of our profession that are not the concern of the wealthy and the powerful.

California is a house burning down, or maybe a fireworks factory exploding, in terms of the paucity of services, assistance, and enforcement of civil and legal rights for its poor and middle-class.  It is hard not to think about what close to a million dollars in the hands of its estimable and frugal legal services organizations –- CRLA (California Rural Legal Assistance), the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, etc. — would have meant in terms of, say, halting unlawful foreclosures that rob people of their property, their retirement security, their children’s inheritances and education funding, in a very real sense, their lives. That need is immense, and it is now.

I daresay copious articles will be the fruit of this generous grant, perhaps a book or two.

I don’t know what else to say. Except that working for genuine change in legal education bears painful resemblance to being an Obama supporter.  Which leads  (in my mind, anyway) full circle to: Obama’s Treasury Secretary won’t authorize allocation of a small fraction of TARP funds intended to help the “hardest hit” communities to legal services organizations representing homeowners fighting foreclosure.  Billions to bail out monster banks who can spend it on whatever — not a penny for legal aid. See “Treasury Blocks Legal Aid for Homeowners Facing Foreclosure,” by Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation.  Priorities.  Priorities, most of all your priorities in choosing who will execute your mission, tell you everything there really is to know about the nature of your enterprise.

Vanessa Merton

Filed under: Best Practices & Setting Goals, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Catalysts For Change | 1 Comment »

Be Careful What You Wish For

Posted on December 1, 2008 by vmerton

So I’m probably the only one who missed this interesting development in the ongoing saga of reform of the ABA Standards for the Approval of Law Schools. There has been much hoo-ha and concern about the Special Committee Reports on Security of Position and Outcome Measures, but did you know: in August 2008, the Standards Review Committee of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar circulated for notice and comment two proposed changes to the Standards, one of which is to delete Interpretations 402-1 and 402-2 relating to student-faculty ratio. (The proposed changes are published on the Section’s website, www.abanet.org/legaled.) Continue reading →

Filed under: Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Best Practices, Outcomes & Assessment Techniques | 3 Comments »

Best Practices in Law Schools Survey is great; but what is “clinical?”

Posted on September 23, 2008 by vmerton

So, Deborah Rhode’s Best Practices in Law Schools Survey just hit my school, probably yours too.  Brilliant concept, superb execution.  Very excited about the potential impact of delivering real, solid, accurate information to USNWR respondents.  Not trying to compete with USNWR, but to subvert it, if you will.  All good.  So affirmatively seek out your academic dean or other relevant  administrator and inquire, what’s up with the Best Practices Survey?  Don’t let it fall behind the decanal desk.  Obviously, it will only have clout if the participation is broad enough to make its data meaningful. Continue reading →

Filed under: Who is Using the Best Practices Book? | 6 Comments »

A Call for a Response: “Why are Law Professors So Unhappy?”

Posted on January 7, 2008 by vmerton

Yet another connection that might be made to another blog, to TaxProfBlog in fact :  http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/12/why-are-law-pro.html#comments

“Why Are Law Professors So Unhappy?” asks renowned tax law professor and scholar of pedagogy Paul Caron.  He cites a recent book,The Three Signs of a Miserable Job (2007), for the proposition that the key characteristics of an unhappiness-making job are: 1) anonymity;  2) irrelevance, when employees cannot see how their job makes a difference in the lives of others; and 3) “immeasurement,” which is the inability of employees to assess for themselves their contribution or success.  He then suggests that law professors are surprisingly prone to these ills.

Caron’s post has elicited much commentary and controversy, not only on his blog but on several others.  Maybe someone ought to respond along the lines that law professors might suffer far less from these misery indices if they made more of a commitment to teaching, or rather to the actual perceptible learning of their students.  I don’t trust my own ability to write the post in a way that would easily be heard by its intended audience, but somebody should.  Great opportunity to link to BPBlog from one of the best-known blogs in legal academe.

Filed under: Catalysts For Change | Comments Off on A Call for a Response: “Why are Law Professors So Unhappy?”

Feminist Law Profs Blog

Posted on January 6, 2008 by vmerton

Some thoughtful reflection from a colleague on the Feminist Law Professors blog:

http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=2646

Filed under: Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness | Comments Off on Feminist Law Profs Blog