Experiential Learning: ABA Standards 303 and 304

Posted on September 13, 2015 by Brian Sites

Although “experiential learning” has been a term of interest to many legal educators for years, the ABA’s new standards have brought it front and center by mandating that schools “require[] each student to satisfactorily complete at least . . . one or more experiential course(s) totaling at least six credit hours.”

Two well-known ways to meet the requirement are law clinics and field placements. Law schools across the country already widely offer both. But the third path to satisfying the requirement, “simulation courses,” is less familiar to many professors. So what do “simulation courses” require?

Standards 303 and 304 together define what a course must include to be a “simulation course.” First, and likely most importantly, the course must be “primarily experiential in nature.” According to a March 2015 ABA Guidance Memo on these standards, that means the course is essentially, mostly, or chiefly experiential and “the substantive law or doctrinal material . . . [is] incidental to [the course].”  The latter element is an important limitation: it could mean, depending on how the ABA interprets the standard, that even courses rich with simulation exercises are not a “simulation course” if the course is using simulations primarily to teach doctrinal law. In fact, the same guidance memo notes that “[i]nserting skills components in otherwise doctrinal courses” is great, but it does not necessarily mean the course falls under the “simulation course” umbrella. It would be unfortunate if highly experiential doctrinal courses along the lines of “The Practice of [Specific Doctrinal Area]” did not qualify under these standards simply because they were teaching students skills relevant to a particular area of the law.

Next, the course must provide “substantial experience not involving an actual client that is reasonably similar to the experience of a lawyer advising or representing a client or engaging in other lawyering tasks.” While many skills-based courses will meet this element—for example, courses focusing on interviewing clients, drafting legal documents, and mediation—other courses are more debatable. Is a course teaching students how to run a practice, manage cases, track time and bill, and related pragmatic skills “reasonably similar to the experience of a lawyer” under the standard? It is unclear, but a good argument can be made that it is—those skills fall under Standard 302‘s explanation of what skills a law school curriculum should foster, e.g. “organization and management of legal work” (interpretation 302-1).

The remaining requirements are more straightforward. The substantial experience must occur within “a set of facts and circumstances devised or adopted by a faculty member,” and there must be multiple opportunities for performance, feedback from a faculty member, and self-evaluation. Most courses that clear the above hurdles will naturally meet these. Similarly, the requirement that a faculty member directly supervise each student’s performance will also be met in most cases.

Finally, there must be “a classroom instructional component,” the class must integrate doctrine, theory, skills, and legal ethics, and the class must “engage students in performance of one or more of the professional skills identified in Standard 302” (e.g.  counseling, negotiation, trial practice, and many other professional skills). These requirements are relatively straight-forward but will pose a problem for some for-credit co-curriculars like moot court and trial team, which often do not require a classroom component beyond the team practices (which the guidance memo indicates will generally not be enough).  Interested parties can learn more in the guidance memo about how such programs can qualify for the experiential credits.

In sum, the revised ABA standards are breathing new life into experiential learning across the nation. Combined with the prospect of state-specific experiential learning requirements, mandatory experiential learning is here to stay. However, with attention to Standards 303 and 304 and study of the guidance memo, simulation courses are a third option for the required six credits.

Filed under: Best Practices & Curriculum | Comments Off on Experiential Learning: ABA Standards 303 and 304

Annual Leadership in Legal Education Issue of Univ. of Toledo Law Review Filled with Best Practices Nuggets

Posted on September 6, 2015 by Patricia Salkin

The new issue of the University Toledo Law Review is out, featuring its annual “virtual symposium” on legal education by law school deans. These annual issues should be read not just be deans and people who are thinking about pursuing a law school deanship, but they should be read by college and university presidents and provosts, members of law school boards of trustees and advisory boards, senior administrative staff, and most important, by law school faculty. The articles in each volume, taken together, offer terrific insights into current challenges facing legal education, interesting historical background on various aspects of legal education, and innovative ideas to shape the future of law schools and legal education. The winter 2015 volume is no exception.

While I will not address all twelve of the articles/essays in this brief review, I do want to highlight several important themes in four pieces. Beginning with the opening contribution by two-time former dean Peter C. Alexander (Indiana Tech and Southern Illinois), more than mere references to “best practices” principles abound. One of Alexander’s assertions is that law schools, in “the new normal” must do more to create “practice ready” graduates as part of the ongoing curricular reform taking place. He also suggests, “Faculty members have to design new methods of instruction and create new pathways for students to learn….Deans must make funds available for faculty members to learn how people learn and how to teach the current generation of students.” (p. 263) This is an astute observation and one not lost on many in the academy. Most of us on the law faculty did not receive any formal education or degree in pedagogy. While those who work with students from pre-K through 12th grade must be certified as teachers after formal baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate training, there are no such requirements in higher education. Few, if any, dispute that in law school the learning styles of our students has changed over time, and this challenges law faculty to more attune to the need to change our teaching methodologies.

Another piece written by Professor George Critchlow, former interim dean and former director of the clinical programs at Gonzaga University School of Law, focuses on ensuring that legal education in a broad sense is accessible to those who wish to serve the public good – including non-lawyers (a good and controversial read). In his discussion on affordability, Critchlow reviews a number of ideas that have been circulating for years including, but not limited to: law schools partnering with legal services organizations and firms (resembling aspects of the medical school model); a discretionary third year program that consists entirely of a practice-oriented experience; participation by law schools with apprenticeship programs that allow or encourage students to engage in actual work outside of the law school in addition to classes (this goes well beyond the current law school supervised externship and clinic experiences); and cost savings to clinical programs by entering into “hybrid” arrangements with community based legal service providers.

A theme in Critchlow’s article is picked up in greater detail in an article by IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law dean Harold J. Krent and director of clinical legal education Gary S. Laser. Krent and Laser focus on meeting the experiential challenge through the operation of a fee-generating law clinic. By highlighting the example of the IIT Chicago-Kent model which in essence is organized as an in-house law office, the authors point out that students are exposed not just to the traditional live client experience of a clinic, but they develop an appreciation for the economics of law practice. This is important given the increasing attention that many law schools are giving to the business aspects of running law offices, whether it be through the incubator movement, the addition of courses on law office management, and the introduction of business skills to the curriculum.

The symposium ends with an essay by UC Hastings College of Law Dean Frank Wu which I highly recommend everyone read. Dean Wu offers his prescription for reforming law schools, much of which I will not address here due to space and my focus on best practice. Wu states, “A lawyer should be like a doctor. There is no medical school graduate who altogether lacks clinical experience. Every licensed physician has seen a live patient presenting actual symptoms before charging anyone for a diagnosis. Yet some law school graduates manage to do quite well by book learning alone. They need not interview, counsel, or draft, to earn honors, if their exams and seminar papers are good enough.” (p. 420) He discusses the increasing importance of the need for the academy and the profession to understand and appreciate the impact that technology is having and will have on the future of the practice of law and lawmaking. Wu addresses the ongoing and long-time debate over the profile of law professors as practitioners or intellectuals. (p. 440) In addressing the costs of change, Dean Wu asserts that the most expensive and most worthwhile change we have “recently” made in legal education is clinical legal education.

Every year I find fascinating the articles and essays published by the Toledo Law Review in their special “deans” issue. I am surprised that many people do not know that this annual symposium exists. It is a good read that should not be missed.

Filed under: Best Practices, Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices & Externships, Best Practices and Clinics, Teaching Methodology | 2 Comments »

Tenure and Governance

Posted on August 29, 2015 by Mary A. Lynch

This National Jurist coverage of Charleston Law School goes to the heart of why tenure is important for higher education institutions.

http://www.nationaljurist.com/content/why-tenure-important

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off on Tenure and Governance

AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education Statement of Position in support of the California Bar Experiential Requirement

Posted on August 18, 2015 by Mary A. Lynch

The AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education has drafted a Statement of Position in support of the California bar’s proposal, which would require 15 units of experiential education for bar takers. According to AALS Clinical Section Chair, Jayesh Rathod of American University, the statement was drafted “as a counterpoint to the statement penned by the AALS Deans’ Steering Committee”  and is now posted on the AALS website.

Statement of Position: http://www.aals.org/SCLE-TFARR/  (also featured on the home page)

Press Release: http://www.aals.org/aals-newsroom/SCLE-TFARR/

It was appropriate for the AALS Executive Committee to provide, at the very least, equal footing to a statement of one of the largest sections in the AALS with the statement of a special committee of Deans. It is also wonderful to see the Clinical Section join CLEA in supporting this important step for reforming and improving legal education.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

What Advice Would You Give to Your Students? By: John Lande

Posted on August 17, 2015 by Jessica Persaud

Law professors want their students to succeed in navigating the challenging path of law school and legal practice.  We embed our advice in our courses and other interactions with students.  Usually, we don’t have the chance to impart our wisdom systematically and get to convey only bits and pieces here and there.

Recently, I compiled my advice into a single article that I hope many students read and benefit from.  I suspect that most professors and administrators would agree with virtually all of my suggestions.  So you might want to assign it in your courses if appropriate, either as required or recommended reading.  It is also appropriate for orientation programs, so you might pass this along to the people who organize the program at your school.

Since 2004, I have been teaching a required 1L course at the University of Missouri:  Lawyering:  Problem-Solving and Dispute Resolution.  Every year, for the first day of class, we would read Stephen D. Easton, My Last Lecture: Unsolicited Advice for Future and Current Lawyers, 56 S.C. L. Rev. 229 (2004).  I LOVE that article, which expresses really honest, practical advice with a good spirit.

I was asked to write an article to celebrate my retirement in an article collecting my ideas.  So I drafted My Last Lecture: More Unsolicited Advice for Future and Current Lawyers, which will appear next year in the Journal of Dispute Resolution.

If you think that your students would benefit from it, please let them know about it.  If I express advice you would give, you get the benefit of repetition, essentially saying, “See – it’s not just me.  Someone who sounds impressive says the same things.”

I still have a chance to revise the article, so if you have any suggestions (especially if you might assign this in the future and want me to include things to urge your students), please let me know by September 14.

John Lande

landej@missouri.edu

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off on What Advice Would You Give to Your Students? By: John Lande

Thought Provoking Resources for Best Practices Blog Readers

Posted on August 17, 2015 by jwegner

I have had the chance to learn about legal and professional education from some of the best.  I wanted to take this opportunity to share some related resources with readers of this blog.  Each of the resources here is free, and each amply rewards readers who need less than five minutes to scan for interesting and thought-provoking content.

Law School Vibe. A fairly new, thought-provoking blog is one called “law school vibe” developed as a team effort by colleagues at the University of New South Wales School of Law in Sydney, Australia.  During my research leave “down under” I learned a great deal from the smart and innovative educators there.  Here’s the address:  https://lawschoolvibe.wordpress.com/  It’s easy to subscribe and there are many excellent posts (by bloggers Alex Steel, Colin Picker, Justine Rogers, Pru Vines, and Carolyn Penfold among others.  Topics have included student collaboration, how to teach statutory interpretation, the role of “content for all,” new approaches to international education, ethical issues (Does “Just Call Saul” translate abroad?  How should academics deal with plagiarism?), and more.  Rather than simply providing information, this blog asks engaging questions that are worthy of reflection and conversation with colleagues.  Posts arrive to subscribers about every two weeks.  Make it a habit to read these engaging thoughts.

Tomorrow’s Professor.  The Tomorrow’s Professor is a wonderful listserv that typically arrives twice a week from Stanford University’s Engineering Professor Rick Reis.  Here’s the address for those who would like to subscribe:  https://tomprof.stanford.edu/ Billed as “online faculty development,” it definitely delivers the goods for all of us who are interested in higher education, not just junior faculty or those in the sciences.  Posts focus on teaching and learning, research, academic careers, the academy, and graduate students.  Most posts are drawn (with permission) from other sources so readers often have the benefit of a quick summary or chapter excerpt from literature they would likely not otherwise encounter.  Recent posts include coverage of “desirable difficulties,” “capstone courses,” academics as “public intellectuals,” and cross-cultural mentoring among other things.  In some ways the Best Practices blog seeks to create a similar resource for legal educators, but why stop there?  Enrich your reading and learn something from those with complementary expertise.

Inside Higher Education.  Inside Higher Education (available at https://www.insidehighered.com/ ) is a terrific resource for those interested in following trends affecting higher education more generally.  This on-line resource offers daily summaries of this on-line publication’s coverage of developments affecting higher education.  The focus is a bit different from the resources above, but coverage should appeal particularly to those interested in or currently serving in leadership positions.  Enticing recent posts include “how to kill committee meetings,” and that’s only the start.  Sign up for free daily news summaries.

How About You?  What are your favorite sources of insight about teaching and learning, or about changing patterns of higher education more generally?  Share them with our readers. If you have time before the semester gets too frantic, offer brief summaries of your favorite resources such as those included here.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

What Am I Doing Here?

Posted on August 17, 2015 by Jill Engle

I force my students to reflect. The clinical students must submit a written piece at Orientation entitled “What Am I Doing Here?” and in my lecture course, I give written assignments early in the semester forcing them to ponder the theories behind Supreme Court decisions and the relevance to those in their own lives.  But what about me? What good is reflective learning without reflective teaching?

Like many of you, I suspect, reflection is an implicit and sometimes even explicit aspect of my pedagogy. I set learning outcomes.  I review best practices scholarship and refine my plans accordingly. I explore new material. I google. It’s a large, messy, fun sandbox we play in.

But as summer draws to its inevitable close, I find myself more drawn to the pause that reflection can invite. As teachers, we are encouraged to pause, at least ostensibly.  Semesters have endings, followed by “breaks”.  Education is full of built-in pauses.  What we do during those pauses, I think, matters much more than we realize. And I say that knowing that many of you, also like me, don’t have the “full stop” experience during the summer that some have.  Clinical teaching means client work, and direct representation of individual clients in state trial court litigation means no full stops.  Summer is just a season like the other three. Also it’s family law–enough said.

So when comes the pause?  Whenever it can.  In my world, it comes in the space between my deep inhales and exhales during tough moments in court.  Some days this summer it came early in the day, with coffee and the newspaper on my front porch.  And sometimes the pause was several days long, as vacations should be.  But at some point, every day, I pause deliberately to practice mindful movement or stillness, or a little of both.  Simply put, I practice yoga and meditation.  New Age? Maybe.  Relevant to my health? Absolutely.  Related to law teaching? Well, that’s the thing.

I found myself this past week adding more and more references to mindfulness, to reflection, and to just slowing down and pausing to savor moments, to my syllabus and my PowerPoints for class. My students are getting a little neuroscience about brain chemistry’s link to mindful reflection with their Family Law this semester.

I’ve been passionate about this for several years, but my clarity about the links between science and law grows constantly.  Aren’t we better students of anything when we harness our brain’s maximum power?  And that’s what mindfulness does–the science clearly shows it changes your brain for the better.  You’re a better learner, and a better teacher.  And what about stewards of the law–aren’t we better legal advocates if we are calmer, more open to legal theory, and more effective at conflict resolution?

This week I’ll share some of the science with my students, and then I’ll explain my new classroom rules: no phones, no computers, and we start each class with a moment of silence.  Then we’ll crack the new edition of the Bluebook and be off to the races.  That’s what we’re doing here.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off on What Am I Doing Here?

Pepperdine’s proactive approach to the California Proposal

Posted on August 14, 2015 by Mary A. Lynch

EXCELLENT Post from Pepperdine’s’ Jeff Baker over on Clinical Law Prof Blog on their proactive approach to the California proposal! Congratulations Pepperdine!

Pepperdine adopted these standards as graduation requirements beginning with the Class of 2017, “in advance of the rules’ formal enactment, to ensure that our students and our school are prepared and to accomplish these objectives well and eagerly.  We are actively building capacity in our program of clinical education, adding clinics, creating practicums, developing new experiential opportunities across every law school center, examining our curriculum, and building a flexible, compliant program to generate pro bono opportunities for students.   The new rules have given us great incentive to innovate and adapt, with a renewed focus on professional formation, and to live into our own mission.”

Jeff also mentioned that he spoke at a panel last year at Pepperdine’s Judicial Clerkship Institute”  where there was “much discussion about experiences students should seek and receive to prepare for elite practices and judicial clerkships,”  The consensus from judges, bar leaders and academics at that conference?

students need more courses and experiences that will generate wisdom, creativity, humility, integrity, diligence and excellence, within a pervasive understanding of lawyers’ roles and obligations to society.

Justice Jon Streeter, formerly president of the California Bar and chair of TFARR “expressed confidence and optimism that the rules will be adopted.”

It sounds like California will do the right thing in changing times when human nature resists change…

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

What’s going on in California? “TFARR- recommended” 15 credits of competency training

Posted on August 13, 2015 by Mary A. Lynch

For those who did not closely follow the California State Bar debate on the requirement of 15 credits of competency training for bar admission (the work of the Task Force on Admissions Regulation Reform, or “TFARR”), I summarize the current status.  (Although I am currently co-prez of the Clinical Legal Education Association, known as CLEA, this post is not written with that hat on.)  This is my own thinking, albeit, informed by the excellent work of the CLEA Advocacy committee.

The TFARR process was two-staged, over a three year period, with opportunities for public comment throughout. CLEA  participated in that process and submitted five separate comments on the proposals that are available at http://www.cleaweb.org/advocacy under “Briefs and Other Advocacy” (documents 4-8).

In the end, TFARR recommended 15 credits of competency training which can be achieved in a variety of ways (in addition to how experiential credits can be earned under the new ABA regulations), and which include six credits of summer work. You can read the TFARR Phase II Final Report  at: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/PublicComment/Archives/2014PublicComment/201411.aspx

The process was complete in November, 2014, with final TFARR recommendations to the State Bar Board of Trustees (that responded to public comments) and unanimous adoption by the Board: http://board.calbar.ca.gov/Agenda.aspx?id=10891&tid=0&show=100008800&s=true#10013881 (agenda item 113). The TFARR Phase II FInal Report represents a compromise based on extensive input.

Lately, some confusion has arisen because of a letter posted to the AALS website authored by a non-standing committee of Deans.  The confusion arises because:

  1. Neither AALS nor this special Dean’s committee ever participated in the two stage TFARR process and so appear to be sort of “johnny come latelys, ” and
  2. The letter mistakenly focuses on an earlier draft of the final proposal failing to recognize the compromises already reached in the final proposal.

I understand that there are efforts underway to correct the confusion which makes me happy since the Deans’ letter is signed by two people whom I have long admired in a variety of contexts.

Other blogs are already exploring the 15 credit  proposal and its interesting and creative approach. For example,   “Kudos to California”  What do our readers think?

Filed under: Best Practices, Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices & Externships, Best Practices & Setting Goals, Best Practices and Clinics, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Catalysts For Change | Tagged: , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Gender and Lawyers’ Worklives

Posted on August 6, 2015 by dmaranville

As we think about how to improve legal education, it’s always helpful to understand  our students, their careers, and what they value.   UW Law reference librarian Mary Whisner shared this item, that I missed when it initially came out:

Harvard Study: Women Lawyers Work More Than Men,

Bloomberg BNA Big Law Business, May 12, 2015

Harvard Law School’s Center on the Legal Profession released the results of a widespread survey of its graduates which suggests women work more hours on average than men, among other potentially myth-busting findings.

Through a survey of HLS graduates from the classes of 1975, 1985, 1995 and 2000 and other research, it provides a detailed portrait of the gender gap within the legal profession, including all the ways women have advanced or failed to advance.

. . .

https://bol.bna.com/harvard-study-women-lawyers-work-more-than-men/

The study also finds the women graduates satisfied  with the substance of their work, but dissatisfied with their compensation, while the reverse is true for men.

The full study (86 pp.) is David B. Wilkins et al., The Women and Men of Harvard Law School: Preliminary Results from the HLS Career Study (2015).

Would these findings about Harvard Law grads would hold true for lawyers generally.  If so, are there any implications for legal education?

Here’s one speculation:  Perhaps men experience more cultural push towards financial security and success in the form of work in Big Law. They might also experience less cultural encouragement toward emotional self-awareness, introspection about purpose in life,  and a service orientation. If so, the result might be that more men focus on external motivations and pursue the Big Law path,  even when it’s a bad fit with their interests, skills and values. They then find themselves less satisfied with the substance of their work. (And, given gender myths about women’s lesser commitment to the workforce, the men might be able to meet expectations with fewer hours.)  If so, legal education would be well advised to improve efforts to help students develop their professional identify, focusing both  on developing students understanding of lawyers work in different settings, and on students’ own talents, interests and values.

Another speculation:  Perhaps women tend to be less confident about the quality of their work and log more hours as a result.  Legal education could help them appreciate their own talents and skill level.

Other thoughts?

Filed under: Best Practices & Curriculum, Catalysts For Change | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

Lawyers Need “Soft Skills”—So Why Aren’t Law Schools Teaching Them?

Posted on July 28, 2015 by sgeorge326

There can be little doubt that law schools are largely proficient in teaching “hard skills” such as knowledge of the law, legal analysis, research, writing, and drafting. But what about “soft skills”—the general set of skills which influence how people interact, such as communication, leadership, critical thinking, confidence, team building, time management, creativity, public speaking, and problem solving, just to name a few? Most can agree that these skills are needed to be a successful lawyer, but we can also probably agree that they are not being taught in law school.
Other professions have been teaching and using these skills for some time while law schools have been slow to embrace them. Business and medicine are just two examples. If we agree that proficiency in these skills would not only make for happier clients but also more productive working relationships, why not make the teaching of these skills part of our curriculum? Perhaps some lawyers, professors, and students believe that you are either born with these skills or not—and that no specific training is needed to improve them. However, that is simply not true. Research proves that it is possible to develop these skills just as one can develop other skills. As noted in the ABA’s LawPractice Today, “[i]t is astounding that [soft skills] are not taught in law school, and that fact only serves to increase the responsibilities of law firms to create and implement training initiatives that focus on developing an attorney’s service-oriented skills… [a]nd so law firms have begun to teaching these skills—so why shouldn’t law schools?”
The question, of course is how to teach them. I, along with two of my colleagues, am working on a book aimed at bridging this gap by providing information law school professors can use to teach important skills—such as problem solving, creativity, and mindfulness, to their students. While some resources certainly exist, more are needed, along with the recognition of the importance of the skills and a willingness to teach them.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

Lawyer Job Satisfaction and Comparing Downward

Posted on July 20, 2015 by Steven Friedland

In law school, we learn about model answers, class ranking and, for lack of a better term, perfection. It usually seems to be about striving to perform better and comparing to others ahead of ourselves, no matter where we are placed – or place ourselves – in the ranking queue. Yet, along comes work by Nancy Levit and Doug Linder, two professors of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, who examined lawyer happiness. While many people think that money would have a huge impact on happiness, that apparently was just not accurate according to a reported study. But other factors mattered. What struck me about this exploration, in particular, was the finding that “comparing downward” was a good way to promote happiness.

The way I understand it, a downward comparison means to appreciate what we have and see the hundreds, thousands and more people who have less than we do, not those people/lawyers who have more. That would be comparing upward – to the friend at the more prestigious firm, the other friend who is ranked higher in six different categories at school, or to the person who just received the prestigious clerkship you applied for as well.

I know I compare upward quite a bit. I went to Harvard, but was not a top performer (no summa for me), did not get the top clerkship, job, etc. It actually is pragmatically useful, though, to recognize the advantages to comparing down. I really like and use a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson that does indeed implicitly compare down:

 “Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could. Some blunders and absurdities no doubt crept in; forget them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day. You shall begin it serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense.”

This quote is posted in my office and at home, for good reason.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

What Makes Your Subject Distinctive?

Posted on July 17, 2015 by glesnerb

As law schools continue to develop their learning outcomes, an important question we all should consider is, “what makes my course distinctive?”  For example, in my research on assessment in legal research courses, I was struck by how much the analytical and problem solving skills developed by legal research instruction are the same as those developed by many other courses in the law school curriculum.  That led me to ask, “what makes legal research instruction distinctive?”  The answer was not simply, as an outsider might suggest, that legal research classes teach tools for finding law (digests, Westlaw, etc.).  Rather, I was struck that legal research instruction is distinctive in the extent to which an effective legal researcher must have an appreciation for the power of taxonomies, must exercise imagination in the context of realistic boundaries of time, cost, and purpose, must be able to ask for help, and must develop strong metacognitive practices (to continually question “is this process working?”).  The difference is of degree rather than kind of course, but it is a distinctive difference nonetheless.

Given the narrow focus of legal education, it seems that this question of distinctiveness or “value added” is the most critical question I can ask in planning my courses.  Not that the distinctive outcomes of my courses should be the sole, or even dominant outcomes.  Legal education outcomes require an iterative process and cross-curricular experiences for students to become competent and to enable transfer of learning to new settings.  Yet, understanding what makes my outcomes distinctive forces me to justify my outcomes and consider their connections with other law school outcomes.

So what makes my outcomes in Professional Responsibility distinctive?  Certainly the identity of the anticipated uses of the doctrine we are learning leads me to choose to emphasize professional identity formation outcomes as important if not distinctive.  In most law school courses, students are learning the law to serve others and are encouraged to use, interpret, and advocate about the law to achieve a client’s objectives.  In Professional Responsibility, the students will be using the law to advise themselves.  My outcomes include expecting that students will be able to clarify their observational standpoint when considering issues of professional ethics; recognize that self interest clouds judgment and ways to gain more objectivity; and differentiate the approaches to interpretation of law that one might use to advocate for a client regarding past conduct from approaches that are wise, ethical, and effective when interpreting the law to guide our own future conduct.  Finding effective methods to assess students development of these perspective is a challenge but I have found that simply asking students to read cases of attorney discipline and ask, “what went wrong with the attorney’s thinking?” is a good place to start.

What makes your course outcomes distinctive?  How has that led to distinctive assessment practices?

Filed under: Best Practices, Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices & Setting Goals | 1 Comment »

Building on Best Practices now available as eBook

Posted on July 9, 2015 by dmaranville

Are you trying to:

  • Develop a meaningful law school mission statement?
  • Understand new accreditation requirements, learning goals, and outcomes assessment?
  •  Expand your experiential offerings?  Decide whether to use modules or courses?  An on-site clinic, an externship, or community partnership?
  •  Teach ALL of your students in the most effective ways, using a full range of teaching methods?
  • Add to your curriculum more of the professional identity, leadership, intercultural, inter-professional and other knowledge, skills, and values sought by 21st century legal employers?
  • Lead thoughtfully in the face of the challenges facing legal education today?

These and other topics are addressed in Building on Best Practices:  Transforming Legal Education in a Changing World,  now available in ebook format from LexisNexis at no charge.

The print version is not yet out.  LEXIS-NEXIS is taking advance orders for $50, plus shipping.  BUT we understand that they will make one copy available to every US legal educator for free upon on request.  Details on this and international availability still to come.

Thanks, and congratulations, to book project sponsor Clinical Legal Education Association (CLEA), the more than fifty legal educators who participated as authors, and the countless others who assisted as readers and in numerous other ways.

And, a huge shout-out to my wonderful and talented co-editors, Lisa Radke Bliss, Carrie Wilkes Kaas, and Antoinette Sedillo Lopez.

Filed under: Best Practices, Best Practices & Curriculum, Best Practices & Externships, Best Practices & Setting Goals, Best Practices and Clinics, Best Practices for Institutional Effectiveness, Best Practices, Diversity & Social Justice, Best Practices, Outcomes & Assessment Techniques, Catalysts For Change, Diversity & Social Justice, First Year Law School Innovations, International Initiatives and Models, Outcomes & Assessment Techniques | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Journal of Experiential Learning Summaries By: Myra Berman

Posted on July 4, 2015 by Jessica Persaud

The second issue of Touro Law Center’s Journal of Experiential Learning will be uploaded online prior to the start of the Fall 2015 semester. This issue is devoted to incubator and residency programs and their contribution to legal education, particularly to the post-JD part of the educational continuum. The creator of the law school incubator movement, Fred Rooney of Touro Law, is the guest editor for this edition. Be sure to check the website, www.tourolaw.edu/jel for the latest uploads. Articles for the Incubator & Residency issue include

Incubator Development at Home and Abroad: Anecdotal Stories from the Trenches

Fred Rooney

Law School Based Incubators and Access to Justice – Perspectives from Deans

Patricia Salkin, Ellen Suni, Neils Schaumann and Mary Lu Bilek

Incubating Community Law Practices: A Model for Lawyer Training & Access to Law

Luz Herrera

Innovate, Collaborate, & Serve: Louisiana’s “LIFT” – A Legal Incubator and Accelerator Program Startup Guide

Amy Duncan

The Pro Bono Requirement in Incubator Programs: A Reflection on Structuring Pro Bono Work for Program Attorneys

Davida Finger

Creating a Post-Graduate Incubator Program through a Law School-Bar Association Partnership

Robyn L. Meadows, J. Palmer Lockard and Elizabeth G. Simcox

A Custom Tailored Form of Post-Graduate Legal Training: The Rhode Island Center for Justice

Robert McCreanor

Implementing Psychological Resilience Training in Law Incubators

Mark Heekin

An Examination of the Special Role Career Service Professionals Can Play in the Development and Success of Law School Incubator Programs

Sumana Wolk and Erica Edwards-Oneal

The third issue focuses on pre-JD experiential learning programs, many of which are pipeline programs offered by undergraduate institutions. The guest editor of that issue is Diana D. Juettner, J.D. Chair of the Department of Social Sciences at Mercy College in Dobbs Ferry, New York. If you or a colleague would like to contribute, please contact Coordinating Editor, Associate Dean Myra Berman at mberman@tourolaw.edu.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »