Clinical Law Prof Blog

Editor: Jeffrey R. Baker
Pepperdine University
School of Law

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Northern California Clinical Conference

Come join us in Berkeley on February 27th for the Northern California Clinical Conference. Check out the Draft Agenda (still subject to change) and register at the following website: https://berkeleylaw.wufoo.com/forms/2016-northern-california-clinical-conference/ 

 

 

February 11, 2016 in Conferences and Meetings | Permalink | Comments (0)

Beware the Ides of February: Feeling Spectacular During the Nadir of Morale for the Year

Yesterday, I made a spectacle of myself, and I am trying to decide if I need to teach my students to do the same. I didn’t set out to do it, but I was just so down. I always am this time of year, but this year seems worse. It’s been in the 20’s and 30’s the last few days, after a snowstorm blanketed the area a few weeks ago. I come to work in the dark or at daybreak and leaving in the dark. It feels like there is no life. It was time for some self-care.

My students are experiencing the same blah feelings now, too. It is not uncommon in the legal and academic world for people to feel low this time of year. The holidays are done, and there is little else exciting on the horizon until graduation day for some and Memorial Day for others. Students and teachers are in a rut, repeating for the next several months the patterns into which they have fallen this year—1L’s know how to take exam courses, upperclassmen feel they know the drill for most of what they do and must just keep doing it, and teachers don’t see the final end in sight. Relief seems relatively far away. In the medical world, my wife’s department chair when she was a resident would call this time the “nadir of house staff morale” and hold some type of party or event. Our law school notices this too and promotes things like 100 days to graduation celebrations at this time of year. I need to respect this in my students and recognize their needs, too.

So how did I make a spectacle of myself? It began on the train, where I sat down and took out my knitting. You may not think of knitting as much of a spectacle, but it turns out to be. Try it. It always draws attention and gets stares. Maybe it is because I am male and not that many men knit. Maybe it is because I am being so 1910’s instead of 2010’s to knit instead of burying myself in my cell phone. Or maybe it was the pinkish socks I was making for my wife. But yesterday, I did not care.   And really that was not really making a too much of a scene. IMG_0922

However, it didn’t stop there. I still needed an escape and I had no time

—noon came, I had appointments to see clients at an intake site in town two and a half miles away and I had two dingy subway rides staring at me. I couldn’t stand it.

So even though I was wearing a shirt and tie and had on a long wool coat, I grabbed a bike helmet I keep in the office for more seasonal days. I left the Temple Legal Aid Office, walked to the bike share rack, checked out a bike, and rode to see clients. My coat blew around, which I had to keep open even in the cold to be able to pedal, and my tie flew from side to side. I pedaled along through campus, through low to medium income residential communities in North Philadelphia, and then through Center City streets. My helmet wouldn’t stay on right, as the headband I put around my ears to keep warm (with a Temple “T” on it!) kept it from fitting right, the headband itself continually sliding down near my eyes, making it tough to see. A few stared, and some may not have noticed because they were too down themselves to see the crazy professor on the bike. But it was great! I had to get out—too much winter weather for too long, and too much February academic blahs. For a few minutes, I was free and happy.

IMG_0921
As a clinical teacher, I help my students reflect with how things in their lives are impacting on their practice, and this is one of those things that is. It is something that will continue to impact them when they graduate, as practice also has a seasonal flow, and this can be a challenging time for all. We talk in class about understanding who and where we are while we are with clients so we can work most effectively with them. This is one of those things I am going to raise with my students this year—recognizing the February doldrums and doing something to relieve those feelings for ourselves, our colleagues’, and our clients’ benefits.

February 11, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Call for Contributions - Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions

Via Prof. Kathryn M. Stanchi of Temple:

Call for Contributions - Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions

Volume Editors

Bridget J. Crawford

Anthony C. Infanti

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of rewritten judicial opinions and commentary on those opinions for an edited collection entitled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions. This edited volume, to be published by Cambridge University Press, is part of a collaborative project among law professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions. The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, will be published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. (That book’s Introduction and Table of Contents are available here.) Subsequent volumes in the series will focus on different courts or different subject matters. This call is for contributions to a volume of tax decisions rewritten from a feminist perspective.

Tax volume editors Bridget Crawford and Anthony Infanti seek prospective authors for 8 to 10 rewritten tax-related opinions covering a range of topics. Authors are welcome to suggest cases of their own choosing or to consult the editors or others for ideas. All tax-related cases are appropriate for rewriting. Possible cases from U.S. courts are listed here, but that is not an exhaustive list. Cases may come from any jurisdiction and any court, including non-U.S. jurisdictions. The volume editors conceive of feminism as a broad movement concerned with justice and equality, and welcome proposals to rewrite cases in a way that bring into focus issues such as gender, race, class, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, and immigration status.

As the core of the Feminist Judgments Project is judicial opinions, proposals must be either to (1) rewrite a case (not administrative guidance, regulations, etc.) or (2) comment on a rewritten case. Rewritten opinions may be re-imagined majority opinions, dissents, or concurrences, as appropriate to the court. Feminist judgment writers will be bound by law and precedent in effect at the time of the original decision (with a 10,000 word maximum for the rewritten judgment). Commentators will explain the original court decision, how the feminist judgment differs from the original judgment, and what difference the feminist judgment might have made (4,000 word maximum for the commentary). Commentators and opinions writers who wish to work together are welcome to indicate that in the application.

In suggesting possible cases for rewriting, the volume editors have had the input and advice of an Advisory Panel of distinguished U.S. scholars including Alice Abreu (Temple), Patricia Cain (Santa Clara), Joseph Dodge (Florida State), Mary Louise Fellows (Minnesota), Wendy Gerzog (Baltimore), Steve Johnson (Florida State), Marjorie Kornhauser (Tulane), Ajay Mehrotra (American Bar Foundation, Northwestern), Beverly Moran (Vanderbilt), Richard Schmalbeck (Duke), Nancy Shurtz (Oregon), Nancy Staudt (Washington University), and Lawrence Zelenak (Duke).

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project approaches revised judicial opinion writing as a form of critical socio-legal scholarship. There are several world-wide projects engaged in similar efforts, including the U.K.-based Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (2010); Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law (2014); the Women’s Court of Canada; ongoing projects in Ireland, New Zealand, and a pan-European project; and other U.S.-based projects currently under way.

Those who are interested in rewriting an opinion or providing the commentary on one of the rewritten tax cases should fill out an application here.

Applications are due by February 29, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. eastern. Editors expect to notify accepted authors and commentators by April 15, 2016. First drafts of rewritten opinions will be due on August 15, 2016. First drafts of commentary will be due on September 15, 2016.

 

February 9, 2016 in RFP, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, February 8, 2016

Nominations Open for the 2016 Shanara Gilbert Award from the AALS Clinical Section

From Prof. Margaret Barry on the LawClinic and Lextern listservs:

The Awards Committee of the AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education is now accepting nominations for the Shanara Gilbert Award, which will be given out during the AALS’s Conference on Clinical Legal Education in Baltimore, Maryland, April 30 – May 3, 2016.  

Designed to honor an "emerging clinician," the award is for a recent entrant (10 years or fewer) into clinical legal education who has demonstrated some or all of the following qualities:

            1) a commitment to teaching and achieving social justice, particularly in the areas of race and the criminal             justice system;

            2) a passion for providing legal services and access to justice to individuals and groups most in need;

            3) service to the cause of clinical legal education or to the AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education;

            4) an interest in international clinical legal education; and

            5) an interest in the beauty of nature (desirable, but not required).

Please nominate a colleague who meets these criteria.  Nominations for the Gilbert Award must be received no later than March 15, 2016.

 

Past recipients include:

2001 Adele Bernhard (Pace University)

2002 Grady Jessup (North Carolina Central University)

2003 Beth Lyon (Villanova University)

2004 Esther Canty-Barnes (Rutgers School of Law — Newark)

2005 Melissa Breger (Albany)

2006 Michael Pinard (University of Maryland)

2007 Pam Metzger (Tulane)

2008 Kris Henning (Georgetown)

2009 Ron Whitener (University of Washington)

2010 Charles Auffant (Rutgers School of Law – Newark)

2011 Nekima Levy-Pounds (University of St. Thomas School of Law)

2012 Kimberly Ambrose (University of Washington)

2013 Sarah Gerwig-Moore (Mercer)

2014 Lisa Radtke Bliss (Georgia State)

2015 JoNel Newman (University of Miami)

NOMINATIONS GUIDELINES: To ensure that the Awards Committee has uniformity in what it is considering in support of each candidate, the Committee requests that nominations adhere to the following guidelines:

1)  To nominate someone, send the name of the nominee and a nominating statement setting forth why the Section should honor the individual, specifically referencing the award criteria outlined above where relevant.  The Committee strongly encourages nominators to obtain some supporting letters for the candidate, given that its deliberations are assisted immensely by a variety of voices speaking about a particular nominee.  Please note that there is a limit on the amount of supporting material that will be considered. Supporting materials for  nominations include: nominating statement of no more than five pages in length (required); a copy of the nominee's resume (required); a list of any scholarship, but not copies of the scholarship (required, but do not duplicate this if it is in the nominee's resume); no more than five letters or e-mails in support (no letter or e-mail should be more than four single-spaced pages long, exclusive of signatures, which may be multiple); and no more than five pages of any other materials. The nomination and documentary support must be submitted via e-mail either in Word or pdf files. Any nominators who want to submit supporting materials that they have in hard copy are responsible for converting them into portable document format or scanning them and cleaning and submitting them via pdf files attached to e-mail. 

2)  Members of the clinical community who have nominated a person previously are encouraged to re-nominate that person for this year’s award, provided that the person is still a recent entrant (10 years or fewer) into clinical legal education. The selection of one nominee over another should not be viewed as a statement against those not selected. The Committee can select only one person and someone not selected one year might be selected the next.

3) The Committee’s deliberations are assisted immensely by a variety of voices speaking about a particular nominee. Nominators are strongly encouraged to seek letters in support of the nominee from colleagues. Such letters may also include letters of support from students whom the candidate has supervised in a clinical setting.

Please send your nominations by e-mail no later than March 15, 2016 to:

Margaret Martin Barry

AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education

MBARRY@vermontlaw.edu

 Awards Committee Members: 

Sameer Ashar (Irvine)

Margaret Martin Barry, Chair (Vermont) 

Dionne Gonder (North Carolina Central)

Lisa Martin (Catholic)

February 8, 2016 in Conferences and Meetings, Promotions, Honors & Awards | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Conducting a Clinic Audit

“The checklists provided two main benefits . . . . First, they helped with memory recall, especially with mundane matters that are easily overlooked in patients undergoing more drastic events. . . . A second effect was to make explicit the minimum, expected steps in complex processes.”
Atul Gawande, The Checklist, The New Yorker, 12/10/2007

Does compliance with the new ABA standards on experiential education give you the creepy crawlies? Here’s a cheat sheet for conducting a “clinic audit” through the lens of the new standards.

Seizing the ABA Site Visit Opportunity: UST had the pleasure of anticipating a sabbatical ABA accreditation in the fall 2015, and as a law school we seized on the occasion to fast forward our compliance with the new ABA standards for law schools. Our faculty meetings had a bit more zest in the spring of 2015 as we haggled over our new Learning Outcomes (see p. 17 of the link).

The Power of Checklists: Also in anticipation of the ABA site visit, I and our office manager Crixell Shell conducted what came to be called “clinic audits.” We put together guidelines drawn from (1) the new standards; (2) our law school’s response those rules; and (3) questions our malpractice insurer asks us every year anyway. We also referenced the ABA Managing Director’s Guidance Memos, particularly the March 2015 memo on Simulation Courses and Law Clinics.

We sat down with the faculty for each clinic to review the questions. For a number of clinics (including my own), we created a “to do list” for follow up – in most cases that involved revising syllabi, looking at how office systems could be improved, and considering how to improve assessment of student performance. In one case, we decided to re-designate a program that had evolved beyond being a great clinic into an outstanding externship.

Freedom to Celebrate and Contemplate and Collaborate: What else did we learn? Rubrics do have a systemic power – checklists that are applied across the board provide a freedom to discover and celebrate quiet successes that have been under the radar and also to have more difficult conversations about areas that need improvement. Cross clinic pollination and collaboration is also a hallmark for us, and the audit strengthened that trend.

Mapping Clinic Courses to New Learning Outcomes: Conducting the audit after our law school faculty had just passed our new learning outcomes pushed the clinical faculty to map pre-existing course goals and clinic activities to those newly identified outcomes. A pleasant but not surprising finding was that clinics already address many of the school’s learning outcomes.

Understanding the New Experiential Requirements in Practical Terms: Our faculty decided to start the new experiential 6 credit requirement with our 2015 incoming class. Conducting the audit of clinics provided us with a working knowledge of the standards and the guidance memos, knowledge which can be useful as our curriculum committee and faculty review the rest of our courses to see if and how they can be designated as experiential.

Assessing compliance with standards may not be the most enjoyable part of clinical management, but we’ve got to do it. Hopefully putting the standards into a question format can be useful to others. Here are the questions we used.

Clinic Audit Questions
I. What is a Clinic?: ABA Standard 303(a) Experiential requirements:
How is the course primarily experiential in nature? (“primarily” means “essentially, mostly, chiefly … The experiential nature of the course should, in this sense, be the organizing principle of the course”)

How does the course integrate doctrine, theory, skills, and legal ethics, and engage students in performance of one or more of the professional skills identified in Standard 302?

How does the course develop the concepts underlying the professional skills being taught?

How does the course provide multiple opportunities for performance?

How does the course provide opportunities for self-evaluation?

II. ABA Standard 304(b) Clinic Course Requirements
How does the course provide substantial lawyering experience that

(1) involves one or more actual clients; AND

(2) How does the clinic include the following:

(i) advising or representing a client;
(ii) direct supervision of the student’s performance by a faculty member;
(iii) opportunities for performance, feedback from a faculty member, and self-evaluation; and
(iv) a classroom instructional component

III. ABA Standard 310. Determination of Credit Hours for Coursework.
How does the course meet UST Law standard III.A.5, that for clinic courses, 42.5-45 hours of coursework over the semester are required for each credit hour awarded? (see below for nitty gritty)

A “credit hour” is an amount of work that reasonably approximates:
(1) not less than one hour of classroom or direct faculty instruction (i.e. 50 minute hours) and two hours of out-of-class student work per week for fifteen weeks, or the equivalent amount of work over a different amount of time; or
(2) at least an equivalent amount of work as required in subparagraph (1) of this definition for … clinical . . . work leading to the award of credit hours.

IV. Professional Ethics and Class Attendance
Professional Responsibility and Ethics coverage – How do you cover professional responsibility issues?

V. Standard 702. FACILITIES. How does your clinic meet this requirement?
(a) A law school’s facilities shall include: . . . suitable and sufficient space appropriate for conducting any in-house clinical programs in a manner that assures competent and ethical representation of clients and meaningful instruction and supervision of students, including confidential space for (i) client interviewing, (ii) working on and discussing client cases, and (iii) security for client files;
(b) A law school shall provide reasonable access and accommodations to persons with disabilities, consistent with applicable law.

How is class attendance kept?

V. NLADA Malpractice Insurance: Loss Prevention - Risk Management Factors

  • Does the Clinic use or have the following: (If yes, describe; If no, what steps will be taken to comply.?)
  • Engagement Letters with more than 80% of its new clients?
  • Disengagement Letters with more than 80% of clients?
  • Non‐Engagement Letters with more than 80% of prospective clients?
  • Written fee agreements with at least 80% of clients?
  • Two or more independent docket control systems?
  • Written procedures regarding maintenance of custodial accounts?
  • A formal system for identifying, avoiding, and disclosing conflicts of interest?

VI. University of St. Thomas Academic Policy Manual: Course Syllabus, Course Learning Outcomes and Course Assessment (UST Academic Policy Manual - III-C-9)
How does your course meet the following requirements? (this requirement does not officially kick in until the 2017 school year, but I strongly suggest seizing the moment)

By the first day that the class meets, the instructor shall provide all enrolled students in writing with

(1) ground rules (including attendance and participation rules, office hours, and expectations for students)
(2) an overview of the topics to be covered during the semester or, at the instructor’s option, planned assignments
(3) a statement of learning outcomes (instructor shall state course-specific learning outcomes and indicate how those learning outcomes connect with the “General Learning Outcomes” for the law school) (suggestion – also incorporate goals you identify on the course evaluation form completed by students).

            UST Law General Learning Outcomes:

• Professional Formation & Ethical Responsibilities
• Knowledge of Substantive and Procedural Law
• Legal Analysis, Reasoning, and Problem Solving
• Written and Oral Communication Skills
• Legal Research and Factual Investigation
• Teamwork and Relationship Skills

(4) a description of assessment (see III-C-9 from the UST academic policy manual, p. 60.)

February 4, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Impact Through Research and Advocacy - Clinical Work in the Policy Advocacy Realm

As clinicians we know that our students do amazing work.  A lot of what we associate as clinical work falls into the client-case-court realm, but clinicians like Prof. Fran Quigley at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney's Health and Human Rights Clinic have expanded that work into the larger forum of policy advocacy, and with some amazing results. 

Starting in Fall 2015, Prof. Quigley's students identified legal barriers faced by their clients, researched those issues, and then took it a step further by creating comprehensive manuals that, according to Prof. Quigley "...outline the scope of Indiana’s problem [regarding drivers license suspension fees], explain how it relates to the national landscape, and make thoughtful recommendations for how lawmakers can solve it."

Prof. Quigley's work is another inspiring reminder that we have many options as clinicians to engage our students in multiple types of advocacy, making our impact even greater for our communities as a whole.  To read more about this process and access the students' report, click on the link below. 

http://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/news/releases/2016/01/iu-mckinney-students-research-examines-states-drivers-license-suspension-policies.html.

February 3, 2016 in Clinic Students and Graduates, Clinic Victories, Current Affairs, Teaching and Pedagogy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

15th Annual Transactional Clinical Conference - Call for Proposals

via Professor Jaime Lee

 

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

 

DEADLINE IS FEBRUARY 19, 2016

 

15th Annual Transactional Clinical Conference—“Tools of Translation”

 

This year’s Transactional Clinical Conference (TCC) will be held on Friday, April 29, 2016 at the University of Baltimore School of Law (our host), immediately preceding the AALSClinical Conference. Conference Registration (https://www.squadup.com/events/tcc2016)

 

The conference will explore how both lawyering and teaching employ “tools of translation.” Very often our work as clinical instructors is the work of translation: How can we help our students translate the solid legal understandings gained in their foundational courses (corporations, IP, corporate finance, etc.) to accommodate the real-world needs of their clients, and especially to accommodate the needs of small businesses and community-based organizations? How do we as teachers translate our own knowledge of the law, of lawyering, and of our local communities into meaningful learning experiences for our students?

 

In keeping with this theme, there will be two tracks: (1) a new clinicians “Launch Pad” designed to support those new to the teaching profession, and (2) various teaching workshops focused on “Serving Client Enterprises.

 

TRACK 1 - New Clinicians “Launch Pad”

 

Our ranks continue to grow, and this year’s TCC will extend a special welcome to our new and newish clinicians, as we’ll mix our newest colleagues with those who have at least a few years under their belts. If you’re one of the latter and willing to share some of your wisdom, we hope you’ll submit a proposal or share in one of the ways suggested below. The AALS Clinical Conference will feature a comprehensive program for new clinicians; our goal is to complement but not duplicate the AALS program by providing very interactive discussions between new and experienced clinicians.

 

·       What I wish I knew then

·       Top 5 practical tips

·       Setting priorities as a new clinician

·       Concrete tools for nondirective teaching for new clinicians

 

TRACK 2 -  “Serving Client Enterprises” Client Service/Teaching Workshops 

Many of our prior programs have made available teaching and practice tools focus on larger enterprises. We hope to continue building on this rich set of resources while also providing some programs for clinicians whose law school clinics serve smaller, limited-resource, community-based organizations. These workshops will aim to share tools that serve smaller enterprises.

 

These sessions might include:

 

·       Serving LLCs: challenges and tools

·       How a resource-limited company protects its IP, addresses HR issues, etc.

·       How to teach what every clinical student needs to know about nonprofit organizations

·       Helping students translate the law into "plain English”

·       Special issues in teaching students how to serve group clients, solo entrepreneurs, start-ups, for-profit-non-profit hybrids, those in the underground economy, limited English proficiency clients, etc.

 

Proposals for either Track

·       The Planning Committee seeks individual or group proposals.

·       For individual presentations, we may put presenters together on panels based on the lawyering skill or tool presented.

·       The Planning Committee encourages sessions that focus on the practical application of tools and the sharing of useful resources.

·       Proposals for Track 1 may be provided in any format.

·       Proposals for Track 2 ideally should:

  • Identify a lawyering skill or tool that the clinician teaches effectively;
  • Explain the clinician’s learning objectives with respect to the lawyering skill or tool;
  • Explain in detail how the clinician teaches this lawyering skill or tool; and
  • Share written and other materials (such as class handouts or videos) that will assist the conference audience members in adopting the discussed teaching method.

 

The TCC can accommodate presentations and workshops of various sizes, lengths, and formats.

Please submit proposals (which need to be no longer than 1-2 pages) to the full committee by sending them to Jeff Ward at ward@law.duke.edu by February 19, 2016, and feel free to contact any committee member with questions.

 

Also, we are extending a special invitation this year to our newer colleagues. Please share this call for proposal and the registration link with all who may be interested.

 

Thank you, 15th Annual Transactional Clinical Conference Planning Committee:

 

Mary Landergan (Northeastern)

Jaime Lee (U Baltimore)

Frances Martinez (Texas)

James Niemann (Mizzou)

Jeff Ward (Duke)

Chip Lowe (Drake)

February 2, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 28, 2016

The Hope and Promise of California’s TFARR Reforms

With thanks to my colleague and co-blogger, Prof. Tanya Cooper, and her team who edit the CLEA Newsletter, I am cross-posting my article on California's TFARR proposals from the Winter 2015-2016 issue.  This is a variation on a theme I've addressed previously on this blog. 

 

In November 2014, the State Bar of California’s Task Force on Admissions Regulatory Reform (“TFARR”) completed twenty-eight months of work considering new standards for admission to the bar. TFARR followed dramatic new standards for admission to the New York bar that require pro bono and increased experiential learning requirements in law school. (New York announced its final, amended rules in December 2015, available through links here.)

TFARR’s policy is to protect the public and to promote the profession by ensuring law students are better prepared to be ethical professionals when they enter practice. TFARR’s proposals do not bind law schools directly. Rather, they would impose requirements for admission to the California bar that would implicate every law student’s experiences and curricular choices in law school. In early 2015, the Bar’s Board of Trustees adopted the report and proposed new rules. They are not effective yet but await approval and enactment from the California Supreme Court.

Complete information and the text of the proposed rules are available at the TFARR pages on the Bar’s site here.

TFARR’s proposed rules include two important enhancements to experiential learning that will affect all law schools in California and any law student in the country who seeks admission to the California bar. First, the proposed standards would require students to complete fifteen academic units of experiential course work. This “practice-based experiential competency training” would include clinics and externships. It would also include typical simulation and “professional skills” courses (now known as “experiential” under recent ABA revisions) as designated by the law schools. TFARR also permits law schools to designate an experiential component within a standard doctrinal course to count toward this training. First year legal research and writing courses will not count toward the fifteen units. (TFARR’s requirement exceeds the new ABA standard that requires students to complete six units of experiential course work, and the ABA rules do not permit schools to carve out a portion of otherwise doctrinal classes as experiential.)

The proposed rules provide for an alternative path to fulfill a portion of the competency training through “apprenticeships” outside of law school curriculum. An apprenticeship is supervised legal work, with or without pay, like traditional judicial or law firm clerkships or summer associate jobs, which meets expressed pedagogical standards. A student could earn up to six units toward the required competency training through an apprenticeship. Every fifty hours working in a qualifying apprenticeship can count as a unit toward the fifteen required for bar purposes, although these would not be academic credits toward law school graduation.    

          Second, the TFARR admission rules would require applicants to provide fifty hours of supervised pro bono legal services. The new rules aim for increased access to justice, but the principle policy is to provide experience in practice that inculcates virtues and values of public citizenship and ethical lawyering. The TFARR definition for pro bono is very similar to Rule 6.1 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. From the proposed requirements:

“Pro bono” means providing or enabling direct delivery of supervised legal services without expectation of compensation from the client other than reimbursement of expenses to

(1) persons of limited means . . . ;

(2) charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental and educational organizations in matters that are designed primarily to address the needs of persons of limited means; or

(3) individuals, groups or organizations seeking to secure or protect civil rights, civil liberties or public rights, or charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental and educational organizations in matters in furtherance of their organizational purposes, where the payment of standard legal fees would significantly deplete the organization’s economic resources or would be otherwise inappropriate.

Qualifying pro bono experiences can be in law school clinics, field placements in these categories, or other volunteer or internship opportunities with lawyers in these categories. Some questions remain about whether placements with prosecutors or courts would qualify, but the general consensus is that these placements do not qualify because they do not fit the definitions.  

Under the proposals, students could earn “dual credit” toward both requirements in law school clinics and qualifying field placements. This provision creates great incentives for students to enroll in experiential courses that satisfy the pro bono requirement simultaneously. This, in turn, creates incentives for law schools to increase capacity in diverse clinical and externship courses.

The proposals create new challenges and opportunities for law schools and collaborating public interest lawyers. Very often, law students earn externship credit with public interest legal services providers, and the new rules may create dramatic new demand for these placements where students can earn dual credit. The rules could increase talent and capacity available for public interest lawyers, but it could also impose new burdens on training and resources to supervise law students who work for a relatively short time. At once, TFARR will require increased collaboration among law schools and legal services providers while deepening the need for more capacity within law schools to provide these experiences.

Some law school administrators, most notably not from California, have leveled reactionary criticism that TFARR rules intrude on law schools’ priorities and pedagogy. A few deans have argued that these new rules would limit law student options and squelch innovation. This criticism runs counter to the experiences at law schools that are preparing for the new standards instead of opposing them. TFARR does not stifle innovative teaching; TFARR promotes it.

Pepperdine University School of Law is the first California law school to adopt the TFARR standards as its own graduation requirements. Beginning with the Class of 2017, students must complete fifty hours of pro bono service and fifteen units of experiential courses. This has spurred efforts to use existing resources and to experiment with new course forms to build internal capacity so that students have sufficient opportunities to complete the requirements across diverse practice areas. In addition to existing clinics, externships, and experiential courses in alternative dispute resolution, Pepperdine has developed new clinics devoted to corporate and policy practice for nonprofits, multidisciplinary practice around gender-based crimes, and tax practice for indigent clients. The law school is experimenting with practicum courses focused on federal criminal practice and on diversionary sentencing and civil legal services for veterans. It is launching new practice-based initiatives for entrepreneurship and tech start-ups. Doctrinal professors are designing practice-based components in substantive courses like torts, ethics, intellectual property, entertainment, and privacy law. Faculty, students and staff are generating pro bono opportunities with collaborators in Los Angeles, rural Southern California, Washington D.C., and abroad in Europe, Asia and Africa.

TFARR reforms would formalize policies that most law schools already tout as aspirational virtues. The new rules would promote professional formation and client-readiness. They are consistent with moves toward formative assessment. In the marketplace of legal education and law practice, the bench and bar have been pushing applied, apprenticeship education back onto law schools for a generation. Law schools have responded in varying degrees of cheerful creativity or reactionary opposition, but with TFARR, and the New York rules before it, the bar has gotten serious as law schools have slowed their responses in the present enrollment and economic crises. These moves are the market signaling to law schools that they must do a better job teaching students how to be ethical, useful professionals, for the sake of justice, the rule of law, the public, and the profession itself.  

January 28, 2016 in Clinic News, Current Affairs, New Clinical Programs, Teaching and Pedagogy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Conference: Responding to the New ABA Standards: Best Practices in Outcomes Assessment (Boston U. April 1-2)

Via Prof. Kelly Terry of UALR and the Institute for Law Teaching and Learning:

I am pleased to provide the conference schedule for Responding to the New ABA Standards: Best Practices in Outcomes Assessment,” which the Boston University School of Law and the Institute for Law Teaching and Learning are co-sponsoring.  The schedule is attached and also copied below.  The conference will take place on Saturday, April 2, at the Boston University School of Law.  It will include a presentation on the new standards by Bill Adams, Deputy Managing Director of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, and workshops led by legal educators who specialize in the area of assessment.  There is an opening reception on the evening of Friday, April 1.

Here is the Schedule: Schedule BU Outcomes Assessment Conference

Here is the link for registration.

January 27, 2016 in Conferences and Meetings | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, January 24, 2016

“Let it Go!”

Recently in talking with one of my clinical colleagues regarding a particularly negative student evaluation the colleague received, one constituting more of a personal attack than a teaching evaluation, I said all the things I think useful in this situation . . . “You’re focusing on the one negative comment that makes little sense, rather than all of the outstanding evaluations from your other students;” “This student obviously took advantage of the anonymous evaluation to let out his or her frustrations, no doubt some related to clinic, and some not;” “Let’s look at those comments that offer some constructive suggestions and focus on how you might want to address some of them in the coming semester;” and finally, “Consider the theme song from Frozen, and Let it go!. If you don’t, your disappointment and frustration may spill in to your new class of students.”

I also shared that the irony in all of this advice was that I had, just two days earlier, struggled with my own devastating student evaluation. In fifteen years of teaching, I could not recall a more critical assessment of my approach to students. I was crushed. The evaluations sent me into a tailspin of self-doubt so overwhelming that I shared them with the administration so they would see them from me first. Thankfully, my wise colleague wrote back that there were tremendously positive things in the evaluations that I should be very proud of, and that it appeared to her that I had one particularly critical and unhappy student who was the author of the comments that were so distressing. She also thanked me for taking the evaluations so seriously and finding the feedback important to my teaching.

Once I had that rational frame of reference I looked back. There were several useful suggestions that could still be incorporated for the spring semester. There was laudatory praise for the clinic experience and my teaching and supervision. Yet all that registered when I first read them were the comments that expressed dissatisfaction and criticism. Since then I have been reflecting on why the negativity was the priority when my colleague and I each reviewed our evaluations.

As clinicians, we teach less students than our doctrinal colleagues. Typically, we spend much more one-on-one time with our students, and it is our lawyering, as well as our teaching, that we share with them. It is a personal relationship, as the one of mentor and mentee always is, and, I suspect all of you give as much of yourselves to your client representation, student supervision and teaching, as I do myself. So a negative reaction from a student, even one, can take on monumental importance because they are evaluating us not only as teachers, but also as colleagues. Our students see us in times of crisis with clients, in stressful case situations, juggling teaching and practice, and we allow them to see us professionally, and, on occasion, personally. We cannot hide behind a podium or scholarship, and we cannot always be “on” in front of our students. Sometimes what we do in clinic and as teachers is messy, as are the challenges our clients bring to us.

So I am going to do my best to follow my own advice and “Let it go!” Because one of the best things about teaching is that every semester is a new beginning, and a fresh opportunity to refine our skills as lawyers, teachers, and people. I need to model this rational reaction to evaluations for my clinical colleagues, and also give my new students the benefit of a clean slate. I always have room for improvement, and a new semester is just the place to start.

 

January 24, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Friday, January 22, 2016

Notice and Comment on the ABA's Proposal to Permit Paid Externships

Today, January 22, 2016, is the deadline to submit Comment to the ABA regarding its proposals regarding externships, including to permit paid field placements. The details of the proposals and instructions for submitting comments are here.

The AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education and the Clinical Legal Education Association (CLEA) have submitted comments. 

The CLEA statement is here:   CLEA Comments on Proposed Standard 304(c) and Retention of Interpretation...

Here is the full text of the comment from the AALS Section:

AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education

Statement of Position on the Proposed Revisions to ABA Standards 304 and 305 Relating to Field Placements and the Elimination of ABA Interpretation305-2 Prohibiting Paid Externships*

The Association of American Law Schools Section on Clinical Legal Education (“the Clinical Section”) expresses the following position on proposed revisions to ABA Standards 304 and 305 relating to field placements. The Clinical Section is composed of 690 legal educators who have dedicated their professional lives to preparing students for the practice of law through in-house clinics, externships, and other experiential educational offerings. Based on this collective experience, the Clinical Section believes that the relocation of provisions specifically addressing field placements from Standard 305 to Standard 304 and the proposed additional requirements are steps forward. However, the proposal to eliminate Interpretation 305-2, which would repeal the prohibition on compensation to students enrolled in field placement (externship) programs, will have an adverse impact on the quality of externship courses. No set of regulations will effectively counteract the compromised and subordinated educational mission that would result from the introduction of payment into the field placement setting.

The proposal to move the regulations concerning field placements to Standard 304 and much of the language reflected in the proposed revisions from Standard 305 to Standard 304 acknowledges field placements as academic courses that, like law clinics, provide students with substantial lawyering experiences. The addition of Interpretation 304-1 further acknowledges that a field placement, like certain simulation courses and law clinics, may qualify as an experiential course under Standard 303 if the requirements set forth in Standard 304 and Standard 303(a)(3) are met.

That proposed Standard 304(c) aligns the requirements for field placement courses with those of law clinics and simulations appropriately recognizes the educational nature of field placement courses. Like clinics and simulations, the proposal focuses on the similar need for careful supervision, the opportunity for performance, feedback, and self-evaluation, and faculty-led instruction. At the same time, the retention of many of the requirements previously part of Standard 305 and the inclusion of certain new requirements recognize the unique nature of field placements in providing substantial lawyering experiences through partnerships between law school faculty and site supervisors outside the law school. As relocated to and revised in Standard 304, these requirements will help ensure that the educational focus of field placement courses remains paramount by emphasizing the continued development of externship pedagogy and providing improved guidelines for defining programmatic expectations.

In contrast, the proposal to eliminate the prohibition on paid externships through the deletion of Interpretation 305-2 will adversely affect the quality of externships. There is a consensus within the clinical teaching community against removing the prohibition: during the last notice and comment period in July 2015, after renewed advocacy on both sides of the issue, 100% of the comments submitted by law school clinical educators to the ABA opposed removing the prohibition. We are, of course, deeply concerned about the cost of law school, ever-increasing student debt, and students’ need for income. We note that the Council has recently provided further guidance on ‘reimbursements’, in an August 2015 Guidance Memo on reimbursement for field-placement expenses. This represents a step in the right direction, permitting limited reimbursement for transportation, housing, and food. We support further movement in this direction, such as permitting reimbursement of the cost of student tuition or the award of fellowships from third party sources. Nonetheless, the Section is extremely concerned that allowing credit for paid employment will undermine the student educational experience that is at the heart of the proposed safeguards otherwise set forth in revised Standard 304. Removing the restriction on compensation is not the way to address these student concerns.

The long-standing prohibition on paid externships ensures that the educational goal of the field placement is primary. In lieu of providing payment, site supervisors teach and mentor students while providing them with quality educational experiences through opportunities for performance and feedback in furtherance of the student’s individual learning objectives. Within this distinctive academic framework, site supervisors have an incentive to provide students a quality educational experience and both students and faculty are empowered to ensure that students receive one.

Allowing compensated student jobs to count for academic credit is without precedent, yet that is precisely what removing the prohibition would do. In a paid employment relationship, the student’s educational experience would necessarily become secondary. Because the employer is paying for the performance of specific work, there is an expectation that the student will provide value to the employer. As a result, the employer will be more likely to assign tasks that benefit the employer as opposed to tasks with the primary focus of advancing the student’s learning objectives. And because students are getting a financial benefit that may also be tied to the possibility of future employment, students will be less likely to insist that they receive meaningful opportunities for performance and feedback or to provide a candid assessment of their field placement experiences. Allowing field placements to pay students for work performed also will negatively impact the dynamic between faculty and site supervisors. Once a site supervisor pays a student to perform work, it becomes much more difficult for the faculty member to insist that the student receive a certain level of supervision or specific experiences to further the student’s learning objectives.

As revised, Standard 304(c) will not protect against the subordination of the student’s educational interests or the academic mission of a field placement course. The proposed language of Standard 304(c) cannot and does not require paying employers to offer students educationally valuable experiences that are economically disadvantageous to their business. Moreover, the requirements of a written understanding and “sufficient control of the student experience to ensure that the requirements of the Standard are met” cannot and will not overcome the power imbalance that will be a natural consequence of an employment relationship. No written understanding will trump the employer-employee relationship established once a field placement pays a student for work performed. Likewise, the “sufficient control” language does not provide guidance as to how much control is “sufficient” for any externship and, particularly, paid externships. Rather, the addition of this language underscores the control problems paid externships will create without providing any concrete methods to ensure that control of the student’s field placement experience will remain with faculty.

In addition to the consequences outlined above, paid externships will likely have the unintended impact of reducing the number of students exposed to and doing social justice work through their field placements. Law schools typically include non-profit, judicial, and government placements as part of their externship offerings. Some field placement programs also include for-profit placements. With the addition of paid externships, it is anticipated that the number of for-profit placements would rise. Although schools would not be required to offer paid externships, in the competitive law school market, it would be nearly impossible to avoid. If one school allows paid externships, there will be an increased pressure on other schools to allow them. Because for-profit placements are generally more able to pay their externs and possibly offer future employment, students may be less inclined to do an externship at a non-profit or governmental entity. Although some non-profits and governmental entities have the ability to offer a stipend or nominal pay, the majority likely will not be able to offer a stipend, pay, or possibility of future employment competitive with for-profit placements. This will make for-profit opportunities more attractive to students, a result that concerns the Clinical Section given the commitment to social justice of both the ABA and the clinical community.

Regardless of regulation, permitting compensation in field placements will severely harm, if not entirely displace, the student-first learning experience that is the aim of legal education. For that reason and others articulated above, the proposed revisions to Standards 304 and 305 relating to field placement courses should be adopted, and should continue to include current Interpretation 305-2 and its prohibition against paid externships.

* Disclaimer in accordance with AALS Executive Committee Regulation 1.4: The opinions expressed here are those of the Clinical Section and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools.

 

 

January 22, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 21, 2016

"Little Staff Attorneys"

Ohio State's Deborah J. Merritt gives thoughtful commentary on the false divides between clinical, legal writing, and doctrinal faculty, in a piece over at Law School Cafe blog (available here:Little Staff Attorneys).  For those of you disinclined or otherwise unable to click through, here is the full text: 

Law School Cafe

At the AALS meeting, a friend of mine (and tenured professor) stood chatting with a few tenured colleagues from other schools. Conversation turned to work that another professor had done in a clinic. “Yeah,” said one of the professors, impressed, “and they didn’t even have a little staff attorney to do all the work.” My friend protested this derogatory reference to staff attorneys, and the professor apologized, but the remark was telling.

This is how all too many tenured professors think of clinical work, clinical professors, and staff attorneys; the same attitude applies to legal writing professors. This work, we assume, is simplistic and doesn’t merit our full attention. It can be done by “little” people.

Professors who teach legal writing and clinics are, indeed, “little people” in most of our law schools. They earn less than tenured faculty, have less job security than tenured faculty, and share fewer governance rights. Yet these professors teach students the heart of lawyering. They teach students how to write like lawyers, how to speak with and write to a wide range of audiences, and how to solve lawyering problems.

After thirty years teaching all types of courses (doctrinal law, interdisciplinary subjects, legal writing classes, and clinics) I’m convinced that clinical and writing professors have the greatest impact in teaching students to think like lawyers. Tenured faculty prompt that work in the doctrinal law classroom, but first-year students learn how to do it in their legal writing classes. That’s where they “think” in writing and without leading questions. They also receive personalized, formative feedback that improves their thinking.

Similarly, clinics challenge students to think and strategize, not just within the narrow confines of a classroom question or appellate argument, but within the context of negotiating with an adversary or performing other multi-dimensional tasks. Analyzing an appellate opinion within the four walls of a classroom is much easier than using that opinion (along with a few other opinions, statutes, and uncertain facts) to frame a negotiating strategy for a client who depends upon you.

Why do doctrinal law faculty persist in thinking that legal writing and clinical professors do work that is less intellectually challenging or valuable than the work they do? It’s partly self interest; everyone likes to think that their own work is most important–and to protect their higher salary and earning privileges.

It’s also partly ignorance. Many tenured faculty know little about what happens in law practice, law school clinics, or legal writing classes. Some are not particularly good legal writers, despite their focus on scholarship. Even if they are good writers, they might not know how to teach someone else how to write.  Ignorance can make us defensive; we diminish the importance of the things we don’t know.

I’ve also come to think that tenured law faculty constitute a type of cult. We have very specific criteria for admission to this cult, we engage in a narrow range of permitted behaviors, and we celebrate common rituals–one of the most valued of which is deciding who will be allowed to join our cult.

We need to escape this behavior and recognize the challenging, important, and time-consuming work that clinical and legal writing professors perform. We already recognize how much work they do. It’s time to acknowledge–and reward–the importance of that work.

 

 

 

 

January 21, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, January 15, 2016

JOBS: Memphis Children's Defense Clinic

Via Prof. Danny Schaffzin:

Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Children’s Defense Clinic
University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law

 


The University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law is seeking a Visiting Assistant Professor of Law to create, direct and teach a new Children’s Defense Clinic that will launch in the Fall of 2016 and play a critical role in institutionalizing reform in Shelby County’s juvenile defense system. Funding is in place to allow the Visiting Assistant Professor to begin as soon as possible during the Spring 2016 semester and teach through the 2016-17 academic year.

Under the direction of the Visiting Assistant Professor, the Children’s Defense Clinic will provide legal representation to youth who are charged in delinquency proceedings in Shelby County Juvenile Court and in related matters. In addition to representing children in delinquency cases, students may provide advocacy in non-traditional areas, such as: (1) pre-petition matters, (2) postadjudication, (3) school disciplinary hearings, (4) appeals, and (5) systemic reform through policy advocacy or litigation. Pursuant to applicable student practice rules, it is anticipated that Clinic students will engage in all types and aspects of casework, including interviewing clients and witnesses; fact investigations; drafting of motions, briefs, memoranda, and pleadings; development of pre- and post-trial strategies in trial and appellate courts, and in administrative settings; and representation of clients in trial, hearings, oral argument, and in testimony before legislative bodies. It is expected that the Clinic will emphasize team practice and collaboration, building and seizing on interdisciplinary partnerships to provide broadly focused, multi-systemic advocacy for clinic clients.


Candidates should be prepared to present their comprehensive vision for creating, teaching, administering, growing, and cultivating enduring support for the Children’s Defense Clinic. For duties related to the Children’s Defense Clinic, the Visiting Assistant Professor will report directly to the Director of Experiential Learning, and will work closely with the Dean, the Director of Experiential Learning, and Faculty on the development of the Children’s Defense Clinic.


Candidates must possess a J.D. or equivalent law degree, and, among other qualifications, should have a minimum of three (3) years of legal practice experience; a demonstrated interest in children’s criminal defense, substantial experience or interest in representing clients in juvenile justice settings; a strong desire to supervise and work with students; and a commitment to building community relationships and programs. If not admitted to practice in Tennessee, candidates can obtain permission to practice in Tennessee without having to sit for the Tennessee bar examination pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7, Section 10.02 (allowing special admission to practice for attorneys in employed in law school clinical programs).

Applicants should apply through the University of Memphis Work Forum (https://workforum.memphis.edu/postings/11744)and submit a letter of interest, resume, and list of three references to Professor Amy Campbell, Chair, Children’s Defense Clinic Faculty Recruitment Committee, at tcmpbll3@memphis.edu. Write “Children’s Defense Clinic Application” in the subject line of the email. Preference will be given to applications received by January 15, 2016, although applications will be accepted until the position is filled.

The University of Memphis School of Law recently celebrated its 50th anniversary in its new building, the newly restored U.S. Customs House in downtown Memphis. A $48 million project, the structure offers a magnificent setting for learning and  teaching and has been recognized as one of the finest law school facilities in the nation and the world. Memphis is a beautiful  and diverse city with affordable real estate and an excellent quality of life. The city is known for its friendly atmosphere, revitalized downtown, and attractions such as Graceland, Beale Street, Opera Memphis, Memphis Symphony Orchestra, Memphis Zoo, NBA Grizzlies, Memphis Tigers basketball team, National Civil Rights Museum, and nationally recognized theatre companies.

While the School of Law does not treat race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation as dispositive in hiring decisions, the School has a strong institutional commitment to hiring persons who will add to its diversity. The University of Memphis is an EEO/AA employer.

 

January 15, 2016 in Jobs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Does It Matter?

“Does it matter?” he asked. We were standing at a sundries kiosk at JFK. I had placed an item on the counter and asked the cashier if they had a different version. “No,” she replied, and while doing so, a white man in his late 30s reached across me and handed the cashier his intended purchase. “Actually, I was next,” I asserted, and he dismissively replied, “No, you weren’t.” I wondered how he logically could believe that he arrived first when I was already engaged with the cashier. She took his item, ignoring mine on the counter, and began to ring him up.

“In fact, I was,” I assured him. “I was standing here, my item was on the counter, and I was talking to the cashier when you just reached across me.” Dismissively, he shrugged while the cashier continued with his transaction. “Does it matter?” he asked.

It was the fourth time in twenty-four hours that people had cut in front of me in lines. Was this just New York culture assaulting my delicate Oregon sensibilities or was something more going on? All four incidents involved white or Middle Eastern men appearing to be between their mid-twenties and their mid-forties. All treated me like I was invisible. Did they feel emboldened by privilege or cultural preemption or did they really not see me?

Was it my packaging of 112 pounds in five feet, half an inch? My female gender? My middle age? I had read research about how people stop listening to women in their 50s. Still in my forties, I wondered whether this was the beginning of my obsolescence.

I thought of the ways I try to make myself bigger, stronger, less subject to being dismissed. I often wear suits and make up and shoes intended to convey confidence. I hold my shoulders back and my head high and talk an octave lower than I did before law school. I look people in the eye and talk directly and with authority. I have read the research. I use my middle name because it is more masculine and add my initials when I need to. When people are condescending, I sometimes have to call them on it and disclose my experience or education or qualifications.

And when someone cuts in front of me in line, I will sometimes assert myself and say, “Actually, I was next,” and they usually agree and step back. But he did not. Instead, he denied reality and then asked, “Does it matter?”

“Why, yes, it matters!” I want to respond passionately. Seeing other people matters. Treating one another with respect matters. Taking turns matters. Not relying on privilege to fast track through life matters.

I thought of all the ways that privilege blinds us to those and that before us—the very tragic and profound ways in which we have told groups of people that their time doesn’t matter, their voice, their opportunities, their health, their education, their very lives don’t matter. We don’t see some people and when they assert themselves—their rights or needs or desires—we, at best, marginalize them and, at worst, are threatened and ostracize and occasionally kill them.

I thought of the implicit bias embedded in his mind that may have made me invisible to him, and the discrimination that is inherent in our cultural DNA—discrimination against women, minorities, immigrants, and those who are disabled, very young or growing old.

I thought of the dual tragedy inherent in our blindness to others. Not only are others dehumanized and subjugated by our blindness, we are dehumanized as well. We are less human and our minds and lives are less rich for not seeing so many varied and lively and colorful human beings who are so very different—in language and appearance and dress—and yet not very different from us at all.

I thought of the threat to society when we are blind to one another, when inequality or privilege is seen as acceptable, if not preferable. What happens to a society where fairness is lacking, and justice does not reign?

Emboldened with these cascading thoughts, I assured him that, “Yes, it matters,” and as I drew my breath to explain all the reasons why, he simply said, “Then you just go ahead,” as the cashier handed him his change and he picked up his item and walked to his gate.

January 13, 2016 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Call for Papers on Feminist Legal Geographies

From our friends at the University of Washington and the Royal Geographic Society in the UK, comes this very interesting Call for Papers:

 

January 6, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Your Kindle Dims My and My Students’ Empathy

I am the commuter many of you hate. Maybe I see you alone at the bus stop reading a book that looks interesting and ask you about it. Perhaps I see you looking a little confused on the train platform and ask if you need help figuring out where you are going. Or maybe I see you wearing that Phillies shirt on the train after the game and ask you the score, why you aren’t a Cubs fan like you should be, and how the Phillies will ever improve. In short, I am the overly interested in you transplanted Midwestern type that you may be trying to avoid, trying to draw you into a longer conversation to learn about you. You will succeed in chasing me away with a one-word answer—I am also Midwestern enough to know to leave you alone based on your response—but we’ll miss something. We’ll miss the chance to get to learn a little more about the world and each other together, to possibly become friends (it happens this way!), to learn about books that the other has read that we may enjoy, and to overall feel like we’ve shared a friendly moment with another. It helps me with my lawyering, too. As I listen to your responses, I learn about what is important to you and perhaps to people with whom you connect and maybe to my clients.

Your mobile phone and tablet, however, are taking this away from me. As I wait on the train platform, you more than likely are looking at your phone and checking out Facebook posts. Maybe you have headphones on and are listening to music or a podcast instead of sharing the world with me. Maybe you are reading on your tablet, no longer displaying the cover of your book and giving me no insight into what you are reading that might stimulate a discussion. And it is not just on the train. I know a lot about the people I love, from talking with them, walking and running with them, watching sports with them, and sharing other experiences. But I know less about them than I could and less about those with whom I cannot share as much time. I, too, sometimes have to learn about my actual friends from their social media posts. If I don’t seek those posts out, I may not know what they are reading, thinking, or is otherwise important to them. I hate that. It steals part of our relationship from us.

I really enjoy my brief meetings with commuters when they can happen and talk to my students about its value. Even learning little bits of people's lives helps me begin to understand them. Lawyering is empathy—it is understanding first a little and then a lot more of client’s lives from their point of view. It is the personal evaluation of problems and potential legal solutions made by coming to understand how people fit into their world and our legal system. I want my students to learn about legal empathy—to understand their clients’ stories, their clients’ definitions of their problems for which they are seeking legal interventions, their clients’ goals, and their clients’ tolerance for different legal interventions. I want them to understand enough about their clients to be effective advisors and advocates. It is the difference between the client being represented by an overburdened virtual or actual lawyer for the day or filling out online forms the client hopes can work and instead being represented by a lawyer in a way that understands them and can customize their service for their benefit. Learning about each other, beginning through brief interactions such as those with people we might otherwise have passed by in the world, is an important part of this. And losing our commuter conversations is taking away one way that we can begin to learn about each other.

Perhaps I am infiltrating your world and you are that commuter reading social media posts.   How lucky—you are reading this one! If so, look for me. Maybe I am on the platform next to you.  I am ready to talk!

January 5, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

CLEA Newsletter Winter 2015-16

Greetings,

Together with the CLEA Newsletter Committee, I am very happy to announce that the Winter 2015-16 issue of the CLEA Newsletter has just been posted here.

In this issue, you’ll find lots of interesting content, including CLEA committee and advocacy reports, articles on clinical teaching, and several announcements about upcoming events at the AALS Annual Meeting in NYC.  Plus, you’ll find news from our colleagues around the country.

Happy New Year!

CLEA Newsletter Committee
Tanya Asim Cooper (Pepperdine)
Susan Donovan (Alabama)
D'lorah Hughes (Wayne State)
Kate Kruse (Mitchell Hamline)

December 30, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

ABA Seeking Comment to Revised Standards for Externships

With a memo to deans and other interested people on December 11, the ABA is seeking notice and comment to significant revisions of Standards 304 and 305.  These would move the standards governing field placements from 305 to 304 which governs clinics and simulation courses. 

The memo describes these proposed revision:

In moving field placements to Standard 304, requirements are added that are commensurate with those required for clinics and simulation courses—a means of guided reflection; opportunities for performance, feedback, and self-evaluation; and direct supervision. The new Standard also defines a field placement course as one that provides substantial lawyering experience and calls for the creation of a written understanding for the experience. It also imports components from Standard 305 such as the requirement for appropriate prerequisites or sufficient training, and the need for credit granted to be commensurate with the time and effort required. The revision removes any distinctions in the requirements for these programs based on credits offered, and mandates that records should be maintained for all placements. The revision also requires that law schools maintain sufficient control of the student experience at the field placement site to ensure that the requirements of the Standard are met.

Most significantly, "this proposal eliminates current Interpretation 305-2 (“A law school may not grant credit to a student for participation in a field placement program for which the student receives compensation.”) and does not include a similar prohibition in revised Standard 304."

Instructions for submitting comments are in the memo here:  Notice and Comment - December 11 2015

December 15, 2015 in Current Affairs, Teaching and Pedagogy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

CFP: Institute for Law Teaching and Learning—Summer 2016 Conference

Via Prof. Kelly Terry:

 

CALL FOR PRESENTATION PROPOSALS

 

Institute for Law Teaching and Learning—Summer 2016 Conference

“Real-World Readiness”

June 10-11, 2016

Washburn University School of Law—Topeka, Kansas

 

The Institute for Law Teaching and Learning invites proposals for conference workshops addressing the many ways that law schools are preparing students to enter the real world of law practice.  With the rising demands for “practice-ready” lawyers, this topic has taken on increased urgency in recent years.  How are law schools and law professors taking on the challenge of graduating students who are ready to join the real world of practicing attorneys?  Can we be doing more?

The Institute takes a broad view of educational practices that promote real-world readiness.  Accordingly, we welcome proposals for workshops on incorporating such teaching techniques in doctrinal, clinical, externship, writing, seminar, hybrid, and interdisciplinary courses.  Workshops can address real-world readiness in first-year courses, upper-level courses, required courses, electives, or academic support teaching.  Workshops can present innovative teaching materials, course designs, curricular or program designs, etc.  Each workshop should include materials that participants can use during the workshop and also when they return to their campuses.  Presenters should model best practices in teaching methods by actively engaging the workshop participants. 

The Institute invites proposals for 60-minute workshops consistent with a broad interpretation of the conference theme.  To be considered for the conference, proposals should be one single-spaced page (maximum) and should include the following information:

  • the title of the workshop;
  • the name, address, telephone number, and email address of the presenter(s);
  • a summary of the contents of the workshop, including its goals and methods; and
  • an explanation of the interactive teaching methods the presenter(s) will use to engage the audience.

The Institute must receive proposals by February 1, 2016.  Submit proposals via email to Emily Grant, Co-Director, Institute for Law Teaching and Learning, at emily.grant@washburn.edu.

Conference Details

 

Schedule of Events:

Washburn University School of Law will host a welcome reception on the evening of Thursday, June 9, and the conference workshops will take place at the law school all day on Friday, June 10, and until the early afternoon on Saturday, June 11. 

Travel and Lodging:

Topeka is about 75 minutes away from the Kansas City airport (MCI).  You may wish to rent a car at MCI for the drive to Topeka.  There are a few shuttle services available, if you’d like to explore those options (http://www.kciroadrunner.com/  and http://www.fiveguysshuttle.com/index.html). 

A block of hotel rooms will be reserved for a discounted rate at the Ramada Topeka Downtown Hotel and Convention Center.

Fees:

The conference fee for participants is $450, which includes materials, meals during the conference (two breakfasts and two lunches), and a welcome reception on Thursday evening, June 9, 2016.  The conference fee for presenters is $350. 

For more information, please contact any one of the ILTL Co-Directors:

Professor Emily Grant

emily.grant@washburn.edu

785-670-1677

Associate Dean Sandra Simpson

ssimpson@lawschool.gonzaga.edu

509-313-3809

Professor Kelly Terry

ksterry@ualr.edu

501-324-9946

December 8, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, December 7, 2015

Case selection, secondary trauma, and other people’s scholarship

I don’t relish my student’s traumatic experiences.  I am happy, however, that they are happening with me there to support them.

Perhaps I should be a little less overtly honest about it with my students.  As they came in over the last few weeks to relay some of their traumatic experiences to me, maybe I should not have moved so quickly to tell my students how much I thought they were learning from it and instead commiserated more on how bad it must be to experience clients’ trauma for the first time.  One student, on meeting his SSI client for the first time, had her tell him it wasn’t worth living once she was denied benefits and that she had considered killing herself over the case.  Another student went before an ALJ quite convinced that her severely mentally ill client should win only to have the ALJ badger her and the client about drug use that seemed truly irrelevant.  Like many clinicians, I have sent students to see dying clients, had clients insult and run out on my students, and had students visit clients in squalid neighborhoods that made clear to students for the first time the horrors of poverty.  It’s hard for them, and I should honor that.

I began thinking more about this after being fortunate enough to be assigned to a group with Ron Tyler from Stanford at the Clinical Law Review Workshop at NYU this fall.  I got to learn about his current scholarship, which describes what seems like an amazing trauma curriculum that is part of his clinic and the empirical study he is doing to look at whether his teaching is helping his students deal with secondary trauma in their clinic work.  I was struck by the thoroughness of the project but also the assumption that secondary trauma was a large risk for his students in his criminal clinic, even without picking cases to elicit traumatic responses.  I know it happens with my students, but does it happen enough that I should be worrying about and planning for it?

Pushing back a little, I asked Ron whether students experiencing secondary trauma is good for them as law students learning to practice and if so, whether he should select cases for his students that he hoped would elicit traumatic responses for his students’ benefit.  Kinder than me or at least my than my first inclinations on learning of his work, Ron noted he would never do that, but he knows the responses will happen to his students, and they will be as prepared as they can be. 

He made me think three things.  First, I am lucky to be able to participate in the CLR workshops (try it if you haven’t!), and get to learn from people like him.  Second, I need to learn more about secondary trauma.  Along with his draft article, I have now gotten to see a draft and hear about another article my colleague and Temple, Sarah Katz, is writing with Deeya Haldar from Drexel on secondary trauma in the family law context, (an article which was also workshopped at a CLR workshop and which is forthcoming n CLR soon!  Did I say try it if you haven’t?).  I am doing my best to notice potential secondary trauma with my students in their cases.  I am working on appropriate responses.

But third, I wonder whether maybe I should be more careful in my case selection and either select in or select out cases in which I think secondary trauma might occur.  Clinical classes are a great place to deal with problematic practice issues of all types.  Won’t a student benefit from facing this in a clinic?  On the other hand, is this for what a clinic student is signing up?  Is it right to put them in a situation where I know they will be traumatized?

As December for me is case selection time for the Spring semester, the question of what characteristics I want for our clients and cases is front and center.  It is hard.  Without knowing much about the new students that will take the clinic in the Spring, I need to come up with cases that I try to tailor to help them learn.  Now I wonder if I should be shielding them from trauma or at least considering it in the calculation.

In the end, I have decided I need to be as kind as Ron and not seek out traumatic experiences for my students.  I have to recognize that although the cases I give them may elicit secondary trauma, I cannot and should not force students to experience it.  I must confess, however, that I am not all that unhappy when my students come to me and have to talk about the feelings representation is provoking in them.  I want to help them learn to handle how their feeling affect their lawyering, and that if it is a response to trauma, that is not so bad.  As my wife says about treating kids with liver disease, she wishes no children had liver disease but if they do, she wants to take care of them.  Similarly, I want to help my students when they experience trauma, too!

December 7, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (3)