EvidenceProf Blog

A Loan Tonight: WDNC Finds Evidence of Bank's Discontiuing Of Non-Income Verification Loans Inadmissible Under Rule 407

Federal Rule of Evidence 407 provides that

When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction.  This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.

And, as the recent opinion of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in Suntrust Mortg., Inc. v. Busby, 2011 WL 251201 (W.D.N.C. 2011), makes clear, this Rule excludes not only evidence of changes to instrumentalities after they allegedly caused accidents (e.g., adding a handrail to stairs that a victim fell down) but also evidence of, say, a bank discontinuing the use of non-income verification loans.

In Busby, SunTrust officials  accused 14 property owners in a controversial North Carolina real estate development of falsifying their income when they obtained mortgages totaling more than $20-million. These 14 property owners were given non-income verification (NIV) loans (NIV loans require less documentation than traditional conforming loans; lenders often advertise these programs as "no doc" loans, meaning the borrower does not have to come up with any documentation other than a credit report and a loan application).

The property owners sought to present evidence that Suntrust discontinued its use of non-income verification loans after giving the loans at issue to prove that "had Suntrust discontinued that use earlier, the events giving rise to this litigation would not have occurred." SunTrust responded that this was inadmissible evidence of a subsequent remedial measure under Federal Rule of Evidence 407. The property owners countered that they wanted to use this evidence to properly prove the feasibility of the measure under the Rule.

The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina agreed with Suntrust, concluding that

From the arguments of counsel it appears that the inference that Defendants wish to advance with this evidence is that Plaintiff was culpable for its own losses by having employed the practice of non-income verification loans. This, of course, is excludable under Rule 407. Even if Defendants were able to articulate some manner in which this evidence were relevant under Rule 401 that does not come within the prohibition of Rule 407, the Court finds that the probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudicial effect. "It would be extremely difficult for the jury to hear the [evidence related to discontinuation of the non-income verification loans] without inferring that those measures were admissions of [culpable conduct]. This, of course, is exactly the inference that Rule 407 is designed to prevent."

-CM

Sleep Experts: Ninth Circuit Allows Expert Testimony Under Rule 703 Based Upon Alleged Juror Misconduct

Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) provides that

Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror’s mental processes in connection therewith. But a juror may testify about (1) whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention, (2) whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror, or (3) whether there was a mistake in entering the verdict onto the verdict form. A juror’s affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror may not be received on a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying.

Meanwhile, Federal Rule of Evidence 703 provides that

The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs their  prejudicial effect.

So, let's say that a juror allegedly engages in misconduct during trial/deliberations. Obviously, jurors cannot testify about this misconduct after a verdict is entered in an attempt to impeach the verdict. But can these jurors tell an expert about this misconduct, with the expert then testifying that it is his opinion that the verdict was improperly reached? According to the recent opinion of the Ninth Circuit in Anderson v. Terhune, 2011 WL 148912 (9th Cir. 2011), the answer is "yes." I'm not sure that I agree.

In Terhune, Arthur Anderson was convicted in California state court of murdering two of his friends and attempting to murder a third person. After he was convicted, Anderson appealed, claiming, inter alia, that (1) that one juror's repeated sleep at trial violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; and (2) that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by conducting an inadequate investigation of that juror's sleep behavior.

After being unsuccessful at the state level, Anderson unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus relief in federal district court. Anderson then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which noted that Anderson's juror affidavits and juror testimony about the juror's sleeping were inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). The Court did, however, find that Anderson presented admissible evidence in the form of an 

expert report, which conclude[d] that it [wa]s "quite likely" that the juror ha[d] a sleeping disorder, that it [wa]s "probable that [the juror] was in fact asleep for brief periods of a few minutes at a time throughout the trial," and that the juror "would not be able to reliably estimate how much, if any, testimony he missed...." 

According to the court, "The expert report [wa]s based in part on the inadmissible juror evidence, but its conclusions are still admissible. See Fed.R.Evid. 703." Ultimately, however, the Ninth Circuit denied Anderson habeas relief because it presumed that the state trial court correctly presumed that sleep was not a “significant problem” for the juror in question during trial.

Now, frankly, I think that jurors should be able to testify about certain types of jury misconduct, such as jurors sleeping during trial/deliberations. But if courts apply Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to, inter alia, protect jurors from harassment by the losing party and preserve the finality of verdicts, I don't see how testimony such as the expert's testimony in Terhune should be admitted. Because, if it is, losing parties can harass jurors in an attempt to learn about juror misconduct so that they can have an expert testify pursuant to  Federal Rule of Evidence 703 that in his opinion the verdict was improperly reached.

-CM

Hearing Loss: U.S. Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims Uses Rule 803(7) To Prove Patient's Lack Of Service-Related Tinnitus

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(7) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for 

Evidence that a matter is not included in the memoranda reports, records, or data compilations, in any form, kept in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (6), to prove the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of the matter, if the matter was of a kind of which a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation was regularly made and preserved, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

And, as the recent opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Perkins v. Shinseki, 2011 WL 182653 (Vet.App. 2011), makes clear, the lack of evidence of symptoms in contemporaneous medical records can be admitted under Rule 803(7) to prove the nonoccurrence of such a condition.

In Perkins, Millard Perkins

argue[d] that the Board [of Veterans' Appeals] erred in relying on [a] March 2006 VA examination to deny service connection for tinnitus....In support of this argument, [Perkins] argue[d] that the opinion was inadequate because the opinion concluded that neither [Perkins] hearing loss nor his tinnitus was related to service, but the Board nonetheless granted service connection for his hearing loss....[Perkins] state[d] that "[t]he report failed to discuss the potential relationship between the [appellant]'s hearing loss and as a result, could not possibly provide the Board with a sufficient basis to deny service connection for [his] tinnitus."

In explaining how the Board properly granted Perkins service connection for his hearing loss but denied him service connection for tinnitus, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims concluded that

The record lack[ed] contemporaneous evidence of tinnitus relative to service, it lack[ed] medical records or complaints relating to tinnitus for the 50 years following service (despite the fact that it contain[ed] complaints of hearing loss), and the appellant did not complain of tinnitus for nearly 50 years after separation from service....However, the Board found the appellant's testimony not credible because contemporaneous records failed to record symptoms of tinnitus even though they discussed his hearing problems. See Fed.R.Evid. 803(7).... 

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Elizabeth Burleson's Energy Innovation: International Law and the UN

Elizabeth Burleson presented the poster Energy Innovation: International Law and the UN (Download Burleson Poster):

Professor Burleson is a professor at the University of South Dakota School of Law, where she has taught since 2007. She teaches classes such as Public International Law, Energy Law, United Nations Law, International Environmental Law, International Law and China, Property Law, Water Law, and Environmental Law. She has published articles such as:

-Innovation Cooperation: Energy Biosciences and Law, (forthcoming University of Illinois Law Review);

-China in Context: Energy, Water, and Climate Cooperation, 56 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 950 (2010); and

-International Human Rights Law and Co-Parent Adoption, (forthcoming, Loyola Law Review)

She has also written reports for the United Nations, delivered presentations at United Nations conferences, and directed and produced films including:

(1) “Copenhagen Climate Change Consensus Building,” a documentary film on a cross-section of perspectives at the Copenhagen Conference; (2) "Legal Equality for Same Gender Couples" explaining the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage; (3) “Be the Change that You Wish to See” featuring grassroots environmental initiatives around the world; and (4) “Making Connections” a Spanish documentary on NAFTA, California's 1994 Proposition 187, and the conflict in Chiapas.

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Emily Zimmerman's Do Law Students Want Multiple Graded and Ungraded Assignments? Results from an Empirical Research Project

Emily Zimmerman presented the poster Do Law Students Want Multiple Graded and Ungraded Assignments? Results from an Empirical Research Project ( Download Zimmerman Poster):

Professor Zimmerman is a professor at the Earle Mack School of Law at Drexel University. She conducts empirical research to assess strengths and weaknesses in legal pedagogy and methods for promoting student enthusiasm. She has given presentations at numerous regional, national and international conferences, including a seminar on teaching legal methods in Pidgirtsi, Ukraine for the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative, a conference on the pedagogy of legal writing in Nairobi, Kenya and a conference on global legal skills in Monterrey, Mexico.

Her publications include:

-An Interdisciplinary Framework for Understanding and Cultivating Student Enthusiasm, 58 DePaul L. Rev. 851 (2009);

-What Keeps Me Going? A Great Job at Home and Abroad, 18 Second Draft 9 (June 2004); and

-Toto, I Don't Think We're in Practice Anymore: Making the Transition from Editing as a Practitioner to Giving Feedback as a Legal Writing Professor, 12 Perspectives 2 (Winter 2004).

The information in Professor Zimmerman's poster is included in her forthcoming article, What Do Law Students Want?: The Missing Piece of the Assessment Puzzle (Rutgers Law Journal). You can download an earlier version of the article from SSRN (SSRN download) or a newer version here: (Download What Do Law Students Want?).

Professor Zimmerman gives the following description of her poster:

I will be presenting some of the results of my empirical research that investigates, inter alia, law students’ assessment preferences.  I have attached my poster as a separate file.

Starting with the 2007-2008 academic year, I have been administering a survey to first-year students at a law school at the beginning of the year (at the end of the first day of orientation) and at the end of the year (during the last week of class).  The beginning-of- the-year survey asks students to indicate whether they agree with the statements, “I would like to be assigned multiple graded assignments throughout a first-year law school course,” and “I would like to be assigned multiple un-graded assignments throughout a first-year law school course.”  The end-of-the-year survey asks students to indicate whether they agree with the statements, “I would like to be assigned multiple graded assignments throughout a law school course,” and “I would like to be assigned multiple un-graded assignments throughout a law school course.”

My poster presents two years of first-year students’ responses to these questions (the first-year class that entered the law school in 2007 and the first-year class that entered the law school in 2008).

Each graph on the poster shows the distribution of students’ responses (by percentage) to each survey question in each survey year, at both the beginning of the year and the end of the year.  The graph on the left shows the distribution of students’ responses to the survey questions about wanting multiple graded assignments.  The graph on the right shows the distribution of students’ responses to the survey questions about wanting multiple ungraded assignments.  The beginning-of-the-year responses and the end-of-the-year responses for each survey year are presented side-by-side, which enables comparisons between the distribution of responses at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year.  Also, the results for each survey year are presented separately on each graph, which enables trends across both survey years to be observed. 

There is a number on top of each bar on the graphs, which states the percentage of respondents represented by that bar.  These numbers are clear on a poster-sized document, although the numbers are not clear when the poster is printed on 8 ½-by-11 inch paper.  The graphs also indicate the number of respondents who responded to each question (the numbers in parentheses after “Entrance” and “Exit” below the bars of the graphs). 

The data indicate that, in both survey years, at both the beginning of the year and the end of the year, a majority of first-year students respond that they want multiple graded assignments.  However, in both survey years, the data also indicate that a lower percentage of students at the end of the year want multiple graded assignments.

In addition, the data also indicate that, in both survey years, at the end of the first year of law school, a majority of students indicate disagreement with wanting multiple ungraded assignments.

These findings raise a number of questions about law school pedagogy.

First, these findings raise the question of whether at least some law school courses should use multiple graded assignments because, at both the beginning and end of the year, a majority of students indicate that they want multiple graded assignments.

Second, these findings raise the question of whether workload concerns underlie both students’ apparent resistance to multiple ungraded assignments and the lower percentage of students who want multiple graded assignments at the end of the first year of law school.  Students may perceive that more assessment means more work.  As a result, students may not be receptive to more assessment events.

The data from my research project suggest that any efforts to incorporate more assessment into law school pedagogy should consider the impact on students’ workload.  Some of the value of more frequent assessment may be lost if students are thoroughly overwhelmed.  There may need to be more careful coordination among professors, particularly professors who teach first-year law students, to ensure that students’ workload is manageable.  In addition, the data from my research project suggest that law professors should consider ways to integrate more assessment into the classroom, as an alternative to adding an overwhelming number of out-of-class assignments into the curriculum.

Thus, this poster provides data regarding law students’ perspectives regarding multiple graded and ungraded assignments.  This poster also demonstrates the value of learning more about our students’ perspectives and how our students’ perspectives might inform the design of legal education.

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Judith FIscher's Got Issues? An Empirical Study about Framing Them

Judith Fischer presented the poster Got Issues? An Empirical Study about Framing Them (Download Fischer Poster):

Professor Fischer is a professor at the University of Lousiville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, where she teaches Basic Legal Skills and Women and the Law. Professor Fischer serves on the editorial boards of Legal Writing: The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute and Kentucky's Bench and Bar Journal. She also has presented programs on legal writing at national conferences and has taught continuing legal education courses in Kentucky, California, and Ohio, and Oregon. 

Her publications include:

-Framing Gender: Federal Appellate Judges' Choices About Gender-Neutral Language, 43 U.S.F. L. Rev. 473 (2009);

-Why George Orwell's Ideas About Language Still Matter for Lawyers, 68 Mont. L. Rev. 129 (2007); and 

-God and Caesar in the Twenty-First Century: What Recent Cases Say About Church-State Relations in England and the United States, 18 Fla. J. Int'l L. 485 (2006)

According to Professor Fischer, the poster is the result of empirical research she did on laywers' issue statements.

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Gwynne Skinner's Human Rights Litigation: Hamad v. Gates, et al

Gwynne Skinner presented the poster, Human Rights Litigation: Hamad v. Gates, et al (Download Skinner Poster):

Professor Skinner is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Law at the Willamette University College of Law, where she heads the International Human Rights Clinic.

Her publications include

-When Customary International Law Violations 'Arise Under the Laws of the United States,' Brooklyn Journal of International Law (forthcoming);

-Customary International Law, Federal Common Law, and Federal Court Jurisdiction, 44 VAL. U. L. REV. 825 (2010); and

-Bringing International Law to Bear on the Detention of Refugees and Conditions of Detention in the United States, 16 WILLAMETTE J. INT'L. L. & DISP. RESOL. 270 (2009).

According to Professor Skinner, the poster

discusses a case my clinic has filed and is litigating on behalf of one of the former Gbay detainees.  It is the only such case outside of the D.C. courts, which have dismissed similar cases. We recently won a motion preventing DOJ from transferring the case to D.C., which is good. 

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Sabrina DeFabritiis' Barking Up The Wrong Tree: Companion Animals, Emotional Damages And The Judiciary's Failure To Keep Pace

Sabrina DeFabritiis presented the poster Barking Up The Wrong Tree: Companion Animals, Emotional Damages And The Judiciary's Failure To Keep Pace (Download DeFabritiis Poster):

 

Professor DeFabritiis is a professor at the Suffolk University Law School, where she teaches Legal Practice Skills. He publications include:

-Clarity, Organization: Watchwords for Client Correspondence, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (2009);

-Can You Hear Me Now? Using Voice Comments to Provide Feedback on Students' Memoranda, 2 The Second Draft 7 (2009); and

-PRODUCTS LIABILITY DEFENSE: A STATE-BY-STATE COMPENDIUM (Defense Research Institute, 2004) (Co-author of the Massachusetts section for the 2004 and 2007 editions).

Professor DeFabritiis gives the following description of the poster:

The poster is based on an article that I am in the process of completing.  Below please find a brief synopsis of my article and what I hope to present. 

An increasing number of American households regard their companion animals as being as much a part of their family as their human family members.  Companion animals have not always held this status.   Instead the role of companion animals has evolved from property, whose function was to derive economic benefit, to family members, who share a unique emotional bond with their human companions.  This article argues that case law has failed to keep pace with this societal change.  Despite judicial recognition that companion animals have become family member, decisions continue to provide inconsistent precedent of the non-economic damages available to the human companion upon the death of a companion animal.  

The article discusses the evolution of companion animals from workers to family members.  It then discusses the inconsistent course judicial opinions have taken on the recovery of emotional damages upon the negligent or intentional death of a companion animal.  The article describes, how for a time, the award of damages resulting from the death of a companion animal appeared to be consistent with the rising familial status of companion animals. However, as the societal role of companion animals continued to evolve, inexplicably, the judiciary stopped keeping pace. Judicial opinions began to deny the recovery of emotional damages ruling that there existed no precedent for the recovery of emotional damages for loss of property.  More recent decisions indicate that the judiciary would like for the legislature to step in and provide an avenue by which to grant non-economic damages.  

The article concludes by discussing existing state statutes that allow for the recovery of emotional damages for the death of a companion animal.  The article makes recommendations based on the existing statues on how other states should proceed in enacting legislation. The article suggests that codification by state legislatures will remedy inconsistent judicial precedent and allow human companions to recover for their emotional suffering upon the loss of their four legged family members.  

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Victoria Sutton's Biosecurity Codes and Ethics, BWC Participants 2009

Victoria Sutton presented the poster Survey: Biosecurity Codes and Ethics, BWC Participants 2009 (Download Sutton Poster):

Professor Sutton is a professor and the director of the Center for Biodefense, Law & Public Policy at the Texas Tech University School of Law, where she teaches Environmental Law; Law, Science Policy and Scientific Evidence; Native American Law; Law and Biotechnology; Law and Bioterrorism; Constitutional Law; and Law, Science and Environment. The Center for Biodefense, Law & Public Policy is the only center at a law school in the U.S. to focus solely on issues of law and biodefense, biosecurity and bioterrorism. Professor Sutton also established the Law and Science Certificate Program with unanimous support of the faculty, and directs the JD/MS Program in Environmental Toxicology, Biotechnology and Plant and Soil Sciences.

Professor Sutton's publications include:

-Law and Biotechnology: Cases and Materials;

-The Culture of Science and the Regulation and Litigation of Biodefense Research, 6 U. St. Thomas L.J. 523 (2009); and

-Wind and Wisdom, 1 Envt'l & Energy L. & Pol'y J. 345 (spring 2007).

According to Professor Sutton,

The poster shows how social sciences research can inform better design of legal frameworks by collecting empirical data, analyzing it and using it to make efficacious laws and regulations.  The examples here are an international treaty and a U.S. federal regulatory program.  The link on the poster leads to the announcement on the White House website where the President issued an Executive Order which cited my research in support of the E.O. to review the regulatory program.

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Chrstine Rollins' Do you know the learning-style preferences of your law students?

Christine Rollins presented the poster Do you know the learning-style preferences of your law students?(Download Rollins Poster):

Professor Rollins is the Director of Legal Research and Writing at the St. Louis University School of Law, a position that she has held since 2007.  According to the St. Louis University School of Law website, she 

implemented a unique teaching program that assists professors in their teaching based on their students’ learning style. It was because of this program that Professor Rollins and SLU LAW was cited by The National Jurist as being named one of the “Most Innovative Law Schools.” 

In addition to her academic duties, Rollins has successfully argued before the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District and the Supreme Court of Missouri, successfully prosecuting ten appellate cases. Her articles include:

-In Forma Pauperis, Sec. 514.040: A Practical User's Guide for Attorneys, 66 Journal of the Missouri Bar 146 (May/June 2010);

-Statutory Assistance for Attorneys Providing Pro Bono Services, 60 Journal of the Missouri Bar 112 (May/June 2004); and 

-Using the VARK: A Writing Department's Commitment to "Turning the Light Bulbs On," 22 The Second Draft 13 (Spring 2008).

Professor Rollins gives the following description of the poster:

Four years of data collection and empirical research have been done on the different learning styles of first year law students.  Over 1100 students at Saint Louis University School of Law have taken a learning style assessment tool created by Neil Fleming called V.A.R.K.  From this data trends have emerged.  This poster provides a summary of some of the research. 

Faculty interested in teaching pedagogy, reaching their students, or just knowing more about how the students in their classroom absorb information will find this interesting. 

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Eric Gouvin's Entrepreneurship Education for Law Schools

Eric Gouvin presented the poster Entrepreneurship Education for Law Schools (Download Gouvin Poster):

Professor Gouvin is a professor and the Director of the Law and Business Center for Advancing Entrepreneurship at the Western New England College School of Law, where he teaches classes such as Business Organizations, Contracts, Secured Transactions, and Regulation of Financial Services. He has published such works as:

-Teaching Business Lawyering in Law Schools: A Candid Assessment of the Challenges and Some Suggestions for Moving Ahead, 78 UMKC L. Rev. 429 (2009);

-The Law of Corporate Groups: Jurisdiction, Practice and Procedure; and

-The Magic of Money and Banking, in The Law and Harry Potter (2010)

Professor Gouvin gives the following description of the poster:

A diverse team of law professors interested in accessing better teaching materials relating to counseling businesses and practicing transactional law banded together to develop an online community called “eLaw.”   The objective was to create an online exchange populated by classroom teachers and clinicians to share ideas, materials, and methods to better educate an increasing segment of law graduates – those wanting to be transactional lawyers.  With fewer traditional models of teaching available to draw from, eLaw provides a convenient forum where educators can access existing models from across the country in the form of syllabi, course materials, and scholarship. The hope is that the exchange not only assists in the proliferation of greater entrepreneurial and transactional education of law students (through classroom teaching, clinics, and simulations) but also acts as a catalyst for greater interdisciplinary interaction amongst educators from various disciplines. The project is sponsored by the Kauffman Foundation of Kansas City, a non-profit organization which supports educational initiatives to teach entrepreneurship, especially interdisciplinary proposals. 

 

The poster describes the eLaw project, highlighting the online collaborative exchange among teachers, scholars and policymakers who care about bringing entrepreneurship education into the law school.  The eLaw project has created an active listserv, developed an extensive scholarship database, established a depository of teaching materials and otherwise provided guidance and support for professors seeking to integrate entrepreneurship into their classes. The poster also invites participation in the project from other professors who are not yet members of the eLaw community. 

 

The Kauffman eLaw team consists of Esther Barron at Northwestern University Law School, Eric Gouvin at Western New England College School of Law, Laura Hollis at Notre Dame University School of Business, Praveen Kosuri at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Lisa LeSage at Lewis and Clark Law School, Anthony Luppino at the University of Missouri – Kansas City School of Law, and Helen Scott at New York University School of Law.  An electronic copy of the poster is attached.

 

The website provides a range of resources for users.  Anyone with access to the internet can use the two “public” features – the annotated bibliography of legal and business scholarship relating to entrepreneurship and the listing of internet resources for entrepreneurs and teachers who teach entrepreneurship.  The scholarship area is very useful, here are some of its salient features:

 

• Designed to aggregate and supplement other bibliographic resources.  Covers historical materials and monographs that are not covered in things like WESTLAW or SSRN.
• Contains both legal materials and business materials.
• Whenever possible we provide a short abstract  to make browsing easier.
• Updated every six months.
• Has an Overview that breaks down the topics into subgroups to make browsing easier.
• There is a search function, but honestly, it is still in development.
• Some principal themes of the Resource Links section:
  • Educators might be particularly interested in the subsections on:
    • Legal Education
    • Theory and Practice
  • Entrepreneurs or  their advisors might be particularly interested in the subsections on:
    • Finance, Intellectual Property and Legal Issues
  • Policy Makers might be particularly interested in:
    • Community Economic Development
    • Race
    • Sustainability
    • Women

Similarly, the “Resources” section seek to impose some order on the many Internet sites that have something of value for entrepreneurs and educators.

• Designed to have information of interest to law faculty, faculty from any other disciplines involved in entrepreneurship education, and entrepreneurs. 
• Has an Overview in frequently asked questions format guiding readers to its 13 subsections.
• Some principal themes of the Resource Links section:
  • Educators might be particularly interested in the subsections on:
    • Interdisciplinary Programs (links to information about  the Kauffman Campuses entrepreneurship education initiatives and innovative collaborations between law schools and business schools and other academic units)
    • Transactional Skills Programs (featuring examples of concentrated skills programs at U.S. schools)
    • Lawyers as Entrepreneurs (includes lists of courses offered at U.S, law schools on solo and small firm practice and entrepreneurial management of a law practice)
    • Collaboration Platforms (links to blogs, committees, sections relating to law and entrepreneurship)
    • Conferences and Meetings (relating to entrepreneurship education)
    • Publications (list periodicals to which entrepreneurship educators might want to submit their scholarship for publication)
    • Curriculum Design Funding (lists possible sources of grants from governmental agencies or non-profit organizations to promote entrepreneurship education)
    • Continuing Legal Education (in the areas of entrepreneurship and innovation)
  • Entrepreneurs or  their advisors might be particularly interested in the subsections on:
    • Clinics (lists and links on a state-by-state basis law school transactional clinics, including small business, community economic development and IP clinics)
    • Referral Networks (links to programs to help locate  lawyers by practice area)
    • Affordable Legal Services (links to various bar association initiatives)
    • Help Centers (links to programs assisting with business planning, etc.)
    • General Laws and Forms Information (wide variety of links to governmental and bar association websites providing information on federal and state-by-state laws and forms  affecting the start-up and operation of a business).  The site  warns readers about the need to engage qualified legal counsel to assist with such matters.

Access to the other sections requires registration.  Registration is free, but it provides a modest screening device so that we can be relatively comfortable that the people accessing the course materials are professors.  Those materials include sample syllabi, teaching exercises, annotated forms, and “roadmaps” for helping teachers think through the topics in preparation or teaching.  The Site is also home to an active listserv of legal educators.

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Beyond Etiquette: Bringing E-Communications into the LRW Classroom, by Ellie Margolis & Kristen Murray

Ellie Margolis and Kristen Murray presented the poster Beyond Etiquette: Bringing E-Communication into the LRW Classroom (Download Margolis:Murray Poster):

  

Professor Margolis is a professor at the Temple University Beasley School of Law, where she teaches Legal Research and Writing, Appellate Advocacy, and Law and Sexual Orientation. Her articles include:

-Authority Without Borders: The World Wide Web and the Delegalization of Law, forthcoming, Seton Hall Law Review;

-Surfin' Safari - Why Competent Lawyers Should Research on the Web, 10 Yale J. L. & Tech. 82 (2007); and

-Moving Beyond Product to Process: Builing a Better LRW Program, 46 Santa Clara L. Rev. 93 (2005).

Professor Murray is also a professor at the Temple University Beasley School of Law, where she teaches Legal Research and Writing. Her works include:

-Scholarly Writing: Ideas, Examples, and Execution;

-The Art of the Writing Conference: Letting Students Set the Agenda Without Ceding Control, 17 Persp. 35 (2008); and

-My E-Semester: New Uses for Technology in the Legal Research and Writing Classroom, 15 Persp. 194 (2007).

According to Professor Margolis,

The poster grew out of our mutual interest in the ways technology is changing law practice and legal education.  While a vast amount of communication in law practice is taking place electronically, until recently, most law school legal writing programs did little to address this development, other than to discuss issues of professional etiquette.  Professor Murray and I both introduced assignments into our courses which were designed to help focus on the substantive, as well as etiquette, aspects of electronic communication and how it may differ from traditional legal writing.  The poster captures our experience, highlighting the substantive benefits of incorporating electronic assignments into the LRW curriculum, and providing some tips on how to add these assignments without making major changes to existing course structures.

 

The ideas in the poster are further elaborated in my forthcoming article, Ellie Margolis, Incorporating Electronic Communication in the LRW Classroom, 19 Perspectives: Teaching Legal Res. & Writing __ (2011). 

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Jeffrey Proske's 1L Journaling Project

Jeffrey Proske presented the poster 1L Journaling Project (Download Proske Poster):

Professor Proske is a professor at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, where he teaches Global Lawyering Skills. He joined the faculty after 20 years of legal practice both as in-house counsel and in private practice. Prior to coming to Pacific McGeorge, he served as the General Counsel for National Commercial Ventures, Inc., a Los Angeles, CA based national commercial real estate investment company and developer. Prior to that, Professor Proske served as Associate General Counsel for The Ryland Group, Inc., a Calabasas, CA based, Fortune 500, NYSE-listed, high-volume home builder. Before joining The Ryland Group, Inc., Professor Proske also served as Corporate Counsel for PMC Global, Inc. in Sun Valley, CA, a Fortune 500 international plastics, machines, chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing company. Before going in-house, Professor Proske was in private practice in San Francisco and Los Angeles assisting clients with issues involving finance, business combinations, debt and equity offerings, as well as matters related to real estate, intellectual property and entertainment. Professor Proske has been a member of the State Bar of California since 1989. His most recent publication is "The Proposition 8 Sausage Factory" "The Proposition 8 Sausage Factory" for About.com.

Here is Professor Proske's description of the poster:

“The IL Journaling Project”

The value of an attorney is measured to a great extent by the attorney’s ability to perceive the dimensions and nuances of an issue and to offer perspective and guidance based on careful consideration of the issue.  The ability to articulate perspectives effectively both orally and in writing inspires confidence in the reasoning underlying those perspectives.  The process of writing can be an effective tool to assist law students to develop unfinished or emerging ideas, and for revealing previously unconsidered dimensions and perspectives on issues.

The “1L Journaling Project” is a TWEN-based forum where students in their first year legal research and writing course are invited to post ungraded submissions on any topic of their choosing relating to the “1L” experience over the course of their first year in law school with a view to compiling the submissions in a bound volume to be distributed to them at the end of their first year. 

The “1L Journaling Project” is intended to encourage students to enhance their ability to engage in thoughtful and measured consideration of a topic and to present their perspectives in writing in a public forum - a skill which will ultimately sharpen their ability to reason and communicate in a professional context.

Objectives:

1. To give students a public forum in which to contribute personal thoughts, observations, essays, reflections, insights, and perspectives on subjects of personal interest to them relating to their 1L experience which are not necessarily part of a course of study.

2. To encourage students to use the process of writing to assist them in developing their ability to capture their insights on the page.

3. To encourage students to use the process of writing as a method of problem solving on a personal level, and ultimately in the context of professional representation.

4. To help students develop a method for reasoning and for exploring the dimensions of an issue through writing.

5. To help students build confidence in their ability to communicate effectively in writing in a public forum.

Rules:

1. Submissions must be attributed to their author.  There will be no anonymous submissions accepted.

2. All submissions will be reviewed by the Professor to ensure that they comply with the objectives and rules set forth herein.  The Professor retains the right to strike any submissions from the forum site which the Professor deems inappropriate.  The Professor also retains the right to discontinue the project at any time if the submissions do not comport with the spirit of the project as outlined above. 

3. Professionalism Points:  Participation in the “1L Journaling Project” is not mandatory, but may be considered in determining an award of  discretionary or professionalism points in the tabulation of the final grade for the class.

Suggested Topics & Formats:

Submissions may take any form from a blog entry to a personal essay to a haiku, or even a Twitter tweet.  The point of the project is to try to capture as much of an experience as you can in words on the page. 

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Jessica Dixon Weaver's The Principle of Subsidiarity Applied: Reforming the Legal Framework to Capture the Psychological Abuse of Children

Jessica Dixon Weaver presented the poster The Principle of Subsidiarity Applied: Reforming the Legal Framework to Capture the Psychological Abuse of Children (Download Weaver Poster):

 

Professor Weaver is a professor at the SMU Dedman School of Law, where she teaches Family Law, Professional Responsibility, and Children and the Law. Previously, she was the first director of the W.W. Carruth, Jr. Child Advocacy Clinic, where she taught an interdisciplinary course and supervised law students who served as guardians and attorneys ad litem for abused and neglected children.  She also coordinated seminars and child welfare symposiums that provided continuing education for attorneys and social workers in the child welfare field. As a result of her work as the founding Director of the Clinic, Professor Weaver received the honor of being named one of twenty-five Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law by the Texas Lawyer in 2009.

Professor Weaver's research and scholarship focus on the analysis of current laws and policy practices in the child protection and juvenile justice systems and their impact on children and families.  She also writes about the issue of disproportionality of minority children in state institutions. Her works include:

-The Texas Mis-Step: Why the Largest Child Removal in Modern U.S. History Failed, 16 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 449 (2010); and

-The African-American Child Welfare Act: A Legal Redress for African-American Disproportionality in Child Protection Cases, 10 Berkeley J. Afr.-Am. L. & Pol'y 109 (2008);

Her poster is based upon a forthcoming article that will be published in the Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law. Here is the abstract:

Psychological abuse is the most prevalent type of child abuse. It lies at the core of child maltreatment because it is embedded in and interacts with physical and sexual abuse, as well as physical neglect. It also has a more extensive and destructive impact on the development of children than any other type of abuse. Yet, the current child protection system fails to adequately address the problem because the normative framework of the child protection system does not always include the psychological abuse of children. For the majority of states, the physical health, safety and well-being of children are focal points in determining whether abuse or neglect has occurred. Although federal law requires that "serious emotional harm" be included in the definition of abuse for all states, less than half of all states in America allow for children to be removed from their parents due to psychological abuse alone. This article proposes a way to fill the gap by incorporating psychological abuse into the larger doctrinal equation of child abuse and neglect treatment and prevention. First, recognizing that a primary challenge to including psychological abuse within the legal standard is the ability to determine the level of psychological harm that warrants state intervention, this article offers a uniform definition of psychological abuse in order to expand the scope of the emergency removal standard. Second, this article borrows from the European theory of subsidiarity to address prevention and treatment of abuse in American communities. This bold new paradigm is a prescriptive process that carefully constructs the law such that necessary interventions in a child's life are allowed to prevent further psychological damage so that victims can start the road to recovery. Ultimately, applying the principle of subsidiarity to the legal framework of the child protection system should reduce the number of children who experience psychological abuse as well as reduce the overall cycle of abuse and neglect in our country.

-CM

Rescue 911: Court Of Appeals Of Minnesota Finds 911 Call Authenticated, But Not Under Rule 901(b)(5)

Like its federal counterpart, Minnesota Rule of Evidence 901(a) provides that

The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

And, like its federal counterpart, Minnesota Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5) provides that

By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:...

(5) Voice identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.

As the above language and the recent opinion of the Court of Appeals of Minnesota in Adams v. State, 2011 WL 9162 (Minn.App. 2011), however, Rule 901(b)(5) is merely an illustration, and voice can be authenticated through other means as long as the standard set forth in Rule 901(a) is satisfied.

In Adams,  Michael Adams was convicted of burglary in the second degree. At trial, the prosecution established that

a man living in St. Paul returned to his apartment and observed that his door was partially broken and ajar. The victim observed two men, one of whom he identified as [Michael] Adams, run out of the apartment and down the stairwell. The victim followed the men outside and called 911 once he was in the parking lot. The victim testified that while he was speaking to the 911 dispatcher, Adams pulled out a knife and threatened him.

The 911 dispatcher testified at trial and authenticated the recording of the call. Adams's trial counsel objected to the introduction of the recording as hearsay, but not for lack of authentication. The district court overruled the hearsay objection and allowed the jury to hear the 911 call.

The recording captures a conversation between the 911 dispatcher and the victim. The victim reports that between two and four black men broke into his apartment and that one of the men is threatening him with a knife "right now." The victim also states that he does not know the man's name, but he knows that the man lives in his building.

A third person can be heard in the background, but it is difficult to make out what that person is saying. But at one point, the third person clearly says "Mother f-----. (Inaudible.) Mother f-----." No one specifically identified the third person's voice as Adams's on the recording or at trial.

After Adams was convicted, he appealed, claiming that the 911 call was improperly authenticated "because no witness specifically identified the third person's voice on the 911 call as his, the recording was inadmissible for lack of authentication." The Court of Appeals of Minnesota disagreed, noting that

Our decision in State v. Washington, 725 N.W.2d 125 (Minn.App .2007), review denied (Minn. Mar. 20, 2007), is instructive. In Washington, the appellant was convicted of two counts of fifth-degree domestic assault based in part on a 911 call made by the victim, who did not testify....The appellant objected to the admission of the 911 call on several grounds, including that no one had authenticated the voice on the recording as that of the victim....The district court allowed the recording into evidence....We affirmed, concluding that the district court had not abused its discretion in admitting the 911 call because there was other testimony indicating that the victim had placed the 911 call.

The court then applied Washington to the case before it and concluded that

Here, the testimony authenticating the 911 call is even stronger than in Washington because the victim testified to the events captured on the 911 call....The victim testified that Adams pulled out a knife and threatened him while he was speaking to the 911 dispatcher; at least one other witness corroborated the victim's testimony. This testimony is adequate to establish that the third person on the 911 call was Adams. Thus, Adams cannot establish that the district court committed error-let alone plain error-by admitting the 911 call.

-CM

I Need A Remedy: DDC Precludes Evidence Of E-Mail Referencing Subsequent Remedial Measure After Traffic Death

Federal Rule of Evidence 407 provides that

When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction.  This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.

And, as the recent opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Cohen v. District of Columbia, 2011 WL 108713 (D.D.C. 2011), makes clear, Rule 407 covers not solely the fact of a subsequent remedial measure but also communications related to such measures. 

In Cohen, "D.Q., a foster child and ward of the District of Columbia, was killed when he was transported by van to Progressive Life Center for an appointment, he exited the van, and stepped into oncoming traffic." Thereafter, Brett Cohen, as personal and legal representative of the Estate of D.Q., brought suit against: the District of Columbia, Progressive Life Center (the contractor that arranged for placement with foster parents and provided regular counseling and medical care to D.Q.), Nile Express Transport, Inc. (the company that operated the van that transported D.Q.), and William Woods (the driver of the oncoming car).

The District of Columbia and Progressive thereafter moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion. Cohen then moved for reconsideration and sought

to introduce evidence of subsequent remedial measures, evidence that he failed to present in opposition to the motions for summary judgment. In support of his claim that the District lacked sufficient policies regarding the transportation of foster children, [Cohen] points to an email prepared by the District more than two months after the accident that refer[red] to the development of new transportation policies. The email state[d]:

In an effort for MAA to administer and manage the provision of safe transportation from pick-up to delivery, with or without driver assistance as necessary, attached are some protocols we can start applying while “formal” non-emergency transportation Policies and Procedures are being discussed, developed and written.... The medical provider or Agency (e.g.CFSA) must request or arrange for an attendant for Medicaid recipients who are minor children under the age of 15, when they know there is no parent or guardian available to accompany the child on the trip to the provider's faculty or office.

According to the  United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the first problem for Cohen was that "[t]he email [wa]s not new or newly discovered. If [Cohen] wanted to rely on this evidence, he should have filed it in response to Defendants' motions for summary judgment." And, according to the court, the second problem was that this e-mail referenced a subsequent remedial measure, and  Federal Rule of Evidence 407 bars the introduction of subsequent remedial measures."

-CM

Going Into Withdrawal: Western District Of Kentucky Finds Evidence Related To Plea Withdrawal Indamissible Under Rule 410

Federal Rule of Evidence 410 states in relevant part that

Except as otherwise provided in this rule, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions:

(1) a plea of guilty which was later withdrawn...

(3) any statement made in the course of any proceedings under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or comparable state procedure regarding either of the foregoing pleas....

Meanwhile, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f) states that

The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410.

So, let's say that a defendant pleads guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. Then, under the advisement of new counsel, the defendant moves to withdraw her guilty plea, supplying an affidavit supporting the withdrawal of her guilty plea. Thereafter, a hearing is held to examine the withdrawal of her plea, with the defendant testifying as to her innocence and offering a recently discovered letter. If the court allows the defendant to withdraw her guilty plea, should the prosecution be able to admit the defendant's affidavit, testimony, and/or letter at the ensuing trial? According to the recent opinion of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky in United States v. Young, 2011 WL 96627 (W.D.Ky. 2011), the answer is "no."

In Young, the facts were as states above, with Tanashea Young being the defendant charged with thirty-one counts of mail fraud in connection with her operation of a child-care facility. In deeming her affidavit, testimony, and letter inadmissible, the Western District of Kentucky initially noted that "neither Rule 410 nor Rule 11 explicitly discusses whether evidence offered at a withdrawal of plea hearing should be excluded." That said,

After reviewing the rules' language, their legislative histories, and the relevant precedent, the Court f[ound] that the evidence Young offered in her withdrawal of plea hearing [wa]s not admissible in Government's case-in-chief. First, Rule 410 is clear that "any statement made during the course of any proceeding under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure" is not admissible....Under Rule 11(d), a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a plea of guilty; in fact, a criminal defendant that has voluntarily entered a guilty plea and then later moves to have it withdrawn must show "fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal."...Therefore, a Rule 11 hearing to determine whether a defendant has just cause to withdraw a plea of guilty qualifies as a "proceeding" protected under the language of Rule 410. In addition, section three of Rule 410 is written in broad language, excluding "any statement"; that the disputed items are exculpatory rather than inculpatory is therefore irrelevant to this analysis. Finally, as the Court requested the parties submit briefs in advance of the proceeding, Young's affidavit would also be considered a statement during the Rule 11 proceeding. For these reasons alone, the language of the rules will not permit Government to employ any of these items in its case-in-chief.

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Kathy Cerminara's Improving Access to Hospice Care for Hispanic and African-American Patients

Kathy Cerminara presented the poster Improving Access to Hospice Care for Hispanic and African-American Patients (Download Cerminara Poster):

   

 Professor Cerminara is a professor at the Nova Southeastern Law Center, where she teaches The Law of Managed Health Care, Torts, Civil Procedure, Administrative Law, a Law and Medicine Seminar, and other health-law-related courses. She also created, was the initial director of, and teaches in the online Master of Science in Health Law program for non-lawyers. Her scholarship focuses on patients' rights in the managed health care system.

According to Professor Cerminara, her poster

is a visual depiction of the thesis in La Caja de Pandora:  Improving Access to Hospice Care Among Hispanic and African-American Patients, 10 Houst. L. & Pol'y 255 (2010), which I co-wrote with Alina Perez (name on poster as well). You can see a pre-publication draft on my SSRN page at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1533532....

This is part of a line of articles I have published about the law governing hospice care, specifically the false dichotomy present in Medicare statutes and regulations requiring waiver of benefits for curative treatment for the terminal illness in order to receive coverage of the palliative treatment of hospice care. In fact, the name is a version of the first piece in the series, Pandora's Dismay:  Eliminating Coverage-Related Barriers to Hospice Care, 11 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 107 (2010) (part of a therapeutic justice symposium) and available in pre-publication format at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1470326....

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) authorized Medicare demonstration projects to test the coverage model I suggested in the first article and for which I, with Professor Perez, reinforced the need in the second. See http://www.aslme.org/Society_Scholars. In its aftermath, my most recent piece has analyzed this change in hospice payment policy, as well as an additional one implemented by PPACA as well. See Hospice and Health Care Reform:  Improving Care at the End of Life, 16 Widener L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2011), pre-publication draft available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1694196.

All of this is part of a long line of end-of-life decisionmaking work, as you can see from my faculty bio, http://nsulaw.nova.edu/faculty/profiles/index.cfm?ID=18, and my SSRN abstract page, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=145233.

Some of this end-of-life decisionmaking work includes:

-Critical Essay: Musings on the Need to Convince Some People with Disabilities that End-of-Life Decision-Making Advocates are Not Out to Get Them, 37 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 343 (2006); 

-Dealing with Dying: How Insurers Can Help Patients Seeking Last-Chance Therapies (Even When the Answer is 'No'), 15 Health Matrix, 285 (2005); and

-Therapeutic Death: A Look at Oregon's Law Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide, 6 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 503 (2000);

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Joyce Savio Herleth's Three Steps to Perfect Registration Advising

Joyce Savio Herleth presented the poster Three Steps to Perfect Registration Advising (Download Herleth Poster):

    

Professor Herleth is a professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law, where she teaches Fundametals of Law and Legal Methods and has been the Director of the Office of Academic Advising  (formerly the Office of Academic Support) since 2000. Professor Herleth provides students with the assistance and support they need to achieve success during their rigorous law studies. Through her courses and weekly workshops, she helps students acclimate to the legal learning environment.  Professor Herleth meets with students individually or in small groups to discuss academic issues. On the SLU LAW Web site, she offers students guidance on everything from taking the bar exam, to class preparation, to focused briefs, to journaling research. She also has many powerpoints and podcasts available for students.

According to Professor Herleth,

I created this poster because too often upper division law students select law courses in a rather haphazard fashion.  Often the convenience of the schedule becomes substantially more important  than the necessity of the courses.  Likewise, persons giving registration advice to the law student population tend to be general or overly vague.  However, as law students are not generic; neither should our advice.  

The poster, Three Steps to Perfect Registration Advising, focuses on three areas which should be considered when discussing registration and law electives.  The first category an advisor should consider is the student’s strength, study skills and overall ability.  An academically strong student might need relatively little guidance in choosing courses, because that student understands legal analysis and has shown a past record of achievement.  On the other hand, a student who is struggling academically may need more assistance in creating a schedule that has rigor but allows the student to continue to learn how to legally analyze the law.  The advisor will need to consider when that student performs best as well as which style of instruction seems best suited.  Secondly, consideration of the professors’ presentation style plays a part in this process.  Again, the weaker academic student may better process the course if it is presented in a style that student prefers.  Given a choice between methods of instruction can result in an improved ability to learn.   Finally, law school courses should not be selected in a vacuum.  While a student’s future interests are important, ultimately a student must pass a bar examination to become a licensed professional.  Advisors need to be cognizant of that fact when making suggestions.  Again the stronger student might be able to skip a number of “bar” courses, while a weaker student (or one that wishes to have a general practice) might consider taking more. 

Registration is an opportunity for ASP and other advisors to help students select courses that will benefit them both while in law school and after they graduate.  This poster is a reminder of the necessary steps for a good registration result. 

-CM

AALS Poster Project: Courtney Lee's Bringing Academic Support to Life with Technology

Courtney Lee presented the poster Bringing Academic Support to Life with Technology ( Download Lee Poster):

Professor Lee is the Director of Academic Success and a Lecturer in Law at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, where she teaches Principles of Agency and Practical & Persuasive Legal Writing. She also runs and teaches in the school's First Year Skills Hours Program. In addition, she is the Co-Director of the Western Association of Academic Success Professionals.

Professor Lee is the Co-Editor (with Timothy Naccarato) of Cases and Materials on Principles of Agency, 2010 edition and the Editor of Practical and Persuasive Legal Writing Case Materials (2009). She is also the author of Find Them on Facebook: Using Facebook to Reach Students Where They Already Go, The Learning Curve, Fall 2009.

She gives the following description of her poster:

This Poster describes several methods by which I have successfully incorporated technology into my Academic Support Program.  First, Facebook has revolutionized my bar support efforts by allowing me to reach students where they already go, as opposed to using email, printed flyers, and other less effective means of communication.  I am now able to post advice, information, media, links, and events all in one place that students visit regularly and voluntarily.  Students also seem more willing to reach out to me through Facebook than they are by email or phone. 

Second, using a blog in conjunction with Facebook allows me to reach students who do not have a Facebook account.  It also enables me to post text with more formatting, making longer posts easier to read and key ideas easier to highlight.  Blog posts are also easily linked to Facebook. 

Third, YouTube's Annotations software makes linking between videos fast and easy.  For example, I used it to create a multiple choice question video:  students viewed the question video, and then clicked on one of four possible answers (themselves each linked to a different video). The students were then directed to an answer explanation video; and if they chose an incorrect answer, they could click a link taking them back to the question so they could try again.  If they chose the correct answer, they could click a link taking them to the next question.  This is only one example; there are countless other potential applications of this software, and conveniently, YouTube videos can be shared through both Facebook and blogs. 

Finally, Google Docs allows groups of people to edit the same electronic document in real time.  This is especially helpful in explaining IRAC and written organization.  For instance, a professor uploads a poorly-organized exam answer into Google Docs.  The professor can then guide a group of students as they take turns editing the answer and discussing those edits, which immediately appear on all users' computers.  When finished, the professor can then save the final product in .pdf format, upload it to his or her blog, and share the link through Facebook.  In addition to adding interactivity to a classroom experience, this software can also enhance a distance learning program."

-CM