Clinical Law Prof Blog

Call for Papers: The Disparity Law Journal

Via Alisha Hennen:

 

Please find below a call for submissions for a new journal, The Disparity Law Journal,  which is being published as an imprint of the Journal of Law.

 

The theme for our inaugural issue is Disparity in Legal Citation. We seek to present both commentary and empirical work on the patterns we see in legal citation practice, which we understand to generally favor authors who are White men at the most highly-ranked institutions.  We are also interested in commentary on how the use of citation metrics to judge law schools may institutionalize and reify bias and discrimination. HeinOnline's ScholarRank and its work towards incorporating citation metrics into law school rankings would be just one example of the phenomenon we seek to explore in this issue.

 

Dates for submission:

Submit a proposal by 7/15/2020

Notification of Acceptance by 8/1/2020

Final draft due on 10/1/2020

 

Journal Description:

This journal, an imprint of the Journal of Law, is a periodic attempt to highlight, challenge, and address inequality and inequity in law through the publication of readable and practical articles. We welcome both scholarly and unconventional submissions on this topic. Our vision is that we will produce a place for discussions about systemic unfairness in law and law schools. Our approach to dismantling traditions of disparity provides space for all at the table.

 

Mission Statement: 
Disparity means the condition of being unequal. This journal is an attempt to challenge and shape the conversation about this condition in law and justice through innovative approaches to legal research, scholarship, and theory. 

 

Audience: 
Lawyers, judges, law professors, law school staff, law librarians, law students. Specifically, those who have been or continue to be disenfranchised in the law or by the American legal academy and have innovative ideas to reform, grow, change and shape the future of legal education and the legal profession.

 

Length of articles:

No more than 18k. Preference for shorter, readable works.

 

Type of author:

We accept articles from anyone interested in furthering scholarship on disenfranchisement and disparity in legal academia and the US legal system.

 

Original works or reprints:

We welcome original works and reprints.

 

Editorial Board:

Ana Isabel Delgado Valentin, Suffolk University Law School

Nicole P. Dyszlewski, Roger Williams University School of Law

Alisha Hennen, Mitchell Hamline School of Law

Rebecca Sherman, United States Courts for the 9^th Circuit

Genevieve B. Tung, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School

 

Submissions and questions can be sent to Alisha Hennen at [email protected]

PUBLICATION OPPORTUNITY - Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Criminal Law Opinions

Call for Authors

 

Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Criminal Law Opinions

 

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 Criminal Law Opinions. This edited volume 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, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. Subsequent volumes in the series have focused on different courts and different subjects. This call is for contributions to a volume of criminal law decisions rewritten from a feminist perspective.

Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Criminal Law Opinion editors Sarah Deer, Corey Rayburn Yung, and Bennett Capers seek prospective authors to rewrite criminal law opinions covering a range of topics. With the help of an Advisory Committee, the editors have chosen a list of cases to be rewritten (as noted below). Potential authors are welcome to suggest other cases, though certain constraints (including a preference for avoiding cases that have already been or soon will be rewritten for other volumes in this series) may preclude their addition to the volume. We also seek authors to provide brief commentary on the original and rewritten cases.

Rewritten opinions may be reimagined 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 going forward (4,000-word maximum for the commentary). The volume editors conceive of feminism broadly and invite applications that seek to advance, complicate, or critique feminist ideas and advocacy. We are “big tent” and welcome all types of feminism, from liberal feminism to abolitionist feminism. We certainly welcome an intersectional analysis of cases where sex or gender played a role alongside racism, ableism, classism, and other concerns.

Those who are interested in rewriting an opinion or providing the commentary on one of the rewritten criminal law cases should email the volume editors ([email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]) and put “Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Criminal Law Opinions” in the subject line. In the body of the email, please indicate whether you are interested in writing an opinion or providing a commentary, and specify one or more of the cases from the list below that you would like to rewrite or comment on. You are also free to suggest a case not listed.

Please note that the editors are committed to diversity in all of its forms, and committed to including a diverse group of authors in this volume. If you feel an aspect of your personal identity is important to your participation in this volume, please feel free to include that in your expression of interest.

Applications are due by June 1, 2020. The editors expect to notify accepted authors and commentators no later than July 1, 2020. First drafts of rewritten opinions will be due on October 1, 2020. First drafts of commentaries will be due on November 1, 2020.

List of cases:

1.     Oliphant v. Suquamish, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) (tribal criminal jurisdiction)

2.     Winnebago v. BigFire, 25 Indian L. Rptr 6229 (1998) (strict scrutiny for gender cases)

3.     Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (2015) (threatening communications case)

4.     U.S. v. Nwoye, 824 F.3d 1129 (2016) (domestic violence/duress)

5.     Keeler v. Superior Ct of Amador Cnty, 470 P.2d 617 (Cal. 1970) (killing of fetus)

6.     Whitner v. State, 492 S.E.2d 777 (1977) (criminalizing prenatal activity)

7.     Coker v. Georgia, 433 US. 584 (1977) (death penalty and rape)

8.     McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (death penalty and race)

9.     People v. Berry, 556 P.2d 777 (1976) (provocation)

10.  Girouard v. State, 583 A.2d 718 (Md. 1991) (provocation)

11.  People v. Helen Wu, 286 Cal. Rptr. 868 (1991) (cultural defense)

12.  State v. Norman, 324 N.C. 253 (1989) (self-defense)

13.  State v. Rusk, 424 A.2d 720 (1981) (acquaintance rape)

14.  Massachusetts v. Blache, 880 N.E.2d 736 (Mass. 2008) (rape/intoxication)

15.  McQuirter v. State, 36 Ala. 707 (1953) (rape/race)

16.  State re M.T.S., 609 A.2d 1266 (N.J. 1992) (juveniles/rape)

Call for Proposals: ILTL Summer Conference: Teaching Today's Law Students

CALL FOR PRESENTATION PROPOSALS

Institute for Law Teaching and Learning Summer Conference

“Teaching Today’s Law Students”

June 3-5, 2019

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 professors and administrators are reaching today’s law students.   With the ever-changing and heterogeneous nature of law students, this topic has taken on increased urgency for professors thinking about effective teaching strategies.

 

The conference theme is intentionally broad and is designed to encompass a wide variety of topics – neuroscientific approaches to effective teaching; generational research about current law students; effective use of technology in the classroom; teaching first-generation college students; classroom behavior in the current political climate; academic approaches to less prepared students; fostering qualities such as growth mindset, resilience, and emotional intelligence in students; or techniques for providing effective formative feedback to students.

 

Accordingly, the Institute invites proposals for 60-minute workshops consistent with a broad interpretation of the conference theme. Each workshop should include materials that participants can use during the workshop and when they return to their campuses.  Presenters should model effective teaching methods by actively engaging the workshop participants. The Institute Co-Directors are glad to work with anyone who would like advice on designing their presentations to be interactive.

 

To be considered for the conference, proposals should be one page (maximum), single-spaced, and include the following information:

• The title of the workshop;
• The name, address, telephone number, and email address of the presenter(s); and
• A summary of the contents of the workshop, including its goals and methods; and
• A description of the techniques the presenter will use to engage workshop participants and make the workshop interactive.

 

The proposal deadline is February 15, 2019.  Submit proposals via email to Professor Emily Grant, Co-Director, Institute for Law Teaching and Learning, at [email protected].

 

Call for Authors: Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Health Law Opinions

 

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 Health Law Opinions. This edited volume, proposed 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, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. Subsequent volumes in the series focus on different courts or different subjects. This call is for contributions to a volume of health law decisions rewritten from a feminist perspective.  Health Law volume editors Seema Mohapatra and Lindsay Wiley seek prospective authors for fifteen rewritten health law opinions covering a range of topics. With the help of an Advisory Committee, the editors have chosen a list of cases to be rewritten.  The definition of feminism on which the series is premised is quite broad and certainly includes intersectional analysis of cases where sex or gender played a role alongside racism, ableism, classism, and other concerns.  Applications are due by September 22, 2018.  

To facilitate collaboration between commentators and opinion writers across the entire volume, the editors will host a workshop on December 7, 2018 at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.  All commentators and opinion writers are invited, but not required, to participate in the workshop. The Hall Center for Law and Health at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law will host a welcome dinner the night prior to the workshop and provide the meals at the workshop.  Authors must cover their own travel expenses. Selection of authors does not depend on their ability or willingness to attend the December workshop. The editors are also tentatively planning to host a conference celebrating publication of the volume at American University Washington College of Law in Washington, DC in fall 2020. More details about the project and how to apply are available here.

Call for Papers: ABA Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law

Via Prof. Tim Iglesias:

 

ABA Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law

 

Call for Papers

 

Abstracts due August 1, 2018

 

Drafts due October 1, 2018

The Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law (the Journal) invites articles and essays exploring any of the Journal’s traditional themes: affordable housing, fair housing and community/economic development. Topics could include important developments in the field; federal, state, local and/or private funding sources; statutes, policies or regulations; and empirical studies. Articles and essays could analyze new issues, tell success stories and draw lessons, or explore problems and propose legal and policy recommendations. The Journal welcomes essays (typically 2,500–6,200 words) or articles (typically 7,000-10,000 words). 

The Journal is the nation’s only law journal dedicated to affordable housing and community development law.  The Journal educates readers and provides a forum for discussion and resolution of problems in these fields by publishing articles from distinguished law professors, policy advocates and practitioners.

Interested authors are encouraged to send an abstract describing their proposals to the Journal’s Editor-in-Chief, Tim Iglesias, at [email protected] by August 1, 2018. Submissions of final articles and essays are due by October 1, 2018. The Journal also accepts submissions on a rolling basis. Please do not hesitate to contact the Editor with any questions.

Call for Papers: ABA Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law

Via Prof. Tim Iglesias:

ABA Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law

Call for Papers

The Interconnections between Health and Housing

 

For its next issue the Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law (the Journal) invites articles and essays exploring the interconnections between health and the Journal’s traditional themes: affordable housing, fair housing and community/economic development. Topics could include creative housing developments; federal, state, local and/or private funding sources; statutes, policies or regulations; and empirical studies. Articles and essays could analyze new developments, tell success stories, or explore problems relating to issue such as affordable independent/assisted living, aging in place, or in-home care, and propose legal and policy recommendations.The Journal welcomes essays (typically 2,500–6,200 words) or articles (typically 7,000-10,000 words) on the theme. 

The Journal is the nation’s only law journal dedicated to affordable housing and community development law.  The Journal educates readers and provides a forum for discussion and resolution of problems in these fields by publishing articles from distinguished law professors, policy advocates and practitioners.

Interested authors are encouraged to send an abstract describing their proposals to the Journal’s Editor-in-Chief, Tim Iglesias, at [email protected] by April 15, 2018. Submissions of final articles and essays are due by May 1, 2018. The Journal also accepts submissions on a rolling basis. Please do not hesitate to contact the Editor with any questions.

 

 

Call for Authors – Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Torts Opinions

Via Prof. Kathryn Stanchi of Temple:

Call for Authors – Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Torts Opinions

DEADLINE: Friday August 25, 2017

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of judicial opinions rewritten to reflect a feminist perspective, and commentaries on the cases and rewritten opinions, for an edited book collection tentatively titled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Torts Opinions.  This edited volume is part of a collaborative project among law professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions in the United States.  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, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press.  Subsequent volumes in the series will focus on different areas of law and will be under review by Cambridge.

Torts volume editors Lucinda Finley and Martha Chamallas seek prospective authors for fourteen to sixteen torts opinions covering many major topics in tort law. The editors have selected the cases with an eye towards issues and injuries of particular salience to women’s lives, and with insights from feminist torts scholarship and input from leading torts scholars.  Potential authors are welcome to suggest other opinions that they would like to address, but the overall number of cases finally included in the volume must remain limited.

Interested prospective contributors should submit a proposal to either: 1) rewrite an opinion (subject to a 10,000 word limit), or 2) comment on a rewritten opinion (4,000 word limit).  Rewritten opinions may be majority opinions, concurrences, or dissents. Authors of rewritten opinions should abide by the law and precedent and supplemental materials in effect and available at the time of the original decision.  Commentators should explain the original court decision and its context, how the feminist judgment differs from the original judgment, and what difference a feminist judgment might have made.  The volume editors conceive of feminism broadly and invite applications that seek to advance, complicate, or critique various feminist theories and advocacy.

Those who are interested in rewriting an opinion or providing commentary should apply no later than Friday August 25, 2017, by e-mailing the following information to Lucinda Finley, [email protected],  and Martha Chamallas, [email protected] :

1. Your CV, your areas of torts interest or expertise, and why you are interested in and well suited to participate in this project.
2. Your top three preferences of cases to write about, and whether you have a preference to do a rewritten opinion or a commentary.
3. Any time constraints and other obligations that may impact your ability to meet the submission deadlines.
4. If you have another case that you feel strongly should be included instead of one of the selected cases and that you would like to write about, provide information about the case and the reasons you think it should be included.

 

This list of cases that the editors have selected for consideration to be included in the volume Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Torts Opinions, is as follows:

1. The “Classics”:  Tort cases that appear in almost every U.S. Torts casebook, and thus shape generations of lawyers’ understanding of tort doctrine.

 

1. Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976): the classic “psychiatrist’s duty to warn” case, with an underappreciated subtext of intimate partner violence.

 

1. Farwell v. Keaton, 240 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. 1976), establishing a limited affirmative duty to “rescue,” or come to the aid of someone in peril.

 

Negligence:  Is the “Learned Hand” formula for negligence just an economic cost/benefit calculation, or should it include a broader array of social factors (as Hand himself intended)?

1. McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc., 826 F.2d 1554 (7th Cir. 1987). In a case involving a woman who was assaulted in her hotel room by a stranger who gained access through a sliding glass door, Judge Posner applied an economic cost/benefit analysis to the question of negligence and upheld a jury verdict for the defendant hotel. This case involves attempted sexual violence against women, and also provides fertile ground for a feminist critique of a law and economics perspective on tort law.

 

Duty of care:  A significant Torts issue, heavily influenced by policy concerns, and often involving women and children plaintiffs who have been assaulted – and thus fertile territory for feminist analysis.

1. Kircher v. City of Jamestown, 74 N.Y.2d 251 (N.Y. 1989).  A case involving the “limited public duty” doctrine, which severely restricts the obligation of police or other protective service workers to affirmatively aid crime victims.  This limited duty has serious adverse implications for women and children experiencing family violence.  It is the civil tort law analogue to the limited constitutional affirmative duty to protect adopted by the US Supreme Court in infamous cases such as DeShaney and Castle Rock v. Gonzales. The NY Court of Appeals has been a “leader” in crafting the rules that circumscribe when a victim can sue the police for failure to protect.  While there are numerous cases that one could choose to include in this volume, including several that directly involve domestic violence and police failure to enforce protective orders, Kircher has been selected for several reasons.  It comes after several NY Court of Appeals opinions in this area, and thus provides a good vehicle to explore, critique, and consider expanding the doctrinal limitations. There are two dissenting opinions that call for a relaxation of some of the doctrinal limitations.  And it subtly demonstrates the problem of police callous attitude towards presumed family violence that often underlies their inaction.  Kircher was abducted by a stranger from a drug store parking lot, who drove her around and raped her. The eye witnesses to the abduction reported it to a police officer, who dismissively assumed it was probably a domestic dispute, and thus did not follow the abductor’s car.
2. Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd., 21 Cal.4th 1181, 989 P.2d 121 (1999). A woman was raped in late morning in the underground parking garage of the office building where she was a tenant. The California Supreme Court held that the risk of sexual assault in this particular parking garage was not sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty on the landlord to provide reasonable security, even though the court acknowledged the demonstrated risk of underground parking garages in general. The case highlights the way in which courts can use the duty issue and landlord protective policy concerns to keep cases form juries and erect significant barriers to tort recovery for sexual assault victims – especially the first sexual assault victim on a particular property.

 

Vicarious Liability

 

1. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, 12 Cal.4th 291, 907 P.2d 358 (1995). A young pregnant patient was digitally sexually molested during her ultrasound exam by the ultrasound technician employed by the hospital. The issue was whether he was acting within the scope of his employment so as to trigger respondeat superior liability for the employer hospital. In notable contrast to cases where they had ruled that employees committing physical assaults on other workers or customers were acting in the scope of employment, the court held that the sexual assault was done for purely personal “lust” reasons, so that the ultrasound technician was not acting within the scope of employment.

 

Damages:  Damages issues have received significant attention from feminist torts scholars, and they remain extremely important for whether there are hidden barriers to equal access to the tort system and fair compensation for women and people of color.  

1. Simpkins v. Grace Brethren Church of Delaware, 2016 Ohio 8188, 2016 Ohio Lexis 2961 (December 2016).  A teenage girl was sexually assaulted by her pastor.  In her suit against the church that employed him and that ignored his history, a jury awarded her a verdict in excess of $2 million dollars.  But Ohio has a general cap on non-economic damages for all tort claims, and the application of this cap significantly reduced the compensation that she could recover.  She appealed, contending that the damage cap, as applied to sexual assault victims, was unconstitutional. The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the cap finding that it survived rational basis review.  

 

1. G.M.M. v. Kimpson, 116 F.Supp.3d 126 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).  A case involving harm to a young Latino boy from lead based paint. The economists who projected future earnings for the child used earnings tables based on race.  The case directly raises the issue of whether courts should permit the use race-based earnings tables (and by extension sex-based earnings tables) to calculate future lost earnings.  It also illustrates the racially disparate impact of many environmental harms.

 

Compensable harms:  Emotional Distress and Reproductive Harm. Tort law’s traditional devaluing of emotional, relational and reproductive harm has worked to the detriment of women.  Cases involving various aspects of reproductive harm raise important issues about  reproductive health and autonomy which are often overlooked by courts.

 

1. Dillon v. Legg, 441 P.2d 912 (Cal. 1968), the landmark case that first recognized a tort claim for “bystander” emotional distress suffered from watching a family member get gruesomely injured, regardless of whether the plaintiff was in the “zone of danger.”  Would such claims be better characterized as harms to important relational interests that are deserving of protection?

 

1. Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 1993). In a case involving the sexual exploitation of a woman by her boyfriend who videotaped their consensual sexual intercourse and showed the tape around the college campus, the Texas Supreme Court declined to permit tort claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The case provoked a great deal of outcry by women’s advocacy groups, and provoked a dissent by the lone woman Justice on the court, who characterized the result as overtly gender biased.

 

1. Broadnax v. Gonzales, 2 N.Y.3d 148 (2004). Overruling precedent that barred emotional distress claims for pregnancy loss unless the pregnant woman suffered a separate physical injury, the NY Court of Appeals permits a woman to recover for emotional distress against physicians whose negligent prenatal care caused the death of her fetus. This case and its precedents highlight the implications of characterizing a pregnant woman and her fetus as separate beings, so that loss of a pregnancy is not understood as physical harm to the woman.

 

1. Greco v. U.S., 893 P.2d 345 (Nev. 1995). Physicians negligently failed to diagnose severe fetal defects in time for woman to consider whether to terminate the pregnancy.  The parents brought a “wrongful birth” claim, and the disabled child brought a “wrongful life” claim.  Surveying case law from many other jurisdictions, the court permitted the wrongful birth claim, while denying the wrongful life claim. While there are many cases from which to choose that explore these issues, Greco is selected because it discusses both wrongful birth and wrongful life in a single case, discusses the policies involved and the decisions of many other jurisdictions, represents the evolving majority approach, and like most cases, fails to fully comprehend the reproductive autonomy dimensions of these tort claims.

 

Intentional Torts

 

1.  Robinson v. Cutchin, 140 F. Supp.2d 488 (D. Md. 2001). An African-American woman was involuntarily sterilized by a physician who performed a tubal ligation without her consent during an emergency C-section to deliver her 6th child. The case discusses the difference between battery claims and informed consent medical malpractice claims, which sound in negligence.  The opinion displays remarkable insensitivity to women’s reproductive autonomy and to the racially biased attitudes of the doctor, and to the history of forced sterilization of minority women.
2. Reavis v. Slominski, 551 N.W.2d 528 (Neb. 1996).  This case explores the issue of consent as a defense to intentional torts. Reavis had sex with her employer at an office holiday party; several years earlier, she had also acquiesced to his repeated sexual advances, claiming she could not turn him down because she desperately needed the job, and because her prior history of sexual abuse amounted to an incapacity that made her extremely fearful of not acquiescing.  She sues for battery, and the issues involve apparent consent, coercion, duress, and incapacity as vitiating apparent consent.  The case resulted in multiple opinions, with a debate between majority, concurrences, and dissent over the relevance of her prior history of sexual abuse, and over whether fear for one’s job is sufficient to constitute duress that would vitiate apparent consent.

 

1. Guthrie v. Conroy, 567 S.E.2d 403 (Ct. App. N.C. 2002). A workplace sexual harassment hostile environment case brought as a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The opinion, while acknowledging that the conduct would amount to a Title VII hostile environment claim, dismisses it as merely juvenile and boorish behavior that does not meet the stringent tort standard for “outrageousness.” The opinion summarizes the factors and types of conduct in the workplace harassment context that would push the behavior into the “outrageous” category.  The case highlights the interactions between statutory Title VII civil rights law and common law tort claims, and whether they are intended to vindicate different interests and should be assessed by different standards.

 

1. Lyman v. Huber, 10 A.3d 707 (Me. 2010). An i.i.e.d. case arising out of an emotionally abusive and controlling intimate partner relationship. The court focused on the “severe” emotional distress element of the claim, and overruled a verdict for the plaintiff, concluding that she did not suffer emotional distress more severe than what the “reasonable person” would be expected to tolerate. This case highlights the difficulties facing domestic violence victims who try to bring tort claims against their abusers, with courts often interpreting the elements of the i.i.e.d. tort more strictly than in commercial relationship or stranger relationship contexts.  It is also a vehicle for exploring the potential for bias in the supposedly objective notion of the “reasonable person.”

Call for Panelists: AALS Annual Meeting Open Source Program on Teaching Access to Justice

Via Prof. Colleen Shanahan:

Call for Panelists

Innovations in Teaching Access to Justice Across the Law School Curriculum

 

2018 AALS Annual Meeting – Open Source Program

Friday, January 5, 2018, 8:30 – 10:15 a.m.

 

We invite applications to speak on a panel about how law school faculty can innovate in the classroom to create future attorneys who are concerned about access to justice and playing a role in solving the access to justice crisis.  Each panelist will speak about a recent experiment incorporating access to justice into the law school curriculum.  We hope to identify an additional panelist who has (or will in the Fall 2017 semester) integrated access to justice concepts in a first-year or core law school course.

            The program will begin with a roundtable discussion of each panelist’s recent efforts to highlight and incorporate access to justice in their own classrooms.  The program will continue with a facilitated discussion that will allow audience members to share and develop their own classroom experiments, including ideas to incorporate access to justice in core and first-year courses.  The planned panelists are Anna Carpenter (Tulsa), Lauren Sudeall Lucas (Georgia State), Victor Quintanilla (Indiana), and Colleen Shanahan (Temple).

            To be considered as a panelist, please email a short (1-2 paragraph) statement of interest and description of your recent or upcoming effort to teach access to justice in the classroom to Colleen Shanahan ([email protected]) by September 1.

RFP and Registration: 2017 Northwest Clinical Law Conference

From the organizers:

2017 Northwest Clinical Law Conference

On behalf of the NWCLC 2017 Planning Committee, we are pleased to provide details regarding the 2017 Northwest Clinical Law Conference, to be held November 3-5 at Sleeping Lady.

 

Our theme this year will be "From Competence to Social Justice: The Role of Legal Clinics in Forming Professional Identity and Values." Below are a request for proposals with additional details regarding the theme and our call for presenters. Please note that we are also seeking proposals from clinic administrators in hopes of having a separate conference track for administrative professionals who wish to attend. Proposals can be sent to me ([email protected]) for distribution to the Planning Committee and are due by SEPTEMBER 8, 2017.

 

Also attached is a flyer with registration details. The registration and payment deadline is SEPTEMBER 1, 2017 and your completed registration form and fees can be returned to Geri Sturgill ([email protected]).

 

We look forward to seeing your proposals and to a great conference later this year!

 

Download 2017 NW Clinical Conference Registration Flyer

 

Download 2017 NW Clinical Conference Request for Proposals

Requests for Proposals and Registration for the 2017 Southern Clinical Conference

Via Prof. Danny Schaffzin:

2017 Southern Clinical Conference

Registration is now open for the 2017 Southern Clinical Conference. Please link to www.law.lsu.edu/scc for registration information and hotel information. 

 

Also, we are still accepting Proposals for concurrent sessions or works in progress. We encourage you to submit your proposal by the July 17^th deadline.  Further information about the conference and RFP is below:

 

The Planning Committee for the 2017 Southern Clinical Conference invites you to submit proposals for this year’s conference “Back to Our Roots: Renewing the Social Justice Mission of Clinics and Externships,” which will take place from Friday morning, October 20th, to mid-day Saturday, October 21st, at the LSU Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Proposals should be submitted by July 17th via the online form located at www.law.lsu.edu/scc  .

 

Early clinical legal education had an identifiable focus on social justice. Now, a divisive election and a change in administration have brought new challenges for law school clinics and externship programs. The political and legal framework affecting the clients and communities we serve is now under extraordinary strain. Cutbacks in legal services and changes in governmental priorities seems likely to fray the already attenuated network of legal services available to those in need. In this context, we seek to revisit and to renew the social justice mission of law school clinics.

 

We invite proposals that address these themes. We encourage you to consider how to explore the past, to assess the present, and to plan for future action by clinics and externships on social justice concerns. We seek proposals that will question the social justice roots of clinical legal education and will offer guidance in responding to current events.

 

Proposals might focus on any of the following questions:

 

How has the social justice mission of clinics or externships changed over the years? How do we define it? How can it be renewed?

What institutional challenges now exist for pursuing a social justice mission through clinics or externships? What political or economic challenges now operate to alter how clinics and externships might teach social justice?

Do regional differences exist in how a clinical teacher might approach the challenge of social justice work? 

Does working in the American south pose particular challenges or important opportunities? What can we learn from comparisons to other regions of the country?

Do our students share our appreciation for the social justice mission that may underlie our work? If so, how can we enhance that appreciation? If not, what challenges does that create?

Do changes in the regulation of law schools affect how we address social justice concerns, including questions surrounding status of clinical faculty and around academic freedom?  

How do pressures for bar passage and post-graduate employment for our graduates affect what we do in clinics and externships? 

How can we set learning objectives relating to social justice in our clinics and externships? 

How can we assess our students’ and our courses’ success in attaining those objectives?

 

We welcome proposals for concurrent sessions, plenaries, and workshops devoted to these themes. At recent conferences, concurrent sessions have run for about 90 minutes. We welcome ideas for shorter formats, including TED talks, flash or lightning talks, or similar formats. We expect to offer sessions of varying lengths, intermingled with plenary discussions and opportunities for free-form discussion and networking.

 

Works in Progress

With sufficient interest, we expect to offer sessions devoted to scholarly works-in-progress. These sessions will include both commentary from discussants and support for new and experienced scholars. Proposals for works-in-progress need not be limited to the conference theme.

 

Criteria

In general, the Planning Committee will favor proposals that address the conference theme, are relevant to conference attendees, are well-defined and focused, are timely and important, and show care and thoughtfulness in development.

 

We value diversity, both in the composition of presenting teams, and in your topic’s presentation of diversity as a concern in your work. Diversity includes gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, disability, geographical location, years of experience, type of school, type of program and other factors.

 

Submission of Proposals

Proposals should be submitted using the online form located here no later than July 17th.

 

We encourage you to contact any member of the Planning Committee to discuss your ideas as you prepare a proposal. This group includes:

 

Lauren Aronson, lauren.aronson@law.lsu.edu

Anne Hornsby, [email protected]

Kendall Kerew, [email protected]

Robert Lancaster, robert.lancaster@law.lsu.edu

Daniel Schaffzin, dschffzn@memphis.edu

Alex Scherr, [email protected]

Crystal Shin, [email protected]

Emily Suski, [email protected]

Call for Proposals: ILTL Summer Conference: Teaching Cultural Competency and Other Professional Skills Suggested by ABA Standard 302

Via Prof. Kelly Terry:

 

CALL FOR PRESENTATION PROPOSALS

 

Institute for Law Teaching and Learning—Summer 2017 Conference

Teaching Cultural Competency and Other Professional Skills Suggested by ABA Standard 302

July 7-8, 2017

University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law

 

ABA Standard 302 requires all law schools to establish learning outcomes in certain areas, such as knowledge of substantive and procedural law, legal analysis and reasoning, and the exercise of professional and ethical responsibilities.  While requiring outcomes in these areas, however, the ABA also has given law schools discretion under Standard 302(d) to individualize their programs by establishing learning outcomes related to “other professional skills needed for competent and ethical participation as a member of the legal profession.”  These other professional skills “are determined by the law school and may include skills such as  interviewing, counseling, negotiation, fact development and analysis, trial practice, document drafting, conflict resolution, organization and management of legal work, collaboration, cultural competency and self-evaluation.”  This language encourages law schools to be innovative and to differentiate themselves by creating learning outcomes that are consistent with their own unique values and particular educational mission.  

The Institute for Law Teaching and Learning invites proposals for conference workshops addressing the many ways that law schools are establishing learning outcomes related to “other professional skills,” particularly the skills of cultural competency, conflict resolution, collaboration, self-evaluation, and other relational skills.  Which, if any, of the outcomes suggested in Standard 302(d) have law schools established for themselves, and why did they select those outcomes?  How are law professors teaching and assessing skills such as cultural competency, conflict resolution, collaboration, and self-evaluation?  Have law schools established outcomes related to professional skills other than those suggested in Standard 302(d)?  If so, what are those skills, and how are professors teaching and assessing them?

The Institute welcomes proposals for workshops on the teaching and assessment of such skills in doctrinal, clinical, externship, writing, seminar, hybrid, and interdisciplinary courses.  Workshops can address the teaching or assessment of such skills in first-year courses, upper-level courses, required courses, electives, academic support teaching, or extracurricular programs.  Workshops can present innovative teaching materials, teaching methods, course designs, assessment methods, curricular, or program designs.  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, 2017.  Submit proposals via email to Kelly Terry, Co-Director, Institute for Law Teaching and Learning, at [email protected].

 

Conference Details

 

Schedule of Events:

The UALR Bowen School of Law will host a welcome reception on the evening of Thursday, July 6.  The conference will consist of concurrent workshop sessions that will take place at the law school all day on Friday, July 7 and until the early afternoon on Saturday, July 8.  

 

Travel and Lodging:

A block of hotel rooms for conference attendees has been reserved at the Little Rock Marriot Hotel, 3 Statehouse Plaza, Little Rock, AR 72201.  The discounted rate will be available until June 5, 2017.  Reservations may be made online by using this link: Group rate for UALR School of Law Room Block July 2017.  Reservations also may be made by calling the hotel’s reservations department at 877-759-6290 and referencing the UALR Bowen School of Law/ ILTL Conference Room Block.

 

Fees:

The conference fee for participants is $400, which includes materials, meals during the conference (two breakfasts and two lunches), and the welcome reception on Thursday evening, July 6.  The conference fee for presenters is $300.  

 

For more information:

Please visit our website (http://lawteaching.org/conferences/2017/) or contact one of the ILTL Co-Directors:

 

Professor Kelly Terry

[email protected]; 501-324-9946

 

Professor Emily Grant

[email protected]; 785-670-1677

 

Associate Dean Sandra Simpson

[email protected]; 509-313-3809

RFP: Veterans Access to Justice Conference at Pepperdine, Nov. 3-4, 2016

Access to Justice for Veterans: Coordinated Responses of a Grateful Nation

Pepperdine University School of Law, Malibu, California

November 3 – 4, 2016

Request for Proposals

On November 3 and 4, 2016, the Pepperdine University School of Law will host a conference on access to justice for veterans.  The conference will address coordinated community responses for veterans’ legal needs and complex intersecting issues. Speakers and conferees will discuss public and private responses in policy and practice, culture and law.  The School of Law invites lawyers, academics, and professionals to participate with speakers representing diverse disciplines and institutions.  Our nation faces a critical moment of reckoning and response to a crisis in veterans’ housing, health, and well-being. Pepperdine hopes that this conference can advance our communities toward restoration and honor for these public servants.  

The organizing committee requests proposals for panel presentations to address and explore issues and questions at the intersections of access to justice, government benefits, private services, physical and mental health, housing, addiction, incarceration, and other complex issues affecting veterans. We seek diverse, collaborative, multidisciplinary, interprofessional panels and panelists.  

These panels will be 90 minute concurrent sessions. The organizing committee has confirmed several panels to date, and we invite proposals for up to four additional sessions.    Confirmed panels will address homelessness, domestic violence, and alternative sentencing programs. The organizing committee requests proposals to complement, contrast, and build on these ideas.

Please submit proposals by October 3, 2016, to Prof. Jeffrey R. Baker at [email protected].   Proposals should be 300-500 words and should include contact information for the primary convener and should include the names of anticipated panelists, their respective fields and institutions.  

Please follow this link for event and registration information:

https://veteranjusticeconference.eventbrite.com

Upcoming Deadline for NYU Writers' Workshop

"This is a reminder that the registration deadline for the Clinical Law Review’s Clinical Writers’ Workshop is June 30, 2016.

The Workshop will take place at NYU Law School on Saturday, September 24, 2016, at NYU Law School.  It provides an opportunity for clinical teachers who are writing about any subject (clinical pedagogy, substantive law, interdisciplinary analysis, empirical work, etc.) to meet with other clinicians writing on related topics to discuss their works-in-progress and brainstorm ideas for further development of their articles. Attendees will meet in small groups organized, to the extent possible, by the subject matter in which they are writing. Each group will “workshop” the draft of each member of the group.

Participation in the Workshop requires the submission of a paper because the workshop takes the form of small group sessions in which all members of the group comment on each other’s manuscripts. By June 30, all applicants will need to submit a mini-draft or prospectus, 3-5 pages in length, of the article they intend to present at the workshop.  Full drafts of the articles will be due by September 1, 2016.

As in the previous Clinical Law Review Workshops, participants will not have to pay an admission or registration fee but participants will have to arrange and pay for their own travel and lodging. To assist those who wish to participate but who need assistance for travel and lodging, NYU Law School has created a fund for scholarships to help pay for travel and lodging. The scholarships are designed for those clinical faculty who receive little or no travel support from their law schools and who otherwise would not be able to attend this conference without scholarship support. Applicants for scholarships will be asked to submit, with their 3-5 page prospectus, by June 30, a proposed budget for travel and lodging and a brief statement of why the scholarship would be helpful in supporting their attendance at this conference.  The Board will review all scholarship applications and issue decisions about scholarships in early July. The scholarships are conditioned upon recipients’ meeting all requirements for workshop participation, including timely submission of drafts, and will be capped at a maximum of $750 per person.

Information about the Workshop – including the Registration form, scholarship application form, and information for reserving hotel rooms – is available on-line at:

http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/clinicallawreview/clinical-writers-workshop

If you have any comments or suggestions you would like to send us, we would be very happy to hear from you. Comments and suggestions should be sent to Randy Hertz at [email protected].

-- The Board of Editors of the Clinical Law Review"

Midwest Clinical Conference 2016 RFP/Save the Date

From Prof. Anna Carpenter of Tulsa:

2016 Midwest Clinical Legal Education Conference, University of Tulsa College of Law, October 6-8, 2016.  

Our plans continue to develop for the 2016 Midwest Clinical Conference and we want you to be part of those plans!  We have received a number of exciting proposals and we still have more room for you to contribute your creative talents and ideas to make this an even better conference.  Since we know this is the crunch time for many clinical faculty and their students, we have decided to extend the deadline for proposals until Friday, April 22.  

So, whether you are collaborating with friends and colleagues or have an idea for a solo presentation on an issue or idea that has been percolating for a while, don't be shy!  The beauty of being part of this great community of teachers, advocates, and scholars is that you are always among friends eager to share ideas and learn from each other.   ​Make a plan to join us in Tulsa in October!  

In addition to fascinating presentations and conversations, we have great evening events planned in the Brady Arts District and at the Oklahoma Jazz Hall of Fame to reconnect with old friends and make new ones.  We hope to see you in Tulsa in October!

The planning committee is seeking proposals from faculty and administrators engaged in clinical education, externships, incubators, and other experiential learning opportunities who are interested in presenting/participating in conference panels or presenting works-in-progress.  Although the regional conference seeks to bring together clinicians and clinic administrators from law schools located in the Midwest (however broadly or narrowly you define it),  we encourage participation by interested law faculty and administrators from far and wide. Information about submitting a proposal for a presentation or a WIP is attached.  We invite you to share your experience and ideas with clinical colleagues from across the midwest and the United States.  The deadline for proposals is April 22, 2016.   Please ignore all previous deadlines.

More information about registration and accommodation at the conference will follow.  In the meantime, please save the date and consider joining us in Tulsa and participating in the more than 30 year tradition of thriving Midwest Clinical Conferences. And feel free to contact Elizabeth McCormick at [email protected] if you have any questions at all about being part of this great conference.  

Download Midwest Clinical Conference Call for Presentation Proposals-- First Call

Download Midwest Clinical Conference WIP Call 2016 -- First Call

Download Midwest Clinical Conference Cover Sheet for Proposals --FirstCall

 

RFP: Conference for the U.S. Feminist Judgments Projects (April 15, 2016)

Via Prof. Kathryn M. Stanchi of Temple:

THE U.S. FEMINIST JUDGMENTS PROJECT:

REWRITING THE LAW, WRITING THE FUTURE

Call for Papers and Presentations

Deadline April 15, 2016

We are seeking proposals for papers to be presented during the U. S. Feminist Judgments Project conference October 20-21, 2016 at the Center for Constitutional Law at The University of Akron School of Law in Akron, Ohio. We are also seeking proposals for “snapshot” presentations to be included in the final plenary of the conference. The conference is co-sponsored by The University of Akron School of Law and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas – William S. Boyd School of Law.

This conference will celebrate the 2016 publication of U.S. Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court. That volume brought together more than fifty feminist legal scholars and lawyers to rewrite, using feminist reasoning, significant Supreme Court cases from the 1800s to the present day. (For more information, see the project website here.) Illustrating the value of this method of practical scholarship, the volume demonstrates that different processes and different outcomes would have been possible had decision makers applied feminist theory and methods in critical Supreme Court cases despite the restrictions of stare decisis.

The conference is designed to provide the appropriate setting and the essential participants for a structured conversation that explores and assesses the effects of feminist methods and theories on real-world judicial decision making. We expect the conference will identify common core principles and propose directions for future scholarship.

To this end, we seek proposals for papers that incorporate feminist theory and methods or report on research that furthers feminist thought. The organizers view feminism and feminist theory broadly as covering issues of inequality related to gender and gender norms, but also intersectional dynamics related to race, sexual orientation, immigration status, socioeconomic class, and disability.

Potential topics cover a broad range, including women in the judiciary, women in the legal profession, women and rhetoric, women in politics, empirical studies involving gender or gender norms, feminist theory, reproductive freedom, pregnancy, reproduction, families, sex, sexuality, violence against women, employment, sexual harassment, or affirmative action. We welcome with enthusiasm proposals from faculty in disciplines other than law, and we would especially appreciate proposals from new voices in feminism and feminist theory.

Our hope is to build on the insights of the U.S. Feminist Judgments book and to explore new avenues of inquiry for feminist legal scholarship. We hope to provide a supportive atmosphere to foster scholarship and networking among teachers, scholars, and others who are interested in gender equality and the law.

The conference will include plenary sessions related specifically to the U.S. Feminist Judgments book as well as sessions that will be more general in focus, concurrent sessions drawn from this Call for Papers, and a closing panel also drawn from this Call for Papers. The closing panel will be a brainstorming session to consider future directions for scholarly and practical projects that relate to gender equality, the judiciary, future Feminist Judgments projects, or all of the foregoing.

Concurrent Sessions – Paper Proposals

The concurrent sessions will feature presentations on any topic related to gender equality issues, with preference given to presentations related to the topics of women in the judiciary, women in the legal profession, women and rhetoric, women in politics, empirical studies involving gender or gender norms, feminist theory, reproductive freedom, pregnancy, reproduction, families, sex, sexuality, violence against women, employment, sexual harassment, or affirmative action. We will organize the presentations into panels based on the subject matter of the proposals.

Interested persons should submit a brief written description of the proposed paper (no more than 1000 words) and a resume. Please let us know in the proposal which of the above categories or what other, non-listed category best fits your proposal. Please use the subject line “U.S. Feminist Judgments Project October Conference Paper Proposals” and e-mail these materials to Maria Campos ([email protected]) by April 15, 2016. We will notify selected speakers by June 1, 2016.

Brainstorming Presentations – Snapshot Proposals

The final plenary session of the conference will feature snapshots, or very brief presentations, of ideas for future projects that will advance gender equality in the law. Each selected participant will be limited to five minutes to present her or his idea or project. The presentations will be followed by audience feedback and comments. We welcome proposals for this brainstorming session on any topic related to gender equality.

Interested persons should submit a brief written description of the proposed presentation (no more than 300 words) and a resume. Please use the subject line “U.S. Feminist Judgments Project October Conference Snapshot Proposals” and email these materials to Maria Campos ([email protected]) by April 15, 2016. We will notify selected speakers by June 1, 2016.

Eligibility

Anyone interested in issues of law and gender equality is eligible to submit a proposal, including full-time faculty members, fellows, visitors, and adjuncts who teach in undergraduate or graduate schools; judges; practitioners; government officials; and business, community, and non-profit leaders. The conference is free and open to the public.

There is no publication commitment associated with the conference. Presentation abstracts will be made available on the website of the Center for Constitutional Law at The University of Akron, and by mutual agreement of interested authors and journal editors, remarks may be published in a special symposium issue of ConLawNOW, the online companion journal run by the Center for Constitutional Law.

There is no registration fee for the conference but proposers and panelists must pay all of their own expenses associated with conference attendance. There will be a conference-negotiated rate at a local hotel. The University of Akron is located approximately 15 minutes from the Akron-Canton Airport and approximately 40 miles southeast of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.

Please direct questions regarding this Call for Papers and Presentations to Kathy Stanchi ([email protected]), Linda Berger ([email protected]), and Bridget Crawford ([email protected]).

Call for Contributions - Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions (Corrected Feb. 25, 2016)

Corrected Feb. 25, 2016 - JRB

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.

Mark Your Calendars for Next Clinical Writers' Workshop at NYU

This was just announced:

"The Clinical Law Review will hold its next Clinical Writers’ Workshop on Saturday, September 24, 2016, at NYU Law School.

The Workshop provides an opportunity for clinical teachers who are writing about any subject (clinical pedagogy, substantive law, interdisciplinary analysis, empirical work, etc.) to meet with other clinicians writing on related topics to discuss their works-in-progress and brainstorm ideas for further development of their articles. Attendees will meet in small groups organized, to the extent possible, by the subject matter in which they are writing. Each group will “workshop” the draft of each member of the group.

Participation in the Workshop requires the submission of a paper because the workshop takes the form of small group sessions in which all members of the group comment on each other’s manuscripts. By June 30, all applicants will need to submit a mini-draft or prospectus, 3-5 pages in length, of the article they intend to present at the workshop.  Full drafts of the articles will be due by September 1, 2016.

As in the previous Clinical Law Review Workshops, participants will not have to pay an admission or registration fee but participants will have to arrange and pay for their own travel and lodging. To assist those who wish to participate but who need assistance for travel and lodging, NYU Law School has created a fund for scholarships to help pay for travel and lodging. The scholarships are designed for those clinical faculty who receive little or no travel support from their law schools and who otherwise would not be able to attend this conference without scholarship support. Applicants for scholarships will be asked to submit, with their 3-5 page prospectus, by June 30, a proposed budget for travel and lodging and a brief statement of why the scholarship would be helpful in supporting their attendance at this conference.  The Board will review all scholarship applications and issue decisions about scholarships in early July. The scholarships are conditioned upon recipients’ meeting all requirements for workshop participation, including timely submission of drafts, and will be capped at a maximum of $750 per person.

If you have any comments or suggestions you would like to send us, we would be very happy to hear from you. Comments and suggestions should be sent to Randy Hertz at [email protected].

-- The Board of Editors of the Clinical Law Review"

RFP: Externships 8, March 3-6, 2016 at Cleveland-Marshall (deadline Oct. 2, 2015)

Via Carole O. Heyward:

CALL FOR PROPOSALS: EXTERNSHIPS 8 CONFERENCE
March 3-6, 2016, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland, Ohio
DEADLINE: Friday, October 2, 2015

Externships 8:

Building on Common Ground: Externships, Clinics and Practice-Based Legal Education
Externships have become a steadily more prominent component of experiential
education, drawing increased attention from the ABA, from scholars and from law
schools. The recently adopted ABA standards on experiential courses chart new paths
for field placement teaching while recent scholarship has produced a new statement of
best practices for externships, resources for teaching externship seminars and works on
outcomes, assessment, and evaluation of student learning. Finally, externship courses
continue to grow in number and to diversify in approach, from full-time
semester-in-practice programs to externship components in traditional classes.

The Externships 8 Conference, to be held March 3-6, 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio, will focus
on the roles that externship courses play alongside other forms of experiential legal
education, including in-house clinics and simulation classes. It will address the distinct
features of externship courses, discuss how they relate to other kinds of experiential
courses and explore the many different ways to assess and enhance their unique
aspects.

The conference will also focus on the fundamentals and best practices of externship
teaching. Separate tracks for new and for experienced externship teachers will offer
both familiar and new ideas on core externship challenges: how to deliver a seminar;
how to train and collaborate with site supervisors; how to teach the skill of reflection
and use it in the course; and how to translate what students learn into transferable skills
and values for the future.

Topics

We encourage you to propose a topic that will develop the dual conference themes of
externships’ relationship to other forms of experiential education and best practices in
externship design and delivery. We append to this RFP a list of specific ideas as
prompts for proposals.

Attendees

Externship teaching involves an increasingly broad range of law school personnel:
tenured or tenure-track faculty; long-term or short-term contract clinicians; part-time
faculty; administrators; field supervisors; career services professionals; and others. The
conference theme focuses on the common ground between externships and other
clinical experiences; accordingly, we invite participation by those who teach in-house
clinics and simulation courses and who are interested in integrating practice-based
learning into the curriculum. We also solicit active participation by international
clinicians, both as participants and presenters.

Proposals for New and Experienced Clinicians

The Organizing Committee expects to offer programming both for those new to field
placement work and for experienced clinicians. We plan to offer sessions in each time
slot that will attract attendees in each group. We ask that you identify which audience
you plan to address – new or experienced or both - in your proposal.

Formats and Publication

The Organizing Committee seeks proposals in several different formats. We solicit
proposals for concurrent sessions to last a full concurrent time slot. We also seek
suggested topics for and facilitators to convene affinity groups, designed for those
attendees who would like to meet with others to discuss common issues. Groups may
form according to geographical region, subject matter (e.g., prosecutorial externships),
or concerns (e.g., ABA issues).

We may also offer sessions consisting of short, “TED Talk-like” presentations of 10 to 20
minutes. We also invite proposals for poster presentations.

Lastly, we welcome proposals to present scholarly works-in-progress, to last 20
minutes. The Clinical Law Review has agreed to consider papers emerging from the
conference (whether from a works-in-progress session or any other conference session)
for publication in a special issue. No guarantee of publication exists; all papers will be
reviewed in accordance with the Clinical Law Review’s normal standards. Potential
authors must submit final drafts of manuscripts no later than June 1, 2016, for
consideration.

Proposal Selection Criteria

In general, the Organizing Committee will favor proposals that address the conference
theme, are relevant to conference attendees, are well-defined and focused, are timely
and important, and show care and thoughtfulness in development. In addition,
proposals should:

– demonstrate innovation, either in the choice of topic or in the angle of
approach to a familiar topic;

– include presenters who have significant expertise in the topic or a base of
experience that provides a unique or useful vantage point on the topic;

– indicate specifically how the presentation will encourage active learning,
including specific methods for engaging in interaction with the audience; and

– describe how attendees will be offered strategies for implementing new ideas
when they return to their schools.

Finally, we value diversity, both in the composition of presenting teams and in your
topic’s presentation of diversity and inclusiveness as a concern in field placement work.
The Organizing Committee will consider diversity in terms of race, gender, ethnicity,
disability, sexual orientation, geographical location, years of experience, type of school,
type of program and other factors.

Deadlines and Instructions:

Consultation:

We encourage you to contact members of the working group responsible for conference
content to discuss your ideas as you prepare a proposal. This group includes:

Carole O. Heyward, [email protected]
Bob Jones, [email protected]
Carolyn Wilkes Kaas, [email protected]
Alex Scherr, [email protected]
Beth Schwartz, [email protected]
Kelly Terry, [email protected]

Application:

This document includes both a cover sheet for proposals and a template for a more
detailed description of the proposal.

Complete the Cover Sheet AND the Detailed Proposal and submit them no later than
Friday, October 2, 2015 to:

[email protected]

By Friday, October 30, 2015, we will notify the contact person for each proposal. We
may contact you sooner to discuss modifications or to suggest collaborations. After
confirming your participation, we will assign a member of the Organizing Committee
to your group to help you to prepare and to assure that your eventual presentation and
materials meet the expectations stated in the criteria for selection.

POSSIBLE TOPICS FOR PROPOSALS

-- Ideas about best practices in externship teaching.

-- Integration of externship courses into the experiential curriculum, including the
sequencing and scaffolding of externships, in-house clinics and other courses.

-- Distinctive features and opportunities of externships as practice-based education.

-- Participation and status of externship clinicians in law schools, alongside in-house
clinicians and other faculty.

-- Employing externship teaching methods in non-externship classes (e.g., hybrids,
practicums, pop-ups, and add-ons).

-- Working effectively within law schools to promote externships and to secure the
resources necessary for effective program operation.

-- Management of the complex administrative tasks associated with externship courses.

-- “How to” sessions on externship pedagogy, including:

- Student supervision by both site supervisors and externship teachers;

– The classroom experience, both traditional and non-traditional, as a vehicle for
reforming students’ experiences of law school;

– The role of field supervisors as teachers, the training of and ongoing
collaboration with supervisors, and the selection of field placements; and

–Reflective practice as an important aspect of education reform, including
methods for encouraging, teaching and assessing reflection.

--Design and delivery of externship opportunities for students in part-time programs.

–Field placement courses in other countries, and a comparative assessment of those
courses, including differences in cultural, structural and financial pressures.

– The impact of newly revised ABA and state-level standards.

-- The growth, role and administration of semester-away programs.

– The use of technology in field placement programs.

Cover Sheet for Proposal for Externships 8

Send this cover sheet and proposal via e-mail by October 2, 2015 to:
[email protected]

The Organizing Committee will use the information on this cover sheet both to review
proposals and to prepare the conference brochure. Please include a contact person and
the name of all known presenters. We will correspond only with the contact person.

Make sure that all information is complete and accurate.

Please note: Presenters must pay the same conference registration fee as participants.
Program Title:
Contact Person’s Name:
Name of School (as listed in the AALS Directory):
Address:
E-mail:
Voice:
Fax:
Others Presenters and Schools (as listed in AALS Directory):

Format (check all for which you are willing to have your proposal considered):
_____ Full concurrent session
_____ Workshop/affinity group discussion by geographic region (e.g., urban,
Southeast U.S., international)
_____ Workshop/affinity group discussion by topic or practice area (e.g.,
judicial, criminal defense, semester-away)
_____ Scholarly work-in-progress (20 minutes)
_____ Short presentation (10–20 minutes, TED Talk or similar format)
_____ Poster presentation

New or Experienced Clinicians Track:
_____ New
_____ Experienced
_____ Both

Will you prepare a paper based on your presentation? ____ Yes ____ No

Detailed Proposal for Externships 8

Title:

Abstract of your presentation: Describe the content of your presentation. In doing so,
identify the points of innovation in the topic or in your approach and describe the
expertise or experience base of the presenters. For concurrent sessions, specify the
preferred length of the session. We are considering sessions ranging from 60-90
minutes. If you propose to convene a workshop or discussion for an affinity group,
identify the potential participants and the goals for your gathering.

Method of presentation: Describe how you propose to present your material. In doing
so, describe how you will assure active learning by your audience and discuss how you
will provide strategies that attendees may use to implement your ideas when they
return to their schools. Finally, describe any materials you propose to distribute before
or during your presentation.

 

RFP: Southern Clinical Conference, October 22-24, 2015, in Memphis

Via Danny Schaffzin: 

Southern Clinical Conference 2015
Request for Proposals
October 22-24, 2015
University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law
Memphis, Tennessee

Confronting Issues of Race and Diversity in Clinical Legal Education

Deadline for Proposals: July 17, 2015

The Planning Committee for the 2015 Southern Clinical Conference invites you to
submit proposals for this year’s conference, which will take place from Thursday
evening, October 22nd, to mid-day Saturday, October 24th, at the University of Memphis
Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law in Memphis, Tennessee. Details on registration and
lodging will follow soon.

The committee is open to receiving proposals for plenaries, concurrents, workshops or
discussions formatted in other ways. The deadline for proposals is July 17, 2015. We
will notify those who make proposals no later than August 14, 2015. A solicitation
for a devoted Works-in-Progress session will go out under separate cover.
We invite proposals that address how to teach and advocate about race and diversity in
clinical education. We encourage applicants to think broadly about this topic. We
solicit proposals from teachers of in-house clinic or externship courses, and other
courses that offer real practice experience.

For example, proposals might focus on any of the following topics:

Programs or initiatives that address racial justice in distinctive or compelling ways.

Responses to the emerging public debate about race relations across the nation,
including the #BlackLivesMatter and other similar movements.

Ways that clinical programs and teachers can leverage their position in two worlds
(the legal academy and law practice) to confront issues of race and diversity.

Specific courses or classes or pedagogical methods that offer effective ways to
introduce race and diversity issues into clinical teaching.

The influence of teaching about race and diversity on clinic design and vice versa
(e.g. choosing long-term vs. one-semester cases; representing groups vs. individuals;
focusing on political vs. litigation vs. transactional strategies; selecting and
sequencing of externship vs. in-house vs. other real practice experiences.)

The distinctive dimensions of confronting race and diversity in a southern historical
and political climate.

The challenge of teaching race and diversity as a pervasive concern, regardless of the
practice areas into which our students will graduate.

Addressing issues of race and diversity as they arise within our law schools and
impact students, faculty, staff, and other internal stakeholders.

The contributions that we, as clinical teachers, can make to a larger discussion of
race through service and scholarship.

The challenges confronted by both newer and more experienced teachers in
integrating race and diversity as topics into newly-created or long-standing courses.

Successful proposals might combine one or more of the suggestions above, or discuss
none of them. We encourage you to think creatively and flexibly in addressing the
conference theme.

CRITERIA

In general, the organizing committee will favor proposals that address the conference
theme, are relevant to conference attendees, are well-defined and focused, are timely
and important, and show care and thoughtfulness in development.

We value diversity, both in the composition of presenting teams, and in your topic’s
presentation of diversity as a concern in your work. Diversity includes gender,
ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, geographical location, years of experience, type
of school, type of program and other factors.

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

Proposals should be submitted by e-mail to Sandra Love ([email protected]) no later
than July 17, 2015.  Please use this cover sheet and template:  Download Southern Clinical Conference - Cover and Template for Proposals - 2015

Here is the complete RFP for downloading:  Download SCC RFP - FINAL

CFP: Experiential Learning Across the Curriculum

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

 

Experiential Learning Across The Curriculum
Call for Presentation Proposals

 

The Institute for Law Teaching and Learning invites proposals for conference workshops addressing the many ways that law teachers are incorporating experiential learning in all types of courses. With the rising demands for legal-education reform and "practice-ready" lawyers, this topic has taken on increased urgency in recent years. The Institute takes a broad view of experiential education, encompassing learning that integrates legal theory and knowledge, practice skills, and guided reflection, with the goal of teaching students how to learn from experience. Accordingly, we welcome proposals for workshops on incorporating experiential learning in doctrinal, clinical, externship, writing, seminar, hybrid, and interdisciplinary courses.

The Institute invites proposals for 60-minute workshops consistent with a broad interpretation of the conference theme. The workshops can address experiential learning in first-year courses, upper-level courses, required courses, electives, or academic support teaching. The 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 when they return to their campuses. Presenters should model effective teaching methods by actively engaging the workshop participants. The Institute Co-Directors are glad to work with anyone who would like advice in designing their presentations to be interactive.

To be considered for the conference, proposals should be one page (maximum), single-spaced, and include the following information:

• The title of the workshop;
• The name, address, phone number, and email address of the presenter(s); and
• A summary of the contents of the workshop, including its goals and methods.

The Institute must receive proposals by February 1, 2015.

Submit proposals via e-mail to:

Associate Dean Sandra Simpson
Co-Director
Institute for Law Teaching and Learning
[email protected]

For more information, please contact:

Associate Dean Sandra Simpson
ILTL Co-Director
[email protected]
(509) 313-3809

Professor Emily Grant
ILTL Co-Director
[email protected]
(785) 670-1677

Professor Kelly Terry
ILTL Co-Director
[email protected]
(501) 324-9946

Conference Overview

The conference workshops will take place on Saturday, June 13, and until the early afternoon on Sunday, June 14 at Gonzaga University School of Law in Spokane, Washington.  Gonzaga is hosting a welcome reception on the evening of June 12, 2015, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at Barrister Winery, located in the downtown area.

Registration Fees

The conference is self-supporting. The conference fee for participants is $450, which includes materials, meals during the conference (two breakfasts and two lunches), and a welcome reception on Friday evening, June 12, 2015. The conference fee for presenters is $350.