Tuesday, February 26, 2019
In this new study, Professor Paul Hellyer (William & Mary) evaluates and compares the accuracy of the three leading legal citators - West's Keycite, Lexis' Shepards, and Bloomberg's Bcite. Professor Hellyer's study is called Evaluating Shepard's, KeyCite and BCite for Case Validation Accuracy and can be found at 110 Law Libr. J. 449 (2018). From the abstract:
This study evaluates and compares how accurately three legal citators (Shepard's, KeyCite, and BCite) identify negative treatment of case law, based on a review of 357 citing relationships that at least one citator labeled as negative. In this sample, Shepard's and KeyCite missed or mislabeled about one-third of negative citing relationships, while BCite missed or mislabeled over two-thirds. The citators' relative performance is less clear when examining the most serious citator errors, examples of which can be found in all three citators.
(jbl).
February 26, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
One of the major recent developments in legal ethics scholarship is the examination of "behavioral legal ethics." Under BLE, “the central idea is that unethical conduct is frequently the product of psychological factors that occur largely outside of the conscious awareness of the decision-maker. The result is that well-intentioned lawyers will often be unaware of how their behavior diverges from their own conceptions of themselves as ethical and honest people.” ( Tigran W, Eldred, Insights from Psychology: Teaching Behavioral Ethics as a Core Element of Professional Responsibility, 2016 Mich. St. L. Rev. 757, 759)
Tigran Eldred and Molly Wilson have produced an interactive video on behavioral legal ethics. (available here) "Highlights include simulated scenarios by professional actors addressing the psychological dimensions of fraught ethical situations, such as law firm billing practices and disclosure requirements by prosecutors. Also included are multimedia discussions of some of the most important scientific studies in behavioral science (i.e., Stanley Milgram’s obedience studies and Hasdorf and Cantril’s famous selective perception study about the 1951 Dartmouth-Princeton football game). Viewers are guided through an interactive environment where they are prompted to respond to the material presented."
"Law teachers may find the video program useful to introduce core aspects of behavioral legal ethics in courses such Professional Responsibility and Criminal Procedure."
P.S. I have writte a book on behavioral legal ethics, Understanding and Overcoming Cognitive Biases For Lawyers And Law Students: Becoming a Better Lawyer Through Cognitive Science (2018).
February 26, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, February 25, 2019
In clinical legal ed. news, Hofstra Law School has added a new clinical offering to its curriculum. From the New York Law Journal:
Hofstra Law School Opens Program to Help Pro Se Litigants in Federal Court
The Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University has launched a program to help pro se litigants with civil issues at the Eastern District of New York’s Central Islip courthouse.
The clinic, which was opened in January, is staffed by an attorney, a law professor and five students. The University at Buffalo School of Law has a pro se assistance program in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of New York.
The law school is hosting a reception to celebrate the program’s opening from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Thursday at the Central Islip courthouse.
“The lack of legal representation for the poor is an issue of national concern and we are thrilled that the Hofstra pro se program will offer assistance to unrepresented persons in navigating the complexities of federal litigation,” Chief Judge Dora L. Irizarry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York said in a prepared statement.
“Assisting pro se litigants has been an eye-opening experience,” law student Nicholas Bruno said in the same statement. “Not only have I been able to see the difficulties of representing one’s self, but I’ve also gained valuable professional experience early on in my first year of law school.”
The program, which is being partly funded with a $50,000 grant from the Eastern District of New York’s Civil Litigation Fund, handles civil rights issues, employment discrimination, Social Security benefits appeals and other civil matters. It is being supervised by professor Jennifer Gundlach and staff attorney Ka Fei Wong.
. . . .
Continue reading here.
(jbl).
February 25, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday, February 23, 2019
We have talked before about how smart phones are addictive. Here is an article by someone who overcame his smart phone addiction.
Do Not Disturb: How I Ditched My Phone and Unbroke My Brain.
"I’ve been a heavy phone user for my entire adult life. But sometime last year, I crossed the invisible line into problem territory. My symptoms were all the typical ones: I found myself incapable of reading books, watching full-length movies or having long uninterrupted conversations. Social media made me angry and anxious, and even the digital spaces I once found soothing (group texts, podcasts, YouTube k-holes) weren’t helping. I tried various tricks to curb my usage, like deleting Twitter every weekend, turning my screen grayscale and installing app-blockers. But I always relapsed."
"Eventually, in late December, I decided that enough was enough. I called Catherine Price, a science journalist and the author of “How to Break Up With Your Phone,” a 30-day guide to eliminating bad phone habits. And I begged her for help."
"[H]er program focuses on addressing the root causes of phone addiction, including the emotional triggers that cause you to reach for your phone in the first place. The point isn’t to get you off the internet, or even off social media — you’re still allowed to use Facebook, Twitter and other social platforms on a desktop or laptop, and there’s no hard-and-fast time limit. It’s simply about unhooking your brain from the harmful routines it has adopted around this particular device, and hooking it to better things."
"Catherine encouraged me to set up mental speed bumps so that I would be forced to think for a second before engaging with my phone. I put a rubber band around the device, for example, and changed my lock screen to one that showed three questions to ask myself every time I unlocked my phone: “What for? Why now? What else?”
For the rest of the week, I became acutely aware of the bizarre phone habits I’d developed. I noticed that I reach for my phone every time I brush my teeth or step outside the front door of my apartment building, and that, for some pathological reason, I always check my email during the three-second window between when I insert my credit card into a chip reader at a store and when the card is accepted."
February 23, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, February 22, 2019
I'll be in Austin, TX this weekend, attending a couple of shows by the beyond legendary Flesh Eaters, whose 1981 LP A Minute to Pray, A Second to Die music critic Byron Coley called the greatest rock album of all time. As it's been almost 40 years since this original Fleshbos line-up last performed, please understand if I don't respond to your cards, letters, emails and other missives until sometime next week. I rarely indulge such an extravagant weekend sojourn while school's in session but this is pretty special indeed. Until then, "See You in the Boneyard!"
(jbl).
February 22, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, February 21, 2019
You can register for the April 26-27 conference in Pittsburgh here. Below is information about the conference program including the list of speakers, convenient travel arrangements, area hotels, parking, meals, etc. The conference organizers tell us that hotel rooms are limited at this point so please make your reservations soon!
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Thinking About Law, Law Practice, and Legal Education
Hosted by the Duquesne University School of Law
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Friday & Saturday, April 26-27, 2019
Developments in artificial intelligence are changing virtually all aspects of our world, ranging from autonomous vehicles to robotic surgery, and from smart phones to smart speakers. Lawyers, legal educators, and policy makers are already experiencing the effects of computers that aid and, in some cases, replace the often-tedious work done by lawyers and other members of society. Law school graduates will need to understand how intelligent systems can enhance and streamline the work that they do, and how their careers may be changed in the future. Furthermore, artificial intelligence technology will likely call for greater government oversight, result in new laws, and trigger litigation.
This two-day conference will feature presentations by educators, practitioners, policy makers, and computer scientists that will demonstrate how the development of artificial intelligence is affecting society, the law, the legal profession, and legal education. The Duquesne Law Review will dedicate space in its Winter 2019 symposium issue to publishing papers from this conference.
Presenters & Agenda, Day One (Law and Law Practice):
Presenters & Agenda, Day Two (Legal Education):
Conference Registration Fees:
Duquesne will provide free on-site parking to conference attendees. A continental breakfast, snacks and lunch will be provided each day, and a conference-closing reception will take place in the Bridget and Alfred Peláez Legal Writing Center, the home of Duquesne’s Legal Research and Writing Program.
Pittsburgh is an easy drive or short flight from many cities. Duquesne has arranged for blocks of discounted rooms at two hotels near to campus, within walking distance of the law school and downtown Pittsburgh. Attendees can enjoy Pittsburgh area attractions, including our architectural treasures, museums, art collections, shopping, and world-class professional sports teams.
(jbl).
February 21, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
That's the conclusion from this important opinion piece in the New York Times - The Two Codes Your Kids Need to Know - that reports how the College Board, the non-profit organization that administers the SAT, sought to answer the following question: "Of all the skills tested by the SAT that correlate with success in college and beyond, which two are the most important?" The answer: mastering computer science and developing an understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Why computer science? The College Board concluded that "computing, the internet, big data and artificial intelligence [are] now the essential building blocks of almost every industry. . . . [Thus], any young person who can master the principles and basic coding techniques that drive computers and other devices 'will be more prepared for nearly every job.'” And the importance of understanding the U.S. Constitution? The College Board explained that "the Constitution forms the foundational code that gives shape to America and defines our essential liberties — it is the indispensable guide to our lives as productive citizens.”
But not content to merely identify these two key skills, the College Board has also been in recent years revising and adapting both the SAT and the Advanced Placement tests (which it also administers) to promote in high school students a deeper understanding of these twin pillars of success - law and computing. More specifically, the Board has revamped the A.P. government course to focus on 15 foundational Supreme Court cases. More significant than that, the College Board has revamped the SAT which nearly all college bound high school students must take by incorporating a reading comprehension test that focuses on documents that measure a student's understanding of democratic processes and concepts like the constitution or important political speeches. And the portions of the SAT that assess an understanding of legal and democratic processes (along with computing skills) are now weighed more heavily in terms of a student's overall score on the SAT. In short, this would seem to have a very positive impact on law schools in the years ahead regarding a potential increase in the number students interested in attending law school and helping to develop critical reading and thinking skills before they arrive. With respect to the latter, however, that's the hope though in reality learning is such a complex activity involving a multiplicity of factors (i.e., sound instructional techniques on the part of teachers, students who are motivated to learn, the classroom relationship between teacher and students, etc.) that it does not lend itself to such a simple cause and effect strategy.
The Two Codes Your Kids Need to Know is definitely worth reading for anyone interested in legal education and skills development.
(jbl).
February 20, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, February 18, 2019
Assessing Institutional Learning Outcomes Using Rubrics: Lessons Learned by Professor Andi Curcio & Dean Alexis Martinez.
"Experience confirms using rubrics to assess institutional learning outcomes is relatively easy and cost-effective. It is also an iterative process. Below we share some of the lessons we learned as we engaged in this rubric-based institutional assessment process. We also share examples of final report charts to illustrate how this process results in usable assessment report data."
February 18, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, February 14, 2019
Program and registration details are below:
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:
Thinking About Law, Law Practice, and Legal Education
Hosted by the Duquesne University School of Law
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Friday & Saturday, April 26-27, 2019
Developments in artificial intelligence are changing virtually all aspects of our world, ranging from autonomous vehicles to robotic surgery, and from smart phones to smart speakers. Lawyers, legal educators, and policy makers are already experiencing the effects of computers that aid and, in some cases, replace the often-tedious work done by lawyers and other members of society. Law school graduates will need to understand how intelligent systems can enhance and streamline the work that they do, and how their careers may be changed in the future. Furthermore, artificial intelligence technology will likely call for greater government oversight, result in new laws, and trigger litigation.
This two-day conference will feature presentations by educators, practitioners, policy makers, and computer scientists that will demonstrate how the development of artificial intelligence is affecting society, the law, the legal profession, and legal education. The Duquesne Law Review will dedicate space in its Winter 2019 symposium issue to publishing papers from this conference.
Presenters & Agenda, Day One (Law and Law Practice):
Presenters & Agenda, Day Two (Legal Education):
Conference Registration Fees:
Duquesne will provide free on-site parking to conference attendees. A continental breakfast, snacks and lunch will be provided each day, and a conference-closing reception will take place in the Bridget and Alfred Peláez Legal Writing Center, the home of Duquesne’s Legal Research and Writing Program.
Pittsburgh is an easy drive or short flight from many cities. Duquesne has arranged for blocks of discounted rooms at two hotels near to campus, within walking distance of the law school and downtown Pittsburgh. Attendees can enjoy Pittsburgh area attractions, including our architectural treasures, museums, art collections, shopping, and world-class professional sports teams.
For more information, and to complete the online registration for the conference and hotels, please visit https://www.law.duq.edu/news/artificial-intelligence-conference-april-26-27th-2019. Hotel registration will close soon, so please make your reservations now.
(jbl).
February 14, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
U.S. News Considers Evaluating Law School Scholarly Impact by Robert Morse.
From U.S. News:
"U.S. News & World Report is expanding its Best Law Schools data collection with the goal of creating a new ranking that would evaluate the scholarly impact of law schools across the U.S.
The intent is to analyze each law school’s scholarly impact based on a number of accepted indicators that measure its faculty’s productivity and impact using citations, publications and other bibliometric measures."
"To begin the process, U.S. News is asking each law school to provide U.S. News with the names and other details of its fall 2018 full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty. "
To Robert Morse.
"Robert Morse. Your proposal to only include tenured and tenure-track professors in your scholarly rankings is an insult to the many full-time, non-tenure track professors who are vital parts of law school faculties. Legal writing professors and clinicians are an essential part of all law faculties. If you bothered to do a little research (ssrn and google), you would discover that these full-time faculty members are also scholars who have made important advancements in legal scholarship. In particular, they publish more articles on legal education than any other group. They also publish articles on constitutional law, rhetoric, procedure, contracts, and all other legal fields. I hope you will correct this mistake."
P.S. Mr. Morse: This former legal writing prof's SSRN page lists over 17,000 downloads. Many others in the clinical and legal writings fields also have thousands of downloads on SSRN.
February 13, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
The Bottom Is Falling Out Of This Law School’s LSAT Scores
According to data collected by Law School Transparency, the average LSAT score for the bottom 25th percentile at which law school has fallen the most from the entering class of 2010 to 2018?
Hint: At this law school, the average LSAT for the bottom 25th percentile fell 31.1 percent, from 156 in 2010 to 148 in 2018.
Answer: Hofstra law school.
February 13, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
This is big news - Lexis Advance will introduce in the next couple of months a bot feature called Lexis Research Assistant that will enable users to converse with the search engine. Robert Ambrogi's LawSites blog has the story (hat tip to the Law Librarian Blog) here. As a Lexis representative explained: "We see in the future an interaction with Lexis Advance that is highly conversational . . . . You ask a question, we present results." Here's more about the new Lexis chatbot feature via LawSites:
Chatbots are Coming to Lexis Advance, to Help Guide Your Legal Research
“What if legal research was more human, more like a conversation, the kinds we have among ourselves?”
With that tantalizing query, Serena Wellen, senior director of research information at LexisNexis, revealed during a Legalweek media briefing that the legal research platform Lexis Advance will soon include chatbots to help guide users in their research.
“Our goal is to make legal research more guided in a more conversational experience,” Wellen said.
Called Lexis Research Assistant, the bot is slated to be released within the Lexis Advance platform within the next few months. Eventually, users will be able to interact with multiple sub-bots for various tasks related to their research workflow.
During a brief demonstration, Wellen showed that the bot is activated by clicking an icon in Advance. That opens an activity stream along the right side of the screen showing your recent research activity. Each bubble in the stream is a research thread you performed. All your work is saved as a thread within the bot. At any time, you can click a thread to engage conversationally with the bot.
. . . .
Continue reading Mr. Ambrogi's report here.
(jbl).
February 12, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, February 10, 2019
An editorial by Southern University Law Center 2L Katherine Read appearing in the ABA Law Student blog questions whether authors (and editors) should rethink the way law review articles are written to make them more accessible to a wider, general interest audience via social media platforms. In that vein, Ms. Read further suggests that publishers depart from the longstanding Bluebook requirement that authors cite to hardcopy sources rather than web-based ones since most readers (both laypeople and practitioners) want to access that material online rather than setting foot in a brick and mortar library. In these ways, Ms. Read is like this generation's Judge Harry T. Edwards calling attention to the impracticality of much of today's legal scholarship vis a vis the general public who otherwise would greatly benefit from more accessible, easier to understand expert legal commentary. Here's an excerpt from her editorial:
Is it time to change the way we write law review and law journal articles?
What is the purpose of writing an article which interprets and analyzes current situations relating to the legal field?
Some may say that the purpose is to show the legal community (lawyers, judges and law professors) how sophisticated you are on a given topic so that you may change policy or help with judicial interpretation. Fewer may say that the purpose of writing an article is to educate the general public on legal issues that are affecting them in substantial ways.
Most legal articles are drafted with decorative vocabulary and citations to the oldest of textbooks. But why? Why have we succumbed to this one way of writing articles? So that people can see how smart we are? To show that we know how to open a book for proper citation formatting?
The many questions to our current practices remain unanswered. In my experience, the best authors are those who can effectively write a legal argument in such a way that is both entertaining and modern. Articles which require me to use a dictionary for every five words is not going to compel me to agree with the author’s contention because I feel inadequate as a reader when I do not understand what the author is trying to portray by the use of their vocabulary. When you have to read a judgement for a law school class, would you prefer a dense reading full of legal jargon or would you prefer an opinion that is simplistic in its tone yet complex in its meaning?
Today, people are searching the internet for any bit of information on a variety of topics, so legal articles need to be formatted in a way that will attract readership so that the knowledge from that article may be distributed across social media.
As a future lawyer, I am constantly asking myself the question, “How am I supposed to help the world if no one can understand what I am saying?” I try to solve this problem by taking dense issues and breaking them down to a more common understanding. This may not be the correct approach, but if your goal is to attain readership, try to make the article easier read because you are more likely to catch public attention.
. . . .
Continue reading here.
(jbl).
February 10, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (1)
Saturday, February 9, 2019
Like me, do you find that dealing with the daily deluge of email is consuming an ever increasing amount of valuable time in the morning? Especially if you're a morning person, dealing with all that email encroaches on some especially valuable real estate when it comes to your overall productivity each day. As for myself, I can easily spend an hour (and often more) each morning when I first get to work reading, sorting, deleting and responding to scores upon scores of messages. Fortunately, Grover Cleveland, author of Swimming Lessons for Baby Sharks (The Essential Guide for Thriving as a New Lawyer) and author of a regular column over at Above The Law covering the same, has come up with some great tips for helping to manage your morning email crush. To wit:
Read Grover's rationale underlying each of these tips here in his column at ATL.
(jbl).
February 9, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, February 7, 2019
From the Chronicle of Higher Ed and relevant to all legal educators:
How to Make Students Better Thinkers
"Critical thinking" is one of the most prevalent buzzwords in the academy, but what does it mean? We all want our students to be critical thinkers, but we are collectively unable to say with any degree of precision what that actually entails.
Given this confusion, it is a common assumption that all professors teach critical thinking, and that no one discipline has any special claim to expertise in this area. Physicists argue that students absorb this skill while investigating the results of high-speed electron collisions; engineers point to the intrinsic problem-solving nature of engineering as evidence that the discipline teaches critical thinking. A member of our psychology department once told us, "Anyone can teach critical thinking."
The word "critical" comes from the classical Greek words krinein or kritikos, which refer to judging, discerning, or estimating the value of something. A critical thinker, then, is a critic of thought in much the way that a film critic is a critic of film. A good film critic must have appropriate criteria to use in evaluating film, which are then applied to a given work, ideally in conjunction with honesty and fair-mindedness. In the same way, critical thinking involves thinking about thinking itself. Let’s take the following definition: Critical thinking is the conscious, deliberate, rational evaluation of claims according to clearly identified standards of proof.
. . . .
The teaching of critical thinking as a life skill requires teaching students the underlying grammar of rational thought, which is operative across disciplines. When students enter college, we are inviting them to participate in a culture of evidence. Courses in critical thinking (or "Reasoning," "Practical Reasoning," "Informal Logic," or "Introduction to Logic"), when they exist in a course catalog, demonstrate the importance of providing evidence for any claim to knowledge. Such claims are, of course, the putative conclusions of arguments, and the evidence for these claims are the premises. The specific content of the premises varies. This is the part of critical thinking that is discipline-specific. Determining whether or not a set of premises is true requires prior knowledge of the subject matter. Does an interpretation of a historical event rely on a discredited source? Ask a historian.
. . . .
Continue reading here.
(jbl).
February 7, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
This article has some excellent ideas on legal education.
Thinking or Acting Like A Lawyer? What We Don’t Know About Legal Education and are Afraid to Ask by Carrie Menkel-Meadow.
"This essay (the keynote address at International Conference on Research on Legal Education at the University of New South Wales, December 3-5 2017) reviews the “Big Bangs” in American legal education from “thinking like a lawyer” (classical Socratic education), developing legal theory, critical thinking, jurisprudence, critical legal studies, critical race and feminist theory, “acting like a lawyer” (clinical and experiential educaton), “being a lawyer,” (legal ethics and professional responsibility education, socio-legal and law economics study (“law and…….”), and comparative, internationalization and globalization studies. The essay then queries whether “law and technology or artificial intelligence” suggests a new era of legal education or “the end of lawyers and legal educaton” as we know it. (Answer: No). The essay identifies some things we know about these different contributions to legal education, but also suggests important questions that require further empirical study to test the various claims made about the best ways to structure legal education. Should one size fit all? How might the modern world finally come to grips with models of education developed in the nineteenth century that are often still in use. How is legal education variable in different legal systems—are we converging or diverging in legal pedagogy?"
February 5, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, February 4, 2019
Consider this engaging profile of Benjamin Dreyer, who rose from unemployed actor and freelance proofreader in 1990's NYC, to copy chief of Random House books and author of the newly released Dreyer’s English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style. Mr. Dreyer's book represents the culmination of advice and tips gleaned from nearly three decades of professional copy-editing which, as his NYT profile describes it, is a job that involves "an intimate dance between editor and author." For a style guide, Mr. Dreyer's book has garnered some impressively boffo reviews including one from author Jon Meacham who says it "is to contemporary writing what Geoffrey Chaucer’s poetry was to medieval English." (!)
Based on the NYT profile, it's fair to say that Dreyer, among other things, is a stickler when it comes to the technical aspects of writing and punctuation. For instance, he once ended a friendship over a document he was editing because the author insisted that a sentence ending with a reference to the musical “Oklahoma!,” also include a period after the exclamation point.
Anyway, after buying Dreyer's book (also here), be sure to follow him on Twitter.
And if anyone is interested in writing a book review of An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style for "Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing," please get in touch with me directly.
(jbl).
February 4, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
I have been interested in how evolution has shaped the law for several years. I have read a great deal on the field, and I have published two articles on the subject (A Biological Basis of Rights and Reciprocal Altruism as the Basis of Contract).
It seems like at least once a week, I run across an article on how evolution has affected human behavior. Here is one of the strangest ones: The Human Genetics of Night Owls and Early Birds.
"Whether you’re an early bird or a night owl is partly dependent on your genome, according to a study published this week (January 29) in Nature Communications."
"Scanning nearly 700,000 human genomes available through the UK Biobank and the consumer genetics testing company 23andMe and comparing the results with reported sleep preferences, an international team of researchers identified more than 350 variations associated with being a morning person. Additional analyses using the device-recorded activity patterns of more than 85,000 of these participants revealed that people who carried the most gene variants linked with being an early bird went to bed an average of 25 minutes earlier than those who carried the fewest."
Now I have an excuse for sleeping late: It's in my genes.
(Scott Fruehwald)
February 4, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (1)
Sunday, February 3, 2019
This a competition that invites law students to write a story about their life and the law. Ten finalists from around the country will win an all-expense paid trip to Provo, UT on March 16 to 19, 2019 to read their story on the BYU Mainstage before a live audience (their stories will also be recorded for later broadcast on BYU radio). Plus, the finalists will also get a day trip to Moab. Nice! Below are more details which you can also read at the BYU "Lawstories" website here. There's also a companion story discussing the genesis of the BYU competition at Law.com here.
To present in BYU LawStories on the Mainstage write a true story about your life and the law. You can focus on one main idea or weave several experiences together into a thematic whole. Remember that your experience does not need to be dramatic to be meaningful: significant events and epiphanies can occur in everyday experiences. Make sure you go beyond merely writing an anecdote, and create a story that has a narrative arc and illustrates growth, change, or a perceptual shift. Being specific and descriptive will help you connect with your readers and listeners, and lend your story authenticity and interest.
Ten selected storytellers from around the nation will receive:
- All-expenses paid trip to Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, on March 13 – 16, 2019.
- Half-day seminar on storytelling taught by nationally-recognized storyteller Sam Payne, host of The Apple Seed on BYU Radio.
- Participants will present their stories to an audience at BYU LawStories on the Mainstage
- Participants will record their stories at the BYU Radio studio.
- Storytellers will travel to Moab to visit one of Utah’s iconic national parks.
Participation Guidelines
• Due: 2.20.2019, Noon (MDT), to [email protected]
• Titled
• 4 – 6 double-spaced pages in length (1000 – 1500 words)
• Non-fiction
• Tied in some way to your life and the law
• Original, unpublished work
• Content must not be (a) defamatory, threatening, or an invasion of a right of privacy of another person; (b) bigoted, hateful, racially or otherwise offensive; (c) violent, vulgar, obscene, pornographic or otherwise sexually explicit.Judging Criteria
The narrative arc must show evidence of growth, change, or a perceptual shift. The story connects with the reader and listener, and shows more than tells. The story has a meaningful theme and is mechanically sound (outside editing is encouraged).
Submission Guidelines
Due: 2.20.2019, Noon (MDT), to [email protected]
Format: Word document
Cover page: List your name, contact information, and title of your story. Your title must also appear at the top of the story itself.
Read additional details here including "Rules and Terms" and FAQs.
(jbl).
February 3, 2019 | Permalink | Comments (0)
