News & Updates

List of news articles

Showing 461 - 480 out of 2119 results

  • Redefining Access to Justice: Kourlis and Schepard on Denver’s Divorce Alternative

    For separating and divorcing families, access to justice can be hard to come by. Our traditional, court-driven model de-emphasizes parents’ (and children’s) long-term interests, fosters expensive legal fees, and lacks important services that can help families reorganize in a well-rounded way. But, in a recent article for the ABA’s Dispute Resolution Magazine, Denver’s pioneering Center for Out-of-Court Divorce (COCD) is discussed as a bright new future for the process—one that centers on problem solving and holistic outcomes.

    1
  • Arizona Proposition Would Inject Partisan Politics into Judicial Selection

    On November 6th, Arizona citizens will be voting on Proposition 115, which aims to modify Arizona's merit selection system by giving the governor more power over the judicial nomination process. Justice Ruth V. McGregor and Judge James A. Soto warn against this ballot proposition, stating that it will "undermine the present merit-selection system for selecting judges and let politicians control the judicial selection process."

  • Disruptive Innovation: Economist Profiles Center for Out-of-Court Divorce

    Reporter Haley Cohen of The Economist recently toured the Center for Out-of-Court Divorce (COCD) in Denver and wrote about her experience in a December article titled Disruptive Innovation: A spate of start-ups offer alternatives to traditional divorce. We’re delighted to see the COCD attract international media attention because its innovative model for separating and divorcing families deserves the exposure.

    1
  • Expert Opinion

    Innovation is in the air, but what is it and what difference does it make?

    With this post, Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers begins a series of reports on legal education: the what, who, and how of innovation. These reports will document the range of current innovations in the areas of curriculum, teaching and learning, faculty, and assessment. They will draw on a number of sources of data, including the American Bar Association/Law School Admissions Council (ABA/LSAC) Official Guide, but the primary source will be the results of Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers’ new survey of innovations currently underway.

  • Press Release

    IAALS Criticizes the United States Senate’s Passage of the “Nuclear Option”

    Now that a simple majority of votes suffice to confirm a Supreme Court Justice, each party will invariably put forward the most ideologically-extreme candidates that they can. No more moderates, no more coalition-builders, no more impartial judges. Rather, the Court could be populated, over time, by judges who have partisan instincts or agendas—maybe even by judges who have a particular alignment with the president who nominates them.

  • Civil Rules Advisory Subcommittee Requests Comment on Rule 30(b)(6) Experiences

    Last year the Civil Rules Advisory Committee took up the topic of Rule 30(b)(6) depositions following the submittal of a letter by members of the Council and Federal Practice Task Force of the ABA Section of Litigation, in their individual capacities. Unlike individual depositions, Rule 30(b)(6) depositions are noticed to an organization such as a corporation or government agency, and include a description of the matters for examination. The company must identify and prepare the witness to testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization. The rule was initially adopted to curb the practice of “bandying” where organizations produced one witness after another, with each disclaiming knowledge. In their request for a review of current practices under the Rule, the ABA members highlighted confusion about the Rule’s requirements, as well as instances where the courts have divided on how to interpret those requirements.

  • Expert Opinion

    Going Public with Innovation: Comparing Survey Respondents to All Law Schools and Non-Respondents

    As described in an earlier post, Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers initiated a unique, far-reaching survey of 210 U.S. and Canadian law schools. Now completed, the survey has a 58% response rate. Before presenting the findings in a series of future posts, we face a key prior task – describing the responding schools and seeing how closely they resemble all schools and the non-responding schools.

  • To Be a Good Lawyer, One Has to Be a Healthy Lawyer, New Report Finds

    It is common knowledge that many lawyers and law students struggle with high stress as well as high rates of depression and substance abuse. Now, the American Bar Association’s National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being is suggesting that these characteristics interfere with the legal profession's dedication to serving clients and dependence on the public’s trust.

    1
  • Civil Justice Reform: One Case Type at a Time

    Talking about civil justice reform only gets us so far. The key to change is taking concrete steps on the ground and implementing practical solutions. IAALS’ own Rebecca Love Kourlis and Brittany Kauffman authored a piece for the Corporate Counsel Business Journal’s Civil Justice Playbook that dives into this discussion and highlights ways IAALS is working with judges and courts to make that change a reality in the realm of discovery.

    1
  • ABA Task Force Addresses Wide Range of Questions and Challenges (Morning Recap)

    If there's one thing the people in the room at the ABA Task Force on the Future of Legal Education can agree on today, it's that something has to give. But just what has to give? That still seems to be up for debate. In the opening session, opinions ranged nearly as wide as the topics, which included the deregulation of the profession, the deregulation of law schools, online education, US News, faculty scholarship, student expectations, consumer expectations, access to justice, and curriculum.

  • Law firms' competition

    Larry Ribstein comments on changes in corporate legal services, which find companies first doing away with the law firms as middle men and the then restructuring internal legal teams and “embedding” lawyers throughout the organization.