On September 3, the Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families at the University of Denver opened its doors to metro-area families. The Center is a model for providing interdisciplinary, out-of-court solutions to separating and divorcing families. This IAALS “out-of-court model” is part of an international trend towards less adversarial separation and divorce processes.

The front lines of electronic discovery are moving beyond the federal courts. In a world where everyone with a smart phone is an ESI custodian, the problems of e-discovery affect all types of litigants in all types of cases. E-discovery has arrived in the state courts, and the problems there are every bit as big, and every bit as complicated, as they are in federal court. On September 19th and 20th, state court judges and e-discovery experts from around the country gathered to discuss the challenges that e-discovery poses for state courts.

In 2012, North Carolina was the only state with contested judicial elections in which voters were provided with performance evaluations of the judicial candidates—both sitting judges and challengers—on their ballot. It is fairly common for bar associations to offer ratings of sitting judges standing for retention or reelection, but this was the first instance of which IAALS is aware where a bar association also evaluated judicial challengers. Since 2012, the NCBA has also offered a voluntary, confidential evaluation program for new judges.

IAALS is very sad to note the passing of Professor Penelope Pether, of Villanova Law School. One of Penny’s areas of scholarship was the theory and practice of judging, and in that context she and I became friends. She had a particular interest in the process of appellate review, and Penny and I presented together on a couple of occasions on the subject of judicial performance evaluation. Penny was also involved with our Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers Initiative, because she was an innovative legal educator. I will miss her energy, her enthusiasm, and her passion, but know that her legacy will live on.

Indiana's superior courts are created by statute, and as such, the method of selecting judges is determined by statute as well and varies from county to county. In two counties, superior court judges are chosen through a commission-based appointment process, while in all other counties these judges are chosen in partisan or nonpartisan elections. Both of these selection processes are currently the subject of controversy.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor spent a few days last week with us here at IAALS, where we held a meeting of the O'Connor Advisory Committee to the Quality Judges Initiative. Justice O'Connor also engaged in a "fireside chat" under the rubric of the John Paul Stevens Lecture about her life and career. Former Arizona Chief Justice Ruth McGregor and I joined her for the conversation, but it was Justice O'Connor who stole the show.

The Coalition for Impartial Justice has been working for several years to move Minnesota from nonpartisan judicial elections to commission-based appointment with retention elections and performance evaluation, which would require amending the state constitution. The proposal has bipartisan support, with sponsors on both sides of the aisle, but some Republican lawmakers have recently withdrawn their support in response to pressure from their party.

The State Bar of Michigan, which represents more than 43,000 attorneys and judges, has asked the secretary of state to require disclosure of funders of "issue ads" in state elections. Specifically, the bar is seeking an interpretive ruling that such ads should be treated as advocacy rather than electioneering and thus as official campaign spending. Such a ruling would require the disclosure of donors who are currently anonymous.

The ABA Task Force on the Future of Legal Education has released its draft report, which includes proposals and conclusions about the pricing structure of law schools, liberalizing or eliminating accreditation certain standards, speeding the pace of innovation and practical skills training, and using non-lawyers for broader delivery of law-related services. Chair Randall T. Shepard will present the Task Force's proposals to more than 80 legal educators at the 2nd Annual Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers Conference in Denver on October 4.

In a 5-0 ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down a law that required the state’s judicial nominating commission to send the names of five candidates to the governor for possible appointment. According to the court’s opinion, “the Legislature has no authority to statutorily mandate procedures inconsistent with Arizona's Constitution,” which allows commissions to give the governor as few as three names.

Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers announces its second annual conference, which will focus on connecting the profession and the academy to ensure that law graduates are prepared to begin a career of service to clients, service to the legal system, and service to society. Conference participants will focus on how to design and deliver a modern legal education that educates lawyers to the highest standards of competence and professionalism.

We are pleased to announce the newest member of our Consortium of law schools committed to innovation: Touro Law Center. Among Touro’s latest projects is its ProBono Uncontested Divorce Project, a required part of the experiential curriculum for first year students that also helps students to satisfy New York’s new pro bono requirements. Touro Law Center will join the rest of the Consortium in Denver, October 3-5, 2013, for our 2nd Annual Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers Conference.