Over the last two months, the IAALS board of advisers has welcomed several distinguished members to the fold, all of whom are committed to the missions of our Initiatives and the continuous improvement of the civil justice system. We are pleased to add Kenneth R. Thompson II to their ranks.

The oldest advice in the world is that the trick is not in knowing the answers—rather it is in knowing the right questions to ask. Such advice has broad application, and in the current debate about legal education, it is quite possible that the wrong questions are currently on the table. The question should not simply be: why does legal education cost so much? Rather, the question should focus on reassessing and re-measuring the value of legal education.

New York Magazine has published an article discussing the intricate and often difficult path from gay marriage to divorce. The article interviews a recently divorced couple, who describe their relationship and how it ended, and give an intimate insight into the mechanics of “gay divorce.”

On Monday, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon directed that local rule amendments that had previously been proposed and submitted for public comment take effect March 1, 2013. The amendments include adoption of two pilot projects that are being implemented around the country to focus and streamline discovery. The District of Oregon’s adoption of both projects reflects its commitment to finding solutions to unnecessary cost and delay in the litigation process.

The National Center for State Courts has developed a new model for estimating civil litigation costs, known as the Civil Litigation Cost Model. The model is based on the amount of time lawyers expend on various litigation tasks and their billing rates, which together provide a snapshot of “typical” costs, by task, for a number of case categories. By reflecting how costs are incurred throughout the litigation process, and the variability of costs from case to case, the model provides insight into the effect of such costs on a litigant’s access to the civil justice system.

Oklahoma has joined several other states—including Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee—whose legislatures are considering changes to the process for selecting judges.

Despite the fact that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) went into effect in 1983, the first judicial opinion enforcing this provision was issued just last month. In Branhaven LLC v. Beeftek, Inc., both Plaintiff corporation and Plaintiff’s attorneys under Rule 26(g), ordering them to pay the fees and costs incurred by defense counsel as a result of Plaintiff’s “large, disorganized and last minute document production.”

As it did in 2012, Florida’s house of representatives has proposed giving the governor greater authority over the membership of the state’s judicial nominating commissions. Of the nine members, four are appointed from recommendations by the state bar. The proposed measure stipulates that the other five members would serve at the governor’s pleasure.

In a recent article, the New York Times discusses parenting partnerships, also known as co-parenting, in which two people maintain no romantic relationship but have and share responsibility for a child. In the article, proponents suggest parenting partnerships as an alternative to the traditional family framework by allowing single people to share the financial and emotional stresses of raising children. The complex legal issues involved in such an arrangement were considered as well.

Justice Pat Roggensack and Marquette University law professor Ed Fallone were the top two vote-getters in the February 19 primary election for a seat on Wisconsin’s supreme court, and they will compete in the April 2 general election.

Legislators in Illinois have filed three measures that would enhance judicial qualifications and alter the judicial selection and retention process. Among the proposed reforms—which would require amending the constitution—are a commission-based gubernatorial appointment process for filling judicial vacancies and a judicial retention commission to consider the qualifications of judges seeking retention.

Tennessee’s senate approved by a 29-2 vote a proposed constitutional amendment that has been nicknamed “The Founding Fathers Plan Plus.” The proposal would establish a federal selection process for appellate judges—gubernatorial appointment with confirmation by both houses of the legislature (the “plus”).