Expert Opinions

The American Bar Association's Task Force on the Future of Legal Education has been collecting comments from individuals and organizations since late last year. Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers submitted a comment focused on aligning legal education with the needs of an evolving profession, and made six recommendations.

Once again, law schools have found themselves the subject of a New York Times front-page article about the sharp decline in law school applications. According to the article, law schools are responding by cutting faculty, taking a closer look at affordability, and adding clinics and in-the-field training. But perhaps more interesting is the story the article doesn’t tell—the story of law schools across the country that are already in front of this wave by offering students a better education.

In mid-November, President Obama nominated Raymond P. Moore, a federal public defender, for a vacancy on the United States District Court of Colorado, which will open with the new year. Despite the fact that the process by which Moore was nominated mirrors versions used by twenty-one other states, there is concern that he may face a lengthy confirmation period, which has become a trend during Obama’s presidency.

Meaningful access to justice is the most important issue confronting state courts across this country. There can be little doubt that we now have a state justice system in America that is slowly eroding while at the same time becoming increasingly too expensive for the vast majority of our fellow citizens. These developments, left unchecked, will have real consequences that will go to the very core of the American promise. They should concern us all.

In the final days of North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue's term, she will be filling the supreme court vacancy created by the unanticipated retirement of Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson. Given the short time frame in which the appointment must be made, the governor has decided to forego use of the judicial nominating commission and make a direct appointment. As a necessary step, she entered Executive Order 137, “temporarily modifying” the selection process for all vacancies that may arise before she leaves office. We understand the time constraints but lament her decision.

IAALS has just released a Rule One Initiative research report entitled Measuring Rule 16.1: Colorado’s Simplified Procedure Experiment. In 2004, the Colorado Supreme Court put in place Rule 16.1, a voluntary pretrial process for smaller dollar-volume civil cases, with the hope of providing a more efficient path to resolution. This new reports sets forth the results of an empirical study of Rule 16.1, including its role and impact.

Divorce and resolution of child custody issues take a toll. They take a toll on families, they take a toll on the courts and they take a toll on a variety of other impacted communities, and it's not clear that the current system is working. Which is why we’re formally launching our Honoring Families Initiative. Aligned with the greater mission of IAALS, Honoring Families is dedicated to advancing empirically informed models to ensure greater accessibility, efficiency, and fairness in divorce and child custody matters.

Last month's ETL conference, entitled “The Development of Professional Identity in Legal Education,” brought together teams from its consortium schools, its ETL fellows, and many other legal education reform advocates. Some day in the not-too-distant future, prospective law students will seek out law schools and individual professors who have led, and will continue to lead, these important reform efforts – like those affiliated with ETL. We must facilitate the path to that day.

Recognizing that there is widespread concern that the civil justice system is too complex, costs too much, and takes too long, a new report provides recommendations for designing short, summary, and expedited (“SSE”) programs and calls for implementation of such programs on a national scale. The report, A Return to Trials: Implementing Effective Short, Summary, and Expedited Civil Action Programs, is co-authored by IAALS, ABOTA, and the NCSC.

Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor (Ret.) served on the Arizona Supreme Court from February 1998 until June 30, 2009. She was the Court's Chief Justice from June 2005 until her retirement. As we launch IAALS Online, she joins three other former Chief Justices in the conversation about IAALS and its initiatives. "This election season will give all of us an opportunity to think about how much – or how little – we know about our state supreme court justices. Most of you can name the candidates for President, for Congress, and for your Governor. But do you know how your state supreme court justices are selected and whether any judicial candidates will appear on the November ballot in your state?"

Dean John T. Broderick, Jr., is the Dean of the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Previously, he was Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court since 2004. Prior to his installation as Chief Justice, he had served as an Associate Justice since 1995. As we launch IAALS Online, he joins three other former Chief Justices in the conversation about IAALS and its initiatives by discussing the work of our Rule One Initiative. "The civil justice system is in danger of becoming irrelevant – both to you and to me as citizens, and even to corporations and other business entities. None of us can afford it. It costs too much, takes too long, and is too uncertain."

Justice Paul J. De Muniz was elected to the Oregon Supreme Court in 2000 and served as the court's Chief Justice and administrative head of the Oregon Judicial Department from January 2006 to May 2012. As we launch IAALS Online, he joins three other former Chief Justices in the conversation about IAALS and its initiatives by discussing the work of our Honoring Families Initiative. "Like with other parts of our court systems, now is the time to ask hard questions about the structure, operation, tradition, and culture of our family courts. We could begin by asking whether our traditional adversarial model actually meets the needs of divorcing and separating families. Is it not time to reengineer our family courts in ways that are less adversarial, that encourage continued parental involvement with their children, and that provide for alternative forums and processes outside the court system for resolving parenting issues in a more consensual manner?"