Expert Opinions

The pandemic’s disruption to the status quo brought with it a critical view of the bar exam, how it is administered, and whether it actually tests what it purports to. The status quo—and tinkering around its edges—is not good enough. It is time we had the courage and will to look beyond the assumptions that underpin the current bar exam and towards outcomes and purpose for a new era.

Our Paths to Justice Summit Series, launched in 2021, focused on the ways our justice system needed to adapt in the wake of the pandemic. Our latest report underscores the importance of a people-centered approach, embracing technology, and promoting diversity, advocating for an ongoing commitment to progress within the interconnected civil justice system.

As David Segal’s November 19 article accurately reflects, the legal market is changing.  Clients are no longer willing to foot the bill for young lawyers’ training, and thus law firms are increasingly looking to the law schools to produce practice-ready graduates. The good news is that there are clear solutions to the problem, and they are already in motion.

One of my primary responsibilities as Counsel to the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court is to start and maintain dialogue among Colorado's law schools, bench, and bar in an effort to find and promote commonality among their efforts to improve our state's legal profession. Naturally, then, I was interested in attending the 2013 Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers conference, which sought to connect the legal academy and members of the legal profession.

For the last ten years, IAALS—the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System—has worked to rebuild the civil justice system. After much work, and through collaboration with some of the very best minds in the country, we are finally reaching a critical goalpost in that mission.

Over the last three years, I have had the privilege of chairing the Conference of Chief Justices’ Civil Justice Improvements Committee, whose recommendations were adopted last week by the Conference of Chief Justices and released today. The goal of this effort was to provide specific recommendations for how Chief Justices and Court Administrators in states across the country can address cost and delay in their state civil justice systems.

IAALS offers this new report for legal practitioners, service providers, and other access to justice advocates, which details the themes, recommendations, and strategic plans that emerged from our Better Access through Unbundling Conference—with takeaways for every jurisdiction, whether or not they have embraced unbundling to this point.

On Thursday, March 12, the State Bar of California Trustees voted to postpone passing the motion to explore the development of a regulatory sandbox to May. In my eyes, every day, hour, or minute of delay leads to bad legal outcomes for Californians. Our legal system is in crisis. Now, as a community, we have to turn our kinetic access-to-justice energy into focused action.

Throughout the past year, our courts have been engaged in informal pilot projects—they’ve tried out different technologies and processes, all in an effort to continue the administration of justice amid the pandemic. Now, we have the opportunity to learn from this experience and chart a path forward long term.

Although many navigate the legal system without representation, their lack of counsel shouldn't compromise their access to justice. While not all self-help materials are created equally, courts can implement certain key principles to empower self-represented litigants to navigate proceedings with confidence.

In the wake of the recent economic downturn and its aftermath, law schools and legal education are again the focus of intense scrutiny. Unfortunately, there is often more rhetoric than constructive discussion.

The ETL survey found that many law schools have been making changes in their curricula, and among the prominent areas of change are the curricula in the second and third years of law school and the introduction or expansion of course work focused on practical skills (especially the creation of new clinics and certificate programs). We need research that looks at such programs in detail to see what difference, if any, that they make.

Lawyers, judges, and litigants alike have all come to the conclusion that the system is too expensive, complex, and time-consuming. If we are serious about having civil justice that is indeed just, speedy, and cost-effective, we have to make changes. Big changes.

The Framers of the Constitution knew a few important things about people in general. People want power. They seek to impose their will on others. They make mistakes. And they think they know more than they actually know. The Framers were introspective enough to see that these pervasive human shortcomings would be found in the public officials about to run our new government. The Framers, therefore, took systematic action to alleviate the impact of power-seeking, mistake-making, all-knowing officials who would fill the three branches.

IAALS’ recent report describes a large but relatively unknown group of executive branch adjudicators who are not "Administrative Law Judges" (ALJs) governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. The report describes principal Non-ALJ characteristics, giving special attention to the degree to which agencies that employ them seek to protect their impartiality.

Courts, judges, and lawyers have demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt to a remote and technology-driven version of our justice system in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These changes have fundamentally altered the way the system operates and call for a renewed commitment to civility and collegiality across the legal profession.

At Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell, we’ve been fortunate to have a front-row seat to the outcomes and transformation that IAALS has achieved through Foundations for Practice. We collaborated with IAALS to survey our partners on the characteristics that they viewed as most essential for new associates to be successful at WTO, and the outcomes for retention and diversity have been exciting and encouraging.

Today, the promise of our justice system is under siege. We face unprecedented attacks on the judiciary, attacks that aren’t just political, but fundamental. Collective action is needed not only to defend the rule of law, but to improve our justice system for all.

Previously, we have drawn from the Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers’ survey to describe the 23 ETL Consortium schools, explore the kinds of curricular innovations in which they may be engaged, and see how they compare to law schools more generally. This post continues our description by looking at support for faculty engagement in the improvement of teaching and learning among the ETL Consortium schools.

A recent survey asked respondents for their opinions on both court and non-court proceedings for divorcing couples. Overall, only 51 percent of those surveyed indicated they would consider non-court alternatives and only one-fourth believed that non-court proceedings protect parties’ rights. These findings suggest a lack of understanding about out-of-court solutions for families that are often less stressful and less expensive than lengthy in-court proceedings.