News & Updates

We would like to extend our congratulations to Jon Streeter for his confirmation to California's First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. He was sworn in on January 5. Jon has been a friend to IAALS for several years, working closely with Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers. We are thrilled for him—and we look forward to seeing how his new perspective in the judicial branch informs his insights and leadership in legal education, and the evolution of the profession more broadly.

We are pleased to announce the release of a new report on the judicial nominating commissions used to select supreme court justices in 30 states and Washington, D.C. With Choosing Judges, we examine why judicial nominating commissions are established in the first place, how their structure and operation differ across the nation, and what some of the best practices might be in building public trust in the process.

From coast to coast and everywhere in between, we have collected stories from real people who share IAALS' passion for and dedication to a legal system that is accessible, trustworthy, relevant, and responsive. Their personal accounts of impact are woven throughout our 2013 Annual Report along with a detailed account of our accomplishments in the past year, which set the stage for an ambitious future slate of projects.

Judicial independence is like freedom in that it is often taken for granted, and always at risk. Simply stated, judicial independence means that one branch of government is not subject to the will of the majority. That independent branch is charged with upholding the Constitution, even in the face of contrary majority will, and with protecting the rights of those not in power. What happens when judicial independence is threatened? We have a current all-too-disturbing example.

Jurors have a unique perspective on our legal system. Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with someone who served on a jury this fall in California Superior Court. He had some suggestions as to how things could have been handled differently. We at IAALS hope judges and attorneys are listening. These techniques are already in use in many courtrooms across the country—but not all.

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.

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.

Part of what we do at IAALS is to convene people who have different viewpoints around a particular topic—in hopes that areas of consensus will emerge from the dialogue. We convened one such group last spring, comprised of ideologically and experientially diverse participants, on the subject of judicial selection and the attributes we want in our judges. Focused on a simple question, "What are the most important characteristics or qualities of a judge," there was remarkable unanimity around the room.

Unlimited and unmanaged discovery in civil lawsuits can be extremely expensive—and sometimes wholly out of proportion to the needs of the case. In a landmark decision issued this week, the Colorado Supreme Court put the brakes on discovery run amuk and clarified the duty of the trial court judge to manage the discovery in the case—at a minimum by considering the cost-benefit and proportionality factors set forth in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(F).

Bob Emery is one of the preeminent national experts on issues related to children and divorce. In this video excerpt, he captures the essence of the problem: almost all of the systems that relate to divorce and separation are geared around the parents, lawyers, or judges. Very few systems are geared to the needs of the children. At the Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families, which will debut on campus at the University of Denver this fall, there is a specific role for the voice of the child.

Numbers matter. As we take on some of the biggest challenges facing the civil justice system, our work depends on the number of stakeholders we bring to the table, our ability to facilitate implementation of our recommended models in numerous instances, and, of course, our careful measurement of the outcomes produced. Our 2012 Annual Report commemorates our commitment to Strength in Numbers.

In a recent blog post, Lance Soskin argued that "litigation is a multi-billion dollar industry that favors the wealthy," leaves everyone else significantly disadvantaged, and that the answer lies in the better use of alternative dispute resolution. I take a different approach. While mediation and arbitration certainly have their place, we cannot and should not abandon the system itself. What we need is a justice system that is more accessible, efficient, and accountable.

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.

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.

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.

In 2006, IAALS opened its doors in a small adjunct office on campus at the University of Denver. With little more than a folding table and chairs, we embarked on a journey to improve the civil justice system. Today, we are a vibrant, national research center, and more committed than ever to continuous improvement of the civil justice system. That is why we decided to launch IAALS Online. We believe it will allow us to harness the power of national conversations to identify and improve solutions for a stronger system.

Imagine a country without courts—where the legislative and executive branches of government hold sway. Imagine that the legislative branch makes the laws, and the executive branch has an administrative system for determining both criminal and civil liability and enforcing consequences. What would change? Why would it matter?

I predict that legal education in general and law schools in particular will continue to be under the microscope in 2012. Some of the criticism is appropriate, and Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers is one of the efforts designed to address that legitimate criticism. Some of it, however, is both projection and scapegoating. 

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.

Law schools are being targeted by the media and by former students for failing to provide adequate information about actual employment of graduates, and for graduating more lawyers than the market can bear. Candor and market sensitivity are important, but they are effects—not causes.