News & Updates

The American Bar Association’s 2013 Annual Meeting in San Francisco was a sprawling event with thousands of attendees spread out over 20 hotels and attending more than 200 continuing legal education programs and countless other meetings. Given all of this, it was interesting to watch as common themes began to emerge and thread the event and its participants together. One of those themes was legal education.

Only one Democrat is vying for a seat on the state’s appellate courts in 2012. The state’s Democratic Party chairman attributed this to the high cost and contentiousness of judicial elections in Alabama. Three Republican incumbents on the supreme court will be reelected without opposition.

On April 29, Maine continued its efforts toward civil justice reform by conducting an all-day Civil Justice Reform Training Conference, designed to familiarize the state's justices, judges, and court staff with the establishment of three different case tracks and corresponding proposed amendments to Maine’s rules of civil procedure.

Many jurisdictions around the country have implemented alternative processes that are designed to provide litigants with speedy and less expensive access to civil trials. These programs generally involve a simplified pretrial process and a shortened trial on an expedited basis. This new resource offers a summary chart of the various programs nationwide and specific details for each.

The New York State Board of Law Examiners announced the amendment of the New York Court of Appeals' educational requirements for U.S.-educated graduates of ABA-accredited law schools to sit for the New York State bar examination, including an…

The legal system has been regulated so tightly that it has led to a world where only a fraction of the citizens who require legal services can access them, and we cannot afford to fail those who cannot afford legal representation. Unlocking legal regulation is the answer and stands at the heart of the worthy efforts underway in states across the country.

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.

The House of Delegates gathering at the American Bar Association's Midyear Meeting in New Orleans covered court funding, civics education, attacks on judges who make unpopular decisions, and other challenges in the system and the profession.

Imagine a legal sector neatly divided into two groups: the Rule Makers and the Risk Takers. With evidence piling up that the legal market is not working for ordinary citizens, the Rule Makers come together to evaluate possible changes. After the new rules are enacted, the burden shifts to the Risk Takers to build out workable solutions.

Professor Roberto Corrada of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law gives students a comprehensive understanding of administrative law through a unique, simulated experience inspired by the novel Jurassic Park. The course, Administrative Law: Dinosaur Park Simulation, is taught using the paradigm of “what if this actually happened.”

The March 2012 edition of the Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers newsletter is now available. Sign up for this and other IAALS newsletters here.

The Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation has published its final report, which is designed to assist the government in assessing the current regulatory framework for legal services in England and Wales and contribute to the momentum around new frameworks for regulation.

At the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules’ meeting last week in Portland, Oregon, the Committee voted to adopt the Duke Conference “package” of amendments, as well as a last minute revised and streamlined Rule 37(e). The Committee considered and approved for adoption the package of amendments as laid out in the Agenda Book for the meeting.

The house judiciary committee approved a bill establishing a public financing system for state supreme court elections.

The legal profession is fraught with systemic barriers to entry that form ripple effects on the road to becoming a lawyer. The pathway is much like narrow pipeline—entry is limited and every segment is springing leaks, disproportionately affecting people of color along the way—creating a profession that is among the least diverse in the country.

This issue has created something of a "two-tier system" in which the haves--those with representation--and the have nots--those without--can expect substantially different results in family court cases. This inequality is something that most people would agree is just part of the legal system. But in family court cases it is often the children, not the litigants, who suffer from the inequality.

The house judiciary committee rejected by a 7-7 vote a proposal calling for all of the state’s judges to be chosen in popular elections. A majority vote was needed for the bill to advance to the full legislature. The measure also failed to get a majority vote in the senate finance committee.

In December 2020, the Texas Commission on Judicial Selection submitted its report on the fairness, effectiveness, and desirability of partisan elections for judicial selection in Texas. Although the commission recommended against the current partisan elections method, the members did not agree on an alternative method for judicial selection and will continue studying potential reforms.

New Mexico judges are chosen through a process that is truly unique. Since 1988, judicial vacancies have been filled by commission-based appointment. Appointees then face a partisan election to keep their seats. At the conclusion of their terms, judges stand for retention for subsequent terms. This year, five judges waited until after the filing deadline to announce their retirement, exemplifying what some see as an increasing trend by judges and party leaders to try to influence judicial selections.

Two of the three supreme court justices up for reelection face challengers in the Republican primary. One justice’s opponent is running to “expose the corrosive influence of big business on the court,” while the other justice’s opponents “want to restore integrity to the court.” The third justice up for reelection faces a Democratic challenger in the general election.