News & Updates

Toward the end of last year when I first read IAALS’ report, Change the Culture, Change the System: Top 10 Cultural Shifts Needed to Create the Courts of Tomorrow, I had feelings of both trepidation and hope. It said a lot of things I have often thought about, but have not always spoken up about.

Critics of Justice Stephen David’s majority opinion in a 2011 Fourth Amendment case are challenging his bid for retention. The decision rejected the “Your home is your castle” doctrine as a defense to violent acts against law enforcement personnel. Justice Robert Rucker is also standing for retention, but he dissented in the case.

For separating and divorcing families, access to justice can be hard to come by. Our traditional, court-driven model de-emphasizes parents’ (and children’s) long-term interests, fosters expensive legal fees, and lacks important services that can help families reorganize in a well-rounded way. But, in a recent article for the ABA’s Dispute Resolution Magazine, Denver’s pioneering Center for Out-of-Court Divorce (COCD) is discussed as a bright new future for the process—one that centers on problem solving and holistic outcomes.

On November 6th, Arizona citizens will be voting on Proposition 115, which aims to modify Arizona's merit selection system by giving the governor more power over the judicial nomination process. Justice Ruth V. McGregor and Judge James A. Soto warn against this ballot proposition, stating that it will "undermine the present merit-selection system for selecting judges and let politicians control the judicial selection process."

The results of our Foundations for Practice study continue to reverberate throughout law schools and the legal profession, and the concepts of “The Whole Lawyer and the Character Quotient” are being covered in the press as well.

Congratulations to Professor Howard Markman, member of the Honoring Families Initiative Advisory Committee, for receiving the University of Denver's John Evans Professorship Award.

Reporter Haley Cohen of The Economist recently toured the Center for Out-of-Court Divorce (COCD) in Denver and wrote about her experience in a December article titled Disruptive Innovation: A spate of start-ups offer alternatives to traditional divorce. We’re delighted to see the COCD attract international media attention because its innovative model for separating and divorcing families deserves the exposure.

The campaign for a seat on Louisiana’s supreme court has taken a negative turn, with the Democratic candidate sponsoring an ad attacking Republican Jeff Hughes’ record as a trial court judge.

With this post, Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers begins a series of reports on legal education: the what, who, and how of innovation. These reports will document the range of current innovations in the areas of curriculum, teaching and learning, faculty, and assessment. They will draw on a number of sources of data, including the American Bar Association/Law School Admissions Council (ABA/LSAC) Official Guide, but the primary source will be the results of Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers’ new survey of innovations currently underway.

Now that a simple majority of votes suffice to confirm a Supreme Court Justice, each party will invariably put forward the most ideologically-extreme candidates that they can. No more moderates, no more coalition-builders, no more impartial judges. Rather, the Court could be populated, over time, by judges who have partisan instincts or agendas—maybe even by judges who have a particular alignment with the president who nominates them.

In response to anticipated legislative proposals to alter the process for selecting the state’s appellate judges, with the most prominent being the discontinuance of the judicial nominating commission and the addition of senate confirmation, the Kansas Bar Association endorsed a plan to restructure the nominating commission.

Law school once set the pattern for modern professional education. In his study of Christopher Columbus Langdell, originator of the case method of teaching law, historian Bruce A. Kimball credits him with the invention of meritocracy as a system for…

Last year the Civil Rules Advisory Committee took up the topic of Rule 30(b)(6) depositions following the submittal of a letter by members of the Council and Federal Practice Task Force of the ABA Section of Litigation, in their individual capacities. Unlike individual depositions, Rule 30(b)(6) depositions are noticed to an organization such as a corporation or government agency, and include a description of the matters for examination. The company must identify and prepare the witness to testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization. The rule was initially adopted to curb the practice of “bandying” where organizations produced one witness after another, with each disclaiming knowledge. In their request for a review of current practices under the Rule, the ABA members highlighted confusion about the Rule’s requirements, as well as instances where the courts have divided on how to interpret those requirements.

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.

In a recent presentation, Professor Daniel Martin Katz of Michigan State University College of Law promoted a new law school model that, among other things, blends practice skills with doctrine and favors students with undergraduate majors in science and engineering.

Over the last three years, California has undertaken an effort to “research and analyze innovative proposals for the justice system of the future.” The work has culminated in a final report that was submitted to the Chief Justice on April 26, 2017. The report from the Commission on the Future of California’s Court System focuses on practical ways to more effectively adjudicate cases, achieve greater fiscal stability, and use technology to enhance the public’s access to the courts. The breadth of the report is tremendous, making sweeping recommendations in criminal law, civil law, family law, court administration, and technology.

Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson of the Texas Supreme Court issued his State of the Judiciary message on March 6. In his remarks, Chief Justice Jefferson, who is also member of the Quality Judges Initiative O’Connor Advisory Committee, called for greater access to justice for litigants and families across the socioeconomic spectrum and more efficient courts that can process cases in a reasonable amount of time.

Law Week Colorado recently interviewed Rebecca Love Kourlis about Rebuilding Justice.

Illinois takes judicial education seriously. In 2015, the state Supreme Court formed the Illinois Judicial College, and very recently I was honored to participate in its first full-week debut of courses. Over 400 judges participated and there were over 100 course offerings for them. At the initial plenary session, there was energy in the room—colleagues enjoying being together, eager to learn new things and share information.

In November, the Texas Supreme Court issued long-awaited rules for expedited actions, proposing a mandatory expedited process for cases of $100,000 or less. The Texas Supreme Court has since issued revised final rules, which became effective March 1, 2013. Despite considerable public commentary on the mandatory nature of the rules, the Expedited Actions process under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 remains mandatory for cases of $100,000 or less.