News & Updates

What began two years ago, with a group's successful ousting of three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, has escalated into a movement to rid state courts of justices who have made undesirable rulings. Instead of pushing to remove justices for misconduct or incompetence, groups are doing so because of disagreements over particular decisions.

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.

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."

According to the Des Moines Register, experts predict that more than $400,000 will be spent in Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins’ retention election. With so much money injected into what is intended to be an apolitical process, backers of the courts worry that the judicial system will become tied to popular political opinion and that courts and judges may therefore be afraid to decide certain issues for fear of an electoral backlash driven by special interests.

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.

Justice John Pelander has taken the unusual step of forming a campaign committee to support his retention, in the face of opposition from conservative groups based on a recent decision.

Incumbent justice Robert Cupp asked the state Republican Party to pull an ad describing his election opponent as sympathetic to rapists based on his past opinions as a court of appeals judge.

A website—VoteForJudges.org—is providing Cook County voters with nonpartisan judicial recommendations from area bar groups. Fifty-seven Cook County judges are standing for retention this November.

In the sole supreme court race, a super PAC formed by Republican activists is supporting the challenger. Thirty-nine primarily Democratic lawyers and judges around the state decried the influx of outside money into judicial elections.

Colorado litigants and their attorneys are no strangers to e-discovery and its challenges. During the month of October, attorneys practicing in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado have a unique opportunity to provide input on this important topic.

A former governor and a former supreme court justice oppose a measure on the November ballot that would give the legislature the same authority as the supreme court to make rules governing the administration of all state courts.

Conservative groups have mounted a loosely organized effort to oppose the retention of Justice John Pelander because of his vote in a 3-2 ruling that allows Proposition 121 to appear on the November ballot.

According to a recent poll, 43 percent of Iowans would vote “no” on Justice David Wiggins’ retention, while 37 percent would vote “yes.”

To address concerns about the utility of law school's third year, New York University School of Law is overhauling its students' third year curriculum. By changing their curriculum to focus less on elective courses and more on outside experience, N.Y.U. Law hopes to make their graduates more appealing in the legal job market.

IAALS alum and panelist at IAALS’ Third Civil Justice Reform Summit Professor Jordan Singer, of New England Law│Boston, recently shared his reactions to the Summit at PrawfsBlawg. In addition to putting the Summit into context and providing a summary of the different state and federal pilot projects around the country, Professor Singer also urges courts and researchers to share raw data on reform efforts.

In their September issue, Law Week Colorado discusses the problems with the current civil justice system and the on-going efforts by states to facilitate “just, speedy and inexpensive” litigation. Referencing dialogue from IAALS’ Third Civil Justice Reform Summit, the article describes the states' implementation of civil procedure pilot projects, intended to improve state systems by limiting discovery proportionally to what is needed.

IAALS Executive Director Rebecca Love Kourlis was recently profiled in this month's issue of The Colorado Lawyer. The article, written by Justice Mary Mullarkey, discusses the rise of women to the judicial bench and focuses on the three female justices who have completed their terms on the Colorado Supreme Court.

In an article for The New York Law Journal, ETL Advisory Committee Member Luke Bierman advocates for experimentation and innovation in law school curriculum. Bierman argues that law schools must rethink their curriculum and missions to combat the perceived gap between modern legal education and practice, which has only been heightened by the employment challenges recent law school graduates have been facing.

Justice Stephen David has opted to actively campaign for his retention, in response to a Tea Party-based challenge based on his vote in a 2011 case. According to David's campaign website, judges "don't have the luxury of taking a poll to find out which way they should rule on thorny issues" but must rule based on the facts and the law.

With less than a month until the November elections, a federal judge struck down the state’s limits on campaign contributions, finding that existing limits prevent candidates from mounting effective campaigns. The case was brought by conservative activists, corporations, and Republican groups.