Expert Opinion

Justice Paul J. De Muniz was elected to the Oregon Supreme Court in 2000 and served as the court's Chief Justice and administrative head of the Oregon Judicial Department from January 2006 to May 2012. As we launch IAALS Online, he joins three other former Chief Justices in the conversation about IAALS and its initiatives by discussing the work of our Honoring Families Initiative. "Like with other parts of our court systems, now is the time to ask hard questions about the structure, operation, tradition, and culture of our family courts. We could begin by asking whether our traditional adversarial model actually meets the needs of divorcing and separating families. Is it not time to reengineer our family courts in ways that are less adversarial, that encourage continued parental involvement with their children, and that provide for alternative forums and processes outside the court system for resolving parenting issues in a more consensual manner?"

Justice Christine Durham has been on the Utah Supreme Court since 1982, and served as Chief Justice from 2002 to 2012. As we launch IAALS Online, she joins three other former Chief Justices in the conversation about IAALS and its initiatives by discussing the work of our Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers Initiative. "There are widespread conversations occurring about the future of lawyers and law schools. Current phenomena include dramatic decreases in legal sector jobs and a restructuring of the legal market that appears to be extremely durable. Changes in the way legal services are delivered are occurring rapidly, with on-line forms and guidance being increasingly utilized by consumers. Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers is a project grounded in the faith that “knowledge, practice and professionalism” will remain the touchstone for the role of lawyers in a future that is likely to look much different from the past."

Previously, we have drawn from the Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers (ETL) survey to describe the 23 ETL Consortium schools, explore the kinds of curricular innovations currently in place, and look at their support for faculty engagement in the improvement of teaching and learning. This post continues those analyses by looking at what schools are doing with respect to faculty professional activity related to teaching and learning.

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.

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?

A key feature of the Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers initiative is the Consortium of 23 law schools committed to innovation in the spirit of the Carnegie Report. What are these schools like compared to law schools as a whole? This post will take up this question, looking at three issues: 1. What are the ETL consortium schools like as to the types of institution they represent, their tier in school rankings, and where are they located? 2. What kinds of innovation are they engaged in, particularly in the area of curriculum? 3. How do they look on these measures when compared to other schools?

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.

Pundits are drawn to extremes. Perhaps that is simply the nature of things. But in the debate over the future of legal education, espousing extremes hinders the discussion. At one extreme are the loudest critics of the current state of legal education. At the other extreme are the defenders of the status quo. But at its core, this discussion draws a false dichotomy between theory and practice.

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.