Guest Posts

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.

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?

One of the most fundamental skills an attorney can learn is how to properly counsel a client. Client counseling begins from the first meeting and flows through every step of the case. Sometimes it even continues after the case is over. In order to effectively counsel your client when emotion is involved, a lawyer has to be able to let her client express emotion but still gather facts and present the client with legal options to guide the case.

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.

Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers has chosen Family Law with Skills at Hofstra Law as one of the classes they are showcasing. This spring I will share the techniques our class uses to teach students about the many layers of family law.

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.

When we discuss legal education reform, some of the more jaded members of our community often ask, “Why is this time any different?” They rattle off a list of dust-covered reports about proposed reforms for legal education, often dating back several decades, and wonder how we can be optimistic about the prospects for meaningful reform now. The answer is that we are in the midst of a perfect storm; one in which several powerful forces are driving law schools toward reform.

As described in an earlier post, Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers initiated a unique, far-reaching survey of 210 U.S. and Canadian law schools. Now completed, the survey has a 58% response rate. Before presenting the findings in a series of future posts, we face a key prior task – describing the responding schools and seeing how closely they resemble all schools and the non-responding schools.

In the first blog for Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers, Bill Sullivan argued that legal education is more than meritocracy – that while academic merit is essential in the training of lawyers as professionals it is not enough. It is necessary, but not alone sufficient for professional excellence.