The Faculty Lounge

Call Me J.D., Destroyer of Dreams: Some Thoughts on Preventive Lawyering

Like many readers of this blog, I sit on several non-profit boards of directors. For decades, pro bono service activities of this nature have been a steady and rewarding presence in my professional life, connecting my interests as a law professor with service to organizations that are working to effect positive change.

Many of the groups that I have affiliated with are of the more grassroots varieties. In contrast to larger, more well-funded entities, these organizations often survive on shoestring budgets and have limited staffing. Although it’s not unusual for the big non-profits to have their own lawyers to handle various legal matters and to be watchful for potential liability issues, the smaller groups cannot afford in-house counsel and generally retain legal advice and representation only when specific matters require doing so.

Consequently, on frequent occasion, these smaller groups may ask board members who are lawyers to serve as initial issue spotters for situations that raise liability concerns. This is especially the case when the organization’s activities may have created legal exposure that had gone unnoticed during the more creative and enthusiastic phases of work done by staff.

When information about such activities is brought to the board’s attention, perhaps via a discussion preceding a vote for approval, this is when a J.D.-holding board member may raise their hand and say…

“This is a great idea, but I have a concern….”

It’s probably a healthy thing when folks thinking about how to do their jobs imaginatively and inventively aren’t always asking about liability exposure at every step of the process.

But one of the most valuable roles that lawyers can play is to look at a new program or idea and ask, what could go wrong, what is the liability exposure, and is it possible to minimize that exposure without closing or substantially limiting a useful activity?

During my years of service on non-profit boards, I have sometimes found myself playing this role. The standard setting is a board meeting where a new idea or program is shared and receives an enthusiastic reception on its merits. But as folks are expressing their excitement, I’m quietly asking myself what could go wrong and speculating on how that scenario might implicate potential liability. (This may be the special curse of someone who teaches employment law and once taught torts.)

If I can imagine plausible scenarios raising legitimate concerns about unintended risks and legal exposure, then I will raise my hand and explain what I see as the attendant liability risks. In some cases, I will urge caution before adopting or implementing an idea until these concerns are addressed.

In somewhat self-conscious fashion, I have sometimes quipped that my board role is to be the “destroyer of dreams,” i.e., serving as the legal wet blanket who holds up the works because of liability concerns. Sometimes the line gets a chuckle.

Law Professor Twitter Social Media Census: Call for Updates and New Entries

Bumping to the front 10/2

Since 2012, I've been compiling a user-populated census of law professors on Twitter, now known as X. Given the recent changes to that social media platform, my anecdotal sense is that the overall volume of law professor dialogue there has declined and that some (many?) colleagues have migrated to other platforms.

In an effort to capture the X diaspora, this year's census asks users to list their names, school affiliation, and areas of interest (as before).  New this year is the option to list handles on X (formerly Twitter), Meta, Blue Sky, Mastodon, and any other network.

If you're already in the census, please confirm your details and update as necessary. Users can make changes directly to the spreadsheet here.

If you're not in the census and you'd like to be listed, please read on.

As with prior versions, the list is meant to cover individual law professor accounts only (not accounts of groups, programs, blogs, law schools, print publications, students, practitioners, staff).  Folks should be full-time law school faculty members (not, say, law-trained profs working in business schools or lawyers working in law schools in roles other than full-time faculty). Law profs outside the U.S. very, very welcome. Anonymous and pseudonymous accounts are not eligible for inclusion.

The downloadable, sortable spreadsheet can be edited directly by accessing this link. If you’d like to add your name, or if you would like to add to or modify your existing listing in census, the census calls for:

(a) Your name

(b) Your handle on Twitter X, Meta, Blue Sky, Mastodon, or any other social networking site

(c) Your school affiliation

(d) Up to three subject-matter areas of interest that related to your teaching, scholarship or tweeting.

Here are customary responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1.  How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses. I have added or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on a platform or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I have made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2.  How accurate is the census?

Not at all.

If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to make them directly to the spreadsheet.  As a last resort, you can email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  The deadline for changes is October 16, 2023, 5pm eastern. I'll republish again shortly thereafter via posting here on the Lounge, and then not again until next year, most likely.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you must actively add yourself to it or update your own information.

4. Why is your list limited to full-time law school faculty members?

Because that's the population about which I wanted to capture data. Want a different survey? A better one? Feel free to start one, and I'm happy to publicize it here, if relevant to legal education.

The current census is embedded below, too (but edit via links above).

Student-Edited Law Journals as Experiential Learning: My Road to “Duh”

If you’re a legal educator in the U.S., then you’re no doubt aware of the perennial pedagogical debate over theory vs. doctrine vs. practical experience. Even though I’ve been a podium professor for most of my teaching career, I generally agree that law schools should be doing more to prepare our students for legal practice. When advising students on elective course selection, I’m quick to recommend doing clinics, internships, skills courses, and advocacy competitions.

Curiously, I usually have not mentioned law journal participation in the same breath as skills development. Rather, I’ve been more likely to encourage students to pursue journal opportunities because of their credential value. Lately, however, I’ve noticed that some law schools are including their student-edited law journals under the experiential learning sections of their websites. This is an interesting change from touting law journal membership as an academic honor, but perhaps this is a nod to the current marketing value of pitching practical learning experiences. In any case, I’d like to dive into the merits of law journal work as experiential learning, inspired by a recent epiphany I had in my role as a faculty advisor to the Suffolk University Law Review. 

The Standard View

Legal educators have long recognized the potential benefits of law journal participation, among the most prominent being:

• Obtaining a valuable employment credential, especially membership on the flagship law review.
• Reinforcing the close, detail-oriented aspects of legal research and writing, including reviewing, editing, and proofreading legal manuscripts; evaluating the merits of legal and policy arguments; and mastering cite checking and basic legal citation form.
• Researching and writing a Note or Comment on a topic of interest, with the possibility of published article.

Of course, that line or two on a resume often captures a lot of precise, brain-taxing, eye-straining grunt work. While some may have soggy, sentimental memories of cite checking, Bluebooking, article editing, and the like, many others regard this experience as having been a simple exchange: In return for this hard, dull slog and a few academic credits, I enjoyed some genuine benefits that enhanced my career prospects.

Some have suggested that this model of scholarly publishing exploits student labor, reasoning that law students are essentially doing unpaid work (with tuition charged to boot) for law professors and other authors. In fact, earlier this year, law students at New York University submitted a petition calling for students to receive compensation for law journal work, reasoning that they are engaging in labor that enhances the credentials and reputations of their authors.

By classifying journal membership as an academic honor that can enhance job and career opportunities, law schools have largely been able to dodge this issue. However, based on extensive work I’ve done concerning unpaid internships, I think it merits fair consideration, which I plan to do in a later post. For now, however, I’d like to look more closely at the educational benefits of law journal work for our students.

My Road to “Duh”

Last summer, I decided that I wanted to be more engaged as a faculty advisor to our flagship law review at Suffolk University Law School. I contacted the senior members of the new editorial board, sharing some ideas and generally expressing my willingness to be an active resource. As luck would have it, I picked a great year to do this outreach. The editors explained to me that one of their top goals was to create a more positive culture for all students involved with the Law Review. They welcomed my interest in being more closely involved in a mentoring and support role.

Fostering Professional Identities: Ikigai, Tolstoy, and Therapeutic Jurisprudence

Recently I’ve had several conversations with fellow law professors about the American Bar Association’s new Accreditation Standard 303(b)(3), which holds that law schools “should provide substantial opportunities to students” for the “development of a professional identity.” The ABA’s Interpretation 303-5 of that Standard states that:

…(P)rofessional identity focuses on what it means to be a lawyer and the special obligations lawyers have to their clients and society. The development of a professional identity should involve an intentional exploration of the values, guiding principles, and well-being practices considered foundational to successful legal practice. Because developing a professional identity requires reflection and growth over time, students should have frequent opportunities for such development during each year of law school and in a variety of courses and co-curricular and professional development activities.

I confess my skepticism towards ABA requirements that can easily prompt somewhat ham-handed attempts to treat topics about values and personal qualities as content to be covered -- in this case, shoehorning professional identity formation into enough courses to claim regulatory compliance. Rather, I see professional identity formation as something that develops organically and depends a lot on (1) the social, emotional, and intellectual maturity of individual students, and (2) legal educators and lawyers being aware of openings to weave potentially teachable moments into conversations and discussions.

Nevertheless, the topic itself is important for our students' professional development. As my Suffolk Law colleague Harmony Decosimo points out in her insightful taxonomy of factors contributing to professional identity formation, values, wellness, and professional competencies are all part of the mix. As I see it, opportunities to highlight these elements may occur at any time and in unscripted ways, such as a student’s response to a simulation exercise or clinical assignment, a professor’s reference to some aspect of practice, or an attorney’s account about representing a client in an important case.

To the extent that professional identity is tagged as a topic for classroom discussion, the approach should be engaging and contemplative, rather than directive or pedantic. Towards that end, I’d like to look at three items: (1) a Japanese concept for examining life purpose; (2) a novella by Leo Tolstoy that invites big questions about life and work; and, (3) a school of theory and practice that can serve as a useful lens for creating a life in the law.

Ikigai

Ikigai, explains Wikipedia, “is a Japanese concept referring to something that gives a person a sense of purpose, a reason for living.” It is usually captured via some version of the diagram reproduced here. Being at the intersecting center of all four circles is the state of ikigai.

Laura Oliver, writing for the World Economic Forum, says that the philosophy and practice of ikigai is “a way to live longer and better.” She explains:

While there is no direct English translation, ikigai is thought to combine the Japanese words ikiru, meaning “to live,” and kai, meaning “the realization of what one hopes for.” Together these definitions create the concept of “a reason to live” or the idea of having a purpose in life.

Oliver adds that those who have studied ikigai raise four key questions to start us down the path toward an ideal state:

• “What do you love?”
• “What are you good at?”
• “What does the world need from you?”
• “What can you get paid for?”

Hmm, this sounds like an invitation to law students to consider professional identity formation.

Legacy Work, Unfinished Business, and the Senior Academic

If you happen to be a professor “of a certain age” (say, late middle age and beyond), then it’s likely that you’ve given some thought to the final laps of your career and when and how you might eventually transition into retirement. In my case, these contemplations seemed impressionistic at first, as if this stage of life was far off in the future. The pandemic didn’t help matters – even as Zoom teaching fatigue caused me to continuously check my retirement account balances! Now, however, as we settle into whatever the new normal happens to be, I’m focussing more clearly about planning for the years to come.

In this, my first post for The Faculty Lounge, I won’t pretend to know all the relevant factors towards planning the later stages of an academic career and possible retirement. But I would like to talk about notions of “legacy work” and unfinished business. I do so with a sense of purpose, for I believe that our later years can be highlighted by some of our best and most original work.

What is your “legacy work”?

I was introduced to the term legacy work by Chris Guillebeau, a writer and entrepreneur. In The Art of Non-Conformity: Set Your Own Rules, Live the Life You Want, and Change the World (2010), he defined legacy work as using your own unique skills to create a lasting contribution to the world. Guillebeau posed two simple questions towards defining one’s legacy work: (1) "What do you really want to get out of life?," and (2) "What can you offer the world that no one else can?"

Guillebeau, a later Gen Xer (born in 1978), has been writing for a younger cohort and exploring paths towards an independent life. Senior faculty don’t exactly fit that profile. After all, we’ve opted to attach ourselves to institutions, in a vocation that creates certain expectations and hoops through which we sometimes must jump. However, we often enjoy a unique degree of independence in our jobs, and the concept of legacy work may resonate with those of us who are aware that, well, the clock is ticking.

Another way to look at legacy work is from the other, post-facto direction, asking what -- when all is said and truly done -- you would like your body of work to look like in the aggregate? Pamela Slim’s Body of Work: Finding the Thread That Ties Your Story Together (2013) invites us to imagine “the personal legacy you leave at the end of your life, including all the tangible and intangible things you have created.” She defines “body of work” this way:

Your body of work is everything you create, contribute, affect, and impact. For individuals, it is the personal legacy you leave at the end of your life, including all the tangible and intangible things you have created.

So, with those thoughts in mind, what is your legacy work?

You may already be doing it. In conventional terms, it may be via your teaching, scholarship, or service work. Or perhaps you’re leading a program or serving in academic administration. If so, then planning your late career path may involve variations on familiar themes.

If you feel like you haven’t defined your legacy work, then there’s no time like the present to start doing so. Asking yourself some of the questions posed by the likes of Chris Guillebeau and Pamela Slim may yield some exciting answers.

Unfinished Business

Whether you’re continuing the same path or defining a new one, I’m guessing that your legacy work aspirations include some unfinished business. It may be a unique course offering, some long-pondered writings, an interesting project (e.g., for fellow law professors, pro bono legal or policy advocacy), or a creative service contribution. It’s also possible that these pieces of unfinished business will follow you, in a good way, into a retirement that continues to engage your interests.

Especially if your legacy work and unfinished business do not require changing employers and you enjoy relative job security, or if you are transitioning into retirement while wishing to remain active as an academic citizen, then this is an opportunity to be intentional, responsibly bold, and driven by passion for your chosen focus. While the current state of academic freedom can feel precarious these days, at least you’re less likely to be pre-screening your activities for what members of a tenure & promotion committee or lateral hiring committee might think. Indeed, in terms of having a strong, authentic, and perhaps even courageous voice, there can be a freeing aspect to being closer to the end of an academic career than to the beginning.

I’ll close for now, with thanks for reading this far. Especially for those who, like me, have suddenly found themselves among the “senior faculty” at their respective institutions, I hope these observations have been thought-provoking and useful. You see, contributing to The Faculty Lounge is part of my unfinished business, for I have long wanted to write for a respected blog that allows me to cogitate about legal education and higher education, legal scholarship, and intersections between law and psychology, among other topics. With thanks to co-founder Dan Filler for graciously responding to my unsolicited inquiry earlier this spring, I look forward to making future contributions.

***

A brief self-introduction: I’ve been a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston since 1994, where my current work is grounded in employment law and in the interdisciplinary field of therapeutic jurisprudence. In terms of social media writings, since 2008 I’ve been writing a blog titled Minding the Workplace, which explores the world of work and workers, workplace law and policy, and my niche interests in workplace bullying and therapeutic jurisprudence. I’ll be drawing on ideas from that blog periodically for forthcoming posts here. I can be reached at [email protected].

Drexel University Kline Law Seeks Associate Dean for Online/Non-JD Programs

Drexel University's Kline School of Law is seeking a new Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Online Education.  This individual will manage, and continue to strategically expand, the Law School’s online Master of Legal Studies, LL.M, and post-bac certificate programs and will strive to advance the Law School’s stake in the online learning space, while ensuring the delivery of a superior and accessible learning experience for the Law School’s online student population.  The law school's non-JD program is large and extensive, and it does not currently partner with an online program management company.  The law school creates, delivers and markets these programs exclusively using law school and university faculty and resources.  The Associate Dean will lead these efforts.

The law school prefers a candidate based in Philadelphia but is open to other candidates seeking a hybrid work engagement.  Interested candidates should apply ASAP.  Please direct any questions to Dean Dan Filler.

For further details, and to apply, go here

poem on Pierson v. Post

My poem on Pierson v. Post, written from the fox's perspective, is out in Hastings Journal on Gender & the Law. The full cite is 34 Hastings Women's L.J. 113 (2023), and the poem is available here:  Download Poem

Results of Law Professor Twitter Census 2022-2023 Edition

The results of the 2022-2023 Law Professor Twitter Census are available for download here. The list includes areas of academic interest, for faculty who self-identified with that information. The list is arranged by school, instead of individual users' last names.

Here are responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1. How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses, conducted in 2012, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. It was amended and updated by contributions from blog readers in response to this post. I added additional or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on Twitter or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2. How accurate is the census?

Not at all. If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  I'll republish from time to time based on new data I receive, but likely not until next year.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you had to actively add yourself to it (as indicated here).

4. How does this year's data compare to the numbers from prior years?

For an historical comparison, here's the data from prior years:

	2022-2023 Version (10/9/22)	2021-2022 Version (10/17/21)	2020-2021 Version (9/17/20)	2019-2020 Version (9/13/19)	2018-2019 Version (8/15/2018)	2015 Version (1/23/2015)	2012 Version (7/26/2012)
Total  Number Users	1641	1477	1368	1310	1105	553	204

 

5. Who is included in the census?

The list is meant to cover only individual tweeters who are full-time faculty members at law schools.  The list is not meant to be a comprehensive account of everyone (adjuncts, librarians, practitioners, programs, institutes, students, group blogs) publishing law-related tweets. Consistent with past practice, emeritus faculty are included in the census.

6. What good is this information?

Either not at all or not much.  It might be a handy reference for quickly finding someone's Twitter handle, but I don't put any stock in the completeness or "meaning" of the info.

The results of the 2022-2023 Law Professor Twitter Census are available for download here. The list includes areas of academic interest, for faculty who self-identified with that information. The list is arranged by school, instead of individual users' last names.

Here are responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1. How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses, conducted in 2012, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. It was amended and updated by contributions from blog readers in response to this post. I added additional or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on Twitter or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2. How accurate is the census?

Not at all. If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  I'll republish from time to time based on new data I receive, but likely not until next year.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you had to actively add yourself to it (as indicated here).

4. How does this year's data compare to the numbers from prior years?

For an historical comparison, here's the data from prior years:

	2022-2023 Version (10/9/22)	2021-2022 Version (10/17/21)	2020-2021 Version (9/17/20)	2019-2020 Version (9/13/19)	2018-2019 Version (8/15/2018)	2015 Version (1/23/2015)	2012 Version (7/26/2012)
Total  Number Users	1641	1477	1368	1310	1105	553	204

 

5. Who is included in the census?

The list is meant to cover only individual tweeters who are full-time faculty members at law schools.  The list is not meant to be a comprehensive account of everyone (adjuncts, librarians, practitioners, programs, institutes, students, group blogs) publishing law-related tweets. Consistent with past practice, emeritus faculty are included in the census.

6. What good is this information?

Either not at all or not much.  It might be a handy reference for quickly finding someone's Twitter handle, but I don't put any stock in the completeness or "meaning" of the info.

Here are responses to some anticipated questions from inquiring minds who want to know:

1. How was the census developed?

The list is based on previous censuses, conducted in 2012, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. It was amended and updated by contributions from blog readers in response to this post. I added additional or deleted very few names myself, based on law prof accounts that I have happened to encounter (typically because they follow me on Twitter or I follow them) or if I knew someone had changed schools, left the academy, etc. I made no concerted effort to update the list myself.

2. How accurate is the census?

Not at all. If there are corrections, additions, etc., please feel free to email me directly at bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu.  I'll republish from time to time based on new data I receive, but likely not until next year.

3. Why isn't my information listed in the census? Why isn't my colleague's information listed?

The census relies almost exclusively on self-identification. To be included in the list, you had to actively add yourself to it (as indicated here).

4. How does this year's data compare to the numbers from prior years?

For an historical comparison, here's the data from prior years:

	2022-2023 Version (10/9/22)	2021-2022 Version (10/17/21)	2020-2021 Version (9/17/20)	2019-2020 Version (9/13/19)	2018-2019 Version (8/15/2018)	2015 Version (1/23/2015)	2012 Version (7/26/2012)
Total  Number Users	1641	1477	1368	1310	1105	553	204

 

5. Who is included in the census?

The list is meant to cover only individual tweeters who are full-time faculty members at law schools.  The list is not meant to be a comprehensive account of everyone (adjuncts, librarians, practitioners, programs, institutes, students, group blogs) publishing law-related tweets. Consistent with past practice, emeritus faculty are included in the census.

6. What good is this information?

Either not at all or not much.  It might be a handy reference for quickly finding someone's Twitter handle, but I don't put any stock in the completeness or "meaning" of the info.

The Plagiarism Taboo with Brian Frye

A new bonus episode of the Taboo Trades podcast is up and it is a lot of fun.

My guest is one of the most unusual and creative voices in the legal academy, Brian Frye, the Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky. He teaches classes in civil procedure, intellectual property, copyright, and nonprofit organizations, as well as a seminar on law and popular culture. Today we’re engaging in academic navel gazing and opining on plagiarism, law review publishing, and scholarly shit posting.

Brian is also a filmmaker. He produced the documentary Our Nixon (2013), which was broadcast by CNN and opened theatrically nationwide. His short films and videos have shown in the 2002 Whitney Biennial, the New York Film Festival, and the San Francisco International Film Festival, among other venues, and are in the permanent collection of the Whitney Museum of American Art. His critical writing on film and art has appeared in October, The New Republic, Film Comment, Cineaste, Senses of Cinema, and Incite! among other journals.

Professor Frye also produces a podcast that I highly recommend, Ipse Dixit https://shows.pippa.io/ipse-dixit

 

 

Call for Nominations for the AALS Section on Women in Legal Education 2023 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award

The AALS Section on Women in Legal Education is pleased to open nominations for its 2023 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award. In 2013, the inaugural award honored Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Subsequent winners include Catharine A. MacKinnon (2014), Herma Hill Kay (2015), Marina Angel (2016), Martha Albertson Fineman (2017), Tamar Frankel (2018), Phoebe Haddon (2019), Robin West (2020), Kimberlé Crenshaw (2021), and Camille De Jorna (2022). All of these remarkable women were recognized for their outstanding impact and contributions to the Section on Women in Legal Education, the legal academy, and the legal profession.

The purpose of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award is to honor an individual who has had a distinguished career of teaching, service, and scholarship for at least 20 years. The recipient should be someone who has impacted women, the legal community, the academy, and the issues that affect women through mentoring, writing, speaking, activism, and by providing opportunities to others.

The Section is now seeking nominations for this most prestigious award. Only individuals who are eligible for Section membership may make a nomination, and only individuals—not institutions, organizations, or law schools—are eligible for the award. More than one person may nominate the same candidate; however, the number of nominations for any one nominee is not determinative of the winner. As established by the Section’s Bylaws, the AALS Section on Women in Legal Education Executive Committee will select the award recipient, and the award will be presented at the 2022 AALS Annual Meeting.

SUBMISSION: Nominations should be submitted to Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Treasurer, AALS WILE, [email protected] with the header “RBG Nomination-AALS 2023.”

DEADLINE: September 6, 2022.

Law Schools Miss the Mark on Bar Passage - Will the ABA Act?

I promised to provide a bar passage update when this year’s bar passage reports came out, and they are available.  You can access the individual school reports here. You can access the all-school compilations here at the ABA Statistics Page.

As a reminder, the ABA bar passage standard, Standard 316, requires that law schools attain an “Ultimate Bar Passage” (UBP) rate of 75% within two years of graduation.  The most recent reported results are for the class of 2019, the graduates of which had until the July 2021 bar exam to pass the bar.   So far, the ABA has found only three schools to be out of compliance with Standard 316, so let’s start by reviewing the results at those schools.

Why Law Schools Fail

In the wake of the recent announcements of the opening of two new law schools, one at Jacksonville University in Jacksonville, FL and at one at High Point University, in High Point, NC, I thought it would be worth exploring the question of why some law schools (especially new law schools) fail, and why others succeed.

The simple answer is that law schools fail when they admit too many underqualified students.  ABA Standard 501(b) states: “A law school shall only admit applicants who appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.”  If law schools adhered to this simple rule, few, if any, would ever fail.  But, either because of greed, wishful thinking, or financial desperation, numerous law schools in recent years disregarded this guidance.  For many of them, the decision to violate this basic standard ultimately led to their downfall.

What Happens When Law Schools Admit Unqualified Students

When law schools admit large numbers of unqualified students -- that is, students who do not appear likely to be able to pass a bar exam -- it starts a vicious cycle.

Hamann, "K is for Contract—Why is it, Though?

Hanjo Hamann (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Germany) has posted to SSRN K is for Contract—Why is it, Though? 106 Minn. L. Rev. Headnotes (2022). Here is the abstract:

Just like Supreme Court justices, law students in the United States almost unanimously abbreviate the word “contract” using the capital letter K. Despite this consensus, no writer has ever explained why a word that starts with “c” should be abbreviated to “K” instead. The present paper investigates this question, following threads of legal discourse into various interconnected societal contexts―including Boston high society, 19th century baseball, German intellectual property law, the neuroscience of sleep, and Civil War contract management. I show that the K-for-Contract convention probably originated between 1900 and 1949, and may have come, of all places, from satirical military lingo. In arriving at this finding, the present essay offers an intriguing case study of legal narratology and the propagation of lawyerly conventions. By empirically surveying contract law professors to trace the origins of K-for-Contract, the study also shows that even seasoned instructors who use and teach this legal shorthand can no longer justify its usage. This proves to be an instructive illustration of boilerplate effects, or what one Contracts professor called the “arcane underpinnings of the rules we all follow."

The full essay is available here.

I've always wondered about that K! 

Assistant Dean of Legal Information Services and Professor of Practice (2021) Washington and Lee University: Law School

The listing is here https://apply.interfolio.com/93228

Location
Lexington, Virginia
Open Date
Aug 26, 2021
Description
Reporting to the Dean of the Law School, the Assistant Dean of Legal Information Services manages all aspects of the operation of the Wilbur C. Hall Law Library in a manner that supports the mission of the Law School. While this is a 12-month administrative appointment, the Assistant Dean will also hold faculty rank (non-tenure track) and the title of Professor of Practice, teaching one or more legal research courses annually as needed.

Washington and Lee University promotes a dynamic and inclusive environment that allows students and employees of multiple backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives to learn, work, and thrive together. Successful candidates will contribute to that environment and exhibit potential for excellence in teaching and for vigorous scholarship. In keeping with the University Strategic Plan, we welcome applications from underrepresented minority candidates and members of other communities that are traditionally underrepresented in academia.

Status: Full-Time, 12 Month, With Benefits
Position Type: Administrator with Faculty Rank
Work Hours: 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Monday - Friday
FLSA: Exempt
Minimum Pay: $127,652

Essential and Related Functions

The Assistant Dean of Legal Information Services manages all aspects of the operation of the Wilbur C. Hall Law Library in a manner that supports the mission of the Law School. Specific responsibilities include the following:

Works with the Dean to establish objectives of the Law Library that best support the research, teaching, and programmatic needs of the Law School community.
Promotes a positive and creative work environment while undertaking supervisory functions relating to hiring, performance review, and professional development.
Establishes budgetary priorities for the Law Library in a manner that maximizes the benefit of library resources.
Creates and maintains print and digital collections appropriate to the mission of the Law School.
Oversees the management and development of innovative digital initiatives, including an institutional repository and the widely recognized W&L Law Journal Rankings.
Manages the Law Library’s physical space to maximize the benefit of this resource for the Law Library and the Law School more broadly.
Collaborates with the University librarian on a range of administrative matters to leverage University resources and to promote efficiency in the delivery of library services across the entire University.
In addition to managing the Wilbur C. Hall Law Library, the Assistant Dean of Legal Information Services will hold the title of Professor of Practice. In this capacity, the Assistant Dean will teach one or more legal research courses, including the first-year legal research course and advanced legal research, as needed. Additionally, the Assistant Dean may teach a doctrinal course in an area of expertise subject to need and feasibility.
Required Competencies

Strategic Thinking - Actively develops and aligns the departmental strategy with the University's vision, mission and values. Able to rally others behind the University's mission and create commitment to achieving long-term goals. Looks beyond the surface of problems, connects unrelated information and integrates it when making decisions. Able to quickly assess changing situations and recognize key risks involved in order to handle the problem or opportunity efficiently.
Change Adaptability - Champions change initiatives in own department, communicates rationale and provides updates throughout the change process to help others deal with ambiguity. Anticipates and addresses staff concerns throughout the change process, creating and maintaining open dialogue to obtain commitment and buy-in. Supports the practical utilization of new ideas that show promise and encourages diversity of thought in own department and others.
Communication and Networking - Adapts own style to deliver persuasive messages by understanding the audience, communication objectives and intended outcome. Serves as a role model by advocating a culture of openness and two-way communication across departments. Develops and maintains knowledge of key areas, persons in the University or larger community and uses social networks to build support for common purposes.
Drive for Results - Champions continuous improvement of work methods, policies and practices by providing resources and sharing success stories and lessons learned. Engages department in setting challenging goals and targets, encourages others to overcome obstacles and holds people accountable for results. Guides establishment of customer service processes to standardize a culture of customer service and sensitivity.
Talent Development - Supports processes to identify and reward talent by creating development opportunities, mentoring and coaching others to develop the next line of leaders. Proactively identifies and ensures development of critical future skills and capabilities for talent across the University and not just within a department. Takes time to actively build individual relationships on a formal and informal basis with University employees. Leads by example, by supporting the implementation of a sustainable performance development system (e.g., encouraging participation in goal setting activities, final year review, etc.).
The university requires employees to become fully vaccinated for COVID-19 and new employees must provide proof of at least their first shot prior to the first day of employment. Individuals may seek a medical or a religious exemption to the vaccination requirement.

Qualifications
The Assistant Dean will hold a J.D. degree from an ABA-accredited law school and a M.L.S. or equivalent degree from an ALA-accredited institution. Additionally, the Assistant Dean will have considerable experience in law library administration, including personnel management and management of financial resources.

In addition to possessing strong supervisory, communication, and leadership skills, preferred candidates will have an appreciation for the changing roles of law libraries in legal education and a willingness to continue the Law Library’s record of innovation in deploying resources in a manner that best serves the needs of the students, faculty, and other members of the Law School community.

Physical Requirements

Fingering: Picking, pinching, typing or otherwise working, primarily with fingers rather than with whole hand or arm as in handling.
Grasping: Applying pressure to an object with the fingers and palm.
Repetitive motions: Making substantial movements (motions) of the wrists, hands, and/or fingers.
Working Conditions

The worker is not substantially exposed to adverse environmental conditions (as in typical office or administrative work).
Sedentary work: Exerting up to 10 pounds of force occasionally and/or a negligible amount of force frequently or constantly to lift, carry, push, pull or otherwise move objects, including the human body. Sedentary work involves sitting most of the time. Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required only occasionally and all other sedentary criteria are met.
Application Instructions
To be considered, applicants should submit the following materials through the Interfolio portal: http://apply.interfolio.com/93228

CV
Personal statement
Contact information for three professional references
Review of applications will begin immediately and continue until the position is filled. For more information please contact Brian Murchison, chair of the search committee, at [email protected].

institution logo
Application Process
This institution is using Interfolio's Faculty Search to conduct this search. Applicants to this position receive a free Dossier account and can send all application materials, including confidential letters of recommendation, free of charge.
Apply Now
Powered by
Interfolio Opens in new window
Equal Employment Opportunity Statement
Washington and Lee is an Equal Opportunity Employer. As such, we are interested in candidates who are committed to high standards of scholarship, performance and professionalism and to the development of a campus climate that supports equality and diversity in our faculty, staff and student body. Job description requirements are representative, but not all‐inclusive of the knowledge, skill, and abilities needed to successfully perform this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable qualified individuals with disabilities to perform essential functions.

Statement of Commitment to Diversity

Washington and Lee affirms that diverse perspectives and backgrounds enhance our community. We are committed to the recruitment, enrichment, and retention of students, faculty, and staff who embody many experiences, cultures, points of view, interests, and identities. As engaged citizens in a global and diverse society, we seek to advance a positive learning and working environment for all through open and substantive dialogue.

New Podcast - EdUp Legal

Patty Roberts, Dean at St. Mary's University School of Law, is starting a legal podcast called EdUp Legal, in partnership with the Ed Up Experience.   

Her vision for the podcast:

Legal education is experiencing explosive applications; a call for innovation and adaptation; demand for increased diversification of the profession; and cries for social justice impact and protection of the Rule of Law. This program will explore the opinions of legal education leaders regarding the future of legal training, and consider the value proposition of law school. Conversations with thought leaders and law deans will provide insight to those considering, attending, or graduating  from law school, and current members of the profession interested in its evolution.

If you are interested in being a guest or have a suggestion for guests, email Patty at [email protected].

Hiring Announcement: Willamette University College of Law (3 positions)

Willamette University College of Law, located in Salem, Oregon, invites applications for three separate faculty positions beginning in fall 2022, including a clinical faculty position, entry-level tenure-track position, and the appointment of a Law Library Director (which includes a faculty appointment). Details after the jump but please also feel free to contact Professor Steven K. Green, Chair, Appointments Committee, at [email protected]. Review of applicants will begin immediately and continue until the positions are filled.

Touro Seeks Assistant Dean for Student Services

Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center Seeks to Hire Assistant Dean for Student Services

Department:  Touro Law Center Office of Student Services

Reports To:  Dean of the Law Center

Supervises:  Administrative Assistant to the Office of Student Services, and Director of Student Services and Scholarship Aid

Status:   Full-time

FLSA:     Exempt

JOB SUMMARY:

The Assistant Dean oversees all aspects of the Office of Student Services including, but not limited to, student advising and counseling, exam administration, student records (including Satisfactory Academic Progress reports and application amendments and other admission-related documents), registration, student evaluations of faculty, ADA Compliance regarding students, and issues of student conduct and safety.  The Assistant Dean also facilitates communication between the students and the faculty and administration, collaborates closely with the Registrar, Admissions, Financial Aid, Bursar and Compliance offices, and has possible teaching opportunities.

JOB RESPONSIBILITIES:

• Student Advising & Counseling: Be available to students seeking counsel and advice on issues including, but not limited to, disability, mental health, family/personal, stress, course selections and other academic issues. In addition to scheduled appointments, the Assistant Dean is expected to maintain availability for “walk-in” appointments to answer questions, solve problems, and address student concerns. Working closely with the other Associate and Assistant Deans and the Registrar, the Assistant Dean helps to identify students with academic concerns.
• Exam Administration: Coordinate all aspects of Touro Law Center final examination administration, including scheduling of proctors, arranging for accommodations for students with disabilities and exam conflicts, and enforcing important exam-related student deadlines.
• Student Organizations & Activities: Supervise and work with the Director of Student Services and Scholarship Aid who serves as the administrative liaison for all law student organizations, including the Student Bar Association.
• Awards & Scholarships: Supervise and work with the Director of Student Services and Scholarship Aid, who collects and disseminates scholarship and fellowship information and other monetary opportunities for students (i.e., essay contests).
• Organize and supervise first year orientation.
• Assist the Director of the Honors Program with special enrichment programs for outstanding students.
• Assist in implementation of web-based student services delivery systems. Monitor Office of Student Services social media outlets (i.e. blog, Facebook account, Twitter account.)
• Coordinate with the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Dean for Experiential Learning and Special Programs about class scheduling and implementation of academic policies.
• Enforce academic discipline (probation and dismissal) in coordination with the Associate Deans and the academic support faculty and other administrators. The Assistant Dean for Student Services serves as the Chief Academic Integrity Officer.
• Serve on faculty and staff committees necessary for outreach and communication with students and student groups.
• Supervise and train student services staff to assist with the duties and tasks above.
• Complete any other necessary tasks and duties, not specifically listed above.

Survey Anyone? Participate in a poll of legal academics

Kevin Tobia is conducting an anonymous survey, with a graduate student collaborator, to learn more about the legal academy and legal theory. Anyone who self-identifies as a member of the “legal academy” is invited to participate. Participants might include, among others: law professors, fellows, and students; legal practitioners; and scholars from adjacent fields.

The survey has three parts: 1. Demographics; 2. Your views about which areas of law are most “central” in the legal academy; 3. Your views about substantive questions in legal theory. You are invited to take all parts of the study and are welcome to skip any questions, for any reason. The survey has obtained ethical approval and no identifying information will be retained. Details about the survey construction can be found here. The survey will close on September 1, 2021. Thank you for your help!

To take the survey, follow this link.

Oregon Supreme Court Set to Examine Alternative Pathways to Attorney Licensure

On July 7, the Oregon Supreme Court will consider recommendations from the Oregon Board of Bar Examiners (BBX) to adopt alternative licensure options. In sum, the BBX advanced a report issued from its Alternatives to Exam Task Force recommending adoption of an experiential learning pathway and, separately, a supervised practice pathway. For those who want it, the current iteration of the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) would remain an option. It is important to note that all three pathways ultimately involve an “examination” of the applicant’s work by the BBX.  Here is summary breakdown of Task Force’s recommendations: 

• Oregon Experiential Pathway (OEP): As an alternative to  taking the traditional bar exam, the OEP would offer a two-year curriculum-based experiential pathway to licensure. Applicants applying for admission to the bar through the OEP would complete a set curriculum during law school, culminating in a capstone portfolio or examination assessed by the BBX . The curricular pathway would begin in students' 2L year, and could be completed by the time they graduate. This OEP option is primarily designed for students who attend law school in Oregon and want to practice in Oregon, though other ABA-accredited law schools could apply to participate. Jump to page 7 of the report for more detail about the OEP.
• Supervised Practice Pathway (SPP): As an alternative to the traditional bar exam or the OEP option, SPP applicants would establish their minimum competence for licensure by engaging in 1,000 to 1,500 hours of supervised legal practice and submitting for review to the Oregon Board of Bar Examiners proof of their work-product done during the applicant's supervised practice. The SPP option is designed for those who are graduates from a law school outside of Oregon who plan to practice in Oregon. Jump to page 14 of the report for more detail about the SPP.

A couple of procedural notes before proceeding further. The Court is accepting comments on the report until July 6 and all are welcome to submit a comment here. Note also that you can watch Wednesday’s public hearing, which is set for 1:30 pm PST/4:30 pm EST, here. 

Stepping back, how did we get here? 

2020 Bottom Ten List - America's Least Selective Law Schools

For the past few years, I have written a post listing the bottom 10 least selective ABA-accredited law schools.   (See, 2017 , 2018 , 2019  columns) 

The point of these columns was to try to draw attention to the exploitative admission practices of some ABA schools.  This public shaming, along with more aggressive enforcement of ABA Standard 316 by the ABA and other measures, such as tightening the bar pass standard, has resulted in the gradual decrease of the once widespread practice of admitting large numbers of poorly qualified students at many ABA-approved law schools. 

Things had improved enough with the entering class of 2019 that in last year’s column I raised the question:  “Is the era of exploitative admissions in law schools over?”  My conclusion?  Not quite.  But we're getting there.  This year, I am pleased to report again that even fewer law schools are admitting significant numbers of dubiously qualified students.  In fact, the numbers have improved so much that I am abandoning the Bottom 10 List this year altogether (reserving, of course, the right to bring it back again in future years, if needed).  Indeed, after reviewing the admissions numbers in the ABA’s Standard 509 Information Reports for academic year 2020-2021, there is only one law school which I consider to be currently engaging in admission practices that are clearly problematic -- Southern University.

America's Least Selective Law School - Southern University