The Faculty Lounge

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

John Dewitt Gregory, 1931-2020

John Dewitt Gregory, Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Law at Hofstra University, died peacefully in his West Village apartment in Manhattan on July 27, 2020. He was 89.

He was perhaps the first African-American appointed as Vice-Dean of a law school when he assumed duties at Hofstra in 1986. He was asked by founding dean Malachy Mahon to became a member of the faculty in 1971, in its second year, and he remained at Hofstra for his entire academic career. He held the Sidney and Walter Siben Distinguished Professor of Family Law chair from 1986 until his transition to emeritus status in 2013. He was the co-author of Understanding Family Law, and frequently wrote on child custody and visitation issues.

John was no stranger to the challenges of pioneering. He was born and educated in Glen Cove, Long Island, and he graduated from Howard University in 1952. He went on to serve in the Korean War, and eventually graduated Harvard Law School in 1959, at a time when minority enrollment was present in very small numbers. Before entering academia, he worked in private practice in Manhattan and served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of New York. As the Executive Director of the Nassau County law Services Committee, he organized and staffed the program from its inception in 1966. From 1967 to 1971, he served as the Executive Director and General Counsel of the Community Action for Legal Services.

He served on several boards throughout his life, including the National Center on Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ), New York and American Civil Liberties Unions, Legal Aid Society of Nassau County, and the National Advisory Board of the Black American Law Students Association. He was honored by the NCLEJ in 2009.

Anyone who has ever encountered John would agree that he was fearlessly opinionated. He suffered no fools and minced no words. He had no hesitation to throw his rich baritone voice in the dialectical and contentious pool of faculty meetings, and he was known for his directness in dealing with colleagues. Bennett Capers, a colleague at Hofstra, said, “You always knew exactly where you stood with John, and he often said things that others were too shy or fearful to say themselves.”

John Gregory embodied a classic professorial gravitas worthy of central casting. He regularly wore three piece suits topped off with Sigmund Freud glasses and a colorful bow tie, and in his later years, he leaned on a hand carved shillelagh for balance. He was one of the very few people that looked completely natural with steepled hands. He was an original cigar aficionado, until his favorite home health care worker, Princess, convinced him to quit. He deeply admired the creative works of Stanley Kubrick, James Baldwin, Derrick Bell, and Lin-Manuel Miranda, and he was a lifelong fan of all genres of dance. His favorite breakfast spot was Coppelia, a Cuban diner on 14^th street in Manhattan, where the waitstaff knew to greet him with a “Good morning, Professor.”

As he wrote about defining the parameters of the modern family, he also lived it. He is survived by one brother, Ronald Aldwin Gregory, a niece, Carol Gregory, a nephew, Curtis Gregory, and other relatives. He also surrounded himself with the regular company of Alafair Burke, Bennett Capers, Cheryl Wade, Kevin Maillard, and Ricardo Nelson. His closest and most devoted friend, Joanna Grossman, explained their relationship to disbelieving onlookers as “healthcare proxy.”   

John relished in measuring his own age to that of the Empire State Building, which opened for the first time a month after he was born on April 5, 1931. For nearly 40 years it reigned as the tallest building in the world, which was roughly the duration of John’s career as a law professor—a fitting measurement for a lifelong breaker of barriers.

-Written by Kevin Noble Maillard

-Photo credit: (c) Ricardo Nelson

The Law School Industry - Law and Technology @ US Law Schools

Digital technologies are an increasingly important phenomena in higher education and professional industries. Law schools have started to participate in rethinking how to train the next generation workforce/citizens at the interface of governance/technology. This post includes links to quantitative data for folks interested to learn more about the current law/tech situation in US legal higher education, and provides a few initial thoughts about the data. 

Here is an excel sheet formatted study with a wide range of data on current US law school efforts around 'Law and Technology': Download US Law and Technology Higher Education Law Schools - Haskell:Fish In addition, for an alternative visualisation for some of the information, see: https://app.flourish.studio/visualisation/2736840 

Note: The study was developed along with a PhD student, Jessica L. Fish, and funded by the University of Manchester Law School and its Law and Technology Initiative. Scholarship based partly on this data will be rolled out in the coming year, but the information provided is meant to be open sources/common for any colleagues however useful. 

A Few Thoughts... (see below)

What Law Faculty Want Students to Know

Shortly after the switch to online legal education, I surveyed the 99 students in my Corporations & Partnerships class about how they were doing generally and how they were experiencing online education. I included an open-ended question, "Is there anything you would like your professors generally to know?" Those results are here.

I recently surveyed an unrepresentative, unscientifically-selected group of U.S. law professors about their experiences of teaching in the pandemic. I solicited participants by emailing 61 local and national colleagues who I thought might be willing to respond. The colleagues taught at proverbial "T14" schools and schools of other ranks (measured by whatever conventional, if problematic, metric). I collected responses anonymously.

I received 37 responses from colleagues who taught in states on the West coast, East coast, and not-coasts. 36 respondents had recently finished teaching online during the Spring 2020 semester. One was scheduled to teach online this coming summer, but had not taught during the Spring 2020 semester.  Respondents' levels of experienced varied, perhaps skewed toward more senior faculty. Respondents included those with experience teaching 0-3 years (5.4%) and 35+ years (5.4%), with instructors having 25-35 years of teaching experience (29.7%) and 15-25 years of teaching experience (27%) well represented. Those with 3-7 years of teaching experience (10.8%) and 7-15 years of teaching experience (21.6%) rounded out the group.

Without making any claims about generalizability (the results decidedly are not generalizable), the responses are subjective snapshots of this particular time in American legal education.

Mirroring the question I had asked my students, I asked the (anonymous) faculty colleagues this open-ended question: "Reflecting about your personal experience or about the experience of faculty generally during the pandemic, are there things you would like your students in general to know?"  Representative responses appear after the fold.

Virtual Law and Society: A Response to Bridget Crawford

I was asked by the leadership of the Law and Society Association to post this letter responding to Bridget Crawford's posts about the LSA conference here and here.  That seems fair and here it is:

-------------------------------

We’re writing as the president, immediate past president and 2020 program co-chairs of the Law and Society Association to set the record straight about this year’s Law and Society Annual Meeting. Unfortunately, a number of Professor Bridget Crawford’s representations of LSA’s actions in her posts on the Faculty Lounge Blog are inaccurate.

The Law and Society Association’s Board of Trustees recently decided to cancel the annual in-person meeting which had been scheduled for late May, as have all other professional associations we know. But the Board didn’t want to lose the opportunity to bring our LSA community together as much as we could, so the Board decided at the same time to convert the in-person meeting into a virtual conference instead. We notified conference attendees as soon as the decision was made to replace an in-person meeting with a virtual one, so that they would know as much as we did, even though we didn’t have all plans in place for what the virtual conference would look like. We understand that the lack of concrete information has generated many questions among persons considering whether to not to participate in the virtual meeting, but we are working as fast as we can to provide more detail. We are all facing an unprecedented situation in which we all learning new technologies at a moment’s notice, and the Law and Society Association is no different. We ask for your patience as we feel our way in this new environment.

Let us tell you what we know so far.

ON REFUNDS: At the time that LSA made the announcement to go virtual, everyone who wanted to withdraw from the virtual conference was invited to do so and promised a full refund of the initial conference registration fee. That full refund offer still stands. The LSA office will refund all cancellations and, as of the week of 6 April, had already done so with all requests received by then. If a backlog of requests develops, the office will work to process and fulfil them as soon as possible. We hope that our conference attendees will recognize that an office staff of four people is processing numerous and varied requests relating to a meeting of nearly 2500 registrants, at the same time that it is gearing up to create a new program in a completely new format. We ask for your patience, but assure you that full refunds will be issued for those who choose not to join us in virtuality.