Jason Samuel as Judge Poser

Blawg Review #69

It’s been sometime since I’ve actively blawged (or bloged, whichever you prefer). My hectic 2L year and busy summer account for that. Whoever said that the second year of law school is easier lied. Whereas most other Blawg Reviews have been organized around a theme or a certain presentation, I have decided to approach this week’s review more eclectically. Attribute it to my uncertainty about which field of law has yet to interest me, or to a returning blawger just trying to makes sense of it all.

Spring 2006

Next semester, I am taking:

1. Criminal Procedure
2. State and Local Government
3. Constitutional Law
4. Securities Regulations
5. Research, Writing, and Advocacy

Directed Research

I've already registered for next semester, but I will be adding one hour of directed research.  My plan is to complete one-credit hour for the next three semesters I am here, which will hopefully amount to something publishable.  Though I will have to present my topic officially soon, I am still brainstorming.  As of now I have an interest in the differing conceptions of natural law, specifically the differences between John Finnis and Alasdair MacIntyre.  I also have a deepening interest in "rights-talk," such as the human rights project at the international level or the right to/of privacy at our national level.  I haven't yet explored ways to approach this second interest more than highlighting the debate taking place between accommodationists, who say we should secularize the Catholic intellectual tradition's contribution in this area, and those who say that same intellectual tradition is untranslatable to a secular vocabulary.  Some might even say that even if it were translatable to a secular vocabulary, it would be a neutered one, one without a foundation. Where shall I go from here?

Why do law professors post so much commentary about current events?

I've come to wonder whether there is a relationship between the lack of current events featured on law school students' blogs and the constant news commentary that often appears on law professors' blogs.  Perhaps I am not observing a great enough number of blogs by either law school students or law school professors, but it seems to me that law professors corner the market on news commentary in a way law school students struggle to.  I've maintianed this sense since I began blogging myself, which I began last spring semester. 

Similarly, I am always struck by the lack of debate and discussion in my law school classes with respect to current (legal) events.  From the John Roberts nomination and confirmation, the Harriet Miers nomination and withdrawl, and now the Samuel Alito nomination (and hopeful confirmation), my professors haven't taken the opportunity to invigorate discussion on these nominees or how their nomination may be relevant to us.  Now, I am not calling the lack of discussion on these current events a sign of ineffective teaching (goodness no!), but I am noticing how there is a general lack of incorporating current events (even legal ones) into legal education. 

I wonder how my observations connect, if at all?

N.B.  Among the most popular blogs I can think of (Althouse, Balkinization, Leiter Reports, Professor Bainbridge, and The Volokh Conspiracy), law professors predominate.

ABA "defines" "misconduct"

The American Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct (2002-03), states, in Rule 8.4, "Misconduct":

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

***

Comment

[3] A lawyer who, in the course of representing a client, knowingly manifests by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, violates paragraph (d) when such actions are prejudicial to the administration of justice. Legitimate advocacy respecting the foregoing factors does not violate paragraph (d). A trial judge's finding that peremptory challenges were exercised on a discriminatory basis does not alone establish a violation of this rule.
(emphasis added)

Morgan, Thomas D., and Ronald D. Rotunda, eds. 2005 Selected Standards on Professional Responsibility. New York: Foundation Press, 2005.

AMSOL turns 5!

You can find a link to more information on the school's webpage, in the lower, middle of the page, under "Events."

AMSOL Celebrates its Accreditation

Ryder, over at FUMARE, posted the following:

Ave Maria School of Law is celebrating its 5th anniversary and full ABA accreditation soon, and I just noticed some of the names on the Honorary Host Committee. The full list is below, and you will likely recognize some names.

The Honorable and Mrs. Robert H. Bork
Senator and Mrs. Sam Brownback
The Honorable Maura D. Corrigan*
Mr. and Mrs. Carey DeWitt
Dean and Mrs. Bernard Dobranski
Mr. and Mrs. John Donahue
Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Leo
The Honorable and Mrs. Stephen Markman*
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas S. Monaghan
Mr. and Mrs. Edwin L. Pear
Mr. and Mrs. Richard E. Rassel
The Honorable and Mrs. Antonin Scalia
The Honorable and Mrs. Clifford W. Taylor*
The Honorable and Mrs. Clarence Thomas
The Honorable and Mrs. Robert P. Young, Jr.*

* Denotes a justice serving on the Supreme Court of Michigan. Justice Corrigan, former Chief Justice of the court, is named by many as a possible candidate for Justice O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Dean Bernard Dobranski has even canceled classes so that students can attend the celebrations.  The keynote speaker, however, is still a mystery to students--so was the one administrator I asked.

1L memories: the Socratic Method

Brian Lieter raises some criticism of the Socratic Method, with which I agree, here (he resurrected this post from here).

Ethan Leib, of PrawfsBlawg, responds here, with:

[P]ure lecturing would be a disservice to students. . .We are, in short, trying to develop a panoply of skills for the profession that the Socratic Method (modified from its pure form) seems well-poised to accomplish.  Students are forced to listen to their peers respectfully; they are forced to think on their feet; they are forced to respectfully deal with a "superior" who thinks s/he knows it all; they are forced to revisit their understanding of why cases are decided the way they are; they have to negotiate the fear of being publicly shown to have less than fully thought out ideas; they have to learn to speak articulately and loudly; they are forced to work out problems out-loud and refine their views so other students can see the process of problem-solving in an interactive way.

PrawfsBlawg has opened up their comments section for this thread.

I agree most with a comment Professor Lieter features, which said:

I have to say I'm not a huge fan of the socratic method, largely for the same reason why I'm not much of a fan of the socratic dialogues- it just takes forever to get to the point, wastes a lot of time on poorly thought out responses, and so on. I don't mind being called on at all, it's just the tediousness of the process that annoys me. A surprising number of law students are unable to form a coherent argument.

My experience has been he same, Socratic dialogues included.  I was rather disappointed in the method as a first year law student.  Very few of my classmates seemed to be able to form a coherent argument, let alone a cogent one.  The Socratic Method seemed to just exasperate the rest of the class for it didn't seem direct enough.  Also, I am sure some of the Method's success depends on who employs it, or in what subject it's employed.  A course such as Jurisprudence, which is philosophy and not black letter law, would suffer completely from employing the method.  Luckily my professor has resisted this incorporation.