Revisiting “Hemispheres” in the Legal Profession
August 28th, 2017 / By Riaz Tejani
Excerpts from “Professional Apartheid: The Racialization of U.S. Law Schools After the Global Economic Crisis” American Ethnologist 44:3, August 2017. This piece relates to the author’s recent book, Law Mart: Justice Access and For-Profit Law Schools (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2017).
The 2008 global financial collapse was a watershed for US law schools. The sudden loss of capital, triggered by overspeculation and the repackaging of debt among multinational banks, caused global corporations to cancel transactions, settle litigation, and demand greater efficiency in remaining legal-services agreements. Large global law firms laid off thousands of attorneys, canceled new recruitments, and began outsourcing work to legal temp agencies, which in turn benefited from a professional labor oversupply and the new “gig” economy. In the preceding years, US law schools had expanded their operations and planned their budgets based on tuition priced against once-widespread lucrative corporate law incomes. Now they faced austerity. And because it was already in doubt whether law school job outcome reports were accurate, the moral hazard that they generated seemed to multiply after the economic crash. Prospective students took heed. Whereas legal education had seen increased demand in prior economic downturns, this time would be different: enrollment in US law schools plunged 30 percent from 2011 to 2015.
Indexing public fascination with this, failures in legal education made headlines in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and the Huffington Post. In an age of new cultural insurrections like Occupy and Black Lives Matter, people grew fascinated by the discomfort of this once-elite knowledge community. Beneath those news stories lay serious lessons about difference and knowledge capitalism in the contemporary global system. The so-called crisis of legal education and the legal profession, along with the overwhelmingly market-based reaction to it, suggests something deeper about the state of social justice under neoliberal political economy. (more…)
» Read the full text for Revisiting “Hemispheres” in the Legal Profession
Civil War Generals
August 16th, 2017 / By Deborah J. Merritt
George Henry Thomas went to work as a law clerk in nineteenth century Virginia. Fortunately for the United States, he found that the work “lacked excitement” and he enrolled in the United States Military Academy at West Point. After Thomas gained field experience, he was invited back to West Point as an instructor. There, Thomas gained both the respect and friendship of the Academy’s commandant, Robert E. Lee.
Thomas and Lee later traveled to the southwest, serving on military missions and deepening their friendship. The two particularly shared a love of their homeland Virginia.
And then Virginia seceded from the Union.
We all know what happened to Lee. He declined a top post in the Union Command and renounced his oath to the United States. He led the confederate army for much of the Civil War, defending an economy and lifestyle based on white ownership of black slaves. He invaded the nation he had sworn to protect, killing more than 5,200 Union soldiers at Gettysburg and Antietam alone: that’s more deaths on American soil than the number who died during the homeland attacks on Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center.
Overall, Americans suffered more casualties in the Civil War than in all other wars combined.
But what happened to Thomas? Despite his love of Virginia and family ties to that state, he refused to break his oath to the United States. The erstwhile law clerk commanded Union troops throughout the Civil War, from Mill Springs (where he gave the Union its first serious battlefield victory) to the March on Atlanta. Thomas’s family renounced him for remaining loyal to the United States; his confederate friends called for him to be hung as a traitor.
When the war ended, Thomas led troops overseeing Reconstruction. He helped defend freed slaves from local governments and the newborn Ku Klux Klan. In 1868, he warned about attempts to lionize the confederacy:
The greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism.
How many statues have Americans erected to honor the man who kept his oath to his country, fought against slavery, and recognized the evils of romanticizing the confederacy? Just one (in Washington, D.C.).
How many statues have we erected to Lee, the man who broke his oath, defended slavery, invaded his former country, and led a war that killed more than half a million Americans? Too many.
We need not excoriate Lee today: reconciliation is part of ending conflict. But it’s long past time to take down all the statues, and we are sadly mistaken to honor him as a leader. We need to come to terms with the way in which Americans have romanticized the confederacy and its culture.
Council, Please Shape Up
August 6th, 2017 / By Deborah J. Merritt
The Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has weathered significant criticism over the last few years. Some of that criticism has been well founded; other attacks have been unfair. But now the Council is acting as its own worst enemy–pursuing a course that has already provoked significant criticism in the legal academy and probably will attract negative attention in the press.
As Jerry Organ explains in a detailed column, the Council voted in June to make several changes in the form used to report law school employment outcomes. The Council acted without any public notice, without following its usual processes, and without gathering input from anyone outside the Council. The lack of process is especially disturbing given: (a) some of the changes had previously provoked vigorous debate; (b) the Council had previously rejected some of the proposals in light of that debate; and (c) the Council–along with legal education more generally–has been accused of lacking transparency.
I am sure, as Council Chair Gregory Murphy has written, that the Council acted in good faith–believing that the changes would receive “universal, or near universal, acclamation.” But that’s the problem with disregarding process and input: a small group of decision makers can persuade themselves that they know best. This case is a good illustration of how even highly educated, well intentioned groups can fall prey to that fallacy.
A Better Bar Exam—Look to Upper Canada?
July 25th, 2017 / By Eileen Kaufman, Andi Curcio, & Carol Chomsky
Today, tens of thousands of aspiring lawyers across the United States sit for the bar exam in a ritual that should be designed to identify who has the ability to be a competent new lawyer. Yet a growing chorus of critics questions whether the current knowledge-focused exam is the best way to draw that line and protect the public. As Professor Deborah Merritt has noted, “On the one hand, the exam forces applicants to memorize hundreds of black-letter rules that they will never use in practice. On the other hand, the exam licenses lawyers who don’t know how to interview a client, compose an engagement letter, or negotiate with an adversary.”
For years, the response to critiques of the bar exam has been, in effect: “It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we can do if we want a psychometrically defensible exam.” The Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), which governs the law licensing process for the province of Ontario, developed a licensing exam that calls that defense into question.
Overview of Law Society of Upper Canada Licensing Exam
The LSUC uses a 7-hour multiple-choice test consisting of 220 to 240 multiple-choice questions to test a wide range of competencies. For barristers (the litigating branch of the profession), that includes ethical and professional responsibilities; knowledge of the law; establishing and maintaining the lawyer-client relationship; problem/issue Identification, analysis, and assessment; alternative dispute resolution; litigation process; and practice management issues. A 2004 report explains how the LSUC identified key competencies and developed a licensing test based upon them.
Unlike the US exams, the LSUC exam is open-book, so it tests the ability to find and process relevant information rather than the ability to memorize rules. Most important, it tests a wider range of lawyering competencies than US exams, and it does so in the context of how lawyers address real client problems rather than as abstract analytical problems.
Below, we discuss how these differences address many of the critiques of the current US bar exams and make the LSUC exam an effective test of new lawyer competence. We also provide sample questions from both the LSUC and the US exam.
Open-Book Exam
Like all bar licensing exams in the United States (with the New Hampshire Daniel Webster Scholars Program as the sole exception), the LSUC exam is a pencil-and-paper timed exam. However, unlike any United States exam, including the Uniform Bar Exam, the LSUC licensing exam is open book.
The LSUC gives all candidates online access to materials that address all competencies the exam tests and encourages candidates to bring those materials to the exam. To help them navigate the materials, candidates are urged to create and bring to the exam tabbing or color-coding systems, short summaries of selected topics, index cards, and other study aids.
Lawyering is an open-book profession. Indeed, it might be considered malpractice to answer a legal problem without checking sources! As we have previously noted, good lawyers “…know enough to ask the right questions, figure out how to approach the problem and research the law, or know enough to recognize that the question is outside of their expertise and should be referred to a lawyer more well-versed in that area of law.” Actually referring a problem to someone else isn’t a feasible choice in the context of the bar exam, of course, but accessing the relevant knowledge base is.
The open-book LSUC exam tests a key lawyering competency untested by the US exam—the ability to find the appropriate legal information—and it addresses a significant critique of the current U.S. exams: that they test memorization of legal rules, a skill unrelated to actual law practice.
Candidates for the bar in Canada no doubt pore over the written material to learn the specifics, just as US students do, but they are also able to rely on that material to remind them of the rules as they answer the questions, just as a lawyer would do.
Testing More Lawyering Competencies
Like all bar exams in the US, the LSUC exam assesses legal knowledge and analytical skills. However, unlike US bar exams, the LSUC exam also assesses competencies that relate to fundamental lawyering skills beyond the ability to analyze legal doctrine.
As Professor Merritt has noted, studies conducted by the National Conference of Bar Examiners [NCBE] and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System confirm the gaps between the competencies new lawyers need and what the current US bar exams test, citing the absence of essential lawyering competencies such as interviewing principles; client communication; information gathering; case analysis and planning; alternative dispute resolution; negotiation; the litigation process; and practice management issues.
The NCBE has justified their absence by maintaining that such skills cannot be tested via multiple-choice questions. However, as illustrated below, the LSUC exam does just that, while also raising professional responsibility questions as part of the fact patterns testing those competencies.
Testing Competencies in Context of How Lawyers Use Information
The LSUC exam attempts to capture the daily work of lawyers. Rather than test knowledge of pure doctrine to predict a result as the US exams tend to do, the LSUC used Bloom’s taxonomy to develop questions that ask how knowledge of the law informs the proper representation of the client.
The LSUC questions seek information such as: what a client needs to know; how a lawyer would respond to a tribunal if asked “x”; where a lawyer would look to find the relevant information to determine the steps to be taken; and what issues a lawyer should research. That testing methodology replicates how lawyers use the law in practice much more effectively than do the US exams.
The LSUC exam format and content addresses a significant critique of US bar exams—that those exams ask questions that are unrelated to how lawyers use legal doctrine in practice and that the US exams fail to assess many of the key skills lawyers need.
Sample Questions from the LSUC and the MBE
Here is a sampling of LSUC questions that test for lawyering skills in a manner not addressed in US exams. These and other sample questions are available on the Law Society of Upper Canada’s website:
- Gertrude has come to Roberta, a lawyer, to draw up a power of attorney for personal care. Gertrude will be undergoing major surgery and wants to ensure that her wishes are fulfilled should anything go wrong. Gertrude’s husband is quite elderly and not in good health, so she may want her two adult daughters to be the attorneys. The religion of one of her daughters requires adherents to protect human life at all costs. Gertrude’s other daughter is struggling financially. What further information should Roberta obtain from Gertrude?
(b) The state of Gertrude’s marriage.
(c) Gertrude’s personal care wishes.
(d) Gertrude’s health status.
- Tracy was charged with Assault Causing Bodily Harm. She has instructed her lawyer, Kurt, to get her the fastest jury trial date possible. The Crown has not requested a preliminary inquiry. Kurt does not believe that a preliminary inquiry is necessary because of the quality of the disclosure. How can Kurt get Tracy the fastest trial date?
(b) Bring an 11(b) Application to force a quick jury trial date.
(c) Conduct the preliminary inquiry quickly and set down the jury trial.
(d) Elect on Tracy’s behalf trial by a Provincial Court Judge.
- Peyton, a real estate lawyer, is acting for a married couple, Lara and Chris, on the purchase of their first home. Lara’s mother will be lending the couple some money and would like to register a mortgage on title. Lara and Chris have asked Peyton to prepare and register the mortgage documentation. They are agreeable to Peyton acting for the three of them. Chris’ brother is also lending them money but Lara and Chris have asked Peyton not to tell Lara’s mother this fact. Should Peyton act?
(b) No, because there is a conflict of interest.
(c) Yes, because the parties are related.
(d) No, because she should not act on both the purchase and the mortgage.
- Prior to the real estate closing, in which jurisdiction should the purchaser’s lawyer search executions?
(b) Where the seller’s real property is located.
(c) Where the seller’s personal property is located.
(d) Where the seller is moving.
[These questions test the applicant’s understanding of: the information a lawyer needs from the client or other sources, strategic and effective use of trial process, ethical responsibilities, and knowledge of the real property registration system, all in the service of proper representation of a client. Correct answers: c, a, b, b.]
Compare these questions to typical MBE questions, which focus on applying memorized elements of legal rules to arrive at a conclusion about which party likely prevails. [More available here.]
- A woman borrowed $800,000 from a bank and gave the bank a note for that amount secured by a mortgage on her farm. Several years later, at a time when the woman still owed the bank $750,000 on the mortgage loan, she sold the farm to a man for $900,000. The man paid the woman $150,000 in cash and specifically assumed the mortgage note. The bank received notice of this transaction and elected not to exercise the optional due-on-sale clause in the mortgage. Without informing the man, the bank later released the woman from any further personal liability on the note. After he had owned the farm for a number of years, the man defaulted on the loan. The bank properly accelerated the loan, and the farm was eventually sold at a foreclosure sale for $500,000. Because there was still $600,000 owing on the note, the bank sued the man for the $100,000 deficiency. Is the man liable to the bank for the deficiency?
(b) No, because the bank’s release of the woman from personal liability also released the man.
(c) Yes, because the bank’s release of the woman constituted a clogging of the equity of redemption.
(d) Yes, because the man’s personal liability on the note was not affected by the bank’s release of the woman.
- A man arranged to have custom-made wooden shutters installed on the windows of his home. The contractor who installed the shutters did so by drilling screws and brackets into the exterior window frames and the shutters. The man later agreed to sell the home to a buyer. The sales agreement did not mention the shutters, the buyer did not inquire about them, and the buyer did not conduct a walkthrough inspection of the home before the closing. The man conveyed the home to the buyer by warranty deed. After the sale closed, the buyer noticed that the shutters and brackets had been removed from the home and that the window frames had been repaired and repainted. The buyer demanded that the man return the shutters and pay the cost of reinstallation, claiming that the shutters had been conveyed to him with the sale of the home. When the man refused, the buyer sued. Is the buyer likely to prevail?
(b) No, because the window frames had been repaired and repainted after removal of the shutters.
(c) Yes, because the shutters had become fixtures.
(d) Yes, because the man gave the buyer a warranty deed and the absence of the shutters violated a covenant of the deed
[Correct answers: d, c]
We Can Build a Better Bar Exam
As illustrated above, the LSUC exam shows that it is possible to test a far wider range of competencies than those tested in US bar exams.
Does the LSUC exam address all of the flaws of US bar exams? No—one problem that persists for both the LSUC and US exams is the requirement for rapid answers (less than 2 minutes per question), which rewards an ability and practice not associated with effective lawyering.
Does the LSUC exam fully address experiential skills? No—LSUC also requires applicants to “article” (a kind of apprenticeship with a law firm) or participate in the Law Practice Program (a four-month training course and a four-month work placement).
But the exam does what the NCBE has told us cannot be done. It is a psychometrically valid exam that assesses skills far beyond the competencies tested on US bar exams: skills such as interviewing, negotiating, counseling, fact investigation, and client-centered advocacy. And its emphasis is on lawyering competencies—using doctrine in the context of client problems.
Eileen Kaufman is Professor of Law at the Touro College, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center.
Andi Curcio is Professor of Law at the Georgia State University College of Law.
Carol Chomsky is Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School.
The Applicant Plunge Is Not a PR Problem
July 21st, 2017 / By Kyle McEntee
The following was part of a series published by the National Law Journal called Law Schools Are Losing Smart Applicants. How Do They Lure Them Back?” The NLJ asked 11 people from inside and outside the legal academy for responses, including me and Debby Merritt. Her response has been republished here.
The applicant plunge is not a PR problem. Schools cannot just demonstrate and appeal to a lifetime wage and opportunity premium. Although applicants expect both, people do not typically make standard investment analyses. Applicants consider a variety of factors, key among them that student loan repayment begins only six months after graduation.
I can’t say I blame them. Monthly payments for borrowers without family support exceed $3000 at several top law schools, even with a generous scholarship. Significant student debt undermines aspirations college graduates have for their 20s and 30s: a fulfilling career, home ownership, marriage and kids, active community participation, financial freedom. Massive debt also deeply affects students on a psychological and emotional level.
Law schools need to substantially lower prices so student debt stops scaring so many applicants away. Safety nets like income-based repayment make worst-case scenarios tolerable, but do little to quell concerns related to quality-of-life aspirations. Tuition increases have been internally justified for decades on the belief that law school was a great deal. But until law schools account for how today’s applicants think about their future, too many potential lawyers will make other arrangements—maybe to their detriment, but certainly to the legal profession’s.
Law Schools Should Set Reasonable List Prices That Reflect Earnings Available to Their Graduates
July 21st, 2017 / By Deborah J. Merritt
The following was part of a series published by the National Law Journal called Law Schools Are Losing Smart Applicants. How Do They Lure Them Back?” The NLJ asked 11 people from inside and outside the legal academy for responses, including me and Kyle McEntee. His response has been republished here.
Law schools should set reasonable list prices that reflect the earnings available to their graduates. Our high sticker/discount system requires applicants to commit to legal education, invest significant time and money studying for the LSAT, and risk rejection from multiple schools—all before they learn the true cost of their legal education. That system discourages the type of careful thinkers and planners who once found law school attractive.
On campus, we should integrate much more hands-on work throughout the curriculum. Millennials like to do things, not just read about them. Employers, clients and cognitive scientists agree that “doing” is essential to develop professional expertise. Until we embrace that wisdom, we won’t attract talented students back to law school—or prepare them to serve their clients effectively.
Finally, we should replace mandatory grading curves with more nuanced assessments of student learning. Outcome-based assessment helps students focus on the specific knowledge and skills they need to master. Students learn more and employers receive more helpful information about a graduate’s abilities. An educational program that promises to foster expertise, rather than ranking students on a fixed curve, will draw more talented applicants.
The High Cost of Not Lowering the Bar
June 28th, 2017 / By Gilbert A. Holmes
Gilbert A. Holmes is Dean and Professor of Law at the University of La Verne College of Law
In July of 2016, graduates from ABA-approved law schools in California had a first-time General Bar Examination pass rate of 62 percent, and all bar takers in the state had a first-time pass rate of 56 percent. These numbers are down from previous years, sparking debate, discussion and deliberation about the reason for the decline and what can be done about it.
Deans of ABA-approved law schools in California have been calling for a lowering of the cut score that serves as the basis for grading of the exam. California has the second highest cut score in the country. It also has the lowest pass rate, even though researcher Roger Bolus reported to the State Bar of California that the state’s bar exam takers perform higher than the national average on the only portion of the exam that every state except Louisiana administers—the MBE.
The State Bar has responded to this call by engaging in a number of studies about the content and validity of the bar exam and the California grading system. (more…)
» Read the full text for The High Cost of Not Lowering the Bar
Provisional Accreditation for UNT-Dallas
June 6th, 2017 / By Deborah J. Merritt
The Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has granted provisional accreditation to the University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law. As I wrote last fall, this innovative law school well deserved a chance to try its wings.
Here are some distinctive features of the school:
- 51.4% of its students are minority students. National Jurist recently named the school the third most diverse law school in America.
- The student body is notable for its diversity in age and prior work experience, in addition to race and gender.
- Tuition for 2016-17 was $15,768 for full-time residents and $11,653 for part-time residents.
- During 2016-17, more than half (51.8%) of students received scholarships, with a median grant of $1,250 (for both full-time and part-time students).
- Entering scholarships depend upon academic record, socioeconomic background, first-generation status, and community service. There are no conditional scholarships.
- The school requires completion of courses in accounting and finance for lawyers; interviewing and counseling; negotiation and conflict resolution; effective oral communication; and the business of law.
- The school also requires students to complete two fully experiential courses (drawn from clinics, externships, or practicums)
- Many upper-level courses incorporate writing, research, and/or skills segments. Students must complete multiple segments in each of these three categories (in addition to required writing, research, and skills courses)
- Students must demonstrate proficiency in several practice-related technologies.
The first group of 74 graduates will receive their degrees this month–and those degrees are now from an ABA-accredited law school. Godspeed UNT-Dallas and grads!
Bar Exam Scores and Lawyer Discipline
June 3rd, 2017 / By Deborah J. Merritt
Robert Anderson and Derek Muller have posted a provocative paper, The High Cost of Lowering the Bar, in which they argue that “bar exam score is significantly related to likelihood of State Bar discipline throughout a lawyer’s career.” Thus, they warn, “lowering the bar examination passing score,” as several California law deans have advocated, “will likely increase the amount of malpractice, misconduct, and discipline among California lawyers.”
Anderson and Muller urge the state bar to collect more detailed data on the relationship between bar scores and lawyer discipline–and then to consider the possible impact on attorney misconduct if the Supreme Court lowers the passing score. “The data we have collected,” they conclude, “should raise serious concerns about the effect on consumers of lowering the passing score.”
What type of correlation did Anderson and Muller identify? Should it affect decisions about the passing score for the bar exam? Let’s take a closer look.
» Read the full text for Bar Exam Scores and Lawyer Discipline
More on the Bar Exam: Correlation and Competence
May 31st, 2017 / By Deborah J. Merritt
Derek Muller has identified an intriguing study of alternative ways to assess bar applicants. In 1980, the California bar examiners worked with a research team to explore the desirability of testing a wider range of lawyering skills on the bar exam. The researchers designed a two-day supplement to the bar exam and invited all July test-takers to participate in the supplemental exercise. More than 4,000 test-takers volunteered and, using appropriate sampling methods, the researchers chose 500 to participate. A few volunteers were unable to complete the exercise due to illness, so the final sample included 485 bar examinees.
These examinees completed the supplemental exercises in August 1980, shortly after taking the regular July exam. For two days, the examinees interviewed clients, drafted discovery plans, prepared letters, wrote trial briefs, cross-examined witnesses, and made arguments to mock juries. Each day’s work involved 5-6 tasks focused on a single client matter. Professional actors played the role of clients, and the researchers developed elaborate protocols for scoring the exercises.
How did results on the supplemental exam compare to those on the conventional test?
» Read the full text for More on the Bar Exam: Correlation and Competence
About Law School Cafe
Cafe Manager & Co-Moderator
Deborah J. Merritt
Cafe Designer & Co-Moderator
Kyle McEntee
Law School Cafe is a resource for anyone interested in changes in legal education and the legal profession.
Around the Cafe
Subscribe
Categories
Recent Comments
- on Scholarship Advice
- on ExamSoft: New Evidence from NCBE
- on COVID-19 and the Bar Exam
- on Women Law Students: Still Not Equal
- on Ranking Academic Impact
Recent Posts
- The Bot Takes a Bow
- Fundamental Legal Concepts and Principles
- Lay Down the Law
- The Bot Updates the Bar Exam
- GPT-4 Beats the Bar Exam
Monthly Archives
Participate
Have something you think our audience would like to hear about? Interested in writing one or more guest posts? Send an email to the cafe manager at merritt52@gmail.com. We are interested in publishing posts from practitioners, students, faculty, and industry professionals.