Balkin and Levinson on Casebooks, Canons, and Constitutional Memory

Jack M. Balkin, Yale University Law School, and Sanford Levinson, University of Texas Law School, are publishing Casebooks, Canons, and Constitutional Memory as a Yale Law School Public Law Research Paper.

Why edit a constitutional law casebook? One might want to shape how professors teach the subject and how students learn it. But the influence of casebook editors is limited. Most students at most law schools will never practice constitutional law, and those that do probably deal with subjects not in the standard introductory course. Editing a casebook involves the construction of a canon. The canon in literature is organized around great works of excellence. By contrast, the canon in constitutional casebooks does not reflect the best opinions ever written; instead it reflects generations of political and legal struggles over the Constitution. There are three kinds of canons in constitutional law, and in constitutional law casebooks: (1) the pedagogical canon of materials that students need to know to be well-trained lawyers; (2) the cultural literacy canon of materials that citizens need to know to understand their constitutional system; and (3) the constitutional theory canon of materials that are grist for the mill of serious academic discussion. Each of these canons has a politics, and different casebooks may align themselves with different political and legal visions and movements. Casebooks are also sites of collective memory. A casebook foregrounds what teachers and students are likely to focus on and remember. What is left out of teaching materials is more likely to be forgotten. Hence constitutional law casebook authors are almost inevitably memory entrepreneurs, who seek to get people to remember certain things or remember them differently. But casebook editors are hardly all-powerful memory entrepreneurs. Authors must work with their coauthors to decide what materials to include and delete in successive editions. Casebook authors face serious constraints from publishers. Publishers demand frequent new editions to undercut sales of used casebooks; and they want casebooks to be ever shorter and simpler to understand. Perhaps most important, casebook authors feel obliged to cover contemporary issues in constitutional law. Those issues are not in their control. They are shaped by the continuous interaction and collision between the political branches and the courts, and especially the United States Supreme Court. In this way the Supreme Court exercises vast control over the content and organization of constitutional law casebooks. This creates important problems of constitutional memory. If the Supreme Court overrules a line of cases, those cases are likely to be flushed down the memory hole unless casebook editors are willing to sacrifice other valued content. The Supreme Court constantly destroys existing canons of constitutional law and reconstitutes them through its choice of cases to decide. Casebook authors must carefully consider how much of this constant churning and change is noise and how much is genuinely important and lasting for understanding the U.S. Constitution. This makes casebook authors' limited choices about what to remember especially important. At most, by placing certain materials before professors and students, casebook authors can provide opportunities to recall and absorb what is most important about our constitutional traditions. Yet what others do with those materials--and those memories--is ultimately beyond casebook authors' control.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Bahnson and Shreve on Legal Treatises and the Evolution of Civil Rights Case Law @DukeLawLibrary @DukeLaw

Jane Bahnson and Wickliffe Shreve, both of Duke University School of Law, have published Legal Treatises and the Evolution of Civil Rights Case Law as Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2023-68. Here is the abstract.

During the 2022 term, the Supreme Court cited treatises to change legal precedent in two important civil rights cases. We examined the Supreme Court’s use of treatises in previous terms to reverse course on civil rights. Of 315 opinions identified, approximately half included treatise citations, more often by conservative-leaning Justices. This paper discusses the use of treatises by the Supreme Court to support its decisions in civil rights cases.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Epps and Green on Black Lawyers Matter: An Oral History of Race-Inclusive Admissions at Yale @TempleLaw @TempleEpps

JoAnne Epps and Craig Green, both of Temple University School of Law, have published Black Lawyers Matter: An Oral History of Race-Inclusive Admissions at Yale as Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2023-21. Here is the abstract.

Almost no one knows that Yale had the first affirmative action policy of any elite law school in the country. Twelve Black students who were admitted in 1968 formed the largest nonwhite group to attend Yale Law School in 150 years. At the time, race-inclusive admissions were immediately condemned as an “explosive sociological experiment” in apartheid segregation that would damage Yale’s reputation while producing a sense of “intellectual superiority among the white students” and “intellectual inferiority among the Black students.” Critics endorsed a general aspiration for law schools to educate students from racial minority groups, but not at elite institutions like Yale: “There are many good regional and local law schools in Philadelphia, Boston, Los Angeles, and other metropolitan areas, where Black law students . . . can study law in competition with students of similar qualifications and aptitudes.” Despite those critiques and predictions, all of the twelve Black Yale students eventually became judges, professors, civil rights lawyers, government leaders, in-house counsel, or successful private attorneys. For more than fifty years—an “Affirmative Action Era”—elite law schools across the United States have admitted Black students who transformed the history of legal education, the legal profession, and society at large. To understand and document that phenomenon, we sought to contact every Black Yale law student from the entering classes of 1963 to 1978. Using oral history techniques, we interviewed forty-seven people in thirteen states, including one person from each class year. Such interviews offer unparalleled detail about Black students who attended Yale in this period, what law school was like at the time, professional opportunities that emerged afterward, and structural obstacles that individuals had to confront, overcome, or dismantle in law school and throughout their professional lives. This Article uses new historical materials and interpretations to challenge modern stereotypes and generalizations about affirmative action that have been endorsed by prominent critics including Justice Clarence Thomas. Specific historical narratives from former Yale students illustrate dramatic risks of colorblind constitutionalism across the country, and this Article’s multilayered history of affirmative action supports solutions that recognize the profound importance of Black law students in the past, present, and future. 

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Frazier on The Next Required Law School Course: History of America's Foundings @StThomasLaw

Kevin Frazier, St. Thomas University School of Law, is publishing The Next Required Law School Course: History of America’s Foundings in volume 54 of St. Mary's Law Journal. Here is the abstract.

The Supreme Court has cited the Federalist Papers hundreds of times to analyze the meaning of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist Papers, on the other hand, receive few citations in the Court’s opinions. The prevalence of Federalist Paper citations and the dearth of Anti-Federalist references necessitate a similar response from law schools everywhere: a required history class that covers the Founding Era, among other periods. The Court’s citations to the Federalist Papers alone evidence the importance of this era to constitutional law. The prominent role of amicus briefs from historians confirms that importance. But law schools must do more than teach what the advocates for ratifying the Constitution believed it meant. They must also provide students with the tools of historical analysis needed to develop a nuanced understanding of what made the Constitution so revolutionary and how its ratification process revealed important hopes and fears. Law schools should also make the Reconstruction Era a part of that required course. Coined The Second Founding by Eric Foner and others, this era transformed the Constitution through the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and witnessed fundamental changes in the general understanding of “We, the People.” This era’s Congress has been called “the Congress of the Revolution” for its work on civil rights. Supreme Court opinions have hinged on channeling the spirit of these “Reconstruction Amendments” and their accompanying legislation. Similarly, many justices have leaned on the spirit and text of these transformational amendments to ensure their core is preserved. For example, in Maine v. Thiboutot, the Court held that laws from the Reconstruction Era “‘must be given the meaning and sweep’ dictated by ‘their origins and their language’—not their language alone.” It is those “origins” that are unacceptably absent from legal pedagogy. Students must also learn how to analyze and respond to legal arguments grounded in historical analysis. Though students necessarily master a narrow type of historical inquiry, identifying and evaluating precedent, too few students learn how to spot and challenge historically-oriented adjudication that activist judges have used to break from precedent. Fearful of being called out for “law-office history,” courts avoid attempting to ground their decisions in superficial historical analysis. This Article makes a case for the American Bar Association requiring law students to complete a history class on the nation’s two “Foundings.”

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Steilen on Genteel Culture, Legal Education, and Constitutional Controversy in Early National Virginia @MJSteilen

Matthew J. Steilen, State University of New York at Buffalo Law School, has publlished Genteel Culture, Legal Education, and Constitutional Controversy in Early National Virginia at 2023 Law and History Review 1. Here is the abstract.

This article focuses on the movement to reform legal education in early national Virginia, offering a fresh perspective by examining the connection between legal education and society and culture. It challenges the notion that constitutional ideas were the primary driving force behind reforms and argues that social status and “manners” played a more significant role. Wealthy elites in Virginia associated manners with education, sending their sons to college to become gentlemen, as it secured their aspirations to gentility and their influence over society and politics. Reformers sought to capitalize on this connection by educating a generation of university-trained, genteel lawyers who could lead the state’s legislature and its courts. In this sense, educational reform was genteel rather than democratic in its basic assumptions. The article examines the central figure of George Wythe and explores his influence on Virginia’s leading men, including Thomas Jefferson and St. George Tucker. It delves into the student experience in Wythe’s law office and at the College of William and Mary, the success of educational reforms in the central courts, and the effects on Virginia’s constitutional development. The college-educated lawyers who came to dominate the legislature in the early nineteenth century used their training for politics. As these lawyers sought to strengthen the institutions their party controlled, they drove the development of constitutional doctrines like federalism and separation of powers. Note: Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Lloyd on Langdell and the Eclipse of Character @LloydEsq @WFULawSchool @PittLawReview

Harold Anthony Lloyd, Wake Forest University School of Law, is publishing Langdell and the Eclipse of Character in the University of Pittsburgh Law Review. Here is the abstract.

Christopher Columbus Langdell has not only damaged the study of law with his three follies: his legal formalism, his redacted appellate case method, and his notion that legal practice taints the professor of law. His three follies have also impaired character development critical for legal actors. This Article focuses on four such critical character traits and virtues impaired by Langdell: (i) imagination, (ii) empathy, (ii) balance, and (iv) integrity. Readers wishing to explore virtues beyond those addressed in this Article might note my earlier examination of the role of virtue in good legal analysis found here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4092075. This Article also calls out potential character issues with two professor types inspired by Langdell: (v) the hazing professor who confuses intellectual rigor with intense discomfort and who uses the redacted appellate case method to inflict such discomfort at the expense of better pedagogy, and (vi) the professor without substantial practice experience who is substantially paid to teach what she has never practiced. Agreeing with C.S. Pierce that the best argument is a cable rather than a chain, I end by weaving in a Langdell villanelle (from my Apology Box: https://haroldanthonylloyd.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_4.html) to supplement the prose. I hope such a cable can help lift Langdell and his follies from legal education and the world.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Keith on Richard Cockburn Maclaurin: 1870-1920 @WellingtonUni

Kenneth J. Keith, Victoria University of Wellington, Te Herenga Waka Faculty of Law, has published Richard Cockburn Maclaurin: 1870–1920 in Vincent O'Sullivan (ed) Eminent Victorians (Stout Research Centre, Wellington, 2000) at 49. Here is the abstract.

A lecture delivered as part of the Stout Research Centre's Eminent Victorians series. The series celebrates the contribution of a number of Victoria University of Wellington's distinguished scholars and gifted teachers of the past hundred years. In this lecture, Sir Ken Keith provides an insight into the work and legacy of Richard Cockburn Maclaurin, Victoria's first Dean of Law, first chairman of the Professorial Board, first Professor of Mathematics, and first and only Professor of Astronomy.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Chatman on Teaching Slavery in Commercial Law @carlissc @wlulaw

Carliss Chatman, Washington and Lee School of Law, has published Teaching Slavery in Commercial Law. Here is the abstract.

Public status shapes private ordering. Personhood status, conferred or acknowledged by the state, determines whether one is a party to or the object of a contract. For much of our nation’s history the law deemed all persons of African descent to have a limited status, if given personhood at all. The property and partial personhood status of African-Americans combined with standards developed to facilitate the growth of the international commodities market for products, including cotton. The impact of that shift in status persists today. The commodities markets and the nations that arose and prospered would not be possible without the slave trade, and that trade would not be possible without the legal, business, and social norms in place to facilitate private ordering and growth while reinforcing the subjugation of African-Americans. Yet, many business and commercial law professors devote class time to teaching foundational and historical material, without any consideration of the impact of slavery. To avoid slavery in business and commercial law courses is to ignore an institution that played a pivotal role in much of what we do today. Slavery is not a frolic, it is foundational. Many American universities played a role in the slave trade—either receiving funds from the enterprise or receiving the enslaved as donations and using their labor or disposing of them for the financial advancement of the institution. In my Core Commercial Concepts course, a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) survey class covering Articles 2, 3, 4, and 9, I devote time and space to discussions of race and the law by making the connection between the history of commercial concepts, slavery, and the role of the cotton industry in the shaping of international commercial law norms. In my simulation, described in this essay, I teach the story of Washington and Lee University’s sale of individuals for the purpose of ensuring the institution’s financial survival, then extrapolate from the facts to review the high points of commercial law. I incorporate materials on the legacy of slavery at my own institution to provide students with a scenario based on the acquisition of real property and construction of buildings they engage with on campus. In this essay I explain the methods I use to explore these concepts. Working in a framework that focuses on classification and status, my students consider issues of federalism and the impact of statutory definitions on private ordering, while discussing how these definitions shape the relationship of African-Americans to commerce.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Newly Published: Alexander Lian: Stereoscopic Law: Oliver Wendell Holmes and Legal Education (Cambridge University Press, 2020) @CambridgeUP

 Alexander Lian has published Stereoscopic Law: Oliver Wendell Holmes and Legal Education (Cambridge University Press, 2020). Here from the publisher's website is a description of the book's contents.

In this unique book, Alexander Lian, a practicing commercial litigator, advances the thesis that the most famous article in American jurisprudence, Oliver Wendell Holmes's “The Path of the Law,” presents Holmes's leading ideas on legal education. Through meticulous analysis, Lian explores Holmes's fundamental ideas on law and its study. He puts “The Path of the Law” within the trajectory of Holmes's jurisprudence, from earliest scholarship to The Common Law to the occasional pieces Holmes wrote or delivered after joining the U.S. Supreme Court. Lian takes a close look at the reactions “The Path of the Law” has evoked, both positive and negative, and restates the essay's core teachings for today's legal educators. Lian convincingly shows that Holmes's “theory of legal study” broke down artificial barriers between theory and practice. For contemporary legal educators, Stereoscopic Law reformulates Holmes's fundamental message that the law must been seen and taught three-dimensionally.

The book is available through Cambridge Core.

 

Kessler on Family Law By the Numbers: The Story That Casebooks Tell @sjquinney

Laura T. Kessler, University of Utah College of Law, is publishing Family Law by the Numbers: The Story That Casebooks Tell in volume 62 of the Arizona Law Review (2020). Here is the abstract.

This Article presents the findings of a content analysis of 86 family law casebooks published in the United States from 1960 to 2019. Its purpose is to critically assess the discipline of family law with the aim of informing our understandings of family law’s history and exposing its ideological foundations and consequences. Although legal thinkers have written several intellectual histories of family law, this is the first quantitative look at the field. The study finds that coverage of marriage and divorce in family law casebooks has decreased by almost half relative to other topics since the 1960s. In contrast, pages dedicated to child custody and child support have increased, more than doubling their relative share. At the same time, the boundaries of family law appear to remain quite stubborn. Notwithstanding sustained efforts by family law scholars and educators to restructure the field of family law so that it considers additional domains of law affecting families (such as tax, business, employment, health, immigration, and government benefits), the core of the academic field of family law has remained relatively static in the past 60 years. Marriage, divorce, child custody, and child support continue to dominate the topics presented in family law casebooks, representing 55% to 75% of their content since the 1960s.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Corcos on Three Ways of Looking at Law and Popular Culture @LSULawCenter @IRPI_Paris_II

Christine A. Corcos, Louisiana State University Law Center, has published Three Ways of Looking at Law and Popular Culture in Propriete Intellectuelle et Pop Culture: Nouveaux enjeux, nouveaux defis 9 (Actes du colloque: PI et pop culture) (Actes du colloque des JUSPI) (IRPI, 2020). Here is the abstract.

In 1989 the Stanford University Law School professor Lawrence Friedman offered a definition of “popular legal culture.” In an often-cited article, he wrote that, “In the first place, legal culture acts as an intervening variable, a mechanism for transforming norms of popular culture into legal dress and shape. In the second place, legal and popular culture, as images of each other, help explicate and illuminate their respective contents”. He notes that law and culture interact in two ways. Law is outward-looking; it depends on and interacts with the society from which it springs. At the same time it shapes that society. We can and do also talk about at least two current and differing uses of law and popular culture in legal education. We can use law and popular culture to teach legal principles. This use makes legal doctrine entertaining and accessible. We can also dig for the messages it gives us about the interaction of law and society. This second method requires us to interact with the texts of both law and popular culture. Currently in legal education we can and do examine at law and popular culture in both of the ways Friedman identifies. I suggest that we can identify and should examine a third intersection of law and popular culture that scholars have begun to study, that I suggest we should formally acknowledge as a part of law and popular culture studies. This third intersection is the actual trans-formative effect or trans-formative turn that popular culture and law have on each other. I would suggest both that certain types of intellectual property studies and certain types of activity fall into this category. One example is law’s response to the creation of fan fiction and of fan use of copyrighted and trademarked materials that force a response from the rights holders, or force fans to cease a particular activity because the rights holders refuse permission to proceed. We have many examples of the legal responses and changes in norms that illustrate these interactions. What we don’t yet seem to have in the general theory of law and pop culture is a definition for this third intersection. It may be that this third intersection is now most obvious in intellectual property law, perhaps because of the accessibility and spread of technology as well as the overwhelming importance of social media in our lives today. It exists in other areas of law as well, for example in family law, in criminal law, in privacy law, and has for some time. I would suggest that this intersection creates the possibility for the working out of the tensions between law and culture, as the public through pop culture identifies how the law works, what the law is, and then reacts to the law, makes demands on the law, and in some cases, forces changes in the law.

The full text is not currently available from SSRN.

Guerra-Pujol, Champnella, Mayo, Travers, and Vitulli on Teaching Tiger King @lawscholar

F. E. Guerra-Pujol, Christiana Champnella, Benjamin Mayo, Morgan Travers, and Antonella Vitulli, all of the University of Central Florida, have published Teaching Tiger King. Here is the abstract.

When our home institution moved all instruction online in response to the global pandemic, we began redesigning our business law survey course from scratch. Specifically, we decided to use the popular docuseries Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem, and Madness to explore the legal and ethical environments of business with our undergraduate students. We deliberately chose this surprise-hit TV show in order to make our online course as relevant, timely, and engaging as possible. The remainder of the paper will describe the contents of each module of the course, explore their relation to Tiger King, and explain the logic of our design choices.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Risinger on Female Law Librarians as Pioneer Women Law Professors @SetonHallLaw

D. Michael Risinger, Seton Hall University School of Law, has published Female Law Librarians as Pioneer Women Law Professors: A (Belated) Response to Dean Kay, with Some Suggested Additions to Her Canonical List. Here is the abstract.

The late Herma Hill Kay was the preeminent cataloguer of the pioneer women law professors of the modern era, that is, those who taught after the advent of formalized quality recognition of law schools, either through membership in the Association of American Law Schools (which began in 1900) or through American Bar Association accreditation (which began in 1923). Dean Kay excluded from her list female law librarians who held titles of ordinary faculty professorial rank, apparently because, form her point of view, they were not recognized as “full-fledged” faculty members. In my view this was a questionable omission. The very fact that they were granted professorial rank, at a time when such status was rare for law librarians and even rarer for female law librarians, cuts strongly in favor of adding them to any list of pioneer women law faculty, and to that end the article identifies those librarians who carried professorial rank at ABA/AALS law schools from 1923 through 1959 for inclusion on the list of pioneer woman law professors. But first, the article address a broader methodological point concerning Dean Kay’s list. Dean Kay sought to include in her list of female pioneer law professors only those who would have been fully recognized as members of the legal academy, even by the dominant males of the academy. Under this stringent standard, she counted only female faculty members at schools that were both ABA-accredited and admitted to membership in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS). I have no quibble with a restrictive approach, directed as it is to an important question of the status of women in the legal academy. However, accepting Dean Kay’s time frame, which is anchored to the beginning of ABA accreditation in 1923, I believe it was a mistake to exclude female full-time faculty with professorial rank at ABA-accredited law schools which were not members of the AALS. There were not many of these—the article only identifies three. But these three should be on any list of pioneer woman law professors.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Millemann, Rauh, and Bowle on Teaching Professional Responsibility Through Theater @MikeMillemann @robertbowiejr

Michael A. Millemann, University of Maryland School of Law, Elliott Rauh, and Robert Bowle, Jr., are publishing Teaching Professional Responsibility Through Theater in the Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal (2020). Here is the abstract.

This article is about ethics-focused law school courses, co-taught with a theater director, in which students wrote, produced and performed in plays. The plays were about four men who, separately, were wrongfully convicted, spent decades in prison, and finally were released and exonerated, formally (two) or informally (two). The common themes in these miscarriages of justice were that 1) unethical conduct of prosecutors (especially failures to disclose exculpatory evidence) and of defense counsel (especially incompetent representation) undermined the Rule of Law and produced wrongful convictions, and 2) conversely, that the ethical conduct of post-conviction lawyers and law students helped to partially vindicate the rights of those wrongfully convicted, but could not provide any real remedy for decades of wrongfully deprived freedom. In sharp contrast, the worst and best of the legal profession were on display. We argue that reproducing these extraordinary stories as plays, with students playing the roles of prosecutors, defense counsel, defendants (with not only wrongful convictions but also decades of wrongful incarceration), family members, crime victims, and people in the affected communities, is a powerful way to teach both law students and public audiences about the direct connections between legal ethics rules and the Rule of Law. It teaches as well the ripple effects on many people and communities, not just the parties, of unethical lawyer behavior. The students learned about legal ethics through in depth analysis of the actual case records, from pretrial motions through trial transcripts and appellate briefs (in the nature of ethics autopsies), and from the personal presentations in class by the exonerated men and their families. As important, the students learned about professional responsibility and irresponsibilities, from their immersion in the roles of the lawyers and “secondary” characters, like the affected families of the four men and the crime victims and their communities. The students also learned about competence, including how to work collaboratively to develop and to tell stories, to appreciate cultural differences, to examine witnesses, and to deal with performance anxiety. Because the men, all African Americans, were tried in 1968 (two), 1975, and 1983, the plays served as important points of comparison of criminal justice — criminal law and procedure — then and now. In this respect, the courses also were virtual laboratories in which to explore legal realism and critical legal theory, especially race theory; the true stories were powerful critiques of the romanticized, theoretical model of due process that underlies the formal criminal justice curricula.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Lindgren on The Religious Beliefs, Practices, and Experiences of Law Professors @NorthwesternLaw

James Lindgren, Northwestern University School of Law, has published The Religious Beliefs, Practices, and Experiences of Law Professors at 15 University of St. Thomas Law Journal 342 (2019). Here is the abstract.

In the 1990s I surveyed law faculties at the top one hundred law schools, collecting data on professors’ religious affiliations. [Measuring Diversity: Law Faculties in 1997 and 2013, 39 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 89 (2016), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2581675] I found that Christians were represented at only about half their percentages in the larger population, while Jewish and nonreligious law professors were substantially overrepresented. Yet knowing whether a professor is, for example, Christian or Jewish only scratches the surface. For the general public, the General Social Survey and the American National Election Studies have long asked about belief in God and church attendance, but these questions had never before been asked of law professors. This article reports the results of a 2017 survey of about 500 law professors. The study first updates the 1997 study on religious preference and then moves on to explore the issues of belief in God, church attendance, and religiously motivated discrimination. Law faculties are substantially less devout than mere reports of religious preferences would indicate. Though religious belief in the general population tends to fall with increased education, that phenomenon does not explain or account for the observed magnitude of the differences. For example, while 24 percent of law professors say that they “don’t believe in God” and another 18 percent “don’t know whether God exists,” among those in the general population who have graduate and professional degrees, only 5.4 percent do not believe in God and 10.4 percent do not know whether God exists. While in this study higher percentages of Christians report religious discrimination than the non-religious, so do higher percentages of Jews and those who embrace “other religions.” As for their schools preferring non-Christians over Christians, Christians are much more likely to report this behavior than Jews or the non-religious, but the percentages reporting having witnessed this discriminatory preference are still relatively small.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

IUPUI Law: Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Position in Legal Communication and Analysis @IUMcKinney

Job Announcement

Visiting Assistant Professor in Legal Communication and Analysis

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law invites entry-level and experienced applicants for a visiting professorship in the school’s nationally ranked Legal Communication and Analysis Program.

The visitor position is a full-time position. The visitor is expected to teach up to 40 first-year students in Legal Communication and Analysis, which is a year-long course. The course is a graded, two-credit course each semester. Responsibilities include creating course materials, teaching in the classroom and in one-on-one student conferences, reviewing outlines and drafts, assessing papers, and providing detailed feedback to students.

The visitor position is ideal for one seeking entry into the legal academy. An entry-level visitor would have the opportunity to work with and learn from IU McKinney’s Legal Communication and Analysis faculty—Cynthia Adams, Brad Desnoyer, Jim Dimitri, Allison Martin, and Joel Schumm—who have decades of experience as nationally recognized teachers and scholars. The position would be a ten-month appointment for the 2020–21 academic year, with the possibility for reappointment for the 2021–22 academic year. The visitor would be given the opportunity to attend legal writing conferences and to write scholarship in the legal writing field. The visitor would not be required to serve on faculty committees or to teach during the summer.

The compensation package includes an entry-level salary of $70,000, a generous professional development fund that may be used to travel to conferences, a generous research assistant fund, and university benefits.

The law school is strongly committed to achieving excellence through intellectual diversity and strongly encourages applications from persons of color, women, persons with disabilities, the LGBT community, veterans, and members of other groups that are under-represented on university faculties. The law school is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution. For more information about the school, visit http://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/.

Applicants must demonstrate a strong academic record and strong writing skills. Ideal candidates will have teaching experience and experience as a judicial clerk or a practitioner.

To apply, please send a cover letter, a curriculum vitae, three references, a writing sample, and teaching evaluations (if available) to Professor Jim Dimitri, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, 530 West New York Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202-3225; jddimitr@iupui.edu. Individuals who require a reasonable accommodation to participate in the application process must notify Professor Dimitri a reasonable time in advance.

Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis but must be received no later than March 25, 2020.

Wasserman on Academic Feeder Judges @fiulaw

Howard Wasserman, Florida International University College of Law, has published Academic Feeder Judges as Florida International University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 20-02. Here is the abstract.

This paper identifies “academic feeder judges”—the federal judges (especially from courts of appeals) for whom law professors clerked at the beginning of their careers and the judges who “produce” law professors from the ranks of their former clerks. The study is based on a summer 2019 review of publicly available biographies and c.v.’s of full-time faculty at ABA-accredited law schools, identifying more than 3000 “academic former clerks” and the judges for whom each clerked. From this, the paper identifies: 1) 101 lower federal judges with the most academic former clerks, 2) 52 federal trial judges, 3) 53 federal judges appointed since 1995, 4) top state-court judges, and 5) SCOTUS justices, current and past. For each judge within each grouping, the study examines appointing presidents, biographical information such as former career, numbers of academic former clerks, rankings of the schools at which former clerks teach, and a projection of how many academics newer judges might produce over a 35-year judicial career. The study closes with some comments and conclusions from the data. (Spoiler alert: The leading academic feeder judge is Guido Calabresi (Second Circuit), followed closely by Stephen Reinhardt (Ninth Circuit, died in 2018), Stephen Williams (D.C. Circuit), and Dorothy Nelson (Ninth Circuit)).

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Rostron and Levit on Submitting Articles to Law Reviews & Journals @UMKCLaw

Allen Rostron and Nancy Levit, both of the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School of Law, have published Information for Submitting Articles to Law Reviews & Journals. Here is the abstract.

This document contains information about submitting articles to law reviews and journals, including the methods for submitting an article, any special formatting requirements, how to contact them to request an expedited review, and how to contact them to withdraw an article from consideration. It covers 203 law reviews.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Lloyd on How To Do Things With Signs: Semiotics in Legal Theory, Practice, and Education @LloydEsq

Harold Anthony Lloyd, Wake Forest University School of Law, has published How To Do Things With Signs: Semiotics in Legal Theory, Practice, and Education. Here is the abstract.

Discussing federal statutes, Justice Scalia tells us that “[t]he stark reality is that the only thing that one can say for sure was agreed to by both houses and the president (on signing the bill) is the text of the statute. The rest is legal fiction." How should we take this claim? If we take "text" to mean the printed text, that text without more is just a series of marks. If instead we take "text" (as we must) to refer to something off the page such as the "meaning" of the series of marks at issue, what is that meaning and how do we know that all the legislators "agreed" on that "meaning"? In seeking answers here, we necessarily delve into semiotics (i.e., the “general theory of signs”) by noting that meaningful ink marks ("signifiers) signify a meaning beyond themselves (the "signified.") Thus, understanding how signs function is integral to lawyers' textual and linguistic analysis. Additionally, as this article demonstrates, legal analysis and rhetoric are much impoverished if lawyers ignore nonverbal signs such as icons, indices, and nonverbal symbols. In providing a broad overview of semiotics for lawyers, this article thus (1) begins with a general definition of signs and the related notion of intentionality. It then turns to, among other things, (2) the structure and concomitants of signs in more detail (including the signifier and the signified), (3) the possible correlations of the signifier and the signified that generate signs of interest to lawyers such as the index, the icon, and the symbol; (5) the expansion of legal rhetoric through use of the index, the icon, and the non-verbal as well as the verbal symbol, (6) the nature of various semiotic acts in public and private law (including assertives, commissives, directives, and verdictives); (7) the interpretation and construction of semiotic acts (including contracts as commissives and legislation as directives); (8) the role of speaker or reader meaning in the interpretation and construction of semiotic acts; (9) the semiotics of meaning, time, and the fixation of meaning debate; (10) the impact of signifier drift; (11) the distinction between sense and understanding; and (12) some brief reflections on semiotics and the First Amendment. This article also provides an Appendix of further terms and concepts useful to lawyers in their explorations of semiotics.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

McMurtry-Chubb on Still Writing at the Master's Table @genremixtress

Teri A. McMurtry-Chubb, John Marshall Law School; Mercer University School of Law, has published Still Writing at the Master's Table: Decolonizing Rhetoric in Legal Writing For a 'Woke' Legal Academy at 21 Scholar 255 (2019). Here is the abstract.

When I wrote Writing At the Master’s Table: Reflections on Theft, Criminality, and Otherness in the Legal Writing Profession almost 10 years ago, my aim was to bring a Critical Race Theory/Feminism (CRTF) analysis to scholarship about the marginalization of White women law professors of legal writing. I focused on the convergence of race, gender, and status to highlight the distinct inequities women of color face in entering their ranks. My concern was that barriers to entry for women of color made it less likely that the existing legal writing professorate, predominantly White and female, would problematize the ways students are taught legal reasoning, analysis and writing. I argued: “If the traditional [dominant] legal analytical process is normalized and passed off as objective, both in the content of the legal writing curriculum and in the body of the person teaching the curriculum, most students unwittingly will continue to replicate racist and elitist legal structures as they learn the very process of legal reasoning and analysis in law school and as they undertake the practice of law.” I pick up that major theme in this article by focusing on how law professors of legal writing are forced to serve as handmaidens of hierarchy in the maintenance of the legal academy as an elite and closed discourse community. It considers how in teaching students how to “do” law - employ legal reasoning and analysis through written communication - legal writing curricula provide for no critique of the colonized formal rhetorical structures in which critical thinking, reading, analysis and writing skills are grounded. Part I problematizes the relationship of the five canons of rhetoric, specifically Invention and Dispositio, to Western/European epistemologies. Part II introduces Indigenous, African and Asian Diasporic Rhetorics, and Latinx Rhetorics as critiques of the canons of rhetoric and the Western concept of canonicity; examines them as new sites for Inventio and Dispositio; and considers the implications for teaching legal reasoning, analysis, and communication. Part III explores how de-centering Western epistemologies as the sole acceptable source of rhetoric opens possibilities for decolonizing the legal academy, and for preparing law students to become change agents in the practice of law.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.