ILNews

Dean's Desk: Effective legal education depends on strong partnerships

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dean-buxbaun-hannahIn recent years, the state of legal education in the United States has attracted significant attention from outside the academy. The resulting discussion has touched on a number of issues. Some of them relate to the financing of law education: tuition policies, student debt loads, state support for public universities. Others include the accreditation process and law schools’ reporting of admissions and employment data. The most fundamental question that has been raised, however, is simply whether legal education today is effective — and whether it is sufficiently relevant to students’ future careers as practicing lawyers.

To be effective and relevant, law education must provide students with a bridge to a legal career. Even if law graduates cannot be expected on day one to possess the full complement of lawyerly techniques, they should be expected to arrive with the basic set of skills and professional competencies that successful lawyers require. Just as important, they should know something about the profession that they will be joining, and they should have taken the first steps toward developing their own professional goals and identity.

Building this bridge between law schools and law practice calls for strong and successful partnerships among law schools, practicing lawyers and other professionals. At Indiana University Maurer School of Law, we are committed to the pursuit of these partnerships. I want to highlight two of them.

Partnerships with adjunct faculty

At Indiana Law, our adjunct faculty members help us build the bridge to professional life in at least three ways:

Specialized instruction. Drawing on a wealth of experience in particular fields of practice, adjunct faculty members offer important enrichment courses to upper-class law students. They teach classes such as IP antitrust, state and local tax, Federal Circuit advocacy, and state constitutional law, among many others. These courses allow our students to build on doctrinal and analytical foundations while acquiring deeper knowledge in areas in which they might ultimately practice.

Practice-oriented instruction. The instruction that adjunct faculty members provide is grounded in their deeply contextualized knowledge of the law as it plays out in courtrooms, conference rooms and client interactions. This practice-oriented instruction helps students identify the patterns of law in action and gives them a feel for the modes of analysis and argumentation on which lawyers depend.

Real-time case studies. Many of our adjuncts teach their classes in a real-time setting. They bring to Bloomington matters they are working on that call for high-level problem-solving, with all the consequences and time constraints of an actual practice. This approach gives students a first-hand view of the capacities that successful lawyers require: among them problem-solving, leadership, communication, priority-setting, responsiveness to deadlines, and the ability to weigh the risks and benefits of alternative legal strategies.

Partnerships with alumni and friends

In 2009, the Maurer School of Law redesigned its course on professional responsibility. In addition to the typical study of the “law of lawyering,” the course helps students identify the career that will best suit them, based on the discovery of their personal and professional strengths, attributes and values. Our partnership with members of the practicing bar has been indispensable in making this course a success — part of a true professional development program.

Alumni and friends of the school contribute their time and expertise to the program in the following ways:

• They participate in panel discussions featuring lawyers from many different practice settings, as well as additional events such as networking sessions and resume workshops.

• Through our Career Choices series, a required component of the legal profession course, lawyers come to Bloomington to speak to students about their work, including their substantive area of practice. In addition, Career Choices speakers invite students to individual or small-group informational interviews or discussions during their visit to the school.

• In one required course assignment, students conduct independent research to help them learn about the context in which lawyers work while reflecting on their own potential fit within the profession. To do this, they interview five law school graduates in person, at least two of whom they don’t already know. Based on their interviews, students write a paper covering what they learned about the work undertaken by law graduates and how the lessons from the interview have shaped their own career plans.

In a typical year, nearly 100 lawyers visit the Maurer School of Law to share their experiences and hundreds more help with the interview assignment. Our career development program would simply not be possible without this strong partnership between our school and the bench and bar.

Partnerships with adjunct faculty members and other legal professionals contribute something that enhances our students’ educational experience immeasurably: a contextual, applied orientation to the law that helps students close the gap between what they learn in law school and where they are headed in practice. They play a unique and crucial role in increasing the effectiveness and relevance of law education.•

__________

Hannah L. Buxbaum is Interim Dean and John E. Schiller Chair in Legal Ethics at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law. Opinions expressed are the author’s.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT