ILNews

Robel: Preparing for seamlessly global profession

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

By Lauren K. Robel
 

robel-lauren-dean-mug Robel

What does the future hold for the law students who began their studies a few weeks ago in Bloomington and across the United States? As the press fills with concerns about the economic viability of a law degree, and the fragile economic climate continues, how should law schools be reimagining the education they provide to students who will be practicing well into the middle of this century? An important part of the answer to that question involves grappling seriously with the effects of globalization on legal practice and the profession.

I saw a part of what the future holds for my students in the office of Shardul Shroff, managing partner of the largest law firm in India, Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. Shroff was demonstrating the phenomenal teleconferencing system that permits the firm to engage in commercial arbitration from its Delhi offices, but attach jurisdiction anywhere in the world. In the Amarchand conference room, as in many of its U.S. counterparts, practice is seamlessly global.

I had seen the future as well in my conversations with the young cosmopolitan lawyers at S & R Associates, literally across the street. Educated in multiple countries including our own, with resumes that include Wall Street law firms, these lawyers had built a successful capital transactions practice that ignores national borders. One of their latest deals had them working with Armachand, Latham & Watkins, and Shearman & Sterling on an IPO on the NASDAQ.

The formal lawyer regulatory structure, both here and abroad, is increasingly overmatched by facts on the ground. While foreign lawyers are prohibited from joining the Indian bar, many Indian firms, like their counterparts in Brazil and China, work with foreign lawyers daily. And they have generously welcomed students from Indiana University Maurer School of Law, as have other firms, NGOs, and corporate legal offices in Delhi, São Paulo, and Beijing. These students gained legal and cultural experience and an understanding of their professional counterparts as part of the school’s Center on the Global Legal Profession’s programs. Increasing the number of our students who spend the summer after their first year in internships in these markets is a high priority for our faculty.

Need we even ask why? The economics of globalization are a stunning given in these students’ lives, and these countries have enviable growth rates: in India, close to 8 percent annually; in China, over 10 percent. As one of the students who worked in India said admiringly, “The zeitgeist of India is growth.” An increasingly large part of the legal work that emanates from business will come from these growing economies. Our students worked on an array of legal issues this summer, from resisting an Interpol “red notice” to addressing legal questions about Internet gambling, to the issues surrounding microfinance for street vendors. The legal issues our students addressed flow across borders, involve both national and supra-national regulatory structures and institutions, and increasingly involve teams of lawyers from multiple countries. Much of the legal world, both foreign and domestic, is now transnational.

And this geographically porous legal practice is not simply – or even mostly –the domain of international law. I talked last week to a lawyer in a single-person office in an Indiana town of 2,000 who has outsourced research to India – and been quite satisfied with the results. Other Indiana lawyers deal daily with the legal effects of a smaller and flatter world on families and small businesses. “Thinking like a lawyer” is, for this generation of students, necessarily a global endeavor.

If the zeitgeist of the developing world is growth, that of the academic world is global mobility. Indeed, we are awash in it, from the Indian, Chinese, and Korean lawyers who assume that career advancement includes a degree from overseas, to that admiring Maurer student who went from his Indian internship to our joint-degree MBA program in Seoul. The leader of one of our Indian partner institutions is a human-rights lawyer with degrees from India, Oxford and Harvard. His legal career took him through Singapore and Tokyo, and his understanding of the legal needs of the global future is existential and deep. He recruits faculty and students from around the world. Our academic institutions must be equally adept at understanding this future, and in close conversation with our global counterparts, if we are to prepare students to meet those challenges effectively.

While the U.S. and the U.K. have been the destinations of choice for these globally oriented lawyers and academics, nothing about that arrangement is written in stone. Asian countries increasingly offer J.D. degrees with common-law and transnational curricula, as does Australia. Keeping the U.S. law school experience attractive to these students is as important to the way we train American lawyers, who need to develop their own global networks, as it is to the Chinese lawyers who want to understand what has made the U.S. legal system so durable.

To do that, shouldn’t we assure that the educational experience of the lawyers we are now educating is as seamlessly global as that Armachand conference room? Our classrooms, and our thinking, need to be informed by that room, and by the globalization that is an inevitable part of our students’ futures.•

__________

Lauren K. Robel
is Dean and Val Nolan Professor of Law at 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT