Data by @USNews “Unranks” Some Law Schools, But Legal Editors Deserve Raises (or something)

I tend not to say much about the U.S. News & World Report rankings of law schools. No offense to the schools that did well (or the opposite), but the rankings are a little goofy. Kind of like an ABA accreditation process that counts the number of hard-copy volumes a law school has, as if that is an important indicator of legal training. (I love books, but I think 1970 is calling, and they want their library back.)

The ranking process is, shall we say, opaque. It reminds me of the vaulted (and vaunted) formula Google uses to calculate news rankings. Somewhere in there is the secret sauce that will move schools up.

As I thought about that, I came across a Department of Defense PowerPoint chart (below) that “explains” stabilization in Afghanistan. And some small quadrant of that represents the complexity that must occupy the waking hours of law school administrators. No wonder they rub their temples a lot.

It really is this complex to determine who trains lawyers the best?

Despite my skepticism for the process, a recent ABA Journal news story on the topic caught my eye, for a few reasons.

For one, it included a good Bloomberg video (posted below) on this year’s rankings. Clearly, there is no joy in some Mudvilles.

And second, the following sentence grabbed my attention: “Greater weight is now given for permanent, full-time jobs that require bar passage or for which a J.D. is an advantage.”

Really? I’ve been referred to as “disadvantaged.” But never the reverse. My job as a legal magazine editor has been recognized as more valuable?

I’ll alert my masters. And Accounting.

Hmmm. Maybe I should start to take those rankings more seriously.

You can read the whole news piece here.

Follow @azatty

 

An Altered Calendar Offered by @Phxlaw to Attract, Serve Law School Candidates

Phoenix School of Law (©Kevin_Korczyk)

This week, it seems that all the news is coming out of the law schools.

No, I’m not going to cover the revelation of this year’s US News & World Report law school rankings (otherwise known as the one element that keeps people reading US News & World Report). Instead, I point to another effort of a law school to transform itself to meet the shifting demands of possible students.

The story is a mild one, referring to the Phoenix School of Law’s alteration of its semester structure. As the article opens:

“Phoenix School of Law (PSL) announced that it is expanding its current schedule from two academic terms to three academic terms beginning in the fall of 2013. The academic terms will start in the fall, spring and summer. Students have the option of attending either two or three terms during the academic year. The new structure offers significant advantages to students and is responsive to challenges currently facing legal education and the legal industry.”

The whole story is here.

In an economic downturn, every change—even a “mild” one—is a potential game-changer. As more and more college graduates nationwide decide to forego a legal education that appears to be only tangentially related to the possibility of landing an actual law job, maybe changes like the semester structure could be persuasive.

What do you think?

In an upcoming post, I’ll examine the newest (and boldest) effort of the ASU College of Law to enhance its offerings—by opening a for-profit law firm to employ some of its grads.

Follow @azatty

 

Annual @ASUCollegeofLaw eDiscovery Conference Slated for This Week

At the end of this week, a conference on eDiscovery issues will provide insights and national speakers.

I wrote about last year’s conference, here and here. I’d expect more great content this week.

As the ASU Law School describes it:

Judge John Facciola

“The Second Annual ASU–Arkfeld eDiscovery and Digital Evidence Conference will focus on the practical and cutting-edge issues affecting the discovery and admission of electronic information. The annual conference is hosted by the Center for Law, Science & Innovation, in collaboration with Michael Arkfeld, Director of the ASU–Arkfeld eDiscovery Program.”

You may register here.

It’s looking like I will be unable to attend any of the events at this year’s conference. But I’d enjoy hearing from someone who does attend. If you’d like to write a follow-up post, long-ish or short-ish, just let me know. It could be an overview of the entire conference, or a briefer post on a single panel or on the keynote address, delivered by Judge John Facciola. And photos are always welcome.

Write to me at arizona.attorney@azbar.org.

Follow @azatty

 

Paul Schiff Berman Exits Dean Position at @gwlaw

Paul Schiff Berman

Let me keep today’s post pretty short and a little less than sweet.

Something odd happened back east to a law school dean. And that former dean has ties to the Grand Canyon State.

Anyone up on updates regarding the ASU Law School probably learned this weeks ago, but for everyone else, it may be news that Paul Schiff Berman has exited the deanship at the George Washington University Law School.

Berman, you may recall, helmed the ASU Law School for a time (you can read our interview with him here). But he headed east to lead GWU Law, which was announced in April 2011. That, however, didn’t last long. By summer 2012, discontent was evident. By January 2013, he had left the law school, and the university named him vice provost for online education and academic innovation.

More than ever before, law deans have proven to be a transitory bunch. But even in a world in which deanships are rarely calculated in decades, Berman’s exit is noteworthy for its speediness. And according to the university newspaper, his departure was welcomed by a majority of law school professors. The story, titled “Law faculty plotted to oust dean,” opens:

“Faculty say they launched a near coup to remove the former dean of the GW Law School, who unexpectedly announced last fall he would resign after holding the position for just 18 months.”

“Paul Schiff Berman stepped down in January and moved to a new vice provost position after professors drafted a petition to reject his leadership, citing staff tensions and poor decision-making about how to restore a reeling legal education system, The Hatchet has learned.”

Yes, the independent student newspaper is called “The Hatchet.” Draw your own conclusions.

If you want another take on the dean’s departure, be sure to read Above the Law.

A hat tip to Arizona lawyer (and ASU Law alum) Ruth Carter for sharing the news. If there is a followup or more of a response from Professor Berman, we’ll share it.

Follow @azatty

 

Interdisciplinary Journal of Law and Courts Publishes First Issue

Maybe it’s just because my fingers are stained with ink, but the following story pleases me quite a bit.

A new law review is being launched.

That sounds odd. Maybe I should explain my pleasure.

No, it’s not that a score more legal articles will populate the world every year (though that may be good news, depending on the articles). And it’s not that a thousand more footnotes will have the opportunity to join our already-footnote-laden world. (Once upon a time, I was senior managing editor on a law school journal, so I know whereof I speak. And I know how to use whereof.)

It is merely because a long-form style of writing, which actually requires something of the reader, will now be launched and have a chance to blossom (said the guy writing on his blog).

The Journal of Law and Courts will be published by The University of Chicago Press, which may have a corner on the “old-school intellectual” market.

Here is how the Press describes the new journal:

“Sponsored by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association, JLC aims to be the premier journal for members of the law and courts intellectual community.”

I could be crazy, but I think there’s a typo in there. Oh well, ink-stained wretches (even at the UofC) will do that on occasion.

Besides enjoying actual writing by authors who think deeply, I also think the chosen topic is one that will provide much fertile ground to cover. As the publishers say,

“The peer-reviewed journal publishes scholarship that examines legal institutions, actors, processes, and policy. As an interdisciplinary journal, JLC is dedicated to combating intellectual fragmentation by promoting communication and fertilization across traditional boundaries.”

Who doesn’t support the battle against intellectual fragmentation? I know I do.

Here is what the inaugural issue will include:

• Gillian K. Hadfield and Barry R. Weingast, “Law without the State: Legal Attributes and the Coordination of Decentralized Collective Punishment”
• Ryan J. Owens, Justin Wedeking, and Patrick C. Wohlfarth, “How the Supreme Court Alters Opinion Language to Evade Congressional Review”
• Alec Stone Sweet and Thomas L. Brunell, “Trustee Courts and the Judicialization of  International Regimes: The Politics of Majoritarian Activism in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization”
• Lawrence Baum, “Linking Issues to Ideology in the Supreme Court: The Takings Clause”
• Ward Farnsworth, Dustin Guzior, and Anup Malani, “Policy Preferences and Legal Interpretation”
• Peter F. Nardulli, Buddy Peyton, and Joseph Bajjalieh, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Rule of Law Constructs, 1850-2010”

The first issue (March) will be free to all. Subsequent issues, not so much. So if you also support thoughtful prose, head over to the Journal of Law and Courts site now.

Follow @azatty

 

Roe v. Wade Speaker Panel at @ASUCollegeofLaw

Larry Hammond

I should have shared this before, but at noon today, the ASU Law School is the site for what looks to be a compelling speaker panel.

“Then, Then & Now: Reproductive Rights Before and After Roe and In Our Future” is the second installment of a three-part speaker series. Organizers say the discussion “will focus on the social and legal impact of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, in honor of its 40th anniversary.”

(I wrote about the panel last year.)

Among those who will speak is attorney Larry Hammond, law clerk to Justice Lewis Powell at the time Roe was decided.

Where: The Great Hall at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at ASU.

When: Noon – 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 5

Food: Yes! Lunch will be catered by Carolina’s Mexican Food.

The event is open to the public and no RSVP is necessary.

More detail is here.

Follow @azatty

 

The @AZStateBar Bar Flys Run for John Roll Memorial Fund

A few of the Bar Flys smile after completing the P.F. Chang’s Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon, January 2013.

News from the State Bar of Arizona:

“State Bar members, employees, Arizona law school students, and Arizona law school faculty members—83 in all—successfully participated in P.F. Chang’s Rock ‘n’ Roll Arizona Marathon and Half Marathon ‘Get Fit Challenge.’ This year’s ‘Bar Flys’ team was the largest group participating in the Corporate Medium category.”

Thank you, as always, to Bar Counsel David Sandweiss, who leads the Bar Flys Team. He told me that this year, they had more law student participants than ever. Well done.

For more detail and a list of all the hardy runners, keep reading here.

Follow @azatty

 

Symposium at @ASUCollegeofLaw To Address Criminal Justice Challenges

Today, some news from a noteworthy journal at the ASU College of Law:

“On March 1, join the Law Journal for Social Justice for a daylong symposium featuring attorneys, judges, community advocates, and legal scholars as we examine how to transform an inherently unfair criminal justice system into one that values fairness and efficiency.”

“Featured speaker Paul Charlton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, leads off the day with a discussion about ethics and sentencing reform. Other panel topics include vulnerable populations in the criminal justice system, the mental health crisis within the criminal justice system and ways to reform the system in a more fair and efficient way.”

More information on speakers, the agenda and a link to register are here.

And be sure to follow the journal on Facebook here.

Follow @azatty

 

Students From @ArizonaLaw To Argue Before U.S. Court of Appeals for Armed Forces

So far, my overscheduled Tuesday looks like it won’t accommodate a trip south to Tucson. And that’s really too bad. (Well, that’s too bad most any day, but it’s especially the case on February 26.)

The reason I’d like to drop by the University of Arizona Law School is to attend an oral argument—before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, of all legal bodies.

Here is how the Court describes itself and its civilian judges:

“The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the armed forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Court is composed of five civilian judges appointed for 15-year terms by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

The Rehnquist Center at the law school has announced the morning event, during which law students will have the opportunity to argue; those same students have already filed an amicus brief in the case.

The Center says that the Court has never traveled to Tucson. But if that’s not enough of a draw, here are the case facts:

“GCM conviction of possession of child pornography, larceny of military property and filing a false claim. Granted issues question (1) whether the military judge abused his discretion when he failed to suppress evidence of child pornography discovered on Appellant’s personal computer in the course of an unreasonable search conducted to find contraband after Appellant was wounded in Iraq and medically evacuated to the United States; and (2) whether the Army Court erred in creating a new exception to the Fourth Amendment when it held that the Government’s search of Appellant’s personal computer was reasonable because the Government was not ‘certain’ or ‘absolutely clear’ that it would be returned to the wounded-warrior Appellant.”

From where I sit, that is a fascinating Fourth Amendment question. (Although didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court this past Term examine a question related to privacy rights on a school computer that could possibly be returned to the employer? What case was that? Anyone?) (Recently, Canada’s Supreme Court took the view that folks do have some measure of privacy, even on their work-issued computer. O Canada.)

More information about the Tuesday morning arguments is here. Included among the detail are the argument briefs (in PDF).

Follow @azatty

 

Writer Sought To Cover @PhxLaw Lawyers as Peacemakers Conference

You are: Planning to attend a noteworthy legal conference, but would like the opportunity to use your writing and reporting skills to share a follow-up with Arizona’s legal community.

We are: Arizona’s legal community, eager to share your story on the magazine blog.

The Phoenix School of Law Lawyers as Peacemakers and Healers Conference runs this Friday night through Sunday. Currently, it appears no one here at the magazine will be able to attend this remarkable gathering. But if you’re planning to be there and would like to write a story, with attribution, we would like to talk with you.

Ideally, likely writers will be unaffiliated with the conference except as an attendee. Lawyers and law students who have an interest should contact me at arizona.attorney@azbar.org.

Here is the website for the Lawyers as Peacemakers and Healers Conference, which runs February 22 through 24. And you can Like it on Facebook here.

For background, click here for last year’s program.

And as a great service to the legal community, event organizers have posted video recordings of all presentations from last year.

Follow @azatty