{"title":"Cases and Places: A Field-Based Approach to Teaching Natural Resource and Environmental Law","authors":"Karrigan S. Bork, Kurtis C. Burmeister","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3253986","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3253986","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39591,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Education","volume":"68 1","pages":"338"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68578471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Do you want to teach at a top 25 law school? If so, you had better excel at something you will encounter years before you will even consider applying to be a law professor. Something that has no relationship at all to the skills academics need. You better score extremely high on the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) (or now at some schools the GRE). If you don’t score towards the very top, you will likely not be admitted to a top 10 ranked law school. And if you do not attend a top 10 ranked law school, no matter what you accomplish during the school you do attend (even a top 20 school) or afterwards, your chances of teaching at a top law school are virtually non-existent. The reality is that by far the most important credential one needs to teach at a top law school is to attend a top law school. The elite, teaching the elite, who will then teach more elites.
{"title":"The Elite Teaching the Elite: Who Gets Hired by the Top Law Schools?","authors":"E. Segall, Adam D. Feldman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3279878","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3279878","url":null,"abstract":"Do you want to teach at a top 25 law school? If so, you had better excel at something you will encounter years before you will even consider applying to be a law professor. Something that has no relationship at all to the skills academics need. You better score extremely high on the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) (or now at some schools the GRE). If you don’t score towards the very top, you will likely not be admitted to a top 10 ranked law school. And if you do not attend a top 10 ranked law school, no matter what you accomplish during the school you do attend (even a top 20 school) or afterwards, your chances of teaching at a top law school are virtually non-existent. The reality is that by far the most important credential one needs to teach at a top law school is to attend a top law school. The elite, teaching the elite, who will then teach more elites.","PeriodicalId":39591,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Education","volume":"68 1","pages":"614"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2018-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46998288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Law school institutional learning outcomes require measuring nuanced skills that develop over time. Rather than look at achievement just in our own courses, institutional outcome-measures assessment requires collective faculty engagement and critical thinking about our students’ overall acquisition of the skills, knowledge, and qualities that ensure they graduate with the competencies necessary to begin life as professionals. Even for those who believe outcomes assessment is a positive move in legal education, in an era of limited budgets and already over-burdened faculty, the new mandated outcomes assessment process raises cost and workload concerns. This essay addresses those concerns. It describes a relatively simple, low-cost model to measure institutional law school learning outcomes that does not require any initial changes in individual faculty members’ pedagogical approach or assessment methods. It explains how a rubric method, used by the Association of American Colleges and Universities [AAC&U] and medical educators to assess a wide range of nuanced skills such as critical thinking and analysis, written and oral communication, problem-solving, intercultural competence, teamwork, and self-reflection, could be adapted by law schools. The essay explains a five-step institutional outcomes assessment process: 1. Develop rubrics for institutional learning outcomes that can be assessed in law school courses; 2. Identify courses that will use the rubrics; 3. Ask faculty in designated courses to assess and grade as they usually do, adding only one more step – completion of a short rubric for each student; 4. Enter the rubric data; and 5. Analyze and use the data to improve student learning. The essay appendix provides sample rubrics for a wide range of law school institutional learning outcomes. This outcomes assessment method provides an option for collecting data on institutional learning outcomes assessment in a cost-effective manner, allowing faculties to gather data that provides an overview of student learning across a wide range of learning outcomes. How faculties use that data depends upon the results as well as individual schools’ commitment to using the outcomes assessment process to help ensure their graduates have the knowledge, skills and values necessary to practice law.Citation: Andrea A. Curcio, A Simple Low-Cost Institutional Learning-Outcomes Assessment Process, 67 J. Legal Educ. 489 (2018).
{"title":"A Simple Low-Cost Institutional Learning-Outcomes Assessment Process","authors":"A. Curcio","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/3az5n","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/3az5n","url":null,"abstract":"Law school institutional learning outcomes require measuring nuanced skills that develop over time. Rather than look at achievement just in our own courses, institutional outcome-measures assessment requires collective faculty engagement and critical thinking about our students’ overall acquisition of the skills, knowledge, and qualities that ensure they graduate with the competencies necessary to begin life as professionals. Even for those who believe outcomes assessment is a positive move in legal education, in an era of limited budgets and already over-burdened faculty, the new mandated outcomes assessment process raises cost and workload concerns. This essay addresses those concerns. It describes a relatively simple, low-cost model to measure institutional law school learning outcomes that does not require any initial changes in individual faculty members’ pedagogical approach or assessment methods. It explains how a rubric method, used by the Association of American Colleges and Universities [AAC&U] and medical educators to assess a wide range of nuanced skills such as critical thinking and analysis, written and oral communication, problem-solving, intercultural competence, teamwork, and self-reflection, could be adapted by law schools. The essay explains a five-step institutional outcomes assessment process: 1. Develop rubrics for institutional learning outcomes that can be assessed in law school courses; 2. Identify courses that will use the rubrics; 3. Ask faculty in designated courses to assess and grade as they usually do, adding only one more step – completion of a short rubric for each student; 4. Enter the rubric data; and 5. Analyze and use the data to improve student learning. The essay appendix provides sample rubrics for a wide range of law school institutional learning outcomes. This outcomes assessment method provides an option for collecting data on institutional learning outcomes assessment in a cost-effective manner, allowing faculties to gather data that provides an overview of student learning across a wide range of learning outcomes. How faculties use that data depends upon the results as well as individual schools’ commitment to using the outcomes assessment process to help ensure their graduates have the knowledge, skills and values necessary to practice law.Citation: Andrea A. Curcio, A Simple Low-Cost Institutional Learning-Outcomes Assessment Process, 67 J. Legal Educ. 489 (2018).","PeriodicalId":39591,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Education","volume":"67 1","pages":"489-530"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2018-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47260274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Journal of Legal Education, vol. 68, no. 1 (2019) Visual briefs and other forms of visual rhetoric in legal communication may eventually become the norm in legal practice because of the enormous communicative and rhetorical power of visual media. Brain science demonstrates that visual devices work rapidly, almost immediately, to communicate ideas and attain the audience’s adherence to the meaning and truth of the ideas communicated, and thus to persuade the audience of the truth and propriety of the speaker’s communication. Visual representation is also associated with greater perception, comprehension, and retention of information. Visual imagery is not only faster than words, it is better than words. Law students and lawyers should be aware that the tool of visual rhetoric is very sharp, and because of the audience’s pre-cognitive and cognitive brain functions in interpreting and understanding the message of visual works, which often process and draw meaning, reactions, and motivations from images without active “thinking,” the sharpness cuts in multiple directions. These attributes require special attention so as to avoid intentional or inadvertent misleading of the audience when using visual rhetorical devices. This Article offers guidance with regard to: (A) the analysis of when to use or not use a visual rhetorical device; (B) the concept of mise en scene and the manipulation of visual devices; (C) the decision to use color or not to use color; and (D) the advisability of focus groups, and testing a visual device before a wider and more diverse test audience.
{"title":"The Sharpest Tool in the Toolbox: Visual Legal Rhetoric","authors":"Michael D. Murray","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3040952","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3040952","url":null,"abstract":"Journal of Legal Education, vol. 68, no. 1 (2019) \u0000 \u0000Visual briefs and other forms of visual rhetoric in legal communication may eventually become the norm in legal practice because of the enormous communicative and rhetorical power of visual media. Brain science demonstrates that visual devices work rapidly, almost immediately, to communicate ideas and attain the audience’s adherence to the meaning and truth of the ideas communicated, and thus to persuade the audience of the truth and propriety of the speaker’s communication. Visual representation is also associated with greater perception, comprehension, and retention of information. Visual imagery is not only faster than words, it is better than words. \u0000 \u0000Law students and lawyers should be aware that the tool of visual rhetoric is very sharp, and because of the audience’s pre-cognitive and cognitive brain functions in interpreting and understanding the message of visual works, which often process and draw meaning, reactions, and motivations from images without active “thinking,” the sharpness cuts in multiple directions. These attributes require special attention so as to avoid intentional or inadvertent misleading of the audience when using visual rhetorical devices. \u0000 \u0000This Article offers guidance with regard to: \u0000 \u0000(A) the analysis of when to use or not use a visual rhetorical device; \u0000 \u0000(B) the concept of mise en scene and the manipulation of visual devices; \u0000 \u0000(C) the decision to use color or not to use color; and \u0000 \u0000(D) the advisability of focus groups, and testing a visual device before a wider and more diverse test audience.","PeriodicalId":39591,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Education","volume":"68 1","pages":"64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2018-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43873370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article uses principles of design theory and high-impact practices to explore how to move assessment from the outsider place it usually occupies in traditional legal education to an insider position. When assessment is reframed as a tool to engage, monitor, and evaluate important practices, it becomes an insider in both status and function, promoting both an assessment-centric learning environment and robust feedback.
{"title":"Rescuing Pluto from the Cold: Creating an Assessment-Centered Legal Education","authors":"S. Friedland","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3019431","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3019431","url":null,"abstract":"This article uses principles of design theory and high-impact practices to explore how to move assessment from the outsider place it usually occupies in traditional legal education to an insider position. When assessment is reframed as a tool to engage, monitor, and evaluate important practices, it becomes an insider in both status and function, promoting both an assessment-centric learning environment and robust feedback.","PeriodicalId":39591,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Education","volume":"67 1","pages":"592"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49483612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
“Property” in most law schools means real property: the dense, illogical, and special-purpose body of land law. But this is wrong: property also comes in personal, intangible, and intellectual flavors—all of them more important to modern lawyers than land. Real property is deeply unrepresentative of property law, and focusing our teaching on it sells the subject short. A better property course would fully embrace these other forms of property as real property’s equals. Escaping the traditional but labyrinthine classifications of real property frees teachers to bring out the underlying conceptual coherence and unity of property law. The resulting course is easier to teach, more enjoyable for students, and more relevant to legal practice. There is no excuse not to switch.
{"title":"Real + Imaginary = Complex: Toward a Better Property Course","authors":"James Grimmelmann","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/8w3d6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/8w3d6","url":null,"abstract":"“Property” in most law schools means real property: the dense, illogical, and special-purpose body of land law. But this is wrong: property also comes in personal, intangible, and intellectual flavors—all of them more important to modern lawyers than land. Real property is deeply unrepresentative of property law, and focusing our teaching on it sells the subject short. A better property course would fully embrace these other forms of property as real property’s equals. Escaping the traditional but labyrinthine classifications of real property frees teachers to bring out the underlying conceptual coherence and unity of property law. The resulting course is easier to teach, more enjoyable for students, and more relevant to legal practice. There is no excuse not to switch.","PeriodicalId":39591,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Education","volume":"66 1","pages":"930"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43735736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Students who leave their JD program before graduation leave empty handed, without an additional degree or other credential indicating that their law school studies had any professional, educational, or marketable value. The absence of such a credential combines with the substantial risks and costs associated with law school education to discourage risk averse students from applying. The adverse impacts of these risks may be especially great for lower income students who have fewer financial resources to draw on and less information about their fit with legal education and the legal profession. I propose that law schools award a master’s degree to students who successfully complete the 1L curriculum but leave before completing the full JD curriculum. My suggested name for this degree is Master of Legal Principles (MLP). This degree option will lower the risks associated with law school enrollment as well as provide a valuable and largely-standardized employment credential. Using detailed educational data from the National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG), I show that the lack of field-specific training provided by undergraduate majors impedes learning about the likely fit of potential students with the law school curriculum and the legal profession. Using labor market data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Information Network (O*NET), I document a wide range of occupations for which the MLP degree would be appropriate, in that these occupations draw on legal knowledge but do not require a JD degree. Without the debt associated with the full JD curriculum, those with the MLP will be positioned to provide limited legal services at a lower cost, thus increasing access to justice. The expanded degree offering of an MLP degree also will benefit law schools by attracting more, and more diverse, applicants.
{"title":"Increasing Diversity by a New Master’s Degree in Legal Principles","authors":"J. Hersch","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3024230","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3024230","url":null,"abstract":"Students who leave their JD program before graduation leave empty handed, without an additional degree or other credential indicating that their law school studies had any professional, educational, or marketable value. The absence of such a credential combines with the substantial risks and costs associated with law school education to discourage risk averse students from applying. The adverse impacts of these risks may be especially great for lower income students who have fewer financial resources to draw on and less information about their fit with legal education and the legal profession. I propose that law schools award a master’s degree to students who successfully complete the 1L curriculum but leave before completing the full JD curriculum. My suggested name for this degree is Master of Legal Principles (MLP). This degree option will lower the risks associated with law school enrollment as well as provide a valuable and largely-standardized employment credential. Using detailed educational data from the National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG), I show that the lack of field-specific training provided by undergraduate majors impedes learning about the likely fit of potential students with the law school curriculum and the legal profession. Using labor market data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Information Network (O*NET), I document a wide range of occupations for which the MLP degree would be appropriate, in that these occupations draw on legal knowledge but do not require a JD degree. Without the debt associated with the full JD curriculum, those with the MLP will be positioned to provide limited legal services at a lower cost, thus increasing access to justice. The expanded degree offering of an MLP degree also will benefit law schools by attracting more, and more diverse, applicants.","PeriodicalId":39591,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Education","volume":"67 1","pages":"86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47020328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The tension between the competing demands of the First. Amendment’s guarantee of free expression and the Fourteenth Amendment’s implicit promise of dignity and equality has long been evident in societal debates about identity politics, in academic writing, and in disputes over regulation of campus speech. This article argues that the First Amendment generally protects campus speech that includes hurtful words, even those that verbally assault a target or are seen as perpetuating an environment that demeans or endangers women, minorities and others. Protection of such offensive speech also promotes the proclaimed norms of higher education, which is why so many private colleges and universities bind themselves to First Amendment standards which are only applicable to public institutions as a matter of law. In addition to analyzing campus speech regulations under First Amendment standards, the article offers some possible solutions and constitutionally sound responses, concluding with suggestions directed at law schools.
{"title":"Assaultive Words and Constitutional Norms","authors":"Catherine J. Ross","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3271339","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3271339","url":null,"abstract":"The tension between the competing demands of the First. Amendment’s guarantee of free expression and the Fourteenth Amendment’s implicit promise of dignity and equality has long been evident in societal debates about identity politics, in academic writing, and in disputes over regulation of campus speech. This article argues that the First Amendment generally protects campus speech that includes hurtful words, even those that verbally assault a target or are seen as perpetuating an environment that demeans or endangers women, minorities and others. Protection of such offensive speech also promotes the proclaimed norms of higher education, which is why so many private colleges and universities bind themselves to First Amendment standards which are only applicable to public institutions as a matter of law. In addition to analyzing campus speech regulations under First Amendment standards, the article offers some possible solutions and constitutionally sound responses, concluding with suggestions directed at law schools.","PeriodicalId":39591,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Education","volume":"66 1","pages":"739"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68580595","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Law school programs are increasingly expanding collaborative experiences for their students. In many clinical programs, collaboration -- through team pairings and group work -- has been the norm, and gradually, collaborative work is being developed throughout the doctrinal law school curriculum. This trend fits within a broader societal emphasis on a collaborative model of working and learning. In both professional and educational settings, collaboration is viewed as critical to the success of ideas and products. Learning theory consistently identifies learning as being “inherently social” and best retained when engaged in with others. And, collaboration can substantially benefit the final work product and dramatically increase professional and educational satisfaction. However, when the collaborative process is not engaged in with intention and when not open to a variety of practices, collaboration can inhibit learning, productivity, and creativity. Research consistently finds that individuals who have an opportunity to consider problems on their own before collaborating outperform those whose ideas are generated exclusively in a group setting. Despite this, many collaborations value a team process that tends to isolate and ignore individuals who do not speak up quickly or easily, many with introverted personality styles, as well as others who do not fit within the “Extrovert Ideal.” The Extrovert Ideal rests on an assumption that an extrovert’s approach to group work, learning, and decision-making is the standard towards which all individuals should strive. This assumption may be particularly problematic for law students and lawyers who, as a group, include a higher percentage of introverts than the general population. This article considers whether law faculty are giving enough thought to the collaborative learning opportunities that are becoming a new normal in legal education and the legal profession. It considers how as currently executed, law school collaborations may not maximize student learning because they are grounded in a process that often interferes with the creation of ideas and the learning and environmental preferences because of rules that work best for extroverted students. This article concludes by offering concrete collaborative methods that allow space for intentional silence, and suggestions for helping students identify their own collaborative identity.
{"title":"Creating Space for Silence in Law School Collaborations","authors":"A. Camp","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2654726","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2654726","url":null,"abstract":"Law school programs are increasingly expanding collaborative experiences for their students. In many clinical programs, collaboration -- through team pairings and group work -- has been the norm, and gradually, collaborative work is being developed throughout the doctrinal law school curriculum. This trend fits within a broader societal emphasis on a collaborative model of working and learning. In both professional and educational settings, collaboration is viewed as critical to the success of ideas and products. Learning theory consistently identifies learning as being “inherently social” and best retained when engaged in with others. And, collaboration can substantially benefit the final work product and dramatically increase professional and educational satisfaction. However, when the collaborative process is not engaged in with intention and when not open to a variety of practices, collaboration can inhibit learning, productivity, and creativity. Research consistently finds that individuals who have an opportunity to consider problems on their own before collaborating outperform those whose ideas are generated exclusively in a group setting. Despite this, many collaborations value a team process that tends to isolate and ignore individuals who do not speak up quickly or easily, many with introverted personality styles, as well as others who do not fit within the “Extrovert Ideal.” The Extrovert Ideal rests on an assumption that an extrovert’s approach to group work, learning, and decision-making is the standard towards which all individuals should strive. This assumption may be particularly problematic for law students and lawyers who, as a group, include a higher percentage of introverts than the general population. This article considers whether law faculty are giving enough thought to the collaborative learning opportunities that are becoming a new normal in legal education and the legal profession. It considers how as currently executed, law school collaborations may not maximize student learning because they are grounded in a process that often interferes with the creation of ideas and the learning and environmental preferences because of rules that work best for extroverted students. This article concludes by offering concrete collaborative methods that allow space for intentional silence, and suggestions for helping students identify their own collaborative identity.","PeriodicalId":39591,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Education","volume":"65 1","pages":"897"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2016-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68240954","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many sources describe the general badness of procedural systems that predated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but few describe how those systems actually worked. This essay — intended as a reference for law students, law professors, and anyone else required to read and make sense of archaic judicial opinions — does just that.
{"title":"A Reader's Guide to Pre-Modern Procedure","authors":"David L. Noll","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2587358","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2587358","url":null,"abstract":"Many sources describe the general badness of procedural systems that predated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but few describe how those systems actually worked. This essay — intended as a reference for law students, law professors, and anyone else required to read and make sense of archaic judicial opinions — does just that.","PeriodicalId":39591,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Education","volume":"65 1","pages":"414-427"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2015-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68213996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：