1 / 35

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE ARC INTEGRATED LAWYERING SKILLS PROGRAM

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE ARC INTEGRATED LAWYERING SKILLS PROGRAM . PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND EXAMPLES - FALL 2007 Presented by Kenneth R. Margolis Case Western Reserve University School of Law. How Did We Get Here?. Milton A. Kramer Law Clinic Center Advisory Committee Discussions

field
Download Presentation

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE ARC INTEGRATED LAWYERING SKILLS PROGRAM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OVERVIEW OF THE CASEARC INTEGRATED LAWYERING SKILLS PROGRAM PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND EXAMPLES - FALL 2007 Presented by Kenneth R. Margolis Case Western Reserve University School of Law

  2. How Did We Get Here? • Milton A. Kramer Law Clinic Center Advisory Committee Discussions • “Third Wave” of Clinical Legal Education – integration of clinical methods into wider curriculum • CWRU Law School Task Force on Skills and Professionalism • Carnegie Foundation Report on Educating Lawyers • Best Practices in Legal Education Project

  3. Basic Philosophy • Primary mission of a law school is to prepare students for the effective and competent practice of law • Law students need training in substantive law and in lawyering skills – firms can’t/don’t do enough • Law students should be trained in fundamental skills that all lawyers need regardless of practice setting • Fundamental skills include: “legal thinking skills” and “social skills” • Law school curricula should be sequenced and integrated

  4. Program Goals Through an integrated curriculum (which combines theory, doctrine, skills and role) • Improve, expand and standardize our writing program • Enhance learning of substantive law by making it more client/case (fact) focused • Teach fundamental lawyering skills • Better prepare students for practice in clinics, externships, labs & jobs

  5. CaseArc Curriculum First Year: CORE 1 & 2 Second Year: CORE 3 & FPS Second & Third Years: Capstone

  6. FIRST YEAR CORE LAWYERING SKILLS, PART ONE – “CORE 1”(Fall) Emphases:orientation; objective legal analysis; legal research; basic skills of interviewing, fact gathering and client counseling.

  7. Introduction Week • The Professional Obligations and Values of the Legal Profession • Intro to Interviewing • Interviewing Simulation • Intro to Legal Analysis and Writing (3 classes) • Watch a Trial • Deliberate as a Jury • Watch an Appellate Argument • Intro to the Law School Classroom (Crim Law) • Comparison of Legal Systems

  8. FIRST YEAR CORE LAWYERING SKILLS, PART TWO – “CORE 2”(Spring) Emphases:fact gathering; document analysis; legal research, analysis and persuasive writing; simple negotiation theory and technique; oral presentation in formal and informal settings.

  9. SECOND YEAR CORE LAWYERING SKILLS, PART 3 (CORE 3) Taken Either Fall or Spring Emphases: legal analysis, writing, negotiation in the transactional setting; representation of groups and entities.

  10. SECOND YEAR FOCUSED PROBLEM SOLVING (FPS) Taken Either Fall or Spring Emphases: legal problem solving, strategy formation and implementation; problem framing, identify and evaluate options; fact gathering; strategic thinking; engage in negotiation or mediation; litigation and/or transactional contexts.

  11. ACHIEVING INTEGRATION THROUGH TEAM TEACHING – CORE 1,2 & 3 • JOINT DESIGN OF THE PROBLEMS • SYLLABI COORDINATED - Topic covered in “linked” doctrinal class before needed for sim or writing project • JOINT CLASSES WHERE FEASIBLE • Doctrinal Class(es) – LAW Profs join and discuss specific issues of the problem as well as other issues (exam prep) • LAW Profs jointly teach pre-sim classes with Firm Profs – demonstrate; provide formative feedback

  12. ACHIEVING INTEGRATION & STUDYING PROFESSIONAL ROLE- FPS • SINGLE SIMULATED CASE – 2 or 3 clients with differing interests and goals; close collaboration between main FPS classroom teacher and firm professors; more instruction in small groups • SINGLE SUBJECT MATTER (though multiple legal issues) • FIRMS – simulations and group discussion, work on goal identification, problem framing, option identification, evaluation, strategic thinking

  13. ENCOURAGING STUDENT COLLABORATION • SMALL GROUPS for legal analysis & exercises • Encouraged to work together to think (not write) – and brainstorm options • SIMS PERFORMED IN FIRMS – critiques performed in small groups • SIMS PERFORMED IN SECTIONS (or by topic) in CORE 1,2,&3 – collaborate on planning and performance.

  14. SECOND AND THIRD YEARS:CAPSTONE PROGRAMClinics, Externships & Labs Real Client Clinics (each emphasizes team teaching and student collaboration): • Criminal Justice Clinic • Community Development Clinic • Civil Litigation and Mediation Clinic • Health Law Clinic

  15. Externships: • Access to Justice (Legal Aid) • City Law Department – Summer • City Law Department – Academic Year • Federal Judicial • Federal Trade Commission • Immigration Law Practicum • Internal Revenue Service • International Tribunal • U.S. Attorney – Civil • U.S. Attorney – Criminal • Federal Public Defender

  16. Labs (feature student collaboration): • Coast Guard Defense • Death Penalty – I and II • Financial Integrity in Emerging Markets • Global Corporate Governance • International War Crimes Research • Terrorism Prosecution – I and II • Urban Development

  17. Challenges • Balance between doctrinal learning and skills training • Student Acceptance • Cost • Team teaching challenges • Formative and summative evaluation • Grading

  18. CaseArc Course Structure

  19. CORE 1 & 2 • Class size – 240 or less • 3 Teams (Advocates, Barristers, Counselors) – 3 Doctrinal Professors • 6 L.A.W. Professors • 12 L.A.W. Groups • 12 Adjunct firm professors • 24 Simulation firms

  20. CORE 3 • Class size – 120 or less • 3 Sections – 3 L.A.W. Professors • 6 L.A.W. Groups • 1-3 Doctrinal Professors • 6 Adjunct firm professors • 12 Simulation firms

  21. CORE 31, 2, or 3 Doctrinal Professors - Integrated Subject: Business Associations (Fall), Professional Responsibility (Spring)

  22. FOCUSED PROBLEM SOLVING • Class size – 120 or less • 3 Sections - 3 FPS Professors • 2 or 3 Firms per class • 1-2 Adjunct firm professors per class in addition to FPS prof.

  23. Focused Problem SolvingDesigned Around a Single Case – Simulated Clinic

  24. CaseArc Problem/Simulation Examples

  25. CORE 1 - EXAMPLE Linkage: Torts – battery; Scenario: Bar fight Problem 1 (Fall): • Patron sprays pepper spray resulting in injury to another innocent patron • Simulation 1: Interview Client (defendant) to find out what happened and why • Writing Assignment 1: (closed universe – objective memo) Apply law re intent required for battery to facts from Client

  26. CORE 1 – EXAMPLE (con’t.) Problem 2 (fall): • Same bar fight – different parties: client is bar owner • Suit brought against owner for injury to patron by bouncer • Writing Assignment 2: (open universe – objective memo) respondeat superior liability of owner for acts of bouncer • Simulation 2: counsel client (owner) re his potential liability and advise re settlement

  27. CORE 2 - EXAMPLE • Linkage: Civil Procedure; Constitutional Law – Commerce Clause • Scenario: Surrogacy contract in violation of (fictitious) anti-surrogacy federal law; US sued parties to surrogacy contract, couple cross claimed against surrogate • Writing Assignment 1: Motion to Dismiss – claim against surrogate by couple for invasion of privacy

  28. CORE 2 – EXAMPLE (con’t.) • Simulation 1: Settlement conference re breach of contract claim by couple against surrogate • Writing Assignment 2: Summary Judgment on Commerce Clause claim – half write for government, half write for couple • Simulation 2: Oral argument before trial court on MSJ

  29. CORE 3 - EXAMPLE Linkage: Business Associations Scenario: Family run tennis club • Writing Assignment 1 - tennis club hires construction co. to build a bar in the lobby – draft contract after being given terms • Simulation 1: Negotiate terms of an employment agreement with tennis pro

  30. CORE 3 – EXAMPLE (con’t.) • Writing Assignment 2 - Tennis club decides to form entity - draft significant portions of LLC Operating Agreement • Simulation 2 - Negotiate language of the employment agreement with tennis pro after exchanging drafts • Writing Assignment 3 – Tennis club will rent out facility for national tournament – draft entire lease and client letter

  31. FPS - EXAMPLE • Subject: Business Litigation: The use of human tissue or cells in medical research • Scenario: Use by medical researcher and hospital of patient’s tissue to develop new treatments for type 1 diabetes – without specific informed consent – need more of patient’s tissue to further commercialize treatment

  32. FPS – EXAMPLE (con’t.) • Class learns problem solving theory in large class • Class divided into 3 firms – each representing different client (doctor, hospital, patient) • Simulation 1: Complete initial interview of client • Connected writing: Interview plan; Interview self-evaluation

  33. FPS – EXAMPLE (con’t.) • Main Writing Assignment: Theory of the Case Memorandum – includes narrative, legal analysis and strategy for achieving client goals • Simulation 2: Complete counseling meeting with recommendations • Connected writing: Counseling Plan; Counseling self-evaluation

  34. FPS – EXAMPLE (con’t.) • Final Writing Assignment: Counseling memorandum evaluating options – make recommendation • In-class simulation – settlement conference and negotiation

More Related