LEGAL EDUCATORS COLLOQUIUM
Co-Sponsored by the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution and the
Association of American Law Schools ADR Section
Saturday, April 10, 2010
8:00 am – 9:00 am...........Meeting of Northern California Legal Educators
8:00 am – 9:00 am...........ADR in Law Schools Committee Meeting
CONCURRENT SESSIONS
9:15 am – 10:45 am...........Shake It Up: Teaching the Negotiation Class Creatively
It is certainly easy to default to teaching the classic simulations as a negotiation teacher. However it’s much more provocative to continually evolve one’s teaching. The negotiation teacher can be an artist bringing new methods to the classroom. This session will present quick and live demonstrations of innovative ways to teach. We will explore how to integrate non-law students into negotiating with law students, using different mediums like e-mail to negotiate and new ways of using technology like clickers. We will discuss having law students negotiate with drama, public policy, business and engineering students. We will show how to have students negotiate in different mediums like e-mail, webcam, and telephone. One demonstration will be on stop-action film usage to demonstrate negotiation concepts and having students negotiate in the real world.
FACULTY:
Grande Lum, University of California Hastings Law School, San Francisco, CA
Timothy Dayonot, University of California Berkeley Haas School of Business, Berkeley, CA
Rochael Soper, Soper Legal, San Francisco, CA
Jessica Notini, UC Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA
9:15 am – 10:45 am...........The Changing Landscape of Arbitration: Current Events in the Classroom
Important changes in the arbitration landscape have occurred or are looming. This past summer, the leading provider of debt collection arbitration services stopped accepting new consumer arbitration cases, in settlement of a lawsuit brought by the Minnesota Attorney General. Another arbitration provider declared a moratorium on administering debt collection cases pending the development of fairness standards for such cases. Pending federal legislation would result in even more far-ranging changes, with the proposed Arbitration Fairness Act making pre-dispute arbitration clauses unenforceable in consumer, employment, and franchise agreements and the proposed federal Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act creating an agency with the authority to regulate arbitration of future disputes arising under certain consumer laws.
Change in international arbitration law and practice, while not quite so tumultuous, is ongoing as well. The American Law Institute's Restatement (Third) of the U.S. Law of International Commercial Arbitration is undertaking a broad-ranging synthesis of American international arbitration law. And procedures and practices in investment treaty arbitrations continue to evolve, with high profile cases filed and resolved in a much more public way than is typical for international commercial arbitrations. This panel will address the changing landscape of arbitration law and practice, with topics ranging from consumer arbitration to international arbitration, all with an emphasis on their relevance to the classroom.
FACULTY:
Andrea Bjorklund, University of California Davis School of Law, David, CA
Jack J. Coe, Jr., Pepperdine University School of Law, Malibu, CA
Christopher R. Drahozal, University of Kansas School of Law, Lawrence, KS
Sharon Press, Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, MN
9:15 am – 10:45 am...........Teaching the ADR Survey Course: Challenges and Innovations
Many law schools offer an Alternative Dispute Resolution survey course. The ADR survey course presents a number of unique pedagogical challenges, such as: (1) using simulation and drafting exercises in the context of a survey course; (2) selecting evaluation tools (e.g., whether to use exams, simulations, journals, or papers to grade students); (3) teaching the ADR survey course as a two unit course as compared to a three unit course; (4) integrating law, policy, ethics, theory and skills development in a survey course; and (5) addressing the effect that other ADR courses in the curriculum may have on the need for or content of an ADR survey course. A panel of experienced ADR law professors will offer their insights about teaching the ADR survey course. The program, however, will be an interactive forum designed to promote audience participation and encourage attendees to share their experiences and suggestions for addressing the opportunities and challenges presented by the ADR survey course. The session should be interesting and enlightening for all ADR professors, including experienced ADR survey course professors and those who will be teaching the ADR survey course for the first time.
FACULTY:
Ronald Aronovsky, Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles, CA
Dwight Golann, Suffolk Law School, Boston, MA
Kimberlee Kovach, South Texas College of Law, Houston, TX
Andrea Schneider, Marquette Law School, Milwaukee, WI
11:00 am – 12:30 pm...........A Web of Learning Opportunities: How ADR Programs Can Weave Together Legal Instruction, Research, and Services to the Community
Alternative dispute resolution instruction at a law school traditionally falls into the categories of seminar course, survey course, or clinical course. Two institutions, the University of Maryland School of Law and Hamline University School of Law demonstrate that providing practical experience can create unique long term learning opportunities that benefit clients and support legal research. The programs currently support various research initiatives on the topics of ADR and problem-solving courts and create new externship and clinical based opportunities for students. The session will discuss the varying structures of the programs, funding sources, and instructional methods, and emphasize how teaching ADR practices through actual application will benefit students, clients, and the larger community. Participants will engage in a meaningful discussion regarding this model and other methods of ADR education, challenges to the sustainability of the model, and impacts on the law student, the client, and the community as a whole.
FACULTY:
Aimee Gourlay, Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, MN
Toby Guerin, University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, MD
Leigh Maddox, University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, MD
Bobbi McAdoo, Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, MN
11:00 am – 12:30 pm...........Using Neuroscience in the Negotiation Class -- Translating Scientific Theory into Real Practice
Innovations in neuroscience have begun to work their way into the practice of dispute resolution. The time is ripe to begin to include these innovations and insights into the classroom, and specifically into the negotiation classroom. The presenters teach at different law schools, at different levels, with different approaches and experiences, as well as from different work backgrounds. Each presenter has begun to incorporate neuroscience into their teaching, and in this session, they will share their experiences and facilitate discussion about how best to further the integration of neuroscientific information and negotiation pedagogy.
FACULTY:
Jeanine Becker, Stanford Law School, Palo Alto, CA
Richard Birke, Willamette University, Salem, OR
11:00 am – 12:30 pm...........Teaching Dispute Systems Design through Experiential Learning, Simulations, and Cases
Clients increasingly need lawyers to design systems for managing conflict. Many law schools have responded by offering courses in dispute systems design (DSD). DSD is the purposeful creation of a dispute resolution program to help an organization, nation-state, or group of people manage a dispute or stream of conflicts through a series of steps or options. Examples include court-connected ADR, workplace mediation or arbitration, and truth and reconciliation commissions. In this interactive session, presenters share simulations and cases for teaching students how to analyze a system. First, panelists present a case study of DSD in the federal court for the northern district of California followed by a simulation involving courts in Bhutan and the US. Second, panelists present a case study on DSD for developing public policy based on the White House Office of Science and Technology Open Government Directive process followed by a simulation regarding DSD for dialogue and deliberation. Cases and simulations help students explore the ethics of DSD, contrast fair and skewed designs, and test underlying assumptions about justice in a system. Participants will test selected simulations in small groups during the session and take home teaching materials to try out in the classroom.
FACULTY:
Lisa Blomgren Bingham, Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Bloomington, IN
Janet K. Martinez, Stanford Law School, Palo Alto, CA
Stephanie Smith, Stanford Law School, Palo Alto, CA
12:30 pm – 1:45 pm...........Legal Educators Luncheon (additional ticketed event)
2:00 pm – 5:00 pm...........Legal Educators Colloquium Closing Session
Law Professors' Shoptalk Forum: Revisiting Core Concepts
In this 11th iteration of the Legal Educators’ Colloquium, it is difficult not to notice that some of the hot topics from the first LEC are still burning bright. This year’s forum promises to be interesting for anyone who teaches in the ADR curriculum. Come ready to participate in an interesting conversation. The two sessions described below will run consecutively with a short intermission between them.
1st Session
This session focuses on the interplay between ADR and substantive law classes. John Lande and Jean Sternlight will lead a discussion based on their most recent ideas to get ADR issues integrated into the substantive law curriculum. Understanding that there are two sides to this coin, Nancy Welsh and Michael Moffitt will lead a discussion about putting substantive law into ADR classes.
FACULTY:
John Lande, University of Missouri School of Law, Columbia, MO
Michael Moffitt, University of Oregon School of Law, Eugene, OR
Jean Sternlight, William S. Boyd School of Law, UNLV, Las Vegas, NV
Nancy Welsh, Penn State University, Dickinson School of Law, Carlisle, PA
2nd Session
Using selected clips from a videotaped negotiation simulation by two law students, Andrea Schneider and Russell Korobkin will explain their focus and decisions in assessing the students’ negotiation approaches, styles, techniques and outcomes. Their ideas will kick off a deeper discussion about the uniformity or variability that exists as we teach and evaluate our students’ performance.
FACULTY:
Dwight Golann, Suffolk Law School, Boston, MA (moderator)
Russell Korobkin, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA
Andrea Schneider, Marquette Law School, Milwaukee, WI
REGISTRATION
Register Online - CLOSED
Register by Mail/Fax
To attend the Legal Educators Colloquium ONLY on April 10, 2010:
$195.00 (Early-bird rate)
$225.00 (Pre-conference rate)
$250.00 (On-site)
The Legal Educator’s Colloquium Luncheon is an additional cost for all registrants. The cost for the Luncheon is $65.00.
Legal Educators Colloquium Planning Committee:
Mariana Crespo Hernandez, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Toby Guerin, University of Maryland School of Law
Art Hinshaw, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University
Sharon Press, Hamline University School of Law
Nancy Welsh, Penn State University, Dickinson School of Law
ABA Section of Dispute Resolution
(202) 662-1680
Staff Contact:
Gina Viola Brown
(202) 212-9314
browng@staff.abanet.org
|
