The NY Court of Appeals this week adopted new rules for taking the NY bar. Applicants must now have two credits in a class or classes in professional responsibility. The current ABA rule merely requires instruction in PR and related items, but no freestanding class. I expect the ABA will now revisit its rule, which it may have been doing straight along anyway.
The NY rule is not confined to NY. Any applicant must have the credits, wherever they go to law school. So the NY rule is really a national rule. Students from everywhere wish to take the NY bar or will not wish to preclude that option.
This is the only substantive law course in the rules that is required by name. A while ago, the NY Court imposed the same requirement on LL.M. students from foreign law schools who wish to take the NY bar. Now the rule applies to J.D. students, too.
I wrote in support of this change when the rules were under review but I was not entirely confident that it would be accpeted given the national consequences to legal education.
A savings provision will mean that the new rule does not apply to current law students. The first class to which it will apply will be the one that enters in the fall.
This is not the only change. Others appears in the Court's rule 520.3.
Interesting development, Stephen. It may only have sweeping consequences, though, if a significant number of law schools still allow students to fulfill the PR requirement in ways other than a free standing course. There used to be a lot of such schools, but the trend has been towards free standing courses. Does anyone know how many schools still allow students to graduate without such a course?
Posted by: Andrew Perlman | January 12, 2012 at 10:32 PM
Can you explain what counts as a "free standing course"? I'm aware of some schools that give PR credit for clinics, classes on films about law, through externships and field placements, etc. Do those count?
Posted by: John Steele | January 12, 2012 at 10:58 PM
This is interesting. When I entered (The) Ohio State University College of Law in the early 1970s there was a mandatory PR class. I have taught at Kentucky for 31 years, and during that period there has been a mandatory 3-hour PR course. I guess we are just "Progressive" out here? :-) Classes on films about law? Next thing you will tell me that a wine and cheese tasting course will count.
Posted by: Rick Underwood | January 13, 2012 at 03:27 PM
I read the rule to require a freestanding class -- a class or classes in legal ethics -- though perhaps with an emphasis on (say) business lawyers or tax lawyers or whatever. Rejected is the claim that the subject can be taught pervasively. I don't know how many schools do not require a freestanding class -- Chicago and Yale come to mind as two that don't, I suspect there are others -- but the more important consequence is that none can now switch to some other method. A special faculty committee in my school recommended dropping the mandatory course about five years ago, leading to two faculty meetings and a lengthy opposition from me. The faculty overwhelmingly rejected the proposal. My point is that without this new rule -- and I expect the ABA will follow suit -- this sort of regression was always possible.
I fear that schools will meet the requirement increasingly with adjuncts, which is not good institutional citizenship. I'm fond of adjuncts (one especially) but adjuncts don't produce scholarship in the field (for the most part) and are not expect to do so.
Posted by: Stephen Gillers | January 13, 2012 at 05:52 PM
I thought people were kidding when they suggested that PR was the stepchild of the law school. I think it's one of the best courses in the law school. But recently my colleagues on the Personnel Committee have been pushing hires that make no sense to me at all. They always say that the person (usually from a "Peer" school, and with a personal interest in Law and the Bannana) can always teach a section of PR, if nothing else. The person being pushed usually has a resume with no practice experience! They also say, "Well, they can always teach Con Law!" Has anyone else had similar experiences? Scary!
Posted by: Rick Underwood | January 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM
Say hello to Barbara for me. I chatted with her recently on the electric-computer-thing.
Posted by: Rick Underwood | January 14, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Steve, I have no problem with adjuncts per se, but would like to see effective standards for evaluating how well they teach. (Btw, in my view that should also apply to full-time tenured faculty who teach PR.)
Would increased use of adjuncts be poor institutional citizenship for some reason other than their lack of scholarship? I've seen studies indicating that scholarship and teaching effectiveness are independent of each other.
Posted by: John Steele | January 14, 2012 at 11:49 AM
@Rick: that's sad to hear.
Posted by: John Steele | January 14, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Between Rick's comments, some incidents I've been aware of, and some private correspondence I recently received, I'm almost starting to wonder if it wouldn't help to start calling the course "Law of Lawyering," which might at least rhetorically put some emphasis on the need for relevant experience. (That experience certainly isn't limited to practicing lawyers and adjuncts.)
Posted by: John Steele | January 14, 2012 at 06:06 PM
My point about adjuncts is larger than the PR course.
First, I support bringing adjuncts into the faculty on many subjects -- some highly specialized -- on which they can enrich learning.
Second, I think it is essential to have full time faculty teach core courses, a broad term that includes electives, because one obligation of the legal academy is research and writing that contributes to the intellectual development of the law. Some adjuncts do this but mostly they don't have the time and cannot be and are not expected to do it. Full time faculty can be expected to do it. Research is an institutional obligation of a university carried out by its faculty. It can take two years and 1000+ hours to produce a deeply researched law journal article, much more time for a book.
No school would consider having only adjuncts teach constitutional law or torts or corporations. (Some schools won't allow adjuncts to teach any of these and similar courses at all.) Legal ethics -- or the Law of Lawyering -- should not be an exception. A mix of full time faculty and adjunct faculty is ideal -- and even more ideal is if the adjunct faculty are brought into the intellectual life of the school. Many law schools, mine included, can do a better job doing so.
When adjuncts are used, they should be chosen with great care and their performance monitored.
Posted by: Stephen Gillers | January 16, 2012 at 07:28 PM
"When adjuncts are used, they should be chosen with great care and their performance monitored."
I agree with that. And I'd apply it to everyone who is used to teach PR.
Posted by: John Steele | January 16, 2012 at 08:29 PM
I would apply it to all Law teachers. We seem to be drifting away from that. I am 63 and I am the last Evidence teacher at UK. We are hiring, but not for the core curriculum. But who needs Evidence? Besides, anyone can teach crap like that. Actually, I am thinking about dropping Evidence and PR and picking up Theater Law and Law and Archeology, relics and such. There is a book on the subject. I could wear a cool, badass hat, and carry a whip. You can call be Dr. Rick, bucko. "Peer" Law School Curriculum, here I come! Maybe I'll get a PHD in Economics. Hell, I will probably have to. I need to talk to that New York Times dude.
Posted by: Rick Underwood | January 18, 2012 at 08:01 AM