Integrated Lawyering Skills Program - Fall 2007 Overview and Structure

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

21. 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

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

23. 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.

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

25. CaseArc Problem/Simulation Examples

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

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