Workshop on Clinical Legal Education
Expanding Visions of Scholarship*: Making It Happen

May 9–12, 2001

Law Clinic Directors' Workshop

Speakers were asked to submit materials from their presentations at the Workshop on Clinical Legal Education. Links to available materials are provided in the Workshop Program below.

Law Clinic Directors' Workshop
May 8-9, 2001

Tuesday, May 8, 2001

4:00-8:00 p.m.
Registration

6:00-8:00 p.m.
AALS Reception

Wednesday, May 9, 2001

9:00-10:30 a.m.
Directing Clinical Faculties: Herding Cats through Administrative and Curricular Choices

James Alan Cohen, Fordham University
Jane C. Murphy, University of Baltimore

Law schools utilize a variety of models for clinic administration. In some law schools, there is a clinical program director who directs all of the clinical offerings at the law school. In other law schools, the clinical program director only directs the in-house clinics. In other schools, there is no overall director and each director directs only the clinic in which he or she teaches. All of these models share common elements and issues, however. How important is it for clinics to share a common philosophy? How important is it for clinics to coordinate recruitment? How important are consistency and coherency? In addition, clinic directors confront common problems under each of these models. What are the tools available to "direct" other faculty members who have the same rights to academic freedom as the clinic director? This session and the follow-up small groups will provide a vehicle for addressing these issues and for sharing successful approaches and for sharing unsuccessful efforts.

10:30-10:45 a.m.
Refreshment Break

10:45 a.m. -12:15 p.m.
Work Group Discussions

Group #1
Group Leaders:
Susan J. Bryant, City University of New York at Queens College
Michael W. Mullane, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Group #2
Group Leaders:
F. Willis Caruso, John Marshall Law School
Barbara A. Schatz, Columbia University

Group #3
Group Leaders:
Linda E. Fisher, Seton Hall University
Wallace J. Mlyniec, Georgetown University

Group #4
Group Leaders:
Vanessa Merton, Pace University
Charles D. Weisselberg, University of California at Berkeley

Group #5
Group Leaders:
J.P. “Sandy” Ogilvy, The Catholic University of America
Suellyn Scarnecchia, The University of Michigan

Group #6
Group Leader:
Nina W. Tarr, University of Illinois
Richard J.Wilson, American University

Group #7
Group Leaders:
Mark N. Aaronson, University of California, Hastings
Mary Helen McNeal, University of Montana

Group #8
Group Leaders:
Gerard F. Glynn, Barry University
Arlene S. Kanter, Syracuse University

12:15-1:45 p.m.
AALS Luncheon

2:00-3:30 p.m.
Facilitating Scholarship* Within Our Clinical Faculties: The Role of the Clinic Director

Stacy Caplow, Brooklyn Law School
Kenneth R. Margolis, Case Western Reserve University

To the extent that scholarship* by clinicians is important for internal and external reasons, what role can the clinic director play in creating an environment in which that scholarship can take place. What role can the clinic director play vis-a-vis law school administrators in freeing up clinician time to produce scholarship over summers and during the school year and in getting the resources to help move that process forward? What approaches have other law schools utilized to address these issues? What role can the clinic director play in motivating clinical faculty members to produce scholarship and in creating an intellectual/political environment in which that scholarship will be of high quality and impact?

3:45-5:15 p.m.
Work Group Discussions
(Same groups and leaders as 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.)

AALS Workshop on Clinical Legal Education: Expanding Visions of Scholarship*: Making It Happen
May 9-12, 2001

Wednesday, May 9, 2001

4:00-8:00 p.m.
Registration

5:30-8:00 p.m.
AALS Reception

Thursday, May 10, 2001

9:00-10:15 a.m.
Welcome
Elliott S. Milstein, American University and AALS Immediate Past President

Introduction and Overview of Issues
Richard A. Boswell, University of California, Hastings and Chair, Planning Committee for the AALS Workshop on Clinical Legal Education

Clinical Scholarship: What Is It? Should We Do It? What Should It Be? Why?

Moderator: Isabelle R. Gunning, Southwestern University

Modern clinical education, born out of what has been called the CLEPR colony and the tumult of the 1960's, has long struggled for legitimacy within the academy. As clinicians’ status and standing have improved within the legal academy we have also produced more and wide-ranging forms of scholarship. Whether we should engage in scholarship and the form that scholarship should take has been the subject of much debate. It has been said that if we are unable or unwilling to memorialize what we do is it worth doing at all? The first plenary will attempt to flesh out the main issues in the debates about clinical scholarship and get us to think about what clinical scholarship is, why we should be doing it, and whether our scholarship will make us better teachers or will detract from our mission as clinical teachers.

10:15-10:30 a.m.
Refreshment Break

10:30 a.m. -12:00 noon
Small Group Discussions: What Have You Done, What Do You Hope to Do?

12:00 noon-1:45 p.m.
AALS Luncheon

Making a Record: Oral History of Clinical Legal Education

J. P. “Sandy” Ogilvy, The Catholic University of America
View Presentation Material

2:00-3:15 p.m.
Creating Scholarship to Make Us Better Teachers

Plenary #1
(Small Groups 1-4 should attend this session)
Session Leaders:
Angela Olivia Burton, Syracuse University
Katherine R. Kruse, University of Wisconsin

Plenary #2
(Small Groups 5-8 should attend this session)
Session Leaders:
Marla Lyn Mitchell, Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Linda F. Smith, University of Utah

Plenary #3
(Small Groups 9-12 should attend this session)
Session Leaders:
Alice K. Dueker, Rutgers University, Camden
Alan M. Lerner, University of Pennsylvania

Plenary #4
(Small Groups 13-16 should attend this session)
Session Leaders:
Miye Ann Goishi, University of California, Hastings
Susan Louise Waysdorf, University of the District of Columbia

Plenary #5
(Small Groups 17-20 should attend this session)
Session Leaders:
Peter Toll Hoffman, University of Nebraska
Shauna I. Marshall, University of California, Hastings

Clinicians often express frustration about the difficulties of creating scholarship or ambivalence about doing so. This plenary is designed to help us make the connection between how scholarship-as defined by this workshop-can inspire good teaching and how good teaching can inspire scholarship. We will use a videotape of a counseling session (shown in the first plenary and available for review throughout the morning) to brainstorm scholarship projects designed to help us develop as better clinical teachers. To ensure plenty of opportunity for discussion, this plenary will be presented as five simultaneous sessions.

3:15-3:45 p.m.
Refreshment Break

3:45-5:15 p.m.
Small Group Discussions

5:15-6:30 p.m.
AALS Reception

Friday, May 11, 2001

9:00-10:30 a.m.
Creating Scholarship to Reform Legal Systems

Barbara A. Babb, University of Baltimore
Douglas L. Colbert, University of Maryland
Shin Imai, Osgoode Hall Law School

Clinicians generate scholarship (broadly defined) for many purposes. Our teaching materials, videotapes, briefs, websites, legislation, stories, books, papers, and articles generously inform us and our non-clinical colleagues about legal doctrine, lawyering skills and values, and issues in legal education. The voices and messages within our scholarship also shape the systems in which law is practiced and justice is dispensed. This plenary will examine the ways our creative work, drawn from our experience, helps to reform and improve legal systems.

10:30-10:45 a.m.
Refreshment Break

10:45 a.m. -12:00 noon
Small Group Discussions

12:00 noon-1:45 p.m.
AALS Luncheon

2:00-3:15 p.m.
Concurrent Sessions

What Do I Have to Say: Drawing Scholarship Out of Clinical Work and Developing One's Voice

Jon C. Dubin, Rutgers University, Newark
Linda H. Morton, California Western School of Law

This will be a hands-on, interactive session. Professors Dubin and Morton will first describe techniques, both left brain and right brain (linear and creative), for developing one's voice(s) in clinical scholarship. Then, in small groups based on subject area interest, we will use the techniques described to cultivate our individual voices. Participants will leave the session hopefully further inspired, if not just a bit schizophrenic.

Preserving Our Clinical Mission in the Face of the Scholarly Imperative

John S. Elson, Northwestern University

The underlying and debatable premise of this session is that scholarship should not be an important criterion for clinical faculty's promotion and tenure for at least three reasons: it interferes with our prime purpose of teaching and advocacy; it generates a plethora of articles that would not otherwise be written and that, therefore, threaten to devalue the currency of clinical scholarship, and; its criteria of quality do not generally embody the social welfare goals that motivate most clinicians. If there is agreement that the scholarship imperative that now prevails in most law schools is damaging to the cause of clinical education, the challenge before this session will be to develop both external strategies for redirecting law schools' evaluative focus from clinicians' scholarly production to their teaching and advocacy, and internal strategies for helping individual clinicians to focus on the latter while not perishing from the former. Strategies for this purpose could include the development of: model teaching and advocacy-oriented criteria for clinicians' promotion and tenure; law school ranking methods that would prioritize clinical teaching and advocacy over scholarship; approaches to clinic financing that would reward teaching and advocacy as much, or more than, scholarship, and; efficient ways to transmute clinical teaching and advocacy into variants of scholarship.

Advocacy and Scholarship: Experiences with Reform Efforts and the Impact of Scholarship

Joseph B. Tulman, University of the District of Columbia
Charles D. Weisselberg, University of California at Berkeley

Providing examples of scholarship along the continuum of law review comments to symposia to advocacy manuals and briefs, the presenters will reflect on the connection between scholarship and advocacy. They will present a range of different advocacy projects that have involved scholarship, in addition to involving litigation, organizing, drafting legislation, teaching law students, and training lawyers. The presenters will reflect upon what advocacy and scholarship was effective (and what was not) and will also ask the participants to identify areas in which they might engage in scholarship that draws from and furthers their own law reform efforts.

Race-Linked Scholarship: Issues and Trends

Christine Zuni Cruz, University of New Mexico
Margaret E. Montoya, University of New Mexico

Most clinicians are familiar with the basic works of critical race theory written by such scholars as Professors Patricia Williams, Derrick Bell and Richard Delgado. Today race-conscious scholarship covers many more perspectives such as Asian/Pacific Islander studies, Latina/o critical legal studies ("LatCrit"), white studies, indigenous/native studies and transnational post/colonial studies. Because race continues to be an issue of great salience to public policy issues such as poverty, criminal justice, citizenship and the provision of legal services to underserved communities, all clinicians can benefit by learning about this scholarship. Moreover, many of our clients and students identify with communities of color. This session will introduce new and experienced clinicians to race-conscious literature, propose how it can be used in the clinical classroom and examine how clinicians can contribute to these developing genres of legal scholarship.

Turning Curricular Innovations into Scholarship

Suellyn Scarnecchia, The University of Michigan
View Presentation Material

Your first (or next) article may be hidden in your course syllabus or somewhere in the back of your mind, filed under “the class I’ve always wanted to teach.” Excellent clinical scholarship includes the sharing of our teaching ideas and techniques. In this session, examples of scholarship derived from curricular innovations will be shared. Participants will then have an opportunity to brainstorm ideas for their own scholarship in this area.

You should leave the session with a new idea for an article and practical tips on how to turn good teaching into good scholarship.

Ethics of Scholarship: Scholarship that Respects Clients, Students and their Privacy

Binny Miller, American University
Nina W. Tarr, University of Illinois

This session is about the ethical and lawyering issues raised by the common practice of telling stories about cases and clients. These “storytelling” legal scholars, many of them clinicians, publish stories about clients that they or their students have represented. Only recently has clinical scholarship begun to grapple with the difficult issues presented by this practice. Professors Miller and Tarr have both written articles on this subject, and will lead a lively, interactive discussion with audience members, utilizing hypothetical examples from their own experience.

Nuts & Bolts: Videotape

Marilyn Joan Berger, Seattle University
Peter B. Knapp, William Mitchell College of Law
Raven C. Lidman, Seattle University

The widespread availability of technology makes it easier to illustrate what it is that lawyers do. Professors Berger, Knapp and Lidman have made videotapes designed to help teach students about the work of lawyers. They use these videotapes in the clinic, skills, and doctrinal classrooms. Professor Lidman worked recently with a clinical program in Peru and used videotape to demonstrate interviewing skills. Professor Berger is in the midst of production of a trilogy of videotapes documenting the experiences of the participants in the lawsuit written about in “A Civil Action.” Professor Knapp helped make a series of videotapes illustrating a range of lawyering skills for a required skills survey course. The panelists will discuss these different uses of videotapes: videotape as a teaching tool, videotape as scholarship, and videotape in furthering social justice. They will also talk about the trials and tribulations associated with different methods of producing videotape.

Thinking Like a Clinician: Teaching Student Clinical Scholarship

Shin Imai, Osgoode Hall Law School
Alexander Scherr, University of Georgia

This session addresses how student scholarship in a clinic advances the overall goals of clinical teaching. Both presenters have required student scholarship in clinical settings, in different formats: research papers certainly, but also community education programs, brief banks, project design, legislative drafting, and others. Justifying these requirements to traditional law teachers, students and even other clinicians provokes interesting conversations about academic rigor, clinical purpose and the value of scholarship to student growth. We propose to explore these conversations, and to assess the value of student scholarship as a path for social change, for clinical development, for community activism, for exploration of lawyering and of ethics, and for deepened reflection on experience.

Scholarship For Criminal Social Justice -Wrongful Convictions: Causes and Remedies

Barry C. Scheck, Yeshiva University
Ellen Yaroshefsky, Yeshiva University

This session will describe the use of empirically-based research about the criminal justice system as a vehicle to stimulate an examination and implementation of necessary changes in that system. Professor Yaroshefsky will describe as a specific example, a scholarship and research agenda in the area of jailhouse "snitches" and cooperating witnesses. Professor Scheck will describe the distance learning course, "Wrongful Convictions: Causes and Remedies", the formation of an Innocence Network of graduate schools, and a plan to develop interdisciplinary studies and reforms involving social scientists and medical-legal experts. The issue areas include causes and remedies for mistaken eyewitness identification, false confessions, police and prosecutorial misconduct, junk forensic science, incompetent lawyering and racial inequalities.

Creating Scholarship to Enhance our Teaching of Skills

Jacqueline St. Joan, University of Denver

Three case studies of empirical research concerning legal skills--interviewing and counseling clients, collaboration with social workers, and clinical reasoning in problem solving--will set the stage for a discussion of how empirical research can enhance our teaching of legal skills. Included in the presentation will be examples of how to: conceptualize a research study, plan the methodology, finance the research, get approval (through ethics/institutional review boards), analyze data, apply what we have learned. Also important are why to do it and what obstacles to anticipate. What is the value of research to students and to faculty and to the legal and clinical community? The case studies will include “The Clinic as Laboratory: Interdisciplinary Collaboration in a Domestic Violence Clinic,” “Learning Clinical Reasoning: What Lawyers Think About When They Interview Clients” and the “Effective Lawyer Client Communication Project.”

Presentation of Curricular Works in Progress

Moderator: Deborah A. Maranville, University of Washington

A Live Client Course in Deposition Questioning Strategies & Techniques
David A. Binder, University of California at Los Angeles

Externship Seminar: The Lawyer’s Life
Marlana Valdez, American University

3:15-3:30 p.m.
Refreshment Break

3:30-5:00 p.m.
Concurrent Sessions

Making Space for Scholarship

Frank Askin, Rutgers University, Newark
Sande Buhai, Loyola Law School
Paul Cain, University of Denver
John F. Erbes, Southern Illinois University
Katherine R. Kruse, University of Wisconsin
April Land, University of New Mexico

For some clinicians, the real challenge of scholarship is making space in their busy lives as clinical professors to do it. Some of us sought out clinical positions because we thought it would provide us the opportunity to blend academic scholarship with legal service. Simply redefining scholarship to include teaching or advocacy materials already prepared in the course of developing curriculum or representing clients does not address our desire to abstract and theorize from our clinical work in ways traditionally defined as academic scholarship. Yet it can be difficult for many clinicians to find both actual time and psychological space to concentrate on theoretical research and analysis, given the time-intensive nature of clinical teaching, the twelve-month contracts under which some clinicians work, and the demands of casework during non-teaching time periods. In this panel, clinicians share the strategies that they have developed for making space for scholarship within the constraints of different clinical settings.

Clinical Scholarship: What Is It and What Is Its Place at the Academy's Table?

Susan L. Brooks, Vanderbilt University
Peter Joy, Washington University
View Scholarship Models, Bibliography

The definition of scholarship at this conference encompasses teaching materials, briefs, videotapes, websites, legislation, and stories in addition to books and law review articles. Is this broad definition of scholarship accepted by most law schools? If not, why not? If so, how are various types of scholarship evaluated compared to other types of scholarship? This session will explore the process of defining and evaluating clinical scholarship, and it will take a frank look at the place of clinical scholarship within the legal academy.

Nuts & Bolts: Empirical Studies - Turning Facts Into Scholarship

Jonathan M. Hyman, Rutgers University, Newark
Ian S. Weinstein, Fordham University

Please bring your ideas, questions or tentative plans for observational, qualitative, quantitative and other kinds of empirical research about the law and law teaching. We will use them to explore how you can make your research questions grow into empirical research. The group will discuss: the history and role of empirical research in clinical and other kinds of legal scholarship; the defining characteristics of various kinds of empirical research; identifying research topics; identifying and collaborating with experts from other fields; generating research hypotheses; designing survey and other kinds of instruments; collecting data; analyzing data; the politics of empirical research in the law school setting; and ethical and legal obligations for lawyers conducting empirical research in a law school setting. The presenters will share their experiences conducting and publishing observational, qualitative and quantitative research.

The Heart of Scholarship: Scholarship from the Heart

Carol L. Izumi, The George Washington University
Paula C. Johnson, Syracuse University
Moderator: Carol M. Suzuki, University of the District of Columbia

Professor Johnson, author of the forthcoming book, Inner Lives: Profiles of African American Women in Prison, and Professor Izumi, co-author of the book, Race, Rights, and Reparation: Law and the Japanese American Internment, will discuss their scholarship in this concurrent session moderated by Professor Suzuki. The authors describe how and why their scholarship examines the issues of race and gender, uses a multi-disciplinary approach to include historical, sociological, and political perspectives, and takes the experiences of one population as a focal point for specific lessons related to that group as well as a starting point for examining the law as it relates to other groups or the public at large.

Feminist Clinical Scholarship: Issues and Trends

Leslie G. Espinoza, Boston College
Phyllis Goldfarb, Boston College

Legal issues of particular importance to women often receive limited attention in law schools and in courts. How do clinics fare in this regard? What attention do clinics give and what attention can they give to women's legal and economic issues, including employment, housing, support, and custody? Can we develop and use in our clinics feminist approaches to analyzing these issues? Can we bring a feminist analysis to client interactions and to the substance of law? How can scholarship help in developing these analyses?

In this workshop, we will explore the intersections between feminist and clinical methods. We will show a segment of a clinic student's initial interview with a client who has been emotionally and psychologically abused by her partner and address questions such as: What is good lawyering in cases of emotional abuse? Should/could good lawyering help develop a substantive legal remedy for emotionally abusive behavior that does not constitute physical battering under law? What are the underrecognized narratives that clinics can reveal to help change law? When we surface underrecognized narratives do we risk submerging others? What role does scholarship play in bringing attention to these issues?

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly: Clinical Education and “Traditional” Legal Scholarship

Minna J. Kotkin, Brooklyn Law School
Peter Margulies, St. Thomas University

Clinicians have long had a love-hate relationship with “traditional” scholarship. Many law schools seem to require such scholarship, roughly defined as writing dealing with legal doctrine and case law. In response, clinicians have sometimes bridled at the apparent artificiality of the form. Much of what we now know as “clinical scholarship” springs from this reaction, dealing with teaching and relationships in the classroom, courthouse and law office rather than the rarefied world of appellate opinions. Yet clinicians have also made strong contributions to traditional scholarship, in fields including poverty law and lawyering, domestic violence, and human rights. Some of these contributions also use “alternative scholarship” techniques such as narrative and dialogue. Moreover, both clinicians and “traditional” faculty are increasingly employing insights from other disciplines, such as gender studies, psychology, and political or literary theory. This interactive session will explore the changing meanings, methods, and motivations of traditional scholarship for clinical teachers. In addition, we will offer some ideas about topic selection, structure, research and writing techniques, and placement strategies.

Nuts & Bolts & Benefits of Collaboration in Scholarship

Susan J. Bryant, City University of New York at Queens College
Karen L. Tokarz, Washington University
Rodney J. Uphoff, University of Oklahoma

This session will examine the benefits of doing collaborative scholarship with faculty in other disciplines, practicing lawyers, other law school faculty, and students. We will explore why so little legal scholarship is collaborative (est.10%) as compared to other disciplines such as political science (est. 70%) and the implications of this. We will discuss impediments to doing collaborative scholarship and possible ways to enhance effective collaboration on scholarship and other related projects. People who have engaged in collaborative scholarly efforts are invited to come and share their wisdom with those who are looking for ways to enhance their scholarship through collaborative work.

Law School Policies That Support Clinical Scholarship and Value Varieties of Scholarship: Developing a Model

Shelley A.M. Gavigan, Osgoode Hall Law School
Vanessa Merton, Pace University

Prior to this session, we hope to obtain from a representative sample of law schools in the United States and Canada descriptions of those institutional policies and practices that they believe support and facilitate scholarly work by faculty primarily identified as clinical. We will ask, in short survey format, some specific questions about support for clinicians' participation in conferences, theory workshops, regional meetings, etc.; summer coverage of casework responsibilities; clinicians' eligibility for research assistance; and so forth, as well as more open-ended questions about the types of scholarship that receive recognition. We will request the same information from at least three different sources within each institution: an Academic Associate Dean, a Dean or Director of Clinical Programs, and members of the clinical faculty. We will also ask for assessment, on a standardized scale, of the effectiveness of the various policies and programs in enabling clinical faculty to engage in the types of scholarship they find relevant and useful to their continuing development as teachers and professionals. During this concurrent session, we will categorize and prioritize the policies and practices that seem to be operative now; brainstorm about others that we'd like to see tried; and generate the outline of a "Dean's Guide to Clinical Scholarship Programs and Policies" -- a report and potential resource for law school administrators and faculty in both the US and Canada. We will conclude by organizing a working group to complete the preparation of a first edition of the Dean's Guide in time for distribution prior to the next AALS Annual Meeting in January 2002.

Roundtable on Directions in Canadian Clinical Scholarship

Canadian clinicians are few in number and do not have an opportunity to meet as a group. Certainly, we have never sat down to think about what would be important for clinical scholarship. While much of the American scholarship is useful and applicable to Canada, there are clearly areas of difference not only in the law, but in the social and political context. Perhaps a number of us can discuss where scholarship should go in the coming years. Rose Voyvodic, Legal Assistance Windsor, Windsor Law School, Claire McNeil, Dalhousie Legal Aid Service, Dalhousie Law School, and Shin Imai, Intensive Programme in Lands, Resources and First Nation Governments, Osgoode Hall Law School promise to attend and hope that others will join them in this roundtable discussion.

Presentation of Paper Works in Progress

Moderators:
Isabelle R. Gunning, Southwestern University
Ann Juergens, William Mitchell College of Law

“Rethinking Contemporary Maternal Dilemmas”
Cynthia Dennis, Rutgers University, Newark

“Confronting Students: Assuring Effective Evaluation of Student Professional Development in the Fieldwork Setting”
Cynthia Batt, Temple University
Harriet N. Katz, Rutgers University, Camden

“Law as Social Work”
Jane H. Aiken, Washington University
Stephen Wizner, Yale Law School

6:00-8:00 p.m.
AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education Committee Meetings

Saturday, May 12, 2001

9:00-11:00 a.m.
Creating Scholarship to Advance Social Justice

Bill Ong Hing, University of California, Davis
Pauline T. Kim, Washington University
Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, University of New Mexico
View Presentation Material
Barry C. Scheck, Yeshiva University
View Presentation Material

The debate over whether the pen or the sword is more effective in making social change has raged for centuries. The purposes of this plenary are to convey the importance of making a record of what we do to advance social justice, and to explore the opportunities for and challenges of bringing that scholarship to fruition.

Small Group Leaders

• Paris R. Baldacci, Yeshiva University
• Paul D. Bennett, The University of Arizona
• Laura M.S. Berend, University of San Diego
• Morris D. Bernstein, The University of Tulsa
• Frank S. Bloch, Vanderbilt University
• Susan L. Brooks, Vanderbilt University
• Francis J. Catania, Jr., Widener University
• Justine Dunlap, American University
• Hillary B. Farber, Suffolk University
• Linda E. Fisher, Seton Hall University
• Sally B. Frank, Drake University
• Philip M. Genty, Columbia University
• Andrew Horwitz, Roger Williams University
• Alex J. Hurder, Vanderbilt University
• Arlene S. Kanter, Syracuse University
• Harriet N. Katz, Rutgers University, Camden
• Laurie S. Kohn, Georgetown University
• Kimberlee K. Kovach, The University of Texas
• Alan M. Lerner, University of Pennsylvania
• Deborah A. Maranville, University of Washington
• Katherine A. Mewhinney, Wake Forest University
• Joanne M. Miner, Cornell Law School
• J.P. “Sandy” Ogilvy, The Catholic University of America
• Theresa J. Player, University of San Diego
• Mary Prosser, Harvard Law School
• Judith Ritter, Widener University
• Joseph A. Rossenberg, City University of New York, Queens College
• Josephine H. Ross, Boston College
• Evangeline Sarda, Boston College
• Alexander Scherr, University of Georgia
• Andrea M. Seielstad, University of Dayton
• Jeffrey Selbin, East Bay Community Law Center
• Daniel Shah, Temple University
• Cindy Roman Slane, Quinnipiac University
• Linda F. Smith, University of Utah
• Cathryn Elizabeth Stewart, Northwestern University
• Carol M. Suzuki, University of the District of Columbia
• Rose Voyvodic, University of Windsor
• Ian S. Weinstein, Fordham University
• Charles D. Weisselberg, University of California at Berkeley