The wonderful research by Marj Shultz and Shelton Zedeck tells is that listening is one of the fundamental lawyering skills that all lawyers, especially recent graduates, need to have in their toolkit upon graduation. So for the last few years, I have been trying to find ways to incorporate lessons on the skill of listening into my teaching. I just saw a TED talk on listening. http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_treasure_5_ways_to_listen_better.html In it, Julian Treasure recognizes the role of listening in stemming injustice and also gives some ideas that could inspire innovation in how we can teach the skill of listening. What do you think? Any ideas on how the exercises can be adapted for legal education?
The following post comes to us from a very special blogger, Shailini Jandial George, who is a Professor at Suffolk University Law School.
You have experienced a scenario like this: your students come to class with laptops, I pads and phones. They text and email during class. They giggle at something on their screens while you’re lecturing. They’re typing too fast to be taking notes on your lecture. You walk around the room and see Facebook or other social media sights on their screens. If you’ve experienced any of this, or just generally wonder about your students’ ability to focus and concentrate when they are used to this kind of constant stimulation, you’re not alone.
Our students grew up on computers, are used to googling the answers to questions, and are not in the habit of reading. Rather, they read in bits and starts, often clicking on hyperlinks before they read one document front to back. They often do at least two things at once. Research shows that this constant multitasking affects the brain and its ability to learn. Learning happens when we pay attention and process information. Multitasking prompts the wrong part of the brain to fire up (the part once used by cavemen to sense danger and flee) as opposed to the front of the brain used for deep focus and concentration. Some ideas as to how we can change this:
1.Teach students how to learn. They think they know, but they likely have never heard the term metacognition (“awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition”). They should be instructed in the steps of learning and that law school involves the highest levels of learning—levels they may not have approached prior to law school.
2.Instruct students on the perils of multitasking. While they likely think they can do many things at once, that’s not true unless the two things are like reading and chewing gum. They should know that science has proven that we’re actually task “switching”, jumping from task to task, and that we leak a little mental efficiency with each “switch”.
3.Teach students about successful learning methods. Many are used to highlighting and rereading to “learn” material. Cognitive educational theory shows that those are the two least successful study techniques. Study techniques involving self-questioning, self-explanation, intermittent study of topics, and testing are more successful.
4.Teachers should design their courses by first considering the learning objectives and goals and working backwards to ensure they are met.
5.Teachers should use more visual aids and visual exercises so as not to overtax any one learning “channel”. Straight lecture can overburden the verbal channel. Visual aids and exercises engage more of the students’ learning channels and promote higher levels of learning, particularly where those exercises engage students’ higher order thinking skills.
6.Teachers should use more assessments so students can determine early and often whether they are learning the material. These assessments should mimic the type of assessments on which students’ grades will be based.
Have you found that your students are distracted? Do you wonder if class or the work holds their focus? I’d love to hear others’ perspectives!
Yesterday, I sat on the stage of the Saratoga Performing Arts Center (SPAC) and for the 24th time fondly watched law students traverse the stage, receive their juris doctoris diploma, and begin their post-law school lives. I listened to my 24th Commencement Speaker, National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg. She urged law graduates to look to courageous and humble role models including Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., who pioneered equal access to justice and reminded us that ”it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status.” Ms. Totenberg and other honored speakers, including the student representative, did not ignore the difficult economy these graduates face. They just did not let such challenges limit the enjoyment of the spectacularly beautiful day or define the worth of the graduates. There was an infectious air of optimism and hope honoring the hard work done, the dreams shared, and the knowledge, skills and abilities acquired. One of those graduates was this blog’s own Stephanie Gianchristofaro-Partyka who has spent the past year assisting in all things “Best Practices. “ We cross our fingers along with her as she waits to hear back from criminal defense employers. Good-bye, thank you, and good-luck to Stephanie from this blog’s contributors and readers!
Once the ceremony ended and the last photos with families were taken, faculty returned to grading! The ABA Weekly Newsletter and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/05/10/law-prof-lets-scrap-the-gentlemans-c/ , have both reported on a grading proposal by University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Professor Joshua Silverstein, namely that “Law Schools Should Mostly Ditch C Grades.” http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/law_schools_should_mostly_ditch_c_grades_law_prof_argues
Silverstein notes on his SSRN site that “C marks virtually always denote unsatisfactory work in American graduate education. Law schools are the primary exception to this convention. It is time we adopted the practice followed by the rest of the academy.”
Reasons to “ditch” the C’s include:
- inequity - many law schools ranked in the top tier by U.S. News essentially have eliminated the use of C grades, while policies in fourth-tier schools often encourage or require large numbers of Cs
- jobs – grading policies which encourage low grades damage students’ placement prospects
- stress – Cs do psychological injury to law students generally familiar with achieving A’s and B’s
I find Professor Silverstein’s arguments persuasive, but the need to make the arguments saddens me. Almost seven years ago, Roy Stuckey et. al. urged law schools to stop “sorting” students by a method that is only helpful to prospective employers looking for a simple screening system and instead to provide formative and evaluative assessment of law students and graduates. This shift would create a more competent profession and more able learners. Such an assessment structure would eliminate the issues which Silverstein’s C’s raise. (You either become increasingly competent to practice and engage with the law or you need to re-assess your life goals!) Despite this reasoned plea, the media and the academy is still stuck in a mindset that focuses on sorting methods and ”grade inflation” rather than on better preparation and assessment of law students to serve clients and society.
Thankfully, my final grading this semester includes such assessment methods: clinical performance evaluations, student reflections and hybrid field supervisor evaluation and input. In end of semester meetings, after 14 weeks of clinical pedagogy, this group of students was able to honestly evaluate strengths, abilities not yet acquired and ways to obtain necessary skills and abilities either in the next year of law school (second years) or in the early years of practice/pro-bono/business work (third years). And I was able to review a series of simulations, real work product, classroom activities and a feedback loop to determine my grades. The students were able to acknowledge the psychologoical and personality issues which obstructed their growth and identify practice situations well-suited or ill-suited for them. These students have learned to be more reflective, to “own” their education and career formation, and to care deeply about their role in improving justice and the profession. Justice Powell and Nina Totenberg would be proud of them …..and so am I.
What do you think about Silverstein’s arguments and about your effective assessment methods?
The “transparency” of law school employment statistics has been widely criticized and robustly discussed over the past few years, resulting in changes to ABA accreditation rules and to law schools’ documentation and reporting of their graduates employment status. Just last week, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) http://iaals.du.edu/, announced a new employment calculator intended to be used as an alternative to the traditional and, in the opinion of many, biased current ranking system:
Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers, an initiative of IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, is pleased to announce Law Jobs: By the Numbers™ (http://educatingtomorrowslawyers.du.edu/law-jobs), an interactive online tool that gives prospective law students the most transparent and complete law school employment rate information available.
So what makes this calculator more transparent? According to the website, it is an incredibly “powerful” tool because “It lets the users create their own rates and, because we have made the formulas completely transparent and accessible, it teaches them how different criteria can impact the employment rates reported by schools, publications, and organizations.
If you click on it, you will notice that users can ”choose their own” formulas such as “whether bar passage is required, whether a position is full time, or whether a job is funded by the law school.” formula stands up against those from leading publications and organizations. You can also choose to rank all schools or compare specific schools.
I spent just a few moments on the calculator and found it to be very interesting and informative about employment parameters and about the type of information which goes into creating employment ”statistics, misleading statistics and outright lies’ (to paraphrase a famous quote). I also believe that the more alternative information and evaluation sources available, the less power US NEWS has to lead legal education by the nose. And that, my friends, seems like a step forward!
Just got this email from Chris Anderson, TED Curator. Should be worthwhile for anyone interested in how to improve teaching and learning.
Dear TED community,
I am proud to announce that TED Talks Education, our first original televised event, premieres this Tuesday, May 7, on PBS stations across the US. It will be available globally on the PBS website starting May 8.
Hosted by John Legend, TED Talks Education asks how can we better inspire our students — and support our educators. TED, WNET, PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting teamed up for this brand-new one-hour special, launched in response to the high dropout rate in American schools.
TED Talks Education is an exhilarating night of new talks by Sir Ken Robinson, Geoffrey Canada, Bill Gates and some truly inspiring teachers. In fact, we’ve just posted the first of them today on TED.com. Rita Pierson, a teacher for 40 years, delivers a rousing call to educators to believe in their students and actually connect with them on a real, human, personal level.
Please set your DVR, and let your friends and colleagues know to watch on Tuesday, May 7, at 10/9c on PBS stations across the US (you can check local station listings at top right of this page) — and visit pbs.org/TEDTalksEd after Wednesday, May 8, to watch the whole show online. And we will be releasing most of the speakers as TED Talks from May 8-10 on our homepage.
Our intention was to create an authentic TED event, filmed in a way that makes it compelling television. We really think it worked. We hope you love it as much as we do.
In March 2012 I delivered a talk at TEDxVillanovaU about The Future of Higher Education, in which I spoke about how online learning can bring about a democratization of higher education. Renee Knake of Michigan State has taken the idea further and applies it to legal education in her forthcoming article, Democratizing Legal Education. Elizabeth Chambliss talks about the article, here.
What do you think? It is possible to democratize information about law and legal systems? What are the barriers? Who will be the gatekeepers? What groups would want to see it happen and would they be willing to fund it?
The Task Force on the Future of Legal Education held a mini-conference on Wednesday. Karen Sloan wrote an overview of the conference, ABA Struggles for Answers on Law School Reform. An overview of the Task Force’s discussion items (from its Dec meeting) is available here. That document focuses a lot on innovation. Here is an excerpt:
Law Schools and Others in Legal Education Should Promote Innovation in Pedagogy
1. Law schools and law faculties should make use of knowledge and experience from other disciplines to support innovation in teaching methodologies.
2. Law schools should make use of technology in to innovate and improve pedagogy.
3. Law schools and law faculties should collaborate to facilitate innovation and improvement of pedagogy.
4. Bar admission authorities should recognize law school courses taught by innovative pedagogy.
A (long) video of the mini-conference is available here.
Hi Everyone! Mary just invited me to join this blogging community. Glad to be here.
For my first post, I’d like to think about how flipped or blended learning could be used in legal education. Flipped learning blends online and in-class instruction and has been used of late in lots of educational settings, including K-12 and undergrad. I think there is a place for it in legal education too.
The way I see it, flipping the classroom can take a lot of different forms. I envision them along a spectrum, something like this –
At one end of the spectrum, it can be used to
1. Reinforce learning after class — professors can assign online videos for students to watch after class, to help clarify and/or reinforce the doctrinal concepts that were taught in class, and help to build students’ doctrinal knowledge.
2. Lay a foundation – professors could require students to watch videos that cover basic, foundational concepts – so classtime can start further along the learning process.
3. Supplement with different perspectives — Professors may also assign online videos (prepared by other professors) to supplement their own lectures, so that their students can hear different voices or perspectives on a particular topic or to have students hear from experts on topics beyond the professor’s own field of expertise.
4. Facilitate higher level Socratic dialogue – when professors assign videos for students to watch before class, students have time to think about and reflect on the lesson before arriving in the classroom. That way the videos may reinforce the concepts in the assigned reading and when students come into class – having heard the lesson on the reading before class — they will be ready and able to engage in a higher level of Socratic dialogue and discussion of assigned hypothetical and in-class problems.
5. Integrate essential lawyering skills — when online videos are assigned as homework, as a substitute for a professor’s own lecture — class time is freed up for more active learning exercises that incorporate some essential lawyering competencies.
6. Professor as Facilitators/Guides — Some professors may decide to use videos to help integrate practical lawyering skills in doctrinal courses. Students could be required to review videos on substantive law and on practical lawyering skills out of class. Then, classtime can be devoted to simulations or role plays in which the students use the material they learned on video to engage in essential lawyering skills – such as negotiations, interviews, or oral arguments.
In this way, the professor is moving from a position at the front of the class, to a coach who works one on one with students, or with small groups of students, during assigned classtimes. And it promotes collaboration and team building among students.
This last category would be at the other end of the spectrum and allow professors to bring more training in practical lawyering skills into each course.
What do you think? Let me know if I’m missing something. I am speaking about how to use technology in our teaching at the AALS Clinical Conference next week. I’d love to hear your reaction to these ideas before then.
The Upcoming Standards Review Committee Meeting takes place on April 26 and April 27.
You can find a link to the proposed draft for review regarding Bar Passage here.
You can also find a link to the agenda for the meeting and other proposed materials here.
Please take a look when you have a chance, and let us know what you think! If you are attending this meeting, please let us know and leave a comment with an update to share anything you feel like passing along! We look forward to hearing your comments.
The National Law Journal
It turns out that if you ask 30 different law professors, practitioners, judges and bar association leaders how to fix legal education, you’ll get about 30 different answers.
The lack of consensus about what ails law schools and how to fix them was on display Wednesday during a daylong conference hosted by the American Bar Association’s Task Force on the Future of Education.
Participants in the forum struggled for agreement about what is driving the rising costs of legal education—or about how schools and regulators should respond to declining job prospects for new lawyers and flagging interest in law degrees.
“What the task force is doing is very difficult politically. It’s very difficult conceptually. And its very difficult pragmatically,” said Valparaiso University School of Law dean Jay Conison, the task force’s reporter.
The conference brought members of the year-old task force together with dozens of experts and interested parties in effort to guide the deliberations and help shape the task force’s recommendations. Though no clear direction emerged, panel members said the exchange of ideas was useful.
“Among the things the ABA is working on, this may be the most important,” said ABA president-elect James Silkenat. He told attendees that he is asked about the task force’s work whenever he meets with bar and law school leaders.
The task force hopes to release preliminary recommendations during the late summer or early fall, with a final report to follow in mid-November, said former Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard, its chairman. Members already have heard from several hundred people in public hearings and through written comments, he said.
The task force is considering what law schools, the ABA and groups that control bar admissions should do, said Loyola University Chicago School of Law dean David Yellen, a member of the panel.
The wide-ranging discussion,held at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, veered from whether to use the ABA’s law school accreditation standards to force change, to whether a law degree is even necessary for many of the emerging jobs in the legal industry.
The attendees also appeared to struggle with whether the task force’s mission lies with the needs of law schools, the larger profession or the broader society. When asked specifically what should be done, the responses fell across the board.
Some said law schools should be required to spell out the core competencies that students should develop at set points during their legal educations; others, that tuition reduction was the first priority. Several attendees endorsed higher teaching loads. No single idea dominated.
The ABA’s accreditation standards were a major focus. However, no consensus emerged about whether to relax the standards in order to give law schools more room to experiment with curricula, or to tighten them to force specific changes.
University of Pennsylvania Law School dean Michael Fitts and former Southwestern Law School dean Bryant Garth argued that any attempt to bear down would stifle innovation and ultimately prove counterproductive.
But loosening up seemed wrongheaded to task force member Jolene Yee, an attorney from Newport Beach, Calif. Too many people have urged the task force not to just tinker around the edges, she said.”I feel like we are at a critical place in the profession. I’m not sure [deregulating law schools] is enough.”
If a law degree isn’t necessary for every job in the legal industry, perhaps some schools will develop programs intended to train people for non-lawyer jobs within the legal industry, suggested Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch.
“What are law schools and what should they be doing?” Berch said. “There’s a tension between what I see as a broad education and the need for what I see as legal technicians. I don’t know that these people are lawyers at all.”
At several points throughout the day, panelists and task force members discussed the idea of a tiered system of legal education that students could exit at different levels depending on their career aspirations.
Any recommendations by the task force would require approval from the ABA’s House of Delegates, and there is still a lot of work to be done before a report is issued, Shepard said.
“The trail from here to the House of Delegates seems a long way to me,” he said.
Live Blogging from the CELT Workshop
On April 17, 2013, Michelle Pistone, Professor of Law and Director, Clinic for Asylum, Refugee and Emigrant Services (CARES) at Villanova University School of Law, spoke to the Albany Law School faculty on the topic of “How Emerging Innovations Will Disrupt Legal Education:
Her engaging presentation began with a clip from 1994 of Bryant Gumble and Katie Couric from the Today Show debating the pronunciation of a mysterious keyboard symbol, the”@” symbol. From there and Bob Dylan (“The Times They Are A Changin”), she reminisced about buying books and records at neighborhood stores, seeing movies in the theaters, and when TV shows only played once a week, and if you missed them, you had to hope they’d be rerun during the summer.
Yes, this has all changed. Books and newspapers are now digital. TV shows and movies can be watched at anytime and on computers and phones. These changes are result of innovations which have created a new world.
However, this is the only world that our students know!! They were born digital.
As a result, our students are visual, connected, relate to one another through technology, have an abundance of information that is available at any time from any place. They are used to convenience, speed, multi-tasking, immediate feedback and working together on projects, collaborating, sharing, and creating.
So the important question that Prof. Pistone raised was: In light of these changes, have law schools changed enough?
And her answer was: “Law schools have not changed much in the last 100 years.”
K-16 education has been changing. We have the addition of MOOCS (massive open online courses); Khan Academy which offers videos and quizzes that can being used alone or to flip the classroom. TED ED which makes videos for use in high school – students watch videos online for homework and then can come into class ready to do active problem based learning (thus “flipping the classroom”).
Prof. Pistone recommended reading the book Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail by Clay Christensen. In it, he introduces the key concepts of sustaining technologies (those that improve the performance of established products) and disruptive technologies. Although “disruptive technologies” result in worse product performance in the short term, they are typically cheaper, simpler, smaller, and, frequently, more convenient to use (Skype being an example.) So we need to adapt to them.
A study conducted by the Department of Education found that blended learning (a combination of online and face-to-face instruction) obtained better results for students and than either face-to-face or completely online learning. This is something to keep in mind.
So what is next for law schools?
Prof. Pistone recommends focusing on:
- What we teach – in light of our changing, globalizing, interdisciplinary world
- How we teach — to cover a wide range of competencies and reach different learning styles
- How we assess what students are learning – supplementing the final summative exam with formative assessment
- How we signal to others a student’s competencies
Lastly, Prof. Pistone introduced her new project called LegalED. LegalED is a web-based platform that will host teaching materials for legal education. The materials will include:
- short videos made for internet viewing
- problems and exercises
- assessment tools
This online platform of teaching materials (esp. the short videos) can be used to supplement law school and to “flip” the classroom.
Prof. Pistone’s presentation concluded with a lively discussion by faculty on law school competencies that cannot be taught online (such as empathy), mapping competencies to the teaching process, mastery/adaptive learning, bar exam…
The Clinical Law Review will hold its next Clinical Writers’ Workshop on Saturday, September 28, 2013, at NYU Law School.
The Workshop will provide an opportunity for clinical teachers who are writing about any subject (clinical pedagogy, substantive law, interdisciplinary analysis, empirical work, etc.) to meet with other clinicians writing on related topics to discuss their works-in-progress and brainstorm ideas for further development of their articles. Attendees will meet in small groups organized, to the extent possible, by the subject matter in which they are writing. Each group will “workshop” the draft of each member of the group.
Participation in the Workshop requires the submission of a paper because the workshop takes the form of small group sessions in which all members of the group comment on each other’s manuscripts. By June 30, all applicants will need to submit a mini-draft or prospectus, 3-5 pages in length, of the article they intend to present at the workshop. Full drafts of the articles will be due by September 1, 2013.
As in the previous Clinical Law Review Workshops, participants will not have to pay an admission or registration fee but participants will have to arrange and pay for their own travel and lodging. To assist those who wish to participate but who need assistance for travel and lodging, NYU Law School has committed to provide 10 scholarships of up to $750 per person to help pay for travel and lodging. The scholarships are designed for those clinical faculty who receive little or no travel support from their law schools and who otherwise would not be able to attend this conference without scholarship support. Applicants for scholarships will be asked to submit, with their 3-5 page prospectus, by June 30, a proposed budget for travel and lodging and a brief statement of why the scholarship would be helpful in supporting their attendance at this conference. The Board will review all scholarship applications and issue decisions about scholarships in early July. The scholarships are conditioned upon recipients’ meeting all requirements for workshop participation, including timely submission of drafts.
Information about the Workshop – including the Registration form, scholarship application form, and information for reserving hotel rooms – is available on-line at:
If you have any comments or suggestions you would like to send us, we would be very happy to hear from you. Comments and suggestions should be sent to Randy Hertz at firstname.lastname@example.org.
– The Board of Editors of the Clinical Law Review
The following post comes to us from Professor Benjamin Madison:
Many have read about the recent DLA Piper billing scandal; see http://storify.com/Edward_Stephen/dla-piper-billing-scandal-review (citing articles on the scandal, DLA Piper’s responses, and criticism of Piper’s responses). Unfortunately, the scandal will likely smear the legal profession more than it should. The results of the dispute between DL Piper and the client with whom it disputes the allegations it questions in this matter remains to be resolved. Assuming that DL Piper is exonerated completely, however, the damage to lawyers from the negative press has already occurred.
The practice of overbilling a client alleged in the Piper Scandal is most likely to occur in large firms with billable hour quotas. When lawyers face the demand to bill anywhere from 2,000 to 2,500 hours per year, they are certainly more vulnerable to the temptation to do unnecessary work, at the least, or to pad their bills with time not actually spent on the client, at worst. However, most lawyers do not work for large law firms. The ABA’s most recent study of lawyer demographics shows that a relatively small percentage of lawyers work in large law firms. See http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/marketresearch/PublicDocuments/lawyer_demographics_2011.authcheckdam.pdf. Lawyers in smaller firms, without the crushing hour quotas, are less likely to charge unfairly. Moreover, I know large firm lawyers who are scrupulous about the time that they bill. These lawyers resist the temptations resulting from billable hour quotas and manage to succeed anyway. How can we encourage law students to recognize the significance of careful time recording and ethical billing?
Legal education is moving toward educating lawyers to be “practice ready” and to have a sense of ethical responsibility. In this vein, we would do well to offer law students the opportunity to learn about billing. In my civil procedure and pretrial practice classes, I have students break into groups to work on projects—e.g., a plan for discovery in a simulated case, or jointly preparing a pleading, a motion, or some other document in the simulated case. When I have the groups do these projects, I now plan to assign them an hourly rate (say, $200 per hour) and tell the student “lawyers” that they must—independent of one another—keep track of the time they spend on the matter. I’ll explain that billable hours are often broken down into increments, such as most commonly a tenth of an hour (or six minutes). I will then have them multiply the time they record by their hourly rate. If the student spends fifteen minutes on the project, I’ll ask whether they will round up to three-tenths of an hour (i.e., 18 minutes) even though they did not spend that much time working for the client. If the student decides that’s fair, then she or he would bill $60.
The exercise should reveal some interesting results. If students keep time separately (as I will insist), my guess is that there will be discrepancies in the amount of time recorded. That will provide an opportunity to discuss the necessity to be careful in contemporaneous recording and developing the habit of recording precisely when one starts and finishes a project or task. Moreover, we can discuss the common practice of rounding up to the next tenth of an hour (the 18 minutes noted above). Although the practice is common, the professor can ask students whether they believe such a practice out to be spelled out in the engagement letter if they plan on doing it. Students then ought to realize that clients are less likely to be surprised or object if they make the practice of rounding up time clear from the outset.
Regardless of how each group’s time(s) and bill(s) works out, the exercise should be a valuable opportunity to teach even more facets of lawyer-client relations. After such a session, the professor could bring into class respected practitioners and ask them how they are able to keep accurate time. Most will say they developed the habit of keeping contemporaneous time records throughout the day. Perhaps these lawyers will also offer tips such as the author learned in practice about how important it is not only to keep accurate time, but also to describe one’s work thoroughly. If the client’s bill shows two-tenths of an hour and, for the description, “telephone conversation,” they likely will wonder what the telephone conversation was about. With a little more effort, the lawyer can amplify the description, e.g. “telephone conversation with opposing counsel negotiating protocol for reducing the cost on my client of producing electronic documents.” Perhaps the bill should also include some entries where the lawyer does a task of one-tenth of an hour and puts “no charge to client.” Students need to know that clients will remain happier if they can see that the time spent was meaningful and have a sense of the significance to their case. If clients see their lawyer exercising the judgment to give the client a break and not charge for every little thing, that ought to create goodwill between the lawyer and client. Happy clients tend to be ones who return when they need legal help in the future.
In short, the Piper billing scandal may hurt the credibility of more lawyers than it should. However, for those of us adapting legal education to better prepare law students and to make them more attentive to ethical concerns, the scandal may be the prompting we need to begin teaching the importance of careful time-keeping and of billing practices that may actually strengthen the lawyer-client relationship.