Interaction

May 17, 2006

Law school establishes a precedent

L.A. Cicero

'The school was only episodically involved with the rest of the university, which was a waste, considering that it is sitting amid one of the great universities of the world,' Larry Kramer said.

The aim of law school has always been to get students to "think like lawyers." Dean Larry Kramer thinks that's a big mistake—if they're thinking only like lawyers. What about thinking like clients? Like scientists? Like entrepreneurs?

William Sullivan, one of the lead authors of a forthcoming Carnegie Foundation publication on legal education, put it this way: "Professional education, including legal education, tends to divide performance into three parts: the mostly intellectual or conceptual (the head); the doing (the hands); and meaning and purpose (the heart).

"'Thinking like a lawyer' is the head. The challenge for professional education is to recompose and reintegrate the whole."

Since Kramer arrived in 2004 from New York University, he has continued taking the school in the directions marked by his predecessor, Kathleen Sullivan, implementing a host of changes aimed at integrating not only the whole but at reestablishing connections between the school and the university and at encouraging the faculty to build their own bridges.

Jeff Strnad is leading the effort to establish more joint and dual degrees.

The signs are everywhere. During a recent lunch hour in March, faculty members were building those bridges from tables in the student lounge. They were there to promote joint degree programs, of which Kramer hopes there will be as many as 18 by 2007-08. Representatives of legal specialties concerning the environment, economics, public policy, sociology and education, among others, met with prospective students who, tax law Professor Jeff Strnad said, were "stunned" at how easy the Law School is making it.

One of the joint pioneers is Peter Morgan, who is pursuing a JD and an MS in the Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Environment and Resources. (Though the terms often are used interchangeably, a dual degree means one completes all requirements for both degrees; a joint degree means some units apply to both degrees.)

"I came to Stanford specifically for that program," he said. "I only considered schools that offered joint degrees. A joint degree was attractive to me because I became interested in a career working in the environmental arena after finishing my undergraduate degree, and I had gaps in my background knowledge. There were classes I wish I had taken. Also, I'm developing research interests that don't fall strictly within one discipline."

Nearly everyone consulted for this article said the push toward innovation came not just from the dean's office but also from alumni. Once out there, graduates realized their tool boxes could and should be expanded.

Chief among the changes aimed at dissolving barriers between law and other fields was to propose that the Law School alter its calendar, which for years has been on the semester system.

"The Law School went its own way in the 1960s, and the calendar is the most obvious manifestation of that," Kramer said. "Faculty members might do multidisciplinary research, but, on the whole, it was an individual operation. The school was only episodically involved with the rest of the university, which was a waste, considering that it is sitting amid one of the great universities of the world."

Many members of the Law School faculty had good reasons for being wary of the change, Kramer said. Most other law schools run on semesters; law firms expect their summer associates to be on that calendar; and there are economic and opportunity costs. But he believed the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, and many of the faculty were with him; intellectual property pioneer Lawrence Lessig, the C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law, said he was "wildly in favor" of the change.

In January, Kramer announced that the transition will begin this fall and should end in 2009-10, by which time the Law School will be fully on the quarter system.

The second-most important change Kramer champions, predicated on the first, are the joint degree programs.

The Commission on Graduate Education noted in its recommendations that the onerous requirements of existing dual and joint degree programs can function as a disincentive. They often add up to simultaneous work in two different programs, with little overlap and double the cost.

According to Strnad, the Charles A. Beardsley Professor of Law, the school is committed to changing that.

"We're very enthusiastic, very flexible, as long as it makes sense," he said. In essence, there will now be two sorts of joint law degrees. The first allows students to apply units acquired outside the school (even outside Stanford) to another degree. This arrangement existed when Kramer came to Stanford, Strnad said, though it is now more flexible than before.

Then there are the new joint degrees, which entail four years of study in exchange for two degrees. Certain courses will count for both, a structural innovation that came into being thanks to several Law School administrators. "They worked very hard to put together esoteric and tricky degree programs, and they deserve a lot of the credit," he said. "This is a very ambitious initiative, reaching out to almost every department where there's a remote possibility of people wanting to do work in two fields."

So far, the school and the respective departments have approved programs in law and philosophy, education, management science, public policy, international and area studies, and the environment. In the pipeline are programs in history, psychology, political science and bioengineering. And in the future, programs with computer science and the various departments in the School of Engineering are possible.

Law students interested in public policy for years have taken courses at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School for Public and International Affairs or at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. That will no longer be necessary. Deborah Hensler, the Judge John W. Ford Professor of Dispute Resolution, empirical political scientist and longtime policy analyst (but not a lawyer), is heading up the new JD/MPP, which will be administered by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. She hopes to admit the first students in 2007.

"The idea for the program started with a group of faculty," she said. "We went to Larry and said, we have a group of people here [at the Law School] with other degrees, so we could teach political science within the Law School. Would it count for our teaching load? Larry said yes, it would, as long as the core curriculum gets taught."

Hensler's remarks point to one of the salient characteristics of the law faculty at Stanford, which is that a large percentage have advanced degrees in fields such as political science, sociology, education and economics. That's a growing trend nationwide; it is not only here that people are realizing that law must open up to other fields in order for practitioners to give their clients what they need. But Stanford would appear to have an edge, which Kathleen Sullivan, Kramer's predecessor as dean, took advantage of to promote a wide range of faculty research colloquia.

"Barriers can be overcome, especially here, because no one tells us, 'You can't do that because it's not law,'" Hensler said. Not all schools are as ecumenical, she suggested. "These will be the most attractive programs in the country for joint degrees for many reasons," an enthusiastic Strnad said. "We've made it potentially easier. Students don't have to reduce their program by units, but they can. We're making it very flexible. We're breaking down barriers between departments so it makes sense." He said he doesn't know if other law schools are making similar changes, but if they're not, "we're going to get their students!"

For law students not interested in a joint degree, the opportunities for interdisciplinary work are still immense, thanks to the school's research centers.

One of those is the Stanford Center on International Conflict and Negotiation, whose director, Allen Weiner, has a joint appointment with the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. His exact job title bears noting: He is an associate professor of law (teaching) and the Warren Christopher Professor of the Practice of International Law and Diplomacy.

Alan Weiner leads the Stanford Center on International Conflict and Negotiation.

The title is interesting for at least three reasons. First, Weiner emphasizes the word "practice." Second, it was former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, '49, who once told Kathleen Sullivan (according to Stanford Lawyer magazine) that the international component of the law program was better when he was a student than it was in 1999. Sullivan paid heed and created positions and programs to further the study of international law and policy.

And third, the (teaching) part of his title makes Weiner, who formerly was at the State Department, one of a fresh crop of clinical professors who are expected to push the school in new directions. This, too, is a legacy of the Sullivan years. Their publication requirements are somewhat reduced, though they are still expected to produce first-rate scholarship, and they are not tenure-track, though they can (and will) be reappointed. The point was to ensure that there were faculty members freed up to do what Weiner calls "non-traditional scholarship."

Again, it was the alumni who helped push the school in that direction, Weiner said. They argued that a higher international presence was essential if Stanford's law graduates were to assume leadership roles. The center invites graduate fellows from Stanford, sponsors research and produces events and programs; among the last was what Weiner called a "transformative" state-building workshop with Palestinians.

Weiner also teaches. His class, Interdisciplinary Seminar on Conflict and Dispute Resolution, was cross-listed in Psychology and had over 80 students, both undergraduate and graduate; they hailed from all of Stanford's schools, making calendar juggling necessary.

If collaboration between disciplines is what lies behind Kramer's enthusiasm for joint degrees, he is equally firm that theory must be combined with practice. The two realms have not always been in balance, Larry Marshall, associate dean for public interest and clinical education, explained at a faculty forum at the Haas Center for Public Service in March.

"Faculty [at all law schools] would ask, 'Why should we divert resources to practice when students spend only three years in school? They have their whole careers to practice.'"

If Kramer, Marshall and much of the faculty have their way, however, it will no longer be the case that students meet their first client only after graduation.

Joe Neto

Bill Koski, below, is the director of the Law School’s Youth and Education Law Clinic, and he also has a Ph.D. from the School of Education.

Not so long ago, the Law School's clinics were "downstairs," as opposed to "upstairs," and the difference was not just geographic, according to Marshall and William Koski, director of the Youth and Education Law Clinic and the Eric and Nancy Wright Professor of Clinical Education. Today, both men have endowed chairs, showing that donors and alumni support the shift and are willing to put their money on practice.

"We're trying to create a national precedent," Marshall said, referring to a departure from long years in which theory ruled alone.

The Carnegie Foundation's book also emphasizes the need for such a change.

Speaking of the foundation's image of the head, hands and heart, Koski said, "Law schools have not done a good job with the hands. Whether it's with clergy or social work or teaching, you need clinical experience."

"Working at the environmental clinic was the highlight of my experience at the Law School," said Peter Morgan, the JD/MS student in environment and resources. He and a colleague argued before U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston in a case concerning the introduction of aquatic invasive species into water bodies through the discharge of ballast water from vessels. Similarly, Morgan's colleagues studying constitutional law have the opportunity to participate in one of just two Supreme Court clinics in the country (though they do not argue before the high court). Former Dean Sullivan, one of the nation's preeminent constitutional scholars, was instrumental in establishing that clinic, along with others in areas such as community law, cyberlaw, civil rights and criminal prosecution.

Koski's clinic offers future educational reformers, policymakers, attorneys and educators a chance to litigate, advocate and analyze. Koski, a professor (teaching) like Weiner, has a PhD from Stanford's School of Education and continues doing scholarly research. Indeed, he's working on a book with political philosopher Rob Reich on the normative case for equitable educational opportunities.

"Clinical experience makes you think, it makes you ask, what do I need done in order for there to be reform?" Koski said. "Lawyers wear many different hats; they can be accountants, advocates and legislators.

"Some students say this isn't lawyering. But then they learn that clients want you to solve problems, not just file complaints. We're problem solvers. We think holistically."

Strnad, meanwhile, one of the dean's biggest boosters in the effort to overhaul the school's approach to legal education, could not be more pleased.

"We have lots of people with PhDs on our faculty, and Stanford is a very porous place. There's lots of sharing; it's an ideal place to do this."

Miguel Méndez, the Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law who has taught at the school since 1977, provided some historical perspective at the Haas Center forum on clinical education. Crediting former President Donald Kennedy with initiating the shift toward a more inclusive, collaborative form of legal education, he was one very happy discussant:

"The battle at the Law School has been won; upstairs wants to come downstairs now!"