SYLLABUSAmerican Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar • Volume XXX, Number 4 • Fall 1999

On November 19th and 20th theSection conducted a confer-ence on distance learning.

About one hundred participantsfrom the legal academy were inattendance for a program conductedby law professors for law professors.Dean Henry Perritt gave the keynoteaddress and provided a template forconference discussion – the wideexpanse of distance education pos-sibilities. He discussed the widerange of delivery methods that areavailable today and the possibleeducational structures for providingthat delivery. Professor and formerDeputy Consultant Art Gaudiodescribed the development of thecurrent Temporary Guidelines, theirpurpose and what they mean andwhat they don’t mean. This was fol-lowed by several sessions in whichthe presenting law professorsdescribed their own experiences inusing distance education. Two pro-fessors discussed delivering interac-tive video courses between differentschools. Two other professorsdescribed the possible uses of out ofclass distance education supple-ments, such as TWEN and LexisClassroom in a Box, as enhance-ments for traditional in-class ses-sions. Other faculty presented theirexperiences and research with otherclassroom supplements, the use ofdistance education for clinical andexternship supplementation, andthe delivery of post-JD programs bydistance education. Dr. FrankMayadas discussed the use of asyn-chronous distance education and itspossibilities for legal education.

The conference was capped byaddresses from Professors CharlesNesson and Peter Martin on theirdiffering views of the use of dis-tance education and the purpose ofthe classroom in the education anddevelopment of law students.A sense developed that distance

education in law schools has moved

a long way in the last several years.Nonetheless, there was disagree-ment about its proper place andimplementation. Is its best use as asupplement for traditional class-room education; should individual

Distance Education Conference

As you know, James P. White,Consultant on Legal Educationto the American Bar

Association since 1974, hasannounced his retirement effectiveSeptember 1, 2000. Since Jimshared his plans with me some timeago, the Section Council and I havebeen working together to plan thesearch for his successor. The Section has long had a con-

sultant – originally an advisor – towork with it on matters of lawschool accreditation. Since 1927,eight persons have filled that role1,and Jim has occupied it for the last25 years. During those years, asresponsibilities grew and chal-lenges arose, Jim built a dedicatedstaff who has helped him make theOffice of the Consultant a strongand vital force in American legaleducation. I have had the pleasure of work-

ing closely with Jim both beforeand during my term as Chair of theSection in 1993-1994, and then

Consultant Search by Robert A. Stein

Continued on page 4

later, of course, as the ABA’sExecutive Director. Jim’s contribu-tions to the accreditation process, tothe section, to the ABA, and toAmerican legal education as awhole are immeasurable, and hewill — as many have already saidin these pages, and will certainlysay again — be sorely missed. In connection with Jim’s retire-

ment, the Office of the Consultantwill be relocated from Indianapolisto Chicago. We have invited theIndianapolis staff to join the newConsultant and relocate to Chicago,and we hope that many of them willwish to do so. The relocation of the office must

be done in such a way as to have aslittle impact as possible on theimportant ongoing work of theConsultant’s Office. Jim has agreed,during the year following his retire-ment, to advise the new Consultant,and Jim’s good services in that

Continued on page 5

SYLLABUS FALL 19992

Volume XXXNumber 4Fall 1999

Officers of the Section of Legal Educationand Admissions to the Bar: Robert K.Walsh, Chairperson; Diane C. Yu,Chairperson-Elect; Gerald W.VandeWalle, Vice Chairperson; HermaHill Kay, Secretary; Randall T. Shepard,Past-Chairperson; and José Garcia-Pedrosa and Norman Redlich, Delegatesto the House of Delegates.

Editor:Kurt Snyder

Consultant’s Digest Editors:Kurt Snyder

Rick L. Morgan

Designer:Jill Ingber

Library Column Editor:Professor George S. Grossman

University of California-Davis School of Law

The Section of Legal Education andAdmissions to the Bar publishesSyllabus on a quarterly basis. It providesa forum for ideas concerning legal educa-tion and bar admissions. It informs mem-bers of the Section of the activities of theSection.

Opinions and positions stated inindividual articles are those of theauthors and not necessarily those of theAmerican Bar Association or members ofthe Section of Legal Education andAdmissions to the Bar.

All manuscripts are reviewed by theeditors, and those accepted become theproperty of the American Bar Associa-tion. Manuscripts or letters may be sub-mitted to the Editor, Kurt Snyder,American Bar Association, 550 WestNorth Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202.

Changes of address should be sent toDonald Quarles, American BarAssociation Section of Legal Educationand Admissions to the Bar, 750 NorthLake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60611.Please include mailing label.

Copyright © 1999American Bar Association

Section of Legal Education andAdmissions to the Bar

The price of an annual subscription tomembers of the Section of Legal

Education and Admissions to the Bar isincluded in their dues. Subscriptions to

nonmembers are $15.

CONSULTANTLondon 2000by James P. White

PHOTO: R

OMER

The Section has planned aseries of events in connectionwith the London meeting of

the American Bar Association July17-21, 1999. On Tuesday, July 18the Section has planned a programfrom 1:00 - 5:00pm in the QueenElizabeth II Conference Center.This is a Section PresidentialShowcase Program and is part ofthe ABA General Program. Dean Emeritus David T. Link of

Notre Dame Law School is chairingthis program. The title of the pro-gram is “Out of the Box” and is aninternational summit on ideas fornew systems of legal education.Participants include JusticeMorgoro of the South AfricanConstitutional Court, former ABApresidents Roberta C. Ramo andPhilip R. Anderson, Nigel Savage ofthe College of Law of England andWales, ABA Executive DirectorRobert A. Stein, Chief JusticeRandall T. Shepard, and currentCouncil Chair Dean Robert K.Walsh. The panel will suggest newbeginnings to legal education, par-ticularly in the United Kingdomand the United States. Thatevening there will be a dinner forSection members in Middle TempleHall, Inns of Court.On Wednesday, July 19 Dean

Patricia O’Hare of Notre Dame LawSchool and Professor JeffreyBennett, Director of the Notre DameLondon Law Centre will host areception for all Section members atthe Notre Dame London Law Centrelocated off Trafalger Square.On Thursday, July 20 there will

be a joint programme, University ofLondon and Section of Legal

Education and Admissions to theBar - Legal Education in the UnitedKingdom and the United States inthe New Millennium at SenateHouse University of London, hostedby London University ViceChancellor Graham Zellich. Theprogram will be from 9:00am to3:45pm and will consist of threesessions each with a paper present-ed from the United Kingdom andthe United States and two commen-tators from the United Kingdom andthe United States. The topics areLegal Education in the UnitedKingdom and the United States inthe 21st Century; Advanced LegalEducation, Academic andContinuing; and LawyerCompetency: The Role of LawSchool and the Profession. Theprogram will feature a luncheonspeaker from the United Kingdomand will conclude with tea for allparticipants.On Friday the Section will spon-

sor a trip to Cambridge to visit thenew Cambridge law building, totour the campus and to lunch withmembers of the Cambridge LawFaculty. The visit will be hosted byProfessor A.T.H. Smith, Chair of theCambridge Law Faculty.There will be many other ABA

events including an opening sessionat Royal Albert Hall. I look forwardto seeing you there. n

SYLLABUS 3FALL 1999

Ibelieve that all those who havebeen involved in organizationalleadership have observed the fol-

lowing phenomenon: a truly reflec-tive and significant report is issuedby the organization after muchstudy and receives meteoric atten-tion, flashing brilliantly, but tem-porarily. This phenomenon occursat least partially because of the tran-sitory nature of leadership in manyorganizations. Bar associations andorganizations often turn over presi-dents each year. Of course, the rela-tively short average tenure of manylaw school deans continues. Forthese reasons and others, I believethat two great reports of our Sectionare not receiving the current atten-tion they deserve. We are planningsome important programs this yearto bring attention back to thesereports. The first of these reports is the

MacCrate Report issued in July of1992, more formally entitled “LegalEducation and ProfessionalDevelopment—An EducationalContinuum.” This report was theresult of three years of study, meet-ings, surveys, and hearings by a taskforce of almost 30 outstandingjudges, practitioners, and acade-mics, chaired by former ABAPresident Bob MacCrate. It firstdescribed the profession for whichlawyers must prepare, including itshistory, different practice settings,and organization. It then went on toformulate a statement of fundamen-tal lawyering skills and professionalvalues and to describe an education-al continuum through whichlawyers acquire these skills and val-ues throughout a lifetime, includingboth before and after the law schoolexperience.

FROMTHECHAIRGreat ReportsReduxby Bob Walsh

The MacCrate meteor did burnlonger and brighter than most. TheSection itself had an important fol-low-up conference and then almost20 states had what came to beknown as “MacCrate Conclaves.”According to the MacCrate Report,the first step in bringing the legaleducation community and the prac-ticing bar together to better the edu-cational continuum was “todescribe what law schools and thepracticing bar are now doing toadvance the professional develop-ment of lawyers” and begin a coop-erative dialogue to improve it.Most states, however, did not haveMacCrate Conclaves. In many ofthe states that did, the leadership ofthe bar and the law schools haschanged. We hope to bring attention back

to this report at the midwintermeeting of the ABA in Dallas. Wewill have a special one-day jointmeeting on Friday, February 11,2000, with the leaders of thenational conferences of bar presi-dents, bar executives, and bar foun-dations entitled “The LegalEducation Continuum: We Are Allin This Together.” Chaired by DeanJohn Feerick of Fordham, this pro-gram will explore areas of furthercollaboration between law schoolsand the bar leadership in the states.Following a keynote address, therewill be a reaction panel featuring(1) Deborah Rhode of Stanford, for-mer president of the AALS, (2) BillRakes, current liaison of the Sectionto the ABA Board of Governors andformer president of the VirginiaState Bar where he led its con-claves, (3) John Feerick who hasalso served a two-year term as pres-ident of the Bar of the City of New

York, and (4) Erica Moeser, formerchair of our Section and currentdirector of the National Conferenceof Bar Examiners.Following the reaction panel,

there will be workshops on ten top-ics led by leaders equally from theSection and the other organizations.At the end of the program, a sum-marizer will help provide what wehope will be a new beginning to dia-logue both in the states and at anational level about what the barleaders and the law schools can dotogether to improve the legal educa-tion continuum.

From the bar leadership per-spective, one interesting aspect ofthis conference is the participationof the National Conference of BarExecutives. Bar executives tend tolast longer in office than bar presi-dents and deans, providing greaterpotential continuity to the dialogue.As to the Section leadership, DianeYu, the chair-elect of the Section,has served with me on JohnFeerick’s Program Committee.Moreover, Diane and I have dis-cussed this conference as a newbeginning for further Section activi-ties with Chief Justice GerryVandeWalle of the North DakotaSupreme Court, the vice-chair of theSection, in our Section leadershipthree-year planning process.

The other great report of theSection that I hope will receiverenewed attention is the 1996 reportof our Professionalism Committee:“Teaching and LearningProfessionalism.” The MacCrateReport had referred to education inprofessional values, as well as pro-fessional skills. Thinking creativelyabout education in values is chal-lenging. The 1996 report wasissued after a two-year study by acommittee chaired by Reese Smith,another past president of the ABA,and made thoughtful recommenda-tions concerning education in pro-fessionalism at each stage of thecontinuum. While the report was followed by

a Section symposium in Chicago, Ido not believe that this report hasreceived the attention its thought-fulness and importance deserve. I

Continued on page 5

SYLLABUS FALL 19994

regard will help to make the transi-tion a seamless one. Making the move from

Indianapolis to Chicago and identi-fying an outstanding newConsultant are both challenges ofthe first order and constitute majorpriorities of the ABA in the newyear. New offices at theAssociation’s Chicago headquartersare ready. For any currentIndianapolis staff who choose not torelocate, our new Consultant willidentify and recruit staff to continueto provide high quality support forthe accreditation work. The search committee and the

search process were ably describedby Chief Justice Randall T. Shepardin the last issue of Syllabus. TheHeidrick and Struggles executivesearch firm is working with thesearch committee to identify quali-fied candidates for consideration asthe next Consultant.

The committee is most eager toreceive your recommendations ofcandidates for the Consultant posi-tion if you have not already provid-ed them. You may send them to meat the American Bar Association,750 North Lake Shore Drive,Chicago, IL 60611, or via email torobertstein@staff.abanet.org; or toEugene Rackley, Heidrick andStruggles, 227 West Trade Street,Suite 1600, Charlotte, NC 28202 orvia e-mail to EMR@h-s.com.

1 The Standing Committee onLegal Education came into exis-tence in 1878. In 1893 The Sectionof Legal Education was created andin 1920 became the Section of LegalEducation and Admissions to theBar. The following persons haveserved as Advisors/Consultants tothe American Bar Association:

1927-1930 H. CLAUDEHORACK, Advisor

1930-1934 WILL SHAFROTH,Advisor

1934-1935 ROBERT L.STEARNS, Advisor

1935-1940 WILL SHAFROTH,Advisor

1940-1941 LAWRENCEDeMUTH, Advisor

1941-1946 RUSSELL SULLI-VAN, Acting Advisor

1946-1948 LAWRENCEDeMUTH, Advisor

1948-1968 JOHN G. HERVEY,Advisor

1968-1973 MILLARD H. RUUD,Consultant on Legal Education tothe American Bar Association

1974-present JAMES P. WHITE,Consultant on Legal Education tothe American Bar Association n

CONSULTANT SEARCH Continued from page 1

American Bar Association Diversity Inititative 1999–2000One of William G. Paul’s presidential initiatives is diversity in the legal profession. The goals of the initiative

is to increase minority participation in the legal profession by encouraging members of racial/ethnic minoritygroups to consider law as a career and to provide increased opportunities for minorities already in the profession.Despite improvement during the 1990s in the number of law students and lawyers of color, there is much work

left to be done. At the current time, the legal profession is more than 90% white while the general population isabout 70% white. This disparity between the legal profession and the general population is increasing. In thenext 50 years the general population is projected to be about 50% people of color but enrollment in American lawschools is around 20%. These trends suggest that the proportion of minorities in the legal profession is not likelyto attain parity with that in the general population in the foreseeable future.The American Bar Association is undertaking a development program to provide funds for its Legal

Opportunity Scholarship Fund. To facilitate attaining its goal, the Association is seeking assistance from a vari-ety of private, corporate and foundation resources.For information on how to contribute, please contact

Krista KauperDirectorABA Fund for Justice and Education750 North Lake Shore DriveChicago, Illinois 60611312/988-5404Fax: 312-988-6392E-mail: kauperk@staff.abanet.org

SYLLABUS 5FALL 1999

will be presented to the appropriatecommittees of the Section for theirconsideration and advice. TheSection’s Technology Committeewill be meeting in January at theAALS meeting. At that time it willbegin the consideration of theseissues. Other committees, such asthe Accreditation Committee andthe Standards Review Committee,will also be involved at later stages.Because of the developing nature ofdistance education, the Section willalso conduct a new and revised sur-vey of law schools and law facultyabout the place of distance educa-tion in the legal academy. Whilethe position of the Section undoubt-edly will develop and change overtime, there was an understandingthat such a development shouldoccur as a consensus of opiniondevelops within the academy. n

have, therefore, asked our Section’sProfessionalism Committee chairedby Professor Barry Sullivan ofWashington and Lee University tosuggest follow-up actions to insurethat the ideas in this report receivefurther study by bar leaders andlegal educators. I have also askedDean Harry Haynsworth of WilliamMitchell, reporter for the originalreport, to chair the ProgramCommittee for the New York por-tion of the annual meeting and pre-sent concrete examples of what lawschools are doing to teach profes-sionalism, an illustrative best prac-tices program. Finally, in San Diego on

February 27-28, 2000, the Sectionwill cosponsor a program withCalifornia Western School of Lawgermane to both reports: “Lawyersas Creative Problem Solvers.” If you have any further ideas as

to how to bring the ideas of thesetwo great Section reports back tothe attention of new bar leaders anddeans, please let me know. n

Continued from page 3

FROM THE CHAIRDISTANCE EDUCATION CONFERENCEContinued from page 1

courses be taught to students atother law schools or locales; shouldthose courses be limited to upperclass students or should first yearstudents be allowed to take them;should the number of distance edu-cation courses available to a studentin her or his legal education be lim-ited; what is the proper interpreta-tion or meaning of “interactive” asused in the Temporary Guidelines;must that education be synchronousor may it be asynchronous; andshould schools be allowed to teachmost, if not their entire program oflegal education to students by dis-tance methodology? These issuesmerely hint at the wide array ofquestions submitted to a panel oflegal educators and accreditors atthe end of the conference. These questions and other issues

that were voiced at the conference

Bricks, Bytes, and continuous renovation

On Thursday, March 9 through

Saturday, March 11, 2000, in

Washington, D.C., the Section will host

the fourth ABA facilities conference,

Bricks, Bytes, and Continuous

Renovation. The program will address

planning for new construction and/or

major renovations, as well as focus on

the challenge of “continuous renova-

tion”—making incremental changes as

needed to adapt to technology and

other changing requirements of legal

education. Professor Leah Wortham

and the Law School Facil i t ies

Committee are coordinating this

Section Committee. For more informa-

tion please visit the Section Website or

contact Marian Lally, Columbus School

of Law, The Catholic University of

America, at (202) 319-5453.

SYLLABUS FALL 19996

In the last issue of Syllabus,James P. White announced hisintention to retire as the

Consultant on Legal Education tothe American Bar Association. Hewill step down as Consultant as ofSeptember 1, 2000, but will remainas an advisor to his successor untilOctober 1, 2001. Since theannouncement, the search for hissuccessor has begun by a committeechaired by Justice Randall T.Shepard, the immediate past chairof the Section. If you have ideasabout the search or about candi-dates, Justice Shepard urges you towrite him in care of Ms. NadineNunley at the ABA, 750 North LakeShore Drive, Chicago, IL 60611, orby e-mail: rshepard@courts.state.in.us. Those who wish to be candi-dates or to propose names maywrite Eugene Rackley at 227 WestTrade Street, Suite 1600, Charlotte,NC 28202, or EMR@h-s.com.

Personal CharacteristicsThe successful candidate must

have a significant national reputa-tion in the field of legal educationand be highly regarded by othermembers of the legal profession.This person has a unique leader-ship role in helping to set thestrategic direction and priorities forAmerican legal education and con-veying a vision of the challengesfacing legal education and the pro-fession in the future. TheConsultant will be a primary andinnovative force in promoting andmaintaining quality in legal educa-tion and a fair and efficient baradmissions process. It is essentialthat the person be capable of under-standing regulators, and the practic-ing bar.The individual must be able to

work effectively with individuals atall levels of the profession, the pub-lic, and with those exercising regu-latory oversight of law schoolaccreditation and admissions to thebar, in an even-handed and fair-minded manner. This person mustbe able to act with outstanding

judgment and decisiveness, and becapable of handling difficult situa-tions with tact, diplomacy, andskill. In addition, the successfulcandidate will possess an interna-tional awareness and leading edgeknowledge of legal matters, teach-ing, scholarship, and professionalservice. This individual will havestrategic agility, action orientation,and organizational skills, and beadept at conceptualization andlong-term strategic development.The Consultant must be able to dealwith persons at the highest levelsof the legal academy, practicingbar, and judiciary to gain theircommitment to the goals and objec-tives of law school accreditationand bar admissions. This personalso needs to be a capable managerand administrator.

Professional RequirementsThe Council of this ABA Section

is the official accrediting agency forlaw schools recognized by theUnited States Department ofEducation and the 50-state baradmission authorities. In addition toits accreditation function, the ABASection is also one of the two lead-ing national organizations engagedin extensive programs for improve-ment of American legal education.It has over 30 committees touchingevery aspect of legal education andsponsors programs on such issuesas financing legal education, global-ization, technology, teaching profes-sionalism, and skills training.The Consultant will report to the

Council of the Section of LegalEducation and Admissions to theBar regarding all accreditation mat-ters, and to the Executive Directorof the Association on all other mat-ters. Together with the GeneralCounsel of the Association, theConsultant is responsible for assur-ing that the legal requirements relat-ing to the substance and process oflaw school accreditation are fol-lowed. The Consultant is a nationalleader in fostering quality in legaleducation and represents the

Consultant Position AnnouncementAssociation before the U.S.Department of Education and theCouncil for Higher EducationAccreditation, which recognize theAssociation as the national accred-iting agency for law schools granti-ng the professional law degree.The Consultant supports the offi-

cers and Council of the Section ofLegal Education and Admissions tothe Bar in the formulation of policy,adoption of a budget, and theadministration of the accreditationprogram. The Consultant also sup-ports the many volunteer commit-tees and projects of the Section,especially those that relate directlyto accreditation matters, such as theAccreditation Committee andStandards Review Committee. TheConsultant has the following addi-tional responsibilities:

• Provide leadership to legaleducation and the accreditationprocess.

• Serve as the spokesperson forAmerican legal education.

• Monitor trends in both highereducation and in law schools andreport on them to deans and theCouncil.

• Set the strategic direction foridentifying and addressing issues inlegal education.

• Identify, recruit, and inspirevolunteers to participate in theaccreditation process.

• Work with the Section Council,officers, and staff in directing andimplementing actions related toaccreditation and other Section programs.

• Be a source of innovative andcreative ideas and approaches toimprove legal education and theaccreditation program.

• Ensure that site evaluationteams are properly trained to con-duct effective site visits and pre-

Continued on page 14

SYLLABUS 7FALL 1999

It all started in 1988 when theConsultant’s Office distributed,for the first time, its Annual

Questionnaire to the law schools onelectronic media...the ubiquitous 51/4 inch floppy disk (a time whendisks really were floppy and mostpeople were upgrading to computerswhich had the state of the art 20Mhz286 processors). Needless to say,we’re talking DOS software here.‘Windows’ was something youcleaned once a year whether theyneeded it or not!There are several reasons that the

ABA has an annual questionnaire:(1) to provide data that are used inthe accreditation process; (2) to pro-vide basic consumer information onlaw schools; (3) to provide manage-ment reports to deans; (4) to satisfyDepartment of Education require-ments that accrediting bodies moni-tor schools between site visits; and(5) to assist in the work of many ofthe ABA Section committees. Forthose of you who may have workedon the questionnaire prior to 1997,but have not seen it since then, youwould be very surprised at theimprovements in the overall lookand feel of the system. It is veryuser friendly, and since it stays onyour school’s computer system allyear, staff can begin working on thenext questionnaire, literally, any-time throughout the year.There are downsides, however, to

developing and supporting aturnkey software system.Supporting the questionnaire usedto mean that you would help callersinterpret questions. When you addsoftware into the mix, in addition toall of those calls, you have to beconcerned with computer operatingsystems, printer drivers, networkaccess rights, computer viruses, andthe list goes on. Perhaps more chal-

lenging than that isto maintain consis-tent data over timewhen forces out ofyour control man-date changes to thedata being collected.Any kind of mean-ingful trend analysisbecomes very diffi-cult when questionsare routinely addedand/or deleted.Having said all ofthat, it was determinedin 1988 that the benefits ofdeveloping software to facilitatethe data collection process were fartoo great to ignore.At that time, the questionnaire

was organized into three parts, eachpart residing on its own disk. Part I- General was comprised of manysections which covered a variety oftopics such as: Budget, Curriculum,Faculty Counts and Salaries,Financial Aid, Physical Plant,Professional Skills, and others toonumerous to mention. Parts II andIII captured a broad spectrum ofinformation on Students andLibrary, respectively. Thus, theABA software was born. For therecord, it should be noted that inaddition to selfless volunteers likeDean Steve Smith, CaliforniaWestern School of Law, andAssociate Dean Peter Winograd,University of New Mexico School ofLaw, the inaugural version of theABA software was also made possi-ble by the database programmingskills of Professor Tom Allington,Indiana University School of Law -Indianapolis.Even though the software and

questionnaire itself have evolvedgreatly since 1988, it has continuedto capture data from ABA approvedlaw schools in an organized, elec-tronic, database format whichallows the ABA to maintain a digitalarchive of information on legal edu-

cation in the United States. In addi-tion, the Annual Questionnairefacilitates the ABA’s commitment tomonitor institutions pursuant to theDepartment of Education require-ments 34 C.F.R. §602.24(b)(4). Tocontinue the chronology of changes;in 1991, financial aid informationwas taken out of Part I, and Part IV -Financial Aid was created. The sur-vey remained static until 1994, atwhich time further restructuringoccurred in which questions regard-ing faculty headcount and compen-sation were pulled from Part I tocreate Part V - Profiles, and ques-tions regarding law school financeswere pulled from Part I to createPart VI - Fiscal. Enter the ConsentDecree, June 25, 1996. After manymonths of litigation regardingantitrust issues, the American BarAssociation entered into a ConsentDecree with the U.S. Department ofJustice. The impact of the ConsentDecree on the annual data collectionprocess was significant, to say theleast. It prohibited the ABA fromcollecting or disseminating salaryinformation. Therefore, much of thePart V - Profiles software had to berestructured so that no salary datawould be calculated and submittedto the American Bar Association,

ABA Data Collection Software: Past, Present, and Futureby Rick L. Morgan

Continued on page 8

Rick L. Morgan is the data specialist for theConsultant's Office on Legal Education to theAmerican Bar Association.

SYLLABUS FALL 19998

and hence, no statistics on salaries,past or present, would be producedby the ABA. With the exception of salary

information, the basic structure ofdata that are collected by the ABAhave been virtually unchangedsince 1994, which has led to a greatdeal of consistency and comparabil-ity over time. Also, numerous editchecks and analyses have been inte-grated into the software whichenhances the accuracy and unifor-mity of data collected from schoolto school. In 1997, all six moduleswere integrated into a single,Windows-based, multi-user applica-tion known as the ABA CentralInformation System (ABA CIS).Perhaps the most significant benefitto each law school is that it storesmultiple years of annual question-naire data for the school where it isinstalled. Beginning with 1994, aschool can retrieve, view and/orprint data from any year simply bypressing F5 from the main menuand entering the year they wish toretrieve. From the ABA perspective, the

software has provided the conduitfor us to produce output such as:statistical reports (Take-offs) thatlaw schools can subscribe to, ad hocdata requests from outside sources,and internal reports used in theaccreditation process. The mostvisible bi-product, however, is theannual publication of the ‘OfficialABA Guide to Approved LawSchools’. It is a 480 page consumerinformation guide which contains agreat amount of data on each lawschool. With a single repository of data

containing multiple years of infor-mation in existence at each lawschool, the next step was to inte-grate the Site EvaluationQuestionnaire (SEQ) into the ABACIS. The SEQ must be completed,along with a Self-Study every sev-enth year from the original year ofABA provisional approval. In theFall of 1998, version 2.0 of the ABACIS contained the Site Evaluationmodule. Using existing annual

questionnaire data for the currentand prior two years, many statisticalreports can be produced by simplyclicking on the report button andpressing ‘Print or Preview’. Prior tothe development of the ABA CIS,those same reports had to be pro-duced by pouring over printouts ofannual questionnaires for threeyears, a laborious task, to be sure.In all, twenty reports are producedby the SEQ module covering topicssuch as: Curriculum, Faculty,Admissions, Financial Aid, BarPassage, Placement, Finances, andLibrary Resources. The long termbenefit to the school that uses theABA CIS software to produce theSite Evaluation Report is that theresponses that are entered into thesystem will remain there, indefi-nitely, and will certainly be invalu-able to the staff involved in the nextSite Evaluation. Since every schoolhas access to this managementinformation tool, the reports pro-duced by the system can be usefultools in monitoring year to year per-formance in the aforementionedareas, even if a school is not up foran inspection. This year, all three Foreign

Summer Program questionnaireshave been integrated into the ABACIS version 3.0.: there is a question-naire for New Foreign SummerPrograms, the questionnaire forexisting Foreign Summer Programs,and the questionnaire for ForeignSummer Programs that are sched-uled to be inspected. The systemcan manage multiple foreign sum-mer programs. As with the AnnualQuestionnaire module, multipleusers can access the system at thesame time, as is likely the case whena school has multiple programs.Data are submitted to the ABA in thesame manner as the AnnualQuestionnaire, a diskette which con-tains the databases accompanies aprintout of the questionnaire.In the waning months of 1999, no

discussion of software would becomplete without the proverbialquestion of Y2K compliance. Itshould be noted that the ABA CIS

software is ready for the new mil-lennium. I must admit, however, itis not that we had to make any mod-ifications, because the databaseengine used in the development ofthe ABA software (Microsoft VisualFoxpro) has stored four positions indate fields for many years.Looking ahead, there are a couple

of events that will directly affectfuture releases of the ABA CIS soft-ware. As noted elsewhere in thisissue of Syllabus, the move of theOffice of the Consultant from itsIndianapolis home of twenty-fiveyears to the ABA headquarters inChicago as a result of James P.White’s retirement plans, couldmean that there will not be newquestionnaires integrated into thesystem next year. Whoever becomesthe new Consultant on LegalEducation will certainly have ideasand opinions that will shape thefuture of this project. In addition,the Department of Education, alongwith all federal agencies are in thethroes of making significant changesto their own survey instruments.For colleges and universities, it isthe IPEDS report (IntegratedPostsecondary Education DataSystem). As it stands now, schoolshave until 2002 to change the waythey gather data on students, specif-ically in the area of race and ethnicclassifications. What does thatmean for the ABA questionnaire?Probably the safest and most accu-rate answer is....more change.In conclusion, the past eleven

years have clearly been a time ofchange in the way the Office of theConsultant conducts the business ofcollecting, storing, and utilizingdata from law schools. It begs thequestion: What do the next fewyears have in store, and how willadvances in technology change theprocess? The best response that Ican think of is that there will bedata collected regarding legal educa-tion in the United States, and therewill be change in mechanisms andmethodologies because there mustbe outputs and quality assurances,i.e. an accreditation function. n

ABA DATA COLLECTION SOFTWARE: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTUREContinued from page 7

SYLLABUS 9FALL 1999

Requirements for obtaining alicense to practice law are nowavailable online from the

American Bar Association Section ofLegal Education and Admissions tothe Bar and the National Conferenceof Bar Examiners (NCBE).

The requirements for admissionto the bar vary from state to state,but the section’ s web site presentscomparisons of state requirements,so that law school students world-wide can access information regard-ing what is needed to becomelicensed anywhere in the UnitedStates. The Comprehensive Guide toBar Admission Requirements is post-ed at www.abanet.org/legaled.

The section is recognized by theU.S. Department of Education as anagency to approve law schools inthe United States. Graduation froman ABA approved law school satis-fies the legal education requirement

for any U.S. jurisdiction, althoughalternative credentials also are rec-ognized in some states. Otheradmission requirements can includecharacter and fitness determina-tions; residency requirements; spe-cific course work before, during orafter law school; and successfulcompletion of bar examinations.

The section has published theComprehensive Guide annually formany years in cooperation with NCBE,but this is the first time its contents havebeen available on the Internet. Singlehard copies also are available fromthe ABA Service Center at 800/285-2221. The Section owes EricaMoeser, former chair of the Section’ sCouncil and Bar AdmissionsCommittee, and Peg Corneille, currentco-chair of the Section’ s BarAdmissions Committee,much gratitude for theirhard work and efforts incompiling the information

provided by the bar administratorsfrom each state.

Also at the section’ s BarAdmissions web site, www.abanet.org/legaled/bar.html, are links to fre-quently asked questions about baradmissions; information on the multi-state bar examination, the multistateessay examination, the multistate pro-fessional responsibility examinationand the multistate performance test;bar admission statistics; lists of bar examiners in each jurisdictionwith electronic links to their offices;and listings of other section publica-tions. The section’ s home page,www.abanet.org/legaled, links visi-tors to information covering a broadrange of topics relevant for pre-lawstudy, post graduate education andforeign study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

CODE OF RECOMMENDED STANDARDS FOR BAR EXAMINERS

CHART I: BASIC INFORMATION

CHART II: CHARACTER AND FITNESS DETERMINATIONS

CHART III: PERMITTED MEANS OF LEGAL STUDY

CHART IV: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

CHART V: APPLICATION DATES & MBE REQUIREMENTS

CHART VI : MPRE, MPT & MEE REQUIREMENTS

CHART VII : GRADING & SCORING

CHART VIII: FOREIGN LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES

CHART IX: ADMISSION ON MOTION

CHART X: RECIPROCITY, COMITY & ATTORNEY’S EXAM

CHART XI: BAR ADMISSION FEES

CHART XII: OTHER LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS

CHART XIII: MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

DIRECTORY OF STATE BAR ADMISSION ADMINISTRATORS

Office of the Consultant on Legal Education to the American Bar Association

Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements isNow Available Online

Volume XXX No. 4 Fall 1999

SYLLABUS FALL 199910

YES (34)

NO (21)

YES (6)

NO (49)

YES (18)

NO (37)

YES (14)

NO (41)

YES (11)

NO (44)

Does your jurisdiction have published �character and fitness standards?

Will a felony conviction bar applicant from admission?

Does a separate agency evaluate character and fitness?

Do your rules provide for conditional admission, other than by waiver?

Does your jurisdiction have a structured �program for deferring admission?

CHARACTER AND FITNESS DETERMINATIONS

YES (29)NO (26)

YES (13)

NO (42)

YES (11)

NO (44)

BASIC INFORMATION

Is pre-legal education required? Is registration of law students required?May students take exam prior to graduations?

Please note: The aggregated statistics on this page were derived from information contained in the 1999 edition of theComprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements. Please refer to that publication for specific information.

SYLLABUS 11FALL 1999

YES (4)

NO (9)

YES (4)

NO (51)

YES (12)

NO (43)

YES (17)

NO (38)

If you approve schools not approved by the ABA, �do you conduct on-site inspections?

For initial admission to the bar, do you require completion �of certain courses or skills training during law school?

For initial admission to the bar, do you require completion �of certain courses or skills training after law school?

If applicant, a graduate of non-ABA-approved school, passes a bar exam in another �state, is the applicant eligible to take your exam without additional legal education?

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

YES (49)

NO (6)

PERMITTED MEANS OF LEGAL STUDY

Do your rules require graduation from an ABA approved law school?

Please note: The aggregated statistics on this page were derived from information contained in the 1999 edition of the Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements. Please refer to that publication for specific information.

SYLLABUS FALL 199912

YES (51)

NO (3)

YES (32)

NO (23)

NO LIMIT (34)

2 TIMES (2)

3 TIMES (11)

4 TIMES (4)5 TIMES (3)6 TIMES (1)

Do you administer the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE)?

Do you accept MBE scores from exams taken in other jurisdictions?

How many times may exam be taken without special permission?

APPLICATION DATES AND MBE REQUIREMENTS

YES (51)

NO (4)

YES (51)NO (0)

YES (20)

NO (35)

YES (13)

NO (42)

MPRE, MPT & MEE REQUIREMENTS

Do you require the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE)?

Do you accept the MPRE scores from exams taken in other jurisdictions?

Do you administer the Multistate Performance Test (MPT)?

Do you administer the Multistate Essay Exam (MEE)?

Please note: The aggregated statistics on this page were derived from information contained in the 1999 edition of the Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements. Please refer to that publication for specific information.

SYLLABUS 13FALL 1999

LOWEST (4)HIGHEST (17)

What is the average grading and reporting period, in weeks, �for the bar examination in your jurisdiction?

GRADING AND SCORING

AVERAGE (8)

MODE (8)

YES (31)

NO (21)

CONDITIONAL (3)

YES (21)

NO (10)

Do your rules provide for admission on motion?Must an applicant for admission on motion �be a graduate of an ABA-approved law school?

ADMISSION ON MOTION

YES (3)

NO (52)

YES (11)

NO (44)

FOREIGN LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES

Does your jurisdiction recognize with regularity the sufficiency �of a legal education received at any particular foreign school?

If a foreign law school graduate obtains a graduate law degree from an �ABA-approved school, is the graduate then eligible to take the bar exam?

YES (40)

NO (15)

Does your jurisdiction have a mandatory CLE requirement?

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

Please note: The aggregated statistics on this page were derived from information contained in the 1999 edition of the Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements. Please refer to that publication for specific information.

SYLLABUS FALL 199914

The Section’s KutakAward Committeeinvites suggestions of

individuals whom it shouldconsider for the KutakAward in 2000. TheAnnual Robert J. KutakAward is given to an indi-vidual who has “met thehighest standards of profes-sional responsibility andhas demonstrated substan-tial achievement towardincreased understandingbetween legal education andthe active practice of law.”Peter A. Winograd was therecipient of the award in1999. The 2000 KutakAward will be presented inJuly at the 2000 ABAAnnual Meeting in NewYork, New York.The Kutak Award

Committee is chaired byProfessor Harry E. Groves.Other committee membersinclude Dean Nina S.Appel, William R. Rakes,Esq., Harold L. Rock, Esq.,Barbara Ruud, Esq., NormanRedlich, Esq., HonorableHenry Ramsey, Jr., andHonorable Rosalie E. Wahl.It would be useful to theKutak Award Committee ifthe recommendation woulddescribe the activities thatespecially qualify the indi-vidual for the award. Eventhough the Committeeexpects to receive sugges-tions about a number ofhighly qualified individuals it canrecommend only one name forrecognition by the Council.Recommendations received for the2000 award will be carried forwardfor consideration in future years.

Suggestions may be sent, by April1, 2000, to Professor Harry E.Groves, Villa #276, CarolinaMeadows, Chapel Hill, NorthCarolina 27514 or to James P. Whiteat the Consultant’s Office. n

Kutak AwardWinners:

Peter A. Winograd, 1999

Talbot D’Alemberte, 1998

Harry Edward Groves, 1997

Norman Redlich, 1996

Robert MacCrate, 1995

Rosalie E. Wahl, 1994

Frank E.A. Sander, 1993

Harold Gill Reuschlein, 1992

Gordon D. Schaber, 1991

Samuel D. Thurman, 1990

Sharp Whitmore, 1989

Millard H. Ruud, 1988

Robert B. McKay, 1987

Robert W. Meserve, 1986

Richardson W. Nahstoll, 1985

William J. Pincus, 1984

Kutak Committee SeeksNominations for 2000Award

pare inspection reports in accor-dance with established standards.

• Provide information and coun-sel on a regular basis to lawschools, their deans, and facultiesregarding accreditation, includingthose seeking Association approvalas an accredited institution.

• Collect and disseminate statis-tics on legal education and prepareconsumer informational publica-tions on U.S. law schools.

• Work in collaboration with theAssociation of American LawSchools and Law SchoolAdmissions Council to facilitatecooperative and liaison effortsamong the three principal organiza-tions focusing on American legaleducation interest in promotingquality in legal education andadmissions to the bar.

• Manage the staff and budget ofthe Consultant's office in accor-dance with ABA policy.

Education and ExperienceJ.D. degree. Twenty years mini-

mum experience.

CompensationCompetitive.

ExperienceThis position will demand a

person who has exhibited solidmanagerial skills as well as out-standing, in-depth knowledge oflegal education. Among logicalcandidates for the position will bepresent and former deans of lawschools and members of the judi-cial branch. Additionally, practi-tioners who have had significantexposure to higher education andthe legal education communityand some administrative duties inan academic setting could beattractive candidates. Knowledgeof the Section and its activities area plus. n

CONSULTANT POSITIONANNOUNCEMENTContinued from page 6

Specific and updated informationregarding public hearings will beposted on the Section’s website assoon as it is available. Please notethat on the Section’s website, youcan also review the currentStandards and the proposedchanges thereto. Finally, please submit your

comments to the StandardsReview Committee, ASAP, at theOffice of the Consultant on LegalEducation at the followingaddress: Standards ReviewCommittee, Office of theConsultant for Legal Education,550 West North Street,Indianapolis, Indiana 46202. n

suggestions for change in one ormore Standards or Interpretations,as well as expressions of opinionthat a particular Standard orInterpretation is, or a collection ofthem are, valid as currentlyexpressed. The Standards Review

Committee has scheduled hearingsto allow persons to make oral com-ments in addition to, or instead of,written comments. Hearings will beheld during the AALS AnnualMeeting in Washington, DC, JanuaryJanuary 6, 2000, and at the ABAMidyear Year Meeting/AnnualDeans Workshop in Dallas, Texas,February 11, 2000.

The Standards ReviewCommittee and the Council forthe Section are seeking com-

ments from members of the practic-ing bar, the judiciary, bar adminis-trators, and the legal academyregarding the Standards forApproval of Law Schools. As partof the ABA’s ongoing validity andreliability plan for assessing theABA Standards for Approval of LawSchools, the Standards ReviewCommittee is reviewing Chapters 5,6, and 7 during the 1999-2000 year.The Committee considers itextremely important to receiveinput from as many constituents aspossible. This input might include

SYLLABUS 15FALL 1999

Public Hearings on the Standards

California Western School ofLaw, in conjunction with theAmerican Bar Association

Section of Legal Education andAdmissions to the Bar, is hostingThe Lawyer As A Creative ProblemSolver, an innovative internationalconference to be held Feb. 24-26,2000 on the shores of San Diego’sMission Bay. Edward de Bono, an author/edu-

cator who is considered the world’sauthority on the teaching of think-ing as a skill and creative thinking,is the keynote speaker at 4:30pm,Feb 24 and Former AttorneyGeneral Ramsey Clark will close theconference on Feb. 26 at noon.The Lawyer As Creative Problem

Solver is designed to promote theuse of alternative approaches toconflict resolution. In particular,the conference seeks to create anew category of legal professional— The Lawyer As A CreativeProblem Solver. Discussion willinclude identifying the skills the

new lawyer must possess, as well asconsidering structural, attitudinaland institutional barriers to educat-ing the new lawyer. Among the goalsof this conference is the developmentof an action plan for all legal profes-sionals. A diverse group of legal profes-

sionals, including law faculty anddeans, judges, bar associationadministrators, mediation/arbitra-tion experts, family law practition-ers and public interest lawyers areexpected to attend the conference.Conference attendees will beon the cutting edge of problemsolving and interventionistadjudication —a movement inlaw for the coming millenni-um. California Western Schoolof Law certifies that the StateBar of California has approvedthis activity for seven hours ofMCLE credit. CaliforniaWestern School of Law is aState Bar of California-approved MCLE provider.

The Lawyer As A Creative ProblemSolver International ConferenceFeb 24–26, San Diego

The conference will be held at theHyatt Islandia Resort on pic-turesque Mission Bay in San Diego.The early conference registrationfee is $265 and increases by $100after Jan. 15, 2000. For more infor-mation about registration, accommo-dations and travel, contact EventsCoordinator Sheri Graham at sgra-ham@cwsl.edu or 800.255.4252, ext.1689. Additional information is alsoavailable via the Section’s website at www.abanet.org/legaled. n

SYLLABUS FALL 199916

The Standards for Approved of Law Schools sets forth the stan-dards that a law school must meet to obtain or retain ABAapproval. The book is divided into ten parts; [1] Standards &

Interpretations; (2) Rules of Procedure; (3) Criteria for Approval ofSemester Abroad Programs for Credit Granting Foreign Segment ofApproved J.D. Program; (4) Criteria for Approval of Foreign SummerPrograms; (5) Criteria for Approval of Individual Student StudyAboard for Academic Credit; (6) Criteria for Approval of CooperativePrograms for Foreign Study; (7) Statement of Ethical Practices in theProcess of Law Accreditation; (8) Internal Operating Practices; (9)General Information; and (10) Prior Council Statements.

Product Code: 5290084, Price: $12.00.

In the past year, the Professionalism Committee published twobooks. The first book, Teaching and Learning Professionalism,examines the recent decline in professionalism and make a num-

ber of recommendations designed to increase the level of profes-sionalism among American Law Students, practicing lawyers, andjudges. The second book, Teaching and Learning Professionalism:Symposium Proceedings, brings to conclusion the professionalismprojects of the Section and the ABA Professionalism Committee byreproducing the papers presented at, and summarizes the discus-sion from, a national invitational Symposium on Teaching andLearning Professionalism in October 1996, cosponsored by theSection and two other ABA entities, The Standing Committee onProfessionalism and The Standing Committee on LawyerCompetence for the Center for Professional Responsibility.

Teaching and Learning Professionalism, Product Code: 5290083,Price: $3.35. Source Code: SW98

Symposium Proceedings, Product Code: 5290086, Price: $3.35.

Section Publications

SYLLABUS 17FALL 1999

1999–2000 SITE EVALUATION VISITSSABBATICALS:1. University of Arkansas School of Law-Fayetteville - March 12-15, 20002. University of California Hastings College of Law - October 10-13, 19993. California Western School of Law - February 27-March 1, 20004. Catholic University of Puerto Rico School of Law - October 24-27, 19995. Detroit College of Law - October 31-November 1, 19996. Duke University School of Law - November 14-17, 19997. Duquesne University School of Law - February 20-23, 20008. George Mason University School of Law - February 27-March 1, 20009. Georgia State University College of Law- February 20-23, 200010. University of Houston Law Center - October 24-27, 199911. University of Iowa College of Law - March 26-29, 200012. Loyola University School of Law-Chicago - October 17-20, 199913. University of Miami School of Law - March 19-22, 200014. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law - March 19-22, 200015. University of North Carolina School of Law- April 9-12, 200016. University of North Dakota School of Law- March 26-29, 200017. Ohio Northern University College of Law - February 13-16, 200018. University of Oregon School of Law - February 27-March 1, 200019. University of Pennsylvania Law School - February 13-16, 200020. University of Richmond School of Law - April 2-5, 200021. Roger Williams University School of Law - March 26-29, 200022. Rutgers University School of Law-Camden - March 5-8, 200023. University of Southern California Law School - March 29-April 1, 200024. Southwestern University School of Law - October 24-27, 199925. University of Toledo College of Law - February 20-23, 200026. Washburn University School of Law - October 17-20, 199927. Willamette University College of Law - March 8-11, 200028. University of Wyoming College of Law - October 27-30, 1999

PROVISIONALS:1. Chapman University School of Law - October 6-9, 19992. University of the District of Columbia School of Law - April 9-12, 20003. Florida Coastal School of Law - March 1-4, 20004. Thomas Jefferson School of Law - February 20-23, 20005. Western State University College of Law- February 20-23, 2000

APPLICATIONS FOR PROVISIONAL APPROVAL:1. Barry University of Orlando School of Law - October 24-27, 19992. University of Nevada - Las Vegas - November 14-17, 19993. John Marshall Law School - Atlanta - TBA

Please visitthe Section’s Website forupdates to this chart.

http://www.abanet.org/legaled

In the 1999-2000 academic year the Consultant's Office on Legal Education to the American BarAssociation will coordinate the following site evaluation visits. Interested persons may submitwritten comments regarding a school to the Consultant's Office. Comments should be sent

directly to James P. White, Consultant on Legal Education to the American Bar Association, 550West North Street, Suite 349, Indianapolis, IN 46202.

SYLLABUS FALL 199918

New Models to Assure Diversity,Fairness, and AppropriateTest Use in Law School

Admissions is the title of a work-book recently issued by the LawSchool Admission Council. Its pur-pose is to provide law schools withpractical support and ideas on howto broaden admission criteria toinclude factors that support themission of a law school and pro-duce a diverse student body, con-struct procedures that are fair to allcandidates, and understand thevalue and limitations of the LawSchool Admission Test. This workbook grew out of the

Council’s concern about the gener-ally poor understanding of whatconstitutes appropriate and defensi-ble use of standardized admissiontests, and the negative conse-quences of their misuse. Two trou-bling examples giving rise to thisconcern are (1) the notion, oftencited by opponents of affirmativeaction, that test scores define meritand should be the principal factordetermining admission, and (2) theescalating emphasis on test scoresby law schools as they vie for high-er positions on national rankingsthat rely heavily on a school’s medi-an LSAT score. Both representincorrect test score use and threatento corrupt the law school admissionprocess. In fact, in a growing num-ber of states and jurisdictions, amisunderstanding of the role of testscores in admission may have con-tributed to legal prohibitions thatnow constrain law schools fromadmitting some of the students theybelieve best serve their educationalmissions. The Law School Admission

Council, whose members are theU.S. ABA accredited law schoolsand Canadian law schools, is per-haps best known for the LSAT, theLaw School Admission Test admin-istered annually to close to 100,000people worldwide.1 Since its incep-tion, the LSAC has cautioned

schools about test misuse and hasoffered programs and informationabout the admission process.2While the Council is confident ofits test’s ability to help evaluate lawschool candidates for admission(the LSAT is one of the most reli-able of standardized admissiontests), it also knows that it is a goodtool only if it is used properly. Toaddress this issue, 1997-99 CouncilBoard Chair Leo Romero of NewMexico, appointed a group of lawschool deans, faculty, and adminis-trators, assisted by LSAC staff, todevelop the New Modelsworkbook.3 Current LSAC BoardChair Rennard Strickland of Oregonhas adopted the promotion of thisworkbook as one of his goals as heguides the LSAC over the two yearsof his tenure as chair. The Council has also endorsed a

second initiative designed toimprove test usage. This is a pro-gram in which a group of knowl-edgeable and trained law schoolfaculty members visit law schoolson request to offer information toaid in understanding the strengths,limitations, and appropriate use ofthe LSAT.4 Some of the specifictopics covered are: what the LSATmeasures, its strengths and weak-nesses as a predictor, subgroup per-formance, test misuse, and theproper role of the test in selecting aclass. Already oversubscribed, thefaculty outreach group appears tohave found a ready audience.The “New Models” workbook is

also a teaching tool for users of theLSAT. Its aim is to encourage lawschool admission committees to usethe LSAT as it is designed to beused——as only one of a variety offactors relevant in assessing indi-vidual applicants for admission. Tothis end, the workbook suggestsmethods to develop broader criteriarelevant to the missions of individ-ual law schools, and systems thatallow these criteria to be used inapplicant assessment. The Council,

The Challenge of Using the LSAT Correctly inLaw School Admissionsby Beth Cobb O’Neill

long a supporter of the value of stu-dent diversity in law schools, fearsthat over-emphasis on the LSATmay contribute to reducing diversi-ty, particularly at schools restrictedin their use of race and ethnicity asa factor in admission. It also hopesto counteract the loss to the lawschool environment and the profes-sion of qualities not measured bythe LSAT such as leadership, lifeexperiences, and significant accom-plishments when these qualitiestake a backseat to test scores inselecting law students. Law schoolshave long recognized the impor-tance of those qualities and experi-ences that go beyond test scores,and most consider them; the work-book places this broader array offactors into a practical context thatincludes test scores and grades butdoes not overemphasize them.The workbook is part of an over-

all assault by the Council to combatmisuse of its test. One chapterreviews current legal considerationsin admission and supports the needfor modifications in how test scoresare used and describes what lawschools must do to be in compliancewith current interpretations of thelaws governing the admissionprocess.Another chapter of the workbook

is dedicated to explaining theLSAT’s strengths and limitations asa predictor, noting that it is one ofthe best of the standardized admis-sion tests being administered todaywith a strong correlation (on average.41) to first year law school perfor-mance. While this correlation isgood, and the test is a reliable andvaluable tool in decision making,the .41 correlation also indicatesthat the test alone, on average,accounts for less than 20% of thefactors that contribute to first yeargrades. The LSAC believes thatother factors should be elevated inimportance and the test scoreshould work in conjunction withthem in evaluating candidates for

SYLLABUS 19FALL 1999

admission. The workbook givespractical advice to schools on howto accomplish this.Eight models are offered repre-

senting a variety of approaches.None is deemed more optimal thananother although some are recom-mended more highly. Any modelcan be adopted as presented, andschools are encouraged to experi-ment with them and mix and match,taking characteristics from onemodel or another as best fits the cir-cumstances of their school, appli-cant pool, and mission.The workbook suggests that, in

planning admission procedures, lawschools pay attention to such LSACservices as annual validity studiesthat analyze the value of the LSATfor each law school, and the OverlapStudies that give a clear picture ofapplicant admission behavior rele-vant to competing law schools. The workbook also emphasizes

the importance of evaluating allapplicants on the basis of the samecriteria and not admitting some, anddenying others, principally on thebasis of their test scores, or a combi-nation of test scores and grades. Itsuggests that if a school states othercriteria it values, all applicants, notjust those at the margins, should beevaluated on that basis. In this way,the student body can consciouslyconsist of a diverse group of stu-dents who bring different opinionsand experiences to the classroomand the profession. The models referred to in the title

are designed as a way for admissioncommittees to audit their admissionprocedures, refine them, or redesignthem. The models are also recom-mended as valuable training toolsfor those who do applicant file eval-uation. Most models require a care-ful and thoughtful file reviewprocess that does not allow thescores and grades to serve as anexpedient for busy file readers, butrequires them to identify and assessa variety of factors.

Changing the culture of howthings are done in law schooladmissions will be challenging, butit is necessary if law schools hope tocontinue to attract the diverse andqualified student bodies they desire.

It can be disruptive to try newmethods, and some law schoolswill be reluctant to devote addition-al resources to the process of admit-ting the entering class. Others willneed help to design and implementnew systems. The LSAC standsready to assist schools in theprocess and grant funds may beavailable as well. A copy of theworkbook was sent to all lawschools in the fall. Additionalcopies are available on request fromthe Law School Admission Council,P.O. Box 40, Newtown, PA.18940 orjwieland@lsac.org

1 Other key LSAC services are a tran-script collection and evaluation service(LSDAS), collection and distribution ofapplicant of letters of recommendation, aCD and on-line law school search andapplication services, recruitment ser-vices (national informational forums andcandidate name searches), publications,a web site, and member school educa-tion and data services, to name a few.

2 See Cautionary Policies GoverningLSAC Scores and Related Services,LSAC publication

3 Members of the Work Group were: 1999: Charles E. Daye, North

Carolina, Chair; Collins B. Byrd,Minnesota; Camille deJorna, Iowa; AlexM. Johnson, Virginia; Brian M. Mazer,Windsor; Daniel R. Ortiz, Virginia;Michael D. Rappaport, UCLA; GailLevin Richmond, Nova Southeastern;Sondra Richardson, Houston; J. LeighWest, Windsor; James J. White,Michigan; Peter A. Winograd, NewMexico 1998: Michael D. Rappaport,UCLA, Chair; Collins B. Byrd,Minnesota; Camille deJorna, Iowa;Alex M. Johnson, Virginia; Brian M.Mazer, Windsor; Gail Levin Richmond,Nova Southeastern; SondraRichardson, Houston; J. Leigh West,Windsor. Staff: Beth Cobb O’Neil,LSAC

4 Participating in the outreach teamare: Barbara Black-Pace, GeorgeDawson-Florida, Fred Hart-NewMexico, Charles Daye-North Carolina,Brian Mazer-Windsor, Patricia Reyhan-Albany, Leo Romero-New Mexico,Laura Rothstein-Houston, C. KeithWingate-Hastings

Beth Cobb O’Neil is the Special Consultant tothe Executive Director for the Law SchoolAdmission Council.

Council Nominations

Sought

The Section’sNominating Committeeinvites suggestions ofindividuals whom itshould consider forappointment to theCouncil. TheNominating Committeeis chaired by BeverlyTarpley, Esq. Othermembers include theHonorable Joseph F.Baca, Professor JaneHammond, WilliamRakes, Esq., and JusticeGregory Kellum Scott. Itwould be useful to theNominating Committee ifthe recommendationwould describe the activ-ities that especially qual-ify the individual for theappointment.

Suggestions may be sent,by April 1, 2000, toBeverly Tarpley or toJames P. White at theConsultant’s Office,American BarAssociation, 550 WestNorth Street, Suite 349,Indianapolis, Indiana,46202.

SYLLABUSSection of Legal Education and Admissions to the BarAmerican Bar Association750 North Lake Shore DriveChicago, IL 60611

Nonprofit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDAmerican BarAssociation

IN THIS ISSUE

Distance Education Conference . . 1

Consultant Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Consultant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2From the Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Consultant Position Announcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

ABA Data Collection Software . . . 7

Consultant’s Digest. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Kutak Committee SeeksNominations for 2000 Award . . . 14

Public Hearings on the Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The Lawyer As A Creative ProblemSolver International Conference . 15

Site Evaluation Visits. . . . . . . . . . 17

The Challenge of Using the LSAT Correctly in Law School Admissions . . . . . 18

Editor’s note:Happy New Year from theConsultant's Office! Now that the Y2K bug is behind us, I hope I can get Syllabus back on sched-ule. You can expect to receive theSpring issue in late March orearly April. Don't forget to markyour calendar for April 7 and 8for the conference in honor ofJames P. White. I hope to see you in Indianapolis for this special event.

Mark Your CalendarMark Your Calendar

JANUARY 2000

6 Standards Review Committee Hearing Washington, DC

21-23 Accreditation Committee Meeting Houston, TX

28-30 Bar Admissions Committee Meeting San Antonio, TX

FEBRUARY 2000

5 Workshop for Site Evaluators Indianapolis, IN

9-15 ABA Midyear Meeting Dallas, TX

10-12 Workshop for Deans of ABA Approved Law Schools Dallas, TX

11 Standards Review Committee Hearing Dallas, TX

12-13 Council Meeting Dallas, TX

24-27 Conference: Lawyers As Creative Problem Solvers Law Schools San Diego, CA

MARCH 2000

9-11 Conference on Law School Facilities “Bricks, Bytes and Continuos Renovation” Washington, DC

APRIL 2000

7-8 Conference: Law Schools and the Profession-A Celebration Conference Indianapolis, IN

27-30 Accreditation Committee Meeting Indianapolis, IN

MAY 2000

17 ABA/AALS/LSAC Deans Meeting Washington, DC

17 Standards Review Committee Hearing Washington, DC

17 Mayflower I Meeting Washington, DC

18 Mayflower II Meeting Washington, DC