When I became dean at Georgia State University College of Law, I thought that I had a fairly good understanding of how a university functions.  I had been an American Council of Education (“ACE”) Fellow at Ohio State University during the 1991-1992 academic year.  The ACE Fellowship program prepares fellows for higher education leadership positions through an extended placement program in which the fellows work directly with presidents, provosts, department heads, and other university administrators at a host institution.  Through first hand observation and special project assignments, fellows learn how university leaders make resource allocation, strategic planning, fund raising, and other policy decisions.  My ACE experience sharpened my understanding of higher education administration issues, but I have developed a much greater appreciation of the complexity of the relationship between a university and its law school during my deanship.

 The important goal of building a good relationship between the law school and the university requires the dean’s commitment and attention.  The institutional structure of law schools differs in some respects from the university’s other colleges.  The nature of legal education also varies from that of the university’s other graduate programs.  This essay addresses these differences and the distinctive role the law school dean plays in the higher education constellation.  It points out a few focal areas in which the administration of the law school and the university frequently cross paths and discusses some sources of friction.  The essay concludes with some advice to new law school deans on how to develop stronger relationships with university administrators.

           I. THE AMERICAN LAW SCHOOL ’S UNIQUE ROLE IN 

              HIGHER  EDUCATION

Most American law schools operate as an academic unit of a university or college.  Typically a law school exists as one college in a university that has a number of other colleges.  The structural organization of American law schools, however, differs from that of the university’s other academic units, including medical schools.  With the exception of the law school, university colleges are subdivided into departments organized on the basis of academic disciplines.  For example, at Georgia State University , nineteen departments comprise the College of Arts and Sciences.  This type of academic subject matter division does not exist at American law schools.  Many American law schools do not possess the resources for in-depth specialization in one or more areas of the law.  Most law professors teach courses in more than one subject area – usually a necessity to cover the law school’s basic, required courses.

Some law schools have provided opportunities for students to concentrate in certain specialized subject areas.  Even though these programs may be officially recognized by notations on a law graduate’s diploma or the issuance of certificates of program completion, they have had no effect upon the law school’s formal organization. A number of law schools also have created centers to provide for collaboration with other entities in a particular area of the law, but centers, which do not grant degrees, likewise have not changed the structure of law schools.

Within the university hierarchy, law schools remain distinctive for other reasons as well.  Unlike most of their college counterparts, law schools provide no undergraduate education.  Law schools share this distinction with other post-graduate schools, including medical schools, dental schools, and other colleges or schools offering professional education.  American law schools outnumber medical schools, and law may be the university’s only college that does not offer undergraduate level courses.  In this case, the law school will stand out among its counterparts.

The American Bar Association (“ ABA ”), a voluntary professional association of lawyers, acts as the accrediting body for law schools in the United States .  Private educational associations of national or regional scope accredit higher educational institutions although many disciplines and professional areas such as nursing, music, psychology, dentistry, and medicine must meet additional accreditation standards set by professional organizations. The ABA ’s accreditation standards require American law schools to provide certain facilities and programs that further distinguish law schools from other university colleges.  The standards, for example, provide that a law school must maintain “a law library that is an active and responsive force in the educational life of the law school.”^[1]  The ABA standards also set requirements for adequate physical facilities that are occupied only by the law school.^[2]  Thus, law schools supply and maintain their own classrooms whereas universities usually centrally manage a classroom inventory for all of their other academic units.  This difference means that the law school’s budget, unlike other college budgets, must cover the high costs of making technology available for classroom use, a reality in today’s wired world.  If technology funds are allocated centrally, the law school will need to make a case for extra funding to cover its classroom technology costs–expenses not incurred by other colleges relying upon university-equipped classrooms.  Other colleges may face a similar challenge in funding specialized technology in such areas as art and design, foreign language instruction, and scientific research.

Student enrollment size at a law school often provides another distinguishing mark .  It will be small in comparison to enrollments at the other colleges of a major university.  Enrollment size and credit hour generation play a key role in shaping a university’s financial picture. The university’s heavy lifters in this respect do not reside in the law school.  Further, if faculty governance through a University Senate plays a dominant role in the governance of a university, the law school, as a small college, will be at a disadvantage.  Then, its limited size, faculty, and function in comparison to larger colleges will give it less clout in critical resource-allocation decision making.

Finally, the law school’s external funding base differs from that of the university’s other academic units.  Historically, law schools have derived their resources primarily from tuition and alumni-based charitable giving.  Unlike their colleagues in other academic units, law faculty do not engage, for the most part, in research that attracts external funding.   Indirect cost recovery realized from external funding may provide other colleges with a source of revenue generally not available to law schools.  This reality leaves law schools with fewer resources to shoulder administrative support needs.

The lack of externally sponsored institutional research at law schools also makes it more difficult for university administrators to evaluate the national ranking of a law school.  The amount of research funds that an academic program generates can be used as a tool to evaluate its academic standing.  Although law schools receive grants for a variety of programs, including dispute resolution and clinical programs, this funding does not play a significant part in their national ranking.  Once again, the law school puzzles its university counterparts.

The nature of legal education in itself causes it to diverge from other graduate education norms.  These divergences frequently require tweaking of university policies and procedures to fit the law school environment.  Full-time law faculty members teach in the classroom,^[3] engage in research, and participate in law school governance and service to the legal profession and the public.^[4]  Full-time faculty in other disciplines may be involved primarily in research activities with limited teaching responsibilities, or they may supervise graduate students who assist them in teaching.  Unlike law students, many doctoral candidates preparing to become university and college professors teach courses.  Only a few law students assist law professors, and their support generally involves legal research.  Such differences necessitate variations from standard university policies to fit the special programmatic needs of the law school.

    II.  THE AMERICAN LAW SCHOOL DEAN’S UNIQUE ROLE 

          IN HIGHER EDUCATION

          A.  The Dean’s Varied Roles

The law school’s distinctive place in higher education sheds some light upon the nature of a law school deanship and the varying roles deans play.  Within the legal academy, the dean will be viewed as the first among equals or the chief academic officer.  The bench and bar and other external entities frequently view deans as chief executive officers of law schools.  These views of law deans’ roles contrast with the position of deans in higher educational institutions.  Deans usually report to provosts, the chief academic officers of universities and colleges; provosts, in turn, report to presidents.  In this hierarchy, deans are viewed as middle managers. 

The law school dean’s duties involve accountability to a number of different constituencies, one or more of which may hold different perspectives on the dean’s role in leading a law school.  A dean must respond to the concerns of faculty members, law students, the law school’s support staff, the law school’s graduates, university administrators, donors and supporters, the bench and bar, and other friends of the law school.  Deans have to balance their time and attention among each of these different constituent groups. 

Deans’ negotiation and conflict resolution skills get stretched frequently.  From time to time the law school’s diverse constituencies expect the dean to pursue objectives that conflict sharply with each other. A dean’s most difficult days will be spent trying to respond to multiple constituencies whose goals conflict.[5]   In these situations, the dean will be called upon to reconcile and manage difficult controversies with each group expecting the dean to be a forceful advocate for its cause.  Consensus building may not always be possible, and every dean must be prepared to make decisions that will make some people unhappy.

Full-time faculty members participate in the governance of a law school, and the dean’s prerogatives vary from school to school.^[6]  Persons accustomed to the operations of more centralized and hierarchal institutions often find this shared governance difficult to fathom.  They may hold the mistaken impression that the dean makes all the important decisions at a law school.  In reality, of course, faculty and faculty committees make many major decisions involving faculty recruitment, student admissions, and the promotion and tenure of faculty members,^[7] with deans playing a very important check and balance role.  In a number of areas, law school policies may grant the dean the authority to overrule decisions made by faculty committees.  While a dean who exercises this prerogative too often will experience a short tenure, infrequent principled counter-majoritarian decisions can prevent results that a dean views as harsh, unwise, or unjust.

              Although deans play a critical role in serving the constituent groups affected by the law school’s decision-making processes, they also serve the legal profession and the larger community.  Deans should assume the leadership roles expected of public servants.  They should have a vision of how to use law school resources to achieve broader societal goals that cannot be reached without input from the legal academy and profession.  The deans of law schools in major metropolitan areas may be called on to serve on community boards, commissions, or other civic organizations to find solutions to pressing urban problems.  Deans who participate in national legal education organizations can both contribute their ideas and learn from their peers. 

B.  The Dean as the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Academic Officer

A law school dean serves as the law school’s “chief executive officer” and “chief academic officer.”^[8]  The position has been declared analogous to that of a president of a small college.^[9]  The responsibility for the administration of the law school’s support functions, including admissions, placement, and institutional development, falls upon the law school dean. Moreover the absence of formal academic departments in law schools gives the dean overall responsibility for the operation of academic programs without the interposition and assistance of department heads.  Accordingly , the law school dean firsthand makes salary decisions, recommends approval or denial of faculty promotion and tenure decisions, and reviews the performance of faculty members.  In sum, the law school dean, not only bears the responsibilities of a college dean, but also handles many of the functions delegated to department chairs in the rest of a college or university.

The dean plays a vital leadership role in the improvement of academic programs and services.  Holding the best position in a law school for bringing faculty members together to effectuate changes, whether in the adoption of a new strategic plan or the revision of the curriculum, the dean must prepare the law school community for adaptations to changes in the profession and society.  Faculty members generally prize their authority to participate in law school governance, making the dean’s role as change agent difficult under the best of circumstances. 

The dean, as the chief executive officer, must secure resources to operate the school.  Deans must be both external fund raisers and combatants ready to make the law school’s case for its fair share of university support.  Legal training and professional experience prepare deans for an advocacy role.  Promotional and salesmanship skills may need more honing.

Ideally, law school deans should become symbolic of their institutions’ progress along a path of ever greater excellence and improvement.  They should possess a vision of the law school’s ideals and goals and project enthusiasm for and commitment to its mission. 

C.  The Dean as a Member of the University’s Central Administration

                  1.  The Law School Dean as a Middle Manager

The law school dean’s role as chief academic officer and chief executive officer contrasts with the dean’s middle management position in the university.  The provost, the university’s chief academic officer, who reports to the president, usually oversees the performance of all academic deans. The status of a dean among her peers may be based in part on the importance of the college she serves.  Law schools most likely will not head the list.  After all, they educate no undergraduate students and rank among a university’s smaller colleges in faculty size and student enrollment.

Whether university leaders view law school deans as middle managers or chief academic officers of a major university unit, their role differs in some important respects from other deans.  New law school deans should be alerted to these differences. They must understand their unique role in the university in order to better educate their university colleagues and the law faculty about the challenges they face in becoming effective.

                 2. The Law School Deanship Differs from Other Academic Deanships

The law school dean lacks the insulation that department heads, called chairs, give the other academic deans.  Department chairs in the university’s other colleges make salary decisions, in consultation with a faculty committee, and work with the faculty to make hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions.  These departmental decisions may then be reviewed by an associate dean or a committee at the college level before reaching the dean’s office. The non-law deans will interface most often with the chairs, associate deans, or college committees established to review departmental decisions, distancing them from some potential sources of faculty disgruntlement.  Department chairs also work with the faculty to establish budget priorities within their departments.  The organizational structure of law schools, however, situates the dean alone either to reject or approve important institutional decisions made by the law faculty.  This fact may account, in part, for the shorter tenure of law school deans in comparison to other deans. 

Law school deans bear responsibility for more academic support functions than their fellow university deans.  ABA accreditation standards require law schools to operate a law library, maintain a career counseling service, process the admission of students to the law school, and provide separate classrooms and other facilities.  Ultimate responsibility for each of these functions rests with law school deans whereas the central university administration manages and controls these functions for the other colleges.  In most universities central units handle undergraduate admissions,[10] advisement, enrollment management, registration, and facilities, including maintenance of a classroom inventory.  A university librarian, who usually also reports to the provost, manages the university’s library, which serves all the colleges.

Most universities also centralize the delivery of technology services that include the operation of a network, instructional technology, the licensing of software, and the maintenance of technology equipment used in classrooms.  Many law schools, however, manage the delivery of technology services in law school facilities and use their own servers, in order to customize services for their students and faculty.  Law schools find that the employment of their own instructional technologists facilitates more efficient and superior classroom instruction.  Thus, the law school dean must be knowledgeable about technology operations and developments to a degree not demanded of all academic deans.  Other college deans will need to develop similar expertise if departments in their college provide specialized technical assistance to meet discipline-specific needs. 

Law school deans generally play a more active role in attending to the welfare of students than is the case for other college deans.  Deans and associate deans of law schools must be responsive to law student complaints about the quality of their instruction, career services functions, and a whole host of other issues that affect students.  Undergraduate students often take courses in different colleges.  If they encounter difficulties they seek assistance from the university’s office of student services, a department chair, or academic advisement units established in the various colleges and their departments.  More law students than undergraduate students expect to find a cure for their particular problem in the dean’s office.

Law students, who are usually older, more sophisticated, and mature than undergraduate students, insist upon higher quality services.  Because they are busy learning effective advocacy skills, they naturally try out these newly acquired skills by making demands when the law school environment fails to meet their expectations.  They think the dean should be able to find solutions to their complaints even if the dean lacks control over the particular issue such as university operated parking facilities.

Another difference that distinguishes the role of law school deans stems from the greater visibility of professional schools compared to the university’s other graduate programs.  Law school deans receive constant reminders of their responsibility to articulate a vision for their law school. At the university level, that job usually falls upon the president; academic deans are expected to follow along although they may advise the president on a vision for the university.  The law school dean, as the leader of a professional school, however, will need to present a separate, but compatible, strong vision of the law school’s aspirations and future both externally and within the university community.

The law school dean most likely will be urged to devote more time to fund raising than his university counterparts although all deans, even those in increasingly under-funded public institutions, face rising expectations in this area.  The need to build endowment funds to reduce the rising costs of higher education also creates increased pressures upon all deans.  A law school dean typically raises both major gifts and oversees an annual fund supported by the law school’s graduates and friends.  At most universities academic deans have little involvement in a university managed annual fund campaign.  Several reasons account for this difference.

 Law school graduates usually identify with their law school rather than its parent university.  Most law students venture outside the law school’s facilities infrequently while receiving their professional education.  For the most part, only law school graduates who received both their undergraduate and legal education from the same university forge a strong bond with the parent institution.  As a result, law school, rather than central administration, development officers more successfully raise funds from law graduates, who want to hear good news about their law school, since its reputation affects the mark etability of their degrees. 

Although alumni of some other colleges, such as the business school, may forge strong college-based relationships, undergraduate degree holders, who took courses in a number of colleges, usually identify with the central university rather than with a particular college.  Therefore, it makes sense to manage giving from these graduates at the university level.

The law school dean usually becomes engaged in more external activities than the other college deans who focus to a large extent upon academic issues, the overall management of the college’s departments, and the allocation of resources among the departments.  The law school’s fund raising activities and the bridge the law school dean provides between legal education and the legal profession account primarily for the frequency of a dean’s external contacts. 

The connection between legal education and the bench and bar requires the law school dean to develop and maintain many external relationships.  All deans need to develop strong ties with members of the legal profession to ensure the standing of their law school in the legal community and to enhance the employment of their school’s graduates.  Respected members of the bench and bar also can help support a dean in a quest for adequate university funding.  Given the experience and training of most law school deans, they may also play a public role in the broader community through engagement with business, professional, and political leaders in efforts to improve the civic life of the community.

            3.     The Law School Dean as the Communicative Link Between the Law                     School   and the University

The law school dean serves as an essential communicative link between the university and the law school.  The dean must educate the university community about the different educational needs of a professional school.  Key university administrators often lack an understanding of legal education and the role the law school plays in educating the bench and bar as well as law students.  Likewise, the dean must enlighten the faculty about university opportunities, constraints, and needs that affect all the university’s component parts, including the law school. 

To secure university resources for the law school, the dean must explain the university-wide benefits provided by the presence and operation of a law school.  Law faculty can bring prominent speakers to campus, collaborate with other college faculty in interdisciplinary projects, serve on university committees where a legal perspective and expertise sharpens the debate, and connect the university to the bench and bar whose members frequently hold important leadership positions in the community.  Lawyers comprise a sizable portion of the ranks of most state legislatures that appropriate funds in support of higher education.  Public universities, in particular, can benefit from state legislators’ appreciation of the law school’s impact upon legal education.  A law school dean who brings these benefits to the attention of the university’s constituencies furthers the university’s standing in the community.

Deans’ communications with the faculty about the university rival the importance of their outreach to the university.  In particular, deans need to enhance the faculty’s understanding of the dean’s role as a member of the university’s administrative team.  Deans serve the university as well as the law school.  Their duties include participation in decision making that places the university’s welfare over that of individual colleges.  Faculty members often see this aspect of a deanship to be in conflict with the dean’s job as the college’s advocate.

The difficulty deans experience in fulfilling both university and college responsibilities should not be underestimated.  Faculty acceptance of the dean’s role as a university official does not come easily.  Faculty members’ teaching, research, and service obligations do not necessarily attune them to understand university needs and operations.   In addition, resource allocation issues can generate a “them against us” mentality that may be hard to overcome.  Finding the time for meaningful dialogues about the bigger university picture may be another impediment given the number of pressing issues that require faculty discussion.

As the nexus between the faculty and the university, deans must keep the faculty abreast of university developments.  The university’s allocation of budgetary resources and space, in particular, affect the law school, and the news is not always good.  The dean may be tempted to downplay bad news or fail to disclose it.  No dean enjoys bearing bad tidings to the faculty, but a dean who fails to convey important adverse developments runs the risk of faculty mistrust.

III. AREAS OF INTERSECTION BETWEEN THE LAW SCHOOL AND

      THE UNIVERSITY

     A.  Budget

In private institutions, the law school’s budget depends upon tuition, endowment earnings, and other sources of external revenue.  The university will demand a portion of the tuition dollars, but it will generally grant the law school discretion in the allocation of the remaining share.  In public universities, the correlation between law student tuition dollars and the law school’s budget may be much more tenuous.  Such is the case at Georgia State University where all tuition monies are centrally received and managed.

At universities in which resource allocation occurs on a centralized basis, deans will play conflicting roles.  They must advocate strongly for their college’s share of resources.  This advocacy can alienate the law school dean, and any dean in a similar situation, for that matter, from other central university administrators whose duties include the allocation of resources among academic units.  Most law school deans will veer on the side of zealous advocacy for their college’s budgetary position.  The law school, being their primary charge and natural constituency, leads them to view its welfare as their principal responsibility.  Nonetheless, a dean must be capable of understanding the university’s position.  Other college and university-wide academic support needs must be met in order for the university to progress. 

B. Development Office

Most universities coordinate development centrally under a director of development who works with the university’s president and others in raising private and other external funds to support the university. The university’s development director coordinates capital campaigns and the solicitation of gifts.  A university-wide foundation usually sets policies and procedures for the administration of endowment accounts.  The law school dean should make sure that these policies do not adversely affect the law school.  In order to secure an optimal fund-raising posture for the law school, the dean should establish a good working relationship with the head of the university’s development office and foundation.

Prospect solicitation presents one area of possible conflict between the university and its colleges.  Deans will compete to solicit a prospective donor whose charitable interests fall within the realm of more than one college.  A prospective donor may have many charitable interests that could benefit more than one college or the university as a whole, such as funding the construction of a recreation center.  To avoid a number of multiple uncoordinated solicitations, universities usually strive to develop a system of solicitation clearance.  Clearance may also be required to approach major corporations, foundations, and governmental funding agencies.   Sometimes, permission may be given to one college to solicit a prospective donor for a particular period of time.  A law school dean may bristle when the university grants another college or university unit permission to pursue a prospective donor viewed as closely aligned to the law school.

Cooperation with the central administration is needed in other institutional development areas as well.  At many universities the law school’s development director reports both to the law school dean and the university’s development director, a likely case when the university shares in the funding of the director’s salary.  Raising money for the law school should be the primary focus and responsibility of the law school development director.  In order to fulfill this role, the director may have to rely upon a number of services that are centrally managed such as data bases.  If central services fail to meet the dean’s and development director’s expectations, the dean must lobby forcefully for improvements.  The dean’s working relationship with the central development director and staff may prove critical in ensuring the resources needed for an effective law school development program.

C.  Public Relations and Media

Universities staff an office of external or university relations with a press liaison to handle interactions with the media.  Similarly, constituent colleges employ personnel to write press releases and prepare publications.  Given the fierce competition among law schools, most deans want the advice and assistance of a savvy press support team.

A law school dean needs to develop good relations with the university’s public relations office.  Sometimes greater resources at the university level can provide expertise beyond the law school’s means.  When adverse developments could result in negative press for the law school, the dean should alert the university’s press group as well as the university’s president and provost.  First, the press may call these individuals for comments.  Second, agreement upon a coordinated way to handle press inquiries usually proves beneficial.   The university’s head of media relations, who should be well schooled in diffusing potentially damaging stories, may be able to provide helpful advice and assistance to a dean facing difficult questions from the press.  Press relations constitutes another area in which strong ties between the law school and the university benefit all concerned.

D.  Registrar’s Office

The law school’s registrar’s office keeps official records of grades and degrees awarded.  Some universities require the law school’s registrar to transfer information to the university’s registrar who provides official record certification for all of the university’s graduates, including law graduates.  The law school registrar should coordinate with the university’s registrar’s office on data keeping conventions.  Should the law school use a grading system or enroll students for time periods at variance with other parts of the university, adjustments will be required. 

Often, the most difficult area to coordinate between the university’s registrar and the law school is the adaptation of the university’s enrollment-management computer software to meet the law school’s special needs.  Again, good university relationships and communications remain vital in order for the law school’s registrar office to customize services and meet high performance standards.

E.  Space Allocation

Most law schools enjoy facilities dedicated solely to their needs.  In some cases, a law school will be housed in a building shared by other university units.  From time to time the law school may want to use non-law facilities on campus for special events, or a non-law university group may request the use of law school space such as an auditorium or a showcase courtroom.  Cooperation will be needed between the law school and the university to facilitate these needs.  Unless open and honest communications attend the discussion of space allocation issues, they can degenerate into contentious disputes.

        IV.  AREAS OF FRICTION

Because deans must be responsive to a number of different constituencies, they inevitably face situations in which stakeholders sharply disagree on the course they want the dean to take.  Examples are numerous.  The law school’s decision to promote or tenure a faculty member may meet disapproval at the university level.  From time to time law students may act in a manner that embarrasses the university, or they may demand results that top university administrators deem unwise.  When the law school receives bad press, the university’s president will be unhappy.  Both law faculty and students prize their freedom to be critical of the law school in general, the dean, and the university.  Unless the president has served as a dean of a law school, she may not fully appreciate the value placed upon this sphere of autonomy.

Budget allocation issues and the setting of tuition sometimes produce strife between the law school and the central administration.  When the financial landscape is bleak , the dean frequently may have to deliver bad news to the faculty.  Law faculty may view the dean as an ineffective spokesperson for the law school whereas the central administration may complain about an uncooperative dean who loses sight of the university in the pursuit of a self-interested approach for the law school.

Law school admission decisions may also create tensions between the law school and the central administration.  The president may be pressured by a major donor or a powerful politician to admit applicants to the law school whose credentials fall below targeted standards.  If the dean overrides decisions of a faculty admissions committee following established admission standards, he will lower them and invite constant intervention by influential people in the law school’s admission processes.  The law school and the university should have definite procedures and policies to handle these delicate admissions issues.  Private universities will have more flexibility than public law schools in such matters.  Because state taxpayers subsidize public legal education, admission decisions should be made on a fair basis.

         V.  ADVICE TO NEW LAW SCHOOL DEANS

·                      Be an advocate for the university as well as the law school.

·                      Learn about higher education issues in non-law areas in order to understand the university’s big picture.

·                      Encourage law faculty to be engaged in university activities–don’t let the law school become isolated from the rest of the university.

·                      Educate the central administration about the special needs of its law school.

·                      Educate the general university community about the benefits the university derives from the law school.

·                      Collaborate with other colleges–joint proposals frequently get funded.

·                      Develop relationships with other university players and faculty–they may be helpful allies when needed, and they can keep you informed as well.

·                      Hold your ground and don’t capitulate when your stand is a reasonable one to protect the long-term interests of the law school.

·                      Lead by persuasion and try to develop consensus–at most law schools top-down orders will not work.

·                      Tame your lawyer-like instincts and your advocacy skills in group settings among your fellow deans and central administrators–you may appear overzealous and threatening to persons without training or experience in depersonalizing contentious issues.

·                      Make biting points only to the decision makers–don’t alienate people who will not make decisions.

·                      Recruit and develop a strong Board of Visitors (Trustees) who can help argue your case, serve as the law school’s ambassadors, and assist with fund raising.

·                      Let the local bench and bar know about your law school’s strengths and how the law school helps the community.

          VI.  CONCLUSION