LAW SCHOOL IN AND AS COMMUNITY
by Kristin Booth Glen*
This year is CUNY School of
Law’s twentieth anniversary. Preparation
for our year-long celebration has provided an opportunity to think about our
history, and the ways in which the values and aspirations that led to the
’s creation have been embodied and evolved.
Anniversaries, especially big ones, are occasions not only for
fundraising, but for “naming” what has been created over the years and
sharing our hopes for the future. With
this in mind, we have chosen “Building a Community of Justice” as the best
way to begin to shape the
’s next decades.
The phrase works well as a logo,
but also, on a more profound level, it provides a framework through which to
understand our accomplishments and keep us on course.
The anniversary, the process of definition, and the slogan itself have
led me to think about what, in legal education, we understand as our community
or communities, and how we relate to, engage with, and further their growth and
well being. And, of course, because
I am a dean, I must also consider what we can get from them.
II. LAW SCHOOLS IN
At a minimum,
law schools are located in geographic communities – the city, town, and the
particular neighborhood in which they are situated; in communities of affinity
– legal education, the legal profession, and/or some more specialized part of
and, in the case of religiously based law schools, a religion or denomination;
and finally, for most law schools, in an organizational community, the
A. Geographic Community
Community involves a commonality
of concerns and, at least ideally, a reciprocity of obligations and benefits.
In its position as part of a geographic community, a law school may share
local concerns with its neighbors, like the location of a bus stop, or the
proposed siting of some environmentally dangerous or aesthetically displeasing
object or entity.
It will share concerns about public safety – competent and responsive
police and fire protection, the availability of regular and affordable
transportation, and safe, affordable housing.
It may provide benefits and/or services to its community, and it may seek
or enjoy material and other support from it.
The geographic community to
which a particular law school belongs will vary in size and population depending
on the number of other law schools in the state or city; a law school which is
the only such institution in a state, especially if it is a public law school,
will experience itself (and be experienced) as part of a much larger geographic
community than one of a number of private schools in a large city.
CUNY, for example, is often identified as a “
law school” rather than a “
New York City
or even a “state law school,”
although we are part of all of these geographic and political communities, as
well as our closer, more intimate community of
. Given these sometimes multiple
identities, how does, could or should a law school relate to, or constitute
itself as, a member of its geographic communit(ies)?
First, the law school may, and I
would argue, should, assume some
responsibility for the well being of its immediate neighbors.
In most law schools, the loci for community assistance or empowerment are
their live-client clinics and pro bono programs.
The former serve individual clients, usually those unable to afford legal
services, in a variety of matters. At
CUNY, for example, students assist clients (especially victims of domestic
violence) with family law problems, older persons with benefits, guardianship
and estate planning, and immigrants with naturalization and asylum claims.
Clinics at other law schools specialize in creating small businesses or
dealing with tax, securities or bankruptcy issues.
Law school clinics may also address more generalized community needs,
like fair housing, environmental safety, community economic development or
alternative dispute resolution services. In
addition to, or in lieu of work done through clinics, supervised externships may
provide assistance to over-burdened not-for-profits and public agencies as well
as prosecutors, public defenders and the court system in the law school’s city
Many pro bono programs are
purely legal – providing students with opportunities for client representation
similar to that offered by law school clinics, albeit without direct faculty
The ways in which law students provide legal services, directly through
clinics, or more indirectly through pro bono programs and opportunities,
demonstrate the mutual advantages that exist for both community and law school.
The community benefits the law school by providing a laboratory for
learning lawyering skills and for testing and understanding the limits of legal
action. By working with and for real
clients, especially poor people, law students’ vision is expanded, and their
commitment to the professional responsibility of providing legal services to
those who cannot afford them is nurtured and reinforced.
In turn, the community benefits from vindication of its members’ legal
rights and legal needs that only lawyers and supervised lawyers-to-be can
Pro bono or community service
programs may also provide non-legal charitable services, like participation in
Habitat for Humanity, food collection, “races for the cure,” tutoring,
mentoring, and the like. These
services also contribute to the community and to improving the law school’s
(and sometimes the University’s) image as well.
Through active and positive engagement with its neighbors, perceptions of
the law school may be transformed from an all too familiar traditional town/gown
hostility to appreciation and solidarity. Seeing
the law school as a good neighbor may (and often does) lead to support,
including financial support, for the continuation or expansion of clinic,
externship or pro bono programs.
Law schools may also offer their
physical plants as a community resource. Community
groups may use auditoriums or other spaces for meetings, conferences or other
gatherings, or space in the law school might be utilized for a legal services
or as a home for social justice organizations.
Law schools may even be the sites for whole courts, or courtrooms,
simultaneously providing learning opportunities for students and services to the
court and litigants. Law schools may
also open their doors to provide community education, or they may take that
education directly into the community, to institutions like public libraries,
community centers and senior centers. Students and faculty may present programs
in areas such as citizenship, domestic violence prevention and remedies,
government benefits, living wills and healthcare proxies.
Finally, as a sub-set of community legal education, law schools can
engage with local primary and high schools in, for example, street law projects,
mock-trials, and courses about date rape and domestic violence.
In return, beside the
pedagogical and personal benefits reaped by participants, the law school can
utilize its community activities to seek and obtain financial and political
support. The former may take the
form of contributions from individuals and businesses in the community; it may
also result in increased funding by local and state legislatures.
Political support may assist (or defuse opposition to) a law school in
projects like building or expansion plans.
B. Communities of
The second community to which
law schools belong, that of affinity, includes legal education, and the legal
profession, embodied as bar associations or, more generally, the practicing bar.
The level of participation in each of these communities will depend on
the law schools’ values, needs and strategic choices.
For religiously affiliated schools, it also includes the denomination or
order to which they belong.
Within legal education, almost
every law school is, in one form or another, a member of the Association of
American Law Schools.
Faculty, student services professionals and development staff access and
contribute to intellectual and professional growth through conferences,
committee service and publication in the Journal of Legal Education.
Contacts among faculty and staff of different law schools, especially at
the annual conference in January, promote a genuine sense of intellectual and
educational community. Opportunities
to share scholarship and best practices benefit individual law schools, while
the Association benefits from the numbers of its members (and their dues) in
order to serve as a meaningful voice for the legal education community
While faculty may participate in
and in bar associations
in a variety of ways, a law school’s strongest and most consistent connections
with this community are often made through its Career Services Office and its
alumni program. Getting to know
local lawyers and law firms is critical for getting graduates jobs, so career
services professionals must necessarily establish and maintain relationships
with the practicing bar. Similarly,
the longer a law school is around, the more likely its graduates will constitute
a substantial percentage of the profession,
making the alumni office a major source of connection.
The professional community is
important to law schools, and vice versa. One
of legal education’s primary functions is to socialize students for the
profession. The profession, which
generally speaks through bar associations, is thus continuously concerned with
what law schools are doing;
it may also be engaged in assisting them in various ways.
Bar associations provide resources for students, such as scholarships,
internships, minority bar prep programs, mentoring and networking opportunities.
The profession, especially the local community of lawyers, can supply
adjuncts and lecturers who enrich the law school curriculum with their real life
experience. Law schools benefit the
profession not only initially by training its members, but also by providing
continuing legal education (CLE) programs, through scholarship, and by
collaborating on law reform efforts.
Some law schools are deeply
involved with local bar associations and the local legal community, while others
engage more nationally. But because
the vast majority of law faculty are
lawyers, and because the vast majority of students will become lawyers, law schools are always very much part of the
community of lawyers that constitutes the profession.
C. The University
A third community of which most
law schools are a part is the university. Importantly,
this is a community that can both tax and support.
Where a law school is located on a common campus, there are practical
aspects to membership. Many
resources, from food services to technology, are necessarily shared, as are
concerns about such disparate matters as safety and reputation.
While resource allocation is often seen as a zero sum game, there is at
least one major exception. In the
spirit of a rising tide lifting all boats, the law school and its university are
closely bound in reputation. Dramatic
increases in a law school’s reputation can contribute to a similar rise in
that of its university, and vice versa.
The law school may be connected
to other units of the university as part of a robust intellectual community
through interdisciplinary work, joint faculty appointments, and joint degrees
and interdisciplinary opportunities for students.
More mundanely and materially, the law school and the rest of the
University are often connected through faculty and staff unions.
As in geographic and professional communities, the law school, through
contributions and shared responsibility, can be perceived by the university
community as a good citizen. As a
result, it can derive a variety of benefits and, when the need arises, it can
also hope for protection.
A word about the latter, as it
applies to geographic, affinity and university communities.
As social-contract theorists understood, membership in a community is as
much about protection as it is about creating opportunities for growth and
self-actualization. Law schools
sometimes need protection – from legislatures that are under-funding them,
from universities that are over-taxing them, from a hostile press that attacks
them and calls for unacceptable restrictions or even closure.
The communities to which a law school belongs can be utilized and
mobilized at such times, even as the law school lends its resources to those
communities in their times of need.
III. THE ROLE OF THE DEAN
How can, or should, deans
situate themselves in any or all of these three communities, what benefits can
be expected for their law schools, and what criteria might guide their choices
and priorities? Obviously, the
answers to these questions vary tremendously, depending on the institution as
well as the particular strengths and inclinations of individual deans.
In the geographic community, a
dean, especially of a small school, or in a more rural area, may involve
him/herself in local organizations – the Rotary Club, for example – and feel
obligated to (or enjoy) participating in frequent community events.
is an exceptional example where barriers between town and gown are almost
entirely permeable, and where its new dean has recently applied for membership
in the Grundy Volunteer Fire Department. Most
deans are invited to serve on boards of one or more not-for-profits or
quasi-governmental organizations in their communities.
Deans in public institutions are expected to spend a certain amount of
time, working directly and indirectly, in the political sphere.
They may testify before city or state legislatures, host events for
political leaders, and attend political functions.
Public and private deans may choose to create and utilize community
advisory boards, or engage community leaders on their Boards of Visitors or
At the other end of the
spectrum, deans of elite, private, urban law schools may have little contact
with local business people, politicians and community organizations, choosing to
allocate the majority of their “outside” time to more national or
international venues. Such deans
may, however, charge associate deans or others who work with them to be
attentive to local needs and, where appropriate, to propose or facilitate
collaborations and ameliorations.
In communities of affinity,
deans may be active and prominent participants in AALS, including serving as
or may promote faculty scholarship and participation in scholarly organizations
through financial contributions or by example.
Deans may be active in bar association work, at both the national level,
where they chair sections and commissions, and in local bar associations where
they may serve as officers, lecture or participate in CLE programs.
Where relevant to its school’s mission, a dean may take leadership in a
more specialized legal community like that of legal services providers.
In the University, they may take an active, willing and open-hearted role
in governance, chair or serve on committees, provide leadership in inter-unit or
interdisciplinary initiatives, help envision and operationalize resource-sharing
or, when asked, fill University offices, such as Provost, on an interim basis.
Obviously, no dean can be
equally active in all these external communities; many choose one or two for the
bulk of their efforts; some eschew almost all in favor of being “inside”
deans – that is, deans whose focus is on the law school itself.
Internal deans, or deans who devote a substantial amount of their time to
the law school may nurture junior faculty, make themselves available to
students, work with staff to improve administrative tasks or morale, provide
opportunities for professional growth across the law school’s workforce and
interact with graduates, forging more durable relations between the law school
and its alumni.
But as even this list of
“inside” commitments suggests, thoughtful participation in the communities I
have described is also an essential component in creating a healthy and
productive community within the law school.
While it has become commonplace to note the number and variety of
“constituencies” a dean must negotiate with and serve; my intent here is to
focus attention on the ways in which decanal choices also serve to build or
enhance community in and around the law school.
IV. THE LAW SCHOOL AS
In addition to membership in
geographic, affinity and (often) university communities, the law school is,
itself, a community. At the least,
the law school is a geographic or spatial community, with students, faculty,
staff and administration inhabiting a building or buildings that, thanks to ABA
accreditation standards, are generally entirely their own.
Its members share, though not always equally, the advantages of a good
reputation and the resources it provides, as well as the disadvantages
(sometimes the pain) of its diminution or loss.
They have obligations to the institution – the community – and an
expectation of benefits from their membership in it.
These general characteristics of law schools raise questions as to how
they might be enhanced to create and sustain a more positive and nurturing sense
of community, and why this might be a goal worth pursuing.
Admittedly, there are a number
of challenges to community building. The
law school is, inevitably, an amalgam of smaller, sometimes antagonistic
communities. The faculty may define
itself as a “community of scholars,”
but that pretty much excludes everyone else.
Staff may be joined only in concerns over salary and working conditions,
while administrators gather the wagons in an “us and them” mentality.
Students, who enter filled with idealism and enthusiasm, may become
cynical and disillusioned, and may lose any sense of common purpose with the law
school’s other inhabitants, wanting only to get out and get a job.
In their most atomized form, the dean must negotiate the often-hostile
terrain of separate law school communities, synthesizing identity, projecting
common vision and making strategic choices.
Ideally, the shifting
sub-communities that exist in most law schools can be brought together as a
functioning learning community to further a common vision or mission.
This can be done in a variety of ways that continue to evolve and that
are refined through the community’s practice and reflection.
Thinking about this potential (which can also, occasionally and happily,
be glimpsed in the present) has led me to the work of social theorists like
Clifford Geertz and Etienne Wenger.
Geertz defines culture as “the
webs of significance that human beings have “spun” and in which they are
Law schools clearly have and are cultures, which affect and are affected
by all the members of the law school community.
Some of these cultures are unintentional, while others may be
deliberately designed and fostered.
Wenger employs organizational dynamics, learning theories and practice in
knowledge management to describe and define what he calls “communities of
practice” – groups of people who share common values, who work or share
information with and learn from each other in a dynamic, fluid and interactive
I believe that law schools can be constituted as communities of practice,
and that Wenger’s work provides a model for deans and others who might seek to
enhance education and training in their institutions through community building.
Here, I briefly describe Wenger’s theory, including how communities of
practice can be built and nurtured, and how CUNY’s experience bears this out.
A. Communities of
Significantly, law schools are
cultures organized around learning. Wenger’s
work posits that learning is not always, or even necessarily, individualized,
but rather “situated” and contextualized.
It is social as well as cognitive and arises out of participation with
others who engage collectively in social practice.
Law students don’t just learn substantive law from lectures and
reading, they also learn what it means to be a lawyer and a member of the legal
profession, through legal work with others in and outside the law school (for
example, in clinics and externships) but also from the web of relationships
within the law school.
can socialize our students for the profession through a highly hierarchical
model, or one that is more fluid and inclusive.
For example, how staff are treated (with respect, with contempt, by being
ignored) is part of the learning process for students, in the same way that
staff can learn to take pride in, and internalize student (and graduate)
successes, or, less productively, perceive students as bothersome or worse.
There are often subtle, and not so subtle racial messages in this
learning as well, with possibilities for developing respect and inclusiveness
or, on the other hand, oblivion, dismissiveness or intolerance.
individuals, organizations also “learn” in context, creating explicit and
implicit knowledge, legitimizing, and transmitting it.
Within organizations, knowledge production can be relatively
individualized or, in a functioning community of practice, can be the result of
shared efforts, experiments and refinements.
Where knowledge is individualized, there is high risk that it may be lost
– think, for example, of the IT Director who carries it all “in his head”
and whose departure can cause major dislocation – resulting in costly and
time-consuming efforts to “reinvent the wheel.”
Where knowledge is collectively produced and shared, it is more readily
accessible and is available for modification and improvement.
Deans may not generally conceptualize law schools in the way industrial
and commercial leaders see their organizations, increasingly focusing on
“knowledge management,” or KM,
but similar principles apply. Because
the curriculum is relatively stable,
we may not be as single-mindedly focused on innovation and progressive change as
leaders in the corporate sector, but many functions of our institutions –
technology is a powerful example – depend, at least implicitly, on KM.
is an enormous amount of knowledge produced in law schools,
creating possibilities for innovation and growth when shared and circulated.
How do we teach our students more effectively?
How do we better prepare them for the work they will do on graduation?
How can we manage our resources more productively?
What can technology do to enhance student learning, faculty teaching and
scholarship, and administrative functions? Shifting
groups of individuals within the law school community develop and, with
facilitation, share learning in these and numerous other areas.
Constituting these groups, and the larger law school, as a community of
practice is a way of encouraging the flow of knowledge and innovation, fostering
new approaches to problem solving, promoting the spread of best practices and
developing professional skills and identity.
to Wenger, functioning communities of practice have three properties:
mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire.
The first involves people working together and creating relationships
that allow them to “connect meaningfully…to the contributions and knowledge
The second encompasses the way in which participants create shared
purpose in the process of pursuing it. While
there may be – and inevitably is – disagreement, the enterprise becomes
“joint” through “communal negotiation, and creates a sense of ownership,
even in the face of forces and influences beyond the members’ control.”
Joint enterprise also promotes mutual accountability in which participants are
responsible for “not making th[e] lives [of other members of the community]
It isn’t hard to imagine the value of shared enterprise in a law school
community where its absence can result in individuals making others’ lives and
work very much more difficult indeed!
Wenger observes that communities of practice have a shared repertoire, which
“includes the routines, words, stories and actions that have been
developed by the group in the course of working together.”
Rather than fixed and static, the repertoire is changing and dynamic,
reflecting the repertoires brought to the enterprise by individuals and the
continuous reshaping that occurs “as they work with [other] individuals,
subgroups or the group as a whole.” Most
people in any given law school share at least some repertoire, from widely
circulated and repeated jokes and “war stories,” to shared (and not always
charitable) characterizations of the larger university and its officials.
When a law school functions as a
community of practice, everyone’s learning is enhanced, there is a sense of
shared identity, the institution itself becomes “smarter”
about how to accomplish its goals, and its members take ownership of its
well-being and success. Given these
obvious benefits, how can we cultivate and facilitate our law schools as
positive communities of practice?
First, it is important to bring
good people together; this implicates hiring and promoting faculty and staff who
are willing and able to negotiate a shared purpose, and an admissions process
that seeks out and selects students who will share in it.
These are incremental and sometimes difficult steps, but there is a
faster and simpler kind of recruitment into the community – reaching out to,
and re-engaging graduates whose work reflects its values and common purpose.
CUNY’s CLRN initiative, described below,
is a compelling example of this proposition.
Second, a community of practice
requires an infrastructure that encourages connection and collaboration:
the physical spaces in the law school can be configured to further
interaction, or they can rigidify separation and hierarchy.
Food can play an important role; where and when people come together to
get it and share it can promote or discourage community.
Finally, returning to my
original observation about the importance of anniversaries, history is also a
meaningful part of communities of practice.
Providing opportunities for creating and sharing the law school’s
history and accomplishments creates community, provides opportunities for
reflection, and nourishes growth and innovation.
I’ve written generally about
communities of practice, and why it is valuable and desirable for law schools to
cultivate them. The example of CUNY,
while particularized because of its public interest niche within legal
education, may prove helpful.
B. CUNY as a Community of
CUNY, like many other law
schools, is consciously comprised of “group[s] of people who share a concern
– a set of problems or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge
and expertise in that area by interacting on an ongoing basis.”
Our faculty is made up of teachers who, by and large, have also been
public interest practitioners and who continue to contribute through pro bono
work and public service. Our
students are recruited and admitted based on their demonstrated commitment to
public interest, and many staff members, active in their own communities, find
a congenial and non-alienating place to work.
Others, who may originally have come for geographic proximity, or free
tuition in the University, are sooner or later won over to the collective
enterprise of using law to promote justice and equality.
Deans and Associate Deans are chosen, in large part, for their
compatibility with, and support of, the
’s mission. Because salaries for
all law school employees are considerably lower than in the private sector, or
area law schools, people come and stay to participate in a mutual endeavor –
training new generations of lawyers who will utilize “law in the service of
The members of the CUNY
community are extremely diverse, and bring multiple and sometimes conflicting
perspectives. While we agree on a
joint enterprise, our agreement is negotiated against a background of more than
occasional disagreement on means to a shared end.
Yet, as Wenger predicts, this diversity also results in a more creative
and effective approach to problem solving.
Communities of practice are made
up of sub-communities of persons working together in specific areas, who bring
their work to the larger community where it is reflected upon, and may be
expanded, refined and incorporated. What
happens in the classroom is different from what happens in the alumni relations
office, but when the
is functioning as a community of practice, the work of both, and the
itself, are enhanced. The faculty,
moving from theory (at the beginning) to joint practice with students (over the
past 20 years), has adopted, promoted and refined collaboration as a primary
mode for teaching and learning. That
same sense of collaboration motivates the work of alumni relations as we mentor
and provide resources for our graduates, simultaneously learning from them, and
incorporating that learning back into our classrooms.
A powerful example of this
shared learning is CLRN, CUNY’s Community Legal Resource Network.
Born of conversations with graduates over informal dinners, CLRN
blossomed into an initiative to assist those who had chosen small and solo
community-based practices in order to increase access to justice.
Using its own resources, and additional funding from the Open Society
facilitated a vibrant community
that resembles a virtual law firm or legal services office to assist graduates
in business practices, legal research and justice initiatives, using technology
to network and connect them. These
efforts are directed to increasing their individual skills, and enabling them to
generate and share best practices and collective knowledge.
Now, some four years later, we
have seen this initiative create numerous benefits for a significant number of
who are both more successful and more effectively engaged in their “justice
missions.” The larger
community has similarly benefited, in several major ways.
These include: curricular
modifications that enable us to better prepare students for the work many of
them will choose;
enhanced recruitment, as we offer a viable career path for idealistic law school
applicants who want to use their legal educations to further justice; and alumni
relations, which have become a true partnership and collaboration, rather than a
loss leader for identifying prospective donors.
Wenger and his colleagues
observe that “[t]o remain vibrant, communities need to shift topics,…,
invite new alliances, and constantly redefine their boundaries.”
CLRN is an example of the way in which we have erased the line between
student and graduate.
We have now defined our
community longitudinally, increasing our capacity to learn and accomplish our
goals. CLRN, other graduate
connections and the client work done by our clinics, externships, student
organizations and pro bono faculty and staff have also created new alliances and
similarly redefined our boundaries.
Planning for the twentieth
anniversary has given us a lens for observing and naming the ways in which we
work and partner with others in the larger public interest community.
Collaborating with and across other organizations, like social justice
not-for-profits, legal services offices, and, in the sphere of international
human rights, NGO’s, as well as other units of
and expands its knowledge and effect. This
“practice” has led to a recalibration/renewal/refinement of our
community’s “domain” exemplified in the move from “Law in the Service of
Human Needs” to the current “Building a Community of Justice.”
CUNY’s experience, although
related to a unique mission, has relevance to others in legal education.
Other goals, different from those we have emphasized – legal
scholarship, applying a critical perspective to the law and the legal system,
improving the profession, understanding and building global connections – can
be negotiated as a common enterprise by other, different kinds of law schools.
With encouragement and facilitation, students, faculty, staff and
graduates can develop ways of working with, and learning from, each other in
furtherance of those goals, as well as student learning and general
organizational health. Given the
alternatives – anomie, rigid and unproductive hierarchy, disengagement and
alienation – the work of community building is an important choice for deans
and their institutions.
V. ADDITIONAL ASPIRATIONS
In addition to the notion of
“community of practice,” there are two aspirational ideas of community that
inspire us at CUNY. I offer them as
a parting note.
The first is Dr.
Martin Luther King’s conception of the “Beloved Community.”
From his “aspiration to rebuild community from the social death of
slavery and segregation,”
Dr. King offered a vision of the Beloved Community which would “reconcil[e]
the truths of individualism and collectivism and embrac[e] diversity without
in order to create more democratic, loving and just individuals.
Building on the power of law to eradicate segregation and racial
oppression, law schools can commit to embracing diversity in their own
communities, and promoting diversity, tolerance and justice in the larger
community. Celebrating and defending
affirmative action, as the University of Michigan Law School famously did, is
one example. It is difficult to
imagine any other institution, with the possible exception of religious
organizations, for whom the work of building the Beloved Community is more
aspirational concept is the South African idea of ubuntu.
The phrase can be roughly translated as “A person is a person through
other persons” or “I am a human being because I belong, I participate.
It connotes the way in which individuals belong in, and are defined by, a
“bundle of life” which makes them generous, hospitable, caring and
compassionate. The concept of ubuntu
has been powerfully utilized in
’s transition to “multi-racial”
democracy, and in the construction and operation of its Truth and Reconciliation
Both Dr. King’s
“Beloved Community” and ubuntu resonate
significantly with values embedded in our professional codes of ethics and
norms. And, used strategically to
focus on the plight of the neediest and most downtrodden, they can facilitate
enduring bonds among all individuals, and describe and create solidarity in the
commitment to justice.
an individual law school’s particular values and mission, commitment to the
public good is at the core of the profession for which we train our students,
and of which we are, ourselves, generally members.
The MacCrate Report, perhaps the most comprehensive examination of legal
education and lawyering, significantly includes not only skills necessary for
successful practice, but also four primary values.
Among these are “Striving to Promote Justice, Fairness and Morality,”
which, in turn, includes “treating other people (including clients, other
attorneys and support personnel) with dignity and respect” and “Contributing
to the Profession’s Fulfillment of its Responsibility to Enhance the Capacity
of the Law and Legal Institutions to Do Justice.”
Choices about the ways in which law schools relate to and participate in
communities in which they are located bring varying benefits.
Choices to promote and nurture the law school as a community
create opportunities to embody and promote our profession’s highest values.