Since law faculty are always looking for good materials to use in their classes, last year's Legal Educator's Colloquium participants were invited to very briefly share information about free (or low cost) resources in a facilitated session early on Saturday morning. The success of that session has prompted a more participant-friendly time period this year for this fast-moving sharing time. On Friday afternoon, legal educators are invited to describe, in a minute or two, a resource (could be a website, a terrific simulation, a TED talk, etc.) and are also encouraged to bring 1/2 page handouts with longer descriptions and information on how to access the resource. This session is like an in-person listserv announcement, and it provides opportunities for attendees to follow up with "presenters" afterwards.
Saturday, April 05, 20148:00 AM-Saturday, April 05, 20149:15 AM
Marjorie CormanAaron, University of Cincinnati College of Law;
DwightGolann, Suffolk University Law School
Responding to student requests for “more feedback," Professor Aaron designed a simulated negotiation, observation, and "double" feedback sequence. Pairs of student observers are made “omniscient” –given all confidential facts--then watch classmates negotiate. Observers provide feedback knowing what opportunities are missed, what body language and leaks are communicating. Roles are then flipped: in a second negotiation, with new "omniscient" observers. Negotiations are recorded for the professor's later feedback. Professor Aaron finds it invaluable for the omniscient observers. Professor Golann will try this approach and report. We will provide copies of simulations, instructions and set up materials used.
RobertBordone, Harvard Law School Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program;
DanielDoktori, Harvard Law School;
LisaWitzler, National Institute of Health Ombuds Office;
SandraYamate, Institute for Inclusion in the Legal Profession
This panel features key participants--student, instructor/project supervisor, and clients—from two dispute system design clinical projects: a dispute system evaluation of the National Institute of Health’s Ombuds Office and a dispute system design for Modria.com based on the European Union’s online dispute resolution mandate. The panelists will describe how a project is formed, what kind of relationship and communication happens between stakeholders during the project, and how a project leads to client improvements and greater student engagement with the practice of dispute system design. Group discussion topics include creating a dispute system design clinic, garnering projects, and supervising students.
JenniferReynolds, University of Oregon School of Law;
AlysonCarrel, Center on Negotiation and Mediation, Northwestern University School of Law;
RonaldAronovsky, Southwestern Law School
Students are becoming more and more reliant on technology to communicate and engage with information. This session presents ways for legal educators to utilize current and emerging technology to better engage tech-savvy students, to not only teach them concepts and skills unique to dispute resolution, but new platforms and medium they might need to rely on in practice. These platforms and medium might include Videoconferencing, Google Apps, Social Networking, and user created content online. Presenters will introduce concepts they have successfully utilized in their courses and provide participants an opportunity to explore re-designing lessons with these new platforms and medium.
Saturday, April 05, 20149:30 AM-Saturday, April 05, 201410:45 AM
As law schools embrace "experiential" curricula, dispute resolution academics offer much. We briefly explore Hamline’s clinics, externships, first year problem solving course, competitions, simulation courses, and semester in residence options - in the context of dispute resolution course opportunities and experiential progression. Do all these pedagogies “ work” for dispute resolution? What are the pros and cons of each type of experiential option? What's the advantage of an effective "progression" of such courses for students? How do we work effectively with “other” professors and practitioners? This Shoptalk will provide sharing space for what has worked for experiential dispute resolution coursework.
BrianPappas, Michigan State University College of Law;
ZenaZumeta, Mediation Training & Consultation Institute;
NatalieFleury, Marquette University Law School
This session explores the expression, “Do as I say, not as I do,” as it applies to mediation trainers. As mediation teachers, how closely does our instruction regarding mediation methods mirror our own practice? Our panelists will explore this question, and additionally discuss how each of us balances the normative aspects (what should be happening in mediation) with the realities of what actually takes place. As facilitative trainers, do we do a disservice for students who will largely be experiencing more evaluative styles? How do we, why don’t we, and should we introduce the more evaluative realities of mediation practice?
MarianaHernandez Crespo, University of St. Thomas School of Law;
SukhsimranjitSingh, Willamette University College of Law
When trainers from Western backgrounds “export” their ADR expertise to other countries and cultures, they bring a set of values that may conflict with the values of the cultures in which they are working. These clashes of values raise important questions about the goals and methods of ADR training, particularly in the developing world, and about the obligations of Western ADR trainers to respect the values of the cultures in which they work. Featuring three ADR professors with experience offering ADR training in developing countries, this panel will explore some of the questions raised when ADR training crosses cultural boundaries.
Saturday, April 05, 201411:00 AM-Saturday, April 05, 201412:15 PM
Successful teamwork is a required skill for today’s lawyer. Despite what law firms and organizations often do, it is ill-advised to simply place employees in teams and expect them to accomplish the team’s goals efficiently and effectively. This session will teach the audience how to teach teams to work together collaboratively. The session will be interactive. After a 5-10 min explanation of Teamwork theory, members of the audience will work in teams of 4 to complete a team inventory, create a team charter, and successfully resolve team differences. If time, they will evaluate their team members and themselves.
ImreSzalai, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law;
CarliConklin, University of Missouri-Columbia Law School
Contemporary debates, legislative initiatives, and caselaw relating to arbitration all rely in some way on notions about the original intent of the FAA or about the contexts in which arbitration was originally used. But how historically accurate are these notions? For example, prior to the FAA, was arbitration primarily intended for use between merchant peers, or also between persons with vastly different bargaining power? In the course of presenting their research into arbitration law and practice from pre-modern Europe, Antebellum America, and the period surrounding the FAA's enactment, the Panelists will touch on these and other questions .