To Make Magic Happen: Deans' Job Description

I just spent a few days hanging out with a surprising number of deans. I was on an ABA inspection team that consisted of 3 deans and a vice-dean, plus the president of a small state college. Then me, and a federal district attorney. It actually was an amazingly nice time. In the course of one conversation, Rudy Hasl, who has been dean at St. Louis University, St. John's, Seattle and now at Thomas Jefferson Law School in San Diego, made a pretty cool little quip. Rudy said he thought the job description for a dean was:

To Make Magic Happen

Wow! Does that sound like he's having a great time or what?!

Rudy said, think about it, sometime in every day, a dean has the opportunity to make magic happen in the life of somebody. It could be a student, it could be a faculty member, or an alum, a donor, a trustee.

What about a librarian???

PS. Alert readers may recognize Rudy Hasl's name from the recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, detailing how the excavation at the site of the Thomas Jefferson Law School's new building turned up the remains of a Columbian Mammoth. Since then, the work has turned up more prehistoric creatures: a baleen whale -- ancestor of the blue whale, and a giant sloth. OOTJ refuses to take cheap shots by speculating about mascots for the law school, and instead, thinks it's just darned cool that they keep digging up more mega-fossils!

Have You Gotten Your Westlaw Pricing Letter?

I just opened the letter from Brian Cahill, Director, Marketing Law School Libraries for Thomson Reuters. It announced an increase of a little over $4 per FTE for academic year 2009-2010. For my school, that amounts to an increase of several thousand dollars. Call me a fool, but I had hoped that with inflation running at
0% and library budgets being cut at every type of school, public and private, the vendors might have kept prices steady for the coming year. The letter from Mr. Cahill announces a few minor (to me, anyway) tweaks to TWEN, but otherwise doesn't allude to any major enhancements to Westlaw content or functionality. Shabby behavior on the part of Thomson!

Use of Signing Statements Curtailed

Today's New York Times features an article by Charlie Savage on President Obama's ordering "executive officials to consult with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. before relying on [any of President Bush's signing statements] to bypass a statute." Savage is well known for his columns on signing statements, for which he won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize. President Bush issued an unprecedented number of signing statements, more than any other modern President. President Obama did not indicate that he would never issue a signing statement; rather, he "signaled that he intends to use signing statements himself if Congress sends him legislation that has provisions he decides are unconstitutional." The memo to administration officials is here.

Results of Laptop Bans

Reproduced below is an article commenting on the results of banning laptops in several law school classrooms. I can't say I'm surprised to learn that students felt that banning laptops had improved their concentration. Laptops can turn students into scribes more intent on taking down every word than into active learners who mentally process the information. Still, Professor Eugene Volokh reported no differences in the quality of classroom discussion after the laptop ban, which seems counterintuitive. If students are not focused on taking notes and are more actively engaged with the material, they should be more active participants in classroom discussion. Frankly, the bans strike me as paternalistic. I haven't considered banning laptops in my classroom because I want students to visit the websites that we cover during class. I understand that there might be a different dynamic in a doctrinal course. However, by the time they get to law school, shouldn't students know how they learn most efficiently?

Law Students Report Positive Reaction to No-Laptop Policy
Posted Mar 5, 2009, 07:43 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A law professor who banned laptops in his first-year criminal law class surveyed his students about their reaction—and found it was generally positive.
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh had the results in a memo to his collegues (PDF) and on his blog, The Volokh Conspiracy.
Seventy-one percent of the students who responded reported the policy had a strongly positive or slightly positive effect on their concentration in class. Fifty-four percent said it had a positive effect on their overall enjoyment of the course.
Only 36 percent reported a positive influence on learning, though; 41 percent said the experience was neutral in regard to learning.
One student pointed out that the experiment had a negative effect on trees. The student’s e-mail to Volokh said those who brief cases on their computers have to print out their notes for class. And those who want their class notes neatly typed and available on their laptop have to transcribe classroom notes.
While students were positive, Volokh said he noted no material differences in classroom discussions. He suspects 1Ls tend to be engaged, and they often find criminal law particularly interesting. He wonders if the results would be different in classes with little voluntary class participation.
Earlier this week on Prawfsblawg, Howard Wasserman, an associate law professor at Florida International University, noted that his own classroom laptop ban was going better than he had hoped.
"I never realized how much I missed eye contact," Wasserman wrote. "Even the bored and checked-out students at least look up at me. And when students have to look up, you can get a sense from their eyes as to whether they are 'getting' what you were talking about and adjust accordingly. I also never realized how loud keyboards are when 75 students are typing simultaneously."
He noted that he'll have to wait for class evaluations at the end of the semester to see what his students think of the ban.

Law Firm Layoffs dominate the ABA Journal Coverage

The headline in the ABA Journal online edition is March Mayhem: Law Firm Layoffs in One Week Total Nearly 1,500. Click on the title to this post to read the full article, which echoes the drumbeat of the online blogs I linked to below. They list the big firms and number the layoffs -- focusing always on the lawyer layoffs, rather than staff, of course. But it's sobering that the ABA Journal has begun to pick it up and focus coverage on the carnage. There are three related stories linked on the same page, covering January and February layoffs as well, and looking at the job market for lawyers in Canada. (look out!)

The glut on the market of experienced attorneys will make it tough going for graduating law students, I worry. The posts I linked to yesterday includes mentions of firms withdrawing offers, or, less, awfully, postponing the start dates for their new hires, to save money.

Timing makes so much difference in people's lives. What year you graduate, for instance.... A few years ago, firms were vying hard to hire quality associates and driving up the salaries. Of course, they also were expecting their pound of flesh in exchange -- we began to hear stories of associates being expected to bill nearly all their waking hours.

I suppose this, too will pass. But what will happen to the students who graduate in these years?

Lieberman Grills Federal Judiciary About Pacer

This article from the National Law Journal discusses Senator Joseph Lieberman's questioning the Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference about why "it continues to charge the public and lawyers for access to electronically filed documents and whether enough is being done to protect the personal data collected by courts." The cost issue was discussed in an earlier blog post on OOTJ. Lieberman made the point that "the federal judiciary had a $150 million surplus in its technology fund as of fiscal year 2006 yet continues to charge the public and lawyers $.08 per page for access to documents." He is also concerned about the possibility of identify theft, stating that "not enough has been done to protect personal information contained in publicy available court rulings ... I would like to the court to review the steps they take to ensure this information is protected and report ... on how this provision has been implemented as we work to increase public access to court records." The Judicial Conference has not yet responded to Senator Lieberman.

Law Firm cost cutting

Click on the link above to read a piece at Above the Law, a self-proclaimed legal tabloid, about Chicago law firm Locke Lord Bissell mandating LoisLaw over Westlaw or Lexis for most online research. Entertainingly, they class it with Kirkland Ellis downsizing their breakfast perk or K & L Gates switching to bargain basement bathroom supplies and declining to cover members' bar dues. And you know things are bad when Debevois and Plimpton cancels the annual firm dinner at the fancy restaurant, and instead, offers drinks at the firm.

Still, it's better for the firms to look for ways to trim the perks than to trim off the associates, paralegals or (gasp!) even the librarians! For stunning graphs that summarize the bloodshed, go to Layoff Tracker at Lawshucks... Above the Law treats Black Thursday here. Then, Law Shucks begins their This week in Layoffs feature with 2/20/09, and now 2/27/09. They even have an archived The month in layoffs for January, 2009.

It's scary times for all of us in law.

A tip of the OOTJ hat to my invaluable colleague, Susan Sweetgall, who tipped me off to this entertaining blog, Above the Law.

Gay Rights Activists File Suit Against DOMA

The Boston Globe carried a story on March 3 about gay rights activists filing a suit challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) law that prevents those married in Massachusetts from filing a federal joint income tax, or enjoying any other benefits of the legal recognitions of marriage. The suit was filed yesterday in federal district court in Boston by the same legal team from GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) who argued the Goodridge case in 2003. The case is styled Gill et al. vs. Office of Personnel Management, et al. (Gill v. OPM). Basically, the plaintiffs seek a ruling that DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs in Federal Income Tax, Social Security, federal employment benefits, and the issuance of passports.

The link to GLAD, above, will take readers to their excellent DOMA page. The page has information on the couples and widowers in the suit, but also the full text of the complaint. There is a nice history of DOMA, and explanations of the suit. There is a link for a press release from the Massachusetts Attorney General in support of the suit. Interestingly, they also have a blog. And there is a video of the press conference announcing the law suit. GLAD has other advocacy projects going on as well, which can be explored by hovering a mouse along the menu at the top of the page. This is a very information-rich site.

Author's Guild on Settlement with Google

Paul McCallister sent along an e-mail from the Author's Guild to its members:

Subject: Authors Guild v. Google Settlement: Official Notice

Click here for your official notice of the $125 million settlement in Authors Guild v. Google. We encourage you to read it. (http://hosting-source.bronto.com/896/public/Final-Summary-Notice-of-Class-Action-Settlement.pdf)

The settlement strengthens authors' rights and will, if approved by the court, result in millions of dollars of payments to authors. At least $45 million will be paid to authors and publishers to release claims for books that are scanned by Google by May 5th of this year. But that's not the most significant part of the settlement, in our view. We expect the licensing that this settlement would enable, particularly of out-of-print books, will result in far more revenues for authors over the coming years.

The settlement covers essentially all in-copyright books that were published by January 5, 2009. (Some authors have told us that they think of the settlement as covering only books for adults or nonfiction books. This is incorrect. Books of all types are covered by the settlement.)

We think it's in the strong interest of authors of all books, whether in print or out of print, to go to www.googlebooksettlement.com and claim their books. Here are some of the benefits of doing so:

1. If you file your claim by January 5, 2010, and a book in which you have a copyright interest is scanned by Google before May 5, 2009, you will be entitled to a small share (at least $60 per book, but up to $300, depending on the number of claims) in a pool of at least $45 million that Google is paying to release claims for works that were scanned without rightsholder permission.

2. By registering, you'll be able to share in potential revenues for uses of your works under several new licensing programs that the settlement enables. Here are examples of licensing revenues you may be entitled to share in:

A. Revenues from printing out pages from your works at terminals in public libraries.

B. Revenues from ads that may appear near "previews" of your works at books.google.com.

C. Revenues from sales of special online editions of your works.

D. Revenues from institutional subscriptions that may include your works.

Important note: Only out-of-print books will be included in these programs by default. In-print books will be included only where rightsholders affirmatively elect to do so.

3. By registering, you'll automatically enroll in the new Book Rights Registry, which will give you a considerable amount of control over the rights to your works, including your right to withdraw your work from the licensing programs described above.

The important thing is to assert your rights. It's easiest to do so by setting up an account at www.googlebooksettlement.com, the official settlement website. Once you're logged in, it's generally most efficient to claim your works by searching the database of titles by your name.

There are many more details, which the attached document spells out. For those who would like more information, we'll soon be announcing a new series of phone-in seminars. You will receive that e-mail later this week.

Please feel free to forward and post this message: non-Guild members are entitled to the same advantages of the settlement as Guild members.

This message was sent to you as a member of the Authors Guild.

I find the e-mail interesting because it encourages the members to join the settlement and informs them of a new world order where readers of books (and parts of books) will pay authors fees to read on demand. This is an interesting development. In some ways, it makes books more available than ever -- a potential reader of a hard-to-find book available under the agreement can now access it by Internet (assuming the reader has Internet access). Isolated readers in rural areas have as much access to books as readers in the heart of a university (again, assuming those readers have access to the Internet, and some way of paying).

It certainly will make it easier for authors to make a bit more money off their writing. This is good -- it's hard enough for most writers to make a living. The ease of paying for the copy will balance the irk of extended copyright for at least those libraries with some cash to pay for Interlibrary loan-type transactions.

But in my heart, I agree with the essay by Harvard's Robert Darnton in the New York Review of Books Feb 12, 2009, "Google and the Future of Books." If research libraries had taken the leadership role, instead of Google, we would be looking at a different future!

Yikes! ALDA raises the ante

Click on the title to this post to read an article at Inside Higher Education titled, "Calling in the Big Guns." Dated March 2, 2009, the article briefly recaps the struggles between ALDA deans over tenure and long term contracts for clinical faculty and librarians. Then, it goes on to tell that the law school dean at Northwestern, David Van Zandt, went to the departing University President there, Henry S. Bienen, to enlist his support in the battle. Bienen sent a letter to 130 university presidents, echoing the arguments of the ALDA deans, that offering tenure reduces the ability of institutions to be flexible.

Interestingly, the article goes on to tell that the letter has stirred up a hornet's nest at Northwestern's law school. Faculty are upset, considering that this letter will interfere with recruiting top notch faculty of all types by giving the message that Northwestern does not really stand behind the concept of tenure. Bienen's letter insists that the attack is not about tenure as such, but about clinical faculty tenure and ABA standards. At least some of the Northwest faculty are concerned that this attitude is the beginning of a more general attack on tenure for all faculty. I am glad to see broader support, myself!

Tip of the OOTJ hat to Helane Davis for alerting us to the article!