LWI 2010 presentation

786 views

Published on

A New and Urgent Role for the LRW Professorate: The Impact of Technology on the Law and the Legal Profession (with Ian Gallacher, Ellie Margolis, and Kristen Murray).

Presented at the LWI 2010 Conference, June 29, 2010, in Marco Island, Florida.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
786
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide





















































  • LWI 2010 presentation

    1. 1. LWI 2010 Conference Marco Island, Florida
    2. 2. A New and Urgent Role for the Legal Writing Professorate: The Impact of Technology on the Law and the Legal Profession
    3. 3. Program • David Thomson (Denver) Moderator • Ian Gallacher (Syracuse) Search • Ellie Margolis (Temple) Practice • Kristen Murray (Temple) Classroom • Your Questions
    4. 4. Program • David Thomson (Denver) Moderator • Ian Gallacher (Syracuse) Search • Ellie Margolis (Temple) Practice • Kristen Murray (Temple) Classroom • Your Questions
    5. 5. Program • David Thomson (Denver) Moderator • Ian Gallacher (Syracuse) Search • Ellie Margolis (Temple) Practice • Kristen Murray (Temple) Classroom • Your Questions
    6. 6. Program • David Thomson (Denver) Moderator • Ian Gallacher (Syracuse) Search • Ellie Margolis (Temple) Practice • Kristen Murray (Temple) Classroom • Your Questions
    7. 7. Program • David Thomson (Denver) Moderator • Ian Gallacher (Syracuse) Search • Ellie Margolis (Temple) Practice • Kristen Murray (Temple) Classroom • Your Questions
    8. 8. Program • David Thomson (Denver) Moderator • Ian Gallacher (Syracuse) Search • Ellie Margolis (Temple) Practice • Kristen Murray (Temple) Classroom • Your Questions
    9. 9. Program • David Thomson (Denver) Moderator • Ian Gallacher (Syracuse) Search • Ellie Margolis (Temple) Practice • Kristen Murray (Temple) Classroom • Your Questions
    10. 10. Program • David Thomson (Denver) Moderator • Ian Gallacher (Syracuse) Search • Ellie Margolis (Temple) Practice • Kristen Murray (Temple) Classroom • Your Questions
    11. 11. Program • David Thomson (Denver) Moderator • Ian Gallacher (Syracuse) Search • Ellie Margolis (Temple) Practice • Kristen Murray (Temple) Classroom • Your Questions
    12. 12. Program • David Thomson (Denver) Moderator • Ian Gallacher (Syracuse) Search • Ellie Margolis (Temple) Practice • Kristen Murray (Temple) Classroom • Your Questions
    13. 13. David Thomson LP Professor and Director Lawyering Process Program University of Denver
    14. 14. Can we stop focusing on the small stuff? Word vs. WordPerfect Laptops or no PowerPoint is/or is not evil
    15. 15. Wrote a book! I wanted to get us off the small stuff, so I wrote a book.
    16. 16. Thesis of Law School 2.0 • Legal Education has not changed (enough) for 100 years. There has to be a reason. • The Cost/Change Conundrum: • We know what needs to change, it just costs too much • Technology is finally maturing - it can help • The Practice of law is using tech in new ways • For our students, technology is like Air
    17. 17. OMG!
    18. 18. OMG!
    19. 19. OMG!
    20. 20. OMG!
    21. 21. OMG!
    22. 22. OMG!
    23. 23. OMG!
    24. 24. OMG!
    25. 25. OMG!
    26. 26. OMG!
    27. 27. OMG!
    28. 28. The iPad - for textbooks
    29. 29. Ian Gallacher SEARCH
    30. 30. Ian Gallacher Associate Professor of Law Syracuse University Law School Director, Legal Communication and Research
    31. 31. Technology is anything that was invented after you were born. Allen Kay
    32. 32. Technology is stuff that doesn’t work yet. Bran Ferren
    33. 33. Everything that’s already in the world when you’re born is just normal; Anything that gets invented between then and before you turn thirty is incredibly exciting and creative and with any luck you can make a career out of it; Anything that gets invented after you’re thirty is against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it until it’s been around for about ten years when it gradually turns out to be alright really. Apply this list to movies, rock music, word processors and mobile phones to work out how old you are. Douglas Adams
    34. 34. Predicting the future is a mug’s game. Douglas Adams
    35. 35. The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Allen Kay
    36. 36. Ellie Margolis PRACTICE
    37. 37. Ellie Margolis Associate Professor of Law Legal Research and Writing Temple University Beasley School of Law
    38. 38. 1998 2008 Total Cases 1st 1 16 140 3d 2 33 236 5th 4 10 106 7th 0 84 392 9th 2 85 604 S. Ct. 1 29 166
    39. 39. Legal Authority Non-Legal Majority 20 83 Concurrence 4 69 Dissent 19 111 Other 51
    40. 40. FROM GOOGLE SCHOLAR: *319 JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion of petitioner Celotex Corporation for summary judgment against respondent Catrett because the latter was unable to produce evidence in support of her allegation in her wrongful-death complaint that the decedent had been exposed to petitioner's asbestos products. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, however, holding that petitioner's failure to support its motion with evidence tending to negate such exposure precluded the entry of summary judgment in its favor. Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 244 U. S. App. D. C. 160, 756 F. 2d 181 (1985). This view conflicted with that of the Third Circuit in In re Japanese Electronic Products, 723 F. 2d 238(1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574 (1986).[1] We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 474 U. S. 944 (1985), and now reverse the decision of the District of Columbia Circuit.
    41. 41. FROM WESTLAW *319 Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion of petitioner Celotex Corporation for summary judgment against respondent Catrett because the latter was unable to produce evidence in support of her allegation in her wrongful-death complaint that the decedent had been exposed to petitioner’s asbestos products. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, however, holding that petitioner’s failure to support its motion with evidence tending to negate such exposure precluded the entry of summary judgment in its favor. Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 244 U.S.App.D.C. 160, 756 F.2d 181 (1985). This view conflicted with that of the Third Circuit in In re Japanese **2551 Electronic Products, 723 F.2d 238 (1983), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).1 We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 474 U.S. 944, 106 S.Ct. 342, 88 L.Ed.2d 285 (1985), and now reverse the decision of the District of Columbia Circuit.
    42. 42. STATISTICAL REPORT FROM DOJ CITED BY SUPREME COURT Our review determined that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) detained 762 aliens as a result of the PENTTBOM investigation. Of these 762 aliens, 24 were in INS custody on immigration violations prior to the September 11 attacks. The remaining 738 aliens were arrested between September 11, 2001, and August 6, 2002, as a direct result of the FBI’s PENTTBOM investigation. All 762 detainees were placed on what became known as an “INS Custody List” because of the FBI’s assessment that they may have had a connection to the September 11 attacks or terrorism in general, or because the FBI was unable, at least initially, to determine whether they were connected to terrorism.
    43. 43. Where do we go from here?
    44. 44. Kristen Murray CLASSROOM
    45. 45. Kristen Murray Associate Professor of Law Legal Research and Writing Temple University Beasley School of Law
    46. 46. Survey Participants • Second-semester 1Ls at Temple University, Beasley School of Law and George Washington University Law School • 177 respondents • 175 own a laptop
    47. 47. Did you bring your laptop to class during your undergraduate studies? • Sample responses: – “everyone else does” – “a 2L told me to do it” Yes No – Need to organize, search notes – Need to access other, class-related material online during class
    48. 48. Why are we losing them?
    49. 49. City of Ontario v. Quon, No. 08-1332 Maybe--maybe everyone else knows this, but what is the difference between a pager and e-mail? 29:18-20 What happens, just out of curiosity, [if he is] on the pager and sending a message and they’re trying to reach him for, you know, a SWAT team crisis? [Does the one] kind of trump the other, or do they get a busy signal? 44:1-5
    50. 50. Your Questions...
    51. 51. A New and Urgent Role for the Legal Writing Professorate: The Impact of Technology on the Law and the Legal Profession http://www.slideshare.net/dicthomson

    ×