The Frohnmayer Leadership Program is named after Dave Frohnmayer, who served as both President of the University of Oregon and Dean of the Law School. A leadership gift also allowed the School of Law to establish the Dave Frohnmayer Chair in Leadership and Law, with Dean Marcilynn Burke serving as the first person to receive this honor. The Program provides students with multiple opportunities to engage with leadership concepts and theories, including a Leadership Practices course, the Dave Frohnmayer Leadership Lecture, and other training sessions. A Leadership in Practice Certificate of Completion is granted to students upon the achievement of a set number of leadership development training hours, with the number of hours based on whether the student is in the J.D., LL.M or Master’s in Conflict Dispute Resolution program.
The Leadership Practices for Professional Success course is
currently taught by Jennifer Espinola, Law School Dean of Students and Director
of the Frohnmayer Leadership Program. Leadership
Practices is a one credit, pass/no pass course and was most recently offered
during the J-term prior to the Spring 2019 semester. According to Dean Espinola, the course
addresses several topics: emotional intelligence, interpersonal communication,
values-based leadership, team development, and change management. This year’s readings included “Leadership and
Self-Deception” by the Arbinger Institute, and “The Truth About Leadership” by
Kouzes and Posner. The course is capped
at 20. The course was originally
developed and taught by Dave Frohnmayer himself, before he passed away in
2015. Dean Espinola has been teaching it
Dean Espinola and Chris Esparza, Director of Diversity,
Inclusion, and Leadership Development, co-advise nine Frohnmayer Fellows in the
program. The Fellows work with the
advisors to offer a robust menu of offerings for students pursuing the
certificate of completion for the Frohnmayer Leadership Program (FLP). Programs include:
A monthly “Leader Ledger” newsletter covering various topics such as self-care, inclusive leadership, imposter syndrome, EQ, self-actualization, etc.
A semesterly leadership retreat. This one-day experience allows students to take a deeper dive with notable national leadership educators such as Dr. Tanya Williams who presented the LeaderShape program “Resilience” to Oregon Law students in Fall 2018.
Monthly “Leader Lunches” – these workshops are presented by campus educators, alumni, and other professionals on different leadership topics.
“Read to Lead” sessions – participating students are assigned a leadership reading and then they attend a dinner co-hosted by a law school Dean or faculty member with a prominent alumnus or alumna in order to discuss the reading.
Leadership Coach – each student pursuing the certificate of completion is assigned to a respected leader in the profession for two separate coaching sessions to discuss the coach’s leadership experience and the topics the student is learning throughout the program.
In everyday language, we speak of leadership in two distinct ways. On the one hand, we endow leadership with substantive vision. We praise as a “leader” the person who gets it right, who knows the right move to make in the right circumstances so as to accomplish the right ends. On the other hand, we characterize leaders as those who possess the technique of persuading others to follow their direction.
I have in mind now leadership in the first sense. I am worried about what leaders in legal education ought to do when the mission of law schools has been rendered questionable. How ought law professors respond when our Chief Justice answers President Trump’s critique of the ruling of an “Obama” judge by claiming that we do not have Republican judges, or Democratic judges, but merely judges who are doing their best fairly to apply the rule of law? Every one of us wants to support Roberts’ objection, but who believes that what Roberts says is actually true? And most fear what the federal judiciary will do as an ever-increasing percentage of its membership is appointed by President Trump. How do we lead when we don’t know what to affirm?
My dear colleague Sam Moyn recently published in the Chronicle of Higher Education an article entitled Law Schools are Bad for Democracy: They Whitewash the grubby scramble for Power. Moyn argues that although law schools ought to “incarnate ideals of political and social justice,” they actually function “mainly to reproduce social hierarchy.” Moyn condemns even law school clinics, which are so proud of their contributions to justice, but which are perforce required to litigate within the limits of a Trump inflected judiciary, and so must practice a “politics of marginal legal reform by insiders to the system” and so to “launder and legitimate injustice.” “For the sake of our national life,” Moyn pleads, “law schools must take up the duty of inculcating in their students and in the public a critical attitude toward the operations of ‘the rule of law’ in general—including a critical attitude toward the routine exaltation of the judiciary.” They must encourage the “disgust” felt by “so many of our fellow citizens” at “what ‘the rule of law’ is providing them.” Law schools must “demystify the law as a first step to reinvigorating democratic life.”
If all that Moyn means is that law schools should adopt a critical attitude toward current legal decisions and judicial holdings, then he is merely preaching to the choir. Law schools have been adopting that critical pose since the progressive era. But I suspect that Moyn means something deeper, which is that law schools must reject the rule of law itself. They must destroy the illusion that law exists apart from political power. Moyn thus advocates a variant of Trump’s perspective, which in turn chimes with familiar CLS critiques from decades ago. Foreseeing the dark times that lie before us, Moyn seems to say that law schools should teach that legality is the opiate of the people.
How should leaders in legal education respond to Moyn’s critique? I suggest we begin with the thought that law has both positive and normative dimensions. We are free critically to assert what the rule of law should normatively entail. But so long as the rule of law is positively embodied in state organizations like courts, its meaning is irretrievably linked to the actions of what Robert Cover once characterized as violent institutions.
I suggest that leaders in legal education will now be required sharply to distinguish positive from normative dimensions of the rule of law. Moyn intimates that in present circumstances normative commitments to the rule of law will merely distract from essential political action. But I regard this position as self-contradictory. This is because political action in modernity always aims at the creation of institutions, and institutions must function according to the rule of law if they are to act fairly and effectively.
The challenge to law school leadership is therefore how to maintain a normative commitment to the rule of law when we can foresee that this commitment will everywhere be betrayed by the actions of the very positive legal institutions charged with implementing the rule of law. This is not just a challenge for deans, but for all of us who seek in our teaching to inculcate respect for normative ideals of the rule of law.
But I do not know whether this ancient orientation is adequate to the crisis that will soon be upon us. In so many ways, the era of Trump pushes us toward a moral singularity.
moment I entered law school, and
through four decades as a lawyer then a law professor, I have experienced lawyering as a bundle
of contradictions. Crossing the
threshold into the legal
world in the late 1970s, I found
that my dream of paving the way for a new era of social justice ran
headlong into the wall of austere tradition. This tension between
purpose and precedent replayed
daily in the classroom
during my law school years.
I often found myself
frustrated and infuriated
by case law and Socratic
dialogue, which instructed
that “thinking like a lawyer” meant looking backward rather than
forward, following authority
rather than pursuing innovation, and promoting
predictability rather than solving problems. Nonetheless, I absorbed the
message that, as lawyers, we would be expected to
find solutions for the world’s
most intractable problems. Alongside its constraining energy, my
relationship with the law would put me in positions requiring that I “think
outside of the box.”
In practice, I continued to grapple with these contradictions. Legal reasoning and adversary process proved simultaneously necessary and limiting, just as collaboration and problem solving got me only so far. As a litigator, I was continually buffeted by the need to fight while cooperating—as part of conducting discovery, orchestrating a trial, or settling a case. As an assistant to a master in a prison case, I witnessed the court’s power to force prison officials to pay attention to inhumane and abusive conditions that they had tolerated without consequence until the court intervened. Yet, the court could not induce the cooperation and commitment necessary for sustainable change; the force of law that put prison reform in the spotlight also triggered backlash and resistance that undercut its power.1
Now, as a law professor, I experience these contradictions daily as I teach Civil Procedure alongside a new course called Lawyer Leadership: Leading Self, Leading Others, Leading Change. Both courses aim to equip students with capacities fundamental to lawyers’ roles in enabling constructive human interaction. Yet, on their face, they seem to require opposing capacities, and to cultivate competing mindsets. I have witnessed this disconnect firsthand during an exercise we conduct on the first day of class in Lawyer Leadership. We divide students into small groups and ask each group to list the qualities or descriptors that came to mind when they thought of the word “lawyer.” We then ask them to do the same with the word “leadership.” When we come back together, we ask students what they noticed about the “Lawyer-Leadership” lists generated by each group. Students typically describe lawyers as “competitive,” “aggressive,” “critical,” “adversarial,” “hard-working,” and “risk-averse.” In contrast, the column for leaders contains descriptors such as “creative,” “entrepreneurial,” “visionary,” “inspiring,” and “collaborative.” It doesn’t take long for an observant student to notice that there is virtually no overlap in their “lawyer” and “leader” descriptors.
I have come to realize that lawyers’ capacity for impact depends upon
making sense of, and being able to
pursue simultaneously, these oppositional aspects of lawyering and leadership.
These core roles and practices simultaneously contradict and depend on each
other for the legitimacy and effectiveness of both. Lawyers play a key role of
designing human interaction so that
diverse people can peacefully and effectively govern themselves. They bear
responsibility for helping individuals, organizations, and governments
structure their affairs so they can live and
work together, even when they disagree. They are called upon to be
problem solvers and facilitators of human interaction. When these relationships
break down, however, law—through lawyers—enforces rules and enables people to
fight without resorting to violence, using adversarial tools to allocate
responsibility, impose judgment, and enforce rules. Effective lawyers must both fight and collaborate,
judge and build trust, debate and design new
institutions, minimize risk and enable effective risk taking, advance
clients’ values and hold clients accountable for adhering to societal values.
The prevailing strategy for promoting the practices falling under the umbrella of leadership alongside lawyering could be called “add and stir.” Much of the literature either explicitly or implicitly assumes that, with adequate commitment, leadership learning can be added into the law school curriculum as supplements or complementary competencies. A case in point is a report issued by Ben Heineman, William Lee, and David Wilkins, in which the co- authors urge that lawyers “be equipped with a broad range of ‘complementary competencies’ that supplement and expand the ‘core’ competencies of legal reasoning and analysis that have been traditionally taught in law school and emphasized in legal practice.”2
complementarity argument goes something like this: The current law school
curriculum (and the accompanying pedagogy) emphasizing the development of legal
analytical skills remains valid, and should remain at the center of the law
school curriculum and pedagogy. It is, however, too narrow. It does not
adequately equip students to navigate the leadership challenges they will face
in their multiple roles, to take up the leadership that society calls upon
lawyers to exercise, and to do so at a time of increasing volatility,
complexity, and urgency.
learning can be added to the prevailing pedagogy to meet these needs because
the skills associated with learning leadership are compatible with, or at least
not opposed to, those involved in learning how to “think like a lawyer” in the
traditional sense of what that means. Leadership learning thus can and should
simply be added onto learning to operate in lawyers’ more conventional
I share many of the assumptions underlying this complementarity strategy. Legal analysis is a core legal competency that must remain a pillar of the law school curriculum. The importance of finding a way for law schools to pursue both prongs of lawyer leadership, a move that Robert Cullen calls conjunctive, seems beyond serious dispute.3 I also share the assumption, both stated and unstated, that successful incorporation of leadership into the law school curriculum must take account of the norms, values, and commitments that lie at the heart of traditional legal education.
Nonetheless, the simple strategy of complementarity will not, in my view, work. It sidesteps fundamental ways that legal education geared toward cultivating conventional legal skills necessarily operates in tension with—and sometimes in opposition to—the kind of learning that must take place to cultivate leadership. The capacities and mindset celebrated in the Socratic classroom—judgment, critique, risk minimization, reasoning from precedent—take on the character in the leadership literature of limitations to be overcome or minimized. The tendency to downplay these tensions and contradictions, though not surprising, underappreciates both the necessity and opportunity presented by facing up to them. Unless these tensions are addressed, features of legal education operating within the conventional paradigm are likely to marginalize and undercut the efforts to build leadership capacities.
I come to believe that the concept of paradox holds a key to navigating these contradictory yet linked aspects of lawyer leadership. A paradox is a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.4 A growing body of organizational and change literature offers insights into both how paradoxes operate and how they can operate virtuously rather than as a vicious cycle. By definition, paradoxes cannot be resolved or eliminated; their self-referential and cycling quality is what makes them a paradox.
In key respects, the contradictory yet interdependent elements of law and leadership are built into law’s structure, role, and practice. At the level of structure, formal and informal constitutions (such as contracts) set up law both to provide structures and processes enabling people to interact, cooperate, and make decisions, on the one hand, and to enable people to fight without violence and to abide by decisions that will be backed by force, on the other. Lawyers sit at the cusp of these paradoxical functions.5
These tensions also inhere at the level of role. Lawyers are called upon to build, design, enable cooperation and collaboration, “constitute” governments, contracts, relationships, and transactions (in the constitution, in deals, in house, and in alternative dispute resolution). They must simultaneously be ready to fight on behalf of clients, to be the stewards of the adversary process, and to discipline the exercise of the violence of the state. These roles are in tension. They are also interdependent. Lawyers cannot conduct a trial without both cooperating and fighting. They cannot steward an effective deal without both minimizing and facilitating risk taking.
Finally, the practices required for lawyer leadership are themselves paradoxical. Conventional lawyering and leadership will sometimes require competing mindsets, skills, and practices. Lawyers have to judge while they also listen, enable, and empathize. They have to create the conditions for growth and learning, even as they set up the processes to locate or cabin legal responsibility. They have to be in a creative mindset even as they facilitate compliance and reactive risk avoidance.
The tensions that manifest in the relationship between conventional
lawyering and leadership lie at the heart of what makes lawyers distinctive,
necessary, and potentially effective in leadership roles. The most successful
and impactful lawyers live in these tensions. The role of law and lawyers
fundamentally involves the capacity to combine these contradictory modes of
thinking, acting, and interacting. This capacity to hold paradox may be what
equips lawyers to exercise truly effective leadership. When lawyers without
this capacity occupy leadership roles, that deficit may help us understand the
spectacular failures that unfold when they get stuck on one side or the other
of the paradox. The challenge facing law schools is to figure out how to build
that tension—and the capacity to manage it—into their practices and cultures.
This Essay argues for naming the tensions between lawyering and leadership, reframing them as paradoxes, embracing those paradoxes as challenging but necessary, and engaging law schools and the legal profession in building capacity to navigate these contradictory yet interdependent situations. Section I lays out the conceptions of lawyering and leadership that conflict, and providing some background on the meaning of paradox. Section II explores the aspects of legality that operate in tension with leadership, and what makes those tensions paradoxical. I identify six paradoxes of lawyer leadership—dualities that contradict one another, give rise to, and affect how lawyers will experience leadership learning: (1) reasoning paradoxes, (2) discourse paradoxes, (3) relationship paradoxes, (4) motivation paradoxes, (5) mindset paradoxes, and (6) justice paradoxes. Section III shows the limitations of prevailing strategies for reconciling the contradictions between legality and leadership. Finally, drawing on action research and the literature of paradox and organizational change, Section IV offers a framework for taking a paradoxical approach to lawyer leadership, one that differentiates between problems that can be solved and paradoxes that must be embraced. This approach offers three overarching strategies for enabling law students, law schools, and legal organizations to hold contradictory messages and mindsets, and for using this paradoxical approach to strengthen and deepen leadership capacity in lawyers and the capacity to build leadership across-the-board.
Lawyers are leaders. What’s new about that? Not much.
Lawyers have always served as leaders in many different forms and ways. Those include formal business leadership
(e.g., President, Chairman), service (e.g., Mayor, Governor, Reverend), and leadership
that arises not from title or position but from persuasion, whether moral,
ethical, political, or intellectual. Despite the pervasiveness of leadership
roles and expectations for lawyers, legal education did not – at least on the
surface – purport to include leadership development as an area of its
curriculum until relatively recently.
Indeed, only a decade ago when I asked my faculty to consider adding
leadership education as a strong theme of our curriculum, the most common
response was “that’s for the business school.”
Today, however – and fortunately in
my view — legal education is taking leadership education seriously. Not only are there many examples of
outstanding law and leadership programs in our nation’s law schools, but that
groundswell has enabled the formation of this new AALS Section on Law and
Leadership. It was an honor to
participate in its first program at the 2019 AALS Annual Meeting, and I’m
pleased to share here a summary and some additional thoughts on the topic. To keep it short for this column, I’m
organizing my points into something “old,” something “new,” something
“borrowed,” and – bear with me – something “red and blue.”
As noted above, it is not a new insight that lawyers serve as leaders in many capacities, both formal and informal. As legal education increasingly embraces leadership skills as ones that can and should be taught as part of the law school curriculum, it is important to recognize that many elements of leadership education have always been part of legal education, even though they may not have been explicitly called out as such. Combining the “old” with the “new” can help us be more efficient in delivering maximum value to our students by not unnecessarily repeating something under a new name that is already being covered. Thus, for instance, law schools already do a good job in several key areas of focus for leadership education, including honing “difficult conversation” skills, nurturing the ability to lean into ambiguity, inspiring reflection on values and ethics, and cultivating the ability to “see around corners.” Understanding these as leadership skills makes it easy to see why law-educated individuals are often so successful as leaders. Imagine how much more we can add to our students’ leadership capacities by building on this solid platform with intentionality.
While we are not starting from
scratch in developing leadership education in law, there is a great deal that
we still need to add. Legal education
has always been more about the “head” than the “heart,” and leadership
education at its best blends both. That
is not to say that there are not currently elements of legal education that
engage the whole person (kudos to our nation’s clinical programs!), but that
has not been the norm to date. In my
view, the high levels of depression and other emotional struggles in the legal
profession are symptoms of this disconnect.
Likewise, just as legal education has not nurtured care for own hearts,
it has not nurtured care for others’ hearts either. Effective leadership requires engaging with
others emotionally as well as cognitively.
Leaders are often called upon to manage changes in which the largest
obstacles are emotions of loss and fear. Change management is growing as an
important area of focus for the legal profession, and thus an important
dimension of legal education. As many
forces continue to reshape legal services and legal education, and challenges
to the rule of law proliferate both at home and abroad, the capacity for
leadership in our profession and in our world has never been more important.
The something borrowed example picks up on my former faculty’s early resistance to teaching leadership in the law school – business schools have been doing this for a long time. In my view, that is no reason for us not to do it; after all, why should we prepare our business titans to be leaders but not our legal titans? But it does mean that we need not start from scratch. In business, as well as in leading schools of public policy, there are many outstanding examples of teaching and scholarly resources on leadership. That does not mean that we need to rely on every new trade book promising the next great secret to effective leadership. But just because a business book is more mainstream doesn’t mean that it should be dismissed as a potentially helpful resource for leadership education in law. Business academics have far outpaced legal academics in moving their ideas into the mainstream (consider the visibility and impact of the Harvard Business Review vis-à-vis the Harvard Law Review). I will save for another day some of my own favorites in the field, but why not walk over to your business school to collaborate with and borrow from the faculty there who teach leadership?
Something (Red and) Blue
As legal educators, our job is to
nurture the leaders who will advance the rule of law and build the future of
justice. What surprises me most in
hearing objections to teaching leadership as part of legal education is that it
is a partisan initiative — both directions!
Some objections are that a focus on leadership might be seen as “too
corporate” or “too militaristic” and thus off-putting to law students who see
themselves as champions for justice. Further,
that because structural inequities mean that women, women and men of color, and
others are often excluded from leadership roles, a focus on leadership might
reinforce these existing inequities. A
focus on leadership education might tilt legal education more to the right than
those who hold these views are comfortable with. Others object from the opposite standpoint; for
instance, that adding leadership to legal education is another example of
“diluting” the curriculum with “soft” skills that undermine legal education’s
rigor and tilt it “left.”
Leadership, for good and for ill,
does not have a political party. What is
most important in thinking about educating leaders is that we ask “leadership
for and toward what?” If we take the
most common definition of leadership as “having influence,” then we know that
influence can flow in many directions.
The promise of being more intentional about teaching leadership is that
to do so requires that we focus not only on skills but also on values. Legal education should focus more on the hard
questions of what it means to defend and promote the rule of law and what we
want the future of justice to be in our world.
Yes, these may bring forth a need for those “difficult conversation”
skills, but these are conversations worth inspiring and worth having. Indeed, without them, we risk a world that Grant
Gilmore so famously warned of: “In hell there will be nothing but law and due
process will be meticulously observed.”
I know we can build a better world than that, and I believe adding
leadership to legal education will help.
Stephen Bright will speak on “Leadership in Times of Challenge” followed by a panel discussion, Saturday January 5, 2019, 8:30 – 10:15 am.
In no other country do lawyers play as important a leadership role as in the United States. A majority of American presidents have been lawyers, and they dominate in legislatures, government, and non-profit positions. A significant number also become corporate leaders; Stanford Law School alum Brad Smith recently became president of Microsoft after a stint as general counsel. In our local communities, lawyers are often the ones who manage the PTA, or lead neighborhood committees. Yet much of the American public distrusts lawyers and lawyers themselves receive almost no formal education in how to lead. As Center Director Professor Deborah Rhode noted in her recent book, Lawyers as Leaders,“The focus of legal education and the reward structure of legal practice undervalues interpersonal capabilities and ethical commitments that are necessary for successful leadership.” In law schools, although we have expanded the curriculum to include clinical and experiential approaches, we have not focused on developing a structured and disciplined approach to developing leadership skills. The Center’s newly launched leadership initiative hopes to change this at Stanford Law School and set an example for other institutions.
The need for leadership development for lawyers both within and beyond law school is particularly strong in light of two trends in the profession. One is the continued and increasing importance of law and regulation in a swiftly globalizing, information-driven world. International, national, and local laws interact with each other and with each of us in more direct and complicated ways. The role of the lawyer continues to expand in tandem with global and technological developments as the world looks to lawyers to structure these new interactions. Cybersecurity is one example of a new and rapidly changing issue with dramatic international, national, and personal ramifications that requires legal attention. A second trend involves the continued blurring of the line between business and the profession. The in-house bar is growing and today’s in-house counsel is expected to perform in ways beyond traditional legal knowledge and tasks and is expected to contribute actively to the business and strategy decisions of the company. Lawyers in non-profit leadership roles play a similar role.
Leadership education can contribute in a significant way to these expanded legal responsibilities. As Rhode notes, “Formal leadership programs can increase individuals’ understanding of how to exercise influence and what cognitive biases, interpersonal responses, and organizational dynamics can sabotage effectiveness.” Leadership programs can also reinforce ethical leadership through case studies and simulations. The Center’s leadership initiative will address all of these potential avenues of professional development.
The first effort of the leadership initiative is the Lawyers as Leaders speaker series. By bringing to the campus diverse examples of successful lawyer leaders, we seek to expose the students to a more complete picture of leadership possibilities and the challenges that they entail.
The series kicked off this spring with an inaugural speech by Stephen Bright, the President and Senior Counsel of the Southern Center for Human Rights (“SCHR”). Bright’s leadership has not only guided the growth of SCHR through its legal battles (most recently successfully litigating the Foster v. Chapman death penalty case before the Supreme Court). It has also shaped social and policy advocacy movements around capital punishment, prison reform, and effective legal representation for indigent criminal defendants throughout the country. Bright explained lawyers’ outsized representation in the leadership arena as follows: “Lawyers have knowledge. They know something about the law and they know how the legal system works, and of course, the legal system affects every aspect of our society, life and liberty, who has custody of children, whether people are evicted from their home, every kind of the most fundamental things you can think of….” He stressed the importance of leaders who start from the “trenches,” close to the “pain and suffering that is going on” so that real understandings of the problems can guide legal and policy advocacy. He recalled his first years as a lawyer working for the Appalachian Research and Defense Fund (“AppalReD”), as fundamental to setting his course on advocacy for those “who need us desperately.”
Bright identified certain qualities as essential to successful leadership of social justice movements, particularly a deep knowledge of those whom you seek to serve and the factors affecting their lives, an ability to build a team of smart and committed people and to allow them to do their work without interference, and to be unafraid to seek help from others who know more than you do. To an observer, his speech was remarkable for lack of ego and focus on the importance of others to his success. He spoke about the significance of his original mentor Jon Rosenberg at AppalRed, his team at SCHR, the younger lawyers, and particularly the support staff. He spoke very little about his own role in the organization and in fact cautioned against the “cult of personality” that can grow around an inspiring leader.
And yet his speech distilled his singular and personal commitment to the people whom he serves and the issues to which he has dedicated his life. The stories of Bright’s work are shocking, horrifying, and demoralizing: the man whose elderly mother died of starvation while he was held in jail before trial because he could not afford bail; the death row inmate whose case was denied cert and whose lawyers informed him that he would be executed through an impersonal letter; and the legions of black men in prison or sentenced to death with little or no adequate legal representation. When asked how he has kept his energy and focus on these very challenging and emotionally draining issues for so long, he responded simply, “Outrage. Every day, everything I see going on in these cases is simply outrageous.”
It is with great pride, pleasure, and appreciation that I welcome readers to this first newsletter of the newly inaugurated AALS Section on Leadership. As you all know, it is a shameful irony that the occupation that produces the greatest number of American leaders has done so little to effectively and intentionally prepare them for that role. Although the legal profession accounts for only about .4 percent of the population, it has supplied a majority of American presidents, and innumerable leaders throughout the public and private sector. Few of these individuals receive any formal leadership training in law schools. This section marks a commitment to do better, and I am enormously grateful to all who have made it possible, particularly our superb executive committee Douglas Blaze, David Gibbs, Rachel Moran, and Chair Elect Leah Jackson Teague.
The section is an outgrowth of a series of symposia, conferences, and informal gatherings at the AALS annual meeting for those interested in teaching, research, and programmatic ideas in the field. Over a 150 legal academics are now members of the section, and our hope is to expand that membership through the kind of activities described in this newsletter. We all have much to learn from each other, and the section leadership welcomes your ideas for how to enlist and engage faculty and communicate with broader audiences.
We confront a number of challenges. Part of the problem is that the field has only recently emerged, and its reputation has been tarnished by pop publications, which I have elsewhere labeled “leadership lite, ” such as Leadership Secrets from Attila the Hun, and Toy Box Leadership; Leadership Lessons from the Toys You Loved as a Child. A related problem is that to many lawyers, law students, and law professors, the subject seems somewhat squishy– a “touchy feely” curricular “frill,” unlike the more doctrinal courses tested on bar exams. But what that latter objection ignores is a wide array of research indicating that effective leadership requires so- called “soft skills,” particularly those demanding personal and interpersonal skills such as self-awareness and emotional intelligence. And by training and temperament, these are not the skills in which lawyers and law students excel; for many “the soft stuff is the hard stuff.” And a wide variety of research suggest that that law schools can help students develop some of those capacities, such as decision-making, influence, communication, and conflict management.
A related challenge is that many students are reluctant to advertise an interest in leadership. The term seems to conjure up visions of high school student body presidents or overreaching politicians desperate for power and adulation. Yet many law students who are reluctant to out themselves as ambitious will inevitably exercise leadership, if not as heads of organizations, then heads of teams, committees, task forces, and charitable initiatives. When I was a law student, I never thought of myself as a potential leader and would never have taken a leadership course. But I would have surely have benefited from one, and I deeply regret that I did not know earlier some of what I know now.
Leadership education can also inspire future lawyers to be life-long learners, to recognize the skills that they will need, and to become reflective about their own capacities, limitations, and aspirations. And perhaps most importantly, law school initiatives can encourage students to think more deeply about what they want leadership for. Positions of influence offer many rewards, but those that are most fulfilling are generally not the perks of power, money, and status that individuals often covet. Research consistently finds that satisfaction generally depends most on other, intrinsic factors, such as feeling effective, exercising strengths and virtues, and contributing to socially valued ends that bring meaning and purpose.
As law professors, we have enormous opportunities, and I believe, corresponding obligations to equip future leaders to meet the complex challenges facing our nation and our world. In the final analysis, the question is not whether law schools should prepare students for leadership. Law schools already are developing leaders; they are just not doing it as effectively as they should. We owe it to our students and our communities to do better. I am deeply grateful to all of you who have joined the section to help us become more effective in that mission.
The Leadership Section of the Association of American Law Schools, together with Santa Clara University Law School and the Santa Clara Law Review, held a major conference on advancing leadership education and development in the legal profession. The conference featured presentations by the President of the American Bar Association and leadership experts Deborah Rhode, Stanford Law School, and Barry Posner, Leavey School of Business at Santa Clara University. The conference was held on March 23, 2018, in Santa Clara Law’s new 96,000 square foot building, Charney Hall, and attracted more than 100 lawyers, judges, law students and leadership education training experts.
The conference was the result of almost one year of discussion and planning led Donald Polden, Professor and Dean Emeritus which included Santa Clara Law School faculty and students and several law school educators who helped create the AALS’s new Section on Leadership, including Deborah Rhode, Leah Jackson Teague, David Gibbs and Douglas Blaze. The planning group identified and invited many of the leading educators on leadership development in American law school, law firm lawyers and professionals responsible for developing leadership in lawyers, and leadership experts who worked with lawyers and law firms on leadership skills. For a link to information about the symposium including photographs, the agenda, course syllabi, and other materials, please go to law.scu.edu/leadership
Throughout the day long conference, speakers addressed key leadership issues and challenges facing several groups within the legal profession. Hilarie Bass, a partner in the national law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP and current President of the American Bar Association, gave the opening keynote address. She discussed the significant challenges facing lawyers and the legal profession in today’s global, technology driven law practice and the important initiatives by her and the ABA to address many of those challenges. Clearly and forcibly addressing the challenges facing the legal profession and the ABA requires great leadership.
A second morning session keynote address was given by leadership guru, Barry Posner, co-author of The Leadership Challenge books and training materials and his former student Ausra Deluard, an associate at Jones Day LLP office in San Francisco, and herself a leadership educator. Posner and Deluard discussed the importance of leadership education in many fields, including law, and described the practices of exemplary leadership that permit leaders to do extraordinary things within and for their organizations.
Deborah Rhode, the first chair of the Section on Leadership, directs the Center for the Legal Profession and the Program in Law & Social Entrepreneurship at Stanford’s law school, and she presented the third keynote address of the conference. Professor Rhode spoke about the critical role of legal education and law firms in educating for leadership during times where firms and individuals experience conditions of stresses and challenge. She also provided an overview of the development of leadership courses training in the law schools and in the legal profession.
Santa Clara’s Dean Lisa Kloppenberg moderated a panel of exceptional leaders and leadership development experts, including Dorian Daley, VP and General Counsel of Oracle Corporation, Olga Mack, a former GC and Organizer and Curator at TEDxEmerald Glen Park, Dean Thomas Romig, Dean at Washburn University School of Law and former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Army, Dr. Lori Berman, Director of Professional Development at Hogan Lovells, USA, LLP in Washington DC, and Dr. Roland Smith, formerly at the Center for Creative Leadership and Group Head of Leadership Strategy and Development at Interglobe Enterprises. The panel discuss several key issues concerning the importance of leadership to various legal and law related organizations and how they development and demonstrated leadership during their careers.
The symposium also featured several panels of law faculty members who are teaching leadership courses in American law schools or who have developed leadership programs and activities for law students and lawyers. The speakers discussed their ideas and research on leadership for lawyer subjects and several described articles they have prepared for a summer 2018 issue of the Santa Clara Law Review on leadership for lawyers. According to Professor Donald Polden, who helped organize the conference, “the symposium attracted the top legal educators and lawyer-leaders in the country to discuss the challenges facing the legal profession and legal education and we heard some meaningful solutions to those problems. Lawyers, judges and educators will benefit immeasurably from the forthcoming articles published by our law review.” The academic speakers included:
Douglas Blaze, Tennessee
Louis Bilionis, Cincinnati
Rachel Moran, UCLA
Donald Polden, Santa Clara
Neil Hamilton, St Thomas (MN)
David Gibbs, Roger Williams
Robert Cullen, Santa Clara
Leah Jackson Teague, Baylor
Maura DeMouy, Georgetown
Michael Colatrella, Jr., McGeorge (Pacific)
Rebecca Lee, Thomas Jefferson
The Conference resulted in a number of insightful articles by the following distinguished authors which thanks to the assistance of the Santa Clara Law Review can be accessed at the following portal. Please note the articles are in draft form pending final editing and should not be cited until they are final form which will be noted. The articles can be accessed at this link.
Donald Polden, Lawyers, Leadership, and Innovation Barry Posner, Leadership Development in Law Schools: Myths, Principles, And Practices Deborah Rhode, Preparing Leaders: The Evolution of a Field and The Stresses of Leadership R. Lisle Baker, Character and Fitness for Leadership: Learning Interpersonal Skills Louis Bilionis, Law School Leadership and Leadership Development for Developing Lawyers Douglas Blaze, Law Student Motivation, Satisfaction, And Well-Being: The Value of a Leadership and Professional Development Curriculum Neil Hamilton, Leadership of Self: Each Student Taking Ownership Over Continuous Professional Development/Self-Directed Learning Leah Teague, Training Lawyers for Leadership: Vitally Important Mission for The Future Success (And Maybe Survival) Of the Legal Profession and Our Democracy Rachel Moran, The Three Ages Of Modern American Lawyering And The Current Crisis In The Legal Profession And Legal Education
The Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession, a research organization dedicated to studying the global legal profession led by Professor David B. Wilkins, recently hosted a series of events in the Bay Area to celebrate leading innovators in the law as well as to discuss the Center’s new research project on how legal organizations “operationalize innovation.”
On June 14, the Center hosted its Fourth Annual Awards Dinner: Innovation and the Future of Work in San Francisco where, 180 leading lawyers, academics, and policymakers gathered to celebrate three pioneers in the field of legal innovation: Kate Adams, SVP and General Counsel of Apple Inc., who received the Center’s Award for Global Leadership, and Kim Rivera, Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of HP Inc., and Mark Harris, Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of Axiom Global, Inc., who both received the Center’s Award for Professional Excellence. At the dinner, Professor Wilkins also released preliminary findings from a study on the emergence of innovation officers within law firms and in-house legal departments. The data offered a snapshot of the career and professional backgrounds of leaders occupying these increasingly common and important roles, as well as examples of how legal organizations define and operationalize innovation, including key sources of support and resistance. On the project Wilkins comments, “While innovation is often talked about in theory, the Center is focused on understanding it from the bottom-up based on how it is operationalized in practice. Core to this process are increasingly empowered legal operation professionals within companies and chief innovation officers at law firms.” Results from the survey will be published this fall in the Center’s digital magazine, The Practice.
To further examine what innovation means in practice, on June 15-16, the Center hosted a Colloquium on Operationalizing Innovation on Google’s main campus in Mountain, CA. The event brought together approximately 80 innovation leaders from around the world, half from law firms and half from in-house legal departments, to engage in a series of in-depth workshops around two topics central to operationalizing innovation: career paths in innovation, and the formation and implementation of quality metrics. Facilitated by Professor Wilkins and Rochael Soper Adranly, the general counsel and legal design lead of IDEO, participants were lead through an intensive series of interactive “design thinking” session aimed at addressing questions such as: How might we design an innovation career path that attracts and retains top talent? How can legal organizations incentivize innovation work? How might firms and companies work together to develop mutually agreeable, objective metrics to measure the “quality” of legal services? At the end of the Colloquium, participants committed to taking at least one of the ideas generated over the two days – artfully recorded during brainstorming sessions on colorful post-it notes stuck to the walls as is common in design thinking sessions—and work on it over the next year. The Center is tracking their progress on these new initiatives through an Operationalizing Innovation Leadership Group and will host another Colloquium next spring where participants will report on their experiences. To learn more or to get involved, email the Center’s research director Bryon Fong at email@example.com
Each Issue of the Leadership Newsletter will feature an innovative leadership program at a law school.
Leah Teague, Associate Dean and Professor of Law
Stephen Rispoli, Assistant Dean of Student Affairs and Pro Bono Programs
Baylor Law’s mission statement expresses an “obligation to develop students who have the character, maturity, skills, and values needed to assume leadership positions.” Leadership development has always been a core component of the education and training of every Baylor Law student. From the emphasis on service during the first day of orientation through our rigorous third-year, six-month, required Practice Court program, Baylor Law faculty strive to develop individuals who will be prepared for the challenges of the legal profession. While leadership training is part of the fabric of Baylor Law, the Leadership Development Program was created to: (1) more intentionally equip our graduates with the leadership skills they will need to be successful in an increasingly-complex and ever-changing environment; and (2) emphasize their obligation to serve and encourage them to seek opportunities to use their legal training in leadership roles across a wide spectrum of organizations within their communities and within the legal profession.
The Leadership Development Program has four major components: (1) an elective Leadership Development course; (2) a variety of leadership development programs offered throughout the year; (3) a student organization call Leadership and Engagement Development (LEAD) Counsel; and (4) a Leadership Fellow designation at graduation for a select few students who complete the requirements listed in section 4 below.
Elective Leadership Development Course
Leadership Engagement and Development (LEAD) course is a two-credit hour course created to better prepare students for the professional challenges they will face in the practice of law and the leadership opportunities they will encounter as they actively engage in their communities. Topics include leadership styles and strategies, personality assessments, public service and professional responsibilities, leadership opportunities for lawyers, working in teams, and leadership in law firms. Students complete several self-assessment and formation tools to address their strengths and weaknesses. Through introspective tools and other team-building exercises students address leadership challenges, ethical quandaries, and tactical decision-making techniques. Using case studies, students discuss leadership lessons learned by experienced leaders through challenging circumstances.The primary book used is Deborah Rhode’s Lawyers as Leaders. It is well written and covers leadership from a lawyer’s perspective. We supplement this reading with recent news articles, journal articles, lawyer organization articles, and experiential exercises. Although not written for a lawyer audience, How to Lead When You’re Not in Charge, written by Clay Scroggins, is referenced throughout the course as an optional book. The practical tips and common scenarios discussed in this book are appealing to young professionals struggling to figure out how they can be leaders. Both books include thought-provoking discussions and reinforce the premise that leadership is a frame of mind and not a position.
The course is pass/fail with an emphasis on active and experiential learning, writing, feedback and reflection. Each student writes a review of a leadership book and presents their plan for implementing one or more of the ideas in their own leadership journey. After each class, students respond in their journals to assigned prompts, which are based upon class materials or discussions. The journals are kept online in Box files created for each student, which also allows us access. By reading their entries as the term proceeds, we are able to monitor their progress and adapt our coverage and discussions based upon their reflections on the exercises, activities, guest lectures and assignments. Here are a few examples of journal entries from the class:The course is pass/fail with an emphasis on active and experiential learning, writing, feedback and reflection. Each student writes a review of a leadership book and presents their plan for implementing one or more of the ideas in their own leadership journey. After each class, students respond in their journals to assigned prompts, which are based upon class materials or discussions. The journals are kept online in Box files created for each student, which also allows us access. By reading their entries as the term proceeds, we are able to monitor their progress and adapt our coverage and discussions based upon their reflections on the exercises, activities, guest lectures and assignments. Here are a few examples of journal entries from the class:
Whenever we started the class, I found myself always wondering in what context I would apply all of the leadership principles we were learning. However, I have realized that I can apply the lessons that we have learned in my future job, as my personal life, and in the future leadership roles I will hold even though I’m not sure what they will be. I think once I quit focusing on which capacity I could apply these leadership principles in it help me just listen and learn the principles themselves, and hear how other successful people implemented them in their own lives. I do think self-awareness of my own leadership style is important but more importantly I think that I have become more aware of how others operate.
After taking time to think about this, I kept coming back to the thought that leadership is a much deeper and wider topic than I ever suspected or realized. There are so many facets to learning about leadership and I feel like our class is only scratching the surface (of course, which is its intent). Another thought I kept coming back to is the idea that we all have different natural leadership styles and we can work to develop the styles that don’t necessarily come as naturally to us as well as refine the styles that are more natural. I guess before this class and before really looking at leadership as a topic to study, I just presumed that we did not have the power to change that, but I’m glad I have now learned otherwise.
I want to be more intentional about encouraging people in my life. I need to work on get out of my own head, and taking the time to connect with other students more. Additionally, I tend to be very hard on myself. I need to encourage myself more. I think a way to do this is to take time reflecting on things I did well on a particular day. The challenge course taught me that I need to live life with intention. Whatever it is that I am doing, I need to know what I am trying to achieve. As [one speaker] said, “do you know your job? Are you sure?” I want to be more intentional about defining what it is exactly that I need to do and how I will do it. By breaking tasks down to more manageable pieces will make those bigger, long-term goals more achievable. […] I honestly think this class helped remind me of who I am/ who I want to be. It helped me to regain some confidence in my identity. Helped me recognize some of my personal strengths and given me tools on how to improve other aspects of my life.
I think this class has helped me learn about different ways I can make a difference. This school discusses a lot about service. I have always viewed service leadership as doing “hands-on” activities with those in need. We have met a lot of different speaks and learned a lot more about both of you. I think the numerous lessons in this class have helped me truly learn what it means to be a part of service leadership. […] I think this class provided us with a more in-depth look at HOW leaders effectuate their leadership. We always hear about so many leaders who talk about what an effective leader is: selfless, caring, affiliative, etc. There are very few classes, courses, or lectures, that focus on HOW be a leader. We discuss that extensively in this class!
The LEAD class has been an incredible experience for both of us. Not only have we learned more about our students (even the ones we thought we knew well!), but we have also learned a great deal about ourselves. It is wonderful to watch our students grow during the process, and we love hearing stories after they graduate. For anyone that would like to see the syllabus, you can access it here: https://baylor.box.com/s/fmhp5dj7ibubcp1tlq8mq4jmalrqcfya.
Leadership Development Sessions of the Professional Development Program
Leadership development programming is a regular component of Baylor Law’s first-of-its-kind, required Professional Development Program. Throughout their three academic years at Baylor Law, students must attend 18 hours of professional development programming that is designed to build the requisite skills to succeed in practice, while helping students understand and embrace the professional responsibilities that accompany it. The Leadership Development Program co-hosts at least one of the programs offered each academic term. Speakers for the leadership development programs are invited to address a variety of topics that help students identify their strengths, explore their interests, develop their career plan and connect with leaders. Speakers address professional competencies that enable students to step into complex situations, confidently assess the issues, think pragmatically, work creatively, operate collaboratively and deliver solutions. Students are exposed to leadership opportunities in a focused, intentional way which often produces “light-bulb moments.” By attending these sessions, students discover additional ways to use one’s legal skills and position of influence to impact lives, lead change and add significance to efforts.
LEAD Counsel Student Organization
Leadership, Engagement, and Development (LEAD) Counsel is a Baylor Law student organization organized to further the purposes of the Leadership Development Program. The LEAD Counsel mission is to equip and inspire law students to serve in the public arena, whether that be as officeholders, lobbyists, or leaders in the non-profit sector. Each year LEAD Counsel organizes an annual conference, call Making a Difference (MAD) Conference, for the purpose of engaging and inspiring law students and members of the legal profession to get involved in public life. Invited speakers are lawyers who serve and lead within their communities. Here are links to the first two MAD conferences: 2017 Inaugural Making a Difference Conference ; 2018 Passion for Justice. An annual service effortorganized in partnership with local civic leaders give Baylor Law students the opportunity to make a difference while in law school. LEAD Counsel also organizes other events such as a Seminar on Combating Human Trafficking.
Designation as Leadership Fellow
Many students enter law school with the desire to pursue leadership opportunities. We created a Leadership Fellowship designation to acknowledge the dedication of those few who are intentional during law school in seeking opportunities to become better equipped for those leadership opportunities. At graduation, these students are recognized for their commitment to using their law degree to serve not only their clients but also their communities to make a meaningful difference in society. Successful completion of the following requirements leads to a certificate and recognition at graduation as a Leadership Fellow.
Take the two-hour Leadership Engagement and Development (LEAD) class. With a maximum enrollment of twenty, priority is given to students participating in the Development Program;
Complete a personal development and team-building course, such as a Ropes Challenge Course which is currently required as part of the LEAD courses;
Complete twenty-three hours of Professional Development programming (instead of the 18 hours required of all Baylor Law students) with at least five hours designated as Leadership Development programming;
Serve as an officer of a Baylor Law student organization for a minimum of three quarters. While serving as an officer, the student must perform a minimum of 25 hours of service related to the activities of the organization;
Complete 25 hours of community service; and
Serve as an intern for a charitable or community organization’s director or management team, working a minimum of 45 hours. Alternatively, a student can work as an extern for a legislator (either state or federal level) for a minimum of 45 hours.
Through the Leadership Development Program, we seek to challenge our students to care about the well-being of those around them, to provide opportunities for our students to hone their professional competencies and to engage in a process of self-discovery and growth, and to encourage our students to pursue opportunities to serve the legal profession and their communities. By doing so, our desire is that we create servant leaders in all Baylor Lawyers.