Attorneys\u27 and Judges\u27 Needs for Continuing Legal Education on Mental Disability Law: Findings from a Survey

Attorneys leave law school with limited knowledge and skillsconcerning the issues that arise in mental disability law. Yetpsychiatrists and psychologists are appearing with increasingfrequency as witnesses in the nation\u27s courts, and more attorneysand judges can therefore expect to have to deal with testimony frommental health professionals. To our knowledge, this article is thefirst published assessment of practicing attorneys\u27 and judges\u27needs for continuing legal education (CLE) on mental disabilityissues. The 267 Dayton-area attorneys and 41 southwestern Ohio judgeswho responded to our mailed survey said that one-seventh of theircases raise issues related to mental health or mental disability.Most responders had not taken any law school courses that dealtwith mental disability issues; those who had said their courses wereonly modestly helpful. CLE was the attorneys\u27 and judges\u27principal source of information about mental disability law. Forpracticing attorneys, perceived need for CLE was related to therate at which psychological issues arose in their practices;practicing lawyers and judges were interested primarily in CLEtopics that related to the types of cases they handled or heard.Three-fourths of the attorneys and 95% of the judges said theywould probably or definitely attend locally offered CLE on at leastone subject. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that traditionallaw school course work relating to mental disability does not givefuture attorneys and judges the skills and knowledge necessary totheir practices (e.g., the ability to challenge expert witnesses);CLE might help remedy this deficiency. Legal educators should useour findings when thinking about law school course content andpostgraduate legal education

Attorneys\u27 and Judges\u27 Needs for Continuing Legal Education on Mental Disability Law: Findings from a Survey

Attorneys leave law school with limited knowledge and skillsconcerning the issues that arise in mental disability law. Yetpsychiatrists and psychologists are appearing with increasingfrequency as witnesses in the nation\u27s courts, and more attorneysand judges can therefore expect to have to deal with testimony frommental health professionals. To our knowledge, this article is thefirst published assessment of practicing attorneys\u27 and judges\u27needs for continuing legal education (CLE) on mental disabilityissues. The 267 Dayton-area attorneys and 41 southwestern Ohio judgeswho responded to our mailed survey said that one-seventh of theircases raise issues related to mental health or mental disability.Most responders had not taken any law school courses that dealtwith mental disability issues; those who had said their courses wereonly modestly helpful. CLE was the attorneys\u27 and judges\u27principal source of information about mental disability law. Forpracticing attorneys, perceived need for CLE was related to therate at which psychological issues arose in their practices;practicing lawyers and judges were interested primarily in CLEtopics that related to the types of cases they handled or heard.Three-fourths of the attorneys and 95% of the judges said theywould probably or definitely attend locally offered CLE on at leastone subject. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that traditionallaw school course work relating to mental disability does not givefuture attorneys and judges the skills and knowledge necessary totheir practices (e.g., the ability to challenge expert witnesses);CLE might help remedy this deficiency. Legal educators should useour findings when thinking about law school course content andpostgraduate legal education

"Courtroom Whoresv?-or Why Do Attorneys Call Us?: Findings from a Survey on Attorneys' Use of Mental Health Experts

Mental health professionals who serve as expert witnesses are repeatedly characterized as (in the words of one recent author) "Whores of the Court." However, scholars have published little systematically gathered data about why attorneys seek mental health opinions and the criteria they use for selecting experts. We investigated these issues using a mailed survey of attorneys and judges. A slight majority of attorney respondents had requested mental health professionals' opinion in the previous year. The most important factors in selecting experts were their knowledge, ability to communicate, and local reputation; national reputation and scholarly writings were least important. Forty-nine percent of the responding attorneys said that receiving a favorable opinion was a "very important" or "essential" consideration, although this did not necessarily mean they wanted a dishonest opinion. Our findings suggest that most forensic work is performed by mental health professionals who are chosen because of their knowledge, communication skills, and local reputations