The Professional Professor

Welcome to the Vanderbilt Law School and to this happy occasion in which we reflect on the life and career of Jonathan Charney. I say this is a happy occasion deliberately. There have been two months and a lot of tears since Jonathan died, and I know for many people here including me the loss is still deeply felt in expected and unexpected ways. But we are celebrating today, and we should be happy as we reflect on the extraordinary career and accomplishments and life of Jonathan Charney

Expert Report of Kent D. Syverud

Expert report from an educator with experience teaching many students in many settings; particular experience teaching the same subject matter to classes that are racially homogenous and racially heterogeneous, and to classes where non-white students make up a tiny fraction of the enrolled students and where their numbers are more significant

Introduction: Attorney Well-Being in Large Firms

It took courage for Professor Patrick Schiltz to write the article that opens this symposium issue of the Vanderbilt Law Review. At the Notre Dame Law School, where Professor Schiltz teaches, as at the Vanderbilt University Law School and all elite schools, most graduates go to work in private practice, most often at large law firms. Professor Schiltz\u27s portrayal of lawyers at such firms-as rich, overworked, unhappy, and often unethical--ought to be provocative and profoundly troubling to alumni at Vanderbilt and elsewhere. It will also be troubling to Deans, who struggle mightily each year to convince alumni to give money to their schools and to persuade aspiring students that the expense of a legal education is justified by the opportunities and quality of life a legal career affords. To take on alumni and deans at one blow-and in a readable law review article that will actually be read-takes courage, even for a tenured professor. Professor Schiltz\u27s article carries on an honored tradition of professorial critique of the practice of law. The transition from practice at a law firm to an academic career is a difficult one, and it often affords the law teacher much greater opportunity to reflect on law firm life than those who have remained in practice. For some, that reflection is bittersweet. The daily struggle that Professor Schiltz describes, of hard work and at times tedious assignments that are nevertheless regularly punctuated by ethical dilemmas, can be truly enervating, and can be missed

Taking Students Seriously: a Guide for New Law Teachers

This article was first published in the June 1993 issue of the Journal of Legal Education

Getting to No: A Study of Settlement Negotiations and the Selection of Cases for Trial

A trial is a failure. Although we celebrate it as the centerpiece of our system of justice, we know that trial is not only an uncommon method of resolving disputes, but a disfavored one. With some notable exceptions, lawyers, judges, and commentators agree that pretrial settlement is almost always cheaper, faster, and better than trial. Much of our civil procedure is justified by the desire to promote settlement and avoid trial. More important, the nature of our civil process drives parties to settle so as to avoid the costs, delays, and uncertainties of trial, and, in many cases, to agree upon terms that are beyond the power or competence of courts to dictate. These are powerful forces, and they produce settlement in a very high proportion of litigated disputes. Once in a while, however, the process fails and a case goes to trial. Why do these failures occur? One answer is obvious. For every trial, there is at least one person - an attorney, a client, a claims manager - who said no to a settlement. Who said no, and why? We asked lawyers and we received a wide range of answers: The client was stubborn ; The plaintiff wanted too much ; We didn\u27t think their case had any merit ; They just wouldn\u27t pay anything ; It was a family feud and a matter of pride ; and so on.4 Everyone seems to agree that these vetoes are not random, but a great deal more is needed to explain why few disputes are tried while the great majority are not

Going to Trial: A Rare Throw of the Die

If it is true, as we often hear, that we are one of the most litigious societies on earth, it is because of our propensity to sue, not our affinity for trials. Of the hundreds of thousands of civil lawsuits that are filed each year in America, the great majority are settled; of those that are not settled, most are ultimately dismissed by the plaintiffs or by the courts; only a few percent are tried to a jury or a judge. This is no accident. We prefer settlements and have designed a system of civil justice that embodies and expresses that preference in everything from the rules of procedure and evidence, to appellate opinions, to legal scholarship, to the daily work of our trial judges. Our culture portrays trial-especially trial by jury-as the quintessential dramatic instrument of justice. Our judicial system operates on a different premise: Trial is a disease, not generally fatal, but serious enough to be avoided at any reasonable cost

Why Civil Cases Go to Trial: Strategic Bargaining and the Desire for Vindication

When negotiations break down and a dispute cannot be settled, attorneys commonly blame their adversaries, often questioning their ethics or their judgment. After interviewing many attorneys, we have come to believe much of the criticism is directed at strategic moves in negotiation. But strategic ploys are not the only reason dispute resolution fails. Rather, our research also suggest that a genuine desire for vindication through trial or other formal process may be very significant in some types of cases where bargaining breaks down

Don\u27t Try: Civil Jury Verdicts in a System Geared to Settlement

If it is true, as we often hear, that we are one of the most litigious societies on earth, it is because of our propensity to sue, not our affinity for trials. Of the hundreds of thousands of civil lawsuits that are filed each year in America, the great majority are settled; of those that are not settled, most are ultimately dismissed by the plaintiffs or by the courts; only a few percent are tried to a jury or a judge. This is no accident. We prefer settlements and have designed a system of civil justice that embodies and expresses that preference in everything from the rules of procedure and evidence, to appellate opinions, to legal scholarship, to the daily work of our trial judges. Our culture portrays trial-especially trial by jury-as the quintessential dramatic instrument of justice. Our judicial system operates on a different premise: Trial is a disease, not generally fatal, but serious enough to be avoided at any reasonable cost

Don\u27t Try: Civil Jury Verdicts in a System Geared to Settlement

If it is true, as we often hear, that we are one of the most litigious societies on earth, it is because of our propensity to sue, not our affinity for trials. Of the hundreds of thousands of civil lawsuits that are filed each year in America, the great majority are settled; of those that are not settled, most are ultimately dismissed by the plaintiffs or by the courts; only a few percent are tried to a jury or a judge. This is no accident. We prefer settlements and have designed a system of civil justice that embodies and expresses that preference in everything from the rules of procedure and evidence, to appellate opinions, to legal scholarship, to the daily work of our trial judges. Our culture portrays trial-especially trial by jury-as the quintessential dramatic instrument of justice. Our judicial system operates on a different premise: Trial is a disease, not generally fatal, but serious enough to be avoided at any reasonable cost