Sloviter, Dolores Korman

English

Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository

A. LEO LEVIN: LAW PROFESSORDOLORES KORMAN SLOVITERtBefore Leo Levin was my neighbor, mentor, colleague, and friend,he was my law professor. During my three years at the University ofPennsylvania Law School, I was privileged to take classes taught by ap-proximately twenty-five law professors. I can tell you, in confidence, ifI were so inclined,' how I rated most of them on a scale of one to ten.But I could not tell you after one year, and I certainly cannot tell younow, almost forty-five years since my graduation, what I learned in anyof those classes-with one notable exception. And that exception issomething I learned one morning in Professor Levin's class and havebeen learning ever since.Law professors pride ourselves (I use the first person because I toowas once, long ago, among that privileged group) on understandingthat our primary goal is to teach the method of legal reasoning, notrules of law that are subject to alteration at the direction of legisla-tures orjudges. Legislatures come and go, and judges are not immor-tal. Thus, the rules of law that are the meat and potatoes of Bar ex-aminations are here one day and gone tomorrow-or, to be candid,gone as soon as one turns in that final Bar examination paper. Butlegal reasoning-the analytic probing that is the raison d'etre of theSocratic technique prevalent in law school teaching in my day-be-comes part of the lawyer's breathing in and breathing out, as thespouse or significant other of a lawyer trained during that period canattest.I barely remember the subjects that even the professors I wouldrate as "10"s taught, but I will never forget a lesson taught by ProfessorLevin. The course was second-year Evidence. Half of the class alreadywas acquainted with Professor Levin, as he had been one of the twoprofessors assigned to teach first-year Civil Procedure. I had heard ofhim and could recognize him in the halls of the Law School, but wehad not exchanged more than a nod or a smile, as I had been in theclass of the other Civil Procedure professor (also a "10").I did know something of Professor Levin's reputation-universally(1349)t Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.' I am not.1350 UNIVERS17TY OFPENNSYLVANIA LAWREVIEW [Vol. 148:1349considered to be a wise, decent, and considerate human being. Ilooked forward with eagerness to being in his Evidence class. Ithought nothing strange of the note on the bulletin board notifyingthe students that Professor Levin's Evidence class would meet on thefirst day in the one auditorium-type classroom then in the LawSchool.2 We assembled with a clear view of each other and the po-dium. Professor Levin strolled in, book in hand, in the accustomedmode of law professors. I can still see the scene, although some de-tails are gone from memory. For example, I can't remember if hetook the roll, but I do remember that we were not required to sit inalphabetical order as we had been during the first year. ProfessorLevin then began to talk to us in a very serious vein about evidence,with none of the jokes or lighthearted banter my classmates had toldme to expect. Instead, we were subjected to the beginning of a lec-ture on the different types of evidence, what we would have to thinkabout, what we would be expected to know...Suddenly, from a door on the side of the room emerged a smallman with dark hair who rushed up to Professor Levin and, in an an-guished plea spoken in a foreign accent, asked him and his class to va-cate the room, because "Professor Levin, I am supposed to be in thisroom." "Get out of here," replied the Professor sternly and pointedthe intruder towards the door. He then turned and said to the sur-prised class, "I know him, he's crazy," and he proceeded to continuewith the lecture as if nothing had happened.In a minute or two, or perhaps ten or fifteen, in strode the youngAssistant Dean of the Law School.4 The Assistant Dean was the man ofall chores and talents-part-time placement officer, brother, confes-sor, and the students' tie with the Law School's rules, regulations, andrequirements. And we felt he was part of our crowd. The AssistantDean, polite and deferential as always, walked up to Professor Levinand whispered something in his ear. "No!" replied Professor Levin ina harsh voice. "Ted, you're interrupting my class. We've had enoughof this." As the Assistant Dean walked off, the man with the foreignaccent ran back in, yelling "Professor Levin, I had reserved this room2 This was before the days when the school was the beneficiary of Myles Tannen-baum et al.3I will always remember with fondness Alan Kirk, who sat in front of me or next tome in every first-year class, as my last name was then Korman.' To understand the flavor of the event, you should know or remember that theadministrative staff of the Law School in those days consisted of Dean Fordham's secre-tary, Rae DiBlasi, the young Assistant Dean, and one other female clerk or secretary.A. LEO LEVWNfirst," and before we knew it, there was a scuffle. Then the man withthe foreign accent was out of the room, and Professor Levin remainedon the podium and again continued with the day's opening lecture asif nothing had happened.In another minute or two, or perhaps ten or fifteen, ProfessorLevin unexpectedly directed the class to take out a blank piece of pa-per and answer the questions that inevitably follow such a classic ex-periment: how tall was the man? (answers ranged from 5'5" to 6'2");how much did he weigh? (145 pounds to 190 pounds); what color washis hair? (you can imagine the range); what color was his tie? (blue,red, pink, to no tie at all); etc., and, of course, who pushed whomfirst? We handed in the papers, Professor Levin read out the answers,and we thought about what we had learned.For a long time I thought the lesson was that if we, who saw theevents from a prime vantage point with no obstructions and with nopersonal involvement, could not agree on the historical facts, theneven direct evidence was suspect, and circumstantial evidence, gener-ally deemed inferior, may indeed be more reliable. It is a lesson Ihave never forgotten, even though I regard with some suspicion theso-called expert witnesses introduced to tell us that a rape victim can-not reliably identify her attacker whose face was as close as inches.But later I realized that was not the lesson that Professor Levinhad intended. Instead, he taught us to question rules and receivedinformation. What is reliable evidence? Why is hearsay suspect?What conduct should be encouraged? Why? What are society's inter-ests in the issues? These are questions that remain timely and current.When Professor Levin retells the story of the experiment in ourEvidence class, he invariably includes as the punch line the fact thatDolores Korman handed in no paper. She failed as a witness. As soonas the going got tough on the podium, she put her head down in em-barrassment for the young Assistant Dean and could recount nothing.I have never questioned that interpretation until today. As I recon-sider, I now think that my concern was not really the Assistant Deanbut was Professor Levin-how out of character it was for this wise, gen-tie and considerate Professor to be harsh with a young colleague.Over the years, A. Leo Levin has taught in many arenas other thanlaw schools, and to many persons other than law students. As Found-ing Director of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy, he has taught20001 13511352 UNIVERS1TY OFPENNSYLVANIA LAWREVEW [Vol. 148:1349practicing lawyers how to litigate;5 as the Director of the Federal Judi-cial Center, he has taught judges how to practice and perfect theircraft;6 as Reporter for the CivilJustice Reform Advocacy Group for theEastern District of Pennsylvania, he helped teach management tech-niques that could be applied to the federal courts. But he has neverceased being the wise, gentle, and considerate person that he pre-tended not to be that morning in the mid-1950s. And it is because heis that kind of person that his lessons-from his classes, from his writ-ings, from conversations with him, and from watching him and tryingto emulate him-stay with us.The title page of an article about Professor Levin quotes the Tal-mudic phrase: "From many have I learned but from none more thanfrom my students."8 I hope it is not being disrespectful of ProfessorLevin's deeply-held religious beliefs to rephrase and say: "From manyprofessors have I learned but from none more than from ProfessorLevin."A. Leo Levin has been my neighbor, my mentor, my colleague,and my friend, but first and foremost he has been my professor.See Harold Cramer, A. Leo Levin: A Life-Long Commitment to the Law, Legal Educa-tion, and theJudicial System, 138 U. PA. L. REV. 325 (1989).6 SeeWilliam H. Rehnquist, Tribute to Leo Levin, 138 U. PA. L. REV. 317 (1989).7 See the transcript of A Holiday Luncheon to Honor Profesor A. Leo Levin (Dec. 14,1998), which graciously was made available to me by Michael E. Kunz, Clerk of theCourt, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania." Saying Goodbye to Adjective Law, PENN L.J., Fall 1998, at 72.

A. Leo Levin: Law Professor

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3370&amp;context=penn_law_review

A. Leo Levin: Law Professor

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository