Mika, Karin

English

EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University

Cleveland State University 
EngagedScholarship@CSU 
Law Faculty Articles and Essays Faculty Scholarship 
3-2019 
Familiar Battles Yield Next Generation Victories 
Karin Mika 
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University, k.mika@csuohio.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/fac_articles 
 Part of the Legal Profession Commons, and the Legal Writing and Research Commons 
How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know! 
Repository Citation 
Mika, Karin, "Familiar Battles Yield Next Generation Victories" (2019). Law Faculty Articles and Essays. 
970. 
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/fac_articles/970 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It 
has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Articles and Essays by an authorized administrator of 
EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact research.services@law.csuohio.edu. 
  
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
      
        
      
      
  
         
 
        
      
         
    
         
      
     
     
      
   
    
         
      
          
        
         
        
    
        
  
        
    
     
   
 
   
FAMILIAR BATTLES YIELD NEXT-GENERATION VICTORIES
Karin Mika* 
One of the things that inspired me about attending the 2018 LWI
Biennial Conference this year was the zeal of the “next generation”
working on salary and status issues. I have been working in the field
of legal writing since 1988, which was the year the second biennial
LWI conference was held. I did not attend, and I was not approved by
my school to attend until 1992, when the conference was held at Puget
Sound, the original home of LWI. 
As I recall, there may have been less than 250 of us at the
conference, and less than 200 who considered teaching legal writing
to be our careers. There may have even have been less than seventy-
five of us who were singularly devoted to legal writing as a discipline.
There were so few of us that, by the end of each legal writing
conference, we knew everyone in attendance . . . very well, in fact. We
spent an awful lot of time talking about our respective “plights”
concerning status, mostly. Salary wasn’t really even discussed. We
were pretty much all paid very poorly, with only a handful of people
having tenure, including Marjorie Rombauer, Ralph Brill, Mary
Lawrence, and Richard Neumann. I’m not sure too many of us even
dreamed of future tenure. The issue of the day for some of us was
arguing against having capped contracts—a system where legal
writing teachers were hired to teach no more than two or three years
and then moved on to a different school if they wanted to continue
teaching. For other programs, this was not even an issue, because
their schools had no full-time legal writing teachers. As a result,
program directors attended the conferences attempting to gain
insight into putting together a curriculum for their all-adjunct
programs.
At that time, I was on a year-to-year contract using “soft money.”
I had originally been hired as the program “assistant director” who
was responsible for unifying the curriculum and assignments for our
twelve adjunct professors; however, in part because of student
* Professor of Legal Writing, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
   
      
         
     
          
           
     
      
      
       
        
         
       
        
 
       
       
           
       
          
         
  
        
        
        
       
     
 
        
     
     
       
       
      
    
    
        
   
   
 
          
      
     
  
2019 45Next-Generation Victories
complaints about part-time instruction, Director Deborah Klein was
able to convince our dean to increase our number of full-time teachers
to four people. This included me, writing specialist Sandra Kerber,
and, a year later, Barbara Tyler. Even though we had a department
with four full-time teachers, three of us were on soft money and, to
many at the school (including the Budget Director), considered
temporary. We taught fifty to sixty students each and had retained
four of the twelve adjunct professors. During my first two years as a
full-time member of the department, I was not allowed in the faculty
lounge or at faculty meetings. I was not allowed to have my own
faculty-issued computer, or even a phone that had the brand new
technology of “voice mail.” In fact, when initially hired, for a year, I 
shared an office with the Director of Legal Writing and all twelve
adjunct professors.
At that time, the entire legal writing profession relied heavily on
just a handful of people with security of position to fight the fights for
all of us. The same people rose to the occasion time and time again, 
winning battle after battle that enabled the profession to grow and
flourish. With each victory came the chance for one more person to be
added to a position where he or she could fight battles that enabled
the success of others that followed.
It is always easy to look back upon those years as the glory years.
All of those teaching legal writing often did very much with very little.
Our profession had a handful of “leaders” always in the thick of the
battle, with a small army of those willing to throw themselves on their
swords for the future of the profession. I wouldn’t trade those years
for anything.
But now, as I look upon what is occurring in legal writing with the
organized fight for equality and the overall competence and
coordination by those waging it, I am awestruck. The panel
presentation done by LWI’s Professional Status Committee was
particularly impressive.1 Our profession is no longer a handful of
people waging war in what were often losing battles (and pardon these
military analogies), but an entire battalion of immense intellectual
weaponry. Those who are working toward the improvement of status,
security, and even salary are taking on the status quo with a level of 
courage and tenacity that is impressive to watch. And they are
winning the war. The number of tenured programs and professors is 
1 Mary Bowman, Mel Weresh, Heidi Brown, Lucy Jewell, and David Austin,
Protecting and Improving LRW Status as Law School Faculty–An Update 
from the Professional Status Committee, LWI Biennial Conference,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin (July 14, 2018).
    
        
   
   
       
        
       
      
  
       
        
     
     
       
    
  
 
 
46 The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute Vol. 23
almost staggering in relation to what was even hoped for thirty years
ago, and we are seeing more legal writing professors as deans and 
associate deans. We have developed a scholarly community that
enables us to claim ourselves a true intellectual profession that is
often more influential than what the status quo intellectual elitists
had previously claimed as their birthright. In short, the members of
this profession are now steamrolling over the academy that often
worked so hard to exclude them from its segregated ivory tower.
There is, of course, still a lot of work to do. Not everyone has been
able to share in the victories that have been achieved; however, what
is occurring now is a hope that did not exist thirty years ago, or
perhaps even twenty years ago. It is a great thing to see, and whenever
I watch this “next generation” in action, I can’t help but think that the
profession is in great hands. It is accomplishing so much more than I
could ever have dreamed.


Familiar Battles Yield Next Generation Victories

Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Law Faculty Articles and Essays Faculty Scholarship 3-2019 Familiar Battles Yield Next Generation Victories Karin Mika Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University, k.mika@csuohio.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/fac_articles  Part of the Legal Profession Commons, and the Legal Writing and Research Commons How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know! Repository Citation Mika, Karin, "Familiar Battles Yield Next Generation Victories" (2019). Law Faculty Articles and Essays. 970. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/fac_articles/970 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Articles and Essays by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact research.services@law.csuohio.edu.                                                                                                                                                                                                            FAMILIAR BATTLES YIELD NEXT-GENERATION VICTORIESKarin Mika* One of the things that inspired me about attending the 2018 LWIBiennial Conference this year was the zeal of the “next generation”working on salary and status issues. I have been working in the fieldof legal writing since 1988, which was the year the second biennialLWI conference was held. I did not attend, and I was not approved bymy school to attend until 1992, when the conference was held at PugetSound, the original home of LWI. As I recall, there may have been less than 250 of us at theconference, and less than 200 who considered teaching legal writingto be our careers. There may have even have been less than seventy-five of us who were singularly devoted to legal writing as a discipline.There were so few of us that, by the end of each legal writingconference, we knew everyone in attendance . . . very well, in fact. Wespent an awful lot of time talking about our respective “plights”concerning status, mostly. Salary wasn’t really even discussed. Wewere pretty much all paid very poorly, with only a handful of peoplehaving tenure, including Marjorie Rombauer, Ralph Brill, MaryLawrence, and Richard Neumann. I’m not sure too many of us evendreamed of future tenure. The issue of the day for some of us wasarguing against having capped contracts—a system where legalwriting teachers were hired to teach no more than two or three yearsand then moved on to a different school if they wanted to continueteaching. For other programs, this was not even an issue, becausetheir schools had no full-time legal writing teachers. As a result,program directors attended the conferences attempting to gaininsight into putting together a curriculum for their all-adjunctprograms.At that time, I was on a year-to-year contract using “soft money.”I had originally been hired as the program “assistant director” whowas responsible for unifying the curriculum and assignments for ourtwelve adjunct professors; however, in part because of student* Professor of Legal Writing, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   2019 45Next-Generation Victoriescomplaints about part-time instruction, Director Deborah Klein wasable to convince our dean to increase our number of full-time teachersto four people. This included me, writing specialist Sandra Kerber,and, a year later, Barbara Tyler. Even though we had a departmentwith four full-time teachers, three of us were on soft money and, tomany at the school (including the Budget Director), consideredtemporary. We taught fifty to sixty students each and had retainedfour of the twelve adjunct professors. During my first two years as afull-time member of the department, I was not allowed in the facultylounge or at faculty meetings. I was not allowed to have my ownfaculty-issued computer, or even a phone that had the brand newtechnology of “voice mail.” In fact, when initially hired, for a year, I shared an office with the Director of Legal Writing and all twelveadjunct professors.At that time, the entire legal writing profession relied heavily onjust a handful of people with security of position to fight the fights forall of us. The same people rose to the occasion time and time again, winning battle after battle that enabled the profession to grow andflourish. With each victory came the chance for one more person to beadded to a position where he or she could fight battles that enabledthe success of others that followed.It is always easy to look back upon those years as the glory years.All of those teaching legal writing often did very much with very little.Our profession had a handful of “leaders” always in the thick of thebattle, with a small army of those willing to throw themselves on theirswords for the future of the profession. I wouldn’t trade those yearsfor anything.But now, as I look upon what is occurring in legal writing with theorganized fight for equality and the overall competence andcoordination by those waging it, I am awestruck. The panelpresentation done by LWI’s Professional Status Committee wasparticularly impressive.1 Our profession is no longer a handful ofpeople waging war in what were often losing battles (and pardon thesemilitary analogies), but an entire battalion of immense intellectualweaponry. Those who are working toward the improvement of status,security, and even salary are taking on the status quo with a level of courage and tenacity that is impressive to watch. And they arewinning the war. The number of tenured programs and professors is 1 Mary Bowman, Mel Weresh, Heidi Brown, Lucy Jewell, and David Austin,Protecting and Improving LRW Status as Law School Faculty–An Update from the Professional Status Committee, LWI Biennial Conference,Milwaukee, Wisconsin (July 14, 2018).                                                                                        46 The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute Vol. 23almost staggering in relation to what was even hoped for thirty yearsago, and we are seeing more legal writing professors as deans and associate deans. We have developed a scholarly community thatenables us to claim ourselves a true intellectual profession that isoften more influential than what the status quo intellectual elitistshad previously claimed as their birthright. In short, the members ofthis profession are now steamrolling over the academy that oftenworked so hard to exclude them from its segregated ivory tower.There is, of course, still a lot of work to do. Not everyone has beenable to share in the victories that have been achieved; however, whatis occurring now is a hope that did not exist thirty years ago, orperhaps even twenty years ago. It is a great thing to see, and wheneverI watch this “next generation” in action, I can’t help but think that theprofession is in great hands. It is accomplishing so much more than Icould ever have dreamed.

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1981&amp;context=fac_articles

Familiar Battles Yield Next Generation Victories

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University

Cleveland-Marshall College of Law