"Beyond Contrastive Rhetoric: Helping International Lawyers Use Cohesive Devices in U.S. Legal Writing" Free Download
Florida Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 399-446, 2014

ELIZABETH R. BALDWIN, University of Washington School of Law

Non-native speakers of English struggle to master the conventions and expectations of U.S. legal writing. To help, legal writing pedagogy for international graduate students increasingly uses contrastive analysis of rhetorical preferences and organizational patterns. Nevertheless, many of these students continue to produce English legal writing that appears to lack coherence. This phenomenon may be partly attributable to the difficulty of learning to use cohesive devices in English (the language features that reflect or restrict relationships between clauses) and the resulting interruption and interference with perceptions of logical flow. I posit that legal writing professors can extend to cohesive devices the contrastive analysis they already use for teaching organizational schemas, as cohesive devices also vary in meaning and use across languages and cultures. These discussions should compare not only the meaning of those devices, but also the assumptions that guide when or whether writers use them. Drawing from the fields of linguistics and second language acquisition, I suggest incorporating a contrastive approach into productive exercises and peer review that will help international students learn to use cohesive devices in context.

"On (Not) Queering Legal Writing" Free Download
The Writing Instructor (2015)
Northeastern University School of Law Research Paper No. 237-2015

GABRIEL ARKLES, Northeastern University - School of Law

The author reflects on the contradictions of his attempts to queer legal writing pedagogy. He introduces a lesbian couple into a hypothetical, but students do not recognize them as lesbian or a couple. He takes steps to make the classroom safer for trans students, but realizes he may have no trans students in his classroom. Meanwhile, students read his performance as queer in unexpected ways. The author offers provocative questions about the relationships among systemic injustice, queer forms of resistance, legal writing, and the academy. If it is impossible to teach people to write effectively for a deeply biased and hierarchical legal system in subversive and liberatory ways, then how can we do it anyway, or what might we want to do instead?

"Following the Herd: Bringing Electronic Casebooks into the Law School" Free Download

JEREMY J MCCABE, University of Washington - School of Law, University of Washington, The Information School, Students

Should law school faculty integrate electronic casebooks into their courses? After describing the eTextbook market forces, this article posits that digital casebooks will not only be in great demand, but also can assist in lowering the cost of legal education while creating more practice-ready students. The article will also illustrate the recent technological improvements in eCasebook platforms that will address the unique needs of law students, thereby increasing acceptance and usage. The article concludes with a brief survey of current eCasebook alternatives and an argument for the creation of value-added open-source, open-access digital casebooks with assistance from the law library.

"A Companion to Torts: Thinking Like a Torts Lawyer" Free Download
A Companion to Torts: Thinking Like a Torts Lawyer, CreateSpace, 2015


This book takes a new approach to learning torts law: its goal is to teach law students to think like torts lawyers. Thinking like a lawyer means solving a problem to produce a legal solution. This process involves using several types of reasoning in combination, including synthesis, rule-based reasoning, analogical reasoning, distinguishing cases, policy-based reasoning, and creativity. A torts lawyer uses these reasoning methods to solve torts problems. This book will include a variety of torts exercises on the different types of legal reasoning to achieve the goal of teaching students to think like torts lawyers.

This book is a supplement to torts casebooks and textbooks. Its main audience is first-year law students who are taking torts. It may be required by a professor, or students may use it as a supplement to the class to improve their torts skills and general legal reasoning skills. This book will also be useful for incoming law students who want to develop their torts and legal reasoning skills before they attend law school. Law school begins quickly on the first day, and it is better to be ahead than behind. Finally, this book will also help law graduates who are preparing for the bar, academic support staff who want to help students improve their legal reasoning skills, and practitioners who want to refine their legal reasoning skills.

"Teaching Business Associations with Group Oral Midterms: Benefits and Drawbacks" Free Download
St. Louis University Law Journal, Vol. 59, p. 863, 2015

JOAN MACLEOD HEMINWAY, University of Tennessee College of Law

I focus in this Article on a particular way to assess student learning in a Business Associations course. Those of us involved in legal education for the past few years know that “assessment� has been a buzzword...or a bugaboo...or both. The American Bar Association (ABA) has focused law schools on assessment (institutional and pedagogical), and that focus is not, in my view, misplaced. Until relatively recently, much of student assessment in law school doctrinal courses was rote behavior, seemingly driven by heuristics and resulting in something constituting (or at least resembling) information cascades or other herding behaviors.

In the fall of 2011, I began offering an oral midterm examination to students in my Business Associations course as an additional assessment tool. This Article explains why I started (and have continued) down that path, how I designed that examination, and what I have learned by using this assessment method for three years. Although some (probably most) will not want to do in their Business Associations courses exactly what I have done in mine (as to the midterm examination or any other aspects of the course described in this Article), I am providing this information to give readers ideas for, or courage to make positive changes in, their own teaching (for a course on business associations or anything else).

"Why Do We Do What We Do? Comparing Legal Methods in Five Law Schools Through Survey Evidence" Free Download
Final version to be published in Rob van Gestel, Hans Micklitz and Edward L. Rubin (eds.), Rethinking Legal Scholarship: A Transatlantic Interchange, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015

MATHIAS M. SIEMS, Durham University - Durham Law School, University of Cambridge - Centre for Business Research
DAITHI MAC SITHIGH, Newcastle University (UK) - Law School

For the purpose of this paper we conducted an empirical survey of academic staff at two German law schools (Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf; Bucerius Law School), two UK ones (University of East Anglia; University of Edinburgh) and one Irish one (Trinity College, Dublin). We asked the legal scholars to indicate to what extent they identify with legal research as part of humanities, as part of social sciences, and as akin to the analysis of law in legal practice. In this paper we present and discuss our results, using tools of both classical and compositional statistics. We also relate our data to contextual information about these legal scholars (e.g., training, career stage) as well as institutional and country differences. Our main general finding is that scholars of the German law schools have a relatively strong preference for practical legal research and scholars of the UK and Irish law schools a relatively strong preference for law as humanities. Some of our specific findings are that international legal scholars tend to be closer to the social sciences and that younger scholars and private lawyers tend to be closer to practical legal research. We also observe some signs of convergence since, across the five law schools, scholars told us that they tend to use practical legal research methods less often, and social sciences methods more often, than ten years ago.

"Cultivating Purposeful Curiosity in a Clinical Setting: Extrapolating from Case to Social Justice" Free Download
21 CLINICAL L. REV. 371 (2015)

BECKY L. JACOBS, University of Tennessee College of Law

Curiosity is an essential component of intellectual development. Not surprisingly, recent data indicate that curious students perform better academically than those who do not exhibit this personality trait. Thus, law professors should harness and nurture this characteristic in our students to improve their learning experiences. This essay considers a three-step pedagogical approach to curiosity as it relates to developing lawyering skills and social justice awareness and to the expansion of access to justice.


About this eJournal

This eJournal is designed to offer a vehicle for law teachers to share information and materials about teaching. All materials related to law teaching are encouraged. This includes casebooks, reviews of casebooks, supplementary materials (for your own or someone else's book), lecture notes, class summaries, outlines, syllabi, problems and other teaching materials. It also includes scholarship about teaching. We hope that Law Educator will grow in future years to include a full range of teaching materials, including PowerPoint slides, Excel spreadsheets, video content and other material.

Editor: Lawrence A. Cunningham, George Washington University


To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email:

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)



Northwestern University - School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)

Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.

Advisory Board

Law Educator: Courses, Materials & Teaching eJournal

Judson Falknor Professor of Law, University of Washington - School of Law, Interim Director, UW Arctic Law and Policy Institute

Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law

University of Texas - School of Law, The Kay Bailey Hutchison Center for Energy, Law, and Business

J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law, Yale University - Law School

W.R. Irby Chair in Law, Tulane University Law School

Professor of Law, Gonzaga University - School of Law

Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School

Jefferson B. Fordham Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School

Professor of Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law

Pepperdine University - School of Law

Professor of Law, George Washington University - Law School

Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University - School of Law

Judge Jack & Lulu Lehman Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law

John A. and Elizabeth H. Sutro Professor of Law, Santa Clara University - School of Law