Category: Law School (Hiring & Laterals)

0

The Law Clerk Hiring Process – An Interview with Federal Judge Thomas Ambro

Thomas Ambro is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and sits in Wilmington, Delaware. He was confirmed by the Senate by a 96-2 vote and has served on the Third Circuit since 2000. Judge Ambro received both his undergraduate and law degrees from Georgetown University. He was a law clerk for former Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice Daniel Herrmann (1975-1976). Thereafter, Judge Ambro was with the firm of Richards, Layton & Finger in Wilmington, Delaware, where he was known nationally in two areas—legal opinions in commercial transactions and bankruptcy. Judge Ambro is a former Chair of the Business Law Section of the ABA. He is also a member of the American Law Institute and the National Bankruptcy Conference.

Welcome, Judge Ambro, to our corner of the blogosphere here at Concurring Opinions. It is an honor for us to have you contribute to this blog.Unknown

Question: How many law clerks do you have, and how long are their terms?

Answer: I have four law clerks per term. Generally those who clerk with me serve only one term. Because of the timing of exceptional post-clerking job opportunities, a few clerks have served less than a full-year term. For scheduling reasons, some have served up to a few months longer.

Question: Tell us a little bit how the clerkship application process works. For example, when do you first start accepting applications and up to what point do you stop considering them?

Answer: When the hiring protocols were in effect, I would receive applications from putative clerks via  OSCAR (Online System for Clerkship Application and Review) when those applications were released. All applications would be from persons who had completed at least their 2L year in law school. Because the hiring plan for federal law clerks has been discontinued, applications now come in randomly, and they are often from applicants in their 2L years.

I stop considering applications when the four law clerk positions for a term have been filled. Thereafter, the judicial assistant in our chambers alerts OSCAR of this fact.

I review the applications sent to me, whether online or in the mail. If I am interested in a particular application, I either wait for the letters for recommendation to come in (if they do not accompany the application) or begin calling the recommenders. Often an application is preceded by one or two recommenders alerting me of an applicant and inquiring whether I have a position available for the term to which the applicant is applying. In any event, if I remain interested, I call the applicant to set up a time to meet. For the four spots in a given term, it is uncommon that I would have more than a half dozen interviews with potential applicants.  In addition, the interviews with me and with my clerks are lengthy. Thus, it is rare if I do more than one interview of an applicant in a day.

Question: How much do you rely on OSCAR?

Answer: With the demise of the hiring plan, many applications come by mail. Thus, in a technical sense, I rely on OSCAR less than I did when the hiring plan was in effect. Nonetheless, I find OSCAR very helpful in every respect I can think.  In addition to saving reams of paper, it is both easy to use, highly efficient, and much appreciated.

Question: How far in advance do you select your clerks?  Some federal judges are now hiring two years in advance?  What is your current practice?

Answer:  Right now (March 2014) I have all positions filled for the 2014-’15 and the 2015-’16 terms.  I also have two clerks committed for the 2016-’17 term. My typical lead time for a clerk is two years. That may mean that a clerk will be at least a year removed from law school when she or he begins working in my chambers. That time is usually spent in another clerkship (almost always a District Court clerkship, though on two occasions it has been another Circuit Court clerkship), with a law firm, or sometimes both another clerkship and work in a law firm. Read More

Announcement: Clinical Faculty Position at Georgetown Law

I was asked to post the following; sounds like a great opportunity:

Georgetown Law invites applicants for a full-time tenure-track or tenured clinical faculty appointment. At least five years of practice experience and two years of clinical teaching experience are strongly preferred. Georgetown is especially interested in candidates who wish to teach a transactional or regulatory clinic with an intellectual property or other technology focus. We are also interested in clinicians who wish to teach human rights, public policy, federal legislation, or school-to-prison clinics. Notwithstanding these priorities, we welcome applicants in other substantive areas.

Applicants should have a record of excellence in practice and a teaching and academic record that demonstrates the potential for superb clinical teaching and scholarly achievement. Georgetown Law is an equal opportunity employer committed to a diverse faculty, staff, and student body. We encourage applications from women, minorities, persons with disabilities, and others whose background, experience, and viewpoints contribute to the diversity of our institution. Interested persons should send a resume, references, and subject area preferences to hennink@law.georgetown.edu.

0

Do Canadian Law Schools Care More About Teaching? The Case of the Teaching Dossier

Blame CanadaOne of the first things that people interested in applying to law faculty positions in both the United States and Canada will notice is that the Canadian application requirements are the more onerous of the two.  In this post, I will focus on one way in which the Canadian approach is superior to the American approach, even if it is a bit more burdensome on applicants.

American law schools are generally content to let the capacities of the AALS’s Faculty Appointments Register website dictate their application requirements.  Consequently, they have two requirements for those seeking to obtain an initial interview: a one-page “FAR form” and a C.V.   Even listing these as separate requirements is somewhat misleading; other than the section for Teaching Preferences —  in which applicants list up to five “preferred” subjects and five “other” subjects — everything on the FAR form is also present in the typical C.V.

Compare this to the Canadian application process.  First, there is no Canadian analogue to the Faculty Appointments Register, so applicants send separate applications directly to each school that interests them.  Moreover, the application requirements for each school are considerably more extensive than those for American schools, at least with respect to getting an initial interview.  In addition to a C.V., a Canadian school typically requires the following: a detailed cover letter (or, in Canadian, a “covering letter”) which identifies the applicant’s areas of interest in research and teaching, a detailed research agenda, copies of all law and graduate transcripts, two sample publications, and a teaching dossier.   While applicants might grumble about having to find their old transcripts, they still have the comfort of knowing that they  will eventually have to provide almost all of those items to the American law schools that decide to interview them anyway.   But not that last item — the teaching dossier. What is a teaching dossier?  What are they all aboot?

It is a mistake is to assume that the teaching dossier is the Canadian equivalent of the FAR form’s Teaching Preferences section.  One does not simply list ten courses and consider it a teaching dossier.  Just a little online digging reveals a host of Canadian websites and workshops designed to walk people through the process of writing one (e.g., Toronto, Victoria, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada).   It does not take long to realize that a dossier is not something that can be dashed off; the Queen’s University manual is nearly 50 pages long, and that might be even shorter than the instructions on the University of Toronto’s website.

Though I did not do a comprehensive survey, there is considerable uniformity among these guides.   Generally, they recommend that dossiers have four main components: (1) Approach to Teaching (your teaching philosophy); (2) Summary of Teaching Responsibilities and Contributions (courses you have taught, methods you have used); (3) Evidence of Teaching Successes (course evaluations, analysis of the results of your teaching innovations); and (4) Professional Development (continuing education, mentorship).

The consistency in format might be a byproduct of the fact that a pedigreed source, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), was the first to call for them, and its call became a focus of academic attention for several years before widespread action was taken.  In the 1970s, a CAUT committee  headed by Bruce Shore rallied around shared dissatisfaction with the practice of using student course evaluations as the primary metric for evaluating teaching quality.  The committee wanted professors to be evaluated by “a summary of a professor’s major teaching accomplishments and strengths” as evidenced by multiple sources of information.  Thus, the initial appeal of the dossier was that it accorded to professors the opportunity to put their best feet forward even in the face of less-than-stellar student evaluations.  It gave them a chance to supplement those evaluations with justifications of teaching methods and goals, as well as personalized accounts of teaching successes.

Canadian schools did not warm up to dossiers until the early 1990s, after some American academics (e.g., Peter Seldin) and organizations such as the American Association of Higher Education picked up on CAUT’s idea.  To quote a legendary Canadian troubadour, “Isn’t it ironic?”   Since taking the idea back from the Americans, Canadian schools have run with it, outpacing  CAUT’s original ambitions.  For example, the original CAUT Guide recommended that dossiers be three pages long, but now the typical size is between six and twelve pages.  Appendices can bump that total into the sixteen-page range.  Although it is an outlier, one school saw fit to set a maximum of thirty-five pages, with a maximum total of twenty pages in appendices.

Today, the teaching dossier is not simply a way for professors to insulate themselves from the consequences of unfair student evaluations, it is also a way for faculties to get aspiring academics thinking about how to develop coherent and effective teaching strategies.  When an applicant is forced to put as much effort into a teaching dossier as she put into a research agenda, it can lead her to believe that the employer values those two dimensions more or less equally.

It is fair to wonder whether the fact that American law schools do not require applicants (or even junior faculty in most cases) to draft teaching dossiers is a sign that they do not care as much about teaching as do their Canadian counterparts.  It is possible, of course, that American law schools value teaching just as highly but fear that making teaching dossiers a necessary part of their applications would be too burdensome.  Along similar lines, they might believe that applicants do not yet know enough about teaching to make the completion of a dossier worthwhile for either the applicant or the hiring committee.  And to be fair, some Canadian schools require dossiers from applicants only “where appropriate,” meaning perhaps that those without teaching experience need not provide one.  Whatever the merit of these arguments, there is a growing sense that American law schools must do a better job responding to the demand for excellent teaching.  This sense is potentially at odds with reality; as there are law schools, such as my own, where teaching is of paramount importance in promotion and tenure decisions and where tremendous effort is put into classroom observation and evaluation. Still, making the teaching dossier a part of the application process is a low-cost  measure that could send the signal that law schools are taking teaching seriously.  And it might make better teachers too.

For those interested in learning more about the history of teaching dossiers, consider reading Christopher Knapper’s, The Origins of Teaching Portfolios, 6 Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 45–56 (1995).

1

Temple Law Hiring Announcement

On behalf of this year’s committee, I pass along the following:

Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law invites applications from both entry-level and lateral candidates for full-time, tenure-track faculty positions to commence in the Fall Semester 2014.  We welcome applications from candidates with a wide variety of interests.  Although areas of need are subject to change, priority areas are likely to include health law, business and commercial law, civil procedure, intellectual property, law and technology, trust and estates, torts, and employment law/employment discrimination.

Lateral candidates should contact Professor Gregory Mandel, Lateral Faculty Appointments Subcommittee (gmandel@temple.edu).  Entry level candidates should contact Professor Donald Harris, Faculty Appointments Subcommittee (donald.harris@temple.edu).  Temple University is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all in every aspect of its operations.  The University has pledged not to discriminate on the basis of an individual’s age, color, disability, marital status, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information or veteran status.

 

6

ABA Task Force on Legal Education: Down with Status

aba status merceGood news for law professors now submitting articles seeking offers from high-status journals: the importance of status in American law schools is over-rated and is about to be reduced. At least that is the urging of an American Bar Association Task Force Working Paper released last Friday addressing contemporary challenges in U.S. legal education.

Obsession with status is a culprit in the woes of today’s American law schools and faculty, the Working Paper finds.  It charges law professors with pitching in to redress prevailing woes by working to reduce the role of status as a measure of personal and institutional success.  The group’s only other specific recommendation for law faculty is to become informed about the topics the 34-page Working Paper chronicles so we might help out as needed by our schoools. 

Much of the rest of the Working Paper is admirable, however, making the two specific recommendations to law faculty not only patently absurd but strange in context.   After all, the Working Paper urges reform of ABA/AALS and state regulations with a view toward increasing the variety of law schools. It calls for serious changes in the way legal education is funded, though it admits that the complex system of education finance in the U.S. is deeply and broadly problematic and well beyond the influence of a single professional task force.

The Task Force urges US News to stop counting expenditure levels as a positive factor in its rankings.  It stresses problems arising from a cost-based rather than market-based method of setting tuition. It notes a lack of business mind-sets among many in legal education.  It questions the prevailing structure of professorial tenure; degree of scholarship orientation; professors having institutional leadership roles; and, yes, faculty culture that makes status an important measure of individual and institutional success.

But amid all that, law professors have just two tasks: becoming informed and demoting status.  So there must be some hidden meaning to this idea of status as a culprit and the prescription for prawfs to reduce the importance of status as a measure of success.  I am not sure what it is. The Working Paper does not explain or illustrate the concept of status or how to reduce its importance.

I’ll to try to be concrete about what it might mean.   Given the other problems the Task Force sees with today’s law faculty culture (tenure, scholarship and leadership roles), I guess they are suggesting that faculty stop making it important whether: Read More

0

Prawf Entry Level Hiring Down

We have reported on the weak market for lateral law professor hires on several occasions this year (all links can be accessed here).  Now Sarah Lawsky, a former colleague of mine at GW, lately of Irvine, finds an equally weak market for entry level law professors this year.

Prof. Lawsky offers an array of FAQs, graphs and interactive features to make it fun despite the grim news; she is also very careful to stress the limits of her report, which she emphasizes repeatedly is incomplete.   Paul Caron illustrates some of the ways that Prof. Lawsky’s data might be sliced and diced here, as does Brian Leiter, here, and David Zaring, here.

4

Deep Dive in Prawf Lateral Market Confirmed

As anticipated (here and here), 2013 witnessed a deep dive in lateral recruiting by law schools and movements by law professors.

Only 41 schools secured recruits, which totaled 56 prawfs, according to the latest information reported at the Faculty Lounge.

Compare similar information reported since 2006  in the following table.  (Obviously, FL may have missed some results, so the data are not necessarily complete, but that is true for 2013 as well as any prior year.)

Year Schools Faculty
2006      71   132
2007      72   131
2008      80   136
2009      68   114
2010      72     92
2011      55     93
2012      56     84
2013      41     56
6

Update on Down Lateral Prawfs Market

I promised to update my post from last week about the weak state of the lateral hiring market for law professors.  The Faculty Lounge has updated its figures through March 3, now showing lateral moves of 28 prawfs in recruiting by 21 schools (up from the prior report, through February 4, of 21 prawfs and 17 schools).

We know of at least a few schools/prawfs not yet reported at FL (including two involving Temple University, thanks to Dave Hoffman of this blog, and seven Paul Caron reports knowing about).  All seem agreed, however, that this is a down year, well off from the years when 70 or 80 schools wooed 130 or more prawfs. This reflects the contraction of the legal profession and resulting uncertainties plaguing legal education. The new environment entails a reexamination of past sector-wide practices, which is probably wise.

The signal that lateral recruiting used to send for a school, being competitive to boast the greatest faculty, may nowadays backfire, being a signal of peculiar resource allocation amid tough times for students. Notably, New York University’s John Sexton was a pioneer in the former and these days is getting negative press for sticking with it.  Academic luxuries can no longer be taken for granted.  It remains a difficult balancing act, however, because in many cases a lateral recruit is vital to fill an important need at a school.  It is not always easy from the outside to see the difference.

5

Lateral Market Slowdown; Sign of the Times

The lateral market for law professors appears to be substantially curtailed.  In 2006, 2007 and 2008, about 75 law schools annually secured lateral recruits, with 130-134 professors changing schools each year.  After the financial crisis, in 2009 and 2010, the figures fell off, with 68 and 72 schools involved in relocating 114 and 92 professors, respectively.  In 2011 and 2012, the number of such schools dropped more sharply to, respectively, 55 and 56, involving 93 and 84 prawfs.

What about this year? The latest figures, as of February 4, 2013 (and largely unchanged since then), show a mere 17 schools and 21 prawfs reporting final lateral moves.  The figures likely will rise a bit, as the deadline for extending lateral offers under AALS best practices is tomorrow (March 1) and that for accepting the same is two weeks later (March 15). But those figures do signal another, much steeper, decline, than in the past couple of years, reflecting the general decline in student applications to law schools and the considerable uncertainty facing legal education now.

Whatever else critics might say about the legal academy, such a decline shows deans and faculty making big changes in operating procedures.  The import may be mixed, however.  It’s one less way that many schools can demonstrate that they are competing with each other, though schools that are able to compete in such an environment (e.g., Alabama) send a signal that they have the resources and confidence to buck the trend.  It may be one less tool prawfs have to negotiate raises and other perqs, though, again, those that are able to do so may have greater leverage than predecessors.

In any event, the time is probably ripe for an updating of the classic work of Paul Secunda about how the lateral recruiting process operates.  It appears that it’s quite different today than just a few years ago.

 

UPDATE:  For a few additional notes updating this post, click here.  

 

 

 

 

 

0

Temple Faculty Hiring

Ordinarily, CoOp isn’t the forum for hiring announcements. But as the chair of Temple’s lateral committee, I’d be remiss in not posting this here:

Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law invites applications from both entry-level and lateral candidates for full-time, tenure-track faculty positions to commence in the Fall Semester 2013.  We welcome applications from candidates with a wide variety of interests.  Although areas of need are subject to change, priority areas are likely to include securities law, family law, health law, business and commercial law, civil procedure and complex litigation, law and technology, employment law, and torts. We are also seeking to fill a clinical position.

Lateral candidates should contact Professor David Hoffman, Lateral Faculty Appointments Committee (david.hoffman@temple.edu).  Entry level candidates should contact Professor Alice Abreu, Entry Level Faculty Appointments Committee (alice.abreu@temple.edu).  Temple University is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all in every aspect of its operations.  The University has pledged not to discriminate on the basis of an individual’s age, color, disability, marital status, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information or veteran status.