Reimagining Advocacy Tentative Conference Schedule

Friday, Nov. 8, 2019

12 p.m. - 1:15 p.m.

Lunch and Keynote Speaker
Gen Z, Social Justice, and the Future of Advocacy
Dr. Corey Seemiller,
Professor and Author, Generation Z: A Century in the Making

1:25 p.m. - 2:15 p.m.

Reimagining Advocacy Education

Moderator: Kirsten Davis, Stetson University College of Law
Mary Beth Beazley, University of Nevada Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law
Ramona Albin, Samford University Cumberland School of Law
Teri McMurtry-Chubb, UIC John Marshall Law School

Panelists will give their views on the future of advocacy education in law school, including in the classroom and regarding social justice. After the panel presentation, participants will divide into groups for further discussion.

2:25 p.m. - 3:20 p.m. 

Discussion Group: Reimagining Advocacy Education

Lance Long, Stetson University College of Law, Discussion Group Facilitator

3:30 p.m. - 5:20 p.m.

Concurrent Session: Open Ended Interviewing Training
Dr. Elizabeth Britt, Northeastern University

This session introduces the purpose and process of open-ended interviewing, an interviewing approach that can improve the lawyer’s ability to elicit a witness or client story.

3:30 p.m. - 4:20 p.m.

Concurrent Session: Reimagining Co-Curricular Advocacy Experiences

Moderator: Julia Metts, Stetson University College of Law

Rob Little, Baylor Law School
Judith Scully, Stetson University College of Law

More Panelists Coming Soon!

Panelists will give their views on the future of advocacy in the law school co-curriculum in context like competition teams, intramural experiences, advocacy projects and initiatives, and student organizations. After the panel presentation, participants will divide into groups for further discussion.

4:30 p.m. - 5:20 p.m.

Discussion Group: Reimagining Co-Curricular Advocacy Experiences

Kelly Feeley, Stetson University College of Law, Discussion Group Facilitator

5:30 p.m. - 7 p.m.

Dinner and Speaker
The Future of Advocacy in the Clinic: Working for Veterans
Professor Stacey Rae Simcox,
 Stetson University College of Law

Saturday, Nov. 9, 2019

8:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.

Breakfast

8:45 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.

Concurrent Participant Panels and Discussion Groups
Group Discussion

Reimaging Advocacy: Race, Class, and Educational Privilege: Utilizing the Elimination of Implicit Bias to Prepare A Generation for Advocacy for Social Justice – Ila J. Klion, Florida International University College of Law; Phyllis D. Kotey, Florida International University College of Law (75 minutes)

Race, class and educational inequality create the need for urgency and vigilance to advocate for the elimination of implicit bias. This group discussion will seek to reimagine advocacy and the existence of privilege identified as “invisible systems conferring dominance” with race, class and education. Participants will be able to define and confront implicit bias and to advocate for the elimination of attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner.

Panel Presentations – The Future of Written Advocacy

Training, Transitions, Connections: Everything Is Tied Back to Advocacy (or Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon--Advocacy Style) – Brooke Bowman, Stetson University College of Law (15 minutes)

Stetson University’s Academic Success and Bar Prep team at Stetson University College of Law presented Key Points on Writing an Effective Bar Essay Answer, " which had three key points listed as well as six other tips about writing. The key points are skills that Moot Court Board members are taught and use in both writing the appellate briefs and presenting oral arguments. Professor Bowman will focus on how the key points in the handout are taught in Moot Court, using several examples.

Podcasts as a Learning Tool of Effective Storytelling – Kristin J. Hazelwood, University of Kentucky College of Law (15 minutes)

Good readers make good writers, and writing students are often encouraged to read quality books in order to improve their own writing. Professor Hazelwood’s premise is that good writers should perhaps also be good listeners.

#1WIN: Is Micro-Advocacy the Future of Persuasive Communication? - Barbara A. Kalinowski, Western Michigan University Cooley Law School (15 minutes)
Social media and micro-blogging have undoubtedly made what I’ll call “micro-advocacy” more common, more acceptable, and possibly more persuasive than it could be in the pre-internet world. This presentation will discuss research on how Millennials use Twitter and other social media to communicate opinions (without negatively judging Millennials, that is). Professor Kalinowski will then suggest that legal educators—especially those of us who teach Advocacy—should consider the following questions:

  • How do we teach students accustomed to micro-advocacy to abandon their overly curtailed style and instead fully develop their legal arguments?
  • How do we harness the persuasive value of micro-advocacy to enhance our traditional approach to training advocates?
  • Is micro-advocacy the future of advocacy?

Incorporating Advocacy Across the Law Curriculum ¬– Terri LeClercq, University of Texas School of Law (15 minutes)
The presentation builds on a course where students choose a social justice topic and incorporate that topic into a variety of formats throughout the year, concluding with a “real life” project.

Asynchronous Brief Writing Instruction – Hilary Reed, University of Houston Law Center (15 minutes)
The presentation will focus on online, asynchronous video modules for students to use contemporaneous to the writing of the various sections of the brief. Professor Reed will discuss the creation of these lessons and the pros and cons of providing this information via online units rather than in a class setting.

Panel Presentations – Technology and Theory in Advocacy

The Policy Sciences: Interdisciplinary Legal Scholarship to Advance Human Dignity for All – Carol Castleberry, St. Thomas University School of Law (15 minutes)

The presentation will discuss the Policy Sciences practical process of addressing social problems by analyzing them comprehensively in context to develop desirable and realistic policy recommendations.

Advocating on Appeal and Moot Court in the Digital Age, Joann Hodge, UIC John Marshall Law School, The University of Illinois at Chicago (15 minutes)

The changes in technology change the role of the advocate. Writing for the screen has its own imperatives. How do we prepare law students for a practice that will be very different by the end of their careers? How can moot court reflect those rapid changes in what it means be an advocate on appeal?


Re-presenting Advocacy to Re-imagine its Future, Brian Larson, Texas A & M University School of Law (15 minutes)

This presentation reports findings of an empirical study of 200 textual artifacts, court opinions and the briefs that precipitated them. 90% of citations to cases support an assertion about a general rule, support a generalization about courts’ approaches to a particular issue, support a claim about the policy underlying a rule, or use the case as an example for comparison or contrast with the instant case. The presentation explains these categories and gives a baseline assessment of their frequency in various contexts.

Intersection of Technology and Advocacy in the Courtroom, Tami Lefko, Research Attorney, Los Angeles Superior Court (15 minutes)

In this presentation, a research attorney at the busiest trial court in the country will offer a "view from the trenches" of a court with mandatory e-filing. How has this changed the way the primary audience for the briefs -- judges and research attorneys -- uses and experiences these documents? What can lawyers do to make that experience a better one for that audience -- and increase their future chances of successful advocacy?

Reimaging Civil Procedure Using Classical Stasis Theory, Susan E. Provenzano, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Stasis theory helps the orator determine the issue in dispute between the prosecution and defense. This presentation addresses whether stases have analogs in contemporary civil procedure. The answer is that they do and that they provide useful analytical and rhetorical tools, but only in the context of a theoretical frame for the civil suit as an extended form of argumentation—a ‘critical discussion’ in the terms of argumentation theory—and only if the classical stases are revised. The author proposes three stases—claim, defense, and procedure—and claims that each has components of conjecture and definition. The arguments available to the lawyer under each stasis can also be categorized according to their nature and relative persuasiveness.

10:30 a.m. - 12 p.m.

Concurrent Participant Panels and Discussion Groups
Group Discussion

Backward Designing an Advocacy Program, Carwina Weng, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, W. Chris Roberts, University of Texas at Austin School of Law (75 minutes)

Backward design starts with the outcome – our desired advocacy program student – and moves from that outcome to determine the courses, content, and experiences advocacy students should have to achieve the desired learning. Designing in this direction maximizes the alignment of teaching and learning with the teacher’s purpose in teaching (the reimagining part) and with the school’s program outcomes. After an overview of program assessment, participants would work through the process in an accelerated manner so that they could then institute the process more thoroughly at their home institutions. The bulk of the time would focus on reimagining the desired knowledge, skills, and values of the ideal student advocate, based on the resources available to a school, and identifying how these components cohere as a program goal.

Panel Presentations – The Future of Oral Advocacy

Using “Hamilton” to Teach Fundamentals of Oral Advocacy – Heather Baxter, Shepard Broad College of Law, Nova Southeastern University (15 minutes)

This presentation will use the lyrics in a song from the musical “Hamilton” to teach 1Ls the fundamentals of oral argument. The sixth song in the production, entitled “Farmer Refuted,” was a virtual blueprint on how to conduct an effective oral argument. For the presentation, I will break down each lyric and describe its instructive message.

Trial by Text: Advocacy Teaching and GenZ, Joseph C. Bodiford, Stetson University College of Law (15 minutes)

This presentation will discuss the habits and data on usage of Twitter and other platforms to communicate, how they construct effective digital communication, and their overlap to trial advocacy techniques (rhetoric, core message, persuasion, theories/themes, use of values/judgments/moralities, and designing effective arguments).

Advocacy in Assessment: Negotiating the Legal Writing Classroom, Lindsay Head, Florida International University (15 minutes)

After offering a brief background in community-based assessment and contract-based grading pedagogies, this fifteen-minute panel presentation will identify some best practices for implementing both in the legal writing classroom. Discussing the benefits and challenges seen in actual classroom applications, the speaker argues that the necessity for strong advocacy skills in the legal profession makes the legal writing classroom, in fact, the ideal locale for this approach.


Teaching Non-Defensive Communication in Law Schools: Shifting Norms of Advocacy and Increasing Effectiveness by Communicating Non-Defensively and Powerfully, Carolyn Wilkes Kaas, Quinnipiac University School of Law (15 minutes)

In order to improve effectiveness in practicing law, I have explored the work of Sharon Strand Ellison who has developed a method of communication that can disarm defensiveness and defuse power struggle. This approach, Powerful Non-Defensive Communication [“PNDC”], creates a mindset and skill set that fit easily into the daily life of a lawyer, particularly outside the courtroom but can apply in certain aspects of litigation as well. Eradiating defensiveness in our interactions with our clients and our counterparts improves communication, openness, and trust. In fact, these are key ingredients for a more problem-solving and collaborative form of advocacy, designed to meet underlying party interests more completely, and not simply to win the war.

The Andragogy of Always (or Silence is Violence): Racial Justice Across the Curriculum and Beyond, Mae Quinn, University of Florida Levin College of Law (15 minutes)

This presentation will focus on the importance of expressly addressing issues of race - and advancing racial justice - by way of our teaching, scholarship, service, and beyond. Professor Quinn will share exercises she has used successfully in large doctrinal classes and discuss innovative advocacy work she has undertaken with law students in clinic.

Panel Presentations –Experiential Learning and Pro Bono in Advocacy

Social Justice Advocacy – Shifting the Balance, Julie A. Baker, University of Massachusetts School of Law (15 minutes)

This presentation will offer strategies for making social justice advocacy “easier”
and more effective, working with Judge Posner’s famous “Advocacy Formula.” According to the Advocacy Formula, the amount of persuasion that an advocate must exert in order to change her audience’s response is a function of (1) the DISTANCE of the audience from the advocate’s position, and (2) the RESISTANCE of the audience to that position. Various methods based in cognitive science (“whole-brain thinking”), story-telling/narrative techniques, and working with imagery can both close the distance between the audience and the position and lower the amount of resistance that the audience holds to the position resulting in more effective persuasion and better results.

Exploring Opportunities for Advocacy within the Administrative State, Holly L. Coats, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law (15 minutes)

This presentation will aim to introduce ideas that law schools—and legal writing professors, more specifically—can use to prepare students to become advocates (whether professionally, or as community leaders) within the U.S.’s massive administrative state. The presentation will intersect with several topics of interest, including pro bono advocacy, social justice, and legal education.

Training Divorce Lawyers to Become Peacemakers, Adam B. Cordover (15 minutes)

As divorce rates are hitting 50% and the scars of court battle permeate deeply within families, divorce lawyers are in a position to change the culture of family law. But they just need the tools. The skills and techniques for courtroom advocacy are very different than those needed for consensual dispute resolution methods such as Collaborative Practice. With the proper training, divorce lawyers have the opportunity to go beyond mere settlement and help families reach durable agreements, guiding families from a mere transactional process to a comprehensive transformational process.

Social Justice Lawyering, Margaret Hahn-DuPont, Northeastern University School of Law, Stevie Leahy, Northeastern University School of Law (15 minutes)

Social justice lawyering, also referred to as movement lawyering, community lawyering, and rebellious lawyering, recognizes that the advancement of marginalized and vulnerable populations is possible only through broad reform and deep engagement within the community. The presentation will discuss social justice lawyering and advocacy through partnership with a social justice or public interest organization and also at a more macro-level through deep examination of readings on social justice concepts and issues.

Teaching Policy Analysis in an Individual Representation Clinic, Kele Stewart, University of Miami School of Law

Professor Kele’s presentation shares a pedagogical model for teaching policy analysis in an individual representation clinic. Professor Kele co-teaches a year-long child advocacy clinic in which the heart of our advocacy is individual cases and administrative matters on behalf of children in the foster care system. The Clinic also engages in law reform advocacy, but that work has been driven primarily by the clinical faculty and we have struggled with how to engage students in that work in a meaningful and sustained way. After trying various approaches, the Clinic recently developed a successful method for having students engage in policy analysis. Students identify the topic, which must arise out of their individual cases, and work systematically to prepare for the policy presentation. During my presentation, Professor Kele will share the classes, individual supervision and experiential components that go into the policy presentation.

12:10 p.m. - 1:10 p.m.

Lunch and Keynote Speaker
Reimagining Advocacy: The Case Study
Dr. Elizabeth Britt, Northeastern University

1:20 p.m. - 2:10 p.m.

Panel: Reimagining Advocacy in the Field Experience

Moderator: Christine Cerniglia, Stetson University College of Law
Arturo Carrillo, The George Washington University Law School
Lucy Jewel, University of Tennessee College of Law
Cindy Thomas Archer, LMU Loyola Law School, Los Angeles

This panel will give their views on the future of advocacy in the field experience in contexts like clinical education, pro bono projects, and experiential education, broadly defined. After the panel presentation, participants will divide into groups for further discussion.

2:15 p.m. - 3:05 p.m. 

Discussion Group: Reimagining Advocacy in the Field Experience

Kristen Adams, Stetson University College of Law, & Jim Sheehan, Stetson University College of Law, Discussion Group Facilitators

3 p.m. - 4 p.m.

Panel: Reimagining Advocacy from the Judges’ Perspective
A panel of judges will share with the audience their views on the future of advocacy followed by a Q and A.

Moderator: Jason Palmer, Stetson University College of Law
The Honorable Michael Allen, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
The Honorable Edward C. LaRose, Judge, Florida Second District Court of Appeal
The Honorable Anthony Porcelli, Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Description: A panel of judges will share with the audience their views on the future of advocacy followed by a Q and A.