This past week for the frist time I did a full unit of syllogism and analogy activities with my legal writing students to prepare them for the concepts and language of IRAC-style writing. And it not only went very well–it also taught me something new.
Previously, I had taught the concept of IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis/Application, Conclusion) first and then had the students work on it through the Jogger/Banana Peel question. This question is the vehicle through which I have been teaching students IRAC-style discourse as well as the written language of that discourse. It involves a jogger who throws a banana peel on the beach after passing a sign that indicates a fine for “littering.” A police officer sees this and has to decide whether to issue a ticket, remembering that her supervisor did give a ticket to someone who threw a candy bar wrapper on the ground but did not give a ticket to someone who poured coffee on the ground.
In my approach, the students come to understand the IRAC concepts and signal words, but they still struggled in many ways with the underlying style of argument expected. For example, they would see the exercise as a simple application of a rule. The jogger littered; there’s a rule against littering; hence, the jogger should get a ticket. To not give a ticket would be to undermine rule of law and all that is good in our society, etc. Or, if they focus on the coffee and the candy bar wrapper, they make conclusory statements without really explaining or showing how those ideas connect. (Or rather, they don’t do it in a way that meets expectations for our writer-responsible writing culture.) Continue reading →
I’m very excited that in the past year the American Law: Discourse & Analysis (ALDA) Program (semester-long law courses taught with language support) has welcomed three new legal English professors to our teaching team, all having a unique combination of both large law firm practice experience and ESL teaching experience.
Prof. Daniel Edelson; former associate at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP and Baker McKenzie (Business Litigation & Securities Fraud)
Prof. Anne Himes; former partner at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (Corporate Transactions)
Prof. Kayalyn Marafioti; former partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Corporate Restructuring)
Below are bios for each:
Professor Edelson is an Adjunct Professor of Law at St. John’s Law School and an attorney admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey. For several years he was associated with two international law firms in New York City where he specialized in business litigation and securities fraud. In 2012 Daniel moved to Seoul, South Korea to teach U.S. law. In addition to having his own law practice, he also tutors first year law students (1Ls), LLM students, and bar candidates. He is also the creator of numerous short, animated video explanations of legal topics on his website USLawEssentials.com. Prior to becoming an attorney Daniel lived in Japan where, among other things, he taught English as a Second Language.
Professor Himes holds a certificate in English language teaching from The New School in New York. She has a J.D. from Columbia Law School and an M.A. and B.A. in German from the University of North Carolina; as an undergraduate, she studied at Heidelberg University in Germany for one year. Professor Himes is a former partner at the Wall Street law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy; a member of the corporate department, she specialized in private corporate debt financings. She has also worked as in-house legal counsel to a New York single family office.
Professor Marafioti earned a J.D. from New York University School of Law, where she served as Note and Comment editor of the NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, and an A.B. cum laude from Harvard University, where she studied history and literature. After graduating from NYU she practiced law in New York City for more than three decades. For most of that time she was a partner in the corporate restructuring department of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, a global law firm, where she regularly worked on cross-border transactions with lawyers from all over the world. Following her retirement from Skadden, she earned a certificate in teaching English language from The New School in New York. She is a Fellow in the American College of Bankruptcy.
The activity: The USLS and TLP students are the lawyers and the ALDA students the clients. Each lawyer is part of a group or firm of two or three lawyers. And each client is actually two or three ALDA students. The clients are given a fact pattern which they study, review, and discuss prior to their meeting with their lawyers. The clients then join the USLS and TLP students’ Legal Writing class and are matched with their lawyers at separate tables. The lawyers then need to lead the meeting and ask questions to learn about the client’s issue. The clients tell their story (and occasionally have fun making up facts where necessary and appropriate.)
The lawyers have 45 minutes to try and understand the client’s situation, identify the legal issues in the fact situation and help the clients figure out who they can or can’t sue and evaluate the strength of the case.
Following the activity, a group discussion was held to reflect on the experience. Everyone had a good time and expressed appreciation for having the opportunity to step into their roles and really think through the situation.
For homework, the ALDA students were tasked with writing a follow-up email to their lawyers confirming their understanding of the main points of the discussion. And the TLP students have been tasked with writing a client letter describing the issues and offering their evaluation and recommendations for how to proceed.
This is an activity that will certainly continue each semester as the students greatly enjoy
it and derive great benefit in terms of experience, critical thinking, and language use.
I’ve been working on more effective approaches to building extensive reading into the ALDA curriculum. Research consistently shows that it is the best way for non-native English speakers to build reading comprehension, vocabulary, and reading fluency. And reading comprehension and listening comprehension ability are believed to be the best predictors of success for students in a graduate program such as an LLM program.
Extensive reading, which I previously discussed a bit in this post, means 1) reading easy texts (i.e., where the reader understands 90% of the vocabulary), and 2) reading for enjoyment. It relies on the seemingly obvious premise that the best way to improve reading is to read a lot.
And it doesn’t matter what the learner reads so much as that the learner reads. In other words, even if you read novels or cartoons, it will still help learners when they go to read more challenging legal texts. This is because reading a lot and reading in a fluent way leads to building of larger lexical bundles by the reader. That is, rather than reading and decoding each word, the reader begins to see and process groups of words as a lexical bundle. This in turn means the learner is devoting less cognitive energy to that part of the reading and has more energy to devote to more challenging language that arises.
But how to do that in a legal English setting, where the focus is on texts and concepts that are challenging for even native speakers of English? Texts that render every reading an intensive reading, where the reading process involves constant dictionary use, which in turn reduces engagement and big picture comprehension? Continue reading →