Motivation: Friday Field Trips, The Newsela Challenge and The Grammar Challenge

Given that motivation is cited as one of the keys (along with aptitude) to language learning, I’ve been thinking a lot about student motivation and buy-in in connection with developing and teaching legal English curriculum to LLM students. I’ve also been thinking about grammar and how to help students improve. So when we decided to add an additional ALDA class on Fridays this semester (and that I would be teaching it), I decided to try and tackle both of these topics in one semester-long effort.

Friday Field Trips

Each semester I’ve made it a point to devote three or so classes to field trips: One to federal court, one to state court, and one to a law firm. In the past, we’ve also done trips to the United Nations and the Court of International Trade. The students, needless to say, love these trips. But they also are a fantastic way to build background knowledge for the students. And of course field trips provoke a basis, desire and motivation for learning more.

So this semester I’ve set a schedule of one field trip every two weeks. The first will be to the Supreme Court in Queens County to visit a judge whose clerk is a St. John’s Law School alumnus. Additionally, we plan to visit both federal and state courts (to watch trials, motions, jury selection, etc.) as well as a police station, a couple different types of law firms (large and small), Queens Legal Services, and the United Nations. The biggest development, however, has been that as LLM students not in my ALDA classes have learned about them, they too have expressed interest in joining along for the Friday Field Trips. And from my perspective, the more the merrier and the better overall experience it will be. Continue reading

Legal Writing: Connecting IRAC, syllogisms and analogies for LLM students

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

Book review – Part 1: Alissa Hartig’s “Connecting Language and Disciplinary Knowledge in English for Specific Purposes: Case Studies in Law”

I am extremely excited to have the opportunity to review a new book by Alissa Hartig, Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Portland State University, entitled Connecting Language and Disciplinary Knowledge in English for Specific Purposes: Case Studies in Law, which I just yesterday received from the publisher, Multilingual MattersPart of the reason is that this is, to the best of my knowledge, the first book ever published that presents a study of the teaching of “legal English” from a linguistics perspective. 

In other words, it is an entire book that thinks deeply and conceptually–far more deeply and conceptually than I would be able to–about how to teach law with language support to non-native English speaking law students (e.g., international LLM students). If I can read and absorb even 10% of what’s in this book, I feel like I will ascend to a higher legal English plain. Which suggests that if I absorb the entire book I will attain some sort of legal English nirvana. (Side note: Wondering whether this is the first instance of “legal English” collocating with “nirvana.”)
Continue reading

New ALDA Legal English Professors

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.

Presenting at Southeastern Association of Law Schools Conference on Tues 8/1

On Tuesday, August 1 at 10:15 a.m. I will have the honor of being part of a panel discussion at the Southeastern Association of Law Schools (SEALS) Conference. The panel, organized by Kirsten Schaetzel of Emory Law school, is titled “International Learners and Legal Writers: Pitfalls and Promising Practices” and also includes Marta Baffy of the Georgetown University Law Center and Catherine Schenker of American University, Washington College of Law

I will be speaking specifically about ideas and approaches for teaching IRAC (Issue Rule Application Conclusion) discourse to non-native English speaking LLM students in ways that incorporate ESL concepts and pedagogy. 

This is my first time attending SEALS and needless to say I am very excited amd looking forward to it as well as the chance to interact with and learn from colleagues at other law schools. 

Here is a full description of the panel:

At many law schools today, the number of international students is increasing. These students come from different legal and educational systems and may have trouble understanding and learning the conventions of American legal discourse. This panel, composed of legal writing and English as a Second Language specialists from various law schools, examines areas in legal writing that may be troublesome for non-native English students. Beginning with an overview of cultural differences in writing conventions and expectations, panelists present how they teach different aspects of American legal writing. Panelists cover teaching summaries of legal rules and their various sources of law; IRAC discourse organization and answering essay exam questions; and understanding fact-pattern exercises and responding to them. 

If you happen to be attending, then hopefully we will see each other. Stay tuned for a post conference report. 

Legal writing: Teaching analogy and comparison language to LLM students

I recently finished reading an excellent and exciting article titled Beyond Contrastive Rhetoric: Helping International Lawyers Use Cohesive Devices in U.S. Legal Writing, by Elizabeth Baldwin, a professor of legal writing who has an MA in Applied Linguistics and works with LLM students at the University of Washington School of Law. I say exciting because each page that I read seemed to open my eyes and my mind and spark new ideas about teaching legal writing to LLM students.

In the article, Elizabeth–one of the founders of the ETLEP legal English Google Group together with Alissa Hartig, Lindsey Kurtz and me following the 2015 Global Legal Skills Conference in Chicago–distinguishes between coherence (top down: does it make sense?) and cohesion (bottom up: does it feel connected and logical?) A text can be coherent, i.e., you understand what the writer is saying, yet lack cohesion, i.e., the ideas feel disjointed and unnatural in some way you can’t quite put your finger on.

The article explains how cohesion can be lexical (e.g., use of repetition and synonyms) as well as grammatical (e.g., use of conjunctive words and phrases to connect information between sentences; use of a subordinated clause to front information so that it feels connected to information in the previous sentence).

However, the article really grabbed my attention at one point when it described a particular cohesive device that involves use of the pattern: [determiner + abstract noun]. (Determiners include a, an, the, this, these, my, your, which, other, and a bunch of other words you know but just didn’t realize were determiners.) An example might be a sentence along the lines of: Continue reading

May 1 Webinar: “Teaching Global Skills to International and U.S. Law Students”

Teaching Global Skills to International and U.S. Law Students

I’ll be one of the participants in a Legal Writing Institute live webinar next Monday from 12-1pm together with Diane Kraft of University of Kentucky College of Law and also St. John’s Law colleague Patricia Montana.

The narrated PowerPoints (which have more detail than what will be discussed in the live webinar) are already available at http://www.law.msu.edu/glws​. (Note: At this link, you can also find great prior presentations by other legal writing specialists.)

See below for more details and info on how to register:

**********************************

The Legal Writing Institute’s Global Legal Writing Skills Committee is pleased to invite you to attend a free live webinar on Monday, May 1, 2017, from 12-1 pm EST on“Teaching Global Skills to International and U.S. Law Students.”   The webinar will feature the following excellent presentations, followed by Q & A:

1. Teaching A Variety of Lawyering Skills Using A Single Transnational Civil Litigation Problem
Patricia Montana, Professor of Legal Writing and Director of Street Law Program, St. John’s University School of Law

I will present on my advanced writing course, Drafting: Transnational Civil Litigation, which I designed to develop upper-level students’ lawyering skills in the context of transnational civil litigation.  My presentation will discuss how designing a course around a single litigation involving a central international trade law convention and a well-developed set of facts can easily simulate the realities of law practice in the global market and thus benefit students tremendously.  My presentation will walk through the course development, illustrate some of the design ideas, and explain the advantages of using a single litigation to tie together all of the assignments.

2. Current Research in Contrastive Rhetoric: What Does it Mean for the Legal Writing Classroom?
Diane B. Kraft, Assistant Professor of Legal Research & Writing, University of Kentucky College of Law

Contrastive Rhetoric has been an important area of scholarship for the disciplines of Second Language Writing and English for Specific Purposes since 1966. This presentation will discuss what the most recent research tells us about the uses and limitations of contrastive rhetoric, and suggests ways to use it effectively when teaching international students in the legal writing classroom.

3. The Power of Noticing in Teaching Legal Writing to LLM Students
Stephen B. Horowitz, Director of Legal English Programs and Adjunct Professor of Law, St. John’s University School of Law

One of the challenges of learning legal writing for non-native speakers of English (NNES) is that they often feel they are writing into a vacuum. That is, they don’t have a clear sense of what their writing should look and feel like, both in terms of discourse as well as language. This is because what might be intuitive for native English speakers (NES) is not intuitive for NNES.  A simple yet powerful tool for building a sense of intuition and an understanding of what’s expected is the act of noticing. Noticing can be used very effectively in combination with model answers written by NES to help draw LLM students’ attention to certain features of legal writing in order to figure out how to better organize their writing, how to make better arguments, how to improve their grammar, what transition and connection phrases to use, when to use commas, and any other writing related challenges the students may face.

The presenters have created narrated PowerPoint slides for viewing in advance of the live webinar.  They can be found at the top of the presentations list at www.law.msu.edu/glws. This website also contains the archived Global Legal Writing Skills presentations from previous webinars.

To participate in the live webinar, please follow these instructions:

  1. Click on the URL provided for the Meeting Room or type the URL into your web browser.
  2. Click Guest Login.
  3. Type an identifiable name (e.g., First and Last name).
  4. Click Enter Room.
  5. Mute your microphone and only type questions in Chat window

Katrina June Lee will moderate the live webinar. Please contact her at katrinalee@osu.edu with questions or issues regarding the webinar.

To register for this free event, please send an email to dmlavita@suffolk.edu with “GLWS Webinar” in the subject line.

On behalf of the GLWS Committee,

Rosa Kim, Suffolk University Law School
rkim@suffolk.edu