All Posts By

hami3258

Holloran Center Signature Program Award to be Presented to GW Law for their First Year PIF Experience

By Felicia Bennett

On April 25, 2026, at the First Annual Holloran Center Conference and Law Journal Symposium, the George Washington University Law School will be honored with the Holloran Center Professional Identity Formation Signature Program Award for their three-part 1L professional formation experience.

The upcoming conference will convene scholars, educators, and practitioners committed to advancing professional identity formation in legal education—and GW Law’s integrated first-year model has been selected as a leading example of that work in action.

The award recognizes GW Law’s comprehensive 1L professional identity formation programming, which is composed of three complementary initiatives:

Fundamentals of Lawyering: A required two-semester course which introduces legal analysis and writing, communication and interpersonal skills, and professionalism through the lens of PIF and using experiential learning opportunities.
The Inns of Court Program: Small, structured community groups that support connection, critical skills development, and individualized career exploration.
Foundations of Practice: A voluntary (and heavily attended) program that includes workshops, one-on-one conferences with different support areas, and informational interviews.

Together, these programs embed professional identity formation across the entire first year—placing students “in role” as client-centered advocates, surrounding them with faculty and practitioner mentors, and guiding them through structured reflection on values, professionalism, wellbeing, and career purpose. At GW Law, identity formation is woven into skills training, community building, and career development, ensuring students begin law school with a shared vocabulary and framework for ethical, intentional practice.

This work aligns closely with the Holloran Center’s mission to advance innovative, interdisciplinary approaches to forming law students and practicing lawyers into ethical leaders in their communities. As the Center continues to shape the national movement toward greater intentionality in professional formation, GW Law’s model demonstrates how a law school can take concrete, scalable steps to foster each student’s growth in competence, autonomy, integrity, and service. The April 25 conference and symposium will celebrate not only this achievement, but also the broader commitment across legal education to cultivating purposeful, reflective professionals for the future of the profession.

March 16, 2026 by hami3258

David Grenardo, Jerome Organ, Neil Hamilton

Faculty Statement and Call to Action

January 29, 2026

Dear Community,

The University of St. Thomas School of Law is inspired by justice, guided by faith, grounded in reason, committed to excellence, and devoted to advancing the common good. As faculty members of the School of Law, we write in our individual capacities to express our deep concern for our community and our country in light of the actions of some agents of DHS, ICE, and the Border Patrol that reflect a disregard for human dignity and the common good and a disregard for the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

As members of a Catholic university we are guided by our obligation to recognize in all the human dignity with which they are endowed as people made in the image of God. We are guided by Catholic Social Teaching which challenges us to live our lives in support of the common good in solidarity with our brothers and sisters and with a preferential option for the poor and marginalized.

Over the past two months, our streets have been flooded with federal agents wearing masks, holding machine guns, boxing in U.S. citizens while waving guns in their faces, demanding people to show proof of citizenship. Many of these people are people of color who are U.S. citizens but have been stopped based on the color of their skin. Additionally, people in our community shelter in their houses for fear of unlawful detainment. People are being detained without constitutionally required judicial warrants. Some members of our community, including some of our own students and faculty, travel to work or school each day in terror, many of whom now feel the need to carry their passports for fear of being stopped unlawfully and detained. Most importantly, we have suffered the profoundly unnecessary loss of life—Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

As law professors seeking to educate succeeding generations of law students to fulfill their responsibilities as lawyers with an understanding of their special responsibility to support the rule of law, we are deeply disturbed and heartbroken at the violations of the Constitution and the rule of law by some agents of DHS, ICE, and the Border Patrol. Two of the foundational principles that undergird the rule of law include equality under the law and due process. Equality demands that everyone is equal under the law and that no one, including the government, is above the law. Due Process requires that people receive robust legal processes before their rights are impaired by the government.

We applaud leaders in our community who continue to stand for justice and the rule of law. The Honorable Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz of the federal district court in Minnesota, who is also one of the founders of the University of St. Thomas School of Law, called out ICE’s brazen disregard for the law as the judiciary attempts to ensure accountability for unlawful actions by ICE here in the Twin Cities. In a recent order, Chief Judge Schiltz stated, “ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.”

The School of Law’s mission calls us to search for truth. We call for a vigorous effort to find the truth and to hold accountable those who have committed crimes.

With heartful respect,

Brenda Arndt

Tom Berg

Jennifer Cornell

David Grenardo

Daniel Griffith

Neil Hamilton

Julie Jonas

Robert Kahn

Sarita Matheson

Dennis Monroe

Rachel Moran

Jerry Organ

Julie Oseid

Michael Paulsen

Charles Reid

Michael Robak

Hank Shea

Gregory Sisk

Susan Stabile

Carl Warren

Virgil Wiebe

Professor Elizabeth Schiltz, as the spouse of a federal judge, is unable to join public statements about matters that might come before the federal courts.

January 30, 2026 by hami3258

David Grenardo

Why Civility?

In anticipation of the Toledo Law Review 2025-26 Legal Symposium “Civility & Professionalism in a Changing Legal World,” Professor David Grenardo wrote “Why Civility?” – now published on SSRN and forthcoming in the Toledo Law Review.

In this article, Prof. Grenardo honestly and humorously recounts the life experiences which led him to become a zealous advocate of civility. He provides a broad overview of the benefits of civility in both an academic and a practice setting, laying out a compelling case for the importance of mandatory civility rules.

Please see the abstract below:

I spent the last fifteen years writing about civility, presenting on civility, and promoting civility for lawyers. Why have I devoted over a decade and a half to studying and advocating for civility in the legal profession? Why civility? Simply put: “Civility is the cornerstone of the legal profession.” This brief Essay highlights a number of my experiences as a practitioner and as a law professor that illustrate both the importance of civility and the costs of incivility to help answer the question of why civility.
Part I of this Essay provides a definition and brief overview of civility. Part II of this Essay takes a practical look at civility and how it has manifested in my experiences as a practicing lawyer for nearly a decade and as a law professor for the past fifteen years. This Essay concludes that civility is essential to the practice of law for every lawyer, and more states should adopt mandatory civility beyond the handful of states that already require civility from their lawyers.

We hope you will read the full article on SSRN!

David Grenardo is a Professor of Law and Associate Director of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

January 23, 2026 by hami3258

Uncategorized

Living Our Professional Values Through AI

by Luke Cheman, 2L at the University of St. Thomas School of Law

As a law student, I have started using AI here and there – drafting memos for class, testing my legal knowledge, or just seeing what it can do. At first, it felt like learning a new tech trick. But I have realized it is more than that. Each time I practice with AI, I am also practicing the values that will guide me as a lawyer: responsibility, judgment, and growth. In other words, using AI is already part of learning how to live my professional values.

The Holloran Center compares professional values to the trunk of a tree.[1] The idea is simple: values are what everything else grows from. For lawyers, one of the biggest branches on that tree is responsibility. That means serving clients zealously but fairly, respecting the legal system, helping improve the law, and making sure more people have access to justice. It also means being honest in negotiation, guided by conscience, and willing to help clients think through tough choices. When we add AI into the picture, it is not just about learning a tool – it is also about finding new ways to live out those responsibilities.

AI as a Tool for Zealous Advocacy

AI can quickly pull information, draft language, or brainstorm arguments.[2] But representing a client well is not just about speed – it also requires making sure what you deliver is correct and actually useful. Learning to supervise AI, check its work, and adjust it to fit the client’s needs all constitute ways lawyers practice responsibility. The value remains the same; there is just a new tool in the mix.

AI as a Way to Expand Access

One of the best things about AI is that it could make legal assistance more available to people who cannot usually afford it. If AI cuts down the time it takes to do routine work, then that means pro bono lawyers, clinics, and small firms could help more clients.[3] For me, that makes learning AI feel less like a “tech skill” and more like a way to live out the value of service and access to justice.

AI in Honest Negotiation

Lawyers negotiate all the time, and AI can help by giving lawyers more options or ideas or by drafting language.[4] But the value of honesty does not go away. Using AI responsibly means not just dumping whatever it produces on the other side. It means choosing what is fair and accurate, and making sure we are not misleading anyone.[5] That is part of living into our values – even in negotiation.

AI and Judgment

AI excels at finding patterns and providing information, but it cannot weigh empathy or fairness.[6] Some of the hardest choices in law are moral ones, not technical ones. When I use AI, I can compare its answer to my own reasoning and ask, what is missing? Doing that actually strengthens my judgment. It is practice for the kind of decision-making that values like conscience and responsibility demand.

AI Supporting Professional Judgment

At the end of the day, clients do not just need facts – they also need guidance. AI can highlight risks or list options, but it cannot help a client sort out what is right for them or how their decision will affect others.[7] That is where lawyers come in. Being competent with AI does not mean handing over the wheel to AI; lawyers must use AI to facilitate better conversations with clients and to make our own judgment stronger.

Values like zeal, respect, fairness, conscience, and judgment are what make lawyering a profession. Each of those values connects directly to how we use AI. If we internalize and live those values, AI does not replace professionalism – it accentuates professionalism. And as law students, the more we practice now, the better prepared we will be to use AI as a real opportunity to serve clients with excellence and positively impact the justice system.

[1] Hamilton, Neil. “The Profession Has Core Values the Students Can Explore in Guided Reflection – Holloran Center Professional Identity Implementation Blog.” Stthomas.edu. 2022. https://blogs.stthomas.edu/holloran-center/the-profession-has-core-values-the-students-can-explore-in-guided-reflection/.

[2] Frazier, Kevin. 2025. “What I Say to Lawyers about AI.” Substack.com. Appleseed AI. May 22, 2025. https://appleseedai.substack.com/p/what-i-say-to-lawyers-about-ai.

[3] ‌Kerker, Kim. 2024. “AI Ethics in Law: Emerging Considerations for pro Bono Work and Access to Justice – pro Bono Institute.” Pro Bono Institute. August 29, 2024. https://www.probonoinst.org/2024/08/29/ai-ethics-in-law-emerging-considerations-for-pro-bono-work-and-access-to-justice/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

[4] “How AI Enhances Legal Document Review.” 2025. Americanbar.org. 2025. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/resources/law-technology-today/2025/how-ai-enhances-legal-document-review/.

[5] “American.edu.” 2025. American University. 2025. https://www.american.edu/cas/news/responsible-artificial-intelligence.cfm.

[6] ‌Nosta, John. 2024. “Is Empathy the Missing Link in AI’s Cognitive Function?” Psychology Today. October 19, 2024. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-digital-self/202410/is-empathy-the-missing-link-in-ais-cognitive-function.

[7] “AI Can Support — but Not Replace — Human Counselors, according to New Recommendations.” n.d. www.newswise.com. https://www.newswise.com/articles/ai-can-support-but-not-replace-human-counselors-according-to-new-recommendations.

Luke Cheman is a 2L at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. He’s preparing for a future career in the Army JAG Corps and is interested in the intersections between AI and the Law, especially how AI can influence the values and responsibilities of law students and lawyers.

September 25, 2025 by hami3258

Neil Hamilton

Professional Identity Formation As Theory and As Practice for the Education of a Lawyer

A new article by Holloran Center Fellow Lou Bilionis and Co-Director Neil Hamilton, Professional Identity Formation As Theory and As Practice for the Education of a Lawyer, takes a deep dive Professional Identity Formation As Theory and As Practice for the Education of a Lawyer, takes a deep dive into the theory and practice of professional identity formation (PIF) in J.D. legal education. Building on nearly two decades of scholarship since Educating Lawyers, the piece argues that professional values are the driving force behind true excellence in developing legal skills. The paper examines why law schools have historically fallen short in cultivating the full range of values and skills new graduates need, and it also highlights the recent shifts prompting meaningful reform. Importantly, the article also offers practical guidance for faculty and staff on how to foster each student’s PIF, which is positioned to serve as the driving force behind the future of legal education.

Here is a link to the article: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5387750

And here is the abstract:

The past eighteen years of exploration and development regarding professional identity formation since the publication of Educating Lawyers make clear that professional identity formation is first and foremost a theory of J.D. legal education. Indeed, it may very well be the only theory of J.D. legal education standing today. Essentially, the premise of professional identity formation is that professional values are the foundation for and drive excellence at the development of professional skills. Each student should explore and understand what are the values of the profession and the skills needed to practice law, and develop the skills toward excellence.

This article explores professional identity formation as a theory of J.D. legal education and as a movement to reform J.D. legal education. The article analyzes why law schools historically have underinvested in the student development of the full range of professional values and skills a new graduate needs, and then why conditions have changed, leading some law schools to move toward an effective professional identity formation curriculum. The article provides guidance on how to engage the faculty and staff to support each student’s professional identity formation.

August 29, 2025 by hami3258

Uncategorized

Holloran Center Workshop on Professional Identity Formation and the Rule of Law: October 24-25, 2025

The Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions at the University of St. Thomas School of Law will host a Workshop on Professional Identity Formation and the Rule of Law on October 24-25, 2025, at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, MN. The Workshop will begin at 3:00 p.m. on Friday, October 24 and conclude at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 25.

Introduction and Rule of Law Materials

Those involved in legal education in the United States have long assumed that law students, somehow, were implicitly grasping the importance of the rule of law and their special responsibility as lawyers to support the foundational principles associated with the rule of law.

The last several years, however, have shown us that those involved in legal education must engage in greater collective intentionality to make sure law students understand the foundational principles associated with the rule of law and internalize their special responsibility to support the foundational principles associated with the rule of law.

In support of this effort, the Rule of Law Working Group, a joint enterprise of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions and the “Pluralizing” Legal Professional Identity: Democracy, Equity, Justice, and the Law School Curriculum” project led by Eduardo Capulong and funded by a grant from the Mellon Foundation, has generated a Rule of Law Learning Outcome for law schools and will be developing a stage development rubric for assessing how students have progressed with respect to the Rule of Law Learning Outcome.

The Rule of Law Working Group has a set of materials available for review on the webpage for the Holloran Center’s Rule of Law Initiative. Those materials include:

Introduction, Definition, and Foundational Principles of the Rule of Law
Supplemental Descriptions of the Foundational Principles
Rule of Law Learning Outcome
Two Samples of Teaching/Learning Materials on Components of the Rule of Law Learning Outcome

We anticipate updating the webpage with additional resources as they become available.

Workshop Information and Registration

The Workshop on Professional Identity Formation and the Rule of Law is conceived of as an opportunity to catalyze a new generation of teaching/learning materials to help law students progress on each of the components of the Rule of Law Learning Outcome.

Accordingly, we are inviting faculty and staff members from law schools around the country

to create new teaching/learning materials (or repurpose existing teaching materials) to engage law students on one or more components of the Rule of Law Learning Outcome, and
to submit their teaching/learning materials and request to have the opportunity to present/discuss their teaching/learning materials at the Workshop on Professional Identity Formation and the Rule of Law.

We will review all submissions received by September 1, 2025, and by September 15, will extend invitations to the Workshop to those with the most promising sets of teaching/learning materials focused on one or more components of the Rule of Law Learning Outcome.

The exact design of the Workshop is still being developed, but it likely will involve more “workshopping” than “presenting of finished ideas.” The goal will be to have everyone walk away from the Workshop with constructive ideas for refining and improving their teaching/learning materials.

Those chosen to attend the Workshop to present/discuss their teaching/learning materials will have travel and hotel expenses covered. The Workshop will be open for others to attend, observe, learn, and offer their insights/suggestions. There will be no registration fee, but those wishing to attend will need to register and will be responsible for their own travel and hotel expenses (although meals will be provided during the Workshop). A block of rooms will be reserved at a nearby hotel for Workshop attendees.

The Workshop registration link (which includes a submission portal for those submitting teaching/learning materials) can be found here.

The Holloran Center is grateful to have co-sponsors for this Workshop, including West Academic (which anticipates publishing and distributing the collection of teaching/learning materials) and the Program for Leadership and Character at the Wake Forest University School of Law.

July 28, 2025 by hami3258

David Grenardo

Delivering Bad News Exercise

By: David A. Grenardo, Professor of Law and Associate Director of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Lawyers, at some point, must deliver bad news to others, particularly clients. All humans, at many points in their lives, must also deliver bad news. Learning how to deliver bad news can help law students become better lawyers and better people. This blog includes everything you need to incorporate an exercise on delivering bad news into one of your courses.

Professional identity formation (PIF), which is the process by which law students move from law students to lawyers, most readily occurs when law students are put into the role of attorneys. And PIF also requires reflection.[1] This exercise on delivering bad news includes both of those aspects.

The University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, Minnesota, explores PIF in (among other places) three required one-credit 1L courses – Moral Reasoning for Lawyers, Serving Clients Well, and Business Basics.[2] Students participate in the delivering bad news exercise in Serving Clients Well.

Framework

Prior to class, assign the following reading, Delivering Bad News Well, by R. Lisle Baker & Jennifer List. Their article sets forth a systemic method, including the reasons behind each step, to deliver bad news. Attached here are the seven slides you can use to conduct the activity and teach this class. The first substantive slide includes many of the basic parts of the framework discussed in the article:

Be prepared and be aware of your emotions (what if they blame you?)
Product of Managing Expectations
Meet in person in a comfortable, private location
Forecast/Preface bad news with sensitivity and expression of caring – behavior, tone, language
After preface, don’t delay news: start with bottom-line (not details)
Be direct and accurate – don’t “soften”
Speak simply and clearly
Attend to your client’s emotion – be empathetic, not detached – and answer questions
Allow client time to absorb the news (accept silence!)

In delivering bad news, a lawyer should remain confident and demonstrate competence, even if the bad news relates to a mistake made by the lawyer.

In class, you can cover the slides to refresh the students’ recollection from the reading on how to deliver bad news before proceeding to the activity.

Set-up of the Activity

For the exercise, you will need to split up the students into groups of three, A, B, and C. To save trees and to save time in class, we put the information for each group, A’s, B’s, and C’s, onto Canvas and allow the students to access their respective folder. For each group, there are three scenarios. In scenario one, the students in group A play the role of the attorney; the students in group B play the role of the client; and the students in group C play the role of the observer.

I give them about three minutes to read scenario one and to prepare for the conversation. Then I give them roughly three minutes to try to work through explaining the bad news to their clients. After that, the students have a total of eight minutes to self-assess by filling out the forms in their folder and to discuss within their group. When they discuss within their group, the attorney debriefs first, then the observer, and then the client. The students then move on to scenario two and repeat the process, and then they move onto scenario three and do the same.

In the second scenario, students in group A observe, students in group B play the lawyer, and students in group C play the client. Finally, in the third scenario, students in group A play the client, students in group B observe, and students in group C play the lawyer. Every student in a group gets to play the lawyer, client, and observer.

The preceding instructions in this section can be found in one of the attached slides above.

The Scenarios

In scenario one, the lawyer representing a personal injury client in an auto accident failed to ask the client about prior conditions of the client that may have contributed to the injuries the client is experiencing. The lawyer overestimates the damages the client will likely receive, informing the client they will likely receive between $20,000 to $30,000. The initial demand letter that the lawyer sent to the insurance company of the allegedly negligent driver asked for $50,000. After deposing the expert for the insurance company, it becomes clear that the primary source of the client’s back pain predates the car accident. After the deposition, the insurance company emails the lawyer and states it will cover medical expenses and only provide a total of $2,500, which is its final offer. Unbeknownst to the lawyer, the client has already bought new living room and dining room furniture for about $4,000 thinking they would be receiving $20,000 or more for the injuries relating to the lawsuit.

In this scenario, the lawyer must deliver a plethora of bad news: the lawyer made a mistake initially by failing to inquire about prior conditions of the client; based on that mistake, the lawyer created an inflated estimation of the damages for the client’s case; the insurance company’s expert determined that the injuries of the client stem primarily from the prior conditions; and the insurance company made a final settlement offer of $2,500.

In scenario two, the lawyer represents a general contractor (GC) in a case brought by a customer against the GC. In the complaint, the customer claims that the GC mismanaged the plumbing subcontractor (Sub) who failed to turn off a valve in the house during the Sub’s work that resulted in the flooding of the customer’s house. The lawyer’s life has been hectic lately, and the lawyer fails to file an answer to the complaint and a third-party claim against the Sub within the court’s deadline. The lawyer then receives notice from the customer’s attorney that they will be seeking a default judgment for $10,000 against your client. The default judgment hearing is set for next week on Monday. In your response to the default judgment motion, you can ask the court to grant you an extension of time to file an answer and third-party complaint, but there is no guarantee that the court will grant your request. The client believes the damages are no more than $5,000, but is worried the Sub will not have the money to cover those damages. The client contacted the lawyer immediately after being served with the complaint, but it has not heard anything from the attorney in several weeks, which was worrying the client. The attorney is now requesting a meeting with the client to update the client on the case, which relieved the client.

The lawyer will need to deliver the bad news that the lawyer missed the filing deadline for the answer to the complaint and the third-party complaint against the Sub, the customer filed a default judgment motion for $10,000, and the court may reject the client’s late request for an extension of time to file an answer and third-party complaint, meaning the court might enter a judgment against the client for $10,000.

In scenario three, the lawyer is a second-year associate at a fifteen-person law firm. The “client” in this scenario is one of the named partners the associate is working for, who has asked the associate to conduct research and draft a motion in limine to preclude time-keeping records and salary information of the employer client in the case. The associate’s research indicates that these time-keeping records and salary information of an employer are relevant in these cases and similar motions in limine in previous cases based on comparable facts have been consistently denied. Given the seemingly settled nature of these issues, the associate is worried that if they file such a motion in limine, then it will open up the firm to Rule 11 sanctions for filing a frivolous motion. The associate suspects that the partner may be padding the bills by asking the associate to research and draft this motion, when the associate believes it is not that important of an issue to the client. The associate has already spent over 20 hours just doing research thus far, billing about $3,000 to the client. The associate is worried about how the partner will react since they have not worked for this partner before, and the partner has a reputation for being cantankerous and volatile.

Unbeknownst to the associate, the partner knows that the client is more worried about the public disclosure of that time-keeping and salary information, which could hurt the client’s business posture, than the lawsuit itself. The partner told the client that there was a good chance that they could get some of that information excluded. The partner also told the client that they could get the motion done for about $5,000. The partner is expecting the associate to get this straightforward research and motion done well, particularly when this is the first assignment the associate is doing for the partner.

The associate needs to deliver the bad news that the research has not resulted in the conclusion the partner thought, and the associate is not comfortable filing this motion in limine based on the research indicating the motion will fail and could generate Rule 11 sanctions.

In adopting this exercise for your class, you can use any or all of these three scenarios and/or write scenarios of your own.

Reflection Questions on the Forms

As set forth above, after the students play in the roles of the attorney, client, or observer, they engage in reflection and then debrief the exercise with their fellow group members.

The reflection questions for the lawyers after each scenario include the following:

Did you provide a preface or otherwise forecast the “bad news” or did you “jump right in” with the “bad news”?
Did you explain the “bad news” clearly and directly, or did you dance around and try to “soft-peddle” the message?
Did you use clear and simple language?
Did you present an affect, tone, and mannerisms that suggested competence and confidence? How did you feel as you talked with the client?
Did you demonstrate empathy and commitment to the client? How did you show empathy and commitment to the client?
Using short phrases, describe key points (good or bad) and describe aspects of your affect or tone or mannerisms that speak to the responses to the preceding questions?

The forms provide a couple of lines after each question so students can write in their short answers.

The reflection questions for the clients after each scenario include the following:

Did the attorney provide a preface or otherwise forecast the “bad news” or did the attorney “jump right in” with the “bad news”?
Did the attorney explain the “bad news” clearly and directly, or did the attorney dance around and try to “soft-peddle” the message?
Did the attorney use clear and simple language?
Did the attorney present an affect, tone, and mannerisms that suggested competence and confidence? Did you remain confident in the attorney’s knowledge/ability?
Did the attorney demonstrate empathy and commitment to the client? How did you feel as the attorney was talking with you?
Using short phrases, describe key points (good or bad) and describe aspects of the attorney’s affect or tone or mannerisms that speak to the responses to the preceding questions?

Finally, the reflection questions for the observer are identical to the questions for the client, except the second part of question five, which states, “How did you feel as the attorney was talking with you?”, is removed for the observer.

These questions can be found in these links to folders A, B, and C.

Debrief as a Class

After the students complete the steps for all three scenarios, you can debrief with the entire class.

Here are the questions you can go through one-by-one (they are also contained in the slides linked above):

What have you learned from this experience?
How did it feel? What was it like having to explain your mistakes?
- This is hard! It feels bad (for different reasons).
- Some of those reasons are in our control.
  - We can ask questions to gather information.
  - We can avoid missing deadlines.
  - We can shape realistic expectations.
  - When we make mistakes, it can be hard to own up to the situation.
  - But we are going to make mistakes.

Further Reflection

The last slide includes further reflection in class if time permits or the students can reflect on these questions after class:

When have I had to deliver bad news?
What did I do well? What did I struggle with (for example, am I prone to “softening”)?
What “systems” can I develop for delivering bad news?

The total time for this exercise equals about 60 minutes (9 minutes for lecture, 42 minutes for the activity, and 9 minutes for the class debrief).

This exercise is a worthwhile endeavor for all law students who plan to have clients and who plan on maintaining human relationships as we all must deliver bad news at some point.

Should you have any questions or comments about this post, please email me at gren2380@stthomas.edu.

[1] Revised ABA Standard 303(b) requires law schools to provide substantial opportunities to students to develop their professional identities, and the revised ABA Standard Interpretation 3-303(5) asserts that PIF requires reflection.

[2] For background on these foundational 1L courses, please read A Behind-The-Scenes Look at the Holloran Center that Provides Guidance to All Law Schools Implementing Professional Identity Formation – Holloran Center Professional Identity Implementation Blog.

Resource Links:

David Grenardo is a Professor of Law and Associate Director of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

July 18, 2025 by hami3258

Patrick Longan

Mercer Law Review Symposium on Professional Identity and the Multiple Roles of the Lawyer

by Professor Patrick Longan, William Augustus Bootle Chair in Professionalism and Ethics at Mercer University School of Law

In October, 2024, the Mercer Law Review held a symposium entitled, “Parts of a Whole: The Multiple Roles of a Lawyer and Professional Identity.” As the readers of this blog know, the accreditation standards for law schools were amended in 2022 to require every school to provide students with substantial opportunities for the development of a professional identity. The guidance for that new standard contains this statement: “The development of professional identity should involve an intentional exploration of the values, guiding principles, and well-being practices considered foundational to successful legal practice.”

At Mercer, we have devoted much time and effort to identifying the values, guiding principles, and well-being practices that are universal for all lawyers – the ones that are non-negotiable.[1] With this symposium, we sought to take the next steps, to explore how those values play out in different roles that lawyers play, to determine whether there are additional aspects of professional identity that are required in those roles, and to consider whether those lessons should lead us to revise our thinking about what is non-negotiable for all lawyers.

For example, Professor Mark Brown and I contributed an essay on professional identity and “cause lawyering.” After identifying Mercer’s list of required values and guiding principles for all lawyers (competence, fidelity to the client, fidelity to the law, public spiritedness, civility, and practical wisdom), we write about the special challenges that cause lawyers face in living up to those expectations. For example, a cause lawyer might be tempted to sacrifice fidelity to a client in the name of the cause. Or they might treat opposing counsel with a lack of civility because those lawyers oppose the cause. Professor Brown and I then identify one aspect of professional identity that was not on the original list of universal values and guiding principles but that is necessary in this role – the cause lawyer accepts personal moral responsibility for the consequences of their professional actions.

Professor Brown and I then make the argument that acceptance of such responsibility should be an aspect of every lawyer’s professional identity. It, like competence, fidelity to the client, etc., should be non-negotiable. We disclaim any interest in teaching students what their moral values should be, but we contend that, as a well-being practice, it is important to align your values with your work. This is not a new argument, and it has been presented persuasively in recent works by Judge William Duffey[2] and Professor Katya Cronin.[3] But we thought the point emerged clearly from the discussion of cause lawyers and that, viewed as a well-being practice, it fit well with the ABA guidance on what law schools should be teaching about professional identity.

You may find the other articles from the symposium instructive:

Fundamental Dimensions of Law and Legal Education: Developing a Model of a Modern Legal System and Its Application to the Transnational Dimensions of Law
by Mark L. Jones
Current Events in Legal Classrooms: Enhancing Professional Identity Formation
by Stevie Leahy
Expressing Sincere Gratitude in Writing: A Modest Step Towards Being a Better and More Effective Lawyer
by Bret Rappaport
Professional Identity in Context: The Transactional Business Lawyer as Counselor and Leader
by Joan MacLeod Heminway
Professional Roles Expanded: Holistic, Systemic, & Optimistic Lawyering
by Douglas B. Ammar
The Lawyer’s Obligation as Public Citizen
by Gene R. Nichol
The Pressure Points of Professional Identity for Judges in the Modern Era
by Charles Gardner Geyh

These articles, along with transcripts of the symposium’s sessions and Mary Smith’s keynote address, are available at https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol76/iss3/.

[1] See Patrick Longan, Daisy Floyd, and Timothy Floyd, The Formation of Professional Identity: The Path from Student to Lawyer (2023).

[2] William S. Duffey, Jr., The Significant Lawyer (2021).

[3] Katya S. Cronin, Value-Centered Lawyering: Refocusing the Law School Curriculum to Promote Well-Being, Quality Client Representation, and a Thriving Legal Field, 101 U. Det. L. Rev. 257 (2024).

Patrick Longan
is the William Augustus Bootle Chair in Ethics and Professionalism in the Practice of Law at Mercer University School of Law
and is Director of the Mercer Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism.

July 8, 2025 by hami3258

Felicia Bennett

Reflections on the First Year of the Tourek-Marvin Peer Mentor Program

By Felicia Bennett, Holloran Center Coordinator

The 2024-25 academic year marked the first year that the University of St. Thomas School of Law’s Peer Mentor Program operated under Holloran Center leadership. We entered the year with several goals: give 1Ls a peer-based support system during a year that’s often overwhelming; create a platform for consistent messaging about institutional resources to support first-years, provide upper-level students an opportunity for professional development through mentorship; and create a community of professional identity formation (PIF) ambassadors at the law school.

The program, re-christened the Tourek-Marvin Peer Mentor Program in honor of Steve Tourek and Jake Marvin, paired each first-year (1L) student with a dedicated 2L or 3L student who was selected for their empathy, leadership, and commitment to service. This year, we hosted four group sessions for mentor-mentee cohorts, with mentors offering 1Ls the opportunity to meet 1:1 at least twice per semester.

Given that this is an optional program, we saw remarkable engagement during the first year. Attendance at the first, second, and third group sessions was at least 80%, and while attendance declined to 64% at the final session, Peer Mentors reported more frequent and meaningful contact with a smaller group of their assigned mentees throughout the spring semester. Overall, 44% of our 1Ls met 1:1 with their Peer Mentor at least once this year, with some meeting multiple times per semester.

We are encouraged by how the program went this year and we are excited to evolve our methods for structuring content, supporting our Peer Mentors, encouraging engagement, and continuing to develop the narrative around professional identity formation (PIF).

Program Structure

As mentioned above, we hosted four group sessions throughout the year – two in the fall semester and two in the spring. The timing of each session was intended to coincide with an important period of the year: we held a session each prior to first semester midterms and finals, held a “recap and refresh” session at the beginning of spring semester, and anticipated registration for 2L classes with our second spring session. Each session was one hour long, with boxed lunches provided for attendees.

The content of the group sessions was created by Holloran Center Co-Director Jerry Organ and Coordinator Felicia Bennett in consultation with various stakeholders in the law school – academic support, the Career and Professional Development Office, and the Mentor Program, to name a few. Each set of slides covered general law school updates, important deadlines, and relevant conversation prompts. The presentations also included a longer section about a specific important PIF topic: during the first semester, wellness habits and imposter syndrome; during the second semester, intentional time management and self-reflection. Prior to each group session, the Holloran leadership team met with Peer Mentors to prepare them for the conversations they would be having with their groups. These preparatory meetings also served as a time for Peer Mentors to share feedback with us and advice with each other.

In addition to group sessions and preparatory meetings, we hosted two lunches with Steve Tourek, who is not only one of our program namesakes but also a longtime participant in the St. Thomas Mentor Externship program. To ensure we were taking the right approach, we held and surveyed 1Ls about their experience at the beginning of the second semester. In addition, I met with each mentor 1:1 at the end of the year to discuss their experiences.

Building Bridges in the Law School

The Holloran Center team saw meaning and opportunity in the transference of the Peer Mentor program to our supervision. The Center is a nexus for the professional identity formation movement nationally, and directors Jerry Organ, Neil Hamilton, and David Grenardo are deeply involved faculty members and leaders in the St. Thomas Law community. We saw the Peer Mentor program as an opportunity to break down siloes within the law school and to start strengthening the bridges between our Center and other areas of the school. As noted above, we have collaborated with Academic Support, the Career and Professional Development Office, and Mentor Externship, among others, to ensure that the messaging that we give our Peer Mentors to share with their mentees is in line with those departments’ communications and needs. In doing this, we hope to both cultivate goodwill and a mutual willingness to closely support one another, and to begin establishing professional identity formation as the through-line of the St. Thomas Law education.

Peer Mentor Experiences

Peer Mentors found their experiences meaningful: they shared that they grew in their own leadership capacity and learned new things about themselves. Several talked about the challenge of giving advice while still in the midst of their own learning process. Bobbie Schermbeck, a 3L mentor, noted, “Sometimes I had to take a moment to say, ‘I don’t know this—I need to ask someone.’” Others mentioned that they pushed themselves outside of their own comfort zones to be effective mentors. “As Peer Mentors we’re asked to promote different support offices to our mentees,” 3L Arissa Lewis explained. “I didn’t feel comfortable doing that unless I had personally gone to them—so I did.”

Mentors commented that the experience of supporting the professional growth of their mentees was highly rewarding. Maria Garcia-Moya, a 2L mentor, shared about the meaning she found in an experience in which “one student wanted a specific job and wasn’t able to get it, but we were able to pivot and find her an externship with a judge instead.” Similarly, Bobbie enjoyed helping her mentees network – “I introduced [my mentees] to a recent UST grad who’s clerking at the Court of Appeals. She was able to introduce [one of my mentees] to her judge!”

Mentors were also thoughtful about providing encouragement and support around whole-person wellness: “[I was] able to frame the conversation and provide assurance – assure them that their grades are not the only thing that identify how they’re going to be successful in the future!” said Adam Revoir, 3L. “I tried to show them that it’s okay to make mistakes and be vulnerable,” added 3L Grace Pilz.

Beyond personal and professional growth, mentors valued the chance to connect deeply with their mentees and to give back to the community. “My group this semester has become my friends,” Arissa said. “I’m grateful to have been able to have helped my mentees just as others have always helped me,” shared 2L Nazeefa Nezami.

Community Response

Our survey of 1Ls at the beginning of the second semester produced primarily encouraging feedback. Mentees said they appreciated having someone close to their own experience to talk to—especially about studying, exams, and looking for a job. Peer Mentors bridged a gap between formal advising and lived experience. One 1L shared: “My peer mentor provided a lot of helpful information when it came to how to prepare for everyday class or exams.” Many 1Ls also noted that it was useful to learn about their professors’ expectations from a mentor who had been in the same section. In addition, the 1Ls shared that hearing about law school from a student perspective filled a unique niche in their experience.

Some 1Ls commented that the Peer Mentor meetings occasionally happened during busy times when they would have preferred to have an extra hour to study. A few also noted that they would have liked to see more original content, rather than a repetition of some of the information they’d received elsewhere. We are considering this feedback as we build out next year’s program, and we are looking for ways to make the value-add of the Group Sessions clear even during busy times.

We believe that strong engagement levels with the group sessions, plus the fact that nearly half of our 1Ls voluntarily sought out 1:1 support from their mentor at least once, suggest that the student community appreciates and sees the value of this program.

Feedback and Areas for Improvement

Based on conversations we have had with Peer Mentors, as well as feedback received from 1Ls, we are planning several modifications to the program for the 2025-26 academic year, which include the following:

Shifting to an application-based Peer Mentor selection process;
Working with Peer Mentors to establish methods to encourage and incentivize 1:1 meetings;
Changing one of the Group Sessions to a more flexible format to generate more interest and engagement, as well as support the relationship-building element of the program;
Strengthening support from the Holloran Center, including more regular check-ins, basic mentorship and PIF training, and a stipend for coffee meetings with mentees;
Making Peer Mentor cohort assignments during the summer and introducing mentors and mentees earlier in the semester at a welcome breakfast; and
Building in more communication between the mentors with each other and creating resources that allow the mentor cohort to function as a “network” for 1Ls.

Final Thoughts

We’re grateful to Jake Marvin and Steve Tourek for making this program possible—not just through funding, but also through Mr. Tourek’s time and involvement. And we’re grateful to the talented 2L and 3L students who embarked on this new endeavor with us.

As we continue to shape this program, we hope to prioritize relationship-building and the deeper integration of PIF into the experiences of our 1Ls and Peer Mentors. We look forward to growing our contribution to the St. Thomas Law community and learning and evolving alongside our student leaders in the years to come.

L to R: Steve Tourek, Riley Carlson, Adam Revoir, Grace Pilz, Maria Garcia-Moya, Bobbie Schermbeck, David Grenardo, Evan Hromada, Arissa Lewis, and Neil Hamilton

June 24, 2025 by hami3258

Thiadora Pina

Teaching Critical Lawyering Skills: A Path to Professional Identity Formation

By: Thiadora A. Pina, Clinical Professor and Sr. Director of Inclusive Excellence at Santa Clara University School of Law

As law professors, we have always been deeply invested in preparing our students not just to “think like lawyers,” but also to become lawyers. Regardless of ABA Standards or other requirements, we know this transformation extends beyond mastering legal doctrine; it involves the crucial development of their professional identity. The question many of us grapple with is how to best facilitate this journey within our curricula. The answer, I believe, lies in the intentional teaching of critical lawyering skills as a direct pathway to the formation of professional identity.

For years, legal academia has increasingly recognized the importance of professional identity formation (PIF). We understand that a strong sense of professional self is linked to ethical behavior, career satisfaction, resilience, and overall competence. Many articles and discussions have highlighted common goals for PIF: fostering self-reflection, moving beyond rote rule memorization in ethics, developing core competencies like communication and collaboration, and helping students understand the diverse roles and responsibilities lawyers undertake.

But how do we move from acknowledging these goals to actively cultivating them in our students? Moreover, how do we move from acknowledging these goals to teaching them? This is where the deliberate focus on critical lawyering skills becomes paramount. These skills are not merely vocational tools; they are the very building blocks with which students construct their professional selves.

When we teach students how to practice wellness as a competency, how to navigate diverse perspectives in a team, or how to reflect on a challenging ethical dilemma, we are not just teaching them tasks – we are also guiding them in the process of building their professional identity. And, when we give students the opportunity to practice these skills, as opposed to simply reading about them, we are guiding them in the experiential process of building their professional identity.

This conviction is at the heart of my new book, Critical Lawyering Skills: A Path to Professional Identity (Carolina Academic Press, June 2025). I wrote this book to offer fellow legal educators a comprehensive framework and practical tools for integrating skills-based learning directly with the objectives of PIF. The book is formatted as a workbook so that the “framework” is practiced: students apply the skills they are learning through role-plays, scenarios, presentations, and active exercises.

Critical Lawyering Skills: A Path to Professional Identity proposes that the journey to professional identity is not a random exercise, but a path paved with the acquisition and refinement of tangible competencies specific to lawyers. The book offers a “path” for this journey, detailing skills such as:

Critical Thinking and Analysis: Beyond case law, applied to real-world scenarios and self-critique.
Reflection and Self-Directed Learning: Providing detailed and structured methods for students to learn from experience and integrate their interests, skills, and values.
Problem Solving and Decision-Making: Moving from theory to application in complex situations requires reflection, planning, and goal-setting.
Effective Communication and Self-Development: Essential for client relationships, seeking and applying feedback, active listening, and networking.
Social Competency and Engagement with Diversity: Preparing students for teamwork, problem solving, and relationship building.
Wellness and Resilience: Recognizing that a sustainable career requires self-development and the integration of skills, interests, and values that lead to healthy practices.

What I believe makes Critical Lawyering Skills: A Path to Professional Identity a valuable resource for law professors is both its practical approach and workbook format. It is designed to theorize, as well as to equip and engage, providing students the opportunity to learn, develop, and practice. For example, the book relies on the use of rubrics for assessing skill development and growth in professional identity, offers insights into structuring role-plays and scenarios, and champions reflection/reflective practice as a core pedagogical tool.

Critical Lawyering Skills: A Path to Professional Identity can also help you integrate these concepts into your existing courses – whether they are legal skills, ethics, clinics, or even doctrinal classes – or to develop new offerings focused on this crucial aspect of legal education.

The challenge of guiding students towards a strong and ethical professional identity is significant, but it is also one of the most rewarding aspects of our work. By focusing on the critical lawyering skills that underpin this identity, we can provide our students with a clearer, more actionable path to becoming the competent, confident, and conscientious legal professionals our society needs.

I encourage you to explore Critical Lawyering Skills: A Path to Professional Identity. It is my hope that it will serve as a useful resource in your efforts to shape the next generation of lawyers.

Thiadora A. Pina
Clinical Professor
Sr. Director of Inclusive Excellence
Faculty Advisor: Black + First Gen Law Student Association
Santa Clara University School of Law
email: tpina@scu.edu
phone: 408.551.3268

June 9, 2025 by hami3258

Older Posts