All Posts By

hami3258

Free (to Seek Help) at Last: Reflections on Years of Advocating for Law Students and Reforming the Bar Admission Character & Fitness Process

Janet Stearns, University of Miami School of Law
David Jaffe, American University Washington College of Law[1]

This month, the National Conference of Bar Examiners (“NCBE”) released the updated version of its Sample Character Report Application.[2] In doing so, NCBE significantly revised the character and fitness application. The application is currently used by about half of U.S. jurisdictions in screening applicants for bar admission. Until this revision, NCBE asked applicants a very problematic question in the screening process:

Do you currently have any condition or impairment (including but not limited to, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or a mental, emotional or nervous disorder or condition) that in any way affects your ability to practice law in a competent, ethical and professional manner?

If an applicant responded yes and indicated that they received ongoing treatment or participated in a monitoring or support program, they were then asked to provide names/contact information of treating physicians, hospitals or treatment programs. Concerns about having to respond to these intrusive inquiries into personal medical information, not surprisingly, significantly impeded the willingness of law students to seek needed help and support.[3]

NCBE is to be commended for its support of updates to the application. During a three-year process, NCBE engaged in a comprehensive review, evaluating which questions were truly relevant and also whether “look-back periods” should be revised or limited.[4] This article highlights those changes relating to substance use and mental health, while recognizing the breadth of the overall reforms.

The updated application includes a Preamble page, for which the final paragraph is dedicated to substance use and mental health concerns and encourages students to seek the support that they need, when they need it.

Full disclosure is important. Should your candidate response(s) involve disclosures regarding mental health diagnosis/treatment, substance misuse, or other sensitive matters, be assured that the steps you have taken to address such matters, such as through counselling, treatment or other actions, is to your credit. The National Council of Bar Examiners and admission authorities of the jurisdictions strongly encourage applicants who may benefit from assistance to seek it.

The application now includes only two questions related to substance use and mental health and focuses on conduct/misconduct in limited time periods prior to bar admission, a substantial improvement over the prior open-ended questions focused on condition or impairment.

Question 28: Within the past three years, have you engaged in any misconduct as a result of consuming alcohol or drugs?

Question 29: Within the past five years, have you asserted any medical condition, mental condition, or addiction or misuse of alcohol or drugs as a defense, in mitigation, or as an explanation for your conduct in the course of any inquiry, any investigation, or any administrative or judicial proceeding by any educational institution, government agency, professional organization, or licensing authority; or in connection with an employment disciplinary or termination procedure?

These two narrowly tailored questions finally bring jurisdictions serviced by NCBE into substantial alignment with the spirit and law interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act, as articulated by the Louisiana consent decree in 2014.

Years of advocacy have resulted in this sea change. Two national studies of law students have documented the extent of mental health and substance use in law school. The 2014 Survey of Law Student Well-Being first verified that students were reluctant to seek help as a result of fear of the impact on bar admissions.[5] The authors conducted a follow-up survey in 2021 evaluating students at nearly 20% of U.S. law schools, and found continuing reluctance to seek help because of fears associated with the impact on bar admissions.[6]

Working hand in hand with advocates in the American Bar Association Commission on Lawyer Assistance Program (COLAP), the authors mobilized to educate bar regulators, state Supreme Court justices, and others to reform the character and fitness questions. The context for these reforms was discussed in our 2020 Article Conduct Yourselves Accordingly: Amending Bar Character and Fitness Questions to Promote Lawyer Well-Being.[7] The pandemic brought a renewed focus on mental health and well-being, and saw some major states (among them New York, Michigan, Indiana, and New Hampshire) significantly amend their character and fitness questions. Three years later, the authors updated their findings and evaluated all states on a grading scale to highlight targeted areas for reform.[8]

The authors wish to highlight several important jurisdictional changes since our 2023 article:

Florida in 2024 removed questions probing troubling medical diagnoses in favor of a focus on conduct, with two specific inquiries (whether mental health has been asserted as a defense in any legal proceedings, and whether the applicant has been involuntarily hospitalized).[9]

Georgia, which also formerly focused on treatment among its C&F questions, within the last three years modified its question to a degree.[10] Although Georgia has not shifted to a focus on conduct and behavior, it does seek to narrow what must be reported and what does not.

In 2023, we identified a group of states in the “C” category that either used the NCBE questionnaire or modeled their questions on the NCBE questionnaire. Utah, which had previously aligned its questions closely to jurisdictions that received a “C” grade when using NCBE’s former questions, in 2023 removed questions related to condition or impairment.[11]

South Carolina and Alaska have since also made revisions to their character and fitness questions, but they are not yet fully aligned with where we feel they should be. Alaska continues to ask questions that will be problematic for some applicants.[12] While South Carolina has one question focused on conduct, the jurisdiction retains a second question that now has been removed by the NCBE.[13] We will continue to advocate that all states in the C category review the new NCBE template with their Bar Examiners and State Supreme Courts so that they can move towards alignment.

As we celebrate all of these fundamental changes, we remind our partners laboring in the critical work of supporting law students that we must lift our voices and broadcast these reforms. These positive changes to character and fitness questions enable us to double down on communicating to our students that they should seek help while in law school without fear that their condition or impairment, in and of itself, will delay admission to the bar. Deans of Students, Campus Counseling Centers, Lawyer Assistance Programs and Lawyers Counseling Lawyers Programs, and all members of our village who serve and counsel law students and bar applicants should be sharing this updated information through all means possible. We continue on our lifetime quest to encourage healthy law students to become healthy lawyers.

[1] The authors are grateful to a large village of colleagues. We want to thank the ABA Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs (CoLAP) and every state LAP and LCL director and staff member who helps heal our students on a regular basis; IWIL (the Institute for Well-Being in Law) for carrying forward important work that started in earnest a mere 12 years ago; NALSAP, and our brother and sister deans of students; and for those unnamed, keep carrying on your incredible work. Thank you to our respective law schools for granting us space to advocate through the years.

We acknowledge the critical grant funding for the two national surveys of law students: AccessLex; the ABA Enterprise Fund (with sponsorship from the ABA Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs and the support of the ABA Law Student Division, the ABA Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division, the ABA Young Lawyers Division; and the ABA Commission on Disability Rights), and the Dave Nee Foundation.

We are indebted to our law students, who shine light in our lives every day and inspire our work. You are our legacy.

[2] https://www.ncbex.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/NCBE-Sample-Character-Report-Application_0.pdf, available at https://www.ncbex.org/character-fitness.

[3] David Jaffe, Katherine Bender and Jerome Organ, ‘It is Okay to Not Be Okay’: The 2021 Survey of Law Student Well-Being, 60 University of Louisville Law Review 441 (2022) (indicating that nearly 60% of respondents believe seeking help for substance use would be a potential threat to bar admissions; and 44% believed seeking help for mental health would be a potential threat to bar admissions); see also Janet Stearns and Jerry Organ, Well-Being and Professional Identity: Inextricably Linked, Holloran Center Professional Identity Implementation Blog, September 14, 2023 https://blogs.stthomas.edu/holloran-center/well-being-and-professional-identity-inextricably-linked/ (reflecting that law students in jurisdictions with less invasive Character & Fitness (C&F) questions as related to substance use and mental health were less likely to keep their problems hidden).

[4] Suzanne K. Richards, Hon. Phillis D. Thompson, Danette Waller McKinley PhD and Penelope J. Gessler, Focus on Diversity: The NCBE Character and Fitness Application: First Steps in a Thorough Review of Application Questions (Bar Examiner, Spring 2023); Lisa Perlin, Penelope J. Gessler and Suzanne Richards, The Journey to a Revised NCBE Character and Fitness Application (Bar Examiner, Fall 2025).

[5] Jerome M. Organ, David B. Jaffe and Katherine M. Bender, Ph.D., Helping Law Students Get the Help They Need: An Analysis of Data Regarding Law Students’ Reluctance to Seek Help and Policy Recommendations for a Variety of Stakeholders, The Bar Examiner (December, 2015). Suffering In Silence: The Survey of Law Student Well-Being and the Reluctance of Law Students to Seek Help for Substance Use and Mental Health Concerns, 66 Journal of Legal Education, Autumn 2016 at 116-156.

[6] Jaffe, supra note 1.

[7] David Jaffe and Janet Stearns, Conduct Yourselves Accordingly: Amending Bar Character and Fitness Questions to Promote Lawyer Well-Being, The Professional Lawyer, Volume 26 (January 22, 2020).

[8] David Jaffe and Janet Stearns, Fixing a Broken Character Evaluation Process, ABA Law Practice Today (2023). Jurisdictions received an “A” where all questions to mental health were removed; a “B” where jurisdictions asked about conduct or behavior; a “C” where jurisdictions asked or referred to condition or impairment or disorder, rather than focusing on conduct; and an “F” for jurisdictions where questions posed significant concerns (updates for jurisdictions that received an “F” are also described in the text).

[9] “Within the past 5 years, have you asserted any mental health or substance-related condition or impairment as a defense, in mitigation, or as an explanation for your conduct in the course of: (1) any administrative or judicial proceeding or investigation; (2) any investigation, discipline or proposed termination by an educational institution, government agency, professional organization, employer, or licensing authority; or (3) any employment or disciplinary action?” “Within the past 5 years, have you been involuntarily hospitalized?”

(Florida Board of Bar Examiners; “Application and Conversion Checklists and Supporting Forms”)

[10] “Within the past two years, have you had any condition or impairment (including, but not limited to, substance use, alcohol use, or a mental, emotional, or nervous disorder or condition) that would substantially inhibit your ability to practice law in a competent, ethical, and professional manner? If you have been or are being treated for a condition so that it does not currently affect your ability to practice law in a competent, ethical, and professional manner, then you need not disclose it.” (Supreme Court of Georgia Office of Bar Admissions; Browse Forms”)

[11] The sole related question: “Within the past five years, have you exhibited any conduct or behavior that could call into question your ability to practice law in a competent, ethical, and professional manner?” (Utah State Bar; “Application Information”)

[12] “Are you currently using narcotics, drugs or intoxicating liquors to such an extent that your ability to practice law would be impaired?”

“Are you currently suffering from any disorder that impairs your judgment or that would otherwise adversely affect your ability to practice law?” (Alaska Bar Association; “Information and Applications”)

[13] “Within the past five years, have you exhibited any conduct or behavior that could call into question your ability to practice law in a competent, ethical, and professional manner?”

“Do you currently have any condition or impairment (including, but not limited to, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or a mental, emotional, or nervous disorder or condition) that adversely affects your ability to practice law in a competent, ethical, and professional manner? (“Currently” means recently enough that the condition or impairment could adversely affect your ability to function as a lawyer.)” (Supreme Court of South Carolina

Office of Bar Admissions; “Applications and Information”)

Janet Stearns is Lecturer at the University of Miami School of Law and Chair of the ABA COLAP Law School Committee.

David Jaffe is associate dean for student affairs at American University Washington College of Law. Jaffe is recognized as one of the leading experts in the U.S. on law student mental health, having focused on wellness issues over the last two decades through his scholarship and presentations. He says he practices mindfulness by being present with his daughters whenever he can.

April 21, 2026 by hami3258

Marni Goldstein Caputo and Kathleen Luz to be honored with The Neil Hamilton Professional Identity Formation Distinguished Scholar Award

By Felicia Bennett

The Holloran Center is pleased to recognize Marni Goldstein Caputo and Kathleen Luz as the recipients of the Best Article Relating to Professional Identity Formation by a Senior Scholar award for their article, “Boundary-Setting and Choice-Making with No ‘Adult’ in the Room: Professional Identity Formation Opportunities for 1Ls in the Transactional Context,” published in the Virginia Law & Business Review in Summer 2025.

In this article, Caputo and Luz make an important contribution to scholarship on professional identity formation by focusing on the transactional context, an area often overlooked in the first-year law school curriculum. The authors highlight that many law students will practice in transactional settings, where professional identity formation presents distinct challenges.

Their article explains that transactional lawyers often work without the structure of a courtroom or the oversight of a judge. In that environment, lawyers must rely more heavily on their own judgment, values, and sense of professional responsibility. Caputo and Luz argue that this independent setting, with no “adult” in the room, makes professional identity formation especially important for students preparing for transactional practice.

The article also offers a practical model for teaching these lessons in the 1L curriculum. Through transactional simulations, students are introduced to skills such as boundary-setting, choice-making, and reflection, and are given opportunities to practice those skills in context. In this way, the authors show how law schools can help students begin developing the internal compass needed to navigate the ethical and professional complexities of legal practice.

Caputo and Luz’s scholarship reflects the Holloran Center’s commitment to advancing thoughtful and innovative approaches to professional identity formation. Their work broadens the conversation about how law schools can better prepare students for the realities of modern practice and the responsibilities of the profession.

April 15, 2026 by hami3258

David Grenardo

Civility Under Attack: Responding With… Civility

Professor David Grenardo has published a timely new article examining the role of civility in today’s legal profession. Amid declining social cohesion, heightened political tensions, growing mental health strain, and a constant stream of negative news, uncivil behavior has become an increasingly visible challenge. In such an environment, it is easy to become discouraged and to question how to respond to attacks on human dignity and professional decorum.

In this article, Professor Grenardo argues that the answer lies in a renewed commitment to civility itself, rather than resorting to escalation or retreat. He explores what incivility looks like in practice, engages with existing scholarship that critiques civility, and analyzes the tension between the First Amendment and efforts to uphold civility within the legal profession. The article offers a thoughtful framework for responding to incivility with principled, deliberate, and sustained civility.

The abstract of the article follows below.

Civility faces attacks on several fronts. First, civil conduct in society continues to erode. Incivility appears to be increasing in the workplace, and incivility also remains prevalent in the legal profession. Second, legal scholarship has set its sights on attacking civility, calling civility in the legal profession oppressive and racist. Third, the First Amendment has been weaponized to attack civility rules and norms in the legal profession. How should supporters and believers in civility respond to these attacks? The answer is with civility.

This Article argues that the various attacks on civility require a response embedded in civility. When incivility continues to ravage the legal profession, mandatory civility remains the answer. When legal scholarship attacks civility, the response needed includes a thoughtful, respectful, and civil retort. And when the First Amendment clashes with civility in the form of personal insults and attacks against individuals, civility should tend to prevail.

Part I of this Article provides an overview of incivility in the workplace, the legal profession, and society, and discusses the necessary response in the legal profession, mandatory civility. Part II discusses and responds to scholarship that directly attacks civility in the legal profession. Part III examines the intersection of the First Amendment and the regulation of lawyer speech. This Article concludes that as attacks on civility continue to mount, responding with civility remains the best solution.

You can read the full article on SSRN here.

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.

April 9, 2026 by hami3258

Katya Cronin

Katya Cronin to be honored with the Neil Hamilton Professional Identity Formation Emerging Scholar Award

By Felicia Bennett

The Holloran Center is pleased to recognize Katya Cronin, Associate Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School, as the recipient of the Neil Hamilton Professional Identity Formation Emerging Scholar Award. Professor Cronin is honored for her article, “Value-Centered Lawyering: Reshaping the Law School Curriculum to Promote Well-Being, Quality Client Representation, and a Thriving Legal Field” (published 2024), which offers a thoughtful and timely contribution to the growing body of scholarship on professional identity formation.

In her work, Professor Cronin examines a central challenge within legal education and the profession: the disconnect that often develops between lawyers’ personal values and the work they are asked to perform. She argues that traditional law school messaging can unintentionally encourage students to set aside their own beliefs and measure success primarily through external markers such as prestige and financial reward. Over time, this misalignment can lead to burnout and diminished wellbeing – an issue that affects individual lawyers as well as the quality of client representation and the health of the profession as a whole.

As a response, Professor Cronin proposes a shift toward “value-centered lawyering,” an approach that integrates regular self-reflection and intentional engagement with personal values into the law school curriculum. By encouraging students to align their career paths, client choices, and professional goals with their sense of purpose, her work highlights how legal education can better support the development of whole, self-aware professionals. This approach reflects a broader understanding of professional identity formation that recognizes lawyers as individuals whose integrity and wellbeing are essential to ethical and effective practice.

Professor Cronin’s scholarship connects with the Holloran Center’s mission to advance innovative, research-based approaches to professional identity formation. Her emphasis on wellbeing, reflective practice, and values integration reflects evolving expectations in legal education, including the increasing focus on forming lawyers who are both competent and committed to the value of serving others. Through this work, she offers a vision for how law schools can help shape a more sustainable and values-driven future for the legal profession.

Katya Cronin is a Associate Professor of Fundamentals of Lawyering at the George Washington University Law School.

April 8, 2026 by hami3258

Colette Schmidt, Stephanie Kupferman

Holloran Center Professional Identity Formation Outstanding Blog Award: “Silent Struggle”

by Felicia Bennett

The Holloran Center is pleased to recognize Stephanie Kupferman (Vermont Law) and Colette Schmidt (Paul Frank + Collins, formerly Vermont Law) as recipients of the Holloran Center Professional Identity Formation Outstanding Blog Award for their blog post, “Silent Struggle: Navigating Eating Disorders in the Legal Profession.” Their work shines a light on a frequently overlooked dimension of lawyer wellbeing and addresses the personal challenges that can shape professional identity, performance, and longevity in the legal field.

Kupferman and Schmidt’s blog post reflects the Holloran Center’s commitment to highlighting the importance of wellbeing in professional identity formation and aligns with the profession’s growing recognition that effective lawyering is strengthened by self-care and personal resilience. By examining the hidden pressures within legal culture and encouraging greater awareness, compassion, and institutional support, their post reinforces the importance of forming lawyers who are not only skilled and ethical, but also supported as whole persons.

This focus resonates strongly with the Center’s mission to foster intentional, values-based development of law students and lawyers alike.

Read the award-winning post: https://blogs.stthomas.edu/holloran-center/silent-struggle-navigating-eating-disorders-in-the-legal-profession/

March 31, 2026 by hami3258

Aric Short

Holloran Center Excellence in Teaching Award to be Presented to Aric Short for Difficult Conversations Class

By Felicia Bennett

On April 25, 2026, at the First Annual Holloran Center Conference and Law Journal Symposium, Professional Identity Formation – Looking Back and Looking Ahead, Aric Short will receive the Holloran Center Professional Identity Formation Excellence in Teaching Award for his class exercise, Navigating and Excelling in Difficult Conversations. A professor of law and Director of the Professional Identity & Leadership Development Program at Texas A&M University School of Law, Professor Short has developed this learning experience within his 1L Professional Identity Formation course that aims to equip law students with an essential, and often overlooked, professional skill: the ability to engage thoughtfully and constructively across disagreement.

In his class activity, Short highlights how lawyers routinely navigate emotionally charged disputes, conflicting values, and polarized viewpoints in their work with clients, colleagues, courts, and communities. Through guided reflection, structured dialogue exercises, and small-group discussion, students learn to shift from reacting defensively to responding with curiosity and respect. The activity emphasizes practices such as empathetic listening, asking questions of understanding rather than persuasion, and recognizing how emotions and identity shape the lenses through which we communicate. By creating space for students to share experiences, examine how conflict affects their thinking, and practice respectful dialogue on complex issues, the exercise helps future lawyers develop the judgment, humility, and interpersonal awareness necessary for effective and ethical practice.

Professor Short’s work reflects the mission of the Holloran Center to advance innovative approaches that help law students develop a strong professional identity grounded in integrity, self-awareness, and service to others. At a time when the legal profession—and society more broadly—faces deep polarization, teaching future lawyers how to foster constructive, respectful dialogue is central to forming ethical leaders in their communities. By equipping students with the tools to navigate disagreement with professionalism and empathy, Professor Short’s teaching exemplifies the type of intentional professional formation the Holloran Center seeks to promote across legal education.

You can find materials for this classroom exercise here: Short Classroom Materials

March 23, 2026 by hami3258

Felicia Bennett, Todd Peterson

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

Older Posts