hami3258 – Holloran Center Professional Identity Implementation Blog
All Posts By

hami3258

Aric Short, Brent Godfrey, Tania Luma

Leadership, Character, and Professional Identity: New Scholarship in the Journal of Legal Education, Volume 74, Number 1: Part II

By Felicia Bennett, Holloran Center Coordinator

This is the second of two posts highlighting the scholarship found in Volume 74, No. 1 of the Journal of Legal Education.

As mentioned in our first article roundup, this issue is replete with relevant, practical, and thoughtful material on leadership and professional formation.

Today’s post covers the themes of legal education during times of institutional change and generative AI and professional formation. We believe these articles will be particularly useful in developing a thoughtful response to the unique technological and sociopolitical challenges that the legal profession is currently facing.

Below you will find article summaries with links to the scholarship and suggested, related reading on the Holloran Center Blog.

Lawyer Formation in Times of Institutional and Social Change

Tania Luma, “Obeying in Advance Will Not Save You: How Adaptive Leadership Can Help Legal Education Stay Mission Driven in Times of Authoritarianism and Fear,” Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Summer 2026).

This article identifies current challenges to democratic structures, especially in legal education, and dives into principles of leadership that can help institutions resist “mission drift” and remain committed to core values.

Brent Godfrey, “What Do We Do at the End of a World?: Cultivating Emergent Leadership in a Time of Collapse,” Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Summer 2026).

This article challenges current notions of leadership and presents ideas on how leadership, legal education, and lawyering might be approached in a world experiencing ecological, economic, and social change.

Professional Identity in a GenAI World

Aric K. Short, “Who’s the Lawyer Now? Professional Identity in a GenAI World,” Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Summer 2026).

This article focuses on three central questions: the relationship between GenAI and the development of a professional identity; the examination of practical judgment as an irreplaceable human skill; and the impacts of GenAI related time-savings on the legal profession.

We encourage readers interested in these questions to explore the full issue of the Journal of Legal Education and to continue the conversation about how legal education can help future lawyers develop the capacities necessary to serve clients, the profession, and society well.

Ashley London, Victoria Mullaney

The Systemic Devaluation of Legal Ethics Training and its Impact on Gen Z Law Students

By Ashley M. London, Associate Professor of Law at The Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University & Victoria Mullaney, recent graduate of Duquesne Law and former RA of Prof. London

Gen Z law students take their seats in law schools across the country with less academic training in the humanities and ethics – and saddled with more real-world experiences of anti-ethical lawyer behavior without public consequence – than any prior generation. And the problem will likely not be acknowledged, addressed, or remedied in the near future.

Recently, the American Bar Association (ABA) Council for the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar announced that its members voted to approve the elimination of Standard 206,1 which requires schools to “demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion.”2 This capitulation to the current administration’s demands to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) activities at academic institutions illustrates a problem that has plagued law schools behind the scenes for decades. While the ABA has historically sustained attacks from the U.S. Department of Justice for its alleged monopoly over the accreditation of law schools,3 perhaps none will prove more impactful to Gen Z than those challenges facing the ABA today.

Unlike earlier generations, Gen Z was born into a crisis of ethics nationally and globally. They come to law school with less of an underpinning in the humanities and display an ethical agnosticism. The rapid introduction of generative artificial intelligence (GAI), coupled with Gen Z’s constant digital engagement, bring additional challenges that must be addressed. Those Gen Z students who choose to attend law school arrive with a desire to shape the future, but are faced with high-profile examples of lawyers behaving unethically and suffering few, if any, disciplinary actions.

The systemic adulteration of legal ethics training began shortly after the ABA mandated Professional Responsibility courses be included in all law school curricula. The Watergate scandal of 1972-74 pushed the law school accreditor to include mandatory legal ethics courses for all students attending ABA-approved law schools.4 However, many professors resented this imposition and law schools treated the topic like an afterthought rather than a critical component of professional training for new lawyers. Today, Professional Responsibility courses are still largely regarded as the dogsbody of the curriculum and are increasingly used to house additional ABA requirements such as professional identity formation, cross-cultural competency, and leadership training – all within a 2 or 3 credit class.

In 1980, the ABA followed up on its mandate by working with the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) to get licensing bodies to require bar applicants to pass a two-hour test of ethical competency consisting of 60 multiple-choice questions presented in the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE).5 Students can take this examination while still in law school, and once completed, will have no other ethical training requirements except those imposed by jurisdictions as part of Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits to maintain licensure. Passing scores on the MPRE range from a low of 75 in jurisdictions such as Alabama, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, to a score of 80 in states such as Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, and North Carolina, and a high of 86 in just two jurisdictions (California and Utah).6 These scores purportedly showing competence in legal ethics worthy of licensure are plainly setting low expectations considering the national mean scores from 2022 through 2026 stay consistently above a scaled score of 93.7 When licensing bodies relegate the measure of legal ethics competency to the indignity of a short, fill-in-the-bubble assessment, Gen Z law students will not take it seriously.

The de-emphasis of the importance of legal ethics training continues with the introduction of additional curricular demands made by the ABA that get shoehorned into Professional Responsibility courses – in part because the concepts align with the study of ethics and an examination of lawyerly responsibilities to clients and the courts. In 2022, the ABA revised Standard 303(b) to “provide substantial opportunities for training and education in bias, cross-cultural competency and racism as well as professional identity development.”8 It was a response to feedback from deans, faculty, and ABA affiliates who expressed an increased need for this kind of training in law schools.9 It was also an attempt to address the increased rates of substance abuse and mental health disorders that continue to plague both lawyers and law students.10

While important and necessary to Gen Z law students and the legal profession as a whole, this training must be included somewhere in the 83-90 credit hours law schools adhere to in order to confer a Juris Doctor degree.11 With law schools today juggling the ABA demands of high bar passage rates, employment outcomes, and the rapid adoption of GAI tools in the law and legal education, resource consolidation is a natural response to fulfill additional accreditation requirements.

Indeed, Professional Responsibility courses provide a logical place for introducing aspiring lawyers to the cultural competency and professional identity training required by revised ABA Standard 303. But combining legal ethics with anti-racism and bias education fails to honor the importance of both by watering down two of the most urgent issues dogging the legal profession.12 For example, the ABA adopted Model Rule 8.4(g) in 2016, proscribing discrimination and harassment by lawyers in their legal practice.13 Introduced in Professional Responsibility courses, a rule purportedly promoting a core professional value makes for a good segue into a discussion about anti-racism and personal bias and the roles these play in the justice system.14 But this single required course is not just tasked with instructing students on cultural competency concepts, and this alignment comes at a content cost for law professors constrained by limited credit hours. Other important legal ethics topics such as confidentiality, conflicts of interest, fees, communication, scope and allocation of authority, candor to the tribunal, and many more must be addressed in order for law students to pass the course, pass the MPRE, and most importantly learn the essential framework of ethical duties and responsibilities required of lawyers.

Professional Responsibility is one of the very few required courses in law school specifically tasked with requiring students to consider their own moral codes, values, and behaviors in the context of the ethical rules that bind lawyers legally and as part of an administrative law-like disciplinary system. However, an additional hindrance to meaningful ethics training in law schools is that Professional Responsibility courses focus solely on the ABA Model Rules and not the specific rules of professional conduct adopted by state jurisdictions where law schools will practice. While many jurisdictions have adopted the Model Rules almost verbatim, differences do exist, and lawyers will be disciplined based on jurisdiction-specific rules and not the model rules promulgated by the ABA. Therefore, students are inclined to treat these rules as advisory only, making the study of the model rules seem like more of a burden than a real benefit. Additionally, legal ethics questions most often exist in the grey, with very few of the ethical rules offering direct prohibitions or explicit permissions. Studies show that Gen Z would benefit more by studying an active model of legal ethics that is broadened to include lawyers from all parts of the profession.15

Substantial shifts in American culture that include a decline in the study of humanities and the rapid development of technology have left today’s largely Gen Z law student16 population with a lack of traditional scholastic exposure to nuanced philosophical issues involving ethics and morals.17 Studies show, for example, this generation believes what is right or wrong can change over time.18 Another recent study showed that Gen Z is more likely to evaluate situations based on self-chosen ethical principles, and that this generation may not “exhibit as homogenous ethical identity.”19 The meteoric rise of smartphone usage, social media, and generative artificial intelligence20 means Gen Z law students have had unique exposure to the increased polarization of society, the age of post-truth politics,21 and the increasing number of popularized lawyers’ scandals. Comments made in June 2026 about Watergate from Yale Law graduate and Vice President JD Vance, “that if Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story,” and, “the idea that it took down a presidency is crazy,”22 typify how far modern lawyers have departed from professional ethics principles. It is into a fractured and long-neglected space of devalued legal ethics training that Gen Z attends law schools.

If the institutions of learning, the ABA, and the licensing bodies do not appear to take legal ethics seriously by elevating its importance in law schools, and testing ethics via the MPRE is perfunctory, Gen Z law students are invited to deduce that ethical training is surplus to requirements to becoming a lawyer. Today, the legion of scandals involving lawyers makes Watergate seem modest by comparison. But outrageous ethical violations clarify the need for reform.

This blog is an excerpt from London and Mullaney’s 2026 article titled, “Ethics are so Mid: Gen Z and the Systemic Devaluation of Legal Ethics.

Footnotes

  1. Emma Cueto and Andrea Keckley, ABA Law School Accrediting Arm Repeals Diversity Standard, Law360, Sept. 8, 2026. https://www.law360.com/articles/2522668/aba-law-school-accrediting-arm-repeals-diversity-standard↩︎

  2. A.B.A, Diversity and Inclusion Standard 206 (2024). https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/standards/2024-2025/2024-2025-standards-chapter-2.pdf↩︎

  3. U.S. v. American Bar Ass’n, 943 F. Supp. 436 (D.D.C. 1996). After it was denied provisional accreditation by the ABA, the Massachusetts School of Law also brought an antitrust action against the ABA as well as the Law School Admission Services, Law School Admission Council, the Association of American Law Schools, and others alleging anticompetitive practices. The district court granted the ABA’s motion for summary judgement. See also, Mass. Sch. of L. at Andover, Inc. v. Am. B. Ass’n, 937 F. Supp. 435 (E.D. Pa. 1996), aff’d, 107 F.3d 1026 (3d Cir. 1997).↩︎

  4. A.B.A, Curriculum Standard 303 (a) (2025), “A law school shall offer a curriculum that requires each student to satisfactorily complete at least the following: (1) one course of at least two credit hours in professional responsibility that includes substantial instruction in rules of professional conduct, and the values and responsibilities of the legal profession and its members.”↩︎

  5. NCBE Testing Milestones, Bar Examiner (2021), https://thebarexaminer.ncbex.org/article/summer-fall-2021/ncbe-testing-milestones/ ; National Conference of Bar Examiners, Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, National Conference of Bar Examiners, https://www.ncbex.org/exams/mpre/about-mpre (last visited July 25, 2026). Developed and promulgated by the Wisconsin-based nonprofit organization the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), this exam tests knowledge of the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct. The exam initially rolled out to six jurisdictions across the country. Today, the MPRE is “required in all but two U.S. jurisdictions (Wisconsin and Puerto Rico).” Connecticut and New Jersey do not require a passing MPRE score, instead only requiring a passing law school grade in a Professional Responsibility course.↩︎

  6. National Conference of Bar Examiners, The Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE), The Bar Examiner, https://thebarexaminer.ncbex.org/2023-statistics/the-multistate-professional-responsibility-examination-mpre/ (last visited July 26, 2026). Required scores as of 2023, according to the NCBE.↩︎

  7. Press Release, National Conference of Bar Examiners, NCBE Releases National Mean for March 2026 MPRE (Apr. 28, 2026). The national mean score for the March 2026 MPRE was a robust 97.4. The exam is scaled from 50-150.↩︎

  8. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2021/05/law-school-standards/? login July 25, 2026.↩︎

  9. Memorandum from the Standards Committee on Proposed Changes to Standards 205 and 206, 303, and 508, and 507 to the Council (May 7, 2021). https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/may21/21-may-standards-committee-memo-proposed-changes-with-appendix.pdf – pg. 7 Memorandum from Scott Bales Chair, ABA Council on Legal Educ. & Admissions to the Bar & William Adams, Managing Dir., Accreditation and Legal Educ. to Interested Persons Regarding ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure–Matters for Notice and Comment–Standards 303 and 508 and Rules 2 and 13 (Mar. 1, 2021)↩︎

  10. Joshua Aaron Jones, Implementing ABA Standard 303(b)(3): Positive Legal Education Through A Community of Inquiry, 48 Vt. L. Rev., 564, 568 (2024) (citing Jordana Alter Confino, Where Are We on the Path to Law Student Well-Being?: Report on the ABA CoLAP Law Student Assistance Committee Law School Wellness Survey, 68 J. Legal. Educ. 650, 650 (2019)); Mental Health Information, ABA (last visited July 25, 2026), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_students/resources/mental-health/information; Law Deans Clearinghouse for Mental Health, The Assoc. of Am L. Schs., https://www.aals.org/mental-health-clearinghouse (last visited July 25, 2026); Mike Robinson, 6 Law Student Mental Health Statistics, Clio, (Aug. 29, 2025), https://www.clio.com/blog/law-student-mental-health-statistics.↩︎

  11. A.B.A, Academic Program and Academic Calendar Standard 311 (2025), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/misc/legal_education/Standards/2018-2019ABAStandardsforApprovalofLawSchools/2018-2019-aba-standards-chapter3.pdf . Law schools shall require, as a condition for graduation, successful completion of a course of study of not fewer than 83 credit hours.↩︎

  12. The authors make this point with a degree of hesitation during this time of federal and state challenges to efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. We are advocating that law schools take both legal ethics and cultural competency training seriously enough to include multiple required courses on the topics. Doing this would demonstrate to Gen Z students that these are serious matters worthy of in-depth study and reflection.↩︎

  13. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct r. 8.4 Misconduct (Am. Bar Ass’n 2025). https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_8_4_misconduct/↩︎

  14. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct r. 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor (Am. Bar Ass’n 2025). ABA MR 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor is one area where this topic fits especially well, and is covered in most Professional Responsibility textbooks.↩︎

  15. Arda Yunita Subardi, Rugaiyah & Supadi, The Learning Preferences of Generation Z in Active Learning and Its Implications for Improving Educational Quality: A Perspective of Educational Management, 3(1) J. Ragam Pengabdian 765, 765 (2026).↩︎

  16. Michael Dimock, Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins, Pew Research Center, (Jan. 17, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/ ; See Generation Z, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Generation-Z (last visited July 25, 2026); What is Gen Z?, McKinsey & Company, (Aug. 28, 2024), https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-gen-z; Generation Alpha, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, https://www.aecf.org/topics/generation-alpha (last visited July 25, 2026).↩︎

  17. Nathan Heller, The End of the English Major, New Yorker (Feb. 27, 2023), https://wpcdn.web.wsu.edu/wp-provost/uploads/sites/3253/2023/03/The-EndoftheEnglishMajor-_NewYorker.pdf. Detailing the falling enrollment in traditional humanities courses and majors at major U.S. academic institutions even when the economy is doing well.↩︎

  18. 5 Things You Need to Know About Gen Z, Barna, (Sept. 12, 2024), https://www.barna.com/research/gen-z-2024/ . Gen Z strongly agree that what is morally right or wrong can change over time based on society. There are some areas where Gen Z prioritize individual beliefs over absolute truths. See also, Neil Mahto, The Humanities are being neglected in American universities, Johns Hopkins Newsletter, (Mar. 14, 2024) https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2024/03/the-humanities-are-being-neglected-in-american-universities. Barraged with the concept of “useless college majors,” Gen Z has been guided away from the study of humanities and into STEM programs. Humanities includes studies of literature, philosophy, and gender studies, all rooted in moral and ethical theory and thinking. See also, Brendan Reim, The Decline and Fall of the Humanities, Heights Forum, (Sept. 13, 2024), https://heightsforum.org/article/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-humanities/.↩︎

  19. James Weber, Discovering generation Z’s level of principled moral reasoning and assessing demographic variations. Bus. Ethics, the Env’t & Resp., 34, 951–63.↩︎

  20. See generally, April L. Milburn-Knizner & Megan E.K. Montcalm, TL;DR: The Truth About Gen Z Law Students & Why They Need More, Not Less, 89 Alb. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2026)↩︎

  21. The Trends Shaping a Post-Truth Society, Barna, (Jan. 9, 2018), https://www.barna.com/research/truth-post-truth-society/. The term “post-truth” is increasingly used to describe the current political climate in the U.S. The term “fake news” is also a cultural phenomenon representing a decrease of public trust in institutions. See also, Bruce Ledewitz, The Resurrection of Trust in American Law and Public Discourse, Duquesne Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2018.↩︎

  22. Lauren Gambino, JD Vance says Nixon’s Watergate scandal would be ’12-hour news story’ today, Guardian (Jun. 25, 2026, at 20:12 ET) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/25/jd-vance-watergate-richard-nixon; Charlie Borla, Vice President JD Vance says it’s ‘crazy Watergate led to a president’s downfall during a speech at the Nixon Library, Orange Cnty. Reg. (June 26, 2026, at 16:21 PT), https://www.ocregister.com/2026/06/26/vice-president-jd-vance-says-its-crazy-watergate-led-to-a-presidents-downfall-during-a-speech-at-the-nixon-library/.↩︎

 

Ashley M. London is an associate professor of law at The Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, PA. Her research centers around the interplay of legal ethics, emerging technologies, and lawyer licensure, with an emphasis on the need for an increased commitment to legal ethics training both for lawyers and law students.

Victoria Mullaney is a recent graduate of The Thomas R. Kline School of Law and the former research assistant for Prof. London. She is currently awaiting her bar exam results before starting her career in civil litigation. Mullaney received the Susan H. Wilkie Award for Professional Responsibility and Ethics in the Practice of Law in May 2026 for her commitment to promoting ethical practices and study while in law school.

Ben Rigney, Daisy Floyd, Elisabeth Kincaid, Janice Craft, Katya Cronin, Kenneth Townsend, Leah Teague, Louis Bilionis, Neil Hamilton, Timothy Floyd

Leadership, Character, and Professional Identity: New Scholarship in the Journal of Legal Education, Volume 74, Number 1

By Felicia Bennett, Holloran Center Coordinator

The latest issue of the Journal of Legal Education offers a rich collection of articles addressing professional identity formation, leadership, and character development. Developed as a follow-up to the 2025 Leadership and Character in the Law Conference at Wake Forest University School of Law, this issue brings rising and distinguished scholars together to examine an increasingly central question of legal education: How can law schools form the leadership and judgment skills of law students so that they enter the profession with a values-driven approach to their role as both lawyers and citizens?

Readers of the Holloran Center’s blog will be familiar with the themes covered in these articles. Authors explore professional identity formation as a theory, the role and importance of virtues and values, leadership and character formation, the responsibilities of lawyers in times of institutional change, and the challenge that generative AI poses to the development of professional judgment skills.

This is the first of two posts that will highlight the scholarship in Volume 74 of the Journal of Legal Education. Today’s post contains the themes of professional identity formation as a theory and leadership and character development. We present these two themes together because they are at the core of the questions faced by legal education today: what are the human-centered skills and traits that law students need to acquire as they prepare to enter society as leaders, and how do law schools shape curricula and pedagogies to support this formation process?

The next post will cover articles on the topics of legal education during times of institutional change and generative AI and professional formation.

Below you will find article summaries with links to the scholarship and suggested, related reading on the Holloran Center Blog.

The Theory of Professional Identity Formation

Louis D. Bilionis & Neil W. Hamilton, “Professional Identity Formation As Theory and As Practice for the Education of a Lawyer,” Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Summer 2026).

This article examines the value of professional identity formation as a unifying theory of legal education that ties academic performance and bar passage, meaningful employment, and a client-centered mindset into the same pedagogical package.

Character, Values, and Leadership Development

Kenneth Townsend, “Leadership and Character in the Law: An Introduction From Kenneth Townsend,” Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Summer 2026).

Townsend introduces the importance of addressing leadership and character development in the face of internal and external pressures in the legal profession.

Leah Teague, “Fostering Future Difference-Makers: The Integration of Leadership Training in Law Schools,” Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Summer 2026).

This article highlights the critical responsibility that law schools have for developing character, professionalism, and ethics in students. With lawyers heavily represented in leadership positions across sectors, Teague argues that including training that prepares students to “serve and lead with integrity” is not optional.

Elisabeth Rain Kincaid, “Practicing Pietas: Character Development for Lawyers as Citizens,” Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Summer 2026).

This article draws connections between the trait of patriotism and the Augustinian/Thomist theory of piety, establishing a positive framework for a lawyer as a virtuous and engaged citizen.

Katya S. Cronin, “Conviction, Character, Courage: The Case for Integrating Values into the Professional Identity Formation of Tomorrow’s Lawyer-Leaders,” Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Summer 2026).

This article explores the role of leadership in the law and argues for the importance of reworking law school curricula to foster moral growth.

Timothy W. Floyd, “Moral Virtues, Professional Identity, and Leadership,” Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Summer 2026).

This article focuses on how the professional identity of lawyers can be framed as the front line of defense for the preservation of a societal commitment to the rule of law. Floyd posits that lawyers are uniquely positioned to serve as ethical leaders, provided they are formed to center values and virtues as part of their professional identity.

Benjamin Rigney & Janice Craft, “The Large Impact of Small Groups on the Character-Based Leadership Development of Law Students,” Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Summer 2026).

This article highlights the role of lawyers as change agents and proposes that small-group work can play a vital pedagogical role in the formation of law students as future ethical leaders.

Eduardo Capulong, Jerome Organ

Holloran Center Rule of Law Materials Now Available

The Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions is pleased to share new Rule of Law materials developed by the Holloran Center Rule of Law Working Group and recently published by West Academic. The Working Group is a joint enterprise of the Holloran Center 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.

These Rule of Law materials are grounded in the recognition that professional identity formation must engage law students in understanding the distinctive responsibility of lawyers, as public citizens and officers of the court, to support the rule of law. The materials include a definition of the rule of law in the context of American constitutional democracy, supplemental descriptions of foundational principles, a rule of law learning outcome, and a milestone for assessing progress on that learning outcome.

The Holloran Center has also made available a growing collection of rule of law resources, including links to court-based materials, bar association initiatives, law library research guides, educational resources, books, and articles. Together, these materials are intended to support law schools, faculty, and students as they deepen their understanding of the rule of law and the role lawyers play in sustaining justice, accountability, and the common good.

You can access Rule of Law materials and research on our website. This page will be regularly updated.

Neil Hamilton at symposium
Neil Hamilton

Podcast Interview with Neil Hamilton

Neil Hamilton has officially been honored as Professor Emeritus of the University of St. Thomas School of Law and Emeritus Founding Director of the Holloran Center.

To mark the occasion, we are pleased to share an interview with Neil featured in the latest season of St. Thomas’s Professor Podcast. In the episode, Neil reflects on his career and his research on ethical professional formation, including the importance of purpose, professional identity, experiential learning, reflection, and mentorship. He also discusses how generational changes and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence are shaping legal education and increasing the importance of distinctly human skills, including empathy, judgment, and relationship-building.

We are deeply grateful for Neil’s many years of service and his lasting contributions to ethical leadership and professional formation. We hope you enjoy listening to the episode.

Listen to Neil’s interview on Professor Podcast.

 

Andrew Mamo

A Tale of Two Civilities

by Andrew Mamo, Professor of Law at the University of Cincinnati College of Law

Those involved in PIF may be interested in a new article recently published in the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, A Tale of Two Civilities.

This article grounds the institutionalization of civility initiatives in the law in the legal, political, and cultural environment of the United States in 1971, when Chief Justice Warren Burger emphasized “the necessity for civility.” Crucially, Burger explicitly argued that radical lawyering practices lay beyond the pale of civility. In this, Burger was joined by a significant cross-section of the legal profession, including judges, leaders of bar associations, law school deans, and other commentators.

But even as Burger argued that norms of civility were essential to the reasoned adjudication of conflicts, those more sympathetic to radical claims and those with an anti-formalist bent argued that civility protected institutions from necessary critique and obscured the true nature of conflict by limiting what was discussable. A law professor warned that we lived in “a lawless society, and it is the executive branch that is acting lawlessly,” and argued that we needed to develop our capacities to identify systemic injustices. The alternative to Burger’s civility was a loose cluster of initiatives to foster mutual understanding across fundamental differences by frankly naming what was at issue.

Burger’s institutional form of civility constrained conflict while the alternative form of civility strived to make conflict speakable. Both persist within the law, but they pull in different directions. As we face a renewed “necessity for civility” today, this history of legal civility can help us understand its contestable function—and how we can educate lawyers who can reason through conflict without abandoning their critical vision.

You can read the article here. Please contact Andrew Mamo if you have any questions.

Andrew Mamo is a professor of law at the University of Cincinnati Donald P. Klekamp College of Law. His research concerns the history and theory of dispute resolution and negotiation, with an emphasis on the history of dispute resolution practices, the role of technology in dispute resolution, and the professionalization of dispute resolution.

Hank Shea

“Avoiding the Slippery Slope”: Interview with Holloran Fellow Hank Shea

We are pleased to share this interview with Holloran Center Fellow Hank Shea. This was originally published by Harvard Law School’s Center on the Legal Profession.

“I started to ask, How could I still do my job but achieve justice outside the box? During plea negotiations, I started encouraging defendants to pay restitution immediately, not when the court orders it. In cases of public corruption and environmental crimes where the whole community is being harmed, I said, ‘If you really want to do the right thing, do something to restore and heal the entire community.'”

You can read the interview here.

Hank Shea is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney. He is a Senior Distinguished Fellow at the University of St. Thomas School of Law and is a Fellow at the Holloran Center and the Initiative on Restorative Justice and Healing.

Jerome Organ

Announcement: Jerry Organ Appointed Interim Dean of School of Law

We are excited to share the news that Holloran Center Co-Director Jerry Organ will serve as Interim Dean of the University of St. Thomas School of Law for the 2026-27 Academic Year. In a letter to faculty and staff this week, Professor Organ reiterated his commitment to steward and build on the unique community of care we have here at the School of Law. As one of the founding faculty members of the law school, he has been living out the mission as a servant leader from the school’s inception, and we know he will sustain and foster our goals of love of student, love of neighbor, and love of knowledge.

A letter from Provost Eddy Rojas regarding this appointment is included below.

Dear School of Law Faculty and Staff,

As you know, Dean Dan Kelly has accepted an offer to become the next dean of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. While we will miss Dan’s leadership and contributions to the University of St. Thomas School of Law, his appointment is also a meaningful recognition of the strength, reputation, and growing national profile of our law school.

Over the last several days, I have engaged in meaningful consultation with faculty and staff regarding the School of Law and the best way to proceed during this transition. I am grateful for the thoughtful group conversations, one-on-one discussions, and emails I have received. Your candor, wisdom, and evident care for the School of Law have been deeply helpful to me.

After listening carefully and discerning the best course of action, I have decided to appoint Professor Jerry Organ as interim dean of the School of Law, effective June 24. Jerry is widely respected within the School of Law, across the University, and nationally in legal education. He brings deep institutional knowledge, a steady and collaborative leadership style, and a longstanding commitment to the mission and excellence of the School of Law.

Professor Organ will serve as interim dean for the coming academic year while we conduct a national search for the next dean. During this period, our shared goal will be not simply to maintain the School of Law’s strong position, but to continue advancing its momentum, building on its many strengths, and sustaining its upward trajectory as one of the most mission-centered and respected law schools in the country.

The School of Law is in a very strong position. Our student outcomes, bar passage, employment results, national reputation, and distinctive mission all speak to the exceptional work of our faculty, staff, students, alumni, and leadership. This is a community with real momentum, a clear sense of purpose, and a deep commitment to forming lawyers who lead with integrity, excellence, and a concern for the common good.

I am grateful to Jerry for his willingness to serve in this important role, and I know he will benefit from the partnership and support of this outstanding community. I am also grateful to all of you for your dedication to the School of Law and for the thoughtful way you have engaged this transition.

My best,

Eddy Rojas, Ph.D.

Executive Vice President and Provost

 

Barbara Glesner FInes, Daisy Floyd, David Grenardo, Erika Pont, Jerome Organ, Neil Hamilton, Patrick Longan, Timothy Floyd, Todd Peterson

By the Numbers: The Holloran Center

By Barbara Glesner Fines, Rubey M. Hulen Professor of Law, Dean Emerita of UMKC School of Law

(header photo, from L to R: Jerry Organ, Ben Madison, Barb Glesner Fines, Daisy Floyd, Timothy Floyd, Erika Pont, Neil Hamilton, David Grenardo)

The occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Holloran Center provides an opportunity to review the Center’s twenty years by the numbers.

First, let’s just count heads at Holloran:

One. Neil Hamilton, whose interest and concern for professionalism and the development of ethical leaders has been the centerpiece of his work since the beginning of his career.  A prodigious, thoughtful, humble, and generous scholar.  His humility, wisdom, and collaborative spirit set the Center up for success from day one.

Two. Jerry Organ, with Neil, a founding member of the University of St Thomas School of Law. Also an influential scholar, Jerry has brought an indefatigable energy and a brilliant talent at convening and communication that ensured that the Holloran Center would never be a best kept secret.

Three. A magical number, that magic came together when Tom Holloran gave his time, talent, and treasure to ensure that the Holloran Center would have strength, stability, and impact. His spirit continues to animate it.

Four. By joining the Holloran leadership team, David Grenardo has broadened the focus and reach of professional identity formation.  His scholarship’s focus on inclusivity and civility (not to mention his kindness and good humor) not only makes faculty want to be part of the Holloran Center mission, but also lets them know that they are welcome.

Five. Felicia Bennett, and Brady King before her, are the extraordinary assistants who have lent their own unique perspectives and skills to make sure that the Center gets the work done.

What happens when you add together a team like this?  Addition becomes multiplication.

Let’s just consider publications.

Neil and Jerry have published eight books (and counting) that focus on some aspect of professional identity formation (PIF).  Since then, at least fifteen other faculty members have published ten textbooks that also focus on this theme.

Neil, Jerry, and David have published over 120 law review articles, book chapters, or other academic monographs, not to mention over 100 blog posts, focusing on PIF.  The multiplication is evident from a Lexis search identifying over four hundred law review articles that discuss professional identity formation; 139 of those have PIF in the title.

Then there are the Holloran Center’s workshops, conferences, and programs. By my count, over 300 faculty have attended a Holloran Center workshop.  The leadership team also takes PIF on the road, with over 30 presentations annually at an alphabet soup of national and international organizations from pre-law advisors to the practicing bar and everywhere in between.

The consequence? Over 100 law schools have first-year required courses or programs on professional formation.  With the passage of ABA accreditation standard 303(b) more will come, and they will look to the Holloran Center for leadership and guidance.

Three of the earliest of these law school programs prove how much impact on students this can mean:

The University of St. Thomas School of Law has a 1L course entitled “Serving Clients Well”. The program introduces students to the profession and its values and gets the students started on the law school’s Mentor Externship program. The program was started in 2018 with over 150 students having completed it each year. Many of these graduates have gone on to serve as mentors to the next generation of students in the program. 

Another early example of a first-year PIF course can be found at Mercer Law in their 1L “Legal Profession” course, originally conceived by Patrick Longan, William Augustus Bootle Chair in Professionalism and Ethics, and further developed and taught by Longan and Daisy Hurst Floyd, University Professor of Law and Ethical Formation and Timothy Floyd, Tommy Malone Distinguished Chair in Trial Advocacy and Director of Experiential Education. The course was established in 2004 and is taught using Professors Floyd, Longan, & Floyd’s text, The Formation of Professional Identity: The Path from Student to Lawyer, now in its second edition. Mercer’s 1L class size has stayed consistent at about 150 students a year over those twenty years since the course was founded.  That means about 3,000 Mercer graduates began their law school journey immersed in virtue ethics and reflection on what it means to be a lawyer.

This year the Holloran Center recognized George Washington Law School for its signature PIF program.  GW established its Fundamentals of Lawyering program in 2019. The required 1L course integrates PIF principles and is taught by a team of faculty members led by its Director, Professor Iselin Gambert, and by Associate Directors Professor Anita Singh and Associate Professor Erika Pont.  The Fundamentals Program is part of a comprehensive program including the school’s Inns of Court and Foundations of Practice programs, directed by Carville Dickinson Benson Research Professor Todd D. Peterson. These programs were conceived and planned in part through GW faculty attendance at multiple Holloran Center workshops.  With GW’s average annual matriculation of about 600 first-year students, that adds up to 3,000 graduates impacted by the program to date.

Just these three courses, pioneered by leaders connected to the Holloran Center, have introduced over 7,500 students to the fundamental values of the profession and provided students opportunities for mentorship and reflection.

The Holloran Center’s broader impact shows that educational change does not happen because of one article or one speech. It happens when scholars name an important idea, develop it repeatedly, support it with evidence, build organizations and tools around it, bring other people into the work, and stay with it long enough for the idea to move from innovation to best practice.  It happens when no one person owns an idea and early entrants are flexible enough to support and encourage the broadening of their ideas. It shows that real reform in legal education is not only intellectual. It is strategic, collaborative, and persistent.

The numbers make it clear that in twenty years of leadership, the Holloran Center has embodied the twin values of PIF: a continual striving for growth and excellence, and a deeply embedded value of service in ever widening circles.

Congratulations to the Holloran Center and to the hundreds of faculty, staff, students, attorneys, and judges who count themselves part of this extraordinary organization.

 

Barbara Glesner FInes, Jerome Organ

New Open-Source Textbook: INTERVIEWING & COUNSELING IN THE PROSPECTIVE CLIENT CONSULTATION

by Barbara Glesner Fines, Rubey M. Hulen Professor of Law, Dean Emerita of UMKC School of Law

The Holloran Center is pleased to announce a new resource for a key skill for professional identity formation.  Co-Director of the Holloran Center & Bakken Professor of Law Jerry Organ and Rubey M. Hulen Professor of Law, Dean Emerita of UMKC School of Law, and Holloran Center Fellow Barbara Glesner Fines have just published INTERVIEWING & COUNSELING IN THE PROSPECTIVE CLIENT CONSULTATION (eLangdell 2026).

Because the text holds a creative commons license, faculty can freely adopt and adapt the text for many different uses. Possible uses include:

  • A primary text in an interviewing and counseling course;
  • A secondary text in a lawyering skills course;
  • A resource to support client interviewing exercises in doctrinal or broader lawyering skills classes; and
  • Training materials to prepare students for clinics, externships, and competitions.

Because this is an open-source textbook, the materials are also free to students.

The text frames instruction in the context of the initial interview of a prospective client, although the counseling portion of the text goes beyond what many attorneys might actually address in an initial interview. The knowledge and skills addressed in the text can apply equally to any conversation with a client or others involved in a matter.  The text provides ample opportunities for students to connect these skills to their ongoing conception of what it means to be an attorney, with practice problems representing diverse areas of practice and prompts for reflective writing or discussion.

You can access the book here: https://www.cali.org/books/interviewing-counseling-prospective-client-consultation.

Questions? Feel free to contact Jerry Organ (jmorgan@stthomas.edu) or Barbara Glesner Fines (glesnerb@umkc.edu).

Jerome Organ is the Bakken Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions at the University of St. Thomas School of Law

Barbara Glesner Fines is the Dean and Rubey M. Hulen Professor of Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.

Barbara Glesner Fines is the Dean and Rubey M. Hulen Professor of Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.