Browsing Tag

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

David Grenardo

What About Us? How Law Schools Can Help Historically Underrepresented Law Students Develop Their Professional Identities

In a forthcoming article for Mercer Law Review, Holloran Center Associate Director David Grenardo presents a critically important perspective on the ways that historically underrepresented students face obstacles to their professional identity formation. Grenardo provides context around why these issues can seem insurmountable to staff and faculty, and explains why it is crucial to tackle them head-on: structural biases in law school stall the academic and professional development of historically underrepresented students. He closes with practical, solution-oriented suggestions around mentorship, academic support, and experiential learning that would create an environment in which all students are welcome.

The article abstract follows. You can also read a draft of the entire article on SSRN.

The revised ABA Standards require law schools to provide substantial opportunities for law students to develop their professional identity. An individual’s professional identity as a lawyer consists of one’s personal identities integrated into who they are as a professional. Gaining a professional identity means going from an outsider to an insider in that profession, and a law student’s professional identity formation refers to the process of evolving from law student to lawyer. Law schools must dive into the murky waters of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation because that is where our historically underrepresented law students are, trying to become professionals in a system that sees them as the other, different, and outsiders.

Part I of the Article briefly defines professional identity. Part II sets forth an overview of the many obstacles historically underrepresented law students face—including, but not limited to, the historical exclusion of underrepresented individuals from law school and the legal profession, imposter syndrome, bias, microaggressions, wealth and education disparities—in developing their professional identity. Part III provides a summary of tangible solutions that law schools may employ to address those obstacles and help those law students develop their professional identity. This Article concludes that it is critical for law schools to intervene to ensure historically underrepresented law students can properly develop their professional identity.

Please reach out to David Grenardo at gren2380@stthomas.edu with any questions or comments.

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.

March 22, 2024 by hami3258

David Grenardo, Jerome Organ, Neil Hamilton

The Holloran Center in the News

by Felicia Hamilton, Holloran Center Coordinator

Jerry Organ, Associate Director of the Holloran Center, earned recognition as one the Top 20 Most Influential People in Legal Education by the National Jurist. From being a major player in the conversation that led to the revision of ABA Standard 303 to presenting at conferences on legal education and wellness around the world, Organ has been making major strides to advance professional identity formation and well-being for law students.

More details on this nomination are forthcoming upon the release of the National Jurist’s spring edition.

–

Neil Hamilton, Founding Director of the Holloran Center, was featured in the winter edition of the National Jurist. The article “What best prepares you for the practice of law?” by Sherry Karabin discusses the importance of experiential education. In this article, Hamilton is quoted regarding methods that encourage the thoughtful development of professional identity: “We think it’s…important that…educational experiences are coordinated in a progressive engagement of guided reflection over three years with the help of faculty and staff coaches.”[1]

–

Co-Director of the Holloran Center, David Grenardo, was interviewed by USA Today about the history of nepotism in the NFL prior to the 2024 Super Bowl. Drawing from his expertise in Sports Law, Grenardo highlights the contradiction between the perception of competitive sports as meritocratic and the existence of ownership structures that are decided by lineage or connections.

Speaking on the fact that 16 of the NFL’s 32 owners inherited their teams from family members, Grenardo notes: “’One of the reasons that these statistics may bother some people is that sports is supposed to be a meritocracy…The best players play on the team, and the team that plays the best wins. Meritocracy, however, applies to players, not ownership or coaching.’”[2]

[1] Karabin , S. (n.d.). What best prepares you for the practice of law? The National Jurist, 33(3), 9–10.

[2] Schrotenboer, B. (2024, February 8). Super Bowl is a reminder of how family heritage, nepotism still rule the NFL. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/super-bowl/2024/02/08/super-bowl-nepotism-nfl-49ers-chiefs-kyle-shanahan-andy-reid/72488948007/

March 12, 2024 by hami3258

Patrick Longan

Mercer Law School to Host Symposium on Current Issues in Professional Identity Formation

By: Pat Longan, William Augustus Bootle Chair in Ethics and Professionalism
Director, Mercer Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism
Mercer University School of Law

On March 8, 2024, Mercer University Law School and the Mercer Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism will host a symposium on current issues in professional identity formation. The Mercer Law Review will publish the articles that emerge from the event.

The symposium is the 24^th annual Georgia symposium on professionalism and ethics. The series is funded by an endowment that resulted from the settlement of charges of litigation misconduct in a civil case in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia in the 1990’s. That same settlement endowed professorial chairs in ethics and professionalism at Mercer, the University of Georgia, Emory University, and Georgia State. The annual symposium rotates among those four schools.

Mercer’s 2024 symposium will have four main presenters, who will each be followed by two commentators.

David Grenardo of the University of St. Thomas School of Law will present on “How Law Schools Can Help Historically Underrepresented Students Develop Their Professional Identities.” Women, people of color, first gen college and first gen law students, and individuals from the LGBTQIA+ group may have a harder time with their professional identity formation, particularly if they do not have family members, role models, and/or mentors who are lawyers. When you add in structural and institutional racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination, bias, and prejudice that are a part of the legal system, it makes it that much more difficult for historically underrepresented individuals to know where and how they will fit in as lawyers. David’s presentation will focus on what law schools can do for these students as they develop their professional identities.

The commentators for David’s presentation will be Barbara Glesner Fines from UMKC School of Law and Janice Craft from the University of Richmond School of Law.

Daisy Floyd from Mercer Law will speak on “The Role of Purpose in Professional Identity.” In Educating Lawyers, the Carnegie Report describes the apprenticeship of “identity and purpose” to emphasize the importance of grounding legal education—and the student’s emerging professional identity as a lawyer—in the public purposes of the profession. During the 1950’s, social scientists began to study the role of meaning and purpose in a person’s life, and the advent of positive psychology in the early 2000’s spurred an emerging body of empirical research on the importance of purpose to a fulfilled and meaningful life. This presentation will address what lessons legal educators can learn from purpose studies to inform our work on the formation of professional identity.

Ken Townsend from Wake Forest Law and Harmony Decosimo from Suffolk Law School will be Daisy’s commentators.

Kendall Kerew from Georgia State College of Law has chosen as her topic, “The Rule of Law, the Role of the Public Citizen, and Professional Identity Formation.” The Preamble of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct defines a lawyer as “a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice,” and charges lawyers as “public citizens” to “seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession” while also “further[ing] the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and justice system. . . .” This presentation will explore the intersection of the Preamble’s definition of lawyer with the intentional exploration of law student professional identity formation and training on cross-cultural competence, racism, and bias required by ABA Standards 303(b)(3) and 303(c) as a means to help students discern their role as future lawyers and empower students in their duties to protect the rule of law as the foundation of democracy, provide access to justice, and make change where the law has created injustice.

Kendall’s commentators will be Eduardo Capulong from CUNY School of Law and Kelly Terry from University of Arkansas Little Rock (UALR) William H. Bowen School of Law.

Finally, Aric Short from Texas A&M University School of Law will speak on “Beyond Fiduciary Duties: Developing Discernment to Navigate Conflict in Law Student Professional Identity Formation.” The concept of lawyer as fiduciary is deeply rooted in what it means to be an attorney—it’s integral to our professional identity. Aric’s presentation and paper will explore the concept of the lawyer as fiduciary, including how that label affects well-being messaging and programming in law schools. Aric will identify predictable conflicts that can arise for legal professionals in the areas of values, duties, and priorities and explore how we can more effectively guide students to develop effective skills of discernment to better prepare them for these professional conflicts.

Carwina Weng from LSAC and Lindsey Gustafson from UALR William H. Bowen School of Law will provide the commentary on Aric’s presentation.

The events begin with a dinner for the speakers, invited guests, and Mercer Law Review members the night of March 7 at the Georgia Sports Hall of Fame. The Honorable Tony DelCampo, President of the State Bar of Georgia, will provide the welcoming address. The following day’s program will be held in the Bell-Jones Courtroom at Mercer’s law school.

I extend my thanks to all who have agreed to be part of this event. Anyone who is interested in attending or has any questions about the symposium may contact me at longan_p@law.mercer.edu.

January 16, 2024 by hami3258

Barbara Glesner FInes, David Grenardo, Jerome Organ, Louis Bilionis, Neil Hamilton

Standard 303 and the Development of Student Professional Identity: A Framework for the Intentional Exploration of the Profession’s Core Values

By Felicia Hamilton, Holloran Center Coordinator

Holloran Center Directors Neil Hamilton, Jerry Organ, and David Grenardo, along with Holloran Center Fellows Barbara Glesner Fines and Louis Bilionis recently co-authored an article that supplies a framework for understanding the core values of the legal profession. The authors’ intention is to guide legal educators into a thoughtful exploration of the nature of these values, and to encourage law school faculty and staff to make intentional choices around how their programs highlight them. Using the metaphor of a tree, the authors address the core values of the “trunk” (a sense of responsibility to those whom the professional serves and the commitment to professional development) and the “branch” values as codified into the Model Rules.

Read more in the abstract for “Standard 303 and the Development of Student Professional Identity: A Framework for the Intentional Exploration of the Profession’s Core Values” below:

Legal educators, following the change in ABA accreditation Standard 303(b)(3)[1], must face directly the question “what are the core values of the legal profession?” This article offers a framework both to help faculty and staff clarify their thinking on what are the profession’s core values and to spotlight the choices law schools need to consider in purposeful fashion.

The framework offered here should also help allay two concerns that faculty, staff, and students may have about core values of the profession. One concern is that all statements of values are subjective in the sense that they are expressions of individual subjective preferences, beliefs, and attitudes.[2] A second concern is that statements of values tend to privilege the traditional, and hence fail to reflect the diversity of the profession and the experience and views of marginalized members of the profession – particularly with respect to the elimination of bias, discrimination, and racism.[3]

On the first concern, the article analyzes first the core values of all the service professions to point out two core values foundational to all of them. The article then analyzes the legal profession’s core values articulated in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted with some variation by all fifty states. The fifty-state adoption of the Model Rules indicates a strong consensus on the core values of the profession. On the second concern, the values framework offered here makes clear that elimination of bias, discrimination, and racism is among the profession’s core values, and that the profession should, on an ongoing basis, seek feedback widely regarding its core values, particularly from marginalized groups, and reflect on the feedback.

Part II outlines the ABA accreditation Standard 303 changes that require each law school to help students develop a professional identity through the intentional exploration of the values of the profession. This means the faculty and staff need to discern the values of the profession they want the students to explore. Part III analyzes what is a professional identity? Part IV provides a framework to help legal educators clarify their thinking about the profession’s core values. The framework features some widely shared fundamental values for all the service professions, and locates also values particular to the legal profession. Part V explores how the core values of the profession in part IV connect to “successful legal practice.” Part VI discusses cautionary arguments that traditional values like those in the Model Rules can privilege some groups and fail to account for the experiences and viewpoints of marginalized groups.

[1] Standards & Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, Standard 303(b)(3) (Am. Bar Ass’n 2023), [hereinafter Accreditation Standards], https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/standards/2023-2024/23-24-standards-ch3.pdf.

[2] See, e.g., Joseph Singer, Normative Methods for Lawyers, 56 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 899, 902-911 (2009).

[3] See discussion in Part VI of this article.

You can download the article from SSRN here.

Neil Hamilton is the Holloran 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 in Minnesota.

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

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.

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

Louis Bilionis is the Dean Emeritus and Droege Professor of Law at the University of Cincinnati College of Law.

October 24, 2023 by hami3258

David Grenardo, Felicia Hamilton

Debunking the Major Myths Surrounding Mandatory Civility for Lawyers Plus Five Mandatory Civility Rules That Will Work

By Felicia Hamilton, Holloran Center Coordinator

David Grenardo, Associate Director of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions, recently won the prestigious Warren E. Burger award for his essay “Debunking the Major Myths Surrounding Mandatory Civility for Lawyers Plus Five Mandatory Civility Rules That Will Work.” This award honors research that contributes significantly to the field of professionalism, civility, ethics, and excellence.

Building on his previous scholarship on the importance of civility in the legal profession, Grenardo tackles common misconceptions that prevent widespread standardization and proposes five rules for holding lawyers accountable to practicing civility with colleagues, clients, and opposing counsel.

Read the abstract below:

Civility remains a problem in the legal profession. Teaching law students about civility is important, if not critical, but it is not enough. Entertaining CLEs on civility for lawyers make for a fun hour, but they also fall short. Calls for civility and calls to return to civility have become routine, yet they can ring hollow. Adding phrases about civility to the oaths lawyers take to practice sounds wonderful, but those oaths oftentimes lack accountability. Recognizing that our country is divided and toxic in the way we communicate with each other is accurate, but that similarly fails to solve the problem. And most of all, we are naïve to hope that some lawyers will make significant changes to their behavior in a profession riddled with systemic incivility just because others in the legal profession kindly ask them to do so. Systemic change requires significant changes to the system.

Part I of this Article provides an overview of civility in the legal profession. Part II describes mandatory civility in the legal profession. Part III raises the major myths of mandatory civility and responds to each of them. Part IV includes proposed mandatory civility rules, while Part V sets forth arguments against mandatory civility and responds to those arguments. This Article concludes that mandatory civility rules are necessary and practicable.

How many more calls to civility must we endure as civility continues to decline in society and the legal profession? How long will the legal profession continue to pay lip service to civility while the negative effects of incivility continue to plague the profession? Talking is not enough—leaders of the legal system need to act. State bars, state supreme courts, and, if necessary, state legislatures must take the step that four brave states already have—mandate civility.

Download the full article from SSRN here.

Felicia Hamilton is the Coordinator for the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

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.

October 12, 2023 by hami3258