professional formation – Holloran Center Professional Identity Implementation Blog
Browsing Tag

professional formation

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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.

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:

  1. Did you provide a preface or otherwise forecast the “bad news” or did you “jump right in” with the “bad news”?
  2. Did you explain the “bad news” clearly and directly, or did you dance around and try to “soft-peddle” the message?
  3. Did you use clear and simple language?
  4. Did you present an affect, tone, and mannerisms that suggested competence and confidence? How did you feel as you talked with the client?
  5. Did you demonstrate empathy and commitment to the client? How did you show empathy and commitment to the client?
  6. 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:

  1. Did the attorney provide a preface or otherwise forecast the “bad news” or did the attorney “jump right in” with the “bad news”?
  2. Did the attorney explain the “bad news” clearly and directly, or did the attorney dance around and try to “soft-peddle” the message?
  3. Did the attorney use clear and simple language?
  4. Did the attorney present an affect, tone, and mannerisms that suggested competence and confidence? Did you remain confident in the attorney’s knowledge/ability?
  5. Did the attorney demonstrate empathy and commitment to the client? How did you feel as the attorney was talking with you?
  6. 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.

Patrick Longan

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may find the other articles from the symposium instructive:

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

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

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

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

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

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