Browsing Tag

professional formation

Aric Short

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

By Felicia Bennett

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

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

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

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

March 23, 2026 by hami3258

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

By Felicia Bennett

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 16, 2026 by hami3258

Uncategorized

Living Our Professional Values Through AI

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

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

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

AI as a Tool for Zealous Advocacy

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

AI as a Way to Expand Access

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

AI in Honest Negotiation

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

AI and Judgment

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

AI Supporting Professional Judgment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 25, 2025 by hami3258

David Grenardo

Delivering Bad News Exercise

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

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

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

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

Framework

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

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

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

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

Set-up of the Activity

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

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

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

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

The Scenarios

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflection Questions on the Forms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debrief as a Class

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

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

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

Further Reflection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resource Links:

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

July 18, 2025 by hami3258

Patrick Longan

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may find the other articles from the symposium instructive:

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 8, 2025 by hami3258

Felicia Bennett

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

By Felicia Bennett, Holloran Center Coordinator

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

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

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

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

Program Structure

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

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

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

Building Bridges in the Law School

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

Peer Mentor Experiences

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

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

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

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

Community Response

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

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

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

Feedback and Areas for Improvement

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

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

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

June 24, 2025 by hami3258

David Grenardo, Felicia Bennett, Jerome Organ, Neil Hamilton

“Current Issues in Profession Identity Formation” Workshop: An Energizing Gathering of PIF Advocates

By Felicia Bennett, Holloran Center Coordinator

The Holloran Center has hosted dozens of workshops over the past 20 years, and each one serves as a community gathering, a touchpoint in the evolution of the Professional Identity Formation movement, and a source of ideas and inspiration for us at the Center and for our participants. The most recent workshop that took place on February 28 and March 1 was no different. We welcomed a small but mighty group of 29 legal education professionals. There was representation from the faculty to the dean level along with several program directors and representatives of the Law School Admissions Council, AALS, and the American Bar Association. As a participant noted, there is something “magic” about breaking down silos across geography and discipline to bring people together under the organizing principle of PIF.

Our workshop’s theme was “Current Issues in Professional Identity Formation.” As law schools around the country work to integrate PIF into their curricula to address ABA Standard 303(b), there are many positive developments and, conversely, new challenges to making changes in a change-averse profession. Co-Directors Jerry Organ and Neil Hamilton set the stage by talking about the importance of a coherent and whole-building approach to PIF and how to overcome pushback from both students and faculty. Discussions also explored incorporating the rule of law into students’ professional identities and fostering upper-level collaborations with career services, clinics, and externships.

Perhaps the most energizing portion of the Workshop was four speed-sharing sessions in which our participants presented on how they are engaging PIF at their own institutions. The themes covered included:

Models for the integration of PIF
Structuring a first-year PIF course
Mentoring (lawyer/judge, faculty and peer)
Specific exercises to engage students in PIF concepts

During these presentations, it was exciting and humbling to see that what began as an idea about how to educate lawyers better has transformed into an organizing principle for many legal educators. We look forward to seeing some of the ideas generated at this Workshop, from large projects such as the formation of a PIF nonprofit to small but impactful changes such as PIF outreach to specific academic communities, come to fruition in coming years.

We are grateful to everyone who joined us here in Minneapolis to further the movement and foster deep, supportive connections with one another. We are also thankful for the support of our own community, namely Dean Dan Kelly – who offered opening remarks – and Uyen Campbell, Director of Mentor Externship, who spoke to the group about the award-winning program she leads.

As one participant noted in our closing session, ‘This is more than a conference—it’s the sharing and sense of community that make it so worthwhile.’

If you have any questions or if you would like to stay informed about future Holloran Center Workshops, we encourage you to contact us. You can reach all members of the Center by emailing holloranctr@stthomas.edu, or you may contact Jerry Organ, the driving force behind our Workshops, at jmorgan@stthomas.edu.

March 13, 2025 by hami3258

Megan Bess, Uncategorized

Straight from the Students: Study Helps Reveal the Impact of Law School Experiences on Professional Identity Formation

By: Megan Bess, Director of the Externship Program & Assistant Professor of Law, University of Illinois Chicago School of Law

Legal education has fully entered a new era of recognizing the importance of professional identity formation (PIF). All law schools now have programs in place to support professional identity formation across curricular and extracurricular programming.[1] Despite this, legal educators do not have much evidence about the impact of law school experiences on student professional identity formation. Other professions, notably medicine, have gathered more data about the major transitions students experience on their paths from student to professional. I’ve written before about the importance of Professor Neil Hamilton’s research on the significance of 1L experiences on law students’ thinking and acting like lawyers.[2] His research revealed how work experience during the summer following a student’s 1L year significantly impacts the PIF process.

Past studies of lawyers and law school graduates suggest experiential learning is highly valuable in preparing students for legal practice.[3] To the extent that legal educators can gather more data about the impact of experiences on students, this information can help schools better develop professional identity formation during key moments. Improving the quality of support for experiences that are highly formative for professional identity starts with educating students and educators about their formative value.

Last year I sought to gather more evidence about the impact of experiential learning and other school experiences on student professional identity formation. To that end, I conducted a research study of graduating students from the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law to assess their perceptions of how major law school events impacted their professional identity formation. Scores were calculated by assigning the following values to responses regarding impact: no impact=1; some impact=2, moderate impact=3; substantial impact=4; great impact=5. Two experiences stood out as particularly impactful. Over 50% of respondents rated both legal employment during their upper level (2L and 3L) years and summer legal employment following 2L year (or 3L year for part-time students) as having a great impact (the highest level of impact) on their professional identity formation.[4]

This table lists average results for all activities measured with five or more respondents. I present a short analysis of these results below.

Experiences Listed in Order of Average Impact Score

Summer employment after 2L or 3L year	4.5
Upper class (2L, 3L) legal employment during academic year	4.4
Working with attorney mentor	4.4
First-time externship during 2L or 3L academic year	4.2
Summer employment after 1L year	4.2
First-time externship summer after 2L or 3L year	4.2
First-time externship summer after 1L year	4.1
Simulation course	4
Faculty research assistance	4
Pro bono work	3.9
Authoring a journal note	3.9
Participating in a journal	3.6
First-time clinic during 2L or 3L academic year	3.5
Appellate advocacy course	3.4
Search for post-graduation employment	3.4
Moot court/mock trial	3.4
Drafting course	3.2
1L year second term finals	3.1
1L year first term finals	3
Leadership position	3
Bar application	2.9
First Lawyering Skills assignment	2.8
2L year final exams	2.7
3L year final exams	2.6
Orientation	2.3

Unsurprisingly, when taken in context with Professor Hamilton’s research, work outside of school is uniquely impactful on professional identity formation. Aside from working outside of law school, most of the highest rated experiences fall under the umbrella of experiential education. Clinic and externship experiences highly impact student professional identity formation.[4 ] Schools can also use data about the impact of working with mentors and assisting faculty with research to maximize these opportunities for students. Students also place relatively high value on simulation courses, journal involvement, and moot court/mock trial participation. As research emerges on the impact of these and other law school experiences on professional identity formation, schools can ensure a high level of student access to these important experiences and adjust professional identity formation strategies to better support students.

I present all data and a more robust analysis of my results in an article forthcoming in the Marquette Law Review, available now on SSRN. I intend to recreate this survey at my law school and hopefully other law schools to gather more data. If anyone else is interested in conducting similar research at your institutions, I would love the chance to collaborate. Please contact me at mbess@uic.edu with comments or questions.

[1] ABA Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools 2024-25 (2024), Standard 303, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/standards/2024-2025/2024-2025-standards-and-rules-for-approval-of-law-schools.pdf.

[2] Transitions Unexplored: A Proposal for Professional Identity Formation Following the First Year, 29 Clinical L. Rev. 1 (2022); Transitions, Professional Identity Formation, and the Significance of Summer After 1L Year, University of St. Thomas Holloran Center Professional Identity Formation Blog (Sept. 16, 2022)

[3] See, e.g., Alli Gerkman & Logan Cornett, Inst. For the Advancement of the Am. Legal Sys., Foundations for Practice, Hiring the Whole Lawyer: Experience Matters 5 (2017), available at https://iaals.du.edu/publications/foundations-practice-hiring-whole-lawyer-experience-matters; 2010 Survey of Law School Experiential Learning Opportunities and Benefits (NALP and the NALP Foundation, 2011).

[4 ] While few law students who participated in clinic responded to the survey, notably nearly every student who did ranked the experience as having a moderate, substantial, or great impact on their professional identity development.

Megan Bess is Director of the Externship Program and Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law.

February 18, 2025 by hami3258

Katya Cronin

Value-Centered Lawyering: Reshaping the Law School Curriculum to Promote Well-Being, Quality Client Representation, and a Thriving Legal Field

By Felicia Bennett, Holloran Center Coordinator

Katya Cronin, Associate Professor in the George Washington University Fundamentals of Lawyering program, recently published, “Value-Centered Lawyering: Reshaping the Law School Curriculum to Promote Well-Being, Quality Client Representation, and a Thriving Legal Field.” She has written on similar themes in the past (see “The Intentional Pursuit of Purpose: Nurturing Students’ Authentic Motivation for Practicing Law”). In “Value-Centered Lawyering”, she explores one cause of the diminished health, well-being, and professional dedication of lawyers: the disconnect between lawyers’ personal values and the interests they are asked to represent. Seeking answers as to why this disconnect exists, Cronin highlights the negative impact of a law school curriculum whose hidden message is to seek “extrinsic rewards” over “intrinsic values”. Finally, she presents suggestions around ways to integrate a focus on values into the legal curriculum.

Here is the abstract of Cronin’s article:

For three long and harrowing years in law school, students learn to think like lawyers, to put their clients first, to interpret the law as it stands, to deftly advocate for positions they do not believe in, and to strive for successful and prestigious careers. These lessons help them develop analytical and advocacy skills, creativity and perseverance, a strong work ethic, and ambition. But there is a darker side to these learning objectives. What law students often take away from their time in law school is that their own personal beliefs, values, and experiences are irrelevant to the practice of law. They quickly learn that they must serve clients and employers, however personally distasteful or damaging it may be to them. And they begin to measure their worth and success by the yardsticks of prestige and money. Hearing these consistent albeit subliminal messages, law students frequently disassociate from the expectations that their future careers should reflect their inner selves, and they soon find themselves trapped in jobs they consider morally taxing or meaningless. When faced with such recurring conflicts between their work obligations and personal values, or with an overarching feeling of professional meaninglessness, most lawyers experience chronic cognitive dissonance, turn to alcohol or controlled substances for comfort, or develop anxiety, depression, and a host of other emotional, mental, and physical ailments. They lose interest in their work, perform worse, and experience burnout, thus jeopardizing not only their own well-being, but also client outcomes and the stability of the legal field in the long run.

Tragically, such scenarios are the norm, not the exception. Something needs to change. This essay explores what and how in three parts. Part I examines the symptoms of an ailing legal profession. Part II traces the root cause of lawyer unhappiness and aimlessness to the law school curriculum and its shortcomings in supporting law students’ and lawyers’ burgeoning professional identities. This section challenges the choice to de-emphasize personal values in the classroom, the unquestioning and unqualified insistence on client- centered lawyering, and the system of external rewards and validation as the predominant law school narratives. Finally, Part III argues that, alongside teaching students to think like lawyers, to serve their clients, and to work hard, we also need to teach them how to fulfill a paramount duty to themselves—to choose careers, job opportunities, and clients aligned with their values and sense of purpose. This section proposes simple modifications to the legal curriculum that would promote frequent value-focused self-reflection and reinforce the perception that lawyers are not merely instruments of client service, but people with unique backgrounds, experiences, and personal values that can and should factor in building their professional identities.

We encourage you to read the full article here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5034763

Should you have any questions or comments about the article, please feel free to contact Professor Cronin at katya_cronin@law.gwu.edu.

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

February 7, 2025 by hami3258

David Grenardo, Neil Hamilton

Professional Identity Formation and the NextGen Bar Open Opportunities for Law Student and Law School Success

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

Neil Hamilton, Co-Director of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions at the University of St. Thomas School of Law (MN), has just published on SSRN another groundbreaking article on professional identity formation (PIF). As will be shown in a forthcoming blog post, Neil Hamilton is currently the most-cited author of PIF articles. In his latest article, he makes connections as no one else has between PIF and the NextGen Bar Exam.

Here is a link to Hamilton’s article: http://ssrn.com/abstract=5023491.

And here is the abstract:

All law faculty, staff, and students want students and graduates to be successful with respect to: (1) academic performance; (2) bar passage; (3) meaningful post-graduation employment; and (4) excellent service to clients and the legal system. Both the 2022 changes to ABA accreditation Standard 303 and the ongoing implementation of the NextGen Bar starting in five states in 2026 and ten more states in 2027 offer substantial opportunities for law students and law schools to achieve more success at these four goals.

The 2022 revision to accreditation Standard 303 requires that each law school must provide substantial opportunities each year for students to explore the core values of the profession that are foundational to successful legal practice. The National Conference of Bar Examiners and many state supreme courts, based on empirical evidence, are now moving to the NextGen Bar that encompasses a broader range of skills necessary for newly licensed lawyers successfully to practice law than the current bar examination.

These two changes are asking law faculty and staff to think about legal education in two fundamentally different ways to help students achieve greater success at the four goals above. The first fundamental change is that the organized bar through accreditation and the state supreme courts through the bar examination are signaling that law schools must give more attention to each student’s:

reflective exploration of the professional values foundational to successful legal practice; and
development of a wider range of foundational lawyering skills that a newly licensed lawyer (NLL) needs to practice law competently beyond knowledge of the foundational concepts of doctrinal law, issue spotting, legal analysis and reasoning (thinking like a lawyer), and legal research and writing. The NextGen Bar is adding four new foundational skills to be tested including Client Counseling and Advising, Client Relationship and Management, Negotiation and Dispute Resolution, and Investigation and Analysis.

The second fundamental change, as explained later in this article, is that an effective curriculum to foster each student’s growth toward later stages of development regarding both the reflective exploration of professional values foundational to successful law practice and the four new NextGen Bar foundational skills build is different from the traditional thinking like a lawyer curriculum that emphasizes doctrinal law transmission, issue spotting, legal analysis, and legal research and writing. This article argues: (1) the core values foundationally inform the developments of the four new NextGen foundational skills; and (2) a student’s exploration and internalization of the profession’s core values and a student’s development of the NextGen Bar’s four new foundational skills will happen together in authentic professional experiences (that are or that mimic actual professional work) combined with coaching, feedback, guided reflection, and an action plan for a student to go to the next level on a skill.

The thesis of this article is that a law school that seizes the opportunity more effectively to foster (1) each student’s growth toward later stages of development on the core values of the profession, (2) each student’s understanding of how these core values are foundational for the skills of successful legal practice, and (3) each student’s development toward competence and excellence at the additional foundational skills the NextGen Bar is adding will see greater student and graduate success on all four goals in the first paragraph above. This helps both the students and the law school.

November 21, 2024 by hami3258

Older Posts