One should strive to be clear - eyed about such things, and admittedly,
legal academics often are not.
I truly think it's wonderful that
legal academics often have great ideas about ways that lawyers can either earn less or give away our earnings to make the legal system more accessible.
«On the most prosaic level,
legal academics often need legal materials outside of regular working hours,» he wrote in an e-mail.
Not exact matches
There is
often excellent blogging in more specialist spaces -
academic, scientific, liberties /
legal, environmental - which sometimes the political blogs pick up on, but there isn't that much linkage, and there might sometimes be some value in thinking specifically about the linking spaces.
But, too
often, the only preparation aspiring principals get is university classes that cover mainly the administrative and
legal aspects of the job, not the critical work they do to improve
academic achievement and create an instructionally supportive culture.
All too
often the
academic debate tends to focus on the most vociferous constitutional courts and their
legal orders, and most notably Germany and some of the Eastern European countries.
In Justice Stratas's view, judges and
academics too
often take a results - oriented approach to the law, rather than rigorously applying
legal doctrine.
Access to justice issues have frequented
academic,
legal, political and mainstream debates for many years (with Slawyers
often initiating or driving the dialogue happening in the Canadian blogosphere!).
As our goal was to step away from the purely theoretical debates we
academics are
often criticised for, and to create guidelines and tools that could be implemented by those within the
legal community, we deemed it useful to use our presence on Slaw to introduce our research to court administrators and decision makers so that interested parties could benefit from the fruits of our seven - year labour.
I have
often worried here about how small the American
legal academic community is, especially given its multiple connections to the few elite schools.
I will, though, repeat one thing I have said
often: Posner was and is easily my favorite contemporary
legal writer, whether in his opinions or in his
academic and other writings, although I have pointed to what I think are notable and increasing problems with those writings in recent years.
While there will always be opportunities for pure
legal theorists, especially at the most elite and established law faculties, there is an increasing willingness among the
academic community to not only train their students on the use of technology in the classroom, but also participate directly in the development of this technology,
often in an interdisciplinary relationship with other faculties (for example, the work we're doing with Duke Law).
For the past year, I have been researching changes in the
legal profession and the market it has created, but I have had trouble sorting out the story buried in the
often cited numbers contained in scam blog posts,
academic works, or news reports.
Working in a an
academic law library that is open to the public I've found that it is
often on Friday, and more specifically, Friday afternoon that the individual who wants to challenge the constitutional validity of income tax arrives at the library looking for an orientation to our
legal system and advice on the best way to prove that income tax is illegal, or substitute whichever conspiracy theory you like in here.
The issues raised by this article are particularly acute for
legal academics, where normative claims are
often standard fare.
Although students
often view their
legal work experiences as unrelated to their
academic endeavors, further success in law school can be fueled, at least in part, by those work experiences.