JALWD, Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors

Archives

Below are Volumes 1, 2, and 3 of J. ALWD. Please click on the inside tab to see the titles of the articles within a particular issue: the titles are linked to the online full text or to PDF files that may be downloaded. Articles in the Fall 2006 issue are available online and as PDF files; articles in the Fall 2004 issue are abstracted and available as PDF files; articles in Erasing Lines are available as PDF files.

 

  • Volume 3
  • Inside

Fall 2006 ~ Rhetoric & Argumentation

JALWD Fall 2006 ~ Rhetoric & ArgumentationThe articles in this issue apply classical and contemporary rhetorical theory to legal argumentation. Although they draw on different theories, the articles are linked by a common rhetorical perspective—that working with language is the daily work of lawyers and that thoughtful work with language is the way to change law and society. As a result, these articles share with Aristotle, Isocrates, and New Rhetoric the view that rhetoric is not artifice but instead is essential to the construction of better ways of seeing and knowing.


Fall 2006 ~ Rhetoric & Argumentation

ARTICLES

With Amici Like These: Cicero, Quintilian and the Importance of Stylistic Demeanor
Michael H. Frost

Court Speech as Political Action: Isocrates’ Rhetorical Ideal and the Legal Oratory of Daniel Webster
James Lupo

Classical Persuasion through Grammar and Punctuation
Lillian B. Hardwick

Philosophy v. Rhetoric in Legal Education: Understanding the Schism Between Doctrinal and Legal Writing Faculty
Kristen Konrad Robbins

RESOURCES

Rhetoric Theory and Legal Writing: An Annotated Bibliography
Michael R. Smith

Best Practices Classics

Brush Up Your Aristotle
Robert F. Hanley

Advocacy and Emotion
John C. Shepherd & Jordan B. Cherrick

Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Argument
Kurt M. Saunders

A Basis for Legal Reasoning: Logic on Appeal
Mary Massaron Ross

PRACTICE NOTES

Effective Research Assistance and Scholarly Production
Suzanne E. Rowe

 

  • Volume 2
  • Inside

Fall 2004 ~ Learning / Thinking / Writing

JALWD Fall 2004 ~ Learning Thinking WritingIn this issue, we bring together articles that apply the findings of learning theory and cognitive research to professional legal writing. Each article suggests “best practices”: ways that learning theory, cognitive research, or both can advance understanding and persuasion. For those who practice, teach, learn, or study legal writing, the research of learning theorists and cognitive scientists can shed light on the work of the mind, the use of language, and the means of persuasion.


Fall 2004 ~ Learning / Thinking / Writing

Foreword

The Next Frontier: Exploring the Substance of Legal Writing
Michael R. Smith

ARTICLES

Learning Styles and Lawyering: Using Learning Theory to Organize Thinking and Writing
M. H. Sam Jacobson

Writing-Across-the-Law-School Curriculum: Theoretical Justifications, Curricular Implications
Pamela Lysaght & Cristina D. Lockwood

Painting with Print: Incorporating Concepts of Typographic and Layout Design into the Text of Legal Writing Documents
Ruth Anne Robbins

Teaching and Using Analogy in Law
Dan Hunter

What is the Sound of a Corporation Speaking? How the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor Can Help Lawyers Shape the Law
Linda L. Berger

PRACTICE NOTES

Dr. King, Bull Connor, and Persuasive Narratives
Shaun B. Spencer

 

  • Volume 1
  • Inside

Fall 2002 ~ Erasing Lines: Integrating the Law School Curriculum

Erasing Lines Fall 2002 ~ Integrating the Law SchoolThis issue contains the proceedings of ALWD’s 2001 conference, which was designed to challenge the law school community to develop new ways of conceptualizing the law school curriculum. The issue includes articles and remarks by Deans Kent D. Syverud of Vanderbilt University Law School, David Weisbrot of the University of Sydney, Australia, and Nancy Rapoport of the University of Houston Law Center; justices and judges from the Supreme Court of Virginia, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States District Court; and a range of professors from other law schools, architecture colleges, and medical schools.

Fall 2002 ~ Erasing Lines: Integrating the Law School Curriculum

Opening Remarks
Pamela Lysaght

Introduction

Erasing Lines: Integrating the Law School Curriculum
Amy E. Sloan

Opening Plenary: What Would “Best Practices” in Legal Education Look Like?

The Caste System and Best Practices in Legal Education
Kent D. Syverud

What Lawyers Need to Know, What Lawyers Need to Be Able to Do: An Australian Experience
David Weisbrot

Papers Delivered, Comments, and Reporters’ Notes

The Integration of Theory, Doctrine, and Practice in Legal Education
Byron D. Cooper

Do Best Pedagogical Practices in Legal Education Include a
Curriculum that Integrates Theory, Skill, and Doctrine?
Toni M. Fine

Erasing Lines: Let the LRW Professor without Lines Throw the
First Eraser
Christine Hurt

The Role of Legal Writing Faculty in an Integrated Curriculum
Lisa Eichhorn

Is “Thinking Like a Lawyer” Really What We Want to Teach?
Nancy B. Rapoport

Good Vision, Overstated Criticism
Scott H. Bice

Cogito, ergo sum or I think, therefore I am [a lawyer?]
Christine Nero Coughlin

Breach of Trust: Legal Education’s Failure to Prepare Students for the Practice of Law
Molly Warner Lien

Some Thoughts on Dean Nancy B. Rapoport’s “Is ‘Thinking Like a Lawyer’ Really What We Want to Teach?”
Arnold I. Siegel

Do Best Practices in Legal Education Include an Obligation to the Legal Profession to Integrate Theory, Skills, and Doctrine in the Law School Curriculum?
Deborah Schmedemann

A Liberal Education in Law: Engaging the Legal Imagination through Research and Writing Beyond the Curriculum
Carol M. Parker

Imagine
Melody Richardson Daily

Compositional Practice
Bryn Vaaler

Erasing Lines Between the Law School and the Liberal Arts Curricula
Marilyn R. Walter

Do Best Practices in Legal Education Include Emphasis on Compositional Modes of Studying Law as a Liberal Art?
Linda L. Berger

Plenary: Models from Other Disciplines—What Can We Learn?
Thomas R. Fisher and Daniel B. Hinshaw

Plenary: Is the Tail Wagging the Dog? Institutional Forces Affecting Curricular Innovation—A Panel Discussion
Mary Beth Beazley, Elliott Milstein, John Sebert, and E. Thomas Sullivan

Breakout Sessions

Building Internal Consensus: Faculty, Administration, and the Students
Bradley G. Clary

Building External Consensus: Alumni, Professional Organizations, and the Practicing Bar
Randy Hertz

One Small Step: Beginning the Process of Institutional Change to Integrate the Law School Curriculum
Suzanne E. Rowe and Susan P. Liemer

Concurrent Sessions

How Do We Know If We Are Achieving Our Goals?: Strategies for Assessing the Outcome of Curricular Innovation
Gregory S. Munro

Technology and Legal Education: Negotiating the Shoals of Technocentrism, Technophobia, and Indifference
Craig T. Smith

Psychological Insights: Why Our Students and Graduates Suffer, and What We Might Do About It
Lawrence S. Krieger

Using Instructional Design to Improve Student Learning
Greg Sergienko

Closing Plenary: Law School Curriculum, Training Law Students, and the Vitality of the Profession: The Judicial Perspective—A Panel Discussion
Justice Elizabeth Lacy, Judge Paul Michel, and Judge John R. Tunheim