CELL Blog | Center for Engaged Learning in the Law

The course was 10 days long. On day one, 20-page packets – each page single-sided – were distributed to 107 students. On day two, 90-page spiral notebooks were distributed to the same 107 students. On day three, another 20-page, single-sided packet is distributed, along with a one-page schedule and a one-page description of group work. Additional distributions included 40-page packets (give or take 10 pages but also single-sided); one-page group exercise instructions; multi-page group exercise instructions; and, of course, a mountain of case law for the final paper, which, not surprisingly, was printed single-sided.

That tallies to approximately 19,000 sheets of paper used by a single law school in one 10-day course. That’s 1,900 sheets per day just for that class.
The point? Law school uses (and some might argue wastes) a LOT of paper, which, in turn, uses a lot of trees and a lot of money.

But it doesn’t have to… We live in a digital age where nearly anything that can be done on paper can also be done on computer, meaning there are fewer and fewer legitimate reasons to continue using paper in the current manner and at the current rates. Of course, the familiarity of having the document in front of us makes a total switch to computerized formats a bit jarring; however, this is the modern trend, and it is also the trend lightest on the budget and easiest on the planet. Therefore, implementing and encouraging widespread compliance with these policies benefits everyone in the end. The sooner we start, the better off everyone will be.

Realizing the following suggestions will be more or less relevant depending on the given school, here are a few simple ways to reduce the amount of paper (and money) consumed by law schools:

– Avoid printing altogether, opting for posting/emailing online whenever possible;
– Consider online submissions of information, or CD-ROM submissions of papers, etc…
– When online submissions are used, leave them online (i.e. don’t print them);
– Print double-sided;
– Implement one-page, comprehensive attendance sheets;
– Have groups share printed information rather than each member having his/her own;
– Assign cases on Westlaw/Lexis rather than in books or via printing where possible;
– Encourage students to download cases to Word, highlighting and note-taking on-screen rather than printing;
– Avoid duplicating online materials in the form of hand-outs

Those institutions feeling a bit more ambitious could release the inventory/budgetary information regarding paper usage and begin a school-wide movement to reduce those numbers. In other words, make a competition out of the practice of fiscal and environmental responsibility.
Nothing about this speaks to the more traditional aspects of leadership and legal education. However, if law school seeks to create more than just lawyers – if it seeks to create leaders, as mine does – and if fiscal and environmental responsibility are considered part of such leadership, then it is incumbent upon those law schools to implement policies aimed at reducing the footprint they leave on the budget and on the planet.

I’ve offered to work on teaching with four colleagues who are in their first or second year at Gonzaga. After getting to know them Fall semester (I’ve been gone from Gonzaga for three years), visiting each of their classes, and debriefing those visits, I sent each of them this invitation:

Would you like to engage in any of the following development activities?

1.Your assessment of strengths, weaknesses, new approaches you would like to try
2.Complete the student evaluation form for your own courses
3.Locate teaching and learning resources (Books, Videos, Articles)
4.Review of Fall 2007 student evaluations
5.Class visits
a.Others view your class
b.You view others’ classes
6.Gathering formative feedback from students in Spring semester
7.Consulting with peers
8.Teaching journal
9.Videotape of your class
10. Other development activities that appeal to you…

Their reactions were interesting. Two thanked me for the offer and set up meetings with me to engage in teaching development activities during Spring semester. (We have met several times since and are pursuing several types of development activities.) One expressed interest but worried about how we would find the time to do this. (Subsequently, we decided to gather feedback from students next week.) One sent an email message within five minutes of receiving the invitation – “Did you hear bad things about my courses?” (I had not, which that teacher was very relieved to hear. I have not heard from the teacher since then. Should I follow up?)

Having just read Gerry Hess’ “Collaborative Course Design: Not My Course, Not Their Course, But Our Course” __ Washburn L.J. __ (forthcoming Spring 2008), an article I wholeheartedly recommend, I decided to try the idea in my Contracts II and Remedies classes. The basic idea is to engage students in deciding: their expectations of each other, their expectations of the professor, the teaching methods to be used in the class, the sub-topics to be covered (i.e., if you cannot cover all of remedies law, which topics are most important to the students), and the method(s) by which students will be assessed. This approach demonstrates respect for law students’ status as adults and provides “autonomy support,” which helps limit the law student distress Larry Krieger’s research suggests is so prevalent among law students.

I must admit some trepidation on each day. What if they said they wanted their grades to rest on a series of coin flips? What if their only expectations of each other were to stay awake?
Fortunately, for the most part, things went well. First, as I have noticed whenever I have worked with focus groups of students at the various law schools with which I have consulted on teaching, students want feedback and multiple assessments. My Contracts II students chose to have two graded mid-semester assignments in addition to their final exam. Around half also wanted to be graded on their presentations of doctrine (at the beginning of each class session in Contracts I and II, I have two students come to the front of the room and review and summarize the knowledge and skills we addressed in the previous class session—students use review hypos, PowerPoint slides, graphic organizers, etc. to make their points). My remedies students, those supposedly jaded folks only interested in getting out of law school, chose six short assignments in addition to the final; the first three will be only for practice and feedback, and the last three will each be for a grade. Second, the students in both classes wanted one opportunity to engage in an activity a practitioner in the field would do. My Contracts II students will be writing a client letter explaining the implications and problems in a proposed contract; my remedies students will be creating a remedies-focused discovery plan.

But it wasn’t all good. All my Contracts II students and most of my remedies students had me for a prior class so their only teaching methods request was to say—“do what you did in our other class.” The students’ only expectation for each other was a vague “be prepared for class.” Both groups completely deferred to me about coverage—“you decide, Professor Schwartz.” I guess, however, I am happy with the coverage choices I made . . .

The most interesting reaction to the whole process came from two remedies students who have done well in law school but had never had me for a class; both felt they wanted all my methods to be exactly the same as those they previously had experienced in law school. They vehemently opposed anything different and wanted to finish our discussion of class policies as quickly as possible. I suspect they felt that, having done well under the old system, a wide variety of teaching methods and multiple assessments would be of no benefit to them.

I think I will do it again, although I know I will again be nervous.