Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Midrash On Rabbi Shaffer And Rabbi Trollope, David Luban
A Midrash On Rabbi Shaffer And Rabbi Trollope, David Luban
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Thomas Shaffer is the most unusual, and in many ways the most interesting, contemporary writer on American legal ethics. A lawyer impatient with legalisms and hostile to rights-talk, a moral philosopher who despises moral philosophy, a Christian theologian who refers more often to the rabbis than to the Church Fathers, a former law school dean who is convinced that law schools have failed their students by teaching too much law and too little literature, a traditionalist who' wholeheartedly embraces feminism, an apologist for the conservative nineteenth-century gentleman who describes his own politics as "left of center," Shaffer is a complex …
Yale Rosenberg: The Scholar And The Teacher Of Jewish Law, Sherman L. Cohn
Yale Rosenberg: The Scholar And The Teacher Of Jewish Law, Sherman L. Cohn
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In the early 1980s, when he was a young professor at the University of Houston Law Center, the author had the occasion to meet Yale Rosenberg. It was clear from their discussion that Professor Rosenberg had a strong interest in Jewish law as well as a strong knowledge base. They discussed teaching such a course at the University of Houston Law Center. Professor Rosenberg was doubtful about teaching a course in Jewish law at a secular law school, particularly one in Texas. But that conversation began a series of conversations where Yale explored in some depth the course that we …
The Inside Scoop: What Federal Judges Really Think About The Way Lawyers Write, Kristen Konrad Robbins-Tiscione
The Inside Scoop: What Federal Judges Really Think About The Way Lawyers Write, Kristen Konrad Robbins-Tiscione
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
A recent survey indicates that what troubles federal judges most is not what lawyers say but what they fail to say when writing briefs. Although lawyers do a good job articulating legal issues and citing controlling, relevant legal authority, they are not doing enough with the law itself. Only fifty-six percent of the judges surveyed said that lawyers “always” or “usually” make their client’s best arguments. Fifty-eight percent of the judges rated the quality of the legal analysis as just “good,” as opposed to “excellent” or “very good.” The problem seems to be that briefs lack rigorous analysis, and the …