Legal education in crisis: healing and humanizing Canadian law schools /

Western law schools are suffering from an identity and moral crisis. Many of the legal profession's problems can be traced to the law school environment, where students are taught to reason and practice in ways that are often at odds with their own personalities and values and even with generally accepted psychologically healthy practices. The idealism, ethic of care, and personal moral compasses of many students become eroded and even lost in the present legal education system. Formalism, rationalism, elitism, and big business values have become paramount. In such a moment of historical crisis, there exists the opportunity to create a new legal education story. This paper is a conceptual study of both my own Canadian legal education and the general legal education experience. It examines core problems and critiques of the existing Western legal education organizational and pedagogical paradigm to which Canadian law schools adhere. New approaches with the potential to enrich, humanize, and heal the Canadian law school experience are explored. Ultimately, the paper proposes a legal education system that is more interdisciplinary, theoretically and practically integrated, emotionally intelligent, technologically connected, morally accountable, spiritual, and humane. Specific pedagogical and curricular strategies are suggested, and recommendations for the future are offered. The dehumanizing aspects of the law school experience in Canada have rarely been studied. It is hoped that this thesis will fill a gap in the research and provide some insight into an issue that is of both academic and public importance, since the well-being of law students and lawyers affects the interests of their clients, the general public, and the integrity and future of the entire legal system.

The effects of language complexity in a counterattitudinal appeal to laypeople : an application of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion to a legal issue

The effects of a complexly worded counterattitudinal appeal on laypeople's attitudes toward a legal issue were examined, using the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of persuasion as a theoretical framework. This model states that persuasion can result from the elaboration and scrutiny of the message arguments (i.e., central route processing), or can result from less cognitively effortful strategies, such as relying on source characteristics as a cue to message validity (i.e., peripheral route processing). One hundred and sixty-seven undergraduates (85 men and 81 women) listened to eitller a low status or high status source deliver a counterattitudinal speech on a legal issue. The speech was designed to contain strong or weak arguments. These arguments were 'worded in a simple and, therefore, easy to comprehend manner, or in a complex and, therefore, difficult to comprehend manner. Thus, there were three experimental manipulations: argument comprehensibility (easy to comprehend vs. difficult to comprehend), argumel11 strength (weak vs. strong), and source status (low vs. high). After listening to tIle speec.J] participants completed a measure 'of their attitude toward the legal issue, a thought listil1g task, an argument recall task,manipulation checks, measures of motivation to process the message, and measures of mood. As a result of the failure of the argument strength manipulation, only the effects of the comprehel1sibility and source status manipulations were tested. There was, however, some evidence of more central route processing in the easy comprehension condition than in the difficult comprehension condition, as predicted. Significant correlations were found between attitude and favourable and unfavourable thoughts about the legal issue with easy to comprehend arguments; whereas, there was a correlation only between attitude and favourable thoughts 11 toward the issue with difficult to comprehend arguments, suggesting, perhaps, that central route processing, \vhich involves argument scrutiny and elaboration, occurred under conditions of easy comprehension to a greater extent than under conditions of difficult comprehension. The results also revealed, among other findings, several significant effects of gender. Men had more favourable attitudes toward the legal issue than did women, men recalled more arguments from the speech than did women, men were less frustrated while listening to the speech than were ,vomen, and men put more effort into thinking about the message arguments than did women. When the arguments were difficult to comprehend, men had more favourable thoughts and fewer unfavourable thoughts about the legal issue than did women. Men and women may have had different affective responses to the issue of plea bargaining (with women responding more negatively than men), especially in light of a local and controversial plea bargain that occurred around the time of this study. Such pre-existing gender differences may have led to tIle lower frustration, the greater effort, the greater recall, and more positive attitudes for men than for WOlnen. Results· from this study suggest that current cognitive models of persuasion may not be very applicable to controversial issues which elicit strong emotional responses. Finally, these data indicate that affective responses, the controversial and emotional nature ofthe issue, gender and other individual differences are important considerations when experts are attempting to persuade laypeople toward a counterattitudinal position.