Guest Post by Irene Ten Cate, University of Houston Law Center
Many thanks to Professors Will Baude and Adam Chilton for soliciting legal academia advice for those who are interested in becoming legal research and writing (LRW) professors. The recent post by Professors Rachel Gurvich and Beth Wilensky is a tremendous resource, and I’m excited to add some thoughts and advice from the perspective of someone who went through the job search process relatively recently. To begin, I will address some considerations that may help you decide whether teaching LRW is right for you.
The Good
Teaching. There is nothing like teaching 1L students and working with them in small-group and individual settings is even better. LRW faculty experience a lot of “light-bulb moments” that are almost as exhilarating for the teacher as for the student. Also, with multiple assessments in each semester, we get a close-up view as our students transform into early versions of the lawyers they will become. When grading their final briefs at the end of the spring semester—a task that admittedly can get tedious—there is always a point at which I look up and marvel at how far my 1L students have come since turning in their case briefs during their first week of law school.
One thing that matters greatly to me is that LRW professors help make the playing field more level. Every law school final is also a test of students’ writing skills. LRW demystifies what makes for a well-written exam answer and provides ungraded and low-stakes opportunities to make mistakes and learn from them. While we cannot fully compensate for vast differences in pre-law education, access to financial resources, and connections, students who start out at a comparative disadvantage often make big leaps in LRW that also pay off in other courses.
Another rewarding aspect of teaching LRW is that we get to know our students as persons. During conferences and office hours, students tell us about their professional dreams and share news about exciting developments, like landing a summer position or advancing in the moot court competition. But they also open up about disappointing grades, self-doubt, and setbacks in their personal lives. While there are limits to what LRW professors can do, and boundaries to respect, we can often provide perspective or connect students with resources.
Professors Gurvich and Wilensky summed it up perfectly: “[I]f your heart is in teaching legal analysis, writing, and research—as ours are—the rewards are immense.” It is a great joy to be actively involved in a crucial stretch of my students’ journey.
The Subject. LRW—and the closely related subjects of legal analysis and reasoning—provides an endless supply of issues that go to the core of what law is and how it operates. As someone with a longstanding interest in philosophy, I have enjoyed brushing up on formal logic and thinking about its relationship to the organizational structures we teach in predictive and persuasive writing (if this sounds interesting, I highly recommend Professor Kristen Tiscione’s article on classical rhetoric and legal reasoning). But LRW is also a great subject if you want to explore, for example, pedagogy, technical aspects of writing, rhetoric, or law as a social practice.
Your Colleagues. LRW professors are among the most innovative teachers in the legal academy, and I have never encountered a more generous group of colleagues. This combination has often energized my teaching. At times, it has been a lifeline. From a conference on how to achieve excellence in online teaching to the Legal Writing Institute’s teaching bank to conversations with my immediate colleagues in the hallways, I credit the LRW community with making me a much better teacher.
They’re also a fun and interesting group of people. Some of the sharpest, funniest handles on Legal Twitter are LRW professors. LRW professors hail from a wide variety of practice backgrounds, from Big Law to small law to public interest to denaturalizing Nazis. Several LRW professors have published novels, and one publishes crime mysteries under a pseudonym she refuses to disclose to me. I’ve encountered a former actor and a serious yogi who maintains a yoga law practice on the side. One of my colleagues is a self-proclaimed insect nerd who is active in wildscaping and fills her office walls with blown-up pictures of butterflies and the occasional close-up of freaky bug eyes. Despite being an introvert, I always look forward to legal writing conferences.
Lastly—and I cannot stress this enough—LRW professors produce exciting scholarship. Every reader of this blog should read Professor Brian Larson’s theory of reasoning by analogy, Professor Teri McMurtry-Chubb’s thought-provoking analysis of how a John Grisham novel provides a roadmap for racial reconciliation (and everything else she has written), and Professor Danielle Tully’s article, hot off the press, about teaching culturally responsive lawyering. And these are just a few examples out of many. The Legal Writing Institute and the Association for Legal Writing Directors organize and sponsor several scholarship-related initiatives, including works-in-progress workshops and writing retreats. I was surprised and very happy to find that the LRW community houses a scholarly culture that is robust as well as supportive.
Freedom. This word encapsulates one of the main reasons why so many of us decide to pursue academia. While teaching LRW is time-intensive, it provides a lot of freedom in terms of what to teach, how to teach, and what to think and write about. And of course, there are no time entries due at the end of each day.
The Bad
Compensation. LRW professors typically receive substantially lower salaries than their doctrinal peers. There has been much progress, and the adjunct stipends that used to be commonplace for LRW faculty have widely been replaced with living wages. But in many if not most schools, several years into your teaching career your salary will still be lower than that of an entry-level doctrinal professor.
Status. While entry-level doctrinal jobs are tenure-track, this is not yet the norm for LRW positions. In fact, the American Bar Association merely requires that law schools provide “legal writing teachers” with job security, rights, and privileges “as necessary” to secure qualified faculty and protect academic freedom. This situation is also improving, however. As of last year, more than 40 schools offered a path to tenure for LRW faculty, and in many other schools LRW faculty are eligible for multi-year presumptively renewable contracts. The wide divergence in job security, protection of academic freedom, and participation in governance is something you will want to pay attention to when you are on the market. It also explains to a large extent why the US News legal writing rankings (and schools’ ability to attract and retain star LRW professors) do not at all line up with the overall law school rankings.
Workload. The amount of course preparation work does not decrease substantially once you have taught LRW two or three times. You will continue to spend massive amounts of time holding student conferences, providing detailed written feedback, and researching and drafting graded and ungraded assignments. Many schools have reduced the number of students in each LRW section, but that reduction reasonably comes with an expectation of increased individual attention. In sum, while the hands-on nature of teaching LRW is rewarding, it makes it hard to carve out time for scholarship. Also, few LRW professors are eligible for sabbaticals.
The Ugly
Despite recent improvements, the differences in status are sometimes reflected in second-class citizen treatment. A few schools still do not accord LRW faculty the title of professor, instead listing them as “instructors” or “lecturers.” LRW professors’ offices often are significantly smaller or otherwise less desirable compared to those of doctrinal faculty, even though we share that space with students for hours on end (and yes, students pick up on that status signifier). LRW professors are often organized in a director-led department, reflecting and projecting the image of LRW faculty as a monolith. And let’s not skirt around it, some doctrinal professors—including persons who are otherwise deeply committed to egalitarian values—look down on their LRW colleagues. This can take the form of blunt dismissiveness, indifference, or the unthinking but revealing remarks Professor Nantiya Ruan analyzes in her excellent recent article on status hierarchy and microaggressions in law schools.
Here too, my sense is that we’re on an upward trajectory. Although it’s too early for complacency, we have come a long way from the “pink ghetto” that was decried in articles published two or three decades ago. Indeed, our vastly improved station provides cause to reflect on our duty to support other non-doctrinal faculty, especially law librarians and colleagues who focus on academic success and bar preparedness. I should also add that personal experiences vary dramatically. In many schools, LRW faculty participate fully in faculty governance and in intellectual pursuits like workshops and works-in-progress sessions. But if you are sensitive to pecking order issues, unfortunately you will find no shortage of occasions to take offense.
Before moving on, I want to acknowledge the pioneers in our field who have fought so hard for the substantial improvements that have occurred. They did so without enjoying the protection of tenure, all the while establishing LRW as an academic discipline. I also want to mention the continuing advocacy of the Legal Writing Institute (including its Professional Status Committee) and the Association of Legal Writing Directors. All of us LRW professors are tremendously indebted to these individuals and organizations.
What Are Your Alternatives?
Many of the downsides of teaching LRW stem from a direct comparison with tenure-track doctrinal positions at the same institution. But that may not be the appropriate yardstick. Instead, your choice may be between LRW and doctrinal positions in schools that are in different geographical locations, or differently ranked, or differently situated in terms of financial stability. Perhaps LRW is your primary research and teaching interest and you would pick it over a doctrinal position even at the same school. Or maybe a tenure-track doctrinal position is not in the cards for you for any number of reasons. I gained a lot of clarity when I accepted that a doctrinal position was off the table and instead considered career paths that were realistic options, mostly in private practice or city or state government. Teaching LRW always came out on top. And while the past two years haven’t been without challenges, I’ve become more and more convinced that applying to LRW teaching positions all over the country was the right decision. Being a legal writing professor is, quite simply, one of the best jobs in the world.