Trends in law

LSAT to Debut Updated Writing Section this Summer

The LSAT’s writing section is getting refreshed. LSAC announced this week that, as of July 31st (start of LSAT testing cycle), the test will debut a new writing section designed to gauge test-takers’ argumentative writing skills. 

The update, made in response to the evolving needs of the profession, and to input gathered from the legal community, will no longer focus just on logical reasoning.  It will now try to capture an applicant’s “ability to construct a cogent argument based on a variety of evidentiary sources.” To do this, the section will provide test-takers with an issue and additional context, given through competing perspectives on that issue. The writer will be asked to draft an essay taking and supporting a position, taking into account and addressing, as appropriate, the context provided.

For now, the writing section will remain an unscored component of the LSAT. However, LSAC plans to collect data over the 2024-2025 testing administration period to assess the validity and reliability of the updated section. The organization will work towards its longer-term goal of providing a scored section for law school admissions officers. 

Interested test-takers can review a sample prompt, via LawHub, as a part of the free official LSAT Prep test library. A sample writing prompt is also available on LSAC.org. 

Stanford and Yale Law Schools Announce Plans for Earlier Virtual On-Campus Interviewing

Stanford and Yale Law Schools are making waves with their recent announcements to move virtual on-campus interviews up to June, which is ahead of the formal OCI processes.

Stanford Law School’s announcement explained that they want to better align with firms’ recent hiring practices. Many firms, they noted, are now doing significantly more hiring early in the process through direct applications and interviews. The schedule change will not only provide students with access to those open positions, it will also allow them to focus on their finals and/or their summer internships. 

Yale’s announcement also focused on its desire to align with firms’ hiring patterns. Kelly Voight, Yale Law School’s Assistant Dean for the Career Development Office, said that the school is making this decision to, “best serve our students by maximizing student choice, promoting informed decision-making, and leveling the playing field for law firm recruiting,” in an email to Law.com.

Prospective law students interested in big law should keep an eye on how other elite schools respond to Stanford and Yale’s announcements, and also how they plan to support their students amidst an evolving employment market. 

Survey Shows Law School Admissions Officers Concerned About Impact of Recent Supreme Court Decision

A recent Kaplan survey found that a vast majority of law school admissions officers worry about the impact of last year’s Supreme Court affirmative action ban. In the survey, which included 85 law schools, admissions officers from 74 schools expressed concern. Forty-six of those schools’ administrators reported that they were “very concerned.” 

When asked about the impact of the ban on their own school, admissions officers were slightly more optimistic. Fifty of the schools expressed concern, with just 18 saying they were “very concerned.” 

The survey found that diversity is valued “almost universally” at law schools by both students and administrators. 

Amit Schlesinger, Executive Director of Legal and Government Programs at Kaplan, summarized the findings, while also alluding to the news that the applicant pool has increased in diversity this year. 

"In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action, Kaplan’s survey reveals that law schools are grappling with concerns about maintaining diverse student bodies, which is something many of them have long prioritized. However, the silver lining lies in the promising trend of an increasingly diverse applicant pool, which presents an opportunity to mitigate any challenges they may face in achieving a representative student body. It’s also important to note that while law schools can no longer explicitly use race as a factor, we know that some law schools have broadened their personal statement criteria, which may give admissions officers a deeper understanding of prospective students’ backgrounds, while also remaining within the bounds of the Court’s ruling,” Schlesinger said.

Law School Applicant Volume Up from Last Year

Prospective law students are coming out in droves for the 2023-2024 admissions cycle. The number of applicants for Fall 2024 matriculation is up four percent compared to the same point in the application cycle last year. And the pool is expected to continue to grow based on the registration volume for the January LSAT, which is up 15 percent from last year.

The diversity of the applicant pool has also increased compared to last year, which is notable because last year’s admissions cycle yielded the most diverse law school class on record. According to Reuters, the newly published LSAC data shows that over 43 percent of the applicant pool is made up of minorities and that the number of minority applicants has increased by seven percent from last year. Hispanic applicants have increased by almost nine percent, Black applicants by just over seven percent, and Asian applicants by six percent. The number of White applicants has held stable with growth of just one percent year-over-year. 

Last Summer, when the Supreme Court disallowed the use of race as a component of university admissions’ decisions, many in the legal and academic communities expressed concern that it would negatively impact underrepresented applicants and would discourage students of color from even applying. To counteract this, many schools updated their outreach and even their application components with the intention of encouraging minority students to apply. While it remains to be seen how many of the applications will turn into law school acceptances, this applicant data is encouraging. 

Related: A Compelling Diversity Statement will Strengthen Your Candidacy for Law School

Next Gen Bar Exam: Latest Updates

Last week the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) announced Next Gen Bar Exam updates. Here’s what you need to know. 

Class of 2022 Law Grads “Shatter” Employment and Salary Records

One year after the legal job market for the Class of 2021 was named “one of the strongest on record,” a report from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) details record-breaking employment for 2022 law grads.

For the Class of 2022, the overall employment rate increased to 92.1 percent, the highest since the Class of 1987 (92.2 percent). The vast majority of graduates, 79.9 percent, obtained “bar passage required/anticipated” jobs, which is the highest since 2001, when the NALP started to use the current job classifications. Graduates also garnered higher pay. The national median salary ticked up to a record $85,000 from 2021 graduates’ median $80,000. And 2022 graduates reported feeling content with their jobs, with a record low of 7.8 percent currently looking for a new job.   

The number of graduates entering private practice increased by one percentage point from the Class of 2021 to 58.0 percent, the highest in the last 20 years. And their median salary in private practice increased to $150,000, a 14.1 percent increase from that received by 2021 graduates. At the biggest firms (more than 500 lawyers), the median salary rose to $215,000. 

The percentage of 2022 graduates entering into public service (30.7 percent) also increased slightly from the Class of 2021 (30.5 percent). This increase was driven by those entering jobs in government and public interest. Judicial clerkship positions declined slightly from 10.7 percent to 10.1 percent. 

The report also identified a trend away from law school graduates entering business, which has historically employed the second highest number after private practice. In 2019, a shift in graduates away from business started to occur, and it continued among 2022 graduates. Just 9.8 percent of the Class of 2022 entered into business, making it the lowest since 1992. 

Study Finds that Most 2019 Law School Graduates are Satisfied with Their Jobs

Almost half, 47 percent, of lawyers from the Class of 2019 report that they are “extremely satisfied” with their current employment. This is according to the recently published Law School Alumni Employment and Satisfaction, a joint study by the NALP and NALP Foundation. Another 38 percent of the Class of 2019 reported that they feel “somewhat satisfied” with their employment. And a record low, 13 percent of respondents, reported that they are actively seeking a new job. 

The annual study collects information from law school graduates three years after graduation to learn more about their employment and satisfaction. This year’s data included 1,927 graduates from 42 U.S. law schools. The high rate of satisfaction for the Class of 2019 compares favorably to last year’s report (which included 2018 graduates), where only 42 percent reported being “extremely satisfied.” 

Respondents’ reports of high satisfaction, however, may disguise the high mobility they have experienced in the few years since departing law school. Almost three-quarters, 71 percent, reported having had two or more sequential positions since graduation. Among the group who had more than one position since law school, most switched jobs for better compensation/bonuses (62 percent) or because of “attitude ‘fit’ concerns” (42 percent). School debt continues to impact their choice of job and employment sector, as well as other life decisions, including purchasing a home and having children. 

Survey Finds Law Students Hesitant About Generative AI Technology

The use of generative AI technology is growing within the legal industry. In a recent LexisNexis survey, over half of lawyers polled reported using the technology for research (59 percent) and improving efficiency (54 percent). Significant proportions also used it for drafting documents (45 percent) and writing emails (34 percent). 

Surprisingly, however, the survey found that law students were the least likely group to report using the technology. Only nine percent of the responding law students said that they use AI currently in law school and a quarter said that they plan to use it in their future legal work. 

So why aren’t law students jumping on the AI bandwagon? Serena Wellen of LexisNexis took a deep dive into the data to find out. We’ve summarized her findings below: 

  • Accuracy. Some of the law students noted that generative AI is not reliable. Research findings may be inaccurate, false, or based on unreliable data that it presents as fact, even including false citations. 

  • Academic Integrity. Students fear that the use of generative AI could encourage academic dishonesty as the proper use of the tools has not been well defined at many law schools.

  • Innovative Thinking. Students note that learning and practicing the law requires critical and innovative thinking and they believe that the use of generative AI would discourage their refinement of this skill-set.  

  • Fear of Replacement. Some students fear that generative AI will overtake entry-level legal positions that offer essential learning opportunities. 

Ultimately, while generative AI will likely play an increasingly important role in legal work, students are correct in expressing their hesitation. Law schools will need to develop guidelines for proper use of the technology.

U.S. News Will Delay Publication of Rankings After Unprecedented Number of Data Inquiries by Law Schools

U.S. News and World Report’s annual ranking of law schools will be delayed a week. In an email to law deans, published in part by Above the Law, U.S. News explained that during the law school data review period—a standard part of the pre-publication process—the organization received “an unprecedented number of inquiries from schools.” In order to fully address the inquiries, U.S. News added an additional week to the review period. Participating law deans are expected to receive access to the updated data on Wednesday, April 19th, and the final publication has been moved to April 25th. 

New Jersey Bar Association Advocates to Remove Mental Health Questions from Bar Applicant Questionnaire

New Jersey is the latest state to seek to abolish the mental health questions asked on the “character and fitness questionnaire” required of all Bar applicants. Late last month, the New Jersey State Bar officially requested that the NJ Supreme Court remove item 12B from the bar applicant questionnaire: Do you currently have any condition or impairment (including but not limited to substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or a mental, emotional, or nervous disorder or condition) that in any way affects your ability to practice law in a competent, ethical, and professional manner and in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Rules of Court, and applicable case law? 

Jeralyn Lawrence, New Jersey State Bar Association President, speaking to the New Jersey Law Journal, explained the reasoning behind her advocacy for the change. “We are a profession in crisis. The pace of our practice is not sustainable. We need to remove barriers in place for people to get help, and 12b, we believe, is a barrier to the bar. We’re advocating strongly that the court remove that question so that it’s not a detriment to people getting help,” she said. 

Virginia and New York removed its mental health questions from the bar admission application in 2019 and 2020 following similar advocacy efforts by law students and interested groups. And, in January, Ohio abandoned questions related to diagnosis and only asks about mental health as it relates to disciplinary actions or guardianship/conservatorship. 

According to the ABA: 

  • Fourteen states do not request a candidate’s mental health status in evaluating their fitness for the Bar: Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

  • Four states—Indiana, Idaho, New Hampshire, and Texas—ask about mental health only in the context of disciplinary action. 

  • One state—Ohio—asks about mental health only in the context of disciplinary action and court appointed guardianship/conservatorship. 

  • Two states—California and Connecticut—ask about mental health only in the context of court appointed guardianship/conservatorship. 

  • Ten states—Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming), and Washington D.C.—have adopted the three mental health questions drafted by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) that are shown below: 

  1. Diagnosis:  Do you currently have any condition or impairment (including, but not limited to, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or a mental, emotional, or nervous disorder or condition) that in any way affects your ability to practice law in a competent, ethical, and professional manner? Note: “Currently” means recent enough that the condition or impairment could reasonably affect your ability to function as a lawyer. 

  2. Treatment: Are the limitations caused by your condition or impairment reduced or ameliorated because you receive ongoing treatment or because you participate in a monitoring or support program? 

  3. Defense/Disciplinary Action: Within the past five years, have you asserted any condition or impairment as a defense, in mitigation, or as an explanation for your conduct in the course of any inquiry, any investigation, or any administrative or judicial proceeding by an educational institution, government agency, professional organization, or licensing authority; or in 10 years, connection with an employment disciplinary or termination procedure?

  • Eleven states that do not follow the NCBE test—Alabama, Arkansas (disciplinary action only), Colorado, Delaware, Indiana (disciplinary action only), Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire (disciplinary action only), Oregon, Rhode Island, and Texas (disciplinary action only)—ask at least one of the NCBE questions. 

  • Fifteen other states ask questions of their own drafting.

Opportunities Expand for Students Seeking In-House Roles Immediately Post-Graduation

In the not-so-distant past, advisors encouraged law students interested in pursuing a career in an in-house legal department to gain at least five years of law firm experience first. But, as of late, this trend has started to shift; law schools are now proactively preparing students for in-house roles directly out of school and companies are demonstrating a greater willingness to hire less experienced lawyers. While working at a firm is still the most typical leadoff to an in-house career path—a 2022 survey of in-house professionals found that just 17 percent of the 2,000 plus respondents went directly in-house, while 78 percent had outside firm experience —for students who know that they’re seeking an in-house role, the possibilities are expanding.

A recent LegalDive article highlighted a few of the experiential learning programs currently being facilitated at law schools. We’ve provided a brief summary below: 

Jack Terschluse, a 2019 law graduate of Washington University in St. Louis, quit his job at a law firm after just two years to work for Balto, a tech start-up. “I think in a startup, the opportunities for promotions and different leadership experiences are greater earlier on than they might be at a bigger company because there’s not this big bench of people who’ve been waiting their turn to ascend to that leadership position,” Terschluse said in an interview with LegalDive. Similarly, Phelan Simpkins, intellectual property counsel at State Farm, and 2021 law graduate of the University of Missouri, was able to achieve his goal of an in-house position directly out of law school. He pointed out, also to LegalDive, that recent law graduates shouldn’t underestimate their ability to have an immediate impact in an in-house role. “Having somebody who is coming out of law school who’s had the theoretical training, but not necessarily the practical aspect of it, you’re getting a fresh perspective on an issue of law or how the company manages certain issues, which can be refreshing,” he said.

Law Schools Take on Gun Violence

This month, the University of Minnesota Law School will launch its Gun Violence Prevention Clinic in an effort to promote their Second Amendment scholarship and increase student engagement in firearms law. “Firearms law is currently one of the most dynamic and rapidly changing areas in the law. Yet there are not enough litigators with expertise in the field, and law schools and legal scholars are under engaged in Second Amendment issues,” Megan Walsh, Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and Gun Violence Prevention Clinic Director, said. 

The University of Minnesota isn’t alone in seeking to build out this knowledge base and skillset. Below, we’ve rounded up a number of ongoing initiatives and projects at law schools designed to provide students with opportunities in firearms scholarship, litigation, and legislation.

The University of Minnesota Law School Gun Violence Prevention Clinic

The clinic, a three-year pilot project, is designed to promote gun violence prevention through strategic litigation. In partnership with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, students will provide pro bono legal work in support of cases that help reduce injuries, deaths, and trauma resulting from gun violence. The clinic will also establish a home for gun violence prevention litigation in the Great Lakes area and increase litigation expertise and resources for Second Amendment and gun violence prevention.  

The Duke Center for Firearms Law

The Center, launched in 2019, seeks to grow scholarship in firearms law and serve as a “balanced and reliable” resource for stakeholders including scholars, judges, lawyers, policymakers, journalists, and the public through research and programming. 

Washington University in Saint Louis School of Law’s Initiative on Gun Violence and Human Rights

Law students participate in in-depth research projects to better understand the underpinnings of the U.S. gun violence crisis and to examine the issue through international human rights instruments. The initiative supports information sharing through conferences and webinars, as well as publishing articles and research. Last year, Leila Sadat, Initiative Director and Professor, contributed to an amicus briefing filed at the Supreme Court for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. 

Yale Law School’s Law, Policy, and Guns Project at the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy 

The Solomon Center places a spotlight on issues related to gun violence in the U.S. The Center has sponsored a course offering (2020), a special issue of The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (2020), and continues to facilitate public events as well as serve as a home for research and scholarship efforts.  

New York Law School’s Gun Safety Legislative Advocacy Clinic

In partnership with Everytown for Gun Safety, New York Law School offers a hands-on clinic to engage students with gun safety advocacy and legislation. Students will gain experience in legislative research as well as in drafting legislative proposals, creating campaigns, and building coalitions in support of their bills. They will also learn to critically analyze proposed gun bills based on existing laws and legislative efforts, and to serve as counterpoints to the gun lobby.

Two Law Schools Announce Continued Participation in U.S. News Ranking

Amidst a stream of law schools withdrawing from the U.S. News ranking, University of Chicago and Cornell University have just confirmed that they plan to continue their participation. 

In an email sent to students, University of Chicago Law School Dean Thomas Miles wrote, “Most of the data we supply to U.S. News is already public, and the rest is information we have no reason to withhold. The rankings of academic institutions clearly have a readership, and we wish to prevent the use of inaccurate information.” Making a similar argument, Cornell Law Dean Jens David Ohlin, writes in a published statement, “My own view is that the rankings distort academic decision-making, fail to adequately capture institutional quality, and create perverse incentives that are not in the best interests of students or the legal profession. However, withdrawal from the rankings process will not have the desired impact that many assume it will have.”

The only law schools within the top 15 that have not yet commented on how they will proceed with the ranking are University of Pennsylvania (Carey), NYU, and UVA. Ten law schools have joined the boycott of the U.S. News ranking: Berkeley, Columbia, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Michigan, Northwestern, Stanford, UCLA, and Yale. 

Update 12/6/2022: University of Pennsylvania (Carey) and NYU have announced that they will withdraw from the rankings. UVA has announced that it will continue to participate in the rankings.

Harvard Law Students Demand Coursework and Clinics in Reproductive Rights and Justice

Last month, the Harvard Law School Alliance for Reproductive Justice, a student group, staged a sit-in on campus to shine a light on the school’s lack of movement on reproductive justice offerings. They noted that students have been demanding coursework in reproductive rights for a decade, but that the school has done little more than to provide a few elective courses with visiting professors. In a demand letter submitted by the group to the administration last week, the students requested a reproductive justice clinic, at least one dedicated faculty member, and a curriculum. In their letter, the students also called out existing offerings at other law programs, which include:

  • New York University Law School Reproductive Justice Clinic and Advanced Reproductive Justice Clinic: This clinic trains students in the legal knowledge and skill required to secure fundamental liberty, justice, and equality for people across their reproductive lives, with a particular focus on pregnancy and birth. For current clinic work, students participate in advocacy and litigation around legal or policy frameworks restricting the autonomy and undermining the equality of pregnant, parenting, and birthing women; or punishing persons by virtue of their reproductive status.

  • Yale University Reproductive Rights and Justice Project: Students gain firsthand experience in fast-paced litigation and timely and strategic advocacy in a highly contested area of the law, confronting knotty procedural problems as well as substantive constitutional law questions in an area where established doctrine is under siege. Students advocate for reproductive health care providers and their patients, learning the vital importance of client confidentiality, as well as the impact of political movement strategy and management of press and public messaging.

  • Columbia University Center for Gender and Sexuality Law: This center's mission is to formulate new approaches to complex issues facing gender and sexual justice movements. The Center is the base for many research projects and initiatives focused on issues of gender, sexuality, reproductive rights, bodily autonomy, and gender identity and expression in law, policy, and professional practice.

  • Cornell University Gender Justice Clinic: This clinic engages in local, national, and global efforts to address gender-based violence and discrimination. Issues covered include intimate partner violence, sexual assault, gender-based violence in institutional settings, discrimination at work and in the criminal legal system, discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation, and reproductive rights, among others. 

  • University of California – Berkeley Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice: This center is a multidisciplinary research center dedicated to issues of reproduction and designed to support law and policy solutions by bridging the academic-advocate divide.

  • UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy: This center is committed to training the reproductive law and policy leaders of tomorrow, while empowering the advocates and scholars of today. By creating a trusted hub on the West Coast for local and national convenings, the Center engages academics, community members, and practitioners to reimagine the landscape of reproductive health, law, and policy.

Non-Profit Pilots Innovative Law School Funding Model to Alleviate Student Debt Burdens and Promote Career Choice for Graduates

Stanford Law School recently announced it would begin piloting a new tuition financing method for law school students in partnership with a 501(c)(3) nonprofit called The Flywheel Fund for Career Choice. In an effort to alleviate student debt concerns and allow for students to have greater choice in seeking out legal careers, the Flywheel fund has created safeguards around repayments for both lower and higher-income earners.

The pilot program, set to commence this fall, will include up to 20 Fellows who are current students at Stanford Law and have not yet committed to employment post-graduation. The Fellows will receive up to $170,000 up-front to pay for law school tuition and fees, which will be funded by philanthropic donations to the organization. Repayment will begin when the Fellows start their chosen employment post-graduation.

The terms of the pilot program include the following:

  • A 12-year payment term, with a maximum of 18 years.

  • Fellows will not pay anything until they have started employment (no payments will be requested during any period of unemployment post-graduation).

  • Repayment is tied to income, with special consideration given to both low and high-income earners. For Fellows earning less than $100,000 per year, Stanford has agreed to cover all payments. For those earning between $100,000 and $115,000, Stanford will cover partial payments. A cap is also in place for those who opt to take high-income positions, ensuring that payments are never out-sized. The cap is placed at $225,000 per year/$18,750 per month, and Fellows will not be asked to pay a percentage of their income beyond that level.

  • Fellows will never need to repay more than they would have if the Fellow had taken out a Grad PLUS Loan at the rate in effect at the time they entered into the pilot program.

  • Fellows will also take part in ongoing research on the various factors, including debt, that go into shaping their career selection decisions.

 “We believe this new model for financing a legal education can alleviate financial pressure, encourage students to pursue alternative careers more quickly after graduation, improve our LRAP [Loan Repayment Assistance Program] program, and have a ‘greater good effect’ in terms of helping to finance the legal education of future students at Stanford Law School,” said Frank Brucato, Senior Associate Dean for Administration and the CFO at Stanford Law School.

Almost Half of Young Lawyers Express Willingness to Leave Employers for Greater Flexibility

A divide between newer and more experienced lawyers is emerging in the wake of Covid. Earlier this week, the American Bar Association (ABA) released its 2022 Practice Forward report, which showed that almost half (44 percent) of lawyers with ten years of experience or less would be willing to leave their current employer for one that offers more remote work. Just 13 percent of those with 41+ years of experience said they would leave.

The report, published with the purpose of gaining an understanding of the “new normal” that legal professionals and employers face post-pandemic, includes survey responses from nearly 2,000 ABA members working in jobs requiring a law degree. 

Three-quarters of respondents expressed a willingness to work in the office any time their employer asks (81 percent of men and 68 percent of women), but the strong majority of all respondents—nine in ten—reported that remote work either improved, or did not adversely affect, their work’s quality. Women were more likely to report that their work metrics (work quality, productivity, billable hours) improved.

Almost half, 47 percent, of respondents said that remote work positively impacted their ability to balance work and family obligations. Among women, 56 percent felt that it improved their ability to find balance. Just over a quarter of respondents, 27 percent, reported that remote work increased the quality of their mental health while the majority noted that it had no impact (57 percent). Almost half of survey respondents noted that remote/hybrid work diminished the quality of their relationships with co-workers, and 61 percent said that it decreased their professional network. 

The report’s findings demonstrate that, in order to retain a younger generation of lawyers, firms and legal employers must create remote/hybrid work policies that are nuanced and cater to individuals’ needs rather than mandating one-size-fits-all policies.  

Social Media Makes its Way into the Law School Curriculum

Social media has become an integral part of most people’s daily interactions and difficult questions continue to arise about its usage and governance. As a result, social media law is growing in importance, and correspondingly among law school offerings. A number of elite law schools now include social media law courses in the curriculum, and interdisciplinary research opportunities (often led by law schools) on the topic are growing in popularity. A small sampling of available courses and centers for research are highlighted below: 

  • Harvard Law offers a course titled, Social Media and the Law, which considers a wide range of questions including: What values and principles ought to inform platforms as they evaluate what expression to regulate and how? What institutions should shape regulatory processes? How do plural global actors (of varied legal systems and values) influence content governance? 

  • Pace Law offers a course titled, Internet Law-Regulation of Social Media, which explores the legality of social media within the contexts of legal disputes and the practice of law, including jury selection, employment, defamation, and e-discovery. 

  • Columbia Law offers a seminar titled, Law and Regulation of Social Media, which aims to provide students with an understanding of the legal issues associated with social media use by companies, employees, students, and the government, and to shift students’ mindsets from those of social media end-user to lawyer. It also explores ethical and professional issues stemming from social media in the judicial process and in legal practice. 

  • Harvard also hosts the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, which was initially founded as a part of the Harvard Law School and then elevated to an Interfaculty Initiative. The Center hosts the Institute for Rebooting Social Media, which is a targeted research initiative focused on issues related to social media including: misinformation, privacy breaches, harassment, and content governance.

  • The Yale Law Justice Collaboratory is a science-based research group hosted by Yale Law School, which facilitates interdisciplinary research on improving the criminal justice system. The group works closely with the Social Media Governance Initiative, which considers what social media governance could and should look like, with an end goal of a social media network that promotes healthy online interactions and the betterment of society. 

  • Purdue University’s Global Concord School of Law is unveiling a free online course on social media law. The course, which is geared towards lay people, law students, and lawyers, consists of four self-paced modules: Introduction to Social Media Law, Intellectual Property, Free Speech and Its Limitations, and Social Media Policy and Ethics. Martin Pritikin, Dean of Concord Law School, describes the reasoning behind the course. “Social media is such a pervasive part of our lives, but most people aren’t aware of the numerous legal issues that may be raised, both as individuals and as employees, any time they post, share or comment,” he said. “Concord is pleased to be able to offer a free micro-credential in social media law that can provide useful background for lay people and legal professionals alike.”

Your story set apart.