LEADERSHIP EDUCATION IN THE LEGAL ACADEMY:
PRINCIPLES, PRACTICES AND POSSIBILITIES
A Report from the James MacGregor Burns
Academy of Leadership
University of Maryland
Co-Authored by Judy Brown, Ph.D. and Bonnie Allen, J.D.
Contributing Authors:
Georgia Sorenson, Ph.D.
Carol Pearson, Ph.D.
Richard Couto, Ph.D.
Nina Harris, Ph.D.
May 4, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
II.
THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
III.
INQUIRY AND PERSPECTIVES
IV.
FINDINGS
VI.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS
APPENDICES
A.
PRESS RELEASE ON UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF
LAW’S LEADERSHIP, ETHICS AND DEMOCRACY-BUILDING
INITIATIVE
B.
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW ROUNDTABLE
PARTICIPANTS
C.
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW ROUNDTABLE
AGENDA
D.
EXECUTIVE CORE QUALIFICATIONS INDEX
E.
CO-CURRICULAR LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS
F.
PROCESS TEMPLATES FOR AN INNOVATIVE LAW SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
G.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I.
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
In 2007 and 2008, the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership at the University
of Maryland (Burns Academy), the Center for Law & Renewal1 and the University of
Maryland School of Law (School of Law) undertook a collaborative process of inquiry
into the purpose of leadership education in the legal academy. This report describes that
process and the findings it revealed. The authors make the case for leadership in the legal
academy and provide guidelines for introducing it, fully recognizing the institutional
challenges that exist. This document is intended to be a vehicle for stimulating reflection
and discussion in the legal academy and the broader profession. It highlights trends and
provides examples, but it is by no means a comprehensive description of current curricula
and programs. The authors welcome comments from readers in the hope that it will
produce an expanding national and international dialogue in the academy and broader
legal profession.
The academic study of leadership is one of the fastest growing interdisciplinary
endeavors in American higher education. 2003 data documented more than 1800
leadership programs in U.S. universities.2 These efforts range from undergraduate
certificates, minors and majors to graduate and doctoral degree programs in leadership
studies. Leadership programs are embedded in every discipline. While the social
sciences and business schools remain the most likely in which to find leadership studies,
there is tremendous growth in these programs within liberal arts, history, agriculture,
literature, and philosophy. In the last few years, a plethora of programs has emerged in
the professional schools, notably MBA programs, schools of public policy, public
administration, and medicine, in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.3
In the spirit of the best professional education, leadership studies teach critical thinking,
effective communications through writing and speaking, creativity and problem-solving,
human diversity as an asset, social responsibility, history as a source of knowledge for
understanding the present and planning for the future, collaboration and empowerment,
conflict resolution, negotiation, and group and organizational development. Moral
development and ethics are integrated into many leadership studies programs. By its very
nature, leadership studies teach the importance of engaging firsthand with contemporary
issues and problems of policy, the law, power-sharing, conflict, and collaboration.4
1
A non-profit organization based at the Fetzer Institute, an operating foundation located in Kalamazoo,
Michigan.
2
Georgia Sorenson, George Goethals and James MacGregor Burns, Encyclopedia of Leadership (Thousand
Oaks, California: SAGE, 2004).
3
Id.
4
Georgia Sorenson and George Goethals, eds., The Quest for a General Theory of Leadership (Northampton,
It is important to consider leadership education in the legal academy in the broader
context of higher education for professionals. While each profession has its particular
educational goals and challenges and may differ on substantive knowledge and technical
skills, the professions share the common goal of developing the character and skill set
needed to create “professionalism.” 5 In many professions, leadership studies and
programs have been an effective vehicle for pursuing this goal.
Interestingly, legal education has been slow to embrace leadership studies. While several
American law schools have added leadership courses to their curriculum, developed
leadership scholars programs, or made explicit commitments in their missions to prepare
lawyers to be leaders, the legal academy has yet to integrate leadership teaching into the
mainstream of its pedagogy.6 The dearth of leadership studies in legal education presents
a paradoxical challenge. Lawyers comprise a significant number of leaders in
government, business and community, yet law schools do not formally prepare lawyers to
be leaders. As a result, many practicing lawyers lack grounding in the intellectual and
practical leadership disciplines that are fundamental to exercising sound professional
judgment, helping clients solve problems, communicating effectively, managing self and
others, and navigating the increasing complexity of organizational cultures.
To address this challenge, the Center for Law & Renewal engaged the Burns Academy to
develop an inquiry into the need, purpose and methodologies for introducing leadership
education into the legal academy. Housed in the School of Public Policy at the
University of Maryland, College Park, the Burns Academy is internationally recognized
for its broad range of initiatives focusing on leadership education, public service and
scholarship. Currently led by renowned scholar Carol Pearson, the Burns Academy
features the work of recognized leadership luminaries including presidential biographer
James MacGregor Burns and founder Georgia Sorenson.
This inquiry grew out of the work of the Center for Law & Renewal, a non-profit
organization created by the Fetzer Institute that examined the tensions between personal
values and moral codes of lawyers and the demands of the profession and legal
institutions. The Fetzer Institute has a history of supporting similar inquiries in the fields
of medicine, higher education, business, and politics. The Center developed a framework
to advance a “relationship-centered ethic of lawyering” by offering programs that equip
lawyers with self-awareness, skills and tools they need to practice ethics and
professionalism beyond the technical rules, serve as leaders and change agents in their
institutions, and operate as democracy-builders in their communities. Now dissolved as
Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006).
5
William F. May discusses the “marks of the professional” in The Beleaguered Rulers: The Public Obligation
of the Professional (Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), p. 7, as “intellectual, moral and
organizational” – with “correlative virtues.”
6
Santa Clara University School of Law, University of Maryland School of Law, Duke University School of
Law, Ohio State University College of Law, Elon University School of Law, St. Thomas Law School, and Harvard
Law School are among these institutions.
an entity, the Center for Law & Renewal’s mission continues through a partnership
between the Fetzer Institute and the University of Maryland School of Law that created
the Leadership, Ethics and Democracy -Building Initiative (LEAD) led by Professor
Michael Millemann. A press release announcing the initiative is attached as Appendix A.
The Fetzer Institute’s partnership with Maryland School of Law builds on the law
school’s nationally recognized clinical law program and its Women’s Leadership
Program directed by Professor Paula Monopoli, who also oversees the leadership
components of the new initiative.
The Burns Academy’s inquiry into leadership education in law schools included a review
of relevant literature, a survey of the field and a roundtable dialogue among leaders in
law and leadership studies. This report reflects perspectives of leaders in the legal
academy and broader profession, as well as scholars in the field of leadership studies.
The report also documents the Burns Academy’s findings and recommendations
regarding the goals and methodologies for integrating leadership studies and programs
into law schools, based on experiences and models drawn from other fields of
professional education. We preface our discussion of the inquiry by describing the
context and challenges in the legal profession that law school-based legal education could
address.
II.
THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Lawyers play an essential role in American democracy. They are the guardians and
gatekeepers of the rule of law, a cornerstone of a civil society. Lawyers control our
judicial systems, are significantly represented in the halls of Congress and state
legislatures, and advise corporate executives in business decisions that have far-reaching
consequences for stockholders and consumers. They also serve in important public
leadership roles as elected officials and high-ranking government agency staff, and often
are the chief architects of public policy.
The American legal profession and legal institutions face enormous challenges in the 21st
century. Public confidence, respect for and trust in lawyers and legal systems have
eroded significantly in the past few decades. Many civil courts are unable to effectively
manage overwhelming caseloads and demand, and matters frequently are disposed of in
bureaucratic ways that leave all parties dissatisfied. The criminal justice system is widely
viewed as broken and without the means or power to reduce crime or help victims and
perpetrators heal their lives. Bar-sponsored studies indicate that 80% of the civil legal
needs of low-income people and 30% of those of moderate-income people are not met,
due in part to a legal services delivery system that grossly under-funds legal aid
programs. The United States spends far less than other Western industrial societies on
subsidizing legal representation.7
Alongside these “systems failures” is a significant crisis in morale for individual lawyers.
7
Deborah L. Rhode, In the Interests of Justice: Reforming the Legal Profession (Oxford University Press,
1998), p. 7.
Skyrocketing student loan debt drives many law students to make career choices
inconsistent with their values and vocational goals. The demands of law firm culture,
with its ultimate emphasis on billable hours and business development, leave lawyers
little time for family life, personal health, pro bono work, or civic engagement. An
estimated one-third of American attorneys suffer from depression or substance
addictions, a rate that is two to three times higher than the general public.8 A majority of
lawyers report that they would choose another career if they could make the decision
again, and three-quarters would not want their children to become lawyers. Eighty
percent do not believe that the law lives up to their expectations in contributing to the
social good. 9
Legal education plays a key role in precipitating this crisis in the legal profession and
legal systems. The Carnegie Report on Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the
Profession of Law, published in 2007, found that law schools fail to equip students with
the moral and social skills they need to “engage the moral imagination.”10 The Carnegie
Report attributes much of the shortcoming of legal education to its heavy reliance on a
single form of teaching, the case-dialogue method, and on the limitations of that one
form. This methodology involves abstracting the legally relevant aspects of situations
and persons from their real-world situations. Consideration of the social or ethical
consequences of legal conclusions is left out of the analysis. Students are warned to set
aside their concerns for justice, moral consequences or compassion.11 Stanford Law
Professor William H. Simon attributes this phenomenon to the tendency of the dominant
conception in legal theory to define the lawyer’s role in terms of formalistic, categorical
and mechanical forms.12 He adds: The profession has promulgated an ideology, backed
by disciplinary rules and sanctions that mandates unreflective, mechanical, categorical
judgment rather than practical reason. 13
While other fields of graduate professional education, including business, public policy
and the military, have diversified learning methodologies, encouraged in part by the work
on multiple intelligences by Howard Gardner, law schools have not followed that trend.
In his best-selling book, The Soul of the Law, Benjamin Sells, a Chicago-based trial
lawyer and psychologist, describes the perils of legal education and the process of
“becoming a lawyer” as acculturating the legal mind. Somewhere along the way, law
students undergo a subtle, though radical, change. Their very perceptions begin to be
8
Id., p. 8.
9
Id., p. 11.
10
William M. Sullivan, Anne Colby, Judith Welch Wegner, Lloyd Bond, and Lee S. Shulman, Educating
Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Hoboken,
New Jersey: Jossey-Bass, 2007).
11
Id., p. 146.
12
William H. Simon, The Practice of Justice: A Theory of Lawyers’ Ethics (Cambridge Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 3.
13
Id., p. 23.
structured by assumptions provided by legal education.14 Sells points to the example of a
law professor telling first year students: “You are not here to find truth and justice, you
are here to learn the Law.” 15 Sells observes that the Law does not know what to do with
big grand ideas that escape analytic definition. Over time, the Law’s reluctance to
engage the grand ideas of the heart can limit and restrict the range of its imagination.16
These mental habits include objectification by the lawyer of people and situations, and
the resulting detachment from self and others. Lawyers, Sells asserts, have become
abstracted from the world of actual experience.17 This poses an enormous problem for
practicing lawyers who are called upon to make difficult decisions in the messiness and
complexity of their own lives, the organizations in which they operate, and the clients
that they serve.
The Carnegie Report recognizes that some law schools are attempting to address the
increasingly apparent shortcomings of legal education. Many law schools are introducing
forms of experiential learning, including stronger clinical programs and discussion oriented seminars. The University of Maryland School of Law, Northeastern School of
Law, Fordham University School of Law, Marquette University Law School,
Georgetown University Law School, Hamline University School of Law, and the
University of Southern California Law School are just some of the institutions now
offering reflective and interdisciplinary approaches to teaching the required course of
Ethics and Professional Responsibility that incorporate novels, personal essays, student
interviews of practitioners, guest speakers from the profession, and class discussion about
the gap between the rules and reality of practicing law.18 Law school Student Affairs
offices are presenting workshops on work-life balance and related topics. One new
entrant into the field, Elon University School of Law, was founded in 2006 with an
explicit mission of preparing lawyers to be leaders as well as problem-solvers.
The Carnegie Report goes on to observe, however, that the tendency of law schools is to
address inadequacies in legal education in an additive, rather than integrative way. This
incremental – rather than comprehensive – approach to reform fails to generate the
desired results. The Carnegie Report includes a strong recommendation that legal
educators respond to the needs of our time and recent knowledge about how learning
takes place by combining the elements of legal professionalism – conceptual knowledge,
skills and moral discernment – into the capacity for judgment guided by a sense of
professional responsibility. Thus, there is a compelling call for an integrated curriculum
14
Benjamin Sells, The Soul of the Law: Understanding Lawyers and the Law (Rockport, Massachusetts:
Element, 1996), p. 35.
15
Id., p. 36.
16
Id., p. 37.
17
Id., p. 175.
18
In 2006, the Center for Law & Renewal convened a group of 20 legal educators to exchange ideas and
curriculum for teaching the required law school course of ethics and professional responsibility in ways that challenge
students to “think beyond the rules” and to explore the ethical rules in the context of their own values and moral codes.
that includes doctrine and analysis, practice, and the exploration of the identity, values
and dispositions consistent with the fundamental purpose of the legal profession.19
Since its publication, there has been tremendous response by law schools and bar
associations to the Carnegie Report, as evidenced by a proliferation of conferences and
writings on the topic in the past two years. Highly significant among these responses is
the American Bar Association’s decision to undertake a process of revising law school
accreditation standards to include professionalism competencies.
A.
Making the Case
Recognizing the compelling need for cultural change in the profession, legal educators
and leaders in the practicing bar themselves have begun to build a case for the integration
of leadership studies into law school curricula. Increasingly, lawyers are speaking and
writing of a “crisis in values” in the profession and legal systems that can be addressed
only by courageous leaders who are willing to create and act upon a new vision. Ben W.
Heineman, Jr., former General Counsel at General Electric Company, spoke on “Law and
Leadership” at Yale Law School in 2006, advancing the thesis that law schools should
more candidly recognize the importance of leadership and more directly prepare and
inspire young lawyers to seek roles of ultimate responsibility and accountability. 20
“Graduates of law schools should aspire not just to be wise counselors but wise leaders;
not just to dispense “practical wisdom” but be practical visionaries.” 21 Heineman
supports his claim by arguing first, that our society is suffering from a leadership deficit
in public, private and non-profit spheres. Second, he asserts that the legal profession is
experiencing a crisis of morale arising out of a disconnect between personal values and
professional life. Providing leadership can affirm and test our vision and core values.
Third, he observes that other professional schools have as their explicit mission the
training of leaders for the various sectors. The core competencies of law provide as solid
a foundation for leadership as do those of other professions. Law schools need a similar
vision to enhance the education and careers of their graduates, thus serving society and
addressing the values crisis affecting so many in the profession.22
Heineman argues for an interdisciplinary approach to legal education that not only
teaches core legal capacities, but also “complementary capacities” that will prepare
lawyers for the real world demands of law practice, business and public leadership
roles.23 These capacities will engender “breadth of mind” and instill the skills needed for
lawyers to employ creativity, vision, values, and strategies to maximize human and other
resources as they build and lead law firms, businesses, government agencies, and non19
Sullivan et al, Educating Lawyers, p. 194.
20
Ben W. Heineman, Jr., “Lawyers as Leaders” (116 Yale Law Journal Pocket Part 2007), p. 266.
21
Id.
22
Id.
23
Id. p. 26.
profit organizations. 24
Donald J. Polden, Dean of the Santa Clara University School of Law, echoes Heineman’s
sentiments in his article “Educating Law Students for Leadership Roles and
Responsibilities.”25 Dean Polden asserts that leaders emerge in organizations and
situations in whicth they are called upon to create change. To do so, leaders rely on their
skills, relationships and insights through a leadership process.26 Fundamental leadership
skills are necessary for lawyers, whose role often includes persuading and influencing
others. Lawyers operate out of a vision or solution that involves problem-solving, team
building, motivation of others, and collaboration. Emphasizing that leadership education
for law students is values-based, Polden asserts that practicing leadership requires the
definition and creation of a vision or solution that results in positive and ethical change.27
While wholeheartedly supporting the integration of leadership studies into legal
education, Northeastern University School of Law Professor David Hall candidly
observes the challenges inherent in this endeavor. In his book, The Spiritual
Revitalization of the Legal Profession,28 Professor Hall asserts that the culture and values
of the legal profession and legal education are not conducive to developing authentic
leaders. True leadership, he says, does not relate to what we do, or the role we occupy in
an organization. Leadership relates to the person we are and the values we manifest. It is
more about being than doing. Leadership grows from a deep well of self-reflection and
self-realization as we attempt to transform the world around us. Hall adds that the
leadership traits of vision, compassion, creativity, courage, humility, faith, determination,
and love do not emanate from an intellectual well alone but also come from the spirit. It
is the synergistic combination of mind and spirit that enables lawyers to transform
institutions and their own lives.29 Professor Hall notes that lawyers are confronted with
leadership opportunities and challenges every day.
The way [lawyers] approach their cases and clients is an act
of leadership. Their willingness or unwillingness to go across
racial and gender boundaries, and discover and learn from those
who are different from them is a challenge of leadership. How
lawyers deal with the professional culture which encourages then
to act and behave in a certain manner is a challenge to their
leadership. Whether lawyers are able to go against the grain
when they think the grain is moving in a destructive direction
24
Id.
25
Donald J. Polden, “Educating Students for Leadership Roles and Responsibilities” (University of Toledo
Law Review, Volume 39, No. 2, Winter 2008), pp. 353-360.
26
Id.
27
28
Id., p. 355.
David Hall, The Spiritual Revlitalization of the Legal Profession: A Search for Sacred Rivers (Lewiston,
New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 2005).
29
Id., pp. 175-176
is a question of leadership.30
B.
The Practicing Bar As A Driver for Change in the Academy
Law firms, much like law schools, have been slow to embrace formal leadership
development training. But that is beginning to change for several reasons. First, law
firms are increasingly larger and complex organizations that demand formal leadership
and management systems and structures. Second, the kind of informal mentoring that
took place in earlier periods has disappeared in many law firms, leaving a void of
relationships between more experienced attorneys and young associates that encourage
the formation of good habits and ethical practices needed to succeed in law practice and
life. Third, legal practices have shifted in ways that require more teamwork and
collaboration within firms and across practice groups.
In response to these changes, law firms are establishing leadership programs in
collaboration with business schools and consulting firms, and this phenomenon will
undoubtedly expand in the next several years. Examples include Reed Smith LLP’s
partnership with Wharton School of Business to develop leadership curriculum, and DLA
Piper’s contract with Harvard Business School to teach leadership and management skills
to its firm leaders.31 Bar associations also are recognizing this need, and the state bar
associations of Wisconsin, Colorado, Oregon, and Alabama now offer leadership
education for CLE credit.32 In Florida, the Center on Professionalism - jointly created by
the Supreme Court and the Florida Bar - is promoting a statewide approach to enlisting
the law schools in the state to develop leadership programs as a vehicle for enhancing
professionalism. Many other state and local bar associations offer leadership education
to affinity groups within the bar, including women lawyers and lawyers of color.
Hildebrandt International, one of the world’s largest consulting groups for professional
services organizations, hired Dr. Larry Richard (former trial attorney) several years ago
to head the firm’s Leadership & Organization Development Practice Group. Dr. Richard
has worked with hundreds of law firms and corporate law departments to improve human
performance, and in recent years, his work has increasingly focused on leadership
development. Dr. Richard’s expertise includes an understanding of “lawyer personality
traits,” and the management and leadership challenges and opportunities these traits
present in law firm settings.
III.
INQUIRY AND PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP IN THE LEGAL
PROFESSION
Recognizing the growing interest in leadership education in the legal academy and
30
Id., p. 180.
31
Herb Rubenstein, Leadership for Lawyers, Second Edition (Chicago: ABA Publishing, 2008), p. xiii.
32
Id., p. xv
broader profession, the Burns Academy undertook a process of inquiry and facilitated a
dialogue among leaders in law and leadership studies to explore two central questions:
1.
2.
What makes leadership education in law schools necessary at this time?
What will make it possible?
In September 2007, Burns Academy Senior Scholar Judy Brown convened a Steering
Committee that included representatives of the University of Maryland School of Law,
the Center for Law & Renewal and the Burns Academy to design and implement a
process of inquiry. The process began with a review of relevant literature. Despite the
plethora of literature on leadership studies in other disciplines, the committee found scant
literature on leadership in the law, and observed that relatively few law schools have
developed leadership curricula or programs for their students.
By contrast, business schools have followed a different pattern of development. A
review of U.S. News and World Report’s 2007 top ten ranked business schools shows
that all offer substantial courses in leadership. Many, such as Harvard Business School,
MIT’s Sloan School of Management, and the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, are
recognized for their historic achievement in leadership education. Other prominent
schools are developing innovative and individualized approaches to leadership education.
Wharton School of Finance offers leadership development training in the military
academy in Quantico, Virginia and partners with the University of Pennsylvania Law
School in the America-Mideast Educational and Training Service; the University of
California Berkeley’s Hass School of Business is partnering with the College of
Engineering to launch a program in technology and leadership; Columbia University has
designed a New Media Executive Leadership Program in its Journalism School; and
Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business offers an Executive Master’s
in Leadership program. In 2005, the Association of American Medical Colleges sampled
Leadership Development programs available to health care professionals. Not
surprisingly, the schools taking the initiative in the field were frequently the universities
with strong credentials in business leadership education, such as Harvard, Wharton,
Duke, Stanford, and Georgetown.
Following the literature review, the Steering Committee proceeded to conduct
anonymous written interviews through the “Delphi Process” – named for the Oracle at
Delphi who could see into the future. The committee sent a questionnaire to more than
50 students and legal educators, as well as to leadership experts. Sixty percent
responded, and there was general consensus that leadership education is needed for law
students.33
Key themes that emerged from the survey included:
33
See http://www.law.umaryland.edu/faculty/conferences/detail.hmtl?conf=63 for
Survey: Leaders in Law on Leadership Education

Leadership education in the field of law is important because many lawyers end
up in public leadership roles for which they have not been prepared.
 Leadership is not only about positional or public authority roles, but also relates to
how an individual integrates the different aspects of daily life, manages
conflicting demands and recognizes the values underlying choices.
 Leadership principles, consciousness, habits, and skills can be taught.
 Successful leadership curricula and programs must integrate theory and practice.
 Leadership development in the law needs to encourage change at three levels:
1) individual, i.e. equipping lawyers to stay connected to their own moral
compasses and maintain leadership of their own lives; 2) institutional, i.e.
providing skills and tools for lawyers to act as agents of positive change within
their organizations; and 3) community, i.e. using legal skills and the law to
transform communities and strengthen democracy.
 Leadership skills are critical to changing negative trends in the legal profession,
including the decline in civility, failure of work-life balance, deterioration of
professionalism and a public service ethic, and steadily declining public trust in
the legal system.
The Delphi responses contributed to shaping the agenda and identifying participants for a
Roundtable on Law School Leadership Education, hosted by the University of Maryland
School of Law on February 19, 2008, in Baltimore. More than 50 leaders attended,
including the managing partners and senior partners of prominent law firms, executive
directors of non-profit legal organizations, elected officials, state Supreme Court Justices
and other members of the judiciary, law school faculty and deans, law students, and
experts from the field of leadership studies. Burns Academy Director Carol Pearson and
University of Maryland School of Law Dean Karen Rothenberg welcomed participants
and took active roles throughout the day-long dialogue facilitated by Judy Brown (see
attached list of participants, Appendix B).
The Roundtable’ purpose was to explore the Why, What and How of developing
leadership programs in law schools. Panels of leaders discussed the current challenges
facing the legal profession, including globalization, diversity, profit-driven legal cultures,
and a serious erosion of public trust. The agenda for the Roundtable is attached as
Appendix C.
The Roundtable consisted of five panel discussions with small group break-outs in
between. Panel topics included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
What are lawyers’ personal experiences (and observations of others) leading
change?
What did lawyers learn (or wish they had learned) in law school to prepare them
for leadership roles?
What do current law students see as present or missing in the leadership
dimensions of legal education?
What content, skills and experiences should be part of a program on leadership in
5.
law school?
What can other professional schools suggest about law school leadership
programs?
Highlights from the panels included the observations of Frank Burch, managing partner
of DLA Piper, the world’s largest law firm, who participated on the first panel and noted
that many law students enter the profession without the problem-solving and
organizational skills needed to work with clients and navigate in large institutions.
Martha Bergmark, President of the Mississippi Center for Justice, talked about a
“leadership moment” when, as a teenager growing in Mississippi, she confronted a
teacher and engaged in her first act of civil disobedience. John Frisch, Chairman of the
Baltimore law firm of Miles & Stockbridge, participated in the second panel and
discussed his law firm’s recent efforts to transform its institutional culture into one of
leadership and professionalism.
During a compelling lunch-time student panel, Andrew Canter, a third year law student at
Stanford University School of Law and recent graduate of Harvard University’s Kennedy
School of Public Policy, called for change in both the measurements and experiences of
legal education. This would draw greater leadership talent in prospective students as well
as enhanced leadership capabilities upon graduation. He expressed skepticism that law
students are likely to become leaders as long as law schools measure success by the
incoming LSAT scores and students leave burdened with debt that makes it difficult to
consider careers and leadership in other than large, well-paying law firms and
corporations. These quantitative and de-personalized forms of measurement spill over
into law firm culture, which measures success of lawyers largely by billable hours. In
January 2007, Canter co-founded “Building a Better Legal Profession,” a national grass
roots movement that seeks market-based workplace reforms in large law firms by
developing an alternative set of law firm rankings based on pro bono participation,
commitment to diversity, and work-life balance.
Michael Kelly, former Dean of University of Maryland School of Law, who participated
on the fourth panel, referenced recent studies of lawyer personalities and contrasted
“lawyer traits” with “leader traits.” These studies reveal that lawyers tend to be highly
competitive, risk-averse, skeptical, and non-collaborative, in contrast to the desired
leadership characteristics of team-building, innovation and trust. Dean Kelly posed the
following question:
Is thinking like a lawyer similar to, or different from, thinking
like a leader? The relationship between lawyer thinking and
leadership thinking can stimulate law students to relate to
leadership thinking and to appreciate ways in which legal
education has some natural, logical affinities with leadership
education. I say this because it seems to me important at the
outset of this project to establish a relationship between law and
leadership education if leadership education is to command any
respect in a law school … Most of the huge literature on
leadership focuses on particular skills or character traits needed
by leaders. They do not focus on the thinking, the intellectual
dimensions of organizational leadership. If lawyers come to
understand the conceptual framework of leadership performance,
they will, I think, have more respect for, and interest in, leadership.
Dean Donald Polden of Santa Clara University Law School joined Dean Kelly on the
panel focused on the content, skills and experiences that should be part of leadership
programs in law schools. He described the path of his institution and the four core
principles of its approach to leadership development (see Appendix F, Process Templates
for Creating an Innovative Law School Leadership Program).
The last session of the Roundtable featured a presentation by leadership scholars who
shared their knowledge and expertise about teaching leadership in other fields, including
medicine, business and public policy. These panelists stressed the importance of
recognizing leadership studies as an academic discipline with its own body of literature,
theory and practice, and one which professional schools are increasingly employing to
prepare professionals for their fields.
Burns Academy founder Georgia Sorenson characterized the Roundtable as a pioneering
meeting and a memorable launch of a process to shape a broad agenda. She began with a
description of leadership studies in ancient Greece, where it was one of four primary
fields of inquiry. She then traced the growth of leadership studies in the United States
through its emergence at top research universities following the Second World War, and
tracked its evolution at top private institutions such as Harvard, Duke and Princeton.
Sorenson noted that most professional schools have now embraced leadership studies,
often as a way to bridge the several disciplines that contribute to a field. Law, she
recognized, has rarely followed suit, until now.
Burns Academy Director Carol Pearson laid out a process for defining the fielddetermined core competencies for graduates so as to shape leadership offerings that
illuminate and strengthen those competencies. Using the graduate schools of public
policy as an example, Pearson traced the work of the federal Office of Personnel
Management and The Brookings Institution in identifying “Executive Core
Qualifications” which leaders in the government need in order to be successful. Pearson
noted that the Burns Academy and the University of Maryland School of Public Policy
focus upon shaping leadership education to address those competencies, 80% of which
specifically bear upon leadership. It is noteworthy that many of the problems identified
during the Roundtable have underlying them an implicit sense of the core qualifications
that lawyers need as leaders, whether in their firms, with their clients or in the broader
society. The Roundtable dialogue also reflected concern that legal education does not
currently address those core qualifications. Thus, one path law schools might take is to
definite the core qualifications for leadership among those trained in the law and design
programs to meet those needs. See Richard Couto’s essay on the Executive Core
Qualifications Index, attached as Appendix D. Burns Academy scholars also discussed
the co-curricular aspects of leadership education (see Appendix E).
David Mossbarger, Project Director of the Relationship-Centered Care Initiative at the
Regenstrief Institute at the Indiana University School of Medicine, outlined the medical
school’s efforts to address, within the framework of professionalism, many of the
elements framed by this inquiry as leadership. At that medical school, in the wake of a
curriculum transformation focused on patient-centered care, students began to note that
the culture of the institution was inconsistent with the values now promulgated by the
curriculum. Those values included compassion, civility and a culture of caring. The
transformation at the Indiana University School of Medicine had been one of
organizational intervention, in that a change was effected in the teaching and academic
culture to comport with the new curriculum. The approach to that change was organic,
collaborative and focused on those who wished to participate, and utilized a facilitation
approach known as “appreciative inquiry.” Mossbarger’s remarks signaled a significant
issue that this report will return to in a later section: the relationship between
professionalism and leadership.
Academy Senior Scholar Judy Brown’s role on the final panel was to sketch the work of
the MIT Leadership Center as an exemplar among business schools, noting parallels
between the challenges that MIT faces, with its high achieving and diverse student body,
and those that a law school might experience: a mix of students who have leadership
experience as well as those with little interest in the topic. The Sloan Business School at
MIT has a half century of history in research on leadership and management, and in
2005, with the launch of the MIT Leadership Center, a new focal point for provision of
leadership education at all levels was created. Through the Center, the Sloan School
provides all MBA students with a rich leadership program that takes into consideration
the wide range of interests and experience levels of participating students. The following
dimensions of the MIT Leadership Center seem relevant to address some of the
challenges law schools face in developing leadership programs:


34
The Center offers a solid intellectual leadership framework developed and tested
by the faculty that underlies all of the course offerings. Articulated by Deborah
Ancona and other distinguished faculty, the framework emphasizes sense-making,
relating, visioning, and inventing, and it provides a coherent point of view about
leadership as a way of organizing the wide range of offerings. The framework is
detailed in “Leadership in an Age of Uncertainty34 and in “In Praise of the
Incomplete Leader.”35
All students are required to participate, so the program does not educate only
Deborah G. Ancona, “Leadership in an Age of Uncertainty,” Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Sloan Leadership Center Research Brief (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2005).
35
Ancona, Thomas W. Malone, Wanda J. Orlikowski and Peter Senge, “In Praise of the Incomplete
Leader.” Harvard Business Review (Cambridge, Massachusetts, February 2007).

those already attracted to leadership, but ensures that all MIT MBA students
graduate with some awareness of the dimensions of leadership of skills needed to
step into leadership roles.
Beyond the formal courses required or students, a wide variety of intensive
experiences is offered during the “Sloan Innovation Period. These intensives are
led by faculty and leaders from the field, and bring additional teaching talent and
approaches into the mix.
What the MIT Sloan Business School has in common with law schools is the ability to
attract smart, motivated students who display widely divergent interests in and experience
of leadership. Given this broad range of leadership aptitude, appetite and experience, the
question becomes how to serve all students under a single, powerful conceptual
framework of leadership principles. Thereafter, whatever direction a student selects as
part of a leadership experience, the framework provides the common and cohesive basis
for attitudes, communication and behavior. The MIT Leadership Center is a rich, multifaceted program where students can choose practice activity options, but they end up with
a common frame of reference about leadership. From whatever point on the leadership
continuum they may have started, they acquire a shared language and framework of
leadership.
A current running through the entire Roundtable was the underlying assumption - best
articulated by Dean Kurt Schmoke, former Baltimore mayor and current Dean of Howard
University School of Law - of a values-based approach to leadership education. The
question of “leadership to what end?” is a critical one, said Schmoke, and it must be
explicitly declared. Dean Schmoke recounted the story of being challenged by a mentor
early in his career to become a modern day biblical Prophet Nehemiah, which requires
facing the truth of distress and waste abroad and in the land and gathering people together
to rebuild their communities.36 The normative approach to leadership development once
again raises the issue of the relationship between leadership education and
professionalism and the ethical formation of the lawyer.
Following the Roundtable, several participants submitted essays reflecting on the event
that were posted on the websites of the Burns Academy and the University of Maryland
School of Law.
\
36
Lawyers, it was reported, are an unusual lot. When it comes to
thinking about how to deliver training in leadership skills and theory –
a tough crowd. As a group, lawyers are extraordinarily individualistic,
resistant to being brought to subjects considered “soft,” cynical,
result-driven, and generally not inclined to listen. Lawyers talk. The
proverbial “mouthpiece” description might come to mind.
But this particular gathering of lawyers and legal educators was
different … they actually wanted to listen to one another … and even
more remarkable, they were willing to listen to presentations from
other disciplines: medicine, public policy and sociology. They knew
who to invite and how to frame the time so that a maximum degree
of exchange could occur …
Angela Oh, Executive Director, Western Center
Foundation for Justice
Diane Hoffman, Academic Dean of the University of Maryland School of Law, wrote:
The comment that has stuck with me since the Roundtable is
Georgia Sorenson’s question: “Why is this necessary?” That is,
why is leadership education necessary in law schools? Unless
we can answer this, she asserted, it will be difficult to design a
leadership curriculum or program for law students.
I agree. We have to articulate the need for leadership education
in law schools before legal educators will embrace it. That
articulation will depend on how we define leadership or what
kind of leaders we hope that law school graduates will become.
One definition of a leader is someone who is able to make
positive changes in his or her institution, community or society
by persuading others to help make those changes. It seems to
me that there are leadership skills that one can teach a person
who will become that kind of a leader – that is, someone who is
going to head an institution, program or initiative. Skills such as
teamwork, effective public speaking and writing, strategic
planning, negotiation, and decision theory would be useful.
But I think that definition of leader may be too narrow. I would
broaden it to include individuals who, because of their moral
courage, their honesty, integrity and ability to put their own
needs and desires aside for the greater good of an institution or
group of people, command respect and support for others for
their actions. These individuals may not be making big changes
but in their day to day lives make choices that take into
consideration not only their own self interest but the broader
interests of those around them who often do not have a voice or
who cannot effectively express their interests or needs. If we
include both of these conceptions of leadership, then I think the
argument that leadership education in law schools is necessary
is persuasive based on several factors. First, there is a significant
number of law school graduates who go on to become heads of
law firms, government agencies and departments, non-profit
organizations, or elected officials. In fact, lawyers may
disproportionately be in these kinds of leadership roles. Those
who go on to fill such roles will likely benefit from educational
experiences designed for institutional, community and elected
leaders. But there is a larger number of graduates who will
benefit from educational experiences designed to help them be
moral, compassionate and principled decision-makers concerned
about social justice who will command respect from their peers
and members of the broader community.
Robert Jerry, Dean of the University of Florida College of Law, and Earl Martin, Dean of
The Gonzaga University School of Law, reflected on the Roundtable in conversations
with members of the Steering Committee. Their comments are summarized as follows:
The most useful information at the Roundtable concerned
discussion of how law schools might structure leadership
programs. There is a need to get more specific about details
and what it takes to deliver concrete leadership development
programs. This will require more input from people actually
putting these programs on the ground. More discussion of what
business schools are doing would be useful. Lack of faculty
consensus is a significant problem. There is skepticism among
faculty that leadership is a bona fide skill that is relevant to the
practice of law or a subject that has academic content. Resources
are a barrier as well. If a program can get a niche or toe-hold as
an optional co-curricular program, student interest could propel
such a program into broader acceptance. Getting private endowed
support helps a great deal, along with alumni approval and support.
Three levels of further inquiry emerged from the Roundtable:
Individual Leadership
 There is power in individual reflection upon earlier experiences that have
influenced one’s sense of leadership. How can we encourage early experience
and reflection by our students? What teaching tools and models can be
incorporated into curricular and co-curricular activities to facilitate reflection?
 Roundtable participants and Delphi survey respondents appreciated the
opportunity to reflect on their own leadership stories and to consider the questions
of Why and How leadership education could be introduced into the legal
academy. How can these kinds of individual reflective activities and group
dialogues be used to advance the goal of creating more buy-in?
Institutional Leadership Within Law Firm Culture
 Law firm leaders face significant challenges in work cultures where the
predominant individual profile is that of a risk-averse, precedent-oriented, highly
skeptical, and marginally social professional. How can leaders in these
environments help colleagues see alternative futures? How can law schools
prepare students for these kinds of leadership challenges?
 Visionary leaders face the challenge of translating their inner passion and deep
caring into principles and practices that can be applied in legal institutions filled
with strong and diverse personalities. How can law schools develop the capacity
to focus on principles before personalities in order to lead change more
effectively?
Institutional Leadership Within Law School Culture
 Success in law school is measured in very limited ways. Are these measurements
good predictors of leadership and success in the practice of law? If not, what new
measurements should be considered?
 Some students come to law school with considerable leadership experience and
interest and others do not. How should law schools address this disparity?
 Clinical legal education and pro bono work are invaluable in helping students
grow comfortable with the wide range of economic and cultural circumstances
they are likely to encounter in their clients and communities. How might such
experiences be more completely integrated into legal education and linked to
leadership programs?
 Some lawyers become agents of change. How might leadership education foster
that orientation in more of our graduates? What causes that to happen? Early
experience? Intention, aptitude or “hard wiring” from the start? A slower, more
coached evolution into a leader? How might the law school experience facilitate
this process?
 Mentors challenge and support students in their consideration of the applications
and uses of legal training. How can law students have more interaction with
lawyer-leaders serving in a broad range of professional settings?
IV.
FINDINGS
Key findings of the Burns Academy’s inquiry: the research, Roundtable and subsequent
reflections are summarized below:
1.
Leadership is a credible field of study, and one in which professional training and
education are available at the graduate and professional level in many disciplines,
including medicine, business, public policy, and the military.
2.
Leadership education is considered to be critically important by many
practitioners and public officials who are lawyers. Leadership education and
experience as part of legal training would increase the value of those trained in the
law, enhancing their effectiveness as leaders in law firms, the judiciary,
government, non-profit organizations, and communities.
3.
Law firm demand for lawyers who are effective problem-solvers and navigators
of organizational culture has precipitated leadership development programs in an
increasing number of large law firms.
4.
Leadership can be taught. There are numerous approaches that other professional
schools have used successfully. The question becomes how leadership can best
be taught in law schools, or in a specific law school. The case that leadership can
be taught in law schools will most successfully be made through law schools’
experiences, rather than by argument.
5.
Law schools are increasing the variety and dimensions of leadership education
offered through new kinds of curriculum in the areas of Ethics and Professional
Responsibility, clinics, internships and pro bono opportunities. Few law schools,
however, have explicitly integrated these methodologies into a coherent
leadership program that includes curricular and co-curricular activity. Here lies a
real opportunity for progress.
6.
The need to teach leadership skills in law school is more easily accepted by legal
educators and practitioners than the need to teach leadership theory. Scholarship
in the area of leadership in the law is wide-open territory that presents an exciting
new opportunity for legal academics.
7.
Much of the pioneering activity in leadership education stems from innovative
approaches in “up and coming” law schools. Innovation in the most highly
ranked schools tends to lag. This has been the case with many new movements in
the law, including alternative dispute resolution, clinics and new approaches to
teaching ethics and professional responsibility. Top-tiered law schools may have
less incentive to innovate. Over time, however, we expect the trend of leadership
education in the legal academy to catch on in the most prestigious law schools in
the country.
8.
Skepticism and a search for precedent are among the characteristics of the trained
legal mind that might underlie a search for a template of leadership courses,
curricula or co-curricular experiences. Evidence from leadership programs in
other professional schools, however, shows that there is no one right way that fits
the unique character and culture of each law school.
9.
The leadership approaches most likely to gain traction with students, faculty and
administration will have the following qualities:
 A conceptual and theoretical framework that is authentic for the school, rooted
in credible research in the field of leadership studies (and its relationship to
the law), that has real intellectual power and coherence
 A commitment to identify and develop the existing leadership assets that the
law school already possess: faculty that are interested, alumni that are able to
contribute time and money, and administration that will provide a vision and
leadership in convening stakeholders to develop “buy’in.” Other assets
including existing theory and practice methodologies, such as clinical
programs, externships and internships that can integrate leadership theory and
practice. Assets also include leadership scholars and faculty in nearby
professional schools in other disciplines.
 Support from the local and state bar, alumni, practitioners, and judges
 An understanding that some faculty and administrators will find leadership
education engaging and others will not; a willingness to allow faculty to
absorb the intellectual and practical benefits of leadership education at a
measured pace and from the experience of the law school as it moves forward
 The realization that the development of leadership programs may bring about
pervasive change in the law school culture over time (creating a culture of
leadership throughout the institution)
 A willingness to experiment, run pilot programs, engage in the process of
inquiry, seize opportunities, form new partnerships, and evaluate progress and
outcomes
V.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS
Incremental changes in legal education have been underway for several decades. We
believe that the release of the Carnegie Report - and the spark it has ignited in the
academy and profession - constitutes a tipping point for a much broader and more
integrated assessment of the purpose, underlying assumptions and methodologies of legal
education. The Carnegie Report has given voice and credibility to the prophecies of a
disparate number of individuals and groups that increased in volume and cohesiveness
over time. Now, with the imprimatur of the Report, there are formalized processes and
opportunities to enter the dialogue at the highest levels of academia and the profession.
Leadership development courses and co-curricular programs provide practical and
intellectual tools to facilitate reform of legal education, the practice of law and legal
systems. Our recommended next steps for advancing leadership development in the legal
academy include:
1.
Enlist the practicing bar in developing leadership programs. Leadership
education is an ideal bridge between the academy and the practice. Law schools should
reach out to alumni, major donors, law firm leaders, bar leaders, judges, and public
officials to seek informed comment on new program and curriculum development. Law
school-sponsored leadership forums, such as the Roundtable conducted at the University
of Maryland School of Law in February 2008, present excellent opportunities for scholars
and practitioners to engage in open dialogue about leadership challenges and
opportunities in the profession. Law schools also should engage alumni, major donors
and law firm leaders in fundraising strategies to add faculty and programs in leadership
studies. Dedicated funding can provide incentive for faculty and administrators to take
risks in developing innovative programs.
2.
Engage law students in the design of leadership programs at the outset. That very
act will send a clear message – early in their careers – that lawyers are expected to take
on the mantle of leadership. Student participation will add tremendous energy, and it will
undoubtedly impact recruiting and help create an institutional reputation for innovation.
3.
Establish a process of ongoing legal scholarship that identifies key intellectual
paths of inquiry. Areas ripe for scholarly inquiry include the moral dimensions of
leadership in the legal profession, “lawyer personality traits” vs. “leader personality
traits” and how that disconnect affects client service and organizational management, the
impact of women and minority leadership in legal institutions, and how leadership
development intersects with the changing roles of lawyers in our society and the global
context. Developing an intellectual and scholarly framework will be critical to
successfully integrating leadership studies into the legal academy. Law schools on the
cutting edge of leadership studies may want to create journals focused on leadership
development in the practice and teaching of the law.
4.
Make the case for leadership studies and programs as a powerful response to the
Carnegie Report. Declare leadership programs as an inherently normative endeavor that
can propel movement toward addressing the recommendations of the Report to enhance
the moral formation and imagination of the lawyer. Tie leadership development to the
teaching of Ethics and Professional Responsibility – while not subsuming one into the
other. Teaching in the two fields should be highly complementary – yet distinguished.
5.
Early adopters of law school-based leadership studies and programs should
network with one another and develop and disseminate best practices. We recommend
the convening of conferences about leadership studies in legal education for scholars and
practitioners, as well as the publication of articles in legal journals and law reviews.
Proponents also should advocate for leadership development in national networks such as
the American Bar Association, state bar associations and the American Association of
Law Schools. Creating a buzz about law school-based leadership models that catch fire
is perhaps the most powerful vehicle for fueling a movement in legal education.
6.
Pursue interdisciplinary approaches to teaching and writing in the area of
leadership in the law. Proponents should enter the interdisciplinary dialogue by
participating in leadership networks, such as the International Leadership Association, to
stay current with broader leadership scholarship and practice.37 This will be particularly
useful in developing templates for scholarship, as well as best practices.
37
Judy Brown, Bonnie Allen and Angela Oh presented a panel at the International Leadership
Association Conference in Los Angeles in 2008 on “Transformational Trends in Law and Justice.” Allen
also is submitting a proposal on “Lawyers as Leaders in Democracy-Building” for the 2009 ILA
Conference in Prague.
APPENDIX A
School of Law Launches Groundbreaking Ethics and Leadership Initiative
The University of Maryland School of Law, nationally recognized for its pioneering
efforts to integrate legal theory and practice, is once again blazing a new trail in the ways
that it prepares law students for careers both inside and outside of law practice.
In partnership with the Fetzer Institute of Kalamazoo, Michigan, which is supporting the
initiative with a $1.6 million investment, the School’s administration and faculty will
develop LEAD, a new initiative that emphasizes leadership, ethics and democracy in
legal education. Jacob A. France Professor of Public Interest Law Michael Millemann
will serve as LEAD’s Director. Marbury Research Professor of Law Paula Monopoli will
head the leadership component of the Initiative.
The project was jointly announced by Karen H. Rothenberg, JD, MPA, Dean of the
University of Maryland School of Law, and Thomas F. Beech, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Fetzer Institute.
“In January 2007, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching challenged
the country’s law schools to change the way they teach,” says Rothenberg. With one of
the oldest, biggest and best clinical law programs in the country, we are ahead of the
curve. Now, with the enthusiastic engagement of our faculty and the legal community,
we are taking on the next great challenge – leadership and ethics in the law.”
“The Institute recognizes the leadership demonstrated by the University of Maryland
School of Law in educating lawyers who advocate for their clients, their profession, and
their communities,” said Beech. “We are excited to join the School in building upon
that.”
The Fetzer Institute, located in Kalamazoo, Michigan, is a private operating foundation
that works to bring compassion and reconciliation to the center of individual, community
and organizational life. Over the past ten years, the Institute has worked closely with
leaders in education, health, social service professions and business fields and other
vocations to support various approaches designed to bridge the inner life of mind and
spirit with the outer life of service and action.
In developing the leadership component of the initiative, the School will continue to
collaborate with the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership at the University of
Maryland, College Park. In February, the School of Law and the Burns Academy
conducted a roundtable with national business and law leaders to discuss the goals and
methods for introducing leadership education into law schools.
Among the roundtable participants was Frank Burch, JD, an alumnus and joint CEO of
DLA Piper, the world’s largest law firm, who said: “The legal profession has traditionally
24
produced leaders in a broad spectrum of fields, from law to business to public service and
elected office. But law schools, unlike business schools and other professional schools,
have not integrated leadership education into their curricula. Law schools should design
courses and offer opportunities for future lawyers to prepare for leadership, just as they
prepare for success as legal practitioners.
The program will serve as a national model. Diane Hoffman, JD, MS, Associate Dean
for Academic Programs, said she hopes the ethics, professional, and leadership
curriculum at the University of Maryland School of Law “will start a movement” at other
law schools.
In response to the ethical challenges of modern practice, an expanded focus on ethics and
problem-solving will help students learn the habits of reflection and analysis needed to
develop and retain a professional “moral compass.” A cross-cultural component will
expand the law school’s clinical program to disadvantaged communities across the
country and around the globe. Part of this effort involves creating a legal clinic in
collaboration with the Mississippi Center for Justice, building upon Maryland students’
ongoing volunteer response to the massive legal needs of low-income people and
communities left in Hurricane Katrina’s wake. The project also will launch the law
school’s first international clinic. These new clinics will take lessons learned in the
School’s Baltimore clinics to the broader national and international stage.
“This program makes a statement about how we are preparing students for law practice,
and how we hope to have an impact on the profession and the practice of law,” says
Hoffman. “It is a statement about the fact that there is a need for law schools to take
more seriously their responsibility to embody the highest ideals of the profession.”
25
APPENDIX B
Participant List: Roundtable on Law School Leadership Education
Bonnie Allen, President and CEO, Center for Law & Renewal
Clinton Bamberger, Emeritus, University of Maryland School of Law
Robert Bell, Chief Judge, Maryland Court of Appeals
Martha Bergmark, President and CEO, Mississippi Center for Justice
Brenda Bratton Blom, Professor of Law and Director, Clinical Law Program, University
of Maryland School of Law
Judy Brown, Senior Fellow, James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership
Frank Burch, Joint CEO, DLA Piper
Andrew Canter, JD/MMP Candidate, Stanford Law School; Co-Founder, Building A
Better Legal Profession
Dawna Cobb, Assistant Dean for Students, University of Maryland School of Law
Ranjit S. Dhinsdsa, Spriggs & Hollingsworth, President Maryland Leadership Workshops
Ross Dolloff, Director of Training, Center for Legal Aid Education
Charles Field, Senior Fellow, James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership
John Frisch, Principal, Miles and Stockbridge PC
Robert Gonzales, former President, Maryland Bar Association
Marcia Greenberger, Founder and Co-President, National Women’s Law Center
Terrance Haas, Law Clerk to Chief Justice Frank J. Williams, Rhode Island Supreme
Court
Nina Harris, Assistant Director, James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership
Guillermina Hernandez-Gallegos, Senior Program Officer, Fetzer Institute
Diane Hoffman, Associate Dean, Academic Programs, University of Maryland School of
Law
Annette Hollowell, JD Candidate, University of Mississippi School of Law
Paul Igasaki, Deputy CEO, Equal Justice Works
Robert Jerry, Dean, University of Florida Levin College of Law
Michael Kelly, Executive Director, National Senior Citizens Law Center, former Dean,
University of Maryland School of Law
Tom Kennedy, Director, Center for Leadership and Organizational Excellence
Teresa LaMaster, Assistant Dean, University of Maryland, School of Law
Lewis Leibowitz, Partner, Hogan and Hartson
Nancy Lowitt, Associate Dean, University of Maryland School of Medicine
Earl Martin, Dean, Gonzaga University School of Law
Karen Mathis, Partner, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, Past President,
American Bar Association
Paula Monopoli, Professor of Law and Director, Women Leadership & Equality
Program, University of Maryland School of Law
David Mossbarger, Project Director, Regenstrief Institute, Indiana University School of
Medicine
Robert Nichols, Adjunct Instructor of Law, University of Colorado Law School
26
Lewis Noonberg, Partner, DLA Piper, Adjunct Professor, University of Maryland School
of Law
Angela Oh, Of Counsel, Bird Marella LLP; Board Member, Center for Law & Renewal
Carol Pearson, Director, James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership
Tom Perez, Maryland Secretary of Labor, Licensing & Regulation
Donald Polden, Dean, Santa Clara University School of Law
Robert Rhee, Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law
Larry Richard, Consultant, Leadership & Organization Development Practice Group,
Hildebrandt International
Alan Rifkin, Managing Partner, Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver
Maria Roeper, JD/MPP Candidate, University of Maryland
Regina Romero, Senior Fellow, James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership
Karen Rothenberg, Dean and Marjorie Cook Professor of Law, University of Maryland
School of Law
Evangeline Sarda, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Boston College Law School
Kurt Schmoke, Dean, Howard University School of Law; Former Mayor of Baltimore
Fred Slabach, Director, Truman Scholars Program; former Dean, Texas Wesleyan Law
School
Georgia Sorenson, Founder and Director, James MacGregor Burns Academy of
Leadership
Donna Hill Staton, Adjunct Professor, University of Maryland School of Law; former
Partner, Piper and Marbury LLC; former judge and Deputy Attorney General
Marcus Wang, JD Candidate, University of Maryland School of Law
Roger Wolf, Professor of Law and Director, Center for Dispute Resolution, University of
Maryland School of Law
27
APPENDIX C
University of Maryland School of Law Roundtable Agenda
8:00 – 8:45
Continental Breakfast
8:45 – 9:15
Welcome and Introductions by Maryland School of Law Dean
Rothenberg and James MacGregor Burns Academy Director, Carol
Pearson
9:15 – 9:45
Panel One (led by Dean Rothenberg)
What are lawyers’ experiences and observations of leading change?
Frank Burch, Joint CEO, DLA Piper
Marcia Greenberg, Co-President and Founder, Women’s Law Center
Kurt Schmoke, Dean, Howard University Law School
and former Mayor of Baltimore
Martha Bergmark, President and CEO, Mississippi Center for Justice
9:45 – 10:35
Small and large group discussions
10:35 – 10:50
Break
10:50 – 11:20
Panel Two (led by Bonnie Allen)
What did lawyers learn or wish they had learned in law school to prepare them for
leadership roles?
Tom Perez, Maryland Secretary of Labor, Licensing and Regulation
John Frisch, Chairman, Miles & Stockbridge
Donna Hill Staton, Adjunct Professor, Maryland School of Law, former
partner, DLA Piper, former judge, and Maryland Deputy Attorney
General
Alan Rifkin, Managing Partner, Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver
11:20 – 12:10 Small and large group discussions
12:10 – 1:10
Student Panel (led by Bonnie Allen)
What do our current law students see as present or missing in the leadership
dimensions of law school?
28
Maria Roeper, JD/MPP Candidate, University of Maryland
Andrew Canter, JD Candidate, Stanford Law School, MPP, Harvard
University Kennedy School
Marcus Wang, JD Candidate, University of Maryland School of Law
Annette Hollowell, JD Candidate, University of Mississippi
School of Law
1:10 – 1:40
Panel Three (led by Maryland School of Law Academic Dean,
Diane Hoffman)
What content, skills and experiences should be part of a program on leadership in
law school?
Michael Kelly, Executive Director, National Senior Citizens Law Center and
former Dean, Maryland School of Law
Robert Gonzales, Former President of the Maryland State Bar and founder of the
Bar’s Leadership Academy
Donald Polden, Dean, Santa Clara University School of Law
Karen Mathis, Partner, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter and past
President, American Bar Association
1:40 – 2:30
Small and large group discussions
2:30 – 2:45
Break
2:45 – 3:15 Panel Four (led by Carol Pearson, Director of the Burns Academy)
What can other professional schools suggest to the legal academy in developing law
school leadership programs?
Georgia Sorenson, Founder, James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership
David Mossbarger, Project Director, Regenstrief Institute, Indiana University
School of Medicine
Judy Brown, Senior Scholar, Burns Academy
3:15 – 4:10
What conclusions seem to be evident in what we heard today?
Small and large group discussions
4:10 – 4:30
4:30
Wrap up and concluding remarks
Reception
29
APPENDIX D
Executive Core Qualifications Index
Comments by Richard Couto, Senior Fellow, Burns Academy
Richard Couto, Senior Fellow at the Burns Academy provided further detail on the
Executive Core Qualifications and their place in the study of leadership:
As public policy schools such as the University of Maryland explore how to meet the
leadership education needs of federal public servants, one of their guidelines has been the
Executive Core Qualifications (ECQ’s) which help define leadership competencies.
The development of that index was initiated in 1992, with an Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) survey of 10,000 federal executives and managers designed to elicit
their opinions of the leadership competencies necessary to direct agencies successfully.
By 1998, following some additional research, focus groups, and factor analysis, OPM
grouped 27 competencies into the following six meta-competencies: Core; Leading
Change; Leading People; Building Coalitions/Communications; Results Driven; and
Business Acumen.38 This work established concepts and operational definitions of each
competency of effective public leadership.
Most of the 27 competencies are leader-centric in that they suggest a style or trait of a
person such as creativity, flexibility or resilience. Other competencies reflect the recent
emphases in leadership research on the reflexive nature of leadership – Developing
Others, Team Building, Problem Solving, for example, and values-centric foci - Vision,
Public Service Motivation, and Leveraging Diversity, for example. Thus the work of the
OPM covers a range of recent and traditional approaches to leadership including an array
of person, purpose, and process-centric models and theories in leadership research.
As a result, the ECQs and competencies reflect a comprehensive approach to leadership.
Some of them are technical – Business Acumen, for example, includes Financial
Management and Technology Management. Increasingly, the research on scholarship
combines these forms of competencies as expertise and managerial skills. In addition to
the familiar technical skills associated with and expected of responsible, authoritative
leadership positions, there are competencies that portray leadership as an art of adaptive
work39 for public problem solving.40 These latter forms of leadership suggest the use of
38
*Carolotta Amaduzzi, Hur Hyunkang, and Niklaus Welter provided invaluable assistance in this research.
Brigitte W. Schay. Development of a Leadership Curriculum Competency Model. Assessing Managerial
Competencies. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (n.d.). http://www.napawash.org/pc_human_resources/OPM.pdf
Retrieved from the worldwide web October 27, 2007.
39
Ronald Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, Mass. Belknap Press, 1994; “The
Scholarly/Practical Challenge of Leadership,” in Richard A. Couto ed. Reflection on Leadership. University Press of
American, 2007, pp. 31-44.
30
influence and persuasion rather than authority, participation rather than command-andcontrol, networks rather than hierarchies, and learning rather than expertise. Mary Ellen
Joyce of the Brookings Institution compares OPM competencies with those of 24 other
studies and in general substantiates OPM’s work.41
The table below presents 24 competencies of the adaptive work of leadership and OPM’s
behavioral definitions.
Synthesis of Leadership Meta-and Individual Competencies with Behavioral
Definitions
Leading Change
1. Creativity/Innovation
2. External Awareness
3. Flexibility
4. Resilience
5. Strategic Thinking
Develops new insights into situations and applies
innovative solutions to make organizational
improvements; creates a work environment that
encourages creative thinking and innovation; designs
and implements new or cutting-edge
programs/processes.
Identifies and keeps current on key international policies
and economic, political and social trends that affect the
organization. Understands near-term and long- range
plans and determines how to achieve the most
advantageous competitive business advantage in a
global economy.
Is receptive to change and new information; adapts
behavior and work methods in response to new
information, changing conditions, or unexpected
obstacles. Adjusts rapidly to new situations warranting
attention, alteration and resolution.
Anticipates and deals effectively with pressure;
maintains focus and intensity and remains optimistic and
persistent, even under adversity. Recovers quickly from
setbacks. Effectively balances personal life and work.
Formulates effective strategies consistent with the
business and competitive strategy of the organization in
a global economy. Considers policy issues and strategic
planning from a long-range perspective. Determines
objectives and sets priorities; anticipates potential
threats or opportunities.
40
Barbara A. Crosby and John M. Bryson. Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems 2nd
ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
41
Mary Ellen Joyce, Developing 21st Century Public Leaders: Competency Based Executive Development.
Dissertation, School of Business, George Washington University. Joyce used 27 competencies omitting emotional
intelligence to create comparability of sets of competencies at the time of her study.
31
6. Vision
Takes a long-term view and acts as a catalyst for
organizational change; builds a shared vision with
others. Influences others to translate vision into action.
Leading People
1. Conflict Management
2. Leveraging Diversity
3. Developing Others
4. Team Building
Results Driven
1. Accountability
Identifies and takes steps to divert situations that might
result in unpleasant confrontations. Manages and
resolves conflicts and disagreements in a positive and
constructive manner to minimize negative impact.
Recruits, develops and retains a diverse, high-quality
workforce in an equitable manner. Leads and manages
an inclusive workplace that maximizes the talents of
each person to achieve sound business results. Respects,
understands, values and seeks out individual strengths
and differences to achieve the vision and mission of the
organization. Develops and uses measures and rewards
to hold self and others accountable for achieving results
that embody the principles of diversity.
Develops the ability of others to perform and contribute
to the organization by providing ongoing feedback and
by providing opportunities to learn through formal and
informal methods.
Inspires, motivates, and guides others toward goal
accomplishments. Consistently develops and sustains
cooperative working relationships. Encourages and
facilitates cooperation within the organization and with
customer groups; fosters commitment, team spirit, pride,
trust. Develops leadership in others through coaching,
mentoring, rewarding and guiding employees.
Assures that effective controls are developed and
maintained ensuring the integrity of the organization.
Holds self and others accountable for rules and
responsibilities. Can be relied upon to ensure projects
within areas of specific responsibility are completed in a
timely manner and within budget. Monitors and
evaluates plans, focuses on results and measuring
attainment of outcomes.
32
2. Customer Service
3. Decisiveness
4. Entrepreneurship
5. Problem Solving
Building Coalitions
1. Partnering
2. Political Savvy
3. Influence/Negotiating
Balances interests of a variety of clients; readily
readjusts priorities to respond to pressing and changing
client demands. Anticipates and meets the needs of
clients; achieves quality end-products; is committed to
continuous improvement of services.
Exercises good judgment by making sound and wellinformed decisions; perceives the impact and
implications of decisions; makes effective and timely
decisions, even when data are limited or solutions
produce unpleasant consequences; is proactive and
achievement oriented.
Identifies opportunities to develop and market new
products and services within or outside of the
organization. Is willing to take reasonable risks; initiates
actions that involve a deliberate risk to achieve a
recognized benefit or advantage.
Identifies and analyzes problems; distinguishes between
relevant and irrelevant information to make logical
decisions; provides solutions to individual and
organization problems.
Develops networks and builds alliances, engages in
cross-functional activities; collaborates across
boundaries, and finds common ground with a widening
range of stakeholders. Utilizes contacts to build and
strengthen internal support bases.
Identifies the internal and external politics that affect the
work of the organization. Approaches each problem
situation with a clear perception of organizational and
political reality; recognizes the consequences of
alternative courses of action.
Persuades others; builds consensus through give and
take; elicits cooperation from others to obtain
information and accomplish goals; facilitates “win-win”
situations.
33
Core Competencies
1. Interpersonal Skills
2. Oral Communication
3. Continual Learning
4. Written
Communication
5. Integrity/Honesty
6. Service Motivation
Considers and responds appropriately to the needs,
feelings, and capabilities of different people in different
situations; is tactful, compassionate and sensitive, and
treats others with respect.
Makes clear and convincing oral presentations to
individuals or groups, listens effectively and clarifies
information as needed; facilitates an open exchange of
ideas and fosters an atmosphere of open communication.
Grasps the essentials of new information, masters new
technical and business knowledge; recognizes own
strengths and weaknesses; pursues self-development;
seeks feedback from others and opportunities to master
new knowledge.
Expresses facts and ideas in writing in a clear,
convincing, and organized manner.
Instills mutual trust and confidence; creates a culture
that fosters high standards of ethics; behaves in a fair
and ethical manner towards others, and demonstrates a
sense of personal and corporate responsibility and
commitment to public service.
Creates and sustains an organizational culture which
permits others to provide the quality of service essential
to high performance. Enables others to acquire the tools
and support they need to perform well. Models a
commitment to public service. Influences others toward
a spirit of service and meaningful contributions to
mission accomplishment.
34
APPENDIX E
Co-Curricular Leadership Programs
By Nina Harris, Assistant Director, Burns Academy
Co-curricular leadership programs in higher education are a source of student knowledge
and growth. They allow students to learn in ways not possible in the classroom while
contributing to the benefit of the wider community. Students who take advantage of
these programs gain insight into themselves and others, enabling them to build lasting
relationships, enjoy college or professional school life more completely, and acquire
valuable, practical experience. In law school settings, clinical programs, internships and
externships provide excellent opportunities to integrate skills training and leadership
development. This can combine theory and practice through reflection and “leadership in
action” initiatives.
The Burns Academy offers helpful examples to law schools of a variety of co-curricular
Public Leadership [PL] Programs that: (1) promote academic excellence, integrity,
critical thinking, and integrity through the development of interdisciplinary knowledge,
skills and perspectives; (2) foster the development of a supportive and inclusive
community of diverse students, faculty and staff; (3) enhance students’ intellectual and
personal development through service, experiential learning and innovative curricular and
co-curricular activities both on and off campus; and (4) contribute to student development
as life-long leaders, citizens and scholars.
Students are afforded a unique combination of curricular and co-curricular programs that
serve to promote long-term civic engagement. Consistent with the mission and strategic
plan of the University, one crucial mission of our Public Leadership programs is to
advance the education of students to become civically engaged citizens, scholars and
leaders in communities on campus, and in the state, nation and world.
The pillars of the Academy’s model for developing students are:








Giving students direct experience in shaping public policy
Providing students the practical skills necessary to be effective in internships
Exposing students to role models and opportunities for service in the public and
non-profit sectors
Creating opportunities to explore policy issues in a multi-disciplinary fashion
Nurturing student leadership skills
Encouraging students to develop and practice effective communication skills
Bringing faculty and students together around important policy issues
Encouraging students to pursue careers in public service
The basic assumption of co-curricular PL program is that every individual has the
capacity to lead. Students discover that they can take a direct hand in shaping and
35
influencing their world. Inquiries like: “What is leadership?” “Are leaders born or
made?” “Does the concept of leadership differ in historical, institutional or cultural
settings?” and “How do power and authority relate to leadership?” are central to this
process. Students also examine how people are affected by public policy established by
Congress, state and municipal governments, from the regulation of our financial
institutions to the distribution of tax dollars to fund our schools, and to the impact of
foreign policy on our everyday lives. An effective leader must understand the nature of
public policy, how it is analyzed and developed, and the personalities and circumstances
that influence its enactment.
Participants in our co-curricular programs build their knowledge of the leadership process
first upon a foundation of texts, literature and classroom dialogue. The students
progressively apply their knowledge to evaluate leadership styles within the classroom
setting and then in outside activities. T hey progress to the analysis and interpretation of
leadership styles and challenges inherent in systems and organizations in the world
around them. They are able to explain and discuss their personal understanding of
leadership, evaluate leadership theories and their applicability in a particular situation,
analyze leadership capabilities in others, and determine strengths and areas of needed
improvement in themselves.
Leadership cannot be exercised without attention to differences in race, gender, sexual
orientation, or culture. Increasingly, organizational leaders realize this fact and seek
employees who, in addition to their functional expertise, are diversity professionals.
Diversity professionals are those who understand that differences in power, perspective
and life experience can be marshaled for positive ends among members of a team only if
those members understand and appreciate themselves and those with whom they work.
Becoming educated about those who have a different life experience is an integral part of
a co-curricular leadership learning experience.
Students in our co-curricular leadership programs are also encouraged to develop their
personal ethical framework as they accept leadership roles in their own lives. This seems
especially important as we watch companies fail due to behavior that reflects a culture of
greed, self-serving and questionable business practices. Students explore the relationship
among leadership, values and ethics and learn to clarify their personal values and analyze
current events through the lens of ethical decision-making. They begin to understand
their role in the community as ethical leaders.
Many of the Burns Academy’s programs focus upon service-learning and social justice
by enlisting student leaders to work with young people in nearby communities. Unlike
the customary understanding of “community service,” service-learning implies that the
relationship between those “served” and those who “serve” is a reciprocal relationship
that develops over time. Students work in small groups, designing and implementing
projects to advance social change, thereby applying, practicing and enhancing their own
understanding of leadership theory. They are asked to question, think critically, apply
theory, analyze issues, research topics of interest, discuss difficult issues, and challenge
long-held assumptions.
36
APPENDIX F
Process Templates for Developing an Innovative Law School
Leadership Program
Each law school is unique in its history, environment, student body, resources,
opportunities, and challenges. Any new leadership program must take into account the
school’s legacy and traditions while helping reframe the future. The particular shape of a
law school program will be unique, but Burns Academy Founder Georgia Sorenson here
outlines a process template for creating the program’s architecture.
Taking guidance from the development of the Burns Academy itself, she suggests that the
necessary, collaborative work done in the beginning to define a program’s mission, niche,
goals, and desired outcomes is well worth the effort. A program that aligns with the
institution, the students’ needs and the faculty’s expertise that can add a values-based
dimension (as well as a competitive advantage within the panoply of other law school
programs) will be a successful enterprise.
As an early entrant into the field of leadership studies, the Academy’s development may
be instructive for those law schools that choose to be early entrants with an integrated,
innovative leadership program. Its early mission statement: “to foster the next generation
of women political leaders” was the product of a careful audit of the university system
and the external environment that identified two distinct streams of need. It noted that in
the early 1980s, the University of Maryland’s proximity to Washington, D.C. made it a
natural setting for a program on political leadership. Additionally, at that time the
University needed to demonstrate its commitment to hiring and retaining senior women
administrators and faculty.
The Project on Women and Politics (as the Academy was known initially) gave the
University immediate and visible recognition in the area of women and leadership. The
Academy later extended its mission statement to serve “especially those underrepresented
in the political leadership process” to address the University’s need to respond to a lessthan perfect civil rights track record.
The Academy’s strategy of careful and conscious alignment was particularly necessary
for a “bottoms-up” program, that is, one developed by faculty, students and alumni who
needed the approval of Deans, Presidents and Regents. “Top-down” programs initiated
by Presidents or Deans require a different process that engages faculty and students.
The second phase of the process is to visualize the program and develop a systems
analysis of the current environment. Who are the natural allies, internal as well as
external? How can interventions in external systems be balanced against interventions in
internal systems? One must be sensitive to system feedback and be ready to take
corrective actions.
As support for the new program increases, it is imperative to build and maintain the base
37
of support among administrators, staff, students, faculty, legislators, media, elected
officials, alumni, and funders. This will require a considerable amount of direct and
personal communication.
Nothing galvanizes support and enthusiasm for a new program idea like money. An
early, unrestricted gift from a donor to the Academy attracted additional funding and
support. Eventually, the Academy received many sizeable grants as well as state funding
to help realize its vision, but that first unrestricted gift made the efforts credible and
“real” in the University’s lexicon.
Over time, the Academy faculty developed a range of coursework and programs,
including co-curricular options. Dr. Nina Harris, Assistant Academy Director, outlines
the benefits of a co-curricular leadership program in Appendix E.
Dean Donald Polden of the Santa Clara University School of Law, spoke at the Maryland
Roundtable on the topic of the goals, objectives and outcomes for leadership programs.
He described the path of his institution and the four core principles of its emerging
leadership program:
1.
Mission-driven, because of the Jesuit philosophy cura personalis, care for and
education of the whole person with attention to competence, compassion and
competence.
2.
Collaborative, with ties to the Center for Applied Ethics and the business school.
Particularly noteworthy is the collaboration with the business school where Dean
Barry Posner and his co-author James Kouzes have made highly visible
contributions to the field of leadership studies and offer a framework that fits the
institution.
3.
Built on existing interest and talent, in this instance inspired by a course
developed by a prominent California attorney who had taught at the law school
for several years and proposed the idea of a course on leadership for lawyers. The
course now has a substantial following of law students.
4.
Guided and overseen by a core team.
In his previously cited Toledo Law Review article “Educating Law Students
For Leadership Roles and Responsibilities,” Dean Polden adds that “The development of
This leadership program reflects our belief that leadership is a key skill that lawyers
need to possess and demonstrate and that such a program can be taught in the law school
context. The focus on leadership as a fundamental lawyering skill is consistent with
national trends to rededicate the law school educational mission to the development of
lawyering skills and values in young lawyers.”
APPENDIX G
38
About the Authors
Judy Sorum Brown is an independent educator, speaker, consultant, poet and writer
whose work in organizations revolves around themes of leadership, change, learning,
reflection, dialogue, creativity, diversity, and renewal. She holds a Ph.D. in Comparative
Literature from Michigan State University, and has served as a White House Fellow,
Special Assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Labor, Chief Financial Officer, Assistant Dean
and Director of Executive Programs of the College of Business and Management at the
University of Maryland, and Vice President for Seminars and Cooperative Programs of
the Aspen Institute.
Dr. Brown teaches leadership in the graduate School of Public Policy at the University of
Maryland and is a Senior Scholar at the James MacGregor Burns Academy of
Leadership. She is affiliated with the University’s National Center for Smart Growth
Research and Education and is also associated with the University’s Center for Public
Policy and Private Enterprise. Her newest book is A Leader’s Guide to Reflective
Practice (2006), Trafford Publishing. Dr. Brown can be contacted at
JudyBrown@aol.com.
Bonnie Allen is an attorney, educator and non-profit consultant who works at the
intersection of social change, education, leadership development, and fund development.
Based in Mississippi, Ms. Allen serves as Director of Training and Foundation
Development at the Mississippi Center for Justice. She also consults with the
Mississippi Access to Justice Commission and the Mississippi Volunteer Lawyers
Project. In addition, she is a clinical law instructor at the University of Maryland School
of Law, where she helped launch the LEAD Initiative and teaches in the Mississippi
Summer Recovering Communities Clinic. Previously, Ms. Allen served as President of
the Center for Law & Renewal, based at the Fetzer Institute, President of Just Neighbors
Immigrant Ministry, Inc., Co-Director of the Project for the Future of Equal Justice at the
National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and Director of the American Bar
Association’s Center for Pro Bono.
Ms. Allen is a Senior Fellow at the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership.
She holds a J.D. degree from the University of Florida College of Law and a Master’s
degree in Theological Studies from Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. She coauthored and edited the book Shifting the Field of Law and Justice: Reshaping the
Lawyer’s Identity, published in 2007 by the Center for Law & Renewal. Ms. Allen can
be contacted at bonnieallen@lawleadership.org.
39
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Bonnie and Linda Hager and Renee Floyd Myers, ed. Shifting the Field of Law
and Justice. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Center for Law & Renewal, 2007.
Ancona, Deborah G. “Leadership in an Age of Uncertainty.” Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Sloan Leadership Center Research Brief. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2005.
http://sloanleadership.mit.edu.
Ancona, Deborah G. and Thomas W. Malone, Wanda J. Orlikowski and Peter M. Senge.
“In Praise of the Incomplete Leader.” Harvard Business Review. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, February 2007.
Brown, Judy. A Leader’s Guide to Reflective Practice. Victoria, British Columbia:
Trafford Publishing, 2007.
Burns, James MacGregor. Leadership. New York, New York: Harper & Row, 1979.
Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York:
Basic Books, 1983.
Hall, David. The Spiritual Revitalization of the Legal Profession: A Search for Sacred
Rivers. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 2005.
Heifitz, Ronald A. Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Belknapp Press of Harvard University Press, 1994.
Heineman, Ben W. Jr. “Lawyers as Leaders.” 116 Yale Law Journal Pocket Part 266
(2007). http://thepocketpart.org/2007/2/16/heineman.html.
Kegan, Robert. In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1994.
Kellerman, Barbara and Deborah L. Rhode, ed. Women and Leadership: The State of
Play and Strategies for Change. San Francisco, California: Wiley & Sons, 2007.
King, Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham City Jail.” Christian Century. 80.
June 12, 1963.
Kouzes, James M. and Barry Z. Posner. The Leadership Challenge. Hoboken, New
Jersey: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Kouzes, James. M. and Barry Z. Posner. A Leader’s Legacy. New York, New York:
John A. Wiley & Sons, 2006.
40
May, William F. Beleaguered Rulers: The Public Obligation of the Professional.
Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Pearson, Carol. The Hero Within. New York: HarperCollins, 1998.
Polden, Donald J. “Educating Law Students for Leadership Roles and Responsibilities.”
The University of Toledo Law Review, Volume 39, No. 2 (Winter 2008), 353-360.
Rhode, Deborah L. In the Interests of Justice: Reforming the Legal Profession. Oxford
University Press US, 2003.
Rhode, Deborah L, ed. Moral Leadership: The Theory and Practice of Power, Judgment,
and Policy. San Francisco, California: Wiley & Sons, 2006.
Rubenstein, Herb. Leadership for Lawyers (Second Edition). Chicago: ABA Press,
2008.
Sells, Benjamin. The Soul of the Law: Understanding Lawyers and the Law. Rockport,
Massachusetts: Element, 1996.
Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday, 1990.
Simon, William H. The Practice of Justice: A Theory of Lawyers’s Ethics. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Sorenson, Georgia and George Goethals, ed. The Quest for a General Theory of
Leadership. Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006.
Sorenson, Georgia and George Goethals and James MacGregor Burns, Encyclopedia of
Leadership. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE, 2004.
Sullivan, William and Anne Colby, Judith Welch Wegner, Lloyd Bond, and Lee S.
Shulman. Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law. Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Hoboken, New Jersey: Jossey-Bass, 2007.
41