8:00 – 9:20 am

9:30 – 10:45 am

Negotiation courses in most law schools are upper-level electives. However, some schools teach the topic in the first year, typically as a part of a broad skills course. Drawing on experiences from three different schools and two recent empirical studies, this panel will discuss training students, more precisely first-year students, to negotiate ethically. The program will begin with the panelists discussing why they teach negotiation to first-year students, how the negotiation component fits into their respective courses, and how ethical considerations such as truthfulness are woven into their curricula. Next two panelists who have conducted empirical studies of truthfulness among law students will discuss what they have learned. One study, building on a seminal study of lawyer approaches to negotiation, explores incoming 1Ls' responses to ethically challenging hypothetical situations. The other study explores how students actually behaved during an in-class simulation in which the temptation to dissemble was very much present (anw what they thought of their behavior). Expect some surprises and a lively debate!

Art Hinshaw, Lodestar Dispute Resolution Program Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Tempe, AZ
James Levin, Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution, University of Missouri School of Law, Columbia, MO
Deborah Schmedemann, William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, MN
Andrew W. Williams, Director of Lawyering Program, New York University School of Law, New York, NY

Much is being written about how to incorporate what is emerging in the fields of negotiation and dispute resolution into academic curricula and professional training programs. Advances in neurobiology; principles of complexity science and group dynamics; culture, gender and generations; and the impact of rapid change and uncertainty are all significant factors for negotiators and mediators. So what is the best way to embed these developments into foundational principles without diluting or diverting the learning experience? The need for modifying teaching techniques beyond the use of role-plays to better reflect adult learning, relevance, and emergence is clear. Fostering authentic engagement is also a challenge. New negotiators and mediators lack core skills necessary for convening simulations. Using improvisation exercises to reinforce specific skills such as agreement, listening, perceiving, and situational awareness as a precursor to simulations strengthens the usefulness of scenario-based learning. This highly interactive session introduces the concept of Simprovisation™- a combination of simulation and improvisation, as a way of using interactive methods to convey concepts of trust, curiosity, offer recognition, agreement, option generation, self-awareness, values, uncertainty and pattern recognition. We will facilitate the use of Simprovisation™ techniques and connect them to emerging literature on best practices for developing practitioners.

Debra Gerardi, EHCCO (Emerging HealthCare Communities), Half Moon Bay, CA
Charity Scott, Georgia State College of Law, Atlanta, GA

Educators/trainers try very hard to be inclusive. But sometimes we adopt learning strategies that have the opposite effect. Unless we are careful, the programs we develop may exclude participants because of disability, ethical issues, cultural differences, spirituality, and religion. Adventure learning encourages students to physically leave the classroom in order to experience how theoretical models and principles apply in the "real" world. Adventure learning admittedly has substantial value. But the initial rush of enthusiasm must be tempered. When participants are directed to venture out of the classroom in order to perform specific tasks, some individuals may find it impossible to complete those assignments. When a student, without warning or notice, suddenly is confronted with the fact that an essential part of the learning experience will be experiential, and consequently impossible for him or her to complete, then all participants are harmed. The student will be isolated by the abrupt and complete separation from the group. The characteristic that makes this student different will be highlighted in a dramatic fashion. Unique insights attributable specifically to the experiential nature of the exercise will be unavailable to the student. This session will address how the dangers of adventure learning can be avoided.

Jana Burke, DBTAC Rocky Mountain ADA Center, Colorado Springs, CO
David Larson, Hamline University School of Law, Saint Paul, MN

Research on law school curricula, especially for the first year, has made clear its failings to introduce law students to key aspects of the lawyer’s role as a problem-solver no matter what specific career or practice path a graduate may take. Hamline University School of Law’s new first-year required course, Practice, Problem-Solving and Professionalism, was developed to introduce students to: formal and informal problem-solving roles of the lawyer; factors that go into choosing an appropriate client-centered problem-solving process; effective communication and negotiation strategies; and questions of professional identity.

Bobbi McAdoo, Hamline University School of Law, St Paul, MN
Sharon Press, Hamline University School of Law, St Paul, MN

The content of this game demonstration will deal with critical junctures in cross border mediations in an interactive training format. This workshop will use real life case examplbasis for discussion on ways of dealing with critical decisions, assumptions, and questions that frequently need to be addressed in cross border mediations, when least expected. As well as specific techniques & interventions for international cases.

Participants will work in competing teams using the TOOLKIT Intervention Game, developed by Manon Schonewille. Each team will assist the parties at critical junctures to generate outcomes while moving from conflict to solution. The parties move via interventions, strategic choices and alittle luck, from positions (Start) to mutual gain (Finish).

Jeremy Lack, Altenburger Ltd Geneva
Manon Schonewille, Result ACB, Amste
Dimitra K. Triantafyllou, Dimitra K. Triantafyllou

Most negotiation teachers favor a cooperative style emphasizing value creation through integrative bargaining, the satisfaction of both parties’ interests, and the use of fairness aobjective criteria to close gaps. But some negotiation teachers are beginning to worry about consequences of such a focus. Does an emphasis on cooperation and integrative negotiation adequately prepare students for the real world of legal practice? Should we try to push naturallcompetitive students toward a cooperative style—or should we understand our task as helping these students become effective competitive, distributive negotiators? Indeed, since much legapractice involves distributive negotiation in which power tactics are common, should we make it apoint to force all of our students—even the cooperators who excel at identifying interests and creating integrative solutions—to spend more time "in the ring" of competitive, distributive bargaining? The panel members will present dilemmas they have faced as negotiation teato stimulate a dialogue about these questions. They will engage the audience to brainstorm course approaches, tools, and strategies to manage the tension that arises when we prefer totrain our students in cooperative, integrative negotiation while recognizing that distributive bargaining and power tactics are common features of legal practice.

Jennifer Brown, Quinnipiac University School of Law, Hamden, CT
Paul Kirgis, St. John's University School of Law, Jamaica, NY
Nancy Welsh, Penn State University, Carlisle, PA

12:30 pm – 1:45 pm

2:00 – 5:00 pm

Arthur Pearlstein, Werner Institute for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution, Creighton University, Omaha, NE
Ann Woodley, Phoenix School of Law, Phoenix, AZ 

This discussion will focus on setting goals for student learning and for programmatic concerns across the dramatic variance of mediation clinics. The discussion facilitators, who come from various clinical settings, recognize that clinics themselves influence setting those goals. For example, the goals at the Loyola Law School Center for Conflict Resolution, a public interest clinic serving indigent and monolingual communities in Los Angeles County, are different than those in a joint program between the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Miami where students mediate disputes stemming from parental kidnapping of children across natioborders. And the goals associated with those programs differ from those at Marquette University Law School and Washington University School of Law where students serve as mediators and conciliation coordinators with the Better Business Bureau, facilitating the resolution of disputes between consumers and businesses. After a short discussion of goal setting processes and thechallenges of achieving those goals in each of these clinical environments, participants will then break out into smaller groups to discuss their process for setting and achieving goals in their respective programs.

Sara Campos, The Center for Conflict Resolution, Los Angeles, CA
Mary Culbert, The Loyola Law School Center For Conflict Resolution,
Natalie Fleury, Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee, WI
C.J. Larkin, Washington University School of Law, St. Louis, MO

Does your school offer a certificate in dispute resolution?  Are you thinking about offering a certificate? This session will include an interactive discussion about the pros and cons of certificate programs and the administrative implications of offering certificates. Participantsexplore such questions as do certificates add value for law students? ... to the law school? Should certificate programs be open to law students, graduate students, others? What's a reasonable number of credits to require for a certificate? What about specialty certificates indiscrete dispute resolution processes?

Sharon Press, Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, MN
Richard Reuben, University of Missouri School of Law, Columbia, MO 

REGISTRATION
To register for The Legal Educators Colloquium, please go to the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution Spring Conference web site: http://www.abanet.org/dispute/conference/2011

*The Legal Educators Colloquium Luncheon is an additional cost for Spring Conference registrants. The cost for the Luncheon is $25.00.