Think Your Law School is 'Innovative'? This Professor Has a Ranking System
MSU Law has developed its own ranking system for innovative law schools. Its creators hope to move past generalizations of innovation and bring data into the conversation.
November 07, 2017 at 02:51 PM
4 minute read
If you ask Daniel Linna, professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, what changes he'd like to see in legal education around technology, he probably won't share a list of programs and curricular offerings he's helped put together. Nor is he likely to tell you offhand what changes some of his colleagues at other schools have instituted. Instead, he'll tell you to check the data.
“We need to become more data-driven in this industry. We can't just talk about innovation, we can't just talk about technology. We've got to describe what it is, and then we've got to measure it,” Linna said.
Linna is director of MSU Law's LegalRnD program, which trains students in leveraging technology and nontraditional workflows for what its website refers to as “leaner, more effective legal-service delivery.” In August, Linna and a group of students launched the Legal Services Innovation Index, a data collection of law firms' use of technology and “innovative” workflows.
Recently, he and Jordan Galvin, LegalRnD innovation counsel, expanded the index to measure law schools' work around innovation and technology. The index now outlines how many different legal technology disciplines 40 different law schools offer.
So, who comes in as the most innovative law school? Turns out MSU Law and Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology top the Law School Innovation Index with 10 different disciplinary offerings apiece. Stanford Law School follows close behind, with nine different disciplinary offerings. The index additionally found that 19 law schools hosted centers or institutes dedicated to legal service delivery innovation and technology.
Business of Law was the most common discipline addressed by law schools measured, with 28 of them offering at least one course focused on the discipline. Twenty-three schools offered similar opportunities around Innovative/Entrepreneurial Lawyering, and 21 schools offered coursework on Empirical Methods.
Linna hopes that the introduction of data into this space can help law schools think methodically about potential programming to help students adapt to modern legal service delivery, and help students and prospective employers think about the potential importance of these skill sets to their future work.
“You have to measure things for people to pay attention,” he said.
That attention seems to be coming through. Linna said the index has gotten over 16,000 hits, and it has been subject to reviews and inquiries from legal educators across the nation and abroad. “It really points to the fact that this is a global marketplace,” he explained.
Words like “innovation” and “entrepreneurship” tend to invite generic applications, a deep source of frustration for Linna. “We've got to move past generalizations across the whole industry. We have to move past these generalizations about technology and innovation,” he said.
“I want to try to bring some data to this and keep improving it and raise awareness, and then let's see about what the consumers think of this,” he added.
The Law School Innovation Index doesn't purport to be a definitive indicator of successful technology curriculum, and Linna stresses it is not intended to “rank” schools against one another. Instead, it's intended as a jumping point or prototype for future measurements of law school programming around technology and innovation.
“It's not a ranking. It's a measure of one thing: whether certain legal service disciplines are being taught. I don't think anyone in this space would tell you, 'We've got it figured out, we've got the magic formula,'” Linna said.
The index creators have also included notes about a few potential ways to expand upon and flesh out the law school index in coming years. They hope to eventually factor in data points like event programming, inclusion in traditional first-year curriculum, and experiential learning opportunities around innovation and technology to the index scoring.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250