Appendix B Milestone Models for All Four PD&F Goals
What would a Milestone Model for each of the four PD&F goals look like? Milestones for each are analyzed here. A Holloran Center working group created the Milestone Model for goal 1, and the authors created the Milestone Models for goals 2–4.
1 Milestone Model for Goal 1 – Ownership of Continuous Professional Development toward Excellence at the Major Competencies That Clients, Employers, and the Legal System Need
Since 2017, the Holloran Center has organized working groups to create Milestone Models on the most common learning outcomes the law schools are adopting that relate to the four PD&F goals. The consensus of these expert panels creates some content validity for the models. As of June 2020, 33 percent of the 186 law schools that posted their learning outcomes had adopted a learning outcome related to self-directedness, self-regulatedness, or ownership over the student’s own development learning outcome.Footnote 1 Table 19 is the current Holloran Center Milestone Model on ownership over the student’s own development/self-directed learning. Note that this Milestone Model matches up both with Goal 1 – ownership of continuous professional development toward excellence at the major competencies that clients, employers, and the legal system need – and with the right side of the Foundational Competencies Model discussed in Figure 1 in Chapter 1 (the competencies that clients and employers want).Footnote 2
Table 19 Holloran Center Milestone Model on assessment of student’s ownership of continuous professional development (self-directedness)
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RARELY demonstrates understanding of full range of lawyering competencies and diagnoses learning needs | SOMETIMES demonstrates understanding of full range of lawyering competencies and diagnoses learning needs | OFTEN demonstrates understanding of full range of lawyering competencies and diagnoses learning needs | CONSISTENTLY demonstrates understanding of full range of lawyering competencies and diagnoses learning needs | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SOMETIMES seeks experiences and seeks and incorporates feedback received during the experiences |
| CONSISTENTLY seeks experiences and seeks and incorporates feedback received during the experiences |
|
|
|
|
The Holloran Center is developing Milestone Models on other competencies related to a student’s ownership of their continuous professional development including (1) grit and resilience, (2) growth mindset, and (3) self-awareness. These will be available on the center’s website in spring 2022.Footnote 5
2 Milestone Model for Goal 2 – a Deep Responsibility and Service Orientation to Others, Especially the Client
A Milestone Model for Goal 2 – a deep responsibility and service orientation to others, especially the client – is trying to capture the stages of development of a fiduciary disposition or fiduciary mindset, using “fiduciary” in the general meaning of being founded on trustworthiness.Footnote 6 Deep care for the client is the principal foundation for client trust in the individual lawyer and the profession itself.Footnote 7 Each law student and new lawyer must learn to internalize a responsibility to put both the client’s and the legal system’s interests before the lawyer’s self-interest (minimally as required by the law of lawyering and aspirationally as reflected in the core values and ideals of the profession).
Unlike with Goal 1, law schools have not generally been adopting learning outcomes with language that specifically emphasizes deep responsibility and service orientation to others, especially the client. However, significant numbers of law schools have been adopting learning outcomes that, at their foundation, rest upon a deep responsibility and service orientation to others. For example, of the 186 law schools that had posted learning outcomes by June 2020:
Thirty-eight percent include a learning outcome on understanding the value of providing pro bono service to the disadvantaged;
Thirty-three percent include a learning outcome on teamwork/collaboration;
Twenty-seven percent include a cross-cultural competency learning outcome;
Twenty-seven percent include a version of a professionalism or high ethical standards learning outcome (which related to trustworthiness in relationships);
Fifteen percent include a learning outcome on integrity (which also relates to trustworthiness in relationships);
Thirteen percent include a learning outcome on interviewing, counseling, or both;
Twelve percent include a learning outcome on active listening;
Six percent include a learning outcome on respect for others;
Six percent include a learning outcome on leadership; and
Five percent include a learning outcome on client-centered problem solving.
The Holloran Center has Milestone Models posted on teamwork/collaboration, team leadership, cultural competency, honoring commitments, and integrityFootnote 8 and has working groups developing Milestone Models on pro bono activity, active listening, leadership, and professional communication. There is not yet a working group creating a Milestone Model specifically on Goal 2, but the model will look like that in Table 20.
Table 20 Milestone Model on assessment of student’s stage of development on a deep responsibility and service orientation to others, especially the client
The sub-competencies of Table 20’s Milestone Model on Goal 2 are at an abstract level and thus challenging for faculty and staff to observe and assess. Practically speaking, faculty and staff could observe and assess competencies like commitment to pro bono service, cultural competency, teamwork/collaboration, team leadership, and active listening, which reflect a student’s responsibility and service to others and are in language that clients and employers understand and value.
3 Milestone Model for Goal 3 – a Client-Centered Problem-Solving Approach and Good Judgment That Ground Each Student’s Responsibility and Service to the Client
A Milestone Model for Goal 3 – a client-centered problem-solving approach and good judgment that ground each student’s responsibility and service to the client – goes beyond ABA Standard 302’s minimum requirement that each law school shall establish learning outcomes that include the competency of “legal analysis and reasoning” and “problem-solving.”Footnote 9
Many legal educators define legal analysis and reasoning and problem solving to include some version of the IRAC formulation familiar to law students – Issue correctly identified from facts, Rule correctly identified and explained, Application providing a well-reasoned discussion relating the facts to the rules, and Conclusion explained logically convincingly.Footnote 10 A later-stage IRAC skill is foundational for legal analysis and reasoning and problem-solving, but Goal 3’s “client-centered problem-solving and good judgment” involve additional skills beyond IRAC. Those competencies include deeply understanding the client’s context (and where applicable, business), values, and preferences. Client-centered problem solving and good judgment also involve career-long habits of (1) trying to understand legal issues in broader contexts and (2) seeking challenging professional experiences and reflecting on them to continually improve.Footnote 11 As is illustrated in Figure 2 in Chapter 2, client-centered problem solving is a compound competency in Group 4. It builds on two foundational PD&F goals (Group 1), technical legal skills (Group 2), and basic individual and relational building block competencies (Group 3).
Client-centered problem solving and good judgment can borrow from the concept of coproduction in the delivery of health services. Coproduction of a service in a physician/patient (or lawyer/client) relationship is based on (1) the service provider’s deep understanding of the patient’s (or client’s) context, (2) effective communication, (3) deeper understanding of one another’s expertise and values, (4) more cultivation of shared goals, and (5) more mutuality in responsibility and accountability for performance.Footnote 12
Table 21 provides a Milestone Model on client-centered problem solving and good judgment that is adapted from the American Association of Colleges and Universities Problem-Solving Value Rubric.Footnote 13 Building on a version of legal analysis and reasoning like IRAC, client-centered problem solving and good judgment involve a process of partnering with the client to define the problem, identify strategies, propose solutions, evaluate the potential solutions, and assist in implementing the solutions.
4 Milestone Model for Goal 4 – Well-Being Practices
A Milestone Model for Goal 4 – well-being practices – can build on Self-Determination Theory’s (SDT) three basic psychological needs and the four intrinsic values that Krieger and Sheldon have identified as contributing to student and lawyer well-being discussed in Chapter 1. The three basic psychological SDT needs are (1) autonomy (to feel in control of the person’s own goals and behaviors), (2) competence (to feel the person has the needed skills to be successful), and (3) relatedness (to experience a sense of belonging or attachment to other people). SDT also identifies four intrinsic values that mirror the three basic psychological needs and lead to behaviors that fulfill the three basic needs and thus promote well-being. The four intrinsic values are (1) self-understanding/growth (the importance of learning and personal growth), (2) intimacy with others (the importance of trusting close relationship with others), (3) helping others (improving others’ lives, especially those in need), and (4) being in and building community (improving society).
Note that Figure 2 in Chapter 2 identifies well-being practices as a competency in Group 3 – Basic Individual and Relational Building Block Competencies – that is building on the two foundational learning outcomes discussed earlier: Goal 1 is internalizing ownership of continuous professional development toward excellence and Goal 2 is internalizing deep responsibilities and service to others, especially the client. SDT’s psychological need for “competence” and the intrinsic value of learning and personal growth is realized if a student grows to later stages of Goal 1. SDT’s psychological need for “relatedness” and the three intrinsic values of (1) trusting close relationships, (2) helping others, and (3) being in and building community are animated by a person’s growth toward later stages of Goal 2, internalizing deep responsibilities and service to others, especially the client, and Goal 3, client-centered problem solving.
Table 22 provides a Milestone Model for well-being practices.Footnote 14
Table 22 Milestone Model on well-being practices
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| See Table 19 outlining the sub-competencies of ownership over the student’s own professional development. | |||
| See Table 20 outlining the sub-competencies of internalizing a deep responsibility and service orientation to others, especially the client, and Table 21 on the sub-competencies of client-centered problem-solving. | |||
|
|
| ||
1 These data are available on the Holloran Center website. https://www.stthomas.edu/holloranleft/learningoutcomesandprofessionaldevelopment/learningoutcomesdatabase/
2 The Holloran Center Working Group on Self-Directed Learning created this model. The members are Kendell Kerew (chair), Rupa Bandari, Susan Fine, Neil Hamilton, and Benjamin Madison. This model is a synthesis of the data available from large-firm competency models and the American Association of Colleges and Universities rubric on life-long learning. For the law firm models, see Neil W. Hamilton, ROADMAP: The Law Student’s Guide to Meaningful Employment 63–69 (2d. ed. 2018) (hereinafter ROADMAP). For the AAC&U model, see American Association of Colleges and Universities, Foundations and Skills for Lifelong Learning VALUE Rubric (2009), www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/lifelong-learning.
3 Goals that exhibit these factors are referred to as SMART Goals: Specific – clear goals including what, why, and how; Measurable – including a clear method for evaluation of progress; Achievable – including obstacles and realistic solutions; Relevant – including connection to core values; and Time-bound – including a clear timeline of steps.
4 See the discussion of reflection at Principle 5 of this Chapter 4, supra.
6 See William M. Sullivan, Foreword to Teaching Medical Professionalism: Supporting the Development of a Professional Identity ix (Richard L. Cruess et al. eds., 2d ed. 2016) [hereinafter Teaching Medical Professionalism]; William Sullivan, Align Preparation with Practice, 85 N.Y. St. B.A. J. (No. 7 Sept. 2013) at 41–43 (where he introduces the concept of fiduciary disposition). See also supra page 6 (discussing fiduciary mindset).
7 Sullivan, Foreword to Teaching Medical Professionalism, supra Footnote note 6, at xi, xv.
9 Standard 302. Learning Outcomes, 2021-2022 Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, A.B.A. Section of Legal Educ. & Admissions to the Bar.
10 See Kelley Burton, Using a Legal Reasoning Grid and Criterion-Referenced Assessment Rubic on IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion), 10 J. Learning Design (No. 2 2017) (providing a stage development model on IRAC), www.jld.edu.au/article/view/229/283.html
11 See Patrick E. Longan, Daisy H. Floyd & Timothy W. Floyd, The Formation of Professional Identity: The Path from Student to Lawyer 106–11 (2020).
12 Maren Batalden et al, Coproduction of Health Care, 25 BMJ Qual. S. F. 509, 511 (2016). ROADMAP, supra Footnote note 2, at 8. Jordan Furlong writes, “[l]aw firms should think of their clients … as ‘co-producers’ … answering some their own questions and solving some of their own problems, but doing so alongside their other providers, in tandem and ideally in collaboration.” Jordan Furlong, Law Is a Buyer’s Market: Building a Client-First Law Firm 129–30 (2017). Law firms and clients, as co-providers, are partners and colleagues in the quest to achieve the client’s objectives. Footnote Id.
13 See American Association of Colleges and Universities, Problem-Solving VALUE Rubric, https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/problem-solving.
The VALUE rubrics were developed by teams of faculty experts representing colleges and universities across the United States through a process that examined many existing campus rubrics and related documents for each learning outcome and incorporated additional feedback from faculty. The rubrics articulate fundamental criteria for each learning outcome, with performance descriptors demonstrating progressively more sophisticated levels of attainment.
14 The scholarship on SDT has not yet created a stage development rubric that uses an SDT framework. Email to Neil Hamilton from Larry Krieger, April 6, 2021 (on file with the authors).
Open access