Category Archives: Teaching BLE

Behavioral Legal Ethics and Accurate Science

In my article on teaching behavioral legal ethics, I noted that as teachers we have an obligation to remain atop of the science in the field to make sure that we impart the most accurate and up-to-date scientific understandings to our students. This duty has become all the more important given the debate over what has been called the “replication crisis” — that is, the extensive discussion in the field of psychology (as well as other sciences) about whether the effects in many studies have been overstated or, in some cases, are non-existent. A number of methodological questions have been raised, including whether researchers have engaged in what is referred to as “P-hacking” – that is, manipulation of data to produce effects. This provocative topic was recently discussed in the New York Times Magazine’s cover article, When The Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy.  Even Nobel Award winner Daniel Kahneman (author of Thinking Fast and Slow) has notably weighed in, stating in an open letter that a sub-field of social psychology known as social priming has become “the poster child of doubts about the integrity of psychological research.”  More recent questions about the replicability of psychology research have also emerged.

The challenge for the legal community – at least those of us who do not rely on our own empirical research – is to ensure that we teach our students accurate science. Yet, how does one know whether previously reported studies that have been called into question should still be taught, or what provisos should be provided to students as part of our instruction?

In my professional responsibility class, for instance, in past years I have discussed (on our class blog) money priming, relying on the considerable research that demonstrates that priming people with thoughts of money can increase anti-social behavior. I usually alert my students to these studies and ask them to consider how these results might impact their ethical choices as practicing attorneys, as well as the career choices they plan to make after graduation.

In the last few years, however, there has been a debate about whether the research on money priming is as dependable as has been claimed. One set of researchers, for example, was unable to replicate some of the most well-known studies in the field, leading to questions about whether money priming even occurs. A rejoinder, based on a 10-year review of experiments, posited alternative explanations for the failures of replication, concluding that the vast majority of studies in the field still demonstrate money priming effects.

Given these competing views about the research, what should one do? One approach would be to avoid the entire subject until the dust settles and a new consensus emerges.  I may take this approach next semester when I teach professional responsibility, as money priming is a relatively narrow topic that I teach as a small portion of my overall discussion of behavioral legal ethics. Or I may decide to engage my students in the debate, exposing them to the competing research claims and encouraging them to come to their own conclusions about how to consider the state of the science.

Either way, this example reinforces how essential it is to stay abreast of the science in the fields in which we teach. After all, behavioral legal ethics is only as stable as the science upon which it rests.

Advertisements

New Compliance Video

In an earlier post, I discussed the role that behavioral ethics plays in the compliance field, highlighting the work of Scott Killingsworth, Jeff Kaplan, and others. For those who teach or write in the compliance area, a new video is now available (for commercial licensing) that I highly recommend. Created by Richard Bistrong in conjunction with Mastercard, it explores Mr. Bistrong’s own compelling story. The video is exceptionally well-done and would be a valuable addition to any training or educational program. For the trailer of the video and more details, visit the FCPA Blog.

Behavioral Science and the Duty to Report Misconduct

report-or-silence-switch-277x300Too often ignored, Model Rule 8.3 imposes a mandatory duty to report a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that “raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthy or fitness” to practice law.  When teaching this rule, I discuss many of the behavioral reasons — such as obedience and conformity pressures — that can discourage reporting misconduct, especially by young lawyers early in their careers.  After all, it is not easy for any lawyer, much less a subordinate attorney, to accept the personal and professional risks associated with reporting misconduct by a colleague or superior.

This discussion with my students is enriched when we consider Kelly v. Hutton & Williams, No. 97-CV-5631 (JG), 1999 WL 408416 (E.D.N.Y. June 17, 1999), which is excerpted in the course book that I use. In that case, a young lawyer claimed he was fired for refusing to stay silent in the face of serious over-billing violations by a senior partner at his firm (the case ultimately settled under a confidentiality agreement, so we do not what would have happened at trial. As an interesting aside — the partner accused of over-billing later became a fugitive from justice for running a multi-million dollar ponzi scheme. He was recently arrested after more than two decades on the lam). In discussing the case with my students, we explore some of the reasons why the plaintiff in Hunton & Williams seemingly was able to resist the behavioral pressures to stay silent, including that he acted as part of a group of associates at the firm who together reported the misconduct internally. Another salient point is that the associates obtained advice from an outsider (a federal judge for whom one of them had clerked) before reporting the misconduct. We consider how these factors — acting as part of group and finding a trusted outsider who can act as a sounding board — can help reduce the obedience and conformity pressures that make reporting misconduct so difficult (for more discussion, see pages 775-78 and 800-01 of Insights from Psychology: Teaching Behavioral Legal Ethics as a Core Element of Professional Responsibility).

For those looking for a more recent case that raises similar issues, Joffe v. King & Spalding, just hit the news. According to a complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, Joffe was wrongfully terminated and denied other benefits after he complained to the firm’s general counsel (and outside counsel) about unethical misbehavior he had observed inside the firm.  Specifically, Joffe claims the firm retaliated against the him after he reported that a partner had made false statements and misrepresentations to a federal judge in a pending proceeding. King & Spalding has recently answered the complaint, denying the charges. Interestingly, the legal theory in Joffe’s complaint — that the firm’s retaliatory conduct violates precedent set forth in a 1992 New York Court of Appeals case, Wieder v. Skala — is the same legal theory put forth in Hunton & Williams. It will be interesting to see how the case proceeds (updates to come).

Teaching Behavioral Legal Ethics: A Seminar

schaefer-paula

Paula Schaefer

As the field of Behavioral Legal Ethics expands, it’s exciting to watch how law professors are teaching the material. My article on how I teach behavioral science as part of a required 3-credit legal ethics course was recently published.  Others have also started publishing about their experiences.

But what  about those who want to delve into the material more deeply by teaching a semester long seminar dedicated to legal ethics and behavioral science?  For those looking for a model, I encourage you to take a look at the syllabus that Professor Paula Schaefer from the University of Tennessee Law School has graciously shared.  As you can see, Professor Schaefer’s course on Behavioral Legal Ethics — which is structured around a series of case studies — is an in-depth exploration of many of the core themes that has emerged from the science of ethical decision-making.  The course looks fantastic (indeed, I wish I could take it!) — and I will be eager to hear more about the experience of teaching this material in a seminar setting.

The description of Professor Schaefer’s course is as follows:

Behavioral science provides insight into why lawyers who believe themselves to be ethical nonetheless engage in professional misconduct. Students will gain an understanding of the psychological factors outside of the lawyer’s conscious awareness that impact decisionmaking and develop strategies for combatting these issues in practice. Course materials will include case studies of illegal and unethical lawyer conduct and behavioral science research. Students will analyze and discuss readings in online forums and in the classroom. In a final project, students will present research into how behavioral science explains attorney misconduct in a selected practice setting.

(ps: If others know of other seminars dedicated teaching BLE, feel free to share them in the comments — it would be nice to start gathering this material in one place).

Teaching Behavioral Legal Ethics

EthicsI just posted the draft of my article, Insights from Psychology: Teaching Behavioral Legal Ethics as a Core Element of Professional Responsibility, ___ Mich. St. L. Rev. ___ (2016) (forthcoming). In it, I describe how I incorporate lessons from behavioral science into the survey course I teach on professional responsibility. I have discussed some of these techniques before (for example, here, here and here), but this article explores these themes and ideas in much more detail.

Here is the abstract:

The field of behavioral legal ethics — which draws on a large body of empirical research to explore how subtle and often unconscious psychological factors influence ethical decision-making by lawyers — has gained significant attention recently, including by many scholars who have called for a pedagogy that incorporates behavioral lessons into the professional responsibility curriculum. This article provides one of the first comprehensive accounts of how law teachers can meet this challenge. Based on an approach that employs a variety of experiential techniques to immerse students in the contextual and emotional aspects of legal practice, it provides a detailed model of how to teach legal ethics from a behavioral perspective. Reflections on the approach, including the encouraging response expressed by students to this interdisciplinary method of instruction, are also discussed.

 

New Scholarship: Giving Voice to Values in Legal Education

Vivien Holmes

A leading approach to ethics training in business schools comes from Professor Mary Gentile’s ground-breaking curriculum, Giving Voice to Values (GVV). What makes GVV so valuable is that it provides students with the specific skills they will need to act upon their values in situations where there are deep pressures to act unethically. Through a structured curriculum that draws on research findings from behavioral ethics, and that employs role plays, case studies, and simulations, students are taught how to develop what is described as a “moral muscle” — where, through practice and preparation, they pre-script and rehearse approaches to acting ethically in difficult situations. Many excellent resources are available to learn more about GVV, including Prof. Gentile’s book, Giving Voice to Values: How to Speak Your Mind When You Know What’s Right, and a series of videos about GVV narrated by Prof. Gentile and produced by Ethics Unwrapped.

Until recently, little had been written to adapt the GVV approach to the law school environment. That has now changed with an excellent article by Vivien Holmes of Australian National University College of Law (readers might be familiar with her earlier work on behavioral approaches to legal ethics). The just published article, entitled “Giving Voice to Values”: Enhancing Students Capacity to Copy with Ethical Challenges in Legal Practice,” describes ANU’s approach to teaching GVV to more than 600 law students a year (alas, it is behind a pay wall; hopefully, many readers will have access through their institutions).

Here is the abstract:

Legal ethics pedagogy does not often attend to the gap between principles and effective action. A pedagogy that does attend to this gap is ‘Giving Voice to Values’ (GVV). Developed by a US business academic, Mary Gentile, GVV focuses not on the normative questions of ’what is the right thing to do?’ but on the behavioural question ‘how do we get the right thing done?’ GVV has much to offer efforts to foster ethical behaviour in lawyers. In this article, I situate GVV within the behavioural ethics literature, which examines how and why people make the decisions they do in the ethical realm. I then turn to a discussion of the GVV curriculum and a case study of its application in legal education. I report preliminary results from research into the effectiveness of the GVV approach in postgraduate practical legal training. Finally, I encourage legal ethics teachers to experiment with GVV as a way of helping students develop skills for dealing constructively with ethical challenges in legal practice.

Highly recommended for anyone interested in teaching behavioral legal ethics!

Online CLE — When Good Intentions Go Awry: An Introduction to Behavioral Ethics in a Legal Context

PLI If you are in need of continuing legal education credit (or are otherwise interested), I will be co-presenting an upcoming seminar on Behavioral Legal Ethics on November 10, 2105, with Professor Catherine Gage O’Grady of the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona.  The program provider, Practising Law Institute, is a leader in the field of CLE education.

Here is the link and description for anyone who might be interested:

Description:

Ethics discussions often focus narrowly on the “bad apples” who deliberately choose to evade the rules of the profession. But as decades of empirical research demonstrate, unethical behavior frequently results from a broader set of variables that can cause even well-intentioned lawyers to act contrary to their own principles. Recently dubbed “Behavioral Legal Ethics,” this area of study draws lessons from behavioral science – including social psychology, behavioral economics and neuroscience – to explore the many subtle, often unconscious, factors that influence ethical decision-making. These include, for example:

  • The power of conformity and obedience to authority
  • The role of framing in ethical deliberation
  • The slippery slope toward misbehavior
  • The pernicious influence of overconfidence and self-serving biases

Please join Professor Catherine Gage O’Grady from the University of Arizona’s James E. Roger College of Law and Professor Tigran W. Eldred from New England Law | Boston for a one-hour briefing on Behavioral Legal Ethics. Topics to be explored will include how behavioral science challenges standard conceptions of legal ethics, as well as how a behavioral approach can address misconduct in diverse practice settings. This session will be of particular interest to newly admitted lawyers, who are uniquely vulnerable to the behavioral factors that contribute to unethical behavior and, conversely, are well-suited to overcome them.

(full disclosure: the program fee is $299, which is the tuition charged by PLI for the event)

Update,  11/20/15: I thoroughly enjoyed teaching this material with Professor Catherine Gage O’Grady.  The recording of the PLI session is available at a reduced rate here.