HISTORY

THE JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL: A SHORT HISTORY

Throughout its history, The John Marshall Law School has upheld a tradition of diversity, innovation and opportunity, and has consistently provided an education that combines an understanding of the theory, the philosophy and the practice of law. Founded in 1899, The John Marshall Law School is today proud to be recognized as a dynamic independent law school, promoting excellence in all aspects of legal education. In 1951 the Law School received provisional approval from the American Bar Association. Full approval came in 1955. On January 3, 1979 the School was granted AALS admission and on February 1, 2000 the School was granted accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.

When John Marshall first opened its doors in 1899, its student body numbered only three. More than one hundred years later, the law school boasts an enrollment of 1,440 students.

Cultural and ethnic diversity have been characteristic of The John Marshall Law School student body from the very beginning. John Marshall was founded as a not-for-profit corporation by a small group of distinguished lawyers who believed in the noble principle that admission to the law school should not be determined by arbitrary and discriminatory factors such as racial origin or religious affiliation.

Over the years, John Marshall's growing success has resulted in a dramatic rise in enrollment and the increasing expansion of the law school's facilities and academic programs. Fifty-five full-time and more than 200 adjunct faculty members with extensive experience in both legal practice and education collaborate in cultivating a personal and practical approach to the teaching of law.

John Marshall's Centers for Excellence offer students the opportunity to engage in penetrating study and practical training in specialized areas of the law.

MISSION

Honoring its history, The John Marshall Law School upholds through its varied juris doctor and graduate degree programs a tradition of diversity, innovation, access and opportunity, and consistently provides an education that combines an understanding of both the theory and the practice of law.

ACADEMIC PROGRAMS, LL.M. AND FOREIGN PROGRAMS

In July of 1995, the administration of The John Marshall Law School appointed a coordinator for the Centers Division, including the Master's degree programs, the Centers, and the law school's foreign and sister school programs. These programs have grown and become so important to the law school that this is now under the auspices of the Associate Dean for Advanced Studies and Research, Gerald Berendt. He works with the Master's Degree program directors, the Center directors, and the members of the faculty responsible for the sister school program and other foreign programs.

The following list comprises the Centers, LL.M. and Foreign and Sister School Programs:

THE CENTER FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
Acting Director/Associate Director: William T. McGrath
Executive Director: Michele Bridges

THE CENTER FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & PRIVACY LAW
Director: Professor Leslie Reis
Associate Director: Richard Balough

The Center for Tax Law & Employee Benefits
Director: Kathryn Kennedy
Associate Director: Barry Kozak

The Center for Advocacy & Dispute Resolution
Director: Kenneth Kandaras
Associate Director: Susann MacLachlan

The Center for Real Estate Law
Director: Celeste Hammond
Associate Director: Michelle Corey

The John Marshall Center for International Business & Trade Law
Director: Paul Lewis
Associate Director: Virginia Russell

FAIR HOUSING CENTER
Professor Michael Seng
Professor F. Willis Caruso

ASIAN ALLIANCE
Professor Kevin Hopkins
Associate Dean Dorothy Li

DISTANCE EDUCATION
Professor Robert Nye

GLOBAL LEGAL STUDIES
Professor Mark Wojcik

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE GROUP
Professor Tayyab Mahmud

For more information for the above-listed programs, please click on this link and refer to pages 8-12.

FACILITIES

Since 1980, the law school has expanded its main facility to include a mock courtroom complex with videotape recording and editing facilities and jury deliberation room; a state-of-the art computer classroom consisting of 20 work stations; new faculty offices; a 90-seat tiered lecture hall; two 45-seat classrooms; and a full-service conference facility seating more than 150.

In 1990, John Marshall and the Chicago Bar Association, located at 321 South Plymouth Court, adjacent to the law school, entered into a unique partnership: The John Marshall Law School library assumed responsibility for the association's research needs through a totally integrated professional library facility. The seventh floor of the school's library houses the bar association collection. The library further boasts a collection of some 360,000 volumes, in addition to a 10,000-volume faculty library to promote scholarly research. John Marshall's library provides students with access to cutting-edge computer research and reference services. More than 50 IBM-compatible computers and a school-wide computer network, featuring a web of high-speed, digital-fiber optic cabling allow all students, faculty and staff access to word processing software, LEXIS, WESTLAW, CALI and the Internet. Furthermore, library study carrels are wired for connecting lap-top or notebook computers to the school's network.

John Marshall's most recent expansion was the 1996 acquisition of nine floors of the 321 South Plymouth Court building. This purchase will allow the law school and the CBA to work even more closely in developing educational programs and will allow the school to expand its facilities. Presently located on the 16th floor of the 321 building are graduate programs.

THE JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL'S HISTORICAL MISSIONS

The Basic Policies of John Marshall's Early Years
(as excerpted from the 1974 Self Study)

By (September 1901), certain basic principles and policies had been developed.

In a Republic based in its origin on unique principles of legal equality and uniformity in the application of law, the legal profession became the indispensable one for the maintenance of a society so organized, serving not only the function of practicing at the Bar, but also of interpreting to the entire population the significance of "a government of laws, not of men." Necessarily, it became the instrumentality for the ultimate assimilation of thousands of naturalized citizens, who had grown up under different concepts of law and the relationship of individuals in a free society.
It followed as a corollary that the study of law should be open to all who possessed the legal requirement for admission to the Bar (already set by the Supreme Court of Illinois), regardless of sex, color, racial background, religion, etc. (By 1901, the student body included both women and blacks.) The school is believed to be the only one in the United States with so long a record of absolutely non-discriminatory admission insofar as such irrelevant factors are concerned.
The legal profession itself would be enriched by the addition to its number of individuals who had learned responsibility and had developed some maturity, but who were compelled by circumstances to earn their livings and often to contribute to the support of others. It was deemed that the addition of such persons to the profession gave a greater assurance of a genuine understanding of our legal system, superior to that conventionally acquired either by the apprenticeship method (training in a law office) or by law student bodies composed of persons with little or no experience in any activity or responsibility other than that of "going to school" and whose lives had, by the time they were eligible for admission to the Bar, had lived basically in an environment virtually confined to the domestic and academic. In addition, lawyers from a background of self-support would ensure a closer rapport with the citizenry, and would enhance popular confidence in the judicial system.
The "torch" of the legal profession should be passed on to their successors by teachers whose understanding and comprehension of the significance of our legal systems as a whole had been tempered by the fires of responsible experience in active practice. (It should be noted that, at that time, the faculties of conventional daytime law schools were recruited from the ranks of private practitioners, as was the consistent practice of such deans as Pound and Wigmore. However, since 1940, teachers with extensive experience in practice have become increasingly rare.)

These basic policies have been followed ever since. For the future, the School is not in accord with the contemporary "elitist" attitude. The practice of law is bested with a public interest, not to be measured in terms of intellect alone, but requiring elements of morality, responsibility, diligence, resourcefulness, etc., for which adequate "tests" do not exist. Likewise, the school does not deem that courses dealing with "law and economics," "law and psychology," etc. eliminate the need for a broad foundation in fundamentals, nor for a broad concept of the basics of a legal education, regardless of the type of practice ultimately desired or developed.

John Marshall's Historical Mission:

Dean Edward T. Lee
and the ABA's Development of Accreditation Standards

At the 1929 meeting of the Section on Legal Education of the ABA, Section members debated adoption of standards on legal education proposed several years before in a report of an ABA committee chaired by Elihu Root, former ABA president, Secretary of State, and Nobel Peace Prize winner. The Root committee proposals weighed in heavily in favor of established, traditional law schools with competitive admissions, full-time faculties, and no part-time or evening divisions. The Root committee proposals had the strong support both of the young AALS and of former President (and law professor) William Howard Taft.

A sample of the rhetoric in support of the Root committee proposals is the following statement by Henry S. Drinker, Jr., a leading member of the Philadelphia bar:

The man who has the law school training and the college training, where he has gone wrong--and some of them of course do go wrong--he knows he has gone wrong, he is immoral, he is consciously doing wrong...but these fellows that came up out of the gutter and were catapulted into the law, have done the worst things and did not know they were doing wrong. They were merely following the methods their fathers had been using in selling shoestrings and other merchandise, that is the competitive methods they use in business down in the slums...(These people) who come over to this country are all afire with a tremendous ambition that somebody in their family shall make good, and that if they have four or five boys and two or three girls, when the get big enough they pick out the one that is the smartest, and they all make a sacrifice to let that boy get an education, and they put him through school and try to get him to be a professional man, and lots of them become lawyers and doctors. Well, the boy comes on, works in a sweat shop or somewhere in the daytime and he studies law at odd times, mostly--some of them send them through college, but most of them cannot, and he comes to the bar with no environment at all except that out of which he came, and, with the tremendous pressure back of him to succeed, he has to make good; the whole family have been sacrificing themselves so he can. He does not have a chance -- he has not had a chance to absorb the American ideals.

Viewing the proposals as an elitist attempt to limit access to the bar, John Marshall's Dean Edward T. Lee spoke out strongly against them. Dean Lee responded to the proposals and to such rhetoric with comments like the following:

Is it a contest between low standards and high standards? If it was, I would take my place at once on the side of the higher standards. [It is] a contest between arbitrary quantitative and plutocratic stands and reasonable quantitative and democratic standards... Whether we shall say that a man must have his education in an institution, or he may show that he was able, but struggle and sacrifice and extraordinary application, to get those requirements outside of any educational institution.

In response to a particular proposal that every law school have three full-time faculty members, Dean Lee stated:

What are [the professors] going to do? Are they going to sit down and put their heels upon the desk and read the newspapers and wait of the classes to come in the evenings?... Now are you going to close up those schools? There is not an evening law school in the country that is on the approved list of the American Bar Association. Now, I say, do you want to exclude those students that have to study law in the evening while they are working in the day time? That, of course, is within your power, but it is not consonant with the spirit of the American Bar Association nor with its history, because the law has always been more or less of a brotherhood, and if you gentlemen will look back at the time you were admitted to the Bar, and then compare the students that are coming to the Bar today, you would not decide that they were so much inferior to you in those days. Now you have prospered and are well groomed, you have elaborate offices. You are likely to forget the humble position from which you started. You might think these fellows don't amount to anything. Give the acorn the chance to grow.

(all quotations appear as quoted in Susan Boyd, The ABA's First Section: Assuring a Qualified Bar, at 33-34 (ABA 1993).

The Law School's Objectives

(as excerpted from the 1974 Self Study)

The thoughts expressed by faculty members, students, and alumni manifested remarkable unanimity with respect to the objectives of the school. The leitmotif was always the same; the primary function of the school and its raison d'etre are the preparation of the student for the actual and effective practice of law. Though some students will obviously attend the school to further their careers in business or government, the paramount purposes of the school is the offering of legal education to students in such a manner as to enable them, immediately after graduation and passing of the bar examination, to effectively and conscientiously represent clients in court. This emphasis upon effective court representation is based upon the belief that a lawyer's advice to a client must always be given under the aspect of the possibility of ensuing court of administrative proceedings which might subject the lawyer's opinion to the crucible of contested ideas and conceptions.

The postulate of preparation of the student for the practice of law does, by necessity, have its impact upon the school's curriculum which is presently undergoing a far-reaching revision; strong divergent views have been expressed by various faculty members not only as to those courses which the student should be required to take but also as to the contents of the courses taught. Nevertheless a general consensus prevails that the school must offer a course of studies which will impart to the student the necessary knowledge enabling him, immediately after graduation, to engage in the practice of law as a "general practitioner." Hence it is not considered the aim of the school, at least in its undergraduate division, to provide a student with a legal education preparing him solely for the practice in a specialized field of law, such as taxation, labor relations, and so forth. This rejection of a course of studies leading to legal specialization is also founded upon the faculty's firm conviction that only a person possessed of a sound knowledge of all basic and general legal subjects can truly become and properly function as a legal specialist; in other words, effective practice in a specialized field of law presupposes and requires familiarity with and thorough understanding of the area of general law, however remote the necessity of such knowledge might appear to the legal specialist.

Insistence upon the student's knowledge to enable him to function as an effective general practitioner create the need for an intense study of civil and criminal procedure in all of its facets since a lawyer, despite his possible great knowledge of substantive law, might prove to be indeed a poor advocate if he cannot properly use the procedural means and methods of enforcing his client's rights. Hence the school requires the taking of all procedural courses and places great importance upon them.

Another consequence of the school's emphasis on legal education preparatory to the general practice of law is apparent in the generally held view shared by students and faculty alike that the school's teachers ought to have practical legal experience in order to function in the desired manner. Obviously, selection of such instructors poses great difficulties for it is trite to observe that successful practitioners are very seldom available for full time teaching positions, and, even if available, do not offer a guaranty that they will be good teachers; the best practitioner might be a poor teacher. It must be acknowledged that this is indeed a great problem, which the school has not solved, though forceful efforts toward a solution continue to be made. The existence of the problem is partially the reason why there is presently still a deficiency in the number of full time faculty members, especially when viewed in relation to the number of students. Yet, there is again a faculty consensus that the school should not precipitously rush in to the indiscriminate firing of new teachers but rather persist in its stand of employing only those instructors who combine at least a modicum of practical experience with effective teaching ability, difficult though the task might be. If at all possible, and barring certain exceptions, the hiring of bright young men and women with excellent scholastic background and record, but without any practical experience, must be rejected since it would frustrate the school's principal credo and purpose. Nevertheless, as previously indicated, all constituent members of the school are deeply aware of the problem and in constant search for a solution.

John Marshall’s Historic Mission
From Dean Fred Herzog’s Report
In the 1981 Self Study

Each law school fulfills a certain mission. That mission is, to a substantial degree, determined by the schools’ geographical location, the physical and intellectual environment in which it exists, and the demographic constellation of its potential constituency.

The John Marshall Law School is located in the center of a large urban community. When it was founded at the turn of the century, Chicago and its environs began to develop into a sprawling metropolitan area. Vast industrial establishments were built and large businesses started to extend their enterprises from the city into the far reaches of the country. A great labor force, frequently unskilled, was required for the operation of those industries and businesses. Immigrants from all corners of Europe flocked to the area to supply the needed labor force, followed, during and after the First World War, by an ever-increasing migration of blacks from the South.

Once the immigrants had established themselves, they were frequently in need of legal services. Their sons and, later on, sometimes their daughters, were desirous of satisfying that need; oftentimes they were spurred on in that desire by their parents, who wanted their offspring to enter the professions and, frequently, to study law because they wanted their children to lead a better life than they had led. Yet, when theses young men attempted to gain entrance to the established law schools, they found the doors closed to them because they had neither the financial means nor the social or religious background sometimes covertly required to obtain admission to these institutions.

John Marshall gave them that opportunity. Thus, long before most law schools had discovered their “constitutional conscience,” John Marshall opened its doors wide to admit these young men and women as students regardless of race, creed, color, sex or national origin. It has strictly adhered to that policy throughout the years and it is, therefore, not surprising that, for instance, most of the black judges in Cook County have been graduates of John Marshall.

However, admission of these students did not mean that they would routinely receive their law degrees. Rather, rigid standards were imposed which each student had to meet, and the attrition rate was substantial; but those who made it became indeed competent and able lawyers. The principal contributing factor in the attainment of the competence was the excellent instruction received by them, often provided by renowned lawyers, such as Arthur Goldberg, later Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Characteristically, too, Euclid Taylor, a well-known lawyer, now deceased, had joined the faculty in 1934; he was the first black man who had taught at a “white” law school.

Mission Statement
(as excerpted from the 1988 Self Study)

In 1981, then Dean Fred F. Herzog stated the mission of The John Marshall Law School well, when he wrote:

The John Marshall Law School’s broad mission is substantially the same today as it was when articulated by Dean Herzog in 1981. Although the admissions criteria are substantially higher and the academic attrition rate drastically lower than during the school’s early years, it is committed to providing access to the legal profession to individuals of all races, colors, creed and social and economic status. It is the mission and commitment of the institution to graduate well trained, skilled competent, ethically-educated practitioners and future judges.

The mission of The John Marshall Law School is carried out through many elements: (1) a balanced diverse, competent faculty, committed to solid classroom teaching; (2) rigorous instruction and examinations; (3) a supportive professional environment; (4) exposure to sole modeling of well-recognized attorneys and judges of reputation through its adjunct faculty and alumni association; and (5) consistent good performances of its students on national bar examinations and upon entry into the profession.

Goals
(as excerpted from the 1988 Self Study)

The first goal of the Dean and administration is to enhance the reputation and quality of the institution within the context of its unique blend of urban setting and independence. This goal entails several sub-parts.

The administration will make continuing efforts to reinforce its conviction that the school is a strong community of teachers, scholars, administrators and students who are fully committed to legal education, scholarship, community service, and the creation of well qualified practitioners and judges.
The administration will make efforts after the seven-year accreditation review to ensure that the institution exceeds the standards for accreditation through periodic annual reviews and by reconvening the full-time faculty for cumulative “self-study.”
The administration plans to pursue such management strategies as: unobtrusive but supportive activities promoting faculty development, demonstration of competence and professionalism in dealing with the students; and projection to the Chicago legal community that the school is well managed, progressive and forward-looking.
The administration will work closely with the faculty on educational policy matters. Additionally, once such policy matters have been developed, the administration will work closely with the John Marshall trustees in an effort to provide the necessary financial and other resources continually to improve the quality of the legal education offered by the school.
Finally, the administration will annually evaluate its internal organizational structure continually to improve the utilization of institutional resources to support the school’s educational program.

John Marshall Mission Statement
From Dean Markey’s Era

The Mission of The John Marshall Law School is “To Create and Share a Superior Professional Learning Experience Within a Caring and Value Centered Community.”

John Marshall’s Mission
(excerpted from the 1995 Self Study)

A) The Mission of The John Marshall Law School

The Mission of The John Marshall Law School grows out of a recognition that its historical strengths continue to be relevant to today’s world. These strengths are its social inclusiveness, its focus on teaching traditional and non-traditional lawyering skills and its willingness to provide specialized training to meet the demands of the practice of law in a rapidly changing world.

Social Inclusiveness

When The John Marshall Law School opened its doors in 1899, no class began before 4:00p.m. This was to accommodate students who had to finance their education by working during the day. Five years later, the Class of 1904 included a woman, an African-American and many immigrants. When leaders of American legal education sought to abolish part-time legal education, including evening divisions in law schools, the Deans of The John Marshall Law School led the successful battle to keep part-time legal education available as a way for determined but less financially able persons to become lawyers. John Marshall continues this tradition of social inclusiveness today by maintaining its evening division and two special admissions programs. That this long standing tradition has born fruit is confirmed by the fact that the first Illinois Supreme Court Justice of African-American descent, Charles E. Freeman, is a John Marshall graduate, and the fact that the recently appointed United States District Court Judge, Blanche M. Manning, also an African-American, is also a John Marshall graduate.

Teaching Traditional Lawyering Skills and Advocacy

John Marshall has long focused on teaching the skills and basic knowledge necessary to prepare its graduates to practice law, a focus recently emphasized by The American Bar Association in the MacCrate Report. Historically, the school has emphasized skills and advocacy as part of a tradition that has produced many trial lawyers and judges. Although this focus remains today in the moot court and mock trial programs, the advocacy center and the fair housing clinic, the law school has also broadened the curriculum to provide specialized training to meet the demands of a changing practice in a changing world.

Specialized Training

In addition to offering a general legal education and skills training, John Marshall also provides training in specialized areas such as intellectual property, international law, privacy and informatics, fair housing and planning in such areas as real estate law, trusts and estates, and business operation and development.

B) The Mission Statement

The mission of The John Marshall Law School is to teach the substantive legal knowledge and professional skills in both general and specialized areas, necessary to prepare its students to practice law and to participate in the profession, now and in the future in an atmosphere characterized by social inclusiveness and adherence to rigorous academic and professional standards. Particular emphasis is given to the teaching of traditional and non traditional lawyering skills, especially in the areas of legal writing and advocacy.

C) Implementation of the Mission Statement

The School’s commitment to its mission is exemplified by the following:

a.       its emphasis on teaching of legal writing, trial and appellate advocacy, traditional and non traditional legal skills, and subject areas necessary for the practice of law, as evidenced by:
·        the innovative legal writing program;
·        the intra- and inter-school moot court and appellate advocacy program;
·        the Advocacy Center;
·        the John Marshall National Moot Court Competition in Privacy;
·        the John Marshall National Criminal Trial Competition (co-sponsored by The American Bar Association Section on Criminal Justice);
·        the intensive week-long trial practice courses;
·        the client counseling and negotiations courses and teams; and
·        the legal extern and judicial extern programs;
·        The John Marshall Fair Housing Clinic;
·        the courses in real estate planning and business planning;
·        the courses in international law;
·        the graduate courses in Intellectual Property and Tax.

b. faculty research and scholarship directed toward both the bench and bar, and the academic community of scholars.

c.       faculty involvement in public service; pro bono, and bar association activities, and evidenced by:
·        preparation and presentation of materials and programs for Illinois Judicial Conferences;
·        service on bar association committees and projects;
·        representing disadvantaged parties in pro bono and law reform cases; and
·        The John Marshall Legal Ethics Advisory Panel, which provides written answers to lawyers’ requests for guidance on questions of legal ethics and professional conduct.

d. the Conditional Acceptance Program and the Legal Education Access Program (LEAP), which help identify persons qualified to study law who have not scored well on standardized tests.

e. service to the legal and non-legal communities by sponsoring:

·        the Braun Lectures;
·        the International Law Center;
·        the Graduate Program in Intellectual Property;
·        the Center for Intellectual Property;
·        the Graduate Program in Taxation;
·        the Center for Informatics Law;
·        the Center for Advocacy;
·        The John Marshall Law Review;
·        The Computer Law Journal;
·        The John Marshall Fair Housing Center;
·        the joint degree programs with Roosevelt University and Rosary College;
·        courses for Legal Assistants and paralegals in Intellectual Property Law;
·        Continuing Legal Education programs; and
·        The Law for Community Developers and Social Workers course.