Stanford Lawyer Spring/Summer 1981 Volume 16, NO.1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Stanford Lawyer Spring/Summer 1981 Volume 16, NO.1 Editor: Cheryl W. Ritchie Associate Editor: Sara Wood Designer: Jim M'Guinness Dean's Page 2 Charles J. Meyers: A Leader in the Stanford Tradition 4 An Interview with the School's Eighth Dean Mediation-An Alternative to Adversary Divorce 10 by George H. Norton '57 Child Custody Disputes: Are We Abandoning the Child's 16 Best Interests? by Michael S. Wald, Professor of Law Home v. Public Education: Should Parents Have the Right 20 To Choose? by Thomas J. Owen '81 and Marjorie Horton Thinking About Children's Rights-Moving Beyond Kiddie Libbers 24 and Child Savers by Robert H. Mnookin, Visiting Professor of Law Stanford's Clinical Course in Juvenile Law: Combining Simulated 31 with Actual Courtroom Experience And When They're Not Practicing Law. .. 33 How Seven Alumni Spend Their uLeisure" Time Faculty Opinion: Putting the Crisis in EI Salvador in Perspective 39 by William B. Gould, Professor of Law Kudos for Stanford Supreme Court Advocate 40 Nation's First Professorship in Law and Business Established 41 at the School School and Faculty News 42 Class Notes 51 In Memoriam 71 Stanford Lawyer is published semi-annually for alumni/ae and friends of Stanford Law School. Materials for publication and correspondence are welcome and should be sent to the Editor, Stanford Lawyer, Stanford Law School, Crown Quadrangle, Stanford, CA 94305. ©1981 by the,Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission of the publisher is prohibited. Cover: Portrait of Dean Charles J. Meyers by Barbara Mendelsohn I ean~8Page his is my last appearance on this page, as my resignation takes effect on August 3I, 1981. De T spite the challenge of a new life in practice, Pam and I leave Stanford with regret for the separation from our many friends on the cam'pus and among the alumni. We cherish our years here and will always re member the many kindnesses extended to us. This being in the nature of a valediction, a brief ac count of my stewardship during the past five years would seem to be in order. The School is in-good health. We have a youthful and vigorous faculty con cerned with effective classroom teaching and innovative scholarship. The curriculum, which in most law schools stoutly resists change, has been modernized with the addition of a number of new courses in business law, law and economics, and clinical education. The most striking curricular innovation has occurred in the first year, which has been made more realistic with the in troduction of trial advocacy in Civil Procedure and with the addition of perspective courses (such as legal history) which enable law students to take a broader view of the law and legal institutions. While the new first-year curriculum has been limited so far to one third of the class, I have every confidence that the plan to extend it to all entering students will be fulfilled. The student body continues to be outstanding, with an increasing number of students having had work ex perience between college and law school. Financing a legal education has become for the students (and there fore for us) a growing problem, for inflation has driven up costs far faster than we have been able to obtain offsetting scholarship and loan funds. This problem must be solved soon if we are to preserve a diverse stu dent body. As for finances, which have been among my chief con cerns, the School is in "comfortable circumstances," as my grandmother used to say - which means, not rich but not poor either. In the last five years, generous donors have endowed six new chairs in the School for an increase in endowment of nearly five million dollars. One of those professorships is for work in Law and Economics, a new field I regard as very important to the future of the practice, and another is for Law and 2 Business, the first of its kind at any major law school attracted large numbers of exceedingly able students to in this country. our halls. Upon graduation these students become Twenty-nine new named scholarship funds have been movers and doers in society. That exercise of power in established in the capital amount of about two million vites attempts to influence the education of the stu dollars, with a good bit more pledged for the future. dents, to channel their thinking in one direction or Over all, with these and other gifts and through re another. These attempts must be resisted, to preserve capitalization of income endowment, the book value of plurality among law schools and to encourage in the endowment has risen from eight to twenty million tellectual diversity within each law school. If the time dollars, and the annual fund has increased from ever comes when an accreditation agency can prescribe $471,000 to $781,000 in the period 1976-81. curriculum, law schools will slide from their present as These gains in the intellectual and financial life of the cendancy into the mire of mediocrity. School could not have been achieved without the un A concluding note. When I came to Stanford, nearly stinting efforts of the faculty, the administrative staff, twenty years ago, a capital campaign called PACE was the volunteers, and the friends and alumni of the underway, operating under the slogan, "A University School. To all, lowe an enormous debt which I can on the brink of greatness." One Eastern cynic added, only confess but never repay. "and always will be." That gibe proved false. This is a But looking backward, satisfying as it may be, is not great University and a great Law School. The School enough. The future holds much promise and some enjoys a superbly qualified student body, a faculty ded risks. icated to stimulating teaching and imaginative scholar First. Legal education has not yet caught up with the ship, a splendid physical plant housing a research li sophisticated knowledge of the last thirty years. Stan brary of high quality, and a sound financial foundation ford is doing better, perhaps, then most other law that makes possible the pursuit of excellence. But our schools, but many of our students still graduate with success is fragile. Continued double-digit inflation, ab out an elementary understanding of economics and sence of loan and scholarship funds to finance students' statistics, two powerful analytical tools indispensible in education, faculty dissention or student disaffection dealing with issues of public policy. This point is not could collapse the structure in short order. By recogniz confined to those specific disciplines; the broader sug ing that our success is precarious we can avoid compla gestion is that law schools must be alert to the oppor cency and work together to consolidate past gains for a tunities to apply the learning of other disciplines, espe solid future. cially emerging disciplines like computer science, to legal problems. Second. The law school in a university setting is a hybrid: It is a professional school training lawyers for the practice, but it is also an academic institution educating the mind. Those two responsibilities are not in conflict, but keeping them in balance requires con-" stant attention. Undue emphasis on the current con cerns of the practice may depriye the student of the means for dealing with the future. But preoccupation with theory may leave the student unable to cope with the demands of practice either now or later. Third. Law schools may become victims of their own success. The power of law to effect social change has 3 CharlesJ. Meyers:A Leaderinthe Stanford1radition AnInterviewwith the School's Eighth Dean everal histories of the Stanford practItIoners and as policy makers schools across the country. That same Law School have been written charged with the responsibility of regu year he chaired the School's Curriculum over the years, and while each lating business practices. Committee and led a special study of Saccount may differ in perspective or em Equally revolutionary during the possible curricular changes. phasis a unifying theme emerges: the di Manning years was the introduction of Shortly after his appointment, Dean rection the School took at any point in its clinical teaching at the School. As early Meyers told a reporter for the Stanford history can be attributed to the man as 1970 the first experimental steps were Daily, "I really see myself as building the charged with its governance at the time taken to close the gap between law study School internally." With that mandate - the Dean. and law practice by exposing students to Dean Meyers set about the task of The modern history of Stanford Law procedures and problems as they would strengthening the curriculum in certain School begins with Marion Rice occur in actual practice. key areas, including business, tax, law Kirkwood, dean of the School from 1922 In 1971, with students, faculty and and economics, and international law. A to 1945. During those twenty-odd years books overflowing the law building, random sampling of the courses offered Dean Kirkwood laid the foundations of Thomas Ehrlich assumed the leadership during academic year 1980-81 attests to excellence upon which the School square and set as his primary objective the con Dean Meyers' success in these areas: ly rests today. struction of new buildings for the Stan Business Planning, Financial Accounting At the end of World War II, Carl B. ford Law School. In 1975 that goal was as a Disclosure Process, International Spaeth assumed the deanship and during realized with the completion of Crown Business Transactions, International his tenure introduced into the curriculum Quadrangle, the first facilities specifical Taxation, Legal Economics, Practice of innovative ideas and programs that ly designed for the Law School.