General Information
Dates
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Location
Washburn University
Bradbury Thompson Alumni Center
Parking: south and west of Bradbury.
Get Directions and Maps
Sponsored by
Center for Excellence in Advocacy
CLE Credit:
Accredited by the Kansas and Missouri Continuing Legal Education Commissions for 9.0 CLE hours.
Directions/Maps
- To Washburn Law
- To Capitol Plaza Hotel and Brown NHS
- From Wanamaker Road hotels (see below) to Washburn Law
- Major Topeka streets and attractions (378 KB PDF)
- Restaurant Guide (34 KB PDF)
Contact
If you have any questions about the symposium, please contact Donna Vilander at donna.vilander [at] washburn.edu or at (785) 670-1105.
Learn about and view photos from the first Writing to Win Symposium held March 2007 at Washburn Law.
Writing to Win
Plain Language Jury Instructions
[T]he object of a charge to a jury is not to satisfy an appellate court that you have repeated the right rigamarole of words, but to try to make jurors who are laymen understand what you are talking about.District Judge Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr.,
Cape Cod Food Products v.
National Cranberry Ass'n,
119 F. Supp. 900, 907 (D. Mass. 1954).
Judges, lawyers, and scholars agree that the substance, form, and timing of jury instructions require ongoing reform to improve jury comprehension. The first wave of reform began in the 1980s, bolstered by early empirical research that convincingly demonstrated the scope of the problem: Most jurors have great difficulty understanding and applying the law to the facts. During the 1980s, judges and lawyers made some progress by replacing archaic legalese in pattern jury instructions with concise, plain language.
Twenty years later, progressive state and federal jurisdictions, recognizing that much remains to be done, have undertaken comprehensive revisions to their pattern jury instructions to make them more understandable to jurors. This symposium brings together judges, scholars, and lawyers who are leading the reform movement to improve jury comprehension by drafting instructions in plain English, tailoring instructions to the unique facts of each case, and providing guidance for the jury in approaching deliberations.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Schedule
5:00 p.m. — Welcoming Remarks and Opening Reception
Bradbury Thompson Alumni Center, Washburn University
- Michael Kaye, Professor of Law; Director, Center for Excellence in Advocacy
- J. Lyn Entrikin Goering, Associate Professor of Law; Director, Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing Program
- Plain Language Jury Instructions in Kansas: The Time is Right - Now!
The Honorable Stephen D. Hill, Kansas Court of Appeals; Chair, Kansas Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Criminal and Civil Jury Instructions
Like the prairie fires of old, the shift to pattern jury instructions swept across Kansas in the late 1960s. Committees, rather than judges and lawyers, began drafting instructions in each case. The chaos of case-by-case jury instructions gave way to more abstract expressions of law. In fact, the more abstract an instruction, the more utility it had for a range of cases. But with abstraction came a loss of understanding. Committees wrote instructions for lawyers and judges, not jurors. Today, the freshening wind of the plain language movement ignites a new fire on the prairie. Effective jury instructions must give understandable guidance to jurors in approaching the unfamiliar job of reaching a verdict. Judge Hill will discuss why format, language, and context are just as important as accuracy in crafting jury instructions.
7:00 p.m. — Dinner on your own (see Restaurant Guide (34 KB PDF))
Monday, April 7, 2008
Plain Language Jury Instructions, Past and Present
Most jury instructions — abstruse, arcane, and complex — are as unintelligible to lay people as they are to practicing attorneys and experienced judges. The legal system places an enormous burden on jurors to apply the law to the unique facts of each case and reach a just decision. It is imperative that jurors understand the law and know how to apply it, especially when a defendant's life is on the line. Several states, acknowledging decades of empirical research, have replaced their esoteric jury instructions with more understandable versions. While courts traditionally have been reticent about modifying pattern jury instructions, plain language instructions are gaining favor with judges, attorneys, and most importantly, the jurors.
Schedule
8:00 a.m. — Registration and Continental Breakfast
Bradbury Thompson Alumni Center
9:00 a.m. — Welcome and Introductions
Thomas J. Romig, Dean and Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law- Michael Kaye, Professor of Law; Director, Center for Excellence in Advocacy
- J. Lyn Entrikin Goering, Associate Professor of Law; Director, Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing Program
9:10 a.m.
- Looking Back: The First Generation of Plain Language Jury Instructions
Jamison Wilcox, Associate Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University School of Law
More than twenty years ago at the University of Bridgeport, Connecticut, Professor Wilcox organized and moderated an academic symposium on plain language jury instructions. Reflecting the broad appeal of the topic, numerous judges, attorneys, and scholars participated. Over the years since 1985, has the plain-language movement effected significant improvements in jury instructions? Professor Wilcox will review the empirical research, dating to the late 1970s, that convincingly documents the lack of comprehensibility of pattern jury instructions to most lay jurors. He will also address how lawyers' typical shortcomings as legal drafters may help explain the all-too-frequent use of obscure legal language in jury instructions.
10:10 a.m. — Keynote Address
- Plain Language Jury Instructions: The California Experience
The Honorable Carol A. Corrigan, Keynote Speaker and Visiting Jurist Scholar; Justice, California Supreme Court; Chair, California Judicial Council Task Force on Jury Instructions, 1997-2005
In 1996, California's Blue Ribbon Commission on Jury System Improvement observed that "jury instructions as presently given in California and elsewhere are, on occasion, simply impenetrable to the ordinary juror." In response, the California Judicial Council created the Task Force on Jury Instructions and appointed now-Justice Carol A. Corrigan as its Chair. The mission was to draft comprehensive, legally accurate jury instructions that could be readily understood by the average juror. After years of diligent committee work, the Judicial Council approved a revised set of civil jury instructions and special verdict forms in 2003 and a new set of criminal jury instructions in 2005. Justice Corrigan will address how the Task Force successfully countered the forces of inertia and fear of change by "making the case" for plain language jury instructions, in part by emphasizing the need to reach an increasingly heterogeneous community.
11:10 a.m.
- The Judicial Process of Revising Jury Instructions for Comprehensibility
Although instructions should be comprehensible to jurors, it is even more critical that jury instructions provide an accurate and comprehensive statement of the law. Rewriting and simplifying a pattern jury instruction that includes multifaceted-and often unclear-legal principles can be quite challenging. Moreover, trial judges may resist changing established jury instructions out of fear that verdicts will be overturned on appeal. This panel brings together jurists and scholars to discuss how various jurisdictions have revised jury instructions to reconcile these competing concerns. Each panelist has first-hand experience in overcoming the obstacles to rewriting jury instructions in plain language. - Moderator
- The Honorable Stephen D. Hill, Kansas Court of Appeals; Chair, Kansas Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Criminal and Civil Jury Instructions
- Panel Members
- Nancy S. Marder, Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Reporter, Illinois Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions in Civil Cases - The Honorable David D. Noce, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Member, Eighth Circuit Civil Jury Instructions Subcommittee - Joseph Kimble, Professor of Law, Thomas Cooley School of Law
Drafting Consultant, Sixth Circuit Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions and Michigan Committee on Standard Criminal Jury Instructions - Wayne Schiess, Director of Legal Writing, University of Texas School of Law
Writing Consultant, Texas Pattern Jury Charges Plain Language Project - James M. Concannon, Distinguished Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law
Member, Kansas Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Criminal and Civil Jury Instructions
- Nancy S. Marder, Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law
12:00 p.m. — Lunch Provided
1:30 p.m.
- Texas Pattern Jury Charges Plain-Language Project: The Writing Consultant's View
Wayne Schiess, Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law
Writing Consultant, Texas Pattern Jury Charges Plain Language Project
Professor Schiess discusses the details of the Texas Pattern Jury Charges Plain Language Project: the original legalese and the new plain English, the squabbles over "preponderance" and "circumstantial," the politics of changing long-standing instructions, and the jaw-dropping insights from watching real jurors deliberate with the old and new instructions. He presents a view from the trenches — where an idealistic legal writing consultant butts heads with judges, lawyers, and jury consultants.
2:30 p.m.
- The Process for Writing Plain Jury Instructions
Joseph Kimble, Professor of Law, Thomas Cooley Law School
Drafting Consultant, Sixth Circuit Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions and the Michigan Committee on Standard Criminal Jury Instructions
To achieve the best results, a jury instructions committee needs to think carefully about the process for carrying out its work. This presentation will cover choosing a writer, adopting style guides, setting aside some myths about plain language, recognizing that jury instructions are a unique form of legal writing, getting comments from committee members, and testing the results.
3:10 p.m.
- Innovations in Timing, Structure, and Delivery of Jury Instructions
Arcane language is not the only problem with jury instructions. Traditional methods of presentation are also significant barriers to juror understanding. Trial courts are increasingly exploring ways to encourage jurors to more become more actively engaged in the trial process - for example, by allowing jurors to take notes during trial, write questions for witnesses, and discuss the case before final deliberations. Scholars and jurists have suggested other innovations, such as altering the timing of jury instructions, instructing the jury how to approach deliberations, giving special interrogatories, and providing meaningful responses to jury questions during deliberations. Our distinguished panelists will discuss a variety of innovative strategies for improving jury decision-making. - Moderator
- Michael Kaye, Professor of Law; Director, Center for Excellence in Advocacy
- Panel Members
- Nancy S. Marder, Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law
- James D. Ward (retired), California Court of Appeal
- C. William 'Bill' Ossmann, Chief Litigation Attorney, Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services
- Sarah Ubel, Associate Professor of Communications, Washburn University
4:15 p.m. — Reception
6:30 p.m. — Dinner on your own (see Restaurant Guide (34 KB PDF))
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Looking Forward: Improving Jury Instructions for the Future
Given the significance of jury instructions, judges, litigators, and educators must collaborate to enhance their comprehensibility to the primary audience-the jury. Rewriting jury instructions in plain language is the first step, but what other innovations are underway to improve the presentation of jury instructions? Even if jurors understand the law, how can courts ensure that they know how to apply the law to the facts? What do law schools need to teach future attorneys about jury instructions, jury deliberations, and the dynamics of jury decision-making? How do successful litigators use jury instructions in investigating the facts, drafting court documents, and planning trial strategy? The future of the jury as an American institution depends on litigators who use plain language jury instructions as a component of effective trial strategy.
Schedule
8:00 a.m. — Registration and Continental Breakfast
Bradbury Thompson Alumni Center
8:30 a.m.
- Bringing Jury Instructions into the Twenty-First Century
Nancy S. Marder, Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Empirical studies of jury instructions show that they are incomprehensible to the layperson, poorly structured, and delivered ineffectively. Given the strong evidence that jurors do not understand them, this presentation focuses on two related questions: First, why have jury instructions been so resistant to reform? Second, what can be done to improve the delivery and effectiveness of jury instructions? How can the language be made more comprehensible? What tools can jurors be given to understand the structure of jury instructions? Efforts to simplify the language and to use new methods to deliver of jury instructions are critical if the jury is to remain a vital institution.
9:30 a.m.
- What Law Schools Can Do: Incorporating Jury Instructions and Jury Deliberations in the Law School Curriculum
Most trial attorneys who actively participate in legal education agree that too little time is devoted in law school to the study of jury instructions and jury deliberations. Because jury instructions relate in some way to many aspects of trial litigation, they should be a common component of every law school curriculum. Yet many attorneys study jury instructions in depth for the first time on appeal from their first jury trial, and law schools seldom teach about the group dynamics of jury decision-making. Our panelists teach a variety of law school courses that address jury instructions as a tool for trial advocacy. The panel will discuss how law schools can more effectively use jury instructions to prepare trial attorneys for law practice. - Moderator
- J. Lyn Entrikin Goering, Associate Professor of Law; Director, Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing Program
- Panel Members
- Nancy S. Marder, Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law
- The Honorable David D. Noce, Adjunct Professor, St. Louis University School of Law and Washington University School of Law
- Mary Barnard Ray, Assistant Director, Legal Research and Writing Program; Writing Specialist, Individualized Instruction Service, University of Wisconsin Law School
- Jamison Wilcox, Associate Professor of Law, Quinnipiac School of Law
10:30 a.m.
- Jury Instructions as a Tool for the Thoughtful Advocate: From the Client Interview to Deliberations and Beyond
The Honorable David D. Noce, Adjunct Professor, St. Louis University School of Law and Washington University School of Law
Jury instructions can be effective tools of advocacy for the thoughtful litigator. Instructions can suggest factors for deciding whether to take on a client. They can guide counsel in drafting pleadings and conducting the factual investigation of the case. The language and terminology in proposed instructions can be used in pretrial discovery requests and in deposition questions. At trial, consideration of instruction topics can suggest trial strategy. Witnesses can be questioned using language the jury will hear when the court instructs the jury. Proposed cautionary and limiting instructions can persuade the court to admit contested evidence. Proper use of instructions during closing argument can persuade the jury of the strength of the client's case. Correct instructions might safeguard a favorable verdict on appeal. Judge Noce discusses the various ways winning litigators incorporate jury instructions from the very beginning of a client's case.
11:30 a.m.
- Effective Techniques for Using Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms in Trial Practice
Many trial judges agree that litigators can and should make more effective use of jury instructions in preparing a case for trial. For example, draft jury instructions should be prepared before discovery begins to focus the issues during pretrial proceedings, subject to continuing refinement as the case progresses to trial. The draft charge is useful in preparing for pretrial conferences, conducting voir dire, and presenting opening and closing arguments. A well-prepared jury charge effectively frames the issues for a more focused presentation to the jury. Special interrogatories and innovative verdict forms are increasingly used to guide jury deliberations. This panel, composed of experienced trial judges and seasoned litigators, discusses how advocates can effectively use jury instructions as a road map to guide litigation strategy. - Moderator
- The Honorable J. Thomas Marten, U.S. District Court, District of Kansas
- Panel Members
- The Honorable David D. Noce, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
- James D. Griffin, Partner, Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, Kansas City, Missouri
- Stan Sexton, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, Missouri
- Justice R. Eugene Pincham (retired), Appellate Court of Illinois; former judge, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
12:30 p.m. — Lunch Provided
1:30 p.m. — Concluding Remarks
- The Honorable Stephen D. Hill, Kansas Court of Appeals
- Michael Kaye, Professor of Law; Director, Center for Excellence in Advocacy
- J. Lyn Entrikin Goering, Associate Professor of Law; Director, Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing Program
Keynote Speaker
Carol A. Corrigan — Associate Justice, California Supreme Court; Chair, California Judicial Council Task Force on Jury Instructions, 1997-2005
Justice Corrigan was first appointed to the bench in 1987. She has served on every level of the California judiciary, joining the Supreme Court in 2006. She was a trial lawyer in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office from 1975 to 1987.
From 1997 to 2005, while serving on the California Court of Appeals, Justice Corrigan chaired the California Judicial Council Task Force on Jury Instructions. In 2003, the California Judicial Council was presented with the Burton Award for Outstanding Reform in recognition of the dedicated work of the Task Force in rewriting California's pattern jury instructions into more concise and understandable language. The Burton Awards are dedicated to refining and enriching legal writing by both lawyers and law school students.
In January 2007, the Task Force was once again honored for its dedicated work in improving legal writing when the Legal Writing Institute presented Justice Corrigan and her colleagues with the Golden Pen Award. The award recognizes persons who have significantly advanced the cause of better legal writing.
Justice Corrigan has been on the faculty of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco and Boalt Hall School of Law in Berkeley. She has also served on the law faculties of the University of San Francisco and the University of Puget Sound. In addition, she has taught numerous programs for the National Institute of Trial Advocacy for over 25 years. In 1997, the National Institute presented her with Distinguished Faculty Award.
Justice Corrigan earned her B.A., magna cum laude, from Holy Names College in 1970, where she was President of the Student Body and the recipient of the Founder's Medal. She did graduate work in Clinical Psychology at Saint Louis University from 1970-1972. While attending the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, she served as the Law Journal's Note and Comment Editor, graduating in 1975.
Speakers
James M. Concannon – Distinguished Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law; Member, Kansas Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Criminal and Civil Jury Instructions
Professor Concannon served as Dean of Washburn University School of Law from 1988-2001. He is licensed to practice in state courts in Kansas, the U.S. District Court for Kansas, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States. He served as Research Attorney for the Kansas Supreme Court and was a Visiting Professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. He was a Senior Contributing Editor of Evidence in America: The Federal Rules in the States and serves on the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
J. Lyn Entrikin Goering – Associate Professor of Law and Director, Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing Program, Washburn University School of Law
Professor Goering worked for the Kansas Legislature as a nonpartisan legislative fiscal analyst before attending Washburn University School of Law. She was editor in chief of the Washburn Law Journal. Upon graduation, she worked as a research attorney for the late Justice Richard Holmes of the Kansas Supreme Court and as administrative assistant to the Chief Justice. She was also a law clerk to Judge Dale Saffels, U.S. District Court, before joining the Topeka law firm of Wright, Henson, Somers, Sebelius, Clark & Baker. She later served in the Legal Opinions and Government Counsel Division of the Kansas Attorney General's Office. In 1996, she was appointed to the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals, the highest administrative tax tribunal in Kansas. Upon completing her term, she established a solo law practice. Professor Goering joined the faculty of Washburn University School of Law in August 2003 and was appointed Director of the Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing Program in 2004.
James D. Griffin – Partner, Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, Kansas City, Missouri
Jim Griffin is a partner at Blackwell Sanders in Kansas City, Missouri, specializing in complex civil litigation. Jim has tried in excess of 30 jury cases as a first-chair trial lawyer, in addition to several bench trials. Jim is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and served as its Kansas Chair from 2004 until 2006. Since 1997, he has been recognized by the publication "Best Lawyers in America" for civil litigation in Kansas, and in 2003 was chosen as one of eight "tier-one" general commercial litigators in Missouri by Chambers & Partners. He is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Jim graduated cum laude from Kansas State University in 1980 with a B.S. in Economics and received his J.D. from the University of Virginia Law School in 1983. He has practiced at Blackwell Sanders for 24 years and is Vice-Chair of its Litigation Department.
Stephen D. Hill – Judge, Kansas Court of Appeals and Chair, Kansas Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Criminal and Civil Jury Instructions
Judge Hill received his undergraduate degree in English from the University of Kansas and his law degree from Washburn University. He started his own firm of Hill & Wisler in 1975 and practiced law in Mound City, Kansas until he became the Linn County Attorney in 1976. Hill was appointed associate district judge in 1981 by Gov. John Carlin and then district judge in 1982 in the Sixth Judicial District in Kansas. He subsequently became administrative judge and then chief judge of the district until Gov. Kathleen Sebelius appointed him to the Kansas Court of Appeals in 2003. Judge Hill presided over numerous criminal and civil trials across the state by order of the Supreme Court and was commissioner of the Kansas Judicial Initiative in 1998. He is a past member of the Kansas District Judges Association executive committee.
Michael Kaye – Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Excellence in Advocacy, Washburn University School of Law
Professor Kaye received his undergraduate degree from Case Western Reserve University, his J.D. from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, and his LL.M. from New York University. Professor Kaye is an experienced public defender. He was in private practice in California and studied at the Comparative Law Institute in Grenoble, France. He was a visiting professor of law at Whittier College School of Law from 1990 to 1991.
Joseph Kimble – Professor of Law, Thomas Cooley School of Law
Joseph Kimble has taught legal writing at Thomas Cooley Law School for 25 years. He is the author of Lifting the Fog of Legalese: Essays on Plain Language; the editor in chief of The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing; the longtime editor of the "Plain Language" column in Michigan Bar Journal; the past president of the international organization Clarity; and the drafting consultant on all federal court rules. He recently led the redrafting of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is now working on the Federal Rules of Evidence. He also served as a consultant to the Sixth Circuit Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions and the Michigan Committee on Standard Criminal Jury Instructions.
Nancy S. Marder – Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Nancy S. Marder is a Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law. She is a graduate of Yale College, Cambridge University, and Yale Law School, where she was an Articles Editor of the Yale Law Journal. Professor Marder has clerked at every level of the United States federal court system, including a two-year clerkship with Justice John Paul Stevens at the U.S. Supreme Court, and one-year clerkships with Judge William A. Norris at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Leonard B. Sand in the Southern District of New York. Professor Marder has written numerous articles on the jury that have appeared in law reviews such as Northwestern University Law Review, Texas Law Review, Iowa Law Review, and Southern California Law Review. She has written a book on the jury entitled The Jury Process (Foundation Press, 2005). Her work on the jury has covered a wide range of issues from technology and juries to the proper roles of peremptory challenges, jury instructions, and jury nullification. She has presented her work on the jury at many conferences and symposia both in this country and abroad and regularly teaches a law school course on the jury entitled Juries, Judges & Trials.
J. Thomas Marten – Judge, United States District Court, District of Kansas
Judge Marten was nominated by President William J. Clinton on October 18, 1995, to a seat vacated by Patrick F. Kelly. He was confirmed by the Senate on January 2, 1996, and was commissioned on January 4, 1996.
He received his bachelor's degree from Washburn University in 1973 and his law degree from Washburn University School of Law in 1976. He began his distinguished career first as a law clerk for Justice Tom Clark, Supreme Court of the United States, in 1976. In 1977, he went into private practice in Omaha, Nebraska. He continued working in private practice in Minneapolis, Minnesota from 1980 to 1981, and then moved to McPherson, Kansas in 1981, where he worked in private practice until his federal judicial appointment in 1996.
David Noce – Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Judge David Noce received his A.B. degree from St. Louis University and his J.D. from the University of Missouri School of Law in 1969. He taught business law in college before serving as a legal officer on active duty in the United States Army from 1970 to 1972. From 1972 to 1975, he was the law clerk for two federal district judges in St. Louis. From 1975 to 1976, he served as an assistant United States Attorney, prosecuting federal criminal cases. In 1976, he was appointed the second magistrate judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. From 1989 to 1996, he served as the chief magistrate judge of the district court. He has presided over many hearings and trials, both jury and non-jury, in civil and criminal cases.
Judge Noce is a longtime member of the Eighth Circuit Subcommittee on Model Civil Jury Instructions, and he is an editor of the Federal Courts Law Review. He is a former member of the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Since 1996, Judge Noce has taught his course, Jury Instructions and the Trial Process, at both St. Louis University School of Law and Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. His Jury Instructions Drafting Workbook was published by West Group in 1999. He has participated in many continuing legal education programs for judges and lawyers sponsored by the United States District Court, the Federal Judicial Center, the Missouri Bar, the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, and other groups.
C. William 'Bill' Ossmann - Chief Litigation Attorney, Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services
Bill Ossmann has been the Chief Litigation Attorney for the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services since November 1997. His responsibilities include directing and
coordinating the legal defense of the state, the agency and its employees in federal and state courts. He serves as a member of the agency's Management Team. Mr. Ossmann was in private practice for a short time following his admission to the bar in 1977 and his early experience included work as a Guardian Ad Litem with the Shawnee County District Court. He was a criminal prosecutor from 1978 until 1993, serving as an Assistant District Attorney and later First Assistant District Attorney in Shawnee County. He worked with the Kansas Department of Agriculture as a Special Assistant Attorney General from 1993 until 1997. Mr. Ossmann served as Chairperson of the Kansas Crime Victims Compensation Board from 1991 to 1993 and he was Municipal Judge in Silver Lake, Kansas from 1993 to 1996. He served on the faculty for NITA Public Outreach Programs and NITA Deposition programs hosted by Washburn University School of
Law and is an adjunct professor for Washburn Law's Intensive Trial Advocacy Program (ITAP). He has also served as a faculty member for the Rocky Mountain Regional Trial Skills programs and the National Public Service Lawyers Program at NITA's National Education Center in Louisville, Colorado and the Midwestern Regional Trial Skills Program and Midwestern Deposition Program in Chicago.
R. Eugene Pincham – Justice (retired), Appellate Court of Illinois; former judge, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
R. Eugene Pincham, an untiring human rights activist, lawyer, and outspoken critic of the criminal justice system, is a former judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County and retired justice of the Appellate Court of Illinois. He earned a B.S. in Political Science from Tennessee State University in Nashville. In 1948, he enrolled in Northwestern University School of Law. Despite the fact that he had to wait tables at the Palmer House Hotel and shine shoes as a full-time student, Pincham earned a J.D. in 1951. A member of the American Civil Liberties Union and a lifetime member of the NAACP, the semi-retired Pincham lectures and instructs in trial and appellate techniques and advocacy. He has received numerous awards for his professional and community service and activism.
Mary Barnard Ray, Assistant Director, Legal Research and Writing Program, University of Wisconsin Law School; Writing Specialist, Individualized Instruction Service
Mary Barnard Ray began her work at University of Wisconsin Law School in 1978 by creating the Individualized Instruction Service (IIS). Her work later expanded to creating the first Advanced Legal Writing course in 1980, writing a column for Wisconsin Lawyer, and authoring books and articles on legal writing. In 1984, she was voted Teacher of the Year by the Legal Education Opportunities (LEO) Program.
She has been the primary author on two innovative legal writing books. Legal Writing: Getting It Right and Getting It Written was the first reference book specifically for legal writing. Beyond the Basics was the first text to present advanced writing techniques for legal writing, providing a resource that spurred the growth of advanced legal writing courses nationwide. She has also produced a videotape used in many instructor training programs and has written professional articles on various legal writing topics. She has spoken at numerous national conferences, including the Legal Writing Institute, the Conference on College Composition and Communication, and the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. She has taught in five regional LEO summer programs and has consulted for businesses, government agencies, judges, professors, and practicing lawyers. She has consulted on such varied projects as a software instruction manual, an engineering research project, a Zambian law review article, and the memoirs of a Holocaust survivor.
Wayne Schiess – Professor of Law and Director of Legal Writing, University of Texas School of Law
Wayne Schiess is the director of the legal writing program at the University of Texas School of Law. He teaches legal writing, legal drafting, and plain English. He is also a frequent seminar speaker on those subjects. He has published more than a dozen articles on practical legal writing skills, plus two books: Writing for the Legal Audience and Better Legal Writing. He is an associate editor for the Scribes Journal of Legal Writing. He graduated from Cornell Law School, practiced law for three years at the Texas firm of Baker Botts, and in 1992 joined the faculty at the University of Texas School of Law. For the past two years he has served as the drafting consultant for the Texas Pattern Jury Charges Plain-Language Task Force.
J. Stan Sexton – Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Kansas City, Missouri
Mr. Sexton has been a fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers since 1994. More recently, he was listed in The Best Lawyers in America and Missouri and Kansas Super Lawyers 2006. He is a frequent legal education lecturer, author of articles on trial procedure and trial practice, and teacher of the firm's trial advocacy program courses in Basic Litigation Skills and Advance Trial Workshop. As technology partner for the firm and its General Litigation Division, Mr. Sexton is responsible for effective and efficient deployment of technology solutions.
Sarah Ubel - Associate Professor of Communications, Washburn University
Dr. Sarah Ubel graduated from Baker University with degrees in Psychology and Political Science. After graduation, she attended and graduated from the University of Kansas School of Law. She continued her education at the University of Kansas in the field of Communication, receiving her Ph.D. Her graduate education focused on legal communication, gender communication, and persuasion. During her years in graduate school, she worked for communication and trial consulting firms in Chicago, Kansas City, and Lawrence. She was an assistant editor of Court Call magazine, the publication of the American Society of Trial Consultants. Dr. Ubel has regularly presented papers related to legal communication at the National Communication Association annual conference and the Central States Communication Association annual conference. Dr. Ubel has taught courses in the Communication department at Washburn University such as Conflict and Negotiation, Communication in the Legal Process, Communication Theory, Research Methods, and Gender and Communication, in addition to Public Speaking. Her research interests are related to credibility in court and gendered stereotypes of attorneys. She also coaches Washburn University's undergraduate Mock Trial team.
James D. Ward - Justice (retired), California Court of Appeal
James D. Ward was a Justice of the California Court of Appeal from 1996 to 2005 and served on the Riverside Superior Court from 1993 to 1996. Previously, he practiced law for 33 years, mainly in the field of civil litigation. He represented media clients on First Amendment issues. He successfully represented The Riverside Press-Enterprise in two cases before the United States Supreme Court. Justice Ward was active in bar association activities, including the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California and the Board of Directors of the American Judicature Society. He serves on the board of the California Judges Association and has been active in California Judicial Education and Research. He was the chair of the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission, the statewide commission which evaluates candidates for judicial office. He chaired a commission that wrote new California civil jury instructions and a commission that wrote the Civil Discovery Act of 1984. He was a chapter author in a Continuing Education of the Bar book and has published approximately 80 articles on legal and nonlegal topics. Justice Ward was an adjunct professor at the University of California at Riverside. He has been involved in numerous teaching assignments including LaVerne Law School, the Witkin Judges College and assignments teaching legal subjects to students abroad. He has been active in the creation of the Inland Empire, California, Justice Center. In 2003 he was named California Jurist of the Year by the California Judicial Council.
Jamison Wilcox – Associate Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University School of Law
Jamison Wilcox has long tried to convince the bench and bar to make jury instructions understandable. He is the author of an article intended to show that using plain language in jury instructions is not unreasonably difficult, The Craft of Drafting Plain-Language Jury Instructions: A Study of a Sample Pattern Instruction on Obscenity, 59 Temple Law Quarterly 1159 (1986). For a dozen years at Quinnipiac University School of Law, Professor Wilcox has taught a course in legal drafting, in which he helps law students to laugh at legalese, including typical pattern jury instructions, and to improve typical lawyer-drafted passages &emdash; unfortunately an easier task than it should be. Before going into teaching, Professor Wilcox served as a federal district court law clerk in New Jersey and engaged in litigation practice with two large firms in New York, New York. He is a graduate of Amherst College and Columbia Law School. Besides law, he likes discussing geopolitics, behavioral economics, medical physics, and other subjects, and has recently been enjoying yoga.
URLs for links on the Writing to Win symposium web site:
- Washburn University School of Law Center for Excellence in Advocacy
» http://washburnlaw.edu/centers/advocacy/ - Writing to Win Symposium Program (1 MB PDF)
» http://washburnlaw.edu/centers/advocacy/writingtowin/2008writingtowinprogram.pdf - Directions and Maps
» http://washburnlaw.edu/directions/ - Directions to Capitol Plaza Hotel and Brown NHS
» http://washburnlaw.edu/centers/advocacy/writingtowin/directionsandmaps.php - Directions from Wanamaker Road hotels to Washburn Law
» http://washburnlaw.edu/centers/advocacy/writingtowin/directionswanamakertolaw.php - Major Topeka Streets and Attractions
» http://washburnlaw.edu/centers/advocacy/writingtowin/2007topekavisitorsmap.pdf - Topeka Restaurant Guide
» http://washburnlaw.edu/centers/advocacy/writingtowin/restaurantguide200710.pdf - Lodging
- Capitol Plaza Hotel
» http://www.capitolplazahoteltopeka.com/ - Topeka Courtyard by Marriott
» http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/foecy-courtyard-topeka/ - Holiday Inn Express
» http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/ex/1/en/hotel/foeks - Fairfield Inn
» http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/foeto-fairfield-inn-topeka/ - Comfort Inn
» http://www.choicehotels.com/ires/en-us/html/HotelInfo?hotel=KS020 - Days Inn of Topeka
» http://www.daysinn.com/DaysInn/control/Booking/property_info?propertyId=05250&brandInfo=DI
- Capitol Plaza Hotel
- Contact Donna Vilander with Questions
» http://washburnlaw.edu/contactus/?who=vilander.donna - 2007 Writing to Win Symposium
» http://washburnlaw.edu/news/2007/2007-03writingtowin.php
