University of Arkansas at Little Rock
University of Arkansas at Little Rock: UALR Bowen Law RepositoryNot a member yet
1877 research outputs found
Sort by
Constitutional Law—Mitigating Jury Influence by Social Media Obsessions and the Trial by TikTok
Get PDF
Corporate Law—An Introduction to Digital Assets and a Summary of the 2022 Amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code
Get PDFDo the Community a Service and Look into Community Service Sentencing in Arkansas at the District Court Level
Get PDFHow to Grade Law Students Taking “Paper Classes” Given Student Access to Artificial Intelligence Assistance: The Experience from One Class
Get PDFConstitutional Law—Librarians Are Not Babysitters: Enacting Legislation to Curtail Unconstitutional Book Bans
Get PDFIntimate Partner Violence and Family Dispute Resolution – Coercion, Capacity, and Control
Get PDFIntimate partner violence (IPV) is one of the most complex issues that family dispute resolution (FDR) professionals encounter. Over one-third of women and one-quarter of men in the United States have experienced physical violence, rape, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011), and a majority of separation- and divorce-related cases involve IPV allegations (Ballard et al., 2011; Beck et al., 2010; Belzer, 2003). IPV often escalates, and is most dangerous, during and after separation and creates unique challenges for mediation and other collaborative processes (Beck & Raghaven, 2010; Kelly & Johnson, 2008). Therefore, all FDR professionals (including mediators, lawyers, judges, evaluators, parenting coordinators, and others) should educate themselves about IPV and its implications. They need to know how to discuss IPV with their client and how, if it has been an issue in their relationship, it might hinder their client’s ability to participate in certain FDR processes or to reach an effective resolution.
IPV advocates have long contended that resolving disputes in a relationship based on violence and coercion requires the oversight and accountability of court proceedings (Grillo, 1991) and that mediation and other FDR processes based on collaboration and consensus may be unsafe, unfair, and ineffective for a survivor (Campbell, 2017; Putz et al., 2012; Tischler et al., 2004). Others suggest courts are ineffective in addressing IPV issues and that litigation, too, may result in revictimization (Goodmark, 2004; Nonomura et al., 2021). While there is no ideal process for cases involving IPV, FDR can be successful when the service providers (1) are well-trained, experienced and knowledgeable about IPV; (2) account for their clients’ present and future safely and power dynamics; (3) understand how to empower survivors; (4) focus parties toward an interest-based resolution; and (5) ensure the parties make an informed choice to participate in the process (Cross et al., 2018; Emery et al., 2005). Since the early 1990s, there have been significant improvements in the way FDR professionals and IPV advocates address these cases, yet what is best for families impacted by IPV remains complicated.
In all IPV-impacted cases, professionals must consider specialized support, interventions, and safeguards to assure a safe, fair, and effective process (Davis et al., 2019). Coercive controlling IPV, in particular, creates the most vexing challenges, especially in mediation. A facilitative mediation process encourages parents to engage with one another to consensually determine a parenting plan. But the dynamics of a coercive controlling relationship are about power and control, not about self-determination or consensus. Whenever IPV is identified, mediators must prioritize safety and look for the presence and echoes of coercive control that will impact the parties\u27 abilities to discuss their future arrangements in a truly cooperative manner (Frederick, 2008; Jaffe, 2022).
This chapter begins with an overview and definition of IPV and a brief discussion of the history of IPV within the context of mediation. It describes the importance of screening parties early and often for their capacity to effectively participate and highlights some contemporary screening protocols. It explains the complexities of recommending and using mediation and other collaborative FDR processes in cases involving IPV, discussing techniques and safeguards for families who opt to proceed. Because IPV is a complicating factor throughout FDR processes, including evaluative processes such as arbitration and litigation, it emphasizes the need for mandatory training and continuing education for all FDR professionals. While other FDR processes will be briefly addressed, this chapter will focus on the research and practice in mediation, where IPV has historically been the central focus of debate and of concern
Law as a Liberal Art
Get PDFLaw is a liberal art. Unfortunately, this fact is often forgotten by legal educators, legal practitioners, and citizens. This collective amnesia does not just pose a problem of proper academic categorization. Our inattention to law’s character as a liberal art of law has a profound effect on the full realization of the rule of law in contemporary constitutional democracies. Reclaiming law as a liberal art is critically important, and this effort should be at the center of our approach to legal education.
In this short essay, I begin by providing a brief overview of what I mean by saying that law is a liberal art. Then, I contrast my position with competing views of law that currently hold sway in the academy. Next, I offer a cautionary tale about the risk of overly intellectualizing one’s commitment to treat law as a liberal art. Finally, I conclude by urging the importance of recognizing law as a liberal art to gird our pedagogical approaches to teaching our students
Property and Energy Law—Pay to Play: The Effect of the Brine Conservation Act’s Statutory “In-Lieu” Royalty Provision on the Long-Term Economic Viability of Arkansas’s Brine-Lithium Industry
Get PDFAn Empirical Study of the Relationship Between Metacognitive Skills, Performance in a Bar Prep Course and Bar Passage
Get PDFThis article builds on our prior research about metacognition and its importance for law students’ learning. We hypothesized that given our past findings about the relationship between metacognition and academic performance during the first year of law school, it was possible that metacognition might also play an important role in success with a third-year bar preparation course and/or on the bar exam.
Our current study documents law students’ metacognitive skills during a final-semester bar prep course and examines the relationship between those students’ metacognitive skills and performance in the course and bar passage. We found that students are capable of gaining metacognitive knowledge and regulation skills during law school and even as late as the last semester of law school. We also found evidence that instruction and prompts to practice metacognitive regulation during the first year of law school had a long-term impact on students’ continued use of those skills in their final semester. This evidence is important because we also found, as we have in prior studies, that students’ success in a final-semester 3L bar preparation course, as well as their cumulative law school GPA, is associated with their level of metacognitive knowledge and regulation skills. While we did not find evidence of a direct relationship between metacognitive skills and bar passage, there was a relationship between bar passage and both course performance and cumulative GPA. Accordingly, we contend that metacognitive skills are an indirect support of bar passage given that they contribute to academic success, which in turn supports success on the bar exam. We conclude that, based on the relationship between metacognitive skills, academic success in law school, and bar passage, law schools have an ethical obligation to support law faculty in explicitly and intentionally incorporating metacognitive skills instruction into the law curriculum