Just over 50 years ago, byu Law School opened its doors in a rented private school in Provo, Utah. Today byu Law is a global law school that is producing leaders for the benefit of the world. At byu Law, global leadership development comes in many forms.
Since the 1980s, byu Law has offered an llm degree for foreign lawyers. Unlike many llm programs, the byu Law llm is not designed as a source of revenue nor a path to US practice. Instead, through the generosity of donors, the llm program supports students who could not otherwise afford a US legal education and who intend to return to their own countries as leaders in their communities, churches, and legal systems. The Law School has graduated llm students from approximately 50 countries and is expanding its program. For the first time, this year’s llm program includes students from Liberia, the Philippines, Tanzania, and the West Bank. These llm students infuse a global perspective into classes as they study alongside their JD peers.
Rou ghly three-fourths of byu Law students speak at least one foreign language—German, Mandarin, Spanish, Tagalog, and more. Many have spent time living outside the United States. Building on this experience, the Law School provides opportunities to further develop a global mindset and pursue international education and career paths. Through the Global Law Seminar, byu students spend a semester in a foreign externship, working in areas such as human rights, international corporate transactions, and rule of law. They work in cities across the globe, including Berlin, Dubai, Geneva, London, Mexico City, São Paulo, Seoul, Singapore, and The Hague.
The Law School’s Global Business Law Program, which involves both faculty and students, shapes law and policy in entrepreneurship, corporate governance and transactions, and private markets through cutting-edge conferences that bring together leading scholars, judges, practitioners, and policymakers.
The new Global Leadership Lab (gll) offers students a semester-long course in an area of faculty expertise, including refugee law, fiduciary duty, or nonprofits. Students then travel abroad to meet with global leaders. This year students will travel to London and Oxford, meeting with judges, lawyers, business leaders, and professors. As part of the experience, students complete a service project as they cultivate Christlike leadership.
One particular course—International Law, Global Leadership, and the Middle East Conflict—exposes students to the history, challenges, and perspectives surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Students travel to the Middle East to gain firsthand experience and meet with leaders on both sides of the conflict, developing skills as peacemakers.
Students likewise work to advance international human rights. byu Law School is home to the International Center for Law and Religion Studies (iclrs), the world’s leading academic institution on freedom of religion or belief. The Law School has welcomed more than 1,400 government, academic, and religious leaders from 138 countries to the iclrs’s annual symposium. With interpretation provided in many languages, the Law School becomes a mini United Nations as scholars, government officials, and religious leaders share perspectives on religious freedom worldwide. Using their language skills, students host and learn from symposium delegates as well as participate in the iclrs’s extensive international activities, with a goal to secure the blessing of religious freedom for everyone everywhere.
byu Law also supports the efforts of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society ( jrcls) to advance religious freedom, promote the rule of law, and provide legal representation for vulnerable populations. A professional organization for lawyers of faith, jrcls boasts more than 200 chapters worldwide and is increasing its membership across the globe.
In all of this, byu Law prioritizes the development of both capacity and character. As our mission statement declares, “we seek to be and develop people of integrity who combine faith and intellect in lifelong service to God and neighbor.” Through the efforts of the Law School and its alumni, that service comes in many forms and extends far beyond Provo, Utah. The impact and influence of byu Law is truly global.
david h. moore Dean, byu Law School
DEAN'S MESSAGE
BY PAUL CARRESE
professor , School of Civic and Economic
Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University senior fellow, Jack Miller Center
appy Constitution Day to all of us. We should be grateful that in 2004, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia proposed legislation to establish Constitution Day.
After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks there was a renewal of patriotism and of America’s common civic culture, but by 2004 there was fracturing of our civic culture, coupled with continuing steep decline in basic civic knowledge among many Americans, and a decline in commitment to basic civic principles across all age groups—but especially among younger Americans. This picture has only grown worse over the past two decades.
The year Constitution Day was established, I was a political science professor at the US Air Force Academy; civilian faculty like me with no prior military service referred to ourselves as Athenians in Sparta. I had been hired to teach and think about civics: to prepare future military officers for informed and committed American citizenship. They needed a higher understanding of civics given the oath they take to the Constitution. In 2005 the dean tasked me with organizing the Academy’s first annual Constitution Day lecture. Because the dean was a general, of course I agreed.
I l earned a great deal from my military colleagues, from the cadets, and from the institutions and culture of the US military about the meaning of America, about our constitutional order and civic culture, and about civic education. It is indeed significant that all American officers take an oath to the Constitution—not to the president, to Congress, or to the military chain of command. This informs the longstanding view within the military of the need to require a liberal arts academic core at the service academies. I would describe this curriculum as a blending of classical liberal arts education in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences with an American civic education. This package is necessary for producing capable citizens and leaders. This is the educational blend I tried to bring to Arizona State University in 2016 when I was recruited to restore space in a public university for higher civics by founding the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership.
PRIORITIZING CIVIC KNOWLEDGE AND VIRTUES
My message today is for all of us as citizens or aspiring citizens: In order for us to be competent, serious, and committed citizens of the American democratic republic, we must understand our American political history and the fundamental civic principles, ideals, and debates of our constitutional order. We must study and begin to practice, from elementary school through college, several indispensable civic virtues. As adults we must continue learning and reinforce our commitment to these civic virtues.
This is because the US Constitution presupposes several civic virtues, although it does not specify them, and if we extend our constitutional founding from 1787 to 1791 with the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the presence of these implied and called-for civic virtues is even more evident. The First Amendment, for example, protects the right of free speech and the right of religious liberty; both presuppose a pluralism of ideas, viewpoints, and philosophies about politics and about religion. For such pluralism to work, yielding a diversity of views but not a disintegration of the civic order across a large federal republic, both the everyday citizens and the leaders in government and public life will need certain habits and dispositions—indeed, virtues. It is painfully obvious today, as we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, that a great many Americans don’t have such civic knowledge and such civic virtues. While civic virtues are needed among a citizenry that must self-govern under such a complex political order, the Constitution, even as amended, does not empower the federal government to undertake the civic education of citizens to ensure proper operation of and our civic flourishing under this order. The one exception is professional military education, and that has a national security rationale. America’s perpetual challenge, therefore, is that our national motto of E pluribus unum applies not just to the 13 republics and the later states that come together to form the federal union but also to the pluralism among our American citizenry.
This article is adapted from remarks delivered on Constitution Day to the byu Wheatley Institute on September 19, 2024.
Over the three centuries since 1776, we have become the most ethnically, religiously, and philosophically diverse republic in known history. How will we meet the aim delineated in the Constitution’s preamble to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”1 if we don’t have some minimal degree of common education in what those words mean? If we don’t have some parameters or boundaries for disagreement about what those words mean, how can we live up to them? I ask this as the 2024 US presidential campaign has seen two assassination attempts within two months against one of the two main candidates. And of course, violent language and violence itself come from both the right and the left today. It is regrettable that not only is ignorant discourse routine in American politics but now demonizing and violence are also routine.
As educators, leading citizens, and all concerned citizens of various political leanings, our challenge is to reprioritize: first, to require civic education—fundamental American historical, constitutional, and civic knowledge—and second, to rediscover and prioritize education in and experience of several civic virtues. The three most important such virtues are civil disagreement, civic friendship across divergent political and philosophical views, and a reflective patriotism—arguably the root civic virtue, combining love and gratitude for our country with a disposition to argue about and question our distinctive American political order, given that it rests on ideas and ideals about justice.
REKINDLING PATRIOTISM
Just to further depress you I should say a bit more about the alarming state of American civic knowledge and of our disintegrating civic order. Actually, I say this to justify the provocation I have just offered: that professors should care about something they now mostly deem so unacademic, so unserious, as patriotism or civic education more broadly. For those with eyes to see,2 evidence of our angry polarization and civic decay is abundant. For professors, this civic decline was amplified this past year on our campuses with protests, occupations, and violence, including open praise of terrorism and obvious acts of anti-Semitism and threatening speech. We also see a continuing, steady fall in public confidence about most American institutions and professions. All save the military, first responders, and small businesses now are persistently disdained. Even higher education is deeply distrusted.
Fur ther, the surveys and statistics measuring widespread deficits of civic knowledge among Americans of all ages, which have delivered bad news for decades, continue to document our civic decay. Scores for eighth graders in civics and US history continue to decline; in 2022, only 22 percent reached proficiency in civics, and only 13 percent reached proficiency in US history.3 The American Council of Trustees and Alumni recently released a survey revealing the depths of civic ignorance among college and university students. Fewer than one-third could identify James Madison as the father of the Constitution, only a slightly higher proportion could identify John Roberts as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, and nearly two-thirds could not identify the lengths of terms for the US House and Senate. 4
Su ch civic ignorance fuels the two extremes dominating our civic decline—at one end, the rising appetite for demagoguery and political violence on both left and right, and at the other extreme, substantial civic apathy among Americans, which cedes the civic sphere to the polarized combatants. Multiple recent surveys indicate that while a great majority of older Americans find it essential to live in a democracy and are proud of America, positive responses plummet for those under 30. In 2022, Gallup reported a continued decline in the top tier of patriotism among all age groups: Only 38 percent of adults are “extremely proud” to be American, 27 percent “very proud.” Still more troubling, in the 18–34 group, a majority is not strongly patriotic; only 25 percent are “extremely proud” and 23 percent “very proud” to be American.5
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EDUCATORS
As for causes, it is arguable that higher education and relevant disciplines such as political science (my own) and history no longer encourage such civic spirit, based on the premise that teaching or promoting it is akin to jingoism and xenophobia and is thus unacademic. The dominant view among professors dedicated primarily to their narrow disciplinary definitions of expertise is that patriotism is a private choice for students and that building the foundations for it is a task for K–12 schools, not higher education—even public universities, many of which were founded beginning in the 18th century to educate leading citizens of the United States. Gallup’s recent findings reveal the effects of the skepticism in higher education (leaning to cynicism or even hostility for some professors) about patriotism and America: Only 33 percent of college graduates reported being “extremely proud” to be an American. The percentage for those with only some college education, only a high school degree, or less was substantially higher at 41 percent.6
This academic neglect or undermining of American patriotism correlates with the declining status of civics in K–12 schools and the near-disappearance of required civics in higher education over the last 75 years. Here I should emphasize that while I am an academic conservative, I raise these concerns as the only conservative coauthor of a bipartisan, national-consensus study of K–12 civics and history education released in 2021, Educating for American Democracy (ead).7
The most prominent scholars among the seven coauthors are Danielle Allen and Jane Kamensky of Harvard and Peter Levine of Tufts University. The report urges higher education to do its part in rebuilding the entire K–16 ecosystem of civics so as to shape the broader citizenry through a required, rigorous American history and civic education for all university and college students, taught by well-prepared individuals and emphasizing both civic knowledge and civic virtues. The ead report strongly endorses teaching and discussing the three civic virtues I have prioritized: civil disagreement, civic friendship, and reflective patriotism.
CAN WE CLAIM TO EDUCATE LEADERS BUT FOR THE DANGEROUS
STATE OF AMERICAN CIVIC CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP?
I should note that during the same period when we were hashing out and then releasing the ead report, two prominent higher education leaders independently confirmed this need to reprioritize civic education: Derek Bok, former Harvard president, in his 2020 book Higher Expectations: Can Colleges Teach Students What They Need to Know in the 21st Century?, and Ronald Daniels, Johns Hopkins president, in his 2021 book What Universities Owe Democracy. Daniels argues that we owe America and our students a civic education in core civic knowledge and then in civic virtues, required for all graduates. This is the least we owe to a republic that provides educators so much prosperity, freedom, security, and prominence. Daniels is exactly right; we can’t see angry polarization, political violence, civic apathy, and ignorance but then say it’s not our fault, not our problem. American higher education has not typically held, for more than a century, a low estimation of its prominence in and influence upon American life. Can we claim to educate leaders but disclaim responsibility for the dangerous state of American civic culture and leadership? We professors are partly to blame. So what should we do? What will we do?
CIVIL CIVIC DISAGREEMENT
To understand why a distinctly American patriotism—a reflective, considered, discursive love of country—is crucial for the two other civic virtues I have noted, we need to rediscover the challenge set for us by the 1787 Constitution and its early amendments, even before the further challenge of the new emphasis on equality enacted by the Civil War Amendments. Simply put, our very complex constitutional forms of separation of powers
and federalism implicitly call for civil disagreement about both long-term and daily political issues. They also call for civic friendship among Americans across partisan, religious, and philosophical views. Both are challenging virtues: to hear out people with whom you disagree on policy issues and to share a basic civic bond and regard for Americans of divergent first principles or party views.
Why do this? It is easier to shut our ears, speak louder—or these days tweet and post more outrageously—to demonize those ignorant, malevolent, and un-American people who disagree with our team or tribe. The framers of our Constitution understood the strengths and weaknesses of human nature and the challenges of liberty and equal political rights better than those who influence current trends in political science and history do. The framers knew that free people always disagree and that the more democratic and egalitarian the political order, the more likely it would be to descend into faction, demagoguery, disorder, and ultimately disintegration. The separation of powers in the federal government and the distribution of powers between state and federal governments, along with the First Amendment protections of speech and other modes of civic discourse, all presuppose a citizenry that will constantly disagree and argue yet maintain a civil order.
S o, again, why be civil in disagreement? Why be civic friends across such deep differences? Why work within our difficult constitutional order? The abstract ideas or aims that sustain our civic order aren’t enough to overcome our passions. Reflective patriotism is the root civic virtue because it motivates us to learn and practice the other civic virtues. It motivates us to study American civic knowledge in the first place. Further, we should note that such a patriotism is not mythology. Within the lifetimes of the older folks here, many everyday citizens and leading Americans knew how to combine love and gratitude for our country with a disposition to reasonably argue about and question our distinctive American political order.
Only if we are attached to, committed to, and grateful for our American constitutional order will we put in the hard work to disagree constructively and to maintain civic bonds across deep differences. Nearly all the states still require the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, with differing rules on exemptions or parental consent to opt out. “I pledge allegiance . . to the Republic”—to the United States of America—“one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”8 We pledge not to democracy, nor to civic engagement, nor to activism motivated by grievances left or right, nor to transformation. Rather, we pledge to the civic knowledge and civic virtues needed to sustain our complex constitutionalism. Again, we now cannot deny the costs of neglecting the pledge and other traditional approaches to civic education, nor can we deny the costs of our failure to inculcate civic virtues to include a reflective patriotism. The costs are manifest in the extremes now dominating and nearly overwhelming our republic: the violence, the ignorance, the cocktail of apathy among many along with anger among a few on opposing poles.
AMERICA’S PRINCIPLED PRAGMATISM
The classic source for understanding America’s reflective, considered patriotism in an analytical sense is Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, based on his visit to America in 1831 and published in two volumes, in 1835 and 1840.9 I should note that contemporaneously, a young Abraham Lincoln in 1838 formulated a strikingly similar view of the kind of rational patriotism Americans once had but he feared they were losing. Lincoln, in his 1838 address to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, titled “On the Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,” diagnoses a descent into violence and lawlessness in arguments over temperance, slavery, and other moral and political issues. We will never be conquered by a foreign power, he
says, but lawlessness and the fear of deepening civil disorder might well give an opening to the Caesars and Napoleons—the ambitious demagogues—always lurking within a republic. He warns that if we can’t stop the descent into anger and disorder, our nation will “die by suicide.”10 This was Lincoln’s admonition two decades before our civil war.
But note his proposed remedy: a recommitment to civic education and to a rational, constitutionally informed patriotism. Lincoln argues that such an education is essential to replace the fading ties of blood and memory after the passing of the heroes of 1776 and anyone who personally knew them: “They were the pillars of the temple of liberty; and now that they have crumbled away, . . . [we must] supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of . . cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason.”11 And yet he closes his address by referencing George Washington, giving assurance that recommitting to rigorous civic education and tempering passions and disagreements honors Washington as he observes the nation from heaven. Lincoln further states that with pillars of reason supporting the people’s commitment to freedom, the great American republic will stand as indomitable as “the only greater institution,” the Christian church.12 In 1838, just as he would echo in his First Inaugural Address in 1861, Lincoln follows his constitutional and political arguments with appeals to the “mystic chords of memory” and “better angels of our nature.”13 Lincoln appeals to both head and heart. By the Second Inaugural Address in 1865, he is appealing equally to heart and head, to biblical faith and to civic virtue resting on it.
Though neither Tocqueville nor Lincoln knew of the other, their analyses and prescriptions about American civic culture are very similar. The Frenchman notes that the Old World patriotism is only of the heart, only sentimental for the blood and soil of the fatherland. In the New World, the pragmatic American spirit loves America, but it also moves from knowledge of founding ideals based on natural rights of individuals to realizing that self-interest can only be secured through the exercise of civic duties and self-government. For Tocqueville, as for Lincoln, the full picture sees Americans blending head and heart, rational argument and self-interest with love of country and altruistic commitment to duty. For these men, a crucial foundation for both love of country and civic altruism and thus for a healthy patriotism and civic culture is Christianity.
Early in Democracy in America, Tocqueville identifies America’s original “point of departure”—our first founding—as the Puritan blend of religion and commitment to liberty.14 But later in the work, he warns of a deep danger facing America: a fading efficacy of our religious founding. By the work’s end, Tocqueville even proposes secular and rational remedies to support religious, metaphysical belief.15
PRESERVING CHRISTIAN MORES
Educators today who agree on the basic need for improved, reprioritized civic education should consider the full complexity of what Tocqueville sees as a healthy reflective patriotism and civic culture. This will require some sober skepticism about our academic skepticism—that is, our predominant rationalism and secularism. I find in Democracy in America six elements of a reflective patriotism, each of which blend Christian and classical-medieval concepts with modern, Enlightenment ones.
First is America’s Christian point of departure, balancing the spirit of religion (the Christian ethic of love of neighbor as divinely ordained) and the spirit of liberty (of self-rule and citizenship). This is also the source of the broad American disposition to blend and balance seemingly rival or opposing principles.
The second element is a rational public spirit arising from experience of efficacy in local self-government. Americans blend love of country with each citizen’s demand and expectation that America—all governments and communities, local to state to federal— should benefit oneself and one’s family.
The third element is religion as the first political institution, with American secular law from 1776 onward implicitly incorporating it and relying on its teaching of the mores of political equality, liberty, and self-restraint—all of these grounded in metaphysical principles of right, concern for the common good, shared beliefs, and hope for the future.
The fourth element that Tocqueville discerns in our reflective patriotism is American exceptionalism, manifest in the testy pride he encountered about any criticism of America, along with professions of belief that Americans form the only enlightened, religious, and free people in history, succeeding where others failed.
The fifth element is interest well-understood, or enlightened self-interest, the American inclination to undertake duties and service not from altruism but from reasonable expectation one’s family and friends will benefit thereby. Again, Tocqueville sees deep American altruism nonetheless, thus limiting what enlightened self-interest really explains— and creating the need to reinforce the religious grounds of altruism.
Finally, the sixth element is schooling, literature, and civic culture: from homeschooling to church-run local schools to elite schooling in classic works in Greek and Latin to a culture that values poetry. Tocqueville notes that these can and should support the metaphysical and altruistic foundation of a reflective patriotism—a support that increasingly will be needed.
America’s 21st century civic decline, with failing civic knowledge and patriotism in younger cohorts and rising civic ignorance and anger, suggests Tocqueville’s prescience about corrosion of the religiously inspired mores that had sustained our reflective patriotism. But are we prepared to consider the remedies he recommended 190 years ago? Can we confront the fact that the meager civic education we currently have emphasizes only narrow versions of his fifth and sixth elements of reflective patriotism (enlightened self-interest and schooling)? Our elite culture doesn’t prioritize religious or metaphysical belief about loving and serving others as a crucial source of American civic health, nor does it emphasize federalism and local self-government or a sense of American exceptionalism.
Tocqueville observes that an enlightened self-interest in civic duty is better than what he fears Americans will succumb to: a degraded life of individualism, materialism, and soft despotism under administrative bureaucracy. He warns that our reflective patriotism will increasingly need to rely upon the first and third elements—the first American founding in the Christian-republican point of departure, and religious mores as our first political institution after 1776—if it is to survive amid the growing materialism and individualism of the modern democratic and technological era.
He therefore urges high political officials, thinkers, and other leaders to indirectly teach Christian doctrines or metaphysical beliefs in order to perpetuate America’s civic and political order. Leaders and governments must “act every day” as if they believed in “the dogma of the immortality of the soul” by “conforming scrupulously to religious morality in great affairs.” This is the only way to ensure “they are teaching citizens” to know ethical principles and stick to them in everyday matters.16 Further, in an age where “irreligion and democracy meet in an unhappy convergence, philosophers and those who govern ought constantly to apply themselves to moving back the object of human actions” by teaching citizens that “only by resisting . . . little everyday passions” will they “come to satisfy the general passion for happiness that torments them.”17
Tocqueville continues, “Governments must [give] back to [people] this taste for the future which is no longer inspired by religion and [democracy], and without saying so, they must teach citizens practically every day that wealth, renown, and power are the prizes of work; that great successes are found at the end of long-lasting desires.”18 Further, he states, such teaching and example might rekindle genuine religious belief in Americans.
Of course, any such thinking is radically different from the views predominant in America’s elite educational, media, and governing institutions today. Yet many secular academic figures will note the prescience of Tocqueville’s diagnoses of dangers facing America. We should urge them to also consider the countercultural, counter-elite remedies he suggests.
GLIMMERS OF HOPE
I’ll close with an example of one effort I made at Arizona State University to restore this metaphysical dimension to American civic education—a pocket Constitution that adds Lincoln’s 1863 Gettysburg Address and Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 “I Have a Dream” address to the Declaration and Constitution with all the amendments. For Lincoln, 1776 required a new birth of freedom under God. For King, we needed a blending of Christianity and deep patriotism toward America’s founding principles—in effect, a blending of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address with the predominantly biblical message of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural.
Is there any hope today that such a civic education, emphasizing these themes and including rigorous and Socratic discussion about these ideas, could be restored in American higher education? America and American education are in bad shape, but our situation is not hopeless. I will try to avoid both despair and naïve optimism in closing. I will say there are glimmers of hope we should build upon.
The public university reform I was asked to found at Arizona State University now has spread to a total of 13 campuses in eight states due to funded mandates from state governments or boards of regents to establish departments, colleges, or centers of civic education—most prominently at the Ohio State University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Florida, University of Texas at Austin, and Utah Valley University. Supplementing the prominent voices of Derek Bok, Ronald Daniels, and the Educating for American Democracy report, two leaders of the Stanford Civics Initiative recently warned in The New York Times that “by abandoning civics, colleges helped create the culture wars.”19 Indeed, Stanford now requires two-thirds of all first-year students to take a course on Citizenship in the 21st Century. At Johns Hopkins University, under Daniels’s leadership the snf Agora Institute for democracy studies has helped to establish a “democracy and civics” requirement for all undergraduates. The Institute for Citizens and Scholars has launched the College Presidents for Civic Preparedness initiative, noting that “higher education has a responsibility to provide students with critical civic skills and knowledge to participate effectively in [a] democracy.”20 Steven Smith of Yale argues in Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes (2021) that we should follow Tocqueville, Lincoln, and the American founders to recover an “enlightened patriotism” of both head and heart.21 Brook Manville and Josiah Ober in The Civic Bargain: How Democracy Survives (2023) urge a renewed priority for civic education as one of the seven “essential conditions of democracy . . . necessary for citizen self-governance.”22 I will also mention Richard Haass’s book The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens (2023), and Jeffrey Rosen’s book The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024) on the classical moral and civic virtues that leading American founders wrote about and practiced. Last but not at all least, Yuval Levin’s book American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again (2024) is a master class on understanding the rationale for and civic wisdom of our constitutionalism if we would only think about it, rediscover it, and try to understand and work within its plan. I wish Yuval’s book was required in every college and university—at a minimum, for every future civics, social studies, or history teacher.
The kind of civic education I saw the US Air Force Academy offer to aspiring military officers, blending head and heart, combining liberal education and American civic education, must be restored across American higher education. We know we can blend Socratic discourse and disagreement with gratitude for the American constitutional order, which makes not just free speech but education itself so widely available and so secure for so many.
I therefore close with a Socratic but patriotic question. Brigham Young University already is exceptional for its American Heritage course requirement for all undergraduates, as well as the Wheatley Institute and its Constitutional Government Initiative. But given America’s present circumstances and needs, what more should byu do for its own students, faculty, and community? What more should byu do as a model for other private universities? At stake, as Lincoln grasped, is the perpetuation of our political institutions and the truths of the Declaration. One of those truths is that to stand in defense of and take actions to preserve the rights endowed by our Creator is a matter of sacred honor.
notes
1 U.S. Const. pmbl.
2 See Matthew 13:13–17, 43.
3 See “Eighth-Grade Scores Decline in Civics and US History on the Nation’s Report Card,” National Assessment Governing Board, May 3, 2023, nagb.gov/news-and-events/news-releases/2023/eighth-grade-scores-decline-in -civics-and-us-history.html.
4 S ee “Losing America’s Memory 2.0: A Civic Literary Assessment of College Students,” American Council of Trustees and Alumni and College Pulse, July 8, 2024, goacta.org/resource/losing-americas-memory-2-0.
5 See Megan Brenan, “Record-Low 38% Extremely Proud to Be American,” Gallup, June 29, 2022, news.gallup.com /poll/394202/record-low-extremely-proud-american.aspx.
6 See Brenan, “Record-Low 38% Extremely Proud.”
7 See Educating for American Democracy: Excellence in History and Civics for All Learners, Educating for American Democracy Initiative, iCivics, March 2, 2021, educatingforamericandemocracy.org.
8 4 U.S.C. § 4 (1998) (amended 2002).
9 See Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (University of Chicago Press, 2000).
10 Abraham Lincoln, “On the Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler (Rutgers University Press, 1953), 109.
11 Lincoln, “On the Perpetuation,” 115.
12 Lincoln, “On the Perpetuation,” 115.
13 Abraham Lincoln, “First Inaugural Address, Final Version,” Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833–1916, Abraham Lincoln Papers, Library of Congress, loc.gov/item/mal0773800.
14 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 21; see also 21–34.
15 He was anticipating Robert Putnam in both Bowling Alone and the sequel book with David Campbell of Notre Dame University, American Grace, which highlights the decline in our unique combination of civic capital and religious culture. See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon and Schuster, 2000); see also Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (Simon and Schuster, 2010).
16 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 448.
17 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 451.
18 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 451.
19 Debra Satz and Dan Edelstein, “By Abandoning Civics, Colleges Helped Create the Culture Wars,” The New York Times, September 3, 2023, nytimes.com/2023/09/03/opinion/colleges-civics-core-curriculum-culture-wars.html.
20 R ajiv Vinnakota in “61 College Presidents Unite to Advance Civic Preparedness and Uphold Free Expressions on US Campuses,” Institute for Citizens and Scholars, April 18, 2024, citizensandscholars .org/61-college-presidents-unite-to-advance-civic-preparedness-and-uphold-free-expression-on-u-s-campuses.
21 Steven B. Smith, Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes (Yale University Press, 2021), 7.
22 Philip Brook Manville and Josiah Ober, The Civic Bargain: How Democracy Survives (Princeton University Press, 2023), 4–5.
TO MY FRIENDS IN THE
BY LUCY WILLIAMS associate professor at byu law
Iam so happy to be with you on this very happy day. And I am so honored that you wanted me to speak, because I know what an important day this is! If you have taken courses on the First Amendment or freedom of religion, you know that the Supreme Court is obsessed with two things: high school football games and graduation ceremonies. In fact, in a school prayer case called Lee v. Weisman, the Court said, “Everyone knows that in our society and in our culture . . . graduation is one of life’s most significant occasions.”1 There the Court was talking about high school graduation, so imagine how much more true that is for your graduation today!
PHOTOGRAPHY BY BRADLEY SLADE
I want you to know how proud I am of you. When I met you three years ago, you were anxious, antsy 1Ls who didn’t know the difference between a plaintiff and a defendant. You spent way too much time preparing for class and briefing every case you read, and you didn’t spend nearly enough time outlining or reviewing after class. You lived in fear of being coldcalled, and you were desperate for clear holdings and clear rules. Fast-forward to now, and you have learned to expect—embrace, even—ambiguities in the law. You are confident in what you know and humble about what you don’t know. And you’ve definitely stopped preparing too much before class, because most of you have stopped reading for class altogether! You’ve come such a long way.
This morning in the university commencement ceremony, President Reese officially conferred on you your juris doctor degrees. And in just a few moments, you will walk across this stage, collect your diplomas, and become the 50th class to graduate from the J. Reuben Clark Law School. When that happens, your law school journey will officially come to an end. And I will stop being your professor. I will no longer have any claim to or responsibility for your legal education, and you won’t have any further obligation to listen to anything I say. S o, I have only 10 more minutes as your professor. I’m going to use those 10 minutes to share three final lessons that I hope you will always remember. You can forget everything else I’ve ever taught or told you, but I really hope you will not forget these three final takeaways.
YOU HAVEN’T MADE IT HERE ALONE
First, I hope you will always remember that you have accomplished something incredible, but you have not done it on your own. I know that you have all worked very, very hard to be sitting in this room today. But each of you also represents an entire network of people—seen and unseen—who have helped you get to this point. You have families and loved ones who have cheered for you and bragged about you, even though you’ve been a stress case and have skipped important family events to spend a few extra hours in the library. You have spouses and partners who have put their own careers and ambitions on hold to support you in yours. And you have friends who have (hopefully) stayed your friends even though you’ve lost your ability to think or talk about anything but law school. You have classmates who have patiently bit their tongues as you’ve made four, five, or six comments right in a row in class. They have cheered for you (quite sincerely, I think) when you got the job you wanted. And they have studied with you even though they knew there was a chance you would outperform them on the exam.
Your professors have worked hard to ensure that your time in class has been rewarding and meaningful. You have also had dozens of Law School staff, including many who you have never interacted with and may not know by name, who have spent the last three years coordinating your job interviews and networking events, making sure that you have enough credits to graduate, ensuring that your classrooms are not double-booked, and ordering food for all of your events.
More importantly, you are here because of faithful tithe payers around the world whose consecrated contributions have subsidized your legal training. Most of those tithe payers will never graduate from this law school, and many will never even have the opportunity to see it. And yet their faithful observation of the law of the tithe has made it possible for you to obtain this top-tier legal education.
Above all, you are here because you have two Heavenly Parents and a Savior who love you, who are deeply invested in your success, who have answered your desperate finals-week prayers, and who have never stopped supporting and sustaining you on this journey.
Graduating from law school is a remarkable achievement, and I hope you are all very proud of what you have accomplished. But I also hope you never make the mistake of thinking that you did this on your own. I also hope that as you continue to achieve, as I know
This article is adapted from remarks delivered at the J. Reuben Clark Law School convocation on April 24, 2025.
ISTEN TO AND LEARN FROM THE OTHER PEOPLE IN YOUR WORLD. . . . THEY KNOW A LOT OF THINGS THAT REALLY MATTER.
SEEK REVELATION
you all will, you will be aware of the people on whom you depend for your success. There are no self-made men or self-made women in this room. At the end of the day, we all need each other, and we are all completely indebted to and dependent on God and our Savior. So please always remember that everything you achieve, you do through God’s grace. And please always remember and acknowledge the many, many people—seen and unseen, here and on the other side of the veil—who you rely on to accomplish your good work.
STAY HUMBLE; KEEP LEARNING
Second, I want to be really clear about what your law degree means—and what it does not mean. A law degree certifies that you have completed three years of rigorous study. It means you have fulfilled one of the requirements to become a licensed attorney. It means you are educated, and it means you are trained. But a law degree does not mean that you are smarter than people who have different degrees or who have no degree at all. And it certainly does not mean that you are better than them.
In a former life, I taught political philosophy classes here at byu. I often had my students read ancient Greek plays (from as early as 300 BC). You may be surprised to learn that those very old plays are full of lawyer jokes, and they often feature lawyer characters who are arrogant know-it-alls and who have more knowledge than sense. Whenever I read those plays, I’m struck with the sobering realization that we (lawyers) have been bugging people for more than 2,000 years! I think that is in part because we have a nasty tendency to think we are smarter and better than the people around us. But we really, really aren’t.
You have probably heard of Adam Grant, the organizational psychologist and Wharton professor who has written a lot of best-selling books. He posted on X, “When you only listen to the smartest person in the room, you miss out on discovering what the rest of the room is smart about.”2 Starting today, there is a good chance that you will be the most educated person in a lot of the rooms you enter. But that does not necessarily mean that you will be the smartest person in those rooms. And it certainly doesn’t mean that other people in the room are not also smart. After today, you are going to have two fancy letters after your name. But you do not have a monopoly on knowledge.
S o listen to and learn from the other people in your world, regardless of their status or their credentials or the number of windows in their office. Learn from your assistants, your ward members, and the people who help you at the airport or the grocery store or the car shop. Those people know a lot of things that you don’t know, and they know a lot of things that really matter. Be kind to them, learn from them, and rejoice in the knowledge that they too are important members of the body of Christ. I know that if you do this, your life will be enriched by all sorts of good people, and you will be happier and more fulfilled.
The last lesson that I hope you’ll always remember is one big rule with a few subrules. (I’m trusting that you know how to handle rules and sub-rules because you are now lawyers-ish.) The big rule is this: Seek personal revelation about your professional lives. I say this because you are about to enter a legal field that is unsettled. The entire profession—from lawyers and law firms to judges and courts—is currently grappling with new and complicated challenges. Every day, members of our profession have to make difficult decisions about how to be true to the ideals, aspirations, and responsibilities of the profession. And those decisions have real and significant consequences—professionally, politically, and personally.
When you become licensed attorneys in a few short weeks, you too will have to make important choices about what you want your practice to look like, which clients you want to represent, and what type of lawyer you want to be. I encourage you to seek the Lord’s guidance as you make these decisions—and not just the big decisions about what job path to pursue but also the daily choices about how to be lawyers with integrity. I believe that if you seek the Lord’s input, He will inspire your professional decisions so that they reflect His values and His will.
As you begin seeking personal revelation about your careers, I also want to remind you of a few core beliefs that I know we all share. (These are the sub-rules.)
Sub-rule number one: We believe that the Constitution of the United States was inspired and established by God. We also believe that the Constitution contains and articulates divine principles, including popular sovereignty, separation of powers, and rule of law. I know this because prophets and Church leaders have said so many times. In fact, just four years ago, President Dallin H. Oaks gave a powerful general conference talk about what he describes as the “divine inspiration in . . the entire Constitution.”3 I also know this because I teach constitutional law, and believe it or not, I have felt the Spirit as we’ve studied the Constitution together.
. . . HE LORD WILL HELP YOU PERFORM YOUR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN WAYS THAT BUILD HIS KINGDOM AND REFLECT HIS WILL.
In the general conference talk I just referenced, President Oaks taught that “Latter-day Saints [have] a unique responsibility to uphold and defend the United States Constitution.”4 As lawyers, you will also have a professional obligation to support the Constitution and the laws that flow from it—in fact, you will take an oath to do so. I hope that you will take these spiritual and professional obligations seriously. And I hope that, wherever your practice takes you, you will use your legal training to “uphold and defend” the great principles of our divinely inspired Constitution.
Sub-rule number two: We believe in a Lord and Savior who advocated for unpopular causes and unpopular people—“the least of these.”5 I know this because I’ve read stories about the Savior’s life from the New Testament. This truth is also echoed in the byu Law mission statement, which declares, “We are committed to the teachings of Jesus Christ and honor His many roles, including . . advocate.”6 I hope you will continue to honor and emulate Christ’s role as advocate for “the least of these” even when you have left this building.
Sub-rule number three comes from Doctrine and Covenants 134: “[God] holds men accountable for their acts in relation to [governments], both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.”7 I believe this is true for everyone, but I think it is particularly true for lawyers, because you are specifically trained to think about and study law, and because everything you do in your legal jobs will involve some engagement with government, law, and policy. In other words, there is going to be some serious overlap between your job responsibilities and your Doctrine and Covenants 134 responsibilities. So do your jobs thoughtfully. Be true and faithful. And always, always involve the Lord.
I hop e you will anchor yourselves to these truths (sub-rules) as you begin your legal careers and start forming your professional identities. If you do, and if you seek revelation and guidance, I know the Lord will help you perform your professional responsibilities in ways that build His kingdom and reflect His will.
Those are my three final lessons. I hope you will always remember them. Remember that you need other people, and you especially need our God and our Savior. Acknowledge that They helped you get to this point, and acknowledge and thank Them as you continue to achieve. Listen to, respect, and learn from everyone, especially those who do not share your elite academic credentials. And always involve the Lord as you make professional decisions, big and small.
I’m proud of you. I’m grateful for you. I’m going to miss the happy spirit that you have brought to the Law School. And I hope that the next time I run into you—at Costco, or at the airport, or wherever—I will find you being kind to people and using your byu law degree to make the world a better place.
Congratulations, class of 2025.
notes
1 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 595 (1992).
2 Adam Grant (@AdamMGrant), Twitter (now X), July 17, 2021, x.com/AdamMGrant/status /1416429480013295618.
3 Dallin H. Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Liahona, May 2021, 107.
6 “Mission Statement,” byu Law School, law.byu .edu/explore/byu-law-mission-statement.
7 Doctrine and Covenants 134:1.
D. TENNEY, ’03
BY JUDGE RYAN
UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
Buzelli
PEACEFUL LIFE PEACEFUL STATE
IN A
Illustrations by Chris
There’s an old saying that you can’t go home again. But sometimes we can, even if just for an hour or two. byu Law School is such a special space, and I’m grateful for the invitation to be here with you today.
With my remarks, I’m going to talk about a subject that I’ve thought a lot about over the last few years since becoming a judge: the importance of civility within our legal system. I’d like to begin by reading one of my favorite quotes about the importance of lawyers. It’s from John W. Davis. Davis was a prominent lawyer in the early 1900s. Among other accomplishments, he founded one of our nation’s most important law firms and served for a time as the US solicitor general. I like the quote so much that my wife had it framed for me as a gift, and it has been on my office wall at every job that I’ve had since law school.
Speaking of lawyers, Davis said:
This article is adapted from remarks delivered in a forum address at byu Law School on January 22, 2025.
True, we build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. . . There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men’s burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men [and women] in a peaceful state.1
That last line has always resonated with me: “We make possible the peaceful life . . in a peaceful state.” It’s such a wonderful and important sentiment. And one of the things that’s striking to me about it is that it’s a little bit paradoxical. After all, we don’t normally think of the legal system as being one that promotes peace. In fact, I think most of us instinctively think about it in contrary terms.
NOT BULLDOGS BUT PEACEMAKERS
Think about how lawyers are commonly portrayed in film and television. The lawyers we see there are often loud and brash and combative, aren’t they? And this isn’t just how Hollywood portrays us. We often describe ourselves in similar terms. How often have you seen a billboard along the freeway in which lawyers advertise themselves as being something akin to “bulldogs” who will “fight” for their clients? Think about the image of a bulldog alongside the meaning of the word fight. Think about what it is that these words are trying to connote. We sometimes describe ourselves in similar terms. There is language in cases going back hundreds of years that talks about how lawyers are participating in an adversarial system. And it is indeed adversarial by design. Our system is built on the notion that through a series of targeted confrontations, each side can highlight both its strengths and the other side’s weaknesses. It’s this process of confrontation that allows a judge or jury to decide which side should really win.
But this illustrates the dilemma: If this is an adversarial system, then how can it also be a system that, as Davis suggests, can make possible the peaceful life of men and women in a peaceful state?
I think the answer lies in what it is we offer to the public. There are so many things that go wrong in people’s lives. A lot of them are small, but a lot of them are really big. Marriages fall apart, contracts get broken, people get robbed or hurt or killed. And when these things happen,
there must be some way for people to resolve their disputes. There must be a way for people to get some measure of justice.
One way for this to happen would be for people to take problems into their own hands, Wild West style. Someone takes your property, you go take it back. Someone hurts you, you go hurt them back. You create your own justice. But as society has evolved, we’ve tried to find a better way to handle our disputes. In modern times, we’ve done so by turning to the courts. Courts offer the public a forum for resolving disputes in a peaceful and orderly way. We tell members of the public that when they come to court, they can be represented by trained counsel, their case will be heard by an impartial jury and a neutral judge, and everyone involved will be bound by the rule of law. So if lawyers and judges alike do our jobs well enough, we can collectively create a system that proves worthy of the public’s trust. And if that happens, members of the public will know that they can not only bring their serious disputes to the courts, but that they can leave them with the courts too. That’s the goal. That’s how we can facilitate peace.
THE BOUNDS OF ZEALOUS REPRESENTATION
During law school, students are required to take a course in professional responsibility, and ethics are later tested on the bar exam. One of the rules of professional conduct that we’re all familiar with says that lawyers have an obligation to zealously represent their clients.
What does it mean to zealously represent a client? I read an interesting discussion about this a few years ago on Twitter. For a time, there was this wonderful community of appellate lawyers and judges who congregated around the hashtag #AppellateTwitter. They would often exchange practice tips and pointers. Every now and then, somebody would throw out a question that would get debated for a few days or weeks. During one of these discussions, someone posed the question of what it really means to zealously represent a client. A few of the responses offered something of a baseline—namely, that the duty of zealous advocacy suggests that a lawyer should always try to maximize the client’s interests.
But then someone posed a follow-up question that was essentially this: If that’s a lawyer’s ethical obligation, does that mean that a lawyer is ethically required to press every advantage, both strategic and personal, even at the expense of opposing counsel’s interests? In other words, are lawyers ever ethically allowed to pull punches?
The ensuing exchange was fascinating and multifaceted. One of the things that came up in the responses, for example, had to do with continuances. We’ve all heard stories about attorneys, particularly from big or well-resourced firms, who simply won’t agree to any continuance request from the other side. And on some level, it’s not hard to see the potential advantage that could be gained by such an approach. By not agreeing to the other side’s request for a continuance or extension of time, a lawyer would inconvenience opposing counsel and hurt their ability to represent their client—and, by extension, help the lawyer’s own client.
There are other related variants of this same dynamic. Suppose a lawyer hears through the grapevine that opposing counsel will soon be out of town on vacation or is having surgery.
At that point, perhaps the lawyer should strategically time a particular motion so that the response will be due at the most inconvenient time for opposing counsel. Again, by doing so, the lawyer would in theory be maximizing the client’s interests by hurting the opposition. So returning to the question: If the duty of zealous representation means that a lawyer should maximize perceived advantages, are such tactics ethically appropriate, if not outright encouraged?
Thankfu lly, those of us who practice in Utah have an answer to such questions. The answer is no. In addition to the Rules of Professional Practice, the Utah Supreme Court has promulgated the Standards of Professionalism and Civility. Here’s how the preamble to the standards begins: “A lawyer’s conduct should be characterized at all times by personal courtesy and professional integrity in the fullest sense of those terms.” 2 The preamble continues, “Lawyers should exhibit courtesy, candor[,] and cooperation in dealing with the public and participating in the legal system.” The
standards require lawyers to avoid conduct that may be characterized as uncivil or abrasive. And the standards even address the particular problem of continuances that I just mentioned, specifying that “[l]awyers shall agree to reasonable requests for extensions of time” and that lawyers shall not serve papers “at a time calculated to unfairly limit other counsel’s opportunity to respond or to take other unfair advantage of an opponent.”3
ZEALOUS YET CIVIL ADVOCACY—SOME EXAMPLES
But this raises something of a question. Is it really possible for a lawyer to both (1) zealously represent the lawyer’s client in an adversarial proceeding and yet (2) act with “personal courtesy” and avoid “uncivil or abrasive” behavior toward opposing counsel as contemplated in the Utah standards?
I believe that it is. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously stated, “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.”4 I think the best way for me to illustrate how both things can be true is to share with you a few of the experiences that I’ve had in my career that have helped me see how this can play out.
The first experience actually isn’t mine—rather, it was something that happened to one of my professors here at the Law School. During my 3L year, I took family law. One day in class, our professor shared an experience he’d recently had. He said that, in addition to his teaching, he’d recently represented a friend in a divorce trial. One evening in the middle of the trial, he went to the temple. While he was inside, he bumped into the opposing counsel from the divorce case. Our professor paused his story at this point to make sure we knew that he had filed every motion he thought he had a good faith basis for filing and that he had made every argument in his client’s favor he knew to make. He made sure we knew that he had tried his best to represent his client’s interests. But in that moment in the temple, he said he was happy to realize that, through it all, he and opposing counsel had both managed to keep things professional and civil between them—enough so, in fact, that when they bumped into each other in the temple, of all places, they didn’t have any personal rancor.
I’ve thought about that story a lot over the years. Honestly, it’s one of the things from my law school experience that has stayed with me the longest. One of the things that’s striking to me about it is that it directly contradicts any notion we might have, whether it be from the media or elsewhere, that lawyers somehow have to make things personal between them.
Again, in a moment like the one my professor described, there is confrontation involved. There’s an underlying lawsuit, which is by definition confrontational, and the clients themselves probably aren’t huge fans of each other. But the point I drew from the story was that the opposing attorneys themselves can do their jobs, file their motions, make their arguments, and yet still be respectful and even courteous to each other throughout. It is possible.
This leads to my second story. This experience happened to me early in my career, and it was career-altering for me. After clerking for a year at the Utah Court of Appeals, I worked for a few years at a civil litigation firm here in Provo. Our firm served as local counsel for a mass-tort plaintiffs’ firm out of Texas, and we would often handle their Utah-specific motions. During my second or third year at the firm, we became involved in a case that had about 30 defendants (most of them companies or institutions of some sort). There was a lot of money on the line, and each of the defendants hired separate counsel. The defendants all filed motions to dismiss, those motions were consolidated, and I was assigned to write the plaintiffs’ response. When the motions were collectively scheduled for argument, the firm sent me to argue it. At first I thought it was an honor. But when I arrived at the courthouse, I realized that I had been sent as something of a sacrificial lamb.
The c ourtroom was full. It seemed like each defendant had sent multiple lawyers; the roll call alone took forever. To top it all off, we were in front of a judge who was particularly known for having a very aggressive court demeanor. When I got to the podium, the judge lived up to her reputation. It’s been 20 years, and I’m hardly a disinterested narrator, so take my memories with something of a grain of salt. But I remember the judge raising her voice and being very sarcastic. I remember several exchanges where it
felt to me like she was playing to the crowd, and I remember a few in which it seemed like she was actively trying to embarrass me. My time at the podium was excruciating. The judge ruled against us from the bench, and when the hearing finally ended, I made a beeline for the elevator. Before I could complete my escape, one of the defense attorneys made his way to me in the hallway and pulled me aside. He told me not to worry too much about what had just happened. He said something like, “Look, it happens to all of us.” He then complimented me on both my written work and on how I’d handled myself during the difficult argument. He made a point of telling me that he thought I was a good lawyer. And then he walked away.
The moment was revelatory for me. I didn’t know that you could do that—that you could go up to opposing counsel in the hallway of a courthouse after they had just lost and go out of your way to compliment them and be kind to them. Where was that in the movies? It certainly didn’t fit the image I may have had in my mind about how combative lawyers are supposed to be with each other. Aren’t we supposed to be adversaries and bulldogs, the kinds of people who press every advantage, even a personal one, even if it comes at the expense of opposing counsel?
This experience showed me in real time that another way was possible. Now, to again make a similar point to the one I made earlier: This lawyer had just represented his own client well. He had filed his motion and asked the court to dismiss my client’s case. And he had won. But in that moment, he also recognized that he could be courteous and kind to the young lawyer on the other side who had just had a really bad experience. He recognized that his professional obligations were not incompatible with such an approach.
My third story happened a little over a decade later. In 2017, I was one of three appellate prosecutors working at the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah. There aren’t a lot of people who do federal criminal appeals, and our counterparts were almost always the attorneys from the Utah Federal Public Defender’s Office in Salt Lake. Thankfully, we had a
good working relationship between the two offices, and many of the attorneys had become friends.
In S eptember 2017, my wife found out that she had advanced ovarian cancer. As you can imagine, that was an extraordinarily rough time. A few days after her diagnosis, I received an email from one of the appellate attorneys at the Federal Public Defender’s Office. I hadn’t known this, but she was a cancer survivor herself. Her email was full of empathy and grace, and she offered some really helpful tips about how to get through what was coming. The same day, I received a phone call from one of the other appellate attorneys in that office. She mentioned that one of her close friends was a lead ovariancancer specialist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute. As it turns out, this was the very specialist we had been unsuccessfully trying to get an appointment with. My friend made a phone call, the doctor’s calendar opened up, and we soon got in.
IT’S IMPORTANT IN LIFE TO AT LEAST TRY TO BE SELFREFLECTIVE, TO ASK OURSELVES IN GOOD FAITH IF WE ARE LIVING UP TO OUR OWN IDEALS.
As I later reflected on those exchanges, I wondered what would have happened if I had been taught by my mentors or by my experiences that I should be a scorched-earth kind of attorney. Would I have been friends with those attorneys from the other side? Would any of them have been in a position to even know about my wife’s diagnosis, much less have felt comfortable reaching out in the ways they did?
Now, again, I don’t want to be misunderstood. Those attorneys routinely went into court and asked the 10th Circuit to rule against the government in our mutual cases, and I routinely asked the 10th Circuit to rule in the government’s favor and against theirs. Indeed, just a few weeks after the email and phone calls I just mentioned, one of these two attorneys and I appeared against each other in a heavily contested appeal. We both continued to do our jobs. And I was particularly grateful that we’d found a way all along to represent our clients without letting our relationship become personally contentious.
JUDGES AS TONE SETTERS
LIFE PEACEFUL STATE IN
I think he’s onto something. What exacerbates this problem, I think, is that some of our most acerbic judicial writers often get notoriety for precisely this kind of thing. Written opinions that are sarcastic and barbed make for good print, thus making them appealing for casebooks and online threads alike. But this worries me. If law students, lawyers, and even other judges see that these kinds of opinions are the ones getting attention and praise, it can send a signal that this is how we should all write and talk and behave when it comes to our legal work.
I’ve focused thus far on civility between lawyers. But a discussion of civility within the legal system would be incomplete if it didn’t account for the role that judges play in all of this too. So let me turn there.
There is a very real power imbalance between judges and attorneys. It manifests in all kinds of ways. By custom, attorneys and litigants stand when judges come into the room. In court, judges get to interrupt attorneys, not the other way around. Judges get the final word in a case. And if an appeal is involved, the judges’ thoughts and opinions get published in Westlaw. And so on.
But this creates something of a danger. If a judge abuses this power imbalance through word or deed, this can send bad signals to litigants and the public about civility norms, proper conflict resolution, and even how seriously the judges are taking their cases.
Unfortunately, we see such abuse happen too frequently. Ross Guberman is a nationally renowned legal-writing guru and commentator. (Some of you may have read his book Point Made, which is one of my favorite books on legal writing.) A few years back, Guberman was quoted as saying, “There is a sort of performance art going on especially in the circuit courts.”5 He lamented that so many judges seem to be trying to outdo each other with their use of clever and hyperbolic rhetoric.
I don’t think this is a good thing. In what he called the categorical imperative, the philosopher Immanuel Kant famously suggested that when we’re deciding whether a thing is moral or good, we should consider what would happen if everyone else did that thing too.6 (I recognize that I’m simplifying things a fair bit here, but that seems to be the gist of it.) Imagine what would happen if all (or even just most) lawyers and judges commonly wrote with sarcastic and aggressive language. How would this affect the public’s perception of the judicial system? If this were the expected endpoint of our cases, I think it would undermine any efforts to have the public see the courts as being places where disputes can be rationally and even peacefully resolved.
CIVILITY AND COMPLEXITY
It’s important in life to at least try to be selfreflective, to ask ourselves in good faith if we are living up to our own ideals. You’ll recall the moment from the Last Supper when, after Jesus prophesied to His disciples that one of them would soon betray Him, they each took turns saying to Him, “Lord, is it I?” 7 I think we should try to do that kind of thing in our own lives too. As I’ve prepared these remarks over the last few weeks, I’ve asked myself: Am I following my own advice?
In s ome measure, I suppose, this question was recently answered for me. This past year, I was up for retention as a judge on the Utah Court of Appeals. As part of that process, a commission sends out surveys to attorneys who have appeared in front of each judge. The survey responses are collected, anonymized, and put online in abbreviated form. It’s kind of like getting a report card, except it’s put out into the world for your parents and neighbors and even children to see. A more detailed set of responses is given to each judge to help the judge identify areas in which he or she can improve. At the risk of being a little self-congratulatory, most of my feedback was positive—including several comments about my courtroom demeanor. That was a relief. But a few comments weren’t so positive. A few of them pointed out particular ways in which they thought my demeanor needs work. Comments like these have caused me to step back and give some thought to how I’m approaching the various parts of my job.
In thinking about this and trying to improve, I’ve sometimes wondered about where the lines really are. As many of you law students have no doubt learned by now, the answer to most legal questions can start with some version of “It depends,” or perhaps its cousin, “It’s complicated.” And in thinking about these kinds of problems, I’ve come to think there’s plenty of complexity here too.
Let me use appellate oral arguments as an example. As you all know, an appellate oral argument allows the judges to drill in on the issues. We sometimes use it to expose perceived weaknesses in a case or even pin the parties down on certain positions or concessions. This involves asking questions, and it’s most effective when the questions are specific. But a question that may seem fair or necessary from the perspective of the judge may seem aggressive or even harsh from the perspective of the attorney. After all, our perception of things can be heavily influenced by our own personal perspective. And how do we measure such things as tone or civility anyway?
A similar complexity exists with respect to legal writing. There’s something of a Goldilocks problem when it comes to the question of how formal legal writing should really be. If writing is too formal, it may come off as staid and stilted; if it’s too informal, it may come off as being too casual or even disrespectful. Most of us recognize that there’s an appropriate spectrum somewhere in the broad middle, but figuring out where those lines are can be subjective. For what it’s worth, in my written opinions, I try to write in an accessible way that
leans toward the informal. But I sometimes wonder if a tone that seems appropriate to me may come off differently to a recipient attorney or party (particularly those who are on the losing side of an opinion).
I had an experience early in my time on the bench that caused me to think about these dynamics. Like many appellate judges, when I write opinions, I trade drafts back and forth with an assigned law clerk. As I was going back and forth with one of my clerks on a particular opinion, I sent a draft to her that included some lively language that I had just added about one of the issues. She emailed me back with some comments and suggestions. With respect to that passage, she suggested that I remove one particularly aggressive citation and then soften a few of the more pointed lines in the analysis. “After all,” she wrote, “you’ve made your point, and it kind of seems like you’re piling on a little bit.”
When I saw this email, I instinctively pushed back. After all, the issue that we were deciding involved an attorney’s alleged misconduct, so we had an actual legal reason to be talking in such terms. Plus, I thought, some of the language that she was suggesting I cut was clever. I liked it. But as I thought about that email exchange over the next few days, I came to think that she was right, that there was a point at which we had said what needed to be said and could stop. So we did soften that section of the opinion, and it eventually went out in a milder form. I was grateful I had that law clerk there to help me to see we could do that.
As I’ve thought about that experience over the years, however, I’ve wondered how clear it was that the earlier draft had actually gone too far. I suspect that many judges or even attorneys might have thought the passages we ended up cutting were totally fine. But even so, I also suspect that some (including, of note, the attorney who we ruled against) might think that even the watered-down version was still too harsh.
Zooming out to the broader subject of my speech today, I recognize that similar kinds of complexity may exist with respect to a lot of other questions of civility and tone. Sometimes the problems before us are indeed black and white. But very often, they’re not. I believe that attorneys and judges alike can and should always try to keep things civil and courteous. But the word try is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Sometimes the circumstances are such that an aggressive response is warranted or even necessary. Sometimes it would actually be unreasonable to agree to a further continuance or delay. Sometimes there really is a bad actor on the other side, and sometimes the other side’s conduct is bad enough that sanctions can and should be requested and imposed.
But in many cases, I suspect that the litigation dynamics that we’re confronted with will fall somewhere in the fuzzy middle. When that happens, we have to make complicated choices about what kind of approach we should take.
As a result, what I’m hoping to convey today is something more general than specific. And my real point is aspirational. If we want the public to see the judicial system as one that is worthy of respect, as one that is capable of facilitating the peaceful resolution of society’s most intense conflicts, then all of us involved should at least try to lower the temperature as much as we reasonably can.
That’s what I’m asking you students to think about when you leave the law school and go into practice. In all of your cases, you should represent your clients’ interests as best as you can. But while doing so, remember that you can still act professionally and with courtesy toward the other side. When things start getting hostile, or when that nagging voice in your head (or perhaps your law clerk’s head) starts telling you that you’re pushing up against the line, at least ask yourself whether there is a more civil way to do the thing you’re doing. If the answer is no, then go ahead and do what you must do. But I really do believe that in most instances, we can do our jobs without crossing the line into unprofessional or uncivil behavior.
BE REASONABLE
Finally, if my appeals to pure principle haven’t persuaded you, let me suggest that you might want to approach things this way for self-interested reasons too. Many years ago, while I was still practicing as an appellate attorney, I had a conversation with a judge from the Utah Court of Appeals after a Continuing Legal Education event. Our conversation turned toward effective advocacy, and he mentioned a particular attorney we both knew. The judge described this attorney as being one of the best appellate attorneys of that generation, and he said to me, “When that attorney stands at the podium, he always comes off as the most reasonable guy in the room.” Having been on the bench now for a few years, I’ve come to realize that, from an advocacy perspective, that description really is the ideal.
Think back to the so-called “bulldog” attorney. When you conjure up that mental image, you’re probably not thinking of an attorney who would be described as “the most reasonable guy in the room,” are you? But when you talk to judges about effective advocacy, one of the things that you’ll consistently hear them say is that reasoned and professional advocacy is usually far more effective than boisterous and combative advocacy. I think this comports with
common sense and experience. Don’t we usually recognize when someone is trying to sell us something, and don’t we usually recoil from that? In your own life, don’t you usually respond better to a salesperson who comes across as being well-informed and reasonable, as opposed to one who comes off as aggressive or pushy? I think this dynamic is true in both trial and appellate litigation alike.
FINAL THOUGHT
Many of you students are going to go out and represent clients as advocates in this adversarial process. Please don’t think that in doing so, you have to sacrifice your humanity or even your Christianity to do this job well. You don’t need to act in unethical ways, and you should never play the part of a bully. Instead, always try to be the most reasonable person in the room. Be a zealous advocate, but be the kind of advocate who also treats the other side with decency and courtesy. You’ll serve your clients’ interests if you do this, and judges and juries will likely be more receptive to your arguments. In approaching this job in this way, you’ll help foster the public’s trust in the judicial system, thus helping make possible the peaceful life of men and women in this peaceful state.
notes
1 John W. Davis, speech delivered at the 75th Anniversary Proceedings of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York on March 16, 1946; quoted in “Special Meeting to Celebrate the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary,” Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York 1, no. 3 (Apr. 1946): 102.
2 P reamble, Utah Code of Judicial Administration Rule 14-301.
3 Rules 13 and 14, Rule 14-301.
4 Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., The Common Law (Little, Brown, and Co., 1881), 1.
5 Ross Guberman, quoted in Madison Alder, “Judicial Opinion Barbs Reflect Political Divisions, Twitter Era,” United States Law Week, Bloomberg Law, Feb. 1, 2022.
6 See Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Mary Gregor (Cambridge University Press, 1998); see also Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, ed. Mary Gregor (Cambridge University Press, 1997).
7 Matthew 26:22; Mark 14:19.
A Champion for Students
BY KAELIN HIRSCHI, 2L
rofessor Eric Talbot Jensen was recently named BYU Law Professor of the Year for the seventh time. He keeps all the plaques commemorating the student-choice award in his office, but you might not notice one, let alone all seven. A modest man, he keeps his seven plaques in a stack one behind another, so only the top plaque is visible. To Professor Jensen, being named Professor of the Year is a great honor, but he isn’t focused on awards—he is focused on his students. It isn’t only BYU students who love Professor Jensen. Political leaders and academics across the country seek his expertise as one of the country’s most well-respected international law scholars. Between teaching, consulting for the US government, and attending just some of the conferences he is invited to, Jensen simply doesn’t have enough time to be everywhere people want him to be. While much of his work for the US government is not public, he is allowed to say that he consults for the government on issues of international law and the law of war. This includes representing the US government
on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare
Professor Jensen will spend the next few years working on a similar manual focused on artificial intelligence.
FACULTY HIGHLIGHT
ERIC TALBOT JENSEN
with foreign governments and international organizations.
As an academic, Professor Jensen wears many hats. He is the faculty director over BYU Law’s LLM program, Global Law Seminar, and Jerusalem Initiative, as well as the faculty coordinator for both the International Law Students Association and the Military and National Security Law
Student Association. He is also an unofficial recruiter for the admissions office, welcoming all visitors to his classes and offering a friendly, persuasive nudge to prospective students. Jensen’s many publications include two textbooks, several book chapters, 50 law review articles, and a book that governments across the globe use: Tallinn Manual
Jensen's focus on jus ad bellum—laws to ensure that going to war is just—had informed his unique perspective on strategies for maintaining peace and avoiding war. In his article “World Peace and Gender Equality: Addressing UN Security Council Resolution 1325’s Weaknesses,” Jensen began exploring the impact of involving women in peace negotiations. Of all his published articles, this is the one that he thinks could do the most to change the world. In future papers, he plans to focus on jus post bellum—laws about ending wars and building peace–to fill a gap in current academic scholarship. With his research assistants, Jensen has been researching every conflict since WWII to evaluate the role that women play in peace negotiations.
Professor Jensen champions his students’ work. He reads an average of 90 student papers every year and considers each one potentially publishable. His high standards motivate his students to produce their best work, and Jensen provides support and encouragement to help students exceed his expectations. It comes as no surprise to BYU Law students that Professor Jensen has been named a teacher of the year so many times. They can see that everything he does is for his students. Jensen wants to make a difference in people’s lives and is committed to helping students and alumni change the world for the better.
Rising Star
BY MORGAN BRONSON, ’ 25
FACULTY HIGHLIGHT TYLER LINDLEY
His career has only just begun, but BYU Law Professor Tyler Lindley has already earned a reputation as a rising star in legal academia. Prominent constitutional law scholar William Baude has lauded Lindley as an emerging voice in federal courts scholarship. And earlier this year, US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas cited Lindley’s scholarship on the historical interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
After earning a degree in economics from BYU, Lindley graduated with highest honors from the University of Chicago Law School. He then clerked for Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, spent a year as a BYU Law research fellow, and clerked for Judge Gregory G. Katsas of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Next summer, Lindley will take a year-long leave from BYU Law to begin a third clerkship—this time on the US Supreme Court for Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.
Professor Lindley’s meteoric rise to legal stardom might suggest that law was always his career plan. “Absolutely not,” he says. For years— “maybe too many years,” Lindley jokes— he had planned to follow family tradition
and pursue a career in sports and coaching. That path would have been a natural choice: His father and both grandfathers worked in collegiate sports, and Lindley played and coached high-school football.
Why the pivot? “Football just didn’t feel right,” he explains. Lindley saw teaching as an opportunity to honor his family’s legacy of imparting skills and also to satisfy his eagerness to share his interests with others. “Learning something has always been very fun for me,” he says, “but the first thing I want to do is call someone and talk to them about it.” More fundamentally, Lindley was inspired by his respect for the tradition of intellectual trust—of building on and contributing to the work of past generations.
This practice of adding to collective knowledge led Lindley to pursue topics that sparked his curiosity, especially those involving problems without clear solutions. “If there’s an easy answer, it’s not an interesting question,” he says. His pursuit of difficult legal questions is animated by both his own curiosity and his interest in finding practical solutions. “It sounds too simple,” he admits, “but I really care about what the law is.” He continues, “If there’s a question I can’t answer, I figure others can’t answer it either
and maybe I can come up with something.” For now, Lindley’s scholarship centers on the role of the judiciary, exploring contemporary assumptions about the judicial system and examining the evolution of the judiciary’s identity over time.
Unsurprisingly, his generous character and inquisitive mind manifest in his teaching as well. Lindley strives to expose students to the broader intellectual exercise of serious scholarship, teaching students how to interpret conventional wisdom and testing their intuitions about truth. He regularly invites his students to step up as collaborators in learning by first asking them probing questions and then supporting
them throughout the arc of discovery. He believes—and generously leads students to believe—in their capacity to take ownership of the challenging process. As easy as it is to admire Lindley’s success and appreciate his intellect, his good-natured personality and liberal support leave as much of an impression on his students as anything else.
Author’s Note: My dad has often commented on the impossible task of accurately capturing those you care about. I have felt a fraction of that in trying to summarize my admiration and respect for Professor Lindley. Any mistakes and mischaracterizations are, of course, my own.
Abigail Scoma
BYU LAW’S MENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST
BY RACHEL EDWARDS
In Abigail Scoma’s family, there are an equal number of therapists and attorneys. “Two of my siblings are lawyers and two are therapists, and we’re not so different—we share many of the same skills,” she says. Scoma discovered her knack for active listening and offering advice early on in life. “When I was younger, I used to tell my little brother to lie on the couch and describe his feelings, and I would write all of them down on a legal pad.” This experience foreshadowed her eventual path as a therapist and current role providing essential mental health support to law students.
After earning a bachelor’s degree in behavioral science with a family studies emphasis from Utah Valley University, Scoma spent several years working both as a river-rafting guide on the Colorado River and as a counselor in wilderness therapy programs for teens. She facilitated therapeutic interventions designed to help the participants build resilience, develop coping skills, and foster personal growth. While Scoma found working with youth rewarding, the intensity and nomadic lifestyle ultimately led her to pivot and earn a master’s degree in social work at BYU. She interned with BYU’s Counseling and Psychological Services, where she
particularly enjoyed working with couples and young adults to help them set boundaries and maintain a healthy worklife balance.
As BYU Law’s dedicated mental health professional, Scoma offers individual counseling, workshops, and other wellness initiatives to support students’ mental health. “Law students often hesitate to seek counseling, not wanting to appear weak or incapable in a highly competitive environment,” she says. “This reluctance is compounded by the intense demands of law school. Students feel they must prioritize academic success over their well-being, but learning how to achieve balance and build resilience helps them navigate stress in school, in their future careers, and in their personal lives.”
In addition to counseling students, Scoma offers mental health support to BYU Law staff and faculty, which in turn helps them support students more effectively. She has also been actively involved in the Law School’s Intro to Law program, a broad orientation for 1Ls. By addressing mental health topics critical for incoming students, Scoma normalizes conversations around mental well-being and offers practical strategies for managing stress and developing boundaries. She also contributes to the Milestones program, part of BYU Law’s Inspiring Leadership initiative, which
aims to develop student characteristics and competencies most valued in the workplace. “My goal is to make mentalhealth support an integral and accessible part of the law school journey for every student,” she says.
Scoma incorporates a systems therapy approach in her work, addressing mentalhealth issues by considering the broader context of an individual’s life, including their relationships, environments, and social systems. She explains, “The micro system involves an individual’s personal attributes like genetics and values. The mezzo system includes immediate environments such as family, friends, and law school. The macro system encompasses broader societal influences like gender roles and cultural norms.” This has been a particularly valuable tool for law students, who often face conflicting pressures and challenges. Law students who recognize and navigate these interconnected systems are better able to create balance and resilience, enabling them to manage stress and thrive both personally and professionally.
“Compassion fatigue” is another aspect of legal practice that Scoma addresses in her therapy. She says, “Both attorneys and therapists are required to hold a lot for other people while maintaining confidentiality, which makes it challenging to process emotional loads effectively.” Scoma believes it is crucial for law students to develop strategies to manage these pressures so they can safeguard their well-being while supporting others. With that in mind, she is developing workshops tailored to these specific needs of legal professionals and their spouses. She also hopes to introduce group therapy sessions. “Group therapy can be incredibly beneficial,” she says. “It helps students realize they are not alone in their struggles!”
At BYU Law, Scoma has leveraged her strengths to create a supportive environment where students feel understood and empowered. Her commitment to helping students find ways to manage stress and navigate challenging priorities makes her an integral part of the BYU Law community.
Parenting and Practicing Law
--------------
LUCY WILLIAMS, BYU Law Associate Professor
MARTHA WINGATE, ’21, Ray Quinney & Nebeker
NICOLE HOSEA, ’25
TREVOR ZELLWEGER, ’25
These quotes come from the Women in Law Parent Panel at BYU Law on March 27, 2025.
Adjust what you think “having it all” is.
—TREVOR ZELLWEGER
Establish boundaries between work and home. Dedicate your time to those endeavors in those spaces. Are you going to trespass on those boundaries occasionally? Yes. But keep trying to maintain those boundaries.
—MARTHA WINGATE
Don’t make long-term decisions based on short-term needs. I’ve come this close to quitting my job a hundred times since I’ve had kids. But people who I respect and trust advised me that my children’s current needs won’t always be their needs, and they were right.
—LUCY WILLIAMS
When you’re seeking and following through on revelation, you will feel confident about what you’re doing for your family in different seasons of life.
Get comfortable giving up control. Let your partner do the dishes or laundry their way. Let go of things.
—NICOLE HOSEA
—MARTHA WINGATE
left to right : Trevor Zellweger, Lucy Williams, Martha Wingate, Nicole Hosea
Faculty Notes
Clark D. Asay
Extra-Legal Uses of TM, 14:1 N.Y.U. J. INtell
ProP. & eNt law (2025) (with LaReina Hingson and Stephanie Plamondon).
---------------
Copyright Law at the Federal Circuit, 72 J. CoPYrIght SoC’Y (forthcoming 2025) (with Dan Ankenman).
---------------
An Evidence-Based Approach to Fair Use, 60 ga l rev (forthcoming 2025) (with Stephanie Plamondon, Cree Jones, and Cassidy McCleary).
Kif AugustineAdams
Unaccompanied Migrant Children in US Government Custody:
2014–2023, INt’l MIgr rev 2024 (with Melissa Alcaraz, Hayley Pierce, and Jane Lilly López).
---------------
Virtuality for Real Children: Unaccompanied Minors and US Immigration Custody, J. MIgr hUM. SeC (2025) (with Hayley Pierce, Jane Lilly López, and Melissa Alcaraz).
Shima Baradaran Baughman Eliminating Pretrial Detention, 104 B. U. l . rev. 1669 (2024).
---------------
Systemic Absolution, 99 U.S.C. l rev (forthcoming 2025).
---------------
Punishing Violence, 75 AM. U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025).
William W. Clayton Moelis and Private Equity in the Public Market, Yale J. reg. (forthcoming 2026) (with Gladriel Shobe and Jarrod Shobe).
J. Clifton Fleming Jr. Federal INCoMe tax: doCtrINe, StrUCtUre, aNd PolICY (5th ed. Carolina Academic Press 2024 update) (with Joseph M. Dodge, Francine J. Lipman, and Robert J. Peroni).
---------------
The US Tax System’s Curious Embrace of Manufacturing Job Losses, tax NoteS Fed. (SPeCIal rePort), Oct. 1, 2024 (with Robert J. Peroni and Stephen E. Shay).
---------------
taxatIoN oF INterNatIoNal traNSaCtIoNS: MaterIalS, text, aNd ProBleMS (5th ed. West Academic 2025) (with Robert J. Peroni and Karen B. Brown).
---------------
Frederick Mark Gedicks
The Myth of Second-Class Free Exercise, 70 vIll l rev 1 (2025).
Unleash the States?, lIBertY Mag , Mar./Apr. 2025, at 14.
Matthew Jennejohn
The Diffusion of Deal Innovations in Complex Contractual Networks, J. eMPIrICal legal StUd (forthcoming 2025) (with Kristina Bishop and Cree Jones).
Eric Talbot Jensen Battlefield Artificial Intelligence and War Crimes Prosecutions, 56 tex teCh l rev 689 (2024) (with Makayla Beitler).
---------------
NatIoNal SeCUrItY law: PrINCIPleS aNd PolICY (3rd ed. Aspen Publishing 2024) (with Geoffrey S. Corn, Jimmy Gurulé, and Peter S. Margulies).
---------------
Common Article 2 and NonState Reciprocity in the Law of Armed Conflict, eMorY INt’l law rev (forthcoming 2025) (with Stone Wilson).
---------------
the law oF arMed CoNFlICt: aN oPeratIoNal aPProaCh (3rd ed. Aspen Publishing forthcoming 2025) (with Geoffrey S. Corn, Victor M. Hansen, Richard B. Jackson, M. Christopher Jenks, and James A. Schoettler Jr.).
Cree Jones Killing as Capital: Perverse Effects of Truce Negotiations on Gang Violence in El Salvador, 22 J. eMPIrICal legal StUd. 90 (2025) (with Preston Lloyd).
The Diffusion of Deal Innovations in Complex Contractual Networks, J. eMPIrICal legal StUd (forthcoming 2025) (with Matthew Jennejohn and Kristina Bishop).
---------------
Testing the Independence Hypothesis, 77 adMIN l rev (forthcoming 2025) (with Tyler B. Lindley and Thomas Smith).
---------------
Tyler Lindley Interpretive Lawmaking, 111 va l rev 253 (2025).
Appealing Temporary Restraining Orders, 77 Fla l rev (2025) (with Morgan Bronson and Wesley White).
---------------
Testing the Independence Hypothesis, 77 adMIN l rev (forthcoming 2025) (with Cree Jones and Thomas Smith).
---------------
Delegated Contract Formation, 59 Ga. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025).
---------------
Reconstructing Section 1983, 101 Notre daMe l rev (forthcoming 2026).
---------------
Jane Mitchell
Stress and Prosecutorial Discretion, 58 CoNN. l . rev. (forthcoming 2025).
“That Class Changed My Life”: Using Transformative Learning Theory to Teach Leadership, 65 SaNta Clara l rev (forthcoming 2025).
Stephanie Plamondon Extra-Legal Uses of TM, 14:1 N.Y.U. J. INtell. ProP. & eNt law (2025) (with Clark D. Asay and LaReina Hingson).
---------------
An Evidence-Based Approach to Fair Use, 60 ga l rev (forthcoming 2025) (with Clark D. Asay, Cree Jones, and Cassidy McCleary).
Gladriel Shobe
Contractual Control in Dual-Class Corporations, 42 Yale J. reg 332 (2025) (with Jarrod Shobe).
---------------
Geographic Inequality and the SALT Deduction, IllINoIS l rev (forthcoming 2025) (with Matthew S. Johnson).
---------------
Moelis and Private Equity in the Public Market, Yale J. reg (forthcoming 2026) (with Jarrod Shobe and William W. Clayton).
Jarrod Shobe
Contractual Control in Dual-Class Corporations, 42 Yale J. reg 332 (2025) (with Gladriel Shobe).
---------------
Moelis and Private Equity in the Public Market, Yale J. reg (forthcoming 2026) (with Gladriel Shobe and William W. Clayton).
Michalyn Steele Executive editor, in Nell Newton et al., eds., CoheN’S haNdBook oF Federal INdIaN law (Lexis 2024).
Dane Thorley Unwarranted Warrants?
An Empirical Analysis of Judicial Review in Search and Seizure, 138 harv l rev (forthcoming 2025) (with Miguel de Figueiredo and Brett Hashimoto).
---------------
Them’s Fightin’ Words—Maybe: Testing the Application and Boundaries of the “Fighting Words” Doctrine Using a Randomized Survey Experiment, 50 BYU l rev (forthcoming 2025) (with Erin Cranor).
Lucy Williams The First Amendment and Constitutive Rhetoric: A Policy Proposal, 99 N.Y.U. l rev 1338 (2024) (with Mason Spedding).
LEGAL TECHNOLOGY
BYU Law’s Legal Tech Initiative
By Nick Hafen, ’19, Head of Legal Technology Education, BYU Law
--------------
Launched in 2016, BYU Law’s Legal Tech Initiative (LTI) equips students with the technical competence essential for modern legal practice. The LTI empowers students to leverage technology in service of society, to improve the law, and to track legal tech trends through curiosity, innovation, and lifelong learning. In the 2024–25 academic year, we expanded and enhanced BYU Law’s LTI curriculum, and we look forward to further preparing our students to compete, thrive, and lead as technology reshapes the legal profession and the world. Tech training. Since the LTI’s inception, we have offered hands-on training workshops for the tech used in legal practice, from Adobe Acrobat
to eDiscovery and document automation. This year, we developed a simulated law-firm environment to make the learning experience more realistic and practical.
LawX. The LawX Design Lab—where students prototype innovative solutions to access-to-justice problems— continued to thrive. Students worked with Utah startup WETx to create a water- rights transaction platform, enabling water-rights holders to maximize value and improve water-use efficiency statewide. We launched the LawX Incubator to help students further develop and scale their projects. One team created CourtServe, a platform that makes it easier for judges to assign community service for low-level offenders in lieu of fines or incarceration. We also hosted a one - da y Law & Innovation Challenge—a design sprint in which student teams pitched access - to - justice solutions and competed for cash prizes.
PRACTITIONER TIP
Practicing Law in the Age of AI
By Paul Fife, ’20, General Counsel, CenCore Group
--------------
When I began practicing law, learning meant late nights reviewing contracts, drafting memos, and negotiating agreements under a senior attorney’s watchful eye. But today’s artificial intelligence–powered legal research platforms, contract analysis engines, automation,
and similar AI tools are changing the landscape. As AI handles more routine tasks, early-career lawyers have the opportunity to distinguish themselves through exceptional analytical thinking, strategic judgment, and interpersonal skills that technology simply cannot replicate.
Here are my tips for young lawyers.
Integrating tech across the curriculum. We refined our existing AI & Law course and partnered with faculty to integrate technology training into other courses, teaching students to responsibly leverage tech tools. As part of the 1L Academies program, we debuted our AI Law & Policy Academy. Students participated in a week of immersive workshops with law firms, in-house legal departments, and regulatory agencies, gaining firsthand experience evaluating AI tools, designing AI governance programs, and crafting regulations for emerging technologies.
Future of Law lecture series.
We welcomed speakers from academia, law firms, and the legal tech industry to explore topics ranging from AI-augmented legal training to innovations in access to justice. Each session drew enthusiastic audiences and sparked lively discussions.
AI pilot programs. In winter semester 2025, we launched our AI Sandbox, an informal forum for faculty, staff, and students to collaborate on generative AI experiments, training, and peer-to-peer learning sessions.
1. Focus on the why and the how. As an attorney, you need to understand why changes to the contract language matter, how to spot what AI misses, and how to improve upon AI results. Ask yourself
how certain classes or extracurriculars will help you develop analytical skills related to identifying risks and understanding the why behind the ask from your client. Seek opportunities to work with attorneys who will walk you through the reasons behind each task or any changes they made to your work that you do not understand.
2. Learn the tech. Familiarize yourself with the AI tools your firm or department uses and stay up to date on new tools. Ask for training. Experiment.
Understanding how AI platforms work, especially their limitations, is as essential as mastering legal writing. That said, the trait that clients often value the most in their lawyers is creative problem-solving. Let AI handle the repeatable; focus on the irreplaceable.
3. Maintain your credibility. AI can hallucinate—fabricating its own information to answer questions and leading it to inaccurate answers. If you use AI, own the output. Always, always verify sources down to a primary source wherever possible. Double-check your citations. Never assume the AI is right. A lawyer’s reputation for accuracy and judgment will always matter more than the tools they use. Protect that reputation.
4. Safeguard client information. Be cautious about inputting sensitive or confidential data into public or unsecured AI platforms. Doing so can inadvertently expose privileged information. Ensure that any AI tool you use meets applicable ethical standards and data-protection regulations. Verify that providers implement robust encryption and security practices. Safeguard your client’s trust by remaining vigilant about how and where their data is processed, stored, and shared.
5. Embrace lifelong learning. AI is reshaping the landscape of legal practice, especially for new lawyers. Those who embrace it thoughtfully and master its capabilities while staying mindful of its limitations will be best positioned to thrive in the profession.
NEW TO THE LAW SCHOOL
FACULTY
Jane Mitchell
Mitchell joined BYU Law School as an associate professor of law in 2025. Her research focuses on the criminal justice system and the cycle of poverty and incarceration. She also writes and teaches about leadership. Her scholarship has appeared in various journals, including the Connecticut Law Review, Kentucky Law Journal, and Santa Clara Law Review
Before entering academia, Mitchell was the founder and CEO of the Reset Foundation, a nationally acclaimed nonprofit dedicated to dismantling the poverty-to-prison pipeline. Based in the Bay Area, Reset provided a humane, restorative alternative to prison for young adult men. For her work, Mitchell was recognized as a Forbes 30 Under 30 honoree, a Google Impact Challenge winner, and an Echoing Green fellow.
Earlier in her career, Mitchell practiced corporate law at Kaye Scholer LLP. She helped found the ROADS Charter High Schools in the Bronx and worked on the Strategy and Accountability team of New York City’s Department of Education. She has taught in jails in San Francisco, Utah County, and New York at Rikers Island. Professor Mitchell holds a BA from Stanford University, a JD from Columbia Law School, an EdM from Columbia University, and a PhD in learning sciences and leadership from New York University. She is the mother of three boys.
RESEARCH FELLOWS
Melanie Brown
Brown practiced law in estate planning and small business matters at Callister, Broberg & Becker in California. Previously, she was a staff attorney in the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition, focused on healthcare products and services. She holds a JD and LLM from Columbia Law School and an MA in library and information studies from University College London. Her research interests include wills and trusts, antitrust, and health law.
Sarah Hamilton-Jiang
After earning an LLB degree from the University of Sheffield and an LLM in human rights and social justice from the University of Connecticut School of Law, Hamilton-Jiang became the inaugural research scholar at NYU School of Law’s Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law. She then worked as an independent legal research consultant and partnered with the UN special rapporteur on racial discrimination, UN Women, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU School of Law, and Amnesty International USA to advance their work on racial justice and human rights law. Her research interests lie at the intersection of international human rights law, immigration law, and global migration.
Anxiously Engaged
HIGHLIGHTING THE GOOD WORK OF BYU LAW’S STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS
Local Focus
The Government and Politics Legal Society (GPLS) seeks to enhance the practice of law in state and local government and to provide opportunities for law students to be more involved in government work and politics. In September, GPLS held an event for law students to network with BYU Law faculty members who have experience working for the government. In January, BYU Law alum Carly Madsen, ’24, led a discussion on becoming more
involved in local government and politics. In March, GPLS held its 43rd annual State and Local Government Conference, where Joni Jones, director of the Litigation Division of the Utah Attorney General’s Office, was presented with the Distinguished Service Award. The conference also featured CLE sessions on topics such as ethics and government transparency, trauma-informed interviewing, violent crimes against Indigenous women, and understanding sovereign citizens.
Building Community and Connection
The Minority Law Students Association (MLSA) at BYU Law continues its mission to foster academic excellence, professional development, and representation for minority students. This year, MLSA focused on creating meaningful opportunities for connection and support— particularly for 1L students. In August, MLSA hosted a welcome breakfast that brought together incoming 1Ls, upperclassmen, and faculty, helping new students build
Meals and Mentoring
The Black Law Students Association (BLSA) at BYU Law had a year filled with impactful experiences in service and learning. BLSA collaborated with BYU’s Achievement Fellows to prepare and serve Thanksgiving meals at the Provo Food and Care Coalition. During Black History Month, BLSA organized a forum featuring Cynthia Nance, dean of the
relationships and feel a sense of belonging from day one. In January, MLSA organized a professional tour in Salt Lake City, visiting the office of Parsons Behle & Latimer, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah, and the US District Court for the District of Utah. In February, MLSA hosted a panel and networking dinner for prelaw undergraduates, current law students, and legal professionals. This event fostered candid conversations about difficult topics, including facing impostor syndrome and choosing a career path.
University of Arkansas School of Law, who shared insights on peacemaking. BLSA also hosted an event on interviewing skills with Stephen Q. Wood, ’05, managing partner of Quinn Emanuel’s Salt Lake City office. BLSA’s new On Our Way mentorship program pairs undergraduate students interested in BYU Law with BLSA members who offer advice, résumé and personal statement review, and invitations to events.
Joni Jones speaks at the 43rd annual State and Local Government Conference.
The Minority Law Students Association hosts a panel discussion.
Weighty Debates
The BYU Law student chapter of the Federalist Society facilitates discussion and debate on current legal topics. This year, the chapter hosted six different debates concerning birthright citizenship, religious freedom, property rights, the power of the executive branch, and more. In addition to promoting discussion through debates, the society also hosted Judge James C. Ho of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Judge Ryan D. Nelson, ’99, of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Judge Roy K. Altman of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Constitutional Conversations
Over the past year, the BYU student chapter of the American Constitution Society has advanced its goal of facilitating discussion on how the US Constitution provides a bulwark for defending justice and also
guards against abuses that can arise from the concentration of power. Highlights of the year include a presentation by Michael Li, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, about his research on fair voting, redistricting, and gerrymandering. Rylee SommersFlanagan, an innovative founder of a nonprofit public-interest litigation firm, participated in a panel with BYU Law professors to discuss the Trump administration’s immigration policies. The society has also cultivated a community of BYU Law students interested in constitutional law by holding social events at professors’ homes.
Donate to the BYU Law Academies
BYU Law’s 1L Academies provide intense, weeklong, hands-on experiential learning. In 2025, 102 1Ls participated in eight different Academies: Startups (Palo Alto), Deals (New York City), Immigration (Salt Lake City), Trial (Dallas), Restructuring (Chicago), Appellate and Law-Intensive Litigation (Washington, DC), AI Law and Policy (Salt Lake City), and Chancery (Wilmington).
“Now in our fifth year of the Academies, we’ve seen amazing results in job placement, career focus, and professional development. Please make a one-time or recurring gift to help provide this important experience to all our incoming 1Ls.”
— DAVID MOORE, BYU LAW DEAN
“The Academies program singlehandedly changed my career, and I couldn’t have attended if it weren’t free for students. I will be earmarking all my donations to support the Academies.”
—ELIZA SMITH-DRIGGS, 3L
Choose the “Law School Student Experiential Learning” fund on this webpage to help support the Academies.
Jackson Cho (left) interviews
Judge James Ho.
BYU Law Forums
EXPLORING EXCELLENCE AND INSIGHTS
--------------
BY MAREN HENDRICKS
More Than Two Sides
Defending the Constitution in a Polarized Time
Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who served on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, delivered remarks focused on the US Constitution as part of BYU Law’s Peacemakers Needed lecture series. Judge Griffith defined today’s polarized political environment as an existential crisis, asking, “What can we do to build trust in our democracy?” He gave the following three suggestions for all citizens. First, express confidence in our election system; second, respect the
judiciary and read judicial opinions to discover their nonpartisan, careful reasoning; and third, look to the example of moderates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention who were willing to compromise for the sake of unity. Judge Griffith offered a further admonition to Latter-day Saints to heed both President Dallin H. Oaks’s directive in his address “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution” to seek to “moderate and unify” on contentious issues and President Russell M. Nelson’s reminder in his address
“Peacemakers Needed” that “true disciples of Jesus Christ are peacemakers.”
advocated for multiparty dispute resolution, which brings more perspectives, resources, and creativity to the table. Through historical anecdotes including international hostage negotiations and the drafting of the US Constitution, she illustrated how involving more participants and prioritizing integration over competition can lead to more-effective and enduring resolutions. MenkelMeadow urged her BYU Law audience to embrace collaborative problem-solving. “When is it better to have more than two heads at the table?” she asked. “The answer is ‘Almost always.’”
Civility in Legal Practice
Professor Carrie MenkelMeadow of UC Irvine School of Law shared her view that most disputes are more complex than the common binary adversarial model that law students are familiar with— plaintiffs and defendants, with winners and losers. Drawing on decades of experience as a mediator, Menkel-Meadow
The ideal lawyer is “the most reasonable person in the room,” Judge Ryan D. Tenney, ’03, of the Utah Court of Appeals explained in remarks delivered at BYU Law. Emphasizing the importance of civility in legal practice, Judge Tenney urged students to focus on solid, rational arguments rather than bombastic rhetoric. He asked, “Don’t you usually respond better to a salesperson who comes across as being
Professor Carrie MenkelMeadow is honored at the annual Bruce C. Hafen Lecture.
Judge Thomas Griffith speaks at the Peacemakers Needed lecture series.
well-informed and reasonable, as opposed to one who comes off as aggressive or pushy?”
Judge Tenney shared his own journey of examining both his oral argument questioning and his judicial opinions with an eye to bringing down the temperature in his own work. Civility and temperance lend credibility to legal arguments and foster confidence in the judicial system, he observed. Is it possible to be a fully committed advocate while also promoting peace and civility?
The Utah Rules of Professional Conduct require it, and the Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice denounce conduct that is “uncivil, abrasive, abusive, hostile, or obstructive” in advocating for their clients. Judge Tenney insisted that we don’t have to sacrifice our humanity or Christianity in the process of zealously advocating for our clients.
The
Era of Human-AI Collaboration
Lawyers are getting more comfortable using AI as a collaborator. Dr. Megan Ma of Stanford University observed
that “[humans] don’t . . . need to do the heavy lifting anymore. When it comes to doing research, you can articulate what you’re looking to research, and [an AI] agent will go out there and perform it for you, assemble a research memo, [and] assemble the sources that you need.”
But with the advent of AI
counterparts that are more sophisticated such as AI Scientist and AI Software Engineer, Ma acknowledged the fear and uncertainty we may feel about an AI-integrated future. “Are we fearful about what our role will be as humans? If we value human judgment, how do we know where to insert ourselves?”
Leveraging AI’s competence in adopting a persona, Ma and her team have worked to create AI Senior Expert for law firms by training AI models through interviews and document edits from a seasoned practitioner. Other legal AI resources include a redlining evaluator, a tool for evaluating depositions and cross-examination, and an M&A negotiation simulator. Buckle up—AI lawyers are here.
of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stumbled on an old homestead that piqued her interest in the US Supreme Court Justice who spearheaded its preservation: William O. Douglas.
McKeown researched Douglas’s legacy of environmental advocacy, including his successful campaign to turn the C&O Canal into a National Historical Park. She shared, “He challenged editors from The Washington Post to hike along the 185-mile canal with him for seven days. Not everyone [completed] it, but the high-profile effort galvanized public support.” Douglas was also instrumental in protecting wilderness areas in Alaska. He combined his Court duties with forming grassroots environmental groups, writing op-eds, and lobbying Congress to support conservation initiatives. “There was no ethical rule precluding him from Dr. Megan Ma discusses AI.
An Environmental Legacy Snowshoeing in Wyoming’s Grand Teton National Park, Judge M. Margaret McKeown
Judge Ryan Tenney speaks at a forum in January.
doing these things,” McKeown pointed out.
Douglas, the longestserving Supreme Court Justice (36 years), was productive and prolific; he authored 486 dissents and nearly 50 books. McKeown observed, “He was both fascinating and flawed, and in many respects he was a canary in a coal mine on the impact humans have on the environment. He was ahead of his time.”
Tips for Future Lawyers
Judge James C. Ho of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals shared advice with BYU Law students and made a persuasive plug for judicial clerkships. He observed that a clerk sees a high volume of cases from a bird’s eye view and that this experience is
invaluable for assessing what works and what doesn’t in terms of advocacy. Judge Ho advised students to think about clerking as postgraduate work that enhances their value: “Law firms want to hire people who have thought deeply and rigorously about the law, and they want to hire people who have the broad, practical experience you can only get through clerking for a judge.”
Judge Ho admonished law students to consider how judges must approach things systematically, considering how cases they are deciding will be used as precedent. For example, “Is this an interpretation of a statute that can hold up in the long run?” His advice for oral argument included listening carefully while the judge is questioning opposing counsel. He remarked, “You can pick up the ball and answer the judge’s question if your opponent doesn’t.”
Corporate Metamorphosis
“In the light of the moon a little egg lay on a leaf.” Thus begins The Very Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle. Venture capital attorney James Wigginton and entrepreneur Jordan Volz likened the maturation of the book’s caterpillar to growth phases of a startup business. Championing the theory that maximizing efficiency and minimizing waste requires legal ownership by the group
that bears the greatest cost and risk, they explored the evolution of these factors in the business life cycle. While investors bear the cost and risk during startup and growth phases, as a business matures and gains market dominance, the paradigm shifts to a phase in which customers bear these burdens. This is particularly true when a business has become a monopoly.
But how can customers take ownership of a business? While customer-owned cooperatives do exist (for example, mutual companies owned by policyholders), there are few mechanisms in place to facilitate an ownership transfer to customers in order to transform an investor-owned caterpillar into a customer-owned butterfly. Wigginton and Volz advocated for new federal legislation to accomplish this goal and urged BYU Law students to think about cooperatives as paving the way for a fairer future—one that is closer to the Zion ideal of the city of Enoch, where people “dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them” (Moses 7:18).
Wigginton
Jurist in Residence Judge Margaret McKeown shares insights on Justice William O. Douglas.
James
(left) and Jordan Volz speak at the Future of Law lecture series.
Cross Purposes: Christianity’s Broken Bargain with Democracy
by jonathan rauch
Reviewed by Annika Boone Barkdull, BYU Law Visiting Professor and Research Fellow
In Cross Purposes, Jonathan Rauch, a self-described “atheistic homosexual Jew,” discusses the weakening of Christianity as a civic institution. Recognizing that American liberal democracy depends on religion as a stabilizing force, Rauch is dismayed by what he calls “thin” and “sharp” Christianity. Thin Christianity is religion that has become weak, overly secularized, and incapable of providing meaningful moral influence, instead merely reflecting secular values. And sharp Christianity is religion that has rejected the Savior’s attributes of charity, humility, and meekness in favor of a toxic “Church of Fear” that views political opponents as enemies to be conquered.
Rauch presents The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an exemplar of a better way. He commends the Church’s focus on compromise, agency, and religious freedom, highlighting its support of the 2015 Utah Compromise and 2022 Respect for Marriage Act. He urges other Christians to
similarly promote a “civic theology which models a Christlike way to do politics.”
It might be tempting to read Cross Purposes and pat ourselves on the back. But in Rauch’s critique of how some Christians have turned toward a political position of fear and contempt, I see a cautionary tale. He observes that, in many instances, this troubling shift is driven by congregants, not clergy. It is not enough for church leaders to teach civic charity. As disciples and lawyers, we bear a responsibility to actively embody their counsel, uphold the Constitution even when doing so does not benefit our own ideological goals, and emulate our Savior’s love for all people. Following Christ in a polarized climate takes courage and humility, but as disciples and lawyers, we must never sacrifice the virtues He taught us on the altar of political expedience. Cross Purposes is a timely and compelling reminder of Christianity’s power to heal a fractured culture—but only if we look to our Redeemer in both our private and our political lives.
What We’re Reading
TWO BYU LAW RESEARCH FELLOWS SHARE WHAT’S ON THEIR BOOKSHELVES
The Boys in the Boat:
Nine Americans and Their Epic Quest for Gold at the 1936 Berlin Olympics
by daniel james brown
Reviewed by Charity Wyatt, BYU Law Research Fellow
I recently saw a meme that said after turning 35, men must make a decision: either get really into World War II history or get really into smoking various meats. Since my husband has opted for meat smoking, I’ve assumed the role of family WWII history buff. I have been delving into books and podcasts on the topic, including The Boys in the Boat, a book I missed reading when it was published in 2013. While the story takes place prior to WWII—culminating at the Berlin 1936 Olympic Games in Nazi Germany—it provides insight into the period leading up to the war.
The book tells the true story of the University of Washington men’s rowing team and their quest to win gold at the Berlin Olympics. The narrative focuses on the life of Joe Rantz, one of the team’s underdog rowers, and how being on the team helped heal the trauma he carried from the heartbreaks he endured during the Great Depression. Brown deftly weaves together information on crew boats and rowing techniques, backstories of the team members and coaches, accounts of the Great Depression, and a description of Hitler’s propaganda machine into a compelling story that reads like a novel. I highly recommend this informative, inspiring, and uplifting book. If you’re looking for more WWII history, may I also suggest The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society by Mary Ann Shaffer (a charming historical fiction), D-Day: The Tide Turns (a Noiser podcast), and Revisionist History: Hitler’s Olympics (a Pushkin podcast).
A Look at Six BYU Law Graduates
BY MAREN HENDRICKS
Gaining and Giving
“In Ghana, if you’re smart, your parents give you three career choices: accountant, doctor, or lawyer,” says Amanda Adomako, ’25, a native of Accra, Ghana. While she was earning her undergraduate degree in political science at the University of Ghana, a human rights class piqued her interest in law. Then, at age 20, Adomako represented Ghana at an international conference and followed that up with an internship at a legal aid clinic. She explains, “I saw how these attorneys were improving people’s lives. I thought, ‘They’re so eloquent and they always get their way!’ I wanted that job.”
After she returned from a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Cape Coast, Ghana, Adomako took the LSAT and applied to BYU Law. Three weeks into her first semester, with reading
assignments piling up and bus lines to navigate, Adomako began to fear she had bitten off more than she could chew. But with time, her comfort level and confidence grew. “I participated in trial competitions and made it to the semifinals!” she recalls. “I used to avoid public speaking, but I’ve discovered I can do this. Recently, I moderated a panel and had 60 people staring at me—and I didn’t feel nervous!”
Helping others gain the same confidence is a priority for Adomako. She mentors eight students through BYU Law’s Academic Development Program and has volunteered through the Utah State Bar to represent pro se defendants. “Understanding the law is empowering. Even when I show up in a courtroom feeling inexperienced, I can help someone,” she says.
Adomako has honed her legal skills working at the Utah Attorney General’s Office, working in-house for a Utah company during her 1L summer, and externing with Justice Paige Petersen of the Utah Supreme Court during her 2L fall semester. During her 2L summer, Adomako was a summer associate at Salt Lake firm Parsons Behle & Latimer. “I wanted to try everything,” she says, “because I realized that I had
a myopic vision of what a career in the law looked like. I have been so lucky to work with people eager to share their knowledge and experience with me, people I want to emulate.” Adomako plans to take the Utah Bar, and she is considering career opportunities in the US and back home in Ghana. “I am choosing to take things one step at a time,” she says.
Plot Twist
Coming to Provo, Utah, was a move to the big city for Taylin Antonick, ’25, who describes her hometown as an “itty-bitty ranching town” in East Texas. Antonick earned a degree in agricultural and applied economics at Texas Tech University and had planned to pursue a PhD in economics, but she set her sights on law school during an internship with the Office of General Counsel for the Texas Tech University System. After sitting in on a class, she decided to apply for
admission to BYU Law. “I felt I was supposed to fit in here,” she says. “I had never been surrounded by so many members of the same faith before, and I appreciated what a unique experience that would be.”
Participating in the 1L Woody Deem Trial Advocacy Competition was a highlight for Antonick, although it was not initially on her radar. “I remember announcing at the beginning of law school that I’d never be in a courtroom—that sounded awful!” she recalls. But during her 1L Christmas break, a friend begged her to be her moot court partner. Antonick agreed, and it changed her career course. “After oral argument, a judge asked me, ‘Have you thought about litigation? You should. Did you have fun?’ I did have fun!” She attended BYU Law’s Trial Academy at Kirkland & Ellis in Dallas, where she met her mentor and future boss.
Antonick will bring leadership skills to her legal practice. She has served as president of the Trial Advocacy team, competing against schools across the country. As a lead articles editor for BYU Law Review, she has learned to give positive and negative feedback.
Looking back on her law school experience, Antonick wishes she had embraced a lot
earlier a willingness to fail in front of her peers. “Students should feel safe here to try new things and stumble,” she says. “Chasing perfection keeps us from opportunities. I’m growing more comfortable with walking through doors that open for me, even if it’s scary.”
Rising Star
Success in community college set Payton Dolenar, ’25, on his path to BYU Law. He admits, “I was a bad student in high school. College wasn’t prioritized in my family, and I just didn’t think it was for me.” But after returning from a mission in Santiago, Chile, he decided to give community college a try. He excelled and then transferred to Arizona State University, where he completed an economics degree. “It was empowering to discover that I’m good at learning,” he says. “And I’m humbled that I made it from terrible high school student to community college all the way to BYU Law.”
Understanding the law is empowering. Even when I show up in a courtroom feeling inexperienced, I can help someone.
—amanda adomako
Although Dolenar was offered a scholarship to stay at Arizona State for law school, BYU Law’s mission statement ultimately tipped the balance. “BYU’s commitment to service attracted me,” he explains. “I like the idea of everyone working towards something a little greater. . . . It’s very competitive here, but I’ve become close with so many of my classmates. There is a foundational camaraderie and unity that is unique here.”
The support of the BYU Law community was invaluable when, during Dolenar’s 1L summer, his wife had a stroke giving birth to their second child. “I didn’t know if she would live. I didn’t know if I would ever return to law school,” he says. “But she stabilized, and I returned to friends handing me a calendar with daily dinner deliveries for the next month!”
Dolenar will join a midsize litigation firm in Fresno, California, after graduation. He states, “I really enjoyed being a part of BYU Law’s Trial Advocacy team. At this smaller firm, I can be second chair within two years.” As a litigator, Dolenar says he wants to fix problems: “People hire attorneys during hard times in life like bankruptcy or divorce, when they turn to someone with expertise to help them. I want to be that kind of lawyer.”
Stubborn Survivor
When she was admitted to BYU Law, Daniela Linge, ’24, thought, “God is sending me this opportunity; I’m going to take it!” Linge was committed to helping solve the kinds of refugee problems she witnessed on her mission in Germany and later in Austria, where she volunteered at a camp for minors. “I decided on law school because I wanted to be able to influence laws that affect refugees,” she explains. “Rather than just addressing symptoms, I wanted to address the cause.”
During her first two years at BYU Law, Linge focused her elective courses on international law, and she spent several weeks in Jerusalem studying conflict resolution with BYU Law’s Global Law Seminar. But just before she was to begin her 3L year, Linge made the difficult decision not to return to school. She had been having fainting spells and occasionally lost the use of
her arms. “I was a wreck, but doctors kept telling me I was fine,” Linge says. One day she and her husband felt prompted that she should see a doctor they knew from a former ward. He ordered an echocardiogram, which revealed that Linge was in heart failure. She was scheduled for open-heart surgery, but during the pre-surgery CT scan, her surgeon discovered that Linge had a one-in-a-million autoimmune disease called Takayasu arteritis. Arteries coming off her heart had closed, cutting off blood supply to her limbs and brain.
Finally stabilized on high doses of steroids and chemotherapy drugs, Linge began to consider returning to school, but suddenly her symptoms worsened. “I felt like a knife was stabbing me in the top of my head, and I couldn’t speak,” she recalls. Blood vessels in her brain were closing, and she spent the next four weeks in the hospital having strokes. She was flown to the Mayo Clinic and began a six-month course of chemotherapy to suppress her immune system.
“I had to learn how to walk again, how to read again, how to write again,” Linge says. “But God made me stubborn, and in 2023 I returned to BYU Law. All my peers had graduated, and I was the girl on chemo wearing a face mask,
but I will walk with the current 3Ls and I just took the bar!” Compromised immunity and required infusions have made foreign travel impossible, so Linge has pivoted and will work in trusts and estates with a firm in Salt Lake.
Paving the Way
After securing an offer to join the corporate law practice at Kirkland & Ellis in New York, Colter Miller, ’25, got to work laying groundwork for other BYU Law students to work in the Big Apple. One thing Miller did was meet with 1Ls interested in New York City and orient them to timelines and networking connections.
Assistant dean for career development Shannon Grandy Larsen praises Miller’s efforts: “Colter did a lot of legwork that has allowed the Career Development Office to make new inroads with New York firms. We’ve done many online meetings with these firms together, and the outreach paid off.” For example, Goodwin Procter, Freshfields, and Lowenstein Sandler are hosting 1Ls for the first time at networking meetings during the Deals Academy in New York City this summer, and Milbank sent three attorneys (none with any connection to BYU or the Church) to campus in January for a panel event with BYU Law’s New York Law Society.
Miller is a go-getter who understands how to leverage opportunities. He has taken full advantage of the Law School’s international programs. He spent his 1L summer working for a law firm in Argentina through the International Match Program and spent his 2L year working for a company in Dubai and a law firm in Brazil through the Global Law Seminar. He also worked as a teaching assistant for BYU’s American Heritage course for six years. “This might be a university record!” he says.
Corporate law caught Miller’s attention when he was pursuing his undergraduate degree in finance. “If you want to do corporate work,” he says, “you can tailor your education and find great mentors at BYU Law.” He credits roommates, classmates, and others for allowing him to piggyback on their lead throughout his education, and he looks forward to learning from mentors as he begins his career. Miller will undoubtedly pay it forward, paving the way for others for years to come.
Good Advice
Wesley White, ’25, had a great legal mentor in his father, a chemical engineer who pivoted to pursue a law degree at BYU and opened his own family law practice. “I saw how legal skills allowed my father to help
BYU is very diverse in terms of viewpoints. Students feel free to passionately express their views, and then we leave class and we’re still all friends.
—wesley white
people and be a natural leader in our community,” says White. BYU Law’s promotion of free speech has been another valued influence on White. “We talk about really hot-button issues, from abortion to affirmative action, rape laws, equal protection rights, and substantive rights,” he observes. “BYU is very diverse in terms of viewpoints. Students feel free to passionately express their views, and then we leave class and we’re still all friends. The professors do a good job of promoting that.”
Support from the BYU Law community has been another highlight. When his second child was born just before his 2L final exams, White found himself writing his substantial writing paper from the NICU, where his newborn spent several weeks. He recalls with fondness the generous help he received from faculty and friends: “Everybody was so
nice. The professors extended deadlines and students gave me their lecture notes—there was no hesitation.”
BYU Law’s Trial Academy at Kirkland & Ellis in Dallas changed White’s career course. “I spent a week with these attorneys and immediately I’m in their network,” he explains. “When I was applying for a 2L summer job, I called one of them, and he told me, ‘You ought to start your career in Washington, DC.’” White took the advice and spent his 2L summer at Latham & Watkins in DC, where he will likely return after clerking for US district court judge Howard Nielson in Utah, followed by Second Circuit judge Michael Park in New York. “I’m told that clerking is like a continuation of law school, and that’s exactly what I want,” White says. “I love it here so much. I don’t think law school is too long!”
The 2025 J. Reuben Clark Law Society Annual Conference took place in Mexico City in March. The conference theme, “Uno,” refers to the first time this conference has been hosted in Mexico and emphasizes the Law Society’s singular commitment to humanitarian service, religious freedom, and collaboration with other communities of faith. More than 300 attorneys, law students, and friends of the Law Society gathered at the Mexico City Manzana del Templo (Temple Square) complex of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many of the sessions were conducted in Spanish, with English translation provided.
A fireside with Elder Hugo Montoya, Mexico Area president and
General Authority Seventy for the Church, kicked off the conference. Montoya spoke about unity, amplifying the conference’s “Uno” theme by noting the culturally and geographically diverse Law Society’s unified goal to strengthen families, values, governments, and churches.
“The harmonious sum of our differences make us one, and it is in unity that we can achieve the most,” he observed. Urging Law Society members to join together to effect positive change in the world, Montoya assured attendees that “by uniting, each of us doing our best—whether as churches, governments, schools, civil organizations like this Society, and above all as families—all of us, as children of God united in the same purpose, will find happiness and joy never before experienced.”
“Uno”
THE JRCLS CONFERENCE IN MEXICO
--------------
BY LYNNETT RANDS , ’93 Law School Assistant Dean for Communications
The second day of the conference included breakfast meetings for various Law Society groups. Breakout sessions focused on the Law Society’s role in upholding the rule of law, supporting refugees, promoting attorney mobility, offering pro bono legal services, and addressing unique challenges of representing religious organizations. For non-US attorneys, BYU Law Dean David H. Moore, ’96, and Professor Eric Talbot Jensen
shared a detailed presentation about BYU Law’s LLM degree.
Keynote speakers included D. Scott Hutchison Jr., consul in the US Consulate General in Tijuana, Mexico, who spoke about Law Society namesake J. Reuben Clark Jr.’s service as US ambassador to Mexico from 1930 to 1933. Carl Hernandez III, ’92, BYU vice president for belonging, delivered a keynote address titled “The Covenant Community.” Hernandez noted, “Members
of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society can promote the construction of covenant communities by creating confidence and trust in the rule of law and in the principles of constitutionalism and institutions that preserve and advance freedom and liberty.”
Local cuisine was another conference highlight, as was the mariachi band that performed traditional and muchloved Mexican songs. Local members of the Law Society also performed an impromptu dance, and many attendees joined in on the fun.
On International Women’s Day, March 8, the final day of the conference opened with Women in Law Committee presentations and awards and continued with discussions about domestic violence against women, human rights, and pro bono service. Later three lawyers—Steve Sandberg, BYU general counsel; Christian A. Fox, ’03, BYU deputy counsel; and
Christopher A. Bauer, ’03, Mexico area legal counsel for the Church—reflected on their intersecting career paths and Church-related legal work. Concluding the conference, David C. Channer, ’85, associate general counsel for the Church, plus several legal counsel who represent the Church in Peru, Brazil, and Mexico shared experiences where they received divine guidance in their legal efforts.
The 2025 conference was a memorable experience that allowed Law Society members from across the globe to connect with peers from other countries. The gathering inspired a feeling of unity and increased members’ sense of purpose in using their legal training and talents as a powerful force for good in the world. Mexico City was the annual conference’s first international venue, but it will not be the last: The 2027 conference will be in Brazil!
2024–2025 byu law school conferences
OCTOBER 3–4, 2024
JRCLS Leadership Conference
JUNE 20, 2024
Religious Freedom Annual Review
OCTOBER 6–8, 2024
ICLRS International Law and Religion Symposium
MARCH 13–14, 2025
Winter Deals Conference
MARCH 6–8, 2025
JRCLS Annual Conference (in Mexico City)
OCTOBER 24–25, 2024 Law and Corpus Linguistics Conference
MARCH 21, 2025
State and Local Government Conference
MARCH 28, 2025 Empirical Legal Studies Student Conference
Top 10 Law Schools for Innovation (BY BLOOMBERG LAW)
INFLUENTIAL INNOVATIONS
Academies
In addition to a rigorous theoretical curriculum, BYU Law o ers first-year students the opportunity to participate in one of several Academies—world-class skills trainings delivered by top-flight practitioners working in partnership with BYU Law faculty. Academies employ an intensive, simulation-based approach to help students integrate their academic legal training with the real-world practice of law.
LawX
LawX, BYU Law’s groundbreaking legal design lab, uses design thinking within a classroom setting to tackle some of the most pressing access-to-legal-services issues. Previous projects include SoloSuit (an award-winning online tool to help pro se defendants), Hello Landlord (an online tenant-landlord communication tool designed to reduce evictions), and Goodbye Record (an online resource to assist individuals, legislators, and corporate partners in addressing flaws in the expungement process).
Law and Corpus Linguistics
BYU Law has been a pioneer in corpus linguistics by producing original scholarship and research tools, including the Law and Corpus Linguistics Technology Platform in 2018. The corpora o er free resources for judges, scholars, and professionals seeking an empirical approach to problems of linguistic ambiguity. Professor Tom Lee and other BYU faculty continue to develop the corpora, elevating corpus linguistics as an essential tool for developing and interpreting legislation and case law.
