Prior research has sketched out a picture in which, at least since 1960 and continuing to the present, advocates of the differing personae, or roles, of the U.S. law professor have been sharply divided over such personae. Lawyers have advocated two major personae for the law professor to perform. One major persona is that of the scholar, who is a full-time teacher, researcher, and sometimes public servant, but who often has limited practical experience. The other major persona is that of the practitioner, who has a substantial number of years of practice at the bar and is prepared for hands-on lawyering instruction. At stake in this communication is the future of the central figure in the education of prospective lawyers. Unfortunately, the lawyers who have constructed these personae generally have employed traditional Aristotelian rhetoric, or persuasion, a process that has contributed to much rhetorical clash and little rhetorical understanding. This article maintains that alternative rhetorics offer new possibilities to help improve the conflict over the persona(e) of the U.S. law professor. To expand upon this perspective, the article begins with a discussion of invitational rhetoric, both defining invitational rhetoric and illustrating how invitational rhetoric can be helpful for lawyers presently involved in the conflict over the rhetorical construction of the law professor persona(e). The article then continues with a discussion of cooperative rhetoric, defining cooperative rhetoric as invitational rhetoric informs it, outlining the form of alternative dispute resolution known as collaborative law as a precedent for the implementation of cooperative rhetoric in the legal field, and illustrating how cooperative rhetoric can work in the conflict over the ideal law professor persona(e).
Carlo A. Pedrioli, Beyond Aristotle: Alternative Rhetorics and the Conflict over the U.S. Law Professor Persona(e), 38 OHIO N.U. L. REV. 919 (2012)