Thinking like a lawyer/acting like a professional: communities of practice as a means of challenging orthodox legal education

Increasingly, there is pressure upon law schools, in Australia and elsewhere, to impress upon students the significance of the ethical and professional obligations of legal practice. The recent Carnegie Report explicitly looked to law schools “to initiate novice practitioners to think, to perform, and to conduct themselves (that is, to act morally and ethically) like professionals”. Many law students, however, have little appreciation of legal ethics and any concept they may have of professionalism tends to be envisaged as applying only after graduation. In this paper, we explore the idea of a “community of practice”. Lave and Wenger, who coined the phrase, contend that “learning is conceived as a trajectory in which learners move from legitimate peripheral participant to core participant of the community of practice”. We will argue that law students should appreciate that they are entering the legal profession's community of practice and that all aspects of their conduct relevant to professionalism – not only academic integrity, but matters such as time management, teamwork, relationships with peers and staff – relate to this transition into a legal professional community. Such an approach may not only serve to impress upon students the significance of “professionalism” and ethics, but inculcate in them a sense of belonging to a professional community.     

The Effect of Vertebral Numerical Variation on Anatomical Stature Estimates

Abstract: Most humans possess 24 presacral vertebrae composed of seven cervicals, 12 thoracics, and five lumbars. However, variation from this standard pattern exists. The purpose of this study was to test the effect of congenital vertebral numerical variation on anatomical stature estimates and to recommend appropriate procedures when such variation occurs. Our sample consists of 41 individuals with unusual vertebral count patterns and known cadaveric statures from the Smithsonian’s Terry Collection. Raxter et al. published a revised Fully anatomical technique in 2006 and we used this to estimate living stature. Based on our results, we recommend using the standard anatomical technique to reconstruct stature, regardless of vertebral pattern. However, when an individual possesses six sacral segments together with a normal number of presacral vertebrae, we recommend the addition of a slight correction factor of 1.3 cm or 0.8% of estimated stature.     

Homogenous Base Rates for Malingering in Neuropsychological Examination of Litigants

Base rates for malingering are often obtained and averaged across multiple clinicians who apply heterogeneous methods for detection (Mittenberg et al., J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 24: 1094?1102, 2002; Young, Psychol Inj Law 8: 200–218, 2015). Our aims of obtaining homogenous base rates included the following: (a) evaluation of all our legal cases in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the position papers by both the National Academy of Neuropsychology and the Association for Psychological Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law, (b) minimal variation between our comprehensive neuropsychological examinations, and (c) determination of base rates of failed effort in 150 consecutively examined legal cases in one medical setting. To assess the various levels of volitional exaggeration, we introduced four gradations of poor effort definitions, which relied on performance validity tests (PVTs). A comparison between two consecutive samples of 75 litigants indicated less frequent poor effort with increasingly more conservative criteria. In our analysis of a subset of litigants who sustained traumatic brain injuries (N?=?115), the four base rates for mild versus moderate-severe TBI groups were equivalent for the two more lenient malingering definitions but varied for the two more conservative definitions. Specifically, for the mild TBI cases investigated, the percentage of three PVT failures (or one PVT failure significantly below chance) arrived at 3.4 %. Our final aim was to compare the base rates of poor effort that were obtained with PVTs to the base rates of emotional and physical symptom endorsement, which were obtained with symptom validity tests (SVTs). No significant correlations emerged in this analysis. The discussion emphasizes the relatively lower base rates of poor effort found in the convenience sample studied in neuropsychological evaluations relative to the higher estimates in the literature (40 +/? 10 %, Larrabee et al., Clin Neuropsychol 23: 841–849, 2009) but not others based on comprehensive review (Young, Psychol Inj Law 8: 200–218, 2015).     

Re-examination of the Controversial Coexistence of Traumatic Brain Injury and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Misdiagnosis and Self-Report Measures

The coexistence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) remains a controversial issue in the literature. To address this controversy, we focused primarily on the civilian-related literature of TBI and PTSD. Some investigators have argued that individuals who had been rendered unconscious or suffered amnesia due to a TBI are unable to develop PTSD because they would be unable to consciously experience the symptoms of fear, helplessness, and horror associated with the development of PTSD. Other investigators have reported that individuals who sustain TBI, regardless of its severity, can develop PTSD even in the context of prolonged unconsciousness. A careful review of the methodologies employed in these studies reveals that investigators who relied on clinical interviews of TBI patients to diagnose PTSD found little or no evidence of PTSD. In contrast, investigators who relied on PTSD questionnaires to diagnose PTSD found considerable evidence of PTSD. Further analysis revealed that many of the TBI patients who were initially diagnosed with PTSD according to self-report questionnaires did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD upon completion of a clinical interview. In particular, patients with severe TBI were often misdiagnosed with PTSD. A number of investigators found that many of the severe TBI patients failed to follow the questionnaire instructions and erroneously endorsed PTSD symptoms because of their cognitive difficulties. Because PTSD questionnaires are not designed to discriminate between PTSD and TBI symptoms or determine whether a patient's responses are accurate or exaggerated, studies that rely on self-report questionnaires to evaluate PTSD in TBI patients are at risk of misdiagnosing PTSD. Further research should evaluate the degree to which misdiagnosis of PTSD occurs in individuals who have sustained mild TBI.     

Forensic Neuropsychology and Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Over the last 20 years, the Courts and the legal community have increasingly relied on neuropsychologists to provide opinions, guidance, and expertise in the area of brain–behavior relationships. The purpose of this article is to review issues neuropsychologists commonly face when asked to evaluate cases with suspected mild traumatic brain injuries (TBI) in the civil or criminal legal context. In particular, we will discuss: (a) the neuropsychologist’s role in TBI forensic cases, (b) the attorney’s role in forensic TBI cases, (c) a neuropsychological framework to approach forensic mild TBI cases, (d) establishing working relationships with attorneys, (e) the Daubert and Frye standards, (f) symptom validity, (g) ethical issues, and (h) recommendations to improve the ecological validity of our tests and encourage test developers to provide alternate forms of tests.     

Psychological Assessment of Symptom and Performance Validity,Response Bias,and Malingering: Official Position of the Association for Scientific Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law

Evidence-based forensic psychological opinions require thorough and accurate information about examinees. Psychometric instruments can facilitate diagnostic decision making, but they rely on examinees to respond honestly to questions and put forth good effort on cognitive tests. Given the strong incentives for examinees in psychological injury cases to minimize prior problems and emphasize postaccident or posttrauma problems, the assessment of validity as part of forensic psychological evaluations is essential. Best practices in forensic psychology have their foundation in ethical principles. The purpose of this position statement is to promote ethical psychological practice in legal contexts by reviewing validity assessment issues and their ethical foundations. Because no previously published document focused specifically on symptom and performance validity assessment in psychological injury evaluations performed in forensic contexts, such a position statement provided by a professional organization devoted to the interface of psychological injury and law was needed to inform and guide practitioners and to educate other interested parties. The position statement emphasizes (a) the need for ethical practice in assessing validity, (b) consideration of factors such as culture and functional limitations, and (c) the importance of adopting a comprehensive, impartial, and scientific approach to validity assessment. The position statement acknowledges areas of differing opinions and the need for further research.     

Admissions appeals in 1999: the impact of the 1998 regulations and R,v. Birmingham city council ex parte M 1998

School admission appeal committees hearing appeals in 1999 will have to grapple with two main changes. Firstly, they will have to identify which of the three tests available applies to the appeal before them. The Education Act 1996 (Infant Class Sizes) Modification Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1948) have replaced the ‘standard’ prejudice test with a ‘new’ and much narrower prejudice test for certain admission appeals. The third test applies to appeals relating to the admission of a pupil who has been permanently excluded from a school on two or more occasions. Secondly, the recent decision of the High Court in R. v. Birmingham City Council x parte M 1998 requires an appeal committee to give specific grounds for their decision in the letter informing parents of the committee's decision. This goes beyond the broad grounds hitherto considered adequate and has implications for both the appeal hearing and for the form of letter used by local authorities.