Dean JoAnne Epps’ legal career began with public service, as a prosecuting attorney on both the local and federal levels.  A natural teacher, she moved into the academic world and ultimately into academic administration.  Epps became the Temple Law dean in 2008, after over two dozen years of distinguished work as a professor and an associate dean.  (She also taught your author the rules of evidence, and although I have no trial experience to speak of I retain an uncanny memory of hearsay exceptions some eight years down the road.)

1. You began your career as a litigator in the L.A. City Attorney’s Office and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Pennsylvania. What prompted you to enter academia from that career path, and to enter academic administration from there?

I have always had a natural curiosity about legal questions and issues, so while being a prosecutor was important and highly satisfying work, the opportunity that academia offered to exercise my curiosity was intriguing.  One of the reasons I enjoy teaching and working with students so much is that they bring a limitless supply of curiosity and enthusiasm to the classroom.  So, when I got feedback at the Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute that I had taught my particular class there very effectively, I decided to see if academia really was for me.

That being said, I had never even thought about becoming an administrator until (former Dean) Bob Reinstein took me aside early in my teaching career and asked me to consider it.  Bob had already become an invaluable mentor to me, so I took his request very seriously.  It turned out that Bob had discerned a talent that I didn’t even know I had, but with his guidance and support was able to develop.

2.  You started as Dean of the Beasley School of Law in 2008, just as the legal economy plunged downward. What has it been like heading a school in this environment? Can you comment on some unique challenges you’ve faced, as well as any opportunities that may have presented themselves?

It has been challenging, but not a crisis; more than anything else it has been rewarding.  We tell our students to think creatively and we have as well. We have developed two programs that fund positions for recent graduates to serve public interest agencies in Philadelphia and one for graduates to work with faculty in advanced research projects.  Many alumni have stepped forward to provide mentoring and guidance.  Our students are remarkably resilient, and our employment statistics for the Class of 2009 have exceeded our expectations.  In a certain way, the fact that jobs have not been exactly plentiful forces students to consider their values, why they went to law school in the first place, and how they can best use their legal education.  If this leads to more professional satisfaction in the end, that would be a silver lining.

3. Given your focus – in practice and in the academic world – on criminal justice issues, what advice do you give to current law students who are interested in careers as prosecutors or public defenders?

Both are great jobs, and very necessary jobs.  Personally, I loved being a prosecutor.  Criminal law touches untold lives in a very direct and powerful way.  Practicing it – as either a defender or a prosecutor – gives you an opportunity to influence what happens in the world around you.  You do have to be comfortable working in a high stakes environment, and passionate about the work itself. But to me, criminal law offered the best opportunity to do what most law students go to school to do – it’s a chance to actually do justice.

4. There has been a lot of conversation lately over educational debt levels and methods to address them (including President Obama’s recent proposal to expand the benefits offered through the College Cost Reduction and Access Act).  What do you think law schools should be doing to address student debt, particularly for public interest-oriented students.

I would like future lawyers to have the freedom to choose their career based on their interests and passions, not salary.  Law schools should provide good value to their students by providing a top quality legal education while keeping tuition costs reasonable.  One way to accomplish this is to provide targeted scholarships for students interested in a public interest career, such as Temple Law’s Rubin-Presser Public Interest Scholarship Program.  Similarly, funding for public interest internships is critical so students are not forced to choose between increasing their debt burden or pursuing the work they want to do.  Finally, schools should educate their students about forgiveness programs like the College Cost Reduction & Access Act and maintain loan repayment assistance programs to help graduates manage their debt.  I am proud that Temple Law has been providing loan repayment assistance through our Barrack Public Interest Fellowships since 1990.

5. You wrote this summer about the need for a change in how law schools educate their students, with more of a focus on skills training and hands-on experience. Where do you think this conversation is going to go in the near future? Do you anticipate many schools making significant changes to their curricula (such as requiring all students to take a clinic or externship)?

I think it’s no longer a matter of anticipating that schools will make changes, because every week seems to bring an announcement that another school is rolling out what they believe is the new and improved way to educate new lawyers.  And that’s fine.  The authors of the Carnegie Report and Best Practices Report have argued persuasively that law schools should take steps to emphasize more experiential and skills-based learning over the course of a typical J.D. curriculum, which reflects what we’ve been doing at Temple for over thirty years.  Even so, we’re examining our own upper level curriculum to make sure that it meets the needs of today’s young lawyers while remaining a good value as well.  Other schools may take different approaches.  I’ve said elsewhere that legal education is no longer – if it ever was – one size fits all.  This challenge – again, I don’t think of it as a crisis – invites us examine the relationship between law schools and legal service providers, whatever setting they’re practicing in.  I think what will follow is likely to be a rich period of innovation and creative problem solving, the outcomes of which I am eager to discover.