This study presents the results of a survey of US law school faculty about their law school's management. The representative study presents their views on hiring full time and adjunct faculty, awarding tenure, law school asset sales and tuition abatement plans, and on other issues regarding the law school budget. Among the other issues covered: their opinion of how well law school management is handling fundraising, alumni relations, promotion, facilities management, library services, international and domestic student recruitment, and special events management. In addition, faculty were asked to evaluate management's efforts to foster grants and other financial support for faculty research, to publicize faculty research and achievements, and to furnish top line information technology support. Faculty also give their views on the apparent relaxation of student admission standards at many law schools and what this means for the future of the profession. In addition, faculty offer their opinions on what exactly they like and don't like about their law school management, and where they would like to see their law schools go in the future. Many cite specific laws schools and policies worthy of emulation. 111 Faculty from 36 US law schools participated in the survey.Just a few of the many findings from this 90-page perfect bound report are: *About 51% of interviewees older than 60 think that their institutions' management generally is more able than that of other law schools, while only 22% of the respondents aged 30-39 believe so.*About 32% of the respondents think that their law schools should "increase faculty compensation in line with past increase", while only 14% believe that their law schools should "work to reduce faculty compensation costs along with other cost reduction measures."*About 76% of the respondents from public law schools are satisfied with the overall quality of special events management at the law school, while only 60% of their colleagues from private law schools feel the same way.

This112-page study looks closely at how law school faculty view information technology and information literacy assistance offered by law school information technology staff and law libraries. 114 faculty from 60 law schools give their opinions of a broad range of information and specify their needs in areas as diverse as law database search strategy to document preparation, use of PDF technology, and remote access to law school content and resources. The report enables information technology departments, law libraries and law school management to benchmark their own efforts vs. those of their peers. Data is broken out by size, type and ranking of law school, and by personal characteristics of the survey participant, such as gender, academic title and other variables.Some of the areas covered in the report include: use of the following: PowerPoint and other presentation software, Microsoft Word and other word processing applications, legal database searching, videoconferencing and live streaming, special technology equipped classrooms, scanners and printers, audio and video files, pdf¿s, citation software, course management systems, blogs and social media, the intranet, and more. Just a few of the report¿s main findings are that:¿28.57% of female faculty but only 8.62% of male faculty felt that videoconferencing or live streaming capability was an important service for them.¿In information technology training, private schools performed better than public ones; Nearly 56% of faculty at the former but only a little more than 35% at the latter considered service to be good or excellent. ¿Faculty at top 40 law schools were more likely than others to seek IT assistance and they did so a mean of 19.89 and a median of 20 times in the past year. ¿37.66% of professors and 38.46% of lecturers felt that they would need help from the IT staff in the future in using the law school or university course management system.

This study closely examines law school faculty satisfaction with an array of qualities and initiatives of law school management in the USA. The study enables its end users to pinpoint satisfaction, or lack of it, with many facets of law school governance and management. Unique data sets are presented for satisfaction with each of the following: distribution of the teaching load, sexual harassment policies, marketing the law school, fundraising for the law school, overall law education quality, anti-discrimination in hiring, tenure and promotion, use of artificial intelligence, quality of library services, openness to presenting a broad range of political and legal opinions and more. Just a few of this 55-page report's many findings are that:16.34% of law school faculty are dissatisfied with law school anti-discrimination efforts in promotion, tenure and hiring,40.91% of faculty at top 20 law schools were satisfied with their law school's fundraising efforts.58% of female faculty were satisfied with law school policies on the distribution of the teaching load.The survey was conducted from April 10 to June 7, 2023. Data and commentary in the report is sourced from a survey of 104 law school faculty drawn from 56 law schools. Data in the report is broken out by personal variables such as work title, gender and age, as well as institutional variables such as law school size, public or private status and approximate ranking.

Seventy four law faculty from 60+ American law schools give their opinion on what law schools are and should be doing to support democracy in the USA and in other countries. The 114-page study gives detailed data on what percentage of law school faculty believe that US democracy is deteriorating, and how the legal profession should interact with parties who deny the validity of the 2020 presidential election. Respondents give their views on the role of the Democratic and Republican parties in the decline of democracy, and the extent to which either party, neither, or both together should be held responsible for the widely perceived threats to democracy in America. In open ended questions, respondents discuss programs and initatives of their law schools, and of themselves personally, to promote democracy in the United States and abroad. The report gives data on specific initiatives to support democracy in China, Latin America, Russia and other locations, with data for each specific location. The report helps its readers to answer questions such as: what should law schools be doing, if anything, to support democracy in this troubled age of the looming return of authoritarianism in many guises? How does support or opposition to law school measures in this area break down by size, type, and ranking of the law school? By the political convictions, work title, and academic legal field of the specific respondents?

This 70+ page study presents data from a survey of 114 law faculty from 60 law schools about the grants and other funds that they have sought or received to support their scholarly efforts. The report presents detailed data on the amount of funds raised over the past five years, the outlook for funding currently and in the future, sources of funding, topics funded, and much more. The study also looks at how law school faculty evaluate the help that they receive from law school and general university administration, the law and general university library and other sources. Data in the report is broken out by many criteria such as title, gender and age of faculty and size and ranking of the law school, among other variables. Just a few of the report¿s many findings are that:¿The mean cumulative amount of the grants received over the past five years for faculty who had been able to raise money was $109,989 with a median of $50,000.¿Men received more support than women; men who received any support over the past five years averaged a 5-year cumulative total of $135,529 vs. only $82,853 for women in the same circumstance.¿Associate and assistant professors spent much more time than full professors chasing money; the former spent 6.22% of their total work time looking for grants or other support; the latter, only 2.88%.The report includes faculty from these and many other law schools: Australian National University Law School, Birmingham Law School, The University of Birmingham, England, Boston College Law School, California Western School of Law, Charleston School of Law, Columbia University Law School, Cornell Law School, CUNY School of Law, Denver Law, Griffith University Law, Harvard Law School, Northeastern University Law School, NYU Law School, Rutgers Law School, School of Law, St. Louis University School of Law, Stanford Law School, Texas Tech University School of Law, The John Marshall Law School, University of Alberta Law School, University of Maryland School of Law, UNLV Boyd School of Law, University of Washington Law and many others.