Breaking Professional Boundaries: What the MacCrate Report on Lawyering Skills and Values Means for TPC Programs

Abstract

In 1992, the American Bar Association released the MacCrate Report, which listed the ten skills and four professional values that all attorneys need and critiqued law schools and state bars for not doing enough to teach and encourage the development of these skills and values. In response, law schools have significantly increased the skills-based components in their curricula, and most state bar exams now include a performance test. Technical and Professional Communication (TPC) programs already provide substantial instruction in all of the skills and values described in the MacCrate Report; further, an education in TPC prepares graduates to excel in law school and on the bar exam. This knowledge offers opportunities for growth if educators, administrators, and scholars take steps to encourage students to consider not only writing for but also joining in the legal profession.

Avoiding Litigation for Product Instructions and Warnings

“…While medical malpractice receives a fair amount of media attention, this standard could apply for any professional, including other healthcare providers, engineers, lawyers, accountants, and others whose jobs involve factors too complex for the jury to understand [21, § 242]. Given the recurring theme in the literature of the extent to which technical communication is a distinct professional field [52,53], scholars should consider analyzing professional malpractice and its potential applicability to technical communicators.…”

The Province of Sophists: An Argument for Academic Homelessness

“…Other scholars have offered state-of-the-discipline assessments of the field's current position and forecasts of its future development (Faber, 2002;Savage, 2004). Still other scholars have written about the significance of interdisciplinarity to our field (Brady, Johnson, & Wallace, 2006) or have considered how to situate technical and professional communication in other disciplinary contexts (Brady et al, 2006;Kent, 2007;Locker, 2003;Longo, 2000;Reave, 2004;Spigelman & Grobman, 2006;Todd, 2008;Wishbow, 1999;Wojahn, Dyke, Riley, Hensel, & Brown, 2001). These questions are important, and the answers scholars have offered are valuable.…”