Martin Pritikin is the newly appointed Dean of Concord Law School at Kaplan University, the nation’s first fully online law school. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he served on the Harvard Law Review. He then spent several years at the litigation firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP in Los Angeles, before entering academia full time at Whittier Law School in Orange County, California, where he taught course including Evidence, Advanced Litigation, and Criminal Law, and twice won the Teacher of the Year award. Pritikin’s scholarship has addressed both substantive legal issues and the need for reform in legal education, as well as comparisons between American and Jewish law. His articles have appeared in the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law and Policy Review, the Cardozo Law Journal, and the Journal of Legal Education, among others. As an administrator, Pritikin founded and directed Whittier’s Institute for Trial and Appellate Practice, and served as their Associate Dean for Experiential Learning, Associate Dean of the Law School, and Acting Dean. He spearheaded their adoption of their “Experience the Law” curriculum, which was named 6th Most Innovative in the nation by National Jurist, and launched their incubator program, which provides recent graduates with the infrastructure and legal and business training to launch their own law practices.
The death penalty has been under attack for being unconstitutional. Should we be allowed to decide who deserves to die? Listen as both sides of the argument make their case. Then, you be the judge. This debate took place at the 12th annual National Jewish Retreat. For more information and to register for the next retreat, visit: Jretreat.com.
Mr. Martin H. Pritikin (2)
Experience biblical scholarship and courtroom drama as we explore the brothers' role in the sale of Joseph. Are they guilty of conspiracy, kidnapping, and human trafficking? Or are they innocent, having acted with good reason? Watch as the prosecution and defense pitch biblical commentaries against each other, and then vote on the verdict.
Hon. Andrew Kauffman (1)