I had Uhlman for Environmental Crimes in 2019. I like Uhlman a lot as a person, but occasionally found his teaching style too scattered; he likes to go on tangents, and often tells long stories about his time in practice. The readings were long and not trimmed to the relevant parts, but he didn’t cold call on unnecessary details and was generally fine as long as you did the reading. His guest speakers were all interesting and provided a nice background on the real life implications on some of the statutes. The exam was one long hypo with a word limit that I found pretty difficult to stay within, but all in all, it was a pretty fair exam that accurately reflected the topics we covered in class. I don’t have a particular interest in environmental issues, so perhaps this class just wasn’t for me, but it is probably a good class for anyone interested in environmental litigation.
Uhlmann is a great prof. Super nice, very smart, good-natured, not overtly funny but seems to have a good sense of humor. Really likes to have everybody participate in a sort of discussion-style class…it really feels more like a seminar and I think he likes it that way (ours is maybe 30 people though, not sure it’s always that way). He explains things very clearly. He does have trouble staying on pace, partially due to his stories about being a federal prosecutor, but they’re interesting stories so who cares? I took Environmental Crimes as a totally random elective, with no interest in environmental anything, because friends recommended Uhlmann. No regrets.
Had Uhlmann for Crim Law, and I personally thought he was great. The class was more discussion based and less socratic. Does not really focus on MPC, but rather the general requirements for crimes in several states.
3. Incredibly nice prof who genuinely care about his students. Presents material (crim law) in an easy to digest format and is almost always entertaining. Draws a lot from his experience as a fed prosecutor but his humorous and honest about most aspects of the law. My only caveats would be that 1) he tends to entertain any and all questions and lets the class digress and diverge from the course and 2) he is pretty harsh on you if you don’t understand something which he feels you should. Usually this is only when he feels you didn’t complete the reading, which he feels breaks the flow of the class. However, chastising students for not reading equally breaks the flow.
Exam: Pretty fair, long. Multiple short answers followed by a long fact pattern which had 8-10 individual questions about which charge would be brought. Many seemed pressed for time. Still, not a hide the ball type of exam.
I had Uhlmann for Climate Change Law in Winter 2020 when we were P/F. I thought the class was pretty interesting, though he didn’t cold call and we often heard the same voices over and over again. The final was pretty straightforward. There’s not a ton of established law in the climate change class, so it sometimes felt more like a seminar than anything else. He had some really cool guest speakers come in.
Overall, I liked him a lot but am not sure I would take his class again. I’m not sure if it was the no cold calling or the topic in general, but we got off topic a lot and it was sometimes hard to know what to take notes on. He’s a really, really wonderful person though, and I’ve heard great things about his other courses.
I had Uhlmann for Evidence in F20. He was really good at adapting to zoom teaching (lots of polls and short questions during class to get everyone involved) and took student criticism seriously when it came to things like a mid-class break from staring at the computer, moving to a panel cold call system, and reducing reading in response to student concerns about keeping up. It was a little irritating that we never got a sample exam before the end of the semester, but it was his first time teaching the class, so I at least knew it was a possibility going in, and there’s a lot of evidence practice tests and preparation tools out there anyway.
I’ll agree with previous commenters from non-evidence classes that he teaches with a lot of practical examples and anecdotes, which made the subject really approachable. I mostly took this evidence class because people say it’s important for the bar, I didn’t want to take a multiple choice final, and I didn’t want evidence class to take over my life, and this class fit the bill, with the added benefit of Uhlmann being an extremely caring and thoughtful professor that did his best to make a rough semester bearable for everyone. I’d recommend his evidence class for students with similar motivations.
MLaw Prof Reviews
I had Uhlman for Environmental Crimes in 2019. I like Uhlman a lot as a person, but occasionally found his teaching style too scattered; he likes to go on tangents, and often tells long stories about his time in practice. The readings were long and not trimmed to the relevant parts, but he didn’t cold call on unnecessary details and was generally fine as long as you did the reading. His guest speakers were all interesting and provided a nice background on the real life implications on some of the statutes. The exam was one long hypo with a word limit that I found pretty difficult to stay within, but all in all, it was a pretty fair exam that accurately reflected the topics we covered in class. I don’t have a particular interest in environmental issues, so perhaps this class just wasn’t for me, but it is probably a good class for anyone interested in environmental litigation.
Uhlmann is a great prof. Super nice, very smart, good-natured, not overtly funny but seems to have a good sense of humor. Really likes to have everybody participate in a sort of discussion-style class…it really feels more like a seminar and I think he likes it that way (ours is maybe 30 people though, not sure it’s always that way). He explains things very clearly. He does have trouble staying on pace, partially due to his stories about being a federal prosecutor, but they’re interesting stories so who cares? I took Environmental Crimes as a totally random elective, with no interest in environmental anything, because friends recommended Uhlmann. No regrets.
Had Uhlmann for Crim Law, and I personally thought he was great. The class was more discussion based and less socratic. Does not really focus on MPC, but rather the general requirements for crimes in several states.
3. Incredibly nice prof who genuinely care about his students. Presents material (crim law) in an easy to digest format and is almost always entertaining. Draws a lot from his experience as a fed prosecutor but his humorous and honest about most aspects of the law. My only caveats would be that 1) he tends to entertain any and all questions and lets the class digress and diverge from the course and 2) he is pretty harsh on you if you don’t understand something which he feels you should. Usually this is only when he feels you didn’t complete the reading, which he feels breaks the flow of the class. However, chastising students for not reading equally breaks the flow.
Exam: Pretty fair, long. Multiple short answers followed by a long fact pattern which had 8-10 individual questions about which charge would be brought. Many seemed pressed for time. Still, not a hide the ball type of exam.
I had Uhlmann for Climate Change Law in Winter 2020 when we were P/F. I thought the class was pretty interesting, though he didn’t cold call and we often heard the same voices over and over again. The final was pretty straightforward. There’s not a ton of established law in the climate change class, so it sometimes felt more like a seminar than anything else. He had some really cool guest speakers come in.
Overall, I liked him a lot but am not sure I would take his class again. I’m not sure if it was the no cold calling or the topic in general, but we got off topic a lot and it was sometimes hard to know what to take notes on. He’s a really, really wonderful person though, and I’ve heard great things about his other courses.
I had Uhlmann for Evidence in F20. He was really good at adapting to zoom teaching (lots of polls and short questions during class to get everyone involved) and took student criticism seriously when it came to things like a mid-class break from staring at the computer, moving to a panel cold call system, and reducing reading in response to student concerns about keeping up. It was a little irritating that we never got a sample exam before the end of the semester, but it was his first time teaching the class, so I at least knew it was a possibility going in, and there’s a lot of evidence practice tests and preparation tools out there anyway.
I’ll agree with previous commenters from non-evidence classes that he teaches with a lot of practical examples and anecdotes, which made the subject really approachable. I mostly took this evidence class because people say it’s important for the bar, I didn’t want to take a multiple choice final, and I didn’t want evidence class to take over my life, and this class fit the bill, with the added benefit of Uhlmann being an extremely caring and thoughtful professor that did his best to make a rough semester bearable for everyone. I’d recommend his evidence class for students with similar motivations.