Heather L. Stobaugh
Co-Director of Legal Analysis, Writing and Research, and Clinical Professor of Law
Full-time faculty
Heather Stobaugh is the co-director of Legal Analysis, Writing and Research, a foundational first-year law school course. She has taught the course since 2008. Prior to attending law school, Professor Stobaugh taught college-level English courses and worked as a freelance writer for many years. After graduation from law school, Professor Stobaugh was an associate at Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal in Dallas. She practiced in the areas of securities law and business litigation, and she served as outside general counsel to a major telecommunications provider. Professor Stobaugh has also represented clients pro bono through the Dallas Volunteer Attorney Program and has served as a writing coach to associates in national law firms. She currently teaches Legal Analysis, Writing and Research and co-teaches SMU’s Prelaw Scholars Program.
Professor Stobaugh received her B.A. and M.A. from the University of Texas at Dallas in Literary Studies and her J.D. from SMU in 2003, where she was a member of the SMU Law Review and Order of the Coif. She received awards for best student law review comment and best brief.
Area of expertise
- Legal Analysis, Writing and Research
Education
B.A., magna cum laude, University of Texas at Dallas
M.A., University of Texas at Dallas
J.D., cum laude, SMU Dedman School of Law
Courses
Legal Analysis, Writing and Research
Articles
Beware of Expert: Texas Supreme Court Holds “Snap-Back” Provision Does Not Protect Inadvertent Disclosure to Testifying Experts, The American Bar Association Section of Litigation, “Expert e-Alert” (May 2007)
Resist the Urge to Change that Comma! U.S. District Court Denies Motion to Exclude Amended Expert Report but Awards Fees as Sanction for Altering Report, The American Bar Association Section of Litigation, “Expert e-Alert” (September 2006)
The Aftermath of United States v. Virginia: Why Five Justices are Pulling in the Reigns on the “Exceedingly Persuasive Justification,” 55 SMU Law Review 1755 (2002)