One year after its faculty voted unanimously against leaving its historic Cambridge campus, Harvard Law School (HLS) has established a new committee to consider a move to Allston, the first sign that the law school might be backing down from its steadfast opposition.

The change came after University President Lawrence H. Summers held a series of meetings with HLS administrators and faculty to stress the importance of Allston to the University’s future.

The new committee—formed just three weeks ago—will research and recommend options to the law school faculty, rather than developing concrete plans for a move to Allston, according to its chair, Professor of Law Elena Kagan.

“The committee’s charge is to develop all the facts that we think are relevant and present those to the faculty along with competing arguments about the law school’s future location,” Kagan said.

But despite the formation of the committee, HLS faculty still resoundingly opposes any move away from Cambridge.

The most recent HLS faculty vote on a potential move to Allston came down with almost 40 opposed, and only one in favor.

“The faculty has moved from a posture of outright opposition to a posture of recognizing the reality of the problem the University faces and now seriously looking at all the options,” said Weld Professor of Law Charles R. Nesson ’60.

Nesson cited the traditional connections between HLS and its campus as the primary reason for opposition.

“There are those who think that severing out ties with our physical past—Austin Hall, Ames Courtroom, Langdell Hall, Areeda—is a grievous injury to an asset of great value to the University,” Nesson said. “They don’t see themselves being persuaded out of that.”

For the faculty, the disadvantages of a move overwhelmingly outweigh any benefits.

“It seems like a very bad deal for us,” said Beneficial Professor of Law Charles Fried, citing a long list of cons—the law school would lose its proximity to the Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS), the University central administration and Harvard Square, and the Allston site, now covered with trucking depots and train tracks, is “not a particularly attractive setting for a campus,” Fried said.

Law school faculty also said HLS would gain very little from moving to Allston, while other schools—particularly FAS—would benefit from the additional physical space available in Cambridge.

“Other people might gain enormously by moving into our buildings,” said Story Professor of Law Daniel J. Meltzer.

Summers’ pressure on the law school to keep the Allston option open has forced HLS to rethink the school’s own internal planning.

Last year, the law school approved an ambitious long-range strategic plan, designed to address the most pressing problems at HLS by cutting first-year class sizes, increasing faculty numbers, fostering community, boosting financial aid and creating new centers for international law, all financed by a projected $400 million capital campaign.

The current strategic plan is not building-specific, but Summers said all law school planning—both current and future—must be compatible with long-term Allston development.

“We need to think about the appropriateness of [proposed] buildings, given that there will be decisions made about Allston in the future,” Summers says.

But Summers said he will not make approval of HLS’s strategic plan—including the capital campaign—contigent on the law school’s acceptance of a move to Allston.

And the final fate of Allston—regardless of law school opposition—rests with him.

“Ultimately, I and the Corporation will make the decision about how the land is used,” Summers says.

—Staff writer Matthew F. Quirk can be reached at quirk@fas.harvard.edu.