Friday, November 14, 2014
On November 7 the Washington Post ran a column entitled "The two words that scare the World Bank" written by the U.N. Human Rights Council's special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston. The two words? "Human rights."
The Los Angeles Times' editorial board opined on October 16 that "the human rights of all those who seek refuge must be respected" in reference to reports that our immigration border officials and courts may be turning away, and deporting, victims of human rights violations at alarming rates.
And on October 27, Jessica Lenahan testified before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) about the death of her young children in a domestic violence and police incident in 2005. Ms. Lenahan, and her attorney Caroline Bettinger-Lopez who directs human rights clinics at the law schools of the Universities of Chicago and Miami, alleged to the IACHR that the United States has failed to implement changes to domestic violence laws and policies in the three years since the Commission decided that the goverment had violated Jessica's human rights--and those of her daughters--in the 2005 incident.
Why is discourse about human rights so closeted in law- and business-related discourse, particularly in the U.S.? What keeps it in the closet?
Philip Alston, in his column for the Post, asserts that the "official reason" for the World Bank's "long-standing aversion to discussing human rights" is its proscription from considering political matters according to the Bank's Articles of Agreement. Alston points out that after the Cold War, many nations had an understandable aversion to human rights debates.
As a teacher of those who will populate our justice system for a generation or so, I profoundly hope that aversion is waning. And although it may appear an empty gesture to some, I offer for consideration the September 2014 Proclamation issued by President Obama "reaffirm[ing]" the basic human right to be free from violence and abuse" to mark the 20th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act. That proclamation resulted, in no small part, from the work of Professor Bettinger-Lopez and her colleagues, some of whom are contributors to this website. Slowly but surely in the wake of the 2011 IACHR decision, they have lobbied U.S. cities large and small for the passage of proclamations declaring freedom from domestic violence a fundamental human right.
And in September, 136 law professors signed onto a letter authored by my Penn State Law colleague Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia urging the President to offer amnesty to undocumented workers. Although this week's USA Today column by attorney Paul Reyes does not expressly use the possibly-scary words "human rights," the message is clear. Like Professor Bettinger-Lopez and her colleagues, Attorney Reyes, Professor Wadhia, and the other law professors who submitted that "Dear Mr. President" letter are the ushers leading human rights out of the closet.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
This week, Profs. Charles Auffant and Mary Jo Hunter, co-chairs of the AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education, announced that Professor Ann Shalleck of American University Washington College of Law is the 2015 recipient of the AALS Section on Clinical Law William Pincus Award. Here is their announcement:
We are pleased to announce that Professor Ann Shalleck has been chosen as the recipient of the AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education’s William Pincus Award for outstanding contributions to the cause of clinical legal education. The award will be presented at the Section’s luncheon on Friday, January 3rd at the AALS Annual Meeting in Washington DC.
The Section’s Awards Committee (Margaret Martin Barry and Mary Lynch, co-chairs) recommended Professor Shalleck from among a number of worthy nominees based on Professor Shalleck’s extraordinary contributions in the realms of scholarship, program design and implementation, elevation of the status of clinicians, mentoring clinical professors, and advancement of the cause of justice. The following is a brief synopsis drawn from the Awards Committee’s report:
Ann was described as a tireless advocate on behalf of the clinical movement. She received CLEA’s Outstanding Advocate for Clinical Teachers in 2009; as a member of the AALS Executive Committee from 2010 to 2013, she represented the AALS at ABA Standards Review Committee meetings and hearings during the contentious re-evaluation of all of the accreditation standards; she has been on at least 10 AALS conference planning committees and done countless presentations at AALS conferences -- she even created a primer for clinical conference or workshop presentations; she has hosted the Women and the Law Breakfast in conjunction with the AALS Annual Meeting for over 15 years; she has been a member of the Georgetown Summer Institute faculty for each of its four years; is a co-founder and co-facilitator of the Rounds About Clinical Teaching for Experienced Clinicians in Washington, DC; she is a past member of the SALT Board; and she has contributed in other venues, such as Law & Society and the Southern Clinical Conference.
Ann has authored over 25 works, including her recent work as co-author of TRANSFORMING THE EDUCATION OF LAWYERS: THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF CLINICAL PEDAGOGY (2014). We will say what you all undoubtedly know, that Ann has had a profound effect on the teaching of and thinking about clinical legal education.
Ann founded WCL’s Women and the Law Program, a key part of which is the Women and the Law Clinic which she has directed since its inception in 1984. Ann was also involved in creation of the school’s Domestic Violence Clinic and continues as lead teacher for the joint Women and the Law-Domestic Violence Clinic seminar. As director of the law school’s clinical program from 1997-2000, Ann created the Practitioner-in Residence programs as a means of expanding the clinical program and to help practitioners learn about clinical teaching and develop scholarship. The program’s success in meeting its goals of helping practitioners transition is seen in the letter written by 12 of the former practitioners. “Transformative” and “I consumed [Ann’s article on supervision] in huge gulps, thrilled by Ann’s description of the supervisory relationship as a series of intentional choices by the teacher” and “instrumental” were some of the descriptors used by the practitioners.
In addition to her clinical scholarship and teaching, Ann is a feminist scholar. Her latest focus is developing the Women and the Law Program’s Student Debt and Education Justice Project Inaugural Conference.
We hope you will join us in honoring our colleague Professor Shalleck in person in Washington DC.
Congratulations, Professor Shalleck!
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Dr. Artika Tyner, formerly of the University of St. Thomas legal clinics, now of St. Thomas's College of Education, Leadership & Counseling, recently gave this excellent Tedx Talk on Education for Social Change.
This is in support of her new book, The Lawyer as Leader: How to Plant People & Grow Justice.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Emerging Family Law Scholars
University of Illinois College of Law
January 19, 2015
The Family Law and Policy Program at the University of Illinois College of Law—in conjunction with the University of Minnesota Law School, the Brooklyn Law School, and the University of South Carolina School of Law—is pleased to invite paper proposals for the inaugural HARRY KRAUSE EMERGING FAMILY LAW SCHOLARS WORKSHOP. The workshop is named for Professor Krause, who as a member of the Illinois law faculty mentored many budding family law scholars across a half century of teaching.
The Workshop will take place on Monday, January 19, 2015 at the University of Illinois College of Law, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. The Workshop is designed to assist and mentor emerging scholars in family law and related fields – such as reproductive rights, biomedical ethics, children and the law, law and gender, and law and sexuality – to hone draft papers and works in progress for submission to journals for publication. The Workshop provides not only a mechanism for senior scholars to mentor emerging scholars, but also is an opportunity for emerging scholars writing in these fields to connect with one another.
The Workshop is designed for emerging scholars who have been in tenure track positions for seven years or less. Visiting Assistant Professors, Fellows, Adjunct Professors and lecturers seeking full-time positions as law teachers may also apply. (For purposes of calculating “seven years or less” of teaching, fellowships, adjunct positions, and lectureships do not count against the total.)
Working accepted papers not yet finalized for publication may be submitted, as well as earlier drafts where guidance from senior scholars in the field can assist the author. Co-authored papers will be considered as long as one of the authors has been involved in teaching for seven years or less or is seeking law teaching positions.
The Workshop Committee will consist of Illinois Law Professor Robin Fretwell Wilson, who directs the law school’s new Program in Family Law and Policy, and Professors June Carbone, Marsha Garrison, and Marcia Yablon-Zug.
The Workshop can accommodate four scholars. One slot will give preference to an international emerging scholar and one to individuals seeking law teaching positions.
Proposals should be no more than two pages or 1000 words in length and sent to Professor Wilson at email@example.com before December 1, 2014. The Workshop Committee will notify selected Scholars by December 15, 2014.
If accepted, the Family Law Program will provide accommodations and meals for the Workshop. Invited scholars are expected to pay their own travel to the University of Illinois, although “modest” travel support will be available to scholars who have no funds from their home institution.
Of the four selected of the scholars, one will receive a Best Paper Award.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Prof. David Barnhizer recently posted the ominous “‘Drumbeats of Doom’ and the Downsizing of Law Faculties” at LawNext. He projects the potential for a “civil war” among classes of law faculty during this disruptive moment in the market for legal education. Prof. Barnhizer is wise and has a good will, and he may be right. He has many useful observations in the piece.
I write in response because he and others borrow trouble by pitching the conversation into a distilled narrative of internecine camps bent on defending their own frontiers.
He sets forth the familiar parade of horribles in legal education and the well documented forces at work in vulnerable law schools: plunging applications, decreasing enrollments, falling metrics, depressing post-grad job prospects, university budgetary obligations and increasing demands for more productivity with fewer resources. He also observes the “aggressive push” for law schools to increase experiential education, but almost as if that pressure is unrelated to the root crises besetting legal education.
I respond here to build on his observations, first, to suggest that a “civil war” is not inevitable, but that speaking in bellicose and binary terms is more likely to generate it; second, to observe that the existence of “classes” in the first place disposes our landscape to be a battlefield; and third, to offer some hope that epistemic humility, creativity and collaboration can deliver us from destructive power struggles.
With imagination, we’ll get there.
Prof Barnhizer writes:
We can expect that many law schools will be entering a period of ‘civil war’ between traditional tenure track and tenured faculty and Legal Writing and Clinical faculty as well as people hired for an expanded set of administrative tasks that have consumed increasing amounts of law school budgets previously allocated to those hired on the tenure track. . . .
. . . [A]s resources shrink and demands on faculty increase, including the expansion of teaching loads for tenure track faculty and the marginalization of scholarship, there will be nasty battles between the “classes” of law faculty of a kind rarely seen before.
He may be right, and such conflict may occur in certain schools.
(Indeed, many clinical law professors would say that they have been thus engaged for a very long time and that the inconstant terms of security and status prove it.)
A civil war is not necessary, though. First, to essentialize “traditional tenure track and tenured faculty” and “Legal Writing and Clinical faculty” is not useful or accurate and is needlessly provocative. There are no such essentialized populations except as they exist in individual institutions, so to suggest that these camps exist in any kind of cohesive way across the academy is not useful. (Clinicians are probably the best organized as a discipline, but we don’t vote in blocs and are usually vastly outnumbered on faculties.) Also, Legal Writing and Clinical faculty have different functions, roles and modes of teaching. We ought not impose a hierarchy on our respective roles, but these professors do not necessarily share the same positions and preferences.
If a faculty interprets itself in essentialist terms, then probably it will go to war.
If a faculty can reinterpret itself to see itself as a collaboration of variously talented professionals with common cause in an uncertain environment, then they are less likely to fight and more likely to solve their common, strategic problems.
If the faculty can recognize that they sink or swim together in a competitive, disruptive season, then they are more likely to innovate, adjust and grow. If some segments of a faculty insist on defending a dying status quo against seismic forces of change, to resist the emergence of new partners, then they might all go down in their burning ship.
If tenured, “doctrinal” faculty think that clinicians are mounting a mutinous revolution, then they likely will respond with all the force their privileged governance affords them. If clinicians actually are mounting a mutinous revolution (or act like it), then they likely are ensuring a conflict they cannot win. In the meantime, as Prof. Barnhizer quotes Dylan, they both will “sink like a stone, For the times they are a-changin.”
The assumption that the production of scholarship for the sake of scholarship is the heart of legal education is a foundational problem. Likewise, to think that scholarship is extraneous to good, practical teaching is to neglect the great virtue of our role in society.
Teaching law students is the heart of our enterprise. Scholarship, good, elite, provocative, critical, creative, theoretical and normative scholarship, makes us better teachers and serves our students. Scholarship serves the purposes of lawyers to improve the law, to educate the nation, to seek just law reform, to explore the dark corners of democracy and potential for the Rule of Law. This is the work of lawyers, some who are scholars and exercise their vocation in scholarship, but the work of scholarship in law schools should be in principal service of pedagogy, increasing our expertise, expanding knowledge for our students, modeling critical and theoretical prowess in practice, contributing to our fund of ideas and insight.
Scholarship by itself, however, is only sufficient to teach other scholars and theorists. We are in the business of educating lawyers, not professors. As scholarship informs good teaching, so practice informs good learning. Our students are not paying for law review articles, and they are not paying for technical training.
The Carnegie Report is onto something good with its description of three apprenticeships in professional education: the cognitive apprenticeship, the apprenticeship of skills and practice, and the apprenticeship of professional identify and values. A good legal education requires all three.
In theory, “traditional” professors teaching podium classes provide the cognitive work. LRW professors provide the skills and practice training. Clinicians teach and model professional identities and values. In reality, we all should be teaching all three at the same time, in varying degrees and weights of emphasis. None of us can afford to do them all well on our own, but none of us are dispensable to the enterprise done well. For one part of this body to go to war with another only leads to self-destruction.
For the sake of our school and our students, I should want my doctrinal colleagues to be utter and undeniable stars in their fields. For the sake of our school and our students, my doctrinal colleagues should want our clinics to thrive with excellent, creative and dedicated lawyer-teachers. (For the record, mine actually do.) If there are actually faculties at war in these camps, then perhaps those schools indeed will succumb to the drumbeats of doom, because they are not serving their students well.
To pit “scholars” versus “clinicians” is unnecessary and shortsighted. If we share common goals of teaching students well, of seeking justice and the improvement of the law, then perhaps we can recalibrate the conflict to address those who do their jobs well and those who do not.
Regarding the classes of the legal academy, Prof. Barnhizer does well to identify the pressures on law schools created by tenure, but he comes close to ratifying the implicit position that those privileged with tenure are the most oppressed and distressed by the emerging new order. Tenure exists for two historically essential reasons, to protect the intellectual freedom of scholars from political pressure and retribution and to entrust governance of the school with those whose work is at the heart of the enterprise. It is not a gift; it is an obligation.
The work of law professors is and ought to be of such quality and import that it speaks uncomfortable truth to power. We are lawyers first, public citizens obligated to seek improvement in the law, who necessarily challenge and criticize prevailing structures. If a scholar needs protection for the political voice of a law review article, how much more does a clinician need similar protection when the clinic files a suit, takes a client, organizes for reform and advocates zealously for justice.
If tenured faculty are not producing work of such quality that it demands protection from political pressure, or if tenured faculty have not governed their institutions sustainably, then perhaps their tenure is the very problem binding law schools.
On the other hand, if more kinds of teachers with diverse gifts and talents had tenure, perhaps the governance would be more nimble, wiser and more apt to adapt.
If law schools tremble before the “aggressive push” for experiential learning, from the bar, bench, students, employers, alumni and the market, then perhaps empowering more types of professors is the wise move of those already at the helm. If tenure is to ensure the sustainable mission to teach and learn, and if schools are faltering in a changing market after a century of inertia, then including more professors with the “gift” of tenure could stabilize the uncertainty.
Further, the existence of classes promotes and perpetuates the binary angst of those with the privilege of tenure and the frustration and anxiety of those without it. The class system of legal education generates a zero-sum bloodletting in the classic contest of those privileged with more power against scrappier, highly motivated activists with less of it. It also promotes a false dichotomy between scholars and “other” professors, instead of contemplating a more cohesive idea of diverse teachers in common cause.
To defend one’s privileged place at the head of the table will ensure conflict. To welcome more people to the table with knowledge, wisdom and talent can only strengthen the institution and culture of a school.
Of course, there will be conflict in our demanding new market. Faculties, deans and universities will disagree on resources, priorities and investment. We will struggle over the weight and investment in the three apprenticeships. Crises beget reactive entrenchment and forlorn charges. Some will be defensive; others will be brazen. The question is whether these decisions mean civil war or whether they mean constructive deliberation.
In alternative dispute resolution, we mediators talk about the difference between distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining. In distributive bargaining, the parties attempt to negotiate who gets the most of a limited resource. It is often positional and confrontational, an argument over who deserves a greater portion of a scarce, finite commodity. It is arguing over who gets a bigger piece of pie, and why they deserve it by their greater worth and more righteous position.
In integrative bargaining, the parties look for ways to make the pie bigger. Constructive, integrative bargaining does not pit the parties against one another and gives less regard to the relative worth of their competing positions. Rather it honors competing interests, seeks common grounds and goals, then sets forth to imagine new paths where everyone is satisfied and everyone gets richer.
Distributive bargaining works best when the parties do not care whether their relationships will continue but only care whether they get the best deal possible, without regard to the cost imposed on the other side.
Integrative bargaining is better when the parties must exist in relationship together or will depend on each other to ensure that their respective interests thrive.
If a tenured scholar believes that clinicians are chipping away at her lucrative piece of a dwindling pie, then she may be willing to go war to deny them resources or an advance in their work. If a clinician believes that he has to agitate, shame, threaten or moan about a subjugated and neglected place on the faculty, then he may be willing to go to war in confrontational advocacy, if he has any kind of status and security of position.
Alternatively, if the professors, from their various roles in the academy, can agree that their interests are integrated and that their goals are consistent, then the possibility exists for everyone to have more pie. Everybody likes more pie.
If teachers who are primarily scholars can recognize the value and contributions of the teachers who are primarily practitioners and the lessons they teach, without imposing a tired hierarchy, then there is hope that they can create something cohesive and valuable for the students they teach together. If they can see themselves as fellow teachers in common cause, dependent on each other for success, then perhaps they can imagine better ways to teach students.
Perhaps by teaching students better, applications will increase, and enrollment will stabilize.
Perhaps by teaching students better, graduates will get more jobs and be more competitive.
Perhaps by teaching students better, alumni will consider their investments in our enterprise to be money well spent.
This requires a cohesive vision of the school’s mission and the intersecting roles of teachers, but the hard work is worth the effort to avoid civil war.
To survive and thrive in the present trouble, each faculty has a choice. War is not inevitable. Creativity and innovation are possible. Success depends on whether each teacher and each faculty will approach their work and colleagues humbly, intentionally and creatively, with a willingness to adapt for the sake of their common interests.
For those who refuse to change, to share, to work harder, to shed old canards, to reconsider the shape and work of the school, their noses will suffer for the spite of their own faces.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
On behalf of the CLEA Newsletter committee, I am happy to announce that it is once again time to send information for the CLEA Newsletter. We invite you to submit your creative writing and shorter articles on clinical pedagogy and social justice topics. We also welcome your good news: promotions, moves, new experiential teachers, retirements, publications (hyperlinks also welcome), and awards.
As a reminder, CLEA no longer publishes law school press releases or clinical program news, in part to avoid duplicating information published in the AALS Clinical Section Newsletter. We have already heard from clinicians with interesting projects, and we hope that you will consider allowing CLEA to feature your writing. The deadline for submissions for the Fall 2014 Newsletter is Monday, December 1, 2014. Please e-mail them to me at firstname.lastname@example.org, and please contact me with any questions.
Thanks, and best wishes,
CLEA Newsletter Committee
Tanya Asim Cooper, D’lorah Hughes & Kate Kruse
Friday, October 24, 2014
This year at Pepperdine we launched the new Community Justice Clinic. I teach and supervise the course, and it has been a unique moment in my career, to have the opportunity to design and launch a clinic completely from scratch. In my previous work at Faulkner Law in Montgomery, my first clinical teaching position after leaving practice, I inherited a domestic violence clinic and received a charge to start an elder law clinic with a large grant. This is my second year at Pepperdine where I have enjoyed the rare chance to start a new clinic from a blank slate. We have been able to test some philosophical ideas about clinical curriculum, pedagogy and design, and I am learning much.
Please indulge a long post about my reflections, life-long learning and professional formation. This is what we are about, after all.
With the opportunity to start a new clinic, I was tempted to replicate what I knew how to do, namely a domestic violence or elder law clinic, or another litigation based, individual representation clinic. There is, after all, something to be said for expertise. I have been a civil litigator in one form or another since graduating, and my field of inquiry, scholarship and activism has become domestic violence, feminism and family law. It would make sense for me to continue it, although I had become somewhat burned out and stagnated after seven years seeking civil protection orders and had lost my imagination about how such a clinic can look.
Instead, we started with curriculum and pedagogy and attempted to bend our practice to those needs. The clinical faculty, academic dean, curriculum committee and I looked at our current offerings to identify practice areas that we were not meeting. We had seven clinics in the School of Law, three for the regular JD program and three housed in the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution. All of them are essentially litigation based and involve individuals as clients. The Legal Aid clinic is a general, poverty law clinic on Skid Row and handles family law, housing, consumer protection, tax and criminal expungement matters in a neighborhood with the highest concentration of homelessness in the country. The Special Ed clinic is a civil rights litigation clinic that represents families of children with disabilities in litigation against public schools to ensure compliance with federal civil rights laws. The Ninth Circuit clinic handles court-appointed appeals for indigent clients, typically with §1983 claims. In the Mediation Clinic, students work as mediators in small claims court between pro se litigants. In the Fair Employment & Housing Mediation Clinic, students work with mediator attorneys in the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing to mediate employment discrimination cases. In the Investor Advocacy Clinic, students represent investors as complainants in FINRA arbitrations.
(We wound up our Asylum & Refugee Clinic last year when its soft-money expired without a plan to sustain it through tighter budgetary times. This hard episode is full of its own lessons, worthy of a long post, about financing, faculty status, staffing structures and institutional preparation.)
We had plenty of good ideas for clinics that would involve litigation, and litigation is my background. Instead of replicating that style of practice, though, we considered what we were missing. We were missing transactional, tax, regulatory, entrepreneurship, policy advocacy and a host of other practice areas and styles of lawyering. Since I would be the teacher, however, and since expertise does count for something, I would not commit to areas of practice where I am weak, inexperienced or uninterested. I won’t confess here where I will not dare to tread, but will explain where we landed.
We wanted students to have an opportunity to represent organizations, so they can encounter the complex dynamics of client identification, of competing client voices, of conflicting loyalties, and of building sustainable institutions. We wanted to provide opportunities for corporate law practice, and we built in the possibility for policy advocacy in various forms.
We have two other pertinent forces in potential conflict. While Malibu is beautiful, it is a relatively isolated community in the most populous county in the country, and we wanted to make the clinic’s practice as convenient and accessible to students as possible. Having the clinic on campus, however, means doing public interest and social justice work inside a gated community inside one of the most affluent towns in the world. We do not want to carpet-bag a poor community with a colonial law practice from our seaside enclave but to be smart, compassionate and humble lawyers seeking to empower our clients.
Through this process emerged the Community Justice Clinic. In the CJC, we represent nonprofits, NGOs, community and religious organizations who are committed to justice and development work among vulnerable communities. We provide corporate legal services, like formation, governance and compliance matters, and we provide policy advocacy services for clients in pursuit of their causes.
(As aside, since this is a new area of practice and style of clinic for me, I sought some expert advice, primarily by volunteering to serve as a leader/facilitator for the Community Economic Development working group at the 2014 AALS Conference on Clinical Legal Education, full of expert practitioners and teachers in CED who represent nonprofits and community organizations. I admitted to them that I was a novice and hoped that being in the group would be useful, and they were completely generous and wise. I am grateful to this community that is new to me, and the sessions with them were immensely valuable in making early choices about the clinic’s design and practice.)
In client selection, we favor organizations with annual budgets of less than $1 million. We strongly favor clients who are committed to be part of the communities they serve, either by being led or organized by members of the community or by a demonstrable, long-term presence in the community. Our clients must be devoted primarily to seeking social, economic and environmental justice in their communities.
In practice, after front-loaded teaching on the law of nonprofits, ethics and professional responsibility, client interviewing and communication, and case evaluation, the students are primarily responsible for initial client interviews, engagement, case evaluation, investigation, research, advice and counsel, writing legally operative documents, and implementation with the clients.
So far, our clients include a shelter and housing project for homeless people on Skid Row and elsewhere in L.A., and we are working on a project to ensure compassionate care for senior residents with declining capacity when independent living becomes untenable. We represent a start-up nonprofit organizing to provide arts education and job training to teens in impoverished communities of rural farm workers. We represent a community labor exchange that works to provide humane, fair and safe work for day-laborers. We represent an NGO in India who provides legal services to victims of sexual violence, and we are providing research to support law reform initiatives in New Delhi. We represent an American nonprofit with a related African NGO that has been present for almost two decades promoting women’s economic empowerment, community organizing, sanitation and accessible water to people in east Africa. We are working to ensure that its corporate structure and practice across several initiatives is compliant and sustainable. The clients are extraordinary, and the work is complex and fascinating.
Lessons in Progress
So far, the CJC seems successful. The students are engaged, and the clients are pleased. We continue to identify new clients and are currently in discussions with a community agriculture project that is providing models of sustainable, local and organic farming and advocating for humane, just and empowering practices for California farm workers.
As a teacher, I am learning new ways to calibrate student work and the pace of the class. This is not new to clinical education; it is endemic to all programs committed to good pedagogy. These particular challenges are new to me after having run clinics with discrete, limited scopes of representation where I could control volume and matters to fit a semester. I am learning now how to manage student load and projects for a 3 unit, semester long clinic with clients and matters that require slower, longer and more strategic work. We are considering adjustment to enrollment limits, academic credit and matter selection.
I am learning lessons about balancing projects and clients, to serve them well but to avoid having one client or project dominate the clinic’s practice. Some clients have complex business that could preoccupy us all. Some clients have solid potential projects but do not communicate with the students. Some clients have projects that are critical and important but that are not complex but are repetitious and time-consuming. I do not yet have an expert’s grasp of measuring a client’s matter at the outset so have had to adjust assignments and expectations on the fly. At the beginning of the semester, I told the students that part of their experience would be learning with me how this practice would work and that they would have a critical role in establishing our practices and policies. They have taken to the work.
We are considering future plans for the clinical program at the School of Law and are evaluating potential plans through a similar process. We are assessing gaps in the curriculum, especially practice areas and styles of lawyering that we presently do not offer, student interests and demand, community needs, faculty talent and calling, and the unique demands of our market and neighborhood. Instead of being driven by available soft-money, popular trends, or the faculty’s boutique interests, we want to build a program that offers comprehensive pedagogical offerings for students that also fulfill our missions of justice in the world. The greatest problem before us now is narrowing the list of worthy and righteous ideas and counting the opportunity costs of choosing a path.
I have learned that I need not adhere to a single form of clinical practice, but I have also learned to ensure that the clinic receives full, sustainable support from the law school. I have learned again the virtues of bending the practice to the pedagogy but learn also that this will necessarily limit the scope of our practice and our ambitions for clients. I have learned that for every choice we make, we are bound to disappoint someone, maybe even ourselves, by excluding another potential path. We must build a coherent, integrated program with a cohesive narrative to guide us through the dilemma of choosing from many good options. We will never finish the work of justice or education, but we cannot wait for the ability to do everything all at once.
I confess to having become too committed to a single vision of clinical teaching in my earlier years directing a program. At a larger school in a far larger market, we must develop as many opportunities as possible without sacrificing quality and rigor and without undermining generations of advances in the clinical movement. In addition to traditional clinics, like the CJC, and traditional externships, which we handle by the hundreds, I have had to become comfortable with hybrid forms.
At Pepperdine, we call these courses practicums, and we have learned in fits and starts about how to design and launch them. So far, we have found success with two practicums in particular. Practicums have been our best option for providing options, beyond externships, for students interested in criminal justice.
First is our Criminal Justice Dispute Resolution Practicum. In the practicum, students learn conflict resolution and peacemaking methods then accompany the teacher for a semester into the L.A. County Jail to help teach these skills and virtues to inmates, in hopes of improving the inmates’ experiences in jail then to empower them once they are free. The students learn cultural competence and compassion, gain insight from people bound by the criminal justice system, witness life in incarceration, and participate in creative, restorative justice.
Second is our Federal Criminal Practice Practicum, the idea of an alum who is a U.S. District Judge. At her initiative and guidance, we created a course where students rotate in a semester through the United States Attorney’s Office, the Federal Public Defenders’ office and the judge’s chambers on the U.S. District Court. The students produce substantive written work at each stop and can compare and contrast the culture, values, roles and responsibilities of every side of federal criminal practice.
We have had one practicum that did not fare well. In collaboration with a government agency, we worked to create opportunities for students to represent aggrieved tax payers in administrative appeals. Conceptually the work was good, but the practice for the students was not sustainable. They were too distant from clients. The cases were either too far advanced or were too basic, and the process was too byzantine to generate steady, useful teaching cases for a regular rotation of students with a part-time teacher. The internal practices of the agency could not accommodate sufficient supervision or flexibility, so we closed the project after a term, with good will toward our collaborators.
Without immediate resources to launch fully fledged and staffed clinics for every practice area, practicums have become a nimble form through which we can leverage creative ideas for sound courses. We have not had universal success with all of our projects, but we see a way to expand and improve our offerings into important practice areas.
The Road Goes Ever On and On
We have adopted California’s new bar admission requirements as graduation requirements. With this first year class, students must provide 50 hours of pro bono service during law school, and they must take 15 units of professional skills courses. While the bar’s rules are still pending, we expect that students can earn dual-credit for both new requirements in clinics, practicums and qualifying externships. Thus, it becomes imperative that we establish sufficient opportunities for our students to satisfy these requirements well and with rigorous teaching and learning. These challenges are not peculiar to Pepperdine, but every school necessarily must assess its own context, resources and values. Since I joined the faculty last year, these are among the lessons we have learned in the perpetually evolving landscape of our work.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
I received my ballot this week for the U.S. News Rankings related to law school clinical programs. The instructions include this guidance: "Identify up to fifteen (15) schools that have the highest-quality clinical training courses or programs. In making your choices consider all elements that contribute to a program's academic excellence, for example, the depth and breadth of the program, faculty research, publication record, etc." This is not really guidance at all, and it does not articulate any useful metric of distinguishing programs.
CLEA, however, attempts to inform this task with better wisdom in its now annual Statement on Law School Clinical Program Rankings. This is good advice and asserts sound markers of excellence for programs in a shared struggle.
Here is the Statement in its entirety from the CLEA site:
CLEA'S STATEMENT ON LAW SCHOOL CLINICAL PROGRAM RANKINGS
The Clinical Legal Education Association (CLEA) recognizes that many who receive US News & World Report ballots in their capacity as clinical directors or faculty members find this ranking process very uncomfortable. There are a number of problems with the ranking of clinical programs, not the least of which is that it places us in competition with each other, when we as a group see ourselves in a shared struggle for social justice, equality, and improved legal education. Second, there are no articulated factors for ranking clinical programs, so to a degree the voting is a bit arbitrary. Third, some schools unfairly suffer because they do not have the budget or the support of their administration to produce and mail marketing materials or to send their clinic faculty to annual conferences.
While we might wish the rankings would disappear or hope to figure out a way to overcome the collective action problem that bedevils efforts to respond creatively, the USN&WR rankings have remained a feature of our collective landscape. So, what can we as faculty who teach clinics do? CLEA, acting on the recommendation of its Rankings Committee (Margaret Johnson, Praveen Kosuri, Bob Kuehn, Perry Moriearty, Michael Pinard, Karen Tokarz & Ian Weinstein) urges those ranking clinical programs to focus on factors that promote principles for which CLEA advocates, namely the increased presence of clinical education (including externships) in law school curricula, security of position for clinical faculty, and diversity. In evaluating clinical programs, CLEA urges voters to consider: 1) the number of clinical and externship slots available relative to the student population at a school; 2) the breadth and quality of clinical curricular offerings available to students; 3) the law school's security of position, academic freedom, and governance rights for faculty who teach clinics; and 4) the extent to which the school has fulfilled the goal of diversity in hiring for clinical positions with long-term security.
CLEA also urges those who receive ballots to consult their clinical colleagues for their views to increase the range of informed opinions reflected in the balloting.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
The Northwest clinical law community often views itself as one of the most happy and energetic groups in legal education. It is easy to see why they are such a jubilant group. First, they work in a natural setting that rivals some of the most beautiful regions in the world (within a short drive of a rugged forested coastline, the volcanic Cascades, and wine country world-renowned for its pinot noir). Second, the social justice-minded cultural values of the Northwest closely align with core values of clinical legal education, which creates a natural environment for clinical opportunities integrated with the larger community. Third, the region allows room for personhood and pioneering individuality in a way that is well suited to clinical educators trying to inspire their students through transformative professional experiences.
However, not even the breathtaking setting of the Columbia River Gorge could distract the Northwest clinical community from the somber mood that hovered over the group’s regional conference this past weekend. From the group’s first gathering at Friday’s reception, all were mindful and reflective of the recent unexpected decision to close one of the oldest and most respected clinics in the Northwest, the Lewis & Clark Legal Clinic. That closing threatens the continued participation and contributions of three of the most well-respected and valued clinical faculty in the Northwest: Mark Peterson, Richard Slottee, and Terry Wright. Their expected absence in years to come, as well as the planned retirement of Larry Weiser of Gonzaga after 33 years, could mark the end of an era in the Northwest clinical community.
Despite the pall in the air, the conference moved forward with presentations and discussions from a variety of new as well as experienced faculty from Seattle University, University of Washington, Gonzaga, University of Oregon, Lewis & Clark, University of Montana, the University of British Columbia, and Willamette. The community learned about new clinics at the University of Oregon and the University of Washington, examined models of collaborating with volunteer attorneys, externships, legal writing faculty, and law librarians, considered the ethical challenges of representing children in law school clinics, and provided feedback on a book Deborah Maranville is co-editing on legal education. A new organization was even created to support externship directors in the region. All in all, it was a productive conference.
The group has already scheduled the dates for next year’s conference: October 2-4, 2015, at Sleeping Lady in Leavenworth, Washington (http://www.sleepinglady.com/). Before they left though, the conference participants did something that this group rarely does. They entered a formal session, discussed the tragedy unfolding at Lewis & Clark, and unanimously agreed to express their deep concern over the decision to close the Lewis & Clark Legal Clinic to the Lewis & Clark administration, the AALS Section on Legal Education, and the ABA Section on Legal Education. When those letters are available, I will post them here. In the meanwhile, I encourage you to contact our colleagues at Lewis & Clark with any suggestions or insights you have that may be helpful to them in these deeply disturbing circumstances.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Prof. Luz Herrera returned to her home this year as UCLA's Assistant Dean for Clinical Education, Experiential Learning, and Public Service. She is next in our Five Questions series, and I am happy to post this conversation with my new neighbor in L.A.
1. You’re returning home to Los Angeles. How has time in other cities and other law schools informed your renewed work in LA?
Working at various law schools and in other cities has helped me understand the loving and entrepreneurial spirit of El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora La Reina de Los Angeles de Porciúncula—the original name of the city of Los Angeles. Innovation abounds here—in the entertainment industry, the nonprofit community, through environmental advocates and the entrepreneurs of Silicon Beach. The spirit of Los Angeles is one that encourages new ideas, engagement and the use of diverse approaches. I am a product of that spirit and I am happy to return to this community.
2. In San Diego, you were heavily involved in moderate-means incubator programs. What is a modest-means incubator, and how do you plan to integrate that work into your new role at UCLA?
A modest means incubator is a program that provides support for attorneys who are establishing law practices to serve low and moderate income populations. The purpose of these programs is to increase access to justice while helping attorneys become self-sustaining. You need both components to foster success. An incubator program cannot solely focus on providing free services because it also has to balance the interests of the individual lawyer participants. If you are interested in my thoughts on the matter, you can find additional information in my last article, Encouraging the Development of Low Bono Law Practices, at
My involvement with modest means programs and my interest in incubators started when I practiced law in Compton. The belief that law schools should support graduates who start their own law practices and encourage the greater provision of services to underserved communities is part of what led me into legal education. I have been fortunate to work with individuals across the country to advance the modest means conversation, particularly as it relates to the role of the solo and small firm bar. I am proud of that work and the implications it may have for increasing access to legal services.
Modest means incubators have deep theoretical roots at UCLA School of Law, and I look forward to working together with our renowned faculty and staff as we advance and tailor a plan for the establishment of such incubators to advance the public interest.
3. What are your new ideas and visions for UCLA’s clinical programs, their roles in the university and in the city?
The vision for UCLA School of Law’s experiential learning program was articulated by the faculty in 2013. It builds on UCLA Law’s strong history of innovation and pedagogical goals for clinical education, and it also offers opportunities for new models that honor that tradition. We are in the process of flushing out the details to implement the vision.
At the heart of the program is the belief that a legal education should equip students with the fundamental skills practitioners need and enable them to use the skills in advanced courses. Our plan is to offer students a sequenced approach to experiential education, introducing ideas and fostering skills that build on one another during the course of a student’s law school training. The academic and hands-on learning will begin on day one. Students will be introduced to the attorney-client relationship in their first year. They will learn critical fact-gathering and interview skills and also participate in a live-client field placement. In their second and third years, students will be guaranteed the option to enroll in each of the following:
(1) foundational skills courses organized around discreet areas of skills of broad applicability; and
(2) an advanced capstone experience that integrates skills, substantive law and a focus on the professional role of lawyers.
We are in the process of mapping out a curriculum and providing a breadth of opportunities that allows students to take an active role in course selection and be agents in their own professional development.
4. What advice would you share with a clinical teacher newly moved to Los Angeles to understand the community and the ecosystem of public interest, social justice and pro bono lawyers?
Advancing social justice has been and will continue to be an integral part of clinical legal education. However, as law schools move to a more inclusive agenda of experiential learning, we must find ways to bridge the needs of our students and those of communities that can most benefit from the increased provision of legal services.
The unmet legal needs in Los Angeles are greater than our clinical budgets and larger than what our institutional priorities enable us to tackle. For this reason, it is important to begin by mapping out existing resources, developing relationships with local partners and assessing the needs of both the community and the students.
A community assessment must complement a self-assessment and must reveal your ability to offer students a strong pedagogical framework for the work you will undertake. After all, we exist because our students entrust us with the responsibility to prepare them for law practice.
In working together with the public interest community, we also have an opportunity to focus on areas that pro bono lawyers or legal services programs do not have the capacity to address.
5. Southern California is a rich environment for social justice causes, but what do you perceive as a bright spot in our city for the advancement of communities on the margins?
There are many bright spots in this city, and many communities interested in partnering with law schools. Together, we can provide critical services to the community while we train the leaders and advocates of the future.
Friday, October 3, 2014
Updated on October 29, 2014
This past spring, Amna Akbar kicked off a rich discussion on the LawClinic listserv on how to name and talk about race and cross-cultural lawyering in the clinic, and asked whether other clinicians have had their students take a Harvard implicit bias quiz (or another) and, if so, how it went.
With their permission, I have compiled in this post all the responses, resources, activities, links, attachments and ideas that our wonderful community contributed (hyperlinks to each contributor’s email). From Amna’s initial set of questions, two related threads (“Is it racist to talk about race?” and “Is this covered with incoming or large segments of law students?”) emerged and are also included here.
I found these discussions so helpful that I am retooling my class on cross-cultural lawyering, and I hope that you will also find this post helpful and continue the discussion through the blog comment feature, or please email me and I will add your suggestions and any experiences you would like to share.
How to name and talk about race in the clinic
Amna Akbar suggested The Five Habits of Cross Cultural Lawyering by Sue Bryant and Jean Koh Peters (chapter; website), and has used an in-class activity and debrief using one of the habits in students’ casework.
Karen Yau: “I currently volunteer at NYC's EEOC as a pro bono mediator. Yesterday Jerry Kang from UCLA, visiting at NYU, gave a lecture to some 30 EEOC personnel about implicit bias and as a tool to discuss race, racism, and inequality. I suggest that you look up his and his colleagues’ work ( see, e.g., Rachel Godsil). For many years, I was a workers' rights lawyer at the New York State Attorney General's Office. Before then, I was teaching and spent a year at the Syracuse University College of Law as the director of civil litigation clinic. I remember giving a class seminar on cross-cultural lawyering and asking students to read Lucie White's Mrs. G and Sunday Shoes” (Lucie E. White, Subordination, Rhetorical Survival Skills, and Sunday Shoes: Notes on the Hearing of Mrs. G, 33 Buff. L. Rev. 1 (1990); online version) and asking them to both identify things about Mrs. G's life that were the same and different from their own. I remember it as a successful class.” Karen also recommended these resources: the Harvard Implicit Bias Tests; the Perception Institute; Jerry Kang, Trojan Horses of Race, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 1489 (2005).
Stephen Ellman: “Perhaps a way to capture students’ attention would be to discuss the recent study of faculty members’ greater likelihood of responding, and of responding positively, to otherwise-identical student e-mails expressing admiration for their work and asking to meet with the faculty member – depending on whether the name of the student appeared to be a white male’s name or the name of a woman or minority. It was discussed in various media outlets a few weeks ago, including on NPR.”
Gillian Dutton: “I teach in the Externship Program at Seattle University and regularly cover this topic in the externship seminars (criminal, judicial, civil, and international). I used to raise it when I taught a Refugee and Immigrant Advocacy Clinic but there is so much new material (both law review and research) that it has become a subject that can easily be covered in many different ways. I do have students take the implicit bias test and have an in-class exercise for discussion of the results. I emphasize how being able to discuss bias is crucial to being an effective advocate in both negotiation and litigation, as for example in conducting voir dire. I have also adapted an exercise from SPLC Speak Up! series as a way to help students address micro-aggressions with colleagues in the work place. In addition to teaching these issues in class, I have been presenting on the topic to advocates, client groups and legal services advocates and find people are hungry for ways to start the discussion. As a white woman, I know that this is an area where I have much to learn but I am happy to share with you the materials I have found so far.”
Kelly Browe Olson: “I use these (Harvard Implicit Bias) tests in my mediation clinic course every semester. I ask the students to take three tests of their choosing. We also have reading on biases and I have the students watch the movie Crash. While I used to have the students bring in notes on their results, several of them shared in their journals that they were concerned about what their classmates would think of their results. I focus now on their reaction to the results and their concerns about how they might be perceived based on the results. Students who wish may discuss their results. I start by sharing my surprise at the results I had when I took several of the tests. While all the discussions are different I find that the students enjoy relating the tests and movie to issues of perception, point of view and bias that we have previously touched on in class.”
Natalie Chin: “Here is another resource: Written in Black & White: Exploring Confirmation Bias in Racialized Perceptions of Writing Skills. This is a recent study that demonstrates ‘confirmation bias.’ Law firm partners were given the exact same legal memo but told that one was written by a Black associate and the other by a White associate. The findings showed that the law firm partners, at a much greater rate, commented negatively on the memo they thought was written by a Black associate.”
From the study: “This memo was then distributed to 60 different partners (who had previously agreed to participate in a 'writing analysis study' from 22 different law firms of whom 23 were women, 37 were men, 21 were racial/ethnic minorities, and 39 were Caucasian. While all of the partners received the same memo, half the partners received a memo that stated the associate was African American while the other half received a memo that stated the associate was Caucasian: The exact same memo, averaged a 3.2/5.0 rating under our hypothetical 'African American' Thomas Meyer and a 4.1/5.0 rating under hypothetical 'Caucasian' Thomas Meyer. The qualitative comments on memos, consistently, were also more positive for the 'Caucasian' Thomas Meyer than our 'African American' Thomas Meyer.”
Emily Benfer: “Thank you for posing the question about implicit bias. (I am making detailed notes about the helpful replies to improve our approach!) I wanted to add a few resources to the list. These are largely inspired by the work of Tirien Steinbach and Jeff Selbin. Essentially, we have found that students participate more freely in discussions and remain more aware of implicit bias if we complement the discussion with techniques to address it and heighten their own awareness.
We ask the students to take two implicit bias tests and complete readings on implicit bias and mindfulness prior to class.” (Emily’s lesson plan – download 1 below). “In class, we discuss the background of implicit bias (where it comes from; how common it is; why it is important; and the effect on interviewing, client relationships, court systems, judiciary, etc.) and the results of the tests. The past few semesters, students have also shared their own experiences with bias (their own or someone else's bias towards the student). The students always agree that we should try to overcome implicit bias in our own practice to be effective, to be good attorneys and for the sake of society. Once we have obtained agreement, we turn to strategies for ensuring implicit bias does not affect the students’ judgment--namely, mindfulness and confronting assumptions. Each student practices the various strategies throughout the semester and reflects on the outcome and their usefulness. In the semesters that we did not include the mindfulness strategies (the response to the problem), the students often left feeling a sense of despair about the role of implicit bias in society and their contribution to it. They withdrew instead of bonding together with a sense of purpose.
In future semesters, we are going to dedicate the first 10 minutes of class to a mindfulness exercise (something we learned about at the last clinical conference from the University of Miami presenters). The benefits seem to span into every area of practice.
Here are a few of the resources we have used to prepare ourselves or students for class:
- Justice Michael B. Hyman, Implicit Bias in the Courts, 102 Illinois Bar Journal Magazine 40 (2014)
- Leonard L. Riskin, Knowing Yourself: Mindfulness in THE NEGOTIATOR’S FIELDBOOK
- Sue Bryant and Jean Koh Peters, Five Habits for Cross-Cultural Lawyering in RACE, CULTURE, PSYCHOLOGY, AND LAW (2004).
- Muneer Ahmad, et. al, Teaching Our Students to Challenge Assumptions: Six Practices for Surfacing and Exploring Assumptions, and Designing Action (Georgetown Clinical Teaching Fellows Seminar)
- Excerpt, Gerald P. Lopez, Rebellious Lawyering, One Chicano’s Version of Progressive Law Practice (1992)
- Angela Harris et al., From “The Art of War” to “Being Peace”: Mindfulness and Community Lawyering in a Neoliberal Age, 95 California L. Rev. 2073 (2007).
- Leonard Riskin, The Contemplative Lawyer: On the Potential Contribution of Mindfulness Meditation to Students, Lawyers and their Clients, 7 Harvard Negotiation L. Rev. 1 (2002).
- Thich Nhat Hanh, The Fourteen Mindfulness Trainings (2012)
- Harvard Implicit Bias Tests
Russell G. Pearce: I think you (and others) might find of interest my article, White Lawyering: Rethinking Race, Lawyer Identity, and Rule of Law, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 2081 (2005). The article challenges the normalization of whiteness in law practice and discusses (with at least one clinical example) how normalizing whiteness undermines excellent lawyering. Always happy to chat.”
Jamie Baker Roskie: “Really interesting that you should bring this up, as some colleagues and I were talking about this issue earlier this month. When I ran the Land Use Clinic at UGA we did environmental justice work, and I sometimes got pushback from students about discussing race as an underlying factor of EJ problems. And, with even the Supreme Court pushing the idea that we should just get past addressing inequities tied to race, it can be difficult to create a good container for the conversation.
I wasn't aware of the implicit bias test when I was teaching, but I did sometimes use Bryant & Koh, and sometimes the "Sunday Shoes" piece (online version), along with my EJ materials, with varying level of success. Eventually I also brought the issue into a larger, semester-long discussion I had with the students about identifying value sets. I gave a talk about this, and the related paper: Values as part of the Clinical Experience, 2 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 160 (2011).
Also did some mindfulness work with the students, generally around listening, using Norman Fischer's book Taking Our Places: The Buddhist Path to Truly Growing Up.
I think it makes sense to come at the issue from various levels throughout the semester. Also, hearing the voices of peers helps, so if you can create safe space for students - particularly students of color - to talk about their experiences with bias it can make the conversation richer.”
Elliott Milstein: “We think that you will find helpful the two new chapters that Sue Bryant and Jean Koh Peters wrote on this topic. Chapter 15 of our new book, Bryant, Milstein & Shalleck, Transforming the Education of Lawyers: The Theory and Practice of Clinical Pedagogy (Carolina Academic Press 2014), is entitled “Reflecting on the Habits: Teaching about Identity, Culture, Language, and Difference;” in it Sue and Jean refine and revise their earlier work on cross-cultural lawyering. Chapter 16, entitled “Talking About Race,” goes beyond the cross-cultural paradigm to get at the particular complexities of addressing questions of race. It contains many ideas about how to help students understand the role of race in society and in their work and how to talk with them about it.”
Amna Akbar: Thanks for the outpouring of support, advice, and solidarity. This community is so generous and committed, and for that I could not be more grateful. Thank you.
In further reflecting, I realize there are many struggles embedded within, including that in taking this on we are taking on a larger void in most law school curriculums--not to mention a willful ignorance in law itself, as Jamie Roskie pointed out. A big part of what I struggle with is that in trying to make “cross-cultural lawyering” palatable I water it down so much that we lose all focus on power and privilege, and students who would rather not talk or think about their race, gender, and class privilege or power get away with doing so too easily. How do we create space for students to enter these hard realities and wade through, rather than run away? It seems there's an important role here for courage, for modeling, and for naming, and for persistence (across semesters but also within the semester--learning is iterative!). We have to give the students a language so they can be self-aware, so they can self-construct the knowledge in some sense.
Many of you sent useful guidance on how to use the implicit bias tests to create a larger discussion. I appreciate the input because it's not obvious how to use the tests as a source for discussion. Here I think and hope the new chapter by Sue and Jean will help. Also, FWIW, for others of you thinking about this, there are at least two prior recent chains on LawClinic that deal with these questions: one entitled “Dealing with student's experience of racism in court” by Joshua Tepfer from 2013, and a posting of a bibliography of resources by Laurie Barron in 2012 (download 2 below). If you have exercises or class plans for teaching implicit bias/race/gender/class, I'd love to see them and they would help me work through this, so please send my way.”
Mary Lynch: “I got a requested early glimpse of the chapters Elliott references and I was and am thrilled to have these thoughtful reflections available to our community. I found them to be very helpful in thinking about how to design student learning experiences focused on these issues.
The next Best Practices book . . .‘Beyond Best Practices’ . . . will have a chapter devoted to intercultural and multicultural lawyering/sensibilities. We are cognizant of the importance of the concepts of privilege, whiteness, oppression, etc. as we talk about other cross-cultural learning, ideas and concepts in the context of the U.S. Legal system and law. As lead wrangler on the chapter, I hope that we can contribute by identifying and assessing student learning objectives as well as focusing on teaching and learning activities in clinic and in classroom settings. The evolution of even the nomenclature on this topic has made writing this chapter a challenge. So many separate concepts are often contained in conclusive adjectives such as ‘cross-cultural,’ ‘diversity,’ ‘multi-cultural’ or ‘intercultural’ as well as the terms ‘competence,’ ‘lawyering,’ ‘effectiveness,’ or ‘sensibilities.’
Andi Curcio came out with a piece on assessment of intercultural sensibilities which I think will be both helpful and provocative and is based on interdisciplinary work she did: Andrea Anne Curcio et al., A Survey Instrument to Develop, Tailor, and Help Measure Law Student Cultural Diversity Education Learning Outcomes, 38 Nova L. Rev. 1 (2014).”
Laurie Barron: “Lexi Freeman, from Denver, did a terrific presentation on this at Externships 7 entitled: Homeland, The Wire, Friday Night Lights and Helping Externship Students Understand Privilege and Navigate Difference. She used terrific video clips which are available here (scroll down to the last concurrent session slot) and demonstrated the Privilege Walk for all of us. The session was incredibly inspirational and informative and I tried everything in my class right after the conference. Thank you Lexi!!”
Jennifer Sperling: “Amna, your call for persistence and modeling resonated with me, and I thought you (and others) might enjoy this article, published in Slate yesterday, which discusses the results of a (limited, but interesting) MTV survey on millennials and race, which indicate that 18-24 year-olds have trouble talking explicitly about race, in part because they seem to have connected with a narrative of formal equality that makes any race-conscious dialogue challenging. Overwhelmingly though, those surveyed said they would want to know if they had implicit biases, and want to have tools (and language) to address bias in themselves and their communities, which I read as encouraging, and empowering. Thanks for raising this on the list – I took away a lot of thoughtful resources from this thread.”
Leonard Sandler: “I have truly enjoyed the conversations and materials about implicit individual and institutional bias and disparities based on race, gender, disability and other characteristics. For the past two years, we have partnered with community organizations to identify, document and try to resolve racial disparities in law enforcement, education, transportation and jobs. The clinical law students and I attended several workshops on implicit bias that were facilitated by people with great experience, savvy and teaching skills. I have attached some of the materials and homework we were assigned (Downloads 3-10 below)– joined by staff, faculty, students and administrators from several departments. I think that implicit association tests should be accompanied by workshops or structured discussions to help us unpack the subtleties and nuances of the instruments and the issues.
By the way, our Law and Policy in Action clinical team completed the first phase of a project with the City of Iowa City to evaluate and recommend corrective measures to improve the city’s outreach and recruitment effort. It was the first step in the aftermath of a report on Racial Equity report released by one of our community organization clients. I have enclosed the presentation slides (Download 11 below) we used during our meeting with the City Attorney, Assistant City Manager, Equity Director/Human Rights Coordinator and the Human Resource Administrator.
I’d be interested in knowing of other clinical law projects that are addressing similar issues.”
Ascanio Piomelli: “To add to the list of materials on the IAT and cross-cultural interaction, I hope that some of you may find something of value in my essay, Cross-Cultural Lawyering by the Book: The Latest Clinical Texts and a Sketch of a Future Agenda, 4 Hastings Race & Poverty L. J. 131, 166-79 (2006).”
Bob Seibel: “Thanks for sparking a great discussion. Your post puts the issue in the broader context of power dynamics and that can be a useful and less threatening starting point, especially since students are probably acutely aware of the power imbalances in supervisor/student relations and faculty/student relations. In the externship world we have found that it is often useful to address power issues so that students who are reticent to assert their learning agendas at a placement become more acquainted with techniques to do so and of the impact of their feelings of being powerless in the situation. In house clinics have some of the same issues arise, but fortunately most clinic supervisors are aware of the power dynamics and we try to minimize the negative effects. Students may have an easier time moving to race, gender and other biases when they start with some aspect of power issue that they personally relate to.
Similarly, many students have a concern that clinic clients won't take them seriously as professionals because of their young age and you can use this bias issue to open up discussion to other bias occurrences that may be more subtle.
What a great and rich discussion--also a reminder of how difficult it is for us to fully explore with students all the issues that need to be, or at least could be fruitfully addressed in our teaching environment. I wish more first year teachers would have discussions like this to incorporate these issues, not just as abstract principles but as everyday lawyering realities, and help prepare the students better for our clinic experiences.”
Nekima Levy Pounds: I thought this short blog post might be of interest: White Privilege: The Elephant in Minnesota’s Living Room, Star Tribune, May 20, 2014. It's been making the rounds on social media here.
Mary M. Zulack: “There was some pathbreaking work back in the 1980's by Peggy McIntosh, whom I believe may have coined the term White Privilege. Here is a recent New Yorker article about her and her SEED program. Perhaps others have gone through the SEED program and can comment on it. Here is the older article: White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. And here you can see the old typed manuscript: White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies (Wellesley College, College for Research on Women, Working Paper No. 189, 1988).”
Steven Drizin: “For those who teach in juvenile justice clinics and who are working towards juvenile justice reform, there are a variety of essential studies and articles worth reading, starting with Perry Moriearty’s wonderful article below which cites many of the other essential sources. The recent APA article here was mind-blowing to me because it documented what I have always suspected when I worked in the juvenile courts -- the notion that ‘childhood’ takes on a new meaning depending upon the race of the child and that black children are perceived to be ‘older’ and thus more responsible for their crimes than similar-situated white children. Ask yourself: How many times have you heard prosecutors argue that ‘he may be young or have a low IQ but he has ‘street smarts.’ And then ask yourself, how many times you've heard this argument in a case involving white clients. . .’”
- Perry Moriearty, Framing Justice: Media, Bias, and Legal Decisionmaking, 69 Md. L. Rev. 849(2010)
- Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr. & Shanto Iyengar, Prime Suspects: The Influence of Local Television News on the Viewing Public, 44 Am. J. Pol. Sci. 560, 562 (2000)
- Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr. et al., Crime in Black and White: The Violent, Scary World of Local News, 1 Harv. Int'l J. Press-Pol. 15 (1996)
- Alafair S. Burke, Improving Prosecutorial Decision Making: Some Lessons of Cognitive Science, 47 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1587, 1590-91 (2006) (arguing that prosecutors exhibit cognitive bias)
- Theodore Eisenberg & Sheri Lynn Johnson, Implicit Racial Attitudes of Death Penalty Lawyers, 53 DePaul L. Rev. 1539, 1553 (2004) (finding that capital defense attorneys exhibit the same levels of implicit bias as the rest of the population)
- Chris Guthrie et al., Inside the Judicial Mind, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 777, 784 (2001) (reporting on a study of 167 federal magistrate judges, which revealed that they are susceptible to heuristics and biases when making decisions)
- Michael J. Leiber & Kristan C. Fox, Race and the Impact of Detention on Juvenile Justice Decision Making, 51 Crime & Delinq. 470, 489-90 (2005) (attributing observed negative race effects in outcomes to “racial stereotyping of African Americans as delinquent, prone to drug offenses, dangerous, and unsuitable for treatment”)
- George S. Bridges & Sara Steen, Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms, 63 Am. Soc. Rev. 554, 567 (1998) (concluding that probation officers’ written rationales for sentencing recommendations indicated that they were more likely to attribute the criminal behavior of minority youth to internal forces, such as personal failure, inadequate moral character, and personality, and the criminal behavior of white youth to external forces, such as environment, even when the objective risk factors associated with the youth were similar)
- Sandra Graham & Brian S. Lowery, Priming Unconscious Racial Stereotypes About Adolescent Offenders, 28 L. & Hum. Behav. 483, 499 (2004) (documenting the impact of written racial cues on police and probation officers' judgments about the “culpability,” “likely recidivism,” and “deserved punishment” of hypothetical offenders)
- Frank D. Gilliam, Jr., New Stanford Criminal Justice Study Right, But Incomplete and Misleading, The Huffington Post, Aug. 20, 2014 (Frank Gilliam's work on implicit bias is important for those looking to change public policy)
Jane Spinak: “To Steven's list above, you can add Matthew I. Fraidin, Decision-Making in Dependency Court: Heuristics, Cognitive Biases, and Accountability, 60 Clev. St. L. Rev. 913 (2013).”
Shoba Wadhia: “I look forward to a continuing conversation. I am including here a PPT and resources in connection with a talk by Derald Wing Sue, professor of psychology and education at Columbia University delivered at Penn State last September titled ‘Microaggressions and Marginality: Manifestation, Dynamics, and Impact.’
Beyond the classroom, I would be interested in hearing about how you address implicit bias in your faculty committee work and during faculty meetings.”
Carol Izumi: “I’m attaching a copy of my article on 'Implicit Bias and the Illusion of Mediator Neutrality' (download 12) which identifies efforts I’ve incorporated in my Mediation Clinic. I presented on this in a plenary at the clinical conference in LA a couple years back.”
Is it racist to talk about race?
Jamie Baker Roskie: “What I would love to see is a principled answer to the student who says, essentially, that it's racist to talk about race, or that by talking about race we are accusing him/her of racism. I always struggled to find common ground with some students around those issues.”
Kimberly O’Leary: “If your students are in a mental place where they feel like it is racist to talk about race, you might try one of the alike/different exercises mentioned earlier on this thread. Where I teach now, it is very diverse and students do not feel that way about race discussions. But when I taught at a different place that was virtually all white, students felt very threatened by race discussions. I had a set of videos (produced by Mary Wolf many years ago for a clinic conference) where the client was young, white, male, very religious, poor and had some unusual personality traits; the student lawyer was African-American, a little older, kind of conservative politically, middle class; the supervisor was female, politically leftist, about the same age as the student, etc. The students would watch the video of the client and I would have them list ways they were similar to and different from the client. Then they would watch the video of the student lawyer and they would list how the client and student lawyer were the same and different from each other. This then led to a discussion of how similarities/differences affect representation, empathy, etc. Race was one factor, but not the only factor. I think it also helped that the African-American person was the student, not the client.”
Russell Pearce: “I believe your concern about students saying “it’s racist to talk about race” and Jennifer’s concern about millennials embracing formal equality are connected. The dominant elite (and legal) culture assumes that we are autonomous individuals who should aspire to, and could actually, relate in a color-blind way. Under these assumptions, race consciousness is wrong because it denies that all individuals are autonomous. The contrary view is that our selves are constructed through our relationships. In a society, where race is relevant and where white people are privileged, then competent lawyering and the values of equity and inclusion inevitably require consciousness of how race influences those relationships. There is a terrific business school literature on this, including a Harvard Business School study comparing bank branches that used a color blind model with those that used a racial learning model. The racial learning bank branches performed better than the color blind branches on every measure of success, from job satisfaction to profitability. See White Lawyering: Rethinking Race, Lawyer Identity, and Rule of Law, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 2081, at 2093-95 (2005).
My sense is that unless we provide students with frameworks that undermine the assumption that we all exist, or have the capacity to exist, autonomously, then they will default to a color blind perspective hostile to conversations regarding race, especially white people like myself who benefit from normalizing whiteness and find it uncomfortable to consider how our racial identity influences how we perceive others and how others perceive us.”
Jamie Baker Roskie: “That's such an interesting perspective, and it rings true. I had so much trouble establishing common ground with one student who was very resistant, because as I kept reaching for common ground she kept isolating herself. I tried calling to what I considered a shared professionalism value - our ‘duty’ to provide legal assistance to those who cannot afford it - and she also rejected that. She said (something like - this is several years ago) – ‘I don't believe in that - I just want to be a tax attorney and to be left alone.’ Left alone.
That's why I ended up moving my Values class to the beginning of the semester - I found that if I gave the students the opportunity to surface and discuss their own value sets, and then discuss values vis-à-vis our work in the clinic, they felt heard, and we then had some common language to refer to when we got to the tougher stuff - like race.”
Sue Bryant: “One resource that might be helpful is the report published by the national conferences on the state courts based on the research of Kang and others that find that when explicit recognition of difference is ignored implicit bias is more likely to occur. Thus the report recommends that judges explicitly pay attention to difference as one of several strategies to manage bias. A resource that comes with a Court credibility can be a helpful starting place (National Center for State Courts, Helping courts address implicit bias: Resources for education).
If by racist your students mean you are accusing them of intent to discriminate -- they are not racist. But a failure to attend to implicit bias, creates situations that enable unintentional discrimination. I think it is important to make those distinctions. Also important to recognize that we have varying levels of bias about different groups. Students with a lower bias score on the Implicit Bias tests can overcome biased thinking especially when they are prompted to pay attention.”
Stephen Ellman: “My New York Law School colleague Deborah Archer has been thinking about similar concerns, and I want to recommend her recent article on them, “There Is No Santa Claus: The Challenge Of Teaching The Next Generation Of Civil Rights Lawyers In A "Post-Racial" Society," 4 Columbia J. Race & L. 55 (2013).”
Implicit Bias: Has anyone covered this with an entire incoming class or large segment of students . . . effectively (or at all)?
Larry Krieger: “This is so important and such an illuminating conversation, I did not see any reference to an attempt to cover in large group (entire 1L or other class?) meeting(s). Any class-wide or school-wide efforts, or thoughts about planning such a thing? It may be entirely unworkable, or maybe not. I like to remember that “the perfect is the enemy of the good” – if a broader session might allow a small number of outliers to sit back and not expose their unwillingness to engage, that might well be preferable to not raising it with any, or the majority of students at the school. Just thinking . . .”
Russell G. Pearce: That’s a great idea. In the early 1990s, Penn required all first years to participate in a 3-4 hour program on race, gender, and identity in lawyering as part of the Ethics and Professional module. Here’s the quick summary of the exercise Penn used: White Lawyering: Rethinking Race, Lawyer Identity, and Rule of Law, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 2081, at 2085-86. I have no idea whether Penn continues to do this.
Leonard Sandler: “We introduce the concepts at a diversity orientation session for 1Ls and are planning presentations for other classes throughout the year. University diversity personnel are going to facilitate a workshop for administrators and staff about cultural competence in customer service. We are also working on having our chief diversity officer host a workshop for faculty on implicit bias, teaching and issues in the classroom (to follow up the lecture presented this year by visiting faculty about implicit bias).”
Kelly Terry: “Mike Schwartz and I plan to include these topics as part of a new one-unit course we are developing for first-year students called ‘Professionalism and the Work of Lawyers.’ The course is an elective that we will offer for the first time this fall, so we don’t know yet what the enrollment will be. If anyone wants to check back with us at the end of the fall semester, we’ll be happy to report on how things went. Thanks so much for all of the suggestions offered in this discussion; we’ll take a look at the wonderful resources you all have identified.”
Downloads: 1. Download Implicit Bias and Confronting Assumptions S2014 (2) 2. Download Laurie Barron's Cross Cultural Competence Resource List August 2012 3. Download Glossary 4. Download IAT-Homework Directions (2) 5. Download Interventions-EvidenceBased-11-22-13 6. Download ImplicitBias-SessionOne-10-30-13 7. Download WISELI-AdviceMinimize 8. Download Part 2 - Environmental Audit 9. Download Part Two-Draft 10. Download Resource List-Implicit Bias-2013 11. Download May 6 Race Equity Presentation for Iowa CityLS 12. Download IMPLICIT BIAS AND THE ILLUSION OF MEDIATOR NEUTRALITY
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Federal Education Loan Relief and Forgiveness: An Important Resource for Law School Graduates is at Risk
By: Kim Bart, Assistant Dean for Public Interest & Pro Bono at Duke Law School, and Isaac Bowers, Associate Director for Law School Engagement & Advocacy at Equal Justice Works
Class of 2013 law school graduates who took out loans to fund their legal educations accumulated an average debt of $109,756 according to U.S. News & World Report data. In taking on that level of educational debt, many law school students were aware of, and perhaps counting on, long-established federal loan repayment and forgiveness programs. Some of the programs, however, may soon be constricted.
President Obama’s proposed budget, released in March 2014, includes a proposal to cap the level of federal loan forgiveness at the aggregate loan limit for independent undergraduate students, which is currently set at $57,500. This may leave graduate and professional students, including law students, out in the cold. Congress is likely to take the issue up next year as part of its ongoing reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
Federal Loan Repayment and Forgiveness Programs
Federal loan repayment and forgiveness programs currently can help high debt borrowers in two main ways: (1) income-driven repayment plans set monthly student loan payments at an affordable percentage of borrowers’ incomes and allow cancellation of any remaining debt after 20 or 25 years; (2) Public Service Loan Forgiveness allows borrowers who commit to working in the public interest sector to earn forgiveness after 10 years of loan repayment. Only federal student loans are eligible for these federal programs.
The two most common income-driven repayment plan options are Income-Based Repayment (IBR) and Pay As You Earn (PAYE). IBR has been available to borrowers since 2009. It caps most borrowers’ monthly loan payments at 15% of discretionary income, with discharge of the loan balance after 25 years. Borrowers with no federal student loan balance who receive loans on or after July 1, 2014 have a monthly payment cap of 10% of discretionary income and discharge after 20 years.
PAYE, which has been available since 2012, also caps a borrower’s monthly loan payment at 10% of discretionary income and allows discharge of the loan balance after 20 years. To qualify for PAYE, borrowers must have received a loan on or after Oct. 1, 2007 and have had no outstanding federal student loans at the time they received it, and must receive a disbursement of a federal loan on or after Oct. 1, 2011.
Public Service Loan Forgiveness
Under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, the length of repayment is reduced from 20 or 25 years to just 10, in return for the borrower working in qualifying public interest employment. Qualifying employment includes work with federal, state, local or tribal government, or work with a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
The prospect of loan forgiveness after 10 years of loan repayment has allowed many high debt recent law school graduates to consider public interest or public service employment, even though starting salaries for the public sector are significantly below those of the private sector. Median entry-level salary for public interest employment hover around $48,000, according to the 2014 NALP Public Sector and Public Interest Attorney Salary Report. This compares unfavorably with a median first-year salary of $125,000 for private firms. PSLF allows high debt law school graduates to realistically consider devoting themselves to long-term public service legal careers. A cap on Federal Loan Forgiveness would have a deleterious effect on the ability of law school grads to successfully manage law school debt, and remove an incentive for lawyers to choose lower-paying, but much-needed, public service work over private law firm employment.
To learn more, join the Equal Justice Works free live webinar: “JDs in Debt: What Law Students & Lawyers Need to Know about Managing Student Loans & Earning Public Service Loan Forgiveness,” which will be offered on October 8th, November 25th and December 18th, 2014. To register, visit http://equaljusticeworks.org/ed-debt/webinars.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
There are some incredible conferences on the horizon! Below is some information about two from the Institute for Law Teaching and Learning.
Don’t forget to save the date for two spring conferences: February 28, 2015, Engaging the Entire Class—Strategies for Enhancing Participation and Inclusion in Law School Classroom Learning (see the announcement below) at UCLA; and June 13-14, 2015, Experiential Learning Across the Curriculum, at Gonzaga University School of Law, Spokane, WA. The details, call for proposals, and registration information for the June conference will be forthcoming.
The Institute for Law Teaching and Learning is partnering with UCLA Law School for a Spring 2015 conference, featuring five professors from the What the Best Law Teachers Do book. See below for conference announcement, we'll be back in touch with registration and accommodation information, and we hope to see you in sunny LA next February!
Engaging the Entire Class—Strategies for Enhancing Participation and Inclusion in Law School Classroom Learning
Institute for Law Teaching and Learning
Spring Conference 2015
Saturday, February 28, 2015
The UCLA School of Law and the Institute for Law Teaching and Learning (ILTL) are collaborating to present a one-day conference in Los Angeles on February 28, 2015. The conference theme is: “Engaging the Entire Class—Strategies for Enhancing Participation and Inclusion in Law School Classroom Learning.”
Conference Structure: The conference will include an opening and closing led by ILTL Co-Directors and Consultants, and five workshop sessions. Each workshop session will be presented by a teacher featured in What the Best Law Teachers Do.
Conference Presenters: Workshop presenters include:
Patti Alleva (University of North Dakota)
Steve Friedland (Elon University)
Steven Homer (University of New Mexico)
Nancy Levit (University of Missouri – Kansas City)
Hiroshi Motomura (UCLA)
By the end of the conference, participants will have concrete ideas for enhancing participation and inclusion in law school classrooms to take back to their students, colleagues, and institutions.
Registration and accommodation information forthcoming.
Looking forward to seeing all of you in UCLA and/or Spokane!
Monday, September 29, 2014
Conference on Advancing Equal Access to Justice: Barriers, Dilemmas, and Prospects
University of California Hastings College of the Law and Stanford Center on the Legal Profession, Stanford Law School
November 12-13, 2015
San Francisco, California
Conference Scope and Purpose
This conference has both scholarly and practical objectives. Its focus is on identifying and redressing inequalities and dysfunctions within the United States civil justice system, with a particular emphasis on California. We are seeking papers that enhance our empirical and conceptual understandings of the most pressing short-term and long-term challenges affecting the accessibility, availability, and quality of civil legal assistance and representation for low and middle income individuals. We are especially interested in papers that propose specific civil justice policy and practice reforms and that critically examine not only direct benefits and costs but also potential overall societal and institutional consequences. We also want to review papers that rely on empirical research and/or new conceptual insights for critiquing and improving or altering our traditional legal processes and mechanisms including but not solely limited to courts. In meeting these objectives, we invite studies and proposals from abroad and other states as well as ones now being undertaken in California. In addition to the usual participants in discussions concerning access to justice, our target audience for the conference includes judges, legislators, other public officials, bar leaders, community activists from business, labor, minority, and grassroots organizations, and interested lawyers and academic colleagues.
The conference will take place over 1 ½ days. There will be opening, first-day luncheon, and closing luncheon speakers. The bulk of the program will consist of panel presentations and follow-up small group discussions. In this announcement, we are inviting proposals for research papers for panel presentations.
We anticipate that there will be three sequential panel sessions: The first will focus on proposals for making lawyers available at less or no cost; the second will examine ideas for improving self-help assistance and expanding the roles of non-lawyers; and the third will address issues concerning underlying political and legal conditions implicated when seeking to reform our civil justice system and potential short-term and long-term institutional consequences were specific reforms to become operational.
Each panel will have a moderator, two paper presenters, and a commentator. The moderator will be someone who is familiar with the specific subject matter and can place the research and reforms suggested into an overall framework for thinking about equal access to justice concerns. In reviewing panel presentation submissions, we hope to have proposals that collectively utilize a range of empirical and non-empirical research methodologies. The role of the fourth member on the panel will not be to counter what has been presented but to raise additional issues and concerns to be considered during the subsequent small group discussions.
Potential Research Paper Themes
We invite proposals on topics of your own framing consistent with the conference’s general purpose. Illustrative of our more particular concerns, we set forth below several specific themes and issues grouped by proposed panel presentation session. We are not seeking to cover all these matters but rather offer them as examples of potential research topics. As noted above, we anticipate only two research paper presentations at each panel session.
A. Availability and Accessibility of Lawyers
1. Techniques and limitations regarding the encouragement and provision of pro bono and low fee counsel: E.g., mandatory pro bono reporting; conditioned early admission to the bar; post-law school incubators through various organizations including law schools; overcoming lawyer-supply/client-demand discrepancies and inefficiencies.
2. Civil Gideon and fallback measures: E.g., constitutional and statutory prospects and obstacles; quantitative and qualitative reports on the benefits, costs, and effectiveness of targeted and limited expansion of the right to civil counsel within California and from other states and abroad; perspectives and approaches for determining when having a lawyer is likely to be most efficacious for clients and how to measure the utility or value of having a lawyer.
3. Legal aid practice and funding: E.g., precariousness of governmental, foundation and charitable funding; evaluating IOLTA programs; developing new sources of funding; rethinking client criteria for receiving free legal assistance; assessing the barriers to and benefits and costs of utilizing advances in legal technology.
B. Self-Help and Non-Lawyer or Mixed Models for Providing Legal Services
1. Restructuring legal practice: E.g., authorizing for-profit, nonprofessional corporations as providers of legal services; unbundling of legal services; establishing limited licensure; revising related ethical rules, principles and values; evaluating the quality, feasibility and costs of services provided through legal insurance and by entities such as LegalZoom; critically examining assumptions regarding the insufficient availability and uneven distribution of lawyers.
2. Triaging legal services—where, when, how and for whom: E.g., developing standards for determining who gets what kind of service; measuring the impact of differentiated types of service; establishing and evaluating screening and referral mechanisms; rethinking the roles of judges and non-judicial personnel at the courthouse; drawing on lessons from the healthcare profession.
3. Improving self-help measures: E.g., examining client self-awareness of potential civil law situations; evaluating the effectiveness of online programs that provide referral or substantive information, downloadable forms, or formal documents filing; assessing developments in legal self-help publishing.
C. Underlying Structural and Consequential Institutional Implications
1. The relationship of the justice gap to inequalities of income and demographic differences: E.g., measuring the justice gap; comparing outcomes in family law or other selected subject areas taking into account the availability of counsel or the lack thereof and also income status; tracking the accessibility and quality of legal assistance by race, ethnicity, gender and geography; ethical and social implications of an existing and/or widening justice gap; redressing language, cultural and disability barriers.
2. Societal and institutional consequences of shifting away from resolving disputes in adversarial and/or public proceedings: E.g., examining the jurisprudential and political effects of such a shift presently and prospectively; comparing due process protections and equality imbalances in adversarial and inquisitorial proceedings drawing on court case studies from abroad and administrative agency examples domestically; weighing the jurisprudential and practical effects of trial judges assuming an enhanced role as legal and social services facilitators; re-conceptualizing and reconfiguring the courthouse as a place for seeking legal assistance and related services; identifying and assessing the impacts of such changes for law schools and legal education.
SUBMISSION PROCESS AND DEADLINES
Individuals interested in presenting a research and/or policy reform panel session paper should submit a prospectus summary of no more than a 1000 words describing the paper’s proposed topic, themes, and research methodologies by no later than Wednesday, November 12, 2014. This summary should be sent as an email attachment to the conference organizers— Mark Aaronson email@example.com, Juliet Brodie firstname.lastname@example.org, Joseph Grodin email@example.com, Deborah Rhode firstname.lastname@example.org, Lucy Ricca email@example.com, Gail Silverstein firstname.lastname@example.org, and Nancy Stuart email@example.com.
A near-final draft of the paper, for review by the conference organizers and program speakers and panel participants, will be due on Monday, October 5, 2015. Travel expenses will be paid for individuals whose papers are selected for presentation at the conference. There is also the prospect that the papers presented will be considered for publication in a symposium issue of the Hastings Law Journal or Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Flights across the U.S. were snarled on Friday due to a fire affecting O’Hare, but system-wide flight cancellations and delays could not keep nearly 100 clinical faculty members from descending on NYU School of Law yesterday for a scholarship boot camp experience, but with kinder, gentler drill sergeants. The annual event aims to support clinical faculty at all levels in their scholarship endeavors.
As every clinical professor knows, publishing regularly is especially challenging in light of the significant supervision and practice-related responsibilities inherent in our positions. The Clinical Law Review Workshop was created to help support clinical faculty in overcoming those challenges in order to become and remain high quality scholars. The workshop is organized around small, thematically-focused groups. This year there were fifteen groups ranging in topics from business law to juvenile justice to tax law. All participants apply to participate in the late spring and commit to complete a draft of their articles by September 1, when they exchange drafts with their group members. They read one another’s drafts closely and then spend most of the day together offering constructive critiques, asking provoking questions, and sharing thoughtful suggestions to help take each paper to the next level. Every group is moderated by a more senior clinical faculty member with significant publishing experience.
At the end of the day, all of the participants come together for a gloves-off session providing tips on how to keep writing and place the papers that will soon be finished. Kate Kruse of Hamline presented the results of a study by Robert Boice on scholarly productivity that showed that professors who wrote every single day produced four times as much scholarship as a control group who wrote in blocks of time (64 pages versus 17 pages). Those who wrote daily AND were accountable to another person for reporting their writing time were over nine times as productive as those who wrote in blocks of time (157 pages versus 17 pages). Michele Gilman of Baltimore reviewed the submission cycle, submission strategies, and provided links to resources such as Writing for and Publishing in Law Reviews found here and a law review template to format one’s article before submission. She even explained the influential power and significance of the asterisk footnote and why one might consider denoting on one’s CV or professional biography when one is writing for a symposium issue.
This is my ninth year as a professor and the second time I have participated in the Clinical Law Review Workshop—first as a junior professor and now as a mid-level professor. Both times I received feedback that fundamentally changed the scope and framing of my research and learned submission and publication tips and strategies that I believe have and will continue to make a difference in my scholarship. I will be back.
There are few professional experiences that are as positive and invigorating as a day immersed in our national and international clinical community—participants came from Croatia, Brazil, Poland, Arizona, Wyoming, D.C., Texas, Florida, Massachusetts, and many more. As Mary Helen McNeal of Syracuse University observed on the clinic listserv today, ours is an especially “supportive and caring community.” The Clinical Writer’s Workshop, under the leadership of Randy Hertz of NYU, is an annual reminder that these values and attitudes are not limited to how we treat our students and clients, nor is it limited to our teaching and supervision--it is how we treat one other and our scholarship.
If you have not yet participated in the Clinical Writer’s Workshop or have not done so recently, I strongly encourage you to keep an eye out for the application information next spring. Keep in mind that, historically, the event has been free thanks to the generosity of NYU School of Law and there have even been a limited number of scholarships available to help offset travel costs, which helps to ensure that the workshop is affordable and inclusive.
In the meanwhile, keep writing every day, remember to create accountability for your writing time with a friend or colleague, and know that there is a large and caring community here to support you, not just with your teaching and supervision, but with your scholarship as well.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Student Life, Relationships & the Law: Confronting Domestic Violence in Higher Education, Oct. 10 - 11, at Pepperdine University School of Law
Please join us at the Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu on October 10 -11, 2014, for Student Life, Relationships & the Law: Confronting Domestic Violence in Higher Education, a conference to address domestic violence and intimate partner violence on college campuses. National leaders from fields across academia will discuss legal, cultural and educational strategies to confront and reduce abuse, coercion, sexual assault and violence among students in dating violence.
Colleges and universities face a critical moment of reckoning and response to violence and abuse among students. One-third of college students report having experienced violence and abuse by a dating partner. One quarter of all women in college experience sexual assault, and sixty percent of acquaintance rapes occur in dating relationships. One-third of college students report having physically assaulted a dating partner. The problems and costs of violence and abuse among dating partners are epidemic, but they are preventable.
Panels will address campus culture, student life, policies and procedures, coordinated campus interventions, Greek and residence life, Title IX and Clery Act compliance, and intersectional dynamics across domestic violence, gender-based crimes and sexual assault.
These are our speakers and the schedule planned for the conference:
Friday, October 10
Welcome - Dean Deanell Reece Tacha and Professor Jeffrey R. Baker
Panel 1: Title IX and Intimate Partner Violence on Campus
Prof. Leigh Goodmark, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, convener
Prof. Nancy Cantalupo, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Jill Engle, Penn State University Dickinson School of Law
Nada Moeiny, Pepperdine University, Office of the General Counsel
Dana Bolger, Founding Co-Director of Know Your IX and ED ACT NOW Campain Organizer
Panel 2: Intersectional Perspectives on Sexual and Domestic Violence on Campus
Dr. Alesha Durfee, Arizona State University School of Social Transformation, convener
Dr. Joanne Belknap , University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, School of Sociology
Prof. Deborah Weissman, University of North Carolina School of Law
Jasmine Lester, Founder and Director, Sun Devils Against Sexual Assault
Saturday, October 11
Panel 3: Clery Act Compliance and Effects on Domestic Violence
Prof. Margaret Drew, University of Massachusetts School of Law, convener
Lamea Shaaban-Magana, University of Alabama, Women’s Resource Center
Kathleen Echols, University of Alabama, Women’s Resource Center
Allison Dearing, Campus Violence Prevention and Response Coordinator, Crisis Center, Inc., serving University of Alabama – Birmingham, Miles College, Birmingham-Southern College and Samford University
Panel 4: Campus Culture and Coordinated Institutional Responses to Domestic Violence
Prof. Tanya Cooper, University of Alabama School of Law, convener
Prof. Kelly Behre, University of California, Davis, School of Law
Prof. Yoli Redero, Vanderbilt University Law School
Alison Tartaglia, West Virginia University, The Students’ Center of Health
Friday, September 19, 2014
Via Prof. Camille Carey, behold this job posting from the University of New Mexico School of Law for a tenured or tenure-track position in the UNM Clinical Law Program:
The University of New Mexico ("UNM") School of Law invites applications for a faculty position in the UNM Clinical Law Program. The Clinical Law faculty position is a full-time tenured or tenure-track position starting in Fall 2015. Entry-level and experienced teachers are encouraged to apply. The Clinical Law Program is recognized as a national leader in clinical education and is consistently ranked a top clinical education program.
UNM's nationally recognized legal education program features innovative classes that combine practical skills training with doctrinal instruction, a 9:1 student-to-faculty ratio, and one of the most ethnically and racially diverse faculties and student bodies in the country. The University of New Mexico (UNM) provides a diversified package of benefits including medical, dental, vision, and life insurance. In addition, UNM offers educational benefits through tuition remission and dependent education programs.
Minimum Qualifications: Candidates must possess a J.D. degree or equivalent legal degree. Preferred Qualifications: Preferred qualifications include a record of demonstrated excellence, or the promise of excellence, in teaching and academic scholarship and who demonstrate a commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and student success, as well as working with broadly diverse communities. The University of New Mexico is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and Educator.
Here is the link to apply: https://unmjobs.unm.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?time=1410987616193
For Best Consideration: 09/29/2014
The University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law (UDC-DCSL) is seeking applicants to direct the School of Law's Housing/Consumer Clinic and Legislation Clinic. We will be interviewing for these positions at the AALS Faculty Recruitment Conference in Washington, D.C. on October 17-18, 2014. Please feel free to circulate the attached announcements widely.
PROFESSOR HOUSING/CONSUMER CLINIC
UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DAVID A. CLARKE SCHOOL OF LAW (UDC-DCSL) invites applications for an assistant/associate professor to direct and supervise students in the School of Law’s Housing/Consumer Clinic. The professor will teach clinical students D.C. tenant law, trial advocacy, and pretrial litigation. The clinic handles a wide variety of litigation matters including tenant cases, consumer cases, tort cases, discrimination cases, administrative cases, and a selection of other pedagogically valuable civil cases. Relevant experience includes a demonstrated knowledge of tenant law (D.C. preferred) and excellent skills in jury trial and civil pre-trial litigation, including civil, administrative, and appellate procedure. A demonstrated potential for outstanding clinical teaching is expected. The rank of the position will depend upon the successful applicant’s level of experience. The candidate should be a member of the D.C. Bar or be able to waive into the D.C. Bar.
PROFESSOR LEGISLATION CLINIC
UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DAVID A. CLARKE SCHOOL OF LAW (UDC-DCSL) invites applications for an assistant/associate professor to teach in the School of Law’s Legislation Clinic. The professor will teach students the skills necessary for effective legislative advocacy and provide them with opportunities to work on projects that produce law reform through the legislative process. The rank of the position will depend upon the successful applicant’s level of experience. Candidates must hold a J.D. degree with a record of strong academic performance and excellent potential for scholarly achievement. Relevant experience and demonstrated potential for outstanding clinical teaching is expected.
The mission of the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law is to recruit and enroll students from groups under-represented at the bar, to provide a well-rounded theoretical and practical legal education that will enable students to be effective and ethical advocates, and to represent the legal needs of low-income District of Columbia residents through the school’s legal clinics. UDC-DCSL is one of only six American Bar Association (ABA) accredited law schools at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). UDC is the nation’s only urban, public land grant university.
UDC-DCSL is ranked seventh in the nation in Law School Clinical Programs (US News and World Report, 2014); first most diverse law school in the U.S. (National Jurist, 2012); first most chosen by older students (Princeton Review, 2014); 2nd most diverse faculty (Princeton Review, 2014); third for clinical opportunities (PreLaw Magazine, 2011); eighth best environment for minority students (Princeton Review, 2014); eighth most liberal students (Princeton Review, 2014); Top 20 most innovative law school (PreLaw Magazine, 2012). UDC-DCSL has a strong commitment to diversity among its faculty and encourages applications from minorities and women.
Although we will accept applications until the position is filled, we strongly encourage interested applicants to submit applications immediately for complete consideration. Interested candidates should apply online at www.udc.edu.
Contact: Professor Andrew G. Ferguson, Co-Chair, Faculty Appointments Committee, University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law, 4200 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20008; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Today, Scotland is voting for independence from the United Kingdom. Parliament has permitted the plebiscite, and the Queen is staying neutral on the vote. This is remarkable. It is a testament to the Rule of Law and the advance of representative democracy that this moment rests on a vote of the people of Scotland. Yes or No, a vote of self-determination stands in stark contrast to centuries of war between Scotland and England. Hadrian’s Wall was a barrier between Rome and Scotland, and neither the Emperor, the Pope nor the Crown has been particular attentive to the will of the people for most of two millennia of history on their island.
The Magna Carta was first executed in 1215, and as we approach a big anniversary, here are the people voting for independence. The vote will count, and there is not a threat of war. We know something about war with England, and our Declaration of Independence is a legal document setting forth grievances and claiming relief consistent with the Magna Carta, the limited sovereignty of the Crown and English common law. The Americans were asserting their rights as British subjects, and independence was the remedy. In 1776, the Crown did not abide by the will of the people who sought their own sovereignty.
This moment in history is rare and beautiful, whatever the outcome. It is adherence to the Rule of Law, not violence. It is the shifting vicissitudes of politics and economics, manifest in a popular election that gave rise to an initiative authorized by a legislature to welcome a vote on a matter of sovereignty and national standing. Through decades of political organizing within a constitutional system centuries in the making, a nation gets to vote on independence, without risking a war.
Last week at our law school, we hosted a judge, lawyers and students from the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple. I sat beside an English judge and mooted an appellate argument between English and American law students, and we all understood the work at hand, the law and the process of making Common Law. We owe our traditions of the Rule of Law and representative democracy and mixed government to British lawyers, and this fascinating, historic day drives home to me the critical importance of teaching lawyers.
Lawyers are the operatives of the Rule of Law. We shape, manipulate, reform, advocate, organize, negotiate and criticize the law. When we exploit our power and influence, we invite violence, vigilantism, instability, injustice and war. When we do our work with integrity, courage and excellence, we invite trust and submission to the Rule of Law. The expanding Rule of Law, opening a place at the table for more and more people to participate in the system, promotes peace, justice and prosperity. Access to justice accelerates the vision of our Founders in 1776 and the Barons on Runnymede in 1215, that the people might be their own sovereigns. This liberty exists only if the people bear the burden and opportunity of their own government.
The Preamble of the ABA Model Rules on Professional Conduct calls lawyers “public citizens,” with an obligation to ensure the expansion of access to justice, of representation in the system that would govern them and us. Trust in the Rule of Law, trust in our system of justice, trust in republican, representative democracy, all depend on the people’s access to justice and the political system.
For better or worse, the burden of this trust rests on lawyers who are the expert gatekeepers and practitioners of our common, constitutional life. Whether we prosper in peace and democracy or whether we descend into cynical, self-serving war depends on the lawyers. Teaching and training lawyers is a high calling. We are not training mercenaries bent on profit. We are training public citizens upon whom the social order rests.