Friday, March 20, 2020
A JOINT STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS CLINICAL SECTION* AND THE CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
March 19, 2020
We are clinical law professors working all around the United States, in rural and urban settings, representing vulnerable families, incarcerated people, small business owners, immigrants, community associations, veterans, low-income taxpayers, and many, many more groups of people with whom we seek the full protections and rights afforded by our laws. Across the country, our clinical programs provide more than three million hours of free civil and criminal legal services each year.
From this wealth of experience in diverse communities, we know that much of the mainstream outlook on coronavirus preparation and mitigation, as well as vulnerability to the virus, misses crucial issues facing large swathes of our nation. We are writing to add these missing perspectives and to urge immediate action at the local, state, and federal levels.
When a virus spreads into a deeply unequal society, we should not be surprised to see deeply unequal impacts. Some of the particular vulnerabilities worrying us include:
Our massive prison population. This population includes those serving criminal sentences after convictions, the large number of people held before trial who could safely be released to the community but for the unaffordability of bond, and the tens of thousands of migrants being held either at the border or in massive facilities in the interior of the country. In all these settings, where people have limited access to health care and cannot avail of the social distancing recommended by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the virus will spread quickly. And while incarcerated people cannot access the world outside, correctional officers may be bringing the virus from the outside into these facilities.
Low-wage and service workers. People in the most public-facing occupations are necessarily more exposed than office workers, remote workers, and many others who are being encouraged to self-quarantine. People working in pharmacies or grocery stores where we get our medicine and our food, people working in restaurants, people cleaning our schools and office buildings — they all face a far greater exposure to the virus than people who are able to limit their time outside of their homes or outside of other carefully sanitized spaces.
Low-income families who rely on public transportation. When the only way to get to work is a crowded bus, social distancing is impossible.
Immigrants without health care. From green card holders to the undocumented, immigrants have been deterred from seeking health care. The Trump Administration’s “public charge” rule makes people ineligible for citizenship if they receive certain public benefits. Even when a benefit does not make people ineligible, the fear and confusion around this issue — as well as the possibility that something allowed today might make problems with a change in policy tomorrow — has led to a massive drop in people accessing programs that improve baseline health. And those who lack legal status have no access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
Participants in overcrowded court systems. Courts that serve poor people do not look like the courts we see on TV or in the movies. We regularly appear in courts with crowded waiting rooms, where thirty cases or more might be called in a single two-hour period. Whether that is a criminal court where defendants (and their lawyers) are awaiting arraignment, or an immigration court where dozens of people wait side-by-side in standing-room-only courtrooms, far too many of our courts are ill-equipped to keep people safe. And yet those same people, vulnerable to infection in those crowded, unsanitized spaces, would bear exceptionally high costs if they did not show up to court: evictions, warrants for arrest, defaults that could result in seizures or wage garnishment, orders of deportation, the loss of child support or unpaid wages, and more. We are grateful that, increasingly, jurisdictions are taking smart, timely measures to reduce these risks.
Health Care Workers. All health care workers, even those who otherwise occupy privileged positions in our society, are working the frontlines of the response to coronavirus, which is an extraordinary commitment and service. Among this category, though, are people facing extra vulnerabilities. With a median hourly wage of $13.72, nursing assistants and orderlies have limited resources to keep themselves healthy, even while working in contaminated locations.
People Experiencing Homelessness. Already highly vulnerable to a host of illnesses, those who rely on shelters face acute difficulties in maintaining social distance from those who may be infected with coronavirus, because shelters can be terribly overcrowded. They may also lack reliable access to soap and water. And with more than 30% already suffering from chronic lung diseases, the virus is likely to present more severely amid this population.
Unaffordability of Preparation
Much of the good, common-sense advice about preparing for coronavirus asks people to have supplies on hand for about two weeks, in the event that self-quarantine is needed. In Midwestern cities, the average consumer spends a little over $300 for food and personal items for two weeks. In more expensive cities in the Northeast, that number rises to about $350. Those amounts are well over half of the two-week take-home pay for a minimum wage worker. And the Federal Reserve has found that fully 12% of Americans would be unable to find any way to cover an unexpected $400 expense — meaning that 12% of the U.S. population is unlikely to be able to afford the supplies needed for an effective self-quarantine.
The Challenges of Social Distancing
We have already demonstrated why the vulnerable communities we work with are more likely to come into close contact with the coronavirus. Once exposed, people need to self-quarantine, according to the CDC. For three distinct reasons, this is a difficult solution for many of the people we work with.
Necessity of Work. People without paid sick leave face the choice between staying home — which will help prevent the spread to others — and providing for themselves and their families. Without paid sick leave, we leave these individuals in an impossible situation. Today 34 million Americans lack paid sick leave, and the first wave of federal coronavirus legislation left millions of these workers still unprotected. Some SNAP food benefits recipients are also limited to three months of aid in a 36-month period if they are out of work or underemployed, although those requirements are in flux for many states starting in April. For those still subject to those requirements, missing work may mean missing out on crucial nutrition. We applaud the emergency efforts, like legislation in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere, aimed at assuaging economic insecurity to help people comply with social distancing.
School Closures, Poverty, and Childcare. One of the mitigation strategies we are increasingly seeing is school closures. Although essential, these closures are especially difficult for the communities we serve for three reasons. School may be the only place where a poor child can reliably access nutritious meals provided by school lunch programs. Also, when a child is home from school, someone needs to care for that child. Parents without childcare risk child protective services or criminal investigations if they work and leave their children home alone. School closures also create inequities between well-resourced school districts that can move learning online, and districts without those capabilities (and within districts, there may be disparate access to computers and reliable internet).
Intimate Partner Violence. Self-quarantine may leave people in dangerous situations. The economic stress of lost wages and work opportunities will harm some low-income people who are victimized by intimate partners and other family members, depriving them of the resources they need to maintain their safety. Moreover, the loss of employment may drive increases in violence; intimate partner violence against women is highly correlated with male under- and unemployment. Quarantine will mean that people in violent relationships may find themselves sharing small spaces under stressful conditions with those using violence against them, without the ability to seek other shelter or assistance, for significant periods of time. The World Health Organization attributes a connection between disasters and increases in domestic violence and child and elder abuse to the lack of provisions, the dismantling of social networks, and the stress of lost earnings. As one clinician noted, “For survivors who haven’t escaped yet, telling them to stay home is telling them to stay in the most dangerous place possible.”
Lack of Access to our Clients. Prisons are banning visitors, and lawyers will have greater-than-normal difficulty accessing clients. As universities close down, we will have greater challenges communicating with and meeting other clients. While clinical professors across the country are rapidly adapting our intensive teaching and supervision methodologies to use online tools, we also know that many of our clients lack access to the internet at home, and nothing will be able to substitute for in-person meetings with many whose cases are moving ahead even as the virus inhibits the ability of lawyers to do their job.
We fear that as the economy lurches toward a recession, the very nonprofit agencies whose services do so much to meet all the challenges laid out above, will lose vital grant, private, and government funding, making all of this much more difficult. Our clinical programs across the country support many innovative community organizations who make profound differences in small, unsung ways — and those organizations will need tremendous support to continue their critical work in these times.
We also have great concern that, even with some short-term moratoria in place, evictions will ultimately rise as people choose between medical care and paying rent. We fear the virus will depress responses to the census, which will have massive down-the-line harms for funding of vital government programs.
We greatly worry about what will happen as courts close or limit access to civil litigants. Domestic violence survivors will not be able to secure final protection orders or enforce child support orders. Workers cannot hold employers to account for unpaid wages — and risk missing statutes of limitation on filing those claims (though we hope courts will extend, or “toll,” those deadlines). Enforcing these rights matters. Court closures will make much of that work impossible.
The coronavirus exposes structural injustices that have long existed. This crisis shows that the boundaries we draw amongst ourselves are profoundly porous, whether it is the corner-office law partner exposing the low-wage contractor cleaning his building after hours, or the wealthy family whose elderly mother is cared for by an underpaid nursing aide who took three contaminated buses to get to work.
We hope that by revealing our deep and mutual interdependence, this crisis helps move forward policies that would benefit us all by reducing some of the inequalities embedded in our society. Paid sick leave and universal health care are obviously relevant to this current moment. But so are challenges to our sky-high rates of incarceration and the use of cash bail, and the efforts to raise the minimum wage and end immigration detention.
For decades, we, as clinicians, have seen the many ways that injustice flourishes in our society. We hope that, if nothing else, the COVID-19 pandemic shows us the importance of interconnection, and how all of us do better when society works for all of us. We call on our elected leaders to make justice a core part of all responses to this pandemic. And we ask everyone to consider how a more just society would make so many things better than what we see today.
Monday, March 16, 2020
We're all making necessary and difficult adjustments to clinical teaching and practice. I met my Community Justice Clinic seminar remotely today for the first time; my students are scattered. The beauty of clinics is that everything is a teaching moment as we prepare for practice. I started my class today with a long discussion on lawyers' duties to clients when we have conflicts and crises, whether a global pandemic or really bad traffic.
This is not revolutionary or groundbreaking, but here I share my general notes that guided our conversation today. We shared more stories and questions and discussed other situations and scenarios, but this was my scaffold for the class. I hope this may be helpful.
Lawyering During Disruption
Last Year: Woolsey Fire.
This Year: COVID-19 Pandemic response.
Other scenarios -
Your own sickness.
Personal scheduling conflicts.
Death in the family.
You have a hearing set for a client tomorrow. Today you get sick and are sure you have the flu; tomorrow it’ll be worse. You’ll be contagious. Do you have to attend and handle the hearing for the client?
What basic rule governs this?
For California, note “reasonable diligence” and the other qualifiers.
Some scenarios from my Ethical Lawyering class, MPRE style:
Scarlett is a young associate at a mid-sized law firm. She is very talented and hard-working and makes it a practice never to turn down assignments from partners. Three partners have come to rely on her for many projects. Melanie asks her to handle document review and discovery for her mass-tort, pharmaceutical cases. Rhett asks her to work on research and drafting for his appellate practice. Ashley has asked her to cover depositions in his thriving medical malpractice work. One day, she has a discovery hearing scheduled for 9:00 in Pasadena for Melanie and a deposition scheduled at 12:00 in Encino for Ashley. She thinks she can make it and doesn’t expect the hearing to be a problem, but she is wrong. The Magistrate does not convene the hearing until 9:45, and it takes an hour to sort through all the objections. The 101 is slammed, and Waze says it will take two hours for her to get to the deposition. She doesn’t want to admit defeat or appear unprepared, so she takes surface streets to try to race to the deposition. She gets stuck in traffic near downtown and arrives at the deposition so late that everyone has left.
Has Scarlett violated Rule 1.3?
A. No, because the court is out of her control.
B. No, because traffic is unpredictable in Los Angeles.
C. No, because her supervising attorneys put her in an untenable situation by their lack of coordination and poor management.
D. Yes, because she did not make alternative arrangements for the deposition.
Charles Wallace is a sole practitioner. He employs one assistant, Denny, and one paralegal, Calvin. Charles Wallace handles a variety of matters, from wills and trusts to DUI defense and divorces. At forty years old, his office is profitable, and at any given week in a year, he has 200 paying or retained clients, and he has approximately 30 to 40 active cases. It’s busy, but his firm has a good system to handle it all. Last week, Charles Wallace had a heart attack that killed him almost immediately. He never gained consciousness before he died, so he missed several hearings and client appointments.
Has Charles Wallace violated Rule 1.3?
A. No, because his estate cannot practice law.
B. No, because his staff could communicate the sad news to his clients.
C. Yes, unless he designated another lawyer to handle his client’s business in the event of his death.
D. Yes, unless he was able to notify his clients before he died.
Let’s establish some principles:
When do our ethical duties begin with clients?
Do emergencies, conflicts, sickness, disasters, or crises suspend our ethical duties to clients?
Is this fair? Does it matter if it’s not?
How long do ethical duties survive to clients?
What are the duties most likely to be threatened or challenged by a disruption?
What are the exceptions to ethical duties we owe to clients?
With principles established, if disasters and disruptions are inevitable, if we do not know for whom the bell tolls, how should we react when they happen to fulfill our obligations to clients?
What is the worst option? (Abandoning the client, to their prejudice.)
What is the best option? (Being prepared with good systems so that no crisis is a surprise or shock to practice.)
If the conflict or problem is actually, literally unavoidable, what should you do as soon you can act?
(Alert the client. Alert the court. Communicate. Ask for help (coverage, continuance, extensions, substitutions))
How can you temper the harm to your client? (Communicate. Take all the blame coming to you. Avoid prejudice to the client.)
How can you avoid the crisis of a disruption? (Have systems and options ready. Don’t take on more than you and your systems can handle. Operate with margins. Have backup and help available. (And lend help when you can.))
Apply these ideas to current practice in the clinic, to our clients.
Do all you can to avoid harm and prejudice to clients to whom you owe duties and who trust you with their lives, liberty, fortunes, families.
Duties to clients come first, but client preferences and convenience do not necessarily come first.
Communicate (more than you think you may need to). With clients, partners, courts, opponents, others as necessary.
Be prepared in advance by building resilient systems and partnerships.
Work with margins.
Triage and prioritize.
Ask for help.
Sunday, February 23, 2020
University of South Carolina
Dean of the School of Law
Following a successful nine-year deanship that saw the hiring of 22 highly productive scholars and three teaching librarians as new faculty members, the reduction of in-state tuition by 17% (from the prior year) and the 2017 opening of an $80 million, 187,500 square-foot facility two blocks from the State House and State Supreme Court, the University of South Carolina seeks a new Dean for its School of Law.
The new Dean will have the opportunity to support the professional development and retention of a faculty that is ambitious in its scholarship and socially engaged, while enhancing and promoting programmatic strengths in children’s law, environmental law, experiential learning, healthcare law and public interest law. A new university budgeting model will benefit the School by incentivizing entrepreneurship within each academic unit and allowing the School to retain non-degree revenue, empowering the new Dean to chart a path of financial sustainability for South Carolina Law.
Founded in 1867, South Carolina Law is an incubator for the bar, bench, elected office and civic leadership in its region and across the nation. Within South Carolina, its influence and prestige exceed those of many flagship state university law schools: currently, every sitting Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court and some 25% of state legislators are South Carolina Law graduates. Supported by direct state appropriation, the School maintains the only public law library in South Carolina. Its location in the state capital affords government access for faculty members as well as internship and career opportunities for students. The School is home to several important academic and service centers, including The Children’s Law Center and the Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough Center on Professionalism. The School hosts the annual National Cybersecurity Institute, and South Carolina Law faculty provide key leadership for the University’s Rule of Law Collaborative. The U. S. Department of Justice’s National Advocacy Center and Fort Jackson, the U. S. Army’s largest training post, are near neighbors to the School.
South Carolina Law currently offers only the JD degree, but it is seeking approval from state accreditors to offer partly on-line Master’s and Certificate programs in Health Systems Law. The School offers 12 dual degree programs, partnering with top-ranked programs in the Moore School of Business and Vermont Law School. Fifty-six full-time faculty members, including librarians, provide instruction together with a strong cohort of adjunct and emeriti faculty. Enrollment has remained steady since 2011, with about 210 entering students per class and 633 total students as of Fall 2019. Currently, 62% of enrolled students are South Carolina residents. Following a renewable direct legislative appropriation, in-state tuition (approximately $24k) is now closely aligned with that of the public law schools in neighboring states, and the School is able to offer a competitive non-resident scholar tuition rate to attract highly qualified out-of-state applicants. Matriculation agreements provide two paths for undergraduates enrolled in the University’s Honors College, the top-ranked in the nation, to gain automatic admission to South Carolina Law. The 3+3 Bachelor’s/JD degree program allows Honors College students to obtain both degrees in six rather than seven years.
The design of the new South Carolina Law building promotes student-faculty exchanges and supports an unusually collegial faculty culture that faculty members are eager to sustain under a new Dean. The building is state-of-the-art but also has many reminders of the School’s history, the material culture of South Carolina and the promise of the future in a Sunbelt state experiencing significant economic growth.
South Carolina Law seeks as its new Dean a prominent leader in the legal academy and/or profession, who will be a visible, credible and effective advocate and promoter for the School, while also overseeing new program development and providing expertise and service in advancing the University of South Carolina as a R1 Doctoral University. Candidates must possess a JD, at least ten years of experience in the teaching and/or practice of law and a record that meets the School’s criteria for tenure at the full professor rank. The ideal candidate will be comfortable engaging and stewarding legislators and alumni, providing mentorship for early-career law professors and leading and supporting a dedicated and deeply invested professional staff. South Carolina Law desires an accessible, student-facing Dean capable of nurturing and sustaining the familial academic community that is a hallmark of the School. An aptitude and appetite for developing non-tuition revenue streams, as well as raising endowments for enhanced named faculty chairs, scholarships and public interest funding, will be essential to success in this deanship.
Review of candidate materials will begin immediately and continue until the appointment, with a target appointment date of July 1, 2020. A complete application will include a letter of interest, a curriculum vitae or résumé and contact information for five professional references who can speak about the candidate’s qualifications for this position. Named referees will not be contacted without the candidate’s prior consent. Expressions of interest, applications, nominations and inquiries should be directed to South Carolina Law’s search consultant, Mr. Chuck O’Boyle of C. V. O’Boyle, Jr., LLC, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The University of South Carolina does not discriminate in educational or employment opportunities on the basis of race, sex, gender, age, color, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, genetics, protected veteran status, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
On Friday, Feb. 21, the ABA and Pepperdine Caruso School of Law are hosting a Disaster Response Symposium. We're hosting national, state, and local experts in disaster legal responses, and if you're affected by natural disasters or serve those who are, please consider joining us. It'll be a great day of learning and collaboration.
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
University of Colorado
Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Clinic
The University of Colorado is looking for a permanent clinical professor for our Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Clinic. The clinic’s mission and vision allow for the clinical professor to cultivate a diverse docket of cases and projects, including matters addressing environmental and climate justice as well as traditional litigation and agency advocacy.
Founded in 1978, the Getches-Green Natural Resources and Environmental Law Clinic is one of the country's first environmental law clinics. Originally, Clinic students worked under the supervision of staff attorneys at the National Wildlife Federation. In 2010, the Clinic moved in house to the Law School, where the Clinic continues its mission of training future attorneys through the representation of clients in environmental cases.
The clinical faculty member is responsible for developing a docket of projects dealing with natural resources, energy, and environmental law issues. The clinical faculty member also has primary responsibility for supervising students in their case or project work, and for organizing and teaching a companion clinical seminar. The clinical faculty member will also work closely with the Getches-Wilkinson Center and the doctrinal faculty members who teach environmental law and related subjects. The clinical faculty member is expected to become an active member of the natural resources law community and develop relationships with experts, attorneys, and relevant organizations. This is a full-time academic year position. Rank and appointment classification will depend on qualifications and experience.
Candidates must have a JD degree and a minimum of five years of relevant practical experience. Teaching experience is strongly preferred. Candidates must be licensed to practice law in at least one state and be eligible to sit either for the Colorado bar or waive admission into Colorado.
To apply, candidates should submit the following materials through the CU Boulder job site:
- Cover letter addressed to the Search Committee describing your interest, your initial thoughts on the kinds of projects you would develop for the clinic, relevant practice experience, and any prior teaching experience.
- Resume or CV
- Names and contact information for three references
If you are selected as the finalist, your degree will be verified by the CU Boulder Campus Human Resources department using an approved online vendor. If your degree was obtained outside of the United States, please submit a translated version as an optional attachment.
The committee will begin reviewing applications February 1, 2020. The position will remain open until filled. The candidate is expected to be on campus by this summer; the semester begins in August, 2020.
The University of Colorado is an Equal Opportunity Employer committed to building a diverse workforce. We encourage applications from women, racial and ethnic minorities, individuals with disabilities and veterans. Alternative formats of this ad can be provided upon request for individuals with disabilities by contacting the ADA Coordinator at: email@example.com.
The University of Colorado is one of the largest employers in Boulder County and offers an inspiring higher education environment and excellent benefits. Learn more about the University of Colorado by visiting https://www.cu.edu/cu-careers
Monday, November 25, 2019
This morning, we celebrated our last class of the semester in the Community Justice Clinic. We ate cupcakes and reflected on the students’ work for clients. The students signed the flag that hangs in my office, joining every other student who has worked in the CJC.
This semester, these ten brilliant students and I worked on twenty-nine matters for nineteen clients. Their matters involved clients, projects, and laws in the US and thirteen other nations on four continents.
Across our work, these students worked with clients to build sustainable and compliant nonprofits doing critical work in communities with great need; to address homelessness and housing in LA and Malibu (the defining issue of our generation in this place); to support a global network of pro bono lawyers combining their capacity for high impact work on human rights and human dignity; to promote sustainable, healthy, and necessary agriculture projects nationally and in LA neighborhoods; analyze our own nation’s human rights compliance on the border (and finding it lacking); to evaluating legal responses to human trafficking and slavery in South Asia and many other places; to promote access to health care for women in east and west Africa; and to build organizations that increase access to education and develop leadership and power for high school kids in tough parts of LA.
These projects helped lay the foundation for future engagements to address human trafficking and slavery in the Americas, to expand health resources for women in Central America, to build supporting partnerships with Black Farmers in the Deep South.
I’m always grateful and astonished by the work our students do and the clients they serve.
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
The Sleeping Lady Resort (Leavenworth, WA) on the ancestral land of the Yakima and Wenatchi tribes provided a stunning mountain backdrop and intimate meeting space for the Northwest Clinical Conference November 8-10, 2019. We paused to breathe, reflect, and plan for the year to come. We shared and learned from different schools, different disciplines, and different countries. We brainstormed and strategized. We nourished our minds and bodies (the food was not exaggerated). We walked, listened to poetry, sang, and embraced new mottos complete with stickers ("Transcend the Bullshit.") Our northwest clinical colleagues kindly welcomed those of us who work outside the traditional boundaries of the Northwest. The founder’s quote on the back page of the resort’s notebook was spot on:
“I want people to leave here and feel as though they can change their corner of the world.” – Harriet Bullitt
Many thanks to all of the planners!
Thursday, November 7, 2019
Cross-posted from CLEA's series on Social Justice in Legal Clinics.
At the 2014 Clinical Conference, Professors Donna H. Lee, David J. Reiss, Carol M. Suzuki, and I presented a concurrent session entitled: “Just Do It? Whether to Incorporate Social Justice Theory in Every Clinical Experience and If So, How?” In this session, we explored how social justice is implicit in any clinic’s casework. We also thought it might be helpful to provide a means to examine the elements of social justice that may arise in a clinical context recognizing that students come to clinics with differing levels of commitment to social justice. In light of the proliferation of clinics that do not focus on poverty law or represent poor clients, such as some transactional clinics, securities arbitration clinics (representing low-income investors against Wall Street brokers), intellectual property clinics and tax clinics, we presented and explored pedagogical rationales for incorporating social justice into these clinics and critically examined what techniques for doing so are effective.
At the session, we distributed the attached “Social Justice Audit for Your Clinic,” a guide to review systematically a clinic or externship to determine whether or not it explicitly addresses social justice issues and, if not, where it could address these issues.
Two trends make this topic timely. The private sector is increasingly demanding that students graduate “practice ready,” and there has been a push to incorporate pro bono work into law schools to fulfill bar admission requirements. These trends may lead to an increasing number of clinical students who are not interested in pursuing a career in government or non-profits, but are more focused on learning skills and fulfilling a pro bono requirements.
We hope the audit guide is helpful, and invite your thoughts: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Once again, so many of our incredible clinical colleagues have produced a number of important and timely articles. The full list along with ssrn or other links are below.
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION
Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer and Hillary Rich: A Step Too Far: Matter of A-B-, "Particular Social Group," and Chevron, Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-30. This paper describes the 2018 Attorney General decision in Matter of A-B-, a case that severely reduced protections for asylum seekers fleeing gender-based violence. Using statutory interpretation, we argue that A-B- is a misinterpretation of the refugee definition term "particular social group" and does not merit Chevron deference.
Jason Cade: Restoring the Statutory Safety-Valve for Immigrant Crime Victims: Premium Processing for Interim U Visa Benefits, 113 Nw. U. L. Rev. Online 120 (2019). This essay focuses on the U visa, a critical government program that has thus far failed to live up to its significant potential. Congress enacted the U visa to aid undocumented victims of serious crime and incentivize them to assist law enforcement without fear of deportation. The reality, however, is that noncitizens eligible for U status still languish in limbo for many years while remaining vulnerable to deportation and workplace exploitation. This is in large part due to the fact that the agency has never devoted sufficient resources to processing these cases. As a result, the potential benefits of the U visa remain under-realized and communities are left less safe. In an era of sustained focus on enforcement and increased instability within immigrant communities, the situation becomes ever more urgent. This Essay introduces and defends a simple administrative innovation that would dramatically improve the process: a premium processing route for interim approvals and employment authorization. Although our proposal cannot resolve all the underlying problems, it is pragmatic, easily implemented, and superior to the status quo.
Lindsay M. Harris: Withholding Protection, 50.3 Columbia Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 1 (2019). Exploring split-second decisions made by CBP officers at our border to deny access to asylum protection and render individuals eligible only for withholding of removal. Considering the use of body-worn cameras to provide a measure of process and oversight.
Jean C. Han: The Good Notario: Exploring Limited Licensure for Non-Attorney Immigration Practitioners, 64 Vill. L. Rev. 165 (2019). This article proposes a way to safely and significantly close the justice gap for immigrants in the United States on a more effective scale: to harness an existing resource and call for the accreditation of non-attorneys through more robust regulation by the Department of Justice.
CLINICAL AND LEGAL EDUCATION
Carolyn Grose & Margaret E. Johnson: Braiding the Strands of Narrative and Critical Reflection with Critical Theory and Lawyering Practice, 26 Clinical L. Rev. 203 (2019). This Essay builds off of our previous work on narrative and critical reflection, including LAWYERS, CLIENTS & NARRATIVE: A FRAMEWORK FOR LAW STUDENTS AND PRACTITIONERS. Lawyers with clients braid together narrative, critical reflection and normative theory in a double-helix spiral to create normative narratives that further their clients' goals and strive toward justice. Critical reflection and narrative theory work together to guide us to ask questions and broaden our perspectives in gathering information and constructing cases and projects. By intentionally adding in the strand of normative theory, comprising client-centeredness, justice and professionalism, and critical theory, we create a spiral of lawyering focused on the client, aware of power dynamics and attentive to structural forces, designed to achieve client's goals, and consistent with making the world a more just place. This Essay walks through each component of the double-helix spiral and explains how they work together to create normative narratives.
Jason Cade: Teaching Tomorrow’s Lawyers Through a (Semi-)Generalist, (Mostly-) Individual Client Poverty Law Clinic: Reflections on Five Years of the Community Health Law Partnership, 53 Ga. L. Rev. Online 143 (2019). Design options when starting a live-client clinic from scratch can be somewhat overwhelming. Should the clinic focus on systemic impact or individual representation? Appellate work or hearings? Should the clinic specialize or cover multiple legal issues? Another set of issues concerns how the clinic should find and accept its clients, and whether students should have a role in the intake process. The list of choices goes on. In this Essay, written for the Georgia Law Review’s Online Issue celebrating 50 years of clinics at the University of Georgia School of Law, I describe how I have navigated these and other choices in designing the Community Health Law Partnership Clinic (Community HeLP), which just completed its fifth year of operation. My experience suggests that there may be significant pedagogical benefits to forging a middle-path through some of the central divides in clinic design. Specifically, there are deep service and learning opportunities for students who engage in a combination of individual representation and larger advocacy projects concerning multiple — but not unlimited — areas of poverty law. This Essay unfolds as follows. Part I describes the origin and development of Community HeLP in its first five years. Part II outlines the trade-offs between specialization and generalization, and evaluates the middle path thus far taken by Community HeLP. Part III then explores the value of a clinic that primarily engages in individual representation, but in which students also take on larger advocacy projects that flow from the clinic’s case work.
Jeffrey R. Baker, Christine E. Cerniglia, Davida Finger, Luz E. Herrera, JoNel Newman: In Times of Chaos: Creating Blueprints for Law School Responses to Natural Disasters, 80 La. L. Rev. __ (Forthcoming 2019). Drawing on their experiences in responding to natural disasters, the authors examine the legal needs and community contexts of natural disasters, describe the distinct responses to natural disasters in their clinics and schools, offer methods and models for disaster response, suggest best practices, and consider systemic and justice needs in these moments of crisis and rebuilding.
Clinical Legal Education Association Committee for Faculty Equity and Inclusion: The Diversity Imperative Revisited: Racial and Gender Inclusion in Clinical Law Faculty, 26 Clinical L. Rev. 127 (2019). This article describes trends in the racial and gender composition of clinical faculty since 1980. The percentage of people of color has grown from 10% to 21%, but the percentage of Black, Latinx, and Indigenous faculty has been stagnant. Women were underrepresented on clinical faculties in the 1980s, but now outnumber men in clinical faculty positions. The article recommends better data collection and best practices for more inclusive clinical faculty hiring and retention.
Robert Dinerstein: The Clinical Law Review at 25: What Hath We Wrought?, 26 Clinical L. Rev. 147 (Fall 2019). This article takes a look at the Clinical Law Review's 25-year history and examines the extent to which it has implemented the visions of clinical scholarship that some of those involved in its founding had for it.
Robert Kuehn: A Study of the Relationship Between Law School Coursework and Bar Exam Outcomes, 68 J. Legal Educ. (forthcoming 2019). This article reports the results of a large-scale study of the relationship between experiential and bar-subject coursework and bar exam outcomes. It finds that the number of experiential courses or credits taken by a student did not correlate with passage, positively or negatively. Enrollment in bar courses correlated positively, but modestly and only for students who are at heightened risk of failure. The results indicate that efforts to improve bar passage by capping experiential credits are not supported by empirical evidence.
COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSACTIONAL LAW
Jennifer S. Fan: Woke Capital: The Role of Corporations in Social Movements, 8 Harv. Bus. L. Rev. (forthcoming). The contribution of this Article is three-fold: it discusses how court cases and changing norms about the role of the corporation in society led to the rise of the modern business corporation, which in turn laid the groundwork for corporations’ involvement in social movements; provides an original descriptive account of the role of corporations in social movements using three case studies and the ways in which corporations have helped or hindered such movements; and tackles the underlying normative question about the appropriateness of the involvement of corporations in social movements in light of the legal framework in which it resides. This Article concludes that despite the perils, corporate law holds the promise of being a force for social change.
Jennifer S. Fan: Employees as Regulators: The New Private Ordering in High Technology Companies, Utah L. Rev. (forthcoming). This Article builds upon my prior work on the role of corporations and social movements, and analyzes how employees in high technology companies have redefined the contours of private ordering and, in the process, have also reimagined what collective action looks like. Because these workers are in high demand and short supply, they are able to affect private ordering in a way that we have not seen before. As a result, they have the potential to be an important check on the high technology sector.
Ted De Barbieri: Lawmakers as Job Buyers, 88 Fordham L. Rev. 15 (2019). Discusses attempts by state and local governments to influence private business location decisions for large employers, detailing policy proposals for state and local govts to mitigate associated risks.
Ted De Barbieri: Urban Anticipatory Governance, 46 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 75 (2019). Placing focus on involving the public before large urban redevelopment projects are approved can improve the quality of those projects and their ability to respond to future challenges.
Ted De Barbieri: Connecting Community Control of Infrastructure and Economic Development with Race and Privilege, 28 J. Aff. Hous. & Cmty. Dev. L. __ (forthcoming 2019): This brief essay will address the connection between community control of local development and race and privilege within the context of community economic development.
Ted De Barbieri: Thematic Overview: Race, Place, and Pedagogy in Achieving Access to Justice Through Community Economic Development. 28 J. Aff. Hous. & Cmty. Dev. L. 467 (2019). Through discussion groups at the AALS Annual Meetings in 2017, 2018, and 2019, the annual Transactional Clinics Conference, and elsewhere, scholars and practitioners have advanced the conversation in a meaningful way. What follows here is a brief thematic overview of the discussion that occurred in January 2018, and a synopsis of the abstracts that follow.
Rachel E. Deming: Protecting Natural Resources - Forever: The Obligations of State Officials to Uphold "Forever" Constitutional Provisions, 36 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 202 (2019). This Article analyzes the attacks on Florida’s constitutional conservation lands program since the election of a governor and state legislature opposed to environmental regulation in 2010 – a precursor to current happenings at the federal level under the Trump administration. I examine this issue of deliberately violating constitutional requirements through the lens of state constitutional provisions that protect natural resources, focusing on Florida and New York. Both states have explicit protections for conservation and forest lands.
Jason Parkin: Dialogic Due Process, 167 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 1115 (2019)
J.D. King: Privatizing Criminal Procedure, 107 Geo. L. J. 561. Many states now impose a surcharge on defendants who exercise their constitutional rights to counsel, confrontation, and trial by jury. As these “user fees” proliferate, they have the potential to fundamentally change the nature of criminal prosecutions and the way we think of constitutional rights. This intrusion of market ideology into the world of fundamental constitutional rights has at least two broad problems: it exacerbates structural unfairness in a system that already disadvantages poor people, and it degrades how we conceive of those rights. This Article proposes solutions to ameliorate the harshest effects of these rights-based user fees but also argues for the importance of resisting the trend of the privatization of constitutional trial rights.
Dustin Marlan: Beyond Cannabis: Psychedelic Decriminalization and Social Justice, 23 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 851 (2019). This Article provides background on psychedelics and a historic overview of the laws surrounding them. It then considers several potential justifications for decriminalizing psychedelics: (1) medical value; (2) religious freedom; (3) cognitive liberty; and (4) identity politics. Lastly, the Article proposes a reframed justification rooted in principles of social justice, namely neurodiversity.
Jenny Roberts: Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction: Law, Policy and Practice (Third Edition), MARGARET COLGATE LOVE, JENNY ROBERTS & WAYNE A LOGAN, COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF CRIMINAL CONVICTION: LAW POLICY & PRACTICE (2018-2019 ed. 2018). This book covers general types of collateral consequences, attorneys’ duties regarding consequences, constitutional challenges to consequences, access to and the use of criminal records, regulation of employment and occupational licensing, and restoration of rights after a conviction. Insights on practice guidance, historical background and future trends are discussed.
EDUCATION AND SCHOOLS
Kate Sablosky Elengold: The Investment Imperative, 57 Hous. L. Rev. 1 (2019). This Article names and identifies the “investment imperative” as the widely-held belief that higher education is necessary to increase one’s financial prosperity and social standing in America. Drawing on interdisciplinary scholarship, empirical studies, and original interviews with student loan borrowers across the country, this Article argues that the investment imperative drives and distorts students’ financial behaviors and decisions in ways that leave students vulnerable to exploitation and ignore the effects of systemic inequalities related to race, gender, and class.
Emily Suski: The Title IX Paradox, 108 Calif. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2020). This article argues that the courts’ assessments of Title IX’s actual notice standard create an impossible paradox for students suffering sexual harassment in the public schools. Drawing on empirical research in behavioral psychology and child and adolescent neuroscience, it contends that the courts require students to make particularized reports of their sexual harassment they naturally cannot make.
Claire Raj: Disability Law as an Agent of School Reform, 94 Wash. L. Rev. (forthcoming Dec. 2019). This article critiques recent class action litigation aimed at expanding disability rights coverage for students who have experienced “complex trauma.”
Deirdre M. Smith: Keeping It in the Family: Minor Guardianship as Private Child Protection, 82 Conn. Pub. Interest L. J. 51 (2019). Minor guardianship has been transformed from a probate tool used to protect orphans’ property interests to a strategy to keep children out of foster care when a parent is in crisis and to address their care within the family as a form of “private child protection.” The article examines the implications for children, parents, and relative caregivers of this use of guardianship and proposes changes to better serve the needs and interests of these families.
Lisa Martin: Litigation as Parenting, 95 N.Y.U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2020). This Article proposes that constitutional doctrine establishing parents’ protected decision-making authority should make parents the default representatives for their children in federal civil litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c).
Josh Gupta-Kagan: America’s Hidden Foster Care System, 72 Stan. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2020). Critically examines the common child protection agency practice of causing changes in children's physical custody by demanding that parents agree to "safety plans" calling for others to take their children, and recommends various due process and administrative oversight reforms.
Deborah N. Archer: The New Housing Segregation: The Jim Crow Effects of Crime-Free Housing Ordinances, 118 Mich. L. Rev. 1 (2019). Crime-free housing ordinances are local laws that either encourage or require private landlords to evict or exclude tenants who have had varying levels of contact with the criminal legal system. Though formally race neutral, these laws facilitate racial segregation in a number of significant ways. The Article contends that crime-free housing ordinances enable racial segregation by importing the racial biases, racial logics, and racial disparities of the criminal legal system into private housing markets. While scholars have examined the important role local laws played in effectuating racial inequality, they have not paid attention to crime-free housing ordinances. In addition to foregrounding how crime-free housing ordinances reinforce and perpetuate racially segregated communities, this Article proposes an intervention: a “segregative effects” claim, an underutilized cause of action under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, to challenge this segregative impact. While this intervention would not end the pervasive nature of housing segregation across the United States, it could eliminate at least one of the causes of this persistent problem: a body of law whose formal race neutrality has obscured its racially segregative effects.
Deborah N. Archer: Exile from Main Street, Harv. Civ. Rts. – Civ. Liberties L. Rev. (2019). This Article examines how the entanglement of policing-based housing policies and the criminal legal system threatens to push already marginalized people further to the edges of society, while also circumscribing the mobility of people of color who have the means and desire to live in integrated spaces. The Article encourages a more holistic analysis of these policies and a de-coupling of the criminal legal system from housing policy to prevent unnecessary burdens on the “right” to housing.
Nadiyah J. Humber: In West Philadelphia Born and Raised or Moving to Bel-Air? Racial Steering as a Consequence of Using Race Data on Real Estate Websites, Hastings Race & Poverty L. J. (forthcoming 2019). Current fair housing laws are not entirely equipped to deal with housing discrimination on the internet, particularly the practice of racial steering. My article examines real estate websites, like ZillowGroup, and suggests that race data that has been posted on these platforms are problematic. Two recommendations for addressing the use of race data on these websites include using discriminatory effect theory as a litigation strategy and amending the FHA to cover online real estate marketplaces.
TAX AND NON-PROFITS
Jaclyn Fabean Cherry: Nonprofit Governance: Who Should be Watching? A Look at State, Federal and Dual Regulation, 13 Ohio St. Bus. L. J. 145 (2019). Recent scandals in the nonprofit sector have once again called into question the issue of nonprofit governance. Who is governing these organizations and are they doing so appropriately? Who is regulating and what law applies — federal, state, or both? This Article discusses nonprofit governance, board of director fiduciary duty, and federal, state, and common law as they pertain to nonprofit governance suggesting that dual jurisdiction with established roles and mandatory information sharing may work best.
WOMEN AND THE LAW
Jennifer S. Fan: Innovating Inclusion: The Impact of Women on Private Company Boards, 46 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 345 (2019). This Article documents the exclusion of women from the boards of nearly all the major private high technology companies currently influencing American business, and it explains why this male-only hegemony matters. It then offers a new paradigm, the innovation imperative, for creating a business culture in which people of all genders can make valued contributions. It analyzes two potential arenas for change: the legal and business realms.
Tanya Asim Cooper: #SororityToo, Mich. St. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2020). Sexual violence is an epidemic affecting millions of students, and those who participate in collegiate Greek life are especially vulnerable. As social societies bent on secrecy, Greek life hides violence in its midst. Laws and campus policies when accessed offer little help to victims, and often secondarily traumatize them. Publicized scandals on campus and social media campaigns, however, have raised awareness and sparked public outrage against the widespread problem of sexual violence and high-risk Greek life. Systems change theory offers a useful framework to reform high-risk Greek life from many angles: education, reporting, litigation, and collective action of its system actors. Effective strategies exist to create safer Greek organizations for students but without reform, we will continue to jeopardize the education and health of millions of students.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
We’re having a big week at Pepperdine Law. Our alumnus, Rick Caruso, has donated $50 million to the law school with commitments for another $50 million over the next decade. This would be big enough news, but we are excited and grateful that he and the law school are committing these resources to scholarships for underrepresented students and loan forgiveness for students in public interest and public service careers. As our slogan says, we have a mission of preparing students for lives of purpose, service, and leadership. It’s a rare and good moment to watch all of these interests align in such a significant way.
We’re in an exciting season in many ways while we navigate toward national excellence and a deep commitment to our missions and communities. This year, we’re offering eleven, diverse clinics, several practicums with regional partners, and an ever expanding national and global externship program. These collaborate with the Sudreau Global Justice Program, our Global Programs, the Palmer Center for Entrepreneurship and the Law, and a robust stipend program for students in summer public interest work.
This all comes during years of reduced class sizes, so our clinical opportunities for students are greater than they ever have been. With more diverse students with greater scholarships and more opportunities for debt relief, we hope that our training and teaching yields ever greater fruit for justice, equity, inclusion, community development, and the rule of law.
Legal education, law practice, and the justice system often stoke cynicism and skepticism. There’s a lot to fix. I’m not immune to anger, frustration, and creeping despair. But in this polarized age of conflict, when the Republic shakes under the weight of corruption, racism, nationalism, and dishonesty, there’s never been a better time to set our sails to the wind and get to work.
It’s a good day at our law school. At the risk of seeming maudlin and sentimental, I am mindful of our university motto, from the Gospel of Matthew, “Freely ye received, freely give.” I am feeling that today. Even in dark days, we have bright gifts to receive and give, and we seize the moments we are given to carry on the important work of education, advocacy, empowerment, and justice.
As Rick said in the LA Times today, “If I get a bunch of these really smart lawyers who understand real social justice and real fairness in life, and you put them back in the system, I think it’ll be a real game changer.”
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
CLEA co-Presidents, Lisa Martin and Danny Schaffzin, shared this note today with CLEA's updated statement on the U.S. New Rankings for Clinical Programs and its suggested guidance for voters:
The Clinical Legal Education Association (CLEA) recognizes that many who receive U.S. News & World Report ballots in their capacity as clinical program directors find this ranking process uncomfortable. There are a number of problems with the ranking of clinical programs. First, 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 the voting can be arbitrary to a degree. Third, some schools may unfairly suffer because they do not have the budget or the support of their administration to market their program or send their clinical faculty to annual conferences.
While we might wish the rankings did not exist or hope to solve the collective action problem that bedevils creative responses, the USNWR rankings have remained a feature of our collective landscape. So, since rankings presently exist, what can we do now as faculty who teach clinics?
CLEA, through its Board of Directors, urges those ranking clinical programs to focus on factors that promote the principles for which CLEA advocates, namely the increased presence of clinical education (law clinics and externships) in law school curricula, security of position for clinical faculty, and diversity and equity. In evaluating clinical programs, CLEA urges voters to consider: 1) the number of law clinic 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 school's security of position, academic freedom, and governance rights for faculty who teach clinics or externships; and 4) the extent to which the school has committed to diversity and equity in hiring for clinical positions with long-term security and retaining and promoting diverse clinical faculty.
CLEA urges voters to score only those programs for which they have sufficient information to make informed decisions. It urges voters to choose the “No Answer” option when they have insufficient information to assess a particular clinical program.
Last, 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.
Monday, September 23, 2019
Cross-posted from the CLEA series on Social Justice in Legal Clinics.
Each member of the CLEA Social Justice Issues Committee has been writing or soliciting projects to highlight in this series. For my contribution this semester, I reached out to my friend, Prof. Sarah Gerwig-Moore, now the academic dean at Mercer University School of Law, who founded the Mercer Habeas Project. This year, Brian Kammer, former director of the Georgia Appellate and Resource Center, assumed its leadership. They contributed this good report on the clinic’s work:
The Mercer Habeas Project was created in 2006 by Professor Sarah Gerwig-Moore, who was hired in that year to help create and teach in Mercer’s experiential learning program. The State of Georgia provides no right to counsel in post-conviction matters, so the clinic was created to help fill a void in legal services and because of Mercer’s particular strengths in legal writing. The course operates as a capstone clinic in which students put to use skills and prior coursework in constitutional law, criminal procedure, appellate practice, evidence, client counseling, and legal writing. A core value is to visit, spend time with, listen to, and partner with clinic clients—to provide client-centered representation and creative, attentive advocacy.
Most of the clinic’s cases involve entering and providing counsel in pro se criminal or habeas cases pending in the Supreme Court of Georgia. Since 2006, the Clinic has represented more than 80 clients, including dozens of oral arguments, court hearings, parole petitions, and appellate briefs (and often a number of those vehicles in cases over long periods of time). Over the years, the clinic has had major successes in areas of due process, affirmative defenses, provision of effective assistance of counsel, and access to the courts (including provision of effective translators in court proceedings). The students' work has been recognized with two "Case of the Year" Awards from the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and in SCOTUSblog's "Petitions We're Watching." Sarah Gerwig-Moore was the 2013 recipient of the AALS Clinical Legal Education Section's Shanara Gilbert Emerging Clinician award, in large part because of her work with this clinic.
The clinic has also weathered some hard losses, especially given the difficulty of overcoming procedural hurdles and statutes of limitation in older cases. Students and faculty have helped clients walk out of prison and rebuild their lives, packing suitcases with essentials and bringing them to the Greyhound Bus station. And students have stood vigil outside the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison while faculty witnessed their clients’ wrongful executions.
The Project provides client-centered representation, which means we spend a lot of time in prison with our clients—and then talking and processing about those visits in local food joints. The work doesn’t stop when students leave the classroom, and it is not uncommon for students to work on our cases over weekends and breaks. Prison visit days start early in the morning. Whether or not the clinic sees a positive outcome of its cases, an intentional focus of the clinic is reflection upon systemic injustices in how poor people are charged in and treated by the criminal system.
When Professor Gerwig-Moore moved into the role of Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in summer 2019, Mercer brought in Brian Kammer, former director of the Georgia Appellate and Resource Center, a nonprofit focusing on post-conviction litigation in Georgia’s capital cases. He brings with him more than twenty years of experience in habeas and appellate litigation, as well as a fresh perspective on the future of student work in the clinic.
Saturday, September 21, 2019
The CLEA Committee for Faculty Equity and Inclusion (Profs. Deborah Archer of NYU, Sameer Ashar of UCLA, Caitlin Barry of Villanova, G.S. Hans of Vanderbilt, Derrick Howard of Valparaiso, Alexis Karteron of Rutgers, Shobha Mahadev of Northwestern, and Jeffrey Selbin of Berkeley) have published this essay in the Clinical Law Review.
The piece calls on law schools to continue to improve demographic diversity among clinical faculties and calls for more research to better understand hiring and other dynamics.
The demographics of clinical law faculties matter. As Professor Jon Dubin persuasively argued nearly twenty years ago in his article Faculty Diversity as a Clinical Legal Education Imperative, clinical faculty of color entering the legal academy in the 1980s and 1990s expanded the communities served by law school clinics and the lawyering methods used to serve clients in significant ways that enriched legal education and the profession. They also broadened clinical scholarship to include deconstructions and reconstructions of clinical teaching, offered crucial role modeling and mentorship to students of color, and helped to elevate cross-cultural communication and multiracial collaboration as core lawyering skills.
Professor Dubin catalogued these contributions while pointing to data that showed that clinical faculties remained overwhelmingly White, and he urged law schools to recognize the urgency of diversifying clinical faculty. While there has been some research and scholarship devoted to the gender composition of clinical faculties, to our knowledge, there has been no substantive reexamination of the importance of racial composition since Professor Dubin’s article in 2000, nor any examination of clinical faculty diversity beyond race, ethnicity, and binary gender.
The Clinical Legal Education Association created the Committee for Faculty Equity and Inclusion to draw attention to the crisis of diversity among clinical faculties, and to urge law schools to take proactive steps to remedy this longstanding failure. This Essay from the Committee assesses what progress has been made since Professor Dubin’s intervention and interrogates historical trends in the racial and gender composition of clinical faculty from 1980 to 2017, using existing data.
We found that there has been limited progress on racial and ethnic inclusion in clinical law faculties. While the total percentage of people of color has grown from 10% to 21%, the inclusion of Black, Latinx, and Indigenous faculty has been largely stagnant. Black clinical faculty members reached 7% of all clinical faculty in 1999 and have never exceeded that percentage. Latinx clinical faculty representation, at 5%, is the same as it was in 1981. Indigenous faculty have never constituted even 1%. Overall, White faculty continue to hold nearly 8 out of 10 clinical faculty positions.
With regard to gender, whereas women were underrepresented among clinical faculty in the 1980s, women now outnumber men in clinical faculty positions by nearly 2 to 1. Given that women remain underrepresented in law faculties as a whole, this seemingly positive development in the gender composition of clinical instructors nonetheless raises concerns about internal status inequities and the clustering of women faculty members in non-tenured positions with lower salaries and less job protection, including on clinical, legal research and writing and library faculties. Therefore, this trend may be a cautionary tale for the inclusion of other underrepresented groups moving forward.
Acknowledging the limitations of existing data, we offer recommendations for future data collection that would recognize more inclusive identities and backgrounds. We suggest that future research assess job satisfaction and sustainability of faculty positions for people from historically disadvantaged groups to ensure that we are not just providing access to clinical law faculties, but also offering equitable and supportive working environments. New research will be crucial to developing a more meaningful understanding of inequities among clinical faculty, and to assessing equity and inclusion beyond descriptive representation.
We conclude with a discussion of best practices for inclusive clinical faculty hiring and suggestions for future initiatives that may make the profession more accessible. Looking back on Professor Dubin’s arguments, we are disheartened by the lack of subsequent scholarship on clinical faculty diversity, particularly with regard to racial and ethnic representation. We are concerned that it reflects a degree of complacency with structural racism at our own institutions and a failure to recognize the dissonance between the values we promote in our lawyering and our participation in maintaining barriers to the profession. We hope this Essay will disrupt that complacency and revive Professor Dubin’s arguments for a diversity imperative, which are even more resonant in the current moment.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Tulane Law is thrilled to announce that we are hiring for a director and professor of practice to lead a soon to be established First Amendment Clinic. The Stanton Foundation, created by a longtime president of CBS News, has committed nearly $1 million to cover the full operating costs of the new clinic. To learn more about our plans, please read recent news about this initiative.
To apply, please submit materials here: https://apply.interfolio.com/68076. The description of the position and qualifications are listed below. Tulane Law also is hiring for a director and professor of practice for a newly established Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, and applicants for that position can apply here: https://apply.interfolio.com/63659, and read more about the position at the end of this email.
Director of Tulane Law First Amendment Clinic & Professor of Practice
Tulane Law School seeks highly qualified applicants for a full-time position as Professor of the Practice of Law leading its newly created First Amendment Clinic. The position would begin during the 2020-21 academic year, starting on July 1, 2020, and would be on the non-tenured faculty track, with an initial appointment of three years.
The candidate who fills the position will have primary responsibility for developing the new First Amendment Clinic; engaging in case selection, litigation, and other advocacy to promote the clinic's mission and goals; supervising clinic students in all aspects of the clinic’s work; teaching a related subject-matter seminar or course; convening an advisory committee of First Amendment faculty experts; and managing development activities in support of the clinic. As a Professor of the Practice of Law, the successful candidate will participate in and vote at faculty meetings and serve on faculty committees within the School of Law.
Qualifications for the position include:
- A J.D. degree from an ABA-accredited law school and a strong academic record;
- Experience in First Amendment and/or Constitutional matters;
- Licensed bar membership in good standing in any one of the 50 states;
- 5 years of post-J.D. legal experience; and
- A proven record of (or clear demonstrated potential for) successful teaching and professional engagement.
- Candidates who teach in a law school legal clinic, who have prior experience supervising or teaching law students, or who have prior experience supervising attorneys in the area of First Amendment and/or Constitutional law matters are strongly preferred.
To apply, please complete the application form here https://apply.interfolio.com/68076.
Tulane Law School is committed to faculty diversity and welcomes expressions of interest from diverse applicants. To learn more about the law school, visit our website at https://law.tulane.edu.
Inquiries about the clinic should be directed to Professor Catherine Hancock email@example.com, the chair of the First Amendment appointments committee.
Director of Tulane Law Immigrants’ Rights Clinic & Professor of Practice
TULANE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW seeks highly qualified applicants for a full-time professor of practice position leading its newly created Immigrants’ Rights Clinic. The position would begin during the 2020-21 academic year, starting on July 1, 2020, and would be on the non-tenured faculty track, with an initial appointment of three years.
The candidate who fills the position will have primary responsibility for developing the new Immigrants’ Rights Clinic; engaging in case selection, litigation, and other advocacy to promote the clinic's mission and goals; supervising clinic students in all aspects of the clinic’s work; teaching a related seminar course; and leading development efforts in support of the clinic.
Qualifications for the position include:
• A J.D. degree from an ABA-accredited law school and a strong academic record;
• Experience in immigration and/or immigrants’ rights matters;
• Licensed bar membership in good standing in any one of the 50 states;
• 5 years of post-J.D. legal experience;
• A proven record of (or clear demonstrated potential for) successful teaching and professional engagement.
• Candidates who teach in a law school legal clinic, who have prior experience supervising or teaching law students, or who have prior experience supervising attorneys performing immigration work are strongly preferred.
Monday, September 16, 2019
Jennifer Lee Koh: Reflections on Elitism After the Closing of a Clinic: Justice, Pedagogy and Scholarship
Read this important, insightful essay from Prof. Jennifer Lee Koh. She reflects critically on the ecosystems of legal education and the importance of legal clinics in all kinds of law schools. For access to justice, a better profession, and more vibrant public life, we need law schools serving communities and states that are not "elite," that exist on every plane of our unfortunate hierarchies.
I began my teaching career at Faulkner Law, a regional, newly accredited, relatively small law school, in a state with great needs and fewer resources. Faulkner had a real, valuable commitment to clinical legal education, because the clinics were important to students who needed to be practice- and client-ready for their communities and because clinics advanced its faith-driven mission to serve its communities. In many regional, "unranked" law schools, clinics are more important than ever in preparing great lawyers to serve their neighbors and clients.
Prof. Koh's essay and her experience at Western State is important. We all should reckon with the gravitational effects of elitism and its pursuit.
Here's the essay at SSRN and its abstract:
In this Essay, I reflect upon my experience directing the Immigration Clinic at Western State College of Law for nearly a decade, including my decision to close the Clinic after financial crisis put the law school’s ability to continue operating in serious jeopardy in the Spring of 2019. The Essay focuses on the themes of pedagogy and the viability of non-elite law schools, teaching and doing social justice in the clinical context, and the integration of theory, doctrine and practice in legal scholarship. By memorializing a portion of the Clinic’s work, the Essay seeks to give voice to stories that might otherwise go unheard during a time of institutional crisis. In doing so, I hope to disrupt the easy narratives that may otherwise dominate our understanding of Western State’s record and offer a perspective on the value of clinical legal education and clinic scholarship at non-elite law schools.
Monday, September 9, 2019
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW is a Catholic, Jesuit institution dedicated to student learning, research, community engagement, social justice, and service. Located in the city of St. Louis, the School of Law has a nationally recognized and award-winning clinical program through which students represent both individual and group clients in litigation, administrative, advocacy, and transactional matters. The School of Law is looking for someone to join the clinical program in a full-time clinical law faculty position. More information about the clinical program is available here: https://www.slu.edu/law/experiential-learning/legal-clinics
The successful candidate will direct all aspects of an in-house law clinic (including the classroom component, student supervision, and client selection) and may teach one or more additional courses. Candidates should have appropriate expertise and relevant practice experience in the area of law they propose to be the focus of the clinic. In their application materials, candidates should include a one-page description of the clinic they propose to teach as well as an explanation of how the proposed clinic will meet the needs of both the School of Law and the larger community.
We welcome entry-level and lateral candidates. Candidates should have distinguished academic and practice records, as well as an understanding of clinical teaching methods. A J.D. is required. Qualifications also include admission to the Missouri Bar, eligibility for reciprocity, or a willingness to sit for the first Missouri bar examination after being hired. The successful candidate should have at least three years of recent law practice experience. Ideally, candidates will also have experience and training in clinical teaching methods, either through prior experience as a clinical faculty member or through supervision of law students in other settings.
Please apply online at https://jobs.slu.edu/.
Inquiries should be addressed to:
Brendan D. Roediger
Chair, Clinical Faculty Appointments Committee
Saint Louis University School of Law
100 North Tucker Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63101
Saint Louis University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. All qualified candidates will receive consideration for the position applied for without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, military/veteran status, gender identity, or other non-merit factors. We welcome and encourage applications from minorities, women, protected veterans, and individuals with disabilities (including disabled veterans). If accommodations are needed for completing the application and/or with the interviewing process, please contact Human Resources at 314-977-5847.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Cross-posted from CLEA's series on Social Justice in Legal Clinics.
By Shanta Trivedi, Clinical Teaching Fellow, Bronfein Family Law Clinic
In May 2019, University of Baltimore Bronfein Family Law Clinic (“UB FLC”) and the ACLU of Arizona jointly filed an amicus brief in the Arizona Supreme Court in support of Juan P., a Mexican father fighting to get his son out of foster care in the United States and back to his family in Mexico where he belongs.
The UB FLC represents indigent clients in custody, visitation, divorce, and other family law proceedings and engages in litigation regarding important family law issues. It also partners with community organizations to tackle larger systemic issues through advocacy, education, and legislative work. The fundamental, constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of one’s children is a core principle of the UB FLC’s work and the community it serves. Juan P’s case was particularly compelling because it presented significant and timely issues of child custody and child welfare law that have broad implications for many children and parents, particularly during the ongoing family separation crisis at the Southern border.
Juan P’s son, S.P., was born in the United States. When S.P. was only a year old, Juan P. was deported and S.P. returned to Mexico with his father to live with his father and siblings. The following year, S.P. came to the United States to visit his mother in California. Juan P. had daily contact with S.P. for several weeks until S.P.’s mother abruptly ceased contact. Despite repeated attempts to contact the mother and find out his son’s whereabouts, Juan P. was unable to locate them. Unbeknownst to Juan P., S.P.’s mother had moved to Arizona and had been embroiled in child welfare proceedings where she had been found an unfit parent. S.P. was placed in the custody of the Arizona Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) and ultimately with a foster family.
Juan P. only learned that his son was in foster care the next year and immediately contacted DCS to seek his son’s return to Mexico. Shockingly, instead of returning the child as required by law, DCS filed a motion to terminate Juan P’s parental rights. That motion was ultimately dismissed without a hearing, but the Arizona Court of Appeals twice denied reunification based on concerns that S.P. had bonded with his foster family and reunification with his biological family might cause him harm.
Juan P. through his attorneys at the Maricopa County Office of the Public Advocate (“OPA”) filed a petition for review in the Arizona Supreme Court. UB FLC students Nathan Adams, Nell Fultz & Henry Lloyd, under the supervision of Clinical Teaching Fellow, Shanta Trivedi and Clinic Writing Instructor and Assistant Professor, Cheri Levin, researched and drafted a supporting amicus brief in conjunction with the ACLU of Arizona.
The brief argued that, under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, Juan P. had a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of his son. The brief asserted that the state had no compelling interest in interfering with the parent-child relationship unless the parent was deemed unfit. In this case, the lower court had explicitly found Juan P. to be fit on more than one occasion. Thus, the state was unconstitutionally infringing on Juan P.’s fundamental right to parent his son.
The brief also argued that, overall, the child welfare system disproportionately affects children of color and that this case was just one example of a larger systemic problem. Prejudice against minorities pervades the child welfare system, impacting which children are removed and which families are reunified. While this bias is often implicit, in this case it was overt and unapologetic. DCS had placed S.P. with a foster family who did not speak Spanish and repeatedly violated court orders requiring the child to receive Spanish lessons so that he could better communicate with his father and siblings in Mexico. Worse, DCS had made disparaging remarks about Mexico on the record in arguing why S.P. should remain with his foster family. The brief asked the court not to sanction such open and hostile discrimination.
While the petition was ultimately denied, the students gained legal research and drafting experience and had a wonderful experience collaborating with a community partner. Most importantly, they learned a larger lesson: family separation isn’t just happening at the border. Legal systems within this country separate families every day. And Juan P., like the thousands of other parents separated from their children is continuing his fight.
Monday, September 2, 2019
The CLEA Elections Committee (Melanie DeRousse, Benjie Louis, Shobha Mahadev and Lynnise Pantin) is soliciting nominations through October 1, 2019, of individuals to serve on the CLEA Board starting in January 2020. This year, there are several Board positions open. All positions require a three-year commitment. I am attaching a memo prepared by the CLEA Elections Committee, which sets forth the activities and responsibilities of CLEA Board members in more detail. Current CLEA members are invited to nominate themselves or other CLEA members as candidates for one of these open positions. The committee also encourages "new clinicians" (defined as clinicians with fewer than 6 years of experience) to run for the CLEA Board. Our Bylaws create a separate election process for candidates identified as "new clinicians," to ensure that the identified "new clinician" candidate who receives the greatest number of votes will be assured a place on the Board.
The Committee strongly encourages CLEA members to nominate individuals from groups that are currently underrepresented within the leadership of various clinical institutions, including CLEA, the AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education, and the Clinical Law Review. The nomination process is simple. Nominate yourself or someone else by contacting the chair of the CLEA Elections Committee, Lynnise Pantin, firstname.lastname@example.org. If you are nominating yourself, please include a paragraph or two about why you are running and a link to your faculty profile, which will be included with the election materials to be sent later in the fall. If you are nominating another CLEA member, there is no need to include such a paragraph; the name alone will suffice, and the Elections Committee will contact the nominee for further information. If you have less than six years of clinical teaching experience and wish to be identified as a "new clinician" candidate, or if you want to nominate a candidate for the "new clinician" category, please indicate that as well.
Although the process of nomination is easy, our Bylaws set a strict deadline for receiving nominations. All nominations must be received by October 1, 2019. If you have questions about the CLEA Elections process, please feel free to contact Lynnise Pantin at email@example.com.
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Via Prof. Terry Kelly:
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
William H. Bowen School of Law
Assistant Professor of Clinical Education (R96904)
The UA Little Rock, William H. Bowen School of Law seeks an Assistant Professor of Clinical Education (R96904) to develop and direct its new Veterans Legal Services Clinic. The Clinic will provide free and low-cost legal representation to Arkansas veterans seeking VA disability benefits or reconsideration of discharge status.
The Clinic Director also will design and teach a weekly class, plan outreach events, design continuing legal education programs, and develop future funding opportunities. This position currently is funded for five years with possibility for continuation dependent on funding.
Candidates must hold a J.D. from an accredited law school and be either a member of the Arkansas bar in good standing or capable of admission to the Arkansas Bar within one year of hiring. Salary and rank are commensurate with qualifications.
Three years of litigation experience is preferred, along with VA accreditation, practice in veterans’ benefits, clinical teaching experience, and experience supervising other attorneys.
This is a 9-month, full-time position. This position is not eligible for tenure, but upon completion of certain requirements, the Clinic Director will be eligible for promotion to Associate Professor of Clinical Education, with a three-year term, and subsequent promotion to Professor of Clinical Education, with a five-year term that is presumptively renewable depending on Clinic funding.
For more information, please refer to https://ualr.peopleadmin.com/postings/8689.
Interested parties should apply online with a curriculum vitae, together with a cover letter indicating teaching and scholarly interests and three references. Applications will be considered until the position is filled.
This position is subject to a pre-employment criminal background check. A criminal conviction or arrest pending adjudication alone shall not disqualify an applicant in the absence of a relationship to the requirements of the position. Background check information will be used in a confidential, non-discriminatory manner consistent with state and federal law.
The University of Arkansas at Little Rock is an equal opportunity affirmative action employer and actively seeks the candidacy of minorities, women and person with disabilities. Under Arkansas law, all applications are subject to disclosure. Persons hired must have proof of legal authority to work in the United States.
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Cross posted from CLEA's series on social justice advocacy in legal clinics:
EVICTION CRISIS: A CALL TO ACTION - by Judith Fox
Matthew Desmond is instrumental for bringing the devastating effects of eviction to the public in his award-winning book, Evicted. The praise is well deserved. While those of us in the clinical world have been all too aware of the issues, Desmond has given us platforms unlike any in the past. People in power are now listening and we should make our voices heard. Matthew Desmond’s research had identified South Bend, along with Fort Wayne and Indianapolis, as one of three Indiana cities whose eviction rates placed them in the top twenty cities in America with the most evictions. This is the time for bold action.
For the past twenty years, my clinic students and I have battled against a particularly bad slum lord in our community. He was the ultimate Teflon-man. He rented properties he did not own. He rented properties that were not only in bad shape, many had been condemned by the city and issued with demolition orders. Spurred on by the call to action, we decided it was time to put an end to these practices once and for all. We set up a careful strategy, working side-by-side with local governmental entities and not-for-profits not only to stop this particular bad actor, but to combat the systemic issues that allowed him to continue for decades. Our first target: the lax Indiana laws that allowed this man to rent such deplorable properties.
It is illegal in Indiana to rent a property that does not comply with housing codes, there is just no effective way to enforce that obligation. My students and I worked with the city of South Bend to draft the Rental Safety Verification Program (RSVP), an ordinance that requires every rental home in South Bend to be certified safe. My students brought their clients to hearings, testified to their experiences and met with local advocates, including landlords. In the end, the ordinance passed. We are now assisting families who have been displaced because the home they rented is not habitable. Our parallel efforts with the Indiana legislature were not so successful, but we will be back this year to try again.
The second target of our efforts were the small claims courts that handle most of the evictions in our community. Looking closely at the cases our targeted slumlord was filing, we noticed some peculiar things. He did not own many of the parties he was renting. The L.L.C. he was using, was not a valid company. In one case, he used the L.L.C. of a competitor! We thought this must be anomalous, considering this man’s history. It was not. We were appalled to discover how many landlords and rental companies were filing evictions using fictitious names. We began challenging every eviction on standing grounds, and won. As a result, the court instituted a local rule requiring parties in eviction to document their right to bring the case to court. Our slum lord has not brought an eviction case since.
We had shown a light on eviction hearings and our new crop of Magistrates began to do the same. They began to question why St. Joseph County allowed landlords to post their property as opposed to the cash bond required by State law. This is significant because, in Indiana, there are essentially two proceedings in an eviction. There is an immediate possession hearing which is quick and usually does not afford a tenant much of a chance to defend herself, followed more than a month later by a trial. If someone is evicted in the immediate possession phase, even if they win at trial, they have already been displaced. A landlord must post a bond at the immediate possession stage to reimburse a tenant wrongfully convicted. A tenant can post an equivalent counter-bound to stay in the home pending trial. The St. Joseph County courts were allowing the bond to be the rental property, completely precluding the posing of an equivalent counter-bound. That practice too has ended.
Our next target is the lax enforcement of licensing laws. Federal and state law requires leasing agencies and others who buy and sell property or rent property they do not own to be licensed. We discovered that almost none of them are. Again, we have systematically began to file counterclaims using our state UDAP laws. So far, these challenges have incentivized settlement in nearly every instance.
We have made real progress in a year, but we are far from done. This semester my students have teamed with the ACLU, Professor Florence Roisman at I.U. McKinney Law School and a Notre Dame Student chapter of the Roosevelt institute to do a court watch study of evictions across Indiana. Anyone who has ever witnessed these hearings knows that the due process violations are mind-boggling. We intend to shine a light on those practices. The ultimate outcome will surely be a white paper and perhaps litigation.
Eviction is an issue facing clients throughout our clinical programs. Ann Juergens, Mitchell Hamlin Law School, recently reached out to the clinical community to suggest that we join forces across states to collaborate on solutions. Ann and I will be giving the opening plenary at the Midwest Clinical Conference being held in October at the Michigan State Law School to formally begin this conversation. This is no less than a call to action. Whether you can come to Michigan in October, or simply want to send us an email, we welcome the entire clinical community to this issue. The clinical community had a tremendous impact on homeowner’s rights during the foreclosure crisis. It is time to turn our eyes to eviction. As Michael Desmond has so eloquently said, eviction is not a symptom of poverty, it is a cause. Clinical programs are uniquely placed to meet the challenge and make a dent in this crucial social justice issue.
Judith Fox, Clinical Professor, Notre Dame. Judith Fox and Linda Fisher, recently released The Foreclosure echo: How the Hardest Hit Have Been Left Out of the Economic Recovery (Cambridge, 2019).