Clinical Law Prof Blog

JOBS: Gonzaga Federal Tax Clinic

Gonzaga School of Law seeks applicants for a three-quarter-time Lecturer in its Federal Tax Clinic, with flexibility to serve in other areas as needed by the clinical program, as well as the opportunity to teach doctrinal classes.  This position is dependent on a Low Income Taxpayer Clinic (LITC) grant awarded from the IRS which  Gonzaga has been receiving for over 15 years. Gonzaga has a long standing clinical program which has served the low income Spokane community since 1975. Here is the link with more information on how to apply: https://gonzaga.peopleadmin.com/postings/12121.

UDC Law's Immigration & Human Rights Clinic's Pro Se Asylum Filing Workshop with Human Rights First

I write to share with my experiential educator colleagues a fairly recent addition to our work in the Immigration & Human Rights Clinic work at the University of the District of Columbia’s David A. Clarke School of Law (UDC Law).  

On Friday September 28, we had the pleasure of partnering, for a second time, with non-profit Human Rights First(HRF). In Fall 2017, we worked with HRF to serve Central American families fleeing violence and seeking protection in the United States. Building on that success, we decided to do it again this year.

Clinic students and other UDC Law student volunteers met yesterday with 10 asylum-seeking families from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. These families were previous detained at one of the nation’s three family detention centers, but were released to pursue their asylum claims while living with family and friends in Maryland. The families are all currently in removal proceedings before the Baltimore immigration court.  None of the families have yet found legal representation for their asylum claims.

In an era of immigration court backlogs, the court in Baltimore, Maryland, has actually has seen the highest increase since the beginning of FY2017 -- a stunning 96% increase in the last year of individuals put into removal proceedings–- doubling the court’s caseload.  Increases have also been dramatic in Massachusetts, Georgia, and Florida. As a consequence, the access to counsel gap is severe and many individuals appearing in Baltimore lack legal representation. In the immigration context, although only around 37% of non-detained immigrants are represented, legal representation makes it five times more likelyan individual will be granted relief.

As a small step in trying to address the justice gap, yesterday UDC Law’s Immigration Clinic completed 17 asylum applications total for the 10 families– the families will file these with the court in just a few days. Many of these cases presented complex legal issues, including those past the one-year filing deadline for asylum. While our Clinic lacks the capacity to take on full representation for each of these families, we hope that our work will set them on the right path and enable them to more easily find pro bono or low bono representation for their future hearings.

This work not only benefitted the asylum-seeking families, but our students, requiring them to engage in:

• Quick rapport building
• Interviewing survivors of trauma
• Fact investigation and information gathering
• Credibility assessment and checking internal consistency with records from previous government interactions
• Legal drafting and editing to ensure that each application made out a prima facie case for asylum, meeting all required legal elements.
• Concise, direct writing to communicate a compelling narrative
• Explaining legal standards in an accessible way
• Wrestling with recently changed and evolving law, thanks to Attorney General Sessions in Matter of A-B-,for individuals fleeing domestic violence and gang targeting.
• Address changing facts and emerging details – for example one team started the day thinking they were working with a mother and three teenagers with asylum claims based on the same facts, but as it turned out, one of the teenage boys had been persecuted based on his sexual orientation and another had been recruited by gangs and threatened with death. This team had to deal with very delicate family dynamics around the disclosure of sexual orientation status.

Participants in the workshop included 3L and 4L Immigration Clinic students, 2L students, including several who had served as Clinical Associates as 1Ls in their first year as part of UDC Law’s required community service, and two of whom who participated in our spring 2018 service-learning tripto Berks family detention center in Pennsylvania, an extended clinic student, 1L students, and a UDC 2018 graduate. Clinic Co-Directors Kristina Campbell and Lindsay Harris along with Clinical Instructor Saba Ahmed supervised students working for the day, along with HRF staff attorney Alexander Parcan and Legal Services Coordinator Sugeily Fernandez.  HRF’s two undergraduate interns and social worker were also on hand to assist.

Photo above -- Many of the Clinic students and other volunteer students for the day, fresh-faced and ready to work in the morning, along with Professors Campbell & Harris and HRF staff.

Volunteer students are invited to debrief what was an intense, challenging, and at times no doubt emotional day along with students enrolled in the Immigration Clinic during our clinic seminar

Clinicians interested in replicating this program should feel free to be in touch with Professor Lindsay M. Harris. While there are numerous logistical challenges and hurdles, we find this experience well worthwhile and have tips to share. In many ways the day is a preview of what it is like to work in faster-paced legal services setting, contrasted with many traditional law school clinic models where “law in slow motion” may be the norm.  The workshops also provides an opportunity to generate interest in Clinic work and for 1L and 2L students not yet in Clinic to gain hands on experience and insight into an area of law in which many seek to gain exposure. 

We are grateful to UDC Law staff and faculty for their support of this program.

"Advice and Consent" and the Senate's Standards of Evidence

Today, Senator Jeff Flake has said that he is torn and uncertain, beset with doubts, but that without "corroborating evidence" (which is available but which the Judiciary Committee has ignored, alas) he simply cannot vote to oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. Politically, that's a position, but it's not a legally necessary position. It's a standard he is adopting voluntarily to justify his vote, not reluctantly simply because he has to.

 

The Constitution requires the Senate to give "advice and consent" to a President's nominee. That's the standard, and it's not much. It's whatever the Senate decides it is, and it is, at its heart, political. In criminal cases, prosecutors must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, plaintiffs must prove their cases to a preponderance of evidence. In other cases, claimants must prove their cases with clear and convincing evidence.

 

None of those are the standard for the Senate. If they were, we would have seen a trial yesterday, instead of a brutal sham where one witness was interrogated by a prosecutor with fulsome answers and another witness shouted interruptions, evaded straight answers, and railed hysterically against political enemies. It was not a legal proceeding. It was a political proceeding orchestrated for a particular outcome, and that is as the Senate's controlling party designed it, as it is allowed to do by the Constitution.

 

Turning back to Sen. Flake, surely all of the Senators are imagining the standard that will justify their preferred positions, because they can. Who among us wouldn't choose the standard by which we would be judged?

 

Here are some other permissible standards. It may be that the credibility of one witness so outweighs the other that the Senate decides to believe her instead of him. In this case, Dr. Ford was imminently credible, expert, and forthcoming; Judge Kavanaugh was evasive, petulant, hysterical, and imprudent. That's enough to oppose his nomination simply by weighing their credibility (which is actually enough under the preponderance standard).

 

It may be that conscience is a sufficient standard of evidence. Ensuring that Supreme Court Justices assume their seats without lingering questions of character, integrity, trust, substance abuse, and violence is enough to oppose a nomination, especially when there are plenty of other conservative options.

 

In may be that the legitimacy of the Court, independent of the facts of this case, is a sufficient standard. Bald, brutal, partisanship and a profoundly flawed nominee will mark the Court as unreliable for a generation or more. At its heart, the Court only has its legitimacy, its credibility. The rule of law depends on that reliability, so if a nominee reveals himself to be a furious partisan operative, that is enough to oppose his nomination.

 

Of course, the Senate can also consent to whomever a President sends to them, even if it is merely to assure a partisan victory in the short term, even if there are plenty of other options. The Senate can do that under the Constitution.

 

Whether the People can abide it is another question we have yet to answer. Whether we can tolerate it as a Republic is an open question.

 

Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee from Law Professors with Expertise in Gender Violence

More than 250 law professors, including many clinical law professors, submitted this letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee today to address the Kavanaugh hearings. These are law professors with expertise, experience, and scholarship addressing in sexual assault and harassment, gender-based violence, and the law related to these epidemic forces in the U.S.  See the complete letter and all the signers here, including several of the writers for this blog and me.  

Dear Senators,

We write as law professors who have significant experience teaching, researching, and writing about issues of gender violence and representing gender violence survivors in family, civil, and criminal courts. We write to express our profound concern about the plans for evaluating the allegations of Judge Kavanaugh’s sexual misconduct that have been announced to date, especially in light of recently emerging claims. The Senate should seek to review all available evidence, including witness testimony relating to all of the allegations raised, in order to evaluate both the competing accounts of underlying events and the nominee’s reflection on those accounts. The allegations should be fully and sensitively investigated by experts who are trained in trauma-informed interviewing techniques before the hearing is held. In this instance, as Dr. Ford has requested, the investigation should be performed by the FBI. There should be no rush in undertaking this important task. All those concerned both with the gravity of the allegations and the integrity of the Court and our systems of governance should prioritize investigation over politics. Particularly given the most recent information about additional allegations, it is incumbent upon the Committee to delay the hearings and a vote until a thorough investigation of all allegations is completed.

 

The Senate’s approach to the allegations raised by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and now, Julie Swetnick, is deeply troubling. Public statements prejudging the credibility of witnesses and the outcome of the proceedings reflect the very type of biases that have no place in any investigation and that run counter to the purpose of these hearings. The attacks on the witnesses’ credibility and integrity are reminiscent of outdated and discredited stereotypes that defy best practices developed through decades of research about fair and effective treatment of sexual violence survivors. Both criminal law and psychological research on the impact of trauma roundly reject the idea that sexual violence is restricted to forced sexual intercourse. Similarly, legislatures and courts have rejected for decades the outdated notion that allegations must be corroborated in order to be credible. In this matter, however, corroborating witnesses do exist, and the exclusion of these witnesses demonstrates that the process is not designed to assess the truth of the allegations.

 

The Committee’s process undermines the very laws that Congress has claimed credit for passing. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), initially enacted nearly 25 years ago, aims to recognize the importance of upholding the dignity and safety of those who come forward to report that they were victims of sexual misconduct. Best practices reinforce the importance of fair process and meaningful justice for gender violence survivors. The rush to a hearing and a vote, without investigation, mirrors the miscarriage of justice in many domestic violence cases, where cases typically are rushed through what can best be described as “perfunctory justice.”

 

We are additionally concerned about the selection of a prosecutor to question Dr. Ford. Questioning by a prosecutor fuels misguided ideas that the allegations raised should be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That standard of proof has no place here, since the liberty and equitable issues at stake in criminal cases are not at issue. We would expect the Committee to conduct its own questioning, as it has done with other nominees and throughout this process.

 

This is neither a criminal trial nor a civil proceeding. The focus should be on the nominee’s intellect, demeanor, judicial temperament and moral conduct. Senators should be concerned with the nominee’s judgment, insight, and capacity for reflection on the impact of a person’s behavior on others. Senators should assess how the nominee engages with complex and emotionally charged social issues, such as those that may come before the court. All of these issues are implicated by the allegations made by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, and Ms. Swetnick, and the Senate should have a full understanding of the events underlying those allegations before it determines whether Judge Kavanaugh should be elevated to the Supreme Court.

CLEA's Teaching Justice Webinar Series

Via Profs. Laila Hlass and Allison Korn:

 

As part of CLEA’s Best Practices Committee, [we] are thrilled to help launch a “Teaching Justice Webinar Series,” slated to begin this fall. 

 

Registration is now open for the hour-long webinar "Shifting Power through Transformative Lawyering in Community Economic Development" on September 26th, 2018 at 3:30 p.m. ET/2:30pm CT/ 1:30pm MT/12:30pm PT, presented by Renee Hatcher Assistant Professor of Law and Director of the Business Enterprise Law Clinic at The John Marshall Law School along with Alicia Alvarez (Michigan Law), Dorcas Gilmore (U of Maryland Law), and Susan Bennett (American University – WCL). 

 

Registration is limited, and you must sign up beforehand, using this link: https://tulane.zoom.us/meeting/register/b6b0d3463f28a82c34538d7d4481ef37

 

We are very excited about this series, which aims to highlight new experiential approaches to teaching justice in the classroom. Each session will draw on the wisdom of the current resistance movement and examine its intersections with criminal justice, immigration policy, racial justice, and economic justice, among other issues.  This series will explore the theory behind experiential faculty’s decision-making processes during a politically fraught era, asking the question, “How do we show up as lawyers and teachers?” Presenters also hope to develop a shared vocabulary and a deeper understanding of what it means to be a lawyer, whether we consider ourselves movement lawyers, rebellious lawyers, or transformative lawyers. 

 

Later this semester, we’ll hear from Annie Lai, Clinical Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic. Annie will present on Teaching Justice in the Context of Immigrants’ Rights on December 6th, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. ET. 

 

The series will continue into 2019 with presentations from Deborah Archer, Associate Professor of Clinical Law and Director of the Civil Rights Clinic at NYU School of Law, and Eve Hanan, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Juvenile Justice Clinic at UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law.  More details to follow, posted on the CLEA Website. Please share far and wide! 

CLEA Programs for New Clinicians at Regional and National Conferences

From the chairs of CLEA's New Clinicians Committee, Profs. Wendy Vaughn and Christine Cerniglia:

 

We hope this new school year is well underway and you are feeling connected to a clinical community.  This year many of the regional clinical conferences offer an opportunity for new clinicians to gather, learn and connect to the larger clinical community.  

 

It is not too late to register for a regional conference and to attend programming dedicated for new clinicians. (If you are questioning whether you qualify as a new clinician, please know all are welcome who would like to learn more about clinical teaching). For more information about a regional conference near you, please see http://www.cleaweb.org/new-clinicians

 

Also, save the date for the exciting  one-day CLEA New Clinician’s Conference on Saturday, May 4th in San Francisco.  More information forthcoming at: http://www.cleaweb.org/new-clinicians

 

Last, if you have not registered to become a CLEA member, please take a moment to visit the CLEA membership webpage:  http://www.cleaweb.org/member-application

 

We hope to see you at a regional conference and in San Francisco!

 

• Midwest Conference

• When: The conference is Oct 5-6 2018

• Where:   Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana

• What: New clinicians programming scheduled on Friday, October 5th from noon to 4p.m.

• How to register:  law.nd.edu/midwestclinical.

 

• New England Clinical Conference

• When: October 12th (one day only)

• Where: Roger Williams School of Law

• What: New clinicians programming scheduled for a morning discussion from 8:00a.m. to 9:00a.m. and a post-conference debrief/reflection session from 5:00p.m. to 6:30p.m.  While all are welcome to attend, those with under 5 years of clinical teaching experience are strongly encouraged to do so.

• How to register: https://law.rwu.edu/events/new-england-clinical-conference

 

• Southern Regional Clinical Conference

• When: October 19th - 20th

• Where: University of South Carolina

• What: New clinicians programming scheduled on Thursday, October 18th (3:00-5:30p.m.) and Saturday, October 20th (12:15pm. to 2:00p.m.)

• How to register: https://www.sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/law/community_resources/conferences_and_symposia/scc/index.php

 

• Northwest Clinical Conference

• When: October 19-21, 2018

• Where: Sunriver Resort, Sunriver Oregon hosted by University of Oregon School of Law.

• What: New Clinicians programming is part of this conference.

• How to register: see registration circulated via clinic listserve.   

SAVE THE DATE

• New Clinicians Conference hosted by CLEA  in San Francisco, Saturday, May 4th 2019.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Call for Papers: ABA Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law

Via Prof. Tim Iglesias:

ABA Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law 

Call for Papers

 

Sustainability in Affordable Housing, Fair Housing & Community Development

 

Abstracts due October 15, 2018

Drafts due January 1, 2019

The Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law (the Journal) invites articles and essays on the theme of sustainability in affordable housing, fair housing and community development. Contributions could explore sustainability from environmental, economic, social or political perspectives and address topics ranging from green building and disaster preparedness/response to affordable housing preservation to funding for local fair housing organizations. Articles and essays could analyze new issues, tell success stories and draw lessons, or explore problems and propose legal and policy recommendations. The Journal welcomes essays (typically 2,500–6,200 words) or articles (typically 7,000-10,000 words). 

In addition, the Journal welcomes articles and essays on any of the Journal’s traditional subjects: affordable housing, fair housing and community/economic development. Topics could include important developments in the field; federal, state, local and/or private funding sources; statutes, policies or regulations; and empirical studies.

The Journal is the nation’s only law journal dedicated to affordable housing and community development law.  The Journal educates readers and provides a forum for discussion and resolution of problems in these fields by publishing articles from distinguished law professors, policy advocates and practitioners.

Interested authors are encouraged to send an abstract describing their proposals to the Journal’s Editor-in-Chief, Tim Iglesias, at [email protected] by October 15, 2018. Submissions of final articles and essays are due by January 1, 2019. The Journal also accepts submissions on a rolling basis. Please do not hesitate to contact the Editor with any questions.

Nominations: 2019 William Pincus Award for Outstanding Service and Commitment to Clinical Legal Education

Via Prof. JoNel Newman on the LawClinic listserv:

The Awards Committee for the AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education is soliciting nominations through Friday, October 5th for the 2019 William Pincus Award for Outstanding Service and Commitment to Clinical Legal Education. The Award, which the Section presents at the January AALS annual meeting, honors one or more individuals or institutions of clinical legal education for (1) service, (2) scholarship, (3) program design and implementation, or (4) other activity beneficial to clinical education or to the advancement of justice.
 
NOMINATIONS GUIDELINES: To ensure that the Awards Committee has uniformity in what it is considering in support of each candidate, the Committee requests that nominations adhere to the following guidelines:

1. To nominate someone, send the name of the nominee and all supporting materials (as outlined below) to JoNel Newman at [email protected] by Friday, October 5, 2018.  Please note the limits on  supporting material outlined below.  All materials are required, unless otherwise noted. 

i. nominating statement setting forth why the Section should honor the individual, specifically referencing the award criteria listed above.  (no more than 5 pages in length);

ii. nominee’s resume;

iii. a list of scholarship, but not copies of the scholarship (do not include if scholarship is listed in nominee’s resume); 

iv. letters or emails in support of nominee (no more than 5 and no letter or e-mail should be more than four single-spaced pages long, exclusive of signatures, which may be multiple); and

v. other supporting materials (optional and no more than 5 pages total)

 

The nomination and supporting materials must be submitted via e-mail either in Word or pdf files.   Hard copies of supporting materials will not be accepted. Please note that a single pdf attachment for each nominee is greatly appreciated.
 
2. Members of the clinical community who have nominated a person or institution previously are encouraged to re-nominate that person or institution for this year's award. The selection of one nominee over other nominees should not be viewed as dispositive for future awards and a person or institution not selected one year might be selected the next. A list of prior awardees appears below.
 
3. The Committee's deliberations are assisted immensely by a variety of voices speaking about a particular nominee. Nominators are strongly encouraged to seek letters in support of the nominee from colleagues or community members who have been impacted by the nominee’s work. Such letters may also include letters of support from students whom the candidate has supervised in a clinical setting.

The nominating deadline is Friday, October 5, 2018.  Please send nomination packages via email to JoNel Newman at [email protected].

Thank you!

The Awards Committee

 

Kinda Abdus-Saboor (Georgia State)
Jon Dubin (Rutgers)
JoNel Newman (Miami), Chair
Claire Raj (South Carolina)
Laura Rovner (Denver)

Prior Pincus Award Recipients:

1981 David Barnhizer (Cleveland State)

1982 Hon. Neil Smith (D. IA)

1983 William Greenhalgh (Georgetown)

1984 Robert McKay

1985 Dean Hill Rivkin (Tenn.)

1986 Tony Amsterdam (NYU)

1987 Gary Bellow (Harvard)

1988 William Pincus

1989 Gary Palm (Chicago)

1990 Bea Moulton (Hastings)

1991 Sue Bryant (CUNY)

1992 Elliott Milstein (American)

1993 Roy Stuckey (S. Carolina)

1994 Harriet Rabb (Columbia)

1995 Clinical Law Review

1996 Wally Mlyniec (Georgetown)

1997 Edgar Cahn (DC School of Law) and Jean Cahn (Antioch, posthumously)

1998 Steve Wizner (Yale)

1999 Katherine Shelton Broderick (U.D.C. School of Law)

2000 E. Clinton Bamberger (U. of Maryland, Emeritus)

2001 Peter A. Joy (Washington U. at St. Louis)

2002 Louise Trubek (Wisconsin) and Bernida Reagan (East Bay Community Law Center/Boalt Hall)

2003 Sandy Ogilvy (Catholic)

2004 Randy Hertz (NYU)

2005 J. Michael Norwood (New Mexico)

2006 David Binder (UCLA)

2007 Anthony V. Alfieri (Miami)

2008 John Elson (Northwestern)

2009 Margaret Martin Barry (Catholic)

2010 Robert Dinerstein (American)

2011 Christine Zuni Cruz (New Mexico)

2012 Robert Kuehn (Washington U. at St. Louis)

2013 Philip Schrag (Georgetown)

2014 Jeanne Charn (Harvard)

2015 Ann Shalleck (American)

2016 Bryan Adamson (Seattle)

2017 Thomas Geraghty (Northwestern) and Frank Askin (Rutgers)

2018 Carol Izumi (UC Hastings)

AALS Clinical Section Mentoring Program

Via Prof. Jodi Balsam:

 

Dear Clinical/Externship Friends and Colleagues,

Happy new semester!

 

And the new semester is a great time to consider participating in the Helping Hand Mentoring and Peer-Matching Program offered by the AALS Clinical Section’s Membership, Outreach, & Training Committee (apologies for cross-posting):

 

The program offers assistance to new faculty who are transitioning to clinical teaching and supports clinicians at any level of professional development who are at a transition point.  Please consider signing up to participate as either a mentor or mentee.  We welcome everyone, even if you’ve participated before.  WE ESPECIALLY NEED MENTORS—if you’ve ever benefited from this program as a mentee, please volunteer as a mentor!  If a mentor is not available, we also offer a peer-match for clinicians who are interested in that resource.  We will seek to make matches according to your preferences including practice area, geographic proximity (if desired), and teaching and scholarship interests. 

Application to Request a Mentor or Peer Match: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1a_Tmusr-k1oCXV9BiK-2WvaLj_Mf2fQGYUx65RrHt50

 

Application to Serve as a Mentor:  https://drive.google.com/open?id=13uK3eEegRAX73g0KtszCRmYIYtaJE8h-0b66ocavzmw

 

We hope to continue getting a good response so new clinicians may connect with mentors and enjoy this aspect of our mutually supportive community.  Please forward this to any colleagues who you think might enjoy the mentoring program. 

 

Please contact us if you need any assistance with the process.  Once you submit your form, a member of the Membership, Outreach, & Training Committee will follow up with additional information regarding your pairing (assuming enough participants have signed up). 

 

Thank you!

 

The CLE Section Membership, Outreach, & Training Committee

Jodi Balsam (Brooklyn) Co-chair [email protected]

Katy Ramsey (Memphis) Co-chair [email protected]

Kate Elengold (UNC) [email protected]

Lauren Aronson (Louisiana State) [email protected]

Sabrina Balgamwalla (North Dakota) [email protected]

Yael Cannon (New Mexico) [email protected]

 

CLEA: Nominations for 2019 Board and Executive Committee

The CLEA Elections Committee (D’lorah Hughes and Lindsay Harris) is soliciting nominations through October 1, 2018, of individuals to serve on the CLEA Board starting in January 2019. This year, there are positions open for Vice President/President-Elect and several Board positions.  All positions require a three-year commitment.  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.  CLEA's 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, D’lorah Hughes, [email protected]. 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 Election 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, 2018.  If you have questions about the CLEA Elections process, please feel free to contact Tiffany Murphy at [email protected] or D’lorah Hughes at [email protected].

Registration Deadline Extended for Northwest Clinical Law Conference

via Jessica Long (University of Idaho) and Kathryn Moakley (University of Oregon)

For anyone still considering attending the Northwest Clinical Law Conference on Oct. 19-21, 2018 in Sunriver, Oregon, there is good news. Yesterday's registration deadline was extended to accommodate those who needed a little more time. Please complete the registration form Download NWCLC2018Invitation, and send it to Kathryn Moakley ASAP at the address provided on the form.   

Call for Authors: Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Health Law Opinions

 

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of rewritten judicial opinions and commentary on those opinions for an edited collection entitled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Health Law Opinions. This edited volume, proposed to be published by Cambridge University Press, is part of a collaborative project among law professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions. The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. Subsequent volumes in the series focus on different courts or different subjects. This call is for contributions to a volume of health law decisions rewritten from a feminist perspective.  Health Law volume editors Seema Mohapatra and Lindsay Wiley seek prospective authors for fifteen rewritten health law opinions covering a range of topics. With the help of an Advisory Committee, the editors have chosen a list of cases to be rewritten.  The definition of feminism on which the series is premised is quite broad and certainly includes intersectional analysis of cases where sex or gender played a role alongside racism, ableism, classism, and other concerns.  Applications are due by September 22, 2018.  

To facilitate collaboration between commentators and opinion writers across the entire volume, the editors will host a workshop on December 7, 2018 at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.  All commentators and opinion writers are invited, but not required, to participate in the workshop. The Hall Center for Law and Health at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law will host a welcome dinner the night prior to the workshop and provide the meals at the workshop.  Authors must cover their own travel expenses. Selection of authors does not depend on their ability or willingness to attend the December workshop. The editors are also tentatively planning to host a conference celebrating publication of the volume at American University Washington College of Law in Washington, DC in fall 2020. More details about the project and how to apply are available here.