Clinical Law Prof Blog

Editor: Jeffrey R. Baker
Pepperdine University
School of Law

Saturday, September 29, 2018

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.

92818 Pro Se Asylum Filing Workshop

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.

September 29, 2018 in Clinic Students and Graduates, Clinic Victories, Current Affairs, Immigration, New Clinical Programs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, September 28, 2018

"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.

September 28, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, September 27, 2018

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.

September 27, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

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:


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! 

September 18, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, September 14, 2018

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


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:


Last, if you have not registered to become a CLEA member, please take a moment to visit the CLEA membership webpage:


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:


  • 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:



  • 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.   


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



September 14, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

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 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.

September 12, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, September 10, 2018

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 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

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)

September 10, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, September 7, 2018

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:


Application to Serve as a Mentor:


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

Katy Ramsey (Memphis) Co-chair

Kate Elengold (UNC)

Lauren Aronson (Louisiana State)

Sabrina Balgamwalla (North Dakota)

Yael Cannon (New Mexico)


September 7, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, September 6, 2018

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, 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 or D’lorah Hughes at

September 6, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

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.   

September 5, 2018 in Conferences and Meetings | Permalink | Comments (0)

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.

September 5, 2018 in RFP | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, August 27, 2018

Pepperdine Launches a New Clinic for Mediating Religious Divorces

This fall, Pepperdine is launching the Jewish Divorce Mediation Clinic. The name is a work in progress (considering variations on theme, like Religious Family Mediation Clinic, etc.), but the work is innovative and important. In partnership with the Jewish Divorce Assistance Center of Los Angeles, and with generous funding from Ms. Chavi Hertz, the Clinic will mediate cases with Jewish families progressing through civil and religious courts.

For divorcing Jewish couples, parties often must receive a religious divorce in addition to a civil divorce. Students of all faiths or of none will work and learn in the clinic under supervision of Prof. Sarah Nissel and Supervising Attorney Yona Elishis who have deep roots and expertise in this work. 

The Clinic’s work lies at the intersection of two of our strongest commitments: conflict resolution and interfaith practice. It also fills an important curricular need for family law practice. Students will engage practice in California family law and divorce mediation, and students will study divorce practices from multiple religions, including Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Sikh traditions.   

We are excited to enter this complex and fascinating practice. Our aim is for students to learn family law and family mediation, religious competence, cultural sensibility, and engagement across traditions and communities. We hope to serve our community and neighbors in profound ways that can promote families’ peace and healing during some of life’s most stressful and traumatic moments. 

The new clinic joins nine other clinics at Pepperdine for 2018-2019. The other general JD clinics include the Community Justice Clinic, Legal Aid Clinic, Low Income Taxpayer Clinic, Ninth Circuit Appellate Advocacy Clinic, and Restoration & Justice Clinic. The Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution offers the Investor Advocacy Clinic, Mediation Clinic, and Fair Employment and Housing Mediation Clinic. The Palmer Center for Entrepreneurship and the Law continues offering its new Entrepreneurship Clinic. 

August 27, 2018 in Clinic News, Clinic Profile, New Clinical Faculty, New Clinical Programs, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, August 23, 2018

UDC Law Searching for New Dean

The University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law (UDC Law) is searching for a new Dean. I post this here because UDC Law has a special commitment to clinical legal education and readers of this blog may be interested in serving as the next leader of our special law school.

In 1972, civil rights lawyers Edgar S. and Jean Camper Cahn brought to life a powerful idea – law school modeled on a “neighborhood law firm,” in which students from groups underrepresented at the bar learn to practice law while providing critical legal services to the underserved. Founded as the Antioch School of Law, the institution eventuallybecame the District’s only public law school in 1988 and merged with the nation’s only exclusively urban land-grant institution, the University of the District of Columbia, in 1996.

Through its nine legal clinics, the 1L community service requirement, funded public interest summer fellowships, and credit-bearing externships,each year UDC Law provides more than 100,000 hours of legal services to D.C. residents. Each of these experiential learning opportunities builds experience in both direct representation and effective community activism and policy advocacy. This commitment – and the excellence with which it is pursued – has led to a No. 2 ranking by the National Law Journa (2018) for government and public interest job placement and No. 8 for Best Clinical Training Program by U.S. News & World Report (2019). As former Attorney General Eric Holder said at the first UDC Law Gala in 2017, “We need lawyers trained in the UDC Law clinical model now more than ever.”

Please see this link to learn more about UDC Law and our Dean Search: 

Our school has a very unique place in the past and present and provides a unique learning environment -- as an urban land-grant institution, an HBCU, an access school dedicated to educating those previously underrepresented at the bar, and a leader in clinical legal education. 

Please do share individuals who may be qualified to lead this vibrant and promising institution. 

Thank you!


August 23, 2018 in Job Opportunities & Fellowships, Jobs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, August 13, 2018

JOBS: University of Utah Director of Clinical Programs

Via Prof. Clifford Rosky:


University of Utah: Professor and Director of Clinical Programs

The University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law is seeking a visionary leader to serve as Professor and Director of Clinical Programs beginning in the academic year 2019-2020. This individual will join the College as a full-time tenure-line or career-line faculty member. Rank and compensation will be commensurate with qualifications and experience. Tenure-line candidates would be expected to satisfy the same standards for research, teaching, and service as other tenure-line faculty members. Relevant qualifications may include a record of success or potential as a clinical director, clinical instructor, or law professor, excellence in academics or practice, or strong scholarly distinction or promise in any relevant field.

In addition to fulfilling the responsibilities of a faculty member, the Director of Clinical Programs will be responsible for supervising and developing the structure and support for our clinical programs. In recent years, the College has been ranked second nationally in offering clinical opportunities per student (2014), sixth in public service (2016), and fifteenth in practical training (2018). By drawing on in-house clinics, clinical courses, and an extensive program of field placements, we offer clinical opportunities in an exceptionally wide range of practice areas. Over 90% of our students participate in our clinical programs, and we significantly exceed the national averages of clinical and pro bono service hours per student. The Director will lead our Clinical Programs into the next era of legal education and training. The Director will engage with the administration and faculty in strategic planning, including the pursuit of innovations in the structure and content of our clinical programs.  The Director will be responsible for teaching experiential courses, mentoring other faculty assigned to teach experiential courses, overseeing staff, advising students, and promoting the College’s clinical and pro bono service programs on a local, national, and international level.

The University of Utah is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer and educator. Minorities, women, veterans, and those with disabilities are strongly encouraged to apply. Veterans’ preference is extended to qualified veterans. Reasonable disability accommodations will be provided with adequate notice. For additional information about the University’s commitment to equal opportunity and access see: Applications must be submitted to:

August 13, 2018 in Job Opportunities & Fellowships | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

A July 4 reflection: Do Judges and Legislators Feel? How Can I Matter?

In one of my first years in legal aid the late 80’s, I sat in my office with a client who was wondering how he was going to feed his family.  His union had gone on strike.  He supported the union’s position—he felt his employer was walking all over its workers and convinced me and himself that the strike was necessary due to cuts his employer wanted to make—he wouldn’t be able to feed his family on his full-time salary.  But now, he was in my office with no salary due to the strike and when he had gone to the welfare office seeking help, he was told he was entitled to nothing.  My job was to explain to him why he was entitled to nothing:  a conservative Supreme Court had decided Lyng v. Auto Workers in 1988, upholding a law passed by a conservative Congress and President denying Food Stamps to striking workers.  The local office applied that law to his union’s strike and denied his and his co-worker’s claims.  All I could do was send him and his wife and kids to a food pantry.  He would have to find another way.

It hurt to watch.  The Congress, the President, and the Supreme Justices did not have to talk to this man—I did.  I saw this was not an abstract problem but a starving worker and family.  I was new to lawyering for the poor and my new lawyer idealism was being toppled.  How was I going to do anything with such conservative laws being interpreted so conservatively?  It could not be my job to just watch and explain to poor people that they were powerless in a heartless world.  I needed to figure out how I could matter.

Fast-forward to the mid 1990’s and I am sitting in a different office, now a private attorney trying to help low-income people by taking contingent fee cases like disability cases and court appointments.  Another man is in my office.  Just a few months before, I had helped him get Social Security Disability benefits after he had worked for 30 years and his COPD compounded by an alcohol addiction had finally caught up with him.  In his hand was his cutoff notice, as Congress had decided that his and anyone else’s alcoholism was no longer an illness but a self-inflicted lifestyle.  A computer code that noted he drank had generated his notice and the cutoff procedures.  He asked me how he was going to live.  I again had to face my client.  My congressman didn’t.  The President didn’t.  I had to explain to my client that his government did not believe him worthy of help.  It did not matter the struggles that I had seen him live through influencing how he had become an alcoholic, the lack of effective alcoholism treatment perhaps for anyone but certainly for low income people, and that he would starve.  I again needed to decide how I could matter.  I couldn’t stand it.  The purpose of my job could not just be to reflect helplessness and pain.

I came up with a plan.  People who write laws may not feel or care.  Supreme Court Justices may not either.  And clients definitely know without my reflecting back to them that poverty stinks.  However, I could do two things.  First, I could put clients in front of decisions makers and force them to see my clients—perhaps those decision makers would bend laws or interpret them as humanely as possible for my clients’ benefits, even when the law is not humane.  Second, I could find people working in the system who cared and seek their help for my clients.

So fast forward again to two weeks ago, when for three days this worked.  On the Thursday, I found myself representing an abused woman who struggles horribly with depression and also has an addiction problem. It was the same issue still rearing its head that faced my client in the 1990’s of the law refusing to help people with addiction illnesses with income benefits.  However, my client was lucky—we found the right judge administering the law.  The judge chose to explain her symptoms not as some willing attempt to hurt herself through alcoholism but as stemming from abuse, ptsd, and depression, even if she sometimes relies on alcohol for relief and ruled she was eligible. 

On the Friday, in front of a different judge, a woman struggling with colon cancer that metastasized to her lung was given help.  The law has been tightened to deny even cancer patients benefits in most cases unless they can demonstrate they have terminal illnesses through fortunate medical testing describing unfortunate likely outcomes.  However, after a hearing we did, a judge leaned toward accepting that this woman who cannot even go to the bathroom comfortably might need some help.   

And on Saturday, I received an email from a client that we had convinced an administrator in a state disability office to help award benefits after her breast cancer had metastasized to her brain and who was displaced by the Puerto Rican hurricane.  Her records had been bureaucratically scattered between Puerto Rico, New York, and Pennsylvania while she traveled between Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico so her family could tend to her during her treatment.  The case was decided in her favor but just as easily could have been passed on between other disability agencies until a person in our disability office decided the client mattered, and the case had to be decided now.  What mattered more was making decision makers feel the suffering of the people in front of them and getting them to help.

I hate this.  I do not want to tell my clients they have to appear pathetic or desperate to get help, and sometimes it feels more like forcing them to share their stories than helping them do so when they want to.  But these decision makers and legislators need to feel what these people feel and maybe they will help them and others like them.

And then came the recent Supreme Court news.  There is no doubt—my clients will hurt.  Again, unions will struggle to protect workers’ rights against government employers after the Court in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 ruled that public employees who do not want to join a union can also refuse to pay their share of what it costs the union to negotiate their wages and benefits.  My 1988 client could not strike to feed his family and my 2018 clients will have no union stand up for them.  Rights of people of all religions and nationalities are likely to be more curtailed than they were already curtailed in what have been called “Muslim bans” after the Court in Trump v. Hawaii described the broad leeway a president has to limit immigration on what seems to be very light review.  This will sadly not be my problem, as these people will not even make it into my office to have me reflect that I cannot help them—they will not be in the country at all and will have to fend for themselves in sometimes horrible situations.  More is likely to come—the Court in Janus seemed quite ready to overrule precedent without giving it much weight at all.  Many of the public programs and protections that we have taken for granted, from the establishment of graduated income taxes and Social Security and health benefits to discrimination protections since the XIV amendment come into question. 

So today, like many, I am struggling to make sense of what is happening in Congress, in the executive branch, and in the Supreme Court and with what is likely to happen with a new Supreme Court justice nomination.  I don’t know that my helping individuals to try to find caring decision makers can work much longer.  I remain thankful for those I have found, those that are helping that I have not found, and consider other ways I can maybe help. 

July 3, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thursday, June 7, 2018

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


Abstracts due August 1, 2018


Drafts due October 1, 2018

The Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law (the Journal) invites articles and essays exploring any of the Journal’s traditional themes: 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. 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). 

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 by August 1, 2018. Submissions of final articles and essays are due by October 1, 2018. The Journal also accepts submissions on a rolling basis. Please do not hesitate to contact the Editor with any questions.

June 7, 2018 in RFP | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Call for Proposals & Papers: ClassCrits Conference (11/2/18)

The 2018 ClassCrits Conference will be held at West Virginia University (Morgantown, WVU). Details on the theme, submission process, and logistics are below. The deadline for submissions is June 1, 2018, by email to 



ClassCrits XI: Rising Together for Economic Hope, Power and Justice


Co-Sponsored by


West Virginia University College of Law

and ClassCrits


Morgantown, West Virginia

November 2-3, 2018


The current administration continues its reactionary campaign to “Make America Great Again” by rolling back progress in key areas of labor, environmental, health, and civil rights. A rising and brazen alt-right movement, with its calls for a white ethnostate, empowered by Trump’s victory, continues to grow ever more vocal at campuses across the country. Immigrants are being targeted for deportation, building on authority laid down by the past administrations. Trump’s saber rattling creates the real possibility of a military showdown between the US and North Korea. And the new federal tax law, fueled by plutocratic influence, will exacerbate income inequality by shifting even more money from working Americans to wealthy people and corporations. 


How did we get here? The liberal technocratic class at the heart of the Democratic constituency was stunned at the election of Trump, despite a lackluster, campaign based on stale ideas. Despite all this, many were shocked the morning of November 9, 2016, not only because of Trump’s crass mannerisms and reactionary and divisive politics, but because he won against an anointed insider candidate with strong support from mainstream institutions. 


What lessons emerge from Trump’s election? The Democrats seemed to have learned little from one of the most humiliating losses at the ballot box in American history, reiterating their centrism and calls for bipartisanship and value-free governance. Worse still, elites have doubled down on their politics of condescension, offering What’s the Matter with Kansas explanations pondering why working-classwhite workers voted against their own interest, without pausing to consider the elite neoliberal consensus that has alienated voters, providing them with little real choice at the ballot box.  


Mainstream media outlets have looked for answers in the “economic anxiety” of the white working class, without much substantive analysis of what this means, or how the situation faced by millions of white and non-white Americans is the result of decades of bipartisan policy agreement in favor of austerity and a low-wage economy.  Discontent with neoliberal globalization creates serious risks of a resurgent right organized around its own neo-nationalist agenda. But it also presents opportunities for new constituencies to form around concrete struggles such as Medicare for All, the Fight for Fifteen, investments in infrastructure and other public institutions that represent our democratic commons. We cannot afford to leave this in the hands of politicians who counter atavistic racial appeals and billionaire populism with the claim that “America is Already Great.” For a generation of young people facing stagnant wages, decreasing upward mobility, and an uncertain future, there needs to be a political agenda that speaks to their sense that things need to change fundamentally. 

The good news is that we have seen a surge in democratic participation, including widespread and persistent political mobilization that succeeded in defeating efforts to repeal Obamacare. New progressive candidates are running for state and federal offices, much to the chagrin of Democratic gatekeepers. We have seen sporadic protests that attest to a growing dissatisfaction with the centrist status quo. Catalyzed by the movement for Black Lives, the West Virginia teacher’s strike, the Women’s March, the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, and the #MeToo movement, an unprecedented number of people are speaking up to challenge workplace sexual harassment, wage disparities, and other forms of patriarchal economic and social oppression. Now is the time to rethink issues of basic political economy to form the basis of a new politics that seeks to reduce inequality and wealth disparity, and reinvigorate civil rights protections for disadvantaged communities.


We invite participants to submit applications to present at the 11th Annual ClassCrits conference, to be held at West Virginia University College of Law.  We invite panel proposals, roundtable discussion proposals, paper presentations, poetry and fiction reading, and art that speak to this year’s theme, as well as to general ClassCrits themes.  We also welcome proposals from law clinicians who engage in activist lawyering as a core part of their curriculum design. See the following page for details.


Finally, we extend a special invitation to junior scholars (i.e., graduate students and non-tenured faculty members) to submit proposals for works in progress. At least one senior scholar, as well as other ClassCrits scholars, will provide feedback and detailed commentary upon each work in progress in a small, supportive working session at this year’s workshop


We invite panel proposals and paper presentations that speak to this year’s theme of “economic hope, power and justice,” as well as to general ClassCrits themes. See the following page for details.


In addition, we extend a special invitation to junior scholars (i.e., graduate students or any non-tenured faculty member) to submit proposals for works in progress. A senior scholar as well as other scholars will comment upon each work in progress in a small, supportive working session.




Proposal Submission Procedure and Deadline

Please submit your proposal by email to  by June 1, 2018Proposals should include the author’s name, institutional affiliation and contact information, the title of the paper to be presented, and an abstract of the paper to be presented of no more than 750 words. You are also encouraged to submit entire panels to the conference. Junior scholar submissions for works in progress should be clearly marked as “JUNIOR SCHOLAR WORK IN PROGRESS PROPOSAL.



We invite panel proposals that speak to this year’s theme of “economic hope, power and justice,” as well the general ClassCrits themes, including:

—The legal and cultural project of constructing inequalities of all kinds as natural, normal, and necessary.

The relationships among economic, racial, and gender inequality.

The development of new methods (including the interdisciplinary study and development of such methods) with which to analyze and criticize economics and law (beyond traditional “law and economics”).

The relationship between material systems and institutions and cultural systems and institutions.

The concept and reality of class within the international legal community, within international development studies and welfare strategies, and within a “flattening” world of globalized economics and geopolitical relations.



Logistics & Fees

The venue for the gathering is the West Virginia University College of Law in Morgantown, West Virginia,
see details here.  Theconference will begin with continental breakfast on Friday, November 2 and continue through the afternoon of Saturday, November 3. Arrangements are being made for conference hotels.  


For updates, check www.classcrits.orgwhere you can also sign up as a ClassCrits member to be on our contact list and to post a profile that will build our network and showcase your work.  Associate membership is free; full membership dues are $25 for 2018 (includes ClassCrits, Inc. voting rights and 2018 conference discount).


The registration fee is $215.00 for accepted presenters who are full-time faculty members; ClassCrits members get a discounted registration fee of $200.   Registration is free for students and activists. Participants who do not fit into these categories, and/or who for individual reasons cannot afford the registration fee, should contact us at Workshop attendees are responsible for their own travel and lodging expenses.

Who We Are

Eleven years ago, a group of scholar-activists organized a series of conversations about law and economic class.  Building on “outsider” jurisprudence that has moved inequalities of race, gender, and sexuality from the margins to the center of law, the group proposed a jurisprudence of economic inequality. To foreground economic justice, the group sought to critique mainstream law and economics and to focus on the lives of poor and working-class people.

Rejecting the neoliberal ideology of scarcity, and reclaiming the possibilities presented by the commons and by collective action, ClassCrits was born.  Our name “ClassCrits” reflects our ties to critical legal analysis and our goal of addressing economic class in the multiple intersecting forms of subordination. We confront the roots of economic inequality in divisions such as race and gender and in legal and economic systems destructive to the well-being of humanity and the planet.



Conference Planning Committee:

Danielle Kie Hart, Professor, Southwestern Law School,

Wendy Bach, Associate Professor, The University of Tennessee College of Law,

Lua Kamal Yuille, Associate Professor, The University of Kansas School of Law,

Stacey A. Tovino, Founding Director, UNLV Health Law Program, Lehman Professor of Law,

John Whitlow, Associate Professor, CUNY School of Law,

Victoria J. Haneman, Professor, Concordia University School of Law,

Lisa Pruitt, Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor, U.C. Davis School of Law,

Lucy Jewel, Professor, The University of Tennessee College of Law,

Chunlin Leonhard, Leon Sarpy Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola University, New Orleans College of Law,

Angela P. Harris, Distinguished Professor of Law, Boochever and Bird Endowed Chair for the Study and Teaching of Freedom of Equality, U.C. Davis School of Law,

Tonya Brito, Burrus-Bascom Professor of Law, The University of Wisconsin Law School,

Saru Matambanadzo, Moise S. Steeg Jr. Associate Professor, Tulane University Law School,

Athena Mutua, Professor, Floyd H. & Hilda L. Hurst Faculty Scholar, SUNY Buffalo Law School,

René Reich-Graefe, Professor, Western New England University School of Law,

Matthew Titolo, Professor, West Virginia University College of Law (co-chair),

Jay Varellas, PhD Candidate in Political Science, University of California, Berkeley

May 16, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, April 26, 2018

CLEA Newsletter Spring 2018

Greetings, and Happy Spring!
Together with the CLEA Newsletter Committee, and CLEA President, I am very happy to announce that the Spring 2018 issue of the CLEA Newsletter has just been posted here.  
In this second issue of Volume 26, you'll find lots of interesting content, including: articles on clinical education by Robert Kuehn (Washington Univ.-St. Louis) and Jane Stoever (UC-Irvine); CLEA committee reports; and several announcements about upcoming events at the AALS Clinical Conference in Chicago.  Plus, you'll find good news from our colleagues around the country.
Thanks, and best wishes,

CLEA Newsletter Committee
Lauren Bartlett (Ohio Northern)
Tanya Asim Cooper (Pepperdine)
Susan Donovan (Alabama)
D'lorah Hughes (UC Irvine)
Kate Kruse (Mitchell Hamline)

April 26, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, April 22, 2018

Independent Bookstore Day (IBD) - Saturday, April 28, 2018!

Independent Bookstore Day (IBD) - Saturday, April 28, 2018!

Whether you’ll be at home, on the road to the conference, or already in Chicago, take a moment to celebrate a fave of most of us – the independent bookstore!

Celebrated on the last Saturday in April every year, IBD honors these special stores that act as sources of knowledge and imagination, community centers, and places of respite.   Each store will party in its own way with exclusive books, giveaways, author events, and more - so feel free to visit more than one!

Check out the link below to locate an indie bookstore wherever you are:

Hope to see y’all in Chicago!


April 22, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 2, 2018

Save the Date: 2018 Southern Clinical Conference, October 19 and 20 at South Carolina

Calling all fans of clinical education and warm weather:  mark your calendars for the 8th Annual Southern Clinical Conference “Overcoming Divisions.”  The conference will be hosted by the University of South Carolina School of Law on Friday October 19th and Saturday, October 20th, 2018. 

Requests for proposals coming later this Spring.  We look forward to seeing you in Columbia next Fall!

For more information please contact Emily Suski at   


The Southern Clinical Conference planning committee:  

Danny Schaffzin, Memphis,

Alex Scherr, Georgia

Kendall Kerew, Georgia State

Susan Donovan, Alabama

Lauren Aronson, LSU

Bob Lancaster, LSU

Crystal Schin, Virginia

Lisa Martin, South Carolina

Emily Suski, South Carolina

Ken Gaines, South Carolina

Annie Eisenberg, South Carolina

Claire Raj, South Carolina

Josh Gupta-Kaga, South Carolina

April 2, 2018 in Conferences and Meetings | Permalink | Comments (0)