Thursday, August 26, 2010
STANDING UP TO ARIZONA – AND DEALING WITH THE NATION’S IMMIGRATION CRISIS
The Rebellious Lawyering Institute
September 23-25 2010, Bishop’s Lodge, Santa Fe, New Mexico
We formally invite you to join us in Santa Fe, New Mexico for a Rebellious Lawyering Training. We’ve already sent out several “Save The Date” messages, and now we’re providing a programmatic sketch. We’ll focus on Arizona and the Nation, illuminating through extraordinary participants and materials how we might effectively deal with the anti-immigrant and racist practices and policies now shaping the crisis. We hope you join us and those who already have made their plans to be at the Training with us.
Gerald P. López; Bill Ong Hing, Kip Bobroff, Eric Cohen, Tara Ford, Shauna Marshall, Pegasus Legal Services for Children (Albuquerque, New Mexico), The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (San Francisco, California), and Rebellious Lawyering Institute.
Location: Bishop’s Lodge, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Days & Times: We shall meet from 8:30 am- 4:30 pm on Thursday and Friday (September 23 & 24) and from 9:00 am-1:00 pm on Saturday (September 25).
CLE Credit: A total of 16.25 MCLE credits (including 1 hour of ethics)
will be available from California, and CLE credits are now pending review in New Mexico. We shall work with individuals to secure credit from other jurisdictions in which they practice . . .
Registration Fee: $450.00. (The fee reflects bare-bones costs of putting on the conference, without compensation for organizers or trainers.)
Two Ways to Pay Registration Fee:
Pay Pal: You may use a credit card to pay the registration fee at this PayPal link (the amount includes the Santa Fe Gross Receipts Tax of 8.1875%):
Mailing Address: Or you may write your check out to “Rebellious Lawyering” and mail it immediately to:
1208 San Pedro NE, #164
Albuquerque, NM 87110
Scholarships: A very limited number of reduced-fee scholarships will be available. If you want to attend but absolutely cannot without financial assistance, please email email@example.com. and explain your situation and we shall immediately review your request.
Bios: In order to familiarize ourselves with one another, please email firstname.lastname@example.org with your one-page bio (including any helpful/lengthier electronic links).
Most attending our training have reserved rooms at Bishops's Lodge, where we are holding the event. If you book with Bishop’s Lodge, please tell them you are with the Rebellious Lawyering. But like some others joining us, you may decide to book elsewhere in the Santa Fe area and make the easy 8-10 minute drive from downtown Santa Fe to Bishop’s Lodge. For your convenience, here are the names of only a tiny handful of the many other places local Santa Fe folks recommend: Hotel Santa Fe, La Posada, La Fonda, Santa Fe Hilton, Eldorado. No matter where you decide to stay, though, please do book early to avoid hassles finding a place.
Training Program Reader: We have prepared comprehensive readings and shall make them available to those who have registered.
Training Program Topics Will Include:
I. Arizona and The Nation – A Close Examination of The Entangled Situation
Informed by a range of sophisticated legal, historical, and cultural literatures, we’ll begin by exploring what is now happening in Arizona, in other states, and across the nation. Even the savviest observers find the state of affairs confused and confusing. SB 10710 only heightened an already ugly situation shaped by anti-immigrant state and local practices (think most obviously of the aims and methods of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office) and by increasingly militant federal government maneuvers (along the border and through ICE initiatives such as Secure Communities, 287(g), and Criminal Alien Program (CAP)). Xenophobia and racism can be traced throughout Arizona’s history, from Arizona’s longstanding subordination of Indians, Mexicans, and Chinese to its high-profile opposition to Martin Luther King Day. And some Arizonans carry forward this shameful tradition. Even in the face of Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling, vigilantes proudly trumpet their lawlessness, Sheriff Arpaio insists nothing has changed and it’s business as usual, and legislators urge everything from firing teachers with accents to overturning birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment. What does a study of legal, economic, political, cultural, and demographic forces tell us is happening here?
II. Litigation – Constitutional Politics and Strategies
In Arizona, seven lawsuits have been filed on behalf of diverse individual and organizational clients, in the name of the United States itself, and through the work of many law offices and lawyers. Relying upon the historically favored interpretation of the Supremacy Clause, Judge Bolton reaffirmed the constitutional order SB 1070 threatened to obliterate. But given the power struggle over “policing immigration,” constitutional politics will remain central to the current crisis. Gone are the days when Supremacy Clause jurisprudence seemed even to lawyers an obscure specialty and when Constitutional Law expertise could be regarded as far less than fundamental to the practices of on-the-ground activists. Gone are those days at least for any accountable and self-respecting advocate. We must become fluent about the appeal before the Ninth Circuit of Judge Bolton’s ruling and about other “big” civil rights lawsuits all across the nation. And we must recognize that “ordinary” immigration and criminal court proceedings and “everyday” street encounters provide practical moments of great constitutional significance. While formally the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply in deportation hearings (INS v. Lopez-Mendoza), resourceful administrative practitioners more than ever file motions to suppress evidence on Fifth Amendment grounds, for “egregious” Fourth Amendment violations, and for “pattern and practice” behavior. Ambitious “know your rights” educational campaigns equip immigrants detained by federal and state officers to make informed choices about how best strategically to insist on constitutional protections. And, even in “big” federal court lawsuits, lawyers and pro-immigrant advocates must make victories stick: After all, how do we effectively monitor compliance with Judge Bolton’s Order?
III. Comprehensives Immigration Reform
Few phrases get tossed around as much as “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” In its name, Senator Schumer successfully championed still more beefed-up border security and, in signing that law, President Obama praised that vote as another step toward comprehensive immigration reform. What does Obama have in mind? How do his views compare with those of, say, Faith leaders? Border communities? Congressman Luis Gutiérrez? To what degree do views about policies reflect not only political realities but implicit attitudes toward Latino (especially Mexican) and other immigrants? Many ask whether comprehensive immigration reform can ever become reality given a deeply pathological Congress. Some question President Obama’s commitment to this issue. Other still wonder whether such reform is really something immigrants and pro-immigrant supporters should even want: Has the promise of comprehensive reform already come at too great a price? And, going deeper still, from what perspectives and through what metrics should we examine the menu of possible policy trajectories?
IV. Protests & Resolutions & Boycotts – Our Wide World of Advocacy
In response to SB 1070, individuals, organizations, and government bodies have mobilized in diverse ways as part of advocacy campaigns. We have seen movie trailers, mass protests, local government resolutions, and calls to boycott Arizona. Mobilizations provide a way of expressing our views, acting collectively, and influencing perceptions, choices, and outcomes. But what exactly does it take to initiate and pull off a march in New York City? A protest in Phoenix? What led various cities and counties to declare they would no longer do business with Arizona? What prompted “big city” law enforcement officials to oppose SB 1070 and copycat laws? Even if we know how to mobilize in various ways, how exactly do we measure if these efforts work? Is it enough to feel solidarity? Is it enough to perceive that others take note of disrupted daily routine? Is it credible to insist that an earlier boycott led finally to Arizona’s recognition of MLK Day? Do protests influence policy makers? Judges? Public opinion? Do they cause backlash? Are they valuable and necessary and sensible no matter what?
V. Colorblind in Principle & ColorConscious in Action – Implicit and Explicit Bias
Many insist that we live in a colorblind world. They declare that we should not behave in race-conscious ways and, even more fundamentally, that we already have created a world largely free from racial (and racist) views. Colorblindness has become the constitutional and political norm. But science (not to mention everyday experience) insists otherwise. Empirical evidence of bias indicates we should reject confident claims about “perceptual, cognitive, and behavioral colorblindness.” Instead of insisting self-deludingly and destructively on colorblindness, we ought to admit to and deal with our colorconsciousness – at least some of us so urge. We ought to examine closely and report honestly – be “behaviorally realistic” about – how we in fact perceive and respond to others and how we might build a legal and social world true to what we know about ourselves and our institutions. A sophisticated race-conscious view puts an entirely new spin on racial profiling, however. And not just about law enforcement. What are the inevitable color-conscious tilts and tendencies of institutions and cultures and individuals? For example, how do we ourselves perceive immigrants? Latino immigrants? Mexican immigrants? How do such views influence our practices and our ideas about documented and undocumented migration? Can it really be true – as social science evidence suggests – that the election of President Obama weakened support for remedying racial injustices? Licensed greater favoritism of Whites? Should we resign ourselves to just being “hard-wired” racists? Should we accommodate “rational discrimination”? Can we admit to “perceptual segregation,” perhaps all the way down? Can we embrace a colorconscious vision that offers no certain blueprint for improving racial relations and requires perpetual vigilance, of ourselves as much as others?
VI. Data & Debate & Judgment
Arizona and the nation demonstrate, yet again, the powerful and perplexing relationship between data and debate and judgment. Robust and accurate information can grab people’s attention, give them pause, perhaps even persuade them of a view they never before imagined believing. That can be true about issues as varied as immigrants and crime, immigrants and health, immigrants and job markets and about the intended and unintended impact of laws like SB 1070 and federal programs like CAP, Secure Communities, and 287(g). And that can be true for judges, legislators, police chiefs, chambers of commerce and, perhaps most importantly, the diverse millions who make up the “public.” At the same time, though, people often refuse to reconsider their opinions even when confronted with significant information that rebuts “the facts” they assert and “the meanings” they attach to those facts. Governor Brewer immediately comes to mind. But the same reaction can be seen across the ranks of professionals and non-professionals, spanning every public and civic and private institution and every community. Understanding this inevitable dynamic, where can pro-immigrant advocates find the most sophisticated and reliable data? And how can they convincingly frame the best data in an environment where anti-immigrant and racist forces routinely fabricate and exaggerate empirical claims? What does hard-earned experience say about how we can tap rich sources of information (universities, think tanks, government reports, discovery in lawsuits and public record requests) not only to counter propaganda but to enhance the chances of a just approach to immigration?
VII. Working Successfully with Law Enforcement
Working with law enforcement is a necessity and not a choice. That will come as no surprise either to savvy activists or to administrative law theorists – or to those along[on?] the front lines fighting domestic violence. According to both street and fancy wisdom, law enforcement officers exercise more discretionary power – provide more access to or denial of justice – than any other group in United States life. Even those who question this wisdom would never deny the centrality of federal and state law enforcement in the current immigration crises: Especially in matters of public safety, the opinions of law enforcement agencies matter hugely to public perceptions, budgetary allocations, and policy formulations. What does it take to work well with beat cops? With chiefs? With law enforcement associations or coalitions? What does it mean to understand varied law enforcement perspectives? From those who prey on undocumented residents to those who protect immigrants vulnerable to xenophobic harms? Is it possible to work effectively with Border Patrol agents? With ICE? With federal and state prison officials? With Rikers Island correctional administrators and staff? With detention centers? Is it fanciful to imagine law enforcement as a major ally in the battle for just immigration practices and policies?
VIII. Ethical Questions & Quandaries
Today’s environment is permeated with ethical dilemmas. On a daily basis hard questions arise: What exactly can individual lawyers, bar organizations, and communities do as increasing numbers of lawyers and notarios abandon clients facing deportation proceedings? Can lawyers train immigrants to advocate for themselves without fearing accusations of encouraging or supporting the unlicensed practice of law? What advice should lawyers give health and other service providers confronted with policies restricting the help they can provide immigrants in need? Can local governments and their police opt out of Secure Communities? Can border patrol officers refuse to participate in programs that prove deliberately indifferent to the lives and well-being of people crossing the border? What legally can be done about growing anti-immigrant vigilantism? Yet where exactly do we look for guidance and support when there is a big mismatch between the codes of professional responsibility and many dimensions of on-the-ground rebellious work? And what does it mean, especially in today’s hostile environment, to develop a compelling rhetoric and rationale for “ethical borders”? In mundane and bigger-than-life moments, the very idea of morally principled practices has been put into issue – and mocked – by those who espouse “law and order” in order to “purify” the United States of undocumented immigrants.
IX. Distinctive Practices and Roles – Understanding and Collaborating
Even before the passage of SB 1070, the pro-immigrant advocates involved in the crisis included varied individuals and institutions, pursuing distinctive and overlapping practices. Think only of community organizers, public defenders, community-based non-profit lawyers, solo practitioners, Department of Justice lawyers, journalists, bloggers, faith congregations, think-tankers, notarios, attorneys advising law enforcement, national civil rights organizations, law school clinics, and international human rights advocates. While it has become commonplace to speak of the importance of both mission and collaboration, what exactly would these individuals and institutions define as their mission? With whom do they collaborate? To what degree do their on-the-ground practices include working regularly with immigrant communities? The failure to collaborate can show disrespect, squander resources, reduce effectiveness. In today’s environment such failures can doom heartfelt strategies. Let’s not be naïve or misleading, though. Efforts to build resourceful networks often seem far more trouble than they’re worth: Shirkers, free-riders, turf-protectors, and self-promoters act like viruses; misunderstandings and disagreements plague even good-faith team efforts. And, at the most fundamental level, ostensibly compatible practices may proceed from deeply divergent assumptions and aspirations: Do community organizers and civil rights litigators share compatible visions? Do solo practitioners and think-tankers? Without hiding from difficulties and imperfections, where do we see effective collaboration in Arizona and across the nation? In building immigrant capacity? In deportation practice? In litigation? In criminal defense? In media strategies? Along the border? In state capitals or cities or towns or rural areas? How can we spread the insight and discipline (best practices) to all those already implicated in and necessary to effective pro-immigrant practices?
X. Management (Supervisors, EDs, Board of Directors)
Crises typically surface serious management questions: How well prepared was an organization to shoulder responsibilities? How adaptable were staffers to quickly changing circumstances? How farsighted was a Board of Directors in picking leaders and shaping a team able to do well what they market themselves as doing well and to pitch in responsibly where voids need filling? Anti-immigrant hysteria in the United States certainly qualifies as a crisis. Institutions, organizations, and managers have been severely tested. If extraordinarily hard work yields satisfaction, many in the pro-immigrant universe still feel overwhelmed. And that of course means they cannot easily imagine focusing on management questions when they feel they can barely handle what’s in front of them. But we are among those who reject as false the dichotomy between meeting everyday demands and scrutinizing long-term planning. Indeed, in our view, we are in the midst of an especially revealing period about management policies and practices. We should not hide what we can learn (“warts and all”) about ourselves and our institutions, and we must now filter through what we must do to make ourselves better still at what we claim to do. Just how well do our work communities (offices, organizations, coalitions) understand our philosophy of practice? Our mission? Our mix of projects and roles? Just how well does each individual meet her or his responsibilities? Contribute to effective team efforts? What exactly should be done to improve along each front – in terms of the necessary intermingling of vision and execution? What exactly explains obstacles to improvement? And, even when explanations are speculative, how can work with immigrant communities be demonstrably improved?
Panelists and Moderators Include:
Janese Bechtol (Chief, Domestic Violence Section, Office of the DC Attorney General)
Kip Bobroff (Lead Organizer, Albuquerque Interfaith)
Stephen Carpenter (Senior Staff Attorney, Farmers Legal Action Group & Senior Counsel, Office of the Monitor, Pigford Case)
Eric Cohen (Executive Director, Immigrant Legal Resource Center)
Jaime Farrant (Policy Director, Border Action Nework)
Michelle Fei (Co-Director, Immigrant Defense Project)
Tara Ford (Co-Director, Pegasus Legal Services for Children)
Laura Gomez (Professor of Law and Sociology, University of New Mexico School of Law)
Bill Ong Hing (Professor of Law, USF School of Law, General Counsel Immigrant Legal Resource Center)
Kirsten Holmquist (Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law
Angie Junck (Staff Attorney, Former New Voices Fellow, Immigrant Legal Resource Center)
William Kennedy (Managing Attorney, Legal Services of Northern California)
Teresa Leger (Partner, Nordhaus Law Firm)
Gerald P. López (Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law)
Shauna Marshall (Academic Dean and Professor of Law, UC Hastings School of Law)
Alfredo Mirandé (Professor of Sociology and Ethnic Studies, UC Riverside; Solo Practitioner)
Russell Robinson (Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, Visiting Professor UC Berkeley)
Mark Silverman (Director of Policy, Immigrant Legal Resource Center)
Janeen Steele (Executive Director, Learning Rights Law Center)
Mina Tran (Partner, Palmer & Tran)
Keith Wingate (Associate Academic Dean and Professor of Law, UC Hastings School of Law)
Gerald López, J.D.
Professor of Law
UCLA School of Law
In 1975, after a clerkship with the Honorable Edward J. Schwartz, Gerald P. López joined Tom Adler, Roy Cazares, and Napoleon Jones in founding a San Diego law firm, specializing in criminal defense, civil rights litigation, and community mobilization. In 2003, he founded the Center for Community Problem Solving in New York City, working with low-income, of color, and immigrant communities to address social, economic, and legal problems. Professor López has served on the NYU, Stanford, and Harvard law faculties. Among the courses he currently teaches are Rebellious Lawyering Workshop, Reentry Clinic, Economic Development Clinic, Problem Solving Workshop, and Transforming Legal Education Workshop. He has litigated extensively, as lead counsel in a wide variety of criminal and civil matters, before trial courts, appellate courts, and the United States Supreme Court. With others, he has championed a rebellious vision of progressive law practice – and of the problem solving of which lawyering is one example. He has published many acclaimed community-focused books, including Reentry Guide to New York City (2005); Streetwise About Money (2006); A Fair and Just Workplace (2006), and many articles on problem solving, race, immigration, health of undocumented Mexicans, and legal education. He is the author of Rebellious Lawyering (1992), an influential book about lawyering, progressive law practice, and community problem solving. While the Kenneth & Harle Montgomery of Public Interest Law, he helped found the Lawyering for Social Change Program at Stanford Law School, and he is currently a core faculty member of the UCLA’s Critical Race Studies Program. He has been honored with many community, civil rights, and teaching awards, including Stanford and UCLA’s Teacher of the Year, The Rutter Award for Teaching Excellence, the University Distinguished Teaching Award, and the Eby Award for the Art of Teaching.
Bill Ong Hing, J.D.
Professor of Law
University of San Francisco School of Law and Professor Emeritus, U.C. Davis School of Law
General Counsel for Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Leading our faculty team will be Professor Bill Ong Hing. Widely regarded as the nation’s preeminent immigration lawyer and scholar, Professor Hing started his career as a staff attorney with San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation. He founded the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, one of the nation’s premier immigrant rights support center, and serves today as general counsel. He has been a member of the U.C. Davis, Stanford, and U.C. Berkeley faculties and currently teaches Rebellious Lawyering, Immigration Law and Policy, Evidence, and Negotiation. He has authored many academic and practice-oriented publications on immigration policy and race relations, including Ethical Borders—NAFTA, Globalization, and Mexican Migration (Temple University Press, 2010), Deporting Our Souls-Morality, Values, and Immigration Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2006), Defining America Through Immigration Policy (Temple University Press, 2004), and Making and Remaking Asian America Through Immigration Policy (Stanford University Press, 1993). His book To Be An American: Cultural Pluralism and the Rhetoric of Assimilation (NYU Press, 1997) received the award for Outstanding Academic Book by the librarians' journal Choice. Professor Hing has litigated extensively, including the precedent-setting Supreme Court asylum case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), and he is regularly consulted and retained as an expert witness in high-profile cases including Guzman v. US Immigration Customs Enforcement and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (U.S. District Court, Central District of California 2009) (deported U.S. citizen sued the government for damages). He serves on the board of and advises many national civil rights organizations, including Migration Policy Institute and ACLU of Northern California. He serves as a research consultant for the Urban Institute and the National Council of La Raza and advises philanthropic organizations, including helping the Emma Lazarus Fund of the Open Society Institute distribute $50 million to promote citizenship among immigrants. He has been included on national panels of immigration experts, including the Citizens Advisory Panel of the Department of Justice, the Committee on Immigrant Children and Family Health, and the federal Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, whose proposals became part of the the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. He has testified before Congress on numerous occasions, including testimony in 2002 relating to the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security. He is regularly quoted in major newspapers and national broadcast news, and his op-eds have appeared in the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Diego Tribune, and the Nation. In recognition of his advocacy and service, Professor Hing has been honored with a number of awards, including the Bay Area Asian Pacific American Law Student Association’s Outstanding Leadership Award (2009); Donald Cressey Award, National Council on Crime and Delinquency (2008); Keepers of the American Dream Award, National Immigration Forum (2007); University Distinguished Public Service Award, UC Davis (2003); Justice in Action Award, Asian American Legal Defense Fund (2001).
Kip Bobroff, J.D.
Kip Bobroff is a community organizer. He has devoted his career to public interest work and social justice. After studying national and international public affairs at Princeton and as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, Mr. Bobroff graduated from Stanford Law School in 1994, where he was elected Order of the Coif and awarded a Public Service Fellowship. In partnership with Levon Henry and sponsored by both Skadden and Echoing Green Fellowships, Mr. Bobroff focused on Navajo landowners’ rights, helping individuals and family and the Navajo Nation deal with complex legal and political and cultural issues, especially through policy and community education. Between 1997-2008, he served as member of the tenured faculty at the University of New Mexico School of Law, where he developed especially innovative courses on Federal Indian Law, educational reform, and clinical practice and wrote on Indian Law, including Retelling Allotment: Indian Property Rights and the Myth of Common Ownership (2001) and Dine Bi Beenahaz'aanii: Codifying Indigenous Consuetudinary Law in the 21st Century (2004-2005). In 2008, Mr. Bobroff left law teaching to become lead organizer with Albuquerque Interfaith, an affiliate of the Industrial Areas Foundation, the nation’s oldest and most extensive community organizing network.
Eric Cohen, J.D.
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Eric Cohen serves as the Executive Director of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), a national non-profit legal support center, one of the nation’s most respected and influential immigration organizations. A 1986 graduate of Stanford Law School, Mr. Cohen has been a staff attorney with the ILRC since 1988, combining litigation, community education, and policy work. He served for six years a co-supervisor of Stanford Law School’s Immigration Law Clinic, and he has extensive experience training attorneys and law students, including serving as faculty member in over 75 CLE trainings. Mr. Cohen pioneered group processing efforts for amnesty applicants, and he has created a often-emulated curriculum on immigrant leadership development and civic participation. He has helped developed the ILRC’s voter education and civic engagement campaign, and has co-authored many of the ILRC's manuals and other publications, including Motions to Suppress, Naturalization and U.S Citizenship: The Essential Legal Guide, and How to Successfully Appeal Naturalization Denials. And for nearly 20 years Eric has served as a liaison between community groups and the CIS (Citizenship and Immigration Services). The ILRC – the organization Mr. Cohen leads -- builds the capacity of attorneys, paralegals, organizers, service providers, immigrants, and others by providing legal technical assistance, trainings, and publications; assists immigrants with civic engagement projects to help expand immigrants’ rights and political power; and conducts policy and advocacy work related to immigration law and immigrant rights.
Tara Ford, J.D.
Pegasus Legal Services for Children
Tara Ford is the founder and Co-Director of Pegasus Legal Services for Children. For nearly two decades, Ms. Ford has been involved in children’s legal issue, providing direct legal representation to children and their caregivers, even while as a student at Stanford Law School. The very highly regarded organization Ms. Ford leads – Pegasus Legal Services for Children – is a award-winning non-profit agency that promotes, supports, and defends the rights of children to safe and stable homes, quality education and healthcare, and a voice in decisions that affect their lives. Ms. Ford and the Pegasus staff serve children, youth and their caregivers, especially through direct representation in administrative and court proceedings, community legal education, and policy advocacy. Praised and honored by policymakers, the Bar, and client communities, Ms. Ford is a frequent speaker at national and state conferences regarding the important role of education in children’s lives; she often teaches as an adjunct faculty at the University of New Mexico School of Law; and she regularly works with state and community stakeholders to develop policies that support children in New Mexico. In 2009, Ms. Ford provided consultation services to the International Medical Corps in Jordan to provide recommendations regarding needs of children living in institutions, either as a result of dependency or delinquency. And she and Pegasus have been honored with many awards, including the State Bar of New Mexico’s recognition of Ms. Ford in 2005 for her “Outstanding Contribution to People with Disabilities.”
Shauna Marshall, J.D.
Professor of Law and Academic Dean
Hastings College of Law
Shauna Marshall is the Academic Dean and a Clinical Law Professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Throughout her three decades as a civil rights litigator, clinical teacher, executive director, and dean, she has worked with colleagues, students, board members, funders, and clients and communities to foster effective collaborative decision-making. After graduating from Washington University and UC Davis School of Law, Dean Marshall served for five years as a trial attorney for the US Department of Justice and then joined Equal Rights Advocates (ERA) as a civil rights lawyer. Among her many significant achievements at ERA, she helped desegregate the San Francisco Fire Department through the strategic use of class action lawsuit, public education, and community mobilizing. As Executive Director of the East Palo Alto Law Project, she introduced management policies and practices that enhanced the staff’s and community’s capacity to address economic development, housing, domestic violence, benefits, and immigration problems. As a clinical law professor, she has worked with her students to give voice to clients denied disability benefits, decent housing, and fair wages, and she has written path-breaking scholarship, especially in the field of legal ethics (Mission Impossible?: Ethical Community Lawyering (2002). In her current role as Academic Dean, she works with all segments of the Hastings community to train ethical lawyers devoted to serving the public interest and the public good. Because of her extraordinary reputation as a gifted leader, teacher and lawyer, she is much sought out by this nation’s most prominent public interest organizations and law schools and universities, advising on wide range of managerial and ethical and pedagogical challenges.