Yesterday, Stanford Law announced that it completed the first phase of reforms to its legal curriculum. The school started theses changes in 2006.

Stanford Law School’s JD program preserves the essential components of a rich, traditional legal curriculum while leveraging the rest of Stanford University to enable law students to understand their future clients’ needs through courses and joint degree programs coordinated with Stanford’s other top-rated graduate programs and departments. Students also develop sophisticated problem-solving skills through multi-disciplinary project courses, which present real-world business and policy problems, and they are exposed to professional practice through full-time work in a clinic that offers experience in a wide range of practice areas—from Supreme Court litigation to corporate transactional law.

Read more here.

Interesting. Thoughts?

Well, we’re not sure if they’ll be joining forces just yet, but groups in Alabama have reached out to large automakers with a presence in the state to meet and discuss the discriminatory law and the collateral consequences affecting their businesses.

From National Council of La Raza Executive Director Janet Murguia’s HuffPost piece:

Evidence of the detrimental effects that this legislation has had on business in Alabama continues to mount. A new report by the University of Alabama estimates that HB 56 could cost the state between $2.3 billion and $10.8 billion in economic output, $264.5 million in tax revenue, and 70,000 to 140,000 direct and indirect job losses. The heavy-handed nature of HB 56 has also created an unwelcoming environment for foreign investment. In fact, after the law was implemented, a German Mercedes-Benz manager and a Honda executive from Japan were detained for not carrying the identification documents required under HB 56.

This is why this coalition of civil rights and labor organizations reached out to the three top foreign automobile manufacturers in Alabama–Honda, Hyundai, and Daimler AG, which owns Mercedes-Benz–requesting a meeting to discuss the problems surrounding this discriminatory law. The automobile industry was at the forefront of rebuilding Alabama’s economy in the aftermath of the civil rights crisis that gripped the state throughout the 60s’ and continues to rely heavily on the Latino population for growth. These companies are also some of the most innovative in the world with solid records promoting diversity. We strongly believe that their companies should not want to do business in a state that is trying to replicate some of its most egregious sins of the past century.

We are very pleased to announce that NCLR has received a response from Hyundai and that we hope to be sitting down with them in the very near future. We also hope that other prominent automakers and businesses leaders will follow suit so that we can work with them to restore justice to the state of Alabama. NCLR, the Latino community in Alabama and nationally, and our partner organizations are determined to do whatever we can to repeal this repellent law.

Let’s see what happens… Thoughts?

The United States Patent and Trademark Office – Commissioner for Trademarks offers a paid summer internship program for Law School students at our Alexandria, VA campus.

As a Student Trainee (Law) you will be responsible for, but not limited to, providing the following legal and administrative support activities:  handling research requests for examining attorneys, senior attorneys and managing attorneys to determine the registrability of trademarks under §§ 1, 2 and 45 of the Trademark Act (Lanham Act) and conducting research into ownership, disclaimer, identification and specimen issues.  The majority of the research is conducted on Lexis/Nexis, the internet, and other electronic databases.  Research is also conducted in trade publications, dictionaries and other paper-based sources.

Additionally, participants may be given the opportunity to draft an appeal brief for an ex parte appeal concerning a trademark application.

For more information, see the full listing at PSLawNet!

Like in the movie The 300, these folks deserved better.  From Government Executive:

A prestigious postgraduate fellowship program run by the Office of Personnel Management has acknowledged it sent acceptance letters to about 300 applicants by mistake in January.

The Presidential Management Fellows program had 9,077 applicants, nominated for the program by their graduate schools, for 2012. Of those, 628 were ultimately chosen as fellows and 1,186 were semifinalists. All semifinalists were invited to conduct in-person interviews.

Approximately 25 percent of the semifinalists received erroneous acceptance letters, according to Fox News.

The Madison-based Center for Media and Democracy, the non-profit, non-partisan publisher of PRWatch.org, ALECexposed.org, SourceWatch.org, and BanksterUSA.org, has openings for summer 2012 legal interns.

This summer, legal interns will assist with a project tracking “independent” election spending made possible by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, in addition to other projects. Tasks will include legal and non-legal research and analysis, drafting internal memos as well as short articles, and other tasks to be assigned.

Learn more at PSLawNet!

By: Steve Grumm

Happy Friday, dear readers.  I’m traveling home to Philadelphia, where I will eat soft pretzels, catch hometown band Marah, and see photographer Zoe Strauss’s Phila. Art Museum exhibit.  Before the public interest news summary, here are some other news items that have captured my attention of late:

• Here’s a Wash. Post piece on managing Millennial Generation (a/k/a “Gen. Y”) employees that cuts through the criticisms that some Boomers and Xers lob at their younger colleagues – “they’re entitled; they’re know-it-alls” – and provides concrete tips for boosting Millennials’ happiness – and their productivity – in the workplace.  Now that that’s solved, how do we stop Millennials from dressing like it’s the 1980s?  No one needs that again.
• Despite the relatively positive jobs numbers reported last week, the government sector is faring poorly.  From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:  “Over the past 12 months, the [government] sector has lost 276,000 jobs, with declines in local government; state government, excluding education…”  This doesn’t speak directly to lawyer jobs, and based on data from NALP’s recent public interest employment market report I don’t think lawyers bore the brunt of gov’t. job cuts.  But the lawyer-employment picture isn’t rosy.  For instance, over half of local gov’t. law offices (excluding prosecutors and defenders) which responded to our Fall, 2011 survey were in a hiring freeze.
• This Wash. Post piece on a mini-trend of Chinese language immersion programs in U.S. elementary schools makes me wish I’d reconsidered immersing myself in 4 years of high school Latin.   

Okay, this week’s public interest news:

• indigent defense reform in Massachusetts plods along;
• needed: indigent defense reform, plodding or otherwise, in NOLA;
• Maryland legal services providers facing bad funding news;
• 5 myths about pro bono;
• DOJ to put ~$2.4 million in grant funding toward improving indigent defense;
• a $200K gift for a Philly legal services provider;
• but an inland California provider is going month-to-month with expenses;
• in Wisconsin, low prosecutor pay = high prosecutor turnover;
• the 25-year evolution of clinical legal education is the focus of a new law review volume;
• survey results shed light on what kinds of pro bono cases law firm lawyers are taking. 

The summaries:

• 2.8.12 – indigent defense reform in Massachusetts plods along…kind of.  For the second straight year, Gov. Deval Patrick has called for public defenders to [represent more] indigent clients, but members of the board overseeing the state’s public defense system are pushing back, suggesting the plan may be too much, too soon.  The governor’s budget proposes to hire 281 new public defenders to handle 50 percent of the case work for indigent criminal and civil defendants. If adopted, the state would shift further shift away from a reliance on private bar advocates and Patrick believes the state will save nearly $10 million in fiscal 2013.”  The board is concerned that Patrick is pushing change too quickly.

• 2.7.12 – in New Orleans trial judges are figuring out what to do following the public defender’s announcement about layoffs which include senior lawyers with large caseloads. (Report from WDSU TV.) A few days back a Times-Picayune editorial put the NOLA PD’s financial straits into context: “Eight out of every 10 criminal defendants in New Orleans are poor enough to need a publicly paid defense attorney. That makes the severe budget cuts in the Orleans Parish public defenders’ office a crisis that threatens the progress in prosecuting crimes…. [The defender’s office] announced this week that a budget shortfall had forced [the] lay off [of] 27 employees, including 21 attorneys.”  That’s one third of the office’s attorneys. 

• 2.6.12 – bad news for civil legal service funding in Maryland.  The Baltimore Sun reports: “A major funder of legal services for the poor will shave its grants by at least 5 percent across Maryland — even after dipping into its reserves.  The 34 agencies that receive money from the Maryland Legal Services Corp. have been told to submit requests for grants next month that are 5 percent below current amounts because it is facing a ‘significant’ funding shortfall…. The…two main funding sources — the surcharge on court filing fees for civil cases and [IOLTA proceeds] — have been hit by the economy.

• 2.6.12 – writing in the National Law Journal, Pro Bono Institute prez Esther Lardent identifies and debunks “Five Myths about Pro Bono.”  The myths:
  •  Law firms only want “sexy” pro bono matters;
  • Pro bono at large firms is dropping precipitously;
  • In-house pro bono is a passing fad;
  • Pro bono can supplant legal aid;
  • It’s all about the hours.

• 2.6.12 – from the ABA Journal: “U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder today announced two new [DOJ] programs aimed at helping to bolster indigent defense services at the state and local levels….  [T]he National Institute of Justice…will begin…soliciting applications within the next few weeks for grants to support research on fundamental issues of access to legal services…at the state and local levels. He said the institute will commit up to $1 million to support these grants.  Holder also said that, later this spring, the…Bureau of Justice Assistance will solicit applications from state and local jurisdictions for grants that would support on-the-ground efforts to help assure that defendants have access to counsel at the earliest stages of criminal proceedings; provide support for members of the private bar in representing indigent defendants; reduce caseloads; and support oversight of public defender and assigned counsel systems. Up to $1.4 million will be dedicated to this grant program.”  Here’s some Nat’l. Law Journal coverage of AG Holder’s remarks on the importance of a solid indigent defense system, made at the ABA’s midyear conference.

• 2.6.12 – good – nay, great – funding news, for a change.  The Phila. Business Journal reports that Community Legal Services received a $200K gift from Philly law firm Raynes McCarty.  Congrats, CLS!

• 2.5.12 – a story about the work of the Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino included a troubling passage about LASSB’s funding: “[A recent grant ensured that LASSB] could make payroll one more week and have a little money left over….  The organization, with an estimated $2 million annual budget, almost constantly searches for money to pay 13 employees, operate its office and provide services throughout the county….  ‘We are living right now from paycheck to paycheck,’ [executive director Roberta] Shouse said. ‘My bookkeeper tells me that we do not have enough money to go until Dec. 31.’  Since 2007, Legal Aid’s number of clients has increased from 4,485 to 5,071. Meanwhile, the organization lost nearly $139,000 from 2010 to 2011. It expects to lose about $110,000 in funding this year.  (Story from the Press-Enterprise.) 

• 2.4.12 – here’s a detailed report on the serious problem of low prosecutor pay and high prosecutor attrition – cause, meet effect – in Wisconsin.  One departing prosecutor, leaving after 5 years, referred to her “dead-end job.”  The low pay has led to a staffing reality that a lot of public interest organizations see: “There are newbies, potential retirees and not much in between in prosecutors’ offices.  Forty-two percent of assistant [DAs] have been in the field for fewer than five years and a third have more than 17 years of experience…”  Legislative proposals allowing for raised pay levels are in the works, but in the current fiscal climate few are counting on quick solutions.  (Article from the Appleton Post-Crescent.)    

• February, 2012 – the current edition of the New York Law School Law Review focuses on the evolution of clinical legal education over the past 25 years – 13 articles by my count.

• February, 2012 – some survey reporting from the folks at Pro Bono.net sheds light on what types of cases pro bono advocates are taking: “Family law and immigration were among the most popular areas for pro bono work in 2011, according to the 229 Probono.net members who took a recent survey on “Your Year in Pro Bono.” The survey, conducted during December 2011, looked at which areas of legal need were of interest, and why. Family law emerged as a top priority, with more than 27% of those responding having handled a family law matter as their last pro bono case. Following was immigration, at 15%. Other areas of interest included asylum, housing and military and veteran’s affairs. The survey showed a strong commitment to pro bono, with 52% of respondents having taken on their last case in the last three months, and 69% within the last six months. Awareness of the growing justice gap seems to be driving this activity.”

There’s only two weeks left to complete our Public Interest Salary Survey!

—

Participate in the National Association for Law Placement’s 2012 Public Sector & Public Interest Attorney Salary Survey.  Every two years, NALP conducts this unique survey to gather important data on attorney salaries, benefits packages, and loan repayment assistance programs.  Public interest law offices rely upon this survey data to set salary scales, negotiate union contracts, implement loan repayment programs, and for other purposes.

Who should participate?

• Civil Legal Services Organizations
• Public Defenders’ Offices
• District Attorney/Local Prosecutors’ Offices
• All other nonprofit, public interest law offices (e.g. those organizations that promote civil liberties, human rights, advocate for the homeless, etc.)

A survey instrument was mailed to public interest organizations throughout the country on 1/19/12.  An electronic version is available here: https://survey.vovici.com/se.ashx?s=17CFEB607A3193C6.  A PDF is available for hard-copy printing here: http://tinyurl.com/89bjqqh.  (Please complete only one version of the survey.)

All survey participants will receive a free electronic copy of the report when it is released later in the year.  The survey response deadline is February 24, 2012, but we encourage you to complete it as soon as possible.

Please contact Steve Grumm, NALP’s Director of Public Service Initiatives, with any questions: sgrumm@nalp.org or 202-296-0057.

From the National Law Journal:

The ABA’s House of Delegates voted unanimously on Feb. 6 to adopt a resolution urging the council to “ensure that the exam reflects what the exam is designed to measure, and not the test taker’s disability.” The vote came during the ABA’s midyear meeting in New Orleans.

The resolution called upon the council to make its policies clear to people with disabilities; to inform applicants of decisions in a timely manner; and to provide adequate time for appeals of denials of accommodations.

The delegates also took issue with a practice known as “flagging,” by which the council alerts law schools to applicants who have received extra time to complete the LSAT. The resolution was largely symbolic, as the ABA lacks power to compel the council to act. . . .

However, not everyone is totally against LSAC on this one.

University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law professor Laura Rothstein, who previously has served on the council’s task force on disabilities, responded in writing to the resolution and urged caution. Some undergraduate institutions “overaccommodate” students, she wrote.

She defended “flagging,” saying the council’s analysts have concluded that “it is not psychometrically sound to report test scores of accommodated tests (extra time) as being comparable to those taken under standard conditions.” . . .

The [Law School Admission] council has reported that it receives requests for accommodations from about 2,000 people each year and makes decision on a case-by-case basis. About 50 percent of those requests are granted in some form. The most common accommodations are a separate testing room, extra time to take the test and extra rest time between sections of the test. People with learning disorders account for the single largest group of accommodation seekers.

Read the rest here.

AARP Services (ASI), a wholly-owned for-profit subsidiary of AARP, seeks a law student for a paid internship for approximately 15 hours per week during this semester. 

The intern will work under the guidance of the attorneys and support staff of the ASI Office of General Counsel (OGC) on a variety of special projects primarily related to ASI’s legal contracts with the third-party entities that provide benefits to AARP members.

Learn more at PSLawNet!

by Kristen Pavón

You may have heard about the debate brewing over unpaid internships (mainly in the for-profit world). What’s that? No,  you haven’t? Ok, I’ll fill you in.

Because of the economy, the numbers of unpaid internships are on the rise and more and more people are stepping up and a) suing their former employers, b) calling unpaid internships at for-profit organizations illegal, unfair and exploitative, or c) fighting the push back and are lauding these opportunities as a win-win for all parties involved.

The distinction between for-profit and non-profit/government is made because Department of Labor standards for unpaid internships only applies to for-profit companies. Employers must meet the following criteria in order to have an unpaid intern (from employment attorney Camille Olson’s Room for Debate post):

• the training is comparable to that given at a vocational school;
• the training must primarily be for the benefit of the student;
• the student must not replace a regular employee;
• the employer cannot immediately benefit from the student’s activities (for example, the intern cannot deliver mail, sort files, conduct market research, write reports, schedule interviews, or perform any other work that assists the employer in running its business unless the benefit received by the employer is outweighed by the training time that is provided to the intern);
• there can be no promise of a job following the training;
• and both the employer and the student understand that no wages will be paid.

This week, contributors gave their opinion for the New York Times’s Room for Debate . Among the five contributors was David Lat, founder of Above the Law. He was the only contributor who had experience in an unpaid public service law opportunity and because of that, I was interested in hearing his thoughts on the subject.

Lat interned with the federal prosecutors office in New Jersey and while he didn’t get a paid position with the office immediately, he did work there later on (I know this because he and researcher and author of Intern Nation Ross Perlin were guests on Minnesota Public Radio on Tuesday).

Lat is in the answer “c” group — he believes unpaid internships are win-win. His only caveats are contract-based — the unpaid internship needs to be mutually beneficial and entered into freely by both parties.

I’m inclined to agree — in the public service/non-profit realm. While I do feel the unpaid interns’ pain on the cash-flow front, the experience I came away with was worth it. All of the orgs I worked for had structured or semi-structured intern/clerk programs and the attorneys were willing and able to teach me — this makes a huge difference when deciding whether or not to take an unpaid position.

Aside from practical legal skills, I also left organizations having made strong connections with public interest attorneys, which to this day I’ve found to be completely invaluable.

I know that if a position were to open up at any of the organizations I interned with, I would be a top (if not the) candidate for the job because they are familiar with me, my work ethic and the quality of my work product.

My advice is this: do your homework when looking at unpaid positions. You want to make sure it will compensate you in ways other than monetarily — ask questions about the internship structure, work space, supervising attorneys, mentoring, etc.

Where do you land on this issue? A, B or C?