Maryland Legal Clinic May Avoid Funding Cuts
We’ve been posting about the ongoing controversy between the University of Maryland legal clinical program and the state legislature (we have more to read here, here, and here, in reverse chronological order). Just to recap, the environmental law clinic at the University of Maryland School of Law was involved in a lawsuit against Perdue Farms and a supplier farmer regarding alleged pollution in the Pocomoke River. Perdue Farms is a major employer in the state and an all around important-presence, and turned to the state legislature to go after the clinic. About two weeks ago, the Senate approved a budget resolution that would cut $250,000 in funding for the University if the clinic did not disclose its clients and expenses for the past two years. The House of Delegates was considering even harsher measures, that could have cut three-quarters of a million dollars if the clinic did not comply with the demands for information.
Well the National Law Journal reported yesterday afternoon that the House on Friday approved an amendment that requires the clinic to disclose information for the past two years, but does not threaten any funding cuts. Additionally, it only requires the disclosure of documents in the public record, such as court filings. Observers of the controversy were concerned that the Legislature would demand confidential case files.
The two versions of the resolution must be resolved, but School of Law Dean Phoebe Haddon is hopeful the Senate will accept the less harsh version passed by the House, though she is still upset by the reporting requirements.
“I remain convinced that the obligation to report on cases in active litigation interferes with the judicial process, I recognize the hard work that has led to this point and hope the Conference Committee will agree to the amendment that unanimously passed the House [Friday],” Haddon wrote.
[Updated] We wanted to share a few other links that are discussing the current state of legal clinics, and the Maryland situation in particular. The Chairman of the Board of Visitors for University of Maryland wrote a letter to the editor in the Washington Post this weekend defending the clinic. The editorial board at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch weighed in on the importance of strong legal clinical programs, and vowed to defend the local ones vehemently if they should ever come under attack. Finally, the New York Times published an article Saturday discussing the Maryland case as well as several other similar situations, including showdowns at Rutgers University in New Jersey and Tulane Law School in Louisiana.