By: Steve Grumm

Congrats, 1Ls!  Getting the first set of finals under your belt is a rite of passage.  (If you’re not feeling good about them, don’t despair.  If I had a nickel for every law student who didn’t excel in first semester but finished with a strong academic record…)

2Ls: finals are old hat.  But as you’ve now discovered, second year is quite busy and you’re dealing with more demands on  your time.  Still, you’ve hit the legal-education midpoint.  Huzzah!

Time to kick back, yes?  No.  Well, not entirely.  For sure, take a few days to decompress.  Connect with family and friends, read fiction, go for a jog.  I also used to unwind by tipping a pint or two at various Philadelphia watering holes with my classmate Irish Dan.  But I do not offer this as formal advice as 1) it’s not always the best stress relief solution and 2) I don’t want any 1Ls getting in trouble and then suing me based upon some obscure, 18th-century liability theory from their torts casebook.

One valuable pursuit during your semester break is setting up informational interviews with lawyers who work in fields you’re interested in and/or with employer organizations you’re attracted to.  Setting up these interviews can be an intimidating prospect.  At least a job interview is a well-defined proposition with a concrete desired outcome.  The end goal of an informational interviews is not a job, but rather insight into the everyday work of public interest lawyers, the challenges and opportunities present in certain practice areas, the cultures of employer organizations, and so forth.  You’re doing reconnaissance, essentially, that will inform subsequent job-search strategies.

Informational interviewing is a form of the dreaded “networking.”  When I was a law student I loathed the concept so much that I refused on principle to use “network” as a verb.  But I find informational interviewing less stress-inducing because its more formal structure 1) allows you to prepare and 2) greatly diminishes the awkward straining-to-make-conversation feeling that can creep in when you meet someone randomly at a social event.  Not to mention, there is helpful self-selection at work. Unless you’re blackmailing them or something, the only people who will agree to meet you for an informational interview are those kinds of people who like working with aspiring public interest lawyers.

How to set up informational interviews:

1. Begin with research on your own.  Use PSLawNet and other career resources to ID practice areas/settings and employer organizations that interest you.  When you’ve put together a list…
2. Share it with a career services professional at your law school.  Explain your interests and ask if 1) they know anybody at the organizations you’ve ID’d, 2) they have other employer organizations suggestions, and 3) they know any alumni who work in the fields you’re interested in.
3. Identify specific people to contact within your ID’d organizations.  This, if you don’t have a contact already, can involve taking an educated guess.  If you want to practice family law with a civil legal services provider, I suggest reaching out to the managing/supervising attorney of an organization’s family law unit.  I would try to find someone on a management level, but below the head of the office (i.e. the executive director, district attorney, etc.).  The exception to this rule would involve a small office.  If the DA’s office consists of the DA and her two deputies, then outreach to the DA would be fine. 
4. I recommend email as a first resort.  (If you have reason to know that the attorney whom you’re reaching out is an old-fashioned type, then a letter may be best.)  A concise note explaining a) who you are, b) why you’re writing (i.e. in hopes of meeting) and 3) why you want to meet should suffice.  Close by thanking the person in advance and by requesting that if there is someone else in the office with whom you should speak, to let you know or to forward your message to that person on  your behalf.
5. Once you’ve got a meeting set up, prepare much like you would for a job interview.  Do your homework about the organization and learn what you can about the person whom you’re meeting with.  The significant difference in preparation between informational and job interviews is this: during informational interviews you’ll be asking most of the questions.  The tables have turned here, so take advantage.  Don’t interrogate the person you’re speaking with, but prepare a handful of questions that will get the answers you seek.
6. When you’re finished, say thanks in person and again via email.  If it goes well, and if you’re otherwise inclined, it’s fine for you to ask if your new contact would keep you abreast of job openings that may match your interests. 

If you want others’ takes on this topic, here are some  informational interviewing tips from Washington & Lee, from Seattle U. and from Ohio State.

Have a relaxing and joy-filled holiday season.

By: Steve Grumm

2011 was a great year for legal education, right?  Right?  [Crickets.]

In “The Year the Chickens Came Home to Roost,” the National Law Journal’s Karen Sloan offers her top 10 legal education stories.  Making the cut: schools fudging admisssions data, grads use their legal skills to sue their alma maters, Sen. Boxer takes the ABA to the mat, law school finals go to the dogs, etc., etc., etc.

By: Steve Grumm

It feels awfully un-rebellious to include an explanatory parenthetical in the post title.  But anyway, the conference is colloquially known as RebLaw.  Registration is open.  Sign up, spend the weekend in New Haven, meet public-interest-minded students, profs, and practitioners from around the country.  Some background:

RebLaw is the nation’s largest student-run public interest conference. Every year the conference brings together practitioners, law students, and community activists from around the country to discuss innovative, progressive approaches to law and social change.

We hope that RebLaw 2012 will be full of conversations that challenge not only the state of the law but also ourselves and our own preconceptions. We will strive to create a safe and nourishing community for all rebels, providing a variety of outlets to channel the passion and outrage we bring to the conference. By encouraging all forms of expertise and experience, we will value and amplify the creativity and insights we all possess. Grounded in a sense of where all of our work fits into broader movements, we will work together to hone our tools for change. RebLaw 2012 will be a success to the extent that it inspires courageous thinking, supportive relationships, and radical action.

Some logistical details:

What: The Eighteenth Annual Rebellious Lawyering Conference. The RebLaw Conference is an annual, student-run conference that brings together practitioners, law students, and community advocates from around the country to discuss innovative, progressive approaches to law and social change.
Where: Yale Law School, New Haven, CT.
When:  Friday, February 17–Saturday, February 18, 2012
Cost: Standard registration is $30. Registration is free for members of the Yale, UConn, New Haven, and Quinnipiac communities.

RebLaw Homepage & Registration: http://www.yale.edu/reblaw/index.htm

RebLaw Facebook page:  http://www.facebook.com/pages/RebLaw/198623836882539

By: Steve Grumm

Happy Friday, dear readers.  From my perch here in Washington I’m looking at a freakishly warm December morning, a disappointingly cold cup of coffee, a newspaper headline about Newt Gingrich (what year is this?) and a stack of unwritten holiday cards (a phenomenon that recurs every year, Newt or no Newt).  This week’s Bulletin contains a little bit of everything.  Here’s what we’ve got: 

• a new Connecticut provider to serve DV and human trafficking victims;
• ACLU of Montana critical of state’s public defense program;
• speaking of, a class-action over Georgia’s long-criticized public defense system may settle;
• young lawyers in “The OC” lend aid to the county’s legal services program;
• more public defense funding woes, this time addressed by Missouri’s high court;
• an unexpected glut of federal employee retirements;
• too many strings attached to law student summer public interest funding?;
• “A call for prosecutorial accountability”;
• Expanding New York State’s appellate pro bono program;
• A veterans diversionary court program in Oklahoma;
• LSC funding cuts hit hard in Mississippi;
• A formerly deferred associate recounts a formative experience representing DV victims;
• more medical-legal partnerships needed in the Lone Star State?
• cash-strapped government law offices leveraging private bar resources.

Here are the summaries:

• 12.15.11 – a new nonprofit law office in Connecticut will serve a highly vulnerable population.  From the New Canaan Observer: The Rights, Advocacy and Empowerment (RAE) Law Group has been formed to “promote, enforce and advocate for the rights of victims and survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation. The group will serve clients in Fairfield, New Haven and Middlesex counties.”  RAE apparently takes referrals from other service providers and provides representation for a “modest fee.”

• 12.15.11 – indigent defense trouble in the Treasure State.  From TV station KXLH: “The ACLU of Montana asserts there are many problems with the state’s public defender system and it’s asking the Montana Legislature to do its part in ensuring the agency operates smoothly.  If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you, and it’s likely the public defender could also be managing about 200 other cases….  The report also states attorneys aren’t getting the feedback and training they need to be successful in the courtroom.”  A lack of funding is seen as the main culprit.  Here’s a link to the ACLU’s report, which is being published 5 years after the Montana moved from a county-by-county to a statewide system.  The news isn’t all bad, but funding still is lacking.

• 12.14.11 – a class action regarding Georgia’s embattled indigent defense system may be settling.  The AP reports (and this is the whole article so no need to click through): “The Southern Center for Human Rights says a potential settlement has been reached in a class-action lawsuit that claims the state of Georgia must provide attorneys to handle the appeals of dozens of convicted criminals.  The case had been scheduled for a hearing before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Jerry Baxter on Thursday. Kathryn Hamoudah of [SCHR], which brought the case, said Wednesday the settlement was not yet final and she did not know the details.  Plaintiffs want the state to make changes to make sure hundreds of indigent defendants have lawyers to represent them in their appeals. They claim cuts to the statewide public defender system has robbed them of their constitutional right to make their case.  The lawsuit was filed in 2009.”
   
• 12.14.11 – as a native Philadelphian I have little use for Orange County, CA.  From afar it seems so La-la Land-ish.  The OC did produce punk rock juggernaut Social Distortion, but otherwise it’s not my bag.  Nevertheless, here’s some good news about young lawyers pitching in to aid an overburdened legal services provider.  The Orange County Register reports that the Legal Aid Society of Orange County’s evictions unit is staring down LSC funding cuts and swelling caseloads.  The county bar’s young lawyers division heeded a call for help.  The YLD’s chair hoped “for maybe 10 volunteers [to handle pro bono eviction cases], but more than 40 responded to the call. Two weeks ago, about 35 went through training in wrongful-detainer law, and another session will be held in a few weeks. Then they’ll start taking cases.” 

• 12.14.11 – Show Me Oral Arguments!  A long-simmering controversy concerning the overburdened Missouri public defense program made it to the state’s high court.  Last year a defender refused new cases because the office’s caseload was overwhelming its ability to represent clients.  From the Springfield News-Leader: “The question is simple on its face: Does the Missouri Public Defender Commission have the authority to turn away defendants?  But the issue, taken up in oral arguments Tuesday in the state Supreme Court, splintered off into discussions ranging from constitutional rights to ethical burdens, from separation of powers to rule-making authority. No clear solution was offered.  The judges…also didn’t give an indication of how they are leaning. [E]ach stated conflicting concerns — forcing public defenders to represent clients regardless of caseload concerns or leaving the decision to local judges to find representation for poor defendants.”

• 12.12.11 – Uncle Sam is losing workers left and right to retirement.  From the Federal Times: “Retirement applications for the first 10 months of 2011 soared 24 percent from the same time last year, topping 92,000, according to statistics from the Office of Personnel Management….”  OPM Director John Berry told Congress last month…” that the rising retirement rate “…was likely caused by cash-strapped agencies offering buyouts and taking other steps to cut their workforces.”  What does this mean for aspiring civil servants?  The good news is obvious: open positions.  The bad news, of course, is the government-wide hiring freeze.  But the freeze has some cracks in it.  (That’s metaphor torture, for those scoring at home).  Agencies can still hire to fill “mission-critical” positions, so it’s not as though federal recruiting has stopped altogether.  This could bode well for law grads looking for a way in.

• 12.12.11 – is it becoming too burdensome for law students to get summer public interest funding from their schools?  From every law school dean’s fav periodical, U.S. News and World Report: “It’s fellowship application season for first and second year law students who want to work in public service law next summer. Many law schools offer…summer fellowships, which provide a stipend ranging from several hundred to several thousand dollars, to students who pursue service-oriented roles rather than positions at big firms…. Many law students and J.D.’s report that their public service internships were fulfilling…. But some say that the internship applications come with too many requirements, warning aspiring public servants to carefully consider whether to participate.  Many law schools…require students to do between 5 and 10 hours of volunteer work on campus, and some also insist that students volunteer at fundraising auctions. ”  Oh, the horror!  I’m okay with requiring someone to do 5 hours of service to qualify for funding.  If nothing else it may separate the truly public-interest oriented students from those who would rather be at a firm but wish to hedge their bets.

• 12.12.11 – “A Call for Prosecutorial Accountability” appears as an op-ed in the National Law Journal: “Last term, the Supreme Court…limited municipal civil liability for prosecutors in Connick [v. Thompson]. In justifying this holding in part by stating that prosecutors are ‘personally subject to an ethics regime designed to reinforce the profession’s standards,’ the Court pointed to the existence of the [ABA] and state grievance mechanisms that set ethical standards for prosecutors and discipline them when they break the rules.  [Yet] new research analyzing the policies and procedures for disciplining attorneys in each state…shows that prosecutors are rarely held accountable when misconduct occurs….  Inspired by the Connick decision, students from the Liman Prosecutorial Mis­con­duct Research Project at Yale Law School examined the basis of the reliance on current attorney-sanctioning mechanisms. The resulting investigation of the disciplinary procedures in various states found that the process and results are largely inadequate for investigating claims of misconduct and holding prosecutors accountable.”

• 12.12.11 – “One year after establishing an experimental pro bono civil appellate program to handle family law appeals for people who cannot afford counsel, the New York State Bar Association is expanding the initiative to several other areas of law,” according to the New York Law Journal.   “Two upstate nonprofit organizations, the Legal Project in Albany and the Rural Center of New York in Plattsburgh, are providing staff support. The program is supported by a grant from the New York Bar Foundation.  During the first year, volunteer attorneys handled six appeals before the 3rd Department, one of them precedent-setting.  According to the American Bar Association, the State Bar’s pro bono appellate project is one of only 10 such programs in the country.”

• 12.11.11 – The Oklahoman looks at a diversionary judicial program for veterans in the Oklahoma City area.  “Veterans who get into legal trouble in Oklahoma County can apply to the program. Those who qualify have to go before a board that includes prosecutors, public defenders, counselors and veterans advocates. If they are selected for the program, they sign a contract agreeing to participate.  If they fail the program, charges can be refiled. Part of the contract includes waiving the statute of limitations on their case. They are not required, however, to plead guilty to a judge.”  The county prosecutor’s and public defender’s offices joined forces to create/administer the program.

• 12.10.11 – the LSC cuts are hitting hard in Mississippi.  From the Clarion-Ledger: “[T]wo Legal Services programs in Mississippi that provide civil legal help for the poor will see federal funding reduced by more than $821,000 in 2012.  The cuts in funding for the Mississippi Center for Legal Services, which serves 43 counties in the central and southern part of the state, and the North Mississippi Rural Legal Services, which serves 39 counties in the northern part of the state, were the result of a 14.85 percent reduction nationally in federal spending for Legal Services programs…. About 600,000 poor people in Mississippi are eligible for services, and about 30 attorneys are available in Mississippi for Legal Services.  The number of Legal Services attorneys is about one per 20,000 low-income residents.”

• 12.9.11 – a formerly-deferred DLA Piper associate recounts the positive experience he had spending his deferral period with the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation’s domestic violence project.  After recounting two of his emotionally charged case experiences, he closes the piece: “Now, I am a second-year associate…working mainly in construction law. I am constantly aware of how much there is to learn about this area of law, and about practicing law, period. But learning the ropes in a court…with real live clients whose safety may be at stake, and in an often intense courtroom setting, forced me to understand how to respond swiftly and how to think outside of the box…. [T]hose experiences are easing my path from naïve, wide-eyed associate to useful lawyer…. I am very grateful to my firm and to AVLF for allowing me to start my practice with this experience. Serving as a Deferred Fellow turned out to be both incredibly useful and a great luxury: it gave me confidence, and it gave me the time and the support to learn skills I will always be able to use throughout my career.”

• 12.9.11 – more MLPs needed in the Lone-Star State?  From the Public News Service: “When a health problem persists despite medical treatment, the real issue could be a legal matter. There’s a growing national trend toward medical-legal partnerships (MLPs), which help people figure out whether they might benefit from lawyers in addition to doctors.  A weak economy and state budget cuts have been magnifying the need for such assistance, according to Priscilla Noriega, who directs an MLP in the Brownsville office of Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid.”

• December, 2011 – The December ABA Journal reports on how cash-strapped government law offices are leveraging private-bar resources to help stay afloat.  The Chicago Law Department is benefiting from the services of four local firms. And it turns out this isn’t a new trend.  “Since 2002, New York has saved approximately $84 million in legal fees” while benefiting from pro bono or “loaned associate” programs from law firms.  The article also looks at the L.A. City Attorney’s practice of recruiting law grads for six-month volunteer stints prosecuting misdemeanors, and the U.S. DOJ’s practice of recruiting unpaid Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys. (A few months ago I also wrote about the SAUSA trend.)

by Kristen Pavón

I don’t think so.

However, some students are frustrated by the “abundance of paperwork” and volunteer hours they have to put in to get their check. Some are even going so far as labeling the requirements an exploitation of student labor.

Apparently, some law schools require summer stipend recipients to do between 5 and 10 hours of volunteer work on campus and at fundraising events [to raise dinero for future stipends].

From U.S. News

Many law students and J.D.’s report that their public service internships were fulfilling, and schools’ websites celebrate students’ and alumni’s decisions to serve the public. But some say that the internship applications come with too many requirements, warning aspiring public servants to carefully consider whether to participate. . . .

A student at Cardozo, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, says he didn’t mind the abundance of paperwork he had to fill out to apply for the public interest stipend he received last summer. But as an “already stressed out” 1L, he didn’t think he should have had to do office work for the school and cold call alumni. . . .

[Leslie] Thrope [director of Cardozo’s Center for Public Service Law] says the stipends help students develop legal skills and transform people’s lives, but Cardozo can’t afford to fund them without students volunteering at an annual auction that raises funds for the stipends. “[T]he requirements are right up front when a student chooses to participate,” Thrope says.

In my opinion, offering 10 hours of your time to help out the law school so that another public interest enthusiast can have an opportunity to do good work is not a biggie.

*As an aside, if you do have your heart set on doing public interest work during the summer and have yet to find the bankroll to do so, check out our Summer Funding Page. There are over 50 funding sources listed!

What do you think? Would you apply for a summer stipend with a few strings attached during your 1L year?

Yesterday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at the Lyndon B. Johnson Library & Museum in Austin, Texas about the Voting Rights Act and the reality that there are jurisdictions across the country that use “both overt and subtle forms of [voter] discrimination.”

Watch a video of his speech here. Or read his speech here.

Equal Justice Works is hosting a live, free webinar this Friday. Mark your calendars!

Drowning in Debt? Learn How Government and Nonprofit Workers Can Earn Public Service Loan Forgiveness

December 16, 3:00 – 4:15 p.m. EDT

A must-attend for anyone with high student debt working for the government or a nonprofit, this free webinar explains how you can benefit from the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, the most significant law affecting public service in a generation.

From this interactive webinar, you will learn and be able to ask questions about:

• Understanding your Federal loans
• How to qualify for Public Service Loan Forgiveness
• How the Income-Based Repayment plan works

Click here to view a schedule of EJW’s free, live webinars that teach you how loan repayment assistance and relief programs work, and to register for an upcoming session.

by Kristen Pavón

From the Florida Constitution:

The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education and for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of institutions of higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of the people may require. . . .

Two years ago, Southern Legal Counsel (SLC) in Florida filed a lawsuit, on behalf of two nonprofits, two students and four parents, alleging deficiencies in the public education system that violate the state’s constitutional duty (as described above).

A couple of weeks ago, the First District Court of Appeals issued an En Banc Order denying the state’s motion for a writ of prohibition, and certifying a question of public importance to the Florida Supreme Court — the question being whether the education clause in the state’s constitution sets forth judicially ascertainable standards that can be used to determine the adequacy, efficiency, safety, security and high quality of public education on a statewide basis.

SLC alleges that Florida has failed to adequately fulfill its duty by providing insufficient funding for public education, shifting responsibility for educational funding to local governments, providing inadequate resources for teachers‘ salaries in particular, and adopting a so-called accountability policy that is an obstacle to high quality.

Additionally, SLC alleges that Florida’s public schools are not safe and secure, that graduation rates are too low, that student promotion and retention policies are ineffective and that results of achievement tests reveal various inadequacies.

I’m interested to see how this case turns out. You can read more about SLC’s work here.

Thoughts?

by Kristen Pavón

An excellently written blog post titled Sweet Home Alabama? Immigration and Civil Rights in the “New South,“ popped up today on HuffPost by Kevin R. Johnson, a professor at UC Davis Law.

Johnson doesn’t get into the details of Alabama’s harsh immigration law, but he illustrates similarities between the state’s intolerance to undocumented immigrants and Latinos today and to African-Americans in the 1960s.

It should be troubling that Alabama, ground zero in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, gave birth to the harshest immigration law to date. Many famous incidents in that state — from Birmingham Police Chief Bull Connor unleashing fire hoses on peaceful civil rights marchers to Governor George Wallace proclaiming “segregation now, segregation forever” in his 1963 inaugural address — remain indelibly imprinted on the national imagination. As in the days when segregationists championed “states’ rights,” we again hear objections to the intervention of the federal government as it attempts to defend immigrants’ civil rights through lawsuits challenging state immigration laws. Alabama now risks going down in history for its intolerance toward undocumented immigrants and Latinos as well as African-Americans.

Additionally, Johnson posits that we are at a civil rights crossroads and we must start making some decision about how we want to treat immigrants. Our ambivalence will only breed more turmoil.

…In my estimation, the United States, much as it was in the 1960s, is at a civil rights crossroads. Millions of immigrants and undocumented immigrants live in the United States. Employers value their labor. Consumers gain from lower prices. The economy as a whole benefits. But legally, the nation has been at best ambivalent about how to treat immigrants, especially undocumented ones, in the eyes of the law. Most fundamentally, what rights do they possess? We as a nation must address these civil rights questions. Until then, we can expect more turmoil in the states and, consequently, continued threats to the civil rights of immigrants and U.S. citizens of particular national origins.

Read his entire post here, or read his law review article, full of great primary secondary source citations, here.

by Kristen Pavón

Happy Friday, readers! For those of you gearing up to take rock final exams, good luck! Remember to schedule in some relax time between study time! Here’s a happy-fluffy story to kick off your weekend!

There is a great article in the November/December edition of Diversity & the Bar profiling Sylvia Novinsky, the Assistant Dean for Public Service Programs at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

Novinsky founded and coordinated UNC’s Pro Bono Program back in 1996. Since then, the program has grown exponentially. The Program, manned by 12 volunteer law students, matches students with attorneys that work on pro bono cases.

The law school and the North Carolina Bar Association acknowledge the students’ efforts when they hit 50, 75, or 100  hours of service.

Read more about Novinsky’s journey to UNC’s Pro Bono Program and the personal struggles she’s fought past to continue instilling a desire in law students to give back.