By: Steve Grumm

Happy Friday Wednesday, dear readers, from a dreary Washington, DC.  I did quite a bit of grumbling before arriving at the office this morning.  A car running through a puddle splashed me but good while I was jogging.  And at 8am I still didn’t manage to beat the last-minute food rush at the super market.  But now, here I sit with coffee, a bagel, and some quiet.  “Hell is breakfast with other people” is a humorous variation on a quote from John Paul Sartre.  And this morning, a quiet breakfast is perfect.  But as Thanksgiving approaches, I eagerly look forward to sharing a table and a meal with others.  Between the people who inhabit my life, the comforts I enjoy, and the work I do, I have much to be thankful for.  And I will try hard amidst the food and the football (yay!) and the minor holiday stresses to keep feelings of gratitude at the fore.  I hope that you will do the same.  Happy Thanksgiving.   

But you’re not here for sappy rumination.  This is what we’ve got:

• a restrictive cy pres decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals;
• troubles plaguing Michigan’s indigent defense system;
• public defender’s office in Sonoma County, CA feeling $ strains;
• Defense Department to kick a little funding toward pro bono programs for service-members;
• speaking of service-members, this veteran who joined a DA’s office isn’t, well, human;
• LSC cut to hit the Pennsylvania Legal Action Network hard;
• ditto for the two Wisconsin LSC grantees;
• ditto ditto in Virginia;
• A law graduate work program in Utah will have students offering “low bono” services.

This week:

• 11.21.11 – cy pres news from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, coming down against an award that would have gone (in part) to the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA).  From the Recorder: “The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Monday rejected a class action settlement that called for AOL Inc. to give $110,000 to random charities, sending a message that courts should be more careful in doling out money under the cy pres doctrine.  A unanimous panel said the charities had nothing to do with the plaintiffs’ email privacy claims and that too much money was being funneled to Los Angeles groups, despite a class spread out across the country. And the court expressed skepticism about whether judges or mediators should make recommendations on how large sums of money get paid out when the money doesn’t go to the class members.”  

• 11.21.11 – Michigan’s indigent defense system has been foundering.  This is the gist of a Michigan Public Radio story looking at the much-maligned, county-by-county public defense framework in the Great Lake State.  A 2008 report from the National Legal Aid & Defender Association found that the quality of indigent representation varies greatly from county to county, and that overall the state ranks 44th in total indigent defense funding.  In the report’s wake, the ACLU of Michigan has filed a lawsuit to improve the system, and the governor formed a commission to find solutions.

• 11.21.11 – public defense funding woes in Sonoma County, CA.  From the Press-Democrat: “The recession has increased demand in Sonoma County for court-appointed lawyers at a time when the public defender’s office is short-handed.  Retirements and a round of layoffs have reduced the number of lawyers available to serve indigent clients to the lowest level in years. The office is down to 27 lawyers and 18 support staff representing clients in criminal, civil and juvenile courtrooms.  At the same time, caseloads have spiked. Attorneys made 115,000 court appearances in fiscal 2009-2010 compared to about 71,000 appearances a decade earlier.  This month’s loss of two attorney positions through budget cuts forced Public Defender John Abrahams to suspend misdemeanor court coverage and focus on more serious felony cases.” 

• 11.21.11 – good news for service-members who need legal services.  From the National Law Journal: “The U.S. Senate this week is expected to vote on a measure that would help fund programs that provide pro bono legal services to active military personnel. The amendment was introduced by sens. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)… The amendment would allow the Defense Department to designate up to $500,000 of its $184 billion fiscal year 2011 operation and maintenance budget for programs similar to those set up by the ABA and the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Michigan.”  $500,000 isn’t exactly a huge chunk of change in the larger appropriations scheme, but it’s signifies a recognition that service-members can be hamstrung when confronted with legal problems on the home-front.

• 11.20.11 – speaking of service-mmebers, a veteran of operations in Afghanistan has recently returned to the U.S. and taken up a post in a local D.A.’s office.  Nothing terribly newsworthy about this, right?  Well the veteran, Andy, isn’t a person.  Andy’s a pooch.  When Assistant District Attorney Jason Beato – who is human -joined the DeKalb County (Georgia) prosecutor’s office after service in the Army, he brought with him Andy, a bomb detection dog whom Beato had adopted when Andy’s primary handler was injured.  Of Andy’s service abroad, Beato says, “For all practical purposes he [was] a team member—he just can’t talk and that’s about it—and he sheds a lot more.”  Andy will likely go to work in the D.A.’s office doing courthouse security work – and probably boosting morale along the way.  good story. Read more in the blog post from the Champion Newspaper.  

• 11.20.11 – “Legal aid: The need is there, so should the funding” is the verb-deficient title of an otherwise well-intentioned editorial from the Patriot-News in the Glorious Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The editorial laments the recent LSC cut coming on top of legal services funding cuts on the state level: “The Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network expects a $2 million cut in federal funding plus frozen allocations, and funding cuts on the state level during past years have put the organization close to what the appropriation was in 1976…. Legal Aid predicts the funding imbalance means another 10 percent staffing cut, and this is after the service already is at bare bones. It also could mean closing at least two offices statewide.”

• 11.19.11 –  the circumstances are similar in Wisconsin. Both Badger State LSC grantees (Wisconsin Judicare and Legal Action of Wisconsin) are bracing for LSC funding cut’s impact.  This will come on top of a complete loss of state funding.  From the Capital Times in Madison: “The 2011-13 state budget cuts, which took effect this year, stripped Judicare of $350,000 per year in funding, about 17.5 percent of last year’s budget, and cut about $1.3 million a year in revenue for Legal Action. The federal cuts will strip $176,000 more from Judicare’s budget, and $540,000 from Legal Action’s.”

• 11.18.11 – the LSC cut will impact the Virginia Legal Aid Society to the tune of about 7% of its budget, or $180,000.  According the VLAS executive director David Neumeyer (as quoted in the Suffolk News Herald), “Keeping up with the demand for our services is already a huge challenge, and now with this cut I’m afraid we’ll have to turn away even more people who have nowhere else to turn…. This loss of funding will mean we cannot increase capacity and will need to start reducing staff size in 2012 if we do not bring in significant new income,” he said. “Private giving, like donations, foundations and United Ways, are the only hope we have of making up part of the loss, because government funding will not increase for the foreseeable future.”

• 11.18.11 – the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law is launching a program through which recent grads will provide legal services to moderate-income clients.  From the Salt Lake City Tribune:  “The…new University Law Group is intended to expand the availability of legal services and service-learning opportunities, according to law dean Hiram Chodosh.”  This is a variation of the law school “bridge” programs which provide work-experience opportunities for recent grads who face a tough employment market.

Should the grievances motivating the “Occupy” movement cause corporate law firms to rethink their role in the financial services industry?  Are attorneys who counsel banks and investment outfits really acting as counselors, or merely as facilitators?  Interesting questions.

Writing in today’s National Law Journal, Columbia Law School professor Katherine Franke argues that “the [Occupy Wall Street] protests should motivate us to consider anew what it means to be a professional lawyer, particularly in a climate where our expertise is being used to provide cover for otherwise unethical financial practices.”

Franke writes:

By and large, it’s investment bankers who have been in the protesters’ crosshairs, but the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) demonstrations also offer an opportunity to consider what role lawyers may have played in the creation of these sophisticated financial instruments, enabling the overreaching decried on the OWS protesters’ placards. Behind every credit default swap or short of subprime mortgage-backed assets sit legal counsel sanctioning these practices. The greed that has motivated bankers to sacrifice the public’s interests for short-term personal gain has been made possible, in no small part, by the work of lawyers.

…

As legal educators, we are reminded to teach our students that being a “good lawyer” must include the cultivation of responsible moral judgment. Implicit in the OWS protests is a condemnation of an approach to lawyering that regards all legal rules simply as the price of misconduct discounted by the probability of enforcement: Skirting too close to, if not over, the limits of law is seen as the cost of doing business, or as my colleagues trained in economics call it, “efficient breach.”

This kind of zeal at the margins was wholeheartedly condemned by the likes of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who taught us that responsible lawyers play a regulatory role with regard to their clients: “Instead of holding a position of independence, between the wealthy and the people, prepared to curb the excesses of either, lawyers have, to a large extent, allowed themselves to become adjuncts of great corporations and have neglected the obligation to use their powers for the protection of the people.” These words of Brandeis are as true today as they were when he wrote them in 1914.

by Kristen Pavón

Last year, we told you all about the controversy surrounding U. of Maryland’s Environmental Law Clinic’s case against chicken farmers, or as we called it — Big Chicken.

Just to catch you up to speed —

The clinic is representing the Waterkeeper Alliance, a New York-based environmental group with 18 chapters in Maryland. The group filed suit in March 2010 against Perdue and the Hudsons, who raise more than a half-million chickens a year on their 293-acre farm, after spotting water running into a drainage ditch from a pile of what was later identified as treated sewage sludge. The group also measured high levels of bacteria from waste in the ditch, which ultimately drains into the Pocomoke River.

[Gov.] O’Malley voiced his concern last year about the clinic’s lawsuit, when rural legislators unhappy with the case threatened but eventually backed off from withholding funds for the law school.

After about 19 months, Gov. Martin O’ Malley has renewed his complaints about the ongoing case.

In a letter that became public Thursday, O’Malley wrote to law school Dean Phoebe Haddon this week to complain about the “ongoing injustice” of the environmental law clinic pursuing “costly litigation of questionable merit” against Alan and Kristin Hudson, who raise chickens for Perdue on their Worcester County farm.

“He just thinks it’s gotten to the point of being a misuse of resources,” Guillory said. . . .

Haddon countered that the governor’s letter contained “some inaccuracies,” though she did not cite any. She noted that a judge had denied an early motion by the Hudsons and Perdue to dismiss the case. She told O’Malley that the state’s rules of professional conduct bar the clinic from dropping its client, and she warned that his views, which have now become public, could prejudice the case and interfere with the student lawyers’ relationship with their clients.

“I urge you to let the judicial process resolve this matter,” she concluded.

Read more here.

By: Steve Grumm

Happy Friday, dear readers.  The News Bulletin took a break last week, so I didn’t get a chance to offer Veterans Day thanks to my favorite vet: Thanks Dad!  This week we return with a broad range of content.  Sadly the most significant story is that of the congressional cut of $56 million in Legal Services Corporation funding.  In summary here’s what we’ve got:

• Themes emerge from ABA’s October pro bono summit;
• Large LSC funding cut;
• A look at “veterans court” programs;
• Best places to work in federal government;
• Funding woes facing NC legal aid lawyers;
• More LSC: a development in the LSC/CRLA legal proceedings;
• More more LSC: 5 additions to the Pro Bono Task Force (including a friend of mine!);
• LAFLA + TCC = SoCal MLP;
• USAJobs Version 3 stumbles out of the gates;
• Funding news about Minnesota legal aid lawyers, defenders, and prosecutors;
• The worst of the foreclosure crisis yet to hit NY courts;
• Demand for Maryland Legal Aid Bureau’s services going nowhere but up;
• The Big Easy’s public defender seeks more local funding; and
• Practice-area specialization in law firm pro bono: yea or nay?   

This week(s):

• 11.16.11 – in the L.A.-based Daily Journal, O’Melveny & Myers’s managing counsel for pro bono David Lash recaps his experience at a first-ever Pro Bono Summit hosted by the ABA last month: “We agreed upon and built on a number of themes:
  • Pro bono involvement by the private bar leverages meager resources right now;
  • Professionalization of the pro bono legal services delivery system is critical to maximizing that leverage;
  • Pro bono programs will be only as effective and help only as many clients as the size and strength of the country’s legal aid providers will allow;
  • The advantages of technology must be better tapped …to bring more services to more people in more areas.”

• 11.15.11 – the week’s biggest news is bad news.  Congress has cut Legal Services Corporation funding by over $56,000,000 (about 14%).  Here is National Law Journal coverage, and here is a press release from LSC.  The most recent news, that of the House and Senate passing the bill and of its expected signature by President Obama, comes from The Hill.  No good comes from this.  Programs will be forced to cut staff and reduce services at a time when more and more Americans need legal assistance.  One partially mitigating factor is that some LSC grantee programs planned to absorb a budget-cut shock in their budgets.  But that doesn’t change the underlying reality: a cut in legal services funding at a time of acute need means fewer poor people will be served.  And there will be fewer lawyers to serve them.  Indeed, the NLJ article reports: “In 2010, the groups had 9,059 employees, including 4,351 lawyers. But they shed 445 staffers – including more than 200 lawyers – during the first half of 2011.”

• 11.15.11 – Should some veterans’ offenses be adjudicated in a specialized civilian court?  A piece in the The Atlantic explores this question: “Nearly 80 veterans courts have sprung up across the country over the past four years, and 20 more are expected to open by the end of this year. Many courts accept only nonviolent offenses. Some, like Dallas County, also take violent crimes on a case-by-case basis. Most consider only those veterans who are struggling with mental-health or substance-abuse problems. Many of the judges, lawyers, bailiffs, and court administrators have served or have family in the military, and some volunteer for the courts before or after normal hours. (One attraction of veterans courts is their low local cost, a result of this volunteerism and the provision of counseling by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.)”

• 11.15.11 – want to know who’s happiest working for Uncle Sam?  The Partnership for Public Service has released its 2011 “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government” report.  There are no specific ratings for lawyers’ job satisfaction, but the report offers general insight about which agencies cultivate happy, motivated workforces. 

• 11.14.11 – according to the Public News Service, there are hard times on the horizon for both legal services and indigent defense lawyers in the Tar Heel State.  The state cut 20% of its funding to Legal Aid of North Carolina.  “The cuts have forced [LANC] to close four offices and lay off 60 attorneys….  The hourly rate for public defenders was cut as well, and a lapse in funding expected in March of next year will force those attorneys to work without pay until the fiscal year begins again in June.”

• 11.14.11 – the Legal Services Corporation’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) scored a legal victory in its effort to gain access to otherwise confidential client information held by California Rural Legal Assistance attorneys.  From McClatchy’s “Suits and Sentences” blog: “The subpoenas [that OIG sought to enforce] will enable investigators to troll through some 37,000 case files, as they search for evidence that California Rural Legal Assistance attorneys may have strayed into politics or in other ways [run afoul of LSC restrictions on grantee program activity]. The legal-aid organization has already turned over some 6,000 pages and several megabytes of data; now, they will have to turn over client names and other information as well.”

• 11.14.11 – more LSC news.  From a press release: “John G. Levi, Chairman of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), today announced the addition of five new members to the Board’s Pro Bono Task Force.  The new Task Force members are Judge Diane P. Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Deborah Leff, Deputy Counselor for Access to Justice at the U.S. Department of Justice; Larry S. McDevitt, Chair of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service; Linda K. Rexer, Executive Director of the Michigan State Bar Foundation, and Angela C. Vigil, Partner at Baker & McKenzie LLP and the firm’s Director of Pro Bono and Community Service for North America.”  Hey, that’s my buddy Angela!  Good choice.  The task force is playing an important role for LSC because a message that came from Capitol Hill in the appropriations process is that engaging the private bar must be a priority.  LSC has long done this but I suppose that the funding cut will necessitate a re-exploration of the best ways to harness private bar support.

• 11.9.11 – Fun with abbreviation: in SoCal, LAFLA and TCC have formed an MLP.  From a press release: “The Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA) and The Children’s Clinic, “Serving Children and Their Families” (TCC) in Long Beach have formed the Greater Long Beach Medical-Legal Partnership to provide an integrated approach to health-related, legal challenges faced by low-income individuals and families in their everyday lives, particularly in the areas of housing, family law and public benefits.”

• 11.8.11 – Government Executive catches us up on the federal government’s efforts to solve glitches in the new USAJobs website: [An official] announced that the number of resumes uploaded to the redesigned website is fast approaching 1 million. Many users have complained that not all the information on their resumes is being properly uploaded to their online applicant profile.  [The official] explained that though all the information is there, users cannot see the resumes in their entirety. The USAJobs team will be addressing these visibility issues in the coming week, along with a continued focus on password-reset complaints, which remain the topic generating the most help desk tickets.”

• 11.7.11 – Minnesota Public Radio catches us up on funding difficulties confronting civil legal services lawyers, public defenders, and prosecutors in the North Star State.  Some takeaway (and note that Hennepin County is where Minneapolis sits):

• [S]tate funding makes up one-third of [Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance’s] budget. This year, the state reduced its contribution…by $1.6 million.  [MMLA] has already had to cut positions because of decreases in funding from their other public and private sources…. In 2009…they had 73 attorneys; at the beginning of 2012, they’ll be down to 55.
• Unlike Legal Aid, the State’s Board of Public Defense got a slight increase in their state funding…. but it’s not enough to make up for past years of budget cuts [according to Hennepin county’s chief defender]…. [H]e doesn’t have enough lawyers to keep up with caseloads that are more than double the amount recommended by the American Bar Association.
• [Hennepin County Attorney Mike] Freeman said county attorneys haven’t received pay raises in several years. And his office hasn’t hired a new attorney in the last 10 years, he said.

• 11.7.11 – a Thomson Reuters piece conjures up a scary prospect: the full impact of the foreclosure crisis has yet to hit New York courts.  “The flood of foreclosure cases created by the subprime mortgage fallout and high unemployment rates is expected to clog cash-strapped New York courts for the next several years, a New York judge told members of the state Assembly….  [T]he number of homeowners in foreclosure cases who are unrepresented by attorneys has risen from 63 percent in 2010 to roughly 67 percent in 2011….And cuts to the state court budget have decreased the number of judicial hearing officers available to preside over foreclosure settlement conferences, which were made a mandatory part of foreclosure cases in 2009….According to a 2010 report from the New York State Unified Court System, the number of foreclosure cases pending in 2010 rose to 77,815, up from 54,591 the year before.”

• 11.6.11 – a story in The Capital, based in Annapolis, MD, highlights the swelling demand for services at the Maryland Legal Aid Bureau, as well as the changing demographics of its client community.  “[A]s the economy has slowed…former middle-income wage earners are flocking to Maryland Legal Aid to take seats next to the traditional low-income clients…. Legal Aid…has seen its annual caseload increase from about 40,000 in 2007 to nearly 70,000 in the fiscal year that ended in June….”  MDLAB has seen huge increases in unemployment and other public benefits cases.  One nitpick: the article refers to a “shortage of lawyers willing to work in lower-paying public service roles.”  Come again?

• 11.5.11 – the Times-Picayune on indigent defense funding in New Orleans:  “The head of the Orleans Parish public defender’s office…asked City Council members to increase the agency’s budget for next year, saying the state cannot bail the agency out of its $1.9 million shortfall. Derwyn Bunton, the chief public defender, said his office is looking at cost-cutting measures and whether some of the clients can afford to pay for part of their legal representation. But the sheer magnitude of cases at Orleans Parish Criminal District Court and cutbacks from the state will leave the agency with a deficit next year unless the city provides more money….”

• 11.4.11 – on his “Access to Justice” blog, Richard Zorza explores whether law firms should focus on an area (or areas) of pro bono practice in order to build institutional expertise and deliver high-quality, efficient representation.

by Kristen Pavón

In a press release today addressing a 14 percent reduction in funding for 2012, Legal Services Corporation’s Chairman John G. Levi echoed the access to justice crisis concerns and warnings we’ve all heard before.

Federal funding has long been the cornerstone for legal aid, and essential to fulfilling our nation’s promise of equal justice for all.  We all understand that the rule of law is in jeopardy when the protections of the law are not available to increasingly large numbers of low-income citizens—especially victims of domestic abuse, the elderly and people facing the loss of  their homes. The nation’s poverty population has never been this large, and, as a consequence, requests for civil legal assistance are increasing.

He also outlined three ways LSC is trying to do its part in promoting access to justice:

1. Expanding partnership and collaborations
2. Using the newly established Pro Bono Task Force to identify innovative practices that can help increase pro bono services
3. Exploring how to more effectively use technology

There are lots of great and innovative ideas out there about pro bono and how to address our access to justice crisis and many conversations have taken place — now is the time for implementation. Let’s do.

Read Levi’s entire statement here.

If you work for an LSC-funded organization, how are you adapting to the funding cuts? How, if at all, will you fill the gaps?

Thinking about working for the federal government? Well then, the Partnership for Public Service’s new report on the best places to work in the federal government is worth a look.

The report rates agencies on 1) employee skills/mission match, 2) strategic management, 3) teamwork, 4) effective leadership, 5) performance based rewards and advancement, 6) training and development, 7) support for diversity, 8 ) family friendly culture and benefits, 9) pay, and 10) work/life balance.

However, one caveat is that the report does not reflect data on attorney satisfaction. It gives a broad look at the agencies. A quick glance at the percent change column shows that most agencies’ scores went down a bit. Hmm.

Check out Partnership’s list here and make sure to browse through the scores by category (or view the list with all the categories on one page here).

Department of Justice, the largest employer of attorneys in the nation, made it to #11 on the overall score list — out of 33 large agencies.

Also, check out score analysis over at The Washington Post.

Terrible news.  From a National Legal Aid & Defender Association email:

Last night House and Senate conferees agreed to a spending package that would fund the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) at $348,000,000 for FY 2012.  This figure represents a reduction in overall funding for LSC of $56,190,000, or 13.9 percent.  The entire cut comes from funding for basic field programs, amounting to 14.8 percent of the critical funding used by LSC grantees to provide access to justice in the United States.  The figure represents a split in half of the difference between the level the Senate appropriated for FY 2012 of $396.1 million and the House level of $300 million. 

It appears that, despite a heavy educational campaign by supporters of legal services aimed at conservative members in the House, the pressure on House Republican conferees resulting from the earlier deep cuts in the House appropriations bill led to their insistence upon this level of cut before they would agree to a final overall spending deal funding the Commerce, Justice and Science functions of government.   Despite the expressed strong support of conferees Barbara Mikulski and Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Senate, and Chaka Fattah in the House, the intransigence of House leadership on this issue led to the unfortunate compromise resolution.

 The package is expected to pass the House and Senate this week.  The Conference Report containing the agreements is not open to amendment on either the House or Senate floor.  Thus, the LSC figure contained with the Report is likely to be the final spending figure for FY 2012. 

By: Steve Grumm

Our blog isn’t really a “breaking news! astonishing developments!” kind of outlet, unlike, well, almost all news outlets.  But here we have some public interest lawyers in action in real time to preserve the Occupy Wall Street encampment.

From the Washington Post:

Hundreds of police officers in riot gear raided Zuccotti Park early Tuesday, evicting dozens of Occupy Wall Street protesters from what has become the epicenter of the worldwide movement protesting corporate greed and economic inequality.

Hours later, the National Lawyers Guild obtained a court order allowing Occupy Wall Street protesters to return with tents to the park. The guild said the injunction prevents the city from enforcing park rules on Occupy Wall Street protesters.

At a morning news conference at City Hall, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city knew about the court order but had not seen it and would go to court to fight it. He said the city wants to protect people’s rights, but if a choice must be made, it will protect public safety.

By: Steve Grumm

The last car I owned was a 1991 Honda Civic.  If the police attached a GPS tracker to it, my car would have quadrupled in value.  But that’s beside the point.

Yesterday in U.S. v. Jones the Supreme Court heard arguments on the questions of whether, according to SCOTUSblog:

 (1) Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent’s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether the government violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent.

Supreme Court observers generally found the high court wary of such government power.  A National Law Journal recap from Marcia Coyle offers:

Police use of GPS surveillance and society’s expectations of privacy clashed in the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday as justices weighed new technology and its impact on Fourth Amendment rights.

With multiple references to the novel 1984, a majority of the justices seemed uncomfortable with the federal government’s defense of law enforcement’s warrantless use of a GPS tracking device on a suspected drug dealer’s car over a four-week period. But the justices also struggled to find a legal way to regulate that type of surveillance.

Writing in SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denison notes:

The argument in the much-anticipated case of U.S. v.  Jones (docket 10-1259) left a solid impression: the Court, though it is unsure just how much privacy remains in the new  digital world, does know just enough about the GPS device to see in it a considerable threat to people’s right to be let alone. 

By: Steve Grumm

Below is a link to a short survey that NALP and the NALP Foundation are distributing nationwide to attorneys in nonprofit and government practice.  The “Law School Experiential Learning: Opportunities and Benefits” survey is designed to learn:

1. how many attorneys in government and nonprofit law offices took experiential learning courses (e.g., clinics, externships, skills courses) as law students; and
2. how these courses have contributed to the attorneys’ effectiveness in practice today.

The survey is part of an important discussion about how the legal education curriculum can be shaped to produce the best attorneys.  We are especially interested in receiving replies from attorneys who have been in practice for fewer than seven years, but encourage all attorneys to complete the survey.

• Survey link:                https://survey.vovici.com/se.ashx?s=17CFEB6018D8CBFC
• Deadline:                     December 9, 2011
• Time to complete:      5-10 minutes
• Distribute to:               Attorneys in nonprofit and government practice.  Please distribute this survey far and wide among colleagues.
• Confidentiality:           NALP and the NALP Foundation will never release any research that can be used to identify either an individual or an employer.  We also will not share an individual attorney’s survey response with their employer.

The survey results will be published in a comprehensive report, expected in Spring 2012. We performed a similar survey among law firm associates last year, and the 2012 report will include comparisons between the two groups’ experiences. 

Here is a link to a PDF version of the survey in case attorneys wish to review it before completing or distributing to others: http://tinyurl.com/6sufzr4.  (The PDF survey version is provided for review purposes only.  The online survey should be completed and submitted.)

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Steve Grumm, NALP’s Director of Public Service Initiatives, at sgrumm@nalp.org or Judy Collins, NALP’s Director of Research, at jcollins@nalp.org.  We appreciate you taking the time to assist us in this important effort.