by Kristen Pavón

The University at Buffalo Law School Women, Children, and Social Justice Clinic started a new project aimed at removing a common barrier to safety for domestic violence victims — not having a safe place for their pets.

Between 25 and 40 percent of battered women with pets feel they can’t escape abusive situation because they worry what will happen to their animals if they leave. Seventy-one percent of pet-owning women entering shelters reported that their batterer had harmed, killed, or threatened family pets.

Through the new Animal Shelter Options for Domestic Violence Victims project, UB Law faculty and students provide individuals with resources to secure the safety of their pets and work to raise awareness about the link between domestic violence and pet abuse.

The Clinic has also developed an online database with information on programs that can either house victims’ pets or have a direct referral system to agencies that will accept pets.

You can learn more about the Women, Children, and Social Justice Clinic’s work here.

By: Steve Grumm

We’ve covered the topic of how federal employees sometimes shoulder criticism as overly comfortable bureaucrats.

Here’s a Washington Post op-ed by a foreign service officer offering some

I WANT YOU: To stop criticizing my peoples.

pushback:

I am a federal bureaucrat. A professional government employee. And guess what? I’m damn proud of it.

It seems that all I hear these days are the once and future leaders of our country tripping over themselves to denigrate the work we do. I’m tired of it, and I’m fed up. I don’t claim to represent anyone other than myself, but I would bet that a fair number of federal employees feel as I do. We are lawyers, doctors, PhD students, economists, writers, electricians, construction workers, security officers and technology specialists. We are not a drain on the national economy; rather, we are a primary reason why the United States remains as great as it is.

Like many federal workers, I have sacrificed: a high-paying job in the private sector; a year of my life (and the first six months of my daughter’s life) spent in Iraq; long hours; high stress; pay freezes. I’m not complaining; in fact, I quite enjoy my career and my life in the Foreign Service. Yet when I hear our politicians talking about “fixing” Washington, I often wonder to myself: whom would they like to “fix?” Is it the guy I see on the Metro every day, heading to work at the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that our food is safe? Is it the woman going into Commerce Department headquarters to support U.S. companies abroad? Or do they mean the thousands of people who support our troops overseas? How about my fellow Foreign Service officers, who put themselves in harm’s way in Baghdad, Kabul, Damascus and hundreds of other places around the world?

Have you heard about this?

From Juvenile Justice Information Exchange:

For several years, students in Los Angeles have complained about hefty $250-plus fines for being tardy [under the city’s curfew law], and about police officers who staked out schools to catch students sometimes only minutes late. The ticketing also requires students to go to court, with parents, during school hours, so they miss more class time and parents miss work.

IMHO, laws like this are backwards — they allow for the criminalization of children and ultimately, keep kids away from the classroom. I feel similarly about other disciplinary methods, like in-school suspension. Public Counsel and the ACLU agree:

From the Business Insider:

Activists from the ACLU say the law does the exact opposite of what city councilmembers would like to believe.

Instead of encouraging school attendance, they allege it’s unfairly targeting low-income and minority students who would rather skip school altogether than burden their family with yet another bill to pay.

“They are criminalizing kids for coming to school late,” Laura Faer, education rights director for Public Counsel, a nonprofit public interest law firm, said. “It’s backward in every way.”

I understand the intention behind the laws, but they’re just not working in the right way and students and community members have been up in arms about it. For this reason, the L.A. City Council will vote next week to make amendments to the curfew law.

The curfew amendments — if they get full city council approval on Feb. 22 — would replace the $250 fines with graduated penalties emphasizing counseling. Students ticketed once or twice would be required to participate in an attendance-improvement plan or in counseling or community service. If ticketed a third time, the ordinance would call for a possible monetary fine whose amount is still being negotiated, said Michael de la Rocha, legislative deputy to Los Angeles City Council member Tony Cardenas, who sponsored the amendments.

Cardenas wanted to end all fines, and would prefer capping a third-strike fine at $20, which in reality would end up costing students more, given extra fees that get tacked on, de la Rocha said.

As of January, Los Angeles’ students won’t be required to pay monetary fines — for now — regardless of what the city council does. Last month, Michael Nash, the county’s presiding juvenile court judge, instructed all court officers to stop imposing daytime curfew fines on ticketed students throughout the county and instead order them to show improved attendance, or, if that fails, mandatory counseling or community service.

Interesting. Thoughts?

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?

WEAVE, Washington Empowered Against Violence, a holistic legal services provider in D.C. will be shutting its doors at the end of the week. Here’s what Weave’s Board had to say:

by Kristen Pavón

One of my favorite inspirational quotes is “Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid” — although, I’m pretty sure that that’s a paraphrased version of the actual quote…

Regardless (or irregardless if you’re from Miami — have you seen this youtube video?! I won’t link to it here because, well, it’s not appropriate — but google it, it’s hi-larious!), it’s a quote that, in this economic climate, should really be put to use.

In an article on National Law Journal by Ari Kaplan, author of Reinventing Professional Services: Building Your Business in the Digital Marketplace, explains that he was given the advice to “be bold” by Richard Susskind when he asked how he could expand his career opportunities in 2012. Here’s a snippet of what Kaplan wrote:

I have spent much of the past two months considering the meaning of boldness, both personally and professionally. The idea intimidates me, but also reminds me of trying to meet Secretary of State Warren Christopher in 1996 while working in the Office of Foreign Missions during my second summer of law school.

I simply walked into his office suite and asked his assistant whether he was free. Our conversation went something like this:

“Hi, I’m Ari Kaplan, is the secretary available?”

Confused pause.

“Who are you?”

Signature smile [a cross between Seinfeld’s Kramer and Jim Carrey’s Ace Ventura].

“Yes, I’m Ari Kaplan, I work here.” [Badge connected to the traditional Washington silver ball chain hanging from my neck swings proudly.]

“Who?” [a common repeat question in the sitcom that is my life].

Less confidently, “Ari Kaplan.”

She stands with authority.

“Excuse me.”

She walks away.

I can’t believe this is going to work. What a great story. Why are these people watching me?

She returns. “I’m sorry the secretary is busy.”

Undeterred. “I just want to introduce myself; I work here.”

Unpersuaded. “I’m sorry.”

Dejected. I walk away.

The nearby guard enjoying the dialogue asks: “Where are you from?”

“Brooklyn,” I respond.

He laughs. “You’ve got chutzpah, kid.”

Sure, trying to get in an impromptu meeting with Secretary Warren Christopher didn’t work out for Kaplan, but so what? His story resonated with me because nothing bad happened to him after trying his luck. A piano didn’t drop from the ceiling onto his head because he took a bold step that didn’t work out the way he hoped it would.

So, I guess I’m saying — take a leap. Make bold moves for the sake of your career because you never know what will come of it.

Yesterday, my colleague and I went to a discussion on legal pipeline programs. One of the speakers, Veta Richardson, shared a story with us about how a risky choice paid off early in her career.

During her second year of law school, she came across a paid internship with Sunoco. By the time she applied, the 5 spots were already filled. Regardless, Richardson wrote a letter to Sunoco’s general counsel and told him that she would work in the legal department for the summer for free if he would just give her a shot. Well, he did. And at the end of the summer, she was one of the two interns who were offered permanent positions.

Thoughts? How have you been bold lately?

by Kristen Pavón

Part one of NALP & EJW’s Public Interest Summer Job Search Webinar Series went great yesterday. Part one focused on resumes and cover letters.

The whole enchilada will be available on NALP’s website soon, but I wanted to share some of the wealth right away!

1. Don’t leave out information on your resume that shows a mastery of complex tasks, even if it’s from undergrad. Mastering complex tasks is a critical competency for attorneys!
2. One option for resume formatting is to divide your experience into legal and non-legal experience.
3. Don’t leave out study abroad. It shows that you are willing to go outside of your comfort zone.
4. Be careful about adding interests to your resume. Most employers like them. It gives them a conversation starter for interviews.
5. You education section should come right after your contact information on your resume, unless you’ve been out of law school for a while.
6. Public interest resumes can be two pages long. Think about quality before thinking about quantity. Put everything on your resume at first, then omit from there.
7. Don’t include an objective portion on your resume. It’s a waste of space and unnecessary.
8. Don’t get artsy with your resume… Even if you were a graphic designer in a past life.
9. Unless an employer asks for Word documents, convert your resume and cover letter to PDF before sending them off.
10. Make sure you have a headline with your name and contact information at the top of your cover letter!
11. Don’t get cutesy in your cover letter. This means, don’t start with a quote or with something like, “I’ve waited all my life to work at so and so.”
12. In the first paragraph of your cover letter, include any connection you may have to the employer. For example, if you’ve worked there before or if an attorney who currently works there referred you to apply — put it in there.

If you thought Part One was good, wait until Part Two. Part two focuses on best practices in interviewing and in-person networking.

• Part Two: Wed., 2/1/12 at 12pm (Noon) Eastern  Reserve your Webinar seat now!

Presenters:

• Nita Mazumder, Program Manager for Law School Relations, Equal Justice Works
• Nicole Simmons, Career Counselor, The University of Texas School of Law
• David Zisser, Associate Counsel, The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

by Kristen Pavón

Last week, the Association of American Law Schools held its annual meeting and “skyrocketing cost of tuition, ever-higher graduate debts and a growing feeling that legal scholarship is of little use to the bench or practitioner” quickly became the hottest topic of discussion.

Cabranes, like others before him, noted that law schools are in “something of a crisis,” given the skyrocketing cost of tuition, ever-higher graduate debts and a growing feeling that legal scholarship is of little use to the bench or practitioners. These themes emerged as the hottest topic of discussion during the four-day conference, which drew about 3,000 legal educators.

“For years, [the rising cost of tuition and growing debt loads] have raised eyebrows. Now, they raise blood pressure,” Cabranes said on Jan. 6. “These developments literally threaten the enterprise of legal education.”

U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Jose Cabranes offered a three-part approach for alleviating these issues plaguing law schools.

To get back on track, law schools should shift their curricula back to core courses and away from the interdisciplinary classes that have grown in popularity, he said; they should introduce a two-year core law program followed by a yearlong apprenticeship, and increase transparency regarding costs, job prospects and financial aid information.

As a recent law graduate and the bearer of two law school loans, I have to say that I agree with Judge Cabranes’ suggestions. More emphasis needs to be on honing real lawyering skills so that law students have a real chance at landing jobs (and at being effective advocates) and having a third-year, full-time apprenticeship program does just that.

Judge Cabranes also talked about a growing “cult of globalization” … You can read more about that the National Law Journal.

What do you think about this?

by Kristen Pavón

A New York Times Christmas Eve op-ed highlights [unsurprising] findings of a Cardozo Law Review study that examined legal assistance during the deportation process.

Sure — a severe lack of representation was found [where isn’t there a shortage of representation?] — however, the study also found that in 14% of cases out of five immigration courts in NY, attorneys were “grossly inadequate.”

The report surveyed judges in five immigration courts and found shoddy lawyering widespread. According to the judges’ responses, in nearly half the New York cases, immigrants who had lawyers received inadequate representation.

Worse, a huge number of immigrants in New York have no representation at all. Although poor defendants in criminal courts are entitled to court-appointed lawyers, people in immigration courts are not. Over all, immigrants appeared in court without a lawyer in nearly 15,000 cases (27 percent of the total) between October 2005 and July 2010. About two-thirds of immigrants in detention were lawyerless. Other jurisdictions provided even less access to counsel: 79 percent of those arrested and transferred to immigration detention in other states lacked attorneys.

The author offers two, somewhat cursory, solutions: 1) dismiss the cases that fall outside of the Obama administration’s focus to free up competent attorneys and 2) having private foundations and bar associations create programs to put young lawyers to work on immigration issues.

I don’t know what the solution to our legal aid representation shortage is, but on the issue of grossly inadequate legal representation — I do believe that law students should be immersed in the actual practice of law before graduating. Too much is at stake. Plus, law students pay way too much in tuition to have to learn on the job.

Read the whole op-ed here. Thoughts?

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?