Clinical and Pro Bono Programs

Providing clinical and pro bono opportunities to Harvard Law School students

Category: Clinical Spotlight (page 5 of 19)

Food Waste Reduction Workshop in Toronto, Canada

April 7, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Food Law and Policy Clinic

Written by Dominique Trudelle, current student in the Food Law and Policy Clinic.

As a Continuing Clinical student in the Food Law and Policy Clinic this semester, I spent two days at the North American Workshop on Food Waste Reduction and Recovery in Toronto, Canada. Since starting the clinic in January, I have been learning about and working on FLPC’s food waste and food recovery initiatives. Specifically, I helped to finalize a recent report produced in partnership with NRDC, Don’t Waste, Donate: Enhancing Food Donation through Federal Policy, detailing how the federal government can better align federal laws and policies with the goal of increasing donations of safe, surplus food to those in need. Through this work, I have learned about improving liability protections and tax incentives for food donation, as well as ways to support innovative food recovery models. At the Workshop, interacting with other organizations highlighted how each approaches tracking, reducing, and recovering food waste.

The Workshop brought together experts working in government, industry, business and academia from Canada, the United States, and Mexico to discuss opportunities to reduce food waste across the food supply chain in each country. The Workshop included a mix of short presentations about topics ranging from donation of surplus foods by retailers, tracking food waste, and liability protections for food donations in the U.S. by retailers, innovative food recovery organizations, and academics. These presentations were followed by roundtable discussions. Having focused primarily on food recovery, I appreciated the opportunity to discuss food waste reduction with others whose perspective and strategies differ from those I have focused on during my clinic.

Continue reading

WEBINAR: Human rights and Myanmar’s transition from military rule

April 6, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via International Human Rights Clinic

Several weeks ago, Tyler Giannini, Co-Director of the International Human Rights Clinic, and Yee Htun, Clinical Advocacy Fellow, presented a webinar for Harvard Law School alumni on human rights and Myanmar’s transition from military rule. The talk was so popular, the school asked if it could feature it as part of its bicentennial celebration.

Great work, Tyler and Yee.

Skill Building in the Food Law and Policy Clinic

April 4, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Food Law and Policy Clinic

Written  by Tyler Mordecai, current student in the Food Law and Policy Clinic.

Harvard Law School clinical student testimony in DC

Tyler Mordecai delivers testimony to Washington D.C. City Council.

I took the Food Law and Policy (FLPC) seminar last year, and I enjoyed the material so much that I decided to enroll in the Clinic this Spring. Now in the clinic, much of my focus has been on FLPC’s state and local food waste initiatives. We work with various state and local advocates to reform and modernize their laws aimed at reducing the more than 62 million tons of food that goes to waste each year. Among other projects, I am currently creating a D.C.-specific food donation resource guide, which will review and analyze the applicable food recovery laws in D.C.

As part of my work on the D.C. resource guide, on Tuesday, March 28th I had the opportunity to testify before the Washington D.C. City Council about a new law under consideration there: The Save Good Food Amendment Act of 2017. The Act would reduce food waste by (1) providing tax credits for donated food, (2) extending liability protections for those who donate food, (3) simplifying D.C.’s food date labeling system, and (4) publishing a food donation guide.

At the hearing, I thought I was only going to read a statement advocating for passage of the law, so it was quite a surprise when D.C. Councilmembers asked questions for more than half an hour! The Councilmembers were incredibly interested, but also a bit reluctant, about the proposed legislation. They used my testimony as an opportunity to ask some very pointed questions and gain more clarity about the bill. Some examples: Why is a tax credit more beneficial than a tax deduction? Which specific foods pose a safety risk after their date label has passed? Which states have enacted similar liability protections, and has there been any issues in those states? The Q&A portion of the testimony was my favorite part of the hearing—it was a great experience to have a discussion with elected officials about how to use the law to effectively reduce food waste.

Continue reading

Op-Ed: UN investigation can help Myanmar down the path of democracy

March 31, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via International Human Rights Clinic

This opinion piece by Clinical Advocacy Fellow Yee Htun and Tyler Giannini, co-director of the International Human Rights Clinic, appeared in The Irrawaddy on March 29, 2017.

At first glance, the UN Human Rights Council resolution passed on Myanmar looks like a rebuke of Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) government. The resolution calls for an international investigation into “alleged recent human rights violations by the military and security forces,” singling out Rakhine State in particular for scrutiny.

Given her muted public response to the violence, her government’s denials, and the lack of any serious domestic investigation to date, it would be easy to lay a lot of the blame at Aung San Suu Kyi’s door. But the real story remains in plain sight: there are roadblocks that prevent her and the civilian government from investigating and controlling the abuses of security forces. These roadblocks are rooted in the country’s Constitution, adopted by the military in 2008, and until they are removed, domestic and international maneuvering will be necessary to pressure the military to change its violent ways.

This is not the first time that we have seen Myanmar’s Constitution fail its citizens. Despite her party winning the first open elections in a generation, Aung San Suu Kyi herself was denied the presidency under the Constitution. She and her party had to resort to creating a new position – State Counselor – that has made her the de facto leader of the government. It was a creative, and necessary, move to bring a just outcome to the election.

Continue reading

 

Harvard Crimmigration Clinic files amicus brief in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case challenging validity of ICE detainers

March 31, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

By Tess Hellgren, J.D. ’18, and Emma Rekart, J.D. ’17

The Crimmigration Clinic at the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program recently filed an amicus curiae brief in support of a lawsuit arguing that it is unlawful for state law enforcement agencies to arrest and detain an individual in Massachusetts solely for immigration enforcement purposes.

The appellant, Sreynuon Lunn, is represented by the Committee for Public Counsel Services and the National Immigrant Justice Center.  Mr. Lunn argues that compliance with a request to arrest and detain an individual for immigration purposes violates both Massachusetts and federal law because these “ICE detainer requests” lack sufficient due process protections.

In its brief, the Crimmigration Clinic argues that Massachusetts law enforcement officials are not authorized to arrest and detain individuals pursuant to an ICE Detainer request because the Massachusetts legislature has not granted such authority.  Unlike several other civil arrest statutes in Massachusetts, ICE Detainer Requests fail to provide even basic due process protections, such as notice, findings of particularized facts, and oversight by a judge or neutral arbiter.

New Resource from CHLPI and Feeding America for Food Banks as Partners in Health Promotion

March 31, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation

The Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation of Harvard Law School (CHLPI), together with Feeding America, the nation’s largest network of food banks and pantries, announce the release of Food Banks as Partners in Health Promotion: How HIPAA and Concerns about Protecting Patient Information Affect Your Partnership.

Health care providers and payers are increasingly realizing that food insecurity and unmet nutrition needs play a large role in the health outcomes of their patients and beneficiaries. When a patient is hungry, worried about running out of food, or unsure of where her or her family’s next meal will come from, that patient is less likely to be able to follow the medical advice of her health care provider. Food insecurity is also correlated with an increased risk for Type 2 diabetes, and worse outcomes related to diabetes among patients who live with limited financial resources. Children in households that are food insecure fall ill more frequently, are hospitalized more often, and take longer to recover after becoming ill. In short, food insecurity is a key social determinant of health.

Continue reading

Clinic Students and Staff Release Working Paper on Online Content Takedown Orders

March 28, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Cyberlaw Clinic

In areas ranging from the so-called “right to be forgotten” to intellectual property to defamation, there is an ongoing debate over how legitimate national laws and preferences should be applied and enforced online in the content takedown context. At the core of this dispute is whether public international law doctrines of territoriality extend to digital spaces, or whether different presumptions should govern online.

In a new working paper released today entitled “Here, There, or Everywhere?”, Cyberlaw Clinic students Alicia Solow-Niederman (J.D. ’17) and Javier Careaga Franco (LL.M ’17), along with the Clinic’s Assistant Director Vivek Krishnamurthy and Clinic Advisor Nani Jansen Reventlow, offer a descriptive perspective on this debate. Using a case study method, the paper seeks to answer the question of what formal legal process determines whether objectionable online content remains accessible or removed and what territorial principles are emerging on the ground as courts tackle these questions.

By so doing, the develops a a taxonomy of global content takedown orders. Within the observed sample, the intended territorial scope of courts’ orders predominantly aligns with geographic boundaries, with this trend especially dominant in copyright disputes. This descriptive finding sets the stage for both further empirical work and policy prescriptions about the ideal role of the legal system in this domain.

Nani Jansen Reventlow and Vivek Krishnamurthy will be presenting the key findings of the paper at RightsCon in Brussels on March 30, 2017. More details on the event can be found here.

“My Clinic experience affirmed my desire to be a transactional attorney and helped prepare me for practice after graduation.”

March 27, 2017 / / 0 Comments

By Asheley Walker, J.D. ’17

Asheley Walker, J.D. '17

Asheley Walker, J.D. ’17

I enrolled in the Transactional Law Clinics primarily because I wanted practical legal experience. I came to law school knowing I wanted to be a transactional attorney, but few, if any, of my classes gave me much insight into what it would be like to practice transactional law. I also wanted to work directly with clients. I worked in sales for startups and larger technology companies before law school, and I missed regular interaction with clients, including learning about their businesses, identifying how I could create value for them, and becoming a trusted advisor, not just a salesperson.

My experience in the Clinic delivered on both of those points. Because the Clinic operates like a small law firm, I interacted with clients directly and managed my own caseload of four to five clients each semester. While the learning curve for substantive issues was steep at times, I enjoyed the challenge and received more than adequate support from the Clinic. I researched legal issues independently, bounced ideas off of other student advocates, and discussed conclusions and lingering questions with my supervising attorney to get feedback before presenting my findings to the client.

I worked on a wide range of transactional issues during my two semesters in the Clinic. I counseled clients in choosing the right entity form for their business and goals, formed for-profit and nonprofit LLCs and corporations, drafted bylaws, and educated clients as to their ongoing corporate formalities requirements. Unexpectedly, I became somewhat of an expert about the eligibility requirements and application process for tax-exempt status, and I plan to harness that knowledge and experience in the pro bono work I do going forward. I spent the majority of my time drafting contracts, including privacy policies, terms of service, service agreements, and commercial real estate leases. I discovered that I love the jigsaw puzzle-like nature of contract drafting: taking the individual pieces and figuring out how to put them together to make the final product look (or work) the way that I wanted it to.

The Clinic serves a diverse set of clients, and I had the opportunity to work with clients ranging from Harvard students running startups to members of the Boston community looking to start a small business or nonprofit. I found it incredibly rewarding to draw on both my professional experience and my legal education to help underserved populations address legal challenges, mitigate risk, and identify ways to achieve their goals. My Clinic experience affirmed my desire to be a transactional attorney and helped prepare me for practice after graduation.

Reflecting on my work with the Food Law and Policy Clinic

March 24, 2017 / / 0 Comments

By Drake Carden, J.D. ’17

I have always taken an interest in food and how our food system operates, but had not done anything pertinent to the field outside of some light reading and Netflix documentary binge-watching. In the Spring of 2016, I had the pleasure of taking Emily Broad Leib’s Food Law class. This prompted my interest in enrolling in the clinic the next fall. I was placed on two projects: The Farm Bill Consortium and the Blueprint for the National Food Strategy.

The Farm Bill project was just taking off, and I specifically got to work on the Crop Insurance Title (Title XI) of the Farm Bill. My role consisted of written and interview-based research (which included a trip to rural Iowa!) to help formulate policy recommendations for the next Farm Bill with respect to Title XI. I worked closely with another teammate to coordinate our recommendations around commodities as well.  I also got the chance to travel to the Food Law Student Leadership Summit in Des Moines, Iowa, where I met a lot of students and faculty from the Consortium partner schools. The project is now moving in an exciting direction, where they will combine recommendations among all coordinated groups working on other Titles of the Farm Bill. I look forward to seeing the final product!

In a bit of contrast, the National Food Strategy project was nearing its completion. This project entailed a white paper written in conjunction with Vermont Law School, and I came on board to help with final edits to both the paper and the appendices of supporting national and international strategies. Just last week, I received a copy of the final paper. It was great to be able to see a finished product, and I was very proud of the work of the entire team!

The Food Law and Policy Clinic provided me a valuable lesson in project management and team-building. I enjoyed working with Emily, the fellows (shout out to Lee and Emma!), and my classmates. I also enjoyed focusing on policy-making, something that is rarer in black letter law classes. And I got to work with interesting, smart, kind and patient people. Mission accomplished: I cannot say enough good things about the clinic staff!

Learning how to be a lawyer at the Criminal Justice System

March 24, 2017 / / 0 Comments

By Kathryn Yukevich, J.D. ’17

The criminal justice system is a violent, harsh, and unjust system. In courts across the country, including many courts in the Boston area, people are caught in the system, turned into a number, and fined money that they cannot pay. In too many situations, people are permanently branded by the state as the worst thing that they have ever done.

Kathryn Yukevich, J.D. '17

Kathryn Yukevich, J.D. ’17

In my year with the Criminal Justice Institute, I have seen that the people who work within the criminal justice system have the power to make the system less harsh and less unfeeling. The judges who see your client as a person, the prosecutors who are candid with you, the court clerks who make sure you have the copies you need before an argument, all make the system a little less violent.

But I did not come to Harvard Law School to make the criminal justice system just a little less violent. I came to challenge the foundations of the system and to learn how to fight on behalf of clients who have been marginalized, silenced, and abused. And that’s what I have learned how to do this year from the amazing professors, instructors, and staff at the Criminal Justice Institute. I have been privileged to learn from fierce lawyers who have dedicated their lives to protecting people’s rights that are often ignored in the name of efficiency and expediency.

CJI gives students the opportunity to take full ownership of cases from beginning to end. I started with all but one of my clients at the arraignment stage, which is the client’s first interaction with the criminal justice system in a particular case. I am certain that I will be able to finish out the cases either at trial or through some other resolution. Students take all kinds of cases in the clinic from DUI cases to drug cases to gun crimes, but most of the cases on my docket were domestic violence and abuse prevention order cases.

One of the best things about CJI is how light your caseloads are. Public defenders in the Boston area can have anywhere from 40 to 100 cases on their plate at any given time. I had 5 clients, which is the maximum students will take with CJI. This caseload gave me plenty of time to build a strong relationship with my clients, make sure my cases were thoroughly investigated, and present creative legal arguments to the court on behalf of my clients.

Professor Umunna and the clinical instructors have created a client-centered culture in the CJI office. Our client’s story is always central to our defense strategy. What our clients want and what our clients need is always the first question that we ask before making a decision about what to do in a case. I’ve been incredibly fortunate to work with clients and communities who have been incredibly gracious and kind, especially considering my inexperience as a student attorney.

I thought coming into CJI that my success would be determined by the number of novel legal arguments I could make about elements of a charge or whether I had a Perry Mason moment with a witness on the stand. I could not have been more wrong. Success at CJI really depends on your ability to communicate and build relationships with people. CJI has helped me become a clearer, more focused communicator. District Court is a busy place, so motions, oral arguments, and off-the-record communications have to be concise and to the point. My clinical instructor, Jennifer McKinnon, has taught me how to make sure that every communication I have with the court or other interested parties is strategic and focused. I have learned how to explain what is going on in a case to a client clearly and realistically.

I have been incredibly fortunate to be a member of the CJI community. The other students in the office are always there to bounce ideas off of, to commiserate when things go badly, and to celebrate when things go right. Professor Umunna and Jennifer McKinnon are inspirational and fierce lawyers. They have taught me the kind of lawyer that I want to be. And my clients have taught me over and over again what strength, optimism, and compassion looks like, particularly in the face of the violence of the criminal justice system. I will be incredibly sad to leave CJI at the end of May, but I know that I will carry the lessons of the clinic with me for the rest of my career.

Reflection on the Federal Tax Clinic

March 24, 2017 / / 0 Comments

By Jimin He, J.D. ’17

Jimin He, J.D. '17

Jimin He, J.D. ’17

My two semesters at the Federal Tax Clinic have been a humbling experience. Unlike my clients, who hover around the poverty line and have incurred significant tax liabilities relative to their income, financial security is never truly a pressing concern in my day-to-day life. An equally humbling realization is just how powerless I can be as a student attorney. While my clients always appreciate what I have done for them, most of them they will not be able to escape circumstances, such as poverty, that brought them to the Clinic in the first place. Nor are they better equipped to deal with a vast and complicated bureaucracy, which at times seems indifferent to the plight of the low-income taxpayers. It once took me, with assistance from the IRS taxpayer’s advocate, more than two weeks to effectuate an address change for a client so she could receive her refund check.

Despite this occasional feeling of powerlessness, I firmly believe in the mission of the Clinical and Pro Bono Program, both as a pedagogical tool and a practical training curriculum for law students. While the work we do at the various clinics brings an undeniable benefit to our clients, we should not lose sight of the institutional barriers that must also be dismantled and force us to search for systemic solutions. This semester, I am working on filing a brief with the Fourth Circuit, hoping to relax the strict Tax Court case law on jurisdictional requirements for timely filings. The brief is part of the Clinic’s ongoing effort to bring impact litigation cases across the country to improve access to justice for low-income taxpayers. I am grateful that the Clinic has given me an opportunity to try to make a difference through both individual representation and strategic litigation.

HIRC students testify at Inter-American Commission on Human Rights hearing on executive orders

March 23, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic

By Jin Kim, J.D. ’18

From left: Malene Alleyne, LLM ’17, and Jin Kim, JD ’18.

When the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights began its emergency hearing yesterday, the room was packed. There were private citizens, state officials, journalists, and representatives from the civil society organizations, all there to discuss the effects of President Trump’s executive orders.

But one party was noticeably absent: the United States.

Although the IACHR invited the United States to participate in the hearing and answer questions on the effects of the executive orders, it declined to send any representative.

As members of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Malene Alleyne, LLM ’17, and I were there to testify specifically about the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), which allows Canada to turn away asylum seekers entering from the United States on the false premise that the United States is a “safe country of asylum.” We presented our testimony alongside five other civil society organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union.

Despite the glaring absence of the U.S. government officials, we civil society organizations had productive conversations with the Commission. Malene and I testified that the executive orders greatly curtail asylum seekers’ ability to meaningfully pursue their claims for protection and increase the risk of deportation to countries where they face persecution or torture.

When asked for specific examples, we spoke about the climate of fear pervading the lives of our asylum clients. In some cases, our clients have even been afraid to leave their houses or report crimes to the police for fear that they will be taken into custody and deported.

The Commission was visibly moved by our collective testimony, and asked us to continue to provide information regarding the impact of the executive orders. In the meantime, until our clients feel safe, it’s our responsibility to come together as a community to stand up for those who have been targeted.

The case that defined our experience at the Veterans Legal Clinic

March 23, 2017 / / 0 Comments

By Elizabeth Petow Mayo,  J.D. ’17 and
Maile Yeats-Rowe, J.D. ’17

We enrolled in the Veterans Legal Clinic our first semester of 2L year, after having attended the informational session together as 1Ls. We both wanted to do legal services work during law school, learn more about litigation, and work directly with clients. The Veterans Legal Clinic was the perfect opportunity.

Like most students in the clinic, we each handled 4-5 cases of varying complexity throughout the semester. One case, however, defined our experience. On our first day, we were told that we would be working as partners on an appeal at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (an Article I Court) arising from a veteran’s denial of benefits at the VA. Our new client suffered from posttraumatic stress as the result of an in-service sexual assault that had occurred decades prior, but had been repeatedly denied disability benefits by the VA. We ended up working with the clinic for the next year and a half to see the case through.

Over the duration of our representation, we used nearly every litigation skill that the clinic aims to develop. We conducted legal research, wrote memos, negotiated with VA attorneys, and successfully persuaded the VA to remand our case back to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, the agency’s internal appeals board. At that point, we had the opportunity to develop additional evidence to support our client’s claim, which included interviews with our client, research into her condition, FOIA requests and the recruitment of expert witnesses. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we diplomatically pestered officials at the VA to ensure that our client’s claim, which had been in the VA system for several years already, was quickly resolved.

Over the course of our time at the clinic, we learned how important it was for us to be advocates for our client. The claims adjudication process at the VA is intended to be non-adversarial and “veteran-friendly.” Even when the system is designed to work in their favor, many claimants struggle to effectively communicate the merits of their case to the VA or simply need someone who believes them when the VA does not. These cases, which require committed, focused and thorough lawyering, are exactly the kind of cases handled by students at the Veterans Legal Clinic.

Law School Students Participate in Human Rights Hearing on Immigration

March 22, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Crimson

Two students from Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinic argued that the United States was no longer a “safe country” for refugees before the Inter-American Committee on Human Rights in Washington, D.C. Tuesday.

The hearing centered on Canada and the United States’ shared policy on the exchange of refugees. Following President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders cracking down on immigration, the students argued, Canada should no longer bar refugees who first land in the United States from seeking asylum in Canada—currently a provision of the Safe Third Country Agreement, a refugee exchange treaty.

The human rights committee, which promotes human rights in the Western hemisphere, granted the HIRC’s request to participate in this hearing last week. The HIRC’s team—which included HIRC Assistant Director Sabi Ardalan and Law School students Jin U. Kim and Malene C. Alleyne—centered their statements on the status of the agreement, whose integrity Kim said was imperiled by the executive orders.

“[Canada has] a whole set of review procedures that they follow every once and awhile to make sure that the country that was designated as a safe country is still a safe country,” Kim said. “By focusing on the impact of the executive orders, we were arguing that…if Canada actually does the review process again, then the US should not be designated as a safe country of asylum.’”

Continue reading

Supreme Court Litigation Clinic: getting the best of legal practice and academia

March 21, 2017 / / 0 Comments

By Jeanne  Jeong, J.D. ’17

Jeanne Jeong, J.D. '17

Jeanne Jeong, J.D. ’17

This January, I spent winter term working at Goldstein & Russell, P.C., a boutique law firm that focuses on Supreme Court and appellate litigation and whose partners run the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. Each year, the firm hosts ten Harvard students at its office in Bethesda, Maryland to work on pro bono litigation in the Supreme Court. The clinic’s participants were divided into three teams, each working on a brief in a different case. One team wrote a petition for certiorari, and another drafted a brief in opposition to a petition for certiorari.

Meanwhile, my team worked on an amicus brief for a group of professors submitting a brief in support of the respondent in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., which involved whether a transgender boy could use the boys’ restroom at his public high school. We argued that regardless of the appropriate deference due to the agency’s interpretations of its regulations under Title IX, the school board’s exclusion of G.G. from the boys’ restroom violated Title IX as a matter of statutory construction. Under the direction of two attorneys, we worked through several stages of the brief-writing process, including brainstorming ideas for arguments, conducting legislative history and case law research, and drafting and editing. Although on March 6, 2017, the Court decided that it would not hear the case this term in light of new guidance from the administration following the 2016 presidential election, it was an incomparable hands-on experience to work with Supreme Court litigators on a timely and fascinating issue.

Given our posture as amici, our aim was to craft an informative and effective brief that provided the Court with a distinct perspective. Moreover, we were particularly fortunate to have clients who pushed us to think creatively about innovative analytical frames. Accordingly, the project straddled the best of both worlds of legal practice and academia. I gained enormous insight observing the professors, supervisors, and my peers, as they theorized about cases at a high level, while simultaneously strategizing about how to most effectively appeal to the Court. After drafting, we underwent a line-by-line edit, which was an invaluable experience to receive detailed feedback from seasoned Supreme Court practitioners.

Although writing a full brief in three weeks put us on an intensive and fast-paced timeline, the firm arranged for us to visit with Justice Elena Kagan, Acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn, and Nina Totenberg, among others. The clinic’s different components exposed me to a breadth of issues facing the Supreme Court bar and underscored the different approaches and strategies relevant to each stage of the Court’s unique litigation process. In addition to attending lectures on Supreme Court advocacy and oral argument moots, we participated in feedback workshops for the briefs of the other teams. Collaborating in these workshops allowed us to discuss briefs that spanned the stages of Supreme Court litigation. This also gave us the opportunity to more deeply discuss certain circuit conflicts and the persistent, seemingly irreconcilable questions they raise in the law—an exercise that is simultaneously both highly intellectual and highly pragmatic, grounded in real cases and facts. Such characteristics aptly capture the clinical experience overall as well, highlighting the unparalleled opportunity that the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic offers students to learn about Supreme Court litigation in a collegial environment that provides an instructive balance of academic rigor and practical skills.

My time as a legal intern in D.C.

March 20, 2017 / / 0 Comments

By Audra Herrera, J.D. ’17

Audra Herrera, J.D. '17

Audra Herrera, J.D. ’17

My taxi driver sighed when I asked him to take me downtown through the heavy traffic. He helped me and my suitcases into the car and pulled out of the airport. My usual impulse to initiate small talk was overcome by the left-leaning newscaster’s commentary on the radio. The driver turned the volume up, and we both silently listened as the newscaster talked about the distances participants traveled to participate in the protest and reported that nearly half a million people marched throughout the day. As we approached the northwest quadrant of D.C., home of the White House and now me, I saw dozens of pedestrians in pink walking alongside the rows of restaurants and tourist shops. “Fight like a girl.” “Is this fake news?” “I’m with her.” I rolled down the window to get a better view of the homemade protest signs the women and men carried under their arms. The drive was long, but passing through the crowds, I knew that I was witnessing a significant moment in history.

I moved to D.C. on the day of the Women’s March to participate in Harvard’s Semester in Washington Clinic. My first Monday as a legal intern at the Department of Justice was Donald Trump’s first Monday as President at the White House. The uncertainty of the policies of the new administration meant that everyone had their eyes on Washington. Suddenly, I was not only a Law & Policy intern at the National Security Division of the Department of Justice, but I was also a policy adviser for friends and family members back home. After meeting with an attorney adviser to get started on my first assignment, I returned to my desk only to find my inbox full of messages containing questions and comments about President Trump’s tweets and initial round of executive orders.

Now, nearly two months into the Semester in Washington program, the stream of incoming messages about politics has eased up. However, my engagement in some of the major legal and political issues facing the nation has deepened. Through my internship, I have learned about the role the National Security Division plays within the law enforcement and intelligence communities as well as the federal government as a whole. Importantly, I have had the opportunity to work on some of the most relevant and interesting topics in cyber law and counterterrorism. Through evening classes taught by lecturer on law and DOJ Criminal Division attorney Jonathan Wroblewski, I have gained a framework in which to think about mandatory minimum sentences, the health risks of youth in tackle football, and the ethical obligations of the government lawyer among other policy topics. At these classes, I discuss and debate with 10 other students in the program—each at different placements within the three federal branches—current events in the news and policymaking. I am confident that my remaining time in D.C. will be just as rich.

At the intersection of law and policy

March 20, 2017 / / 0 Comments

By Morgan Franklin, J.D. ’17

Morgan Franklin, J.D. '17

Morgan Franklin, J.D. ’17

This semester I have the good fortune of participating in HLS’s Semester in Washington Clinic, a program that provides students with the chance to work in an office in DC while taking a course in government lawyering and policy creation. I was initially attracted to the clinic because I’m rather interested in the political process and, perhaps even more so, the development of public policy. Though in traditional classes I appreciated discussing the intricacies of current law, the conversations I enjoyed most were those that encouraged students to offer recommendations and policy prescriptions, inviting us to consider shaping the law instead of just interpreting it. I applied to the clinic because I wanted to have a better understanding of the inner workings of government and the competing imperatives operating upon policy makers. Additionally, I wanted the opportunity to think deeply about how a legal education can inform an attorney’s engagement with policy.

With regard to the actual experience of the clinic, there are two principle components, each student’s office placement and the course on government lawyering and policy. As for my placement, I feel extremely lucky to be working for Congressman Jamie Raskin (HLS ’87) who represents Maryland’s Eighth Congressional District. I applied to Mr. Raskin’s office because I wanted to spend my last semester in law school working for someone championing causes in which I believe and helping to hold the line on issues such as civil rights protections and economic opportunity for marginalized communities. Additionally, I appreciate his example of using the training and privilege associated with his law degree to make a difference in his community. While working in his office I’ve had the opportunity to complete legal and policy research, engage with his constituents in various contexts, and support his staff as they serve the citizens of his district. In doing this work I am gaining a better understanding of the difficult undertaking of making and sustaining law and policy.

With respect to the course on government lawyering, Professor Wroblewski’s focus on legal and professional ethics, the indispensable nature of our governing institutions, and practical concerns with creating viable policy guides our work. In addition to our course work we’ve been able to engage with the larger DC area, from pro bono work with a legal aid outfit to watching an oral argument at the Supreme Court to visiting the National Museum of African American History and Culture. While all of this has been very informative, perhaps my favorite part of the course has been the community that has developed between the members of the clinic through our in depth conversations about the role of government in the lives of real people and the ways in which lawyers can have a positive impact on American life through policy creation.

Overall, this has been a fantastic opportunity so far and I’m excited for the weeks ahead. I’m grateful that this clinical program exists, as the shift from abstract theory to practical application of government lawyering has enhanced my education in a way I did not anticipate. What a way to end my law school experience!

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights grants HIRC’s joint request to participate in emergency hearing on executive orders

March 20, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic

HIRC to attend Commission hearing next week

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has granted a request filed by the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (HIRC) to participate in a hearing on the impact of President Trump’s Executive Orders on human rights in the United States.

HIRC’s request, submitted with the support of over two dozen law professors and advocates on both sides of the border, will focus on the impact of the Executive Orders on the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the United States. The hearing will take place on March 21st in Washington, D.C.

Under the STCA, Canada refuses to hear claims by asylum seekers who arrive at the Canadian border from the U.S. on the premise that the United States is a “safe” country for refugees and can adequately entertain their claims. However, as HIRC’s hearing request explained, with these Executive Orders, the United States cannot be considered a “safe” country for refugees.

HIRC outlined grave concerns with the U.S. asylum system in its latest report, submitted to the IACHR with the request for a hearing. The report demonstrates how the executive orders undermine human rights and fall short of basic refugee protection obligations under international law. Of particular concern are the provisions for an expanded system of mass incarceration of refugees; expansion of expedited removal proceedings without due process; and aggressive prosecution of unauthorized entry.

Continue reading

Helping Consumers in a Changing Health Policy Landscape: A Report from Health Action 2017

March 16, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Health Law and Policy Clinic

Last month, CHLPI attended Families USA’s annual health advocacy conference, Health Action 2017, in Washington D.C.  Given the tumultuous path of health policy in today’s world, the conference’s goal was to prepare health care advocates as they seek to defend and bolster progress that has been made since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  CHLPI brought along student Seán Finan, who is pursuing an L.L.M. from Harvard Law School and working in the Health Law and Policy Clinic to gain insight into the ideas and strategies that health advocates are using to protect access to affordable care. He prepared brief blog posts detailing their perspectives on workshops they attended during the conference.

Continue reading

Harvard Law Students partner with Spare Change News

March 16, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Spare Change News

Harvard Law students Antoine Southern and Anne Rosenblum will be guiding Spare Change News vendors through the legal questions that come with being a small business owner.
Courtesy photo

We are third-year Harvard Law School students from the Transactional Law Clinics’ Community Enterprise Project, and we are partnering with Spare Change News to address some of the concerns vendors face.

We are excited to be working with Spare Change News!

We will be focusing our efforts on providing education and resources to existing and future vendors to support them as small business owners.

The core part of our project will be collecting and sharing information regarding legal issues inherent in running a small business, including what it means to be the sole proprietor of a small business, tax obligations and how to meet them, how public benefits might be impacted by small business ownership and tips on banking services.

We will also include a section about local rules impacting how and where vendors can sell papers.

In addition to the business-oriented core of our work, we plan to identify service providers and resources that are available to help vendors confront legal obstacles that are not business-related, such as housing discrimination, criminal record expungement and mental health services, to name a few.

This aspect of the project will be less in-depth but will hopefully help to raise awareness and facilitate access to these services and resources for the vendors.

We will create a comprehensive, user-friendly reference guide that can be distributed to vendors in the future. We will present the guide to vendors in April, highlighting some of the key information and resources it contains.

 

Tracking a remnant of war in Kosovo

March 15, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via International Human Rights Clinic

By Jared Small, J.D. ’18

Tomorrow, my Harvard Law School colleagues and I will board an airplane for Kosovo. Our goal: track down remnants of a war that ended nearly two decades ago.

Damage from depleted uranium penetrators in Gjakova/Đakovica. Credit: Naomi Toyoda / ICBUW

The Kosovo War ended in 1999 after a months-long NATO airstrike crippled Yugoslav and Serbian forces and paved the way for an internationally monitored Kosovan autonomy.  Kosovo has since declared independence, and is moving forward towards what it hopes will become full membership in the European Union.

But there is an invisible part of this story that has largely escaped the public eye over the past decade and a half.  Our team from the International Human Rights Clinic will travel to Kosovo to better understand potential environmental and human health impacts that linger from the war.

During the course of the NATO airstrikes, United States aircraft deployed at least 5,723 kg of Depleted Uranium (DU) ammunition at Serbian and Yugoslav targets.  As an incredibly dense by-product of the process of enriching uranium, DU is often used by militaries in armor-piercing shells and bullets. American A-10 Thunderbolts fired DU at more than 100 ground targets during the campaign against Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who was attempting to cleanse Kosovo of its nearly 90% ethnic Albanian population.

In addition to penetrating armored vehicles, DU rounds ended up in areas now returned to civilian use, including bucolic buildings and urban streets. Even 18 years after the end of the war many of these penetrators remain scattered around Kosovo.

Continue reading

In new report, Food Law and Policy Clinic calls for federal action on food recovery

March 15, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Law Today

‘Don’t Waste, Donate’ outlines actionable recommendations for policy changes

On March 9, the Food Law and Policy Clinic of Harvard Law School (FLPC) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), released “Don’t Waste, Donate: Enhancing Food Donations through Federal Policy” presenting actions the federal government should take to better align federal laws and policies with the goal of increasing the donation of safe surplus food. Such food recovery has the potential to address the coupled issues of food waste and food insecurity in the United States, reducing the 40% of food that is wasted by instead getting edible food onto the plates of those in need.

Dont-Waste-Donate_-March-2017_coverIn 2015, the federal government made reducing food waste a national priority through the announcement of a national goal of reducing food waste by 50 percent by 2030. In this report, FLPC and NRDC lay out a variety of policy opportunities that help the federal government meet this goal. The report identifies a number of federal laws and policies that strive to enhance food recovery, but fail to address the evolving needs of the food donation landscape or reduce unnecessary barriers to donation. For example, under current laws, if an entire manufacturing run of yogurt has a misprint with the incorrect net weight, the manufacturer would not benefit from the liability protections or tax incentives meant to encourage food donation unless every container were re-labeled with the correct number of ounces. These types of hurdles do nothing to protect consumers and everything to discourage food donations. Fortunately, simple and targeted changes to federal policy can reduce these senseless barriers.

“Don’t Waste, Donate” offers 16 actionable recommendations spanning five key areas of federal policy that can increase the amount of safe, wholesome food donated to those in need. The report recommends policy changes that would:

–Enhance liability protections for food donations;

–Improve federal tax incentives for food donations;

–Standardize and clarify expiration date labels;

–Better monitor and encourage food donation by federal agencies; and

–Modernize and clarify food safety guidance for food donations.

Continue reading

Students win Weiler Awards

March 13, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Three Harvard Law School students – Rebecca Johnson J.D. ’17, Scott Sherman J.D. ’17, and Gia Velasquez J.D. ’18 – were honored with Weiler Awards presented at the Committee on Sports and Entertainment Law’s 2017 Symposium. The awards are presented annually to eligible students who have participated in the HLS Sports and Entertainment Law Courses, in the Committee on Sports and Entertainment Law and the Journal on Sports and Entertainment Law activities, as well as in clinical placements through the Sports Law Clinic.

Rebecca Johnson, J.D. ’17

On campus, Rebecca has served as Co-Editor in Chief of the Journal on Sports and Entertainment Law and as the Director of External Affairs for the Women’s Law Association. She has also been involved with the Committee on Sports and Entertainment Law and participated in the Sports Law Clinic in January, 2016. Rebecca spent her 1L summer at the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania in appeals and her 2L summer at the Fox Rothschild, LLP in Pittsburg.

Scott Sherman, J.D. ’17

At Harvard Law School, Scott has been an active participant in the sports law program. He has taken all three of Professor Carfagna’s classes, written an independent study paper on “Deflategate” and currently serves as the president of the Committee on Sports and Entertainment Law and an Executive Editor of the Journal on Sports and Entertainment Law. 

During his 1L summer, Scott worked in the labor relations department of Major League Baseball, and has served as a legal intern for the Boston Celtics and Brooklyn Nets through the Sports Law Clinic.

“I am truly honored to win a Weiler Award” Scott said. “One of the main factors that drew me to Harvard Law was the breadth of the sports law program here, so it means a lot to be recognized for my work in that very program.”

This fall, Scott will be joining the litigation department at Winston & Strawn in New York, where he hopes to pursue a career in sports law.

Gia Velasquez, J.D. ’18

At Harvard, Gia has been involved in the Journal of Law and Technology and the Harvard Business Law Review. She spent last summer in Anchorage, Alaska, working for the Attorney General in the Environmental Division. Through the Sports Law Clinic, she has been placed with Jim Juliano of Nicola, Gudbranson & Cooper in Cleveland, Ohio, and currently works for the Concussion Legacy Foundation in Boston.

“Professor Carfagna is truly an asset to Harvard Law School. His clinical placements and teaching methods prove most valuable to his students” Gia said. “While I was not very familiar with the nuances of sports law when I entered law school, I feel incredibly lucky that Professor Weiler pioneered this program, and Professor Carfagna has continued it, so that students like me can gain exposure to the field. I am so honored to have been selected by Professor Carfagna as a recipient of this year’s award.”

Gia is interested in IP Transactions and will work during the summer at Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago in the Technology Transactions department.

Sports Law Clinic

Back row, left-right: Glenn Cohen, Florrie Dawrin, Chris Deubert, and Holly Lynch. Front row: Emeritus Professor Paul C. Weiler.

At the beginning of the event, Loren Shokes, J.D. ’17 and last year’s recipient of the Weiler Writing Prize, introduced this year’s Writing Prize winners: Chris Deubert, Senior Law and Ethics Associate for the Law and Ethics Initiative of the Football Players Health Study at Harvard University; Glenn Cohen, Professor at Harvard Law School; Faculty Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics; and Co-Lead of the Law and Ethics Initiative of the Football Players Health Study; and Holly Lynch, Executive Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics; Faculty at the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics; and Co-Lead of the Law and Ethics Initiative of the Football Players Health Study.

They were recognized for their groundbreaking article “Protecting and Promoting the Health of NFL Players: Legal and Ethical Analysis and Recommendations” that was published as a Special November edition in the Harvard Law School’s Journal on Sports and Entertainment Law.

The Weiler Awards were established in honor of Emeritus Professor Paul C. Weiler, who retired in 2008 after 26 years of teaching at Harvard Law School.

Food Law and Policy Clinic & Natural Resources Defense Council Offer Federal Policy Recommendations to Increase Donation of Wholesome Food and Reduce the 40% of Food Wasted in the U.S.

March 10, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Food Law and Policy Clinic

The Food Law and Policy Clinic of Harvard Law School (FLPC) and the Natural Resources Defense Council, released Don’t Waste, Donate: Enhancing Food Donations through Federal Policy presenting actions the federal government should take to better align federal laws and policies with the goal of increasing the donation of safe surplus food. Such food recovery has the potential to address the coupled issues of food waste and food insecurity in the United States, reducing the 40% of food that is wasted by instead getting edible food onto the plates of those in need.

In 2015, the federal government made reducing food waste a national priority through the announcement of a national goal of reducing food waste by 50 percent by 2030. In this report, FLPC and NRDC lay out a variety of policy opportunities that help the federal government meet this goal. The report identifies a number of federal laws and policies that strive to enhance food recovery, but fail to address the evolving needs of the food donation landscape or reduce unnecessary barriers to donation. For example, under current laws, if an entire manufacturing run of yogurt has a misprint with the incorrect net weight, the manufacturer would not benefit from the liability protections or tax incentives meant to encourage food donation unless every container were re-labeled with the correct number of ounces. These types of hurdles do nothing to protect consumers and everything to discourage food donations. Fortunately, simple and targeted changes to federal policy can reduce these senseless barriers.

Continue reading

HIRC files an amicus brief in lawsuit challenging Trump’s new refugee cap

March 6, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic

From left: Jin Kim, JD '18, Sabi Ardalan, Assistant Director, HIRC, and Mana Azarmi, JD '17

From left: Jin Kim, JD ’18, Sabi Ardalan, Assistant Director, HIRC, and Mana Azarmi, JD ’17

The Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (HIRC) filed on Thursday an amicus curiae brief in support of a lawsuit that seeks, among other things, to prevent the Trump administration from lowering the number of refugees that can be allowed into the country.

The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), challenges President Trump’s January 27 Executive Order, which halved the number of refugees allowed into the country during this fiscal year, from 110,000 to 50,000.

Continue reading

HLAB Victory in Hague Convention & Divorce Cases

March 3, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Legal Aid Bureau

The Hague Convention is an international treaty which provides a method for resolving the return of abducted children between member nations. Because it is an international treaty, all Hague Convention cases must be decided in federal court. Additionally, Hague Convention cases can require divorce and/or custody to be obtained in state courts, making them complicated matters for the most experienced attorneys, much less HLAB student attorneys.

In September 2015, Diane Ramirez ’17 and Katie Renzler ’16 met their client, who had a Hague Convention dispute with the father of her children. The father is an Irish national, and wanted the children returned to him. After months of pre-trial motions and negotiations with opposing counsel from major law firms, the case culminated in a three-day trial in federal court in February 2016. Diane and Katie directed witnesses, cross-examined witnesses for the father, and presented evidence to support their argument that the federal judge should reject the father’s petition asking for the return of the children to Ireland.

In the summer of 2016, the judge issued the final ruling: the father’s petition was denied. The advocacy did not stop after this federal court victory. Diane continued to represent the mother in her divorce matter in state court, and obtained a judgement in October 2016 of divorce and an order granting her primary physical custody of her children and child support. Diane also negotiated a parenting time schedule that allowed the children to periodically visit their father in Ireland. Once again, HLAB student attorneys obtained a successful outcome for their client in the face of complicated litigation.

HLAB Student Wins Victory in Massachusetts’s Supreme Judicial Court

March 3, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Legal Aid Bureau

Last spring, an HLAB student attorney was able to win a victory for both his client and all tenants in Massachusetts. Louis Fisher ’16 argued before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the case of Meikle v. Nurse on November 5, 2015. The appeal arose from a case where a housing court judge ruled that a counterclaim for a violation of Massachusetts’s security deposit law does not qualify as a defense against eviction under what is known as the “8A trigger.” In no-fault or nonpayment eviction cases, counterclaims against the landlord can usually be used as a defense to an eviction under Massachusetts G.L.c. 239 § 8A. The Harvard Legal Aid Bureau appealed the ruling, with Deena Greenberg, ’15, as the original lead student attorney and Louis taking over in the 2015-16 school year. In an atypical move, the Supreme Judicial Court picked up the appeal directly from Boston Housing Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals.

On April 27, 2016, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of Ms. Nurse, overturning the Boston Housing Court ruling. The S.J.C. held that landlord violations of the security deposit law are a defense to eviction, stating that “it would be contrary to legislative intent to interpret [the 8A trigger] in a manner that would undermine a tenant’s right to assert the range of protections available under the summary process statute.” Thanks to the work of Louis, Deena, their clinical instructor Pattie Whiting, and the many other people who helped moot and prepare for the appellate argument, tenants have a firm foundation to defend themselves against an eviction if their landlord violates the security deposit laws.

HIRC brings issue of executive orders to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

March 3, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic

Earlier this week, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (HIRC) took the issue of Donald Trump’s executive orders to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Commission), calling for an emergency hearing to discuss the impact of the orders on the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States.

Under the agreement, Canada refuses to hear claims by asylum seekers entering the country from the United States on the premise that the United States is a safe third country. But as HIRC made clear in its letter to the Commission on Wednesday, “the United States is not a safe country of asylum for persons fleeing persecution and violence.”

A recent HIRC report shows how provisions of the executive orders undermine human rights and other standards governing the treatment of asylum seekers. Of particular concern are provisions calling for an expanded system of mass incarceration; expansion of expedited removal proceedings without due process; a heightened credible fear standard; an increase in the number of agents with immigration functions; and aggressive prosecution of unauthorized entry.

Continue reading

Students’ first day in court

March 1, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Twenty-three students, enrolled in the Judicial Process in Trial Courts Clinic and class, recently started their work with judges throughout the Massachusetts trial courts. Below, some of them reflect on the impact of their first days with their judges and confirm the value of leaving the classroom for the courtroom.

“My first day in court had a more profound impact on me than the mere opportunity to see and hear things I had only read about in books and learned in the classroom. Experiencing firsthand all the elements of a trial, albeit only for the closing arguments portion of it, as one living whole rather than discrete parts to be analyzed in the abstract made me rethink my attitude toward the “practice of law” and indeed helped me appreciate the fact that law is not only a subject area to be studied in law school but a “practice” and a way of life. This insight has both humbled and reinvigorated me, and I hope that during the remainder of my internship I can continue to broaden my understanding of the law and my capacity to practice it.” — Aaron Seong, J.D. ’18

“I could see in the hearing and the briefs the disparity between the quality of prosecution and defense in low-level criminal cases that I have read about for years. It confirmed my prior expectations that the criminal justice system is a hard place for defendants. This type of experience is one of the reasons I wanted more time in the courtroom.” — Nicolas Mendoza, J.D. ’18

“[my judge] was, in a word, dazzling. She casually listed the legal issues she was concerned about, slipping effortlessly from one to another while I struggled to make mental notes. It was in this moment that I fully appreciated the need for focus, commitment, and diligence in chambers. … I left the courthouse eager to come back the next day…”
— Marina Shkuratov, J.D. ’18

“During lunch, we all discussed both the upsides and downsides of each side’s argument and what each party could have done to improve their case. It was a great opportunity to understand what made an effective argument from the judge’s perspective.” — Gawon Go, J.D. ’17

“[my judge] is incredibly kind and helpful. I can tell that he enjoys working with law students, and he took the time to answer any questions I had. The work in interesting, and I know that what I work on actually matters. It is not “busy work” . And I learned a great deal from simply watching my judge and the attorneys that appeared before him.” — Caleb Wolokek, J.D. ’17

“Overall I had a challenging and eye-opening first week in court. I learned a lot and I am looking forward to the coming months. I think I underestimated how challenging it may be to become involved with criminal trials involving real defendants and victims. I think the clinic will be good preparation not only in terms of learning about rules of evidence and procedure, but also in learning how to deal with these more difficult, interpersonal aspects of being a trial lawyer.” — Nasheen Kalkat, J.D. ’18

 

PLAP student argues case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

February 27, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Prison Legal Assistance Project

Recently, Tabitha Cohen JD ’18 argued the appeal of a lawsuit, Crowell v. Massachusetts Parole Board, filed by the Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project (PLAP) in the Massachusetts State Supreme Court, formally known as the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). The suit was originally brought in the state Superior Court, but was dismissed on the motion of the defendant, the state Parole Board.

The plaintiff, PLAP client Richard Crowell, is a septuagenarian prisoner who, in 1987,  suffered a disabling traumatic brain injury. He was originally arrested in 1962 as a teenager for a convenience store robbery in East Boston. He was recruited by several older men to drive a getaway car. During the robbery, one of the older co-defendants shot and killed the storekeeper and as a result, Crowell and his co-defendants were charged with first degree murder under the felony murder theory of culpability. To avoid the death penalty, which Massachusetts had at that time, Crowell pled guilty to second degree murder and received a life sentence in prison. In 1974, his sentence was commuted from life to 36 years to life. He was then paroled and spent several years successfully living in the community, with the exception of some minor parole violations that were not serious enough to prevent re-parole. However, after he was attacked and suffered his brain injury in 1987, his behavior worsened. Since 1990 he has remained in prison, except for a few brief weeks while out on parole and then returned to custody, and has otherwise been repeatedly denied parole.

PLAP’s Mike Horrell, JD ’14 represented the plaintiff in his 2012 parole hearing that led to PLAP’s later lawsuit. During that hearing the Board strongly suggested it considered the plaintiff impossible to parole because of his disability, a decision which would effectively consign Crowell to prison for the remainder of his life. After the client was again denied parole, Horrell helped to draft a complaint filed in the Superior Court seeking to reverse the Board’s decision and obtain a new hearing for Crowell. The central claim in PLAP’s Complaint was that the Parole Board had discriminated against the plaintiff because of his disability. In addition, PLAP argued the plaintiff was entitled to annual parole reviews, rather than reviews every five years as contended by the Parole Board.

After Horrell’s graduation, another PLAP student attorney, Tucker DeVoe, JD ’15, briefed and argued the case in the Superior Court, but PLAP’s lawsuit was subsequently dismissed. After DeVoe’s graduation, Erin DeGrand, JD ’16 worked on PLAP’s appeal to the state Appeals Court, including coordinating the drafting of the appellate and reply briefs while working with Keke Wu, JD ’18, Beini Chen, JD ’18 and Ethan Stevenson, JD ’17. After the briefing was concluded in the Appeals Court but before the case was scheduled for oral argument, the SJC took the case for direct review and solicited amicus briefing on the disability rights issue raised by PLAP. In response, civil rights and advocacy rights groups including the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU, Massachusetts Prisoners’ Legal Services, the Center for Public Representation and the National Disability Rights Network filed a consolidated amicus brief in support of PLAP.

After DeGrand’s graduation in June 2016, Tabitha Cohen, JD ’18 picked up the baton of PLAP representation and argued the case before the Supreme Judicial Court on January 6, 2017.

“Tabitha was superb.” said John Fitzpatrick, JD ’87, one of PLAP’s two supervising attorneys in attendance that day along with Joel Thompson, JD ’97. Fitzpatrick added that “Her poise and the content of her argument, along with her ability to comprehensively answer every of the many questions put to her by the SJC justices, was equal to or even better than many experienced appellate attorneys arguing before the court.”

Tabitha said that “It was a tremendous honor and privilege to represent Mr. Richard Crowell in his prisoners’ rights and disability rights appeal before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Thanks to the tireless work of my amazing supervising attorney, John Fitzpatrick, and all of my predecessors at the Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project who worked so diligently on Mr. Crowell’s case, Mr. Crowell was able to make his voice heard in the state’s highest court. Arguing before the justices as a 2L has unquestionably been the highlight of my law school experience, and I cannot thank PLAP and everyone who worked so hard on this case, especially John, enough for this opportunity, and for entrusting me with this profound responsibility.”

Fitzpatrick said the oral arguments “went very well. Though that never predicts the eventual outcome of an appellate case, it is certainly better than the alternative.” He added that the SJC could issue its decision in the case during the next several months.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2018 Clinical and Pro Bono Programs

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑

View Mobile Site