HLS in Focus

I recently sat down with Marissa Vahlsing to talk about her experience this summer at La Asociacion Civil por la Igualdad y la Justica in Buenos Aires:

Marissa Vahlsing podcast

1L and Co-Chair of the Public Interest Auction Sarah Jelsema recently sat down for a Q & A with us after this yearly highlight of the HLS calendar.

What is the public interest auction?
The public interest auction is a fundraiser run entirely by the 1L class that raises money to support students who do public interest work over the summer. We solicit donations from faculty, staff, alumni, parents, students, firms, and local businesses. Some donate money and some donate things to auction off. We receive all sorts of donations – things like Red Sox tickets, gift certificates to restaurants and salons, lunches and fishing trips with professors, cookies and brownies made by the librarians, and a tour of the Northwest Corner Construction project. The auction is one of the biggest social events of the year. Every year the auction has a theme, and we decorate Austin Hall accordingly. This year the theme was “Bright Lights: Bid City” and so the different rooms were decorated as different big cities – London, Paris, and New York.

What has gone into preparing for this event and what have you gotten out of the experience as a co-chair?
Almost all of the 1L class helps out with the auction. We divide the students up by committees and committees mostly help out either by asking for donations, calling alumni and asking them to donate, emailing firms, going door to door in Cambridge, or by helping process the donations and get them ready to sell, or by helping out on the night of the auction. As one of the auction co-chairs, I had the opportunity to work with a group of amazing people to try to plan and coordinate this huge event – it was definitely a  challenging experience for all of us. From coordinating hundreds of student volunteers to keeping track of hundreds of donations, to making sure everything comes together on the night of the auction, being a co-chair was a lot of work, but it was extremely rewarding. It was also a good opportunity to meet new students.

The event is always a lot of fun for students, faculty and staff. What was your favorite part of the evening? Did anything surprise you?
The event was a huge success. My favorite part of the evening was the live auction. Our auctioneers – this year Professors Elizabeth Warren and Jonathan Zittrain – were auctioning off the “right to be – or not be – in the 2010 parody.” The first bidder was the Dean of Students because they gave her a hard time this year in the parody, but then Professor Mann, who bought this item last year, got in a bidding war with Professor Warren and everyone was laughing so hard!

Why should admitted and prospective students seeking a strong public interest community choose Harvard? Why did you?
I think that students looking for a strong public interest community should choose Harvard because they can go anywhere and do anything with a degree from Harvard Law. We are a bigger law school, but as a result, we have so many more options to pick from than other law schools. Good public interest law jobs are really competitive – and since I want one, I’m glad I chose Harvard. I know that the connections and friends that I will make here, with professors and fellow students, will be of benefit for the rest of my life.

Starting April 15, HLS will begin accepting transfer applications for the fall. Over the last couple of years, there have been increased opportunities for Harvard Law students to study off-campus through joint degree and foreign study programs which make it possible for us to admit more transfer students than ever before.

The question of whether to apply as a transfer student is the right move is up to you, but we think that a little research will show you the vast benefits of transferring to HLS. With 102 full-time professors and more than 300 courses, HLS is home to the most intellectually stimulating legal community in the world. Outside the classroom, there are 14 journals, over100 student organizations, clinical placements in approximately 30 areas of the law, and more than enough opportunities for you to experience the incredible diversity of the HLS community during your second- and third- year. For example, the Harvard Law Review encourages transfer applicants to apply for membership and several past transfer students have been successful in that endeavor.

Bottom line? Whether you are interested in constitutional law or environmental law or human rights advocacy or any number of other areas, the breadth and depth of our offerings is incredible. Whether you want to clerk at the circuit court level, follow the path to academia, or pursue a career in public service, the opportunities presented to our graduates are unsurpassed.

For more details on the transfer application process including eligibility guidelines, deadlines, and application requirements, please visit: http://www.law.harvard.edu/prospective/j…

Also, stay tuned in the coming days and weeks for blog entries of a few students talking about their experience transferring into Harvard Law School!

As the ‘changing of the guard’ continues to take place down in Washington this spring, conservatives and libertarians are seeing their power crumble and their government job prospects evaporate into the ether of political upheaval. Or are they? The Federalist Society recently invited Professor Mark Tushnet and Steven Teles, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins and the author of The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement, to discuss the fate of the Federalist Society in the wake of 25 years of marked success. Is there still work to be done or will it disappear into an ‘end of history’ haze of obsolescence?

Teles began by framing the Federalist Society in terms of what it does and doesn’t do. “To understand what the Federalist Society doesn’t do,” he said, “it’s important to make a distinction between the Society and the networks created by the Society… much of what people attribute to the Federalist Society are done by members as facilitated by the organization.” At the heart of Teles’ discussion was the notion of direct versus indirect outputs. Direct outputs included the Society’s charter goal of creating a “parallel curriculum” for law schools, most of whom had few to no conservative faculty a couple of decades ago, and through this, to create safe space for conservative dialogue. Indirect outputs included such conceptual goals as the recruitment of members and the provision each of social, human, and cultural capital for the conservative movement. “Conservative lawyers had instincts they weren’t acting on because the social, professional and intellectual network wasn’t there to support them,” he said. “There was also a stigma associated with the brand.”

In direct response to Teles’ remarks on social capital, Tushnet pointed out that social capital can be destroyed as easily. “One issue for the Federalist Society is how to deal with credibility issues when prominent sources of thought are no longer credible,” he said, alluding to the infamous memos of former DOJ legal advisor John Yoo in which he advocated the possible legality of torture and that enemy combatants could be denied protection under the Geneva Conventions. “Yoo’s memos became associated with conservative legal thought… how does the Society deal with the effects that the Bush administration has had on conservative credibility?”

Regarding human and social capital, Tushnet and Teles explained that the development of the movement has been tied to the existence of Republicans in government. In the absence of a Republican administration, “the Federalist Society has always been dependent on jobs in, big Washington law firms, which are in turn dependent on the existence of an administrative state” said Tushnet. So what happens in periods like the present when this pipeline narrows and this source of jobs dries up? According to Teles, the rational adaptation to being out of government is to “crank up the size of public interest” when your only allies are in the judiciary.

In closing, Teles questioned whether the Federalist Society is a victim of its own success. “There’s not as much need now for a parallel curriculum in law schools,” he said. “The general environment now is not as hostile for conservatives in law schools.”

If ever there were an appropriate time in history for a business ethics discussion, this is it, don’t you think? Fortunately, The Program on the Legal Profession recently invited Dr. Christine Elizabeth Parker of the University of Melbourne Law School to report on her research on the regulation of law firm ethical infrastructure. In collaboration with the Office of the Legal Services Commission (OLSC), which works as part of a co-regulatory system, together with the Law Society of New South Wales and the NSW Bar Association to resolve disputes and investigate complaints about professional conduct, Dr. Parker has written a paper the examines the ethical infrastructure in commercialized law firms.

“A major weakness of traditional approaches of regulation and discipline of legal profession,” she said, “is that the focus tends to be on individual lawyers when most attorneys work in firms, the culture of which can have a great impact on ethics…firm level policies and procedures are necessary to ensure compliance.” In light of this, scholars have suggested rethinking ways in which lawyers are regulated to encourage firms to implement ethical structures and management policies to encourage ethical behavior. Some have moved to establish law firms as collectives of a larger ethical paradigm while others have proposed that there could be a requirement on firms to implement structures and appoint a practitioner responsible for ensuring ethical behavior.

“In light of the recent deregulation of firms in Australia,” she said, “we introduced legislation that firms appoint at least one practitioner to the board of directors who is obligated to prevent and report misconduct in the practice and all legal practices must have appropriate legal management systems in place to enable the provision of legal services in accordance with professional obligations.” Central to Parker’s paper was the self-assessment of firms who were told to rate ten objective metrics (including courteous communication and timely delivery, review and follow up of legal services) of quality on a scale that ran from ‘not compliant to fully compliant plus’.

“There are a number of reasons why we wouldn’t expect management-based regulation to be a very effective strategy,” admitted Parker. “For instance, some have said that management-based regulation is a type of managerialism that isn’t appropriate to legal professionals who ought to be autonomous, sovereign decision-makers… yet this misunderstands role of management-based regulation strategies to prescribe behavior.” Another concern is that management-based regulation might be too flexible and thus becomes a simple box-ticking exercise; still, Parker maintained that the practice is still influential because it works as an educational tool when firms are going through a structural change.

So what about the results? Of the more than 600 firms that participated in the self-assessment process, Parker and her team calculated a score of complaints per year per practitioner taking in account the size of firm and number of years one had been practicing. Before self assessment, there were 0.3 complaints and after the process, the number was down to 1/3 of what it was. “Clearly,” said Parker, “self-assessment makes a difference within some firms… and in principle, there are good reasons to suggest that the management-based approach similar to that proposed by Chambliss and Wilkins is appropriate for legal profession and there is compelling empirical evidence that it had an effect in New South Wales.” “Of course,” she continued, “this raises questions about the generalized ability of this approach to work elsewhere for firms elsewhere around the world. The self assessment process forces firms to think about certain compliance issues for first time… and creates an external accountability that’s so pressing right now.”

We did a bunch more interviews of students and faculty members to add to the HLS Speaks page off the JD Admissions home page.  New categories of interview clips include: (1) Clinical & Pro Bono Programs; (2) Criminal Law & Justice; (3) Law, Business & Economics; (4) Negotiation & Conflict Resolution; (5) Constitutional Law & Policy; (6) Why Law School; (7) Law, Science & Technology; (8) Reading Groups & Small Seminars; (9) National Security & Terrorism; (10) Social & Gender Justice, Civil Rights; (11) Career Plans; and (12) Joint Degrees.

Please visit the link to HLS Speaks off the JD Admissions home page if you’re interested in these subjects.

Can’t get security clearance? Don’t bother applying for these jobs…

For those students interested in pursuing legal careers within the Government, a National Security Summer Jobs panel was held a few weeks ago by several 2Ls and 3Ls who had completed internships in New York, Washington, DC, and Virginia.

Erik Swabb kicked off the panel’s remarks. He interned with the Counterterrorism Section at DOJ. “Though unpaid, I was able to deal with substantive legal issues… and was given broad exposure to the National Security System.” Though a highly positive experience, Swabb was merely the first of most panelists to warn that feedback from agency attorneys can be difficult to obtain.

Megan Gaffney agreed and expanded upon Swabb’s account—she was also at DOJ but in the National Security Unit. “I also was dealt amazingly substantive work and really felt like I was contributing to the Division within my small group… but, the attorneys are indeed swamped with work.” Gaffney and Swabb insisted that interns be proactive in order to get the most out of their internships. “The attorneys, if nothing else, wanted me to be interested in my work,” said Gaffney.

Foremost of many students’ concerns was the need for security clearances. The panelists urged students interested in agency jobs to get the ball rolling early if for no other reason that to facilitate the start date of one’s job and to be able to participate in more highly classified assignment. As some of the earliest positions available to 1Ls, National Security internships will make offers this winter that are contingent upon successful completion of a security clearance.

Nervous? Don’t be. “The concern of passing a clearance for past drug usage or extensive travels abroad are not reasons enough not to apply,” said Daniel Adams, who interned at Defense in the Office of the General Counsel. “Be honest and up front, and they’ll be more forgiving than if you lie.”

I recently wrote about a new summer fellowship program designed to allow students to get serious writing experience. (See earlier blog entry here) The program provides for “workshopping” of the articles with classmates and faculty members. Recently I sat in on one of these workshops and was quite literally blown away by the level of discussion.

The workshop started at noon and the presenting student, Clifford Chen, was standing by the podium gathering his thoughts. I had read his draft, entitled “Delegating to the President: Unique Problems in Nondelegation,” before attending. In short, the article talks about the implications of Congress delegating powers of regulation directly to the President, as opposed to delegating to agency heads or cabinet secretaries.

By 12:05, students and faculty had filed in and filled their plates with free sandwiches and cookies. I counted 11 faculty members, a group which included quite a few leading administrative law scholars (Dean Kagan among them). They had all read the article, too, and took additional notes while Clifford presented his work. Then Professor Jack Goldsmith kicked off the discussion by calling on Professor Dan Meltzer, who asked Clifford, “Does it even matter whether Congress delegates to the president directly? If it delegates to an agency head isn’t that the same thing as delegation to the president?”

Professor John Manning then weighed in on the structure of the paper, suggesting that Clifford should state his frame of analysis at the beginning. He also gave the student the name of a scholar who had written on the subject as a future research item. Almost every faculty member in the room contributed suggestions and guidance to the discussion, and I know that many of them had more feedback to give off line.

Wow. So here’s the score: one student with a rough draft and eleven faculty members coaching, critiquing and nudging. I’d say Mr. Chen is ready to hit the job market running.