HLS in Focus

Yesterday I attended the first meeting of the year for my student journal, the Harvard Law and Policy Review (HLPR.) I ate way too much pizza, made a few friends, and caught up with some old ones, including a 1L I know from high school and was really excited to see had joined.  

I think journals can be a great source of friendship and camaraderie, because—let’s face it—it can be pretty dry at times, and surviving that can really bring people together. But obviously a lot of people do enjoy it, because Harvard has 16 journals whose leadership is full of 2Ls and 3Ls who have stayed involved semester after semester. I myself accepted two promotions at the end of last year, and to help you understand them I’ll say a little about how journals work.  

Every journal is unique, especially HLPR because at four years old it’s a very young organization still working out its structure and niche. So it’s hard to generalize, but with us, 1L students contribute by joining article teams headed by an Article Editor (usually a 2L) and supervised by a Senior Article Editor (usually a 2L or 3L.) The teams do two rounds of work on an article: a substantive edit for things like thesis and organization, and a technical edit or “subcite” to correct punctuation errors, typos, and citations to sources (including page numbers, formatting, and characterization of the source.) The subcite is one thing pretty much every 1L on every journal will experience, but their substantive involvement varies; I think ours is on the high end.   Loads of other things go into the production of a journal, like solicitations, policy, and (at HLPR at least) even more proofreading by a couple of tech teams headed by Senior Tech Editors and supervised by the journal’s Executive Technical Editor. A lot of this goes on without the knowledge of 1Ls, but none of it could happen without them.  

So anyway, I’ll be serving as an Article Editor and a Senior Tech Editor this year, and I’m pretty likely to be overwhelmed but very excited about contributing to a real publication read by professionals all over the country. (If you visit my journal’s website, you’ll see a picture of Senator Patrick Leahy waving a copy of the issue I edited as a 1L.) My article team is gathering for our substantive edit meeting Sunday, and I hope to pass this same enthusiasm on to them.  

- Lea

One of the perks of being an HLS student is that key players in the law often stop by for a visit.  Supreme Court Justices, law firm & business leaders, political candidates, and government leaders often come to the law school to give speeches, sit on panels, and guest lecture.  Last Friday, Solicitor General Elena Kagan headlined a panel focused on the Solicitor General’s office.  1L Kostya Lantsman shared his recollections:

All day Friday, HLS was abuzz with anticipation of the return of former HLS Dean Elena Kagan, the first woman to serve as Solicitor-General.  Kagan was appearing on a panel entitled “Views from Washington: Reflections from the Solicitor General’s Office” which was moderated by Dean Martha Minow and also included Professors John Manning and Charles Fried. 

Professor Fried, a former SG under Reagan, opened the discussion by outlining the virtues of the SG’s Office.  He cited the interpersonal support and lack of rivalries as a “model of what lawyers working together should be.”  Professor Manning, who spent several years as a civil servant in the SG’s Office in the early ‘90s under Presidents Bush and Clinton then offered his own unique perspective.  Drawing from his time as an Assistant to the SG he praised the “ethos of professionalism and neutrality that is unique” to the SG’s Office. General Kagan remarked on the “lack of partisanship and politicization” and praised the “professionalism and commitment” of the staff.  She also provided some interesting detail regarding the make-up of the office (20 out of the 22 members are civil servants while only 2 are political appointments) and her day-to-day responsibilities (she has to personally approve every appeal the U.S. undertakes, which adds up to about 3-4 cases she has to review and approve or deny per day, the supervision of the 50-55 Supreme Court hearings per year in which the office is involved, and preparing as the SG to argue 6-7 cases/year in front of the Supreme Court.)

When the panel began the question and answer portion, the discussion quickly turned to the hot topic of the day: General Kagan’s first argument before the Supreme Court two days prior.  General Kagan likened arguing in front of the nine justices to arguing in an HLS class with question after question coming from your professor, hypotheticals piling up on hypotheticals, but with nine professors rather than one – not a pleasant thought for a 1L.  When asked about her statement to Justice Scalia that he was wrong, General Kagan said that she knew she could say that to Justice Scalia because “he likes a good battle” and “he gave me one.” 

The panel also spoke about the role of the SG within the US government.  Despite being appointed by the President and serving at his behest, the SG often defends other interests including that of Congress which crafted legislation being challenged or administrative agencies.  Thus, the SG has a daily working relationship with the Attorney-General and rarely sees the President.  In fact, Professor Fried remarked that President Reagan NEVER told him what to do while Fried was serving as SG.  As a result, there is no clear client for an SG.  The trick to the job, General Kagan told the crowd, is trying to figure out how to accommodate all those masters.  In the end, despite being a part of the executive branch, the SG has a unique role defending acts of the legislature and serving as almost a “10^th Justice,” a special officer of the Court and repeat player whose success depends on utmost honesty and the highest level of professional responsibility.  As General Kagan concluded, the SG is a lawyer like any other, but unlike every other.  The SG is “lawyer with a client and cases come across your desk and you have to defend it,” but the client is the US.

Editor’s Note:  If you’re interested in learning more about HLS SG’s in history, check out this recent article from the HLS website: http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/spotlight/public-service/related/hls-solicitors-general.html

If you’d like to learn more about the inner workings of some top government law positions, many of which are now occupied by former HLS professors, check out this article from the HLS bulletin: http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/bulletin/2009/summer/feature_3.php

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!

For students interested in 2010 clerkships, spring is the time to start getting serious about the process. In a recent orientation program held by the Office of Career Services, Associate Director for Judicial Clerkships and JD Advising, Kirsten Solberg, covered such topics as application components, assessing one’s candidacy, researching judges, and the timetable for current 2Ls.
The bulk of Solberg’s discussion of clerkships focused on clerkship applications. Cover letters and resumes are par for the course, but the weightiest components typically are grades, recommendation letters, and especially writing samples. Networking also goes a long way in this process. “Become acquainted with 3Ls clerking next year,” suggested Solberg. “Reach out to family and friends who are or know judges… by asking questions and advice you build relationships.”

Self assessment is another big part of the process, including the type of court you envision for yourself and researching the judges to whom you apply to find personality and interest matches. “Trial courts tend to offer more practical work,” offered Solberg. “I think it’s the best complement to law school on a theoretical level.” Appellate courts on the other hand tend to focus more on legal arguments with more individual research on a fewer number of cases.

How many judges should one apply to? “That’s a difficult decision… most applicants apply to anywhere between 70 to 80 judges. This is a high number, but this process is by no means a sure thing. Be flexible and ask questions.”

For more information including tips and pointers, please visit the Office of Career Services website.

After seventeen years of making his way around Washington, Jeff Senger ’88 is now the Deputy Chief Counsel of the Food and Drug Administration. During a recent brown bag lunch he offered some general wisdom about lawyering in DC and with the FDA in particular. After several years working in the civil rights division of the DOJ, working in alternative dispute resolution under Janet Reno, and a rotation in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jeff took on some management work in the environmental, health, and tax divisions that honed his interest in public health.

Indeed, as the second-ranking and senior career lawyer at the FDA, he now oversees and manages the legal affairs of an agency that regulates 25 percent of every dollar Americans spend. At the FDA, he said, lawyers and policymakers are helping people more directly than at the DOJ. “Food and medicine are more primal,” he joked. With the rapid expansion of health law practices across the country, the FDA is an especially active agency. One of the latest contentious cases is that of Wyeth v. Levine, a Supreme Court case the drug industry is watching with bated breath. The particulars involve a Vermont musician and migraine sufferer who allegedly lost part of one arm due to side effects caused from the misadministration of Wyeth’s nausea drug Phenergan. The key question: does the fact that drugs are regulated by the federal government preempt drug companies from being sued in state court? “It’s a legal and public policy battle to which there is no easy answer, particularly since the drug is so effective when administered properly,” said Senger.

So what are the advantages of public sector lawyering? “The diversity, experience, and weight of responsibilities in addition to better hours and the flexibility to travel, teach, and write are all arguments for government life,” he said.

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.”

HLS has commemorated a number of historical milestones in recent months including the 40^th anniversary of Terry v. Ohio, a case which held that ‘stop and frisks’ were not a violation of Fourth Amendment rights where an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Some believed this case to have been wrongly decided, including the man who argued the case before the Court, Louis Stokes. Later in 1968 Stokes was elected to the United States Congress and served 15 consecutive terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Stokes was honored at a recent event by the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice.

The case itself involved two men who were stopped, searched, and found to possess guns in broad day on the streets of Cleveland in 1963 by a police officer who claimed the two to be exhibiting suspicious behavior. “I had no idea that Terry would become a landmark case,” said Stokes. “The more I talked to [the suspects, John Terry and Richard Chilton], the more it seemed to me that we might have a possibility of excluding the guns based on the testimony that this event had happened on the streets.” In the wake of such landmark cases as Miranda and Escobedo that succeeded in expanding the rights of the accused, Stokes filed a motion to suppress the evidence. “The officer had no probable cause accosting them,” he said, “They weren’t brandishing guns, running, or doing anything related to a crime.

In spite of the violence and turmoil of American cities in the sixties, Stokes was confident his case would prevail before the Court. “As a black man I understood how black males were stopped in urban settings and if they didn’t have contraband as a result of stopping subjecting them to the indignity of being stopped…they were just told to move on down the street. That’s why I took this case.” Yet in the final analysis the Supreme Court based their decision upon the safety of the police officer and failed to extend Fourth Amendment protections.

“What I say to you as law students is that it pays to think outside of the box as a lawyer,” advised Stokes. “It would have been easy for me to plead them guilty and work out some light sentence. It took more to go against the custom and utilize the Constitution to try to uphold what it means in light of what people are subjected to on the streets in our country.”

Stokes presence moved the audience to emotion. As one student asked, “Did you or your brother Carl, the first black mayor of a major U.S. city ever envision this day [the election of President-Elect Obama]? You must have because surely you paved the way.” Stokes remarked that Obama’s whole campaign reminded him of 1967 when his brother became the mayor of Cleveland. “Carl built coalition in Cleveland of blacks and white. That’s how he won. For many reasons related to what Carl did and my victory as the first black congressman in Ohio the following year, Barack Obama’s meant so much. It reminded me how far we’ve come.”

While at HLS, alumnus Lam Ho was a public interest dynamo. As president of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, a supervising member of Reaching Out About Depression (R.O.A.D.), and Founder & Coordinator of the Giving Tree, which raises holiday gifts for children of the HLS clinical and student practice organization clients, Lam never shied away from going above and beyond the call of duty… including 60-90 hours a week dedicated to his clinicals.

Lam is currently on a Skadden Fellowship starting a community legal clinic for low income youths and their families in Chicago. Admissions staffer Julia Foresman recently caught up with Lam in the wake of a victory he scored with the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago. Lam had been trying to get Chicago Public Schools to follow through with the Individualized Educational Plan that CPS and his client Mary Greenlee had put in place for her 6 year old grandson, Rayvaughn.  “It’s been extremely rewarding to educate and empower my clients,” he said.  “… this is what gets me up in the morning.”

Podcast: Lam Ho (13:09)

Anyone interested in employment law, worker justice issues, or public policy work would have been intrigued by a recent discussion sponsored by the Harvard Trade Union Program and the Labor and Worklife Program. The founder and Executive Director of Interfaith Worker Justice, Kim Bobo, came to speak about her newest book that addresses rampant wage theft among employers in the U.S.

“What is wage theft?” she posed to the audience. “Wage theft is not paying workers the minimum wage.” Bobo alluded to an array of recent cases involving men and women in the service industry who have been swindled out of wages (the Department of Labor estimated $50 billion in a 2007 survey) in a variety of ways including but not limited to: being fined for fallacious infractions on the job; being misclassified; being paid as independent contractors without overtime; being paid on a per unit basis, and not hourly; employers shaving off hours at leisure; employers tip stealing; and employers withholding of last paychecks.

Statistics like these, she said, bespeak the benefits of unionization. Just last year, Interfaith Worker Justice took on the case of employees for Republic Windows and Doors, whose owners decided to close factory doors and move machinery to a new factory in Iowa without giving their employees the requisite 60-day pay stipulated under the Warren Act. “Because they had a union,” she said, “they refused to leave.”

To be clear, Bobo pointed out that while wage theft is a national crisis and while the worst offenses are perpetrated against immigrants, this is not an immigrant problem; this is a greed problem. Immigrants are the most vulnerable, but native born workers are hurt probably in even larger dollar amounts. “Greed isn’t new, but what is new is that we don’t have adequate pushback forces,” she said. “Unions are the most effective wage theft deterrent, which is why we need the Employee Free Choice Act.”

Another growing pushback force are the 200+ nationwide workers centers that focus primarily on immigrant workers but not exclusively. Shoestring operations, their primary function is to coach victims of wage theft by educating them of their recourse options which include typically joining a union, filing a lawsuit, filing complaints with government agencies, or enlisting the help of community religious leaders. Other pushbacks include forging an ethical business community appealing to trial attorneys. Yet, Bobo insisted, there is no substitute for the Department of Labor which has abdicated their responsibilities over the last several years.

Praising the appointment of Hilda Solis, Bobo urged our need for “a leader who actually knows something about labor!” Moreover, she called for more community partnerships among unions and workers centers, accountability and transparency on a public scale, more police officers devoted to this problem on the job, targeted investigations, and meaningful penalties for employers. “No one is afraid of the Department of Labor and they need to be…we need reinforcement for enforcement!”