Our News & Stories

Practice Associate Professor Sarah Paoletti and students from the Transnational Legal Clinic interview community leaders in Haiti

Civil society in Haiti is still struggling to reemerge from the destruction brought about by last year’s devastating earthquake, as well as the infrastructural and other challenges that existed long before in the country. Amid these stark challenges six students in Penn Law’s Transnational Legal Clinic (TLC), supervised by Practice Associate Professor Sarah Paoletti, travelled to Haiti during spring break this semester. 

Over the course of the week, Elizabeth Eisenberg L’11, Cora Ang GL’11, John Moore L’11, Rekha Nair L’12, Samantha Stephens L’11 and Erika Tang GL’11 worked alongside the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti and its sister organization Bureau des Avocats Internationaux to conduct on-the-ground research, interviews, and consultations in preparation for drafting a report on labor and human rights in Haiti to be submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council as part of Haiti's upcoming Universal Periodic Review.

The Universal Periodic Review is a process established in 2006 by the United Nation's Human Rights Council with the purpose of evaluating each country's human rights record in light of the obligations established in the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other human rights instruments, and the country's own stated commitments.

While eager to participate and have their voices heard during this process, representatives of grassroots organizations and representatives from the most impacted communities do not have the resources to draft and submit the reports on their own. Therefore, students from the Transnational Legal Clinic took responsibility for drafting a report on labor rights.

“Since the earthquake the students had been eager to do something for Haiti, but I didn’t want to be just another foreign group on the ground,” said Professor Paoletti. “In this case there was a defined task, a demonstrated need, requests from grassroots organizations, and a set deadline, which contributed to making it a meaningful experience and an opportunity for real engagement with groups impacted by what we do.”

Throughout the week, the Transnational Legal Clinic team met with human rights lawyers, representatives from large international humanitarian nongovernment organizations, investigative journalists, the chief executive officer of Digicel (a cell phone carrier and the largest private employer in Haiti), staff from organizations working to combat abuses committed against Restavek children (children sent to live with other families who then find themselves in situations of domestic servitude and forced labor), representatives from an organization of women survivors of gender-based violence who assist other women and children victims of gender-based violence, tent camp residents, and a host of grassroots advocates. They visited two large camps – one an ad hoc settlement and the other a planned camp – to assess the economic opportunities available to the residents.

“This trip exposed students to how complex issues of human rights are, especially in a post-disaster setting and the importance of ensuring the people most directly affected by disaster and policy are a part of any discussions addressing human rights concerns and recommendations for moving forward,” said Paoletti.

“My work prior to this had been research only,” said Rekha Nair L’12. “In going to Haiti I got to see the problems and issues on the ground. The trip helped me to understand how to engage grassroots groups and local people on these issues. I also realized that while an outside organization from the United States or elsewhere can do meaningful work, lasting social change can only come from within, from a Haitian people and government empowered and committed to making a change together.”

Breakfasts and evenings were spent debriefing, conducting research, preparing for the next day's set of interviews, and drafting portions of the labor report, which TLC submitted to the United Nations on March 21st. The work of the clinic students constituted a valuable contribution to Haiti's Universal Period Review by raising critical questions and identifying key recommendations from across Haitian civil society for the advancement of human rights and labor rights in Haiti.

Cora Ang GL’11 described the scene in Port-Au-Prince as “truly traumatic” but explained that “there was a willingness of the people to have their voices heard.”  She said, “Whether we were navigating our way through the narrow paths of a tent camp or interviewing abused women, the narrative that echoed was the same: Access to education, access to job opportunities, adequate housing, access to clean water and healthcare. This is still what the population at large needs in order to survive each passing day and forge a future.”

Professor Seth Kreimer accepts Penn Law's inaugural Beacon Award

University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Seth Kreimer received a standing ovation as he was honored with the Law School’s inaugural Beacon Award to recognize a faculty member’s contribution to pro bono and public interest service. The award was part of Penn Law’s annual Public Interest Recognition Event, held Thursday evening, April 14, at the Levy Conference Center.

Kreimer “has been a resource, literally, for every public interest organization in Philadelphia, whether it’s the Women’s Law Project, Juvenile Law Project, AIDS Law Project, ACLU, [or the] Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia,” Penn Law Senior Fellow David Rudovsky said in presenting the award. “He has a passion and a commitment to fairness, to equality, [and] to access to justice that motivates him in a way that’s really unique among people in the field.”

Rudovsky described Kreimer as the go-to source for legal advice for lawyers facing the toughest issues in public interest and civil liberties litigation. “There’s Westlaw, there’s Lexis – there’s also something known as ‘Seth-law,’” Rudovsky said, eliciting laugher from the crowd.  

In accepting the award, Kreimer invoked the late Justice Louis Brandeis. “[Justice Brandeis] used to say that the only legitimate basis for accumulating wealth or professional privilege is the opportunity that it provides from time to time to do the right thing,” Kreimer said. “Over the years, I’ve been blessed with a series of sources of professional privilege that have made it possible for me to undertake pro bono efforts and this is an occasion to express my gratitude.”

Kreimer thanked the Law School, and particularly Dean Fitts, for providing him with a base on which to work on civil rights and civil liberties issues. He thanked public interest organizations, lawyers, and his clients for giving him a chance to join them in “efforts to bend the moral arc of the universe towards justice.” And he thanked his students. “I have been honored by the insight and the eagerness and the passion of the students at Penn Law School,” he said. “I look forward to seeing after you leave and go out in the world the ways in which you use your professional privileges from time to time to do the right thing.”

Third-year student Kristen-Elise Brooks received the C. Edwin Baker Award for performing the most pro bono hours of any student in the Class of 2011 – 426 hours over her three years at the Law School. “I’m sure that most people expect that the person who has the most [pro bono] hours would be going into public interest straight out of law school – and I’m not. I’m going to be starting in the fall at Paul Weiss,” Brooks said. “I think that’s one of the wonderful things about Penn. It’s that everyone does pro bono here. It’s not that there are public interest and firm people … Everyone is pro bono oriented.”

The event recognized the work of numerous Penn Law students, public interest law attorneys and advocates, and over 20 student-run pro bono groups. Loida Moreno, director of volunteer services for the Philadelphia Prison System, took the opportunity of being honored for her work with Penn Law’s Prisoners’ Education and Advocacy Project to thank the students at the event. She recognized “all the students that in one way or another took the time, the initiative, the leadership, and the effort to say, ‘I’m going to be part of a project for people that, for the most part, people choose to forget.’”

For a complete list of individuals and organizations honored, see the Public Interest Recognition Event program (PDF).

Flickr: Photos from the Annual Public Interest Recognition Event

Bridging Theory and Practice

Bok Visiting International Professor KP Krishnan

Dr. KP Krishnan, the Secretary of the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister of India, this semester came to Penn Law to serve as a Bok Visiting International Professor, where he taught a seminar on capital market regulation in India.

Each year through its International Program Penn Law invites several recognized experts in international and comparative law from around the world to Philadelphia, providing students access to senior experts, jurists, and professionals who offer new perspectives on cutting edge issues.

Penn Law’s Office of Communications interviewed Dr. Krishnan on his experience at the Law School and how globalization is impacting the exchange of ideas between India and the U.S.

Penn Law: What brought you to Penn Law through the Bok International Visiting Professors program?

KP Krishan (KK):  Really, it was a chance conversation with folks at the Center for the Advanced Study of India (CASI), which is a center here at Penn,  which led to a meeting with the Penn Law  people.  I was visiting New York and Washington for work last year, and one thing led to another: while I was in Philadelphia I met with Professors Eric Feldman, Anita Allen and Jill Fisch and Associate Dean Amy Gadsden at the White Dog Cafe, and I had this formal offer to be a Bok professor.

I’ve been teaching in India on financial sector regulation – not as a regular full course, but co-teaching with other professors. So, when this offer came, in a sense it was a natural extension of what I’ve been doing off-and-on. 

PL:  Please tell us about your current work in the Indian government. 

KK:  I belong to the Indian Civil Service, and in the Indian Civil Service  the way it normally works is, we spend a lifetime in the government.  Since July 1 last year my present job is to be the secretary of the prime minister’s Economic Advisory Council.  The nearest equivalent of this is the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Immediately prior to that, for five years I ran the financial markets division in the Indian Ministry of Finance, which deals with financial sector regulation, as well as international cooperation in the financial sector.  My present job is much more macro - it includes the financial sector also.  It is much more advisory and economy wide. 

PL:  Are you able to bring that experience to bear in your Law School class?

KK:  Yes. Regulation, particularly financial sector regulation, by its very nature, has an enormous amount of policy content. And in a context like India, where a lot of the regulation is done through the mechanism of law, the political process – that is, the parliamentary process - clears the regulation. This by definition involves all the major political parties, their ideologies and their view on markets and the state – should there be greater role of the state, a lesser role of the state, etc.  The final outcome is necessarily an amalgam of all the expert views, thinking, and knowledge of finance and law, and finally, what is acceptable politically.

Therefore, I think, a person who has had the advantage of a ringside view of all of this brings to the classroom a sense, or a reality check, about what happens and how the best should not become the enemy of the good.  And that’s what I’ve tried to bring to the seminar at Penn Law. 

An interesting aspect is the parallels with the U.S. system.  At one level, we are very different. But at another level, the processes in a democracy are ultimately the same.  It is the politically accountable politicians who make the last call.  Do they always make the call in the public interest?  Do they make it on the basis of some other lobbying group, or on account of international pressure?  These are the kind of things that we discussed in the class.

PL:  What was it like in the classroom? Who participated?

KK:  I had nine students from the Law School, and interestingly, two Wharton professors – one who teaches accounting, another who teaches economics and business policy – as well as an Indian infrastructure lawyer, and Professor Shyam Balganesh from Penn Law. An average class was about 12 or 13 folks.  A very interesting mix of people.

PL:  What are the key similarities or differences in the regulatory frameworks in India and the U.S.?

KK:  Regulation in both countries has been, in a sense, path-dependent.  That is, it’s not something which somebody sat up one day and designed –it’s the result of history, not exactly what, ideally, a professor would recommend.  In India we have a multiplicity of regulators, exactly like the U.S. does, but for very different reasons.  The U.S. has it for reasons of the federal distribution of powers – the distribution between the states and the federal government.  In India, the entire financial sector rests with the government of India, namely the federal government, but nevertheless, we still have a multiplicity of regulators.  And bringing about coordination between regulators has been a major theme in both countries. 

The pre- and the post- [2008 financial] crisis issues in India and the U.S. actually led to identical conclusions – we need greater coordination amongst regulators.  But at the same time, we need to keep politics out of this because the fundamental issue is consumer protection.

PL:  What is the value of comparative law in this context?

KK:  Let me just give you one example. One of the major problems that came out post the Lehman crisis in the U.S. was the unregulated, or the over-the-counter markets - the OTC markets - a bilateral market between a buyer and a seller, not intermediated by a stock exchange or any other kind of exchange.  Through its history, India has had an explicit preference for exchange-traded markets over OTC markets, where a lot of the information doesn’t come out in the public domain - so when a crisis of the kind that happened in 2007 or 2008 occurs, you do not actually know how badly off is a particular financial firm, because a lot of their trades are known only to them and their counterparties.

So, when the crisis blew up, the government could not even estimate what is the kind of damage that was going to hit the system, and therefore, what it was that the government needed to do.  So instead we have encouraged the much more open, transparent, publicly traded exchange markets.  And so post-2008, the Financial Stability Board, the G20, have actually begun to mandate exchange-like regulations for the OTC markets. 

In this sense, the flow of best practices now seems to be two-way, and I think the Financial Stability Board and the G20 have encouraged this two-way flow of ideas.  It is still dominated by a flow coming from the OECD to the emerging markets economies, but I believe there are also the beginnings of what I would think is an encouraging trickle of a flow in the developing world’s direction, which is hugely important.

One of the major consequences of globalization is a much more interconnected world. So, I also want to note what the Law School and Penn in general are doing to organize a structured flow of ideas between scholars and practitioners in India with their counterparts in the U.S. is going to be increasingly relevant and important for globalization to become a meaningful, productive and mutually beneficial process.

By Jenny Chung C’12

Professor Regina Austin, teacher of the visual legal advocacy seminar

An audience of Penn Law students—along with faculty and local community members—convened Tuesday evening to watch a series of short films produced by their classmates at the 2011 Rough Cut Video Festival.

Featuring five half-hour documentaries on such wide-ranging topics as the experiences of incarcerated mothers and the “Ban the Box” movement in Philadelphia, the Festival showcased the early edited—or “rough cut”—versions of each film.

The documentaries presented were both filmed and directed by members of the Visual Legal Advocacy Seminar, taught by Professor Regina Austin L’73. A central component of the Penn Program on Documentaries and the Law, Austin’s seminar integrates law-genre documentaries into the legal academy by enabling students to produce documentary films on issues of social justice.

“These students have gotten as far as they have generally by relying on the written word—tonight we’ll see how they’re able to think in terms of visuals and music,” Austin said by way of introduction, adding that the student filmmakers have proven themselves to be genuine “believers in the potential of visual legal advocacy.”

In spite of the array of refreshments offered and informal atmosphere, Austin cautioned her audience against passive viewing. “Don’t think you’re just here to relax and enjoy the show,” she said. “This isn’t a movie theater; this is a classroom and working session not only for the videomakers, but their audience as well.”

Commending the “bravery” her students demonstrated by their willingness to exhibit their work “to an audience full of lawyers with years of experience and practical wisdom,” Austin urged viewers to focus particular attention on the “ethical dimensions” of the videos, which sought to portray “ordinary people” with firsthand experience concerning the issues under investigation.

Jackpot! The Legal and Social Implications of Gambling in the Black Community

Nathaniel Koonce L'12 and Jerome Jordan L'12, two of the creators of Jackpot! The Legal and Social Implications of Gambling in the Black Community

Offering insight into the sociocultural factors exacerbating the issue, community activist Reverend Jesse Brown asserted that the black community has had a “long history” with gambling. He further theorized that a given community may be more “susceptible” to pathological gambling if “gambling has been part of its normal activity, behavior and the way [members] fellowship.”

In addition to evaluating the potential catalysts of gambling addiction, the documentary also supplied a comprehensive overview of the effects of gambling on the elderly and disabled within the black community—as well as the community at large—noting that every year increasing numbers of individuals representing a broad cross-section of society fall victim to compulsive gambling. 

In an effort to put a human face on gambling addiction, Sandra Adell, University of Wisconsin-Madison professor and author of Confessions of a Slot Machine Queen, shared her personal experiences.

Adell said she wrote Confessions, an account of her struggle with compulsive gambling, in order to provide “vulnerable communities [with] a forum to begin to talk about problems with the proliferation of casinos around the country.”

The film also examined the role of the church in addressing gambling addiction, concluding that while churches have historically served as pillars of the black community, they too often send “mixed messages” to the devout by holding raffles or sponsoring trips to casinos after service.

Both activists and legal practitioners interviewed agreed that there exists a need for increased funding to finance more accessible treatment for addicts, and for ordinary citizens to exercise greater influence in deciding whether new casinos are to be introduced to Philadelphia.

According to Nathaniel Koonce L’12, who had worked on the documentary in collaboration with Andrew Pinkston L’12, Wendell Holland L’11 and Jerome Jordan L’12, Jackpot! had from the outset been intended for distribution across and within the broader community. The group plans to release the film via YouTube, public access television, grassroots networks and similar venues in the coming weeks.

We Didn’t Come Here to Fight: The Struggle for a Safe Education

Rebekah Lee L'11, Angela Redai L'11, Jade Palomino L'11, and Jane Zenzi Li L'11, creators of We Didn't Come Here to Fight: The Struggle for a Safe Education

Produced, written, directed and shot by Rebekah Lee, Jane Zenzi Li, Jade Palomino and Angela Redai, all third-year law students, the film wove interviews from South Philadelphia High students, Asian-American activists and community members into a compelling narrative. 

After several Asian students were hospitalized following an outbreak of violence in 2009, others staged an 8-day boycott of the high school en masse to express their disappointment with the deficient security measures on campus and perceived indifference on the part of school administrators.

According to South Philadelphia High senior and student leader Duong Nghe Ly, he and other students concerned with the violence had not been “fighting other students” but the administration and school officials who consistently failed to adequately address the students’ concerns.

The students then brought their complaints before the Department of Justice, alleging that the school district had engaged in discrimination under the 14th Amendment on account of its “deliberate indifference.” The case resulted in a settlement that, according to Asian Americans United board member Helen Gym, not only proposed solutions to the immediate problem but facilitated dialogue on strategies for improving the school overall.

The documentary also endeavored to trace the ethnic tension at South Philadelphia High to its root causes, suggesting that both the administration’s subpar student orientation efforts and the cultural and language barriers alienating immigrant students from their peers may be to blame.

The system of school choice in Philadelphia, under which private, charter and magnet schools do not offer the full range of ESL services, also leaves immigrant students with little choice but to enroll in the neighborhood high school—however hostile.

According to Li, she and her co-directors were inspired to address this issue due to their work with students in the Philadelphia school system. “We knew people involved in the incidents, and it struck a chord with us,” she said.

Palomino added that because campus violence continues to be a national media issue, she hopes the documentary will “effect some change.”

The Rough Cut Video Festival included a total of six films:
Boxed Out: Criminal Records and the “Ban the Box” Movement in Philadelphia (Running time 0:30)
Produced, Directed, Shot, and Edited by Katherine Andrews L'11, Abel Rodriguez L'11, and Megan Rok L'11
Edited and Animated with the help of JJ Rok

Don’t Steal My House: Deed Fraud in Philadelphia (Running time 0:30)
Produced, Directed, and Edited by Kevin Bale L'11, Pauline Law L'12, and Johnathan Lindsey L'11
Shot by Kevin Bale L'11, Pauline Law L'12, Johnathan Lindsey L'11 and Kevin Stirling
Technical Support by Neal Swisher and Kevin Stirling
Additional Cinematography and Photography by Adam Brody and Erb Larson

Jackpot! The Legal and Social Implications of Gambling in the Black Community (Running time 0:30)
Produced, Directed, and Shot by Nathaniel Koonce L'12, Andrew Pinkston L'12, Wendell Holland L'11, and Jerome Jordan L'12
Edited by Neal Swisher
Scored by Jerome Jordan

Mothers in Prison (Running time 0:25)
Produced by Sabrina Haugebrook (Penn Criminology M.S., 2011), Yoav Stein (Penn Law Visiting Exchange Student from Tel Aviv Law School), and Steve Fecarotta (Drexel Law, 2009; Drexel Television Management M.S., 2011) 
Directed and Shot by Steve Fecarotta, Sabrina Haugebrook, and Yoav Stein
Edited by Sabrina Haugebrook and Steve Fecarotta
Graphics by John Paul MacDuffie Woodburn

"We Didn't Come Here to Fight”: The Struggle for a Safe Education (Running time 0:25)
Produced, Written, Directed, and Shot by Rebekah Lee L'11, Jane Zenzi Li L'11, Jade Palomino L'11, and Angela Redai L'11
Executive Editor:  Irit Reinheimer
Narrated by Pierre Gooding L'11
Additional Narration (December 3rd Violence Montage) by Ryan Crosner L'11, Rebekah Lee L'11, Jane Zenzi Li L'11, Joel Lin L'11, and John Woo L'11

As part of its commitment to supporting public interest legal careers, the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Toll Public Interest Center (TPIC) has selected four 2011 Postgraduate Fellowship Award recipients.

The Fellowships, which were created in 2009 and expanded this year to include the newly created S. Gerald Litvin & Dennis R. Suplee Fellowship, support Penn Law graduating students or recent alumni in their pursuit of public interest careers. Fellows design their own public interest projects and work with partnering non-profit organizations locally, nationally, or internationally on pressing issues and advocating for clients.

Fellows are selected by the TPIC Advisory Board, a group of legal professionals who serve as counsel to TPIC on its public interest programs and initiatives. The Fellowships are awarded through a competitive process, and recipients are screened through written applications and interviews. Successful applicants must demonstrate both a strong commitment to public service and an effective partnership with a public interest organization that will allow them to provide a necessary legal service to an under-represented cause or community. The Fellowships are designed to launch long-term public interest careers.
 
“I am impressed by the caliber of this year’s Postgraduate Fellows, and I admire their enthusiasm for and commitment to social justice and public interest lawyering,” said Michael A. Fitts, dean of Penn Law. “In addition, I am excited to announce our newest Fellowship, the S. Gerald Litvin & Dennis R. Suplee Fellowship, generously funded by Law School alumnus Gerald McHugh [L'79].”

McHugh added, “Jerry Litvin and Dennis Suplee are the ultimate role models for any young lawyer. "This Fellowship will help a Penn Law graduate follow in their paths.” Litvin L’54 is senior counsel at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and Suplee L’67 is a partner and former chair of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP.

The 2011 TPIC Postgraduate Fellowship recipients and their projects are:

• Matthew McFeeley L’11, awarded the Penn Law Public Interest Fellowship. McFeeley will partner with environmental NGO the Natural Resources Defense Council of Washington, D.C. As part of his project he will develop research that details the health and environmental impacts of oil and gas drilling – especially new forms of intensive natural gas extraction –  on low-income, rural communities across the United States. In addition, he will help develop litigation to remedy harms and prevent future violations, and will advocate for new protections.
   
• Abel Rodriguez L’11, awarded the Langer, Grogan and Diver Fellowship in Social Justice. Partnering with Nueva Esperanza, a Philadelphia faith-based organization, Rodriguez’s project will provide low-income elderly and disabled immigrants in Philadelphia with outreach and legal services to help them navigate the complex naturalization process and begin receiving the life-saving and poverty-reducing benefits to which U.S. citizens are entitled, particularly Supplemental Security Income. Rodriguez will represent clients in federal court appeals, collaborate with non-profits to ensure clients receive benefits, provide comprehensive legal services, and contribute to federal litigation to extend benefits to immigrants.
   
• Benjamin Salvina L’11, awarded the S. Gerald Litvin & Dennis R. Suplee Fellowship. With partner organization Mazzoni Center Legal Services of Philadelphia, Salvina’s project will focus on helping low-income LGBT persons facing employment discrimination. He will provide community education, strengthen organizational ties, negotiate with entities engaging in discriminatory practices, and represent clients before the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, and state and federal courts.
   
• Joanna Visser L’10, awarded the Philadelphia Fellowship. Partnering with Philadelphia’s Juvenile Law Center, Visser will engage in outreach, litigation, and policy advocacy to strengthen ongoing efforts to end the practice of sentencing juveniles to die in prison, and will assist prisoners who are challenging the constitutionality of their sentences following the U.S. Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decision in Graham v. Florida. In addition, she will counsel Penn Law students on local pro bono and public interest opportunities, and serve as a bridge between Penn Law and Philadelphia’s robust public interest legal community.
   

Founded in 1989, TPIC is at the center of public interest initiatives at Penn Law, helping all students to cultivate meaningful opportunities to provide pro bono legal service to under-represented communities, while mentoring students who hope to make public interest their professional focus. The Center’s pro bono program, which includes a 70-hour pro bono requirement and emphasizes students’ professional development, has been recognized with the American Bar Association’s Pro Bono Publico Award.

Supreme Court Clinic students with Stephanos Bibas, Stephen B. Kinnaird, and James Feldman in Washington, DC after the Turner v. Rogers argument in March. They will return on April 18 for the case of Tapia v. United States.

Can a court give a defendant a longer prison sentence in order to promote the defendant’s rehabilitation? The U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument on this issue in the case of Tapia v. United States on Monday, April 18, despite the case being “orphaned” by the U.S. Solicitor General’s office.

Stephanos Bibas, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and the director of Penn Law’s Supreme Court Clinic, was appointed amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) by the Court to advocate for the government’s abandoned position in the case. About twice every three terms, the Court appoints a lawyer to represent an orphaned issue, and often it chooses a justice’s former clerk. Professor Bibas clerked for Justice Kennedy, is a former federal prosecutor, and has written on sentencing, the issue in Tapia. 

Of note, Professor Bibas has been assisted in the case by students in Penn Law’s Supreme Court Clinic, who have helped conduct research, draft the amicus curiae brief, and prepare strategy. Tapia is Bibas and the Supreme Court Clinic’s second case to go to oral argument this semester. In March, Bibas argued the case of Turner v. Rogers, which involved whether an indigent defendant has a right to court-appointed counsel when faced with being sent to jail for failing to pay child support.

"We are blessed to have a dozen bright, eager students who have helped to strategize, research, write, and edit the briefs,” Bibas said. On Tapia, he added, “They've helped us immeasurably in giving the Supreme Court a perspective on the history of rehabilitative treatments and sentencing reform that it otherwise would not have heard."

Penn Law’s Supreme Court Clinic is the nation’s first to closely integrate practical experience on Supreme Court matters with a semester-long academic seminar on the workings of the Court. Clinic students work on active Supreme Court cases, including participating in moot court rehearsals and attending oral arguments at One First Street.

The Clinic is led by Bibas, Lecturer Stephen B. Kinnaird, also a former clerk to Justice Kennedy and a partner with the Paul Hastings law firm, and Lecturer Nancy Bregstein Gordon L’78, a former clerk to Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. The accompanying seminar is taught by Penn Law Professor Amy Wax and Adjunct Lecturer James Feldman, a former clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. Both Wax and Feldman are former assistants to the Solicitor General, and combined have argued more than 60 cases before the Supreme Court.

Sarah Carroll L’11, a student in the Supreme Court Clinic who wrote research briefs in support of Bibas’ oral argument, said, “It’s an amazing opportunity to help with actual Supreme Court litigation through the Clinic while still in law school. Professor Bibas takes our suggestions seriously; when we’re sitting in class one of us can say ‘this paragraph wasn’t that persuasive to me,’ and he usually revises it based on our input.”

“In the class and in the Clinic you can watch your own work get a lot stronger,” said Katherine Meeks L’12. “The ethos is very collaborative, so when you circulate a draft [of a brief] you expect to get comments, criticisms, and suggestions. I’ve learned a lot about how to make good legal arguments and write well, and not be afraid to make a mistake.”

Meeks added, “You try to do your best work for it. It just takes your skills to a different level.”

Faculty Research Brief Series

Chris William Sanchirico Samuel A. Blank Professor of Law, Business and Public Policy; Co-Director, Center for Tax Law and Policy

What should determine the taxes that an individual pays? Specifically, what potentially taxable attributes should be included in the government’s calculus of the tax an individual must pay and the transfers (that is, tax reductions) she is entitled to receive? The question is among the most elemental and perennially controversial in tax law and policy.

Under the current U.S. tax and transfer system, an individual’s taxes and transfers are based on a long and varied list of personal attributes: the taxpayer’s income from various sources, expenses of various kinds, assets, liabilities, age, and family structure.

But despite the eclectic nature of the current system, the dominant view among tax scholars is that the tax base should not be so eclectic – that achieving the optimal balance of revenue, efficiency, and equity requires basing taxes and transfers on a single taxable attribute, namely labor earnings, and not also on other potentially taxable attributes such as capital gains. The optimality of such labor-earnings-only taxation is regarded as “the plain vanilla case” or the “natural model.” Circumstances in which a more eclectic tax base is warranted are described as “exotic” or as “theoretical curiosities.”

In a recent paper, however, University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Chris William Sanchirico asserts that – with regard to balancing revenue, efficiency, and equity – tax eclecticism is in fact the optimal model, and labor-earnings-only taxation, the exotic exception. Sanchirico’s paper, Tax Eclecticism, does not defend the often frustrating complexity of the current U.S. tax system, but rather argues for the general principle of tax eclecticism.

Sanchirico, a Ph.D. economist as well as a legal scholar, supports his argument for tax eclecticism with mathematical analysis that focuses on the impact of including capital gains in the tax base.

Sanchirico’s argument has two parts. The primary objective of the paper concerns the three criteria of revenue collection, economic efficiency, and the mitigation of economic inequality. Sanchirico asserts that basing monetary flows between individuals and the government on a more inclusive set of taxable attributes makes it possible to achieve a better balance of these three competing criteria. The second objective of the paper concerns a fourth criteria: the administrability of the tax and transfer system. Sanchirico argues that an eclectic tax base need not make the tax substantially more difficult to administer.

Although Sanchirico’s argument for an eclectic tax base is somewhat consistent with the U.S. tax system as it actually is, it swims against a powerful tide of thought among many tax scholars regarding how the tax system ought to be.

The paper has important implications for the long-running debate over whether capital gains should be taxed in addition to labor earnings. Accordingly, it casts doubt on the consensus view that the income tax, which taxes both capital and labor income, ought to be replaced with a consumption tax, which (under certain special conditions) is equivalent to a tax on labor earnings only.

The paper also contributes to the debate over whether non-tax-and-transfer legal and administrative policies – such as those concerning environmental regulation, public goods provision, immigration, and private law rules in tort or contract – should be set in part to reflect society’s redistributional goals, or rather be determined solely on the basis of efficiency.

Read the full brief by clicking the image below (PDF) or download the complete paper from the SSRN website.

By Jenny Chung C’12

On April 11 Anne-Marie Slaughter, recently the U.S. Department of State’s Director of Policy Planning and a renowned international relations and international law professor, told an audience in Gittis Hall as part of the annual Leon C. and Judith W. Holt Lecture on International Law that equipping students for global leadership lies “at the heart” of the work she currently performs.

Slaughter’s address to a packed hall of students, faculty, and members of the public examined legal issues confronting the global community. According to Law School Dean Michael Fitts, who provided an introduction, the Holt Lecture aims to bring “luminaries in the field of international law” to Penn Law in order to prepare students for global leadership roles.

Slaughter affirmed “To be a global leader in the government, civic or corporate sector—all three are essential for tackling global problems—is a far more complex task today than it has ever been.” She explained, "It requires more knowledge and a greater understanding of more actors in an interconnected world.”

She then proceeded to outline her talk, which had as its central proposition the understanding that the 21st century is “an era in which foreign policy is changing fundamentally.”

“Intellectually, we are in the midst of a paradigm shift moving from a world in which states are the primary and only actors to a world in which you also have to focus on societies,” Slaughter said, adding that while state-to-state relations constitute the principal framework through which modern decisionmakers continue to evaluate the world, unprecedented changes are occurring.

In the past, she explained, policymakers conceptualized the international arena as a “world of billiard balls [or a] chess game in which each country is seen as a unitary actor,” and gave little consideration to the domestic situation within each country.

“We’re still in a world in which you reduce other countries to the size and sources of their power and their governments,” she said. “We still have to think of countries in terms of government-to-government relations, but we’re also now in a world in which societies are increasingly autonomous actors.”

According to Slaughter, the so-called “billiard ball” concept has now become transparent, enabling policymakers to see the relationship between a given government and its society. To extend the metaphor further, Slaughter characterized the newly formed “glass ball” as a “cell” wherein “all the actors in that society are interacting with actors in yours,” resulting in the need to “look at other governments and societies” alongside one’s own.

Citing the ongoing “story of the Middle East” as a positive dimension to interlinked societies, Slaughter exhorted her audience members to “shift [their] mental model of diplomacy and foreign relations” to include not merely government-to-government relations but society-to-society and government-to-society dynamics as well.

To underscore the significance of development, Slaughter enumerated the six most pressing concerns facing the United States government: the proliferation of nuclear and biochemical weapons; terrorist networks and the spread of violent extremism; the health and stability of the global economy; climate change; global pandemics; and resource scarcity.  She asserted that “development is critical to resolving all but possibly the first.”

With regard to combating terrorism, Slaughter maintained that “[pouring] money into countries”—as had been proposed by several members of the Clinton administration—was not of itself an adequate response to the spread of violent extremism.

“Terrorist networks flourish in undeveloped countries with governments that prefer to point fingers at outside threats or challenges rather than focus on their people,” she said. “Focusing on a developing agenda helps to address this long-term—we want to help the country get to a place where it can be stable and provide basic services on its own to its own people.”

Likewise, Slaughter argued, where the global economy is concerned, “development is a strategic and moral imperative.”

“If individual countries within regions can make the leap from even lower-middle income countries they become anchors for an entire regional economy,” she elaborated. “Countries starting to take off have enormous ripple effects within the region.”

Slaughter observed that while development is evidently central, because its solutions tend to be “longer-term, frustrating and complex” they are frequently ignored in favor of resolving issues that can be improved simply by communicating with other governments.

“We have to be putting as much emphasis on the development side of foreign policy as the diplomatic side,” she said.

Slaughter added that despite remaining “peripheral” to serious foreign policy, “women’s issues are, in development terms, by far [the] best investment” given that funding to women’s groups “reverberates through [the individual woman’s] health, her family’s health and food security [within communities].”

Moreover, she said, “engaging women in peace processes improves prospects of settlement,” though as of now most negotiations never consider including women.

Slaughter professed that youth and entrepreneurs, in addition to women, comprise crucial segments of society—among others—development strategies must target.

“Sixty percent of the Middle East are under 30,” she said. “If we’d been developing relationships [with youth groups] we might be in a different place with regard to how some countries think of the U.S.”

She commended Obama administration’s approach to fostering relations with entrepreneurs in the Middle East. “They’ve targeted members of society who are change agents and represent a spirit of dynamism that needs to be cultivated across those countries,” Slaughter said.

Emphasizing the necessity of employing technology as a means of social and economic empowerment in developing countries, Slaughter explained that the United States, as a “leading technology nation,” can help develop technologies to monitor elections, reduce corruption, revamp existing financial institutions and improve overall quality of life.

She recalled a “tech delegation” she had led to Liberia and the Sierra Leone comprised solely of female executives in technology industries who spoke with governments and women’s groups on how mobile technology can be used to reduce maternal mortality rates.

Affirming that the “use of technology as part of diplomacy focuses on individuals in society,” Slaughter likewise stressed the importance of preserving web access for citizens of developing countries. “In the 21st century, the internet is where we live a growing portion of our lives,” she said. “If you’re going to enjoy basic freedoms, you have to have the freedom to connect to the world.”
 
Slaughter concluded by evoking the potential and possibility inherent in the emerging 21st-century model of international relations and encouraged audience members to contribute to global development initiatives.

“For anyone who wants to be involved as a global leader or citizen, there are more opportunities now than ever before,” she said. “You have the option through NGOs, the private sector, or state and local governments to be part of networks that tackle these larger problems.”

By Lisa Pang C'13

A crowd of law students gathered in Penn Law’s Bernard Segal Moot Court Room on March 31 to hear Iowa Supreme Court Justice Brent Appel discuss the process, historical precedents, and current challenges faced in maintaining fair and impartial courts in American society.

Justice Appel was appointed Iowa's First Assistant Attorney General in 1979, Deputy Attorney General in 1983, and Supreme Court Justice in 2006. He served on the court responsible for the controversial decision to legalize gay marriage in Iowa. “Those who are opposed to fair and impartial courts are more vocal, those who support them have been largely silenced,” he told the audience.

Appel explained that the theory of fair and impartial courts held a strong historical precedent in the United States: “Most colonial judges held their judges at the pleasure of the crowd and the king,” Appel said. But around the time of the Constitutional Convention, attitudes towards judges changed: “The Founders rejected politically irresponsible judges,” he noted, adding, “The powers of government can be limited through no other way than through medium of courts of justice…Without this all reservations of particular rights and privileges will amount to nothing.”

At the same time, several movements were made towards checking the freedom of justices, especially during the impeachment of Samuel Chase, an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1796, Appel said. However, in Chase's case it was determined that he could not be impeached on the basis of his opinions on the bench--a decision that has been used as a historical precedent to preserve the court’s decision making independence.

Appel also addressed how the system of appointing justices influenced the court’s autonomy. For example, until 1962 Iowa elected its judges, which according to Appel led to independent and fair-minded judges sitting on the bench. As a result of calamities like the Great Depression, however, “All the Republican judges were swept out of office,” he said.

To avoid such situations, Iowa adopted the merit selection system, in which a committee comprised of lawyers and judges reviews applications and nominates three candidates for a retention vote. Appel voiced his support of the system: “I think the manner of selection in Iowa which involves a larger committee decision and nomination has considerable merit,” he said.

Appel further highlighted judicial independence “as a lynchpin of citizens’ rights,” pointing out that “The Soviet Union had no fair and impartial court. In Nazi Germany, previously independent judges were required to take a new set of oaths.” He described attacks today on the judiciary as “currently pretty strong. We are said to be arrogant and elite,” Appel asserted, “not responding to the popular will… legislating from the bench.”

These attacks are not at all new, he said, “So it’s déjà vu all over again.” But, he noted, there are factors present in society now that are more challenging to fair and independent lawyers. “Society disparages critical thinking and encourages emotional response… impartiality is a sign of weakness,” Appel said.

Appel decried the use of “labels as a substitute for analysis,” arguing that in order to counteract such a mentality, it is vital to educate the public about judges' and justices' work within precedent and statutes instead of within their own personal precedent.

In addition, Appel decried what he termed “the chronic underfunding of the judiciary.” The judiciary, he asserted, is overwhelmed in terms of time and resources, and making responsible decisions under such conditions is a challenge. Underfunding “is a silent killer for fair and impartial courts,” he warned.

Appel closed by emphasizing the importance of lawyers. “You have chosen an honorable profession,” he told his audience. “Diligence makes a difference. When I talk to graduating students, I always say ‘some of you may have had great grades….when you get to the court room, none of that matters, what matters is who’s prepared and who's diligent and who is willing to zealously represent the client.'”

The event was organized by Penn Law's chapter of the American Constitution Society, the mission of which is “to promote progressive interpretations of the Constitution and the judiciary,” explained Anna Carlsen L’12, the Penn Law membership chair. “We hold events like this to bring in progressive judges to learn about the issues, ways to disseminate knowledge, and how we can work for change.”

By Jenny Chung C’12

Ken Hurwitz L’76 WG’76, a partner at the law firm Haynes and Boone, provided attendees at a recent breakfast talk at the Biddle Law Library’s Rare Book Room an overview of the energy law field, and the many career paths open to those involved in the sector.

Sponsored by the Penn Law Energy Club, Hurwitz’s talk highlighted the changes the energy sector has undergone over the past 35 years. Hurwitz, who earned both his J.D. and M.B.A. degrees from Penn in 1976, recalled that when he graduated, there had been “no real energy field, per se,” adding, “there was public utility practice, environmental practice and some natural gas practice, but that was about it.”

In the past, the electric utility industry had been structured in such a way as to preserve vertical integration. According to Hurwitz, electric utilities firms owned production, transmission and distribution mechanisms, earning 80 to 90 percent of all revenue from retail sales to commercial, industrial and residential users.

Regulated by the Federal Power Commission (now known as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), such utilities also engaged in limited wholesale activities and limited reserve-sharing agreements with others, he said.

Within this  “fairly tight structure,” law firms represented utilities seeking to complete wholesale transactions. When inflation set in during the 1960s, many utilities likewise sought to raise their rates and, correspondingly, representation from law firms.

“There were firms in Washington that filed rate increase cases before the Federal Power Commission and firms nationwide which represented utilities that wanted to raise retail rates,” Hurwitz said, adding that certain segments of the legal profession opposed such rate increases. He cited firms that represented electric co-ops which resold utilities to distribution co-ops as examples of the latter group.

With regard to the natural gas sector, firms would go before the Federal Power Commission and contest utility firms that represented pipelines, which were integrated in that they provided bundled services consisting of both sales and transportation.

“Lawyers practicing in the utility area were either pro-utility/pipeline or anti-utility/pipeline,” he said.

In 1978, a “revolution” occurred with the passage of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), which opened up the electric generation field to competition with utilities. For instance, Hurwitz explained, small power producers that used renewable energy sources were given the right to require electric utilities to divide their power.

Because PURPA facilities could require an electric utility to sign a contract with them for thirty years, Hurwitz explained the law “furnished many benefits to a new section of generators” and “gave rise to a vibrant and competitive independent power sector.”

“You get excited as a lawyer because there’s now a whole new class of clients you can represent,” he said.

Shortly afterward, the natural gas sector also underwent significant changes as a result of FERC Order 436, which “changed the nature of how pipelines did business,” Hurwitz recounted.

He explained that pipelines were required to provide open access transportation, effectively being converted from purchase and resale agents to transportation entities.

Once the Energy Policy Act was passed in 1992, electric utilities were required to provide transmission services to third parties, resulting in a “whole new series of entities…that could generate and transport power.”

According to Hurwitz, the implications for energy law deriving from the previous legislative measures were far-reaching.

“In the old days, who you could represent was fairly limited,” he said. “Now, things have opened up in new, varied and interesting ways [as] numerous groups of potential clients came into being.”

Hurwitz characterized the 1980s in general as a period of change, largely due to the massive deregulation carried out by the Reagan administration. In Washington, D.C., for instance, the “specialized boutique” firms of the past were gradually replaced by an influx of out-of-town firms which performed more “generalized” commercial work.

“In the old days, the only utility transaction work that went on was when utilities wanted to issue bonds,” he said. “Today, there are all sorts of litigation and transactions that go on—plenty of regulatory work.”

“Energy has become an exciting field with lots of potential employers,” Hurwitz added.

He advised law students looking to enter the field to postpone working at government agencies for a few years upon graduation in order to acquire more extensive experience.
“Four to six years out of law school is ideal [for entering a government agency],” he said. “You get a good law firm foundation and more expertise.”

While Hurwitz deemed “becoming ingrown at a law firm” as the “most traditional and successful path in private legal practice,” he acknowledged that in the current economic climate, many firms are reluctant to hire first or second-year associates.

“The difficulty firms are having is that they aren’t quite sure where this new world will end up,” he said. “They’re reluctant to discount because of the expectation that they’ll return to the old world in which they can command premium rates.”

Regardless of the path one chooses to pursue, Hurwitz said, diligence and a passion for the profession are essential to success.

“You really have to work hard and like what you’re doing,” he said.

The University of Pennsylvania Law School has launched RegBlog, a website that provides news, analysis, and opinion on regulation. RegBlog is a special project of the Penn Program on Regulation, an interdisciplinary, University-wide program that analyzes regulatory policy problems and alternative strategies for solving them.

“RegBlog capitalizes on expertise and energy from across the University community – students, faculty, and alumni – to encourage intelligent dialogue about important policy issues and the complex regulatory process,” said Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils professor of Law and professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the Penn Program on Regulation. “The website fills a unique need for balanced, penetrating coverage of regulatory issues for the general reader as well as the scholar and practitioner.”

RegBlog features news and analysis on policy developments, regulatory actions, court decisions, and cutting-edge research related to regulation. The website tackles issues such as the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, food safety in an era of global trade, constitutional challenges to health care reform, and governmental transparency. Each Monday the website publishes a Regulatory Recap which compiles some of the most important regulatory stories from the previous week.

RegBlog is written and edited by over 20 students and several alumni from across the University of Pennsylvania.  Professor Coglianese serves as the faculty advisor, overseeing the overall work and contributing original content. The website also features guest posts by leading academics and practitioners. Initial guest contributors include Penn Law Professors Theodore Ruger and David Skeel, along with Abigail Slater, a senior attorney with the Federal Trade Commission.

In addition to serving as a much-needed resource for readers, RegBlog offers students a unique opportunity for cross-disciplinary collaboration and real-world impact. “The website gives students a chance to contribute original content,” said RegBlog Editor-in-Chief Jonathan Mincer L’12. “There is no better way to learn how to analyze complex  issues and write high-quality, interesting, professional work than to do it nearly every day, discuss it with other students, and receive direct feedback from a top Penn Law professor.”

RegBlog’s 2010-2011 Board comprises seven graduate students from the Law School and School of Arts and Sciences.  The website’s team of writers includes a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Radiology at the School of Medicine, graduate students in bioengineering, environmental science, governmental administration, landscape architecture, and city and regional planning, and several JD and LLM students at the Law School.

“One of the strengths of RegBlog is that students in various departments of the University can contribute posts that are relevant to their fields of study,” said RegBlog Executive Editor Steve Gillard, who is pursuing a Masters in Environmental Studies. “This is because RegBlog prides itself on writing pieces about diverse regulatory issues and making them accessible to people who do not have a law degree.”

RegBlog is an outgrowth of a blog that Professor Coglianese created in 2009 as a project of the Penn Program on Regulation. The new RegBlog is designed to draw on the cross-disciplinary strengths of the University of Pennsylvania to provide a distinctive destination website for regulatory news and analysis.

To read RegBlog, go to http://www.regblog.org.

Somewhere in Bangkok, an Iraqi man named Yusuf* lives in limbo, a visitor who has overstayed his visa, unable to return home and not yet permitted to join his sister, Amal*, in Chicago. He cannot go back to Iraq because he is a marked target; his sister’s work as a translator and caseworker for United States forces put her entire family at risk from anti-American terrorist organizations. Though Amal was able to receive refugee status and immigrate to the United States, Yusuf’s relocation has progressed much more slowly.

Yusuf’s case is one of over 200 being handled by the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), a national organization that helps Iraqis who were formerly employed by American and international forces in Iraq, and their families, to enter the United States through Special Immigrant Visas. Students in the Penn Law branch of IRAP are currently working to secure Yusuf’s relocation to the United States.

University of Jordan law students Dana Abu Al Ghanam and Sultan Abu Dalhoum confer with Katie Flannery L'13 about a case

Penn’s IRAP, a Toll Public Interest Center student group, was formed in February 2010 as an offshoot of the Penn Law Immigrant Rights Project. The project consists of more than two dozen students and seven attorneys who work together on ten cases. Currently each attorney supervises students who work in teams of two or three to develop strategy, draft memos, and prepare paperwork and client statements for the government.  This semester, IRAP also began working with the local Iraqi community in Philadelphia. Under the supervision of Professor Fernando Chang-Muy, students are helping Iraqi refugees complete Green Card applications, apply for the refugee benefits to which they are entitled, and file taxes.

Learning Beyond the Classroom
Many of the skills students develop through their work with IRAP can be difficult to hone in the classroom. Andrew J. Soven L’95, an advising attorney from Reed Smith, said the cases teach students patience and persistence. “The reality [is] that things in the real world take much longer than you’d often like them to. In particular, it can be frustrating dealing with government agencies and levels of review each application takes. Nothing happens quickly on something like this.”

Certain skills, including interviewing and working with victims of trauma, require training sessions like those sponsored by Penn Law’s Students Against Gender-Based Exploitation Project (SAGE).  In February, IRAP hosted a training session for students and attorneys taught by Miriam Marton, a Skadden Arps pro bono attorney with experience – first as a psychologist and later as a lawyer – working with refugees and asylum seekers who suffered trauma.

“Most of our clients have been through tremendous suffering, and they feel, quite rightly, betrayed,” explained Kathleen Norland L’12, executive director of IRAP at Penn Law. “One of the challenges of an interview, then, is to acknowledge and respect that suffering and betrayal, but at the same time ask questions that will bring to light the details and facts that make a convincing statement.”
 
The work can be grueling, but the payoff for students and their clients can be tremendous. “This project gives students the unique opportunity to work on a real case, 3-on-1 with a supervising attorney,” said Becca Heller, co-founder of IRAP. “This is a way to connect with someone who really needs your assistance. Even as a first year, you can help. There aren’t a lot of options available to clients, so you are the last hope, but there is something concrete you can do for them.”

Khurram Nasir Gore, a supervising attorney at Reed Smith, agreed. “The Penn Law students have an opportunity to deal with individuals with significant problems that are purely legal at this point. [Our clients] should be rightly entitled to come to the U.S. because of service to the [U.S.] military, and they can’t. The entire roadblock is legal.”

Penn Law students help represent clients before United Nations and United States agencies, explain the legal process, and prepare clients to respond appropriately to questions. “It’s a tiring and stressful process for the individuals trying to secure Special Immigrant Visas,” Gore said.

In addition, students are working in a new area of law. “No one has tried to provide individual legal representation to a refugee population before,” asserts Heller. “This is a new area of law related to resettlement proceedings. It qualifies as an administrative adjudication. We must make sure the system is fair, certain procedural guarantees are in place, and there is a transparent appeals process.”

Supervising attorneys have been impressed by the skills and experience Penn Law students bring to the project. “Penn Law students have diverse backgrounds,” observed Gore. “One is an MBA/Law student and brings his own perspectives because of that. Others bring their previous pro bono and volunteer experiences.”

Soven, one of the attorney advisors from Reed Smith, continued, “The Penn Law students are really sharp and motivated. I’ve been particularly impressed by how global the students’ interests are. They’ve traveled to the Middle East and been involved in other international projects.”

Penn and University of Jordan law students receive instruction in refugee law in Amman

While in Amman, the Penn Law students also worked with University of Jordan law students to handle the intake of seven new clients for IRAP National. One of the new clients was assigned to two of the Penn students who traveled to Jordan. They are currently drafting a Request for Review of the client’s resettlement rejection and filing a Workers’ Compensation claim on his behalf under the Defense Base Act, which extended workers’ compensation to employees injured while working for the U.S. military in Iraq.

According to Norland, students made great progress on the cases during the Jordan trip. “In one case, we knew that our client had been detained by U.S. forces, and that this was probably the reason her application had been rejected,” she said. “But we didn't know any of the details of her detention and she was reluctant to discuss these details by phone or email. During a long face-to-face interview, she shared with us the details of her arrest and detention, and these specific facts will, we hope, help convince USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] that she does not pose a security threat to the United States.”

Gola Javadi L’13 described another advantage of meeting with clients in person. “I found that by working with our Iraqi refugee clients directly, I was able to appreciate the global impact of our education and assistance much more fully,” she said. “Personally interviewing clients who depend so profoundly on our assistance was a very humbling and inspiring experience, and has connected me to my client’s case in a way that I was unable to appreciate while working from Philadelphia.”

Gore, the Reed Smith supervising attorney, noted the importance of IRAP’s refugee work. “It’s a cause U.S. citizens should be concerned about, especially when Iraqi citizens risked their lives to support the U.S. military and later found themselves refugees.”

*Names have been changed to protect identities.