Cynthia Dahl, an accomplished intellectual property lawyer and leader with experience as both corporate counsel and law firm litigator, is the inaugural Director of the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s new Detkin Intellectual Property and Technology Clinic.

Sarah Barringer Gordon, Arlin M. Adams Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and Professor of History, has been appointed a Distinguished Lecturer by the Organization of American Historians (OAH).

The Hon. Louis Pollak

The Hon. Louis Pollak, who served as Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School from 1975 to 1978 before being appointed to the federal bench, died Tuesday at his home in Philadelphia after a long battle with heart disease. He was 89.

Judge Pollak, who served on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was widely regarded as one of the leading members of the judiciary in the country.

For the 11th consecutive year, a Penn Law student has been named a recipient of the Burton Distinguished Legal Writing Award.

She will be recognized at the 13^th annual Burton Awards ceremony, to take place at the Library of Congress on June 11, 2012. Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is the scheduled speaker. Bernadette Peters, the two-time Tony Award winning actress, is also on the program.

Tobias Barrington Wolff, Professor of Law

The Pennsylvanians traveling to Washington along with Wolff are:

• William Ewing, National Employment Lawyers Association
• Jodi Hirsh, Pennsylvania Coordinator, People For the American Way
• Eleanor Levie, Advocacy Chair, National Council of Jewish Women, Greater Philadelphia Section
• Christine Stone, Board Member and Pennsylvania Public Affairs Chair, National Council of Jewish Women and Chair, Pennsylvania Coalition for Constitutional Values
• Stella Tsai, Partner, Archer & Greiner, P.C.
• Twanda Turner-Hawkins, Vice President, National Bar Association

They will join 150 advocates from 27 states in a day of discussions with White House staff. A deal between Senate Republicans and Democrats to allow judicial nominations to proceed in the Senate expires May 7th, and the advocates are urging the Senate to hold final up-or-down votes on all pending nominees.

After the White House meeting, the advocates will visit the offices of key senators, including Senators Casey and Toomey, to urge them to work to end the delays that have plagued the Senate confirmation process since the beginning of the Obama presidency.

Despite the delays, the overwhelming majority of Obama’s nominees have garnered tremendous bipartisan support, such as Cathy Bissoon, Mark Hornak and Robert Mariani, who were confirmed to seats in Pennsylvania district courts by large bipartisan majorities in October.

The Pennsylvania delegation will also urge Senators Casey and Toomey to quickly recommend to the president nominees for Pennsylvania’s empty seats. They hope their conversations in Washington will help national leaders understand how harmful the confirmation delays have been to Americans who are seeking justice.

Louis S. Rulli, Practice Professor of Law and Clinical Director

Rulli was honored for his contributions not only as Practice Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Programs, but for serving  as an “inspiring example and mentor to others engaged in pro bono service” through his countless bar association activities and non-profit board affiliations, as well as the vast amount of pro bono legal assistance he offers in which he routinely makes it a priority to engage students.

The Recognition Event celebrated the pro bono and public interest work of the Law School’s 2012 graduating class, who collectively performed more than 30,000 hours of service. Third-year student Jaime Gullen received the C. Edwin Baker Award for performing the most pro bono hours of any student in the Class of 2012 – 638 hours over her three years at the Law School. Gullen, who co-founded two separate pro bono projects, is also the recipient of a postgraduate fellowship.

Tthe Law School’s 2012 graduating class collectively performed more than 30,000 hours of service.

For a complete list of individuals and organizations honored, see the Recognition Event program 2012.pdf.

Jonathan Ellis L’10

Jonathan Ellis L’10, who is currently wrapping up a year’s service as a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice, will begin a year-long clerkship this July for Chief Justice John G. Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States.

“I’m excited to work closely with one of the most respected jurists of his generation,” said Ellis during a recent call. “It’s a great honor to have the opportunity to work with the Chief Justice, and to get a view of the Supreme Court that isn’t available to many citizens.”

A standout student while at Penn Law, upon graduating in 2010 Ellis was awarded the Peter McCall prize, which is awarded each year to the member of the graduating class who has received the highest grades during their three years at the Law School.

Ellis, whose interest in appellate work runs deep, sought during each year of his summer employment while in law school to work for appellate lawyers, and clerked after graduation for Judge A. Raymond Randolph on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He then applied to be a Bristow Fellow, which are awarded to law school graduates with excellent academic records, typically after completion of a one-year judicial clerkship, usually with a federal appellate-court judge.

In applying for a highly coveted Supreme Court clerkship, Ellis worked with the Law School’s clerkship committee in preparing his application, including with Christine Fritton, the Associate Director for Clerkships in Penn Law’s Career Planning & Professionalism office. “She gave me good advice on how to prepare for the process,” he said, and added, “Professors Bibas, Burbank, and Yoo graciously wrote letters of recommendation for me.”

With no small amount of humility, he remarked his successful application is “thanks to some good fortune and a great deal of help from Penn and elsewhere.”

In addition to looking forward to working with Chief Justice Roberts and learning more about his working style and decision-making process, Ellis hopes his clerkship “will continue to improve my legal writing,” on which he devoted particular focus while at Penn Law, during his previous clerkship, and as a Bristow Fellow. “I also hope to enhance my research and reasoning abilities over the next year.”

Meanwhile, Ellis looks forward to working with Roberts, “often the voice of the Court,” and to “witness a wide array of oral arguments, skills, approaches, and styles,” and to garner insights into “what moves the Court to decide the cases the way it does.”

As Ellis starts his clerkship this July, he follows another recent Penn Law alumnus to the U.S. Supreme Court, Christopher DiPompeo L’09, who is in the final months of his year-long clerkship with Chief Justice Roberts.

“Chris was a year ahead of me,” Ellis explained, “and is a friend; we met during my Admitted Students Weekend and had similar experiences at Penn Law. For example, he was president of the Law School’s Christian Legal Society when he was a 2L, and then I was the following year. We both were on the Law Review board. And we worked together for a summer at Jones Day – he was a rising 3L and I was a rising 2L.”

Meanwhile, Ellis is still determining his career’s future direction. “I’m very interested in appellate work, though I’m not sure whether that will be in the government or in private practice. I suppose I have the next year-and-a-half to figure that out,” he said. “I’d certainly be excited to argue in front of the Supreme Court one day.”

-More college and university participants located in PA than anywhere else in U.S.-

Double Rainbow over Penn Park, University of Pennsylvania Photo by Scott Spitzer, Office of University Communications

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently announced the winners of the 2012 College University Green Power Challenge and the top winner in the Green Power Challenge is the University of Pennsylvania. In addition, more colleges and universities who are participating in the Challenge are located in Pennsylvania than any other state in the nation. Of the 73 universities participating, 17 are located in Pennsylvania and are buying green power - - power from renewable resources.

The University of Pennsylvania beat out 72 other schools across the country by purchasing more than 200 million kilowatt hours (KWh) of green power or 48 percent of its total power purchases.

Green power is generated from renewable resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, biogas, and low-impact hydropower. The University of Pennsylvania has taken first place honors in the challenge for the fifth consecutive year and its green power use is equivalent to avoiding greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 27,000 passenger vehicles each year.

“By purchasing green power from renewable sources, these 17 Pennsylvania institutions are spurring the development of the nation’s green power market and reducing harmful air pollution,” said EPA’s mid-Atlantic Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin. “Their commitment to renewable energy, especially at the University of Pennsylvania, is contributing to the growth in green jobs and a green economy.”

The other 16 Green Power Partners in Pennsylvania are: Duquesne University in Pittsburgh; Dickinson College in Carlisle; Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster; Haverford College in Bryn Mawr; Swarthmore College in Swarthmore; Gettysburg College in Gettysburg; Philadelphia University in Philadelphia; Drexel University in Philadelphia; Juniata College in Huntingdon; Eastern University in St. Davids; Allegheny College in Meadville; Bucknell University in Lewisburg; Mercyhurst College in Erie; Chatham University and Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh; and Marywood University in Scranton.

For more information on the winners: www.epa.gov/greenpower/initiatives/cu_challenge.htm.

For more information on EPA’s Green Power Partnership: www.epa.gov/greenpower.

 

Ben Grunwald, C'08, L'13, PhD'13, a second-year student at University of Pennsylvania Law School who is pursuing a joint degree in law and criminology, has won the 2012 Student Paper Award from the Law and Society Association (LSA) for his study of sentencing guidelines.

Prof. Edward Rock L’83, the Saul A. Fox Distinguished Professor of Business Law.

Two articles co-authored by Penn Law’s Saul A. Fox Distinguished Professor of Business Law Edward B. Rock L’83 appear on the Corporate Practice Commentator’s latest annual list of “Top 10 Corporate and Securities Articles.” The poll tabulates the top selections by teachers of corporate and securities law from a pool of more than 580 articles published in legal journals in 2011. Professor Rock’s articles have appeared in the top 10 list six years in a row.

Rock’s articles, co-authored with Marcel Kahan, are “When the Government Is the Controlling Shareholder,” from the Texas Law Review, and “The Insignificance of Proxy Access,” from the Virginia Law Review.

“When Government Is the Controlling Shareholder” deals with the recent government bailouts of major corporations, in which the U.S. Treasury invested in private firms. The article addresses how corporate law applies when the government is the controlling shareholder.

In honor of the release of “Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in and Asymmetrical World,” the University of Pennsylvania Law School will host a book celebration on Monday, April 30, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. in Silverman 245, Levy Conference Room.  

• What is targeted killing in a military context and what is the theory under which such killings may be permissible?
• Does the law of war confine lawful attacks to conventional battlefields or has the specter of terrorism transformed the entire world into a global battlefield?
• Do law and morality break down at the margins when military and civilian leaders are forced to take drastic action to stop deadly terrorist attacks?

By Jenny Chung C'12

Four films by Penn Law students premiered the evening of April 18 at the Law School's Michael A. Fitts Auditorium, marking the third annual Rough Cut Film Festival.

Professor Regina Austin welcomes the audience to the 2012 Rough Cut Film Festival.

Austin prefaced the screenings with a request for audience feedback after the show; she reminded those in attendance of the “measure of courage [required] to present ‘rough cuts’ to lawyers and other experts with years of experience.” Each film, half an hour in length, was followed by a brief question-and-answer session in which audience members communicated inquiries and suggestions directly to the filmmakers.

Disabled: SSI and Aiding Children in Need

The evening opened with Disabled, which documented the difficulties confronting families seeking federal aid to care for children with disabilities.

Featuring interviews with parents of disabled children, legal advocates and lawmakers, the film revealed the impact of revisions to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Act introduced as a result of welfare reform legislation passed in 1996. A more stringent test of eligibility, which now mandates the individual evaluation of each child’s functionality as part of her or his assessment, caused over 100,000 children to lose their benefits.  While well over 60 percent of children who apply for benefits are now denied, the film goes on to explain that the House of Representatives recently passed a resolution to cut $1.4 billion from the program in the interest of reducing spending.

Pushed Out and Forgotten: Philadelphia’s Youth and the School-to-Prison Pipeline

Angela Briggs L'12, Tiffany Gelott L'12, and Ginene LewisL'12 presented "Pushed Out and Forgotten: Philadelphia’s Youth and the School-to-Prison Pipeline."

Pushed Out and Forgotten addressed aspects of the disciplinary practices of the Philadelphia public school system that contribute to high dropout and incarceration rates.

Tsedey Bogale L'13, Tarun Sridharan L'13, and Shikha Bhattacharjee L'13, and Lauren O'Garro-Moore L'12 present "Between Worlds: The Path to Independence for Immigrant Survivors of Domestic Violence."

Yiyang Wu L'12, Samuel Saylor L'12, and Thomas Isler L'12 present "Pay Up! Criminal Justice Debt in Philadelphia."

16 Penn Law and Wharton students traveled to NYC to learn more about the investment industry.

A group of 16 Penn Law and Wharton students recently traveled to New York City to meet with several prominent private equity firms and hedge funds and learn more about careers in the investment industry. The trek was organized by the JD/MBA Student Association, and sought to give students an opportunity to learn more about the different roles within investment firms, and the opportunities available to law school graduates within the investment industry. 

Linda Wang, C’12
 

Randall Kennedy, Raymond and Sadie Alexander Visiting Professor of Law

Randall Kennedy on Thurgood Marshall's career as "Mr. Civil Rights"

Kennedy did not pass judgment on Marshall for making these controversial decisions, but he did believe in having debates about them. “I think Thurgood Marshall’s career and stature can stand disagreement. We shouldn’t engage in hagiography. We should engage in a critical examination of this great man’s career.”

The University of Pennsylvania Law School’s graduation ceremony was held at the Academy of Music on Monday, May 14, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has had a varied career as a lawyer, prosecutor, Mayor of New York City, Deputy Attorney General of the United States, and a 2008 presidential candidate delivered the Law School's commencement address.

- Roberts to be inaugural Sadie T.M. Alexander Professor of Civil Rights -

President Amy Gutmann and Provost Vincent Price  announced the appointment of Dorothy Roberts as the University of Pennsylvania’s fourteenth Penn Integrates Knowledge Professor, effective July 1, 2012.

The Penn Integrates Knowledge program was launched by President Gutmann in 2005 as a University-wide initiative to recruit exceptional faculty members whose research and teaching exemplify the integration of knowledge across disciplines, and who are jointly appointed between two schools at Penn.

Joanna Visser L’10, joined the Toll Public Interest Center and Juvenile Law Center as the 2011 Toll Public Interest Center Philadelphia Fellow, where she supports efforts to end the practice of sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole, and counsels Penn Law students on local pro bono and public interest opportunities. Before beginning her Fellowship, she served as law clerk to the Honorable Joel Schneider, Magistrate Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

 The Legal Intelligencer has named Elizabeth McManus L’ 04, Associate Director for Professional Development of Career Planning and Professionalism at Penn Law, among its list for “Women of the Year,” which highlights the achievements of top female attorneys across the state of Pennsylvania who have made positive contributions to the legal community.

Kara Finck, most recently Managing Attorney for the public interest organization The Bronx Defenders, is the new Director of the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Child Advocacy Clinic.

Megan Rok L'11, Sara Alba L'11, and Jamie Gullen L'12 (Not pictured: Denisse Cordova, L’12, studying abroad at University of Mannheim)

As part of its commitment to supporting public interest legal careers, the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Toll Public Interest Center (TPIC) has named 2012 Postgraduate Fellowship Award recipients.

Launched in 2009, the postgraduate fellowship program has grown through the generous support of alumni like Robert L'66 and Jane Toll GSE'66, Gerald McHugh, and Penn Law alumni at the Langer, Grogan, and Diver law firm. This year, the Law School added support from the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, creating a total of four full-time postgraduate fellowships. 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.

“The commitment to social justice and public-interest lawyering demonstrated by this year’s Fellows is both inspiring and impressive," said Michael A. Fitts, dean of Penn Law. "They have identified a broad range of social needs to which they are responding with great passion and outstanding legal talent.”

“These students work so hard in their time at Penn Law to serve the communities they care so much about," noted Arlene Finkelstein, Assistant Dean & Executive Director of the Law School's Toll Public Interest Center. "It gives us great pride to see them develop these projects in conjunction with their partnering organizations in a way that will not only have a tremendous impact, but also launch their public interest careers.”

The 2012 TPIC Postgraduate Fellowship recipients and their projects are:
 

• Sarah Alba, L’11, awarded the Toll Public Interest Fellowship. Alba will work with Manhattan Legal Services in New York. Sarah’s project, Advocacy Project to Remedy Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Credit Checks, will create a credit discrimination clinic which will employ community education, direct services, and policy advocacy to assist unemployed members of the minority communities of upper Manhattan overcome an emerging but overlooked barrier to re-employment: the usage of credit reports by employers to deny employment opportunities to minority applicants.

• Denisse Cordova, L’12, awarded the the Penn Law Fellowship. Partnering with FoodFirst Information and Action Network (FIAN), an international network of organizations, Cordova's project, Responding to Violations of Women's Human Right to Food, will serve women and girls whose right to adequate food has been violated by developing legal strategies that respond to gender-differentiated needs and priorities as well as gender inequalities in terms of opportunities and outcomes to enable affected communities to realize this human right. This project will respond to specific cases of violations of women's right to food in Latin America and develop prototype methodologies that can be replicated in other regions.

• Jamie Gullen, L’12, awarded the Langer, Grogan & Diver Fellowship in Social Justice. With partner organization Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, Gullen's project, Empowering Youth through Work Project: Reducing Barriers to Employment for Young Adults with Criminal Records, will utilize direct representation, community education and outreach, and systemic reform to will reduce barriers to employment for young adults with criminal records.  Through her project, Jamie will work with young adults to expunge their arrest records, reduce the amount of criminal justice debt they owe to the courts, and challenge the predatory practices of for-profit educational institutions that enroll students in training for fields from which they are barred by their criminal records.

• Megan Rok, L’11, awarded the inaugural University of Pennsylvania Law Review Public Interest Fellowship. Rok will partner with the Support Center for Child Advocates in Philadelphia. Her project, Educational Advocacy for Court-Involved Youth, will enable Megan to provide services for children in the child welfare system, who are at a high risk of poor education outcomes. In Philadelphia, 75% of these children do not graduate high school. Through this project Megan will provide a critical and missing element in the effort to address the education crisis of court-involved youth: an improved process for early identification and intervention through direct representation in Family Court and school proceedings to ensure new and existing education rights.

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.

In addition to the Penn Law Fellows, a number of Penn Law 3Ls and alumni have succeeded in obtaining other fellowships to engage in public interest work.

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.

The Penn Program on Documentaries and the Law presents the 2012 Rough Cut Video Festival at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. The Video Festival will  feature a series of short films produced by members of the Visual Legal Advocacy Seminar, taught by Professor Regina Austin L’73,the William A. Schnader Professor or Law and Director of the Penn Program of Documentaries and the Law.

A central component of the Program, Austin’s seminar exposes students to the use and analysis of law-genre documentaries and how they are used within the legal academy, while they learn about legal issues that are involved in making documentaries and explore the uses of nonfiction film as a tool of legal advocacy.

• Criminal Court debt
• The school-to-prison pipeline
• SSI benefits for children with so-called "silent disabilities"
• Immigrant women and services for victims of domestic violence

From April 2-5 the University of Pennsylvania Law School celebrated the formal opening of Golkin Hall, a state-of-the-art building that completes Penn Law’s magnificent and physically integrated campus and embodies its distinctive vision for an interdisciplinary legal education. A convocation and conversation with The Hon. Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, was the culmination of the week-long series of special events at the Law School.
 
Celebrations included Tee Shirt Day and a Street Fair, as well as faculty and distinguished alumni panels examining trends in the future of legal education and how law guides America’s social, political and economic future and responds to multiple global challenges. The week concluded as the Penn Law community convened at Irvine Auditorium on April 5 for Golkin Hall’s dedication event, A Conversation with U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor spoke about her thoughts on the law, legal education and life.
 
"With the completion of Golkin Hall, our complex redefines the law school campus as a connected and collaborative space that encourages the integration of people and programs,” said Michael A. Fitts, Dean of Penn Law. “Golkin Hall symbolizes and furthers our vision of the role of lawyers in society today and in the future: not only as problem solvers, but as managers and leaders who can move seamlessly across fields. Penn Law embodies this ongoing integration of the law with related disciplines, as evidenced by our partnerships with schools and departments across Penn, and with other universities and institutions around the world.”
 
Fitts added: "The formal opening of Golkin Hall is also a testament to the extraordinary generosity and dedication of our many alumni who contributed their time and resources to help make this project such a great success."
 
The building, named in honor of Perry Golkin, W'74, WG'74, L'78 and Donna Golkin, WG'77, the lead donors to the project, is located on Sansom Street in West Philadelphia. The project broke ground in May 2010 and cost approximately $33.5 million, all donor supported; Penn Law did not borrow for construction. The building is 40,000 square feet and features an inviting two-story lobby leading to a two-story west wing and a three-story east wing. Designed by architects at the Boston-based firm Kennedy & Violich Architecture, Golkin Hall features roof-top gardens and green roofs, a state-of-the-art court room, and 350-seat auditorium.
 
Faculty, students, staff, and visitors enter from Sansom Street into Golkin’s lobby to spectacular views of the Penn Law courtyard, an essential element in the social and intellectual life of the Law School.
 
The completion of Golkin Hall entirely connects Penn Law’s four buildings that include Silverman Hall, Penn Law's signature, 110-year-old Georgian-style building, Tanenbaum Hall, and Gittis Hall. It does so while respecting the historical three-story row homes that make up the scenic and trendy Restaurant Row across Sansom Street. The end result is a façade that is well-situated in its neighborhood surroundings and welcomes the University community and public to Penn Law.
 
The Golkin Hall project follows a multi-year, $18 million, top-to-bottom renovation of three of Penn Law’s interconnected buildings. As a result, the Law School’s classrooms and Biddle Library are state-of-the-art, new faculty offices facilitate scholarship and student advising, collaborative-study rooms are available for teams of students, and the Gittis Center for Clinical Legal Studies and student groups benefit from improved meeting space.

The refurbishing of Penn’s Law’s campus responds to nearly 50 percent growth in Penn Law’s faculty during Fitts’ tenure as Dean, with stellar appointments in corporate law and finance, intellectual property, international law, and science and technology. In addition, since2000 Penn Law has expanded its cross-disciplinary curriculum, launching nearly 30 joint- or dual-degree and certificate programs with the preeminent schools and graduate departments at Penn, while infusing course work with the scholarship and training of its increasingly interdisciplinary faculty.
 
As a result, Penn Law graduates develop the knowledge, skills, and insights necessary to successfully navigate the fields in which they and their clients operate, in the U.S. and globally.

Click below to view images from the week-long series of events celebrating the opening of Golkin Hall: 

Dedicating Golkin Hall: A conversation with U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the media

• ABA Journal
• Associated Press
• Associated Press (News story with photos)
• Associated Press Photos
• CBS Philly
• The Daily Pennsylvanian
• The Legal Intelligencer
• The National Law Journal
• Philadelphia Inquirer
• University of Pennsylvania Law School newsroom

By Nicole Greenstein C'14

Dean Fitts and Justice Sotomayor at Irvine Auditorium.

While an onstage brass quintet played the sonorous music of Gabrieli, Bach and Handel to open the event, Sotomayor entered the auditorium alongside many other distinguished guests: Penn Law Dean Michael Fitts, University of Pennsylvania President Dr. Amy Gutmann, the Poet Laureate of the Library of Congress Dr. Daniel Hoffman, and Chairman of the Trustees David Cohen L’81, and Philadelphia City Councilman William Green L’95.

 

From left to right: David Cohen L’81, Chairman of the Trustees, Penn; Justice Sotomayor; President Amy Gutmann; and Dean Fitts.

Justice Sotomayor talks with students from the Law School's Latin American Law Students Association (LALSA.)

Dean Fitts presents a new scholarship in Sotomayor’s name for students aspiring to the judiciary.

The ribbon-cutting at Golkin Hall, with Perry Golkin, W'74, WG'74, L'78 and Donna Golkin, WG'77.

 

“Today marks the culmination of a decade-long effort to transform Penn Law,” Dean Michael Fitts said as he welcomed the audience at the convocation ceremony. “With this dedication of Golkin Hall, we have completed our vision for the finest urban law campus in America.”

 

Fitts added that the creation of Golkin Hall focused on one goal: to educate Penn’s students to become “the finest lawyers, problem solvers, and leaders they can be in service in to the society.” Whether it be through the pursuit of better access to justice, better healthcare, business entrepreneurship or human rights, Fitts said, Golkin Hall symbolizes the school’s vision for the role of lawyers in society today as well as for generations to come.

 

Sotomayor and Fitts soon sat at center stage for their conversation, where Sotomayor discussed how her childhood dream transformed into a reality.

 

Ever since she read detective novels like Nancy Drew and watched television lawyers like Perry Mason, Sotomayor knew from a young age that she wanted to be a lawyer. This passion continued from her childhood through high school, where Sotomayor joined debate teams and became active in student government.

 

However, it was not until studying the law in college that Sotomayor realized why the law was truly tailored to her personality and interests.

 

“At the end, what law is, is service to people,” she explained. “No matter what kind of law you practice, whether it’s public or private, non-profit or for profit, government or not, you are helping people and institutions manage relationships.”

 

“And it became clear to me at least, that I’m fueled by that,” Sotomayor added. “Personally, I enjoy working with people to help solve their problems.”

 

In addition to reflecting on her own past experiences, Sotomayor also cited life lessons she learned to offer firsthand advice to law students in the audience.

 

Aside from some of the more basic guidelines like earning good grades, having extensive writing experience, and finding a law professor mentor, Sotomayor stressed that perhaps the most important piece of advice she could give is to follow your passions to truly do something meaningful.

 

“Involve yourself in something that’s important to you, and make a difference,” she said. “Undertake whatever project you want — I don’t judge students’ passions by whether they’re politically correct or not…I judge the students by have they made a difference in whatever project they’ve undertaken.”

 

 After Sotomayor’s talk, Fitts announced a new scholarship named in honor of Sotomayor, for future students aspiring to follow in her footsteps.

 

Sotomayor, who in the words of Dr. Amy Gutmann “rose from a public housing project in the Bronx to the bench of the supreme court,” would not have been able to become the first Latina and third female Justice without scholarships for her education.

 

“I relied on the largess of people like the Golkins who created my American dream, and I am so grateful to this school for passing it forward to someone else,” Sotomayor said.

 

Philadelphia City Councilman William Green also joined the stage to officially declare April 5^th, 2012 as Penn Law Day. This dedication was made not only to recognize the formal opening of Golkin Hall, Green said, but also to honor “the contribution that the Penn Law School has made to the education of lawyers and the delivery of justice in our city, our country, and around the globe.”

 

Dean Fitts concluded the dedication ceremony with some thankful words to Sotomayor for being such a special part of this historic day. He explained that although one of the most intensely debated questions today is who should serve on the Supreme Court, what makes an admirable Supreme Court justice should not hinge on whether they are merely a liberal or a conservative.

 

“In the end, what we look for in a Supreme Court justice is a quality of mind, a sense of history, a sense of passion,” Fitts said. “Judge,” he added, turning to Sotomayor, “I think we’ve seen it on display in every way this afternoon.”

 

 

Stephanos Bibas, a Professor of Law and Director of the Supreme Court Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, scored a U.S. Supreme Court victory on March 28, in a complex immigration case involving a permanent resident of the United States facing deportation.

In Vartelas v. Holder, the Court ruled for the petitioner, Panagis Vartelas, whose case had been argued on January 18 by Bibas, assisted by students in Penn Law’s Supreme Court Clinic.

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court found that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which strips lawful permanent residents convicted of a crime of the right to travel abroad with the guarantee of reentry, could not be applied retroactively to a green-card holder who pleaded guilty to an offense prior to 1996 and traveled abroad thereafter.

Vartelas, a citizen of Greece and a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1989, was detained at New York’s Kennedy Airport in 2003 upon returning from a family visit overseas. Mr. Vartelas, a Queens businessman, pleaded guilty in 1994 to a U.S. court in a counterfeiting case – a crime that at the time wasn’t cause for deportation if he left the country and attempted reentry. However, when the IIRIRA was passed in 1996, it made even minor cases cause for deportation and was to be applied retroactively.

Students in Penn Law’s Supreme Court Clinic helped Bibas conduct research, draft the merits brief, and prepare strategy. The Clinic is the nation’s first to closely integrate practical experience on Supreme Court matters with an academic seminar on the workings of the Court. The year-long Clinic focuses on the practical side of identifying and litigating active Supreme Court cases, including participating in moot court rehearsals and attending oral arguments at One First Street, giving students intensive, hands-on experience.

“Participating in the Supreme Court Clinic has been a wonderful addition to my education here at Penn Law,” said Ellen Mossman L’12, who worked with Bibas and her fellow Clinic students preparing for arguments this semester. “The Clinic allows us as law students to participate in a unique experience in the legal profession that many lawyers never get the chance to do. My writing and analytical abilities have improved so much with the Clinic - the professors really push the students to expand their thinking, and the collaborative process allows us to reach arguments that one person could not reach alone.”

Mossman added: “Particularly with Supreme Court cases, it is sometimes easy to lose track of the real-world consequences of cases before the Court, and so it was great to be able to have a connection with the client to remember that these cases matter to the people involved. Participating in a merits case is a formative experience by itself, and winning the case really vindicates all of the time and effort that we put into the arguments.”

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 U.S. Solicitor General, and combined have argued more than 60 cases before the Supreme Court.

Bibas litigates a wide range of Supreme Court cases, both criminal and civil. Most recently, in April 2011, Bibas argued the case of Tapia v. United States, in which the Court held that a federal court cannot impose or lengthen a prison term to foster a defendant’s rehabilitation. In March 2011, 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. He and his co-counsel also won a landmark victory in Padilla v. Kentucky in 2010, persuading the Court to recognize the right of noncitizen defendants to accurate information about deportation before they plead guilty.

Professor Bibas recently discussed the uniqueness and value of the Supreme Court Clinic with Penn Law’s Office of Communications.
 

Jacques deLisle, the Stephen A. Cozen Professor of Law, Professor of Political Science, Director of the Center for East Asian Studies, and Associate Director of the new Center for the Study of Contemporary China at Penn, focuses his research and teaching on contemporary Chinese law and politics. This spring semester he has run an innovative new seminar, “China and International Human Rights,” drawing together Law School students, other Penn students, and members of the wider University community.

PL: Who are some of the experts you have involved in the series?

On Wednesday, April 4, the Law School will host two panels featuring Penn Law faculty and alumni, respectively, focusing on six critical areas of the law that will shape 21st century legal debates, and how legal education can prepare students for leadership in diverse fields. The panels are part of “Golkin Week ” April 2 – 5, which celebrates the formal opening of Golkin Hall.

From noon 1:15 p.m. on Wednesday the Law School community will convene in Levy Conference Center for the panel, “Future Impact: Law and Legal Scholarship,” which will feature Penn Law faculty members examining six critical areas where the law is rapidly changing and which will shape the legal debates of the 21st century. Participants will also discuss how changes in higher education and legal education will unfold over the coming decades and how a traditional law school education may change as a result.

The panel will be moderated by Ron Daniels, President of The Johns Hopkins University, and panelists include:

• Prof. Stephen Burbank on the future of American judiciary;
• Prof. William Burke-White on the future of international law;
• Prof. Jacques deLisle on the future of China;
• Prof. Jill Fisch on the future of the American corporation;
• Prof. Sally Gordon on the future of religion, politics and the law; and
• Prof. Edward Rock L’83 on the future of the financial system.

From 4:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. the Penn Law community will convene in the Michael A. Fitts Auditorium for the panel, “Future Impact: Leadership and a Legal Education,” which will feature six Penn Law alumni panelists who will offer their perspectives on how their time in law school prepared them for leadership in diverse fields – often, fields they could not have imagined as students – and shaped their approaches to the issues and challenges that they have addressed in their careers.

The panel will be moderated by Paul Haaga L’74, WG’74, Chairman of the Capital Research and Management Company, and panelists include:

• Pamela Johnson L’83, Founder, PSJ Advisors, and former Sr. Vice President, Fannie Mae (2002-2006);
• Osagie Imasogie GL’85, Senior Managing Partner, Phoenix IP Ventures;
• Steven Cozen C’61, L’64, Founding Partner, Cozen O’Connor;
• The Hon. Gene E.K. Pratter L’75, Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania and former General Counsel to the firm of Duane Morris LLP;
• Perry Golkin W’74, WG’74, L’78, member, Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts and Co.; and
• Daniel Garodnick L’00, council member of District 4, New York City Council, and former associate of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.

For more information about the panels and for the complete schedule of events April 2 - 5 please visit the Golkin Week website.

As part of an innovative management class held recently over spring break, a group of University of Pennsylvania Law School students have raised over $36,000 for Make-A-Wish® Philadelphia and Susquehanna Valley, which will fund the wishes of local children with life-threatening medical conditions.

Prof. Adam Grant and Penn Law students present a check on behalf of their Organizational Behavior classmates to Make-A-Wish Philadelphia

A special check presentation to Dennis Heron, CEO of Make-A-Wish Philadelphia and Susquehanna Valley, by the Penn students and their professor took place on March 27 in Penn Law’s Golkin Hall.

Thirty-five Penn Law students devoted their time over spring break to take the graduate seminar “Organizational Behavior,” a unique class modeled after the hit NBC show, “The Apprentice.” As part of the course, from March 5-9 students were divided into seven teams to work every day, all day on a real-life challenge: to develop and execute a strategic fundraising plan, with all money raised going to Make-A-Wish.

The seminar, led by Adam Grant, a management professor at Penn’s Wharton School, provided students the opportunity to test, develop, hone, and reflect on their capabilities in making decisions, collaborating in teams, motivating peers and supervisors, influencing clients, and building and leveraging social networks. Students worked under the supervision of a number of experts involved in the challenge, including Penn Law alumni and practicing attorneys Rick D’Avino, Anthony Noble, Paige Pratter, and Jennifer Williams; as well as three lawyers on the Make-A-Wish board of directors, Nate Andrisani, Peter Ochroch, and Judge Felipe Restrepo.

“Make-A-Wish is honored to partner with the University of Pennsylvania Law School in support of local children’s wishes. The students represent the best in their field and are passionate advocates for the children we serve. We are deeply appreciative of their tremendous fundraising results,” said Heron.

Penn Law students with Prof. Grant on the last day of the seminar after learning the teams’ fundraising totals.

“This course was designed by Professor Grant to provide our students with an opportunity to develop and build their management, leadership, and team-building skills,” said Heather Frattone, Penn Law’s Associate Dean for Career Planning and Professionalism, who worked with Grant to organize the course. “We are thrilled to partner with Make-A-Wish, knowing that what students learned and accomplished as part of the class will have direct benefits for children in the Philadelphia area.”

Penn Law offered the course as an intense immersion experience that reflects the realities of organizational behavior in a large law firm or business. In addition to its benefits for the local community, the course complements the legal knowledge and analytical skills students develop as part of the Penn Law curriculum. Is part of the many partnerships the Law School has with other professional schools and departments at Penn, as well as with private and public sector organizations off-campus, to help further law students’ professional development and commitment to public service.

“The experience I had in this seminar is something I will not soon forget,” said Adam Katz, who is pursuing a joint law and MBA degree at Penn. “In just a week, we learned a tremendous amount about ourselves, working as a team, managing others, and perhaps most importantly, the power of a wish.”

Transcript

On Saturday, March 31 Penn Law will host the inaugural L.E.A.R.N. Education Conference, an all-day conference convening academics, politicians, entrepreneurs, educators, and other experts in public education to identify solutions to major challenges in America’s public schools. 

The conference, titled “Bridging Sectors to Rebuild Education,” aims to equip attendees with the requisite knowledge to develop personal action-items to improve public education. Keynote speakers include two political leaders at the forefront of education reform, Governor Ed Rendell C’65, HON’00, and Congressman Chaka Fattah MGA’86, who will discuss the challenges faced by the state and federal education reform initiatives they have proposed. 

Governor Ed Rendell C’65, HON’00

Congressman Chaka Fattah MGA’86

• Government: Policy-Making to a Better Educational Future
• Business Ventures: How Education Social Enterprises are Transforming Education
• Education Policy Research: Finding Data-Driven Solutions
• Law: How Legal Advocacy Can Ensure All Students Have Access to a Quality Education
• School and District Leadership: Lessons from the Trenches of Education Reform
• Non-Profits: Transforming Education

by Jenny Chung C’12

2012 Edward V. Sparer Symposium

According to Kossen, such initiatives as youth leadership councils are valuable because they provide outlets for youth to discuss issues of relevance to them. “It’s important to give youth opportunities to speak out…to reach out to marginalized youth with social media…and to [help them develop] decision-making capabilities with regard to all the programs and policies that impact them,” she said.

In addition to stressing the importance of teaching youth to “advocate for themselves,” Fosu exhorted lawyers and activists who hope to champion the interests of at-risk youth to “stay true to the cause, believe and always challenge.”

“All of us can advocate for issues, and we’re all responsible to each other to voice them,” Akallo added. “We can say ‘our Congressmen can do this,’ but individually we also have to contribute to change within our own communities.”

Keynote Address – Rachel Lloyd, GEMS

Rachel Lloyd, Founder and Executive Director of GEMS: Girls Educational & Mentoring Services

The panel was followed by a keynote address delivered by Rachel Lloyd, Founder and Executive Director of GEMS: Girls Educational & Mentoring Services. Based in New York City, GEMS is now the nation’s largest organization offering direct services and outreach to victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking. In 2008, the organization contributed to the passage of the New York Safe Harbor Act for Exploited Children, which ended the criminalization of trafficking victims.

“We’re more of a youth empowerment/gender-based violence organization than an anti-trafficking one,” Lloyd said, highlighting the need to view trafficking “as part of other systemic issues affecting youth.”

Evoking her experiences working with adult women emerging from the sex industry in 1997, Lloyd recalled “meeting 12- and 13-year-olds told to lie [about their ages] by their pimps, held in adult correctional jails.”

Underage victims of sex trafficking in the United States continued to be regarded as prostitutes rather than victims, she said, even after the Trafficking Victims Protection Act—which acknowledged the victimization of non-U.S. citizens exclusively—came into law in 2000.

“Over the years our biggest fight has been to ensure the recognition of victimization happening to girls in this country as the same thing happening to girls in Ukraine, Thailand [and] Cambodia,” Lloyd said. “13- and 14-year-old girls were arrested and charged with prostitution they couldn’t legally consent to—it doesn’t make legal or moral sense.”

Affirming the importance of “survivor leadership,” Lloyd spoke to the necessity of trafficking survivors coming to the forefront and developing expertise in the issues that concern them.

According to Lloyd, since the passage of the Safe Harbor Act in New York—designating it the first state in the country to “protect, not prosecute children for an act of prostitution they couldn’t even legally consent to”—nine other states have passed Safe Harbor legislation.

“I’m really proud of the work we did in Albany, not only because we changed state law, but because girls whose voices had been continually silenced were the ones who changed that law and are now affecting the history of the country,” she said. “I believe in the next five years we’ll see that law in every state, shifting the paradigm of seeing young people as victims, not criminals.”

In light of the fact that many GEMS clients came out of the child welfare system, Lloyd argued that system reform must be incorporated into the anti-trafficking movement.
“Histories of trauma and sexual abuse are so interwoven, only addressing criminal justice issues is insufficient,” she explained. “We must talk about systemic issues and root causes.”
Addressing the media spotlight currently trained on trafficking and the “momentum” generated as a result, Lloyd advocated the prioritization of “long-term systemic change” above immediate “rescue.” 

“We’re challenging the idea that you can rescue children—rescue is such a short-term solution,” she said. “We have to be focused on empowerment, economic independence and developing leadership and strength among youth."

By Linda Wang C’12

Khaled Abou El Fadl, UCLA School of Law

By Kai Syuen Loh C’15

This year’s Public Interest Week Honorary Fellow-in-Residence Marcia Greenberger C’67, L’70 shined a spotlight on women’s rights during her keynote address at Penn Law’s Silverman Hall on the evening of Wednesday, March 14.

In response to an audience member’s question on her biggest worry in the “entrepreneurial” aspects of advocacy, she said it was “the serious state of education decline.”

Nicole Greenstein C'14

On Wednesday, February 1, the Penn Law Women’s Association held its annual dinner at the Sheraton University City Hotel, drawing out a record-breaking crowd of over 180 students, faculty, attorneys, and alumni. In keeping with the Penn Law Women’s Association tradition, the event attracted women from across the legal spectrum — from first year students to seasoned attorneys. Participants enjoyed a cocktail reception, followed by an elegant dinner in the Ben Franklin Ballroom with a speech by the keynote speaker, Marjorie Margolies. 

Margolies shared stories from her varied and distinguished career as an Emmy Award-winning journalist, United States Congresswoman, and Founder and President of Women’s Campaign International (WCI)— a non-profit agency that works in emerging democracies to empower women to actively participate in public advocacy and political processes.

Courtesy of Penn News

Neuroscience, with its brain scans and complex molecular pathways, may seem to have little in common with the law — except perhaps a penchant for obscure Latin phrases. But a collection of students and faculty at the University of Pennsylvania are bridging the gap with the Law and Brain Student Group and an accompanying lecture series.

“Neuroscience is something that can impact almost every single action of humans,” said Gabriel Lázaro L'13, the group’s organizer and a law student at Penn. “From arts to criminal acts, it’s just telling you information about how we process everything we do.”

Begun in 2009 by former law student Benjamin Bumann L'11, the group and lecture series have continued under the guidance of Lázaro, who is now in his second year of Penn's joint J.D./Master of Bioethics program. Lázaro came to Penn Law directly after finishing his Ph.D. in neuroscience, working under researcher Joseph LeDoux at New York University. There he studied how memories of traumatic events are shaped in a brain region called the amygdala and how responses to objects or events that recalled these traumas could be altered.

Partway through his science degree, however, he felt a pull to apply what he was learning in his studies in a broader contest.

“I loved the lab but wanted to go to law school,” Lázaro said. “I’ve always been interested in the law and the policy behind science, health and mental health.”

When selecting a law program, he found the resources of Penn Law, with its joint degree program and Center for Neuroscience and Society, appealing.

“Penn is a great place to integrate if you’re interested in policy and science development and neuroscience specifically,” he said.

The debates that can emerge from such integration are numerous. How the brain influences behavior could alter society’s notion of “free will” and judgment of whether and how someone should be punished for their actions. Research that uncovers what the brain looks like when a person lies could help judges and juries determine whether to trust testimonies. And as neuroscience advances, the law will need to keep pace to help society navigate quandaries that may arise with innovations such as neuromarketing, cognitive-enhancing drugs and memory-blocking techniques.

So far, there are relatively few applications of cutting-edge neuroscience research in the legal arena, Lázaro said. Those that do exist are controversial.

One example is functional MRIs, a type of brain scan that tracks blood flow in the brain and is thought to indicate areas of brain activity. Some research suggests that the scans could show whether someone is lying or even whether a criminal possesses neural deficiencies associated with being a psychopath. Still, there is much debate over whether these scientific techniques are reliable enough to serve as evidence of guilt or innocence.

That’s what makes bringing together experts in both law and science so valuable, Lázaro said.

“When you get into each of the fields, you start seeing the intricacies, concerns and doubts. As an academic, you begin to question how much you trust and how you can determine whether or not you have good data.”

The Law and Brain lectures draw a range of attendees, from law professors to medical students.

“All of this makes for a great debate,” Lázaro said. “These are scholarly discussions at their best, but what we’re talking about can impact what happens when we leave the room as well. I’m all for being practical and applying what we learn.”

In the most recent lecture, held March 15, Rita Goldstein, a scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory, spoke about the legal and societal implications of viewing addiction as a brain disorder.

The final talk of the lecture series for the academic year will be held on April 19 featuring Paul Glimcher, a Penn alumnus and researcher at New York University, who will discuss how neurobiological findings may influence politics and economics. The series included Owen Jones, who holds the New York Alumni Chancellor's Chair in Law at Vanderbilt Law School and is director of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, speaking about the neuroscience of punishment decisions; Adam Kolber, Professor of Lawat Brooklyn Law School on the privacy of thoughts and feelings; and Oliver Goodenough, Professor of Law at Vermont Law School and Faculty Fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society, on neuroscience, law, and institutional design.

The talks, which are open to the public, are held Thursdays from 4:30 to 6 p.m. Each is followed by a reception, sponsored by the Law School’s Dean’s Speaker Fund. Additional information, including the location of each talk, is available at the Law and Brain Student Group Web site.

Kateryna Brezitska C’14

On February 22, the Penn Law National Security Society, the Office of International Programs, and the Student Affairs Speakers Fund co-hosted an address at the Law School by Dr. Marwan Muasher, a former Deputy Prime Minister of Jordan, World Bank official, and currently a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment.

Further, Muasher made it clear that economic reform must precede political reform. “Once we put bread on the table, people will make wiser choices.” He said that in the past, the bread before freedom argument meant in many cases that neither bread nor freedom was had. One solution he proposed is education reform. Although there has been a great amount of monetary contribution towards education in the Middle East, the money has not been put in the right areas. “People talk about education as the quantity of education like putting computers to schools or talk about technical aspects of education like wanting to improve scores on international tests.”

From Monday, March 12 through Friday, March 16 the Toll Public Interest Center (TPIC) at Penn Law will host the Fourth Annual Public Interest Week, a series of workshops, conferences, and events which will explore pressing issues in pro bono and public interest lawyering. This year’s theme is: “Abundant Justice: Leveraging Our Collective Resources for Maximum Impact.”

• A public interest practice area fair and reception;
• A panel discussion on access to counsel in PA death penalty cases;
• A discussion on civil rights in prisons;
• A screening of the film A Question of Integrity: Politics, Ethics, and the Supreme Court and discussion immediately following on issues of conflict of interest and impartiality of SCOTUS judges;
• A workshop for students on how to thrive as a public interest lawyer;
• A discussion on minority youth in the juvenile justice system;
• A panel discussion on advocating for consumers in the regulatory context;
• A workshop on the nuts-and-bolts of post-graduate public interest fellowships;
• The week will end with the fourth annual Penn Law Public Interest Alumni Dinner, bringing current students together with the legal professionals in whose footsteps they hope to follow.

From April 2-5 the University of Pennsylvania Law School will celebrate the formal opening of Golkin Hall, a state-of-the-art building that completes Penn Law’s magnificent and physically integrated campus and embodies its distinctive vision for an interdisciplinary legal education. The Hon. Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, will participate in the Dedication Convocation on April 5, which includes a conversation on the law with the Law School and wider Penn communities.

High resolution images for media:
Golkin Hall Sansom Street Exterior
Golkin Hall Sansom Street with Center City skyline
Golkin Hall Berylson Family Lobby
Photo from green roof overlooking Courtyard

The convocation and conversation with Justice Sotomayor is the culmination of a week-long series of special events at the Law School. These will include celebrations as well as faculty and distinguished alumni panels examining trends in the future of legal education and how law guides America’s social, political and economic future and responds to multiple global challenges.

Perry Golkin, W'74, WG'74, L'78 and Donna Golkin, WG'77 accept Dean Fitts' (far left) appreciation for their lead gift and inspiring support for Golkin Hall project.

"With the completion of Golkin Hall, our complex redefines the law school campus as a connected and collaborative space that encourages the integration of people and programs,” said Michael A. Fitts, Dean of Penn Law. “Golkin Hall symbolizes and furthers our vision of the role of lawyers in society today and in the future: not only as problem solvers, but as managers and leaders who can move seamlessly across fields. Penn Law embodies this ongoing integration of the law with related disciplines, as evidenced by our partnerships with schools and departments across Penn, and with other universities and institutions around the world.”

Fitts added: "The formal opening of Golkin Hall is also a testament to the extraordinary generosity and dedication of our many alumni who contributed their time and resources to help make this project such a great success."

The building, named in honor of Perry Golkin, W'74, WG'74, L'78 and Donna Golkin, WG'77, the lead donors to the project, is located on Sansom Street in West Philadelphia. The project broke ground in May 2010 and cost approximately $33.5 million, all donor supported; Penn Law did not borrow for construction. The building is 40,000 square feet and features an inviting two-story lobby leading to a two-story west wing and a three-story east wing. Designed by architects at the Boston-based firm Kennedy & Violich Architecture, Golkin Hall features roof-top gardens and green roofs, a state-of-the-art court room, and 350-seat auditorium.

Faculty, students, staff, and visitors enter from Sansom Street into Golkin’s lobby to spectacular views of the Penn Law courtyard, an essential element in the social and intellectual life of the Law School.

The Berylson Family Lobby facing the Courtyard.

The completion of Golkin Hall entirely connects Penn Law’s four buildings that include Silverman Hall, Penn Law's signature, 110-year-old Georgian-style building, Tanenbaum Hall, and Gittis Hall. It does so while respecting the historical three-story row homes that make up the scenic and trendy Restaurant Row across Sansom Street. The end result is a façade that is well-situated in its neighborhood surroundings and welcomes the University community and public to Penn Law.

The refurbishing of Penn’s Law’s campus responds to nearly 50 percent growth in Penn Law’s faculty during Fitts’ tenure as Dean, with stellar appointments in corporate law and finance, intellectual property, international law, and science and technology. In addition, since 2000 Penn Law has expanded its cross-disciplinary curriculum, launching nearly 30 joint- or dual-degree and certificate programs with the preeminent schools and graduate departments at Penn, while infusing course work with the scholarship and training of its increasingly interdisciplinary faculty.

As a result, Penn Law graduates develop the knowledge, skills, and insights necessary to successfully navigate the fields in which they and their clients operate, in the U.S. and globally.

For more information about the Golkin Hall celebrations and the event with Justice Sotomayor, please visit the Golkin Hall Dedication Week website. Additional details about the event with Justice Sotomayor will be announced in the coming days.

 Click below to take a virtual tour of Golkin Hall!

In Well-Being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis, Matthew Adler (Oxford University Press), Leon Meltzer Professor of Law at Penn Law, systematically examines how to integrate considerations of equality and fair distribution into government policy analysis. In the book provides a rigorous and comprehensive defense of the “social welfare function” arguing particularly for a “prioritarian” social welfare function: one that gives greater weight to well-being changes affecting worse-off individuals. In doing so, the book draws on many literatures: in theoretical economics, applied economics, philosophy, and law.

Professor Adler sat down with Penn Law's Communications Department to talk more about his book. 

Transcript:

I’m Matthew Adler, the Leon Meltzer Professor at University of Pennsylvania Law School. The book, which just came out is Well-Being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis. Basically, what it tries to talk about in a systematic way is how to do policy analysis in a manner that is sensitive not just to total costs and benefits but to fair distribution - to equality.

Cost-benefit analysis is a technique that has been used a lot. It is used by the U.S. government, it’s used increasingly by other governments, to think about policies and regulations. But cost-benefit analysis itself is not sensitive to distribution; it simply looks at total costs and benefits as opposed to looking at how those are distributed across the population.

So, what the book is trying to do is to think systematically about how incorporate these considerations of distribution into cost benefit analysis. And it does that using something called the social welfare function. Which is an idea has been around for a while in scholarship, various bodies of scholarship, which talk about talk about this idea of the social welfare function. But what this book tries to do is to bring together economics, philosophy, and the law… to try to provide sort of a synthetic, comprehensive, elaboration of this idea of the social welfare function as a way to think about policy making so as to be sensitive to distribution.

This transcript was edited for length.

By Cordelia Meserow C’14

On February 14 students and faculty members gathered in the Law School’s Gittis Hall for a symposium focusing on the latest book by Penn Law Professor Stephanos Bibas, The Machinery of Criminal Justice. Symposium participants included Richard A. Bierschbach, an associate law professor at the Cardozo School at Yeshiva University; Paul Robinson, the Colin S. Diver Professor of Law at Penn Law; Stephen P. Garvey, a law professor from Cornell University; and Matthew Adler, the Leon Meltzer Professor of Law at Penn Law, who served as moderator.   

The Machinery of Criminal Justice analyzes key problems with the American criminal justice system, and in the book Bibas explores the difficulties in meting out effective punishment, and how to re-integrate victims, defendants, and local community back into the overall process.

 By Anna Pan C’14

On February 15, an alumnus of Penn Law, Leo E. Strine, Jr. L’88, Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery, addressed students, faculty, and jurists in Penn Law’s Levy Conference Center to take on the issue of judicial restraint versus judicial activism. His speech, titled “Regular Order as Equity,” was hosted by the Law School’s Institute for Law & Economics (ILE) as part of their annual Distinguished Jurist lecture series.

Chancellor Strine, an adjunct professor at the Law School, Harvard and Vanderbilt Law, joined the Court as Vice Chancellor in 1998 at the age of 34, and was named Chancellor last June. The Delaware Court of Chancery is recognized as the world’s preeminent forum for business and corporate law and dispute resolution.

Strine began his address with a wry explanation of why he believed ILE should change its name.

Strine then shifted topics, speaking in favor of the “judicial mindset that favors regular order over the episodic judicial grant of exemptions from required procedural expectations and the need to secure contractual runs at the bargaining table,” he said.

Strine noted that while judges use “imperfect tools,” he asserted “we have to try to provide justice equitably” by using such methods as standards of review and principles of interpretation “consistently in like cases, and to avoid deviating from them when political pressures or other factors create a temptation for one-off situational departures.”

By adhering to regular order, Strine said, “the judiciary does the most equity, because it upholds the reasonable expectations of citizens in a society governed under law that accords a high level of procedural due process, and that now enables all its citizens a fair opportunity” to participate in a democracy.

Equity emerged in the law, he explained, “as a gap-filler to do justice in a world of unevolved institutions, and where not all people were treated the same way in similar circumstances.” And it continues to play “a vital role as a gap-filler and as a key default protection in relationships where one party is given broad discretionary authority over the property and rights of others,” Strine said.

Chancellor Leo E. Strine, Jr. L'88

But, he argued, an “equitable impulse” is not license for judges to impose personal views of what the “right” outcome in cases should be, “thereby [enabling] litigants who have failed to follow procedural rules or to obtain the contract they wanted at the bargaining table, to get a result from a court that is at odds with what regular order would have produced.”

Moving into the realm of civil procedure, Strine noted, “I do not grasp the equity of excusing litigants from compliance with the rules.”

Prof. Randall Kennedy

Randall Kennedy, a leading scholar of civil liberties and race relations law and an award-winning author, has been appointed Penn Law’s inaugural Raymond Pace and Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander ED’18, GR’21, L’27 Visiting Professor of Civil Rights for the 2012 spring semester. Kennedy currently holds the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he teaches courses on contracts, freedom of expression, and the regulation of race relations. 

Kennedy writes for a wide range of scholarly and general interest publications, and his recent books include Persistence of the Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (2011); Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal (2008), and Interracial Intimacies: Sex, Marriage, Identity and Adoption (2003). His book Race, Crime and the Law was the recipient of the Robert F. Kennedy Book Award in 1998.

"We are delighted to welcome Randall, a celebrated scholar and gifted teacher, to the Law School as the first incumbent of this important professorship,” said Michael A. Fitts, Dean of Penn Law. “The Chair serves as a critical means by which we can educate the next generation of lawyers about civil rights law in America. In addition, it will serve to contribute within and outside the legal academy to the comprehensive study and discussion about ways we can combat discrimination in any form.”

"I am deeply honored to contribute to the legacy of the Alexanders, activist jurists whom I have long admired,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy sits on the editorial boards of The Nation, Dissent, and The American Prospect, and is a member of the American Law Institute, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Association.   

Kennedy earned his A.B. from Princeton University and a J.D. from Yale Law School. Prior to joining Harvard’s law faculty in 1984, he served as a law clerk for Judge J. Skelly Wright of the U.S. Court of Appeals and for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sadie T.M. Alexander ED'18, GR'21, L'27 and Raymond Pace Alexander W'20

Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander was the first African American in the U.S. to earn a Ph.D. in economics and, in 1927, the first African American woman to graduate from Penn Law. Her exceptional career included service to President Harry Truman as a member of his President's Committee on Civil Rights, as well as her active role in the creation of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Rights and her work as its first commissioner.   

Her husband, Raymond Pace Alexander, was appointed the first African-American judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; one of his decisions led to the establishment of Community Legal Services. He and his wife played key roles in Pennsylvania's 1935 Equal Rights Law, making it illegal to deny African-Americans access to public schools, restaurants and hotels.

The Chair was established at Penn Law through an initial gift from the Alexander estate in 1993, and through the involvement of the Alexanders' daughters, Dr. Rae Alexander-Minter GR’81, who played a pivotal role over the years in leading fundraising efforts, and Mary B. Cannaday. The Chair has been co-funded by the Law School, Penn, and through a grant by the Pennsylvania Department of Education and a gift from the law firm Duane Morris. In addition, in 1994 Penn Law’s Black Law Students Association (BLSA) established a Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander Committee and each year since then has hosted an annual dinner and conference to support fundraising for the Chair as well as celebrate the Alexanders’ lives and legacy. In total, more than 350 donors, including individual alumni, students, and faculty, as well as alumni groups, student groups, law firms, and corporations, have contributed to the establishment of the professorship.

Penn Law is actively seeking a permanent incumbent for the Chair.

By Jenny Chung C’12

On Feb. 16 renowned, author, academic, and political leader Michael Ignatieff was the speaker for Penn Law’s annual Owen J. Roberts Memorial Lecture series, delivering an address in Levy Conference Center titled “Standing in Law and Standing in Politics: The Rules That Determine Who Gets Heard.”

In his opening remarks, the Law School’s Dean Michael A. Fitts ranked the Roberts lecture series, now in its 50^th year, among the “grandest traditions” of Penn Law. The series had initially been launched in honor of the memory of alumnus and former Dean Owen J. Roberts, who served as a Depression-era Supreme Court Justice before returning to the Law School in the capacity of a professor.

Naming Roberts an “epitome” of the Penn Law ideal on account of his dual commitment to academia and public service, Fitts commended Ignatieff—author, professor and former leader of Canada’s Liberal party—for his contributions to liberal thought as a public intellectual and humanist, noting Ignatieff’s “[embodiment of] the virtues of Owen J. Roberts.”

Ignatieff started his lecture with a discussion of “standing” in the domains of both law and politics. Within the former, he noted, standing determines whether an individual has the right to be heard in a court of law. Political standing, by contrast, governs the right to vote and the right to seek public office.

“The enduring point of contention in standing cases is whether an individual’s or group’s right of access to the law is to be sacrificed on the altar of legal restraint, or whether judicial restraint is to be sacrificed in the name of equal protection,” Ignatieff explained, adding that “when we move from law into politics, a similar conflict emerges between using law to ensure that elections are free and using it to ensure that standing is equal.”

To Ignatieff, the ongoing debate over whether legal mechanisms should be deployed to ensure parity of standing between parties is reflective of broader disagreement surrounding “the balance between democracy’s conflicting principles.” 

Identifying the establishment of standing as the “critical condition for electability,” Ignatieff proceeded to examine how, due to the erosion of political allegiances among voters, candidates are now compelled to “battle for standing in a profession that has more power but less authority, legitimacy and respect than ever.”

He attributed the modern voter’s mistrust of political candidates to the “decay of institutions” that had once equipped candidates with “validation, testimonials, endorsements and other ritual conferrals of standing.”

Moreover, because voters now support candidates strictly on the basis of individual preference rather than along ethnic, gender or occupational lines, Ignatieff said, they have begun to “value their common identity as citizens less” and to vote less frequently as a result.

The ascendancy of the individualistic electorate has also led to the substitution of “micro-targeting to individuals” for “policy, platform and vision for the country’s future”—which, according to Ignatieff, once formed “an essential element” of politics.

He further explained that in order to conduct an effective campaign and acquire standing in the eyes of voters, candidates must rely on “paid professionals who wage campaigns against each other for commercial gain,” resulting in the professionalization of politics and the conversion of wealth into political clout. 

However, Ignatieff pointed out that a well-financed campaign alone may not be enough to gain voter approval. The principal determinant of standing remains, in fact, the candidate’s ability to affirm his “belonging” to the community he seeks to represent.

For this reason, he said, standing is not an “entitlement” reserved for the highest bidder, but remains “a privilege to be accorded by citizens”—in keeping with the founding principles of democracy, which posit that “the right to rule must be earned in the trust and confidence of ordinary citizens.”
 
Shifting his focus to a related issue in the political arena, Ignatieff observed that the battle for standing has rendered competition for public office a “war” based on the vilification of one’s opponent rather than a “debate” centered on “vision, platform and ideas.”

Ignatieff concluded by advocating the restoration of a “politics of adversaries” in place of the prevailing “politics of enemies” and the substitution of a “politics of program” for the current “politics of standing.”

“If standing becomes the only question in politics, none of the essential questions a society has to solve will get decided in elections,” he said. “Elections will become plebiscites of standing while the real questions—who do we want to be as a people, what challenges must we solve together—will not be decided by the people.”

Well known for his work as a human rights advocate of Western intervention in the prevention of genocide, Ignatieff had earlier served as Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government before his entry into Canadian politics as a member of the House of Commons, Liberal party leader, and as a candidate for Prime Minister. He is now Senior Resident at Massey College, University of Toronto, where he teaches courses in political science as well as law.

According to Dean Fitts, Ignatieff’s return to academia signaled his having “come full circle” in much the same way Roberts had decades prior. “Michael resembles Roberts in his commitment to scholarship, to legal education and to civic leadership,” he said as part of his introduction. “His fascinating career has redefined what it means to be a public citizen.”

By Jenny Chung C'12

Members of the Penn Law community convened this month for the Latin American Law Students Association’s (LALSA) annual conference, titled “Beyond the 2010 Census: Harnessing the Power of the Latino Community.” Inspired by the national dialogue in the wake of the 2010 census on the influence and potential of the growing Latino population, this year’s conference examined how the expansion of the Hispanic community can be converted into a political and economic force. 

The keynote address was delivered by Raul A. Reyes, an attorney and columnist who writes on issues relevant to the Latino community. A third-generation Mexican-American, Reyes’ work has explored—among countless other topics—how the question of racial and ethnic identity has impacted Latinos in the U.S. and the harsh realities faced by Latino youth. 

Reyes opened by extending his condolences to Thomas A. Saenz, President and General Counsel of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who was unable to deliver the keynote due to a death in the family. “Saenz is a role model of mine—he was involved in some of the most important civil rights legislation over the years and numerous cases in immigrants’ rights, education, employment and voting rights,” Reyes said, naming Saenz a “true Hispanic hero.”

He proceeded to enumerate and evaluate the challenges Latinos continue to confront within the current political system. “Due to demographics and the digital age, the Latino electorate have matured faster than the parties and candidates realize,” Reyes said. “But they’re still using moves from old playbooks because they don’t get us.”

According to Reyes, the prevailing conception of the Latino constituency as a “sleeping giant” is wildly inaccurate. “Pundits would wonder when we were going to ‘wake up’…my parents have been voting all their lives,” Reyes observed. He added that one of the “first” and “proudest” acts performed by recent immigrants is that of registering to vote. “We’ve never been ‘sleeping’—just overlooked until the numbers finally made that impossible.”

Due to the relative youth of the Latino population and its inclusion of a body of undocumented residents, Reyes said, many would-be members of the Latino electorate are ineligible to vote. Nevertheless, he maintained, demographics have heightened the importance of Latino voters in each successive election.

According to Reyes, twelve million Latinos will vote in the 2012 election, marking a twenty-five percent increase since 2008. Further, because swing states often have sizeable Latino populations, he said, “Latino voters could well determine who is the next occupant of the White House.”

In spite of such incentives to engage Hispanic voters, however, politicians have not yet begun to practice effective methods of “Hispanic outreach.” Such attempts, Reyes said, currently entail little more than translating campaign websites into Spanish—“overlooking the fact that Latinos are statistically the least likely group to have a home computer”—and airing commercials on Univision and Telemundo. Because the core viewers of both channels tend to be recent immigrants who cannot vote, he explained, the advertisements are unsuccessful.

Reyes emphasized the necessity for politicians to acknowledge the existence of two distinct Hispanic communities: the immigrant community, consisting of new arrivals and first-generation Americans, and the “more assimilated” community. “The latter group is the target for political parties, but they’re sending messages and resources to the immigrant market,” he said. “Until this distinction is recognized they’re going to continue to struggle to reach Latino voters.”

In Reyes’ view, it is likewise imperative that politicians cease to view illegal immigration as the issue of foremost concern to Latino voters, who—like other Americans—are most invested in jobs, the economy and education.

“What concerns Latinos most is our 11 percent unemployment rate, higher than the national average,” Reyes said. “Latinos were disproportionately affected by the foreclosure crisis, hardest hit in the recession and slowest to recover, and have dropout rates triple those of whites and double those of African-Americans…but the major political parties still think a major Latino issue is immigration.”

He also pointed out that, contrary to beliefs held by the political establishment, Latinos are no longer ethnic voters who invariably gravitate toward Latino candidates.

Reyes named Latina magazine as a compelling model of how best to engage a broad cross-section of the Latino community. With three million subscribers to its print edition and over one million monthly page views, Reyes said, Latina offers “a case study political parties should examine because it shows it is indeed possible to address and engage with Hispanics on a national level.”

He further identified social media as a necessary but as yet absent component of the Latino community’s relation to the political structure and an optimal way to reach young Latino voters. “Only when we’ve made voting an integral part of our civic lives—that’s when we’re truly going to advance,” Reyes said, concluding the keynote by challenging his audience to register non-voters.

The first of the day’s two panels, Growing Tomorrow’s Economy: Understanding the Latino Impact on the Marketplace, featured authorities in fields ranging from commerce to consumer advocacy. The next panel, 2012: Capturing the Latino Vote, followed with a discussion between experts in marketing, politics and political science concerning potential approaches by which the influence of the Latino constituency can be mobilized in the upcoming presidential election. 

By Jenny Chung C'12

Panelists at the Journal of Constitutional Law Symposium convened Jan. 20 explored constitutional law lessons derived from the New Deal and their relevance to the Obama administration.

According to JCL Editor-in-Chief Vivian Lee L’12, who delivered opening remarks, the Symposium aimed not only to advance dialogue within the discipline of constitutional law scholarship but also to showcase the “best work from the brightest scholars” in the field.

Penn Law Dean Michael A. Fitts further characterized the New Deal as a “transformative Constitutional moment,” reflective of an “obvious connection” between doctrinal issues of Supreme Court decision-making and events occurring beyond the Court’s chambers. The Symposium, Fitts said, addressed a topic both “amazingly timely” and “academically important.”

The first of the day’s panels centered on the court-packing plan proposed by President Franklin Roosevelt and its influence on present-day perceptions of the three branches of government and the separation of powers they collectively enforce.

Texas Southern University School of Law Professor Craig Jackson, who acted as panel moderator, opened discussion by remarking on the significant theoretical development occurring within the period in question, which—like the present—had confronted a range of economic and social pressures.

The panel commenced with University of Virginia School of Law Professor Barry Cushman’s critique of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court, authored by historian Jeff Shesol and named a 2010 New York Times Notable Book of the Year.

Cushman explained that any history of the court-packing controversy intends to answer three questions: how to understand the “political story,” or trajectory of the plan; how to understand the “legal story,” or constitutional landscape that confronted New Deal reformers; and how to articulate the relation between both narratives.

While Cushman commended Shesol’s rendering of the “political story,” in his view the author’s attempts to answer the second and third questions were less successful.
Shesol’s treatment of the topic, according to Cushman, overlooks the fact that doctrine was frequently employed by Justices to fulfill ideological and class ends.

Additionally, Cushman said, Shesol’s misunderstanding of legal doctrine resulted in his misconstruing certain court decisions and contributed to his failure to illustrate the relationship between the legal and political narratives at hand. “Shesol does not assess the salient causal elements and possibilities […] he instead tries to place potentially relevant factors on the table but doesn’t integrate them into comprehensive accounts,” Cushman concluded. “He never finds firm middle ground on which to stand.”

Cushman was followed by Professor Laura Cisneros of the Golden Gate University School of Law, who examined the legacy of the court-packing plan and its effects on institutional power arrangements with reference to the plan’s use and significance as a rhetorical tool.

Among the plan’s effects, Cisneros asserted, were the realigned balance of power among the branches, the reassertion of Congressional power vis-à-vis the President and the formation of factions within the Democratic party.

Though the term “rhetoric” has suffered a “serious decline in popular perception”— given its suggestion of “deceit [and the] dishonest use of language”—she maintains that this perception is “incomplete,” given the value of rhetorical orientation.

“Understanding a writer’s perception of experience provides insight into their basis for knowing what they know,” she explained. “What we see as reality is shaped by the words we use, and what we say is a product of how we say it.”

To Cisneros, the court-packing plan’s sustaining significance is representational: specifically, it functions as a trope signifying “institutional hegemony and governmental hubris and excess.” Close-reading both concurring and dissenting Supreme Court opinions to bolster her claims, Cisneros establishes the role of the court-packing plan’s language as a reminder to the public that judicial independence remains a vital component of the system of government and as a confirmation of the integrity of the separation of powers.

NYU School of Law Professor Deborah Malamud concluded the panel by addressing the New Deal’s “social and cultural radicalism,” its “preservative role” with regard to existing class structures and “resonance” with the current administration’s policy decisions.

In adjudicated cases of the New Deal involving the exercise of judicial power, Malamud said, “it is convincing that it made a big difference that the legal work done by the New Deal administration and the soundness of the litigation strategy made a big difference in what was rejected or accepted.” Adding that the above constitute “powerful internalist arguments” and stressing the importance of “[taking] seriously the phenomenology of the feeling of constraint by doctrine,” she explained that the “struggle with the question of doctrinal constraint was inconsistent with a purely externalist account.”

Malamud subsequently affirmed the necessity of attending to the Court’s own perception of the political and economic exigencies of the time in which the Justices lived, as decisions made under the conditions of “perceived exigency” acquire “precedential value.”

“Justices are called upon to understand the needs of the day,” she said, inviting the audience to contemplate how this condition influences the “positions taken by key Justices.” 

After a break for lunch following the first panel, Symposium attendees and participants reconvened for an interview featuring Jeff Shesol, conducted by Jeffrey Toobin for C-SPAN’s Book TV.

When asked about the impetus governing his authorship of Supreme Power, Shesol replied that he had consistently been “drawn to stories of conflict,” and the court-packing crisis may arguably be the “greatest constitutional conflict” of the age. “Institutions and individuals [were] fighting for great stakes,” he reflected.

Shesol recounted each stage of the conflict between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court, which had “struck down the centerpieces of the New Deal […] in short succession.”

“The real question was whether FDR [could] get anything fundamental done because the Supreme Court was standing in the way of everything,” he recalled.

The oldest Court in U.S. history, Roosevelt’s Court was known popularly as the “nine old men” and, according to Shesol, still subscribed to the spirit of the 19^th century on many issues. “Justices were scrambling in favor of doctrines thought dead for decades [and] applying them with vigor to New Deal cases,” Shesol explained.

Though the prospect of amending the Constitution had greater currency than that of court-packing, FDR rejected the former notion as he was convinced that the “problem” can be traced to the group of Justices as opposed to any inherent contradiction between the Constitution and the New Deal.

Despite playing out decades ago, Shesol said, the court-packing conflict is not without relevance to present-day issues. “It raises the question of whether the Court is a political institution and whether public pressure should exercise any influence on [its practices]—the perennial question in American public life,” he explained.

“The Court had taken itself out of the mainstream of American thought and was standing in the way of what a lot of Americans felt had to be done; it had allowed itself to fall out of step, and there was a sharp public counterreaction which had an effect on the Court itself and its decisions.”

The Penn Program on Documentaries and the Law, directed by Professor Regina Austin L'73, combines the study and production of documentary videos with legal education at Penn Law. The Program exposes students to the use and analysis of law-genre documentaries and how they are used within the legal academy, while they learn about legal issues that are involved in making documentaries and explore the uses of nonfiction film as a tool of legal advocacy.

Recent student videos have included a complex and balanced account of violence against Asian immigrant students at South Philadelphia High School and the ensuing civil rights case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against the Philadelphia School District; a look into the legal and social implications of gambling in the black community; an exploration of the “Ban the Box” ordinance in Philadelphia that bars employers from inquiring about the criminal histories or doing background checks of job applicants until after the initial interview; and a documentary about the impact of incarceration on motherhood and the challenges pregnant woman face while confined in jails and prisons.
 
Professor Austin recently spoke with the Penn Law's Office of Communications to discuss the uniqueness of the Penn Program on Documentaries and the Law.

On January 18, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument for Vartelas v. Holder to decide whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which strips lawful permanent residents convicted of a crime the right to travel abroad with the guarantee of reentry, should be applied retroactively to a green-card holder who pleaded guilty to an offense prior to 1996 and traveled abroad thereafter.

Stephanos Bibas, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and the director of Penn Law’s Supreme Court Legal Clinic, argued the case for Panagis Vartelas, a citizen of Greece and a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1989, who was detained at New York’s Kennedy Airport in 2003 upon returning from a family visit overseas. Mr. Vartelas, a Queens businessman, pleaded guilty in 1994 to a U.S. court in a counterfeiting case – a crime that at the time wasn’t cause for deportation if he left the country and attempted reentry. However, when the IIRIRA was passed in 1996, it made even minor cases cause for deportation and was to be applied retroactively.

For more information on Vartelas v. Holder and links to opinions and briefs filed in the case, see SCOTUSblog.

In the first full year of operation RegBlog, a student-edited website sponsored by the Penn Program on Regulation (PPR) at Penn Law, has attracted leading scholars, government officials, analysts, and business executives to become the leading daily online source for news, analysis, and opinion of regulatory matters.

• Professor Anita Allen’s argument about the virtues of certain kinds of government-mandated privacy
• Professor Theodore Ruger’s analysis of preemption issues raised by recent vaccine injury litigation
• Professor David Skeel’s commentary on the challenges of implementing the Dodd Frank Act.

RegBlog posts have been cited in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Yale Law Journal, Florida Law Journal, Google Finance, Open Congress, and many other outlets and publications.

Throughout 2011 Penn Law faculty and students alike continued to engage the most critical legal issues of the day. Our research, classes and programs demonstrated vibrancy and impact by taking on issues facing the nation and the world. From cross-disciplinary scholarship to testifying on Capitol Hill to programs taking faculty and students to every corner of the globe, Penn Law’s intellectual and programmatic expansion reflected the Law School’s physical expansion into the new Golkin Hall.

·      New Allen Book explores the need for privacy protections in an overexposed world

·      JIL Symposium on Middle East democratization: "No turning back"

·      Robert and Jane Toll Give Additional $2.5 Million for Penn Law's Public Interest Programs

·      Penn Program on Regulation Hosts DC Workshop on Open Government

·      Elisabet Wenzlaff LLM'82, Volvo's General Counsel and Senior Vice President, on the LLM Experience

Recent University of Pennsylvania Law School graduates Marsha Chien L’10 and Jesse Krohn L’11 and current Penn Law student Kristin Bochicchio L’12 are the recipients of national fellowships which will support their work in public service.

Marsha Chien and Jesse Krohn are among the Class of 2012 Skadden Fellows, which are awarded each year by the Skadden Fellowship Foundation “in recognition of the dire need for greater funding for graduating law students who wish to devote their professional lives to providing legal services to the poor (including the working poor), the elderly, the homeless and the disabled, as well as those deprived of their civil or human rights,” according to the Foundation.

The 2012 Class of Skadden Fellows includes 28 graduating law students and judicial clerks from around the U.S., including Penn Law alumnae Chien and Krohn, who will be supported in creating their own projects at sponsoring public interest organizations.

In addition, Kristin Bochicchio has been named a 2012 Equal Justice Works Fellow, a two-year fellowship program wherein Fellows design “unique projects that serve and address a range of legal issues, including domestic violence, homelessness, community economic development, immigration, civil rights, juvenile justice, employment rights, health care, consumer fraud, and environmental justice,” according to the organization. Equal Justice Works matches Fellows and their sponsoring public interest organizations with funding to support their projects.

Marsha Chien L’10	Marsha Chien L’10 will serve as a Skadden Fellow at the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center in San Francisco. Her project involves direct representation, community education and impact litigation for limited-English proficient (LEP) workers barred from equal employment opportunities. Before law school, Chien was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Guatemala. In law school, she was a Penn Law Toll Public Interest Scholar and during law school worked with Friends of Farmworkers, California Rural Legal Assistance, Penn Law’s Transnational Clinic, and co-directed both the Penn Law Immigrant Rights Project and Employment Advocacy Project. She is currently clerking for the Hon. Marsha J. Pechman in the Western District of Washington.
Jesse Krohn L’11	Jesse Krohn L’11 will serve as a Skadden Fellow at Philadelphia Legal Assistance. She will be providing direct representation to indigent teen parents on matters of child support and custody, protection from abuse, and access to public benefits, in order to enable them to reach their educational and professional goals. Krohn is a former Teach for America teacher in Philadelphia. As a law student Krohn was a Penn Law Toll Public Interest Scholar and during law school she worked with the National Women’s Law Center, the Education Law Center, and the Penn Law Custody and Support Assistance Clinic pro bono project, where she supervised other students and began her relationship with the organization that will host her project. She is currently clerking for the Hon. Ellen L. Hollander in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
Kristin Bochicchio L ‘12	Kristin Bochicchio L ‘12 will serve as the BP/ Arnold & Porter Equal Justice Works Fellow at the Tahirih Justice Center in Houston, Texas. She will be providing representation and outreach to African and Middle Eastern women and girls fleeing gender-based violence. While in law school, she worked as co-director of Penn Law’s Students Against Gender-Based Exploitation pro bono project, represented an Iraqi refugee living in Jordan through the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project, and received an International Summer Human Rights Fellowship to intern at the Gender Research & Advocacy Project of the Legal Assistance Centre in Namibia. A dual JD/MA student, Bochiccio is currently finishing a Masters in French law at Sciences Po (L'Institut d'études politiques) in Paris.

Among the Class of 2011 Skadden Fellows are Sheerine Alemzadeh L’11 and Amy Laura Cahn L’09, who are currently pursuing their Fellowship-supported public interest projects at the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, and the Public Interest Law Center in Philadelphia, respectively.

Two Penn Law alumnae are currently completing the second year of their EJW Fellowships: Eliana Kaimowitz L’07 is working with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation; and Charlotte Whitmore L’08 is working with the Pennsylvania Innocence Project.

More information about the Skadden Fellowship and the Equal Justice Works Fellowship is available online.

The LLM program at Penn Law is a one-year, full-time advanced course of study designed for lawyers trained outside of the United States. The curriculum and cross-disciplinary perspective provide a superb legal education, and present opportunities for students to take law-related classes outside the Law School at Penn’s elite schools, departments and programs.

Elisabet Wenzlaff LLM'82, General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Volvo Car Corporation, shares her experience as an LLM student at Penn Law in this video feature.

Transcript

My name is Elisabet Wenzlaff. I’m an alumna of University of Pennsylvania. I graduated in 1982 and my current profession is that I am a corporate lawyer. I am general counsel of Volvo Car Corporation and I’m also the senior vice president there.

It was a wonderful year… I didn’t plan it so much. Of course I applied for a scholarship, but basically I wanted to go abroad or do something different, have an adventure. And you have to remember, this is a couple of years ago, it was almost 30 years ago. So I didn’t have a lot of expectations, but when I was there I realized how much it did to me, how much it broadened my mind, how much it helped me in my career, how many people I got to know, how much I benefited from it in all respects. So, it really changed my life.
 
I think it opened my eyes… that law is different in different countries, it opened my way of thinking, the way of legal thinking. I had a legal education from Sweden, where I come from. But, of course I got this other perspective – the U.S. perspective and also the international perspective. So, it did a lot to me as a person. And if it does a lot to you as a person, it does a lot for you as a lawyer.
 
I think Penn took very good care of their foreign students. They organized a lot of parties and adventures for us. It made us get to know each other and feel special. I think we were very well taken care of here, so I think contributed, at least for me, a very great year here.
 
[Prospective students] should definitely not hesitate to apply. I think they should be more open than thinking what can this do for me in my career, is this a good career step? I think they should go beyond that and think what can this do for me as a person, because, I think, that is the real benefit.

Transcript edited for length.

By Kathryn Siegel C'12

David Rudovsky introduces the guest speakers

On November 3, criminal justice practitioners Abbe Smith and Tucker Carrington convened in Gittis Hall’s Kushner Classroom to debate the value of innocence projects versus overall systemic reform. The event, titled “A House Divided: Is Justice Just for the Innocent?”, was sponsored by the Journal of Law and Social Change (JLASC), which will feature articles by both speakers on the subject in its December publication. Abbe Smith currently directs the Criminal Defense and Prisoner Advocacy Clinic at Georgetown Law School, while Tucker Carrington is the first director of the Mississippi Innocence Project at the University of Mississippi Law School. Penn’s criminal law professor David Rudovsky opened the event with introductions of Smith and Carrington before giving them the floor.

“Can you believe I’m complaining about innocence projects? I mean, for God’s sake, is nothing sacred?” Smith spoke first, commending the noble purpose of projects like Carrington’s. “I want to be clear that I believe in the work of innocence projects” in exonerating innocent people, she said.

She then continued to explain her three major arguments against them. First, she noted a sense of “self-righteousness and superiority” that pervades innocence projects, as though guilty persons are “beneath” the aid of lawyers. Second, she maintained that the focus on “factual innocence,” such as DNA exonerations, draw too hard a line between guilt and innocence. A defendant can be “not guilty” without being completely blameless, she reminds the audience.

Third, she argued that innocence project clinics in law schools divert too many resources and “ill prepare students for work in criminal law in a time of mass incarceration.” With 2.3 million Americans in prison, Smith suggested that reforming the large-scale approach to criminal justice is a more important issue than exonerating the few hundred who have been wrongly convicted. “Let’s not forget about the guilty,” she said.

Tucker Carrington

Carrington, a former student of Smith’s, then presented his rebuttal with a series of anecdotes drawn from his early work in New Orleans and later in Mississippi. He described a case in the “mean place” of New Orleans’ Jefferson parish, where his client had been convicted of homicide and jailed for 18 years. Despite evidence that proved him factually innocent, the judge and prosecutor urged Carrington and his co-counsel to strike a deal to avoid re-opening the trial. With this and other stories, Carrington points out that dishonesty, “prosecutorial misconduct, and forensic fraud” too often lead to unfair convictions.

He also directly addressed Smith’s three concerns. As far as self-righteousness on the part of innocence projects, “there is no doubt a surfeit of arrogance... but we haven’t exactly cornered the market on that,” Carrington said. Besides, he added, the systemic reforms that innocence projects also seek, such as legislative changes, would benefit both the innocent and the guilty. He also conceded the pitfalls of reliance on strictly factual innocence as a pillar of the projects’ work. But he defended his clinic at University of Mississippi Law School as an enlightening experience for students that, contrary to Smith’s claim, encourages them to understand their clients’ humanity.

To conclude, Carrington reiterated the hope and affirmation that innocence project cases provide. “[They] have captured public’s attention, imagination and conception of justice,” he said. “Something about them just touches people.”

Following their talks, Professor Rudovsky welcomed questions from the audience, beginning with two of his own. He and other listeners inquired about how innocence projects and more all-encompassing reforms could work together to affect change. While neither could answer definitively, Smith did acknowledge a certain competition between the two.

“Innocence projects are eating up funds that might be better used for criminal defense programs or death penalty resource centers,” she responded. Carrington agreed that “the innocence project hasn’t changed much of what is wrong with the system as a whole,” such as mass incarceration, “but that’s not what we bargained for anyway.”

Following the Q&A, some early prints of Smith’s and Carrington’s JLASC articles were made available to the audience, and a light reception was provided for attendees in the Great Hall.

By Nicole Greenstein C’14

Professors Lillian BeVier, Theodore Ruger and Arlen Specter

On Monday, November 21, a crowd of students and faculty convened in Penn Law’s Gittis Hall for a debate on the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. First Amendment expert and University of Virginia Law Professor Lillian BeVier was opposite Penn Law Professor Theodore Ruger, a Constitutional law expert, and the debate was moderated by former U.S Senator Arlen Specter, an adjunct professor at the Law School.
 
Sponsored by the Penn Law Federalist Society, the event delved into the intricacies of the Supreme Court’s decision while also looking ahead at future implications that the case might have in the political environment. The majority opinion in Citizens United held that prohibition of all independent campaign contributions by corporations and unions was invalid, interpreting their campaign contribution rights to be the same as those of individual citizens.

Professor BeVier sided with the majority opinion, defending the argument that corporations should be protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. Professor Ruger took the opposing view, arguing that although corporations have certain constitutional rights, they should not enjoy the same protections as individuals.
 
BeVier took to the podium first to share the justifications behind her support for the Citizens United decision.
 
“The reaction to Citizens United has been nothing short of hysterical, which is kind of puzzling since the holding actually conforms to well-established and deeply-embedded First Amendment principles,” she said.
 
BeVier refuted critics’ view that the Citizens United case is an “apocalypse in the making” that will strip away power from the people. By giving corporations the right to spend money, BeView asserted that these corporations will then direct their advocacy to the people. With corporations informing the public of their views about which candidatesthey deem fit to run for federal office, Citizens United instead offers the public a more diverse, robust range of voices to chose from, she said.
 
“Instead of taking power away from the people, citizens united bestowed on them an opportunity previously denied to them,” BeVier explained. “Namely, the power to hear and evaluate for themselves arguments from sources previously silenced.”
 
“In my view, Citizens United got it right,” she noted at the conclusion of her speech.
 

Professor Ted Ruger

However, Ruger explained how in the past the courts have upheld necessary restrictions on such corporate speech, but with this case the Supreme Court overturned such rulings in one fell swoop.
 
“For the Court to fairly clumsily wander in with no originalist, textualist or doctrinal mandate and reconfigure fundamentally what congress did, does speak to a profound assertiveness — and even activism — on the part of the court,” Ruger asserted in summing up his argument.
 
BeVier followed up with a rebuttal, in which she argued that she does not trust Congress to regulate campaign finance. Since members of Congress know the inner workings of campaign finance reform, she expressed worry that they might use this knowledge to “extend their time in office.”
 
Although Specter was partial to Congress being a senator himself, he did acknowledge the validity to BeVier’s claim.
 
“When you say you don’t trust congress, you have a lot of company,” Specter said, adding that today’s polls show a loss of faith and confidence in the institutions of government to solve our problems. He even pointed to “the Tea Partiers and the Occupiers” as evidence that people are starting to think Congress cannot handle America’s troubles.
 
One audience member, an L’13 student who wished to remain anonymous due to his position on the Graduate and Professional Student Association, appreciated how relevant the debate was to the current state of politics in America.
 
“It is important for people to have faith in government, but the seed of our mistrust lies in corruption,” he said. “Personally I think Citizens United allowed more corruption in, so I was interested to hear the other side of the issue.”
 
Federalist Society President Daniel Pollack L’12, thought the event was a resounding success.
 
“I thought it was a great event,” he said. “I was really thankful that Professor BeVier, Professor Ruger, and Senator Specter were able to come out tonight.”

By Jenny Chung C'12

Penn Law Professor Cary Coglianese

An audience of students, faculty, and members of the public filled Penn Law’s Levy Conference Room November 19 for the 2011 Journal of Business Law Symposium, a full-day event comprised of three panels and five keynote lectures delivered by leading authorities in the fields of corporate law, financial regulation, and commerce, as well as other fields.

Organized by the Law School’s Journal of Business Law, this year’s Symposium addressed the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act and the wider topic of consumer financial protection.

Professor Cary Coglianese’s opening remarks centered on the common ground between recent questions concerning relations between public authority and the ordering of private affairs as compared against those raised several centuries earlier at the nation’s founding.
 
“We’re considering today questions that have deep roots in American history and a core reflected in the movements of today,” he said. “The concerns underlying Occupy Wall Street’s efforts tap into a deep suspicion of power that underlies the American polity.”

He advised audience members to ask themselves how a conference organized around the issue of consumer protection five to ten years from now would assess whether the Dodd-Frank Act was successful at ending corporate abuses and, in turn, what criteria should be employed in evaluating the success of legislation intended to regulate relations between businesses and consumers.

“A gathering like [this Symposium] comes at a perfect time to look backward as well as forward and look forward to looking backward,” he added.

Wharton School of Business Professor Franklin Allen

Prof. Allen keynote address: Dodd-Frank and systemic risk

Coglianese’s introduction was followed by the Symposium’s first keynote lecture, delivered by Wharton School of Business Professor Franklin Allen, who discussed systemic risk within the framework of the Dodd-Frank Act.

According to Allen, most regulators before the financial crisis were confident that controlling the risk assumed by individual banks was sufficient to prevent crises as it forestalled the buildup of risk in the financial system. He suggested that this view is “fundamentally flawed” given its inability to account for systemic risk, which can arise from “panics, banking crises due to asset price falls, contagion [and] foreign exchange mismatches in the banking system.”

Tracing the origins of financial panics to “multiple equilibria in the banking system” which compel people to withdraw their funds from banks when they sense others are likely to withdraw—even if there exists no other rational incentive to do so—Allen posited the guarantee of all short-term debt as a possible method of ruling out such “self-fulfilling equilibria” but cautioned that this approach may entail other types of systemic risk and itself prove costly.

Allen also identified the extensive involvement of banks in real estate and too-low interest rates coupled with large foreign exchange reserves—mostly held in dollars and accumulated by central banks in Asia—as contributing factors to the crisis.

He emphasized the need to reduce global imbalances and explained that self-insurance by Asian countries through large reserves is optimal for the countries in question but “inefficient” globally. To rectify this, he suggested, a stronger Asian presence in the governance structure of the International Monetary Fund is central.

Allen also proposed that ensuring the permanence of the IMF liquidity facility may provide the solution to foreign exchange mismatches, another source of systemic risk.

“Systemic risk is a complex phenomenon and we don’t understand it well enough,” he said. “Central banks are constructed to manage crises, but those who are dissidents are screened out from the get-go—it’s important not to do that so we don’t miss things as we did in the previous crisis.”

Prof. Jacoby keynote: Regulatory innovation and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

UNC School of Law Professor Melissa B. Jacoby, authority on bankruptcy and commercial law, delivered the next keynote speech on regulatory innovation and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

Jacoby opened her talk with the observation that current discussion of the Bureau’s existence “has played out in extreme terms” and “moderate discussion” of the issues is necessary.

UNC School of Law Professor Melissa B. Jacoby

While the principal objective of the bureau is to raise consumer confidence in financial markets and ensure individuals make “smart” decisions, she said, the Bureau also provides a basis for systematic assessment of the market in addition to venues for direct two-way communication with the public like online interactive forms and comment logs.

“This was a particular way to communicate with and get substantive comments back from a wide swath of the population—as confidence builds one can anticipate even more,” she said, adding that public commenting affects public perception of the Bureau “perhaps more so than voting” by providing a means of fostering a sense of inclusion.

Shifting her focus to the Dodd-Frank Act, Jacoby maintained that the passage of the bill was key to safeguarding the ability of states to protect their own citizens insofar as it enabled states to enforce their own consumer protection laws.

Citing the inability of government to “solve all problems” as justification for the Bureau, Jacoby criticized the “extreme” nature of the arguments frequently leveled against it.

“People opposed to the Bureau talk about the ‘right to be wrong,’ and it’s hard to disagree with that as a general proposition, but when people can’t internalize the consequences of their decisions we have to move beyond that,” she explained.

In her view, government has long played a role in encouraging debt, and while the state does and should be entitled to invest significant resources in subsidizing debt collection, it is imperative that “ground rules” be set.

“No one likes all aspects of the Bureau, but we need something to look across the entire market and provide a credible threat of enforcement somewhere within the system. There has to be an actor who can and will step in,” Jacoby said.

Professors David Skeel, David Reiss, Jason S. Johnston and Paul G. Mahoney

Feature panel: Consumer Protection and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Moderated by Penn Law Professor David Skeel, the first panel addressed “The Project of Consumer Protection and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” and invoked the expertise of four distinguished legal scholars.

The panel commenced with a modern-day fable, recounted by Professor David Reiss of Brooklyn Law School, illustrating the “fundamentally irreconcilable worldviews” held by people evaluating the events leading to the subprime market crisis.

A reimagining of the age-old tale of the emperor’s new clothes, Reiss’ story involved an emperor swindled by scoundrels posing as lenders who claimed to have invented a mortgage “so insubstantial it looks burdensome to anyone too stupid to appreciate its quality.” While the entire kingdom perceived the mortgage as heavy, no one was willing to voice his opinion for fear of appearing incompetent.

The moral of the story, Reiss suggested, is that “disclosure can be insufficient to convey the complexity of certain transactions to many consumers” and that the persistence of “muddled and conflicting views about consumer protection” will result in inefficient regulation.

University of Virginia Law School Professor Jason S. Johnston then offered a preliminary critique and examination of the likely consequences of the Dodd-Frank Act’s consumer protection provisions, highlighting areas in which Dodd-Frank departs from existing law.

Prior to the subprime mortgage crisis, Johnston said, prudent consumers had adapted expectations and were reluctant to approach adjustable rate mortgages due to the risk of rates increasing. However, this changed when rates were artificially suppressed from 2001 to 2005 and the Federal Reserve actively encouraged consumers to take out adjustable rate mortgages and lauded the rise of the subprime segment.

Johnston contested the legitimacy of attributing consumer mortgage decisions to “irrational optimism,” contending that those “running national policy and the Federal Reserve especially” should be held accountable.

University of Virginia Law School Professor Jason S. Johnston

Johnston argued that Dodd-Frank fails to address the central issue of government officials and experts misrepresenting market conditions to rational consumers. “If they say low interest rates are now a permanent feature of the economy and you trust them, reading contract terms is irrational because what matters is haste,” he explained.

He added that fundamental reform is needed with regard to the role of the Federal Reserve. “Its discretion has to be limited and its powers restricted—not expanded,” he said.

Paul G. Mahoney, Dean of the University of Virginia Law School, spoke on the shift in regulatory philosophy from disclosure-based standards to restricting and shaping contracts between firms and consumers.

While the drafters of the first federal securities laws explicitly rejected the merit review approach in favor of more disclosure-based systems, enabling fully-informed investors to decide what is best for them, Mahoney explained, this strategy has eroded over time in favor of policing abusive deals.

The change in approach, he said, is reflective of a “current and powerful strand in academic thinking” which holds that individuals are subject to a range of cognitive biases that interferes with their ability to select the best financial product for them even if they are fully informed about the terms.

Mahoney criticized the idea that social welfare can be improved by suppressing consumer preferences and replacing them with those designated by technocrats, noting the “remarkable similarity between arguments that consumers are too dumb to make good decisions and those a century ago in favor of a centrally planned economy.”

While the proponents of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau argue that the Bureau will not seek to manage financial markets but instead nudge consumers in right direction, Mahoney remains skeptical.

“Governments are not good at nudging, what they do is shove,” he said, adding that the current approach “ignores public choice theory.”

University of Virginia Law School Professor Edmund W. Kitch concluded the panel by examining the ways in which the Bureau could tackle consumer credit card debt.

According to Kitch, the simplest criterion by which to determine whether it is advisable for a consumer to borrow capital relates to whether or not the consumer has available projects which will yield a higher rate of return than the cost of capital.

“If we’re going to assume in terms of credit cards that the rate of return is 18 percent, it’s a very high rate,” Kitch said. “It’s hard to identify projects that return in excess of 18 percent a year, and if you use that standard I agree that Americans are drowning in debt.”

Given that the Bureau cannot impose an interest rate cap, the next viable alternative in Kitch’s view is extending credit only after the project for the use of the credit is evaluated and approved by an independent expert acting in the interest of the consumer to determine whether the proposed use of the credit has a reasonable return that exceeds the rate on the card.

Kitch explained that while the Bureau’s budget may be insufficient to provide this service, it could mandate that banks pay for it or outsource to firms specializing in evaluating credit extensions, which would then be evaluated and approved by the Bureau.

“This would raise the cost of providing credit cards but reduce the amount of outstanding debt,” he said, adding that “every means” of consumer credit must be covered to render this method effective. 

Founded in 1997, the Journal of Business Law publishes articles and comments on a broad range of business law topics including corporate governance, securities regulation, capital market regulation, employment law and the law of mergers and acquisitions.

Symposium Editor Jesse Rabinowitz L'12 introduces panelists

By Jenny Chung C'12

On Friday November 11, an audience of faculty and students convened at the Levy Conference Center for this year’s Journal of International Law (JIL) Symposium, comprised of two keynote lectures and three high-level panel discussions which engaged experts in fields ranging from Islamic law to Middle East politics and democratization, to international communications and human rights.

Organized in association with International Human Rights Advocates, this year’s Symposium examined, among other issues, the political climate pervading the post-revolutionary Middle East in a panel moderated by political science professor Brendan O’Leary and attended by panelists Dr. Lina Khatib, Adnan Zulfiqar, and Dr. Nabeel Khoury.

Featured Panel: The Post-Revolutionary Middle East: A Realistic Picture

As part of the day’s proceedings, one of the three panels, titled “The Post-Revolutionary Middle East: A Realistic Picture,” featured Dr. Lina Khatib, the manager and co-founder of the Program on Arab Reform and Democracy at Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, who offered insight into the transitional phase facing post-revolutionary Middle Eastern states. While democracy may not be sustainable in every nation, she maintained, it will have exercised an overall “positive effect” on the countries that experience it.

“Even if the coming period sees a regression, we can say the status quo and the region has definitely changed, and there is no turning back,” Khatib said.

She attributed this in part to the convergence of formal and informal spheres of political participation, as evidenced by “institutions and people coming together,” particularly in such locales as Tunisia, where number of registered political parties rose in the wake of the revolution.

Citing “organization, leadership, program, strategy, coalitions and resources” as the six factors essential to democracy advocacy, Khatib contended it is “not enough” for post-revolutionary states “to be driven by democratic ideals.”

Though she characterized the internalization of a democratic political culture as a “long and rough journey,” Khatib noted several monumental changes that have already occurred: once exclusive to political or economic elites, she explained, formal political space has become progressively more accessible to citizens.

Further, while authoritarian regimes routinely preempted the formation of rival factions, Khatib foresees a gradual “institutionalization of opposition” from which contending political parties are empowered to emerge.

She also cited the replacement of strong authoritarian institutions with weak civil ones as states strengthen their infrastructures and the suspicion with which Middle Eastern youth regard formal politics as challenges countries moving toward democratic rule must overcome.

“The prospects for political participation in the post-revolutionary Middle East face more challenges than opportunities, but this is not surprising considering the region is recovering from decades of authoritarianism,” she said, adding that “a new era of political participation in the Middle East is in the making.”

To Adnan Zulfiqar, who discussed Islamic law and its relevance to post-revolutionary events in the Middle East, the “elimination of apprehension about voicing dissent or discontent” may constitute the principal “cornerstone upon which democracy will likely be built.” Zulfiqar, who graduated from Penn Law in 2007, is currently the Law & Public Policy Fellow at the Annenberg Center for Global Communication Studies.

Urging his audience to be mindful of the context out of which democracies are emerging in the region, Zulfiqar asserted that the question of religious values in a legal system will invariably “present challenges in a society where individual beliefs will vary.”

“It’s difficult to dissociate religion from the law when religion has a prominent place amongst the constituency,” he explained. “People wish to see their values reflected within laws of the nation.”

Zulfiqar cautioned against viewing recent events in the Middle East through an “ahistorical lens” and emphasized the importance of “[avoiding] the tendency to consider the relationship between religion and politics as uniform across the Muslim world.”

While the role of Islamic law will vary from one country to the next, he pointed out that many citizens have come to associate Islam to some extent with democracy due to its historical opposition to sectarian authoritarian regimes.

According to Zulfiqar, Islamic law in the post-revolutionary Middle East will be “subject to the court of popular opinion,” with certain components of Islamic doctrine garnering the most attention due to their symbolic significance.

Moreover, he added, religious majorities formerly marginalized under sectarian regimes will perceive themselves as “vulnerable” and seek out parties espousing ideologies for which they had previously been “suppressed.”

“The status of Islamic law is one that will be negotiated by the public, heavily influenced by historical context and will have to contend with the politics of individual constituencies,” Zulfiqar concluded. “Islam will be central to the construction of these democracies because it is central to the lives of the people for whom these democracies are being constructed.”

According to Dr. Nabeel Khoury, who serves as the Director of the Near East South Asia Office of the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the succession of Middle Eastern revolutions held the promise of “blood, sweat and tears,” signaling the beginning of an “arduous process.”

Khoury suggested that while the current administration has expressed unequivocally its intent to aid the transition to democracy, it has not proceeded without hesitation. The transition itself, he said, has been a “work in progress in terms of both details and implementation” and is a “new process for everyone concerned” overall.

Outlining the shifting axis politics in the Middle East, Khoury observed that “the tradition has always been for international actors to compete and regional actors to align.”

While the decades between 1950 and 1970 witnessed an ideological struggle between Arab countries as to the ideal political systems and international alliances to adopt, Khoury recalled, in the wake of the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 there emerged among them a conscious effort to set aside ideological differences in favor of collaborating on economic and political issues.

He further explained that the resultant decline of foreign (specifically Soviet) influence in the region gave rise to the ascendance of Islamic influence, which continues to operate in the present day.

“Traditional axes in the region are being reshaped and the region will look quite different in a few years—U.S. alliances in the region will look different as well,” Khoury said. “We must strike a balance between assisting the transition and keeping good relations with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries knowing our perspectives are diverging more and more and there will be tensions and problems.”

While he maintained that the new regimes resulting from the Arab uprisings are likely to prove “difficult” in their dealings with the West, Khoury remains confident they will not be “hostile.”

“These Islamist parties […] have values and priorities that may differ from the pro-Western regimes that preceded them, but in the end they’re willing to compromise and negotiate in the international arena,” he said, adding that a critical challenge for the U.S. will be to support emergent democracies “without alienating conservative monarchies in the region.”

Closing Keynote: Is Liberty God’s Law? Shari'a, the Military and the Arab Revolutions

The symposium concluded with a keynote speech delivered by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl L’87, a prominent scholar in the disciplines of Islamic law and Islam and an authority on human rights.

While confining the majority of his remarks to the Egyptian revolution “as a case study,” El Fadl also evaluated the impact of other revolutions on the Middle East as a region.

Noting the disparity between the “rich body” of scholarship produced theorizing the sociological and political catalysts of revolutions—particularly those engendering stable democracies—and the “impoverished” literature addressing so-called “subaltern or postcolonial” revolutions, El Fadl invited scholars to shift their focus from “commentary” to the production of “systematic paradigms” which offer principles that illuminate “which revolutions produce what, and why.”

He identified the “militarization of the state”—by which the army is no longer limited to the barracks but rooted in the “administrative structure as well as the oppressive powers of the state”—as one of the key factors shaping the Middle Eastern revolutions.

Within the context of Egypt, he explained, part of the national infrastructure rests on the prevailing expectation that upon retirement from the military one will receive a federal appointment to the board of a private company, inducing many private corporations to hire retired officials in order to avoid conflicts with the state.

“This is part of the reality that revolutions—whether in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria or Yemen—have to confront and deal with,” El Fadl said, adding that “part of the military’s ideological makeup is that they are essential not to defend but to run a country [where] one foot is rooted in a culture shared with the rest of society, while the other is rooted in a unique subculture of the military creed.”

In spite of participants in the Egyptian revolution invoking such slogans as “the army and the people are one hand” in hopes of forestalling violence from the military, he recalled, the schism dividing the military and civilian consciousness became evident when the military began attacking praying citizens and bombarding religious buildings.

Moreover, while the military initially agreed to meet with Egyptian intellectuals—himself included—to discuss the future after the revolution, over time the number of “untouchable” issues continued to increase.

“The military said it was willing to transition to democracy but that there are high-stake interests […] that cannot be left to the vagaries of the democratic process,” El Fadl said. “How much space is left for a democracy to work? What does it mean to speak of a democratic revolution in a state where the military has become its own monstrous interest?”

In spite of these misgivings, El Fadl is confident democracy will secure a foothold in Egypt. “The move for democracy has been demonstrated time and again, and my expectation especially as to Egypt is that there will be a reexplosion,” he maintained. “The streets will explode again, and we’ll be confronted with the same negotiation issues.”

From left to right: Arlen Specter C’51, Michael A. Fitts, David Mark, the Hon. Gene E.K. Pratter.

On Tuesday, November 8 in Washington, D.C., Penn Law hosted a high-level panel attended by a standing room only audience in the National Press Club ballroom, which examined whether the branches of the federal government are able to effectively compromise to carry out the people’s business – or if instead we are headed into a state of permanent crisis, or gridlock, exacerbated by the 2012 election cycle.

Panelists included Michael A. Fitts, Dean of the Law School; Arlen Specter C’51, former U.S. Senator (D-PA) and Adjunct Professor of Law at Penn Law; and the Hon. Gene E.K. Pratter L’75, Judge for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. David Mark, senior editor at POLITICO, served as moderator.

Participants explored whether and how in the current climate of overheated partisan rhetoric the respective branches can work effectively and compromise to solve some of the major problems facing the nation.
 

Click here to view a video and slideshow of the previous Penn Law Washington Seminar series event, "Are Superpowers Above the Law? The U.S., China, and the Future of the International Legal Order".

Anita Allen, the Henry R. Silverman Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at Penn Law, is an expert on privacy law, bioethics, and contemporary values, and is recognized for her scholarship about legal philosophy, women’s rights, and race relations. In her most recent book, Unpopular Privacy: What Must We Hide, Allen offers insight into the ethical and political underpinnings of public policies mandating privacies that people may be indifferent to or even despise.

Allen recently discussed her book with the Law School’s Office of Communications for this video feature.

 Transcript:

I’m Anita Allen, professor of Law and Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, and my new book is called Unpopular Privacy: What Must We Hide?

Unpopular Privacy is a book that has a very special mission. Most books about privacy explain why we need privacy or defend why the government should give people the option of privacy. My book takes the unusual stance of saying, OK, we want the government to protect privacy but also want people to want privacy. The book seeks to explain why it is important that we actually consider imposing privacy on society that may be enthralled by social media and other electronic devices that involve giving away or exposing ourselves to the general public.

The aim is to really assess the scholarly perspective that has been so resistant and hesitant to admit paternalistic laws into the picture. We tend to think that law should be paternalistic only when it comes to children. Well, my argument is that there is something about technology and the Internet, its complexity, its novelty, which justifies a more aggressive approach to protect people from their own lack of interest in privacy.

This book took a very long time to write. I began writing this book in the late 1990s and it took a long time to write because the world kept changing: 9/11 rewrote the terms of social life creating a need for more security, more monitoring. So, every time I thought I was about to finish this book, we would get a great cataclysm, it could be 9/11, it could be financial meltdown, and all of these things which may not obviously have to do with privacy, they actually resulted in changes in privacy laws... and so the world was not standing still.

I finally decided that the world was never going to stand still and I had to write the book. But I think the book now reflects thinking about what we need by way of privacy in a highly regulated context and we need... unfortunately, more regulations and also more personal ethics. One of the big points my book makes is that if a person is going to enjoy the kind of privacy he or she needs moving forward, we have to have law in place but also personal ethics in place that lead us to value our own privacy, and to value our own opportunities that stem from a world in which we can in fact control access to information.

This transcript was edited for length.

Attorneys Ashley Parrish and Margaret Winter

By Jenny Chung C’12

A panel event featuring attorneys Ashley Parrish and Margaret Winter, experts in the field of prison reform litigation, convened Wednesday, October 19 at Penn Law to address questions of constitutionality and social policy relevant to healthcare reform in state prison systems.

Jointly sponsored by the Law School’s Prison Education and Advocacy Project, International Human Rights Advocates and the Health Law and Policy Group, the panel drew a sizable audience of students interested in inmate healthcare reform and policy.

Winter, who currently serves as associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, highlighted the necessity of providing adequate medical and psychological treatment to inmates. “Often if general conditions are bad in a prison, you can probably guarantee that medical and mental healthcare will be deplorable,” Winter said.

She added that as “captives of the state,” prisoners are entirely reliant on the state for the “basic necessities of life.”

Demand for access to healthcare among the prison population is especially high, she explained, given that many inmates suffer from chronic diseases prevalent among the poor while others are afflicted with untreated psychological conditions.

The need for prison healthcare reform has become still more pressing, Winter noted, since the extension of prison sentences by the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act. “We’re seeing a vast new geriatric population in prisons with needs that younger prisoners don’t have,” she elaborated. “It’s inevitable that people are going to suffer unnecessary deaths and permanent injuries if there isn’t appropriate healthcare.”

Parrish, a partner at the Washington, D.C. office of international law firm King & Spalding and a member of its national appellate and strategic counseling practice group, was involved with the landmark Coleman v. Wilson case, a class-action suit brought against the California Department of Corrections on behalf of mentally ill inmates. This enabled him to identify several critical failings within the California prison system: inadequate space, understaffing, and the absence of effective protocols for evaluating the health of inmates. 

While the Coleman case resulted in a series of court orders that brought marginal improvement to the prison system, Parrish said, California prisons saw sharp rises in population shortly afterward due to the passage of legislation revising the terms of parole and sentencing. The conditions that ensued, he recalled, were appalling.

“There were 200 prisoners held in a gym, with beds stacked three high, and one toilet for 57 prisoners,” he recounted.

According to Parrish, a special prejudge panel convened in 2006 determined that a prisoner release order was to be granted to reduce the number of inmates housed at each facility, a finding later affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Margaret Winter, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project

To contextualize the “extraordinary” nature of the decision, Winter provided a brief history of prison reform advocacy in the U.S., introduced as recently as the 1970s. 

After a brief period of prison reform expansion, she said, in the 1990s the Supreme Court grew “increasingly hostile” to the possibility of federal intervention in state prison systems, thereby introducing greater difficulty to the securing of injunctions for the release of prisoners.

“Our jaws were dropping, because somehow a court was reaffirming some very basic principles that it had been sneering at for a couple of decades,” Winter recalled. “This decision… is the first really powerful ray of hope that things are changing now.”

Parrish framed the ruling within the ongoing debate concerning the degree of federal intervention permissible to ensure the efficacy of political processes at the state level. “The real problem isn’t that states are making bad political judgments—it’s that they’re not made to suffer the consequences,” he said. “What’s happening to the prison system is symptomatic of failings across a range of different areas.”

According to Alexandra Holson L’14, this year’s PEAP membership coordinator, Parrish and Winter were invited to speak on the basis of their “incredible qualifications” and experience collaborating with the Supreme Court and high-level organizations to improve prison conditions. 

“We invite students to go into the jails to teach prisoners,” as part of PEAP’s programming, Holson said, “but it’s often hard to show them the bigger perspective about what actually goes on because what they’re seeing is a reward program for inmates who have behaved well. They don’t see the other side of the spectrum—like housing or healthcare—so we wanted to plan programs that show another perspective and level of consideration for the populations they visit.”
 

Immediately following the Government of Haiti’s appearance tomorrow morning before the Universal Periodic Review Working Group of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, Professor Sarah Paoletti, the director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Transnational Human Rights Legal Clinic, will join lawyers from the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux, the Haiti-based affiliate of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, and the Human Rights Advocacy Director of MADRE, to discuss priority recommendations stemming from the Review and strategies for successful  implementation of those recommendations in Haiti. The panel will be held in Room XX, Palais de Nations, Geneva, from 12:30 – 14:00 local time. 

In close consultation and coordination with grassroots advocates and activists in Haiti, Penn Law’s Transnational Legal Clinic contributed to a report focusing on labor rights and the rights of child domestic workers in Haiti, issues to be taken up during Haiti’s Universal Periodic Review and addressed in greater detail during a panel presentation coordinated by the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti and the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux.  Haiti’s review, initially scheduled for May 2010, was postponed at the request of the Haitian government in response to the Jan. 2010 earthquake and will now close out the first full cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, a mechanism established with the creation of the UN Human Rights Council in 2006.

The submissions to Haiti’s Universal Periodic Review, Labor Rights, and Restavèk: The Persistence of Child Labor and Slavery, as well as an overarching summary report, are available for download via http://ijdh.org/projects/universal-periodic-review-upr#IJDH-BAI Reports/Analysis.

“Haiti’s UPR provides a unique opportunity to call for accountability not just from the government of Haiti but also from the international community, that has long played a direct and not always positive role in development and governance in Haiti,” said Professor Paoletti.  “In participating in the Universal Periodic Review process, Haitians – particularly women and children – suffering from violence and insecurity in the tent camps, those struggling to find sustainable employment in conditions that meet basic labor rights standards, children hungry for an education and the opportunities meaningful access to education provides, and other grassroots activists, are calling on the Government of Haiti and the international community to hear their voices and incorporate their priorities and recommendations in setting an agenda for not just rebuilding Haiti to the country it was before the earthquake, but rather in building a country that respects and promotes human rights in a sustainable and autonomous fashion.”

Penn Law is co-sponsoring this event with  Bureau des Avocats Internationaux / Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, Human Rights Advocates, CUNY School of Law, Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at University of California Hastings School of Law, and MADRE.

The days of widely tolerated prejudice against Latino individuals in the United States have long passed. But in a recent paper, "Perpetuating the Marginalization of Latinos: A Collateral Consequence of the Incorporation of Immigration Law into the Criminal Justice System," University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Yolanda Vazquez argues that crimmigration – the comingling of criminal and immigration law – has replaced overt discrimination as the modern day apparatus for extending a history of Latino exclusion, discrimination, and marginalization in this country.

By Dana Vogel
Excerpt from Penn Law Journal Fall 2011 Volume 46, Number 2

Regulations affect everything from health care to the economy and the environment to food, but it’s not always easy for lawyers and interested members of the public to find careful yet accessible analysis of regulatory issues.

RegBlog is an innovative addition to legal education, too. Building on Penn Law’s cross-disciplinary strengths, RegBlog brings together more than 30 students from the Law School and other Penn graduate programs to write, edit, and operate the blog under Coglianese’s tutelage. Students gain an opportunity to see how what they are learning in the classroom applies to live regulatory issues.

Tara Grigg Garlinghouse L'13 was selected for the first Alan Lerner Fellowship in Child Welfare Policy, awarded by Penn’s Field Center for Children’s Policy, Practice & Research at its inaugural “Field of Dreams” luncheon.

Garlinghouse grew up in a home with parents who cared for more than 80 foster children. As an undergraduate at Rice University, she researched how the parenting practices of teenage mothers have an impact on child development and how socioeconomic status serves as a mitigating factor.

She has worked on systemic changes for the Houston municipal courts, volunteered with Penn Law’s Custody and Support Assistance Clinic and is the recipient of two earlier child welfare fellowships. Garlinghouse is also pursuing a master’s in public policy with the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University while working on her law degree from Penn.

She hopes to spend her career working on large-scale policy changes that address both the child-welfare system and the underlying issues that result in children being placed in foster care.

 “Alan Lerner truly believed in training the next generation of leaders. He established Penn Law School’s Child Advocacy Clinic and taught students of law, medicine and social work together – sharing with them the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in addressing child welfare and thus improving the lives of victims of child abuse and neglect,” Debra Schilling Wolfe, the executive director of the Field Center, said. “Each fellow will complete a full academic year with the Field Center by continuing the interdisciplinary work started by Professor Lerner.”

The Field Center also announced that Cindy Christian is this year’s recipient of the Alan Lerner Child Advocacy Award. Christian is a professor of pediatrics at Penn’s Perelman School of Medicine. She holds the Chair in Child Abuse Prevention at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and is the first medical director of the Philadelphia Department of Human Services.

The inaugural “Field of Dreams” luncheon was dedicated to the legacy of the late Alan M. Lerner, Field Center faculty director and professor at Penn Law. WPVI-TV anchor Monica Malpass served as the event’s master of ceremonies, and Benjamin Lerner from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas was the featured speaker.

The Field Center for Children’s Policy, Practice & Research is an interdisciplinary collaboration between the School of Social Policy & Practice, Law School and Perelman School of Medicine and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. It works to improve the lives of victims of child abuse and neglect by reforming the systems that are responsible for protecting them through innovative and critical change.

By Nicole Greenstein C’14

Four distinguished panelists gathered in Penn Law’s Levy Conference Room on September 22 to discuss and answer questions about the previous and upcoming Supreme Court terms. Sponsored by the American Constitution Society for Law & Policy, this Supreme Court Preview and Review Panel addressed a wide array of issues ranging from health care, gun regulation and the freedom of the press.

L-R: Thomas Goldstein, Linda Greenhouse, Randy Barnett, Monica Youn, and Tobias Barrington Wolff

Speaking to a room filled with faculty, students, attorneys and community members, moderator Penn Law Professor Tobias Barrington Wolff opened the evening’s event by introducing the four panelists: Randy Barnett, Thomas Goldstein, Linda Greenhouse and Monica Youn. Each panelist started by offering a summary of their background before explaining what issues in the Supreme Court interest and concern them.

Barnett, a Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory from Georgetown Law Center as well as a visiting professor to Penn Law, spoke about the heated debate surrounding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Barnett has written extensively about the healthcare act in Op-Ed pieces featured in newspapers such as the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, but he formally became involved in the case when he joined a legal team representing the National Federation of Independent Business. As a strong disbeliever in the act’s constitutionality, Barnett presented his reasons as to why he believes the act might not survive the Supreme Court’s scrutiny.

“In this case, Congress is not regulating activity. Congress is actually reaching out to mandate activity,” Barnett explained.

Barnett argued that the scope of President Obama’s health care plan extends “outside the line that the Supreme Court has previously drawn” in cases such U.S v. Lopez, which limited the power of Congress to reach inside intrastate activity, he said.

 “It’s high time for the high court to hear this case,” Barnett added.

Linda Greenhouse, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times, took a different stance on the issue of healthcare. She said that Barnett’s assertions should be “taken with a grain of salt,” particularly his argument that the Supreme Court might rule Obama’s healthcare act as unconstitutional due to its unprecedented nature.

“Maybe we should have done this a long time ago, and then it wouldn’t be unprecedented,” Greenhouse countered.

Randy Barnett, Monica Youn, and Tobias Barrington Wolff

Greenhouse agreed, stating that to take someone’s private medical information and use it for marking purposes is “a pretty pressing” issue that could have sweeping effects in terms of setting a precedent on the issue of personal privacy.

Thomas Goldstein, a renowned Supreme Court advocate and founding partner of Goldstein & Russell, P.C, also spoke about the importance of future Supreme Court appointments.

“The amount of socially and politically infused cases is awesome in its scope,” Goldstein explained, citing cases involving abortion, gay rights, and other issues that polarize the American public. As a result, Supreme Court appointments have become more consequential than ever before, he said.

As the event neared its conclusion, Wolff picked a handful of questions from the audience to ask the four expert panelists. One audience member asked about the political dimension of the Court, and was wondering whether cases near a presidential race can affect the election’s outcome.

Wolff offered his own opinion to the question, stating that with the pressing issues of our current economic climate, the Court’s decisions are unlikely to alter the upcoming election. However, Wolff explained that in other elections the Supreme Court often plays a significant role.

“It is I think true, not in this election cycle but in others, that the issue of the Supreme Court and the composition of the Court moving forward with possible appointments can be a powerful issue,” Wolff explained.

For audience member Noel León L’14, the panel offered some very intriguing and insightful discussions.

“They were incredible,” she said. “They had differing opinions on the huge issues, and it was just amazing to watch these great minds speak about these important questions.”

One of the event’s organizers, Aaron Safane L’12, also thought the evening was a success.

“I thought it was tremendous, and I especially liked the debate between the panelists about healthcare,” he said. “It really shows how we can talk about events in law school that affect real life.”

The University of Pennsylvania Law School and The Wharton School developed an integrated JD/MBA program to address the needs of students interested in the intersection of business & law.

Penn Law is the leader in cross-disciplinary legal education. Seventy percent of the Law School’s standing faculty hold advanced degrees beyond the JD, with nearly half having PhDs or the equivalent. Wharton is the world’s leader in business, especially finance, accounting, real estate and health care. It is the world’s largest business school with more than 200 standing faculty in 11 departments. The strengths of the faculties and the proximity of Penn Law and Wharton, which are within a few blocks of each other on the same campus, make Penn the leading choice for an accelerated JD/MBA.

Michael Martinez L'11 shares some of his experiences with the JD/MBA program with Penn Law's Communications.

Transcript

This week the University of Pennsylvania Law School welcomed 266 first-year JD students with a series of tours, panels, service projects, social events, and lectures as part of Orientation.

This year’s 1Ls earned a median 170 on the LSAT and posted a record high median GPA of 3.86. The class is comprised equally of men and women, and 37 percent identify as people of color.

“Beyond the statistics, the Class of 2014 is filled with incredibly accomplished, talented and dedicated students,” said Michael A. Fitts, dean of the Law School.  “The vast majority of the class has work experience after college, includes several Fulbright scholars, and join us from a wide range of law-related fields, from business to biotechnology, from international economics to public policy.”

Members of the Class of 2014 hail from 33 states, the District of Columbia, U.S .Virgin Islands, and from countries across the globe, including Canada, China, Germany, Hong Kong, South Korea, Nigeria, and Trinidad and Tobago. One hundred and twelve undergraduate institutions are represented in the class.

States with the highest representation for the Class of 2014 are: New York; Pennsylvania; California; New Jersey; Florida; Texas; Illinois and Massachusetts (tied.)

View student and alumni profiles.

Additional photos on Flickr:
2011 JD Orientation
LLM BBQ

To the Penn Law community and friends:

In anticipation of Hurricane Irene and in consultation with the University, we have made the decision to postpone Penn Law’s Orientation events for Sunday, August 28. 

Please sign up for weather alerts at ReadyNotifyPA and email Penn Law’s Student Affairs office at koverly@law.upenn.edu with any questions about the cancellation.

Related: Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management

The LLM program at the University of Pennsylvania Law School is a one-year, full-time course of study in advanced legal topics designed for lawyers trained outside of the United States. The curriculum and cross-disciplinary perspective provide a superb legal education, and present opportunities for students to take law-related classes outside the Law School at Penn’s other elite schools, departments and programs.

• Jesse Krohn, L'11
• Stephanie Brockman, L'11

Tiffany Southerland L'11, former president of the Penn Law Black Law Students Association, speaks about the professional and practical benefits of participating in Penn Law student groups.

A production of the Penn Program on Documentaries & the Law, We Didn't Come Here to Fight The Struggle for a Safe Education offers a complex and balanced account of the recent violence against Asian immigrant students at South Philadelphia High School and the ensuing civil rights case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against the School District. It explores the failures of the school's authorities in dealing with the diverse student body, the support the immigrant students received from some of their black classmates, the background social and economic circumstances that generated the conflict, and the efforts that have been made to improve the climate at Southern, particularly by the new principal Otis Hackney.

This documentary was 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.

Film Credits
"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
Still Photography by Harvey Finkle

Spencer Pepper L'11, Emily Stopa GR’11 L’11, Robert Cooper L'12, Matthew McFeeley L'11, Lou Rulli, Anthony Shaskus L'11, Altin Sila L'11, Katherine Andrews L'11, and Grace Sur L'11

As just one demonstration of the ways in which Penn Law’s Legislative Clinic bridges theory and practice, this academic year the Clinic’s students had their final class in Washington, D.C. – in Vice President Joe Biden's conference room at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, meeting with Law School alumni well versed in the Capitol’s legislative affairs.

On May 5, 2011, Clinic students, led by Louis Rulli, Practice Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Programs at Penn Law, closed out the semester on Capitol Hill with an enlightening discussion of inside tips on legislative advocacy in the U.S. Senate, and received valuable career advice from four legislative staff veterans:  Nicole Isaac L’04, Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs for Vice President Biden;  Drew Littman L’85, Chief of Staff to Senator Al Franken; Alyson Cooke L’ 89, Majority Counsel on the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee; and Martin Paone, Executive Vice President of Prime Policy Group and former Democratic Secretary in the Senate. 

“I learned a great deal from the panelists, particularly about what it takes to become a successful staffer on the Hill,” said Spencer Pepper L‘11. “Encouragingly, the speakers highlighted their Penn Law education as one of the keys to their success. For me, the D.C. class was the culmination of a fun and exciting experience working at the House Budget Committee and my semester as a student in the Legislative Clinic.”

The Legislative Clinic at Penn Law is one of only a handful of legislative clinical programs in the nation devoted exclusively to legislative lawyering and the formation of public policy. Students get first-hand experience through their work at federal legislative placements, as well as through coursework readings and discussions, simulations, and legislative drafting exercises in the classroom.

During the course of the semester, students balanced out a weekly seminar at Penn Law with travel to Washington D.C. two days each week to work, through externships, on legislative matters at the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Finance Committee, and House Budget Committee, and in the offices of elected members such as U.S. Senators Robert Casey, Frank Lautenberg, and Jack Reed, and Representatives Gregory Meeks, Christopher Murphy, and Diana DeGette. 

After this year’s final class on Capitol Hill, Biden senior staff member Nicole Isaac conducted a tour of the Vice President's ceremonial office in the Capitol for the students before they returned to Philadelphia.

“The final class was a great close to a busy and exciting semester in which Penn students contributed significantly to the work of Congress, while also experiencing first-hand many difficult challenges inherent in the legislative arena,” stated Professor Rulli.

“For me, the meeting was a chance to hear about how to build a successful career in Washington from those who have done it, and to connect with Penn Law alumni who are ready and willing to help those of us who are about to graduate,” said Matthew McFeeley L’11. “I spent the semester working in the offices of a Senate committee and it was interesting [in this final class] to see how our alumni used their legal education to comprehensively advise members of Congress - serving at once as political strategists, policy analysts, procedural experts, negotiators, and legislative drafters.”

Grace Sur L’11, who served in an externship in Senator Lautenberg’s office this semester, noted, “It was an amazing experience because it was a chance to learn firsthand how our federal government works.” Because each student in the Legislative Clinic had a unique experience working with Senators, Representatives, or for Congressional committees, “we each brought a very interesting and different perspective to the table when we discussed different issues related to Congress, such as how to draft legislation and what the role of a lawyer is on the Hill.”

For Emily Stopa GR’11 L’11 it was “a privilege” to talk with Penn Law alumni working at high levels in Washington, and “to hear about the joys, triumphs, and life-long relationships that come with the career, as well as the disappointments and sacrifices. The meeting definitely gave me a more well-rounded perspective on the life of a Congressional staffer, and underscored the advantages of having a thorough understanding of the legislative process."

The Clinic’s externships provide a range of educational experiences, such as learning how the Cloak room works or how different Senators sign onto a resolution or proposal.

“I learned the most from attending committee hearings and staff briefings and writing memos for my legislative aides,” Sur said. “For example, when [Senator Lautenberg’s] legislative aide for environmental issues took me through the process of proposing a bill and promoting it in committee, I was amazed at how much work went into the process. It was also incredible to see how strategic members of Congress have to be, from the very words he or she used in a one-page Dear Colleague letter to garner co-sponsors, to the timing of presenting an issue or bill in committee.”

Anthony Shaskus L‘11, who interned in the office of Congressman Murphy, found that he “developed a firm understanding for the inner workings of Congress,” he said, and “made relationships that will carry on long after.”

For Altin Sila L‘11, his legislative experience brought the unexpected. “I had some amazing experiences that I didn’t expect. I sat feet away from people like Ben Bernanke, Mike Mullen, and Robert Gates as they testified at hearings, and I was able to meet Justice Breyer and the Turkish Ambassador to the United States. The staff gave me assignments they thought were substantive and thought to include me on meetings and events they thought I would find interesting.”

Altin added: “I feel that I have made some great contacts that will help me accomplish that. This has been a great way to conclude my legal education and begin my career, and I’m truly grateful for the opportunities that the Clinic afforded me.”

Doug Penrose L'11, Matthew McFeeley L'11, Katherine Andrews L'11, Emily Stopa GR’11 L’11, Drew Littman L'85, Alyson Cooke L'89, Nicole Isaac L'04, Martin Paone, Altin Sila L'11, Robert Cooper L'12, Grace Sur L'11, Anthony Shaskus L'11, and Spencer Pepper L'11

Penn Law hosted its 162nd graduation ceremony on May 16 at the Academy of Music. Edward G. Rendell C'65, Hon'00, the 45th Governor of Pennsylvania, gave the commencement address.

Penn Law’s Class of 2011 included 273 graduates receiving the Doctor of Law (JD) degree, 95 students receiving the Master of Laws (LLM) degree, 1 student receiving the Master of Comparative Law (LLCM) degree, and 2 receiving the Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD) degree for a total of 371 graduates.

Video

Producer: Penn Program on Documentaries and the Law (directed by Professor Regina Austin); Cinematographer: Irit Reinheimer; Editor: Neal Swisher

Photos

Congratulations to our graduating class and a big welcome to friends and family! On Monday, May 16, Penn Law will host its graduation ceremony at the Academy of Music. Edward G. Rendell C'65, Hon'00, the 45th Governor of Pennsylvania, will give the law school's commencement address.

Penn Law’s Class of 2011 includes 273 graduates receiving the Doctor of Law (JD) degree, 95 students receiving the Master of Laws (LLM) degree, 1 student receiving the Master of Comparative Law (LLCM) degree, and 2 receiving the Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD) degree for a total of 371 graduates.

We look forward to honoring your hard work and achievements in the days to come and hope to see you at the events below.

Law School Graduation Reception
Sunday, May 15
2:00 to 4:00 p.m.
Penn Law, 3400 Chestnut Street  Directions
Hosted by Dean Michael Fitts and the Penn Law Alumni Society 
Please note that this is a ticketed event. Guests who have mobility issues may enter the Law School for the reception via the Chestnut Street door.

University Commencement Ceremony
Monday, May 16
10:15 a.m.
Franklin Field, 33rd and South Streets  Directions
Speaker: Denzel Washington, Academy Award Winning & Tony Award Winning Actor and Director

Students: Meet at 39th and Locust Walk by 8:45 a.m. on Monday morning, and you will be given instructions that get you into the proper place in line. Law students will march together in the parade through campus, leading to Franklin Field. On the Field, each dean introduces his or her students, and the President of the University then pronounces you graduated.

For more information, please visit Commencement 2011 and follow PennCommence on Twitter.

Law School Graduation Ceremony
Monday, May 16
3:00 p.m.
Academy of Music, 1420 Locust Street  Directions
Speaker: Edward G. Rendell C'65, Hon'00, the 45th Governor of Pennsylvania

Guests: You may enter the Academy at 2:15 p.m. or shortly after. Seating is on a first-come basis. Each guest will be required to have a ticket. The numbers on the tickets are not seat numbers. This is a general- admission event. The accoustics throughout the hall are excellent and the sightlines are very good.

Guests using wheelchairs or who have problems with steps can enter the Academy at 2:00 p.m.(before the front doors open to the rest of the attendees), via a door on the south side of the building. Facing the Academy from Broad Street, there is a driveway on your left. You guests can enter the accessible door down that driveway. Cars may not go down the driveway. Ushers from the Academy will be on hand to help those using wheelchairs find the areas set aside for wheelchairs.           

A sign language interpreter be on the left side of stage, signing the remarks of the speakers. If you would like to see the interpreter, please sit on the left side (that is, facing the stage) and up front.

Students: Graduating students should go to the rehearsal hall of the Academy of Music. It is located on the 1400 block of Locust Street, halfway between Broad Street and 15th Street. You must be in the rehearsal hall by 2:15 in order to find your place in line. There is no place at the Academy or the rehearsal hall to leave purses, packages, or so on. Please leave your personal items with your guests.

The University of Pennsylvania Law School has named four winners of teaching awards for the 2010-11 academic year. They are Jill Fisch (Robert A. Gorman Award for Excellence in Teaching), the Honorable Kent A. Jordan (Adjunct Teaching Award), Gideon Parchomovsky (A. Leo Levin Award for Excellence in an Introductory Course), and David Skeel (Harvey Levin Memorial Award for Teaching Excellence). In addition, Professor Sarah Barringer Gordon received the University’s Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching.

Jill Fisch Receives the Robert A. Gorman Award for Excellence in Teaching Jill Fisch, Perry Golkin Professor of Law and Co-director of the Institute for Law and Economics, has been awarded the Robert A. Gorman Award for Excellence in Teaching. This year Professor Fisch taught classes on Corporations and Corporate Governance. Sample Student Accolades “Professor Fisch is absolutely amazing – helpful, responsive, and [she] did an amazing job of stimulating interest in the area and sharing her knowledge on a variety of corporate governance subjects.” “Almost half of every class is dedicated to discussion of the issues treated. Independent thoughts are not only encouraged but also stimulated by Professor Fisch, who is always keen to have the students see the two sides of the coin. Attending class is always enriching.” “She was very respectful of students, very reasonable in her expectations, and was very accommodating about meeting outside of class.”

Honorable Kent A. Jordan Receives the Adjunct Teaching Award Honorable Kent A. Jordan, a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, received the Adjunct Teaching Award for his class Intellectual Property: Trademarks. Sample Student Accolades “Judge Jordan is a great professor and not only teaches the material effectively but balances it well with stories about the application of the law in practice and the courtroom.” “He's hilarious, charismatic, clever and engaging.” “The lectures are excellent and the class is frequently tied to current events and issues that are developing in the law while the class is in progress.”

Gideon Parchomovsky Receives the A. Leo Levin Award for Excellence in an Introductory Course Gideon Parchomovsky, Professor of Law, has been awarded the A. Leo Levin Award for Excellence in an Introductory Course for his class in property law. This is the second time Professor Parchomovsky has been selected for this award. Sample Student Accolades “Professor Parchomovsky is an excellent instructor –  clear, organized, knowledgeable, patient, humorous.” “Professor [Parchomovsky] did a great job simulating interest while constantly supplementing our reading with information on studies related to what we were learning. [He] also kept the energy in classroom high and positive.”  “While I was not interested in property before the course, I now already see the world a bit differently from taking his class.”

David Skeel Receives the Harvey Levin Memorial Award for Teaching Excellence This is the third time a graduating class has selected David Skeel, S. Samuel Arsht Professor of Corporate Law, to receive the Harvey Levin Memorial Award for Excellence in Teaching. In recent years he has received the Robert A. Gorman Award for Excellence in Teaching and the University's Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching. Skeel teaches Bankruptcy Law and Commercial Credit II and leads the Globalization of Corporate Governance Seminar. Sample Student Accolades “Skeel is fantastic. He really enlivens what could be extremely tedious subject matter. He's clearly enthusiastic about the issues and that helps a lot.” “He does a great job engaging the class, explaining principles clearly, and keeping things interesting with amusing hypotheticals.” “Professor [Skeel] was very encouraging, and the discussions were lively, especially when people were allowed to freely debate their divergent ideas about corporate governance.”

Sarah Barringer Gordon Receives a University of Pennsylvania Christian R. and Mary F. Lindback Award Sarah Barringer Gordon, Arlin M. Adams Professor of Constitutional Law in the School of Law and Professor of History in the School of Arts and Sciences, was awarded a Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching from the University of Pennsylvania.  Since joining Penn Law in 1994 Gordon has taught classes such as Church and State, Property Law, American Religious History, and Legal History. She has been awarded the law school’s Robert A. Gorman Award for Teaching Excellence twice—once in 2004 and again in 2009. Sample Student Accolades “Professor Gordon brings an interesting insight to every topic and delights in showing you something new or surprising by her novel interpretations. She also seems to genuinely care for her subjects and treats the sources on their own validity.” “Professor Gordon truly wants to make sure that she structures her lectures toward her students' interests. She does research to prepare lectures on topics of interest to us, which is satisfying as a student to know that she cares about our interests and she truly knows the information that she is delivering to us. That passion is certainly contagious and stimulates class interest.” “She should be the model for professorial balance between research and teaching, as she clearly loved doing both and let the former lead her in the latter.” “She encouraged independent study and discovery with whoever wanted to chat with her. I have a feeling she lit several intellectual fires this semester and that people will actually enjoy writing their final papers!”

Criminal Law: Research and Practice

Paul H. Robinson, Colin S. Diver Professor of Law and director of the Criminal Law Research Group at Penn Law

This year Penn Law’s Criminal Law Research Group (CLRG), directed by Paul Robinson, the Colin S. Diver Professor of Law, did a survey of New Jersey residents about the state’s criminal code, to find out whether citizens thought the punishments for an array of offenses were appropriate for a given crime.

This spring the CLRG issued their Final Report (PDF), and the study – a project led by Robinson and conducted by eight Law School students - found serious conflicts between what New Jersey residents thought were suitable punishment for offenses, and those contained in existing criminal law.

In the survey, respondents were asked to read 127 brief descriptions of cases that are crimes under current New Jersey law, and then asked to grade how serious they perceived those crimes to be on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being the most serious, akin to murder.  New Jersey’s criminal code has 7 offense grades, and subjects were given examples of each.

Professor Robinson spoke with Penn Law’s Office of Communications to discuss the study, and how it revealed that New Jersey Code’s offense grading, likely flawed from the start, has become increasingly inconsistent and irrational in its categorizations - and unfair in its application. 

Penn Law (PL):  Please tell us about the study – why did you approach this question of public perception of crimes and how they are graded?

Paul Robinson (PR):  This was a study of the current state of conflict between what New Jersey residents thought was the relative seriousness of various offenses and what the criminal code actually provides. 

On the one hand, liberals and conservatives tend to disagree about whether the law should be more or less punitive than it is. But what we know from the empirical research is that people across demographics feel quite strongly that the relative seriousness of a particular offense ought to affect, or control, the amount of punishment meted out.  So, one would assume that given that agreement, the criminal code of a jurisdiction like New Jersey would reflect that.

As just one example, opening a bottle of ketchup at the supermarket and placing it back on the shelf without purchasing was graded by New Jersey residents as being similar in seriousness to fighting with another person, a petty disorderly persons offense, which has a maximum sentence of 30 days imprisonment. But under current law the offense is actually graded as a 3rd degree crime, which has a maximum sentence of five years.

This is not unique to New Jersey, by the way. Last year the CLRG did a similar study for the state of Pennsylvania with similar results. What the results show in both instances is that while citizens may agree about the relative seriousness of different offenses, the criminal codes often get it wrong.

PL:  Why is this so? How did the grading irrationalities or inconsistencies come about?

PR:  The reasons arise from the nature of American crime politics, so it’s really not a surprise that you see the problem in both jurisdictions we have studied so far. There is a section of the report that addresses how we could have such common conflict between people’s shared intuitions and the law.

I think a couple of different things are going on:  One is what you might call the “crime du jour” problem. That is, legislators get worked up about a particular offense, either because it’s been in the news or for some other reason.  As a result, they create penalties for it, but the penalties reflect their being particularly worked up at that moment. A year or so later when it’s no longer such a hot topic, that penalty sticks out as being exaggerated. 

The other problem is that most of the time the solution, if there is one, to the crime problem is not in creating some new offense or in increasing the penalty for an offense. That is, sometimes you can do something about it, but the things that you can do are not something that the legislature can address by changing the criminal code. 

PL:  Do you mean making changes at a policy level?

PR:  Yes.  It may be that there are specific things that can be done, but they typically can be addressed by the executive, not by the legislative branch.  The problem is that legislators, wanting to be receptive to the concerns of their constituents, want to be seen as doing something about a problem.  And they have a limited number of things that they can do compared to the executive branch; the only thing they can do is pass legislation.

The original New Jersey Criminal Code, which came about in 1978, covered all crimes and included a total of 243 offenses.  Today’s criminal code in New Jersey has 650 offenses in it, and another 904 offenses outside of the criminal code.  So, New Jersey has a total of 1554 offenses, and most of these are repetitive, overlapping-- unnecessary. 

PL:  How can New Jersey fix these inconsistencies or irrationalities?  Also, how can states avoid, or fix, this major problem?

PR:  The best thing would be a general re-codification of their criminal law, which would take the 1554 offenses in the current New Jersey law and avoid all the overlap and duplication, and put them in a code where the grade assigned to each offense really did match its appropriate level of seriousness relative to all the other offenses.  That would be ideal.

PL:  How would it work? Does that entail a governor-appointed commission? 

PR:  Yes, in most jurisdictions it does, and that’s what New Jersey did in the 1970s, when it created what it is now Title 2C; it had a Criminal Code Revision Commission. Now, it’s possible to do something less ambitious than that.  One could leave the 1554 offenses, but at least go through and try to adjust the penalties – the offense grades -- so that they make sense. 

In other words, they could do the sort of study that we did in testing each one of the offenses to see what its relative seriousness is.  Then, at one time, reset the penalties for all of those offenses so that at least they’re consistent in relative seriousness with one another.  That would be a dramatic improvement over what we have now.  It wouldn’t be, I think, as desirable as an entirely new criminal code, but it would still be a significant improvement.

Now, on the issue of how do you prevent it from happening?  That’s a very important question.  Because the processes that have led to the degradation of New Jersey criminal law, of course, still exist. And even if you created a new criminal code, then next month the legislature would be in the same process of generating reams of criminal law amendments to it.  And how do you prevent it from immediately being degraded again? 

What that requires is some mechanism by which when new legislation is proposed there is a check to ensure that the penalties that are proposed in the new legislation match the relative seriousness of that offense, as compared to the existing offenses. 

PL:  In today’s era of state budget cuts, is this feasible?

PR:  As a matter of economics this exercise would save an enormous amount of money.  Because when a state gets a grade wrong, the effect typically is to set the grade too high.  For example, if a commission worked to rationalize all of the offense grades against one another, the natural effect would be to reduce most of the offense grades.

It would reduce the prison population because the statutory maximums for many offenses would be reduced to better match their relative seriousness, and it is likely that the sentences imposed under those statutes would similarly be reduced. The larger point here is that, if a state like New Jersey had a rational grading system, the state would be using its prison resources much more justly and more efficiently. 

PL:  How do you and Penn Law students work together on a project like this?

PR:  Typically in a project this size the way the Criminal Law Research Group works is, I identify a project first, and then we set up the research group to do it-- as a Law School course, and we run it like a small law firm. In this particular case, eight students were involved and two of the students, Rebecca Levenson L’12 and Nicholas Feltham L’11, served as co-directors. They took responsibility for a lot of the organization of the work itself.  As a group they handled this project from beginning to end, and I helped to guide them in terms of decision-making.

Careers: Clerkships

Christopher DiPompeo L’09

Two years after graduating, summa cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Christopher DiPompeo L’09 has landed one of the most coveted positions in American law: a clerkship with the U.S. Supreme Court. In July, DiPompeo will begin clerking for Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

What path did DiPompeo take to land a litigator’s dream job?  He answers the question with characteristic humility – a trait that belies his considerable achievements.  

After receiving his bachelor’s degree from the University of Maryland Baltimore County in 2004, DiPompeo joined Penn Law in 2006. During his first year, he took the standard 1L classes, which he “enjoyed very much and in which I happened to do well.” At the end of that year, he participated in the Law School’s journal writing competition and “happened to be accepted on the Law Review.” In the spring of his 2L year, he applied for a number of Law Review Board positions and “happened to be picked” as Editor-in-Chief.

DiPompeo served as Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review for almost half of his law school career. “That really dominates what I remember about law school, because we were, in some sense, entrusted with keeping this great institution that had been around for 157 years or so going,” he said, adding with self-effacing humor, “We always joked that hopefully it would take more than us to stop it.”

DiPompeo ran the Law Review successfully, including publishing a comment, "Federal Hate Crime Laws and United States v. Lopez: On A Collision Course to Clarify Jurisdictional Element Analysis," which was awarded a 2009 Burton Distinguished Writing Award as one of the 15 best student-written articles of 2008.

In the fall of his 3L year, DiPompeo applied for clerkships, and during the 2009-2010 term clerked for Judge Paul V. Niemeyer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. “That was a great year, we had a lot of interesting cases,” DiPompeo said. “I had two co-clerks, both of whom were fantastic, and it was great to work with the judge and get an understanding of his perspective, how he approaches cases, writes opinions, and decides cases.  I can’t think of a better way to start a career than to work with and learn from someone like Judge Niemeyer.”

Meanwhile, DiPompeo was encouraged by faculty and fellow students to consider applying for a clerkship with the U.S. Supreme Court. “Several people at the Law School were helpful – Dean [Michael] Fitts, Professor [David] Skeel, and Professor [Matthew] Adler wrote recommendation letters for me, and Chris Fritton in the Career Planning and Professionalism office was very helpful, too.”

Also helpful, he said, was Penn Law’s Clerkship Committee, comprised of Penn Law faculty and staff who work closely with students on their applications. “I took a class with Professor [Christopher] Yoo, who is a member of the Clerkship Committee, during law school.  Over the years, we talked a lot about the process and strategy - about the interview, what to expect, and how to prepare for it, which was very useful.”

DiPompeo emphasized the importance of good writing in his career development, starting with “Penn Law’s Legal Writing program, then as an editor on a law journal, and the editing and writing skills I developed while clerking.  I think it’s really important. In fact, I think it’s one of the main reasons Judge Niemeyer and others were willing to write letters for me, because all judges are looking for clerks who can write well. And that’s a skill I learned at Penn Law.”

DiPompeo also credits his Law Review experience with helping him make connections with his past and future clerkship colleagues.  “One of the great things about working on a law review like the one at Penn is the opportunity you have to meet your peers at other schools working in the same positions.  In fact, I first met one of my co-clerks from last year when we were roommates at a law review conference in Virginia.  And going into this clerkship with the Chief Justice, there are several people I’ll be clerking with whom I know from various interactions we had while working for our law reviews.”

DiPompeo discussed the importance of those relationships during his interview with Chief Justice Roberts. “One of the questions I was asked in my interview was, ‘What are some of the things I missed about clerking?’  And that was interacting with my co-clerks, the judge, and his secretaries in chambers. My co-clerks and I had lunch together almost every day and talked about our cases. It was a unique experience, because every week we had different cases coming in and new fact patterns that we’re dealing with, and new areas of the law, to which we were complete novices.”

His interaction with his co-clerks, DiPompeo said, was similar to his interaction with other members of the Law Review. “I think one of the best aspects of working on the Law Review was the opportunity it gave us to sit around in the office and talk about the articles and different questions that were coming up, whether through editing or while going over some of the substance. That’s something I missed about law school –it’s something I really enjoyed when clerking last year, and something I’m looking forward to again next year.”

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.”

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.

In today’s economic climate, community development through the successful creation and growth of small businesses is a critical challenge for most U.S. cities, including Philadelphia.

So when Praveen Kosuri, practice associate professor at Penn Law, came to the Law School in 2007 to lead its Entrepreneurship Legal Clinic (ELC), he started by reaching out to local community economic development experts to determine how pro bono legal services could help revitalize Philadelphia neighborhoods and the broader area. His approach met with immediate success.

As Kosuri created relationships and found clients for the Clinic, he learned that The Enterprise Center, a West Philadelphia ‘business accelerator,’ was looking for ways to support local businesses and create sustainable jobs. “The Enterprise Center had identified a parcel of land--a boarded-up grocery store at 48th and Spruce in West Philly--that it wanted to acquire and transform into something that could anchor the community, but they weren’t quite sure what it would look like,” said Kosuri. “But the first step was to acquire the parcel.”

Thus during the 2008 spring semester, Kosuri received a call from The Enterprise Center asking for a referral for someone who might be able to help negotiate with the owner of the grocery store.  “I said, well, we can do that,” Kosuri noted. He pitched the services of the Clinic to Della Clark, the president of The Enterprise Center whose brainchild the project was, and convinced Clark and her team that the Clinic could be of assistance.

The ELC is one of nine clinics at Penn Law’s Gittis Center for Clinical Legal Studies, which engage the Law School’s students in direct legal representation of individual and organizational clients in a range of domestic and international venues.

The commercial real estate transaction for which the ELC agreed to provide its services would launch the Center for Culinary Enterprises (CCE), an innovative multi-use commercial kitchen and educational restaurant, designed to be an engine for creating food-related jobs and businesses and to provide resources to emerging food entrepreneurs in Philadelphia.

The project sought to transform the unoccupied 12,500 square-foot former grocery store on South 48th Street into a major economic development project that will provide jobs, education and opportunity to Philadelphians. Upon opening in early 2012, CCE will include three fully licensed commercial kitchens; Little Louie’s BBQ, a restaurant with a training program that will provide high school juniors and seniors with real-world experience in restaurant management; two retail spaces available to local food businesses; and a multimedia learning center called the eKitchen, which includes a 36-seat classroom with a demonstration kitchen.

“How it worked is that in January of 2008 our students met with the client and figured out exactly what it was The Enterprise Center wanted to do. In that first semester, students worked to devise a negotiation strategy, and then helped the client negotiate with the seller,” Kosuri said.

The value of the commercial kitchens to the community is that while many entrepreneurs seek to apply their skills in the food industry, “One of the biggest barriers to formal entry and business growth for entrepreneurs is often that they don’t have a health-certified commercial kitchen where they can produce their products,” said T. Stephen Jenkins L’11, who worked on the project during the fall 2010 semester. “The CCE will help to lessen this burden by providing access to these kitchens to local entrepreneurs at an affordable cost.”

As the Entrepreneurship Legal Clinic has between 20 to 30 clients at any given time and 16 students per semester, students are teamed for more complex clients.

Jenkins worked with Angela Redai L’11 on the CCE case. “It was valuable to see the structure of the organization and to get a feel for the steps they needed to take to realize their end goals,” said Redai. “Building on what students had done in the past, one of our responsibilities was organizing all of the CCE’s funding, as it is a non-profit organization, so that the lenders would know going forward how these loans would be repaid.”

“From reading the transition memos [from the previous semester’s students] and speaking with the client directly,” Jenkins explained, and working primarily with Gregory Heller, managing director, Economic Growth & Community Revitalization at The Enterprise Center and the CCE’s project manger, “Angela and I were able to come up with a game plan for what we wanted to present to our client.”

For the teams of students each semester who worked on the matter, “the first part of it was acquiring the land,” Kosuri noted. “And as we progressed, the second part was, how do you structure this larger enterprise, and what’s it going to look like?  We needed to figure out a structure that would protect The Enterprise Center from liability associated with the food businesses and wouldn’t jeopardize its 501(c)(3) status.” 

As part of the clinical experience, “Students are in the role of coordinating the entire deal,” Kosuri said, “just like they would be as associates in a law firm. What we seek to do here is to provide students with an experience that will last years into practice rather than merely months.”

From the very beginning until the present the students, Kosuri pointed out, “reviewed and commented on the architect contracts. There have been several pieces of financing – the students have been involved in all of that."

"Under our supervision,” Kosuri said, “students have been doing basically everything – from the acquisition of the parcel to obtaining the property tax exemption to securing zoning variances from the City [of Philadelphia] to the bidding process to select a general contractor, to the various rounds of financing, and even the commercial leases.”

“The Entrepreneurship Legal Clinic has been a tremendous partner on the Center for Culinary Enterprises, and we at The Enterprise Center are very grateful for the Clinic’s support,” said The Enterprise Center’s Heller, who has worked with the Clinic’s students since heading up the project in the summer of 2009.

He added: “There are substantial legal costs associated with commercial real estate, and as a not-for-profit organization that develops projects to benefit the community, we work hard to focus our limited resources directly on building projects and investing in community-based programming. Thanks to the Clinic’s pro bono support, we have been able to redirect dollars that would have been spent on legal counsel directly into the project’s community-based outcomes.”

In addition, the Clinic was able to draw on the pro bono counsel of the attorneys at the Philadelphia office of Dechert LLP. “We partnered with them from the beginning, and they’ve been outstanding,” said Kosuri. “If there’s something about which we need their guidance, we can go to them. But as part of their professional development, our students manage the process as opposed to the Dechert folks managing the process.”

Working in the Clinic and with the CCE, “It definitely honed my eye for detail and my attention to how language needs to be framed to achieve certain objectives,” said Redai. “For example, we were meeting with Greg [Heller], hearing his perspective as the client, hearing where they were with the project at the CCE and everything they needed to move forward. Then, working with our clinical supervisors, we had to figure out what steps we needed to take legally to help them achieve their goals. The client work was pretty much entirely on our shoulders.”

“One of the things that I was interested in during law school was to get some hands-on practical skills,” said Jenkins. “And being involved with the Entrepreneurship Legal Clinic allowed me to do that, including substantive experience with corporate/transactional work.”

“The Clinic’s students and staff, led by its Director Praveen Kosuri, have done a very professional job, consistently worked with us to overcome challenges, meet our deadlines, and fulfill all of the legal needs of a complex project,” said Heller. “The Clinic is a fabulous resource for Philadelphia’s communities, and we are proud to be one of the Clinic’s partners.”

For more information about Penn Law’s clinical programs, please visit http://www.law.upenn.edu/clinic.

Center for Culinary Enterprises: A Recipe for Economic Development

(A Penn Law VLA Production)

By Sophie Jeewon Choi C’13

Kenneth A. Richieri, senior vice president and general counsel of the New York Times Company, opened the Penn Intellectual Property Group’s 4th Annual Symposium on Copyright Law on March 22 with a keynote address that offered a practical perspective on copyright issues for news and information providers. Richieri addressed an audience of faculty, students, attorneys and community members gathered in Penn Law’s Levy Conference Center. 

According to Richieri, news and information providers face a unique situation in protecting their copyrights because of the ambiguous distinction between the facts they report and the expressions they use. “Copyright protects expression, not facts,” he explained. “Creative works, things like novels, movies [and] songs, receive the highest protection because they’re one hundred percent expression.”

News providers also face a new challenge with the development of digital media. “The Internet world has severely changed the economic play in a very material sense,” Richieri said, adding that the changes are in large part due to the nature of Internet search engines. “For news articles, this generally means headlines, and the first sentence or so, limited to 40, 35 characters,” he said. Because the search results are considered informative, such headlines are not protected by copyright and are considered a fair use case.

The growing use of “apps” and user interfaces complicates the issue further. “Apps are often designed to allow the user to change his or her experience,” Richieri pointed out. “The changes can be relatively simple, like fonts or something like that, or more complex, like organization or presentation.” Richieri emphasized, “[Such changes] have very serious economic consequences.” For clients looking for guidance in developing apps given the complex copyright environment, he said “there is no easy or uniform answer.”
 
Following the keynote address, the Symposium included three panel discussions. The first discussion, moderated by Penn Law Professor R. Polk Wagner, was titled “Music Licensing and Distribution.” Panelists Bruce Rich, a senior partner at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP who heads the firm’s IP & Media practice, Jeff Farmer, in-house counsel and vice president of Legal Affairs at Lime Wire LLC, and Roger Cramer, counsel to Selverne & Company PLLC, explored contemporary copyright issues in the music industry in the face of changing technologies. They covered a wide range of issues, including the protection of artists and the streaming and downloading of music online.

The second panel, titled “Open Source and Derivative Works,” was moderated by Penn Law Professor Christopher S. Yoo and focused on copyright issues surrounding software development. The panelists included Van Lindberg, associate at Haynes and Boone, Aaron Williamson, counsel at Software Freedom Law Center, and J. (Jay) T. Westermeier, counsel at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garret & Dunner LLP. They spoke of the unresolved discourse on the open source movement and copyrights of adapted work.

Penn Law Professor Shyam Balganesh moderated the final panel, “Copyright and Authors,” with panelists Nina Paley, author, director, cartoonist, and an artist-in-residence member of QuestionCopyright.org, and Marcia Paul, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP who concentrates on media and intellectual property litigation and counseling. Drawing on their professional experiences, the two panelists shared their perspectives on copylefts and the necessity of copyright laws.

Attorney John Papianou, who attended the Symposium, said of the discussions, “I thought [Nina Paley’s] challenging the copyright laws was very interesting.” Charlene Kwuon, an online cartoonist and writer, also commended the final panel. “I thought it was great that they were actively pitted against each other,” she said. “It made the arguments for or against copyrights feel very active.”

Coy Burcell, a corporate and health law attorney in the audience and the associate director of Penn’s Office of Research Services, said, “I thought they were all great presentations. They were all interesting. I think it’s remarkable to get the different panels and the speakers to all come to this event.”

Flickr: Penn Intellectual Property Group Symposium: Copyright Law in the 21st Century Pictures

Earlier this semester James H. Borod L’11, Michael B. Kind L’11, Sarah L. Smith L’11, and Kimberly R. Upham L’11 stood before notable judges Hon. Jose A. Cabranes, Hon. Karen Nelson Moore, and Hon. Stephen R. Reinhardt in the Annenberg Center's Zellerbach Theatre, ready to stake their claims to the 2011 Edwin R. Keedy Cup. The judges posed challenging questions from the bench, to which the students provided well-researched, knowledgeable answers. Ultimately, the moot court team of Borod and Kind won the debate of the case, Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, a challenge to the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007.

Transcript: The Road to the Keedy Cup Finals
Professor Anne Kringel: The Keedy Finals are the culmination of a year of argument that the students who are participating have been doing. They start out in their second year, in the Keedy Preliminaries, and they write a brief and they give three rounds of argument. And from that, the top four people end up being our Keedy finalists when they’re third years. And we stage it as an actual Supreme Court case– we use a pending case, and the advocates pretend that they are the advocates before the Supreme Court, and they play those roles. And the judges take that very seriously too – the judges are usually actual sitting judges, and they play the role of Supreme Court judges, and ask the students really difficult questions.

The Competition
Michael Kind: The thing that is preempted is criminal and monetary sanctions. However, the graduated …
Hon. Stephen R. Reinhardt: Well why?  Why is that – why are the monetary sanctions preempted?
Kind: The house report explains that it’s civil fines.
Reinhardt: Well, I don’t care about the house report, particularly, I follow Justice Scalia. I read the statute. 
Kind: Sure.
Reinhardt: And the statute – what is preempted by this statute? If you can do anything through a licensing provision.

Kimberly Upham: IRCA created a term of art, “unauthorized alien,” and that would be the correct system in which to incorporate the standard.
Hon. Karen Nelson Moore: What is the most fundamental difference between those two standards?
Upham: Your Honor, the fundamental difference between those two standards is that under IRCA, a worker may, in fact, be authorized, even though they are an illegal alien. The Attorney General may authorize a worker under IRCA, under its provisions.

The Students
Kind: I think a lot of schools have events like this, but Penn has some great appellate advocacy programs and some legal writing programs. Ever since 1L year, I’ve been preparing in this type of way. We’ve had oral arguments, we’ve been required to write briefs and do oral arguments. Then, second year, I took Appellate Advocacy class. So Penn definitely makes the curriculum adaptable for learning these types of skills, and I think that that’s a very important thing to do. It’s something that we’re probably all going to have to use one day when we graduate school, and it’s about more how we interact with the world and not necessarily just books. And I think Penn does do a great job of emphasizing that in part of the curriculum.
Sarah Smith: They let me get through the first minute, my introduction, which is all you can really ask for in this type of competition. And then they decided to go in for the questions, and that’s about what I was anticipating.
Upham: It was a great opportunity. I had a great partner. Sarah and I really enjoyed working together. And it’s a great experience to moot a case in front of real circuit judges. I think it gave me a little taste of what, hopefully, my career will be like someday. 
James Borod: There were definitely some questions we hadn’t talked about or thought about before. And it’s one thing, certainly, to do in a classroom here in front of three people – it’s a little bit scary to do in front of a much larger audience.

Reinhardt: We all enjoyed it, and we hope you enjoyed us as much as we enjoyed you. So thank you very much. The court will stand in recess.

This transcript was edited for length.

Named for its founder, the late Dean Edwin R. Keedy (1880-1958), the Keedy Cup competition is the culmination of the Law School's intramural brief writing and oral advocacy moot court tournament. All second-year students are eligible. After three rounds of competition, the four students who score the highest are selected to become the Keedy Cup participants. In their third year, the participants, randomly paired in two teams, argue a current Supreme Court case before an esteemed panel of jurists. The competition is organized by the Law School’s Moot Court Board, whose members, along with the members of the National Moot Court Competition Team, were runners-up after the three rounds of competition in the second-year moot court competitions.

From Monday, March 14 through Friday, March 18 the Toll Public Interest Center (TPIC) at Penn Law will host the Law School’s annual Public Interest Week, a series of workshops, conferences, and events which will explore pressing issues in pro bono and public interest lawyering. The focus of the week will be on the pursuit of justice – and it will help students explore the many ways in which they can engage in advocating for social justice.

The week will culminate in the 30^th anniversary of the Sparer Symposium on Friday, March 18, the theme of which is “Partnering Against Poverty: Examining Cross-Disciplinary Approaches to Public Interest Lawyering,” and which will convene legal academics and practitioners to provide insight into the dynamic relationship between scholarship and practice in the area of poverty law.

Joan Messing Graff, executive director of the Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center, will serve as Honorary Fellow in Residence for Public Interest Week. She will be an active participant in the week’s events and will lecture on “Putting Justice to Work: Defending the Rights of Workers” on Wednesday, March 16 at 5 p.m.

Additional Public Interest Week events will include:

• A public interest practice area fair and reception;
• A panel discussion on advocating for justice on consumer matters;
• A screening of the film Lost Souls and discussion with the film-maker on issues of immigration, migration, and family;
• A workshop for students on how to thrive as a public interest lawyer;
• A discussion on racialized tracking in American schools;
• A panel discussion on litigation strategy in the context of disability rights;
• A workshop on the nuts-and-bolts of post-graduate public interest fellowships;
• The week will end with the third annual Penn Law Public Interest Alumni Dinner, bringing current students together with the legal professionals in whose footsteps they hope to follow.

For a complete list of events, see the Public Interest Week Calendar.

As part of Public Interest Week, the Sparer Symposium on Friday, March 18, will explore novel solutions to the poverty crisis in the U.S., addressing both the advantages and difficulties of cross-sector and cross-profession collaboration. The Symposium has been designed to facilitate critical discussion among participants, and will include practitioners from diverse backgrounds as well as people facing the myriad problems associated with poverty.

Sparer Symposium panelists will address issues related to the law and poverty, such as prisoner re-entry; the poverty-environment connection; digital approaches to poverty mitigation; and advocating for healthy and affordable food. Sister Mary Scullion, Co-Founder, Executive Director and President of Project H.O.M.E. in Philadelphia, will present a talk on Friday, March 18 at 5 p.m. at the closing reception. The Symposium has been approved for 6 hours of substantive CLE credit and 1.5 hours of ethics CLE credit for Pennsylvania lawyers.

For a complete list of Symposium panels and participants, see the Sparer Symposium Schedule.

Penn Law’s Toll Public Interest Center, founded in 1989, provides students meaningful opportunities to provide pro bono legal service to under-represented communities. 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.

By Serena Zhou EAS’14

"Why is the rule from God non-binding?" was the key question posed by Dr. Asifa Quraishi during her keynote speech on Shari’a– Islamic Law-- as part of Penn Law’s Muslim Law Student Association (MLSA) fifth annual conference, Feb. 26.

The conference, the theme of which was "Constructive Roles for Islamic Law in Western Society,” attracted to the Law School’s Levy Conference Center a diverse crowd of law students, Penn graduate students, and visiting scholars from cities around the U.S. and the world to engage in dialogue about Shari’a and other topics, such as the Egyptian revolution and Islamic finance.

Of the three featured conference speakers, Dr. Quraishi centered her talk on Islamic legal theory, engaging the audience with questions and a multimedia presentation depicting Islamic judicial systems with parallels in the American legal system.

Pointing out that the literal meaning of Shari'a is “the path,” believed by Muslims to be God's law passed down through the Qur'an and seen in prophetic examples such as Mohammed, Quraishi noted however that "People will run into situations that are not addressed by either.” Quraishi elaborated that Ijtihad-- legal interpretation by private scholars-- supplements Shari’a, and highlighted the implications of that: "Scholars wrote about this, aware of their own fallibility." The interpretation of Shari'a gave rise to Fiqh, different conclusions scholars drew from canonical texts, always ending their interpretations with the phrase “God knows best.”

The collective of these interpretations became methodologies that are simultaneously valid, she explained. "In Classical Muslim society, the legal system developed to accomodate pluralism." She went on to dispel many of the misnomers and the negative connotations associated with Islam in America. Ijtihad shares its root with jihad; but jihad’s meaning, Quraishi asserted, is not holy war but literally “struggle.” Further, a fatwa given out by a mufti, unlike for example a papal edict, is not absolute.

Muftis are recognized experts in the field, but Muslims that seek their advice do not have to follow it. Choice is a centerpiece of faith; as Quraishi pointed out, if someone follows an interpretation that is not coming from their own conviction, they run against the spirit of jihad for Muslims. That is why the rule of God or the interpretation of it is non-binding, she said.

The rule of law of temporal leaders, however, is binding to maintain order and maslaha or public welfare, she added. This realm of law related to political administration is Siyasa. "The separation of these two spheres, Siyasa and Fiqh,” Quraishi said, “has its Western analogy in the separation of Church and State.

Rulers, she explained, “tried to impose belief on the people, but academic freedom won out. That is the spirit behind the first Amendment." However the similarity ends there, as Islam has bifurcated realms of lawmaking, with legal schoars as a key source of law. While in the U.S., she argued, law comes from the state or positions created by the state.

Quraishi transitioned from Classical Muslim society to the nation-state model and asserted that codes of modern Islamic states have the basic European template and Western legal concepts that are not well equipped for interpretation. As a result, the legal system has lost a sense of pluralism, nuance, and diversity. She differentiated between classical Fiqh and legislated Fiqh and warned, "If the laws uses Fiqh as a source, remember that this is a maslaha choice, and is not dictated by Islam."

Shari'a is abstract while Fiqh is specific and doctrinal. Fiqh does not have to be legislated into Siyasa in order for a state to be Shari'a mindful. (The next speaker, Dr. Fadel, addressed the issue in the context of the Egyptian revolution; Article II of the Egyptian constitution contains the clause "Shari'a is the principle source of legislation for the state.")

When the decision by lawmakers in Oklahoma to prohibit judges from considering or using international or Islamic law in their cases was raised by an audience member, Quraishi replied, "That is a question for American liberal democracy,  [whether] we can accomodate alternative dispute resolution and not a substantive debate about Shari'a."

Bilal Choksi L’12, president of MLSA, commented that in organizing the conference,"There were two goals the board had in mind as we chose the speakers. One, we wanted substantive legal dialogue.” Second, he said, “We wanted a forum to debunk the misconceptions associated with Islam."

Professional Excellence: Mentoring and Networking

Don't let the somewhat stodgy name fool you. The American Inns of Court – an association of lawyers, judges, legal academics, and law students who share a passion for professional excellence – is one of the most successful legal mentoring organizations in the country. Founded in the late 1970s by Chief Justice Warren Burger and some of his colleagues with the purpose of promoting professionalism and ethics in mentoring for young lawyers, the American Inns took the model of the British Inns and made it fit the American legal profession.

Today, Penn Law’s Inn of Court offers camaraderie, education, and a chance for true relationship-building among a vibrant community of current and future members of the bar. Members of the Penn Law Inn meet each month for a cocktail hour, "breaking bread" over dinner, and a presentation that typically involves a mock case and raises hot legal issues of the day. Students work directly with judges and practitioners in preparing and delivering the presentations, which are eligible for CLE credit.

Recently, Judge Gene E.K. Pratter L’75 spoke about her experience as a member of the Penn Law Inn of Court.

By Jenny Chung C’12

Inaugurating Penn Law’s International Human Rights Law Speaker Series, Hauwa Ibrahim, a Bok Visiting International Professor this semester and a senior partner at Aries Law Firm in Nigeria, presented a talk Tuesday in the Berylson Family Classroom (Gittis 1) to an audience of students on the topic of justice under Shari’a--Islamic law--in Africa, focusing particularly on women’s human rights.

Ibrahim opened with some general reflections on her experience thus far as a visiting professor and of the universal nature of the issues she addresses as a lawyer defending women accused of crimes under Shari’a. “They could, by extension, concern all of us,” she said, observing that international human rights advocacy in general is closely tied to the ideal of “global peace and freedom.”

According to Ibrahim, while Shari’a law was officially introduced into northern Nigeria in 1999, the Nigerian constitution had even before then provided for its application. In 1999, however, a new set of punishments for five offenses were introduced. Under these provisions, for example, drinking alcohol was punishable by public flogging, theft by amputation, and marital infidelity by lethal stoning. “If you kill, you will die the way you killed -- it’s the idea of ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,’” Ibrahim said, adding that despite the harsh penalties it prescribes, Shari’a--like Islam--is grounded in ideas of “human dignity, justice and freedom.” 

By Lisa Pang C'13

Rushing, whose lecture was organized and sponsored Penn Law’s Law and the Brain Student Group, explained to her audience that although guidelines exist for defining medical decision-making capacity-- patients must retain their ability to communicate, understand and appreciate the medical consequences of their actions, and remain consistent with the goals and values expressed prior to treatment – the process is still not clear cut.

“People with medical capacity [have the right to] make bad decisions,” Rushing pointed out, even resulting in death. The gray area, she noted, comes in determining the medical capacity of a patient.

“The sticky area is the time between suspected incapacity and determined incapacity,” said Rushing. Numerous laws and rulings are in place to protect the patient’s right to liberty as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. Doctors who wrongly detain a patient without following proper procedure can be faced with charges of false imprisonment and battery, if physical restraining methods are used.

“Hospitals are required to use the least restrictive means to accomplish restraint to prevent self-destructive behavior or harm to others,” she said. However, she pointed out, some higher forms of restraint include chemical and mechanical restraints.

Rushing suggested two policy changes that could be implemented to help physicians navigate this gray area. One is the implementation of a “time-limit for detention,” she said, during which a patient with suspected medical incapacity could be kept for no more than two hours to allow the proper analysis to be completed by a psychiatrist.

Since the response time by psychiatrists is usually within an hour, unless emergencies require a more rapid response time, Rushing said she was confident that this policy change would allow doctors to ensure their patient’s safety without facing backlash from having to navigate a tricky legal area. Moreover, Rushing recommended that this policy change be “added as an element of a hospital admission contract,” so that patients are made fully aware of hospital procedures before admittance.

The final verdict operates on a “sliding scale”, Rushing noted. The higher risk of self-harm due to a patient’s actions, the higher the medical capacity must be to allow the patient to make the decisions that put him or herself in harm’s way.

In the event that the patient is found to be medically incapacitated, several laws and rulings attempt to establish guidelines to direct doctors towards determining and following what the patient’s wishes would have been if they were medically capable. In the 1972 Cantebury v. Spense case, for example, it was ruled that, unless it was an emergency, the patient’s relatives must consent to the procedures performed on the patient. “The only generalization is that the family decides,” observed Rushing.

Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Health Care Agents and Representatives Act allows patients to appoint a surrogate decision-maker, known as an agent, who makes decisions for the patient in the event that the patient becomes medically incapacitated, which can be stated in an advance directive filed by the patient.

However, if the surrogate is not appointed by the patient, the law appoints surrogates, or agents, in the following order of priority: spouse, even when separated; adult children; parents; adult siblings; adult grandchildren; and an adult who understands the patient’s needs and preferences, who, as Rushing pointed out, is in the last class of priority.

A surrogate decision-maker may not “refuse the treatment required to save the patient’s life unless the patient is in an end-stage medical condition or permanently unconscious,” Rushing reassured her audience. In Pennsylvania, if the “surrogate is unsure of patient’s preferences,” she explained, the surrogate must follow these mandates: “one, preservation of life; two, relief from suffering; three, preservation or restoration of function.”

After Rushing's lecture, Benjamin Bumann L’11, President of Penn Law’s Law and Brain Group, expressed great enthusiasm for the speaker and the subject matter. “Dr. Rushing demonstrates the extent to which understanding human cognition is incredibly important for adequately dealing with legal matters and justice,” he said.

On Tuesday, January 11 at 7:00 p.m., Penn Law will host a short film screening, “The Lost Girls of Haiti,” followed immediately by an expert panel session featuring Marcia Jean, co-founder of the Haitian women’s group FAVILEK, and Jayne Fleming, pro bono counsel at the law firm Reed Smith, who has worked with Haitian activists to promote women’s rights and the rule of law since last year’s devastating earthquake.

University of Pennsylvania Law School student Margaret Henn L’11 has been awarded an Independence Foundation Public Interest Fellowship to work at Regional Housing Legal Services in Philadelphia, where she will advocate for low income homeowners who are in foreclosure due to increased medical expenses.

How do you turn a construction site into an opportunity for community building and fun?

The Golkin Hall student Transition Team had a suggestion: make an art gallery of the Chute, the enclosed tunnel that passes through the Goat lounge, connecting Silverman and Gittis Halls.

Over the course of three weeks, while electricians, insulation installers, HVAC teams and laborers worked above and around them, an estimated one hundred and fifty members of the Penn Law community painted twenty large murals on the Chute's walls. Contributors included solo artists, faculty family groups, teams of staff members, and groups of JD friends.

There are murals inspired by Rothko and Lichtenstein; depictions of scenes in Greece, Afghanistan, and Hawaii; sights like quiet mountain nights, Philadelphia's Boathouse Row, and the facade of Golkin Hall; and renderings of delicate branches of blossoms, a giant eye, and the Penn Law Goat mascot.

On November 1, Penn Law hosted a wine and cheese reception to celebrate and honor the painters.

Read more:
Penn Law Paints!
Art for Construction’s Sake

From October 28 to October 30, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review hosted its 2010 symposium, "The New American Health Care System: Reform, Revolution, or Missed Opportunity?”

During the course of the symposium forty speakers discussed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and its effects on the physician-patient relationship, insurance regulation, delivery system reform, and incentive structures. Additional panels examined reform efforts abroad, prior domestic reform efforts, and the legislation's constitutionality.

Click any photo below to view a slideshow of the conference.

Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Fellow Timur Narkuziev

The University of Pennsylvania Law School will host a new international student on campus as part of the U.S. Department of State’s Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Fellowship Program. Joining the Law School community is Timur Narkuziev from Uzbekistan.

University of Pennsylvania Law School graduates will join the cadre of leading public interest and government attorneys this fall as they embark on fellowship, scholarship and honors program opportunities throughout the U.S. and abroad. They will include five Department of Justice Honors Program attorneys, two Equal Justice Works Fellows, a Gates Cambridge Scholar, an Independence Fellow and a Skadden Fellow. In addition, several Penn Law graduates will be selected for public interest fellowships that the Law School itself has developed. The recipients of these career-launching Penn Law fellowships will be announced later this month. 

Of the more than 130,000 comments submitted on the greenhouse gas auto emissions rule, the University of Pennsylvania Law School Environmental Law Project’s* comment was singled out and discussed several times in yesterday’s final rule document, issued jointly by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the EPA. The rule sets the first-ever national greenhouse gas emission and fuel economy standards for all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. It is a key piece of the Obama Administration’s climate and energy agenda.

It is critically important that the United States adopt policies that address global climate change and reduce its oil consumption. These proposed rules constitute a strong and coordinated federal fuel economy and GHG program for passenger cars and light trucks. Since the proposed rules will provide regulatory certainty and consistency for the automobile industry while reducing greenhouse gas emissions based on technologies that can be incorporated at reasonable cost, the proposal represents an important effort to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

However, the proposal is not without its flaws. Namely, the proposal fails to gradually reduce the disparity between efficiency requirements for 2012 and 2016 MYs. Additionally, the policy does not create mechanisms whereby minimum reductions are ensured, nor does it address the fiction of “zero emissions” electric vehicles. Finally, the proposal fails to make a complete lifecycle impact analysis, and therefore may overlook deleterious consequences of its implementation. Thus, the proposal, while timely, would benefit from an enhanced discussion of these among other potentially problematic omissions.

Read the entire comment at regulations.gov. 

University of Pennsylvania Law School students’ work on the Supreme Court case, Padilla v. Kentucky has resulted in the Court ruling in their favor. The Supreme Court decision means that lawyers must tell non-citizen criminal defendants whether pleading guilty to a crime could lead to their deportation.

In October, students were at the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in the case. “Penn is very fortunate to be partnered with excellent lawyers who allow us to leverage our own abilities and for our students see top notch advocacy at work,” Bibas says. “It’s great for the students to be able to watch the laws as they’re being made. It’s a capstone to their third year of legal education. It’s something they can get here that not many law students have an opportunity to do.”

The University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Latin American Law Students Association (LALSA) will hold a conference entitled Forging Ahead: U.S. Foreign Policy in Latin America under the Obama Administration on Saturday, Jan. 30 at 6 p.m. in the Law School’s Levy Conference Center. The conference will feature Dan Restrepo, L’99, who serves as special assistant to President Obama and senior director for western hemisphere affairs at the National Security Council.

Students in Penn Law's Supreme Court Clinic were back at the Supreme Court on January 12 for oral arguments in the second case they've handled this school year. Professor Stephanos Bibas, Lecturer Stephen Kinnaird and the students assisted in researching, writing briefs and preparing strategy in Abbott v. Abbott. The international child abduction case involves a parent taking a child out of a country without the other parent's consent.

The Penn Law group researched family law and international treaties on child custody from several countries, strategized, and edited and rewrote briefs. "The work was my first introduction to the challenges of international legal research," said student, Rick Bold. "I had to learn how not only to find the relevant statutes or code provisions, but I had to find them in English."

"Writing the briefs has been a collaborative project that has challenged my writing and forced me to be open to suggestion and criticism," student, Chad Albert said. "The drafts that we submit to Professor Bibas and Mr. Kinnaird invariably change dramatically before they are submitted to the Court, and the process of having my work torn to shreds and then rebuilt has given me invaluable insight into the editing process at the highest level of legal writing."

Attorney, Karl Hays of Austin, Texas argued the case before the Supreme Court, with Professor Bibas and Kinnaird second-chairing. Hays represents Jacquelyn Vaye Abbott in her case against her former husband, Timothy Mark Cameron Abbott. Jacquelyn Abbott was awarded custody of their son in Chile, where they lived at the time. Later, she took the child from Chile to Texas without Timothy Abbott's consent.

To Hays, the Penn Law Supreme Court Clinic is an invaluable resource. "They can analyze and synthesize various issues I couldn't do on my own," Hays said. "They had the ability to research foreign case law, various other conventions and treaties that a solo attorney in Austin couldn't do."

"The students' work and creativity allowed us to put arguments before the Court that had not previously been considered in Hague Convention cases," said Kinnaird, who also heads the Supreme Court practice in the Washington, D.C., law offices of Paul Hastings.

The work on the case was educational for everyone involved. "It's been a fascinating adventure," said Bibas. We've all been able to learn a lot. We didn't know details about the Hague Convention when we started."

"The chance to be doing hands on, live research, in front of the highest court in the land no less, breathes life and passion into the experience in a way that studying something in the mere academic sense in a classroom never could, said student, Dane Reinstedt.

In a bit of friendly inter-school rivalry, Stanford Law's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic assisted Timothy Abbott's attorneys. This is the first time one law school assisted one side of the case and another law school handled the other side in a Supreme Court case.

The friendly rivalry between Bibas and Stanford Law Professor and Clinic director, Jeffrey Fisher runs deeper. They've debated each other in public forums, and the two clinics have competed for several cases, but the world of the Supreme Court bar is collegial. Fisher advised Bibas in starting Penn Law's clinic.

Abbott v. Abbott is the Penn Law Clinic's second Supreme Court case this school year. In October, the Penn Law class also assisted in Padilla v. Kentucky, a case that tests the limits of the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel for non-citizen criminal defendants. Rulings in both cases are expected by the spring.

The University of Pennsylvania Law Review will hold a symposium on Trafficking in Sex and Labor: Domestic and International Responses on Nov. 13 and 14.

Andrew Bingham L’10 dabbled in music for years until, midway through his first year at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, something clicked. “It wasn’t until law school that I was driven to make music as a creative outlet,” he says. Music soon became Bingham’s antidote to the pressures of law school. After intense days of class and legal writing, Bingham “would go home with a craving to play guitar and write music.” He often felt most creative when the pressures of law school were most severe. “Several of the songs I’m most pleased with came during finals week,” he observes. “That was kind of scary.”

Eight students and their professor were at the Supreme Court Oct. 13, seeing their work in action in a case before the nation’s highest court. 

Christopher Howland, a third-year student at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, was among five gay men awarded a $4,000 scholarship during a reception sponsored by Bread & Roses Community Fund on Oct. 1. 

The University of Pennsylvania Law School is welcoming 255 students as part of its Class of 2012, one of the most academically accomplished, talented and diverse group of students in the Law School’s history.

• The new students are already committed to the integration of knowledge across disciplines: they hold advanced degrees in education, environmental science, literature and divinity (among others), and they plan to pursue joint degrees in law and bioethics, business administration, international studies, social work and many more fields. 
• They have worked for change globally and within local communities as teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and health educators.
• The Class of 2012 includes artistic, clever and uncompromising voices: professional performers, college newspaper editors and a senior writer for President Obama’s transition team.
• They are professional, poised and devoted to shared sacrifice and responsibility: several are commissioned officers in the Army, Navy and Marine Corp.
• And they have followed unpredictable, amusing and inspiring journeys as a former NFL player, a champion baton twirler, and a member of the U.S. National Rowing Team.

New students at the University of Pennsylvania Law School spent part of their orientation participating in a neighborhood cleanup around 46th and Market streets in University City.

Penn Law's innovative public interest program requires students to integrate pro bono service into their lives as law students. To graduate, students must provide at least 70 hours of public service support to the community, which also provides opportunities for students to challenge themselves in new areas of practice and research.

Students at the University of Pennsylvania Law School will have even more opportunities to advocate for human rights and asylum protection, thanks to a gift from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and its partners. The gift honors Robert C. Sheehan, a 1969 graduate of the Law School who recently ended his 15-year tenure as executive partner of the law firm and assumed a new role as the firm’s pro bono partner.

More than 90 international students from 44 different countries have arrived at the University of Pennsylvania Law School this month to begin year-long studies toward a graduate degree as they study American and international law.

The students all have legal degrees and work in their home countries as politicians, prosecutors, professors, corporate counsel, law clerks, corporate lawyers, judges and in other roles. More than 1,200 applicants sought admission to the class of only 92 students. Roughly one-third of the enrolled students come from East Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world, respectively.

JAPANESE DINNER PARTY FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

On Aug. 25, members of the LLM class teamed up with visiting scholars to host a Japanese dinner party for the entire class.  The homemade meal included sushi, sashimi, tempura and other Japanese food, along with sake and various types of Japanese beer.

Jennifer Yvonne Mokgoro, a justice on the Constitutional Court of South Africa and a 1990 master’s degree graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, spoke at Penn Law’s commencement on May 18.

Members of Penn Law’s JD Class of 2009 came from 33 states, the District of Columbia and nine foreign countries. Master’s degrees were awarded to students from 29 different nations.

Can a non-citizen who pleads guilty to a drug charge be deported because of that plea, even if his lawyer told him that he would not risk deportation by pleading guilty?

Penn Law has awarded Human Rights Fellowships to students working abroad this summer in public interest internships between their first and second years of law studies.

At this year's Equal Justice Foundation auction, which raises money to support students who are exploring public interest careers, second-year Penn Law student Sarah McConaughy's bid was enough to secure the car washing talents of Professors Edward B. Rock and Jill E. Fisch.

While wearing roller skates.

"The winning bid was $290 -- and well worth it!" says McConaughy, who drove away in one clean set of wheels.

 [During their day jobs, Professors Rock and Fisch produced scholarship listed among the Top 10 corporate and securities articles for 2008.]

Penn Law graduating student Olwyn Conway has been named winner of the 2009 Summer Jackson-Healy Public Service Award, presented by the Equal Justice Foundation to a graduate who has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to public service.

Before Michael Anderson rode his motorcycle from Philadelphia to Seattle last May, he grew a beard to protect his face from the elements. He didn’t know then that his beard would become his entrée into Middle Eastern society.

Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell (third from left) was the keynote speaker at the 2009 Penn Law Review Dinner.  Rendell and Penn Law Dean Michael A. Fitts (second from right) are joined by (from left): next year's managing editor, Meena Sharma, and editor-in-chief, Kenji Price; and this year's editor-in-chief, Christopher DiPompeo, and managing editor, Kindl Shinn.

Rendell stressed the importance of giving back to the community and recalled stories from his work as Philadelphia district attorney to a banquet hall full of students, faculty, alumni, and members of the Pennsylvania bar. Guests included federal judges Marjorie Rendell and Louis Pollak, former dean of Penn Law.

Tianna Jackson (left) and Melanie Baptiste, both 2009 graduates of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, present Penn Law School Dean Michael A. Fitts with the 2009 Douglass Moot Court Trophy from the Black Law Students’ Association national competition.  Jackson is from the Bronx; Baptiste, who is from Atlanta, also won the 2009 title for National Best Oral Advocate.

“Know the world you live in” is the motto of www.ForeignPolicyDigest.org, an online magazine about world affairs and international issues. It is a message that third-year University of Pennsylvania Law School student Olivier Kamanda, the site’s founder, takes to heart.

Sharayu Jadhav, an Indian lawyer who will receive a master’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in May 2009, has received an award from the Philadelphia Bar Association for her outstanding achievements in international law and human rights.

Immigrants detained in the United States increasingly are denied due process, abused by local law enforcement and held in poor detention conditions, a delegation led by the University of Pennsylvania Law School told a hearing of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

PHILADELPHIA (March 16, 2009) – The University of Pennsylvania Law School today announced the creation of two public interest fellowships and a significant expansion of its loan-forgiveness program at the opening of its first ever Public Interest Week.

To the Penn Law community:

 

 

 

 

The current economic environment posed a significant challenge to our fundraising efforts. Many who we traditionally depend on for support have been constrained by their own financial difficulties. Despite the decrease in monetary contributions, we managed to secure more items and in-kind donations this year than in any previous auction!

 

Update: Evan Mendelson (left) and Russell King won this year's Keedy Cup; Dominic Draye was named best oralist.

Does AT&T really have more bars in more places? Russell King of La Crescent, Minn., and Evan Mendelson of Owings Mills, Md., will argue that they do indeed… if by bars, one means barriers to equality. They’ll be trying to break down these barriers to win restitution for AT&T employees who became pregnant before 1978—when laws were created to protect pregnant women from job discrimination—who now find their pension benefits reduced. But should the Pregnancy Discrimination Act be applied retroactively?  Dominic Draye of Kenmore, Wash., and Conor Lamb of Pittsburgh, Pa., representing the petitioner AT&T, will argue that the company is being treated unfairly.

Come see what it takes to win this argument before some of the sharpest judges on the bench. This year’s competition will be judged by The Honorable Frank Easterbrook, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; The Honorable Roger L. Gregory, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; and the Honorable Gene E. K. Pratter, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Penn Law alumna.

The Keedy Cup is the culmination of the Penn Law’s moot court tournament, named for its founder, the late Dean Edwin R. Keedy.

Cheer on your classmates and learn how to get your name on the Keedy Cup!

AT&T Corp. v. Noreen Hulteen, et al.
In the Keedy Cup
Jan. 22 at 4 p.m.
Annenberg Center

MLK Day of Service

"What are you doing for others?" According to Martin Luther King, Jr. that's "life's most persistent and urgent question." President-elect Barack Obama and vice president-elect Joe Biden are taking this question to heart; the day before their inauguration, they will participate in the MLK Day of Service in Washington, DC. Moreover, Obama has asked Americans to join him and to be "active citizens."

Students, faculty, and staff from the University of Pennsylvania Law School plan to heed the call again this year.

On January 19^th, members of the Penn Law community will partner with Philadelphia-area organizations to complete those odd jobs non-profit organizations don't always have the resources to undertake, like cleaning, organizing, and painting.  Groups that will benefit from Penn Law muscle include Philadelphia VIP, Philadelphia Reads, and Philabundance.

The first King Day of Service was held in Philadelphia in 1996. Last year some 60,000 volunteers participated in nearly 600 service projects across the region.

"All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Come prove the content of your character. To find out more about how to participate in uplifting humanity with painstaking excellence, contact Jennifer Pesavento in the Toll Public Interest Center at 215-898-0955.

Your time and effort will make a difference.

Update: The Penn Law team reached the national finals before falling to Chicago Kent on Feb. 5. Penn's Daniel Schwei was named best oralist.

Before issuing the panel's ruling, the moot court's chief justice, Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, told all of the students:"Your presentations were outstanding. All of us here participate in oral arguments in one form or another at one level or another, and all of you already are very talented advocates. If there is no place to go but up, the four of you you are going to have brilliant careers at the Bar."

 *  *  *

Should a private school get preferred treatment from a zoning board because of its religious affiliation?  Should a state be forced to subsidize private-school tuition for a special-needs child? And should the answer to either question rest in part on the outcome of a coin flip?

The first two questions are complicated but the answer to the third is an easy "yes," if coin flips help your moot court team win the regional finals.

And Penn Law's moot court team - made up of third-year students Allison Reimann, Steven Myers and Daniel Schwei - arrived at the mid-November regional finals in Baltimore already knowing that its legal briefs had been unanimously judged to be the best. They let coin flips determine who would argue for the plaintiffs and the defendants before the moot court; those arguments were persuasive enough to get the team to February's national championships in New York City.

"We were confident that our brief was one of the better ones," said Schwei. "I was proud of our brief. We had a maximum of 35 pages to address issues that were enormously complex. Even in the limited space, we produced a coherent whole."   Myers concurred: "I thought it was a brief that could be submitted to court."

Reimann was named "best oralist," completing Penn Law's sweep of the major prizes for legal writing and oral argument.

"They had the best first practice round I've ever seen," said Anne Kringel, senior lecturer and legal writing director at Penn Law and the team's faculty advisor.

The group has already taken beneficial lessons from their moot court experience. "I learned the value of working collaboratively with very intelligent teammates," Schwei says. Reimann appreciates "the opportunity for feedback on the delivery of an argument. We not only received great feedback from the faculty members who helped us prepare, but from the judges themselves after each round."

Rules prohibit any revision of the brief for the national competition, so the team will focus on honing its oral arguments after winter break. "From what we've seen in the regional round, it's worth all of us being ready to answer questions about the issues raised in both cases," Reimann says.

That preparation, and a lucky quarter, might just do the trick.

Third-year Penn Law student Amy Retsinas was among five Philadelphia-area students honored by the Philadelphia Bar Association's Public Interest Section for their strong commitment to public interest work.

Having worked as a social service provider in domestic violence agencies before coming to Penn Law, as a student Retsinas volunteered with Action AIDS and worked on various projects as a co-coordinator of the Reproductive Rights Project.  She interned in Family Court as an advocate with Women Against Abuse, and co-chaired Penn Law's Equal Justice Foundation Auction, which raised over $60,000 to support law students taking uncompensated employment in public interest during the summer.

Retsinas also helped the organize the 2008 Sparer Symposium, sponsored by the Toll Public Interest Center at Penn Law, which focused on the revitalization of Philadelphia.  She spent summers exploring different facets of public interest law, interning at Alaska Legal Services and at Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing & Feinberg.  She currently works as an extern in the Employment Unit at Community Legal Services and is a senior editor on the Journal of Law and Social Change.

Twenty-one students at the University of Pennsylvania Law School worked for 300 hours on a 42-page paper for which they won't even receive a grade. But they just may help save the planet.

When the Environmental Protection Agency proposed new clean-air rules and asked Americans, "Is there a better way to regulate greenhouse gases than using the Clean Air Act?" an environmental student group at Penn Law decided to prove that there is.

"Depending on how well the government responds, the EPA's proposed rules have the possibility of being the most important [environmental] regulations of the 21st Century," says Christina Kaba, a second-year student from Drexel Hill, Pa., who is co-chair of the student pro-bono group, the Environmental Law Project.

Their 42-page comment, filed with the EPA in its rulemaking proceeding, delineates how regulating greenhouse gas emissions from residential and commercial buildings - not just industrial sources - is both important and cost-effective. But granting permits to every residential and commercial producer of greenhouse gases, as the Clean Air Act does now with industrial sources, would be onerous. And greenhouse gases are fundamentally different from the air pollutants the act was designed to regulate.

Instead, the students offer alternatives and are excited about their possible influence.

"We've collated a lot of data in this paper; it's a major contribution," says Roland Backhaus, a second-year student from Annapolis, Md., who co-chaired the undertaking.

After reviewing the legislation that mandates new air pollution regulations to address greenhouse gases, the students outline cost-effective technologies for curbing emissions from residential and commercial sources and discuss green technologies for building and retrofitting homes.  In order to improve the efficiency of a building's thermal envelope and reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, they offer suggestions ranging from simple programmable thermostats to more complex air source heat pumps, an alternative to traditional heating systems.

Finally, they present case studies of a statewide effort in California and localized efforts in Seattle, Wash., Berkeley, Calif., Chicago, and Portland, Ore. In Chicago, for example, new building codes were established to promote the conservation of electricity, and in Seattle the city provides consumer rebates and grants to encourage citizens to purchase new, more efficient technologies.

The students' opportunity to counsel the EPA was a long time in the making.  It began last year, when the Environmental Law Project approached Cary Coglianese, the Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and director of the Penn Program on Regulation, asking for additional ways to get clinical experience in environmental law. He suggested that the group participate in notice and comment rulemaking, which occurs when a government agency wishes to change a rule or regulation. The agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register requesting comments on the proposal. During an open period, the public can offer comments that are used to make adjustments to the new rule.

"Participating like this in a rulemaking proceeding gives our students an opportunity to gain practical writing and legal advocacy experience -- as well as contribute positively to the resolution of a significant public policy issue," Coglianese says.

The EPA undertakes 200-400 such rulemakings each year. The greenhouse gas rulemaking grew out of the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that held that the EPA had to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Penn Law students started following the rulemaking soon after the Supreme Court's decision, including participating in a conference call Professor Coglianese arranged with high-ranking EPA officials.  They were ready to go when the EPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking this summer, requesting comments by November 28 on how to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

"The opportunity to comment on major regulation was exciting and unexpected. We sustained the project for one-and-a-half years while the EPA got around to asking for comments," Kaba says.

Of the student group's 70 members, 21 participated in drafting this comment. Project organizers Backhaus and Kerri Kuhn, a third-year student from Colorado Springs, Colo., assigned work teams. Backhaus thinks this is where he learned the most, acknowledging the difficulties of directing 20 people toward a common goal.

Kuhn, Kaba and Backhaus edited the paper to make it consistent. Kaba admits to working on it over Thanksgiving. All told, the students spent over 300 hours working on the project.

"The students who did this are impressive," Kaba says.

Part of this feeling of satisfaction stems from the intricate nature of the Clean Air Act. "It's the most complicated area of the law I've dealt with in law school," explains Kuhn, who spent the summer predicting carbon markets in California. "The Clean Air Act has so many parts. It was created over a long period of time and involves interaction between states and federal government."

Still, she was pleased with the opportunity that this project gave her to begin to decipher the legislation. "It's been invaluable to participate in administrative law procedures since I'll be digging through comments for the rest of my life," she says.

"This is yet another excellent example of Penn Law students' commitment to public service," says Coglianese.

Kuhn concludes, "EPA will go to the legislature using these comments and will project our voices to Congress. It's exciting to have a say in what the nation should do."

Meet the student leaders in this effort:

Christina Kaba feels a strong pull toward a career in public service and hopes to work in environmental law. The second-year student became interested in environmental issues when she was a geologist working in the field for an oil company. Disillusioned, she left her graduate work in geophysics for a job in an environmental nonprofit before coming to Penn Law. She will be a summer associate at Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young in 2009.

Roland Backhaus also has a background in energy: nuclear engineering. "Although I hope that one day we'll be able to efficiently use wind, solar and geothermal power, for now nuclear is one of the better options in terms of greenhouse gases." He feels a deep-seated responsibility to protect the earth for future generations. This summer he will work on nuclear energy regulation at a firm that he hopes to join after graduation.

Kerri Kuhn studied resource management in Tanzania during college, working to balance resources between tourists, local people and wildlife, which sparked her interest in the environment. She's currently pursuing the Environmental Law Certificate and will join the environmental law practice at Morrison and Forrester in San Francisco after graduation.

PHILADELPHIA (Oct. 31, 2008) -- Before coming to the University of Pennsylvania Law School, third-year student Lindsey Carson worked in several sub-Saharan African nations to increase citizen participation in the political process, including democratic elections.

"We worked to identify obstacles to full and free exercise of the right to vote in parliamentary elections, as well to enhance the ability of civil society groups to advocate within the political structure," she explained.

It is no surprise, then, that she has joined 10 other Penn Law students in "Watch the Vote 2008," a non-partisan election-monitoring effort arranged through Penn Law's Toll Public Interest Center. 

"Watch the Vote 2008 has been a great way of standing by the notion that, regardless of who one votes for, we have a system that works, that we can believe in and have faith in," Carson said. "If voters continuously run into problems, that faith in our process and our public officials will be eroded."

Prior to Election Day, the 11 law students compiled information about localized election laws for key battleground states.  On Election Day, they will use that information as a quick reference when helping Penn undergraduates respond to telephone calls about alleged voting problems. The students will provide callers with poll location addresses, transfer callers to their local election officials, and alert officials to potential violations of voters' rights.

The Penn Law students will spend Election Day stationed on Penn's campus, at CNN in New York, and at Manhattan law offices of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady. They will provide legal research on issues of voter irregularity, including preparing briefs, seeking voter affidavits, working to preserve ballot access, and proposing remedies for problems that voters face. Seasoned election lawyers across the country will be standing by to take matters to court, if necessary.

The effort is part of election protection hotlines promoted by CNN (877.CNN.in.08), in collaboration with InfoVoter Technologies, and radio's "Tom Joyner Morning Show" (866.myvote1).

"Voters in my age group seem more excited than I've seen them," said third-year student Ofotsu Tetteh-Kujorjie, a native Ghanaian who came to the United States in the mid-1990s. "If you go back to the primaries, we potentially had the first woman nominee and we have the first black nominee. If you look around the world, there seems to be a realignment of power; it seems appropriate that these different presidential candidates emerged."

"Our students were eager to be active participants in this year's election," said Arlene Rivera Finkelstein, executive director of Penn Law's Toll Public Interest Center. "The opportunity with Watch the Vote 2008 was a great chance for students to participate not just on the micro level - working with individual voters who experienced problems at the polls - but also at a very macro level - identifying and addressing large scale problems occurring across the country.  They will also have an ongoing role in litigation before and after the election that can shape voter access on a long term basis."

Penn Law students are required to complete 70 hours of pro bono work in order to graduate.

Tetteh-Kujorjie, who is not eligible to vote in the U.S., thought Watch the Vote would be a great way to participate in the election process. "I'm interested in getting a sense of how the American system works. I have a high curiosity about the problems people may face at the voting booth," Tetteh-Kujorjie explained. "I'll also be interested in seeing how efficacious the legal system is in resolving issues that may arise."

Carson, a native of Rosemont, PA, has been surprised by her research of Ohio voting laws. "What's amazed me so far, as I've been researching Ohio, is that U.S. elections are so localized. You can have two counties next door to each other, each with different voting procedures and mechanisms for getting a paper ballot. It would probably surprise people that, even as we complain about low voter turnout, our system may not be able to accommodate all voters if a majority of registered voters came to the polls."

The hotlines expect to receive as many as one million calls on Election Day.

Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg has become a "local personality"--at least to the Free Library of Philadelphia--where officials recently asked him to join other public figures in their Banned Books Week celebration.

The third-year Penn Law student has not written a book that's been banned, but he has gained a reputation for his blog, "Young Philly Politics," and his recent campaign to get the city to share detailed real-time election results with the public and not just with the news media and well-connected politicians on a password-protected site.

The Philadelphia native made a verbal request, and later a written one, to city elections officials to receive access. He was denied. After he appealed to the city solicitor, he was granted a password.

If one private citizen could get a password, he wondered, shouldn't more have access? A fax campaign resulted in 400 requests to the election commission. As a result, the city has promised that a new, openly accessible website will be available before next week's election.

Dan, who is cautiously optimistic the city will meet the election deadline, undertook this campaign because he was "taught from an early age the government should function in service of the public good. Public interest law is the family business."  His father, Irv Ackelsberg, was with Community Legal Services of Philadelphia for 30 years.

As for being labeled a "personality" - his efforts have been noted in a New York Times blog--Dan says, "I'm flattered, but at the end of the day, I have to be cognizant that no one elected me. I'm just a person with a megaphone."

He began the Young Philly Politics blog in December 2004 as an outlet for young people who had become active in Sen. John Kerry's unsuccessful presidential campaign. He wanted to be sure their energy was captured and redirected to local politics.

Eventually, he'd like to take the blog statewide. "The blog has helped people in disparate parts of the city interact around important political issues. I'd like to do that for the state."  In addition, he's considering creating a non-profit organization with a board to run the blog--so that he's no longer the "person with a megaphone."

For his own future, he's interested in a career as a Philadelphia public interest lawyer. "I'd like to work for the public good while maintaining my Olympic dreams," he says with a shrug that suggests he finds his own words slightly corny. But it's not a pipe dream. Last year, he took time off from Penn Law to train for the Olympics in the lightweight double sculls. After winning U.S. Olympic Trials, his double narrowly missed out on a trip to Beijing.

"I'm trying to navigate what happens next.  I've got over $100,000 debt, I want to retire from rowing on my own terms, and I want to work for the public good."

PHILADELPHIA (Oct. 27, 2008) -- Two students at the University of Pennsylvania Law School will be among the presenters at a Tuesday, Oct. 28, hearing in Washington, D.C., on immigration and immigrant rights.

The students - Matthew Erie and Maisha Elonai - are students in Penn Law's Transnational Legal Clinic.  The hearing is being conducted at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and will focus on due process violations in U.S. immigrant detention and deportation.

The hearings will be webcast live on the Commission's website.

PHILADELPHIA (Oct. 7, 2008) - Michael Wong is a 26-year-old law school student turned filmmaker, whose newest film debuts in less than two weeks.  Shmul Kaplan is an 80-year-old disabled survivor of Nazi oppression whose complicated journey through the U.S. immigration system is told in the film.

"The hours and hours that I spent concentrating on Mr. Kaplan's face, both in shooting and editing the film, helped remind me to appreciate the beauty of the human face," Wong says. "Somewhere along the line, I had stopped observing peoples' faces when they talked. But you can learn so much about people just by watching them; where they are coming from, their mood, what they want."

What is a law school student doing making a film about an octogenarian trying to obtain citizenship? 

"This will make me a better lawyer," he says.

Wong's documentary contributes to the growing body of law-genre documentaries made by lawyers and law students. Students at the University of Pennsylvania Law School first analyze feature-length films that focus on lawyers, the law or social policy, and then produce short advocacy videos that explain complex legal matters to a general lay audience or that allow clients the opportunity to situate their legal problems within the context of their lives.

"The Documentaries and the Law course teaches students the connection between narrative in film and legal persuasion, while the Visual Legal Advocacy seminar gives them the opportunity to make short films on behalf of real clients or organizations," explains Regina Austin, professor of law and director of the Penn Program on Documentaries and the Law. "Telling stories with pictures and sound in legal proceedings is the wave of the future. Learning the rudiments of video production is a tool that will stand law students in good stead."

Most of the work the students do is for general public education (like a short video on the life of civil rights lawyer Sadie T.M. Alexander) and for administrative proceedings (like asylum issues or pardon and clemency hearings).

Wong's short documentary tells Kaplan's story of surviving the Nazi invasion of the Ukraine and then, at age 70, seeking asylum in the United States from the anti-Semitism he had faced his entire life. He dutifully applied for a Green Card, the first step to becoming a citizen. Delays in the naturalization process, however, caused Kaplan to lose his disability benefits -- he was forced to live on $215 per month plus food stamps for three years.  Tens of thousands of other disabled asylum applicants suffered the same fate; Kaplan became the named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit.

Since filming ended, Wong has maintained contact with Kaplan, attending a ceremony where Kaplan received a special citizenship award from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and Council Migration Service of Philadelphia.

"Lawyers have a unique set of skills that allow them to understand and explain complex issues," the law student and filmmaker says. "The medium of film helps me present these complex issues in a way that grabs the attention of the normal viewing audience more effectively than other media and breaks down the issues in a way they can understand."

Wong intends to accept an offer to work in corporate law. He feels his training in legal filmmaking has already improved his lawyering skills.

The program is also creating a series of videos about the pardon process and has created a library of clemency films. Currently, students are editing a video that tells the story of an incarcerated woman who is under house arrest while awaiting a kidney transplant. Because the woman cannot leave the house, telling her story in the video is one of the few ways in which she can perform community service.

Austin sees proselytizing among lawyers about the power of film and video in legal advocacy as part of her mission.

The program continues to seek clients who would benefit from the student work. Their work and DVD distribution is free of charge.

"We have to overcome skepticism about the economics and efficacy of video," she says.

To that end, the Penn Program on Documentaries and the Law is holding a roundtable, "Building Video Bridges," on Friday, Oct.17, from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

The conference will include a premiere of the student-produced short documentary "Shmul Kaplan."

Anyone wishing to attend the Roundtable should register in advance by e-mailing Anna Gavin, events coordinator at Penn Law School, at agavin@law.upenn.edu. The organizers will seek approval for four and one-half hours of Pennsylvania Continuing Legal Education credit to be provided for a nominal fee of $25. Please indicate your intention to seek CLE credit when you communicate with Gavin about your attendance.

Note: The Class of 2011 enters with the most accomplished academic record in Penn Law history. They come from 32 states, the District of Columbia and 12 foreign countries.  Fifty-one percent are women; 33 percent are students of color; and 10 percent already hold an advance degree.  Meet one of our new students: Dianna Myles.

By Aisha Mohammed

Eighth grade English teacher, Dianna Myles, has traded in her chalk for a 1L seat at Penn Law School. Coming to Penn fresh from an inner-city classroom, she is ready to influence students from another level: policy-making. 

"Everyone has to be involved," says Myles, a subscriber to the holistic approach pioneered by Geoffrey Canada, founder of the Harlem Children's Zone. Canada's credo is that low-income inner-city kids can learn just as well as affluent suburban kids if they have access to the same resources. To give them an even footing, he provides free social, medical and educational services and encourages parents to participate in their child's education.

As a sophomore at Emory University, Myles had an opportunity to test that holistic approach. Noticing a disturbing trend in Atlanta public schools -- the city was eliminating arts programs for low-income students -- she set out to solve the problem by channeling funds and support from Emory's theater department to inner-city middle school students.

Myles recruited volunteers from the college and founded Bringing up Leaders and Achievers through Student Theater (BLAST) -- a children's musical theatre. Working with 15 students, she organized a performance of "The Wiz," the Broadway hit based on the Wizard of Oz that featured an African-American cast.

Her own high school education was solid, says Myles, which accounts for her desire to address educational disparities. Not only did she study visual arts and music, but she was also active on the debate team. Debating on topics as diverse as Russia, education, and privacy, she discovered a talent for marshaling critical evidence to debunk opposing arguments or create a new line of attack. The thrill of presenting winning arguments before a judge led to an interest in law.

"I particularly care about how children are protected by the law," says Myles, who has also worked to raise awareness of the sexual exploitation of children. It is a major issue in Atlanta, she explained, with underage girls being prosecuted for prostitution. Racial stereotypes impact the way cases are handled, with Caucasian girls getting more sympathy from the community than African-American girls, according to Myles.

Disparities also exist in public education, she says, which is why she became invested in Teach for America, a movement that works to ensure every child has an equal chance in life.

"Public education for low-income and African-American students is not up to standard" because of the overemphasis on test scores at the expense of liberal arts and humanities, says Myles. The singular focus on testing, she says, limits what teachers can do in the classroom.

Despite the constraints, Myles created a lively and engaging learning environment for her eighth graders in St. Louis. She used the Harry Potter books- her favorite series "hands down"-- as the model for an incentive program that encouraged teamwork. Myles passed around a hat filled with questions, much like the "sorting hat" in Harry Potter. Students picked questions and were assigned to one of four houses depending on their answers. They earned points for their house by demonstrating good citizenship, participation, and exceptional work. At the end of the year, the house with the most points -- Hufflepuff in this case-- won dinner and a field trip.

Bad education, Myles says, begins with low standards. School administrators blame student's home environments for poor performance and teachers assume they can never learn. Ultimately, low expectations prevent teachers from creating innovative approaches.

By contrast, Myles set the bar high for her students and to her surprise she found they were jumping to reach it. Emulating her "tough" high school English teacher who pushed her to produce her best, Myles walked her students through the college admissions process.

She showed them how to research schools, put together an application, and write inquiry letters to admissions officers, because she believes it's never too early to start thinking about college. "They were actually invested and cared about what happened," says Myles. One student even brought a template for a resume to class and offered to make copies. Her only regret, after noting their enthusiasm, is that she wishes she'd done it throughout the year.

Although Myles will miss creating magic in her classroom, she looks forward to building the kind of advocacy skills she will need in her ongoing battle to conquer her personal Lord Voldemort: inequality in the schools.

Note: The Class of 2011 enters with the most accomplished academic record in Penn Law history. They come from 32 states, the District of Columbia and 12 foreign countries.  Fifty-one percent are women; 33 percent are students of color; and 10 percent already hold an advance degree.  Meet one of our new students: Dorje Glassman.

By Aisha Mohammed

Dorje Glassman, visiting Tibet for the first time, was searching for the Tibet he thought he understood. Growing up in a Tibetan-Buddhist family, Glassman had come to assume that China was exploiting Tibet and that all Tibetans were naturally anti-Chinese. Tibetans, as far as he could see, had nothing to gain from Chinese rule. What Glassman found instead was a challenge.

Waiting for a bus to Mount Everest, Glassman saw an opportunity to commiserate with a Tibetan student about China's uninvited presence. The student's pro-China comments took him aback. If China had not annexed Tibet, the student claimed, he would never have been able to attend a University in Beijing. To Glassman, the Tibetan's words made about as much sense as Gandhi touting the use of guns. After a heated discussion he understood that Tibet's relationship with China had perhaps led to gains not readily apparent to a foreign eye.

This ability to embrace complexity will come in handy as he prepares to chisel out a future in Chinese law. Towards this end, Glassman, a Levy Scholar, has enrolled in Penn Law's JD/MA program offered through the Lauder Institute. As part of the Chinese track, Glassman will study Mandarin, spend his first summer in China, and earn an MA in international studies.

Glassman's study of Kung Fu ignited his interest in China at the age of 17. Several years later as a sophomore at Oberlin College, he became enchanted by Chinese calligraphy. In order to learn the art, however, he had to commit to a year of Chinese language classes. He quickly discovered that he had a "real affinity" for Mandarin, and spent the next year in Beijing, immersed in the language and culture.

After earning a dual degree in Environmental and East Asian Studies, Glassman returned to China to work as a project manager with a local nonprofit. He spent a year at Yunnan Mountain Heritage Foundation, a small organization that promotes eco-tourism and cultural preservation in the ethnically Tibetan areas of Northern Yunnan. In Yunnan, he initiated a Buy Local campaign, which was inspired by a similar campaign he had witnessed in Carrboro, N.C., while working as a carpenter during summer vacations in college.  Glassman helped start a series of local markets for Tibetans to sell traditional crafts that still exist today.

In China, where slogans are as common as bicycles Glassman was particularly struck by one of ex-President Jiang Zemin's: Use law to govern the country. "Chinese today take it for granted that law should be the foundation of government, but it wasn't always this way. It has gradually become popular opinion," says Glassman.

Glassman's interest in law, like his interest in China, began in his teens. His high school English teacher impressed him with the "exceptional clarity of thought and expression" he demonstrated when discussing Dostoyevsky and Melville. Glassman was lit with a desire to develop and use those skills. A legal education, he felt, would be the best way to do that.

Conversations with friends in China led him to contemplate the legal foundations of the country's pressing social and political issues. "The proper treatment of minorities, the displacement of communities because of development projects, all these issues boil down to the law," says Glassman.

By Glassman's account, it is an exhilarating time to be a lawyer in China. Recent years have seen the emergence of a more accessible civil legal system. As the Chinese government attempts to deal with increasing levels of social unrest -- incidents of social unrest rose from 8,700 in 1993 to 74,000 in 2004 -- judges are reviewing cases in traveling courts, with plaintiffs represented both by non-barred legal workers as well as licensed attorneys. Low-income citizens are seeing avenues open up for legal recourse.

However, those connected to the most politically-sensitive issues, such as Tibetan independence, still face a dead-end. The government declined to renew the licenses of attorneys who represented the Tibetan activists arrested in the spring 2008 Lhasa uprising. But the non-renewal of licenses is rare, says Glassman.

Also excluded from the system are foreign attorneys, since Chinese civil courts are off-limits to them. Although Glassman hopes civil courtrooms will eventually open their doors to foreigners, passing the Chinese bar exams remains a distant dream.  Approximately eight percent of attorneys pass the Chinese bar exams, and foreign attorneys are not permitted to sit for the exam. So Glassman, who hopes to work in China, plans to start his career by training with a commercial litigation firm.

Training in Beijing, however, comes with a bonus: grappling with the contradictions and complexities presented by China. Beijing, explains Glassman, is "one of the few places in the world where one can routinely find farmers selling apples from the back of decrepit carts drawn by gaunt horses parked next to the latest model Mercedes Benz."

Note: The Class of 2011 enters with the most accomplished academic record in Penn Law history. They come from 32 states, the District of Columbia and 12 foreign countries.  Fifty-one percent are women; 33 percent are students of color; and 10 percent already hold an advance degree.  Meet one of our new students: Paul Fattaruso.

By Larry Teitelbaum

Paul Fattaruso writes poetry and fiction that is at once serious and playful, strange and familiar, aimed at providing his readers a fresh view of an old world. The point is, his work eludes easy description. Take his first novel. In 2004, at age 26, Fattaruso published Travel in the Mouth of the Wolf. The book features, among other things, a talking dinosaur, a supernaturally talented shortstop, psychic twins, and a lonely ex-president.

From Homer to Shakespeare to Kafka, writers have consistently explored the ways in which law both shapes and is shaped by our beliefs and actions, he says. He adds that law and literature also share a devotion to precision and close attention to language. Further, he says, the search for truth threads both disciplines.

To further emphasize the two fields' connection, Fattaruso cites a quote from Percy Bysshe Shelly: "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." Fattaruso suggests that poetry and law are both interested in "the moral questions surrounding humans' relationship to the world and to one another."

It was his moral compass that ultimately pointed Fattaruso, who is contemplating the study of intellectual property and environmental law, to law school. After graduating summa cum laude from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1999, Fattaruso earned an MFA from the school, then a Ph.D. in English from the University of Denver. While preparing for his comprehensive exams, Fattaruso celebrated the birth of his son, Max, now two years old. His son's arrival inspired Fattaruso's decision to enter law school and start a new chapter in his life. He started to think about how he could make change in the world and found the study of law the best route. He jokes, "The audience for poetry isn't what it was 100 or 200 years ago, and there are probably more immediate routes to social change."

Nonetheless, Fattaruso's work succeeds on pure literary merit. His first novel was praised   by critics and has been translated into German. His second book, Bicycle, published in 2007, has been hailed as a "tiny masterpiece." His most recent collection of poems is called Village Carved from an Elephant's Tusk.

For the past eight years, during and after his graduate studies, Fattaruso has shared tools of the trade as a college instructor of composition, creative writing, and literature -- an experience he hopes will serve him well in law. "Trying to persuade a group of skeptical college students of the modern-day relevance of Chekhov's plays might be a bit like trying to convince an unsympathetic jury," he quips.

But the jury is not out on one thing: Fattaruso plans to continue writing, although he concedes that the first year of law school could cause writer's block. Will he incorporate law into this work? After all, models exist for such convergence.

Several years ago, poet-novelist Brad Leithauser spoke at Penn Law on how he used his Harvard Law background and early law practice as grist for his writing mill. Noting that law is a rich subject for literature, and one that has not been mined enough, he encouraged more lawyers to write from experience.

Fattaruso likes that idea. He hopes the study and practice of law informs his writing and makes it more complex, layered and experiential. "I expect to maintain writing as a part of my life," says Fattaruso.

Using five camcorders, members of the Visual Legal Advocacy seminar have made a short video that captures the essence of the 2008 Commencement of Penn Law School. Held in the majestic Academy of Music, the video shows the pre-processional preparations; the waving of the class flag; and highlights from the speeches of Matteo Erede, the LL.M class representative, Scott Reich, president of the J.D. class; Jared Genser, the Honorary Fellow, and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Before the graduates know it, all of the names have been read, all of the diplomas have been awarded, and they are on their way to new lives in the law. (Video)

PHILADELPHIA (Sept. 10, 2008)  - Two of the nation's top law and business schools - the Wharton School and the Law School at the University of Pennsylvania - are launching an accelerated three-year program leading to both the JD and MBA degrees.

"As the world becomes more complex, leaders must be able to integrate financial, legal, political and cultural issues like never before," said Michael A. Fitts, dean of Penn Law School.  "From corporate scandals and globalization to crises in the housing and credit markets, there is an obvious need for people with advanced training in the law to be highly skilled in business, and there is no better place anywhere to study business and finance than the Wharton School.

"This will become the leading way to educate tomorrow's leaders on Wall Street," he added.     

Thomas S. Robertson, dean of the Wharton School, agreed. "Business today operates in a complex legal and regulatory environment. Success requires the ability to navigate through this landscape," he said.  "Penn Law, with nine Ph.D.s in economics and two MBAs on its faculty, is able to teach law informed by the considerations important to business.  This three-year program and its demanding curriculum will be irresistible to top students, who also will have access to the exceptional networking and career opportunities that both Penn Law and Wharton provide."

Students in the new program will spend the first year in Law School and the following summer in four Law and Wharton courses designed specifically for the three-year JD/MBA. The second and third years will include a combination of Law and Wharton courses, including capstone courses in the third year and work experience in law, business, finance, or the public sector in the summer between the second and third years.

Penn's three-year JD/MBA is the country's first fully integrated three-year program offered by elite law and business schools on the same campus.  The new program will target potential applicants who will typically have around two years of work experience, whether in law, finance, as entrepreneurs or in investment banking, private equity and related fields.

"We expect that all sorts of people with business experience will apply," said Edward Rock, co-director of Penn's Institute for Law and Economics, the Saul A. Fox Distinguished Professor of Business Law, and an architect of the three-year program.  "Some will want to pursue corporate law or corporate finance while others are likely to go in different directions.  All of them will be able to navigate and lead in the worlds of business and of law, because this is the best way to prepare tomorrow's business lawyers." [View an interview with Professor Rock.]

Applicants must be admitted by both schools in order to enroll in the three-year program.  Students in the joint program will be required to meet the Law School's mandate to perform 70 hours of supervised legal work in a pro-bono setting in order to graduate.

The new program solidifies Penn Law's position as the leading cross-disciplinary law school in the country.  Penn Law already offers 10 other three-year joint degree programs that combine a law degree with master's degrees in bioethics, international studies, education and other disciplines.  In total, Penn Law offers more than 30 joint- and dual-degree and certificate programs; one-half of its students take classes outside the Law School; and 70 percent of its faculty hold advanced degrees in fields other than law, including nearly one-half of the standing faculty holding a Ph.D.

Wharton is the largest business school in the world, with more than 200 standing faculty in 11 departments, including finance, accounting, real estate, health care and more.

The three-year JD/MBA program is expected to enroll about 20 students each year, beginning in September 2009. 

"For a student interested in business law today, it is essential to learn corporate finance," said Professor Rock. "In this combined program, students will be able to complete a full MBA including, if they wish, a major in finance, at the same time as taking numerous advanced courses in corporate law. The graduates of the joint program will be qualified to do just about anything at the boundary between law and business: corporate law; investment banking; private equity; hedge funds; real estate; and more."

Paul S. Levy, a 1972 Penn Law graduate and a former managing director at Drexel Burnham Lambert, recalled that on his first day at Drexel, he was asked to calculate a bond's yield to maturity.  He quietly called a friend with an MBA to help him figure it out.

"A JD/MBA from Penn Law and Wharton will help graduates do much more than calculate yields," said Levy, now the senior managing director and founding partner of the New York-based investment firm JLL Partners, one of the leading private equity investment firms in the country.  "Increasingly, lawyers are CEOs of major corporations, leading figures in private equity, investment bankers and so on.  To prepare tomorrow's lawyers in ways that will enable them to move effortlessly into business and finance, it is clear that a variety of Wharton courses will serve as an invaluable supplement to the more traditional law courses."

In a report commissioned by a Ugandan ambassador, one dozen University of Pennsylvania Law School students are recommending that the war-torn nation modify its eight-year-old Amnesty Act, form a truth and reconciliation commission with subpoena powers, establish a special domestic court to prosecute rebel leaders as an alternative to the International Criminal Court, and recognize the special needs of women and children as Northern Uganda emerges from two decades of civil war.

The students' completed their report one week after Lord's Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony failed to appear at a scheduled ceremony to sign the final cessation of hostilities agreement.

Uganda should "deny amnesty to those individuals who are most responsible for serious crimes, especially the planning and executing of widespread, systematic or serious attacks directed against civilians," the students write. "Under the current act, an individual can receive amnesty for crimes committed after the signing of a peace agreement.... The continuous extension of the Act all but encourages commission of crimes against the Government and undermines peace."

The students spent eight months studying the conflict--including two weeks in Uganda--and conducted five-dozen interviews with Ugandan victims, United Nations representatives, government officials, aid workers and journalists. In addition the students conducted extensive research into international criminal law and local customs related to justice in Uganda.

They undertook the project in response to an invitation from Mirjam Blaak, Uganda's ambassador to the Netherlands, to Penn Law Professor William Burke-White, who teaches a seminar about the provision of justice in the wake of mass atrocity.

"My seminar focuses on topics such as the interaction between domestic and international norms of justice and the tension between peace and justice," Burke-White said. "Often, achieving justice can be an obstacle to peace, because justice requires an accounting of misdeeds."

The conflict between the Ugandan government and the Lord's Resistance Army unfortunately presented the class with a textbook example of a brutal and devastating atrocity, said one of the students, Erin Valentine.

"The International Criminal Court's 2003 indictments of top LRA leaders have put significant pressure on the LRA to participate in the Juba peace talks and led to a relative peace in Northern Uganda." Valentine said. "But the preliminary agreement still must be converted into a final, comprehensive plan for a permanent peace."

Most of the criminal charges to date have been filed against LRA fighters; relatively few government soldiers have been tried in closed-door military tribunals. The government should disclose the results of those trials "in order to move beyond victor's justice to a comprehensive and just peace," said student Nicholas Bentley.

"Every one of our recommendations and every decision that Uganda makes has implications for the entire region because the conflict is reaching across borders," added student Alison Stein.

During their visit to Uganda, the students came somewhat close to talking with one of the LRA's leaders when a person with whom they were visiting placed a call to the rebel fighters. "But we only reached whoever it is who answers his phone when he's sleeping," said student Sarah Ashfaq.

"These students signed up last fall for a three-credit seminar," said the professor, Burke-White. "None of us imagined the long days or the all-night debates in Kampala as we compared notes on our interviews and talked about what we should recommend to the Ugandan government. This was an incredible effort by these students."

The trip was funded by a donation from Richard G. Corey, a principal of Kingdom Zephyr, a private equity fund investment manager focused on Sub-Saharan Africa, and 1974 Law School alumnus.

"I hope that the insights the students gained from their trip and the recommendations that they are making will contribute to a lasting peace in Northern Uganda," Corey said. "These young scholars are among our best and the brightest upcoming legal minds, and I was delighted to help them try to make a difference in the world."

The students presented their findings and recommendations to Penn Law School faculty and students in April and will make presentations to representatives of nongovernmental organizations; the U.S. State Department and Congress; and the Ugandan government in May.

PHILADELPHIA - An email making the rounds this month in the legal blogosphere from a female attorney laid off six days after her miscarriage - "What kind of people squander human relationships so easily?" - is the latest example of women lawyers using non-legal methods to advocate for their rights in the workplace.

"One would expect that women lawyers, when confronted with unfair hiring practices, unequal pay, or unjust choices, would turn to the legal system," writes Alison I. Stein, a student at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. "Nonetheless, a growing group of women lawyers are using the Internet - and, in particular, blogging - to resolve their disputes, address their personal grievances, challenge implicit male bias engrained in the profession, and share and obtain the information they need to become stronger bargainers in the workplace."

Stein will present her paper - "Women Lawyers Blog for Workplace Equality: Blogging as a Feminist Legal Method" - at the Joint Annual Meetings of Law and Society Association and Canadian Law and Society Association, May 30 in Montreal. She will be joined on a panel by law professors from City University of New York, University of Illinois, and Cleveland State University. Her paper also will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism.

"From cattle ranchers to diamond merchants to third-wave feminists ... groups of people opt out of the legal system - and instead use personalized and informal methods of rights assertion - as a means of 'overcoming the ineffectiveness' of state-sponsored laws," writes Stein.

For a much earlier, low-tech version of the same technique, Stein points to Myra Bradwell, who in 1873 was denied membership to the Illinois State Bar because "the natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for the many occupations of civil life."

Bradwell responded by establishing what became the country's most widely circulated legal newspaper, the Chicago Legal News, in which she "advocated for legal reforms in women's rights, child custody and in the legal system ... and transformed the public's perceptions about women practicing law."

But that transformation went only so far, Stein argues, because while nearly one-half of all law school graduates since 1992 have been women, only about 15 percent of law firm partners are female and women comprise only 25 percent of tenured law school professors, the career goal that Stein has set for herself.

Female lawyers are being "pushed" out of the profession by "inflexible jobs, lack of good, affordable childcare, and lack of paid leave to take care of sick children," she writes. In 2006, concern about the rates at which women opt out of the legal profession led a group of female law students from 10 of the nation's top law schools to create the blog "Ms. JD: Changing the Face of the Legal Profession," where members provide "networking opportunities, critical analysis of relevant news, and thoughtful discussions for women about their chosen fields of law." Newer, similar blogs include "Up to PAR" (a blog started by the Project for Attorney Retention) and "Building a Better Legal Profession."

Female lawyers turn to blogging because the law's ability to vindicate their rights is limited, their grievances are born out of institutional biases or mindsets, and because the anonymity of blogging lets them give voice to their complaints without risking their reputations.

For example, a 2007 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court (Ledbetter v. Goodyear) held that victims of pay discrimination must challenge that discrimination within 90 days. But "if a woman does not know that she is being paid unequally for more than 180 days after her first paycheck, her claim is barred," Stein writes. "By blogging about what various firms pay men and women, and by using blogs to discuss various ways in which to approach salary discussion, women are using an alternative method to address grievances that are legal in character."

Stein concludes: "Blogs like Ms. JD and Building a Better Legal Profession appear to have succeeded in leveraging market pressures to change business practices. Legal recruiting directors across the country have seen an increase in the numbers of men and women--both law students and lateral hires--who ask about work/life issues during the interview process."

Or, as the laid-off big-law female lawyer writes in her email circulating in the blogosphere: "We are human beings first before we are partners or associates."