10:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Concurrent Sessions on Learning Theory

Directive vs. Non-Directive Clinical Supervision
Leah Aileen Hill, Fordham University
Harriet N. Katz, Rutgers University, Camden
Gemma Solimene, Fordham University

This concurrent session will review and reconsider various methods of supervising student practice. We will test the prevailing theory of the superiority of non-directive supervision in clinical legal education by looking at the day-to-day practices of clinicians on the front line and supervisors in externship placements. Is this long-held theory still valid? Based on the experiences we have had in teaching and supervision of cases in “in-house” clinics and a review of how practitioners “in the field” supervise our students, should we reconsider our teaching methods?

In a recent effort to examine effective teaching methods, Harriet Katz and Cindy Batt questioned a local sample of clinicians and practitioners about their teaching models. Externship practitioners identified a broader range of teaching methods than the clinicians, including some methods that clinicians have opposed. Most striking among these were direct modeling ("watch me do this interview") and collaboration ("let's brainstorm on this problem together") or a combination ("OK, that's how you want to do that motion argument, listen to this idea..."). None of the clinicians stated that they plan to demonstrate a skill as the students watch. Every practitioner regarded modeling as an essential first step. Some clinicians resist the idea of active collaboration with students, preferring a clinical version of the Socratic method to stimulate student independent thinking. Most practitioners seemed to regard completely unaided student thinking as a useful step in the teaching process, or as a goal, but did not hesitate to guide students more actively when necessary.

For the clinicians, we will focus this discussion by eliciting the different methods we use to implement non-directive supervision. How do we do this thing we call non-directive supervision? Under what circumstances do we utilize structured methodologies, i.e. mooting and journaling? Under what circumstances do we engage in organic intellectual exchange, i.e. facilitated brainstorming or guided questioning? Are we truly being non-directive in all of our encounters with students? Should we be? Are there hybrid models of supervision that incorporate directive and non-directive methods that can facilitate student learning and client representation? What factors influence the decision to teach using different models? What can we learn from the seemingly broader range of teaching methods used by practitioners supervising student work?

Harriet Katz is developing a survey list of definitions of teaching/learning modes for the purpose of further research. Copies of the survey will be available at the session, and participants' reaction to content and method of such research is welcome.

What is Skills Training and How Effective are Clinical Programs at Preparing Their Students for Practice ?
Paul Bruce Bergman, University of California at Los Angeles
David A. Binder, University of California at Los Angeles

This session will consist of an inter-active conversation about clinical course design. We believe that a primary yardstick for evaluating the effectiveness of clinical courses is the extent to which they promote students ability to "transfer" lawyering skills from their clinical work to the practice of law. We invite those who want to think and talk about what approaches to clinical course design might best promote the transfer of lawyering skills from the clinic to the practice of law to attend this session.

A bit of background. Recent work of educational researchers and medical school educators has suggested structural attributes that enhance the likelihood of promoting transfer. Few of these structural attributes are present in the "case-centered" course design that has characterized much of clinical education since its inception. We refer to "case-centered" courses as those that are organized around specific types of legal problems such as spousal abuse, immigrants rights and childrens rights. In these courses, clinicians provide instruction and supervise students with respect to an array of lawyering tasks that students might engage in while attempting to resolve those problems satisfactorily.

By contrast, "skills-centered" clinical courses are organized around specific lawyering skills, such as interviewing and counseling or trial techniques. Designing courses around lawyering skills facilitates the employment of structural attributes that promote transfer.

If We Build It They Will Come: Creating the Foundation for an Effective Clinical Structure
Victoria F. Phillips, American University
Joshua D. Sarnoff, American University

This concurrent session will encourage reflection on the basic elements of providing clinical education by using an interactive format to simulate the planning process for a hypothetical new live-client law school clinic. Drawing on the collective experience of the participants, the session will explore the choice of goals, teaching methods, practice activities and practice settings associated with the creation of a clinic. In addition to the fundamental elements of clinic design, the session will also address institutional support, funding, faculty and community resources, and practice rules.

Use of Empirical Study to Assess the Value of Feedback by Non-Lawyers
Lawrence M. Grosberg, New York Law School
Ian S. Weinstein, Fordham University

This session builds on our previous respective work¹ on the use and study of lay-person evaluation of lawyering skills and how the examination of multiple intelligences may be best reflected in different kinds of assessment methods. Our goal is to open up for discussion several questions: 1) Should clinicians (as well as non-clinicians) be using different methods of evaluation in assessing the various skills we hope to be teaching our students? 2) If the answer is yes, can we effectively use non-lawyers to contribute to these evaluation efforts? And 3) should we be collecting data that analyzes the effectiveness of using different methods of evaluating lawyer performance? Lawrence Grosberg will briefly introduce the work of both and then draw the connections between each body of work. Ian Weinstein will describe his earlier paper studying the differences between clinical assessments of student performances in simulated lawyering activities (e.g. interviewing, counseling or negotiating) and the results of students’ performance on more traditional written exams. He then will summarize the results of his study and raise questions as to the desirability of using mixed assessment methods both in clinical/skills courses and in traditional doctrinal courses. Lawrence Grosberg will discuss the genesis of his work with “standardized clients”; his current use of this technique in a required first-year course, Lawyering; and the goals of his further empirical study of the use of this method of evaluation. One overriding question for clinicians is whether conducting such empirical study is a worthwhile endeavor, considering the limited time and energy for various other clinical activities.
-Download Evaluation Checklist for Witness Interview by Grosberg (PDF)-

¹ Lawrence M. Grosberg, Medical Education Again Provides a Model for Law Schools: The Standardized Patient Becomes the Standardized Client, 51 J. Legal Educa. 212 (2001); Ian Weinstein, Testing Multiple Intelligences: Comparing Evaluation by Simulation and Written Exam, 8 Clinical L. Rev. 247 (2001).

What Skills Should We Be Teaching? What Do Lawyers Do? Why? What Will They Do? What Should We Be Teaching? How? Does it Matter?
Peter Toll Hoffman, University of Houston
Kimberlee K. Kovach, The University of Texas

In an effort to explore what skills we should be teaching (and perhaps the various ideologies underlying those skills) this session will first examine current law practice. A “day in the life of a lawyer” based upon short initial interviews of Texas lawyers provides a backdrop for an analysis of skills used in practice. Innovative and alternative roles for lawyers such as mediation, collaborative law and interdisciplinary work will also be considered. We then examine how these roles compare with the skills currently taught, exploring the tension between the current, dominant curriculum and the movement toward a more problem-solving role for lawyers. Additional considerations involve the difficulties encountered when attempting to teach certain skills after indoctrination of the adversarial

paradigm. In addition, in skills such as mediation and negotiation, a number of different philosophies exist, and difficulty arises in determining what to teach in terms of the preferred approach. Finally, if time allows, we will engage in a discussion of the ‘how” of teaching these skills, particularly where students have become accustomed to a socratic or lecture approach to learning.

Teaching Students to Understand their Limits and to Set Boundaries With Clients
Jennifer A. Gundlach, Suffolk University
Ann Juergens, William Mitchell College of Law
Angela Mc Caffrey, Hamline University

Lawyers and clients often come to the relationship with varying expectations about their roles and responsibilities. How can we help our students identify the reasons for these expectations and consider how they might negotiate any conflicts in expectations? What kinds of limits must any lawyer learn to draw with clients and where do those limits lie? What is the impact of such limits on the lawyer and the client’s life? How can lawyers fulfill their ethical and professional responsibilities to clients, while at the same time adopting healthy boundaries in the lawyer-client relationship?

Bridging the Unlikely Yet Natural Gap Between Clinic and Legal Writing
Ruth Anne Robbins, Rutgers University, Camden
Steven David Schwinn, University of Maryland

This session will discuss specific approaches to integrating clinical and legal writing instruction to help us as clinicians further our students’ writing skills in a clinical setting. The presenters have experience in both a clinical and legal writing context, and have intertwined the disciplines in innovative and intensive ways—to the great benefit of our students. Steve Schwinn has brought clinic into his legal writing classroom through a formal collaboration with various clinical programs at Maryland. Ruth Anne Robbins has purposefully designed the Rutgers-Camden domestic violence clinic coursework to include legal writing instruction.

Our dual approaches have incorporated much of the new advancements and sophistication in legal writing pedagogy. We will talk about our different approaches to creating courses that focus on effective forms of writing instruction to students with different learning styles. We will also use discussion time to walk through some examples of ways to provide more effective feedback – beyond mere line editing or overly general comments. We will explore the challenges and benefits of clinic in the first year as it relates to enhancing legal writing skills. Finally, because most law students are initially exposed to lawyering skills during their 1L legal writing courses, we believe that clinicians should have the knowledge to participate in the “shared vocabulary” that is being taught to our students in the first semesters.

Discovering the 21st Century: Evidence
Bryan L. Adamson, Seattle University
David Anthony Santacroce, The University of Michigan

Individuals and public and private entities increasingly rely upon digital information. It comes in a variety of forms, from text to audio/video to databases, email and digital archives. Regardless of its form, it isn’t maintained, stored and accessed the way documents are and you shouldn’t be seeking it the way you would documents and other more “traditional” forms of evidence.

Understanding how digital information is kept and accessed is essential to fully serving clients and avoiding losing the otherwise winnable case. Asking for the right things in the right places is simultaneously becoming more difficult and important. Issues like spoliation, relevance, admissibility, privilege, confidentiality, costs, and burden take on a new light in these changing times. Making full use of evolving discovery devices (and dealing with the limits of those still mired in the past) is increasingly critical. Working with students to develop the skills and knowledge to deal with today’s technology, and the tools to deal with tomorrow falls largely in our laps. Join us in exploring these issues (and more) in Discovery(ing) the 21st Century: E-vidence.

Works-in-Progress
Coordinators:
Katherine R. Kruse, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Michael Pinard, University of Maryland
Download Materials-

• Nancy Cook - Witnessing: A New Role for Lawyers Out of Old Traditions
• Liz Cooper and Beth Schwartz - Lawyering Skills: The Dilemmas of Teaching Outside of the Live-Client Clinic
• Larry Cunningham - Use of a “Boot Camp” Orientation Period for New Clinic Students
• Mary Louise Frampton and Jeff Selbin - Advanced Seminar: Delivery of Legal Services to Low-Income Clients and Communities

This session will explore four curricular works in progress. Larry Cunningham and Liz Cooper explore different models for providing clinic students with the necessary background and training in the classroom. Larry Cunningham’s work (which will be forthcoming in the Mississippi Law Journal) focuses on the role of clinic “boot camps”—frontloaded instruction in an orientation session to help infuse new clinic students with the basic skills necessary to allow them to “hit the ground running.” Liz Cooper will share the evolving experience at Fordham University with their lawyering skills class, which is a stand-alone course required as a pre- or co-requisite for clinic students, and some of the dilemmas they have faced in developing this course over eight years, including how to engage students in meaningfully exploring the connections between theory and practice.

10:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Concurrent Sessions on Social and Economic Justice

The Evolution of Lawyering for Social Justice: Synergies and Transitions
Jeanne Charn, Harvard Law School
Mary Helen McNeal, University of Montana
Kimberly E. O’Leary, Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Dean Hill Rivkin, University of Tennessee
Jeffrey Selbin, East Bay Community Law Center

What If We Did It Differently?

In a participatory format, panelists will propose innovative models for the delivery of legal services in clinics where social justice is a significant goal. Come prepared to engage in thoughtful debate. We intend the session to be provocative, stimulating a range of feelings-from anger to invigoration-about our work. Among the models are:

Model One: We develop a "tough love" approach with our colleagues and friends in clinics and in legal services. Law clinics should provide hard-nosed, constructive critique of themselves, develop rigorous methods, and then invite collaborations with local legal services practices. Clinicians should offer leadership in the field, refusing to provide unrestrained support or to distance ourselves from the difficulties we share with providers outside the academy. This will be hard for us just as it will be for more highly regulated field organizations. The idea is to build genuinely mutual partnerships in which we offer something we have worked hard at, and get and take account of what is the same and what is different in practice. Clinicians should rely on our interdisciplinary connections in the academy and our own service and scholarship obligations to enhance this work.

Model Two: A law clinic should identify patterns in local practice that reveal possible flaws in the provision of social justice within the locality or region. Students should handle a large number of cases, using a targeted approach to achieve a social justice result. The clinic should gather specific data about its work, analyze it carefully to determine whether the perceived flaws in the system were actually present, and evaluate whether the case strategies made any difference. The focus here is on assessment, influencing local service strategies, and expanding the strategies for "impact" beyond "policy" and "impact litigation" and the all too often notion of "service" as about something else.

Model Three: A law clinic should offer alternative and innovative delivery models. Because most law clinics are not constrained by service restrictions, clinics should explore options such as fee for service, broader income guidelines, group delivery plans, multidisciplinary practice, and collaboration with the private bar. Clinics should be full partners in developing more extensive, generous and well-designed systems of delivering legal services. The panelists will divide the audience into small groups to explore the models. At the close of the session, the large group will discuss creating a working group around these themes.

Incorporating International Human Rights Norms in Social Justice
Connie M. V. De La Vega, University of San Francisco
Raven C. Lidman, Seattle University
Louise E. Wenner Mc Kinney, Case Western Reserve University

What do international human rights have to do with teaching domestic law in the law school and teaching skills and justice in law school clinics?   We will give examples of how international human rights leaven the students' learning experiences and provide opportunities for the expansion of human rights and justice here in the US, for example to establish a Civil Gideon, to protect labor rights of undocumented aliens, and the juvenile death penalty.  We will include discussion of international procedures as well as incorporation of international practices in other countries.

Do Externships Provide a Vehicle for Students to Explore Social Justice
Linda F. Smith, University of Utah

Some clinicians will immediately respond that the very fact students are placed in the community provides the opportunity (and the responsibility) to explore social justice in that community. Others will note that externships may focus upon the student’s individualized learning plan that emphasis certain skills and competencies, not typically including a critique of social justice.

There are two questions that must be addressed: First, what are the educational goals -- do they include systemic critique or only personal competencies? Second, if an educational goal is a broader understanding of social justice, how should that impact the selection of placements and/or the coverage in the classroom component or tutorial?

I have argued that externships should always endeavor to provide a critique of the institutions which the student encounters.²  In many instances this will lead to a critique of, for example, the “triage” approach to providing legal services to the poor or the “cattle-call” atmosphere of the criminal court. While a student exposed to the DA’s office could come away focused only upon the importance of careful writing, a more valuable goal might be for that student to contemplate how “justice” is influenced by various procedures and practices. This dialogue will be unlikely to occur if the entire externship program is driven by student career desires. However, if faculty offer such commentary for reflection, it is likely the externs will think critically about this topic.³

² Linda F. Smith, Designing an Extern Program 5 Clin. L. Rev. 527 (1999).
³  Linda F. Smith, Why Clinical Programs Should Embrace Civic Engagement, Service Learning, and Community Based Research, ___ Clin. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming, 2004)

Teaching Legislative Advocacy
Kathleen Corrigan, Georgetown University
Anita Michelle Weinberg, Loyola University, Chicago

Teaching legislative and policy advocacy in a clinic setting presents challenges different from traditional clinical teaching. Presenters will describe how they have approached teaching legislative and policy advocacy under very different conditions, and how they have addressed the challenges faced when working with students in the policy and legislative arenas. Time will be provided for workshop attendees to describe their programs and/or the challenges with which they are struggling in trying to develop a legislative and policy program, and for participants to discuss possible solutions.

Law and Clinics and Law and Organizing
Muneer Iftikhar Ahmad, American University
Sameer Ashar, City University of New York
Scott L. Cummings, University of California at Los Angeles
Sarah Hiles Paoletti, American University

This session explores the inclusion of "law and organizing" models of social change in clinical teaching. While progressive lawyers have long sought to connect litigation strategies to mass mobilization, organizing has often been viewed as a goal that is ancillary to the advancement of the

Three-Part Harmony? Service, Skills and Social Justice in the 21st Century Clinic
Barbara L. Bezdek, University of Maryland
Douglas L. Colbert, University of Maryland
Michael Pinard, University of Maryland

There are inherent tensions in clinical legal education between teaching skills, serving clients and remaining faithful to a vision of social justice. These tensions derive from various sources, including design of the particular clinic, institutional constraints on design and practice, students who enroll in the clinic and communities with whom the clinic hopes to work. In this session, we explore these tensions through a role-play centered on the proposal of a new clinical course. For the social justice component, we concentrate on the vision of this particular clinic, which includes figuring out who owns the vision. For the teaching skills component, we focus on the type(s) of students the professor desires, how those students fit with the social justice vision and which skills are necessary to support the students and the social justice mission. For the serving clients component, we explore the proper role of relevant client communities in shaping clinic design and vision. Lastly, we explore the extent to which these tensions are exacerbated by institutional concerns about the particular clinic and its mission. The purpose of our discussion is twofold: 1) we want to brainstorm with the audience ways to reconcile some of these deeply rooted tensions; and 2) we want to recognize the need to engage these issues at each step of clinic design, implementation and reflection.

Clinical Law Firm as a Social Justice Laboratory
Baher Azmy, Seton Hall University
David Jerome Reiss, Brooklyn Law School

Institutional changes in clinical teaching have led to a more student-centered practice, with a primary focus on the education of each student through the intense representation of a limited number of clients.  In this session, we will lead a discussion regarding an alternative model of clinical teaching and institution building – clinical law firm as social justice laboratory. 

Because today’s students appear to have less experience with broad social movements such as those that swept through the ‘60s and ‘70s, the social justice laboratory will serve as an introduction to the type of effective public interest lawyering that can have such a broad effect on society.  We believe that the zealous advocacy of first generation clinical professors can be wed with contemporary clinical practice in a way that provides a unique training ground for the next generation of social justice lawyers.

Indeed, many clinics and clinicians incorporate modalities other than direct client representation.  Such alternatives include: class actions; law reform efforts, such as lobbying and legislative drafting; education, for the general public and for lay specialists; organizing geographic, interest and professional communities; scholarship, training and other writings; and use of the media.

Baher Azmy and David Reiss will draw from their experiences of working with their clinical colleagues on anti-predatory lending measures that include: litigating predatory lending cases in state and bankruptcy court; providing trainings to lay loan counselors; organizing a conference on predatory lending; writing scholarly articles; writing op eds; lobbying the legislature and helping draft legislation; and forming coalitions with legal and non-legal not for-profits.

Topics for discussion will include: involving students in various modalities in a way that promotes their development as lawyers; working with other clinicians at one’s school and elsewhere to support the social justice laboratory model; and working with other divisions of one’s school to support the social justice laboratory mode.

Perspectives in Criminal Justice
Laurence A. Benner, California Western
Laura M.S. Berend, University of San Diego
Lisa C. Smith, Brooklyn Law School

The roots of the criminal justice system are anchored in the lives of the participants – the lawyers, judges, defendants, victims, law enforcement, and the community as a whole. Each has a unique perspective. This session examines a prosecution and a defense clinic that offer students the opportunity to examine the human beings involved in the judicial process.

The Brooklyn Law School Community Prosecution Clinic, taught by Lisa Smith, focuses on misdemeanors and domestic violence cases. In the clinic, the students are allowed to perform all of the functions of an Assistant District Attorney. They are assigned a caseload and are responsible for all aspects of the prosecution of that case, including arraignment, interviewing, discovery, plea bargaining, hearings and trial. Students are not generally from their client’s communities, so teaching cultural competence, visions of social justice, and empathy are a daily struggle. To address this issue the concept of community prosecution was introduced encouraging the students to come to know and understand the concerns of the neighborhood. The students attend Community Board, precinct council, PTA, social service, and merchant association meetings, gaining a first hand understanding of the dynamics of the community.

Client Centered Counseling and Social Justice
Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Pepperdine University
Katherine R. Kruse, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Paul R. Tremblay, Boston College

The client-centered model of lawyeringhas been prevalent in clinical education since the pioneering book by David Binder and Susan Price, Legal Interviewing and Counseling (1977). While the client-centeredness idea has been subject to increasing academic criticism in recent years, it remains central to the curriculum of many clinical programs.This panel will explore this apparent tension, and search for a model (or models) of client counseling that respect the values implicit in the client-centered model but also address issues of the lawyer’s personal moral commitment and social justice values.

The client-centered model incorporates conceptions of client autonomy and lawyer neutrality.Of course, the line between client-centeredness and the idea of "hired gun" is a fine one, and perhaps invisible to some observers. Lawyers for the Enron and WorldCom executives and similar corporate scoundrels may find solace in a model favoring client autonomy, and a ready defense to any criticism of their role in any of their clients' scandals. To some critics, client-centeredness may be good for clients but bad for the rest of the world—and, thus, frequently contributing to injustice.

Some have suggested as an alternative to traditional client-centeredness the notion of "lawyer as friend" (also known as "collaborative lawyering"), with attention paid to the moral connection between the lawyer, the client, and their respective communities. Does this stance offer a greater potential for justice in law practice? Another alternative is that of "moral activism," sometimes known as the "directive approach," in which the lawyer's moral vision takes no back seat to the client's moral (or amoral) decisions. This approach is perhaps the most directly tied to ideas of social justice, but does it too easily privilege a lawyer's moral vision for that of a client's?

Still others may argue, especially in the poverty law context, that good work for clients is almost always the equivalent of socially just work, and so the perceived tension is in fact less than one might imagine. That argument may (although it probably does not) work in legal services and clinical

programs, but even if the argument were true it begs the important questions for students who expect to practice in the world of private wealth—in other words, most clinic students.

Works-in-Progress
Coordinators:
Katherine R. Kruse, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Michael Pinard, University of Maryland
Download Materials-

• Moderator: Daniel M. Filler, The University of Alabama
• Michele Estrin Gilman - Communitarianism and Social Welfare
• Steven Hartwell, Moral Growth or Moral Angst?: A Clinical Solution
• Carwina Weng - Multicultural Lawyering:  Teaching Psychology to Develop Cultural Self-Awareness

These three works-in-progress cover areas relating to theory, practice and pedagogy. Michele Gilman explores the influence of communitarian theory on current federal welfare polices. She critiques the “thin” version of communitarian theory that she asserts is reflected in these policies, and argues that a “thicker” version of communitarian social welfare policy would lead to more effective anti-poverty policies. Steven Hartwell further explores the connection between legal education and law student depression and anxiety. He asserts that one possible causal factor is that legal education thwarts the development of moral reasoning. He presents as a possible solution the incorporation of experiential teaching methods characteristic of clinical legal education, which he argues fuse thinking and feeling and thereby fosters moral development. Carwina Weng continues the discussion pertaining to multicultural lawyering. Simultaneously, she steps back by exploring the theory and framework that underlies multicultural competence, and steps forward by asserting that lessons in cognitive and social psychology are necessary underpinnings of multicultural lawyering training.

2:00 - 3:30 p.m.
Concurrent Sessions on Future Issues

The Use of Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the TJ/Preventive Law Model in Law School Clinical Teaching and Skills Training for Moderators
David B. Wexler, The University of Arizona
Bruce J. Winick, University of Miami

Recent years have seen the emergence of the therapeutic jurisprudence/preventive law model of lawyering; e.g., Dennis P. Stolle, David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick, Practicing Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Law as a Helping Profession (2000); “Symposium, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Preventive Law: Transforming Legal Practice and Education,” 5 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 793-1210 (Bruce J. Winick, David B. Wexler & Edward A. Dauer, Guest Eds 1999); David B. Wexler & Bruce

J. Winick, “Putting Therapeutic Jurisprudence to Work,” 89 A.B.A.J. 54-57 (May 2003); see alsoJudging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts (Bruce J. Winick & David B. Wexler eds. 2003) (applying approach to judging). This model contemplates lawyers practicing with an ethic of care and heightened interpersonal skills, who seek to prevent legal difficulties for their clients through sensitive counseling, advance planning, creative problem solving, careful drafting, and the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.

In recent years, this emerging model has begun to penetrate legal education. It has much to offer clinical legal education, in particular. This session seeks to show how therapeutic jurisprudence and the TJ/Preventive law model have been used in clinical legal education and skills training, and to demonstrate their value in this context. The session brings together law professors from throughout the country, who will describe their use of the approach in clinical legal education and skills training courses across the legal spectrum. David Wexler and Bruce Winick will present the model in a joint session, and thereafter, three concurrent sessions will illustrate and analyze its application in various contexts -- the teaching of lawyering skills generally; in family, juvenile, and related areas; and in criminal/institutionalized settings.

Lawyering Skills
Leslie Larkin Cooney, Nova Southeastern University
Susan Swaim Daicoff, Florida Coastal
Amy D. Ronner, St. Thomas University
Bruce J. Winick, University of Miami

Family, Juvenile, and Elder Law
Barbara A. Babb, University of Baltimore
Susan L. Brooks, Vanderbilt University
Cindy E. Faulkner, Thomas S. Cooley
Bernard P. Perlmutter, University of Miami
Carolyn Salisbury, University of Miami

Criminal/Institutionalized Settings
Greg Baker, College of William & Mary
Peter J. De Wind, University of Wisconsin
Keri A. Gould, St. John’s University
David B. Wexler, The University of Arizona

Describing the Basics: The Task of Formulating “Best Practices” for Externships
Francis J. Catania, Jr., Widener University
Mary Jo Eyster, Brooklyn Law School
Alexander Scherr, University of Georgia

The panel in this concurrent session will introduce and explain the CLEA Externship Best Practices Project (EBPP), discussing the difference between “best” practices, good practices, and mandatory minimum standards such as the ABA Standards. After a brief sketch of the evolution of externship programs and their design and regulation, and an overview of the principles and commentary in the current draft of the EBPP, the panel will discuss some of the challenges that participants in the project have faced. These include: issues in attempting to define a practice as “best”; dealing with the diversity of approaches to program design within the externship community; attempting to identify and canvass the “externship community”; distinguishing between effective styles of externship teaching and “best” practices in externship teaching; steering between overly specific formulations and uselessly general abstractions; seeking empirical support for conclusions about “best practices” in such formulations as “What is most commonly done?” and “What has been the actual impact of this particular practice?”; composing a document about “best practices”; and supporting “best practices” document with citation to authoritative sources. Finally, the panel will consider possible goals and uses for the EBPP and for best practices reviews generally in clinical legal education, and assess what has been learned about the externship community and externship pedagogy from the best practices process.

Why Not a Clinical Civil Procedure Course? Integrating C linical Models into Stand Up Courses and the Curriculum: What About the First Year Curriculum?
Erica M. Eisinger, Wayne State University

In 1933, Jerome Frank asked, “Why Not a Clinical Lawyer-School?” The clinical lawyer-school hasn’t happened. Instead, for the most part, we have a traditional first-year curriculum and, in the second and third years, some students participate in law school clinical programs. The disjunction between theory and practice, between learning and doing, between “stand up” courses and clinics generally remains unchanged in the first year – a critical time in a law student’s legal education. This session asks: Why not start teaching clinical methodology in the first year? And why not start with civil procedure? The presentation reviews the major obstacles to a clinical civil procedure course, talks about strategies to overcome them, and then explores what a first-year clinical civil procedure course would look like. Participants are invited to share their experiences incorporating clinical methodology into the first-year curriculum generally and civil procedure specifically.

Clinical Teaching on Domestic Violence, Divorce and Mediation: Research, Options and Interventions
Kelly Browe Olson, University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Nancy Ver Steegh, William Mitchell College of Law

Domestic violence and mediation are the focus of an increasing number of clinical programs. Both areas lend themselves to interdisciplinary work. This presentation will focus on teaching students about the intersection of domestic violence and mediation, in either clinic. Participants will consider social science research concerning different types of domestic violence and compare adversarial divorce and mediated divorce in terms of effectiveness, satisfaction rates, compliance, safety, etc. The presenters will suggest ten factors that victims of domestic violence might consider in making an informed choice about which divorce process to use.
-Download Handout 1-
-Download Handout 2-

Teaching Politics? Lessons From Other Disciplines
Spencer Rand, Temple University

Through our clinical teaching, many of us hope that we are imparting a vision of social justice that will help our students to provide socially relevant legal services while they are in our clinicals and that they will go on to consider doing so in their practices. Among professional schools, we are not alone. Just as we use the academic and the practical parts of our clinical teaching to discuss our clients' problems in their broader context, instructors at other professional schools have similar strategies. Whether it be the social work teacher whose entire method of serving clients stems from teaching of power imbalances or the medical school instructor who needs students to look at lead abatement to deal with a child's lead poisoning, many of us try to teach our students to look at a broader picture and believe it is necessary to do so to provide quality services.

In this session, I will lead a discussion on ways in which other professional schools impart their values to their students in their clinical teaching and whether we can use similar techniques in our legal clinicals. I will focus in part on a particular model of social work school training that has moved from the traditional "problem solving approach" to the "empowerment" approach. In that approach, you cannot practice without accepting a certain view of social justice. No intervention is

taken without the power structure in view and political action with and on behalf of their clients is integral to their work. We will discuss the risks and benefits of teaching that a particular political bent is integral to good legal practice. We will also discuss ways that I have used the empowerment model as a way to inform my student's legal practice and how participants feel it could be applied effectively. I will also report on attempts made by people at other professional schools (likely medical and business schools) to impart values to students and have a discussion about how these techniques could transfer to our clinical settings.

Intellectual Property Clinics

Clinical Legal Education in Transitional Societies
Jane M. Spinak, Columbia University
Edwin B. Rekosh, Columbia University
Barbara A. Schatz, Columbia University
Joost P. J. van Wielink, Researcher in Public International Law, The Amsterdam International Law Clinic, Amsterdam Center for International Law, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Clinical education has been rapidly developing in many parts of the world. In Europe, the greatest growth has been in the countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Western European models have also begun to emerge. Throughout the region, clinical teachers are experiencing many of the joys and challenges that American teachers have experienced throughout the history of clinical legal education in the United States. The session will be divided into two parts: the panelists will address the following issues in short presentations before opening the session to general discussion.

1) When experienced clinical teachers participate in the development of clinical education in other societies, they are given the opportunity to reconsider their own work through these new experiences. As a result, many teachers feel reinvigorated as they reconsider the basic justifications for clinical education and draw from these fresh experiences for their own teaching. 2) In transitional societies, clinical education takes on multiple roles for law students, law professors and lawyers. In addition to introducing new forms of pedagogy and elevating the introduction of lawyering skills during law school, clinical education has begun to be instrumental in the development of the rule of law in emerging democracies. 3) Translating ideas of clinical education from one society to another is a complex endeavor. Clinical teachers who work in multiple societies must learn to understand the local environment in ways that allow them to assist their colleagues without imposing inappropriate or irrelevant models of legal education or public interest representation. 4) Creating a clinic in an educational environment that is wary or outright hostile to the idea is a daunting task. In addition, if there is a history of practicum learning that informs ideas about clinical education that may be incorrect, creating a clinic that encompasses the multiple goals of clinical learning may be even harder.

Cultural Considerations in Problems Solving and Advocacy
April Land, University of New Mexico
Aliza Organick, Washburn University
Carol Suzuki, University of New Mexico

Legal education has evolved to include classes on cross-cultural competency as part of many clinical courses. Cross-cultural competency teaches students to be sensitive to difference, identity, bias and stereotyping. The focus of this concurrent session is building on the basics of advocacy and problem solving to be accountable to clients’ needs from a cultural perspective. We will explore tools for

The Training of New Clinicians
Justine Dunlap, Southern New England
Irene Scharf, Southern New England

This session will address the training of new clinicians in two different ways. Justine Dunlap will discuss what clinicians need and want for training, based on data from three years of surveys of new clinicians. She will then suggest to new clinicians and senior clinic faculty alike what they can do to ensure that new clinicians get appropriate training. (This information is taken from a forthcoming article in the Clinical Law Review that Justine Dunlap co-authored with Peter Joy, Washington University.) Irene Scharf will talk about the specific ways she trains new clinicians – who may also be relatively new lawyers – in a hybrid clinic setting. She will focus on how to train new clinical teachers in both clinical skills and substantive law. The presentation will also incorporate the training experiences of those in the audience.

Works-in-Progress
Coordinators:
Katherine R. Kruse, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Michael Pinard, University of Maryland
Download Materials-

• Geneva Brown - Traumatic Bonding: A New Defense for Battered Women?
• Aminata Fulani N. Ipyana - Admission of Prior Sex Offenses under Federal Rules of Evidence 413-415
• Linda E. Fisher - Guilt by Expressive Association: Political Profiling, Surveillance and the Privacy of Groups.

This panel will focus on several works-in-progress addressing substantive areas of law. These presentations make arguments for doctrinal change in the areas of criminal and constitutional law. One panelist will discuss the potential of a "traumatic bonding syndrome" defense in cases where an abused parent becomes an accomplice in her own child's abuse. Another will look at the costs of of admitting evidence of prior bad acts in sexual offense prosecutions. A third panelist will consider the permissible scope of surveillance of political groups in light of First Amendment associational rights.

9:30 – 10:15 a.m.
Concurrent Sessions

Economic Development as Social Justice: The Role of the University in Community Transformation
Brenda Bratton Blom, University of Maryland

Interdisciplinary Teaching Models: Law/Business Clinics: Pace Law School’s Securities Arbitration Clinic and Pace’s Lubin School of Business
Ronald W. Filante , Associate Professor of Finance, Lubin School of Business, Pace University
Jill Gross, Pace University

This concurrent session will discuss interdisciplinary clinical education teaching models for law school clinics that collaborate with business school faculty and/or students. The session will describe the interdisciplinary collaboration initiated in January 2003 between the Securities Arbitration Clinic (“SAC”) at Pace Law School -- a live-client clinic in which students provide legal assistance to eligible small investors who have disputes with their securities brokerage firms that must be resolved in arbitration -- and the graduate program at the Lubin School of Business. In the collaboration,

2:00 - 2:45 p.m.
Concurrent Sessions

CRA/Predatory Lending
Richard Marsico, New York Law School
Robert A. Solomon, Yale Law School

CRA/Predatory Lending: As banks are becoming larger and more complex, it is becoming more and more difficult to hold them to their obligations to meet community credit needs under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). In addition, banks, having discovered profitable lending opportunities in low-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color, are busy introducing high-cost and fraudulent loan products to such neighborhoods. This panel will consider advocacy issues concerning

Combining Clinical and High School Education to Promote Social Justice
Terry F. Hickey, University of Maryland
Michael A. Millemann, University of Maryland

This session will focus on high school law-related education programs, including the Community Law in Action (“CLIA”) program at the University of Maryland School of Law. CLIA is a youth-focused law and policy reform organization that includes a clinical law course as one of its central components. The course specializes in providing advocacy, collaborative problem-solving, public policy, and community development education for law students (usually 8-10 a semester) and public high school students (50 or so each semester). The CLIA Clinic is an opportunity for law students to learn – and then teach – critical legal concepts and skills to young people working for change in their communities and schools, while helping those youth to accomplish their reform goals.

2:45- 3:30 p.m.
Concurrent Sessions

Tax Clinics
Charles A. Borek, University of Baltimore
Jerome Borison, University of Denver
Kathryn J. Sedo, University of Minnesota

The workshop will discuss the ins and outs of establishing a tax clinic at a law school, including recruiting qualified professors, getting faculty and decanal approval and getting matching grants from the IRS.  The workshop will also discuss operational aspects of tax clinics, such as substantive teaching, student recruitment, case selection, grand rounds, grading, summer coverage and the like.

Intellectual Property Clinics
Elizabeth Rader, Esq., Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School
Jennifer M. Urban, University of California, Berkeley

Begun only about three years ago, intellectual property and technology law clinics have flourished. Wondering what the buzz is about? Interested in finding out more about starting an IP clinic or hearing what we've been doing? Are your students interested in getting involved in intellectual property cases but you are not sure whether to take them on? Come to the Intellectual Property Clinics concurrent session. Elizabeth Rader of the Cyberlaw Clinic at the Stanford Center for Internet & Society and Jennifer Urban of Boalt's Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic will lead a discussion covering the basics of what IP clinics have been doing and some different approaches clinics take to clinical teaching and public interest lawyering in this space. Existing clinics differ greatly in subject matter and pedagogical approach, and we think there are interesting opportunities for participation ranging from adding a project or two a year to your civil, criminal, legislative, or policy clinic, to starting a full-fledged IP Clinic. Leaders and participants will discuss our experiences, which we hope will be helpful to anyone considering starting up a new clinic or taking IP cases in their existing civil or criminal clinics.