Elliott Milstein and I attended the Minnesota Equal Justice Colloquium on November 10, 2000. Although the attendance was lower than what we might have hoped, there were about 60 different people there throughout the day. The conference opened with brief remarks from a panel of local law schools Deans. Although the Deans did not stay throughout the day, their presence obviously indicated their support for the project. Elliott then introduced the EJ Project.

Lucie White delivered a morning keynote address entitled “Equal Justice and Legal Scholarship.” She focused on how our scholarship can support a partnership approach to equal justice work. She stated that the process of joining forces with low-income communities is as important as the specific project objectives, and that it is the process that creates the learning. Such partnerships expand the capacities for client voice, for forming and working effectively in groups, for strategic planning, and for democratically constituted leadership.

Professor White also outlined strategies for research and scholarship arising out of partnerships with local communities. They include the following: 1) Conventional, issue-oriented research. For example, she worked with a group in Ghana that brain-stormed about economic development issues, and ideas needing additional research; 2) Research that consciously involves low-income participants. This research helps to enhance the knowledge base within low-income communities, with the academics structuring the research; and 3) Research that documents the partnership, such as case studies. Professor White also outlined some of the challenges of her work. They include the temptation to have a “humanitarian rescue” mind set and to see the work as part of a “moral crusade” in which community members are enlisted to do it our way.

Lucie’s presentation was followed by a panel of providers. Julie Bennett of Central Minnesota Legal Services identified issues that her clients face that need additional research, including the relationship between welfare reform and housing, a variety of TANF issues including its effects on clients’ stability, whether or not the job training programs work, and child care issues. Other areas needing research and attention are children’s SSI and family law.

Liz Richards of the Battered Women’s Legal Advocacy Project candidly said that they do not look to the law schools as a resource, because we are ineffective for their clients’ needs. She told anecdotes of law students who were unable to think creatively and to understand the need to expand the law to assist their clients. Most significantly, they look to nonlawyers to assist them. On a more positive note, she said they are working to develop a Tribal Justice Project that is developing different models for tribes in resolving domestic disputes. She emphatically encouraged us all to train our students to think creatively.

Dave Kudak, of Legal Aid Society of Northeastern Minnesota, who practices in a rural setting, encouraged us to think about mechanisms to make it possible for more students to do equal justice work after graduation. His suggestions included reducing the costs of law schools and more loan forgiveness programs. Issues he would like assistance with included bias against Native Americans, the effects of the sixty-month welfare cap, profiling of gangs based on race, and mental illness issues. Jim Hankus of the Ramsey County Public Defenders Office rounded out the panel, encouraging law schools to help them attract graduates of color.

This panel was followed by small group discussions, organized by topic. Topics included housing/legal services, immigration and human rights, rural issues, criminal law, and battered women’s issues. I attended the discussion on rural issues. The following suggestions were generated in this discussion: 1) Have law school faculty supervise students doing research projects for legal services lawyers in remote locations; 2) Link clinical program graduates with pro bono opportunities; 3) Offer more training on diversity issues; and 4) Engage students to research projects that address systemic issues, such as local transportation problems (that contribute to clients’ missing welfare and other appointments), changes in regulations, etc.

Susan Curry, Director of the Minnesota Justice Foundation (MJF), made a lunchtime presentation on their Law School Public Service Program. Each student in a Minneapolis law school is encouraged to perform 50 hours of law-related public service. MJF acts as a clearinghouse for potential volunteer opportunities. They have offices and staff at each law school. MJF is funded with contributions by the law schools and independent fund-raising. This very interesting model is successful, according to Susan, because of their physical presence at the law schools, the role of bar leaders and clinicians in its initial design, their ability to do face-to-face recruiting, the strength of the legal services programs, and the proximity of the law schools to each other. Susan also reported on MJF’s newest initiative to introduce a poverty law perspective in the first year curriculum at the local law schools. MJF clearly plays an integral role in encouraging the law schools to expand their equal justice work.

The afternoon began with a panel on equal justice and the curriculum. Steve Befort of Minnesota provided more details on the joint project with MJF to address poverty issues in the first year curriculum. The proposal is to encourage faculty to develop “modules” on poverty law that could be taught in the first year courses. The proposal includes faculty incentives provided by the law schools in the form of money and publication rights for those interested in developing the modules. The long-term goal is to publish theses materials. Steve also reported on several institutes at Minnesota that address equal justice issues, including the Race and Poverty Institute run by john powell and the Center for Human Rights.

Carol Chomsky, also of Minnesota, gave examples of how to incorporate equal justice issues in the traditional curriculum. She encouraged us to: 1) Discuss the impact of the rules on different kinds of people; 2) Hear the voices of those excluded from the legal process, by incorporating less traditional cases and materials; and 3) Open the classroom to the diverse perspectives that the students bring. Carol enthusiastically discussed alternative materials she uses in her first year contracts class that address mental disability issues, medical services for the poor, and domestic violence issues. She also has her students assume different roles, such as low-income homeowner, small business person, etc, in their classroom discussions, and evaluate how the legal issues affect them. Carol also has her students work with community organizations, learning about the members’ needs and lives, and developing contract rules that address important issues in their members’ lives.

Angela McAfferty of Hamline discussed aspects of their curriculum that relate to equal justice issues. Their efforts include having faculty rotate into the clinic, promoting student concentrations in social justice and children and the law, a faculty colloquium to address how to better reach students, and dialogue among students, faculty, and Deans about the classroom climate. Larry McDonough, an adjunct at Minnesota who co-teaches poverty law, has developed his own materials, using legal services as a resource.

This panel was followed by small group discussions on incorporating these issues into the curriculum.

The final event of the afternoon was a presentation on a proposed Community Development Clinic. The proposal, submitted by Lindsey Jones and Tisha Tallman, is to create a Minnesota Sustainable Assistance Project, hopefully situated at a law school or consortium of law schools. The goal is to provide technical and legal assistance to low wealth communities for community revitalization and sustainable development initiatives. Law students would be paired with mentor lawyers with particular expertise in applicable transactional law. This proposal has been submitted to various funding entities, and Lindsey is seeking additional support from the law schools. The interesting proposal was well received.

To conclude, Maury Landsman of Minnesota summarized the day and outlined some of the issues that had been discussed. He mentioned the need for a Criminal Defense Policy Institute, housed within a law school, to identify law reform issues and get the institutions more involved in these important issues. He identified the need for more collaboration between traditional faculty and legal services providers, particularly around curriculum issues. The MJF proposal for the first year curriculum is an excellent step in this direction. Maury also highlighted the important issues related to domestic violence, and the need for empirical research (about case dispositions, housing for battered women, welfare, domestic violence and work, pro se issues, etc.) Maury concluded with suggestions for continuing this discussion: 1) Semiannual meetings between faculty and providers to discuss important issues; 2) Discussions during local conferences; 3) Developing a listserve to address these issues; and 4) More outreach by the law schools to the community.

Although the audience was small in number, they were enthusiastic. There are some exciting things happening in Minnesota, and some models that may be replicable in other parts of the country.

For further information contact the local planner listed below:

Maury S. Landsman
University of Minnesota Law School
229 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 625-5515
lands001@tc.umn.edu