The Seattle Equal Justice Project was very well attended and received tremendous support from the Seattle University Dean, faculty and staff. Approximately 150 people registered, with a few less actually attending. Dean Rudy Hasl participated for the entire event, as did faculty from Idaho, Montana, Oregon, University of Washington, Lewis and Clark, and Gonzaga. The conference also drew legal services attorneys, other legal advocates, judges, and private attorneys.

Friday, January 19, 2001

The conference began with a preliminary session for law students on the “Nuts and Bolts of Legal Services.” This session conducted by Chris Allen Crowell of Seattle University’s Access to Justice Project and Klaus Sitte, Deputy Director of Montana Legal Services, provided helpful background information on legal services issues for law students interested in attending the remainder of the conference.

Friday evening there was a reception and welcoming dinner for conference attendees. LSC President John McKay was unable to attend due to the inauguration, but Dean Rivkin gave a great talk about the Equal Justice Initiative and interesting projects occurring around the country addressing equal justice issues.

Saturday, January 20, 2001

“Challenging Cooperation Despite Conflicting Missions”

Saturday morning began with an enthusiastic welcome from Seattle University Dean Rudy Hasl. Mary Helen McNeal followed up with a brief introduction on the Equal Justice Project. The early morning panel, entitled “Challenging Cooperation Despite Conflicting Missions,” included Professor john powell of the Institute on Race and Poverty at the University of Minnesota and Ada Shen-Jaffe of Columbia Legal Services.

Professor powell discussed the role of equal justice issues within law school curricula. Relying on his work on diversity curriculums in primary schools, he pointed out that diversity training is usually either an “add-on” or, if more integrated into the curriculum, the rest of the script remains the same, with the diversity piece added in. When schools are challenged as to why they do not do more than that, they respond that they are feeders to other institutions and therefore must stay within the mold. Professor powell said that law schools are similar, in that increasingly we are preparing students for the bar, and that the bar is becoming a policing institution. Equal justice issues typically are addressed in law schools as an “add-on.” These issues may be addressed in clinics, but the clinics have been unable to imbue the law schools with different missions.

Within the law school itself, Professor powell continued, tenure is the policing force which makes it hard to encourage an emphasis on equal justice issues. In his view, most law school missions are not consistent with an equal justice mission. To have an equal justice mission, a school needs to develop coalitions, a community vision and community purpose, and an institutional structure that furthers the equal justice goals. He pointed out that although we require public service of all faculty, faculty are not turned down for tenure if their service is inadequate.

Professor powell then asked what we mean by equal justice - is the phrase redundant? Do we mean access to courts, to legal apparatus? Access to the law doesn’t necessarily mean justice. If we could tie the equal justice movement to justice, there may be a common mission with law schools. Professor powell said that justice is not a distributive model, but rather, that everyone’s deficit is related to someone else’s privilege. With respect to legal services, justice requires that everyone be permitted to participate in naming the important resources in the first instance.

Ada Shen-Jaffe began with the premise that law schools and providers of services for low income and underrepresented people have the same mission, and are like “complimentary proteins.” We share the same mission because the constitution, declaration of independence, and Supreme Court case law require it. Ms. Shen-Jaffe described the mission of Washington state’s equal justice community, and the hallmarks of that vision. She argued that law school missions can be consistent with those objectives. Law schools should examine the AALS mission statement and explore whether it is consistent with an equal justice mission, identify partners with whom they can work to further justice, and examine what the law school can bring to the table.

Ms. Shen-Jaffe said law schools should “step up to the plate and swing.” Law schools need to focus more on teaching values and professional development, and should help communities replace the legal services infrastructure that Congress has been dismantling. She said law schools should be providing leadership and role modeling. Ms. Shen-Jaffe argued that law schools are uniquely positioned due to their institutional memory, and are positioned to carry out ideas over time.

“What Legal Services Providers Need From Law Schools”

The next panel challenged law schools to become more involved in specific ways. It included John Adams, Public Defender from Kootenai County, Idaho, Richard Baldwin, Director of the Oregon Law Center, Trudy Flamand, Indian law practitioner from Helena, Montana, and Patrick McIntyre, Director of the Northwest Justice Project. Dick Baldwin encouraged schools to develop a culture of professional responsibility that includes increasing access to justice, encouraged individual faculty to become leaders and to foster student participation in equal justice projects, and educate ourselves so we can become effective advocates on equal justice issues. Pat McIntyre invited law schools to become integrated into “client-centered state justice communities” in a meaningful way.

“Incorporating Equal Justice Throughout the Law Curriculum”

Professor Barbara Aldave of the University of Oregon provided an inspiring talk following lunch. Like Professor powell, she began by discussing what we mean by justice. Acknowledging that we have not gone far enough, even in our aspirations, she noted that our goal should be equal justice, not just equal administration of the rules. Professor Aldave outlined various kinds of justice, including individual or commutative justice, distributive justice, and social justice. Social justice focuses on what we owe society and humanity, and how we can create a social context that treats all with respect. Distributive justice focuses on what is owed by society to each individual. In the United States, we focus on individual justice, with insufficient attention to social justice. Professor Aldave argued that when we say we need equal justice, we should be addressing how to provide students with the knowledge, skills, and commitment to work for social and distributive justice as well as individual justice. We need to inspire students to work for REAL justice, not just equal administration of the rules. To say nothing about equal justice is to acquiesce in the status quo.

Professor Aldave then addressed how we might do this in our teaching. She recommended that we revisit our curricula, particularly the first year curriculum, and adapt them to the demands of our time (noting that they have remained the same since 1900!). She recommended more interdisciplinary courses, a focus on international and comparative law, skills training, an emphasis on the internet and high tech, and education about justice issues. Mainstream courses should incorporate discussion, student observation, and problem solving activities.

Professor Aldave then described clinics as a “golden opportunity” for discussing the root causes of clients’ situations. Every clinical program should educate students on the law, assist them in honing their skills, and engage the students, in the clinic or the classroom component of the clinic, in rigorous study of the causes of legal needs and remedies. Finally, she argued that every law professor should be required, at least in alternate years, to teach in the clinic or in associated classroom courses. This would result in a multiplication of resources devoted to equal justice issues, and would inspire more faculty to incorporate equal justice issues into traditional course offerings.

The afternoon continued with the following concurrent sessions:

1) “Incorporating Equal Justice Teaching Throughout the Curriculum” (Summary prepared by Dean Rivkin)

The first speaker was Professor Kellye Testy of Seattle University, who teaches contracts, corporate law, securities, etc. At the outset, Prof. Testy emphasized that, to incorporate justice teaching throughout the curriculum, we need to concentrate on how we teach, as well as what we teach. Students need teachers who reach out to them in all of their diversity, including learning styles. Students who do not respond to the Socratic method, for example, often become very marginalized. Decisions about teaching methods and styles are political choices.

Teachers should explicitly adopt an anti-subordination approach. How do rules affect the poor? Can they be altered? This perspective can animate any class. Teachers should be evaluated on this criteria. Professor Testy has written a recent article in the Georgia Law review on teaching corporate law from an anti-subordination perspective. Testy quoted the poet Adrianne Rich: "Truthfulness anywhere means a heightened complexity." This approach to teaching calls for more critical thinking, more "rigor," more sophisticated analysis, subtle attention to context, more focus on power and power relationships, and more sustained hope, imagination, and care.

The next speaker, Susan Mandelberg of Lewis & Clark, teaches criminal law, federal courts, and environmental enforcement. She began by saying that there was plenty of material to integrate equal justice materials into mainstream courses. She talked about how to do this in substantive criminal law. She stated that what is criminalized has a differential impact on different populations. The issue of crack cocaine is a prime example. She said that her class usually divides over these issues into four groups: 1. progressive students, who only hear what confirms their preconceived beliefs; 2. conservative students, who label the teacher politically correct, feel threatened, and turn off; 3. Nontraditional students (e.g., students of color); and 4. the undifferentiated middle of students. She observed that her goal is not to change students’ minds but to plant seeds by offering different perspectives. She tries to show that law is a cultural artifact, and that doctrine reflects culture and moves over time. She uses materials like the Bernard Getz case from NYC. These materials present a dilemma for progressive students about why the criminal law shouldn't take into account frightened "white racists" like Getz. She also explores how the criminal law is a tool for conformity for the controlling class. To give two examples, she puts together situations involving immigrants and indigenous people. She noted how difficult it is to teach about these concepts, and that she is never sure where the "hidden arrow" will come from as to who gets offended or angry.

Professor Lynn Daggett of Gonzaga spoke next. She teaches torts, education law, and constitutional law. She began by observing that students often get discouraged about justice in their coursework. She says that reading a steady diet of appellate cases removes the client from the picture and gives the impression law is not very real for people. She said that equal justice teaching should not be an "add-on" or an "enrichment" segment. She made four points: 1. She suggested that all teachers do a content audit of their courses. For example, does consumer law, dispute resolution, and section 1983 get taught in torts? 2. We should bring more nonlegal materials into our classes to show that law is about real people with real problems. She mentioned books like A Civil Action, movies like Matewan (for labor law), and the Peter W. documentary on mainstreaming for education law. She emphasized that teachers should construct problems with real clients and engage students with simulations. 3. Professor Daggett noted that discussions about justice issues in large groups are fraught with peril. She uses small groups with report backs and writing exercises to explore justice issues. For example, in con law she asks her students to grade the Supreme Court on their abortion case decisions and to explain the grade. 4. Finally, she helps students gain "custodianship" of the law and to pursue areas of interest through directed research. She also invites students to give talks to outside groups.

The final speaker was Professor Maggie Chon of Seattle University. She discussed her forthcoming book on the internment of the Japanese during WW II, a project funded by Congress as part of the recent reparations legislation. She uses these multi-authored materials in several ways in her teaching: 1. To contextualize the study of law. For example, the Supreme Court decision in Koramatsu is usually taught for its doctrinal importance in the development of strict scrutiny equal protection analysis. This approach leaves out the consequences of the decision upholding the internment and how the Japanese community mobilized in the 1980s to vacate the convictions that took place in the '40s; 2. The theme of her classes is to show how communities struggle against injustice. These materials would be powerful in a range of courses, including evidence, ethics, civil procedure, constitutional law, criminal procedure and human rights classes.

2) “Scholarship Supporting Equal Justice”

Professor Deborah Maranville of the University of Washington spoke about the role of scholarship in addressing equal justice issues. She focused on some “nuts and bolts” of scholarship, answering the following questions: Can I write? Do I have anything to say? Can I get an audience? And does it matter if I write it? She encouraged us to write about equal justice issues because they are issues about which most of us care. She suggested being savvy about where our articles are placed, to present pieces to audiences to increase visibility, and to place articles on websites to reach different readers. Those interested in doing equal justice work must engage in “multi-forum advocacy,” of which scholarship is a part.

Professor Ray Cross of the University of Montana spoke about his work in the Indian law field. He presented some history of scholarly works in the field, particularly Felix Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. He discussed the role of this book in remaking contemporary Indian law, and ultimately the failure of this top-down strategy for reforming Indian country. Professor Cross then addressed a new “bottom-up strategy” for law reform in Indian country. This strategy includes an Indian law scholarship program, the summer Indian law program at the University of New Mexico, and litigation efforts focusing on law reform. He then described his own scholarship in this field, and how it operates as a mechanism for him to express his gratitude for his privileged life as an Indian lawyer and as a means of understanding interconnections among Indian and non-Indian people. He suggested that legal scholars play an important role as creators of the text and in informing disciples.

Professor john powell then spoke about the reasons to write. He said that he really doesn’t know what he thinks about an idea until he writes it down. He suggested a focus on “constitutive justice,” where one can call a world into being. One way to leave a legacy, to communicate across time boundaries, and to call a world into being is to write about it.

3) “Technology Bill of Rights”

The Honorable Donald Horowitz, member of Washington state’s Access to Justice Technology Bill of Rights Committee, Robin Lester of the King County Bar Association, and Jean Holcomb of the King County Law Library presented their new initiative for a Technology Bill of Rights. The premise is that the increasing use of technology may present barriers to justice for some people. The Technology Bill of Rights would address the barriers created by technology and develop strategies to open barriers through the use of technology. The panelists’ plan is to develop a document that would be adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court. One panelist raised the interesting question of whether access to justice is a constitutional right and if, increasingly, access to justice is only through technology, whether or not access to technology becomes a constitutional right. The panel suggested a variety of roles for law schools in this effort: 1) Scholarship - What areas of substantive and procedural law will be affected by technology, and how should rules be changed to address these issues? 2) Research on the effects and potential effects of technology on access to justice. They recommended involving law students in this effort. And 3) Direct contact with clients. Help the group obtain input from clients, potential clients, and organizations representing them on how technology is influencing their access to justice.

4) Innovative Service Projects (Summary prepared by Cindy Adcock)

This session began with an introduction by L’Nayim Suman-Austin, Pro Bono Fellow at Seattle University. She described the Equal Justice Institute at Seattle University, which helps keep public spirit alive and students energized, and helps overwhelmed students survive.

The first panelist was Gilliam Dutton, of the University of Washington’s Immigration Clinic. The clinic originated with a grant from LSC to increase cooperation between law schools and LSC. It provides service to individual clients, including representation at administrative proceedings to obtain welfare benefits, and engages in impact work. Each student takes on one impact project during the year. The students’ preconceptions and stereotypes are burst. With the 1996 changes to the welfare laws, it was difficult for immigrants to receive benefits, and the clinic’s work to provide assistance in this area has been quite successful. One student has carried on the work of the Immigration Clinic by joining the staff of the Northwest Justice Project.

The second panelist was Anita Ramasastry of University of Washington’s Immigrant Families Advocacy Project (Pro Bono). Professor Ramasastry, who teaches UCC and Contracts, is also committed to social justice, and has become a role model for students. This project is staffed by volunteer students, attorneys and a faculty advisor. They provide services to immigrant women who have been battered. Under the Violence Against Women’s Act, immigrant women can tell their own stories through self-petitioning. If they can document abuse, they can stay in the US. The lawyers and students help women tell their stories. The Project provides training for students in immigration law, domestic violence, counseling, and cross-cultural understanding in five training sessions. It pairs students with volunteer attorneys. The Project, which began in 1996 with one volunteer attorney, now has 20-25 attorneys, most of whom are either immigration lawyers or graduates from this project.

This Project provides the following benefits to students: they work with a real client, experience that domestic violence cuts across political lines, learn numerous substantive areas of law, and learn about the countries of deportation. Professor Ramasastry is glad to be engaged in the project, despite the hardships. She believes it has affected many students and clients, and teaches that volunteerism is important. The Project now has outside funding from an alumnus in the amount of $25,000. In the future, they hope to partner with a law firm. Professor Ramasastry believes that schools need to support such projects financially and within the tenure process.

The third panelist was Monica Shurtman of the University of Idaho. She teaches in the Tribal Law Clinic, and is working on immigration cases she brought with her from the International Human Rights Clinic at St. Mary’s Law School. These cases address cross-border issues, and involve human rights advocacy. They involve traditional client representation and community education and policy work, and often incorporate a holistic approach.

Professor Shurtman is now applying the same methodology to tribal law and cases in the areas of criminal law, juvenile defense and custody. This immigration law perspective is helpful, given that the US Constitution does not apply and that the there is a small body of binding law. She is trying to find ways to keep clients out of the system.

The fourth panelist was Liz Brandt of the University of Idaho, who teaches trusts and estates. She also volunteers with the ACLU and various government and bar boards. Professor Brandt involves students in this work and in her work with the Idaho Court system in the area of family law. Examples of projects on which she and students have worked include the following: challenging abortion restrictions and anti-gay legislation; factual investigation on prison complaint cases; legal research and legislative work, including testifying before the state legislature; interdisciplinary work on the death penalty, work that is now being used as expert evidence in death penalty cases; and social science work in the family law area. Professor Brandt also pairs students with ACLU cooperating attorneys. Professor Brandt believes it important to get students involved in professional efforts, and that role-modeling is important. She typically takes five to six “directed study” students each year who engage in this work. She is required to “teach” these students and grade their papers.

The final panelist was Davida Finger, a second year student at Seattle University, who provided a student perspective. She participates in Seattle Youth Legal Advocates, an organization started by a UW student who is now a NAPIL fellow. Students rate this as one of the best organizations with which to volunteer. Students get to see cases from beginning to end, and work there for 15-20 hours per week. Ms. Finger also discussed the Center for Human Rights and Justice, an ad hoc group created by two professors at Seattle University. This group works on current human rights projects, and provides students with an opportunity to work on issues they probably will not see after graduation.

Other projects that were identified included the Gonzaga International Criminal Justice Clinic, where students provide legal work to support death penalty attorneys across the country, helping them incorporate international law issues into their cases. This work is supervised by Gonzaga Professor Speedy Rice. The University of Montana has a program partnering law students and attorneys. Ms. Finger commented that law schools should help students write grants to provide supervisors for projects.

For further information or if you have questions, contact the local planner listed below:

Chris Allen Crowell
Access to Justice Institute
Seattle University School of Law
900 Broadway Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122
(206) 398-4173
allencc@seattleu.edu