Phone: (714) 444-4141 X 229
Fax:
Email: bpatton@law.whittier.edu
Home Page:
******************************************************
Summary Description:

In its landmark 1992 survey of the public’s attitude about attorneys, the American Bar Association discovered that 43% responded that if attorneys would perform more pro bono services, it would “significantly increase their favorable impressions about the profession….” Gary A. Hengstler, Vox Populi, 79 A.B.A. J. 60 (1993). After learning of that statistic at a professional responsibility conference in 1998, I decided to design a course that could help, in some small way, increase visibility and frequency of attorneys’ pro bono publico efforts. My goal was to create a course with the following characteristics: (1) very inexpensive; (2) easily replicable at other law schools; (3) built around individual student’s interests rather than the professor’s substantive choice; and (4) if possible, provide a life-altering experience which would help inculcate a sense of responsibility, pride, and satisfaction from providing free public service. That course is the Legal Policy Clinic (LPC). In order to keep costs to a minimum, I chose a “clientless” form of law school clinic so that we would not have the administrative expense of a full-time secretary, client interview rooms, or malpractice insurance. Providing free policy advocacy was a means of publicizing attorneys’ good deeds while simultaneously teaching students importance and joy of public service. The Legal Policy Clinic curriculum is structured around four student assignments: (1) a letter to the editor and/or newspaper article on a legal topic of interest to the student; (2) a legislative analysis of a pending bill in any state legislature or in Congress which must be sent to the appropriate legislators and committees for consideration; (3) an amicus curiae brief, petition for review, or request for publication or depublication of a California court of appeal decision; and (4) a community lawyering project in which students canvass their neighborhood and discuss with residents how to solve an existing community problem. The most unique aspect of this course is that students select the substantive topic and specific legal issues, cases, statutes, and community problems that they want to pursue in providing free legal public policy assistance.

******************************************************
Program History:

The Legal Policy Clinic has been offered every year since 1999, and because it involves student work on actual cases, legislation in state legislatures and Congress, and in the courts of appeal, each section of the class is limited to 20 students. However, it would be relatively simple to expand the curriculum to substantially more students by hiring adjunct professors to teach other sections, just as most law schools hire adjuncts and other non-tenure-track faculty to teach legal writing. Although there are other policy based student experiences offered to students at other law schools, each of those clinics is based upon a model of a classroom course taught at the law school tied with an externship in a government office in which the students merely assist attorneys with their existing case load. The Legal Policy Clinic is an in-house clinic; however, the students select their own cases and issues upon which to present policy advocacy. Student choice is critical to the principal goal of the Legal Policy Clinic that is to provide students with both the skills and desire to continue pro bono policy advocacy throughout their legal careers. These examples show the breadth of student work:

I. Legislative Analysis: (H.R. 2198 [mental health]; H.R. 2873 [foster care]; S. 156 [after school anti-crime bill]; A.B. 540 [immigrants]; A.B. 1450 [parolee tracking]; H.R. 46 [Education]; H.R. 912/S486 [student loan forgiveness]; H.R. 5005 [Homeland Security Act]; HB 2862 [anti-smoking]; S.Res. 35/ House Res. 88 [victims’ bill of rights]; S. 800 [Innocence Protection Act]; A.B. 1991 [petroleum infrastructure]; A.B.X415 [workers’ compensation]; H.R. 873 [eating disorders prevention]; A.B. 2324 [health data reporting]; H.R. 3444 [menu labeling].

II. Amicus Curiae: In re Lucero L. [due process limitation of hearsay in child abuse proceedings]; Butler v. Harris [constitutionality of grandparent visitation statute]; In re Zeth S. [role of minor’s counsel in child dependency proceedings]; In re Celine R. [conflicts of interest in representation of multiple siblings]; In re S.B. [delegation of visitation rights from court to guardians]; In re Zachary Z. [role of child’s appellate counsel].

III. Petitions for Review or Publication/Depublication in appellate courts: Santos v. Grand Portage Band of Chippewa Indians [Native American family law]; Motevalli v. L.A.United School District [education]; Cal. Fair Employment Comm. v. Gemini Corp. [religious discrimination]; Padilla v. Legal Aid Foundation [court interpreters]; People v. Clark [medical marijuana statutes]; Pulford v. County of Los Angeles [recreational activity liability]; People v. Jiles [Sixth Amendment rights]; In re J. [mental illness]; In re C.O. [bypassing parental reunification services]; People v. Villegas [delinquency].

IV. Community Lawyering Projects: Domestic violence counseling in Asian American community; Wheels of Justice [bringing legal assistance to underrepresented workers in satellite locations]; counseling non-English speaking Vietnamese immigrants in their community an religious centers; Latch-key children services; volunteer cleaning services for parents with abused children; legal services for kinship caregivers; Early intervention and education for families with juvenile delinquents; after school programs for Orange County children; legal counseling for grandparents rearing children; tenants’ rights lecture series; immigration community outreach program.
******************************************************
Confidential Items:
I am sending several copies of student work product from the Fall 2004 Legal Policy Clinic to Clark Cunningham by email attachment so that you can see the wonderful projects and pro bono policy analysis which the students produce. Although I have student permission to submit these projects for your inspection, they have asked that their names be removed and that these projects not be published.

******************************************************
Expanded Program Description (Optional):

******************************************************
Supporting Materials:

I will send as email attachments to Clark Cunningham several examples of the Legal Policy Clinic student work from last semester, Fall 2004.