Name: William Wesley Patton
Title: Professor
School: Whittier Law School
Mailing Address:
3333 Harbor Blvd.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (714) 444-4141 X229
Email: bpatton@law.whittier.edu
Home Page: http://www.law.whittier.edu/fac_admin/faculty/patton.asp
******************************************************
Summary Description:
The purpose of the Legal Policy Clinic (LPC) is to provide law students with the tools and desire to engage in a lifetime of pro bono legal public policy and analysis no matter which substantive area of law the student ultimately chooses to practice. Unlike other clinical courses which focus on a single substantive area, the LPC affords students a forum for advocating legal positions in each student’;s chosen area, such as poverty law, intellectual property, family law, tax, business associations, or criminal law.
The LPC is also unique because it is a “clientless” clinic involved in advocacy outside, as well as inside, the courtroom. Students learn how to advocate issues of public policy in legislative matters by either drafting a bill or by providing additional legal analysis of a bill pending in either Congress or any state legislature. In addition, students learn judicial policy analysis by drafting and filing petitions in support or in opposition to review, publication, or depublication of opinions in the California Supreme Court. Finally, students have the opportunity to practice problem solving and dispute resolution by selecting a problem in their local community and by drafting an action plan and method of helping community members resolve that problem.
One of the major goals of the LPC is to stimulate law students’ desire and abilty to perform meaningful public service in a manner which is manageable even while working as a full-time attorney.
*****************************************************
Program History:
Professor William Wesley Patton drafted the course description for the Legal Policy Clinic (LPC) in the Spring 2000 semester. After immediate approval by the faculty, the LPC enrolled its first class of students in the Fall 2000 semester. The course has been offered every year since that time. Since the course is an intensive seminar and clinic experience, enrollment is limited to 20 students.
Although the LPC has only been operating for three years, it has had a major impact on judicial, community, and legislative policy. The following is a list of some of the clinic’s pro bono legal work:
Legal Policy Clinic work product:
A. Amicus Curiae Briefs:
1.In re Lucero L. [Due process limitation on the type of child abuse hearsay evidence admissible in dependency hearings];
2.Manduley, Et. Al. [Constitutionality of Proposition 21 regarding the transfer of juveniles to adult court];
3.Butler v. Harris [Constitutionality of Family Code § 3104 grandparent visitation statute];
4.In re Zeth S. [ Role of minors counsel and the scope of admissible evidence in child abuse proceedings];
5.In re Celine R. [Defining conflicts of interest in representing sibling groups in child abuse hearings]; and,
6.In re S.B. [Can a juvenile court delegate to childrens guardians whether a ward of the court and his or her parent will have visitation?].
B.Petitions For Review/Publication/Depublication In The California Supreme Court:
1.In re Charles T.; [Juvenile];
2.Mason v. California Dept. of Real Estate [Real Property];
3.In re Kekoa S.; [Delinquency];
4.People v. Canty; [Criminal];
5.People v. English; [Criminal];
6.People v. George T.; [Criminal];
7.Martin v. County of Los Angeles [emotional distress damages];
8.In re Michael G. [child abuse];
9.In re Anthony C. [termination of parental rights];
10.In re S.S. [sexual abuse];
11.Muriel M. v. Superior Court [child abuse];
12.Santos v. Grand PortageBand of Chippewa Indians [Existing Indian Family Doctrine];
13.People v. Stewart [criminal];
14.People v. Villegas [delinquency];
15.People v. Kendall [DNA evidence];
16.People v. Ferguson [search and seizure];
17.Rackohn v. Goldberg [attorney fees].
C.Legislative Analyses:
1.H.R. 2198 [mental health];
2.H.R. 2873 [foster care];
3.S. 156 [after school anti-crime bill];
4.A.B. 540 [immigrants];
5.A.B. 1450 [parolee tracking];
6.H.R. 1198 [Reparations under State Prisoner of War Act];
7.S. 911 [Endangered Species Recovery Act];
8.S. 1147 [ Aviation Security Act];
9.H.R. 46: [Education Act];
10.H.R. 863 [Juvenile sentencing];
11.H.R. 912/S486 [Student loan forgiveness];
12.H.R. 119 [right to bear arms];
13.H.R. 5005 [Homeland Security Act];
14.HB 2862 [Anti-smoking bill];
15.S 1165 [Juvenile Crime Prevention Act];
16.S. Res. 35; H.Res. 88 [victims bill of rights]
17.S 800 [Innocence Protection Act];
18.S. 342 [Quality Classroom Act];
19.Assembly Bill 1447 [modifications to Californias Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act; and,
20.S.B. 2816 [Armed Services Tax Fairness Act].
D.COMMUNITY LAWYERING PROJECTS:
1.Domestic violence counseling in the Asian American community;
2.Wheels of Justice: Bringing legal aid assistance to the underrepresented;
3.Organizing neighborhoods to remedy unhealthy storm drains;
4.Fighting unwise land usage;
5.Educating tenants of their rights in rent stabilized housing;
6.Counseling non-English speaking Vietnamese immigrants regarding their basic legal rights;
7.Developing the Urban Focused Legal Services Organization in Toledo, Ohio;
8.Volunteer family maintenance program for parents with children who are wards of the juvenile court;
9.Creating a legal data base for the public;
10.A feasibility study for adding public parking spaces for tenants in Long Beach;
11.Creating an Animal Education and Awareness Program for the City of Paramount;
12.Work Force Development Strategies for poorly educated citizens in Santa Ana; and,
13.Exploring services for latch key children.
Perhaps the most unique aspect of the LPC is that students, rather than the professor, choose the legal projects. This element of student choice is critical in nurturing their professionalism because it not only requires students to become involved with the complex legal world around them, but instructs them how to decide which issues with which to become involved and how to balance their required work load with their need to speak out on legal policy in areas which may have no relation to the substantive law inherent in their job. The LPC prides itself in helping to encourage informed citizens to become and remain a part of America’s policy dialogue.
******************************************************
Confidential Items:
******************************************************
Expanded Program Description (Optional):
******************************************************
Supporting Materials: