Practically every profession—from teaching and social work to medicine and the ministry—requires substantial clinical training. Yet law schools have been content to send their graduates into the world without requiring them first to apply what they have learned in the classroom in a real-life setting. At Stanford it is a central part of our mission to provide students with the kind of clinical experience that will enable them to gain hands-on, practical experience under the close supervision of expert practitioners. Through the Mills Legal Clinic of Stanford Law School, we aim to offer the highest quality clinical program in the country. Today, approximately 60 percent of our students participate in a clinic during their time in law school. With the support of alumni and friends, we hope that all Stanford Law School students can benefit from clinical experience before they graduate.

The Criminal Defense CliniCStudents represent defendants facing life terms for extremely minor, non-violent, offenses under California’s Three Strikes law. Students participate in sentencing hearings, appeals, and habeas corpus proceedings in state and federal court.

In one notable case this year, two students in the Criminal Defense Clinic secured a truly extraordinary victory in December in a three strikes sentencing. Alisha Beltramo, JD ’09, and David Simpson, JD ’09, presented all of the defense witnesses in a two-hour sentencing hearing and Alisha then delivered closing arguments to the judge. At the end of the proceedings, the judge not only agreed with the position that a life sentence was inappropriate, but the judge also agreed to impose a mitigated sentence within the non-three-strikes sentencing scheme.

lawrence C. marshall, professor of law, David and Stephanie Mills Director of Clinical Education, and

associate dean for public interest and clinical education, is the director of the Criminal Defense Clinic.

A nationally renowned advocate for reform of the U.S. criminal justice system, Professor Marshall has been widely recognized for both his activism and teaching. As the director of Stanford’s legal clinics, Professor Marshall has committed himself to creating an integrated clinical experience that serves the needs of each and every student at Stanford Law School. Much of his scholarly work has focused on issues surrounding the application of the death penalty. Professor Marshall co-founded the world-renowned Center on Wrongful Convictions, for which he served as legal director and represented many wrongly convicted inmates, including a number of inmates who had at one time been sentenced to death.

lawrenCe C. marshall

In ThE MILLS LEgAL CLInIC of STAnforD LAW SChooL, An 8-To-1 STUDEnT-To-fACULTY rATIo IS ESSEnTIAL To ProvIDIng A UnIqUE, hAnDS-on ExPErIEnCE

Mills Legal Clinic of Stanford Law SchoolSummary of Activity, 2007-08

A visiting professor of law from the University of Southern California Law School, Jennifer Urban is

the director of the Cyberlaw Clinic.

Professor Urban teaches intellectual property and classes related to technology law and policy. She is a member of the USC Center for Communication Law and Policy, and a fellow of the USC Annenberg Center for Communication.

Professor Urban’s recent scholarly work includes “Efficient Process or ‘Chilling Effects’? Takedown notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” forthcoming in the Santa Clara Computer and high Technology Journal; and “Legal Uncertainty in free and open Source Software and the Political response,” a chapter in The Politics of open Source Adoption published by Social Science research Council in an innovative collaborative format.

The Cyberlaw CliniCPioneers an area of law that is largely without precedent, conducting computer- and Internet-related litigation, policy research, and advocacy.

In September, Professor Larry Lessig, the Center for Internet and Society, and the Cyberlaw Clinic celebrated a significant victory on behalf of their clients in golan v. gonzales. They represented artists who challenged the Copyright Term Extension Act and Section 514 of the Uruguay round Agreements Act. Although the Tenth Circuit held that the CTEA claim was properly dismissed under the governing Supreme Court precedent, Eldred v. Ashcroft, the Tenth Circuit held that Section 514 implicates the plaintiffs’ free expression interests in works removed from the public domain, and remanded the case to the district court for analysis under the first Amendment. The Court also held that Section 514 alters the “traditional contours” of copyright law by re-copyrighting works that were in the public domain. Students (and former students) who worked on this case include Alexandria Amezcua, JD ’06, Andrew Coan, JD ’05, robert Courtney, JD ’06, Adam goldman, BA ’90, JD ’06, Stephen Kane, BA ’00, JD ’06, Jeffrey Pearlman, JD ’06, David Price, JD ’06, and Aparna Sridhar, JD ’06. Stanford lawyers (from CIS and Cyberlaw Clinic) include Larry Lessig, Chris Sprigman, Ed Lee, Jennifer granick, Lauren gelman, Elizabeth rader, Tony falzone, Colette vogele, David Levine, and David olson. All of this work was done with the assistance from a number of the clinic’s paralegals: Joanne newman, Judy gielniak, Lynda Johnston, and Amanda Smith.

Also in September, the ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the position that the Cyberlaw Clinic took on behalf of its client, the Electronic frontier foundation (“Eff”), as an amicus curiae in DirecTv v. huyhn. DirecTv had threatened computer scientists who purchased smart card devices for the purposes of studying signal encryption with lawsuits, and the client was concerned that if they were able to threaten these scientists with an even harsher statutory penalty than the client felt Congress intended, it would have an further chilling effect on legitimate research. Cyberlaw Clinic student David Price, JD ’06, did the heavy lifting on this case in the trial court, Trevor Dryer, JD ’06, wrote the appellate briefs, and Jason Schultz of Eff argued it before the ninth Circuit. former Cyberlaw Clinic Director Jennifer granick supervised the case.

In May, Cyberlaw Clinic students played a key role in defending the small book publisher being sued by author J.K. rowling and Warner Bros. for copyright infringement for planning to publish The harry Potter Lexicon, a fan-written reference guide to the harry Potter world. The publisher, Michigan-based rDr Books, argues that material used in the Lexicon is fair use, and that the ability to create reference guides to works of literature is a critical right that must be protected. The Cyberlaw Clinic partnered with lead counsel, the Stanford fair Use Project, to help on the case. Leslie Liang, BS ’06, JD ’09, MS ’11, and Casey McCracken, BA/BS ’06, JD ’09, jumped into the project with work on the pleading documents, then traveled to new York as part of the trial team. Leslie and Casey are supervised by Professor Jennifer Urban and the fair Use Project’s Tony falzone and Julie Ahrens.

Jennifer Urban

Deborah a. “Debbie” sivas is lecturer in law and director of the Environmental Law Clinic.

Ms. Sivas also teaches Law and Science of California Coastal Policy and is an expert in the fields of environmental and natural resources law. She is president of the American Environmental Safety Institute and legal chair on the Board of Directors of the Turtle Island restoration network.

The environmenTal law CliniCStudents provide legal counsel to national, regional, and grassroots nonprofit organizations on a variety of environment issues, with a focus on biodiversity and conserving natural resources.

In August, the Environmental Law Clinic struck a blow for public disclosure and open government in the climate change arena. Passed in 1990, the global Change research Act is intended to provide Congress and the public with the relevant scientific information necessary to legislate and develop policy in the area of global change, particularly global warming. The ELC filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Senator John Kerry and U.S. representative Jay Inslee arguing that because the current administration has refused over the past 7 years to update the research plan or prepare a new national scientific assessment, the courts should force compliance with the statute. In granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs on August 21 and ordering the government to prepare and issue the missing documents early next year, the district court specifically noted that it had read and considered the clinic’s amicus brief–and indeed, the court borrowed some of the case analysis and language from the brief. Clinic students Craig Segall, JD ’07, Sam Woodworth, JD ’08, and Ed Dietrich, JD/MS ’08, worked on this case under the supervision of Clinic Director Debbie Sivas.

In november, the clinic celebrated a victory in the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an expedited lawsuit challenging the new corporate fuel economy standards for light trucks (pickups, SUvs, and minivans) The clinic represented the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) in this matter. In a 90 page opinion, the ninth Circuit found in the client’s favor on virtually all of the points that the ELC advanced and remanded the rulemaking with direction to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement and promulgate new standards “as expeditiously as possible and for the earliest model year practicable.” ELC students noah Long, JD ’08, and Ben ratner, JD ’08, wrestled with the large rulemaking docket and worked tirelessly for two semesters on both the opening and reply briefs. The students worked under the supervision of clinic director Debbie Sivas, clinical fellow Leah russin and Legal Assistant Lynda Johnston.

In March, the Environmental Law Clinic received summary judgment in favor of its client Center for Biological Diversity in a suit seeking a fee waiver under the freedom of Information Act. oMB denied a public interest fee waiver to our client on the grounds that most of the documents sought were likely, in its view, to be withheld ultimately under an assertion of the government’s “deliberative process” privilege. Clinic student noah Long, JD ’08, successfully argued that the fee waiver provision is a threshold determination, separate from any future determination about deliberative process privilege, and that oMB’s position puts the cart before the horse. noah worked on the case with Clinic Director Debbie Sivas, teaching fellow Leah russin and with the assistance of Legal Assistant Lynda Johnston.

Deborah a. sivas

Jayashri srikantiah, associate professor of law (teaching), is the director of the Immigrants’ rights Clinic.

A respected voice on immigration law and civil rights, Professor Srikantiah has litigated extensively on behalf of immigrants, and her experience includes challenges to mandatory and indefinite detention policies in the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and representation of human trafficking survivors. Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty in 2004, Professor Srikantiah was the associate legal director of the ACLU of northern California and a staff attorney at the ACLU’s Immigrants’ rights Project. She was a law clerk to Judge David r. Thompson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ninth Circuit.

The immigranTs’ righTs CliniCStudents represent immigrants in cases securing rights for survivors of domestic violence or in deportation, and participate in community outreach, public education, or policy advocacy.

The IrC obtained relief under the violence Against Women Act (vAWA) on behalf of A., an undocumented woman from Mexico who survived physical and psychological abuse by her U.S. citizen husband. In January, hewan Teshome, JD ’08, and Peter Schermerhorn, JD ’08, argued that A. should be allowed to remain in the United States with her children and family based on the domestic violence that she had endured. Thanks to Pete and hewan, A. can now remain in the United States with her family and children.

Also in January, IrC client r. E. was granted the opportunity to remain in the United States, where he has lived since he was a child. The IrC convinced the Santa Clara Superior Court to expunge the client’s first-time minor drug offense, and then persuaded an immigration judge to terminate the removal proceedings. Michael Kaufman, BA ’03, JD ’07, Mark Baller, JD ’08, Eunice Cho, JD ’09, and Laura hurtado, JD ’09, worked extensively with the client to develop his case, interviewing witnesses, conducting research, and writing legal arguments.

The IrC has been deeply involved in a very significant case before the United States Court of Appeals for the ninth Circuit. Working as co-counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, the IrC is representing two immigrant men who are being held indefinitely in immigration detention pending resolution of their deportation cases. These latest efforts are part of a legal challenge against indefinite detention that IrC and ACLU began back in november 2006 when they filed lawsuits in district court seeking the release of four immigrant men held in indefinite detention. Mark Baller, JD ’08, Kimere Kimball, JD ’08, and Michael Kaufman, BA ’03, JD ’07, are working on this case.

In february, the Immigrants’ rights Clinic completed a major project for its client, the Immigrant Legal resource Center (ILrC). Clinic students Ling Lew, JD ’09, Mindy Jeng, JD ’09, Laura hurtado, JD ’09, and Eunice Cho, JD ’09, worked with the ILrC developing materials to protect immigrants at risk of apprehension during Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids on their homes. Lew and Jeng researched and prepared “know your rights” materials to educate immigrants about their legal rights during a raid. Cho and hurtado researched and drafted a model Motion to Suppress Evidence, which ILrC intends to use to train pro bono attorneys in the Bay Area who have expressed interest in representing immigrants arrested during immigration raids. These students were supervised by IrC Director Professor Jayashri Srikantiah, IrC Clinical Teaching fellow Jennifer Lee Koh, and IrC Legal Assistant Irma Perez.

Jayashri srikanTiah

The inTernaTional hUman righTs CliniCStudents explore international human rights and work on helping implement the rule-of-law in developing countries. They also travel to Africa, where they document human rights violations, strategize on human rights initiatives, and organize projects with the local legal community.

This year, Professor Barbara olshansky and Teaching fellow Kathleen Kelly launched the International human rights Clinic’s namibia program, which allows Ihr Clinic students the opportunity to spend the spring quarter participating in human rights work on the ground in namibia, a flourishing democracy in southern Africa, only 18 years out of Apartheid. The ten students worked closely with the University, the Ministry of Justice, and various ngo partners on a wide variety of projects, including the following:

University of namibia Katutura Legal Aid ClinicStudents worked with the former dean of the law faculty of the University of namibia, Professor Sam Amoo: (a) to assist in developing a set of recommendations regarding potential outreach strategies for the Katutura Legal Aid Clinic, the only organization serving over 250,000 indigent people in the township of Katutura; (b) to work with University of namibia students in the Practical Legal Studies Program to develop and administer a needs assessment to ascertain from the residents of the Katutura community their thoughts about the most important legal (and other) problems they face and would like assistance with; and (c) to create a comprehensive report summarizing the interviews and setting forth a set of recommendations which will serve as the foundation for the strategic vision for the Legal Aid Clinic over the next three to five years.

Mining Law and Environmental human rightsPresently, there is a lack of transparency surrounding the administration of the mining law in namibia and the application process for drilling for water (needed for both the exploration and the mining processes) and uranium. The lack of adequate public participation in the application process and the issuance of permits that exceeded the amounts permitted by even the outdated law resulted in egregious environmental and human impacts, including the draining of water that would provide irrigation for 36 years of local farming in a period of only three months. The desertification of the country is at stake in this test case, which involves not only the issue of whether citizens own the water on their land, but also whether the country must put into place a comprehensive plan for water use and conservation. Ihr Clinic students worked with the Land, Environment and Development Project at the Legal Assistance Centre to file the first environmental test case in namibia and to prepare a factual assessment of the problems around the lack of transparency in the process of obtaining mining licenses in namibia and the resulting environmental damage and human impact in terms of access to water. The case is still proceeding and students participating in the advanced Ihr Clinic in the fall of 2008 will continue to work on the litigation.

Convention Against Torture LegislationIhr Clinic students researched the issue of country’s implementation of U.n. Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) in order to draft comprehensive proposed legislation that had been requested by members of the namibian Parliament. After meeting with political leaders and Parliament members during the clinic, a decision was made to introduce the legislation in

A leading voice in international human rights and humanitarian law, barbara olshansky joined

Stanford Law School in 2007 as the Leah Kaplan visiting Professor in human rights to teach international law and direct the International human rights Clinic’s efforts to launch an in-country clinical program in namibia. Professor olshansky is known for her groundbreaking work on the 2004 rasul v. Bush case, in which the Supreme Court of the United States overruled a lower court ruling and found that American courts have jurisdiction over claims brought by guantánamo detainees who are foreign nationals. She is also the co-author of several books, including Against War with Iraq and Democracy Detained: Secret, Unconstitutional Practices in the U.S. War on Terror.

Previously, Professor olshansky led the global Justice Initiative at the Center for Constitutional rights (CCr) and was its deputy legal director litigating civil and human rights cases. She also served as senior attorney with the Environmental Defense fund and practiced union-side labor and plaintiff’s employment discrimination law at vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P. C. in new York City. After graduating from Stanford Law, where she helped establish the East Palo Alto Community Law Project, Professor olshansky clerked for California Supreme Court Chief Justice rose Elizabeth Bird.

barbara olshansky

Parliament later this year. Through their work on this project, the students met with numerous government officials and doctoral students at the University, and spoke with experts from around the world. for their supporting memorandum, the students provided research on the following issues: (1) an analysis of the legislative history surrounding the enactment of the Torture victims Protection Act (“TvPA”), the U.S.’s legislation implementing CAT; (2) a comprehensive survey of judicial decisions interpreting and applying the TvPA in cases raising torture issues, and an analysis of the shortcomings of the TvPA as it has been used in the U.S.; (3) a summary of laws implementing CAT internationally, as well as a qualitative analysis of which of these laws has been most effective and why; (4) an analysis of the effect of the implementation of CAT on violence against women around the world, and a discussion of how CAT could be implemented in a way that would best protect women who are victims of violence; and (5) recommendations for legislative language that might help to avoid some of the pitfalls faced by victims seeking redress in the U.S. and elsewhere.

In the fall of 2008, the International human rights Clinic will incorporate work on the war on terror and its humanitarian aftermath into the beginning human rights Clinic. Students will work on challenges to the legality of military detention without charge or trial in U.S.-operated prison facilities in other countries (including guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Bagram, Afghanistan, and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia), resettlement applications for former U.S. detainees and political prisoners seeking refuge in third countries, and coordinating international teams of medical and psychological experts to provide free services to former detainees and their families and train local public health personnel how to provide such services on an ongoing basis.

Jay mitchell, lecturer in law, is the director of the organizations and Transactions Clinic.

Before joining Stanford Law School, Mr. Mitchell was a member of the legal and finance senior management teams at Levi Strauss & Co. his work focused on capital structure, corporate governance, financial disclosure and product sourcing matters for the $4.1 billion marketer of Levi’s®, Dockers® and Levi Strauss Signature® apparel. he has also worked on a broad range of commercial matters in the United States and Europe, including trademark licensing, technical product innovation, antitrust, logistics, acquisition, retail joint venture and other projects. he is a 1980 graduate of Stanford University and a 1983 graduate of the University of virginia School of Law.

The organizaTions anD TransaCTions CliniCStudents provide service to nonprofits and small enterprises on corporate, finance, and commercial matters.

Amy Park, JD ’08, and Jessie redden, BA ’05, JD ’09, revamped corporate governance and fiscal sponsorship arrangements for a Peninsula-based peer education and services agency serving the hIv and hepatitis C communities. They also prepared a summary of a complex commercial lease for the senior management team of a Santa Clara nonprofit serving families with children with special needs, and developed new contract and governance documents for a rapidly-growing San francisco nonprofit that operates apprenticeship programs for middle-school students.

Bev Moore, JD ’09, and Jon novotny, JD ’08, worked with four clients on a range of matters. They provided corporate law advice and documents, including revised bylaws, board resolutions and website content, for a leading veterans’ rights organization in San francisco. The team designed a model contract structure for use by a Bay Area county in contracting with and funding the roughly 20 mental health care providers in the county, a project with potentially broad impact. They drafted a template services agreement for a prominent nonprofit software developer in Mountain view. finally, they advised a day worker center on the Peninsula and created board policies, committee charters and other materials reflecting emerging best practices in nonprofit governance.

Susan Cameron, BA ’03, JD ’08, and Alice Yuan, JD ’08, played a central role in planning and documenting a pending merger of six nonprofit charter schools across the Bay Area into a single entity. They developed a transaction workplan for the client, performed due diligence reviews, drafted the merger agreement, board resolutions for all of the merging entities and a filing with the state Attorney general, and worked closely with the CEo of the lead organization in managing the project. Susan and Alice also drafted independent contractor and related template contracts and explanatory materials for a large private foundation, working closely with foundation counsel and the leader of the organization’s contracting function. The team also assisted two long-established South Bay nonprofits, one focused on poverty alleviation and the other on family support and community development in south San Jose, with collaboration and volunteer policy matters.

Brent harris, BA/MA ’04, JD ’09, and Melissa Magner, JD ’08, worked intensively with an East Palo Alto nonprofit in designing and drafting the contract documents establishing a new farmers’ market in East Palo Alto. They also drafted a grant agreement, grantee reporting template and other grantmaking documents for a foundation maintained by a public company headquartered in San francisco, and they provided corporate law advice and documents, including a wide-ranging advice memo, new board policies, a board self-assessment tool and two contract templates, for an Sf-based immigrants’ rights organization.

The students were supervised by o & T Director Jay Mitchell and assisted by Legal Assistant Irma Perez.

Jay miTChell

An associate professor of Law (teaching) and director of the Stanford Community Law

Clinic, Juliet brodie is a leading defender of the legal rights and interests of the working poor. She has written on the role of clinics in developing and testing new models of legal services delivery to low-wage workers in what she calls the “post-welfare” economy. She is a frequent speaker on community-based law practice, and the ethical issues that arise practicing law in a low-income setting. her research interests include welfare reform and the role of law in advancing economic justice for the “have-nots” in American society.

Professor Brodie is a member of the editorial board of the Clinical Law review, and is chair-elect (2006-07) of the Poverty Law Section of the AALS. Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty in 2006, Professor Brodie was an associate clinical professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. She is a former litigation associate at the Boston law firm hill & Barlow, and an assistant attorney general for the state of Wisconsin, where she prosecuted health care providers accused of defrauding the Medicaid system.

The sTanforD CommUniTy law CliniCStudents help about 500 low-income clients each year with a wide variety of legal challenges, including landlord-tenant disputes, employment issues, and government benefit claims.

In September, the Stanford Community Law Clinic (SCLC) secured a Certificate of rehabilitation in Santa Clara County Superior Court for one of its clients, a recovering drug addict and formerly incarcerated person. A Certificate of rehabilitation is a court order, entered upon a finding that the applicant has, since his or her last conviction, lived an “honest and upright life...conducted himself with sobriety and industry...and conformed to and obeyed the laws of the land.” A number of SCLC students worked with this client through the many stages of the process: Morgia Dampf, JD ’07, Sarah gilbert, JD ’07, Laurel Parker, JD ’07, Alexis rickher, JD ’08, and Perry grossman, JD ’09, who conducted the hearing by presenting four witnesses and making the argument in favor of the granting of the petition. Professor Juliet Brodie supervised the case.

In february, the SCLC received notice of a decision in favor of two East Bay taqueria workers. The clients are a married couple who worked many hours for which they were not justly paid. Kelly Lowenberg, JD ’09, and Al Mezo, JD ’09, represented the two workers before the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) at a hearing in December. The hearing officer rendered a decision for the full amount claimed, over $20,000.

Larisa Bowman, JD ’09, represented two women who worked at a market in redwood City. Larisa’s relentless analysis of the employees’ timecards revealed numerous blatant errors, all in the employer’s favor. At a settlement conference before the DLSE, Larisa took her clients through a direct examination describing their work hours and payment history, and then presented the records to the presiding officer. The conference ended with the employer agreeing to a payment plan for a combined total of $15,000; the clients received their final installment in March.

In february, the clinic obtained dismissals in two separate unlawful detainer (eviction) actions filed against an East Palo Alto resident. The client’s landlord first attempted to evict the client without stating good cause as is required by the local rent Stabilization ordinance. Clinic students Jessa Barnard, JD ’09, and Emily Watts, JD ’08, filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss), which was granted by the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Based on that litigation success, the students then persuaded the landlord to voluntarily dismiss the other lawsuit, and they obtained a judgment ordering the landlord to pay the client’s court costs in both actions. Teaching fellow Jessica Steinberg supervised the case.

In March, Erik Christensen, JD ’08, took on the case of a day laborer who had sustained injuries to his hand while moving furniture and was subsequently deserted at the hospital by his employer. Erik negotiated a favorable settlement with the employer to help compensate the client for his lost wages and medical bills. The hospital agreed to a significant reduction of the client’s medical bills, so that he is paying an amount consistent with what an insurance company would pay, instead of the larger amounts billed to uninsured patients. This agreement will allow the client to recover a greater portion of his original settlement with the employer.

JUlieT m. broDie

In May, Larisa Bowman, JD ’09, and Evan Pena, JD ’09, defended an eviction action on behalf of a tenant who had been illegally harassed by his landlord. Larisa and Evan filed a response to the landlord’s complaint in Superior Court and then propounded interrogatories and noticed the landlord’s deposition. In securing a dismissal of the eviction action in favor of their client, Larisa and Evan also obtained a major concession from the landlord—free rent for their client and his two children for the next 4 months. Teaching fellow Jessica Steinberg supervised the case.

Also in May, Mark finucane, JD ’10, represented a tenant in an eviction case who was served with a 60-day notice terminating her tenancy. Because the client was a participant in the Section 8 voucher program, a little-used California law entitled her to 90 days notice before her landlord could sue her for eviction. Mark filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) on her behalf, and argued it successfully before the Law & Motions judge of the San Mateo Superior Court. Professor Juliet Brodie supervised the case.

Peter Bach-y-rita, JD ’09, handled an eviction case in May that arose when city building inspectors discovered a tenant occupying an illegal garage unit that the tenant believed she had lawfully rented from her landlord. Peter brought both parties to the negotiating table and artfully crafted a settlement agreement that both allowed the landlord to meet his obligations under local law and provided the tenant with compensation and sufficient time to find a new unit. Teaching fellow Jessica Steinberg supervised the case.

Katie Burghardt, JD ’09, enjoyed recent success on behalf of a client who was seeking to expunge his criminal record. In the course of one week, seven expungement motions were granted for her client. Those seven motions represented the entirety of the convictions listed on the client’s record. on the first hearing date, a judge in the Palo Alto Superior Court granted all four of her submitted motions without hesitation. on the second hearing date, a judge in the San Jose Superior Court granted two discretionary motions and one mandatory motion. her client is still in shock that he was granted a second chance.

Chris Kramer, JD/MBA ’08, spearheaded the SCLC’s first foray into the California legislature, representing a client seeking an amendment to a provision of the Labor Code outlawing retaliation against workers who seek to enforce their labor rights. Working in collaboration with the California rural Legal Assistance foundation, Chris helped to draft an amendment, research and summarize all the case law on the existing provision and its federal analogs, and to prepare testimony to be delivered by Professor Juliet Brodie. The bill (SB 1244) has passed in both Senate committees to which it was assigned, and the Clinic awaits Assembly proceedings this summer.

Christina rubalcava, JD ’09, scored a tremendous settlement of $15,000 for a truck driver who worked an average of 11 hours a day, 6 days a week and never received any overtime pay. Christina, together with Amy Morgenstern, JD ’09, filed a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and spent weeks carefully researching a complex state and federal regulatory scheme governing her client’s wage and hour rights. Teaching fellow Jessica Steinberg supervised the case.

A leading Supreme Court litigator and nationally recognized expert on criminal procedure, Jeffrey

fisher is an associate professor of law (teaching) and co-director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. he has argued several and worked on dozens of other cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. his successes include bringing and winning the landmark cases of Blakely v. Washington, in which the Court held the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to sentencing guidelines and Crawford v. Washington, in which he persuaded the Court to adopt a new approach to the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause.

In 2006, the national Law Journal named Professor fisher one of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America. In addition to his Supreme Court practice, Professor fisher has published several articles on various criminal and constitutional issues, and he speaks regularly to judicial conferences and leading legal organizations. he joined the law school faculty from the national law firm of Davis Wright & Tremaine LLP where he also offered his services pro bono to the national Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Professor fisher clerked for Judge Stephen reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

The sUpreme CoUrT liTigaTion CliniCStudents litigate cases before the Supreme Court of the United States working on petitions for review, opposition to petitions, and merits briefs filed with the Justices.

The clinic continued to gain steam this year, serving as a lead briefing-and-arguing counsel in six merits cases and working on several other cases at the merits and certiorari stages. The merits cases were:

• Kennedy v. Louisiana, in which the Court granted the clinic’s cert petition, then sided with the clinic in holding that the Eighth Amendment does not allow the death penalty to be imposed for any crime against an individual in which the victim does not die. The team of students on the case included Andrew Dawson, BA ’03, JD ’08, ruthie Zemel, JD ’09, and Patrick nemeroff, JD ’09. Jeff fisher was the lead instructor and argued the case. Joanne newman, as with all clinic cases, provided paralegal and administrative assistance as well.

• riley v. Kennedy, in which the Court ruled against the clinic’s clients in holding that section 5 of the voting rights Act did not require Alabama to obtain preclearance of a plan to fill vacancies on a county commission by gubernatorial rather than special elections. The team of students on the case included Erica ross, JD ’09. Thomas haymore, JD ’09, and Alan Bakowski, JD ’08. Pam Karlan was the lead instructor and argued the case.

• greenlaw v. United States, in which the Court granted the clinic’s cert petition, and then adopted the clinic’s argument in holding that federal courts of appeals may not increase criminal defendants’ sentences when the government does not appeal those sentences. The team of students on the case included rachel Lee, JD ’09, Scott Coyle, JD ’08, and Menaka Kalaskar, JD ’09. Amy howe was the lead instructor and argued the case.

• Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, in which the Court ruled for the clinic’s client in holding that the employer, not the employees, bears the burden under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of proving that it fired employees based on “reasonable factors other than age.” The team of students on the case included Scott noveck, JD ’09, Micah Block, JD ’09, and Alan Mouritsen, JD ’09. Kevin russell was the lead instructor and argued the case.

• Burgess v. United States, in which the Court held that the clinic’s client’s prior conviction subjected him to a federal statutory sentencing enhancement for people previously convicted of “felony drug offenses.” The team of students included Barbara Thomas, JD ’09, Alan Bakowski, JD ’08, and Scott Stewart, JD ’08. Kevin russell and Jeff fisher were the lead instructors on the case and Jeff argued it.

• virginia v. Moore, in which the Court ruled against the clinic’s client and held that police do not violate the fourth Amendment by arresting and searching a person for a state offense for which state law prohibits arrest. The team included Scott Stewart, JD ’08, Tom Zimpleman, JD ’08, Anna neill, JD ’08, and Steve Siger, JD ’08. Tom goldstein was the lead instructor and argued the case.

Jeffrey l. fisher

The sUpreme CoUrT liTigaTion CliniC (ConTinUeD) The clinic also served as co-counsel in two other merits cases this term:

• Crawford v. Marion County Bd. of Elections, in which the Court ruled against the clinic’s clients in a facial challenge to Indiana’s voter ID law. The team included Daniel Elizondo, JD ’08, and Achyut Phadke, BA/MA ’04, JD ’08. Pam Karlan was the lead instructor, with Ken falk for the ACLU as lead counsel for our clients.

• new York Bd. of Elections v. Lopez-Torres, in which the Court ruled for the clinic’s clients in upholding new York’s method of electing judges. The team included Erika Myers, JD ’08, Achyut Phadke, BA/MA ’04, JD ’08, and Molly Cutler, JD ’08. Tom goldsein was the lead instructor and Andrew rossman of Akin gump argued the case of our clients.

In addition, the clinic filed an amicus brief in richlin Security Serv. v. Chertoff, in which the Court held that a prevailing party in a civil rights lawsuit may recover paralegal fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The clinic successfully represented the national Association of Legal Assistance and the Paralyzed veterans of America. The team included Achyut Phadke, BA/MA ’04, JD ’08, and Molly Cutler, JD ’08, and Amy howe was lead instructor.

The clinic represented clients in defeating four petitions for certiorari:

• certain plaintiffs who won a voting rights case (unrelated to Riley) in Alabama. Patrick nemeroff, JD ’09, worked on the case under Pam Karlan’s instruction.

• a state prisoner who obtained habeas corpus relief. Thomas Haymore, JD ’09, Andrew Dawson, BA ’03, JD ’08, and Menaka Kalaskar, JD ’09, worked on the case under Pattie Millet’s instruction.

• a high school basketball coach suing the NCAA as a state actor for constitutional violations. Chad Clamage, BA ’05, JD ’08, Sarah Craven, JD ’08, and Steve Siger, JD ’08, worked on the case under Amy howe’s instruction.

• a class of plaintiffs seeking to hold the State of Florida officials liable, over assertions of qualified immunity, for widespread violations of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act. Alan Bakowski, JD ’08, Scott Stewart, JD ’08, and Sarah Craven, JD ’08, worked on the case under Kevin russell’s instruction.

pamela s. karlan is the Kenneth and harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and co-director of

the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. one of the nation’s leading experts on voting and the political process, she has served as a commissioner on the California fair Political Practices Commission and an assistant counsel and cooperating attorney for the nAACP Legal Defense fund. Professor Karlan is the co-author of three leading casebooks on constitutional law and related subjects, as well as more than four dozen scholarly articles. She is a widely recognized commentator on legal issues and is frequently featured on programs such as the newshour with Jim Lehrer.

Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty in 1998, she was a professor of law at the University of virginia School of Law and served as a law clerk to Justice harry A. Blackmun of the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge Abraham D. Sofaer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of new York.

pamela s. karlan

william koski, Eric and nancy Wright Professor of Clinical Education, is the director of the Youth and

Education Law Project.

reflecting his multidisciplinary background as a lawyer and social scientist, Professor Koski’s scholarly work focuses on the related issues of educational accountability, equity, and adequacy; the politics of educational policy reform; and judicial decision-making in educational policy reform litigation. An accomplished clinical teacher and litigator, Professor Koski’s current research concentrates on the normative case for and policy implications of ensuring equality of educational opportunity in the current context of educational standards, adequacy, and accountability.

Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty in 2001, Professor Koski was a lecturer in law at Stanford and a supervising attorney at the law school’s East Palo Alto Community Law Project. he was also an associate at orrick, herrington & Sutcliffe and then Alden, Aronovosky & Sax.

Professor Koski has an appointment (by courtesy) with the Stanford School of Education.

The yoUTh anD eDUCaTion law proJeCTDedicated to educational rights and reform work, representing both minors and families in special education and school discipline matters.

In August, the Youth and Education Law Project (YELP) celebrated a significant victory when United States District Court Judge Jeffrey White (n.D. Cal.) approved a comprehensive settlement agreement in a complex disability and educational rights matter. YELP and co-counsel, Bingham McCutchen, LLP, brought the action against the California School for the Deaf (CSD) and the California Department of Education (CDE) on behalf of their client J.C.—a deaf child with autism—who was excluded from the CSD because of her developmental disabilities. As part of the settlement, CSD will create an environment for developmentally delayed students at the school, while the court will maintain supervision over the case for the next three years. over the course of the last year, clinic students ruth Barnes, JD ’07, hope Bennett, JD ’08, Brian Bilford, JD ’08, Erica Blachman, JD ’07, Laura Johnson JD ’07, Peter Khalil, JD ’07, Esther Kim, JD ’07, Jonathan olinger, JD ’08, Will rawson, JD ’08, rebecca Thalberg, JD ’07, Julie Wahlstrand, JD ’08, Caitlin Weisberg, JD ’08, and Ashley Yeargan, JD ’08, have done everything from motion practice to discovery to expert witness work in the case. They worked under the supervision of YELP Director Bill Koski, YELP teaching fellow, Molly Dunn, and YELP’s paralegal, Joanne newman.

A.C. suffers from both cortical visual impairment and traumatic brain injuries and requires the expertise of a teacher for the visually impaired, as well as orientation and mobility instruction. Despite those needs, and without having conducted any additional assessments, A.C.’s school district demanded that she be moved to a “non-categorical” classroom for children who do not have visual impairments. YELP students Inbal naveh, JD ’09, and Alexis Casillas, JD ’09, plunged into the case by interviewing witnesses, developing expert witness testimony, filing pre-hearing documents, and preparing for a hearing that seemed inevitable. To the delight (and surprise) of A.C.’s family, and due to the terrific hearing preparation work of YELP, in october the school district withdrew its fair hearing complaint during mediation and A.C. gets to remain in her classroom—a complete victory for A.C.

for several months last school year, J.o., a hard-of-hearing middle school student, was denied the sign-language interpreter services specified in his individual education plan under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. hoping to swiftly resolve the matter, YELP student Peter Khalil, JD ’07, attempted to negotiate with the school district to secure an appropriate interpreter. When that effort proved fruitless, Peter filed a complaint with the California Department of Education. That complaint prompted the District to negotiate with YELP and resulted in a favorable settlement of the matter that included the hiring of a sign-language interpreter (as well as provision for the interpreter’s absence) and nearly $15,000 in compensatory education services for J.o.

william koski

for 11 years, YELP has been leading a class action lawsuit against the California Department of Education (CDE) and the ravenswood City School District (the District) seeking to reform the District’s policies, establish data-keeping systems, and improve service delivery to children with disabilities in the District. That progress is being threatened, though, by the local District’s critical staffing crisis this past fall that has left hundreds of students in the District without appropriate special education services. YELP students rachel velcoff (’08) and Craig Zieminski (’08) conducted extensive research into the court’s powers to enforce its orders and the responsibilities of state education agencies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Their brief was central in a December 20, 2007 order that directed the CDE to not only provide personnel to assist the district and to ensure that the staffing crisis is resolved, but also ordered that the CDE analyze the extent of the services denied to students and ensure that each such student is offered compensatory education for such deprivations. (3/20/2008)

YELP students rachel velcoff, JD ’08, and Craig Zieminski, JD ’08, represented the family of a thirteen year-old middle school student who had been expelled for bringing a pellet gun to school. The students conducted extensive legal research and fact investigation of the incident, and counseled the family of their procedural rights regarding his expulsion. More importantly, YELP carefully reviewed the student’s academic history, which revealed a troubling pattern of behavior problems that had been left unaddressed by the school district. The law students negotiated an agreement with District administrators which would permit this student to return to a regular school program following the successful completion of his expulsion. YELP’s effective advocacy on behalf of this student resulted in his return to a regular academic program.

BILL KoSKI, PhD ’03 (SEConD froM rIghT), ThE ErIC AnD nAnCY WrIghT ProfESSor of CLInICAL EDUCATIon AnD DIrECTor of ThE YoUTh AnD EDUCATIon LAW ProJECT, ChATS WITh STUDEnTS PArTICIPATIng In ThE MILLS LEgAL CLInIC of STAnforD LAW SChooL

ConClUsionThe value of clinical education cannot be overstated. In a controlled clinical setting, we can select cases for their pedagogical value, give students ways to identify good versus bad practices, teach ethics and advanced legal research and writing, and help students reflect on the lessons and values of cases. In addition, though the majority of law students may not plan on careers in the public service sector, a clinical experience can instill in students a sense of the immense power lawyers have to improve the lives of others, thus fostering the understanding that lawyers have both the opportunity and the responsibility to serve the larger community and help those who otherwise would go unrepresented.