The Stanford Daily reports on the recent announcement of Law School Dean Larry Kramer’s departure to head up the Hewlett Foundation. Dean Kramer’s legacy includes major law school curriculum reform including significant expansion of the clinical education program. Coverage on the story can be found at the Mills Legal Clinic Facebook page and in The Stanford Daily.
Many thanks to all who came to yesterday’s event celebrating the release of Juan Rivera. Special thanks to Patricia Pei (“10) for sharing her experiences and work on the Rivera case and to our guest, Juan Rivera, for sharing his inspirational story of endurance and renewal of spirit during the many years he served in prison for a crime he did not commit. Speaking on his commitment to overcome despair and maintain a positive attitude throughout his ordeal, Juan remarked, “The students showed me what humanity was. I was wrongly convicted, and I was in prison hoping someone would listen.” He further commented, ”I educated myself to show others who I truly am as opposed to what I was convicted to be.”
Patricia Pei encouraged the audience to take action on behalf of all those wrongfully convicted, ” . . . stories like this exist, and they are waiting to be told . . . You have the capacity, the opportunities and the connections to make these kinds of things happen. If you have the chance to be a part of it, be part of it.”
Juan concluded, “now I have the chance to go to college, go home, meet my parents. I love the sun; I love petting the dog. These are the things we take for granted, but I cherish every second of life.”
Please join us today at 12:45 in Room 190 to meet Juan Rivera and hear his inspirational story of wrongful conviction and his recent release from prison. Professor Larry Marshall and former SLS student, Patricia Pei will talk about details of Mr. Rivera’s case. Don’t miss this amazing event! Open to the public. Co-sponsored by Mills Legal Clinic and the Criminal Law Society.
Join us for an amazing event with Juan Rivera!
Monday, Februry 13 at 12:45, Stanford Law School, Room 190
Open to the public.
For more news and updates on Mills Legal Clinic, visit our Facebook page.
The Supreme Court Litigation Clinic experienced a terrific fall quarter. After beginning with a bang by presenting oral argument in three cases in which the clinic filed briefs last year, the clinic turned its sights to writing briefs in six new projects:
1. A brief on the merits in Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., involving whether the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act’s prohibition against charging unearned fees applies only to kickbacks or also where the entity making the loan simply pockets the fraudulent charge. Emily Curran (‘12), Alex Aronson (‘12), Teddy Kider (‘12), and Craig Lavoie (‘13) led the effort.
2. A brief in opposition to certiorari in Alvis v. Espinoza, urging the Court to forego review of a decision holding that police officers could be held liable for shooting and killing an unarmed man following an unconstitutional entry into an apartment. Amy Burns (‘12), Sam Dolinger (‘13), Denise Drake (‘13), and Dan Galindo (‘12) led the effort. As recently reported, the clinic was successful in persuading the Court to deny certiorari in this case in its opinion released January 17, 2012.
3. A petition for certiorari in Chaidez v. United States, presenting the question whether the Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky — which held that a person receives ineffective assistance of counsel when her lawyer fails to warn her that pleading guilty to a charge will trigger automatic deportation — applies retroactively to people whose convictions became final before it was announced. Beth Neitzel (‘12), Kristin Bell (‘13), and Will Johnston (‘13) led the effort.
4. A brief on the merits in Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, involving whether plaintiffs seeking damages under the Torture Victim Protection Act may sue not only natural persons but also organizations responsible for the human rights violations at issue. Alex Aronson (‘12), Kristin Bell (‘13), and Sam Dolinger (‘13) led the effort.
5. A petition for certiorari in Pickering v. Colorado, presenting the question whether the Due Process Clause requires the prosecution in a criminal case to disprove a defense that would negate an element of the charged offense. Denise Drake (‘13), Dan Galindo (‘12), and Craig Lavoie (‘13) led the effort.
6. A brief in opposition to certiorari in Fast v. Applebee’s International, Inc., urging the Court to forego review of a decision holding that an employer may not take a “tip credit” under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum-wage laws when an employee spends more than twenty percent of her time doing work that does not produce tips. Kathryn McCann (‘12), Will Johnston (‘13), and Teddy Kider (‘13) led the effort. In a decision recently released, the Court ruled in favor of the clinic’s opposition and denied certiorari in this case.
Finally, in a wonderful postscript to the quarter, the clinic received word in late-December that the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of its client in Magwood v. Patterson. The clinic got involved in the case two years ago, persuading the Supreme Court to review the Eleventh Circuit’s decision holding that Mr. Magwood, a prisoner on Alabama’s death row, was procedurally barred from raising his claim that the offense for which he had received a death sentence was not actually a capital crime. After the Supreme Court overturned that decision, the clinic submitted briefing on remand to the Eleventh Circuit on the substance of Mr. Magwood’s claim. On December 20, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the clinic’s argument and unanimously ordered the State to remove Magwood from death row.
Professor Jeff Fisher and lecturers Tom Goldstein and Kevin Russell oversaw all of this work. As always, Joanne Newman provided excellent and invaluable support. Professor Pam Karlan, Co-Director-of the Clinic was visiting away this past quarter. We welcome her back with great joy.
Students in the Community Law Clinic finished a strong fall quarter performing outstanding work and providing excellent client representation in a variety of cases. As ever, this clinic dedicated its resources to representing individual low-income people in our local communities in matters enforcing their basic statutory rights. Students represented numerous clients in wage cases and in eviction defense cases, and, in what was an extremely successful pilot project, also integrated Social Security Disability cases into the docket, under the supervision of Lisa Douglass. The wage and eviction cases were supervised by Professor Juliet Brodie and teaching fellow Nisha Vyas, and all the work was supported by Lupe Buenrostro and Adelina Arroyo. Below are some highlights:
Katie Bryant (’13) represented a worker at a hearing before the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). The man had gone entirely unpaid for an eight-day house painting job. Marshalling the corroborating evidence of the homeowner, who had engaged the contractor who hired our client, Katie secured a judgment for the full amount claimed, plus statutory penalties, for her client.
Katie also represented a truck driver in a two-hour bench trial in Superior Court of Santa Clara County. Katie’s client was seeking his unpaid wages from a former employer for a cross-country trip. Katie delivered an opening statement and conducted a direct examination of her client, which included the introduction of supporting documentary evidence. She also performed a cross examination of the defendant. The judge issued his ruling from the bench in our client’s favor, based on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.
Brian Goldsmith (’12) prepared a similar wage case scheduled for trial on the same day as Katie’s. Brian’s client was a fire-sprinkler technician, whose former employer had failed to pay him his final wages. Based on the strength of Brian’s investigation, legal research, and trial brief, the case settled on the eve of trial, again for the full amount demanded, which included the significant statutory penalty for late payment.
Brian and Katie’s two bench trial cases represent the clinic’s new collaboration with the Counsel’s office of the California Labor Commissioner, in which the counsel’s office identifies cases appropriate for clinic students. These represent excellent opportunities for the clinic to add superior court litigation to its docket of administrative wage hearings.
Ruth Levine (’13) represented a housecleaner in an administrative hearing. The client sought unpaid overtime for her three-year employment with a housecleaning service. While the client did not prevail at the hearing, Ruth did an extraordinary job in investigating and presenting the case. This matter offered great learning opportunities as Ruth experienced first hand the challenge of representing workers from the underground economy. Without records, the employer was able to persuade the hearing examiner that our client did not have an employment relationship with the defendant. The case provided everyone in the clinic with the chance to discuss the value of representation, and of loyalty to a client, even when the case does not end with a victory in the form of a money judgment. The client was very grateful to Ruth, and to the students from previous quarters who worked on the case.
Carl Owens (’12) and Brian Goldsmith (’12) represented an East Palo Alto family being evicted from their home of nine years, after receipt of a sixty-day notice terminating the tenancy. Carl and Brian determined that our clients were entitled to a longer notice period and substantial relocation benefits per East Palo Alto’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a local ordinance implementing a state law known as the Ellis Act. After a brief period of discovery and negotiation, the landlords agreed to grant our clients additional time to move out, waive their rent for a four-month period, and provide them with $3,000 in relocation benefits.
Katie Bryant (’12) represented another East Palo Alto resident in an eviction case, a woman whose landlord brought an action on the basis of nonpayment of rent. The allegation was completely unfounded, as the client had paid every month of rent. The client lived in a home that was owned by a family trust, and had paid her rent every month to the trustee named in her lease. A new trustee (brother of the original trustee) had been appointed, but no notice had ever been given to the tenant that she should direct her rent to a new person. Katie negotiated with the landlord’s attorney, who dismissed the eviction action outright upon proof that the tenant had paid rent. The parties agreed to a move-out date several months in the future, giving our client time to find new housing.
This quarter the clinic also resolved an affirmative habitability case that had been filed in state court last year. The clinic represented an East Palo Alto family that lived in a deteriorating apartment, just blocks away from SCLC’s office. For almost four years, the family put up with leaking walls and windows, moldy and dank carpets, a dangerous entryway, and no heat. The landlords, on the rare occasions they responded to repair requests, made insufficient and incomplete repairs. The case was thoroughly investigated and researched in Fall 2010 by Laura Heiman (’11) and Nancy Hanna (’11) ; and by Daisy Sanchez (’12) and Jenny Holmes (’12) during Winter 2011. During Spring 2011, Jenny finalized and filed a complaint on our clients’ behalf in Santa Clara Superior Court, which alleged ten causes of action based on the defendants’ failure to maintain a habitable premises. After a period of discovery during the summer, the case settled, and the family received a total of $25,003.00. On December 7, 2011, SCLC’s petition for attorney’s fees in this matter was granted, and the clinic was awarded a total of $19,050.00 for its representation of the plaintiffs. Julia Cherlow (’12) assisted on the fees petition.
Sarah Cunningham (’13) and Ruth Levine (’13) represented an East Palo Alto man also being threatened with eviction for nonpayment of rent. Ruth and Sarah quickly identified that the client’s highest priority was preserving the Section 8 voucher that supported his tenancy, and which he could carry with him to a new tenancy if the eviction case was satisfactorily resolved. Ruth and Sarah also identified a legal defect with the landlord’s compliance with governing statutes. After filing an answer and affirmative defenses, they quickly propounded discovery. The case quickly settled; the landlord waived the rent allegedly owing in exchange for a move-out date acceptable to our client. The client was able to secure new housing that would accept his voucher, and remains in stable housing.
Sarah and Ruth also worked together on an important legislative advocacy project this quarter, in essence representing the City Attorney for the City of East Palo Alto. That office is severely understaffed and thus, when City Council asked the City Attorney to assess the ordinances of other California cities that prohibit or regulate so-called “fringe banking” operators (e.g., payday lending, auto title lending), the Attorney asked the clinic to assist. Working with an attorney at Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto, Ruth and Sarah researched and analyzed ordinances, and presented a document summarizing policy options to the City Attorney, Valerie Armento. Ms. Armento used the clinic’s work to prepare a proposed ordinance, which passed through the Planning Commission and then City Council.
Carl Owens (’12) represented a man at his Social Security disability administrative hearing. The client had worked many years at labor jobs, but after an assault he lost the use of his arm and developed chronic neck and shoulder pain. In addition, the client had developed an anxiety disorder and arthritis in his back. Carl conducted thorough and detailed interviews of the client, covering many personal and sensitive topics including mental health symptoms and prior substance abuse. Carl also gathered medical records and interviewed a physician and psychiatrist and drafted their declarations. Carl prepared the client to testify, prepared a direct and cross examination, and submitted a hearing brief. The judge granted the case from the bench. The client will now receive monthly cash benefits, two years of retroactive benefits and Medicare coverage, which will enable him to obtain treatment from a pain management clinic.
Ruth Levine (’13) represented a 58 year-old homeless woman from East Palo Alto at her Social Security disability hearing. The client had suffered from a back injury for several years, as well as from Bipolar disorder, which had gone undiagnosed and untreated until recently, when students helped her access mental health treatment. Despite her impairments, the client had worked at a string of retail jobs, but inevitably lost each job due to exacerbation of her symptoms. Homeless since the death of her husband ten years ago, she only had enough income to stay in motels 2-3 nights per week, and she slept in parks the rest of the time. Ruth drafted declarations from professional and lay witnesses and submitted medical records. She also had to work intensively with the client to prepare her testimony due to the client’s initial discomfort discussing mental health symptoms and her personal history. At the hearing, Ruth put forward a strong direct examination, gave opening and closing statements, and answered questions from the judge. After taking the case under advisement, the Administrative Law Judge awarded monthly cash benefits including two years of retroactive benefits and Medi-Cal coverage.
Sarah Cunningham (’13) represented a client at his Social Security Disability hearing. The client has a developmental disability (mild mental retardation) and a mood disorder, but Social Security had denied his claim twice stating that he could work at simple jobs. The client had tried to work several times, but had been fired due to his mental impairments. He was homeless for a few years, sleeping on night buses and eating at soup kitchens. To rebut the evidence from the Social Security Administration, Sarah developed and submitted detailed statements from a neuropsychologist and psychiatrist as well as from social workers, therapists and lay witnesses. Sarah also submitted a hearing brief and worked thoughtfully with the client to discuss the results of the psychological evaluations and to prepare him to testify. At the hearing, the judge granted the case, including over three years of back benefits amounting to almost $40,000.
Brian Goldsmith (’12) also represented a client from San Jose at his Social Security Disability hearing. The client suffered from severe arthritis, complicated by morbid obesity. He also suffered from major depressive disorder and anxiety. Brian developed questionnaires and persuaded the client’s psychiatrist and treating physician to complete them. He also prepared the client to testify and submitted a hearing brief. At the hearing and supplemental hearing, Brian presented argument to the judge. The judge ultimately awarded benefits to the client, including 18 months of retroactive benefits.
Katie Bryant (’13) represented a woman who lives at the Opportunity Center in Palo Alto at her Social Security disability hearing. The client suffered from deep vein thrombosis, recurrent cellulitis in her legs and severe swelling requiring frequent hospitalizations. Katie worked tirelessly to gather records in the case, visiting medical centers in person to cut through the bureaucratic red tape. She also arranged a neuropsychological evaluation for the client and prepped the evaluator. Katie submitted a hearing brief and prepared a direct and cross-examination. At the hearing, the judge granted the case from the bench, including two years of retroactive benefits.
Supreme Court Litigation Clinic students, faculty and staff received great results earlier this week — both denials of certiorari in which the clinic successfully persuaded the Court to leave its clients’ lower court victories intact.
In the first case, Applebee’s International v. Fast, the clinic represented a class of employees who sued the restaurant chain for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage requirements. After the Eighth Circuit allowed the case to proceed on the ground that Applebee’s had impermissibly taken a “tip credit” for certain hours the employees performed non-tip-generating work, Applebee’s petitioned for certiorari, supported by amicus briefs from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association and other organizations. The clinic then came into the case and successfully opposed certiorari. The student team was composed of Sam Dolinger (‘13), Denise Drake (‘13), Dan Galindo (‘12), and Amy Burns (‘12). Instructors Tom Goldstein and Kevin Russell directly supervised the work, and Joanne Newman provided excellent support.
In the second case, Alvis v. Espinoza, the clinic represented family members of a man whom police officers shot and killed after illegally entering an apartment in which he was staying. After the Ninth Circuit allowed the family members’ civil rights case to proceed, rejecting the officers’ claims of qualified immunity, the officers sought certiorari, supported by several law enforcement organizations. Once again, the clinic then came into the case and successfully opposed certiorari. The student team was composed of William Johnston (‘12), Teddy Kider (‘12), and Kathryn McCann (‘12). Tom Goldstein directly supervised the work, and Joanne Newman provided excellent support.
Although the clinic typically receives more attention for winning cases on the merits, these cases illustrate another way that the clinic often achieves success: keeping its clients out of the Court. (Indeed, last year, after the clinic obtained another denial of certiorari for a plaintiff in a case involving the Fair Credit Reporting Act, her attorney settled the case and made a donation to the clinic.) It should go without saying that both kinds of victories are extraordinarily rewarding.
Congratulations to all.
Last month, I circulated word about a decision by the Illinois Appellate Court reversing the conviction of Juan Rivera, a client whom a large group of Stanford Law students represented. I am delighted to report that the prosecutor announced yesterday that he would not be appealing that decision. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Rivera walked out of prison and breathed free air for the first time in more than 19 years.
Mr. Rivera had been convicted twice of a 1992 rape and murder of an 11-year old. The conviction was based on a confession he signed after 36 hours of tag-team questioning and while in a psychotic state. The Appellate Court found evidence that the interrogators had leaked facts to him and that the interrogators and prosecutors had then claimed that Mr. Rivera’s knowledge of these facts was proof positive of his guilt. Even after 2005 DNA tests excluded Mr. Rivera as the source of the semen associated with the rape, the prosecutors brought the case to trial a third time and again secured a conviction. The Appellate Court–taking very seriously its duty to give deference to the jury–but also engage in meaningful scrutiny of the sufficiency of the evidence–deemed it insufficient as a matter of law and decried the many years of Mr. Rivera’s wrongful incarceration.
The students who worked on the case are: Davida Brook, Chad Clark, Kara Kapp, Aaron Kurman, Rachel Marshall, Sara Mayeux, Allegra McLeod, Annie Osburne, Zoe Palitz , Michelle Parris , Patricia Pei, Nick Xenakis & Katie Young. Lawyers from Northwestern Law School’s Center on Wrongful Conviction and the Chicago office of Jenner & Block also participated in the appeal.
Please join me in applauding all of their passion and commitment.
Students, faculty and staff of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic have just finished a fantastic quarter providing quality direct services to individual clients and creative and diligent advocacy to institutional organizations. Some of the highlights of this quarter include:
Matter of R.
Katie Austin (‘13) and Becca Kline (‘13) prepared a U-Visa application for a victim of severe domestic violence. This visa application is an effort to prevent a lawful permanent resident from being deported back to Mexico, away from her six United States Citizen children, nine United States Citizen grandchildren, and the community she has lived in for over forty years. In order to prepare the U Visa application, Katie and Becca conducted extensive client meetings, interviewed numerous witnesses, and communicated with experts around the country. They wrote six declarations, assembled massive amounts of supporting evidence, and drafted complex legal arguments to establish the client’s eligibility for the U Visa.
Matter of A.
Chris Skelton (‘13) worked to fight the government’s efforts to deport his client, a lawful permanent resident of the United States. This man, originally from Kuwait, has three young United States Citizen children and has lived in the United States for twenty-three years. Chris conducted research on the effects of his client’s minor criminal record on immigration proceedings and met with his client extensively. Based on this research and client interaction, Chris developed a litigation strategy for his client to establish his case for discretionary humanitarian relief from deportation and retain his green card.
Matter of M.
Despite his status as a permanent resident, IRC client M. faces deportation because of his past drug convictions. M. suffered from drug addiction for a period of time but has since rehabilitated himself. He has been sober for years and currently lives with his four young United States Citizen children and a United States Citizen spouse. Nevertheless, M. was placed in removal proceedings on account of his previous charges in February of 2011. Oliver Kroll (‘13) and Sue Wang (‘12) conducted extensive research on the effects of drug convictions on M.’s charges of removability, as well as the evidence required for immigration courts to find that the convictions must lead to deportation. After complex strategic thinking, legal research, and consultation with their client, Oliver and Sue represented M. in an immigration court hearing, challenging the government’s charges against him.
Matter of C.
IRC client C. faced deportation proceedings on account of minor shoplifting offenses. During Spring Quarter 2011, Adrian Garcia (’12) and Marcus Perkins (’12) worked to fight the government’s deportation case against C. Continuing their work in Fall Quarter of 2011, Adrian and Marcus prepared an application for discretionary relief from removal. To compile the application, they met with C. extensively, conducted witness interviews, gathered supporting documents, and drafted a legal brief establishing C.’s eligibility to retain her green card. Adrian and Marcus filed their brief and supplemental materials with the immigration court and represented C. in a subsequent immigration court hearing. If Adrian and Marcus prevail, C. will be able to avoid deportation to Taiwan and stay in the country with her son.
Matter of T.
In Spring Quarter 2011, Hannah Lommers-Johnson (‘12) prepared a motion to dismiss the deportation charges against IRC client T. T. is an elderly lawful permanent resident with no criminal record, and whose only transgression was to spend too long outside of the United States aiding her husband in his medical treatment. In order to prepare the motion, Hannah researched complex legal arguments concerning the discretion of the government to dismiss charges and met with her client frequently to establish the positive equities of the case. Based on the strength of the request for prosecutorial discretion, the government granted Hannah’s request this fall, rendering it one of the few successful requests of its kind to date.
Matter of J.
Rachelle Orozco’s (‘11) client, J., faced deportation to Mexico due to two misdemeanor convictions for possession of controlled substances, both of which have been expunged by California state courts. In Winter Quarter 2011, Rachelle conducted extensive legal research on the effect of state court expungements for first-time drug offenses on immigration proceedings. Rachelle submitted a legal brief to the immigration court arguing J.’s convictions should not lead to his deportation under Ninth Circuit case law. The immigration judge granted the motion yesterday and allowed J. to remain in the United States with his family.
Guide for Pro Se Detained Immigrants
Oliver Kroll (‘13) and Chris Skelton (‘13) collaborated with Centro Legal de la Raza in Oakland, California to create a manual to aid pro se immigrants in detention centers apply for a U Visa. A U Visa is a generous form of legal relief for non-citizens who have been the victim of a serious crime and have cooperated with law enforcement. However, there were no known U Visa manuals to date to guide pro se applicants through the visa process. Oliver and Chris designed a manual, complete with easy-to-follow pictures and diagrams, to explain the legal requirements and walk detainees through the questions on all of the necessary forms. In order to familiarize themselves with the detained population and field test their product, Oliver and Chris spent several days interviewing immigrant detainees at West County Detention Center in Richmond, California. Oliver and Chris also conducted research on the eligibility requirements for the U Visa and the pro se materials that exist for other immigration applications. The first of its kind, the manual developed by Oliver and Chris will hopefully be distributed in detention centers to assist pro se detainees access much-needed immigration relief.
Practice Advisory for Lawyers Representing Cancellation of Removal Applicants
Katie Austin (‘13), Becca Kline (‘13), and Sue Wang (‘12) collaborated with a national immigration non-profit organization to write a practice advisory for immigration practitioners around the country. The practice advisory lays out potential arguments for establishing the eligibility of immigrants applying for cancellation of removal. After extensive legal research, strategic thinking, and consultation with their client, Katie, Becca, and Sue drafted complex model arguments and compiled them into an advisory. This practice advisory will help lawyers navigate a complex area of immigration law in order to advocate more effectively for their non-citizen clients.
IRC students are supervised by Clinic Director Professor Jayashri Srikantiah, together with Anna Welch (who serves as the Cooley Godward Kronish Clinical Teaching Fellow) and Alison Kamhi, who serves as a Clinical Teaching Fellow. Sandra Becerra provides legal assistance.
Students, faculty and staff of the Organizations and Transactions Clinic are wrapping up another outstanding quarter of work providing high-quality representation to a number of clients. Here are some highlights of their accomplishments:
Mia Beck (’13) and Eric Fleekop (’12) prepared a substantial analysis of corporate structuring options and related implementation considerations for an urban farming organization in Santa Clara County and met several times at the farm with the CEO and board chair to discuss the recommendations. The team provided comprehensive corporate governance advice and documents to a San Francisco girls empowerment organization, an engagement involving meetings with the CEO, board governance committee and full board of directors. Mia and Eric also created a program services agreement and liability waiver for the client. Finally, the team reviewed a fiscal sponsorship agreement for a Marin County community resource center and created template documents for use with future projects.
Robert Fischbeck (’13) and Jamie Kendall (’13) reviewed complex land- and facility-use arrangements and related governance matters for a leading Northern California agricultural education organization. The project involved a site inspection, extensive diligence, preparation of a lengthy assessment document and new governance materials, and multiple calls with the CEO and members of the board. The team also provided governance advice and documents for an Alameda County conservation organization, and presented their recommendations at a meeting of the board. Finally, for the CFO of a large Bay Area food bank, Bobby and Jamie developed a practical contract review tool, a work-product that touched on both business and legal considerations and was adapted by other teams for their clients.
Talya Goldfinger (‘13) and Julia Kropp (’13) provided corporate governance advice and materials for a San Mateo County community resource center and met with its CEO and board of directors to discuss the project. They also revamped contract documents for a farmers’ market and developed a number of other documents for the organization. Talya and Julia advised a large Bay Area operator of farmers’ markets about its vendor audit process, a project involving a meeting with the CEO, participation in an on-farm audit, legal research, and development of advice, contract and communication documents. The team also prepared a services agreement and related review tools for a San Francisco abuse prevention organization and revised materials relating to a community garden and residential gleaning program in San Jose.
Rachel Gibbons (’13) and Charlie Willson (’13) represented a large San Francisco community services organization on a complete rework of the materials for its transitional housing program. The project included a facility tour and several meetings with the CFO and program director, and involved design and drafting of a suite of contract and other documents for the client. Rachel and Charlie also prepared corporate governance recommendations and materials for a Marin County sustainable agriculture organization and developed a number of contracts for the organization, including an IP license, loan agreement and various program documents. Finally, the team prepared a private land access agreement and a template independent contractor agreement for a Santa Clara County conservation organization.
The Organizations & Transactions Clinic is directed by Professor Jay Mitchell. Eva Guttierez serves as the Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Clinical Teaching Fellow. Sandra Becerra provides legal assistance.