Home About RSS

SLS News

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Professor Juliet Brodie Appointed Associate Dean for Clinical Education

March 21, 2013 • by Judith Romero • no comments »

Juliet M. Brodie, Professor of Law and Director, Stanford Community Law Clinic

Juliet M. Brodie, Professor of Law and Director, Stanford Community Law Clinic

STANFORD, Calif., March 21, 2013—Stanford Law School today announced the appointment of Juliet M. Brodie, who has directed the Stanford Community Law Clinic since 2006, to Associate Dean for Clinical Education, effective June 15.

“I am delighted that Juliet Brodie will lead the Mills Legal Clinic,” said Law School Dean Elizabeth Magill. “Juliet is an exceptional lawyer, an inspiring teacher, and a natural leader. She has built the Community Law Clinic into a powerhouse. The Mills Legal Clinic is already gem of the academic program at Stanford Law School. I know Juliet will bring it to even greater heights.”

“I am humbled by the opportunity to help the clinical faculty continue to build and operate programs that give extraordinary learning opportunities to our students and that provide great service to clients,” said Brodie. “Stanford should be very proud of its clinics, and I’m excited to play whatever role I can in continuing their growth and sustaining their excellence.”

Professor Brodie is a graduate of Brown University and Harvard Law School. Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty in 2006, Professor Brodie was an associate clinical professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. She began her career as a litigation associate at the Boston law firm Hill & Barlow and went on the serve as an assistant attorney general for the state of Wisconsin, prosecuting health care providers accused of Medicaid fraud. She has served as a member of the editorial board of the Clinical Law Review and of the executive committee of the Section on Poverty Law at the AALS. She was co-chair (2009–2011) of the AALS Clinical Education Section Subcommittee on Lawyering in the Public Interest (Bellow Scholar Program). She is a frequent speaker on community lawyering, clinical education, and representing low-income clients in civil matters.

The Stanford Law School clinical program now includes 11 clinics operating across a wide array of substantive practice areas as well as practice types. The substantive areas range from criminal defense to Supreme Court litigation to religious liberty to education law. And the practice types are just as wide-ranging: alongside trial and appellate litigation in clinics like the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic and the Criminal Defense Clinic, Stanford’s clinics expose students to transactional work (in the Organizations and Transactions Clinic), to policy work (in the Environmental Law and Youth and Education Law clinics), to client advising (in many of the clinics). Students enroll in clinics full-time for a quarter, and over the past four years, more than 60 percent of our students have taken at least one clinic.

tagged: ,
category: clinical legal education, law school curriculum, legal education, pro bono legal services, public service

Stanford Law School Students Present Key Research Findings on Realignment and on Lifer Parole to California Governor Jerry Brown

March 20, 2013 • by Judith Romero • no comments »

Criminal justice students outline the implementation and impact of moving the state’s offenders from state prisons to county jails and also report on two empirical studies of the parole process for life prisoners

Stanford Law School Students Present Findings to California Governor Jerry Brown

Stanford Law School Students Present Findings to California Governor Jerry Brown and Special Counsel to the Governor Anne Gust Brown

A group of Stanford Law School students recently presented their research findings to California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. on the implementation and impact of California’s Public Safety Realignment legislation and on key aspects of the parole process for California “lifer” inmates.

The students conducted the research as part of a course, Advanced Seminar on Criminal Law and Public Policy: A Research Practicum. The course was created by Joan Petersilia, the Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, and the research was supervised under the auspices of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center (SCJC), which Petersilia co-directs along with Robert Weisberg, the Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of Law. The research produced by the class is intended to contribute to the State’s and counties’ understanding of the impacts of Realignment in real-time.

According to Petersilia, “California’s Realignment is the biggest penal experiment in modern history, but little has been done to consider Realignment’s impact broadly, or to evaluate its statewide impact on crime, incarceration, justice agencies, or offender recidivism.”

Petersilia told students to envision the class as if it were a “makeshift policy institute” and to treat the Governor as a client.

The student researchers worked closely with the Governor’s top agencies, asking them to pose their most pressing questions. Their research methodology included conducting 90 interviews across 12 counties, speaking with practitioners on the ground about how AB 109 has impacted their daily work. They interviewed staff in the offices of the district attorney, public defender, probation chief, judiciary, sheriff, parole, and victim-witness services. They surveyed the following counties: Alameda, Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Solano. In addition, they collected detailed data on each of California’s 58 counties, pre- and post-realignment.

Five students delivered summarized reports, and in all, seventeen students were on hand to answer tough, detailed questions from the Governor and his accompanying staff, Gabriel Sanchez, Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary, and Anne Gust Brown, Special Counsel to the Governor and California’s First Lady.

Stanford second-year students Mariam Hinds and Matthew Owens, and third-year Jessica Spencer presented, “Voices from the Field: Emerging Trends in Realignment.” Jackie Robinson and David Friedman presented, “Marsy’s Law and Lifer Parole Denial Periods.” Second-year law student Michael Ruiz, whose study was done with Stanford undergraduate Eric Dunn, presented “Base Term Enhancements for Lifers Found Suitable for Parole.” The other students who were on hand to field questions from Governor Brown were John Butler, Eric Dunn, Mark Feldman, David Friedman, Kevin Jason, Corrine Keel, Marissa Landin, Rachel McDaniel, Camden Vilkin, Alyssa Weis, Jenny Williams, and Jordan Wappler.

At the conclusion of the presentation, Petersilia said, “Governor, these students are among the state’s experts on the implementation of Realignment and on the parole of California’s “lifer’ population—and all at no cost to the taxpayer!”

“This class has provided me and my classmates a unique educational opportunity to see how a major piece of criminal legislation plays out on the ground,” said student researcher Mark Feldman. “It is not often that, as a law student, one gets to feel like your research is serving a public interest need or that it will be read and considered by policymakers and practitioners around the state.”

On behalf of the Governor, Steve Acquisto, Chief Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary, praised the research, saying, “These areas often don’t get the attention or analysis they deserve, which makes the research your students have performed especially valuable.”

In an earlier pilot of this course, Petersilia and her students worked with California State Attorney General Kamala Harris and the Santa Clara County’s Community Corrections Partnership (CCP).

“This practicum is a perfect example of the extraordinary research opportunities available to Stanford Law School students,” said Stanford Law School Dean Elizabeth Magill. “What’s quite exceptional is that our students are able to have a real impact on public policy while they are still in school.”

Headed by faculty co-directors Robert Weisberg and Joan Petersilia, and executive director Debbie Mukamal, the Criminal Justice Center operates as a public service consultant to public officials at all levels of government and encourages collaborative criminal justice policy by forging partnerships with government entities in the criminal justice arena that can benefit from social science research to develop empirically-validated, data-driven criminal justice programs and policies.

The SCJC’s research on the implementation and impact of California’s Public Safety Realignment Legislation is supported by four grants totaling $650,000 from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; the James Irvine Foundation; and the Public Welfare Foundation.

The research presented to Governor Brown has been shared with the relevant state agencies.

Summary: Findings on Realignment

“Realignment”—or AB 109— was passed in 2011 and transferred authority for convicted felons from the state prison and parole system to local counties and allocated $2 billion in the first two years for local programs. The statute offers counties an unprecedented amount of flexibility in most areas of community supervision, including sentencing and early release for low-level offenders, the use of alternative sanctions (electronic monitoring, substance abuse treatment, etc.), supervised probation, and delivery of social services. To date, more than 100,000 offenders have been “realigned” back to the counties as a result of AB 109.

Realignment was California’s direct response to a 2011 Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Plata, which upheld a district court order requiring the state to reduce the prison population by approximately 30,000, to 137.5 percent of its capacity by 2013 (it has been as high as 200 percent of capacity) and improve medical and mental healthcare throughout the system.

While the overall population of incarcerated individuals in California may not change over time as offenders shift from state to local custody, the student researchers told the Governor Realignment can still be considered to have achieved its aims in both satisfying the court order and keeping offenders closer to their communities while investing in evidence-based treatment programs. In meeting these goals, California could simultaneously reallocate resources without compromising public safety.

Third-year student Jessica Spencer told the Governor and his team that, “Most counties feel like they are starting to ‘get their feet under them,’ and most report that the second year of Realignment is going much smoother than the first.”

The researchers found that Realignment has prompted counties to innovate in constructive ways, For instance, a number of sheriffs have taken the lead in developing rehabilitation and reentry programs.

“Every sheriff we interviewed firmly believed that they can treat offenders at home if given the proper resources,” explained second-year student Matthew Owens.

“Realignment has spurred counties to develop risk assessment tools, some for the first time, to manage their populations,” said Petersilia, “Some local jails had never managed their facilities and their inmate release decisions based on risk factors before. Now they are starting to.”

The student researchers demonstrated that in true “realignment,” the costs of incarceration should be “aligned” with the decision-making that leads to incarceration. Law enforcement, prosecution, and sentencing occur at the local level, and released prisoners eventually return home to their local communities. Realignment shifts back to counties the resources and responsibility for supervising their offenders. This has spurred agencies within counties to share resources and collaborate in ways they never did in the past. The cost shifting back to the counties created by Realignment also allows the state prison system to focus its resources on the most dangerous and long-term prisoners.

While Realignment allows counties to experiment in their own ways in handling the new jail and supervision populations, the student researchers have been collecting data on county differences. One example they reported is the use of new hybrid or “split” sentences which combine a jail term with a period of mandatory probation supervision. The researchers reported great variation among the counties in judges’ use of (and prosecutors’ recommendation of) such sentences and observed that the differences may lie in varying degrees of confidence these practitioners have in the quality of the supervision provided. For instance, in Riverside County judges have used split sentences in 60 percent of realigned cases whereas in Los Angeles County only 5 percent of sentences are split.

One repeated concern the student researchers heard from numerous practitioners across the state is the challenge counties face in effectively supervising a new type of offender. As explained by second-year student Mariam Hinds, “Counties are dealing with a more criminally sophisticated and hardened caseload due to the fact that some realigned offenses are more serious than pre-Realignment offenses that would have been sentenced locally and some inmates being released back to the counties from prison on post-release community supervision have serious or violent criminal histories.”

Summary: Findings on Parole of Lifers

While Realignment has been the boldest criminal justice experiment in California, prisoners serving life sentences—who comprise 25 percent of the state prison population—represent a major challenge to the system. The parole grant rate has varied greatly under different gubernatorial administrations. The SCJC recognized that consideration of the parole release for this population should be part of a comprehensive evaluation of criminal justice in the state—especially in light of the Plata injunction.

The student research teams studying individuals serving life sentences with the possibility of parole worked on two distinct issues related to the parole process. In accordance with a research partnership Stanford has with the Governor’s office to study lifer parole, both student teams took on research that was requested by the Governor’s office and the Board of Parole Hearings for in-depth review. Law student Jackie Robinson, who did this research with fellow student David Friedman, presented an explanation of how the Board of Parole Hearings decides the length of time to defer the reconsideration of parole for prisoners found unsuitable for parole release.

Under Marsy’s Law (passed in 2008), lifers found unsuitable for parole have their subsequent hearing set at a period of 15 years from the present date unless the Board can find by “clear and convincing evidence” that the interests of the victim and public’s safety do not warrant such a lengthy period. If commissioners find sufficient evidence, they can set the denial length to 10, 7, 5, or 3 years. The students reviewed transcripts from 2011 and found that inmate characteristics like parole readiness, social and criminal history and institutional behavior largely explain who receives longer or shorter denials, but that other factors like gender, whether the inmate attends the hearing, and the identity of the particular commissioner also determine outcomes.

The students encouraged the State to establish clearer guidelines for the Board to use in making the parole denial length decision.

Second-year law student Michael Ruiz, whose study was done with Stanford undergraduate Eric Dunn, presented research examining one specific part of the parole process for those prisoners found suitable to be released on parole.  Specifically, this team studied how often the Board adds time to prisoners sentences by converting concurrent counts into consecutive ones as permitted under California regulations. The students closely analyzed 367 cases from 2011 and compared 30 variables to see if any patterns emerged in why some lifers received term enhancements from the Board of Parole Hearings that would keep them in prison longer and others did not. The team found enhancements were applied for 30 percent of lifers who had concurrent sentences (14 percent of all lifers total) and that none of the factors analyzed explained why some received enhancements and others did not. While the initial population that was being affected was small (only ten inmates), the researchers reported that “the number of ‘lifers’ affected by concurrent enhancements will increase as lifers are found suitable for parole earlier and as California does a more effective job in rehabilitating ‘lifers.’”

Additional Resources:

Professor Joan Petersilia is co-author, with Stanford Law student Jessica Snyder, of a recent study on Realignment: “Looking Past the Hype: 10 Questions Everyone Should Ask About California’s Prison Realignment” (forthcoming in California Journal of Politics and Policy, April 2013). Additionally, she has co-authored an article with Stanford Law student Jessica Spencer, “California Victims’ Rights in a Post-Realignment World,” forthcoming in Federal Sentencing Reporter, June 2013.

SCJC Briefing: Marsy’s Law and Lifer Parole Denial Periods

SCJC Briefing: Base Term Enhancements for Lifers Found Suitable for Parole

Stanford Criminal Justice Center Awarded Major Grants to Fund Its Research on the Effects of California’s Prison Realignment

Studying Prison Realignment in Realtime, Stanford Lawyer, October 28, 2011

Stanford Criminal Justice Center webpage on Realignment

Note: A few of the students have or will be presenting their research:

  • Jessica Spencer to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Office on March 4, 2013
  • Marisa Landin and Corinne Keel at the April 12, 2013, “Police, Prisons, and Power: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Criminal Justice” sponsored by The City University of New York’s Prison Studies Group (in New York City)
tagged: , , , , , , , ,
category: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Governor, Public Safety Realignment Act, The Board of Parole Hearings, criminal law, public policy

Constitutional Law and Democracy Scholar Nathaniel Persily Joins the Stanford Law School Faculty

March 5, 2013 • by Judith Romero • no comments »

Photo of Professor Nathaniel Persily

Professor Nathaniel Persily

STANFORD, Calif., March 5, 2013—Stanford Law School today announced that Nathaniel Persily, currently the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law and Political Science at Columbia Law School, will join the Stanford faculty as professor of law, effective in the summer of 2013.  He will also hold courtesy appointments in the departments of communication and political science.

Professor Persily’s scholarship, teaching, and outside work have been focused on two principal areas: the “law of democracy,” which addresses issues such as voting rights, political parties, campaign finance, and redistricting; and public opinion concerning courts and constitutional controversies.

“We are thrilled to welcome Nate to the SLS faculty,” said Stanford Law School Dean Elizabeth Magill. “Nate is a prolific and influential scholar, and he is a fantastic teacher and mentor to students. He is also a key player in the field who has been called upon repeatedly to help resolve tough redistricting issues. Our faculty is already exceptionally strong in public law, and in the law of democracy in particular, and Nate will make us even stronger.”

In the field of election law, Professor Persily has published dozens of articles (six of which have been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court) on the legal regulation of political parties, on issues surrounding the census and redistricting process, on voting rights, and on campaign finance reform. His most notable recent publications in this area include “Race, Region and Vote Choice in the 2008 Election: Implications for the Future of the Voting Rights Act,” 123 Harvard Law Review 1385 (2010); “Fig Leaves and Tea Leaves in the Supreme Court’s Recent Election Law Decisions,” 2008 Supreme Court Review 89 (2009); “Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements,” 121 Harvard Law Review 1737 (2008); and “The Promise and Pitfalls of the New Voting Rights Act,” 117 Yale Law Journal 174 (2007).

Frequently testifying before Congress on election-related issues, Professor Persily is also an active practitioner in this field, having served as a court-appointed expert to draw up legislative districting plans for Georgia, Maryland, and New York, and as Special Master for the redistricting of Connecticut’s Congressional Districts. Professor Persily also created DrawCongress.org, a website that serves as a repository for nonpartisan congressional redistricting plans for all 50 states. The maps on the site were drawn by students in his course, “Redistricting and Gerrymandering.” The website is the first ever to present a nonpartisan redistricting plan for the entire U.S. House of Representatives.

In the field of public opinion, his coedited book, Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy (Oxford Press, 2008), examines the effects of court decisions on American public opinion. The first of its kind, the book gathers together and analyzes all available survey data on issues such as desegregation, criminal rights, abortion, gay rights, federalism, school prayer, and the death penalty. In addition, along with Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard, he designed the “Constitutional Attitudes Survey,” a national public opinion survey executed in both 2009 and 2010, which includes an array of questions concerning attitudes toward the Supreme Court, constitutional interpretation, and specific constitutional controversies. This May, Oxford will publish a second book coedited by Persily on the Supreme Court’s recent health care decision: The Health Care Case: The Supreme Court’s Decision and Its Implications (2013).

“Nate Persily’s work on the law of democracy and on popular reactions to judicial decisions is the very best kind of interdisciplinary work, informed by both techniques developed in other disciplines—in Nate’s case, political science and communication—and a real lawyer’s sensibility,” said Pamela S. Karlan, the Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and co-director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. “Plus, Nate is the very best colleague there is. Working with Nate when he was a second-year student was one of the delights that convinced me to come to Stanford, and I’m now equally delighted we’ve convinced him to return.”

“It is an honor and a thrill to return to Stanford,” said Persily. “After years in the wilderness of the East Coast, I am excited to come home.”

More on Nathaniel Persily

Prior to his faculty appointment at Stanford, Professor Persily was the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law and Political Science at Columbia Law School, with a secondary appointment in the department of political science. He began his academic career as an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2001, becoming a full professor 2005.  He has been a visiting professor at Harvard, Stanford, NYU, and Princeton.

He holds a joint BA/MA (1992) from Yale College, a JD (1998) from Stanford Law School where he was president of the Stanford Law Review, and a PhD (2002) from the University of California, Berkeley (Political Science). Following law school, he clerked for the Honorable David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Professor Persily is admitted to the New York and U.S. Supreme Court Bar.

About Stanford Law School

Stanford Law School (www.law.stanford.edu) is one of the nation’s leading institutions for legal scholarship and education. Its alumni are among the most influential decision makers in law, politics, business, and high technology. Faculty members argue before the Supreme Court, testify before Congress, produce outstanding legal scholarship and empirical analysis, and contribute regularly to the nation’s press as legal and policy experts.

For more information, please contact:

Judith Romero
Public Information Officer
Stanford Law School
judith.romero@stanford.edu

tagged: , , ,
category: Stanford Law School faculty news, campaign finance, constitutional controversies, constitutional law, election law, law of democracy, political parties, redistricting, voting rights

Twenty Five Stanford Law School Students Named 2013 Ford Foundation Fellows

March 1, 2013 • by Judith Romero • no comments »

Today the Ford Foundation announced 25 Stanford Law School students selected to participate in the foundation’s new Law School Public Interest Fellowship Program. The Stanford Law School students will work with Ford grantee organizations around the world during the summer of 2013 to improve the lives of others through legal analysis, litigation and public policy advocacy.

The Ford Foundation Law School Public Interest Fellowship Program was first announced in September 2012. Stanford Law School was chosen as one of four law schools to share a $1.7 million grant designed to support ten-week summer student fellowships focused on international and domestic public interest practice­­­. The fellowships are open to first-and second-year law students. Those selected each receive $15,000 over the summer, giving them the opportunity to have substantive and transformative experiences as interns in the field of public interest law.

The John and Terry Levin Center for Public Service and Public Interest Law administers the Ford fellowship program at Stanford.

The following is a list of the Stanford Law School students who were selected for the fellowship and the grantee organizations where they will intern this summer:

Action Canada for Population and Development Geneva, Switzerland Rebecca Vogel
Alliance for a Better Community Los Angeles, California Cesar De La Vega
Asian Law Caucus San Francisco, CA Nisha Kashyap
Beijing Qianqian Law Firm Beijing, China Nicole Marquez
Brennan Center for Justice New York, NY Kevin Jason
Center for American Progress Washington, D.C. Abhay Aneja
Center for Reproductive Rights New York, NY Lauren Finkelstein
Constitution Project Washington, D.C. Roberto De Luca
Environmental Defense Fund New York, NY Amanda Prasuhn
Human Rights First New York, NY Neel Lalchandani
Indian Law Resource Center Washington, D.C. Ashlee Pinto
International Commission of Jurists Geneva, Switzerland Mark Middaugh
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund Los Angeles, California Mikael Rojas
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund New York, NY Jennifer Williams
National Employment Law Project Washington, D.C. Briane Cornish
National Employment Law Project Oakland, CA Camden Vilkin
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Washington, D.C. Salvatore Bonaccorso
National Health Law Program Los Angeles, California Byung-Kwan Park
National Immigration Law Center Washington, D.C. Stacy Villalobos
National Immigration Law Center Los Angeles, California Atenas Burrola
Native American Rights Fund Boulder, Colorado Steven Seber
Public Citizen Foundation Washington, D.C. Sophia Rios
The Sentencing Project Washington, D.C. Christopher Lewis
Vera Institute of Justice Washington, D.C. Alyssa Weis
Women’s Link Worldwide Madrid, Spain Denise Ballesteros
tagged: , ,
category: fellowships, international law, public service

Inequality in schools threatens U.S. prosperity, Stanford scholars say

February 22, 2013 • by Judith Romero • no comments »

Stanford Law School Professor Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar is among scholars serving on the nation’s nonpartisan Equity and Excellence Commission who reported to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan that inequality in schools is threatening U.S. prosperity.

This news story was originally published February 20, 2013 in Stanford Report.

Equity and Excellence Commission Report to the U.S. Secretary of Education

Equity and Excellence Commission Report to the U.S. Secretary of Education

By Brooke Donald

A new report says America’s unequal education system disadvantages poor and minority students.

Decades of reform have failed to create a strong and fair school system in the United States, with poor and minority students at an increasing disadvantage, a new report says.

The report, which outlines ways to close the achievement gap, was issued Tuesday by the Equity and Excellence Commission, a 27-member panel that included three Stanford scholars: Law ProfessorMariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Graduate School of Education Professor Linda Darling-Hammond and Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eric Hanushek.

The nonpartisan commission, which also included union leaders, school officials and civil rights activists, was created by Congress to provide advice to the Department of Education on how to remove inequality in education.

“For all of our initiatives and good intentions, our nation has been unable to ensure that each and every American child can attend a quality public school,” the report said.

The report said 10 million students in America’s poorest communities are “having their lives unjustly and irredeemably blighted” by an education system that assigns them low-performing teachers, run-down facilities and low academic expectations and opportunities.

It said America has become an outlier in the way it funds, governs and administers K-12 schools.

“No other developed nation has inequities nearly as deep or systemic; no other developed nation has, despite some efforts to the contrary, so thoroughly stacked the odds against so many of its children,” the report said.

Cuéllar, who co-chaired the commission, said the government, at every level, must implement a multiyear strategy for advancing national equity using a combination of incentives and enforcement.

“We have a staggering achievement gap at home,” Cuéllar said. “The achievement gap between children from high- and low-income families is 30 to 40 percent larger among children born in 2001 than among those born 25 years earlier.”

Cuéllar, co-director of Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation at the Freeman Spogli Institute and an expert on institutional accountability, said the federal government must be clear about national expectations for student outcomes, insist on realistic plans from states and allocate resources to level the playing field.

The report pushes for better training for teachers just starting out, adoption of a school finance system that provides adequate funding for every child no matter the ZIP code and more support services for the poorest children and those with special needs.

It also recommends pre-kindergarten programs for every poor child within 10 years and urges the federal government to create a grant program with incentives for states and localities to promote parent education and a sense of shared engagement between schools and parents.

Darling-Hammond said funding schools equitably and ensuring that all children get a high-quality education is not only a moral calling but increasingly a matter of economic self-interest.

“In a knowledge-based economy, we can no longer afford to educate only a small share of students well, while under-educating many others,” she said. “Those who do not succeed in school are increasingly likely to be unemployed, on welfare, or incarcerated, rather than able to engage productively in the economy.”

Darling-Hammond said she is hopeful the report will call attention to “the urgent need to create an equitable starting point for all children – with investments in their welfare and preschool education – that continues with equitably funded schools staffed by well-prepared and committed educators.”

tagged: , , ,
category: education law & policy, public policy, public service

Leading Scholar of Comparative Constitutional and Common Law Bernadette Meyler Joins Stanford Law School Faculty

February 21, 2013 • by Judith Romero • no comments »

Photo of Law Professor Bernadette Meyler

Professor Bernadette Meyler

STANFORD, Calif., February 21, 2013—Stanford Law School today announced that Bernadette A. Meyler, currently professor of law at Cornell University Law School, will join the Stanford Law School faculty as professor of law, effective in the summer of 2013. Professor Meyler’s research and teaching focus primarily on the intersections between constitutional law and the common law, British and American legal history, law and literature, and law and religion.

“Bernie’s research spans almost the entire range of the humanities, examining intersections between law and history, literature, drama, philosophy, and political thought. At the same time, she is a talented lawyer, who is deeply engaged with the complexities of modern-day constitutional law doctrine and policy,” said Stanford Law School Dean Elizabeth Magill. “We are all thrilled to welcome her to the faculty.”

One of Meyler’s major areas of research is a book project, now nearing completion, titled Towards a Common Law Originalism (forthcoming Yale University Press). The book’s main goals are to critique mainstream originalist approaches to constitutional interpretation as deeply flawed due to their mistaken conception of the eighteenth-century common law (and contemporary practices of interpretation) and to develop an alternative, more historically sophisticated model of originalist interpretation, which she calls “common-law originalism.”

Another major focus is a second book project, titled Theaters of Pardoning, which aims to trace how, over the course of the seventeenth century, pardoning shifted from being primarily an element of the king’s royal prerogative to becoming an important feature of parliamentary authority. She argues that while we now tend towards the view that pardoning emerged from a theory and practice of royal power and thus fits at best uncomfortably in our current liberal, constitutional democracies, the forgotten history of the legislative pardon suggests otherwise. The legislative pardon was actually part and parcel of the transition from royal to parliamentary sovereignty. In addition to expanding our historical knowledge of pardoning practice and its relationship to fundamental transformations in governmental structure (and political thought), the book project also promises to make a substantial contribution to our understanding of how law and literature interrelate.

“I’m excited that Bernie will offer our students a course on the history of the common law,” said Magill. “While this is a topic of great importance to the study of American legal history, there are only a handful of law schools in the country that currently teach it—and, indeed only a handful of professors possessing the requisite knowledge to do so. Bernie is one of these very few.”

“I am thrilled to be joining the Stanford Law School faculty,” said Meyler. “During my time as an SLS student, I had the privilege of studying with some of the luminaries of constitutional law and legal history. It is my greatest pleasure to be returning to the same institution as a faculty member.”

More on Bernadette Meyler

Prior to her faculty appointment at Stanford, Professor Meyler was Professor of Law and English at Cornell University, where she was honored with the Provost’s Award for Distinguished Scholarship (2009). She served as faculty director of research at the law school, and founded and led Cornell’s annual Law & Humanities Colloquium. She was visiting professor of law at Stanford Law School (2011), a Mellon/LAPA Fellow in Law and the Humanities at Princeton University (2009-10), and faculty in residence at UCLA School of Law (2007). She holds a BA (1995) from Harvard College, a JD (2003) from Stanford Law School, and PhD (2006) from the University of California, Irvine (English). At Stanford, she was honored with the President’s Award for Extraordinary Vision on Behalf of and Dedication to the Stanford Law Review (2003). She received a Mellon Fellowship in Humanistic Studies and a Chancellor’s Fellowship to pursue her doctorate in English at the University of California, Irvine. Following law school, she clerked for the Honorable Robert A. Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Meyler is admitted to the New York Bar.

About Stanford Law School

Stanford Law School (www.law.stanford.edu) is one of the nation’s leading institutions for legal scholarship and education. Its alumni are among the most influential decision makers in law, politics, business, and high technology. Faculty members argue before the Supreme Court, testify before Congress, produce outstanding legal scholarship and empirical analysis, and contribute regularly to the nation’s press as legal and policy experts. Stanford Law School has established a new model for legal education that provides rigorous interdisciplinary training, hands-on experience, global perspective and focus on public service, spearheading a movement for change.

For more information, please contact:

Judith Romero
Public Information Officer
Stanford Law School
judith.romero@stanford.edu

tagged: , , ,
category: American law, British law, common law, constitutional law, law & literature, law & religion, legal history

Stanford Law School Launches New Human Rights Center

February 20, 2013 • by Judith Romero • no comments »

Center will be led by International Human Rights Law Expert and Professor James Cavallaro

Photo of Professor James Cavallaro

Professor James Cavallaro

STANFORD, Calif., February 20, 2013—Stanford Law School today announced the establishment of the Stanford Human Rights Center to promote student engagement, research, public understanding, and practical engagement in the area of international human rights and global social justice.

The center will be directed by James Cavallaro, professor of law and director of the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (IHRCRC) of the Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School. Cavallaro has extensive expertise in international human rights law; human rights issues in Latin America and the developing world; and international human rights litigation.

The new center will work closely with the Stanford Law School International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, which is part of the Mills Legal Clinic. The Mills Legal Clinic is comprised of eleven separate clinics, which educate students by having them represent real clients in matters specifically chosen as well-suited for developing students’ lawyering expertise. Students in the IHRCRC address a range of situations of rights abuse and violent conflict around the world. By providing direct representation to victims and by working with communities that have suffered or face potential abuse, the clinic trains lawyers to work as advocates in the field of human rights and global justice.

“We are delighted to launch this center,” said Stanford Law School Dean Elizabeth Magill. “Under Jim’s leadership, the center will soon become a place where important issues in this field are studied and critically examined, and it will also provide a hub for the many students at Stanford Law School who want to reflect on the practice of international human rights law.”

The center will sponsor lectures, panels, workshops, conferences and publications on the issues of human rights and global social justice. The first series of events, “The Future of Human Rights,” will begin in the spring quarter and feature leading voices including Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch; Jenny S. Martinez, professor of law and Warren Christopher Professor in the Practice of International Law and Diplomacy at Stanford University; and Mahmood Mamdani, the Herbert Lehman Professor of Government and Professor of Anthropology at Columbia University.

“Together with the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, the Human Rights Center will provide students and faculty at the law school and at the university an unparalleled range of opportunities in the field,” said Director James Cavallaro. “Students can engage in human rights practice through the clinic while critically reflecting on the theory, doctrine and practice of human rights through the center.”

The center will also offer two fellowships for recent graduates in international human rights practice and research. The fellowships are designed to promote engaged practice with a human rights nongovernmental organization (NGO) in a developing nation and provide experience essential to developing a career in human rights work.

More information about the Stanford Human Rights Center can be found online at: http://www.law.stanford.edu/organizations/programs-and-centers/stanford-human-rights-center

More on James Cavallaro

James Cavallaro received his BA from Harvard University and his JD from University of California at Berkeley School of Law, where he served on the California Law Review and graduated with Order of the Coif Honors. Following law school, he served as a law clerk to Chief Judge Dolores K. Sloviter of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1993-1994). Early in his career, Cavallaro spent several years working with Central American refugees on the U.S.-Mexico border and with rights groups in Chile challenging abuses by the Pinochet government. In 1994, he opened a joint office for Human Rights Watch and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) in Rio de Janeiro, and served as director of the office, overseeing research, reporting and litigation against Brazil before the Inter-American system’s human rights bodies. Professor Cavallaro founded the Global Justice Center in 1999; it is now a leading Brazilian human rights non-governmental organization. He then joined the academy, holding positions at Harvard Law School, most recently as clinical professor of law and executive director of the Harvard Law School Human Rights Program. He joined Stanford Law School’s faculty in 2011.

Among Professor Cavallaro’s recent individual and jointly written scholarly works are: “Name, Shame, and Then Build Consensus? Bringing Conflict Resolution Skills to Human Rights,” (Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 2012); “No Place to Hide; Gang, State, and Clandestine Violence in El Salvador” (HRP Practice Series, Harvard University Press, 2010); “Reevaluating Regional Human Rights Litigation in the Twenty-First Century: the Case of the Inter-American Court” (American Journal of International Law, 2008); “Looking Backward to Address the Future?: Transitional Justice, Rising Crime and Nation-Building” (Maine Law Review, 2008); and “Never Again?: The Legacy of the Argentine and Chilean Dictatorships for the Global Human Rights Regime” (Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 2008).

About Stanford Law School

Stanford Law School (www.law.stanford.edu) is one of the nation’s leading institutions for legal scholarship and education. Its alumni are among the most influential decision makers in law, politics, business, and high technology. Faculty members argue before the Supreme Court, testify before Congress, produce outstanding legal scholarship and empirical analysis, and contribute regularly to the nation’s press as legal and policy experts. Stanford Law School has established a new model for legal education that provides rigorous interdisciplinary training, hands-on experience, global perspective and focus on public service, spearheading a movement for change.

For more information, please contact:

Judith Romero
Public Information Officer
Stanford Law School
judith.romero@stanford.edu

tagged: , , , , , , , , ,
category: Mills Legal Clinic, clinical legal education, human rights law, international law, law school curriculum, legal education, legal history, public policy, public service

Professor George Triantis Appointed Associate Dean for Strategic Planning

February 13, 2013 • by Judith Romero • no comments »

Will Spearhead New Initiatives for the Law School

Photo of George Triantis, James and Patricia Kowal Professor of Law

George Triantis, James and Patricia Kowal Professor of Law

STANFORD, Calif., February 13, 2013—George Triantis, the James and Patricia Kowal Professor of Law, has been appointed Associate Dean for Strategic Planning by Stanford Law School Dean M. Elizabeth Magill. In this role, Professor Triantis will lead the law school’s examination of several developments that are likely to influence legal education and the profession in the future, including the opportunities presented by online education and the globalization of law practice.

Triantis is a renowned expert in contract, commercial, and bankruptcy law. He pioneered the application of options theory to the study of contracts and commercial law and has published a series of path-breaking articles developing principles of contract design. Most recent in this series have been his articles on the effect of bargaining power on contracting and the link between litigation and contract design. This series includes “Market Conditions and Contract Design: Variations in Debt Contracts” (New York University Law Review 2013); “The Effect of Bargaining Power on Contract Design” (Virginia Law Review 2012); and “Strategic Vagueness in Contract Design: The Case of Corporate Acquisitions” (Yale Law Journal 2010).

“George is a distinguished and creative scholar and a talented teacher. As anyone who has worked with him will attest, he is also a gifted institution builder and leader,” said Stanford Law School Dean M. Elizabeth Magill. “This role is a natural fit for him because George is a far-sighted thinker. I’m thrilled that he will put his talents to work in thinking about how we can continue to lead in legal education going forward.”

Professor Triantis began his teaching career in 1989 as an assistant professor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law and Faculty of Management.  Before coming to Stanford Law School in the summer of 2011, he served as a member of the tenured law faculties at Virginia, Chicago and Harvard. On the occasion of his appointment as the Eli Goldston Professor of Law at Harvard in 2007, Triantis gave a public lecture on “The Future of Transactional Legal Practice.” He has also lectured on the topics of pricing of legal services, client relations, and compensation issues in Harvard’s executive program for managing partners and emerging leaders in law firms. At Stanford, he is affiliated with both the Center for the Legal Profession and the Rock Center for Corporate Governance.

category: bankruptcy law, contracts, corporate finance, corporate governance, corporate, commercial, business & finance law, law and economics, law school curriculum, legal education

Former U.S. Senator Russell D. Feingold Teaches “The United States Senate as a Legal Institution” at Stanford Law School

February 12, 2013 • by Judith Romero • no comments »

Photo of Senator Russell D. Feingold

Senator Russell D. Feingold

Forty-one Stanford Law students are currently enrolled in a new course examining the U.S. Senate as a legal institution. At the lectern is a seasoned expert— former U.S. Senator Russell D. Feingold, three-term veteran of the Senate whose legacy includes sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, intended to limit the influence of money in national politics, and standing out as the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, which gave federal authorities new sweeping powers following 9/11.

In addition to teaching during the winter quarter, Senator Feingold will remain in residence during the spring quarter to lecture in other instructors’ classes, to participate in faculty workshops, and to appear before Stanford Law School affiliate groups, including the John and Terry Levin Center for Public Service and Public Interest Law at Stanford Law School and the Stanford National Security & the Law Society, among others.

“I will also be writing,” Senator Feingold said, “with a focus on what obligations members of Congress have to consider the constitutionality of matters on which they vote and how it relates to judicial rulings on similar matters.”

Senator Feingold’s course is designed to familiarize students with major and emerging legal and constitutional issues related to the U.S. Senate, examining both the Senate’s nature as a complex legal institution as well as the Senate’s legitimacy in the context of the current—and largely unprecedented—criticism of it from across the political spectrum.

“Many of our students will go on to be leaders in the public arena, many will become architects of public policy, and many want deep knowledge of policymaking even if their career will not require it,” said Stanford Law School Dean M. Elizabeth Magill. “The Senator’s presence is a unique opportunity for our students to learn about the U.S. Congress from a knowledgeable and thoughtful observer, and a participant.”

For eighteen years, Russell D. Feingold represented Wisconsin in the United States Senate. He served on the Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Budget, and Intelligence Committees. He also served in the Wisconsin State Senate from 1983 to 1993 and practiced law for six years at Foley & Lardner and LaFollette & Sinykin in Madison, Wisconsin. Senator Feingold is also the author of the New York Times bestseller While America Sleeps about what America has done wrong both domestically and abroad since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and what steps must be taken to ensure that the next ten years are focused on the international problems that threaten America and its citizens.

Senator Feingold’s course examines a wide variety of legal questions about the U.S. Senate. Students are learning about the appointment of senators to fill vacancies and studying the controversies surrounding U.S. Senate rules and practices, including the filibuster and the practice of placing holds on nominations. The course explores how the Constitution constrains the Senate and how the Senate interacts with the Supreme Court. It also examines how senators should regard the constitutionality of a bill when they vote on it, and how senators should approach proposed constitutional amendments. The senator is placing special emphasis on the issues that have become prominent since 9/11, including the relationship between legislation and the presidential assertion of Article II powers, as well as the Senate’s use (or non-use) of its Article I power to declare war.

“The course will enable students to critically evaluate and use proper source material concerning new issues that are likely to arise in the future regarding the Senate,” Feingold said.

Senator Feingold graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1975, received a degree from Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar in 1977, and then went on to Harvard Law School, where he earned his degree in 1979. Since leaving the Senate, Senator Feingold has been a visiting professor at Marquette University Law School and the inaugural Mimi and Peter E. Haas Distinguished Visitor at the Haas Center for Public Service at Stanford University during winter quarter 2012.

tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
category: Congress, Stanford Law School faculty news, Supreme Court of the United States, United States Senate, United States government, constitutional law, judiciary

Law Professor, Security Expert Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar to Lead Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies

February 11, 2013 • by Judith Romero • no comments »

Photo of Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar

Professor Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar

STANFORD, Calif., February 11, 2013—Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar will take over as director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies in July. Cuéllar is a Stanford law professor and expert on administrative law and governance, public organizations, and transnational security. He’s served as co-director of FSI’s Center for International Security and Cooperation for nearly two years and brings to his new role an extensive academic background as well as policy experience gained from working in the Clinton and Obama administrations. Read more >>

tagged: ,
category: Executive Branch, National Security, United States government, White House, administrative law, citizenship, cyber security, food safety, immigration law, international law, international security, migration, public service, refugees, regulatory policy