Notes
- The ABA, AALS, and AAUP publicly opposed legislative efforts in Louisiana and Maryland that would have restricted the operation of law clinics. See, e.g., Statement of Carolyn B. Lamm, President, ABA, Re: Louisiana Senate Bill 549 to Restrict Law School Clinic Activities (May 12, 2010) (here); Letter from Susan Westerberg Prager, Exec. Dir., AALS, to Louisiana Senator Ann Duplessis, Comm. on Commerce, Consumer Protection & International Affairs (May 10, 2010) (here); Letter from Gary Rhoades, General Secretary, AAUP, to Louisiana Senator Ann Duplessis, Chair, Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs Comm. (May 14, 2010) (here).
- Where clinics have faced external threats, the AALS and AAUP have filed briefs supporting the academic freedom of clinics, including in lawsuits involving the University of Oregon (1983), Rutgers (1989, 2009 & 2010), Tulane (1999 & 2000), and University of North Dakota (2004). The Clinical Legal Education Association (CLEA) filed briefs in cases involving Tulane (1999 & 2000), University of North Dakota (2004), and Rutgers (2008, 2009 & 2010). For copies, see https://sites.wustl.edu/clinicinterferenceresources/.
- In drawing lessons from the experience in the United States that may be helpful for clinical programs in other countries, Professor Joy has highlighted the importance of cultivating support for clinics with non-clinical faculty and deans, cultivating contacts with local media to explain the clinic’s important work, and pointing out that interference seeks to deny access to the courts for those unable to hire attorneys. Peter A. Joy, Political Interference in Clinical Programs: Lessons From the U.S. Experience, J. Clinical Legal Educ. 83, 101 (Dec. 2005).
- Adam Babich shared his views on how law clinics should manage controversy based on his experience from the 2010 attack on the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic. Adam Babich, Controversy, Conflicts, and Law School Clinics, 17 Clinical L. Rev. 469 (2011). He recommends: education of law school constituents; consistent, collective opposition to the attack; principled, common sense case selection; and transparency to clinic students. Id. at 508-13.
- An essay by Megan Graham and Priya Baskaran charts the information security risks that law clinics may face. To mitigate risks, they advise clinical faculty to identify the information disclosure risks that are of most concern to their clinic operations and likelihood and consequences of those risks coming to pass and to then draft and implement appropriate policies to address the risks. Megan Graham & Priya Baskaran, Mapping Risks for Law School Clinics (2025). Practical advice on how law firms can protect client confidentiality can be found in Jessica Anvar, Protecting Client Confidentiality in the Legal Field Today: Tips and Tools for Cybersecurity (2023).
- Based on his experience with repeated efforts to interfere in Rutgers law clinics, Jon Dubin discusses how clinics at public law schools should not be deemed the state or a typical state entity when lawyering for private clients, much like the independence given state-run public defender offices, and have the right to recover attorney fees. Jon C. Dubin, The Rutgers Cases and the State of the Law of State Law School Clinical Programs, 65 Rutgers L. Rev. 817 (2013); see also Froio v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 352 (2015) (upholding the ability of law clinics to receive fee awards for work done by law students).