Notes
- For additional articles documenting interference in law clinics, see Elizabeth M. Schneider, Political Interference in Law School Clinical Programs: Reflections on Outside Interference and Academic Freedom; 11 J. College & University L. 179 (1984); Peter A. Joy & Charles D. Weisselberg, Access to Justice, Academic Freedom, and Political Interference: A Clinical Program under Siege, 4 Clinical L. Rev. 531 (1998); Peter A. Joy, Political Interference with Clinical Legal Education: Denying Access to Justice, 74 Tulane L. Rev. 235 (1999); Robert R. Kuehn & Peter A. Joy, An Ethics Critique of Interference in Law School Clinics, 71 Fordham L. Rev. 1971 (2003); Peter A. Joy, Political Interference in Clinical Programs: Lessons from the U.S. Experience, 8 J. Int’l J. Clinical L. Educ. 83 (2005); Robert R. Kuehn & Peter A. Joy, “Kneecapping” Academic Freedom, 96 Academe 8 (Nov-Dec. 2010).
- Copies of many of the documents cited in this and subsequent chapters can be found at https://sites.wustl.edu/clinicinterferenceresources/. For a 2012 AALS bibliography of law clinic interference, see here.
- University administrators have generally been supportive of law clinics when faced with outside interference, including in the highly publicized attacks on Tulane University in 1997 and 2010 and the University of Maryland in 2010. But, university officials often need to be educated about the role of clinics in legal education and the ethical responsibilities of clinic lawyers or, at times, persuaded that restricting the clinic would violate notions of academic freedom or legal ethics. University officials, however, were the source of restrictions placed on clinics at the University of Tennessee and University of Pittsburgh and most recently at the University of Georgia and Tulane University.
- Law school deans, without any indication of interference from outside the university, can even be the ones imposing the restrictions, as at St. Mary’s University, and even clinical program directors, as at the University of Denver.
- “Even law school faculties have at times sought to limit the ability of law clinics to provide free legal assistance to controversial cases or clients. At the University of Oregon School of Law, some members of the faculty proposed shutting down the school’s environmental law clinic as a way to appease critics of the clinic. At the University of Tennessee, a young law professor active in controversial pro bono environmental cases was denied tenure after being told that he ‘did not sufficiently understand the moderation expected of Tennessee law professors.’” Robert R. Kuehn, Undermining Justice: The Legal Profession’s Role in Restricting Access to Legal Representation, 2006 Utah L. Rev. 1039, 1059.
- Adam Babich observed how those opposing clinics can seek to interfere in clinic activities by exerting pressure on the clinic’s clients. Adam Babich, Controversy, Conflicts, and Law School Clinics, 17 Clinical L. Rev. 469 (2011). He gives examples from the operation of his clinic at Tulane: lawsuits against citizens for participating in public hearings (“SLAPP suits”); payments to persuade residents to pressure others to drop their lawsuits (“bribes”); complaints to the client’s employer (“retaliation”); seeking disclosure of private details of clients (“intimidation”); and publicly disparaging clients (“ridicule”). Id. at 499-500.
- There is also a history of Congress and state bar associations imposing restrictions on the clients and cases that civil legal assistance programs for low-income clients may handle. See Kuehn, Undermining Justice: The Legal Profession’s Role in Restricting Access to Legal Representation, 2006 Utah L. Rev. 1039 (2006). Congressional restrictions on Legal Services Corporation grantees deny or limit their ability to represent non-citizens, prisoners, or persons charged with drug crimes, and to handle proceedings related to school desegregation, abortion, and election redistricting, as well as grantee participation in class action lawsuits, acceptance of attorneys’ fee awards, solicitation of new clients, and lobbying. Id. at 1043-54. State bar Interest on Law Trust Account (IOLTA) programs in some states also restrict access to legal representation on grounds other than the potential client’s income or limit the legal services that attorneys may provide to eligible clients. Id. at 1054-57.
- Interference in law clinic representation is not limited to clinics in the United States. See, e.g., Ruth Sinai, Rector Bars Law Clinic from Acting Against Other Schools, Haaretz Newspaper (Tel Aviv, Israel), Dec. 11, 2008; Ruth Sinai, Universities Ganging Up to Prevent Weizmann Institute Workers Organizing, Haaretz Newspaper (Tel Aviv, Israel), Dec. 8, 2008.