Conclusion
As this anthology demonstrates, interference in law school clinics is an ongoing concern and may come from any quarter and in many forms. The history and examples of interference demonstrate that any law school clinic is just one controversial case, one unpopular client, one angry legislator, alumnus or opposing attorney, or one unsupportive dean or university official away from attempts to interfere in clinic case and client selection or representation.
As we have argued, there are sound arguments against interference based on lawyer ethics rules and principles of academic freedom, and in some instances the First Amendment or other legal bases, such as equal protection. But opposing interference in law school clinics is the responsibility of the legal profession, AALS, and law schools themselves. In order to help prevent interference, bar associations at the national and state levels need to educate lawyers, and when necessary also legislators, about the important role law clinics play in advancing the ideal of legal representation for all in need of assistance, even if the clinic client matter is controversial or contrary to the interests of the lawyer’s own clients. The legal profession has an obligation to respect the professional independence of law clinic attorneys, and opposing attorneys and their clients should not attempt to have university or law school leaders intervene in ongoing clinic matters. Where public officials or others seek to restrict clinics in their client representation, the ABA, state, and local bar associations should use their influence to oppose or defeat such restrictions, as the ABA did when the state legislatures attempted to impose restrictions on the law clinics at University of Maryland and Tulane, described in Chapter 1.
The ABA and the AALS have long issued public statements against interference, and organizations such as the AALS and CLEA have written amicus briefs in legal challenges to interference. Still, it ultimately comes down to law schools and universities to resist attempts to interfere with their law clinics. Failure to do so is a repudiation of the academic freedom of faculty teaching in their clinics and of the public service responsibilities of lawyers and law schools.