1 / 26

Priming for Pro Bono and Public Service: LRW’s Role

Priming for Pro Bono and Public Service: LRW’s Role. Prof. Deborah Schmedemann William Mitchell College of Law JULY 2008 Thirteenth Biennial Conference of The legal writing institute.

wkeenan
Download Presentation

Priming for Pro Bono and Public Service: LRW’s Role

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Priming for Pro Bono and Public Service: LRW’s Role Prof. Deborah Schmedemann William Mitchell College of Law JULY 2008 Thirteenth Biennial Conference of The legal writing institute Prof. Deborah SchmedemannWilliam Mitchell College of Law875 Summit AvenueSt. Paul MN 55105(651)290-6388deborah.schmedemann@wmitchell.edu

  2. Research Partners • 1. Minnesota Justice Foundation • 2. Minnesota Office of Higher Education • 3. Minnesota Center for Survey Research

  3. Two First-Year Students When asked to identify a group, cause, or principle he valued— • One stated: “I don’t have one, but if I did I might volunteer.” • Another stated: “Principle: that all deserve a voice in the legal system. Group: underprivileged people. Cause: equality.”

  4. Functions Institutions Can Serve • Make students aware of others’ needs. • Suggest realistic, concrete ways to address those needs. • Lead students to construct situation-specific norms by internalizing justice and compassion. • Reveal that others in need depend on students. • Increase our students’ circles of people with whom they psychologically identify (“we-ness”).

  5. Outcomes of Community-Service Learning • Personal values • Citizenship skills • Citizenship confidence, including a sense of personal efficacy in understanding community problems and effectuating change • Perceptions of social justice, including seeing the locus of community problems as systemic and ability to take the perspective of others

  6. The Main Survey • 420 2001-2004 William Mitchell graduates • Surveyed in May-July 2006 • Hours of pro bono performed in 2005 • Hours of pro bono projected for 2006 • Access pro bono = service to persons of limited means and organizations serving the poor • Civic pro bono = service to public interest or community organizations and activities to improve the legal system

  7. Additional Surveys • 75 experienced lawyers • 224 students taking Professional Responsibility • 325 first-year students, surveyed in the spring • 200 undergraduates

  8. Some Factors Correlating with Pro Bono • Being raised to do volunteer work • Years between college and law school • Employer’s support of pro bono • But not religion • Growth during law school in your capacity to contribute to the welfare of your community

  9. Experiential Education: William Mitchell’s Law School Public Service Program • Recognition for 50 hours of public service • Volunteering through MJF or clinic work • MJF’s roster has 100 organizations • Mandatory pro bono programs have not been shown to correlate with pro bono in practice. • Incentive-based programs have potential price effects—drawing in students—and also crowding-out effects—reducing motivation of some students.

  10. Experiential Education: William Mitchell’s Law School Public Service Program • 50-hour participation correlated with combined and civic. • Volunteering at all correlated with combined and civic. • Discussion of broad social issues correlated with access. • Reflections on one’s reactions correlated with civic. • Clinic work correlated with access.

  11. Attitudinal Education: Self and Others • Social factors as cause of poverty, versus individual inadequacies, correlated with access pro bono. • New lawyers: 77% social, 23% individual. • Students: 80% social, 20% individual. • Social change as solution to social problems, versus individual change, correlated with combined and access pro bono. • New lawyers: 48% social, 52% individual. • Students: 67% social, 33% individual.

  12. Attitudinal Education: Self and Others • Approaching problems from a care perspective, versus a justice perspective, correlated with access pro bono. • New lawyers: 63% justice, 37% care. • Students: 58% justice, 42% care.

  13. Attitudinal Education: Motivations • Values correlated with combined and access pro bono. [#1 for all groups] • Students: 73% groups, 18% causes, 9% principles. • New lawyers: 65%, 21%, 13%. • Experienced lawyers: 53%, 18%, 29%. • Understanding correlated with access pro bono. [#3 for lawyers, #2 for students] • Enhancement did not correlate. [#2 for lawyers, #3 for students]

  14. Attitudinal Education: Motivations • Career correlated with combined pro bono. • Social correlated with access pro bono. • Protective did not correlate.

  15. Attitudinal Education: Civic Connection • Community awareness—having a good understanding of the issues faced by my community—correlated with civic pro bono. • Similarity to one’s client correlated with access pro bono and dissimilarity correlated with civic pro bono.

  16. Model 1. Develop Students’ Skills. • List three components that prepared you for pro bono work: LRW courses (70), clinics (56), other skills courses (38), ADR (17), Professional Responsibility (13). • Three major pro bono tasks: • 40%+ legal analysis, counseling, problem-solving, oral and written communication • 33% legal research • 24-25% fact investigation, litigation or ADR • 4% recognizing and resolving ethical dilemmas

  17. More on Model 1 • Tasks new lawyers would like to do, from most to least desired: • Brief advice to an individual (68%) • Presentation on a legal topic • Full-case representation • Advising an organization • Lobbying a legislature or administrative agency • Handling a business matter for an organization • Litigation of a precedent-setting case (18%)

  18. More on Model 1 • Types of support new lawyers would like, from most to least desired: • Sample documents (58%) • Experienced attorney as back-up, mentor, co-counsel • Manual on law and procedures • Training on law and procedures • Training in practice skills • Education about pro bono clients’ life situations (12%)

  19. Model 2. Discuss Pro Bono. • First-year inventory • Students heard about pro bono a median of 3-5 times. • Key concepts: free legal work, client can’t afford to pay, less commonly public interest and voluntary • Focus of first-year by attorney role • @60% representative of clients • @30% officer of the legal system • @15% public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice • Settings of pro bono discussion: college programs (234), WRAP / LRW (173), other courses (125)

  20. More re Model 2 • Ways to talk about pro bono, from most to least persuasive to undergrads: • Simple story about case and lawyer’s comments • Photograph of man’s and child’s hands touching with “rediscover true meaning of law” • Professionalism pledge • Article re business advantages • Statistics re lack of access by poor to legal services • Profile of winner of pro bono award • Explanation of how specific program works • Who should talk: involved peer or partner (versus leaders)

  21. Model 3. Situate Cases in a Pro Bono Setting. • See the results of 2006 and 2007 surveys by Committee on Cooperation Among Clinical, Pro Bono, and Legal Writing Faculty, posted on LWI website. • Also see Miki Felsenburg and Luellen Curry’s piece in volume 11 of Perspectives at 82; Brooke Baker’s piece in volume 9 of Perspectives at 51. • Sample topic areas: criminal law, domestic abuse, housing, discrimination, immigration, asylum, bankruptcy, denial of benefits, consumer protection. • Source of assignments: professor’s practice, clinics, local legal aid office, public interest organization. • The students’ client is the fictional party. • Work product: standard documents such as office memos and briefs.

  22. Model 4. Have Students Do Pro Bono Work. • See the results of 2006 and 2007 surveys by Committee on Cooperation Among Clinical, Pro Bono, and Legal Writing Faculty, posted on LWI website. • Also see Tom Cobb’s piece in volume 16 of Perspectives at 1; Rebecca Cochran’s piece in volume 8 of the Boston University Public Interest Law Journal at 429. • Sample partners: law school clinic, local bar association’s pro bono program, local legal aid offices, public interest organization. • The students’ client is the organization. • Sample work products: training materials, position papers, draft briefs.

  23. Overarching Lessons • Address attitudes. • Broaden boundaries. • Connect to community. • Deepen discussion. • Engineer experience. • One example: dispersed discussion. • Another example: payday loan policy project.

  24. Bullet-Proof Glass Student reactions to a field trip to a payday lender: • Gave me a sense of what these places look like and who the customers are, experience of a customer. • Had the effect of quasi-personifying the project. • Got a “visceral” understanding instead of just intellectual. • Helped me remember that we were discussing real people—not just loans. • Helped to bring the rules, concepts, and ideas down to earth and attain an empathic perspective.

  25. Ellen’s Story • I am involved with pro bono work because it is very much needed and I enjoy the work. The gratitude that is expressed by our pro bono clients is almost unexplainable. Instead of a firm handshake at the end of a case, you see tears of joy and receive huge heartfelt hugs—proving that you made a difference in someone’s life. That’s why I do it.

  26. Thank You! • Prof. Deborah SchmedemannWilliam Mitchell College of Law875 Summit AvenueSt. Paul MN 55105(651)290-6388deborah.schmedemann@wmitchell.edu

More Related