Home About RSS

Mills Legal Clinic of Stanford Law School

« Older Entries

Stanford and NYU Law Schools Release Joint Report On U.S. Drone Attacks in Pakistan

October 2, 2012 • by lmarshall • no comments »

On September 25, the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic at Stanford Law School, together with the Global Justice Clinic at NYU Law School, released a joint report focusing on the severe impacts of U.S. sponsored drone attacks on primarily civilian targets within Pakistan.

The 182-page report, entitled Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan is the result of nine months of intensive research conducted by clinic students and instructors at both universities. The team of clinicians (including current and former Stanford students Adelina Acuña (’12), Mohammad M. Ali (’13), Anjali Deshmukh (’13), Jennifer Gibson (’12), Dimitri Phillips (’13), Wendy Salkin (’13), and Omar Shakir (’13)) interviewed 70 victims from the region most affected by the attacks, as well as 70 medical professionals, humanitarian workers, authorities and analysts, and reviewed thousands of pages of documentation in its preparation of this report. Since its release, Living Under Drones has received wide media coverage in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the Huffington Post, among others. Such coverage has fostered broader debate on US drone practices in Pakistan and beyond.

By documenting the effects of strikes – including “double taps” that have struck first responders – the report not only quantifies the terrible impacts in human and institutional terms, but also questions the efficacy and morality of U.S. policy. The report further notes that the ongoing practice serves to inflame anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, undermines Pakistani democracy and is creating a dangerous international legal and practical precedents in dealing with security threats. The report recommends “that the US conduct a fundamental re-evaluation of current targeted killing practices, taking into account all available evidence, the concerns of various stakeholders, and the short and long-term costs and benefits.” It emphasizes that the U.S. policy makers and the American public “cannot continue to ignore evidence of the civilian harm and counterproductive impacts of US targeted killings and drone strikes in Pakistan.”

category: International Human Rights

Great Quarter for the Organizations and Transactions Clinic

June 6, 2012 • by lmarshall • no comments »

Students, faculty and staff in the Organizations and Transactions Clinic finished up a terrific spring quarter representing client organizations in communities throughout Northern California. In the course of their work, students conducted client site visits, met with company leaders, and presented their recommendations and findings to board members and management teams, among many other endeavors. Read on for details of student projects this quarter:

Brian Hoffman (’13) and Susanna Kim (’12) prepared a grant agreement for use by the nonprofit arm of a Bay Area design firm in connection with its launch of an international microgrant program. The team also provided comprehensive corporate governance advice and documents to a large Bay Area food bank, an engagement involving meetings and calls with the CFO and members of its Board of Directors. Finally, Brian and Susanna carried out a comprehensive legal risk assessment for a San Francisco child abuse prevention organization. The project included substantial diligence work, preparation of a suite of documents, and meetings with the CEO and other members of its management team.

Lindsey Barnhart (’13) and Lale Uner (’13) provided governance advice and documents for a San Francisco-based international open access publisher and presented their recommendations to the CEO, CFO and chair of the Board. The team also created template sponsorship, services and non-disclosure agreements for the client. For a Bay Area food bank, Lindsey and Lale prepared contract documents regarding disaster response activities and several media releases. Finally, the team provided advice to another Bay Area food bank regarding its website and brand protection policies, a project which included several meetings with the client’s communications, IT and contract compliance executives.

Stefanie Shih (‘13) and Paul Montemayor (’13) provided governance advice and materials for a Silicon Valley mental health organization and met with the full Board of Directors and senior management team on two occasions. They also created model farm lease documents, a media release, and a services agreement for a state-wide organization that assists California farmers. Stefanie and Paul worked on an analysis of structuring options and implementation considerations for portfolio companies of a Bay Area venture philanthropy organization, an engagement which included commenting on an outside management consultant’s report, creating a standalone presentation, and participating in a webinar.

Jonathan Smith (‘13) and Emily Speak (’13) represented a San Francisco organization on a rework of materials for its commercial kitchen and business incubator programs. The project included several meetings with the client’s management team, and design and drafting of new contracts and related operational documents. For another leading San Francisco nonprofit, the team developed a set of governance and contract documents for a national consortium of immigration rights organizations. Finally, Jonathan and Emily worked with a consulting firm to provide governance advice and materials for a Bay Area conservation organization as it spins out from its current fiscal sponsor.

Nicholas Crews (‘13) and Meredith Williams (’13) created an intercompany services agreement and provided related governance advice to a San Benito County child services organization. The project included on-site diligence, review of financial statements and other materials, and multiple discussions with the chair of the Board. They also provided governance advice and materials for a San Francisco family resource center and met with the CEO to discuss the project. In addition, working with the general counsel of a national charter school organization, Nick and Meredith developed a credit agreement, grant agreement and related documents for a school start-up lending program.

Stacy Kourlis (‘13) and Jordan Wappler (’13) drafted complex lease and facility-use agreements, and developed beginning farmer program terms and land-access contracts, for a leading Northern California agricultural education organization. The project involved a site visit and multiple calls with the CEO, program leaders, and members of the Board. The team also met on several occasions with the CEO and program lead of a large Bay Area operator of farmers’ markets and provided advice and contract documents for its farm audit program. Finally, the team provided corporate governance advice and materials for a San Francisco child services organization and met with the Board to present their findings.

category: Organizations and Transactions

Two Trial Wins for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Students

June 1, 2012 • by lmarshall • no comments »

Students, faculty and staff in the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic are ending the Spring quarter with great success at trial in two separate cases heard within the past few weeks in San Francisco Immigration Court.

Ben Good (‘13) and Alan Drosdick (‘13) represented Ms. T, a longtime lawful permanent resident (“green card” holder) of the United States originally from Taiwan facing deportation because of minor petty theft convictions. Ms. T has lived in the United States for nearly three decades and has raised two U.S. citizen children here. She is also a leader in her community having received numerous awards and other accolades for her work with children. This quarter, building off the work of former IRC students Marcus Perkins (‘12) and Adrian Garcia (‘12), Ben and Alan worked tirelessly to defend Ms. T at her deportation trial before the San Francisco Immigration Court. They prepared an extensive pre-hearing filing, which included declarations from their client and witnesses and other documentary evidence; they worked countless hours in preparing their client and witnesses to testify in Court (including preparing their direct and cross examinations); and they prepared opening and closing arguments to present to the judge. Last week, after a lengthy trial before the San Francisco Immigration Court, the judge granted Ms. T’s request to allow her to keep her green card and remain in the United States indefinitely. In granting Ms. T’s request, the judge applauded Ben, Alan, Marcus, and Adrian for their work before the Court.

Nayna Gupta (‘13) and Julian Simcock (‘13) represented Mr. J, a longtime lawful permanent resident (“green card” holder) of the United States with citizenship in Jordan. Mr. J faced removal proceedings for two minor criminal convictions one of which took place over two decades ago and the other nearly ten years ago. As a Palestinian refugee, Mr. J has made the U.S. his home and works tirelessly to provide for his wife and their U.S. citizen children. This quarter, building off the work of Chris Skelton (‘13), Nayna and Julian spent countless hours preparing for Mr. J’s trial before the San Francisco Immigration Court. They prepared an extensive pre-hearing filing (including a pre-hearing brief) documenting their clients strong family, community and work ties; they prepared their client and witnesses to testify in Court (including preparing their direct and cross examinations); and they prepared opening and closing arguments to present to the judge. This week, after a lengthy trial before the San Francisco Immigration Court, the judge granted Mr. J’s request to allow him to keep his green card and remain in the United States with his family. The judge applauded Nayna and Julian for their excellent work in representing Mr. J.

category: Immigrants' Rights

Major Project for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic

May 29, 2012 • by lmarshall • no comments »

Immigrants’ Rights Clinic students, Marisa Diaz (‘13) and Ying Wang (‘13) recently completed a significant advocacy project in collaboration with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and Silicon Valley De-Bug to develop a presentation for the San Mateo County Commission on the Status of Women on the issue of probation officers reporting youth to immigration authorities. In order to research the harm that reporting youth to immigration authorities causes to youth and families, Marisa and Ying met with juvenile defense attorneys, community organizations, and immigration attorneys. Marisa and Ying synthesized their research and developed a presentation to ask the Commission to help stop the practice. Marisa delivered the presentation on May 22, 2012, and the Commission was so moved by the presentation that it agreed to hold a public hearing on the issue.

Marisa and Ying were supervised by Clinic Director Jayashri Srikantiah, Alison Kamhi, Clinical Teaching Fellow, and Anna Welch, Cooley Godward Kronish Clinical Teaching Fellow. Allie Thrall provided excellent legal assistance on the project.

category: Immigrants' Rights

Case Highlights from the Community Law Clinic

May 14, 2012 • by lmarshall • no comments »

Students, faculty and staff in the Community Law Clinic have enjoyed a string of successes this quarter resulting in significant economic relief for clients. Read on for highlights of their wonderful work.

Katharine McFarland (’12) and Julia Cherlow (’12) represented a client seeking payment and penalties available under the Labor Code for her employer’s failure to provide her with legally required meal breaks. The client had represented herself in an administrative hearing and won, but the employer appealed for a trial de novo in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Katharine and Julia served discovery requests upon the defendant employer. When the employer and its counsel failed to respond to these discovery requests, Katharine and Julia filed a Motion to Compel, which was granted. Facing the clinic’s litigation, the employer agreed to pay the amount that was awarded to our client in the administrative hearing.

Adam Kretz (’13) represented a San Carlos restaurant worker whose final wages went entirely unpaid. The restaurant owner, clearly exploiting what he thought was Adam’s client’s vulnerability as an immigrant, simply bullied the worker and refused to pay. Adam took the case, and sent the owner a letter demanding payroll records and inviting negotiation. The owner quickly came to the table and agreed to pay the wages plus some of the applicable penalties.

Ravi Doshi (’13) represented a Peninsula secretary whose former employer, a real estate agent, did not pay final wages for several weeks despite her plain demand and availability for payment. The worker eventually filed her own administrative wage claim, and prevailed when the boss did not attend the hearing. He eventually paid the wages, but not the statutory penalty, which had been ordered by the agency. When the boss received the order from the agency, he pursued his right to a de novo bench trial in Superior Court. The clinic was retained to represent the worker at that stage. Ravi quickly mastered the file, and the statutory scheme that permits accelerated discovery in this de novo context. Recognizing the leverage it would give his client, Ravi noticed the boss’ deposition. After claiming he needed to postpone the deposition to hire his own lawyer, the boss stopped returning Ravi’s calls, including the one informing him that the deposition was still legally noticed, and would go forward, exposing the deponent to fees if he failed to attend. The court reporter set up in the clinic conference room, Ravi placed one more call to the boss, who picked up his phone. After telling Ravi an absolute lie – that he’d spoken to Ravi’s supervising attorney who had agreed to “waive the deposition” – the boss caved, and agreed to pay the entirety of the outstanding penalty, as well as the court reporter’s fee for attending the deposition.

Melissa Hughes (’13) and Gavriel Jacobs (’13) met with residents of Hotel de Zink: Women’s Shelter on April 26. The community- and Stanford- student run shelter for unhoused women in the Palo Alto area launched this January. Melissa and Gav delivered a presentation about the Community Law Clinic’s practice areas and work with the community, and answered questions regarding legal resources assisting low-income individuals in the Peninsula.

Shira Levine (’12) represented a tenant in an eviction proceeding. The tenant lives on a very limited income and has multiple disabilities. After the April rent became due, she received two notices to pay rent from the landlord, but the two notices demanded differing amounts. The tenant tried to pay, but the landlord wouldn’t accept the amount she offered and filed the lawsuit. Shira filed a motion to quash the service of the summons and complaint because of receipt of two notices to pay rent with differing amounts gave rise to a legal deficiency. Prior to the hearing on the motion, the landlord dismissed the case, and issued a new, legally correct, notice to pay rent. The client was in a position to pay the full amount within the demand period, preventing a fresh eviction case and preserving her housing.

Melissa Hughes (’13) represented a tenant in an eviction proceeding. The tenant is a participant in the Section 8 Housing Voucher Choice program, a federal housing subsidy program in which a participating tenant pays a portion of her rent and the remainder is paid by a local agency referred to as the housing authority. Melissa’s client’s portion of the rent increased by $19. In April, she paid her old rental amount by check and paid the additional $19 by money order. Her landlord claimed that it did not receive the money order, and issued a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. She mailed another $19 money order to the property management company. The landlord returned it and filed a complaint in Superior Court for possession of the unit, the $19, and another $700 in attorney fees and costs. Melissa identified defects in the three-day notice to pay rent or quit and advocated to opposing counsel on behalf of her client, pointing out that her client repeatedly tried to give the landlord the money and showing him evidence of the landlord’s retaliatory motives in bringing the action. The opposing counsel dismissed the case.

Professor Juliet Brodie directs the Community Law Clinic. Danielle Jones and Lisa Douglass serve as Staff Attorneys, and Nisha Vyas is a Clinical Teaching Fellow. Lupe Buenrostro and Adelina Arroyo provide excellent administrative support.

category: Community Law

Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Develops Nation’s First U Visa Manual

May 11, 2012 • by lmarshall • no comments »

Congratulations to the students, faculty and staff of the Mills Legal Clinic’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic on their creation of the first-ever U Visa manual designed to assist detained immigrants who are victims of crime.

Oliver Kroll (‘13) and Chris Skelton (‘13) collaborated with Centro Legal de la Raza in Oakland, California to develop a manual to help pro se immigrants in Northern California detention centers apply for U Visas. A U Visa is a generous form of legal relief for non-citizens who have been victims of serious crimes in the United States and have cooperated with law enforcement. The manual is the first of its kind in the country. To create the manual, Oliver and Chris visited the Richmond Detention Facility, interviewed detainees, and researched the requirements of the U Visa. They then designed the manual, complete with easy-to-follow pictures and diagrams, to explain the legal requirements and walk detainees through the process of applying for the visa on their own. Oliver and Chris also tested earlier drafts of the manual with the detainees at Richmond, collaborating with the detainees to ensure that the manual addresses their concerns and questions. The manual developed by Oliver and Chris has been translated into Spanish and will be distributed nationally to practitioners, included in immigration handbooks and resources, and circulated in detention centers to assist pro se detainees access much-needed immigration relief.
 Oliver and Chris were supervised by Clinic Director Jayashri Srikantiah and Alison Kamhi, Clinical Teaching Fellow. Anna Welch, the Cooley Godward Kronish Clinical Teaching Fellow, also contributed substantially to the creation of the documents, and Allie Thrall provided excellent legal assistance to the project.

category: Immigrants' Rights

Updates from the Youth and Education Law Project

May 8, 2012 • by lmarshall • no comments »

The Youth & Education Law Project enjoyed a very successful Winter Quarter with SLS students providing advocacy to numerous economically disadvantaged children, ensuring appropriate educational placements for children with disabilities, and returning students to school who had been excluded from school completely. Here are highlights from nine of our cases in which Lorenzo Arroyo (’13), Julia Reese (’13), Tom Pack (’12), and Asa Wynn-Grant (’13) worked under the supervision of Clinical Teaching Fellow, Carly Munson, and YELP Director, Bill Koski, to achieve successful outcomes for their clients.

• • •

Lorenzo Arroyo (‘12) and Julia Reese (‘12) represented high school senior I.C. in a charter school disciplinary matter. When I.C. came to YELP, he had been out of school for more than a month awaiting an expulsion hearing. Furthermore, the school failed to recognized I.C.’s special education needs, despite his longstanding diagnosis. YELP avoided an expulsion hearing by negotiating a settlement with I.C.’s school. In the settlement agreement, I.C. and his school agreed to an interim placement for the rest of the semester, followed by a guarantee of enrollment next year. I.C. is currently enrolled in college extensions courses, has an internship, and is going to receive school assessments for his disability.

• • •

Tom Pack (‘12) represented fifteen-year old L.C., a ninth-grader, in a special education matter. L.C. has a congenital disorder that results in dwarfism, mild-to-moderate intellectual disability, and a speech and language impairment. Because of his health issues, L.C. is teased by his peers, and struggles with communicating his needs to other people. Consequently, he has had behavioral issues throughout his time in the education system, which have largely gone unaddressed. Tom requested that L.C.’s triennial Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting be moved up to this academic year, and requested a complete battery of academic, psychosocial, speech and language, and behavioral assessments. Tom also requested and represented L.C. and his mother at a special behavior-focused IEP meeting, and secured interim behavioral supports and an intensive functional analysis assessment of L.C.’s behavior. A second IEP meeting will be held in May to determine L.C.’s academic placement for the rest of high school.

• • •

Asa Wynn-Grant (‘13) and Tom Pack (‘12) represented fourteen-year-old E.G., an eighth-grader, in a school disciplinary matter. Following an alleged incident off-campus during school hours, E.G. had been temporarily transferred to Virginia for immigration proceedings. After returning to California, E.G. was placed in a non-comprehensive school setting without going through a formal expulsion process. Tom and Asa negotiated an agreement in which E.G. would be allowed to transfer to a comprehensive middle school. The school district dropped its threat of expulsion and agreed to let E.G. return to middle school immediately. E.G. is now back in school, completing the remainder of his eighth-grade year.

• • •

When second grade special education student A.O. first came to YELP, she had been excluded from her home school district for over one month. The school district refused to believe that A.O. and her father, a low-income single parent, lived in a home in Menlo Park. When Julia Reese (‘13) investigated the case, she learned that A.O. and her father lived with family in Menlo Park because their previous residence had been foreclosed upon as a result of the economic downturn. The school district’s refusal to accept A.O.’s evidence of residency within the school district and its decision to exclude A.O. from attending her home elementary school violated both state and federal law. Julia negotiated with the school district to immediately re-enroll A.O. in her home elementary school and prevent the school district from continuing its unlawful and intrusive investigation into A.O.’s residency within the district.

• • •

Lorenzo Arroyo (‘13) and Tom Pack (‘12) represented seven-year old R.V., a second-grader, in a special education matter. R.V. is hard-of-hearing, and her school district failed to identify and provide appropriate supports for R.V.’s disability. Because she had trouble hearing her teachers and other students, R.V. is far behind the other children in her classroom. Lorenzo and Tom prepared a due process complaint against the district for their failure to provide R.V. with an appropriate education, and hope to secure compensatory education services for R.V. Lorenzo and Tom also represented R.V. and her family in two Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings with the school district, securing more speech and language therapy and individualized services for her.

• • •

Asa Wynn-Grant (‘13) represented seventeen-year-old R.D., a high school senior, in a special education matter. R.D. had been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and ADHD, and had recently undergone surgery to remove a brain lesion. His symptoms were manifesting themselves as uncontrollable outbursts that the teachers and staff could not control or understand, and as a result, R.D. was suspended from school several times during the course of this semester. Asa represented R.D.’s family at an IEP meeting with school district staff, and began the development of a new Behavioral Support Plan that would help Rafael to manage his outbursts in class.

• • •

Julia Reese (‘13) and Asa Wynn-Grant (‘13) represented sixteen-year-old L.C., a child with Down Syndrome, in an educational matter. L.C. has been unable to attend classes due to a number of health concerns that caused him to be hospitalized for a significant portion of the past few school years. Julia and Asa have counseled L.C.’s mother through her difficult struggle to find L.C. an appropriate placement for her son, and started negotiating on her behalf with the school district. The school district agreed to involve a medical team in the planning for a comprehensive set of services for L.C.

• • •

Julia Reese (‘13) worked with J.A, a ninth grade student with mental and emotional disorders that significantly impact his behavior in educational environments. When J.A. came to YELP, he had been expelled from his school despite a doctor’s letter suggesting that his behavior was a manifestation of his under-treated disorders. J.A. was entitled to continued access to education even after his expulsion because he qualified for special education services. Unfortunately, because of a dispute regarding who was legally and financially responsible for providing J.A.’s education, J.A. had been denied any educational instruction or services to address his disorders for almost four months. Julia was able to negotiate with the disputing parties to secure an immediate placement for J.A. in an educational setting J.A. preferred to those settings suggested by the school and school district. J.A. is excited to finally be back in school, and has already requested additional homework assignments from his teacher.

• • •

Lorenzo Arroyo (‘13) represented high school student A.D. in an IEP meeting to determine his special education services. A.D. missed much of his primary education due to medical issues that kept him in the hospital and out of school throughout much of his childhood. In addition to his lack of regular school, A.D. has cognitive impairments that make education a challenge. Lorenzo worked with A.D., his father, and a supportive team of hospital staff to begin planning for A.D.’s educational and vocational needs. The IEP meeting was an important step in planning for A.D.’s future and building a better relationship between the school and A.D. A.D. is now taking a more active role in his life and education, and recently made a major life decision asserting his own autonomy. Lorenzo is glad he has had a role in A.D.’s life for the past three months.

category: Youth and Education Law

Success for the Community Law Clinic

May 7, 2012 • by lmarshall • no comments »

Two Community Law Clinic students recently heard word of a good outcome for one of the clients they represented in the winter quarter.

Christy Holstege (’12) and Dan Galindo (’12) represented a woman whose section 8 voucher was threatened with termination on the bases that (1) she had an unauthorized person (her children’s father) living in her subsidized unit and/or (2) her tenancy was in a home owned by a family member, specifically her children’s grandparents, and that a tenancy with such a relationship was prohibited by the federal regulations. Christy and Dan did an outstanding job investigating this case and representing the client in the administrative hearing. They presented both a factual defense to the first claim – that her children’s father did come to the home regularly but exclusively in the capacity as caregiver for the children when their client was at work, and did not live there – and a legal defense to the second — that while the home was in fact owned by the grandparents, the tenant had not done anything to hide that fact from the Housing Authority, which was itself on notice at commencement of the tenancy of the family relationship and that such relationship was not grounds for termination of the tenant’s voucher.

The hearing examiner has issued his written decision overturning the agency’s termination and reinstating the voucher. This is a significant victory for the tenant, who lives in the house with her eight children, some of whom have special needs. Please join me in congratulating the clinic on this terrific work.

category: Community Law

News from the Environmental Law Clinic

April 24, 2012 • by lmarshall • no comments »

The Environmental Law Clinic hit the ground running this quarter with advanced student Peter Broderick ‘13 arguing before the California Court of Appeals during the second week of class, in the majestic California Supreme Court courtroom in San Francisco. The case involves efforts by our client, Salmon Protection and Watershed Network, to protect the last best run of Central California Coast coho salmon in the Lagunitas watershed of Marin County. The coho is listed as endangered and federal officials have stated in the recovery plan for the species that the critical Lagunitas population is in an “extinction vortex.” The narrow issue up on appeal was one of first impression — whether SPAWN’s agreement to toll the 30-day statute of limitations on its claims that the County violated the California Environmental Quality Act was lawful. In arguing that such tolling agreements are proper, Peter was poised and polished before the bench, and on Friday afternoon, the court issued a quick decision in our favor. The court’s ruling, which was eagerly anticipated by a wide range of environmental organizations, local governments, and developers throughout California, allows our case to go forward to trial on the merits, where Peter will be arguing again shortly.

This quarter’s full time ELC students (Ben Brysacz ‘13, Caitlyn Chacon ‘13, Max Friedman ‘13, Jake Klonoski ‘13, Adrian LeCesne ‘13, Tom Pack, ‘12, Nick Parker ‘13, and Ingrid Price ‘13) jumped in enthusiastically to help Peter with his whirlwind preparations, acting as brief readers, moot court judges, case note generators, note takers, and general support network. This week’s victory also built heavily on prior efforts by clinic students Tori Ballif ‘12, who worked on the lower court briefs last spring and came back over the summer to argue the matter in the trial court, Khalial Withen ‘12, who briefed and argued intervention issues last winter, and Corinne Johnson ‘12, who helped draft the trial brief. It truly has been a team effort!

category: Environmental Law

Dean Kramer Announces Departure; Leaves Behind Legacy in Curriculum Reform

April 17, 2012 • by lmarshall • no comments »

The Stanford Daily reports on the recent announcement of Law School Dean Larry Kramer’s departure to head up the Hewlett Foundation. Dean Kramer’s legacy includes major law school curriculum reform including significant expansion of the clinical education program. Coverage on the story can be found at the Mills Legal Clinic Facebook page and in The Stanford Daily.

category: Uncategorized