IN THIS ISSUE:

Cyberlaw Clinic Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program

Estate Planning Clinic Health Law and Policy Clinic

Faces of Excellence International Human Rights Clinic

Food Law and Policy Clinic Predatory Lending /Consumer Protection Clinic

Harvard Defenders Pro Bono Week at Harvard Law School

Harvard Legal Aid Bureau Veterans Law and Disability Benefits Clinic

Newsletter

Clinical and Pro Bono Programs LEARNING THE LAW | SERVING THE WORLD

NOVEMBER, 2014 | Issue X

Via the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau

Making a Difference

CLINICAL AND PRO BONO PROGRAMS PAGE 1

Learning about Holistic Representation

Donna Harati ’15 had the unique opportunity to represent a

client in both her divorce and Social Security disability benefits

cases. The two cases were closely interrelated – the domestic

violence that Jane* had suffered throughout her marriage led to

mental illness and a suicide attempt which left Jane physically

disabled.

When Jane first

became a client of the

Bureau, she was

ashamed of her

suicide attempt. She

was reluctant to

discuss her depression

and PTSD and often

minimized her

symptoms to her

medical providers.

Donna worked closely

with Jane to prepare

her for the difficult,

but necessary, discus-

sion of her physical

and mental disabilities

at the Social Security

hearing. Through the

encouragement of

Donna and clinical

instructor Maureen (“Mo”) Devine, Jane began regular visits to

a therapist and a psychiatrist. Jane learned to share openly with

these professionals, recognizing the importance for both her

case and her health.

Jane said, “When I first went to HLAB, I was depressed. I met

Donna, and she made me feel like we were friends or family,

so I started changing and feeling more comfortable.”

In December 2013, Donna not only won monthly disability

benefits for her client going forward but also benefits dating

back to the onset of Jane’s disability in 2012. Jane finalized her

divorce and was awarded full legal and physical custody of her

two children.

“Representing Jane with respect to both her divorce and her

SSDI benefits deepened Donna’s understanding of Jane’s life,”

said Mo, “That understanding enhanced the representation ex-

perience for both stu-

dent and client. Donna

also had the satisfac-

tion of knowing her

work made a differ-

ence in Jane’s life now

and into the future.”

Jane believes that this

year represents a fresh

start for her and is now

excited to share her

story. She visited the

Advanced Clinical

Practice class to take

part in a discussion of

client experiences

through the Bureau.

Annie Lee ’14 was

inspired by the class

discussion with Jane.

“When Jane told us that she is about to graduate from college

and get her degree, we were all thrilled and applauded her

accomplishment” said Annie. “It was wonderful to hear from

Jane about how life improved after her HLAB representation. I

found it humbling that what my colleagues and I do can alter a

person’s life trajectory.”

“Working with Jane was a privilege. I am constantly in awe of

our clients and all that they overcome,” said Donna.

*Name changed to protect confidentiality.

HARVARD LEGAL AID BUREAU

Mo Devine, Clinical Instructor at Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, and Donna Harati ’15

“It was wonderful to hear from Jane about how life improved after her HLAB representation. I found it humbling that what my colleagues and I do can alter a

person’s life trajectory.” - Anne Lee ’14

Fighting a “Strategy of Evictions”

LEARNING THE LAW | SERVING THE WORLD PAGE 2

It sounds absurd – tenants fighting for years for the right to pay

rent and a landlord who refuses to take their money. Too many

families living in foreclosed homes across Massachusetts find

themselves in this situation. For two Lynn families, a sweeping

victory came after three and a half years of struggle, as

Harvard Legal Aid Bureau’s Foreclosure Task Force (FTF)

helped them win a ruling that Fannie Mae broke the law by

refusing to let them

stay and pay rent.

On July 14, 2014,

Judge David Kerman

of the Northeast

Housing Court dis-

missed eviction cases

against two separate

families in a building

owned by the Federal

National Mortgage

Association (known

as Fannie Mae).

Judge Kerman ruled

that Fannie Mae had

“engaged in a

strategy for eviction,

frustrating the

tenants’ efforts to

remain in their

homes,” violating

“both the letter and

the spirit” of state law.

The order came after

student and FTF member Sam Heppell ’14 argued the

families’ cases at a hearing in May – and after more than two

years of representation, by FTF staff attorney Eloise Lawrence.

The two families first learned that Fannie Mae had foreclosed

on the building in November of 2010, when a realtor offered

them cash to leave. The families asked to stay and continue

paying rent, but their attempts to settle the issue with Fannie

Mae’s realtors and attorneys were ignored. Despite years of

trying to pay rent to Fannie Mae, the families received eviction

notices for failure to pay rent. In 2010, the Massachusetts

legislature gave tenants in foreclosed buildings the right to stay

and pay rent to the new owners, allowing evictions only if

there was “just cause” such as violating a lease or failing to pay

the agreed-upon rent.

“On paper, these were meaningful protections, but in practice

too many families were still being forced out,” said Sam.

“Some families would leave because they didn’t know their

rights, whereas others – like these two families –

faced banks who took unbelievable steps to get around the law

and avoid signing leases with them.”

After receiving the eviction notices, the families joined Lynn

United for Change, an organization that brings together both

tenants and foreclosed homeowners and uses “the sword and

the shield” model to keep them in their homes – the “sword” of

direct action and

political pressure to

change laws and

policies and the

“shield” of legal

defense to fight

evictions.

“I met one of the

families when they

showed up at our

office late one night

with a 48 hour notice

of eviction,” said

Isaac Simon Hodes,

lead community or-

ganizer with Lynn

United, “They had

their children with

them; their youngest

was an infant at that

time. We stayed late

into the night going

through documents and

working out a plan.”

Through Lynn United, the families were connected with Eloise

and Sam. As the eviction cases began moving towards a trial,

Sam filed motions arguing that no trials were needed because

the facts were indisputably clear – that Fannie Mae was

breaking the law by refusing to rent and forcing the families

out. These motions resulted in the favorable judgment by Judge

Kerman. Now, other Lynn United members can rely on this

decision in their legal struggles.

“Victories like this are made possible by really close

collaboration between public interest lawyers and law students

like the folks at HLAB and grassroots social justice groups like

Lynn United for Change,” said Isaac.

“It was a privilege to work with these two families and to help

them win some certainty after nearly four years of struggle,”

said Sam, “This judgment is an important victory, not only for

them but for families across Massachusetts.”

Via the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau

Sam Heppell ’14 with Lynn United protestors

PAGE 3 CLINICAL AND PRO BONO PROGRAMS

HARVARD IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE CLINICAL PROGRAM

Classroom to courtroom

Jacob Alderdice, J.D. ’14

Via the Harvard Gazette

Harvard Law School students with the Harvard Immigration and

Refugee Clinical Program (HIRC) were working with Greater Boston

Legal Services on a case involving a Guatemalan man in the summer

of 2013 when they collectively had an “aha” moment.

The pressure was high, and everybody was working on two sets of

legal briefs that were due before the court. “We were having a

meeting here, and all of a sudden everybody understood what was on

the table, and the writing was very powerful,” said John Willshire

Carrera, co-director of the HIRC site at Greater Boston Legal

Services.

The HIRC program trains students to

represent refugees seeking asylum in

the United States, as well as other

immigrants, said Deborah Anker, the

program’s director and a clinical

professor of law.

“We represent a lot of women and

children, LGBITA [lesbian, gay,

bisexual, intersex, transgender, and

asexual] cases, and cases where

people face persecution under what

people may regard as the classic

ground of political opinion,” Anker

said. “Recently, we’ve been

representing a lot of people who are

fleeing the warfare — it’s called gang

violence but it’s really warfare — in

Central America.”

HIRC students work on all these matters

with supervision. They also work on litigation and Circuit Court of

Appeals cases, often filing amicus, or “friend of the court,” briefs,

working side-by-side with the instructors.

“They have done extraordinary work, especially with women refugees

and with children,” Anker said.

The last two decades have seen a tremendous increase in the numbers

of immigrants being jailed, often for minor criminal offenses, Anker

said. Because of their legal troubles, they face deportation to native

countries they may barely know, often without the benefits of rela-

tives who are long since gone.

“The deportation policies in this country, the grounds for deportation,

have expanded exponentially over the last 20 years,” Anker said. “I

would say especially since 1996.”

HIRC celebrated its 30th anniversary in June, marking the occasion

with what Anker called an extraordinary conference that drew major

national and international practitioners and scholars.

Carrera, who has worked with co-director Nancy Kelly and HIRC for

30 years, said the cases are often so protracted that students who start

a case end up handing it off to other students who will see it through

to the end.

HLS students can also join the clinic’s Harvard Immigration

Project (HIP). Students run HIP with supervision and guidance from

lecturer Phil Torrey, who also teaches a course on “crimmigration,”

and works with students on clinical projects.

The Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program has enjoyed

a couple of major victories in recent months. In July, the First Circuit

Court of Appeals overturned a Board of Immigration Appeals deci-

sion denying asylum to a Guatemalan Mayan Quiche Indian. The man

had been a victim of racial and ethnic persecution by the Guatemalan

military. And in August, the Board of Immigration Appeals recog-

nized domestic violence as grounds for seeking asylum in the United

States.

“We have been trying to get them to

formalize the law, include women fair-

ly within asylum law, and recognize

gender-based violence for over 20

years now,” Anker said.

The program gives second- and third-

year students great freedom to work on

immigration cases, develop affidavits,

and argue in court, Anker said.

“We provide a lot of support and guid-

ance, so they are not really stranded on

their own, which is not appropriate

from our point of view,” she said.

“Because they get the intense

supervision, they have an experience

very different than when they start

working at firms and NGOs [non-

governmental organizations]. Our main goal is to educate the

students.”

In addition to learning the law, the students learn how to acquire and

present evidence, work with interpreters, obtain documents and other

evidence from foreign countries, interview, and work with experts.

“When I first started, hardly anybody was going into immigration, but

now I would say at least half our students want to go into it, if not

more,” Anker said.

The skills the students learn in the program are increasingly relevant

to other areas of law as well, she said.

Through the HIP project, first-year students have the opportunity for

practical work in the immigration field, even though they can’t for-

mally join the for-credit clinic at the law school until their second

year.

Some of the work the first-year students do includes bond hearings

and helping eligible immigrants and refugees apply for permanent

residence. HIRC gets hundreds of requests for representation every

year so it can’t accept them all, Anker said. Greater Boston Legal

Services gets several hundred more and takes more cases than An-

ker’s staff at HLS, because it has a broader mandate. “We take cases

that are going to raise new issues of law,” Anker said.

Julina Guo, HLS '14 (from left), joins John Willshire Carrera, co-managing director of HIRC at Greater

Boston Legal Services, HIRC co-director Nancy Kelly, and Deborah Anker, the program's director.

PAGE 4 LEARNING THE LAW | SERVING THE WORLD

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic Wins Asylum Case

Via the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

HIRC students recently landed two exciting victories for asylum

clients seeking refuge in the United States following traumatic

experiences in their home countries.

Escaping LGBT Persecution in West Africa

Over the course of a year, Sophie Glickstein ’15 and Sussan Lee

’15 worked extensively on the asylum case of a gay West African

man, ostracized by his community and physically assaulted for

his sexual orientation. The man originally arrived in the United

States in 2010, and unsuccessfully applied for asylum without the

help of an attorney, before being referred to HIRC

by Immigration Equality, an NGO that supports and represents

lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) asylum seekers in the

United States. Glickstein and Lee began their work on the case in

September 2013.

In order to prepare for the case, Glick-

stein and Lee interviewed the client and

conducted country conditions research

on the state of LGBT people in his

home country, focusing on the threats to

the client from his tribe, from his com-

munity and from rising conservatism

and Islamic extremism in his home

country. The danger to the client was

quite evident, according to Glickstein.

In a series of incidents, the client was

attacked under the suspicion that he was

gay. “After his true orientation was dis-

covered, he would almost certainly

have been killed by tribal, community,

or family members if he’d stayed in his

home country,” Glickstein said.

The traumatic and sensitive nature of

this experience made the story difficult to relive, a process that is

necessary for court preparations. Glickstein and Lee worked to

earn the trust of the client, so that he could feel safe and comfort-

able sharing his story. “Through our many and lengthy meetings

with the client, we were able to build that baseline of trust and

able to thoroughly represent him and prepare him for his direct

and cross examinations in court,” Lee said.

The initial immigration court hearing, where the client testified,

took place in April, but there was not enough time to present the

expert witness testimony so the judge continued the case to Sep-

tember, to allow for testimony by the expert witnesses. Glickstein

and Lee had to re-prepare the expert witnesses and closing argu-

ment for the September date; however, when their day in court

arrived, the judge made her decision without needing to hear the extra testimony. “Even though we knew we had a strong case, we

were stunned,” Lee said.

It was four years between the client’s arrival in the United States

and the asylum victory. Glickstein counts herself lucky to have

contributed to the client’s journey towards asylum: “He is ex-

traordinarily resilient and has survived so much to get to where

he is today.”

An East African Woman’s Flight from Political Persecution HIRC students Yana Mereminsky ’15 and Eszter Vincze ’15

collaborated on the case of an East African woman who was at-

tacked based on her opposition to the current government. The

client’s opposition was seen as threatening to the government’s

power, and security forces targeted and tortured her and her fami-

ly, killing her relatives and forcing her into hiding. “It eventually

became clear to my client that if she did not escape, government

forces would find her soon and probably kill her,” Mereminsky

said. Vincze and Mereminsky began working on the case in the

fall of 2013 to prepare the client for her immigration court hear-

ing.

With a hearing scheduled in March 2014, Mereminsky and Vin-

cze researched the policies of the client’s home country and the

government’s attacks on members of the

opposition and the client’s tribe. The two

students worked closely with various

witnesses, ranging from physicians and

psychologists to country conditions ex-

perts to friends and family of the client

to corroborate the story in her applica-

tion for asylum. According to Vincze,

however, the most important efforts were

towards preparing the client to testify at

trial, as well as practicing direct and

cross-examination with the various ex-

pert witnesses.

The client experienced extreme trauma,

which added another challenge to the

case, as the client often had difficulty

telling her story. Along with the client’s

medical and psychological team at

the Boston Center for Health and Human

Rights, Mereminsky and Vincze worked hard to prepare the cli-

ent to testify in court, while also being sensitive to the trauma she

had suffered; the final product was a great accomplishment for

the whole team, and the results filled Mereminsky with “great

pride and admiration for [her] client’s strength.”

The hearing in March 2014 was just as emotionally taxing; a

tough cross-examination by the government attorney and a

lengthy proceeding left both the client and the legal team drained.

The team’s victory in September 2014 came far sooner than ex-

pected, as the judge had scheduled the team to come back to court

in April 2015, for a decision to be handed down at that time. Both

Mereminsky and Vincze were pleased with the results. “The re-

lief that she wouldn’t be sent back to further violence was im-

mense,” said Vincze of the decision.

For Mereminsky, the victory was a formative moment in her legal

career: “…when I heard the news, I felt like it signified the most

worthwhile experience of my law school career. I can genuinely

say that in the course of law school, I am most proud of the work

I’ve done for HIRC.”

Sophie Glickstein ’15 (right) and Sussan Lee ’15 (center) enjoy a celebratory breakfast with their client (left) after receiving the good news that he

had been granted asylum.

CLINICAL AND PRO BONO PROGRAMS PAGE 5

VETERANS LAW AND DISABILITY BENEFITS CLINIC

HLS Legal Clinic Lands Victories for Veterans

Via the Harvard Gazette

Standing in near-frozen water while guarding a bridge during the

notorious Battle of the Bulge in 1945, the infantryman sustained

such severe frostbite he almost lost a foot. Evacuated to a hospital in

England, he avoided amputation but had serious problems with his

feet the rest of his life. When he died in 2008 from a variety of

health problems, his widow — who had very little income — ap-

plied for a type of benefit for survivors of veterans whose death had

resulted, at least in part, from a service-related disability. But a

doctor with the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) said los-

ing the use of his feet had nothing to do with her husband’s death.

It took nearly six years and a trip to federal court, but with the help

of theHarvard Law School (HLS) Veterans Legal Clinic the widow

finally prevailed, winning a

monthly payment from the

VA that completely changes

her financial health. While

two other VA doctors con-

curred with the first opinion,

the clinic retained two ex-

perts of its own who reached

the opposite conclusion.

Under the guidance of Clini-

cal Professor of Law Daniel

Nagin, who founded the

clinic in 2012, Christopher

Patalano ’14 wrote a win-

ning brief that persuaded the

Board of Veterans Appeals

that the VA was wrong.

Chris Melendez ’15, a vet-

eran of the U.S. Marine

Corps, also worked on the

case as a summer intern at

the clinic.

“I hardly had [any] income.

Now I know I have some-

thing I can stand on. I’ve got

more to live for,” the elderly client said as she thanked the students

and Nagin for her victory.

“After knowing that she had fought so hard and so long for these

benefits,” said Patalano, “it was an extremely happy day when we

received the final decision from the VA.”

In just two years, more than 30 HLS students have enrolled in the

Veterans Legal Clinic — housed at the WilmerHale Legal Services

Center (LSC) in Jamaica Plain, with Nagin as its faculty director —

and represented more than 100 clients in areas of federal and state

veterans’ benefits, discharge upgrades, and estate-planning matters.

They have landed numerous victories before the U.S. Court of Ap-

peals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) and in veteran-related federal

and state agencies, and assisted many more vets in companion pro-

grams at the Legal Services Center in such areas as combating pred-

atory student lending, foreclosure defense, family law, and tax law.

Among other victories, they obtained service-connected disability

benefits for an Afghanistan war veteran diagnosed with cancer; won

a female veteran’s appeal to the CAVC of the VA’s decision to de-

ny her PTSD benefits for military sexual trauma; and successfully

represented a veteran in an appeal of a state agency’s decision to

deny benefits based on the character of his military discharge. The

clinic also offers veterans estate planning under the guidance of

Clinical Instructor Tamara Kolz Griffin, an excellent opportunity

for students looking to develop their skills outside the courtroom.

In a particularly consequential victory, students represented a com-

bat veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in his appeal to the

CAVC challenging the VA’s denial of benefits for a service-related

injury. They persuaded the court to hear the case on its merits in a

first-of-its-kind decision that now

allows certain veterans returning

from combat deployments addi-

tional time for to file appeals, and

then succeeded in vacating the

adverse lower-court decision. As

part of its annual educational and

outreach campaign, a three-judge

panel of the CAVC heard oral ar-

guments in the case in the Ames

Courtroom at HLS in the fall of

2013, with clinic students arguing

on behalf of the veteran.

“That’s a big decision because it

not only helped this client, but

provides a new source of legal

argument for other veterans whose

appeals might otherwise not be

allowed to proceed on the merits,”

said Nagin.

The clinic’s docket at the CAVC is

a part of a partnership with

the DAV (Disabled American Vet-

erans) and Chisholm & Kilpatrick,

a firm in Rhode Island. The clinic also participates in the Veterans

Consortium Pro Bono Program at the CAVC. The clinic’s value is

manifold, Nagin said, noting, “It’s a privilege to be able to advocate

for someone who’s sacrificed for the nation.”

From an educational standpoint, it provides remarkable opportuni-

ties. “The world of VA benefits is extraordinarily complex,” Nagin

said. “It’s a labyrinth of statutes and regulation and policies, which

is a great teaching environment.” The cases require students to work

with medical experts, “providing a rich opportunity to see how the

legal and medical frameworks intersect,” he added. It is an excellent

training ground for practicing administrative law, and offers stu-

dents the chance to get into federal court.

Just as important, Nagin said, “We hope we light a flame — if it

wasn’t already there — of pro bono commitment to veterans as peo-

ple go off into their careers.” At least two 3Ls who have worked at

the clinic are now looking to devote their careers to representing

veterans, he said.

Photo by Martha Stewart HLS student Andrew Roach ’13 (left) and Clinical Professor Daniel

Nagin meet with a veteran at HLS's Veterans Legal Clinic to discuss the status of a case on appeal. The clinic’s value is manifold, Nagin said, noting, “It’s a privilege to be able to advocate for

someone who’s sacrificed for the nation.”

LEARNING THE LAW | SERVING THE WORLD PAGE 6

Estate Planning Clinic Secures Survivor’s Benefits for Same-Sex Spouse

Via the WilmerHale Legal Services Center

A year after Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act

(“DOMA”) was found unconstitutional and almost four years

after the Estate Planning Clinic of the Legal Services Center ac-

cepted the matter for representation, the Estate Planning Clinic

has succeeded in helping a same-sex surviving spouse become

entitled to survivor’s benefits.

Norman J. Laurin and his late husband, Danny R. Wood, were

legally married when Wood passed away in March 2010. When

Laurin tried to collect survivor benefits on Wood’s ERISA-

mandated pension, the pension management company refused to

recognize the marriage. The company, PBGC, denied Laurin’s

claim on the grounds that as a federal agency, Section 3 of DO-

MA which defines marriage as between a man and a woman,

prevented PBGC from providing a qualified preretirement survi-

vor annuity (“QPSA”) to Laurin, as preretirement survivor annui-

ties are only payable to surviving spouses and a QPSA was the

only benefit available to Laurin according to the PBGC since no

retirement benefits had begun prior to Wood’s death. Essential-

ly, PBGC said that since the federal government didn’t recognize

Laurin’s and Wood’s marriage, despite the fact that Massachu-

setts recognized their marriage, Laurin would receive nothing by

way of benefits from Wood’s 35 years with his company. In ad-

dition, PBGC stated that since Wood had not completed an appli-

cation for retirement benefits before his death, which would have

allowed any beneficiary to succeed to such benefits upon his sub-

sequent death, Laurin would not be entitled to any retirement

benefits of any kind from Wood’s service with his compa-

ny. Unwilling to accept this result, Laurin wished to appeal

PBGC’s decision

When the Estate Planning Clinic took the case in 2010 and when

PBGC finally issued its final determination denying Laurin bene-

fits, it was impossible to know if DOMA would be found uncon-

stitutional. Accordingly, Tamara Kolz Griffin, Clinical Instructor

at the Estate Planning Clinic, and her students presented both

procedural and constitutional arguments in their appeal brief to

PBGC in an attempt to secure benefits for Laurin on any grounds

possible. While securing benefits based upon the unconstitution-

ality of DOMA would have more far-reaching effects for other

similarly situated same-sex couples, successfully attacking the

procedural mistake by PBGC in sending Wood’s requested re-

tirement application to the wrong address, thereby thwarting his

attempt to apply for retirement benefits prior to his death, could

secure benefits for Laurin without recognizing his marriage to

Wood.

In drafting the appeal, the Estate Planning Clinic first contended

that PBGC failed to mail a requested application for benefits to

the correct address. Were it not for the mistake, Wood could

have timely filed his application, which would have resulted in

Laurin’s ability to receive such benefits upon Wood’s death as

Wood’s named beneficiary. Second, the Clinic contended that

DOMA was unconstitutional, and that as the legally recognized

same-sex spouse of Wood under Massachusetts law, Laurin

should be entitled to the qualified preretirement survivor’s

annuity as the surviving spouse. The Clinic set forth both argu-

ments to improve the chance of success on the merits for Laurin.

“Constitutionality is an exciting issue. It’s sexy, and everyone

wants to be on the cutting edge, so it’s easy to just want to focus

on that one issue. But as exciting and interesting as it is, you

have to do what’s right for your client,” Kolz Griffin said. For

the client, the right thing was to not just focus on the

constitutional question but to attack PBGC’s determination on

any and all available grounds.

The appeal, submitted in 2012, was still pending when Windsor

v. U.S. was decided in June 2013, striking down Section 3 of

DOMA as unconstitutional. But the Estate Planning Clinic’s

work was not yet done. As PBGC deliberated on how to apply

the Windsor decision to its pre-existing cases, students at the

Clinic remained vigilant, regularly checking in with the company

for updates, pushing forward in the process, and keeping the cli-

ent informed. The process was protracted because in the absence

of guidance, PBGC did not know how to process the requested

benefits to which Laurin should be entitled.

Finally, in July 2014, PBGC issued a corrected benefit determi-

nation recognizing Laurin as the surviving spouse of Wood and

extending benefits to him. The reissued benefit determination

extended a qualified preretirement survivor annuity to Laurin

with interest retroactive to Wood’s date of death. The anticipat-

ed value of such decision is estimated to be approximately

$100,000. When informed of PBGC’s final decision, Laurin was

“shocked but delighted,” Kolz Griffin said. It had been a long

road, but justice had prevailed.

But the client was not the only person to benefit from the case.

Eight students worked with Laurin, ferreting out legal issues,

finding support for the arguments, drafting the appeal brief, and

strategizing about procedural matters. In the process, students

learned first-hand about dealing with issues like constitutionality

and first impression. Students also learned that perseverance can

be just as important as a strong legal argument in a matter that

extended over four years before reaching its final resolution.

“We couldn’t have done it without the students,” Kolz Griffin

said. “Their contributions were so incredibly valuable, not just

because of the many hours they contributed and the commitment

they made, but also because of the valuable perspective they con-

tributed on how the tasks and goals should be accomplished.”

Ultimately, the Clinic hopes that winning Laurin’s case can help

other same-sex spouses gain the benefits they rightfully deserve

as well. “It’s always gratifying to take cases that have the poten-

tial for a positive result for not just the client but also the com-

munity, allowing us to achieve a greater impact with each case

we take. By serving one client who is representative of many, we

achieve a greater good with each success,” Kolz Griffin said.

PAGE 7 CLINICAL AND PRO BONO PROGRAMS

PREDATORY LENDING/CONSUMER PROTECTION CLINIC

The Project on Predatory Student Lending Submits Comments Regarding the Upcoming Negotiated Rulemaking to Expand “Pay As You Earn”

Via the WilmerHale Legal Services Center

On November 4, 2014, the Project on Predatory Student

Lending of the Legal Services Center, in partnership with the

National Consumer Law Center, submitted comments to the

Department of Education arguing that more low-income

people should be entitled to greater relief in repaying their

student loans. President Obama asked the Department to enact

regulations to expand repayment relief to more low-income

borrowers in the coming year.

The comments were drafted by clinical student Maxwell Ball

and his supervisor Toby Merrill, along with nationally

recognized experts Deanne Loonin and Persis Yu of the

National Consumer Law Center’s Student Loan Borrower

Assistance Project. They share experiences and often dire

circumstances of the Project’s clients, who are low-income

student borrowers struggling to repay onerous federal student

loans. We propose several regulatory changes that would

expand and target student loan repayment relief to more

low-income borrowers. Some of our proposed changes

include: removing existing restrictions on eligibility for the

repayment programs based on when the loans were borrowed;

simplifying and clarifying the repayment process; protecting

more very-low-income borrowers from making monthly

payments. We also emphasize the importance of income-

driven repayment relief for low-income parents who borrow to

finance their children’s education.

We also raise several issues that the Department of Education

needs to address to ensure that changes to the repayment

program are effective. The Department must improve its

oversight of federal student loan servicers and debt collectors,

who currently fail to help and even harass and abuse

borrowers. Borrowers who are at risk of defaulting on their

federal student loans should be identified earlier, and helped

to avoid default and its consequences. We also discuss the

extraordinary harm caused by fraudulent practices at many for

-profit schools, and suggest several ways that the Department

could provide greater relief to borrowers who continue to

suffer for many years and often decades after they were

students. Finally, we address two important ways that

borrowers who have already been harmed are being prevented

from obtaining relief: the overly-narrow regulatory restrictions

on certain types of federal loan discharges, and sweeping

arbitration clauses in for-profit school enrollment agreements

and private student loan contracts. The Department has the

authority to improve safeguards and expand remedies in both

of these areas, and should use that authority to help students

rather than to protect corporations.

This past August, HIRC’s Sabi Ardalan traveled to Australia

to help Charles Darwin Universi-

ty (CDU) in Australia’s Northern

Territory set up their own clinical

program. Jeswynn Yogaratnam, a

law lecturer at CDU, initiated the

plan for an immigration and refu-

gee law clinic in hopes of training

a new generation of humanitarian

lawyers while addressing increas-

ing demand for legal services as

rising numbers of asylum seekers

in the territory face detention and

deportation.

Sabi met Jeswynn last November

when he came to Boston to

meet with clinic staff and students

at Harvard and GBLS to learn about the clinic.

During her trip this August, Sabi led a two-day workshop at

the Charles Darwin University

School of Law with law faculty and

community partners to discuss the

evolving role of clinical legal educa-

tion in the US and Australia and set

the groundwork for a clinical pro-

gram at CDU. During her time there,

Sabi also spoke at the Northern Terri-

tory’s Law Society about the current

challenges of the US asylum system

as record numbers of people arrive at

the US Border and adjudicators place

increasing emphasis on credibility

and corroborating evidence.

CDU hopes to officially launch their

immigration and refugee clinical

program at the beginning of next year.

Sabi Ardalan (left) and Jeswynn Yogaratnam from Charles Darwin University

Cross-Clinical Collaboration: HIRC visits Charles Darwin University in Australia

Via the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

HARVARD IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE CLINICAL PROGRAM

PAGE 8 LEARNING THE LAW | SERVING THE WORLD

EMMETT ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CLINIC

Via Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic

Clinic Releases Report on Microgrids in Massachusetts

The Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic released a new

report today, Massachusetts Microgrids: Overcoming Legal

Obstacles, which summarizes the conclusions of the Clinic’s research

into legal constraints on the ownership structure of microgrids in

Massachusetts. The Clinic undertook this work at the behest of the

City of Boston, to help promote the development of microgrids in the

City and elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

A microgrid is a spatially defined area in which the heat, electricity,

and sometimes cooling distribution systems are coordinated. The City

of Boston wants to enable the creation and use of multi-user

microgrids, due to their potential as a climate change adaptation

measure. Combined with renewable sources of energy, microgrids can

provide significant efficiency and greenhouse gas emission reduction

benefits. In addition, microgrids can increase the resilience of a

community to storms and other disruptions by having the ability to

operate independently of the macrogrid (larger electrical grid), thus

enabling the microgrid to continue to provide heat and electricity to

critical functions.

Clinic student Seth A. Hoedl, Ph.D, JD’15, took the lead on the

research and analysis for this project and preparation of this report. In

addition, Seth presented preliminary findings at two workshops

organized by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and the Pace

Energy and Climate Center earlier this year. Seth’s work on this

project was supervised by Clinic Director Wendy B. Jacobs and

Senior Clinical Instructor Shaun A. Goho.

Clinic Submits Comments on Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Oil Spill Response Planning by Railroads

The Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic, in

collaboration with Earthjustice, the Sierra Club,

ForestEthics, and Oil Change International,

submitted comments today on an Advanced Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous

Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) of the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT) on potential revisions

to its rules establishing the threshold for comprehensive oil

spill response planning (OSRPs) by railroads carrying crude

oil.

In the comments, the Clinic and other organizations urge the

PHMSA to : 1) require the preparation of comprehensive

OSRPs for all trains carrying crude oil; 2) provide greater

specificity regarding requirements for comprehensive

OSRPs; and 3) mandate that comprehensive OSRPs be

provided to state, tribal, and local emergency response

commissions and committees as well as the general public.

Clinic student Justin Lu (JD’16) worked on the comments

with Senior Clinical Instructor and Staff Attorney, Shaun A.

Goho.

PAGE 9 CLINICAL AND PRO BONO PROGRAMS

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CLINIC

Update from Geneva: UN Committee Against Torture’s Review of the United States

Via the International Human Rights Clinic

Earlier today in Geneva, in advance of the UN Committee

Against Torture’s formal review of the United States,

Morgan Davis, JD ’15, spoke to the U.S. delegation, pointing

to its lack of engagement with the issue of senior-level

accountability for post-9/11 torture. She spoke on behalf of

Advocates for U.S. Torture Prosecutions, a civil society group

that includes the International Human Rights Clinic, drawing

from the group’s prepared comments, reprinted below.

“To truly move for-

ward, we have to start

by being honest,” she

said. “The decision to

shield senior-level

government officials

is not about law or

justice; it’s about pol-

itics.”

The Committee will

have the chance to

raise this question

with the U.S.

government at tomor-

row’s formal review.

–

Full text of the

group’s prepared

comments below:

My name is Morgan

Davis, and I am a student at Harvard Law School. I will be

speaking on behalf of the group “Advocates for US Torture

Prosecutions,” a group of legal and health professionals and

scholars in the United States. We are supported by 291 organ-

izations and individuals who have joined our call for account-

ability for senior-level civilian and military officials for their

central role in the post-9/11 torture program.

For years, these officials—including George Bush, Dick

Cheney, George Tenet, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld,

John Ashcroft, and former State Department Legal Adviser

John Bellinger—have lived with impunity for their role in

authorizing and enabling acts that President Obama has

publicly called torture.

The Convention Against Torture requires states to investigate

and prosecute crimes of torture, including up the chain of

command. This is not a hollow aspirational principle;

accountability for unconscionable crimes is a basic tenet of

justice and rule of law.

Just this summer, President Obama told a gathering of young

international leaders, “a country without the rule of law will

not succeed.”

It doesn’t serve the rule of law to court martial lower-level

service members while those that authorized and justified bru-

tal tactics including near-drowning, sleep deprivation, and

forced nudity have enjoyed impunity.

Nor does it serve the

rule of law to shield

senior officials on the

basis that they “acted

within the scope” of a

legal standard justify-

ing conduct that the

US government has

unequivocally called

torture.

President Obama and

Attorney General

Holder justified this

shielding by saying

that “we must look

forward, not back-

ward.” No competent

defense attorney

would make such an

argument in court. To

truly move forward,

we have to start by being honest. The decision to shield senior

-level government officials is not about law or justice; it’s

about politics.

By placing some powerful individuals above the law in the

service of political expediency, we make a mockery of our

national values and set a dangerous precedent for future

generations in countries around the world.

At the last civil society consultation in D.C., the government

representatives in the room ignored our demand for answers

and gave us canned talking points that dodged any real

acknowledgement of this problem that has left thousands of

human beings without redress and tainted the reputation of the

United States throughout the world.

We can only hope that this week, when confronted by the

Committee Against Torture, you will have the courage to give

real answers, accept real responsibility, and take some real

steps towards accountability, thereby upholding the universal

protection against torture that all human beings deserve.

Morgan Davis, JD ’15, addressed the U.S. delegation on behalf of Advocates for U.S. Torture Prosecutions, a civil society group that includes the Clinic.

PAGE 10 LEARNING THE LAW | SERVING THE WORLD

Report Cites Evidence of War Crimes in Myanmar

BANGKOK — A report by Harvard researchers ...says there is

sufficient evidence to prosecute high-ranking officers in

Myanmar’s military for crimes against humanity and war crimes

committed against an ethnic minority.

The report, published by the International Human Rights Clinic at

Harvard Law School, is based on a three-year study of villages

near the Thai border, where the military conducted a large-scale

offensive against ethnic Karen fighters from 2005 until 2008. The

authors say that “widespread and systematic” attacks directed

against civilians during the offensive justify war-crime

prosecutions.

“Despite recent reforms, there have been few public discussions

about Myanmar’s legacy of violence and oppression,” the report

says, adding that “such issues cannot be swept aside during

conversations about the country’s future.”

The report specifically names three commanders of the offensive

against the Karen, all of whom are still active in the military. They

are Maj. Gen. Ko Ko, who is currently Myanmar’s home affairs

minister; Lt.. Gen. Khin Zaw Oo, now commander of the Army

Bureau of Special Operations; and Brig. Gen. Maung Maung Aye,

whose current position is unknown.

“We believe we have satisfied the standard of proof for the

issuance of an arrest warrant,” said Matthew Bugher, one of the

authors of the report.

Mr. Bugher presented the findings on Wednesday to Myanmar’s

deputy defense minister, Maj. Gen. Kyaw Nyunt.

“He essentially said, ‘You got it wrong and your sources are all

one-sided,” Mr. Bugher said by telephone from Naypyidaw,

Myanmar’s capital. “He talked about the difficulty of war and the

difficulty of distinguishing between civilian and military targets.”

Among the 150 people interviewed for the report, seven were

former soldiers, including one who described witnessing a gang

rape by military personnel, Mr. Bugher said.

Asked about the report’s accusations of war crimes, U Zaw Htay,

a director in the office of President Thein Sein, said: “We must

not play the blame game.”

“In civil war, both the Tatmadaw and ethnic armed groups might

have violated human rights,” he said, using the name for

Myanmar’s armed forces. “Even America violates human rights in

war,” he said. The transition of Myanmar, formerly known as

Burma, from military dictatorship toward democracy has been

distinct from transformations elsewhere: Those leading the change

are the same people who were responsible for decades of

repression and impoverishment.

The Harvard report accuses the military of “firing mortars at

villages; opening fire on fleeing villagers; destroying homes,

crops, and food stores; laying land mines in civilian locations;

forcing civilians to work and porter; and capturing and executing

civilians” during the offensive against the Karen.

The authors acknowledge that “abuses occurred on both sides of

the conflict,” but the report focuses only on the Burmese military.

The broad outlines of the report’s findings are not new. Human

rights organizations have for years accused the Burmese military

of terrorizing ethnic minorities, especially those who engage in

armed resistance against the central government.

Fighting between the central government and the ethnic Karen

minority, who inhabit the low-lying mountains near the border

with Thailand, began soon after Burma attained independence

from Britain in 1948. Despite a cease-fire signed in 2012, fighting

has continued to flare periodically, including last month.

Although Myanmar officially abandoned military rule in 2011, its

military is still very powerful and largely free of civilian

oversight. One-quarter of the seats in Parliament are reserved for

the military, and the defense minister and the home affairs

minister, who is charged with overseeing the police, are both

appointed by the army’s commander in chief.

Military impunity in Myanmar came under the spotlight in recent

weeks after the army admitted to fatally shooting a journalist, Par

Gyi, who was reporting on clashes between Karen fighters and the

Burmese military. The army said that the journalist had been in its

custody, that he was working for the Karen fighters and that he

had tried to seize a gun, according to a military statement quoted

by the Burmese media.

Journalists said they believed the story was untrue and questioned

why the military had buried Mr. Par Gyi’s body without

contacting his family. After an outcry by human rights

organizations, the government ordered the journalist’s body

exhumed.

Fortify Rights, an activist group that monitors human rights in

Myanmar, has said it has evidence that the military continues to

target civilians in northern Myanmar, where the army is battling

fighters from another ethnic minority, the Kachin.

“The Myanmar Army shelled and razed civilian homes, attacked

makeshift camps of displaced civilians, and entered villages while

opening fire on civilians with small arms,” the group says in a

six-page research note to be released on Thursday. Fortify Rights

says the research covers incidents from 2011 through 2013 and is

based on 100 interviews in the conflict zone.

Via the New York Times

CLINICAL AND PRO BONO PROGRAMS

Giving Thanks to (Facilitation) Students

Via the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program By Robert Bordone, Thaddeus R. Beal Clinical Professor of Law and Clinic Director, and Rachel Viscomi, Lecturer on Law

This fall semester was a notable one for both of us, for different reasons

and motivated by different circumstances. Bob is preparing to take his

first sabbatical after sixteen years of continuous teaching in both

semesters; by contrast, Rachel embarked upon teaching her first law

school class. For entirely different reasons then, both of us felt some

anxiety about the semester. For Rachel, with years of experience teaching

corporate executives but new to teaching a semester-long class for law

students, her attitude was one of cautious optimism. For Bob, ready for a

much needed break, his attitude was, “Power through these three months

and then a break is on the way!”

Who would have thought that now, looking back three months later, we

would be thinking of the semester gone by as one of the most energizing,

rewarding, and exciting experiences of our careers to date?

This year, building on the work of Bob (with the invaluable help of our

colleague Heather Kulp) in the Fall of 2013, we offered for the second

time (with the indispensable assistance of our colleague Sara del Nido)

an expanded version of the Lawyer as Facilitator Workshop. Our purpose

in designing the class was to capacity-build law students to facilitate

genuine dialogue around areas of deep difference in our politics,

community, churches, and even within the legal profession. We also

identified a broader need to train law students in how to collaborate more

effectively with each other working in groups, manage multi-stakeholder

processes, and run strategy and planning meetings. The Lawyer as

Facilitator Workshop convenes participants in dialogue groups related to

abortion, university policies around Title IX and harassment, and trigger

warnings. We also partnered with Harvard University’s largest union and

its labor relations team to facilitate brainstorming sessions on topics that

have consistently been points of contention in official labor negotiations.

On the surface, then, this course sounds like mostly a skill-building and

practical workshop. But it has, in fact, been so much more – for us and

for our students. A workshop on facilitation necessarily forces

self-examination and self-challenge, and we approached the course

design with that emphasis in mind. But we underestimated the ways in

which that element of facilitation would create a learning “container” in

the classroom for personal growth, sharing, and introspection about

identity, emotions, competency, and community. Partially by invitation,

but mostly by dint of courage and openness, the twelve students in our

class created a place where they could not only develop behavioral skills,

but also explore the inner voices that get in the way of their being as

skillful in the room as they might. These inner voices might be telling

them many things, including that they are unqualified, an imposter, or

undeserving of the opportunity to witness and guide a group in deep

conflict.

Our own experience witnessing and guiding the students as they opened

up this space of incredible rigor and depth for each other and for us

served as a powerful reminder of the opportunity, privilege, and honor

that we have of teaching. Our work as teachers of conflict resolution, at

its best, should be transformative. Conflict management is a subject area

that demands cognitive and behavioral skills, but also an emotional

self-awareness and courage to accompany people to terrain that can be

unsettling, volatile, frightening, and often unexplored. To do that well,

the best facilitators and mediators need to know how to go there

themselves. And seeing our students take on this tremendously

challenging work this semester was nothing short of inspiring.

Here is just a small sampling of what we have learned from our students

in the course – not only about facilitation, but also about the unique role

that we find ourselves in as teachers in our field:

Deep empathy, particularly for personal stories and histories, matters; it

bridges gaps and creates connections. Students’ aspirations and fears –

for themselves professionally and for the profession they are about to

inhabit – were often central to why they chose to take this course in

facilitation; and as those aspirations and fears came to the fore in class,

so, too, did students’ personal stories of struggle, success, loss, doubt,

tenacity, and triumph. The sharing of these stories provided a chance for

everyone in the class – instructors and fellow students – to take one

another’s perspective and better understand the challenge, unique to each

student, of learning to facilitate a group in need of their own “container”

for conversation, dialogue, or problem-solving.

In the face of challenge, students respond with deep resilience. The

course offered a chance for students to facilitate during nearly every

class, as well as engage in a subsequent deep and thorough review of

their work. For most students, it was their first experience facilitating in a

formal setting. At times, students experienced regret, disappointment,

and even a feeling of being overwhelmed by the experience. We found

ourselves called upon to bear witness to these difficult moments, to find

ways to encourage and support them, and also to offer the coaching they

needed to take the next step. But the students did the same for each other,

without prompting, and wholly on their own. What impressed us most

was their desire to persevere – to pick themselves up, integrate the

lessons, and show up again the next time, ready for what might come

their way.

Given the space and tools, students can be masterful at creating a class-

room learning environment that fosters rigor and challenge as well as

compassion and care. If this fall’s course has been a success, it is owed in

large part to the atmosphere that the students helped create. Our class-

room has been a “container” that has required rigor in the form of

difficult exercises and detailed critiques, but also has been infused with

compassion, care, and a spirit of experimentation and low stakes that has

in turn promoted openness. Reflecting on the space that we managed to

co-create this semester, we are keenly aware of a teacher’s tremendous

responsibility in this regard: not only to foster a positive environment,

but also to enable the students themselves to maintain that sense of

safety, even when the material is challenging and students and teachers

feel vulnerable. Indeed, while we intentionally designed the classroom to

be a learning “container,” that simple intention would not itself have

been enough to ensure a positive and open atmosphere throughout the

semester; we relied on – and were inspired by – our students, who made

the conscious decision to adopt, extend, and embody that spirit

consistently.

As Thanksgiving approaches and we reflect upon our experience this fall,

we are filled with a deep sense of appreciation and gratitude – for the

field of dispute resolution and conflict management, for our vocation as

teachers, and, most of all, for our amazing students. Working with

students who struggle past challenges, take risks, and put themselves

fully into their craft is more rejuvenating and refreshing than a lifetime of

sabbaticals, and the most exciting kickoff to a teaching career that we

could imagine. So thanks for that reminder, as we move on from the fall

and prepare for what’s next.

PAGE 11

HARVARD NEGOTIATION AND MEDIATION CLINICAL PROGRAM

LEARNING THE LAW | SERVING THE WORLD PAGE 12

On Tuesday, Nov. 12, President Obama and President Xi

Jinping of China announced a climate accord that demonstrates

real promise in making progress to stem global climate change.

The climate accord also represents something that is rarely

achieved in the struggle to come together around

environmental issues: a long-term agreement that meets the

interests of both parties; lays the groundwork for future actions

by other key players; fundamentally changes the strategic

negotiation game; and takes substantial steps toward solving

the problem of collective action.

For President Obama, the climate accord agreement was a well

-timed foreign policy win in the wake of a resounding defeat in

this month’s midterm elections. As he faces the prospect of

being a lame duck president, stifled by opposition in Congress

to any initiatives he has yet to push, President Obama was able

to announce the triumphant outcome of months of complex

talks that he and members of his team had been tirelessly, yet

quietly, pursuing. Regardless of the challenges ahead, the

president’s negotiation victory reinvigorates his presidency and

adds to his personal legacy.

For President Xi Jinping, the accord represents a shift away

from the foot-dragging, non-committal approach China has

been taking on climate change. By negotiating directly with the

United States and framing this high-profile deal as an example

of the types of emissions cuts other countries should model,

President Xi is helping his country make a strong, unambigu-

ous statement to the rest of the world: China is the other global

superpower along with the United States. The United States’

alliance with China on this issue by no means negates the com-

petition between the two countries in other areas, but it is an

implicit acknowledgment that China, as a stakeholder whose

support is necessary for meaningful change to occur, has

achieved a status in the global economy and the geopolitical

landscape that, in many senses, equals that of the United States.

The low-profile, bilateral approach that led to this climate ac-

cord flies in the face of standard “interest-based” negotiation

advice, in which all stakeholders have a seat at the table. The

goal of such negotiations is an agreement that meets each par-

ty’s interests. China and the United States are by no means the

only stakeholders in the problem of global climate change.

They are the two largest polluters in terms of carbon emissions,

but the number of absent parties at the negotiating table might

seem to doom the success of the agreement, or at least

significantly limit its impact.

But viewed another way, this landmark agreement between two

of the biggest emissions offenders sets the stage for a larger

and more constructive multilateral consensus-building effort

ahead of the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris.

By working out their substantial differences and producing an

ambitious agreement ahead of the conference, the United States

and China are resetting expectations, signaling to other nations

not only the urgency of the problem of climate change, but also

the imperative that other countries also do their part.

Absent this new bilateral agreement, the outcome in Paris next

year might well mirror that of Copenhagen in 2009, where

developing and developed countries formed blocking coalitions

against each other. The Copenhagen talks failed in great part

because competing narratives about who caused climate change

devolved into blaming and name-calling. Some nations claimed

that others were more responsible for causing climate change

and, therefore, more responsible for arresting it.

The landmark agreement between the U.S. and China resets the

negotiation table for Paris in 2015. The mere fact that the U.S.

and China, the two countries most emblematic of developed

and developing nations, are now on the same page, will be a

game changer. Neither can use the other as a scapegoat. And

with the breadth of the agreement, the rest of the world will

have to drop the tired trope of assigning blame in lieu of

accepting responsibility.

In many cases, negotiation theory argues for broad stakeholder

assessment and long, arduous consensus-based processes. But

sometimes, inclusivity and consensus-building are the wrong

way to go.  Sometimes, what’s really needed is getting the big

players into the room and getting them to do something to

shake things up. Thanks to semi-secret negotiations and a bilat-

eral agreement that cut out most of the stakeholders (and there-

fore the business-as-usual blame game), traditional coalitional

dynamics will no longer apply in Paris, and a new page is

turned for future climate change negotiations. We don’t know

what will come of the next round of negotiations, but we do

know it will be different from the past. That, in itself, is a

breath of fresh air.

Why It Matters That The World’s Two Biggest Polluters Forged A Climate Accord

Via 90.9 WBUR By Robert Bordone, Thaddeus R. Beal Clinical Professor of Law and Clinic Director, and Clinical Fellow Sara del Nido

…the United States and China are re-setting expectations,

signaling to other nations not only the urgency of the

problem of climate change, but also the imperative that other

countries also do their part.

…sometimes, inclusivity and consensus-building are the

wrong way to go. Sometimes, what’s really needed is getting

the big players into the room and getting them to do

something to shake things up.

PAGE 13 CLINICAL AND PRO BONO PROGRAMS

CYBERLAW CLINIC

Cyberlaw Clinic files Petition on Behalf of Medical Device Researchers at the Copyright Office

Via Cyberlaw Clinic

The Cyberlaw Clinic has filed a petition on behalf of a

coalition of medical device researchers as part of

the Copyright Office and Library of Congress’ rulemaking

for exemptions to copyright’s anti-circumvention law. Every

three years the Librarian of Congress, at the

recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, considers

exemptions to the general law against circumventing

technological measures that prevent the public from

accessing copyrighted works. These exemptions are granted

in cases where the law against circumventing technological

measures around copyrighted works unduly impedes on

lawful uses of those works.

This petition (PDF) is filed on the behalf of researchers who

study the security and effectiveness of implantable medical

devices, including Hugo Campos, Jay Radcliffe, Karen

Sandler, and Benjamin West. Each of these researchers

studies the security and effectiveness of implantable medical

devices, including pacemakers, implantable cardioverter

defibrillators, insulin pumps, and continuous glucose

monitors. This research sometimes requires researchers to

reverse engineer these devices in order to study their source

code and outputs, and the petition here seeks to make sure

these researchers are allowed to do this even when the

device manufacturers encrypt, password-protect, or require

proprietary tools in order to access this information.

As the petition notes, this sort of critical security research

and reporting is clearly a fair use of any copyrighted works

a device manufacturer may own around these devices.

Ensuring robust independent research into the security of

these devices is also an essential part of how the public

understands medical device safety, security, and effective-

ness. Independent researchers in the past have shown how

pacemakers can be susceptible to attacks from radio

transmitters and how to fix it,how similar vulnerabilities

exist with insulin pumps, and how greater patient access to

device information can help improve therapy and treatment.

Research like this has lead the U.S. Government

Accountability Office to urge the Food and Drug

Administration to devote more resources to studying the

safety and security of devices, and the FDA in turn has

begun examining the security of devices more critically as

part of its approval process. As these devices continue to

grow in sophistication and use, independent researchers will

need to have a strong role in auditing their safety, security,

and effectiveness. An exemption here will ensure that such

research is allowed to continue.

The petition is available here, and was drafted by Clinical

Fellow Andy Sellars with Cyberlaw Clinic students Evita

Grant (HLS ’16) and Megan Michaels (HLS ’16). The

Copyright Office will be hosting all petitions filed during

this rulemaking on its website, and our friends at EFF have

begun gathering these petitions here. After evaluating and

consolidating these requests, the Copyright Office will later

issue a notice of proposed rulemaking with all proposals the

Copyright Office and Library of Congress will consider for

this cycle, and the public will be invited to comment more

of whether such exemptions should be granted.

HEALTH LAW AND POLICY CLINIC

Preparing for 2014 Open Enrollment: CHLPI Releases QHP Assessment Tool

Open enrollment for Marketplace plans will begin Novem-

ber 15, 2014 and close February 15, 2015. For individuals

living with one or more chronic conditions, selecting a

health plan that provides affordable and adequate coverage

is critical. CHLPI’s assessment tool is designed to assist

individuals in identifying which plans offer the most appro-

priate coverage by focusing on elements such as provider

networks, pharmaceutical formularies, out of pocket costs,

and treatment limitations. The assessment tool includes a

workbook that walks users through health plan analysis

step by step, and a worksheet that allows users to compare

the advantages and disadvantages of several plans simulta-

neously.

Via the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation

LEARNING THE LAW | SERVING THE WORLD PAGE 14

FOOD LAW AND POLICY CLINIC

Via HLS News

Dean Minow Challenges Students to Seek Solutions to Problems in U.S. Food System

This fall, Harvard Law School Dean Martha

Minow and Julio Frenk, dean of the Harvard T.H. Chan

School of Public Health, issued a challenge to students

across the university to come up with fresh ideas for solving

complex problems facing our food system.

Each year, the Harvard Innovation Lab holds a range of

university-wide competitions sponsored by Harvard schools

asking students to address problems in a given area of

focus. The Deans’ Food System Challenge, the first

sponsored by HLS, was developed in collaboration with the

school’s Food Law and Policy Clinic. It seeks proposals for

making the food system healthier, more sustainable and

more equitable, both in the United States and around the

world.

“Harvard Law School is committed to human rights, social

justice and creating opportunities for people who are

marginalized and unheard,” said Minow. “Improving the

food system is key to addressing these issues.”

Participants are encouraged to form interdisciplinary teams

and develop projects that address one of four topics: food

production, distribution and markets, improving diet, and

reducing food waste. Finalists will be announced in April.

Each finalist team will receive $5,000 to put toward

developing its proposal. In May, $50,000

will be distributed among one winner and

up to four runners-up.

Minow launched the competition on Oct.

27, at a Harvard i-lab event featuring

keynote speaker Ayr Muir, CEO

of Clover Food Lab. A range of related

events are taking place throughout the

year at the i-lab, as well as a series of

lectures and presentations across the

university coordinated by the Food Law

and Policy Clinic and various partners, as

part of a broader “Food Better” campaign.

(Watch the Food Better Symposium.)

Among those working on the challenge

are: Emily Broad Leib ’08, deputy

director of the Center for Health Law and

Policy Innovation at HLS and director of

the center’s Food Law and Policy Clinic;

and Ona Balkus J.D./M.P.H. ’13, a fellow

at the clinic; as well as Christopher

Bavitz, clinical professor and managing director of

the Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Center for Internet &

Society, and the dean’s designate to the i-lab.

Credit: Evgenia Eliseeva Dean Martha Minow launches the “Deans’ Food System

Challenge,” calling for proposals for making the food system healthier, more sustainable and more equitable.

PAGE 15

Harvard Law School Celebrated

CLINICAL AND PRO BONO PROGRAMS

In October, the Office of Clinical and Pro Bono Programs and Harvard Law School celebrated National Pro Bono Week to

honor the outstanding work of students and lawyers who volunteer their time to help people in their communities and increase

justice for all. The week was marked with ceremonies and panel discussions. Student interest was great! At the 2014 Adams

Pro Bono Publico Award Ceremony, 15 HLS students were recognized for their commitment to pro bono work. And on

campus, panel discussions attracted a large number of students that packed the rooms.

HLS students packed the room on October 20th, 2014, to hear from Global Pro Bono: Stories from the Field panelists. The discussion was moderated by Professor of Law William Alford, who engaged the speakers on the rewards and challenges of

pro bono work in Bangladesh, Spain, and Uganda.

From L-R: Panelists Professor of Law William Alford, and LLM students, Mirembe Susan Nalunkuma, Leire Larracoechea San Sebas-tian , and Arpeeta Shams Mizan. Mirembe talked about her work representing (as a law student) LGBT people and sex workers in Uganda. Leire spoke about her pro bono work at her private law firm and her current efforts to launch a clearinghouse for pro bono opportunities in Spain, and Arpeeta discussed her street lawyering work in Bangladesh.

GLOBAL PRO BONO: STORIES FROM THE FIELD

LEARNING THE LAW | SERVING THE WORLD PAGE 16

National Pro Bono Week

Panelists included (from L-R)

Associate Justice Cynthia J.

Cohen, HLS ’75 of the

Massachusetts Appeals Court

and three law firm pro bono

leaders – Michael Haroz,

HLS ‘70 of Goulston &

Storrs; Harlene Katzman of

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett

LLP; and Latonia Haney

Keith, HLS ’03, Former Pro

Bono Counsel at McDermott

Will & Emery LLP. They

advised students how to build

pro bono work into their legal practice by shedding light on new partnerships between legal aid organizations, social service

agencies, and private law firms. Some of the partnerships include initiatives that have assisted those with criminal convictions

who are seeking a second chance; small entrepreneurs seeking help with business structure, intellectual property and contracts;

and homeless youth in need of assistance at city homeless shelters. Students also learned about how the local judiciary is

playing a critical role in Massachusetts to expand access to legal services to the underserved through the Access to Justice

Commission and related initiatives like the Pro Bono Fellow program. They also learned about how local lawyers are engaged

in pro bono work internationally through various projects.

PRO BONO INNOVATION AND LEADERSHIP: LAW FIRMS AND THE JUDICIARY WORKING TO CLOSE THE JUSTICE GAP

LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE OTHER 99%: A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE WITH KEYNOTE SPEAKER JEFFERY ROBINSON, HLS ’81

HLS alum Jeffery Robinson

gave an inspiring address on

the role of students in promot-

ing access to justice for all

individuals. Mr. Robinson

has been listed in Best

Lawyers in America since

1993. He has been selected as

one of the top 100 black

lawyers in America by Black

Enterprise magazine and is an

elected fellow of the

American College of Trial

Lawyers, whose membership

is limited to one percent of the

attorneys in any state. He is

currently an attorney/

shareholder with Schroeter

Goldmark & Bender in

Seattle. His discussion on

race, equal justice, and pro

bono work was inspiring and captivated the students attention from beginning to end.

LEARNING THE LAW | SERVING THE WORLD

PAGE 17

IN CELEBRATION OF NATIONAL PRO BONO WEEK

The Road Next Travelled By Michael Haroz, HLS ’ 70 Director at Goulston & Storrs

On the way to a meeting with

human rights activists on a rural

road in Croatia after the Balkan

Wars, the driver of our car asked

if I wanted to take a detour to see

a very old church. I

enthusiastically said yes. As we

disembarked from the car, I heard

him comment that he was pretty

sure landmines from the recent

war had been cleared from the

area. Somehow I could not get the

words “pretty sure” out of my

mind. For a moment it even made

me less sure about the wisdom of

accepting the invitation that had

brought me from my corner office

at a major Boston law firm to a

recent war zone after 35 years of

corporate practice.

The invitations go by different names with each inviting someone

to leap. Some are called “second acts”, “the next phase” or

“encore”. But all are directed at retired or near retired boomers that

are not ready to slip into the night quietly or fade away. You are

invited to take the “retire” out of retirement and replace it with

“engage”, as in engagement in giving back to the community. For

me it was a redo of an earlier phase. For other boomers it may be

finally getting to giving back.

Several years ago I accepted an invitation from the International

Senior Lawyers Project to do volunteer work with human rights

organizations. I stepped down from a busy private law firm

practice to engage in international pro bono legal work. For almost

a decade, I have worked with groups in Croatia, Kenya, The Czech

Republic, South Africa and Burma. I have learned important

lessons in that process that may be helpful to fellow boomers

contemplating moving to encore community service.

I had started my legal career as a public interest lawyer and then

spent 35 years as a corporate lawyer. College grads are commonly

advised to follow their passions. That is what I did when I decided

to enter law school in 1967. My passion was not a love of the law

but a sense that the law could and should be used to advance

human rights. The civil rights and antiwar issues of the ‘60”s

spawned the passion.

My present encore phase is a circling back. I want again to use law

to build justice. I had kept my early passion alive by doing my

share of pro bono work and kept it smoldering. The spark came

with the invitation to go to Croatia. That relit the passion I had felt

as a 20 year old. It was the same thing I had learned in 1967, which

is to find and follow your passion. I was lucky perhaps to have an

old flame to go to but the lesson learned is more general. An

encore needs a reason to be produced. Passion about something

gives you that reason. It does not have to be the same passion you

once had. It can be entirely new or a diluted version of the past.

But you need passion for the next act to get older bones and brains

moving and cranking when age begins to suggest it is time to stop.

Find and follow your passion is the first lesson.

The second lesson came from fear. It was the fear that many

overachievers have. The fear of failure and the fear that I did not

know anything that could be useful or relevant outside my

specialty. I had handled finance transactions involving 100 plus

million dollars loans. There were not many human rights involved

in those transactions and initially I doubted my ability to really be

useful in a different setting. But my recent experience has shown

me that my past experience was relevant. As a corporate lawyer I

did learn the importance of getting things done, not letting trees

obscure the forest (or to forget that forests are composed of trees),

being prompt and responsive, maintaining an ethic of service,

digging for facts, and forming judgments. It turns out that I did

know a lot that is relevant and useful. It is a matter of looking at

what I had learned as a set of general attributes, experiences,

attitudes and skills. So the second lesson is have no fear, you know

more than you think.

But as much as I knew, I needed to learn new things and attitudes.

Some were obvious like learning newer substantive law concepts

that are very much a part of modern human rights advocacy and

never existed 30 years ago. Others were not so obvious. As a

commercial lawyer everything had to be done the day before today.

There was a fast pace and tangible conclusions that built in

immediate accountability. It was inherent in the work and

satisfying to accomplish something tangible. Not so with human

rights work. Seeking justice for persons with disabilities or helping

displaced small farmers in Burma regain their land are not short-

term efforts. In completing a business transaction, I could feel like

the master of a universe. In working on human rights issues, I have

learned (again perhaps) that the fruits of my labor may not ripen

for many years, if at all. In that is the third lesson. You need to

learn and unlearn. You may be an old dog but you can and will

need to learn new tricks. You will also have to leave behind old

habits and expectations as you move from one world to another.

My “next phase” has been eased by my past. I have recycled more

than invented. Public interest work still happens in settings that are

not different than what I experienced in the 1970’s. The offices are

still mostly shabby and located in 4th floor walk up buildings in

poor areas. Office coffee still sits and bakes in grungy coffee pots.

Even so, it has been like returning home. And, I will add, safely so,

as my Croatian driver was right. That detour area was clear and I

was soon back on the road to the next stop on a 35-year, variable

but consistent effort to use law to promote justice.

Michael Haroz, Director at Goulston & Storrs

CLINICAL AND PRO BONO PROGRAMS

PAGE 18

Harvard Defenders Celebrated the Jack T. Litman Fellowship

HARVARD DEFENDERS

By Meghan Michael, J.D. ’15

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014, Harvard Defenders cele-

brated its 65th anniversary at its annual Litman Fellowship

Symposium, with presentations by keynote speaker Debo

Adegbile and Litman Fellows Carson Wheet, Aaron Fields,

and Missy Bücher. The event was sponsored by The Harvard

Law School Milbank Tweed Fund and the Office of Clinical

and Pro Bono Programs.

Mr. Adegbile, an acclaimed civil rights lawyer, spoke of a

reality that has driven students in Defenders for more than half

a century: “Lawyers make a difference, and the absence of

lawyers makes a difference too.”

When Harvard Defenders

opened its doors in October

1949, it was a relatively

small endeavor. Comprised

of only ten 3L students

dedicated to providing

zealous representation of

indigent criminal defend-

ants, it was a full year

before the organization was

granted official recognition

by Harvard Law School.

The fledgling organization

was then given a $500

budget and a home in

Gannett House, which allowed the organization to take up to

20 3L applicants the following year.

A great deal has changed in 65 years. The organization has

grown to include more than 80 students from all three years of

law school, as well as LLMs. Harvard Defenders now focuses

exclusively on criminal show cause hearings, which are

hearings to determine whether there is probable cause to issue

a criminal charge. Working under the supervision of attorney

John Salsberg, students prepare their cases by interviewing

clients and witnesses, preparing factual and legal research, and

orally presenting their cases to clerk magistrates in criminal

courts. Last year, Defenders represented clients in more than

145 show cause hearings in 20 courts.

At the 65th celebration, Mr. Adegbile spoke of the

commitment to and belief in criminal justice that drives many

lawyers who work in criminal defense. “Criminal justice is the

mark of a democracy,” said Mr Adegbile. “It’s actually

definitional.” Responding to the allegation that defense

lawyers lacked compassion, Mr. Adegbile insisted that

criminal defense lawyers must have a very strong connection

with humanity. “It’s not that absence of humanity, but an

embrace of humanity that allows you to step into that breach.”

An acclaimed civil rights attorney, Mr. Adegbile worked for

the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund for ten years

and has argued before the Supreme Court on the Voting Rights

Act. He was a nominee to lead the U.S. Department of Justice

and Civil Rights Division and is now a partner at the law firm

of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. Mr. Adegbile

spoke of some of the challenges he has faced in his career,

including the Senate block of his confirmation due to his

representation of a death row inmate. “In your career, there are

a lot of things you can’t control,” said Mr. Adegbile. “You can

control the principles for

which you stand.”

This year’s Litman Fellows

—Missy Bücher, Aaron

Fields, and Carson Wheet

— also presented at the

Sympoisum. The Litman

Fellowship was established

in 2012 and is dedicated to

the memory of Jack T.

Litman, HLS LL.B. ’67, a

renowned New York

criminal defense attorney

who was a member of

Harvard Defenders during

his time at the law school. The Fellowship supports three law

school students as they work as Harvard Defenders during the

summer. The Litman Fellowship offers Fellows the

opportunity to gain practical experience in client interaction,

legal research and oral advocacy, and they have the unique

opportunity to handle all their own cases.

At the Symposium, the Litman Fellows presented academic

research on a legal issue they encountered during their

fellowship. Mr. Fields, HLS ’16, discussed the challenges of

advocating for juvenile clients, and Ms. Bücher, a 3L at Tulane

Law, presented her research on international insights into

plea-bargaining. Mr. Wheets, HLS ’16, shared best-practices

for clients suffering from addictions based on his experience

this summer.

“It was truly inspirational to be in a room full of people who

have dedicated their lives to defending the principles that they

believe in,” said Mr. Wheet. “Sharing the stage with Debo

Adegbile, Benjamin Litman and the other Litman Fellows will

always be one of my proudest moments at Harvard Law.”

LEARNING THE LAW | SERVING THE WORLD

PAGE 19 CLINICAL AND PRO BONO PROGRAMS

Faces of Excellence

From the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Pro-

gram

Congratulations to Nancy Kelly and John Willshire Carrera, co-

managing directors of HIRC at Greater Boston Legal Services,

who recently won the Harvard Law School’s Dean’s Award for

Excellence for their exceptional teaching and mentoring of

students at Harvard Law School and for their leadership in

developing child asylum and gender-based asylum law, as well

as indigenous Guatemalan and gang-based asylum claims.

John and Nancy helped found HIRC 30 years ago and have

worked tirelessly over the years to help immigrants and to train

generations of immigration attorneys. In their nominations

letters, John and Nancy’s colleagues described the dedication,

compassion and skill they have brought to HIRC over the past

30 years:

“Their commitment to legal service and their dedication and

ability to build ties between our law school and the legal services community has helped make us a true social justice

clinic.”

“They are the glue that holds the immigration unit of GBLS

together… John and Nancy’s expertise in immigration is unri-

valed and their dedication to both their clients and students is

exceptional among attorneys and mentors.”

“They are tireless advocates for hundreds of noncitizens in the

Boston area, supremely gifted supervisors and managing

attorneys of HIRC at GBLS, and incredible mentors to many of

us at HIRC.”

Congratulations John and Nancy for this extremely well

deserved honor!

Deputy Director and Lecturer on Law Dehlia Umunna wins

Dean’s Award for Excellence

On September 30th, Criminal Justice Institute (CJI) Deputy

Director and Lecturer on Law Dehlia Umunna won the 2014

Dean’s Award for Excellence. The award recognizes staff

members who embody a spirit of excellence in collaboration,

commitment, innovation, leadership and learning within the

Harvard Law School community.

Dehlia Umunna joined CJI as clinical instructor in 2007 and

became deputy director in 2013. She was nominated by the

entire staff at CJI for her dedication to the students and clients

and for her leadership of the staff and support for their

professional development. In addition to her high-quality

supervision and mentoring of students in their criminal defense

work, she also coaches a mock trial team and teaches an

extremely popular reading group The Effects of Mass

Incarceration: Experiences of Prison and Parole.

Harvard Law School staff members are nominated by their peers

for the award. An advisory committee made up of past Dean’s

Award winners, human resources representatives, and additional

selected staff members make recommendations to the Dean

about who should receive the awards.

Clinicians Nancy Kelly, John Willshire Carrera, and Dehlia Umunna win Dean’s Award for Excellence

From left: John Willshire Carrera, Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow, Nancy Kelly, and Lisa Dealy, Assistant Dean for

Clinical and Pro Bono Programs

Team CJI: L-R: Anna Pierce, Amy E. Soto, Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr., Dehlia Umunna, Kristin Muniz, Jennifer McKinnon,

Lia Monahon