A Note from Our Co-Directors

We write from CLP to update you on our year so far.

CLP’s academic year began with a two-day celebration of the remarkable life and legacy of Deborah Rhode. On October 15 and 16, 2021, a set of panel discussions covered a broad set of topics befitting Deborah’s wide-ranging influence and enormous impact, both academic and personal. As Paul Brest, former dean and professor emeritus here at SLS, said: “Deborah was a pioneer and leader in every field she touched—sex discrimination, professional responsibility, pro bono legal practice, women and leadership, and just plain leadership.” We are grateful for the opportunity to honor Deborah’s legacy and extraordinary life—and we are so thankful to those of you who joined us, participated remotely, or submitted remembrances from afar. We are also deeply appreciative of the Stanford Law Review’s publication of powerful reflections on Deborah’s lasting imprint at Stanford, in the legal profession writ large, and beyond.

Building on Deborah’s singular talent for conducting original research to understand problems at their root then devising and implementing solutions—which Nora, in her Stanford Law Review Essay, termed “the Rhode Treatment”—we have redoubled our efforts to keep pushing on the issues that matter.

Access to Justice Through Innovation. We continue to play a central role in ongoing attempts nationwide, and here in California, to promote innovation and access to justice through regulatory reform. David and CLP’s Lucy Ricca have been working as appointees to the State Bar of California’s Closing the Justice Gap Working Group, tasked with recommending a design for a regulatory “sandbox” that relaxes lawyer regulation in order to spur innovation in legal services. CLP is also contributing to vigorous debate via original research, writing, and press outreach. A few highlights of this work include an ongoing Policy Labthis op-ed from CLP’s Jason Solomon, this LA Times editorial, and comments submitted in support of the State Bar’s proposal to create the equivalent of nurse practitioners to work in areas like family law, housing, and debt. Meanwhile, Nora has co-signed an amicus brief in a recent challenge to New York’s unauthorized practice of law (UPL) restrictions, and she recently participated in a roundtable discussion at Northwestern discussing that potentially pathbreaking litigation.

 

Photo of judges gavel with a scale in the background

 

The Filing Fairness Project. Mark Chandler, who joined us last year after ending his remarkable run at Cisco, is co-leading still another project alongside David and Margaret Hagan, leader of the Legal Design Lab. In particular, Mark, David, and Margaret seek to design and launch an ambitious multi-state pilot effort (titled the Filing Fairness Project) to improve civil filing systems. The pilot is bringing together six states—representing roughly 1 in 6 Americans, from Alaska to Virginia—to pave the way for scalable technology that can assist self-represented litigants with acute civil justice needs. Currently, the majority of litigants are pro se—but the forms one must complete in order to vindicate one’s rights (to respond to an eviction notice, say) are bewildering, and they differ across jurisdictions. That difference, along with variable e-filing standards and other administrative burdens, prevents technology providers from offering help at any scale. The Filing Fairness Project will try to change that—with implications that are potentially enormous.

 

Illustration in black, red and white of a prisoner walking out of a prison cell.

 

Law and Lawyering into the Digital Future. The Filing Fairness Project is one way we are seeking to maximize technology’s positive impact on the legal system. We are also forging new knowledge on technology’s impact. David’s forthcoming first-of-its-kind book, Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice (Cambridge University Press), follows from last year’s conference of the same name and gathers expert voices from CLP and beyond on the future of law and legal practice.

Protecting Consumers and Clients. CLP has also shone much-needed light on important issues in legal ethics, including on witness recantation in criminal cases. Efforts to enhance client protection and participation will continue with a May convening regarding attorney-client relationships in multidistrict litigation—where leading scholars, practitioners, and judges will join us to discuss the present and future of aggregate litigation.

 

Photo of professionals in a boardroom

 

A Stronger, More Diverse ProfessionOne aspect of strengthening the profession is ensuring that judges have the legitimacy they need in our democracy. We recently co-hosted a discussion on attacks on the judiciary, where Nora was a featured speaker. Nora also recently signed a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts urging the Supreme Court to adopt a Code of Conduct. Meanwhile, Orrick Chair Mitch Zuklie, Diversity Lab’s Caren Ulrich Stacy, and Fenwick Director of DEI Mira Dewji spoke to the class “Reforming the Profession,” co-taught by Jason Solomon and the Rock Center’s Mike Callahan, about the most promising levers and difficult challenges in increasing diversity among lawyers. We are currently considering our next project on how to best make an impact on diversifying the profession—a critical issue and major priority.

 

Black and white photo of Todd Venook

 

The Team. Todd Venook, a Yale Law School graduate and, most recently, a law clerk in the Middle District of Alabama, joined us last fall as our inaugural Civil Justice and Technology Fellow and has already made a significant contribution. We’re also looking to hire a Justice Innovation Lead to drive the Filing Fairness Project through its pilot stage. With our team more fully in place, we’re eager to broaden and deepen CLP’s imprint on critical issues facing the profession.

Many thanks to all of you who support our efforts, engage with our work, and challenge our thinking. We are grateful for your partnership, and we look forward to another successful year.

Nora Freeman Engstrom
Co-Director, Stanford Center on the Legal Profession and Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law

David Freeman Engstrom
Co-Director, Stanford Center on the Legal Profession and Professor of Law and LSVF Professor in Law

CLP + Legal Design Lab = Student opportunities in A2J + Design + Tech

On September 21, the Center on the Legal Profession and the Stanford Legal Design Lab co-hosted a gathering, titled CLP + Legal Design Lab = Student opportunities in A2J + Design + Tech (video here), to highlight the multiple hands-on student opportunities offered over the next twelve months.  The gathering, held in the law school’s Crocker Garden and within the University’s Covid protocols, was well attended by students within and beyond the law school and curious about projects focused on access to justice and leveraging design and technology.

 

 

CLP + Legal Design Lab = Student opportunities in A2J + Design + Tech 3

 

Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom, co-director of the Center on the Legal Profession, kicked off the event with a call to action on the access to justice crisis in the United States. The event, featured short speeches via Zoom by the Honorable Bridget McCormack, Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, and Ronald S. Flagg, the President of the Legal Service Corporation.  Both Chief Justice McCormack and Mr. Flagg spoke passionately about the American access to justice crisis and stressed that the magnitude of the crisis requires bold action aimed at truly systemic change.  Each noted, echoing a line often repeated by CLP’s Founder Deborah L. Rhode, that the American promise of equal justice under the law does not reflect the reality for most Americans facing legal problems and turning to the justice system for help.  As Chief Justice McCormack said, “I am here to tell you that disruption is what is needed right now in our legal system.”

 

CLP + Legal Design Lab = Student opportunities in A2J + Design + Tech

 

Chief Justice McCormack and Mr. Flagg framed the issue as one of systemic challenge rooted not only in easily-recognizable issues such as underfunding, bureaucracy, and poverty, but also in the institutional design of law, the practice of law, and the legal profession.  Chief Justice McCormack highlighted the challenges facing the approximately 80% of consumers who lack legal representation and are trying to access the legal system to resolve their justice needs and act upon their democratic rights, “It’s hard to imagine another public good that would prohibit you from accessing it if you couldn’t afford [someone to help you] access it.  [Imagine if we said] ‘You can’t use that highway unless you can afford a highway helper to show you how to get on the highway.’  We wouldn’t stand for that.”  Mr. Flagg agreed, noting:

Our judicial and administrative systems for enforcing those rights were largely built by lawyers, on the assumption that people using the systems will be represented by lawyers.  And in many categories of life altering cases that assumption is simply false.  In family law cases, in many jurisdictions across the country, less than 10% of the litigants are represented.  Even more unfairly, in eviction cases in many jurisdictions over 90% of tenants are unrepresented while over 90% of landlords are represented.

The speakers noted the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated many of the challenges already endemic in the civil justice system, increasing to the point of impossibility physical access to the courts, increasing the difficulties for people trying to go it alone, and increasing the need for virtual and other technology-based solutions.

Despite this bleak picture, both Chief Justice McCormack and Ron Flagg exhorted the students to take the opportunity of their position at Stanford and, for the law students in attendance, of a legal education, to create the disruption so needed to launch impactful systemic change.  Chief Justice McCormack said, “If law schools are only building bespoke lawyers ascending to bespoke firms to serve the elite clients who can pay those bespoke lawyers they’re not going to be part of the solution.  The work of the [Stanford policy labs], in my view, is how we will make transformational change happen.  By your faculty and all of you engaging directly with stakeholders and bringing the university’s expertise and your excellent ideas and innovation to the table.”

 

 

After the rousing calls to action from Chief Justice McCormack and Mr. Flagg, Professor David Freeman Engstrom, Co-Director of CLP, introduced the policy lab leaders to provide more detail on the projects and answer students’ questions.  Mark Chandler JD ‘81 and until recently the Chief Legal Officer at Cisco, has joined CLP as a Fellow and is leading, along with Professor Engstrom and Margaret Hagan, the policy lab titled:  Unlocking Technology to Promote Access to Justice:  A Pilot to Reform Civil Justice Filing Systems.  The policy lab will serve as a launch for a longer-term project which seeks to develop standardized and simplified formats for use by self-represented litigants and legal services organizations in simple but high need civil justice areas (domestic violence, eviction, consumer debt).   The policy lab students will be doing the initial needs finding and strategy planning for the project, conducting stakeholder interviews, identifying high potential jurisdictions and civil justice areas, and preparing for a convening of stakeholders during winter quarter.

Chandler recalled getting interested in access to justice as a law student, inspired by “my mentor Deborah Rhode.”  As General Counsel of Cisco, he was a trailblazer in developing and using legal technology, but when he and his colleagues volunteered in legal aid offices, he found they were “in the dark ages of technology,” with lawyers filling out forms when they could be helping more clients. Invoking the example of a 40 year-old single mother with two kids seeking a protective order for domestic violence in California, he pointed out that even the government’s own website for self-represented litigants made the process seem complicated.  Chandler pointed to the need for more Turbo Tax-like solutions to help self-represented litigants, and recalled his discussion with Flagg about whether to leave Cisco and pursue this project. “I asked him ‘Is it impossible?’ and he said ‘Not impossible, just very hard.,’’ Chandler recounted.  And Chandler closed by quoting President John F. Kennedy’s famous challenge in the context of going to the moon—that we tackle challenges “not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”

 

 

Margaret Hagan, Director of the Stanford Legal Design Lab, presented the Lab’s autumn policy lab Justice By Design: Eviction.  The policy lab is a continuation of the ongoing eviction work Margaret and her team have led since 2018, work that has only become more pressing during the pandemic.  The class focuses on creating, evaluating, and scaling new interventions to prevent eviction & mitigate the harms they do to families, health, and communities.  This fall, the policy lab client is the NAACP.  Students will work on 2 particular issues that the NAACP is facing, as the organization works to prevent eviction with an innovative, community-driven pilot program in South Carolina:  (1) How can courts be more involved in mitigating the harms caused by eviction?; and (2) Can we train large groups of community members to do ‘legal first aid’: spotting legal issues and referring people to services?

The event concluded with refreshments and much discussion among presenters and attendees.

Discussion: Indigent Defense During the Pandemic and Beyond

Professor Ron Tyler of Stanford’s Criminal Defense Clinic moderates an October 26 discussion on “Indigent Defense During the Pandemic and Beyond” with Avis Buchanan, Director of the D.C. Public Defender Service, and Ricardo Garcia, Los Angeles County Chief Public Defender. This followed an October 15 panel with some of the leading “progressive prosecutors” in the country – District Attorneys Chesa Boudin of San Francisco, Eric Gonzalez of Brooklyn, and Marilyn Mosby of Baltimore. Both panels were co-sponsored by Stanford Law’s Center on the Legal Profession and Criminal Justice Center.

How Should Legal Education Be Regulated?

In October 2020, the Center co-hosted a virtual convening on legal-education accreditation with the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) and Law School Transparency.

 

The context and motivation for the convening came from three important publications on legal education that came out in early 2020, before the onslaught of Covid-19: the report from the ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Education, Ben Barton’s Fixing Law Schools, and LST’s 2025 Vision from Law School Transparency.

One theme of all three reports—and many other recent publications and commentary—is that legal education must do better on access, affordability, and innovation. Despite general agreement that reform is needed, change is too slow and halting, in part because law schools face structural barriers that frustrate reform efforts.

This virtual convening—which included some of the country’s leading experts—zeroed in on one of these structural issues: the accreditation standards and process for law schools. All three recent publications raise concerns that the ABA’s accreditation standards contribute to the homogeneity, high cost, and lack of innovation that characterize U.S. law schools. These criticisms are not new, and indeed, the ABA Council on Legal Education—the accrediting body and regulator of law schools—has shifted in recent years towards less reliance on prescribing “in

puts” for schools (i.e. size of the library) and more on outcome measures (i.e. what students must know and do).

In particular, the gathering kicked off with brief remarks from the principal authors of each of the three reports, followed by a discussion with the ABA Council’s two most recent Managing Directors on the key principles of law school regulation. The group then turned to the question of how the accreditation standards affect the kinds of educational models that emerge (and don’t emerge), spurred by remarks from former Undersecretary for Education and president of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges accreditor Jamienne Studley and an academic dean from the innovative university Minerva, which has a 100% online curriculum and is a leader in higher education at teaching and measuring learning outcomes.

Finally, the convening closed with discussion of how to do quality assurance focused on student outcomes—how to assure that new lawyers graduate with the competencies they need for practice—led by University of Michigan professor Lisa Lattuca who was the co-principal investigator of a national study on the impact of outcomes-based accreditation on student learning in engineering programs. There was also discussion about possible next steps, which the Center has pushed forward since the convening.

Building a Diverse, Inclusive Profession

Building a Diverse, Inclusive Profession

 

On February 2, the Center for the Legal Profession co-hosted an event (video here) with the Black Law Students Association, Women of Stanford Law, and the Stanford Center for Racial Justice that focused on how to address the scope of racial and gender inequality in the legal profession.

Moderator Joanna Grossman, a visiting professor at Stanford and professor at SMU Dedman School of Law, framed the discussion by noting that the lack of diversity and inclusion is evident in several different measures, but one of the most telling is the pyramid shape of advancement in the profession. For example, women have been 50% of law school graduates for about 20 years, but only 18% of equity partners in law firms. Lawyers of color are 22% of associates, but only 6% of equity partners. Women of color are the least represented, comprising slightly under 3% of equity partners. The lack of vertical equity is not the only way of measuring diversity or inclusion in the legal profession. Still, Grossman pointed out, it gives us a way of focusing on the persistent issue that reflects a much deeper set of problems: bias, structural inequities, complacency, power dynamics and resistance to change.

Panelists discussed the norm of lawyers being white and male, and how that affects the profession.  Shauna Johnson Clark, Norton Rose Fulbright’s global and U.S. chair, as well as its head of employment and labor in the U.S., mentioned that outside of large law firms and Fortune 500 legal departments, the profession is fairly diverse.  For Clark, one of the most important factors in diversifying large law firms is to create a firm culture environment that allows people to be “as close to their authentic selves as possible.”

Joseph West, a partner and Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer at Duane Morris who previously served as the President of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association while in-house at Wal-Mart, emphasized the importance of implicit bias training.  Such bias comes into play at different “chokepoints,” he explained, including recruiting, compensation, mentoring, and who gets what work.  Clark, an African-American woman, mentioned that earlier in her career, when she was introduced to a new client, they would often say: “Where’s my lawyer?” She dubbed this phenomenon “sticker shock.”

Sandra Simkins. the Director and co-founder of the Children’s Justice Clinic at Rutgers Law School, argued that the norm of a female lawyer in many areas of public-interest law was itself a problem and comes with its own unique set of challenges. She pointed out that any profession that is primarily staffed with women becomes a “pink ghetto” (the subject of her recent article) with lower status and less compensation. In Simkins’ view, the gender stratification for women in public interest begins in law schools, as clinicians and legal writing professors (both primarily women), are at the lower end of the law school hierarchy.

The panelists discussed the opportunities associated with in-house counsel making diversity a priority in their hiring of outside counsel. “Client demands drive everything,” as West put it. And he said that GCs at a range of companies were starting to prioritize diversity and inclusion.  Doing this meaningfully, West pointed out, means making sure that the diverse partners who own the client relationship are getting the “origination credit” for firm compensation purposes.  Another approach – used by former GC Brad Smith at Microsoft – is incentivizing in-house counsel to reach diversity and inclusion metrics by tying a portion of their bonus to such goals. Clark noted that if we want to see real change, then corporate clients need to give diverse lawyers “at-bats” to run a deal or try a case. “Greatness — performing and delivering results – is the great equalizer. The problem is giving people an opportunity to be great,” she said.

The legal profession also needs to focus more on data and metrics, according to the panelists, in order to make real progress on diversity. Clark challenged law firms on this score: “In terms of making progress, if you are ashamed to even measure it, then that just speaks to the problem.”  But the data challenge is even worse outside the world of large law firms.  For years, the ABA has marked women’s progress in firms and other areas, Simkins pointed out, but there have been no reports or attempts to document women’s public interest careers. Grossman pointed to the continued importance of data collection from professional affinity groups like the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession and West’s former organization, the MCCA, which collaborated on the well-regarded “bias interrupters” study.

West noted greater attention in law schools to the issues around diversity and inclusion as well. Recently, there have been roundtable discussions hosted by the ABA Council on Legal Education about whether or not bias training should be mandatory in law school. “There is a greater understanding of the need for fluency around diversity and inclusion and equity, particularly as it relates to bias, and I don’t think that’s going to change,” he said.