When One Door Closes, Do We Jump Through the Window? Teaching Law Students to Advocate in Unfamiliar, Nontraditional Forums

Go Back

Session Type: AALS Programs

Session Capacity: N/A

Hotel: N/A

Room: Salon 2

Floor: Third Floor

During shifts in the legal and political landscape, many clinics confront the choice of whether to expand their advocacy work to advocate for clients in new settings. These new settings present teaching challenges. Faculty from clinics representing clients serving life sentences as juveniles will explore these challenges. How do we teach written and oral advocacy in the context of ad hoc and informal proceedings and meetings? How do we impart important ethical standards where such standards are ignored or misunderstood by many of the players in these systems? How do we balance our desire to meet the critical needs of our clients while serving our students’ educational goals?

In this presentation, panelists who teach in diverse jurisdictions (CA, NV, MD), will lead a discussion about responding to dramatically shifting legal and political landscapes within the context of their experience teaching students to represent people serving life sentences for crimes committed as juveniles. New means of relief for juvenile lifers have emerged that require different advocacy skills, like re-sentencing hearings, parole, and executive clemency. New sites of advocacy are often marked by informality, ambivalence towards lawyers, and lack of clear rules and procedures. 

Using a case study derived from their work with juvenile lifers, presenters will describe how their clinics approached (or would approach) the case, the teaching opportunities it presented, and the transferable skills learned by students. The case study will serve as a springboard for a larger discussion with attendees about how their clinics have responded (or could respond) to critical moments in legal reform.