El Salvador Trip Changes Lives

by Steve Jacob

layout editor

Relating the full experience of El Salvador in a few hundred words is impossible. The best one can hope for is a brief glimpse into the feelings, impressions, and thoughts of those who spent a week of their winter break in Central America. For fourteen students and two professors, the sensations and observations of a foreign land still percolate in their minds, a turmoil of unfiltered information. It is hard to summarize a life-changing experience.

For Professor Cynthia Mertens, life changed nearly five years ago. As part of Santa Clara University’s continuing relationship with the University of Central America (UCA), Mertens participated in a faculty immersion experience that took her – along with a group of other SCU faculty – to El Salvador for a week of in-depth exposure to its people and culture. Touched by her experiences, Mertens wrote in her journal, “I hope to create the opportunity for law students to feel the same passion, the same flame – the need – to make the world a more equitable place.”

Two years later Mertens led a group of fourteen law students to El Salvador. Carefully selected from a large pool of applicants, those students attended a tailored lecture series to prepare them with the historical and political foundations necessary to understand the conditions in El Salvador. Of that first experience, Mertens later wrote, “It was an educational experience with tremendous emotional impact. In short, it was the best educational experience I have provided students in my 29 years of teaching law school and rates as the best professional experience of my career as a lawyer.”

Exhausted from her second trip to El Salvador, and busy with work at the Katharine and George Alexander Community Law Center, Mertens suggested that an additional faculty member be prepared for the possibility of any future immersion experiences. Happy to take on the task, Professor Gary Neustadter and his wife participated in the faculty immersion trip in September 2004. Together, Mertens and Neustadter accompanied fourteen students to El Salvador from Jan. 1-8, 2006, in what they hoped would be the second in a continuing series of excursions to Central America.

In order to comprehend such a singular experience, it is necessary to know something of the discordant modern history of El Salvador. For decades, before civil war erupted in 1980, the Salvadoran government rested in the hands of the military. During the ‘60s and early ‘70s, a growing movement of leftist dissension began to threaten the right-wing junta. After two elections, which arguably saw the junta manipulate results, and the institution of “Death Squads” to deal with vocal dissenters, the left’s patience dried up. As cleric after cleric died, and protest after protest elicited tragic responses from the government, the opposition forces finally organized. In January 1981, they united to form the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberacion or FMLN).

For the next eleven years, junta and FMLN opposition forces battled for control of El Salvador. Fueled by Cold War fears of communism, the Reagan administration sponsored the right-wing junta and allocated several millions of dollars to ensure they remained in power. During the civil war, estimated casualties reached upwards of 70,000 dead. It was not until the very visible and bloody execution of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper, and her daughter at the UCA, that the international community moved to intervene.

As reports of the junta’s inhumane actions reached the United States and the United Nations, both sides of the conflict sought UN arbitration in brokering a peace. In January 1992, their efforts culminated in the Peace Accords and put an end to twelve years of civil war.

Fourteen years later the scars of war remain. Although the axes lie under the ground and the guns are silenced, El Salvador remains a country divided by political fervor. Apologetics and propaganda plaster most available surfaces and give the appearance of a country caught in an ideological conflagration. Primary among those responsible for the graffitic advertising are the political descendants of the civil war: the FLMN is the philosophical child of the left-wing opposition army while the right-wing junta and supporters merged to form the Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA). Both sides remain in control of different areas of the country, and though they remain at peace, they still do battle for political and economic control.

In part because of that battle, in part because of a history of abject poverty, and in part because of the problems that come with it, El Salvador struggles to climb from the dust of its village streets into the twenty-first century. 2L Greg Hartman expressed his excitement to see some progress in labor conditions as demonstrated during the group’s visit to the Just Garments factory. The first factory in El Salvador to unionize, Just Garments formerly held a contract with The Gap, before public pressure forced The Gap to cease its unethical labor practices. Now a unionized company, Just Garments pays more than any other factory in the country. Although the pay differential remains small, union representatives seem optimistic for a renewed contract with The Gap at ethical prices. Despite such positive steps, the progress is slow, and El Salvador still stumbles in the languor of reconstruction.

In contrast to the well groomed lawns and regularly swept streets of Santa Clara, the lake beside Copapayo is rimmed by a beach of refuse. Poison from contaminants seeps into the water and poisons the fish; fish which more often than not serve as food for the villagers of Copapayo. Among the first, and probably most lasting, impressions of El Salvador was the group’s visit to the El Salvadoran campo Copapayo which imprinted a human reality of the horrors of war and the deprivations of poverty.

Organized by a woman who lived in the campo – a member of the Women’s Association for Defense and Development (Defensa) – the group’s visit to Copapayo included a meeting with the community’s leadership, a tour of the community, an overnight stay in the campo, and several conversations with survivors of the civil war and the government’s mistreatment of the leftist village.

One student, 2L Ann Larson, recalled meeting a woman who was paralyzed on one side of her face from injuries sustained during the civil war. She spoke of another “name, her guerilla name. She talked about having been involved in this massacre where this group of people fled because they heard that the military was coming. “They had to get off of this island, so some of the people got on boats to get off of the island. The people that remained were all killed – about a hundred people – and the only ones who survived were two children who had hidden during this massacre.”

At the time of their visit, Copapayo’s population numbered little more than a hundred. Some electricity and no running water made living conditions difficult. Despite the lack of modern conveniences, and their extreme isolation from the nearest large population center, the citizens of Copapayo offered several large meals to the group and held a village gathering to celebrate with them. After dinner and dancing, the group bedded down on the floor of the community center – fourteen students and two professors – for a rural sleepover. “It was an instant bonding experience for us all,” said 2L Jeremiah Armstrong.

On Wednesday night, the group ate dinner with Ruben Zamora, a former presidential candidate and current professor at the University of Central America (UCA). After some confusion and a hastily improvised introduction, Zamora spoke to the group.

According to Armstrong, Zamora provided a well-balanced overview of what he thought needed to happen in order to transform El Salvador into a society where people were free to speak without such an extreme level of oppression. For Zamora, the issue of free speech was especially pertinent, as his brother had been assassinated during the civil war by government death squads for “voicing his opinion a little too loudly.”

The next day the group made an impromptu visit to what is considered the best orphanage in the country. Cribs filled with babies lined the hall and the entire facility struggled to sustain its allotment of abused and abandoned children. 2L Minal Belani said, “I thought it was good that the government was spending money on such a program. It was really sad to go and see.”

After they visited with the youngest children inside, their guide led them into a courtyard where several of the older children gathered. The boys and girls ranged from four or five to twelve and thirteen years old and were filled with excitement to receive their visitors. Each of the children quickly grabbed hold of a student’s hand in what seemed a warm and welcoming embrace. That’s when it dawned on Professor Mertens “that they thought we were there to choose a child to adopt, and that again, just broke my heart.”

Later that same day, the group met with Judge Astrid Torres, a criminal law judge with responsibility for one of the country’s maximum security prisons. 3L Lisa Chen described Torres, “She was this little woman and she has tried to take a stand against the government in terms of prisoner’s rights and to fight for what she thinks is right. She’s had the media write terrible things about her and she still doesn’t care. She does what she thinks is right.” Because of her efforts to provide for the basic human rights of prisoners, Torres receives regular death threats. “For some people,” said Chen, “she’s viewed as a troublemaker…She’s looking out for them [the prisoners] and she’s making sure they’re afforded that certain right. She’s had things said about her and she still believes in her cause.” For many of the students, Torres’s example of steadfastness, in the midst of corruption, served as a powerful example.

But was her example, and the examples of all those whom the group met, enough to change lives? It is still too soon to determine how this experience will affect the lives of those who went to El Salvador. It is still too soon for many of them to truly understand what happened. It is not too soon, however, to realize the potential power of this program, and the opportunity for education that it provides. Even though the full impact is limited to those who participated, the enthusiasm and passion expressed by those participants is contagious. It seems unlikely that they will soon forget their time in Central America. Finally, Professor Mertens expressed her hope for the future of this group, “The law school, the profession, and the community will benefit from the perspective that these students will bring to their courses and eventually to the practice of law.”

Consul General of Israel Visits SCU School of Law

by Jonathan Sip

Staff Writer

 

As Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s condition remains doubtful and the future of Israel’s leadership hangs in the balance, Santa Clara Law School was fortunate to have the opportunity to hear from the head of the Consulate General of Israel in San Francisco. 

The event was co-sponsored by the Jewish Law Students Association (JLSA), Hillel of Silicon Valley, and the Center for Global Law & Policy.

Consul General David Akov spoke about Israel’s leadership under Sharon as well as current Israel-Palestine relations. “The situation is in limbo,” Akov said commenting on Sharon.  “Power has been transferred swiftly and smoothly to [Sharon’s] deputy, immediately upon hospitalization.  This was a test of our democracy.” 

The 77-year old Sharon suffered a massive stroke on January 4th and has remained in critical but stable condition, according to a statement from the Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem.  There have been no signs of emergence from his more than two-week-old coma. 

As of now, Sharon’s deputy and former Jerusalem mayor, Ehud Olmert, has been serving as interim prime minister.  A new prime minister will be picked when Israelis go to the polls on the March 28th election. 

Regarding Israel-Palestine relations, Akov stressed that there needs to be a complete separation between the two states.  This two-state idea was adopted by Sharon in 2003 and marked a major change in Israeli political beliefs. 

“There needs to be a separation between Israel and Palestine,” said Akov.  “The majority of Israelis are for a two-state separation.… Israel cannot control, nor has the desire to govern the millions of Palestinians living there.”

The shift towards separation and disposing of any attempts at resolving the conflict through negotiation may be explained by Israel’s total loss of patience with suicide bombers.  Akov explained that the decision to erect the Security Fence, which borders Israel and the West Bank, was to reduce the number of terrorist attacks. 

“We began to erect the fence after the wave of attacks in 2001-02,” said Akov.  “Just to give you an idea of how bad it was, in March 2002 alone, 140 Israelis were killed in thirty separate suicide bomber attacks.  We don’t have a normal life and are always in a state of fear.”

In dealing with the route of the Security Fence, Israel’s High Court of Justice has been forced to address humanitarian concerns.  “The court must balance national security with freedom of the individual as well security of the state and its citizens with human rights,” said Akov.  “In a few instances, the court has changed the route to fit this logic.” 

Akov argued that since Israel began building the fence, there has been a drastic reduction in the number terrorist and suicide bombing attempts.  On the other hand, critics of the fence are concerned about the negative impacts on Palestinians such as reduced freedoms, loss of land, and adverse economic effects. 

Akov stressed that the characterization of the barrier as a wall is misleading.  According to Akov, 96 percent of the barrier is a fence and only 4 percent is a wall. Israel says the purpose of using walls is to abut them next to roads to shield Israeli drivers in areas known for a high volume of sniper shooting attacks.  According to Akov, Israel is not making a de facto border because an overwhelming majority of the barrier can be removed easily. 

Since the commencement of building the fence and following the idea of separate states, Israel has seemed to offer what amounts to a compromise with the Palestinians.  Israel’s “Disengagement Plan,” initiated in August 2005 under Sharon, called for the removal of all permanent Israelis from the Gaza Strip.  It was the first time since the 1967 Six Day War that Israel has given up territory in Gaza.

“The Disengagement is hoped to reignite the peace process and strengthen the state of Israel,” said Akov.  “However, this was a very difficult decision, especially for the settlers’ movement.” 

Akov explained that the pullout from the Gaza Strip forced the dismantling of all Israeli settlements and the abandonment of long-standing farms, cemeteries, and residences that have been used by three generations of Israelis. 

Commenting on the Israeli settlers that were forced to move, Akov said that the process went more smoothly than expected.  “When the Israeli military came to move the settlers, the settlers realized it was a democratic decision and decided not to fight,” said Akov.  “Also, the training of the Israeli police was very thorough.  They behaved in a dignified and responsive manner, Israelis felt proud.” 

After the pullout, Akov explained that the Israeli government hoped that Palestinians would take control of the Gaza Strip and have a “monopoly on the use of force.”  In other words, no rival terrorist groups were to have any power and Israel expected the Palestinians would actively dismantle any existing terrorist organizations. 

“Unfortunately this did not happen,” said Akov.  “The Palestinians have an election in a week and the big dilemma is how does one treat a terrorist organization that participates in an election and becomes elected by the people?” 

Akov raised serious questions about the validity of such a government.  He was doubtful as to whether the United States and Israel should bother to meet with a democratically-elected terrorist group.  “Do we have no elections in the Palestinian region or shall we do so and run the risk of electing known terrorists?” said Akov. 

Turning to the escalating situation with Iran and complicating an already delicate situation between Israel and Palestine, Akov remarked on Iran’s proposed nuclear arms program. 

“We are very concerned about their intentions,” said Akov.  “This is not an Israeli problem, but a world problem.” 

Akov warned that Iran may one day have the ability to not only threaten countries in the Middle East, but in a few years be able to blackmail the world.  He proposed that the UN Security Council get involved in diffusing the situation, especially in light of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls for Israel to be wiped off the map and for calling the Holocaust a myth.     

Update: The result of the recent Palestinian parliamentary elections has Hamas taking majority control of the Palestinian Legislative Council.  The United States and many European nations have listed Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Israel has flatly rejected dealing with Hamas.  President Bush has stated that there can be no dealing with a Palestinian Authority that changes course and refuses to recognize the existence of Israel. 

There is a huge concern about giving financial aid to a government controlled by a terrorist organization.  On the other hand, if aid were to be cut off, there may be severe humanitarian consequences. –Ed.

Heritage Foundation Speaks on Alito Hearings

by Adam Heller

Editor-in-Chief

 

The Santa Clara University School of Law chapter of the Federalist Society hosted a speech by the Heritage Foundation’s Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Todd F. Gaziano.  The Heritage Foundation is self-described as a think tank whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

Mr. Gaziano has served under all three branches of government: he clerked for the Fifth Circuit appellate judge, Edith H. Jones; worked for the U.S. Department of Justice in the Office of Legal Council; and served as Chief Counsel to the House Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs.

Despite a modest audience, the Heritage Foundation’s Todd Gaziano delivered a combative speech on the state of judicial confirmations.  Armed with a mountain of facts and statistics, Gaziano fired shots at both sides of the political aisle for grandstanding and hypocrisy. 

According to Gaziano, Republican judicial confirmation hearings are nothing more than highly scripted and predictable shows used to mollify the extremist elements of both parties. 

However, Gaziano focused specifically on the acts of liberal organizations.  In particular, the National Organization of Women (NOW) drew special attention.  On abortion, NOW has opposed every Republican-nominated candidate for the Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. 

An example of NOW’s contradictory position on Supreme Court nominees is exemplified by President George H.W. Bush’s nomination of David Souter.  According to Gaziano, in 1991, NOW proclaimed “that women would die” if Souter was confirmed to the high court – the implication being that Souter would work toward overturning Roe. 

However, NOW’s website, in opposing Alito, admits that only four justices can be counted on to uphold Roe: Justice Souter being one of them.  The other three are Clinton appointees, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer, and Ford appointee, Justice Stevens.    

However, the harshest criticism was leveled at the senators.  “Many senators have disgraced themselves,” said Gaziano.  

Only two of the eighteen senators allowed more time for Alito to respond to questions than the time spent asking the questions.  Senator Joseph Biden [D-DE] referred to himself, on average, every twelve seconds. 

Gaziano thought that Senator Arlen Specter [R-PA], Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and pro-choice Republican, looked “foolish” asking Judges Roberts and Alito to acknowledge that Roe-Casey is a “super-duper” precedent.     

Senator Ted Kennedy [D-MA] got special rebuke for his attack on Alito’s association with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP).  Gaziano presented Kennedy with three less-than-gracious awards.

The Thespian Award: given for Kennedy’s scripted tantrum in which he decried to Specter that secret CAP documents would reveal that Alito had much more involvement than he let on – only to be proven wrong when William A. Rusher, former publisher of National Review and a founding member of CAP, turned over the contested documents to the committee. 

The Profiles in Interpretation Award: given to Kennedy for his lack of understanding that the offensive CAP article regarding men’s-only dining clubs was parody. 

The Hypocrisy Award: given to Kennedy for his membership in the Owl Club, a social club for Harvard alumni that bans women from membership.  After lambasting Alito’s membership in CAP, a reporter asked if Kennedy was still a member of the Owl Club.  Kennedy responded, “I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.” 

In conclusion, Gaziano thought senators should get off nominees’ backs and give the president the historical deference that the Senate has previously afforded.  “Prior to 1950, there were virtually no confirmation hearings,” said Gaziano. 

Gaziano thought it was intolerable that senators would try to pin down candidates on specific issues that may come before the court.  “It is a violation of Canon 5 of the Judicial Code of Conduct to force judges to state an opinion on issues that may come before the court,” said Gaziano. 

The ABA Model Code of Judical Conduct, Canon 5, states in pertinent part: A candidate for a judicial office shall not, with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the office.

Mexican Political Party Reps Debate Upcoming Election

by Jonathan Sip

staff writer

 

Representatives from Mexico’s three major political parties gathered at Santa Clara last week to celebrate Mexican democracy and voice their opinions on who should be elected as the next president in the upcoming national elections.

The election marks a milestone in Mexican history – 2006 will be the first year that Mexican citizens living abroad will be able to vote in their country’s national elections.  Major changes will be felt throughout the country as citizens will choose representatives for 500 seats in the Congress, 128 in the Senate, and replace outgoing President Vicente Fox. 

“We are facing the most competitive presidential election ever,” said Ambassador Roberta Lajous of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).  “But, we are confident that we will win.”  The PRI is endorsing candidate Roberto Madrazo, former governor of the Mexican state of Tabasco, for president in the upcoming July elections.

Lajous argued that the PRI would do well in the elections due to their dominance of Mexican politics.  However, the PRI did not do well in the previous 2000 elections as Vicente Fox of the National Action Party (PAN) ended the PRI’s 71-year grasp on the presidency. 

Even though the PRI lost the presidency, it currently holds a majority in both the Congress and Senate.  “Our party is on the rebound and is due a strong comeback this election,” said Lajous.  “We have a strong and definite proposal for government reform and have shown detailed progress.”

Senator Hector Osuna (PAN) framed the political debate over the elections as one of an important choice for the future of Mexico as a country.  “Mexico is at a crossroads,” said Sen. Osuna.  “The P.A.N. is the oldest democratically-elected party in Mexico and our country will have to choose one of two visions – to look to the past or to the future.” 

Sen. Osuna alluded to the changing political landscape in Mexico marked by President Fox’s victory in 2000, which ended the PRI’s decades-long hold on the presidency.  The Senator outlined his party’s platform as working towards consensus in the government, economic competitiveness, fair social policy, and a strong foreign policy. 

PAN is supporting candidate Felipe Calderon Hinojosa.  “Our candidate is a lawyer in his forties who knows how to deliver results,” said Sen. Osuna.  “He is energetic and charismatic and will strengthen the role of the government in promoting the participation of the people.” 

Calderon received a bachelor’s degree in law from the Escuela Libre de Derecho in Mexico City and a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. 

Also present at the debate was Congressman Juan Jose Garcia Ochoa of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD).  Congressman Garcia focused on humanitarian issues facing the population. 

“Mexico started a democratic transition a few years ago,” said Ochoa.  “But it remains true that half of the population is in poverty … people are looking for other options.” 

The Congressman stressed the importance of continuing successful social programs in Mexico City which have helped single mothers with children.  He explained that these programs were made possible through allocating money away from wasteful bureaucracies.  Congressman Garcia’s party is endorsing former mayor of Mexico City, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

The representatives addressed the plight of Mexican nationals as workers in the US and how their presence has effected US-Mexico relations.  Ambassador Lajous remarked on President Bush’s temporary migratory program as a positive step in the right direction.

“We welcome Bush’s program…but, it needs to be taken along with other measures,” said Lajous.  “[The Mexican nationals] must be allowed to achieve legal status.” 

Sen. Osuna commented the negative effects of America’s heightened border security as a result of the War on Terrorism.  “The issue of security is sometimes offensive to Mexico because we do not export terrorists, we export good workers,” said Sen. Osuna. 

Illegal drug trafficking has been a long standing issue of concern across the US-Mexico border.  The representatives offered their opinions on how to combat the drug trade as well the violence associated with it.  Ambassador Lajous advocated a collaborative approach between the United States and Mexico. 

“Drug trafficking is one of the worst problems in Mexico and for the United States,” said Ambassador Lajous.  “We need to sit down and share intelligence together because we are all on the same boat.” 

Congressman Garcia argued that the problem may be solved by examining the bureaucracy in the security forces along the border.  He also warned that the problem was not merely confined to drugs, but that it included illegal weapons and human trafficking. 

Dealing with the issue of education, the representatives universally acknowledged that this was an area that needed to be improved in their country. 

“Education has been universal and free in Mexico, but it has not reached all sectors of the population,” said Ambassador Lajous.  “The average schooling in Mexico is six years of primary school … our goal is to bring that level up to nine years in order to be a modern nation.” 

According to Wikipedia, Mexico is unique in that it has developed system of “distance-learning” via satellite.  This system utilizes televised lectures to reach small towns and rural communities, many of which are populated by indigenous peoples. 

The representatives also commented on their party’s views on NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was originally intended to remove barriers to trade between the US, Mexico and Canada. 

“The taboo is that NAFTA cannot be modified in the best interest for our countries,” said Sen. Osuna.  “We need to support industries doing well under NAFTA, and revise others.”   

Mexico’s election will be held on July 2, 2006.  The debate was held in the Mayer Theater at Santa Clara University and hosted by the World Affairs Council of Northern California, the Global Leadership and Ethics Program of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics and Bank of America.

Professor Steinman, the Court, and Law School Education

by Meg vanSteenburgh

staff writer

Professor Edward Steinman: If you poll a group of students who have taken a class or two with him, you’re bound to get a strong opinion. You either love him or fear him (yes, those rumors that he actually makes you think outside of the case law are all true).

Professor Steinman got his J.D. from Stanford in 1968 where he was editor of the Stanford Law Review. His work has focused mostly on civil rights in the arenas of education and poverty.

He has also argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court, including a landmark victory providing special education rights for non-English speaking children. [see Lau v. Nichols]. He specializes in Constitutional Law and Law in Education – so our trusty staff sat down with him for a little one-on-one about the current state of both those subjects.

Advocate Staff [AS]: Were you satisfied with the Alito hearings?

Professor Steinman [PS]: I don’t think anybody in the world was.

AS: What would you have pinned him down on?

PS: I don’t think you can pin him down. I think we have a system now where we’re going to let senators pontificate and we’re going to let the nominees avoid. I think we’re eventually going to have to have some agreement among the senators that if you want to make these hearings meaningful, you say that if someone doesn’t answer the question you keep talking until they answer it and you don’t let them use evasiveness, whether it’s an Alito or a Ginsburg.  But right now it’s a charade.

AS: Do you think that has anything to do with the Bork hearings?

PS: It has everything to do with the Bork hearings…. The Senate is going to have to find a different way to have meaningful hearings on nominations because right now it’s a total waste of time. I would say, “You’re a liar [Alito], you didn’t join that organization [Concerned Alumni of Princeton] because of the ROTC, tell us the truth.”

AS: Senator Kennedy came pretty close to saying that.

PS: Kennedy should not be limited to 15 minutes. In my opinion, you have a right to have the nominee give you his view on a general issue that may come before the court if you feel that advise and consent of the Senate means not just qualifications.

Because if it’s qualifications, then there’s no issue: if advise and consent means is he smart,  if it means will he not rape his daughter, if it means will he basically not embarrass us? But I don’t think that’s what advise and consent means.

AS: Do you believe the court will become more originialist/textualist, with the nomination of Alito and Roberts as Chief Justice? 

PS: I don’t think any of them are. You look at Scalia’s view concerning state sovereignty and there’s a case where he even admits that ‘there’s no constitutional text to support me.’  It’s really more your view of the role of government. Does government have an obligation to lift the handicaps that the government caused? One answer is that it’s not the role of government.

Look at Alito, in an incredible array of decisions, he almost always rules on behalf of the government. I mean, to the extent that the government is never wrong, why have an appellate system? Activism is always in the eyes of the beholder; Scalia is an activist on certain issues just like Ginsburg is on others.

[Alito’s] view on race and gender give you some sense of what he thinks.  I mean, I’m sure he’s no racist, and he’s got a daughter for Christ’s sake, but he sure doesn’t feel that the government has any type of moral obligation to make her life better or easier.  It’s laissez-faire, she’ll rise on her own merits, like his father did.

AS: You’ve argued before the Supreme Court in the past, what was that like the first time?

PS: It was the most incredible experience of my life. I was only 29 at the time. There was a lot at stake [in Lau v. Nichols] and people came from around the country for days and put me through some very intense moot courts. I was intellectually up here and then I got into the court and the questions were down here. And I’m not saying that critically, because I realize what happened. I lived with this case for four years, I spent a whole summer writing briefs, and I’d just spent five days, each day six or seven hours, of pretty intensive questioning tearing me apart… and the judges had read some memos.

To that extent, I think judges nowadays spend even less time preparing for oral argument because they know the quality of most oral argument is so poor.  Most attorneys do a very poor job because most attorneys are like law students; they think an oral argument is about explaining their case. It’s not.  Lawyers have to deal with the problems [in their case] head-on; your pimple doesn’t go away because you don’t talk about it. I’m always amazed at the lack of quality of oral argument.

I must admit I was disappointed, even though I won.  The other side [the City of San Francisco] was represented by a hack politician who had arrived in Washington D.C. on Sunday afternoon for a Monday argument and had never been involved in the case. It was an embarrassment. We had an hour on each side and most people said that I got two hours, that’s how poor he was. You don’t win cases in oral argument but I think you lose cases.

AS: Why is that?

PS: Here’s an example. There’s a case called San Antonio [Independent School District] v. Rodriguez, it’s usually thought of as when Nixon finally killed the civil rights movement. It’s a case that talks about how education is not a fundamental right. Rodriguez was argued by a very nice man who brought the case out of the goodness of his heart.

The case was split 5-4 and Stewart was the important judge. He’s quoted as saying after the oral argument: “Before I thought I understood this case, but now I’m really confused.” Some people think that that lawyer did such a poor job that he didn’t give Stewart the muscle he needed.

AS: What do you consider to be the most important issues that the court will decide this term?

PS: Well they just decided one, the assisted suicide case.

AS: The Gonzalez v. Oregon case?

PS: Yes. And I think that’s very important.

AS: How about the Solomon Amendment case? [see Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights. Whether it’s a violation of the 1st Amendment when the government withholds public funding to colleges that ban on-campus ROTC recruiting because the military discriminates against homosexuals.]

PS: Well, I don’t find Solomon to be a big case just because I think the issue has been somewhat resolved in earlier cases. I think it’s an important symbolic case, but it won’t have that big of an effect because we’re not going to change the military’s view of how they treat homosexuals.

AS: How about Georgia v. Fitz Randolph? [4th Amendment case dealing with the issue of whether police have the valid consent needed to search the common areas of a home when one occupant consents but another who is also present objects.]

PS: That’s the most important criminal procedure case.

AS: How do you think it will be decided?

PS: The very fact that the case is called Georgia v. is usually a reason to reverse.

AS: If you could pick the next justice to sit on the high court who would it be and why?

PS: Who I want would never be appointed. Sort of like Groucho Marx, I would never join a club that would accept me.

AS: If you could take any justice off the high court, who would it be and why?

PS: I won’t play that game.

AS: The paradox of Supreme Court appointments is that you are supposed to be apolitical once you take the bench, and yet to get there you must have extremely close ties to one party or the other. Is this a good system, and is there any better way to ensure an impartial judiciary?

PS: As long as it’s a political appointment I don’t see how it could be any different. One thing I’d like to see done differently is the appointment of non-lawyers. I don’t understand why we have all lawyers. I think it’s a very narrow perspective, so I would like to see more diversity in that area.

I mean, I didn’t have any problem with Harriet Miers in the sense that she’d never been a judge before.  Now whether she was the best and brightest person for the job is another matter. Analyzing law is not rocket science, it’s not that hard, what you want to see is more diversity of views.

AS: What should law schools be doing to improve the way they prepare us for the real world?

PS: I don’t think law school teaches people correctly.

AS: What would you change?

PS: I’d get rid of the lecture/Socratic Method. Learning law from cases is ridiculous.

AS: And replace them with what?

PS: Well, obviously I think we should use problems, we should have more clinics, and law school should be no more than 2 years.

AS: But don’t you need the black letter law to attack the problem?

PS: In my opinion you can learn the black letter law on your own. For example, the bar courses, all law students are like lemmings, they want to take all the bar courses.  Now I’m against required courses, but there are many bar courses that aren’t required.  I wouldn’t take the course unless I had an interest in the subject and the teacher. Because if you understand how to do exams, unless you have a drunken orgy the night before, you have about a hundred percent chance of passing the bar.

The only advantage of taking a bar course before the bar review [prep/Barbri] course is that you’ve heard the buzz words once.  Maybe you need the support, the Linus blanket, of having taken the course and heard the buzz words, but I don’t  think that in most lecture courses you’re learning analysis;  I think you’re learning law, and if you want to learn law buy a book.

But it doesn’t matter what I like, it’s not going to change. There’s no reason that law school should be 3 years. If you have good analytical training in the first year then students in the second year can focus substantively on what they want to do.

AS: Do you think that’s enough time for students to make up their minds?

PS: Who cares? You’re not wedded to what you study in law school.

AS: What do you think are the essential courses to take at law school?

PS: None.

AS: None?

PS: I’m totally serious. I think Civ. Pro. is important, and obviously if you plan to do trial practice, you want to take a course like evidence.  But the most important thing is learning how to think. I’m against required courses. I think people should take courses because of what interests them or because they like the teacher.

[At this point in the interview we were interrupted by a reporter from Channel Four who wanted to interview Professor Steinman about the suit against the Bush administration for violating civil liberties with warrantless wiretaps. But of course, being an Advocate reporter, I got first priority on that question.]

AS: So, what do you think about the wiretap cases?

PS: I think they’ll have a problem with standing and proof. How do you prove you’ve been secretly recorded? If any court ever reaches the merits it’s a close question. I think it’s unconstitutional given that we now have a case, the Guantanamo case, which says that the constitution applies to the president.

 

 

Pull out quotes:

 

The Senate is going to have to find a different way to have meaningful hearings on nominations because right now it’s a total waste of time.

 

I think judges nowadays spend even less time preparing for oral argument because they know the quality of most oral argument is so poor.

 

The very fact that the case is called Georgia v. is usually a reason to reverse.

 

[W]e should use problems, we should have more clinics, and law school should be no more than 2 years.

Voices in My Head

by Jaya Badiga

guest writer

Are law school exams all that they are hyped up to be?  This past semester was my first semester at law school and from day one, I thought I heard all there was to hear about law school exams.  Somehow, it would always be caveated with “but don’t worry, these are mid-terms, so they only count up to 35 percent of your grade.” 

Wait – was that meant to be positive – that if you do well then great it counts up to a third of the final grade, or was that meant to be reconciliatory and uplifting that if you blow it, you can still make it up, sort of?

So here it was, the first exam, Contracts, for which I went through old exams and the ASP practice exam.  I knew the format, knew the time limit and I knew the subject – or so I thought.  As soon as I got the exam and went through the mindless motions of setting up Examsoft, things changed fast. 

The first thing to go was the calm, collected demeanor that I kept up for so long.  I couldn’t stop the voices in my head; they took on a life of their own.  They took over my mind, multiple voices, with personalities of their own…

“Should I do the essay first or multiple choice?” asked Ms. Indecisive. 

“Read the instructions and the time limit,” a voice, Ms. Sensible, prompted. 

“Ok, one hour recommended for the multiple choice, two hours for the exam,” Ms. Knowitall, replied. 

“What did someone say about weighting?” another voice, Ms. Reminder asked. 

“Attempt the questions with the higher weight first,” responded Ms. Sensible, irritably. 

“Okay, let’s read the essay,” Ms. Letsdoit commanded.

“So far so good.  Looks like this will be one party versus the other,” Ms. Optimist jumped in.

“Wait! How long is this fact pattern?” Ms. Panic asked. 

“Four pages,” replied Ms. Knowitall.

 “Ohmigosh!  If it’s four pages long, how many issues could there be?” asked Ms. Panic. 

“Remember, the professor found an issue in almost every line while reviewing the practice exam,” Ms. Reminder replied. 

“So should I count every line and try to figure out how many issues to raise?” asked Ms. Smartalec. 

“Are you crazy?” responded Ms. Sensible.  

“Start reading, that may help,” prompted Ms. Optimist.

“Okay, it appears to be two parties. Got that, let’s name them party A vs. party B.”  “Cool!  I can get started,” said Ms. Optimist. 

“Start with what the parties want,” the voice continued in a patronizing way. 

“Start writing it in one place,” screamed Ms. Letsdoit, trying to be heard above the cacophony of voices.  “Put this down on paper – A wants customer access, B wants money – so far, so good.” 

“Wait, that was a date. Does it have to do with the Statute of Frauds?” jumped in Ms. Reminder.   

“I don’t know, it’s just a date so far,” interrupted Ms. Panic. 

“Make a note,” said Ms. Sensible. 

“You have to read faster,” Ms. Panic cried in alarm.  “Look at the clock, thirty minutes already since the exam started!  Where did the time go?  You’re only in paragraph four of the first page!” 

“Concentrate,” reminded Ms. Focus.

“But wait, they’re still talking about what they will do for each other all the way into Page Two,” alerted Ms. Panic.  “Ok, move to Page Two fast, wait, is that right?  We have another party,” she said in a singsong, hysterical voice. 

“Another party?” echoed Ms. Nervous. 

“Did we discuss multiple parties in class?” Ms. Panic queried. 

“I don’t remember,” Ms. Reminder responded. 

“Wait,” said Ms. Knowitall, “look at the question at the end of the exam.” 

“Yikes – two questions,” answered Ms. Panic.  “I have two essay questions to write?”

“That means one hour per question,” answered Ms. Smartalec. 

“I know what it means Ms. Smarty,” replied Ms. Panic, “but look at the clock, it’s forty minutes into the exam and we’re still on page two.”

Ms. Focus commanded all voices to her.  “Just put down words to paper,” she said.

“Yes,” joined Ms. Optimist, “write anything that comes to mind.” 

“Yeah, start with whether there was consideration,” Ms. Reminder added. 

“Consideration – yes, put down the definition of consideration and equate all the variables with the facts,” prompted Ms. Knowitall. 

“Hello people!?” screamed Ms. Panic, “it’s almost an hour into the exam and you’re still on consideration?  How about some progress here?”

“I’m already a wreck,” replied Ms. Nervous, “and you are not helping.” 

“Will you both just knock it off,” yelled Ms. Focus.  “You’re distracting the rest of us.” 

“Yeah,” added Ms. Knowitall, “as it is, we’re still on consideration.” 

“So move on to the next issue,” answered Ms. Sensible calmly.

“Next issue – didn’t the Statute of Frauds come up?” asked Ms. Reminder. 

“That’s right, nice and easy,” Ms. Focus said, soothingly. 

“You can do it,” added Ms. Optimist. 

“Pen to paper, Statute of Frauds,” Ms. Letsdoit acknowledged happily.

“An hour and a half into the exam and you have just two issues,” screamed Ms. Panic, with urgency. 

“Aren’t we supposed to start the second essay now?” asked Ms. Reminder.

“Yes, but aren’t you supposed to finish the first one before you begin the second?” jumped in Ms. Smartalec. 

“Maybe we should do the multiple choice now,” said Ms. Indecisive. 

“No, finish what you started,” replied Ms. Sensible. 

“Why don’t we start the second essay with the same issues,” responded Ms. Shortcut. 

“Good idea,” replied Ms. Letsdoit. 

“We’re two hours into this and all you have is two essays with two issues each,” cried Ms. Panic.  “You have to move on to the multiple choice,” she advised. 

“No, stay with this, finish what you started,” said Ms. Sensible. 

“There’s still a half hour of flex time,” said Ms. Optimist.

“But that’s for the multiple choice,” said Ms. Nervous. 

“How many questions do we have for the multiple choice?” asked Ms. Sensible.

“Fifteen,” replied Ms. Knowitall. 

“Say we spend two minutes per question, all we need is a half hour,” said Ms. Letsdoit. 

“That’s not enough!” screamed Ms. Panic. 

“Do you have a choice?” countered Ms. Sensible. 

“Why doesn’t someone write something instead of all this back and forth?” asked Ms. Smartalec. 

“Yeah, who’s in charge of writing,” cried one voice. 

“That’s a good question, who’s in the charge of writing,” echoed a few others.  

“I am,” replied a tremulous voice, “but I can’t hear myself think!”

Dean Expresses Concern Over Bar Performance

Donald J. Polden, Dean

Dear Students:

This is the time of year when our graduating students begin thinking about the state bar examination they will face in a few months.  I am writing to provide some information about our graduates’ performance on the state bar and about work that the law school has been doing to improve students’ performance on the bar exam.

Two years ago, I assembled a team of key administrative staff who are responsible for recruiting and admission of students, academic success, and student services.  The group was asked to take a close look at our graduates’ performance on the California bar examination over the past several years and to propose recommendations to improve the rates at which our students pass the examination on the first attempt. 

I also met with the faculty last spring to discuss bar pass rates and impediments to greater student success on the examination.  The following is a brief description of some of the findings and recommendations. 

In the most recent bar (July ‘05), SCU grads passed at a rate of 65% for first time takers while the overall pass rate for graduates of ABA schools’ first time takers was 70%.  This first time pass rate placed Santa Clara 12th among the state’s 19 ABA accredited schools. 

In the February 2005 bar examination, SCU grads passed at a rate of 68% for first time takers while the overall pass rate for graduates of ABA schools’ first time takers was 58%.   This placed Santa Clara tied for 7th (with two other schools) among the state’s ABA accredited schools.  On average, over the past several years, SCU graduates’ first time pass rate is at about the median of the rates of all ABA accredited schools. 

Cumulative grade point average is a useful predictor of the likelihood of passing the bar exam.  For the July ‘04 exam, graduates in the top half of the class passed at a rate of 91.8% while graduates in the bottom half of the class passed at a 39% rate.  We saw the same results for the July 2005 exam: graduates in the top half of the class passed at a rate of 91.2% while graduates in the bottom half passed at a 38.8% rate.  Graduates in the bottom ten percent of the classes passed at very low rates: 14% on the July 2004 exam and 19.2% for the July 2005 exam. 

Student grade point averages may be deceptive on the likelihood of success on the bar.  For example, the bottom decile (10%) of the 2005 graduating class had a GPA range of 2.47 to 2.74 while the bottom decile of the 2004 graduating class had a GPA range of 2.52 to 2.78. 

There are lessons from the foregoing information. First, just because a student is in the top half of his or her class, there is no guarantee that he or she will be successful on the exam.  It still requires a tremendous about of work, full engagement in the bar review process, and a positive mental outlook to be successful on what is perhaps the most difficult bar examination in the country.

Second, students in the bottom half of the class should not give up and assume that they are predestined to fail.  Again, hard work is the secret to being successful.  Taking a bar examination preparation course, preparing for the bar examination on a full time basis (no outside employment), and seeking tutorial assistance if you are particularly weak in some subject areas are important ways of increasing the odds that you’ll be successful on the examination. 

Moreover, students in the bottom half of the class should take all bar courses offered by the law school.  One piece of advice – if you don’t think you can commit your best efforts and time to preparing for the bar examination, don’t take it. Take it at the next sitting at which you can be prepared and mentally ready to take the exam.

The law school is taking steps to assist our students in preparing for the examination. First, we are routinely surveying our graduating classes after they take the exam and seeking information on how to improve their performance on the examination. For example, they suggested that the school give students more practice with actual bar examination questions and performance-type questions.  

They also suggested that the law school provide more information about how subjects are tested on the exam and about the content and structure of the exam. So, the law school offered a special “Bar Exam 101” session that provided detailed and practical information about the bar examination contents and process.  And, in conjunction with Bar-Bri, the law school arranged a series of workshops to give graduating students a head start toward preparing for the Bar. We will be scheduling other preparatory sessions this semester and in the future.

Assistant Dean Marina Hsieh and other law school administrative leaders are seeking ways to improve student learning in law school and that assist our graduates’ success on the bar examination.  We are particularly focused on improving the success rates for students whose academic performance in law school suggests they are at great risk of failing the examination on the first attempt. 

I hope this information is helpful to all our students.  I will pass along other information about our graduates’ success on bar examination in coming issues of the Advocate.

Job Search Tips for 3L/4L Students and Recent Graduates

by Matthew Wayman

Law Career Services guest writer

 

Attending law school can be quite a leap of faith.  Prior to enrollment, most law students have had little or no experience with the legal job market.  Some 1L students may know a few lawyers.  Others may even know what they’d like to do with their law degree.  But very few law students who sign up for three years and $100,000 worth of legal education know how they will actually secure a job.

By the time third year rolls around, many law students are still staring the job question in the face.  In fact, it’s common for many 3L/4L students to reach graduation and then tackle the bar exam with no permanent legal job on the horizon.

If this sounds all too familiar, don’t lose faith.  Many law students have gone before you with no job prospects at graduation. And within six months of passing the bar exam, virtually all are able to find a permanent legal job. How?  The rest of this article will focus on answering this question.

For law students who are in their last semester, it’s best to think about your job search in three stages:  (1) pre-graduation; (2) post-graduation; and (3) post-bar exam. Each stage requires a different approach. So let’s take a look and what you should be doing during each stage to ensure success.

Pre-Graduation.  It’s your last semester.  You’re relieved law school is almost over. But the prospect of graduating without a permanent job causes that occasional wave of panic to wash over your otherwise blissful self.  The good news is there are some things you can do now that will really help your job search efforts down the road.  So here they are:

1.  Sign-Up. Log onto SCU Law Jobs from the SCU Law Career Services (LCS) homepage, update your profile (including your permanent email address and practice areas of interest), and upload your resume.   If you need your user name and password to access SCU Law Jobs, contact lcs@scu.edu.  By entering this information, your LCS staff will be able to keep in touch with you after graduation, run searches by practice area, and pull up your name when we hear about job opportunities that my fit your background.  We can also run text searches on all the resumes that are loaded into the system.  So if an employer is looking for someone with judicial externship or moot court experience, we could find all the resumes in our system that fit the employer’s criteria.

2.  Plan.  Go to http://www.scu.edu/law/careers/advising_appointments.html and book a career counseling appointment with LCS so we can help plan your job search strategy. We also have many alumni contacts, on-line resources, and printed resources that we can share with you to help with your job search.

3.  Research. Begin to research employers that interest you, and compile a list of any SCU law alumni who work there. You could also look for alumni connections from your undergraduate university.  Your LCS staff can show you how to conduct this type of research, but start by using the advanced search feature at http://www.martindale.com .

4. Network. During spring break, contact as many alumni from your list as you can. Be sure to always introduce yourself and simply ask the alumnus for career advice. Your goal is to build a long-term relationship with several alumni who are working in fields that interest you.  So get the alumnus talking, learn what you have in common with him or her, and see if you hit it off. Don’t expect for things to click with everyone you talk to. And remember to just ask them for advice when starting off the conversation.  Everyone loves to give advice, especially lawyers.

5.  Follow-up.  Before finals consume your life, follow-up on any of the advice you have received from LCS and the alumni that you contacted.  This means submitting your resume and cover letter to firms that were recommended to you, attending certain events that you have learned of, or following up with any other job leads that you discover while networking or from SCU Law Jobs. 

Post-Graduation.  It’s time to study for the bar exam.  Finding a job is no longer your top priority.  So you have to adjust your job search efforts accordingly.  But there is one simple thing you can do that won’t take too much time away from your bar studies.

1. Build Relationships.  Continue to follow-up on any job search advice or leads that you received prior to graduation.  That may mean spending a few hours a week on phone calls and email, or better yet meeting an alumnus for lunch.  The goal is to build relationships that will help you with your job search down the road.

Post Bar-Exam.  You’ve survived three years of law school, two months studying for the bar, and one very long exam. But you still don’t have a job. So what should you do now? 

1.  Take a Break.  If you need a break before launching into the next stage of your job search, feel free to do so.  Some law graduates take a few weeks to travel.  Some take a few months.  Do what feels right so you can return and kick your job search into high gear.

2.  Research, Network and Follow-up.  Continue the process described above by researching more firms, networking with more alumni, and following-up with new leads. 

3.  Friends and Family.  Make sure all your friends and family are helping you look for leads.  Besides yourself, they are your best promoters.  Your friends and family should all understand the type of employer you are looking for and the area of practice you want to pursue.

4.  Interviews.  Set up and attend as many interviews as you can. Mock interviews, informational interviews, and of course real interviews are all chances for you to network and improve your interview skills.   Always do your homework before an interview so you know as much as possible about the employer and the lawyer who you are interviewing with. 

5.  Job Postings.  Check daily for job postings on the SCU Law Jobs site, craigslist.org, monster.com and other job posting sites.  Respond quickly to job postings that look interesting to you.

6.  Temp Work.  If you need to generate some income while searching for your permanent job, consider signing up with several of the Legal Temp Agencies in your area.  For more information on legal temp agencies, go to http://www.scu.edu/law/careers/legal_temp_agencies.html . 

7.  Pursue Your Interests.  Searching for a job can consume your life.  So don’t let it.  Remember to get out there and pursue the events and activities that you are genuinely interested in, even if they are not law related.  Because whether you volunteer at an event or attend a community function, you will be out with other people doing something you enjoy.  You’ll have fun and people will see you at your best, which is the perfect time for you to run into a lawyer or someone else who can help you with your job search.

There are of course many resources to explore and other angles to pursue when it comes to your job search.  And it’s certainly true that your particular field of interest may require a more nuanced approach than the one described above.  So booking a counseling appointment with LCS may be the best way to start.  If you are a graduating 3L/4L or recent graduate, Matthew Wayman, your LCS counselor, looks forward to meeting with you soon.

Alumni Mark H. Pierce Appointed Judge

by Logan Quirk

staff writer

The reputation of Santa Clara School of Law is well known thanks in part to its outstanding alumni. Last April, Governor Schwarzenegger appointed Mark H. Pierce as judge, along with fellow alumnus Derek Woodhouse, to the two vacancies on the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Before taking his current position, Judge Pierce spent 30 years in private practice focusing on civil litigation. After graduating from SCU, he began his legal career working in small law firms, which he credited for mentoring him and providing invaluable experience. Judge Pierce spent the remainder of his years in private practice as partner at the law offices of Olson & Pierce specializing in personal injury and workers’ compensation.

Influenced by family friends who were judges, Judge Pierce aspired to become a judge while in private practice. Since judges are highly regarded in the community, the process for becoming a judge is an extensive one involving several steps with the candidate’s entire legal career being scrutinized and evaluated. Often this process takes a year or more, but Judge Pierce received his appointment in only six months. Such a short period of consideration is rare, and it is a testament to the candidate’s credentials and reputation in the legal community. Currently, Judge Pierce presides over Department 47 handling criminal cases.

The experience has been both “exciting and rewarding because it allows me to become involved in the community,” said Judge Pierce. He especially enjoys the camaraderie among the fellow judges, some of whom are Santa Clara School of Law alumni. When presiding over the arraignment, pre-trial or trial stages, Judge Pierce utilizes “the human and legal experience” he gained while practicing law in the private sector. Additionally, he emphasized and expressed appreciation for the overall education and experience Santa Clara School of Law provided him and the other students.

He highlighted the success and diversity of the graduates from the law school ranging from judges, legislators and successful attorneys. Judge Pierce commented, “the alumni are a reflection of the quality of the school,” and extended his gratitude for the wonderful faculty and staff for guiding him and providing an excellent foundation for which to succeed in his legal career. Emphasizing the strength of the alumni base in the Bay Area, Judge Pierce attributed the development of this network not only to the atmosphere that the school fosters but also to the character and quality of the students past and present.

After speaking with Judge Pierce, it became evident that Santa Clara School of Law’s reputation stems not only from its education but also from the overall excellence of the staff, faculty and students. Alumni like Judge Pierce are illustrative of the Law School’s mission of preparing its students to excel not just in their legal careers but also providing an environment and opportunities that encourage the complete character development of the student.

Alumni Derek Woodhouse Appointed Judge

by R. Malhotra

staff writer

In April of 2005, Derek Woodhouse, class of 1976, received the phone call he had been waiting for since he submitted his application for a judicial post one year prior. He currently serves on the Santa Clara County Superior Court Bench, in downtown San Jose, presiding over various civil and probate matters, in his words, “the best job I’ve ever had.” In between cases and his busy schedule, he found time to discuss the School of Law, ethics, rankings, politics, and where you can find him everyday in the library.

Q: What courses did you enjoy most while you were a student, and what activities did you pursue outside of classroom?

A: Certainly Labor Law, for as you know, I spent my career as a labor lawyer, representing employers. Criminal Law was interesting, and believe it or not, I enjoyed Procedure. Those are the things that come to mind. Other than that, it was pretty much part-time work followed by studying. I played a fair amount of golf when I was in law school, but I had to abandon that once I started to practice law.

Q: Are you an active alumni? What do you think could be done to boost alumni activity?

A: Not really. My big connection with Santa Clara University after graduation was, for 20 years, I worked as their labor employment lawyer – I handled the labor negotiations and employment litigation for the university. In fact, it was one of the highlights of my legal career to be able to do that.

Aside from that, I was invited to an event, along with other Santa Clara judges, to meet with the incoming first-year class, and I attended that, but other than that, well I think it’s a fabulous institution, but other than that I don’t have any thoughts on increasing alumni activity. They do a decent job of it with publications, asking for donations. Years ago I sponsored a chair at Heafey Library, so you can probably go look for it and sit on it.

Q: Last year there was a bit of an uproar over the drop of the law school’s ranking according to the U.S. News and World Report. What is your take on the issue of rankings?

A: You know, I was actively involved in recruiting for my law firm Littler Mendelson, and of course I was conscious of the supposedly good law schools, but Santa Clara has always been highly regarded by Bay Area firms. The rankings would probably be more important to somebody outside California, because I think Santa Clara has established itself as a fine institution, certainly in the Bay Area if not the state.

Q: Describe how your career has led to your judicial appointment.

A: Well my career began as a deputy district attorney, for three years. Then I spent 25 years with Littler Mendelson as a labor and employment lawyer, and my last year there I sent in an application, after the recall election. I’m a Republican, so if there had been a Republican governor, I would have submitted my application sooner because it’s something I’ve always been interested in doing.

And so I submitted my application in April 2004 after Governor Schwarzenegger was elected. I didn’t hear anything for months, and so I accepted an opportunity to go to a very nice firm, Thelen, Reid, and Priest. Shortly thereafter, however, I got the call to come interview in Sacremento. A day before my 57th birthday, I got a call that I had been appointed.

Q: What is the application and review process like for a position on the Superior Court Bench?

A: Oh, very serious. The process is run by the Judicial Nominee Evaluation Commission, the JNE Commission, and the application alone is a daunting 60 pages long. I had to submit names, addresses, and phone numbers for virtually every lawyer I had tried a case against, and submit upwards of 100 names of people who were familiar with my work, and my temperament, I guess. And the names I provided were certainly followed up on – a lot of people told me that they got questionnaires that JNE puts out.

In addition to that I did contact our district attorney, George Kennedy, and asked him if he would be willing to endorse my candidacy. I got the endorsement of our Sheriff, and several judges and several attorneys who wrote letters on my behalf. I felt as though it was a very thorough process, and ultimately, the interview by the appointment advisor in Sacramento was the final stage. You spend an hour being interviewed by a judiciary committee of the local bar.

Q: You mentioned you waited until there was a Republican in office – how important is political affiliation for this position?

A: Well, it was extremely important to Gray Davis, probably even Pete Wilson, because I don’t think he [Davis] appointed anyone who wasn’t a Democrat. Gov. Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, probably appoints one-third Democrats. Another significant percentage is “decline to state” [political affiliation], and probably no more than 60% of his appointments have been Republicans.

Q: How would you comment on this selection process?

A: I’m very impressed with my colleagues – the process works. A lot of judges, probably a dozen or more, judges on the bench, were colleagues of mine in the D.A.’s office. Several of them were elected, but I am really impressed with the work ethic and integrity of everyone on this bench.

Q: Do you think that aspect was stressed in law school? Some law schools stress ethics and integrity as part of the legal education, while others treat it as a cursory requirement.

A: Absolutely. The law school does have an ethics course, but beyond that, the entire university sort of breeds this integrity. If you ever have the pleasure of talking to the Vice President of Administration and Finance of the university, Bob Warren, he’ll tell you a story about a piece of litigation I was handling for the university.

We were going through some documents, and there was document which had a post-it on it. What was written on the post-it, well, it would not help the case, and I turned to Bob and said, “Bob, if I went to some other law school besides Santa Clara, I might be tempted to take that post-it and throw it away and not produce it.” He got a kick out of that. Just an example of how we take that stuff seriously.

Q: What advice would you give students who are interested in a summer position at a law firm or clerking for a judge?

A: Well, writing is very important. I was for many years the hiring partner at the San Jose office of Littler Mendelson, and the ability to write is really quite important. I was often distressed at the inability of law students to write, not just from Santa Clara, but across the board.

I also think it’s helpful if you get a sense of what area of the law you want to practice in. For example, I was a labor and employment lawyer. When I was interviewing students, if they had taken Labor Law, Employment Discrimination, this kind of thing, that gave them a leg up. The other thing was being able to coherently talk about a legal issue. One of my interview techniques was to ask a student to talk about some legal issue they’d looked into. It didn’t have to be labor and employment, it could be anything, but could they make me understand the issue and had they resolved it in their own minds – that was helpful.

Q: What advice would you give students who are interested in the judicial path? Was this something you had in mind as a law student, or something you gradually came to want?

A: I think I gradually became interested in it. It’s not a career that you want to pursue for money. When I was younger and worried about putting my kids through school, money loomed larger in my mind than it does now. So my advice to someone who ultimately wants to be a judge is to be a good lawyer, be a respectful human being. [Note: Superior Court judicial salary as documented by The Reporter: $139,784]

Q: Any warnings for the future attorneys who may stand in front of you one day?

A: Don’t mislead the court. Be on time. Don’t talk when somebody else is talking.

Much appreciation to Judge Derek Woodhouse for taking the time to conduct this interview. The take away message? Remember all the basics you learned in kindergarten. Maintain your integrity, because your reputation will follow you. And most importantly for you 1Ls, don’t skimp on LARAW.