VisualField

The hallowed halls of the U.S. Supreme Court are starting to feel like a second home to members of Stanford's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. Launched in January of 2004 by Pamela S. Karlan and Thomas C. Goldstein as the first clinic of its kind anywhere, it has quickly matured into a respected institution in the small world of the Supreme Court bar. And its mission is simple: pro bono lawyering at the highest court in the land. Now this nimble team is besting its own stats. During the spring '08 semester alone clinic instructors will argue a record six cases before the Court—a number rarely reached by even the most active Supreme Court litigation firms.

"We don't sleep," says Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Supreme Court Litigation Clinic (SCLC) founding director. "We have 24-hour coverage between our East Coast instructors, our students and Jeff, who tend to stay up late, and me—I get up at 5 a.m. There literally isn't an hour of the day when the clinic isn't working somewhere."

The team expanded in fall 2006 with the addition of Jeffrey Fisher as Karlan's co-director. No stranger to Supreme Court litigation, Fisher came to Stanford Law with more than 20 cases and four arguments before the Court already under his belt including wins in the landmark cases of Blakely v. Washington and Crawford v. Washington.

"It's an absolute privilege to be able to pick and choose the work that you want to focus on based only on the criteria that you think it's worthwhile and interesting, meaningful work that will provide a valuable learning experience," says Fisher.

Strategy at all stages—in writing a brief, in laying out an argument, in setting up client teams, and in choosing cases—is an important element of the clinic's success. The instructors have been particularly adept at identifying cases at the cert stage that are ripe for the Court's review.

"Many people cannot find representation from Supreme Court insiders, who often have a leg up in the Court," says Fisher, who notes that this is particularly challenging at the cert stage before the Court has taken a case. "Tom and Pam were the ones to identify this gap in the Supreme Court bar and that is certainly one of the reasons for the clinic's ongoing success."

And four years on, the SCLC's reputation for excellence has spread beyond the Supreme Court bar to the broader legal community. Today many cases are directed to the clinic by local attorneys. Four of the six merits cases scheduled this semester, including Kennedy v. Louisiana and Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, were referred to the clinic.

The Art of the Brief
Crafting is their business, as members of the SCLC draft and redraft briefs 10, 12, and 14 times, fine-tuning points—reviewing strategy, turning each phrase of their argument until it's pitch-perfect. The process can be grueling—particularly for Stanford Law students who are accustomed to getting things right the first, or perhaps the second time.

"It took three months to work on a section of one brief that was only four or five pages long. Every word mattered," says Andrew Dawson '08 (BA '03). "The level of strategic thinking is amazing."

Students know that this clinic, while certainly high profile, is not right for everyone. For starters, it's a big time commitment—one worth a full seven units of credit. And it is a legal research and writing program at its core. Everyone contributes to the process with not only instructors editing students but students editing students and instructors editing instructors. By the time a brief is final no one student or instructor can claim authorship. "The final briefs are seamless-and should be," says Karlan.

"It was definitely a bonding experience," says Dawson. "It's so collaborative. Each person will have a new idea, and that idea will be edited by someone else." And this is serious business. Each student's 110 percent commitment to the clinic's work is crucial to the success of a Supreme Court argument.

"We're constantly stressing to the students that every time we go in front of the Court we're putting the reputation of the entire clinic and all the instructors on the line," says Karlan. "We cannot make mistakes or push things beyond the boundaries of what is a credible argument."

The intensity of the research and writing required to ready briefs for the Court, while challenging, does have tangible results. "These students make huge gains in their writing and advocacy skills," notes Fisher. "The difference in the level of strategy and writing between the beginning and the end of a semester is really impressive."

Skills sharpened while participating in the clinic certainly help newly graduated alumni get up to speed in the workplace.

"The clinic is akin to a research and writing boot camp, in the best way. The lessons I learned are extremely useful to me now," says Julia Lipez '06 who since graduating has clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and now works at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP in New York. "It was an extraordinary opportunity to work with people who are at the top of their game. And all while trying to solve really important issues in the nation's highest court."

Just five months into her associate position, Lipez has already worked on two Supreme Court briefs at her firm. "The experience of working in teams in the clinic, of learning to put my ego to the side and not feel overly possessive of the piece—that has been tremendously beneficial to me here, as it was when I was clerking," says Lipez. "When you clerk or work at a firm, it's all about teamwork. The clinic was great training for collaborative working."

This kind of intense learning can only take place in the small-scale environment of the clinic, where the SCLC's five instructors (including Goldstein, who co-directs Akin Gump's Supreme Court practice, and the principals of D.C. boutique firm Howe & Russell, P.C., Amy Howe and Kevin Russell) work with 15 students in groups of three, cases divided among them.

But students do come up for air at least once during their semester for an optional field trip to D.C. where they can see the clinic's cases brought to life, argued by their instructors before the Supreme Court. "It's an opportunity you can't get anywhere else," says Rachel Lee '09.

Applications for the clinic hit a record high this semester with 46 students vying for its 15 spots. With dozens of cases in the various stages that define Supreme Court litigation work flow—three arguments are already confirmed for the fall semester—they don't appear to be breaking their stride.

"We aim to develop a reputation for expertise in which the justices come to think that if the Stanford clinic takes a case, it's something they should listen to," says Karlan.
May It Please the Court...

One minute into his oral argument in Riley v. Kennedy Alan Bakowski '08 is interrupted.

"So what makes a state law go into effect? At what moment does it become a new baseline?" asks Jeffrey Fisher, co-director of Stanford's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic and one of five "justices" sitting at the judge's bench in the law school's moot courtroom.

The moot court session of Riley v. Kennedy is a unique learning opportunity for Bakowski to test-drive the arguments that he and his clinic classmates had labored over for weeks, all before the instructors who would be taking it to the very real stage of the Supreme Court. He'd spent two semesters immersed in the case, researching and writing briefs.

In typical moot sessions, a student presents a 10-minute argument before a group of faculty and clinic students who serve as judges. This is followed by the instructor's argument, after which judges provide feedback to both counselors.

Lively exchanges are the norm.

"A lawyer in the Supreme Court does not typically get to speak more than two or three sentences before being interrupted," says Fisher of the rapid-fire nature of oral argument. One day after the Riley v. Kennedy moot session, Scott Stewart '08 is standing at the podium, arguing Burgess v. United States before the bench. Fisher, who represents the petitioner, is sitting to his right. After it's done, Stewart waits to hear how he fared.

"You did great," says Fisher. "But make sure you have a couple transitions in your head so when there's a dead moment you have somewhere to go."

On March 24, Fisher found himself in Washington, D.C., making his own transitions. As it so happened, Fisher and the clinic's co-director Pamela S. Karlan presented Burgess v. United States and Riley v. Kennedy, respectively, on the same day in a rare Supreme Court doubleheader. Five clinic students took the cross-country flight to catch the action.

"Watching the arguments live was gratifying because it was the culmination of all our hard work on the case," says Bakowski. "But it was also nerve-wracking because we were anxious to see how the justices would respond to our arguments." -Amy Poftak (BA '95)