Institute of Judicial Administration (IJA) Newsletter Fall 2014

IJA REPORT Bench, Bar, and Immigrant Representation: Meeting an Urgent Need

By Hon. Robert A. Katzmann............1-3 Probabilities, Perceptions, Consequences, and “Discrimination”: One Puzzle About Controversial “Stop and Frisk”

By Kent Greenawalt............................3-5 Former IJA Fellow Finds Success........................................................7 New Appellate Judges Seminar Attendee Biographies.........................................8-21 IJA Board News......................................25 Reflections of an IJA Fellow After 25 Years.........................................26 IJA Board of Directors..........................27 Upcoming Events...................................28

Until recently, immigration cases were a very small part of the work of the Second Circuit. In 1999, when I started as a court of appeals judge, the immigration docket was a minuscule percentage of our workload. But within a few years, the immigration docket of the Second Circuit approached forty percent of the case load and, as a result, our court developed procedures to manage such cases, devised largely by Jon Newman under the chief judgeship of John Walker, a system that continues today under the chief judgeship of Dennis Jacobs. Since 2006, the Second Circuit has adjudicated more than sixteen thousand immigration cases. In all too many cases, I could not but notice a substantial impediment to the fair and effective administration of justice: the toooften deficient counsel of represented noncitizens. For immigrants, the stakes could not be greater—whether they can stay in the United States, whether they will be separated from their loved ones, often their children.In all too many cases, I had the sense that if only the immigrant had competent counsel at the very outset of immigration proceedings where the record is made with lasting effect – long before the case reached the court of appeals where review is limited—the outcome might have been different, the noncitizen might have prevailed. But, until data were collected—more on that later—I only had my own observations to go on.

Wanting to do something, I took the opportunity of the Marden Lecture of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York1 in 2007, to challenge the New York legal establishment and others interacting with that establishment—law firms, bar associations, nonprofits, corporate counsel, foundations, law schools, state and local government, the media, the immigration bar, senior lawyers and retirees, providers of continuing education and training, and think tanks—to step up activity to help address the large—and largely unmet—need in noncitizen communities. Justice, I said, should not depend upon the income level of immigrants.2

1

Robert A. Katzmann, The Legal Profession and the Unmet Needs of the Immigrant Poor, Orison S. Marden Lecture (Feb. 28,2007), in 62 REC. ASS'N B. CITY N.Y. 287 (2007). A slightly revised, footnoted version can be found in Robert A. Katzmann, The Marden Lecture: The Legal Profession and the Unmet Needs of the Immigrant Poor, 21 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 3 (2008) [hereinafter Katzmann, The Marden Lecture].

2

Katzmann, The Marden Lecture, supra note 10, at 5.

The Hon. Robert A. Katzmann (Continued from page 1)… Study Group on Immigrant Representation

I did not know what the reaction would be, but the response was, and has been, very gratifying. With the guidance of several outstanding lawyers, beginning with Peter Eikenberry and Robert Juceam, I started a working group in 2008, the Study Group on Immigrant Representation, consisting of some fifty lawyers from a range of firms; non-profits; bar organizations—the Federal Bar Council, the New York City Bar, the New York State Bar Association, the New York Lawyers County Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association; immigrant legal service providers; immigrant organizations; law schools; federal, state, and local governments; as well as my excellent colleague, Judge Denny Chin. For me, it has been deeply inspiring to work with such dedicated attorneys, whose only motive is to assist those in need. We have been served by a superb steering committee—Jojo Annobil of Legal Aid, Immigration Judge Noel Brennan, Judge Chin, Peter Cobb, Peter Eikenberry, Philip Graham, Robert Juceam, William Kuntz (then in private practice and now on the district court), Lewis Liman, Peter Markowitz, Lindsay Nash, Michael Patrick, Careen Shannon, and Claudia Slovinsky. Study Group activities have concentrated on three areas: (1) increasing pro bono activity of firms; (2) improving mechanisms of legal service delivery; and (3) extirpating inadequate counsel and improving the quality of representation available to noncitizens.

Our method is to bring together key participants from the federal, state, and city governments, the private bar, bar associations, nonprofits, legal service providers, immigrant organizations, philanthropies, and law schools, as part of a collaborative effort to promote the fair and effective administration of justice. This interdisciplinary initiative has been productive as it has been galvanizing. Our means of expression include reports, pilot projects, colloquia and training sessions, and smaller meetings.

Justice Ginsburg and Justice Stevens have publicly spoken about our project, and Justices Breyer and Sotomayor have also been supportive.

Over the past four years, Study Group activities have included these ten initiatives: (1) We have undertaken two major conferences, one at Fordham Law School and Cardozo Law School, the latter with retired Justice John Paul Stevens participating, out of which we have produced a series of studies and reports published in the Fordham3 and Cardozo4 law reviews. Coverage in The New York Times5, the New York Law Journal6,and El Diario, has brought our work to the attention of the broader public.

(2) In 2010, the Study Group launched an assessment of the representational needs of indigent noncitizens facing removal in New York, with the objective of formulating recommendations as to resources and strategies to meet the need, in a study, the New York Immigrant Representation Survey about which more later.

(3) We met with Attorney General Holder, Senator Schumer and others, after which, in 2010—with great appreciation to Senator Schumer and the Attorney General—the Attorney General announced the creation of a Legal Orientation Program in New York, enabling non-profit providers to counsel immigrants in group settings and individually.

(4) We devised a pilot project to stimulate greater increased law firm pro bono activity, about which more in a moment.

(5) We have advanced the creation and implementation of an Immigrant Representation Fellows program, an immigrant representation corps, consisting of young lawyers and senior lawyers, who would serve for one or two years, mentored by experienced immigration lawyers. In this project, I express my appreciation to Mayor Bloomberg, who with his team, convened a meeting of foundations urging their support for this initiative.7 N.Y.U. Law School's dynamic dean, Ricky Revesz, has also been a partner in this effort. I am very hopeful that this fellowship program will soon become a reality. As to the role that senior lawyers can play, I might add, there is no more vibrant example than that of that youthful senior lawyer, Robert Morgenthau, who has devoted so much of his energy to improve the lot of immigrants, both as Manhattan-District Attorney and while in private practice. (Continued page 3)

Symposium, The Robert L Levine Distinguished Lecture: Overcoming Barriers to Immigrant Representation: Exploring Solutions, 78 FORDHAM L. REV. 453 (2009) (including articles, reports and commentaries of the Study Group on Immigrant Representation); see also Mark Hamblett, Lawyers Target 'Assembly Line' Practice, Abuse of Poor Immigrants, N.Y. L.J., Jan. 4, 2010, at 1 (discussing the symposium).

3

4 Symposium, Innovative Approaches to Immigrant Representation: Exploring New Partnerships, 33 CARDOZO L. RBV. 331, 331-619 (2011).

5 See, e.g., Nina Bernstein, In a City of Lawyers, Many Immigrants Fighting Deportation Go It Alone, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 13, 2009, at A21; Sam Dolnick, Improving Immigrant Access to Lawyers, N.Y. TIMES, May 4, 2011, at A24; Kirk Semple, In A Study, Judges Express a Bleak View of Lawyers Representing Immigrants, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 19,2011, at A24; see also Editorial, For Want of a Good Lawyer: Deportation Without Representation, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 25, 2011, at SR14.

6 Hamblett. supra note 12. at I: Mnrk Hamhlett. Study. Forum Stress Plight of New York's Unrepresented Immigrants, N.Y.L.J., May 4,2011, at 1; Mark Hamblett, Summit Participants Discuss Efforts to Find Competent Lawyers for Poor N.Y. Immigrants, N.Y. L.J. Jan. 30, 2012, at 1.

7

In its October 2009 report, Immigrants: The Lifeblood of New York City, the Bloomberg Administration committed to support the training of lawyers who would represent immigrants. See MI-

CHAEL BLOOMBERG, IMMIGRANTS: THE LIFEBLOOD OF NEW YORK CITY 3 (2009), available at http://www.mikebloomberg.com/immigration.pdf

The Hon. Robert A. Katzmann (Continued from page 2) …(6) We have joined with bar organizations to recruit, successfully, more pro bono lawyers.

(7) We have developed, in collaboration with other organizations, training sessions for deferred law firm associates so that they could devote their deferral years to immigrant representation. This way, new lawyers enter law firm practice with a knowledge of immigration law, and, hopefully, a commitment to pro bono work.

(8) We have spurred the creation of law school clinics—the prime exemplar being the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic at Cardozo Law, under the leadership of two wholly dedicated, vigorous deans, David Rudenstine and Matthew Diller.

(9) Study Group members have worked with state, local, and federal governments to explore ways that consumer law could be used to root out fraudulent legal service providers.

(10) Responding to federal initiatives to combat immigration fraud, the Study Group, in concert with the American Immigration Lawyers Association and other organizations, in 2011 sponsored two days of intensive training in immigration law for non-immigration lawyers.

A lot more could be said about each of these initiatives. With your indulgence, I'd like to say more about two of them.

New York Immigrant Representation Study Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan often said that you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. I couldn't agree more. Thus, I thought it important that the Study Group move from anecdote to comprehensive data, so that the problem could be better defined and addressed. To that end, Study Group members are undertaking the New York Immigrant Representation Study8, chaired by Professor Peter Markowitz of Cardozo Law School, Professor Stacy Caplow of Brooklyn Law School, and Claudia Slovinsky. That study, with the support of the Leon Levy Foundation and the Governance Institute, is a twoyear project in collaboration with the Vera Institute of Justice. The study provides, for the first time ever, comprehensive data about the scope of the immigrant representation challenge in New York (part one, year one) and is working to provide a plan for addressing it (part two, year two, to be issued by the end of 2012). The findings of part one of the study were published in December 2011 in the Cardozo Law Review.

I present to you now a few of those striking findings because they powerfully show the depth of the problem: First. "A striking percentage of detained and non-detained immigrants appearing before the New York Immigration Courts do not have representation."

In New York City: ● "Sixty percent of detained immigrants do not have counsel by the time their cases are completed." ● "Twenty-seven percent of non-detained immigrants do not have counsel by the time their cases are completed."

Second. The study found that the Department of Homeland Security's detention and transfer policies create significant obstacles for immigrants facing removal to obtain counsel. ● Until recently, Immigration and Customs Enforcement transferred "almost two-thirds (64%) of those detained in New York to far-off detention centers (most frequently to Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas) where they face the greatest obstacles to obtaining counsel." ● "Individuals who are transferred elsewhere and who remain detained outside of New York are unrepresented 79% of the time."

Third. “The two most important variables affecting the ability to secure a successful outcome in a case (defined as relief or termination) are having representation and being free from detention. The absence of either factor in a case—being detained but represented or being unrepresented but not detained—drops the success rate dramatically. When neither factor is present the rate of successful outcomes drops even more substantially." ● "Represented and released or never detained: 74% have successful outcomes." ● "Unrepresented but released or never detained: 13% have successful outcomes." ● "Represented but detained: 18% have successful outcomes." ● "Unrepresented and detained: 3% have successful outcomes."9 (Continued page 12) See generally Peter L. Markowitz et al., Accessing Justice: The Availability and Adequacy of Counsel in Removal Proceedings. 33 CARDOZO L. REV. 357 (2011) (reporting the results of Part 1 of the New York Immigrant Representation Study Report).

9 Id. 8

Racial Criteria and Stop and Frisk This essay is addressed to one central question about police making stops and frisks. How should police use of a person’s racial identity in deciding whether to make a stop be understood? The practical questions about appropriate actions concern what is morally acceptable, what is wise in our society, and what is constitutionally permissible.

The central question about stop and frisk that I address is this. If members of minority groups are disproportionately involved in public crimes of violence and carrying concealed weapons on the street, is it defensible, and constitutionally acceptable, for a police officer to take account of a person’s race in deciding whether to make a “stop,” and then whether to engage in a frisk (which is permissible only given a perceivable risk that the person stopped is carrying a weapon)?

Between January 2004 and June 2012, New York City officers made over 4.4 million stops; 52 percent of these were of blacks, 31 percent of Hispanics. Blacks constituted 23 percent of the population; Hispanics 29 percent. Only 10 percent of the persons stopped were white; whites are 33 percent of the City’s population1. Of course, some lack of correlation between stops and the races of the total population would derive from the concentration of the police in high crime areas, a practice everyone accepts. In the Floyd v. City of New York litigation, the City, with a written policy that prohibits racial profiling, defended the actual statistics on the basis that they fairly reflected the percentages of criminal suspects. District Judge Scheindlin regarded this defense as “flawed because the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent—not criminal.”2 We have, she urged, no basis to suppose that the innocent members of a racial group will be engaging in suspicious movements. In concluding that the police discriminated against blacks and Hispanics in stops, the Floyd court relied partly on the greater frequency with which force was used against them and the lower percentage of times weapons were seized than when whites were stopped. But, in addition to these particular statistics suggesting unequal treatment, she noted the absence of “evidence that law-abiding blacks or Hispanics are more likely to behave objectively more suspiciously than lawabiding whites . . . .”3 A core issue raised by the disagreement between the parties in Floyd over what could constitute acceptable bases for stops and frisks is whether it is ever acceptable to give weight to someone’s race in circumstances other than when actual suspects of crimes have already been racially identified. (Everyone agrees that when a robber has been identified as “black” or “white,” police should rightly treat that as relevant for whom they might stop for committing the robbery. And if police are aware that all drug dealers in a particular neighborhood are white, they would not properly stop nonwhites on the suspicion of their selling drugs.)

As we move from these particular circumstances involving prior identification of the race of someone who has committed a crime, we must address two questions: (1) Is it ever plausible that a person’s race could affect whether the probability of criminal involvement has satisfied the standard for “reasonable suspicion”? (2) If so, should police be able to take aggregate data about race and crime into account in deciding whether to stop and frisk? These are different questions, each of which needs to be carefully considered.

In addressing what constitutes desirable and constitutionally permissible police practices, one needs to recognize that “discrimination” is a term with subtly different meanings that vary with context. A crucial distinction may exist between much common usage and appropriate legal usage, the latter depending partly on an overall assessment of the appropriateness of behavior. In some talk, whether a person “discriminates” depends on what he actually perceives; in other accounts, the objective factors are determinative. Whether any reliance on race could be objectively warranted depends on the availability of information that is independent of race, and on the degree of probability that would justify someone’s drawing the inference that what she “fears” may be true is sufficiently likely to warrant action. As independent information and the needed probability increase, the conceivable legitimacy of any reliance on a person’s race becomes radically lessened or disappears.

(Continued page 6)

1

Figures are taken from Floyd v. City of New York, F. Supp. 2d (2013) (2013 WL 4046209) (S.D.N.Y.), vacated ____ (2d Cir. 2013).

Id. at p. 30.

3 Id. at p. 44.

2

October 10, 2013

From left to right: Darius Charney, Esq. (Center for Constitutional Rights), Celeste Koeleveld, Esq. (New York City Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel), Professor Samuel Estreicher, Nicola

Persico (Northwestern University), Stephen J. Schulhofer (NYU School of Law), Andrew Schaffer (NYU School of Law), and Kent Greenawalt (Columbia Law School)

Celeste Koeleveld, Esq. (NYC Law Department, Office of

the Corporation Counsel), Professor Samuel Estreicher, Nicola Persico (Northwestern University), and Kent Greenawalt (Columbia Law School)

Kent Greenawalt

(Continued from page 4)

Were we trying to make a crude estimate of the needed probability for the typical “stop” on the street, perhaps it would be something like 20 percent, in comparison with the roughly “more probable than not” for most actual arrests. But whatever a sensible estimate may be, the facts that it is lower than “probable cause” and governs actions on limited information are what makes the legitimacy of reference to race more complex.

Just what is at stake in the controversy over stop and frisk can be illuminated by a com“Reasonable Suspicion” and Stop and Frisk Stops and frisks must be based on “rea- parison with private reliance on race and other group characteristics. sonable suspicion.” Developed in the Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio4, this standard Private Actors is more relaxed than the “probable cause” reIf one puts aside both the use of “affirquired for arrests and comprehensive searches, mative action” to correct prior discrimination, because street stops involve less impairment of and purely personal choices, such as who one an individual’s privacy and autonomy. We will marry or date, is it always morally wrong should not, of course, suppose the persons subjected to “stops,” during which they are not free for one person to take another’s race into account? Imagine that Michael, a middle-aged to move away, suffer nothing at all. The standard of “probable cause” for arrests and seizures well-dressed white man, is walking along a city street late at night and sees three noisy, poorly is not one of absolute certainty. In actual applidressed strangers in their early twenties walkcation by law enforcement officers and judges, ing toward him. He realizes that the chances are the seriousness of the crime and concern about slight, but he worries that he might possibly be escape from the jurisdiction are likely to play a constrained and forced to turn over money. He role in what probability is seen as necessary5; but in one standard formulation by the Supreme considers crossing the street to assure his safety. If Michael is aware that the rate of “mugCourt, probable cause for an arrest was present when officers had “knowledge” and “reasonably gings” made by young black men is three times higher than that by young white men, would it trustworthy information” of “facts and circumstances . . . sufficient in themselves to warrant a be wrong for him to cross the street if the approaching strangers are black, even if he would man of reasonable caution in the belief that an not do so if they were white?

6 offense has been or is being committed.” AlIf we ask a similar question about genthough this language hardly sets a precise stander and age, the answer seems fairly straightfordard, it suggests a likelihood close to “more ward.

Both women and men reasonably fear probable than not.” that men are much more likely to engage in vioA person’s race, gender, or religion will lent confrontations than are women7, and that not provide a major basis to believe that he or men over sixty are much less likely to be violent she has probably committed a criminal act. In any ordinary investigation, the acquisition of in- than those between fifteen and twenty-five. formation about a person’s behavior that points These differences are not simply a matter of physical strength; guns and other weapons can toward guilt and is independent of any group enhance anyone’s ability to force others to do characteristic will totally eliminate the relevance of group membership or render it of mini- what he or she wants. Were Michael to have mal importance. We can conceive exceptions to crossed the street if approached by noisy young this generalization. If a religious group is known men, but would not have done so if those moving toward him had been equally noisy young to make use of an illegal drug as the central aswomen or elderly men, almost no one would say pect of its services, the knowledge that a memhe had engaged in gender or age “discriminaber of the group attends regularly might tion.” establish probable cause that he has used the Is race different? Historically, attitudes drug. And, as already noted, if the racial compoof members of the dominant white race about sition and gender of someone who committed a blacks have been more pervasively negative crime is known, police lack a basis to arrest or than attitudes of men about women. When it stop a member of a different race or gender. comes to race, not only is our cultural heritage a However, the fundamental point here is that problem, the closest we can come to objective probable cause can be satisfied only by much more individualized information than a person’s evaluation is itself based on statistics about crimes. Especially in respect to crimes that do group membership. not involve violence against victims who report what has happened, these statistics are affected 4 392 U.S. 1 (1968). by whom the police suspect, investigate, and ar5 One thinks of the killing of an entire family or the setting of a rest. If the police overestimate the dangerousbomb at the Boston Marathon, and the evidence that someone ness of members of a race, and concentrate who may have been guilty is about to board an airplane flying …One ground for labeling behavior “discrimination” is the consequences persons who may be regarded negatively will suffer. Reflecting on how these various factors may bear on more private uses of race as a criterion and on analogous uses of questions about gender and age can assist a careful assessment in respect to race and stop and frisk. Before proceeding to that, I explain a bit more about “reasonable suspicion” and “stop and frisk.”

out of the country.

6 Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949). See also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).

Women of course, have the particular fear of rape, but any person could conceivably be sexually assaulted by someone else of the same gender.

7

enforcement efforts on them, the ensuing statistics about crimes will not accurately reflect how many crimes were actually committed by members of various races. One might possibly conclude that the problems of misinformation and residual prejudicial feelings are so great that people should try as hard as they can to avoid taking race into account at all, even if the crime rate is definitely higher among members of one race than another.

The actual consequences of the cultural setting provide another conceivable ground for such a conclusion. When members of a minority recognize that they are being treated differently based on negative judgments about their qualities, they commonly feel put down and insulted, as clearly revealed by President Obama’s remarks after George Zimmerman was acquitted for shooting Trayvon Martin.8 Suppose Michael’s crossing of the street is perceived by the approaching three young blacks as almost certainly designed to avoid contact with them, and they rightly guess he would not have done so had they been white. They might well experience a kind of symbolic “put-down” that makes them feel a bit like alienated outsiders. This concern could affect Michael’s basic choice, if he grasps that he could not cross the street without their noticing.

These various concerns do not themselves yield the conclusion that a private person like Michael is doing something immoral or engaging in racial discrimination if he crosses the street. If challenged that he had done wrong, Michael might respond, “I didn’t know the precise chance of being stopped by black youths as compared with white ones, but the danger, slight as it was, was sufficiently greater to justify my crossing. I tried to act on the basis of what was objectively true, and I had no opportunity like an employer deciding whom to hire to acquire more individualized information.”

As Michael’s situation suggests, a crucial aspect about claimed reliance on objective general facts is the availability of more precise information. A chance to acquire individual information ties to the probability of harm that justifies a response. For some decisions, we are not morally justified in acting until we are nearly certain that a person is doing a wrong. A man should not fire a gun in “self-defense” unless he has a powerful basis to conclude that he is being attacked; an employer should not dismiss a worker for stealing valuable goods unless his evidence is overwhelming. For assessments like these, race, gender, and age become irrelevant.

Most members of all groups are not trying to kill or stealing valuable goods from their employers.9 In deciding whether any individual is actually doing so, his or her group membership is typically of no help.

A young man subject to behavior that reflects such judgments may feel he is being treated as a presumptive criminal.

9 One may need the qualification of “valuable,” because many people may commit technical theft, such as taking home pens and pencils distributed at work.

(Continued page 7) 8

Kent Greenawalt mit the kinds of crimes that lead to stops are 6% and the percentage of whites is 2%. Further, when undertaking to commit crimes, half of these in each group by their movements and demeanor act in ways that are observed and might lead to stops. Among those who are innocent of such crimes, only one in twenty engages in similar movements, and this percentage is the same for innocent minority members and whites.

If we add these figures together, it turns out that of the 20,000 members of minorities, 600 guilty ones have displayed such movements and demeanor and 900 innocent ones have done so. Among the 50,000 whites, 500 guilty ones and 2,450 innocent ones have acted similarly.

If a police officer sees a young minority male acting in this way, the chances are 39% that he is committing or about to be engaging in some crime. For whites the percentage is 17%. If we include together all members of both groups who are stopped, the percentage of those enStop and Frisk: Probabilities and Conclusions gaging in criminal acts would be about 24.5%. In other words, under As we turn from moral assessment of private action based on an objective measure, the race of a person acting somewhat suspicioushighly limited information to desirable legal norms for stop and frisk, ly could affect the probability of criminal involvement. However, if the we need to recognize both the similarities and differences.

One crucial difference is that the standard for evaluating police police treated all suspicious behavior similarly, neither the respective practice in this context is definitely “objective.” Although the basis for number of stops for the different racial groups nor the comparative a stop depends on what an officer believes he saw, his subjective view likelihood of stopped minorities and whites being actually involved in about the probability of criminal behavior is not what counts. Rather, criminal activity would replicate the respective percentages of those groups whose members were committing the relevant crimes. the test is what objectively are the conditions for action.10 Does it follow from this analysis that the law should recognize and The possible similarity with Michael’s decision concerns objective accept the use of racial criteria for stops and frisks? The answer is probabilities. How do police, lacking probable cause in respect to an “No.” Because of the severe risk of reliance on prejudices and statistiindividual, determine if “reasonable suspicion” exists? That depends cal data that are not objective, and because of the destructive conseon a person’s physical appearance, movements, and demeanor. An exquences for the young members of minorities who suffer the ample of suspicious movements was presented by a case in which the humiliation of stops, police departments would better develop stancourt in Floyd determined that the original stop was justified.11 David dards that are completely independent of race, ones that depend on acFloyd and another black man were using multiple keys to try to open tual behavior that suggests criminal activity and such things as bulges an apartment door. It turned out that the second man was locked out in pockets that may contain concealed weapons. One might believe of his apartment, and Floyd, with the multiple keys of his godmother that such an approach would be sound without thinking that it is conowner, was trying to help him in. But the officers reasonably thought that in this area, where burglaries had occurred, the two men might be stitutionally required under the Fourteenth Amendment. But, given the difficulty for individuals of knowing just how far they are relying undertaking to commit one.

When suspicious movements and appearances (such as might sug- on objective truth rather than personal feelings, the importance of pogest carrying a concealed weapon or the “casing” of a jewelry store for lice training and supervision, and the impossibility of judges assessing just what did move a particular officer to action, the conclusion that the theft) become adequately refined to avoid vagueness or overbreadth, the membership of someone in a group could make a difference. I sug- Constitution requires use of nonracial criteria for ordinary “stops” is gest that a person’s race or gender could affect the objective probabili- sound. If one consequence of a bar on using a person’s race as a subty of criminal behavior. However, the percentage of stops would not be stantial basis for a stop were to encourage more careful and extended likely to track the crime rate among the different groups. Nor would it examination of individual behavior, the result could well be a higher percentage of stops preventing criminal activity. reflect the degree of suspicious behavior of innocent members of In summary, treating any direct use of racial criteria for typical groups. The figures I use here are completely artificial, but they “stops and frisks” as a form of unjustified discrimination is warranted. strongly indicate that the likely reality is more subtle than either of the But that judgment must rest on a refined evaluation of all the relevant parties in Floyd has acknowledged. considerations,12 not on any simple notion of what constitutes “discrimSuppose a city has 80,000 young male residents; 20,000 are miination” nor any assumption that a person’s race could never affect nority blacks and Hispanics, and 50,000 are white. Among these two groups in a relative time period, the percentage of minorities who com- objective probabilities. • (Continued from page 6) …When we put these considerations together we can conclude that, in addition to actions based on hostile prejudice, a private actor’s use of racial criteria becomes more properly seen as “discrimination” when he is not relying on objective criteria, when he fails to obtain available information to satisfy a needed degree of probability, and when his behavior causes a genuine disadvantage to those within the group about which he bases his negative judgment Even if the better moral choice for Michael would be not to cross the street because of what that will “say” to the three approaching youths, most people would hesitate to call his crossing actually immoral or “discrimination.” This leads us to ask how greatly is the situation different when action of the state is subjecting people to stops and frisks.

10 11

Floyd at p. 29.

Id. at p. 77.

12

See also Richman, note 21 supra.

Former IJA Fellow Finds Success in Texas Theodore Rave joined the faculty of the University of Houston Law Center in the Fall of 2013 as an Assistant Professor of Law. He writes and teaches in the areas of civil procedure, complex litigation, constitutional law, and election law.

His articles have appeared in such journals as the Harvard Law Review and the Vanderbilt Law Review.

Professor Rave received his J.D. from NYU School of Law and his bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth College. While in law school, he served as Senior Executive Editor of the NYU Law Review. He was an IJA Fellow in the summer of 2004. After law school he clerked for Judge Leonard B. Sand on United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and for Judge Robert A. Katzmann on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Prior to joining the Law Center, Professor Rave was an associate in the Issues and Appeals practice at Jones Day in New York, where he focused on federal and state appellate litigation, as well as class actions and multi-district litigation. After that, he was Furman Fellow at the NYU School of Law. He is admitted to practice in New York. •

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies

The Honorable Patricia O. Alvarez

The Honorable Bethany J. Alvord

The Honorable Robert E. Bacharach

Texas Fourth Court of Appeals

Connecticut Appellate Court

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Justice Patricia O. Alvarez was elected as the first Justice of the 4th Court of Appeals from Laredo, Texas, and the first born and raised in México. She immigrated to the United States at the age of 26.

The Honorable Bethany J. Alvord was born in Boston, Massachusetts. She attended Colgate University, graduating cum laude in 1979 with a B.A. in Russian Studies and International Relations. Judge Alvord then attended the University of Connecticut School of Law where she received her Juris Doctor with honors in corporate law in 1982.

Judge Bacharach is a United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before this appointment, he practiced civil litigation at Crowe & Dunlevy in Oklahoma City (roughly 122 years) and served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Western District of Oklahoma (roughly 14 years).

Justice Alvarez is a 1982 graduate of the University of Texas at San Antonio and a 1987 graduate of UT School of Law. Before joining the bench, Justice Alvarez was a trial attorney in South Texas. She practiced in state and federal courts in South Texas, and handled complex civil trial matters. She is Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. At the time of her election, Justice Alvarez was classified by Martindale–Hubbell rate as an “AV Preeminent” attorney.

Justice Alvarez is an active member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA); and of the State Bar of Texas, where she served as a Director of District 12, as Panel Chair of District 12 Grievance Committee, as PDP Chair, as member of the Pattern Jury Charge Committees (Volumes 1 and 2), and as trustee of the Texas Bar Foundation. She is past president of the Mexican-American Bar of Texas. Presently, she serves as a Board Member of the College and as chair of the Hispanic Issues Section of the Texas State Bar. She is a frequent lecturer at international, national and statewide levels on various areas of civil law.

Justice Alvarez has one son, Eduardo, who is also an attorney and two grandchildren, Paloma and Noah. She and her husband, Vicente, share a passion for traveling around the world!

Prior to becoming a judge, Judge Alvord served on the Town of Suffield Zoning Board of Appeals from 1988 – 1999. She also served on the Town of Suffield Retirement Commission from 1997- 1998.

From 1982 to 1992, Judge Alvord was employed by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company as a Second Vice President & Associate General Counsel in its Law Department. From 1993 – 1998, Judge Alvord was employed by Aetna, Inc. as the Assistant Vice President, Counsel, for the Retirement Services division.

In January of 1999, Judge Alvord was sworn in as a Family Support Magistrate for the State of Connecticut. She served as a Family Support Magistrate until 2002, when she became a Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut. During her time on the Superior Court bench, Judge Alvord served as the Presiding Judge of the Family Division in New Haven. She was also assigned to hear matters in Rockville, Tolland, Waterbury and Hartford.

In April of 2009, Governor M. Jodi Rell appointed Judge Alvord to the Appellate Court.

He obtained his Juris Doctorate from Washington University in St. Louis in 1985, where he graduated order of the coif and served on the law review’s executive editorial board. Upon graduation from law school, Judge Bacharach clerked for Judge William J. Holloway, Jr., who was then the Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Bacharach is the author of five law review articles and a coauthor of a sixth law review article. These articles have been published in the Indiana Law Review, Oklahoma Law Review, Oklahoma City University Law Review, Memphis State University Law Review, and Washington University Law Quarterly.

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Margaret Bartley U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Judge Margaret Bartley was nominated by President Barack Obama and subsequently appointed a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (USCAVC) in June 2012.

For over 17 years prior to her appointment, Judge Bartley served as a veterans advocate, working as staff attorney and then senior staff attorney for National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP), a veterans service organization. In that capacity, she advised and trained staff and service officers for The American Legion, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Vietnam Veterans of America, and other veterans service organizations and State departments of veterans affairs, on issues related to veterans benefits and veterans preference in Federal employment. She also represented veterans and survivors of veterans in their pursuit of VA benefits before the USCAVC and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. From 2004 to 2012, Judge Bartley served as editor of the NVLSP veterans’ law quarterly, The Veterans Advocate. She also testified before Congress concerning federal agency failure to apply veterans preference laws and appeared on behalf of amici curiae in several significant veterans preference cases.

From 2005 until her appointment to the bench, Judge Bartley also served as Director of Outreach and Education for the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program. In that capacity, she organized nationwide training classes for lawyers interested in providing pro bono representation to veterans and their survivors before the USCAVC. Prior to her career as a veterans advocate, Judge Bartley served as a judicial law clerk to now-retired Judge Jonathan R. Steinberg of the USCAVC. Judge Bartley earned a Bachelor of Arts degree, cum laude, from Pennsylvania State University in 1981 and a juris doctor degree, cum laude, from the American University Washington College of Law in 1993.

Aside from her many articles on veterans law published in The Veterans Advocate, Judge Bartley is co-author, co-editor, or contributing author of several other articles and publications, including the Veterans Benefits Manual (LexisNexis) (co-author 1999-2010, co-editor 2011-2012); American Veterans’ and Servicemembers’ Survival Guide (Veterans for America, 2008) (contributing author); VA Benefits for Low-Income Veterans (Clearinghouse Review, Sept-Oct 2006) (co-author); VA’s Obligations Toward Claimants: Analysis of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (Clearinghouse Review, July-August 2001) (co-author); The Elderlaw Portfolio Series: Veterans Benefits for the Elderly (Little, Brown and Company, 1996) (co-author); and Consideration of Pain and Other Factors in Rating Disabilities (Clearinghouse Review, July-August 1996) (co-author).

The Honorable J. Brett Busby

The Honorable Robert A. Chaisson

Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit

Brett Busby was appointed to the 14th Court of Appeals in June 2012 and elected in November 2012. He is an experienced appellate litigator and a former partner at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP. He is also a former adjunct professor at the University of Texas Law School, where he taught the U.S. Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.

Robert Chaisson has been a judge on the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal since 2011, prior to which he had served as a judge on Louisiana’s 29th Judicial District Court since 1997. From 1985 through 1996, he was a partner of Chaisson & Chaisson in Destrehan, LA.

Brett served as a law clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court, and he later argued one case and briefed many others in that Court. He also handled dozens of appeals in the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Courts of Appeals.

For four years in a row, Brett was named a leading Texas appellate lawyer by Chambers and Partners and a Texas Super Lawyer by Super Lawyers Magazine. In 2012, Super Lawyers named him one of the top 100 lawyers in Texas. He is Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, and he received an AV peer rating from Martindale-Hubbell.

Brett is a seventh-generation Texan and third-generation Eagle Scout. He graduated with honors from Duke University and Columbia Law School. Before entering private practice, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Byron R. White (Ret.) and Honorable John Paul Stevens, U.S. Supreme Court, and to the Honorable Gerald Bard Tjoflat, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Brett is active in his community. A life-long violinist, he is a member of the Houston Symphony Board, where he serves as Vice President for Artistic Affairs and chaired the Music Director Selection Committee. He also plays in the first violin section of the Houston Civic Symphony. Brett is a graduate of the Center for Houston’s Future Leadership Forum and a Fellow of the Texas and Houston Bar Foundations.

Brett and his wife, Erin, met while clerking at the U.S. Supreme Court. They have two children.

Judge Chaisson graduated from Louisiana State University in 1981 and received his J.D. degree from Tulane School of Law in 1984. Following graduation, he clerked for Judge Walter Lanier of the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable David R. Danilson

The Honorable Mark A. Davis North Carolina Court of Appeal

Iowa Court of Appeals David R. Danilson is married and has five children. He resides in Boone, Iowa. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Iowa State University in 1976, and graduated from Creighton Law School in 1979.

Judge Mark A. Davis was appointed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals in 2012. Prior to that, he served as General Counsel in the Office of the Governor for two years. Between 2006 and 2011, he was a Special Deputy Attorney General in the North Carolina Department of Justice. From 1993 until 2006, he worked as an attorney at Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, where he was a member of the firm in the Litigation Section.

Judge Davis received his law degree from the University of North Carolina School of Law and his undergraduate degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Upon his graduation from law school, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Franklin T. Dupree, Jr. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Judge Danilson was in private practice for approximately seven years. During that time he also served as a judicial hospitalization referee for six months and as a part-time judicial magistrate for six years.

In 1987 he was appointed a full-time judicial officer as a District Associate Judge in Iowa’s second judicial district. After approximately 10 years in that judicial office, Judge Danilson was appointed as a District Court Judge, a general jurisdiction judicial officer, by Governor Terry Branstad in 1997. After twelve years on the district court bench including two of those years as the assistant chief district judge, Judge Danilson was appointed by Governor Chet Culver to the nine member Iowa Court of Appeals in 2009.

Judge Danilson has served on the board of directors of the Iowa Judges Association, board of trustees of the National Court Reporters Foundation, faculty member of the National Judicial College, and faculty member of the Iowa Magistrate conference. He currently serves as co-chair of the education committee of the Iowa Judges Association.

The Honorable Bernice B. Donald U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Bernice B. Donald has served as a United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee since 1996. She was previously a United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of Tennessee and a Shelby County General Sessions Criminal Court Judge. Judge Donald was elected Secretary of the American Bar Association in 2008. Judge Donald serves on the Board of Editors of the American Bar Association Journal and is currently Vice President of the American Bar Foundation, an organization dedicated to rigorous research on the law.

She is also a Past President of both the National Association of Women Judges and the Association for Women Attorneys in Memphis.

Judge Donald has been a member of the faculties of the National Judicial College and the Federal Judicial Center. From 2003 to 2007, she served on the Board of Directors of the Federal Judicial Center, and Chief Justice Rehnquist appointed her to serve two three-year terms on the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules from 1996 to 2002. Judge Donald is a frequent lecturer on employment law matters for judicial and bar association groups. She was formerly an adjunct instructor at both the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law and Shelby State Community College (now Southwest Tennessee Community College). In addition to her many professional activities, Judge Donald actively volunteers with at-risk youth in the Memphis area to help them avoid entering the criminal justice system.

The recipient of over 100 awards for professional, civic, and community activities, Judge Donald was named the Justice Joan Dempsey Klein Honoree of the Year by the National Association of Women Judges in October 2008. She received the President’s Award for service to the profession from the National Bar Association in 2006 and the inaugural Liberty Award from the Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section of the American Bar Association in 2008. Judge Donald was awarded an honorary doctor of laws degree by Suffolk University in May 2010.

Judge Donald received her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Memphis, which presented her with a lifetime achievement award in 2011 and its Distinguished Alumni Award in 1990. She previously served on the Foundation Board of the University of Memphis and currently serves on the University of Memphis Law Alumni Board. A scholarship has been established in her name at the University of Memphis and is open to all students without regard to race or ethnicity.

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Stephanie Dunn Colorado Court of Appeals CAREER: Judge Dunn was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in June 2012. Before joining the bench, she was a partner at the national law firm, Perkins Coie LLP, where she practiced from 2003-2012. Her practice focused on complex business litigation and appellate litigation in state and federal courts as well as white collar investigations and defense. She was a member of the firm’s securities and corporate governance litigation practice group, its appellate practice group and its investigations and white collar defense practice group. While a partner at Perkins Coie, she was Chair of both the Denver Diversity Committee and the Denver Pro Bono Committee. Prior to joining Perkins Coie in 2003, she was an associate in the litigation department of a New York based law firm, where her practice focused on commercial litigation. Before that, she clerked for Chief Justice Luis Rovira of the Colorado Supreme Court. In 2012, she was recognized as one of Law Week Colorado’s Lawyers of the Year on the Big Verdict Case list.

EDUCATION: University of Denver Sturm College of Law, J.D., 1993, Order of St. Ives, Law Review, Honor Board; University of Colorado, B.A., 1990, Phi Beta Kappa.

PUBLICATIONS: "Inside the Minds: The Laws Behind White Collar Crime,” Aspatore Books - White Collar Chapter (2006); "Mitigating Corporate Criminal Liability: The Role of Corporate Compliance Programs" Financial Fraud Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 11 (Spring 1998).

The Honorable Carmen Elisa Espinosa Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Carmen Elisa Espinosa became a justice of the Supreme Court on March 6, 2013, having been appointed to the position by Governor Dannel P. Malloy. Justice Espinosa is the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice in Connecticut.

Prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Espinosa was a judge of the Appellate Court, having been appointed to the position by Governor Malloy. She was sworn in on March 16, 2011, and was the first Hispanic appointed to serve as a judge of the Appellate Court.

Justice Espinosa was appointed to the Superior Court on January 10, 1992, and was the first Hispanic and Hispanic woman Superior Court Judge in the State of Connecticut. As a Superior Court Judge, Justice Espinosa presided over trials in the Judicial Districts of New Britain, Hartford and Waterbury. In addition to her duties on the bench, Justice Espinosa has been involved in judicial education and, for nine years, served on the Judicial Branch’s Education Committee, which oversees all facets of continuing education for members of the judiciary. Over the years, she has been on the faculty of the Education Committee, teaching criminal law courses. Justice Espinosa previously served on the Client Security Fund Committee and was also a member of the Sentence Review Division of the Superior Court.

Justice Espinosa is an active member of the Judicial Branch’s Speakers Bureau and regularly addresses community groups and students. She also has been a guest on radio shows on WLIS and WPRX, Spanish radio.

Since her appointment to the Appellate Court, Justice Espinosa has been honored by the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, the Hispanic Bar Association and Central Connecticut State University as an inaugural recipient of the Women of Influence Award. She was also featured on NBC Connecticut to promote Hispanic Heritage Month. In September 2011, Justice Espinosa was named one of 2011 Hispanic Business 100 Influentials by Hispanic Business magazine.

For eleven years prior to her appointment to the bench, Justice Espinosa was an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut in Hartford, serving nine years in the Criminal Division and two years in the Civil Division. While an Assistant United States Attorney, Justice Espinosa received the United States Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award and the United States Department of Justice Special Achievement Award. Before becoming a federal prosecutor, she was a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Justice Espinosa received her Juris Doctor from The George Washington University Law School. She holds a Master of Arts Degree in Hispanic Studies from Brown University and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Secondary Education with a major in Spanish and French from Central Connecticut State University.

The Honorable David W. Evans (no photograph available) Texas Fifth Court of Appeals David Evans was elected to serve as Justice on the Fifth Court of Appeals in 2012, having served as District Judge of the 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, from 1999-2006. Justice Evans' private law practice involved trials and appeals of business disputes beginning as an associate at Haynes and Boone's Dallas office from 1984-1987. Immediately prior to his election to the Fifth Court of Appeals, Justice Evans was in private practice, specializing in mediation, arbitration, and appellate and civil litigation.

Justice Evans graduated from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law in 1984. He was Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Air Law & Commerce and authored Comment, The Impact of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 on Buyers in the Ordinary Course of Business, 48 J. Air L. & Com. 835 (1983). Justice Evans received his B.A. cum laude from the University of Connecticut in 1977 double majoring in Philosophy and Greek. He studied Hebrew and Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary from 1977-1981.

Justice Evans' community involvement includes being a member of the Dallas County Juvenile Board in 2004, 2005, and 2006 and a member of the Dallas County Juvenile Justice Charter School Board in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Justice Evans presided over evening court cases for the convenience of impoverished parties. Justice Evans has taught and continues to teach law and ethical advocacy to Texas lawyers and judges and did so as an Adjunct Instructor in Law, Trial Techniques Program, Emory University Law School in 1998 and 2000.

Justice Evans was honored to receive the Trial Judge of the Year 2005 award from the American Board of Trial Advocates - Dallas and the 2002 Outstanding Judicial Pro Bono Services award from the Dallas Bar Association & Dallas Volunteer Attorney Program. Justice Evans is a Life Fellow of the Texas and Dallas Bar Foundations.

Justice Evans has been married to his wife, Diane, for almost forty years. They have two children.

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Scott K. Field Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District Justice Scott K. Field was elected to the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas, in November 2012 for a six-year term.

Justice Field began his career by serving as a law clerk on the Texas Supreme Court, for Hon. Raul Gonzalez. He then began private practice at Baker Botts, L.L.P., where he practiced in the trial and appellate departments until 2001. He then co-founded York, Keller & Field, L.L.P., before forming The Field Law Firm, PLLC, in 2007.

As an undergraduate, Justice Field earned a B.A. in Political Science from Texas A&M University, where he graduated summa cum laude. He received his law degree from the University of Texas School of Law, where he graduated with honors and was named to the Order of the Coif.

Justice Field has been married to his wife, Melinda, for 22 years. They have three sons, ages 17, 14, and 12. He enjoys golf, water and snow skiing, hiking, fishing, and playing, watching, or coaching nearly any sport.

The Third Court of Appeals sits in Austin and hears cases from 24 counties in Central and West Texas.

MEETING AN URGENT NEED Hon. Robert A. Katzmann

…I think we can all agree that having a lawyer, preferably a good one, makes a substantial difference.

Fourth. "Grave problems persist in regard to deficient performance by lawyers providing removal-defense services." ● "New York immigration judges rated nearly half of all legal representatives as less than adequate in terms of overall performance . . . " Fifth. "According to the providers surveyed, detained cases are least served by existing removal-defense providers."

Sixth. "[T]he two greatest impediments to increasing the capacity of existing providers are a lack of funding and a lack of resources to build a qualified core of experienced removal-defense providers.”

These dramatic findings give us a sense of the immensity of the task before us.

What You Can Do You might be wondering what can you do? I see so much talent in this room. I encourage and welcome the involvement of all of you here: firm leaders who set the tone, partners who serve as mentors for young lawyers, senior lawyers and associates alike. Any lawyer who has successfully represented a noncitizen can tell you of the deep satisfaction of helping a person in need, of helping to keep a family intact, of frankly becoming a hero to that immigrant and immigrant family, with the not insubstantial additional benefit to the attorney and firm of honing legal skills through that representation. Such honing of skills can enhance lawyering in other areas of practice.

If you are not already, please become involved. You can find out more about our activities by Googling "Study Group on Immigrant Representation," by downloading our Fordham and Cardozo symposia and reports, by contacting the Study Group at studygroupimmigrantrep@gmail.com, the FBC's Public Service Committee, or by contacting the other organizations noted in our materials, all doing great work.

We are all shaped by our personal histories. As I reflect on my subject tonight, immigrant representation, my own family's past no doubt plays a part. My father is a refugee from Nazi persecution, my mother the child of Russian immigrants. I can still hear the accents and voices of my own relatives, who escaped persecution, who wanted to become part of this great country, and who, through their toil and belief in the American dream, made this great nation even greater. When we work to secure adequate representation for immigrants, not only are we faithful to our own professional responsibilities, not only do we further the fair and effective administration of justice, but we also honor this nation's immigrant experience. •

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable William S. Greenberg U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Judge William S. Greenberg was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims by President Barack Obama on November 15, 2012, confirmed by the United States Senate on December 21, 2012, appointed by the President on December 27, 2012, and took the judicial oath on December 28, 2012, for a term of fifteen years.

Judge Greenberg was a partner of McCarter & English, LLP. He initially joined the firm as an associate following a judicial clerkship in 1968, then returned as a partner in 1993. The majority of his career has involved litigation in federal and state courts.

Judge Greenberg had been a Certified Civil Trial Attorney by the Supreme Court of New Jersey since 1983. He served as Chairman of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Appointments Committee of the New Jersey State Bar Association, which considers all candidates to be a judge or prosecutor submitted by the Governor of New Jersey. He was President of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, New Jersey, (The New Jersey Association for Justice) and has served as Trustee of the New Jersey State Bar Association and of the New Jersey State Bar Foundation. He also served as a member of the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on the Admission of Foreign Attorneys. He established and chaired the New Jersey State Bar Association (public service/pro bono) program of military legal assistance for members of the Reserve Components called to active duty after September 11, 2001. He was a member of the New Jersey Supreme Court Civil Practice Committee. With the approval of the Secretary of Defense, on the recommendation of The White House, Judge Greenberg became Chairman of the Reserve Forces Policy Board in 2009, a Board established by the Secretary of Defense in 1951 and by Act of Congress in 1952. On July 26, 2011, Judge Greenberg was awarded the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service, the second highest civilian award in the Defense Department, at a public ceremony in the Pentagon, and completed his term in August 2011.

In 2006 his Civil Trial Handbook, Volume 47 of the New Jersey Practice Series, was published by Thomson/West. A special Twentieth Anniversary issue was published in 2009, to commemorate the 1989 publication of its predecessor, Trial Handbook for New Jersey Lawyers.

A retired Brigadier General, he served as a member of the New Jersey World War II Memorial Commission. In June 2009 he received the highest honor granted by the New Jersey State Bar Foundation, its medal of honor for his work in establishing the military legal assistance program, and especially in his public service representation of soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center during their Physician Disability Hearings. His article in the June 2007 issue of New Jersey Lawyer Magazine describes the program in detail. He has served as special litigation counsel to The Adjutants General Association of the United States and was special litigation counsel pro bono to the National Guard Association of the United States.

Judge Greenberg was a Commissioner of the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation. He also served as Assistant Counsel to the Governor of New Jersey and as Commissioner of the New Jersey State Scholarship Commission.

Professor Greenberg served as the first Adjunct Professor of Military Law at the Seton Hall University School of Law. He was chosen the New Jersey Lawyer of the Year for 2009 by The New Jersey Law Journal. He received The Distinguished Alumnus Award from The Johns Hopkins University in 2010, and the Rutgers Law School Public Service Award in 2010 for his work in developing and leading the efforts to represent wounded and injured soldiers at Walter Reed.

Judge Greenberg is admitted in New Jersey, New York and the District of Columbia. He is a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, and of the Third, Fourth and Federal Circuits, the Southern District of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Judge Greenberg is a graduate of The Johns Hopkins University (AB, 1964) and Rutgers University Law School (JD, 1967). He is married to the former Betty Kaufmann Wolf of Pittsburgh. They have three children, Katherine of New York, Anthony of Baltimore, and Elizabeth of New York.

Photographs from the 2013 Appellate Judges Seminar

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Sandra Cabrina Jenkins Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit On November 6, 2012, Sandra Cabrina Jenkins was elected to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. Her ten year term began January 1, 2013.

Judge Jenkins is a 1989 graduate of Southern University Law Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She received her B.A. from Louisiana State University, Political Science. She earned a Master of Public Administration from Southern University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and attended McAfee School of Theology, Mercer University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Judge Jenkins is a former Assistant District Attorney for the Parish of Orleans and a former Staff Attorney, Central Staff, for the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. Prior to her election to the bench, she had a general practice with an expertise in criminal defense.

She was of counsel with the law firm Scheuermann and Jones, New Orleans, Louisiana. During her 23 years as a practicing attorney, Judge Jenkins practiced in all U.S. District Courts in the State of Louisiana; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.

In 2010, Judge Jenkins joined the faculty of Xavier University of Louisiana, Political Science Department, where she is an Assistant Professor. She teaches pre-law courses. In May 2012, she founded a green janitorial and facility management company, S.A.G.E. Commercial Cleaning, LLC. As an attorney, Judge Jenkins was very active with the Bar. Her national and local bar memberships included American Bar Association, Federal Bar Association, Louisiana State Bar Association. She was (and currently) co-chair of the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Children’s Law Committee. Additionally, Judge Jenkins presented at CLE programs at the national and local level in the area of representation of juvenile offenders in the federal system.

Throughout her professional career, Judge Jenkins has volunteered her services with community projects and organizations. She served as a H.E.L.P. volunteer which is an organization that offers pro bono services to the homeless population and Veterans in the City of New Orleans. Judge Jenkins is a board member of Greg K. Monroe Foundation, Inc. She is also a board member for Alliance for Affordable Energy, where she serves as Chair of the Program Committee and is a member of Finance Committee. Judge Jenkins is a 2011 graduate of the Junior League of New Orleans “Get On Board” Program (training to serve on a Board of Directors). She has been a CASA, Teen Court, and Junior Achievement volunteer. For the past 23 years, Judge Jenkins has been a part the ministries of First Emanuel Baptist Church, New Orleans, Louisiana, where she currently serves on the Ministerial Staff.

Additionally, Judge Jenkins’ professional affiliations include: National Association of Women Judges, U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce; The American Judges Association; Louisiana Judicial Council of the National Bar Association; Fourth and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal Judges Association; and the American Bar Association.

More Photographs from the 2013 Appellate Judges Seminar

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Carol K. Joyce Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals Colonel Joyce is currently on active duty serving as an Appellate Court Judge for the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals at the Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. Colonel Joyce was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1981 upon graduating from Arizona State University. After completing The Basic School, she started her military career as a Ground Supply Officer, consisting of assignments to 7th Communications Battalion, 3d Marine Division, Okinawa, Japan, and Marine Wing Squadron Group 27, Marine Corps Air Station, New River, North Carolina.

After selection into the Excess Leave (Law) Program, Colonel Joyce earned her law degree in 1989 from Suffolk University Law School, Boston, Massachusetts. Graduating from the Naval Justice School, Newport, Rhode Island, she reported to the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, where she served as Chief Special Assistant to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and later as Chief Trial Counsel to the Military Justice Section.

Colonel Joyce’s service as a Marine Corps judge advocate afforded her a wide range of assignments throughout her career. Upon transferring from Camp Lejeune, Colonel Joyce held several key legal billets; such as Occupational Field Sponsor for the Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps; Government Contracts Attorney for Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico; Chief Trial Counsel to the Legal Services Support Section (LSSS), Camp Lejeune, prosecuting such high profile cases as the EA-6B mishap in Aviano, Italy; Regional Defense Counsel for the Pacific Region, Okinawa, Japan; Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the Office of Military Commissions, overseeing the prosecution of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Chief Defense Counsel of the Marine Corps when allegations of misconduct arose out of Hamdaniya and Haditha, Iraq; Staff Judge Advocate to the Combatant Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, Nebraska, providing legal advice on matters involving nuclear deterrence, space, and computer network operations; Staff Judge Advocate for the Commanding General, II Marine Expeditionary Force; and most recently, a one year deployment as the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commander, Regional Command (Southwest), in Afghanistan.

Colonel Joyce also had the distinct pleasure of serving as a White House Social Aide from 1993 to 1995, with a follow-on tour as a resident student at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, Quantico, Virginia. She was selected to command Marine Wing Headquarters Squadron 1 (MWHS-1) in Okinawa, Japan, from 2001 to 2003, and was later assigned to the Analysis and Assessment Branch and then became Executive Assistant for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASN, M&RA) at the Pentagon, where she was promoted to her current rank.

Colonel Joyce’s personal awards include the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with two gold stars in lieu of third award, Navy Commendation Medal with one gold star in lieu of second award, and Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal. She is married to a retired Marine aviator and they have a daughter.

More Photographs from the 2013 Appellate Judges Seminar

2013 New Appellate Judges Seminar Attendees and Faculty

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Christine E. Keller Connecticut Appellate Court Judge Christine E. Keller of Hartford was appointed to the bench by Gov. Lowell Weicker in 1993. Prior to her appointment, she had practiced family, personal injury and real estate law in Hartford at Neighborhood Legal Services, the Office of the Corporation Counsel for the City of Hartford and the law firm of Ritter and Keller. In 1989, she was appointed a Family Support Magistrate by Governor William O’Neill. Judge Keller is an honors graduate of Smith College (‘74) and an honors graduate of the University of Connecticut School of Law (‘77).

During her tenure as a Connecticut Superior Court Judge, Judge Keller served as presiding judge in both the Hartford and Plainville juvenile courts, and also served terms in Waterbury criminal court, New Britain civil and family courts and Hartford criminal and civil courts. From 1997 to 2002, she served as Chief Administrative Judge for Juvenile Matters, responsible for advising the Chief Court Administrator on matters of policy and procedures affecting the Juvenile Division statewide. In 2005, she was appointed Administrative Judge for the Judicial District of Hartford, a position she held until 2007, when she was reappointed to her former position as Chief Administrative Judge for Juvenile Matters. In 2008, the Connecticut Bar Association awarded Judge Keller the Henry J. Naruk Judiciary Award, presented annually to a Connecticut judge for judicial excellence.

Judge Keller served on a number of task forces and committees affecting juvenile issues, including the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, the Child Advocate Advisory Board, the Court Improvement Project Advisory Committee, the Child Poverty and Prevention Council, the Detention Diversion Review Committee, the Family With Service Needs Advisory Board and the Juvenile Justice Policy and Operations Coordinating Council.

In the past, she served on the Chief Court Administrator’s Detention Overcrowding Oversight Committee, the Commission on Public Trust and Confidence in the Justice System, the Governor’s Task Force on Justice for Abused Children and the Governor’s Task Force on Judicial Reform, which addressed openness in the judicial branch. Judge Keller, who was a member of the Superior Court Rules Committee from 1997 until 2005, chaired a task force to recommend revisions to the juvenile rules of practice and was a member of a subcommittee proposing revisions to the code of judicial conduct. She is a member of the Connecticut and Hartford County Bar Associations and the Connecticut Judges Association, where she has held the offices of secretary and vice-president. She was a member of the Judicial Review Council, the state disciplinary body for judges, from 2006 until 2008. She has served as a faculty member of the Connecticut Judges Institute, conducting three seminars on judicial ethics for other Connecticut judges. She is a James Cooper Fellow of the Connecticut Bar Foundation and leads a pupilage group for the Hartford chapter of the Inn of Court. Currently she is a member of the Committee to Expedite Juvenile Appeals and the Judicial Branch Committee on Ethics, which issues advisory ethics opinions to judges.

Judge Keller was appointed to the Connecticut Appellate court by Governor Dannel Malloy and after confirmation, began serving as a member of the court on March 7, 2013.

The Honorable John C. Kennedy New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division Honorable John C. Kennedy, J.A.D. is assigned to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, with chambers in Newark, New Jersey. He had earlier served in the Law Division in both the Criminal Part and the Civil Part. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he was initially an associate at Lowenstein Sandler and thereafter a litigation partner at O’Donnell, Kennedy, Vespole & Piechta in West Orange, New Jersey , a firm he co-founded in 1980. He also served as Corporation Counsel to the City of Jersey City. Judge Kennedy has held memberships in the Association of Defense Trial Attorneys, the New Jersey Defense Association and the New Jersey State Bar Association. He is a former Adjunct Instructor of Law at Seton Hall University Law Center. As an attorney, Judge Kennedy lectured frequently on litigation, insurance coverage and professional malpractice defense. After his appointment to the bench, Judge Kennedy has served as a faculty member on numerous seminars for the New Jersey Judicial College, the National Judicial College, ICLE and the Criminal Law Institute. He has been published in the Seton Hall Legislative Journal and was recently named a 2010 ASTAR Fellow by the National Judicial Science School in Washington, D.C. He received his B.A., cum laude, from St. Vincent College and his J.D., cum laude, from Seton Hall University Law Center, where he received a number of academic honors. He was law secretary to the Honorable John F. Lynch, Presiding Judge, Appellate Division.

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Michael Kirk Minnesota Court of Appeals Michael Kirk was born in Grand Forks, North Dakota and graduated from high school in Fairmont, Minnesota. He attended St. Johns University in Collegeville, Minnesota and the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, Minnesota. His undergraduate degree is in Economics and he received his Juris Doctor from the University of Minnesota. After law school he was in the private practice of law for three years and then spent 11 years as an elected County Attorney.

Most recently, Judge Kirk served as a District Court Judge for twenty three years before his appointment to the Minnesota Court of Appeals on August 15, 2012. He served as the Assistant Chief Judge in his twenty-eight Judge district for five years and as the Chief Judge for four years. He has served on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s committees on criminal law, evidence and child protection. He regularly presents educational programs for lawyers and Judges including being a regular instructor on criminal trial issues and sentencing at “new judge orientation”, week-long trial advocacy programs and college courses on business law, criminal law and criminal procedure.

Judge Kirk and his wife Joan have four children ages fourteen to twenty-nine. In his free time, he enjoys the lakes country of Minnesota, bridge, golf, coaching hockey and anything else outdoor or sports related.

The Honorable David B. Lewis Texas Fifth Court of Appeals David Lewis is a born and bred Texan who resides in University Park, Texas. He earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Texas at Austin and his J.D. from Baylor Law School where the student body elected him president and the faculty awarded him the Omicron Delta Kappa Outstanding Law Student Award.

Out of law school, David was hired by the legendary Dallas County District Attorney, Henry Wade. In record time, David became a Felony Chief Prosecutor. He was a Career Criminal Prosecutor and a death penalty prosecutor. David continued his public service as an Assistant United States Attorney in Dallas and was the Chief AUSA in Austin. He was an instructor at the Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute in Washington.

David went into private practice specializing in white collar criminal defense. He was called back into public service to be a Special Prosecutor for what the media called The Dallas Police Department Fake Drug Scandal.

David was elected last November to the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals and took office January 1.

The Honorable Monica M. Márquez Colorado Supreme Court Monica M. Márquez was sworn in as Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court on December 10, 2010. She was appointed by Governor Bill Ritter, Jr. Before joining the Court, Justice Márquez served as Deputy Attorney General at the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, where she led the State Services section in representing several state executive branch agencies and Colorado’s statewide elected public officials, including the Governor, Treasurer, Secretary of State, and Attorney General. Before being appointed Deputy Attorney General, Justice Márquez also served as Assistant Solicitor General and as Assistant Attorney General in both the Public Officials Unit and the Criminal Appellate Section.

Prior to joining the Attorney General’s Office, Justice Márquez practiced commercial litigation and employment law at Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP. She clerked for Judge David M. Ebel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and for Judge Michael A. Ponsor of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Justice Márquez grew up in Grand Junction, CO. She earned her bachelor’s degree from Stanford University, then served in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps as a volunteer inner-city school teacher and community organizer in Camden, NJ, and Philadelphia, PA. She graduated from Yale Law School, where she served as Editor of the Yale Law Journal, Articles Editor of the Yale Law & Policy Review, and co-coordinator of the Latino Law Students Association. Prior to joining the Court, Justice Márquez served on the boards of the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association and the Colorado GLBT Bar Association, and as Chair of the Denver Mayor’s GLBT Commission.

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Andrew J. McDonald Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Andrew J. McDonald is a Connecticut native. Born in Stamford on March 11, 1966, he attended Stamford public schools before entering college. After graduating from Cornell University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1988, he earned a juris doctor degree, with honors, from the University of Connecticut School of Law in 1991. In January of 2013, Governor Dannel P. Malloy nominated Justice McDonald to be an associate justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. He was confirmed by the Connecticut General Assembly on January 23, 2013 and was sworn into office on January 24, 2013 by Governor Malloy.

Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice McDonald served as the General Counsel to the Office of the Governor for the State of Connecticut from 2011 to 2013. In this role, he served as chief legal advisor to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor and senior staff of the Executive Branch of government. His responsibilities included providing legal counsel and analysis on all aspects of Executive Branch functions and operations, including its interactions with the federal government and the Judicial and Legislative branches of state government.

From 1991 to 2011, Justice McDonald was engaged in the private practice of law, first as an associate and then as a partner, with the firm of Pullman & Comley, LLC. He was a commercial litigator and handled all stages of litigation in federal and state courts at both the trial and appellate levels.

From January of 1999 to July of 2002, Justice McDonald additionally served as the Director of Legal Affairs and Corporation Counsel for the City of Stamford. In this capacity, he served in the Mayor’s Cabinet and oversaw the administration, supervision and performance of all legal, human resource and labor relations functions of the city, its boards, commissions and agencies.

Justice McDonald was a State Senator from 2003 to 2011. He represented Stamford and Darien in the 27th District. Justice McDonald served as the Senate Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for all eight years he was in the General Assembly. During periods of his legislative career he also served as the Senate Vice Chairman of the Energy and Technology Committee and as member of the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, the Transportation Committee, the Education Committee and the Regulations Review Committee. From 2005 to 2011 he served as Deputy Majority Leader of the Senate.

Earlier in his career, Justice McDonald served on the Stamford Board of Finance from 1995-1999, including serving as the board’s Chairman from 1997-1999, and as Co-Chair of the Audit Committee, from 1995-1997. He began his public service career in 1993 as a member of the Stamford Board of Representatives, where he served until 1995.

Justice McDonald and his husband, Charles, live in Stamford.

The Honorable Roy W. McLeese III District of Columbia Court of Appeals Judge Roy W. McLeese III was appointed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in 2012 by President Barack Obama.

Judge McLeese received his B.A. cum laude in 1981 from Harvard College, and his J.D. cum laude in 1985 from the New York University School of Law, where he was editor-in-chief of the Law Review.

After graduating from law school, Judge McLeese served as a law clerk to then-Judge Antonin Scalia, on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He then clerked for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1987, Judge McLeese joined the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. After rotating through various sections of that Office, he became Deputy Chief of the Appellate Division in 1990. From 1997 through 1999, Judge McLeese served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, briefing and arguing cases in the Supreme Court. After returning to the United States Attorney’s Office, he became Chief of the Appellate Division in 2005. In 2010, Judge McLeese served for five months as Acting Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, supervising the criminal litigation of the United States in the Supreme Court. He then returned to the United States Attorney’s Office, where he again served as Chief of the Appellate Division until he was appointed to the Court of Appeals.

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Robert J. Morris, Jr. Florida Court of Appeal for the Second District Judge Morris was appointed by three different Florida Governors to serve as a judge in as many courts. Prior to being appointed in 2009 to his current assignment on the Second District Court of Appeal, he was appointed to serve on the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit in 2001, and the Pinellas County Court in 1997.

Beyond traditional judicial duties, his public service has included appointments by various Florida Supreme Court Chief Justices to serve on the Supreme Court Committee on Children and Families in Court (2004-2012, chair 2004-2006), the Trial Court Budget Commission (2006-2009) and the Supreme Court Judicial Management Council (2012, for a four year term). Also, in 2007, the judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit elected him chief judge. They re-elected him chief judge in 2009. In 2012, the judges of the District Courts of Appeal elected him to serve on the Judicial Qualifications Commission for a six year term.

From 1980 to 1997, he was engaged in the practice of law. His experience as a lawyer includes being a prosecutor, a partner and state-wide management committee member in a national law firm, and the principal of his own law firm. He also served on the boards of directors of a bank and a hospital. Martindale Hubbell assigned him their preeminent rating of AV. Throughout his career he has variously presented and produced teaching materials for the Florida Judicial College, the College of Advanced Judicial Studies, judicial conferences, continuing legal education programs, bar associations, a law school, universities, high schools and civic associations. He has also appeared on television and radio to address legal subjects.

Judge Morris graduated from Tarpon Springs (FL) High School in 1971. He received a Bachelor of Science from the University of Florida in 1975. In 1980, he was conferred the Juris Doctor by DePaul University and became a member of the Florida Bar. Born in Jacksonville, Florida in 1953, he married his high school classmate in 1976. They have three adult children.

More Photographs from the 2013 Appellate Judges Seminar

Appellate Judges Seminar faculty members Martha Craig Daughtrey, Troy McKenzie, and Bea Ann Smith

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Anthony Navarro Colorado Court of Appeals CAREER: Before joining the court, Judge Navarro was a Supervisory Attorney in the Social Security Administration’s Office of the General Counsel in Denver. In addition to supervising extensive litigation before federal circuit and district courts, he oversaw matters related to bankruptcy, civil rights complaints, agreements with state and local governments for Social Security coverage, and disclosure issues concerning the Privacy Act. Prior to this service, he worked at Holland & Hart LLP in Denver, where he focused on the appellate aspect of commercial litigation. Before joining Holland & Hart, Judge Navarro was a member of the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, where he worked first as an Assistant Attorney General in the Consumer Protection Section before joining the Appellate Division. He also served as law clerk to Justice Alex Martinez of the Colorado Supreme Court. Before clerking, Judge Navarro practiced corporate and securities law in San Francisco at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. EDUCATION: Judge Navarro obtained a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1996 and a B.A. from the University of Colorado in 1993.

CIVIC & PROFESSIONAL: Judge Navarro has been a member of the Colorado Board of Real Estate Appraisers (former chair), the Denver County Court Judicial Discipline Commission, the Citizens Oversight Board (regarding the Denver Police Department), the Colorado Bar Association (former board member), the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association (former board member), and the Colorado GLBT Bar Association (former board member).

The Honorable Coral Wong Pietsch U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Judge Coral Wong Pietsch was nominated by President Barack Obama and subsequently appointed a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in June 2012.

Judge Pietsch has a distinguished career in public service, both in the military and as a civilian. She was commissioned in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps and served six years on active duty. Judge Pietsch continued her service in the U.S. Army Reserve and rose to the rank of Brigadier General. She became the first woman to be promoted in the rank of Brigadier General in the US Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps and the first woman of Asian ancestry to be promoted to Brigadier General in the Army. In her military career, Judge Pietsch participated in numerous exercises and deployments throughout the Asia Pacific Region.

Until her appointment to the bench, Judge Pietsch held the position of Senior Attorney and Special Assistant at Headquarters, U.S. Army Pacific located in Honolulu, Hawaii. In this position, she provided and managed legal services in support of the U.S. Army Pacific’s mission to train Army Forces for military operations and peacetime engagements aimed at promoting regional stability. Her responsibilities included providing advice and counsel in a myriad of areas of law, to include environmental law, fiscal law, personnel law, international law, and administrative law.

As part of the 2007 "surge" in Iraq, Judge Pietsch volunteered as a Department of Defense civilian to deploy to Iraq for a year where she was seconded to the U.S. Department of State to serve as the Deputy Rule of Law Coordinator for the Baghdad Provincial Reconstruction Team. During her deployment to Iraq, Judge Pietsch assisted with numerous civil society projects involving a variety of Rule of Law partners, including the Iraqi Jurist Union, Iraqi Bar Association, law schools, and international rights, women’s rights and human rights organizations. She evaluated and sought funding for numerous projects aimed at building capacity within the Iraqi legal community to include the establishment, in close collaboration with the Iraqi Bar Association, of a Legal Aid Clinic at one of the Iraq’s largest detention facilities. During her time in Iraq, she also established meaningful relationships with numerous Government of Iraq ministries, nongovernmental organizations, and Coalition partners to help reinvigorate the rule of law in Iraq.

In 2006 Judge Pietsch was appointed by the Governor of Hawaii to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission where she served for seven years. Shortly after the appointment, the Governor selected Judge Pietsch as its Chair and, during her tenure, the Commission improved the claims administrative process, eliminated backlogs, implemented a public education program, and initiated an awareness program within the public schools.

Earlier in her civilian legal career, Judge Pietsch had been appointed a Deputy Attorney General for the State of Hawaii advising the State Department of Health, State Department of Agriculture, and the State Criminal History Records Division.

Judge Pietsch’s academic degrees include a bachelor of arts, master of arts, and a Juris doctor degree. She was also a Senior Executive Fellow at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, is a graduate of the Defense Leadership and Management Program, and a graduate of the Army War College. Her awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service, the Meritorious Civilian Service Medal, Superior Civilian Performance Medal, and the Global War on Terrorism Medal. She has been the recipient of the Organization of Chinese Americans Pioneer Award, the Hawaii Women Lawyers Attorney of the Year Award, the Honolulu YWCA Achievement in Leadership Award, The Catholic University Alumni Achievement Award, the Federal Executive Board Award for Excellence, the U.S. Army Pacific Community Service Award and recognized for lifetime accomplishments by the Women Veterans Igniting the Spirit of Entrepreneurship.

Judge Pietsch is married to James H. Pietsch, who is a Professor of Law at the University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law and who is also a veteran.

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Francie C. Riedmann

The Honorable Yvonne T. Rodriguez Texas Eighth Court of Appeals

Nebraska Court of Appeals Francie Riedmann was appointed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals in August 2012, after having been in private practice for approximately 19 years. She practiced primarily in civil litigation, focusing on oral and written advocacy in the trial and appellate courts.

Since taking the bench, Francie has been appointed to several technology committees (but she can’t figure out why, except to validate that a proposed program must be user friendly if she understands it!) She is also co-chair of a newly formed Supreme Court Commission on Guardianships and Conservators.

Francie was raised in Omaha, Nebraska and continues to live in a suburb of Omaha. Prior to law school, Francie worked as an assistant news director at a radio station, where she discovered her love of the “courthouse beat.” She attended paralegal school in Denver, never planning on becoming a lawyer, but 5 years later, enrolled at Creighton University School of Law. Francie and her husband will celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary this year and are the parents of three children, ages 14, 12 and 10. When she is not on the soccer field cheering on the kids, or chauffeuring them to their various activities, she enjoys running, traveling and baking. She is active with the local schools and serves on a Citizen’s Committee to Provide a Safe and Healthy Community for the Youth of her area, as well as the local Friends of the Library Board. During the school year, she teaches religious education at her church.

Justice Yvonne T. Rodriguez was elected to serve on the Eighth Court of Appeals effective January 1, 2013. She was born in Wiesbaden, Germany in 1958. Justice Rodriguez has previously served as Judge of El Paso County Probate Court no. 1. She was the first Hispanic female probate judge in the state of Texas. She graduated from Mary Hardin-Baylor with a B.A. in psychology and obtained her law degree from Baylor Law School. She was admitted to the state bar in November 1993.

Prior to joining the court, Justice Rodriguez was in private practice. Her practice consisted of criminal defense, mental health cases, child protective services cases and family law. She has also served as an assistant attorney general, assistant district attorney and an assistant county attorney. As an assistant attorney general in the child support division, her focus was collecting and enforcing child support obligations in addition to establishing paternity. During her four years as an assistant district attorney, Justice Rodriguez prosecuted criminal cases from misdemeanors to felonies. She spent two of those years at the narcotics taskforce prosecuting drug cases. At the county attorney’s office she was assigned to the child protective services unit and represented the State of Texas in child abuse cases. She currently teaches at the University of Texas in the criminal justice department.

Before returning to school at age 28, Justice Rodriguez obtained her GED at 19 and worked for nine years. During that time, she supported herself as a filing clerk; telephone sales; bank teller; credit and collection manager; waitress and retail sales.

Justice Rodriguez was raised in a military family and was educated in Texas and Australia. She is single with one daughter.

More Photographs from the 2013 Appellate Judges Seminar

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Loretta H. Rush Indiana Supreme Court Loretta H. Rush was appointed to the Indiana Supreme Court by Governor Mitch Daniels in September 2012. She took the oath of office as Indiana’s 108th Supreme Court Justice on November 7th, 2012. Justice Rush currently serves as the liaison to the Judicial Conference Juvenile Justice Improvement Committee, the Judicial Conference Problem-Solving Courts Committee, the State Board of Law Examiners, and the proposed Indiana Commission on Children.

Justice Rush’s strong academic background began early as she received numerous academic scholarships to attend Purdue University and obtained high honors (GPA 5.7/6.0) while earning her undergraduate degree. She then graduated cum laude from the Indiana University Maurer School of Law in Bloomington. Her other law school honors include: Moot Court Champion and Best Oralist, Sherman Minton Award, Order of the Barristers for appellate advocacy and legal writing, and the American Jurisprudence Award for tax law and secured transactions.

Beginning her legal career as a civil practitioner, Justice Rush worked for fifteen years in general law practices in Lafayette, IN before her election to the bench in 1998. She concentrated on family law, personal injury, probate, worker’s compensation, and administrative law, but also did some transactional and municipal law and general corporate work. In her legal practice, she served as a West Lafayette Assistant City Attorney and acted as attorney for the West Lafayette Economic Development Commission and for the Board of Zoning Appeals. She tried eight to ten civil jury trials and hundreds of civil bench trials as an attorney.

Justice Rush twice was re-elected as judge of Tippecanoe Superior Court 3 and presided over a general jurisdiction court focusing on cases involving children in need of services (CHINS), delinquency, criminal and status offenses, paternity, dissolutions, guardianships, adoptions, and protective order hearings. She served as judge pro tempore on other matters and presided over several adult criminal jury trials.

Justice Rush regularly works productively with legislators, judges, state and local elected officials, and community leaders to improve the administration of justice. She has drafted legislation and testified before legislative committees regarding various aspects of juvenile law. Most recently, during the 2012 legislative session, she helped draft and provided testimony on Senate Bill 286, a child-welfare bill. She also collaborated with the Department of Correction on a proposed blended-sentencing bill for juvenile offenders.

Justice Rush also has actively participated in judicial committees aimed at improving Indiana’s court system. As Chair of the Juvenile Justice Improvement Committee, she worked collaboratively on the development and promulgation of a new juvenile waiver of rights form for law enforcement use. She drafted significant sections of the Juvenile Judges’ Benchbook for Delinquency, CHINS, and Paternity. She has been at the forefront of improvements to court technology, serving on the Indiana Supreme Court’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee from 2000 to 2005.

Justice Rush currently serves on the Indiana Court Improvement Program Executive Committee, which approves sub-grants to courts and develops strategic plans on child welfare. She is taking part in two pilot projects: the Indiana Supreme Court Reporting Pilot Project, which is experimenting with the use of a digital rather than a paper court record for appeal, and the Indiana Mental Health Screening and Assessment Pilot Project, which seeks to improve mental health services to arrestees by conducting immediate screenings at intake. Justice Rush also serves on the Indiana Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, the Tippecanoe County Community Transition Program, and various other local committees addressing juvenile and CHINS issues. She created, implemented, and secured certification of a juvenile drug treatment court and initiated a twenty-four-hour intake and assessment center for all arrested youth in Tippecanoe County. During her tenure, she helped initiate, develop, and sustain more than twenty-five youth programs in her county.

Some of her leadership roles include serving as President of the Indiana Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and her active participation on the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. In 2003, Justice Rush received the Robert J. Kinsey Award and was recognized as Indiana’s “Juvenile Judge of the Year.” The Tippecanoe County Women’s Club named her “Woman of the Year” for 2012.

Justice Rush has been a regular lecturer at the statewide annual judicial conference and during new judge orientation. She also speaks regularly in the local community and has been a contributing author to papers about juvenile delinquency and CHINS. She has been an active member in her church, St. Mary’s Cathedral, teaching Sunday School and assisting with youth and teen programs. She is married and has four children.

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Patty Shwartz U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Patty Shwartz was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on April 10, 2013. Before her appointment, she served a United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Before taking a place on the bench, she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. During her tenure at the United States Attorney’s Office, she held various supervisory positions, including Chief of the Criminal Division and Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney. Before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office, she was a law clerk to the Hon. Harold A. Ackerman, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, and was an associate with the Philadelphia law firm then known as Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz.

Judge Shwartz is a member of the Third Circuit Judicial Council’s Magistrate Judge Committee, the Board of Directors of the Historical Society of the United States District Court for the District of Jersey, the Advisory Board for the Association of the Federal Bar and the John C. Lifland Inn of Court and has been elected as a Fellow of the American Bar Association. In addition, when she was a Magistrate Judge, she served as the Third Circuit’s Representative to the Board of Directors of the Federal Magistrate Judge’s Association. She is also adjunct professor at Fordham Law School.

She received her bachelor’s degree with highest honors from Rutgers College and her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania, where she was a member of the Law Review.

The Honorable Laurel H. Siddoway Washington Court of Appeals, Division Three Laurel Siddoway was appointed to the Washington Court of Appeals in May 2010 by Governor Christine Gregoire. She thereafter won a contested election in the 2010 primary and ran unopposed in 2012 for a six year term that runs through 2018. She presently serves as acting chief judge of Division 3 of the court and will assume the chief judge position in 2014.

Before joining the court, Judge Siddoway was a trial lawyer for many years, representing both plaintiffs and defendants, mostly in business litigation. She also specialized in defamation and other First Amendment-related matters. She served as a managing partner of Randall | Danskin, the Spokane law firm with which she was associated for 25 years and taught trial advocacy at the Gonzaga University law school as an adjunct professor.

Judge Siddoway was born in Salt Lake City and graduated from the University of Utah in 1975. She attended graduate school at the university, studying and serving as a teaching fellow in the Department of Philosophy before transferring to the College of Law, where she received her Juris Doctorate in 1979.

After graduating from law school and passing the bar exam, Judge Siddoway and her husband Douglas moved to New York City, where she practiced in the area of securities regulation and other broker-dealer litigation. While in New York, Judge Siddoway earned her LL.M. in Taxation from New York University. Following the birth of her first son, the family moved back West to Spokane.

The Judge and her husband have been married for 35 years and have three sons.

The Honorable John P. Smith Minnesota Court of Appeals Judge Smith received his B.A. degree from Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota in 1971. He attended William Mitchell College of Law and the University of Utah and earned his J.D. degree from William Mitchell College of Law in 1975. He received a Bush Fellowship in 1986 and earned his LL.M. from Emory University in 1987. He is admitted to practice law in Minnesota and Georgia.

Judge Smith began his legal practice in Park Rapids, Minnesota where he was a civil trial specialist with the firm of Smith, Hunter & Valen. He was appointed to the District Court Bench in the Ninth Judicial District of Minnesota in 1991. He served on the Board of the Minnesota District Judges Association for many years and was elected President of the organization in 2010. Judge Smith was Assistant Chief Judge of the Ninth Judicial District from 2001-2003 and Chief Judge of the Ninth Judicial District from 2003-2007 and served as Vice-Chair of the Minnesota Judicial Council from 2005-2007. He was a member of the Conference of Chief Judges from 2001-2005.

In January 2013, he was appointed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals by Governor Mark Dayton.

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable Lisa VanAmburg Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District Judge VanAmburg is a graduate of St. Louis University of Law, J.D. cum laude 1975. After graduation, she began a general civil practice, with emphasis on employment law, with the firm of Anderson, Everett, Sedey and VanAmburg. In 1983, she joined the law firm of Schuchat, Cook and Werner, practicing in the field of employment and labor law and in 1996, she was a founding partner of VanAmburg, Chackes, Carlson and Spritzer, continuing in her practice of employment law.

She has been an adjunct professor of law in trial advocacy at Washington University, St. Louis for over a decade, and also has taught at St. Louis University School of Law as an adjunct in trial practice.

Judge VanAmburg served a six year term as Circuit Judge of the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of the City of St. Louis. She was appointed by the Missouri Supreme Court to serve on the Trial Judge Education Committee, the Missouri Bar Gender and Justice Committee, and the Ad Hoc Committee to Revise Rule 2, the Judicial Code of Ethics.

Governor Nixon appointed Judge VanAmburg to the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District on August 27, 2012.

The Honorable Patrick Q. Ward Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals In July 2011, Lieutenant Colonel Quincy Ward was appointed as an Appellate Judge to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, DC. He was appointed a Senior Judge on the court in May 2013.

Pursuant to Title 10 U.S.C. §866, the NMCCA reviews the findings and sentence of qualifying court-martial convictions from within the Department of the Navy. In addition to his duties as a Senior Judge at the NMCCA, he also serves as an appellate judge on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review tasked with reviewing convictions of unlawful enemy combatants tried under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and 2009.

Past duty assignments include Deputy Circuit Judge at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; Assistant Officer in Charge and Military Justice Officer, Legal Services Support Section, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; Head, Policy and Research Unit, Performance Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Support Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps; Officer in Charge, Trial Services Office, Europe and Southwest Asia, Detachment Rota, Spain; and Trial Counsel at the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California. He is a native of Kentucky and received his undergraduate degree in History and English from Centre College in 1990 and his Juris Doctorate degree from the Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville in 1994. He currently resides in Fredericksburg, Virginia with his wife, Shelley and their two sons, Will, age seven and AJ, age six.

The Honorable Lori S. Wilbur South Dakota Supreme Court Lori Scully Wilbur, an associate justice serving on the South Dakota Supreme Court, represents the Fourth Supreme Court District, which includes Aurora, Bon Homme, Brule, Charles Mix, Clay, Davison, Douglas, Gregory, Hanson, Hutchison, Lincoln, Lyman, McCook, Tripp, Turner, Union, and Yankton counties. She attended the University of South Dakota receiving a Bachelor of Arts in 1974 and the University of South Dakota, School of Law, receiving a Juris Doctor degree in 1977. She served as a law clerk for the South Dakota Supreme Court for Honorable Laurence J. Zastrow; was an assistant Attorney General; General Counsel, South Dakota Board of Regents; Staff Attorney, South Dakota Legislative Research Council; and Legal Counsel, South Dakota Bureau of Personnel. She is a member and past president of the South Dakota Judges Association, past member and secretary of the Judicial Qualifications Commission and a member of the Rosebud Bar Association. She served as a Law-Trained Magistrate Judge, Sixth Circuit 1992-1999; Circuit Court Judge, Sixth Circuit, 1999-2011; Presiding Judge, Sixth Circuit, 2007 – 2011.

New Appellate Judges Seminar July 14-19, 2013

Attendee Biographies The Honorable M. Monica Zamora New Mexico Court of Appeals M. Monica Zamora was elected to the New Mexico Court of Appeals in November 2012. She officially began her position as an appellate judge on December 28, 2012. Judge Zamora is one of ten judges whose jurisdiction is statewide. This court reviews civil; non-capital criminal; and juvenile cases, as well as interlocutory decisions and administrative agency appeals.

Judge Zamora previously served as a District Court Judge in the Second Judicial District Court, the largest jurisdiction in the State of New Mexico. She was assigned to the Children’s Court Division and served as its presiding judge for five years. As a District Court Judge, her caseload consisted of abuse and neglect proceedings; delinquency proceedings; adoptions; and emancipations. Judge Zamora also served as the Juvenile Drug Court Judge.

Prior to her appointment to the District Court bench in November 2005, Judge Zamora practiced for over 18 years representing plaintiffs in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death matters. Her practice also included domestic, step-parent, co-parent, grandparent, relative, and international adoptions. She also practiced in the areas of insurance defense and defense of governmental entities in areas of civil rights; employment law, contracts, and personal injury.

Judge Zamora graduated from the University Of New Mexico School Of Law in 1987. She was admitted to practice in the State of New Mexico in 1987; the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of New Mexico in 1988; in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 1988; and in the United States Supreme Court in 2000. In 2008, Judge Zamora received the Governor’s Award for Outstanding New Mexico Women. In July 2012, she received the CLE Summit Award for Ethics & Professionalism Credit awarded by the State Bar of New Mexico and The Center for Legal Education.

Evan R. Chesler – was appointed Chairman of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the New York Public Library, and given the Judge Joseph M. Proskauer Award, UJA-Federation of New York, and was recognized as a “Super Lawyer” in Business Litigation.

Hon. Harry Edwards – was appointed to serve on Committee on Science, Technology, and Law at the National Academy of Sciences.

Robert Long – was awarded the “Legal Champion” award from the National Law Journal, as well as the “Appellate MVP” award from Law 360.

Trevor Morrison – published Presidential Power, Historical Practice, and Legal Constraint, 113 Columbia Law Review 1097 (2013) (with Curtis A. Bradley), The Presumption of Constitutionality and the Individual Mandate, 81 Fordham Law Review 1715 (2013) (with Gillian E. Metzger), Historical Gloss and the Separation of Powers, 126 Harvard Law Review 411 (2012) (with Curtis A. Bradley), and co-edited The Health Care Case: The Supreme Court’s Decision and Its Implications co-editor (with Nathaniel Persily and Gillian E. Metzger) (Oxford University Press, 2013).

Notice to IJA Board Members: If you have any professional events, awards, or other significant milestones that you would want to report to the readers on our mailing list, please let us hear from you.

In the Annals of IJA… An excerpt from an article, written by Carwina Weng, in the Spring 1990 edition of the IJA Report…

“But What Is It That You Do?” Carwina Weng, an NYU Law student who has been a research assistant at IJA for two years, is the recipient of a Skadden Arps public service fellowship.

“…I’m glad to be working here – and not just because the money helps pay the rent. The projects I’ve worked on at IJA have unveiled fields and perspectives that a law student doesn’t always have access to in the more abstract world of Vanderbilt Hall…In addition, work on various projects involving alternative dispute resolution has sharpened a perspective of the court system not as a forum for vindicating rights and honor, as clients tend to think, but as a forum for resolving conflict. Exposure to non- and less adjudicatory methods of solving problems reminds the litigious law student that lawsuits are not the only and not always the best way to solve problems or empower clients…

Learning to think about the judicial system as such and participating in a critique of it provides a necessary grounding for the legal principles taught in law school. It’s not enough to think like a lawyer; you’ve got to know the system in which you’re operating, too…”

IJA REPORT asked Ms. Weng to reflect on the influence her time at IJA has had on her career:

Reflections on My Work at IJA after a Quarter Century Carwina Weng Carwina Weng, a former research assistant at the IJA, reflects on her time and work. Ms. Weng joined the Indiana Law faculty in 2006 to coordinate the Disability Law Clinic, which assists clients with social security and Medicaid disability benefits. She also teaches The Legal Profession, a hybrid professional responsibility course that focuses on professional identify formation. Ms. Weng previously has taught at Boston College Law School (2001-2006) and Florida Coastal School of Law (1996-1999). In addition, she has practiced poverty law with The Legal Aid Society of New York and Greater Boston Legal Services. Ms. Weng teaches and writes in the area of clinical legal education, with a focus on multicultural lawyering and law and psychology.

When I was a law student, IJA exposed me to the study of the judicial system and the work of judges – a world that the case method of the first-year curriculum barely hinted at. This work gave me context to understand the cases we read in law school and to humanize judges who seemed distant, powerful, and arbitrary. I learned how cases come up through the judicial system, how judges approach cases and strive for self-improvement and judicial accountability, and how the social context in which disputes arise influence the judicial process.

These are lessons that in many respects have mattered more to my work since law school than the formal education I received. As a clinical law professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, I work with students representing indigent clients with disability claims before government agencies. To represent our clients competently, we must understand how administrative law judges think, how they balance pressures from the agency to adjudicate cases quickly with norms of due process, how agency training of judges affects their decision-making, and how culture affects interpretations of disability, as written into law and as imbibed by the adjudicator as a member of our disability-hostile culture. I am fortunate that I was eased into these issues as a research assistant at IJA before grappling with them as a clinic student myself and then as a lawyer, when my clients’ access to basic necessities of shelter, food, and money were at stake.

The importance of social context in the judicial system has carried through to my research, as well. I have focused on cultural competence, using the frames developed through social and cultural psychology to teach law students to interact with their clients and with judicial actors more effectively. My recognition that lawyers and judicial actors develop a professional culture that is layered on to their personal and societal cultures has its roots in the work of IJA in training American judges, working with foreign judges, and studying judicial processes.

I was not aware of all these lessons at the time I worked at IJA. However, I am grateful that my work there allowed me to learn them deeply enough to influence my lawyering over 25 years later.

HON. SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON Chief Justice Wisconsin Supreme Court SHEILA L. BIRNBAUM Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP PETER BUSCEMI Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP PAUL T. CAPPUCCIO Executive V.P. and General Counsel Time Warner Inc. PROF. OSCAR G. CHASE New York University School of Law EVAN R. CHESLER, President Chairman, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP MICHAEL V. CIRESI Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. PAUL D. CLEMENT Bancroft PLLC HON. HARRY T. EDWARDS U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit PROF. SAMUEL ESTREICHER New York University School of Law MEIR FEDER Jones Day HON. JOHN GLEESON U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

LAUREN R. GOLDMAN Mayer Brown LLP

PROF. LINDA J. SILBERMAN New York University School of Law

HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

HON. GEORGE BUNDY SMITH JAMS

HON. JUDITH S. KAYE Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

HON. KENNETH W. STARR President, Baylor University

THOMAS C. LEIGHTON Vice President Thomson Reuters

HON. JOHN M. WALKER, JR. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

HON. JONATHAN LIPPMAN Chief Judge, New York Court of Appeals

Faculty Co-Directors:

MARTIN LIPTON Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz ROBERT A. LONG Covington & Burling LLP HON. PATRICIA ANN MILLETT U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit DEAN TREVOR W. MORRISON New York University School of Law THEODORE B. OLSON Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP HON. THOMAS R. PHILLIPS Baker Botts LLP HON. STUART RABNER Chief Justice, New Jersey Supreme Court

OSCAR G. CHASE oscar.chase@nyu.edu SAMUEL ESTREICHER samuel.estreicher@nyu.edu TROY McKENZIE mckenzie@exchange.law.nyu.edu

Executive Director: TORREY L. WHITMAN (212) 998-6149 torrey.whitman@nyu.edu

Bankruptcy Basics for District Judges Friday December 5, 2014

IJA 2014 Board Meeting Friday, December 12, 2014

Second IJA Public Policy Forum: Promoting Transparency in the Use of Force by Police Wednesday, February 18, 2015

21st Annual Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Lecture on State Courts and Social Justice: Hon. Chase T. Rogers, Chief Justice, Connecticut Supreme Court Wednesday, February 25, 2015

18th Annual Employment Law Workshop for Federal Judges Wednesday-Friday March 11-13, 2015

Economic Analysis for Federal Judges Thursday-Friday April 16-17, 2015

Beyond Elite Law: Access to Justice for Americans of Average Means Thursday-Friday April 23-24, 2015

Appellate Judges Seminar Sunday-Friday July 12-17, 2015 For more information on these and other events, visit our website at www.law.nyu.edu/centers/judicial or contact us at (212) 998-6149.