UCLA Law is published at UCLA for alumni, friends, and other members of The UCLA School of Law community. Issued three times a year. Offices at 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles 90024. "Postmaster: Send address changes to Alumni Office, School of Law, 405 Hilgard, Los Angeles 90024."
Charles E. Young I Chancellor
Susan Westerberg Prager / Dean
Michael T. McManus I Assistant Vice Chancellor, Public Communications
Joan Tyndall / Director of Development andAlumni Relations
Ted Hulbert / Editor
Sandra Elkin, Dana Escalante / Editorial Assistants
Valerie Takatani I Art Production
Photography I ASUCLA Photo Service
Externships: The Unusual Is Expected
by Ted Hulbert
hen Jack Avery, in his second year of law school in 1972, noticed the bulletin announcing an opportunity for UCLA law students to travel to Micronesia and spend a term there aslegalexterns,hewasn'tquitesure where Micronesia was-but it sounded like fun to him.
Avery had been a Los Angeles deputy sheriff in the 1960s, simultaneous with his undergraduate education; after those double-duty years, he had gone straightintolaw school. Thencametherigors of torts and contracts. By the second year of law school, Avery was more than ready for a stretch onfar-distantislands of the Pacific Ocean.
Now, 15yearslater,Averyisstillonthoseislands where his student externship landed him. He has served as Attorney General of Guam and currently has a law practice there. His own experience of finding his life's work as the result of a particular extern program in law school may sound exotic, but it is not unusual. It has been repeated time and again by UCLA law students; in externships at agencies as diverse as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Appalachian Research and
Defense Fund, an individual will explore an interesting area of law and then define a career in the process.
At the present, UCLA law students are working as externs in communications law, international law, criminal law, civil litigation, public interest law, labor law, environmental law and securities law. Students weigh heavily the choice of an externship, since a fullsemester'swork hinges on the decision.
Even if the islands of Micronesia sounded like a lark to Jack Avery, his interests quickly ran to a more serious vein. "That first year of law school had been a tough one for me," he recalls. "I wanted to get practical experience in the law, and this was my chance."
The Micronesian Legal Services Program was organizedbyAssistantDeanMichael D.Rappaport, who earlier had spent two years in Micronesia as a Peace Corps volunteer. He convinced federal judges serving in the U.S. territories to establish the extern program. The UCLAlaw students began arriving soon thereafter.
"We were paid $200 a month to defray all our housing, food and other needs," Avery recalls of
Jack Avery '73
his first experiences on the islands. "We rented a small typhoon house-so named because it was built after one of the typhoons. It didn't have electricity, or stove, or refrigerator. It did have an indoor toilet and a shower of sorts-a pipe with watercomingout. A neighboroccasionallyallowed us to run an extension cord 50 feet across his lawn for electricity, so we were able to run a fan and have a light."
Avery was clerk to the chief justice of the trust territory high court, headquartered on Saipan. (In 1986, Saipan achieved status as a commonwealth; Guam remains a territory. Residents of the islands are U.S. citizens.) The research assigned to Avery atthebeginningofhisexternshipincludedacomplex proximate cause issue in an auto accident where several people died-a challenge for a second-year law student. A small room contained the court library. "Often, you went to Am Jur and that was the only authority you had."
Before returning to Los Angeles to complete law school, Avery made it clear to his friends on the islands that he would consider returning there. WhenthefirmofBrooksandKlitzkiewascontracted ascounseltothelegislatureofGuam,itwasAvery's ticket back to the Marianas.
Averybecame assistant legalcounselfor Guam's legislature,actingasparliamentarian,draftingbills, assisting the speaker of the unicameral house. Of the 21 legislators, only one was a lawyer-which put a constant demand on Avery's expertise.
Avery's career on Guam has alternated between, government service and private practice. While servingintheattorneygeneral'soffice, Averyfound himself elevated suddenly to attorney general in 1981-an appointive post which he agreed to fill fortwoyearsfollowingthefiringofhispredecessor.
"I was constantly dodging bullets. My office was investigating police corruption, and many of the people under investigation were very popular."
Joseph E. Kennedy '87
Avery's office obtained convictions of four defendants among the five police officers tried.
DuringAvery'stenureasattorneygeneral, Guam alsowitnesseditsfirststrikebypublicemployeesanissuewhichresultedingreatpolarizationbetween local residents and public school teachers from the states. The strike sparked violence which, in its turn, produced a mountain of work for Avery's office.
By contrast, Avery's present private practice on Guam seems serene. There is a substantial volume of family law cases, and Avery's corporate clients needtheusualvarietyoflegalservices-mortgages, leases, contracts, advice on business deals.
"The island is small, but there are many transactions in land. People have learned to try to do it the right way." Quite in contrast to the islands which Avery saw 15 years ago, Guam has become cosmopolitan in its own fashion. On a hotel row, afive-starhotelisnearingcompletion.The Mariana
Islands are a favorite spot for Japanese tourists, only a three-hour flight away. As Avery sums up the situation: "We're in the midstof a realboom."
JOSEPH E. KENNEDY's decision to extern at the National Center for Immigrants' Rights in Los Angeles was influenced strongly by his experiences inSouthAfricashortlybeforeheenteredlawschool andbythefactthathisparentsbothareimmigrants. They came from Ireland in the 1950s to Brooklyn (whereKennedywasborn), thensettledinNorthern California.AfterearningahistorydegreeatStanford, Joe Kennedy went to South Africa on a Rotary fellowship to study the workings of American foreign policy in that country. In the process, he decided to set his future course toward law school; a friend recommended UCLA as a humane place to be.
The threads kept crossing. In South Africa, Joe Kennedy had interviewed Bishop Desmond Tutu,
Luise Welby '87
as well as a small host of South African and American diplomats and a much larger number of the people affected most directly by apartheid. In Kennedy's first year of law school, just before Bishop Tutu received the Nobel Prize, they met again when Tutu spoke at UCLA.
As he studied the machinations of the pass law system in South Africa, Joe Kennedy begap to see certain analogies between it and the treatment of undocumentedworkersfromLatinAmericaentering the Southwestern United States.
"The big difference, obviously, is that the 'homeland' states are artificial creations by the South Africangovernment,whereasthecountriesofCentral andSouthAmericaarehistorical,authenticentities. But in both cases," says Kennedy, "you have a system where labor is highly valued and yet a country doesn't want to bear the social costs of supporting the wage earners. In South Africa, the pass law system prevents a man or woman's de-
pendents from living with them near the place of work. In the Southwest U.S., enforcement of immigration laws makes it very difficult for the laborer's family to join him here-and that creates anumberofhardshipsonthefamilywhicharevery similar to the South African experience."
A turning point during Kennedy's year in South Africa came in a desolate homeland called Ciskei, where he spent two weeks as a volunteer on a medicalteam.Tenthousandchildrenwerevaccinated against polio by his team in those two weeks. "You canthinkaboutpoverty,andyoucanreadandwrite about it, but until you really immerse yourself in poverty,"hesays,"youcannotappreciatetheimpact it has on people."
Another indelible impression was made on Kennedy when he was the only white person attendingathree-dayinauguralconferenceofapolitical coalitioncalledtheNationalForum. "For thosethree days, I reversed my experience in South Africa.
Mary Newcombe '84
Insteadoflivinginawhitecocoon, whereyoucome intooccasionalcontact with blacks, I was now the onlywhitepersoninahighlyarticulateblackgroup. I learned more about South Africa in those three days than in thepreceedingthree months."
PeterSchey,theexecutivedirectoroftheNational CenterforImmigrants' Rights in Los Angeles, grew up in South Africa-another instance of threads thatcrossthrough Kennedy'sexperience,andafact which Kennedy didn't know until well after beginning his externship at the center this year.
A major assignment for Kennedy during the externshiphas beenworkingonabrieffora partial summary judgment in the case of Vallejo v. the Immigration and Naturalization Service, expected to come to trial this year in the U.S. District Court for the Central District. Through the case, the Center is seeking to secure Miranda rights for personsarrestedbytheINS.Thesummaryjudgment motionconcernstherights ofthosepersonsto have
access to counsel during their interrogations for deportation. Sincethesuitis aclass action,itcould affect the practices of the INS nationwide.
The INS position, explains Kennedy, is that it advises an individual of the right to counsel only aftertheinterrogationhasbeencompletedandafter a deportationdecision has beenmade. "I have read dozens of declarations and affidavits making clear a pattern of both physical and psychological coercion," he says.
In addition to the Vallejo case, Kennedy has workedonacasechallenginganimmigrationjudge's practices in refusing to accept asylum applications from El Salvadorans, and he has handled some emergency cases involving wrongful deportations andpolitical prisoners. Generally,the Center is not able to do direct service work since it is focused on impact issues.
When Kennedy completes law school thisspring, it is likely that he will join the firm of Morrison
and Foerster in San Francisco. That decision was influenced greatly by the fact that the firm has a reputationforsubstantialpro bonawork; lastyear, for instance, it represented one of the Sanctuary Movement defendants in Arizona.
His externship was "a way station between the academic world of law school and the professional world," says Kennedy-one which helped him concretely in shaping his legal skills. "In the academic world, there is instruction galore but not enough practical application. In the professional world, it is all practical application. An externship is a nice intermediate step."
LUISE WELBY makes a very similar analysis of the meritsofherexternshipwiththeSecuritiesand Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C., where she worked last year in her second year of law school. "One of the most striking things about the SEC was the fact that the people there are very open, very willing to help you," says Luise. "I saw what a difference people make in a work environment." As aresult, whenshereturnedtolawschool and went through the process of placement interviews, she had a new insight on looking "at people more than just at the practice."
As a Notre Dameundergraduateinfinance, Luise entered law school with an interest in corporate law already formed. But that hasn't narrowed her horizons. In fact, she has worked as a volunteer at a legal aid office counseling clients on unemployment claims and she has been on two law reviews [the UCLA Law Review and the Federal Communications Law Journal]. Then there's the intramuralbasketballteam,whichsheformedwith members of her first-year section. "We got a few people together, decided to do the best we could, and we have fun doing it."
As Welby talks about her externship at the SEC, it also sounds like a good time. "There was no hierarchy. There was a lot of free and open discussion. In many ways, it is an equal status place. Everyone has a tremendous amount of work to do, there isn't a lot of time for bureaucracy."
Welby worked in the Division of Enforcement, reporting to a branch chief who assigned her one major project in addition to many of the usual research tasks. The major project is something which she cannot discuss specifically, since it involves a pending case. "I did the investigation, all the research, and Iwasleft mostly onmyownwith guidance from my branch chief." As the result of her investigation, a rule change has been proposed but this has not been acted upon yet.
MuchoftheSEC'sworkinvolvesattendingmeetings,ofcourse,andWelbyparticipatedfullyinopen and closed meetings of the commission, pre-trial meetings, and strategy sessions among attorneys. "People asked for my opinions, and I was expected to make contributions."
The externship in Washington was so positive, infact,thatWelbydecidedtojointhefirmofHogan and Hartson in the nation's capital. "I loved my externship, I enjoyed it a great deal. It gave me a chance to go to a city I had no expectation to stay in, and I am going back." The SEC experience will be greatly beneficial in the future, she says, since it is likely that she will do a considerable amount of securities-related work.
The only downside to taking a semester away, sheconcludes,isthefactthatthenumberofgeneral interest courses she might have taken has been curtailed somewhat. "But I would never trade that for all the advantages of the externship."
MARY NEWCOMBEhadseveral motivations togo toWest VirginiaasanexternwiththeAppalachian Research and Defense Fund. She wanted to see Appalachia.Shehadadeepinterestinlegalservices; her decision to become a lawyer in the first place had been based largely on that kind of concern. NoraQuinn,anAppalachianexternoneyearearlier, talkedinglowingtermsaboutherexperiencesthere.
So it was in 1983 that Mary Newcombe went toCharleston,thecenteroftheagency'soperations, branching out to smaller towns across the region. Pam Moore (like Mary, a 1984 alumnus] externed there during the same term.
"We did anything a junior associate would dolegal research, fact investigation, and under the third-year rule, we were allowed to argue in court. There was no distinction between us and young attorneys-that was one of the best aspects of the externship," Newcombe recalls.
As an example, she says, "I had the opportunity toargueamotionbeforetheWest VirginiaSupreme Court in a lawsuit involving prison conditions." Terms of an earlier court order had been violated intheprisonatHuttonsville,andthepublicinterest law firm was seeking a writ of mandamus.
That case required Newcombe and Moore to interview "prisoner after prisoner, sometimes30 in a day." At trial, they presented their evidence in directexamination. "Onethingthatimpressedme," Newcombe recalls, "was that the prisoners were by and large uneducated. They had made stupid mistakes. Most of them were in prison for less severe crimes."
Jose Sandoval '87
The lack of education in Appalachia, of course, is at the root of most legal problems there. Consequently, the agency has involved itself in many actions aimed at improving the delivery of educational resources to the region's people.
"WestVirginiaisextremelypoor,coalisnolonger a preferred fuel, and no other industry has developed," Newcombe observes. "The economy is just stagnant." While there has been a strong presence offederalfundingforprogramsinAppalachiasince the 1960s, "funds are now being chipped away."
People in Appalachia are self-sufficient. West Virginia has a long tradition of intensely private but strong people. "Poverty is so endemic, and so many people are poor, that it is not considered a stigmatic condition," Newcombe says. The legal defensefund"hasearnedthetrustofthecommunity by doing so much to improve the conditions of life, both through legislation and cases won in the courts." Daniel Hedges, the agency's legal director,
"has won case after case that protects the interests of the poor in West Virginia."
In her term at the agency, Newcombe drafted a complaint in a class action suit involving public housing, a brief challengingconditionsat thewomen'sprison,factinvestigationforlegislativeresearch regarding special education-and she also was involved in routine legal services at the agency's various district offices.
"The wonderful thing about West Virginia," she notes,"isthatitscourtsystemisnothighlycomplex or enormous. The judiciary has made every effort tomakethesystemaccessibletolowincomepeople. Thereisalotofprotectionforlitigants. Judgesoften sit down in chambers and discuss a case with the client. It is a populist approach to legal problems. West Virginia is a wonderful place to practice poverty law."
Originally from the East Coast, Newcombe attended Swarthmore and then the University of
TERRY
Dan Mayeda '82
North Carolina, majoring in art history. While at UCLA, shehelpedorganizetheNationalConference on Women and the Law in 1984. The year after law school, she clerked for Judge Stephanie Seymour on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Tulsa.
Her attraction to public interest has remained strong.ReturningtoLosAngelesafterherclerkship, Newcombe joined the firm of O'Donnell & Gordon not only because of its reputation in civil, criminal, environmental and entertainment law, but also in large part because of its commitment to public interest law.
JOSE SANDOVAL, while studying in a course called Law and Social Change at the University ofCalifornia,SantaCruz,foundhisthoughtsmightily influenced by Brown v. Board of Education "The case stuck in my mind in terms of law as an instrument for social change," he says. It was germinalnotjustinhisdecisiontobecomealawyer,
but also in his focus on publiceducation as an area for reform.
Notsurprising, then, thatSandovalexternedthis year at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEFJ in its Los Angeles office."Iamreallyinterestedineducation,"Sandoval stresses. "I was looking for an externship that would provide legal work in the education field."
He arrived at an opportune time. In August, MALDEF filed in Los Angeles Superior Court the suit of Rodriguez v. Los Angeles Unified School District-an action which could have landmark proportions. The suit basically argues that in allocating resources unequally, the school district denies equality of educational opportunity.
"For example," says Sandoval, "ontheWestSide of Los Angeles, you have as few as 18 students per acre [of school facilities), whereas you have up to 300 students per acre on the East Sideextreme overcrowding :which means year-round
schools, cafeterias and·other rooms not designed for teaching being used for teaching spaces."
Working with Richard Fajardo, a 1981 alumnus and a lead counsel in the case, Sandoval was involved in research and pre-trial litigation strategy,participatingfullyinattorneys'meetings. "At first, I was apprehensive,as the only law student inameetingwithsixattorneysdiscussingstrategy. But they made me feel comfortable. It was a valuable experience."
Sandovalalsoparticipatedininterviewingexpert witnesses-many of them educators from universities with expertise on how resource allocations impact educational achievement. He helped, as well, to form questions for depositions-brainstorming with Fajardo as they worded their interrogatories.
The school district's initial response in the case was that the same issues are being litigated in another pendingaction.The court,however,ruled in MALDEF's favor to hear the case.
An ultimate conclusion in Rodriguez could be ten years away. Important as that case is to MALDEF, there were many other issues which demandedSandoval'sattentionasanextern:issues arising from the English-only initiative approved by voters in November, such as how to deal with similar measures in other states; issues of immigration law and employment law.
One of the most valuable aspects of the externship, says Sandoval, "was in having your product scrutinized. It was a confidence builder." And the opportunityto workspecificallyon the Rodriguez case hasenabled Sandovaltoactonhisbeliefthat "people should have equal education in reality, not just in theory."
DAN MAYEDA was attracted to UCLA's law school because of its Communications Law Program, and it seemed natural that he would do an externship in communications law. Washington, D.C. also seemed a natural choice, with its concentrationofpracticeinthefield.Therealquestion was deciding among all the possible externships: the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, theFederalCommunicationsCommission,theNational Association of Broadcasters, the National TelecommunicationsInformationAdministration, among others.
"Ultimately, I chose the subcommittee because of my interest in political matters. It was an excellentintroductiontocommunicationspractice inWashington,"asMayedalearnedwhenhebegan his externship there in Fall 1981. What he had not
expected, however, was to stay as long as he did. He arrived in the thick of major policy issues revolving around the antitrust lawsuit against AT&Tbroughtby the JusticeDepartment,and the subcommittee asked him to stay on and continue his work as a policy analyst. He stayed, and returned to UCLA in 1982 to complete his law degree.
"It was definitely a very valuable experience," Mayedasays."Duringtheyear,Icameintocontact with many of the communications attorneys in Washington and was able to observe from the legislative standpoint what they did, what their role was in representing their communications clients." Thegraspofthelegislativeprocesswhich he gained was invaluable when, after completing his degree, he joined the Washington communications law firm of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo. He practiced three years there, and last year joined the Century City firm of Leopold, Petrich & Smith, where he specializes in copyright and defamation litigation.
When Mayeda arrived at the Subcommitee on Telecommunications, the intent was to permit AT&T to enter competitive markets in computer informationbusinesses while still maintaining its monopolies in local telephone companies; by separating the businesses into subsidiaries, AT&T wouldnotbeaseasilyabletousemonopolypower in one industry to compete in another industry.
Then in January 1982, the Justice Department and AT&T agreed to a new consent decree which would divest AT&T of its control over all local telephone company monopolies. Subcommittee Chairman TimothyE. Wirth of Colorado (recently elected senator] felt there were many problems withthatplan,and the focus oflegislation shifted to smoothing the transition through which AT&T would divest itself of local companies.
In addition to being immersed in the AT&T legislation,Mayedahadpersonalresponsibilityto shepherd through the legislative process a bill requested by the FCC. That bill, among other things, gave the FCC authority to implement a systemofawardinglicensesforlow-poweredtelevision stations by means ofa lottery,with special preferences for minorities and others under-represented in broadcasting.
MayedaanalyzedtheFCCrequest,workedwith legislativecounselonthelanguageofthebill,saw thebillintroduced,requestedcommentsonitfrom knowledgeable communications lawyers and others,arrangedahearingonthelegislation,contacted witnesses to appear at the hearing, and engaged
Valerie Hink '87
innegotiationswiththegeneralcounseloftheFCC and others concerning specific provisions of the bill.Healsopreparedanalysesandpositionpapers for members of the subcommittee to help them determine how to vote and how to amend the legislation.
Before his year at the subcommittee ended, Mayeda saw "his" bill approved by the subcommittee,thenbythefullHouseEnergyandCommerce Committee, the House and Senate, and signed into law. "Itconsumedalotoftime," Mayedaobserves. "It was very rewarding."
AnotherrewardingtimeforMayedacameduring his final semester at UCLA in 1982, when he was ateachingassistantforProfessorGeoffreyCowan's undergraduate course called Freedom of Communication.Afewyearsearlier,asanundergraduate, Mayeda had been a student in the same course andithadpromptedhisinterestincommunications law. His interest had come full circle. "That was
a great experience."
VALERIE HINK was a field biologist at Arizona State University when she decided to begin law school. "It was a natural step," she often tells friends who ask about the switch from biology tolaw. "Ihadbecomemoreinterestedinthepolicy issues involved in my work, the National Environmental Policy Actandthe Endangered Species Act."
Californiapresentsjusttheissuesthatinterested herthemost:waterresources,environmentalissues inherent in rapid development, land use. Hink, now in her final year at UCLA, is chief articles editor of the Journal of Environmental Law and Policy. She also found an externship that fit her interests precisely-at the Center for Law in the Public Interest, located in West Los Angeles. While the center takes impact cases in many areas-sex discrimination, employment discrim-
ination, consumer issues-it has focused on environmental issues from the beginning. And, as Hink notes, "It is one of the best public interest firms in the country."
Hink'sworkattheCenterfocusedontheBallona Wetlands case in the Playa/Marina del Rey area, where the Summa Corporation plans residential, commercial and marina development on part of oneofthefewremainingcoastalwetlands. Friends of the Ballona Wetlands and the Center for Law in the Public Interest oppose the Summa plan. Hink researched requirements under the federal Clean Water Act involving the need for a Corps of Engineers permit for any dredging or filling in wetlands. She attended a Coastal Commission
hearing, where she witnessed "a groundswell of people responding to unresponsive government."
Hink worked on a number of other cases, including a class action by minority employees of anoilcompanywhoallegediscriminationintraining and promotion practices.
An externship like hers, says Hink, is "like a graduateeducation.Yourstrengthsandweaknesses are recognized in the kind of education you " receive.
Classroom learning after two years can lead to burn-out, she observes. "An externship is a great way to learn in a different setting, and come back reallyrenewedandreadytolearnintheclassroom."
Arthur Rosett: Humility Mixed With Humor
by Ellen Klugman
n the field of law, Arthur Rosett appears ubiquitous.
BeforecomingtotheUCLASchool ofLawin 1967, Rosetthadpracticed both criminal and civil law in government and in the private sector. Since 1967, he has been teaching that staple of all lawschool diets-contracts. Addabriefbrushwith teaching criminal law to his course offerings in international business transactions, antitrust, European Economic Community law, Japanese Law, and Jewish Law, and you begin to get an idea of what Arthur Rosett has been up to in his 20 years at UCLA School of Law. The key word is "begin." For Arthur Rosett is a man of many interests.
Interestingly enough, it is people, not ideas, who have drawn Arthur Rosett to those areas of law that constitute his distinguished academic career.
'Tmattractedtoideas,butIdon'tknowhowmany people are actually motivated by concepts," Rosett notes, as he shifts comfortably in his chair. "I file things much more easily under people than under ideas."
Hiscandorandeasecomeasarefeshingsurprise. Knowing a little about the breadth of his academic career,Ihadexpectedtomeetsomeonebookishand withdrawn; instead, I was greeted by an extremely colorfulandpersonablemanmarkedbyenthusiasm and a sincere love of people.
"For example," continues Rosett. "I don't think Iwouldbehereifitweren'tforUCLAlawprofessors Norm Abrams, Murray Schwartz, Dick Maxwell (former dean of the School of Law), and Monroe Price (former UCLA law professor]. And I don't think I would be enjoying contracts 20 years later if it weren't for the exciting years with Ad Mueller-andmyundeviatingexperiencethatUCLA law school each year has an interesting bunch of people in its first-year class," he chuckles.
Personal relationships also led Rosett to what he describes as "a love affair of ideas with Jewish and Japanese law." Like any law professor worth
histenure, Rosettisquicktosupplyampleevidence for his thesis.
Heexplains: "Iwouldn'tbeteachingJapaneselaw unless I'd had a very accidental but magical relationship with the late Hiroshi Wagatsuma," a professor of anthropology at UCLA who helped Rosett co-develop the School of Law's first course on Japanese Law.
Similarly,RosettcreditshisexplorationofJewish law to his relationships with Richard Levy, former UCLA Hillel director, and Elliot Dorff, a lecturer inlawatUCLAandprovostanddirectorofgraduate studiesatthe UniversityofJudaisminLosAngeles. Rosettand Dorffrecentlycompleted A Living Tree, a book which traces the development of the Jewish legal tradition.
Rosett and sociologist Donald Cressey of the University of California, Santa Barbara have also co-authored Justice by Consent, abookontheguilty plea and its place in the American criminal justice system.
Contract Law and Its Application, now about to go into its fourth edition, is also a joint effort of Rosett, the late Professor Addison Mueller and Professor Gerald Lopez. Clearly, Arthur Rosett is a man who enjoys his colleagues, both personally and professionally.
Fromaninterviewer'sperspective,however,Rosett suffers from a fatal flaw: he's modest.
He will talk about UCLA's graduate law degree program which attracts applicants from all over theworldtocompetefortenslotsintheadmissions process, but he'll forget to mention the fact that he created the program and has nurtured it from its inception.
Similarly, his stint as associate director for the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice [The National Crime
Ellen Klugman '84 has written far the New York Times, WallStreetJournalandotherperiodicals. Sheisafrequent contributor to this magazine.·
Commission] from 1965 to 1967 is hurriedly dismissedbyRosettasabrieffootnotetohowheended up at UCLA. Moreover, the fact that he was a research associate on the Model Penal Code may impress most other mortals, but doesn't seem to merit discussion if you ask Rosett.
In fact, even inquiring about his clerkship to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1959 to 1960 brings forth a torrent of admonitions from Rosett against being painted as a "blowhard."
Not wishing to appear as an insensitive interviewer, I have therefore waited these several paragraphs before touting what no one can contest as
anything but a distinguished, varied, and brilliant career.
"Chutzpah" byanyother name would be "pluck." And Arthur Rosett has plenty of it.
Take his clerkship for the U.S. Supreme Court, for instance. At the time, Rosett was in his third year at Columbia University Law School and had appliedforaclerkship withafederal districtcourt. The clerkship fell through at the last minute and Rosett assumed that he would never hear about theSupremeCourtclerkshipfor whichhe hadbeen recommended earlier. While waiting in great desperation as graduation approached, Rosett had a
TERRY
dream in which he wrote a letter to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stanley Reed saying family business would bring him to Washington and requesting an interview. When he awoke, he decided to follow the dream and wrote to Justice Reed.
Ten days later, he took the air shuttle to the capital. Hespentthemorningviewingmasterpieces in the National Gallery, then called Justice Reed's chambers. He was invited to an interview later in the day-and left Washington with clerkship in hand.
"I sometimes tell law students that tale because it's very hard for them to realize how many of the big choices in life are decided by ways other than the maneuvering of the conscious mind," Rosett says with a grin.
Rosett's year of clerkship was particularly fascinating because it came at an important juncture in the history of theSupremeCourt. "Itwasa court that was about to take off," Rosett recalls. "In the areaofcivilrightsandsegregation, Aaron v. Cooper had been decided the year before and President Eisenhower had sent the 82nd airborne division to enforce racialdesegregationof the schools of Little Rock.
"That act reminded people that what the court says is law and has the full force of government behindit. Maybe more thananyothersingle factor, itwasthatactwhichledthecourttofeelcomfortable in reaching out further than any court had ever donebeforeinitscriminallawandreapportionment decisions."
Rosett served Chief Justice Warren, as well as working for retired Justice Reed, who nonetheless remained quite active. According to Rosett, much of the most valuable education he received at the SupremeCourt was quite incidental tohisfunction as a law clerk.
Chief Justice Earl Warren loved to talk about California politics as he had known them from the inside for over a generation. And on rainy days, Justice Reed would call the young Rosett into his chambers to recall his days as Solicitor General during the Roosevelt New Deal.
Rosett also recalls the first day of work when he mistook the young Justice Stewart for a fellow lawclerk.Thentherewerethosetimeswhen Rosett would be asked by Justices Frankfurter and Black to defend memos he'd worked on for the Chief Justice.
It was during his Supreme Court clerkship that Rosett met Reginald Alleyne, future professor of labor law at UCLA who was a law clerk in Washington at the same time. Rosett and Alleyne got
alongwell.Sowell, thatafter Rosettjoined UCLA's faculty, he put Alleyne on the faculty search list.
Alleyne isn't the only UCLA colleague Rosett knew early in his career. In fact, ultimately, it was these relationships which Rosett credits with his decision to accept UCLA's teaching offer.
The year was 1967. By then, Rosett had already been an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York; a lecturer at Columbia UniversitySchoolofLaw;anattorneyinprivatepractice with Patterson, Belknap & Webb in New York; and associate director ofthe President's Commission on Law EnforcementandtheAdministrationofJustice.
"I moved around a lot in the first eight years of lawpractice," Rosettacknowledges. Didn'tstarting over each time bother him? "That's the fun part," he says laughing.
Whenthe NationalCrimeCommissionwasinthe process of disbanding, Rosett began looking at teaching positions. While interviewing at UCLA SchoolofLaw,hehaddinnerwiththelateProfessor Mel Nimmer and met Professor Murray Schwartz, whom he had never met before, but with whom hehadbeencorrespondingaboutproblemshefaced while at the Crime Commission.
In addition, he had known Professor Norman Abrams when Abrams was at the Department of Justice, and had known Professor Monroe Price when Price was the Department of Labor's ambassador to the Crime Commission.
In other words, for Rosett all roads led to UCLA, and those roads were paved with people.
Whether at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Crime Commission, through the graduate program, or through his current interest in Chinese law, it appears that the prospect of being on the cutting edge of things has always attracted Rosett. It's a factthat Rosettwillinglyacknowledges. Itwasone of the reasons he chose to teach at UCLA 20 years ago.
"While I had other offers from top rate law schools, I think it was very clear in 1967-1 felt it then and I feel it today-that UCLA was a school that was going somewhere. And that feeling has been richly fulfilled in the 20 years since."
"We'reafirst-ratenationallawschool,andmaybe, even international law school. And if we've made mistakes, at least we've taken the right stands.
"I think it was very important in the mid-1960s to take the stance we took with the admissions policy. No one else was taking it. And no one else stuck with it. And nobody else produced the kind ofspecialassetstotheCalifornia Barthatwehave," he says with pride and conviction.
Rosett also cites UCLA's clinical program as another early innovation among law schools. Naturally, the fact that Rosett, faculty colleague Ken Graham, and the late Professor Donald Hagman proposed the clinical program is learned only accidentallyby this interviewer.
Another program which broadens the smile on his face and increases the twinkle in his eye is the graduate law degree program which Rosett chairs. That program awards Master of Laws degrees to selectforeigngraduatelawyers.Oneofthedistinctive featuresoftheprogramisthefactthateach student is matched with afaculty member.
"My colleagues get no extra credit, and it's not part of their job description. They do it because they want to do it," Rosett exclaims with pride.
In addition to his other courses, Rosett runs a weeklygraduateseminarfor these Masterof Laws students.Inthefall,theseminaroffersanintensive introduction to American law.
"By October, the course changes shape and really becomes an opportunity for me to show off my colleagues," Rosett boasts. "Ken Karst on constitutional law; Murray Schwartz on ethics and the legal profession; Carrie Menkel-Meadow onthedeliveryoflegalservices;andMikeAsimow teaching the whole of administrative law in two hours flat. What could be better?" he asks, sitting back in his chair like a man who just finished savoring his favorite brandy.
Clearly, Arthur Rosett is a man who loves to share the spotlight with his colleagues.
Participantsinthegraduateprogramwhobenefit from their contact with Rosett and other UCLA School of Law professors come from 30 countries includingJapan,Pakistan,Mexico,Germany,China, YugoslaviaandSwitzerland. Exceptforthespecial graduate program seminar, these students attend courses and take exams with regular J.D. candidates.
Many of these Master of Laws candidates have distinguished themselves since graduation from the program. For example, the general counsel of Hyundai Motors Company, a legal advisor to the United Nations high commissioner on refugees, and an Icelandic judge are among the program's alumni.
Arthur Rosett is a man who seems happy in his
own skin. He seems to have found his niche in the law, and shares his personal life and his overlapping professional interests with his wife, Lucie-a UCLAprofessorofsociology,whoisalso an expert in Asian affairs.
In fact, on the day of this interview, Rosett and his wife were making final preparations for their eighth trip to China for an ongoing study of Chinese contract law-one of Professor Rosett's more recent interests.
His one frustration appears to be linked to the prospect of teaching criminal law again, despite his distinguished career in that area.
"My major criticism is that we don't do a very good job of teaching about the administration of criminal sanctions in our society," he explains with a frown.
"Only a handful of those arrested on felony charges ultimately are sent to prison, yet in law school little is said about the way millions of people in our country are selected for punishment by a system of official discretion. In making such choices,thedoctrinesofsubstantivelawweteach, such as the rules of mens rea, hardly matter at all. These decisions are not made on the basis of the fine definitions of the penal code, but on the basis of different systems.
"I believe that American lawyers should be trainedfromtheirfirstyearoflawschooltobetter understandthevaluesofthatprocessasitoperates and as it impinges on people's lives."
Rosett doesn't have the same conflict about teaching contracts. He sees that subject as "the classicexposurestudentsgettothenatureoflegal rules and the nature of authority."
"The course contains it all, yet it's not so hotsoheavilypoliticized-thatreasonablepeoplecan't talkaboutitwithoutbeingateachother'sthroats. So it's a wonderful medium to sit and talk with students about."
Aside from his academic distinctions, Arthur Rosettisamixofrealisticself-assessment,humility, and humor.
"I don't draw mobs of students," he says softly. 'Tmnottheprofessortheycometoforasofttouch. But there have been students that have learned something from me, I think."
"It's like baseball," he chuckles. "What's a good batting average? Maybe .300, or even .280." D
A Prescient Warning On The Dangers of Secrecy
arning that "the new judicial attitude on secrecy and national security"andthePresident's"consistent determination to close off the sourcesof public knowledge on the operation of foreign and defense policy" have endangered the people's right to examinenationalpolicy,columnistAnthonyLewis ofthe New York Timesdelivered thefirst Melville B. Nimmer MemorialLectureat UCLAin October. Lewis,authorof Gideon's Trumpetandrecipient ofthePulitzerPrize,openedthelecturebyrecalling Professor Nimmer's own courage in the area of freedomofexpression-citinghisargumentbefore the U.S. Supreme Court in Cohen v. California. Professor Nimmer, Lewis recalled, believed that "the roughness, the openness of American debate are things to be welcomed, not grudgingly tolerated."
The legal history of free speech in America, as Lewis traced it, shows that "an affirmative, welcoming view of 'tumultuous expression' has only infrequently and rather recently prevailed in the Supreme Court." Most early cases focused on the harm that free speech could do. It was not until 1931thatamajorityspokeoffreedomofexpression in positive terms with the Near v. Minnesota decision,followedbyBridgesv. Californiain1941, and New York Times v. Sullivanin 1964.
"Thosethreedecisionsallrelatedtheaffirmative value of free expression to its function in our political system," Lewis noted. "The Madisonian premise of the system is that the people are sovereign, they have the ultimate power and duty to judge the work of those who from time to time are their governors.They must therefore, in Madison's phrase, have 'the right of freely examining public characters and measures."'
Lewis suggested that this "right" is now in jeopardy; thatthetensionresultingfromtheglobal threat of nuclear war has resulted in "the rise of the national security state with its tendency to concentrate military and bureaucratic power in the White House," and has created an American state in which the President has an "enormous
personal power apparatus now taken for granted in the White House."
Lewis said that the two Constitutional safeguards-the separation of powers and the First Amendment-are now being severely tested because "as the Executive Branch has grown to dominance, so has it tried to control information, tried to limit public examination of its activities. And the reason given for secrecy about executive poweristhesameonethathassogreatlyenlarged that power: national security."
"It is a law of human nature that those who have power are jealous of it," said Lewis. "They do not generously share it; they wantmore ...The question is how well that institutional safeguard against the abuse of power is working in the age of the national security state, when the President stands bestride the governmentlike a colossus."
Lewis then spoke of President Reagan's determination to stop leaks in the name of national security,describing CIA Director William Casey's threats of criminal prosecution to members of the press if they published particular articles and books,theFBI'screationofaspecialteamofagents to look into disclosures of sensitive information to the press, and the tightening of the Freedom ofInformationAct.Finally,Lewiscitedanattempt by the President to impose a lifetime censorship of over 120,000 federal officials with access to classifiedinformation."Iamconvinced,"saidLewis, "that the various investigations and threats and administrative actions reflect a consistent determination to close off the sources of public knowledge on the operation of foreign and defense policy."
Lewis questioned whether the Pentagon Papers case, commonly believed to be "the last great test in the Supreme Court of the right to publish supposed national security secrets," was indeed a victory for free speech. In that case, the government won temporary restraints against the publication of classified volumes of an official secret history of the Vietnam War on the grounds that "the Constitutional powers of the President over foreign policy and defense entitled him to
The Melville B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture
UCLA SCHOOL OF LAw
ANTHONY LEWIS
NATIONAL SECURITY: MUTING THE "VITAL CRITICISM"
OCTOBER 22, 1986
defineofficialsecretsinthoseareasandtoenforce his view in the courts." By a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Courtrejectedthegovernment'sclaimon the basis that "there was no statutory authority for the injunction sought," and that "the First Amendment creates a presumption against prior restraintsagainstpublication-onethatcannotbe overcome in the national security area without a showing ... that disclosures will surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our nation or its people."
Lewis suggested that the foundations of the Pentagon Papers decision have been jeopardized bythe1980 SupremeCourtcaseof Snepp v. United States, when CIA official Frank Snepp authored a book involving CIA sources without submitting the manuscript for clearance by the agency. The courtgrantedthegovernmentapermanentinjunction against Snepp, barring him from writing or speaking on intelligence matters without prior clearance by the CIA, and levying a constructive trustonhisearningsfromthebook'sgrossreceipts, all done without briefs or oral argument. This decision approved, for the first time, a prior restraint against speaking about matters of governmentpolicy,andtherebyrejected"thetwoapparent foundations of (thecourt's) decisionsinthe Pentagon Papers case."
Lewis indicated that this "dangerous" trend of
criminal prosecution of a government employee for giving material to the press could result in an American version of the "muchcriticized" British Official Secrets Act, which makes it generally unlawful to disclose classified information. He related the recent case of Samuel Loring Morison, a civilian employee of the Navy who was charged with the theft of government property under the Espionage Act of 1917. Morison had given avy photographsofa SovietaircraftcarriertoaBritish publication, Jane's Fighting Ships.
Despite the fact that "neither Congress nor the ExecutivehadtreatedtheEspionageActascovering transmission of material for publication in the absence of 'bad motives,"' and that Morison's motives were "patriotic," and that the Soviets "would not gain from the picture published in Jane's,"thejudgefeltthatMorison'smotives"were irrelevant." "Equally irrelevant ... was any proof ofdamagetothenationalsecurity.Communication tounauthorizedpersonswasanoffense,whatever themotive,"accordingtothejudge,whosuggested thatthejurycouldweighthe "potential"damagewhatever that may be.
LewiscriticizedtheEspionageAct's "vaguelanguage"because"thestatuteinvolvedissosweeping inwhatitcovers: communicationofanydocument, writing, photograph or other matter 'relating to the nationaldefense"'asliableforcriminalprosecution.
"Thatagovernmentwouldtrytocontrolknowledgeinordertoincreaseitspowerwouldnothave surprised Mel Nimmer," concluded Lewis. "The Morisoncaseshowsthedangersofthenewjudicial attitudeonsecrecyandnationalsecurity: theview that courts should enforce the wishes of the Executive, imposing draconian civil penalties and criminal punishment, even when it is necessary to rewrite statutes or make up law wholesale ... Madison's vision of a sovereign citizenry freely examining public characters and measures is in dangerofbecominganemptypromise,withcitizens deprived of the knowledge needed for intelligent decisions."
"Ifthiscountryneedsanything,"Lewissuggested, "it is not new ways to confine decision-making tothe FederalExecutivebutnewwaystoexamine its policies, to criticize, to dissent." D
The lecture's full text will appear in the UCLA Law Review, Volume 34, Number 5-6, as part of the Melville B. Nimmer Symposium.
The Melville B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture was supported by gifts from family and Friends.
AALS Meeting In LosAngeles Is Attended
by 2,900
More than 2,900law professors, deans and librarians from over 175 U.S. law schools and from other countries-joined by judges, state and federal officials-gathered in Los Angeles for the 84th annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) in early January. It was the largest attendance in the association's history.
Dean Susan Westerberg Prager, president of the AALS during the past year, presidedat the annual meeting. Professor Steven H.Shiffrin chaired the plenary session on "The Idea of the Constitution" which featuredsix distinguished scholars.
In her remarks to the AALS House of Representatives, Dean Prager stressed themes which characterized her term as head of the national organization which seeks to improve the legal profession through legal education.
"My thoughts," Dean Prager told the assembled law school representatives, "have clustered around the importance of nurturing diversity in our law schools, particularly in our law faculties.
"The challenge for those faculties or faculty members who value a diverse intellectual and professional environment is to create an atmosphere in which many perspectives are not simply present but are regarded as valuable or at least genuinely tolerable."
UCLA faculty speaking at the four-day conference included Professors Richard Abel, Michael Asimow, Grace Blumberg, Daniel Brenner, Julian Eule, Joel Handler, Christine Littleton, Carrie MenkelMeadow, Arthur Rosett, Gary Schwartz and William Warren.
AALS delegatesfilled the convention hall, above, for the plenary session.
Dean Susan WesterbergPragerpresided at the annual meeting, andProfessor Michael Asimow was among UCLA faculty speakers.
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAWSCHOOLS
FCC's Dennis Patrick Keynotes Symposium
Chairman-designate Dennis Patrick of the Federal Communications Commission keynoted the Fifth Biennial Communications Law Symposium March 5 in Los Angeles. Commissioner Patrick, recently named by President Reagan as the FCC's next chairman, is a member of the Class of 1976.
Business and legal experts speaking at the symposium focused on the protection of film and television distribution rights in international markets.
The symposium, titled "Following the Footprints: Protecting Film and TV Rights in the World Satellite Marketplace," was sponsored by the UCLA CommunicationsLaw Program in cooperation with the International Bar Association and the American Film Marketing Association.
Speakers came from the United States,Tokyo,Rome,London,Sydney, Stockholm and other centers of the film and television industry. Pro-
fessors Daniel Brenner and Charles Firestone of the School of Law coordinated the symposium.
A 300-page resource manual publishedfor the symposium is available and can be ordered by contacting Doris Davis at the Communications Law Program, (213) 206-0534 or (213) 825-6211.
Greater Copyright Protection Urged For Choreography
The art of dancechoreography has long been neglected by U.S. copyright laws. While other art forms such as literature, music and film enjoy continued security, choreographic works often elude protection. The problem stems from the unique nature of dance and the difficulty in recording its movements.
Ways to strengthen copyright protection of choreography are proposed by Leslie Erin Wallis, former professional ballet dancer and a 1986 graduate of the School of Law, in a comment recently published by the UCLA Law Review. Titled "The Different Art: Choreography and Copyright," the work appears in Volume 23, Number 5 of the law review. (In a footnote, Wallis expresses gratitude to her father, Martin R. Horn '54, "who sparkedmy initial interest in the law.")
When Congress revised the Copyright Act in 1976, it included choreographic works under U.S. copyright protection for the first time. Prior exclusion of this art is attributed to the difficulty in adequately recording movements beyond a transitory duration.
Modern recording techniques such as written dance notation and videotape now permit fixation of choreography "in a tangible medium of expression" as required by law, explains Wallis, who herself learned the difficult art of dance notation called choreology.
Prior to the 1976 revised copyright law, choreographic works could only enjoy protection if they qualified under other included categories such as "dramatic composition that tells a story." But, as Wallis points out,
not all choreography tells a story. This left a great deal of choreographic art unprotected.
Although she welcomes the inclusion of choreographic works under the 1976 Copyright Act, the former ballerina also expresses some concerns. She emphasizes that dance is uniquefromotherformsofartcovered bytheact,suchasliteratureandmusic. Dance is not in writtenor verbal form. Unlike other artists, choreographers must rely on others, namely dancers, to create their art. Therefore, Wallis says, choreography deserves novel treatment by the law.
But the 1976 Copyright Act's treatment of choreography is not novel. Wallis explains that the act creates two problematic areas. Not only does it fail to define the terms relating to choreographic work, but it also requires fixation. "Under the 1976 act, a work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression if it is 'sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."'
Currently, the means of fixation such as videotape and dance notation are expensive, time-consuming, inaccurate and not constitutionally mandated, says Wallis. Recordation is not necessary to preserve choreography, she notes, because "dance works have been handed down through the use of demonstration and verbal instruction since the art of dance began." The choreography for "Swan Lake," for example, has survived since 1877.
Wallis points out that under the Constitution and the 1976 Copyright Act, protection is only given to "writings." Yet, that term has always been broadly interpreted. Wallis believes that choreography falls within all definitional limits placed on the term "writings" by courtdecisions.
She advocates eliminating the fixation requirement in order to alleviatechoreographers'fears of piracy. In turn, this would allow them to create and exhibit more works. As a concrete alternative, Wallis offers West Germany's approach to copyright which protects choreographic work from its inception rather than focusing on the time of fixation. Wallis advocates the emphasis on the time of inception in order to discouragepossibleinfrin-
gers with thethreat of lawsuit. This threat would begin at the onset of a creation of awork,affordingchoreographersmore protection.
Wallis concedes that without some form of recordation, there is a problem in proving that a work actually belongs to a particular artist. She therefore suggests a fixation requirement only as a prerequisite to filing an infringement suit.
Greater protection of choreographic works not only will inspire more art to the benefit of all society, Wallis concludes, but it will also provide monetary gain for choreographers who, according to the former ballerina, are notoriously underpaid.
Law Student Project Helps Homeless To Cut Red Tape
Students at the School of Law are taking part in a program which helps homeless men and women in Los Angeles County to cut through red tapeandobtainemergencyassistance.
The law students are volunteers in the HomelessLegalAssistance Project, which wasestablishedby the Legal Aid Foundationof Los Angeles.
Several afternoons each week, law students from UCLA travel to offices of the Department of Public Social Services in the Rancho Park, South Central Los Angeles and BeverlyRampart areas.
The students spend three.to four hourseachsessionassistingthehomeless and near-homeless to find their way through the welfare system.
In more than half the cases handled by the student advocates, the basic problem is a lack of knowledge on how to find help, according to Margaret Holub of the Legal Aid Foundation. The students simply help their clients to find answers from the appropriate staff members in the local social service offices.
It is not uncommon for homeless persons to wait more than six hours to seean assigned caseworker, but the presence of a student advocate can help to expedite assistance.
The law students are also assisting applicants for Social Security benefits and clients in similar pro-
grams, in addition to their work among the homeless.
Students involved in the project say it has several benefits to their own education. They get a first-hand view of the problems inherent in a large government agency. They spend some time away from the isolated environment of school. And they derive satisfaction from having accomplished something as important as helping to ensure that a client will have food or shelter.
The UCLA law students became involved in the project after alumnus Elena Popp '85 contacted Joseph Kennedy, a third-year student at the law school.
While more than 25 UCLA students volunteered for the program in the first semester this year, Kennedy says that interest in the work is strong and still growing among his fellow law students.
Conference on AIDS Sees Legal Issues In Medical Context
Legal issues raised by AIDS were examined in light of current medical knowledge about the human immunodeficiency virus at a conference on "AIDS: Legal Rights in Conflict" at the School of Law on Oct 11.
Morethan100attorneys,healthprofessionals, leadersofagenciesworking on AIDS-relatedproblemsand members ofthe news mediaattended.
Among the federal and state health officials speaking was Dr. John J. Howard, a 1986 graduate of the law school now with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C.
Legal experts speaking included Professor Julian Eule of the law faculty and David Schulman, Deputy City Attorney for Los Angeles and a 1978 alumnus of the law school. Schulman described the nature of AIDSdiscrimination and the application of the city's AIDSordinancethenation's first law specifically prohibiting AIDS discrimination. Professor Eule analyzed issues found in the workplace and schools, and involuntary testing for the AIDS virus.
Symposium Speakers See Turning Point In Film, TV Industry
The motion picture and television industry is at a crucial turning point and faces an uncertain future. That was the consensus of entertainment lawyers, executives and producers who spoke at the 11th annual UCLA EntertainmentSymposiumDec.12-13.
The home video explosion, the cable revolution and the expanding influence of independent television stations are among the recent developments which speakers agreed will forever change the face of the entertainment industry.
The 250 members of the entertainment and legal communities who met at UCLA analyzed the current metamorphosis in their industry from the perspectives of theatrical motion pictures, home video, free and pay television, the producer and financing sources.
The annual symposium is sponsored by the School of Law and the UCLA Entertainment Symposium Advisory Committee. Coordinators for this year's program were Keith Fleerof Warner Brothersand Gregory Paul of O'Melveny & Myers.
A panel on theatrical motion pictures concluded that audiences have leveled off because of three major factors: the deepening penetration of the market by home video, an overall aging of the prime motion picture audience, and the lack of blockbuster films.
Otherproblematicareas identified were runaway production budgets, inflated advertising expenses and the recentacquisitionof theater chains by distribution/production companies.
By contrast, a panel on home video presented an increasingly prosperous picture of the burgeoning videocassette industry, stating that last year's videocassette sales and rentals equalled theatrical box-office receipts-and will very likely surpass total receipts thisyear.
Television distribution executives traced the path of the advertising dollar in a panel on free television.
It was generally agreed that while the three major television networks will continueto be a dominant force, they are witnessing a steady and continuing decline. The networks' loss of viewers to cable and independent stations and subsequent loss of advertisino revenue, combined with the pervasive effects of a "disinflation" economy, have resulted in slashed production budgets and increased adverti ing rates to the sponsors-policie that the panelists felt would only contribute to the downward spiral.
Conversely, the rising cable and independent television networks were considered as alternatives to the major networks. An increase in thenumber of independent television stations, the ability of independent television production companies to cut production costs without sacrificing quality, the growth of both regional and national cable companies, and the advent of syndication networks comprised of independent television stations exclusively, are all responsible for the grad4.ally diminishinginfluenceof the major television networks.
The syllabus for the symposium is available at the School of Law and can be ordered from Carol Afshar at (213) 825-2899.
Alumni Directory
Phone Follow-Up
Begins in June
Starting in June, a telephone followup will begin to verify information to be published in a UCLA School of Law Alumni Directory by the Harris Publishing Company. The directory should be printed by December 1987.
A questionnaire has been mailed to all alumni with addressess on file. Since the directory will be printed without cost to the law school, the phone representatives will invite alumni to order personal copies.
In addition to individual listings of alumni with specializations, there will also be a geographical listing by city, state and country.
John A. Arguelles
John A. Arguelles
Named by Governor To Supreme Court
Justice John A. Arguelles '54 of the Second District Court of Appeal has been named by Governor George Deukmejian to the California Supreme Court. Arguelles will become the first alumnus of the UCLA School of Law to serve on the Supreme Court.
Known for his calm and gentlemanly judicial demeanor, Justice Arguelles is also warm in his support of the law school and the university. He was an undergraduate at UCLA before entering its law school. "After spending four of the happiestyearsofmylifeonthe UCLA campus," he recalled in a recent interview, "the thought of three more was very appealing."
Arguelles practicedlaw in East Los Angeles, and was elected to the Montebello City Council in 1962 by the largest vote in the city's history. A year later, at the age of 36, he was appointed to the East Los Angeles Municipal Court. He was elevated to the Superior Court in 1969 and had been a trial judge for 21 years when he became an appellate justice on the 2nd District in 1984.
Classnotes
The 1950s
Kenneth E. Kulzick '56 appears in the 44th edition of Who's Who in America. Kulzick is a Los Angeles media attorney.
Lee B. Wenzel '57 has been elected vice president and president-elect of the American Board of Trial Advocates [ABOTA), a group of trial lawyers throughout the U.S. who represent both plaintiffs and defendants. There are 2,100 members in 50 chapters in 35states.Wenzelwill be installed as president in Hawaii in November 1987.
The 1960s
M. Alan Bunnage '60 is president of the Beverly Hills Education Foundation. He is also a vice-president of the Beverly Hills Historical Society and secretary of the Rotary Club of Beverly Hills.
H. Roy Jeppson '63 has been a sole practitioner in Westwood since September 1984.
Thomas M. Jones '65 has recently formed a new partnership of Reed & Jones in Costa Mesa and Ontario.
Stanley M. Weisberg '68 has been appointed by Governor Deukmejian to the Los Angeles Municipal Court.
Michael M. Crain '69 and Rowan K. Klein '69 have formed the partnership of Klein & Crain. The firm specializes in criminal defense at the trial and appellate levels, and prison law.
Jan C. Gabrielson '69 published an articlein the November '86 edition of the Los Angeles Lawyerentitled "Why Business, Tax and Estate Lawyers Shouldn't Handle Marital Dis-
solutions." He was recently elected counsel to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers - Southern California chapter.
Jean Lonberg '69 was recently elected vice-president and counsel to Keystone Massachusetts Group, Inc., a Boston-based mutual fund complex.
The 1970s
Kenneth Ross '73, formerly assistant general counsel for Emerson Electric Co., St. Louis, Missouri, has become a partner at the80-lawyer St.Louis and Kansas City law firm of Husch, Eppenberger, Donohue, Cornfeld & Jenkins. He will concentrate in corporate litigation, particularly product liability and environmental, and corporate preventive law counseling.
Susan Bush Carnahan '74 was appointed assistant general counsel for Hewlett Packard in Palo Alto. She is responsible for a group of attorneys who handle all legal marketing issues. She recently spent four months in Geneva, substituting for Hewlett Packard's European legal counsel. She was accompanied by her husband, Sandy, and son, David, now two years old. Susan has been with Hewlett Packard since 1978.
Bruce L. Kaplan '74 practicedwith the law firm of Greenberg,Bernhard, Weiss & Karma until 1980. In 1980 he began working for A-Mark Precious Metals, Inc. where he uses many of the skills which he learned during law school. Bruce appeared in the "Business People" section of the New York Times, September 15, 1986 issue.
Nancy M. Knight '74 has become associated with the law offices of Theodore S. Wentworth, in Irvine.
Tom Oldham '74 is author of Texas
Marital Property Rights-Cases and Materials, published by the John Marshall Press.
Percy Anderson '75waselectedapartner in the Los Angeles firm of Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts. He joined the firm in 1985 after serving as first assistant division chief in the U.S. Attorney's office in Los Angeles.
James Vidor Kosnett '76 has opened new offices in the Mid-Wilshire area, specializing in taxation, bankruptcy and business law.
Suzanne Smith Sorknes '76 was promoted to vice-president for King Broadcasting Company in Seattle.
Larry Walker '76 holds office as San BernardinoCountySupervisor,fourth district. He previously served two yearsasaChinoCityCouncilmember and six-and-a-half years as the mayor of Chino. He has practiced law for ten years in San Bernardino County.
Norma Acland '77 has been working in the London office of theNew York-based firm, Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn since June 1986.
Steven Davis '77 was made a partner in the law firm of Bushkin, Gaims, Gaines & Jonas on October 1, 1986. He specializes in entertainment and business litigation. On September 28, 1985 he married Julie Ann Shuer, an occupational therapist with a private practice inLos Angeles.
Lawrence J. Dreyfuss '77 has joined in the formation of the law firm of Cameron, Dreyfuss & Wolf in Orange, emphasizing business and real estate Iiligation as well as servicing the mortgage banking business.
Carl J. Klunder '77 has formed the firm of Ramsay, Johnson & Klunder in Irvine. He specializes in insurance law. He notes he would be happy to hear from classmates.
Nancy R. Alpert '78 has become vice president and deputy general counsel at John Blair & Company, a diversified communicationscompany headquartered inNew York. Previously, she was assistant vice president and corporate counsel at Reliance Group Holdings, Inc. inNew York.
DENNIS R. PATRICK '76 has been named Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission by President Reagan. He has been a commissioner since 1983. Earlier, he was associate director of presidential personnel, responsible for a number of independent regulatory agencies.
Vernon T. Meador III '78 has become a partner of the law firm of McCutchen, Black. Verleger & Shea.
Helen Whiteford Melman '78 has become a partner of Hughes Hubbard & Reed in Los Angeles.
Michael A. Robbins '78 has become a partner in the law firm of Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz in Los Angeles. He is practicing labor law.
Douglas W. Stern '78 has become a partner in the lawfirm of Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz in Los Angeles. He is in the litigation area.
Douglas L. Walton '78 has joined the legal staff of Donald T. Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers professional basketball team, with offices in Beverly Hills.
Lawrence W. Berger '79 has been elected a partner in the Los Angeles firm of Alschuler, Grossman & Pines. He will continue to practice in the areas of business and real estate law.
Richard J. Burdge, Jr. '79 has become a member of the firm of Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood. He will practice in Los Angeles.
Mark Burrill '79 received his LL.M. in Asian and Comparative Law from the University of ashington School of Law in June 1986. He is currently studying Japanese at the Stanford Center in Tokyo until June 1987.
James D. Friedman '79 has become a partner at Loeb andLoeb. He has worked in the firm's real estate department since graduation.
Bruce D. May '79 joined the law firm of Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth inNewport Beach in March 1986. He is continuing to specialize in labor law, representing management. He co-authored Employee Termination Handbook which has been published by John Wiley & Sons (New York]. The book is a treatise on wrongfuldischarge law.
Timm A. Miller '79 has become a member of the firm of Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood. He will practice in Los Angeles.
Kelly J. Mullins '79 is a deputy public defender for Los Angeles County.
Richard P. Towne '79 has joined the LosAngelesofficeofWyman,Bautzer, Christensen, Kuchel & Silbert, where his practice includes criminal defense, entertainment, First Amendment and general business litigation. In March 1987, Richard will serve as program chairmanfor the first annual conference on current developments in entertainment litigation, sponsored by UCLA Extension.
The 1980s
Bill DeGrandis '80 recently published "Proving Causation in Antidumping Cases" in ABA's The International Lawyer (Spring 1986, Volume 20, No. 2). He is practicing in the business law department of the Washington, D.C., office of Paul. Hastings, Janofsky & Walker.
Mark Garrett '80 received a master's degree in urban planning from the UCLA Graduate School of Archi-
tecture in June 1986. He recently became associated with the firm of Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri in Los Angeles, specializing in real estate, land use and municipal law.
Joshua L. Green '80 became partner in the law firm of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison in October 1986. He is located in the Palo Alto office.
Dennis J. Landin '80 is the senior trial deputy at the Federal Public Defender's office in Los Angeles.
Alan Mintz '80 has become associated with the firmof Ziffren, Brittenham & Branca in Los Angeles.
Daniel L. Appelman '81 has become associated with the firm of Kadison, pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi in its Palo Alto office.
Susan J. Bell '81 has returned to Washington, D.C. and is an associate at Thompson & Mitchell, a St. Louisbased firm.
Gregory S. Feis '81 and his wife have relocated to Washington, D.C., where he is now associated with the D.C. office of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.
Paul A. Graziano '81 has become a partner in the firm of Allen and Kimbell in Santa Barbara. He will
continue to practice in the areas of tax and business planning, and estate planning andadministration.
Michael A. Krahelski '81 is a counsel for Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, the Nissan financing arm in the United States, at its national headquartersinCarson, California.
Daniel Marquez '81 has been elected chairperson of the Westside Legal Services board of directors. He is a housing attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles.
George M. Wallace '81 has become a principal in the firm of Spray, Gould & Bowers. He continues to specialize in insurance coverage and related exotica.
Nicholas Benes '82 is working in Tokyo for Morgan Guaranty Ltd., in investment banking. He recently moved from the swaps team to the "institutional investors" team. He writes that legal training has been extremely useful in devising new products, because of his ability to debatetheirmeritsin his own mind.
Samuel Fischer '82 has become associated with the firm of Ziffren, Brittenham & Branca in Los Angeles.
Donna Crowley Hecht '82 has taken two years off from Irell & Manella
to care for her beautiful new baby girl, Lillian Elizabeth, who was born on October 6, 1986.
Rod Mills '82 has become a partner of the firm of Seifer, Yeats, Whitney & Mills in Portland, Oregon. His practice emphasizes construction litigation.
Cathryn Campbell '83 has joined Irell & Manella in September 1986 as first patent attorney in the firm's newly-formed patent group. She specializes inbiotechnology and genetic engineering.
Steven Ray Garcia '83 has obtained his community colleges teaching credential and is teaching legal aspects of real estate at Citrus College. He and his wife have a new daughter, Vicki Charlotte, born March 31, 1986. He is associated with Levinson & Lieberman in Beverly Hills.
Ronald S. Whitaker '83 has become associated with the Los Angeles office of Spray, Gould & Bowers.
Robert Charles Ceccon '84 has joined thelitigationdepartmentat Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles.
Sandra W. Lavigna '84 has become associated with the firm of Danning, Gill, Gould, Diamond & Spector in Los Angeles.
Lise A. Rehberg '84 has recently accepted a position with Capitol Records in Los Angeles.
B.J. Cling '85 just finished a clerkship with Judge Arthur Alarcon on the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. She is taking a trip to China and then moving to New York City to join Davis, Polk & Wardwell in the firm'scorporate department.
David J. Meyer '85 has joined the New York office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges in the trade regulation department. His essay written for Professor Nimmer'scopyrightseminar was awarded third prize inASCAP's NathanBurkanMemorialCompetition.
Helen M. Mickiewicz '85 accepted a position as legal counsel to the California Public Utilities Commission in San Francisco. She will be working in the area of telecommunications regulation.
Anne Beytin Torkington '85 has left private firm practice to accept a position as a civil rights trial attorney at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los Angeles district office.
IN MEMORIAM
John Hobart Goodwin '83, July16, 1986.
Diane Elizabeth Johnson '83, September 1986.
Steven T. Kelber '76 September 23, 1986.
Gerald Sisler Martin II '76, October 1, 1986.
Calendar of Events
Thursday, April 23, 1987-Downtown Regional Reception, The Tower, Los Angeles City Hall, 6:30 p.m. Guest Speaker-Professor Ken Graham.
Saturday, April 25, 1987-Class of '52 Thirty-fifth Reunion, The Bistro, 246 North Canon Drive, Beverly Hills, 7 p.m.
Wednesday, May 6, 1987-San Diego
Regional Luncheon, Westgate Hotel Ambassador Room, 1055 Second Avenue, San Diego, oon. Guest Speaker-Professor orman Abrams.
May-Class of '62 Reunion
May-Class of '6 Reunion
Wednesday, May 27, 1987-Westside Alumni Reception, Tiberio's Restaurant, 2020 Avenueof the Stars, 6:30 p.m.
Saturday, June 27, 1987-Class of '57 ReunionDinner/Dance, James E. est Center, UCLA. Cocktails, 7 p.m.; Dinner, 8 p.m.
September-Class of '72 Reunion
September 18-22, 1987, State Bar Annual Meeting, Century Plaza Hotel, Los Angeles. September 21, UCLA Alumni Luncheon at State Bar Meeting, oon-1:30p.m.
