Law Student Clinic Participation Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4194 would address an unfortunate consequence of current law that hinders participation by law students in pro bono clinics, which limits the provisions of these needed services to the community. It is appropriate that this resolution follow that of Justice Brandeis, who really was the father of pro bono work.

Title 18, section U.S.C. 205 makes it a crime for a Federal Government employee to provide legal assistance to anyone bringing a case adverse to the United States or in bringing a case adverse to a substantial U.S. interest. Section 205(b) applies the same rule to employees of the District of Columbia.

For law school students or legal clinic staff who hold government jobs, this criminalizes participation in a wide range of political programs, including those funded by the Federal Government. Law students or legal clinic staff who are full- or part-time government employees face criminal penalties if they participate in law school pro bono clinics that represent plaintiffs whose claims are adverse to the Federal or D.C. Governments. Yet this opportunity is important for students to learn their craft and become lawyers.

This disqualifies the law students from participation in many service activities that benefit both the students and the wider community, among them juvenile justice clinics, death penalty appeal projects, advocacy programs on behalf of parents with special needs children, and low-income taxpayer clinics.

This also has the perverse effect of forcing law students to choose between government service and community service. It also needlessly deprives government employees of a range of real-world educational experiences that would be particularly beneficial to them when they become lawyers. Just this year, this Congress passed the Edward Kennedy Service Act encouraging people to participate in public service, and this is another area where we should encourage it.

This is a misguided choice to force on law students, for they should be able to have both government and community service and be encouraged to do so. This bill will stop the law from forcing them to have this conflict.

Section 205 already contains an exemption that narrows the definition of ``conflict of interest'' to those instances of actual conflict: cases in which a government attorney substantially and personally participated as a government employee, and cases in which the employee's department or agency is currently directly participating.

By applying this exemption to law students and legal clinic staff, the bill will eliminate the pernicious effects of section 205 while retaining its safeguards against true conflict of interest. Law students and legal clinic staff would be able to participate in law school clinics that are, by their nature, adverse to the Federal or D.C. Government while continuing to prohibit actual conflicts of interest involving specific parties.

Law students and staff who choose government service would remain subject to governmental conflict of interest rules while also being permitted to enjoy the same clinical resources and opportunities as their peers.

I commend our colleague Congressman Dan Lungren from California for his leadership on this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source