It was Day Three of orientation for the Class of 2011. Roaming the stage of Vanderbilt Hall, Hills was energetically demonstrating the Socratic method of teaching as he and six 2Ls dissected the definition of “eminent domain” and how it could be applied. “If people don’t ask questions, I will call on them,” he warned. Then, turning to one student, he rapped out, “What’s wrong with this argument, Ms. Goldman? You have 30 seconds.”

If the prospect of undergoing Professor Hills’s catechism at first seemed terrifying to Previti and her 447 fellow first-year students, most said his obvious goodwill and sense of humor left them reassured. “He showed that you need to be prepared but he will help you along,” said Josh Levy ’11. Vice Dean Barry Friedman couldn’t be more pleased with this answer. The architect of J.D. orientation, he deliberately ditched the traditional combination of speeches and social events for a more dynamic, heuristic model. “We decided to focus on a very substantive orientation that acquaints students with what is going to happen when they hit the classroom,” said Friedman.

This year’s orientation was built around Kelo, chosen because the case touches on many first-year curriculum teaching points and is recent enough that students may remember its newspaper headlines. (The case involves a lawsuit by Susette Kelo, whose New London, Connecticut, home was condemned to be razed for an office park under the right of eminent domain.) “We take the case almost from cradle to grave to illustrate some of the stages that law students would experience,” explained Friedman. “We tried to give them a chance to see it from a lot of different perspectives, to be consistent with NYU’s advantages and uniqueness.”

The previous day of orientation had introduced students to Kelo through a moot court. Dennis Jacobs ’73, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Barbara S. Jones and Victor Marrero, both U.S. District Court judges for the Southern District of New York, heard the arguments. Richard Epstein, James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, who in 2010 will join the faculty of NYU Law, presented an impassioned plea for the petitioner, calling New London’s development plan “a giant intellectual and planning fiasco.” Jane Gordon, New York City’s senior counsel in the Office of the Corporation Counsel, vigorously argued that economic development is a public purpose and therefore the Fifth Amendment clause on public use—“ nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”—applied.

An actual verdict wasn’t rendered, since the three judges may hear eminent domain cases in the course of their real-life judicial duties, but they did share their general thoughts. Jacobs discussed the difficulties of deciding cases based on conflicting values, as well as the importance of sidestepping compelling but essentially extraneous material in order to focus on the key elements. Jones explained the differences between higher and lower courts, noting, for instance, that higher courts look at the broad principles of a case while lower courts concentrate on scrutinizing the minute facts.

The students had already had some hands-on experience in scrutinizing minute facts on the first day of orientation. The occasion was a scavenger hunt designed to introduce them to Greenwich Village, the Law School’s history, and their classmates, part of the orientation’s goal of building esprit de corps. “The great thing about orientation is meeting people,” said Previti. “Having a sense of community helps a lot in decreasing your apprehension.”

There were plenty of people to meet. After moot court, students mingled with the judges, professors, and law school alumni in the elegant setting of Gotham Hall. Inviting alumni to participate in orientation was new this year but is something Friedman intends to repeat. “ They’re an outstanding resource that we can and should call on more,” he said.

The orientation also showcased the depth and breadth of the Law School’s faculty. Professor Hills’s mock class was followed by a postmortem panel discussion with Law School faculty that demonstrated “how the law operates in many different dimensions,” said Friedman. Professor Daniel Hulsebosch took a historical view of eminent domain clauses. Vicki Been ’83, Boxer Family Professor of Law, who teaches classes on property law and is director of the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, talked about how public policies affect private neighborhoods and communities in very real and profound ways. Burt Neuborne, Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties and an active litigator, examined Kelo from a practitioner’s perspective. “Something that often gets lost in the intellectual feast that is law school is our social role,” he noted. “We’re supposed to be advisers and tell our clients what they should do to bring their affairs into legal concordance.”

As everyone drifted off to pick up their box lunches and picnic with their section’s faculty, the mood among the first-year students was considerably more relaxed than it had been the day before. So far, students noted, NYU was living up to its reputation for being collegial and collaborative. “The professors don’t have that Paper Chase attitude of drilling you into submission,” said Eric McLaughlin ’11. “People seem more cooperative and less cutthroat than other places. There’s a sense that everyone wants to work hard but isn’t obsessed.”

If there’s one lesson Friedman wanted students to take away from orientation, it’s precisely that: “There are tough schools and friendly schools. We’re both really tough and really friendly.” Orientation, he added, should help students to start law school at NYU “comfortable in the classroom, familiar with people around them, and happy to be in New York City.”

–

All of 2009 Student Spotlight

2009 Home

The case involves the long-running asbestos litigation. After Travelers and other insurers contributed to a $2.8 billion settlement fund in exchange for immunity from the bankruptcy court from future claims, plaintiffs’ lawyers found other grounds to sue. Following mediation, Travelers then funded a $500 million trust in return for clarification that it would be immune from future claims. Plaintiffs not part of the new settlement objected, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed, finding that the bankruptcy court did not have the power to immunize Travelers from other claims. The Supreme Court granted review.

Karabell, now an associate at Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C., began assisting Issacharoff, who represents the plaintiffs against Travelers, in January. He reviewed Supreme Court and circuit case law, legislative history, and scholarship. Students from the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic also assisted with the brief, and that clinic and its director, Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law, were co-counsel on the brief.

Once the brief was submitted, Karabell helped Issacharoff prepare for oral argument by researching potential questions from the bench. Justice Souter asked whether subjectmatter jurisdiction ever can be challenged collaterally if it is not contested in the first proceeding. Issacharoff relied on Karabell’s research to answer that the Court had never squarely addressed the issue. “I had run through the argument a million times in my head. As a result, it was fascinating to watch everything unfold several rows in front of me.”

–

All of 2009 Student Spotlight

2009 Home

In the fictitious case Veruca Salt v. United States, created by Roxana Labatt ’10 and Kate Corbett Malloy ’10, the petitioner appealed her conviction for attempting to smuggle piñatas filled with oxycodone into the country. She argued that the government had violated her Fifth Amendment rights by introducing as evidence of guilt Salt’s silence prior to her arrest and the reading of her Miranda rights. She also asserted that the Constitution’s ex post facto clause had been violated when the district court judge looked to a newer version of the federal sentencing guidelines that recommended a longer sentence, rather than the guidelines in place at the time of Salt’s offense.

These were thorny questions that, as McConnell pointed out, were “pitched at pressure points within the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.” Both the petitioner’s counsel, Daniel Weinstein ’09 and Vikram Kumar ’10, and the respondent’s counsel, Matthew Lafargue ’10 and Beth George ’10, faced a barrage of challenging queries from the panel of judges.

Kumar tackled the question of the sentencing guidelines for the defense. Pointing out that a district court can impose a sentence of its choosing, Alito asked, “Why does it make a difference whether the judge imposes an above-guidelines sentence based on new information that is contained in an amendment to the guidelines that is inapplicable to this case, as opposed to similar information that is brought to the judge’s attention in any other form—in a law review article, in a newspaper editorial, on a TV show?” Kumar answered, “Because the guidelines serve as the initial benchmark as per this court’s holding in [Calder v. Bull], and when that benchmark moves in a way that disadvantages a defendant, a significant risk of harsher punishment is created, and the ex post facto clause is violated.”

On the government’s side, Lafargue made a forceful argument that Salt’s Miranda rights were not triggered prior to her being taken into custody. “I’m not sure that this doesn’t undermine Miranda altogether,” Motz said. “If we should hold your way here, don’t we encourage police officers to just keep defendants in their car over by the side of the road until they do say something incriminating, or, if they keep silent, we use that against them, too?” Lafargue answered, “The petitioner’s concern about the delay of Miranda warnings is unfounded, simply because the right doesn’t trigger at the point at which Miranda is actually read; the right triggers at the point at which Miranda should have been read.”

After a brief deliberation, the judges named Lafargue as Best Oralist. But Alito gave high praise to each of the counsel for their preparation and poise: “We were harder on you than we generally are on lawyers who appear before us in regular cases. We wanted to give you a workout, and I think we did. I can’t tell you how many arguments that I delivered as a lawyer when I staggered out of the courtroom after the performance. None of you should feel that way.”

–

All of 2009 Student Spotlight

2009 Home

Going a step beyond his job requirements, Fritzsche has experienced firsthand the life of a migrant farmer. He took a leave of absence from his job as an organizer with SEIU in 2005 to join two migrant farm crews, spending more than three months picking apples and blueberries. He gained tremendous insight. “Growers often falsify the number of hours that you worked so that it looks like you were paid the minimum wage,” he said, adding that protesting to supervisors was difficult. And he now has a clearer grasp of how workers understand their rights and how these rights are enforced. In 2007, Fritzsche was contacted by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, which has pioneered farmworker rights by persuading large-volume tomato purchasers to make direct payments to pickers to improve their wages. The coalition wanted his help to create an organization to help it gain allies among consumers and organizations promoting organic, sustainable, and locally grown food. In 2008 he achieved this goal, co-founding Just Harvest from Field to Fork. It was this endeavor, supported by letters from two dozen students and faculty, that won over the Public Service Law Network award committee.

With a full-tuition scholarship from the Bickel & Brewer Latino Institute for Human Rights, Fritzsche has oriented his studies at NYU Law toward immigrant rights. Through the Immigrant Rights Clinic taught by Professor Nancy Morawetz ’81, he has cowritten appellate briefs, conducted depositions, and represented a worker in federal district court litigation against his former employer. “Tom is full of initiative,” raved Professor Cristina Rodríguez, faculty director of the Bickel & Brewer scholars program. “His seriousness of purpose and his generosity as a human being are an inspiration to everyone he encounters.”

–

All of 2009 Student Spotlight

2009 Home

Cameroon has twice topped Transparency International’s list of most corrupt governments, and the backwater village of Kumba is infamous even for Cameroon as the place officials go if they want a Mercedes. I interned at Global Conscience Initiative, a tiny domestic human rights nongovernmental organization in Kumba. I spent the summer in an office that lacked running water, consistent electricity, and Internet access, dealing with everything from fighting for prisoner’s rights and bail petitions to the day-to-day problems of people suffering under Cameroon’s extremely corrupt ruling regime. Additionally we coordinated efforts between NGOs and local barristers, started a human rights radio hour, and argued (futilely, in general) with all manner of government officials.

I’d be lying if I said I, or any of the other handful of internationals, achieved any substantial successes in our legal battles. But whether our bail appeals and rights conferences made a difference with the government, our presence had an impact on the local people. Everyone I met was amazing—just hardworking and intelligent and friendly. They seemed to be inspired by the fact that someone from America cared enough to come help out. And since “Whiteman” is still a pretty big novelty there, I was a major celebrity. I got a taste of what life must be like all the time for Brad Pitt. People I didn’t know always wanted to talk or share “a bottle.” I was a guest of honor at a wedding, a funeral celebration, and a baby shower, despite the fact that I hadn’t met the hosts till I arrived. I was kind of uncomfortable at first—I mean all I’d really done was to be American—but it seemed to genuinely matter that I was there trying to help, so I threw myself into it and the community loved it even more.

Pretty soon I was eating porcupine and fried termites in a three-sided shack that functioned as the local bar, huddled around a candle listening to the Euro Cup Final. (The whole town’s power was out. Again.) Or I was showing off my sweet dance moves. Inexplicably, the townspeople found this hysterical.

At work it was almost impossible to come and go without having to stop and play with the local kids who hung out around the office. We’d run around, they’d beat me up. It was a nice change of pace after being yelled at by the chief state prosecutor for meddling in his allegedly corrupt affairs and a heck of a lot better than doc review. At the end of the summer they even performed a song about Chief Dave and GCI as a thank-you for all our work.

So. The whole chief thing. Partway through the summer, GCI did workshops on conflict mediation for the councils of a number of surrounding villages. During a mock workshop in the office I was cast as a chief and I played it up. I chose Kwa-Kwa because frankly, it had the coolest name, and I spent all day in character, demanding to be referred to as Chief. My native coworkers couldn’t stop laughing, so the title stuck. And being in a small town, pretty soon I couldn’t walk down the street without people calling out, “Chief of Kwa-Kwa!” Eventually the village council of Kwa-Kwa came in for their training and (much to my relief) found it hilarious too. So as part of the big GCI festivity celebrating the end of the interns’ time there, I was officially crowned the Honorable Chief of Kwa-Kwa. I even got a chief’s hat! They walked me through the ceremony, explaining the significance of each part, and then explained my powers and duties. If anyone touches my hat they have to give me a goat, which is pretty sweet. On the other hand, I now also need to get 15 wives, which might be tricky given my current level of debt and inability to get a date.

I have been assured that my position is being maintained till I return. I confess it has not been easy readjusting to a world where I am not celebrated; attempts to get my classmates to call me Chief have not met with much success. But I guess there’s always my 2L summer, which I’ll be spending in South Africa. Cape Town, here I come!

–

All of 2009 Student Spotlight

2009 Home

This was before McGowan earned her J.D., married lawyer Robert Wald, and, much to the consternation of religious conservatives in Congress who labeled her an “instrument of the Devil,” became the Honorable Patricia M. Wald—and now former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former associate judge for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; mother of five, grandmother of 10; and, in frigid Iowa during the presidential caucus season, a heavily bundled, 79-year-old canvasser schlepping door-to-door in the cause of Barack Obama.

For her numerous accomplishments, as well as persistent good humor, student editors dedicated the 2009 Annual Survey of American Law to Judge Wald. She was lauded by fellow D.C. Circuit judge Harry T. Edwards, professors and former clerks Cynthia Estlund and Nancy Morawetz ’81, and former colleagues Kelly Askin, senior legal officer at the Open Society Justice Initiative, and David Tolbert, senior fellow at the Jennings Randolph Fellowship Program of the United States Institute of Peace. All spoke of light-hearted and even comic moments that leavened what they called an “inspired and inspiring” career.

Judge Edwards recollected circuit bench conferences when “you always want to hear what Judge Wald has to say because she clears your head and improves your understanding, and maybe she’ll be funny as well.” Estlund, Catherine A. Rein Professor of Law, praised Wald for her “refusal to lose sight of the concerns of ordinary people” who are affected by broad theories of law settled in appellate decisions. And Morawetz, professor of clinical law, cited her mentor as a “role model for women clerks,” on and off the judicial clock.

“One night, we all went to a bar and taught her to play Pac-Man,” Morawetz disclosed. “The judge went incognito—as ‘Marge.’”

In an interview prior to the ceremony, Wald remembered that summer of ’48, and the woman she holds responsible for her success—her mother, Margaret O’Keefe McGowan, who, when her husband disappeared during the Great Depression, raised their child alone, determined that a girl could go far from the mill town of her birth.

Indeed, following a postgraduation clerkship in New York, she wound up in Washington, D.C., due to her husband’s U.S. Navy assignment. The federal government was “in the throes of loyalty hearings” that year, Wald explained. Accordingly, she dropped labor law to sign on at a firm that defended victims of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the notorious red-baiter and blacklist bully. The firm was, she said, “a more appropriate place to work” in 1952.

She left practice to raise her children. When, in the 1960s, Wald returned to law as a female lawyer 10 years out of the game, the available opportunities led her into part-time criminal justice work, which included children’s rights—a pursuit that later prompted opposition from religious zealots during congressional hearings on her appointment to the D.C. Circuit by President Jimmy Carter. “The stance of some evangelical and conservative groups was that families should make all important decisions about the child,” Wald explained, adding that lawyers like her, bent on children’s health and drug education, “constituted an unjustified intrusion into the sanctity of family life.”

To be accused of complicity with Lucifer in congressional hearings, said Wald during her short thank-you address, was “particularly galling since my five kids had to sit stoically through the entire harangue.”

Afterward, however, a reporter asked one of her sons for his reaction. The son made his mother proud by saying, “Well, she burns the lamb chops, but otherwise she’s O.K.”

–

All of 2009 Student Spotlight

2009 Home