Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A brand-new player on the U.S. Supreme Court litigation scene filed its first certiorari petition Feb. 11 of this year, less than a month after it opened its doors. Six weeks later, the Supreme Court granted review in the case, while the new kid on the block was busy churning out briefs in a half-dozen other cases for Supreme Court review. Even more remarkable is that not a single hour of the time involved got billed to clients. The name of the new organization is the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, and it’s the brainchild of Tommy Goldstein of D.C.’s Goldstein & Howe. Five years ago Goldstein kicked over the ossified applecart of Supreme Court practice by creating a one-man practice devoted exclusively to high court litigation. He aggressively trolled for clients by scrutinizing circuit court conflicts, and undercut the big firms on fees. Eleven oral arguments and dozens of briefs later, Goldstein, 33, has earned the grudging respect of his elders and is billing more than $1 million a year — still undercutting his top competitors, though not by as much. (Full disclosure: Goldstein provides information for Conference Call, a feature about pending Supreme Court cases, for American Lawyer Media publications.) He works with his wife, Amy Howe, and a shifting cast of lawyers and summer associates from topflight law schools, some sent his way by Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe. Tribe took a shine to Goldstein early on, though Goldstein graduated not from Harvard but from American University School of Law. By design, half of Goldstein’s caseload is pro bono work, and that is where the Stanford clinic comes in. Other law schools have appellate clinics where students study Supreme Court and lower court cases, and some even work on real circuit and Supreme Court litigation in specific areas such as death penalty and human rights law. But Goldstein last year drafted a proposal for a clinic that would do nothing but work on real pro bono Supreme Court cases over a broad range of subjects. “There is nothing remotely like it anywhere else,” he says. “We had to have the confidence that we’d have enough Supreme Court cases for the students to work on,” he adds. “It’s a failure if there are not enough cases.” But with clients increasingly knocking on his door — rather than him hunting them down — Goldstein was confident the supply would be plentiful. Goldstein floated the idea by Stanford Law School’s Pamela Karlan, a former clerk to justice Harry Blackmun with considerable Supreme Court experience herself. Goldstein had met Karlan during his law school days when she spoke at AU. She immediately loved the plan, and by the next morning she’d gotten the approval of dean Kathleen Sullivan. An open meeting for students interested in the clinic drew an overflow crowd. In January it began with seven students, and it has already earned a spot in the curriculum for next year as well. The main ground rule for picking cases for the clinic was that they could not be corporation against corporation, says Karlan, who co-teaches the clinic with Goldstein. “Corporations can pay,” she says. Not all the pro bono cases that Goldstein and Karlan have presented to the clinic are civil rights cases. One petition recently filed, Rousey v. Jacoway, asks whether Individual Retirement Accounts are exempt from bankruptcy estates. Veneman v. Campaign for Family Farms is a commercial speech case involving pork producers objecting to compulsory government fees levied against them to support the “Pork: the Other White Meat” advertising campaign. “It’s been a blast for me,” says Karlan. “All the cases I’ve worked on before involved civil or reproductive rights. The clinic has made me stretch myself into new areas like bankruptcy, which turned out to be a lot of fun.” The students work in teams, involving themselves in all aspects of the case — drafting, revising, and editing briefs, corresponding with the Court and other parties. When he is not arguing cases, Goldstein treks west weekly to work with Karlan and the students, editing line by line and conveying the secrets of writing a persuasive cert petition. “Keep your eye on the ball,” he advises. “Sacrifice everything necessary to make the point that your case is an ideal vehicle to resolve an indisputable circuit split.” The students have also convened as moot courts for lawyers rehearsing Supreme Court arguments — including Michael Newdow, the Sacramento atheist who argued his own cause in opposition to the words “under God” in the “Pledge of Allegiance.” For the students, the clinic represents a singular — possibly once-in-a-lifetime — opportunity. “Everyone fantasizes about working on a Supreme Court case,” says Jennifer Thomas, a third-year student from Portland, Ore. “By the end of the summer, I will have worked on two cert petitions, an amicus brief, and a merits brief. We joke about how it’s all downhill from here.” The hope, of course, is that it will be uphill for clinic students. Their crash course in Supreme Court litigation will make them top candidates for clerkships — including at the Supreme Court — and for private appellate practice as well. “I’m thinking very seriously about a clerkship, though at this point I don’t want to graduate. This clinic has been a dream come true,” says Michael Abate, a second-year student from Rockford, Ill. He’ll be a summer associate at the D.C. office of Jenner & Block, which has its own busy Supreme Court practice. Karlan sees double benefit for the students. “First, they are getting more intensive training in legal writing than anywhere else,” she says. “Second, they are learning to work as part of a team. They give and get criticism, and get a real sense of what a Supreme Court practice looks like.” The workload rises and falls according to the briefing schedule of the cases the clinic has taken on. “We’ve had a couple of 40- and 50-hour weeks. It’s incredibly hectic,” says Eric Feigin, a 2L from San Diego who is the incoming president of law review. He recalls line editing a brief with Karlan at her office until 1:30 in the morning. The long hours raise an inevitable question: Has Goldstein just found a clever way to shift his pro bono work to unsalaried law students? Not so, says Goldstein: “As talented as they are, the students need an enormous amount of supervision.” Between class time, travel time, and a constant flow of calls and e-mails during the writing and editing process, he is spending as much unbilled time on the pro bono cases as before: “It’s win-win for everyone. But there are cert petitions that the clinic has worked on that I could have done much quicker myself. It’s one step forward, one step back” in terms of time. Eric Feigin echoes the point: “Anyone who thinks that it’s a matter of cheap labor hasn’t seen how much time he and professor Karlan put in working with us.” Professor Richard Lazarus of Georgetown University Law Center concurs that “if you do a clinic right, it takes much more time than doing it yourself. It’s a tremendous amount of work.” Lazarus, who runs Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute, calls the Stanford clinic “a very creative idea,” though he reserved judgment because “I haven’t seen their work.” Goldstein is keenly aware that the clinic’s output will be under the microscope. “You don’t get a second chance to make a first impression,” he says. But the first impression was a winner. The clinic’s first petition, in Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., was granted review and will be argued by Goldstein in the fall. He represents a group of over-40 Jackson police officers who claim that a citywide recalibration of salaries had a disparate impact on them, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The no-nonsense petition gets right to the point, asking the Court to resolve “the 5-to-3 circuit conflict over whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the law.” It asserts more than once that the circuit conflict is “untenable,” and the Court apparently agreed. The petition comes in at a lean 18 pages long, with only five footnotes. Footnote five notes that “counsel for petitioners were principally assisted by the following students in the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.” The clinic can be forgiven a sentence of self-promotion in its first of what could be many years’ worth of contributions to the Supreme Court’s docket.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.