UNC School of Law professor Deborah Weissman has experienced firsthand a Cuban approach to domestic violence. While researching the issue there, she walked through neighborhoods with physicians and social workers as they responded to problems.

Cuba’s climate invites open-window environments where neighbors overhear each other.

“Domestic violence is a public matter. I’ve been amazed at how people come out and tell doctors and social workers what’s going on and invite them in for a cup of coffee,” Weissman, Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law, says. “Cubans have had an exceptionally comprehensive methodology and practice for dealing with domestic violence.”

That’s just one of the international research projects Weissman has initiated, independently and with students in her Human Rights Policy Seminar. She also has written an article about the role of Cuban women in the emerging political economy, and one about Mexico’s legal reform and problems with the United States’ intervention in the Mexican judicial system.

Her research potentially has broad impacts with lessons for the U.S. and other countries.

“Our research sharpens an understanding of the common and larger issues pertaining to human rights and the relationship between structural inequality, poverty and human rights violations,” Weissman says. “Our projects demonstrate the need to avoid the practice of U.S. exceptionalism that suggests that human rights violations happen elsewhere, and instead provide the knowledge to connect civil rights with human rights and to ‘bring human rights home.’’’

In another project, Weissman’s students Skyped with a torture victim in Italy for whom they’re advocating with the United Nations. Then they submitted a brief and petition on behalf of Abou Elkassim Britel to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture. Britel is a naturalized Italian citizen falsely charged with passport violations while traveling in Pakistan in 2002. U.S. officials took custody of him, tortured him and flew him to a Moroccan prison, where he was tortured and released after nine years. The brief explains the legal obligation of four governments to offer him official apologies. Read more. 

“As attention is drawn to the fact that there was an investigation and he was completely cleared … we’re hoping his community will do more to embrace him and help him get on his feet,” Weissman says. “Students have given Mr. Britel a gift just by their efforts.”

Weissman expects the petition to generate a report calling for the governments involved in Britel’s rendition and torture to apologize and offer reparations. She isn’t optimistic the governments will comply.

But she is impressed by state efforts in Cuba to support gender equality and address domestic violence. She notes, however, that the government’s ability to intervene has been reduced as Cuba moves toward a more privatized economy.

“Cuba wants to be a good international state. Unlike the U.S., it has signed on to the (U.N.) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,” Weissman says.

“There’s a solid foundation in Cuba, in terms of gender equality,” she says. “The cultural will to focus on women’s needs is very much there.”

-November 24, 2014

Growing up on a 230-acre farm outside of Asheville, N.C. — where her daily chores included bottle feeding baby calves — Sherri Snelson ’95 always knew she wanted to be an attorney. “I idolized my grandfather, whose friends, like (former N.C. Governor and Senator) Terry Sanford ’46 and (former Congressman) Jamie Clark, would come to the farm for barbecues,” she says. “The lawyers and judges were the people my grandfather respected, so I wanted to be one too.”

Snelson, who is a partner and member of the corporate finance practice in the London office of O’Melveny and Myers, says, “I am a very different kind of lawyer than I could have ever imagined as a kid.” Snelson’s finance and restructuring practice includes advising investment funds and corporations on how to raise money and negotiating financing terms.

“I find the practice broader in scope and more interesting than my work in the U.S.,” Snelson says. “It truly is a multijurisdictional practice. In the U.S., I did some transactions that had an international element, but in the American finance world, unless you’re dealing with the very largest companies, you are just concentrating on the U.S. assets.” She compares that to her work in London, where she can’t remember doing any deal in which the company was only located in England. “I am working on joint ventures in Portugal, Spain and Italy, and a loan for a China-focused investment fund in Hong Kong,” Snelson says.

Dual qualified in England and the U.S., Snelson says she ended up in London, “partly by plan and partly by accident.” After getting her law degree from Carolina, she joined McGuireWoods in Richmond, Va. “The partner I worked for and I were the finance practice,” she says. “It wasn’t a big team.” She began New York University’s Executive MBA program in 2000, which meant weekly commuting to New York City for class.

“The partner I was working with wanted to move to New York, so I joined him there at Mayer Brown for two years,” Snelson says. With her MBA in hand, she moved to Fried Frank’s New York City office, which sent her to London for a two- to three-year assignment. “That was 10 1/2 years ago,” she laughs. “I love living in London.”

Snelson says that she has made a point of not just hanging out with other Americans because she “didn’t want to live in an expat bubble. I am living in a very diverse multicultural city and am taking advantage of that. Most of my friends are not lawyers, and they are from all over the world.”

Active in the community, Snelson serves as a trustee of Smart Works, a nonprofit organization that provides appropriate clothing and interviewing skills for women who are trying to get back into the workforce. “It is extremely gratifying to watch the organization go from a very small charity to something that is well-funded, respected by government bodies and receiving a lot of recognition for what we’re doing,” she says.

Snelson and her London-born husband get back to North Carolina at least twice a year. “I have spent three years renovating the main farm house on our family’s farm, which my father and brother run,” she says. “My husband and I are developing a French Perigord truffle business on the land. When I was a child in Western North Carolina, the cash crop was tobacco. With farms struggling to stay viable, I was looking for a cash crop we could introduce on the farm that wouldn’t be terribly labor intensive, so we can supervise from London.”

Although she never expected to have an international law career, Snelson says that Carolina Law prepared her for success. “One of the best things I took from Carolina is learning how to think like a lawyer and to use a logical approach,” she says. “I now really appreciate the practical aspects — how to analyze and puzzle solve — that Carolina teaches. Carolina helped me learn how to think.”

This article was originally published in the Fall-Winter 2014 issue of Carolina Law.

-December 1, 2014

Daniel Fitz ’85 supports UNC School of Law and UNC’s Honors Program consistently because “we need more people who know how to think clearly,” he says.

Born and raised in Hickory, N.C., Fitz has made his home in London for a quarter century. Now group general counsel and company secretary for BT Group, the British telecommunications conglomerate, Fitz has watched political gridlock emerge on both sides of the ocean, more so in the U.S.

“People are preaching to their converted side,” he says. “Lawyers should be able to cut through all that and have a fact-based debate. We need more people with intellectual honesty who can sift the relevant from the irrelevant.”

At age 14, before he’d even set foot in the U.K., Fitz knew he wanted to live in London.

“Too much Dickens and too many Masterpiece Theatre and Upstairs, Downstairs episodes,” he says.

He got his chance the fall after completing his undergraduate studies at UNC. He had majored in economics at Chapel Hill, finishing his undergraduate degree in 1981, and deferred admission into law school for a year to undertake a diploma program at the London School of Economics that would better prepare him for a career in corporate law. London was dingy and rife with class divisions then, he says, “but gloriously charming.”

Six years later, after the Manhattan law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop, where he was an associate, sent him on a two-year assignment to its London outpost, he found the city changed beyond recognition, dynamic but with the charm intact. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s policies had taken effect; trade unions had weakened and militancy had declined; employment and wages were up.

“It was a much happier place,” he says, “and even the food was getting better.”

When Pillsbury Winthrop called him home, he wasn’t ready to go. He signed on with the investment bank Baring Brothers, followed by telco Cable & Wireless, which included a stint in Hong Kong. He took two career breaks: first, four months in Barcelona to improve his Spanish, then six months in Blowing Rock, N.C., to spend time with his aging parents. BT drew him back to the U.K. in 2010, and he’s been there ever since as head of a legal function of 380 people and a governance and compliance function of another 100 people.

The rigor of Carolina Law taught him to reason well, he says, and his experiences on the International Moot Court team familiarized him with public and private international law in a fun way. Transitioning to an overseas posting had its challenges, he says, but mainly because he was uncertain about the way to get the basics done: how to find a place to live and get the utilities hooked up.

“The first year is full of all those things that seem huge, but once you learn them, they fade into the background,” he says. His adjustment to London and Hong Kong were tough, but “New York was a bigger challenge, because it came first.” It helps that Fitz is someone who naturally likes people and is open to cultural differences. He learned to delight in being something of an outsider in his new environment. “It makes you special when you may not really be special,” he says. “People notice you. And that often opens doors.”

Now Fitz helps open doors for the next generation. He has mentored students who have come through UNC’s Winston House in London, and he recently joined the Honors Carolina advisory board. He stays connected to UNC through regular giving and has been corresponding with Beverly Sizemore, director of international and LL.M. programs, about deeper involvement with international programs at UNC School of Law.

Each new post has honed his adaptability. He accepts that uncertainty accompanies change, knowing that uncertainty rides tandem with excitement.

“If you enter new experiences with that mindset,” he said, “you’ll find it easier to adjust and benefit.”

This article was originally published in the Fall-Winter 2014 issue of Carolina Law.

-December 1, 2014

In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a ruling in a legal battle over payments to bondholders who owned debt issued by Argentina. The court’s ruling hinged on how to interpret a widely used “pari passu”clause that was part of the bond agreement for debt issued by Argentina in 1994. Research by Ralph M. Stockton Jr. Distinguished Scholar and Associate Professor Mark Weidemaier on this issue has been cited by parties before the Supreme Court, and he has been quoted frequently in major national and international financial media because of his expertise on the issue.

Argentina defaulted on that debt more than a decade ago, and has since issued new bonds in exchange for the old ones. In effect, it asked bondholders of the 1994 debt to refinance because it couldn’t — and wouldn’t — pay the original debt. Most bondholders agreed, taking a loss on their original investment with the understanding they would get at least some of their money back this way.

But there were a few holdouts.

As Argentina sought to pay interest to the holders of the new bonds, the holdouts took the country to court in Manhattan, arguing that if Argentina was going to pay the new bondholders, it also must pay them.

The Second Circuit’s decision ultimately rested on the interpretation of the pari passu clause. Traditionally, that clause in contracts is taken to mean, roughly, that everyone should be treated equally and without one party favored over another.

The holdouts argued, and the Second Circuit agreed, that if Argentina was going to pay the new bondholders interest, the country also had to pay them the full amount owed on their original bonds — an amount in the billions of dollars — otherwise their debt would be treated as subordinate to the new bonds, violating the equal treatment clause. To enforce its order, the court blocked financial institutions from processing payments to holders of the new bonds until Argentina pays the holdouts in full.

But for Argentina and the holders of the new bonds, it looks as though the holders of the original bonds are getting preferential treatment. They are not only being paid more than owners of the new bonds, they are being allowed to block payments to others.

So what does equal treatment mean in this case? And can a U.S. court ruling on a contract even bind a sovereign nation?
These questions hinge in part on what exactly pari passu clauses really mean. And that, it turns out, is not nearly as clear as many lawyers once thought it was.

“All you’re left with is kind of a widespread rejection of the interpretation the Second Circuit gave it, without a compelling explanation of what the clause is,” Weidemaier says.
The Argentine case (as of this writing) is ongoing, but there are signs that nations that issue debt and their lawyers are taking heed.

“We’ve seen a few countries start to modify the pari passu clause in new debt they issue,” Weidemaier says. “Or they issue debt accompanied by disclosure documents that explicitly reject the Second Circuit interpretation for the pari passu clause.”

What makes Weidemaier’s research so important, though, is that scores of countries around the world routinely issue bonds like Argentina did. That debt, and how it’s received in the market, can have a major impact on the wealth of a nation.

How the pari passu clause is interpreted could also affect what financial markets countries choose to issue debt in, whether they continue to use New York or move their business to other financial capitals, such as London or Tokyo.

Weidemaier also notes that the Argentina case, and the research he’s done generally on contacts and sovereign debt, point to how powerful contracts are. Even though no court has explicit authority over the actions of another nation, and so enforcement of contracts could be difficult, if not impossible, these contracts are still taken very seriously by bond investors and debt-issuing nations.

How the laws of one country — or even agreements between countries — are actually enforced is also a key subject in human rights law.

This article was originally published in the Fall-Winter 2014 issue of Carolina Law.

-December 1, 2014

UNC School of Law’s fourth class of LL.M. students started this fall, and Beverly Sizemore, director of international and LL.M. programs at UNC, said the number of applications rose significantly this year.

“The strength of our applicants has continued to grow,” Sizemore says. “We have high standards, and our standards have been met and exceeded.”

UNC Law keeps the program small — from six to 10 students per year — and students appreciate the individual attention it affords them.

Cornelia Kibler

Cornelia Kibler, a current LL.M. student from Germany, says, “There is always someone there to support us at any minute of the day.”

The seven students in this year’s class have their law degrees from Kazakhstan, Kenya, South Korea, Indonesia, Germany and Wales. In years past, students have hailed from China, Thailand, India, Russia, Taiwan and Libya. All have at least an LL.B. from their home country. Some have remained in the U.S. at the end of the LL.M. program to obtain an American J.D. or to work for multinational firms. Many have returned to their home countries to practice, either in government or for a private company or law firm.

Xuan Li 3L, a graduate of UNC’s inaugural LL.M. class, has returned to UNC School of Law to earn her J.D. UNC law professors respect international students, she says, and faculty and staff have helped her move toward her career goals. Over the summer she worked in the bankruptcy court in Raleigh, a position she learned about through an externship program.

The LL.M. students deepen the law school experience for UNC’s J.D. students. American students gain a perspective on legal systems in different cultures. Interactions between American and international students form connections and add context to discussions of legal issues.

“Individuals practicing law are increasingly dealing with aspects of law that go outside the boundaries of a state or nation and have to be viewed in a global way,” Sizemore says.

Kibler especially appreciated learning about issues that are important in the U.S. and comparing them with priorities in Germany.

“The LL.M. program has broadened me even beyond my law career,” she says.

This article was originally published in the Fall-Winter 2014 issue of Carolina Law. Learn more at www.law.unc.edu/academics/degreeprograms/llm/.

-December 9, 2014

In an article just published by the University of Houston Law Review, Victor B. Flatt, Taft Distinguished Professor of Environmental Law, proposes modifications to the current regulatory trading system for water pollution. While acknowledging that the Clean Water Act and its subsequent amendments have made great strides toward reducing point source pollution — that is, pollution coming from a single point — Flatt maintains that more must be done to combat pollution from multiple sources, or non-point sources, such as lawns, impervious surfaces and farms.

In the article Flatt argues that Congress may be slow to address these issues, but the Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to develop flexible mechanisms to address the nutrient pollution from runoff in lakes, rivers, bays and oceans. One mechanism, trading between sources – where pollution point sources pay non-point sources to stop nutrients from getting into waterways – should be economically desirable, he says.

“The regulatory framework to encourage this type of trading does not currently exist because third party aggregators are necessary to act as ‘market makers,” Flatt says. Flatt’s article explains how the EPA and states can embrace this new market structure to improve the health of the nation’s waters with simplicity, efficiency and integrity.

Source: “C(r)ap and Trade: The Brave New World of Non-point Source Nutrient Trading and Using Lessons from Greenhouse Gas Markets to Make It Work,” www.houstonlawreview.org, Volume 52, Issue 1.

Editor’s Note: Professor Victor Flatt is available for interviews regarding the need to adjust the current approach to combating run-off as water pollution.

-October 31, 2014

First Amendment Law Review Symposium participants, from left, Sarah Morris, Marvin Ammori,
Professor Dawn Nunziato, Professor Enrique Armijo, Professor Kevin Werbach, Professor James
Grimmelmann, Professor Stuart Benjamin, and Berin Szoka.

The days when print newspapers and magazines were the primary sources of news, information and discussion of important topics are long gone. The Internet — via blogs, social media or news websites — is the pipeline for a growing share of speech protected by the First Amendment. The best path for ensuring the Internet remains a conduit for free speech is the topic of heated debate.

At the symposium “First Amendment Networks: Issues in Net Neutrality,” scholars and think tank policy analysts discussed whether the policy known as “Net Neutrality” is the best path forward for regulators. The event was hosted by UNC School of Law’s First Amendment Law Review, the Center for Media Law and Policy and the UNC chapter of the American Constitution Society Friday, Oct. 24.

Net Neutrality advocates argue that the Federal Communications Commission should prevent Internet service providers from blocking or raising prices on different types of online content. They argue that Net Neutrality is necessary to prevent providers from exercising too much control over the shape of the Internet and its contents. Critics of Net Neutrality say that the policies could thwart the growth of the Internet by placing burdensome regulations on an emerging industry and that content providers have not and will not arbitrarily censor content. The topic has First Amendment implications because service providers could argue that the government is requiring them to carry messages that they do not agree with over their networks.

Attendees, including law and journalism students, heard from a broad variety of perspectives. The event started with a keynote address from Marvin Ammori, an attorney and Future Tense Fellow with the New America Foundation. Keeping with the event’s focus on First Amendment issues, Ammori argued that the current First Amendment legal framework is ill-suited to the Net Neutrality debate. Instead, Ammori says, courts should look at Net Neutrality as a way to promote First Amendment values.

“What we want to see is government intervention to encourage or to permit us to communicate in a way that doesn’t prefer one kind of content over another,” Ammori said. 

A morning panel featured think tank analysts Sarah Morris and Berin Szoka and George Washington University law professor Dawn Nunziato. While Morris and Nunziato supported Net Neutrality, Szoka, from the group TechFreedom, said that the proponents have failed to produce evidence of censorship from Internet service providers.

“There is no record,” Szoka said.

The afternoon panel featured discussion from professors Enrique Armijo, Stuart Benjamin, James Grimmelmann and Kevin Werbach on the possible routes the Federal Communications Commission might take in addressing the Net Neutrality issue.

Event organizers and UNC law faculty were pleased with the lively speeches and panel discussions.

“We were really happy to have a variety of interests here because it made for a more lively and nuanced debate,” says First Amendment Law Review Symposium co-editor Robert El-Jaouhari 3L.

“It was a really robust and interesting discussion,” Laura Burkett 3L, First Amendment Law Review Symposium co-editor, says.

“I thought it was a fantastic symposium,” says Professor David Ardia of the Center for Media Law and Policy, who also serves as the First Amendment Law Review’s faculty advisor.

Ardia spoke of the topic’s importance going forward.

“Decisions that we make today regarding how we are going to regulate Internet services are going to have a long-lasting impact on future generations, so it is important that we have a reasoned debate."

-November 12, 2014

More than 40 volunteers at UNC School of Law fielded 928 phone calls on Election Day, Nov. 4, as part of the national, non-partisan Election Protection Hotline. The UNC Center for Civil Rights coordinated the effort to answer questions and address concerns from voters and poll monitors for the 13 hours that polls were open. The UNC office is the only N.C.-based hub for the Election Protection Hotline.

Through the program, trained law students and staff provided voters with information to help them understand their voting rights. Statewide calls were routed to Chapel Hill through the national Election Protection system. The call volume was high for a mid-term election, according to Jennifer Marsh, a staff member at the UNC Center for Civil Rights.

“The number of calls this year was higher than the number we received during the last mid-term election and comparable to the call volume during the last presidential election,” Marsh says.

Mark Dorosin, lead attorney at the center, attributed the increased call volume to the recent change in voting laws in North Carolina after the passage of N.C. House Bill 589.

“Since the last election, voting laws have changed regarding provisional ballots and the ability to vote in a different precinct,” Dorosin says. “There was a combination of factors: in some cases people showed up to vote at the wrong precinct and stood in long lines before being told they couldn’t vote at that particular location. Additionally, some polling places were understaffed and overwhelmed by voter turnout, which led to miscommunications and misunderstandings.”

Dorosin added that another result of seemingly understaffed or under resourced polling locations was an uptick in calls to the hotline regarding accessibility for voters with disabilities. “We had multiple reports of inadequate signage and significant delays related to voters with disabilities,” Dorosin says.

Hotline volunteers participated in a two-hour training program run by UNC Center for Civil Rights staff. The training is a basic primer on national and N.C. election law and also explains the logistics of taking a call and entering information in a national database to be monitored for trends. Volunteers are supplied with resources for answering questions related to polling places, voter registration status, and even what kind of voting machines are being used in different counties. For more complicated questions, center staff and other volunteer attorneys advise students answering calls from voters.

Students from the UNC Pro Bono Program and the Black Law Students Association help with the complicated logistics of planning and staffing the hotline. Shifts are two hours each, and many volunteers work multiple shifts. The hotline is one of the law school’s most popular pro bono opportunities.

"Out of all of the pro bono projects I have completed, Election Protection was a fast and easy way to provide instant assistance," says Hillary Dawe 2L. "On a day that was already so exciting for the community, I loved being a part of the excitement at UNC and developing my legal skills at the same time."

The UNC Center for Civil Rights has coordinated the hotline every election year since 2004. Dorosin says it is an enduring and important priority for the Center.

“The ability to participate in the political process is one of the most fundamental civil rights that we all share,” UNC Center for Civil Rights Director Ted Shaw says. “Ensuring that everyone who is eligible to vote can cast a ballot that will be counted is foundational for ensuring equal protection in our community.”

Election Protection is a coalition of state and national allies working to ensure that all voters have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Voters anywhere can call 1.866.OUR.VOTE (866.687.8683) or 1.888.VE.Y.VOTA (888.839.8682) with questions about their rights and the voting process.

-November 14, 2014

Portrait of Henry E. Frye '59 by John Seibels Walker.

More than 100 alumni, community members, students and faculty gathered in the UNC School of Law Graham Kenan Courtroom Nov. 14 to view the unveiling of a portrait of the Honorable Henry E. Frye ’59. The portrait is a gift of the UNC School of Law Class of 2013 and was painted by John Seibels Walker.

Frye, a native of Ellerbe, N.C., became the first African American to pursue to completion three full years of legal study and earn a law degree at UNC. He went on to become the first African American in the 20th century to serve in the North Carolina General Assembly. He was also the first African American to be appointed to the North Carolina Supreme Court and to serve as the court’s chief justice.

Under the leadership of class gift committee leaders, Jeremy Collins, Charlie Hiser and Judson Williamson, the class of 2013 voted to commission the portrait as the class gift to honor Frye’s legacy and inspire future generations at the law school.

"He is one of UNC Law's brightest stars," says Collins, 2013 class president, of Frye. "He's a trailblazer."

Current North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Martin ’88 offered remarks as part of the program. The audience that packed the courtroom included Sarah Parker ’69, former chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court; present and former Associate Justices Cheri Beasley, Robert Neal Hunter ’73, Paul Newby ’80, Patricia Timmons-Goodson ’79, Willis Whichard ’65; N.C. Superior Court Judge Robert Collier ’59; and Ronald J. Haskell Jr., magisterial district judge for York County, Pa. UNC Chancellor Carol Folt was also in attendance to honor Frye.

Jack Boger '74, Henry Frye '59, Jeremy Collins '13 and Mark Martin '88. Photo by Donn Young.

In his remarks, Frye spoke easily of his history and of the pride he has in his family members, many of whom were in attendance. When he spoke of the portrait, Frye’s words were more halting and emotional. “Thank you very much to all of you, to the class of 2013, to the leadership first and to the rest of the class,” Frye said. “And to all of those who in any way supported this, I'm very grateful and humbled by it.”

After the unveiling, Dean John Charles “Jack” Boger ’74 spoke of the symbolic importance of hanging Frye’s portrait in the courtroom, where generations of law students will pass.

“We are immensely proud to claim you, Chief Justice Frye, as our alumnus,” Boger said in his remarks. “You have given us, given the state, much already. But we want still more. We want you as a perpetual presence for our students, someone who will henceforth oversee this great training ground of all our future lawyers.”

About the Artist
Originally from South Carolina, American painter John Seibels Walker is regarded as one of America’s premier painters of portraiture in the Grand Manner with works in numerous American, British and European collections. An ongoing love and appreciation of Italian art, culture and landscape has led the artist to continue to work, study and teach part of every year at his studio in Lucca, Italy, where the portrait of Frye was completed. When in America, Walker lives and works out of his studio in downtown Charlotte, N.C.

-November 21, 2014

After a presentation to Hong Kong’s Equal Opportunities Commission and Legislative Council at a symposium in August, Professor Holning Lau received a certificate of appreciation for his years of research on LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) matters there, where gay marriage is illegal.

Through surveys with Hong Kong’s LGBTI residents and the general public, Lau’s research — some conducted with the University of Hong Kong — contradicts claims by the government and others that same-sex marriage is very controversial and lacks public support. His research also refutes the contention that LGBTI rights signal corruptive Western influences. Read more about Lau’s research. 

“I am hopeful research such as mine will help ground policy debates in facts as opposed to popular myths,” Lau says. “My research challenges conventional wisdom about the prevalence of local opposition to LGBTI rights. Opposition is less widespread than is commonly believed, but opponents are a disproportionately vocal and well-funded minority.”

Lau, a professor of comparative law at UNC School of Law, found that 75 percent of Hong Kong residents support same-sex couples having at least some rights of married couples. In addition, 25 percent of the public supports marriage for same-sex couples, with 12 percent more inclined toward support.

Lau’s research has been published in the American Journal of Comparative Law, the University of Hong Kong Centre for Comparative and Public Law’s briefing papers series and other forums.

At the symposium, Lau also explained how developments with LGBTI issues in the United States could help Hong Kong’s discourse. Some there fear that any law prohibiting LGBTI discrimination would restrict religious freedom. “Policymakers in Hong Kong don’t need to start from scratch," he says. "They can draw insights from the debate in the U.S. about strengths and weaknesses of different religious exemptions that exist as well as proposed exemptions.”

Judges around the world could also draw insights from South Africa about same-sex marriage, based on Lau’s research there.

South Africa’s Constitutional Court ruled in 2005 that denying same-sex couples the right to marry was unconstitutional. The court itself could have legalized same-sex marriage but instead gave the Parliament a year to pass legislative reform. The Parliament, which could have refused to go along with the court, eventually legalized gay marriage.

Lau is researching how the court’s approach — delaying implementation of marriage equality and enlisting the Parliament — has affected public perceptions of government and the judiciary in South Africa.

“My research suggests the one-year grace period helped shield the court from allegations of judicial activism and ultimately enhanced the legitimacy of marriage equality. Conventional wisdom among political realists is that, in other parts of the world, courts have avoided deciding same-sex marriage cases because they fear the backlash that could result from a ruling in favor of marriage equality. South Africa’s approach represents a middle ground,” Lau says.

He will publish his findings in 2016 in time for the 10-year anniversary of marriage equality in South Africa.

"My research contributes to the growing understanding about the ways judges act strategically to avoid backlash."

-November 24, 2014

UNC School of Law professor Deborah Weissman has experienced firsthand a Cuban approach to domestic violence. While researching the issue there, she walked through neighborhoods with physicians and social workers as they responded to problems.

Cuba’s climate invites open-window environments where neighbors overhear each other.

“Domestic violence is a public matter. I’ve been amazed at how people come out and tell doctors and social workers what’s going on and invite them in for a cup of coffee,” Weissman, Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law, says. “Cubans have had an exceptionally comprehensive methodology and practice for dealing with domestic violence.”

That’s just one of the international research projects Weissman has initiated, independently and with students in her Human Rights Policy Seminar. She also has written an article about the role of Cuban women in the emerging political economy, and one about Mexico’s legal reform and problems with the United States’ intervention in the Mexican judicial system.

Her research potentially has broad impacts with lessons for the U.S. and other countries.

“Our research sharpens an understanding of the common and larger issues pertaining to human rights and the relationship between structural inequality, poverty and human rights violations,” Weissman says. “Our projects demonstrate the need to avoid the practice of U.S. exceptionalism that suggests that human rights violations happen elsewhere, and instead provide the knowledge to connect civil rights with human rights and to ‘bring human rights home.’’’

In another project, Weissman’s students Skyped with a torture victim in Italy for whom they’re advocating with the United Nations. Then they submitted a brief and petition on behalf of Abou Elkassim Britel to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture. Britel is a naturalized Italian citizen falsely charged with passport violations while traveling in Pakistan in 2002. U.S. officials took custody of him, tortured him and flew him to a Moroccan prison, where he was tortured and released after nine years. The brief explains the legal obligation of four governments to offer him official apologies. Read more. 

“As attention is drawn to the fact that there was an investigation and he was completely cleared … we’re hoping his community will do more to embrace him and help him get on his feet,” Weissman says. “Students have given Mr. Britel a gift just by their efforts.”

Weissman expects the petition to generate a report calling for the governments involved in Britel’s rendition and torture to apologize and offer reparations. She isn’t optimistic the governments will comply.

But she is impressed by state efforts in Cuba to support gender equality and address domestic violence. She notes, however, that the government’s ability to intervene has been reduced as Cuba moves toward a more privatized economy.

“Cuba wants to be a good international state. Unlike the U.S., it has signed on to the (U.N.) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,” Weissman says.

“There’s a solid foundation in Cuba, in terms of gender equality,” she says. “The cultural will to focus on women’s needs is very much there.”

-November 24, 2014

Growing up on a 230-acre farm outside of Asheville, N.C. — where her daily chores included bottle feeding baby calves — Sherri Snelson ’95 always knew she wanted to be an attorney. “I idolized my grandfather, whose friends, like (former N.C. Governor and Senator) Terry Sanford ’46 and (former Congressman) Jamie Clark, would come to the farm for barbecues,” she says. “The lawyers and judges were the people my grandfather respected, so I wanted to be one too.”

Snelson, who is a partner and member of the corporate finance practice in the London office of O’Melveny and Myers, says, “I am a very different kind of lawyer than I could have ever imagined as a kid.” Snelson’s finance and restructuring practice includes advising investment funds and corporations on how to raise money and negotiating financing terms.

“I find the practice broader in scope and more interesting than my work in the U.S.,” Snelson says. “It truly is a multijurisdictional practice. In the U.S., I did some transactions that had an international element, but in the American finance world, unless you’re dealing with the very largest companies, you are just concentrating on the U.S. assets.” She compares that to her work in London, where she can’t remember doing any deal in which the company was only located in England. “I am working on joint ventures in Portugal, Spain and Italy, and a loan for a China-focused investment fund in Hong Kong,” Snelson says.

Dual qualified in England and the U.S., Snelson says she ended up in London, “partly by plan and partly by accident.” After getting her law degree from Carolina, she joined McGuireWoods in Richmond, Va. “The partner I worked for and I were the finance practice,” she says. “It wasn’t a big team.” She began New York University’s Executive MBA program in 2000, which meant weekly commuting to New York City for class.

“The partner I was working with wanted to move to New York, so I joined him there at Mayer Brown for two years,” Snelson says. With her MBA in hand, she moved to Fried Frank’s New York City office, which sent her to London for a two- to three-year assignment. “That was 10 1/2 years ago,” she laughs. “I love living in London.”

Snelson says that she has made a point of not just hanging out with other Americans because she “didn’t want to live in an expat bubble. I am living in a very diverse multicultural city and am taking advantage of that. Most of my friends are not lawyers, and they are from all over the world.”

Active in the community, Snelson serves as a trustee of Smart Works, a nonprofit organization that provides appropriate clothing and interviewing skills for women who are trying to get back into the workforce. “It is extremely gratifying to watch the organization go from a very small charity to something that is well-funded, respected by government bodies and receiving a lot of recognition for what we’re doing,” she says.

Snelson and her London-born husband get back to North Carolina at least twice a year. “I have spent three years renovating the main farm house on our family’s farm, which my father and brother run,” she says. “My husband and I are developing a French Perigord truffle business on the land. When I was a child in Western North Carolina, the cash crop was tobacco. With farms struggling to stay viable, I was looking for a cash crop we could introduce on the farm that wouldn’t be terribly labor intensive, so we can supervise from London.”

Although she never expected to have an international law career, Snelson says that Carolina Law prepared her for success. “One of the best things I took from Carolina is learning how to think like a lawyer and to use a logical approach,” she says. “I now really appreciate the practical aspects — how to analyze and puzzle solve — that Carolina teaches. Carolina helped me learn how to think.”

This article was originally published in the Fall-Winter 2014 issue of Carolina Law.

-December 1, 2014

Daniel Fitz ’85 supports UNC School of Law and UNC’s Honors Program consistently because “we need more people who know how to think clearly,” he says.

Born and raised in Hickory, N.C., Fitz has made his home in London for a quarter century. Now group general counsel and company secretary for BT Group, the British telecommunications conglomerate, Fitz has watched political gridlock emerge on both sides of the ocean, more so in the U.S.

“People are preaching to their converted side,” he says. “Lawyers should be able to cut through all that and have a fact-based debate. We need more people with intellectual honesty who can sift the relevant from the irrelevant.”

At age 14, before he’d even set foot in the U.K., Fitz knew he wanted to live in London.

“Too much Dickens and too many Masterpiece Theatre and Upstairs, Downstairs episodes,” he says.

He got his chance the fall after completing his undergraduate studies at UNC. He had majored in economics at Chapel Hill, finishing his undergraduate degree in 1981, and deferred admission into law school for a year to undertake a diploma program at the London School of Economics that would better prepare him for a career in corporate law. London was dingy and rife with class divisions then, he says, “but gloriously charming.”

Six years later, after the Manhattan law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop, where he was an associate, sent him on a two-year assignment to its London outpost, he found the city changed beyond recognition, dynamic but with the charm intact. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s policies had taken effect; trade unions had weakened and militancy had declined; employment and wages were up.

“It was a much happier place,” he says, “and even the food was getting better.”

When Pillsbury Winthrop called him home, he wasn’t ready to go. He signed on with the investment bank Baring Brothers, followed by telco Cable & Wireless, which included a stint in Hong Kong. He took two career breaks: first, four months in Barcelona to improve his Spanish, then six months in Blowing Rock, N.C., to spend time with his aging parents. BT drew him back to the U.K. in 2010, and he’s been there ever since as head of a legal function of 380 people and a governance and compliance function of another 100 people.

The rigor of Carolina Law taught him to reason well, he says, and his experiences on the International Moot Court team familiarized him with public and private international law in a fun way. Transitioning to an overseas posting had its challenges, he says, but mainly because he was uncertain about the way to get the basics done: how to find a place to live and get the utilities hooked up.

“The first year is full of all those things that seem huge, but once you learn them, they fade into the background,” he says. His adjustment to London and Hong Kong were tough, but “New York was a bigger challenge, because it came first.” It helps that Fitz is someone who naturally likes people and is open to cultural differences. He learned to delight in being something of an outsider in his new environment. “It makes you special when you may not really be special,” he says. “People notice you. And that often opens doors.”

Now Fitz helps open doors for the next generation. He has mentored students who have come through UNC’s Winston House in London, and he recently joined the Honors Carolina advisory board. He stays connected to UNC through regular giving and has been corresponding with Beverly Sizemore, director of international and LL.M. programs, about deeper involvement with international programs at UNC School of Law.

Each new post has honed his adaptability. He accepts that uncertainty accompanies change, knowing that uncertainty rides tandem with excitement.

“If you enter new experiences with that mindset,” he said, “you’ll find it easier to adjust and benefit.”

This article was originally published in the Fall-Winter 2014 issue of Carolina Law.

-December 1, 2014

In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a ruling in a legal battle over payments to bondholders who owned debt issued by Argentina. The court’s ruling hinged on how to interpret a widely used “pari passu”clause that was part of the bond agreement for debt issued by Argentina in 1994. Research by Ralph M. Stockton Jr. Distinguished Scholar and Associate Professor Mark Weidemaier on this issue has been cited by parties before the Supreme Court, and he has been quoted frequently in major national and international financial media because of his expertise on the issue.

Argentina defaulted on that debt more than a decade ago, and has since issued new bonds in exchange for the old ones. In effect, it asked bondholders of the 1994 debt to refinance because it couldn’t — and wouldn’t — pay the original debt. Most bondholders agreed, taking a loss on their original investment with the understanding they would get at least some of their money back this way.

But there were a few holdouts.

As Argentina sought to pay interest to the holders of the new bonds, the holdouts took the country to court in Manhattan, arguing that if Argentina was going to pay the new bondholders, it also must pay them.

The Second Circuit’s decision ultimately rested on the interpretation of the pari passu clause. Traditionally, that clause in contracts is taken to mean, roughly, that everyone should be treated equally and without one party favored over another.

The holdouts argued, and the Second Circuit agreed, that if Argentina was going to pay the new bondholders interest, the country also had to pay them the full amount owed on their original bonds — an amount in the billions of dollars — otherwise their debt would be treated as subordinate to the new bonds, violating the equal treatment clause. To enforce its order, the court blocked financial institutions from processing payments to holders of the new bonds until Argentina pays the holdouts in full.

But for Argentina and the holders of the new bonds, it looks as though the holders of the original bonds are getting preferential treatment. They are not only being paid more than owners of the new bonds, they are being allowed to block payments to others.

So what does equal treatment mean in this case? And can a U.S. court ruling on a contract even bind a sovereign nation?
These questions hinge in part on what exactly pari passu clauses really mean. And that, it turns out, is not nearly as clear as many lawyers once thought it was.

“All you’re left with is kind of a widespread rejection of the interpretation the Second Circuit gave it, without a compelling explanation of what the clause is,” Weidemaier says.
The Argentine case (as of this writing) is ongoing, but there are signs that nations that issue debt and their lawyers are taking heed.

“We’ve seen a few countries start to modify the pari passu clause in new debt they issue,” Weidemaier says. “Or they issue debt accompanied by disclosure documents that explicitly reject the Second Circuit interpretation for the pari passu clause.”

What makes Weidemaier’s research so important, though, is that scores of countries around the world routinely issue bonds like Argentina did. That debt, and how it’s received in the market, can have a major impact on the wealth of a nation.

How the pari passu clause is interpreted could also affect what financial markets countries choose to issue debt in, whether they continue to use New York or move their business to other financial capitals, such as London or Tokyo.

Weidemaier also notes that the Argentina case, and the research he’s done generally on contacts and sovereign debt, point to how powerful contracts are. Even though no court has explicit authority over the actions of another nation, and so enforcement of contracts could be difficult, if not impossible, these contracts are still taken very seriously by bond investors and debt-issuing nations.

How the laws of one country — or even agreements between countries — are actually enforced is also a key subject in human rights law.

This article was originally published in the Fall-Winter 2014 issue of Carolina Law.

-December 1, 2014

UNC School of Law’s fourth class of LL.M. students started this fall, and Beverly Sizemore, director of international and LL.M. programs at UNC, said the number of applications rose significantly this year.

“The strength of our applicants has continued to grow,” Sizemore says. “We have high standards, and our standards have been met and exceeded.”

UNC Law keeps the program small — from six to 10 students per year — and students appreciate the individual attention it affords them.

Cornelia Kibler

Cornelia Kibler, a current LL.M. student from Germany, says, “There is always someone there to support us at any minute of the day.”

The seven students in this year’s class have their law degrees from Kazakhstan, Kenya, South Korea, Indonesia, Germany and Wales. In years past, students have hailed from China, Thailand, India, Russia, Taiwan and Libya. All have at least an LL.B. from their home country. Some have remained in the U.S. at the end of the LL.M. program to obtain an American J.D. or to work for multinational firms. Many have returned to their home countries to practice, either in government or for a private company or law firm.

Xuan Li 3L, a graduate of UNC’s inaugural LL.M. class, has returned to UNC School of Law to earn her J.D. UNC law professors respect international students, she says, and faculty and staff have helped her move toward her career goals. Over the summer she worked in the bankruptcy court in Raleigh, a position she learned about through an externship program.

The LL.M. students deepen the law school experience for UNC’s J.D. students. American students gain a perspective on legal systems in different cultures. Interactions between American and international students form connections and add context to discussions of legal issues.

“Individuals practicing law are increasingly dealing with aspects of law that go outside the boundaries of a state or nation and have to be viewed in a global way,” Sizemore says.

Kibler especially appreciated learning about issues that are important in the U.S. and comparing them with priorities in Germany.

“The LL.M. program has broadened me even beyond my law career,” she says.

This article was originally published in the Fall-Winter 2014 issue of Carolina Law. Learn more at http://www.law.unc.edu/academics/degreeprograms/llm/.

-December 9, 2014

Deborah Weissman

Tamar Birckhead

Solitary confinement began as a way to give men a quiet place to reflect on their sins without distraction. The first penitentiary — the word derives from “penitence” — opened in the U.S. in 1829, though the practice had been used since the late 1700s elsewhere. Over the decades, the practice of solitary confinement has deteriorated to the point that it is now the equivalent of torture in violation of the nation’s international treaty obligation, according to a recently released report by UNC School of Law students supervised by Professor Deborah Weissman. The report contributes to a national movement for reform of the use of solitary confinement, as does recently published research by Professor Tamar Birckhead that compares the use of solitary confinement for juvenile offenders in the U.S. with other countries around the world.

Weissman’s students in her Human Rights Policy Seminar researched the various legal frameworks at the federal, international and state levels in order to interpret Eighth Amendment jurisprudence delineating cruel and unusual punishment. They collected raw data, surveyed inmates in the general prison population, and interviewed North Carolina prisoners in a solitary confinement cell block. The inhumane conditions and the impact on the prisoners in solitary left a lasting impression on the third year law students. Mark Bowers ’13 had been a Spanish interpreter prior to law school and had interviewed inmates inside prisons. But even so, he was taken aback by the stench and the noise of solitary — uncirculated air, inmates shouting through the air ducts to speak to one another or kicking the metal doors of their cells nonstop to get the guards’ attention, and the screams of inmates who had broken down psychologically.

“Being confronted with the shocking reality of people’s lives was eye-opening,” Bowers says.

The seminar provided students with the opportunity to engage in the real-life legal work of research, legal analysis and law-related policy work, says Weissman, the Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of law. “It’s important for students not to think of human rights standards as vague, idealistic or aspirational, but something that has real meaning.”

In producing the 225-page report, the four students who were principal authors collaborated with the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, North Carolina Stop Torture Now and Attorney Steven Edelstein of Edelstein & Payne. The next step is to think about how to use the report to obtain reform.

“As criminology and mental health research evolve and demonstrate the devastating and permanent consequences that result from solitary confinement,” Weissman says, “so too must the law evolve and prohibit what we now understand to be unacceptable forms of punishment.”

Despite the late nights of research and writing and the unsettling experience of solitary, Bowers says working on the report was rejuvenating. “I came to law school specifically to serve, to work in social justice and with marginalized groups,” he says. “It was very motivating to be on the side of advocating again.”

Tamar Birckhead, associate professor of law and director of clinical programs, studied the short- and long-term effects of solitary confinement on juvenile offenders and was surprised to find that the existing research focused primarily on its use in the U.S. She examined the rate and duration at which other countries place minors in solitary and found that approximately 30 percent of the countries in the world either use it as a penal technique or legally recognize its use; only two countries — Nepal and the Republic of Georgia — have banned the use of solitary for juveniles. More affluent countries typically distinguish between placing young offenders in solitary for management purposes or punishment; less economically developed countries typically justify it solely for punishment.

“In the U.S., there have been legal challenges based on the Eighth Amendment, but no court has found that solitary confinement in and of itself is unconstitutional,” she says. She attributes this to judges, courts and other governing bodies having a superficial understanding of the nature of the harm.

Birckhead analyzed empirical research by experts who have documented the psychological, physical, and developmental damage done to youth as a result of solitary confinement lasting days, weeks or months. Those in solitary are more likely to be violent once returned to the general inmate population and are more likely to re-offend once they are released to the community.

“Prisons are less safe when they keep people in isolation,” she says. “People in solitary are more likely to develop physical and mental illnesses, mutilate themselves, commit suicide, damage property and inflict violence on staff. And they’re more likely to recidivate, which makes our communities less safe.”

In her article “Children in Isolation: The Solitary Confinement of Youth,” published online, Oct. 21, 2014, on the Social Science Research Network and scheduled for publication in Wake Forest Law Review in 2015, Birckhead cites the example of a juvenile awaiting trial at Rikers Island in New York who spent 300 days in solitary over the course of two years without having been convicted of a crime. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan issued a report in August highly critical of Rikers’ treatment of juvenile inmates, and the jail subsequently announced it would end the use of solitary for 16- and 17-year-olds.

Change takes litigation, press attention, analysis and reporting, she said.

“Best-practice standards are out there that are designed to limit the use of solitary confinement of youth,” she says, “so as far as making change, folks have already done the work.”

Birckhead’s paper has been downloaded nearly 100 times in the first couple of months it was online. She has published an opinion piece for the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange and presented her findings at a comparative criminal law conference. She continues to teach the Youth Justice Clinic at UNC School of Law. Her study may be the first that puts the U.S.’s use of solitary for juveniles in a global context.

-December 19, 2014

The 25th annual Festival of Legal Learning takes place Feb. 13-14, giving attendees an opportunity to complete 12 hours of continuing legal education (CLE) credits from 116 sessions focusing on a variety of topic areas.

Held at The William and Ida Friday Center for Continuing Education in Chapel Hill, the Festival of Legal Learning this year offers a range of educational opportunities that address such topics as consumer law, intellectual property, health law, immigration, insurance, trial skills, negotiation, education law, environmental law and professional ethics.

"We aim to provide educational opportunities of a depth and breadth that would be hard to find elsewhere in a one-and-a-half day program. The festival not only offers high-quality continuing legal education, but has become a networking event that gives colleagues and friends from around the state and nation an opportunity to reconnect while also making new contacts in their areas of interest," says festival program director Judith Welch Wegner, Burton Craige Professor of Law and former dean of UNC School of Law.

Session instructors are recognized experts in their fields and include professors from UNC School of Law, UNC School of Government, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, UNC School of Social Work and UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School, as well as distinguished guest faculty.

The deadline to register is Feb. 6. Reduced fees are available for judges, judicial clerks, full-time academics, JAG, government, and legal aid attorneys who register before Jan. 23. Registration may be completed online at http://www.law.unc.edu/cle/festival/.

-January 6, 2015

A documentary highlighting the storied careers of North Carolina leaders and UNC School of Law alumni Bill Friday ’48, Terry Sanford ’46 and William Aycock ’48, among others, aired on UNC-TV Jan. 8.

“A Generation of Change: Bill Friday, Terry Sanford, and North Carolina from the 1920s-1972,” written and directed by Durham, N.C., filmmaker Steve Channing, celebrates the public contributions of a group of North Carolinians, most of whom were members of the same study group at UNC School of Law. Gene R. Nichol, Boyd Tinsley Distinguished Professor of Law at UNC, served as executive producer of the film.

“I got involved with the project because I was lucky enough to be close with President Friday and Chancellor Aycock,” Nichol says.

Friday, Sanford, Aycock and others from N.C.’s own “greatest generation” led a time of dramatic change that established many of today’s institutions, including the state university system. The documentary covers the span of time from their youth in the 1920s to the election in 1972 and the birth of the two-party state in North Carolina.

“While numerous Carolina lawyers have gone on to make important contributions to the state, very few can match the collective public impact of a class that included Governor and later Senator Terry Sanford; UNC President Bill Friday; Chancellor and beloved UNC law professor Bill Aycock; UNC School of Law dean and later Fourth Circuit Judge Dickson Phillips Jr.; Bill Deas, the first chair of the UNC Board of Governors; and other outstanding leaders as well,” says UNC School of Law Dean John C. “Jack” Boger ’74.

The film explores how the state’s emerging leaders of the time were developed by the Great Depression and World War II.

“I think the fact that my generation came through that lacerating depression, many of us worked to get through college, walked right off that stage into World War II, by the time we came back here to law school at Chapel Hill, in one sense we were an old people,” Friday said.

For more information: http://generationofchangefilm.com/.

-January 8, 2015

A full-day program for discussion of recent high-profile incidents of alleged police brutality in Ferguson, Mo., and New York City will take place at UNC School of Law on Friday, Jan. 23. The program will feature three expert panels and keynote speaker Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF).

Sponsored by the UNC Law Clinical Programs and the UNC Center for Civil Rights, panelists will include academics, lawyers, law enforcement professionals, journalists and community activists.

Prior to her role at LDF, Ifill was a law professor at the University of Maryland School of Law for 20 years, where, in addition to teaching Civil Procedure and Constitutional Law, she litigated and consulted on a broad and diverse range of civil rights cases. She is nationally recognized as an advocate in the areas of civil rights, voting rights, judicial diversity and judicial decision-making.

“We hope the program sparks meaningful conversation and helps inform our students and the community on the law and history related to the struggle for racial equality and justice in the United States,” says Tamar Birckhead, associate professor of law and director of clinical programs.

The event is free and open to the public, but registration is required. Learn more and register.

-January 13, 2015

A full-day program for discussion of recent high-profile incidents of alleged police brutality in Ferguson, Mo., and New York City will take place at UNC School of Law on Friday, Jan. 23. The program will feature three expert panels and keynote speaker Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF).

Sponsored by the UNC Law Clinical Programs and the UNC Center for Civil Rights, panelists will include academics, lawyers, law enforcement professionals, journalists and community activists.

Prior to her role at LDF, Ifill was a law professor at the University of Maryland School of Law for 20 years, where, in addition to teaching Civil Procedure and Constitutional Law, she litigated and consulted on a broad and diverse range of civil rights cases. She is nationally recognized as an advocate in the areas of civil rights, voting rights, judicial diversity and judicial decision-making.

“We hope the program sparks meaningful conversation and helps inform our students and the community on the law and history related to the struggle for racial equality and justice in the United States,” says Tamar Birckhead, associate professor of law and director of clinical programs.

The event is free and open to the public, but registration is required. Learn more and register.

-January 13, 2015