This episode features introductory remarks to the Technology Law and Policy Clinic at 10 event from Professors Jason Schultz and Jeanne Fromer, as well as the panel discussion of TLP alums providing perspectives from clinical teaching. It was recorded on November 10, 2023.
Jason Schultz (moderator), New York University School of Law, Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy, and Technology Law and Policy Clinic
Megan Graham, Samuelson Law Technology & Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley School of Law
Brett Max Kaufman, American Civil Liberties Union
Amanda Levendowski, Intellectual Property and Information Policy Clinic at Georgetown Law
Peter Steffensen, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Announcer 0:01
Welcome to engelberg center live a collection of audio from events held by the engelberg center on innovation Law and Policy at NYU Law.
This episode features introductory remarks to the technology Law and Policy clinic at 10 event from professors Jason Schultz and Jeanne Fromer, as well as the panel discussion of TLP alums providing perspectives from clinical teaching. It was recorded on November 10 2023.
Jason Schultz 0:33
I am so excited about today, it is going to be so much fun to celebrate the clinic 10. And, you know, one of the things that I'm particularly excited about is, you know, when I came here from Berkeley, 10 years ago, one of the things about Berkeley, one of the reasons that convinced me there that we could do a clinic, and that to come and teach the clinic there, when I went was that there was so much support across the faculty. Any of you who know, clinics, and we'll talk about this on the first panel, know that in some places, and for, you know, complicated historical reasons, the clinical faculty and the non clinical faculty don't always see eye to eye, they don't always understand what each other does. And so there's a conversation that has to happen to figure that out. And some schools, you know, for various reasons, have been able to figure it out and work certain ways that are very positive, productive, others are figuring it out kind of more slowly. And apparently, we'd really figured it out around what the public interest in technology was, like, why was this conversation important? Why should students be doing this work? Why is this important to be part of the educational mission of the law school? And when I came to NYU, and that was one of my big questions was like, where's the conversation? And how's it gonna go here. And one of the most wonderful things about it was that I found such a resonance, not only with the clinical colleagues here, but the non clinical colleagues who work in IP and tech. And one of those amazing colleagues is Jeannie farmer. And Genie is, you know, for those who know her an amazing teacher, just a prolific, fantastic, brilliant scholar, but also just like, a wonderful person who cares deeply and thinks, like, about the implications of her work, and all these different in important ways. And the ways that it impacts society and the world we want to live in and to have colleagues. Like that just meant the world to me was one of the big reasons why I wanted to come and why I want to create something here. She's also now officially, are you my boss? I can't tell the okay. I don't know. But she's officially the Vice Dean. Is it for of intellectual life? I guess sorry, comma, I should know this. The Vice Dean come in like so like, I'm not sure how that person's. But, but I think it's really, really fantastic that he is for many reasons. But also because, and we'll talk more about this today. And kind of in general, it's just that these issues around IP tech, all the stuff going on right now could not be more prominent, and in some ways more central to the conversations around and the questions of what work we do in the world, and how the world is impacted by our work and those in our fields. So I would love to invite, you need to come up and kick us off for the day.
Jeanne Fromer 3:34
Jason, thank you so much for that generous intro. I'm honored to be here to welcome everyone to NYU laws, technology Law and Policy clinic celebrating 10 years. So Jason introduced me and I will stick on four of my titles not because I'm obsessed with titles, because it really underscores how Jason and this clinic is so central to the things that happen at NYU Law School. So as Jason said, I'm Vice Dean comma intellectual life. I am also a professor of intellectual property here. I co direct the engelberg center on innovation, law and policy with Jason and a number of others here. And most importantly, I get to be a colleague and friend to Jason Schultz. And every single one of these roles makes me feel so fortunate to be here celebrating the 10th anniversary of the technology Law and Policy clinic at NYU. Jason and his clinic enrich the intellectual life at this law school and much further by originating and helping advance so many scholarly projects. I'll mentioned a few You that really stick out but there's even so much more his work on ownership and the digital economy, regulation of facial recognition, whether AI systems can be state actors, worker surveillance. And the clinic's work has enabled a robust education here at NYU in intellectual property information law and technology law, by giving students a hand in working on advancing cutting edge issues in the field, and enabling them to apply the intellectual property and tech law offerings that they have in the non clinical space and theories of that to real world situation. And I've thought that the clinic is so important to really rounds out our IP information law and talk tech law offerings in a way that really benefits our students. The clinic also interfaces with the engelberg center, to many of our important white papers and reports and events such as a recent white paper co authored by Jason on the anti ownership book economy Ebuka Connery and I have to just say, my intellectual and personal life is enriched by getting to collaborate with and spend time with Jason and he's just an invaluable member of this community. So in all my roles, I really feel so grateful that Jason and his clinic have been at NYU. You know, there's a misperception oftentimes, of technology law, and policy and intellectual property as being a private law subject. Right. It's all about how, you know, these private entities organize themselves. And it's one thing that prospective students often ask a lot about, as they're coming in, you know, they're interested in public policy and other things, and they want to know, is intellectual property is information laws, tech law, just about private law. And I always tell them, No, and exhibit A is the work that this clinic does, because it underscores how and meshed the public interest is in these fields. And I want to give you a sense you're gonna hear I expect you'll hear more about a lot of this today. But it just like boggled my mind to put all this together. When I was thinking about this, so here's a sense of some of the past and probably ongoing matters that the clinic has done. And so I'm guessing you know, many of you have worked on Okay, so counseling open source software, open science and DIY makers to develop appropriate licensing mechanisms, counseling the New York Public Library on the legal rules or risks associated with open source software production, and more recently, on various issues, copyright, privacy and security issues related to its ebook lending app, filing public records, requests and lawsuits to inform the public about government surveillance programs such as warrantless tracking of the location of people's cell phones and many more things. Arguing on behalf of reed Digi in a really important case, important case on copyrights for sale doctrine in the digital world, representing the artist and designer Abigail glam lathbury for her project, the genuine unauthorized clothing clone Institute, in which he would take selfies, wearing luxury garments and digitally printing her selfies onto liberated garments of her own making. That was a really fun one. Representing Mozilla, Wikimedia and other organizations in support of certiorari and Google vs Oracle raising concerns about over protecting of API's via copyright law that one went better. Working with the prep for all collaboration, and all volunteer group of access to medicine activists in New York City to challenge patent monopolies on life saving HIV, AIDS and COVID-19 drugs to ensure wide equitable access to medical technologies. Work on behalf of artists and copyright case involving appropriation or arguing in favor of a broad understanding of fair use constitutional litigation over aerial surveillance system. And Baltimore. Those are that's just a sample and it just boggles my mind to think about this range of really important, you know, set of issues related to technology, law and policy that Jason and the clinic have really pushed forward over the past many years, and it's yielded incredible results. Also, as evidenced by the amazing group of people Many of whom are gathered here today, the fellows that Jason's worked with, and CO teachers that are populating the academy and public interest organizations, students that are now populating law firms tech and other companies, public interest groups and government. So thank you for being here today. Thank you to Jason, for coming to the East Coast, and launching this impactful and amazing clinic and allowing us all to benefit from it. So thank you.
Jason Schultz 10:45
Thanks for you. So why don't I invite the first panel to come up, and then I'll say a few things to kick us off. So I think you know who you are. And you guys, can I learned this trick, which is if you get the first panelists up here, they can't leave, right. Oh, maybe you can.
So, yeah, welcome. And thank you, again, everyone, for being here. Um, and also want to just make sure that we take a moment to thank Michael, who's walking right in front of us right here. And Katrina, who I think is Christian, still outside, okay, so we'll also think Katrina, when she's inside, maybe at lunch or something like that. And to Susan and Jake, and all the others who helped make this event happen. Any of you who know me know that I like ideas. And execution is something that I need help with. No, but seriously, it's been fantastic to work with everyone to make it all come together, including, you know, the happy hour tonight, after this afternoon, afterwards, everything. So really, thank you to all of you for for the work you did to make this all come together. So nearly 25 years ago, which is kind of crazy to think about, I was a to all at Berkeley Law. And I was there, I was interested in intellectual property and privacy and a couple of other things and thinking about public interest things. And, you know, it was kind of a more innocent time, we might think, in technology law, at least we didn't understand necessarily, all of the kind of, you know, heavy things and kind of serious things that could happen at the moment. But what we didn't know was that as we looked around the sort of student group I was with that a lot of our friends who cared about justice and public interest had a place to go to do that work. While in law school, they had a clinic, some of them had other things, but like, clinics were a big part of where that energy could go. And we didn't have one. And so we got together with some faculty, particularly Pam Samuelson at Berkeley, but others as well. And we petitioned for a clinic there to create a well, a sort of IP tech clinic, we didn't even know what the name was going to be. And we got a lot of students to sign on, we approached the faculty, we argued for it. And we had to make a case, why it was important, why it's important, not just for the world, and all that, but also just for our learning something that we couldn't just get from a summer in a law firm kind of idea, right. And we are successful, in large part because there were a lot of loud student voices, and that students asking for what they needed was a really big part of it, which, you know, for those who, you know, who are here know, in clinics, you know, students deciding what they want to do is a big part, like having agency of some kind and making, in your own mind, what up what a strategy looks like, how are you going to implement it, weaken it? So it's kind of fun that that was also kind of sort of what got the momentum going there. And it was really, you know, an interesting moment, because as we're articulating, you know, these kinds of ideas around what we want to work on, you know, open access and public domain and privacy and cybersecurity was also kind of overwhelming, right to think about all the different areas that you could work on, but also exciting. And it also started to link up with like this idea of like, well, what kind of lawyers do we need in the world? What kind of advocates need to be working on these issues after graduation right. And also, like, where did we want to create a space at the law school for people like us who would come later right, like when you land in law school, I mean, this is still something that sits with me every single time I talk to prospective students are what else is like the search for a minor way to search for a space It feels like it could be solid ground on some level, right? And a place, maybe it's a home, maybe it's a community, maybe it's something else, but something where they can sort of feel like, okay, I can sit here and it can be solid, and I can hang out here in law school and and then I can do everything else I want to do. And trying to create that with a clinic was a big goal as students there at Berkeley. And then about 10 years ago, and I come back from eff to teach the clinic Berkeley, I got contacted by NYU, and they were interested in starting at a clinic here. And I didn't really understand what was going on or why wherever it goes. It's interesting. I'll come in, I'll talk to folks here and I came in the faculty were lovely, and cafes were cozy, and it was all good. But then I heard actually, while I was here that this had all come about because of a student petition that a bunch of students had said, Why is there no clinic here we have a skirt clinical program, we have this great IP program, but we're not doing this kind of work and other law schools are doing it. And I was so excited. Because you know, of course, this took me back to the sort of Berkeley vibe. And I was like, wow, that is a big deal. And I was like, Can I meet with these students. And then it turned out that the only time during my visit that we could all meet was like on a Saturday morning. And I was like, Okay, I'm sure like, no one's really gonna show up on Saturday morning. But if people want to hang out on Saturday morning and talk to me, they can. And like, dozens came. And it's one of those things where like in law school, if dozens of students show up on a Saturday morning for anything other than exam review, you know, that like, this is something that actually matters to them, right. So anyway, long story short, like it was a great experience, but it was also a necessary experience, right? Because that is what it takes, it takes the kind of student energy to make a clinic real, it is something that is essential. And it was so essential here, and it made me it sort of just made it obvious that this had to happen. So you know, today, looking back on last 10 years, it's just been a huge privilege to be part of this endeavor. We've had hundreds of students, dozens of clients, hundreds of matters. You know, Jeanne touched on a number of them in the kind of range of things and we're going to talk about a bunch of those today. But in particular, today, for me is about the people about the community, and just how great it's been to work with so many of you. Over the years, it's really it's been the best part. And, you know, in particular, not just the folks here on the panel, who I'll introduce in a second. But, you know, the, the, the clients, the students, the CO teachers, like it's a, it's all been a learning experience for me too. Like I learned something from everyone I work with. And that has been so valuable to me. And I think it's been hopefully something that the clinic has offered everyone. Alright, so a couple logistical things. And then I think we'll move in. We said us, okay, yeah, I was like, I don't want to stand up here. So I'm like, Yeah, I'll go, I'll go down the end once we once we get into it. So people will be coming in and out all day. What's also great about students who have jobs is that they have jobs. But so lots of folks will be coming in and out from who you know, are going to make it but might have to step out. But I wanted to just encourage everyone like the one of the big goals, we have breaks, to socialize is to connect, right? Connect with people, you know, maybe find someone you don't know, if you want to like bail on a panel and go get coffee or take a walk or whatever, please do. Like, I absolutely encourage you to take advantage of this time as time to find in people and talk to them and get to know them or reconnect with them or whatever you need. The panels are here just to kind of, you know, keep us going and to give us new information on what people were working on and how they're thinking and reflections and stuff. But don't let that hold you back. I don't think there are any other logistical things. I don't think so if you have questions whenever we're around. But the other thing is, we did Katrina did send around a link to a kudos board. This is something actually I just learned last week exists in the world. So but it is the kind of place where if for some reason you want to leave a comment, you want to like have a memory that you want to share or anything or even a you know, a challenge to the clinic to do something, whatever it is, feel free to just chuck it up there. If you need the link Katrina could send it to you. But you know, it's just another method of kind of being able to contribute if you feel like it because I know not everybody gets up and speaks in a podium and these kinds of things right. Okay, so I am now going to transition to the seat at the end But you were you were waiting for that moment.
All right. All right. So the first panel is about clinical teaching. And this is also like just one of those things that I'm super proud and privileged to just be connected to all of you around, which is when, you know, when you when you create a clinic, like we did Berkeley, in this I got a lot of mentoring on it's like, how do you think about this as a field, right, as a field of work that people can build together? You know, whether you want to think of it as a movement, or a kind of intellectual endeavor, or a kind of community endeavor, or any of those things. And one of the first piece of advice I got was, well, how do you get help? How do you work with people and learn from them, and so that you have colleagues, right, because it's very lonely to do all kinds of work. And so it's not very productive. And so these ideas of teaching and figuring out how to teach together have been always really important to me. So I have four wonderful people here who are going to we're gonna have a conversation about. So first thing is, I'm, I always hate introducing people because I feel like they know their stories better than I do. So I'm going to ask you to view just to say a little bit about who you are, what you do now. And what your connection to the DLP clinic is or was that why don't I start with you, Amanda? Sure.
Amanda Levendowski 21:41
My name is Amanda Levendowski. I am the founding director of Georgetown laws, intellectual property and Information Policy clinic or the IPF clinic. And I found that that clinic because I was a student in this clinic, and I had a life crisis as a second semester, three owl. And I was working at the ACLU. And I was realizing that I didn't just have to work for tech companies or other corporations, I could be working in the public interest that hadn't occurred to me before them, which is a real problem. And I went to Jason and I was like, Cool, cool, cool, cool, cool. What do I do? And he was like, Don't worry, you're gonna go into your job in big law, you're gonna learn so much, you're gonna get a bunch of skills. And then when you're ready, you can go, there's clinical fellowships all across the country, because what I said to him, I think was, I want your job. And he was like, Well, I have that job. So unfortunately, that won't work. But we can find you your own job. And one way you can do that is through a Clinical Teaching Fellowship, which had never been on my radar before. And so then I came back as a Clinical Teaching Fellow, and I spent another six years at NYU, which was remembered by the wonderful guard who let me in without an ID. And then I found at the clinic at Georgetown, and there was there was a student interest at Georgetown as well. And they just hadn't found the right person to make that happen for the students. And I got to be that person.
Peter Steffensen 23:04
Hi, everyone. I'm Peter Steffensen. I am the legal fellow at the First Amendment clinic at SMU Dedman School of Law in Dallas. I started there last June. So I'm relatively new to the clinical teaching world. And also extremely humbled to be on this panel with some amazing people, three of whom were my professors. So this is an amazing full circle moment. For me, I think I have somewhat of a similar story to Amanda and that I also realized in law school, and particularly through the clinic that I did not necessarily have to craft my career around working for a law firm or for big company or corporation, out of law school. before law school, I worked in the digital advertising industry, what drew me in sort of the tech space was interest in commercial surveillance issues and, and broader surveillance issues in general. That was sort of the thread on the sweater that I started pulling. And so I knew I was always interested in in in public interest law. But I think my experience in the in the clinic, learning from y'all getting to do some, really, I think, formative work for me and working with I think some of the best students in the law school really made me realize that I wanted to commit to public interest work after law school. So I didn't go directly into the tech space. After graduating, I started the fellowship at a legal services organization in Texas called the Texas Civil Rights Project. I did a lot of criminal legal system work, and sometimes they were sort of tech adjacent issues. And then when I was ready for a transition in the office, the right opportunity came up which luck plays into getting these roles a lot of times, but the timing was right, and a position opened up at SMU and here I am now so I'm going to try and refrain from saying what they said a lot on this panel because A lot of what I know I learned from, from the folks up here, and I'm incredibly grateful for that we'll try and add some bits and pieces of insight where I can, but really, I'm just grateful to be here and grateful to be back.
Amanda Levendowski 25:13
Thanks, Megan. Hi, everybody.
Megan Graham 25:15
I am Megan Graham. My I have like the longest title I apologize. I'm a clinical supervising attorney at the Samuelson law technology and public policy, public policy clinic at Berkeley Law. See I fumble over it.
Jason Schultz 25:30
So what's the acronym?
Megan Graham 25:33
actually get away with the acronym? No, we just assume it's in clinic. We're the only one that's only Samuelsson. The others have other names in them as well. Um, so I my experience with the clinic is I actually only did one semester in the clinic, but it was in the advanced clinic as a second semester three out for reasons that involves a lot of begging Jason to let me into the clinic. And as far as you know, how did the clinic shaped my career? What is my interaction with the clinic? Unlike, folks, to my left, I knew that law firm life was not for me. When I started law school, I think anybody who's met me for more than five minutes knows that that was not going to be my calling. But I definitely as a second semester, three, hello, walked into Jason's office. And I was like, so I want to do something that's not a job. Like I these are the things I'm interested in. No one does this, like, so I didn't want Jason's job necessarily. But I was like, I don't know how to make this a career. I have this like, weird niche interest. And no one is hiring for that. And Jason was like, well, we'll figure it out. Don't worry, like, you know, you'll do your first job, or maybe like your first couple jobs. And then, you know, clinical teaching is I actually think at the time we were in clinical teaching is a space where you can kind of make up your job, you can decide what your docket looks like, and really help people who need help in ways that are different than whoever's do it, whoever has the same title, kind of right next to you. So after a couple of years, I went to Berkeley, because I think, as Peter said, that was where there was an opening at the time. And I was lucky enough to have mentors, both Jason and folks who used to work with Jason at Berkeley, or with Jason here, who were like, well, we can explore right? What it means to be a tech and public interest lawyer can be infinite things. And so my work, especially more recently, has really focused on tech in the criminal legal system in practice, right, like, what do public defenders see in their cases? What do they need help figuring out how to litigate? And that's, you know, a space where, you know, Brett, you and your colleagues have been working around there, but but like really strong, deep partnerships with public defender offices, who are seeing the trial cases with the evidence and the need to build a record or litigate an issue is just a challenge. And for whatever reason, stars aligned, and I was able to kind of flight in and grow that space out. So it all started it sounds like everybody went to Jason We don't know what this job looks like, what job can we do? And
Amanda Levendowski 28:14
that's kind of why I clinic director, crisis coordinator
Megan Graham 28:18
same thing Venn diagrams.
Brett Max Kaufman 28:24
I'm Brett I also had a comp to Jason moment.
I was a young fellow at the ACLU and the national security project for a couple of years that were some of the most active in the projects history. There were one time Okay, so this there was a lawsuit, you remember that? On behalf of all our walkies family. And in the right in the middle of my fellowship, Snowden disclosures happened, and there was a lot of intense litigation around that. And I couldn't have imagined leaving, you know, as one of the painful things of getting a good fellowship is realizing you can't stay and I really did feel sort of like I was being cast into the wilderness, and had just, you know, one of those lucky breaks of your lifetime when I got put in touch with Jason, who was looking for a teaching fellow in this in this relatively new clinic. And we just hit it off in a really short conversation. I think, a couple of weeks later, it was done. I wasn't gonna go be a teacher, which was something I had never even thought about it. And so one thing I really really have been always grateful for is we had just a really honest conversation where, you know, Jason said to me, you don't have to take this job and go become a teacher or if you don't want to, like you can do anything you want with it. But I could see you being great at it and and you'll go and use that you know, going forward. And so that gave me a lot of confidence to do it. And it also became part of how I ended up mentoring students to is just kind of realizing that there's no set path for anything. And you can kind of just as Megan, as all these people sort of pave their own way, you got to just find your little niche and go for it and have a confidence of a workout. So. So I've been really fortunate I was only a fellow for one year, I got an opportunity to go back to the ACLU and Jason encouraged even though I was sort of bailing on a multi year commitment, he's thanks for that.
Jason Schultz 30:38
That was the accident that
Brett Max Kaufman 30:41
encouraged you to go back, and then obviously gave me the chance to be an adjunct and back around for, you know, 789 years almost. And I have been so lucky to know almost all of you in the audience because of that experience. And so we're still at the ACLU, and I'm working remotely out of California. And I just, it was like, last fall, I think, was my last semester teaching here. And this semester, I've been teaching a seminar at UCLA, which is a totally different thing. And I can't even imagine 10 years ago, like, thinking that that would be a possibility for me. So I'm really grateful to be here. My experience in the clinic has been incredible. And getting to meet so many amazing students. And watching you all, I mean, one of the weirdest thing, being a practitioner, and having this also as part of my life is being on Zoom calls. And then all of a sudden, a student I had for years, on the other end of it, and I'm like, Whoa, this is bizarre. It's happened now, like 789 times. So it's really, it also makes me feel really proud to be connected to this community, for sure.
Jason Schultz 31:55
One thing I just want to mention is, originally, Chris Morton was also going to be on this panel, he now he was a teaching fellow who now runs a clinic at Columbia, he did have a family emergency health situation, but so he sends his love, and win Greetings to everybody, as well as one acknowledge that this is also part of this, this community, and he's going to be here. So let's dig a little deeper, just for fun. But also, because I think this is part of the connection, that's always fascinating. To me that which is so you know, one of the ways I think about clinical teaching is creating student learning opportunities, and then trying to get out of the way, right, so that the students can go in, figure it out, and you're there to provide, you know, the safety net, or whatever you need to do. But also to help them see opportunities, reflect on them figure figure things out from from a kind of, you know, support role in in some ways. So I wonder if each of you wanted to maybe talk about one thing that you're currently doing in terms of your teaching, or work or, you know, if you're mentoring or working in that way, that give us a little more detail about a particular project that you've worked on. And then how you see those student learning opportunities, kind of in that work. And then if there's any connection to kind of, you know, things that you saw when you were in the clinic here, you don't have to, but like, just like, what is student? What does student learning opportunities look like to you and the work that you do? Maybe that's a good way to put it? And why don't we go in reverse order. So give Amanda a break and come back?
Brett Max Kaufman 33:32
Well, you know, one of the great parts of my job at ACLU is getting, I have a pretty broad docket, I work with multiple projects, which means that I get to work with a lot of our legal fellows at the ACLU. And being in that kind of supervising role for a young attorney, like we will follow is, I mean, the skills and the relationships are like really, really similar to how you manage a project in the clinic. And so I'm constantly falling back on things that we did. And that I learned from Jason and others in the clinic about how to approach that kind of work, how to give, give people structure on how to accomplish something and learn through it themselves, but also make sure that they're not just completely spinning their wheels constantly. And so just approaching and, you know, the way that we do feedback and sort of breaking down process and stuff, which can feel like okay, we're in a law clinic, that's what we're gonna do. We're gonna talk about talking about everything, you know, but that just completely that that totally ports over to practice, you know, and I think the more that you can think of your relationships at work, like in the frame that we will all learn to clinic, you're going to get better feedback, you're going to, you know, have federal trust, you're going to have people that can gain more confidence about how to go about their work by themselves. So, and also the values I think that we talk about in the clinic all the time, are really, really important, you know, including, you know, one of the things I have tried to teach all the young lawyers that I work with with the ACLU is that being a good colleague, is maybe the most important thing you can bring to work. And we talked about that so much in clinic, that like, even if you're not the best at this legal research, or you're the best writer or whatever, you can contribute to that environment by just being a good colleague, by being a listener, helping people think through things editing, driving forward, things that aren't, you know, in your in your sort of area. And so, I make that explicit with, with young lawyers all the time, communication and other value, like Jason always, like, you know, and I brought that totally part of my, you know, my practice as well as, like my new teaching fingers, just look, things happen, you can maybe you can't miss it, make a deadline, just tell me as soon as you can't, and we'll work it out. And that's that approach, I think, is just so healthy and so important to make explicit. So I feel like I'm constantly falling back on on stuff that we did in the clinic to actually move forward projects at the ACLU.
Megan Graham 36:18
So I think I'll talk about so when I was a student. The work I worked on, like three projects that semester, there were a whole bunch of projects involved. And one of the things I remember being like, frustrated about but also knowing it was like taking your medicine where you're like, I know, I know, there's a reason for this, there's no way that these people are gonna like, let us be This annoyed the whole semester, the first part of semester was Jason and Lee Rowland, who was my supervisor, and Brett were kind of like, well, here are the projects, figure it out, like, what is the project look like? What does it look like in practice? And that's a really challenging thing to do, right? When you're a student who just wants to be told, like write a memo about x legal issue, right? And we were given this kind of free rein to explore depth conversations with our clients about what like, this is what we think would help with this. Right? And have those conversations before we even started doing the work, right. And so now, a lot of my practice with students is exactly that. And it's me getting my comeuppance, because I'm listening to students be like, This is really annoying, and constantly, right, this is really hard. This is really annoying. But one recent example, we worked with a Federal Public Defender office in New England, who was really struggling with ensuring that their clients had actual meaningful access to their discovery materials, when their clients were detained pretrial. Right. So their clients are in jail, the judges are being told, hey, there are computers, they can access this stuff, if they want to, they can review materials, it's not a big deal. And the students were like, okay, so we know what the problem is, which is all of the defense attorneys are telling us that that's not true. Right. But like, we don't know what to do. We don't know, does that mean, we have to like litigate a whole bunch of issues that we'll figure out what the motions are called later? Doesn't mean we have to, you know, participate in some other way? Do we need to like push judges in kind of an education training set setting? Do we need to make sure that we understand what the barriers are? Is it that there aren't enough computers? Is it that clients who are incarcerated don't know what they have to do to read their discovery materials, right? There were kind of like any number of potential triggers. And the students were just like, it's so big. Like, we don't know, we don't know what to do. And you won't tell us and I was like, well, Jason told me that that's part of what it means to be a lawyer, right is figuring out what is the problem? And then what is the fix? What is the set of tools that you want to deploy, that's going to best help your client? Right? That may mean that you don't, it may not be what you thought it was originally. And that's a product that evolved, actually, at the end of the day, similar to my clinic experience, like four different solutions, right? The students had to work on many different types of things. Some of it was just add, like educational material to explain how does a criminal case unfold? Why is discovery important? And how do you access your discovery if you are incarcerated, we also interviewed a whole bunch of people and then went to the judges. And we were like, so we think that you all maybe want to go to the jail and actually see what the setup is. Because you're being told something that we do understand is literally true. But that is not translating to an actual reality, where people have access to justice, they do not have access to these materials that let them participate in their own defense. And so you're like, you have to physically go look at this. So you better understand it. The judges did and then the judges were like, What is this? Like they were so they were flabbergasted they felt lied to. And they kind of the judges started to push right in a way that the Federal Public Defender got to be like, great. We will help you push, we will help make sure you understand what these issues are. And so I think one of the things I learned in the clinic again, as frustrating as it was, for me is sometimes at the start, you don't know what the best path is. And that's part of being a lawyer prior to being in the clinic. And I just spent a lot of time with my current students being like, it'll be okay. We will figure it out. Are we making forward progress? Are you listening to your clients? Are you thinking through creative solutions? Right, like, like I said, sometimes it's litigation, and sometimes it's not right. And sometimes it's something that you would not have imagined when you applied to law school would be real legal work. And like, that's okay. Because the end of the day, how do we best help the people who need our help? Right.
Peter Steffensen 40:51
So all, I'll draw on Brett's point about values. And say that one of the things that I think back to my clinic experience all the time was how much my clinic experience helped me figure out the kind of lawyer that I wanted to be. And I don't think that that's something that law school is very good at, it's it's good at, at least on the doctrinal side, teaching you all sorts of creative ways of thinking about the law and talking about the law, but I don't think it really necessarily gives you role models, unless your role model or your your desires to to be a professor. And, and that was something that I think I came into my clinic experience looking for and wanting, and very much finding people who were the model of lawyer that I wanted to be in sort of showed me what was possible in terms of bringing care and empathy and compassion, not just into the actual legal work, but into the way that you treat each other and pull together, a team of of students and professors and supervisors to work on something that everyone agrees is is important and often urgent, and incredibly valuable for their clients. And so when I, when I approach sort of each new semester, and each new group of students and I'm in my third semester now, I find myself sort of always thinking back to what my experience in Clint was, especially at the very beginning, and learning from the values that our professors held outwardly. And didn't necessarily tell us we needed to adopt, but but it was very much a kind of, we learned by them showing. And, and so the way that I tried to draw on that and level set within the clinic, is, you know, I feel like oftentimes, and maybe some of y'all can empathize with this, but oftentimes, our students come in with a certain set of assumptions and expectations about what being a student in a law school class is, and clinic is not that and I don't think should be that it should very much be a counterpoint to many of the, the the ingrained habits that you kind of learned early on in law school. And so that's an opportunity for us to kind of unwind and and reset our students and have them think about, what does it mean to be a good lawyer? What does it mean to be a responsible lawyer. And so I'll echo a lot of what you were saying about being a good teammate, and an honesty and being upfront. And and I'll add even being willing to come to your team and admit mistakes early on. Because that level of transparency and honesty, pulls your team closer and helps show that you can be a reliable person and a reliable lawyer at representing your clients. And so, early on, whenever I have my sort of initial one on one meetings with students, I'm trying to start laying the groundwork for that in in any of the projects that I work on with them, and to ground that in a particular example. You know, we're very litigation heavy clinic. We filed a lawsuit earlier this year, a 1983 suit involving a client of ours who was arrested for filing a public records request. And so we just completed the motion to dismiss briefing. And our students were integral to that, but we had the benefit of starting early in the semester with pre briefing a lot of the issues that we were going to work on. And that gave us a chance to go through 3456 iterations, which is not always what it'll be like practically in an actual legal practice, but it gives them sort of a good sort of place to experiment and build comfort and learn what is the feedback and what are my expectations and what might be the expectations and, and habits of the people that they work with and their partners. And, and all of that comes with, I think a safety net which is so important for for clinical teaching as well as to tell people early on that this is a place where you can learn but also make mistakes, and that we're here to support you, and help develop those skills so that when you're ready to graduate and go into whatever you're going to do that, you know, the experience that you had here was was positive, informative, and didn't instill bad habits or, or add to the, the other assumptions and, and things that are built into the doctrinal teaching system. And we're quinyx really have an opportunity to pull students away from that type of thinking.
Amanda Levendowski 45:36
I really agree with the values. And one of the things that was so important when I was setting up my clinic is I wanted to make those values really explicit for students, I wanted them discover their own values, right, that was still really important. But I wanted to make a commitment to them about the kind of working environment I was going to create for them. And based on my experiences in the clinic, as both a student and a fellow I decided to say that we would foster a working environment rooted in hard work, trust, humility, respect, and joy. And I feel like that really captures so much of my experience. But that's actually not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about how this year it took me four years from fellow to Professor to join the JSON cinematic universe. I recently hired a new fellow of my own, she's not my first fellow. She's my third fellow, and she's amazing. Her name is Shwetha Kumar. And she was referred to me by Chris Morton, who was Jason's fellow after me. And I knew that if it was coming with that level of like, level of lineage, she was gonna be an effing rock star. And I had been right. And to give you a concrete example, here at Georgetown, we're not here at Georgetown, but at Georgetown, the fellows are also students, they're LLM students and advocacy. And so she's in this dual role as learner and learning. And we decided to stick crossed off on a project together. And this project was really exciting to me, because it was putting one of my pieces of scholarship at the intersection of intellectual and privacy, which I would never have done. But for the clinic into practice, I wrote a piece about using the federal trademark register for surveillance transparency, because a bunch of companies don't realize that when they file federal trademarks, they have to describe the goods and services that they're filing for publicly, and they disclose some pretty wild shit, including like the private cell phone numbers of a pred poll worker, or the exact interface of appellant to your computer, or the actual license plate numbers captured by an automated license plate reader, not a joke. But we're using that to research whether ebook companies that are intermediaries for public libraries, some of them you may have heard of, are able to spy on library patrons, which is a real concern for our client. And she has a patent background, I have this trademark background. And so she was going to supervise the students on developing patent searches to right do the same methodology but in a different system. I was advising them on a trademark stuff. And one week before the middle of semester, I pulled her aside and I was like, Do you want to just run this project? And she was like, Well, that seems quite intimidating. I just started and she was very lovely about it. But I kind of said, you know, you're you're ready, right? The same way that we throw the students into it. And we're here to give a safety net and guardrails as like you can take the bumpers off, you're not going to roll off the bed, you are going to do an amazing job. And now they just sent me their draft for an op ed that they're writing with their client, and her name is going to be on it, which feels really good.
Jason Schultz 48:34
I think that's a fantastic paper. By the way, if anyone's interested in what Amanda uncovered that no one had seen, it's really brilliant. In fact, there are two papers, right? Like you didn't follow along as well,
Amanda Levendowski 48:45
of course, was so nice. I did it twice. Exactly.
Jason Schultz 48:49
So I want to dig in a little deeper and to the substance. You've touched on it a bit. And in some of your comments, but I think this is also what's fun about it, right. And this is also where I learned a ton of stuff, right? But also just to kind of acknowledge again, like I it's not that we're in a unique moment, but we are in a particular moment right now with where like the headlines just seem like more and more every day, that the question of how technology is changing society, for better or worse is just like, everywhere. And I wondered if Yeah, if you want each one to talk about a particular project, and maybe even follow up on the projects that you know, the two of you mentioned, or pick something else where you think it's like, this is one of those issues that is on your mind. It's like one of your issues where you're like, we gotta get this one really right, or it's gonna like like something, something that you're really driven around, and kind of what you're teaching or the clinical piece of that might look like so I'll give an example. Like, you know, that I think, you know, right now I, this question of digital lending for libraries, right, which is kind of related to the ebook stuff, right? Like will library survive in the digital age? Just kind of this important question that we're trying to figure out, there's a lawsuit against the Internet Archive, there's an opportunity for amicus briefs. And I think the students, you know, are doing really great work on like copyright law, right. But it's like thinking about like, Will libraries sort of survive this, this moment we're in and what will they look like on the other side? Right. It's something that I, I still don't know the answer to, I don't know exactly what it's gonna look like, in that respect. But that is something that I am finding myself thinking a lot about, how do I help the students work have the biggest impact on that question? But are truly in terms of getting the law, right. But also in terms of like, helping the court of the Second Circuit, think about all the implications of being able to share knowledge, right, and stuff like that. So anyway, yeah. So I would say like, if you want to dig in a little more on like, the substance of kind of some of the stuff that you've been working on and thinking about, like for you, what, what, what do you what do you know, slash keeps you up at night slash when you wake up in the morning? Like, what are the kinds of issues that you really want to make sure that you're focusing on and, you know, and again, Brad, it could be in your work, too, but also in the seminar that you're teaching or whatever makes sense. Anyone can jump in, if you want. And, Peter, I'm gonna ask you, specifically, like, if you want to talk a little bit what it's like to be in Texas right now, because I assume I mean, that's the context that I'm thinking about, right is like, you know, the politics of today really matter. They always have, I guess, but like, in particular, right now around things like speech access for journalists to be able to report story, I mean, the idea of arresting because the public records request you I mean, I'd love to know more about that. Right? So actually, why Yeah, why don't you Why don't you start? Once you tell us a little more? No, I'm gonna do tell some more about that matter? Because I mean, it's like and why that is something that you took on and what's at stake? And what do you think the students are engaging around and thinking about it?
Peter Steffensen 52:06
Yeah. So it's, it's a really, really fascinating and somewhat complicated case that was a bit alive by my sort of basic description of it, but or our client was arrested for filing a public records request using a pseudonym that was close to but not the same as the name of a local council member. And all he did was put that name in the Name field of an electronic form that he used. That was a required field that he used to then submit his request for police records. He did this for two requests within minutes of each other. A third request that he filed a couple of weeks later, was incomplete, you didn't actually fill in what he what he wanted, so there was really no obligation to respond to it or anything like that. Nine months later, he was arrested for impersonating a public official, because the the police and local officials mistakenly believed that he was impersonating this town council member, even though it was pretty patently obvious that he wasn't and all that he did was use this name in the request form. He didn't go further, he didn't hold himself out as this person never signed his emails with that name. He even in an email to town council a couple of weeks later addressed in the CC field, the actual person who they accused him of impersonating, and that for whatever reason triggered a nine month long investigation into not whether or not there was an additional or other facts that would have proven up the basis for arresting him, but but solely his identity. They just wanted to know who he was. And and then they wanted to arrest him for it. So we filed this in the summer. We as I said just completed the the motion to dismiss briefing are really about to complete it because the defendants really have to file a reply. But I we took it on in large part because I think we are seeing a increasing amount of willingness on the part of law enforcement and state officials to punish people for accountability measures for protests for digging up unfavorable information and putting it into a public light, and I don't think that that's necessarily unique to Texas, but but we happen to be the ones who our client came to, and and so it's, you know, as as a teaching vehicle, it A, I think a really important way to help teach not just the substance of First Amendment law and how it especially in the criminal space intersects with Fourth Amendment law, but also some of the other doctrinal hurdles and barriers that are erected to plaintiffs, and how hard it has become for those plaintiffs to make it past key phases of each of the cases. And so when we're talking about what it's like to litigate these cases, I think we also have to bring to the table, a really significant degree of honesty with our students about how hard these cases can still be the litigate despite how righteous they they may come across as. But it's also, you know, a great way to introduce things like qualified immunity to our students, who may not necessarily have come across that in earlier classes, or some of the other barriers. I mean, not not an issue in this case, but sovereign immunity. And you asked me, or you asked us what what keeps us up at night, the contraction of sovereign immunity in the Fifth Circuit, and the increasingly narrow way that the Fifth Circuit has interpreted experts to young and allowed or not allowed students to proceed for injunctive relief against state actors, has meant that in core First Amendment suits dealing with some of the most important issues that are bubbling up in Texas, the recent drag show bans come to mind as an example, it's incredibly hard to get relief against state officials, and obtain an injunction an injunction that applies at a statewide level, which means that the more the Fifth Circuit keeps interpreting things that way, the more patchwork the relief is going to be. And it's going to ensure that, you know, the people who are harmed may be able to get some local relief, but for entire communities of people who live in Texas, and for which Texas is becoming an increasingly hostile place to live and to exist, the courts are becoming less and less a viable avenue to to help those people out. And I think that's another thing that we also have to bring to the table, in terms of honesty, is I don't know what the right way to put it as instilling a healthy level of skepticism about the court system. And very much the systems that they're going to graduate from our school and go into supporting and so I also feel a certain certain level of internal conflict about that everyday as well. And I'm still figuring out how to teach that in what is the right balance in terms of instilling that skepticism, but also instilling the values and tools that they need to be successful in their careers when they start doing.
Megan Graham 57:55
I can go in a slightly different direction, but I think it overlaps right, like, in the sense of like, what are the things that keep you up at night, and they're either like big structural things. So one of the projects I've been working on since literally the first day I started at the clinic at Berkeley, six and a half years ago, is we've had this long running project that I think has had nine different student teams on it over the years, trying to secure attorney client privilege in emails. with clients who are held in Federal Bureau of Prisons, facilities. One of the reasons we are focused on VOP is just because it was like one entity that we could latch on to. But this is a problem that is true in to my knowledge, every county jail that offers email access to anyone who was held in or State Department's of corrections facility, the terms of service of all of those email systems require people to acknowledge that their emails will be monitored, and that any email sent between an incarcerated person and a legal team will not be treated as privileged. It's just kind of like contractual waiver across the board. And it keeps me up at night, in part because it's like, it's such a low tech thing, right? low tech, meaning old tech, I guess. People would just kind of assume like, well, of course, like you should be able to email your lawyer and your litigation adversary should not get to just read those things when they want to, and by the way they want to. And so we've we've been working on this project. And I think one of the things that opened my eyes to is that when you're dealing with tech in the criminal legal system, sometimes the conversation that is most pressing, that is most important to outcomes for people who've been accused of crimes are the ones that are like the least sexy, and the oldest, right? So actually made my eBay sale. You have talked about this a bunch where he's like, Well, we've been litigating the location information for 25 years and I'm like Great. Every week, I get a call from a public defender who's like, the biggest problem in my case is location information. Right? They, they are interested in facial recognition, they are interested in AI, they're interested in cutting edge issues, but they're like, every single day. This is the thing that puts my client in prison, right? This is the thing that we don't know how to like, litigate in a meaningful way. And so a lot of ima like teaching students hard, complicated things, or being honest with them, right, being really truthful about what are the issues you're going to work on. Sometimes I'm like, it's going to be email. Also, it's going to be like professional responsibility and thinking through attorney client privilege. Because if your client like is held in a facility, 2800 miles away from you, do you really think that you're going to be able to fly, and then spend half a day getting into the jail, to see your client for 20 minutes, and then you have to like, get out, and then fly home, you're not going to have meaningful access to your clients at that point, right. You can't have the sort of privileged conversations you need. By the way, that's all like, if you can run the traps, even get a visit on the books. And the facility isn't shut down. And like problem after problem after problem, right. So I think sometimes for me, those are things that keep me personally up at night. But in the spirit of like being honest and open with your students. I think there are a lot of students who are just like, well, it shouldn't be this way. Mike, I hear you. Absolutely. I get it, I am with you. But this is a thing that I have spent the last six and a half years fighting and pushing back against. We'd like rewrote a federal bill, it passed the house three times, most recently in a 414 211 vote. And we still can't get both, like federal legislation passed, because senators have honestly told us to our face, it's not that we think you're wrong, it's that it's very small potatoes. Why would I spend political capital to try to get this tiny thing that feels like a technical fix past when I want to fight some other political battle, right. And that struggle of like the day to day lawyering or the meaningful lawyer, and that can change people's lives may not be the sexiest thing, it may actually be quite low stakes, it may be quite old school, it's no less important. Like, where do you find the passion and the drive to kind of keep pushing, keep trying to find a new, you know, how can I end run this nine more times, until we finally can secure this, like, by the time we get attorney client privilege and email, there's gonna be some other communication, that is like the norm. And then we're gonna have to fight the battle all over again. Right.
Brett Max Kaufman 1:02:47
I know next night, you know, keeping me up at night question made me think of two, two separate things. First, kind of jumping off where I'm at teaching this class and UCLA, it really focuses on kind of 20 years of post 911 national security cases. And it's depressing, it's depressing class. Because there's not even the victories, you know, part of part of what we do in the classes, even interrogate the victories and ask whether they actually are victories. And, you know, just as an example, you know, a couple of the actual positive stories or detention cases that came to good results. But in the end, you know, when you take a step back, people got released. And, you know, it came to a happy ending, but the government was able to continually to take detain people on without justification for two years while you litigated that, you know, and so from the government's perspective is three couple years of detention. So I think part of you know, what I've learned, you know, putting that class together and talking about it with students is what worked, what worries me now is sort of 20 years of no accountability, for any of the things that that happened in those 20 years and wondering what that does to sort of our political society and the law going forward. Because it is, it is very hard to find ways to inspire students to look forward and be like, I'm gonna be able to make a difference in these particular issues going forward when a lot of that activity ended in failure. So that's on on on the national security side on the more tech side. And we I was fortunate enough to come do a guest speaking spot on in the clinic yesterday and we kind of talked about this, but I think wondering whether Carpenter was a bookend or like an open door is a real big open question right now. And in two ways to particular context one,
Jason Schultz 1:04:49
just in case people aren't as familiar as Carpenter, do you want some clinic crowd but yeah, just
Brett Max Kaufman 1:04:57
a carpenter was a case from A half decade ago, where the Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the third party doctrine, the long term collection of cell site location information via cell phone providers was a Fourth Amendment search required warrant. And because it sort of avoided the third party doctrine, in a case that seemed to call for this straightforward application of the third party doctrine, and I think you raised a lot of questions of whether, as John Roberts wrote, in the opinion, it was narrow, and it didn't touch the reasoning of other cases and other kinds of information or whether advocates could sort of leverage the fact of its, of its results, to open the door to sort of argue about aggregation of other kinds of private information and whether that sort of theory holds water going forward, and so on. We've been, you know, the ACLU for now, five years since Carpenter has been involved in these poll camera cases, which involve aggregation, but not of movements that have, you know, actual video of people's private homes outside their homes, you know, cameras just kind of trained for 678 months at an individual's private space, even though it's technically you know, visible to the public. And so
Megan Graham 1:06:21
these are cameras that are either on like, small trailers that get moved around, or they're on top of like light poles, which is why they're called pole cams. They just, they're temporarily stationary, focused in one direction. Yeah, they're a bunch of Washington Square Park.
Brett Max Kaufman 1:06:37
So the logic apartment or seems to plan very clearly that like the aggregation of this kind of private information over a really long period of time, shouldn't be a Fourth Amendment search. But for, you know, who knows what reasons the court has not taken a series of, I think, pretty, pretty strong cert petitions to decide that question. And so I was wondering, like, is Roberts done? Is this court John, sort of pushing the boundaries of privacy, which, you know, over a decade, I think there is a real strong story that the court was doing a lot to update the Fourth Amendment and sort of digital age. But is that the end of the road? Or will, you know, one day the courts sort of go even further? So I think that's a big question. The other, which was one of the last projects I've worked on is the geofence, warrant, reverse warrant issue, which for those who don't know, this is where cops go to Google, and say, give me the location information of anyone who was in this, they can literally draw sort of a map around whatever they're looking for, give a timeframe and then go through a process with Google where they get location information. And then eventually, you know, more information about people who are in that area during that particular time. And I remember, you know, I mean, this was one of the hardest issues for the ACLU to develop a position. And we were sort of frozen for a while on this, because it involves location information, but it's a much shorter time period than Harper there. So the pure law, even the aggregation sort of logic department, there doesn't really work. But elements of carpenter come into play, you know, the retrospective nature of it, that that attracts against everyone. And that it can be sort of, you know, it's sort of harvested in bulk by the cellphone companies or Google. So I remember like, going through those conversations of how are we going to actually kind of make a legal argument here and with the students, I think one thing that, you know, working on an amicus brief in that case, which is going up to the Fourth Circuit next month, and has been the focus of a lot of public interest, organization, efforts and advocacy is going to be argued by the MACD on my price on next month is, you know, focusing those trying to find ways for policy arguments, like reasons that we find this objectionable finding a way to get those in, like doctrinal. And I think with the students, I remember having so many conversations without starting from the point of what do we not like about this? You know, what are the harms that might be caused by this rather than? How are we going to how are we going to art you know, how are we going to use carpenter in this particular context and sort of backing in and realizing that law and tech, I mean, it's one of the most obvious areas where sort of society and the values of society play into how the law developed, you know, and I think the pressures from society is why we got that decade of great privacy decisions from the Supreme Court. And so I think, maybe more than, you know, I mean, certainly it's an area of practice and a focus on so it feels like this, but maybe more than any other area that this sort of conversation around values and effects of technology, really, really do inform the way that the law It has in, in, in that arena. And so I think a lot of people have their eye on that particular kind of technique because it does sort of bring together all these things, right corporate collection of data. Third party doctrine issues, you know, sensitivity of location information over the short term. So it's really like something that I think when you talk to people about what bothers them about, you know, particular techniques, people have a really negative reaction to it. And so I think it's, it's gonna be really interesting to see how that plays out whether the law actually recognizes how society actually feels about that kind of technique.
Amanda Levendowski 1:10:44
What are we doing with with copyright and privacy? That's what I think about all the time. And it started when I was a student in Chris Bergman's class, I wrote my student note, at that exact intersection, I said, people are trying to criminalize non consensual, intimate imagery. And I'm really concerned about expanding the criminal legal system to deal with feminist goals and whether that's even possible. So why don't we use copyright infringement to say if these images are selfies, and a survey said that 80% of those images were selfies? Why can't those victims use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to get their images removed, and I had the privilege of working on that project for the clinic. A number of students actually advise a coalition of domestic violence direct service providers on how to get their clients images removed from the internet using both platform policies, and the DMCA. But I was like a 21 year old law student, I had no idea that I was wandering into like a decade's old debate about the intersection of Privacy and Technology and copyright, my bad. Nobody, nobody warned me. It's fine. He's in the back. But that ended up being the next trajectory of my career, I wrote about artificial intelligence and why we needed fair use for fair AI, which is coming to pass and all of the copyright infringement lawsuits. But the inverse of that is people's public, but semi private information is being scraped to inform these algorithms, which people have a lot of, understandably, mixed feelings about, that I wrote about face surveillance. And I said, well, the local legislation that's getting an act is really piecemeal. And it's exactly where you would expect it to be enacted, where we really need it is the states where it's never going to be enacted. Because the police presence and the carceral legal system are too strong. We could use copy, we could use copyright laws to match a bandaid on it and call it a solution. Or we could use right of publicity, as Jason has suggested another form of intellectual property to target this problem. And I don't feel like the answer has gotten any easier. I've done clinic projects on all three of those pieces of scholarship that I've written for open knowledge organizations, domestic violence coalition's for abolitionist organizations or real spectrum of organizations. And the answer doesn't seem to be so easy and flexible as what I thought it might have been when I was a law student, I thought that the answer was really obvious. Use it when it makes sense and don't use it when it doesn't make sense. And that's kind of what I've done with my scholarship. But I'm not sure that that's the actual right answer. And I'm really curious to see where students who have learned about these projects, through their scholarship, what they end up doing with it? Are they going to use it in their practices? Are they going to use it when they go to work at non like nonprofit organizations? Or in government? Or like, what shape is this going to take? And so that's one of the things that keeps me up at night is because I worry that I gave them a very dangerous weapon and no shield?
Jason Schultz 1:13:37
You Yeah, I mean, we haven't talked about this, but I tracking the the Screen Actors Guild settlement with the studios that just happened Settlement Agreement. These issues were super, super contentious. And at the heart of the disagreement, in fact, I think the last three offers they rejected were all about this question. In particular. I mean, right at the intersection of privacy, real estate, copyright and AI around, you know, the A list actors having certain rights. And then as you go down, I mean, I guess this reverse is like, it's weird. It's like the the top is like F level, and then it goes down, but like the famous actors get certain rights. And then if you're not, quote unquote, famous in certain ways, or famous, yeah, there you go. That's how I can remember. Thank you. Perfect. But yeah, just like this idea that like within these microcosms of negotiations are embedded all these issues that will ultimately set the rules for all of us, right. Yeah. I think it's, it's sort of a theme actually kind of across. All right, so we have a few more minutes before we're going to take our first break and get to socialize and chat and whatever, but I just wanted to open it up. We have two microphones here. If anyone I mean, I have lots of questions and things to chat about with each other. But if anyone wants to come up and ask question or share a comment or thought about your own connection to the clinic or teaching or any of these things. The mics are open, and you're welcome to do so. Oh, yeah. All right. Here we go. I'm not excited. You do have to say, Well, Peter is Q, you have to say that you are someone.
Melodi Dincer 1:15:23
I am somebody. Hi, everyone. My name is Melody, you may know me as Mel as well. I am currently a legal research fellow with the knowing machines research project out of engelberg center, and also a supervising attorney with the tech Law and Policy clinic here at NYU. And I have had the pleasure of working with so many people here, this is just so cool and awesome. My question is maybe a little too nuts and bolts see about clinics, but I'm a little curious, especially because we have like two founders of clinics here on this panel. And then we have people who've gotten in, like early in my mindset. So some of you have mentioned that some of the issues that come up and that your students work on are like old and maybe students don't realize that that's that might be the issues that they're working on in the clinic, especially because more recently, there's just like so much hype and coverage of each new successive technology. I was in the clinic about five years ago. And that was starting to happen then, like Cambridge Analytica, like that scandal kind of broke in my second semester of my first year of law school. And so I think that was one of those Zeitgeist II moments where everyone was watching Mark Zuckerberg, like try to blink in front of Congress. So I guess my question is a little bit about balancing different interests. So if you have a clinic, you have like a lot of different stakeholders. In institutionally I could say you have the students who like we like to think of as hopefully the focus of the clinic. But then there are all these other moving pieces. Like there's obviously other clinical faculty, there are non clinical faculty, there are Dean's there are all these other kind of institutional considerations when you're affiliated with a law school. So I'm just kind of curious how if those tensions come up, like how do you kind of posture your clinic or your clinical work differently for different audiences? And if you have any advice for people who are interested in pursuing clinical teaching, or maybe like having Jason's job one day, as Amanda said, hypothetically speaking, what what could that look like? Like? How do you navigate those slightly different audiences and your messaging?
Amanda Levendowski 1:17:51
It depends on if you're on the job market, or if you're trying to attract students is the TLDR. I think if you are trying to make a pitch to a faculty that they need this clinic, I hope that the work that so many other clinicians have done across this country, including a number in the room have made that kind of a foregone conclusion that every every law school should have an IP clinic that does tech work. And I think that the work of Cynthia Dahl and or not IP, yeah, or not IP. I think I think I don't
Megan Graham 1:18:23
work just to be clear, but your clinic does. My clinic does. But I mean,
Amanda Levendowski 1:18:27
yes, that's true. Not everyone has to do the IP work. Not everyone has to do the privacy work. But there should be a clinic where students can find that home in Virginia Phillips is work and Cynthia dolls work shows you that there's now over 100 Strong clinics in the country doing IP and or tech work. And if your school is not among them, that is a frankly, an outlier. And so I feel like that is a strong push. And I think that also reaching out to student organizations, and figuring out what students want, like the students at Berkeley were proactive. The students at NYU, were proactive students at Georgetown, were somewhat proactive, as I understand it, I wasn't I wasn't in those conversations. But I think that figuring out if there's a real student need there is also true, because I believe that if you build it, they will come. But it's also really helpful if they're already there. And then in terms of marketing it to other people, I think that students will see the value because they want to be part of this. And I think that so many of us had the experience of they saying yes, tech, but how are you? Yes, tech, but where. And I think that the clinic can be a perfect home for answering those like journalistic five questions, and messaging that can be really effective. And then the other thing that I think Jason has done really well is he's like, a very key intellectual peer of his colleagues on the doctrinal side. That's not for every clinician, not every clinician cares about what their doctrinal colleagues are doing or cares that their doctrinal colleagues understand what they're doing. But I think that was something you were looking for in community because you had it at Berkeley, and you realize that it was a rarity and when you found it at NYU, you Like, problems saw, I was like this is this is quite dandy. And like that was something that I really soaked up like a sponge. And I didn't realize how important it was to me until I was interviewing schools. And I said it that way intentionally, I was interviewing schools. And I found that at Georgetown, they all the Tech faculty, all 18 of them, which is a hilarious number, understood what I was trying to do in my clinic, they took it seriously, they realized it was important, they realized I was filling a need. And they realized that I was the right person to do dope work. And so if you can find that camaraderie among your colleagues, on the other side of the faculty, I think that can go a really long way into making a successful clinic. And like we, we've spoken to Jeanne and Barton, we spoke to Barton for a matter just this year. And having that kind of relationship with faculty at your own institution and other institutions can also enrich the student experience and credibly and create better work product for clients, stakeholders,
Megan Graham 1:20:57
stakeholders, stakeholders, what I would also add is so one of the things I learned to do in the clinic and I it's one of those, like, I was probably learning it for a while, but it wasn't until it actually was Lee Roland was like, Okay, so here's the thing, sometimes being a lawyer, just brass tacks, you have to look and figure out, like, what are your values? What is your work? What are you doing? And who are you talking to, and if like, if you're talking to libertarians about surveillance, they do not care about like most of the things you care about, that's fine. That doesn't mean there's not a partnership there, it means you've focus on the carceral system is really expensive. Isn't that a bummer? Very different discussion, those are equally important things to think about. But in the conversation, you don't have to say like, I care about this, because and that's why you should also care about it. Everybody's different. Everybody's got their own views, right. It's one of the things I learned in the clinic that was translated into how I talk about my work either in a room like this, or with students or with colleagues, most of whom most of them are like, I don't know, what you're talking about, is figure out like, who you are, what your work is, what it does. And then also think about your audience and talk to them in terms that will get them interested in that they care about. And that does mean that sometimes you will talk about the same project or the same work product in 12, different voices, right? None of that they should all be sincere, they should all be honest, like don't say shit, you don't mean. But like, that doesn't always mean you're having the exact same conversation. And I will also say the benefit, and I learned this in the clinic, and I keep learning it, because the lesson that I apparently keep forgetting is in being able to do that I am a better advocate. I also see different sides of an issue. And sometimes I'm like, oh, that's like a whole benefit that I just it didn't occur to me, because that's not the reason I came into this work. But it is important thing, right, there is another thing on the table. So I think that, you know, communication being a key value is make it as easy as you can, for whoever you want to give you a thing, make it as easy as possible for them to give it to you. Right. And that may mean you focus on this issue area or that, you know, that's a part of your work. Or maybe you're talking about something else, right, you find a different way to bond. So in taking clinic lessons and putting them into action. I think that that's when I'm talking to students, sometimes I'm talking about a very different set of things than when I am talking to my like Emeritus, Professor office neighbor,
Peter Steffensen 1:23:39
who, who like is delightful.
Megan Graham 1:23:41
But what drives him is not the racial justice aspect of the work that I do, right? He's like, Oh, that's interesting. Can we talk about this other thing? And I'm like, Yeah, sure. So
Jason Schultz 1:23:57
for other say a few things. And then there's food, which I've always learned is you get people to the food as fast as possible. Yeah, like, I mean, I mean, Melody and I talked about this too, and a bunch of different ways. But I mean, the kind of work has to be meaningful. And what meaningful means to everyone is a little different, or a lot different. And I think that's kind of, you know, part of what we're talking about here. But it especially has to be meaningful to the students, right? Like, this is just a thing that I've learned over the years too, but like, what's so obvious is that, you know, I remember what it's like to be a student. I remember like, there are classes you show up at or not, or whatever, and like there's things but there's a reason hopefully, that you came to law school and there's still something there for you when you are in law school. And when students do the work, and they care, I mean, there's just nothing better. Like I just have to say like, that's the thing that always keeps me going because it feels meaningful. It feels like it's real, and that's why we need real clients and real matters and like you can't find anything on your side either. Right? You can't give them something that does Doesn't matter or you know, that it doesn't mean doesn't it's not frustrating, right? Like you definitely be like hard or difficult. You can have clients who disappear, you can have all kinds of challenges, right. But that's also real as well. And so, you know, in the end, I think that carries over into the institution in a number of different ways. And then yeah, the other thing I'll say is that we're very fortunate, I think, in clinics across the board that clinicians themselves, I think, really value the work that SAIC technology and impacting whatever their particular clinic does, more and more, I think they see that as a really valuable thing for these types of clinics to work on with them in collaboration, but also the non clinical faculty, a lot of them either to clinics or see the work that clinics do or they want to have a bigger impact on the world and things like that. So there's some sort of I think, intersection with all that but fundamentally, yeah, I think it's like students who want to do meaningful work and you find them and you connect them to the work. That for me has always been the key. And with that, please help me thank the panel. Awesome.
Announcer 1:26:09
The engelberg center live podcast is a production of the engelberg center on innovation Law and Policy at NYU Law is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Our theme music is by Jessica Batke and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license