Law Matters

Even in this country, the promise of freedom and equality under law is sometimes only that – a promise. It is only when fair and just laws are equally applied to all that law is a force for good.
 
Using our unique craft, lawyers write our laws, interpret them, enforce them, advise clients about them, draft plans to comply with or evade them and defend those who are charged with violating them.  Given our superior knowledge of the law and the sole franchise to practice law as a profession, we are in a unique position to help determine whether law will ultimately be a force of good or evil.

As we zealously represent our clients, it is our solemn duty to ensure that they are ever aware of the positives and negatives they may achieve through legal means, not because we have the right to control their actions, but because we may be the last voice they hear before they decide just how they will use, or abuse, our laws. 

Ultimately, of course, important decisions are made by our clients, and not by us. But a competent, candid and courageous lawyer may well be that person who finally convinces a client, even our government, to take those actions that best balance the desires of the client with the rights of others. Let us never forget that we are often the only voice of reason our clients hear.

Roy Sobelson is professor of law and associate dean for academic affairs. His area of expertise is professional responsibility and legal ethics.

Sometimes "science" gets it wrong. I use air quotes because forensic "science" (as we know it) is far from infallible, and, in some cases, imports more art and interpretation than hard science. Pattern comparisons of fingerprints, hair, handwriting, and bite marks are subject to human error. Many of the forensic techniques that we accept as gospel in criminal cases suffer from unregulated or nonexistent practice standards and lack any identifiable scientific foundation.

In 2009, The National Academy of Sciences published a scathing report announcing that forensic science is broken and needs to be overhauled. Weaknesses have plagued forensic evidence for decades, and the resulting legal challenges have been hard fought but met with few victories. What we do know is a harsh truth: that faulty forensic science has contributed to the conviction of innocent people—and will continue to do so if the status quo persists.

In recent years, the reality of wrongful convictions has become more mainstream through the work of the Innocence Project and other organizations. Out of the 305 DNA-based exonerations tracked by the Innocence Project, unvalidated or improper forensic science contributed to more than 50 percent of the wrongful convictions. Unreliable science presents itself in a virtual smorgasbord of options, from the routine (contamination) to the egregious (forensic misconduct) and everything in between (misinterpretation, misrepresentation or exaggeration of results).

Regardless of the root cause of the forensic flaws, they persist, and deficiencies in forensic science have harrowing implications. For each case where DNA is able to definitively exonerate an individual, there are many more cases that lack DNA and the person is just as innocent. Relying on the post-conviction process to correct the problem simply puts a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. We can do better.

Reforming forensics is no small task. It will take cooperation from scientists, lawyers, judges, and policymakers, but it can be done. This is our opportunity to set it right before we get it wrong and it stays that way. 

Jessica Gabel, associate professor of law, teaches Bankruptcy; Contracts; Forensic Evidence; and Forensic Medicine. Her research focuses on fraud and ethics in multiple fields: law, science, business, politics, pop culture and other current events topics.

For the poor tenant fearing an illegal eviction, for the female store clerk receiving fewer dollars in every paycheck than the male clerk working the next register, for the African-American community whose votes have been diluted as a result of redistricting, and for prisoners facing abuse or being refused medical care, the law has the potential to right what is wrong. While the law never guarantees victory, it holds great potential as a vehicle through which less powerful voices can be heard and possibly vindicated when other channels have failed.

In my former career as a public interest attorney, I spoke to countless individuals who felt that they or a family member had been wronged in some way; they often felt discouraged by a system that to date had offered them unfair treatment and little recourse. With nowhere else to turn, they hoped that the law would recognize the harm they had suffered and provide them with some relief. 

As lawyers, we have the power—and responsibility—to make that hope a reality. We have access to the tools that can provide critical assistance to those in need. Law Week presents both students and those in our broader community not only with an opportunity to educate ourselves about the law, but also with a reminder of the powerful role that law can play, and of our responsibility to use it on behalf of those who are desperately in need of hope.

Lauren Sudeall Lucas, assistant professor of law, teaches Constitutional Law and Capital Punishment. Her scholarly work to date has focused on the intersection of constitutional law and criminal procedure, with a focus on structural indigent defense reform. Other research interests include the relationship between rights and identity and the constitutional treatment of multiracial and economically and politically marginalized populations.

In my Civil Procedure classes, students learn that process matters and that every law produces winners and losers. I encourage students to consider the differences between substantive and procedural justice and to think about how their use of the law will serve either or both ends. 

In my Family Law classes, we explore the moral value of law and how it defines and reveals deeply held beliefs and judgments about our most personal relationships and choices. In Race and the Law, we examine what W.E.B. DuBois referred to as the persistent problem of the color line and this nation's pursuit of liberty and justice for all. Students grapple with the often schizophrenic operation of law, where it both constructs and dismantles discrimination and inequality. 
 
I want my students, who will be power brokers, to use their power responsibly and consciously and to appreciate that the law matters because it has the capacity to inform, for better and for worse, the human condition.

Tanya Washington, associate professor of law, teaches family law. She earned her J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law and her LL.M. from Harvard Law School.

Consider the history of tort law. We know that more than 4,000 years ago, tribes in the Fertile Crescent adopted rules setting a schedule of payments to remedy harms a person might endure to life, limb or property because of the actions of another. Those rules put restrictions on the settling of scores, making fairness of recovery in the face of loss an expectation that people could depend upon. 

Centuries later Hammurabi codified that expectation, declaring that both rich and poor were bound by the principle that at its most simple, declares: “an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth.”  However primitive such a formula may seem today, it represents a rule of proportionality and the formal principle of justice: treat similar cases similarly.

Law represents the collective agreement of any society to a set of rules that, however flawed, supplant the custom of blood feud and provide a measure of recovery to address injuries caused by others.
 
More than 2000 years ago, the Greek tragedians prescribed law and a system of courts — even in response to murder — as markers along the boundary between unchecked bloodshed and civilization. Today, however ineffectual and often frustrating the machinery of law may be, it nevertheless continues to represent a strategy far superior to intergenerational enmity and unending cycles of violence.

Paul A. Lombardo, Bobby Lee Cook Professor of Law, teaches courses in Genetics and the Law, the History of Bioethics, Mental Health Law and the Legal Regulation of Human Research. He serves as a senior advisor to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

It is a terrible shame that the American people are not allowed to see them at work. Not televising their arguments reinforces the myth that the Court's deliberations are beyond the understanding of ordinary Americans, and that the justices operate in a secluded, nonpolitical arena.

Opponents of televising the Court say that the presence of cameras would keep lawyers and justices from speaking freely. But there is nothing lawyers should be willing to say to the Supreme Court that they could not say to millions of Americans. Moreover, the justices are quite capable of preventing lawyers from showboating for television.

Imagine if the public, including our own students, could see the arguments being made in cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. The increased transparency and instructive benefits of televising the arguments far outweigh the possibility of snippets being used out of context. The Court presently does not even videotape its arguments for later generations to understand the context of the cases.

A recent Gallup poll found that 72 percent of Americans favored televising the health-care case arguments last year. It’s high time to put cameras in the Court.

Eric Segall, professor of law, teaches Federal Courts and Constitutional Law I and II. He is the author of Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. He has served on the Executive Committee of the AALS section on federal courts and has given numerous speeches both inside and outside the academy on constitutional law questions and the Supreme Court.

While the law matters, how we use it matters more.

The ideologies with which we began our matriculation should still guide us as we enter the world. Whatever responsibilities we take on in this next chapter, I hope we'll use the law effectively and for the greater good. 

Vandana Murty (J.D. '13) is president of the Student Trial Lawyers Association. She was on the 2012 National Trial Advocacy Competition National Champions team.

We see this in contracts, where the force of law and the resources of the courts are used to enforce private agreements entered into by individuals and/or entities. Another vital area is business law—particularly the laws that governs corporations.

Corporations play an undisputed role in our society fueling the economy, funding retirement and college savings, and, after the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, wielding tremendous political power through avenues of direct and indirect influence.

Consider, for example, in 2010, 43 of the top 100 economies in the world were corporations, 33 of which are U.S.-based companies or traded on U.S. stock exchanges. The 100 top-earning corporations ranked among the top 162 economies of the world. Corporations have more economic capital than many sovereign nations. The law dictates the roles, rights and responsibilities of these corporations and set the boundaries for how they engage in society.  

The role of the law in private spheres has tremendous significance to individuals whether you are invested in these companies as a direct stockholder, invested in a mutual fund that is invested in these companies, or are a citizen and see your economy and your politics shaped, in part, by corporate actions. To understand how the law governs private spheres, like corporations, is to begin to understand how modern society is organized.
 
Anne M. Tucker, assistant professor of law, researches corporate law, recently focusing on issues related to individual investors. She teaches Contracts and Corporations, as well as Unincorporated Business Associations. Tucker coordinates her research with the Investor Advocacy Clinic, funded by a FINRA grant and open to clients in 2013.

On the first case I assisted with at my law firm, the client came to us feeling hopeless. She needed someone to fight for her child's situation when their rights were wrongfully denied. After we obtained a successful result for her daughter, she sent me an email – which I have saved. She wrote that she hoped I will never forget what it feels like to fight for the underdog and to fight against injustice.

The law empowers those who seek justice. Lawyers play a role in offering hope to those who need help. I’m proud to be a part of this field.

Jennifer McCall (J.D. '13) graduates in May. She is the president of the Student Bar Association.