Wisconsin Access to Justice Commission Hearing: Student Perspective

Makda Fessahaye is a 2L student who has been working on research for the Access to Justice Commission.  Below she shares her thoughts about why a student might want to attend the Access to Justice hearing on September 13.

Cura Personalis. Marquette University Law School encourages us, as students, to follow the Jesuit educational principle, to care for the whole person, throughout our legal education, in the hopes that we embed this value into our legal careers. Through the expansive pro bono opportunities offered through Marquette, we have several chances to work with populations in great need of legal assistance. However, our calling to aid these populations does not disappear upon graduation; the need for legal assistance continues to grow. To properly demonstrate cura personalis in our legal careers, it is necessary to recognize the daily hardships our communities face and the legal issues that follow. Our Wisconsin low-income residents find difficulty with the limited and lack of access to justice to properly address the legal issues they encounter.

On Thursday, September 13, 2012, the Wisconsin Access to Justice Commission holds a public hearing at Marquette University Law School from 5:00pm to 7:30pm. At this hearing, we will have the opportunity to hear from our community leaders, judges, policy makers, and lawyers to share information about access to justice and the growing needs of low-income individuals. After hearing these testimonies, we hope to expand our knowledge, combine our efforts and properly address the lack of legal access available to our low-income population. 

Whether you are interested in going into the public sector or the corporate route, I strongly encourage you to attend this public hearing to better understand the community in which you are to serve. As future lawyers, we should acknowledge the issues that face several of our residents. Finally, as Marquette law students, we must identify with the whole issue, the whole community, and most of all, the whole person.

Continue ReadingWisconsin Access to Justice Commission Hearing: Student Perspective

Lawyering on the Right Side of the Brain

There has been quite a bit of news lately on neuroscience and the law. The Law and Neuroscience Blog specifically focuses on the topic, discussing everything from lying to U.S. Supreme Court decisions which cite neuroscience research. This trend enhances the right brain vs. left brain discussions that have been around for decades. While modern technology is challenging some of those assumptions, recent studies have taken the right brain vs. left brain discussion into politics. Right brain functions are typically identified as more creative, while the left side of the brain is often identified with analytical skills, logic, and other functions one might typically associate with skilled lawyers.

This blog post from the ABA showcases a lawyer who tapped into both sides of his brain and filed a cartoon amicus brief opposing a price-fixing settlement between the DOJ and three e-book publishers. While in the end the federal judge approved the settlement, she quoted Emily Dickinson in the ruling.

Curious about your own right brain/left brain tendencies? There are many tests on the web; this test from the Art Institute of Vancouver provides a detailed analysis focused on creativity. Want to tap into your creative side? Try Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards.

Continue ReadingLawyering on the Right Side of the Brain

Effective Assistance of Counsel and Tribal Courts—A Different Standard?

Virtually none of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees or prohibitions applies to the actions of Indian tribal governments when those governments are exercising their inherent or retained powers. For this reason, among others, Congress in 1968 passed the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1303, which imposes on tribal governments most though not all of the guarantees found in the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment. After almost 45 years, however, it remains uncertain whether or to what extent ICRA’s statutory guarantees must parallel the interpretations given to the respective constitutional guarantees on which they are based.

Among ICRA’s original provisions is a command that “[n]o Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall . . . deny to any person in a criminal proceeding the right . . . at his own expense to have the assistance of counsel for his defense . . . .” This, of course, is an analog to the 6th Amendment guarantee that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence,” which the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted as requiring “reasonably effective assistance,” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), by “an advocate who is . . . a member of the bar,” i.e., a licensed attorney. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988).

In the recent case of Jackson v. Tracy, No. CV 11–00448–PHX–FJM, 2012 WL 3704698 (D. Ariz. Aug. 28, 2012), a federal district court has held that ICRA’s assistance-of-counsel guarantee requires neither that one’s advocate be a licensed attorney nor that the advocate be held to the standard of a reasonably effective attorney.

Continue ReadingEffective Assistance of Counsel and Tribal Courts—A Different Standard?