Marquette Law School Celebrates Pro Bono Week

Yesterday, I had the good fortune to attend two inspiring events – the Milwaukee Bar Association’s first Pro Bono Publico Awards ceremony, held at the annual State of the Court luncheon. Marquette 3L Meghan O’Connor was among the honorees. Meghan was awarded this honor for her substantial pro bono commitment at the Law School, particularly her role as the student liaison for the newly launched Legal and Medical Partnership for Families at the Downtown Health Center

In the evening, a Milwaukee Young Lawyers Association gathering brought together recent law graduates and public interest law firms in an effort to increase awareness about pro bono opportunities in the Milwaukee area. Again, Marquette Law School was prominently featured, both by the presence of many alumni and the many pro bono opportunities that the Law School has initiated not only for its students, but for lawyers in the community as well.

These events were a precursor to the National Pro Bono Celebration scheduled for October 25 through 31, 2009.

Sponsored by the ABA Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service, the celebration is a coordinated national effort to showcase the great difference that pro bono lawyers make to the nation, its system of justice, its communities and, most of all, to the clients they serve. The week is also dedicated to the quest for more pro bono volunteers to meet the ever-growing legal needs of this country’s most vulnerable citizens.

Marquette Law School is enthusiastically joining this celebration. On Friday, Dean Joseph D. Kearney will announce the opening of the new Milwaukee Volunteer Legal Clinic at the Milwaukee Justice Center in the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Dean Kearney will appear alongside the Chief Judge from the First Judicial Circuit, the Clerk of Courts, and the President of the Milwaukee Bar Association. This will be the fourth location for the MVLC, which provides pro bono opportunities for nearly 150 law students and 100 lawyers every year. Marquette Law School was a key partner in the development of the Milwaukee Justice Center, an effort led by the Milwaukee Bar Association, and provides many volunteer law students at the MJC’s self-help desks as well.

The following week, on Thursday, January 29, law students will join pro bono attorneys and members of the Coalition for Access to Legal Resources at a luncheon to celebrate pro bono week. CALR was another effort initiated by the Law School through the MVLC to provide a regular forum for public interest law firms to meet and share information on legal services in greater Milwaukee. In celebration of pro bono week, the members of CALR will gather at noon in Marquette’s Eisenberg Hall to discuss legal services, public interest careers, and pro bono opportunities with law students.

Marquette has made tremendous strides to increase the opportunity and engagement in legal services pro bono publico, for both Marquette law students and the Milwaukee bar. Three-quarters of our students now engage in some form of pro bono activity. Under the excellent leadership of Marquette Law School’s Pro Bono Coordinator, Adie Olson, that percentage is expected to grow. Marquette’s Pro Bono Society has increased membership each year, and we are pleased to be so committed and engaged in this good work in our community — just another way Marquette is building a new law school.

Continue ReadingMarquette Law School Celebrates Pro Bono Week

Merit Selection Amendment Introduced

Yesterday, State Representative Mark Gottlieb (R-Port Washington) announced that he is drafting a constitutional amendment to replace Wisconsin’s current method of judicial elections with “merit selection.” Rep. Gottlieb is a former speaker pro tem of the Assembly, and he is widely regarded as one of the top policy gurus within the Republican caucus.

Currently, the legislature is seriously considering public financing
of judicial elections (a topic on which Prof. Esenberg has written
extensively).  Rep. Gottlieb is offering his amendment as an alternative to public financing as it comes to the floor in the near future. Rep. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) offered his own judicial selection amendment earlier this session. Both Gottlieb and Kessler differ from the typical “Missouri Plan” merit selection system. Under Kessler’s plan, the governor would appoint a justice with the “advice and consent” of a majority of the State Senate for a ten-year term. As that term is coming up for expiration, a justice who wishes to continue may do so unless at least thirteen senators reject the proposed renewal. Under Gottlieb’s plan, the governor must select his nominee from current circuit court and appellate judges who have served at least eight years on the bench. The nominee would then need to be confirmed to the ten-year term by a twenty-vote (3/5) majority in the state senate.  At the end of the ten-year term, and each subsequent ten-year term he or she desires, the justice would have to run in a retention election.  Neither the Kessler nor the Gottlieb plan would change judicial selection for the court of appeals or circuit courts.

Let’s start by stating what’s good about both of these proposals.

Continue ReadingMerit Selection Amendment Introduced

Federal Sentencing and the Lack of Theory in Criminal Justice

Defendants in federal criminal cases often cooperate with the government to get their sentence reduced, especially when facing an extremely high statutory mandatory minimum (it is not uncommon for federal defendants to face mandatory minimums of ten years or higher).  In these cases, to get below the mandatory minimum, the government must file a motion to credit the defendant for his or her assistance.  If this is done before sentencing, it is filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); if after sentencing, it is filed pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 35(b).  A recent emerging issue in federal sentencing law has been what factors a judge may consider when reducing a sentence under either of these provisions. 

Without a mandatory minimum, a judge is free to impose a reasonable sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which tells judges to account for the nature of the crime; the history, characteristics, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant; the public interest in protection, deterrence, and punishment; the type of sentences available; the applicable Sentencing Guidelines (including pertinent policy statements); the need for uniformity in sentencing similar defendants for similar crimes; and restitution.  When a mandatory minimum must be imposed, however, most courts have held that only the defendant’s assistance may be considered when imposing a sentence below the minimum.

The Seventh Circuit has recently addressed this issue in the context of both 3553(e) and Rule 35.  See United States v. Johnson, No. 08-3541 (7th Cir. September 4, 2009); United States v. Shelby, No. 08-2729 (7th Cir. October 20, 2009). 

Continue ReadingFederal Sentencing and the Lack of Theory in Criminal Justice