DOCSLIB.ORG

Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge LAW FIRM PRO BONO CHALLENGE SIGNATORIES *Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Alston & Bird LLP *Carlton Fields, P.A. *Arent Fox LLP Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P. Armstrong Teasdale LLP Chadbourne & Parke LLP Arnall Golden Gregory LLP *Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP *Arnold & Porter LLP Coblentz, Patch, Duffy, and Bass LLP Baker & Daniels LLP Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Baker & McKenzie Cooley LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. *Covington & Burling LLP Ballard Spahr LLP Cozen O’Connor Barnes & Thornburg LLP Crowell & Moring LLP Beveridge & Diamond PC Davis Wright Tremaine LLP *Bingham McCutchen LLP Day Pitney LLP Blank Rome LLP *Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Dechert LLP Briggs and Morgan, PA Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP Brown Rudnick LLP Dickstein Shapiro LLP *Bryan Cave LLP *DLA Piper LLP (US) * denotes Charter Signatories to the Challenge As of March 11, 2011 145 firms *Dorsey & Whitney LLP *Hogan Lovells Dow Lohnes PLLC *Holland & Hart LLP *Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP *Holland & Knight LLP Dykema Gossett PLLC Hollingsworth LLP Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. Washington, DC Office Only Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Faegre & Benson LLP *Hunton & Williams LLP Farella Braun + Martel LLP Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Fenwick & West LLP *Jenner & Block LLP Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & K&L Gates LLP Dunner, L.L.P. Kaye Scholer LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Kilpatrick Stockton LLP Foley Hoag LLP King & Spalding LLP Foster Pepper PLLC Washington, DC Office Only *Fredrikson & Byron P.A. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP & Jacobson LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. Leonard, Street and Deinard *Garvey Schubert Barer Lindquist & Vennum PLLP *Gibbons P.C. Linklaters LLP Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP New York Office Only Goodwin Procter LLP Loeb & Loeb LLP Goulston & Storrs PC Lowenstein Sandler PC Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, P.C. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP * denotes Charter Signatories to the Challenge As of March 11, 2011 145 firms Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP Mayer Brown LLP *Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP McCarter & English, LLP Pepper Hamilton LLP McDermott Will & Emery Perkins Coie LLP McGuireWoods LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP *Proskauer Rose LLP Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Quarles & Brady LLP Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP *Reed Smith LLP *Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Miller & Chevalier Chartered Robinson & Cole LLP Miller Nash LLP Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin, & Robb, PA Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo P.C. Saul Ewing LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Schiff Hardin LLP *Morrison & Foerster LLP Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP *Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Seyfarth Shaw LLP *Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP *Shearman & Sterling LLP Nixon Peabody LLP *Shipman & Goodwin LLP Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP Sidley Austin LLP O’Melveny & Myers LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP *Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP *Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. Patton Boggs LLP * denotes Charter Signatories to the Challenge As of March 11, 2011 145 firms *SNR Denton *Steptoe & Johnson LLP Strasburger & Price, LLP Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Thompson Coburn LLP Troutman Sanders LLP Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy *Venable LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP White & Case LLP Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP Wiley Rein LLP Williams & Connolly LLP *Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati *Winston & Strawn LLP Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC Zuckerman Spaeder LLP * denotes Charter Signatories to the Challenge As of March 11, 2011 145 firms .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Educating Artists
    DUKE LAW MAGAZINE MAGAZINE LAW DUKE Fall 2006 | Volume 24 Number 2 F all 2006 Educating Artists V olume 24 Number 2 Also: Duke Faculty on the Hill From the Dean Dear Alumni and Friends, University’s Algernon Sydney Sullivan Medal, awarded annually for outstanding commitment to service. This summer, four Duke law faculty members were Graduates Candace Carroll ’74 and Len Simon ’73 called to testify before Congressional committees. have used their talents and resources in support Professor Neil Vidmar appeared before the Senate of civil liberties, women’s rights, and public inter- Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, est causes; their recent leadership gift to Duke’s to address legislation on medical malpractice suits. Financial Aid Initiative helps Duke continue to attract Professor Madeline Morris testified before the Senate the best students, regardless of their ability to pay, Foreign Relations Committee regarding ratification of and gives them greater flexibility to pursue public the U.S.–U.K. extradition treaty. Professor James Cox interest careers. Other alumni profiled in this issue offered his views on proposed reforms for the conduct who are using their Duke Law education to make a of securities class action litigation to the House difference include Judge Curtis Collier ’74, Chris Kay Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee ’78, Michael Dockterman ’78, Andrea Nelson Meigs on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government ’94, and Judge Gerald Tjoflat ’57. Sponsored Enterprises. Professor Scott Silliman, I want to thank all alumni, friends, and faculty executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and who contributed so generously to the Law School in National Security, was on Capitol Hill three times in the past year.
    [Show full text]
  • Tier 1 Law Firms Tier 2 Law Firms
    U.S. News & World Report – Best Lawyers in America 2011-12 listed more than 160 law firms in its ranking of Intellectual Property Litigation Firms. Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP is proud to have been ranked a Tier 1 Firm. The following lists all firms named, and the Tier under which each is listed. TIER 1 LAW FIRMS Covington & Burling LLP Winston & Strawn LLP Fenwick & West LLP Alston + Bird LLP Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Chaz De La Garza & Assoc., LLC Fish & Richardson P.C. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP K&L Gates LLP DLA Piper LLP Kenyon & Kenyon LLP Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP Howrey LLP Perkins Coie LLP Jones Day Sidley Austin LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Susman Godfrey LLP WilmerHale Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP TIER 2 LAW FIRMS Akerman Senterfitt LLP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Bingham McCutchen LLP Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP Cowan Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Dechert LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Faegre & Benson LLP Woodcock Washburn LLP Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto Abelman Frayne & Schwab Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Goodwin Procter LLP Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, P.A. Holland & Hart LLP Arnold & Porter LLP Kaye Scholer LLP Baker & McKenzie LLP Keker & Van Nest LLP Baker Botts L.L.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Counsel Institute
    GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION in cooperation with THE AMERICAN CORPORATE COUNSEL ASSOCIATION and THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CORPORATE SECRETARIES present the 7th Annual Corporate Counsel Institute March 13-14, 2003 • Washington, DC Georgetown, ACCA and ASCS offer you a 11.0 CLE credits, of which 2 will apply to legal ethics corporate counsel program with an unparalleled At the Seventh Annual Corporate Counsel Institute, you will: faculty. This Institute has become the premier event for corporate counsel because it offers you ● Receive an up-to-the-minute ● Receive a CEO perspective on practical, real-world review of the administration’s working with the law department solutions to your antitrust priorities from the from Knoll, Inc.’s Burt Staniar toughest problems. Chairman of the Federal Trade ● Explore the toughest problems Given the events of Commission and a former Assistant facing general counsel - and the this past year, Attorney General for the Antitrust ways to solve them - during the you cannot Division of the Department of Justice popular General Counsel afford to ● Review SEC priorities with Roundtable moderated by Tyco miss this Commissioner Harvey Goldschmid General Counsel Bill Lytton timely and analyze the new corporate ● Obtain a new perspective on the event! compliance regulations and the work of the Supreme Court from Commission’s enforcement priorities CBS News’ Bob Schieffer, our with the heads of the Divisions of luncheon speaker Enforcement and Corporation Finance ● Assess some of the pressing
    [Show full text]
  • Nameprotect Trademark Insider®
    NAMEPROTECT TRADEMARK INSIDER® Comprehensive Guide: Trademark Industry IN THIS ISSUE: Top 200 Trademark Firms Top 100 Company Trademark Filers 2003 Industry Summary Madrid Protocol Annual NameProtect Trademark Insider AwardsTM Annual Report 2003 NameProtect ® digital brand protection Methodology Pre-Publication Review The NameProtect Trademark Insider® is developed through analysis of public Upon request, NameProtect is happy to offer any attorney, law firm or company trademark filings data compiled by the United States Patent and Trademark the opportunity to review our rankings prior to publication. Interested parties Office (PTO) and maintained in NameProtect's global trademark data center. may submit a request for pre-publication review to the Trademark Insider edi- tors at [email protected]. Data Integrity In order to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the law firm and company rank- Disclaimer ings presented herein, NameProtect employs the following data integrity practices: NameProtect makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of the data provided within this report. However, for various reasons including the potential for 1) Collection. As a trademark services provider, NameProtect collects and incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by the United States Patent and aggregates PTO and other trademark filing data from around the world, which Trademark Office, we cannot warrant that this report or the information con- is maintained in electronic form in the Company's trademark data center. tained herein is error free. NameProtect will not be liable for any reliance upon the 2) Normalization. In order to create this report, data from numerous fields data, analysis, opinions or other information presented within this report. within the PTO data set is normalized and parsed for detailed aggregation and Contact Information analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Lateral Hiring Frenzy Richard T
    Understanding The Lateral Hiring Frenzy Richard T. Rapp, Principal, Veltro Advisors, Inc. Why is lateral hiring proceeding at a frenetic pace even though legal employment is far below its 2007 peak? According to The American Lawyer, “Among Am Law ​ ​ 200 firms, the lateral partner market was so overheated that 92.5 percent of respondent to [their] new partner survey released in November said that legal 1 recruiters already had approached them.” ​ Is lateral hiring at this pace a destabilizing force in the law industry or a sensible, productive feature of the legal labor market? And is it transitory or will it last? To know the answers requires stepping back to understand the economics of the market for lawyers. We can address this in two parts: first, managerial motives for lateral hiring which are easy to understand and, second—and harder to grasp—the market forces that propel lateral mobility, the likes of which we do not find in most other markets for senior talent. As it turns out, the best way to think about lateral hiring among law firms is as a kind of arbitrage; arbitrage that is likely to persist as long as the gains to partners from shifting are available. When we think about arbitrage we usually think about buying and selling to capture the gains from differences across markets, for example, differences in Euro­Dollar exchange rates between London and Singapore. But more generally, arbitrage refers to any effort to gain by exploiting differences in prices. In this case it is differences among law firms in the price of legal talent that is the main—though not the only—motivator of lateral moves by senior lawyers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Malpractice Law Firm Jack H. Olender & Associates
    A SPECIAL ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT TO THE WASHINGTON POST PRESENTS PRESENTS WASH ING TON D .C. & BALTIMOR E ’S WASHINGTON D.C. & BALTIMORE’S ™ ™ THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN WASHINGTON D.C. & BALTIMORE THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN WASHINGTON D.C. & BALTIMORE TOP2012 EDITIONRATEDLAWYERS TOP2012 E DITIONRATEDLAWYERS HOWARD JANET CHAIKIN, SHERMAN, TOP CASES: SCHOCHOR, FEDERICO AND STATON, P.A. WHISTLEBLOWER CAMMARATA & SIEGEL, P.C. OVER $700 MILLION IN VERDICTS & PENN STATE HOWARD JANET ABRAMS TOP CASES: LANDAU, LTD. AGGRESSIVE LEADERS IN PERSONAL INJURY & SETTLEMENTS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ABRAMS RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, WHISTLEBLOWER ENSURING THAT LANDAU, LTD. LEVITAN & SILVER, LLC & PENN STATE CLIENTS FEEL AT HOME ENSURING THAT BRINGING A SMALL-FIRM, CLIENTS FEEL AT HOME HANDS-ON APPROACH TO SCHOCHOR, FEDERICO RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, SALSBURY, CLEMENTS, LARGE-FIRM LITIGATION AND STATON, P.A. LEVITAN & SILVER, LLC BEKMAN, MARDER & ADKINS L.L.C. OVER $700 MILLION IN BRINGING A SMALL-FIRM, PULLING MILLION-DOLLAR VERDICTS SALSBURY, CLEMENTS, CHAIKIN, SHERMAN, VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS HANDS-ON APPROACH TO IN INTRICATE CASES BEKMAN, MARDER & ADKINS L.L.C. CAMMARATA & SIEGEL, P.C. IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LARGE-FIRM LITIGATION PULLING MILLION-DOLLAR VERDICTS AGGRESSIVE LEADERS IN INTRICATE CASES IN PERSONAL INJURY A SPECIAL ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT IN A SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT TO A SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE BALTIMORE SUN PRESENTS PRESENTS WASHINGTON D.C. & BALTIMORE’S WASHINGTON D.C. & BALTIMORE’S ™ ™ THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN WASHINGTON D.C. & BALTIMORE THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN WASHINGTON D.C. & BALTIMORE TOP2012 E DITIONRATEDLAWYERS TOP2012 E DITIONRATEDLAWYERS ABRAMS LANDAU, LTD. ENSURING THAT ABRAMS HOWARD JANET SALSBURY, CLEMENTS, CHAIKIN, SHERMAN, SCHOCHOR, FEDERICO CLIENTS FEEL AT HOME LANDAU, LTD.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007 Pro Bono Institute Law Firm Pro Bono Challengesm Results
    2007 Pro Bono Institute Law Firm Pro Bono ChallengeSM Results Executive Summary Introduction The Pro Bono Institute's Law Firm Pro Bono ChallengeSM is a unique global aspirational pro bono standard. Developed by law firm leaders and corporate general counsel, the Challenge articulates a single, unitary standard for one key segment of the legal profession - the world's largest law firms. Major law firms that become Signatories to the Challenge acknowledge their institutional, firm-wide commitment to provide pro bono legal services to low income and disadvantaged individuals and families and non-profit groups. The Challenge includes an accountability mechanism and an outcome measurement tool through its annual reporting requirement. The following is an executive summary of the 2007 Challenge statistics reported by Challenge Signatories and compiled by the Law Firm Pro Bono Project. ChallengeSM Performance “Striving to meet the goals of the Law Firm Pro Bono ChallengeSM, a national aspirational pro bono standard, 135 of the nation’s largest law firms provided almost 1,600,000 hours in donated legal services to the poor and disadvantaged and charitable organizations in 1995, the first year of the Challenge.” That was the opening paragraph of the Executive Summary issued by the Pro Bono Institute in 1995, when it announced the amount of pro bono legal services contributed by PBI Challenge Signatory law firms in the first year of implementation of the Challenge. Between 1995 and 2007 there have been substantial changes in the size, culture, management, economics, and staffing of major law firms but arguably one of the most notable changes is the amount and nature of pro bono services performed by these firms.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Counsel Institute Justice Anthony Kennedy March 6-7, 2008 Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC
    In cooperation with the 12th Annual Corporate Counsel Institute Justice Anthony Kennedy March 6-7, 2008 Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC 11.5 CLE credit hours (60 minute hour), including 2.0 of legal ethics 14.0 CLE credit hours (50 minute hour), including 2.0 of legal ethics Agenda B. Employment Law Update: Institute Summary The Internet & The Workplace Georgetown Law CLE and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) have developed Moderator: Christine Zebrowski a practical, relevant and comprehensive two-day program designed to help you address Panelists: Angeline G. Chen your challenges. Our national Advisory Board has created an agenda that combines critical William P.Flanagan substantive law updates with pragmatic tips on how to perform your job more effectively. Arnold H. Pedowitz Eric D. Reicin I Pre-employment - Use of Internet 11.5 CLE credit hours (60 minute hour), including 2.0 of legal ethics searches to make pre-employment 14.0 CLE credit hours (50 minute hour), including 2.0 of legal ethics decisions (including blogs, Google, MySpace, and Facebook) and rescission I Thursday, March 6 11:30 am-12:30 pm of job offers based on information found Antitrust Update: Enforcement on the Internet Priorities & Government Perspectives I 8:00-8:45 am I During employment - Is it concerted on Supreme Court Decisions Registration & Continental Breakfast activity under the National Labor Moderator: Prof. Robert Pitofsky Sponsored by Capital Legal Solutions Relations Act?, personal e-mail, blogging, Panelists: Hon.Thomas O. Barnett and IMing at work, official corporate Hon. Deborah Platt Majoras I 8:45-9:00 am blogging, and release of information (not I National enforcement priorities Welcome and Introduction necessarily confidential) on the Web, but I International antitrust developments Lawrence J.
    [Show full text]
  • Gifts to Duke Law" School Lowndes Professorship Created
    VOLUME 8 Contents From the Dean 5 Forum 6 Constitutional and Statutory Responses to Texas v. Johnson / Walter E. Dellinger; III 12 The Biggest Deal Ever / Deborah A. DeMott 24 About the School 25 Financial Aid: An Investment in the Future 30 The B. S. Womble Scholarship 33 The Docket 34 Faculty Profile: Robert P Mosteller; A Commitment to the l£lw DEAN EDITOR ASSOCIATE EDITOR Pamela B. Gann Evelyn M. Pursley Janse Conover Haywood NUMBER 1 38 Alumnus Profile: Arnold B. McKinnon '51, Running the Nation's Most Profitable Railroad 41 Alumnus Profile: Breckinridge L. Willcox '69, US. Attorney: The Best Job Government Can Give a Lawyer 44 Book Review: Robert Dole: American Political Phoenix by Stanley Goumas Hilton '75 46 Specially Noted 58 Alumni Activities 72 Upcoming Events Duke Law Magazine is published under the auspices of the Office of the Dean, Duke University School of Law, Durham, North Carolina 27706 © Duke University 1990 PHOTOGRAPHERS PRODUCTION Dan Crawford Graphic Arts Services Ron Ferrell Les Todd Jim Wallace DUKE LAW MAGAZINE / 2 From the Dean These pages give me an oppor­ tunity to share with alumni and friends information and issues about various facets of the Law School. In this issue, I want to discuss with you matters relating to our building renovations, admissions, placement, and the public service responsibility of lawyers. Law School Library Reno­ vations. Included on these pages are pictures of the recently com­ pleted renovations of the bottom floor of the library. The reaction of faculty, librarians, and students to the architect's design has been very positive.
    [Show full text]
  • Finnegan Feb08r FINAL
    A SPECIAL REPRINT FOR Incorporating IP Asia February 2008 www.managingip.com METHODOLOGY AT A GLANCE The results of Managing IP’s survey are distinguish between firms that draft patents strongest practices in each category. Within based on extensive research and interviews themselves and firms that derive a large each tier, firms are listed alphabetically. with practitioners worldwide. part of their prosecution work from refiling All firms included, in all tiers, will have A team of researchers based in London, patents originally drafted in other jurisdic- received several recommendations and endorse- Hong Kong and New York contacted firms tions. The latter offer a valuable service to ments in order to be included in the rankings. in 65 jurisdictions to ask them for informa- IP owners and are often recommended and No one outside of Managing IP has seen tion and feedback on the rankings. Client hence are included in the survey. the final rankings before publication. feedback was also sought. Contentious work includes all other legal No firm can vote for its own inclusion, Based on this research, firms are ranked work, such as enforcement and licensing. or recommend an associated or sister firm in tiers in each jurisdiction. In most juris- Firms that handle both prosecution and in another jurisdiction. dictions, there are separate tables for prose- contentious work are eligible to appear in The rankings reflect the state of the mar- cution and contentious work. both tables. ket when the research was conducted, Prosecution work includes filing of The tiers reflect the perception of the between September 2007 and January 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Autumn · 2007 ·
    autumn · 2007 · Enhancing Public Education Opportunities In New York City A strong educational system underpins the social fabric of New York City, enabling low-income students to succeed in careers not open to their parents and preventing middle class families’ fl ight to the suburbs. At a time when 57% of New York City’s public school students perform below grade level, there is increas- ing reliance upon the nonprofi t sector to bolster student performance. Lawyers Alliance builds the capacity of nonprofi ts working in support of quality education. Charter Schools Charter schools are an alternative form of public education. Funded with state education dollars charter schools are managed by a community- focused Board of Trustees rather than a municipal school district. Charter schools have greater fl ex- ibility in curriculum design, setting of the school calendar, and hiring and fi ring of staff. New York State recently authorized the creation of 100 new charter schools, 50 of which will be located in New York City. Each charter school receives authorization to operate for fi ve years and is held accountable to fulfi ll the mission and academic goals contained in its charter. Lawyers Alliance staff and volunteer attorneys work with charter schools on a range of issues relating to formation and governance, real estate continued on page four INSIDE Lifecycle of a Nonprofi t Organization also: Lawyers Alliance Elects New Chair and Vice Chair Law Firm Appeal Housing Pro Bono WORKS Nonprofi t Employment Law Helpline www.lawyersalliance.org Law Firm Appeal Breaks Record Lawyers Alliance would like to thank the generous supporters who responded to our 2006-2007 Law Firm Appeal and helped us achieve a record-breaking year with $564,500 in donations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Washington Lawyers' Committee's Pursuit of Quality Public Educational Opportunity for All of DC's Children
    ARTICLES & ESSAYS: The Washington Lawyers' Committee's Pursuit of Quality Public Educational Opportunity for All of DC's Children Fall, 2018 Reporter 62 How. L.J. 168 * Length: 23793 words Author: Robert B. Duncan,* Charles W. Johnson IV,# Kent Withycombe, [] Carolyn Gaut Kraska, [arrow up] [rs text] Karl Lockhart,* and Miles A. Taylor* * Senior Counsel, Hogan Lovells US LLP; Adjunct Professor and Lecturer, University of Virginia School of Law # Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Haver & Feld LLP. [] Project Director, DC Public School Partnership Program, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. [arrow up] Law Clerk, Hogan Lovells US LLP; JD, University of Virginia School of Law, 2018. + Law Clerk, Hogan Lovells US LLP; JD, University of Virginia School of Law, 2018. * Law Clerk, Akin Gump Strauss Haver & Feld LLP; Howard University School of Law, 2018. Text [*168] BACKGROUND In Bolling v. Sharpe, 1 one of the five 1954 Brown v. Board of Education 2 companion cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Washington, D.C.'s racially segregated public school system violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. 3 In the decade that followed abolition of the District's dual school system, white enrollment in its public schools dropped from 50 percent to less than 10 percent. 4 [*169] In 1967, in Hobson v. Hansen (Hobson I), 5 the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered that students in overcrowded schools in the city (which were located overwhelmingly in African-American wards) be given the option to attend the then under- 1 Bolling v.
    [Show full text]