DOCSLIB.ORG

Judicial Clerkship Handbook 2007-2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Judicial Clerkship Handbook 2007-2008 Career Services 1 CAREER SERVICES OFFICE STAFF Ilona DeRemer Lydia Montelongo Assistant Dean Associate Director [email protected] [email protected] Jacqueline Mendez Soto Assistant Director Judicial Clerkship Advisor [email protected] FACULTY JUDICIAL CLERKSHIP COMMITTEE 2007-2008 Professor Adam Chodorow, Chair Noel Fidel, Associate Dean Ilona DeRemer, Assistant Dean for Career Services Jacqueline Mendez Soto, Assistant Director of Career Services 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IMPORTANT DATES AT A GLANCE ................................................................................ 4 2. WHY CLERK? ............................................................................................................... 5 BENEFITS OF A JUDICIAL CLERKHSIP ......................................................................... 5 3. TARGETING PROMISING CLERKSHIP OPPORTUNITIES ............................................... 5 TARGETING A SPECIFIC TYPE OF COURT ......................................................................... 6 SELECTING A GEOGRAPHIC AREA ................................................................................... 6 ASSESSING YOUR STRENGTHS/QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................ 7 4. RESEARCHING CLERKSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AND JUDGES ......................................... 7 JUDICIAL CLERKSHIP RESEARCH RESOURCES ................................................................. 7 5. THE MECHANICS OF A JUDICIAL CLERKSHIP APPLICATION...................................... 9 PREPARING YOUR APPLICATION ...................................................................................... 9 6. TIMING IS ESSENTIAL................................................................................................. 10 THE FEDERAL JUDGES LAW CLERK HIRING PLAN ........................................................ 10 SUBMITTING YOUR APPLICATIONS ............................................................................... 11 OPPORTUNITIES LATER IN YOUR THIRD YEAR .............................................................. 13 7. PREPARING FOR THE INITIAL INTERVIEW................................................................. 13 8. ACCEPTING THE OFFER ............................................................................................. 14 9. APPENDIX.................................................................................................................... 15 UNITED STATES COURTS............................................................................................... 16 OVERVIEW OF COURTS.................................................................................................. 17 LAW CLERK HANDBOOK .............................................................................................. 20 SELF-ASSESSMENT FOR JUDICIAL CLERKSHIPS............................................................. 21 ADDITIONAL WEBSITES FOR JUDICIAL CLERKSHIPS RESEARCH.................................... 23 BIOGRAPHICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 24 JUDICIAL CLERKSHIP CORRESPONDENCE ...................................................................... 26 SAMPLE COVER LETTER FOR JUDICIAL CLERKSHIPS ..................................................... 27 REQUESTING A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FROM A PROFESSOR............................ 29 JUDICIAL CLERKSHIPS: POSSIBLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ........................................... 31 PREPARING FOR JUDICIAL CLERKSHIPS: TIPS FOR STUDENTS SPENDING THEIR SUMMERS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR ................................................................................. 33 ASU ALUMNI JUDICIAL CLERKSHIPS ............................................................................ 34 ASU LAW FACULTY JUDICIAL CLERKS ........................................................................ 43 3 1. IMPORTANT DATES AT A GLANCE March Research application deadlines for out-of-state clerkships with state court judges and for federal judges who are not following the Federal Judges Law Clerk Hiring Plan. Apply accordingly. Use the Vermont Law School Guide to State Judicial Clerkship Procedures. March – May Begin to prepare your application material based on the earliest application deadline you may have. Ask for letters of recommendation. June 11 OSCAR becomes available to students. If you are applying to federal judges, register with OSCAR and begin to upload your application materials and request letters of recommendation through OSCAR. July 15 The ASU Judicial Clerkship Table will be available at the Career Services website with the most up-to-date information on clerkship opportunities with Arizona federal and state judges. July – August Finalize your applications for all judges who are following the Federal Judges Law Clerk Hiring Plan or who take applications in the summer. August 22 Deadline to submit your applications to the Career Services Office for Arizona federal and state judges. These applications will be bundled and sent to the judges to be received by them on September 4, 2007. August 31 Express mail your applications to all federal and state judges who follow the Federal Judges Law Clerk Hiring Plan so that they are received by the judges no earlier than September 4, 2007. These include federal judges who are not taking applications through OSCAR and judges for whom Career Services is not bundling applications. September 4 First day when applications to federal judges who are following the Federal Law Clerk Hiring Plan may begin to accept applications. Career Services will have the bundled applications delivered to Arizona judges. September 11, noon First date and time when judges following the Federal Law Clerk Hiring Plan may contact applicants to schedule interviews. September 19, First date and time when judges who are following the Federal Law Clerk 1:00 p.m. Hiring Plan may hold interviews and make offers. October Not all judges extend offers in September. Offers may still be made in October or later. Remaining 3L year Not all judges hire before or during the regular judicial clerkship cycle. Some judges do not interview until late in the fall semester and some even interview during the spring semester. Career Services will inform you of these opportunities as they come up, and also continue to do your own research of clerkship opportunities with the resources mentioned throughout this handbook. 4 2. WHY CLERK? Most likely, if you were to ask a law professor his or her opinion on judicial clerkships, the response would be an enthusiastic: “Don't hesitate, a clerkship will be one of the most valuable experiences of your legal career.” Judicial clerkships are among the most prestigious and competitive employment opportunities available to recent graduates. Typically, judicial clerkships last one or two years. Some judges, however, employ “career clerks,” who work for the judge on a permanent basis. Most clerks are hired to assist a specific judge although some courts employ “floating clerks” to assist the judges. Judicial clerks play a significant role in the judicial process. Depending on the court, judicial clerks perform a variety of duties including advising the judge on the law, conducting legal research, drafting memoranda and opinions, and attending hearings and trials (trial-level clerkship) or oral arguments (appellate clerkship). Each year approximately ten to fifteen percent of the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law graduates accept positions with local, state, and federal judges. Although the application process is not complicated, it takes thought and thorough planning. The Career Services Office can advise you on the application process and direct you to several useful resources. BENEFITS OF A JUDICIAL CLERKSHIP There are many rewards to a judicial clerkship. Advantages of a clerkship may vary depending on duties, which in turn depend on the type of court and the particular judge. Advantages may include: 1. Diversity of the position. A clerk may experience a wide variety of cases and areas of law, which is a very marketable experience on a resume when it is time to pursue a legal post-clerkship position and throughout a legal career. Clerks are able to view the court from the vantage point of the decision maker. 2. Experience of working in close relationship to a lawyer/judge who may serve as a great, life-long mentor. 3. Exposure to the other side of the bench before pursuing a career as a litigator. 4. Improvement of writing skills, while gaining insight into what makes a good brief, a persuasive argument, and a good lawyer. Particularly important is learning what a judge wants and does not want to hear. 5. Gaining familiarity with both the basics of law and a large number of specialty areas. 6. Development of confidence in your own decision-making ability and legal knowledge. 7. Gaining exposure to many attorneys who practice in a geographic location of interest to the clerk. The exposure translates into contacts for future employment. 5 3. TARGETING PROMISING CLERKSHIP OPPORTUNITIES As a law student interested in a clerkship, one of your first tasks is to identify those clerkships that you think would best fit your needs and interests. There are hundreds of judicial clerkship opportunities varying by geographical location and type of court. It is up to you to narrow down the field to the ones that would work for you. The Career Services Office can assist you with the process.
Recommended publications
  • An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the Unites States

    An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the Unites States

    JUDGED BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IDEOLOGIES OF JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Corey Rayburn Yung* Abstract: Although there has been an explosion of empirical legal schol- arship about the federal judiciary, with a particular focus on judicial ide- ology, the question remains: how do we know what the ideology of a judge actually is? For federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court, legal aca- demics and political scientists have offered only crude proxies to identify the ideologies of judges. This Article attempts to cure this deficiency in empirical research about the federal courts by introducing a new tech- nique for measuring the ideology of judges based upon judicial behavior in the U.S. courts of appeals. This study measures ideology, not by subjec- tively coding the ideological direction of case outcomes, but by determin- ing the degree to which federal appellate judges agree and disagree with their liberal and conservative colleagues at both the appellate and district court levels. Further, through regression analysis, several important find- ings related to the Ideology Scores emerge. First, the Ideology Scores in this Article offer substantial improvements in predicting civil rights case outcomes over the leading measures of ideology. Second, there were very different levels and heterogeneity of ideology among the judges on the studied circuits. Third, the data did not support the conventional wisdom that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointed uniquely ideological judges. Fourth, in general judges appointed by Republican presidents were more ideological than those appointed by Democratic presidents.
  • ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE V. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION and the FUTURE of REDISTRICTING REFORM David Gartner*

    ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE V. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION and the FUTURE of REDISTRICTING REFORM David Gartner*

    ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE V. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION AND THE FUTURE OF REDISTRICTING REFORM David Gartner* INTRODUCTION In 2018, voters in five different states passed successful initiatives that made it harder for politicians to choose their own districts and easier for independent voices to shape the redistricting process.1 This unprecedented transformation in the redistricting process would not have happened without the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.2 That decision confirmed the constitutionality of Arizona’s own Independent Redistricting Commission and created an outlet for citizens frustrated with dysfunctional governance and unresponsive legislators to initiate reforms through the initiative process. All of these 2018 initiatives created or expanded state redistricting commissions which are to some degree insulated from the direct sway of the majority party in their respective legislatures.3 The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission has proven to be a model for some states and an inspiration for many more with respect to * Professor of Law at Arizona State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. 1. Brett Neely & Sean McMinn, Voters Rejected Gerrymandering in 2018, But Some Lawmakers Try to Hold Power, NRP (Dec. 28, 2018, 5:00 AM), https://www.npr.org/2018/12/28/675763553/voters-rejected-gerrymandering-in-2018-but-some- lawmakers-try-to-hold-power [https://perma.cc/3RJH-39P9] (noting voters in Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri,
  • Rex E. Lee Conference on the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States

    Rex E. Lee Conference on the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States

    BYU Law Review Volume 2003 | Issue 1 Article 1 3-1-2003 Rex E. Lee Conference on the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law and Politics Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Rex E. Lee Conference on the Office ofh t e Solicitor General of the United States, 2003 BYU L. Rev. 1 (2003). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2003/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PANEL-FULL-FIN 2/15/2003 4:02 PM IN MEMORY OF REX E. LEE (1937–1996) Not long after former Solicitor General Rex E. Lee died, the Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General held its annual meeting in Washington, D.C. All fifty state attorneys general attended the meeting, which was held at the Supreme Court. During a question and answer period, Justice David Souter was asked how advocacy before the high court had changed in recent times. Justice Souter paused for a moment and answered, “Well, I can tell you that the biggest change by far is that Rex Lee is gone. Rex Lee was the best Solicitor General this nation has ever had, and he is the best lawyer this Justice ever heard plead a case in this Court.
  • Minutes of Meeting

    Minutes of Meeting

    Minutes of Meeting ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE February 24, 2011 The organizational meeting of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Committee was called to order in the State Library Conference Room at 2:30 p.m. by Ken Bennett who then led the Pledge of Allegiance. Members present: Richard Stertz, Commissioner José M. Herrera, Commissioner Scott D. Freeman, Commissioner Linda McNulty, Commissioner Mr. Bennett explained that, under the Arizona Constitution, the Secretary of State is required to lead the first meeting of the IRC, which is comprised of four appointed members, two Republicans and two Democrats. The purpose of this meeting is to interview five Independent candidates who have been recommended to serve as the fifth member of the Commission and as Chairman. Secretary Bennett administered the Oath of Office to all four Commissioners. Commission members were then provided printed copies of the loyalty oath, which will be on file in the Secretary of State’s Office. Secretary Bennett explained that five candidates will be interviewed for the independent position and he asked if the Commissioners would like to do the interviews in public or in private. It was agreed that the interviews would be conducted in the public meeting. The meeting recessed at 2:40 p.m. since the agenda noted the first interview was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Freeman asked if it would be proper to ask the other nominees to step out of the room while they conducted individual interviews. Jim Barton, Assistant Attorney General, agreed that would be appropriate Mr.
  • Records Concerning Executive Order 13769

    Records Concerning Executive Order 13769

    From: Eugene Kiely <[email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 9:52 AM To: 'Raimondi, Marc (OPA)'; 'Navas, Nicole (OPA)' Subject: RE: State of Washington, et al v. Donald J. Trump, et al Marc- Are you going to answer any questions at all on the refugees who are under investigation? If so, I would like to know: ■ The executive order (and AG Jeff Sessions in his remarks) said that "more than 300 persons who entered the United States as refugees are currently the subjects of [FBI] counterterrorism investigations." How many total counterterrorism investigations are there? ■ The EO uses the term "counterterrorism investigations." Can you please define that? CRS did a report in 2013 on FBI terrorism investigations that said "between March 2009 and March 2011, the Bureau opened 82,325 assessments" of groups or individuals who were being investigated for possible terrorism ties, and those assessments produced just under 2,000 full or preliminary investigations. Are the 300 refugees under full or preliminary investigation, or are they at the assessment level? Thanks, Eugene Kiely Director, FactCheck.org 202 South 36th Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 215-898-2372 @ekiely Donate to FactCheck.org. Help us hold politicians accountable. From: Eugene Kiely [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 4:48 PM To: 'Raimondi, Marc (OPA)' <[email protected]>; 'Navas, Nicole (OPA)' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: State of Washington, et al v. Donald J. Trump, et al Hi Marc. Let me ask one more question, because the President is the one who made this claim without providing any context for it.
  • RESUME PAUL BENDER Professor of Law Arizona State University

    RESUME PAUL BENDER Professor of Law Arizona State University

    RESUME PAUL BENDER Professor of Law Arizona State University Addresses: Office: College of Law Arizona State University Box 877906 Tempe, Arizona 85287-7906 Tel: (480) 965-2556 Fax: (480) 727-6973 Home: 2222 North Alvarado Road Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Tel: (602) 253-8192 Fax: (602) 253-8192 Personal Information: Born, 1933, Brooklyn, New York. Married, 1955, to Margaret Thomas (A.B., Radcliffe College, 1955). Children: John F. (born 1965); Matthew L. (born 1967). Education: A.B., Harvard College, 1954, cum laude (physics). LL.B., Harvard Law School, 1957, magna cum laude (rank: 3rd of 505). Editorial Board, Harvard Law Review, Volumes 69 and 70; Developments and Supreme Court Note Editor, Volume 70. Research Assistant to Professor Benjamin Kaplan, Harvard Law School, Summer, 1958 (copyright law revision study on registration of copyright). 2008 Paul Bender Page 2 Clerkships and Fellowships: Frederick Sheldon Traveling Fellow, Harvard University, 1957-1958; Law Clerk, Judge Learned Hand, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1958-1959; Law Clerk, Justice Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court of the United States, 1959-1960. Employment: Academic: Assistant Professor, University of Pennsylvania Law School. 1960-1963; Visiting Assistant Professor, Stanford Law School, Summer, 1962; Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1963-1966; Professor, University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1966-1984; Dean and Professor of Law, Arizona State University College of Law, 1984-1989; Professor of Law, 1989 to present.. Academic Subjects: Constitutional Law; Individual Rights; U.S. Supreme Court; Arizona Constitutional Law; Indian Law. Law Practice: Associate, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York, N.Y., 1957; Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, U.S.
  • Do Women Judges Speak in a Different Voice? Sometimes, Some Women Judges Do

    Do Women Judges Speak in a Different Voice? Sometimes, Some Women Judges Do

    DO WOMEN JUDGES SPEAK "IN A DIFFERENT VOICE?" CAROL GILLIGAN, FEMINIST LEGAL THEORY, AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT Sue Davis* INTRODUCTION Feminist legal theory challenges the fundamental principles of Amer- ican law by uncovering the profound implications of the fact that the legal system was constructed, and until recently, interpreted and administered by and for men. Feminists have not only criticized specific judicial deci- sions and proposed legal reforms,1 they have gone further to question the fundamental concepts and methods of law.2 Feminist jurisprudence reaf- firms the conclusions of the legal realists and the Critical Legal Studies movement that law is neither neutral nor objective but serves to reinforce the dominant power structure. Feminist legal theory emphasizes the ex- tent to which the patriarchal character of that power structure shapes the law and in so doing, makes the domination of women "seem a feature of life, not a one-sided construct imposed by force for the advantage of a dominant group."3 Is it possible that as increasing numbers of women * Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Delaware. The author wishes to thank Sandra Harding, Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Valerie Hahns and Judy Baer for their helpful comments and suggestions. 1. See, e.g., CATHARINE MACKINNON, FEMINISM UNMODIFIED: DISCOURSES ON LIFE AND LAW (1987); Frances Olsen, Statutory Rape: A Feminist Critique of Rights, 63 TEXAS L. REV. 387 (1984); SUSAN ESTRICH, REAL RAPE (1987). 2. See, e.g., Martha Minow, The Supreme Court 1986 Term: Foreword:JusticeEn- gendered, 101 HARV. L. REV. 10 (1987); Ann C.
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

    Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 149 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2003 No. 26—Part II Senate EXECUTIVE SESSION The problem here is that he didn’t cuit Court of Appeals for the District answer the questions the way they of Columbia. wanted him to. He answered them the Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, will NOMINATION OF MIGUEL A. way he should have. We put those ques- the Senator yield for a question? ESTRADA, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE tions and those answers into the UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield for RECORD today. a question without losing my right to FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUM- It is unfair, after what this man has BIA CIRCUIT the floor. gone through—after all the hearings, Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, one (Continued) all the questions, all the time that has of the issues I have heard raised by the The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The elapsed—almost 2 years—that this other side is that the nominee has not Senator from Utah. highly qualified individual is now being had judicial experience. In fact, the Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, here we filibustered on the floor of the Senate. chairman of the House Democratic His- are in the middle of an unprecedented If the Democrat Members of the Sen- panic Caucus wrote a letter to the Ju- filibuster against the first Hispanic ate do not like his answers, then they diciary Committee, I understand.
  • Why Sit En Banc? Stephen L

    Why Sit En Banc? Stephen L

    Hastings Law Journal Volume 63 | Issue 3 Article 3 3-2012 Why Sit En Banc? Stephen L. Wasby Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen L. Wasby, Why Sit En Banc?, 63 Hastings L.J. 747 (2012). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol63/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Wasby_63-HLJ-747 (Do Not Delete) 3/26/2012 5:28 PM Why Sit En Banc? Stephen L. Wasby* U.S. courts of appeals seldom provide reasons for granting or denying rehearing en banc. The most likely reason for rehearing en banc is that other judges believe the three-judge panel deciding the case had erred, although rehearing is not sought each time judges disagree with a panel. The formal bases for rehearing a case en banc include the three desiderata of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35—conflict with circuit precedent (intracircuit conflict), conflict with Supreme Court rulings, and presence of an issue of “exceptional importance”—and courts’ rules and general orders. Judges introduce other considerations, such as an intercircuit conflict, institutional concerns about resources necessary to hear a case en banc, and whether a case should proceed directly to the Supreme Court. This Article presents a detailed description of reasons judges offer each other as they seek to have a case taken en banc or argue against such rehearing after a three-judge panel has filed its decision.
  • The Securitization of Muslims in Post-9/11 Immigration Policy

    The Securitization of Muslims in Post-9/11 Immigration Policy

    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Pomona Senior Theses Pomona Student Scholarship 2017 What If They're All Terrorists?: The ecS uritization of Muslims in Post-9/11 Immigration Policy Kian Vesteinsson Pomona College Recommended Citation Vesteinsson, Kian, "What If They're All Terrorists?: The eS curitization of Muslims in Post-9/11 Immigration Policy" (2017). Pomona Senior Theses. 182. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/pomona_theses/182 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Pomona Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pomona Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT IF THEY’RE ALL TERRORISTS?: THE SECURITIZATION OF MUSLIMS IN POST-9/11 IMMIGRATION POLICY KIAN VESTEINSSON READERS: ERIN RUNIONS PARDIS MAHDAVI A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES POMONA COLLEGE SPRING 2017 Acknowledgements There are too many people to thank here. I am who I am because of the people around me, and I have had the privilege of sharing space with some truly wonderful individuals. I owe this thesis not only to brilliant academic mentors, but to meeting-reschedulers, note-takers, food-bringers, tea-makers, feelings-talkers, blanket-sharers, all-nighter-partners, and, of course, those who have vented with me about the world and all beyond. Erin, I have made it this far in writing a thesis only because of your guidance, patience, and inspiration. I would say the same about my time at Pomona as well.
  • Trial, Appellate, and Committee Work in the South Pacific Stephen L

    Trial, Appellate, and Committee Work in the South Pacific Stephen L

    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 45 | Issue 3 Article 3 September 2015 Judging and Administration for Far-Off lP aces: Trial, Appellate, and Committee Work in the South Pacific Stephen L. Wasby University at Albany - SUNY Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Stephen L. Wasby, Judging and Administration for Far-Off Places: Trial, Appellate, and Committee Work in the South Pacific, 45 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 193 (2015). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol45/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wasby: Trial, Appellate, and Committee Work in the South Pacific ARTICLE JUDGING AND ADMINISTRATION FOR FAR-OFF PLACES: TRIAL, APPELLATE, AND COMMITTEE WORK IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC STEPHEN L. WASBY* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................ 194 R A. How the Article Proceeds........................... 196 R B. The Pacific Islands Committee ...................... 197 R II. Guam: Court Structure and Appellate Jurisdiction ........ 200 R A. Guam Appellate Jurisdiction Challenged ............. 202 R III. Judge Goodwin in Guam ............................... 205 R A. Goodwin in Guam, 1994 ........................... 205 R 1. Law Clerk Assistance .......................... 207 R B. Guam, 1995 ....................................... 210 R C. Guam, 1996 ....................................... 212 R 1. A Sidebar: Local Lawyering .................... 216 R D. Review by the Ninth Circuit ........................ 218 R * Professor of Political Science Emeritus, University at Albany - SUNY, residing in Eastham, Mass.
  • 95Th Arizona Town Hall Program Speaker Biographies

    95Th Arizona Town Hall Program Speaker Biographies

    TH 95 ARIZONA TOWN HALL PROGRAM SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES Monday, November 2, Breakfast Panel presentation by authors of the 95th Arizona Town Hall Background Report Paul Bender Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Paul Bender is a professor in the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, teaching courses on U.S. and Arizona constitutional law. He has written extensively about constitutional law, intellectual property and Indian law, and is co-author of the two-volume casebook/treatise, Political and Civil Rights in the United States. Professor Bender has argued more than 20 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and actively participates in constitutional litigation in federal and state courts. Professor Bender served as dean of the College of Law from 1984- 89, during which time he was instrumental in starting its Indian Legal Program. Prior to joining the College faculty, he was law clerk to 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Learned Hand and to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, and spent 24 years as a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Professor Bender served as principal deputy solicitor general of the United States from 1993-97, with responsibility for Supreme Court and federal appellate litigation in the areas of civil rights, race and sex discrimination, freedom of speech and religion, and tort claims against the federal government. Professor Bender has served as a member of the Hopi Tribe’s Court of Appeals, and is currently chief justice of the Fort McDowell Nation Supreme Court, and the San Carlos Apache Court of Appeals.