DOCSLIB.ORG

Privacy and Civil Liberties Policy Development Guide and Implementation Templates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Privacy and Civil Liberties Policy Development Guide and Implementation Templates NT O E F M JU T S R T Global Justice A I P C E E Information D Sharing Initiative United States Department of Justice Privacy and Civil Liberties Policy Development Guide and Implementation Templates Providing justice practitioners with practical guidance for the privacy policy development process Privacy and Civil Liberties Policy Development Guide and Implementation Templates Privacy and Civil Liberties Policy Development Guide and Implementation Templates i About Global The U.S. Department of Justice’s Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) serves as a Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Attorney General on critical justice information sharing initiatives. Global promotes standards- based electronic information exchange to provide justice and public safety communities with timely, accurate, complete, and accessible information in a secure and trusted environment. Global is administered by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of JusticeAssistance. This project was supported by Grant No. 2007-NC-BX-K001 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the SMART Office, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. ii Privacy and Civil Liberties Policy Development Guide and Implementation Templates Contents Section 1 Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. 1-1 Section 2 Foreword ............................................................................................................................. 2-1 Section 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 Section 4 Privacy Policy Overview .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 What Is Privacy? ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 What Is Personally Identifiable Information? ............................................................................ 4-1 4.3 What Are Civil Liberties? .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.4 What Is a Privacy and Civil Liberties Policy? ........................................................................... 4-1 4.5 When Should an Entity Develop a Privacy and Civil Liberties Policy? ..................................... 4-2 4.6 The Intersection Between Privacy, Information Quality, and Security ...................................... 4-2 4.6.1 Privacy and Information Quality ..................................................................................... 4-2 4.6.2 Privacy and Security ...................................................................................................... 4-2 4.6.3 Future Guidance Statement ........................................................................................... 4-2 4.7 Resources ................................................................................................................................ 4-3 Section 5 Governance ........................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Identifying the Project Champion or Sponsor ........................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer .................................................................................. 5-2 5.2 Resource Justification .............................................................................................................. 5-2 5.3 Identifying the Project Team Leader ......................................................................................... 5-3 5.4 Building the Project Team and Stakeholder Contacts .............................................................. 5-3 5.4.1 Project Team .................................................................................................................. 5-3 5.4.2 Stakeholder Contacts .................................................................................................... 5-4 5.5 Team Dynamics ........................................................................................................................ 5-5 5.6 Resources ................................................................................................................................ 5-5 Section 6 Planning .............................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Developing a Vision, Mission, Values Statement, and Goals and Objectives .......................... 6-1 6.1.1 Vision Statement ............................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1.2 Mission Statement ......................................................................................................... 6-2 6.1.3 Values Statement ........................................................................................................... 6-2 6.1.4 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 6-3 6.1.4.1 Goals ............................................................................................................... 6-3 6.1.4.2 Objectives ....................................................................................................... 6-3 Privacy and Civil Liberties Policy Development Guide and Implementation Templates iii 6.2 Writing the Charter ................................................................................................................... 6-3 6.3 Resources ................................................................................................................................ 6-4 Section 7 Process ............................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Understanding Information Exchanges .................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Tools to Assist With Understanding the Flow of Information .......................................... 7-3 7.1.1.1 Justice System Sequence of Events Flowchart .............................................. 7-3 7.1.1.2 Justice Information Privacy Guideline ............................................................. 7-3 7.1.1.3 Justice Information Exchange Model (JIEM) .................................................. 7-4 7.1.1.4 Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) ................................................................... 7-5 7.2 Analyzing the Legal Requirements .......................................................................................... 7-5 7.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 7-5 7.2.2 Approach to the Legal Analysis ..................................................................................... 7-5 7.2.3 Focusing the Legal Analysis .......................................................................................... 7-6 7.2.3.1 Suggestions for Approaching the Legal Analysis ............................................ 7-6 7.2.3.2 Potential Sources of Legal Authority and Limitations ...................................... 7-7 7.2.3.3 Particular Events and Actions ......................................................................... 7-7 7.2.3.4 Information Related to a Specific Person ........................................................ 7-8 7.2.4. Performing the Legal Analysis ....................................................................................... 7-8 7.2.4.1 Principles ........................................................................................................ 7-8 7.2.4.1.1 Collection of Information ................................................................. 7-9 7.2.4.1.2 Information Quality Relative to Collection and Maintenance of Information ................................................................................ 7-10 7.2.4.1.3 Sharing and Dissemination of Information—Public Access .......... 7-10 7.2.4.1.4 Provisions Relevant to the Individual About Whom Information Has Been Collected ................................................... 7-11 7.2.4.1.5 Information and Record Retention and Destruction ...................... 7-11 7.2.4.1.6 Agency or Project Transparency ................................................... 7-12 7.2.4.1.7 Accountability and Enforcement ................................................... 7-12 7.2.4.2 Specific Laws to Examine ............................................................................. 7-13 7.3 Identifying Critical Issues and Policy Gaps ............................................................................ 7-15 7.3.1 Identifying Team Members’ Privacy Concerns ............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jack Weinstein
    DePaul Law Review Volume 64 Issue 2 Winter 2015: Twentieth Annual Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy - In Article 4 Honor of Jack Weinstein Jack Weinstein: Judicial Strategist Jeffrey B. Morris Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Jeffrey B. Morris, Jack Weinstein: Judicial Strategist, 64 DePaul L. Rev. (2015) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol64/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JACK WEINSTEIN: JUDICIAL STRATEGIST Jeffrey B. Morris* Fifty years ago, one of the great students of the judicial process, Walter F. Murphy,1 heir to Princeton University’s great tradition of such scholars,2 employed the papers of United States Supreme Court Justices to consider how any one of their number might go about ex- erting influence within and outside the Court. How, Murphy asked, could a justice most efficiently use her resources—official and per- sonal—to achieve a set of policy objectives?3 Murphy argued that there were strategic and tactical courses open for justices to increase their policy influence,4 and that a policy-oriented justice must be pre- pared to consider the relative costs and benefits that might result from her formal decisions and informal efforts at influence.5 There were, Murphy argued, a wide variety
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Mental Illness
    DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW THE LAW OF MENTAL ILLNESS “[D]oing time in prison is particularly difficult for prisoners with men- tal illness that impairs their thinking, emotional responses, and ability to cope. They have unique needs for special programs, facilities, and extensive and varied health services. Compared to other prisoners, moreover, prisoners with mental illness also are more likely to be ex- ploited and victimized by other inmates.” HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, ILL-EQUIPPED: U.S. PRISONS AND OFFENDERS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS 2 (2003), available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1003/usa1003.pdf. “[I]ndividuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such indi- viduals to participate in, and contribute to, society . .” Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 2(a)(7), 104 Stat. 327, 329 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (2000)). “We as a Nation have long neglected the mentally ill . .” Remarks [of President John F. Kennedy] on Proposed Measures To Combat Mental Illness and Mental Retardation, PUB. PAPERS 137, 138 (Feb. 5, 1963). “[H]umans are composed of more than flesh and bone . [M]ental health, just as much as physical health, is a mainstay of life.” Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146, 1261 (N.D. Cal.
    [Show full text]
  • 1-01-73 I. /Special Prosecutor
    O R G A N I Z A T~I~I 0 N A L B R E AK D O W N - .!1-01-73 I. /SPECIAL PROSECUTOR/ - Vacant A. Exec. Asst. - Kreindler B. Secretary - Campbell II. /DEPUTY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR/ - Ruth A. Exec. Asst. - Feldbaum B. Secretary - Stagnaro III. /LAW AND POLICY DIVISION/ LAW RESEARCH SECTION i. Chief - Lacovara 2. Attorneys: a. Geller b. Gevlin c. Glazer d. Kaye e. Palmer f. Rient g. Wei~berg Clerical: a. Kaslow b. Graham c. Robinson, R. d. Raney e. Thevenet So PUBLIC RELATIONS SECTION i. Chief - ~ 2. Asst. - Barker 3. Clerical: a. Rollenhagen b. Westfall "C. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION i. Administrative Officer - Mann ~. Asst. - Bryan ~ 3. Clerical: a. Clancy b. Molock (part-time) c. Pfe~tz d. Thompson, M. e. Williams, M. f. 6 students IV. /~ROSECUTION AND INVESTIGATION DIVISION/ ao INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECTION i. Chief - Bratt 2. Professionals: a. Boczar b. Chideckel ,/ 2 c. Denny d. Dickman e. Fahey f. Goetcheus g. Housman h. Noonan i. Ordemann j. Pidano k. Willis Clerical: a. Dicks, L. b. Ingram c. Lusby d. Robinson, C. e. Stewart f. Wright So TASK FORCE #1 - WATERGATE i. Chief - Vacant 2. Attorneys: a. Ben-Veniste (acting chief) b. Frampton c. Goldman d. Iason e. Volner Clerical: a. Breniman b. Pyles c. Schwarz ~~ " .- d. Swann~ e. Williams, A. TASK FORCE #2 - PLUMBERS i. Chief - Merrill 2. Attorney~: a. Akerman b. Bakes c. Breyer, C. d. Hecht e. Horowitz f. Martin 3. Clerical: a. Morris b. Snell c. Zorger ~ASK FORCE #3 - CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS i. Chief - McBride Attorneys: ¯ ~ a.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolving Strategy of Policing: Case Studies of Strategic Change
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Evolving Strategy of Policing: Case Studies of Strategic Change Author(s): George L. Kelling ; Mary A. Wycoff Document No.: 198029 Date Received: December 2002 Award Number: 95-IJ-CX-0059 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Page 1 Prologue. Draft, not for circulation. 5/22/2001 e The Evolving Strategy of Policing: Case Studies of Strategic Change May 2001 George L. Kelling Mary Ann Wycoff Supported under Award # 95 zscy 0 5 9 fiom the National Institute of Justice, Ofice of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice. Points ofview in this document are those ofthe authors and do not necessarily represent the official position ofthe U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Prologue. Draft, not for circulation. 5/22/2001 Page 2 PROLOGUE Orlando W. Wilson was the most important police leader of the 20thcentury.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhode Island Interest: Culture of Quiescence Carl T
    Roger Williams University Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 2 Article 4 Spring 2004 Rhode Island Interest: Culture of Quiescence Carl T. Bogus Roger Williams University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR Recommended Citation Bogus, Carl T. (2004) "Rhode Island Interest: Culture of Quiescence," Roger Williams University Law Review: Vol. 9: Iss. 2, Article 4. Available at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol9/iss2/4 This Contribution is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Roger Williams University Law Review by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rhode Island Interest Culture of Quiescence Carl T. Bogus* I. "People ask you for criticism, but they only want praise," W. Somerset Maugham wrote.' Anyone who has ever given or re- ceived criticism recognizes the truth of that observation. Yet pain- ful as it may be, criticism is essential. People and their institutions are fallible, missteps are inevitable, and anyone who does well has profited from mistakes. No one learns to ride a bicy- cle without falling. The learner who tumbles off the bicycle does not need to be told that something went wrong; gravity delivered the message. But when we are dealing with complex matters involving social or institutional relationships, it is often difficult to know when one has lost her sense of balance. As Winston S. Chur- chill put it: "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary; it fulfills the same function as pain in the human body, it calls at- 2 tention to the development of an unhealthy state of things." * Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • 70S Integrated, He Had a Call from the Then Drugs, Sex, and Hot Breakfasts Master at 6 A.M
    JOHN HARVARD’S JOURNAL the Grand Old Party at Harvard, and Gus- about [the class],” Shoemaker remarked. Chinese restaurant, the Hong Kong, for a morino, former president of the Under- Following the final exam in May, he and celebratory luncheon with the class. The graduate Council, traced the evolution of Gomes headed to the Square’s lowbrow o∞cial CUE Guide rating on the course will student government at the Col- not be out until September, but lege, beginning with the first the course was popular enough student council in 1908. Other that some of its students are students researched the Society talking about auditing it again of Fellows, the Schlesinger Li- next spring. “Gomes himself brary’s world-renowned cook- noted that we were somewhat book collection, and the history odd for taking the class, and that of student uprisings at the Col- he was somewhat odd for giving lege, beginning with the Great it—but we all love Harvard his- Butter Rebellion in 1766 and the tory,” Ganeshananthan said. Rotten Cabbage Rebellion of garrett m. graff 1807. “We were very surprised by Garrett M. Gra≠ ’03, one of this maga- how serious the students were zine’s new Berta Greenwald Ledecky The Faculty Room as it appeared at Undergraduate Fellows (see page 79), the end of the nineteenth century HARVARD UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES received an A in Religion 1513. too many years before the Houses were Mastering in the ’70s integrated, he had a call from the then Drugs, sex, and hot breakfasts master at 6 a.m. saying “There’s a woman betty vorenberg in the Dunster yard; what are you going by to do about it?” He also recalled that one frequently voiced objection to admitting In the spring of 1973 Harvard presi- had no closets because the valet for Low- women to the Houses had been that the dent Derek Bok asked my husband, Jim ell’s first master kept the master’s clothes “level of conversation in the dining hall Vorenberg, to be master of Dunster in a room down the hall.
    [Show full text]
  • Roger A. Fairfax, Jr.* There Is a Long and Rich History of Criminal Justice
    2011] 597 FROM “O VERCRIMINALIZATION ” TO “S MART ON CRIME ”: AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM —L EGACY AND PROSPECTS Roger A. Fairfax, Jr.* INTRODUCTION There is a long and rich history of criminal justice reform efforts in the United States, including the early twentieth century reformers advocating for the improvement and normalization of criminal procedural and substan- tive law, the large-scale criminal law study and reform efforts undertaken in the late 1960s, and the more recent “overcriminalization” movement. All of these reform movements have sought to make criminal justice more effective, rational, efficient, and fair, although the extent to which they have succeeded is a matter for debate. With Americans feeling less safe (even in the face of dropping crime rates), 1 strained law enforcement budgets, 2 staggering rates of incarceration and recidivism, 3 and real and perceived inequities in the administration of criminal justice, 4 it is beyond peradventure that criminal justice is long overdue for an overhaul. In recent years, a new approach to criminal justice reform—“smart on crime”—has gained traction in policy circles. The smart on crime philoso- phy emphasizes fairness and accuracy in the administration of criminal jus- tice; alternatives to incarceration and traditional sanctions; effective preemptive mechanisms for preventing criminal behavior, the transition of * A.B., Harvard College; M.A., University of London; J.D., Harvard Law School. Associate Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School. The author would like to thank Ellen Podgor, Jeffrey Parker, Ron Gainer, Cynthia Orr, Sol Wisenberg, Ilya Somin, Jim Lavine, the editors of the Journal of Law, Economics & Policy , and the other organizers and participants associated with the Overcriminalization 2.0: Developing Consensus Solutions Symposium.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Law Institute Proposed Official Draft Text and Conzmentary
    j, l'lllf'i'l!1"'1'";' ··~·'11 j'lf .. '.f I.--~'fi "~·' I .~. • ~~j PLEASE BRING THIS DRAFT ' TO THE ANNUAL MEETING ,.._. ......"""" N' The American Law Institute ~ A MODEL CODE OF PRE-ARRAIGNMENT PROCEDURE Rubmitted by the Council to the 1\Iembers of The American Law Institute for Discussion at the Fifty-second Annual Meeting on May 20, 21, 22, and 23, 1975 Library Supreme Court of the United States 1:· r::: Proposed Official Draft 0 ·' -, ,- 1 ~(';' c:- ~ ) ,. r-· ' I '-1 .. plete I Com~ Text and Conzmentary ·-15 . ..: olio ( Received: ( April 15, 1975 t ' t The Executive Office ). THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE I 4025 Chestnut Stred, Philadelphia, Pa. 19104 l © 1975 By The American Law Institute ( , l ~ f· ,i. THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE f I• t Norris Darrell, President {"' R. Ammi Cutter, l.st Vice-President i Bernard G. Segal, 2nd Vice-President Laurens ViTilliams, Treasurer Herbert \Vecbsler, Director Paul A. V.'olkin, Assistant Director .. l COUNCIL Francis A. Allen Ann Arbor Michigan .l<'rcrkrirk A. Ballard Washington District of Columbia William J. Jameson Billings Montana F. J.l. Bircl Atlanta Georgia ! Joseph F. Jolmston Birmingham Alabama. Bennt·l t. lloskcy Washington District of Columbia Edward Hirsch Levi Washington District of Columbia Hobert Braucher Boston Massachusetts William B. Lockhart Minneapolis Minnesota Charks D. Breitel New York New York William L. Marbury Baltimore .Maryland John G. Buchanan Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Hale McCown Lincoln Nebraska William T. Coleman, Jr. Washington District of Columbia W a.de H. McCree, Jr. Detroit Michigan Lloyrl K Cutler Washington District of Columbia Carl McGowan W aslrington District of Columbia H.
    [Show full text]
  • Race Liberalism and the Deradicalization of Racial Reform
    RACE LIBERALISM AND THE DERADICALIZATION OF RACIAL REFORM Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw In the era that followed the formal collapse of white supremacy, ef- forts to sustain and broaden reformist agendas against the denouement of social justice movements exposed a series of discordant debates on the Left. While many such conflicts surfaced throughout the social or- der, some of these debates were staged in elite spaces like Harvard Law School. The Harvard Law School boycott of 1982 reflected a rupture among race-reform advocates between what I call “race liberalism,” an ideology that ultimately embodies a “colorblind” model of racial justice that seeks to eliminate “discrimination,” and a “critical race” discourse focused on the distribution of racial power, a perspective requiring the very race consciousness that race liberals saw as the evil that reform aimed to transcend. In the 1980s, the rhetorical battles between these two camps played out in a number of contexts, including, for example, debates about race-conscious affirmative action policies in elite institutions. The temporal and institutional setting of the battles exposed how knowledge production in legal education was an arena of racial contes- tation not unlike the lunch counters and ballot boxes that confronted civil rights advocates in the decades before. When students of color demanded a say in how race and law would be conceptualized as a field of inquiry, they challenged the deepest pretense of liberal sensibility — that universities themselves are apolitical arbiters of neutral knowledge rather than participants in the struggle over how social power is exercised. Harvard Law School was a generative site of struggle over the norms and content of elite legal education, particularly in shaping the contours of liberal-radical conflict about law and social transformation.
    [Show full text]
  • May 16, 1986 Thank You Bill. I'm Not Sure I Deserve All
    This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas http://dolearchives.ku.edu MAY 16, 1986 THANK YOU BILL. I'M NOT SURE I DESERVE ALL THOSE KIND WORDS, IT SURE IS NICE TO HEAR THEM ANYWAY. SOME PEOPLE ASKED ME BEFORE I CAME HERE IF I DIDN'T FEEL A LITTLE LIKE DANIEL WALKING INTO THE LION'S DEN. I TOLD THEM -- ON THE CONTRARY -- I FEEL HONORED THAT YOU WOULD INVITE ME. AND FAR FROM CONSIDERING THIS BANQUET HALL A DEN, I LOOK UPON IT AS A HOME FILLED WITH OLD FRIENDS AND FELLOW SOLDIERS IN A WAR THAT NEVER ENDS A STRUGGLE OF HEROIC MAGNITUDE AND HISTORIC IMPLICATIONS. I SEE OLD FRIENDS LIKE BILL COLEMAN, ONE OF THE MOST ELOQUENT ADVOCATES FOR FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE EVER TO ENTER A COURTROOM IN THE LEGAL BATTLES OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. I SEE NEW FRIENDS LIKE JULIUS CHAMBERS, ELAINE JONES, AND LANI GUINIER Page 1 of 21 This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas http://dolearchives.ku.edu- 2 - PEOPLE I GOT TO KNOW DURING THE 1982 EFFORT TO EXTEND THE LANDMARK VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 AND WHO I HAVE BEEN PLEASED TO WORK WITH SINCE THEN ON OTHER ISSUES OF MUTUAL CONCERN. OF ALL THE STEPS I HAVE TAKEN IN MY PULIC LIFE -- AND IT IS A CAREER THAT SPANS DECADES -- I'VE NEVER BEEN PROUDER THAN IN FIGHTING FOR AN EXTENSION OF THIS LANDMARK CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTE, AND NEVER MORE IMPRESSED WITH MY LEGISLATIVE ALLIES. A State of Mind I COME FROM KANSAS -- BLEEDING KANSAS IN THE YEARS BEFORE ITS BIRTH.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 ANNUAL REPORT Celebrating the 45Th Anniversary of the Lawyers’ Committee
    2013 ANNUAL REPORT Celebrating the 45th Anniversary of the Lawyers’ Committee LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE SERVING GREATER BOSTON SINCE 1968 LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE 2013 ANNUAL REPORT CONTENTS MISSION AND HISTORY 2 Mission And History he Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice is a 3 Message from the Executive Tprivate, non-profit, non-partisan organization formed to marshal Director the resources of the legal community to address racial and national origin discrimination throughout Massachusetts. For 45 years, the Lawyers’ 4-5 Economic Justice Project Committee has worked to safeguard the civil, social, and economic 6-7 Equal Employment rights of our constituency. We handle impact litigation as well as legal Opportunity Project actions on behalf of individuals. We also engage in community economic 8-9 Health Disparities Project development, community education, and public advocacy. 10 Education Law Project The National Lawyers’ Committee was established in 1963 at the request Voting Rights Project of President John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal 11 Other Forms of representation to address racial discrimination. The Boston Lawyers’ Discrimination Committee was founded in 1968 as the first of what are now eight local Convening of the Lawyers’ affiliates of the Washington-based National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Committee Affiliates Rights Under Law. In 1973, the Lawyers’ Committee became the first 12-13 2013 Annual Reception pro bono project of the Boston Bar Association and was the only Lawyers’ Committee in the nation affiliated with a major bar association. Although 14 Who Seeks Our Help: The Lawyers’ Committee’s the organization is now separately incorporated with its own 501(c)(3) Intakes tax-exempt status, the Lawyers’ Committee continues to maintain very strong ties to the private bar.
    [Show full text]
  • Transform—Don't Just Tinker With—Legal Education
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYC\23-2\NYC203.txt unknown Seq: 1 20-MAR-17 9:15 TRANSFORM—DON’T JUST TINKER WITH—LEGAL EDUCATION GERALD P. LOPEZ´ * In this two-part article, Part I evaluates how the past decade’s “transformation” of legal education amounts so far to just so much time-honored tinkering. Over the past ten years, most schools changed very little, and the small number that changed a fair amount (overwhelmingly in the second and third years) borrowed directly from what other law schools have been doing for decades. Because we must learn all we can from these recent years (and earlier eras), Part I aspires to present in something like realistic form the institu- tional, material, and ideological forces we all encounter and too often reproduce. What makes the past decade’s near-ritualistic experience all the more regrettable is that we have available an alternative vision of legal education ready now for a full roll-out. Because this vision traces its origins, its implementation, its improvements to the best of clinical programs in the United States, cynics will doubtlessly scoff. Facing down the disparagers, Part II will sketch the radically differ- ent assumptions, methods, and aspirations that define how this vision contrasts with the at best status-quo-plus version of legal education strongly internalized and widely practiced. Part I is not at all the “set- up” to Part II, and Part II is not at all an impractical ideal offered to soften the blunt realities portrayed in Part I. The two parts stand alone and belong together, both to chasten and embolden us, at least if we’re willing.
    [Show full text]