Law Students are Next!
We shed light on a recent demand from the government investigating one of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law's clinics that provides law students with invaluable education.
Law Students are Next on Trump’s War Against the Law
SUMMARY: Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law (Northwestern) received a nasty-gram from the government about a law student opportunity they provide called the Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic. This government investigation into Northwestern’s clinic caught our attention because it’s clear that Trump is not just attacking the rule of law in courtrooms or through the many Executive Orders singling out law firms, but now he’s coming for the law students and law schools. We try to make sense of this investigation and what the overarching implications are for law students, law schools, clients who need representation, and the rule of law.
But first, what is a law school clinic?
Many law schools throughout the country offer their law students the opportunity to participate in a clinic. A clinic is essentially a way that a law student can work with ongoing legal cases under the supervision of a licensed attorney in order to gain real-world experience prior to graduating from law school. The goal of participating in a clinic and for law schools providing clinic opportunities is to ensure that the student is “practice ready” upon graduation. Many times, law students participating in a clinic can make oral arguments in a real courtroom, conduct examinations of witnesses, interview clients, negotiate matters pertaining to the case, and even go so far as to try an entire case. Truly, the experience is unparalleled and no better way to ensure a future attorney leaves law school prepared for real cases.
In addition to the goal of honing law student’s litigation by participating in clinics, the American Bar Association (ABA), the accrediting body that creates requirements for law school curricula, requires it. The ABA requires that a law school provide and law students complete “experiential education” credits. Simply put, experiential in this context means hands on learning or even learning-by-doing. Specifically, Standard 303(a)(3) of the ABA requires a law student to complete “one or more experiential course(s) totaling at least six credit hours. An experiential course must be a simulation course, a law clinic, or a field placement.” The ABA requires law schools to provide substantial opportunities for students for law clinics or field placement and student participation in pro bono legal services, including law-related public service activities.
Although the ABA defines certain requirements for law school curricula, each law school implements those requirements differently. Some law schools provide trial advocacy courses that teach the students how to effectively litigation cases using a “fake” case file. Some law schools offer clinics that allow the law student to represent clients. Some law schools permit law students to work in practicums at different offices that permit them to observe courtroom behavior and etiquette. Each law school has autonomy to decide which offerings they provide to fulfil the ABA’s experiential learning requirements.
Of note, the ABA provides insight into the “why” of this requirement by referring to one of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) that an attorney must abide by - Rule 6.1 entitled “Voluntary Pro Bono Publico Service.” This model rule indicates that a lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono (free) publico legal services per year. These free hours of legal work should be provided to persons of limited means, or charitable, religious, civil, community, governmental and educational organizations. Delivery of these discounted or free legal services should be provided to “secure or protect civil rights, civil liberties or public rights, or charitable, religious, civil, community, governmental and educational organizations in matters in furtherance of their organizational purposes…”
The ABA specifically references MRPC 6.1 in their notes regarding law schools providing students with experiential learning opportunities. They provide further interpretations and guidance for law schools indicating that “[l]aw-related public service activities include (i) helping groups or organizations seeking to secure or protect civil rights, civil liberties, or public rights; (ii) helping charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental, and educational organizations not able to afford legal representation; (iii) participating in activities providing information about justice, the law or the legal system to those who might not otherwise have such information; and (iv) engaging in activities to enhance the capacity of the law and legal institutions to do justice.”
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic
At the prestigious Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (Northwestern), students can participate in a clinic called the Community Justice and Civil Rights clinic, among other clinics offered by Northwestern. According to Northwestern’s website, their Community Justice and Civil Rights clinic works in collaboration with social justice movements on legal and policy strategies aimed at redressing over-policing and mass imprisonment. The clinic exposes students to community organizing, litigation and policy advocacy. This provides first-hand experience to Northwestern’s law students to represent clients tied up in the court system. But it also provides the community and indigent clients with an opportunity to gain legal representation.
The Government’s Nasty-Gram Investigating the Clinic
The clients in the Community Justice and Civil Rights clinic apparently include organizers of an anti-Israel blockade of highway traffic to Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. Given that representation, Northwestern’s Community Justice and Civil Rights clinic just received a letter from the government indicating that Northwestern and the Clinic are being investigated. The Committee on Education and Workforce is a standing committee of the U.S. House of Representatives that oversees federal programs and initiatives related to education and workforce issues. The Committee, as with most Congressional committees, conducts investigations relating to the Committee’s topics. As with most Congressional investigations, the Committee conducts hearings to gather information, hear testimony, and even request documents and information from individuals, organizations, and government agencies to support its investigations.
The Committee sent a four page letter to Northwestern outlining the investigation of Northwestern’s “response to antisemitism on its campus.” The letter specifically references the representation of the organizers involved in the above-mentioned blockade and states that such representation “raises broader concerns about the institutionalization of left-wing political activism at Northwestern Law.” The letter accuses the school of engaging in “progressive-left political advocacy” and indicates that “Northwestern’s decision to fund left-wing advocacy with its institutional resources heightens significant concerns about the university’s role as a steward of taxpayer dollars.”
As such, the Committee requests a list of documents by April 10, 2025 including:
All written policies, procedures, and guidance relating to the function of legal clinics atNorthwestern Law, including any written guidance on what constitutes appropriate work,and direction on appropriate client representations;
A detailed budget for the Bluhm Legal Clinic, including detailed budgets for its more than 20 clinics and 12 centers.
A list of the sources of Bluhm Legal Clinic’s funding, including the funding for each of its centers and clinics;
A list of all the Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic’s payments to people or groups not employed by Northwestern and any of its clinics and centers since 2020; and
All hiring materials and performance reviews for Sheila A. Bedi.
Does Northwestern HAVE to comply?
At this point, simply put, no. The letter that Northwestern received is a request for voluntary cooperation. Northwestern could, if they so choose, comply with the request and provide this data to the Committee. If, however, they choose NOT to comply, then the Committee could issue subpoenas to comply. A subpoena is a legal document that compels someone to testify or to provide documents.
WHO IT IMPACTS: The impact of this letter from the Government goes far beyond Northwestern. It impacts legal education throughout the country. Should this clinic be defunded or disappear to appease the government, obviously it will impact the students at Northwestern. If other law schools follow suit and feel compelled to stop offering similar clinics to avoid investigations by the government, it would impact law students throughout the country. Essentially what Congress is attempting to do is censure what classes law students with federal loans can take. What’s to stop them from dictating career choices next?
But an even more chilling effect of this correspondence is the impact upon the ability to represent indigent clients. Accusing a law school of “promoting left-wing causes” because of their representation of individuals who participated in a protest is troublesome to say the least. Attorneys often represent clients in challenging or controversial cases, and their role is to ensure that everyone has access to legal representation. Attorneys (and even the law students who participate in these clinics) cannot and should not be judged by who they represent. That is a fundamental part of our legal system - having an advocate on your side to represent you, no matter how heinous the case.
That’s not just the Real Law Moms on a soap box. Our Founding Fathers made sure that the right to be represented is a cornerstone of the justice system. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions. The Due Process Clause of the XIV Amendment requires fair legal proceedings, including the provisions of counsel in certain civil cases where fundamental rights are at risk.