The Program

Our Commitment

Your Commitment

Selection Criteria/
Application Process

Current Clinic Students

Informational Video

**SUPPLEMENTAL** MATERIALS

       In the Fall of 2008, a group of 14 students will join the Appellate Litigation Clinic.  These students will brief and argue cases before several federal circuit courts and other appellate courts under the supervision of Professor Steven H. Goldblatt and two highly qualified supervising attorneys, both of whom will be earning graduate degrees in advocacy.  The Clinic also represents indigent people before the Board of Immigration Appeals and files amicus curiae briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States, working with organizations such as the State and Local Government Legal Center.  The nine-credit, year-long Clinic satisfies the legal writing requirement.

         Briefing and arguing appeals requires intensive training in appellate practice, procedure, research, issue formulation, and writing.  The training emphasizes improving analytical skills and clarity in both writing and oral advocacy.  In general, each student, in conjunction with one of the Clinic attorneys, will produce two major documents for filing (e.g., briefs, motions, petitions for writs of certiorari).  Only a number of the Clinic’s students will appear before appellate courts for oral argument.  All students, however, will receive training in oral advocacy during the year.  Whenever possible, students interact directly with clients through visits, phone calls, and letters.

          The caseload of the Clinic is generally composed of civil rights, immigration, habeas corpus, and a variety of other civil cases.  We also take some criminal cases and appear as an amicus curiae in various courts.  Although the breakdown varies from year to year, these cases, regardless of type, often raise important constitutional and statutory questions.  In the past, the Clinic has argued several cases on the merits in the United States Supreme Court.  Last year, the Clinic successfully briefed and argued Thompson v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 492 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2007), in which the Court narrowed restrictions on the ability of indigent prisoners to obtain in forma pauperis status.  The Clinic also recently filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), on the issue of whether Article III courts should abstain from hearing a Guantanamo Bay detainee's habeas petition challenging the military commission's jurisdiction over him, and it recently briefed and argued SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813 (2002), before the Supreme Court.  In the past few years, the Clinic successfully briefed and argued Arrington v. United States, 473 F.3d 329 (D.C. Cir. 2006), on behalf of an individual alleging that he was a victim of police brutality, and also has briefed and argued several cases in the D.C. Circuit regarding liability of foreign sovereigns for terrorist activities, such as Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2004), and Bettis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 315 F.3d 325 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The Clinic was commended by the Court in both cases involving Iran for our “outstanding” brief and oral argument.  The Clinic has also achieved significant victories in the Fourth Circuit, in cases ranging from immigration actions to suits challenging restrictions placed on access to the courts.  See, e.g., Olatunji v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 383 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding criminal inadmissibility provision impermissibly retroactive).  This year, the Clinic is litigating cases in the circuit courts of appeals on subjects such as immigration and citizenship, prisoners’ constitutional rights to adequate medical care and fair conditions of confinement, the federal Privacy Act, and exhaustion of administrative remedies.  In the U.S. Supreme Court, the Clinic is authoring amicus briefs on the issue of federal preemption of state-law tort claims.   

        Professor Goldblatt is an experienced appellate lawyer, having appeared before the United States Supreme Court, many federal circuit courts of appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and state appellate courts.  The two appellate advocacy fellows are lawyers selected on the basis of outstanding academic records, excellent writing skills, clerkship experience, and prior litigation experience.  They work closely with students in developing their written and oral advocacy skills.  Cecily Baskir graduated from Yale Law School in 2002 and clerked for the Honorable Rosemary Barkett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  Following her clerkship, Cecily spent more than two years as the Chesterfield Smith Fellow in the Washington, D.C. office of Holland & Knight LLP, where she represented pro bono clients full time on discrimination, immigration, consumer protection, veterans’ rights and other matters.  The second fellowship will be awarded later this year. 

        The staff is committed to teaching the finest appellate advocacy.  The students learn to analyze a set of facts, develop legal issues, and produce a superb written product.  Supervision is often in a 2- or 3-to-1 student/attorney ratio.  Using videotape and moot court techniques, we teach each student the art of oral advocacy.  Several students will appear before federal appellate courts.

        By virtue of its docket of cases from federal circuit courts of appeals and other courts, the Clinic gives students first-hand experience with the operation of a small appellate law firm and the administration of justice in both the federal and state courts.

        A nine-credit, year-long clinical program is a significant commitment.  It offers students more than just exposure to a branch of law; it is an opportunity to be a lawyer and to work in a partnership under the guidance of experienced lawyers.  Students joining the Clinic will be required to put in substantial work, including preparing for oral argument, writing briefs, and attending the two-hour weekly seminar.  Evening division students who can devote the time necessary to attend the scheduled Wednesday afternoon seminar and can undertake the commitment needed to work on live-client cases during the day are encouraged to apply.

        Under the supervision of one of the attorneys, you will work in a team or alone on at least two written projects during the year.  Your goal will be to produce a written and oral product that meets the highest professional standards.

        The weekly seminar emphasizes student participation and covers a broad spectrum of issues confronting appellate litigators, such as brief writing, the nuances of oral argument, appellate jurisdiction and procedure, standards of review, and the meaning of professional responsibility in the appellate context.  Case assignments generally are completed by the end of classes in May, although some work during exams may be necessary.  In that event, steps are taken to ensure that students have adequate time to complete these assignments and prepare for their exams.  Students are also cautioned that work on cases may be necessary during holidays or breaks.  We attempt to work around exam and break schedules, but this is not always possible.

        Overall, you can anticipate a time commitment of roughly sixteen hours per week.  That number indicates how total hours worked would average out at the end of the school year.  The time actually devoted to the Clinic will be concentrated around the time of writing assignments and oral arguments.  When briefs are due, substantially more than sixteen hours per week should be expected.  Fewer than sixteen hours are the norm when briefs are not due.  It is relatively easy to plan around these assignments because you will know about them well in advance.