![]() |
|
Introduction to the Clinic
|
||||||||
The Appellate Litigation Program has been one of the core clinical programs at Georgetown University Law Center for over twenty years. For the past fifteen years, the program has been directed by Professor Steven H. Goldblatt. It is, in a real sense, a small appellate litigation law firm with one senior partner (Goldblatt), two junior partners (highly qualified attorneys in a two-year fellowship program), sixteen associates (third-year law students enrolled in a year-long, nine-credit clinic), and an office manager. The clinic caseload, both civil and criminal, includes cases involving federal agencies and exposes students to litigation in at least two federal circuits and the D.C. courts. The clinic has had four cases reach the United States Supreme Court on grants of writs of certiorari. Over twenty students working on those cases had the opportunity to participate in litigation before the highest court in the United States before they were even admitted to the bar.
Who the Clinic Represents The clinic accepts cases primarily by court appointment. The only cases the clinic accepts from any other source are amicus cases. Clinic Staff Professor Steven H. Goldblatt,
Director Adjunct Professor Roy
T. Englert, Jr. Professor Englert began
working with the clinic last year in SEC v. Zandford, 122 S. Ct. 1899
(2002). This year he was appointed as an adjunct professor and will
be consulting with clinic students on cases, participating in seminar
instruction, and providing career counseling. He is the founding partner
of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner LLP. Professor
Englert was formerly a partner at Mayer, Brown & Platt in Washington,
D.C., an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the United States Department
of Justice, and an associate at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in
Washington, D.C. He was also a Court Law Clerk for the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Throughout
his career, Professor Englert's principal focus has been appellate
litigation and antitrust law. His appellate experience includes arguing
12 cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, winning 10, losing
1, and achieving a split decision in 1. He has also briefed many other
Supreme Court cases, and briefed and argued many cases in other state
and federal appellate courts. His appellate cases have spanned virtually
all fields of law, including antitrust, bankruptcy, employment discrimination,
federal jurisdiction, administrative law, RICO, and punitive damages.
Professor Englert's antitrust experience includes representing clients
at trial and on appeal, negotiating with federal antitrust agencies,
and providing antitrust counseling. He has also worked on competition
issues in large railroad mergers before the Surface Transportation
Board and its predecessor. His professional affiliations include membership
in the ABA Section of Antitrust Law, the Supreme Court Historical
Society, the Outside Advisory Board of the Georgetown Supreme Court
Institute, and the Constitutional & Administrative Law Advisory
Committee of the National Chamber Litigation Center. Cecily Baskir Cecily Baskir was a Chesterfield Smith Fellow from 2004-2006 in the Washington, DC office of Holland & Knight LLP, where she represented low-income clients full-time on pro bono discrimination, immigration, consumer protection, veterans benefits, and other cases. In addition to trial and appellate work on behalf of individual clients, Cecily also worked on systemic indigent defense reform litigation and federal education policy. Prior to joining Holland & Knight, Cecily clerked for the Honorable Rosemary Barkett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Cecily received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 2002, where she was Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal and a law school exchange program participant in Argentina. Before law school, Cecily was a special assistant to the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Management and a DAAD fellow in Jewish Studies at the University of Potsdam in Germany. Cecily received an A.B. magna cum laude in Religion from Princeton University in 1996. Richard Frankel Richard Frankel received a B.A. from Yale University in 1997 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 2001, where he served on the Yale Law Journal and as a student director of the Community Legal Services clinic. After graduating from law school, Richard spent a year clerking for the Honorable Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and a year clerking for the Honorable William Canby, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following his clerkships, Richard spent two-years as the Goldberg-Dietzler Fellow at Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, litigating a wide range of cases seeking to preserve individuals' right to access the court system, help the injured victims of corporate misconduct, prevent enforcement of abusive mandatory arbitration clauses designed to deprive individuals of their day in court, and stop federal preemption of state-law causes of action. Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277 (1992) (Considering in habeas corpus case the question whether the de novo review standard for mixed questions of law and fact established in 1953 [the Brown v. Allen standard] should be overruled). Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (Reversing a Fourth Circuit determination that the court did not have jurisdiction over an appeal because the defendant's pro se brief could not serve as a timely notice of appeal). Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 (1991) (Holding by a 5-4 vote in one of the first federal sentencing guidelines cases reviewed by the Court that defendant must get notice if the court is considering a sua sponte departure from the guideline sentencing range). Peralta v. United States Attorney's Office, 136 F.3d 169 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Reversing district court order dismissing Executive Office for United States Attorneys as respondent in a FOIA case and referring complaint to FBI for processing. The Court noted that the tangled record led to the appointment of "Georgetown's able Appellate Litigation Program" as amicus to help sort out the confusion, and to make sense of the jurisdictional issues raised by this case). Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Reversing, in part, and remanding civil rights complaint for further consideration of one of appellant's constitutional claims after rejecting appellee's claim that challenges that may affect parole eligibility must be brought as habeas corpus actions). Bazuaye v. United States, 83 F.3d 482 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Reversing district court and holding that Bazuaye may sue the United States for improperly seizing money and holding that FTCA 2680(c) exception does not apply to law enforcement officials unless they are acting in a customs or excise capacity). Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1273 (1996) (Upholding the authority of district court to dismiss civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) on the basis that the action is barred by an affirmative defense). Goldsmith v. Witkowski, 981 F.2d 697 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 3020 (1993) (Successful Jackson v. Virginia challenge on petition for writ of habeas corpus to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the defendant's South Carolina drug offense convictions). Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Holding that victims of international terrorism may not sue foreign state-sponsors of terrorism under the Flatow Amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and noting that "the advocates from the Appellate Litigation Program responded admirably on very short notice in assisting the court with an outstanding brief and oral argument.") Bettis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 315 F.3d 325 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Affirming a judgment that neices and nephews of a victim of terrorist acts could not sue for international infliction of emotional distress, and noting that the Court's appreciation for the Appellate Litigation Program's "truly outstanding" brief and oral argument.) Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004) (Granting a certificate of appealability to Ms. Reid after deciding that a certificate of appealability is necessary to appeal a denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Appellate Litigation Fellowships The Appellate Litigation Program offers two graduate fellowships for LL.M. candidates interested in training as appellate advocates in the federal and D.C. courts. In addition to arguing at least two cases in the federal courts of appeals, the fellows work with students on cases pending in the D.C. courts, the federal courts of appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. The fellows supervise student written work and oral advocacy preparation in order to enhance the student learning process and to develop the fellows' own skills as clinicians and litigators. Fellows also participate in the Appellate Litigation Program's weekly seminar. The fellows and the director jointly teach the seminar, exploring many aspects of appellate procedure and professional responsibility. The fellowship provides an opportunity to prepare the candidate for a career in teaching, litigation, or both. The emphasis of the program is determined by the fellow and the director. There are two Appellate Litigation Fellowships, with one starting each year. The next fellowship that will become available is set to begin in the summer of 2007. We will accept applications for the next available fellowship between September 1 and December 1, 2006. There is no formal
application for the fellowship. Rather, interested persons should
apply by writing to Professor Steven H. Goldblatt, Director, Appellate
Litigation Program, Georgetown University Law Center, 111 F Street,
NW, Room 123, Washington, DC 20001-2095. Applicants should enclose
a resume, writing sample, and official law school transcript. The
application process has become increasingly competitive. Fellows who
are not members of the D.C. Bar must apply for admission no later
than 90 days after the commencement of the fellowship. Candidates
should have at least one year of relevant experience beyond the J.D.
degree (e.g., clerkship, government or private practice) and membership
in a state bar. Superior writing skills and a strong academic background
are required. A federal clerkship, appellate litigation experience,
teaching experience, and experience with criminal or civil rights
litigation are highly desirable. Revised October 21, 2004 (DF/LP) |
||||||||