Boston College Law School gives its students a wide range of classes to take that are taught by some of the best scholars in the field. Yet, while learning about the law in a classroom is crucial to becoming a successful attorney, nothing prepares you for day-to-day practice more than getting hands-on experience before graduating. That’s where BC Law’s clinics come in.

Law students in their second and third years of study can apply for coveted spots in any of the school’s fifteen clinics. No matter what someone’s legal interest is, there’s a clinic for them! To help students better understand the opportunities available to them, the BC Law Impact Blog is highlighting each of these clinics this semester. Here is our interview with the director of the Amicus Brief Clinic, Tom Carey.

Tell us about your clinic!

The Amicus Brief Clinic provides students and faculty with an opportunity to weigh in on and attempt to influence the development of the law and public policy in the court system. Some briefs include faculty members as the lead Amicus, while others may be written in conjunction with well-regarded organizations.

Through this work, students gain significant, real-world experience in legal research and brief writing. They also have the chance to attend moots in preparation for oral argument, and to attend the arguments themselves.

What makes the Amicus Brief Clinic unique?

The ad hoc, pop-up nature of the opportunities presented to this clinic mimic real-world practice, as court schedules don’t follow academic schedules! Opportunities may also arise in a wide variety of subjects, and students are free to accept or decline cases based on their personal or professional interests. These “Friend of the Court” briefs require special appellate brief writing skills and provide broader opportunities to assist the court than one might have when representing a party.

Does the Amicus Brief Clinic have any exciting success stories to share?

There are several stories in BC Law Magazine about the successes of the Amicus Clinic. For example, several years ago, students working with Professor Brian Quinn wrote an Amicus Brief on the proper standards for judicial dissolution of a corporation, which was an issue of first impression for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. When the court decided the case (Koshy v. Sachdev), it incorporated the main points from our amicus brief into its holding.

More recently, a student worked with Professor Mark Brodin to write an Amicus Brief arguing in favor of changing the Hearsay Rule that was previously applied in Massachusetts. The Supreme Judicial Court again agreed on this issue of first impression and adopted the federal approach, which states that a witness who lacks memory of a prior statement is deemed unavailable. The holding in this case (Hedberg v. Wakamatsu) opens the door to the admission of statements from such witnesses if they fall within well-established hearsay exceptions.

Keeping it closer to home, students also wrote an Amicus Brief urging the Supreme Judicial Court to restore the salary of a judge on the Newton district court after she was suspended without pay for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade ICE agents after his hearing in her courtroom. Our entire student team had to work quickly to draft this Brief on behalf of the Massachusetts Bar Association, the Women’s Bar Association, and the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, but we were ultimately successful, as the court agreed with our position once again.

---

Tess Halpern is a third-year student and president of the Impact blog. Contact her at halperte@bc.edu.