Law Student Clinic Participation Act of 2009

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4194) to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualifying law school students participating in legal clinics or externships from the application of the conflict of interest rules under section 205 of such title.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4194 would address an unfortunate consequence of current law that hinders participation by law students in pro bono clinics, which limits the provisions of these needed services to the community. It is appropriate that this resolution follow that of Justice Brandeis, who really was the father of pro bono work.

Title 18, section U.S.C. 205 makes it a crime for a Federal Government employee to provide legal assistance to anyone bringing a case adverse to the United States or in bringing a case adverse to a substantial U.S. interest. Section 205(b) applies the same rule to employees of the District of Columbia.

For law school students or legal clinic staff who hold government jobs, this criminalizes participation in a wide range of political programs, including those funded by the Federal Government. Law students or legal clinic staff who are full- or part-time government employees face criminal penalties if they participate in law school pro bono

clinics that represent plaintiffs whose claims are adverse to the Federal or D.C. Governments. Yet this opportunity is important for students to learn their craft and become lawyers.

This disqualifies the law students from participation in many service activities that benefit both the students and the wider community, among them juvenile justice clinics, death penalty appeal projects, advocacy programs on behalf of parents with special needs children, and low-income taxpayer clinics.

This also has the perverse effect of forcing law students to choose between government service and community service. It also needlessly deprives government employees of a range of real-world educational experiences that would be particularly beneficial to them when they become lawyers. Just this year, this Congress passed the Edward Kennedy Service Act encouraging people to participate in public service, and this is another area where we should encourage it.

This is a misguided choice to force on law students, for they should be able to have both government and community service and be encouraged to do so. This bill will stop the law from forcing them to have this conflict.

Section 205 already contains an exemption that narrows the definition of ``conflict of interest'' to those instances of actual conflict: cases in which a government attorney substantially and personally participated as a government employee, and cases in which the employee's department or agency is currently directly participating.

By applying this exemption to law students and legal clinic staff, the bill will eliminate the pernicious effects of section 205 while retaining its safeguards against true conflict of interest. Law students and legal clinic staff would be able to participate in law school clinics that are, by their nature, adverse to the Federal or D.C. Government while continuing to prohibit actual conflicts of interest involving specific parties.

Law students and staff who choose government service would remain subject to governmental conflict of interest rules while also being permitted to enjoy the same clinical resources and opportunities as their peers.

I commend our colleague Congressman Dan Lungren from California for his leadership on this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank Mr. Lungren for bringing this to us. It is important that the law students do have this opportunity and that the conflicts be real and not imagined. I would like to encourage a ``yes'' vote and would move that we pass the bill at this time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 4194, the Law Student Clinic Participation Act of 2009, makes a simple yet important change to Federal law so as to increase law students' access to clinics and other law school programs.

Nearly 44,000 law students nationwide will graduate this year from more than 200 law schools across this country. During their time in school, each of these students will study property, criminal, constitutional, and contract law, just to name a few. And these classes not only instruct the students on the relevant case law or statutes but also attempt to teach them how to think like a lawyer; that is, to analyze cases from a lawyer's perspective.

As important as that is, equally important are the clinical programs offered by virtually every law school in the country that teach students how to practice law. Clinical programs include prosecution and defense, appellate advocacy, including death penalty appeals projects, juvenile justice, and even tax assistance clinics. Yet, a little-known provision in Federal criminal law--Federal criminal law; that is, it makes is a crime--prevents certain law students from participating in these clinics. In other words, they would be subject to criminal penalties if they participated in these clinics. That is because section 205 of title 18 prescribes criminal penalties for government employees who provide outside legal assistance in a case against the United States or adverse to a substantial U.S. interest. Therefore, law school students, or even staff, who are also employed by the Federal Government, full time or part time, may be barred from participating in these valuable clinical programs.

The impact of this provision is perhaps no greater than right here in our Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, which is the home to over half a dozen law schools. It comes as no surprise that many of these schools' students are also Federal Government employees. Some of the schools have night programs, so the students work full time during the day and take classes at night. Many times they do work for the Federal Government or the D.C. Government, but because of their employment, they are, therefore, disqualified from participating in these extremely beneficial programs. This was most certainly not Congress' intent when it enacted section 205.

H.R. 4194, remedies this problem by extending an existing exemption within the statute to include Federal employee law students. The bill, therefore, appropriately allows students and staff to participate in clinics, including those that are adverse to the Federal or D.C. Governments; however--and this is important--the bill continues to prohibit any actual conflict of interest involving specific parties. Therefore, if the student or staff member is involved in a matter which would be a direct conflict of interest, they are not covered by this waiver. It would seem that this is a commonsense solution to provide those students employed by the government the same opportunities as other students.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, when this came to my attention, I thought that perhaps we could have a relatively simple, straightforward waiver or exemption to take care of this problem, which was unanticipated by the Congress when it passed the relevant law, and, therefore, I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

And if the gentleman from Tennessee has no other speakers, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to make today's votes on the House floor due to a family illness. Had I been present I would have voted as follows:

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 991, on the motion to adopt H.R. 2847, the Jobs for Main Street Act.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.