Monthly Archives: March 1968

1968.03.04: New Program to Begin Here (UCLA Docket)

1968.03.04 New Program to Begin Here (UCLA Law Docket)(Leon)_Page_1 1968.03.04 New Program to Begin Here (UCLA Law Docket)(Leon)_Page_2

UCLA Docket, March 4, 1968
P.1 

New Program to Begin Here

In an effort to increase law school enrollment of Negroes, Mexican-Americans and other minority group students, three Los Angeles universities will conduct a joint summer program this year to interest such students in legal education.

June college graduates and those entering their senior year next fall will be eligible for the program, which will be staffed by UCLA, Loyola, and USC and held at the UCLA Law School from June 24 to August 16.

Known as the Legal Education Opportunity Program of Southern California, the project will be funded by a $76,000 grant from the national Council on Legal Education Opportunity. Financial aid will also be available to student participants who subsequently enter law school.

Forty minority students will be given an introduction to legal education and method in such areas as criminal law, constitutional law and torts, according to. Professor Leon Letwin, director of the program.

Field Trips

The students will also take field trips to civil and criminal courts, to legal aid offices, and to lawyers’ offices “to give them the feel of the practice of law, as well as practical exposure to some of the problems being studied n the classroom ” Prof. Letwin explains. Meetings will be arranged with police personnel, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and minority group leaders to discuss the importance of careers in the law and the opportunities in practice. The students, who will be selected by all three schools, will be quartered in UCLA residence halls during the program and will receive a stipend to compensate for lost income this summer.

Also at Harvard

The Los Angeles program will be one of four in the nation this year; the others are to be held at Harvard University, Emory University in Georgia, and the University of Denver. The Council on Legal Education Opportunity was established in January, 1968, by the American Bar Association, the Association of American Law Schools, the National Bar Association, and the Law School Admission Test Council following year-long discussions on ways to increase the supply of lawyers from disadvantaged and minority groups in the United States.

Its chairman is Dean Page Keeton of the Law School of the University of Texas. College seniors and juniors interested in participating in the program may apply to the Legal Education Opportunity Program of Southern California at the UCLA Law School.

1968.03.04: Must Lawyers Break “Laws”? (UCLA Docket)

1968.03.04 New Program to Begin Here (UCLA Law Docket)(Leon)_Page_1 1968.03.04 Must Lawyers Break %22Laws%22 (UCLA Docket)(Leon)_Page_1

1968.03.04 Must Lawyers Break %22Laws%22 (UCLA Docket)(Leon)_Page_2UCLA Docket, March 4, 1968
P. 1

Must Lawyers Break “Laws”?
By ART SPENCE

The Legal Forum on Feb. 22 on the subject of Civil Disobedience and Admission to the Bar was a well attended examination of a subject near and dear to all of us getting into the bar, however the issue presented here was not how to pass the test, but rather another aspect of bar admission — the exclusion on basis of “moral turpitude” as relates to civil disobedience.

The moderator of panel discussion was Murray Schwartz. The panelists were Professors Letwin and Liebeler and students Allan Morton and Dan Lund.

Right or Privilege?

It seemed that there was a basic disagreement as to whether Bar Admission was a right or a privilege. Generally Lund and Letwin took the position that barring certain disqualifying factors (such as incompetence or dishonesty) a person should have the right to practice law.

On the other hand, Liebeler and Morton seemed to assume in their arguments that admission to the Bar, because of the nature of the profession, was to be justified by the individual — he should prove himself worthy of being an attorney.

Integrity of System

Professor Liebeler stated that the lawyer’s role depended on the integrity of the system he is operating in. The lawyer should be expected and show a desire to work within the established institutions to make the necessary reforms–and to utilize the procedures set up by law to change the institutions when that is necessary.

Professor Letwin narrowed the issue somewhat by stating that he agreed that a violation of a valid law should be punished by the criminal law, but that we should not also make this grounds for exclusion from the Bar in and of itself. A principled violation of a rule will not make a bad lawyer.

Allan Morton’s argument was aimed at distinguishing between two types of civil disobedience; after he had done this, he conceded that one form 1 would not be a valid ground for exclusion-this distinction put in focus the type of civil disobedience that is, in his mind, a valid grounds for exclusion.

The two types of civil disobedience referred to are: 1) A violation of a law in the attempt to have it determined invalid (principly on constitutional grounds); 2) A violation of a law which the violator admits is valid-or if there is no admission, a clear decision on the point by the high court.

Is Violence Acceptable?

Dan Lund presents the view that violence is an accepted method of obtaining change in the system, and that it is pointless to try to change. As was said by H. Rap Brown: “Violence is as American as apple pie.” He states that it should be accepted with law as a method of change . . . exclusion on grounds of political belief is not valid.