The Effects of Political Interference on Law School Clinic Faculty

Clinical Legal Education by the Numbers — a recurring column by Robert Kuehn, Washington University School of Law

In this time of heightened government efforts to restrict the institutional autonomy of universities and academic freedom of faculties, law school clinics have come under increased attacks for their role in representing marginalized groups and unpopular causes. Law clinic faculty are particularly vulnerable to the effects of political interference because their work often upsets economically and politically powerful interests and their employment status is typically less secure than that provided to law school classroom faculty.

As documented in an earlier article, Lessons from Forty Years of Interference in Law School Clinics, interference in law school clinics has been a concern for decades.¹ However, recent attacks, particularly from the federal government, and the concerning acquiescence of many universities to these attacks, is cause for heightened concern about the potential effects of interference on clinic faculty.² For example, in 2024 the director of the First Amendment Clinic at the University of Georgia was ordered by the law school’s dean to withdraw from a public records lawsuit it had filed against the Atlanta Police Foundation and cease all public records matters after the university was pressured on a controversial case with an influential alumnus as opposing counsel.² At Tulane University, out of concern that the Louisiana governor was going to withhold state funding for a Tulane redevelopment project unless Tulane’s president “did something” about its environmental law clinic, in 2025 the law school dean issued a directive requiring her pre-approval of non-case related communications by the clinic’s faculty. This restriction on clinical faculty speech does not apply to any other law school or university faculty member. Also last year, a U.S. House of Representatives committee sent a letter to Northwestern University requesting budgets, donor information, and personnel data on the Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic and its director over the representation of the organizers of a pro-Palestinian protest. While the clinic director filed suit to enjoin the committee from obtaining the requested information, with the committee ultimately withdrawing the request, Northwestern remained silent in the face of the intrusion and did not intervene to support the clinic director. At a later hearing by the same House committee, a representative told the chancellor of the City University of New York (CUNY) that they should discipline or fire a law clinic director for its representation of a lawful permanent resident who was detained and facing deportation for helping lead pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University.

As a former executive director of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) observed, for each formal reported case of interference in a clinical program such as these “there are many dozens of criticisms voiced less formally.”³ Given the number of law schools known to have been subject to interference, it is likely that there are very few where the dean or a university official has not been approached with a complaint about a clinic’s actions and a request, often with an implied threat, that they intervene. In many cases, even where there have been significant efforts to interfere, clinic faculty have expressed fear that publicizing those actions may antagonize government or university officials and result in some action against the clinic lawyers.

During a similar time of increased attacks on clinics, a survey was sent to random clinic faculty at every AALS member law school asking about efforts to interfere in their clinic casework.⁴ A high number reported experiencing or worrying about interference. Twelve percent reported actual interference from school administrators or faculty in response to complaints about their casework. A far greater number, over 36%, answered that they have worried about the faculty or administration’s reaction to their casework, even if they had not experienced actual interference. Perhaps not surprisingly, clinic faculty at public law schools, subject to enhanced scrutiny by state legislators and government officials, showed greater concern about interference than at private schools: a troublingly high 44% of clinic faculty at public schools were worried about reactions to their casework, with 29% worried at private schools.

Such worries have had concrete effects. In the survey, almost one in six clinic faculty reported self-censoring their choices about case selection because of concerns about potential reactions to their casework. This self-restraint clearly understates the degree to which outside interference occurs or influences law clinic operations. That is, for fear of encountering interference, clinic faculty impose their own restrictions on whom they represent or sue and on whether they seek attorneys’ fees or other types of legal relief. As one explained: “There is no question that we worry constantly that our willingness to represent unpopular clients and our success in suing governmental bodies will cost us our chances to provide high-quality clinical training to our students,” with others noting they have to avoid high-profile cases.⁵

Indeed, in a follow up survey in 2008, over 10% of respondents reported that they had engaged in self-censorship by avoiding a case because they suspected the dean or clinical program director would prefer that the clinic not handle the matter.⁶ And at times, school officials have made clear that the clinic should not move forward. Nine percent of clinic faculty reported that their dean had “suggested” they avoid a particular case, with 15% reporting that the program director had done the same. When respondents were asked if they had ever witnessed or been informed of direct interference in the work of a colleague, 30% responded that they had witnessed or been informed about such direct involvement by officials at their school.

Clinic faculty are plainly aware of their law school administration’s concern about the opinions of influential outsiders about their clinic work. In response to questions about how mindful the dean is to various groups’ opinions, 66% said that the dean was mindful of potential donors, 61% stated the dean was mindful of alumni opinions, 37% as to the state legislature (higher at public schools), 36% as to state court judges, 33% as to the state bar and 31% as to businesses.

There was a direct correlation in the survey between security of position or employment status within the law faculty and the academic freedom a clinic teacher feels. Forty-four percent of clinic teachers on short-term contracts responded that they either could not express or avoided expressing dissenting views on law school matters, while 18% on long-term contracts and 13% with tenure expressed this worry. Also, not unexpectedly, clinic faculty on tenure track (whether regular or clinical tenure track) and soon subject to a vote on their more permanent employment status within the legal academy expressed almost as much fear of speaking out as short-term contract faculty. These results reinforce the statement of the former executive director of the AALS that tenure is necessary to secure academic freedom,⁷ especially true for those whose teaching responsibilities may offend politically or economically powerful interests such as clinical teachers.

The finding that those with less security of position are afraid to stand up for or even express their dissenting position, important when facing possible interference, is particularly significant given the high number of clinic faculty in lower-status positions. Tri-annual surveys by the Center for the Study of Applied Legal Education (CSALE) have been tracking clinic faculty employment status since 2003. The 2025-26 CSALE Survey of School Programs was completed in the fall by over by 92% of accredited law schools, with the Survey of Instructors due to be completed in the next few weeks.⁸ The preliminary results of the latest survey indicate that law clinic faculty continue to have far less security of position than their colleagues who teach traditional classroom courses. Fewer than one third of clinic faculty have any form of tenure protection for their work (whether regular or more limited clinical tenure), with the remainder on some form of contract or at will employment, almost always also with fewer rights to participate in law school governance. In addition, prior CSALE surveys reported that up to one-quarter of all clinic teachers, and over 40% of new teachers, are on some degree of “soft” money (grants or other external funding), making significant numbers of clinic faculty particularly vulnerable to any sort of interference-related funding threat.⁹

These are anxious times for many law clinic faculty, especially those representing controversial or unpopular clients and without the protection of tenure, and particularly those at public law schools. American Bar Association Accreditation Standard 208 was added in early 2024 to explicitly protect the academic freedom of those involved in client representation in clinical programs,¹⁰ something already stated in AALS Regulation 3.7.¹¹ However, those statements mean little if they are not respected by law school and university officials, who even after the adoption of the explicit protection of Standard 208 have repeatedly acceded to outside interference in clinic activities. It is time for the ABA and AALS to walk their talk on academic freedom and ensure that law clinic faculty, of whatever employment or funding status, can teach students and represent clients free of interference, whether originating from government officials or within the school’s hierarchy.

Notes

1. Robert R. Kuehn & Bridget McCormack, Lessons from Forty Years of Interference in Law School Clinics, 24 Georgetown J. Legal Ethics 59, 74 (2011), (quoting Susan Westerberg Prager, AALS Executive Director), https://ssrn.com/abstract=1756908.
2. Peter A. Joy & Robert R. Kuehn, An Anthology of Interference in Law School Clinics 24-25 (2025), https://ssrn.com/abstract=5442156.
3. Kuehn & McCormack, supra note 1, at 74.
4. Id. at 76-77.
5. Id. at 75.
6. Id. at 77-79.
7. Peter A. Joy, ABA Standard 405(c): Two Steps Forward and One Step Back for Legal Education, 66 J. of Legal Educ. 606, 619 (2018) (referencing the statement of Carol Monk, AALS Executive Director, before an ABA committee), https://jle.aals.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1506&context=home.
8. 2025-26 CSALE Survey of Applied Legal Education, https://www.csale.org/#csale-survey.
9. Robert R Kuehn & David A. Santacroce, An Empirical Analysis of Clinical Legal Education at Middle Age, 72 J. Legal Educ. 622, 645 (2022), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4369708.
10. Section of Legal Educ. and Admissions to the Bar, Am. Bar Ass’n, 2025-2026 Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools Std. 208(a) (2025), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/accreditation/standards/standards-rules.
11. AALS, Executive Committee Regulations 3.7(a) (requiring AALS members to provide academic freedom to those “engaged in teaching or scholarship, including work in a clinical or research and writing program”), https://www.aals.org/about/handbook/executive-committee-regulations.