From Gladiators to Problem-Solvers: Connecting Conversations About Women, the Academy, and the Legal Profession

The UHF band between 470-790 MHz, currently occupied by digital ter- restrial TV (DTT) distribution in Europe, is widely regarded as a premium spectrum band for providing mobile coverage. With the exponential increase in wireless data traffic in recent years, there has been growing interests in gaining access to this spectrum band for wireless broadband services. The secondary access in TV White Space is considered as one cost-effective way to reuse the spectrum unoccupied by the primary DTT network. On the other hand, the declining influence of DTT and the converging trends of video con- sumption on TV and mobile platforms are new incentives for the regulator to reconsider the optimal utilization of the UHF broadcast band. The proposal to re-farm the UHF band for a converged content distribution network was born under theses circumstances. This thesis intends to develop a methodology for evaluating the technical performance of these options for utilizing UHF broadcast band and quantify- ing their gains in terms of achievable extra capacity and spectrum savings. For the secondary access in TV white space, our study indicates a considerable po- tential for low power secondary, which is mostly limited by the adjacent chan- nel interference generated from the densely deployed secondary devices due to the cumulative effect of multichannel interference. On the other hand, this potential does not translate directly into capacity for a WiFi-like secondary system based on CSMA/CA protocol, as the network congestion and self- interference within the secondary system has a greater impact on the network throughput than the primary interference constraint. Our study on the cellular content distribution network reveals more po- tential benefits for re-farming the UHF broadcast band and reallocating it for a converged platform. This platform is based on cellular infrastructure and can provide TV service with the same level of quality requirement as DTT by delivering the video content via either broadcast or unicast as the situa- tion dictates. We have developed a resource manage framework to minimize its spectrum requirement for providing TV service and identified a significant amount of spectrum that can be reused by the converged platform to provide extra mobile broadband capacity in urban and sparsely populated rural areas. Overall, we have arrived at the conclusion that the concept of cellular con- tent distribution in a re-farmed UHF band shows a more promising prospect than the secondary access in TV white space in the long run. Nevertheless, low power secondary is still considered as a flexible and low-cost way to exploit the underutilized spectrum in the short term, despite its uncertainty in future availability. On the other hand, the re-farming of UHF broadcast band is a long and difficult regulation process with substantial opposition from the in- cumbent.The results from this study could serve as input for future regulatory decisions on the UHF band allocation and cost-benefit analysis for deploying new systems to access this spectrum band. QC 20140609EU FP7 QUASAREU FP7 METI

From Gladiators to Problem-Solvers: Connecting Conversations About Women, the Academy, and the Legal Profession

Dissatisfaction permeates the public and professional discourse about lawyers and legal education. Diverse communities within and outside the profession are engaged in multiple conversations critiquing legal education and the profession itself. These conversations, though linked in subject matter and orientation, often proceed on separate tracks. One set of conversations explicitly focuses on women and people of color, centering on their marginalization and underrepresentation in positions of power. Those concerned about race and gender exclusion often participate in separate communities of discourse. Indeed, the symposium that spawned this article framed the inquiry about higher education in terms of gender. This exclusive focus on gender created a recurring tension in writing this article that stems from the incompleteness of gender as a critical framework. This tension, resolved unsatisfactorily by focusing on gender but continually noting the relevance of the analysis to race and class, exemplifies the failure of existing inquiry to bridge the concerns of women and people of color about law, legal education, and the legal profession. A second conversation questions the appropriateness of the values and goals of the prevailing legal educational mission. Some critics charge that traditional legal education trains lawyers to focus on the short-term, purely economic interests of those in power at the expense of thorough analysis and clients’ long term interests, and without regard to the impact on third parties and the community. Other critics focus on legal education’s preoccupation with rigorous, analytical reasoning and its failure to prepare future lawyers to meet the multifaceted, transactional nature of legal practice. Yet another conversation critiques the prevailing model of legal professionalism perpetuated by the traditional law school curriculum. These critiques are both instrumental, in their questioning whether the model of the legal profession embraced by law schools adequately prepares lawyers and the legal profession to deal effectively with the challenges of the twenty-first century workplace, and normative, in their examining whether reigning models of legal professionalism are morally and ethically justifiable. This article suggests that these conversations are related, indeed, interdependent. It builds from the critique of the gladiator model as a dominant, organizing framework of legal education and lawyers’ roles to find a synergy between the goals of those seeking to include women and those seeking to revitalize the profession to meet the demands of the twenty-first century. It explores the outlines of a problem-solving orientation to lawyering and legal education that has potential to address and create a dynamic between the concerns of women and the need to reclaim the soul of the legal profession. A move from gladiator to problem-solver may brighten both the future of the legal profession and the future of women and other underrepresented groups in the legal profession

Activating Systemic Change Toward Full Participation: The Pivotal Role of Boundary Spanning Institutional Intermediaries

Racial and social justice advocacy is in an era of transition. Race continues to permeate people\u27s lives and to structure the social and economic hierarchy, but often in complicated ways that elude bright line categories. Disparities frequently result from cognitive bias, unequal access to opportunity networks, and other structural dynamics, rather than from intentional exclusion. For example, disparities in access to higher education persist as a result of differences in access, information, resources, networks, and evaluation, which give rise to achievement differentials at each critical turning point affecting successful advancement. These differences accumulate to produce substantial disparities in college participation rates, graduation, and movement into graduate and faculty positions. Recent Supreme Court decisions provide further evidence that the hallmark narratives and strategies of the civil rights era have to be rethought. Discrimination – as defined by the courts – does not adequately account for persistent disparities in the core institutions that define citizenship, including education, criminal justice, housing, employment, and political participation. The federal judiciary has largely withdrawn from the affirmative project of eradicating persistent bias and structural inequality. Civil rights advocates are more likely to be in court to defend the legality of long-standing programs, rather than to advance affirmative racial justice goals. Community mobilization now takes forms that may differ dramatically from the grass roots, protest-based mobilization of the 1960s. Activism\u27s center of gravity has shifted from a singular focus on federal government action to a multi-level, public/private array of local, regional, national, and international arenas. There is a need for new frameworks and narratives for advancing full participation that are informed by a fuller understanding of the mechanisms that sustain disparities and are connected to new locations and institutions for making those narratives meaningful in practice. At the same time, current conditions present new possibilities for tackling structural inequality and advancing genuine citizenship. Many lawyers, leaders, activists, and academics have acknowledged the need to redesign strategies, roles, and institutions. At least in some areas, pivotal institutions have begun experimenting with new ways to pursue inclusiveness in an era of complexity and legal uncertainty. The interdisciplinary character of structural inequality has attracted attention from researchers in many different disciplines and policy makers in many different domains. New technologies are creating promising opportunities for sharing knowledge and mobilizing groups. Collaborative networks of activists, professionals, and institutions have emerged. Public and non-profit intermediaries are developing the architecture to connect information and action within and across organizations. Unlikely alliances between insiders and outsiders have emerged in areas such as education, policing, and housing, and these alliances have sometimes propelled ongoing institutional reform. Multi-racial, multi-issue coalitions are emerging to address problems at the intersection of their different agendas. The challenge is to figure out how to link this complex, interdependent, yet de-centered, activity. Conventional approaches tend to focus on one level at a time – individual behavior, organizational practice, regulatory policy. Strategies are needed that will enable mobilization that, at a minimum, take account of the multi-level dynamics that will influence the scope, impact, and effectiveness of any intervention. More ambitiously, there is a need to develop the capacity to take systematic approaches to systemic problems. Are there ways to configure the mobilization of change that can act on multiple levels simultaneously and thus locate action at leverage points that will maximize impact on those multiple levels? This Article focuses on a particular institutional form that has the potential to activate change across different levels and spheres contributing to structural inequality. This institution does so by developing the role of boundary spanning institutional intermediaries: pivotally located catalysts with the capacity to mobilize multi-level sustainable change. These institutional intermediaries operate across multiple systems, organizations, and fields of knowledge and practice. They have the potential to serve as the instigators of institutional change, the linkages for cross-institutional learning and collaboration, the leverage to induce institutions to rethink themselves, and the architecture to sustain these networks of learning and accountability. This Article identifies the potential of boundary-spanning institutional intermediaries, using the action arena of higher education as a context for developing and illustrating their potential to leverage the impact of programmatic innovation and thus to produce systemic improvements in access and success of underrepresented groups. It is also important to emphasize what this Article is not doing. It is not suggesting that institutional intermediaries necessarily, or even usually, play a transformative role that advances full participation. Indeed, as Lauren Edelman\u27s important work illustrates, institutional intermediaries often serve as a gatekeeper for the status quo. This Article is instead offering two important observations: first, that institutional intermediaries are influential actors that are positioned to influence organizational practice and, second, that under certain conditions and with adequate conceptual tools, they have the capacity to play a transformative role. As such, they should be the focus of explicit attention and design

Lawyering Paradoxes: Making Meaning of the Contradictions

Effective lawyering requires the ability to manage contradictory yet interdependent practices. In their role as traditionally understood, lawyers must fight, judge, debate, minimize risk, and advance clients’ interests. Yet increasingly, lawyers must also collaborate, build trust, innovate, enable effective risk-taking, and hold clients accountable for adhering to societal values. Law students and lawyers alike struggle, often unproductively, to reconcile these tensions. Law schools often address them as a dilemma requiring a choice or overlook the contradictions that interfere with their integration. This Article argues that these seemingly contradictory practices can be brought together through the theory and action of paradox. After identifying the features of these two lawyering practices—called here legality and proactive lawyering—the Article sets out five lawyering paradoxes that stem from the opposing yet interdependent features of legalistic and proactive lawyering: paradoxes of thought and discourse; relationship; motivation, mindset, and justice. Next, the Article shows the consequences of legal education’s tendency to avoid, sidestep, or downplay these paradoxes. Finally, drawing on existing research and experiences of innovators, the Article identifies three strategies that can enable students and lawyers to construct a dynamic tension between legality and proactive lawyering, and in the process, build the potential for transformative learning and meaningful justice

Lawyers at the Prison Gates: Organizational Structure and Corrections Advocacy

The rise of the public interest law movement ushered in an era of intense debate over the best way to provide legal representation to those unable to afford private counsel. This debate has involved two related dimensions of public interest representation. First, advocates and observers of public interest practice disagree over the proper role of lawyers acting on behalf of poor and underrepresented clients. They offer competing visions of representation spanning a continuum, from providing equal access to the courts for as many poor people as possible, to attacking the causes and effects of poverty and powerlessness. The second dimension of the debate over public interest advocacy concerns the appropriate locus of legal services delivery within the legal profession. Proponents of a staff attorney system of legal services delivery argue that the professional obligation to provide adequate legal representation to poor people requires the involvement of professional public interest and legal services lawyers. Critics of legal services, along with funding organizations seeking to reduce their commitment to litigation, contend that the private bar is equipped and willing to assume significant responsibility for providing this representation. The two dimensions of the debate over public interest representation frequently overlap. Those who argue for a more proactive, change-oriented role typically prefer representation by professional, full-time public interest lawyers.Those who support an individual services model often advocate relying heavily upon private practitioners to provide pro bono representation. The debate over the proper structure of legal services delivery often rests on a set of empirical assumptions about the behavior of lawyers in particular institutional contexts. For example, proponents of a staff attorney delivery system argue that staff attorneys have greater expertise in the crucial aspects of public interest representation than private practitioners. Proponents of the private attorney delivery system argue that private lawyers are less vulnerable to political interference than staff lawyers. These empirical assumptions have not been adequately tested and may be incorrect or overbroad. In addition, proponents of particular models of representation frequently propose a universal norm of advocacy for public interest representation and a concomitant system of service delivery designed to implement that model. They fail to link their view of the lawyer\u27s appropriate role with a particular institutional context or legal problem. Yet each model\u27s desirability may vary with the needs and constraints of particular institutions and problems

Constructing the Practices of Accountability and Professionalism: A Comment on \u3ci\u3eIn the Interests of Justice\u3c/i\u3e

In the Interests of Justice: Reforming the Legal Profession lives up to its ambitious title. Deborah Rhode comprehensively surveys the structural problems confronting the legal profession, from its subscription to the sporting theory of justice to its preoccupation with profit. The book also lays bare the failure of legal education and the professional regulatory system to confront the roots of these structural problems. I must confess that reading the book felt like a whirlwind tour of the legal profession\u27s inevitable problems. In part, this perception grew out of the sheer range of economic, institutional, and structural factors contributing to the problems surveyed and the reforms prescribed. The book also left me with some burning questions: What would trigger or support a sustained movement in the direction Rhode urges? What would align the capacities and incentives of the varying professional, regulatory, and non-governmental actors to mobilize change? Who are those actors? Where are the convergences of catalysts among them that might lead to unlikely alliances and creative problem solving? How might the range of governmental, nongovernmental, and professional regulatory organizations be linked to provide an architecture for tiered (and effective) regulation? How could such a system provide incentives and build capacity to engage in good practice, as well as provide effective sanctions to discourage serious abuse? What In the Interests of Justice did not set out to do was to provide a compelling theory of institutional and professional change. Indeed, Rhode\u27s account can be seen as a devastating account of organizational and professional stasis, with the prevailing norms, incentives, information, and power operating to undermine or defuse reform efforts. Particularly when I attempt to imagine the process of professional transformation at the global and comprehensive level, fundamental structural change toward Rhode\u27s social justice vision seems almost utopian. My response to the enormity of the problems Rhode canvassed was to imagine a more context-specific analysis and reform agenda. The prospect of achieving professional reform took on more realism when I shifted my gaze from the global level to that of particular domains with interrelated problems and actors. Lawyers operate in institutional contexts and communities of practice: organizations, specialty areas, industries, professional roles. What if we took a problem oriented approach to these practice domains