Skip to main content

tv   Supreme Court Justice Kagan on Pro Bono Public Service  CSPAN  October 24, 2018 5:37pm-6:36pm EDT

5:37 pm
>> good afternoon, everyone. i'm bill trainer, the dean at georgetown law, and it's my distinct pleasure to welcome all
5:38 pm
of you to georgetown university law center as part of the tenth annual celebration of pro bono. when we were approached by the aba about hosting this conversation with justice kagan, honorary chair of the 2018 national brags of pro bono, we were happy to accept.celebratio bono, we were happy to accept. we're, of course, honored to be hosting justice kagan, who's a true champion of pro bono work and of the cause of justice. so, thank you for speaking here, your honor. and we're also delighted to host this event because this celebration of pro bono resonates with the mission of georgetown law. those of you from the aba who may not have been to our campus, when you go to the library, and you walk in the door, you see our motto, law is but the means. justice is the end. and that philosophy, that motto,
5:39 pm
that mission defines us as an institution. you know, we start the orientation for the first year students with service projects. it's a mission that resonates through our classrooms, through our clinics, through our supportive summer fellowships in the public interest, pro bono work after people graduate, we have a low bono law firm for our graduates that we started with dla piper and aaron fox. you know, all of these things really resonate with that mission of law is but the means, justice is the end. but we take particular pride in our commitment to pro bono. you know, the faculty is deeply committed to pro bono work, and when our students arrive, we challenge them at the very start of their career with our pro bono pledge. so, incoming jd students are asked to pledge to commit at least 50 hours of law-related
5:40 pm
volunteer work before they graduate, and second year transfer students are asked to do 35. and our llm students, who are here for a year, are asked to do 20. and then at graduation, we recognize the students who do 100 hours or 200 hours. you know, last year, they did, collectively, more than 32,000 hours of pro bono work, and this year, we're ahead of that pace. we're almost at 15,000 and it's still october. so, our commitment to pro bono really is part of what defines us as an institution, and so there are many, many events in this auditorium but this is one that has a particular importance for us. so, welcome to georgetown, and for all of you from the aba, thank you for all you do in the public interest. so, it's now my pleasure to introduce george buck lewis, the aba pro bono committee chair. so, a few words about buck. buck is the chair of the
5:41 pm
appellate practice litigation group of baker donaldson. he's at the knoxville office. he's held numerous positions, leadership positions in our profession and his community. he was president of the tennessee bar association, president of the tennessee legal community foundation. he was appointed by the tennessee supreme court to chair the tennessee access to justice commission, and he spear headed the development of online tnjustice.org, the website that allows people of tennessee to seek advice from volunteer lawyers, which led the aba to establish kind of a broader national online platform. and he's been a member of the aba pro bono and public service committee since 2014 and was appointed its chair in 2016. so, as we're celebrating pro bono, buck's commitment to pro bono work and the difference it can make is inspiring. so, it's a privilege to welcome
5:42 pm
and call to the podium, buck. >> thank you. welcome, everyone. what a great-looking crowd. great afternoon. so great to see so many students in this audience. it gives me hope. dean trainer, thank you so much for that introduction and for hosting this event. we know that you moved a few things around on the chess board so we could be here and we are really grateful that you could make this beautiful facility available for this event. it's my honor to welcome you all to this event, because it marks the 10th anniversary of the national celebration of pro bono. a little bit over ten years ago, then committee chair mark had the idea to create a locally focused week of pro bono events to bring attention to the good work of attorneys all over the country who provide legal services all yearlong and also to highlight the great need for
5:43 pm
all attorneys to provide pro bono service, which is, after all, enshrined in the preamble to the rules of professional conduct. we are all supposed to do pro bono and devote time and resources and civic influence to the cause of equal access to justice. like so many great access to justice ideas, this was a refinement on an idea that first took root with the chicago bar foundation, and from the beginning, this has been a collaborative effort with providers, law schools, law firms, state bars, local bars, specialty bars, and ethnic bars all across the country and in other countries. and it is now reached the point where we have -- had last year and have again this year over 1,300 events as part of our month-long celebration of pro bono. the media attention, thank you,
5:44 pm
media, that has given to pro bono during this celebration is instrumental in bringing pro bono to the attention of the public, which is, after all, good for our profession as well. we're so honored to have justice kagan here as our honorary chair of the 10th anniversary of the celebration, and grateful to both the justice and american bar association president bob carlson for their participation in this special conversation. it's my now -- it's now my pleasure to introduce bob carlson, the president of the american bar association. bob is a shareholder with the butte, montana, law firm. he has served in many national and state bar leadership positions, including president of the state bar of montana. he was chair of the aba's policymaking body, the house of delegates, which is the second highest elected office in the aba. he served two terms on the aba board of governors. he's held other leadership
5:45 pm
positions, including a multitude of positions with various sections and served as the board's liaison to several entities, including the commission on homelessness and poverty. i was in the room in august when bob made his initial remarks to the aba house as president of our association. he pledged to build on the aba's national leadership to encourage pro bono and legal aid for america's most vulnerable clients and communities, including veterans, homeless youth, and disaster survivors. and bob is certainly stood by that commitment in a variety of ways. just a few weeks ago, asking lawyers throughout the country to go on our online pro bono website, abafreelegalanswers and help the victims of hurricane michael in north carolina. we are appreciative of the aba's support of the committee but more specifically so appreciative to bob for his
5:46 pm
support of pro bono legal services. please give a warm georgetown welcome to bob carlson, president of the aba. >> thank you, buck, and thank you, dean trainer, for your hospitality. i appreciate buck's service as the chair of the aba standing committee on pro bono and public service. your leadership has enabled the aba to expand on its prominent role to promote the delivery of voluntary legal services to our most vulnerable neighbors. on behalf of the american bar association, i'm pleased to welcome you to this event. it is, indeed, a privilege to have with us this evening associate justice kagan of the
5:47 pm
united states supreme court. justice kagan is a graduate of princeton. she received her masters in philosophy from oxford. she then attended harvard law school where she received her jd. justice kagan had the honor and privilege of clerking for two legendry judges. first, judge abner on the u.s. supreme court -- u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit and then for justice thurgood marshall at the united states supreme court. after briefly practicing at a law firm, justice kagan became a law professor at the university of chicago law school and later at harvard. she then served in the clinton administration as associate counsel to the president and then as deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy. after this time in washington, justice kagan served as the dean of harvard law school.
5:48 pm
she was then nominated and confirmed as solicitor general of the united states and then was appointed as associate justice of the supreme court. justice kagan has been a supporter of pro bono and public service throughout her career and we are happy to welcome her today as the aba celebrates the 10th anniversary of the national celebration of pro bono. we appreciate that justice kagan has taken time out of her very busy schedule to be here with us today, and we are especially grateful that she agreed to serve as the honorary chair of the 10th anniversary of the national celebration of pro bono. please join me in welcoming associate justice kagan. >> thank you. please sit down. thank you.
5:49 pm
not every audience gives you a standing ovation before you say anything. >> indeed. >> thank you, bob, and thank you, buck, and thank you, bill. wherever you are. it's great to be here. it's always great to be at georgetown where dean trainer and i go back a long way, so it's always good to reunite. and what a happy 10th birthday. >> yes, it is. it's made even happier because we're here and we're able to have this chat or visit amongst this great audience we have. obviously, students, faculty, we have aba volunteers, aba leaders, all -- >> who started this idea ten years ago? >> well, you know, i wish i had the answer to that. buck might have the answer to that. >> is he here? okay. >> he's not. >> well, in his absence, good idea.
5:50 pm
>> so, justice kagan, you've spent time in both the private and public sectors, but most of your work has been devoted to public service, and would you share with us -- >> is that what influences started you on the path to public service? >> my first was my father. my father was a lawyer. he had a teeny tiny firm. sometimes it was one lawyer, sometimes it was two or three but basically it was a lawyer who put up a shingle and did whatever came into the door. it's hard to make a living that way but he managed. he was fine. he devoted a lot of his time to other activities especially to community activities.
5:51 pm
we lived in new york city. new york has an elaborate set of community boards and community organizations of various kinds. my father was always going to those kinds of things, very interested in land use issues on the west side of manhattan, but mostly i think he was the first person who said you could be a lawyer and do your work and make your money but you had a certain set of skills and you could devote those to your community or your neighborhood. he was my first role model. >> were there any influences in law school and throughout your career that encouraged you and pushed you in this direction? >> you mentioned to people that i was lucky to fall under the spell of and those are the
5:52 pm
judges that i look for. justice marshall you all know and i will get to him in a second. judge wilson maybe fewer of you know about. it was quite an amazing career. he was in government most of his life but in all three branches. he didn't private law and then was selected as a member of the house of representatives. he kept on winning or losing by 32 votes but notwithstanding that he served for five terms. then president. carter decided it was too stressful and made him a judge. at a certain point in time president clinton asked him to come to the white house and
5:53 pm
serve as his counsel. that was how i got to the council because i was called and said do you want to work with me again? he had an amazing spread of government experience, everything about how every organization worked, and was passionate and enthusiastic about it all and communicated that to the young people. he took great delight mentoring people. i owe him a lot. and then of course justice marshall, to be in that chamber was pretty special. to be a cleric is a pretty exciting job but you felt as though there you were with an icon of american history, an icon of american law. certainly the lawyer who most
5:54 pm
advanced justice in the 20th century. and, he was a storyteller. he was an amazing storyteller and one of the things he told stories about honestly was himself. they were good stories. he lived an extraordinary life. when he was older and knew that he didn't have that many years left, and we were the lucky beneficiaries of that because we would go into his chambers every day and talk about cases and do all of the things that justices do. then at a certain point we would finish and segue into storytelling time. we learned about his childhood
5:55 pm
and then the legal defense fund crafted the strategy that led to the eradication of jim crow. it was an extraordinary life. he was both a trial lawyer and an appellate lawyer. he did criminal cases and every type of law that there was in the most horrendous circumstances. he crossed the country and particularly the south. he could not go into a restaurant or find a bathroom and was often confronted with physical danger. just hearing those stories and about how one man attempted to make a difference and promote justice, you can never hope to do anything but it's still can
5:56 pm
serve as a model and guiding light. i felt very lucky as a quite young lawyer to have fallen in with him. >> on behalf of everyone i think you've done a pretty good job. a little ways to go but you know.>> i'm making up a question on my own. we are talking about pro bono and public interest and public service. one of the things that i learned , one of the great things about being the dean of a law school is that you meet a lot of great alumni. i got to know a ton of people who had followed different paths
5:57 pm
and crafted different kinds of careers. one of the things that you learn is that people can do work for the public and in all kinds of capacities and different ways. you have people who give their whole lives to it and the people who work in public interest organizations from the moment they graduate law school to the very end, or to the people who serve in the government in that same way, those are actually dwarfed by people who create different kinds of careers and go in and out of different sorts of organizations. sometimes they are working at law firms and will take some time off and work in a prosecutors office.
5:58 pm
then there are people who spend all of their time in the private sector but manage, even as they are doing that, in ways that make a difference. those who contribute to the public, you want to meet those people. there are all kinds of ways to serve the public. the worst thing for students was that you had to make a choice at the beginning. you either had to be an angel or you had to decide that the private sector was your cup of tea. that's just not the way the world works.
5:59 pm
people make a difference in all kinds of places and of course paid work can be good for the public to. -- the public also. there are all kinds of ways to serve the public and that's a great thing. >> the number of students dedicated to pro bono more than doubled and there were some significant changes made in the way that occurred. what changes are you most proud of? what advice do you have for others in your support for pro bono work during law school?>>
6:00 pm
talk about all the hours that georgetown students spend doing pro bono work and i was remembered-- i can't claim credit for this but my predecessor put in a mandatory requirement. i forget what it was, something like 50 hours. that was the minimum. that had been put in place before i got there. then what i discovered is that people-- it wasn't a question of making sure that people did it, because people just did it more and more and double and 10 times and 20 times. when he was reading the numbers , i'm no longer the dean of harvard law school, but i felt like saying if the dean were
6:01 pm
here i'll bet he would challenge you to a contest. roughly schools of the same size and how many hours do you do? i used to get to the end of the year and what we really had to do once the requirement was in place, the real challenge was to create the opportunities for people to do meaningful work. some students would go out and find stuff, but for other students it was important. we wanted to make sure these were terrific opportunities, educational, meaningful, so that was the real challenge. we had a great staff of people who work on it. hard work and i'm so glad that we did it. by the time we got to the end
6:02 pm
of every year we had a day we would give out various types of awards. one of the things we did was recognize the 10 students who had done the most pro bono work. these were ridiculous numbers. it was like 2400 hours. do you ever go to class? what are you doing? but it was really breathtaking and it made you very proud. it's hard for a law school to make sure that people have the opportunities to do that. the other thing obviously, that i know that dean traynor has worked on are getting the resources necessary to support people when they come out of law school to work in public
6:03 pm
interest organizations or in government taking a significant sacrifice in terms of the money they will receive. most law students come out with big loans and the only way they can do that is if you find some way to forgive the loans or something equivalent. i was lucky that i was the dean of a law school with a lot of resources and generous alumni who understood how important it was to give back. i recognize it's a lot harder for a lot of others, but certainly if you can and to the extent that you can, having law schools make it possible is
6:04 pm
crucially important. >> you are the only member to not previously served as a judge . although frankly you've had an incredible array of other experiences in academia and the practice-- >> some people used to say i couldn't keep a job. >> will you kept getting promoted.>>-- well, you kept getting promoted. >> that's a way to say it. >> what do you draw on most as your day-to-day work? >> the first is kind of obvious which is before i was a justice, the immediately preceding job was a solicitor general. you think a lot about the supreme court. all you do every day is think about how to convince nine
6:05 pm
justices of the court to agree with the government's position on various things. i used to think the only difference my current job is trying to convince eight justices. it's a job where you are-- the solicitor general actually supervises all appellant practice but the main job is to think about supreme court business, what the court is taking and should be taking. i used to go to every argument that anybody participated in and that was about three orders. in a single term i would go to about 60 arguments, watch the court think about what they were interested in and the things they were thinking about. right briefs to them, think
6:06 pm
about their procedures. by the time i got to the court even with a fairly short stint, i was in the mode of thinking about the court and that was exceptionally helpful especially considering that i had not been a judge. in some ways i think the best single preparation for being a supreme court justice is being a solicitor general. there are a lot of differences between appellant judging and judging on the supreme court. the entire focus is on the court but i would say less obviously, i think about what i used to do in teaching. this is teaching, not being the dean. the reason why i think about it
6:07 pm
is because when i write opinions i think about how i would have thought something, and i find this the most helpful way to figure out how to write something. i'm trying to communicate some often arcane subject matter in a way that people will understand and not just the expert lawyers, but the parties will understand and foreign citizens, people who want to pick up a supreme court opinion. you would be surprised at how many there are out there. i get letters from people and say really? you read that? but, the objective is that you should not have to be an expert to understand what this institution is doing and why it is doing it. the only way i can think about how to do that is to think about how i used to teach. i would say i have this body of material.
6:08 pm
i'm going to work in-- walk into a classroom and everyone is going to be very smart and very interested but they're not going to know that much. how do i convey this body of material in ways that they will understand? how can i convey this in ways that will stick with them? i kind of think i'm doing the same thing when i write an opinion. i would say that my experience teaching has proved to be surprisingly really quite relevant. >> let's turn a bit to matters of the supreme court and particularly issues on a lot of people's minds these days. that's whether or not you worry about the court becoming too politicized or being perceived as too politicized.
6:09 pm
how much of a danger do you think there is about that? >> i think it has to be a concern. what the court most has going for it, the most extraordinary thing about the supreme court is that people believe in it. it has legitimacy and credibility. even when it does things that box of the population disagree with or that other branches of government and actors in other branches of government disagree with, they nonetheless say we are going to follow what the supreme court tells us to do. it's not even a question that they would do anything but that. it's a very precious thing that the court has to be careful to
6:10 pm
protect. i think that to the extent that the court looks as though it were just an extension of the political process, that would be a dangerous thing and maybe especially in these days when the political practice itself is so polarized. when people accuse us of being political i think they don't understand a lot of what we do. if you look at a typical year, all but about-- well first off, we decide half of the cases unanimously which is quite extraordinary given how hard they are. we don't take cases unless they are extremely hard and
6:11 pm
notwithstanding that other courts have divided on these cases, we are able to get together, talk them through, and decide unanimously. then i would say in another 30 or 35% they are not unanimous but are lopsided are very scrambled in terms of what anybody would predict. one still has to admit that there are a certain number of cases whether it's 1012 or 15 every year where people find us not so scrambled and not so unanimous. there's a kind of-- when people say there's the supreme court doing its thing and doing it in ways that seem predict double or that seem to reflect the party of the president who
6:12 pm
nominated us. for those cases i think it's important for people to understand that when we divide it's not because we are partisan in the way that people in congress are partisan. it's because we have certain judicial philosophies, thoughts about how to interpret the constitution, thoughts about how to interpret statutes. thoughts about what the constitutional commitments mean . it does lead to some predictable outcomes. it's not partisan but you can see how people would look at that and say what's going on there? is this just politics by another name? which i think would be very damaging for the court and for but it does in society. i think every single one of us
6:13 pm
should think about that. you're a judge and in the end you have to figure out what's right and you have to decide the case in front of you in the way that you think the law requires. that there are ways of avoiding conflict where it's not necessary to have one. there are ways of taking big cases that may create a conflict and making them smaller, and trying to figure out what we do agree upon. i think that that's a pretty important thing for the courts to deal and maybe especially in these polarized times. when a case comes in and we think if we decide this issue, we are going to be divided ourselves. let's see if there's
6:14 pm
some greater consensus that we can achieve and other legal responsibilities, i think that's an important thing for the court. >> you've talked about the importance of reaching across the aisle and the importance of putting yourself in the other person's shoes, and also about stability. particularly for law students looking forward to a career, talk about how they can learn from that mindset and even though people of goodwill have strong differences in philosophies, how they transcend those to have a strong relationship with your fellow justices?>> you say that with conviction and i hope i say it with just as much conviction. i think this is an exceptionally important thing
6:15 pm
and maybe too few people in educational institutions realize how important this is. i think we make progress by listening and listening across every kind of divide. divide of ideology or methodology or in the case of political institutions, politics. echo chambers are pretty boring pay -- pretty boring places and not just that they are boring but you tend not to learn that much. if nothing else, when you listen to people who have different views, if nothing else you at least are able from that back and forth to learn how to defend your own views.
6:16 pm
to learn where the weaknesses are, and who knows. you may even learn that you are wrong about some things. there's nothing wrong with that, to learn that you are wrong and to learn that another person has a pretty interesting point of view that maybe you should borrow some of? pretty much all over, i'm sure there are times where i don't listen hard enough but i think we do a pretty decent job at the court on that. i do think if you look around this country and think about other political institutions, i think this is a great challenge, to get people to listen to each other to get people to work together. if nothing else, to
6:17 pm
be respectful and civil. but, it should be more than that. it should be like let's find ways to collaborate and cooperate. let's find some things that we can agree on. i think in this country we could be doing a better job about that. >> the university of new mexico school of law, you encouraged graduates to follow your rule of three. pride, passion, and pro bono. how do they interrelate and what are some specific examples about how you have followed them? >> i have zero memory of what i may have been talking about.
6:18 pm
really the role of three-- the rule of three, i must have given one too many graduation speeches that year. i'll make something up. >> why not. >> probably what i was doing was talking to a lot of people like you thinking about what to do with their lives and too many people were on the track. i thought everything else was doing this and what everyone tells me to do so that's what i'm doing. i didn't think hard enough about whether they really wanted to be doing that. >> drive, passion, pro bono--
6:19 pm
>> i think the idea was that you should go to a job and try to find the path which fills you with a kind of pride that you are doing what you are doing and feels you with a sense of passion and urgency about your work. the best thing is that you wake up every morning-- maybe not every morning but most mornings. i can't wait to go to work because i'm doing something that i care about and doing something that i think makes a difference. it fills me with a sense of purpose. we could keep on going. >> pro bono i think, i did a lot of talking when i was talking to law students about
6:20 pm
pro bono and making sure that was part of every legal career no matter what you were doing. you could do it 100% of the time or 10% of the time. you can do it a lot one year or a little the next. to think about in your career that you should be giving something back, this incredible gift where you go through one of these and come out with skills and the kind of education that people all over the country with for-- would die for, and to use that in some way not just for yourself first off makes people a lot happier than when everything was just about me. even if i'm wrong about that it's still what you should do. >> during her confirmation hearing you promised that if
6:21 pm
you were confirmed you would try to go hunting, something you've never done before. you make good on that and made a comment that at least it brought into your own experience. had to think about the experiences of their other-- of the other justice and how that interplay makes you work together most days as a team but some days as a team that doesn't always get along. >> well i will tell you have the hunting thing came about. when i was going through the confirmation process in addition to the hearings that everyone sees, you spend a lot of time going from office to office-- office to office talking one-on-one with senators . sometimes one-on-one and sometimes with their stuff.
6:22 pm
everybody thinks number one is how many times are you asked about abortion, people can't ask you questions. they know that they can't do that so they try to find different ways of exploring the same areas. i went to 82 with these courtesy visits and one after another after another democrats and republicans, people would say do you own any guns? i would say no.
6:23 pm
has anyone in your family ever owned any guns? i would say no. >> have you ever hunted? no i haven't. >> anyone in your family hunt? >> no. >> to any of your friends hunt? it was really pretty pathetic. i was talking to one of the senators from ohio-- i'm sorry, idaho. >> he had a ranch and used to hunt a lot. he was telling me about hunting but was telling me in a serious way that i completely respected about how important this was to the people he represented and there was a concern that i could never understand the culture in the lives of the people in his state.
6:24 pm
i said senator., i grew up in the middle of new york city. this isn't what we did on the weekends. but i completely understand what you are saying. it was an experience i had not have the opportunity to have but if you would invite me to your ranch i would love to go hunting with you. this look of abject horror came over him and the white house said next to me is just going to disappear from this sofa. i realized i had gone too far. i said i didn't mean to invite myself to idaho but i will tell you what. i will make your promise and this was literally the only promise that i made in 82 courtesy visits.
6:25 pm
if i'm lucky enough to be confirmed, i will ask justice scalia to take me hunting. when i got to the point-- to the court, i told the whole story to justice scalia who, among his other gifts, has a wonderful sense of humor. he just cracked it up and said okay, we are on it. he took me to his gun club and he taught me to shoot and he taught me gun safety and everything i needed to know. and then he's a very generous man as well. he had hunting buddies who they had been hunting together for years and the last thing they wanted was me tagging along with them. but, they invited me all the time and i went two or three times a year with members of his family and friends of his. mostly we shot birds in
6:26 pm
virginia near richmond. we went to mississippi together to shoot ducks and we went to wyoming to shoot deer and antelope which i didn't like nearly enough-- nearly as much. i actually quite liked it which i think some of my east coast friends are horrified about. but it was a good lesson. this is a big country and we grew up in so many different ways and what a second to nature is what someone else can't imagine doing and vice versa, your question made me think what should i have demanded that justice scalia do? i'm not sure i have the answer to that.>> do you get
6:27 pm
recognized in public outside of the district? >> less and less. when you go through the confirmation process and you are on tv doing hearings, people recognize you and you think your whole life has changed.-- you think, i can't stand in line at starbucks. i don't think selfies are a good invention really. >> but eventually people forget what you look like. or maybe somehow, like when i was nominated my favorite story is that i walked out of the
6:28 pm
apartment building and someone across the street shouted you go girl. i thought that was pretty cool but it doesn't happen anymore. >> how about a funny story about not being recognized? >> you're winking. you know a story. >> if you ask my wife she would say i do that all the time.>> something i did and i'm thinking why didn't they notice? >> nothings coming to mind. i was having dinner at a restaurant and someone came up to me and said it's such an honor to meet you justice ginsburg. >> that would qualify.
6:29 pm
>> okay. the women on the supreme court. got it. we are not all justice ginsburg. we can't all be her. >> free time, if you have any what do you do besides hunting now? >> i do normal things. i go to movies, i'm a sports fan, i do a fair bit of reading. >> in my spare time i interviewed justices but that's about it. >> i think our time is running short. >> they are in the front row nodding. >> i have time for 2, right?
6:30 pm
>> better be good. >> it's a pretty good one. >> every time we have a new nominee there is the question that gets asked, primarily should justices have tenure and if you could give us what you think are the advantages and maybe the disadvantage of life tenure for justices? >> are we retroactively applying for this? >> i'm pretty happy. it seems like a good job. i'm happy with it being life tenure. obviously the reason is very important which is that it makes people independent, and none of us are thinking about the next job we will have
6:31 pm
because we won't have a next job. and no one will be in a position where they need anything from everybody-- from anybody ever again. that's a really important thing , to ensure that the judicial branch is independent. could you do that with sufficiently long terms? 18 years seems to be the going one. with those proposals, i think what they are trying to do is take some of the high-stakes out of the process and to the extent that that work and people could be-- could feel as though no single confirmation was going to be a life and death issue. i think that's a balance and i
6:32 pm
would not pretend to have the answer to that. thankfully that one is not our call.>> any closing thoughts to this audience of lawyers who have primarily devoted careers to public service and pro bono? or students who are hoping to start that type of career path? >> well you heard about my three p's. >> sorry. [ laughter ]>> take that is your lesson for the day. for law students, do something that fills your life with purpose. they are the best jobs when you look back at your career and wonder why it turned out that way. they are into planning and this
6:33 pm
has to come before that. be alive and alert to serendipity. all of the best things i've ever done were and expect did. somebody dropped an opportunity and were smart enough to see it. and, to be alert to opportunities that appear out of nowhere. really just ask yourself would this be fun to do? what i find this fulfilling and meaningful? if the answer is yes, go do it notwithstanding what the plan says. >> that's my advice, to all those who have spent their life doing pro bono and public interest work, i guess i would
6:34 pm
say thank you.>> justice kagan, thank you for being here to mark the 10th anniversary of the national pro bono association, and for your lifetime commit and to public service and pro bono. >> we do have a gift. >> that's a small token of our things. thank you very much. >> this is why i come to these. >> how great. >> georgetown law. >> there it is.
6:35 pm
you know it well. >> thank you so much. >> with 13 days until the election president. trump holds a rally in wisconsin and joined by governor. scott walker and republican senate candidate who is challenging democratic incumbent tammy baldwin beginning at 7:30 eastern here on c-span3.
6:36 pm
make c-span your primary source for campaign information and 2018. >> the washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact to you. coming up thursday morning democratic strategist and republican strategist talk about the best and worst political advertisements of the 2018 elections. boston college law school professor joins us to discuss estate and inheritance tax laws. be sure to watch the washington journal live on thursday morning. join the discussion. >> the sexual-- a sexual assault litigation specialist talks about the negative impact that the charge of sexual misconduct can have on the career of service members. she spoke before the defense advisory committee.

52 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on