Search Results

Professor Jocelyn Simonson: Advocating for Criminal Justice Reform “THIS IS A TIME in our local history when we are truly able to say that change in the landscape of local criminal justice is possible,” said Professor Jocelyn Simonson. Simonson, codirector of the Center for Criminal Justice at Brooklyn Law School, has dedicated her scholarship to exploring ways in which the public participates in and has the potential to catalyze broader changes in the criminal justice system. She examines this topic further in her forthcoming article, “The Place of ‘the People’ in Criminal Procedure,” in the Columbia Law Review, in which she puts forth an alternative approach to thinking about popular participation in criminal procedure, recognizing that “the people” can and do appear on both sides of the scales of justice. Simonson’s recent scholarship has also focused on the interrelated issues of bail reform and decarceration. For example, her article “Bail Nullification” in the Michigan Law Review (2017) considered the growing phenomenon of community bail funds, which allow individuals to post bail for strangers based on their broader beliefs regarding the overuse of pretrial detention. “By examining the ways in which community bail funds serve the functions that a nullifying jury might—allowing popular participation in an individual case to facilitate larger resistance to the policies and practices of state actors—[I argue] that community bail funds have the potential” to contribute to legal and political change from the ground up, she wrote. “Community bail funds inject community input into a critical moment in the public adjudication of a criminal case.” She has also created pathways allowing students to participate in this work, launching the Law School’s Pretrial Justice Fellowship program, in which students do pro bono work with the Brooklyn Community Bail Fund and take part in a series of trainings on money bail, legal advocacy, professionalism, and policy reform. Simonson’s scholarship has been published in top law reviews. Notably, her article “The Criminal Court Audience in a Post-Trial World” in Harvard Law Review (2014), which examined the importance of the right to a public trial in the world of plea bargaining, was one of only two law review articles cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in its majority opinion in Weaver v. Massachusetts, a case about the right to a public trial. Looking ahead, Simonson said she hopes to focus her scholarship more deeply on the kinds of reform efforts that will be necessary to truly shift the status quo in criminal justice. “What kinds of approaches will allow us to productively channel public energy for change into transformative law reforms?” she asked. “And how can we build institutions of governance that shift power to populations most affected by mass incarceration? Those are the kinds of questions I want to ask and, I hope, answer.”

Preventing Domestic Violence Hon. John M. Leventhal '79 joined Professor Liz Schneider to discuss the domestic violence epidemic Hon. John M. Leventhal ’79, Associate Justice of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, returned to Brooklyn Law School in November for a presentation and discussion with Professor Liz Schneider about the current domestic violence crisis. Leventhal, author of the book My Partner, My Enemy: An Unflinching View of Domestic Violence and New Ways to Protect Victims, presided over the first felony domestic violence court in the nation. “Between 1994 and 2010, domestic violence abated somewhat because women now have available to them shelters, orders of protection, civil and criminal prosecutions, and the fact that this is no longer a private matter, or simply a women’s issue,” Leventhal said. One of the most difficult parts of working in domestic violence law is ensuring the safety of complainants, according to Leventhal. “It always felt like we were a heartbeat away from tragedy,” he said. The domestic violence court developed a program that focused on protecting complainants while keeping the number of dismissals down. It was a difficult job, Leventhal said, and he never became immune to the harrowing stories of abuse and graphic photos of injuries. Schneider, the Rose L. Hoffer Professor of Law, director of the Edward V. Sparer Public Interest Law Fellowship Program, and a nationally recognized scholar in women’s rights, domestic violence, and feminist legal theory, is the author of Battered Women and Feminist Lawmaking. She urged everyone to get more involved in preventing domestic violence. “I would like to see a more public response on the part of both men and women on domestic violence,” she said. “It’s especially critical for men to say, ‘We regret the vision we have been given about violence against women,’ to march, and to take a moment and say ‘this is not us,’” she said. Looking ahead, Leventhal said the legal system needs to rethink its definition of the crime to include different types of relationships and circumstances. He mentioned Australia’s National Domestic Violence Registry and a program in Israel that provides rehabilitative housing for abusers—instead of encouraging the abused to uproot their own lives—as useful models. Leventhal is a frequent lecturer on evidence, domestic violence, elder abuse, guardianship, and other topics. He was a recipient of the Alumni of the Year award from the Brooklyn Law School Alumni Association in 2008.

Sean Moriarty Joins the Law School as New Chief Advancement Officer Brooklyn Law School has named Sean P. Moriarty, who has a long-standing record of success in fundraising and alumni operations for higher education institutions, as chief advancement officer leading the Office of Development and Alumni Relations. Moriarty will oversee all development and alumni relations efforts and create a top-level operation that will advance the Law School mission by raising money to support students, faculty, and programs; engage alumni; and build relationships with friends and prospective supporters. I am excited and honored to join Brooklyn Law School. This is an institution that is important to Brooklyn, to New York, and beyond." Moriarty joins the Law School from CUNY’s Macaulay Honors College, where he served as vice president for institutional advancement. Before that, he spent nearly seven years as assistant vice president for development and alumni relations at the New School, where he raised more than $20 million annually and led a team of 43 people. His background also includes work at the London School of Economics and Political Science, where he served as deputy director of development, and at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, where he served as vice president for development. At St. Francis College, he led a $25 million capital campaign. Early in his career he was a grants writer, and he worked as a journalist for Boston-area publications. “We are very pleased to welcome Sean to the Law School,” said Stuart Subotnick ’68, chairman of the Board of Trustees. “With his impressive accomplishments in fundraising and development leadership, I am confident that he will place us in an excellent position to generate the resources and build the relationships necessary to support world-class scholarship, attract talented and promising students, and offer one of the finest legal educations and law school experiences in the nation.” “I am excited and honored to join Brooklyn Law School,” Moriarty said. “This is an institution that is important to Brooklyn, to New York, and beyond. I look forward to collaborating with Dean Allard, the Board of Trustees, and the academic leadership of the Law School as we work to increase broad-based philanthropic support to advance our mission and to support the education of our students.”

Photo Journal: A Day in the Life An award-winning photojournalist captures the dynamic activity that happens in one day at Brooklyn Law School. Story: Jen Swetzoff | Photography: Todd France On a chilly Wednesday in February, an award-winning photojournalist spent more than 12 hours at Brooklyn Law School, documenting the dynamic activity that happens in a single day. From 8 a.m. until long past 8 p.m., the energy and enthusiasm on campus is palpable.   Since its founding 115 years ago, the Law School has been a leader in legal education and a gateway of opportunity for talented and promising students, regardless of race, religion, gender, or socioeconomic background. Today, that legacy is stronger than ever. “When I walk through our bustling hallways,” said Dean of Admissions Eulas Boyd, “and hear the diverse voices coming from our classrooms, I’m immensely proud of the legacy we continue to build upon at Brooklyn Law School. Our students inspire us every day, and we put them first in everything we do here.” The variety of degree programs available today means that students can take an accelerated track to earn their J.D. in two years. Or, if working is a priority, they can take classes on a part-time basis over four years. This kind of flexibility brings some of the country’s most hardworking, ambitious, and tech-oriented students to Brooklyn—where they can work, intern, and volunteer in one of the world’s most exciting job markets; participate in more than 40 student organizations; serve on competitive Moot Court teams and elite law journals; gain practical experience in more than two-dozen clinics; and attend hundreds of stimulating events on campus. “What I like most about Brooklyn Law School,” said Simone Lamont ’18 (above, second from right), “is its true commitment to supporting students in every way.”

Sports Law Clinic Legal Advocacy to Advance Athletes’ Rights and Sports Participation The Sports Law Clinic provides direct legal services to individuals and entities involved with sports who encounter legal issues arising from their sports participation or commercial activity around sports. Sports have long been an important socio-cultural learning experience, an engine for economic opportunity, and a generator of manifold health benefits and life skills. Access to participate in sports has been recognized as a human right, along with recognition of fundamental procedural rights in sports disciplinary mechanisms. Care must be taken that individual participants are aware of these rights and treated fairly when they are at risk of exclusion from or exploitation by sports participation. This risk is increasing with the intensifying regulation and commercialization of sports, especially as to vulnerable young athletes in Olympic, college, high school, emerging, and recreational sports. To secure their participation, these athletes must navigate complex bodies of law—both private and public—governing a wide array of matters including: team eligibility and selection, rights of publicity (NIL) and privacy, commercial disputes, SafeSport, entitlement to scholarship and other funding, and competition integrity. While these regulations may be sound and further important values, the populations they target nonetheless are entitled to due process and protections from abuse. Early-career athletes especially face very real challenges gaining access to relevant legal advice, and when they fail to get this advice, it can have significant, unintended consequences for them, their loved ones, and their future prospects. Legal Assistance The Sports Law Clinic provides direct legal services to individual athletes who meet indigency standards. Clinic students, supervised by faculty, handle all aspects of clients’ cases, including interviewing and counseling; developing claims and determining strategy; preparing affidavits, pleadings, motions, and briefs; participating in hearings in private arbitral tribunals; and reviewing and drafting settlements and commercial contracts. In addition to assisting underrepresented athletes, the clinic participates in law reform initiatives, public education efforts, and other forms of advocacy to make the greatest impact on access to sports participation. About Us Students accepted in the Sports Law Clinic come from diverse backgrounds and most have significant experiences in sports, including working, competing, and coaching at elite levels. All share a passion for advancing access to sports participation and protecting athletes’ rights. The clinic seeks out students with a demonstrated interest in using their law degree in the sports industry. Priority is given to students who have taken the Sports Law course or have some background, either through coursework or practical experience, in some of the following areas: Alternative Dispute Resolution, Administrative Law, College Athletics, Intellectual Property, Interviewing and Counseling, Negotiations, Right of Publicity, Sports Enterprise Governance, Talent Representation, and Transactional Drafting.   Prospective Clients Client Intake Form

International Business Law Fellowship Developing the next generation of international business lawyers The International Business Law Fellowship (IBL) Program offers an outstanding educational experience for students who plan to pursue careers in this area of the law. IBL Fellows are invited to attend all programs of the Dennis J. Block Center for the Study of International Business Law, including unique programs designed to introduce them to the specialization. In the upperclass years, IBL Fellows take a wide assortment of courses in the international and business fields to provide the necessary background for successful practice. IBL Fellows also participate in a variety of mentoring and enrichment experiences that prepare them to launch fulfilling careers in international business law. Fellows enroll at Brooklyn Law School from all over the United States and around the world. This diversity enhances the study of international law. Our fellows have come to us from Bulgaria, China, Colombia, France, Guyana, Israel, Japan, Korea, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Russia, Sweden, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Requirements Fellowships are awarded annually to a select group of promising students after completion of the first year and part-time students after completion of the second year. Applicants must be in the top 25 percent of their class and demonstrate a strong interest and background in international business law. Fellows follow a required curriculum of international and business law courses. Before graduation, all fellows are required to complete a research paper of publishable quality – under the close supervision of a Center faculty member – on an international business law topic of their choice. This allows students to satisfy the School's upperclass writing requirement while pursuing a scholarly topic of interest to them. An article written for a journal may qualify. Fellows formally present their papers to the other fellows and faculty during the last semester of enrollment. Application Eligible students receive an invitation to apply. The application must include a statement of why you want to participate in the program, a copy of your transcript and current resume, and one recommendation letter from a faculty member. The application must be submitted by the deadline stated in the invitation letter, typically in late July. If accepted as a fellow you will be invited to all center events and write a paper on an international business law topic which is required for all fellows which is presented in the spring semester. You may request more information from Erica Soto: erica.soto@brooklaw.edu. Mentoring All IBL fellows benefit from close mentoring by the Center co-directors who guide students in planning their academic curriculum, finding IBL-related extracurricular activities or externships, and assisting students in producing a paper on an international business topic. International Business Law Fellows Meet the recent International Business Law Fellows.

Workshops Hone your skills in our year-round workshops The Academic Success Program offers workshops throughout the year that provide students with additional support in their studies at Brooklyn Law School.  Grammar Workshop Brooklyn Law School offers this workshop to help students learn the fundamentals of composition. Through discussion and exercises, review basic principles of sentence structure, grammar, diction, punctuation, and mechanics. The ability to construct a good sentence is essential for good communication, and the ability to communicate with maximum effectiveness is highly valuable to a lawyer. First-Year Friday Legal Skills Workshops   This workshop series introduces all the successful skills a law student needs, such as: Time Management Short Practice Questions Supplements and Learning Apps Flashcards and Mindmaps Outlining Essay Exams Multiple Choice Exams Short Answer Exams Outlining, Part 2 Game-ifying Exam Review Exam Reading Exam Room Management   Finally, with two concluding "Bring Your Own Final" sessions, the workshops help alleviate test-taking anxiety by giving students a concrete preview of how to take timed, full-length law school exams in a test setting. A different slate of Friday Legal Skills Workshops occurs during the second semester of 1L year and more heavily targets exam performance. Case Briefing Workshop The Case Briefing workshop is taught by the Director of the Academic Success Program and covers case reading, briefing, and study skills. It is offered several times during orientation to all entering students. Students read a short case and are guided through the process of writing a case brief, including identifying issues, relevant facts, holdings, rules and reasoning, and case synthesis. Students are also introduced to strategies for effective listening, note-taking, and time management. Scholarly Journal Workshop Under the guidance of the Director of the Academic Success Program, students explore the unique organization and writing requirements of a case comment in order to prepare for a writing competition. Based on the results of this competition, students are selected to staff the Brooklyn Law School scholarly publications: Brooklyn Law Review, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, the Journal of Law and Policy and the Journal of Corporate, Financial and Commercial Law.   Questions about the Academic Success Program? Contact us: Professor Joe Buffington Interim Director of the Academic Success Program Phone: 718-780-0385 Email: joe.buffington@brooklaw.edu --> Karen PorterAssociate Dean for Academic and Student Success and Associate Professor of Clinical Lawkaren.porter@brooklaw.edu Meg HolzerAssistant Professor of Legal Writingmeg.holzer@brooklaw.edu

Federal Loan Consolidation About Federal Loan Consolidation Federal Loan Consolidation is the Department of Education’s program for refinancing Federal Student Loans. Consolidation loans can simplify your loan repayment and fix your interest rate for the life of the loan. Federal loans include Subsidized Stafford Loans, Unsubsidized Stafford Loans, William D. Ford Direct Loans, Perkins Loans, and Graduate Plus Loans. If you are interested in consolidating your loans, you must consolidate in the federal government's Direct Loan Program. You may consolidate online at studentaid.gov. Consolidation loans have the longest repayment periods permitted by law. These repayment periods extend from ten to thirty years. Repayment may be based on fixed, graduated or income-contingent schedules, depending on the kind of consolidation program chosen. There is never a penalty for prepayment. Loan Deferment Under certain circumstances — such as continued study, disability and unemployment — students can postpone payments on their consolidation loans by requesting deferment. Similar to the Stafford loan program, during a deferment, the Federal Government pays the interest that accrues on the portion of your consolidation loan that would have been eligible for an interest subsidy if you had not consolidated. Interest will continue to accrue on the portion of your consolidation loan that was not eligible for an interest subsidy during deferment. Consolidation borrowers are responsible for interest that accrues during deferments. Loan Forgiveness If you are planning a career in the Public Interest, or in any other field that is eligible for forgiveness of federal loans after 10 years of payments, you must consolidate your federal loans (Stafford Loans, Graduates Plus Loans). Only loans in the Direct Loan program are eligible for loan forgiveness under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. You may consolidate online at studentaid.ed.gov/sa/. You may be eligible for income-based repayments (IBR), which will significantly reduce your monthly payments. Consolidating Your Perkins Loan Before you decide to consolidate your federal Perkins Loan(s) with your Stafford Loans you need to understand that by consolidating your Perkins Loan you will lose the right to Perkins loan forgiveness. The US Department of Education may forgive Perkins loans over a five-year period if you are employed in qualifying employment: teaching, law enforcement, military and certain Public Interest careers. Recently, a court decision to grant Perkins Loan Forgiveness to lawyers working in the Public Interest brought this unique opportunity to light. If you are employed, or think you might be employed in a field that makes you eligible for Perkins Loan Forgiveness, you should not consolidate your Perkins Loan. If you consolidate it, you will forfeit your right to loan forgiveness provisions.

Block Center for International Business Law: Publications A foundation of scholarship and research Brooklyn Law School's reputation as a vigorous intellectual community is underscored by the research and scholarship in which the Block Center is engaged. That scholarship reflects productivity of high-quality work across a broad spectrum of topics for publication as books, chapters in books, monographs by the Center, and articles in scholarly journals. The Block Center co-sponsors a conference with the student-edited Brooklyn Journal of International Law each year, and with other journals from time to time. These conferences have produced an impressive body of work. We invite you to read these papers published in the journals listed below: “What Law Governs International Commercial Contracts?” published in 39 Brooklyn Journal of International Law, No. 3 (2013) “Globalization of the United States Litigation Model” published in 37 Brooklyn Journal of International Law, No. 3 (2011) “Governing Civil Society: NGO Accountability, Legitimacy and Influence” published in 36 Brooklyn Journal of International Law, No. 3 (2010) “New Paradigms For Financial Regulation in the United States and the European Union” published in 35 Brooklyn Journal of International Law, No. 3 (2010) “Bankruptcy Claims Trading and Securities Regulation” Published in vol. 4, no. 1 Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law (2009) "Ruling the World: Problems and Concerns of Generating International Legal Norms" Published in vol. 34, no. 3 Brooklyn Journal of International Law (2009) "The 'Going Private' of US Capital Markets" Published in vol. 3, no. 1 Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law (2008) "Corporate Liability for Grave Breaches of International Law" Published in vol. 33, no. 3 Brooklyn Journal of International Law (2008) "Securities Market Structure and Regulation: What Does the Future Hold?" Published in vol. 1, no. 2 Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law (2007) "Bankruptcy in the Global Village: The Second Decade" Published in vol. 32, no. 3 Brooklyn Journal of International Law (2007) "War and Trade" Published in vol. 31, no. 3 Brooklyn Journal of International Law (2006) "Intellectual Property Online: The Challenge of Multi-Territorial Disputes" Published in vol. 30, no. 3 Brooklyn Journal of International Law (2005) "Creating and Interpreting Law in a Multilingual Environment" Published in vol. 29, no. 3 Brooklyn Journal of International Law (2004) “Do Financial Supermarkets Need Super Regulators?” Published in vol. 28, no. 2 Brooklyn Journal of International Law (2002)

Dean's Message The Power of Law On the very day in late August when Brooklyn Law School welcomed 393 new J.D. and LL.M. students, Americans were enthralled by an extraordinary event: the first continent-wide solar eclipse since 1776 that was visible only from the United States. That afternoon as people across the country and in our Law School courtyard gazed upward through their safety glasses and downward at their pinhole cameras, it was as if nature itself was conspiring to bring the nation together—if only for a few hours. Our shared sense of unity and wonder, while fleeting, was a welcome respite from the tumultuous events that continue to roil this country. As of this writing, Floridians, some of them graduates of our Law School, are cleaning up from the devastation of Hurricane Irma, Texas continues to recover from the horrific floods brought by Hurricane Harvey, while we begin to learn of the damaging impact of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, and the devastating major earthquakes in Mexico. Meanwhile, white supremacists and neo-Nazis march in cities like Charlottesville and Boston, North Korea menaces its neighbors and the United States with threats and missile launches, immigrants protected under the DACA policy fear they may be deported from the only country most have known, and the rights of transgender individuals to serve our nation in the military are threatened. What do all these events have to do with new law students? Everything. Our new students—371 studying for their J.D.s and 22 in the LL.M. program—come to us from 33 states, the District of Columbia, and 20 countries spanning five continents with optimism and a passion to use the power of law to make a positive difference across a range of fields. As I met each of them in their first days of law school, many were concerned about the direction of the country and the world, but were eager to dive headfirst into their studies and get involved in all the practical learning opportunities the Law School offers. They have arrived at our great institution at a critical moment in our history. We need good lawyers more than ever before. As a law school uniquely and historically in the forefront of educating people from all walks of life to effectively serve both the public and private roles of lawyers in ever new and better ways, our mission is to prepare our students for what they need to know, and need to know how to do, in a world of law transforming rapidly before our eyes because of technology, economics, and increasingly the global nature of law. Do we believe lawyers matter? Well, we are doing our best to straighten that question mark into an exclamation point. All our students and graduates are called upon to be front and center in the grand civics lesson all Americans have been called to attend this year. This is because we face many of the essential questions our nation’s founders grappled with: How do we elect? How do we govern? How do we talk to each other? How do we decide what we mean by “We the People,” and whether we mean to include immigrants or not? As to lawful assembly and free speech, we already have had and will continue to have lively debates at our school this year, and we will learn a lot about “fighting words” and “incitement” among many legal topics arising from the cascading swirl of upsetting acts of racial and religious intolerance at home and abroad. Relevant case law on these important constitutional issues is abundant and will be thoroughly discussed. However, the very important legal conversation about the constitutional free speech underpinnings of protest, dissent and holding government accountable must not excuse us or distract us from expressing clearly and rejecting the immorality of prejudice, bigotry, and inequality. Indeed, it is fundamentally wrong if one can speak out and has a voice that can be heard, to be silent. Right now, in Texas and Florida, lawyers are performing pro bono work to help people recover from the hurricane, providing legal advice and assistance on issues related to insurance claims, real estate, employment, health care, and immigration. Many lawyers are donating their services, including out-of-staters who are permitted by the Texas Supreme Court’s order to perform legal work for Harvey victims for six months, proof positive that lawyers and even state bar licensing authorities have hearts. Meanwhile, government attorneys in both states are busy informing storm victims of their rights and protecting them from being ripped off and preyed upon by price gougers and dishonest contractors. Back in Brooklyn we are proud of the many examples of law in action we see daily. For example, the Law School is partnering with Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York to help assist immigrants in need of legal advice and assistance. Led by Professors Maryellen Fullerton and Stacy Caplow, this is a remarkable project because it involves the volunteer efforts of faculty, students, alumni, and staff—and our liaison at Catholic Charities just happens to be Maryann Tharappel ’11, the organization’s first-ever Director of Special Projects for Immigrants and Refugees, who is profiled in this issue. In late September, our volunteers traveled to Putnam County to take part in a legal clinic where they conducted screenings, gathered information, and assisted with DACA renewals. We will continue to support these clinics while also working on projects related to family preparedness and naturalization assistance with Catholic Migration Services in Brooklyn, where Rev. Patrick Keating ’17 serves as chief executive officer. We all are demonstrating how critically important lawyers are to the social order that is the bedrock of our growth and prosperity and to the principles of justice, equality, and fairness that are integral to the very fabric of this law school since its founding 116 years ago. There has been precious little understanding of and appreciation for the foundational laws of our land and the role lawyers play in bringing to fruition all the benefits of our constitutional guarantees that are at the core of our democratic way of life. Law schools everywhere must seize this opportunity to trumpet the good news that just as lawyers were instrumental in our nation’s beginnings, they are essential today to the defense of our rights, the pursuit of justice, and the preservation of our Republic. The recent exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum, “The Legacy of Lynching: Confronting Racial Terror in America,” featured the powerful words of civil rights activist Septima Poinsette Clark: “I believe unconditionally in the ability of people to respond when they are told the truth. We need to be taught to study rather than believe, to inquire rather than affirm.” Her uncompromising message goes the heart of what we do and who we are at Brooklyn Law School. We must work to honor and renew what makes our school so distinctive and indispensable, do our part to clear paths and chart legal courses for a just, democratic society to endure in a complex and dangerous world, and celebrate and protect our diverse and global community.   Nick Allard Joseph Crea Dean and President

Dean's Message We the People On a beautiful sun-splashed September day in Washington, D.C., it was an exquisitely memorable experience to be part of the large crowd celebrating the opening of the new Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture. Words alone cannot capture the museum’s full impact, from the metal lattice exterior walls that recall iconic figures once serving as symbolic guardians protecting African villages, to the large welcoming front porch and the exhibition halls filled with artifacts, art, and displays that are vibrant, moving, and often painful and horrifying reminders of the struggles, as well as contributions and triumphs, of African Americans. The exhibits include the gown worn by the incomparable Marian Anderson when she sang to a vast crowd from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. The overwhelming experience is even more poignant because this new citadel of humanity and enduring courage is built near the very place within the shadow of the U.S. Capitol where people were once sold into slavery. This is an extraordinary national museum that all Americans should visit if they have the opportunity. This was a day to reflect on the distance the United States has traveled toward racial justice and the difficult journey that still remains if we are to truly become a nation where equality, justice, and freedom are the blessings of all. As President Obama explained at the opening ceremony, it is a time for people to “step back, understand, sympathize, empathize, and be part of the solution.” President George W. Bush, who signed legislation authorizing the new museum 15 years ago, said that “a great nation does not hide its history. A great nation faces its flaws and corrects them.” I am very proud to be a member of a law school community where so many of our graduates, students, and faculty work toward a better future. After all, being unsatisfied with the status quo and hungering for positive change is what academic institutions, and even more so law schools, should be all about. Throughout last year, for example, our community admirably rose up to address intelligently and vigorously a tsunami of disturbing events in communities and on campuses across the country and abroad. Once again, this year our news is filled daily with alarming stories of discord, violence, and bigotry. As I write, we are in the closing days of a contentious and unprecedented presidential election that has brought into sharp relief deep divisions in our nation as well as beliefs and ideas that are inimical to our democratic republic and the principles that make our nation a beacon of hope in the world. Every day I speak with students who are performing valuable service work, providing much-needed legal assistance to less-advantaged individuals, and contributing to the flourishing small business and startup community in Brooklyn." While it may be easy to be discouraged by the many challenges we face, we need only look at the depth and breadth of the activity in the global Brooklyn Law School community to find reason for optimism for our nation and for our world. Every day I speak with students who are performing valuable service work, providing much-needed legal assistance to less-advantaged individuals, and contributing to the flourishing small business and startup community in Brooklyn. Their spark of energy and idealism is a tonic to any kind of pessimistic outlook on the future. The work of students in the BLS/EXI Innocence Clinic to help free a wrongly convicted man from prison is but one example of this tremendous impact. In this issue of Brooklyn Law Notes, you will read more about the impact of our students and faculty on society on multiple fronts. Bennett Capers, the Stanley A. August Professor of Law, writes about the current state of policing in minority communities, the consequences of which we see in the news all too frequently, and proposes a more innovative use of technology that has the potential to make policing more effective and egalitarian. In this issue’s Closing Arguments, Professor Jocelyn Simonson examines the power of “community bail,” an emerging reform effort aimed at ultimately ending money bail, a practice that has the effect of punishing criminal defendants for being poor. Our newest faculty members, Professors Susan Hazeldean, Christina P. Skinner, and Alex Stein, are already eminent in their fields and bring to the Law School a wealth of scholarship and expertise that builds on our faculty’s national reputation for excellence in scholarship and teaching. In these pages, you will meet current students and recent graduates who are making a difference through our groundbreaking Public Interest/Public Service (PipS) program, the two-year fellowship program directed by Professor Stacy Caplow that provides valuable practical legal training and experience working with nonprofit organizations and government agencies. We were one of the first law schools on the East Coast to have a program like PipS, which now serves as a model for other law schools. PipS builds on our legacy of public service, which we celebrated at the annual Public Service Awards ceremony and the 30th anniversary of the Edward V. Sparer Public Interest Fellowship Program, led by Professor Liz Schneider, who has taught, mentored, and inspired generations of students. When Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor visited us in April, she praised the students, faculty, and graduates who continue to honor and renew our distinctive legacy and place in history. One cannot read the stories in this issue—or spend a day at the Law School—without seeing that legacy in action and coming away with a strong sense of optimism about the power of law to make a positive difference. The people of Brooklyn Law School are a testament to our capacity to meet our current national and global challenges in thoughtful and meaningful ways, find solutions to pressing problems, and show us the way forward. Each of us can take pride in our part in this magnificent story. Nick Allard Joseph Crea Dean and President

Publications Centennial Professor of Law B.A., University of Pennsylvania J.D., Harvard Law School Advanced Introduction to Nonprofit Law (forthcoming 2025) Alternative Business Organizations and Social Enterprise, in Routledge Companion to Business Ethics (Eugene Heath, Byron Kaldis & Alexei Marcoux eds., 2018) Benefit Corporations – A Sustainable Form of Organization?, 46 Wake Forest Law Review 591 (2011)​​ Book Review: Public Choice Theory: A Unifying Framework for Judicial Activism, 110 Harvard Law Review 1161 (1997) (reviewing Charles M. Haar, Suburbs Under Siege: Race, Space, and Audacious Judges(1996)) Book Review: Leverage for good: An introduction to the new frontiers of philanthropy and social investment by L. M. Salamon and New frontiers of philanthropy: A guide to the new tools and actors reshaping global philanthropy and social investing by L. M. Salamon (Ed.) 44 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 854(August 2015) Buyer Beware: Variation and Opacity in ESG and ESG Index Funds, 41 Cardozo Law Review 1921 (2020) (with Anne Tucker) Charity Law's Essentials, 86 Notre Dame Law Review 1 (2011) Conditional Strategies: A Response To Collective Action Problems In Non-Profit Fund Raising (Indiana University Center on Philanthropy Working Paper Series 1995) Corporate Philanthropy: Development Tool or Profitable Strategy?, in Handbook on Philanthrocapitalism (forthcoming 2024) Decision-Makers Without Duties: Defining the Duties of Parent Corporations Acting as Sole Corporate Members in Nonprofit Health Care Systems, 53 Rutgers Law Review 979 (2001) Director Independence in the Independent Sector, 76 Fordham Law Review 795 (2007) Dismembering Civil Society: The Social Cost of Internally Undemocratic Nonprofits, 82 Oregon Law Review 829 (2003) Disruptive Philantrhopy: Chan-Zuckerberg, the Limited Liability Company, and the Millionaire Next Door, 70 Florida Law Review 921 (2018) Enron.org: Why Sarbanes-Oxley Will Not Ensure Comprehensive Nonprofit Accountability, 38 University of California at Davis Law Review 205 (2004) Equity Financing for Social Enterprise, in Research Handbook on Global Capital Markets Law (Iain MacNeil & Iris H-Y Chiu eds., 2023) (with Anne M. Tucker) European Law of Third Sector Organizations from the US Standpoint, in The Law of Third Sector Organizations In Europe: Foundations, Trends And Prospects (Antonio Fici ed., 2023) Filling the Gaps in Nonprofit Accountability: Applying the Club Perspective in the US Legal System, in Voluntary Regulation of NGOS and Nonprofits: An Accountability Club Framework (Cambridge University Press 2010) Financing the Benefit Corporation, 40 Seattle University Law Review 793 (2017) (with Steven Dean) For-Profit Philanthropy: Elite Power and the Threat of Limited Liability Companies, Donor-Advised Funds, and Strategic Corporate Giving (with Steven A. Dean) (Oxford University Press 2023) For-Profit Philanthropy: The Implications for Educational Development, 4 NORRAG Special Issue 58 (2020) Foreword, in The Social Enterprise Zoo (Edward Elgar 2016) Foreword: The Federalization of Nonprofit and Charity Law, 99 Kentucky Law Journal 637 (2010-2011)​ For-Profit Philanthropy, 77 Fordham Law Review 2437 (2009) Foundation Law in the United States, in 40 Stärkung des Stiftungswesens (2017) Foundation Regulation in Our Age of Impact, 17 Pittsburgh Tax Review 357 (2020) Governing and Financing Blended Enterprise, 85 Chicago-Kent Law Review 619 (2010) Granting Prescriptive Powers to Nurse Practitioners: Economic and Political Motivations, 1 Sound Politics 14 (1995) Introduction, Symposium: Who Guards the Guardians?: Monitoring and Enforcement of Charity Governance, 80 Chicago-Kent Law Review 543 (2005) (with E. Brody) Introduction: Governing Civil Society, 36 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 813 (2010-2011) (with C. Kelly)​ Linking NGO Accountability and the Legitimacy of Global Governance, 36 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 1011 (2011) (with C. Kelly)​ Nonprofit Oversight under Siege: Introduction, 91 Chicago-Kent Law Review 843 (2016) Nonprofit Takeovers: Regulating the Market for Mission Control, 2006 Brigham Young University Law Review 1181 (2006) Charting No Man's Land: Applying Jurisdictional and Choice of Law Doctrines to Interstate Compacts, 111 Harvard Law Review 1991 (1998) Progress is Possible: Sustainability in US Corporate Law and Corporate Governance, in Cambridge Handbook of Corporate Law, Corporate Governance and Sustainability (Beate Sjåfjell & Christopher Bruner eds., 2020) SE(c)(3): A Catalyst for Social Enterprise Crowdfunding, 90 Indiana Law Journal 1091 (2015) (with Steven Dean) Social Enterprise Law: A Multijurisdictional Comparative Review (with Steven A. Dean & Giedre Lideikyte-Huber eds., 2023) Social Enterprise Law: Trust, Public Benefit And Capital Markets (2017) Blended Enterprise and the Dual Mission Dilemma, 35 Vermont Law Review 105 (2010) The Rise of Philanthropy LLCs, 16 Stanford Social Innovation Review 26 (Summer 2018) The Social Enterprise: A New Form of The Business Enterprise?, General Report for the Asunción Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, in Comparative Social Enterprise Law (with Steven A. Dean & Giedre Lideikyte-Huber eds., 2023) (with Steven A. Dean) The Social Enterprise Life Cycle, in Cambridge Handbook on Social Enterprise Law (2017) (with Steven Dean) Theorizing Forms for Social Enterprise, 61 Emory Law Journal 683 (2013) There Ought to Be a Law: The Disclosure Focus of Recent Legislative Proposals for Nonprofit Reform, 80 Chicago-Kent Law Review 559 (2005) Trust And For-Profit Philanthropy: From Surrey’s Private Foundation to Zuckerberg’s Limited Liability Company, in Routledge Handbook of Taxation and Philanthropy (Henry Peter & Giedre Lideikyte-Huber eds. 2022) (with Steven A. Dean) Using Non-Code Sec. 501(c)(3) Vehicles to Accomplish Philanthropic Objectives, Taxes, December 2017, at 41 Why Boards Should Have Rotating Contrarians, ___ Ohio State Business Law Journal ___ (forthcoming 2025) (with Claire Hill)

Race, Technology, and the Future of Policing How harnessing technologies—and redistributing privacy—can help make policing more effective and egalitarian. By Professor Bennett Capers I am a black man. I say this up front because, to borrow from Patricia Williams, “the subject position is everything in my analysis of the law.” I say this up front, too, because when it comes to policing, my blackness means that I am also a disturbing statistic. After all, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, one in three black men can now expect to go to prison during his lifetime. A prosecutor is more likely to seek higher charges against me, and a jury is more likely to convict me than a white defendant based on similar evidence. And according to the United States Sentencing Commission, if I am sent to prison, I will likely receive a sentence 20 percent longer than a white offender for the same crime. In a world in which, as Elizabeth Gaynes, an advocate for those affected by incarceration, writes, “young plus black plus male” too often equals “probable cause,” and in which there is a “racial tax,” I carry myself knowing that, because I am a black man, I will be watched by the police, scrutinized by the police, and at any point I can be stopped by the police. As much as I might hope that my status as an academic might insulate me from racialized policing, my own experience and the experiences of numerous other black professors suggest otherwise. The police do not see an academic. They see only what they want to see; as in Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, they see “only my surroundings, themselves, or figments of their imagination—indeed, everything and anything except me.” I am reducible to this: a black man. So I am a black male. But not tragically so. After all, in a sense I am a black male because this is how I have been socially constructed. Change the construction, and liberation should be possible. There is a final reason to foreground my blackness: I want to make an argument that may seem counterintuitive, that may rile libertarians and progressives, and may even give pause to a few black folk. What I want to argue is that if we truly care about making policing egalitarian and fair to everyone, then that may mean more policing, not less. More to the point, it will mean redistributing privacy. The policing problems that minority communities frequently face—police violence, under-enforcement, and racial profiling—are not unsolvable. However, the solution I am proposing has little to do with seeking recourse to courts. Instead, it has everything to do with technology, specifically with harnessing technology in ways that can de-racialize policing. I begin below with technology that can combat racial profiling. To be sure, such technology means that there will be more policing, not less. The cost, too, is that many Americans will have to surrender some of the privacy they now enjoy. But in the end, a utilitarian argument can be made that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Consider that the police in New York City recorded 4.4 million forcible stops between 2004 and 2012, and that more than 83 percent of those stopped were either black or brown, a number far greater than their representation in the population. In fact, these numbers tell only part of the story. As statistician and criminologist Jeffrey Fagan has noted, the percentage of black and brown people stopped is disproportionately high even after adjusting for higher crime rates in some minority communities. Other numbers speak to what I have termed “Terry innocence.” For every 20 individuals stopped, a full 19 were found not to be engaged in activity warranting an arrest. In other words, the error rate was around 95 percent. Even this high percentage understates the true error rate, since studies have shown that nearly half of all arrests resulting from these stop-and-frisk encounters are eventually dismissed. The error rate rises even more when one considers the oft-stated objective of aggressive stop-and-frisk practices: to get illegal firearms out of the hands of criminals. According to the NYPD’s own data, between 2004 and 2012 they found approximately 1 firearm for every 1,000 stops, which translates into an error rate of over 99.9 percent. To put this in perspective, this is on par with the success rate when officers engage in purely random searches. Moreover, evidence suggests that racialized policing, rather than contributing to accuracy, adds to error. In New York, for example, stopped blacks were actually less likely to have a weapon than stopped whites. The same is true in other jurisdictions. For example, in New Jersey, troopers found evidence of criminal activity in 13 percent of their searches of black motorists, compared with 25 percent of their searches of white motorists. The foregoing suggests more than merely a racialized policing problem in which “[s]kin color becomes evidence,” as David A. Harris writes in his research on racial profiling. The statistics point to more than what social scientists have long confirmed: that we all suffer from biases, and many of those biases are about race and criminality. It suggests more than simply the fact that stop-and-frisk practices have a breadth that disproportionately affects those who are Terry innocent. It suggests a fundamental flaw with the way we police, a flaw that undermines, with every racially inflected look, encounter, stop, or frisk, our protestations that we are all equal before the law. Instead of a color-blind government, it suggests a color-dependent government. It is certainly at odds with Chief Justice John Roberts’s insistence that “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Now consider the role a combination of existing and burgeoning technologies can play in de-racializing and de-biasing policing. The anchor of these combined technologies will be public surveillance cameras. Public surveillance cameras are already integral to law enforcement. For example, New York City currently aggregates and analyzes data from approximately 3,000 surveillance cameras around the city, and allows the police to scan license plates, cross-check criminal databases, measure radiation levels, and more. Washington, D.C., is in the process of consolidating more than 5,000 cameras into one network called the Video Interoperability for Public Safety Program. Chicago, with at least 2,250 surveillance cameras, has Operation Virtual Shield, which includes biometric technology. Baltimore has CitiWatch, which includes more than 400 cameras equipped with low light, pan, tilt, and zoom capabilities. Even small towns have turned to surveillance cameras. A survey from almost a decade ago listed more than 200 towns in 37 states that were either using or planning to use public surveillance cameras. But for the most part, these cameras tend to be clustered in communities that are poor, black, and brown, or areas deemed potential terrorist targets such as the New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade, Times Square, and the Washington Mall. A strong equalizing argument can be made that cameras should be extended to virtually all public spaces. The second part to this cluster of technologies would be facial recognition technology, already in use by more than 50 police departments. The technology should not be limited to comparing faces with available arrest photos, but also to driver’s license photos and photos on social media sites like Facebook and Instagram. The third part would be access to Big Data. Already, the breadth and depth of information available (from credit card transactions to credit history, from Facebook likes to Twitter feeds, from favorite bands to favored political candidates) is vast. Consider this finding from the report “Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think”: In 2013 the amount of stored information in the world is estimated to be about 1,200 exabytes, of which less than 2 percent is non-digital. There is no way to think about what this size of data means. If it were all printed in books they would cover the entire surface of the United States some 52 layers thick. If it were played on CD-ROMS, and stacked up, they would stretch to the moon in five separate piles. Quite simply, whether it involves tracking location history by remotely accessing and analyzing metadata on our phones, or accessing surveillance camera data (both public and private), or turning to commercial data aggregators, we should give the police technological tools so that, with a click of a button, “unknown suspects can be known.” Finally, this cluster of technologies would include terahertz scanners. Recall that one goal of stop-and-frisk practices is to get firearms out of the hands of criminals, which, because of implicit biases about race and criminality, contributes to the targeting of racial minorities. In fact, terahertz scanners, which measure terahertz radiation, can scan for concealed weapons without the need for a stop or frisk. The device is small enough to be placed in a police vehicle, or even mounted as a surveillance camera. As Police Commissioner Ray Kelly put it during his State of the NYPD address in 2013: The device reads a specific form of natural energy emitted by people and objects known as terahertz. If something is obstructing the flow of that radiation, for example a weapon, the device will highlight that object. Over the past 12 months, we’ve been working with the vendor and the London Metropolitan Police to develop a tool that meets our requirements. We took delivery of it last week. One of our requirements was that the technology must be portable... we’re able to mount it in a truck. To be clear, all of this may sound precariously close to George Orwell’s “Big Brother.” But such technology can also de-racialize policing. Cameras and terahertz scanners do not have implicit biases. Nor do they suffer from unconscious racism. Rather, technology can move us closer to real reasonable suspicion. Technology can improve policing so that looks, encounters, stops, and frisks turn on actual criminality, rather than the proxy of race. Put differently, having access to at-a-distance weapons scanners, facial recognition software, and Big Data can mean the difference between race-blind policing and “young plus black equals probable cause.” It would certainly mean a drastic reduction in the number of stopped minorities, indeed a reduction in the number of all stops. Terahertz scanners would tell the police that the bulge in a black teenager’s jacket is nothing more than a bulky cellphone, but that white tourist who looks like he’s from Texas really does have a gun. Facial recognition technology combined with Big Data would tell the police that the Hispanic driver repeatedly circling the block in fact works in the neighborhood and is probably looking for a parking space; that the clean-cut white male reading a paper on a park bench is in fact a sex offender who, just by being near a playground, is violating his sex offender registration. This technology would tell the police that the black youth running down the street is simply that—a youth running down the street. It would tell them, in a way that is not intrusive or embarrassing, whether someone is a troublemaker casing a neighborhood, or a student returning home with a bag of Skittles and a Snapple iced tea; a loiterer up to no good, or a father waiting to pick up his children from school; a burglar about to commit a home invasion, or a Harvard professor entering his own home; a mugger looking for his next victim, or the future U.S. Attorney General. And that the white kid from New Jersey driving into Harlem isn’t there to score drugs, but to see his black girlfriend. Deploying technology to aid in policing—alarming as it may seem at first—can also play a role in tackling some of the other problems we associate with racialized policing. Consider police violence. Scanners, for example, would immediately tell officers that a suspect is unarmed, often enough to obviate the need for deadly force. Big Data could also tell officers whether a suspect has a history of violence or resisting arrest. Beyond this, public surveillance cameras can capture and make visible police use of excessive force. Indeed, they may even have advantages over recordings from body-worn cameras or police vehicle dashboard cameras. Body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras show police-citizen interactions from the police officer’s perspective. While this perspective is important, especially in cases where officers claim they acted with honest and reasonable belief, it is not the only perspective, let alone the most objective one. In addition, there is legitimate concern that the police, ex post, have the ability to control and edit the resulting film. Indeed, there is evidence that the officer who fatally shot Laquan McDonald in Chicago in 2014 tampered with his dashboard camera. More recently, one of the officers involved in the death of Keith Scott in Charlotte, apparently failed to activate his body-worn camera until after the shooting, a violation of department policy, thus contributing to the inadequate footage of that shooting. All of this may undermine the goal of objectivity or capturing the full picture. Public surveillance cameras, if used properly with public input and control, bypass these problems. The role technology can play in addressing under-enforcement—the fact that police are less likely to vigorously investigate crimes committed against minority victims—is less direct, but important too. To the extent technology can increase accuracy and efficiency in policing, it can free officers to actually engage in the work that those of us who are black and brown and white want them to do: actual policing. Consider one statistic: police fail to make an arrest in about a third of all murders in the U.S. That means a full third of all murders go unsolved. Now imagine if officers, instead of focusing their resources on black and brown people who are Terry innocent, redirected their resources to solve real crimes. There is much more to be explored about using technology to rethink policing. For one, technology, in the form of public surveillance cameras, may very well deter officers from committing Fourth Amendment violations, much in the way they deter other law-breaking. Equally important, because public surveillance cameras are specular, they have the potential to educate judges about how the Fourth Amendment is really being applied, and thus counter myopic perspectives that already tip the scales in favor of the police. This last point cannot be overstated, since such an education has the potential to “help change constitutional meaning,” as my Brooklyn Law School colleague Professor Jocelyn Simonson argues. Technology, as Harvard law professors Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres point out, can serve “demosprudence”—that is, action, instigated by ordinary people, to change the people who make the law and the landscape in which that law is made. With this use of technology, none of us would need to be singled out because of race. Or more accurately, everyone would be subjected to the same soft surveillance. The Asian woman with the briefcase. The white businessman trying to hail a cab. The messenger on his bike. The elderly woman walking her poodle. Everyone. Certainly, this gets us closer to equality before the law. Again, what I am proposing is more policing, not less. In exchange for de-racialized policing, there will have to be more policing of everyone, albeit in the form of soft surveillance. I am essentially proposing that some people cede some of the privacy that they currently enjoy for the greater good of everyone. While this may rankle some—especially civil libertarians—the simple truth is that privacy always has been unequal, with those who are privileged by race and class enjoying a surfeit. If we care about equalizing policing, then one trade-off is the redistribution of privacy in a way that is more egalitarian and consistent with our democratic ideals. The techno-policing I am advocating may not be a complete cure-all in terms of leveling privacy imbalances and making policing more fair, especially given how interconnected, how networked, every aspect of our criminal justice system is. But it is a significant step in the right direction. I am a black man. For me, the personal is the political. It is inseparable from how I think about the Fourth Amendment, how I think about policing, and how I think about the way we live now. That is why I argue for more technology in policing, even if it means, or perhaps I should say especially if it means, the redistribution of privacy. The costs, especially to those who already enjoy an abundance of privacy, may seem great. But even greater should be the possibility of what we can become: A fairer society. A more just society. A society where, just possibly, all of us—including those of us who are black and brown—can be equal before the law. In short, a society that gets us closer to the dream the founders could not have imagined, but was there all along, in the text, waiting to be born. Or to be truly read. But already, I am getting ahead of myself. So for now, in this liminal moment, allow me to return to policing. Quite simply, if the goal is equality in policing, if the goal is efficiency and transparency and crime reduction, this essay maps a route there. Professor Bennett Capers is the Stanley A. August Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, where he teaches evidence, criminal procedure, and criminal law. His academic interests include the relationship between race, gender, and criminal justice, and he is a prolific writer on these topics. His articles and essays have been published or are forthcoming in many of the top law reviews. He is co-editing the forthcoming book Critical Race Judgments: Rewritten U.S. Court Opinions on Race and Law (Cambridge University Press) (with Devon Carbado, Robin Lenhardt, and Angela Onwuachi-Willig). His commentary and op-eds have appeared in the New York Times and other publications. This fall he is a visiting professor at University of Texas Law School. Before entering academia, Capers spent nearly 10 years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York. His work trying several federal racketeering cases earned him a nomination for the Department of Justice’s Director’s Award in 2004. He also practiced with the firms of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton and Willkie Farr & Gallagher. He received his undergraduate degree from Princeton University and his J.D. from Columbia Law School. In 2013, Judge Shira Scheindlin appointed him to chair the Academic Advisory Council to assist in implementing the remedial order in the stop-and-frisk class action Floyd v. City of New York. He has also served as a mayoral appointee to the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board. This article was adapted from “Race, Policing, and Technology,” forthcoming in the North Carolina Law Review.

Security Your safety and security is important to us Brooklyn Heights is a densely populated neighborhood, where it is safe to walk around during the day and night. There is 24-7 security at the main Law School building at 250 Joralemon Street. Our largest student residence, Feil Hall, is also supported with 24-hour security. Read our annual security reports and procedures for more guidance: Annual Security and Fire Safety ReportEmergency Response Procedures  You can also get city-wide information from the New York City Office of Emergency Management. Sign up for NYC OEM alerts about emergency events and receive important information about city services. Campus Alerts Stay safe! In the case of a severe weather event or other emergency, the Brooklyn Law School campus may close or delay opening. Receive alerts so you can be contacted in the event of such changes. Below is the most up-to-date information on how the campus community will be notified. Visitor Policies and Guidelines Visitors who wish to attend in-person events at the main Law School building (250 Joralemon Street) or our high-rise residential building, Feil Hall (205 State St.), will be required to provide the security guard on duty at the Law School with valid government-issued identification upon request. Please view the Brooklyn Law School (BLS) Visitor Policies and Guidelines prior to attending the event. Visitors should refrain from attending campus events or visiting the campus if they test positive for COVID or feel unwell. If you wish to visit or attend an event on campus and you learn you have been in close contact with a person who has tested positive for Covid-19, please wear a mask whenever possible during the event or visit. Safety Tips Read our important tips for personal safety in NYC, safety for building residents, protecting yourself during exam periods, surviving an active shooter event, and identity theft protection: COVID-19 Update The COVID-19 national public health emergency ended on May 11, 2023. Brooklyn Law School strongly encourages all students, faculty, administrators, and guests to be vaccinated and stay up to date on all vaccines and boosters as recommended by the CDC (see guidelines Stay Up to Date with COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC). Anyone in the Brooklyn Law School Community who is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19, tests positive, or was exposed to COVID-19 should follow CDC guidelines Preventing Spread of Respiratory Viruses When You’re Sick | CDC. Masking is welcome but not required. Contacts & Resources If you have any questions or concerns, please get in touch with the Department of Public Safety, or reach out to individual buildings through their official contact numbers. We also offer specialized hotlines for students in need.