News

Syracuse Law Alum Dreamed of NYC But Returned to California to be a Pioneer in Entertainment Law

May 16, 2024

Leslie Park stands in front of the Hallmark Media sign in her L.A. office.

When Leslie Park L’95 was a young girl growing up in a Korean-American immigrant family in Los Angeles, she remembers watching a movie where a female lawyer with a briefcase was walking down the courthouse steps in New York City. It was then that she decided “that’s going to be me one day.”

That moment planted a seed in her that continued to grow. After earning a bachelor’s degree from the University of California Irvine, she decided to pursue law school. Park only applied to law schools in the Midwest or on the East Coast, as she kept dreaming of walking down those courthouse steps. One was the Syracuse University College of Law, which was a lot closer to New York City than California.

“I enjoy being a full-fledged entertainment lawyer. I know how a movie is made, the legal and real-life issues, intellectual property matters, how to handle talent and labor disputes, as well as how to comply with ever-changing privacy laws.”
Leslie Park L’95

Park credits her experience at Syracuse Law for instilling a sense of independence in her that has continued throughout her legal career. It was her first time away from home, and it took some adjustment. Most of the students were from the East Coast with only a few from California. “And, it was so cold!” she says. “The heaviest coat I brought with me was a windbreaker. But, I made it through the obstacles, and I’m grateful that I succeeded in becoming a lawyer.”

After graduating, she did make it to New York City after all, working as an attorney for Sidley Austin LLP and Moses & Singer LLP, as well as corporate counsel for Atari.

But, in 2003, she and her husband decided it was time to move back to Los Angeles to be near family. Park took a job with Hallmark Media (operator of Hallmark Channels and owned by Hallmark Cards, Inc.), as an in-house counsel in charge of corporate and securities filings. Even after Hallmark Cards took the company private in 2016, Park stayed on and assumed an expanded role since she had learned so much about the company and entertainment law in the 13 years. Today, she is the senior vice president of legal and business affairs and assistant general counsel at Hallmark Media.

Leslie Park at her desk at Hallmark Media

“I enjoy being a full-fledged entertainment lawyer,” she says. “I know how a movie is made, the legal and real-life issues, intellectual property matters, how to handle talent and labor disputes, as well as how to comply with ever-changing privacy laws. Hallmark Media produces over 100 movies a year on a very tight schedule, and if something falls off the radar on my watch that impacts the business.”

Other responsibilities include negotiating different kinds of commercial agreements to support all aspects of Hallmark Media, including content acquisition, strategic alliance, software licenses, data processing agreements, IP licensing, and various types of vendor, consulting and service agreements, as well as advising management on legal issues related to entertainment and media law. She also deals with privacy and data security, advising on marketing initiatives, global procurement, and research and analysis of FCC and FTC rules.

“Entertainment law is relatively new when you compare it to something like real estate law or estate planning. There is no set checklist on what to do, as the industry is constantly evolving…I like to look at my role as being a pioneer in figuring out this new way that people consume entertainment and the rules of not only entertainment law but the marketplace.”
Leslie Park L’95

The perks of the job are glamorous, too, as she has walked Hollywood’s red carpet, meeting celebrities like Florence Henderson, Jack Wagner and Rick Schroder, who have frequently appeared in Hallmark movies.

Entertainment law has certainly seen changes since she began working for Hallmark Media, particularly in the way the company produces and secures the amount of content needed to keep viewers watching its channels and streaming service 24 hours a day.

Leslie Park works in a conference room with her colleagues

“Early on it was just TV, VCRs or DVDs, but today content comes from all over the place. It used to be about working with just a handful of studios, but now there are so many different players in the space, from streaming services like Hulu and Netflix to independent producers and more,” says Park. “Entertainment law is relatively new when you compare it to something like real estate law or estate planning. There is no set checklist on what to do, as the industry is constantly evolving. Now, the same content is being sliced and diced into so many slivers so that providers can sell it both domestically and internationally, and that comes with a host of legalities. I like to look at my role as being a pioneer in figuring out this new way that people consume entertainment and the rules of not only entertainment law but the marketplace.”

“Watching that movie as a little girl, I dreamed of being a strong female lawyer,” she says. “I never dreamed then that I’d accomplish that by working in the entertainment business. I am thankful for the solid foundation Syracuse Law gave me that led to what I’ve accomplished in my career.”

Yohannes Takele Zewale LL.M.’19, S.J.D.’24 Successfully Defends Dissertation for Doctor of Juridical Science Degree

May 15, 2024

Yohannes Takele Zewale, LL.M.’19, S.J.D.’24, successfully defended his dissertation for the Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.) degree. Zewale passed the oral defense of his dissertation with no revisions, becoming the first student to receive his S.J.D. from the College of Law.

In his dissertation, titled “Representation and Persons with Disabilities in Legislatures: A Proposed Model of Approval Representation,” Zewale discusses the lack of descriptive representation of disabled people in legislatures, as well as the limited research on the topic. To address this shortcoming, Zewale proposes a new model of “Approval Representation”, which seeks to increase descriptive representation based solely on voter preferences. His model is an alternative to the model of Descriptive Representation, which has been used in many countries to promote the representation of women and racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. Only five countries’ laws include quotas requiring the descriptive representation of disabled people in their legislatures, and all these countries are in the African region.

“Not only is Yohannes’ dissertation significant for its comprehensiveness (at 270 pages), its originality (there is only one other article on the topic), and its use of qualitative research methods to support its claims (following receipt of Institutional Review Board approval, he conducted interviews with 12 disabled people who serve in legislatures), but this dissertation is also significant because it shines a light on countries that are too often ignored by a research field largely dominated by Western scholars. The fact that the first five countries that have instituted policies to ensure representation of disabled people in their legislatures are all within the African region is a topic worthy of research in itself,” says Professor Arlene Kanter, Faculty Director of International Programs and dissertation advisor to Zewale.

Zewale has published one of the chapters from his dissertation in the Harvard Online International Law Journal and a separate chapter in the African Disability Rights Yearbook.

Zewale earned his LL.B. and his first LL.M. from Addis Ababa University in Ethiopia, in 2015 and 2018, respectively. He received his LL.M., as an Open Society Fellow, with a concentration on international and comparative disability law, from the College of Law in 2019. He has held positions at the Addis Ababa University School of Law, the Ethiopian Center for Disabilities and Development (ECDD), and different organizations. He is currently working for various non-governmental organizations at both national and international levels.

College of Law Students Attend the annual American Society of International Law Meeting

May 13, 2024

2Ls Tamara Laguna and Charles Sirotek joined Bond, Schoeneck and King Distinguished Professor Cora True-Frost G’01, L’01 at the 2024 American Society of International Law (ASIL) Annual Meeting. The theme of the 118^th Annual Meeting was “International Law in an Independent World.”

The meeting drew global leaders in legal, human rights, trade, medical, finance, security, and other critical issues affecting international law. Through panels, speeches, and networking events the students were able to make new connections that will further their legal studies and careers.

“It was an amazing melting pot of ideas and people. There were lawyers from all over the world, but there were also experts who were not lawyers, and they were speakers as well. This diversity made it easier to understand very complex ideas and issues in a short amount of time,” says Laguna. “Overall, this was an amazing experience, and I am grateful that the College of Law helped provide for me to attend. I would not have been able to attend otherwise.”

True-Forst is the faculty advisor for the College’s International Law Society.

Tamara Laguna, Charles Sirotek, and Professor Cora True-Frost

Professor Jenny Breen’s Article “Labor, Law Enforcement, and ‘Normal Times’” Cited in a Concurring Eleventh Circuit Opinion, Edwards v. United States Attorney General

May 9, 2024

Professor Jenny Breen’s article “Labor, Law Enforcement, and ‘Normal Times’: The Origins of Immigration’s Home within the Department of Justice and the Evolution of Attorney General Control over Immigration Adjudications”, 42 Hawai’i L. Rev. 1, 58 (2019) was recently cited in a concurring opinion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The case, Edwards v. United States Attorney General, considered whether an immigrant was entitled to relief from removal based on a modification to his state court criminal conviction. In reaching its decision that the immigrant was not entitled to relief from removal, the Eleventh Circuit had to consider the impact of an opinion by then-Attorney General William Barr that overturned a long string of precedent on the relationship between state court criminal convictions and removal orders.

Though he agreed with the panel that the new rule applied to the immigrant petitioner in this case, concurring Judge Adalberto Jordan expressed concern about courts mechanically giving retroactive effect to Attorney General opinions like the one at issue in this case. Part of Judge Jordan’s concern was grounded in the unpredictable nature of these opinions and particularly how those opinions have evolved in recent decades.

Professor Breen’s article examines the highly discretionary and unchecked power of the United States Attorney General to review decisions in individual immigration adjudications. Her empirical survey of decades of these decisions revealed that the Attorneys General of the administration of President George W. Bush wrought a profound transformation in the use of this formerly rarely used power, one that slowed briefly during the administration of President Obama, and then accelerated again under President Donald J. Trump.

In his concurring opinion, Judge Jordan cited Professor Breen’s research as demonstrating the ways in which the Attorney General has increasingly used the particular procedural mechanism of Attorney General self-referral to “reshape immigration procedure and settled areas of immigration law” in recent decades. Though declining to “voice any opinion on whether these vacillating policy decisions are substantively good or bad (individually or collectively) for the body politic in general or the immigration system in particular,” Judge Jordan urged his colleagues to convene en banc to reconsider Eleventh Circuit precedent on this important issue. Judge Jordan observed that “in light of these mercurial changes, the notion of automatic retroactivity (á la Yu) for Attorney General rulings (and similar administrative decisions of general applicability) seems ill-advised.”

Professor Breen’s article also considered the historical development of immigration enforcement, charting its politically controversial move out of the Department of Labor and into the Department of Justice during the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt.

The case is Edwards v. United States Attorney General, 97 F.4^th 725 (11th Cir. 2024) (Jordan, J., concurring).

College of Law Student Attains Highest Score on the Arizona Uniform Bar Examination

May 9, 2024

In the February 2024 administration of the Arizona Uniform Bar Examination, Jessica Marie Lanum L’23 had the highest score among the 238 applicants.

Lanum, a paralegal at Shore Dombrowski Law Firm, P.C. in Tucson, AZ, completed her law degree in the College’s JDinteractive online program while working full-time. At the College of Law, she graduated summa cum laude and was admitted to the Justinian Honor Society for students with the highest grade averages. Lanum was an Academic Success Fellow who mentored first-year students and received a Scribes Award for legal writing. She was the Research Assistant to Professor Nina Kohn.

“Congratulations to Jessica on her outstanding success in passing the bar exam. Having the highest score is a tremendous accomplishment on top of becoming licensed to practice law,” says Associate Dean of Academic and Bar Support Kelly Curtis. “The best way to prepare for any bar exam is to be diligent in completing the bar preparation materials you have selected. Jessica is proof that putting in the study time and effort pays off in the end.”

Lanum outpaced the other top scorers on the Arizona UBE from Harvard Law School, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, and University of California Berkeley School of Law

The College of Law Class of 2024 February 2024 bar passage rate for New York state test-takers is 94% and 90% for all jurisdictions.

In addition to offering free bar preparation materials through one of many commercial options, the College of Law’s Office of Academic and Bar Success conducts a series of Bar Bootcamp Programs with an intensive and focused review of topics you will see on the exam, effective exam taking strategies, skills enhancement, a structured study plan, and more,

In addition, the Office’s comprehensive bar preparation offerings include:

Bar Admissions Checklists highlighting everything students need to know for admission to law practice
A guide for Character and Fitness evaluations
Suggested courses to cover each examination topic
Recordings for self-paced study, including Bar Exam 101, Studying for the Bar as a Non-Traditional Student, the Path to New York Licensure, and more!

Professor Gregory Germain writes “The Manhattan District Attorney’s Convoluted Legal Case Against Donald Trump Gets More Convoluted”

May 8, 2024

Professor Gregory Germain has written a legal analysis of the Trump hush money case.

To request an interview with Professor Germain, please contact Ellen James Mbuqe, executive director of media relations, at ejmbuqe@syr.edu or Rob Conrad, College of Law Director of Communications and Media Relations at rtconrad@syr.edu.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Donald Trump with a “Class E” felony (the lowest felony in New York) under New York Penal Law § 175.10, for reimbursing his prior attorney, Michael Cohen, the $130,000 Cohen paid to Stormy Daniels to sign a non-disclosure agreement in the waning days before the 2016 election, and disguising those payments as attorney fees. What does the District Attorney have to prove under NYPL § 175.10?

The case requires peeling an onion containing multiple layers of legal doctrine leading nowhere.

First, NYPL § 175.10 requires proof that the defendant committed a misdemeanor under NYPL § 175.05 (“A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree [175.10] when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree [175.05], and . . . ”). So the first step is for the District Attorney to prove the misdemeanor under Section 175.05.

Section 175.05, in turn, provides that the defendant is guilty of a misdemeanor “if, with the intent to defraud, you make, or even cause through other means, a false entry in an enterprise’s business records.”

So the District Attorney must first prove that Trump made the false business records “with the intent to defraud” in order to satisfy the misdemeanor under Section 175.05 that is a predicate to the felony under Section 175.10. The District Attorney has not explained who Trump intended to defraud by falsifying the business records.

There are some appellate division cases that have suggested that a showing of intent to mislead is sufficient to satisfy the “defraud” requirement, although that loose reading of a criminal statute is dubious because criminal statutes are normally strictly interpreted, and “defraud” has a well-defined legal meaning. Why would the legislature use the word “defraud” if they intended to criminalize an intent to mislead someone without the usual additional requirements for fraud, like proving that a victim suffered damages by relying on the truth of the misrepresentation.

In addition, the two year statute of limitations on the misdeamenor (New York law, CPL § 30.10(2)(a)) expired long ago, and the District Attorney did not charge Trump with the misdemeanor. It is not clear whether the felony can stand when the misdemeanor is time barred. The felony statute requires showing that the misdemeanor was committed, since the felony is really a penalty enhancement on the misdemeanor.

Second, in order for the business records misdemeanor to be bumped up to a Class E felony under Section 175.10, “his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” So, in addition to proving that the business records were falsified to “defraud” someone, the District Attorney must show that Trump falsified the records to commit “another crime” separate from the fraud.

Judge Marshan allowed the District Attorney to proceed with the criminal prosecution without detailing exactly what the “fraud” or “other crime” was. The District Attorney merely suggested that Trump may have committed state tax fraud, or violated the federal election laws, or violated New York election laws, but was not required to spell out the violations, or to pick which of them applied to each of the two separate crimes that must be proven under Section 175.10.

Well, now the District Attorney has told the court which horse he intends to ride in the case. It’s New York Election Law § 17.152. What is that?

New York Election Law § 17.152 makes it a misdemeanor to “conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to public office by unlawful means.” There are very few cases applying this rather obscure statute, but on its face it requires showing an “unlawful” conspiracy. So the misdemeanor requires proof of intent to “defaud,” the felony requires proof of intent to commit or cover up an independent crime, and the independent crime requires proof of a conspiracy by “unlawful means.” What is the “fraud” or “unlawful means?”

Oh, and that Election Law misdemeanor is also barred by the two year statute of limitations on misdemeanors.

The District Attorney and many pundits have suggested that these three statutory requirements can be met merely by showing that Trump made the false records intending to influence the election. But everything that every candidate does is an attempt to influence an election. To constitute a felony, the acts to falsify records must have been “fraudulent” and “unlawful,” and that’s the catch. What makes paying hush money “fraudulent” and “unlawful?” Running for office is not like selling securities to the public. There is no statute requiring full disclosure of all material facts. Politicians have the highest level of free speech protection for their campaigns.

Some experts have suggested that the District Attorney does not need to prove that the underlying payment to Stormy Daniels was a crime, only that Trump thought it was a crime. I disagree. One cannot “intend” to commit or cover up a crime if what one intended to do was not a crime. Yes, there are cases saying that the prosecutor need not charge and convict the person of the independent crime, but that does not excuse the prosecutor from proving that the intended act was in fact a crime. If someone created false business records to cover up what they thought was a crime, but what they thought was a crime was in fact legal, then they would not be guilty under the statute. Cases like People v. Taveras, 12 NY 3d 21 (2009), which held that the Section 175.10 only requires a showing of intent to commit the crime, even if the person did not go through with the crime, or People v. Thompson, 124 A.D. 3d 448 (NY App Div. 2015), which held that the person does not have to be charged with or convicted of the separate crime, are not on point. What was intended must be a crime, and the District Attorney must prove that it was or would have been a crime if the defendant followed through, in order to meet the statutory requirement. Falsifying business records with intent to commit a legal act is not a crime under the statute.

The District Attorney will be able to prove the facts that he has alleged. Despite Trump’s denials, the argument that Michael Cohen paid $175,000 to Stormy Daniels on his own does not seem credible. There surely was an understanding that Trump would reimburse Cohen for the payments. We do not know why the payments to Stormy Daniels were made by Michael Cohen. I suspect that someone (maybe Michael Cohen) suggested structuring the payments that way to prevent a paper trail back to Trump, so that he could plausibly deny paying hush money to a porn actress if the payment became public.

But why were those payments “unlawful” or “fraudulent?” Who even knew about and could have been misled by the false business records at the time of the election? How would Trump even know about the obscure New York Election Law § 17.152 provision that he is being accused of intentionally concealing? These are fundamental problems with the legal theory underlying the case.

But if it would have been legal for Trump to have paid Stormy Daniels directly, then disguising the payments through Michael Cohen did not show an “intent to . . . conceal another crime,” nor a conspiracy to “unlawfully” influence an election. The District Attorney’s case is now based on three criminal statutes all of which depend on separate frauds or crimes that have not been clearly alleged or proven.

Where does the case go from here. The outcome of the trial will likely depend on Judge Merchan’s jury instructions. Will Judge Merchan’s instructions require the jury to identify the specific fraud and independent unlawful act made to influence the election separate from the business records falsification, or will the instructions only require proof that Trump tried to hide his hush money payments to influence the election, ignoring the requirement to clearly identify a separate fraud and unlawful act.

If Trump is convicted, will Judge Merchan sentence him to prison on a first-time non-violent Class E felony, creating a constitutional crisis in the middle of the election? Or merely give him probation and leave him free to rail against the corrupt judicial process while appealing his conviction. If the judge sentences Trump to prison, will it be upheld on appeal? And if Trump goes to prison, what happens to the election?

If the Democratic Party thought that this prosecution would benefit their election, I think they blundered badly. Trump is benefitting from the publicity, successfully portraying himself as the victim of a political witch hunt. Ultimately, the election will not be decided by the courts. Trump could run for and be elected president whether he’s convicted and sent to jail or not. And the greater the penalty, the more likely he will win the election. Knowing that they can’t knock Trump out of the race, what is the prosecution’s end game?

College of Law Celebrates the Class of 2024 Commencement

May 7, 2024

Judge Graves delivering the commencement remarks from the podium — Commencement Speaker the Hon. James E. Graves Jr. G’80, L’80, U.S. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Syracuse University College of Law recently held Commencement exercises for the Class of 2024. The Class of 2024 includes 208 recipients of the J.D. degree, 26 LL.M. graduates, and one S.J.D. degree .

Class of 2024 Commencement Speaker the Hon. James E. Graves Jr. G’80, L’80, U.S. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, said, in part, “Begin each day expecting that the world owes you nothing, because it doesn’t, and then you will be delighted with every kind word, every helping hand, and every little smile, which is given to you during the day. Remember that as you go through life you will inevitably encounter and interact with people. You’re making memories for those people. Make those memories, those moments, positive.”

Dean Craig M. Boise awards a diploma to an LL.M. graduate

Dean Craig M. Boise said to the Class “In a world that is increasingly characterized by division, injustice, and inequality, the need for principled, compassionate, and courageous advocates has never been greater. You are the future leaders of the legal profession, and the challenges that lie ahead will require vision, integrity, and a steadfast commitment to justice. Let your actions speak louder than words and let your commitment to justice be a beacon of hope in a world that is often filled with darkness.”

Professor Kelly Curtis received an award from Omnia Shedid — Teaching Professor and Associate Dean of Academic and Bar Success Kelly Curtis receiving the Res Ipsa Loquitor Award.

During Commencement, the J.D. Class of 2024 awarded Teaching Professor and Associate Dean of Academic and Bar Success Kelly Curtis the Res Ipsa Loquitor Award (voted upon by the graduating class in recognition of a faculty member who has demonstrated exceptional commitment and service to the College of Law) and Assistant Director of Student Experience Vicki Donella the Staff Award (voted upon by the graduating class in recognition of a College of Law staff member in recognition of their support of students and faculty, and their accomplishments that make the College run day-to-day.)

Students gather in their caps and gowns during the 2024 commencement ceremony

The LL.M. Class of 2024 awarded Associate Professor of Law Jenny Breen the Lucet Lex Mundum Award (voted upon by the graduating LL.M. class, it recognizes the professor who has made a significant impact on the success and experiences of LL.M. students during their studies.)

Academics from Adam Mickiewicz University Visit the College of Law for Research Projects

May 7, 2024

The College of Law’s Memorandum of Understanding with Adam Mickiewicz University (AMU) in Poznań, Poland continues to provide opportunities for academic collaboration between the Universities. Most recently, three academics from AMU spent a few days in Syracuse between stops in Washington, DC, and New York City as part of their research trip to the United States, possible thanks to financing through the Polish National Research Centre. The visit to Syracuse was facilitated by the College of Law’s Office of International Programs.

The visitors were:

Igor Gontarz, a Ph.D. student at the Doctoral School of Social Sciences of AMU, where he is preparing a dissertation under the supervision of Professor Dr. Hab. Wojciech Piątek [1]. His scientific interests focus on the automated activity of public administration (especially towards the citizen), the issues of judicial review of algorithmic decision-making, and challenging automated activity. He is the principal investigator in the research project “Control of Automated Decision-making Systems Employed in Administrative Proceedings” and a team member on the project devoted to “Appealability of Administrative Court Judgments”.

Professor Wojciech Piątek is a professor of administrative law and procedure at AMU. He has authored more than 100 papers focused on administrative, administrative enforcement and court administrative proceedings from the European, comparative, and national (Polish) legal perspectives. He is the principal investigator in research projects devoted to supervision over courts and judges, appealability of administrative court judgments, and simplifications in administrative proceedings in Visegrad Countries.

Michał Szudrowicz is a Ph.D. student at the Doctoral School of Social Sciences at AMU, where he is preparing a dissertation under the supervision of Professor Dr. Hab. Andrzej Skoczylas, who is a Polish Supreme Administrative Court judge. His scholarly interests focus on communication between courts and society as well as the operation of the open justice principle (with particular reference to administrative courts). He is a team member on the research project “Appealability of Administrative Court Judgments”.

Their visit to the College of Law started with a tour of the Law Library where they were given information on research services they could use for their scholarship by Christine Demetros, Assistant Director for Student Learning. Then Professor Piątek attended Professor Keli Perrin’s L’04 Regulatory Law and Policy class.

“Professor Piątek gave a brief overview of how administrative law is structured in Poland. Poland is a civil law country with a Supreme Administrative Court and a Constitutional Tribunal. The United States has a common law legal system and neither of those courts. It was a wonderful comparative law discussion,” says Perrin.

Gontarz and Szudrowicz presented on their dissertation topics to a group of College of Law students and faculty. Later, the group was hosted by the Hon. Thérèse Wiley Dancks L’91, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of New York, for an informal discussion about the federal court system and the court system in Poland.

The visitors finished the day by attending Professor Brian Gerling’s L’99 Technology Law and Innovation Practice class.

Their second day began with a meeting with University Professor David Driesen, who visited AMU to research Poland’s democratic decline for his book, “The Specter of Dictatorship: Judicial Enabling of Presidential Power.”

“Since my visit, the opposition to the autocratic Law and Justice Party has taken control of the Parliament, so I was eager to learn more about how the process of restoring democracy was going. I learned a lot about that in speaking with Professor Piątek and his students. And I was pleased to be able to share some details about our administrative law system relevant to their research,” says Driesen.

The formal part of their visit concluded with Professor Piątek delivering a lecture together with Dr. Kamil Joński, from SGH Warsaw School of Economics to the College of Law faculty on “New” versus “Old” judges in the Polish Supreme Administrative Court – is it important which judge adjudicates your case?

An important part of the visit to the College of Law was the opportunity for the visitors to casually meet and interact with ISPL students during breaks by using the Institute for Security Policy and Law (ISPL) as a workspace, kindly provided by ISPL Director the Hon. Jamie Baker.

“You might not think there would be a lot of crossovers between administrative law professors and students and national security, but we had a lot of discussions pertinent to the rule of law and democracy,” says Faculty Fellow Maria Cudowska. ““One of the reasons why ISPL is a great hub for international visitors are the people who work here. Our research assistants are an invaluable asset of the College of Law community, they are deeply invested in creating a collegial and collaborative environment.”

Because their visit was so short, it would be hard to make connections and rapport with College of Law students and faculty if not for the ISPL.

“I have to give credit to the ISPL research assistants who went above and beyond in making our visitors feel welcome. The Ph.D. students are about the same age as the law students so that made a difference for both sides in establishing relationships,” says Cudowska.

The AMU visitors found their brief stay in Syracuse very beneficial to their scholarship and created lasting connections with faculty and students.

“The aim of our stay was exclusively scholarly. Our goal was focused on presenting our research whilst learning from our American counterparts by attending classes and performing library research on the system of appealing administrative decisions of administrative bodies (agencies) to the American courts (both at federal and state levels) as well as how the judiciary and public administration are open to citizens’ needs (mainly at the courts level – the idea of open justice) and to what extend they are digitalized (mainly at the public administration level in issuing and controlling of automated decisions.)

In reality, we received much more information than we expected. The consultations with Professors Driesen and Perrin gave us a deep view of the American administrative procedure and judiciary. The discussions had both a theoretical and a practical perspective. We got to learn many details that are not easily accessible in books. The same impression is connected with the presentations that we gave to professors and students.

In addition, research done in the library was entirely useful. We had an opportunity to go through electronic and manual sources and collected a broad array of materials and documents that now are a remarkable point for studying American administrative procedural law.

The social component of our short stay in Syracuse is worth stressing. We met many friendly scholars who offered us their time and company coffee in the Institute for Security Policy and Law as well as caps and scarfs from the Syracuse University store that were useful during the freezing Syracuse days.

Undoubtedly, we will keep in mind all our experiences from Syracuse with a hope for a comeback!” said the visitors from AMU.

[1] Habilitated doctor (Eng.), doktor habilitowany (PL). An academic degree awarded to a person who holds a doctoral degree; has scientific or artistic achievements, which constitute a significant contribution to the development of a specific discipline, Act of 20 July 2018, the Law on Higher Education and Science
Place of publication: (Dz. U. z 2023 r. poz. 742, z późn. zm.)

Prof. Wojciech Piątek, Igor Gontarz, Michał Szudrowicz

Pursuing the American Dream: From A Village in Egypt to Law School in Syracuse

May 3, 2024

Omnia sitting in a white chair in front of a window background

Omnia Shedid L’24, ’24 M.P.A. (MAX) was born in a small, rural village in Egypt. As a child running through her grandparents’ corn fields, she never imagined she would one day walk the halls of the U.S. Capitol, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit while supporting work that would impact the lives of many Americans.

“As a girl, my village felt like my entire universe. I never thought I would graduate college, let alone have the experiences I have had at Syracuse Law,” says Shedid, who is a dual degree candidate also completing a master’s degree in public administration (M.P.A.) at the University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Omnia posing in front of the Maxwell School

“My upbringing did more than teach me how to overcome adversity. It instilled in me a passion for helping others, particularly through the law.”
Omnia Shedid L’24, ’24 M.P.A.

When she moved to the U.S. at age 6, her family settled in Baltimore. Shedid and her siblings were raised by a single mother who worked tirelessly to make ends meet but still found time to study for her U.S. citizenship exam—demonstrating the kind of work ethic that has inspired Shedid’s discipline throughout law school.

“Growing up poor, you learn quickly how valuable helping others can be. And, growing up as an immigrant in America, you learn that disadvantaged communities are the first to be affected by harmful implications of certain laws and policies, yet they are the last to receive support in navigating the circumstances caused by those implications,” says Shedid. “My upbringing did more than teach me how to overcome adversity. It instilled in me a passion for helping others, particularly through the law.”

“Syracuse Law has allowed me to explore the intersection of law and policy, and, while that has sometimes been challenging, it has been rewarding to learn how these two disciplines can work together to improve people’s lives,” she adds.

A graduate of Towson University with a bachelor’s degree in political science, Shedid took a few years off before deciding on law school. When she made the decision to pursue a law degree, Syracuse Law impressed her with the opportunity to earn a joint degree in law and public administration, something few other universities offered. Shedid was also fascinated with the various legal clinics and experiential learning opportunities that the School offered.

Today, she is president of the Class of 2024, a member of the Advocacy Honor Society’s Trial and Alternative Dispute Resolution divisions and a Notes and Comments editor for the Journal of Science and Technology Law.

Last year, she worked at the Betty and Michael D. Wohl Veterans Legal Clinic, helping veterans access much needed resources. She also took on two prestigious summer internships. In 2022, Shedid served as one of three Judge William C. Clifton Sr. law clerks at the Office of the Attorney General of Rhode Island. The following summer, she worked at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which was made possible by the support of the Syracuse Public Interest Network grant.

Shedid credits many professors for guiding her along the way, particularly Professor Aliza Milner, who is the director of legal communication and research.

“Professor Milner met me as a confused, lost first-year law student and helped me find my way,” says Shedid. “Since then, she has taught me how to advocate for myself and those around me. She is an inspiring attorney and one of the most encouraging teachers I’ve ever had. I feel very fortunate to have learned from her.”

Shedid will graduate this spring with a dual degree and a job waiting for her as an honors attorney with the U.S. government—bringing together her interest in law and public policy.

“My late grandfather once told me ‘You must always think about the people around you, and you must treat them with kindness and compassion,’ and that is what studying law and policy means to me. I want to ensure that the law is accessible to people and that it empowers and protects them. I care a lot about this country, and I believe it deserves leaders and policies that serve everyone,” she says. “I am grateful for the experiences I’ve had at Syracuse Law that have prepared me for the attorney and leader I hope to be, while allowing me to serve my fellow classmates and the Syracuse community.”

Omnia walking up the steps in front of the Maxwell School and looking behind her

3L Came to Syracuse Law With an “Anything Is Possible” Attitude That Has Led Him to Numerous Opportunities

May 3, 2024

You’d think becoming the first lawyer in your family would be accomplishment enough, but that is just one item on a long list of achievements for Nathanael Linton L’24. His “anything is possible” attitude has opened many doors over the past three years as a residential student at Syracuse University College of Law.

One of the things that attracted the Middleton, New York, native and former charter school teacher to Syracuse Law was the wide range of clinics, clubs, externships and other activities available to him. When he was accepted to Syracuse Law with a merit scholarship, he knew he had to make the most of his time, not only in his pursuit of international law but also with as many other opportunities he could fit into his already demanding schedule.

Over the past three years, he’s done just that. Linton is a member of the Travis H.D. Lewin Advocacy Honor Society’s trial and appellate divisions; managing editor of the Journal for Global Rights, member of the Student Bar Association; and research assistant helping national security expert Professor Emeritus William C. Banks.

“From when I was a little kid, I told my mom I wanted to be a lawyer—and maybe one day sit on the Supreme Court. My parents did push me to do great things, and their sacrifice and dedication have given me the room to develop an optimistic outlook on things and be grateful for every opportunity.”
Nathanael Linton L’24

Linton has also had some valuable externships over the summer breaks, which included working as a judicial intern for Judge Daniel J. Yablonsky L’86 in 2023, where he focused on the domestic violence docket in family law in New Jersey; and, in the fall of 2023, as a legal extern with the SUNY Upstate Office of General Counsel. This semester, he is working at the Onondaga County District Attorney’s Office.

Linton reaches for a book on a library shelf

One of the most exciting opportunities Linton has received, however, was being named the 2023-2024 student representative to Syracuse University’s board of trustees. His responsibilities include writing three to four reports to the trustees, updating them about current issues at the law school and keeping them apprised of various student issues. He sits in on executive board meetings, as well as takes part in the Student Experience Subcommittee and the Academic Affairs Subcommittee.

“It’s really a privilege to interact with people who want to see all aspects of Syracuse University thrive, while also advocating for the law school,” Linton says. “It’s been an amazing experience and has allowed me to develop an even larger skillset.”

Linton looks down at a folder while sitting at a desk

Linton credits his parents for his eagerness to grab on to every opportunity in his path. “From when I was a little kid, I told my mom I wanted to be a lawyer—and maybe one day sit on the Supreme Court. My parents did push me to do great things, and their sacrifice and dedication have given me the room to develop an optimistic outlook on things and be grateful for every opportunity,” he says, noting that one of his proudest days was being able to give his parents a tour of the Court of Appeals in Albany, New York. “I think that’s when it hit them that I was really on my way to being a lawyer.”

He credits the many experiences he has had over the past three years at Syracuse Law for “preparing me to meet the challenges ahead by giving me a solid foundation to build upon.”

Linton is also grateful to the faculty, alumni, classmates and others who have guided and mentored him along the way, particularly Teaching Professor Aliza Milner, who helped him during the process of applying for externships and wrote him a stellar letter of recommendation. “I consider her a mentor because she takes the time to meet with me and encourage me—and that’s an awesome thing,” he says.

As he prepares to graduate, Linton is looking forward to his next chapter—clerking for the New York State Court of Appeals on the Central Legal Research Staff as a staff attorney. His role will involve making recommendations to judges on whether or not to grant motions to appeal.

Eventually, he hopes to pursue a federal clerkship at the appellate level or go into appellate practice. One possible dream job is to work for the Office of the Solicitor General, and then possibly private practice at some point. And, because he will continue to believe that “anything is possible,” he’s not giving up on getting to the Supreme Court one day.

Linton in his cap and gown on the Syracuse University campus