About

Christine N. Cimini is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Mediation Clinic at the University of Washington School of Law. She teaches courses on Mediation, Alternative Dispute Resolution with a focus on Restorative Justice, and Negotiation, and leads the university's Professional Mediation Skills Training each fall. Her scholarly research concentrates on lawyers and social change, access to justice, early conflict intervention, and alternative theories of justice. Prior to her current position, she served as the Associate Dean of Research and Faculty Development and a Professor at Vermont Law School, as well as Ronald V. Yegge Clinical Director and an Associate Professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. She was also a visiting faculty member at Cornell University Law School and a Robert M. Cover Fellow in Clinical Teaching at Yale Law School. Her work has been published in numerous law reviews and journals, and she has received recognition for her contributions to clinical legal education. Professor Cimini designs and trains academic leaders to effectively engage and resolve conflicts, providing multiple training courses annually.

Research topics

• Law
• Political science
• Law and economics
• Sociology
• Pedagogy

Selected publications

• Scholarship with Purpose: The View from a Mission-Driven School

  Touro law review · 2015-01-01

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding
  Publisher

• (Re-)Designing a Clinic Using Backwards Design

  eYLS (Yale Law School) · 2015-01-01

  article

  May 5-6, 2015This workshop is a four-part, interactive program that covers the beginning phases of developing a new clinic or revising an existing one. During the workshop, participants will use backwards design, an approach to instructional design and planning pioneered by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe. By the end of the workshop, participants can expect to have identified the major goals of their clinics, the final grading assessment and rubric of their clinics, and the learning outcomes for their students. Readings will be assigned before the conference. Then, throughout the workshop, participants will receive feedback from colleagues and facilitators on the work they do during the workshop. Participants will apply for a spot in the workshop before the conference and must commit to attend the entire workshop. In addition to the other information in the application, applicants should also indicate the course that they would like to redesign and the reasons for the redesign.

  Publisher

• Experience the Future: Papers from the Second National Symposium on Experiential Education in Law: Alliance for Experiential Learning in Law

  2014-01-01 · 1 citations

  article

  On June 13-15, 2014, the Second National Symposium on Experiential Educa­tion in Law took place in Greensboro, North Carolina. The Alliance for Experi­ential Learning in Law and Elon University School of Law hosted the symposium, with the support of Northeastern University School of Law. Presenters included professors and practitioners across multiple disciplines, in­cluding business, medicine, and architecture, and they shared their insights about the value of experiential education in their fields. Working groups from the Alliance for Experiential Learning in Law also presented their findings and distributed a set of working papers, which eventually culminated into this re­port. The report covers research in six areas of experiential warning, including defining a vision and mission for the experiential education movement, track­ing the developing rhetoric of experiential education, studying cost and sus­tainability measures for experiential legal education, integrating experiential warning into the law school curriculum, establishing creative initiatives at law schools, and integrating with the profession.

  Publisher

• Hands off Our Fingerprints: State, Local, and Individual Defiance of Federal Immigration Enforcement

  OpenCommons - UConn (University of Connecticut) · 2014-04-08 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Secure Communities, though little-known outside law-enforcement circles, is one of the most powerful of the federal government’s immigration enforcement programs. Under Secure Communities, fingerprints collected by state and local law enforcement and provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for criminal background checks are automatically shared with the Department of Homeland Security, which checks the fingerprints against its immigration database. In the event of a match, an immigration detainer can be issued and an individual held after they would otherwise be entitled to release. Originally designed as a voluntary program in which local governments could choose to participate, the Department of Homeland Security now mandates local participation in Secure Communities. Though admittedly an efficient mechanism to check immigration status, the program and its local implementation create a variety of tensions. Many local police are concerned that community trust, often essential to effective policing, is eroded when the police operate as an arm of immigration enforcement. In some jurisdictions, the program may encourage racial profiling and, in others, jail budgets are stretched as localities absorb the costs of housing those with immigration holds. And, as pointed out by many localities, despite being touted as a program that prioritizes the removal of those who pose a danger to national security or public safety, data shows that approximately twothirds of the detainers issued targeted individuals with either no record of conviction or conviction for minor offenses. In this Article, I examine Secure Communities from the perspective of state and local governments and individuals seeking to defy mandatory program participation. I explore this local defiance from the stage at which immigration enforcement is set in motion, the sharing of fingerprints information by localities with the federal government. I first analyze the implications for state and local governments by balancing preemption and anticommandeering concepts in the context of state and local defiance of the federally mandated program. I then analyze the implications for individuals by exploring the tensions between privacy and efficiencies inherent in government information sharing, and address whether the Federal Privacy Act protects individuals from improper fingerprint disclosure. I resolve that a number of legally viable options exist to enable state and local government defiance, as well as individual defiance, but that each option has limitations. I conclude that the Secure Communities mandate overlooks constitutional, statutory, and practical considerations and that the sharing requirement should be voluntary rather than compulsory.

  PublisherOA PDF

• Creative Initiatives at U.S. Law Schools

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2014-06-13 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Creative initiatives and programs that address problems in legal education are underway at many law schools. Some are entirely new in design and aim, running the gamut from full programs to individual innovative courses. Other initiatives build on or give new direction to existing programs, such as clinics and externships. Others are designed to address the costs and time commitment associated with a traditional three-year JD. The breadth and variety of these many efforts signal that law schools hear, take seriously, and are responding to criticisms being leveled at legal education. This report begins the process of identifying and cataloging creative programmatic initiatives in law schools. It organizes the efforts into seven categories: — requirements or guarantees of experiential education opportunities — simulation/observation courses; — structured experiential programs; — the establishment of Deans/Directors/Chairs and/or Centers/Programs focused on experiential education; — pro bono and public interest initiatives with experiential components; — post-graduation innovations; and — multi-disciplinary approaches.The authors, from five different law schools, were the Working Group on Creative Initiatives of the Alliance for Experiential Learning in Law. The reports of six working groups — including this one — were presented at the Second National Symposium on Experiential Education in Law;, held at Elon University School of Law, June 13-15, 2014.

  Publisher

• Concurrent Session 4B. Advancing Shared Social Justice Goals Through Community-Based Teaching, Learning, and Service Programs

  2012-01-01

  article

  Describes and examines several different models of community-based teaching, learning and service, including: a traditional community economic development clinic, a clinical model rooted in community self-direction, and a law school wide services learning project. We will reflect on our own experiences in attempting to build meaningful and productive relationships with local and national community groups, and on the challenges involved in mediating the relationships among various community, university and political stakeholders. In particular, we will address the processes of establishing principles of engagement and of building infrastructure to support the continued success of community partnerships and examine whether service learning projects might provide a means by which law schools can provide clinical legal education for all law graduates.

  Publisher

• Undocumented Workers and Concepts of Fault: Are Courts Engaged in Legitimate Decisionmaking?

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2012-03-06 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  This Article examines judicial decisionmaking in labor and employment cases involving undocumented workers. Labor and employment laws, designed to protect all workers regardless of immigration status, often conflict with immigration laws designed to deter the employment of undocumented workers. In the absence of clarity as to how these differing policy priorities should interact, courts are left to resolve the conflict. While existing case law appears to lack coherence, this Article identifies a uniform judicial reliance upon “fault-based” factors. This Article offers a structure to understand this developing body of law and evaluates the legitimacy of the fault-based decisionmaking modalities utilized by courts. Though concepts of fault are not uncommon in law, when evaluating these cases courts tend to examine immigration-related fault as opposed to fault stemming from the underlying workplace claim. Using the taxonomy rooted in the Supreme Court’s 2002 Hoffman decision, courts employ two constructs in cases involving undocumented workers: past fault as it relates to unlawful immigration, continued unlawful presence in the country or fraud to obtain work; and future fault as it relates to the potential for prospective illegal acts.This Article explores whether courts’ use of these fault concepts provide legitimate bases upon which to make decisions and concludes that decisional legitimacy depends on the fault-based modality used by the court. Future “fault-based” decisionmaking effectuates legislative intent in a manner sufficient to satisfy separation of powers principles. Past “fault-based” decisions, unrooted in existing legal doctrine, constitute unchecked judicial policymaking that may violate separation of powers principles. In the middle are past fault-based decisions that are rooted in existing doctrine but are inappropriately applied in the undocumented worker context because of the insufficient nexus between the immigration wrong and the injury.The Article concludes that the attempt to effectuate immigration policy through the application of immigration fault into labor and employment cases can be an impermissible exercise of judicial authority.

  Publisher

• Ask, Don't Tell: Ethical Issues Surrounding Undocumented Workers' Status in Employment Litigation

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2008-06-06

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  The presence of an estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, of which an estimated 7.2 million are working, has become a flashpoint in the emerging national debate about immigration. Given these statistics, it is not surprising that many undocumented workers suffer injuries in the workplace that are typically legally cognizable. Even though undocumented workers are entitled to a number of legal remedies related to their employment, seeking legal relief often raises heightened concerns about the disclosure of their status. This article explores lawyers' increasingly complex ethical obligations with regard to a client's immigration status in the context of employment litigation. The complexity regarding the nature and scope of a lawyer's obligation is due, in large part, to two recent developments. The first is the United States Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. National Labor Relations Board, in which the Court addressed the scope of lawful relief due to an injured undocumented worker and ultimately left open the question of relevancy of immigration status in general civil litigation. The second factor creating this complexity relates to existing legislation that criminalizes various acts by undocumented immigrants as well as the ongoing legislative debates regarding immigration reform which have included proposals to criminalize the mere status of undocumented immigrants. This article addresses both of these developments in the context of lawyers' ethical obligations and analyzes several questions. First, in light of ethical prohibitions on lawyers assisting in conduct that is criminal or fraudulent, are there any ethical limitations upon a lawyer's ability to represent undocumented workers in employment litigation? Second, once representing an undocumented worker, how do lawyers balance their duty of confidentiality against disclosure obligations? And, finally, despite this article's conclusion that the ethical rules do not mandate disclosure of a client's immigration status, this article explores the strategy of disclosure and whether the decision to disclose belongs to the lawyer or the client. In light of the potentially catastrophic consequences of an improperly made disclosure, lawyers need to be mindful of the special ethical obligations that arise when representing undocumented workers in employment related civil litigation. The article proposes a framework and analysis to guide lawyers through these difficult ethical quandaries.

  Publisher

• Principles of Non-Arbitrariness: Lawlessness in the Administration of Welfare

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2005-12-01 · 3 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  This article explores whether there exists a concept of non-arbitrariness that imposes limitations on the administration of welfare benefits without rules, regulations, policies or procedures. To address this question, the article examines the concept of non-arbitrariness within various jurisprudential doctrines and the potential applicability of the concept to limit arbitrary governmental action in the welfare context. In each of the areas where courts regulate arbitrary governmental action, underlying judicial concerns give rise to jurisprudential principles. Four principles stand out. First, at a minimum, there must be a rational relationship between the government’s ends and the means it chooses to reach those ends. Second, clear standards must exist so that individuals are able to conform their conduct according to a predictable system. Third, the rules and standards that do exist must be equally and fairly applied. And finally, the government must be accountable, and courts must be able to review governmental action to determine its legality. The article’s primary goal is to demonstrate that the concept of non-arbitrariness is foundational to American law and has some relevance for a welfare program that is administered without rules or standards. Specifically, the concept of non-arbitrariness and the requirement of rules and standards that are fairly and equitably applied create a necessary foundation from which other rights may flow. Courts may not move toward a broad prohibition against arbitrary action affecting welfare recipients any time soon, but they may be willing to regulate certain governmental action or inaction through concepts of non-arbitrariness. Ultimately, the article concludes that a welfare program being administered at the local level without any rules, regulations, policies or procedures is an instance where courts should be willing to regulate governmental arbitrariness. The appropriate remedy would be one that traditional constitutional procedural due process and administrative law remedies have not clearly provided - namely, a requirement that governments have rational rules and standards that are applied fairly and equitably.

  Publisher

• The New Contract: Welfare Reform, Devolution and Due Process

  Maryland law review · 2002-01-01 · 2 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  This Article analyzes the due process implications of the change in welfare administration from a federal statutory entitlement model to the devolved contractual model and posits that, despite the changes, due process protections still exist. These protections arise from the private law of contracts on two different levels.The first level is the macro, or implied, contract, that I refer to as the social contract between the government and the populace. The existence of this social contract is evidenced in numerous sources including: political theories that explore the use of governmental authority; foundational democratic legal sources, such as the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution; and the body of social contract rhetoric that permeates social welfare discourse.Finding support to determine that a social contract between the government and the populace does exist, this Article then explores the terms of the social contract and concludes that at a minimum the social contract insures the government will not act in an arbitrary manner.The second level is the micro, or express, contract encompassing the terms of the agreement between the recipient and the government. These contracts take the form of Individual Responsibility Plans (IRPs) or Individual Responsibility Contracts (IRCs) that are created by welfare caseworkers and govern the terms of assistance. This Article suggests that these agreements can be construed as legally cognizable contracts between the government and each recipient. As such, the IRPs can constitute “property” requiring the applicant of procedural due process protections pursuant to the 14th amendment to the Constitution. This Article ultimately concludes that both the macro and micro elements of the devolved contractual model create a new basis of due process protections for welfare recipients.

  Publisher

Frequent coauthors

• Stephen Ellmann

  New York Law School

  2 shared

• Robert L. Jones

  Northern Illinois University

  2 shared

• Susan L. Brooks

  2 shared

• Margaret Martin Barry

  Vermont Law and Graduate School

  2 shared

• Roberto L. Corrada

  2 shared

• Cynthia F. Adcock

  2 shared

• Josephine Roß

  University of Dundee

  1 shared

• Carwina Weng

  1 shared

Awards & honors

• Robert M. Cover Fellow in Clinical Teaching at Yale Law Scho…
• Clinical Legal Education Association (CLEA) Award for Excell…