ILNews

Valparaiso building restored to house Lawyering Skills Center

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Looking at old photographs of a building on a northwestern Indiana campus built in the late 1800s and comparing it with a view of the same building from the school’s website, one would be hard pressed to find any major differences, at least on the outside.

But the inside of Heritage Hall, named for a music professor and one of the oldest buildings on the campus of Valparaiso University, has been redesigned as the law school’s Lawyering Skills Center and will soon welcome the Valparaiso University School of Law Clinical Program back to its old location.

The building will include space for students to learn and participate in pre-trial skills, trial practice, appellate advocacy, dispute resolution, moot court, mock trial, client counseling, negotiation, externships, arbitration, and pro bono work.

heritage hall Heritage Hall at Valparaiso University was one of the oldest buildings on campus until it was torn down, above, in 2009. (Submitted photo)

By the end of September, all construction will be done except for a few minor details. The furniture is due in early October, which is when technology will be installed. By mid-October, the law clinic will have moved back into Heritage Hall and out of the modular offices – a.k.a. doublewide mobile homes – where they’ve been for the last year.

Heritage Hall, built in 1875, has had a number of purposes, including a boarding house, a library, a building for music classes, and other uses over the years.

The building is adjacent to the law school’s current building, Wesemann Hall, built in 1986. When it was built, said Valparaiso University School of Law Associate Dean Curt Cichowski, who has overseen the Heritage Hall project, the law school didn’t include space for a clinic.

“It was an old building on campus and not maintained very well,” he said.

Sandy Tengblad, associate director of Clinical Services, agreed.

“The law clinic has always been in an old building that has seen better days,” she said via e-mail. “Since I started in 1983, we went from Lembke Hall across the lawn to Heritage Hall. Heritage Hall, as it stood when we moved in, was a beautiful building from the outside, with lots of character. When you walked inside, you could tell it had been through stages of renovations. You saw ’60s paneling, mixed with ’80s carpeting, sprinkled with a hodgepodge of furniture confiscated from the basement of the law school.”

The aesthetic issues weren’t the only problems in Heritage Hall.

“In the old building, the paint on the walls was bubbled and peeling. The stairway was narrow and steep. The brick was crumbling. We had bees, ladybugs, bats, and mice,” she said. “The floors had large bumps under the carpet, which were actually supports that helped hold up the building. We had no storage space. The windows leaked. There were retired wires throughout the building, both inside and out. Limited space to hold class. Clients were able to roam the building without any supervision. The only handicap access was to enter through the director’s office.”

The clinical program, which helps clients with criminal, civil, juvenile, domestic violence, tax, sports law, wrongful conviction cases, and mediations, helps about 700 clients every year. It has been in Heritage Hall since 1987, with the exception of the past year.

Heritage Hall The school worked with architects to recreate it to specifications of the historic building, as shown in the mid-1900s. (Submitted photo)

It was the clinic’s annual fundraiser that got the attention of a descendant of two early graduates of the law school. While not a lawyer herself, she wanted to preserve the history of the school, including her relatives’ time there in the early 1900s.

The donor started working with the law school on the project about four years ago. She helped raise a little more than half of the needed $9 million for the restoration project, Cichowski said, and the rest of the funding came from other donors.

During the early phases of the project, when the two main goals were to preserve the historic aspects of the building while adding modern amenities for the school, there was bad news and worse news.

Structural engineers said the building was in bad shape, he said. The restrooms, which were not a part of the original building, had issues, and the building never had grounded power.

“The worst news was that the bricks weren’t structurally sound,” he said. “The engineers joked with us that the roof was the only thing still holding the building together.”

The compromise was a building design “that to the inch was built to the exact specifications of Heritage Hall. The building was disassembled, and we harvested some of the bricks and original timbers,” he said.

The bricks were then reused as part of the new building’s interior, and the old timbers were made into benches and details in building.

After a year of construction, Cichowski said he loved the end result for a number of reasons.

“The law school building was built in 1986, and it looks like it was built 1986. But this building looks like it belongs on a college campus. The only difference was we couldn’t put the third floor back to what it was, but we designed a façade to look like it,” he said.

Curt Cichowski Cichowski

The back of the building is an added wing for a trial skills center, which includes a teaching courtroom and conference rooms. The courtroom will include a jury box, counsel tables, and a bench, as well as “everything that exists in the greatest courtroom in the country,” he said.

“There will be document cameras, the ability to record, the ability to play and stream video, the ability to send video out. … If it technologically exists today, it’s in the courtroom,” he said.

Cameras and televisions will also be available in small client interview rooms so a student can interview a client, and with the client’s permission, the professor can record the interview and observe from another room. The professor can later use the recording to help show the student what she did right or what she would need to work on for future client interviews.

“If you think about it – in a law school it’s common to have classrooms for lecture halls, but all of the skills of being a lawyer – interviewing, intake, negotiations, arbitrations, all the things lawyers do on a daily basis – none of those large spaces support teaching and lawyering well,” he said. “… It doesn’t make sense for lessons about one-on-one interactions to take place in a classroom where the students need to pretend it’s really an office space.”

He added that authenticity in the clinical experience is key because it is “the greatest educational experience for a student. They are working with live clients, and there are usually just 10 students, so it’s like working for a small firm.”

Because it’s the “last remaining vestige of old campus,” he said, the building will also serve as a museum of what the old campus looked like – the original Valparaiso University. Old pictures and maps of the old campus will be among the items on display for visitors.

“I have been in the building several times during different stages of rebuild,” Tengblad said. “When you see the plans, it is just a picture on paper. To see it come to life is amazing. The building still has the same charm it had – only better. It is a modernized building, yet has the look of 100 years ago.

“Now, for the first time,” she added, “we will have a quality building that reflects the high-quality representation that is provided by the law clinic.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT