Rule2022-07543
Copyright Claims Board: Law Student and Business Entity Representation
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 8, 2022
Effective
May 9, 2022
Issuing agencies
Library of CongressCopyright Office, Library of Congress
Abstract
The U.S. Copyright Office is issuing a final rule establishing procedures governing the appearance of law student representatives and representatives of business entities in proceedings before the Copyright Claims Board.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 68 (Friday, April 8, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20707-20715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07543]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Parts 201, 232, and 234
[Docket No. 2021-9]
Copyright Claims Board: Law Student and Business Entity
Representation
AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is issuing a final rule establishing
procedures governing the appearance of law student representatives and
representatives of business entities in proceedings before the
Copyright Claims Board.
DATES: Effective May 9, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Efthimiadis, Assistant to the
General Counsel, by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ae7efecfecae9e5faf3f8e3ede2fea4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c5a8a0a3b185a6aab5bcb7aca2adb1eba2aab3">[email protected]</span></a>, or by telephone at
202-707-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (``CASE'')
Act of 2020 \1\ directs the Copyright Office (``Office'') to establish
the Copyright Claims Board (``CCB''), an alternative forum to federal
court in which parties may seek resolution of copyright disputes that
have a total monetary value of $30,000 or less.\2\ The CCB has the
authority to hear copyright infringement claims, claims seeking a
declaration of noninfringement, and misrepresentation claims under 17
U.S.C. 512(f).\3\ Participation in the CCB is voluntary for all parties
\4\ and all determinations are non-precedential.\5\ The CASE Act
directs the Register of Copyrights to establish the regulations by
which the CCB will conduct its proceedings, subject to the provisions
of chapter 15 and relevant principles of law under title 17 of the
United States Code.\6\ The CASE Act also provides that any party in a
CCB proceeding may be represented by ``a law student who is qualified
under applicable law governing representation by law students of
parties in legal proceedings and who provides such representation on a
pro bono basis.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 116-260, sec. 212, 134 Stat. 1182, 2176 (2020).
\2\ 17 U.S.C. 1502(a), 1504(e)(1)(D); see, e.g., H.R. Rep. No.
116-252, at 17-20 (2019); S. Rep. No. 116-105, at 11 (2019). Note,
the CASE Act legislative history cited is for H.R. 2426 and S. 1273,
the CASE Act of 2019, a bill nearly identical to the CASE Act of
2020. See H.R. 2426, 116th Cong. (2019); S. 1273, 116th Cong.
(2019).
\3\ 17 U.S.C. 1504(c)(1)-(3).
\4\ See id. at 1504(a); H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 17, 21; S.
Rep. No. 116-105, at 3, 11.
\5\ 17 U.S.C. 1507(a)(3); H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 21-22, 33;
S. Rep. No. 116-105, at 14.
\6\ 17 U.S.C. 1506(a)(1).
\7\ Id. at 1506(d)(2); see also S. Rep. No. 116-105, at 4
(``Parties may also rely upon law school legal clinics to represent
them before the Board.''); H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 17 (``Parties
may . . . be represented . . . by a law student acting pro bono.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2021, the Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NPRM''), proposing regulations governing the representation of
parties
[[Page 20708]]
by qualified law students.\8\ To facilitate law student representation
before the CCB, the Office proposed setting threshold eligibility
requirements for law students and their supervising attorneys and
creating a voluntary public directory of law school clinics whose
students are available to represent clients before the CCB.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 86 FR 74394 (Dec. 30, 2021). Comments received in response
to the NPRM are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2021-0011-0001/comment">https://www.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2021-0011-0001/comment</a>. References to comments responding to
the NPRM are by party name (abbreviated where appropriate), followed
by ``Initial NPRM Comments'' or ``Reply NPRM Comments'' as
appropriate.
\9\ See id. at 74397-98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same NPRM also proposed regulations ``governing the
representation of corporations, limited liability companies,
partnerships, sole proprietorships, and other unincorporated
associations (collectively, `business entities')'' in CCB
proceedings.\10\ Considering the small claims nature of the CCB and the
fact that attorney representation is not mandatory, the Office proposed
that, in addition to attorneys or law students, business entities may
be represented in a CCB proceeding by a fiduciary or properly
authorized employee, and proposed requirements that these
representatives must follow.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at 74394.
\11\ Id. at 74397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed regulations,
except as discussed in the sections below, and offered many suggestions
that the Office is adopting in the final rule. Based on the comments
received, the final rule will expand the scope of law student
participation in CCB proceedings in several ways. The prerequisites for
law students to appear before the CCB have been adjusted to provide law
clinics more discretion. In addition, law students will be permitted to
participate before the CCB not only through law school clinics but also
through pro bono legal services organizations that have a connection
with the student's law school. Accordingly, under the final rule, the
Office will provide a public directory of both participating law school
clinics and participating pro bono organizations. As in the proposed
rule, a clinic or organization will not be required to be on the
published CCB list to participate in CCB proceedings.
Commenters were also supportive of the proposed rule governing
business entity representation. The final rule adopts the proposed
rule's approach and permits business entities to be represented before
the CCB by in-house attorneys, fiduciaries, and employees expressly
authorized by the business entity to represent it in a particular
proceeding. The final rule also includes a revision to clarify that a
business entity's representative may submit a single valid
certification that will remain effective throughout a proceeding, but
such certification does not extend to future proceedings.
II. Discussion of Final Rule
A. Requirements for Law Student Representation
1. Law Student Representation Through Law School Clinics
Most comments addressing law student representation before the CCB
expressed support for the Office's proposed rule.\12\ A typical
comment, jointly submitted by ``Law School Faculty With an Interest in
CCB Procedures'' (``Law School Faculty''), including professors and
clinic directors from eight law schools, stated ``[t]he Proposed
Regulations properly take into consideration the need to ensure the
quality of law student representation and the corresponding burdens
placed on the law clinics and supervising attorneys.'' \13\ Many
commenters further wrote in favor of expanding opportunities for
student representation beyond the law school clinic environment, as
further discussed below.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Law School Faculty With an Interest in CCB Procedures
Initial NPRM Comments at 1-2 (commenting parties include Brianna
Marie Christenson, Sabren Hassan Wahdan, Sandra Aistars, Amy Tang,
Philippa Loengard, Robert Brauneis, Melissa Eckhause, Jon M. Garon,
Laurie Kohn, Christopher Newman, Sean A. Pager, Zvi Rosen, Mark F.
Schultz) (``[L]aw school clinics will play an important role in
allowing parties to confidently pursue or defend their claims before
the CCB.'') (``Law School Faculty''); Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM
Comments at 1 (``a welcome new opportunity for law student
experiential learning and an important additional support of access
to justice in the realm of copyright law''); Norman Hedges Initial
NPRM Comments at 2; Joel Rothman Initial NPRM Comments at 1;
Anonymous Initial NPRM Comments; Sarah Mintz Reply NPRM Comments;
Anonymous II Reply NPRM Comments.
\13\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 1.
\14\ See id. at 6; Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 2;
Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 2-3; Copyright
Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 7; Copyright Alliance et
al. Reply NPRM Comments at 10 (``[I]n line with many other clinic
and professor authored comments, we again urge the Office to expand
the scope of law student participation to include other programs,
organizations, and groups that utilize law school students.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters requested that the Office consider defining the
term ``law school clinic'' and proposed using the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals Rule 48(a)(5) as a model.\15\ After considering the
variety of operating structures and practices employed by clinical
programs at law schools throughout the country,\16\ the Office declines
to provide a specific, limiting definition of the term, to avoid unduly
excluding capable clinics from participation.\17\ A participating law
student must comply with the applicable law of the jurisdiction that
certifies the student to practice law in conjunction with a law school
clinic. Further, the student's supervising attorney must also be
qualified to practice under applicable law and must certify the
student's eligibility to participate. The same commenters urged the
Office to ``allow law school clinics to set their own rules with regard
to the handling of costs'' \18\ when defining ``law school clinic.'' As
noted above, the Office does not purport to define that term at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 5-6; Copyright
Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 7; see DC App. R. 48,
<a href="https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/DCCA%20Rule%2048.pdf">https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/DCCA%20Rule%2048.pdf</a> (last visited March 28, 2022); see also
Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 2-4 (proposing
definition of ``clinic'' to include all education to assist with pro
bono legal representation, or to cover other law school educational
programs).
\16\ See generally Cynthia L. Dahl & Victoria F. Phillips,
Innovation and Tradition: A Survey of Intellectual Property and
Technology Legal Clinics, 25 Clinical L. Rev. 95, 137-47 (Fall
2018), <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3184486">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3184486</a>.
\17\ See Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 2
(cautioning against ``placing additional CCB-specific burdens on
clinic operations''); id. at 6 (identifying concerns related to the
role of ``faculty'' and ``fee-shifting'' in a potential definition
of ``law school clinic''); Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM
Comments at 3 (noting that Tulane Law School has a trademark and
patent lab but no formal intellectual property clinic, so its
students would likely be precluded from participating under the
proposed definition).
\18\ Law School Faculty Initial Comments at 6. The Office
understands the reference to ``costs'' to denote what are called
``court costs'' in litigation, such as filing fees and service-
related fees. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule did not include any limits on the number of
proceedings in which a law student representative or clinic may
participate. The Law School Faculty commenters asserted that the Office
may lack the authority to impose such a limit.\19\ The Office does not
include any limitations in this final rule, but it intends to address
the issue of limits, if any, on the number of proceedings that parties
and their representatives may bring over a 12-month period in a
separate rulemaking proceeding.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id. at 7.
\20\ See 86 FR 69890, 69917 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few commenters expressed reservations or opposition to law
student representation through clinics.
[[Page 20709]]
Notably, a comment submitted jointly by directors of 12 intellectual
property and technology law school clinics (``Technology & IP Clinical
Law Professors'') stated ``that CCB proceedings are not well-suited to
clinic participation.'' \21\ These commenters cited CASE Act provisions
that they believe limit the suitability of law school clinics'
participation in CCB proceedings. Specifically, they contend that the
voluntary nature of CCB proceedings,\22\ which permit a respondent to
``opt out'' and have the proceeding dismissed without prejudice at the
outset,\23\ provide few learning opportunities for the law school
clinic student.\24\ In the view of these 12 clinic directors, this opt-
out procedure poses ``significant limitations on the kinds of clients
that clinics can represent in CCB proceedings and the possibilities for
pedagogically sound learning opportunities for law student attorneys.''
\25\ Because the parties to a CCB proceeding that is dismissed after a
respondent opts out retain their rights to litigate in federal court,
these commenters explained that their clinics were not well situated to
engage in federal court copyright litigation in the event their
client's CCB claim is dismissed after the respondent opts out.\26\ They
expressed concern that ``[e]ven when cases present a viable set of
representational and pedagogical circumstances to proceed to
adjudication before the CCB, . . . the degree of complexity may be
beyond the capacity of our clinics to handle without taking matters out
of our law student attorneys' hands.'' \27\ Finally, noting the non-
precedential nature of CCB decisions, they observed that ``many clinics
aim to square their public service missions with their limited capacity
to serve deserving clients by taking on those whose cases are likely to
advance the state of the law more broadly and advance the interest of
others by setting precedent.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors Initial NPRM
Comments at 1 (commenting parties include Jonathan Askin, Lynda
Braun, Cynthia L. Dahl, Ron Lazebnik, Jack I. Lerner, Amanda
Levendowski, Phil Malone, Art Neill, Vicki Phillips, Jef Pearlman,
Blake E. Reid, Jason Schultz, and Erik Stallman); see also Southlaw
Ent. Initial NPRM Comments (``I am not for law students handling
these cases,'' considering the seriousness of the offenses and the
life-altering effect of a damages award ``if cases are
mishandled''); Trenton Seegert Initial NPRM Comments at 1
(supporting law student representation while urging the Office to
``be more concerned with ensuring that student representatives
exhibit the necessary and proper qualifications'').
\22\ 17 U.S.C. 1504(a).
\23\ Id. at 1506(i).
\24\ Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors Initial NPRM
Comments at 2.
\25\ Id. at 2.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id. at 4.
\28\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several reply comments responded directly to these concerns.\29\
Reply comments submitted by Law School Faculty (including the directors
of law school clinics) opined that the Technology & IP Clinical Law
Professors' comments ``seemed to more directly address the policy
considerations underlying the CASE Act as a whole,'' and were ``less
directly addresse[d to] the questions asked in the NPRM regarding the
procedures governing the appearance of law student representatives
before the CCB.'' With regard to those broader policy considerations,
the Law School Faculty reply comment noted that though ``the matters
raised by our colleagues are of deep concern to us as well . . . we do
not believe these questions are within the scope of this NPRM and urge
the [Office] to leave them within Congress's purview.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Law School Faculty Reply NPRM Comments at 2-3 (``We
likewise appreciate the thoughtful discussion and analysis offered
by the Technology and IP Clinical Professors concerning whether or
not they are likely to find cases they deem of appropriate
pedagogical value or how they would advise clients seeking their
services to use the CCB process.''); Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply
NPRM Comments at 4 (``The Reply Comment is written, in great part,
to respond to the thoughtful Comment by Technology and Intellectual
Property Clinical Law Professors . . . [who] brought up all of the
difficulties and problems they see in adding CCB representation to
their clinics.''); Joel Rothman Reply NPRM Comments at 2 (``I could
not disagree more with the IP Professors' view.'').
\30\ Law School Faculty Reply NPRM Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Joel Rothman suggested that respondents are less likely to
opt out than projected by the Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors'
comment. By example, Mr. Rothman noted that infringement claims related
to advertising uses of copyrighted works are likely to be covered by
commercial general liability insurance, suggesting that insurance
companies covering copyright claims for respondents have an incentive
to participate in CCB proceedings, which offer lower exposure to
significant damages and expenses than do cases before the federal
courts.\31\ While some commenters disagreed on whether CCB proceedings
would raise questions too complex for law student representatives, Mr.
Rothman pointed out that law school clinics routinely represent clients
in complicated legal fields such as taxation, immigration, workers'
compensation, social security disability, real estate, and bankruptcy
law.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Joel Rothman Reply NPRM Comments at 3. The Office takes no
view on any role that insurance may play in a respondent's decision
to respond to a claim or opt out of a CCB proceeding.
\32\ Id. at 4 (citing ABA, Directory of Law School Public
Interest & Pro Bono Programs, <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/center-pro-bono/resources/directory_of_law_school_public_interest_pro_bono_programs">https://www.americanbar.org/groups/center-pro-bono/resources/directory_of_law_school_public_interest_pro_bono_programs</a> (last
visited Mar. 28, 2022); see also Joel Rothman Initial NPRM Comments
at 1 (``In my experience, copyright law can be learned as required.
I never took an IP course in law school, yet that never stood in my
way.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law student representation is expressly envisioned by the CASE Act.
The Act aims to increase access to justice, and as intellectual
property law professor Marketa Trimble observed, ``law school clinics
typically provide an ideal setting for the type of representation
envisioned by the proposed rules.'' \33\ As stated in the NPRM,
``[c]onsistent with Congress's directive to develop a system that is
accessible to `those with little prior formal exposure to copyright
laws,' the Office is committed to facilitating law student
representation through law school clinics, which play an important role
in providing expanded legal access to often underserved members of the
public.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 2.
\34\ 86 FR 74394, 74394 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 17)
(footnotes omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Law Student Representation Outside of Clinics
Commenters encouraged the Office to allow CCB participants to be
represented by law students outside of law school clinics. The statute
provides for representation by ``a law student who is qualified under
applicable law governing representation by law students of parties in
legal proceedings and who provides such representation on a pro bono
basis.'' \35\ It does not indicate that such representatives must be
under the auspices of a law school clinic. Though the regulation
proposed in the NPRM would have limited representation by eligible law
students to those ``affiliated with a law school clinic,'' \36\ several
commenters persuasively urged the Office to expand the scope of law
student representation beyond that environment.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 17 U.S.C. 1506(d)(2).
\36\ 86 FR 74394, 74397.
\37\ Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 2 (``Participation
in a law school-sponsored pro bono program should be accepted as an
alternative to participation in a law school clinic focused on
copyright.''); Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 3; Law
School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 6; Copyright Alliance et al.
Initial NPRM Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office recognizes that ``not all programs operated by law
schools may be truly clinical in nature.'' \38\ The Office
[[Page 20710]]
further recognizes that not all law schools have clinics focused on
copyright, though many sponsor programs ``in which attorneys who work
on pro bono cases are paired with law students who assist with the
cases under the attorneys' supervision and guidance.'' \39\ Such
programs can ensure that parties in CCB proceedings are represented by
law students who have sufficient training and oversight. The Office is
persuaded that, if these programs have a connection with the student's
law school, and they follow the same rules as any law school clinics
would have to follow, they may also participate in CCB proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 7; see
Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 5 (``not every law
school operates programs that can be categorized as clinical in
nature'').
\39\ Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 2 (discussing the
Partners in Pro Bono Program at the William S. Boyd School of Law at
the University of Nevada, Las Vegas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office believes that facilitating representation by qualified
students, whether through law school clinics or comparable, law school-
connected pro bono programs offering similar supervision and support,
is consistent with the goal of expanding access to ``those with little
prior formal exposure to copyright laws.'' \40\ Such representation can
help alleviate the concern, raised in the Technology & IP Clinical Law
Professors' comment that ``clinics likely will be unable to fill the
significant access-to-justice gap that the opening of proceedings
before the CCB may create.'' \41\ As the Law School Faculty comment
noted, ``[a]n expanded field of properly trained and supervised
students will allow more students to help underserved communities and
claimants, especially if the demand is high for law student
representation or when there are few (or no) eligible legal clinics in
a particular area, or during particular times of the year, like summer
breaks.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 86 FR 74394, 74394 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 17).
\41\ Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors Initial NPRM
Comments at 5.
\42\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the final rule provides that a qualified law student
must be affiliated with a law school clinic, or with a pro bono legal
services organization that has a connection with the student's law
school.
Finally, in addition to the qualified law student representation
described in the rule, the Office encourages the participation of law
students in CCB proceedings more broadly. For example, under the
supervision of a licensed attorney, a law student may assist with
drafting a pleading or other document to be filed before the CCB. In
addition, a licensed lawyer representing a party before the CCB may
have a law student intern or clerk attend any part of the party's
proceeding.
3. Competency Prerequisites
The NPRM proposed a standard of competency for law student
representatives that would require successful completion of both
``[t]he first year of studies at an American Bar Association-accredited
law school,'' and ``[a] copyright law course, formal copyright law
training, or formal training in Board procedures.'' \43\ Commenters
addressed the prerequisites and the Office is modifying the rule after
consideration of those comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 86 FR 74394, 74397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters supported the requirement that law student
representatives must have completed their first year of law school:
``We do wholeheartedly agree that law students participating in this
program should be required to complete their first year of studies at
an American Bar Association (ABA)-accredited law school. To our
knowledge this is a pre-requisite of all clinical programs.'' \44\ The
Office believes that the completion of a first year of law school is a
minimum requirement that is part of ``an appropriate standard of
competence'' \45\ for law student representatives and will retain that
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Law School Faculty Initial Comments at 4. The Copyright
Alliance et al. commented that ``completion of the first year of
studies'' should be the only requirement, though it also proposed
revisions to the rule that would allow representation by students
who had not completed a year of law school, or had taken only a
copyright course or training instead. Copyright Alliance et al.
Initial Comments at 8.
\45\ 86 FR 74394, 74395 (citing Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R.
1.1 (Am. Bar Ass'n 1983) (``Competent representation requires the
legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably
necessary for the representation [of a client].'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most commenters considered the Office's proposed law student
competency prerequisites to be too restrictive and unnecessary.\46\
Some deemed unclear what would constitute sufficient ``formal''
training in copyright law or CCB procedures.\47\ Commenters also noted
that administrative issues, such as the fact that some law schools may
offer copyright law courses only at limited times, may hamper students'
completion of the prerequisite in time to participate in the
clinic.\48\ Several commenters suggested that supervising attorneys
charged with ensuring competent representation will take responsibility
for providing students sufficient instruction in copyright, in a
clinical setting or elsewhere, if the students have not completed a
copyright law course beforehand, with one group noting, ``[c]ompetent
representation can be rendered through necessary study, and providing
training in copyright advocacy and counselling may well be among the
pedagogical goals of clinical programs that will be taking on CCB
representations.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 3-4; Norman
Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 3-4; Joel Rothman Initial NPRM
Comments at 1-2; Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at
8-9; Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 2-3. But see
Trenton Seegert Initial NPRM Comments at 2 (supporting the formal
training proposed prerequisites and noting that ``by requiring all
participating law students to have a similar base knowledge of
copyright law, representation becomes more efficient'').
\47\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 8 (``It
is not clear what would constitute `formal' training versus
`informal' training.''); see also Law School Faculty Initial NPRM
Comments at 2.
\48\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 3; Norman
Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 3-4; Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply
NPRM Comments at 2-3.
\49\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 3; see also
Norman Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 4 (``With the supervision of
an attorney, the need for students to have taken copyright or CCB
courses becomes an unnecessary barrier to eligibility for students
and should be withdrawn from the proposed rules.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office agrees. The CCB is designed to allow parties to
represent themselves, or to be represented by an attorney or a pro bono
law clinic. Neither parties, nor their representatives need to be
versed in the entire body of copyright law to participate before the
CCB.\50\ Determining whether a student is sufficiently trained to
represent a party in each proceeding can be entrusted to an attorney
supervisor with access to information specific to the dispute, who can
tailor any needed copyright training to the pertinent matters.
Accordingly, the final rule will not require a copyright law course or
``formal'' copyright law training, but instead will require ``training
in relevant copyright law, as determined by the supervising clinic or
pro bono organization.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 8
n.4 (commenting that a requirement of ``completion of a copyright
law course may not be desirable . . . particularly since the legal
issues in a CCB proceeding are narrow and since the supervising
attorney will be supervising the law student representative
throughout the proceeding'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, any CCB proceeding will also require party representatives
to be familiar with, at a minimum, the language in the CASE Act and the
governing CCB regulations. The Office expects that parties who secure
pro bono law school student representation will likely be heavily
reliant on the student representative's guidance on
[[Page 20711]]
matters of CCB procedure. Therefore, the final rule includes a
requirement that, to be competent to represent a party, a law student
must first review the CASE Act's statutory text and the CCB's
regulations. The legislative history of the CASE Act indicated that the
Office may require that parties ``have reviewed the [CCB's] procedural
rules'' to participate.\51\ The Office acknowledges that reviewing
detailed regulatory text could be challenging for pro se parties
without legal training, and it is not imposing such a requirement on
parties at this time. However, a review of the statute and regulations
should not pose the same challenges for students who have completed a
year or more of law school, and who can turn to a supervising attorney
for help in understanding the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ S. Rep. No. 116-105, at 8 (``Nothing in the legislation
prevents the imposition of a requirement that parties to a claim
acknowledge in writing that they have reviewed the procedural rules
and/or watched such videos [about how parties to the proceeding
should act] prior to the filing of a claim or responded to
claim.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Professional Conduct
In a joint comment, three law school professors suggested that the
Office should set explicit standards of professional conduct for
``anyone representing clients before the CCB,'' \52\ including
requirements to ``conduct proper investigations of the facts and law
before filing a claim, similar to the duties specified in FRCP 11.''
\53\ The professors further asked the Office to set specific
``consequences for representatives who repeatedly engage in improper
conduct before the CCB,'' \54\ and establish disciplinary proceedings
against such representatives.\55\ Other commenters replied and opposed
the Office establishing such a separate disciplinary system.\56\ The
Office agrees with the Copyright Alliance et al. reply comment noting
that ``[a]ttorneys are already subject to professional ethics
standards'' and that creating a separate disciplinary process relating
to law student representatives under the Office would be ``duplicative
or conflict with preexisting systems.'' \57\ In addition, there is no
basis in the statute to permit the CCB to establish a separate
disciplinary standard for law students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Eric Goldman, Tyler Ochoa & Rebecca Tushnet Initial NPRM
Comments at 1.
\53\ Id.
\54\ Id.
\55\ Id.
\56\ Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM Comments at 9; Law
School Faculty Reply NPRM Comments at 2.
\57\ Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three law school professors' comments regarding professional
conduct apply to all party representatives appearing before the CCB,
including attorneys, so they are necessarily broader than the issues of
law student and business entity representations raised in this rule.
The Office has discussed issues regarding truthful filings and
professional conduct under earlier notices of proposed rulemaking.\58\
This separate rulemaking when finalized will apply equally to all party
representatives appearing before the CCB, including business entity and
law student representatives.\59\ The Office's intent is that the
standards for conduct before the CCB as a whole should foster
professional conduct as well as truthful and accurate submissions by
all parties and their representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See 86 FR 53897, 53906 (Sept. 29, 2021); 86 FR 69890, 69916
(Dec. 8, 2021).
\59\ See 86 FR 74394, 74397 (``Representatives of business
entities who appear pursuant to paragraphs (b)(3) or (4) of this
section are equally subject to the standards of conduct . . . as any
other party representative.''); see also id. at 74398 (``Law student
representatives are equally subject to the standards of conduct . .
. as any other attorney representatives.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Attorney Supervision
The Office proposed that all law student representatives must be
supervised by a licensed attorney.\60\ No commenter disagreed with this
requirement. Commenters generally stated that ``the proposed
regulations are well-drafted in terms of defining the role of a
Supervisory Attorney to ensure proper guidance and direction to law
student representatives.'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Id. at 74395 (``[L]aw student representatives must be
supervised by an attorney'').
\61\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 5; see also
Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 9 (``The proposed
regulations are well drafted in terms of allocating responsibilities
to a supervising attorney.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters asked the Office to ``clarify that law student
representatives may be supervised by multiple attorneys'' affiliated
with a law school clinic.\62\ The Office acknowledges that multiple
attorneys may supervise students in some law school clinics, and
nothing in the regulation limits their ability to do so. The Office
simply requires that at least one attorney be identified as the
supervising attorney on each document that the law student
representative submits, even if several attorneys supervise the
student's work. Any supervising attorney linked to the law student
through the CCB's electronic filing system (``eCCB'') shall have
responsibility over case management and professional responsibility for
the law student representative's actions.\63\ Furthermore, at hearings
and conferences, one of the law student representative's supervising
attorneys must attend with the student, and the Office is revising the
proposed regulation to clarify that point.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 5; see also
Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 9 (``Some law
school clinics may have several adjunct professors who support the
law school clinic director in project management and
supervision.'').
\63\ See 86 FR 74394, 74397-98.
\64\ See id. at 74398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office invited comments on ``whether documents submitted to the
CCB must be signed by both the supervising attorney and the law student
representative,'' \65\ rather than by the student alone. The Office
received one responsive comment, from the Copyright Alliance et al.,
stating, ``we believe that both supervising attorneys and law student
representatives should sign all legal filings submitted to the CCB,''
without additional context.\66\ The Office has set up eCCB to be as
streamlined as possible, often with fillable templates to complete
required forms, and so mandating multiple signatures at this time for
every filing would interfere with the ease of eCCB use. Rather, while
the final rule allows both the law student representatives and the
supervisory attorney sign any document they submit, the final rules
require a single signature. If the student representative is the sole
signatory, that student must certify that the supervising attorney
assented to the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Id. at 74396.
\66\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters suggested that the Office issue a definition of the term
``supervising attorney'' that would mirror language in the proposed
regulation regarding attorneys representing business entities,
requiring the attorney to be a ``member in good standing of the bar of
the highest court of a State, the District of Columbia, or any
territory or commonwealth of the United States.'' \67\ A supervising
attorney must comport with the applicable state laws governing a clinic
or legal services organization in the jurisdiction where the attorney's
clinic or organization is based. The Office believes that the current
requirement addresses the appropriate qualifications for attorneys
supervising law student representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Id. at 6 (quoting 86 FR 74394, 74397); Law School Faculty
Initial NPRM Comments at 4 (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Elizabeth Townsend Gard proposed that a supervising
attorney should not be required to act as the pro bono client's
attorney, but simply as a facilitator or teacher overseeing the
[[Page 20712]]
student.\68\ However, if the Office were to adopt this rule, it could
violate the requirements of applicable law governing the clinic. In
jurisdictions surveyed by the Office including California, New York,
Tennessee, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, the
supervisory attorney is generally required to assume professional
responsibility for any activity performed by the law student.\69\ The
Office is therefore maintaining the requirement for a supervising
attorney to be responsible for the actions and filings of a law student
representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 3 (``Taking
on a client requires a great deal of vetting and responsibility.'').
\69\ Cal. Rules of State Bar R. 3.6(B)(3); N.Y. Comp. Codes R. &
Regs. tit. 22, sec. 805.5(e) (2017); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 7, sec.
10.03(h)(3)(C); D.C. Ct. App. R. 48(e)(2); Md. R. 19-220(d); Va.
Sup. Ct. R. pt. 6, sec. IV, 15(d)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would have required a supervising attorney to
accompany a law student representative to hearings on the merits, but
not to conferences.\70\ Several commenters advocated that ``it should
be mandatory for supervising attorneys to appear at both hearings and
conferences'' \71\ or, going even further, that they must ``be present
in all situations where a client is represented, whether or not the
situations are on the merits.'' \72\ There were no comments to the
contrary. The Office agrees that direct supervision in such
circumstances serves the interests of a law student's client and is
appropriate in view of the supervising attorney's responsibility for
case management.\73\ The Office will require that a supervising
attorney must appear at any hearing or conference absent leave from the
CCB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See 86 FR 74394, 74395.
\71\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 9.
\72\ Norman Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 5 (stating students
expressed that they would not be comfortable proceeding without a
supervisor present).
\73\ 86 FR 74394, 74395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Pro Bono Representation Directory
No commenters opposed the creation of a directory of pro bono
representation. Professor Marketa Trimble proposed that the Office
directory listings include ``not only participating law school clinics,
but also participating law school-sponsored pro bono programs.'' \74\
Because the Office will permit law student representation outside the
clinical context with supervision through a law school-connected pro
bono legal services organization, the Office agrees with Professor
Trimble's proposal. The final rule provides for such organizations to
be able to indicate, in the public directory, their availability to
assist CCB parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters asked the Office to ensure ``that clinics can
choose whether to be listed in a directory of participating clinics
separate from their ability to appear in any given proceeding.'' \75\
Clinics and legal services organizations that are eligible and
available to facilitate pro bono student representation before the CCB
are encouraged to make their availability known through a public
directory listing, but the Office will not make inclusion in the
directory a requirement. The regulation clarifies that the duty to
maintain current information in the directory applies only to
participants that have chosen to be listed, and that directory listing
is not a requirement for representing clients in CCB proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors Initial NPRM
Comments at 5; see also Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at
8 (noting that ``inclusion in this directory should be voluntary and
not a prerequisite to participate in CCB proceedings''); Copyright
Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law School Faculty commenters requested that participating
clinics be permitted to submit directory listings that do not provide
all of the information required in the proposed regulation, so that the
clinics need ``not to answer questions they do not wish to answer or
feel they cannot adequately keep current under the guidelines.'' \76\
Some commenters took issue with requirements to disclose whether the
clinic or organization has handled copyright matters in the last two
years, and the nature of such matters, at a time when the CCB has not
yet been in operation for two years.\77\ A disclosure that there have
been few or no recent copyright matters will not prohibit a law
clinic's inclusion in the directory. Nothing stops a clinic or
organization from explaining why it has limited experience, and the
Office does not believe it should craft a regulation that it will need
to change in the future. Since qualified clinics and public service
organizations may fully participate in supervising law student
representatives whether or not they are listed in the directory, those
that choose to be listed must provide all information requested and can
explain any perceived gaps in their experience. The Office believes
that all such information would be relevant to a potential client
seeking representation through the directory and notes that updates are
required only once a year.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 8.
\77\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 10,
Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 5; Law School Faculty
Initial NPRM Comments at 8-9.
\78\ See 86 FR 74394, 74398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Copyright Alliance et al. asked that the Office accept a
general description of the nature of such recent copyright matters, and
not require that the listing ``divulge any specific details of prior
client representations.'' \79\ The Office is not requesting or
requiring disclosure of any confidential or privileged information for
inclusion in the directory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 11; see
also Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule maintains the proposed disclosure requirements for
law school clinics and requires the same disclosures of eligible legal
services organizations, if they seek to be listed in the CCB pro bono
representation directory.
C. Representation of Business Entities
The NPRM proposed that, in addition to attorneys or law students,
business entities may be represented in a CCB proceeding by a fiduciary
or properly authorized employee, and proposed requirements that these
representatives must follow.\80\ The comments received in response to
the NPRM were supportive of the proposed rule, which expands access to
the CCB by smaller business entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ 86 FR 74394, 74397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While two commenters took the position that the Office should
require business entities to use in-house lawyers or outside counsel in
order to appear before the CCB,\81\ the CASE Act does not require
business entities to be represented by counsel.\82\ As other commenters
noted, Congress envisioned the CCB as a forum that will enable parties
to resolve low-value copyright claims without the expense of an
attorney, and ``intended [the CCB] to be accessible especially for pro
se parties and those with little prior formal exposure to copyright
laws who cannot otherwise afford to have their claims and defenses
heard in federal court.'' \83\ Representation of business entities by
their own fiduciaries and authorized employees is consistent with the
CASE
[[Page 20713]]
Act and with express Congressional intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Verizon Initial NPRM Comments at 1-2; see also Southlaw
Ent. Initial NPRM Comments at 1 (noting that ``these proceedings
should be handled by a professional'').
\82\ 17 U.S.C. 1506(d).
\83\ Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM Comments at 7-8
(quoting H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 17); see also Elizabeth Townsend
Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 5-6 (stating that CCB regulations
``should be clear and not present a barrier to solopreneurs or start
ups that may not have access to legal representation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter proposed that ``lawyers with foreign
credentials'' be allowed to represent foreign authors, suggesting that
such lawyers ``have more knowledge than a student.'' \84\ The Office
considers it impracticable to allow representation by such attorneys.
An attorney representative in a CCB proceeding, including an attorney
supervising a qualified law student, will be required to be in good
standing to practice before the bar of the highest court of a State,
the District of Columbia, or a territory or commonwealth of the United
States.\85\ While the Office can depend on a domestic state bar's
professional responsibility requirements to ensure that the attorney's
conduct before the CCB will comport with ethical standards for
practice,\86\ the Office would not have the capacity to ensure that
attorneys admitted elsewhere are subject to the same ethical
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Anonymous Initial NPRM Comments at 1.
\85\ See 86 FR 74394, 74397; see also 86 FR 69890, 69917 (Dec.
8, 2021).
\86\ See Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 6 n.2
(noting, in the context of supervision of law school
representatives, ``the Copyright Office should rely on state
entities to govern the Supervising Attorneys to ensure proper
oversight'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Copyright Alliance et al. suggested ``that the Office amend
[proposed 37 CFR] 232.6(c) so that the required certification for a
particular business representative qualified under [proposed 37 CFR]
232.6(b)(3)-(4) can be valid for a period of up to one year.'' \87\ The
certification requirement is on a per-proceeding basis, not an annual
basis. To avoid any potential confusion, the Copyright Office is
amending the proposed regulation to clarify that a business entity
representative who certifies the entity's authorization in a particular
CCB proceeding shall remain authorized for the duration of that
proceeding, so long as the business entity continues to authorize the
representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Professor Elizabeth Townsend Gard expressed support for
opportunities to educate small businesses about copyright in ways that
would not entail representation, such as workshops on copyright
registration, and suggested that student or alumni groups could be
organized to provide such legal information to the public.\88\
Professor Townsend Gard also suggested creating CCB fellowships whereby
faculty or student groups could apply to the Office with research
proposals and have their research published on the CCB website.\89\ The
Office appreciates the suggestions of various methods of education and
outreach to the public, as well as future research possibilities, but
does not understand these suggestions to require the Office to
promulgate any regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 3-4, 6; see
also Norman Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 3 (proposing that the
Office direct members of the public to law school clinics for
assistance filing copyright registrations).
\89\ Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects
37 CFR Part 201
Copyright, General provisions.
37 CFR Part 232
Claims, Copyright.
37 CFR Part 234
Claims, Copyright.
Final Regulations
For reasons stated in the preamble, the U.S. Copyright Office
amends chapter II, subchapters A and B, of title 37 Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
Subchapter A--Copyright Office and Procedures
PART 201--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702.
Section 201.10 also issued under 17 U.S.C. 304.
0
2. In Sec. 201.2, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 201.2 Information given by the Copyright Office.
(a) * * *
(2) The Copyright Office does not furnish the names of copyright
attorneys, publishers, agents, or other similar information to the
public, except that it may provide a directory of pro bono
representation available to participants in proceedings before the
Copyright Claims Board.
* * * * *
Subchapter B--Copyright Claims Board and Procedures
0
3. Add part 232 to read as follows:
PART 232--CONDUCT OF PARTIES
Sec.
232.1-232.5 [Reserved]
232.6 Representation of business entities.
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702, 1510.
Sec. Sec. 232.1-232.5 [Reserved]
Sec. 232.6 Representation of business entities.
For purposes of this part:
(a) Definition. A business entity is a corporation, limited
liability company, partnership, sole proprietorship, or unincorporated
association.
(b) Appearance of a business entity. A business entity may appear
before the Copyright Claims Board (Board) through--
(1) A member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a
State, the District of Columbia, or any territory or commonwealth of
the United States;
(2) A law student who meets the requirements set forth in 37 CFR
234.1;
(3) An owner, partner, officer, or member, of the business entity;
or
(4) An authorized employee.
(c) Certification. Someone appearing before the Board in a
proceeding to represent a business entity in that proceeding pursuant
to paragraph (b)(3) or (4) of this section shall certify that they are
an authorized agent of the business entity and may bind that entity in
the proceeding pending before the Board. If the representative
qualifies only as an authorized employee under paragraph (b)(4) of this
section, then within 30 days of the authorized employee's initial
appearance, the representative also must submit written authorization,
signed by an owner, partner, officer, or member of the business entity
under penalty of perjury, stating that the representative may bind that
entity on matters pending before the Board. A valid certification under
this subsection shall remain effective throughout the proceeding, so
long as the representative continues to be authorized by the business
entity.
(d) Subject to standards of professional conduct. Representatives
of business entities who appear pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) or (4) of
this section are equally subject to the standards of conduct as any
other party representative.
0
4. Add part 234 to read as follows:
PART 234--LAW STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES
Sec.
234.1 Law student representatives.
234.2 Pro bono representation directory.
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702, 1510.
Sec. 234.1 Law student representatives.
(a) Eligibility for appearance--(1) State law compliance. Any law
student who is affiliated with a law school clinic or a pro bono legal
services organization with a connection to the student's law school, is
qualified under
[[Page 20714]]
applicable laws governing representation by law students of parties in
legal proceedings, and meets the other requirements of this paragraph
(a)(1) may appear before the Copyright Claims Board (Board). Applicable
law is the law of the jurisdiction that certifies the student to
practice law in conjunction with a law school clinic or pro bono legal
services organization with a connection to the student's law school.
(2) Pro bono representation. Any law student who appears before the
Board must provide representation on a pro bono basis.
(3) Competency. Law student representatives must meet a standard of
competency. For the purpose of appearances before the Board, competency
includes successful completion of--
(i) The first year of studies at an American Bar Association-
accredited law school;
(ii) Training in relevant copyright law, as determined by the
supervising clinic or pro bono organization; and
(iii) Review of the Board's regulations found in this subchapter,
and of the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of
2020 statutory text, as codified at chapter 15 of title 17 of the
United States Code.
(b) Client consent. The law student representative shall have the
written consent of the client to appear on that client's behalf.
(c) Attorney supervision. A law student who represents a party in a
proceeding before the Board shall be supervised by an attorney who is
qualified under applicable state law governing representation by law
students, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section. In supervising
the law student, the attorney shall adhere to any rules regarding
participant conduct.
(d) Confirmation of eligibility. In accordance with the standards
of professional conduct set forth in paragraph (j) of this section, the
attorney supervising the work of the law student representative is
responsible for confirming the law student's eligibility to appear
before the Board as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.
(e) Signature and assent. The law student representative or
supervising attorney shall electronically or physically sign each
document submitted to the Board on behalf of the law student's client.
If the law student representative signs, the law student must identify
the name of the supervising attorney on all documents signed by the law
student representative. The law student must certify that the law
student sought and obtained the supervising attorney's assent to the
submission.
(f) Notice of appearance. In any proceeding in which a law student
represents a party, a notice of appearance shall be filed identifying
both the law student representative and the supervising attorney,
unless already identified in the party's claim or response.
(g) Filing documents. All filings by a law student representative
shall be made with the knowledge of the supervising attorney, who shall
maintain an association with the law student representative in the
Board's electronic filing system (eCCB). Supervising attorneys and law
students shall maintain their own accounts in eCCB. A notice of
withdrawal, and a notice of appearance if applicable, shall be filed
whenever the identity of a law student representative or a supervising
attorney has changed.
(h) Appearance at hearings and conferences. A supervising attorney
shall accompany the law student representative to any hearings and
conferences held in the course of the proceeding, absent leave of the
Board for the law student to appear without a supervising attorney
present.
(i) Responsibility for continuity of case management. The
supervising attorney shall be responsible for all aspects of case
management, including appearances and withdrawals, as well as
continuity of representation during law school term transitions.
(j) Applicability of rules of professional conduct. Law student
representatives are equally subject to any rules regarding participant
conduct as any other attorney representatives. The supervising attorney
has professional responsibility for the actions of the law student
representative. The Board may hold supervising attorneys responsible
for law student representative activity.
Sec. 234.2 Pro bono representation directory.
(a) Publicly available directory. The Board shall make a directory
available on its website of law school clinics and of pro bono legal
services organizations with a connection to a law school that have
advised the Board that they are available, on a pro bono basis, to
provide law student representation to clients in proceedings before the
Board, and wish to be listed in the directory. Listing in the directory
is not a requirement for eligible law school clinics or a pro bono
legal services organizations to represent clients in Board proceedings.
(b) Form for inclusion. To be included in the public directory, the
director of the law school clinic or pro bono legal services
organization shall submit a form providing the following information
for public dissemination:
(1) The name of the participating clinic or organization;
(2) The name of the law school where the clinic is based, or with
which the organization is connected;
(3) The name of the director of the clinic or organization;
(4) A general contact email address and phone number;
(5) The geographic area from which the clinic or organization may
accept clients;
(6) Whether the clinic or organization has handled copyright
matters in the past two years;
(7) The nature of any copyright matters handled by the clinic or
organization in the past two years;
(8) Whether the clinic or organization has experience in handling
litigation matters;
(9) If the clinic or organization does not have litigation
experience, whether it has a partnership with a litigation clinic or
experience supervising law students in litigation matters;
(10) A brief statement describing the clinic or organization's
interest in handling matters before the Board; and
(11) A certification that student representatives participating in
Board proceedings in affiliation with the clinic or organization will
meet all requirements of Sec. 234.1(a).
(c) Standards for inclusion. Subject to paragraph (d) of this
section, the Board will accept for inclusion in the public directory
any law school clinic or pro bono legal services organization with a
connection to a law school that certifies that its law student
representatives will meet all requirements of Sec. 234.1(a) and
provides sufficient information pursuant to paragraph (b) of this
section for participants in Board proceedings to evaluate whether
representation is available and appropriate.
(d) Removal from directory. The Board may, in its discretion,
remove a clinic or pro bono legal services organization from the
directory if it determines that the clinic or organization is not
suitable for representing clients before the Board, including, without
limitation, if it determines that the clinic or organization has failed
to properly update its information in the public directory.
(e) Duty to update directory. Participating clinics and pro bono
legal services organizations, which have been listed in the directory,
have a duty to maintain current information in the
[[Page 20715]]
directory and shall confirm the currency of the information on an
annual basis.
Dated: April 4, 2022.
Shira Perlmutter,
Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.
Approved by:
Carla D. Hayden,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2022-07543 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 8, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.