News

Project on Predatory Student Lending Hiring a Racial Justice Fellow

The Project on Predatory Student Lending is excited to announce a one-year fellowship! The racial justice fellow will develop cutting-edge litigation to combat the discriminatory efforts of current higher education policies, and lead outreach efforts by engaging with existing clients and community partners and forging new partnerships with communities impacted by the predatory for-profit industry.

For more information and to apply to the position, click here.

For more information on for-profit colleges and racial justice, click here.

LSC, OUTVETS, & Veterans Legal Services Co-Host LGBTQ Veterans Summit

A two-day summit at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA on the unique issues faced by LGBTQ veterans brought together dozens of experts on LGBTQ military and veterans matters from the US and Canada. The group of legal, political, and healthcare experts examined both past and present discriminatory policies — including Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — and the proposed U.S. transgender service ban, currently on hold in the courts.

Titled “Do Ask, Do Tell, Do Justice: Pursuing Justice for LGBTQ Military Veterans,” the two-day ideas-in-action summit was co-hosted by the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, OUTVETS, and Veterans Legal Services. Also spearheading the event was John R. Campbell, Former U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for the Office of Warrior Care and 2017 Harvard Advanced Leadership Initiative Fellow.

Held April 19-20, it brought together dozens of experts on LGBTQ military and veterans’ matters. Participants who shared their stories, experiences, and best practices included representatives from OutServe-SLDN, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, American Veterans for Equal Rights, the National Veterans Legal Services Program, Dartmouth Hitchcock, Johns Hopkins, and the Massachusetts LGBTQ Bar Association, as well as co-hosts OUTVETS, the Veterans Legal Clinic of the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, and Veterans Legal Services.

Canadian Attorneys John McKiggan and R. Douglas Elliott offered their perspectives as co-counsel on the groundbreaking matter of Satalic, et al v. Her Majesty the Queen, a successful national class action brought on behalf of current and former LGBTQ employees of the Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence, and the Government of Canada. The action resulted in a record-breaking $145 million settlement and public apology from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The summit engaged participants in a multi-disciplinary examination of legal and non-legal remedies to enforce the rights of LGBTQ veterans and to honor and fully recognize their military service and unique sacrifices. The Honorable Halee Weinstein, and Paula M. Neira, JD, MSN, RN, CEN, gave powerful keynote luncheon addresses concerning discriminatory military policies against LGBTQ servicemembers, and the transgender service ban, respectively.

Weinstein, one of the few openly gay judges in the Maryland court system, was named Associate Judge, District Court of Maryland, District 1, Baltimore City, in 2002 and has been Judge-In- Charge of Eastside District Court since 2014. She served as a military intelligence officer in the Army from 1984 to 1986 until she was discharged because of her sexual orientation. Weinstein also created and is the current presiding Judge of the Baltimore City Veterans Treatment Court.  Neira was a surface warfare officer whose service included a tour of duty in mine warfare combat during Operation Desert Storm. After the Navy, she found a path toward nursing and law. She is the first transgender Navy veteran to have her DD-214 updated by order of the Navy to reflect her correct name. Additionally, she is the co-sponsor of the USNS HARVEY MILK. She is currently the Clinical Program Director at the John Hopkins Center for Transgender Health.

The summit also dovetailed with Harvard Law School’s (HLS) bicentennial celebration and engaged alumni in the second day’s “hackathon” discussions of potential ways to address past and current discrimination against LGBTQ service members and veterans.

“It is genuinely exciting to witness so many individuals committed to advancing the rights of LGBT veterans. Symposia like the HLS Hackathon give me hope that there are still possibilities for positive change within our society,” said participant Hanna Tripp, who serves as a Military and Veteran Fellow in the Office of Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, III.

Results from the summit’s working groups are currently being compiled into a more formal report which will be released in the next few weeks, but overall participants left the event feeling energized and hopeful, echoing Ms. Tripp’s comments.

“OUTVETS is honored to have been part of this amazing summit,” said Bryan Bishop, Commander of OUTVETS, a Boston-based LGBTQ Veterans Organization and the first ever LGBTQ organization to march in the Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade.  “It never ceases to amaze me how, when we put our heads and hearts together, we can develop ideas that help the most vulnerable of our Veterans.  It is so important to remember that it is the one Veteran standing in front of us that is the most important.  This summit represents the beginning of an energized movement that works together to break down walls so no Veteran is left behind.”

Contact:
Anna Richardson, Veterans Legal Services
Anna@veteranslegalservices.org
Julie Rafferty, Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School
jrafferty@law.harvard.edu

New Tax Rules To Pose Challenges for Low-Income Taxpayers in 2018

As taxpayers file their federal and state income taxes for 2017, many are wondering what effects the federal Tax Cuts and Job Acts (TCJA) passed by Congress in December will have on what they will owe when they file returns for 2018.  For low-income taxpayers, particularly those with children aged 17-23, those whose children do not have a social security number or who depend on public housing, and anyone who gambles, the questions are especially acute.

According to Keith Fogg, the Faculty Director of the Federal Tax Clinic at the WilmerHale Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, some of the federal changes under TCJA are not going to be “helpful at all” to low-income individuals.  In late January, Fogg was one of 15 experts selected to testify before the Massachusetts House and Senate Joint Committee on Revenue regarding the impacts of TCJA on low-income taxpayers.

Massachusetts does not automatically adopt the federal government’s tax code to determine state income tax rules, but rather picks and chooses which statutes it will apply at a state level. As a result, testimony by Fogg and his colleagues will be particularly crucial as state officials examine whether and how to adjust state tax codes in response to the federal tax overhaul.

Overall, the tax cuts enacted under the federal bill may hardly be noticeable – the final draft of TCJA settled on an after-tax income cut of 0.4 percent for households making under $25,000 per year.  That comes out to about $60, on average, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institute

Those in the top 1 percent of earners – that is, those who are making more than $3.4 million per year — will see much a larger dollar tax benefit, and as a percentage of their earnings it will be nearly three times as large as the low-wage earners.  The average household in this tax bracket will see cuts amounting to $51,000.  However, that number is significantly lower than the $175,000 proposed in the earliest version of the bill, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Although the income tax cuts may go unnoticed, particularly by the lowest wage earners, there are other ways in which TCJA could directly and adversely affect the lives of low-income taxpayers.

Tax bill hits low income families hard

One of the changes about which Fogg is most concerned is the removal of the dependency exemption and the subsequent expansion of the child tax credit.

Prior to the passage of TCJA, parents could claim a dependency exemption of up to $4,150 for each child they were supporting financially.  The effect of that exemption was simply to reduce taxable income, so parents would pay less in taxes.

However, under TCJA, the dependency exemption is gone, as part of an effort to simplify the tax code.

Consequently, to ‘make up’ for the loss of the dependency exemption, the child tax credit was increased from $1000 to $2000 under TCJA, and the level at which an individual or dual wage earners could qualify was increased.

The expansion in itself does not pose any problems for low-income families.

“Where it fails,” explains Fogg, “is when children do not qualify for the child tax credit.”

Indeed, while the dependency exemption covered dependent children up to age 23, the child tax credit only applies to taxpayers with children under the age of 17.  As a result, individuals with dependent children aged 17-23 will lose out not only on the dependency exemption, but also on the child tax credit as well.

Yet “the problem of the mismatch between the loss of the dependency exemption and the child tax credit doesn’t only apply to children,” says Fogg.

In fact, it applies to any person who would have been claimed as a dependent under prior law as a qualified relative.  Qualified relative dependents do not cause the taxpayer to receive the child tax credit.  So anyone who was taking care of elderly parents or other relatives or who had unrelated persons living with them for the entire year will no longer receive any tax benefit for this support to others.

Noncitizen immigrants also hit hard

 Another population disqualified from receiving the child tax credit are children without a Social Security number, who are overwhelmingly undocumented immigrants.

While documented immigrants are able to file for a Social Security number for their children –after they provide ID and their work-authorized immigration status with the application – undocumented immigrants are unable to do so.  Barring those without a Social Security number from receiving the child the tax credit places many vulnerable noncitizen families at risk, with the issue again being exacerbated by the repeal of the dependency exemption.

Tax rules eliminate incentives for public housing

Additionally, an indirect aspect of TCJA that affects lower-income populations is the elimination of incentives for investment in public housing.  The result of this is that those who need this assistance to cope with high prices in the housing market could face homelessness.

Gamblers beware

Finally, those who like to take the occasional trip to Foxwoods, as well as more serious gamblers, may struggle with alterations in the wagering laws introduced in TCJA.  To illustrate the differences between TCJA and the previous tax code, Fogg provides the example of a gambler who wins a few thousand dollars then loses that same amount shortly thereafter.

In the past, that individual could report both his winnings and his losses when filing taxes.  Now, with the repeal of miscellaneous itemized deductions in TCJA, the gambler can only report the few thousand dollars of winnings, while the equal amount that he or she lost is not taken into account in determining taxable income.

This may result in a significantly higher tax rate for frequent gamblers, many of whom are elderly or low-income.

Timeline for Massachusetts decision

With these changes in mind, the question becomes what Massachusetts will choose to do in response to TCJA’s passage.

Since the federal legislation affects the 2018 tax year instead of 2017, the state will have until next fall to come to a conclusion.

What sort of resolution would Fogg like to see?

Though admitting at this point that the details “are a work in progress,” he says he hopes Massachusetts lawmakers “will look at the broad issues stemming from this and create laws that will protect low-income taxpayers and ease some of the fallout from the federal tax rules.”

— Taylor Mahlandt

 

ITT Students’ $1.5 Billion Settlement Heard by Judge In Bankruptcy

Today, former ITT students proposed a $1.5 billion settlement claim in bankruptcy court that would cancel more than $500 million in debts. All participants in the case and members of the class have until April 24 to submit their views of the settlement with the court before it is heard for final approval on June 13.  This is good news for former ITT students, but there is still a long way to go.

ITT Tech systematically defrauded students. ITT lied to and misled students about financial aid and cost of attendance, job placement and salaries, the quality of equipment and experience of instructors, the employability of ITT graduates, ITT’s programmatic accreditation, the transferability of credits, and career placement assistance.

It would be simpler to list the things ITT didn’t mislead students about.

Data from 2014 show that on average, ITT graduates earn on average the same or less than high school graduates with no college education. Approximately one in five ITT students defaulted on their federal student loans within three years.

Now, a group of ITT students have reached a proposed a settlement with the bankruptcy estate that includes a $1.5 billion allowed claim. In addition to cancelling nearly $600 million in debts, the settlement would also return the $3 million that students paid directly to ITT after it declared bankruptcy. This landmark settlement shows that the only path forward is to cancel fraudulent and unenforceable debts created by predators like ITT.

The settlement is a good start, but there is still a long way to go to make things right for former ITT students.

More than 7,000 former ITT students have submitted borrower defense applications to the Department of Education to cancel their federal student loans. These loans – and the federal loans of all former ITT students, totaling nearly $4 billion – should be cancelled.  ITT’s estate has cancelled the student debts because of the school’s fraudulent actions, and it’s time for the Department of Education and all private holders of ITT debt to do the same.

As Paul Goodwin, a former ITT student, said: “I have still been struggling to pay back my student loans, which I should not even owe because of the way that ITT systematically lied to students. Getting more relief on temporary credit loans is great news for me and my family, but I am still waiting for the Department of Education to discharge my federal student loans.”

We will continue to fight for the Department of Education to meet its legal obligation to cancel these fraudulent student loans.

If you are a former student of ITT, click here to sign up for future updates.

Tax Clinic Student Argues Case Before US Court of Appeals

In December, Amy Feinberg ’18 became the second Federal Tax Clinic student to have the exhilarating experience of arguing an appeal in circuit court since the Clinic opened at Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School in 2015.

Clinical Professor of Law Keith Fogg, who directs the Federal Tax Clinic, notes that many attorneys can be practicing for 10 or more years before they get the kind of experience that Feinberg has gotten while taking the Clinic.

Other students  have had the opportunity to file amicus briefs and help prepare appeals for court.  All students work directly with clients and carry a docket of cases. And almost all have the opportunity to negotiate directly with the IRS and state tax authorities – experiences that many lawyers seldom get, even if they are tax attorneys.

“The opportunity to appear in the circuit courts, file amicus briefs, and to promote law change through policy advocacy if necessary is an outgrowth of a strategy that the Federal Tax Clinic has developed to assist taxpayers, many of whom are low income, who have missed the deadline to file a petition in the United States Tax Court by one or more days because of misleading information or notices sent by the IRS, “ Fogg says.

Learn more about Feinberg’s experience and the work of the Federal Tax Clinic on this issue here.

Negotiated Rulemaking Reconvenes in Washington D.C. for Act Two of Regulatory Theater

This week, in a conference room in Washington D.C., various stakeholders of the federal student aid programs will meet to discuss whether there should be any check on the cost and value of vocational training programs that receive public money.  The negotiated rulemaking committee formed by these various stakeholders, and representatives of the Department of Education, will meet several more times before the for-profit college industry will get to write the “gainful employment” rule that will pose the least difficulty to its business model early next year.

Act one of a similar regulatory theater took place last month, when the Department convened a negotiated rulemaking on the topic of borrower defense, the process by which student borrowers who have been cheated by their schools can seek loan cancellation.  This rulemaking will likely displace the borrower defense rule enacted just last year, which the Trump administration delayed after taking office.

As someone who represented the legal aid constituency in the most recent negotiated rulemakings on gainful employment and borrower defense, I understand why these two regulations are the focus of the Department’s regulatory agenda.  If allowed to operate, both borrower defense and gainful employment would bring a measure of accountability to an industry that continues to do seemingly everything imaginable to discredit itself.

As a negotiator on the 2013 gainful employment rulemaking, I tried unsuccessfully to convince the Department that loan cancellation is a necessary component of any gainful employment regulation.  It seems obvious that students who borrow to attend a program that purports to provide skills necessary for a vocation, but which on the whole fails, have been cheated.  And the Department plays a role. It is supposed to act as a gatekeeper. No matter how many fine print disclaimers the Department may make, disavowing any role in assessing the quality of program a borrower decides to attend, the ability of a student to borrower loans from the government to pay for education sends a strong signal that the program must be a good one.  Why else would the government be willing to lend money?

In 2013, on behalf of the legal aid community, I proposed that the Department recognize gainful employment metrics as the basis for an affirmative borrower defense by students who attended failing programs.  In response, the Department proposed to amend the borrower defense regulation—not the subject of the rulemaking—to specify that gainful employment metrics could NOT form the basis of borrower defense.  Then it went a step further, and proposed eliminating the borrower defense regulation altogether.  We were able to defeat this proposal, but the final rules on gainful employment did not contain any provision for loan cancellation for students who attended programs that by the Department’s own definition provided more debt burden than value.  Although the Department recognized “the desire to ease the debt burden of students,” the “issue requires further consideration” and therefore the Department “will continue to explore ways to provide debt relief to students in future regulations.”

This was in October 2014, almost two years after the Department had requested information from Corinthian Colleges, Inc. regarding its placement rate data, and several months after the Department placed the company on heightened cash monitoring, restricting its ability to draw down federal student aid.  Within six months, before the gainful employment rules would even go into effect, the Department had fined Corinthian for misleading students, precipitating the school’s closure and bankruptcy.

Later in 2015, the Department convened the first borrower defense rulemaking because of a “building debt activism movement.” Every student loan contract since the mid-1990s has, in line with guidance from the Federal Trade Commission and Congress, provided for loan cancellation upon a showing that the loan was the product of school misconduct. The Department has said on multiple occasions that it was caught off guard by borrower defense, as it had only received a handful of such claims in the decades prior to 2015.  But that year alone, it would receive tens of thousands of applications.  The first tide of applications came from students organized by the Debt Collective, an organization that stepped into the void between rights and remedies for borrowers.  The Department didn’t have any process or even a form for borrowers to assert this contractual right until the Debt Collective created one.

Thirty thousand people have gotten justice in the form of loan cancellation because of borrower defense.  There are close to 100,000 applications pending.  The majority of these claims have been from students of Corinthian Colleges. Second behind Corinthian is ITT, a school that declared bankruptcy in 2016.  Not coincidentally, close to 80% of ITT’s programs would not have passed the gainful employment regulations.

The writing was on the wall when the Department tried to stealthily remove the borrower defense regulations in 2013.  And it is no less clear today than it was then that there is a massive problem with the federal student aid program.  This program was intended to alleviate rather than reify, or worsen, the wealth gap in our country.  Those looking to obtain the basic skills and credentials that the labor market now requires for entry-level positions in trades should not have to take on massive amounts of debt that they will never be able to repay, even under the best-case employment scenario.  And the Department should not enable this zero-sum game between students and an industry that takes taxpayer dollars as revenue and creates a near dollar-for-dollar wake of individual debt.

Thankfully, despite the current climate, I see no indication that this genie will ever go back into the bottle.  Even the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill introduced in Congress last week, in all of its meanness, did not go so far as to take away the right of students cheated by for-profit schools to seek loan cancellation.  The longer this industry survives, the more debt it creates without returning any value to society, the closer we come to a reckoning.  No matter what happens this week in a conference room in Washington D.C.

Project on Predatory Student Lending’s Director of Litigation, Eileen Connor, selected for the 2017 “Rising Star” award from the National Consumer Law Center

The Project on Predatory Student Lending’s Director of Litigation, Eileen Connor, has been selected for the 2017 “Rising Star” award from the National Consumer Law Center for her significant contributions to consumer law. Eileen’s award comes as a result of her Second Circuit victory in the case Salazar v. King. Her clients were defrauded by the predatory practices of the now-defunct Wilfred Beauty Academy.

Wilfred, a for-profit chain of cosmetology and business trade schools, came under government investigation in the 1980s for the misuse of student aid funds and the falsification of loan applications. The result of the investigation was an overwhelming amount of evidence proving Wilfred’s fraud in certifying students’ eligibility for loans. In 1996, the Department of Education found that Wilfred’s fraudulent practices were widespread and recommended that all Wilfred students who were improperly enrolled receive a loan discharge, reimbursement for money they had paid, and a restoration of their credit. Despite its own recommendation, the Department continued to collect on these loans, including through involuntary collection methods such as seizing tax refunds and garnishing wages.

After the Department refused Eileen’s request that it suspend collections and notify all Wilfred borrowers that they may be eligible to discharge their loans, as it was required to do by law, Eileen filed this class action lawsuit in 2014. She challenged the Department’s refusal to meaningfully notify borrowers of discharge rights – rights that stem from the Department’s own failure to diligently oversee the predatory for-profit schools participating in the federal student loan program. The Second Circuit found that the Department’s refusal to notify borrowers was final and reviewable, and that judicial review was especially appropriate given the collection powers the Department exercised against the putative class members.

The Second Circuit’s ruling cracks open the door to relief for defrauded borrowers by showing that, in carrying out each and every function related to the federal student loan program, the Department must at least follow the law and its own regulations.

Eileen’s tenacious advocacy was carried out over more than three years, including before an administrative agency, a district court, and the Second Circuit. Salazar is an important and unfortunately rare case that begins to rein in the lawless and harmful approach that the Department of Education takes with respect to the rights of defrauded student loan borrowers. In short, the recognition is well-deserved. The Project on Predatory Student Lending congratulates Eileen on the award and thanks her for her tireless and inspirational leadership. We look forward to celebrating her advocacy at the National Consumer Law Center’s Consumer Rights Litigation Conference this week.

Former For-Profit College Students Ask Federal Court to Void Student Loan Debt

Yesterday, Tina Carr and Yvette Colon, two former defrauded students of the for-profit Sanford-Brown Institute in New York, sued the Department of Education (Department) and Navient to block the enforcement of their student loan debt. They sued because of the Department’s failure to act on thousands of borrower defense applications by former students whose debts it has the legal obligation to cancel. The Project on Predatory Student Lending and the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) represent Ms. Carr and Ms. Colon.

The lawsuit comes just as the Department convenes a second negotiated rulemaking committee in as many years on the subject of borrower defense. But what is happening in Washington D.C. is nothing more than regulatory theater: while claiming to process borrower defense applications, the Department has repeatedly delayed—and in this week’s rulemaking, will attempt to rewrite—a rule that would have clarified the process for borrowers like Ms. Carr and Ms. Colon to seek cancellation of fraudulent student loan debt. The Department has shown that it has no intention to give cheated students a fair hearing, and this rulemaking is further display of its bad faith.

Sanford-Brown, owned by Career Education Corporation (CEC), engaged in outright deception to induce Ms. Carr and Ms. Colon to enroll in its vocational programs. Both students entered programs in medical fields, only to find out after the fact that the school lacked the necessary accreditation and did not provide adequate training. Sanford-Brown also lied about its dismal track record of preparing students for medical vocations.

Ms. Colon and Ms. Carr are not alone in having been cheated by Sanford-Brown. The Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York (OAG) pursued CEC for these deceptions, and found that CEC systematically cheated students like Ms. Carr and Ms. Colon. Although Sanford-Brown representatives cited an 80 percent job placement rate to Ms. Carr, the OAG found that the actual placement rate was only 26.1 percent. The OAG found that Sanford-Brown committed widespread deception concerning programmatic accreditation, and failed to disclose that graduates generally could not transfer credits to legitimate schools. The OAG concluded that these practices violated New York’s consumer protection laws.

In March 2015, Ms. Carr and Ms. Colon submitted defense to repayment applications to the Department of Education and Navient, invoking their right to cancellation of their loans based on Sanford-Brown’s deceit. Despite Ms. Carr and Ms. Colon’s clear legal entitlement to loan cancellation, the Department and Navient have refused to consider their defenses, leaving Ms. Carr and Ms. Colon to struggle—along with tens of thousands of other borrowers whose defenses the Department has ignored—with burdensome and insurmountable student loan debt.

Ms. Carr and Ms. Colon did everything right, including submitting evidence from the OAG that Sanford-Brown deceived them into taking out loans to get an ‘education’ that would never lead to gainful employment. But almost three years later, Ms. Carr, Ms. Colon, and too many other students are still suffering every day from damaged credit and the threat of collection on these unlawful loans. They had no choice but to go to court.

Faced with the Department’s bad faith, and after almost three years of waiting, Ms. Carr and Ms. Colon are asking a federal judge to vindicate their right to be free of unlawful debt. You can read the complaint online here, and visit this page for more information about the case.

 

In a Second Rebuke to Department of Education, Federal Court Refuses to Relinquish Case of Corinthian Borrower

In its latest ruling on October 31, 2017, the United States District Court for the Central District of California demanded that the Department of Education respond to the allegations of Sarah Dieffenbacher, a mother of four who was defrauded by Everest, a Corinthian Campus in California.

Sarah’s case began when the Department threatened to garnish her wages to pay off her student loan debt, despite her numerous requests that the Department cancel the fraudulent debts. In response to the lawsuit, the government asked the court to send the case back to the Department so that it could continue to consider Sarah’s case without court oversight, but the court denied the request and ordered the Department to consider Sarah’s discharge applications by September. The Department failed to do so.

Instead, the Department issued an “interim order” purporting to withdraw its wage garnishment order and, in September, informed the court that it would take another six months to consider Sarah’s loan discharge application. In response, the court asked the parties to explain whether the Department’s actions should prevent the court from hearing the case. Sarah filed a detailed brief explaining that they did not; the Department filed three pages.

In its latest ruling, issued on October 31st, the court agreed with Sarah, denying the Department’s attempts to take this case out of federal court and ordering it to answer Sarah’s complaint within 20 days.

The court’s refusal to relinquish the case represents another rebuke of the Department’s efforts to deny Sarah her legal right to loan forgiveness, and another step toward vindicating Sarah’s rights. Sarah is legally entitled to have her loans from this fraudulent school cancelled, and the Department of Education’s refusal to acknowledge that she is entitled to loan cancellation is shameful. We will fight the Department of Education as it continues to side with the predatory industry instead of the students and taxpayers it is charged with protecting.

Robyn Smith, of the Legal Aid Foundation of LA, is co-counsel with the Project on Predatory Student Lending in Sarah’s case.

VA Secretary to speak at Harvard Law School on Nov. 2nd

Dr. David Shulkin, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, will deliver the 2017 Disabled American Veterans (DAV) Distinguished Lecture at Harvard Law School next month. This is the fourth annual event in the DAV Distinguished Speaker Series. The Speaker Series provides a forum for national leaders to address the critical issues facing our nation’s disabled veterans and to engage in conversation with the local community. The series is co-hosted by the Veterans Legal Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School and the Harvard Law School Armed Forces Association.

The event will be held on Thursday, November 2nd, 2017, at 12pm, in Milstein East B on the second floor of Wasserstein Hall on the Harvard Law School campus. The street address for Wasserstein Hall is 1585 Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge. The event is open to the public.