In the full-year Education Law Clinic, law students receive real-world training while representing clients in education matters from civil rights advocacy organizations. These organizations include Legal Services New York City, Brooklyn Defender Services, the Legal Aid Society, and Neighborhood Defender Service. Six students from the 2024–25 clinic shared their reflections on their experiences.
David Checchi ’26
When I started law school, I didn’t picture myself working in public interest or special education advocacy. I initially pursued a Ph.D. in philosophy, drawn to analytical argument and abstract reasoning. When that path didn’t pan out, law felt like the next best thing — a space to keep evaluating and constructing analytical arguments. But through my work with the Education Law Clinic, I saw how my passion for argument could be used to create real, lasting impact.
One of my most meaningful experiences involved “Alexander,” a 16-year-old in the eleventh grade with a traumatic brain injury, ADHD, dyslexia, and dysgraphia. Although Alexander is intellectually capable, recent evaluations showed his academic skills were several grade levels behind. Despite clear neuropsychological recommendations for one-on-one, Orton-Gillingham-based instruction, his school refused to provide it — citing report card grades and scheduling limitations.
With support from my clinic supervisor at Staten Island Legal Services, I helped draft a formal complaint challenging the school’s failure to provide appropriate services. I also assisted in preparing for the impartial hearing, working with witnesses on their affidavits and drafting cross-examination questions the district might use. This work involved analyzing the school’s actions, evaluating complex testing data, and constructing a persuasive legal argument grounded in both the facts and the law. The hearing before an impartial hearing officer (IHO) went well, and we are hopeful Alexander will soon receive the support he deserves.
This clinic has given me a deeper appreciation for client-centered advocacy — and for the power of showing up for someone when the system doesn’t. What began as a back-up plan to philosophy has become something meaningful: An opportunity to apply my passion for analysis and argumentation to helping students and families.
Amanda DiBenedetto ’26
“Jalen,” a high school student, faced a proposed yearlong suspension for allegedly participating in a serious fight involving three other students. From the outset, the case raised major due process concerns. Although the school informed Jalen’s father that a student witness had identified him as a participant in the incident, it became immediately apparent at the initial suspension hearing that the witness was unfamiliar with Jalen. Then, before Jalen’s father could complete the direct examination, the witness abruptly left the hearing. The supervising attorney then adjourned the matter in order for the father to obtain legal counsel.
Once the father contacted the Education Law Clinic’s legal services partner, Staten Island Legal Services, to represent Jalen, the hearing resumed, but the school failed to bring back the witness or introduce any evidence. Despite the school’s failure to meet its evidentiary burden, the impartial hearing officer suggested that Legal Services subpoena the witness. We responded that the burden of producing witnesses rested solely with the school and was not the responsibility of the accused student.
Even though there was no testimony or documentation placing Jalen at the scene, the IHO suspended Jalen for 54 days. We appealed the decision, emphasizing the significant due process violations, including the school’s failure to produce evidence and the denial of the right to a fair hearing under the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE) Chancellor’s Regulations. After filing our written appeal, Jalen’s suspension was overturned, his record was expunged, and he was reinstated to school immediately.
This case reinforced how easily students can be deprived of their educational rights when schools and administrative hearing officers disregard basic procedural protections. Without representation, families often lack the tools to challenge unsupported accusations in the NYC public school system. Helping Jalen return to school was a powerful reminder of how important it is to safeguard the principles of fairness and due process in every proceeding.
Frank Landau ’26
I had the opportunity to prepare for the representation of an 11-year-old girl who faced a superintendent suspension for allegedly injuring another student during a soccer game in gym class. The student’s mother rightfully questioned why a minor gym class incident had escalated to a long-term suspension, requiring a full-blown hearing.
Even before the hearing began, procedural delays foreshadowed the school's disorganization. School officials withheld discovery documents until the evening before the hearing, only producing them after a supervising attorney from the Brooklyn Office of Student Suspensions reprimanded them. These actions violated multiple components of the NYC DOE Chancellor’s Regulations governing student suspensions and due process rights.
Adding to the procedural missteps, the school’s dean and the gym teacher who witnessed the incident arrived two hours late. Their delay, however, gave me a chance to connect with the student. Drawing from my teaching experience and implementing one of the “Five Habits of Cross-Cultural Lawyering,” I sought common ground and asked about her interests. She brightened as she talked about her love for nonfiction books, her dreams for the future, and her fascination with obstacle courses. In that moment, I was reminded that legal proceedings can often make students feel like their identities have been reduced to a single accusation. My role, however small, was to remind her that she was much more than this hearing.
When the school representatives finally arrived, the hearing began in earnest. The dean and teacher offered what felt like half-hearted justifications for their decision, as though they knew the suspension was excessive but felt compelled to defend it. During the gym teacher’s testimony, he admitted that he saw only the tail end of the alleged altercation and that the gym didn’t provide much space for students — 27 students occupied a 25 square foot room — and the teacher’s attention was split between concurrent games of soccer and pickleball.
Perhaps the most telling moment came after the hearing. In an off-the-record conversation, the dean admitted to the mother that while the student had not formally been disciplined before, she had gotten into trouble and presented with a history of aggressive behavior. This revelation raised a troubling question: Was this suspension truly about the gym class incident, or was it an accumulation of grievances against a student whom the school had labeled a problem?
Under the NYC DOE Discipline Code, schools are required to follow a progressive ladder of discipline before resorting to extreme measures like suspension, yet here was a situation where minor incidents had, unlawfully, resulted in retaliation. How many students find themselves in similar situations, punished not for the incident at hand but for an accumulation of incidents where school officials could have supported the student earlier?
Despite these concerning dynamics, the hearing ended in victory: The charges were dismissed the next day.
I’m proud to have meaningfully contributed to the defense. Though we received the documents on short notice, I drafted key cross-examination questions for the teacher and the alleged victim, as well as the closing argument — much of which my supervising attorney used verbatim.
While this case had a just resolution, I left wondering how many other students, lacking legal representation, find themselves pushed out of the school system for reasons they do not fully understand. The experience reinforced why education law is so vital: Without advocates, students stand little chance against the machinery of school discipline in New York City.
Xiomara Torres ’26
In the Education Law Clinic, I worked with Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem (NDS) to advocate for the educational needs of our clients, who are referred to us by the Family Defense Practice or Youth Law department attorneys working with clients on criminal matters. Often, education is not an issue our clients can prioritize when they have open cases in the criminal court or family court.
In the fall, we received a referral from the Youth Law team for a 17- year-old student who needed our assistance to enroll in a high school. The student, “James,” needed 10 credits to earn his high school diploma. He was interested in attending a transfer school, a high school designed to reengage students who have fallen behind in credits. However, he was not accepted to the transfer school he applied to, and other schools were at capacity. While we searched for an appropriate school, he returned to the high school he attended before his detention.
During his first week back, James was involved in an altercation and received a superintendent suspension. The video evidence was not favorable; James pleaded no contest and was suspended for 15 days. After the suspension, James did not feel safe at the high school or in his neighborhood, and with no other options, he decided to move out of state to live with a close family friend.
Our advocacy for James did not end when he moved. We continued to search for an appropriate school in his new state, despite significant differences in state law. I read through that state’s statutes, called school districts, and even emailed a professor who teaches an Education Law Clinic in James’s state. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in enrolling him in a new school because of the state’s residency requirements.
In the meantime, however, we were able to contribute to James’s criminal defense team’s arguments regarding his desire to earn academic credit and return to New York. James’s criminal charges were ultimately dismissed, and he is returning home.
Our advocacy for James morphed several times over the course of several months, demonstrating the unpredictability of representation and the importance of being flexible in meeting our client’s goals within the confines of the law.
Bianca Vertus ’26
Advocating for clients through the Education Law Clinic has been one of the most meaningful experiences of my law school career. One of my clients, “John,” is an 11-year-old student in sixth grade. John experiences significant learning delays and has been receiving special education services since fourth grade. He is functioning multiple grades below grade level and is suspected of having dyslexia.
Despite clear signs of academic challenges, John has not received the appropriate support in school. When John was in the first grade, his teacher expressed concerns to his mother regarding his academic progress. He struggled with reading and writing, found it hard to understand lessons, and had difficulty focusing in class. School officials began a special education evaluation but concluded he was ineligible for special education services. In second grade while learning remotely due to COVID-19, his academic struggles continued.
In 2022, at John’s mother's request for another evaluation for special education services, he was finally found eligible. However, John’s most recent Individualized Education Program (IEP) showed that his academic functioning had not progressed. He was still performing at a kindergarten level in reading and has regressed to a first-grade level in math.
I worked closely with John’s mother, who is dedicated to ensuring that John receives the support he needs in school. She expressed to me her frustration and lack of trust in the school system, which she believes failed her son. She is his strongest advocate. I assisted her in preparing for an impartial administrative hearing to help her get John the tutoring he needs, which included drafting her affidavit and preparing an opening statement and closing argument. I also delivered the closing argument in his hearing. I'm proud to say that when we received the decision, the hearing officer found entirely in our favor and ordered over 1,500 hours of special education services for John—a staggering amount for this type of decision, which will greatly improve the quality of his education.
Helping John’s mother navigate this process and advocating for John gave me a better understanding of the challenges students and their families face in the education system. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to support John and his mother, and I am looking forward to using my skills to continue advocating for students.
Bekka Wiedenmeyer ’26
Developing relationships with clients this year has reminded me that we work in partnership alongside parents as a multi-faceted team to protect their children’s educational rights.
“Anthony” is a nonverbal student in the fourth grade with multiple diagnoses, including autism. When his father first contacted Bronx Legal Services, Anthony had been attending the same NYC DOE Specialized School in District 75 (D75) since kindergarten.
Anthony’s teachers noted his academic performance had seen improvement every year, but he was consistently scoring below standards and not meeting his IEP goals. When Anthony was in third grade, his father requested a reevaluation due to Anthony’s failure to progress and several incidents where Anthony had come home from school with injuries that school staff could not explain. The reevaluation confirmed that Anthony required the support of specialized instruction and classroom modification. During his next IEP meeting, however, the team continued to recommend the same ineffective D75 placement, carrying over many of his unmet IEP goals from the previous year.
Concerned about Anthony's progress and the injuries sustained at school, his father filed an impartial hearing request seeking placement in a non-public school (NPS) setting. Shortly thereafter, his father engaged our legal services, and we ultimately obtained an independent neuropsychological evaluation, which revealed that Anthony should be placed in a highly specialized education program designed for students with autism.
The IEP team agreed that Anthony should be placed at an NPS and deferred him to the Central Based Support Team (CBST), which helps to identify appropriate, available placements. Despite the father’s efforts to explore CBST’s suggestions, however, no school offered Anthony a seat because they were full or unable to meet his needs. Finally, Anthony’s father identified a private school that he believed would meet Anthony’s needs and enrolled Anthony for the remainder of fourth grade. On behalf of Anthony and his father, our agency filed an impartial hearing request arguing that the DOE had denied Anthony a free appropriate public education (FAPE), the private school was appropriate in meeting Anthony’s needs, and equitable considerations supported the father’s claim for tuition reimbursement.
This case represents one example of many where a parent’s staunch advocacy of their child can result in a successful outcome when amplified by broad, unfettered access to legal services. Client-centered lawyering is about building trust and understanding that, while each client comes to the table with a different set of experiences, they all are working toward a common goal: Ensuring that their child’s educational needs are being met according to the law.
Experiential Learning at New York Law School
Experiential learning is an integral part of the NYLS education. Through our top-tier programs, we offer students the opportunity to turn theory into practice: Starting in their first year, students participate in counseling, interviewing, and negotiating exercises in their foundational Legal Practice course. During their upper-level years, students may select from a wide array of experiential learning courses to hone their lawyering skills. Together with a comprehensive legal education, these experiential offerings prepare our students for careers in advocacy.