News

The day before graduation, student-attorneys Josh Britt ’24, Moksh Gudala ’24, and Jake Sherman ’24 went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to argue on behalf of a man who claimed his constitutional rights were violated by the Central State Hospital (CSH) in Virginia, where he is a patient.

The experience proved to be a formative and remarkable one for all three students, who said they were grateful for the opportunity to apply the legal skills they’d learned in the classroom to a real-world case. Working with an actual client – Rashad Riddick of Newport News, Va. – also raised the stakes for the students.

“I spent so much time worrying that I wasn’t going to do right by Rashad that I learned much more about the case, its issues, and the legal debates surrounding them,” Sherman said. “I gained a lot of confidence from working in the clinic.”

Britt, Gudala, and Sherman received Riddick’s case last fall when they were starting out in the Appellate Litigation Clinic, which accepts appointments from federal appellate courts in appropriate appeals where parties lack representation.

Reading the trial court’s decision, the students learned Riddick had been involuntarily committed to CSH after being found mentally incompetent and unable to stand trial for the 2011 deaths of three of his family members. Riddick alleges the hospital violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights in 2018, when staff immobilized him in four-point restraints for two weeks and then placed him in total seclusion in an empty ward for 19 months.

While Virginia Administrative Code sets the baseline for the use of restraint and seclusion at a maximum of four hours each, CSH staff stated that they obtained an exemption to place Riddick in seclusion or restraint when there was “a concern that [he] could become aggressive.” Sherman says deconstructing the perception of Riddick as a “dangerous, untrustworthy individual” was a priority for their group.

“If you talk with Rashad, nothing could be a greater mischaracterization,” Sherman said. “By learning his side of the story, he also helped us to dismantle the defendants’ counter-narrative about him.”

The works begins

In the clinic, third-year students work on cases in teams, reviewing the case record, conducting legal research, drafting and editing opening and reply briefs, preparing the excerpts of record for the court of appeals, and helping prepare for oral argument. Typically, students will argue their appeals when oral arguments are calendared in the same school year in which students worked on the briefs.

Starting out, Britt, Gudala, and Sherman read the district court’s decision and the record to determine the most meritorious arguments to raise on appeal. Within three weeks, they narrowed down their appeal to three core issues: professional judgment, personal participation, and appointment of counsel.

In its decision, the district court had found that Riddick failed to plausibly allege that the hospital staff’s conduct substantially departed from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards. The court also found that Riddick failed sufficiently to allege that the head of the state agency that oversees the hospital personally participated in any violation of Riddick’s constitutional rights and that Riddick’s claims, which he brought pro se, did not warrant the appointment of counsel.

Assistant Clinical Professor Richard Katskee, director of the clinic, encouraged the students to take a lead role in dividing up the work, talking through the issues of the case, and developing their own views. Meeting with students weekly, Katskee, a seasoned appellate advocate, guided their discussions, provided constructive feedback, and shared his overall expertise.

“The point of a clinic is to give students the real-world experience of being lawyers,” Katskee said. “Having Jake, Josh, and Moksh get to know the client, figure out which issues to raise, and decide how to manage the workflow encouraged them take ownership of the case—to make it their own. It also helped the students come together as a team and learn to respect and build on each other’s insights, which made the briefs and oral argument much more effective.”

Britt noted: “The hands-off approach is definitely true toward the beginning of the briefing process while we were researching and generating ideas. Although I’d probably characterize [Professor Katskee] as more hands-on once we put pen to paper, even substantively.”

Sherman took on the personal participation issue and the fact section of the opening brief, and Gudala worked on the appointment of counsel section. Britt briefed the professional judgment issue and, ultimately, delivered oral argument in the Fourth Circuit.

Preparing for court

Looking back, Britt said arguing in front of a U.S. Court of Appeals is not something he envisioned doing even five to 10 years into his legal career. Doing it as a third-year law student in front of a three-judge panel was surreal.

“As a student-attorney rather than a repeat player, I wanted to ensure that I was being useful for the [Fourth Circuit], since they’d appointed us to help with the case,” he said. “I’m incredibly grateful to [Professor Katskee] and Mr. Riddick for trusting me with that responsibility.”

Katskee guided the trio on crafting an effective and persuasive oral argument, drawing on his significant work as lawyer and advocate. In addition to a focus on protecting First Amendment freedoms and defending anti-discrimination laws, Katskee has argued at the U.S. Supreme Court and was legal advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education.

“All the students worked enormously hard, asking each other tough questions, figuring out the state’s best arguments and developing responses to them, and mooting each other to ensure that they would present the client’s case effectively,” Katskee said. “By the time Josh argued before the Fourth Circuit, he understood Mr. Riddick’s case backwards and forwards, and he was ready to answer any questions that the judges threw at him. He did an incredible job, presenting the case powerfully and with a poise that even most experienced lawyers don’t have.”

Britt says Katskee’s experience and approach were invaluable in helping him prepare for oral argument. The encouragement and support, Britt said, were foundational in empowering him to do his best in court.

“He knew that every advocate is a touch different,” Britt said. “At the end of every moot, roundtable, or discussion in his office, he would always ask: ‘How are you feeling? Is what we just did helpful for your preparation?’”

Britt wanted to capably—and hopefully, persuasively—tell Riddick’s story and articulate the complex legal issues at play to the court. He knew it was important to hear the judges’ questions correctly and respond in a straightforward and effective manner. As he worked on this with Professor Katskee and Gudala and Sherman, Britt also received help from his faculty, practitioners, and fellow students.

“They mooted me over and over. Their thoughts were invaluable in developing cogent responses and themes to present to the court. I can’t thank those people enough,” Britt said.

A right to counsel

“Access to justice remains a prevalent and pervasive issue in our judicial system, and it is even further exacerbated by the legal standards for trial courts to grant or deny appointment of counsel at their discretion,” Gudala said.

In their 2L year, Gudala and Britt took the Appellate Courts seminar taught by Marin Levy, Professor of Law. The class directly informed their clinic work, examining the practices and powers of American appellate courts, and how components of the appellate decision-making process further institutional goals.

Gudala saw that pro se cases, like Riddick’s, were often quickly disposed of at the appellate level—without oral argument and without a published decision.

“Functionally, failure to afford (or be appointed) counsel serves as an inherent barrier to justice,” Gudala said, “Learning about this inherent access to justice concern … I was even more invested in Rashad’s ability to receive appointed counsel.”

Working together, the students tackled this issue head on in their opening brief by highlighting policy arguments supporting such appointment. The trial court maintained that if Riddick were capable enough to file his motion, then he was competent enough to represent himself in court, as well. The students argued that the trial court put their client in an impossible position, and that Fourth Circuit precedent contradicts denial of counsel to their client.

Gudala said, “Unfortunately, this no-win situation, often faced by plaintiffs from underserved communities without sufficient access to legal assistance, highlights the systemic barriers to justice baked into our legal system.”

Drafting their appellate brief

Katskee guided the overall structure and flow of the 52-page brief and edited the text. He credits the students with handling the challenging work entailed in developing, drafting, and refining the legal arguments. Sherman says his time in the clinic definitely helped level up his legal writing skills.

“By the end, I learned how to write sentences more clearly to avoid corrections or confusion from [Prof. Katskee] later on,” Sherman said.

The trio also leaned on fellow clinic students Margaret Kruzner ’24, Luke Mears ’24, and Matt Queen ’24 for help. In March, Kruzner, Mears, and Queen argued a case in the Fourth Circuit on behalf of a South Carolina man whose day in court was delayed for years by the COVID outbreak.

“They frequently reviewed portions of – or the whole of – our brief, and their insight was really pivotal in how we themed the briefing,” Britt said.

During the reply, Katskee directed the students to each take a different section of the brief to get fresh eyes on the pages and help each of them further develop their knowledge of the legal issues – and the case, overall.

Sherman said, “I’m glad he did this because it helped to broaden our understanding of the case and provided more detailed arguments on reply.” Picking up Gudala’s section, he challenged the defendants’ understanding of the case law and reiterated to the Fourth Circuit that it was within their power to appoint counsel for Riddick.

Working with their client

While the clinic work provided Britt, Gudala, and Sherman with an opportunity to work with a real client, contacting their client was challenging at first. CSH patients share a single phone in the ward and do not have internet access. Sherman worked with the hospital administration to arrange a weekly call for Riddick so the students could update him on their progress and get to know him and his story.

Riddick said his lawsuit against CSH was less for himself and more to advocate for the rights of all involuntarily committed individuals.

Sherman said, “He cares a lot about ensuring that hospital administrators respect the rights of patients, and he wanted to use his experiences as a catalyst for change.” He says speaking with Riddick gave a clearer picture of what he was trying to convey to the courts and strengthened themes in their argument and brief.

Sherman knew episodes of violence in Riddick’s past could be leveraged by the defense to undercut the credibility of his complaint. 

“The Fourth Circuit seemed to be extremely displeased with how the defendants tried to vilify Rashad in their briefing and during oral arguments, so our strategy worked pretty well,” Sherman said. “We couldn’t have countered the defendants’ briefing as effectively without being able to work with Riddick directly.”

‘The best experience I had during law school.’

The thought of working as an appellate advocate crossed Britt’s mind during his first semester at Duke Law. Though he was still uncertain when he signed up for the Appellate Litigation Clinic, Britt said working with Katskee helped dispel his fears and concerns.

“Anyone can be an appellate advocate if they’re willing to work,” Britt said. “I’d strongly, strongly encourage any students who are interested in appellate work … to give the clinic a try. It’s a marvelous experience, and one you surely won’t regret.”

The clinic provided Sherman with opportunities for professional and personal growth, as well as the chance to engage with and learn from his fellow students and their casework. He says working on Riddick’s case and being able to help Kruzner, Mears, and Queen with the briefing in their case was “the best experience I had during law school.”

Sherman added: “It forced me to grow so much as an advocate, exposed me to the day-to-day practice of an appellate attorney, and granted me the opportunity to work with an extraordinary group of people on a very important issue of civil rights law.”