> 뉴스 > 인터뷰
[인터뷰]“법학을 기초로 공공에 봉사할 수 있어야”마리오 반즈 미국 워싱턴대학교 로스쿨 원장
인터뷰어 Ι 강지원 제2국제이사  |  -
폰트키우기 폰트줄이기 프린트하기 메일보내기 신고하기
[720호] 승인 2018.12.31  09:42:52
트위터 페이스북 미투데이 요즘 네이버 구글 msn

본인에 대한 간단한 소개 부탁드립니다.

저는 미국 캘리포니아주 샌디에고에서 태어났습니다. 미국 해군 장학금으로 UC버클리 대학교 학부과정과 로스쿨을 마쳤습니다.

뛰어난 교육을 제공하는 UC버클리 대학교의 공공교육과 미국 해군의 장학금 제도에 감사하고 있습니다. 저는 평범한 가정에서 자랐기 때문에 공공교육과 장학금 없이는 로스쿨을 다닐 수 없었을 것입니다.

캘리포니아 변호사 시험에 합격하고 다시 미국 해군의 Judge Advocate General’s Corps의 일원으로서 검사, 변호사, 미국 검찰총장의 특별 보좌관, 그리고 대테러 위원회 등에서 일했습니다. 총 23년의 현역 및 예비역 복무기간을 마치고 2002년부터 학계에서 일하게 됐습니다.

위스콘신 대학교의 펠로우십 프로그램을 통해 마이애미 대학교에서 처음 교직을 시작하여 UC어바인 대학교에서는 학장 및 인종 및 평등법 센터의 공동디렉터로 일했습니다. 그리고 올해부터 워싱턴대학교에 몸담게 됐습니다.

다양성과 관련하여 특별한 계획이나 목표를 갖고 계신가요?

제가 워싱턴대학교 로스쿨 원장직을 수락한 이유 중 하나는 워싱턴대학교가 다양성의 가치를 존중하기 때문입니다. 군대에서 겪은 경험을 통해, 조직은 소속된 모든 사람들의 능력과 관점을 발휘하게 하지 않으면 성공할 수 없고 개인의 다양한 삶의 경험과 접근법이 모일 때 더 잘 운영된다는 것을 배웠습니다.

그리고 가장 중요한 것은 다양성은 우수함과 전적으로 일치한다는 점입니다. 다양성을 추구한다고 해서 우수성이 훼손되는 것이 아닙니다. 여기에서 다양성은 가장 넓은 의미의 다양성을 말합니다.

저는 전세계의 사람들이 함께 모일 수 있는-가능한 넓은 기회의 장을 제공하는- 학교를 만들고 싶습니다. 우리는 공동체 의식을 함양하기 위해서 서로 소통하는 방법과 공동체에 참여하는 것이 학업과 삶에 어떻게 도움이 될 수 있는지 알아야 합니다. 미국 대법원의 유명한 Grutter 사건은 고등 교육과 분리될 수 없는 다양성의 가치를 확인하고 다양성이 유지되는 학생 공동체의 학업적 유익성을 위해 인종적 기준을 고려사항으로 하는 것을 존중합니다.

지구공동체가 다양성을 존중할 필요가 있다는 점과 그 가치를 입학요강에 통합시킴으로써 우리 학교를 졸업하는 학생들이 법조인으로서 세상에 나갈 준비될 수 있도록 해야 합니다. 워싱턴대학교는 개별화된 입학심사를 진행하고 있습니다. 우리는 전체로서의 개인과 학업적, 직업적 그리고 인생의 경험들을 통합적으로 검토하여 다양성을 추구합니다. 또한 어느 한 가정에서 처음으로 대학교를 진학한 사람인지, 사회경제적 지위가 어떻게 되는지 등도 함께 고려합니다. 경험에 초점을 맞춘 개별화된 입학심사를 통해 현재 30%의 학생들이 스스로를 소수집단 출신이라고 생각하는 학생공동체를 구성하고 있습니다.

임기 중 이룰 중요한 목표로 어떤 것을 생각하고 계신 가요?

저는 워싱턴대학교 총장인 Ana Mari Cauce와 함께 우리 학교가 지역적, 국가적, 세계적으로 미치는 영향 면에서 최고의 공립대학교로 인정받길 바랍니다. 워싱턴대학교 법과대학이 졸업한 날부터 바로 실무에 투입될 수 있으면서, 동시에 윤리적이고 주변에 큰 영향을 미치는 변호사를 양성하는 장소가 되길 바랍니다.

이를 위해서는 공공에 봉사하는 마음과 사회 정의를 전통으로 하고 다양성이 곧 우수함인 곳에서 배움을 받았다는 것을 전달할 수 있는 프로그램을 만들어야 합니다. 우리가 지식과 다양성을 포용하는 공동체 윤리를 모두 갖춘 학생들을 배양하고, 나아가 세상에 좋은 영향을 미칠 수 있도록 가르칠 수 있다면 더 이상 바랄 게 없을 것입니다.

제 계획은 ‘파이프라인’을 만드는 데 더 많이 투자하는 것입니다. 대학교를 이미 졸업한 학생들을 대상으로 워싱턴대학교 로스쿨에 진학할 의사가 있는지 물어보는 것이 아니라 훨씬 이른 단계에서부터 워싱턴대학교가 가진 공공의 사명을 전달하여야 합니다.

또 다른 목표는 공익에 사명을 갖는 학생들이 대출금이나 부채와 상관없이 그들이 하고 싶은 일을 선택할 수 있는 자유를 갖고 졸업할 수 있도록 하는 것입니다. 로스쿨의 비용적 구조 때문에 대출금을 갚기에 가장 용이한 민간부문에서 일하는 것을 선택하는 학생들이 있습니다. 제가 할 수 있는 일은 두 가지가 있습니다. 입학 시에 학비를 줄일 수 있도록 장학금을 마련하거나 아니면 졸업하면서 학비 융자금을 탕감 받을 수 있도록 하는 기금을 마련할 수 있습니다. 그리고 공익을 위해 일하는 학생들에게는 융자금을 더 천천히 또는 적게 갚을 수 있도록 하는 기금을 주는 것입니다.

법조인이 되기 위해 밤낮으로 노력하고 있는 한국의 로스쿨 학생들을 위해 조언 한 말씀 부탁드립니다.

일각에서는 미국 로스쿨이 너무 많은 졸업생을 배출하고 있다며 법조 직역으로 진출하는 변호사의 수를 조절하기 위해 로스쿨을 줄여야 한다는 의견이 있습니다. 사회가 필요로 하는 적정 수의 기준을 마련하고 일괄된 합격률을 통해 좋은 변호사의 자격을 검증하되, 양적 팽창을 이유로 자격이 충분한 사람들의 진입을 제한하지 않는 변호사시험을 만들기 위해서는 변호사협회와 로스쿨의 협력이 필요합니다.

제 학생들에게도 해주고 싶은 말이지만 법학은 많은 것을 배울 수 있는 훌륭한 교육입니다. 법조인이 되기 위한 교육을 마친 변호사는 송무 등 전형적인 변호사의 업무 외에도 할 수 있는 일이 아주 많습니다. 미국에서도 변호사 자격을 갖고 있지만 전형적인 업무 외 다양한 분야에서 훌륭한 일을 하고 있는 사람이 많습니다.

그리고 일류 로펌에서 필요한 것보다는 많은 수의 변호사를 배출하고 있을지 모르지만 아직도 경제적으로 여유가 없는 사람들의 사법접근권에 심각한 문제가 있습니다. 변호사가 너무 많다는 의견과 반대로 너무 부족하다는 의견을 조화롭게 해결하기 위해서는 창의적으로 생각해야 합니다. 공적 영역과 민간 영역이 함께 노력하여 사회의 다양한 분야에서 법적 도움을 필요로 하는 사람들에게 다가갈 수 있는 프로그램을 고안할 필요가 있습니다.

마리오 반즈 미국 워싱턴대학교 로스쿨 원장
<Mario L. Barnes Toni Rembe Dean, UW School of Law>

주요 약력

워싱턴대학교 로스쿨 원장
캘리포니아 대학교 어바인 분교 부학장
미국 해군

마리오 반즈 미국 워싱턴대학교 로스쿨 원장 인터뷰 원문

Q: Please tell us briefly about yourself.

A: I am originally from San Diego, California, in the United States. I attended undergraduate and law school at the University of California, Berkeley both with a U.S. Navy Scholarship. While I was on active duty as a surface warfare officer, the Navy selected me as one of the 5 people that year to enter law school. I feel very fortunate and thankful to Berkeley for providing an outstanding education and the U.S. Navy for the sponsorship because I came from a family with very modest income. Without scholarship and access to public school, I wouldn’t have been able to attend a law school.

After passing the CA Bar exam, I went back to the Navy as a Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG) officer, where I worked as a prosecutor, defense counsel, special assistant U.S. attorney, and on the commission investigating terrorism. I left active duty and shifted into career in legal academia in 2002, but I continued to serve in the Navy Eeserve for 11 more years, making total 23 years of active and reserve duty.

I first went to a fellowship program at the University of Wisconsin and then started my teaching career at the University of Miami followed by University of California, Irvine where I was an associate dean and co-director at the Center on Law, Equality and Race. The University of Washington hired me earlier this year.

Q: What was the reason you chose academia as your second career?

A: When I was in the Admiralty and Maritime Law Division of the Office of the Judge Advocate General, my law professor, Angela Harris, visited at Georgetown Law, which turned out to be a turning point for my career in academia. She pointed out that she saw me as a person with a desire for teaching. She not only encouraged me to dive into academia but also helped me set out a transition plan.

The problem was that I wasn’t sure of how to make a transition to academia from a military background. It was the Hastie Fellowship Program at the University of Wisconsin that helped me with the transition. The program provides an opportunity to people to prepare for a career in law teaching especially for people of color and from other under-represented communities in the legal academy. It also provides an LL.M degree for the fellows’ scholarly work and an access to faculty meetings.

Q: Could you please tell us about your specific plans or commitments regarding diversity issue?

A: The University of Washington upholds the value of diversity which is one of the reasons why I have accepted the position as Toni Rembe Dean. From the military experience, I have learned that the organization cannot be successful unless it leverages the talents and perspectives of all people and it works better with more diverse life experiences and different approaches of individuals. Most importantly, diversity is absolutely consistent with excellence it makes no sense to claim that we sacrifice excellence when we promote diversity. Here, I mean diversity in the broadest sense, which includes demographic and social factors like race, gender, socio-economic class, but also perspectives, experiences, the various places where you grew up and how you grew up.

I want a school that creates the broadest opportunity possible for a large group of people from all over the world. We need to embrace diversity as strength and inclusion that meaningful. It is not just that you invite people and say now we have different people here together we need to understand how to communicate across groups to promote a sense of community and how being a part of that community contributes to both education and life beyond it.

One of the important statistics on diversity in the U.S. relates to admissions to law schools. The Grutter v. Bollinger et al. case upholds the value of diversity as a compelling interest in higher education and race as one of a number of factors that can be taken into account to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student body. Justice O'Connor in her majority opinion also mentioned that diversity is important to the “world” it is important to training graduates who would go out to work force, to the military, having understood the value of meaningful inclusion and to be able to work in a world where that value is important and essential to success. So it isn't just good for us to learn about each other and work with each other while we are there, but it is important to understand that the global community requires a respect for difference and it is important that we incorporate that in our admission so that lawyers that we produce would be ready for global practice.

At UW, we do individualized admissions. We have a state rule which is based on civil rights legislation which says we can't specifically look at race, gender or sexuality explicitly in the way in which we do our admissions, do hiring, do benefits in the states. In the state of Washington or CA, we don't have race or identity conscious admissions what we do is try to achieve diversity by looking at the whole person and gather information from both their educational and work/life experience. We try to think about how they add to the community where each person contributes something potentially unique and individual to the larger whole.

We also consider whether they are the first generation to go to college, and challenges related to things like poor socio-economic backgrounds. When you give attention to the factors such as these it also tends to produce people who come from backgrounds where there has been historical underrepresentation. For us it is not an explicit requirement it is individualized process which typically yields diversity that we have now by focusing on diverse experiences of students. It produces the class that is still 30% racially diverse 30% of the most recent student entering the class self-identified as belonging to groups that are from minority backgrounds.

Q: What is the percentage of graduates from the law school who enter into public sector?

A: I would say that even though we are a public school, the majority of our students end up in private practice, with private practice and government work being the largest groups. I think a number of our students choose private work because that is what they want and what they have always wanted to do, but I think there are some who choose it because with the cost structure of law school, it is the thing that makes it easiest to pay loans back.

My goal would be that my students graduate with a choice to choose exactly what they want to do for those who want to go into public service, that they have that opportunity irrespective of loans and debt. And there are only 2 real ways I can do it. I can't lower the tuition, but I can find scholarships to offset the tuition as they come in and I can try to find money for loan forgiveness when they graduate. For graduates who take up public interest with lower pay you provide them funds to pay back their loan slower. That’s all we can do now.

I think the current structure of U.S. law schools is not going to be able to reduce tuition effectively. The University of Washington has been very good at keeping tuition somewhat lower than others similar situated public law schools. I am proud that we have done that much but the truth is that we will have to find a way to provide scholarships or aid in order to provide students their best job choices. More and more students are entering into private practice but we still do have appreciable numbers who choose public work and there are certainly quite a few who do government work such as clerking for judges, working for the Attorney General, and working as a prosecutor and defense counsel.

Q: What are your other primary goal during your term?

A: I have the goal which is absolutely consistent with that of our president, Ana Mari Cauce. I want us to be recognized as the best public law school in the world as measured by local, national and global impact. I want the University of Washington Law School to be a place where we produce ethically minded or ethically sound lawyers who are ready to go to practice on the first day, and that graduate and have great impact on the world around them.

And to do so we need to create a program to teach students that they come from a tradition of public service and social justice and from a place that has taught them that diversity equals excellence. So if we can send them out to the world to create that impact with a program of education that has prepared them both in terms of their knowledge and their ethical training in a community that has embraced diversity, I can do no more. So every day I work to ensure that our program of education is producing ethically sound students who will be ready to practice on the first day after they graduate in a community that respects them and teaches them to respect others.

I think our plan is to invest greater resources in creating pipelines. Instead of taking students into consideration only after they have graduated from college to ask if they want to come to our law school, we need to start reinforcing the idea of the public mission of University of Washington at a much earlier stage. One of the most important things about the University of Washington is its public service mission and its social justice mission, and it certainly has attracted a very broad group of students. So we will be thinking about pipeline programs which will push a message of University of Washington and law school deeper into the community to reach students at earlier stage, especially since we compete with other excellent schools to enroll our classes.

Q: Please give advice to law school students in Korea who are fiercely fighting their way into legal profession.

A: In U.S., there is an idea that U.S. law schools produce too many graduates and that we need to reduce the number of law schools in order to right-size the amount of lawyers that we produce for the profession. I am very lucky to work in the State of Washington because there are only 3 law schools as opposed to California which have many law schools. So we are facing our own types of issues trying to figure out the balance between legal academia and number of lawyers we produce.

There has to be a concerted effort and the Bar Association is in the perfect position to help manage this. It has to be a concerted effort between the profession and law schools to figure out the right number of lawyers in the society and to construct the bar exam that sets not only a consistent passing rate qualifying a good attorney but also a reasonable passing rate that doesn't simply restrict otherwise talented people from entering the practice. You need to develop a coordinated approach between the profession and law school. I hope the American Bar Association will play a larger role in this along with the Association of American Law Schools and try to have the profession and legal academia as partners rather than taking sides on how we think about producing lawyers for practice.

Secondly, I would say this to my own students, law is an amazing education for so many things including things that you can do other than just practice in law. What I mean by that is we need lawyers in every sort of area of practice government, commercial, satisfying the needs of poor and disenfranchised people. Law is a great education that produces people who are strong writers, critical thinkers, and problem solvers. If we could convince our graduates that there are many jobs that they should be considering in addition to the practice of law where their legal training would benefit them, I think it would ease some of problems regarding having too many people to enter into a very narrow job field. So one goal would be to try to encourage them to think about all the amazing skills you learn and that practicing law is one thing you can do out of many other opportunities. There are many people in the U.S. with law degrees who don't practice in law. They have great jobs but they do not practice in law it is still true that they benefited from their legal education.

I also think that there might be a mismatch. It is the case that we produce probably more lawyers than necessary in a narrow type of legal practice, but we are not actually producing too many lawyers. We may be producing more lawyers for elite private practice in firms, but if we look to U.S., we actually have significant problem with access to justice for poor people and there are certain communities where they don't have legal representation where they desperately need it. There is a disjuncture between lawyers who want to go work where they can make a certain type of life and these people who still need legal services who aren't getting it.

There are programs historically like Teach For America, Peace Corps and there are these programs essentially where the government asks you to give a certain type of service and there are benefits that will come to those who are enrolled in the program. Young graduates from college would go and do service and then get some government benefits for the service. There needs to be a program which identifies legal needs for peoples and communities who don't have great access to lawyers and incentivize law school graduates for at least 2 years. I don't think we have thought about law as aligning the needs with the amount of lawyers that we are producing. Mostly because that there's is such a reputational advantage to certain types of legal practice and also because graduates of U.S. law schools have significant debts. If you are going to give somebody an opportunity to work with that community, you would also have to do things like forgiving their loans, giving them some ability to do that service work and being able to meet the obligation on debts that they have from law school.

I think that law is a noble profession. A Lawyer's job is helping people. Needs of those that cannot afford attorneys do get met through pro-bono programs. But the need is just much greater. If we could just retool some law graduates and give them financial backing to be able to do it, I bet many of them would be willing. We don't have much investment in rural legal services, we do have some legal services in the city, but they handle very narrow sorts of legal problems.

We need to think creatively to match our too many problem and too little problem. Too many attorneys trying to do particular jobs but too few people getting the services. It would take funding and it would be interesting to find out whether law firms would be willing to contribute. They could create sources of income for people who are sponsored by them but don't work for the firm. Fried Frank has a program where its U.S. law firm creates a fellowship it pays for a person to go to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP) to do legal work. It is the private firm paying for the public sector working through a fellowship. If you could find a program like that, it would create partnerships to solve problems of having legal services meeting the needs.

폰트키우기 폰트줄이기 프린트하기 메일보내기 신고하기
트위터 페이스북 미투데이 요즘 네이버 구글 msn 뒤로가기 위로가기
이 기사에 대한 댓글 이야기 (0)
자동등록방지용 코드를 입력하세요!   
확인
- 200자까지 쓰실 수 있습니다. (현재 0 byte / 최대 400byte)
- 욕설등 인신공격성 글은 삭제 합니다. [운영원칙]
이 기사에 대한 댓글 이야기 (0)
최근인기기사
1
또 헌법 무시 ‘개악’ 세무사법안 반대
2
[기자의 시선]펭수가 말합니다
3
[인터뷰]한의사, 사업가에서 법률전문가로, 의료정책 변화와 회원 권익 보장을 꾀하다!
4
[사설]전면적인 세무대리 부정하는 세무사법 개정 시도 규탄한다
5
“반인권적 북한 주민 강제북송 … 정치 논리보다 인권 우선해야”
Copyright © 2019 대한변협신문. All rights reserved. mail to webmaster@news.koreanbar.or.kr