University of California College of the Law-San Francisco

Founding of the law school In 1878, Serranus Clinton Hastings, the first chief justice of California , gave $100,000 to be used to create the law school that once bore his name. He arranged for the enactment of a legislative act on March 26, 1878, to create the Hastings College of the Law as a separate legal entity affiliated with the University of California. [ 3 ] : 44, 71–72 [ 4 ] This was apparently intended for compatibility with Section 8 of the university's Organic Act, which authorized the board of regents to affiliate with independent self-sustaining professional colleges. [ 3 ] : 44, 71–72 [ 5 ] Another reason for making the gift in this fashion was that Hastings desired to impose certain conditions on his gift, while "policy and law dictated that a free-gift could not be hedged by power of reversion." [ 3 ] : 81–82 Serranus Clinton Hastings , founder of Hastings College of the Law According to the Hastings College of the Law's official centennial history, its founder, "whether from arrogance, oversight, ignorance, or a combination of all three, was the author of his own troubles." [ 3 ] : 69 Although the founder had selected the original Hastings board of directors from among his professional acquaintances, he failed to adequately verify their concurrence with his beliefs that a proper legal education must include a course in legal ethics and must also be hybridized with elements of a liberal arts education . [ 3 ] : 62–66 To his horror, it turned out they all believed that the only purpose of a law school was to provide vocational education in how to practice law . [ 3 ] : 67–68 This latter belief was shared by the first professor hired, John Norton Pomeroy , who personally taught the vast majority of courses during the law school's early years. [ 3 ] : 67–68 The founder hoped to educate cultured intellectuals who also happened to be lawyers; the board simply wanted to produce lawyers.

[ 3 ] : 67–68 It was impossible to reconcile these fundamentally different visions, and by September 1882, the founder had become estranged from his own handpicked board. [ 3 ] : 77–78 By that point in time, he had come to see the UC Board of Regents as a superior vehicle for infusing liberal arts and legal ethics into his law school, and in March 1883 arranged for another legislative act that purported to transfer the Hastings College of the Law directly to the University of California and vested responsibility for its governance in the regents. [ 3 ] : 78–80 [ 6 ] This was in facial conflict with the "affiliate" language in Section 8 of the Organic Act, so in March 1885, another act was passed to create a pro forma board of trustees for the sole purpose of holding title to the law school's assets at arm's length from the regents (but under which the regents would continue to have the right to manage such assets). [ 3 ] : 81–82 [ 7 ] In deference to the 1883 act, the Hastings board of directors ceased to meet. [ 3 ] : 80 But because the regents chose to remain neutral in the long-simmering dispute between board and founder—and did not attempt to exercise any control under the 1883 or 1885 acts—Hastings went through a strange period from September 1882 to April 1885 where it operated with no actual supervision from any governing board. [ 3 ] : 80 On April 25, 1885, the Hastings board of directors convened to appoint Perrie Kewen as the new registrar, because the previous registrar had died. [ 3 ] : 80–85 At the request of Serranus Clinton Hastings, Attorney General Edward C. Marshall challenged Kewen's appointment by initiating a proceeding for a writ of quo warranto in San Francisco County Superior Court .

[ 3 ] : 80–85 On March 30, 1886, in what became known as Kewen's Case , the Supreme Court of California upheld Kewen's appointment by declaring the 1883 and 1885 acts to be unconstitutional on the basis of a provision of the 1879 state constitution guaranteeing the legislative independence of the University of California. [ 3 ] : 84–85 [ 8 ] In other words, the 1879 ratification of the state's second constitution (which remains in effect today) effectively stripped the California State Legislature of the power to amend preexisting statutes governing the University of California, including the 1878 act. [ 3 ] : 84–85 This was the last time that Serranus Clinton Hastings would try to shape the future of the law school that he had founded; the Hastings College of the Law has maintained its hard-fought independence from the Regents ever since. [ 3 ] : 84–85 The irony of Kewen's Case is that a constitutional provision intended to protect the University of California was applied in such a way as to prevent the university from taking control of its first law school. [ 3 ] : 84–85 In contrast, the "Affiliated Colleges" — the medical, dental, nursing, and pharmacy schools in San Francisco — were affiliated with the University of California through written agreements, and not statutes invested with constitutional importance by court decisions. [ 9 ] In the early 20th century, the Affiliated Colleges agreed to voluntarily submit to the regents' governance during the term of UC President Benjamin Ide Wheeler , as the UC Board of Regents had come to recognize the problems inherent in the existence of independent entities that shared the UC brand but over which the university had no real control.

[ 9 ] While Hastings remained independent, the Affiliated Colleges began to increasingly coordinate with each other and the rest of the UC bureaucracy in Berkeley under the supervision of the president and the regents, and evolved into the health sciences campus known today as the University of California, San Francisco . [ 9 ]