[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20707-20715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07543]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Parts 201, 232, and 234

[Docket No. 2021-9]


Copyright Claims Board: Law Student and Business Entity 
Representation

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is issuing a final rule establishing 
procedures governing the appearance of law student representatives and 
representatives of business entities in proceedings before the 
Copyright Claims Board.

DATES: Effective May 9, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Efthimiadis, Assistant to the 
General Counsel, by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c31393a281c3f332c252e353b3428723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="640901021024070b141d160d030c104a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>, or by telephone at 
202-707-8350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (``CASE'') 
Act of 2020 \1\ directs the Copyright Office (``Office'') to establish 
the Copyright Claims Board (``CCB''), an alternative forum to federal 
court in which parties may seek resolution of copyright disputes that 
have a total monetary value of $30,000 or less.\2\ The CCB has the 
authority to hear copyright infringement claims, claims seeking a 
declaration of noninfringement, and misrepresentation claims under 17 
U.S.C. 512(f).\3\ Participation in the CCB is voluntary for all parties 
\4\ and all determinations are non-precedential.\5\ The CASE Act 
directs the Register of Copyrights to establish the regulations by 
which the CCB will conduct its proceedings, subject to the provisions 
of chapter 15 and relevant principles of law under title 17 of the 
United States Code.\6\ The CASE Act also provides that any party in a 
CCB proceeding may be represented by ``a law student who is qualified 
under applicable law governing representation by law students of 
parties in legal proceedings and who provides such representation on a 
pro bono basis.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 116-260, sec. 212, 134 Stat. 1182, 2176 (2020).
    \2\ 17 U.S.C. 1502(a), 1504(e)(1)(D); see, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 
116-252, at 17-20 (2019); S. Rep. No. 116-105, at 11 (2019). Note, 
the CASE Act legislative history cited is for H.R. 2426 and S. 1273, 
the CASE Act of 2019, a bill nearly identical to the CASE Act of 
2020. See H.R. 2426, 116th Cong. (2019); S. 1273, 116th Cong. 
(2019).
    \3\ 17 U.S.C. 1504(c)(1)-(3).
    \4\ See id. at 1504(a); H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 17, 21; S. 
Rep. No. 116-105, at 3, 11.
    \5\ 17 U.S.C. 1507(a)(3); H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 21-22, 33; 
S. Rep. No. 116-105, at 14.
    \6\ 17 U.S.C. 1506(a)(1).
    \7\ Id. at 1506(d)(2); see also S. Rep. No. 116-105, at 4 
(``Parties may also rely upon law school legal clinics to represent 
them before the Board.''); H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 17 (``Parties 
may . . . be represented . . . by a law student acting pro bono.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2021, the Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(``NPRM''), proposing regulations governing the representation of 
parties

[[Page 20708]]

by qualified law students.\8\ To facilitate law student representation 
before the CCB, the Office proposed setting threshold eligibility 
requirements for law students and their supervising attorneys and 
creating a voluntary public directory of law school clinics whose 
students are available to represent clients before the CCB.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 86 FR 74394 (Dec. 30, 2021). Comments received in response 
to the NPRM are available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2021-0011-0001/comment. References to comments responding to 
the NPRM are by party name (abbreviated where appropriate), followed 
by ``Initial NPRM Comments'' or ``Reply NPRM Comments'' as 
appropriate.
    \9\ See id. at 74397-98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same NPRM also proposed regulations ``governing the 
representation of corporations, limited liability companies, 
partnerships, sole proprietorships, and other unincorporated 
associations (collectively, `business entities')'' in CCB 
proceedings.\10\ Considering the small claims nature of the CCB and the 
fact that attorney representation is not mandatory, the Office proposed 
that, in addition to attorneys or law students, business entities may 
be represented in a CCB proceeding by a fiduciary or properly 
authorized employee, and proposed requirements that these 
representatives must follow.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 74394.
    \11\ Id. at 74397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed regulations, 
except as discussed in the sections below, and offered many suggestions 
that the Office is adopting in the final rule. Based on the comments 
received, the final rule will expand the scope of law student 
participation in CCB proceedings in several ways. The prerequisites for 
law students to appear before the CCB have been adjusted to provide law 
clinics more discretion. In addition, law students will be permitted to 
participate before the CCB not only through law school clinics but also 
through pro bono legal services organizations that have a connection 
with the student's law school. Accordingly, under the final rule, the 
Office will provide a public directory of both participating law school 
clinics and participating pro bono organizations. As in the proposed 
rule, a clinic or organization will not be required to be on the 
published CCB list to participate in CCB proceedings.
    Commenters were also supportive of the proposed rule governing 
business entity representation. The final rule adopts the proposed 
rule's approach and permits business entities to be represented before 
the CCB by in-house attorneys, fiduciaries, and employees expressly 
authorized by the business entity to represent it in a particular 
proceeding. The final rule also includes a revision to clarify that a 
business entity's representative may submit a single valid 
certification that will remain effective throughout a proceeding, but 
such certification does not extend to future proceedings.

II. Discussion of Final Rule

A. Requirements for Law Student Representation

1. Law Student Representation Through Law School Clinics
    Most comments addressing law student representation before the CCB 
expressed support for the Office's proposed rule.\12\ A typical 
comment, jointly submitted by ``Law School Faculty With an Interest in 
CCB Procedures'' (``Law School Faculty''), including professors and 
clinic directors from eight law schools, stated ``[t]he Proposed 
Regulations properly take into consideration the need to ensure the 
quality of law student representation and the corresponding burdens 
placed on the law clinics and supervising attorneys.'' \13\ Many 
commenters further wrote in favor of expanding opportunities for 
student representation beyond the law school clinic environment, as 
further discussed below.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Law School Faculty With an Interest in CCB Procedures 
Initial NPRM Comments at 1-2 (commenting parties include Brianna 
Marie Christenson, Sabren Hassan Wahdan, Sandra Aistars, Amy Tang, 
Philippa Loengard, Robert Brauneis, Melissa Eckhause, Jon M. Garon, 
Laurie Kohn, Christopher Newman, Sean A. Pager, Zvi Rosen, Mark F. 
Schultz) (``[L]aw school clinics will play an important role in 
allowing parties to confidently pursue or defend their claims before 
the CCB.'') (``Law School Faculty''); Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM 
Comments at 1 (``a welcome new opportunity for law student 
experiential learning and an important additional support of access 
to justice in the realm of copyright law''); Norman Hedges Initial 
NPRM Comments at 2; Joel Rothman Initial NPRM Comments at 1; 
Anonymous Initial NPRM Comments; Sarah Mintz Reply NPRM Comments; 
Anonymous II Reply NPRM Comments.
    \13\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 1.
    \14\ See id. at 6; Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 2; 
Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 2-3; Copyright 
Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 7; Copyright Alliance et 
al. Reply NPRM Comments at 10 (``[I]n line with many other clinic 
and professor authored comments, we again urge the Office to expand 
the scope of law student participation to include other programs, 
organizations, and groups that utilize law school students.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters requested that the Office consider defining the 
term ``law school clinic'' and proposed using the District of Columbia 
Court of Appeals Rule 48(a)(5) as a model.\15\ After considering the 
variety of operating structures and practices employed by clinical 
programs at law schools throughout the country,\16\ the Office declines 
to provide a specific, limiting definition of the term, to avoid unduly 
excluding capable clinics from participation.\17\ A participating law 
student must comply with the applicable law of the jurisdiction that 
certifies the student to practice law in conjunction with a law school 
clinic. Further, the student's supervising attorney must also be 
qualified to practice under applicable law and must certify the 
student's eligibility to participate. The same commenters urged the 
Office to ``allow law school clinics to set their own rules with regard 
to the handling of costs'' \18\ when defining ``law school clinic.'' As 
noted above, the Office does not purport to define that term at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 5-6; Copyright 
Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 7; see DC App. R. 48, 
https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/DCCA%20Rule%2048.pdf (last visited March 28, 2022); see also 
Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 2-4 (proposing 
definition of ``clinic'' to include all education to assist with pro 
bono legal representation, or to cover other law school educational 
programs).
    \16\ See generally Cynthia L. Dahl & Victoria F. Phillips, 
Innovation and Tradition: A Survey of Intellectual Property and 
Technology Legal Clinics, 25 Clinical L. Rev. 95, 137-47 (Fall 
2018), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3184486.
    \17\ See Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 2 
(cautioning against ``placing additional CCB-specific burdens on 
clinic operations''); id. at 6 (identifying concerns related to the 
role of ``faculty'' and ``fee-shifting'' in a potential definition 
of ``law school clinic''); Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM 
Comments at 3 (noting that Tulane Law School has a trademark and 
patent lab but no formal intellectual property clinic, so its 
students would likely be precluded from participating under the 
proposed definition).
    \18\ Law School Faculty Initial Comments at 6. The Office 
understands the reference to ``costs'' to denote what are called 
``court costs'' in litigation, such as filing fees and service-
related fees. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule did not include any limits on the number of 
proceedings in which a law student representative or clinic may 
participate. The Law School Faculty commenters asserted that the Office 
may lack the authority to impose such a limit.\19\ The Office does not 
include any limitations in this final rule, but it intends to address 
the issue of limits, if any, on the number of proceedings that parties 
and their representatives may bring over a 12-month period in a 
separate rulemaking proceeding.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 7.
    \20\ See 86 FR 69890, 69917 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A few commenters expressed reservations or opposition to law 
student representation through clinics.

[[Page 20709]]

Notably, a comment submitted jointly by directors of 12 intellectual 
property and technology law school clinics (``Technology & IP Clinical 
Law Professors'') stated ``that CCB proceedings are not well-suited to 
clinic participation.'' \21\ These commenters cited CASE Act provisions 
that they believe limit the suitability of law school clinics' 
participation in CCB proceedings. Specifically, they contend that the 
voluntary nature of CCB proceedings,\22\ which permit a respondent to 
``opt out'' and have the proceeding dismissed without prejudice at the 
outset,\23\ provide few learning opportunities for the law school 
clinic student.\24\ In the view of these 12 clinic directors, this opt-
out procedure poses ``significant limitations on the kinds of clients 
that clinics can represent in CCB proceedings and the possibilities for 
pedagogically sound learning opportunities for law student attorneys.'' 
\25\ Because the parties to a CCB proceeding that is dismissed after a 
respondent opts out retain their rights to litigate in federal court, 
these commenters explained that their clinics were not well situated to 
engage in federal court copyright litigation in the event their 
client's CCB claim is dismissed after the respondent opts out.\26\ They 
expressed concern that ``[e]ven when cases present a viable set of 
representational and pedagogical circumstances to proceed to 
adjudication before the CCB, . . . the degree of complexity may be 
beyond the capacity of our clinics to handle without taking matters out 
of our law student attorneys' hands.'' \27\ Finally, noting the non-
precedential nature of CCB decisions, they observed that ``many clinics 
aim to square their public service missions with their limited capacity 
to serve deserving clients by taking on those whose cases are likely to 
advance the state of the law more broadly and advance the interest of 
others by setting precedent.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors Initial NPRM 
Comments at 1 (commenting parties include Jonathan Askin, Lynda 
Braun, Cynthia L. Dahl, Ron Lazebnik, Jack I. Lerner, Amanda 
Levendowski, Phil Malone, Art Neill, Vicki Phillips, Jef Pearlman, 
Blake E. Reid, Jason Schultz, and Erik Stallman); see also Southlaw 
Ent. Initial NPRM Comments (``I am not for law students handling 
these cases,'' considering the seriousness of the offenses and the 
life-altering effect of a damages award ``if cases are 
mishandled''); Trenton Seegert Initial NPRM Comments at 1 
(supporting law student representation while urging the Office to 
``be more concerned with ensuring that student representatives 
exhibit the necessary and proper qualifications'').
    \22\ 17 U.S.C. 1504(a).
    \23\ Id. at 1506(i).
    \24\ Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors Initial NPRM 
Comments at 2.
    \25\ Id. at 2.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id. at 4.
    \28\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several reply comments responded directly to these concerns.\29\ 
Reply comments submitted by Law School Faculty (including the directors 
of law school clinics) opined that the Technology & IP Clinical Law 
Professors' comments ``seemed to more directly address the policy 
considerations underlying the CASE Act as a whole,'' and were ``less 
directly addresse[d to] the questions asked in the NPRM regarding the 
procedures governing the appearance of law student representatives 
before the CCB.'' With regard to those broader policy considerations, 
the Law School Faculty reply comment noted that though ``the matters 
raised by our colleagues are of deep concern to us as well . . . we do 
not believe these questions are within the scope of this NPRM and urge 
the [Office] to leave them within Congress's purview.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Law School Faculty Reply NPRM Comments at 2-3 (``We 
likewise appreciate the thoughtful discussion and analysis offered 
by the Technology and IP Clinical Professors concerning whether or 
not they are likely to find cases they deem of appropriate 
pedagogical value or how they would advise clients seeking their 
services to use the CCB process.''); Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply 
NPRM Comments at 4 (``The Reply Comment is written, in great part, 
to respond to the thoughtful Comment by Technology and Intellectual 
Property Clinical Law Professors . . . [who] brought up all of the 
difficulties and problems they see in adding CCB representation to 
their clinics.''); Joel Rothman Reply NPRM Comments at 2 (``I could 
not disagree more with the IP Professors' view.'').
    \30\ Law School Faculty Reply NPRM Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Attorney Joel Rothman suggested that respondents are less likely to 
opt out than projected by the Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors' 
comment. By example, Mr. Rothman noted that infringement claims related 
to advertising uses of copyrighted works are likely to be covered by 
commercial general liability insurance, suggesting that insurance 
companies covering copyright claims for respondents have an incentive 
to participate in CCB proceedings, which offer lower exposure to 
significant damages and expenses than do cases before the federal 
courts.\31\ While some commenters disagreed on whether CCB proceedings 
would raise questions too complex for law student representatives, Mr. 
Rothman pointed out that law school clinics routinely represent clients 
in complicated legal fields such as taxation, immigration, workers' 
compensation, social security disability, real estate, and bankruptcy 
law.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Joel Rothman Reply NPRM Comments at 3. The Office takes no 
view on any role that insurance may play in a respondent's decision 
to respond to a claim or opt out of a CCB proceeding.
    \32\ Id. at 4 (citing ABA, Directory of Law School Public 
Interest & Pro Bono Programs, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/center-pro-bono/resources/directory_of_law_school_public_interest_pro_bono_programs (last 
visited Mar. 28, 2022); see also Joel Rothman Initial NPRM Comments 
at 1 (``In my experience, copyright law can be learned as required. 
I never took an IP course in law school, yet that never stood in my 
way.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Law student representation is expressly envisioned by the CASE Act. 
The Act aims to increase access to justice, and as intellectual 
property law professor Marketa Trimble observed, ``law school clinics 
typically provide an ideal setting for the type of representation 
envisioned by the proposed rules.'' \33\ As stated in the NPRM, 
``[c]onsistent with Congress's directive to develop a system that is 
accessible to `those with little prior formal exposure to copyright 
laws,' the Office is committed to facilitating law student 
representation through law school clinics, which play an important role 
in providing expanded legal access to often underserved members of the 
public.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 2.
    \34\ 86 FR 74394, 74394 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 17) 
(footnotes omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Law Student Representation Outside of Clinics
    Commenters encouraged the Office to allow CCB participants to be 
represented by law students outside of law school clinics. The statute 
provides for representation by ``a law student who is qualified under 
applicable law governing representation by law students of parties in 
legal proceedings and who provides such representation on a pro bono 
basis.'' \35\ It does not indicate that such representatives must be 
under the auspices of a law school clinic. Though the regulation 
proposed in the NPRM would have limited representation by eligible law 
students to those ``affiliated with a law school clinic,'' \36\ several 
commenters persuasively urged the Office to expand the scope of law 
student representation beyond that environment.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 U.S.C. 1506(d)(2).
    \36\ 86 FR 74394, 74397.
    \37\ Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 2 (``Participation 
in a law school-sponsored pro bono program should be accepted as an 
alternative to participation in a law school clinic focused on 
copyright.''); Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 3; Law 
School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 6; Copyright Alliance et al. 
Initial NPRM Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office recognizes that ``not all programs operated by law 
schools may be truly clinical in nature.'' \38\ The Office

[[Page 20710]]

further recognizes that not all law schools have clinics focused on 
copyright, though many sponsor programs ``in which attorneys who work 
on pro bono cases are paired with law students who assist with the 
cases under the attorneys' supervision and guidance.'' \39\ Such 
programs can ensure that parties in CCB proceedings are represented by 
law students who have sufficient training and oversight. The Office is 
persuaded that, if these programs have a connection with the student's 
law school, and they follow the same rules as any law school clinics 
would have to follow, they may also participate in CCB proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 7; see 
Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 5 (``not every law 
school operates programs that can be categorized as clinical in 
nature'').
    \39\ Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 2 (discussing the 
Partners in Pro Bono Program at the William S. Boyd School of Law at 
the University of Nevada, Las Vegas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office believes that facilitating representation by qualified 
students, whether through law school clinics or comparable, law school-
connected pro bono programs offering similar supervision and support, 
is consistent with the goal of expanding access to ``those with little 
prior formal exposure to copyright laws.'' \40\ Such representation can 
help alleviate the concern, raised in the Technology & IP Clinical Law 
Professors' comment that ``clinics likely will be unable to fill the 
significant access-to-justice gap that the opening of proceedings 
before the CCB may create.'' \41\ As the Law School Faculty comment 
noted, ``[a]n expanded field of properly trained and supervised 
students will allow more students to help underserved communities and 
claimants, especially if the demand is high for law student 
representation or when there are few (or no) eligible legal clinics in 
a particular area, or during particular times of the year, like summer 
breaks.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 86 FR 74394, 74394 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 17).
    \41\ Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors Initial NPRM 
Comments at 5.
    \42\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the final rule provides that a qualified law student 
must be affiliated with a law school clinic, or with a pro bono legal 
services organization that has a connection with the student's law 
school.
    Finally, in addition to the qualified law student representation 
described in the rule, the Office encourages the participation of law 
students in CCB proceedings more broadly. For example, under the 
supervision of a licensed attorney, a law student may assist with 
drafting a pleading or other document to be filed before the CCB. In 
addition, a licensed lawyer representing a party before the CCB may 
have a law student intern or clerk attend any part of the party's 
proceeding.
3. Competency Prerequisites
    The NPRM proposed a standard of competency for law student 
representatives that would require successful completion of both 
``[t]he first year of studies at an American Bar Association-accredited 
law school,'' and ``[a] copyright law course, formal copyright law 
training, or formal training in Board procedures.'' \43\ Commenters 
addressed the prerequisites and the Office is modifying the rule after 
consideration of those comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 86 FR 74394, 74397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters supported the requirement that law student 
representatives must have completed their first year of law school: 
``We do wholeheartedly agree that law students participating in this 
program should be required to complete their first year of studies at 
an American Bar Association (ABA)-accredited law school. To our 
knowledge this is a pre-requisite of all clinical programs.'' \44\ The 
Office believes that the completion of a first year of law school is a 
minimum requirement that is part of ``an appropriate standard of 
competence'' \45\ for law student representatives and will retain that 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Law School Faculty Initial Comments at 4. The Copyright 
Alliance et al. commented that ``completion of the first year of 
studies'' should be the only requirement, though it also proposed 
revisions to the rule that would allow representation by students 
who had not completed a year of law school, or had taken only a 
copyright course or training instead. Copyright Alliance et al. 
Initial Comments at 8.
    \45\ 86 FR 74394, 74395 (citing Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 
1.1 (Am. Bar Ass'n 1983) (``Competent representation requires the 
legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably 
necessary for the representation [of a client].'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most commenters considered the Office's proposed law student 
competency prerequisites to be too restrictive and unnecessary.\46\ 
Some deemed unclear what would constitute sufficient ``formal'' 
training in copyright law or CCB procedures.\47\ Commenters also noted 
that administrative issues, such as the fact that some law schools may 
offer copyright law courses only at limited times, may hamper students' 
completion of the prerequisite in time to participate in the 
clinic.\48\ Several commenters suggested that supervising attorneys 
charged with ensuring competent representation will take responsibility 
for providing students sufficient instruction in copyright, in a 
clinical setting or elsewhere, if the students have not completed a 
copyright law course beforehand, with one group noting, ``[c]ompetent 
representation can be rendered through necessary study, and providing 
training in copyright advocacy and counselling may well be among the 
pedagogical goals of clinical programs that will be taking on CCB 
representations.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 3-4; Norman 
Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 3-4; Joel Rothman Initial NPRM 
Comments at 1-2; Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 
8-9; Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 2-3. But see 
Trenton Seegert Initial NPRM Comments at 2 (supporting the formal 
training proposed prerequisites and noting that ``by requiring all 
participating law students to have a similar base knowledge of 
copyright law, representation becomes more efficient'').
    \47\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 8 (``It 
is not clear what would constitute `formal' training versus 
`informal' training.''); see also Law School Faculty Initial NPRM 
Comments at 2.
    \48\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 3; Norman 
Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 3-4; Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply 
NPRM Comments at 2-3.
    \49\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 3; see also 
Norman Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 4 (``With the supervision of 
an attorney, the need for students to have taken copyright or CCB 
courses becomes an unnecessary barrier to eligibility for students 
and should be withdrawn from the proposed rules.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office agrees. The CCB is designed to allow parties to 
represent themselves, or to be represented by an attorney or a pro bono 
law clinic. Neither parties, nor their representatives need to be 
versed in the entire body of copyright law to participate before the 
CCB.\50\ Determining whether a student is sufficiently trained to 
represent a party in each proceeding can be entrusted to an attorney 
supervisor with access to information specific to the dispute, who can 
tailor any needed copyright training to the pertinent matters. 
Accordingly, the final rule will not require a copyright law course or 
``formal'' copyright law training, but instead will require ``training 
in relevant copyright law, as determined by the supervising clinic or 
pro bono organization.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 8 
n.4 (commenting that a requirement of ``completion of a copyright 
law course may not be desirable . . . particularly since the legal 
issues in a CCB proceeding are narrow and since the supervising 
attorney will be supervising the law student representative 
throughout the proceeding'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, any CCB proceeding will also require party representatives 
to be familiar with, at a minimum, the language in the CASE Act and the 
governing CCB regulations. The Office expects that parties who secure 
pro bono law school student representation will likely be heavily 
reliant on the student representative's guidance on

[[Page 20711]]

matters of CCB procedure. Therefore, the final rule includes a 
requirement that, to be competent to represent a party, a law student 
must first review the CASE Act's statutory text and the CCB's 
regulations. The legislative history of the CASE Act indicated that the 
Office may require that parties ``have reviewed the [CCB's] procedural 
rules'' to participate.\51\ The Office acknowledges that reviewing 
detailed regulatory text could be challenging for pro se parties 
without legal training, and it is not imposing such a requirement on 
parties at this time. However, a review of the statute and regulations 
should not pose the same challenges for students who have completed a 
year or more of law school, and who can turn to a supervising attorney 
for help in understanding the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ S. Rep. No. 116-105, at 8 (``Nothing in the legislation 
prevents the imposition of a requirement that parties to a claim 
acknowledge in writing that they have reviewed the procedural rules 
and/or watched such videos [about how parties to the proceeding 
should act] prior to the filing of a claim or responded to 
claim.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Professional Conduct
    In a joint comment, three law school professors suggested that the 
Office should set explicit standards of professional conduct for 
``anyone representing clients before the CCB,'' \52\ including 
requirements to ``conduct proper investigations of the facts and law 
before filing a claim, similar to the duties specified in FRCP 11.'' 
\53\ The professors further asked the Office to set specific 
``consequences for representatives who repeatedly engage in improper 
conduct before the CCB,'' \54\ and establish disciplinary proceedings 
against such representatives.\55\ Other commenters replied and opposed 
the Office establishing such a separate disciplinary system.\56\ The 
Office agrees with the Copyright Alliance et al. reply comment noting 
that ``[a]ttorneys are already subject to professional ethics 
standards'' and that creating a separate disciplinary process relating 
to law student representatives under the Office would be ``duplicative 
or conflict with preexisting systems.'' \57\ In addition, there is no 
basis in the statute to permit the CCB to establish a separate 
disciplinary standard for law students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Eric Goldman, Tyler Ochoa & Rebecca Tushnet Initial NPRM 
Comments at 1.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Id.
    \55\ Id.
    \56\ Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM Comments at 9; Law 
School Faculty Reply NPRM Comments at 2.
    \57\ Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The three law school professors' comments regarding professional 
conduct apply to all party representatives appearing before the CCB, 
including attorneys, so they are necessarily broader than the issues of 
law student and business entity representations raised in this rule. 
The Office has discussed issues regarding truthful filings and 
professional conduct under earlier notices of proposed rulemaking.\58\ 
This separate rulemaking when finalized will apply equally to all party 
representatives appearing before the CCB, including business entity and 
law student representatives.\59\ The Office's intent is that the 
standards for conduct before the CCB as a whole should foster 
professional conduct as well as truthful and accurate submissions by 
all parties and their representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See 86 FR 53897, 53906 (Sept. 29, 2021); 86 FR 69890, 69916 
(Dec. 8, 2021).
    \59\ See 86 FR 74394, 74397 (``Representatives of business 
entities who appear pursuant to paragraphs (b)(3) or (4) of this 
section are equally subject to the standards of conduct . . . as any 
other party representative.''); see also id. at 74398 (``Law student 
representatives are equally subject to the standards of conduct . . 
. as any other attorney representatives.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Attorney Supervision
    The Office proposed that all law student representatives must be 
supervised by a licensed attorney.\60\ No commenter disagreed with this 
requirement. Commenters generally stated that ``the proposed 
regulations are well-drafted in terms of defining the role of a 
Supervisory Attorney to ensure proper guidance and direction to law 
student representatives.'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Id. at 74395 (``[L]aw student representatives must be 
supervised by an attorney'').
    \61\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 5; see also 
Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 9 (``The proposed 
regulations are well drafted in terms of allocating responsibilities 
to a supervising attorney.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters asked the Office to ``clarify that law student 
representatives may be supervised by multiple attorneys'' affiliated 
with a law school clinic.\62\ The Office acknowledges that multiple 
attorneys may supervise students in some law school clinics, and 
nothing in the regulation limits their ability to do so. The Office 
simply requires that at least one attorney be identified as the 
supervising attorney on each document that the law student 
representative submits, even if several attorneys supervise the 
student's work. Any supervising attorney linked to the law student 
through the CCB's electronic filing system (``eCCB'') shall have 
responsibility over case management and professional responsibility for 
the law student representative's actions.\63\ Furthermore, at hearings 
and conferences, one of the law student representative's supervising 
attorneys must attend with the student, and the Office is revising the 
proposed regulation to clarify that point.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 5; see also 
Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 9 (``Some law 
school clinics may have several adjunct professors who support the 
law school clinic director in project management and 
supervision.'').
    \63\ See 86 FR 74394, 74397-98.
    \64\ See id. at 74398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office invited comments on ``whether documents submitted to the 
CCB must be signed by both the supervising attorney and the law student 
representative,'' \65\ rather than by the student alone. The Office 
received one responsive comment, from the Copyright Alliance et al., 
stating, ``we believe that both supervising attorneys and law student 
representatives should sign all legal filings submitted to the CCB,'' 
without additional context.\66\ The Office has set up eCCB to be as 
streamlined as possible, often with fillable templates to complete 
required forms, and so mandating multiple signatures at this time for 
every filing would interfere with the ease of eCCB use. Rather, while 
the final rule allows both the law student representatives and the 
supervisory attorney sign any document they submit, the final rules 
require a single signature. If the student representative is the sole 
signatory, that student must certify that the supervising attorney 
assented to the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Id. at 74396.
    \66\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters suggested that the Office issue a definition of the term 
``supervising attorney'' that would mirror language in the proposed 
regulation regarding attorneys representing business entities, 
requiring the attorney to be a ``member in good standing of the bar of 
the highest court of a State, the District of Columbia, or any 
territory or commonwealth of the United States.'' \67\ A supervising 
attorney must comport with the applicable state laws governing a clinic 
or legal services organization in the jurisdiction where the attorney's 
clinic or organization is based. The Office believes that the current 
requirement addresses the appropriate qualifications for attorneys 
supervising law student representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Id. at 6 (quoting 86 FR 74394, 74397); Law School Faculty 
Initial NPRM Comments at 4 (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Professor Elizabeth Townsend Gard proposed that a supervising 
attorney should not be required to act as the pro bono client's 
attorney, but simply as a facilitator or teacher overseeing the

[[Page 20712]]

student.\68\ However, if the Office were to adopt this rule, it could 
violate the requirements of applicable law governing the clinic. In 
jurisdictions surveyed by the Office including California, New York, 
Tennessee, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, the 
supervisory attorney is generally required to assume professional 
responsibility for any activity performed by the law student.\69\ The 
Office is therefore maintaining the requirement for a supervising 
attorney to be responsible for the actions and filings of a law student 
representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 3 (``Taking 
on a client requires a great deal of vetting and responsibility.'').
    \69\ Cal. Rules of State Bar R. 3.6(B)(3); N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & 
Regs. tit. 22, sec. 805.5(e) (2017); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 7, sec. 
10.03(h)(3)(C); D.C. Ct. App. R. 48(e)(2); Md. R. 19-220(d); Va. 
Sup. Ct. R. pt. 6, sec. IV, 15(d)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would have required a supervising attorney to 
accompany a law student representative to hearings on the merits, but 
not to conferences.\70\ Several commenters advocated that ``it should 
be mandatory for supervising attorneys to appear at both hearings and 
conferences'' \71\ or, going even further, that they must ``be present 
in all situations where a client is represented, whether or not the 
situations are on the merits.'' \72\ There were no comments to the 
contrary. The Office agrees that direct supervision in such 
circumstances serves the interests of a law student's client and is 
appropriate in view of the supervising attorney's responsibility for 
case management.\73\ The Office will require that a supervising 
attorney must appear at any hearing or conference absent leave from the 
CCB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See 86 FR 74394, 74395.
    \71\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 9.
    \72\ Norman Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 5 (stating students 
expressed that they would not be comfortable proceeding without a 
supervisor present).
    \73\ 86 FR 74394, 74395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Pro Bono Representation Directory

    No commenters opposed the creation of a directory of pro bono 
representation. Professor Marketa Trimble proposed that the Office 
directory listings include ``not only participating law school clinics, 
but also participating law school-sponsored pro bono programs.'' \74\ 
Because the Office will permit law student representation outside the 
clinical context with supervision through a law school-connected pro 
bono legal services organization, the Office agrees with Professor 
Trimble's proposal. The final rule provides for such organizations to 
be able to indicate, in the public directory, their availability to 
assist CCB parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters asked the Office to ensure ``that clinics can 
choose whether to be listed in a directory of participating clinics 
separate from their ability to appear in any given proceeding.'' \75\ 
Clinics and legal services organizations that are eligible and 
available to facilitate pro bono student representation before the CCB 
are encouraged to make their availability known through a public 
directory listing, but the Office will not make inclusion in the 
directory a requirement. The regulation clarifies that the duty to 
maintain current information in the directory applies only to 
participants that have chosen to be listed, and that directory listing 
is not a requirement for representing clients in CCB proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors Initial NPRM 
Comments at 5; see also Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 
8 (noting that ``inclusion in this directory should be voluntary and 
not a prerequisite to participate in CCB proceedings''); Copyright 
Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Law School Faculty commenters requested that participating 
clinics be permitted to submit directory listings that do not provide 
all of the information required in the proposed regulation, so that the 
clinics need ``not to answer questions they do not wish to answer or 
feel they cannot adequately keep current under the guidelines.'' \76\ 
Some commenters took issue with requirements to disclose whether the 
clinic or organization has handled copyright matters in the last two 
years, and the nature of such matters, at a time when the CCB has not 
yet been in operation for two years.\77\ A disclosure that there have 
been few or no recent copyright matters will not prohibit a law 
clinic's inclusion in the directory. Nothing stops a clinic or 
organization from explaining why it has limited experience, and the 
Office does not believe it should craft a regulation that it will need 
to change in the future. Since qualified clinics and public service 
organizations may fully participate in supervising law student 
representatives whether or not they are listed in the directory, those 
that choose to be listed must provide all information requested and can 
explain any perceived gaps in their experience. The Office believes 
that all such information would be relevant to a potential client 
seeking representation through the directory and notes that updates are 
required only once a year.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 8.
    \77\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 10, 
Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 5; Law School Faculty 
Initial NPRM Comments at 8-9.
    \78\ See 86 FR 74394, 74398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Copyright Alliance et al. asked that the Office accept a 
general description of the nature of such recent copyright matters, and 
not require that the listing ``divulge any specific details of prior 
client representations.'' \79\ The Office is not requesting or 
requiring disclosure of any confidential or privileged information for 
inclusion in the directory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 11; see 
also Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule maintains the proposed disclosure requirements for 
law school clinics and requires the same disclosures of eligible legal 
services organizations, if they seek to be listed in the CCB pro bono 
representation directory.

C. Representation of Business Entities

    The NPRM proposed that, in addition to attorneys or law students, 
business entities may be represented in a CCB proceeding by a fiduciary 
or properly authorized employee, and proposed requirements that these 
representatives must follow.\80\ The comments received in response to 
the NPRM were supportive of the proposed rule, which expands access to 
the CCB by smaller business entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 86 FR 74394, 74397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While two commenters took the position that the Office should 
require business entities to use in-house lawyers or outside counsel in 
order to appear before the CCB,\81\ the CASE Act does not require 
business entities to be represented by counsel.\82\ As other commenters 
noted, Congress envisioned the CCB as a forum that will enable parties 
to resolve low-value copyright claims without the expense of an 
attorney, and ``intended [the CCB] to be accessible especially for pro 
se parties and those with little prior formal exposure to copyright 
laws who cannot otherwise afford to have their claims and defenses 
heard in federal court.'' \83\ Representation of business entities by 
their own fiduciaries and authorized employees is consistent with the 
CASE

[[Page 20713]]

Act and with express Congressional intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Verizon Initial NPRM Comments at 1-2; see also Southlaw 
Ent. Initial NPRM Comments at 1 (noting that ``these proceedings 
should be handled by a professional'').
    \82\ 17 U.S.C. 1506(d).
    \83\ Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM Comments at 7-8 
(quoting H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 17); see also Elizabeth Townsend 
Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 5-6 (stating that CCB regulations 
``should be clear and not present a barrier to solopreneurs or start 
ups that may not have access to legal representation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter proposed that ``lawyers with foreign 
credentials'' be allowed to represent foreign authors, suggesting that 
such lawyers ``have more knowledge than a student.'' \84\ The Office 
considers it impracticable to allow representation by such attorneys. 
An attorney representative in a CCB proceeding, including an attorney 
supervising a qualified law student, will be required to be in good 
standing to practice before the bar of the highest court of a State, 
the District of Columbia, or a territory or commonwealth of the United 
States.\85\ While the Office can depend on a domestic state bar's 
professional responsibility requirements to ensure that the attorney's 
conduct before the CCB will comport with ethical standards for 
practice,\86\ the Office would not have the capacity to ensure that 
attorneys admitted elsewhere are subject to the same ethical 
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Anonymous Initial NPRM Comments at 1.
    \85\ See 86 FR 74394, 74397; see also 86 FR 69890, 69917 (Dec. 
8, 2021).
    \86\ See Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 6 n.2 
(noting, in the context of supervision of law school 
representatives, ``the Copyright Office should rely on state 
entities to govern the Supervising Attorneys to ensure proper 
oversight'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Copyright Alliance et al. suggested ``that the Office amend 
[proposed 37 CFR] 232.6(c) so that the required certification for a 
particular business representative qualified under [proposed 37 CFR] 
232.6(b)(3)-(4) can be valid for a period of up to one year.'' \87\ The 
certification requirement is on a per-proceeding basis, not an annual 
basis. To avoid any potential confusion, the Copyright Office is 
amending the proposed regulation to clarify that a business entity 
representative who certifies the entity's authorization in a particular 
CCB proceeding shall remain authorized for the duration of that 
proceeding, so long as the business entity continues to authorize the 
representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Professor Elizabeth Townsend Gard expressed support for 
opportunities to educate small businesses about copyright in ways that 
would not entail representation, such as workshops on copyright 
registration, and suggested that student or alumni groups could be 
organized to provide such legal information to the public.\88\ 
Professor Townsend Gard also suggested creating CCB fellowships whereby 
faculty or student groups could apply to the Office with research 
proposals and have their research published on the CCB website.\89\ The 
Office appreciates the suggestions of various methods of education and 
outreach to the public, as well as future research possibilities, but 
does not understand these suggestions to require the Office to 
promulgate any regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 3-4, 6; see 
also Norman Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 3 (proposing that the 
Office direct members of the public to law school clinics for 
assistance filing copyright registrations).
    \89\ Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

37 CFR Part 201

    Copyright, General provisions.

37 CFR Part 232

    Claims, Copyright.

37 CFR Part 234

    Claims, Copyright.

Final Regulations

    For reasons stated in the preamble, the U.S. Copyright Office 
amends chapter II, subchapters A and B, of title 37 Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

Subchapter A--Copyright Office and Procedures

PART 201--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702.

    Section 201.10 also issued under 17 U.S.C. 304.


0
2. In Sec.  201.2, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  201.2  Information given by the Copyright Office.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The Copyright Office does not furnish the names of copyright 
attorneys, publishers, agents, or other similar information to the 
public, except that it may provide a directory of pro bono 
representation available to participants in proceedings before the 
Copyright Claims Board.
* * * * *

Subchapter B--Copyright Claims Board and Procedures

0
3. Add part 232 to read as follows:

PART 232--CONDUCT OF PARTIES

Sec.
232.1-232.5 [Reserved]
232.6 Representation of business entities.

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702, 1510.


Sec. Sec.  232.1-232.5  [Reserved]


Sec.  232.6  Representation of business entities.

    For purposes of this part:
    (a) Definition. A business entity is a corporation, limited 
liability company, partnership, sole proprietorship, or unincorporated 
association.
    (b) Appearance of a business entity. A business entity may appear 
before the Copyright Claims Board (Board) through--
    (1) A member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a 
State, the District of Columbia, or any territory or commonwealth of 
the United States;
    (2) A law student who meets the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 
234.1;
    (3) An owner, partner, officer, or member, of the business entity; 
or
    (4) An authorized employee.
    (c) Certification. Someone appearing before the Board in a 
proceeding to represent a business entity in that proceeding pursuant 
to paragraph (b)(3) or (4) of this section shall certify that they are 
an authorized agent of the business entity and may bind that entity in 
the proceeding pending before the Board. If the representative 
qualifies only as an authorized employee under paragraph (b)(4) of this 
section, then within 30 days of the authorized employee's initial 
appearance, the representative also must submit written authorization, 
signed by an owner, partner, officer, or member of the business entity 
under penalty of perjury, stating that the representative may bind that 
entity on matters pending before the Board. A valid certification under 
this subsection shall remain effective throughout the proceeding, so 
long as the representative continues to be authorized by the business 
entity.
    (d) Subject to standards of professional conduct. Representatives 
of business entities who appear pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) or (4) of 
this section are equally subject to the standards of conduct as any 
other party representative.

0
4. Add part 234 to read as follows:

PART 234--LAW STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES

Sec.
234.1 Law student representatives.
234.2 Pro bono representation directory.

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702, 1510.


Sec.  234.1  Law student representatives.

    (a) Eligibility for appearance--(1) State law compliance. Any law 
student who is affiliated with a law school clinic or a pro bono legal 
services organization with a connection to the student's law school, is 
qualified under

[[Page 20714]]

applicable laws governing representation by law students of parties in 
legal proceedings, and meets the other requirements of this paragraph 
(a)(1) may appear before the Copyright Claims Board (Board). Applicable 
law is the law of the jurisdiction that certifies the student to 
practice law in conjunction with a law school clinic or pro bono legal 
services organization with a connection to the student's law school.
    (2) Pro bono representation. Any law student who appears before the 
Board must provide representation on a pro bono basis.
    (3) Competency. Law student representatives must meet a standard of 
competency. For the purpose of appearances before the Board, competency 
includes successful completion of--
    (i) The first year of studies at an American Bar Association-
accredited law school;
    (ii) Training in relevant copyright law, as determined by the 
supervising clinic or pro bono organization; and
    (iii) Review of the Board's regulations found in this subchapter, 
and of the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 
2020 statutory text, as codified at chapter 15 of title 17 of the 
United States Code.
    (b) Client consent. The law student representative shall have the 
written consent of the client to appear on that client's behalf.
    (c) Attorney supervision. A law student who represents a party in a 
proceeding before the Board shall be supervised by an attorney who is 
qualified under applicable state law governing representation by law 
students, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section. In supervising 
the law student, the attorney shall adhere to any rules regarding 
participant conduct.
    (d) Confirmation of eligibility. In accordance with the standards 
of professional conduct set forth in paragraph (j) of this section, the 
attorney supervising the work of the law student representative is 
responsible for confirming the law student's eligibility to appear 
before the Board as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (e) Signature and assent. The law student representative or 
supervising attorney shall electronically or physically sign each 
document submitted to the Board on behalf of the law student's client. 
If the law student representative signs, the law student must identify 
the name of the supervising attorney on all documents signed by the law 
student representative. The law student must certify that the law 
student sought and obtained the supervising attorney's assent to the 
submission.
    (f) Notice of appearance. In any proceeding in which a law student 
represents a party, a notice of appearance shall be filed identifying 
both the law student representative and the supervising attorney, 
unless already identified in the party's claim or response.
    (g) Filing documents. All filings by a law student representative 
shall be made with the knowledge of the supervising attorney, who shall 
maintain an association with the law student representative in the 
Board's electronic filing system (eCCB). Supervising attorneys and law 
students shall maintain their own accounts in eCCB. A notice of 
withdrawal, and a notice of appearance if applicable, shall be filed 
whenever the identity of a law student representative or a supervising 
attorney has changed.
    (h) Appearance at hearings and conferences. A supervising attorney 
shall accompany the law student representative to any hearings and 
conferences held in the course of the proceeding, absent leave of the 
Board for the law student to appear without a supervising attorney 
present.
    (i) Responsibility for continuity of case management. The 
supervising attorney shall be responsible for all aspects of case 
management, including appearances and withdrawals, as well as 
continuity of representation during law school term transitions.
    (j) Applicability of rules of professional conduct. Law student 
representatives are equally subject to any rules regarding participant 
conduct as any other attorney representatives. The supervising attorney 
has professional responsibility for the actions of the law student 
representative. The Board may hold supervising attorneys responsible 
for law student representative activity.


Sec.  234.2  Pro bono representation directory.

    (a) Publicly available directory. The Board shall make a directory 
available on its website of law school clinics and of pro bono legal 
services organizations with a connection to a law school that have 
advised the Board that they are available, on a pro bono basis, to 
provide law student representation to clients in proceedings before the 
Board, and wish to be listed in the directory. Listing in the directory 
is not a requirement for eligible law school clinics or a pro bono 
legal services organizations to represent clients in Board proceedings.
    (b) Form for inclusion. To be included in the public directory, the 
director of the law school clinic or pro bono legal services 
organization shall submit a form providing the following information 
for public dissemination:
    (1) The name of the participating clinic or organization;
    (2) The name of the law school where the clinic is based, or with 
which the organization is connected;
    (3) The name of the director of the clinic or organization;
    (4) A general contact email address and phone number;
    (5) The geographic area from which the clinic or organization may 
accept clients;
    (6) Whether the clinic or organization has handled copyright 
matters in the past two years;
    (7) The nature of any copyright matters handled by the clinic or 
organization in the past two years;
    (8) Whether the clinic or organization has experience in handling 
litigation matters;
    (9) If the clinic or organization does not have litigation 
experience, whether it has a partnership with a litigation clinic or 
experience supervising law students in litigation matters;
    (10) A brief statement describing the clinic or organization's 
interest in handling matters before the Board; and
    (11) A certification that student representatives participating in 
Board proceedings in affiliation with the clinic or organization will 
meet all requirements of Sec.  234.1(a).
    (c) Standards for inclusion. Subject to paragraph (d) of this 
section, the Board will accept for inclusion in the public directory 
any law school clinic or pro bono legal services organization with a 
connection to a law school that certifies that its law student 
representatives will meet all requirements of Sec.  234.1(a) and 
provides sufficient information pursuant to paragraph (b) of this 
section for participants in Board proceedings to evaluate whether 
representation is available and appropriate.
    (d) Removal from directory. The Board may, in its discretion, 
remove a clinic or pro bono legal services organization from the 
directory if it determines that the clinic or organization is not 
suitable for representing clients before the Board, including, without 
limitation, if it determines that the clinic or organization has failed 
to properly update its information in the public directory.
    (e) Duty to update directory. Participating clinics and pro bono 
legal services organizations, which have been listed in the directory, 
have a duty to maintain current information in the

[[Page 20715]]

directory and shall confirm the currency of the information on an 
annual basis.

    Dated: April 4, 2022.
Shira Perlmutter,
Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.

    Approved by:
Carla D. Hayden,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2022-07543 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>