By Richard B. Weisberg, Esq. ’78

Before the war in Gaza or the joint attack on Iran, the controversy that chiefly occupied the majority of public affairs in Israel concerned legislation enacted in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. The legislation related to several matters concerning the power and composition of the judiciary, and included these two basic issues: (1) a doctrine followed by the courts in Israel to challenge certain governmental actions on the basis of “reasonableness,” and (2) the ability of Israel’s Supreme Court to nullify Knesset legislation as being in violation of the Basic Laws of Israel, in a sense exercising judicial review of legislation. On July 24, 2023, after months of demonstrations and debates, the Knesset passed legislation to eliminate the doctrine of reasonableness, and declare “the non-justiciability of basic laws”prohibiting a court, including the Supreme Court, from addressing, directly or indirectly, a question regarding the validity of a basic law. As will be discussed below, this legislation was ultimately held by the Supreme Court of Israel to be unenforceable.

I have observed that nearly all of the news reports and public discussion concerned public demonstrations for and against the legislation commented on how these disputes were widening fissures within Israeli society beyond divisions that have historically been a part of the nation’s life. Press reports and political commentary paid little attention, on the other hand, to details about the underlying doctrines that brought about the Knesset actions. In my view, questions concerning the doctrine of reasonableness, where it comes from, and why it has been adopted by various courts in different countries are important because they reveal how serious the absence of the doctrine may be to Israel’s democracy in the future. The same may be said for the issue of the Supreme Court of Israel’s power of judicial review of legislation.

Reasonableness Doctrine

In order to understand the reasonableness doctrine and how and when it was adopted in Israel, it is necessary to briefly examine the origins of the body of law that operated in the country at the time of its modern-day founding. After Israel declared its independence in 1948, it was immediately engulfed in war. With the pressures of defending the new nation, it was determined by the provisional state council, which preceded the first Knesset, that the law that existed in what became Israel on the eve of the establishment of the state would remain in force to the extent that it did not contradict the laws of the state, and the changes resulting from the establishment of the state and its authorities. This inherited law included Ottoman laws that were absorbed into the laws of the British mandate, religious laws, laws of the British mandate and, most significantly for our purposes, British court-made laws – including, the principles of common law and the foundations of the laws of equity practiced in Great Britain.

Turning to relevant British law, the reasonableness doctrine appears to have entered into the common law in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation Ltd (1948) 1 KB 223. In this case, the local town council, acting under a statute enacted by Parliament, adopted a restriction on the age of children who may attend a movie on Sunday. This restriction was attacked by the plaintiff as being invalid because it should be deemed “unreasonable” in light of British law and custom (Ibid.) The appellate court summarized the basis upon which a court may strike down an administrative action as being “unreasonable”:

“The court is entitled to investigate the action of the local authority with a view to seeing whether they have taken into account matters which they ought not to take into account, or, conversely, have refused to take into account or neglected to take into account matters which they ought to take into account. Once that question is answered in favour of the local authority, it may be still possible to say that, although the local authority have kept within the four corners of the matters which they ought to consider, they have nevertheless come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. In such a case, again, I think the court can interfere.”

In my view, the language in the Wednesbury opinion does not result in a very definitive test in applying the doctrine. The court seemed to be saying that an administrative authority fails the test of reasonableness if, in its decision making, it considers matters extraneous to factors that should be considered, ignored issues that should be been considered, or upon weighing the facts and issues before it, nevertheless reached a decision “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.” This holding was reiterated in a case coming before the House of Lords, Council of Civil Service Unions (1985) AC 374, and described the doctrine as applying to a decision “so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.” Again, not a particularly specific test. 

Turning to a common law jurisdiction closer to the United States, the Canadian Supreme Court had reason to examine the doctrine in C.U.P.E. v N.B. Liquor Corporation (1979) 2 SCR 227. In that case, the court held that it could support striking down an administrative action if the administrator was shown to have acted in bad faith, based a decision on extraneous matters, failed to take relevant factors into account, breached the provisions of natural justice or misinterpreted the provisions of a statute so as to embark on an inquiry or answer a question not remitted to it. In language familiar to an American lawyer, presumably in an effort to clarify the test, the chief justice then posited the following question: “Put another way, was the Board’s interpretation so patently unreasonable that its construction cannot be rationally supported by the relevant legislation and demands intervention by the court upon review?” 

The Canadian Supreme Court developed the doctrine of reasonableness more clearly in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick (2008) 1 SCR 190. In a case involving a former government employee appealing his dismissal by the provincial government, the court considered whether a first level hearing officer acted, among other things, unreasonably, when he moved to reinstate the employee. In denying the appeal, the court declared that in applying “judicial review, reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process.  But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.” The court expressly rejected the concept that “reasonableness” and “rationality” are equivalent noting that a decision may be both “coldly rational” and “fall foul of unreasonableness.”

Significantly, the doctrine has been adopted in other common law countries including Australia, India, New Zealand, Ireland, Singapore, and Pakistan.

While at least one court operating during the British Mandate applied the reasonableness doctrine in a limited fashion, the earliest case that I could find where the doctrine was applied by an Israeli court to administrative actions, generally, was a case decided in 1959, Attorney General v. Dizengoff & Co., Ltd., CA 311/57 (1959), involving a question of whether or not a port surcharge should be applied retroactively. In that case, the court stated that “the test of reasonableness applies equally to all manner of delegated legislation by an administrative body ….” The court stated the test for reasonableness, as follows:

“[If] the court finds that the delegated legislation is so illogical, unreasonable and intolerable that a sensible person would not conceive that a reasonable Minister would be capable of making it, one would then have to say that the legislature never intended to grant such power to the Minister. Such delegated legislation is unreasonable and ultra vires.”

While perhaps imprecisely stated, the doctrine of reasonableness entered Israeli law and is part of its jurisprudence today.

Judicial Review

If the Israel judiciary had limited its power to the doctrine of reasonableness, the present controversy may never have arisen. However, the Supreme Court of Israel went much farther. With respect to the issue of judicial review, it is necessary to confirm that the practice of judicial review of legislative enactments does not exist in common law countries in the way in which it has evolved in the United States. Judicial review, established by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, held that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. In the eighteenth century, British legal writer Sir William Blackstone commented that if Parliament positively passed a statute that was unreasonable, there was “no power that would control it” and that any attempt to “seek judicial power above that of the legislature . . . would be subversive of all government.”

In order to fully understand how this expansion of judicial power occurred in Israel, it is first necessary to remark on Justice Aharon Barak. 

Aharon Barak is an Israeli lawyer and jurist who served as President of the Supreme Court of Israel from 1995 to 2006. Prior to this, Barak served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, also referred to as the High Court of Justice, from 1978 to 1995, and before that as Attorney General of Israel from 1975 to 1978. In 1978, Barak was appointed by Prime Minister Menachem Begin as the legal advisor to the Israeli delegation negotiating the Camp David Accords. In September 1978, Barak began his service as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel – the youngest of all of the judges. In August 1995, Barak was appointed the President of the Supreme Court.

After 1992, much of his judicial work was focused on advancing and shaping, in Barak’s words, Israel’s “constitutional revolution,” which he determined was brought about by the adoption of the Basic Laws in the Israeli Knesset dealing with human rights. According to Barak’s approach, which was adopted by the Supreme Court of Israel, the constitutional revolution tied to the Basic Laws brought values such as the right to equality, freedom of employment and freedom of speech to a position of what he describes as “normative supremacy,” and thereby granted the courts (not just the Supreme Court) the ability to strike down legislation that is inconsistent with the rights embodied in the Basic Laws. Consequently, Barak held that the State of Israel has been transformed from a parliamentary democracy to a constitutional parliamentary democracy, in that its Basic Laws were to be interpreted as its constitution. This is very significant, because in earlier cases, the Supreme Court of Israel expressly stated that it did not intend to exercise the power of judicial review in order to strike down acts of the Knesset other than on procedural grounds.

The history of the Basic Laws began in 1958 when the Knesset first enacted a series of what are now 14 specific statutes referred to as the Basic Laws. In essence these laws served as a stop-gap constitution enacted by statute that govern essential affairs of the country, including state lands, the role of the IDF, the role of the President, the judiciary, and the status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel with religious rights for all faiths. In 1992 the Knesset passed the first two Basic Laws that related to human rights. These are “Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty”and “Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation“. Both Basic Laws contain clauses prohibiting the violation of the rights they enumerate, “except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.” These are referred to as “limitations clauses” because they limit the power of the Knesset to amend them unless the amendment meets the standards enumerated in the laws themselves.

In the landmark 1995 case Bank Mizrahi v. Migdal Cooperative Village (1995) CA 6821/93, the court under Barak declared that due to the limitations clauses included in the 1992 Basic Laws, the Basic Laws now formed a written constitution that the courts had the power to uphold via judicial review. The more specific holding of Bank Mizrahi was that Knesset legislation that violates the limitations clauses of Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation and Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom are void no matter what majority passed the law, rejecting its earlier position that only constitutionally entrenched Basic Laws empowered the court to exercise judicial review. 

The Court’s main reasoning was that the Knesset holds two distinct roles within the Israeli state depending on the type of legislation it is enacting. In addition to its position as the legislative branch, which it occupies when dealing with ordinary legislation, the Knesset acts as a constituent assembly empowered to write a formal constitution for Israel when passing Basic Laws, deriving this authority from the First Knesset’s Harari Decision to pass on the task of writing the constitution to the Second Knesset.

This marked a significant departure from the British common law doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty that Israel inherited and practiced prior to Barak’s constitutional revolution, because it permitted a Knesset to bind its successors. Under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, among other things, no legislative body can pass laws that a future version of that legislative body cannot change.This doctrine is echoed in American law, referred to as “legislative entrenchment,” in that one legislature may not bind the legislative authority of its successors. In contrast, Bank Mizrahi held that the Knesset’s action of inserting the limitations clauses in the 1992 Basic Laws effectively limited the authority of all future Knesset actions that touched on the Basic Laws governing human rights. 

On July 24, 2023, the Knesset attempted to abolish both the reasonableness doctrine and the evolving form of judicial review of Knesset legislation by enacting a statute, referred to as Basic Law: The Judiciary (Amendment No. 3),that stated, in part, “those holding judicial power by law, including the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice, shall not hear [a case] nor issue an order against the Government, the Prime Minister or a Government minister, on the reasonableness of their decision; in this section, ‘decision’ means any decision, including on appointments, or a decision to refrain from exercising authority.” The bill also addressed judicial review stating “the non-justiciability of basic laws, stipulating that a [court] holding adjudication power by law, including the Supreme Court, will not address, directly or indirectly, a question regarding the validity of a basic law, and no ruling on such a matter will be valid.”

Subsequently, in the case of Movement for Quality Government in Israel v. Knesset(2024) HCJ 5658/23, the bill was struck down by the Supreme Court, in its role as the High Court of Justice by a vote of 8–7. The justices also ruled 12–3 that the court has the power to overturn Basic Laws.

Not surprisingly, the Netanyahu government described the need to respond to court’s ruling, but, to a large degree, the issue was put on hold after the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas. While there have been government actions challenging Supreme Court orders, the primary issues of the reasonableness doctrine and the Israeli form of judicial review have not been taken up. Thus, the status of these doctrines remains as they were before the current government’s efforts to repeal them. 

Conclusion

In my view, the confusion that has resulted from the issues arising from the judicial review doctrine adopted by Justice Barak would seem to deserve serious consideration. While one can construe the adoption of certain Basic Laws in conjunction with earlier Knesset proposals to adopt a future constitution as having created a form of constitutional government, the Knesset has never formally taken an action that would constitute the adoption of a constitution or the proclamation that the Basic Laws enacted since 1948 are themselves equivalent to a written constitution. Given the absence of a formal set of constitutional rights that came to exist leading up to Barak’s doctrinal proclamation, it is reasonable to understand why he felt that the Israeli judiciary needed to step in and to some degree fill that gap. However, the lack of a national consensus inherent in a judicial construction that is only arguably hinted at from the language of enacted legislation makes sustaining the doctrine very difficult in a democratic society. Also, as stated above, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty that enables a future legislative body to overrule an act taken by an earlier legislative body enjoys universal acceptance, except, perhaps in Israel. Thus, the Knesset, a democratically elected legislature,in some instances may not modify or correct the actions taken by its predecessorswhen those actions relate to the Basic Laws. In my view, the manner in which Justice Barak concluded that Israel has achieved a “constitutional revolution”demonstrates the need for some form of constitutional convention in order to at least attempt to achieve a national consensus and ultimately adopt a guiding document that would clearly and rationally determine the rights that should be enshrined in a written constitution for the country.

With respect to the reasonableness doctrine, after considering the origin of the doctrine and its application in common law countries, my views are different. Recall that the reasonableness doctrine applies to an administrative action. A Westminster parliamentary system, such as that developed in Great Britain and replicated in countries with historic ties to Britain, including Israel, lacks a clear separation of powers. The various ministries that exercise administrative authority are headed by members of the legislative branch, as chosen or agreed to by the prime minister. Thus, the legislative branch does not and cannot fully function as a check on the administrative branch because, in a very real sense, they are the same. While the parties in opposition to the government may protest governmental actions, ultimate authority resides in the hands of the party in power. 

Unlike the form of democracy practiced in the United States, the legislative branch in a Westminster form of government, cannot exercise legislative oversight by cutting off funding when it strongly disagrees with the direction that the administration is taking on a given issue. When viewed with an eye toward the almost unlimited power of the legislative branch, the outgrowth of a judicial response in the form of the reasonableness doctrine becomes understandable. Moreover, the adoption of the doctrine by Great Britain and practically every common law country formerly under British influence suggests that the courts in those countries have come to recognize the need in a functioning democracy to provide a remedy when administrative actions, taken practically at any level, are fundamentally unfair. I suggest that this recognition is akin to the arbitrary and capricious standard applicable in administrative law in this country to determine whether an administrative agency’s decision was made on a reasonable basis and within the scope of its authority. It is my view that the Israeli government should be very cautious before it takes actions that cut off the right of its citizens to challenge in court egregious administrative conduct when that right is enjoyed by the residents of practically every other country that traces its legal system to the common law. 

In conclusion, the issues that gave rise to civil demonstrations and significant political protest in Israel in 2023 and continue to this day are significant ones. While the test and standard are surely imperfect, the reasonableness doctrine enables Israeli citizens to challenge governmental decisions that are asserted to be “illogical, unreasonable and intolerable,” a right enjoyed throughout the common law free world. The question of whether the Supreme Court of Israel should have the right of judicial review over enactments of the Knesset raises even more profound issues that go to the governmental power of these branches of the Israeli government and should be addressed as soon as possible to avoid a constitutional crisis that pits one against the other threatening the fabric of Israeli democratic government.

The views expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

Dr. Brandon Philips teaches a course to MPA and MPP students.

Whether you’re interested in public service, government, administration, nonprofit leadership or shaping public policy, the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law offers two master’s programs that can help you build the skills and knowledge you need to pursue your goals in these fields. 

The Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) programs offer several areas of focus, offering students the flexibility to tailor their education to their interests. Among the first programs of their kind offered by a law school, McGeorge’s MPA and MPP programs bring together policy, law and leadership. 

And with McGeorge located in Sacramento, students are very close in proximity to the California State Capitol, state agencies, advocacy organizations and other institutions involved in shaping public policy. This location provides opportunities to see public policy in action, connect with professionals in the field, and gain hands-on experience in the community where many of these decisions are made. 

Students can choose from five different focus areas: 

Environmental & Water Policy 

Explore some of today’s most pressing environmental challenges, including climate resilience, water policy and resource management. 

Public Policy Advocacy 

Learn how policy is shaped and develop the tools needed to influence legislation, build support for policy goals and lead advocacy campaigns. 

Non-Profit & Social Capacity Management 

Build the skills needed to lead and strengthen organizations that serve communities, with an emphasis on nonprofit management and organizational capacity. 

Local Government 

Take a closer look at how cities and regional governments develop and implement policy, with a focus on California’s unique governmental landscape. 

Policy Analysis 

Available to MPA students, this focus explores how data and research can be used to evaluate policies and support evidence-based decision-making. 

Beyond their chosen area of focus, students can pursue their degrees through a flexible hybrid format that combines online coursework with in-person sessions. Each semester includes six to seven in-person Saturday sessions, with the remaining coursework completed online in a synchronous format. 

Whether you’re looking to make an impact through government, advocacy, nonprofit work or policy analysis, McGeorge’s MPA and MPP programs offer the flexibility to build an education around your goals. 

Kalisa’s experience at Pacific McGeorge — and beyond

McGeorge School of Law alumnus Michael Kalisa ’09

1. Looking back at your LLM experience at McGeorge (2008–2009), what has stayed with you most?

McGeorge School of Law gave me a way of seeing law that has shaped everything I’ve done since: law as a system that builds institutions, not just a set of courtroom rules.​ I began to connect legal design to everyday outcomes and how procedures affect efficiency, fairness, and public trust.​

What also stayed with me were relationships that turned into a lasting professional community.​

Reconnecting with Professor Emerita Linda Carter later during my U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (IUNCTR), and engaging with Professor Omar Dajani, and attorneys John Pezone and Howard Mosely. I also forged friendships with students from whom I learned how business law can work with human rights and diplomacy (Sebastian Neilson, Professor Dominic Dagbanja, and Dr. Fahad Almutairi). This reminded me that mentorship and intellectual friendship can travel with you across continents and career stages.​

McGeorge also strengthened the practical skills I rely on in reform environments: comparative analysis, stakeholder translation, impact-minded thinking, and the discipline to turn ideas into implementable reforms.​

Those tools became especially important in roles where I had to bridge domestic legal systems with international standards.​

2. During your years with the UNICTR, you helped establish the first-ever transfer of jurisdiction from the UNICTR to Rwandan courts. Why did that matter?

For Rwanda, the transfer was about more than a legal milestone, it was about credibility, sovereignty, and rebuilding public trust after the 1994 genocide of the Tutsi.​ It brought justice closer to survivors and communities and helped move “complementarity” from theory to practice.​

The work was very complex. It required alignment across institutions and legal traditions.​ In my earlier role as Director of Judicial Cooperation, I had already learned how much diplomacy and technical precision it takes to work across different legal cultures; prosecution, defense, investigators, and Trial Chambers motions operating with distinct expectations.​

It also required reforms and safeguards described in the narrative, including strengthening fair-trial guarantees, developing witness-protection and cooperation systems, and navigating skepticism about domestic capacity alongside national concerns about external scrutiny.​

The deepest lesson for me is simple: progress in international criminal justice depends as much on resilience and trust as it does on legal frameworks.​

3. How do you see the future of international criminal justice?

The ICTR shaped international criminal law in long-lasting ways, including jurisprudence on genocide, crimes against humanity, and accountability for incitement, while also modeling how international justice can connect to national jurisdictions through cooperation and transfers back of cases in post conflict countries for better accountability. That legacy still matters because today’s challenges require both accountability and institution-building.​

Looking ahead, I believe the field should deepen complementarity by investing in national systems and professional capacity not as an afterthought, but as a central strategy.​ International tribunals remain important for its work on calling humanity about atrocities that happening, but long-term legitimacy depends on strengthening domestic institutions that can deliver fair, timely justice with durable safeguards.​

4. At ABA-ROLI, you focused on training justice actors with very different backgrounds. How do you design training that works across an entire justice chain?

In fragile contexts, you can’t train police, prosecutors, judges, corrections, and community mediators as if they work in separate worlds because they don’t.​ If one part of the chain fails, rights fall through the cracks, and the public feels it immediately.​ It is about uplifting the criminal process while respecting the complementary role of each public institution under national justice policy vision.

My approach is one shared foundation, legality, ethics, human rights, due process paired with tailored pathways for each role.​ That means focusing on evidentiary integrity for prosecutors, trauma-aware practice for police, impartial decision-making for judges, and humane custody standards for corrections.​

In Rwanda, this kind of systems approach supported large-scale outcomes including leading a 45-prosecutor team that resolved about 35,000 backlogged criminal cases while maintaining attention to rights protections and resolving more than 28,000 plea bargaining cases country wide with a decrease of 25% of carceral population.​ For me, that balance of efficiency with fairness is the real test of reform.​

5. When legal mechanisms fall short or politics limits ideals, how do you keep your commitment to the rule of law?

No country or Leader wants to be listed as not respecting human rights. I have worked in places where the international community is looking to address the rule of law deficiency or where institutions can fail the very people they are meant to protect for one or another reason.

When domestic mechanisms fall short, my approach centers on connecting the nation’s unique cultural context with the standards established by development partners. I usually draw from some proven concept in Rwanda and customizing it to meet the specific needs of the country beneficiary. In situations where political challenges arise, I prioritize diplomacy and weight on the developing partner political weight and national authorities or politicians’ strength. These skills are essential in navigating obstacles. Given the current deficiencies in the rule of law, my strategy emphasizes collaborating to design and follow a clear road map toward meaningful progress.

6. How do you balance private practice, program leadership, and civil society?

I don’t see them as separate careers.​ I see them as doing the same work from three different perspective: making justice real, accessible, and ordinary people.​

Private practice keeps reform grounded in what happens in real cases; arrests at night, evidentiary gaps, and the pressures faced by defendants who cannot afford counsel.​ The program leadership is where good ideas get scaled, measured, and institutionalized, and civil society work, through Action pour le Développement due Peuple (ADEPE), keeps accountability rooted in communities.​

Balancing these roles takes focus and strong teams, and it often means saying no when something does not align with mission or ethics.​ But it gets worth it when a policy, training, or procedure you helped build starts improving daily outcomes in courts and communities.​

7. For current McGeorge students who want to work in international criminal law or post-conflict reconstruction, what should they seek out and what mindset matters most?

For students aspiring to work in international criminal law or post-conflict reform, it is essential to seek out experiences that not only develop strong legal skills like at McGeorge School of Law, but also cultivate genuine humility and compassion.

In post-conflict environments, success is not exclusively achieved through argumentation and powerful legal memorandum. Building trust is fundamental, and that begins with active listening. Students should prioritize clinics and internships that place them in close proximity to real cases and institutions such as courts, prosecutors’ offices, ministries of justice, human rights organizations, or respected NGOs. These opportunities are invaluable for learning how evidence is managed, understanding the progression of cases, and seeing firsthand how legal systems operate in a given political situation.

Investing in language learning and developing cross-cultural fluency is also crucial. Reform work is inherently relational, and effective communication across different systems is just as important as legal expertise. In terms of mindset, students should focus on four core principles: fostering meaningful connections, maintaining humility to learn from affected communities, exercising discipline with high standard evidence and processes, and committing to long-term engagement since building institutions requires sustained effort. Education at McGeorge has shaped advocates who are equipped for criminal justice reform and human rights work, demonstrating through their careers that lasting change is built on integrity, patience, and partnership.

Bio

Michael Kalisa is a Rwandan lawyer and criminal justice reform practitioner who has spent more than two decades working at the intersection of transitional justice, institutional reform, and access to justice.

His work has taken him across some of Africa’s most demanding post-conflict contexts, including Rwanda, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and South Sudan.​

Kalisa earned his LLM degree in Government and Public Policy from the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law in 2009.​ He has worked as public servant and international public servant. His career started with Rwanda’s National Public Prosecution Authority (NPPA), the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (UNICTR), the Institute of Legal Practice and Development (ILPD), the ABA Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI) in the Central African Republic, and Yale University’s Jackson School of Global Affairs.​

From 2022 to 2025, Kalisa served as Country Director and Team Leader for Pepperdine University’s Sudreau Global Justice Institute in Rwanda, supporting the nationwide transition to plea bargaining and related reforms.​

Today, Kalisa serves as Head of Legal and Compliance at Action pour le Développement du Peuple (ADEPE), a Rwandan NGO I co-founded, and I continue private practice in a boutique law firm setting as Founder and Advocate at Kalisa Law & Compliance in Kigali.​

McGeorge School of Law alumnus Hubertus Leo ’94

1. Looking back at your LLM in Transnational Business Practice at McGeorge School of Law, what did that experience mean to you personally and professionally — and how has it shaped your approach to international work?

Language, cultural understanding, and a good sense of humor always helps and, especially when displayed by a German, can surprise and break down barriers.

2. You’ve built a career advising on complex transactions and acting as an arbitrator. What’s the secret to staying on top in such a competitive and constantly evolving legal field?

Stay young, stay curious, never stop learning.

3. Having worked with businesses from start-ups to global corporations, what do you find most inspiring about entrepreneurs and business leaders outside of the legal context?

Self-confidence, making decisions, taking risks.

4. Your work often involves high-stakes negotiations. How do you personally manage stress and maintain perspective when the pressure is intense?

My family, especially my wife, provides a lot of strength and support. In high-tension situations, I try to keep my sense of humor and maybe crack a joke.

5. You studied and worked internationally. What cultural or life lessons from those experiences have stayed with you the most?

I have always found it amazing how lawyers from different jurisdictions approach the same legal issue in different ways, and almost always reach the same conclusion.

6. If you could go back and give your younger self one piece of advice before starting your international career, what would it be?

Learn English at a very early stage and keep improving your English skills. 

7. For McGeorge alumni and students who want to build global careers, what habits or mindsets do you think matter most — not just for success, but for enjoying the journey?

Follow your heart and intuition, whether it is with or against the mainstream. True friends matter a lot – invest in the friendships that you built during your life.

Bio

Hubertus Leo was born in 1962. He completed his military service from 1981 to 1983 as a reserve officer. He studied law in Munich, Germany and spent one semester in Paris, France, graduating in 1988. He then completed his practical legal education (Referendar) in Berlin, Germany, graduating in 1991.

Following his legal training, he joined the corporate and M&A practice of Bruckhaus Westrick Stegemann (now Freshfields) in Hamburg, Germany. In 1994, he earned an LLM degree in Transnational Business Practice from the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento and completed an internship with Milbank in New York City. He rejoined Freshfields in 1995 and later worked with Luther & Partner in Hamburg. In 1999, he established his own M&A boutique law firm in Hamburg.

He is married and has three daughters. In 2010, he founded a non-profit association that offers summer schooling programs.

McGeorge School of Law alumna Svetlana Petroff ’91

1. What motivated you to pursue an LLM degree in Transnational Business Practice at McGeorge nearly ten years after completing your JD?

In fact, I embarked on my journey toward earning the LLM degree in Transnational Business Practice at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law years earlier. In August 1985, I matriculated in what was then known as the Salzburg Diploma Program, comprising 6 weeks of classroom instruction at the University of Salzburg law faculty campus, followed by a 6-8 week internship, together leading to the conferring of a Diploma in Advanced International Legal Studies. Academic credits earned through the Diploma Program could be utilized and counted toward credits needed to satisfy the LLM degree requirements. I was already interested in international law subjects while pursuing my JD degree at New York Law School. I took every international law course elective offered at NYLS.

As a member of the Law Review, I authored a published case comment on the important and oft-cited 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Japan Line Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles which analyzed the constitutionality under the Commerce Clause of a state property tax on foreign commerce. I later served as Topics Editor of the NYLS Journal of International & Comparative Law.

As a member of the Moot Court Board, I participated in the Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition and co-authored the Memorial and Counter-Memorial which won Best Brief Award in the 1981 Eastern Regional Round. The questions presented dealt with the delimitation of the maritime boundary for the continental shelf between two fictional states, New Ghana and New Togo. It was a thrill, as Team Captain, to lead NYLS to winning the 1981 Eastern Regional Final, advancing us to the semi-final round of the Jessup Competition in Washington, D.C.

2. How did McGeorge’s partnership with Salzburg University and your time in Austria influence your future international career?

I viewed the Salzburg Diploma Program as an extension of my international law studies which might facilitate a desired transition from a purely U.S.-based domestic practice to one with an international component. As it turned out, a chance meeting at an admission ceremony in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (where I was moving the admission of a fellow associate at my then employer-firm) led to an invitation to interview with and, soon thereafter, an offer to join as a lateral associate, a boutique law firm with a practice focus in international and cross-border transactions. The rest, as they say, is history. I started with the new firm upon completion of the Salzburg Diploma Program.

To this day, I hold cherished memories of my time studying in Salzburg and of my internship with a small French law firm in Paris with an international practice focus. The founder of the firm was active in the International Bar Association and had what seemed to me to be a vast network of clients and colleagues all over the world. All these years later, I am still in touch with many of the acquaintances made in Salzburg and in Paris.

3. You are fluent in English, German, and French. How have your language skills helped you in your legal practice and in life more broadly?

I had had the opportunity to travel in Europe, and I imagined that working in the international field would allow me to utilize my German and French language skills in law practice. In that era, business executives placed high value on having an attorney who could speak their native tongue, even if they were, themselves, facile in English. Bilingual legal translation was done by human, not artificial, intelligence.

4. What inspired you to take on the role of a member of the McGeorge International Board of Advisors, and what are your goals in this role?

Joining the McGeorge International Board of Advisors represents an extension of my ongoing participation in McGeorge international alumni activities, starting with the founding of what was then called the “European Regional Chapter” of the McGeorge School of Law Alumni Association in September 1992. The tradition of an annual “Euroalum” meeting continued in September 1994 in Nice and in March 1996 in London. These meetings later became the biennial alumni reunion conferences we know today. A “New York Regional Chapter” of the McGeorge Alumni Association was also organized. In my view, the alumni connections fostered by these reunion gatherings are vitally important to McGeorge graduates, current students, and the law school. A desire to be involved proactively inspired me to take on the function as a member of the IBOA.

5. What inspired you to co-found the law firm Rowland & Petroff in 1989, and how do you view that step in your career today?

The opportunity to complete the LLM degree in Transnational Business Practice at the McGeorge campus in Sacramento came when my good friend from NYLS, David Rowland, and I decided to open our own law firm. It was right after German Reunification and there was enormous interest in the so-called New States of Germany (the former German Democratic Republic). I suggested to McGeorge that I pick up the LLM degree curriculum by doing a second internship, this time with a small law firm in Munich which had recently opened satellite offices in Leipzig and Dresden. This newly opened region presented interesting opportunities for investment, expansion and development, both commercial and professional.

After spending three months with my host firm in Germany, I returned to the U.S. and headed West to California. Fortunately, I was able to continue my law practice, maintain client relationships and meet the legal needs of my clients, all while studying in Sacramento. In retrospect, I realize that I was ahead of the proverbial curve, working “remotely” before “remote work” became commonplace. I did so utilizing the technology of the day: a landline telefax and telephone! The desktop computers in the McGeorge computer lab afforded me the ability to perform word processing tasks, such as, preparing letters and documents. The McGeorge law library provided access to legal research materials. My clients were very accommodating and willing to coordinate schedules with me to set up telephone appointments across multiple time zones. What is considered normal today was less so in 1991, but it worked.

Upon graduating with my LLM degree, I returned to Rowland & Petroff in New York, where I am today, still engaged in a law practice with an international focus. I remain in touch with many acquaintances made during my time in Germany and in Sacramento.

Bio

Svetlana V. Petroff is the co-founder of Rowland & Petroff, and she focuses on cross-border corporate and commercial matters, especially for German-speaking clients and French-speaking clients. Petroff services a number of private clients, predominantly European companies doing business in the United States or European nationals in connection with their U.S. investments. In Germany and France, Petroff cooperates with several firms in various cities, serving as a U.S. legal consultant on Anglo-American legal issues and liaising with those firms’ English- speaking clients.

McGeorge alumnus Mathys Briers-Louw ’11

1. How did your LLM coursework reshape the way you approach cutting-edge legal challenges and how have you put those insights into practice in your current role?

The LLM coursework at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law deepened my appreciation for comparative legal analysis and the interplay between legal frameworks and global policy shifts. Particularly, the focus on international business transactions and regulatory compliance reshaped how I assess risk across jurisdictions. In practice, this has enabled me to proactively identify potential cross-border compliance pitfalls, especially relevant when advising South African clients with offshore companies, trusts or foreign investments. I now approach legal problems more systemically, integrating strategic foresight with precision.

2. Can you describe a moment during your LLM when collaborating with someone from a radically different legal system led to an unexpected professional opportunity or inspired a new way of solving problems?

During a cross-border merger and international contracts course, I worked closely with a peer from Europe whose approach to legal hierarchy and negotiation strategy was shaped by civil law traditions. While initially challenging, our dialogue opened my eyes to how legal culture influences deal structuring. That collaboration did not just enhance my academic understanding; it led to a referral relationship that has since grown into a steady stream of inbound South African investment advisory work from European clients.

3. Can you share some legal “aha” moment you experienced during your LLM at McGeorge?

One of the most formative “aha” moments came during Professor Stephen McCaffrey’s Transnational Litigation course in 2011. We were exploring the complexities of enforcing judgments across jurisdictions and how divergent procedural systems, particularly between civil and common law traditions, could create both barriers and strategic opportunities in cross-border disputes. What struck me was how seemingly procedural rules could dictate substantive outcomes in transnational matters.

Professor McCaffrey’s method of bridging theory with real-world international disputes helped me realise that global legal practice is not just about knowing the law but mastering the pathways through which it is enforced across borders. That realisation sharpened my strategic thinking as a litigator and later informed how I structure transactions and risk mitigation strategies for clients operating across multiple jurisdictions, particularly where enforcement risks or parallel proceedings may arise.

4. In what ways has your U.S. LLM experience influenced how you mentor junior lawyers, lead teams or drive cultural change within your organization?

The LLM cultivated a mindset of open intellectual exchange and cross-disciplinary engagement, traits I now prioritize in mentoring junior colleagues. I encourage curiosity beyond local statutes and advocate for a global perspective on even the most domestic of issues. The experience also shaped how I structure internal legal training: our sessions now draw on comparative case studies and invite diverse viewpoints, which has measurably improved both morale and problem-solving capacity within our team.

5. If you could design a “LLM Success Toolkit” for incoming students, what three strategies or habits would you include to help them get the most — academically, professionally and personally—from their year abroad?

  • Engage Early and Widely: Do not just focus on classes; join legal clinics, attend conferences, and talk to professors outside lecture halls. Relationships built informally often turn into professional alliances.
  • Document Your Growth: Keep a reflective journal on what you are learning, legally and culturally. This will help crystallise your voice and vision as a global legal professional.
  • Say Yes to the Unexpected: Some of the richest insights come from courses or conversations you did not plan for. Lean into discomfort; it is where real growth happens (outside one’s comfort zone).

Bio

Mathys Briers-Louw ’11 is a seasoned cross-border legal advisor and executive attorney with over a decade of experience in private client, tax, and corporate law. Specializing in trust regulation, international transactions, and exchange control compliance, Mathys combines deep technical expertise with an international perspective gained through U.S. postgraduate study. Founder and CEO of legal-tech and financial services companies, with a focus on simplifying global structures and building compliance-ready strategies for high-net-worth individuals and corporate clients.

McGeorge alumnus Kseniia Kochneva ’22

1. What triggered your desire to study an LLM, and why McGeorge School of Law?

I launched my career on the corporate team at DLA Piper in St. Petersburg, Russia. Getting in took grit; thriving there took even more. That team taught me how to think and deliver like a lawyer. From day one I handled cross-border matters, so an LLM wasn’t a luxury — it was the logical next step for an international corporate practice.

University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law was an easy choice: several colleagues and classmates from Europe had excellent experiences and strongly recommended it (they were right). I wanted practical training, close faculty access, and strong bar-prep support; McGeorge offered all three.

2. What led you to run your own practice instead of staying at a consulting firm?

After more than seven years in Big Law — starting as a summer associate and working my way up to running complex transactions on my own — I reached a crossroads: keep climbing the corporate ladder or create something that reflected my own values. I chose the latter.

I wanted the freedom to work directly with builders — founders, makers, and innovators — without draining their budgets. Running my own practice allows me to offer my Big Law expertise with startup-friendly pricing, transparent scopes, and flexible structures.

On a personal level, I craved the ability to travel, recharge, and actually have weekends with my family — luxuries that are rare in Big Law. Leaving was daunting, no question. But over time, I’ve grown into solo practice, and now I’m not just sustaining it — I’m shaping it into exactly what I want it to be. It’s a long road ahead, but it’s mine to walk, and I’m committed to building it step by step.

3. How did the LLM’s diversity shape your perspective and growth?

My classmates expanded my world — in and out of the classroom. I still remember sharing Iranian rice, Turkish tea breaks, and first-hand discussions about legal systems across Africa, South Asia, and Europe. We all aim for the same outcomes, but cultural context matters in negotiation and strategy. That awareness makes deals smoother. Plus, I now have a trusted global network when a project needs a local expert.

The U.S. venture market is wonderfully diverse. Many founders are first- or second-generation immigrants who value counsel who “gets” global perspective — moving countries, navigating different systems, seeing the world as open and interconnected. My LLM degree sharpened that understanding and made me a better partner to them.

4. Which course or professor had the most lasting impact — and why?

Two unforgettable anchors: Professional Responsibility with Professor John Sprankling and Business Associations with Professor Michael Malloy.

Professor Sprankling turned ethics into a high-stakes craft — engaging and exacting. His “Where’s the conflict?” still rings in my head when I scope multi-party matters or draft engagement letters.

Professor Malloy made corporate law feel kinetic; his sharp — and genuinely funny — hypotheticals are still my go-to for explaining cap tables, fiduciary duties, and board mechanics to clients. If I could, I’d retake both courses tomorrow.

5. Did graduating from a U.S. LLM program open more doors?

Definitely. The California Bar Exam was the goal; McGeorge provided the map, the mileage, and the mentors to get me there. For a foreign-trained lawyer, that path isn’t easy — an active license is essential and hard-won. The credential opened doors; the community keeps them open. Law school isn’t just about classes; it’s one of the most powerful ways to build a lasting, supportive professional network. 

Bio 

Kseniia Kochneva ’22 is a venture capital and corporate lawyer with a global perspective and a founder-first mindset. Raised in a small village in Western Siberia, she began her career in Big Law, where she built a strong foundation in high-stakes corporate work. Having traveled to more than 35 countries, she brings a broad, cross-cultural understanding to advising clients across diverse markets. Today, Kseniia runs an independent practice dedicated to helping startups and investors navigate growth with clarity and confidence. She advises on the full spectrum of early-stage corporate matters — structuring entities, building pragmatic governance frameworks, and keeping records investor-ready. She guides venture financings, from SAFEs and convertible notes to priced equity rounds, translating complex terms into plain language so clients can make informed decisions. 

McGeorge alumnus Kayvan Hazemi-Jebelli ’08

1. Looking back, which professor, clinic, or course at McGeorge School of Law most influenced your professional thinking, and why?

I didn’t know any lawyers growing up, the ones I knew were on TV in criminal law procedural dramas, and that’s what I thought being a lawyer was. But in the summer of my first year I had a course on international business lawyering from Professor Joseph Smallhoover, and that changed my trajectory completely. I realized that there were massive problems that large international companies had to deal with, and that thinking about and solving these problems could be endlessly interesting. It set me on the course of pursuing a career focused on international law, and the problems that multinationals face.

2.  You went on to earn an LLM in Competition Law at King’s College London. How did that experience complement or challenge the foundation you built during your JD at McGeorge?

At University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, I learned how to think and write like a lawyer. But for the area that I wanted to practice, I needed to dive deeper into a subject matter that wasn’t offered at McGeorge. I supplemented my antitrust and competition classes with courses on economics and regulatory policy. I also began to develop an understanding of European perspectives, and started my own personal integration into Europe. It was my first concrete step and commitment to being an international lawyer, and it opened up doors for me in Brussels where most firms required a masters degree. 

3. As someone familiar with U.S., U.K., and EU law, and with a background in computer engineering, how do legal landscape in these regions affect tech-driven startups and entrepreneurs?

To generalise broadly, in Europe, things are forbidden unless they’re allowed, while in the U.S. and the UK it’s the opposite. The default is liberty and freedom, unless there’s a specific prohibition. Entrepreneurs don’t have to ask for permission for everything they wish to do, and that means there is more air to breathe. They aren’t stifled by having to win approval in order to begin. They don’t need to have pre-existing relationships and favor from the powers that be. In the US and the UK, you can just do things. You can build. But in Europe it’s a lot harder, and there’s a lot more pressure on “doing it the right way” rather than the outcome. I think that’s why a lot of European tech entrepreneurs end up leaving.

4. As a lawyer and computer engineer serving as Senior Director for Europe at the Chamber of Progress, what are your views on AI development and its impact on the practice of law?

I think the AI revolution is going to be more transformative than the internet has been. It will change the way we do business, across the board. The legal landscape won’t be saved either. We’ve already seen how much emails and blackberrys changed clients’ demands and expectations for outside counsel. I think AI tools will increase expectations even further, and make it harder for average firms to compete. I think the bigger firms will get even bigger, and a bigger share of the biggest clients’ work.

From a progressive perspective, AI will democratize so many things. The value that it will generate for average people who use it correctly will be mind-boggling. What is accessible only to the top 1 percent today, all forms of personalized services — from teaching to delegating — will become accessible to so many more people thanks to AI.  

5. How should countries and unions shape their AI policies to support innovation while also protecting competitors and users?

Like with the early days of the internet, I think we just have to accept that we’re entering a bit of an unknown period, and try to address harms as they arise, with targeted regulation against the most foreseeable and likely risks. Because of AI’s transformative potential, there’s just too much pressure to not fall behind internationally. Even EU Member States are now calling for the EU’s AI Act to be paused, because they are concerned about over-regulation causing their economies to fall further behind. There’s also a lot of benefit for being a second, or third, mover. To see how the regulatory approach pans out before jumping in. At the end of the day, it’s a lot easier to regulate well, and convince other jurisdictions to take a similar approach, if you have something of your own to regulate. AI regulation’s success will ultimately be measured by what it safely enables, rather than what it prevents. 

Bio

Kayvan Hazemi-Jebelli (Kay) ’08 is Senior Director for Europe at the Chamber of Progress, based in Brussels. Kay previously worked as Competition & Regulatory Counsel to the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and has over a decade’s experience working as a competition lawyer in private practice, in the European Commission Directorate-General for Competition, as a visiting researcher at King’s College London, and as Senior Legal Counsel at a leading UK media and communications company. Before that, he worked as a computer engineer. 

Kay received a BSc degree in computer science and engineering from UCLA, a JD degree from the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, and a LLM degree in Competition Law from King’s College London. Kay enjoys teaching and knowledge sharing, and has lectured on competition law and policy in several universities, in Europe and the U.S. He also started a podcast on European tech policy.

Kay has been passionate about technology ever since his dad brought home an x286 based PC in the ’80s. He grew up in Silicon Valley and learned to build computers in high school (which he then sold on the internet, in the ’90s). When he’s not working to help all people benefit from technological leaps, he enjoys visiting museums, live music, and walking in nature. 

My time at McGeorge School of Law’s Elder and Health Law Clinic was a defining experience in my legal education and career. It allowed me to build on my foundation of service from my time in the Marine Corps while deepening my dedication to serving vulnerable populations with compassion and diligence.

In the Marine Corps, I served on the military honor guard, providing funeral honors for fallen marines. Working alongside retired marines gave me insight into the challenges aging individuals face. I had always viewed the marines of the past as strong and invincible, but I came to see how aging made them vulnerable. This experience instilled in me a commitment to advocate for the elderly — a commitment I carried into my work at the Elder and Health Law Clinic.

During my second year of law school, I took on a leadership role at the clinic, representing clients under the supervision of a licensed attorney in Elder Abuse Restraining Orders and complex elder abuse litigation. One significant case involved an elderly couple who transferred the title of their home to family members, believing they retained a life estate. They were later served with an unlawful detainer and a restraining order that barred one client from returning home. I filed a civil complaint alleging fraud and answered the unlawful detainer action. I also filed a motion to consolidate the cases, which was hotly contested. Successfully arguing the motion, while negotiating a stay on the restraining order, was a pivotal moment in my development as a legal advocate. It taught me the importance of preparation, thorough research, and strategic thinking.

In addition to managing my caseload, I mentored newer students in the clinic, helping them navigate complex cases and build their legal skills. This mentorship role deepened my understanding of teamwork and leadership and reinforced the value of collaboration in legal practice.

The skills I developed at the Elder and Health Law Clinic — working with vulnerable clients, thorough case preparation, and courtroom advocacy — have had a lasting impact on my work today as a Deputy District Attorney for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. I now prosecute serious and violent felonies, often working with crime victims who are under immense stress. My time at the clinic taught me how to establish trust, listen actively, and communicate legal concepts clearly — skills that are essential in working with victims and their families. The clinic’s emphasis on detailed case preparation also laid the foundation for my ability to handle high-stakes felony cases with confidence and care.

The Elder and Health Law Clinic gave me critical legal tools while reinforcing the importance of empathy and advocacy. It also allowed me to make a meaningful impact on the lives of vulnerable individuals, something that remains central to my career today. For any student seeking a transformative experience, I wholeheartedly recommend it. It’s an opportunity to hone your legal skills while deepening your understanding of the law’s potential to uplift those in need.

By McGeorge School of Law alumnus Daniel M. Ilacqua, ’19.

“PDSAs are a tool from the Transformational Change Partnership that we have integrated into our work and decision-making at our agency. We often ask our clients to help develop PDSAs so we can incorporate their change ideas into our system.”

– Placer County Behavioral Health Professional and TCP Participant

The value of continuous quality improvement

Transformational change in public systems doesn’t happen overnight. It requires thoughtful experimentation, learning, and adaptation. One powerful tool for this process is Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA)—a structured, iterative approach that allows organizations to test small-scale changes before committing significant resources to full-scale implementation.

The Transformational Change Partnership (TCP) has seen firsthand how PDSA cycles empower counties to make data-informed decisions, reduce risks, and create sustainable improvements in behavioral health, education, and other public systems. By focusing on continuous learning, PDSA prevents costly missteps, preserves goodwill, and leads to more effective solutions.

What is PDSA?

PDSA is a structured, low-cost, rapid cycle approach that guides organizations through testing and refining changes to learn what works best before full implementation:

  • Plan: Define the objective, make predictions, and outline the steps for testing a change, including data collection methods.
  • Do: Carry out the test on a rapid small scale, document observations, and begin analyzing data.
  • Study: Analyze results, compare findings to predictions, and summarize lessons learned.
  • Act: Refine the change based on insights gained, determine modifications, and plan the next test.

Why PDSA Matters for System Transformation

When counties and public agencies adopt PDSA, they gain three critical benefits:

  1. Saves Resources: Instead of investing time and money into an untested implementation that may not work well, PDSA allows teams to test small changes first and learn what works best. This ensures that only effective strategies are scaled up, maximizing impact while minimizing waste.
  2. Preserves Goodwill: Too often, well-intentioned initiatives fall short, leaving stakeholders frustrated and disengaged. PDSA helps build confidence by ensuring that changes are refined and validated before full-scale implementation.
  3. Drives Better Outcomes: Learning through PDSA leads to stronger solutions than simply launching an initiative and making adjustments later. By iterating and improving at every step, organizations create programs that are not only functional but truly responsive to community needs.

Real-World Examples of PDSA in Action

Across multiple counties participating in the Transformational Change Partnership, PDSA has helped agencies navigate complex challenges and improve services. Here are a few examples of how public-serving organizations have leveraged this approach:

  • Enhancing Mental Health Transitions for Justice-Involved Individuals: Placer County is applying PDSA to improve communication between in-custody providers and community-based mental health services. By testing how mental health clients booked in jail can be successfully connected to an appointment within 14 days of release, the county is identifying and addressing gaps in coordination and information sharing before expanding the approach.
  • Expanding Youth Engagement in Service Design: Monterey County is using PDSA to test how to better involve students in shaping behavioral health services. By piloting empathy interviews, they aim to refine the questions and interview format to ensure youth voices are meaningfully included in decisions about service offerings and providers.
  • Improving School-Based Behavioral Health Guidance: Santa Cruz County is using PDSA to test how best to disseminate and support the use of state materials on privacy regulations (HIPAA/FERPA) for school-based counselors. By piloting these materials with a small group of counselors and families, they aim to refine the content and its distribution strategy before a broader rollout.

Centering Equity in PDSA

In order to maximize the quality and effectiveness of a change, it is helpful to investigate who is at the table when designing and implementing PDSAs. Each phase of the PDSA cycle can integrate an equity lens by asking:

  • Where did the change ideas being tested come from? Were impacted communities involved in generating potential solutions?
  • Who was involved in planning and testing? Are diverse voices, including those most affected by the issue, engaged?
  • Who is analyzing the results? Are stakeholders contributing to the interpretation of findings?
  • How are disparities being addressed by the change? Are changes leading to improved equity in outcomes, or do they reinforce existing inequities?

Making PDSA a Standard Practice

Embedding PDSA into everyday operations shifts an organization’s culture from reactive to proactive. It creates a mindset of continuous improvement, where learning is valued, and innovation is encouraged. For counties engaged in transformational change, this approach ensures that new strategies are not just well-intentioned but proven to work before being widely adopted.

The Transformational Change Partnership supports counties in integrating PDSA into their system improvement efforts, helping public agencies move beyond guesswork to data-driven, community-informed solutions. As more organizations embrace this tool, they position themselves to create meaningful, lasting change—one cycle at a time.

Final Thoughts

Transformation is not about making one big change; it’s about making small, strategic changes that add up to something bigger. PDSA provides a roadmap for testing, refining, and implementing solutions that truly serve communities. By embracing this approach, public agencies can avoid costly missteps, sustain trust, and build systems that are both effective and equitable.

Interested in learning more about how PDSA can support your system improvement efforts? The Transformational Change Partnership is here to help.