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 UNICTR work, and engaging with Professor Omar Dajani, District Attorney 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). 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 all 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 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.

Diksha Jagga is a third-year student at McGeorge School of Law. 

Participating in the Elder and Health Law Clinic was a defining experience in my legal education. I joined the clinic to gain practical experience in estate planning and elder law, building on my background in financial planning and wealth management. While I expected to work on trusts, developing estate plans, modifying existing trusts, and addressing issues related to guardianships and healthcare directives, I didn’t anticipate how much I would learn about the personal and emotional side of legal practice.

Many of the clients I worked with were facing difficult situations, from concerns about diminished capacity to family disputes over trusts. Others needed guidance on how taxes would affect their estate plans. In those moments, tax concepts became less about numbers and more about what they meant for a client’s family and future. Explaining these issues in a clear and supportive way made conversations that could feel overwhelming much more manageable.

The experience I gained expanded my understanding of how the law intersects with family dynamics. While my financial background gave me a solid foundation, applying it in real-world scenarios showed me how careful planning can provide reassurance and stability.

I’m especially grateful for the mentorship of Professor Melissa Brown, Staff Attorney Lacey Mickleburgh, and Professor John Cary Sims. Their guidance challenged me to think critically, refine my legal analysis, and build confidence in my ability to serve clients. They showed me how to approach legal problems with both technical skills and genuine care for the people involved.

This experience solidified my commitment to estate planning and elder law. Behind every legal issue is a person, often facing a major life transition. Carrying that understanding forward, I’m dedicated to practicing law in a way that blends expertise with empathy — ensuring clients feel supported as they make decisions that shape their futures.

By Diksha Jagga, a third-year student at McGeorge School of Law. 

Malina Walker, ’22.

I have a JD because I graduated from law school. I’m licensed to practice law because I passed the California Bar Exam. But, I’m an attorney doing some good in the world because of the McGeorge School of Law Elder and Health Law Clinic.

Going to law school and passing the Bar Exam are important (critical!) things to do if you want to be a lawyer, but practicing law in the real world requires doing just that. It requires handling tangible files, looking at real evidence, reading statutes that apply to actual facts, navigating physical courts and clerks, and working with living human beings.

When I started working for Senior Legal Services of El Dorado County as a brand-new attorney, I knew how to do the actual work of lawyering from day one: how to manage a client file and meeting, keep good records, and ask good questions. I knew how to navigate client questions, deceptions, fears and furies. I knew how to take quiet moments to listen with compassion and how to re-direct to the matters at hand. I knew how to clarify and manage expectations and how to honestly address disappointments. I learned all of this because I worked with real clients and had continuous, expert, and supportive mentorship in the clinic. 

None of this means I didn’t have a lot to learn when I started working — I did, and still do. But, I had a strong base to start my career because I worked at the clinic. It is critical, I think, to appreciate this — the clinic is a law firm. It is staffed by licensed attorneys and student attorneys who don’t just offer “tips and tricks” or direct clients to other resources — they are the resources, and they do the work. 

A final note for those interested in the Elder and Health Law Clinic: If you’re uncertain whether this is the right area for you, but are curious about the valuable experiences it offers, then I would argue do it anyway. Because even if you don’t practice Elder Law, the kinds of nuanced and sophisticated legal and human skills you’ll develop will serve you wherever you practice in the future. Knowing how to assess capacity, having the skill to navigate sensitive human issues like independence, or dignity, and practicing with the awareness that your clients are people with context will make you a better lawyer. The “context” in Elder Law might involve issues like early dementia, loss of independence, or hearing impairments. However, if you’re trained to recognize these types of human challenges, you’ll become more attuned to the unique “context” of any client. This could include concerns such as a desire for revenge, fear of homelessness, lingering distrust of lawyers due to a past divorce, or any other personal matters they bring with them, beyond the legal issue they want you to address. And sometimes, they don’t even have a legal problem, but you can help them anyway — yet another skill you can learn in the clinic.

By McGeorge School of Law alumnus Malina Walker, ’22.