Jonathan Lovvorn is Vice President of Animal Protection Litigation for the Humane Society of the United States Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University School of Law, and Co-Director of the GW Animal Law Litigation Project-a joint HSUS/GW Law School Animal Law Clinic launched in 2005.

Mr. Lovvorn has litigated extensively on behalf of animals in State and Federal Courts throughout the country. Prior to joining The HSUS, Mr. Lovvorn was a partner with Meyer & Glitzenstein - a public interest law firm in Washington, D.C. that specializes in environmental and animal protection litigation. During his tenure, he won numerous victories for animals in the courts, including a groundbreaking decision that prevented the federal government from capturing or killing more than 200 species of migratory birds in violation of international law.

Mr. Lovvorn also spearheaded the legal campaign that facilitated the rescue of the "Suarez Seven" polar bears from a traveling circus in Puerto Rico. Other significant legal achievements under Lovvorn's direction include federal court orders requiring the protection of California gray whales, Florida black bears, white-tailed deer, mute swans, endangered salmon, and the American bison. He has also successfully defended animal protection initiatives and referenda from legal attack in state and federal court. He has published several articles concerning animal protection and environmental policy, including a recent article on the mute swan controversy in the State of Maryland.

Mr. Lovvorn is a 1995 graduate of Hastings College of the Law and holds an LL.M. in Environmental Law and Natural Resource Policy from Lewis and Clark Law School. Mr. Lovvorn also serves as an Advisor to the Animal Welfare Pro Bono Project at George Washington University Law School, and as a Visiting Professor of Animal Law at Lewis and Clark Law School.

Carter Dillard is Staff Attorney with the Humane Society of the United States. Before coming to the HSUS, Carter served as General Counsel with Compassion Over Killing, Inc, a nonprofit animal advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. that focuses on cruelty to animals in agriculture.

Before focusing exclusively on animal law in 2003, Carter worked as an attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, and later as a legal advisor to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security where he worked with the National Security Law Division litigating the deportation of foreign human rights abusers and aliens posing national security risks. During his tenure with the government, Carter successfully represented animal advocacy organizations in a variety of cases, including In Defense of Animals, Inc., based in Mill Valley, California, against the University of California regarding the University's wrongfully withholding the veterinary care records of animals used in research. Carter has also advised IDA in matters before the City of San Francisco, on matters regarding the importation of elephants in violation of the Endangered Species Act, and in litigation against school districts in California for bringing children to rodeos in violation of the state's education code.

With Compassion Over Killing, Inc. Carter helped force the U.S. egg industry to abandon a nationwide egg labeling scheme in which eggs produced in battery-cages were labeled as 'Animal Care Certified', by alleging that the labeling was false and misleading in various arbitration and litigation forums. Carter has also worked with several prosecutors' offices to obtain criminal charges against animal agriculture corporations that abuse animals.

Carter graduated in 1995 with a degree in Political Science from Boston College and received his law degree from Emory University School of Law in 1999.

OUR INTERVIEW WITH JONATHAN LOVVORN

1. How did you become involved in the animal protection movement?

 I began my legal career doing public interest environmental litigation on behalf of major U.S. environmental groups. During my time working at Meyer & Glitzenstein, I began representing more and more animal protection groups because the cases were more interesting and compatible with my personal views.  

I also gravitated to animal cases because there was, and still is, a shortage of qualified attorneys to work on animal cases in the U.S., and I thought my energies were better spent in that area.  

When the opportunity arose to move over to HSUS and launch a new department with eight attorneys devoted solely to developing and prosecuting animal case, I jumped on it for the same reason.  

2. What is it like to work in America’s largest animal protection litigation department?

Wonderful.  HSUS’s decision to launch a litigation section has allowed me to hand-pick and assemble the best and brightest of the new generation of animal lawyers and turn them loose to search for creative new ways to apply existing laws to help animals.  

And their hard work is already paying huge dividends in terms of generating new case ideas, doing the hard work of developing the facts and experts necessary to launch winning cases, and actually filing these new actions in state and federal courts around the country.  

The HSUS has given me the people and resources to do exactly what I have always wanted to make important gains for animals in the courts, and to train law students and young lawyers how to apply Animal Law in the real world.

3. What kind of cases are you working on at the moment?

As of today our section has 39 active cases on our docket in state and federal courts in the U.S.  We also have legal actions pending in other countries, through the auspices of Humane Society International.  

This year alone, we have filed 14 new legal actions, including actions concerning canned hunting, cockfighting, long-distance farm animal transport, wild horse protection, wolf conservation, invasive marine mammal research, and many other issues.  Most recently, we filed an action in federal court in California to require the U.S. Government to extend the protections of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act to the more than 9 billion birds that are slaughtered each year in the U.S. without any legal protection or humane oversight.

A list our or current cases can be found at http://www.hsus.org/in_the_courts/docket/

4. What is the ‘Animal Law Litigation Project’ ?

This is a new Animal Law clinic in Washington, D.C. The project is a joint venture between The HSUS and George Washington University Law School that is intended to improve enforcement of the nation's animal protection laws by giving students clinical experience representing the interests of animals in the courts.  

Clinic students work side-by-side with our legal staff on cases, and also take a classroom course that teaches practical animal protection litigation skills as a complement to the regular Animal Law seminar offered at GW Law School.  I believe it’s the only class of its kind in the U.S., and we hope it will be the model for many other law schools.

The clinic is a very exciting new partnership for us, since it serves one of the key goals of the new HSUS litigation section ‘ to bridge the gap between theory and practice, and to develop Animal Law to the point where Environmental Law is today.

5. What is the ‘Twenty Eight Hour Law’ and how does it relate to your work?

Carter has answered this one, but I will add that one of our pending legal actions is a administrative petition demanding that the U.S. Department of Agriculture apply the law to truck transport of farm animals, in addition to rail transport.  More information is available on HSUS's website. 

6. As a partner with Meyer & Glitzenstein, a public interest law firm in Washington, D.C. you specialised in federal and state court litigation on public interest issues and won numerous victories for animals. Can you tell us about some of your past successes?

Many of the past successes that I have been fortunate to be involved with are listed on Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal’s website.  I won’t recount those here.

But, I will tell you that, in every case, the reason for success was that we did not advance sweeping new theories asking the courts to change the legal status of animals with the stroke of a pen.  Instead, we advanced limited, credible arguments that conservative courts could understand and agree with in order to carry the day in that particular case, and to move the ball forward incrementally for animals.  

That and a lot of very, very hard work by an integrated team of lawyers, activists, lobbyists, and scientific experts is the key to success.

7. What do you think is the biggest obstacle facing the animal protection movement today?

We have many obstacles, and most of them have been written of elsewhere. And this is far too large of an issue to address here.
But as animals lawyers, if we could do just one thing to help the movement, I would say that we need to stop day-dreaming of a world in which animals have legal rights and get back to the hard work of making those concrete changes for animals that society and the courts are ready to accept, but just need a good push.  

There are literally billions of animals out there in conditions that we actually have a feasible shot at changing, but every hour we spend fantasizing about some kind of legal rights silver bullet for all animals ‘ and what exactly that would look like -- is an hour wasted.  

And that’s not to say that this is not a laudable goal, its just a recognition of the harsh reality that we live in a society that ‘ according to most polls ‘ does not appear to support that goal.

When I come to work in the morning, I often ask myself, If I was the animal sitting in a battery cage, a gestation crate, a road-side zoo, or whatever, what would I ask my lawyers to spend their time on today?

The answer is always the same: ‘go to court and get me the heck out of here by any argument you can win -- worry about radically changing the entire legal system on your own time.’

8. How do you think that legal change can best be effected- through the courts or through legislation?

I don’t think these can be seen as an either/or proposition. In my view, one of the reasons HSUS is effective is because we apply an integrated approach of litigation, legislation, media, and science ‘ all working together in a pre-planned strategy.  If you look at the successful campaign to free the Suarez polar bears you will see that it was the integrated campaign putting pressure in every venue at once that ultimately carried the day.

9. Do you have any words of wisdom to share with Australia's budding animal lawyers?

Don’t trust anyone over 30.  Ok, not really, but it is important to remember that this is an incipient and evolving area of the law, and I think the biggest mistake this new generation of animal lawyers can make is to let their views of the law, and what is or is not feasible, be defined by the hand-full of lawyers that came before you.

Think objectively and creatively, and do not accept the pre-packaged framework anyone tries to sell you, no matter how many animal cases they have done, books they have written, or classes they have taught.

In just one year here in the new litigation section at HSUS, I cannot tell you how many times a law student or young lawyer has come to me with an idea that initially looks absurd but turns out to be brilliant in the end.  

It is up to you to develop animal law without the shackles of your predecessors, and it’s up to us to listen to what you all have to say.

OUR INTERVIEW WITH CARTER DILLARD

1. How did you become involved in the animal protection movement?

I suppose the literature and photos of animal abuse I saw when I was quite young persuaded me. After graduating from law school, I realized that the law exists for just the sort of social change the movement seeks, and I have become increasingly committed as a result.

2. What is it like to work in America’s largest animal protection litigation department?

It’s a dream job. We are tasked with finding innovative ways to help animals. It’s one of the few legal jobs where there are no moral quandaries. We use the law to eliminate the most base form of ‘might makes right,’ the cruel acts humans inflict upon helpless animals every day.   

3. What kind of cases are you working on at the moment?

Unfortunately, most of the projects are confidential, but we have recently filed papers in two matters which are exemplary of the work we do. We recently filed suit against the United States Department of Agriculture regarding their misinterpretation of a federal law designed to ensure the humane slaughter of farm animals ‘ despite the clear language of the statute the Department, which implements the law, they interpreted the law not to apply to poultry though these animals account for over 90% of the animals slaughtered in the U.S. It’s ridiculous, really.

We have also just filed an amicus brief in a case pending before the Supreme Court of Oregon in which lower courts found that state agencies could not regulate ‘canned hunting,’ which involves the killing of trapped animals for a fee. Again, the law clearly gave the agencies authority, but the facilities that cater to the ‘hunters’ challenged the law despite the danger these facilities pose to native wildlife.

4. What is the ‘Animal Law Litigation Project’?

 I’ll defer to Jon on that, but I can say that we have been lucky enough to work with the participating students, all of whom are driven, bright and energetic.

5. What is the ‘Twenty Eight Hour Law’ and how does it relate to your work?

 This is a federal law that requires persons transporting animals to stop and rest the animals for five hours out of every twenty-eight that they travel. That sounds easy enough to comply with, but again, much like the humane slaughter law we discussed above, the United States Department of Agriculture has managed to read the law as not applying to trucks, and as a result there is no protection for the vast majority of animals that are transported in the States. It’s a paradigm ‘ Congress passes a law which is then completely subverted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This is great evidence of the power of the animal agribusiness lobby in the States.

6. You have previously published an article regarding consumer protection law and animals entitled ‘False Advertising, Animals, and Ethical Consumption’. What were the main issues covered in that article’ Have you been involved in any cases (in your current or previous roles) concerning these issues?

 I tried to make it sort of a ‘how to’ guide for bringing actions against companies falsely advertising animal goods or services so that consumers think the products are humanely produced, or services are humanely rendered. I focused on the forums that hear these cases, the substance of the law in this area, and the evidence important to win these cases.

With Compassion Over Killing, Inc. we were recently able to use these laws to force the U.S. egg industry to abandon a nationwide egg labeling scheme in which eggs produced in battery-cages were labeled as ‘Animal Care Certified,’ ‘ we alleged that the labeling was false and misleading in various arbitration and litigation forums and won.

7. What do you think is the biggest obstacle facing the animal protection movement today?

Public corruption. I think that the average person doesn’t want to harm animals, and that if their wishes were acted upon by their representatives in government, the movement would realize many of its goals. However, at least in the United States, it’s the businesses that profit from abusing animals that often call the shots, rather than the voters.

8. How do you think that legal change can best be effected- through the courts or through legislation?

The courts can only interpret and enforce the laws before them. Litigators can create great interpretations, but if the law itself isn’t there, the courts aren’t much use. Having said that, it may be that litigation is a better option in the U.S. at the moment ‘ with lots of opportunities to get great interpretations of the existing laws, good laws that have gone unnoticed by prosecutors, agencies, and the courts.

9. Do you have any words of wisdom to share with Australia's budding animal lawyers?

This is worth your time. The abuse of animals is glaring evidence of our barbarism, and if lawyers are tasked with bringing about the antithesis of this barbarism, which is justice, then animal protection is your chance to do right.