You might think that Jeffrey Fisher is in a rush. Already winning three cases before the Supreme Court of the United States—groundbreaking cases that include remaking the established federal sentencing guidelines. Making partner at a prominent law firm. Being recognized as one of the best in his field by various journals including Lawyers USA and the National Law Journal. Now Fisher continues his impressive career by joining the Stanford Law School faculty as codirector of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic and director of a new clinic in the area of criminal justice.

“My goal in joining the law school’s Supreme Court clinic is to build on the success the clinic already has achieved and to help solidify it as an institution that is going to be a strong and lasting one for years to come,” said Fisher.

Cases handled by Fisher include Blakely v. Washington, in which he successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to NEW F A 2 3 sentencing guidelines; Crawford v. Washington, which established a new approach to the confrontation clause; and United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, in which he successfully argued that the Sixth Amendment is violated and a new trial is required whenever a court wrongly denies a criminal defendant the ability to be represented by his or her counsel of choice.

“Part of my own work has been shaped by a strong desire to give a voice and a helping hand to people who might not otherwise have somebody to stand up for them,” he said.

After receiving his BA in English from Duke University and graduating magna cum laude and Order of the Coif from the University of Michigan Law School, Fisher clerked for Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He then clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Later, he joined the Seattle office of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP where he also offered his services pro bono to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

“The composition of the current Court provides an interesting opportunity for creative thinking about the rights of the accused,” said Fisher. “We now have a handful of recent decisions from the Court signaling that it will be responsive, for example, to historical arguments grounded in the framers’ deep antipathy for excessive or arbitrary governmental power. Much of the research needed for such arguments is just starting to be done, so it’s particularly exciting to be joining an academic institution where we have the time and resources to do this work and where I can look for cases to bring it to fruition.”