Christopher Borgen, Professor and Associate Dean for International Studies, has written this piece on Opinio Juris on the recent protests in Ukraine. Professor Borgen analyzes the tug of war between the EU and Russia over Ukraine, and what it tells us about the evolution of geopolitics and international norms.
For the tenth year in a row, Elayne Greenberg, Assistant Dean for Dispute Resolution Programs, Professor of Legal Practice, and Director of the Hugh L. Carey Center, has been named one of the Best Lawyers in America in the practice area of mediation. Best Lawyers, which compiles the annual list of top attorneys in various fields, is a peer-review publication in the legal profession that identifies outstanding attorneys through confidential peer-review surveys.
Professor Greenberg regularly shares her renowned expertise with students in and out of the classroom. The New York State Unified Court System’s Office of ADR Programs recently approved under Part 146 her forty-two hour Divorce Mediation and Commercial Mediation courses. Upon completion of each course, students will receive a certificate of participation that can help them satisfy the training requirements to serve as a mediator in court-connected mediation programs.
Professor Edward “Ned” Cavanagh has recently published an article in the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal entitled Antitrust Law and Economic Theory: Finding a Balance. In the article, Professor Cavanagh argues that economic theory has taken precedence over facts in antitrust analysis in the courts and that a re-calibration is in order. Here’s the abstract:
Over the past forty years, the federal courts have relied more and more on economic theory to inform their antitrust analyses. Economic theory has indeed provided guidance with respect to antitrust issues and assisted the courts in reaching rational outcomes. At the same time, infusion of economic evidence into antitrust cases has made these cases more complex, lengthier, more expensive to litigate, and less predictable. This Article argues that courts need to restore the balance between facts and economic theory in undertaking antitrust analysis. The problem is not that judges and juries cannot reach good outcomes in antitrust cases, but rather that courts have become too reliant on economic theory in deciding them. Just as courts of an earlier generation became too enamored of per se rules in antitrust cases, some courts today have become too enamored of economic theory in addressing and resolving antitrust issues. Some courts have lost sight of basic antitrust goals and have gotten bogged down in arcane
economic tests—relevant market and proof of common impact in class action cases are two examples—which have become obstacles to, instead of tools for, resolution of antitrust disputes. Antitrust is a body of law enacted by Congress and construed by the courts; it is not a compendium of the latest thinking in economic theory. The role of the courts is not to decree economic policy, but rather to implement antitrust policies enacted by Congress. Antitrust has always been a
fact-specific enterprise, and courts need to restore the proper balance between fact finding and economic theory by confining economic theory to those areas where it assists antitrust analysis and discarding such theory where it gets in the way. In short, courts need to return to simple, predictable, and administrable—but informed—antitrust rules.
Professor Eva Subotnik’s paper, Intent to Fair Use, was accepted for an Intellectual Property workshop to be held at NYU Law School in early January. The Workshop brings together intellectual property law scholars from the tri-state region. Approximately 5-10 papers are selected for presentation and feedback in advance of the spring 2014 law review submission cycle. In her paper, Subotnik focuses on the degree to which recent fair use case law and scholarship that suggest that the evaluation of a challenged use of a copyrighted work be made principally from the perspective of a reasonable observer (rather than from the perspective of the defendant artist herself) advances the goals of copyright policy and provides predictability for those contemplating future uses of copyrighted works. Information about the Workshop can be found here http://tristate.nyuengelberg.org/
The editors of the ABA Journal have named the Center for Law and Religion Forum, produced by St. John’s Center for Law and Religion, one of the top 100 best blogs for a legal audience. CLR Forum is one of 15 blogs selected for the “Niche” blog category. The full list appears in the December issue of the magazine.
Regularly updated, the Center for Law and Religion Forum offers a comprehensive compilation of new law and religion scholarship, put together daily by the Center’s student fellows – the latest American law review scholarship as well as foreign and comparative pieces and new books in law and religion. It also provides engaging commentary by Center faculty on law and religion issues in the news and around the web, along with useful links to research centers, blogs, and news sites.
Professor Mark Movsesian, Frederick A. Whitney Professor of Contract Law, produces and contributes to the blog as Director of the Center, together with its Associate Director, Professor Marc O. DeGirolami.
Professor Gina Calabrese, with law students of the Consumer Justice for the Elderly: Litigation Clinic recently celebrated two important victories in CJELC cases. In one case, the Clinic obtained a judgment cancelling fraudulent deeds that robbed an elderly man with Alzheimer’s disease of title to his home. In the other case, the Clinic obtained a preliminary injunction on behalf of a 95-year-old woman who transferred her house to her nieces with the condition that they not sell it until after she died and that they use the proceeds to pay for her funeral. The nieces sold the house, violating the terms of the constructive trust, and retained the proceeds for themselves. The new owner attempted to evict the elderly woman; the preliminary injunction preserves her right to remain in the home while the lawsuit is pending. The Clinic also defeated four cross-motions to dismiss the action. The court’s decision cites much of the legal authority that appeared in the Clinic’s briefs.
Professor Jeremy Sheff‘s Stanford Law Review article, Marks, Morals, and Markets, has been identified by Professor Laura Heymann as one of the best works of recent scholarship relating to Intellectual Property, in a review published today in Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots). Describing Professor Sheff’s article as ”thoughtful and sophisticated”, the review concludes,
Sheff does not purport to set forth an all-encompassing theory, but his proposal is highly compatible with the way we now talk about brands. We are ever more in a world in which consumers engage with many brands as personas. Brands are trusted confidants and comforting companions. They find allegiances with different social groups at different times in their development; they uplift us and betray us. These brands are not simply a way of finding goods in the marketplace; they are also a way of announcing or defining one’s identity, creating relationships with others, signaling wealth, or engaging in any one of a number of expressive functions. Companies respond in kind, by creating advertising or affinity groups that foster this type of engagement, and by aggressively using trademark law as a kind of corporate defamation law, pushing back at uses that offend their view of their brands. If these are our relationships with brands today, then perhaps we should be characterizing their relationships with us as ones of promise, representations, and trust. The difficulty will then be in determining which promises we truly expect brands to keep.
The New York Times published Professor Jeff Sovern‘s letter in its Sunday Dialogue feature titled “Academia’s Two Tracks.” The letter addresses the validity of student evaluations in assessing the performance of tenured and tenure-track professors versus adjuncts. Professor Sovern states:
Student evaluations are a better measure of popularity than competence. Adjuncts may in fact be better teachers, but studies not based on student evaluations are needed to prove it.
Gina Calabrese, Professor of Clinical Education, was recently named to the Board of Directors of Catholic Migration Services. CMS provides legal representation and other services to immigrants living in Brooklyn and Queens. St. John’s offers its Bread and Life Legal Clinic in partnership with CMS. CMS also does impact litigation through its Immigrant Tenants Advocacy Project as well as assistance with the naturalization process. It is a non-profit corporation affiliated with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn.
On Friday, November 8, Michael Perino, Dean George W. Matheson Professor of Law, was in Chicago to present a paper at the First Annual Corporate and Securities Litigation Workshop, sponsored by the University of Illinois College of Law. Professor Perino co-authored the paper, Private Ordering Versus Judicial Regulation of Attorneys’ Fees in Securities Class Actions: An Empirical Assessment, with University of Texas Law School professors Lynn Baker and Charles Silver.