August 19, 2014
The New York Times has published Professor Jeff Sovern’s letter responding to an article, Baby Pictures at the Doctor’s? Cute, Sure, but Illegal. The letter states in part:
You report that federal privacy laws block doctors from posting pictures of patient babies where others can see them. Surely parents sending baby pictures to physicians do not expect the photos to be secret.
The law should be amended to permit their posting, unless parents request that they be kept private. This is the type of regulation that fuels claims that government is the problem.
It is Professor Sovern’s 41st letter in the Times.
August 11, 2014
Professor Patricia Montana’s article, Legal Education Reform: Simulating Complex Litigation Practice in an Advanced Legal Writing Course, has been accepted for publication in a German, peer-edited law journal called “Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Rechtswissenschaft” (ZDRW). The journal focuses on legal education and is published quarterly by Nomos, one of the four leading publishing houses in Law in Germany. Her article will appear in the first issue of 2015 and will be printed in English.
August 3, 2014
Professor Cheryl L. Wade has coauthored an article with Steven A. Ramirez and andre douglas pond cummings entitled “Toward a Critical Corporate Law Pedagogy and Scholarship”. The article was selected for publication in the symposium issue of The Washington University Law Review in connection with the Midwestern People of Color Legal Scholarship Conference. Professor Wade presented portions of this article at a workshop at Boston University School of Law and the Annual ABA Business Associations Meeting.
July 19, 2014
Professor Jeff Sovern authored two entries in the recently-published Consumer Survival: An Encyclopedia of Consumer Rights, Safety, and Protection (2014).
The first, on Door-to-Door Sales, appears in volume 1 while the second, on the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, is in volume 2.
July 19, 2014
Jennifer Baum, Associate Professor of Clinical Legal Education and Director of the Child Advocacy Clinic, has published a new article for the ABA’s Children’s Rights Litigation Newsletter entitled “Ready, Set, Go to Federal Court: The Hague Child Abduction Treaty, Demystified.”
In the article, Professor Baum, who has represented or worked with children on a number of international parental child abduction cases, discusses the need for increased advocacy for children and parents in Hague cases, especially those in which one or both parents raise child safety concerns.
November 18, 2013
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.
November 13, 2013
Tinnelly Professor of Law Lawrence Joseph‘s poem “In a Post-Bubble Credit-Collapse Environment” appears in the November 18, 2013 issue of The New Yorker. The audio version of the poem is also on The New Yorker‘s Digital Edition.
On Saturday, November 10, Professor Joseph was a featured reader and participant in the day long Festival Within: Best of the Best of American Poetry, at the Walt Whitman Birthplace in Huntington, Long Island. On Friday November 1, he was a featured speaker at A Centennial Conference: Robert Hayden at the University of Michigan, which celebrated the one-hundredth anniversary of the birth of the Robert Hayden, a major American poet and the first African-American Poet Laureate of the United States.
November 11, 2013
Professor Jeff Sovern was quoted in an article on Law360, CFPB Aims To Fill Gaps With Coming Debt Collection Rules [link at http://www.law360.com/articles/486713/cfpb-aims-to-fill-gaps-with-coming-debt-collection-rules]. After noting that the existing federal statute, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, antedated the creation of text messages, email and social media, the article notes:
The statute does not take any of these modes of communication into account, and that has led to confusion about how it applies to them — as well as confusion’s sometime byproduct, litigation, said St. John’s University School of Law professor Jeff Sovern.
October 18, 2013
Professor Vincent C. Alexander has just published an article in the N.Y.U. Journal of Legislation and Public Policy entitled, The CPLR at Fifty: A View from Academia. The article is based on remarks Professor Alexander delivered at NYU’s Dwight D. Opperman Institute of Judicial Administration on March 12, 2013, as part of a symposium on the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”).
The CPLR has its roots in New York’s groundbreaking Field Code of 1848, but it has evolved into a multifaceted code that carries forward a few too many eccentric and arguably outmoded rules of procedure. The symposium participants, whose remarks are included in the publication, include U.S. Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, who was one of the principal authors of the CPLR, former New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, NYU Law Professors Oscar G. Chase and William E. Nelson, and practitioner/author David L. Ferstendig.
The symposium reflects upon the creation of the CPLR, its strengths and weaknesses, and its place in the history of procedural reform. Professor Alexander provides an academic perspective, focusing on the teaching, scholarship and law reform opportunities that the CPLR provides. He argues that the New York courts, acting through the Chief Administrative Judge, Judicial Conference and CPLR Advisory Committee, rather than the Legislature alone, should be given the authority to amend the CPLR. Nevertheless, his article concludes:
[T]he CPLR has served the bench and bar of New York quite effectively for the past fifty years. It carries forward New York traditions that apparently are near and dear to the hearts of New York judges and attorneys, and there is value in that. It is a testament to the CPLR’s durability that, unlike the pre-1963 era of New York history, there have been no widespread calls for the overhaul of the New York procedure code. The CPLR may have some quirks, but on the whole, it is a coherent code of procedure . . . . The CPLR gives New York litigants a fair and reasonable means of having their disputes resolved on the merits. Such is the purpose of procedure.
October 9, 2013
Professor Francis J. Facciolo published an article, New Wave of Cases Involving Investment Adviser Fees, in the New York Law Journal. In the article, Professor Facciolo explained:
Shareholders challenging fees paid to the advisers of their mutual funds in civil lawsuits under §36(b) of the Investment Company Act face steep substantive and procedural challenges, but a recent decision from the federal district of New Jersey holds promise for private plaintiffs in this area. The central allegation in Kasilag v. Hartford Investment Financial Services1 was that the defendant investment adviser retained sub-advisers to perform substantially all of the investment management services for the defendant’s client mutual funds, and then charged its fund clients much higher investment management fees than what those services actually cost defendant. Based on these allegations, the federal district court denied the investment manager’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and allowed the shareholders’ lawsuits to proceed.