May 17, 2013
On Law Day (May 1), Professor Jennifer Baum, together with faculty from La Universidad de Puerto Rico and the University of Colorado, led a multi-national group of clinical law professors in an immersion experience at the local courts in San Juan, Puerto Rico during the annual AALS Conference on Clinical Legal Education.
Professor Baum and her colleagues escorted two dozen clinical law professors from the continental United States and abroad through San Juan criminal, civil, and family court, and observed Spanish-language court cases using simultaneous translation through headsets. The visit culminated in a discussion on the role of court observation in graduating practice-ready law students.
May 16, 2013
Professor Jeremy Sheff’s article, Self-Replicating Technologies, gets a mention in an IPKat post on the Supreme Court’s recent decision on patent rights in Bowman v. Monsanto. Here’s an excerpt from the post:
In an interesting paper entitled ‘Self Replicating Technologies’, Professor J. Sheff highlighted that ‘not all self-replicating technologies are identical, and a categorical rule exempting them from exhaustion doctrine is unwarranted’. Although the Supreme Court did not go as far as identifying a criterium [sic] for modulating the patent exhaustion doctrine, as suggested in the paper (according to which, ‘the application of the exhaustion doctrine should depend on the patentee’s ability to charge supracompetitive prices in its primary market where consumers are able to substitute secondary-market embodiments’), its final clarification appears to be a step in the right direction.
May 15, 2013
Professor Janai Nelson was named to the Lawyers of Color’s 50 Under 50 list of minority professors making an impact in legal education. The list is published in LOC’s “The Law School Diversity Issue” which was released today.
May 15, 2013
The world’s largest international insolvency organization, INSOL International, the International Association of Restructuring Insolvency & Bankruptcy Professionals, has named Professor G. Ray Warner course leader of its Global Insolvency Practice. To be eligible to take the course, practitioners must have at least five years of practice and experience in transnational cases. The course includes training in the insolvency regimes of major nations and the international insolvency law that applies to cross-border cases. Students who complete the course become Fellows of INSOL International.
May 15, 2013
Professor Marc DeGirolami’s book, The Tragedy of Religious Freedom (Harvard University Press), was released on Amazon.com earlier this week (official publication date June 1). The Tragedy of Religious Freedom analyzes the First Amendment religion and explores more general questions about the relationship of legal theory and legal practice.
Here’s an excerpt from the Harvard University Press webpage about the text:
When it comes to questions of religion, legal scholars face a predicament. They often expect to resolve dilemmas according to general principles of equality, neutrality, or the separation of church and state. But such abstractions fail to do justice to the untidy welter of values at stake. Offering new views of how to understand and protect religious freedom in a democracy, The Tragedy of Religious Freedom challenges the idea that matters of law and religion should be referred to far-flung theories about the First Amendment. Examining a broad array of contemporary and more established Supreme Court rulings, Marc DeGirolami explains why conflicts implicating religious liberty are so emotionally fraught and deeply contested.
Twenty-first-century realities of pluralism have outrun how scholars think about religious freedom, DeGirolami asserts. Scholars have not been candid enough about the tragic nature of the conflicts over religious liberty—the clash of opposing interests and aspirations they entail, and the limits of human reason to resolve intractable differences.
Here’s what two noted law and religion scholars have said about the text:
“The Tragedy of Religious Freedom is a first-rate contribution to the law-and-religion conversation. This conversation—how to think about, and how to effectively protect in law, religious freedom in a constitutional democracy—is a lively and timely one, and DeGirolami is an impressive participant.”—Richard W. Garnett, Notre Dame Law School
“A sophisticated and thoughtful book, which offers fresh insights on a central question of religious liberty.”—Philip Hamburger, author of Separation of Church and State
Congratulations, Marc. Look out for upcoming events for The Tragedy of Religious Freedom on this blog.
May 7, 2013
Professor Jeff Sovern’s study on the pros and cons of law students’ in-class laptop use was referenced in an article on Slate.com yesterday. The article summarized several important academic studies on student classroom learning while multitasking on computers and smart phones.
April 23, 2013
The American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI) presented G. Ray Warner, Associate Dean for Bankruptcy Studies and Professor of Law, with its prestigious Annual Service Award during the ABI’s Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C. The ABI’s highest membership award, the Annual Service Award is presented to the ABI member whose contributions over the past year have been extraordinary, as determined by the ABI’s Advisory Board of past presidents.
April 3, 2013
Professor Lyndon co-authored a letter on April 1 on behalf of ten law professors to the the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission in support of the Commission’s proposed fracking regulations. The regulations would require corporations to disclose trade secret information, like chemical ingredients, used in fracking activity in Alaska. The letter presents arguments that trade secrecy claims should not impede access to information considered critical to discussion of important public concerns. You can read the letter here.
March 22, 2013
Some of you have no doubt noticed that the Faculty Scholarship Blog has been quietly lately. I am pleased to announce that Professor Jeff Sovern has graciously volunteered to help keep the blog up to date. Welcome aboard Jeff and thank you for pitching in.
December 1, 2012
Two members of the faculty have posted new pieces on SSRN.
As I noted recently, Janai Nelson’s most recent article, The Causal Context of Disparate Vote Denial, is forthcoming in the Boston College of Law Review. You can now find a draft of the paper here.
I have just posted a piece called Have Institutional Fiduciaries Improved Securities Class Actions? A Review of the Empirical Literature on the PSLRA’s Lead Plaintiff Provision. It will be a chapter in the forthcoming Handbook of Institutional Investment and Fiduciary Duty (Cambridge University Press). Here is the abstract:
In 1995, Congress substantially revamped the governance of securities class actions when it created the lead plaintiff provision as part of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. This paper reviews the empirical literature evaluating that provision. The story that emerges from these studies is of a largely successful statutory innovation that has markedly improved the conduct of these cases. There is little doubt that passage of the PSLRA spurred institutions to become more active in securities class actions. Overall, the results of that participation are positive. Existing studies demonstrate that cases with institutional lead plaintiffs settle for more and are subject to a lower rate of dismissal than cases with other kinds of lead plaintiffs, although some questions remain regarding whether these results are driven by institutional self-selection of higher quality cases. One study has shown that institutional participation is correlated with at least some improvements in corporate governance. Institutional lead plaintiffs have had their largest impact on attorneys’ fees. Not only is institutional participation correlated with lower fees and greater attorney effort, but there is evidence to suggest that institutions have created an economically significant positive externality – a reduction in fee awards even in cases without institutional plaintiffs. Institutional participation, however, has not been an unalloyed good. Other studies suggest that institutional investors are subject to their own agency costs, particularly in the form of pay-to-play arrangements with plaintiffs’ law firms. Those arrangements appear to eliminate some of the beneficial effects associated with institutional service as lead plaintiffs.