St. John's University Law Faculty Blog

Professor Lawrence Joseph’s eighth book, and sixth book of poems, So Where Are We?, has been published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.  

In early praise of the book, John Freeman, in Lit Hub writes, “Here is a 21^st century Virgil, a guide to the wreckage we’ve made of enlightenment… Intimate, brave, outraged, hopeful; I’ve not read a book more for our times than this collection.”  John Hennessey, in The Common , writes that “Joseph is singular in American poetry. A pronounced poet-chronicler, a risk- taker and truth-teller… Joseph expertly combines images, ideas, and the  language of political economy, labor and capital, racism and war, with expressions of great beauty and physical and emotional intimacy…[ i]nfused with a fierce and uncompromising moral vision,” and, in The Millions, Nick Ripatrazone states that  “Joseph’s poems are necessary, immediate, somehow now and eerily ancient…Joseph has the care to document our present… the kind of poet who helps us parse the prophecies from the noise. ”  Anthony Domestico, in his introduction to  “Portrait of our Time: An Interview with Lawrence Joseph ” in Commonweal, concludes that So Where Are We? is a book that “combines formal excellence with an acute and prophetic moral vision, one of the best any contemporary American poet has written.”

On August 16th, Professor John Q. Barrett introduced Chautauqua Institution’s 13th annual Robert H. Jackson Lecture on the Supreme Court of the United States.

The lecturer, Judge Jon O. Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, delivered a lecture entitled “The Supreme Court—Then and Now,” which compared the U.S. Supreme Court that he saw as Chief Justice Earl Warren’s 1957-58 senior law clerk to the Supreme Court of today.  For video of the Professor Barrett’s introduction and then Judge Newman’s lecture, click here.

Professor Rosemary Salomone was quoted in the article, “The Newest Battlefield in L.A. Unified’s Enrollment War is a Boys School,” which appeared in the August 15th edition of the LA Times.

The school is modeled after the Eagle Academies in New York City, a group of all-boys’ schools designed under the leadership of David Banks, a graduate of the Law School.

Last week, Professor Eva Subotnik presented her work-in-progress on the evolving nature of photography as a profession in the digital age, co-authored with Professor Jessica Silbey, of Northeastern University School of Law, and Professor Peter DiCola, of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, at the closing plenary panel of this year’s IP Scholars Conference (IPSC) at Cardozo School of Law.

Here is an abstract of their project:

Empirical Study of Photographic Copyright and Changing Aesthetic and Business Practices in the Digital Age

Through various empirical methods (both qualitative and quantitative), we are investigating the business and art of photography as it has evolved with digital technology. The goals of the project are to learn how earning a living as a photographer (or through photography) and the practice of photography have changed in the age of internet distribution and e-commerce, fast evolving digital photographic equipment, and the accompanying changes to culture, aesthetics and the market. In particular, we are interested in the roles intellectual property law plays in the changing (or enduring) aspects of photography as a professional and artistic endeavor.

We received a seed grant from the Spangenberg Center for Law, Technology & the Arts at Case Western Reserve University School of Law to fund the preliminary collection of data via long-form interviews with photographers and their business partners. So far, we have conducted multiple interviews each approximately 90 minutes long, and we have done some preliminary coding and analysis of those interviews. We anticipate conducting at least twenty-five (25) interviews before beginning the quantitative work. We plan to eventually run a survey based on the qualitative analysis of the interviews to test some of the relevant variables and distinctions that emerge from the interviews. At IPSC 2017, we hope to present the structure of this project and its theoretical and empirical framework as well as a preliminary analysis of the interview data to date. We anticipate receiving constructive feedback from colleagues about the future shape and direction for this project.

Several theoretical frames inform our questions and methods. First, from prior empirical work in intellectual property, we understand that a “one size fits all” model of IP protection is inaccurate as a matter of doctrine and practice. Variations in IP-rich industries dictate diverse uses and needs for IP law – some uses are different but complementary and others contradict and undermine one another. Second, we understand that the copy, distribution and display functions have merged in our digital age (and have become cheaper and easier to accomplish) despite IP statutes that distinguish them in critical ways (e.g., via the first sale doctrine). This presents particularized problems and solutions in certain fields (photography, music, software) but not in others (sculpture, applied and industrial art, biotechnology). Third, business models for creative and innovative endeavors (be they start-ups or large firms) are rapidly evolving with platform technology and information distribution networks. These changing business models are worth close study for the ways they may be altering the creative environment for photographers specifically (and as models for creative actors more generally), which in turn may affect how the copyright system is perceived, employed and enforced.

 

Professor Lazaro was quoted by Law360 and BenefitsPRO on the recent announcement that the Department of Labor is seeking a further delay of its Fiduciary Duty Rule, currently set to be fully implemented on January 1, 2018. The DOL has requested a delay of 18 months, pushing back full implementation to July 1, 2019.

On Law360, Professor Lazaro was quoted in Carmen Germaine’s article, “Further Delay Tees Up Fiduciary Rule For Major Changes.”  Professor Lazaro discussed the review process, and potential revisions:

As the OMB considers the extension, stakeholders on both sides of the rule will have the opportunity to meet with office staff members, while the public at large can comment, St. John’s University School of Law Professor Christine Lazaro noted. Proponents of the rule may also bring a legal challenge if the extended delay does go into effect.
…
“It’s difficult to say right now whether the BIC itself will ever come into being looking like it does now,” Lazaro said. “Most of the industry objection has been to the contract itself and the disclosure requirements, so if changes are going to be made that’s likely where it’s going to be made.”
…
But Lazaro said that the contract remains an important part of the exemption even without the class action waiver ban, as arbitrators may be less likely to grant claims for breach of fiduciary duty without a written agreement. She added that brokers typically disclaim they had a fiduciary duty if the investor’s account is non-discretionary.

“If a broker or an investment adviser doesn’t act in the best interest of the investor, the investor needs to have some way to hold the person accountable for that, and a contract is one of the easiest ways to do it,” Lazaro said.

Professor Lazaro was also quoted in Nick Thornton’s article on BenefitsPRO, “Does Labor have justification to delay fiduciary rule?” discussing the rationale for the delay:

Christine Lazaro, director of the Securities Arbitration Clinic at St. John’s University School of Law and a board member of the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, does not think those potential justifications satisfy APA’s requirements.

“I haven’t seen evidence that industry needs more time to comply,” said Lazaro. PIABA is also advocating against a delay.

“True, development of new products will take time, but it appears the industry has had sufficient time to develop policies and procedures capable of complying with the rule,” she said.

To Lazaro, it appears Labor’s justification for a delay is that it needs more time to complete its review of the rule.

“But if Labor doesn’t have new information as to why the rule should not proceed, it should not delay for the sole purpose of reviewing the rule,” added Lazaro.

Last month, The Conversation published an essay by Professors Jeff Sovern, Gina M. Calabrese, and Ann L. Goldweber, “Why we need to save the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

Since then, the essay has been republished online by the San Francisco Chronicle, CNBC.com, and the New York Observer, among other outlets. Last week, former Vice-President Joe Biden included the essay in his podcast, Biden’s Briefing, which reports “What Joe wants you to know. Every day, Vice President Joe Biden looks to the news across the nation that’s sparking conversation, sharing the articles and opinions that he’s reading and might be of interest to you.”  You can hear the article read on Biden’s Briefing here.

On July 28th, Professor John Q. Barrett delivered a lecture, “Justice Robert H. Jackson and His Brethren,” in Chautauqua Institution’s Hall of Philosophy.

This was the final lecture in Chautauqua’s week on the general theme, “The Supreme Court: At a Tipping Point?” Other lecturers during the week were Linda Greenhouse, Annette Gordon-Reed, Peter Onuf, Jeffrey Rosen, Akhil Reed Amar, Rev. Eugene Robinson, and Theodore B. Olson.

Professor Barrett’s lecture, previewed in this Chautauquan Daily article, is available on YouTube, as is the audience Q&A session that followed the lecture.

On July 1, Professor Robin Boyle presented at an international conference sponsored by three organizations: the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA), Info-Secte/Info-Cult of Montreal, and Société Française de Recherche et d’Analyse de l’Emprise Mentale (SFRAEM). The Mayor of Bordeaux, Alain Juppé, and the former Prime Minister of France, Anne-Marie Courage, opened the conference, expressing concern about terrorism. Prof. Boyle presented on the topic of human trafficking and legislative developments within the United States to prevent and combat trafficking. Prof. Boyle’s audience was primarily from Europe and Asia.

Professor Boyle is on the editorial board of ICSA’s International Journal of Cultic Studies. She lectures on topics concerning cults and the law. Her recent article, Employing Trafficking Laws to Capture Elusive Leaders of Destructive Cults, was published by the Oregon Review of International Law (2016).

In addition, on July 21, 2017, Professor  Boyle presented at a biennial conference of the Association of Legal Writing Directors, held in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Her topic was devising legal writing assignments that are effective for the millennial generation. She walked her audience through the steps of creating and executing exercises that are streamlined for effectiveness. Professor Boyle co-presented with Joel Atlas (Cornell Law School) and Meredith Stange (Northern Illinois University College of Law).