Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Happy May Day all!
For our new month, I'm delighted to welcome a band of new but familiar voices to the conversation this month: Jack Chin (Davis), Nancy Leong (Denver), Jake Linford (FSU), Glenn Cohen (Harvard); Jessie Hill (Case Western); Michael Helfand (Pepperdine), and here for the first time, Lisa Tucker McElroy (Drexel).
Some of our April guests may still be lingering, but please join me in thanking them for all their contributions. We look forward to seeing you again soon, and we're glad you could celebrate our 8th Anniversary with us this month.
Mark your calendars for Law and Society, which is coming up in Boston at the end of May. We'll be having our annual Prawfs and friends Happy Hour on Saturday, June 1, at 9pm, location to be announced.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
"The Blogger as Public Intellectual": A fun conversation with Paul Horwitz
Notre Dame's Institute for Advanced Study is hosting this week an interesting conference on "public intellectuals" and, this morning, the featured paper was from our own Paul Horwitz, whose topic was "The Blogger as Public Intellectual." (For one blogospheric reaction to his presentation, go here.) Paul was, as per usual, interesting and thoughtful, and I hope he'll post his paper, or a summary of it, soon.
I was the "commenter" (or "commentator"?) who followed Paul and I spent most of my time talking about and reflecting on my experience with my "other" blog, "Mirror of Justice." And, here's some of what I said:
What “stand outs” in my mind, about the “Mirror of Justice” effort – in addition to its relatively distinctive subject-matter – is that it is both a “group” blog and one whose contributors disagree strongly about a lot of pretty important things . . .
Our hope, when we started – and when we very deliberately assembled Catholic law professors from a variety of disciplines and from across the political spectrum – was the same one that University admissions officials cite when they do their work, namely, that the diversity would enrich the conversations that took place. It did, and it has . . . but we’ve also fought a lot . . . Our arguments are, almost always, fairly regarded as “fights among friends”, but they happen “in front of” strangers, which is a bit unsettling (at least for me). They flare up and are resolved “in public” – the sharp elbows are thrown, and the sincere apologies extended, “in public.”
And so, over the years, I’ve come to think of our role less in terms of “providing for the world a coherent Catholic legal theory”, and also less in terms of contributing to (or imposing on) the world various pieces of “public intellectualism.” Instead, . . . I’ve tended to think about what we do more in terms of “modelling.”
It seems to me that what we provide, or offer (or fail to provide or offer) to readers is not so much the discrete work product of a dozen “public intellectuals” as a conversation – an illustration or example – that is, depending on the day, more or less edifying and productive. When I’m blogging now (and this was not always true), I’m thinking not so much of “my own” readership, the way I might if I were a regular columnist for the Washington Post, as I am of my students, and my fellow bloggers’ students, who might be thinking hard about what it means to have a vocation in the law and to aspire to integrate that vocation with one’s religious faith and traditions.
Whether we on the blog are talking or arguing about the election, or immigration reform, or the philosophical anthropology underlying and animating the law of torts, I find myself these days thinking less about the importance of persuading as about the “way the conversation is going.” Don’t get me wrong: My fellow bloggers and I have views (often strong views) and we all want, I am sure, for those who disagree with us to yield to our superior arguments. (We’re lawyers, after all.) Still, and without being too polly-annish or precious, I have found myself in recent years more focused on the community-building and community-maintenance dimension of my blogging than on its evangelical or propagandizing aspects.
I hope no one thought or thinks that my point was that MOJ is somehow more of a "community" than is Prawfs or other group blogs -- that's not it. It was, instead, just that my own experiences over there have, over the years, prompted me to think differently about the blog's "mission" and about what I'm doing over there, and maybe over here, too ("albeit in a boring way until recently"). I have to admit, I worry more about the times I fall (well) short in terms of the "modelling" thing than I do about whether or not X reader changes his or her mind after reading my 143rd post on the ministerial exception!
Monday, April 22, 2013
Comments: Spam and not-Spam
Not exactly sure why, but a bunch of legit comments are being caught in our spam filter, and if I can figure out why, it's because a lot of them have a url in the text of the comment. My advice to you is that if you need/want to include a URL in your comment, and you're finding that your comment is getting caught up in our spam filter, then drop me a note and I'll try to get the comment up. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given our dislike of anon comments, we will prioritize signed comments, as we do generally. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience. Happy Earth Day.
Monday, April 08, 2013
Belated congrats are in order to fellow canuck, Trevor Morrison, who blogged here during our first year, and is soon to be dean at NYU Law, the home of many other distinguished Canadians hiding in the US. I suppose one could say that this appointment makes Trevor either, um, the most distinguished or unluckiest person in the long line of Prawfs alumni. Viewed through the wandering eyes of POTUS, however, it's clear Trevor is "by far, the best looking dean... It’s true! C’mon."
Monday, April 01, 2013
Rotations and Anniversary
Happy April 1st.
The new month brings us new guests, and this month I'm excited to welcome back a band of veterans: Michael Risch (Villanova); Adam Kolber (Brooklyn); Andy Spalding (Richmond); Geoff Rapp (Toledo); and Chad Oldfather (Marquette). In the meantime, please join me in thanking our March friends, some of whom will be lingering as they get a few remaining posts off their desk.
I hope everyone has had a happy spring break, Passover, Easter, or otherwise appropriate transitional holiday.
I'm also thrilled to note that this week marks the onset of the 8th Anniversary of PrawfsBlawg, aka prawfs.com. Sheee--it, well, how did that happen? Well, it couldn't have happened without the fantastic contributions of the permaprawfs, the guests, and the commenters who make this space a special blend of challenging and inviting, at least most of the time :-) Thanks for playing along with us.
Saturday, March 09, 2013
For K PrawfsAs you may have seen, the Washington Law Review is preparing to host a print symposium in December 2013 on the new contracts book, Contracts in the Real World: Stories of Popular Contracts and Why They Matter, by Prof. Lawrence A. Cunningham of GWU. Before the symposium, participants are interested in learning from contracts professors around the country. The purpose of this survey is to gather information about the material being taught in contracts classes, and the advantages and/or deficiencies of the approaches taken by current contracts textbooks. If you're a K prawf, please take the WLR online survey by April 15.
The comments section at The Faculty Lounge is awash in comments accusing several prominent law bloggers of working together to "out" people who comment anonymously or pseudonymously on TFL and other blogs. (The brouhaha is broader than that, actually, but I'm not going to repeat what appears to be a sordid mess).
I'm interested in a narrower point (one also raised by regular Prawfs reader Bruce Boyden in TFL comments): A few comments over there have suggested that these bloggers have done something unlawful in passing along and/or using email addresses and other information to identify the unknown commenters. Is that right? Is it unlawful for the administrator of a noncommercial blog to disclose the identities of anonymous/pseudoymous commenters, when that disclosure is for noncommercial purposes? And if so, what source(s) make it unlawful? One suggestion was FTC regulations; but can the FTC regulate non-commercial speech?
Please note: I am asking this because I genuinely want to know; I hope anyone who actually has an answer will respond to the question in that spirit, without tangents about how ignorant or evil I am because I teach in a law school.
Update, March 11: The permanent TFL bloggers posted a statement on the blog asserting that none of them has ever disclosed identifying information about a commenter to any third party and that none of them has any basis to believe that any guest blogger has disclosed such information. I would hope that this would be the end of this kerfuffle (as Bruce called it at Madisonian), since it responds directly to the question several commenters had put to Dan. But at least some of the early comments suggest some people are not fully satisfied. Actually, the run of comments in the first several hours shows a small cadre of loud commenters who are unsatisfied. Oh, well. The denial of a conspiracy ought always to be taken for the strongest evidence of a conspiracy.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
It's official. Being a Markel(l) is a BFOQ at FSU.
As Brian noted over at his blog, Florida State now has Judge Bruce Markell joining our law faculty come this summer. With myself and Dave Markell already, our new addition ensures (so far as I know) that we have a monopoly on the legal academics named Markel(l). While we all pronounce it the same way, we have no reason to think we're actually related. Still, prior to extending Judge Markell an offer, we considered making the offer conditional on Bruce adding a 3d L to his last name, but we decided to go crazy and let him keep it as is.
Given that we have a small faculty of about 30 folks, it's a bit weird admittedly. But as I understand it, there are 3 Kelly type last names at Notre Dame and 3 Kennedy's at HLS. And of course, there are 3 Weinribs at U of Toronto (but they're all related). Anyone know of other nominal clusters?
Friday, March 01, 2013
Happy March 1!
With the new month, it's time for us to say au revoir to our excellent February guests and welcome our new voices for March. Joining us will be a great group of returning friends of the blog: Doug Berman (OSU, sentencing guru); Lior Strahilevitz (Chicago); Debbie Borman (Northwestern); Michael Waterstone (Loyola LS-LA) and Emily Gold Waldman from Pace. Welcome to you all!
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Scholarship and Indemnity Clauses by the Law Reviews
I'm on the AALS Scholarship Section exec board for some reason, and in that capacity, I recently rec'd a great email from Donald Tobin, the associate dean for faculty at Ohio State Law, who writes on an important but frequently neglected issue: indemnity clauses in law review agreements. Specifically, he wrote the following:
I think there is a growing and real problem with law reviews requiring authors to sign indemnity clauses. These clauses require authors to indemnify the journal and university from any costs associated with lawsuits, including, in some cases, costs associated with frivolous cases. The problem with these types of clauses is that they impact the most vulnerable of our faculty and also those writing in controversial areas including human rights, minority rights, equality, etc. I have just finished trying to help one of my faculty members negotiate one of these releases. We came across the following problems:
1) While Universities will defend faculty members who are sued based on their scholarship, many Universities will not indemnify other institutions. For example, the State of Ohio prohibits its institutions from indemnifying other institutions.
2) Insurance protection does not work. I looked at whether the faculty member could purchase insurance through AAUP. The insurance company indicated that it would defend the faculty member, but would not make payments under an indemnity clause.
3) The faculty member is thus stuck. We are placing the burden on the people least able to bear it. From the university to the faculty member and the faculty member has no means of protecting herself.
4) Journals sometimes say, Don't worry; suits are unlikely. But if the suits were so unlikely...why shouldn't journals bear that risk?
5) Journals might also say: the author has the most control to determine if they are committing a tort. But there is no protection for frivolous suits or for suits generated for political reasons.
6) These indemnity clauses, I am led to believe, were standard. I did not think that was the case but I have a list of a number of top journals that had similar clauses.
7) Finally, I was told that the AALS model agreement had an indemnity clause – and it does. So we as an institution are contributing to this mess.
To me, this is what institutions do. They protect academic freedom and they should shoulder the burden of dealing with frivolous suits. They should not then seek payment from an author. It might be different if the author did something wrong – like plagiarized – but the idea that in general authors are on the hook seems very wrong to me. As an institution we should either discourage these types of provisions or we should obtain some type of group insurance that either authors or institutions can buy for protection. When I spoke about this at AALS, most people were unaware of these provisions and there is some indication that even as lawyers we just sign these things, but they pose a real problem for some of our most vulnerable colleagues. Here is a link to a model agreement containing an indemnity clause: http://www.aals.org/deansmemos/98-24.html
The AALS agreement is better than the one my faculty member was asked to sign because it at least doesn’t put the author on the hook for frivolous claims, but it still requires an author to pay the judgment and attorney’s fees.
Thanks for that Donald. So, what is to be done? A collective response by the associate deans for scholarship at the top law schools or even better, more generally, would be helpful. Of course, indemnity clauses are just one obnoxious aspect of law review agreements. Copyright assignments are typically the other!
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Curbing Our Enthusiasm: Do We Need Conservative Chaperones at the Progressive Party?
My friend Peter Berkowitz, a scholar at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, has written a self-help book for conservatives. In Constitutional Conservativism, just published by Hoover’s own press, Berkowitz argues that conservatives can regain coherence and relevance as a political force through repositioning themselves as the voice of moderation and restraint in public life. But, rightly, Berkowitz insists that conservatives need first to moderate themselves in order to claim justly that they can counterbalance the supposed excesses of progressivism. Thus, to stake the territory of moderation, conservatives must abandon “the attempt to dismantle or even substantially roll back the welfare and regulatory state” and “refrain from attempting to use the federal government to enforce the traditional understanding of sex, marriage, and family.”
This may seem like just another pitch that the Republican Party ought to recapture the political center. But Berkowitz grounds his argument in a conception of conservativism (and progressivism) that he finds, above all, in Edmund Burke. He may well overestimate the extent to which Burke’s attack on the fanaticism of the French revolutionaries can be applied to American progressives. But in rather anti-Burkean fashion, Berkowitz tells American conservatives that they need to get a theory before they can get moderation, whereas Burke himself tended to identify political theory with political immoderation. Of course, Burke was theorizing in his very attack on theory, and awareness of this paradox permeates the fine, illuminating treatment of Burke’s ideas in Constitutional Conservativism.
According to Berkowitz, the moderation taught by Burke consists in an awareness of the human costs and risks involved in violently breaking with tradition, of seeking perfection rather than reasonable improvement in laws and society, and of being unwilling to tolerate compromise, error and even an element of abuse and injustice in political life. But to be true to his own objection to the universalism of theory (and Berkowitz notes this) Burke has to admit that there are times and places where only sweeping change or radical upheaval can establish or re-establish a healthy polity (“as a last resort”). Is it possible that the New Deal and the Sixties (where the standard conservative narratives most liken American progressives to Burke’s Jacobins) were two such moments of necessary transformative politics? And transformative politics inevitably gives rise to hopes that cannot fully be satisfied, to expectations that will be not met. As Tocqueville observed, “the generation that witnesses the end of a great revolution is always anxious, discontented and sad.” Was the retrenchment represented by Reaganism in the US built so much on a conservative legacy of political moderation as on the exploitation, in various ways, of post-Sixties depression or disappointment? The question is whether and how one distinguishes political moderation from mere disillusionment with political idealism.
Berkowitz, who, cautions against viewing compromise as an end in itself, does not want to dispense with political idealism. He is only against conservative political idealism. While admirable as personal values or social norms, respect for private property, free enterprise, the traditional family, piety etc., are nevertheless not themselves suitable as political ideals. It is just that they are useful if not indispensable for checking or moderating progressive political idealism when it veers too far in the direction of overbearing governmental bureaucracy or secular social engineering. In sum, conservatives are valuable because they know too much of a good thing when they see it. And that means that progressivism is, in fine, a good thing.
But is it correct that we progressives need conservatives as our chaperones? Though reviled by conservatives, were not FDR and more recently Ted Kennedy masters of compromise and coalition-building, knowing when to push forward and when to back off? And what of Bill Clinton? The jury is out but I venture Obama will prove no slouch either as a practitioner of prudent progressivism.
As for theory, there is a strong case that the progressive Montesquieu is a sounder source of political moderation for progressives than any conservative thinker. This suggestion is supported by Berkowitz’s own turn in his argument from Edmund Burke to the framers. Those (according to Berkowitz) consummate practitioners and expounders of political moderation were also, and especially the greatest of them, revolutionaries—establishing, in most un-Burkean fashion, a constitutional order on the rights of man and the abstract principles of self-government.
And they were students of Montesquieu. As noted, Berkowitz has difficulty articulating any independent political ideal or value for which moderation stands-he is constantly presenting it as a negative principle of necessary constraint or limitation on excess. But Montesquieu’s grounding of political moderation in gentleness and unprejudiced understanding does connect moderation to a positive conception of human goodness. I venture that Montesquieu comes closer to the spirit of Berkowitz’s idea (and to Peter as I know him as a person, I might add) than Burke’s idealization of the actual, which, as Leo Strauss very perceptively noted in Natural Right and History, points toward that fateful replacement of G-d by History on which the worst excesses of left and right in the last century were built.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
The Angsting Thread (Law Review Edition, Spring 2013)
Friends, the time has come when Redyip is visible. You know what that means. Feel free to use the comments to share your information (and gripes or praise) about which law reviews have turned over, which ones haven't yet, and where you've heard from, and where you've not, and what you'd like Santa to bring you this coming Xmas, etc. It's the semi-annual angsting thread for the law review submission season. Have at it. And do it reasonably nicely, pretty please. Maybe Redyip will even tweet a little this spring.
Update: here is a link to the last page of comments.
Friday, February 01, 2013
With the new month, I'm thrilled to welcome for the first time a few new voices to our conversation here: Josh Douglas (Kentucky), Eric Miller (SLU), and Michelle Zakarin (Touro). I'm also pleased to welcome back our alums: Giovanna Shay (WNE); Bill Araiza (Brooklyn); Michael Mannheimer (NKU).
Please join me also in thanking our January guests for their great contributions. A couple may linger as they get their last posts off over the next few days.
Saturday, January 05, 2013
NOLA and AALS
It's been nice seeing so many folks here in NOLA for the AALS conference and the various shadow conferences.
For those interested, I'll be playing the role of Jew or Heretic later today at the Law Professors’ Christian Fellowship gathering. Specifically, I'll be riffing on Les Miserables and political obligation. My talk will be on a 3pm panel at the Wyndham Hotel. (Details after the jump).
Tonight, at 10pm, we'll be having our happy hour at Whiskey Blue at the W Hotel on Poydras Street.
And tomorrow, I'll be appearing in lieu of Shima Baradaran at the panel on Scholarship Tips for New Law Professors. That panel will be in the Hilton at 1030am in the Jasperwood room on the 3d Floor.
Hope to see many of you at these gatherings or during the interstices. Happy new year.
A reminder for those attending the AALS in New Orleans that the 2013 Conference on Christian Legal Thought sponsored by the Lumen Christi Institute at the University of Chicago and the Law Professors' Christian Fellowship will take up the nature of law, based partly on a pending statement on the nature of law from a group of Evangelical and Catholic scholars. The schedule of speakers is below, and you can register here.
Saturday, January 5, 2013, 1 PM to 6:15 PM
Wyndham Riverfront New Orleans
701 Convention Center Boulevard
New Orleans, LA 70130
Conference Topic: The Statement on the Nature of Law from Evangelicals and Catholics
1:15 PM – 2:45 PM: Session One: Christian Perspectives on the Nature of Law
Chair: Michael Moreland (Villanova University School of Law)
William Brewbaker III (University of Alabama School of Law)
Nora O’Callaghan (Loyola University Chicago School of Law)
David Skeel (University of Pennsylvania Law School)
2:45 PM – 3:00 PM: Coffee Break
3:00 PM – 4:30 PM: Session Two: Non-Christian Perspectives on the Nature of Law
Chair: Zachary R. Calo (Valparaiso University Law School)
Bruce Ledewitz (Duquesne University School of Law)
Dan Markel (Florida State University College of Law)
Seval Yildirim (Whittier Law School)
4:45 PM – 5:15 PM: Vespers
5:15 PM: Reception
Monday, December 31, 2012
Happy New Year. Raise a Glass and Empty Your Pockets.
It's hard to believe that 2013 is upon us. The transition always presents a grand opportunity to take stock and give thanks to all our wonderful readers and contributors.
Please join me and others in toasting the new year by donating money to some of the following charities:
And if you're going to be in New Orleans this weekend for AALS or the various shadow conferences, I hope you'll hoist a glass with us at Whiskey Blue at the W Hotel on Saturday night at 10pm. (Feel free to show up earlier but I will be arriving around then.) The old farts among our readership will remember it's where we had our last (off the chain) NOLA happy hour.
Last, let me take a moment to thank our December contributors and welcome some of our new January guests. I'm thrilled to announce the return of Jay Wexler from BU and Michael Steven Green from William and Mary Law; and I'm also excited to welcome for the first time to this space two new voices: Derek Muller from Pepperdine and Ann Marie Marciarille from UMKC. Happy new year to one and all!
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Happy Birthday, Paul
Today is Paul Horwitz's birthday. As his wife Kelly correctly observed on FB: "He truly is an inspiration. I don't know anyone who lives with his degree of chronic pain with such grace and humor. He's overcome all that to become a fabulous father, prolific author and wonderful husband."
Here at Prawfs, we think he's also a pretty shrewd and funny observer of the legal scene too.
We are all very grateful. Happy birthday, dear Paul!
Monday, December 24, 2012
I've been recovering from back surgery earlier this month and am now in the home stretch of grading, so I apologize for my silence the last while. In any event, I wanted to join some others in taking a moment to wish a Merry Christmas to our friends celebrating the holiday. I hope you enjoy the holiday whether it is a bonanza or a reprieve.
For those of you planning on showing up in New Orleans for the AALS conference in a couple weeks, we will have a happy hour as usual. Details will unfold over the next week. Watch this space. Last, on a personal note, I'll be up in NYC later this week, principally as a walking tourist; for those of you up there, please message me with any special recommendations about what's going on and cool things to do at this time in the city. Thanks, and happy holidays to all.
Monday, December 03, 2012
Well, I'm a little late to announce the cluster of new voices for December, but I hope you and they will forgive me. Joining us this month are Ryan Scoville (Marquette), Jeff Lipshaw (Suffolk), Dean Dan Rodriguez (NW), Sam Bagenstos (UMich), Zoe Robinson (Depaul), Max Helveston (DePaul), Helen Norton (Colorado), and Michael Higdon (UTenn).
Many thanks to the crew of November guests. We look forward to seeing you around here soon.
Last, since it's December, that means there are two things to keep in mind: first, our annual AALS happy hour is not far off, and we'll be gathering in New Orleans for that. Watch here for more information.
Second, I'll soon be putting together the schedule for guests on Prawfs for the first half of 2013. If you are (or someone you know is) a prawf, and you think you (or that person) would be a good fit for the chaotic mix of discussion here, please email me with your preferences for which two months you are willing and able to guest here between January through June inclusive. FYI, we expect guests to post at least a couple times a week for four weeks.If you don't hear back from me, the default should be you got your first preference as between the two months. Thanks.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Expresso Makes Life Easier for Law Review Editors. How about for Writers?
I wonder if many of you got the same email I did earlier from Jean-Gabriel Bankier over at bepress. I've reprinted most of it below and after the jump. Please feel free to weigh in with comments on whether these are positive developments for everybody or just some of the players in the submission game.
Working with the editors, bepress came up with a host of improvements to ExpressO which will radically improve the submission management experience for editors and give editors confidence that the information about the status of articles in their submission queue is up-to-date.
Here are a just a few of the highlights that are coming for the next submission season:
Integrated Auto-withdraw—when an author accepts an offer to be published through ExpressO, editors of other law reviews will be notified immediately and the submission will be automatically withdrawn from each law review's priority submission queue. Outside of being published, when an author simply withdraws their paper, it will also trigger the automatic withdraw from the pending submissions queue as well as notify the assigned editor.
Expedite Preferences— editors will be able to set expedite preferences and share those preferences with submitting authors. For example, editors can inform authors that they will give priority to expedite requests from peer law reviews (editor creates list of peers but the list is not shared with the authors). They can also avoid wasting time on articles that have asked for a hundred or more expedite review requests: they do so by choosing a ceiling and then give priority to expedite requests that are distributed to no more than a ceiling number of law reviews simultaneously. Editors will be able to update their preferences at any time depending upon whether they are looking to slate lots of pieces or are pretty much full for the season.
Priority Submission Queue—ExpressO will be introducing many new features to help keep submission queues accurate and up-to-date. Editors will be notified (by email) only of expedite requests that meet their preferences based upon the criteria they have set and shared with authors. A priority submission queue will filter out articles that fail to meet the law review’s set expedite criteria. Also, authors and editors with expiring expedites will be reminded to take action. Authors will be reminded to expedite a new offer/offer extension or withdraw the article. Editors will be reminded to review the submission.
Certified Expedite Requests—editors will be able to easily confirm the legitimacy of an expedite request. If an author has an open offer from another law review using ExpressO, that offer will be reflected in the editors’ priority submission queue. This kind of transparency will save editors time since they will no longer have to follow up with authors on incomplete expedite requests or with other law reviews to confirm the offer.
Closed Communication After Rejections—when a law review rejects a submission the author will no longer be able to communicate with that review through ExpressO.
Fast—our submission management software for law reviews will be substantially faster.
Bepress is proud of the impact ExpressO has had on the legal publishing over the past 10 years, and is dedicated to providing new tools to increase efficiency in law review submission management. Please contact me if you have any questions. I would love to hear any suggestions for what we might do in the future to help law reviews.
Finally, these tools you will need to manage your submissions will be free in 2013.
Green Bag's Got a New Issue...
The latest issue of Green Bag is available with links below the fold. Bear in mind the symposium to which you might wish to contribute on Orin's latest opus.
Volume 16, Number 1 (Autumn 2012)
To the Bag
Edward L. Carter and Edward E. Adams, Misjoinder and the Mysterious Opinion
John L. Peschel, Enjoyed but not Enjoined
Julian Aiken, Femi Cadmus & Fred Shapiro, Not Your Parents’ Law Library: A Tale of Two Academic Law Libraries
Ira Brad Matetsky, The Harlan Fund
John V. Orth, Charles Dickens and the Sovereign Debt Crisis
Allen Rostron , Factoids
J. Harvie Wilkinson III, The Lost Arts of Judicial Restraint
From the Bag
Unknown, The Case of the Racket Witness
Orin S. Kerr, A Theory of Law
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Two New ConspiratorsIf you don't read The Volokh Conspiracy with much regularity (a cast that includes me), you may have missed some cool news on their end: they recently added to their perma-crew both former guest Prawf, Eugene Kontorovich of NW, and the inimitable Nick Rosencranz from Georgetown. Welcome Eugene and Nick to the blovgosphere :-)
Friday, November 02, 2012
With apologies for the late start--i'm doing some solo parenting and travel in Toronto right now--let me take a moment to thank all our October guests and briefly signal the arrival of our November friends. Welcome back to Shima Baradaran (BYU); Franita Tolson (FSU); Michael Helfand (Pepperdine); Geoffrey Rapp (Toledo); Michael Risch (Villanova); Amelia Rinehart (Utah); and Bill Araiza (BLS). All but Amelia are old hands here, so let's make an especially warm welcome to Amelia, who writes about IP and patent in particular.
While I have my paws on these inter-webs here, let me reiterate many thanks I owe to François Tanguay-Renaud for a wonderful afternoon of companionship and insights regarding my shitty short draft on retributive justice in "wicked" regimes at Osgoode. (Notwithstanding having lost my voice a couple days ago, the miracle elixir of hot water with honey made possible a few words during my talk today as part of Francois' series.) I was also glad to see and hang out with Ben Berger, Danny Priel, and Lindsay Farmer, among others. I'm now puzzled, more than ever, why Toronto's tourism bureau doesn't do more to advertise all the punishment theorist jewels in its lovely crown!
Friday, October 26, 2012
It's not how you blog, it's how you lookAt his blog Noncuratlex, Kyle Graham (Santa Clara) proposes new mottos for other law blogs. Both of my current homes make the list, although with a strange obsession over how we look: Prawfs ("Please Don’t Judge Us by Our Website’s Hideously Ugly Color Scheme") and CoOp, where I'm visiting this month ("Check out the Pretty, Pretty Logos of Many Leading Law Reviews"). My favorite was SCOTUSBlog: "The True Winner of the ACA Litigation". Quite true.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The Lost Posner Book Reviews...
I'm a big fan, in the main, of both Richard and Eric Posner's book reviews in the New Republic, among other places. Thanks to a pointer from Dave Lat on FB, I stumbled upon this selection of excerpts from the Elder's book reviews over at Kyle Graham's blog. Check it out :-) Here's a funny send-up of what RAP would say about Moby Dick:
Fairly early in the text, it becomes clear that Ahab could maximize his returns by pursuing other whales, instead of Moby-Dick. True, Ahab lost his leg to the creature, but that is a classic sunk cost. (Can you see why?) That Ahab foregoes other, better opportunities for oil and ambergris in his hunt for the white whale represents a mystery that the author never satisfactorily explains...
Monday, October 08, 2012
The LEC Workshops
Thanks to the Law and Economics Center based at GMU, I had the chance this past summer to enjoy some instruction on law and economics while nestled at the Stanley Hotel in Colorado. I'm happy to report that Henry Butler and the LEC are expanding some of the program offerings this coming year. After the jump, you can find out more about these very helpful gatherings designed to make your legal toolkit a good bit more diverse and sharp.
The George Mason Law & Economics Center invites applications for the following five 2013 Workshops for Law Professors. Each Workshop offers a unique opportunity to join colleagues from around the country to learn from some of the most well-respected scholars in the law-and-economics field. There is no tuition, and all but one program provides hotel rooms and group meals at no expense to the professors. The LEC will begin reviewing applications on October 15, 2012.
January 25-28, 2013
South Seas Island Resort, Captiva Island, FL
January 25-28, 2013
South Seas Island Resort, Captiva Island, FL
January 25-28, 2013
South Seas Island Resort, Captiva Island, FL
May 20-24, 2013
George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA
July 7-19, 2013
Park Hyatt Beaver Creek Resort, Avon, CO
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Thanks to Dan for the invitation to guest-blog this month. I like the characterization of Sukkot as a holiday of palm fronds and lemony fruit – it sounds so tropical! Here in Boston, Sukkot also means drizzly rain and an abundance of warty gourds. Chag sameach.
During my stint, I plan to post some thoughts on civil justice reform, next month’s judicial elections, and the antebellum Supreme Court’s unhealthy obsession with commas. I look forward to your comments.
Monday, October 01, 2012
Well, it's Sukkot, and you know what that means: I should be waving palm fronds and lemon-like substitutes. But it's also October 1, and with that, we have a band of new voices joining our conversation this month. Please welcome back Jake Linford (FSU); Mike Cahill (Brooklyn); Jordan Singer (NESL); Mike Dimino (Widener); Sergio Campos (Miami); and for the first time, Babette Boliek (Pepperdine) and Darryl Brown (UVA).
Also, many thanks to our September contributors. We hope to see you back here soon.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
New Green Bag and Journal of Law issues
I've pasted links and TOC's after the jump.
Volume 15, Number 4 (Summer 2012)
To the Bag
Edward L. Carter & Edward E. Adams, Justice Owen J. Roberts on 1937
Erwin Chemerinsky, It’s Now the John Roberts Court
John P. Elwood & Eric A. White, What Were They Thinking: The Supreme Court in Revue, October Term 2011
Kyle Graham, Who Shot Charles Summers?
Sally Pei et al., A Pronouncing Dictionary of the Supreme Court of the United States
From the Bag
John Marshall, Atlas to Marshall’s Life of Washington
Alfred L. Brophy, Multivariate Analysis Through Narrative History
Andrew Frape & Cattleya Concepcion, The Supreme Court of Canada, Brick by Brick
The Journal of Law: A Periodical Laboratory of Legal Scholarship
Volume 2, Number 2 (2012), containing issues of:
• The Post
Opening Remarks: In Search of Helpful Legal Scholarship, Part 2: Shall We Dance, Ross E. Davies
A Famous Book About Famous Books: Men and Books Famous in the Law, by Frederick Hicks, by Robert C. Berring
Frederick Hicks: The Man Behind Men and Books, by Stacy Etheredge
Men and Books Famous in the Law, Preface, by Frederick C. Hicks
Men and Books Famous in the Law, Introduction, by Harlan F. Stone
Men and Books Famous in the Law, Chapter I: The Human Appeal of Law Books, by Frederick C. Hicks
Book Review: Men and Books Famous in the Law, by Henry deForest Baldwin
Book Review: Men and Books Famous in the Law, by William Edward McCurdy
Journal of Legal Metrics
Introduction, by Adam Aft & Craig D. Rust
Take This Job and Count It, by Kyle P. McEntee & Derek M. Tokaz
A Medical Liability Toolkit, Including ADR, by Michael I. Krauss
Introduction, by Anna Ivey
Larry Ribstein, RIP, ProfessorBainbridge.com, Dec. 24, 2011, by Stephen Bainbridge
Personhood, PrawfsBlawg, Oct. 31-Nov.3, 2011, by Glenn Cohen
Debate on Antitrust Scrutiny of Google, ACSblog, Oct. 3-7, 2011, by Benjamin G. Edelman & Joshua D. Wright
Court of Appeals Prop 8 Ruling: Treating Marriage as a License, Not a Sacrament, Gender & Sexuality Law Blog, Feb. 8, 2012, by Katherine Franke
Clarity About Super PACS, Independent Money and Citizens United, Election Law Blog, Jan. 10, 2012, by Samuel Issacharoff
Nonlegal Arguments for Upholding the Individual Mandate, The Volokh Conspiracy, May 21, 2012, by Ilya Somin
The Disconnect Between What People Say and Do About Privacy, Concurring Opinions, Feb. 8, 2012, by Joseph Turow
Friday, September 07, 2012
Bill of Health--Welcome!
One of our regular guests, and a dear friend of Prawfs, is Glenn Cohen (HLS). Glenn writes that he and a stellar group of colleagues either based at the Petrie-Flom Center at HLS or otherwise engaged in scholarship at the crossroads of law and public health policy have launched a new blog: Bill of Health.
The goal of the blog is to provide a one-stop shop for readers interested in news, commentary, and scholarship in the fields of health law policy, biotechnology, and bioethics. You can expect to find regularly updated posts reacting to current events, testing out new scholarly ideas, reviewing the latest books, and announcing conferences, events, and job openings. Please take a moment to stop by and check out Bill of Health.
Saturday, September 01, 2012
It's September 1, and thus, the anniversary of the end of Terry Fox's great Marathon of Hope in Thunder Bay, ON (take note, Erik!). But it's also the onset of a new month, which means time for rotations.
This coming month, I'm excited to see a band of returning friends: Jason Solomon (W/M); Hadar Aviram (Hastings); Trey Childress (Pepperdine); Ari Waldman (CWSL); Jay Michaelson; Debbie Borman (Northwestern), and Gio Shay (WNE).
I also want to take a moment to thank all of our wonderful contributors this last month in August. We hope to see you again soon. In the meantime, enjoy the long weekend!
By the way, I'll be up in Philly/Camden for this Rutgers conference on law and neuroscience next weekend and then at NYU for the crim theory colloquium on the 10th. Hope to see some of you there at one of these (at least!).
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Free Speech Rights in Social Media for College Students: Tatro v. U. of Minn.
I've been working on putting together a comprehensive list of social media cases with a First Amendment angle, and I recently came across the fascinating case of Tatro v. University of Minnesota, 816 N.W.2d 509 (Mn. 2012), which the Minnesota Suprem Court decided at the end of June. In case you missed reading this case in June, as I did, here's a summary.
The University of Minnesota sanctioned Tatro, a junior in its mortuary science program, by giving her a failing grade in her anatomy lab and forcing her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation because she posted “violent fantasy” (pretty tame stuff, really) and “satiric” comments about her human cadaver on Facebook. Posting or "blogging" about her cadaver violated the University’s “Anatomy Bequest Program” policies, the Mortuary Science Student Code of Professional Conduct, and the rules of her anatomy course. She appealed the University’s imposition of sanctions on her speech through a writ of certiorari. The Minnesota court of appeals affirmed the constitutionality of the sanctions, and the Minnesota Supreme Court granted further review and also affirmed, basing its decision on the unique nature of the professional program in which the student was enrolled.
The Minnesota Supreme Court treated the case as one of first impression, noting that the constitutional standard governing “a university’s imposition of disciplinary sanctions for a student’s Facebook posts that violate[ ] academic program rules” is “unsettled.” Although the court of appeals had resolved the case by applying Tinker v. Des Moines Inc. Comm. Sch., the Minnesota Supreme Court held this standard to be inappropriate because Tatro was disciplined not for the disruptiveness of her post but for its lack of “respect, discretion, and confidentiality in connection with work on human cadavers.” The Court instead determined that the appropriate standard was whether the university had “impose[d] sanctions for Facebook posts that violate academic program rules that are narrowly tailored and directly related to established professional conduct standards.” (The Court did not cite any particular Supreme Court precedent as the basis for this standard). Applying this new standard, the Court concluded “that dignity and respect for the human cadaver constitutes an established professional conduct standard for mortuary science professionals.” Having previously noted that the asserted purpose of the University’s rules was to “educate students” about their ethical duties in the funeral service profession and “maintain the viability of the Anatomy Bequest Program,” the Court found the academic program rules to be narrowly tailored even though they completely barred (!) blogging about cadaver dissection or the anatomy lab. Tatro clearly violated these rules by giving her a “cadaver a name derived from a comedy film” and engaging in “widespread dissemination” of her comments, first through Facebook and later through the news media. Consequently, punishing her for violating them did not abridge her First Amendment rights.
This case raises some interesting issues, which I'd explore in more detail if I weren't staring down the barrel of multiple deadlines. Some obvious questions raised are as follows: Is a standard proscribing "disrespect" unconstitutionally vague? How can a complete ban be narrowly tailored? (Can't help thinking of Atul Gawande's writing in this context.) Why doesn't ordering a psychiatric evaluation for "unprofessional" speech violate the First Amendment? (The Court didn't address whether the speech constituted a "true threat.")
As a media law professor, I noted with interest that my fellow media law professor Raleigh H. Levine, from William Mitchell College of Law, was an amicus in the case for the ACLU, along with Teresa Nelson.
YLS Admissions Blog: Unapologetically Elitist
My friend Lisa McElroy is a Legal Research and Writing Professor at Drexel. She alerted me to this blog missive from Yale Associate Dean of Admissions Asha Rangappa, providing advice to potential transfer students:
“The other part of your application that is going to carry a significant amount of weight is your law school recommendations (we require two). We use these references to place your grades in context and also to determine what kind of student you are. A common mistake on this front is to make one of your two required recommendations from a legal writing instructor -- most students do this because they've usually had much more one-on-one interaction with their legal writing instructor than with their other professors, and so the instructor usually knows them well. There's nothing wrong with this per se, but the Admissions Committee generally likes to have at least two letters from one of your first year core subject area professors, who can speak to your ability to keep up with the subject material, contribute to class discussion, and think through difficult concepts (a third letter from your legal writing instructor is fine). Letters from professors who went to YLS -- who as you probably know are ubiquitous in the legal academy -- are often especially helpful, since they usually discuss why the applicant would fit into the academic and cultural experience here. But don't go stalking a Yale alum just for this purpose -- just pick professors from classes in which you have performed very well and you'll be on the right track.”
As Lisa writes (I'm closely paraphrasing her post on the LRW listserve) , the subtext of the advice is basically as follows: (1) LRW is not a "core subject area;" (2) LRW profs don't really teach "subject material," or at least none that is hard to keep up with; (3) LRW profs don't lead class discussions, or none that require student contributions; (4) LRW profs don't teach difficult concepts, or ask students to think them through; (5) LRW profs are "instructors," and, as such, could not have attended YLS. [Lisa went to Harvard Law, btw & fwiw!!]
Please also note that those of us who didn't go to YLS couldn't possibly understand the rigors of legal education there, and thus our letters are discounted.
[Addendum: It has been brought to my attention since I originally posted that it is unfair to single out Dean Rangappa as being "gratuitously insulting" simply for being bracingly honest about the elitism in legal academia, and I thought the point a fair one. Dean Rangappa's letter, in fact, is a way of levelling the playing field somewhat for students from non-privileged backgrounds seeking to transfer to YLS; it gives them access to valuable information about how the process really works. The reason her letter has resonated among LRW profs and others is the fact that many, if not most, law schools treat their LRW profs as second-class citizens and LRW as an unimportant subject that can be picked up by osmosis.]
Friday, August 10, 2012
The Angsting Thread (Law Review Edition, Autumn 2012)
Friends, the time has come when Redyip is visible. You know what that means. Feel free to use the comments to share your information (and gripes or praise) about which law reviews have turned over, which ones haven't yet, and where you've heard from, and where you've not, and what you'd like Santa to bring you this coming Xmas, etc. It's the semi-annual angsting thread for the law review submission season. Have at it. And do it reasonably nicely, pretty please.
Update: Here is a link to the last page of comments.
Thursday, August 09, 2012
(Quasi-)Achievements by Declination or Proximity...
It's roughly FAR time now, and I'm up in beloved cottage country in Canada, stealing a few moments while the boys are napping and the wife's away. So, a quick question for prawfs that was raised by some folks as they head out on to the rookie and lateral market: which, if any, *declined* honors or awards or invitations or opportunities do you think one should list on the academic cv? Relatedly, what do you think about near-misses?
I had a recollection, which I recently confirmed, that the cv belonging to one of our connoisseurs of prestige, separately twice listed honors that were declined by him. I've also seen numerous other people list "near-misses" such as Rhodes Scholar finalist. I am curious to hear to what extent those on hiring/tenure committees would welcome such information. (I am also interested to learn what the views of others are too, including those deliberating whether to include such information).
My own sense is that since the CV is used by committees to do a lot of screening, some information about this stuff would be helpful. For example, if a person was a single mom/dad but had twenty faculty workshop invitations that s/he declined because of caregiving responsibilities, I suspect that would be useful information to know--at least insofar as such workshop invitations are a signal (perhaps a noisy one) of prominence in the field. As for those who are aspiring prawfs, they typically have slim academic cv's and it might be useful to know about the verifiable close-calls or opportunities they have had to turn down in the past as they try to get to where they are.
I reckon lots of people will disagree and view this as largely further evidence of the decline of manners in our ceaselessly debased civilization. [Others clearly believe that including near-misses or opportunities declined dilutes the brand of the achievements that are on there already.] Not sure if this would mollify both sides, but perhaps there should be an appendix/codicil to CV's where one agglomerates these unaccepted honors and invitations or near-misses, and then those who care about them can pay them heed and those who don't care about them just disregard them, with some sympathy to their inclusion based on the always available (though perhaps untrue) reason that his/her mentor (or Dean) must have suggested that's a good idea! Poor thing.
Thursday, August 02, 2012
SEALS Happy Hour, TONIGHT, Thurs, Aug 2. at 9pm at the 8 Burger Bar and Sports Lounge
Bumped to the front:
For those of you attending the SEALS conference this week in Amelia Island, I hope you'll join me and others for drinks and snacks TONIGHT at the 8 Burger Bar and Sports Lounge. The Lounge is in the Ritz hotel, where the conference is taking place, and we'll convene there at 9pm until around midnight on Thursday night (8/2) to watch Olympians and catch up. Please bring or tell your friends and colleagues if they will be there then. Thanks!
Btw, if you will be there, I'll also be on a panel on Friday at 130pm discussing vulnerability and punishment. The indispensable Ron Wright (WFU) is moderating and my co-panelists include Lea Johnston (UF), David Gray (UMd), Chris Buccafusco (Chicago-Kent), and John Bronsteen (LUC). Those other four of you interested in punishment theory, I hope you'll join us for what promises to be a sparky and fun conversation. Following that panel, I'll be in a discussion group on pedagogy and criminal law. Look forward to seeing many of you there. (A more complete description of the panel follows the jump.)
How Should Punishment Institutions Address Vulnerability and Adaptation?
This panel features a number of scholars interested in the relationship between punishment
theory and vulnerability. Specifically we will discuss and analyze: (1) whether punishment
includes not just intended deprivations but also risk of harms occurring in prison; (2) whether
certain vulnerabilities are more morally relevant to sentencing than others; (3) how (and
from whose perspective) severity of punishment should be measured; (4) the relevance of
hedonic adaption for objective harm and punishment severity; and (5) particular policy
changes that we would like to see in light of our various concerns.
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Well, there are 152 days left in the year, and you know what that means: it's Aug 1, and time for rotations to our guest list. Many thanks to Marty, Jessie, and Brooks for keeping things interesting here this last month.
It's also time to introduce some new and returning voices to the conversation here. I'm pleased to welcome for the first time Mark Moller from DePaul, Neelum Arya from Barry, Cynthia Godsoe from Brooklyn LS, and Raja Raghunath from Denver. And returning here after prior stints we have Jim von der Heydt (an English Phd currently finishing his law degree), Jody Madeira (Indiana), TJ Chiang (GMU), and later this month, the inimitable Jay Wexler (BU). Welcome to you all.
Reminder: hope to see you tomorrow night at the SEALS happy hour (Thurs 8/2) at 9pm at the 8 Burger Lounge at the Ritz, Amelia Island.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Scholarship for the Courts: A Different Kind of Cert Pool
Via Dave Hoffman's post having to do with the questionable utility of non-elite journal experience for law students, I came across our own Matt Bodie's spirited defense of student participation in the legal scholarship world. And by looking up Matt's article I stumbled upon Ross Davie's new piece for the Journal of Law, entitled "In Search of Helpful Legal Scholarship, Part I." It is written with Ross' characteristically light and perceptive touch and the gist of his "opening remarks" is that there should be some vehicle by which the courts (particularly the SCT) are made aware of the relevant scholarship on an issue, e.g., when the Court grants cert on a particular case. Here's a taste:
Professors should organize a cert pool of a sort for law review articles. They have the knowledge: they know
scholarship, good and bad. They have the know-how: they know peer review, pure and corrupt.
(Peer review of a sort is at the heart of this project.) And they are in position: they have the tenure
that frees them to speak truth not only to power, but also to each other. But rather than
giving the Justices stacks of memos evaluating every single law review article (as the clerks in the cert pool
do with petitions in every single case), the professors should take a different kind of case-by-case approach.
Every time the Court grants a cert. petition or otherwise agrees to hear a case, they should give the Justices
a simple, readably short list of those articles most likely to be helpful in deciding that case. Then the
Justices or their minions can read the helpful scholarship themselves. Each list should be in the form of
(and filed as) an amicus brief – a truly brief “brief of scholarship” rather than a conventional “scholars’ brief.”
I like this suggestion a lot. Ross suggests that the AALS or JOTWELL could do something like this in terms of organizing a cert pool of scholars. What do y'all think? I would guess that the list would be of interest not only to the courts/justices but also the litigants to some extent, especially when the litigants are not as savvy as the usual elite sct bar practitioners.
Btw, if you've not been keeping up with Green Bag or the Journal of Law, some links for the latest issue of Green Bag are after the jump.
Volume 15, Number 3 (Spring 2012)
TO THE BAG
Curtis E.A. Karnow, Similarity in Legal Analysis & the Post-Literate Blitz
David Roe, Little Labs Lost: An Invisible Success Story
Laurence H. Silberman, The Development of “Final Offer Selection”
FROM THE BAG
Unknown, Smashing the Taxicab Racket
Cedric Merlin Powell, Identity, Liberal Individualism, and the Neutral Allure of Post-Blackness
John L. Kane, Jr., The Inmate
Alice B. Richards, Studying for an Evidence Final on a Cold Winter’s Night
Thursday, July 26, 2012
The Collection Gap
Along with Ezra Ross (now of UCI), I have started a new blog, The Collection Gap, which deals with regulatory enforcement failure. The blog was inspired by our article, The Collection Gap: Underenforcement of Corporate and White Collar Fines and Penalties, 29 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 453 (2011), which found that agencies are leaving billions of dollars in criminal, civil and administrative fines and penalties uncollected, even where offenders have the ability to pay.
One of the things that drove us to pursue this topic was the fact that, while there was much debate about whether or how much to fine corporations, there was little if any discussion about whether the fines that were imposed were ever actually collected--which obviously impacts deterrence and institutional legitimacy, among other things. Agencies like the EPA get the benefit of announcing big headlines ("Biggest fine ever against polluter X..."), but are not held accountable for failing to follow through. Part of the problem is simply resources, but we believe that to a large extent it has to do with insufficient incentives at the institutional and individual levels.
I would welcome thoughts or suggestions about other situations in which problems with policy implementation threaten to undermine the policies themselves. It's the type of thing that often doesn't get much attention, but could have a lot of practical impact regarding how government actually operates and affects people's lives.
Monday, July 23, 2012
A Clearinghouse for Questions, 2012-2013
The 2012-2013 law school hiring market is soon beginning.
In this post, you can ask questions about the law teaching market (anonymously if you wish, assuming the questions are not especially offensive or otherwise improper), and prawfs or others can weigh in, also anonymously if they choose, but within the bounds of decency. I will keep an eye on things and delete misinformation and ban the IP addresses of those acting out of bounds. If you're a reader and you see something suspicious, please feel free to let me know via email.
We will have a distinct but related post in which candidates or prawfs can report on callbacks, offers, and acceptances. That thread should be used only for information relevant to hiring, not for questions or comments on the process. This is the thread for questions.
So...questions? But before you ask your questions, take a look at the 500 questions and comments that came up on last year's thread.
Update: Here is a link to the last page of comments.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Aspiring Law Profs Conference at ASU
I was thrilled to see the discerning judgment of our friends at ASU, who have selected our own Paul Horwitz to be the keynote speaker at the Aspiring Law Professors Conference this fall. The day long gathering takes place in Phoenix in September, so it will also be the Perspiring Law Professors Conference (rimshot!). There's a gaggle of other prawfs who will be speakers. Well worth your time if you're heading on the market. In any event, here's the relevant information.
Designed for Visiting Assistant Professors, Fellows and others who plan to go on the academic teaching market, but valuable to anyone considering a career as a law professor.
- Learn to succeed in the entry-level law teaching market
- Obtain an insiders perspective on the appointments process from faculty with extensive hiring experience
- Participate in a mock interview or mock job talk and gain feedback from law professors
Professor Horwitz teaches law and religion, constitutional law, and legal profession. He received his B.A. in English Literature from McGill Universtiy in Montreal in 1990, M.S., with honors, in Journalism from Columbia University in 1991, LL.B. from the University of Toronto in 1995 where he was co-editor-in-chief of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review, and LL.M. from Columbia Law School in 1997. Professor Horwitz clerked for the Honorable Ed Carnes of the United Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Before joining the University of Alabama, Professor Horwitz was an associate professor at the Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles. He has also been a visiting professor at the University of Iowa College of Law, the University of San Diego School of Law, and Notre Dame Law School. In addition to having written and spoken widely on issues of constitutional law, Professor Horwitz is a member of the popular legal blog Prawfsblawg
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
The Sisk Study is Up -- and a call for inclusion
Over at Brian's blog, you can see some observations on the nature and genesis of the new Sisk et al Study on per capita scholarly impact, which I've appended here for your viewing pleasure. Feel free to go to SSRN and throw them a bone for their hard work. Brian has no discussion board to chat about the Sisk study, so I thought we could have a fruitful discussion here. As with most rankings, I think they need to be kept in context and not overweighted but also not underweighted simply because they don't measure what you most think is important. Sisk et al are right to emphasize how reputation studies for USNews tend to be a bit of an echo chamber and that studies like this one, which, you know, actually measure something, are a useful supplement to folks interested in trying to figure out the quality and impact a faculty is making in terms of scholarship. Again, it's not everything one should look at, but it's something.
My biggest gripe: while I understand the desire (particularly for Sisk and his institution) to limit the study to the top 70 or so, it seems a shame that there aren't resources available to get the info from and vet *all* the law schools. I have the same frustration with that other wonderful (but admittedly limited) study, the Yelnosky productivity one. For reasons that are either self-serving or that escape me, the Yelnosky study excludes the top 50 schools from study, except for those that happen to be in the New England area. Hmm. I don't like to be snarky about this, but let's face it, inasmuch as the rankings are useful, they are sort of like a public good that is under-produced. (Yes, I'm getting ready for econ camp next week!) St. Thomas and Roger Williams are only investing in the creation of the rankings to the point they find useful (the private good), even though more information about more schools would benefit a larger group of schools or individuals (whether faculty or students. I suppose -- given that St Thomas did so well (coming at #30) -- we should be grateful that they didn't limit the number of schools to the top 40, but in fact studied almost 100 schools. Good on them.
Anyway, share your thoughts or data in the comments. From what I can tell, the data and the methodology is transparent, so if there are associate deans or other interested faculty and law librarians out there reading this blog, feel free to do your self-study and share the info in the comments to this thread. Perhaps in future years, we can persuade St. Thomas and Roger Williams to expand the number of schools under consideration.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Not yet tried, and sentenced to Red Lobster
Eric Miller (SLU) and I have an oped in today's NYT on the quiet scandal of abusive pretrial release conditions. I've reprinted it after the jump. This is a piece that grew out of a some discussion here on Prawfs, and the next thing you know, well, acorns and oak trees and all that. My special thanks to Eric for being such an excellent co-author. (And while I have SLU on the mind, note that Anders Walker, Eric's colleague, has started a new blog on faculty productivity. It's called Faculty Flow.)
Btw, we tried to insert hyperlinks to your scholarship (really, all of you!), but the Times has a rule about capping hyperlinks. Odd. (And my sense is that this rule is actually, um, inconsistently applied. In any event, sorry about that.)
IN May, a federal judge ordered the pretrial release of an alleged robber on the condition that he read and write book reports for 90 minutes daily. Earlier this year, a trial judge directed a domestic violence defendant, again as a condition of pretrial release, to buy his wife flowers and take her out for bowling and supper at Red Lobster. And just last week, in Florida, a county judge’s new bail order forbade George Zimmerman, who claims self-defense in the death of Trayvon Martin, to drink alcohol or go out after 6 p.m.
Before anyone is proven guilty in a court of law, the Constitution extends the presumption of innocence. That presumption is at odds with the kinds of pretrial conditions described above.
To be sure, the presumption of innocence is not a guarantee against pretrial detention or other restrictions on liberty. As the Supreme Court has acknowledged, a defendant’s pretrial freedom can, upon a hearing, be limited in various ways when it comes to addressing substantial and reasonable fears having to do with flight risk or danger posed to the community (or danger to the judicial process itself, like in cases of witness tampering). So we don’t dispute that defendants can be, say, monitored by tracking devices while they are released.
But flight risk and crime prevention don’t justify bail conditions requiring book reports or bowling, which have far more to do with punishments or moral education techniques. While such sanctions could be permitted after conviction, they are flat-out unjustified before adjudication.
The more peculiar the conditions, the more likely they are to garner media attention and public scrutiny. Indeed, an appellate court overturned the book reports decision last month (though on the grounds that the defendant should not have been released at all). Unfortunately, the vast majority of these improper release orders fly under the radar. Indeed, the use of bail conditions as a means of engaging in low-level punishment and rehabilitation is more widespread than is generally understood. Drug testing, desisting from alcohol, as well as attendance at rehabilitation programs and mandatory job training programs have become all-too-familiar requirements of pretrial release, even for cases, like Mr. Zimmerman’s, that are unrelated to substance abuse.
This judicial paternalism persists in part because state and municipal judges, who handle the overwhelming number of criminal cases, face less public scrutiny than federal judges. But a bigger problem is that there is no widely established right to counsel at the bail stage. Accordingly, the judge gets to interact directly with the defendant, without the interference of “pesky” lawyers. Even when defense lawyers are present, they don’t make a stink over these improper conditions to avoid the risk of having bail for their clients denied altogether. They figure that at least the defendants will get out of jail, rather than having to cool their heels inside.
It’s understandable for judges to want to attack the social problems they see in the criminal justice system. The problem — besides the obvious issue of assigning punishments to people who might not even be convicted of crimes — is that they are thinking up untested responses on a case-by-case basis. This leads to disparities and fragmentation of penal policy even within jurisdictions; increased scrutiny of suspects at a stage when they should be free to build their defense against the government; and an imposition of the values of the temperance movement on the criminally accused (since even lawful and moderate consumption of alcohol is frequently prohibited). Perhaps most disconcerting is how easy it becomes for regular people to violate these unreasonable bail conditions, which leads to unnecessary arrests and even more overcrowded prisons.
Pretrial release raises complicated legal and policy issues in every case. Still, our core concern is that many judicial release orders exhibit confusion about or disregard for the distinction between pretrial release and post-conviction punishment. Judges determining pretrial release are not authorized to act as social workers or agents of public retribution. They need to stop pretending otherwise.
Friday, July 06, 2012
Is the (Printed) Law Review a Flower that Should Bloom?
Over at the Atlantic, Walter Olson reprises the claim that law reviews are worthless. Among his reasons, he notes the ready availability of other outlets for law professors to share their views about matters of significance (and in this vein, he has in mind websites like TNR or the Atlantic or law blogs like Volokh or Balkinization or perhaps ahem...). My initial response: let a thousand flowers bloom. If, in addition to writing for law reviews or university presses, prawfs want to write on blogs and do opeds, they should do so. But if Olson's saying, we should get out of the long form scholarship game, I say a pox on his house. I don't think he's actually saying that, although he suggests it by tired references to Chief Roberts' views about Bulgaria and Kant.
Regardless of whether Olson denies the net value of long form scholarship, I think he is wrong to assume that "talented law profs" seek out short form options to present their ideas because that's the first best place to be. I can't speak for others, let alone the class of talented law profs, but I suspect at least some of us hardly desire to go online to do short form writing as such. Rather, it's more a matter of resignation about where the eyeballs might be and what civilians' attention levels are. If 50,000 or 1 million people read the articles on my SSRN page, I would probably never care to write an oped about a legal issue, let alone a blog post. Indeed, I suspect the reason we care about the placement ladder is largely an assumption that if it places in a top journal, it will get read more (by the right demographic). But writing to get the argument right requires patience and diligence. Opeds don't reward that. At best, they're a preview or a trailer of the real thing.
And fyi, Walter, writing for the Atlantic and whatnot is not always easier too. Compared to blogposts, opeds or essays for general mags are more annoying because of the comparative lack of control or slowness of publication. For example, the Times accepted an oped I co-wrote more than a month ago, and we're still waiting to hear (even vaguely) when it will run! Most opinion journal editors act like tyrants because they know they can get away with it. (Not you of course ___, ___, etc!) And compared to law reviews, which are admittedly slower to publication (and this has changed somewhat with the proliferation of online law review addenda/fora/pennumbra etc), opeds or mainstream essays are neither easy to place nor necessarily reasonable about editing. At bottom, I usually enjoy the experience of writing for law reviews more than writing for popular press. Not always, but enough to want to stay in the law review publication game. To the extent I write for the mainstream media, it's more because I think I have an obligation to those who fund my scholarship to try to get the ideas out into the mainstream rather than simply hope for citations within the law review or philosophy/political theory literature. Anyway, I might be an outlier, and maybe Olson's narrower point, that we'd be better off with only online scholarship venues, is true. But, fwiw, I am happily the kind of person who still enjoys looking through the pages of HLR, the Mich LR books issue, and most of the other journals in our faculty lounge.
In any event, Olson's essay focuses on a sideshow. The real problem in law scholarship is not where it appears or how long it is, but whether it is lockboxed. To my mind, every piece of legal scholarship produced should be available online either in final draft or penultimate draft. I actually think scholars have an ethical duty to make that happen, at least in the law context. But that's another blog post.
Sunday, July 01, 2012
Today's a big day obviously for all the stealthy Canadians y'all know in the American legal academy. Happy Canada Day to Rob, Paul, Austen, Sarah, etc.
It's also the new month and thus time for rotations. Thrilled to welcome here for the first time my law school classmate, Martin Pritikin, who teaches at Whittier, and to welcome back two wonderful friends and returning voices, Brooks Holland (Gonzaga) and Jessie Hill (Case Western). A few of our June guests might linger a bit, but let's take a chance to thank them all for their great contributions so far.
Last, I've been putting together the schedule for guest bloggers between now and December, so if you're a rising prawf and would like to introduce yourself to the community of prawfs, or if you know someone who might be interested in joining our merry band for a month, please email me. Thanks and happy 1st, 4th and 14th! If you're like me, you know summer's beginning for realz because SSRN's just announced a two week reprieve from emails with abstracts journals!
Friday, June 01, 2012
And here it's rotations day. Gratefully, we have a few new and returning voices to Prawfs. Joining us for the first time are Addie Rolnick (UNLV), Stew Young (Wyoming), Wendy Martinek (Binghamton Poli Sci); and Michael Higdon (UTenn). Returning for June are Gio Shay (WNEC); Jeff Lipshaw (Suffolk); and Kelly Anders (Creighton).
Many thanks to our wonderful cast of May visitors. Some of them will be signing off today and others might need a few more days to push out a few more lingering thoughts. We are grateful to you all for your contributions and look forward to your swift return here.
On that note, I'll soon be putting together the schedule for the July-December guests list. Please feel free to email me if you're a prawf or a rising prawf and would like to participate or know someone who does. Let me know your first and second choices for a month in which to visit please. Thanks!
Last, for those of you off to Hawaii soon for LSA, there will be a happy hour co-hosted by our Matt Bodie and Jonathan Simon and Faculty Lounge's Laura Appleman. More info to follow very soon.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Contrarian Statutory Interpretation Continued (CDA Edition)
Following my contrarian post about how to read the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, I thought I would write about the Communication's Decency Act. I've written about the CDA before (hard to believe it has been almost 3 years!), but I'll give a brief summary here.
The CDA provides immunity from the acts of users of online providers. For example, if a user provides defamatory content in a comment, a blog need not remove the comment to be immune, even if the blog receives notice that the content is defamatory, and even if the blog knows the content is defamatory.
I agree with most of my colleagues who believe this statute is a good thing for the internet. Where I part ways from most of my colleagues is how broadly to read the statute.
Since this is a post about statutory interpretation, I'll include the statute:
Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA states that:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
In turn, an interactive computer service is:
any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
Further, an information content provider is:
any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
So, where do I clash with others on this? The primary area is when the operators of the computer service make decisions to publish (or republish) content. I'll give three examples that courts have determined are immune, but that I think do not fall within the statute:
- Web Site A pays Web Site B to republish all of B's content on Site A. Site A is immune.
- Web Site A selectively republishes some or all of a story from Web Site B on Site A. Site A is immune.
- Web Site A publishes an electronic mail received by a reader on Site A. Site A is immune.
These three examples share a common thread: Site A is immune, despite selectively seeking out and publishing content in a manner that has nothing to do with the computerized processes of the provider. In other words, it is the operator, not the service, that is making publication determinations.
To address these issues, cases have focused on "development" of the information. One case, for example, defines development as a site that "contributes materially to the alleged illegality of the conduct." Here, I agree with my colleagues that development is being defined too broadly to limit immunity. Development should mean that the provider actually creates the content that is displayed. For that reason, I agree with the Roommates.com decision, which held that Roommates developed content by providing pre-filled dropdown lists that allegedly violated the Fair Housing Act. It turns out that the roommate postings were protected speech, but that is a matter of substance, and not immunity. The fact that underlying content is eventually vindicated does not mean that immunity should be expanded. To the extent some think that the development standard is limited only to development of illegal content (something implied by the text of the Roommates.com decision), I believe that is too limiting. The question is the source of the information, not the illegality of it.
The burning issue is why plaintiffs continue to rely on "development" despite its relatively narrow application. The answer is that this is all they currently have to argue, and that is where I disagree with my colleagues. I believe the word "interactive" in the definition must mean something. It means that the receipt of content must be tied to the interactivity of the provider. In other words, receipt of the offending content must be automated or otherwise interactive to be considered for immunity.
Why do I think that this is the right reading? First, there's the word "interactive." It was chosen for a reason. Second, the definition of "information content provider" identifies information "provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service." (emphasis added). This implies that the provision of information should be based on interactivity or automation.
There is support in the statute for only immunizing information directly provided through interactivity. Section, 230(d), for example, requires interactive service providers to notify their users about content filtering tools. This implies that the information being provided is through the interactive service. Sections 230(a) and (b) describe the findings and policy of Congress, which describe interactive services as new ways for users to control information and for free exchange of ideas.
I think one can read the statute more broadly than I am here. But I also believe that there is no reason to do so. The primary benefit of Section 230 is a cost savings mechanism. There's is no way many service providers can screen all the content on their websites for potentially tortious activity. There's just no filter for that.
Allowing immunity for individualized editorial decisions like paying for syndicated content, picking and choosing among emails, and republishing stories from other web sites runs directly counter to this cost saving purpose. Complaining that it costs too much to filter interactive user content is a far cry from complaining that it costs to much to determine whether an email is true before making a noninteractive decision to republish it. We should want our service providers to expend some effort before republishing.
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
Ahdieh on Judge Browning's Passing
It's with regret that I share the news that Judge James Browning from the Ninth Circuit recently passed away. One of his former clerks, Bobby Ahdieh (vice-dean at Emory), has shared some reflections on the man and judge. These reflections were written up a few weeks ago, just before his passing. At the time of his death, he was the last of Kennedy’s circuit appointees, and (probably?) the longest serving federal judge. Thanks, Bobby, for sharing these memories and inspirations.
A Montana Man:
Lessons in Judging and the Law
As I wandered through the cherished memories that I carry of the year I was honored to serve as law clerk to Judge James R. Browning, I felt like a kid in a toy shop: with so many great choices, what was I to pick?
I thought of the humanity and warmth that are Judge Browning’s hallmarks, and remembered my first encounter with him, in the temporary chambers at the Rincon Center – a conversation that ended with my mention that I was en route to have dinner with Judge Dorothy Nelson. As we both stood up, he walked around the desk, and took both my hands: “Wonderful! Please, tell her I love her!” How many judges, I wondered as I left, have ever had occasion to send such warm greetings to a colleague?
From that same discussion, I also remembered the Judge’s insistence that I take as long as I needed to decide whether to accept his offer, and my promise to respond by the next day – as it would be unfair for me to delay his hiring further. And I remembered our discussion two years later, when I pressed him on the need to give exploding offers to clerkship candidates, and he sent me packing, insisting applicants be given the time they needed, to make the right decision for them.
I thought of Judge Browning’s place astride history – which reads like a review session for 1L’s in constitutional law. Who else could claim to have sat at the side of the Solicitor General as he argued Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, to have helped ensure submission of the United States’ amicus brief in Brown v. Board of Education, and to stand at the literal center of perhaps the most iconic presidential inauguration photograph in U.S. history, in which Chief Justice Earl Warren administered the Oath of Office to John F. Kennedy, with the Judge holding the Bible on which Kennedy’s hand lay? Or to have provoked disagreement among the Justices of the Supreme Court years earlier, when he was appointed to represent the defendant in the first Mann Act case to reach the Court, and Justice Frankfurter insisted – incorrectly, of course – that the capable (and successful) advocate for the defense surely must be “A Harvard Man”?
But I also thought of the humility the Judge brings to all he does – forcing us to discover each of the above by chance or through our own efforts, without a word of encouragement (or even suggestion) from him. On one occasion, the Judge asked me to prepare draft testimony for him to deliver to Congress, regarding the then-latest attempt to divide his beloved Ninth Circuit. By way of a forceful opening, I included a statement of his place as the longest serving active federal judge in the country. He deleted the reference, and I reinserted it. Twice. Finally, he called me to his office and – with all the force of the longest serving active federal judge in the country – told me that he simply did not have it in his constitution to make such a statement, even in the service of preserving the Circuit.
For those among us who were honored to serve as his clerks, the latter must also recall the care that Judge Browning invested in his written work – be it a brief thank you note, or a published opinion on an issue of first impression. Consider his opinion in Guerrero v. Clinton. All of his clerks recall the forceful work he did with his red pen – which often left nary of word of the drafter’s prose to be found. At least as striking was the work he undertook with his scissors – whether to strike whole paragraphs or sections, or to relocate them to more suitable ground.
It was against this backdrop that I – in an act of youthful indiscretion – offered the Judge a fifteen-page draft dissent from the majority opinion in Guerrero, addressing a concern he had raised with the latter. Then began the real work, of achieving the precise framing and prose that he sought. Draft after draft, the Judge whittled the analysis down to its core. And what, in the final analysis, became of my fifteen-page dissent? It would almost be better to leave you to look it up in F.3d yourself, but let me save you the suspense: Go to 157 F.3d at 1997, and what will you find there? A three-sentence concurrence.
For all my memories of Judge Browning, though, what I most carry away from my time with him is not any of the foregoing, but something deeper. For so many of us in the legal profession – and perhaps especially in legal academia – the assumptions of legal realism, of rational choice, of motivated reasoning by judges represent the foundation of our approach to the law. In this view, interests, preferences, and biases are at the center of legal analysis. What the law is, ultimately, depends on who the judge is.
I embrace these assumptions as much as the next guy. Never less so, in fact, than when I engage my students in Socratic dialogue about a case and what we should take away from it. Should we really understand a given shard of Supreme Court jurisprudence to arise from what went before – or as simply a reflection of Justice Brennan’s famous adage on justices’ ability to “count to five”?
I count myself lucky, however, to always carry with me an antidote to such cynicism and doubt. As effectively as I wish to convey to my students the critical perspective they must bring to their engagements with the law, few semesters pass without at least a mention or two of Judge Browning. For all the insights of legal realism and rational choice, I tell them, I know at least one judge who is different. Who proves that judges can be true umpires – even if the latter are less common on our highest court than has sometimes been advertised.
My judge, I tell them, might not prove the rule – but he is surely exceptional. I tell them of the time I ran into his office, to insist that we simply had to vote for en banc review in what I was surely the most important case ever to come before the Ninth Circuit. Perhaps, the Judge told me, smiling. But in his time on the bench – at that point, as I did the math in my head, a mere thirty-six years – he had found such cases to often come and go, without nearly the impact they promised. In another case early in my tenure, I tell them, I shared my notes as to how I thought the other judges might vote, and what that might mean for us. I looked up and found the Judge staring at me intently, if quizzically: “But what is the law?”
It is not that Judge Browning is oblivious to politics or political context. But for his astute insight into the latter, and capacity to engage in the former, he would not have had the incredibly successful tenure as Chief Judge that he did – and the Ninth Circuit would have been divided long ago. Nor is it that he is a blank slate – with no strongly felt views he might bring to the table. I recall no lack of morning meetings, thus, at which the Judge would casually offer his own views of the wisdom or justice of the matter presented. For him, however, those views are that, and no more.
For me, thus, Judge Browning exemplifies the capacity of law to be greater – and to do more – than its constituent parts. Few of us may consistently live up to the standard, whether on the bench or at the bar. But it is that vision – and its potential application in the day-to-day life of the lawyer – that I took away from my time with Judge Browning. And it is that lesson that I hope I will always convey to my students, on his behalf.
 343 U.S. 579 (1952). We were ecstatic to stumble upon the connection to Youngstown, by way of a newspaper photo showing Solicitor General Philip B. Perlman speaking to reporters out of his car window, en route to oral arguments – with his special assistant, James R. Browning, immediately beside him.
 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
 Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (1955).
 157 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 1998).
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Hello from guest blogger Jeff Yates
I thought about trying to make this introduction cute with a video of Lionel Richey's "Hello" or something about Hello Kitty, but future me is going to thank present me by keeping this short and not so campy. I'd like to thank Dan and the rest of the Prawfs group for inviting me to guest blog for May.
A little background -- I am an attorney and political science professor at Binghamton University where I usually teach law classes, but sometims dabble in other topics - for instance, next fall I will be teaching a graduate course on The Presidency. You can see more about me here and here.
Here are some of the topics that I *plan* to blog on (emphasis on 'plan' - you never know where this guest blogging thing will take you):
* New lawyer employment woes
* Attorney work hours and working at home in an era of technology
* Use of the title "Doctor"
Hopefully I will come up with some more blogging ideas - until then, thanks for having me.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Opportunities to present for young (and old) scholars
My friend Rose Villazor is putting together an appendix for an AALS newbie conference presentation having to do with where prawfs can present works in progress. She has already done an admirable job in gathering information but I figured we might usefully crowdsource here.
So take a look at the list after the jump below (forgive the formatting errors; damn you Word!) and use the comments to share any other venues that you know about where folks can try to present a work in progress, eg., conferences, workshops, colloquia, etc.
I'll add a few that I'm aware of or involved with right at the top: The NYU Crim Law Theory colloquium that Mike Cahill and I run; Prawfsfest!; the ASU Young Scholars gathering in mid-March; and the Law and Society Crimprof shadow conference.
I. General Conferences
- AALS – January
- LatCrit (every two years)
- People of Color Conferences
- i. Conference of Asian Pacific American Law Faculty (CAPALF)
- ii. National People of Color Conference (every five years with the last one held in 2008)
- iii. Regional People of Color Conferences
- Regional Law Schools Associations Conferences
- i. Central Association of Law Schools
- ii. Midwest Association of Law Schools
- iii. Southeastern Association of Law Schools (SEALS) (typically July/August)
- Society of American Law Teachers (SALT)
II. Specialized Conferences
- AALS Sections Works-in-Progress Programs
- American Law and Economics Association (ALEA)
- American Society of International Law (ASIL)
- American Society of Comparative Law
- American Society for Legal History
- Annual Indigenous Law Conference
- Clinical Legal Education Association (CLEA)
- Clinical Writers Workshop
- Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (CELS)
- Immigration Law Teachers Workshop
- Labor & Employment Colloquium
- Law and Society (typically in June)
- i. Regional Law & Society Conferences
- Law, Culture and Humanities (typically in March/April)
- Legal History Conference
- Property Works-in-Progress
- Syracuse Law School Center on Property, Citizenship and Social Entrepreneurism
- Western Empirical Legal Studies
III. Junior Scholars Writing Competitions for Pre-Published Papers
- AALS Annual Junior Scholars Writing Competition
- AALS New Voices Call for Papers
- AALS Sections Writing Competitions
- George Washington Center for Law, Economics and Finance Junior Faculty Workshop (C-LEAF)
- Harvard/Yale/Stanford Junior Scholars Forum
- Law & Humanities Junior Scholars Workshop (Columbia, USC, UCLA and Georgetown)
- New Voices in Civil Justice Scholarship Workshop
- SEALS Call for Papers
IV. Junior Faculty Workshops
- Emerging Family Law
- Emerging Immigration Law Teachers & Scholars
- Emerging Scholars Conference (Chapman)
- Junior Faculty Criminal Law Workshop
- Junior Faculty Federal Courts Workshop
- Junior Faculty Forum for International Law (NYU)
- Junior Scholars in Intellectual Property
- Junior Faculty Interdisciplinary Scholarship Workshop
- New Perspectives in Comparative Law
- SALT Junior Faculty Development Workshop
- Southeastern Law Scholars Conference
V. Colloquia/Workshops (Subject Specific) 
- Boston College Legal History Roundtable
- Columbia & Fordham Critical Race Theory
- Duke International & Comparative Law
- Emory’s Feminism & Legal Theory Project
- Georgetown Law & Economics
- Harvard’s International Law
- Hofstra’s Colloquium on Law & Citizenship
- Hofstra’s Colloquium on Law & Sexuality
- Indiana Law, Society & Culture
- Loyola Tax
- Minnesota Law & History
- Northwestern Constitutional Law
- NYU’s Colloquium on the Law, Economics and Politics of Urban Affairs
- Santa Clara Social Justice
- Temple International Law
- University of Miami Legal Theory Workshop
- UC Berkeley Law & Society
- UCLA Legal Theory
- Virginia Law & Economics
- Wisconsin Institute for Legal Studies
- Yale Law & Economics
 Please note that the information provided in this Appendix is by far not exhaustive. Visit individual schools’ websites for additional information regarding conferences, workshops, call for papers, etc. Also, visit www.legalscholarshipblog.com for further information.
 Again, this list does not provide the complete list of workshops and colloquia within each institution specifically and the legal academy generally. Most schools have general and specialized workshops and colloquia. Visit a school’s website to get information about the types of workshops and colloquia available in that institution.
I want to thank Dan for the invitation to blog on PrawfsBlawg. As one whose primary appointment is in Political Science, albeit the subfield of Judicial Politics/Public law, I am somewhat of an outlier here. Of course, when I agreed to do this I had not been scheduled to teach a "Maymester" course, and now I am. I thought this would be an easier month. Wrong.
Among other duties I edit a law and court oriented Journal, The Justice System Journal. I read with great interest the recent series on Law Review Submissions by Shima Baradaran. The process is so fundamentally different than submitting to a Social Science, peer reviewed journal, that I would like to discuss this over the next several days/postings. Among other differences we operate on a single submission basis. That is, if you submit your article to us, while it is under review you cannot submit your manuscript anywhere else. Whenever I get what appears to be a law review type submission I write back to the author and remind them of this requirement. Usually it results in the withdrawal of the manuscript.
By the way, I can always tell if it is from a Law Professor or Law Professor wannabe because a CV/Resume accompanies the manuscript. This is not only unnecessary for peer review submission, but is a waste of time.
More later - Bob