Thursday, April 03, 2014
Checking InI've read PrawfsBlawg with what in retrospect seems to me disturbing thoroughness almost since its inception, so I'm grateful to Dan and the Prawfs community for the chance to guest this month. I teach federal courts and constitutional law and write about those subjects and constitutional theory. I'll have some thoughts on federalism, the impact of unusual occurrences on complex federal lawsuits, perhaps McCutcheon , and maybe, just maybe, nuclear war. Or rather some effects of the threat of nuclear war on state governments in the 1950s and 1960s. This is my first attempt at blogging and I'm excited to hear your thoughts.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
What Makes Lawyers Happy? A Study
My colleague and guru, Larry Krieger, has this very cool new paper up on SSRN (co-written with K. Sheldon), and in the space of a couple weeks, it's already received an avalanche of downloads. Here's the abstract. Smart law review editors should want to get their paws on this since it will be cited a zillion times.
"Attorney well-being and depression are topics of great concern, but there has been no theory-driven empirical research to guide lawyers and law students seeking well-being. This article reports a unique study establishing a hierarchy of five tiers of factors for lawyer well-being, including choices in law school, legal career, and personal life, and psychological needs and motivations established by Self-Determination Theory. Data from several thousand lawyers in four states show striking patterns, repeatedly indicating that common priorities on law school campuses and among lawyers are confused or misplaced. Factors typically afforded most attention and concern, those relating to prestige and money (income, law school debt, class rank, law review, and USNWR law school ranking) showed zero to small correlations with lawyer well-being. Conversely, factors marginalized in law school and seen in previous research to erode in law students (psychological needs and motivation) were the very strongest predictors of lawyer happiness and satisfaction. Lawyers were grouped by practice type and setting to further test these findings. The group with the lowest incomes and grades in law school, public service lawyers, had stronger autonomy and purpose and were happier than those in the most prestigious positions and with the highest grades and incomes. Additional measures raised concerns: subjects did not broadly agree that judge and lawyer behavior is professional, nor that the legal process reaches fair outcomes. Specific explanations and recommendations for lawyers, law teachers, and legal employers are drawn from the data, and direct implications for attorney productivity and professionalism are explained."
Monday, February 10, 2014
Some good tidings from FSU
The Dean at FSU Law recently reported that an astounding 83% of our current students made cash gifts to our law school's fund raising drive, which, let's face it, is a pretty awesome expression of gratitude and good cheer about their law school experience. #theyaredrinkingkool-aid
Monday, May 20, 2013
FSU Law Is Hiring, 2013 editionFlorida State University's appointments committee for the College of Law will be gearing up over the summer and we are looking (principally) for laterals in the following areas: Environmental Law, Torts/Products, Trusts and Estates, Tax, Health Law and ADR. If you or someone you know is a possibly good fit for FSU’s virtues (ie., extraordinary scholarly culture, good weather, great cookies, among other things), please feel free to (have them) send Wayne Logan (and/or me) a CV and statement of interest. The Fall 2013 committee includes Wayne (Chair), Hannah Wiseman, Manuel Utset, Courtney Cahill, and myself. (If you are outside our targeted area of interest, but still keen on FSU, please don't hesitate to send us your materials as needs and interests evolve.) As always, FSU seeks a diverse pool of applicants from a wide range of backgrounds and interests.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
FSU Law Review Announces its Exclusive Submission Window
The Florida State University Law Review will be conducting exclusive spring cycle article reviews. Any article submitted to this exclusive review between now and April 3d will be evaluated by April 11th. By submitting the article you agree to accept an offer for publication should one be extended. Any articles accepted through this review will be published in Issue 3 or Issue 4 , both of which are slated for publication in summer of 2014.If you have an article which you would like to submit, please e-mail an attached copy of the article and your cv and cover letter to [email protected] with the subject line "Exclusive Spring 2013 Article Review." Feel free to cc' me.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Fixing Pretrial Risk Assessment (in Florida)
For those of you interested in pretrial release, I thought I'd point you to a neat roundtable hosted in part by my colleague Sam Wiseman. Last week, FSU hosted the American Bar Association Roundtable on “Pretrial Risk Assessment and Community Supervision: Tools to Advance Public Safety.” The Roundtable featured panelists discussing a variety of pretrial tools to advance Florida public safety and reduce citizens’ tax burden. The event was co-sponsored by the Florida Sheriffs Association, the Florida Association of Counties, the Florida State University College of Law and the Florida State University Project on Accountable Justice. Video of the event is available here. The focus of the roundtable was on the collection and use of data in the pretrial process, both in individual release decisions and at the system level. Legislators, judges, sheriffs, prosecutors, public defenders, pretrial agency supervisors, commercial bondsmen, GPS monitoring vendors, and court administrators from around the state attended or appeared on panels.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
FSU Law Review announces its Exclusive Submission Window for Volume 40
Adam Kramarow, the senior articles editor at the FSU Law Review, has asked me to pass this along. (Feel free to cc me on your submissions.)
The Florida State University Law Review is now conducting exclusive spring article reviews. Any article submitted to this exclusive review between now and April 2, 2012 will be evaluated and responded to by April 9, 2012. By submitting the article during this window you agree to accept an offer for publication should one be extended. Any articles accepted through this review will be published in Volume 40, which is slated for publication in 2013.
If you have an article which you would like to submit, please e-mail an attached copy of the article and your CV and cover letter to [email protected] with the subject line "Exclusive Spring Article Review." (The character after the k in Adam's email address is a zero, not an "o".) This opportunity also applies to articles you may have submitted to FSU LR earlier this season but you need to resend the piece under the appropriate subject line. If you have submitted an article for review through ExpressO, you will have to resubmit it through this process to be considered under the exclusive review process. We look forward to reading your articles.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Quick Exclusive Submission to the FSU Law Review
See update below.
I was told yesterday that FSU's Law Review has one spot in the current volume that opened up at the last minute. If any of you have a piece that you want to submit for both exclusive and quick review, please feel free to send it (along with CV and cover letter) to Senior Articles Editor, Hannah Monroe, and feel free to cc me. Hannah's email is hdmonroe16 at gmail.com
The story is that the Review will basically occur over the next few days until a suitable piece is found. If you submit now, you agree to publish it with FSU if it is selected. Straightforward and simple. The board will turn over later this spring and the new volume will open up to submission around then. Thanks.
1/27 Update: The FSU LR has asked me to shut the spigot off by tomorrow (Saturday) at 12pm (noon). So please send something to Hannah before then. There very well may be an exclusive submission window that reprises itself later on this semester so watch this space (ie, read Prawfs) for more information.
Monday, January 16, 2012
FSU is hiring, 2012 edition...
Florida State University's appointments committee for the College of Law serves from January to January, rather than the traditional academic year assignment. Our new committee is now gearing up and we are once again in the fortunate position where we are looking to hire with no particular curriculum restrictions. If you’re an aspiring rookie or already a prawf, whether junior or senior, and think you or someone else you know would be interested in FSU’s extraordinary scholarly culture and good weather, among other things, please feel free to (have them) send Jeffrey Kahn (and/or me) a CV and statement of interest. The 2012 committee includes Jeffrey Kahn (Chair), Mark Seidenfeld, Franita Tolson, Wayne Logan, and Shawn Bayern.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Two Thunderously Trivial Thoughts on "Transformative Deans"
Thanks to a colleague's tip, I came across Brian's interesting post where he identifies nine transformative deans during the last decade. (I guess it's the mid-summer doldrums that prompt this collective navel-gazing!) Anyway, as usual, he has some acute observations about who's been able to shake things up effectively, and certainly he's correct in his assessment of FSU's wunderkind dean...unlike Brian, I am happy to be objective without being neutral :-)
But I want to register a small point of caution related to something I wrote last year about one of these transformative deans (whom I happen to love). While it's true that effective deans can do a lot to win faculty retention challenges, I think we need to avoid overstating how much credit deans can take regarding the hiring of high-quality faculty.
Faculty hiring at most schools is a very collaborative process, and in most cases, it should be. While deans at some schools can appoint who sits on the hiring committee, other schools leave that decision to the faculty itself to vote on. Even at schools where the dean appoints the appcomm, the dean cannot be assured that the committee will read/invite/approve those people the dean wants (assuming the dean even specified who she wants). Nor can the dean, at most schools, expect to have all the non-appcomm cats herded on voting days and have them vote as she wants. This may not be true in DVZ's world, where he is said (on what I take to be spectacular authority) to have fined people who didn't fall into line with his vision, among other aggressive tactics. But most schools do not have deans that are so, um, empowering of (or susceptible to) the unitary executive...and at least in some cases, the deans who assert such authority are regarded as rapscallions and worse. In light of this complex sausage-making reality of faculty hiring, one has to be cautious with praise in this dimension, just as one should be careful with criticism that deans are "responsible" for the failure to hire libertarians or women or any other group. After all, and put simply, faculty hiring is a they, not a s/he.
A second minor point worth mention: when it comes to noting the spending habits of deans, one has to also be aware of whether the successors (and the other stakeholders) are as thrilled with the resulting balance sheets as those who made the decisions. A law school's transformation that is built on shaky financial ground may share the same half-life as an O'Connor or Brennan opinion.
Last, Brian didn't open up comments on his post. So feel free to weigh in with your own thoughts here, but bear in mind the usual rules of the road here.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
I've been off the box for most of the last few days so I haven't had a chance to share directly the news of the passing of my FSU colleague Steve Gey, but I am glad that Howard, Franita and Dan have already shared some news and links that give you a glimpse of Steve's wisdom, fortitude and humor through the best and worst of times.
Losing Steve is devastating to the students and family and friends who loved him, the colleagues who admired him from near and afar, the administrators whose tasks he eased with his enthusiasm for FSU, and the world of ideas and constitutional law that he illuminated over and over again with his passion and insight.
Our bright and beautiful world is dimmer without you, Steve, and we will miss you terribly.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
The Legislative Catnip of Crime Registries
Just in case y'all missed it, here's a link to Erica Goode's very interesting story from the front page of today's NYTimes about the way states are thinking about expanding eligibility for their crime registries and communal notification requirements. My beloved FSU colleague, Wayne Logan, is probably the leading scholar in the country on this topic -- here's a link to his recent book -- and unsurprisingly, he appears in the story with some great commentary.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Exclusive Submission Window Available at Florida State's Law Review
My wonderful former student, Hannah Monroe, is the new senior articles editor at the Florida State University Law Review. She's asked me to share this information. Feel free to contact me or her about this opportunity. See below.
The Florida State University Law Review will be conducting exclusive spring article reviews. Any article submitted to this exclusive review between now and April 10, 2011, will be evaluated by April 18, 2011. By submitting the article during this window you agree to accept an offer for publication should one be extended. Any articles accepted through this review will be published in Volume 39, which is slated for publication in 2012.
If you have an article which you would like to submit, please e-mail an attached copy of the article and your cv and cover letter to [email protected] with the subject line "Exclusive Spring Article Review." (Keep in mind: this opportunity applies also to articles you may have submitted to FSU earlier this season but you need to re-send the piece under the appropriate subject line). (And per the comment below, the character after the m in Hannah's email address is a zero, not an "o".
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Some prawfy options may still be available at FSU
I'm thrilled to say we've hired six lateral and rookie folks for next year but we are still hiring at FSU! So, if you either are someone or know someone who is still interested in an academic law position for next year, perhaps as a visitor, please let me know asap with an expression of interests and I'll forward it along to the relevant folks. It's especially helpful if you can send along a cv to me. We have wide needs and as always seek a diverse pool of applicants from a wide range of backgrounds and interests.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Tri For Gey 5!
Long-time readers of this blog know about the heroic defiance of my colleague, Steve Gey, against ALS (aka Lou Gehrig's) disease. I just received this email from one of favorite former students, Kristie Klein, who has been a terrific friend to Steve and a relentless foe of ALS. Please live and give generously.
Despite being told in 2006 that he only had three years to live, Professor Gey has defied the odds and continues his battle against ALS. Gey fights on, We fight on - and on April 9, 2011, I'll be competing in the TRI-FOR-GEY-FIVE … yes, that’s right, our fifth year of Tri For Gey! In honor of Professor Gey, and the Tri For Gey Five team, please consider donating $5 to the Professor Steven G. Gey Endowment for Civil Liberties. To do so, follow these three steps:
(2) Under the "Designation" drop down menu, choose “Gey Endowment for Civil Liberties”
(3) For tribute information, please indicate that you're donating "in honor of" me or any of the other awesome members of Team Gey.
Professor Gey will see the names of everyone who donates – and now, more than ever, it’s important that we show him some support.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
FSU Law Review Exclusive Submission Window
My research assistant, the wonderful Will Ourand, is also the FSU Law Review's Senior Articles Editor. He asked me to post this:
The Florida State University Law Review will be conducting exclusive fall article reviews. Any article submitted to this exclusive review between now and October 17, 2010 will be evaluated by October 31, 2010. By submitting the article you agree to accept an offer for publication should one be extended. Any articles accepted through this review will be published in Issue 4 of Volume 38, which is slated for publication in summer or fall of 2011.
If you have an article which you would like to submit, please e-mail an attached copy of the article and your resume to [email protected] with the subject line "Exclusive Fall Article Review." (Keep in mind: this opportunity applies also to articles you may have submitted earlier this season).
Friday, October 08, 2010
The FSU/ACS Criminal Justice and the Constitution in 2020 Conference: Streaming Here
If you're not available to be here in the Hassee for the Criminal Justice and the Constitution in 2020 event, you can watch it with an 8 second delay right now over at this link. Coming up this afternoon: Jack Chin (right now); Wayne Logan; Richard Myers, Bernard Harcourt, Sharon Dolovich, Reid Fontaine, me, and Doug Berman.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Rotations and sundry
Happy Simchas Torah, and happy world vegetarian day too. It's also a new month so it's time for some rotations here at Prawfs. First, many thanks to the stellar crew of guests who were here through the month of September, and second, welcome to our new visitors for the month of October. Making his debut at Prawfs this month is David Horton of Loyola Law School in LA. And returning to the conversation are FoP's, Jessie Hill (Case Western); Marc DeGirolami (St. John's); and Geoff Rapp (UToledo). We're thrilled to have you here. Readers, you can learn more about these wonderful folks from the links on the sidebar.
Also: if you've not yet registered for the FSU Criminal Justice Conference but are still thinking of coming, please register over here. If you can't be here in the Hassee in person, you should bookmark this link, and then you'll be able to watch the video of the conference when it happens or at least shortly after next week.
Last, this month augurs not only my 56th month of wedding bliss but also, inshalla, and as I mentioned the other day, a new baby later on so if things don't run quite as smoothly over the next little while, please be patient. Happy October!
Monday, September 27, 2010
FSU and ACS Criminal Justice in 2020 Conference: Updated Schedule and Registration
As mentioned in these pages earlier, FSU and the ACS are hosting a really neat conference on the future of criminal justice here in funky t-town. The schedule I circulated earlier has been updated somewhat (see below) but I hope y'all are marking your calendars for Oct 7-8th! If you're a crim prawf, lawyer, law student, or just someone interested in criminal justice issues, I hope you'll come to this (free) conference at FSU. You can register over here. Kudos to ACS, my dean (Don Weidner), my colleagues Susan Bandes, Reid Fontaine and Wayne Logan, and our wonderful support staff for making this happen. As I find out information about streaming the conference, I'll let you know. And this week and next, Jack Balkin is posting a blog post from each of the contributors up on Balkinization. (Sorry for my dithering Jack; I'm almost finished mine!) Anyway, here's the updated schedule:
Thursday, October 7:
6 p.m. - Keynote Address by Steve Bright, Southern Center for Human Rights
Friday, October 8:
8:30-8:55 a.m. - Opening Remarks Dean Don Weidner, Florida State University College of Law, Professor Jack Balkin, Yale Law School
9-10:30 a.m. - Panel One: National Security and Liberty
Jack Balkin, Yale Law School (moderator), Susan Herman, Brooklyn Law School and ACLU, John Parry, Lewis & Clark Law School, Marc Rotenberg, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chris Slobogin, Vanderbilt University Law School
10:40 a.m.-12:10 p.m. - Panel Two: Crime Control and Equality
Susan Bandes, DePaul University College of Law/Florida State University College of Law (moderator and panelist), Darryl Brown, University of Virginia School of Law, Song Richardson, DePaul University College of Law, David Sklansky, UC Berkeley School of Law
12:15-1:15 p.m. - Lunch: Remarks and Q & A with Judge Lynn Adelman, E.D. Wisconsin
1:20-2:50 p.m. - Panel Three: Citizenship and Community
Jack Chin, University of Arizona College of Law, Bernard Harcourt, University of Chicago Law School, Wayne Logan, Florida State University College of Law, Richard Myers, UNC School of Law (moderator)
3-4:30 p.m. - Panel Four: Punishment and the Constitution
Doug Berman, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Sharon Dolovich, UCLA School of Law, Reid Fontaine, Florida State University College of Law (moderator), Dan Markel, Florida State University College of Law
Monday, April 12, 2010
Originalism's Old Bulldog: Notes from Scalia's visit to FSU
I earlier mentioned how Justice Scalia was in Tallahassee (for turkey hunting season) the other day. This was just a day before we had an even more prominent guest at the enrichment series for FSU's faculty -- thanks again for coming here, Tracey :-)
As it happens, I did take some notes during Scalia's presentation, which focused on his "shtick" re: originalism. Ever witty and trenchant, Justice Scalia made a number of good points for his team, and he displayed a masterful command of his material and audience. (Kudos go to AS for taking about 15 unscreened questions from the audience and kudos to the FSU students who asked sharp and prepared questions.) Sorry, Larry, but he said nothing about semantic originalism and the interpretation/construction distinction.
I thought I'd share a few of the remarks that I found especially interesting.
For one thing, I was surprised by Adam Liptak's coverage of Stevens' retirement the next day after Scalia's presentation, because the punchline of the NYT coverage was that Stevens was the last person appointed/confirmed to the SCT on the basis of competence (or independence) as opposed to ideology. Scalia the day before made the point to the crowd that he thought he *was* the last such person, having been confirmed 98-0 by the Senate (with two R's (including Barry Goldwater) not participating in the vote). He offered the view that he didn't think he would be able to get the votes today to be confirmed.
Re: Federalism, I thought Rick Hills would be keen to hear that Scalia's prognosis is that federalism is dead and that Congress can do anything it wants. This ostensibly makes Scalia sad.
Re: Plessy and Brown, he said he thought that Plessy was wrongly decided on originalist grounds, and that Brown would also have been a decision he would have been comfortable voting for on originalist grounds. It's been a while since I read his book on "a matter of interpretation," but I thought it remarkable that he qualified his answer re: Brown with reference to a concern about stare decisis. So, would his faint-hearted originalism lead him to vote in dissent in Brown based on stare decisis? He didn't make that perfectly clear in his remarks, but I thought it a permissible inference that he was saying something like: but for stare decisis, he would have voted in the majority for Brown. Perhaps someone has heard him give a clearer answer elsewhere?
Re: docket selection, he noted that the Court is not in the business of error correction but only uniformity guidance. He said this has been true for at least a century, with a few exceptions: death penalty cases and the Haitian boat people case, because in that situation, they weren't likely to start swimming to New Jersey. I suspect Jack Chin might have something to say about that claim about error correction.
Finally, re: Bock Laundry and textualism, Scalia admitted that that case is often thrown in his face by people thinking he's inconsistent with his textualism, and he even suggested that sometimes that's one of the cases he "wonders" about, i.e., regrets, but in the end, he said, "I am unrepentant."
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Tri-4-Gey 4 is next week!
As many of you know from updates that have appeared in previous years, my FSU colleague Professor Steve Gey has ALS and it's an utterly grim situation. Making the best of the situation, Steve, a distinguished scholar in constitutional law, has been writing law review articles quite literally with his toes. Meanwhile, former students, current students, friends and colleagues are training for yet another triathlon in which they participate with the goal of raising money for a cure to ALS.
This year, the fourth since Steve was diagnosed, the folks behind the Tri-4-Gey are asking people to donate in Steve's name to Florida State's "Steve Gey Endowment for Excellence." Here's how you can do it.
(1) Go to https://foundation.fsu.edu/community/SSLPage.aspx?pid=815&srcid=838
(2) Select "Steve Gey Endowment for Excellence" from the "Designation" drop down box
(3) Fill out the requested information
(4) If you know anyone participating this year, then under the section titled "Tribute Information," select "in honor of" and put the team member's name that you are supporting in the "Name" box so that we can keep track of each team member's fundraising efforts.
After the jump, I've posted a paragraph from a recent update by Steve that shows his indomitable spirit.
Despite these unhappy circumstances, my days are still relatively full. I spend my time doing what any rational person would do with his last days on earth: writing law review articles. I've got three articles coming out very soon, another that is currently under submission, and a fifth that is about three-quarters done. Who says tenure makes you lazy? When I am not writing law review articles with my toes, I read, watch movies, and listen to music. Mostly lighthearted stuff. For example, the item currently gracing my Kindle is a novel entitled "God is Dead." The basic plot is that God comes to Earth embodied in a wounded Dinka woman in Darfur. But although God plans to apologize for his role in permitting things such as Darfur to happen, he is gunned down, which triggers the events in the rest of the book. Like I say -- lighthearted. As for movies, I heartily recommend any example of the Romanian New Wave, or any of the recent movies made by directors in the countries that used to comprise the former Yugoslavia. They are almost uniformly wonderful, if a tad bleak. (Look, I'm dying here, so what did you expect -- a recommendation of "The House Bunny"?) As for music, today it has ranged from The Clash’s "Should I Stay or Should I Go" (get it?) to the gloriously quirky Glenn Gould rendition of The Goldberg Variations. I recommend the 1981 recording of the latter, by the way. (One of my many fears of this whole locked-in thing pertains to music selection. I live in mortal fear of asking for John Coltrane’s "Blue Train" and having one of my handlers load something along the lines of the Ramones’ "I Want to Be Sedated.")
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
My invariably talented colleague Shawn Bayern puts the fun(k) in funky FSU. Yes, as you suspected, he now has a techno music album up for sale on Amazon. I think some of these tunes might have appeared on a disc he made for Ben-ben. Buy it here.
Out of curiosity, what were folks' reax to the pieces today in the NYT re: wikileaks, polarized Scotus clerk careers, quasi anti-vegetarianism (in the name of plants' right to life!), and organ selling??
FWIW, I think Satel's case for modified incentives for organs is quite strong; I'm a little nervous about widespread use of wikileaks, but that's probably unjustified (watched Bourne Ultimatum again last night and thought Pam Landy today would scan and upload there...); sympathetic to Angier's piece on plant rights but not willing to bite the bullet -- what else will we eat, I wonder; and last, doubt if Clinton Admin is to blame for the change post-1990 in clerk trajectories. Liptak's piece suggests that's when the "troubles" began. Can POTUS be to blame for this? Unlikely...
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Eric Barron named new President of FSU
Well, as promised/threatened by the relevant powers that be, the FSU presidential search committee has acted very expeditiously from the time that all nominations were in to the time the selection was made--approximately 3 weeks!
Eric Barron will be replacing TK Wetherell at FSU's helm. This should be a relatively straightforward transition, especially compared to the simultaneous transition over at the Seminoles' football squad, where Bobby Bowden is finally retiring after a zillion years. Anyone wonder if the president will get paid more than the coach?
The press release appears after the jump.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Prawfsfest! in the Hassee
Tonight marks the onset of Prawfsfest! 5, our roving public law/legal theory workshop for early works in progress. The gathering takes place this semester here in Sweet Sassy Tallahassee over the next few days at FSU. I'm very grateful to Deans Don Weidner and Wayne Logan and the administrative support team here at FSU for their help and energy.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Tri-4-Gey, and an update from Steve Gey
The folllowing is a press release that I thought would interest the academic legal community as well as the numerous fans of Professor Steve Gey outside the professoriate. I am also posting Steve's most recent update, which is both, and again, heart-breaking and inspiring.
Donations can be made in Professor Gey’s name at www.active.com/donate/Tri-For-
Select Quotes from Professor Gey in letters to the Tri-for-Gey team:
· “The basic plan now is the same as it was a year ago: figure out how to deal with an ever-diminishing number of body parts, until some doctor trips over a cure to ALS while trying to develop a new and improved version of Rogaine.”
· “It's probably safe to say that I'm on track to fulfill the usual prognosis for all ALS patients, which basically gives me the life expectancy of a hummingbird. I've just decided to act as if that's not the reality, and I'm happy to say that all of you are helping me perpetuate my self-delusion.”
· “If you crazy people are still willing to get up at the crack of dawn and jump in a frigid lake, and then run and ride yourselves silly, then I may as well try to stick around to see what you all look like in wetsuits.”
· Regarding his new-found freedom to watch French movies: “Indeed, my present circumstances have given me a whole new perspective on the nouvelle vague. I now find Jean-Luc Godard’s Weekend oddly comforting. So you see? This whole fatal disease thing isn't all that bad after all.”
- Tri-for-Gey Fundraising website: http://www.active.com/donate/
- Tri-for-Gey III Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/home.
- Tri-forGey II Facebook page (photos from last year’s triathlon available): http://www.facebook.com/home.
- St Petersburg Times article featuring his students’ devotion: http://www.tampabay.com/
- Professor Gey is the author of a myriad of controversial articles (http://www.law.fsu.edu/
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Entry Level Hiring Report at Legal Theory Blog
For those of you with relevant information on the hiring of entry level profs, please visit the Legal Theory blog of our friend Larry Solum to share the info. Larry reports he is going high-tech this year:
This year, I will be using surveymonkey to collect the data. The data elements are similar to prior years. I am collecting information on the candidate's first law degree (JD), other advanced degrees in law or another discipline, practice experience, post-doc's/fellowships/VAPs, and areas of specialization/methodological orientation. Click Here to enter data for the 2009 Entry Level Hiring Report. The first preliminary results will be reported in about one week.
For those lacking patience, readers of prawfs might be happy to hear that FSU has already made three hires and we are still hoping to hire more. So far, we've hired Tara Grove (HLS, Climenko); Franita Tolson (UChicago, VAP at NW); and Shawn Bayern (Boalt, Duke VAP). Prospective students (and professors) keen to learn more about FSU might want to check out our latest
propaganda tool information sharing device. :-)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Great Conference on International Criminal Tribunals
For those of you able to come join us in the Hassee, you should try to clear some time next week on Jan 29-31 to attend an exciting symposium entitled: International Criminal Tribunals: Problems and Prospects. Justice Richard Goldstone will be one of the several distinguished speakers.
January 30-31, 2009
The Claude Pepper Auditorium
Florida State University
Thursday January 29, 2009 Pre-Conference Lunch &Talk
FSU Law School Rotunda
Attorney David Akerson, FSU Law School Alumnus
“From FSU Law School to the International Criminal Tribunals”
Friday January 30, 2009
9:15 AM Welcome & Introductory Remarks
Professor Terry Coonan, Executive Director, CAHR
9:30 AM Introduction of Justice Richard Goldstone
President Emeritus & Professor of Law Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte
Justice Richard Goldstone
Former Chief Prosecutor, UN International Criminal Tribunals, the Former Yugoslavia & Rwanda
“International Criminal Tribunals: Problems & Prospects”
Respondent & Discussion Facilitator
Professor Bert Lockwood, Editor-in-Chief, Human Rights Quarterly
11:00 AM Introduction of David Tolbert
Professor Sumner “Barney” Twiss, Distinguished Scholar, CAHR
David Tolbert, U.S. Institute of Peace
Former Deputy Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia & Special Advisor to the UN Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials
“Making Complementarity Work: Lessons from Yugoslavia and Cambodia”
Respondent & Discussion Facilitator
Professor Fernando Teson, Tobias Simon Eminent Scholar, FSU Law School
12:30 PM Lunch
2:00 PM Introduction of Mark Ellis
Monsignor William Kerr, Executive Director, FSU Pepper Center
Mark Ellis, Executive Director, International Bar Association
“Strengthening the International Criminal Court Through Domestic Prosecutions”
Respondent & Discussion Facilitator
President Emeritus Sandy D’Alemberte
3:30 PM Coffee Break
3:45 PM Introduction of Susana Sacouto
Professor Terry Coonan
Professor Susana Sacouto, Director, War Crimes Research Office, American University Washington College of Law
“Victim Participation in Proceedings of the International Criminal Court”
Respondent & Discussion Facilitator
Professor Wayne Logan, Gary & Sally Pajcic Professor of Law, FSU Law School
5:15 PM Adjourn
7:30 PM Dinner
Saturday January 31, 2009
9:30 AM Introduction of Fergal Gaynor
Wendi Adelson, Program Director, CAHR
Barrister Fergal Gaynor, Irish Centre for Human Rights
Former Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia & Rwanda
“Prosecutorial Challenges & Accomplishments of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda”
Respondent & Discussion Facilitator
Professor David Akerson, Denver University Sturm College of Law
11:00 AM Introduction of April Carter
Professor Terry Coonan
April Carter, Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
“A View from the Trenches—an ICTY Prosecutor”
Respondent & Discussion Facilitator
Professor Lee Metcalf, Director, FSU Graduate Studies Program in International Affairs
12:30 PM Lunch
2:00 PM Introduction of Nicholas Stewart
Professor Barney Twiss
Nicholas Stewart, Defence Council, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
“A View from the Trenches—an ICTY Defense Attorney”
Respondent & Discussion Facilitator
Mark Ellis, Executive Director, International Bar Association
3:30 PM Concluding Remarks & Thanks
President Emeritus Sandy D’Alemberte
7:00 PM Dinner (off-campus)
Thursday, September 11, 2008
As you may have seen over on Brian Leiter's blog, there's a new study of faculty productivity that was produced by Professor Yelnosky at Roger Williams Law School. The study measures the scholarly productivity of professors at law schools ranked outside the top 50 of USNews. To my delight, Florida State ranks third, trailing a bit behind USanDiego and Cardozo. Richmond is not far behind FSU. San Diego warrants mention for being just a point and a half behind Harvard. (NB: When Brian did a similar study of the "top" schools, FSU ranked 31st nationally; Cardozo and USanDiego tied at 22d. I'd be very curious to see what the numbers look like today.) The study's methodology is pretty interesting and probably somewhat controversial insofar as it measures productivity by focusing on how much scholarship gets selected for publication in the "top" journals. Yelsnosky explains that 67 journals were deemed "top":
We included the general law reviews published by the 54 schools receiving the highest peer assessment scores in the 2008 U.S. NEWS RANKINGS (47 schools had a peer assessment score of 2.9 or higher; 7 had a score of 2.8) and an additional 13 journals that appear in the top 50 of the Washington & Lee Law Journal Combined Rankings. An alphabetical listing of those journals can be found on this website, as can the U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT RANKINGS and Washington & Lee Law Journal Combined Rankings on which that list of 67 journals is based.
For those of you making decisions about which journals to send your stuff, your deans will be especially happy if you place in these ones, rather than other ones you might be tempted by. This study, consequently, might create certain feedback loops. Another important aspect of how this was measured includes the deduction of points for articles published in journals in one's home institution and for articles that are short:
For each qualifying article, we used Professor Leiter’s system: 0 points for articles under 6 pages; 1 point for articles 6-20 pages in length; 2 points for articles 21-50 pages in length; and 3 points for articles exceeding 50 pages. For articles appearing in a journal published by the faculty member’s home institution, the points assigned were reduced by one-half. The total number of points for all members of a faculty was divided by the number of faculty, yielding the institution’s per capita score.
Given the limited ambition of what the study purports to measure, I'm not sure I have too many quibbles with its design. I can imagine that faculties with lots of legal historians (UNC?) or other specialties might suffer under this metric. And if I had my druthers, I'd probably deduct all (not just half the) points for publication in a journal belonging to one's home institution.
By the way, Brian remarks: "For those on the law teaching market, this study is not a bad tool for gauging which more regional law schools have serious scholarly culture." Indeed, but the point should dig deeper: the study also raises the question of which of the top 50 law schools don't have a "serious scholarly culture," at least comparatively and based on this metric. Unfortunately, we don't have enough data for that determination; actually, I'm a bit surprised that Yelnosky didn't undertake that. In light of the already substantial work that was involved, I wonder how much more work it would have been to include the rest. In any event Yelnosky deserves thanks for putting this together and if your school was not measured by Yelnosky but you've done a self-study to mimic it, please feel free to share that info in the comments. Of course, if you're on the market this year, you may want to ask the schools you're meeting with about how they fare or at least what they think of the study--but probably best to do so after you get an offer!
Friday, August 01, 2008
FSU Law Ranks Very Highly on the New Leiter Methodology
It may not please Jason in terms of what he's trying to measure in the race to the top, but according to Jim Rossi, our fearless number-crunching Associate Dean for Research, Florida State's College of Law compares quite favorably on the new Leiter Rankings methodology.
Jim reports: "we seem to fall right around [Leiter's] cut-off for the top 20, right behind Minnnesota (which has an average of 200), but a) this is based on numbers [Rossi] ran [yesterday] and b) [Rossi] really don't know how many other schools are in the same general ballpark since Minnesota is the lowest ranking school [Leiter] reports for the most recent citation numbers." Please let me know if Rossi is missing anything here. We'll be happy to correct it. And if you're a school who wants to run numbers similar to the setup below, then please feel free to share the stats in the comments as they appear in the table below with the date the stats were performed.
Name Total Cites Post-2000 Cites
in JLR in JLR
frederick /2 abbott 659 463
rob /2 atkinson 413 205
barbara /2 banoff 117 80
donna /2 christie 100 65
robin /2 craig 219 139
joseph /2 dodge 473 356
dino /2 falaschetti 7 5
steven /2 gey 681 287
elwin /2 griffith 93 64
adam /2 hirsch 380 269
tahirih /2 lee 118 70
wayne /2 logan 311 187
david /2 markell 272 189
gregg /2 polsky 116 85
david f /2 powell 8 7
jim /2 rossi 552 343
j.b. /2 ruhl 943 558
mark /2 seidenfeld 690 411
nat /2 stern 173 77
fernando /2 teson 490 218
manuel /2 utset 143 87
donald /2 weidner 263 171
Average 328.23 197.09
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Some news of varying degrees of excitement:0-11
Ah, the beginning of exam-grading period: it is, by my lights, the best time to procrastinate by writing incessantly. And while my wife could have been eating donuts with Jack in Tucson the last few days, I've had the chance to
finish assemble cobble from here and there a shitty first draft of Implementing Retributive Damages. Ok, "draft" is overstated; there are still various holes in the text to write. But as the second of a trilogy -- you can read a more developed draft of the first part, Retributive Damages, up on SSRN -- Implementing Retributive Damages raises and hopefully resolves all sorts of neat policy questions that I had to defer from the first installment.
This bricolage comes just in time. On Thursday I'm slotted to present the basic ideas of the paper to my colleagues here at FSU Law over lunch before going on the road with it this summer to Vancouver, NYC, and Palm Beach. If you're in the 'Hassee this Thursday, and interested, please let me know--you're welcome to come munch on Qdoba or some such with us while I talk about pluralism about punitive damages purposes, punishing entities, dirty-handed plaintiffs, and procedural safeguards for civil defendants facing retributive damages.
Speaking of FSU Law, some really great news in the last few days has emerged. First, our graduates just led the state in bar passage--again. Florida State ranked first among Florida’s ten law schools in the passing rate on the February 2008 administration of the Florida Bar Examination. Our first place passing rate of 93.6% was followed by UF’s passing rate of 88.3%. The overall passing rate was 76.4%. Florida State Law has had the highest passing rate in four of the last five administrations of the Florida Bar Exam. Second, and at least equally impressive, the Dean recently announced that according to data recently released by the ABA, Florida State Law has the 13th best alumni giving rate among the nation’s law schools, at 26.1%, with only two state schools ahead of us, UVa and UCLA. Given FSU's relative youth and its status as a public law school, I think that sense of alumni engagement says something quite good about the school -- and our development office! Moreover, it looks like this coming year we will have a burgeoning smatter of criminal justice-related activities and initiatives that I'll be coordinating with Wayne Logan. More on that to follow.
Last, though definitely not least, Prawfsfest! is coming!! After two successful incubator workshops at Miami and Loyola LA the last two Decembers, we are now contemplating a move toward doing them on a semi-annual basis instead of an annual one. Well, that's the ambition; that, and warm weather hosts during the winter. Toward that goal, I'm thrilled to announce that Dean Nora Demleitner and her colleagues at Hofstra will be hosting Prawfsfest! this coming July. Details are still being worked out, but we will gather in NY before the SEALS Conference. Stay tuned for more info on this great match: Hawfsfest! at Prawfstra. Er, I meant Prawfsfest! at Hofstra.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
A Critical Tax Conference at FSU
Some of the nation’s leading tax law faculty members will be at Florida State College of Law on April 4-5 for the 2008 Critical Tax Conference. Event hosts are Florida State prawfs Joseph Dodge, Brian Galle and Charlene Luke. The annual conference has been in existence for about a decade and is hosted by a different institution each year. The event allows tax scholars to present their works-in-progress for feedback from peers. From the schedule, it looks like there will be some conversation about the nature of critical tax theory as well. This year's presenters include:
Yariv Brauner, University of Florida
Kim Brooks, McGill University
Neil Buchanan, George Washington University
Joseph Dodge, Florida State University
Brian Galle, Florida State University
Wendy Gerzog, University of Baltimore
Lily Kahng, Seattle University
Sarah Lawsky, George Washington University
Leandra Lederman, Indiana University
Charlene Luke, Florida State University
Beverly Moran, Vanderbilt University
Henry Ordower, St. Louis University
Diane Ring, Boston College
Mildred Robinson, University of Virginia
Nancy Shurtz, University of Oregon
Nancy Staudt, Northwestern University
You can find a pdf of the conference schedule here. I believe the sessions are open at least to faculty and probably others too. (Note to BDG: I have diligently scrubbed this post of all the obvious tax prof conference jokes.)
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Workshops etc. this fall at FSU's College of Law
Notwithstanding the budget cuts we're facing across Florida, there are still plenty of interesting things going on, especially at the FSU law school this fall. The juniors are continuing their own incubator workshop series and we'll be having a philosophy reading group as well as a new crim reading group; more generally, our excellent external workshop series moves apace, with over 20 speakers coming to break bread with us and share wisdom. The workshop series schedule appears after the jump. If you're a prawf who will be in T-town or nearby on those dates, let me know and we should be able to squeeze you in for lunch.
Speaking of wisdom, I'm particularly keen to hear David Schmidtz' presentation on the History of Liberty later this fall. Schmidtz is visiting FSU's law school this fall from the Philosophy and Economics Departments at the University of Arizona, where he heads the Philosophy of Freedom program. Not only a fellow Canadian by origin, he's also prone to writing philosophy of the sort that connects to the big questions, much like this wonderful essay. He joins Joseph Sanders, one of the leading torts and scientific evidence scholars in the academy, who will also be visiting us for the fall semester. We're very glad to have them both.
Thursday, September 6 - Professor Kristen Hickman, University of Minnesota. Topic: In Search of the Modern Skidmore Standard (Rossi)
Thursday, September 13 - Professor Suja Thomas, University of Cincinnati. Topic: Why the Motion to Dismiss Could be Unconstitutional (Wexler)
Friday, September 14 - Professor Heidi Hurd, University of Illinois. Topic: The Morality of Mercy (Bridgeman)
Monday, September 17 - Professor Randy Abate, Florida Coastal. Topic: TBA (Ruhl)
Thursday, September 20 - Professor Paul Robinson, University of Pennsylvania. Topic: What Distributive Principles Should Guide Punishment? (Markel)
Thursday, September 27 - Professor Joseph Sanders, University of Houston Law Center. Topic: A Norms Approach to Jury 'Nullification': Interests, Values and Scripts
Thursday, October 4 - Professor Daniel Rodriguez, University of Texas School of Law. Topic: Is Administrative Law Inevitable? (Rossi)
Monday, October 8 - Professor Royal Gardner, Stetson Law School. Topic: TBA (Ruhl)
Wednesday, October 10 - Professor Erin O’Hara, Vanderbilt Law School. Topic: TBA (Wexler)
Thursday, October 18 - Professor Gabriel J. Chin, University of Arizona. Topic: TBA (Markel)
Thursday, November 1 - Professor Matthew Stephenson, Harvard Law School. Topic: TBA (Seidenfeld)
Thursday, November 8 - Professor Julian Juergensmeyer, Georgia State University College of Law. Topic: TBA (Ruhl)
Thursday, November 15 - Professor Peter Strauss, Columbia Law School. (Distinguished Scholar in Residence during week of November 13-16) (Galle)
Thursday, November 29 - Professor David Schmidtz, University of Arizona (Department of Philosophy). Topic: The History of Liberty
Thursday, January 17 - Professor Margaret Blair, Vanderbilt Law School. Topic: Assurance Services as a Substitute for Law in Global Commerce (Rossi)
Thursday, January 24 - Professor Thomas Stratmann, George Mason University Economics Department. Topic: TBA (Falaschetti)
Thursday, January 31 - Professor Ethan Yale, Georgetown Law Center. Topic: TBA (Galle)
Thursday, February 7 - Professor John Mayo, Georgetown University School of Business. Topic: TBA (Falaschetti)
Thursday, February 14 - Professor Jonathan Simon, University of California-Berkeley. Topic: TBA (Markel)
February 20-21 - Professor Jutta Brunnée, University of Toronto (Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law Distinguished Lecturer). Topic: TBA (Markell)
Thursday, March 20 - Professor Pamela Samuelson, University of California-Berkeley. Topic: TBA (de Larena)
Thursday, March 27 - Professor F. Scott Kieff, Washington University-St. Louis. Topic: TBA (de Larena)
April 4-5 - Critical Tax Conference (organized by Dodge/Galle)
Thursday, April 10 - Professor Rick Geddes, Cornell University Department of Economics. Topic: TBA (Falaschetti)
Monday, April 14 - Professor Suzanne Scotchmer, UC-Berkeley (Goldman School of Public Policy). Topic: TBA (Falaschetti)
Friday, April 06, 2007
Takings Conference at FSU
For all you Takings law and economics junkies, there's going to be a conference at Florida State's College of Law on April 20-21, 2007, in conjunction with FSU's Economics Department. Blog-readers of the Volokh Conspiracy and Jurisdynamics will especially appreciate the presence of Ilya Somin, Jonathan Adler, and my colleague JB Ruhl. The conference is titled, "Takings: The Uses and Abuses of Eminent Domain and Land Use Regulation" and it is being sponsored by FSU's DeVoe Moore Center and the Law School's Law, Economics and Business Program.
I've posted the schedule of papers after the jump. If you're interested in attending, please contact Prof. Bruce Benson at bbenson at garnet.acns.fsu.edu
Note: The 50 minutes allocated to each paper in the following schedule will be broken down as follows: Paper presentation, 20 minutes; discussant, 15 minutes; general discussion, 15 minutes.
The conference will take place in the Rotunda of the Law School.
Friday, April 20
8:50-9:00: Opening remarks
9:00-9:50: Mark Seidenfeld, Patricia A. Dore Professor of Administrative Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Florida State University College of Law, “A Limited Defense of Kelo: Suggestions for Preventing Abuse of Eminent Domain to Transfer Property from One Private Entity to Another”
Discussant: Richard Stroup, Senior Associate, Property and Environmental Research Center, and Professor and Chair (Retired), Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University; Visiting Professor of Economics, North Carolina State University
9:50-10:40: Steven Eagle, Professor, George Mason University School of Law, “Landowner Participation in the Urban Redevelopment Process: A Partial Solution to Eminent Domain Abuse?”
Discussant: Perry Shapiro, Professor, Department of Economics, University of California – Santa Barbara.
11:00-11:50: Scott Bullock, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice, “The Inadequacy of the Planning Process for Protecting Property Owners from the Abuse of Eminent Domain for Private Development”
Discussant: Wallace Kaufman, M.Litt. Oxon., Professor (retired) and Practicing Appraiser.
11:50-12:40: Daren Bakst, J.D., LL.M., Legal & Regulatory Policy Analyst, John Locke Foundation, “Making the Case for an Eminent Domain Amendment to the United States Constitution”
Discussant: Bruce Benson, Chair, Department of Economics, DeVoe Moore and Distinguished Research Professor, Courtesy Professor of Law, Florida State University
1:40-2:30: Paul Niemann, PhD. Candidate in Economics, University of California – Santa Barbara, and Perry Shapiro, Professor, Department of Economics, University of California – Santa Barbara, “Compensation for Takings: Efficiency and Equity”
Discussant: Randall Holcombe, DeVoe Moore Professor, Department of Economics, Florida State University
2:30-3:20: Wallace Kaufman, M.Litt. Oxon., Professor (retired) and Practicing Appraiser, “How Fair is Market Value: An Appraiser's Report of Temptations and Distortions in the Condemnation Process”
Discussant: Tom Means, Professor, Department of Economics, California State University, San Jose
3:40-4:30: Samuel Staley, Ph.D. Director, Urban and Land Use Policy, Reason Foundation, “The Proper Uses of Eminent Domain for Urban Redevelopment: Is Eminent Domain Necessary?”
Discussant: Christopher Coyne, Assistant Professor Department of Economics, Hampden-Sydney College
4:30-5:20: Ilya Somin, Assistant Professor, George Mason University School of Law, “The Limits of Backlash: Assessing the Political Response to Kelo”
Discussant: Charles Barrilleaux, Professor, Department of Political Science, Florida State University
Saturday, April 21
9:00-9:50: Bruce Benson, Chair, Department of Economics, DeVoe Moore and Distinguished Research Professor, Courtesy Professor of Law, Florida State University, and Matt Brown, PhD candidate in Economics, Florida State University, and Policy Research Director, Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, “Eminent Domain for Private Use: Is it Justified by Market Failure or an Example of Government Failure?”
Discussant: Steven Eagle, Professor, George Mason University School of Law
9:50-10:40: Peter J. Boettke Professor, Department of Economics, George Mason University; Peter T. Leeson, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, University of West Virginia; and Christopher J. Coyne, Assistant Professor Department of Economics, Hampden-Sydney College, “Impact of Regulatory Takings on Entrepreneurial Discovery”
Discussant: Edward Stringham, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, California State University, San Jose
11:00-11:50: Matt Brown, PhD candidate in Economics, Florida State University, and Policy Research Director, Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, and Richard Stroup, Senior Associate, Property and Environmental Research Center, and Professor and Chair (Retired), Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University; Visiting Professor of Economics, North Carolina State University, “Markets versus Takings: Deciding the Future of the Past”
Discussant: Sam Staley, Ph.D. Director, Urban and Land Use Policy, Reason Foundation
11:50-12:40: Jonathan Adler, Associate Professor, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, “Money or Nothing: The Adverse Environmental Consequences of Uncompensated Regulatory Takings”
Discussant: J.B. Ruhl, Matthews & Hawkins Professor of Property, College of Law, Florida State University
1:40-2:30: Tom Means, Professor, and Edward Stringham, Assistant Professor, both in the Department of Economics, California State University, San Jose, “Testing the Impact of Affordable Housing Mandates”
Discussant: Ron Cheung, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Florida State University
2:30-2:40: Closing remarks (e.g., instructions for submitting final papers for publication)
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Funky T-town Update
One of the things I am asked is if I believe in a living Constitution," Alito said in his speech, referring to a thought that the Constitution can reflect the times. "Umpires face this very same problem. For example, do we want a living strike zone?"
The idea of a living constitution is getting some airing as I write (and not simply from Ethan). Here at FSU's College of Law we have the privilege of hosting Prof. Peter Rubin from Georgetown. Peter is in town for the day meeting and speaking with students as part of his role as ACS founder and spokesperson. Also in town for the day is Jerry Reichman, who is giving the Lillich Memorial Lecture this afternoon, after having already presented a provocative paper at a faculty lunch workshop.
Tomorrow is equally busy: Scott Shapiro from Michigan is presenting at a lunch workshop followed by the inimitable Kate Litvak in the afternoon, on the subject of Sarbanes-Oxley and the Cross-Listing Premium. Kate is talking to students (and others) in Jon Klick and (visiting blogger) Jonah Gelbach's Empirical Legal Studies seminar, which has also hosted (Prawfs alum) Yair Listokin (Yale), Joanna Shepherd (Emory), Eric Helland (Claremont McKenna), and is slated to host Daniel Ho (Stanford), and Albert Yoon (Northwestern).
More exciting news is that
good great things are also happening on the hiring and retention front at FSU. In addition to hiring Kelli Alces at the entry level, FSU has enticed both Manuel Utset (formerly of Utah) and Wayne Logan (formerly of William Mitchell via a visit at William and Mary) to accept senior posts--they came to FSU on a reverse look-see, that is, they came with offer in hand and accepted during their visits this semester. (Btw, check out Wayne's very interesting op-ed in the National Law Journal on the subject of federal prosecutions of sex offenders who fail to register in states to which they migrate.) And just recently, FSU has also lured Dino Falaschetti, a rising law and economics star, to join at the senior level. Dino's hire is particularly valuable to us as FSU builds its Law, Economics and Business Center and in light of Jon Klick's absence next year as he visits Penn and Columbia. Additionally, Gregg Polsky, a youngish senior tax scholar from UMinn, will be coming on a reverse look-see in the next year or two, as will Michael Z. Green, from Texas Wesleyan. On the retention front, Jim Rossi has turned down a senior offer at Illinois to stay at FSU as our dean of research, and Curtis Bridgeman, who's only in his 3d year of teaching, turned down a tenured offer from Ohio State to stay at FSU, where he will become the James Edmund and Margaret Elizabeth Hennessey Corry Professor. Also of note: both JB Ruhl and Jim Rossi have visits lined up at Harvard in 2008. It's a sunny day in T-town...now, about that living strike zone.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
"Hi, I'm Gov. Crist, and I'm here to make your professor a judge."
I meant to blog about this a bit earlier, but it escaped my attention. A couple weeks ago, the newly elected Governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, decided to appoint an adjunct professor at FSU to an appellate judgeship. The story begins here and continues after the jump:
Gov. Charlie Crist brought a lesson on the judicial appointment process to life when he made a surprise visit to a Florida State University law classroom Thursday to appoint a professor to an appellate judgeship.
L. Clayton "Clay" Roberts and FSU President Emeritus Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte, who co-teach a class on state constitutional law, were leading a discussion on judicial appointments when Crist and Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp showed up to announce their administration's first judicial appointment - Roberts. Roberts will succeed retired Judge Richard Ervin III on the 1st District Court of Appeal.
"It was wonderful that it happened in the law school that I went to and where I now teach," said Roberts, a 1998 graduate of the FSU College of Law and an adjunct professor. Roberts, 41, said he was stunned to see the classroom door open and his wife, Trelles, walk in with Crist, Kottkamp and other members of Crist's team. "He said, 'Hi, I'm Gov. Crist, and I'm here to make your professor a judge.' "
Crist apparently had first gone to Roberts' office in the Capitol, where Roberts serves as executive deputy attorney general, but quickly decided to head to the law school to deliver the news upon learning that Roberts was teaching.
"Our students were really thrilled," D'Alemberte said. "That Gov. Crist would take his time to tell Clay in person is a great tribute to Clay and shows that the governor and Lt. Gov. Kottkamp are really comfortable here at FSU and that they really care about people. It also sends a signal that Crist cares a lot about judicial appointments, and not all governors do. He will pay attention to who he appoints to the judiciary."
Richard Alton, a third-year FSU law student, said the surprise appearance could not have been more on point given the day's discussion of Article 5 of the Florida Constitution.
"The governor called him Judge Roberts and handed him a piece of paper," Alton said. "We all just started clapping. This is one of the great things about going to law school at FSU - we have so much access to the government and the judicial branch. We have four courts within a three-block radius of the law school."
The judicial appointment may be the first for Crist, who took office on Jan. 2, but he did not have to look far to fill the appellate vacancy. As executive deputy attorney general, Roberts served under Crist, who was attorney general until he became governor. And like Roberts, both Crist and Kottkamp are FSU alumni.
Roberts earned his FSU law degree after graduating from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. Before serving as executive deputy attorney general, Roberts was general counsel to the Florida Department of State and director of the state Division of Elections.
"I'm excited to be able to continue my public service and will work hard to uphold the confidence of the governor and my friends who have supported me," Roberts said.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Welcome Jim Chen, Part II
Earlier this week I issued Jim Chen's Jurisdynamics a welcome to the blogosphere. It turns out Jim has since persuaded two extraordinary persons to join him at Jurisdynamics. The first is my utterly delightful FSU colleague and (soon to be erstwhile) neighbor, JB Ruhl. The second is the very funny Dan Farber (law, Berkeley). I'd like to say both are brilliant additions to Jim's efforts, but that might earn Dan's ire. (Imagine a hyperlink here to 70 Minn. L. Rev. 917). Seriously, I'm very excited to see both Dan and JB (another FSUnik) join the blogversations. Perhaps my other colleagues will soon follow. In any event, good job on recruiting, Jim! You can catch JB's maiden post on the Simply Complex Law here.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Calling all Kelo fans and critics!
If you're in the T-town neighborhood, there will be a great forum on Kelo and the future of property rights here at the FSU law school this afternoon. More info on the Environmental Forum is available here. Here's some of the info:
Few decisions of the United States Supreme Court have attracted as much attention and caused as much public debate as the June 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. Over hotly worded dissents, the Court’s majority ruled that the Fifth Amendment, which provides that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation,” does not prevent a local government from transferring property from one private landowner to another private interest in order to facilitate economic development and boost local tax revenues. Any protection from such government action, the majority ruled, must come from state and local law, not the Constitution.
Not surprisingly, many commentators quickly condemned Kelo as the last nail in the coffin of property rights, eradicating any notion that, under the Constitution, one’s home is one’s castle. On the other hand, many have risen in defense of Kelo, arguing that good government should promote economic prosperity and decide what best accomplishes that goal without close judicial oversight, and that the interests of the few who wish to hold on to their property notwithstanding the offer of fair compensation should not stand in the way of a community’s future. Kelo thus puts Florida land use policy at a crossroads. The Supreme Court has left it to the states to decide whether to favor the private individual’s property rights over the interests of community development. Florida constitutional and statutory law is not well settled on the matter, and the Legislature currently is considering whether and how to clarify matters through legislation. This Forum is intended to provide background on the varying perspectives and to stimulate discourse on which policy direction Florida should adopt.
Wade Hopping is a founding member of the Tallahassee law firm Hopping Green & Sams. His Land Use and Administrative Law practice focuses on planning and licensing of complex projects. Mr. Hopping served as a Justice in the Florida Supreme Court from 1968-1969, and was employed at Florida State University College of Law as an Adjunct Professor of Environmental Law in1978 and Land Use Law in 1984.
Michael Parker is the economic development director for the City of Tallahassee and also serves as the executive director for the Tallahassee Community Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Parker received his master’s degree in public administration from FSU and has 24 years of experience working in local government for the cities of Long Beach, California, Ft. Lauderdale and Tallahassee. Mr. Parker led the initiative to establish the Tallahassee Redevelopment Agency in 1998.
Debra W. Schiro
Debra W. Schiro, a FSU College of Law graduate, has been an assistant city attorney with Tallahassee since 2000, specializing in all aspects of eminent domain law and real estate transactions. Prior to joining the City, she was an assistant attorney general representing Districts III and VII of the Florida Department of Transportation in the acquisition of real property through condemnation. She is a member of the Association of Eminent Domain Professionals and is a vice chair of the Eminent Domain Committee of the Florida Bar.
Mark Seidenfeld is the associate dean for academic affairs and the Patricia A. Dore Professor of Administrative Law at The Florida State University College of Law. Professor Seidenfeld earned his J.D. from Stanford University in 1983, clerked for the Honorable Patricia Wald on the D.C. Circuit, and worked for the New York State Public Service Commission before joining the faculty at FSU. He has written extensively on the structure of administrative agencies and judicial review, and has taught Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, and Law & Economics as well as several courses that address particular areas of regulation.
J. B. Ruhl, Moderator
J. B. Ruhl, is the Matthews & Hawkins Professor of Property at Florida State University College of Law, where he teaches courses on Environmental Law, Land Use, and Property. Professor Ruhl is a nationally regarded expert in the fields of endangered species protection, regulation of wetlands, ecosystem management, environmental impact analysis, and related environmental and natural resources fields. His extensive publications in these fields include recent articles in the Stanford Law Review, Georgetown Law Review, Minnesota Law Review, and Ecology Law Quarterly. He is also co-author of the recently published casebook, The Law of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management (Foundation Press 2002), which is the first casebook to organize environmental law under these emerging themes. Prior to entering full-time law teaching, Professor Ruhl was a partner in the law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P., in the firm’s Austin, Texas, office. Professor Ruhl received his B.A. (1979) and J.D. (1982) degrees from the University of Virginia, and a Master of Laws (1986) in environmental law from the George Washington University.
Thanks to my colleague JB Ruhl for the tip.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
I thought I'd take a minute to say a few unrelated things. First, I want to congratulate the fine folks at the FSU Law Library on their new blog, available here; I think it's a great thing that law schools are institutionally becoming more receptive to the educational value of blogs and blogging, as indicated by the FSU library blog, and the launch of ChicawgoBlawgo.
Related to that, I am hoping L'affaire Drezner is nothing more than an outlier, and won't chill the desire for other prawfs to enter the fray. My own sense is that within three years, blogging will become very common among law faculties, and will be a way for schools' faculties to communicate with their students, alumni, and stakeholders in a real and energetic fashion. Chicago's blog is, as might be expected, blazing the trail here.
I suppose it's worth pointing out the problem that, notwithstanding the lack of barriers to entry in the blog marketplace, many of the better known academic law blogs, including this one (to our chagrin and frustration), have gender imbalances and we can't pretend they don't exist. Part of this problem is that legal academia still has a gender imbalance (not to mention ethnic/racial ones too). Perhaps if blogging becomes more accepted in law schools generally, more women scholars and more scholars from minority backgrounds will participate in this venture. My sense, based only on my experience trying to steer this ship, is that time commitments (and different priorities) thwart blogging, even for a short stint. I'm not sure what we can do to fix that, based here, but I'd be curious to hear helpful recommendations or thoughts privately via email, or on comments.
Second, I have been delinquent, and thus I wanted to extend some overdue thanks to a few of our recent guest bloggers, including Mark Fenster, Brooks Holland, Doug Lichtman, Doug Berman, and to welcome our current guest, Matt Bodie, along with some familiar returning figures, Rick Garnett (ND) and Marcy Peek (Whittier). I am also happy to see the auspicious debut of Concurring Opinions with Messrs. Solove, Wenger and Oman. Kaimi and Dan: we are grateful for your efforts the last few months here, and we wish you well in your new home in cyberspace, which will surely be easier to spell than this one.
Finally, I thought I'd mention that I'd seen Spellbound recently on DVD; if you enjoy the prospects of watching South Asian-American kids from Texas being asked to spell "yenta," it's the right movie for you and your family.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Reflections on the First Two Weeks of Classes
To blog about more fruity fare in the wake of all the devastation and death of yesterday seems odd, but life must go on, and people don't read this blog merely to be morose. I've been meaning to write lots lately but time kept slipping away in the first two weeks of classes. Happily, I have a moment or two now to share some quick thoughts. In future posts, I hope to weigh in on some of the other things my co-bloggers have brought up, especially the internet shaming issues.
With respect to teaching, life is surprising. Even though I had taught for four years when I was in graduate school, it was to undergraduates in sections, and so I thought teaching law students was going to be very very different. Turns out, not so much really.
Still, I was entirely petrified the first day for my bail to jail crim pro class. I skipped eating to minimize the chances of puking; that I didn't puke, I view as a signal triumph of the week. Indeed, once the class started, all was calm and fun.
Unsurprisingly for a rookie, I made a few important mistakes and one discovery, all of which may be of some interest or use to current/future prawfs. First, to my chagrin (and that of my students), I was radically over-ambitious about the amount of material I could cover in my 100 minute classes. (Dan Solove, you were right of course!) I realized that 25 pages of casebook reading was more or less enough for a class that length, and that aiming for more would be a burden on not only my students but also on me. I rationalized this decision by realizing that it's much more fun (and educationally beneficial) to dig more deeply into the reading and develop the skills of students through role-plays and more socratic method than it is to simply try to cover more material over the course of the semester by lecturing or moving quickly.
Second, I could tell my (upper-level) students were not thrilled with being cold-called, even though they recognized the incentive to prepare that created, and the differential benefit of a class for which they prepared from one for which they did not. Sure enough, with these issues alone, a bunch of students voted with their feet the next day, and enrollment dipped--notwithstanding my apology to the class over email that first night, which stated bluntly that I assigned too much reading and would imminently adjust the syllabus, and that I would henceforth split the class into two groups and would only call on one side each day.
Seeing the dip was not a great feeling, especially as one begins, but the brave souls I have now in my class are a joy to teach--they are motivated, bright, and on fire. I can't imagine a better group with which to begin my law teaching career. The seminar that I'm teaching in tort theory and punitive damages has had a similar dynamic. Strangely, I've realized, seminars can take substantially more work to plan than courses.
One last point. I never much cared for powerpoint or used it before, but I decided to take a chance and I now use it for the crim pro course. I have to say: I love it. The authors of the excellent casebook I use (Miller and Wright) have some barebones powerpoint slides that they make available to prawfs, and I have altered and added various slides too. What's best is how powerpoint totally liberates me from the podium and the stage. I simply post the questions that would be my lecture notes on the slides, and have them video projected onto a big screen. With a remote clicker, I can freely wander around the classroom and make sure my no-Internet rule is being enforced, and more importantly, I can go up to a student and listen carefully to her answer. (Looking back in hindsight, I wish I had used powerpoints during my job-talks; again, not to flash answers, but just to use as outlines or guideposts for my own ideas or for facilitating discussion. Powerpoint is an invisible crutch (that happens to be visibile and that doesn't really appear like a crutch).)
The strangest thing is that as I wander around and ask questions in the class, I feel as if I'm somehow channeling Dan Kahan, my former evidence prof. Weird. And for what it's worth, Ethan, I haven't yet worn jeans, but I have ratcheted down the wardrobe from suit and tie the first day to shirt with no tie by day 3. But I still wear pants.
I'm off to NYC for the weekend tomorrow for a good friend's wedding, so light blogging (again) until later in the weekend. There'll be some good stuff coming up here at Prawfs: we'll be doing a group reaction to Akhil Amar's new book, as Paul will explain in a forthcoming post, and Akhil will be responding. And who knows, maybe Justice Breyer will be
discoursing on flakking his forthcoming book, Active Liberty. Future guestbloggers this month include Mark Fenster from Florida and Doug Lichtman from Chicago. Next month, the inimitable Kate Litvak from Texas will be joining us for a stint.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Speeding towards T-town
Given that my partners in crime here have been so "serious" of late, I'll borrow this space for a few personal ruminations after having been more or less off-blog the last week. Like Ethan (in June) and Kaimi (in July), I had to pack out and move to my new school recently. Instead of taking the 95 down the coast, I figured we'd enjoy the drive down Route 17 until we got to Charleston, SC. What a jackass move. The roads were slow, and I must have stopped through every town in Va, NC, SC, and Georgia!
We were almost out of Virginia en route to NC when I got pulled over for speeding (my main non-personality vice). The kindly officer asked me if I was in law school. I said, actually, I'm about to start teaching at a law school (I'm guessing he saw a teacher's manual to a casebook in my backseat). He said, well, I guess you know why I pulled you over. He informed me that Virginia has draconian speeding laws; had I been going just a few miles faster I would have been required to appear before a magistrate judge and spend the night in jail. Jiminy Crickets. Of course, he recognized that I wasn't driving dangerously (there was nary a car on the road at that point and I wasn't swerving or anything), so I got off with a mere 225 dollar ticket. This was probably my only speeding ticket in memory, and while I think the penalties are a bit severe, I know that I have nothing to complain about. If legislatures think speeding is the near-equivalent to crystal meth trafficking, then so be it. That's democracy. I happen to think that it would be better if we could adopt more pre-commitment strategies to avoid speeding. My own strategy is to drive a weak-engined Civic, btw. But that's hardly sufficient it seems. (Parenthetically, Ed Cheng (Brooklyn) has an interesting paper on speeding and Napster and structural impediments to law-breaking.)
More vivid reminders of speed's dangers were posted along South Carolina's roads, which in construction zones, posted photos of little girls saying, Please don't kill my daddy; he works on this road, or Let 'em work, let 'em live. The best one was a sign that said something like, since 1988 28 people have died on this road. Drive carefully. (Or maybe, don't be a statistic.)
I find these incredibly powerful semiotic gestures, and I wonder why I never saw this kind of state moralizing (I say that with respect not derision) in the North or even in California, let alone federal roads. Maybe that will be a new PrawfsBlawg cause, after adoption and organ donation...and now cancer-reduction.
Anyway, Charleston SC is a glorious place to spend a night or twelve, eat pralines, and go on mule-drawn carriage rides. We spent less than 16 hours there, but it made me want to go back soon. We missed Savannah on the way down, but I gather it's not too far away and worth its own trip. And T-town is growing on me by the nano-second. As I write, I'm sitting in my study overlooking a pastoral golf course. The home I'm renting for the year lends insights into the American dream, and its allure. I'm paying less in rent now for a 2400 sq. foot home than I did for my 1BR in apt in Dupont Circle. Everything else in TLH seems about the same price as big city living--restaurants, movie rentals, upscale groceries are all the same. And so are Target, Walmart and CVS. You'd think that there'd be lower prices when the real estate is lower-priced; but my quick perusal of gas prices belies that. It seems gas prices are higher in the poorer parts of town here. Maybe that's because there's a higher likelihood of robbery, but it seems weird still.
As for Prawfs business, this week augurs the arrival of Brooks Holland, another junior crimprof who was a former public defender in New York and who now teaches at Gonzaga, in Washington (state). I want to thank Bernie Meyler and Ekow Yankah for their posts the last few weeks. Hope to see you back soon.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Severed Heads in Tallahassee? Again!
Thanks to David Zaring, a Prawfs alum who's off to Washington and Lee to start teaching, I came across this interesting article about FSU's creative writing program, which is apparently regarded as one of the best in the biz. The article is a
story about how FSU's young creative writing program has become during the past five years what some believe to be the best in the country, overshadowing the University of Florida's, Florida International University's and even possibly the granddaddy of creative writing programs, the University of Iowa's. It did it with the help of patent money from the cancer drug Taxol, developed by an FSU scientist; the energy from pontifical mobster writer Mark Winegardner; and support of an established and respected English department. In 1997, U.S. News and World Report ranked creative writing programs. FSU's came in 37th. In 2007, the National Research Council will publish a new ranking of creative writing programs. FSU unabashedly plans to win that race. While other schools downplay competition among programs, FSU puffs out its chest, plumps up its feathers and struts. ''What we never were before was a program that could make a legitimate claim of being the best in the country,'' said Winegardner, who recently stepped down as director of the creative writing program after writing The Godfather Returns, a continuation of Mario Puzo's legendary mobster saga. 'I defy you to find a faculty that is better in terms of quality and quantity of awards and publishing. You cannot get any better than FSU.''
Well, I'm happy to see that FSU's writing program is doing so well, and even more, that its publicists have been so successful. (Note to Dean Weidner: Hire them!) Seriously, this kind of peacockery is a bit unseemly.
(Ed.: But, perhaps, so is a blog with a category entitled "Funky FSU.") What is cool is how seed money invested wisely can pay off in such a short while. Are law schools too sluggish to dance as nimbly? Paul Caron (and his co-author and colleague, Rafael Gely) have written interestingly on that subject, using Moneyball analysis.
In any case, the story about FSU made me laugh; and it then made me wonder how Alafair Burke managed to pump out three crime novels in the last few years while at the same time keeping up her day job as a Hawfstraprawf. I had hoped Alafair was going to to be at the Junior CrimProf gathering I'll be presenting at later this week at GW being hosted by Orin Kerr, Rachel Barkow (NYU, law), and another Prawfs alum (and my co-author), Jennifer Collins (WFU, law). But I just realized, to my chagrin, Alafair won't be there. New Orleans perhaps? At least there, there will be a discussion on "Blogging: scholarship or distraction?" I'm waiting to hear from co-bloggers their reactions to that very subject...
P.S. The title of this post is connected to the lede for the Miami Herald article that DZ provided.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Libertarians for More Government
A while back, I blogged about how my colleague and buddy (and future guest-blogger?) Jon Klick was given an endowed chair after one year in the academy. In Thursday's NYT Economic Scene column by Virginia Postrel, one of Jon's co-written pieces is discussed at length. The piece, which came out in the April 2005 Journal of Law and Economics, is called "Using Terror Alert Levels to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime."
A copy of the article is available at this link here. The upshot of the article is that "more police officers in fact reduce crime."
Apparently this intuitive result runs against some of the conventional wisom among various social scientists. But for these two economists with libertarian streaks, the results of empiricism are robust:
Money quotes from the NYT piece:
the case for adding more police officers is strong. Using generally accepted cost estimates, Professor Tabarrok said, every $1 to add officers would reduce the costs of crime by $4. The authors did not identify a point of diminishing returns. "We estimate that if we had a 10 percent increase in police, crime would go down by about 4 percent," he said, adding that researchers taking other approaches have come up with similar numbers. Nationally, he said, "that means about 700,000 fewer property crimes and 213,000 fewer violent crimes." As a back-of-the-envelope calculation, Professor Klick offered an even more striking suggestion. "It wouldn't be unreasonable," he said, "based on our estimates and based on conservative estimates of the costs of crime, to say it would be cost-effective to actually double the number of people working in police forces, which is pretty amazing."
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Tough Acts to Follow
While I was away, FSU's law school has been the site of some interesting developments. First, and perhaps of special interest to PrawfsBlawg readers, my colleague and buddy in the making, Jon Klick, was named the Jeffrey A. Stoops Professor of Law after only one year of being an assistant professor. Klick received his J.D. in 2003 and his Ph.D. in economics in 2002, both from George Mason University. One of his many interesting articles is available here and it's about terror alerts in DC and their effects on crime rates.
Additionally, Curtis Bridgeman, who just finished his first year teaching at FSU also, was named Professor of the Year by first year students at FSU, and his paper was selected for the Stanford-Yale junior faculty forum.
Finally, and due in no small part to Curtis and Jon's productivity and Jim Rossi's management, FSU's law school now stands in the top 20 of the SSRN recent downloads "tournament. " See here for details.