Aaronson on Empathy and Judging

Mark Aaronson has published an op-ed in the May 26 edition of the San Francisco Daily Journal defending empathy as a necessary ingredient of responsible judging. The issue has arisen in connection with criticisms of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Hazard on the Cultural Chasm Between Lawyers and Corporate Clients

Geoff Hazard has published an essay titled, "Legal and Managerial 'Cultures' in Corporate Representation," 46 Houston L. Rev. 1 (2009). The essay identifies six dimensions in which the culture of corporate clients and the culture of lawyers differ. (Geoff defines the "culture" of an organization as "the style and character in which its members typically behave in terms of effort, focus, efficiency, awareness, dedication, and ethical tone.) The six dimensions are (1) benefit versus burden; (2) certainty versus ambiguity; (3) subjectivity versus objectivity; (4) multiple versus single; (5) time horizons; and (6) task techniques. In writing this essay, Geoff conspicuously draws on Ascanio Piomelli's analysis of differences between low-pay clients and lawyers in "Cross-Cultural Lawyering by the Book: The Latest Clinical Texts and a Sketch of a Future Agenda," 4 Hastings Race & Pov. L. J. 131 (2006)(available from HeinOnline).

Paul on the Myths of Globalization

Joel Paul has published an essay in the Waseda University Journal of Comparative Law titled, "The Myth of Economic Interdependence." Joel denies the conventional wisdom that economic interdependence is increasing and unavoidable and further argues that, so long as we hold to this conventional belief, we are obscuring the difficult policy choices that need to be made. (This essay resulted from a lecture Joel delivered at the Waseda Law School on July 15 of last year.)

Aviram on Decisions to Imprison

Hadar Aviram has published a review of Rasmus Wandall's book, Decisions to Imprison: Court Decision-Making Inside and Outside the Law (Ashgate, 2007), which focuses on the question of when to imprison those convicted of crimes. Although Hadar would have liked some discussion of the impact of race and ethnicity, she found Wandall's book overall a "fascinating and important enterprise, which takes seriously what judges and other actors say, and not just what they do." The review is at 43(1) Law & Soc'y Rev. 239 (2009).

Leib on Criminal Justice and the Family

Ethan Leib, together with Dan Markel (Florida State) and Jennifer Collins (Wake Forest), has published a book called Privilege or Punish: Criminal Justice and the Challenge of Family Ties (Oxford University Press, 2009). Here is the abstract:

This book answers two basic but under-appreciated questions: first, how does the American criminal justice system address a defendant's family status? And, second, how should a defendant's family status be recognized, if at all, in a criminal justice system situated within a liberal democracy committed to egalitarian principles of non-discrimination? After surveying the variety of "family ties benefits" and "family ties burdens" in our criminal justice system, the authors explain why policymakers and courts should view with caution and indeed skepticism any attempt to distribute these benefits or burdens based on one's family status. This is a controversial stance, but Markel, Collins, and Leib argue that in many circumstances there are simply too many costs to the criminal justice system when it gives special treatment based on one's family ties or responsibilities. Privilege or Punish breaks new ground by offering an important synthetic view of the intersection between crime, punishment, and the family. Although in recent years scholars have been successful in analyzing the indirect effects of certain criminal justice policies and practices on the family, few have recognized the panoply of laws (whether statutory or common law-based) expressly drawn to privilege or disadvantage persons based on family status alone. It is critically necessary to pause and think through how and why our laws intentionally target one's family status and how the underlying goals of such a choice might better be served in some cases. This book begins that vitally important conversation with an array of innovative policy recommendations that should be of interest to anyone interested in the improvement of our criminal justice system.

Here is the OUP link: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/?view=usa&ci=9780195380064

Mart on Internet Access to Government Information

Susan Nevelow Mart has published an article titled, "The Internet's Public Domain: Access to Government Information on the Internet," 12 No, 9 J. Internet L. 3 (2009). Here is the abstract:

This article surveys the types and amounts of information that have been removed from the Internet since September 11th. Information has been removed in the name of national security as well as for reasons of seeming political expediency. After discussing the bases of some of the rationales for removing the information, and the legal underpinnings of continued access, the article suggests several forms of advocacy that could be used to return the information to the public's domain.

Mart on Patriot Act Reauthorization

Susan Nevelow Mart has published an article called "The Chains of the Constitution and Legal Process in the Library: A Post-USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act Assessment," 33 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 435 (2008). Here is the abstract:

Since the Patriot Act was passed in 2001, controversy has raged over nearly every provision. The controversy has been particularly intense over provisions that affect the patrons of libraries. This article follows those Patriot Act provisions that affect libraries, and reviews how they have been interpreted, how the Patriot Reauthorization Acts have changed them, and what government audits and court affidavits reveal about the use and misuse of the Patriot Act. The efforts of librarians and others opposed to the Patriot Act have had an effect, both legislatively and judicially, in changing and challenging the Patriot Act. Because libraries are such a potent symbol of democratic openness, the effect of the Patriot Act on libraries has acted in the public mind as a microcosm of the broader problems with the implementation of the Patriot Act. The public's discomfort with the civil liberties implications of the Patriot Act has turned out to be justified, as every agency that has reviewed the implementation of the Patriot Act has concluded that the government has not been able to maintain an appropriate balance between the need to protect civil liberties and the need to prevent terrorist acts. The government's list of domestic terrorist acts that have been prevented or punished is not inspiring: the entire panoply of tools authorized by the Patriot Act has not done much more than stop some home-grown right wing fringe groups and ecoterrorists. In light of the evidence of abuse of civil liberties and the questionable constitutionality of many of the Patriot Act's provisions, this paper suggests that the time for vigorous advocacy has not passed and that further legislative changes need to be made.

Piomelli on Democratic Lawyering

Ascanio Piomelli has just published an essay called The Challenge of Democratic Lawyering, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 1383 (2009), as part of a symposium on The Lawyer's Role in a Contemporary Democracy.

Here is the abstract:

The essay argues that a diverse movement of social-change lawyering that has emerged over the past two decades is united by a commitment to fostering robust democratic participation in collective action by low-income and working-class people and people of color. The essay describes the democratic vision that unites these lawyers, with its focus on enhancing ordinary citizens' abilities to act in concert with others in self-government broadly construed. This vision challenges the long-prevailing, thinner conception, which limits democracy to a political process that provides a say in selecting one's representatives and an incentive structure to encourage representatives to act wisely. This essay argues that these democratic lawyers and their partners challenge deep-seated individualistic, aristocratic, and formalistic cultural predispositions in the United States and its legal profession.These prevailing, but contested, predispositions relate to: what democracy means and how we practice it; how we understand individuals and groups, intelligence and expertise; and the relative importance we place on formal rights or on the power of people and groups to change their living conditions.

Here is the link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1364140#

Feldman on Patent and Antitrust

Robin Feldman's article, Patent and Antitrust: Different Shades of Meaning, originally published at 13 Virginia J. L. & Tech. 5 (2008), has been selected for inclusion in the Intellectual Property Law Review (Thompson Reuters) as one of the best intellectual property law review articles of the last year!

Leib on Contracts and Friendships

Ethan Leib has posted to SSRN an article called "Contracts and Friendships," which will appear in Volume 59 of the Emory Law Journal. Here is the abstract:

This article aims to give the relational theory of contract some new life, sharpening some of its claims against its competitors by refracting its theory of relational contracts through an analogy to friendship. In drawing the analogy between friendships and relational contracts and revealing their morphological similarities, I offer a provocative window into friendship's contractual structure - and into relational contracts' approximation of friendships. The analogy I develop in the article is poised to replace the "relational contract as marriage" model, prevalent among relationalists. The new model developed here is more honest to relational contract theory and to marriage - and helps relational contract theory produce some new insights, support old ones, and revise some of its normative agenda.

Here is the link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1358562

Boswell on True Immigration Reform

Richard Boswell has published an article titled, Crafting True Immigration Reform, 35 William Mitchell L. Rev. 7 (2008). While stopping short of advocating open borders, Richard proposes a three-pronged modification of the existing family- and employment-based immigration systems:

First, there must be a mechanism to bring as many of those who are living in the underground shadows into some type of legal status where they are less vulnerable to being victimized and more likely to cooperate with law enforcement. Second, we must reduce the incentives to join the ranks of the undocumented by addressing the forces that make people move in the first place. Third, we must create a system for legal migration that preserves family unification for immigrants and fills occupations for which workers are not in sufficient supply.

King on Duty to the Unborn

Jaime King has published an article titled, Duty to the Unborn: A Response to Professor Smolensky, 60 Hastings L. J. 377 (2008). Here is the abstract:

This article responds to Professor Kirsten Smolensky's article in Hastings Law Journal titled Creating Children with Disabilities: Parental Tort Liability for Preimplantation Genetic Interventions by arguing in favor of creating a duty for individuals to act as reasonably prudent parents with respect to their preimplantation reproductive decisions. In addition, the article advocates use of a balancing test to determine the reasonableness of parents' choices when compared to the risks associated with using genetic testing and assisted reproductive technologies. The article concludes with an argument for national regulation as the primary social response to challenges associated with assisted reproductive technology rather than tort liability.

Here is the link to the download: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1336375

California Corrections Crisis Conference

A reminder to all that the California Corrections Crisis Conference is coming up March 19-20, and the timing couldn't be more perfect, with the prison health care litigation quite possibly headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. Admission is free, but you must RSVP to the website at http://cacorrectionalcrisis.org. The conference will be held in the State Building at 350 McAllister.

Weithorn on Voiding Marriages Under Prop. 8

Lois Weithorn has posted an article to SSRN titled, "Can A Subsequent Change in Law Void a Marriage That Was Valid at its Inception? Considering the Legal Effect of Proposition 8 on California's Existing Same-Sex Marriages," which will be published in the forthcoming Volume 60 of the Hastings Law Journal. Here is the abstract:

On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court held that California's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the California constitution. The court's holdings removed state restrictions as to the gender of a person's chosen marital partner. Opponents of same-sex marriage placed a voter initiative, ultimately identified as Proposition 8, on the November 4, 2008 ballot. Their goal was to insert into the state constitution the language of the recently-stricken California Family Code section 308.5 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"). They hoped that by placing this language in the state constitution, they could shelter the provision from future judicial determinations of unconstitutionality. Beginning June 16, 2008, consistent with the California Supreme Court's May 15 order, county clerks throughout California issued marriage licenses to, and solemnized and certified marriages of, same-sex couples. Proposition 8 passed with 52.3% of the vote. In response to its passage, California officials ceased authorizing same-sex marriages. Lawsuits challenging the validity of Proposition 8 were filed almost immediately after the election. Shortly thereafter, the California Supreme Court agreed to review the challenges to Proposition 8. The court indicated that it would consider the three questions. The first two questions focus on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The third question addresses the status of the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that were validated by the state of California between June 16 and November 4, 2008. The third question reads: "If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before adoption of Proposition 8?" If the California Supreme Court determines that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, it will not need to reach the third question. If Proposition 8 is sustained, however, the importance of the court's decision in response this question cannot be overstated. This Article examines the current litigation with respect to the legal effect of Proposition 8 on California's existing same-sex marriages, if the Proposition is held to be valid. This Article reviews the legal backdrop against which the battle over the rights of same-sex couples to marry has taken place in California and around the nation. It applies the strong and well-established presumption against retroactive application of changes in statutory and constitutional law to determine what legal effect, if any, Proposition 8 can have on California's existing same-sex marriages. It concludes that the nonretroactivity presumption is not rebutted in the instant case. In addition, it emphatically rejects the assertion of Proposition 8's proponents that a withdrawal of California's legal recognition from its existing same-sex marriages (commencing the day after Proposition 8's passage) constitutes a prospective application of the measure. In particular, the institution of marriage has been extolled throughout the generations as fostering committed, long term family relationships that derive their power and meaning from their enduring nature, subject to termination only at the initiation of the parties themselves. The investment in and reliance upon the inviolability of marriages make possible - according to the California Supreme Court - "the central role that marriage plays as a stabilizing force in American society." The proponents of Proposition 8 allege that they seek to protect and preserve marriage. Yet, if they succeed in persuading the state to cast aside an entire class of marriages that were valid prior to Proposition 8's passage, these proponents will have undermined and weakened the very institution they purport to protect. Such state action would contradict the message California seeks to convey in encouraging the "commitment toward permanence" within marriage when distinguishing marriage from other more temporary relational interests. It would erode Californians' trust that the state - the theoretical third partner in every marriage - can be relied upon to uphold its commitment to and investment in all of those marital relationships that it has created. Indeed, the disruptive consequences of such action would extend beyond the same-sex couples affected most directly, but would also reverberate in their families, their communities and in society at large. Even where a presumption against retroactive application is not rebutted in a particular case, a measure cannot be applied retroactively if doing so would violate the constitutional rights of the affected individuals. I set forth two independent grounds rendering the proposed retrospective application of Proposition 8 unconstitutional: impairment of vested property rights of the marital partners without due process; and impermissible state intrusion into the rights to liberty and marital privacy of already-married couples. Retroactive application of Proposition 8 clearly violates the California Constitution on both of these grounds. In particular, once a couple enters into a valid marriage in the United States, that marriage occupies a privileged position among the multitude of human relationships. Under both the federal and California constitutions, the intact marital relationship receives the highest level of protection from state interference. When a marital relationship is validly formed - as were California's existing same-sex marriages - the fundamental right of privacy attaches, insulating the relationship from state interference in all but the narrowest and most limited circumstances. State-initiated and state-coerced voiding or termination of a legally-valid marriage is, without question, the most drastic form of state intrusion in a marriage imaginable and, in this case, certainly does not survive the strict scrutiny review to which such state action must be subjected. The Article concludes that the remedies urged by Proposition 8's supporters in order to avoid constitutional problems are wholly inadequate to cure the constitutional defects of such application. This Article concludes that Proposition 8 cannot have any legal effect on California's existing same-sex marriages.

Here is the link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1350579

Leib on Friends as Fiduciaries

Ethan Leib has published an article called Friends as Fiduciaries, 86 Wash. U. L. Rev. 665 (2009). Here is the abstract:

This Article argues that the law of fiduciary duties provides a good framework for friends to understand their duties to one another better, gives courts a useful set of rhetorical and analytical tools to employ when they are forced to entertain disputes that arise between close friends, and, finally, can help direct courts to furnish betrayed friends certain kinds of
remedies that are most appropriate for achieving justice within that dispute context. This is not the first Article to make an effort to expand the reach of the fiduciary concept into new sorts of relationships that are not always considered within the ambit of fiduciary duty law. But the case for thinking of friends as fiduciaries is exceedingly persuasive and underappreciated, both in the law and in our lives.

Here is the link to the pdf: http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/86/3/leib.pdf