The Faculty Lounge

CFP: The Unruly Nature of the Laws of Trusts and Estates

Call for Papers

Trusts & Estates Section

2017 AALS Annual Meeting

January 4-7, 2017 – San Francisco, CA

Sex, Death, and Taxes: The Unruly Nature of the Laws of Trusts and Estates

Trusts & Estates is a far-reaching and broad-based discipline of law that impacts private citizens’ decisions about sex, death, and taxes.  This legal discipline is based on speculation about donors and their intentions that, by their very nature, create unintended consequences because the laws exist largely unseen until they come into play.  Moreover, ascertaining these preferences prove difficult because individuals are entrenched with idiosyncratic preconceptions about death, family, property rights, personal legacies, paternalism, altruism, investment strategies, taxes, and many other effective interests.  In addition, the field sits at the crossroads of other legal disciplines such as family law, property law, elder law, and tax law.  For students, T&E makes an appearance in law schools and the bar exam, but is not like a constitutional law class that is unabashedly theoretical in its presentation and in meeting students’ non-expectations of a skills-centric classroom experience.  In practice, some of the most thriving areas require expertise in T&E.  In ordinary people’s everyday lives, the legal discipline is like an operating system that quietly runs in the background, but in reality organizes and informs the end user’s experience, often without the end user’s full awareness.  In the academy, it is caught between the practical and theoretical—a microcosm of the questions at the heart of debates about the value and normative objectives of a legal education.  Yet, during a time when T&E is becoming more relevant than ever, the discipline may be under–theorized and marginalized in the academy.  Therefore, this panel will interrogate T&E’s unruly nature, entertaining inquiries about the intersectionality of gender, race, sexual orientation, and class; the pervasiveness of succession law in aligned fields; its history of adaptation to changing social norms; and the development and evolution of law reform in this area.  The panel will explore new visions for the field and frameworks that disrupt and reimagine the field, while looking forward to practical and theoretical responses to such things as the pending elder care issues, concentration of wealth, taxation, large wealth transfers, social fixity, and the ongoing privatization of family caregiving and support. 

Submissions, due dates and method:

Submissions should be of abstracts between 250 and 1000 words, inclusive of any footnotes. Scholarship may be at any stage of the publication process from work-in-progress to completed article, but if already published, scholarship may not be published any earlier than 2015. Each potential speaker may submit only one abstract for consideration.

There are two submission due dates.  The Section seeks detailed abstracts in late summer, with final papers due in late fall.

• The due date for detailed abstracts is August 15, 2016.
• The due date for final papers is November 15, 2016.

 

AALS CFP: LLCs, New Charitable Forms And The Rise Of Philanthrocapitalism

This call for papers for the 2017 AALS Annual Meeting in San Franciso has just come  in:

 

Joint Program of the AALS Section onAgency, Partnerships LLCs, and  Unincorporated Associations &  Section on Nonprofit and Philanthropy Law

LLCS, NEW CHARITABLE FORMS, AND THE RISE OF PHILANTHROCAPITALISM

In December 2015, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan, pledged their personal fortune—then valued at $45 billion—to the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), a philanthropic effort aimed at “advancing human potential and promoting equality.” But instead of organizing CZI using a traditional charitable structure, the couple organized CZI as a for-profit Delaware LLC. CZI is perhaps the most notable example, but not the only example, of Silicon Valley billionaires exploiting the LLC form to advance philanthropic efforts. But are LLCs and other for-profit business structures compatible with philanthropy? What are the tax, governance, and other policy implications of this new tool of philanthrocapitalism? What happens when LLCs, rather than traditional charitable forms, are used for “philanthropic” purposes?

From the heart of Silicon Valley, the AALS Section on Agency, Partnerships LLCs, and Unincorporated Associations and Section on Nonprofit and Philanthropy Law will host a joint program tackling these timely issues. In addition to featuring invited speakers, we seek speakers (and papers) selected from this call.

Any full-time faculty of an AALS member or fee-paid school who has written an unpublished paper, is working on a paper, or who is interested in writing a paper in this area is invited to submit a 1- or 2-page proposal by June 1, 2016. The Executive Committees of the Sections will review all submissions and select two papers by July 1, 2016. If selected, a very polished draft must be submitted by November 30, 2016. All submissions and inquiries should be directed to the Chairs of the Sections at the email addresses below:

Mohsen Manesh
Associate Professor
University of Oregon School of Law
mohsen@uoregon.edu

Garry W. Jenkins
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
John C. Elam/Vorys Sater Professor of Law
Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University
jenkins.434@osu.edu

 

The Law School Industry - Veteran Emphasis in US Based Law Schools

This analysis provides an excel based study of how the law school industry approaches military veterans, especially who are students at the school but also more broadly. The title is, Veteran Emphasis in US Oriented Law Schools: Part 1, as we will be continuing with this study to contact every entry to develop a better understanding of current challenges, developing practices, and new innovations (note: you will have to download the document for it to view correctly as in excel format).

The information is organized alphabetically by state, and within each state by law school, and includes website links and contact details. A number of factors were taking into account, including law reviews, clinics and externships, associations and organizations, classes, and other miscellaneous innovations. The 'classes' data is somewhat fuzzy as we did not develop a clear metric about what counted as a veteran oriented class and instead went for classes that would be specifically of a military nature. The 'miscellaneous' factor includes a number of interesting innovations, which might be better located under a different classification but we've situated together - e.g., Yellow Ribbon Programs, Outreach Centers, Recruitment Innovations.

A surface read of the information reveals some potentially interesting takeaways. First, while there are considerable number of 'military' or 'national security' law school courses (approximately 120), there are less than 10 classes specifically addressing veteran law (and only one LLM). Second, there are approximately 30 Veteran clinics at US law schools, and while about 115 organizations, only a little more than 1/2 that are specifically focused on veterans (e.g., many instead are more generalist, such as Military Justice Society). Third, there is a significant need for law journals specifically dedicated to veteran conditions (this is not to say there are not special issues or articles that come up in other contexts or other non-scholarship networks). Fourth, while many states will have law schools that offer some focus on veterans, often the emphasis is a more generalist class or a student society. In fact, a number of states have no emphasis on veterans in regards to any of the dynamics (e.g., Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon). Other states only offer some class, but do not offer any additional emphasis or support (e.g., Indiana). Other states have very strong innovations at play (e.g., California, Florida, Michigan, New York, Ohio). There is so much more to be studied here, but we hope this provides some useful information for those interested to better address veteran considerations. At the very least, there seems to be considerable energy at the student level to create community, which may be a valuable resource for future innovations. The relative lack of clinics and more over explicit information on law school websites suggests that this may be an area for more institutionalized veteran-oriented support, and which might also be a valuable opportunity for building a niche market for student recruitment and career placement.

This part of the study was completed with Mr. James Russell Dumas, and with helpful input from Prof. Evan Seamone, Prof Richard Meyer, and a number of MC School of Law veterans. Moving forward with the studies will be in collaboration with Prof. Evan Seamone.

MarkelFest! 2016 At The AALS Meeting

In case you haven't heard, Prawfs will again be hosting a MarkelFest! happy hour at the 2016 New York AALS meeting.  Join other law faculty at Bridges in the Hilton on Thursday evening, January 7, from 8:30 onward at the public side of the bar.

Important New Report From Law School Transparency on Law School Admissions

An important new report entitled: 2015 State of Legal Education: An in-depth look into law school admissions choices” has just been released by Law School Transparency (LST).  (Full disclosure – I had a minor role in editing some sections of the report.)  The report has already received attention in the press (see this editorial in today’s New York Times) and is likely to receive more in the coming days.  It is also likely to be a topic of conversation among current and prospective law students, many of whom rely heavily on LST for reliable information about law schools.  I recommend that all law professors and law school administrators read it in its entirety.  In the meantime, I offer below a summary of what I consider to be some of the most important findings and recommendations in the report.  

As the title implies, the report focuses on the questionable admissions policies practiced by many law schools during the enrollment crisis from 2011 to the present (although there are several other important subjects covered as well).  Using a risk profile that I developed based on LSAT scores (first reported here on TFL)  the report identifies 74 schools which admitted classes consisting of at least 25% at risk students in the fall of 2014 (statistics are not yet available for the 2015 entering classes).  Fully half of these schools, 37, admitted classes consisting of at least 50% at risk students (149 LSAT and below).  Most disturbingly, 18 schools admitted classes where over half of the students were categorized as being at very high or extreme risk of failing out of law school or failing the bar exam. (See the list of schools here.)

The report acknowledges that LSAT scores are imperfect predictors, and that the risk presented by admitting a student with a low LSAT score might be offset by requiring that the student have a correspondingly strong undergraduate GPA.  Through sophisticated statistical modeling, the report proves that this is not what is happening.  (See the section headed “Serious risk law schools did not take enough students with better undergraduate GPAs” in the Analysis section of the report.) 

To confirm the reliability of my risk-model, LST managed to acquire data regarding bar passage from two law schools. A school which chose to remain anonymous provided 7 years’ worth of data, and the University of Denver provided 14 years’ worth of data.  The data confirms that my risk categories are valid.  At the anonymous school, only 16% of students in the extreme risk category (144 LSAT or lower) passed the bar on their first attempt.  At the University of Denver, students in the extreme risk category passed on their first attempt at the slightly higher rate of 27%.   In the very high risk category (LSAT of 145 or 146), 19% passed the first time at the anonymous school, and 39% passed the first time at Denver.  In the high risk category (147-149 LSAT), 23% passed the first time at the anonymous school and 57% passed at Denver.  

The Law School Industry - Institutional Considerations for Military Veterans

From movies to policy debates, veterans are a perennial image in the American psyche. At the law school, the most notable presence of the military are recruiting officers (e.g., JAG), and to a lesser extent, student organizations (e.g., student veterans organizations, military justice societies) and the occasional veteran clinic. There is, however, no comprehensive in-depth study of how law schools accommodate veterans or how various institutional platforms operate (in the next few months, I will post an excel-based study mapping all these initiatives at law schools with some brief comments). While researching this topic and speaking with student veteran groups, military personnel and therapists, certain themes have emerged that might provide law school administrations with some guide for developing 'best practices' towards students serving or having served in the military. 

The core challenge seems to be that there tends to be a lack of awareness by law school admission offices about the psychological and social challenges that veterans face, in civilian life or at school in particular. Below is a brief list of some common blind spots and potential reforms.

AALS CFP: New Voices In Legislation

This just in:

The AALS Section on Legislation & Law of the Political Process is pleased to announce that it will host a “New Voices in Legislation” program during the 2016 AALS Annual Meeting in New York, NY. This works-in-progress program will bring together junior and senior scholars in the field of legislation for the purpose of providing the junior scholars with feedback and guidance on their draft articles. Scholars whose papers are selected will present their work in small panel sessions. A senior scholar will moderate each panel and lead discussion about the draft article.

Eligibility: The New Voices Program will be open to full-time faculty members from AALS member schools who are untenured or have been tenured for two years or less. All scholars, whether or not presenting a paper or moderating a discussion, are welcome to attend the program and participate in discussions.

Submission Requirements: Submissions should be drafts of articles relating to legislation and law of the political process, including articles related to legislative structure, the legislative process, statutory interpretation, and deliberation. Submissions should be near completion and expected to be submitted during the year following the program. Submissions should not exceed 30,000 words, including footnotes. The purpose of the program is to provide junior scholars with feedback that can be incorporated into their works-in-progress; as a result, articles are ineligible for the program if they are expected to be in print at the time of the program in January 2016. However, articles that already have been submitted to law reviews for publication, and accepted for publication, are not ineligible for this reason.

Submission Process: To be considered for participation in the program, please email a copy of the paper and abstract to Evan Zoldan, evan.zoldan@utoledo.edu by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time,Friday, October 2, 2015. Selected participants will be notified in late October.

AALS Indian Nations & Indigenous Peoples Section Call for Papers

The Indian Nations and Indigenous Peoples Section of the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) invites paper proposals on the following topic. How do Indian Tribes, First Nations, and other Indigenous Peoples regulate same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, and adoption and foster parenting by same-sex couples and LGBT individuals? What role does evidence of Tribal culture and tradition, if any, play in these decisions? Additionally, what are the processes by which Tribes change their laws with respect to same-sex relationships? More broadly, we are interested in the ways in which Tribes, First Nations and other Indigenous Peoples regulate sexuality and family structure.

Please send proposals of 500 to 1000 words summarizing a paper or work-in-progress you would present on an AALS panel on these issues. The selected panelists will be invited to present their work in a joint program of the Indian Nations and Indigenous Peoples and the Law and Anthropology Section, which will be co-sponsored by the Family Law Section. The Program will be held at the AALS Annual Meeting, January 6-10, 2016. Selected papers will be published in the William Mitchell Law Review. Please submit your proposal on or before September 1, 2015 to Michalyn Steele, Chair-Elect, at steelem@law.byu.edu. Questions can also be directed to Ann Tweedy, Chair, at atweedy01@hamline.edu.

CFP: Sex and Death: Gender and Sexuality Matters in Trusts and Estates

The AALS Section on Trusts and Estates and AALS Section on Women in Legal Education will hold a joint program, Sex and Death: Gender and Sexuality Matters in Trusts and Estates, during the AALS 2016 Annual Meeting in New York City.  They are soliciting proposals for presentations between now and August 21.  From the CFP:

Submissions should be of an abstract of scholarship relating to the overlap between sex, gender, or sexuality and trusts and estates.  Potential topics include implications of same-sex marriage, assisted reproduction and property rights, feminist legal theory applied to property transmission or tax, or any other matter examining the intersection between sex and death.  Abstracts should be between 750 and 2000 words, inclusive of any footnotes. Scholarship may be at any stage of the publication process from work-in-progress to completed article, but if already published, scholarship may not be published any earlier than 2014. Each professor may submit only one abstract for consideration.

Full-time faculty members of AALS member and fee-paid law schools are eligible to submit proposals. Foreign, visiting (and not full-time on a different faculty) and adjunct faculty members, graduate students, and fellows are not eligible. The deadline for submission is Friday, August 21, 2015.

To be considered, abstracts must be submitted electronically to Professor Wendy Greene, Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, at wendy.greene@samford.edu<mailto:wendy.greene@samford.edu> and Professor Alyssa DiRusso, Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, at aadiruss@samford.edu<mailto:aadiruss@samford.edu>.  The deadline for submission is Friday, August 21, 2015. Authors of selected papers will be notified by September 25, 2015.  Call for Paper participants will also be responsible for paying their annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.

Presenters will be selected after review by the Program Chairs of both sections.  Additional presenters may be solicited by the Program Chairs to insure a diverse panel.  Any inquiries about the Call for Papers should be submitted to: the Chair for the Section on Women in Legal Education, Professor Wendy Greene, Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, 205.726.2419 or wendy.greene@samford.edu and/or the Program Chair for the Section on Trusts and Estates, Professor Alyssa DiRusso, Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, 205.726.4325 or aadiruss@samford.edu.

Faculty Hiring: Willamette University College of Law

Willamette University College of Law seeks applicants for up to three full-time, tenure-track faculty positions beginning in the fall of 2016.  Both entry-level and junior lateral (1 to 3 years full-time, tenure-track teaching experience) candidates will be considered.  Our curricular interests include Trust & Estates, Commercial Law, Family Law, Bankruptcy, Financial Institutions, Employee Benefits, Health Law, Dispute Resolution, Torts, and Property.  Applicants must possess distinguished academic credentials and a proven, recent record of scholarship and scholarly interest.  The Faculty Appointments Committee will begin reviewing applications in the late summer and will continue to do so until the position is filled.  Believing that diversity contributes to academic excellence and to rich and rewarding communities, Willamette University is committed to recruiting and retaining a diverse faculty, staff and student body. We seek candidates, particularly those from historically underrepresented groups, whose work furthers diversity and who bring to campus varied experiences, perspectives and backgrounds.

Contact:  Please send letters of interest, a resume, a FAR form (if applicable), and copies of recent publications to:  Associate Dean Laura I Appleman, Chair, Faculty Appointments Committee, Willamette University College of Law, 245 Winter St., SE, Salem, Oregon 97301.  Email is preferred:  appleman@willamette.edu . 

January 2016 AALS Meeting: Calls For Papers And Proposals

The AALS is currently posting a flock of calls for papers and proposals for the January 2016 meeting in New York.  We have made some mention of them individually, but together they include: 

Hot topic programs (due October 5)

The Corporate Law and Economics Revolution 40 Years Later: The Impact of Economics and Finance Scholarship on Modern Corporate Law (due August 27)

The Wounded Warrior Comes Home: Exploring the Impact of Disabled Veterans on Disability,
Health, and Other Law and Policy (due August 23)

Election Law at the Local Level (due August 15)

Local Laboratories of Workplace Regulation (due August 15)

The ADA at 25: Implications for People with Mental Disabilities (Proposed papers or abstracts of presentations should be submitted to Professor Fred Vars, Associate Professor of Law of Alabama Law by August 17.)

National Security Law Challenges for the Next Administration (due August 15)

Regulation of Mortgage Lending (due July 27)

The Future of Securities Regulation: Innovation, Regulation and Enforcement (due August 21)

CFP: AALS Program of the Section on Securities Regulation

Call for Papers
AALS Section on Securities Regulation - 2016 AALS Annual Meeting

January 6-10, 2016  New York, NY

The AALS Section on Securities Regulation invites papers for its program on “The Future of Securities Regulation:  Innovation, Regulation and Enforcement.”

TOPIC DESCRIPTION: This panel discussion will explore the current trends and future implications in the securities regulation field including transactional and financial innovation, the regulation of investment funds, the intersection of the First Amendment and securities law, the debate over fee-shifting bylaws, the ever-expanding transactional exemptions including under Regulation D, and judicial interpretations of insider trading laws.  The Executive Committee welcomes papers (theoretical, doctrinal, policy-oriented, empirical) on both the transactional and litigation sides of securities law and practice.

ELIGIBILITY: Full-time faculty members of AALS member law schools are eligible to submit papers. Pursuant to AALS rules, faculty at fee-paid law schools, foreign faculty, adjunct and visiting faculty (without a full-time position at an AALS member law school), graduate students, fellows, and non-law school faculty are not eligible to submit. Please note that all faculty members presenting at the program are responsible for paying their own annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.  NOTE FURTHER, AALS has announced reduced registration fees for junior faculty for the 2016 conference.

PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: Up to four papers may be selected from this call for papers. There is no formal requirement as to the form or length of proposals. However, more complete drafts will be given priority over abstracts, and presenters are expected to have a draft for commentators two weeks prior to the beginning of the AALS conference.

Papers will be selected by the Section's Executive Committee in a double-blind review. Please submit only anonymous papers by redacting from the submission the author's name and any references to the identity of the author. The title of the email submission should read: "Submission - 2016 AALS Section on Securities Regulation."

Please email submissions to the Section Chair Christine Hurt at:  hurtc@law.byu.edu on or before August 21, 2015.

AALS Call For Papers: Election Law At The Local Level

This just in:

The AALS Section on Election Law is is seeking abstracts or drafts of papers to be presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting in New York, NY. This year's program is entitled: Election Law at the Local Level.

Here the program description:

Although national election controversies grab the headlines, decisions made at the local level impact our elections in important ways – and even contribute to those national issues. Local and state actors play a front-line role in administering elections for all levels of government. This panel will focus on how local jurisdictions handle important issues such as ballot access, voting rights, early voting, Election Day processes, and post-election disputes. Panelists will explain how these issues relate to the smooth running of the election, and how they might impact the 2016 presidential election season. One panelist will be chosen from a Call for Papers.

Confirmed panelists include Jocelyn Benson (Wayne State), Rich Ford (Stanford), David Schleicher (Yale), and Trey Greyson (former Kentucky Secretary of State). We are looking for one additional panelist to join this distinguished group.

The program will take place on Friday, January 8, 2016 from 10:30 am-12:15 pm.

Please submit an abstract or draft paper to Section Chair Josh Douglas at joshuadouglas@uky.edu. The deadline is August 15, 2015.

AALS Section On Law & Sports Seeks Award Nominations

This just in:

The AALS Section on Law and Sports is pleased to announce the inaugural AALS Section on Law and Sports Award to recognize an individual that has made a substantial and significant contribution to scholarship, teaching, and/or service in the area of law relating to sports. Section members and other individuals are eligible for the award, but law schools, institutions, and organizations are not eligible to receive the award. A committee comprised of section members will consider all nominations and select a deserving recipient for recognition at the 2016 AALS Annual Meeting.

Please email nominations – and any supporting information – to Professor Dionne Koller at dkoller@ubalt.edu. In your nomination, please provide an explanation as to how the nominee meets the criteria for the award. Nominations are due by August 1, 2015.

Request for Open-Submission Proposals for 2016 AALS Annual Meeting

The AALS has issued its Call for Proposals for Open-Submission Programs for the 2016 Annual Meeting.  There will be five types of open proposal programs at the 2016 Meeting.  Three categories - Crosscutting, Symposium, and Hot Topic programs - have featured in prior meetings.  Two - Discussion Group and Academy programs - are new this year.  Discussion Group programs provide a venue for informal discussion of topics among a larger group of participants than the typical annual meeting program.  Academy programs are open-submission programs that don't fit into any other category.  Have a great idea for a program at the Annual Meeting that doesn't fit into any other category?  Submit a proposal for an academy program.

I am Chair of the committee that will be reviewing the proposals, and would be happy to take questions in the comments (with the caveat that I might need to consult with others to answer some questions).  In prior years, RFPs for each type of program would come out separately.  This year, we combined all of the RFPs into one.  We also tried to be clear about the criteria that will be evaluate the proposals.

Ben Barros

Do We Need a Code of Ethical Conduct for the Academy?

Having taught government ethics for years (no comments necessary, I've heard them all), written about the subject, and even co-chaired a state bar task force on the same, I can’t help but keeping coming back to the article in the National Law Journal this past week about the “scandals” or questionable alleged behavior by members of the Academy. I couldn’t agree more with Prof. Deborah Rhode who talked about a climate of integrity on campus. I am careful to tell my students and those who attend government ethics CLE programs that vast majority of government officials are honest hard-working individuals and the same as can be said of my colleagues in the Academy. The very few who stray create an appearance of lack of integrity for everyone else.

The National Law Journal article focuses on the conduct of members of the Academy both inside and outside of the classroom or work environment. The take-away message we need to remember is that professors and administrators are people held to a higher ethical and moral standard because of the position of trust we have with our students and with the various constituencies we represent and steward on behalf of our schools. Just like government officials, K-12 classroom teachers and members of the clergy, our behaviors are subject to far greater scrutiny than the average member of the public. This stems both from our position as lawyers and from our position in the Academy. Despite the fact that the vast majority of us are people of integrity who do not misuse the position of trust, who conduct ourselves in accordance with the highest expectations of members of the bar (just think about what needs to be disclosed to state bar character and fitness committees), what must we do to counter the negative messaging from these hopefully “isolated” incidents?

When the heat is turned up on public officials, legislators and governors respond (with the support of the good government groups) with committees, hearings, and proposed legislative and regulatory reforms. Do we really need to go down this route? Do we need a formal code of professionalism? Membership in the AALS already requires in part that, “A member school shall attract and maintain a faculty of high competence…to provide ready professional relationships among the faculty and between the faculty and the students…” (see,By-Law Section 6.4) The AAUP Statement of Professional Ethics notes that professors should,”…avoid exploitation, harassment…of students.” Perhaps Chapter 4 of the Standards on Legal Education should be amended to include language about the expectations of professionalism on the part of the faculty when it comes to our students and the community.

Have we reached a tipping point with this NLJ article that demands conversations at the AALS, the ABA Section on Legal Education and AAUP? Do we need to spell out community norms beyond the obvious illegal nature of the alleged activities? Do we need a formal ethical code of conduct for the Academy that goes beyond the provisions cited above and transcends codes and rules adopted at individual campuses? How can we restore confidence in our integrity where the lapses of a small few cloud the environment for everyone else?

AALS Annual Meeting Panel Call for Papers: Perspectives on Privacy Law

The AALS Sections on Comparative Law, and on Defamation and Privacy will be sponsoring a joint program at the January 2016 Annual Meeting. The program will consider comparative perspectives on privacy law, particularly in light of recent developments in the European Union. The panel will comprise a combination of invited speakers, and speakers submitting proposals in response to this call for papers.

Paper proposals, works in progress, or completed papers are acceptable for submission. There is no formal requirement as to length of the proposal or final paper. Preference will be given to papers that offer novel scholarly insights on comparative aspects of privacy law. In particular proposals that share insights on comparative privacy practices outside the United States and the European Union will be welcomed. A paper may have already been accepted for publication as long as it will not be published prior to the Annual Meeting.

Proposals may focus on topics including, but not limited to, the following:

(a)  The interplay of law, norms, technology and market practices in protecting individual privacy.

(b)  Privacy interests in consumer and demographic information.

(c)   Privacy in relation to the protection of free speech.

(d)  Privacy rights given national security interests.

(e)  Health care and privacy.

(f)    Financial reporting and privacy.

(g)  Privacy in the context of law enforcement imperatives.

 Submissions can be accepted only from those affiliated with AALS member institutions.

 Please submit your paper or proposal by Friday, April 10, 2015 at 5:00 p.m E.S.T. to Professor Sudha Setty (Chair, AALS Section on Comparative Law), Western New England School of Law, ssetty@law.wne.edu or to Professor Jacqueline Lipton (Chair, AALS Section on Defamation and Privacy), University of Akron School of Law, jlipton@uakron.edu.

Griswold and Poverty

One of the many fascinating threads from the Constitutional Law panel at AALS on Griswold was the connection between the contraception cases and poverty law.  Cary Franklin spoke about the under-remembered aspect of Griswold as a poverty law case.  Griswold, after all, involved a birth control clinic: it was not just about access to birth control, but about the ability of poor women to access birth control. Prior to the Griswold decision in 1965, Connecticut and other states selectively enforced birth control laws against clinics, leaving wealthier women and couples free to violate the law with the help of their doctors.  Although the Court downplayed this aspect of the case, Franklin argued that the case should be read in the context of its time, when the Court was repeatedly challenging barriers to access for the poor to basic rights and social inclusion, including the rights to vote (Harper, 1966), to counsel in criminal cases (Gideon, 1963), to court transcripts (Griffin, 1956), and to travel (Shapiro, 1969).  It also occurred, I would add, in a time of increased federal legislative and administrative commitment to access to medical care for the poor (Medicaid, Community Health Centers) and to programs that supported child-rearing such as Head Start. 

Also on the panel, Melissa Murray discussed the forgotten contraception case of Trubek v. Ullman. Trubek was a parallel case to Poe v. Ullman and Doe v. Ullman, where the Court punted the topic to its future self by holding the challenges non-justiciable.  While Poe and Doe presented claims for contraceptive rights within traditional marriages, Trubek presented contraception as a component of a professional woman’s control over child bearing decisions and ability to work with her husband to balance work and family obligations.  Louise Trubek and her husband David were students at Yale Law School, and they made these issues central to their complaint, which the Connecticut Supreme Court had noted.  As Murray pointed out, the combined nature of liberty and equality claims was more fully apparent in Trubek than in either Poe or Griswold.  

Although Trubek did not, on its face, involve issues of poverty, for scholars and practitioners of poverty law it most certainly did:  Louise Trubek (now a Professor Emerita at Wisconsin Law School) has long been a leader in the field of poverty and public interest law (the casebook she co-authored with Julie Nice helped many of us teach Poverty Law through the post-welfare reform years of the 1990s and early 2000s). As Trubek herself discusses, the Connecticut litigation was specifically aimed at opening birth control clinics to serve the poor.  For women in poverty, the ability to plan child-bearing greatly increases their chances to escape poverty through paid labor.  The life-long social justice concerns that inspired Louise and David Trubek to join the litigation epitomized the intersection between gender and class justice that Cary Franklin argues has been lost from the popular history of Griswold.  By recovering this history, we may be reminded just how intertwined are the problems of class and gender freedom and equality, and how the de-emphasis of class discourse in constitutional law has inhibited gains in freedom and equality for women generally.

Notorious RBG

Sunday may have been Election Law Day at the AALS, but Saturday was RBG day.  Justice Ginsburg gave a moving introduction at the Women in Legal Education luncheon honoring her friend Herma Hill Kay, whose speech was equally inspiring.  The Justice also spoke about her own formative experiences and days in law school in her conversation with Wendy Williams at the subsequent Women in Legal Education and Legal History session. You can read the highlights of her talk here—including the confirmation of her good health and her mother-in-law’s advice for a good marriage (it helps to be a little deaf), which Justice Ginsburg also finds helpful in relations with her colleagues.  

The Justice also seemed to enjoy the panel presentations by the scholars studying women’s legal history, and contributed her own thoughts on the history of the post-suffrage movement.  She made particular note of how, when Chief Justice Taft and Congress forced the National Women’s Party to move its headquarters so that the Court could have the site for its present building, the NWP counsel, Burnita Shelton Matthews (who would become the first women on the federal bench), fought congressional efforts to pay less than fair market value and obtained what was at the time the highest condemnation payment by the U.S. government. (The headquarters moved to the final location, at left, which is now a museum preserving and celebrating the history of women’s suffrage and equality.) 

Institutional Affiliations of AALS Annual Meeting Speakers

Trying to find the panel on which one of my colleagues was speaking, I discovered that one can use the AALS conference app to search de facto for speakers by institutional affiliation, instead of by name.  After thinking and writing yesterday about folks making multiple appearances on conference panels (see here), I wondered what schools provide the most speakers for the AALS Annual Meeting.  My guess was that results would vary based on geography, budgets and faculty culture. 

I searched the conference program for appearances by speakers affiliated with law schools in two groups: (a) the top 50 schools law schools identified by Brian Leiter in his study (here) of "Top 70 Law Faculties in Scholarly Impact, 2007-2011;" and (b) those schools that have joined the AALS since 1980 that do not appear in the top 50 on the Leiter list.  I could have done a search by all AALS member schools, but even my procrastination techniques have their limits!  

Here are the schools with the number of speakers from the AALS 2015 Annual Meeting Program:

2015 AALS Speakers from Leiter Law School Reports Top 50 Law Faculties in Scholarly Impact, 2007-2011

Leiter Ranking	School	# Speakers
1	Yale University	12
2	Harvard University	14
3	University of Chicago	3
4	Stanford University	8
5	New York University	6
6	Columbia University	5
7	University of California, Irvine	7
8	Vanderbilt University	5
9	Cornell University	3
10	University of California, Berkeley	12
11	Duke University	4
	University of Pennsylvania	3
13	Northwestern University	5
14	University of California, Los Angeles	9
15	University of Michigan, Ann Arbor	3
16	George Washington University	18
	University of Virginia	4
18	Georgetown University	31
19	University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul	9
	University of Texas, Austin	8
21	Boston University	3
	George Mason University	3
23	University of California, Davis	7
24	University of Southern California	3
	Yeshiva University, Cardozo Law School	5
26	Emory University	5
	Washington U University, St. Louis	6
28	University of Colorado, Boulder	5
	University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign	2
30	Ohio State University	5
	University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)	1
	Washington & Lee University	3
33	Florida State University	6
	Hofstra University	1
	Indiana University, Bloomington	10
	University of Arizona	0
	University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill	10
38	Case Western Reserve University	2
	University of California, Hastings	4
	University of Notre Dame	2
41	Brooklyn Law School	6
	College of William & Mary	5
43	Fordham University	5
	University of Maryland, Baltimore	8
45	University of Houston	7
	University of Nevada, Las Vegas	3
47	American University	20
	University of Alabama	0
	University of Iowa	4
	University of Pittsburgh	3
	University of Utah	5
	TOTAL	318

AALS 2015 Annual Meeting Speakers from New Member Schools Not in Leiter Top 50

Name of School (Year Joined AALS)	# speakers
University of Baltimore School of Law (AALS, 1988)	3
Chapman University School of Law (AALS, 2006)	3
City University of New York School of Law (AALS, 2008)	3
Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law (AALS, 2012)	3
Florida International University College of Law (AALS, 2009)	3
Georgia State University College of Law (AALS, 1995)	1
University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law (AALS, 1989)	2
The University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law (AALS, 2001)	0
Mississippi College School of Law (AALS, 1990)	2
New England Law | Boston (AALS, 1998)	0
University of New Hampshire School of Law (AALS, 2014)	3
North Carolina Central University School of Law (AALS, 2012)	1
Northern Illinois University College of Law (AALS, 1985)	0
Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center (AALS, 1989)	1
Oklahoma City University School of Law (AALS, 2003)	1
Quinnipiac University School of Law (AALS, 1985)	1
Roger Williams University School of Law (AALS, 2006)	2
Saint Thomas University School of Law (AALS, 2001)	3
Southern University Law Center (AALS, 2011))	0
South Texas College of Law (AALS, 1998)	1
Texas Southern University, Thurgood Marshall School of Law (AALS, 2014)	3
Texas A&M University School of Law (AALS, 2012)	4
Thomas Jefferson School of Law (AALS, 2008)	4
Western New England University School of Law (AALS, 1981)	2
Whittier Law School (AALS, 1987)	1
Widener University School of Law (AALS, 1987)	1
TOTAL	48

By presenting this information, I do not mean to suggest the wisdom of ranking of schools by number of speakers supplied to the AALS Annual Meeting.  What I wonder, though, is whether the numbers suggest anything *other* than differences in school cultures -- i.e., that some faculties highly value AALS attendance and participation; others do not.  In terms of geography, I had assumed that D.C.-area schools would supply a disproportionate number of speakers, based on the conference location this year, but apart from Georgetown, GW and American, my assumption appears to be incorrect.  For those who think the current system for selecting speakers for AALS panels yields the "best" (however defined) speakers, does the school-based data add anything to the analysis? It may be that the results are purely descriptive.  For whatever it's worth, the AALS panels generally are not populated with more than one speaker per school (and there may be a rule prohibiting that; I don't know).