February 2014

From the Faculty Lounge:

The New York Law School Law Review is calling for papers to be published in connection with its April 25, 2014 symposium, Combating Threats to the International Financial System: The Financial Action Task Force.

Although this symposium will specifically address the Financial Action Task Force, the symposium’s companion Law Review publication will broadly examine contemporary threats to the international financial system, such as money laundering and terrorist financing. In examining these issues, the publication will address how these threats have been responded to in the past, as well as how they should be responded to at the international, federal, and state levels in the future.

The Law Review is currently accepting abstracts for papers to be considered for publication in the spring of 2015.  To be considered for publication, please send by March 28, 2014 an abstract of no more than 500 words in MS Word format, accompanied by a CV, to Editor-in-Chief G. William Bartholomew at george.bartholomew@law.nyls.edu.

Final papers will be due June 13, 2014, and may not exceed 35 pages in length (double-spaced, including footnotes).  Details on the symposium are here.

Professor Stephen Bainbridge made me aware of Keith Paul Bishop’s post entitled:

44 Law Professors Make A Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility

Bishop writes:

I was shocked because the [law professor] brief constitutes a frontal assault on corporate social responsibility.  For example, the law professors make the following apocalyptic claim: “If this Court were to agree that, as a matter of federal law, shareholders holding a control bloc of shares in a corporation may essentially transfer their [social responsibility] beliefs to the corporation, the results could be overwhelming.”  Ok, I substituted “social responsibility” for “religious”.  However, if the transfer of stockholder religious beliefs to the corporation would be “overwhelming”, why wouldn’t the same be true of beliefs regarding climate change, the environment, or other beliefs animating the corporate social responsibility movement?

Two of my co-bloggers signed the law professor brief in the Hobby Lobby case that Bishop discusses, so they are probably better suited to respond, but I will provide a few thoughts. 

One distinction, between the Hobby Lobby case and CSR, that may be quickly raised is addressed in section II.C of the law professor brief.  Hobby Lobby is attempting to use religion to avoid legal obligations.  There may be…

Western_carolina_logo

On March 3, I plan to start my spring break by speaking at Western Carolina University.  I will be speaking on the various social enterprise statutes—Benefit Corporations, Benefit LLCs, Public Benefit Corporations, Flexible Purpose Corporations, Social Purpose Corporations, and L3Cs—with a special focus on my recent research surrounding Delaware’s new (as of August 1, 2013) Public Benefit Corporation law. 

Western Carolina University has a major in Business Administration and Law and I understand that a number of students from that undergraduate program will be in attendance. 

Many thanks to Professor Melissa English for inviting me.  I love the mountains of North Carolina and always enjoy sharing my research. 

Atower

Our BLPB group has had a number of email discussions recently about the use of social media including blogs, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter for professional purposes. My home institution has discussed the same topic and even held a “training” session on technology in and outside of the classroom.  Because I am a heavy user, I volunteered to blog about how I use social media as a lawyer and academic in the hopes of spurring discussion or at least encouraging others to take a dip in the vast pool of social media.

Although I have been on Facebook for years, I don’t use that professionally at all. I also don’t allow my students to friend me, although I do know a number of professors who do. I often see lawyer friends discussing their clients or cases in a way that borders on violations of the rules of professional conduct, and I made sure to discuss those pitfalls when I was teaching PR last year.

I have also used LinkedIn for several years, mainly for professional purposes to see what others in my profession (at the time compliance and privacy work) were thinking about.  I still belong to a number of LinkedIn…

Today, I am highlighting the CLEAF Junior Faculty Workshop, which took place at George Washington earlier this month.  Applicants submitted unpublished papers in the fall, and if accepted were invited to attend the workshop in February.  Each paper was assigned 2 readers who specialize in the subject matter of the paper. The experts ranged from senior legal scholars, to interdisciplinary scholars, to lawyers in the field.  The 2-day workshop dedicated an hour to each paper, soliciting the formal comments of the assigned readers and a discussion from the larger group.

If time is money, the 2 days at the workshop were a great investment.  I had the opportunity to connect, personally and professionally with both junior and senior scholars in the field in a way that felt more comfortable and more productive than in other foras.   For me, it also provided tailored feedback on my project (which I am now furiously incorporating), and it also forced me to spend 2 days thinking about scholarship in terms of publication goals, audience goals, forms of proof, preference of presentation and other aspects of writing that never seem to get the attention they deserve when I am puzzling through how…

This conference is worth a look, with some great people (and great teachers), including Michael Hunter Schwartz.  It’s relevant to all disciplines, though judging by the AALS panel I attended in January, for the section on Agency, Partnership, LLCs, and Unincorporated Associations, titled “Effective Methods for Teaching LLCs and Unincorporated Business Arrangements,” a lot of people in the in the business area have been particularly focused on assessment and outcomes for their students.  BLPB’s own Anne Tucker, for one. 

Assessment Across The Curriculum

Institute for Law Teaching and Learning

Spring Conference 2014

Saturday, April 5, 2014

“Assessment Across the Curriculum” is a one-day conference for new and experienced law teachers who are interested in designing and implementing effective techniques for assessing student learning.  The conference will take place on Saturday, April 5, 2014, at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law in Little Rock, Arkansas.

 Conference Content:  Sessions will address topics such as

·         Formative Assessment in Large Classes

·         Classroom Assessment Techniques

·         Using Rubrics for Formative and Summative Assessment

·         Assessing the Ineffable: Professionalism, Judgment, and Teamwork

·         Assessment Techniques for Statutory or Transactional Courses

By the end of the conference, participants…

The Western Academy of Legal Studies in Business (“WALSB“) Annual Conference will be held in Monterey, CA on March 28-29, 2014.

WALSB president-elect Lydie Pierre-Louis (San Fransisco) provided the information below about the conference:

Invitation:

You may choose to present a scholarly paper (for academics), organize or serve on a panel, or give a presentation on any topic of interest to academics or practitioners in the field of business law (for practitioners).  Registration fee includes a cocktail reception on Friday for registrants and guests, breakfast and light lunch on Saturday for registrants, and a digital copy of the proceedings.  CA CLE is available.

Participation:

Please complete and submit the registration form to our conference program chair, Lydie Pierre-Louis, at lnpierrelouis@usfca.edu.  If you wish to be placed on the program for presentation at the conference, please submit your registration by March 14, 2014. We will receive a confirmation.

Holly Gregory has a useful post entitled Governance Priorities in 2014 on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Goverance and Financial Regulation.  (As a side note, I was surprised to learn that Holly Gregory, who had been a partner at one of my former firms (Weil Gotshal), had left for Sidley Austin.  This is a huge loss for Weil as she is widely regarded as one of the country’s top corporate governance attorneys).

Go to the link above for the entire post, but the opening few paragraphs are posted below:

As the fallout from the financial crisis recedes and both institutional investors and corporate boards gain experience with expanded corporate governance regulation, the coming year holds some promise of decreased tensions in board-shareholder relations. With governance settling in to a “new normal,” influential shareholders and boards should refocus their attention on the fundamental aspects of their roles as they relate to the creation of long-term value.

Institutional investors and their beneficiaries, and society at large, have a decided interest in the long-term health of the corporation and in the effectiveness of its governing body. Corporate governance is likely to work best in supporting the creation of value when

…

As my wife, kids, and friends will tell you, I sometimes rant about grammar. I’m going to do that now, so excuse yourself now if that kind of thing bothers you.

Don’t worry. I’m not going to lecture you on splitting infinitives or beginning sentences with conjunctions (neither of which is improper, by the way, but never mind . . . ). My latest concern is not a technical grammatical point, but a simple question of proper English usage.

The past tense of the verb “lead” is spelled “led,” not “lead.”

Napoleon leads the troops into battle. (Present tense)

Napoleon led the troops into battle last week. (Past tense). NOT Napoleon lead the troops into battle last week.

People seem to be using “lead” as the past tense more and more. I have seen it not just in student drafts and blog posts, but in newspapers, books, and other sources edited by people who ought to know better. I’m not sure what the problem is; perhaps people are analogizing to the verb “read.” The present tense and past tense of that verb are the same. Or perhaps they are comparing it to the element “lead,” which is also pronounced “led.”…

CALI, the Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction, holds an annual Conference for Law School Computing that brings together law professors, law librarians, educational technologists, I.T. directors, and others interested in the application of technology in legal education and the law generally. Attendees range from hard-core techies to unsophisticated neophytes looking for new ideas. I have attended several of these conferences and have always found them informative and enjoyable. (Full disclosure: Until recently, I was a member of CALI’s Board of Directors.)

This year’s conference is June 19-21, at Harvard Law School. That’s in Cambridge, Mass., for those who haven’t heard of the school. (Harvard is my alma mater, but they have encouraged me not to tell anyone.) If you’re a lawyer or law professor interested in bringing legal education or the legal profession into the 21st century, or even if you would settle for bringing it into the late 20th century, this is a great conference.

In addition, if you have an idea for a presentation, I would encourage you to submit a proposal. Unlike many conferences, presentations are not limited to invited speakers. Anyone may submit a proposal. Just follow this link, create an account, and click on…