July 2017

With a Fourth of July post, I was inclined to write something patriotic and connected with our great nation and to law schools generally. As an unabashed and unapologetic fan of the Hamilton: An American Musical, a couple of analogies from this brilliant production seemed appropriate to convey my thoughts on law school and leaving a legacy.  

First, I think most of us who are fortunate enough to serve as law professors recognize the great gift we have to pursue our passion and to be part of educating the next generation of people who understand the rule of law and have the skills to protect the rights of individuals and groups. This is especially needed for those who are marginalized or under represented and thus less likely to be able to enforce their rights without the help of our legal system.  This is an incredible legacy in America, set in motion by some our nation’s founders.  

Like John Adams defending British soldiers and Alexander Hamilton defending Loyalists after the war, lawyers (and law professors) do not need to compromise their own views to embrace the ideals they seek to uphold. We can vigorously maintain our personal views…

The Section on Women in Legal Education (WILE) of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) recently announced that our business law colleague from Boston University, Tamar Frankel, is this year’s recipient of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lifetime Achievement Award.  Kerri Stone, this year’s chair of the section, wrote the following in her message to section members on June 23:

Professor Frankel, a true pioneer and mentor to so many, will be honored at the Section’s annual luncheon on January 6, 2018 in San Diego. We hope to see all of you there as we reconvene, reconnect, and celebrate Professor Frankel.

I will add (briefly) that I have been personally mentored and supported by Tamar over the years (as I know many law faculty members have been).  She has acknowledged receipt of my reprints (a rare thing) with a pithy comment that indicates she actually read the piece (an even rarer thing).  Her work on money managers and trust law has inspired and founded the scholarship of many (including my own work).  Her comments offered at academic conferences over the years have been insightful and constructive.  She has climbed mountains in her life and career that were tall and…

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities Inc.  The case resolved a critical issue of class action administration that was left hanging after the Supreme Court dismissed an earlier-granted petition in a similar case (see my earlier posts on the subject).

In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U. S. 538 (1974), the Supreme Court held that the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for all members of the putative class.  That way, if individual members wish to opt out and pursue their claims individually, or if the class is not certified and they are forced to file their own complaints, they are free to do so without fear of a limitations period that may have expired years earlier.  The rule has long been thought of as a practical necessity for the administration of class actions.  After all, class actions change over time – claims are dropped, class definitions are narrowed, class counsel may pursue remedies and settlements that don’t satisfy all class members.  If individual class members were not assured that they could file their own claims if any of these events occurred, they…