Current Affairs

Subscribe to Current Affairs via RSS

As I noted here a few weeks ago, I flew out to Detroit for the third annual Peter J. Henning Memorial Lecture two weeks ago. This year’s distinguished speaker, Jerry Israel, regaled us with observations on how federal courts take (or do not take) wealth into account in pre-trial release decisions. This can be, of course, a matter of interest in white collar crime proceedings, given that some white collar criminal defendants are wealthy individuals.

Taking us back to language in the First Judiciary Act and the Bail Reform Act of 1966, Jerry offered us a history of, and various standards for, bail. These standards are, of course, subject to interpretation in context. And Jerry was armed with court opinions in a number of cases that serve as interesting examples.

A former student of mine, Willie Santana, has been active in attempting to enforce pre-trial release standards under Tennessee law in our trial courts. Willie explains the issues in this article for the Tennessee Bar Association. Willie’s work led me to ask a question of Jerry about parallels between state and federal law bail determinations.

The lecture was engaging and a lovely tribute to Peter’s life and work. And it…

I am in Detroit today for the third annual Peter J. Henning Memorial Lecture. As many of you know, Peter was a mentor and friend who died way too young. Peter’s teaching and work spanned business and criminal law. He and I, perhaps predicatbly, shared an interest in insider trading law.

A number of folks, including a few of us academics, help to support this lecture series financially and through attendance. If you would like to join in that effort, please contact me or Jennifer Bird-Pollan. The first two speakers were the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff and Mary Jo White. I look forward to Professor Israel’s talk as the third in the series later today!

Tina L. Stark Emory Law, October 2007

Transactional lawyering and the education of transactional lawyers has been transformed by Tina L. Stark (Weisenfeld). You may have known her for her wonderful books–Drafting Contracts: How & Why Lawyers Do What They Do and Negotiating and Drafting Contract Boilerplate are on my bookshelves and those of so many others. You may have heard her speak at a conference or symposium.

Yet, many of us also knew Tina on a more personal level. Some of us had her as an instructor or as a colleague. Long a consultant and advisor to law schools, bar associations, and legal employers on transactional legal education and training, Tina also held full-time administrative and teaching appointments at Emory University School of Law and Boston University School of Law and was a visitor at Fordham University School of Law. Earlier in her career, she was an adjunct law professor at Fordham Law and the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University.

Tina passed away earlier this week. But her presence will continue to be felt in so many ways. She and I initially bonded over our not only our love of teaching plainly…

Following on my Weinberg Center blog post back on October 27, I write today to promote participation in a survey hosted by the University of Delaware’s John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance on public company Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposals under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The survey website explains that the Weinberg Center “seeks to gather practical insights from companies, investors, and related professionals about the scope and effectiveness of the current federal shareholder proposal rule (Rule 14a-8).” I suspect that the referenced professionals include lawyers representing both public companies and shareholders, as well as other advisors to each. More information about the survey can be found on the website.

In the spirit of that October 27 blog post, I am appreciative of the effort to gather information from a wide variety of constituents. I have taught group-oriented change leadership to undergraduate honors students here at The University of Tennessee using design thinking methods, in which the first step is undertaking to empathize. This step involves the team researching, and endeavoring to understand, the needs of various stakeholders. One design thinking website describes this first stage of a group-oriented process of innovation through design thinking…

Back in June of 2024, in connection with the legislative debate in Delaware over the approval of § 122(18) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (DGCL § 122(18)), I authored a blog post in which I raised concerns about whether there was adequate understanding of the public policy impacts of the proposal to adopt DGCL § 122(18).  I then wrote:

I have one large and important question as Senate Bill 313 continues to move through the Delaware legislative process: do members of the Delaware General Assembly voting on this bill fully understand the large shift in public policy represented by the introduction of DGCL § 122(18)?  If so, then they act on an informed basis and live with the consequences, as they do with any legislation they pass that is signed into law.  If not, we all must work harder to enable that understanding.

Later that month, I authored and published a second blog post that cross-referenced the earlier blog post and offered several policy-related values relevant to the proposal.

Two-and-a-half weeks ago, I found myself affected by similar concerns about the need for serious, thoughtful policy engagement in Delaware.  The occasion was the Gala Celebration…

As the erstwhile “Monday blogger” for the BLPB, I have written Labor Day posts over the years on a variety of Labor Day topics–from the history surrounding the holiday, to the labor of law teaching. Last year, I wrote about gratitude on Labor Day. This year, I carry that gratitude theme forward in a specific context: appreciation for lawyers and for being a lawyer.

I know that the holiday is not generally seen as a moment in the calendar year in which we step back to honor service professionals. As I have noted in prior Labor Day posts, the workers intended to be honored are those who made our country prosperous in and around the time of the Industrial Revolution–working long, hard hours for low pay. The Department of Labor’s website offers a summary description.

Labor Day is an annual celebration of the social and economic achievements of American workers. The holiday is rooted in the late nineteenth century, when labor activists pushed for a federal holiday to recognize the many contributions workers have made to America’s strength, prosperity, and well-being.

I mean no disrespect to that original intention by focusing on lawyers here. I continue to believe that…

Friends keep sending me contracts they created with ChatGPT or Claude.

They read well. The formatting is clean.

But essential clauses are often missing—or the terms don’t reflect the actual business deal.

Sometimes I revise heavily. Sometimes I start over.

This post isn’t about whether AI is capable.

It’s about whether the person prompting knows how contracts actually work in business.

A contract isn’t a CYA document like my friends think. It reflects how the parties have chosen to allocate risk, reflect their priorities, and protect relationships and business interests.

AI can assist with drafting. I use it. I teach it. But without commercial judgment, even the best prompt won’t protect the business.

We’re need to train future lawyers and all workers not to rely on AI but to partner with it.

At University of Miami School of Law, we’re preparing students to step into the real world—with both digital and business acumen.

In our Transactional Skills Program, students don’t learn theory.

They negotiate, redline, bill, meet with simulated clients, and use AI responsibly. They also work with real-world agreements—documents they’ll see in practice:

✅ NDAs, employment, and contractor agreements

✅ SaaS, MSAs, and licensing deals

✅ Escrow, loan…