Suffolk

BUSINESS LAW & ETHICS FACULTY POSITION

FALL 2019

SAWYER BUSINESS SCHOOL

SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108

POSITION:  Business Law & Ethics Faculty position at the Assistant Professor rank.  The anticipated start date is Fall 2019.  This is for a tenure-track position.  Applications will be accepted until the position is filled.

QUALIFICATIONS: 

  • J.D. from and ABA-accredited law school.
  • B.A or other relevant graduate business degree from an AACSB-accredited school.
  • A relevant Ph.D. from an AACSB-accredited school may be substituted for the graduate degree requirement.
  • Potential for excellent teaching and research.
  • Demonstrated
  • Candidates with industry experience are encouraged to apply.
  • Candidates with an expertise in corporate compliance, intellectual property, or data privacy are encouraged to apply.

JOB RESPONSIBILITY:  Suffolk University emphasizes both teaching and research. The standard teaching load is 5 semester courses per academic year. Candidates must have a commitment to research which leads to quality refereed publications.  BLE faculty conduct research in various business law and ethics journals which may include both legal and social science outlets.

THE BUSINESS SCHOOL:  The Sawyer Business School offers undergraduate and graduate degrees, including BSBA, MBA and other graduate programs along with several joint degrees  The Sawyer Business School has over 100 full-time faculty members and is internationally accredited in business and accounting by the AACSB.

THE UNIVERSITY:  Suffolk University is a private school located in Boston, next to the financial district.  The university serves a culturally-diverse student population who come from all over the world.

APPLICATION:  Candidates are invited to send an application letter; resume; as well as, the following documents where applicable: teaching evaluations; a copy of their transcript; and names, addresses and phone numbers of at least three references to: Jason Peterson, Chair and Associate Professor, Business Law & Ethics Department; Suffolk University, Boston, MA.

Please send (email only) all application materials c/o:   

Nitsa Tsiotos

Office Coordinator

Business Law & Ethics Department

ntsiotos@suffolk.edu

***Please refer to this listing in the Subject Line of your email.*

In today’s post, I address the second of the two questions at the heart of Wharton Professor Richard Shell’s Springboard: Launching Your Personal Search for SUCCESS: How will I achieve my idea of success (see last week’s post for question 1)?  

Shell offers 5 Steps covered in Chapters 5-9 (if you’ve yet to formulate your idea of success, jumpstart with his Six Lives Exercise)

Step #5: Look Inside to Find Your Unique Combination of Capabilities

I love the quoted Danish folk saying that opens this chapter: “You must bake with the flour you have.”  Given my affinity for cooking, I was intrigued by its opening story about the circuitous life path of the famous French chef Julia Child (want details? read the book!).  Using the story of Child and others, Shell steers the reader through a reflection upon one’s achievement skills, backyard diamonds, and personality strengths through his SAME assessment exercise. 

I think the genius of this chapter is that it seems to suggest that just as we all have a unique combination of DNA, we all have a unique mix of gifts, talents, personality strengths etc. and that it’s in understanding, nurturing, and harnessing this unrepeatable mix that we’re most likely to flourish.    

Step #6: Energize Yourself by Combining Satisfaction-Based and Reward-Based Motivations

Do you know the significance of the number 32,850? Shell asks the reader. Do you?  It’s the number of days you’ll live if you someday celebrate your 90th birthday.  Time is short, so get energized and get moving!  But how?  Shell suggests a balanced combination of inner (satisfaction-based) and outer (reward-based) motivations adapted to one’s personality strengths (do the SAME assessment!).  Being a runner, I love his rationale: “Satisfaction-based motivation is best for endurance.  Reward-based energy is best for sprints.”   

Step #7: Cultivate Self-Confidence

In essence: learn to fail.  It’s not fun (at least at first), but it’s so important to one’s growth.  Shell discusses two types of confidence in this Chapter: Level 1 (your sense of your “true-self”) and Level 2 (skills-based).  He notes that “Your confidence is what gives you the courage to try, fail, learn, grow, and, ultimately, succeed.”    

Step #8: Focus the Powers of Your Mind to Achieve Long-Term Goals

Charles Lindbergh’s audacious goal of being the first to make a nonstop transatlantic flight is among the many stories in Springboard.  Achieving important goals requires effectively harnessing and focusing four powers of the mind: passion, imagination, intuition, and reason.

True confession: the runner in me has been waiting for the opportune moment to share a recent, utterly inspiring WSJ article about Gene Dykes, the spouse of Shell’s Wharton colleague Olivia Mitchell, who had the audacious goal (at least for most of us!) of running a marathon in less than 3 hours.  The ability to effectively harness one’s mental powers is absolutely essential in endurance running.   Without doubt, Dykes succeeded at this: in December 2018, he “ran a world record sub-three hour marathon…at age 70.” WOW!!    

Step #9: Engage Others-Exercise Influence

Here, credibility is key.  It establishes trust.  And trust is the basis of true cooperation.  To illustrate, Shell quotes Mark Twain: “Always do right.  This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.”

In Springboard’s closing paragraph, Shell states that “My goal has been to make this experience a living workbook about you, your goals, and your life.”  Based upon comments I’ve heard from various sources (students, friends, siblings, business contacts etc.), Shell has succeeded.  It’s a truly worthwhile read!  

I had a great time reading Guhan Subramanian & Annie Zhao’s new paper, Go-Shops Revisited.  It follows up on Prof. Subramanian’s earlier study of their effects, Go-Shops vs. No-Shops in Private Equity Deals: Evidence & Implications, 63 Bus. Law. 729 (2008).  In the original study, Prof. Subramanian found that go-shops generally had beneficial effects for target companies: bidders would pay a little bit more for the privilege of something like exclusivity in the original negotiations, and not infrequently, a superior proposal would materialize during the go-shop period.  But in the new paper, the authors conclude that go-shops are no longer an effective tool for price discovery, in large part because changes in their design make it much less likely that a superior proposal will emerge.

There are a lot of interesting observations in the new paper, with the basic point being that deal attorneys – aware that Delaware courts focus a lot on things like the size of termination fees – instead manipulate aspects of the go-shop that tend to escape judicial notice, and that collectively function to make go-shops less effective.  One particular point that stood out: The authors note that PE firms have changed how they compensate CEOs who remain with the company after the buyout.  Today, they pay based on whether the firm achieves certain multiples of invested capital, a metric that CEOs might view as functionally guaranteeing them a healthy payout, and one that incentivizes them to keep the deal price as low as possible.  (The authors contrast with earlier IRR-based payouts, which were so difficult to achieve as to render compensation speculative).  And even if the CEO does not negotiate compensation with the PE firm until after a deal price is reached, the CEO will know the PE firm’s practices and past history.  The authors got a kind of amazing quote from an unnamed PE investor who said his firm tries to “corrupt” management; the multiple-of-invested-capital compensation structure, argue the authors, contributes to that corruption.

Point being, there are a lot of wonderful nuggets in the paper, and I highly recommend it.

Tulane Law School invites applications for three positions: a Forrester Fellowship, a visiting assistant professorship, and a Yongxiong Fellowship.

All three positions are designed for promising scholars who plan to apply for tenure-track law school positions. All three positions are full-time faculty in the law school and are encouraged to participate in all aspects of the intellectual life of the school. The law school provides significant support, both formal and informal, including faculty mentors, a professional travel budget, and opportunities to present works-in-progress in various settings.

Tulane’s Forrester Fellows teach legal writing in the first-year curriculum to two sections of 25 to 30 first-year law students in a program coordinated by the Director of Legal Writing. Fellows are appointed to a one-year term with the possibility of a single one-year renewal. Applicants must have a JD from an ABA-accredited law school, outstanding academic credentials, and significant law-related practice and/or clerkship experience. Candidates should apply through Interfolio, at http://apply.interfolio.com/59403. If you have any questions, please contact Erin Donelon at edonelon@tulane.edu.

Tulane’s visiting assistant professor (VAP), a two-year position, is supported by the Murphy Institute at Tulane (http://murphy.tulane.edu), an interdisciplinary unit specializing in political economy and ethics that draws faculty from the university’s departments of economics, philosophy, history, and political science. The position entails teaching a law school course or seminar in three of the four semesters of the professorship (presumably the last three semesters). It is designed for scholars focusing on regulation of economic activity very broadly construed (including, for example, research with a methodological or analytical focus relevant to scholars of regulation). In addition to participating in the intellectual life of the law school, the VAP will be expected to participate in scholarly activities at the Murphy Institute. Candidates should apply through Interfolio, at http://apply.interfolio.com/59420, providing a CV identifying at least three references, post-graduate transcripts, electronic copies of any scholarship completed or in-progress, and a letter explaining their teaching interests and their research agenda. If you have any questions, please contact Adam Feibelman at afeibelm@tulane.edu. 

Tulane’s Yongxiong Fellow will teach a required course in U.S. legal research and writing to a cohort of LLM students at Tulane Law School under the auspices of the Yongxiong-Tulane Center for International Credit Law. The Fellow will also teach one upper-level course in a topic relating to financial markets, banking or credit law. The Fellow will be appointed to a two-year term with the possibility of renewal. Applicants must have a JD or graduate degree in law from an ABA-accredited law school, outstanding academic credentials, excellent research and writing skills, and scholarly interests related to financial regulation. Applicants proficient in Mandarin Chinese are especially encouraged to apply, although there is no language requirement for the position. Candidates should apply through Interfolio, at http://apply.interfolio.com/59521, providing a CV identifying at least three references, post-graduate transcripts, electronic copies of any scholarship completed or in-progress, and a letter explaining their teaching interests and their research agenda. If you have any questions, please contact Adam Feibelman at afeibelm@tulane.edu. 

The law school aims to fill all three positions by March 2019. Tulane is an equal opportunity employer and encourages women and members of minority communities to apply.

Aspiring business law professors may want to apply for the fellowship at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford Law School.  The posting describes the position as follows:

The Fellow will be expected to conduct independent research leading to major academic journal or law review publication, and will receive support from faculty in developing and executing those projects. The Fellow will also engage in a broad mix of research and analysis under the supervision of Stanford Law School, Rock Center, and other affiliated faculty. Potential projects include research in the areas of: executive compensation, proxy voting, rating agencies, securities and corporate litigation, investment vehicle structures, Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) Issues, diversity on corporate boards, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and the financial regulatory system. The Fellow will also develop law school and/or Rock Center course materials and educational materials for directors of publicly traded corporations, and help support research conferences and seminars. Fellows are encouraged to attend weekly faculty lunch seminars and participate in activities with the other fellows at Stanford Law School to learn more about their scholarship and academic life. The Fellow will report to the Managing Director of the Rock Center, but will work under the direction of an assigned faculty member. We provide office space, a competitive stipend, and a generous benefits package.

It’s a great program.  Applications are due on or before March 22, 2019.

 

Christopher G. Bradley at University of Kentucky College of Law has posted his paper, Business Entities as Skeleton Keys.  The paper was also selected for the 2019 AALS Section on Agency, Partnership, LLCs and Unincorporated Associations program, Respecting the Entity: The LLC Grows Up.  

Chris notes the use of business entities to accomplish goals not attainable previously and the use of entities “to accomplish customized transactions and evade legal restrictions that would otherwise prevent them.”  His observations and insights are good ones, and his paper is definitely worth the read.  I can’t help but think that some of this is occurring more because of an increasing comfort with entities and a willingness to engage in creative transactions. We’re seeing in beyond the use of entities, too, with the rise of derivatives over the last 20 or so years, not to mention cryptocurrencies.  Anyway,  it’s a good paper and I recommend it. 

Here’s the abstract:

This Article identifies the increasingly important phenomenon of what I term “skeleton key business entities” and discusses the ramifications of their rise. Modern business entities, such as LLCs, are increasingly created and deployed to accomplish customized transactions and evade legal restrictions that would otherwise prevent them. Rather than acting as traditional businesses, such entities are tools, or “skeleton keys,” used to open “locked doors” presented by existing bodies of law, including contract, property, bankruptcy, copyright, tax, national security, and even election law.

The Article centers on the example of the “Artist’s Contract,” a fascinating 1971 project, in which artists sought to retain rights in artworks they sold—to obtain a percentage of future appreciation in value, to exhibit the work upon request, and so on. As prior scholarship has noted, the transaction contemplated by the Artist’s Contract could not have been accomplished in regular contract form due to rules concerning privity, servitudes on chattels, and the first sale doctrine, among other things. But this no longer remains true. The emergence of modern business entity law provides the tools—i.e., skeleton key business entities—to “solve” all of these legal problems and allow for bespoke transactions such as those desired by the artists.

The rise of skeleton key business entities may unsettle numerous other bodies of law. They may bring efficiencies but may undermine important policies. After providing a range of examples, I suggest that scholars—including those outside the business and commercial law realm—should turn renewed attention to the remarkable capacities of these flexible, inexpensive, and surprisingly potent transactional tools. We should consider if it makes sense to force parties pursuing newly enabled forms of commerce to bear the costs of filtering transactions through business entities; or alternatively, which traditional doctrines should bind modern entities just as they bind parties outside of those forms.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:

Thinking About Law, Law Practice, and Legal Education

Hosted by the Duquesne University School of Law

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Friday & Saturday, April 26-27, 2019

Developments in artificial intelligence are changing virtually all aspects of our world, ranging from autonomous vehicles to robotic surgery, and from smartphones to smart speakers.  Lawyers, legal educators, and policymakers are already experiencing the effects of computers that aid and, in some cases, replace the often-tedious work done by lawyers and other members of society.  Law school graduates will need to understand how intelligent systems can enhance and streamline the work that they do, and how their careers may be changed in the future.  Furthermore, artificial intelligence technology will likely call for greater government oversight, result in new laws, and trigger litigation. 

This two-day conference will feature presentations by educators, practitioners, policymakers, and computer scientists that will demonstrate how the development of artificial intelligence is affecting society, the law, the legal profession, and legal education.   The Duquesne Law Review will dedicate space in its Winter 2019 symposium issue to publishing papers from this conference. 

Presenters & Agenda, Day One (Law and Law Practice):

  • Dean Alderucci (Carnegie Mellon Univ.): Customized Artificial Intelligence Techniques for the Patent Field
  • Kevin Ashley (Univ. of Pittsburgh): Connecting Case Texts and Computational Models of Legal Reasoning
  • Kristen Baginski (Lexis): Lexis Advance and the Use of AI and Analytics: A Brief Overview of Recent and Upcoming AI and Analytic Enhancements to the Lexis Advance Platform
  • Kishor Dere (Indian Society of International Law): Role of Artificial Intelligence in Predicting the Speed and Results of Judicial Decision-Making
  • Tabrez Y. Ebrahim (California Western Univ.): Autonomous Vehicles Ethics & Law: An Artificial Intelligence Trolley Problem
  • Brian S. Haney (Martian Technologies): The Optimal Agent: The Future of Autonomous Vehicles & Liability Theory
  • Patrick Juola (Duquesne Univ.): Specificity and Sensitivity in Discovery: What Artificial Intelligence Can Offer
  • Ganes Kesari (Gramener, Inc.): Smart Contract Risk Identification with AI
  • Timothy Lau, Esq. (Federal Judicial Center): Educating Federal Judges on AI
  • Oliver Round, Esq., Seema Phekoo, Esq., & Kyle Johnson (BNY Mellon), & Scott Curtis (Deloitte LLP): Practical Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Corporate Legal Departments
  • Emile Loza de Siles, Esq. (Technology & Cybersecurity Law Group): Algorithmic Justice: A New Proposal Toward the Identification and Reduction of Discriminatory Bias in Artificial Intelligence Systems
  • Igor Vuletić (Josip Juraj Strossmayer Univ.): Criminal Law Facing Challenges of Autonomous Technology: Who Is Liable for a Traffic Accident Caused by an Autonomous Vehicle?

Presenters & Agenda, Day Two (Legal Education):

  • Dionne E. Anthon, Prof. Anna P. Hemingway, & Prof. Amanda Sholtis (Widener Law Commonwealth): Practice-Ready Millennials: Technology Training for Efficient and Effective Communication
  • Jamie J. Baker (Texas Tech Univ.): Legal Research and The Duty of Technology Competence: Regulating Algorithms in Law
  • Randy J. Diamond (Univ. of Missouri): Technology Skills for Lawyers
  • Kristi Gedid (Mylan), Virginia L. Zaccari (Duquesne Univ.), & Kevin Miller (LegalSifter): How Artificial Intelligence is Transforming the Legal Sector
  • Emily Janoski-Haehlen & Librarian Sarah Starnes (Univ. of Akron): From AI to IoT: Using Legal Innovations to Teach Legal Technology Competency Across the Curriculum
  • Kate Norton (Duquesne Univ.): Artificial Intelligence as a Path to Closing the Justice Gap
  • Julie Oseid (Univ. of St. Thomas), Prof. Melissa Love Koenig (Marquette Univ.), & Amy Vorenberg (Univ. of New Hampshire): OK Google, Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Human Lawyering?
  • Teresa Godwin Phelps (American Univ.) & Richard B. Phelps (Broadcast Media):“Alexa, Write a Memo”: The Promise and Challenges of AI and Legal Writing
  • James B. Schreiber & Prof. Ashley London (Duquesne Univ.): Considerations Surrounding the Data Science World We Are In
  • Drew Simshaw (Georgetown Univ.): Teaching Legal Research and Writing in an Era of Artificial Intelligence

Conference Registration Fees: 

  • Presenters and Duquesne faculty – Free
  • Other registrants with a full-time academic or government agency affiliation – $50 per day
  • All others, including attorneys seeking CLE credits — $90 per day (yielding three hours of CLE credit each day)

Duquesne will provide free on-site parking to conference attendees. A continental breakfast, snacks, and lunch will be provided each day, and a conference-closing reception will take place in the Bridget and Alfred Peláez Legal Writing Center, the home of Duquesne’s Legal Research and Writing Program.

Pittsburgh is an easy drive or short flight from many cities.  Duquesne has arranged for blocks of discounted rooms at two hotels near to campus, within walking distance of the law school and downtown Pittsburgh. Attendees can enjoy Pittsburgh area attractions, including our architectural treasures, museums, art collections, shopping, and world-class professional sports teams.

 

For more information, and to complete the online registration for the conference and hotels, please visit https://www.law.duq.edu/news/artificial-intelligence-conference-april-26-27th-2019. Hotel registration will close soon, so please make your reservations now.

BLPBPlatedTacos

Couples Cooking with Plated: Curried Lamb Tacos
with Cabbage Slaw and Cilantro-Lime Yogurt

Since I last wrote about meal kits–those boxes of goodness (recipes and ingredients, all shipped to your door)–they have continued to be in the news.  There’s been some consolidation in the industry (referenced here), continued speculation about whether the industry is sustainable (for a negative view, see here), and ongoing interest in what meal kits are all about (here).  Now, there even is an industry information page dedicated to meal kits (here).

A central concern in much of what is being written is competition.  But I have my own perspective on competition in this industry: if enough of these firms can find a financially sustainable, cost-effective business model (and I certainly hope they do), I have a good feeling about the continued survival of a few of these firms.  Why?  Because each of the three firms I have ordered from–Blue Apron, Hello Fresh, and Plated–has evolved toward each other a bit as time has gone on, converging toward better service norms.  Among the areas of convergence: segregated ingredients (put in a separate bag or mini-box) and lower calorie/simpler preparation options.  In other words, the service elements of the businesses appear to be learning from each other’s successes in meaningful ways.  I actually enjoy all three services.

Having said that, there are certain competitive service advantages, as I perceive them, that Plated has over Blue Apron and Hello Fresh. What are those important competitive features?  Bottom Line:  the fact that Plated has (1) relatively simple, (2) varied, recipe/meal choices–all of which are (3) just a bit more sophisticated than we normally would eat and (4) delicious–at (5) an affordable cost and are (6) available in a two-meal-a week-for-three-people format.  Basically, Plated has everything I want and need.  And the few deliveries that have not been perfect have either included a substitute for the unavailable item (with a message to that effect) or have been remedied by a discount off a future order.  (Honestly, I have been impressed by the level of customer service in all three firms when I have had a question or complaint.  Good for all of them.)

This does not mean that I do not still enjoy Blue Apron and Hello Fresh, but neither, for example, has a three-person meal option . . . .

Perhaps I will have more to say about this industry at some point in the future.  But this (finally) completes the three-part series I started and promised over a year ago.  Honestly, and I tell just about everyone this, other than general convenience and great food, one of the best things about getting meal kits delivered is just what my husband originally intended to give me in the first place when he began ordering Blue Apron for us: easy time with him in the kitchen creating a family meal together, glass of wine in hand . . . .

During the first-half of this spring semester, I’m teaching an MBA-level Business Ethics/Legal Studies course.  On Tuesday, we’ll discuss one of my absolute favorite books: Springboard: Launching Your Personal Search for Success by Wharton School Professor Richard Shell.  Making this book required reading reinforces the course’s emphasis on ethics and values, and is designed to help students articulate long-term core values around meaningful work.  Given that a Gallup 2017 State of the Global Workplace survey reports that “85% of employees worldwide are not engaged or are actively disengaged in their job,” this objective strikes me as a meaningful task.

In the Introduction, Shell chronicles generally what he terms his “odyssey years,” which included a variety of short-lived jobs, self-help research and seminars, travels across the globe, and collapsing in the mud with hepatitis in Afghanistan one Christmas Eve (for more, read the book!).  Ultimately, the experiences and lessons learned during these years led Shell to his first academic position at Wharton at age 37, and to a life-long interest in the study of success.  He recalls: “If you had told me that night [that Christmas Eve] that I would one day graduate from law school near the top of my class, clerk for a federal appeals court in Boston, and become a professor of law, ethics, and management at the Wharton School, I would have questioned your sanity.” (p.5)

Springboard is based on Shell’s highly-popular course at the Wharton School: The Literature of Success: Ethical and Historical Perspectives.  Its ultimate purpose is to help the reader answer two big questions everyone would benefit from personal reflection upon: 1) What is success?, and 2) How will I achieve it?  Shell explains that, “By investigating the meaning of success, you begin the lifelong process of deciding what is worth doing.” (p.11)  The first-half of Springboard (Chapters 1-4) addresses Question #1, and the second-half, Question #2 (Chapters 5-9). 

Chapters 1-4 encourage readers to “Choose Your Life,” by focused reflection on one’s ideas about happiness, the sources of such ideas (family, community, culture, etc.), the various aspects of happiness, and the relationship between success and meaningful work, including its seven foundations.  Intrigued?  The Six Lives Exercise can help begin your quest.  Want more about Part II?  Come back next Sunday!      

As many readers know, Shell is a phenomenally successful, world-class academic who has authored several books, including Bargaining for Advantage, a standard text in many Negotiation courses.  And as some readers know, Shell was my dissertation advisor.  I’ll always be immensely grateful to Richard and the additional members of my committee (Kenneth Shropshire, David Skeel, and Franklin Allen) for their time, invaluable guidance, continued mentorship, and enabling the success of my dissertation on the regulation of the OTC derivative markets.

While working on my dissertation, I was also working on my 200-Hour Yoga Teacher Training Certification.  It’s been a while since I’ve taught yoga.  Recently, I decided that for me, a successful 2019 includes a return to occasional yoga teaching.  Co-blogger Joan Heminway’s enthusiasm and dedication in this area has inspired me (thanks, Joan!).  I’m excited we’ll be encouraging each other and sharing with readers about this topic that is meaningful for both of us.  In “The Lottery Exercise” (p.80), Shell asks the reader to reflect upon what they’d do with their life if they won $1 million dollars (after taking care of family and investing prudently).  I’m working on a complete answer to that question.  However, I know that I’d want it to include teaching.  Stay tuned for more!