AALS Annual Meeting 2006



Empirical Scholarship
What Should We Study and
How Should We Study It?

January 3-7, 2006

Washington, DC



Wednesday, January 4, 2006

7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.
AALS Registration

7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.
AALS Message Center

7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.
AALS Office and Information Center

7:30 a.m. - 8:00 a.m.
Twelve Step Meeting

8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
AALS Exhibit Hall Open House - “The Meeting Place”
Exhibitors will display a variety of academic, teaching and administrative products and services of interest to those in legal education. Refreshments will be served in the morning and afternoon in the “Meeting Place” in the Exhibit Hall.


8:45 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
AALS WORKSHOPS

Workshop on Integrating Transnational Legal Perspectives Into the First Year Curriculum
-click here to view the program for this workshop-

Workshop on a Search for Balance in the Whirlwind of Law School
-click here to view the program for this workshop-


8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Section on Student Services

The Role of Student Services Professionals in Imparting Professionalism and Civility

8:30-8:45 a.m.
Welcome

Sylvia K. Novinsky, University of North Carolina School of Law

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Imparting Professionalism and the Importance of Civility

Moderator: Connell Alsup, Michigan State University College of Law
Speakers: John T. Berry, Executive Director of the State Bar of Michigan and Chair of ABA Professionalism Committee
Noel Anketell Kramer, Associate Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Washington, District of Columbia
Amy Timmer, Thomas M. Cooley Law School

The study of law is known as a learned profession, which requires special preparation, advanced learning, and high principles. There is no question that the law school experience is intended to expose students to the profession. Imparting professionalism and the importance of civility in the profession is included as an important role in preparing students for the profession. As society has become more fast-paced, the need to provide instant communication and obtain immediate results has been at the expense of professionalism and common courtesy. ABA Standard 302 makes it clear that the curriculum is to include substantial instructions in “the history, goals, structure, values, rules, and responsibilities of the legal profession and its members.” But what is the law school’s role in imparting professionalism and the importance of civility to students outside of the curriculum?

The panelists for this session will discuss our roles as student service professionals and faculty in imparting professionalism and the importance of civility to law students. The session will focus on the concerns regarding a lack of professionalism and civility in the legal profession; where professionalism and civility issues come up in the law school setting; the role of student services professionals in imparting professionalism and civility in our law students; and how professionalism and civility problems that occur in law schools can be addressed.

10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
The Best Idea I’ve Every Had
Moderator: Norah Wylie, Boston College Law School

The new orientation program you spent all summer working on was a roaring success. The new alumni mentoring program has earned rave reviews, not only from the students but from the Development Office as well. You have revised your advising sessions, and the foot traffic in the office the days before registration is down 50%. The students loved your new plans for a farewell commencement barbecue for students and their families the night before graduation. We all have our brilliant ideas, but usually are too modest to crow about them. Come to our brainstorming session prepared to tell your colleagues about the “best idea I ever had.” Let’s learn from each others’ successes. Bring any materials associated with the program, event, idea as well so folks can go home with blueprints!

12:00 - 2:00 p.m.
Lunch on your own

2:00 - 3:20 p.m.
Building Community

Moderator: Sherilyn Scully, Quinnipiac University School of Law
Speakers: Ellen M. Cosgrove, Harvard Law School
Christine A. Marx, Boston University School of Law
Bradley Saxton, Quinnipiac University School of Law

Many law students and law school alumni have described the law school experience as alienating, stressful and unbalanced; an experience they have “survived” rather than have embraced or found positive. Others enjoy the experience, blossom in law school and feel connected to the law school community. What makes this experience so varied among students? When the experience is negative, what is it about the law school environment that promotes this response? What can the law school do as an institution to create more of a positive balanced environment for all?

This panel will discuss the law school environment outside the classroom co-curricular institutional initiatives to improve the day-to-day experience of students. The focus of this panel will be a best practices approach and will offer examples of specific programs that have been effective in the law school setting to create a sense of community and well-being and to alleviate the alienation or stress felt by some. Special attention will be placed on addressing the concerns of nontraditional students who are often found in evening programs. We will present models and suggestions for ways an institution can reach out to students through programming. This panel will pinpoint a variety of concrete steps that are within the ability of any institution to make a large difference in the law school climate and hopefully build greater student satisfaction.

3:20 - 3:30 p.m.
Break

3:30 - 4:50 p.m.
Working with Students to Impart Professionalism and Leadership Skills

Moderator: Susan B. Schechter, Golden Gate University School of Law

Speakers: Cait Clarke, Leadership/Management Consultant to Social Justice Programs
Mary Crane, Owner and Consultant, Mary Crane & Associates
Michael Frisch, Ethics Counsel and Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Christopher B. Mc Laughlin, Duke University School of Law
Dana L. Morris, University of Maryland School of Law
Zehrie Naqvi, Second Year Law Student, American University, Washington College of Law, South Asian Law Students Association/Executive Board Member and Asian Pacific American Law Students/Member, Washington, District of Columbia

There is a sense in the legal community that law schools can do more to impart leadership and professionalism development skills to their students. This workshop will be a working session to examine issues of what makes a good student leader, and what role student services’ professionals serve in developing, mentoring and encouraging student leadership.

Topics that will be touched upon, but not limited to, include: the balance of autonomy and oversight, specifically on fiscal and liability issues relating to student leaders and organizations; the role of faculty and alumni advisors; the role of social events and other non-classroom related activities; and specific programming that can be done to develop and teach leadership and professional development.

Discussion around the role student services’ professionals can and should play in working with student leaders to maximize programming, staffing, and other limited resource issues, will be encouraged.
 
5:00 - 6:15 p.m.
Business Meeting

We have made great progress in building virtual communities through our listserv, our newsletter, and at our sessions at annual meetings. Are these enough to keep us supported and energized? Come to our business meeting prepared to brainstorm how best to share our collective experiences throughout the academic year. Elections of Section officers will also take place.


8:45 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Section on Socio-Economics Co-Sponsored by Sections on Minority Groups, International Human Rights, Jurisprudence and Women in Legal Education Law

Socio-Economics - A Distinct School of Thought

8:45 - 9:00 a.m.
Welcoming Remarks

Speakers: James R. Hackney, Jr., Northeastern University School of Law
Peter H. Huang, University of Minnesota Law School

9:00 - 10:10 a.m.
Deans’ Forum on Socio-Economics

Speakers: Roger J. Dennis, Rutgers, The State University of N.J. School of Law, Camden
Donald J. Polden, Santa Clara University School of Law
Edward L. Rubin, Vanderbilt University Law School
Kellye Y. Testy, Seattle University School of Law

In this session, three deans and one provost will discuss how socio-economics enhances legal education and will explore ways in which law school deans and administrators can assist in promoting socio-economic teaching and research in American law schools.

10:10 - 10:20 a.m.
Break

10:20 - 11:20 a.m.
Concurrent Sessions:

  • Corporate Governance, Fiduciary Duties and Social Responsibility

Speakers: Dennis R. Honabach, Washburn University School of Law
Lyman P.Q. Johnson, Washington and Lee University School of Law
Faith Stevelman Kahn, New York Law School
Peter C. Kostant, New York Law School
Mark A. Sargent, Villanova University School of Law
Cheryl Lyn Wade, St. John’s University School of Law

Socio-economics has important implications for corporate law. See Symposium edition entitled “Socio-Economics and the New Corporate Social Responsibility,” 76 Tulane Law Review 1187 (2002). Contrary to the explicit assumptions in literature and courses on law and economics (see e.g., Posner, The Economic Analysis of Law, at p. 252, 6th Edition 2003), socio-economics teaches that what Adam Smith called a society’s wealth and what the common person calls “the size of the pie” are not synonymous with maximizing efficiency. Likewise corporate wealth maximization (whether for the corporation, its shareholders, stakeholders, or society) is not merely a function of maximizing efficiency. To formulate principles related to corporate governance, fiduciary duties and social responsibility, additional economic theories, disciplines, and values must be taken into account. In this session, participants discuss how socio-economic considerations including race, gender, morality, religion, and the distribution of wealth and power affect the analysis of wealth maximization for stockholders, stakeholders and society.

Moderator: June Rose Carbone, Santa Clara University School of Law
Speakers: Jonathan Kahn, Hamline University School of Law
Michael J. Malinowski, Louisiana State University Law Center
Pilar Nicole Ossorio, University of Wisconsin Law School

Researchers have been increasingly aware that genetic predisposition may make some people more receptive to certain drug treatments, and at greater risk for others. At the same time, the major pharmaceutical companies have begun to “outsource” the clinical trials that are the most expensive part of the drug development process to other countries with lower costs. This panel will examine the intersection of these developments.

Genetic predisposition, of course, varies with individual genomes, but the presence or absence of important genetic markers may be more prevalent in some racial and ethnic groups and less common in others. With the globalization of clinical trials, how should race, ethnicity and individual genetic variation be considered? Should the conduct of representative trials require diverse representation of the world as the whole? Or, if the issue is FDA approval, is representation of those groups most common in the United States? Indeed, for clinical trials conducted abroad, how should we measure race or ethnicity? And given different cultural practices and sensitivities, what ethical practices and procedures should be adopted? If U.S. companies develop and test pharmaceuticals abroad, is there an obligation to make the resulting products available to the individuals involved in the tests? To the countries in which the tests are located? If the resulting products are unusually effective for one group, but not another, how should the results be described? And what happens if the tests indicate that a category of drugs are particularly effective only for groups that are unlikely to be able to afford to pay for them?

Speakers: Anthony E. Cook, Georgetown University Law Center
Mitchell F. Crusto, Loyola University New Orleans School of Law
Alfreda Robinson, The George Washington University Law School
Deleso Alford Washington, The George Washington University Law School
Carlton M. Waterhouse, Florida International University College of Law
Robert S. Westley, Tulane University School of Law

Can socio-economic principles enhance the debate on black reparations? Some law teachers believe it can. In “King and the Beloved Community: A Communitarian Defense of Black Reparations,” 68 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 959 (2001), Professor Cook reminds us what some in the mainstream might prefer us to forget: “When King was assassinated, he was in the process of planning a Poor People’s Movement.” In that article, Professor Cook advanced a strategy achieving black reparations based on (1) Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s realization that a movement for black reparations must be part of a broader movement for social justice, (2) Dr. King’s concept of the “Beloved Community,” and (3) the binary economics of Louis Kelso (a subject within socio-economics ) that is premised on the idea that economic reforms that broaden ownership are essential not only for economic justice, but also for sustainable economic growth. At pp. 999-1014, Professor Cook specifically proposed a theoretical model for conceptualizing and financing black reparations without redistribution “based on the larger vision of a binary economy that democratizes capitalism and fosters a more equitable distribution of social wealth for all including other historically oppressed groups.” This panel will explore Professor Cook’s proposed model and consider whether this or some socio-economic perspectives can enhance the debate on black reparations and facilitate a practical and just resolution to the issues raised.

11:30 a.m. - 12:40 p.m.
Human Rights and Economic Theory

Speakers: Frank E. Deale, City University of New York School of Law at Queens College
Philip L. Harvey, Rutgers, The State University of N.J. School of Law, Camden
Robert E. Prasch, Professor, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont
William P. Quigley, Loyola University New Orleans School of Law
New Commentator: Robert Ashford, Syracuse University

Because of the normative importance attached to utility-maximization (or, more formally, the satisfaction of revealed preferences) in neo-classical economic theory and of the protection of fundamental rights in traditional legal theory, the relationship of these two norms to one another is important for a proper assessment of the role economic analysis should play in legal scholarship. This panel will explore this question with particular reference to the positive rights claims found in documents like Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union Message (proposing a “Second Bill of Rights” for all Americans) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (proclaiming a variety of social entitlements to be human rights).

12:45 - 2:00 p.m.

Luncheon
Emma Coleman Jordan, Georgetown University Law Center

Professor Jordan of Georgetown University and past President of the AALS (1992) will deliver the Section’s Luncheon address and will discuss socio-economics and economic justice.

2:00 - 3:10 p.m.
Socio-Economics and the History of Legal Thought

Speakers: Robert Ashford, Syracuse University College of Law
Susan D. Carle, American University Washington College of Law
James R. Hackney, Jr., Northeastern University School of Law
Duncan McLean Kennedy, Harvard Law School

If asked to identify schools of thought within legal education, a number of schools usually come to mind: critical legal studies, critical race theory, feminism, law and economics, law and society, legal realism, post modernism, and perhaps even a skills and practice oriented approach. What about “law and socio-economics” or simply “socio-economics” as described in the definition set forth in the petition that was signed by over one-hundred-twenty law teachers from over fifty American law schools to form the Section on Socio-Economics? See Symposium “Teaching Law and Socio-Economics” 41 San Diego Law Review (2004)

How does socio-economics differ from other approaches? Does it constitute a distinct school of thought, or merely a repackaging of features of pre-existing schools? What is its place in the history of legal thought? This session will explore these questions and more.

3:20 - 4:20 p.m.
Concurrent Sessions:

Speakers: William K. Black, Assistant Professor,
LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lawrence E. Mitchell, The George Washington University Law School
Frank Partnoy, University of San Diego School of Law

Professor Black’s new book, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, uses advances in criminology and economics to develop a theory of why “control fraud” (looting a company for personal profit) can occur in waves that make financial markets deeply inefficient. Professor Black stresses that even individual control frauds can cause financial losses that exceed all other forms of property crime combined. This panel will discuss his critique, and the importance of understanding control fraud for developing policies to avoid corporate governance failures and financial market inefficiency.

Speakers: Lynne L. Dallas, University of San Diego School of Law
Angela P. Harris, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Emma Coleman Jordan, Georgetown University Law Center
Allen C. Snyder, University of San Diego School of Law
Janis Sarra, University of British Columbia Faculty of Law
Allan C. Snyder, University of San Diego School of Law

The Section has at its long term goal to encourage and facilitate the inclusion of socio-economic analysis in law teaching by way of (1) courses in Law and Socio-Economics, (2) enriched courses in law and economics, and (3) socio-economic segments in other courses. See “Symposium: Teaching Law and Socioeconomics,” 41 San Diego Law Review 1- 482 (2004) featuring the essays by fifteen law professors on this subject. Also published in 2004 is the first socio-economics textbook for law schools entitled, Law and Public Policy: A Socio-Economic Approach, by Professor Dallas. In this session Professors Dallas, Snyder, and Wiggens share their experiences and provide pointers regarding teaching law and socio-economics.

Speakers: Morris Altman, Professor and Chair, Department of Economics, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Robert Ashford, Syracuse University College of Law
Richard E. Hattwick, Professor, Department of Economics, Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois
Demetri Kantarelis, Professor of Economics, Economics and Global Studies Department, Assumption College, Worcester, Massachusetts
Robert E. Prasch, Professor, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont
Charles J. Whalen, Editor, Perspectives on Work, Labor & Employment Relations Association, Geneva, New York

On page 252 of his Economic Analysis of Law, (6th Edition 2003) Judge Posner writes: “What Adam Smith referred to as a nation’s wealth, what this book refers to as efficiency, and what a layman might call the size of the pie, has always been an important social value.” Likewise, much law and economics literature assumes that maximizing efficiency is synonymous with maximizing wealth. But the efficiency theory of neoclassical economics is not general theory of wealth maximization. Everyone in an economy could be starving to death and yet Pareto could be entirely satisfied with the “perfect efficiency” of the economy. At best, efficiency is one component of wealth maximization. In economics, there are classical, neoclasssical, Keynesian, and other theories of growth, but none has such wide acceptance as to be taught as doctrine, as fact, or as the only “good economics.” In this session, economists examine wealth maximization in light of various economic theories.

4:20 - 4:30 p.m.
Break

4:30 - 5:00 p.m.
The Future of Socio-Economics

Speakers: Robert Ashford, Syracuse University College of Law
William K. Black, Assistant Professor, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
June Rose Carbone, Santa Clara University School of Law
Anthony E. Cook, Georgetown University Law Center
Lynne L. Dallas, University of San Diego School of Law
James R. Hackney, Jr., Northeastern University School of Law
Philip L. Harvey, Rutgers, The State University of N.J. School of Law, Camden
Peter H. Huang, University of Minnesota Law School
Duncan McLean Kennedy, Harvard Law School
Emma Coleman Jordan, Georgetown University Law Center
Edward L. Rubin, Vanderbilt University Law School

In this brief wrap-up plenary, teachers active in socio-economic teaching, scholarship and service and others offer views on the future of socio-economics.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.


9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Section on Institutional Advancement

Institutional Advancement: It’s Not Just Fundraising Anymore

9:00 - 9:15 a.m.
Welcome
Kathryn S. Boase, University of Virginia School of Law

9:15 - 10:30 a.m.
Law School Marketing: Strategies for Targeted Communications to Alumni and Donors, the Practicing Bar and Judiciary, and Prospective Students

Moderator: Mark V. Wunder, University of Iowa College of Law
Speakers: Collins B. Byrd Jr., University of Iowa College of Law
Charles G. Cannon, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law
Jeannie Forrest, New York University School of Law
Carol Jambor-Smith, Notre Dame Law School

10:30 - 10:45 a.m.
Refreshment Break

10:45 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Concurrent Sessions:

Moderator: Edward G. Skirde, St. John’s University School of Law
Speakers: Peter C. Alexander, Southern Illinois University School of Law
Donald J. Polden, Santa Clara University School of Law

Moderator: Donald Hale, University of Florida, Fredric G. Levin College of Law
Speakers: Carol Jambor-Smith, Notre Dame Law School
Marianne Lord, Boston College Law School
Jeffrey A. Ulmer, Vanderbilt University Law School

  • Strategic Planning: Institutional and Advancement

Moderator: Scott G. Nichols, Harvard Law School
Speakers: Vicki Fleischer, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Patrick E. Hobbs, Seton Hall University School of Law

12:00 - 1:30 p.m.
Luncheon and Business Meeting - Five Trends That Will Change Institutional Advancement
(Tickets were sold in advance)
Speaker: John Lippincott, President, Council for Advancement and Support of Education, Washington, District of Columbia

1:30 - 2:45 p.m.
Concurrent Sessions:

Moderator: Julia Erwin-Weiner, Stanford Law School
Speaker: Catherine Dyar, Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington

  • Working With Central Development

Moderator: John Baldwin, Santa Clara University School of Law
Speakers: Alleen Deutsch, University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law
Deborah M. McCreery, Widener University School of Law
Wynne E. Smith, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law

  • Reunions: the Nuts and Bolts of Recruiting Volunteers, Developing the Event, Increasing Attendance

Moderator: Kim Coull, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Speakers: Toni Davis, Yale Law School
Robert F. Micou, University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
Stacey Rishel, Santa Clara University School of Law

2:45 - 3:00 p.m.
Refreshment Break

3:00 - 4:30 p.m.
Concurrent Sessions:

  • Musical Chairs: The Retention and Attrition Dilemma in Advancement

Moderator: Jacqueline Ervin, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Speakers: Eric Eitel, Columbia University Law School -view outline- -view handout-
Christopher Menard, Harvard Law School
Tim Walsh, University of Mississippi School of Law

  • Targeted Fundraising: Constituency Groups, Gender, LL.M’s, etc.

Moderator: Kathryn S. Boase, University of Virginia School of Law
Speaker: Helen M. Snyder, University of Virginia School of Law

Moderator: D. Malcolm McNair, Jr., University of Arkansas Fayetteville Leflar Law Center
Speaker: Dorothy E. Bressi, Stetson University College of Law
Darby Dickerson, Stetson University College of Law -view outline-

4:30 - 6:30 p.m.
Reception


9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Section on Alternative Dispute Resolution, Co-Sponsored by Section on Family and Juvenile Law

Integrating ADR into Law School Curricula: The Example of Family Law

Moderator: Michael L. Moffitt, University of Oregon School of Law
Speakers: Kelly Browe Olson, University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law -view outline-
Jennifer Lorraine Rosato, Brooklyn Law School
Andrew Schepard, Hofstra University School of Law
Andrea Kupfer Schneider, Marquette University Law School

For at least the past two decades, some academics interested in dispute resolution have sought ways to integrate ADR into traditional law school curricula. Dispute resolution course offerings have increased dramatically. Efforts at creating true integration into other “doctrinal” courses, however, have met with only varying degrees of success. Now, scholars in one increasingly important doctrinal area of the law - family law - have undertaken their own curricular re-examination. And the implications and opportunities for those who teach ADR are significant.

The Family Law Education Reform project (FLER) began with the proposition that what students learn in traditional family law classes is unacceptably removed from what successful, responsible family lawyers actually do in practice. The FLER project aims to provide family law teachers with the ideas, tools, and materials they need to bring family law teaching in line with family law practice, and to help students become effective and reflective family law practitioners, leaders, and policy makers. To the surprise of no one, dispute resolution skills feature prominently in the list of skills necessary for family law practitioners, according to the FLER project participants. (One FLER participant even suggested that no student should receive credit for family law without also taking a course in ADR). The multi-year FLER project will be issuing its final report around the time of the AALS Annual Meeting, making this an important moment for reflection.

Business Meeting for Section on Alternative Dispute Resolution at Program Conclusion


9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Section on Business Associations

The Intersection of Law and Business: Teaching and Research

Moderator: Randall Stuart Thomas, Vanderbilt University Law School
Topics and Speakers:
Empirical Research
Allen Ferrell, Harvard Law School
Paul A. Gompers, Professor, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts

Programs Between Law Schools and Business Schools
William T. Allen, New York University School of Law
Janet R. Thompson Jackson, Washburn University School of Law
Anthony J. Luppino, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law -view outline-
Roberta Romano, Yale Law School

Law and Business Courses
Therese H. Maynard, Loyola Law School -view outline-
Larry Edward Ribstein, University of Illinois College of Law

In recent years, legal and business faculties have found themselves pursuing the same research fields and teaching their students many of the same concepts. Professors in each field have worked more and more across disciplines in order to provide their students with the training and information that they need to compete effectively in the marketplace. The well-prepared business lawyer needs to understand how businesses work, and why they do what they do. The effective business person must be able to work with regulations and government agencies. Both sets of students will need to work together in handling projects once they leave school.

Joint research projects between law and business school faculty, once rare, have become increasingly common in the academy. Law and business is emerging as a separate discipline as more and more scholars in both fields realize the importance of the other field’s work. Much the same way in which law and economics became a recognized field in both law schools and economics departments, law and business is moving into the limelight at law schools and business schools.

Reflecting this trend in scholarship and teaching, law and business initiatives are emerging at various schools around the country. This year’s section meeting will feature panels of speakers to discuss both innovative and interdisciplinary teaching initiatives, as well as ongoing research projects.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Section on Graduate Programs for Foreign Lawyers

LL.M. Programs for Foreign Lawyers:
What Are We Teaching and How Are We Teaching It?

Moderator: Daniel H. Derby, Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Meredith M. Mc Quaid, University of Minnesota Law School
Speakers: Adi Altshuler, Northwestern University School of Law -view outline-
Elizabeth Livingston De Calderon, Tulane University School of Law
Beth Greenwood, University of California at Davis School of Law
Jeanne Herrick, PhD, Lecturer, The Writing Program, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Christian A. Johnson, Loyola University Chicago School of Law
Clifford Larsen, Washington and Lee University School of Law
Nancy Pinn, Harvard Law School
Carole B. Silver, Northwestern University School of Law
Gerald J. Thain, University of Wisconsin Law School

In considering answers to these important questions, the 2006 program will focus on three related topics. The first panel will discuss the “best practices” of LL.M. programs. What makes a good program? What makes a distinctive program? How can we best serve our foreign students? Panelists represent large, small, recent and long-standing LL.M. programs for foreign lawyers.

The second panel will consider those courses commonly required of LL.M. students, specifically the “Introduction to….”, and legal research and writing courses aimed at educating the foreign lawyers at our schools. What works? What doesn’t work? Panelists are lecturers, administrators, and professors of these courses from various law schools.

The final presentation will focus on where graduates of the LL.M. programs for foreign lawyers go, and what they do. Understanding what they do and where they go is another way to critically assess the viability and success of our programs.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Section on Professional Responsibility, Co-Sponsored by Section on Law and Religion

Professional Responsibility and the Religious Traditions
(Program to be published in the Journal of Law and Religion)

Moderators: Greg Randy Lee, Widener University School of Law
Irma S. Russell, The University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law
Speakers: Anthony E. Cook, Georgetown University Law Center
Moushumi Khan, Esquire, Khan Law Offices, New York, New York
Samuel J. Levine, Pepperdine University School of Law
Nancy B. Rapoport, University of Houston Law Center
Thomas L. Shaffer, Notre Dame Law School -view outline-
Rodney K. Smith, President, Southern Virginia University, Buena Vista, Virginia
Commentators: Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Pepperdine University School of Law
Bruce A. Green, Fordham University School of Law
Susan R. Martyn, University of Toledo College of Law
Russell G. Pearce, Fordham University School of Law

Before secular rules of professional responsibility came to regulate American lawyers’ ethics, religious traditions provided a rich body of narratives, values and rules about the nature of the lawyer’s calling, his or her role in society, and expectations for ethical conduct. These traditions of professional responsibility, while they share many common assumptions, also interpret the lawyer’s role and responsibilities in distinctive ways. The first panel in this program will explore the ways in which the Western religious traditions have understood lawyers’ ethics over time, and consider some ethical dilemmas that lawyers from these traditions may encounter as they serve clients from a variety of religious and moral traditions. The second will discuss whether religious traditions should be brought into American legal ethics, including the law school classroom, and whether these understandings can contribute to the education and discipline of lawyers in a religiously pluralistic culture.

Business Meeting for Section on Professional Responsibility at Program Conclusion


12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Clinical Legal Education Luncheon and Business Meeting
(Tickets were sold in advance. If available, a luncheon ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 3. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)


12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Criminal Justice Luncheon
(Tickets were sold in advance. If available, a luncheon ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 3. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)


12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Graduate Programs for Foreign Lawyers’ Luncheon Co-Sponsored with International Legal Exchange
(Tickets were sold in advance. If available, a luncheon ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 3. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)

Speakers: Jeanne Herrick, PhD, Lecturer, The Writing Program, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

Dr. Herrick will speak about issues of cross-cultural adjustment which impact the way foreign lawyers adapt to and learn in our LL.M. programs, as well as issues that impact our own U.S. students who study abroad.


12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Institutional Advancement Luncheon
(Tickets were sold in advance. If available, a luncheon
ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 3. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)

Speaker: John Lippincott, President, Council for Advancement and Support of Education, Washington, District of Columbia

Business Meeting at Luncheon Conclusion


12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Law Libraries Luncheon
(Tickets were sold in advance. If available, a luncheon
ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 3. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)


12:45 - 2:00 p.m.
Section on Socio-Economics Luncheon
(Tickets were sold in advance. If available, a luncheon
ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 3. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)


2:00 - 5:00 p.m.
Section on Clinical Legal Education

Practicing Law in the Academy:
Clinics, Clinical Faculty and Principles of Academic Freedom
(Program to be published in the Clinical Law Review)

Clinical education is integral to modern legal education. Clinics, including those that represent real clients, are well-established in law schools in the United States. But practicing law within the legal academy brings many challenges and issues. This program explores whether and how the basic freedoms and structures of legal education, particularly academic freedom, apply to clinics and clinical faculty.

In the plenary session, a distinguished panel will discuss the theory and development of principles of academic freedom, and will begin to apply those principles to professional schools and law school clinics. Some of the issues include whether the right to academic freedom may be asserted by individuals or institutions, and whether principles of academic freedom apply to overall clinic design, individual clinic cases, and advocacy. Papers from the plenary session will be published in the Clinical Law Review.

The concurrent sessions will address some of the specific issues that relate to academic freedom, clinical faculty and the operation of clinics. In one session, faculty and administrators will discuss the funding and status of clinical faculty, their participation in law school governance, and the way in which this may affect the speech and conduct of clinical faculty. In another session, panelists will address the issues that arise when people outside of the clinics-including alumni, donors, legislators and administrators-raise questions about the operation of the clinics or the handling of individual cases or clinical projects. The panel discussion will include the role of institutions such as the AALS and AAUP.

2:00 - 3:30 p.m.
Academic Freedom and Law School Clinics
(Papers from the plenary session to be published in the Clinical Law Review)

Moderator: Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, University of New Mexico School of Law
Speakers: Bridget Mary McCormack, The University of Michigan Law School
Robert M. O’Neil, University of Virginia School of Law -view outline-
Aviam Soifer, University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law

3:30 - 3:45 p.m.
Break

3:45 - 5:00 p.m.
Concurrent Sessions:

Moderator: Susan R. Jones, The George Washington University Law School
Speakers: Elliott S. Milstein, American University Washington College of Law
Suellyn Scarnecchia, University of New Mexico School of Law
Karen L. Tokarz, Washington University School of Law

  • Outside Influences and Interference

Moderator: Carol L. Izumi, The George Washington University Law School
Speakers: Robert R. Kuehn, The University of Alabama School of Law
Carl C. Monk, AALS Executive Vice President and Executive Director
David M. Rabban, The University of Texas School of Law


2:00 - 5:00 p.m.
Section on Law and Economics

Empirical Approaches to Inquiries in Health Care Law

Moderator: Kathryn M. Zeiler, Georgetown University Law Center
Speakers: Ronen Avraham, Northwestern University School of Law
Jonathan Klick, Florida State University College of Law
Anup Malani, University of Virginia School of Law
Michelle Mello, Associate Professor of Health Policy & Law, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

During the past year debates over how best to regulate health care markets have continued. The focus of the battles has ranged from tort reform to delivery system reform and from mandated health insurance benefits to government provision of prescription drug benefits. Frequently debaters get caught up in rhetoric and lose sight of the need to gather evidence that supports or calls into question proposed changes in health law. The Section will present a panel of three scholars who have designed and conducted empirical studies that offer such evidence. The panelists will showcase a variety of empirical methods they use to explore the effects of changes in health law. Each of the three presentations will be followed by remarks from commentators. The program will allow for questions and comments from the audience.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


2:00 - 5:00 p.m.
Section on Real Estate Transactions

Empirical Research in Real Estate Finance and Development

Moderator: David L. Cameron, Northwestern University School of Law

Speakers: Royce de Rohan Barondes, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law -view outline- -view paper-
Bernard E. Harcourt, The University of Chicago The Law School
Joyce Palomar, University of Oklahoma Law Center
Michael Staten, McDonough School of Business Georgetown University, Washington DC

Although theoretical and doctrinal approaches have dominated legal scholarship in the fields of real estate finance and development, a growing number of commentators have attempted the difficult task of collecting and sifting through data to determine how different legal rules affect real estate markets and the real estate development process. Presumably, the different legal rules in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States provide opportunities to observe the real world implications of these rules and to measure their effects. Unfortunately, however, real estate markets and the real estate development process are complex mechanisms involving a multitude of factors that may influence any measurable outcome. As a result, researchers attempting to isolate the effects of different legal rules in such situations confront considerable difficulties. Each panelist will present the results of recent empirical research and discuss the difficulties inherent in gathering and analyzing data involving real estate transactions.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


2:00 - 5:00 p.m.
Section on Securities Regulation

Do the Benefits of Securities Regulation in the United States Warrant the Costs?

Speakers: Adam Christopher Pritchard, The University of Michigan Law School
Hillary A. Sale, University of Iowa College of Law
Moderator: Howell Edmunds Jackson, Harvard Law School

Presentation of Papers: Anita Anand, Queen’s University, Ontario, & Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School
Richard Booth, University of Maryland School of Law
Elizabeth Brown, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Peter Huang, James Beasley Law School, Temple University
Commentator: Erik Sirri, Professor of Finance, Babson College, Babson Park, MA

Discussion Group: Do We have Too Much Securities Litigation?
Speakers: Don Langevoort, Georgetown University Law Center
Hillary Sale, University of Iowa - College of Law
Adam Pritchard, University of Michigan Law School
Randall Thomas, Vanderbilt University Law School

The Securities Regulation Section will focus on the intensity of securities regulation in the United States. Although the issue of cost-benefit analysis is frequently explored in the context of environmental regulation and health care law, similar attention has not been given to cost-benefit analysis in the field of financial regulation. This issue has, however, received significant attention in the general press over the past year as industry representatives have protested over the costs of implementing certain aspects of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as well as some of the SEC’s more recent mutual fund reforms. In the hopes of adding a more academic dimension to the controversy, the section meeting will include the presentation of a series of papers from legal scholars with a range of views on the topic. The meeting will conclude with a debate between Professors Sale and Pritchard (and others) over the question: Do we have too much or too little securities litigation in the United States? Prizes will be awarded.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


5:15 - 6:30 p.m.

First Meeting of AALS House of Representatives

Presiding: N. William Hines, AALS President and University of Iowa College
of Law

Parliamentarian: Elliott S. Milstein, American University Washington College of Law

Clerk: Elizabeth Hayes Patterson, AALS Deputy Director

  • Call to Order
  • Adoption of Agenda
  • Report of AALS Executive Vice President and Executive Director, Carl C. Monk
  • Report of AALS President N. William Hines, AALS President and University of Iowa College of Law
  • Memorials

Representatives of member schools are expected to attend this meeting of the House of Representatives. All law teachers are invited to attend.


6:30 - 7:30 p.m.
AALS Reception for Law Schools’ Teachers of the Year and Emeriti Faculty Members

This reception recognizes those professors who have been honored by their schools as Teachers of the Year and Emeriti faculty members.


6:30 - 7:30 p.m.
Section on Pro Bono and Public Service Opportunities
Business Meeting


6:30 - 7:30 p.m.
Section on Women in Legal Education Networking
Reception


MEMBER SCHOOL RECEPTION FOR ALL ATTENDEES:

6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Reception for all Meeting Registrants

Shuttle buses will leave from the Marriott Wardman Park, Hilton Washington & Towers and the Omni Shoreham hotels beginning at 6:00 p.m. The last bus will depart Catholic University at 9:00 p.m. and make stops at the three hotels named above.


<<< Back to Tuesday, January 3 | Proceed to Thursday, January 5 >>>