AALS Annual Meeting

Reassessing Our roles as scholars and educators in light of change

Program

*Programs marked with an asterisk have arranged for the publication of papers related to their Annual Meeting program in a Law Review or Journal.

+Programs marked with a plus-sign have issued a Call for Papers to select one or more presenters.

Open Source Programs are programs selected by a committee in a competitive search.
Joint Programs are designation for two Sections holding only one program between them.
Co-Sponsored Programs are designations for Sections holding more than one program.
Open Programs are sessions organized by law school faculty to consider the creation of a new AALS Section.

Go to:

Wednesday, January 3

Friday, January 4

Saturday, January 5

Sunday, January 6

Friday January 4

7:00 a.m.- 7:00 p.m.
AALS Registration
Americas Hall II, Third Floor, Hilton New York

7:00 a.m.- 7:00 p.m.
AALS Office and Information Center
Gibson Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York

7:00 a.m.- 7:00 p.m.
AALS Message Center
Rhinelander Gallery, Second Floor, Hilton New York

7:30 - 8:30 a.m.
Twelve Step Meeting
Hudson Suite, Fourth Floor, Hilton New York

8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.
AALS Exhibit Hall Open House “The Meeting Place”
Americas Hall I and II, Third Floor, Hilton New York
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.

AALS Committee Event

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
AALS Committee on Research Program
Trianon Ballroom, Third Floor, Hilton New York
Empirical Research Strategies for Understanding the Legal Profession: Examples from Current Research

Moderator: Bryant G. Garth, Southwestern Law School
Speakers: Ronit Dinovitzer, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, Mississauga, Canada
Ann Gallagher, Senior Research Scientist, Law School Admission Council, Newtown, Pennsylvania
Tracey E. George, Vanderbilt University Law School
Elizabeth Ellen Mertz, University of Wisconsin Law School
Joyce S. Sterling, University of Denver College of Law
Albert H. Yoon, Northwestern University School of Law

Law schools produce lawyers. Beyond our own experiences, what do we know about the legal profession, including legal academics? The entry of LSAC and other foundations into the funding of empirical research on the profession has transformed the study of lawyers. This panel includes scholars who are conducting original and groundbreaking work on our profession. It offers some initial results from the second wave of the first national longitudinal study of the legal profession, following over 5,000 law graduates from the class of 2000 over a 10-year period, as well as findings from studies on legal education and the selection and success of law professors. This program will be of interest to those who study and teach about the legal profession and also to those who use or want to use empirical methods. It should be of interest to everyone who works in law schools.

AALS Events

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Section on Academic Support Breakfast
Clinton Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York

(Tickets were sold in advance of the Annual Meeting. If space is available, a ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 3. Tickets will not be for sale at the breakfast.)

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Section on Africa Breakfast
East Suite, Fourth Floor, Hilton New York

(Tickets were sold in advance of the Annual Meeting. If space is available, a ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 3. Tickets will not be for sale at the breakfast.)

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Section on International Human Rights, International Legal Exchange, North American Cooperation Breakfast
Mercury Rotunda, Third Floor, Hilton New York

(Tickets were sold in advance of the Annual Meeting. If space is available, a ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 3. Tickets will not be for sale at the breakfast.)

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Section on Labor Relations and Employment Law Continental Breakfast
New York Suite, Fourth Floor, Hilton New York

(Tickets were sold in advance of the Annual Meeting. If space is available, a ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 3. Tickets will not be for sale at the breakfast.)

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Section on Law, Medicine and Health Care Breakfast
Lincoln Suite, Fourth Floor, Hilton New York

(Tickets were sold in advance of the Annual Meeting. If space is available, a ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 3. Tickets will not be for sale at the breakfast.)

7:15 - 8:30 a.m.
Special Meeting and Continental Breakfast for Beginning Law Teachers
Petit Trianon, Third Floor, Hilton New York

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Aging and the Law, Co-Sponsored by Section on International Human Rights
Murray Hill A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Gray’s Autonomy: How International Law Advances The Rights of Older Adults

Moderator: Kate Mewhinney, Wake Forest University School of Law
Speakers: Luke Clements, Professor, Cardiff University Law School, Cardiff, United Kingdom
Israel Doron, Professor, Faculty of Health and Welfare, Haifa University, School of Social Work, Israel
Arlene S. Kanter, Syracuse University College of Law
Alexandre Sidorenko, UN Focal Point on Aging, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Programme on Aging, New York, New York

Never before in the world’s history have we had such a high proportion of older people. Moreover, aging issues affect all income groups, races and ethnicities - and nations. From health care policy to end-of-life medical decisions, from pension and social security policy to caregiver leave policies, aging is a having an enormous impact on the shape of our legal rights.

At the same time, the U.S. legal system has developed a growing awareness of international legal standards. We cannot imagine life without the internet, sharing information and ideas across borders. As we become more comfortable in considering international norms of human rights, we face the challenge of a graying population. These trends coincide to make this program timely and valuable.

Our international panel has impressive experience both in the academic arena and in such activities as NGO’s, litigation in international courts, and legislative commissions. Attendees will gain a better understanding of how international human rights laws, European Union law, and mental disability law can be used to enhance the rights of our aging communities. As attorneys, policy makers and academics, come ready to learn how international law advances the rights of increasing numbers of senior citizens.

Business Meeting of Section on Aging and the Law at Program Conclusion

8:30 a.m.- 10:15 p.m
Section on Art Law
Sutton North, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Real and The Original: Evaluating Authenticity in Art Law

Moderator: Jessica Silbey, Suffolk University Law School
Speakers: Olufunmilayo B. Arewa, Northwestern University School of Law
Lynn Catterson, Professor, Department of Art History and Archaeology, Columbia University, Port Jefferson, New York
Anne-Marie Rhodes, Loyola University, Chicago School of Law
Ronald D. Spencer, Attorney and Author, Carter Ledyard and Milburn LLP, New York, New York

Art law may fairly be understood as the regulation of aesthetic objects of value (whether tangible or intangible). Part of the object’s value is in its authenticity— its relation to a knowable origin and definitive (authoratative) historical and cultural context. Conversations in art law about authenticity revolve around “authorship,” “provenance,” the “real” versus a “fake,” “forgery,” or “counterfeit.” Assertions of authenticity (legal or otherwise) are ways of controlling the meaning or value of the object from within (or from outside) a source community. How are claims of authenticity made? On what terms are competing claims of authenticity adjudicated? What is at stake, in law and culture, in maintaining a division between the authentic and the fake? What result if law condoned rather than punished the proliferation of identical copies of authentic art objects?

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Comparative Law
Beekman Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Global Conceptions of Access to Justice

Moderator: Hannah L. Buxbaum, Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington
Speakers: Oscar G. Chase, New York University School of Law
Hiram E. Chodosh, University of Utah S. J. Quinney College of Law
James Paul George, Texas Wesleyan University School of Law
Jonathan M. Miller, Southwestern Law School
Fernanda Giorgia Nicola, American University Washington College of Law

Designing fair systems of justice, and ensuring the availability of their procedures to all persons, have long been a focus of comparative research. Thirty years ago, the Access-to-Justice Project headed by Mauro Cappelletti identified a then-emerging “third wave” of reform: one that went beyond legal aid programs, and beyond mechanisms enabling the assertion of diffuse or collective rights, to encompass as broadly as possible the “institutions and devices, personnel and procedures” that could be deployed to promote the vindication of legal rights. This panel will investigate how this wave of reform has played out, examining some of the different understandings of access to justice – both as an objective and as an instrument to achieve other goals – that have emerged in the past decades. It will consider in particular the intersection of debates surrounding access to justice with debates relating to globalization’s effects on civil justice systems. Points of inquiry will include the following:

How extensive is the reliance, both in the United States and elsewhere, on private actors and private dispute resolution mechanisms as instruments of access to justice? Does such reliance reflect, or contribute to, the Americanization of legal culture generally?

To what extent has an inversion occurred in the orientation of the debate about access, from a focus on justice as a public good flowing down to individuals, to a focus on using the mechanisms of private dispute resolution to achieve public objectives such as economic regulatory goals or the spread of the rule of law?

What effect has the proliferation of courts and other dispute resolution bodies – within nations, regionally, and internationally – had on the availability of access to justice?

Most fundamentally, the aim of the panel is to inquire whether legal systems today share a commitment to particular modes of access and a vision of the results that such access is intended to achieve.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Creditors’ and Debtors’ Rights
Nassau B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Broke, but not Bankrupt

Moderator: Katherine M. Porter, University of Iowa College of Law
Speakers: Ronald J. Mann, Columbia University School of Law
Cathy Lesser Mansfield, Drake University Law School

Many commentators noted that the BAPCPA amendments make bankruptcy a less desirable alternative for debtors and creditors, or at least a more regulated one. In light of these changes, this program will consider non-bankruptcy alternatives regarding nonpayment of debt. Topics of discussion will focus on state and federal nonbankruptcy laws surrounding lending and debt collection.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Disability Law, Co-Sponsored by Section on International Human Rights
Madison Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Disability Rights As Human Rights

Moderator: Samuel R. Bagenstos, Washington University School of Law
Speakers: Arlene S. Kanter, Syracuse University College of Law
Walter J. Kendall, III, The John Marshall Law School
Harold Hongju Koh, Yale Law School
Michael Stein, College of William and Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law

This program will discuss the convergence of two significant movements in jurisprudence and social activism: the movement for disability rights, in the United States and abroad, and the movement for human rights around the world. Panelists will discuss the place of disability in the broader human rights movement, what the struggle for disability rights can say to that movement, and the increasing acceptance of (and barriers to acceptance of) disability rights as human rights.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

8:30 a.m. - 5:45 p.m.
Section on Institutional Advancement
-view full Institutional Advanecment program (PDF)-

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Law and Communitarian Studies, Co-Sponsored by Sections on Civil Rights and Minority Groups
Sutton South, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Community, Diversity, and Equal Protection: The Louisville and Seattle School Cases

(Program to be published in Penn State Law Review)

Moderator: Robert M. Ackerman, The Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law
Speakers: Aderson Francois, Howard University School of Law
Rosemary C. Salomone, St. John’s University School of Law
Neil S. Siegel, Duke University School of Law
Enid Trucios-Haynes, University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
Paul C. M. van Seters, Professor, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands
Michael Lewis Wells, University of Georgia School of Law

The companion cases, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last term, pose questions of interest to communitarian scholars as well as scholars of constitutional law. The issue of whether the benefits of integration justify the use of racial classifications has been visited before. But communitarian concerns are especially prominent in the Seattle and Louisville school cases, at least in part because all students, including the alleged victims of racial classification, arguably benefit from the advantages of integration.

This program will examine the Seattle and Louisville cases, and the larger issue of racial classification, through a communitarian lens. Communitarians have suggested an agenda to advance commonly held social values without unduly compromising individual rights. While others will view the circumstances in Seattle and Louisville as involving rights in conflict, some communitarians are more apt to view them as involving community efforts to adjust various interests, which efforts should be left undisturbed by the courts. They might say that the Louisville and Seattle school boards have adopted plans that serve the best interests of the community-at-large. Other communitarians, however, might see the use of racial classifications as demeaning not only to the individuals involved but to the community as a whole. The fact that a community is composed of a number of racial groups, including people of mixed race, further complicates matters. The panel will consider other contexts, like single-sex and bilingual schooling, which raise both communitarian and individual rights justifications for segregation. The discussion will also introduce a comparative perspective and distinguish among “conservative," "liberal," and "egalitarian-universalistic” communitarianism.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Law, Medicine and Health Care
Sutton Center, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Contested Commodities: Reframing The Debate On Financial Incentives In The Supply of Genetic Materials

(Program to be published in Journal of Health Care Law)

Speakers: Lori B. Andrews, Chicago-Kent College of Law Illinois Institute of Technology
Martha M. Ertman, University of Maryland School of Law
Michele Goodwin, University of Minnesota Law School
Ray D. Madoff, Boston College Law School
L. Song Richardson, DePaul University College of Law
Debora L. Spar, Professor, Senior Associate Dean, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts
Commentator: Ian Ayres, Yale Law School

One or more presenters were selected from a call for papers.

The development of contemporary biologics and how they interface with human subjects outpaces legislative and judicial response. Commentators suggest that there is a lack of guidance on contract, tort, and constitutional issues related to genetic materials. The jurisprudence in this domain is neither clear nor responsive to contemporary biotechnology or those who claim to be harmed by aggressive researchers and doctors. Informed consent may be an illusory concept in a field where violating such norms is a small penalty where tremendous profits are to be made. This panel debates whether there is room for private enterprise in the human body. It asks who owns the body and what recourses should be made available for trespass to human flesh. Panelists scrutinize whether and to what extent government regulation should be invited into the spheres of enhanced reproductive technology, genetic developments, organ transplantation and the expanding field of cosmeceuticals.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Law and Religion
Regent Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Supreme Court’s Hands-Off Approach to Religious Doctrine

Moderator: Samuel J. Levine, Pepperdine University School of Law
Speakers: Christopher L. Eisgruber, Provost and Professor, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
Richard W. Garnett, Notre Dame Law School
R. Kent Greenawalt, Columbia University School of Law
Andrew Koppelman, Northwestern University School of Law
Bernadette A. Meyler, Cornell Law School

In recent years, a number of scholars have observed that the United States Supreme Court has shown an increasing unwillingness to engage in deciding matters that relate to the interpretation of religious practice and belief. Justices have provided various rationales for the Court’s approach. Some Justices have suggested practical justifications for their reluctance to examine closely religious beliefs, declaring that courts are “ill equipped” to deal with such questions, which these Justices consider beyond judicial competence. Other Justices have cited constitutional considerations to support their view that courts should refrain from deciding questions of religious interpretation.

In response, some have argued that courts should be more willing to decide questions of religious interpretation, in particular when failure to do so would prevent a meaningful resolution of a case. In fact, according to some critics, as a result of the Court’s increasing refusal to consider carefully the religious questions central to many cases, the Court often tends to group together religious claims and practices, regardless of the relative validity or importance of a particular practice within a religious system. This approach can have important and potentially negative ramifications for both Free Exercise and Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Finally, the Court has not provided a definition of the term “religion,” thereby refusing to interpret the very concept at the center of Free Exercise and Establishment Clause cases.

This session will address these issues from number of perspectives. Descriptively, the session will consider the extent to which the Court has, in fact, applied a “hands-off” approach to questions of religious practice and belief. Normatively, the session will explore the arguments in favor of and opposed to such an approach. Finally, the session will look at prospects for rethinking some of the assumptions underlying the Court’s attitudes, as well as the possibility of proposing alternative methods.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section for the Law School Dean
Rendevous Trianon, Third Floor, Hilton New York
The Carnegie Report on Educating Lawyers from the Perspective of the Law School Dean

Moderator: Rex R. Perschbacher, University of California at Davis School of Law
Speakers: Mary C. Daly, St. John’s University School of Law
Michael A. Fitts, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Carolyn C. Jones, University of Iowa College of Law
Thomas M. Mengler, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Emily A. Spieler, Northeastern University School of Law
Judith W. Wegner, University of North Carolina School of Law

In the second volume of a comparative study of professional education by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the authors propose a framework for legal education designed to better integrate the analytical thinking and formal theory that the authors suggest still dominate law school curricula with more practical knowledge and greater emphasis on the values underlying the formation of professional identify.

The panel will discuss the recommendations of the Carnegie Report from the perspective of the law school dean. Professor Wegner, a co-author of the Carnegie Report and former law school dean, will join the conversation. Among the questions that will be discussed: Are the premises of the Carnegie Report correct? Does the study offer much new beyond the MacCrate Report (1992) or reflect changes in curricula made subsequent to MacCrate? Should the recommendations in the Carnegie Report be implemented? What are the internal and external forces that present challenges to implementation?

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Legal Writing, Reasoning and Research
Mercury Ballroom, Third Floor, Hilton New York
Writing Across the Curriculum: Professional Communication and the Writing that Supports It

(Program to be published in Legal Writing)

Moderator: Andrea L. Mc Ardle, City University of New York School of Law at Queens College
Speakers: Derrick A. Bell, Jr., New York University School of Law
Nancy Lester, Professor of Literacy Education, Department of Education, Medgar Evers College, City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York
Nancy Levit, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
Danielle Ofri, Assistant Professor, New York University Medical Center and Department of Medicine, New York, New York
Carol McCrehan Parker, University of Tennessee College of Law
Ruthann Robson, City University of New York School of Law at Queens College

Law students are expected to become fluent in the genres, or written forms, by which practitioners communicate information and professional analysis. Although these writings are governed by professional conventions of language and form, they are generated in the context of a human interaction, and will have consequences for the clients whose life situations are the occasion for their creation. In the lexicon of writing across the curriculum, lawyers-in-training benefit from opportunities to write in expressive (writer-focused and exploratory) and poetic (attentive to form) modes as a way to negotiate legal ideas and language. Using these forms, they can then circle back to the transactional (audience-directed) writing that law-trained writers must produce in professional contexts. Law students who write short stories, essays, or poetry to reflect on the work they do within their professional genres can achieve necessary psychological distance from professional tasks. Reflective writing about lawyer-client interactions can heighten a developing lawyer’s appreciation of a client, as well as deepen understanding of the lawyer’s own emotional responses to that flesh-and-blood person. This program will consist of a moderated panel of speakers who will engage with these ideas to demonstrate how using narrative and other literary genres supports the professional development of lawyers.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Securities Regulation
Murray Hill B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Have Securities Regulation Reforms Hit The Mark?

(Program to be published in Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial and Commercial Law)

One or more presenters were selected from a call for papers.

After the collapse of Enron, Adelphia, Worldcom and other high flyers of the 1990s, there was a crisis of confidence in American business and securities regulators. Numerous federal and state enforcement and regulatory actions occurred in the wake of these scandals. The most important was the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, but prosecutions of research analysts and mutual funds also resulted in reform. A torrent of criminal prosecutions and civil litigation under Rule 10b-5 and other securities law statutes also occurred.

Currently, several high-powered decision makers have asserted that the U.S. capital markets are becoming less competitive than overseas markets due, in part, to the U.S. regulatory and litigation environment. Further, there has been a push back in the courts as to expansive interpretations by the SEC of its authority with regard to hedge funds and mutual fund governance, and expansive district court opinions regarding the reach of the anti-fraud provisions.

After a call for papers for the January 2008 meeting of the AALS Securities Regulation Section in New York discussing any aspect of these developments, the five papers summarized below were selected. A special issue of the Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial and Commercial Law will be devoted to these papers.

Are Retail Investors Better Off After Sarbanes-Oxley?
Speaker: Barbara Black, University of Cincinnati College of Law

An examination of the post Sarbanes-Oxley environment from the perspective of the retail investor will focus on two questions: 91) Has SOX made the market a more level playing field for retail investors? and (2) Has SOX improved the likelihood that retail investors will receive some compensation for their losses?

The Tyranny of the Multitude is a Multiplied Tyranny: Is the United States Financial Regulatory Structure Undermining U.S. Competitiveness?
Speaker: Elizabeth F. Brown, University of St. Thomas School of Law

The United States has over 115 federal and state agencies involved in regulating some aspect of financial services, while the rest of the world is moving to consolidated regulation. The U.S. regulatory structure hinders U.S. competitiveness more than any particular law, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The federal and state regulators should take action to minimize the problems created by the current structure and move to a more consolidated or integrated regulatory framework.

Fair Funds and the Future of Securities Fraud Remedies
Speaker: Jon Connolly, Esquire, Richards, Kibbe and Orbe LLP, New York, New York

Two new SEC powers in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002-the power to levy fines greatly in excess of wrongful profits, and the authority to compensate injured parties-have the potential to change the traditional allocation of responsibility between regulatory enforcement and the private tort suit where securities fraud enforcement is concerned. Questions about this new authority will be raised, and legal rules and procedures that courts and regulatory agencies should adopt to address the changes will be proposed.

Black Market Capital
Speaker: Steven M. Davidoff, Wayne State University Law School

Hedge funds and private equity capital have become influential forces in American capital markets. Yet, the primary regulatory law which purports to govern them, the Investment Company Act, dates to 1940 and was enacted to govern the mutual fund industry. The result is black market capital. The Investment Company Act and its rules should be updated for the modern age.

The Impact of the Sarbanes-Okley Act Beyond Accounting and Financial Reporting and the Impact of Calls for Its Repeal or Rollback
Speaker: Cheryl Lyn Wade, St. John’s University School of Law

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has a significance beyond disclosure and accounting matters, on issues relating to corporate ethics and social responsibility. The political discourse leading up to the Act’s enactment in the aftermath of the accounting debacles of 2001 inspired more ethical and responsible corporate governance in a wide range of matters. Will the discourse surrounding a possible undoing of the Act reverse the move toward more ethical and responsible corporate governance as a general matter?

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Taxation
Nassau A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Interdisciplinary Reasons to Recalibrate the Equity/Efficiency Balance in Tax Analysis

Moderator: Neil H. Buchanan, Rutgers, George Washington University School of Law
Speakers: David Alexander Brennen, University of Georgia School of Law
Karen B. Brown, The George Washington University Law School
Mary Louise Fellows, University of Minnesota Law School
Sagit Leviner, Office of Chief Counsel, Natationl Headquarters Office of Research, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C.
James Charles Smith, University of Georgia School of Law

This panel will explore tax law through a lens that extends beyond traditional law and economics. It is the belief of many tax law scholars that tax law, like many other fields of law, is about much more than attaining efficiency in the tax system. There are elements of justice, fairness and equality that economic concepts like efficiency just do not capture at times. Given this view of tax law, this panel tries to highlight some of the various approaches to tax law analysis that look beyond the traditional efficiency paradigm. The panelists will discuss various aspects of tax law including wealth taxation at death, tax policymaking, tax exemption, international tax and state property tax. The panelists will discuss these aspects of tax law using various methodologies, including law and literature, various political theories, law and market economy theory and critical race theory.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

10:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
Hot Topic Program
Reproductive Justice After Carhart
Petit Trianon, 3 rd floor, New York Hilton
Moderators:Pamela S. Karlan, Stanford Law School
Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School
Panelists : Michael C. Dorf, Columbia University School of Law
Reva B. Siegel, Yale Law School
Kenji Yoshino, Yale Law School
Angela P. Harris, University of California, Berkeley School of Law

        This roundtable will discuss Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision upholding the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.  Panelists will focus on the ways that Carhart has emerged from and is reshaping debate over questions of reproductive justice in popular movements, the academy, state legislatures, and the courts.

        Carhart suggests a new understanding of the state' s interest in regulating abortion, as well as a new understanding of the abortion right itself.  Discussion will explore how the abortion right might be grounded in principles of sexual freedom and gender equality. Drawing on examples of abortion regulation now in state legislatures, the roundtable will examine the constituent elements of the government's interest in regulating abortion, including the government's asserted interest in protecting women from psychological harms associated with the abortion decision and  the equities of imposing more extensive and value-laden informed consent requirements, as many states are now contemplating. The group will also discuss changes in the structure of abortion-related litigation, such as the distinction between as-applied and facial attacks on abortion regulations, especially as this bears on the requirement of a health exception.

AALS Committee Event

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
AALS Committee on Sections and Annual Meeting Program
Rendevous Trianon, Third Floor, Hilton New York
Beyond the Program at the Annual Meeting: Other Functions and Roles for AALS Sections

Moderator: Donna M. Nagy, Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington
Speakers: Emily M.S. Houh, University of Cincinnati College of Law
James B. Levy, Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center
Kate Mewhinney, Wake Forest University School of Law

This program brings together AALS section leaders (past and current) and others interested in the functions and roles of AALS sections. Most AALS sections present programs at the Annual Meeting. But many AALS sections are active throughout the entire year, providing newsletters to their members and conducting other activities such as mentoring programs and listservs.

Panelists will reflect on their experiences as AALS Section leaders and will highlight innovations and accomplishments. The program will then become more interactive, as the Committee wants to promote a dialogue on the range of purposes for AALS sections and how sections relate both to each other and the legal academy at large. The results of the Committee’s survey on section initiatives will also be shared.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Academic Support
Sutton Center, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Working Together: How the Collaborative Efforts of Academic Support Professionals and Other Faculty Members Enhance Law Student Education

Moderator: Robin A. Boyle, St. John’s University School of Law
Speakers: Andrea A. Curcio, Georgia State University College of Law
Astrid Gloade, Hofstra University School of Law
Gregory T. Jones, Georgia State University College of Law
Jeffrey J. Minneti, Stetson University College of Law
Amy R. Stein, Hofstra University School of Law
Tanya M. Washington, Georgia State University College of Law

One or more presenters were selected from a call for papers.

We will highlight ways in which academic support professionals and other faculty members can work collaboratively to enhance law student education throughout the student body. Participants will be asked to think broadly and critically about what constitutes effective teaching in law school in ways that reach the student population as a whole. Included among the topics will be the following: results of an empirical study involving writing assignments integrated within a doctrinal course; suggestions about effective ways for legal writing faculty and academic support professionals to work together; and the synergy that results when academic success skills are taught using material covered in doctrinal classes. The program will be geared towards both casebook and skills professors.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Agency, Partnership, LLC’s and Unincorporated Associations
Madison Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Restatement (Third) of Agency: Analysis and Critiques (with Commentary from the Reporter)

Moderator: Daniel S. Kleinberger, William Mitchell College of Law
Commentator: Deborah A. De Mott, Duke University School of Law

Speakers and Papers:

Are Partners Agents
Larry Edward Ribstein, New York Univ. School of Law

Duties Not to Disclose, Dissent, or Disgrace: Cleaning Up After Leakers, Muddiers, and Stainers Under the Restatement (Third) of Agency
Walter Effross, American University Washington College of Law

Having the Fiduciary Duty Talk:  Model Advice for Corporate Officers (and other Senior Agents)
Lyman P.Q. Johnson, Washington and Lee University School of Law

What Me Worry?  Restatement (Third) of Agency Section 7.01 and Tort Liability Risks for Participants in LLCs
Matthew G. Dore, Drake University

It can be said that agency law is the source of all modern unincorporated business organizations, and certainly questions of agency law permeate all business associations. This year’s program focuses on agency law and, more particularly, on the newly- approved Restatement (Third) of Agency.

The program will consist of three or four papers pertaining to the Restatement (Third), selected via a Call for Papers and reflecting a wide range of methodologies and perspectives. Professor Deborah DeMott, who served as Reporter for Restatement (Third), will provide commentary.

The ALI gave final approval to the Restatement (Third) of Agency in 2006. Coming almost one half century after the Restatement (Second), the new Restatement differs from its predecessor both in substance and style. It addresses the role of agency law within modern organizations (e.g., imputation of knowledge within an organization’s “chain of command”), as well as relationships between common-law agency doctrines and statutes. Restatement (Third) adopts new nomenclature, for example jettisoning the terminology “master-servant,” “inherent agency power,” and “partially disclosed principal” while articulating a broad definition of “manifestation.” It revisits many familiar problems, including the bases on which the legal consequences of an agent’s actions may be attributed to the principal, the standard for an employer’s liability under respondeat superior, and the duties that agents and principals owe to each other.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Civil Procedure
Murray Hill A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Revolution of 1938 Revisited: The Role and Future of the Federal Rules

Moderator: Steven S. Gensler, University of Oklahoma Law Center

Making Effective Rules: The Need for Procedure Theory
Robert G. Bone, Boston University School of Law

The Revolution of 1938 and Its Discontents
Debra Lyn Bassett, The University of Alabama School of Law
Rex R. Perschbacher, University of California at Davis School of Law

Not Dead Yet
Richard L. Marcus, University of California, Hastings College of the Law

One or more presenters were selected from a call for papers.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Contracts
Murray Hill B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
How Bad Are Mandatory Arbitration Terms?

(Program will be published in Michigan Journal of Law Reform)

Moderator: Omri Ben-Shahar, The University of Michigan Law School
Speakers: Theodore Eisenberg, Cornell Law School
Theodore J. St. Antoine, The University of Michigan Law School

New Speakers selected from Call for Papers:
Christopher R. Drahozal, University of Kansas School of Law
W. Mark C. Weidemaier, University of North Carolina School of Law

One of the most hotly contested issues in contract law these days is the unconscionability of mandatory arbitration terms in employment and consumer contracts. Some aspects of this phenomenon are well understood: how widespread these terms are, and what are the doctrinal aspects of the unconscionability test. But a basic aspect of this debate is not yet well-informed: how bad is mandatory arbitration in reality? How much worse, if at all, are breached-against parties when they have to arbitrate? When does mandatory arbitration bar recovery and prevent vindication of legitimate claims? Are there unintended implications to the use, or the elimination of, mandatory arbitration terms? The presentations in the panel are intended to move beyond myth, conjecture, and assumption, and to shed a more concrete empirical light on these questions. Speakers will present and debate insights and findings regarding the reality of mandatory contract arbitration.

Four presentations will be made: two by invited speakers and two by scholars selected through this call for papers. The Michigan Journal of Law Reform has agreed to publish their papers and is potentially interested in publishing several additional papers in the same 2008 issue on this topic. The two invited speakers are Professor St. Antoine, formerly the President of the National Academy of Arbitrators, whose lecture is titled “Mandatory Arbitration: Why It’s Better than It Looks,” and Professor Eisenberg, who will talk about “Realities of Mandatory Arbitration Clauses.”

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Joint Program of Sections on Defamation and Privacy, and Law and Computers
Sutton North, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Protecting Data, Protecting Privacy?

Moderators: Jose Felipe Anderson, University of Baltimore School of Law
Greg R. Vetter, University of Houston Law Center
Speakers: Edward W. Felten, Professor, Department of Computer Science, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
Sharona Hoffman, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Andrea M. Matwyshyn, Assistant Professor, University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Joel R. Reidenberg, Fordham University School of Law

Has our society lost its ability to protect its computer-stored data? Are there ways to protect ourselves through computer science and technology? Does privacy, tort or criminal law provide any answers that might help us better address our concerns about the protection of our financial, education, health care and other sensitive records? In light of these questions, data privacy issues seem entangled with data protection. Our efforts to protect privacy through both law and technology have received mixed reviews on both fronts, however, both efforts are forever linked. Computer science, as a discipline, is concerned with data protection and the implications of technological choices. Law as an instrument of policy may fail to consider fully the limits or opportunities articulated by technology experts to address privacy concerns. As our world relies on high-speed access to information to cure our ills, protect us, and improve the quality of life, a continuing dialogue on this important intersection should become a high priority discussion in the Academy. The panel, which brings perspectives from both science and law, considers this sprawling entanglement from an interdisciplinary approach.

Business meetings at program conclusion in this order: First, Section on Law and Computers followed by Section on Defamation and Privacy

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Education Law, Co-Sponsored by Section on Law and Religion
Nassau B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Faith at the Schoolhouse Gate: Analyzing Religious Speech in Public Schools

(Program to be published in Journal of Law and Education)

Privileging and Protecting Schoolhouse Religion
Kenneth L. Marcus, Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, DC

 The Representational Dimension of the Public School’s Institutional Identity: A Neglected Facet of the Constitutional Analysis of Student Religious Speech Cases
Josie Foehrenbach Brown, University of South Carolina School of Law

Lessons from Morse v. Frederick: Implications for Students’ Religious Speech
Emily Gold Waldman, Pace University School of Law

Eric A. De Groff, Regent University School of Law
Parental Rights and Public School Curricula:  Revisiting Mozert After 20 Years

Moderator: Daniel Weddle, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law

One or more presenters were selected from a call for papers.

Because students and educators necessarily bring their beliefs and convictions with them through the schoolhouse gate, clashes inevitably occur between deeply held religious values and the values of others in the school community. Those clashes can arise when schools attempt to enforce hate speech policies against offensive or hurtful religious speech, restrict the distribution of religious literature, or respond to students’ religious expression in broadly framed assignments or activities. They arise in a host of contexts that pit students and their families against school officials, and school officials against one another. They pull into sharp conflict competing constitutional freedoms and competing national values.

Panelists will examine the complex theoretical tensions these conflicts present and the implications of the courts’ continually evolving approaches to those tensions.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on International Human Rights
Clinton Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
New Voices in Human Rights

Moderator: Mark E. Wojcik, The John Marshall Law School
Commentator: Robert C. Blitt, University of Tennessee College of Law
Speakers and Papers:

Defense Perspectives on Law and Politics in International Criminal Trials
Jenia Iontcheva Turner, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law

A Nazi-Looted Art Tribunal
Jennifer Anglim Kreder, Northern Kentucky University Salmon P. Chase College of Law

The Compatibility of State Responsibility for Genocide with the Goals of Transitional Justice
Saira Mohamed, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Advisor, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC

The Case for Abolishing CEDAW
Darren Rosenblum, Pace University School of Law

One or more presenters were selected from a call for papers.

Speakers will be those who are presenting papers for the first time at an AALS conference, or for the first time in an area of human rights. Speakers will be selected on a competitive basis and the names of those papers chosen for presentation will be listed in the supplemental program, updated on the AALS Annual Meeting web site and in the section newsletter.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Labor Relations and Employment Law
Nassau A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Employment and Labor Law Professor as Public Intellectual: Sharing Our Work with the World

(Program to be published in Suffolk University Law Review)

Moderator: David Yamada, Suffolk University Law School

Speakers and Papers:

Education about Labor Rights and Global Wrongs through Documentary Film
Frances Lee Ansley, University of Tennessee College of Law

Substance and Form: Business Planning for Worker Empowerment
Miriam A. Cherry, University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law

Making Our Work Work
Jonathan Barry Forman, University of Oklahoma Law Center

In the Cause of Union Democracy
Michael J. Goldberg, Widener University School of Law

One or more presenters were selected from a call for papers.

This program will demonstrate how professors of employment and labor law are engaged in activities that share their scholarly work with the general public in two primary ways:

Public Education - Sharing our scholarly work through writings for a broader public audience (e.g., op-eds and guest columns), speaking appearances and adult education programs, and the news media.

Intellectual Activism - Applying our scholarly work to direct interaction and advocacy with the public for the purpose of effectuating social change and law reform.

The presentations and accompanying papers will be descriptive, reflective, and instructive. Our presenters, who were selected via an open Call for Papers, will tell us what they have been doing, reflect upon the impact of those efforts, and offer insights to colleagues who are engaging, or wish to engage, in similar activities. Their essays will be published in an upcoming issue of the Suffolk University Law Review.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on National Security Law
Sutton South, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Military Activities Within the United States: Counter-terrorism, Intelligence, Emergency Response, and the Legal Impact of Changing Paradigms

(Program to be published in Journal of National Security Law and Policy)

Moderator: Robert M. Chesney, Wake Forest University School of Law
Speakers: William C. Banks, Syracuse University College of Law
Stephen Dycus, Vermont Law School
Kate Martin, Director, Center for National Security Studies, Washington, DC
Glenn M. Sulmasy, Commander, Department of Humanities, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, Connecticut

New speaker selected from Call for Papers:
As Assessment of the Evolution and Oversight of Defense Counterintelligence Activities
Michael J. Woods, Washington, DC

Few issues are as complex and controversial as those concerning the domestic role of the military. This has long been true, but recent developments ranging from the war on terrorism to Hurricane Katrina demonstrate that the topic has become unusually pressing in recent years. Our panelists will be surveying and debating a number of issues under this general heading, including the latest developments concerning NSA surveillance, the line between homeland security and homeland defense in the context of an armed conflict against a terrorist organization, and the President’s power to control the National Guard. We will begin with a presentation by the winner of our call for papers, followed by a moderated dialogue amongst all panelists and concluding with an opportunity for the audience to join the conversation.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on New Law Professors
Beekman Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
New Law Faculty as Catalysts for Change

Moderator: Michael H. Schwartz, Washburn University School of Law

The Comparative and Absolute Advantages of Junior Law Faculty in the Classroom:  Implications for Teaching and the Future of American Law Schools
Gregory Wells Bowman, Mississippi College School of Law

Taking Law Students to Court:  Disorienting Moments as Catalysts for Change
Emily Hughes, Washington University School of Law

Changing the Legal Academy from Within: New Law Professors' Unique Ability to Lead Law Schools Toward Achieving Best Practices in Legal Education
Benjamin V. Madison III, Regent University School of Law

Can You Show Me How To . . . ?  Reflections of a New Law Professor and Part-Time Technology Consultant on the Role of New Law Teachers as Catalysts for Change
Geoffrey C. Rapp, University of Toledo College of Law

One or more presenters were selected from a call for papers.

The presenters for this year’s program were selected in response to a call for papers. In the spirit of our section, the selection process ensured open access and resulted in an exciting panel of speakers sharing new scholarship and adding fresh perspectives to the overall theme of this year’s conference, “Reassessing Our Roles in Light of Change.”

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Real Estate Transactions
Regent Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Negotiating the Mega-Rebuilding Deal at the World Trade Center: Teaching Teachers to Teach Students

(Program to be published in Transactions: Tennessee Journal of Business Law)

Moderator: Gregory M. Stein, University of Tennessee College of Law
Speakers: Alex Garvin, Alex Garvin and Associates, Inc., New York, New York
Meredith J. Kane, Esquire, Paul,Weiss,Rifkind,Wharton and Garrison, New York, New York
Lance M. Liebman, Columbia University School of Law
Dara McQuillan, Marketing & Communications Director, World Trade Center Properties, LLC and Silverstein Properties, New York, New York
Martin D. Polevoy, Esquire, DLA Piper, New York, New York

One or more presenters were selected from a call for papers.

The rebuilding of the World Trade Center site is one of the largest, most difficult, and most emotionally fraught transactions in American history. In addition to the usual stakeholders found in any complex public-private transaction (two states and one city, the developer, the investors, the architect, the contractors, the prospective tenants), the World Trade Center redevelopment introduces additional parties unique to this particular tragedy, including the victims of the attack and their families, first responders, neighborhood residents, and insurers.

This transaction would be fascinating to any observer. But to the law professor, this is a teaching opportunity and not just an interesting deal. Speakers representing various interests in the Ground Zero rebuilding project will address two principal questions. First, they will discuss specific issues that have arisen during the negotiation and documentation process, with emphasis on those that are unique to this particular project. Second, they will provide illustrations of the “teaching moments” they have observed throughout the process. Law professors will hear experts demonstrate the opportunities this transaction presents for professors to help law students understand legal complexity.

In addition, a speaker selected through a Call for Papers will offer their perspective on this project and how it fits in with other rebuilding projects that have followed natural and man-made disasters.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

12:30 - 2:00 p.m.
Section on Institutional Advancement Luncheon
-view full Institutional Advanecment program (PDF)-

(Tickets were sold in advance of the Annual Meeting. If space is available, a ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 12:00 noon on Thursday, January 4. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)

12:30 - 2:00 p.m.
Association of American Law Schools Luncheon
East Ballroom, Third Floor, Hilton New York

Speaker: Dennis Wayne Archer, Chairman, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Detroit, Michigan

Dennis Archer served two terms as mayor of Detroit (1994-2001) and during his last year as mayor was also president of the National League of Cities. In 1985 Mr. Archer was appointed as an associate justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. He was elected to an eight-year term the following year. In his final year on the bench, he was named the most respected judge in Michigan by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Following public office, he became the first African-American named as president of the American Bar Association and now serves as chairman of Dickinson Wright PLLC, a Detroit-based law firm.

(Advance ticket purchase is necessary to attend the luncheon. See the Annual Meeting Registration form, or register online at www.aals.org/am2008/. Tickets may also be purchased on-site by those already registered for the Annual Meeting until 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 4.)

2:15 - 4:00 p.m.

Association of American Law Schools
Annual Meeting Theme

Reassessing Our Roles As Scholars and Educators in Light of Change

Change is in the air. We know that – as scholars, we are writing about change as it affects the law. I suggest that we focus our creative and analytical thinking on determining whether to change in our own roles as law schools and law faculty members, just as we regularly do in suggesting changes in the law.

A number of changes fit this category. One such change is the internationalization of legal practice. Another is growing student debt. These changes have stirred much discussion as they relate to the roles of law faculty and law schools. To these, we could add others. One example might be “e-expertise” – a term that encompasses blogs and more. There may be potential through electronic media for law faculty to have more influence on the law than we now have by disseminating our expertise and scholarship primarily through articles, books, or public testimony. If that potential is real, are we willing to change the ways that we judge scholarship in order to encourage e-expertise?

The “world-shrinking” changes of internationalization, electronic communication, together with the ever increasing pluralism of the United States, also underscores the continuing, indeed, increasing need for diversity in law school education. The challenges presented by these increasing mandates for exposing our students to diverse viewpoints will be substantial. Statistics reflect little recent improvement in the diversity of law school student bodies or in the student pipeline to law schools. Moreover, new legal strategies are restraining the use of affirmative action in admissions that brought diversity up to its current levels. Should law schools expand the role they play with respect to diversity?

These are just the beginning of a list of changes affecting us. And only a start to the analysis of how we ought to change as law faculty and law schools in light of changes that affect legal education.

Here is the challenge – to situate our teaching, scholarship, and service for maximum positive effect in light of a changing environment. We can do this by using the same analytical and creative thinking about our roles as scholars and educators as we employ regularly regarding law and its administration.

- Nancy H. Rogers, AALS President and
The Ohio State University

2:15 - 4:00 p.m.
AALS Concurrent Plenary Session:
The Seattle/Louisville Ruling: Constriction or Expansion of Race-Based Policies?
Rendevous Trianon, Third Floor, Hilton New York
Moderator: john a. powell, The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law
Speakers: Kimberle Williams Crenshaw, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law
Goodwin Liu, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School
Reva B. Siegel, Yale Law School

What are the implications for law schools of the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1? Have Justice Kennedy and the dissenters broadened what may be compelling state interests? Does Justice Powell’s opinion change what was permissible under Grutter? Does anything remain of Justice O’Connor’s reasoning in Grutter that law schools “in particular” produce “a large number of our Nation’s leaders,” and does this differentiate law schools from the reasoning in the Seattle/Louisville ruling? The panelists will offer and discuss a variety of viewpoints on the future of law school diversity in light of this ruling.

2:15 - 4:00 p.m.
AALS Concurrent Plenary Session:
Rethinking Legal Education For The 21st Century
Trianon Ballroom, Third Floor, Hilton New York
Moderator: Edward L. Rubin, Vanderbilt University Law School
Speakers: Vicki C. Jackson, Georgetown University Law Center
Robert Mac Crate, Esq., Senior Counsel, Sullivan and Cromwell, New York, New York
Martha L. Minow, Harvard Law School
Suellyn Scarnecchia, University of New Mexico School of Law
William M. Sullivan, Senior Scholar The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Palo Alto, California
Judith W. Wegner, University of North Carolina School of Law

There is a growing sense among legal educators that it is time to re-think legal education.  Dissatisfaction with the Langdellian model, now over a century old, has combined with enthusiasm about new approaches to both content and pedagogy to produce a potential turning point in the way we educate our students.  A number of law schools have announced major initiatives in the past few years, and others are planning to do so.  The Carnegie Foundation, long a leader in American higher education, released a comprehensive report on law school in March, and will follow up by partnering with legal educators in an effort to implement some of the ideas in its report.

But change is never easy, and rarely uncontroversial.  Law schools are complex, ongoing institutions, and the age of its educational model can be regarded as tradition as well as obsolescence.  External demands for change are not insistent; employers seem willing to train starting lawyers on the job, the ABA has been quiescent since the MacCrate Report -- which found more resonance among practicing lawyers than legal academics -- and universities are typically content to tax their law schools and be done with them.  Most of the material incentives for legal academics these days depend on scholarly production, so it is not always easy to engage a law school faculty in educational reform.  Nonetheless, as conscientious educators, many legal academics are increasingly committed to new approaches that recognize the tremendous changes in both the substance of law and legal practice and the understandings of and approaches to learning that have occurred during the past century.

This plenary session will provide a general picture of the possibilities for changing legal education, and the challenges that such changes necessarily confront.  The subject encompasses both curriculum and pedagogy: content and form; at the same time, the session will consider the related processes of institutional change. It will describe new ideas that are currently in operation or under consideration at various law schools, the major recommendations of the Carnegie Foundation report,  and some aspects of learning theory that support these ideas and recommendations.  It will also explore the role of change agents, the difficulties they face, and some strategies for their success.  Finally, the session will assess the need for change and the limitations on its potential scope.

2:15 - 4:00 p.m.
AALS Concurrent Plenary Session:
E-Expertise: How blogs, SSRN, Listservs, On-line Research Resources, and Other Electronic Technologies are Changing the Legal Academy of the 21st Century
Mercury Ballroom, Third Floor, Hilton New York
Moderator: Katharine T. Bartlett, Duke University School of Law
Speakers: Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School
Paul Butler, The George Washington University Law School
Robert Katzmann, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, New York, New York
Eugene Volokh, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law

Through blogs, vlogs, on-line treatises, and more, law professors share their expertise and secure reactions to ideas more quickly and broadly than was possible in printed form. Should we counsel our junior colleagues to embrace e-expertise? Is the net effect positive if the quantity of law review articles and books decreases? How does one assess the quality of the contributions that are posted without an intermediary? Will the new surrogates for judging quality (hits, downloads, citations) influence those who share e-expertise to shape it in particular ways? The questions push us back to first principles in terms of judging teaching, scholarship, and service. Are some audiences more important to reach than others? What contributions to these audiences should law schools most value?

This session will involve electronic audience participation in the discussions of the panel.

4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
AALS Committee on Libraries and Technology Program
Beekman Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Scholarly Gatekeepers and Electronic Information: Brave New World?

Moderator: Robert C. Berring, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Speakers: Paul Duguid, Professor, School of Information, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California
Margaret McGuinness, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law
Jonathan H. Weider, Dean, New York University Medical Center, New York, New York

For more than a century scholars could reasonably judge the quality and authority of legal information by the cover of the book in which it was printed. This is no longer possible. Legal information has been cut loose from the confines of the book by widespread electronic publication, but it has also been cut off from the convenient emblems of authority that traditional print sources once provided. Law reviews, which served as powerful gatekeepers of scholarly writing and as signposts for a scholar’s career path are now under siege from electronic publications like blogs, SSRN, BePress and Wikipedia. Governments, the traditional gatekeepers of primary law, now publish crucial legal information in electronic format, often without mechanisms for preserving or verifying the information. These changes raise a variety of questions that our panelists will address: What kinds of electronic publishing should count as scholarship in tenure decisions? What is the role of the academy in validating the authority of electronic information? How do we judge the quality and authority of electronically published information? Will authority be based outside the traditional sources in the future? And is this potential change in the locus of authority a matter of principle or a matter of time?

4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
AALS Scholarly Paper Presentation
Clinton Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Moderator: Judith C. Areen, Georgetown University Law Center

Winning Paper: Political Cycles of Rulemaking: An Empirical Portrait of the Modern Administrative State
Anne Joseph O'Connell, University of California, Berkeley School of Law

Now in its twenty-third year, the AALS Scholarly Papers competition is open to individuals who have been in law teaching five years or less. The winners, who will present and discuss their papers, were chosen by a panel of seven distinguished law scholars. Professor Areen, chair of the selection committee, will invite questions from the audience and lead a discussion of the issues presented by the winning papers.

4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
Section on Adminstrative Law
Nassau A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Administrative State and the Supremacy Clause: Federal Agency Preemption of State Tort Law
Moderator: Bernard W. Bell, Rutgers, The State University of N.J. Center for Law and Justice
Speakers: William W. Buzbee, Emory University School of Law
William F. Funk, Lewis and Clark Law School

This program will focus upon federal agencies’ authority to preempt state tort law. The common law tort system provides injured individuals a forum to seek monetary compensation for losses occasioned by hazardous conduct. Regulatory approaches, which generally feature expert administrative agencies, seek to prescribe and enforce an optimal level of conduct that prevents unnecessary injuries from occurring in the first place.

Traditionally, the courts have interpreted federal regulatory statutes to determine whether and to what extent those statutes preempt state tort law causes of action. In doing so, they have made their own independent assessment of the consistency between state tort law and the federal regulatory statutes.

In recent years, federal agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency have begun to specify the preemptive effect of their own regulations. These efforts have sparked controversy, particularly with respect to the preemptive effect of these regulations on state tort law. This program will explore federal agencies’ power to preempt tort law and the deference courts owe to agencies assertion of the power to preempt state law.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
Section on Commercial and Related Consumer Law
Nassau B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Disintegration of Commercial Law?
Moderator: Kevin E. Davis, New York University School of Law
Speakers: Larry T. Garvin, The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law
Emily E. Kadens, The University of Texas School of Law
Alan Schwartz, Yale Law School

This panel will examine the current and uncertain state of commercial law, outside of the academy as well as inside. The panelists will examine why a domain once demarcated so neatly by the Uniform Commercial Code has become less ordered, and they will also ask whether commercial law as a discipline lacks the coherence and centrality it once enjoyed.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
Section on Conflict of Laws
Murray Hill A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Choice of Law in Aggregate, Complex and Mass Tort Litigation: Accommodating Policy, Procedure and Practicality

(Program to be published in Roger Williams University Law Review)

Moderator: Louise Ellen Teitz, Roger Williams University School of Law
Speakers: Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esquire, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, San Francisco, California
Edward H. Cooper, The University of Michigan Law School
Linda J. Silberman, New York University School of Law
The Honorable Shira A.Scheindlin, Judge, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, New York, NY
Symeon Symeonides, Willamette University College of Law

This program will examine the problems of choice of law in aggregate, complex, and mass tort litigation. Much of the recent attention on the Class Action Fairness Act and aggregate litigation has focused on the procedural and structural problems first, and choice of law, if at all, second. The speakers will consider the issues raised for choice of law and attempts to resolve them in litigation, in ALI projects, and court cases. The panel will also examine in Departmenth choice of law in product liability, an area of substantive law that underlies a significant portion of aggregate and complex litigation. Both the judicial and practitioner perspectives will be represented on the panel.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
Joint Program of Sections on Employment Discrimination Law and Remedies
Sutton Center, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Employment Discrimination Remedies: The Shape of Lawsuits, The Shape of the Law

(Program to be published in Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal)

Moderators: Michael B. Kelly, University of San Diego School of Law
Paul Michael Secunda, University of Mississippi School of Law
Speakers: Tristin K. Green, Seton Hall University School of Law
Brad Seligman, Director, The Impact Fund, Berkeley, California
Elaine W. Shoben, University of Nevada, Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law
Julie C. Suk, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

In employment discrimination law, as in other areas, the relationship between substantive claims and remedies runs in two directions. While the substantive claims being asserted in litigation helps to define the available remedies, remedial options clearly shape the kinds of substantive claims that are pressed and the interpretation of those claims in the process. This panel, will explore the ways that remedial options affect the structure of discrimination lawsuits and vice versa. Panelists will particularly consider class action litigation and other structural reform efforts, comparative analysis of the relationship between enforcement procedures and the difficulties with remedying discrimination, and the effects of the remedial changes in the 1991 Civil Rights Act on the direction of the substantive legal standard.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
Section on Immigration Law
Petit Trianon, Third Floor, Hilton New York
Alive at Twenty-Five?: The Many Meanings of Plyler v. Doe

Moderator: Hiroshi Motomura, University of North Carolina School of Law
Speakers: Linda S. Bosniak, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. School of Law, Camden
Douglas S. Massey, Department of Sociology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
Michael A. Olivas, University of Houston Law Center
Peter H. Schuck, Yale Law School

Just over a quarter-century after the Supreme Court decided Plyler v. Doe, the decision occupies an intriguing place in the legal and public imagination. As constitutional law, it stands for the proposition that the U.S. Constitution guarantees access to elementary and secondary public schools regardless of a child’s immigration status. More fundamentally, however, Plyler reflects a way of viewing immigration and immigrants by addressing the meaning of unlawful presence, the immigration power of states and cities, and the significance of public education in the integration of immigrants. If Justice Brennan’s opinion for the Court has been criticized as reflecting more policy than law, that policy focus may be precisely why Plyler can elucidate current debates. Today, is Plyler limited to its facts, and is it at risk before a Supreme Court that is much less sympathetic to immigrants’ rights and much less agnostic about the meaning of unlawful status? Or has Plyler proven prescient in its analysis of immigration law and policy, with its understandings of unlawful status, immigration federalism, and immigrant integration providing a cogent blueprint for current debates? Can both be true? This panel explores the many meanings of Plyler v. Doe on its 25th anniversary.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
Section on International Law Co-Sponsored by Section on International Human Rights
Sutton South, Second Floor, Hilton New York
A Century of Humanitarian Law (Hague 1907 - Darfur 2007): Successes and Failures - “A Report Card”

(Program to be published in American University Law Review “Special Edition”)

The Law of War: Criteria for a “Report Card”
Nicolas N. Kittrie, American University Washington College of Law

The Changing Challenges of War (1907-2007): How Has Humanitarian Law Responded?
Marco Sassoli, Professor, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Scoring Success and Failures: (a) Outlawry of War; (b) Regulating Non-International Armed Conflicts; (c) Protecting Civilians; and, (d) Controlling Weapons of Mass Destruction
Yoram Dinstein, Professor, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

Implementing/Enforcing Humanitarian Law: Contrasting Military v. Criminal Models; Executive v. Judicial; Retribution v. Reconciliation
Harvey Rishikof, Professor, The National War College, Washington, DC

The following speakers were selected from a Call for Papers/Commentaries:

Dedoublement Analytique or Avoiding Making a Virtue of Ignorance" ("A Citizen's Observer's View of the U.S. Approach to the 'War on Terrorism
Benjamin Griffith Davis, University of Toledo College of Law
Restorative Justice in Societies Emerging from Civil War: The Viability of an Integrated Response to War Crimes Against Civilian
Jennifer Moore, University of New Mexico School of Law
The Challenge of Fragmentation of IHL regarding the Protection of Civilians -- An Islamic Perspective
Anicee Van Engeland, Jurist and Political Analyst, European University Institute, Max Weber Program, San Domenico, Italy

The main task of the panel will be to survey the changing challenges posed by war during the 20th Century, as a result of the dramatic changes in the characteristics of armed conflicts, and to assess the law’s responses.

The focus of the panel will be on how the law’s objectives and diverse protected communities (i.e., belligerents, sick and wounded, prisoners of war and civilians) have fared in view of the changes in the conduct of warfare and the law. The century’s dramatic developments, affecting both jus ad bellum and jus in bello, have included several noted conceptual and operational transitions:

From “Just War” to the “Outlawing” of War; From International Armed Conflicts” to “Intra-national and Transnational Conflicts”; From the Containment of Armed Conflicts (through the Principle of Distinction, Neutrality, etc.) to a resort to “Total War” (through strategic bombing, terrorism, etc.); From conventional weapons to weapons of mass destruction; From quasi-public (ICRC, etc.) and national policing of Humanitarian Law to international policing.

The panel, relying on both chronological and thematic approaches, will seek to assess the impact of these developments on Humanitarian Law’s functions in several conflict arenas, including Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq, Kashmir, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan and former Yugoslavia.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
Section on Law and Interpretation
Madison Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Law and the Interpretation of Sex and Gender

Moderator: Marc R. Poirier, Seton Hall University School of Law
Speakers: Carlos A. Ball, The Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law
Mary Anne C. Case, The University of Chicago The Law School
Frank Rudy Cooper, Suffolk University Law School
Dean P. Spade, Law Teaching Fellow, Los Angeles, California

This panel assembles established and emerging scholars whose work has examined law and the interpretation of sex and gender from feminist, Foucauldian and left critical perspectives. They will present their current work. Topics likely to be addressed include the legal control of sexuality after Lawrence v. Texas, the incipient reinscription of sex roles in law, masculinity norms and police treatment of suspects, and the disintegration of legal gender.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
Section on Legal History
Regent Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
New Voices in American Legal History

Moderator: Joseph Gordon Hylton, Marquette University Law School
Speakers: Tomiko Brown-Nagin, University of Virginia School of Law
Risa L. Goluboff, University of Virginia School of Law
Daniel W. Hamilton, Chicago-Kent College of Law Illinois Institute of Technology
Kenneth W. Mack, Harvard Law School
Claire Priest, Northwestern University School of Law

The 1970’s and 1980’s saw a dramatic increase in both the number of legal history courses offered in American law schools and in the amount of historical scholarship done by law professors. Law professors with PhD’s in history or related fields, once a rarity, proliferated. Although the place of American legal history in the law school curriculum was secured, what to teach and how to teach it remain unresolved questions. Similarly, practitioners of “legal history” frequently have disagreed as to the content and methodology of their field.

This year’s panel is composed of four law professors, all of whom hold PhD’s in history and each of whom began law teaching after the year 2000. Each will comment on his or her reasons for pursuing research in law and history, the subject matter and nature of his or her own scholarly work, the role of legal history in the 21st century law school, and the future of legal historical scholarship.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
Section on Litigation
Murray Hill B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The 140th Anniversary of the Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment: What is the Future of Rights Litigation?

Moderator: Bernadette Bollas Genetin, University of Akron C. Blake McDowell Law Center
Speakers: Samuel R. Bagenstos, Washington University School of Law
Wilson Ray Huhn, University of Akron C. Blake McDowell Law Center
Sylvia A. Law, New York University School of Law
Robert C. Post, Yale Law School

July 2008 will mark the 140th anniversary of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The panel uses this anniversary as a platform for discussion of the future of rights litigation. The panel will explore a range of issues, including (1) the future development of the 14th Amendment, in light of the interdependence of constitutional law and political mobilization; (2) the likely effects of globalization, empiricism, technological advance, and demographic change on constitutional analysis and rights in the 21st Century; (3) the unlikely prospects for an expanded role for the Fourteenth Amendment in the 21st Century in addressing the economic insecurity and inequality that the U.S. is experiencing in numbers greater than at any time since the Great Depression; and (4) the tensions that will emerge in civil rights litigation as a result of the Rehnquist Court’s strategy of imposing significant restrictions on civil rights litigation through limitation of civil rights remedies, while leaving largely intact the substantive rights that had been expanded by the Warren and Burger Courts.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

4:00 - 5:45 p.m.
Section on Pro Bono and Public Service Opportunities
Sutton North, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Total Package: Utilizing Public Service to Bring Legal Practice into the Doctrinal Classroom

Moderators: Judith W. Wegner, University of North Carolina School of Law
Speakers: Brenda Bratton Blom, University of Maryland School of Law
Mary Louise Frampton, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
William M. Sullivan, Senior Scholar, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Palo Alto, California

Do we impede student development as professionals when we teach them to “think like lawyers”? What are examples of law teaching that simultaneously prepare students for practice and maintain the intellectual rigor for which law schools are known? Clinics and externships provide one approach, but how can professional preparation be included in other settings?

In this program, framed by Mr. Sullivan, Senior Scholar and co-author of Educating Lawyers, Preparation for the Profession of Law, we will explore how field work and public service within a doctrinal setting can bridge gaps in traditional law classes.

Professor Blom, will present on her inclusion of service opportunities in teaching economic, housing and community development, discussing creative ways both non-clinical and clinical faculty can integrate public service learning into their curriculum.

Professor Frampton, will present on her incorporation of field work and community-based projects in teaching Restorative Justice, describing student research projects that provide an opportunity to apply theories learned in class to the real world, while assisting social justice practitioners and institutions with research and critical analysis, to develop best practices.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

6:00 - 8:00 p.m.

Association of American Law Schools Gala Reception
The Rainbow Room
30 Rockefeller Plaza, 65th Floor, New York City

In 1934, in the Departmenth of the greatest depression in history, John D. Rockefeller Sr. completed his testimony to faith in New York City and the economy of America: the Rockefeller Center. From that time the Rockefeller Center would be the benchmark that all urban development is measured against. The crowning jewel of this magnificent project was the Rainbow Room on the sixty-fifth floor of Thirty Rockefeller Plaza, the tallest and most prominent building in the complex. The room was designed to symbolize all the glamour and elegance of New York nightlife. From its opening day, the Rainbow Room has epitomized Manhattan luxury to both native New Yorkers and visitors from around the world.

Member Schools Events

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School Alumni and Friends Breakfast
Riverside Suite, Third Floor, Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law National Security Law Breakfast
Riverside Ballroom, Third Floor, Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Vermont Law School Breakfast for Academic Deans
Fordham University School of Law, 140 West 62 nd Street

7:00 – 8:30 a.m.
Washington University School of Law Breakfast for Alumni and Friends
Conference Room F, Executive Conference Center, Sheraton New York

7:30 – 8:30 a.m.
University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law Alumni Breakfast
Liberty 5, Third Floor, Sheraton New York

7:30 - 8:30 a.m.
Vanderbilt University Law School Alumni Breakfast with Dean Edward L. Rubin
Liberty 1 and 2, Third Floor, Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers

 

8:00 - 9:30 p.m.
Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law Desserts with the Dean - A Reception for Alumni and Friends
Omni Berkshire Place Hotel, 21 East 52nd Street at Madison Avenue

9:00 - 11:00 p.m.
Marquette University Law School Martini Party
Madison Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York

10:00 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.
The University of Texas School of Law “Texas Party”
Gramercy B, Second Floor, Hilton New York

Other Organization Events

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
American Bankruptcy Institute Breakfast
East Suite, Fourth Floor, Hilton New York

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
CALI (Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction) Breakfast and Annual Member Meeting
Central Park West, Second Floor, Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers

7:30 - 8:30 a.m.
American Law Deans Association (ALDA) Annual Meeting
Lenox Ballroom, Second Floor, Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers

7:30 – 8:30 a.m.
Aspen Publishers Electronic Coursework Workshop and Breakfast
Liberty 3, Third Floor, Sheraton New York
Space is limited. Visit the Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Booth for more information.

7:30 - 8:30 a.m.
National Association for Law Placement (NALP) Breakfast for Members of AALS Section on Student Services
Conference Room E, Executive Conference Center, Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers

AALS logo