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

Saturday, January 5

7:00 a.m.- 7:00 p.m.
AALS Registration
Rhinelander Gallery, Second 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

8:00 a.m. - 2:00 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 at the “Meeting Place” in the Exhibit Hall.

8:30-10:15 a.m.
Hot Topic Program
Of Guns And Militias: Just What Does The Second Amendment Guarantee?  Reflections on the Supreme Court’s Grant Of Certiorari In District Of Columbia V. Heller
Trianon Ballroom, 3 rd floor, New York Hilton

Moderator: Mark Tushnet, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Speakers: Katherine Darmer, Chapman University School of Law
Michael C. Dorf, Columbia University School of Law
John C. Eastman, Chapman University School of Law
Eugene Volokh, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law

Not since 1939 has the Supreme Court directly addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment. Following more than two decades of renewed scholarly attention, the lower courts have been grappling with whether the Amendment secures a collective or an individual right, and if the latter, to what extent the right is subject to reasonable restrictions. On the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in District of Columbia v. Heller, agreeing to review the D.C. Circuit’s holding that the Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, thus invaliding the District’s ban on hand-gun ownership and in-home possession of operational shotguns and rifles.

8:30 a.m. - 5:15 p.m.
Informal Networking Sessions
Concourse A, Concourse Level, Hilton New York

Do you have a interesting topic outside of the area of interest of an AALS Section you want to discuss? Colleagues with similar interests or dilemmas you want to meet? If so, take charge! You can organize an informal gathering that could meet any time on Saturday, January 5th for one hour and forty-five minutes. Simply post a notice on the bulletin board in the AALS Message Center area. Indicate the topic/interest you want to discuss and select a time to meet at a designated table assigned to one of the designated meeting rooms. Sign your name as moderator and see who joins you!

AALS Section Events

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Section on Alternative Dispute Resolution 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 Friday, January 4. Tickets will not be for sale at the breakfast.)

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Section on Indian Nations and Indigenous Peoples 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 Friday, January 4. Tickets will not be for sale at the breakfast.)

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Section on Property Law Breakfast
Morgan 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 Friday, January 4. Tickets will not be for sale at the breakfast.)

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Section on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity 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 Friday, January 4. Tickets will not be for sale at the breakfast.)

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Section on State and Local Government 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 Friday, January 4. Tickets will not be for sale at the breakfast.)

AALS Committee Events

8:30-10:15 a.m.
Joint Program of the AALS Executive Committee and Institute for Constitutional Studies
WHO IS FEDERALISM FOR: LIBERALS, CONSERVATIVES, EVERYONE, OR POLITICAL LOSERS
Location: Mercury Ballroom, Third Floor, Hilton New York

Moderator: Neil Kinkopf, Georgia State University, College of Law
Participants: Randy E, Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center
Mark A. Graber, University of Maryland School of Law
Lisa Miller, Rutgers University, Political Science Department

Robert A. Schapiro, Emory University School of Law

Constitutional Lawyers have recently been considering the value of federalism. Some political liberals now insist on the “local option” for matters as diverse as gay marriage and anti-terrorism policy. Some political conservatives insist that the above policies must be nationalized and maintain that the president, by signing a treaty, may alter state criminal processes. Political scientists have joined the debate. Recent work questions inherited wisdom which proclaims that national politics is more inclusive than local politics.

The program will present different perspectives on the changing values of federalism. Professor Young has championed federalism for its inherent virtues and also as a bastion of values associated with the political right. More recently, Professor Barnett insists that federalism is for liberals too, that liberals will benefit from the decentralization of certain policies. Professor Miller, in a forthcoming book, will suggest that the poor, contrary to existing social science understanding, are better able to participate in and influence local than national politics. Finally, Professor Graber will suggest that historically, federalism is for political losers, that parties which run on federalism platforms inevitably become more nationalistic when they take office. We believe these diverse perspectives will yield a stimulating conversation on an important issue.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
AALS Site Evaluators Workshop
Gramercy B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Moderator: David Alexander Brennen, AALS Deputy Director
Speakers: R. Lawrence Dessem, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law
Carl C. Monk, AALS Executive Vice President and Executive Director
Laura Marie Padilla, California Western School of Law

This program is particularly designed for those who serve, or are interested in serving, the AALS in the capacity of site visitor on ABA accreditation/AALS membership review site visit teams to member schools or schools applying for AALS membership. The AALS appoints one member to ABA/AALS “sabbatical” site visit teams and appoints the entire team when a school applies for membership in the Association and in other special circumstances. The program will discuss the purposes of AALS membership review and the role of the site visitor in that review.

AALS Section Events

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Africa
Sutton Center, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Access to Justice in Africa

Moderator: Thomas F. Geraghty, Northwestern University School of Law
Speakers: Alphonso Gaskins, Project Manager, Sudan National Judicial Capacity Building Project, United Nations, New York, New York
Adam Stapleton, Barrister, Penal Reform International, Lilongwe, Malawi
Tatia L. Miller, Staff Attorney for the Africa Division, ABA Rule of Law Initiative
Claire Moore Dickerson, Rutgers, The State University of N.J. Center for Law & Justice

This program will focus on the developing strategies designed to meet the legal needs of citizens of African countries. The panelists in this program will discuss the status of legal services delivery in both civil and criminal systems and innovative strategies to improve service delivery. The program will focus on service models that are designed to reach women, children, communities, persons in remote locations, and prisoners. Particular emphasis will be placed on existing and planned opportunities for law teachers and legal services providers in the United States and Africa to work together in support of access to justice in Africa.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Continuing Legal Education
Murray Hill A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Educational Continuum for Lawyers: Collaborations Among the Academy, Bench, and Bar

Moderator: Daniel Mc Carroll, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
Speakers: Nancy H. Rogers, The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law
Kent D. Syverud, Washington University School of Law

This session will present crucial reforms and barriers to success to the professional education continuum to adequately prepare new lawyers for effective practice and ensure that experienced practitioners receive the continuing education and training needed to maintain a high quality of practice.

Business Meeting a Program Conclusion.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Environmental Law
Regent Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Responses to a Changing Climate: Developments in Law, Policy, and the Classroom

Moderator: Alyson C. Flournoy, University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law
Speakers: Michael B. Gerrard, Esquire, Arnold and Porter LLP, New York, New York
Linda A. Malone, College of William and Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law
Tseming Yang, Vermont Law School

Over the last year, there have been significant developments in the realm of climate change science, law, and policy. These developments include reports on the science of climate change and policy options from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, legislative proposals from state and federal lawmakers, ongoing international discussions and policy development, and relevant decisions from various courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. This program will provide a focused update on domestic legislative initiatives and litigation, international initiatives and policy development outside the U.S., as well as ideas on how to incorporate this subject into environmental law courses, and the challenges and opportunities that teaching about climate change presents.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Family and Juvenile Law
Sutton South, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Moral (and Policy) Foundations of Family Law

Moderator: Brian Bix, University of Minnesota Law School
Speakers: Susan Frelich Appleton, Washington University School of Law
Martha L. A. Fineman, Emory University School of Law
Carl E. Schneider, The University of Michigan Law School
Merle Hope Weiner, University of Oregon School of Law

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

The panel will explore the moral or policy foundations of family law, discussing the ideas or values that either are, or should be, foundational, either for family law as a whole, or for some significant sub-area within family law.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Insurance Law
Murray Hill B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Insurance Intermediaries: Duties, Conflicts and Compensation

Moderator: Hazel Glenn Beh, University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law
Speakers: Sean M. Fitzpatrick, Senior Vice President, Chubb Specialty Insurance Company, Simsbury, Connecticut
Daniel Schwarcz, University of Minnesota Law School
Jeffrey Stempel, University of Nevada, Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law

Insurance agents, brokers and other intermediaries perform essential and complex functions that serve both insureds and insurers. Until recently, scant attention has been paid to the potential conflicts raised by an intermediary’s competing loyalties and self-interests. This panel will explore the nature and function of the insurance brokerage relationship as well as that of managing agents and independent adjustors. Particular focus will be given to the matter of contingent or bonus commissions and whether these compensation mechanisms help or hinder insurance markets and whether they should be restricted or even banned. Professor Doherty will examine the auctioning of insurance business by brokers amongst competing insurers and the design of compensation structures for insurance brokers. Professor Stempel will explore the roles and legal responsibility of other intermediaries, including Managing General Agents and Independent Adjusters. Professor Schwarcz will compare contingent commissions in insurance markets to structurally similar side-payments that end-service providers pay to intermediaries in other industries and suggest that this comparison sheds light on the optimal regulatory response to contingent commissions.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Law and Social Sciences, Co-Sponsored by Section on Alternative Dispute Resolution
Gramercy A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Empirical Scholarship in Law: Multiple Methodological Approaches

Moderator: Jennifer K. Robbennolt, University of Illinois College of Law
Speakers: Rebecca Hollander-Blumoff, Washington University School of Law
Herbert M. Kritzer, University of Wisconsin Law School
Janice Nadler, Northwestern University School of Law
Kathryn M. Zeiler, Georgetown University Law Center
Disscussant: Deborah R. Hensler, Stanford Law School

The empirical study of legal questions can take a number of different forms. Indeed, collectively exploring a problem from a number of different angles and using different methods tends to be more useful and informative than using a single approach. This panel will consider a common topic - legal negotiation - from a variety of empirical perspectives. The panelists have all conducted empirical research that sheds light on some aspect of legal negotiation-using data from experiments, interviews, surveys, and claim documents. Each panelist will describe their own empirical research on legal negotiation, highlighting the advantages and challenges of their chosen empirical approach.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Law and Sports
Clinton Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Intellectual Property Issues Intersect With Sports: Balancing League Rights with the Public Interest

Moderators: Patricia A. Cervenka, Marquette University Law School
Michael A. McCann, Mississippi College School of Law
Speakers: Ann Bartow, University of South Carolina School of Law
Hal Biagas, Deputy Council, National Basketball Players Association, New York, New York
Jeffrey Mishkin, Esquire, LLP, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom, New York, New York

The panelists will present their views from the perspective of league management, a players association, and an intellectual property professor, providing insight and thought-provoking views on the issues of trademarks, licensing and recent litigation.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Minority Groups
Sutton North, Second Floor, Hilton New York
“In the Name of Love”: What Does Martin Luther King Mean on the 40th Anniversary of His Assassination?

(Program will be published in the NYU Review of Law and Social Change)

Lisa Chiyemi Ikemoto, University of California at Davis School of Law
Jose R. Juarez, Jr., University of Denver Storm College of Law
Margaret E. Montoya, University of New Mexico School of Law
Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School
Wendy Brown Scott, North Carolina Central School of Law
Jennifer Marie Chacon, University of California at Davis School of Law
Frank Rudy Cooper, Suffolk University Law School
Emily M.S. Houh, University of Cincinnati College of Law
Camille Antoinette Nelson, Saint Louis University School of Law
Catherine E. Smith, University of Denver Storm College of Law

“Early morning April 4, shot rings out in the Memphis sky. Free at last! They took your life, they could not take your pride.” --U2, Pride (In the Name of Love)

On April 16, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote the following words in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”: “One may ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ . . . . An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. . . . Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application.”

As we approach the 40 th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination on April 4, 1968, we, as lawyers and seekers of justice, must ask ourselves what his life, his message, and his movement mean today. Looking at the “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” are there still two types of laws today: just laws and unjust laws? If so, how does one, or rather how should one, distinguish between just laws and unjust laws in our current society? Additionally, what does the appropriation of Dr. King’s words for a backlash version of colorblindness signify for Dr. King’s intended message and whether it stands for “pride?”

This panel of ten scholars of diverse races, ethnicities, genders, and backgrounds will undertake the very important task of investigating and explicating the meaning of Dr. King’s message of non-violent struggle to law, lawyers, and justice today. Half of the panelists are more senior scholars, who either (1) participated in or are participating in social movements that stemmed from or are related to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, or (2) have a personal memory of the day that Dr. King was shot and killed. The other half of the panelists are more junior scholars, born on, around, or within five years of Dr. King’s death, who address the meaning of Dr. King’s legacy and message after his death and in their careers as lawyers.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Post-Graduate Legal Education
Nassau A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
“Build It and They Will Come”: Responsible Growth of Post-Graduate Law Programs

Moderator: Maryam Ahranjani, American University Washington College of Law
Speakers: Charles Davis Cramton, Cornell Law School
Celeste M. Hammond, The John Marshall Law School
Gail J. Hupper, Boston College Law School
Kristi Schwindt, New York University School of Law
Mark Russell Shulman, Pace University School of Law

The panelists will address a number of critical issues, including: career services, admissions, marketing, and academic advising strategies and staffing; specialized vs. general LLM programs; what law schools expect from post-graduate programs as distinguished from what they receive; how programs are financed and different models currently in use; unique resources for SJD programs; and the extent to which a post-graduate program should subsidize the JD program. The diverse group of panelists represent a variety of different types of programs - well-established and burgeoning, large and small, profitable and hoping to be profitable.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Poverty Law
Nassau B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Rights, Religion, Revolution: Theories of Advocacy for the Poor

Moderator: Juliet M. Brodie, Stanford Law School
Speakers: Sameer Ashar, City University of New York School of Law at Queens College
Marie A. Failinger, Hamline University School of Law
Saru Jayaraman, Executive Director, Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York, New York, New York
Fekkak Mamdouh, Co-Founder, Assistant Director, Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York, New York, New York
Julie A. Nice, University of Denver College of Law

The Section’s program will take a comprehensive view of contemporary approaches to poverty law advocacy. With leading voices from three different conceptions, the conversation will address questions such as: What are the competing salient theories of advocating for the poor in the current legal climate? Is the “rights” revolution really over? Is it worth reviving? Do religious traditions offer theories of justice that can re-animate legal strategies for solving the problems of poverty and its devastating consequences? If there is a new “revolutionary” spirit embodied in community organizing strategies and campaigns, what does it offer advocates as a cohesive approach to social and economic justice? What do these three traditions have in common, and how might they coalesce into a revitalized American anti-poverty legal movement?

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Pre-Legal Education and Admission to Law School, Co-Sponsored by Section on Student Services
Beekman Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Leveraging the Power of People to Build a Great Organization

Moderators: Michael States, University of North Carolina School of Law
Sondra Richardson Tennessee, University of Houston Law Center
Speakers: Scott Cawood, Ph.D., Author, Business Strategist, Founder, ModernThink, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware

Student services administrators share a unique role in creating a dynamic culture for not only their students, but also the professional staff and volunteers who assist in carrying out the missions of their offices. Creating an environment that is both people-centered and results-driven depends upon a difficult balance, especially in the context of a greater university. With generational and demographic changes redefining how organizations perform, we must all remember that people, and how you engage them, will ultimately define the success of your project, team, and department. Featuring a nationally acclaimed strategist, this session will explore the critical aspects of creating a unique employee experience for your office where staff do more than show up -- they willingly participate to produce results. Dr. Cawood helps international companies accelerate their growth by training leaders to build an effective, productive, and healthy culture at their workplace, and we invite you to share in his wisdom.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on State and Local Government Law
Madison Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The City and the World

Moderator: Keith Aoki, University of California at Davis School of Law
Speakers: Michael A. Cardozo, Corporate Counsel, City of New York Law Department, New York, New York
Bruce A. Green, Fordham University School of Law
Audrey G. Mc Farlane, University of Baltimore School of Law
Edward H. Ziegler, University of Denver College of Law

This panel will focus on the city (in particular, New York City) and the implementation on the municipal level of government ethics laws as well as problems with their effective implementation. This panel will also address ways that events and entities on the supranational level have consequences for U.S. cities in the context of urban development and a comparativist perspective on urban sprawl, smart growth and sustainability.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

10:30a.m.-12:15 p.m.
Hot Topic Program
The New Federal Student Loan Repayment and Forgiveness Law: How it Will Affect Law Graduates and Law Schools
-View Video and Other Materials-

Panelists: Philip G. Schrag, Georgetown University Law Center
Dorothy Andrea Brown, Washington and Lee University School of Law
Heather Jarvis, Program Manager - Law School Advocacy, Equal Justice Works, Washington, DC

In September, 2007, Congress passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act (P.L. 110-84). Section 203 allows much lower monthly “income-based” repayments (IBR) than was previously permitted. Section 401, enacted with strong support from the ABA and the AALS over a seven year period, provides a large measure of loan forgiveness for graduates who spend ten years working in government agencies and non-profit (Sec. 501(c)(3)) organizations. The IBR system will significantly alleviate the loan repayment burden on law graduates in their first years after graduation, making it possible for many more graduates to consider working for smaller law firms that do not pay salaries as high as those paid by large corporate firms. The loan forgiveness provision will enable thousands of law graduates to choose the careers that they desire in lower-paying public service jobs.

Through a powerpoint exposition of the law, demonstration of a web-based IBR calculator, discussion by panelists, and audience participation, this panel will explain the new law and its implications for law graduates and law schools (including law schools that have their own loan repayment assistance programs). The panel will also examine ways in which Congress could improve on what it has already done.

AALS Committee Event

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
AALS Committee on Recruitment and Retention of Minority Law Teachers Program
Gramercy A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Best Practices for the Recruitment of Minority Law Professors

Moderator: Kellye Y. Testy, Seattle University School of Law
Speakers: Bryan L. Adamson, Seattle University School of Law
Sheila Rose Foster, Fordham University School of Law
Maria Pabon Lopez, Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis
Catherine J.K. Sandoval, Santa Clara University School of Law
Chantal Thomas, University of Minnesota Law School
Frank H. Wu, Wayne State University Law School

“But we couldn’t find any qualified ones!” is the common excuse. How can that clearly erroneous claim be rebutted? Are there best practices for the recruitment of minority law professors? Can those practices be incorporated into the perceptions, policies and practices of recruitment committees, faculty members and law schools? This interactive session pierces the institutional AND conceptual barriers that block access to the academy for people of color. Through the use of narration from a diverse array of minority law professors, we will identify the myriad challenges to minority access to membership in the legal academy. Narrators describe their journey to the academy, outlining the challenges they faced. Panelists pull together the common threads of their own and the narrators’ experiences to generate a shared understanding of best practices to achieve a diverse faculty. An active audience participation component is anticipated.

AALS Open Source Event

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Open Source Program (A program competitively selected by the AALS Committee on Open Source Programs)
Gramercy B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Implementing Scholarship

Moderator: Suja A. Thomas, University of Cincinnati College of Law
Speakers: Gabriel Jackson Chin, The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Paul C. Giannelli, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Harold Hongju Koh, Yale Law School
Deborah L. Rhode, Stanford Law School

Our scholarship can be influential. Most of us, though, do not promote the ideas about which we write beyond the academy. As a result, our ideas seldom reach the broader legal community where they might have additional impact. It is no surprise, then, that, as a New York Times headline put it last March, “When Rendering Decisions, Judges Are Finding Law Reviews Irrelevant.” This panel looks at how law review articles have influenced and can influence the law. We will discuss the importance of promoting the ideas about which we write, give examples of how this has been done, and seek to encourage scholars to use their scholarship to facilitate the implementation of their ideas. While scholarship is often generated from work on cases, this panel discusses the reverse: how ideas move beyond the academy.

AALS Section Events

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Civil Rights
Nassau B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
High Speed Chases and the Fourth Amendment

Moderator: Michael Lewis Wells, University of Georgia School of Law
Speakers: Karen Michele Blum, Suffolk University Law School
Alan K. Chen, University of Denver College of Law
Jack Ryan, Esquire, Greenville, Rhode Island

In Harris v. Coweta County, a 2007 case, the Supreme Court addresses constitutional issues raised by a high speed police chase of a speeding driver that resulted in serious harm to the driver. Questions presented by the case include the appropriate fourth amendment test and the scope of qualified immunity.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Constitutional Law
Beekman Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Judicial Independence and Political Accountability

(Program will be published in Constitutional Commentary)

Moderator: Kurt T. Lash, Loyola Law School
Speakers: Akhil Reed Amar, Yale Law School
Susan R. Estrich, University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Sanford Levinson, The University of Texas School of Law
Michael W. McConnell, Judge, Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado

Considerable attention has been paid to Senate judicial confirmation hearings and the role politics plays prior to confirming a justice to the Supreme Court. Relatively little scholarly attention has been paid to post-appointment political accountability, probably due to the American tradition of judicial independence under Article III. Following the failed attempt to impeach Justice Samuel Chase in 1805, serious efforts to hold the Supreme Court politically accountable for its decisions have been rare. Over the past decades, however, groups from both the political left and right have passionately insisted that the federal courts have strayed beyond the legitimate bounds of Article III (from Roe v. Wade to Bush v. Gore). Most recently, constitutional scholarship has questioned the Court’s monopoly on constitutional interpretation (see for example, Larry Kramer’s “The People Themselves”), and the lifetime tenure of Supreme Court Justices (see Sandy Levinson’s “Our Undemocratic Constitution”). In response to what they perceive as politically motivated attacks on the Court, some Supreme Court Justices claim such strident criticism of the Court poses a danger to judicial independence under Article III of the United States Constitution. Today’s panel will discuss whether such political pressure in fact poses a danger to judicial independence under Article III, or whether the Court should be held politically accountable in the event of intransigent judicial overreaching or departure from statements made before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Finally, if political accountability is appropriate, what manner of “democratic input” best fits with our constitutional tradition of judicial independence?

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Financial Institutions and Consumer Financial Services
Madison Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Subprime Lending Crisis: Causes and Consequences

Moderator: Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., The George Washington University Law School
Speakers: Kathleen C. Engel, Cleveland State University Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
Howell Edmunds Jackson, Harvard Law School
Katherine M. Porter, University of Iowa College of Law
Lauren E. Willis, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles

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

Subprime mortgage lending in the United States has grown rapidly in recent years, rising from $40 billion in 1993 to $150 billion in 2000 and $625 billion in 2005. By the end of 2006, subprime loans accounted for 14% of all outstanding mortgages. Subprime lending helped to promote a housing boom during 2001-05 and increased the U.S. homeownership rate to an all-time record of nearly 70%. However, subprime lending has also created significant concerns and problems. Critics allege that subprime lenders have unfairly targeted minority and elderly borrowers for high-cost subprime loans. Many subprime mortgages are adjustable-rate loans whose interest rates increase rapidly after only two or three years and also carry prepayment penalties that make refinancing very costly. Critics have accused subprime lenders of engaging in “predatory” practices, such as lending without regard to the borrower’s ability to repay, fee-packing, equity-stripping and loan-flipping. Delinquency and foreclosure rates on subprime loans have risen sharply since 2005, and several large subprime lenders have declared bankruptcy. Members of Congress have proposed remedial legislation and have criticized regulators for not responding adequately to problems in the subprime market. Speakers for this program will address various topics dealing with the development, operation and regulation of subprime lending, as well as the impact of subprime lending on the U.S. housing market and the broader economy.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Graduate Programs for Foreign Lawyers
Murray Hill A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Assessing Global Change: The Evolving Role of our LL.M. Graduates in the World Around Them (and Our Evolving Role in Preparing Them)

Moderators: Deborah Call, University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Speakers: Charles Davis Cramton, Cornell Law School
Joseph Glicksberg, Program Manager, Palestinian Faculty Development Program, Palestinian Rule of Law Program, Open Society Institute/Soros Foundations Network, New York, New York
Marjorie Mpundu, Africa Practice Group of the Legal Vice Presidency, The World Bank, Washington, DC
Edwin Smith, University of Southern California

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

LL.M. students come to our programs armed with accomplishments and primed for intellectual growth. These talented and committed individuals leave a profound impact on the schools where they study, and acquire powerful tools (both theoretical and practical) to make a positive difference on the world around them. Beyond the walls of the academy, how do we view and assess the critical global impact carried forward by our LL.M. graduates, and how has that assessment changed through the history of our programs? What are our roles in coaching and training these students? What are our schools doing to track the perspectives of our graduates and to recognize the contributions of these talented professionals? What signals are our programs heralding throughout the global community?

Our panel explores this impact and our role in supporting these global contributions. We explore this topic from various perspectives - that of graduate, law teacher, administrative director, and funding organization. Our panelists will share their experiences and impressions, and guide us in identifying paths for future exploration.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Intellectual Property Law
Sutton North, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Patent Law and the Independent Inventor: The Guy in the Garage or the Troll Under the Bridge?
Moderator: Cynthia M. Ho, Loyola University, Chicago School of Law
Speakers: Ann Bartow, University of South Carolina School of Law
Ronald J. Mann, Columbia University School of Law
Michael J. Meurer, Boston University School of Law
Arti Kaur Rai, Duke University School of Law

The independent inventor has talismanic significance in the popular understanding of U.S. patent law. The law in the United States is said to display special solicitude for the individual who comes up with a new invention all by himself. The legend of the guy in the garage who invents the next great thing has inspired a network television series, made cameo appearances in Supreme Court oral arguments, and regularly shows up to disrupt Congressional hearings on patent law reform. How does the image of the independent inventor match up with reality? Is U.S. patent law really as solicitous of the independent inventor as the popular understanding holds, and, if so, what costs does that solicitude impose?

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Islamic Law
Sutton Center, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Islam, Slavery, and Human Trafficking: What Remains to Be Done?

Moderator: Bernard Kenneth Freamon, Seton Hall University School of Law
Speakers: Janie Chuang, American University Washington College of Law
William Gervase Clarence-Smith, Professor, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London, United Kingdom
Mohamed Y. Mattar, Professor, School of Advanced International Studies, John Hopkins University, Washington, D.C.

The year 2007 marked the 200th anniversary of Britain’s abolition of the Atlantic Slave Trade. As is well known, there were a number of other military and political struggles against slavery in the Western hemisphere, particularly the struggles exemplified by the American Civil War, the Haitian Revolution and the anti-slavery campaigns of Simon Bolivar and other Central and South American patriots. In stark contrast to these events, very little attention has been paid to the struggle to abolish slavery in the Muslim world. Most Western legal historians, even historians of slavery and its abolition, know next to nothing about the abolition of slavery in the Muslim world. Even more significantly, a number of contemporary commentators maintain that Muslim slavery was never really abolished, that Islamic jurisprudence cannot permit its abolition, and that there are verifiable reports that modern day slavery is alive and well in various parts of the Muslim world today.

This program will address these issues in two ways. Speakers will first discuss the classical approaches to slavery in Islamic jurisprudence and offer an historical overview of attempts at abolition in the Muslim world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The program will then consider the twin problems of modern day slavery and human trafficking in the contemporary Muslim world and the challenge this presents for Islamic law and jurisprudence.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Law and the Humanities
Murray Hill B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Law and Order: SVU - Sexuality, Videos and You

(Program to be published in Southern California Interdiciplinary Law Journal)

Moderator: Emily M.S. Houh, University of Cincinnati College of Law
Speakers: Mario L. Barnes, University of Miami School of Law
Paul Butler, The George Washington University Law School
Camille Antoinette Nelson, Saint Louis University School of Law
Imani Perry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey School of Law, Camden
Russell K. Robinson, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law
Tung Yin, University of Iowa College of Law

This panel will explore the relationship between law and popular culture by analyzing how they simultaneously influence and are influenced by one another. Professor Barnes will explore how the prevalent use of the “N” word in music, television, and books has impacted defenses in a growing number of criminal cases. Professor Butler will explore the relationship between hip-hop and criminal law. Professor Nelson will examine within the genre of Jamaican “Dancehall” music homophobic lyrics that have drawn international criticism. Do such lyrics constitute hate-speech, or should they be protected as free speech produced by a marginalized segment of Jamaica’s citizenry? Professor Perry will examine how hip-hop music is used as an argumentative tool by pundits, intellectuals, and policy-makers. In part, she will address why the conversation about law in hip-hop differs from the conversation about hip-hop in law. Professor Robinson will discuss how Hollywood manufactures myths about race, gender, and sexual orientation to mask its own institutionalized forms of discrimination. Professor Yin will explore television shows that dramatize anti-terrorism efforts, such as “24.” He will consider, for example, the extent to which these shows, in their representations of terrorists as primarily Arab(-American), pander to preexisting prejudices and inflame irrational fears.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Law and Mental Disability
Nassau A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Legal and Ethical Implications of Recent Developments in Neuroscience

Moderator: Jennifer Bard, Texas Tech University School of Law
Speakers: Jonathan Moreno, Ph.D., Professor, Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Stephen J. Morse, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Orlando Carter Snead, IV, Notre Dame Law School
Stacey A. Tovino, Hamline University School of Law

The panel consists of noted scholars who study the implications of how rapidly developing technologies which allow increasingly detailed imaging of the brain affect current conceptions of law and ethics. These scholars will be speaking on their latest work including topics such as national security, criminal investigation, torts law, employment law and privacy concer

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Natural Resources Law
Sutton South, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Can Law Be a Tool for Adapting to a Changing Climate?

Speakers: Adell Louise Amos, University of Oregon School of Law
William Burns, Santa Clara University School of Law
Oliver Austin Houck, Tulane University School of Law
J. B. Ruhl, Florida State University College of Law

The growing consensus among scientists is that the climate is going through a major change, the full dimensions of which are not yet known. It seems likely that it is already too late to do much to prevent this shift. Much legal debate has centered on how to prevent climate change, but if it already too late to prevent serious levels of climate change, the question must be confronted of how to adapt to climate change. Even without knowing the full measure of the change, one can predict sea level rise, more extreme weather events (floods and droughts), shifting areas of agricultural productivity, and so on. This panel will explore how law and lawyers can contribute to enabling society to adapt to these changes. Speakers will address topics such as:
1. Introducing flexibility of use into already overstressed water use regimes
2. Adapting coastal areas to higher sea levels
3. Responding to more frequent extreme weather events
4. Coping with disruptions to ecosystems
5. Reacting to disruptions to economic systems

As a special feature, we will open with a brief “complaints choir.” Check out other complaints choirs at http://www.complaintschoir.org/choirs.html

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Nonprofit and Philanthropy Law, Co-Sponsored by Section on Legislation and Law of the Political Process
Morgan Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Participation of Nonprofits in Democracy

Moderator: Miriam Galston, The George Washington University Law School
Speakers: Richard Briffault, Columbia University School of Law
Miranda Perry Fleischer, University of Illinois College of Law
Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Notre Dame Law School
Dana Brakman Reiser, Brooklyn Law School

The relationship between nonprofits and democracy is multi-faceted. From an institutional perspective, there is an inherent tension between maximizing individual liberty by spreading out decision-making and power through non-profits with the need to respect our democratic process. The proper balance of power between these two sectors has been the subject of ongoing debate. This tension is exacerbated when the nonprofit sector seeks to influence the governmental sector directly, and the role that nonprofit organizations should play in political campaigns and lobbying has received increasing attention in recent years. Congress has considered proposals ranging from permitting pastors to endorse candidates from the pulpit to treating all “527” organizations as PACs. Advocacy groups, unions and businesses are creating growing constellations of nonprofit organizations to influence the public and lawmakers about pressing public policy issues, to shape legislation and ballot initiatives, and to affect who is elected to public office. Lastly, the extent to which nonprofit organizations themselves should be subject to democratic processes in choosing leaders and setting their agendas is a growing area of debate within many organizations.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on North American Cooperation
Clinton Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Canada and Mexico: Their UN Diplomatic Agendas

Moderator: L. Kinvin Wroth, Vermont Law School
Speakers: Hugh Adsett, Legal Counselor, Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations, New York  NY 
Mark E. Wojcik, The John Marshall Law School

What are the issues facing Canada and Mexico in the coming year at the United Nations?

Mr. Hugh Adsett, Legal Counsellor to Canada’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, and a representative of Mexico will speak on their countries’ upcoming diplomatic agendas in the General Assembly and other United Nations bodies and will offer suggestions on how legal educators can better teach about the role of diplomacy in the development of international law. Professor Mark Wojcik of John Marshall-Chicago will offer broader perspectives on UN issues and the implications for legal education.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

10:30 a.m.- 12:15 p.m.
Section on Part Time Division Programs
Regent Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Mission Possible: Launching a Full-Time Legal Career from a Part-Time J.D. Program

Moderator: Frederic White, Golden Gate University School of Law
Speakers: Caroline Fabend Bartlett, Esquire, Glen Ridge, New Jersey
Shelia Driscoll, Assistant Director of Career Placement, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.

A perennial challenge for dual-division law schools is how to provide a wide range of career opportunities for graduates from the part-time program. This session will address myriad issues associated with this challenge, including marketing part-time students to law firms and organizations, developing creative alternatives to summer clerkship programs, advising part-time students on career opportunities, helping part-time students translate prior experiences into skills valued by legal employers and prepare resumes focused on legal careers, counseling nontraditional students about legal markets, and assisting students who desire to pursue alternative careers. Participants on this interactive panel include an experienced director of career services from a school with a significant part-time program, a law firm representative, and a recent graduate from a part-time program who is completing a federal judicial clerkship and has secured a job with a private law firm.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Clinical Legal Education Luncheon
East Ballroom, 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 12:00 noon on Friday, January 4. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)

Business Meeting to be held in the last 15 minutes of the luncheon.

12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Criminal Justice Luncheon
Petit Trianon, 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 12:00 noon on Friday, January 4. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)

12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Evidence Luncheon
Mercury Rotunda, Third Floor, Hilton New York

At this years luncheon, the Section will present the inaugural award of it’s newly created John Henry Wigmore Award for Lifetime Achievement in the Law of Evidence and the Process of Proof. The name or names of the inaugural awardee or awardees will be announced in the fall after the selection process required by the rules and criteria approved by the AALS has been completed.

INAUGURAL WIGMORE AWARD WINNERS:
William Twining, Professor, University of University College, London, Faculty of Laws, London, England
Jack B. Weinstein, Judge, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of 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 12:00 noon on Friday, January 4. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)

12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Financial Institutions and Consumer Financial Services Luncheon
Lincoln Suite, Fourth Floor, Hilton New York
Speaker: Mark S. Scarberry, Pepperdine University School of Law
Respondent: Melissa B. Jacoby, University of North Carolina School of Law

Professors Jacoby and Mann will address whether the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 has played a positive or negative role in responding to the rising default rates on subprime consumer loans.

(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 Friday, January 4. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)

12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Graduate Programs for Foreign Lawyers’ Luncheon
New York Suite, Fourth Floor, Hilton New York
Speaker: Gail J. Hupper, Boston College Law School

(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 Friday, January 4. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)

12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on International Law Luncheon
East Suite, Fourth Floor, Hilton New York

Using International Law to Make Muamar Khadafi Pay for Lockerbie Terrorist Nightmare

Speaker: Allan Gerson, Esquire, Former Chief Counsel to United States Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick to the United Nations and Counsel to the Successful Claim Against Libya to Compensate Lockerbie Victims

(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 Friday, January 4. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)

12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Minority Groups Luncheon
West Ballroom, 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 12:00 noon on Friday, January 4. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)

1:30-3:15 p.m.
Hot Topic Program
Accountability for Military Contractors
Rendevous Trianon, 3 rd floor, New York Hilton

On September 16, 2007, security contractors in Iraq employed by Blackwater International opened fire on civilians, and media outlets immediately began reporting that the shootings may have been unprovoked.  The firestorm of controversy surrounding the incident has raised increased awareness of the thousands of private military contractors employed in Iraq.  Indeed, there are now as many contractors employed by the US government in Iraq as there are uniformed military personnel deployed there.  In response to the Blackwater shooting incident, the Iraq government has sought to repeal the purported immunity given by the Coalition Provisional Authority to U.S. contractors in Iraq.  Meanwhile, Congress is now pursuing legislation that would explicitly make contractors subject to U.S. law even when operating abroad.  And Congressional hearings are in progress seeking increased oversight of contractors within the State Department and the Department of Defense.  International law specialists and scholars of government contract law have also weighed in, proposing other initiatives that might make contractors more accountable for the abuses they may commit.  This panel will assess various possible avenues of accountability over contractors, as well as the implications of privatization in the foreign affairs arena more generally.  

Moderator: Laura Dickinson, University of Connecticut School of Law
Speakers: Martha L. Minow, Harvard Law School
Steven L. Schooner, The George Washington University Law School
Paul R. Verkuil, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

AALS Committee Event

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
AALS Committee on Bar Admission and Lawyer Performance Program
Gramercy A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Truth or Dare: The Responsibilities of Law Schools and Bar Examiners for Lawyers’ Character and Fitness

Speakers: Hannah R. Arterian, Syracuse University College of Law
Erica Moeser, President, National Conference of Bar Examiners, Madison, Wisconsin
Maxine Papadakis, Associate Dean for Student Affairs, School of Medicine, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, California
Deborah L. Rhode, Stanford Law School

The Committee on Bar Admission and Lawyer Performance has, in the past, worked to apprise law schools of those factors critical to law school graduates successfully negotiating the “character and fitness” component of bar admission. Factors which merit special review in the character and fitness process include: a criminal record; financial responsibility problems in which the applicant has “no plan” for repayment; discrepancies between the application and other records (e.g., arrests, employment); substance abuse; disciplinary or honor code infractions in college or law school; and non-disclosure of any type. Perhaps most importantly, applicants appear to survive the character and fitness process when they are completely forthcoming with all information requested on the application.

The Committee now believes that law faculty should study the character and fitness process itself for the purpose of determining whether that process is compatible with the shared values of the legal profession and the character and values that law schools deem important. This includes analyzing the accuracy of the factors used in the character and fitness process as predictors of the actual performance of law students as licensed attorneys; the current role that law schools play in the character and fitness process; and whether that role should be enhanced to better ensure the level of professionalism and civility in the legal profession.

A recent study (cited in the new report by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, titled Educating Lawyers) which explored the association between the (mis)behaviors of medical students and doctors gives law faculty and bar examiners something to consider. In 2006, the New England Journal of Medicine published “Disciplinary Action by Medical Boards and Prior Behavior in Medical School,” an article summarizing a study which “investigated the association of disciplinary action against practicing physicians with prior unprofessional behavior in medical school.” The study also “examined the specific types of behavior that are most predictive of disciplinary action against practicing physicians with unprofessional behavior in medical school.” The study found that “[d]isciplinary action by a medical board was strongly associated with prior unprofessional behavior in medical school. . . . The types of unprofessional behavior most strongly linked with disciplinary action were severe irresponsibility . . . and severely diminished capacity for self-improvement. . .”

If a study were to find a similar association between disciplinary action against practicing lawyers and unprofessional behavior in law school, how might law schools respond? How might the character and fitness component of the bar admission process change?

AALS Open Source Event

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Open Source Program (a program competitively selected by the AALS Committee on Open Source Programs)
Gramercy B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Critical Role of “Play” in Legal Scholarship and Teaching: Teaching Should Be Fun; Scholarship Should Be Fun

Speakers: Bryan L. Adamson, Seattle University School of Law
Marilyn Joan Berger, Seattle University School of Law
Lisa Ellen Brodoff, Seattle University School of Law
Anne Enquist, Seattle University School of Law
Paula Lustbader, Seattle University School of Law
John B. Mitchell, Seattle University School of Law

“Change is in the air,” reflected Nancy Rogers, President-Elect of AALS in her address before the House of Representatives at the 2007 Annual Meeting. Our program responds to that call: we present future models for teaching and scholarship in our high-tech times. Guided by the results of research on the role of “play” in developing creative problem-solvers, we demonstrate how to use “play” methodology with various tech or no-tech techniques, including graphic art, photos, and game materials, which even the non-artist law professor can incorporate. Further, by exploring the “attitude of playfulness” in adult thinkers, we suggest that the cognitive pathways developed through such playfulness directly correlate to producing high-quality scholarship.

The program shows how we can use “play” both to make the classroom experience a FUN one for our E-savvy students while, at the same time, developing critical thinkers and creative problem-solvers, and to develop an “attitude of play” in pursuing our scholarship. Audience members will be provided with art, photos, and other such materials, with which they will join in the project of developing “play” materials for law teaching.

AALS Section Events

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Antitrust and Economic Regulation
Clinton Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Antitrust History

Moderator: Christopher R. Leslie, Chicago-Kent College of Law Illinois Institute of Technology
Speakers: Daniel A. Crane, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Harry First, New York University School of Law
James P. May, American University Washington College of Law

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Clinical Legal Education
Regent Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Teaching the Art of Listening

Moderator: Peter B. Knapp, William Mitchell College of Law
Speakers: Bryan L. Adamson, Seattle University School of Law
Toni Halleen, President and Founder, Fun With Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Angela McCaffrey, Hamline University School of Law
James H. Stark, University of Connecticut School of Law

This session will examine the art of listening. The ability to listen well is a fundamental first step for much of the work lawyers do: interviewing clients, deposing and examining witnesses, negotiating with opposing counsel, mediating disputes. In the context of their clinical work, our students also need to listen to us; they need to listen to each other. These different contexts may call for different types of listening: listening for content, for empathy, for interests, for evaluation. This will be an interactive session, which will discuss, demonstrate, and explore different theories about and techniques for teaching the art of listening to clinic students.

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Criminal Justice
Nassau B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Police Power And Practices Post 9/11: Is The War On Terror Changing Domestic Criminal Law And Procedure?

Moderator: David A. Harris, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Speakers: Aziz Huq, New York University School of Law
John T. Parry, Lewis and Clark Law School
William J. Stuntz, Harvard Law School

Many changes in Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure have occurred since September 11, 2001. Sometimes these changes have collided quite directly with pre-existing (i.e., pre-9/11) understandings of traditional rights-based Criminal Law and Procedure - for example, the use of the material witness statute not to assure the presence of witnesses in court, but to detain terrorism suspects without evidence. Another example is the handling of terrorism suspects not via charging and processing in the criminal justice system, but through designation as “enemy combatants.” The question for this panel is whether the post-9/11 changes we now see portend long-term, possibly permanent redefinition and realignment of bedrock aspects of the domestic criminal justice system. For example, the use of certain varieties of “coercive interrogation” has been accepted by some authorities for anti-terrorism purposes; should we expect to see changes in the law regarding the acceptability of some “moderate pressure tactics” in domestic police interrogation in life or death situations? Should we expect an expansion of preventive detention? Will we see the replacement of our rights-based approach to Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure with a system designed to function in the anti-terrorism context but effectively covering all criminal matters?

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Donative Transfers, Fiduciaries and Estate Planning
Madison Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
New Research in Trusts and Estates

Moderator: Ray D. Madoff, Boston College Law School
Speakers: Ira Mark Bloom, Albany Law School
Patricia A. Cain, University of Iowa College of Law
Mary Louise Fellows, University of Minnesota Law School
Kristine S. Knaplund, Pepperdine University School of Law
E. Gary Spitko, Santa Clara University School of Law

This program focuses on research in progress. Professor Bloom will be speaking on the harmonization (or lack of harmonization) of rules governing wills and revocable trusts. Professor Spitko and Professor Fellows will be presenting results from their current empirical research on using insights from beneficiary designations in will substitutes as a mode of determining donor intent for intestacy statutes. Professor Knaplund will be presenting her research on the relationship between the charitable bequests and the estate tax and Professor Cain will be presenting her work on the current status of wills, trusts and planning issues for same sex couples. We have also reserved time for questions and lively commentary to follow.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Federal Courts
Mercury Ballroom, Third Floor, Hilton New York
The Federal Courts and the International System

Moderator: Ernest A. Young, The University of Texas School of Law

Speakers: Anthony J. Bellia, Jr., Notre Dame Law School
Henry P. Monaghan, Columbia University School of Law
Trevor W. Morrison, Cornell Law School

Commentator: Sarah H. Cleveland, Columbia University School of Law

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on International Legal Exchange
Sutton Center, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Mainstreaming Study Abroad in Legal Education

Speakers: Cynthia Adams, Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis
Peggy Blumenthal, Executive Vice President, Institute for International Education, New York, New York
Adelaide Ferguson, Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law
Traci Jenkins, American University Washington College of Law
Linda J. Lacey, The University of Tulsa College of Law

This program will review how study-abroad might be ‘mainstreamed’ into legal education, from a variety of perspectives. A representative of the Institute for International Education will present an overview of trends in study-abroad in higher education generally. This will be followed by a variety of speakers who will address the issue from his or her own position. There will be discussion on the experience of running a year-long or semester abroad programme, on maintaining foreign ‘campuses’ as a base for study abroad experience, on the classic, short-term, summer abroad programme, and other means of delivering study abroad in law. A representative from a careers office will discuss the impact of study abroad opportunities on factors relevant to job search efforts (e.g., does semester abroad preclude law review participation?). The panel members will attempt to offer creative solutions to competing demands on law students that might open up greater opportunities for international experiences by all law students.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Jurisprudence
Sutton North, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Margins of Legal Personhood

(Program to be published in Rutgers Law Journal)

Moderator: Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, Rutgers, The State University of N.J. School of Law, Camden
Speakers: Taimie L. Bryant, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law
Margaret O. Little, Associate Professor, Philosophy Department, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
Paul Litton, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law
Lawrence B. Solum, University of Illinois College of Law

This panel explores those “entities” that lie at the boundaries of legal personhood. Specifically, how should the law treat animals, artificial intelligence, fetuses, and psychopaths? And do our views about how to treat one entity commit us to similar treatment of another? For instance, do our views about the treatment of animals inform our understanding of abortion? If we would not hold artificial intelligence criminally responsible, does the same reasoning hold for psychopaths? During this panel, each speaker will discuss one of these “entities” and then the panelists will engage in a discussion of the connections between their theories.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Law and Anthropology
Murray Hill B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Cultural Properties: Minority Rights, and Commodification: New Perspectives on Social Justice and Property Law

Moderator: Sonia K. Katyal, Fordham University School of Law
Speakers: Kristen A. Carpenter, University of Denver College of Law
Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Michigan State University College of Law
Angela R. Riley, Southwestern Law School
Susan Scafidi, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Gerald Torres, The University of Texas School of Law

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Law Libraries
Beekman Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Google Book Project: Noble Pursuit or Exploitive Endeavor?

Moderator: Paul George, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Speakers: Paul Aiken, Execitive Director, The Authors Guild, New York, New York
Lauren Gelman, Stanford Law School
Steven Anthony Hetcher, Vanderbilt University Law School
Hannibal Travis, Florida International University College of Law

Since 2004, thousands of books from the libraries of the Universities of California, Michigan, and Virginia, among others, have been scanned into the database of the Google Library Book Project, enabling searchers to view “snippets’ of copyrighted works online without charge or the copyright holder’s permission. Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman has described the Project as a “legal, ethical, and noble endeavor that will transform our society” by “promoting and sharing knowledge.” President Coleman and other who support the Project argue that it constitutes fair use of the digitized materials. However, the Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers have filed suit against Google claiming copyright violations. Their supporters have accused Google of exploiting “other people’s content” thus “undermin[ing] incentives to create.”

This program will examine both sides of the debate surrounding the Google Library Book Project, considering whether it “systematically violates copyright [and] deprives authors and publishers of an important avenue for monetizing their works” as the publishers association contends or complements the preservation work of major research libraries and expands the presence of books in the marketplace, as Google and its supporters argue.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Mass Communication Law
Murray Hill A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Virtual Worlds

Moderator: Kevin W. Saunders, Michigan State University College of Law
Speakers: Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School
Susan P. Crawford, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Joshua A.T. Fairfield, Washington and Lee University School of Law
Dan Hunter, Professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Virtual worlds differ from the classical forms of mass communication. They, like other portions of the Internet, are not simply one way communication from one source to a mass of listeners, as with newspapers or the broadcast media. There are, however, masses of people involved in play in those worlds, and in that play there is a great deal of communication.

Virtual worlds raise a variety of legal issues. They resemble video games and may present concerns that have led to calls for regulation in that area. As channels of communication they may also raise issues involving defamation or the intentional infliction of emotional distress. They also raise property issues, not just in the ownership of the computer code that runs the game but in the virtual objects players player construct in their play and that may be saleable in the real world. These and other issues being carried over to, or developing in, a new context require careful and perhaps novel legal analysis.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Issues
Nassau A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Outside Looking In: The (Dis)enfranchisement of LGBT Law Students

Moderator: Danielle Kie Hart, Southwestern Law School
Speakers: Noe Bernal, Villanova University School of Law
Brietta R. Clark, Loyola Law School
Lawrence C. Levine, University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law
J. Kelly Strader, Southwestern Law School

The Law School Admission Council’s LGBT Subcommittee has undertaken a detailed nationwide survey of the law school environment for LGBT students. Information was obtained from a scientifically administered, sampled survey given in 2004, a survey of law school applicants undertaken in 2005 and published in 2006, and a series of focus groups held in early 2007. The survey results will be presented and discussed. In brief, the survey shows that the law school environment that LGBT students experience is fluid and fragile. LGBT students often perceive themselves as members of an invisible minority that does not have access to the sorts of support mechanisms available to other students. Positively influencing the environment for LGBT students, therefore, requires that law schools be vigilant, self reflective, and active.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Torts and Compensation Systems
Sutton South, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Frontier Issues on Race and Torts

Moderator: James R. Hackney, Jr., Northeastern University School of Law
Speakers: Anthony Paul Farley, Boston College Law School
Rachel Godsil, Seton Hall University School of Law
Camille Antoinette Nelson, Saint Louis University School of Law
Jennifer Wriggins, University of Maine School of Law

Torts scholarship and pedagogy have largely proceeded as if race and racism did not impact tort law. However, race and tort law have been and remain interconnected. The panelists will explore these linkages through the lenses of history, literary theory, psychoanalysis, and public policy. There will be a variety of tort law topics discussed. The historical accounting of tort claims brought by African-Americans and whites from the late nineteenth century to the late twentieth century, including issues ranging from disparate damage measurement to the relationship between tort law, race, and segregation of common carriers, will be discussed. The power/knowledge dynamic in pre-civil rights era claims by whites suing on the grounds of being falsely accused of being non-white and post-civil rights era claims by non-whites for being labeled with racial epithets indicating that they are “less than white” will be examined. The possibilities created for racial recompense by creatively revisiting the egg-shell skull tort doctrine and taking into account critical psychology that indicates disparate mental health sequelae for people of color victimized by racial abuse will be explored. Finally, there will be a discussion of the surprising instances in which state courts during the Jim Crow era refused to reify differences by rejecting attempts by whites to use nuisance law to exclude African Americans from white neighborhoods.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

AALS Open Source Event

3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Open Source Program (a program competitively selected by the AALS Committee on Open Source Programs)
Gramercy B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Conflict and Solidarity: Understanding the Relationship Between African Americans and New Immigrants

Moderator: Robin A. Lenhardt, Fordham University School of Law
Speakers: Muneer I. Ahmad, American University Washington College of Law
Devon Wayne Carbado, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law
Jennifer Lynn Gordon, Fordham University School of Law
Kevin R. Johnson, University of California at Davis School of Law
Rachel Moran, University of California, Berkeley School of Law

The relationship between African Americans and new immigrants has not been adequately explored by legal scholars. The popular media characterizes the relationship as one of conflict on every front, including over jobs, housing, schools, and political control. But are such reports truly representative? A more nuanced story - one that accounts for solidarity as well as conflict - is required.

This panel — which grows out of a 2006 Law and Society panel entitled “Citizenship Talk: Bridging the Gap Between Race and Immigration Perspectives” — is designed to explore more deeply the relationship between African Americans and new immigrants. It will bring together scholars of Critical Race Theory and Labor, Immigration, and Constitutional Law to focus attention on the many issues that attend this relationship. Its framing question is how law, and in particular the law relating to citizenship, has shaped the relationship between the two groups. How have the different paths to citizenship taken by these groups affected how they conceive of their standing and prospects in the U.S., and on how they relate to each other? We will also explore the importance of the specific sites of tension to the achievement of citizenship or, more broadly, belonging in American society.

AALS Section Events

3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Admiralty and Maritime Law
Nassau A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Piracy on the High Seas: Fish, Goods, and International Law

Moderator: Robin K. Craig, Florida State University College of Law
Speakers: Jessica K. Ferrell, Esquire, Marten Law Group, Seattle, Washington
Jonathan M. Gutoff, Roger Williams University School of Law
Ileana M. Porras, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

This program will explore the continuing role of piracy in modern maritime and environmental law, looking specifically at the ways in which piracy disrupts international law regimes to conserve fisheries and regulate commerce.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Agricultural Law, Co-Sponsored by Section on Natural Resources
Nassau B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Energy, Food and the Environment: Agriculture’s Future
Moderator: Anthony Brian Schutz, University of Nebraska College of Law
Speakers: Neil D. Hamilton, Drake University Law School
Christopher Kelley, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Leflar Law Center
J. B. Ruhl, Florida State University College of Law

The panelists will discuss the challenges facing agriculture as an energy source. For years, we have considered the environmental impacts of agricultural production, the relative lack of regulatory controls, and policy justifications for treating farming and farmers differently. In so doing, the political goodwill that farmers enjoy with the urban electorate and the primary function of agriculture -- food production -- have been paramount. As energy agriculture takes root, we must reconsider the historical justifications for farm policy, integrate energy policy, and further examine the need for environmental controls to reign in the harms associated with intensive production agriculture.

Professor Ruhl will discuss the evolution and current state of environmental controls placed on agricultural production. Professor Hamilton will discuss the food policy implications of the biofuels boom. Finally, Professor Kelley will discuss the global water challenge facing agriculture. Each speaker will bring a unique approach to addressing these aspects of agriculture’s future.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Alternative Dispute Resolution, Co-Sponsored by Section on Professional Responsibility
Regent Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Troubling Ethics Issues in ADR: Time to Modify the Rules to Catch Up with Reality?

Moderator: Dwight Golann, Suffolk University Law School
Speakers: Harold I. Abramson, Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Richard C. Reuben, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law
Irma S. Russell, The University of Tulsa College of Law
Thomas J. Stipanowich, Pepperdine University School of Law
Ellen Waldman, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Maureen Arellano Weston, Pepperdine University School of Law

This program consists of three “mini-panels” on ethics issues in ADR. Each pair of speakers will focus on a specific issue in negotiation, mediation or arbitration. The discussion will be interactive and audience participation will be welcome. The discussion topics are:

The ethics of teaching distributive negotiation: How and why should “hard” bargaining be taught, if at all? How should teachers deal with ABA Formal Op. 06-439 (discussing a lawyer’s obligation to be truthful in negotiation) and with “ordinary” deception?

The clash between commercial mediation practice and the ABA Model Standards. Legal mediators use arguably manipulative techniques to persuade “unreasonable” parties to settle. These practices are not consistent with the Standards governing party self-determination. Are different rules needed for the commercial arena?

Issues that arise when neutrals mix mediation with arbitration, either by performing mediation/arbitration or, in international disputes, by undertaking conciliation during the arbitration process. How can these processes be combined in an ethical manner?

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Balance in Legal Education
Clinton Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
What Does ‘Balance in Legal Education’ Mean?”

Speakers: Casey Calhoun, Law Student, St. Johns University School of Law
Daisy Hurst Floyd, Mercer University Law School
Ben Gibson, Law Student, Florida State University School of Law
Thomas M. Mengler, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Janet C. Neuman, Lewis and Clark Law School
Lawrence Raful, Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
William J. Rich, Washburn University School of Law
Erin Russ, Law Student, Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law
Edward L. Rubin, Vanderbilt University Law School
Daniel Suvor, Law Student, Florida State School of Law
Jeffrey Tate, Law Student, Columbia University School of Law

Following the recent Workshop on Balance in Legal Education and publication of Educating Lawyers (Carnegie) and Best Practices (CLEA), this inaugural program of the Section on Balance in Legal Education seeks to open a broad discussion of what “balance” might mean in the context of legal education, and to what extent that “balance” is desirable or important. The conversation will begin with a variety of brief perspectives from a panel of law school deans and law students. We will then seek to combine the ideas of the panelists with those of attendees, to explore the various aspects of balance relating to the goals, methods, resource allocations, and outcomes of modern legal education. Areas of interest are not limited, but are likely to include considerations of balance in the following areas:

-course and program offerings;
-teaching and testing methods;
-resource allocations for scholarship, teaching, and service;
-backgrounds and expertise of faculty and administrators; and
- personal wellness, motivation, and purpose among law students and graduates.

This discussion is not intended to reach consensus on any issue, but rather to open a dialogue on the potential reach of Balance in Legal Education.

3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Children and the Law
Madison Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Adolescence in American Law: The Boundary Between Childhood and Adulthood

Moderator: Ellen Marrus, University of Houston Law Center
Speakers: Simmie Baer, Northwestern University School of Law
Jennifer L. Rosato, Drexel University School of Law
Robert Schwartz, Juvenile Law Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Victor L. Streib, Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law

Recent scientific evidence emphasizes the differences between adolescence and adults. Yet, when children are placed in a position of interacting with the legal system these differences are not always recognized. Can we develop a legal system that focuses on the needs of children and takes these social and biological developmental differences into consideration?

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Evidence
Sutton South, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Guilt v. Guiltiness: Are the Right Rules for Trying Factual Innocence Inevitably the Wrong Rules for Trying Culpability

(Program to be published in Seton Hall Law Review)

Moderator: Michael Risinger, Seton Hall University School of Law
Speakers: Keith A. Findley, University of Wisconsin Law School
Edward J. Imwinkelried, University of California at Davis School of Law
Christopher Slobogin, University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law
Eleanor Swift, University of California, Berkeley School of Law

It is a principle of ancient lineage dating at least to the 18th century that, while standards of proof may vary depending on the kind of case or issue involved, rules of admissibility (at least those not explicitly based on policies extrinsic to rectitude of decision) ought ideally to be the same in every context, civil or criminal. It was an explicit policy of Wigmore to bring the rules of evidence more in line with this trans-substantive ideal. The reason given has always been that information tending to prove a fact has that same tendency whether the fact is a material issue in a criminal case or in a civil case, for the plaintiff, prosecution or defense.

If all we asked the “factfinder” to do in our system of litigation was to deal with fact reconstruction “stricta juris,” there would be some force to this argument. But it is clear that our trial system assigns other important functions to the jury

We ask factfinders to determine the empirical details of “facts in the world.” But we also ask “factfinders” to make some determinations which are clearly not “facts” (e.g. negligence; insanity), but are rather value judgments about facts. And we ask “factfinders” to determine other things (states of mind) whose factual status is epistemically different from (and less clear than) exterior “facts in the world,” and which are generally inseparable from normative evaluations of responsibility and guilt. Might the kinds of information which are appropriate for one function be inappropriate to the proper performance of the other functions? For instance, Professor Slobogin has recently called for relaxed standards of reliability for the admission of psychological testimony on issues of criminal responsibility, while, Professor Findley, among others, has called for more controlled approaches to evidence of factual guilt, especially in regard to whether the criminal defendant was in fact the perpetrator of the charged crime. Can the proper structuring of the trial, and adjustments in the rules of evidence, help resolve this conflict, or, given the way cases are investigated and developed by adversaries, by the time the trial starts is it already too late? And if reforms might help sort out the informational tension between determining guilt and guiltiness, are any such reforms practically possible?

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.

3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Indian Nations and Indigenous Peoples
Murray Hill A, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Labor and Employment Laws in Indian Country

Moderator: Ann C. Juliano, Villanova University School of Law
Speakers: Vicki J. Limas, The University of Tulsa College of Law
Wenona T. Singel, Michigan State University College of Law
Kaighn Smith, Jr., Esquire, Drummond, Woodsum, and MacMahon, Portland, Maine
Bryan H. Wildenthal, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Law and Economics
Murray Hill B, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Economic Analysis of Labor and Employment Law in the New Economy

Moderator: Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington
Speakers: Jagdeep S. Bhandari, Florida Coastal School of Law
Richard Block, Professor, School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
Alan Hyde, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Center for Law and Justice
Commentator: Ruben J. Garcia, California Western School of Law
Orly Lobel, University of San Diego School of Law
Michael Risch, West Virginia University College of Law

The session will look at the impact of the new information technology and the globalization of the economy on the employment relationship and the regulation of that relationship.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Legislation and Law of the Political Process
Sutton North, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Congress and the Bush Administration

Moderator: Charles Tiefer, University of Baltimore School of Law
Speakers: Kathleen Clark, Washington University School of Law
Neil Kinkopf, Georgia State University College of Law

New administrations may influence legislative processes and activity in new and distinctive directions, and this has certainly been true of the current Bush Administration. With the Administration’s eight years concluding at the end of 2008, what it has done to and with Congress warrants assessment. In the special processes of legislative action and reaction on national security, the Congressional course has ranged from cooperative enactments and/or passive partnership, to reforms and even hostile oversight, ranging throughout such matters as the Administration’s response to 9/11, its management of intelligence, and the war in Iraq. Domestically, the Bush Administration was (before 2007) the first unified executive-Congressional government under its party’s auspices in a half-century. This occasioned specially adjusted legislative procedural patterns in areas from budget processes to judicial appointment filibusters. And, of particular note, Congress’s role during, and after, the period of unified government presented sensitive new issues of legislative ethics.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Property Law
Sutton Center, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Biology of Property: What Evolutionary Theory and Cognitive Science Can Teach Us about Property Law

Moderator: Raymond R. Coletta, University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law
Speakers: Oliver R. Goodenough, Vermont Law School
Jeffrey Evans Stake, Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington

Evolutionary theory and cognitive science can provide numerous insights into why and how we structure our property laws as we do. There is a growing body of empirical studies that suggests that human notions of property may be based, in part, on certain genetic predispositions. Legal rules of possession may be grounded in evolutionary stable strategies; and many of these rules attempt to structure behavior that is geared to help solve the survival problems of our ancestors. New advances in cognitive neuroscience are enhancing our understandings of human thought and behavior and providing new insights into the bases of our property system. The panel will explore some of the biological bases of human behavior as they relate to property law.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Scholarship
Beekman Parlor, Second Floor, Hilton New York
The Future of Legal Scholarship

Moderator: Kenneth W. Simons, Boston University School of Law
Speakers: Oona A. Hathaway, Yale Law School
Saul Levmore, The University of Chicago The Law School
Tracey L. Meares, Yale Law School
Eugene Volokh, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law

What will legal scholars be writing about twenty years from now? How will legal scholarship be different from today? Will the differences be salutary? Four distinguished panelists will consider these predictive and evaluative questions. Among other issues, the panelists might address whether scholarship will (or should) be increasingly interdisciplinary, or empirical, or specialized; and whether its perspective will (or should) be increasingly international and comparative. Our primary focus will be on the content of legal scholarship, not on its form (i.e., not on the question of publication in law journals v. in new media such as blogs or electronic “pocket parts”). However, the question of how publication formats are evolving is likely to receive some discussion.

If the topic is a successful one, the AALS might consider replicating it at twenty year intervals. This would provide the welcome opportunity of looking back in bemusement at the predictions issued by previous panelists.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion

Open program

3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Open Program on Animal Law
Morgan Suite, Second Floor, Hilton New York
Debating Animals as Legal Persons and Gathering to Consider Formation as an AALS Section

Moderator: Katherine Mary Hessler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Speakers: Taimie L. Bryant, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law
David N. Cassuto, Pace University School of Law
David S. Favre, Michigan State University College of Law
Steven Wise, Vermont Law School

Animal law is a rapidly growing area of the law gaining widespread interest in the legal community. Over seventy-five law schools teach animal law, the ABA TIPS Section established an Animal Law Committee in 2005, and many local bars have followed suit. Animal law is a diverse field cutting across most all substantive areas of the law. In light of this, interested animal law professors propose a program to discuss the creation of an AALS Section on Animal Law and to address a topic that will engage colleagues and educate them on this emerging area of the law.

Defining “personhood” for purposes of allocating legal rights is a highly problematic endeavor. Nonhuman animals, although sentient beings, are treated as “property” under the law. They are legal “things” and thus excluded from legal personhood. Past attempts to differentiate humans from animals and thereby exclude animals from moral consideration and consequently legal rights have taken many forms. Some, like Descartes, maintained that the difference lay with the capacity for language. Yet, nonhuman language capability has been conclusively demonstrated in many nonhuman species. Others differentiate animals based upon intellectual ability or self-consciousness. This too is problematic as many cognitively impaired humans without intellectual ability or self-consciousness are nevertheless deemed “persons.” Finally, some differentiate based on basic biology, which is also seriously flawed. No quintessentially “human” characteristic definitively sets humans apart from other animals. Courts and legislatures have struggled to adapt to this shifting epistemological landscape with little success. It would seem that no one definition of “person” properly encompasses the range of legal entities arguably with claims to its mantle. This session will explore the legal and normative bases for personhood and why nonhuman animals have been excluded from its ambit.

AALS EVENTS

5:15 - 6:30 p.m.
Second Meeting of the AALS House of Representatives
Trianon Ballroom, Third Floor, Hilton New York
Presiding Nancy H. Rogers, AALS President and The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law
Parliamentarian: Elliott S. Milstein, American University Washington College of Law
Clerk: David Alexander Brennen, AALS Deputy Director

Address of AALS President-Elect, John H. Garvey, Boston College Law School
Report of the Nominating Committee, Allan K. Easley, Chair of the AALS Nominating Committee for 2008 and William Mitchell College of Law
Other Business

Representatives of all 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 Foreign Law Teachers
Mercury Rotunda, Third Floor, Hilton New York

Legal educators from outside the United States who are attending this Annual Meeting are invited to attend this reception held in their honor.

6:30 p.m.
Section on Balance in Legal Education Business Meeting
Clinton Suite, 2 nd Floor, Hilton New York

6:30 - 7:30 p.m.
Twelve Step Meeting
Hudson Suite, Fourth Floor, Hilton New York

Member Schools Events

6:30 - 9:30 p.m.
Regent University School of Law Visits the Big Apple: Alumni and Friends Reception
Lincoln Suite, Fourth Floor, Hilton New York

Other Organization Events

7:00 – 8:30 a.m.
Access Group’s Deans’ Breakfast
Petit Trianon, Third Floor, Hilton New York
Topic: Financing a Legal Education

7:30 – 8:30 a.m.
Pace University School of Law Breakfast for Friends and Alumni
Rendezvous Trianon, Third Floor, Hilton New York

6:30 - 10:00 p.m.
Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) Annual Awards Dinner
Gold Unicorn, 18 East Broadway, Chinatown

AALS logo