Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

Saturday, September 29, 2012

2d Cir Upholds New York's Ban on Subversive Techniques In Special Education


Bryant v. NYS Education Dep't., ___F.3d___(2d Cir. Aug. 20, 2012).  Download Bryant

Subversive techniques are a form of punishment designed to induce appropriate behavior. They are very controversial, to say the least, and not used in most main stream programs. New York has taken the lead and outlawed them altogether. 

In this decision, the 2d Circuit upholds the New York regulation which ban it. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

September 29, 2012 in Special Education Law | Permalink | Comments (1)

Friday, September 28, 2012

School Law Jobs

School Law Jobs
Job Title Employer Job Location
Special Education Attorneys Harbottle Law Group Orange County, California
Associate Attorney Semple, Farrington & Everall, P.C. Denver, Colorado
Public Finance Lawyer Drummond Woodsum Portland, Maine
School and Special Education Lawyer Drummond Woodsum Portland, Maine
Employment Lawyer Drummond Woodsum Portland, Maine
School Board Attorney Portsmouth Public Schools Portsmouth, Virginia

September 28, 2012 in Lawyer Employment | Permalink | Comments (0)

Davidoff, The Economics of Law Schools, and Adjunct Faculty

There has been much written in the blogosphere about Steven M. Davidoff's essay in the New York Times earlier this week as well as to Paul Campos's response to it, and I do not have much to add other than to say that I have just read the online comments to the Davidoff piece and I found there a substantially positive review for the value that adjunct faculty brings to the overall law school educational experience.  This seems worth observing here, this being the Adjunct Law Profs Blog and all.

Craig Estlinbaum

September 28, 2012 in Law Professors, Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (0) Law Firm Rankings

For what it is worth, recently released their annual rankings of law firm summer associate programs, here. The top 20 were as follows:

1 NR Fish & Richardson P.C. 7.967 Boston, MA
2 NR Baker & Hostetler LLP 7.958 Cleveland, OH
3 NR Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 7.933 New York, NY
4 NR Williams & Connolly LLP 7.812 Washington, DC
5 NR Arent Fox LLP 7.805 Washington, DC
6 NR Baker & McKenzie 7.792 Chicago, IL
7 NR Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP 7.791 New York, NY
7 NR Ropes & Gray LLP 7.791 Boston, MA
8 NR Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 7.766 Los Angeles, CA
9 NR Chadbourne & Parke LLP 7.747 New York, NY
10 NR Venable LLP 7.744 Washington, DC
11 NR Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 7.742 Memphis, TN
12 NR Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz 7.736 New York, NY
13 NR Allen & Overy LLP (US) 7.694 New York, NY
14 NR O'Melveny & Myers LLP 7.673 Los Angeles, CA
15 NR Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 7.659 Philadelphia, PA
16 NR Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 7.632 Los Angeles, CA
17 NR Haynes and Boone, LLP 7.621 Dallas, TX
18 NR Quarles & Brady LLP 7.612 Milwaukee, WI
19 NR Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 7.602 Washington, DC
20 NR Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 7.587 Washington, DC

September 28, 2012 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

What Does Tenure Mean In The Context Of Private Employment??


With respect to public employment, tenure is equated with permanent employment. It creates a property right and as a result, tenured employees cannot be disciplined without due process. But, what about private employment? Branham v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, ____F.3d____(6th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012), address this exact issue in the context of a termination of a law professor at a private law school.

The court explains that tenure is NOT lifetime employment. Rather, it is a contractual right and its meaning is derived from the terms of the contract. As the court states:

As the district court noted, and as Branham concedes, “‘tenure’ [does not] mean[]
anything other than what [Branham’s] employment contract provides.” Further, under
Michigan law, “contracts for permanent employment are for an indefinite period of time
and are presumptively construed to provide employment at will.” Rowe v. Montgomery
Ward & Co., 473 N.W.2d 268, 271 (Mich. 1991). The term “tenure” is not defined in
Branham’s employment contract, but Branham contends that “tenure” means “lifetime
appointment” or “continuous employment.”

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

September 26, 2012 in Education Law, Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas Open Meetings Act

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday issues a 3-0 decision upholding the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) over a First Amendment free speech challenge.  The case is Asgeirsson v. Texas Attorney General, No. 11-50441 (5th Cir. Sep. 25, 2012).

TOMA provides that most government meetings be open to the public, and provides that violations are punishable by a $500 fine and up to six months in county jail.  Asgeirsson and other municipal officials challenged this penalty as violating free speech.   The appellate panel rejected the argument, finding the prohibitions against private meetings to be a permissible, content-neutral time, place or manner restriction.  The court also rejected claims that the TOMA public meeting requirement is unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. 

More at Grits For Breakfast and Dallas Morning News Investigates Blog.

Craig Estlinbaum

September 26, 2012 in Constitutional Law, Current Events, First Amendment | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Some Hospitals are Going Without Malpractice Insurance

This is a scarey thought. Some New York hospitals are going without malpractice insurance. While some of these institutions are saving money on their own to pay out future claims; others are not. A New York Times article about this practice is available here.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

September 25, 2012 in New York Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, September 24, 2012

5th Circuit Holds District Did Not Violate IDEA By Removing Student From Regular Education Class


J.H. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 11-20718 (5th Cir. July 26, 2012), is an interesting special education decision. The 5th Circuit upheld a district court’s determination that a Texas district complied with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act when it placed a disabled student in special education science and social studies classes, after he struggled in general education classes for these subjects. J.H.’s parents objected to the placement, but his teachers and independent evaluators testified that J.H. was unable to grasp the concepts being taught in general education classes, leading the panel to conclude that he did not gain an educational benefit from the classes.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


September 24, 2012 in Special Education Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, September 23, 2012

9th Circuit Holds District Violated IDEA By Not Providing IEP Notwithstanding Parents Lack of Cooperation


Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P., No. 09-189 (9th Cir. July 19, 2012), is an interesting IDEA case. The 9th Circuit held that a school district failed to provide a special education student with a free appropriate public education as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), when the district failed to update the student’s individualized educational plan annually, concluding that the Parents’ alleged lack of cooperation did not excuse the district from its procedural duty to do so.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

September 23, 2012 in Special Education Law | Permalink | Comments (0)