Friday, February 28, 2014
Nowhere explodes with new life and color in the spring like the Pacific Northwest.This refreshment and inspiration is always matched by the supportive and fun atmosphere of the Pacific Northwest ALSB regional conference.
This year’s conference will be held on April 24-26, 2014 in Vancouver BC [pictured below]. We will start with a reception on Thursday evening, April 24th and end shortly after lunch on Saturday, April 26th. We promise the same low cost and friendly high value in what has deservedly become a favorite among ALSB regional academic meetings.
If you have any questions, please contact our program chair, Gail Lasprogata of Seattle University at firstname.lastname@example.org. Registration forms should be requested from, and submitted to, Gail.
We hope you will join us!
The previous posts for two other 2014 regional ALSB conferences:
The previous post for the 2014 national ALSB conference:
These conferences are the top regional and national conferences for legal studies professors in business schools, but I believe most are open to others as well.
Law Professor Jobs in Business Schools: Georgia Tech, University of Louisiana (Lafayette), and Indiana University (South Bend)
The business schools of Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Louisiana (Lafayette), and Indiana University (South Bend) have posted openings for legal studies positions.
I have ties to two of the schools. Wade Chumney (Georgia Tech) was in my position at Belmont University before I arrived and he provided me with great advice. Wade seems like he would be a wonderful legal studies colleague. University of Louisiana (Lafayette) was one of the (very few) schools to make me a tenure track offer when I was first on the market. The faculty at UL-L were wonderfully hospitable, and I was a big fan of the Cajun food, music, and culture. Plus, how many schools have a lake/swamp with (small) alligators in the middle of campus? Proximity to family was the deciding factor in my decision, and I highly recommend the school.
I don’t have any personal information about Indiana University (South Bend), but I think there is a lot of be said for the public education system.
All three of these positions are solid opportunities that our readers on the market may be interested in pursuing. Given the well-publicized challenges facing many law schools, it would not be surprising if many current law professors were among those looking at legal studies positions in business schools.
The information on these positions is after the break. Business school legal studies positions tend to be more poorly publicized than law school professor positions, and while I will try to post good positions to this website, if you are interested in teaching law in a business school, it might be worth the $30 (new member price) to join the Academy of Legal Studies in Business, view their job postings, and receive the e-mails.
Previously, I wrote about some of the differences I see in teaching at a business school and teaching at a law school.
[Position Details After the Break]
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Harvard Law School's Petrie-Flom Center: Research Positon for New Project with NFL Players Association
In connection with our work on a sponsored research project with the National Football League Players Association, the Petrie-Flom Center seeks to hire a Senior Law and Ethics Associate immediately. (Please note that this is a distinct position from the one we recently advertised working with Harvard Catalyst on clinical and translational research.)
We are seeking a full-time doctoral-level hire (J.D., M.D., Ph.D., etc. in law, ethics, public health, social science, or other relevant discipline) with extensive knowledge of and interest in legal and ethical issues related to the health and welfare of professional athletes. The position will be funded for at least two years, with renewal likely for an additional year or more.
View the full job description and apply here.
For questions, contact email@example.com or 617-496-4662.
Monday, February 24, 2014
The abstract is posted below:
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) effected numerous changes in the legal regime governing health care and health insurance. Among the ACA’s more controversial provisions is the so-called contraceptive mandate, which requires employer-provided health care insurance plans to provide coverage of all FDA approved contraceptive methods.
On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases, in which the shareholders of two for-profit family-owned corporations argue that requiring them to comply with the contraception mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Forty-four law corporate law professors filed an amicus brief in these cases, arguing that the essence of a corporation is its “separateness” from its shareholders and that, on the facts of these cases, there is no reason to disregard the separateness between shareholders and the corporations they control. The Brief is replete with errors, overstated claims, or red herrings, and misdirection.
Contrary to the Brief’s arguments, basic corporate law principles strongly support the position of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. In particular, the doctrine known as reverse veil piercing provides a clear and practical vehicle for disregarding the legal separateness of those corporations from their shareholders and thus granting those shareholders standing to assert their free exercise rights.
The following announcement of the Mid-Atlantic Academy in Legal Studies in Business ("MAALSB") Annual Conference on March 21-22, 2014 comes to us from MAALSB President Stacey B. Lee (John Hopkins). The conference will be held at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, 100 International Drive, Baltimore, MD 21202 (pictured below).
Papers submitted by March 1, 2014 are eligible for publication in the Atlantic Law Journal and a Best Paper cash award. Conference attendance is not required for journal submissions. For more information, please check the ALSB website’s link to MAALSB, or contact Stacey B. Lee, President at firstname.lastname@example.org.
More registration information is available here.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
My co-blogger Haskell Murray recently posted “Religion, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Hobby Lobby” and asked me to respond, which I am happy to do. I will admit that I am still developing my thoughts on the issues raised by Haskell’s post, so what follows is a bit jumbled but still gives a sense of why I currently oppose for-profit corporations being permitted to evade regulation by pleading religious freedom (if you have not read Haskell’s post, please do so before proceeding):
1. Corporate power threatens democracy. Corporations and other limited liability entities have been controversial since their creation because, among other things, the combination of limited liability, immortality, asset partitioning, etc., makes them incredible wealth and power accumulation devices. Of course, on the one hand, this is precisely why we have them – so that investors are willing to contribute capital they would never contribute if they risked being personally liable as partners, and thus unique economic growth is spurred, a rising tide then lifts all ships, and so on. On the other hand, because of their unique ability to consolidate power, corporations are aptly considered by many to be one of Madison’s feared factions that threaten to undermine the very democracy that supports their creation and growth:
Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.
[More after the break.]
February 23, 2014 in Business Associations, Constitutional Law, Corporate Governance, Corporations, Current Affairs, Financial Markets, Food and Drink, Haskell Murray, Religion, Social Enterprise, Stefan J. Padfield | Permalink | Comments (3)
Friday, February 21, 2014
Professor Stephen Bainbridge made me aware of Keith Paul Bishop's post entitled:
I was shocked because the [law professor] brief constitutes a frontal assault on corporate social responsibility. For example, the law professors make the following apocalyptic claim: "If this Court were to agree that, as a matter of federal law, shareholders holding a control bloc of shares in a corporation may essentially transfer their [social responsibility] beliefs to the corporation, the results could be overwhelming." Ok, I substituted “social responsibility” for “religious”. However, if the transfer of stockholder religious beliefs to the corporation would be “overwhelming”, why wouldn’t the same be true of beliefs regarding climate change, the environment, or other beliefs animating the corporate social responsibility movement?
Two of my co-bloggers signed the law professor brief in the Hobby Lobby case that Bishop discusses, so they are probably better suited to respond, but I will provide a few thoughts.
One distinction, between the Hobby Lobby case and CSR, that may be quickly raised is addressed in section II.C of the law professor brief. Hobby Lobby is attempting to use religion to avoid legal obligations. There may be situations where companies argue they should be able to avoid legal obligations because of "beliefs regarding climate change, the environment, or other beliefs animating the corporate social responsibility movement" but none spring immediately to mind.
While the parade of horribles in the second section of the law professor brief might prove compelling, the entire first section (over half of the argument) would be seriously damaged if Hobby Lobby's articles of incorporation were amended to express the religious stance of the company. The first section of the brief focuses on treating the corporation as a separate entity, distinct from its owners. It seems, however, that Hobby Lobby's owners could amend the corporation's articles to endow the corporation with its own, separate and distinct, religious views.
As I have previously mentioned, Hobby Lobby could have helped its chances in this case by converting to some form of for-profit benefit corporation and being specific about its religious views in its articles of incorporation. The Delaware Public Benefit Corporation ("PBC") statute makes the ability to maintain a religious purpose in a PBC explicit when it defines "public benefit" as "a positive effect (or reduction of negative effects) on 1 or more categories of persons, entities, communities or interests (other than stockholders in their capacities as stockholders) including, but not limited to, effects of an artistic, charitable, cultural, economic, educational, environmental, literary, medical, religious, scientific or technological nature." (emphasis added) According to Delaware's PBC law, each PBC must include at least one "specific public benefit" within its statement of purpose.
I am interested in any additional thoughts on this topic, and am eagerly awaiting Professor Bainbridge's promised full response to the law professor brief (and any responses to his response).
On March 3, I plan to start my spring break by speaking at Western Carolina University. I will be speaking on the various social enterprise statutes—Benefit Corporations, Benefit LLCs, Public Benefit Corporations, Flexible Purpose Corporations, Social Purpose Corporations, and L3Cs—with a special focus on my recent research surrounding Delaware's new (as of August 1, 2013) Public Benefit Corporation law.
Western Carolina University has a major in Business Administration and Law and I understand that a number of students from that undergraduate program will be in attendance.
Many thanks to Professor Melissa English for inviting me. I love the mountains of North Carolina and always enjoy sharing my research.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Our BLPB group has had a number of email discussions recently about the use of social media including blogs, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter for professional purposes. My home institution has discussed the same topic and even held a “training” session on technology in and outside of the classroom. Because I am a heavy user, I volunteered to blog about how I use social media as a lawyer and academic in the hopes of spurring discussion or at least encouraging others to take a dip in the vast pool of social media.
Although I have been on Facebook for years, I don’t use that professionally at all. I also don’t allow my students to friend me, although I do know a number of professors who do. I often see lawyer friends discussing their clients or cases in a way that borders on violations of the rules of professional conduct, and I made sure to discuss those pitfalls when I was teaching PR last year.
I have also used LinkedIn for several years, mainly for professional purposes to see what others in my profession (at the time compliance and privacy work) were thinking about. I still belong to a number of LinkedIn groups and have found that academics from other countries tend to use LinkedIn more than US professors. I have received a number of invitations to collaborate on research just from posts on LinkedIn. I also encourage all of my law students to join LinkedIn not only for networking purposes, but also so that they can attract recruiters, who now use LinkedIn almost as often as they use headhunters. When I blog, I link my posts to LinkedIn, which in turn automatically posts to Twitter.
I admit that I did not like Twitter at first. I now have three Twitter accounts- follow me at @mlnarine. I started using Twitter when I was a deputy general counsel and compliance officer and I followed law firms and every government agency that was online that regulated my industry. The government agencies were very early to the Twitter game and I once learned about a delay in the rollout of a regulation via Twitter a full week before my outside counsel who was working on the project informed me.
I also use the hashtag system (#) to see what others are saying on topics that hold my interest such as #csr (corporate social responsibility and unfortunately also customer service rep), #socent for social enterprise, #corpgov for corporate governance, and #Dodd-Frank and #climatechange (self explanatory).
I make an effort to tweet daily and am now an expert in trying to say something useful in 140 characters or less (being on yearbook staff in high school and counting characters for headlines made this a breeze for me). I re-tweet other tweets that I believe may be of interest to my followers or links to articles, and often gain new followers based on what I have chosen to tweet, largely because of my use of hashtags. In fact, after a marathon tweeting session following the Dodd-Frank conflict minerals oral argument before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, I received four calls from the press for interviews, a nice, unexpected benefit of trying to educate my followers. Often when I attend conferences, such as last week’s ABA meeting or the UN’s Business and Human Rights Forum, the organizers develop a hashtag so that those who cannot attend in person can follow the proceedings through tweets and the attachments to those tweets.
The best part of twitter is that I met fellow blogger, Haskell Murray because of one his tweets and that led to an invitation to speak at a conference. Haskell has published a useful list of business law professors on Twitter so if you’re not on his list, let us know and we will update it.
Next week I will post about the benefits or perils of blogging, especially for someone new to academia.
February 20, 2014 in Business Associations, Anne Tucker, Conferences, Corporate Governance, Corporations, Current Affairs, Entrepreneurship, Ethics, Haskell Murray, Marcia L. Narine, Social Enterprise, Stefan J. Padfield, Teaching, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, February 17, 2014
The Western Academy of Legal Studies in Business ("WALSB") Annual Conference will be held in Monterey, CA on March 28-29, 2014.
WALSB president-elect Lydie Pierre-Louis (San Fransisco) provided the information below about the conference:
You may choose to present a scholarly paper (for academics), organize or serve on a panel, or give a presentation on any topic of interest to academics or practitioners in the field of business law (for practitioners). Registration fee includes a cocktail reception on Friday for registrants and guests, breakfast and light lunch on Saturday for registrants, and a digital copy of the proceedings. CA CLE is available.
Please complete and submit the registration form to our conference program chair, Lydie Pierre-Louis, at email@example.com. If you wish to be placed on the program for presentation at the conference, please submit your registration by March 14, 2014. We will receive a confirmation.
Holly Gregory has a useful post entitled Governance Priorities in 2014 on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Goverance and Financial Regulation. (As a side note, I was surprised to learn that Holly Gregory, who had been a partner at one of my former firms (Weil Gotshal), had left for Sidley Austin. This is a huge loss for Weil as she is widely regarded as one of the country's top corporate governance attorneys).
Go to the link above for the entire post, but the opening few paragraphs are posted below:
As the fallout from the financial crisis recedes and both institutional investors and corporate boards gain experience with expanded corporate governance regulation, the coming year holds some promise of decreased tensions in board-shareholder relations. With governance settling in to a “new normal,” influential shareholders and boards should refocus their attention on the fundamental aspects of their roles as they relate to the creation of long-term value.
Institutional investors and their beneficiaries, and society at large, have a decided interest in the long-term health of the corporation and in the effectiveness of its governing body. Corporate governance is likely to work best in supporting the creation of value when the decision rights and responsibilities of shareholders and boards set out in state corporate law are effectuated.
This article identifies and examines the key areas of focus that institutional investors and boards should prioritize in 2014.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Recently, I completed reviewing my mid-course student evaluations.
I have found mid-course evaluations to be quite valuable. As a student, I remember wishing we had mid-course evaluations so that my comments could be used to improve our class, rather than merely helping the professor improve the course for the next batch of students.
The mid-course evaluation gives students a chance to voice concerns, anonymously, relatively early in the course. While professors quickly learn that is likely impossible to please all of their students—some students love the exact same thing that other students hate—trends in mid-course evaluations can alert professors to potential issues and give time to make modifications before the end of the semester.
Mid-course evaluations can also be used as a teaching tool—modeling the proper way to seek and evaluate advice. The class period after I administer the mid-course evaluation, I take a few minutes to explain to the class what (if any) changes I plan to make on their advice and why I chose not to follow some of their advice (for example, even if a number of students dislike group work, I explain why we are going to continue with some group exercises). The students may not agree with my reasonsing, but they seem to appreciate the explanations.
The mid-course evaluations only take a total of about 10 minutes of class time (5 minutes for the students to fill out the sheets and 5 minutes to review in the next class). I simply ask: What is working well? What is not working well? Other comments? Every semester I get some students complaining about how difficult the course is and other “I don’t want to eat my vegetables” comments, but I also usually get some useful information.
For those of you who don’t already do mid-course evaluations, I suggest giving it a try.
From an e-mail I received from the production manager of The Business Lawyer:
The Editorial Board of The Business Lawyer is soliciting submission of articles and essays for Volumes 69 and 70. TBL is the flagship scholarly journal of the American Bar Association Section of Business Law. It reaches 40,000 readers on a quarterly basis. Authors must submit exclusively to the journal and submissions are peer-reviewed. We generally give authors a response in about two weeks. TBL provides a good forum to reframe scholarly articles published elsewhere for an audience of judges and practitioners. Past authors include Lucian Bebchuk, Barbara Black, Bernie Black, Starvros Gadinis, Joe Grundfest, Henry Hu, Roberta Karmel, Jonathan Lipson, Vice Chancellor Leo Strine, Guhan Subramanian, and former Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court Justice Norman Veasey.
Articles should be submitted to Diane Babal, Production Manager, at firstname.lastname@example.org. Questions about submissions can be addressed to Associate Editor-in-Chief, Professor Gregory Duhl, at email@example.com
Update: I am told that submitted articles should be between 20 and 100 double-spaced pages, including footnotes.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Last week, I had an enjoyable conversation with Joseph Yockey (Iowa) about his new article: "Does Social Enterprise Law Matter?" I am glad to see more people entering the social enterprise law conversation and have included the abstract of his interesting new article below:
Social enterprise laws are sweeping through the nation. Entrepreneurs can now organize under one of several new legal forms, including the “benefit corporation” form. In theory, these options will make it easier for socially minded firms to pursue a double bottom line of profit and public benefit — that is, to do well while doing good.
This Article tests that theory. In asking whether social enterprise laws matter, I find that the answer is yes, but not for the reasons most people think. The traditional rationale for social enterprise laws is that they free managers from the “duty” to put profits ahead of social objectives. But that’s wrong; existing corporate law is already flexible enough to permit most social/economic tradeoffs. However, by drawing on insights from new governance theories of regulation, I argue that social enterprise laws add value in other ways. Specifically, they provide a catalyst for entrepreneurs, investors, and stakeholders to develop the normative framework necessary to sustain an important new business model and asset class. They do so through their signaling power, as well as through their ability to create a focal point that will facilitate self-regulation, capital formation, and the design of standards necessary to govern this complex sector.
The Article thus offers a new way of thinking about social enterprise laws. Rather than simply provide new off-the-rack legal forms, these laws encourage a multi-disciplinary process of norm creation and private engagement. I conclude by offering firms and lawmakers several strategies to reinforce this underlying dynamic.
Friday, February 7, 2014
On April 24, 2014, the University of Saint Thomas (Minnesota) will host a conference on social enterprise. The conference will be interdisciplinary, engaging experts in Catholic studies, entrepreneurship, law, management, and public policy.
The first session will address issues surrounding using business as an agent for social change, with a focus on social entrepreneurship and benefit corporations. The first session will run from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Atrium at the University of St. Thomas, School of Law and is approved for 2.0 hours of CLE credit (Minnesota). Speakers are listed below:
- Elizabeth K. Babson, Attorney with Drinker, Biddle and Reath LLP and a co-author of the Benefit Corporation White Paper
- Lyman P. Q. Johnson, LeJeune Distinguished Chair in Law, University of St. Thomas, School of Law, and Robert O. Bentley Professor of Law at Washington and Lee University
- John F. McVea, Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship, University of St. Thomas, Opus College of Business
- J. Haskell Murray, Assistant Professor of Management and Business Law, Belmont University
- Michael J. Naughton, Director, John A. Ryan Institute for Catholic Social Thought, University of St. Thomas, Center for Catholic Studies
- Elizabeth R. Schiltz (moderator), Thomas J. Abood Research Scholar, and Co-Director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas, School of Law
The second session will run from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. in the Opus Hall of the Opus College of Business, will include dinner, and the discussion will focus on PoveryCure (a video series by Michael M. Miller of the Acton Institute).
The sponsors from the University of St. Thomas include:
- Center for Catholic Studies
- John A. Ryan Institute for Catholic Social Thought
- Joseph and Edith Habiger Institute for Catholic Leadership
- Opus College of Business
- School of Law
- Schulze School of Entrepreneurship
- Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law and Public Policy
- Veritas Institute
Advanced registration is required, but the conference is free of charge and open to the public. Register here.
Monday, February 3, 2014
A friend and current Delaware attorney just sent me this article from Delaware Online: Bouchard seen as Chancery candidate.
Interestingly, Andre Bouchard had been the chairman of the Delaware Judicial Nominating Commission since 2011, and he recently resigned from that position. Bouchard is currently the managing partner of Bouchard Margules & Friedlander, P.A. in Wilmington, Delaware.
From what I hear from my friends who practice in Delaware, Bouchard is well-respected and would make an excellent Chancellor.
According to the article, and as I suspected here, current Vice Chancellor Travis Laster is also in the conversation regarding the next Chancellor. Superior Court Judge Jan Jurden is being mentioned as a possibility as well. Previously, Judge Jurden had been considered a serious contender for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Delaware position that ultimately went to Chancellor Strine.
Friday, January 31, 2014
During my brief academic career, I have focused the majority of my research on social enterprise law. While I have expressed my disagreement with various parts of the current social enterprise statutes, I have tried to make constructive suggestions for improvement, and am largely in favor of businesses that have a society-focused mission.
Lately, I have been thinking about whether my oral and written support of socially responsible businesses significantly impacts my purchasing behavior.
Frankly and regrettably, the social responsibility of a given company is usually merely a “tie-breaker” in my purchasing decisions. In my Social Enterprise Law seminar last spring, the class concluded, after doing case studies on a number of social enterprises, that for-profit social enterprises likely need a business plan that is just as good as a traditional for-profit company to be sustainable and successful. Social enterprises that used their social responsibility as a crutch often failed or performed poorly.
Patagonia is a socially responsible company that I have supported religiously -- long before I started writing in the area. You can see my worn out Patagonia shoes below. While Patagonia’s products may be expensive, their value proposition is strong. Those shoes cost me less per day worn than any other shoes I have ever purchased. (My wife has been trying to get rid of these shoes for years and is probably going to be mortified that I posted a picture of them, if she ever finds this post).
More recently, I have made purchases from Method, Better World Books, Plum Organics, Ben & Jerry's, and other socially responsible businesses (or at least companies that market themselves as socially responsible) with varying levels of satisfaction. In Nashville, we frequent a number of restaurants that attempt to buy fair trade and from local sources.
When we moved into our new home a little over a week ago, we used The Green Truck Moving Company. (They gave us a small discount for tweeting about the service, but had no involvment in or knowledge of this post). The Green Truck Moving Company plants two trees for each move, has trucks that run on biodiesel, recycles your boxes, and had the friendliest movers I have ever encountered. I have moved over a dozen times in my life, and they did a great job, but, frankly, I probably would not have used them if they were not competitive on price with their more profit-focused peers.
One of the reasons that more consumers are not willing to pay significantly more for socially responsible products may be that they do not trust the claims put forward by the companies. For example, Professor Alicia Plerhoples (Georgetown) recently profiled a for-profit college with a seemingly poor track record that took advantage of one of the new social enterprise legal forms.
My students (and many other people around their age), however, seem to have a strong and growing interest in socially responsible products and businesses. The law is evolving quickly in that area and will hopefully address the accountability issues.
For those who are interested in further reading regarding consumer willingness to purchase from socially responsible companies, here is information on a recent Nielsen survey and a link to an article entitled Are People Willing to Pay More for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta - Analysis. (Thanks to Professors Cass Brewer (Georgia State) and Peter Roberts (Emory) for the links).
As I have mentioned before, there appears to be no official "meat market" for legal studies positions in business schools. I found my current job through Higher Ed Jobs, and thought Higher Ed Jobs was the best source during my search. Also, the Chronicle of Higher Education's Vitae recently launched (though they have had a jobs board for quite some time) and is likely worth frequenting.
For those still on the market, I wanted to highlight two recent business law postings: Southeast Missouri State University and University of Alaska (Fairbanks). Both positions appear to be tenure-track legal studies positions in business schools. Also, both schools are AACSB-accredited. (There are multiple accrediting bodies for business schools, and AACSB is the gold standard).
I maintain that being a professor is the best job in the world (especially given that my childhood dream of becoming an NFL quarterback is looking less glamorous in light of all the talk about concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)).
Wishing success for our readers who are on the professor market.
Monday, January 27, 2014
The following call for papers comes to us from Janine Hiller (Virginia Tech):
I am pleased to announce a Call for Papers for a research colloquium focused on "Legal and Ethical Issues in Predictive Data Analytics." The colloquium is co-organized and the resulting publication will be co-edited by Tonia Hap Murphy of the University of Notre Dame. The colloquium of 8-10 scholars will be held at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. on June 19-20, 2014. Virginia Tech and the Center for Business Intelligence and Analytics are sponsoring the research meeting, and will pay for meals and lodging during the colloquium dates.
Predictive data analytics are used in a variety of settings and applications, including personalized marketing, crime prevention, insurance, health care, and increasingly in the legal profession itself. Within the next few years, the sale of predictive analytics business software alone is forecast to reach billions of dollars and to be utilized in a wide variety of industries. In contrast to the growth of data analytics and predictive modeling, legal and ethical considerations have not been widely identified or discussed in academic literature. The goal of the colloquium is to provide leadership for research about these issues and to provide a vehicle for researchers to discuss their ideas, or to launch new ideas, about the intersection of law, ethics, and predictive data analytics.
To be considered, please submit an abstract of up to 750 words to Janine Hiller at firstname.lastname@example.org, and copied to email@example.com by March 3, 2014. Abstracts will be evaluated based upon the quality of the abstract and the topic’s fit with other presentations. Questions and a request for a copy of the full Call for Papers may be directed to Janine Hiller at firstname.lastname@example.org or Tonia Hap Murphy at email@example.com.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Information about the annual Academy of Legal Studies in Business ("ALSB") conference is available here.
Supposedly, the conference hotel, the Hyatt Olive 8, is already booked. (Who knew that you had to book earlier than January 24 for an early August academic conference). I hear that the conference organizers are negotiating for reduced rates at the nearby hotels, or perhaps more rooms will come available (at the conference rate of $159/night) at the Hyatt Olive 8.
This will be my first ALSB conference and my first trip to Seattle. I am looking forward to it. The ALSB conference is the annual, national conference for legal studies professors in business schools. Last fall I attended, presented, and enjoyed the SEALSB regional conference in Tampa. I am told that ALSB will be similar, but on a much larger scale.
If you are interested in this conference and/or are interested in teaching law in business schools, it might be worth joining ALSB. The new member rate is only $30.
Hope to see some of our readers in Seattle in August.