Monday, July 28, 2014
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Last year, when many law schools made no new hires, Alabama was one of the most active law schools on the market. Alabama hired a new dean and five new faculty members. It appears that Alabama is looking to hire again this year.
The University of Alabama School of Law is seeking applications from entry level or lateral candidates. They will accept applications from applicants in all subject areas, but have a particular interest in applicants that research and teach in one or more of the following areas:
business law (including enterprise, finance, and/or securities); administrative regulation (including the regulatory state and/or regulated industries or activities); intellectual property (specifically trademark and copyright); and criminal law (including substantive criminal law and/or criminal procedure).
(Emphasis added, for the benefit of our business law readers.)
More information is available here.
Friday, July 25, 2014
We welcome Eric Orts (Wharton) to the "blawgosphere." Professor Orts has begun blogging at Ortsian Thoughts and Theories. I have already added his blog to my favorites, and I am sure I will become a regular reader. His new book, Business Persons: A Legal Theory of the Firm should be in my mailbox soon, and I am looking forward to reading it as well. (H/T David Zaring at the Conglomerate).
In short, I think the law review submission and review process could be improved by at least two modifications.
1. Blind Review.
Currently, law review editors see, and in fact require, not only the author’s name and employer, but also the author’s entire CV. This is quite unlike the article selection process in other disciplines where all identifying information is supposed to be stripped.
If blind-review were adopted by law reviews, Josh Fershee claimed that it might still be possible to find the identity of the author through self-citations. Authors, however, do not always cite themselves and even if they do, law review editors would have to read pretty carefully to figure out the idenity of the author. Currently, it is simply not possible for law review editors to read closely all article submitted, so stripping the author's name would, at the very least, require the editors to dig into each article. Also, Authors could be instructed to remove, during the review process, identifying phrases like “in previous work I argued…”
This call for blind review by a Harvard law student in 2009 cites the gender bias, nationality bias, and prestige bias that can result from a non-blind selection process. I believe a few of the elite law reviews have adopted blind review from outside experts (Stanford Law Review is one), but it is certainly not widespread among U.S. law reviews.
In the comments, Josh said he thought blind review could work for at least some law reviews, but that the “expectations for promotion and tenure, would have to change” if we altered the system. I am not sure why the expectations for P&T would have to change if law reviews instituted blind review. It seems that all blind review would do is make the selection process more fair.
2. Exclusive Submissions (or Submission Limits).
One of the problems with the law review submission and review process is that most decent law reviews get hundreds, if not thousands, of articles to review in each submission cycle. Even if the law review editors were able to overcome the biases mentioned above, they simply do not have time to give each article anything close to a thorough read. The editors have to eliminate blocks of articles on easily identified things such as the subject matter of the article, the catchy titles, and the prestige of the author’s school.
If law reviews required exclusive submissions, the editors would have time to give each article a hard read before extending an acceptance. Florida State and Pepperdine have done exactly this in adopting exclusive submission windows for certain slots in their journals. This seems like a sensible move and I think more law reviews should follow suit.
If the exclusive submission requirement is too dramatic of a shift, I suggest ExpressO limit each author to 10 journals (or some other reasonable number) per article, per submission cycle. This limit would cut down significantly on the reading load for law review editors and would allow them to do more thorough review of the article submitted.
I welcome any thoughts on these suggestions.
One of my younger brothers is a PHD Candidate in Literature at University of Alabama. One of my younger sisters majored in English at the University of Georgia and is working in the media industry. (Yes, I am a proud older brother, prone to brag about my siblings' many accomplishments).
Both siblings recently encouraged me to expand my summer reading beyond books about law. Due to the tall stack of legal books in my "need to read" pile, I usually don’t devote much time to "pleasure reading."
This summer, however, I am trying to read legal books and, at least some books, which have no noticeable connection to law. Rick Bragg’s All Over But the Shoutin’ falls into the latter category. I will let interested readers follow the link for a description of the book, but I only mention it here to say that Bragg writes beautifully. I finished the 329-page book in two, long, sittings.
Writer Pat Conroy said the following of the book and its author:
Rick Bragg writes like a man on fire. And All Over But the Shoutin' is a work of art. I thought of Melville, I thought of Faulkner. Because I love the English language, I knew I was reading one of the best books I've ever read.
My English-major sister recently used that phrase – “because I love the English language” – but in a different, law-related context. She told me that reading her employment contract made her cry, because she loves the English language. Presumably, the attorney managed to draft a contract that was painful to read.
Likewise, most of us in legal academia can slip into what Steve Bradford recently called “the usual turgid law-review prose.” Reading Bragg’s book has inspired me to strive for writing that is both clear and engaging.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
The Wharton School at University of Pennsylvania has posted a legal studies and business ethics professor opening. As you may suspect, Wharton has an extremely strong legal studies faculty. More information from the announcement is quoted below.
The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania invites applications for tenured and tenure-track positions in its Department of Legal Studies and Business Ethics. The Department has eighteen full-time faculty who teach a wide variety of business-oriented courses in law and ethics in the undergraduate, MBA, and Ph.D. programs and whose research is regularly published in leading journals. The Wharton School has one of the largest and best-published business school faculties in the world. In addition, the school has a global reach and perspective, as well as an interdisciplinary approach to business issues (embracing ten academic departments and over twenty research centers).
Applicants must have either a Ph.D., J.D., or both, from an accredited institution (an expected completion date no later than July 1, 2016 is acceptable) and a demonstrated commitment to scholarship in business ethics, business law, or a combination of the two fields. Specific areas of potential focus for hiring include corporate governance, normative ethics related to business, social impact/sustainability, securities regulation, and health law/bioethics. The appointment is expected to begin July 1, 2015.
Please submit electronically your letter of introduction, c.v., and one selected article or writing sample in PDF format via the following website by November 1, 2014: APPLY. Some decisions for interviews will be made before the deadline, so candidates are encouraged to apply early.
The University of Pennsylvania is an equal opportunity employer. Minorities, women, individuals with disabilities, protected veterans are encouraged to apply.
Friday, July 18, 2014
James Woulfe, who was involved in the legislative process around Connecticut benefit corporations, and I have had a number of interesting conversations about social enterprise law over the past few years. Recently, I asked James to share his thoughts on the new Connecticut benefit corporation law for the blog. His contribution is below.
After two previous tries, Connecticut recently became the 24th state in the Union to pass benefit corporation legislation. While some may argue that the fact it took Connecticut so long to pass the bill is a sign of problems with the legislature, our state’s business climate, etc., coming a little late to the game was actually an asset. Waiting to pass the legislation gave lawmakers an opportunity to take a look at national and international trends in social enterprise legal structures, and experiment. As a result, Connecticut tweaked the “model” benefit corporation legislation passed in other states, and included an innovative first in the nation clause in Connecticut’s statute, called a “legacy preservation provision.”
Connecticut’s legacy preservation provision gives social entrepreneurs the opportunity to preserve their company’s status as a benefit corporation in perpetuity, despite changes in company leadership or ownership. In other words, the (optional) provision locks in the company’s social or environmental mission as a fundamental part of its legal operating structure. The provision may be adopted following a waiting period of two years and unanimous approval from all shareholders, regardless of their voting rights. Once the provision is adopted, it requires the company, if liquidated, to distribute all assets after the settling of debts to one or more benefit corporations or 501(c)3 organizations with similar social missions.
To learn more about Connecticut’s benefit corporation statute, and to take a look at the specific language of the legacy preservation provision, you can visit CTBenefitCorp.com.
About the Author:
James Woulfe is the Public Policy and Impact Investing Specialist at reSET - Social Enterprise Trust, a Hartford, Connecticut-based 501(c)3 non-profit organization whose mission is to promote, preserve and protect social enterprise as a viable concept and a business reality. You can contact James at Jwoulfe@socialenterprisetrust.org.
Cross-posted at SocEntLaw.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
I recently received notice of a legal studies position opening at Texas A&M University-Central Texas. Their needs include a professor who can teach the general business law course (legal environment), as well as employment and labor law courses.
More information, from the school, is available after the break.
Below is the information that I received this morning regarding a one-year Visiting Distinguished Service Faculty in Business Law position at the Opus College of Business at the University of St. Thomas (MN). In April, I spoke at a social enterprise conference at the school and was quite impressed with the facilities, faculty members, and students.
The Department of Ethics & Business Law in the Opus College of Business at the University of St. Thomas has an opening for a one-year position as a Visiting Distinguished Service Faculty in Business Law, for the 2014-15 academic year. This position will involve teaching three courses (including International Business Law) each semester. To apply (and for more information about this position), visit this site: https://facultyemployment-stthomas.icims.com/jobs/1252/visiting-distinguished-service-faculty-in-business-law/job, and submit an online application (two letters of recommendation to be sent separately). Additional questions can be directed to the search committee chair, Dale Thompson (email@example.com).
Friday, July 11, 2014
I've updated our business law professors on Twitter list here.
Below are tweets from some of the new additions to the list.
Bankruptcy bedtime stories and what's amazing about law school: http://t.co/VFvzHW2Naw— Stephanie Ben-Ishai (@SBIprof) October 17, 2013
Warren Buffett: The Babe Ruth of Good Business Today http://t.co/1g2UYLc81E— Lawrence Cunningham (@CunninghamProf) July 7, 2014
Oman & Meese offer an "epic take down" http://t.co/ndr8ptb5M1— Nathan B. Oman (@nate_oman) June 3, 2014
A New Business Model (and they make a fine deli sandwich too!) "At Zingerman’s, Pastrami and Partnership to Go" http://t.co/WgRiIXshk8— Len Rotman (@ProfessorRotman) July 7, 2014
Troy University (in Troy, AL) has posted notice of a legal studies professor opening. (Confusingly, the heading of the posts says "assistant/associate professor" and the body of the post says "full-time, tenure-track," but the body of the post also says that the position is for a "lecturer.")
More information at the link above or after the break.
Monday, July 7, 2014
For those interested, the Delaware secretary of state's office informs me that there were 145 Delaware public benefit corporations (PBCs) as of 6/30/14.
Friday, July 4, 2014
Thanks to all for the interesting posts. I am sure there will be more to come, followed by a flurry of articles in the fall and spring cycles. Looking forward to reading more.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Screening of applications begins September 15, 2014.
Applications can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org or
Department of Business Law or College of Business Administration and Economics
California State University Northridge
Northridge, CA 91330-8375
More information here.
Monday, June 30, 2014
The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby opinion is here. 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby.
"As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA.”
Sure that a number of us will have thoughts to share.
Friday, June 27, 2014
On Steve Bradford’s recommendation, I chose William Easterly’s (NYU) The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor (2014) as the book for my annual beach trip with the in-laws and cousins. (Last year was Daniel Kahneman's (Princeton) Thinking, Fast and Slow – and yes, my wife’s side of the family makes fun of my beach reading material). Easterly is an author I have wanted to read for a while now, and I still need to read some of his earlier books.
More after the break.
Previously, I have written about making MOOCs more effective and online v. in-person classes. Today, I am writing about MOOCs, online classes in general, and the future of education. This will be a relatively short post because, of course, I don’t know what the future holds. But, after the break, I will take a few guesses based on what we are already seeing.
Friday, June 20, 2014
In various airports and airplanes over the past few weeks I read University of Chicago professor Martha Nussbaum’s (University of Chicago) book on religious equality in America entitled Liberty of Conscience (2008). Even though this book predates the Hobby Lobby case, it addresses a number of underlying issues at play in the case.
More after the break.
I’ve recently returned from taking a course on negotiation at Harvard Law School. This was an in-person course where I was a student, which gives me something to compare my MOOC experiences to as I address the topic of online v. in-person classes. I provide a few of my thoughts on the topic after the break.
Friday, June 13, 2014
My former colleague, Scott Pryor (Regent), recently posted an interesting article entitled Municipal Bankruptcy: When Doing Less is Best. In 2013 Professor Pryor was the Resident Scholar of the American Bankruptcy Institute. His paper's abstract is below.
The bankruptcy process takes as a given the pre-bankruptcy allocation of economic risk. Yet, the Bankruptcy Code permits this risk to be reallocated through the adjustment process so long as that reallocation is "fair and equitable," does not "discriminate unfairly," and is in the "best interests" of creditors. The first two look to bankruptcy law for their definitions; the third derives from state law.
Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code does not resolve any conflicts among these requirements. This uncertain state of affairs generates a powerful incentive among most parties to settle. So long as the court retains the power to dismiss the case and remit the conflicts to the vagaries of state adjudication, Chapter 9 functions to create an institutional game of Chicken driving stakeholders to consensus.