Wednesday, January 3, 2018

2018 Association of American Law Schools Annual Meeting

The 2018 AALS Annual Meeting is happening in San Diego this week. Here are some panels that may be of interest:

Thursday 1/4, 10:30 am – 12:15 pm


Pacific Ballroom Salon 16, North Tower/Ground Level, Marriott

Crossing Borders: Mapping the Future of Conflict of Laws Scholarship

Moderator: Jamelle C. Sharpe, University of Illinois College of Law

Speakers from a Call for Papers:
Andrew Bradt, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Yuliya Guseva, Rutgers Law School
William J. Moon, New York University School of Law
Theodore Rave, University of Houston Law Center
Linda J. Silberman, New York University School of Law

Hannah L. Buxbaum, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
William S. Dodge, University of California, Davis, School of Law
Erin A. O’Hara O’Connor, Florida State University College of Law

Now more than ever, the challenges created by conflicting laws are figuring prominently in multiple areas of legal scholarship. In subjects as diverse as state and federal regulation, technology and intellectual property, and commercial arbitration, scholars using a variety of methodological approaches are finding innovative ways to study conflict of laws problems. This panel discussion will explore these emerging trends in conflicts scholarship, and their implications for future work in the field.

* * *

Friday 1/5, 8:30 am – 10:15 am


Pacific Ballroom Salon 22, North Tower/Ground Level, Marriott

Procedure as Technology/Technology as Procedure

Moderator: Ira Steven Nathenson, St. Thomas University School of Law

Aaron Ghirardelli, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Simona Grossi, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Megan LaBelle, The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law
Thomas O. Main, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law
Frank A. Pasquale, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Alan Trammell, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Robert A. Leflar Law Center

Recent section programs have looked to the past (The FRCP at 75), and the present (The Roberts Court). This year’s program looks to the future of procedure by considering the relationship between procedure and technology, and the lessons each may have for theories of procedural justice. Specifically, the program will ask how procedure acts as technology, and how technology is a form of procedure. For example, online takedown notices and automated filtering algorithms serve obvious adjudicative functions without the involvement of a court or traditional procedure. Thus, in a world where many disputes are “settled” without any real hope of a court date, it is time to consider how principles of procedural justice ought to shape our procedures, whether embodied in civil rules or online algorithms. Accordingly, this panel joins prominent scholars on procedure and on technology for a discussion aimed at cross-pollinating perspectives from both, with the goal of formulating new theories of procedural justice to inform the creation of better procedures and technologies.

* * *

Friday 1/5, 10:30 am – 12:15 pm


Pacific Ballroom Salon 15, North Tower/Ground Level, Marriott

American-Style Litigation: A Force for Good or Ill?

Moderator: Katharine Traylor Schaffzin, The University of Memphis, Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law

Lester Brickman, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Amalia D. Kessler, Stanford Law School
Alexandra D. Lahav, University of Connecticut School of Law
Margaret McKeown, Federal Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Stephen C. Yeazell, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law

Is litigation good for anything other than stirring up animosities? Did we take a wrong turn in our history down an adversarial path we could have avoided? What is the purpose of allowing people to sue after all—to resolve disputes? Force information? Engage in public debate through the courts? Or is any function other than dispute resolution an illegitimate use of court power? Does the adversarial system promote or impede justice? We will answer these questions through discussion of two new books about litigation in the United States: Amalia Kessler’s Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800-1877 (Yale 2017) and Alexandra Lahav’s In Praise of Litigation (Oxford 2017). The panel will investigate both the long history of America’s love/hate relationship with adversarial litigation and what hope there is for the future.

* * *

Friday 1/5, 1:30 pm – 3:15 pm


Pacific Ballroom Salon 21, North Tower/Ground Level, Marriott

Federal Court Remedies Against the Executive

Curtis A. Bradley, Duke University School of Law
Anthony J. Sebok, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Samuel L. Bray, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law
Amanda Frost, American University, Washington College of Law
Nicholas Parrillo, Yale Law School
James E. Pfander, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

This panel will explore the role of the federal courts in awarding injunctive and monetary relief against the federal government and its officers. Among other questions, the panel will discuss the proper scope of injunctive relief in an era of nationwide injunctions, the manner in which federal courts enforce their injunctive decrees with contempt sanctions, the well-known reluctance of the federal courts to permit monetary claims to reach the jury, and how to tell whether the system of remedies as a whole has achieved its goal of keeping government mostly within the bounds of the law most of the time.

* * *

Saturday 1/6, 10:30 am – 12:15 pm


Pacific Ballroom Salon 17, North Tower/Ground Level, Marriott

Daubert After 25 Years: A Prospective Look at the Next Great Challenges in Expert Reliability

Moderator: Andrew W. Jurs, Drake University Law School

David L. Faigman, University of California, Hastings College of the Law
Sandra G. Thompson, University of Houston Law Center
William Thompson, University of California, Irvine School of Law

Speaker from a Call for Papers: Joseph Sanders, University of Houston Law Center

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the U.S. Supreme Court instructed federal judges to screen expert testimony for reliability prior to admission. The court intended this gatekeeping to enhance the reliability of scientific testimony and ensure a consistent level of rigor between the courtroom and the laboratory. As Daubert approaches its silver anniversary, this panel will consider some of the next great issues in scientific reliability in both civil and criminal trials. By highlighting cutting-edge reliability concerns of our time, the panel will reflect on whether the great promise of Daubert—to deliver reliable science in the courtroom—has been met, and if not, what changes to the current legal approach to scientific gatekeeping may be in order.

Conferences/Symposia | Permalink


Post a comment