Business Law Prof Blog

Are We Teaching Law Students The Wrong Things, The Wrong Way, or Both?

It's that time of year again. Many states have released February 2019  bar passage rates. Thankfully, the rates have risen in some places, but they are still at suboptimal levels. Indeed, the July 2018 MBE results sunk to a 34- year low. A recent article on law.com lists some well-known statistics and theories, explaining, in part:

Kellye Testy, president of the Law School Admission Council . . .  suspects the falling pass rates are the results of a combination of factors, the most obvious being the lower credentials of incoming students. The declining quality of public education—meaning an erosion of the reading and writing foundations children develop in elementary and high schools—may also be a contributor, she said. Moreover, the evolving way that law is taught may explain why today’s law graduates are struggling more on the bar exam, said Testy, whose organization develops the LSAT. Professors now put less emphasis on memorizing rules, and have backed off on some of the high-pressure tactics—like the Socratic method—that historically dominated the classroom. “The way we used to teach wasn’t as good for caring for the student, but it made sure you could take a closed-book exam,” she said. “You knew the doctrine. It was much more like a bar exam, in some ways. Today, when you go into a classroom, it’s all PowerPoint. The teachers give them an outline, the students are on computers. There’s a different student approach and a different faculty approach.” The fact that so many law graduates now take bar preparation courses online rather than in person is another avenue worth examining for a potential correlation to falling pass rates, said Judith Gundersen, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners. “You used to have to go to a lecture and show up every day,” she said. “Now so much of it is online. People are wondering whether that’s changing how people prepare, because there just isn’t that communal aspect where, ‘I have to prepare in case I get called on.’”

I'm not sure how I feel about these assertions. I agree that many students lack some of the key critical thinking and writing skills needed to analyze legal problems. I also see far fewer professors using the strict Socratic method and more allowing computers in class. I allow computers for specific activities but not throughout the class. I also employ more of a modified Socratic method, use powerpoint, and often post it in advance with questions for students to answer prior to class so that we can spend time in class applying what the students have learned. Am I doing a disservice to my students with a flipped classroom? Do we need to go back to rote memorization and cold calling students for the bar passage rates to rise? And if so, will that make our students better lawyers?

I remember how difficult it was to take the Florida bar after three years of law practice in New York. The rote memorization helped me pass the bar exam while working a full time job and caring for an infant as a single mother. But it didn't make me a better lawyer. Having worked for three years, I remember slogging through bar study thinking that what I was learning in bar prep had little to do with what I actually did in practice. When I prepared for the New York and New Jersey bars, I went to classes live but some were in a classroom via video. I'm not even sure that purely online courses were an option back in 1992. When I moved to Florida and studied for that bar, I used tapes in my car (yes, it was 1996). I had tried the live courses for a few days and realized that my time was better spent reciting the rules of evidence to my son in lieu of nursery rhymes. I passed three bars using two different methods but I wonder how well I would have done with an online version, the way most students study for the bar now. 

I no longer teach courses tested on the bar, but when I did, I had the perpetual conflict-- how do I make sure that the students pass the bar while instilling them with the knowledge and skills they will actually need in the real world? I see now how some of my transactional lawyering students dread going to the bar prep classes offered during the semester. But they also consider these classes a necessity to pass the bar even through they will engage in full time bar prep upon graduation. Does the proliferation of these law school bar prep classes mean that the doctrinal professors aren't teaching the students the way we learned? Or does it mean that that the students are no longer learning the way we did? I don't have the answers. 

But these articles do have an effect on how and what I teach. Under ABA Standard 306,  law schools can offer up to one-third of their credits online, including up to ten credits for first-year coursework. As I prepare to teach my contract drafting and negotiation class asynchronously online for the first time this summer, I'm learning about presenting information in short, digestible chunks for the students- no more than 15-20 minutes per video, and preferably even shorter, I'm told. I'm also reviewing the conflicting evidence about whether online courses are a help or a hindrance.

Some of my students have taken many courses online as undergraduates. As a compliance officer, I required employees to take courses online and did live training. Personally, I like taking online courses. But I don't know enough about how well students retain the information and how well they learn to use key skills to serve clients. I'm fortunate, though, to have excellent instructional designers working with me who understand adult learning much better than I do. I'm convinced that more students will seek online courses and more schools will adopt them as a way of earning more revenue through developing programs for working professionals and JD students who need more flexible schedules. This means many more of us may need to prepare for this new way of teaching and learning.

The Business of Designing for the Olympics

As I watch the opening ceremonies of the 2018 Winter Olympic Games, I am struck by all of the design work that goes into the ceremony and the games.  Who designs the vast opening and closing ceremony productions?  Does the host country hire some or all the people who appear in the productions or are some or all volunteers?  Who holds the intellectual property rights to the program elements and the recording of the program?  The International Olympic Committee, I guess . . . .  It strikes me that the Olympic Games have become big business, and intellectual property rights have become important to the value of that business.  The World Intellectual Property Oganization notes that "[t]he Games are as much a celebration of innovation and creativity as they are of humanity, fair play and sporting excellence."

Perhaps most amusing to me in the run-up to the 2018 Winter Olympic Games has been the coverage of the U.S. opening ceremony outfits, designed by Ralph Lauren.  Even for those of you who purport to know nothing about fashion design, you may recall that Ralph Lauren designs those shirts and shorts and sweaters with the little embroidered polo horse on the chest . . . .  But trust me, he's an iconic American designer.  Anyway, here is a critique of the American ensembles, ranking each item.  The jacket is heated (!).  But the large fringe suede gloves appear to be a particularly controversial fashion choice.  As one critic noted:

These outfits have come in for a lot of criticism, particularly because they require the athlete to wear ludicrously large gloves that look as though they were designed for grilling by some sadist who then wants the grillers to go up in flames because the fringe of their large gloves has caught on fire.

She goes on to say the following:

The gloves have also come in for criticism because they have a Southwestern, Native American–meets–Route 66 truck stop, tchotchke vibe to them. The Olympic rings and the American flag are beaded. Between the fringe and the beading, there have been some claims and concerns about appropriation. I hear those. However, I do think that, in the long view, we want the American Olympic team outfits to be referencing a broader set of cultural influences on American life.

Wow.  Who knew the business of deigning for the Olympic Games was so complex and fraught with peril?

In truth, the relationship between the U.S. Olympic Committee and Ralph Lauren is just one example of a designer collaboration seen frequently in fashion design in recent years.  Target, H&M, and many others have entered into successful collaborations with major designers.  See, e.g., here, here and here.  These collaborations involve contracts addressing the fusion of the applicable intellectual property rights, among other legal and business issues.  See, e.g., here and here.  This is undoubtedly an interesting aspect of fashion law.

But back to the Olympic outfits . . . .  Bustle is running a series of articles on the team uniforms and their designers.  Here is the first installment.  And if you want to know how much it will cost you to buy parts of the Team U.S.A. opening ceremony outfits, you can read about that here.  They're pricey; be prepared . . . .

Washington Marijuana Law Has Entity Type Quirks (And LLCs Are Still Not Corporations)

A recent case in Washington state introduced me to some interesting facets of Washington's recreational marijuana law.  The case came to my attention because it is part of my daily search for cases (incorrectly) referring to limited liability companies (LLCs) as "limited liability corporations."  The case opens: 

In 2012, Washington voters approved Initiative Measure 502. LAWS OF 2013, ch. 3, codified as part of chapter 69.50 RCW. Initiative 502 legalizes the possession and sale of marijuana and creates a system for the distribution and sale of recreational marijuana. Under RCW 69.50.325(3)(a), a retail marijuana license shall be issued only in the name of the applicant. No retail marijuana license shall be issued to a limited liability corporation unless all members are qualified to obtain a license. RCW 69.50.331(1)(b)(iii). The true party of interest of a limited liability company is “[a]ll members and their spouses.”¹ Under RCW 69.50.331(1)(a), the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) considers prior criminal conduct of the applicant.²

LIBBY HAINES-MARCHEL & ROCK ISLAND CHRONICS, LLC, Dba CHRONICS, Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR & CANNABIS BOARD, an Agency of the State of Washington, Respondent., No. 75669-9-I, 2017 WL 6427358, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2017) (emphasis added).  

 

The reference to a limited liability corporation appears simply to be a misstatement, as the statute properly references limited liability companies as distinct from corporations. The legal regime does, though, have some interesting requirements from an entity law perspective. First, the law provides:

 

(b) No license of any kind may be issued to:

 

. . . .

 

(iii) A partnership, employee cooperative, association, nonprofit corporation, or corporation unless formed under the laws of this state, and unless all of the members thereof are qualified to obtain a license as provided in this section;

Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.331 (b)(iii) (West). It makes some sense to restrict the business to in-state entities given the licensing restrictions that state has, although it is not clear to me that the state could not engage in the same level of oversight if an entity were, say, a California corporation or a West Virginia LLC. 

 

The state's licensing requirements, as stated in Washington Administrative Code 314-55-035 ("What persons or entities have to qualify for a marijuana license?") provide: "A marijuana license must be issued in the name(s) of the true party(ies) of interest." The code then lists what it means to be a  “true party of interest” for a variety of entities. 

True party of interest: Persons to be qualified

 

Sole proprietorship: Sole proprietor and spouse.

 

General partnership: All partners and spouses.

 

Limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability limited partnership: All general partners and their spouses and all limited partners and spouses.

 

Limited liability company: All members and their spouses and all managers and their spouses.

 

Privately held corporation: All corporate officers (or persons with equivalent title) and their spouses and all stockholders and their spouses.

 

Publicly held corporation: All corporate officers (or persons with equivalent title) and their spouses and all stockholders and their spouses.

Multilevel ownership structures: All persons and entities that make up the ownership structure (and their spouses).

Wash. Admin. Code 314-55-035. 

This is a pretty comprehensive list, but I note that the corporation requirements are missing some noticeable parties: directors. The code states, for both privately and publicly held corporations, that all "corporate officers (or persons with equivalent title)" and their spouses and all stockholders and their spouses must be qualified. Directors are not "equivalent" in title to officers. Officers, under Washington law, are described as follows:

 

(1) A corporation has the officers described in its bylaws or appointed by the board of directors in accordance with the bylaws.

(2) A duly appointed officer may appoint one or more officers or assistant officers if authorized by the bylaws or the board of directors.

(3) The bylaws or the board of directors shall delegate to one of the officers responsibility for preparing minutes of the directors' and shareholders' meetings and for authenticating records of the corporation.

(4) The same individual may simultaneously hold more than one office in a corporation.

Wash. Rev. Code § 23B.08.400. Directors have a different role. The statute provides:

Requirement for and duties of board of directors.

(1) Each corporation must have a board of directors, except that a corporation may dispense with or limit the authority of its board of directors by describing in its articles of incorporation, or in a shareholders' agreement authorized by RCW 23B.07.320, who will perform some or all of the duties of the board of directors.

(2) Subject to any limitation set forth in this title, the articles of incorporation, or a shareholders' agreement authorized by RCW 23B.07.320:

(a) All corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of the corporation's board of directors; and

(b) The business and affairs of the corporation shall be managed under the direction of its board of directors, which shall have exclusive authority as to substantive decisions concerning management of the corporation's business.

Wash. Rev. Code § RCW 23B.08.010.

 

The Code, then, seems to provide that directors are, as a group, exempt from the spousal connection. The code separately provides:

 

(4) Persons who exercise control of business - The WSLCB will conduct an investigation of any person or entity who exercises any control over the applicant's business operations. This may include both a financial investigation and/or a criminal history background. 

Wash. Admin. Code 314-55-035.  This provision would clearly include directors, but also clearly excludes spouses. That distinction is fine, I suppose, but it is not at all clear to me why one would want to treat directors differently than LLC managers (and their spouses).  To the extent there is concern about spousal influence--to the level that the state would want to require qualification of spouses of shareholders in a publicly held entity--leaving this gap open for all corporate directors seems to be a rather big miss (or a deliberate exception).  Either way, it's an interesting quirk of an interesting new statute.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Top Five Best Beers "Created" By Law

Beer is good.  It's an opinion based on serious research.  A lot of beer laws are not good.  They often restrict beer distribution, limits sales, and generally make it harder for us to access good beverages.  

There have been some benefits of these restrictions.  The main one, probably, is that it provided the storyline for Smokey and The Bandit: 

Big Enos (Pat McCormick) wants to drink Coors at a truck show, but in 1977 it was illegal to sell Coors east of the Mississippi River without a permit. Truck driver Bo "Bandit" Darville (Burt Reynolds) agrees to pick up the beer in Texas and drive it to Georgia within 28 hours. When Bo picks up hitchhiker Carrie (Sally Field), he attracts the attention of Sheriff Buford T. Justice (Jackie Gleason). Angry that Carrie will not marry his son, Justice embarks on a high-speed chase after Bandit.

(Note that IMDB's description -- "The Bandit is hired on to run a tractor trailer full of beer over county lines in hot pursuit by a pesky sheriff." -- seems to have confused the film with the Dukes of Hazzard.  Crossing state, not county, lines was the issue and Rosco P. Coltrane was not part of the Bandit films.  I digress.)  

In my home state of West Virginia, getting craft beer, until 2009, was hard. Beer with more than 6% ABV could not be sold in the state. All beer in the state is "non-intoxicating beer" but the definition was raised from 6% so that it now includes (and allows) all malt-based beverages between 0.5% and 12% ABV.  

Continue reading