AALS Annual Meeting 2006



Empirical Scholarship
What Should We Study and
How Should We Study It?

January 3-7, 2006

Washington, DC



Friday, January 6, 2006

7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
AALS Registration

7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
AALS Message Center

7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
AALS Office and Information Center

8:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
AALS Exhibit Hall Open House “The Meeting Place”
Exhibitors will display a variety of academic, teaching and administrative products and services of interest to those in legal education. Refreshments will be served in the morning in the “Meeting Place” in the Exhibit Hall.

8:30 a.m. - 5:15 p.m.
AALS Informal Networking Sessions
Do you have a topic you want to discuss? Colleagues with similar interests or dilemmas you want to meet? If so, take charge! You can organize an informal gathering that could meet any time on Friday, January 6 for one hour and forty-five minutes. Simply post a notice on the bulletin boards in the AALS Message Center area. Indicate the topic/interest you want to discuss and select a time to meet at a designated table assigned to one of the designated meeting rooms. Sign your name as moderator and see who joins you!


AALS EVENTS

7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Section on Academic Support Continental Breakfast
(Tickets were sold in advance. If available, a breakfast ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 5. Tickets will not be for sale at the breakfast.)


7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Section on Labor Relations and Employment Law Breakfast
(Tickets were sold in advance. If available, a breakfast ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 5. Tickets will not be for sale at the breakfast.)


7:00 - 8:30 a.m.
Section on Property Law Breakfast
(Tickets were sold in advance. If available, a breakfast ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 5. Tickets will not be for sale at the breakfast.)


8:30-10:15 a.m.

Hot Topic

First Findings: Does Race Contribute to Educational Diversity?

Location: Harding, Mezzanine Level, Marriott Wardman Park

Speakers: Charles E. Daye, University of North Carolina School of Law
Abigail T. Panter, Ph.D., University of North Carolina, Department of Psychology

Professors Charles E. Daye, JD and Abigail T. Panter, Ph.D. of the UNC School of Law and Department of Psychology, respectively, will present preliminary findings from the Educational Diversity Project’s on-going empirical research. Grutter v. Bollinger affirmed that educational institutions have a compelling interest in achieving the benefits of educational diversity, that racial diversity contributes to educational diversity, and that race may be considered as a plus factor in selecting students for admission using a narrowly tailored, time-limited system. The project investigates whether race contributes to educational diversity and if so, what, if anything, race contributes that other personal attributes do not. In Fall 2004, the project surveyed 8,500 incoming first-year students enrolled in a large, representative sample of about one third of the ABA-approved law schools on an instrument designed to elicit insights on a multidimensional conceptualization of educational diversity.

The presenters will report preliminary findings on relations between race and educational diversity, including the impact personal characteristics (especially race, gender), family background, and past experiences with discrimination have on current educational expectations and career aspirations. The presentation will model the value of interdisciplinary and inter-institutional collaboration to examine a significant, pressing, and controversial issue facing contemporary society. In addition to the presenters, others involved in the project are Co-Principal Investigator Walter R. Allen, Ph.D., Professor, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, UCLA; and Consultant Linda F. Wightman, Ed.D., Chair, Department of Educational Research Methodology (emeritus), UNC-Greensboro.


8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
AALS Site Evaluators Workshop

Moderator: Elizabeth Hayes Patterson, AALS Deputy Director
Speakers: R. Lawrence Dessem, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law -view outline-
Carl C. Monk, AALS Executive Vice President and Executive Director
Gail Levin Richmond, Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center -view outline-

This program is particularly designed for those who serve, or are interested in serving, the AALS in the capacity as the AALS Reporter on ABA accreditation/AALS membership review site visit teams to member schools or schools applying for AALS membership. The AALS appoints one member to ABA/AALS “sabbatical” site visit teams and appoints the entire team when a school applies for membership in the Association and in other special circumstances. The program will discuss the purposes of AALS membership review and the role of the site visitor in that review.


8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Africa, Co-Sponsored by Section on Women in Legal Education

Gender and the Law in Sub-Saharan Africa: Envisioning the Future

Moderator: Cynthia Grant Bowman, Northwestern University School of Law
Speakers: Akua Kuenyehia, First Vice President, International Criminal Court, The Hague, Netherlands
Barbara Stark, Hofstra University School of Law
Valorie K. Vojdik, West Virginia University College of Law

Too often, the gendered impact of crises in Africa has been ignored: the consequences for women and children of armed conflict in Sudan, the gendered nature of many of the abuses of the Rwandan genocide, and the disproportionate impact of the AIDS pandemic on African women. But awareness of the role of law in African women’s lives - sometimes as a positive force, sometimes as a negative one - is growing. This awareness is reflected in the increased advocacy on behalf of women and the rising number of publications about legal issues affecting women in individual countries across the vast African continent.

This panel brings together legal experts from both Africa and the United States to discuss law reform efforts aimed at improving the lives of African women. Specific topics addressed will include family law issues in West, East and Southern Africa; HIV/AIDS and how the law contributes to increased transmission among women; emerging theories and practice of gender equality in Southern Africa; and the role of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (“CEDAW”) in empowering African women.

Business Meeting for Section on Africa at Program Conclusion


8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Agricultural Law

The Final Frontier: Application of Environmental Laws to Large-Scale Agricultural Operations

Moderator: Jacqueline P. Hand, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
Speakers: Joshua G. Eagle, University of South Carolina School of Law
Kirsten L. Nathanson, Crowell & Moring, LLP, Washington, DC
Barclay Rogers, Associate Attorney, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, San Francisco, California

When the environmental era began, agriculture was generally exempted from regulation. As environmental knowledge has increased and agriculture has grown in scale, scientists and lawmakers have increasingly focused on the problem. Our speakers will discuss this development, looking particularly at large animal feeding operations, impacts of upstream application of farm chemicals on creating a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and environmental implications of various types of aquaculture.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Constitutional Law

The Constitution in Exile

Moderator: Lawrence B. Solum, University of Illinois College of Law
Speakers: Randy E. Barnett, Boston University School of Law
Cass R. Sunstein, The University of Chicago The Law School

Recent discourse about both constitutional interpretation and judicial selection has focused on the so-called “Constitution in Exile”- a conception of the ideal content of the Constitution that differs in fundamental ways from the Constitution as is embodied in contemporary constitutional practice and post-New Deal decisions of the Supreme Court. The phrase, “Constitution in Exile,” was introduced in 1995 by Judge Douglas Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Circuit who used it to refer to legal doctrines that established firm limitations on state and federal power before the New Deal. Recently, some legal scholars and popular writers have argued that there is a Constitution in Exile movement, the aim of which is to fundamentally change constitutional law. Others have raised serious questions about the accuracy of this contention. This program will examine this controversy. Among the questions that will be addressed are the following:

· Is the phrase “Constitution in Exile” a meaningful tool for the description of controversies over constitutional interpretation and adjudication?
· Does the constitution in exile movement exist, either as a coherent group of scholarly opinion or as an identifiable set of judicial opinions and attitudes?
· What is the relationship between the originalism as a theory of constitutional meaning and the notion of a “constitution in exile” or a “lost constitution”?

What are the implications of constitutional theories - originalist or otherwise - that imply that current constitutional practice is a substantial departure from the true, correct, or ideal theory of constitutional meaning? How could or should courts manage the transition from the constitution as it stands to an ideal constitution?

Members of the panel will address these issues from diverse perspectives with a significant opportunity for audience participation.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Federal Courts

Federal Courts and the War on Terrorism
(Program to be published in the Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties)

Topics and Speakers:
The Graham Amendment: Jurisdiction-Stripping in the War on Terror.
Janet Cooper Alexander, Stanford Law School

Military Commissions and Terrorist Enemy Combatants
Curtis A. Bradley, Duke University School of Law

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: Why the Guantanamo Military Commissions are Illegal
Neal K. Katyal, Georgetown University Law Center

Clash of the Titans: The Ongoing Battle Between the Executive and the Judiciary in the War on Terror
Barbara J. Olshansky, Deputy Legal Director, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, New York

Terrorist attacks and the response to them have created new questions for federal courts, and have posed old questions in new contexts. Challenges to military detention of suspected terrorists test the reach of constitutional rights and the writ of habeas corpus beyond the nation’s territorial boundaries and to noncitizens as well as citizens. The use of habeas to challenge executive detention frames it within the separation of powers, rather than federalism, strand of federal courts doctrine.

The government’s decision to try some persons before military commissions rather than the criminal courts and to detain others without charge upon the military’s determination that they are “enemy combatants” required the creation of novel non-Article III courts whose constitutionality has been challenged. Meanwhile, procedures in criminal trials and habeas proceedings in federal court have been modified in unprecedented ways to accommodate national security concerns.

Civil actions for damages against terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism, as well as civil suits by former detainees over their treatment, raise questions of foreign sovereign immunities, implied rights of action under treaties and customary international law, and the allocation of power between Congress and the executive in creating remedies and immunities when national security and foreign relations are at stake.

The program will explore these current topics with a panel of speakers who have written and litigated on a wide range of terrorism-related issues. The speakers include Professor Bradley, formerly counselor on international law in the Legal Adviser’s Office at the State Department; Professor Katyal, lead attorney in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld challenging the military commissions and formerly national security adviser to the deputy attorney general; Ms. Olshansky, director counsel of the Center for Constitutional Rights’ Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative and lead attorney in cases challenging extraordinary rendition and military commissions; and Professor Alexander, who has written on compensating victims of terrorism.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Financial Institutions and Consumer Financial Services

Rethinking the Ownership Society

Moderator: Patricia A. Mc Coy, University of Connecticut School of Law
Speakers: Howell Edmunds Jackson, Harvard Law School
Elizabeth A. Renuart, Esquire, National Consumer Law Center, Boston, Massachusetts
David Arthur Skeel, Jr., University of Pennsylvania Law School

The concept of “The Ownership Society” is touted as building wealth for ordinary individuals and increasing civic involvement through property ownership. Initiatives to advance “The Ownership Society” run the gamut from Social Security privatization to increased home ownership. This conception of ownership, however, goes hand in hand with the privatization and compounding of risk in certain instances. The program will consider the implications of “The Ownership Society” campaign for three discrete areas - bankruptcy, Social Security reform, and mortgage lending.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on International Law

Who, Me? American Exceptionalism and International Law

Moderator: William V. Dunlap, Quinnipiac University School of Law
Speakers: Robert M. Chesney, Wake Forest University School of Law
Mary Ellen O’Connell, The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law
Jeremy Rabkin, Professor, Department of Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Peter J. Spiro, University of Georgia School of Law

American exceptionalism, defined by J.G. Ruggie as “a perceived need to safeguard the special features and protections of the U.S. constitution from external interference,” has entered the public and academic consciousness, both directly and indirectly, in many ways in recent years. In John Bolton’s words, well before his own clash in the Senate made his name known worldwide, “Recent clashes in and around the United States Senate indicate that the Americanist Party has awakened, and that the harm and costs to the United States of belittling our popular sovereignty and constitutionalism, and restricting both our domestic and our international policy flexibility and power are finally receiving attention.”

American exceptionalism is not new; in one form, it dates back to the first European settlement of this continent and the Puritans’ vision of a City on a Hill. In the Twentieth Century, a modern form manifested itself in the Senate’s rejection of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations; in Article 2 (7) of the United Nations Charter, designed in part to place legalized segregation in the southern United States beyond the reach of international human rights law; and in the proposed Bricker Amendment, which would have eviscerated the power of the President to enter into and implement international agreements. In this new century it informs justifications for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, legislative threats to impeach federal judges for citing international and foreign law in constitutional decisions (echoing the Bricker Amendment debates of the 1950s), and opposition to the United Nations and other international organizations in the current administration and Congress. American exceptionalism is associated with the neoconservatism that has heavily influenced recent American policy, and it explains in large part the U.S. rejection of such widely adopted international agreements and institutions as the Kyoto Protocols on global warming, the International Criminal Court, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Ottawa Landmines Convention during the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Do such agreements – including the U.N. and NATO charters – threaten the American constitutional system by undermining American sovereignty? Or do exceptionalists, Americanists, sovereigntists – as they are variously called by themselves and their intellectual adversaries – underestimate the importance of global norms and international cooperation?
This program grew out of last year’s lively panel on international law in American Courts, in particular a sharp exchange at the end between the panel and the audience. From outside the legal academy, Professor Rabkin, author of The Case for Sovereignty: Why the World Should Welcome American Independence (American Enterprise Institute Press, 2004), in which he traces the development of sovereignty from the Enlightenment till today and warns against eroding American sovereignty in a drift toward global governance: “Because the United States is fully sovereign, it can determine for itself what its Constitution will require. And the Constitution necessarily requires that sovereignty be safeguarded so that the Constitution itself can be secure.”

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Issues

Intersexuality and Law

Moderator: Martha M. Ertman, University of Utah S. J. Quinney College of Law
Speakers: David B. Cruz, University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Nancy S. Ehrenreich, University of Denver College of Law -view outline-
Julie Greenberg, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

This panel will discuss interrelationships between law and people with an intersexed condition. As the Intersex Society of North America has explained, “intersex isn’t a discreet or natural category” but rather “is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.” Panelists will explore issues such as how clinicians conceptualize and “treat” people, especially infants, with intersex conditions; relationships among advocates for intersex persons and other social movements such as feminism or lesbigay rights; parallels and disjunctions between concerns over female genital cutting and concerns about surgical interventions to “correct” intersex conditions; and relationships between intersex and the debate over marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Section on Taxation

New Perspectives on Corporate Taxation

Moderator: Daniel N. Shaviro, New York University School of Law
Speakers: Steven A. Bank, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law
Steven A. Dean, Brooklyn Law School
Victor Fleischer, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law

Corporate taxation is a familiar topic in the legal tax policy literature, mainly associated with discussion of corporate integration, tax sheltering, and practice-related topics such as tax-free reorganizations. However, scholars who have entered the legal academy in the last ten years have developed a number of complementary new topics and approaches. In this session, Professor Bank will offer a legal history perspective, Professor Fleischer will discuss the effects of subchapter C and related tax rules on entrepreneurial activity, and Professor Schlunk will explore a new justification for the double corporate tax, related to the effective expensing of self-generated intangibles.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Open Program on Disability Related Issues

Disability Issues Across the Law School Curriculum

Moderator: Ann Hubbard, University of Cincinnati College of Law
Speakers: Camille Antoinette Nelson, Saint Louis University School of Law
Laura F. Rothstein, University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
Ani B. Satz, Emory University School of Law


8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Open Program on Islamic Law

The Diversity of Islamic Law

Moderator: Frank Edward Vogel, Harvard Law School
Speakers: Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Emory University School of Law
Bernard Kenneth Freamon, Seton Hall University School of Law
Sadiq Reza, New York Law School
Kristen A. Stilt, University of Washington School of Law

The term “Islamic law” can misleadingly suggest that it is a well-established body of law that provides a single correct answer for any particular legal question. This panel will address this mistaken understanding of Islamic law and show that there can be many different positions on the same issue, and that these positions are arguably correct because they were derived using Islamic legal methodologies. We will pay particular attention to the interpretive devices by which differing opinions may be reached, and discuss how to evaluate the significance of these differences. The topics covered in this panel include some of the most controversial issues involving Islamic law today, such as women in leadership positions, criminal punishment, and warfare. We aim to demonstrate not only that diversity exists in Islamic law but also provide some insight into how that diversity is produced and how inconsistent positions can be accommodated under the rubric of Islamic law.


8:30 - 10:15 a.m.
Open Program for Research Deans

Gathering to Discuss Issues of Common Concern


10:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
AALS Executive Committee Program

Topic: Empirical Research on Law Student Engagement

Moderator: Alison Grey Anderson, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law
Speakers: Gerald F. Hess, Gonzaga University School of Law
George D. Kuh, Chancellor’s Professor of Higher Education, Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana
Patrick O’Day, Project Manager, Law School Survey of Student Engage- ment, Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana
Joyce Sterling, University of Denver, College of Law

In 2004-2005, more than 34,000 JD students at 73 law schools participated in the Law School Survey of Student Engagement (LSSSE), a national survey designed to assess the extent to which students participate in a variety of educational activities in law school. The LSSSE project is building the first broad data base about the actual educational experience of law students, which should be useful for both law schools and researchers. LSSSE is cosponsored by the AALS and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

This panel will summarize key findings from the study about the law student experience and enriching educational environments. Speakers will discuss the implications of LSSSE results for legal education and how law schools might use this information to enhance student learning and law school effectiveness.


10:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
AALS Committee on Bar Admission and Lawyer Performance

Reconceiving Lawyer Licensing: Alternative Models of Assessing Lawyer Competence

Speakers: Kristin Booth Glen, City University of New York School of Law at Queens College
Sophie M. Sparrow, Franklin Pierce Law Center
Judith W. Wegner, University of North Carolina School of Law
Respondents: Paula C. Johnson, Syracuse University College of Law
Dale A. Whitman, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law

This program is designed to explore the work underway to develop alternatives to the traditional bar examination. The academy is increasingly interested in issues related to the bar exam, as evidenced by the response to the 2004 Conference on the Bar Exam sponsored by the Joint Working Group of the AALS, ABA and the National Conference of Bar Examiners. One of the many issues deserving of attention is the work being done to develop potential alternatives to the bar exam. Although there are a wide variety of approaches being explored, the common denominator appears to be creating an exam that tests a wider range of competencies than those skills measured by the traditional bar exam.


10:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Section on Art Law

Art Law and Intellectual Property Law: Convergence and Conflict

Moderator: Barton Beebe, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Speakers: Christine Haight Farley, American University Washington College of Law
K. J. Greene, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Sonia K. Katyal, Fordham University School of Law
Cyrill P. Rigamonti, S.J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts

This session will consider how recent changes in intellectual property law have impacted art law and artists. Special attention will be paid to the image of the “artist” developed in intellectual property law and commentary.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


10:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Section on Contracts

Empirical Scholarship in Contract Law
(Program to be published in the Tulane Law Review)

Moderator: David V. Snyder, Tulane University School of Law
Speakers: Stephen Choi, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
George S. Geis, The University of Alabama School of Law -view outline-
Mitu Gulati, Georgetown University Law Center
Stewart Macaulay, University of Wisconsin Law School
Debora L. Threedy, University of Utah S. J. Quinney College of Law

The panel will explore different approaches to empirical scholarship in contract law. Professors Choi and Gulati will present results from their studies on boilerplate terms, particularly geared to the factors leading to innovation and change. Professor Geis will present an empirical study, based on marketing data, on the optimal precision of default rules. Professor Macaulay will address the empirical side of policy issues, especially contract interpretation, and will put empirical work in the context of a new legal realism related to the law in action movement. Professor Threedy, one of the leading practitioners of qualitative empiricism in law—through deep historical studies of important cases such as Alaska Packers—will examine how the practice of legal archaeology illuminates contract law. The published symposium, which will appear in Tulane Law Review, will also include an empirical study from Professor Litvak (The University of Texas), discussing recent trends in venture capital contracts.

The format will allow time for questions and answers, including questions about what constitutes “empirical” work in the law and what role empirical study can play in contract scholarship.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


10:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Section on Defamation and Privacy

Tracked, Profiled, and Identified:
Privacy and the Linkage of Data to Individuals

Moderator: Lars S. Smith, University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
Topics and Speakers:
The Status of the Regulation of Use of Personal Information (Expansion of 2000 Article):
Ann Bartow, University of South Carolina School of Law

Personal Information Under The Property and Privacy Regimes:
Vera Bergelson, Rutgers, The State University of N.J. Center for Law & Justice, Newark

Identity Crisis - How Identification is Overused and Misunderstood:
Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies, The Cato Institute, Washington, District of Columbia

A Multichannel View of Tracking and Compiling Data:
Ben Isaacson, Privacy and Compliance Leader, Experian, Costa Mesa, California

Does RFID Present A Privacy Threat, And, If So, What Should We Do About It?
Jonathan Weinberg, Wayne State University Law School

This program will cover issues of how data is connected to people, how Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and other identification techniques may be able to better link data to people, and how the data is used to make decisions about them. For example, the recent push for use of RFID technology with pharmaceuticals by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the use of predictive technology by companies such as Wal-Mart to track individual purchasing trends raises important privacy issues for consumers regarding the tracking and use of such information.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


10:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Section on Jurisprudence

Is Law Metaphysical?

Moderator: Steven Douglas Smith, University of San Diego School of Law
Speakers: Michael S. Moore, University of Illinois College of Law
Connie S. Rosati, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of California Davis, Davis, California

The classical view of law, expressed in different ways by thinkers from Aquinas to Fortescue to Coke to Blackstone to Story, suggested that “law” has some existence beyond positive declarations such as judicial decisions, which themselves are merely “evidence” of law. A more modern view mocks this image of law as a “brooding omnipresence in the sky” and suggests, with Holmes, that “[w]hen we study law we are not studying a mystery but a well known profession.” And yet an occasional thinker still wonders whether law-talk makes sense on such meager metaphysical commitments. The panel will discuss perspectives on this question - on the metaphysical presuppositions necessary to law.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


10:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Section on Law and the Social Sciences

Extraordinary Measures: Perspectives from the Social Sciences on the Invasiveness of Police Practices

Moderator: Stephen C. Thaman, Saint Louis University School of Law
Speakers: Gad Barzilai, Professor, Department of Political Science and Law, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Francesca Bignami, Duke University School of Law
Jacqueline E. Ross, University of Illinois College of Law
Christopher Slobogin, University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law -view outline-

This panel will discuss the ways in which empirical research and political theory illuminate what makes police powers invasive, unusual, or otherwise difficult to regulate. Professor Slobogin will present his study, “Empirical Research on Expectations of Privacy: How to Do It and Why It is Relevant to the Courts.” Professor Slobogin takes as his starting point the U.S. Supreme Court’s position that the Fourth Amendment’s protections are only triggered when a government action infringes “expectations of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.” Professor Slobogin investigates what expectations laypeople actually hold and explores whether courts addressing the scope of the Fourth Amendment should care about laypeoples’ views on privacy. Professor Bignami will present a paper titled, “Architecture of European Privacy Regulation,” which examines information privacy regulators in four European Member States: France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Italy. Even though privacy regulators were required under European law, the paper finds significant variation in their respective enforcement powers. This variation is explained as a function of state power and differences in national legal cultures. Professor Ross will present her research on the German regulation of undercover policing in a paper titled, “Dilemmas of Undercover Policing in Germany: The Troubled Quest for Legitimacy.” Drawing on her field interviews with German police officials, undercover agents, prosecutors, and judges, Professor Ross examines the implementation of Germany’s ambitious statutory reforms which were designed to control undercover investigations and asks how a legal system tames a constantly changing and highly contested practice that stubbornly resists oversight. To what extent did Germany’s reforms resolve problems of legitimacy? To what extent did the new system transform those problems or introduce new ones? Professor Barzilai will present his paper, “Transnational Violence, Terrorism/Counterterrorism, and Human Rights: The Zeitgeist of Uncertainty and Criminalization.” Professor Barzilai uses current research in social-legal studies, political science, political theory, and international law to examine the ways in which uncertainty about legal norms affect the elaboration of “emergency” police measures, including surveillance, ethnic profiling, administrative detentions, counter-terrorist legislation, and torture. Professor Barzilai argues that severe restrictions on human rights and the resort to emergency powers result from the inability of nation-states and international organizations to construct legal norms that meet the challenge of transnational violence. Professor Thaman will comment on the papers and lead the discussion.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


10:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Section on Law and Sports

The Straight Dope on Steroids, Performance Enhancers and Sports

Moderator: Darryl C. Wilson, Stetson University College of Law
Speakers: Richard H. Mc Laren, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Matthew J. Mitten, Marquette University Law School
Mackie Shilstone, Founder, Mackie Shilstone, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana
Travis Tygert, Sr., Managing Director, General Counsel, United States Anti-Doping Agency, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Whether allegations that accused athletes are abusers of performance enhancement drugs can ever be consistently proven remains to be seen, but “steroids” stories continuously pump through the veins of sports journalism throughout the world.

The U.S. government recently scheduled hearings to investigate rampant tales of illegal steroid abuse in the team sports of professional baseball and football. U.S. and foreign athletes have been stripped of their Olympic medals and in some instances banned from their respective sports due to failed drug tests in fields as diverse as cycling, gymnastics, track and field and weightlifting. New regulations are being proposed for professional sports, as well as intercollegiate athletics, and some states have drafted legislation calling for statewide steroid testing of high school sports participants.

This program features a panel of domestic and international experts who will evaluate whether the above actions and other similar measures are truly warranted. They will discuss the difference between performance enhancement, which all athletes seek to maximize, and improper or illegal performance supplementation, which is becoming more difficult to define and detect. The group will offer us their extensive experience in tracking the evolution of sports drug use and give us their outlook on what the future holds in this volatile unpredictable area.

Professor McLaren, is a neutral for the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and past Chair of the Independent International Review Commission on Doping Control, United States Track and Field (USTAF).

Professor Mitten is Director of the National Sports Law Institute, Chair of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports, and a member of the Sport’s Lawyers Association board of directors.

Mr. Shilstone, is one of America’s premier sports performance managers, who’s clientele has included world class athletes such as Will Clark, Ozzie Smith, Lomas Brown, Morten Anderson Jr. and Roy Jones Jr., as well as many movie stars including Wesley Snipes, Chuck Norris and Mickey Rourke.

The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), for which Mr. Tygert works, is the independent, nongovernmental anti-doping agency for Olympic Sports in the U.S. Mr. Tygert is also involved in the BALCO investigation and proceedings.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


10:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Section on Litigation

Thinking Like a Juror
(Program to be published in the Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy)

Moderator: Timothy Wilton, Suffolk University Law School -view outline-
Speakers: Shari Seidman Diamond, Northwestern University School of Law
Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, Principal Court Research Consultant, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia -view outline-
Stephan Landsman, DePaul University College of Law
Bradley Saxton, Quinnipiac University School of Law

As litigators and teachers of litigation-related subjects, we must often be concerned with how juries receive and process information at trial, and how they deliberate to a verdict. As scholars, we should work to make the process more efficient and just. Until recently, the traditional cloak of secrecy surrounding the jury has forced us to speculate about how real juries think. In the last several years, however, empirical scholars have been able to study real juries, and have come up with some ideas to improve the process. These ideas have made their way into the American Bar Association’s Principles for Jury Trials, approved in February, 2005. Principles 13 through 17 relate to jury comprehension and the deliberative process, and suggest several innovative techniques for courts to use to help jurors understand the facts and law better and reach a more accurate and just result. The ABA is now embarking on a campaign to implement these Principles in state courts throughout the nation.

Our panel will talk about the empirical research they and others have done on real juries, particularly the studies that led to the ABA Principles for Jury Trials. They will describe the field testing of such innovations as allowing jurors to take notes and/or to ask questions or giving jurors instructions on the law at different times during the trial, and in understandable language, and unanimous/majority verdicts. They will take us behind the jury rail, behind the door to the jury room, and will let us see ourselves from the other side.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


10:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Section on Minority Groups

The Fate of Minority Inter-Group Collaboration, Conflict and Coalition Formation: A Critical Dialogue About Minority to Minority Race-Relations
(Program to be published in the Mercer Law Review)

Moderator: Maurice R. Dyson, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Speakers: Sameer Ashar, City University of New York School of Law at Queens College
Reginald C. Oh, Texas Wesleyan University School of Law
Carla Pratt, The Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law
Gloria M. Valencia-Weber, University of New Mexico School of Law

Sometime in the middle of this century, minorities in America will outnumber whites. This “browning” of America portends new and different challenges for race relations. Though traditional challenges to racial justice remedies persist, such as Richard Sander’s 2004 Stanford Law Review article calling for an end to race affirmative action in law school admissions, racial justice solutions must extend beyond majority-minority issues and directly contend with the often unspoken minority-minority concerns. For example, the New York Times recently reported that, at many national universities, Africans, Caribbean Americans, immigrants and bi-racial students get the benefit of affirmative action more than African-Americans. Does this circumstance finally raise the prospect that universities and our society should look beyond the generic “black” label to distinct ethnicities and ask questions such as what are the legitimate aims of affirmative action and how should they be achieved? How is it that we go about challenging an admissions system, laws and policies that pits minority group against minority group? What are the ramifications for minority inter-group collaboration and coalition formation for this and other racial justice remedies?

Another example of the effect of growing minority populations in America is demographic shifts. For example, the Census Bureau recently announced that “Hispanics” now outnumber African-Americans as the “largest minority” in America. This phenomenon has provoked a number of emotional reactions. Some in the Hispanic/Latina/o /Chicano community have favorably received this observation hoping it will mean the rest of America finally will have to take note. Others, however, question whether this perception may lead to a divide and conquer strategy among minority groups while other reactions have taken more defensive positions. What accounts for these reactions? Further, what are the implications of the fact that nearly half the Hispanic electorate in 2004 purportedly supported conservative or centrist electoral agendas rather than traditionally progressive platforms? As the increasing number of Latinos renders this group the largest minority demographic in the nation, what implications does it have for Black-Latino-Asian progressive coalition formation on important matters such as the upcoming re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act, civil rights and economic struggles? Moreover, should priorities be re-ordered, should our lexicon as a “minority” undergo deliberate national adaptation, and how do we start recognizing distinct differences in this important demographic shift?

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


10:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Section on New Law Professors

Getting Involved: The Law Professor and Service to the Community and the Profession

Moderator: Michael Patrick Allen, Stetson University College of Law
Speakers: Mark R. Brown, Capital University Law School
Thomas C. Galligan, Jr., University of Tennessee College of Law
Douglas Keith Moll, University of Houston Law Center
Elizabeth A. Pendo, St. Thomas University School of Law
Vernellia R. Randall, University of Dayton School of Law

Scholarship, teaching and service are said to be the three types of a law professor’s professional responsibilities. This program addresses the third prong: service. From a number of perspectives the program will provide suggestions for how to “get involved” in a broad array of service activities. For example, the program will address pro bono litigation matters, state legislative reform, scholarly organizations such as the AALS, community organizations, and bar-related activities. We hope that presentations by new law professors, seasoned veterans, and a current dean will provide a means to make our collective service obligations truly meaningful.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


10:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Section on Poverty Law

Globalization of Poverty and U.S. Military Policy

Moderator: William P. Quigley, Loyola University New Orleans School of Law
Speakers: Marjorie Cohn, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Elizabeth M. Iglesias, University of Miami School of Law
Kathy Kelly, Coordinator, Voices in the Wilderness, Chicago, Illinois

U.S. policy of global military domination is creating more world-wide poverty and draining economic resources from efforts to reduce poverty globally and nationally. Panelists will discuss their experiences both frustrating and hopeful, working in solidarity with people and organizations in Africa, Haiti, Iraq, and the U.S., for peace and global economic justice for all.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


10:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Joint Program of Sections on Property Law and State and Local Government Law

Eminent Domain and Economic Development

Moderator: Clayton P. Gillette, New York University School of Law
Speakers: Vicki Lynn Been, New York University School of Law
David L. Callies, University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law
Thomas W. Merrill, Columbia University School of Law
Patricia Salkin, Albany Law School Union University

Traditionally, local governments have used the power of eminent domain to construct projects that are available to the public, such as roadways and public buildings. More recently, local governments have also exercised eminent domain to encourage economic development. In these cases, localities condemn land owned by one private party and dedicate it to another private party in the belief that the latter will use it to produce more jobs or other economic benefits for the community as a whole. As the frequency of these takings has increased, so have the criticisms. Some claim that economic development does not qualify as a public use for which the condemnation power can be used, while others claim that the capacity to employ eminent domain for these purposes allows government too much discretion to favor one resident over another. Proposals for reform range from absolute prohibitions on the use of condemnation for these purposes, to higher compensation for condemnees, to more intensive judicial scrutiny of individual instances in which localities attempt to take property. Courts have had mixed reactions to the use of eminent domain for economic development. Last term, the Supreme Court addressed the issue in Kelo v. City of New London. Our panelists, many of whom were involved in drafting briefs in that case, will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision and its implications for the exercise of eminent domain.

Business Meeting of Property Law at Program Conclusion
Business Meeting of State and Local Government Law at Program Conclusion


12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Financial Institutions and Consumer Financial Services Luncheon
(Tickets were sold in advance. If available, a luncheon ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 5. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)


12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Immigration Law Luncheon
(Tickets were sold in advance. If available, a luncheon ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 5. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)
Speaker: Jeanne A. Butterfield, Executive Director, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Washington, District of Columbia


12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Legal Writing, Reasoning and Research Luncheon
(Tickets were sold in advance. If available, a luncheon ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 12:00 p.m. onThursday,
January 5. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)


12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Minority Groups Luncheon
(Tickets were sold in advance. If available, a luncheon ticket may be purchased at On-Site Registration until 12:00 p.m. on Thursday,
January 5. Tickets will not be for sale at the luncheon.)


12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Law and Anthropology Luncheon - CANCELLED


12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
Section on Taxation - CANCELLED


1:30-3:15 a.m.

Hot Topic

Does the Iraqi Constitution Provide a Framework for a Viable Social Order?
A Post Election Assessment.

Location Harding, Mezzanine Level, Marriott Wardman Park

Panelists: Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies
Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi Deputy Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations
Noah Feldman, New York University School of Law
Rend al-Rahim, Executive Director, The Iraq Foundation, Washington, DC

Moderator: Andrew Strauss, Widener University School of Law

Professor Andrew Strauss, Widener University School of Law will moderate the panel, Does the Iraqi Constitution Provide a Framework for a Viable Social Order: A Post Election Assessment.  In the wake of the first elections under the new Iraqi Constitution and amidst increasing pressure for the United States to withdraw from that country, this panel will examine the extent to which the Iraqi Constitution is capable of providing the institutional underpinnings for a successful multiethnic, democratic society.

1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Joint Program of Association of American Law Schools and
the Association of American Geographers

Law and Geography:
Geographic Technologies and Locational Privacy

Moderator: Alfred Chueh-Chin Yen, Boston College Law School
Speakers: Joel R. Reidenberg, Fordham University School of Law
Douglas Richardson, Executive Director, Association of American Geographers, Washington, District of Columbia

This session, jointly sponsored by the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) and the Association of American Geographers (AAG) begins an exploration of the intersection between geography and the law. We hope this session, and the session on Race, Ethnicity, and Place will develop into a more comprehensive future symposium, continuing collaboration, and possible publications.

This panel will feature a discussion on legal issues arising from the proliferation of new geographic technologies, including integrated Geographic Information Systems (GIS), high resolution remote sensing, and Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and the legal quandaries these powerful new management technologies pose for locational privacy, copyright, data ownership and confidentiality.


1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Civil Rights, Co-Sponsored by Sections on Constitutional Law, Federal Courts, Litigation and Minority Groups

Litigation Campaigns: Friend or Foe of Coherent Judicial Decisionmaking?
(Program to be published in The Urban Lawyer)

Moderator: Michele Alexandre, University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law
Speakers: Samuel R. Bagenstos, Washington University School of Law
Jack Greenberg, Columbia University School of Law
Pamela S. Karlan, Stanford Law School
Commentator: Gabriel Jackson Chin, The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law

A litigation campaign can be defined as a structured attempt by one group (or a small number of groups) to promote change in the courts (especially the appellate courts) around a single issue (or series of related issues). More than 25 years ago, Professor Greenberg (who was then Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund) gave a seminal lecture on “Litigation for Social Change” to the NYC Bar Association. He explained the significance of litigation campaigns and identified several factors that make a campaign more likely to succeed. Since that time, dozens of civil rights groups have mounted both successful and unsuccessful litigation campaigns focused on particular reform issues, usually against governmental entities. In recent years, however, state and local governments often have joined as plaintiffs (or have even initiated) litigation campaigns (e.g., tobacco, guns). Also, groups with more conservative agendas have pursued their own litigation campaigns. As a result, the courts have had extensive experience reviewing cases that are part of such campaigns.

The panelists on this program will share with us their decades of litigation experience and their academic reflections about various litigation campaigns. First, Professor Greenberg will set the stage by recapping the success factors (timing, control, resources, etc.) and apply them to several campaigns in which he participated as lead counsel and/or strategist. Mr. Chestnut will describe both early civil rights campaigns and the black farmers’ litigation campaign in which he has participated as an attorney. Professor Karlan, who has litigated and written extensively about numerous voting rights and other civil rights cases will discuss their implications for judicial decisionmaking. Professor Bagenstos will analyze disability rights litigation and discuss the use of litigation campaigns by various conservative groups. Professor Chin, Chair of the Section on Minority Groups, will comment on the wide-range of institutional issues covered by the panelists and simulate additional discussion among them. Professor Gelfand will attempt to knit together the themes and sub-themes explored by these outstanding speakers and will encourage participation by the audience.

Business Meeting of the Section on Civil Rights at Program Conclusion


1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Commerical and Related Consumer Law

Commercial Calamities
(Program to be published in the Ohio State Law Journal)

Moderator: Larry T. Garvin, The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law
Speakers: Amelia H. Boss, Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law
Victor Paul Goldberg, Columbia University School of Law
Robert A. Hillman, Cornell Law School -view outline-
Robert E. Scott, University of Virginia School of Law
James Justesen White, The University of Michigan Law School

Despite, or perhaps because of, the brilliance of its framers and the interests of its users, commercial law has at least its share of errors, omissions, archaisms, peculiarities, and downright stupidities. Our session is devoted to airing our favorite annoyances about commercial law, ranging from problems with specific provisions to problems with structure and form. Our aim here is not to be particularly constructive but rather to be interestingly critical, though in the course of criticism doubtless some hints toward improvement will emerge.

Today’s panelists are drawn from a larger group whose accumulated grievances will be collected in a symposium to be published in the Ohio State Law Journal. Each participant will present a pet peeve, with plenty of time for Section members to add their own (or, at whatever peril, to defend a cherished doctrine or structure against the attacks of others).

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Conflict of Laws

Judgments About Foreign Judgments: Proposals in the United States and Abroad
(Program to be published in the New York University Journal of International Law & Politics)

Moderator: Linda J. Silberman, New York University School of Law
Speakers: Samuel P. Baumgartner, University of Akron C. Blake McDowell Law Center
Andreas F. Lowenfeld, New York University School of Law
H. Kathleen Patchel, Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis
Louise Ellen Teitz, Roger Williams University School of Law
Peter D. Trooboff, Esquire, Covington & Burling, Washington, District of Columbia
Commentators: Stephen B. Burbank, University of Pennsylvania Law School
David P. Stewart, Assistant Legal Advisor for Private International Law, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC

The issue of foreign judgment recognition and enforcement has been the focus of reform efforts on the international front as well as in the domestic laws of various countries. The conflict of laws program this year will explore a number of developments taking place in the United States as well as in Canada and the European Union. In addition, the program will examine the Choice of Court Convention under negotiation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

Attention to foreign judgment recognition and enforcement began over ten years ago when the Hague Conference began negotiations for a world-wide convention on jurisdiction and judgments. When those efforts stalled, the Hague Conference looked to develop a more limited convention to provide for recognition and enforcement of judgments where jurisdiction is based on a choice-of-court clause in the business-to-business setting. Final negotiations for such a Convention have been set for June, 2005.

With attention drawn to the subject of recognition and enforcement as the result of the efforts at The Hague, in the United States, both the American Law Institute and the National Commissioners on Uniform State Law began a review of the law of judgments as developed in the United States. The ALI has produced a study and analysis of the subject, along with a proposed federal statute; and NCCUSL has a tentative proposal for a revised Uniform Act. In the European Union, which already has the Brussels Regulation, a new regulation for judgment execution has been developed, and in Canada, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada has prepared a draft for a new Uniform Act while the Supreme Court of Canada has considered aspects of foreign judgment enforcement by way of judicial decision.

The speakers will address the various proposals and other related topics with time being reserved for questions and discussion.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Evidence

Empirical Research on Evidence

Moderator: David Kaye, Arizona State University College of Law
Speakers: Deborah Davis, Associate Professor, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
Valerie P. Hans, Professor, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware
Jonathan Klick, Florida State University College of Law

The conventional wisdom regarding many important evidentiary issues is based on anecdote and longstanding legal myth, rather than rigorous empirical study. Of late, however, evidence scholars are increasingly using the tools of social science to test various evidence-related hypotheses. Research on the reliability of eyewitness testimony is familiar to most evidence teachers, but empirical and experimental work has gone well beyond that topic.

In keeping with the theme of this year’s AALS Annual Meeting, this panel reflects the growing breadth of empirical and experimental work related to issues in evidence. Professor Davis will discuss empirical findings regarding the frequency and causes of false confessions. Professor Klick will reveal whether his data show that the Daubert standards for the admissibility of expert testimony have an observable effect on the quality of expert witnesses. Professor Hans will report the results of studies conducted to determine whether judges are able to disregard inadmissible evidence.

These papers will not only be enlightening in and of themselves, but will hopefully provoke a discussion of research methodology and provide ideas for further research.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Family and Juvenile Law

Adding Facts to Family Law: Empirical Work in Family Law
(Program to be published in the University of Memphis Law Review)

Moderator: Sarah H. Ramsey, Syracuse University College of Law
Speakers: Sacha M. Coupet, Loyola University Chicago School of Law
Robert E. Emery, Professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
Gary Gates, Senior Research Fellow, The Williams Project, University of California, Los Angeles, California
Robert Kelly, Professor, Le Moyne College, Syracuse, New York

This panel combines speakers with law and non-law backgrounds using different kinds of social science data to confront some of the topics of current interest in family law. In addition, Professors Kelly, a sociologist, and Professor Ramsey, will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of using social science evidence in policy making. Professor Coupet, who holds both law and psychology degrees and is Director of Research, Civitas Child Law Center, will show how qualitative evidence gathered during her dissertation sheds light on kinship care in the African-American community. Professor Emery, director of the Center for Children, Family and the Law at the University of Virginia, who is also a practicing clinical psychologist and divorce mediator, will discuss research on the effects of divorce on children, his 12 year follow-up study of a randomized trial of mediated versus adversarial custody settlement, and his perspectives on custody rules and custody arrangements. Dr. Gates, will demonstrate how census data can be used to explore characteristics of same-sex couples.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on International Legal Exchange, Co-Sponsored by Sections on Graduate Programs for Foreign Lawyers and North American Cooperation

Practicing Law in Different Jurisdictions:
Dual Degrees - The New Transnational Challenge

Moderator: Macarena Saez, American University Washington College of Law
Speakers: Joaquin Gonzalez, Professor, Universidad Alfonso X El Sabio, Madrid, Spain
Adolfo E. Jimenez, Firmwide On-Campus Recruiting Partner, Holland and Knight, LLP, Miami, Florida
Mae Kuykendall, Michigan State University College of Law
Amanda Maurer, Columbia University School of Law
M. Todd Taylor, Esquire, Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur, LLP, Columbus, Ohio
Stephen T. Yandle, Deputy Consultant, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois

It is a fact that law is not anymore about one jurisdiction. No matter what the area of practice, most lawyers will likely face the challenge of understanding foreign legal cultures and even foreign law. As the world becomes more connected, it is becoming vital for lawyers to have a better and deeper knowledge of other countries and regions’ legal systems.

Study abroad programs moved legal education in that direction, but the only way of truly learning foreign law and becoming familiar with a foreign legal system is by becoming a foreign lawyer. This is what some law schools are offering to their students: Lawyers fully trained to practice law in two different countries, two different systems and in two different languages.

The traditional structure of these programs is that students spend two years at a U.S. law school and between three and four semesters at a foreign law school obtaining, at the end, the JD and its foreign equivalent. There are also schools offering three year programs where U.S. students replace their last year at their home institution for a graduate training in another school. i.e.: JD/LLM with the UK or JD/DESS with France. This panel will explore the contents and consequences that these JD dual-degree programs could have in the future for American legal education.

It will specifically focus on three different but related issues:

1. Panelists will reflect on the consequences of having to concentrate American legal education into two years. This “reduction” of American law addresses a core question: How much “American law” is necessary? If schools had to design a two-year curriculum, which is what is happening in schools offering these programs, would they make more courses mandatory? Is the redaction balanced by the fact that these students will be exposed to a truly comparative legal education? What are the advantages of becoming a foreign lawyer?

2. The foreign perspective of dual degree programs: Panelists will address why foreign schools are attracted to implementing these types of programs with American law schools and how their curricula have been affected. Foreign students coming to the U.S. under these programs start as 1L students. U.S. students instead, begin the foreign program in the last two years of their law program. What are the consequences of this system for American students, lacking the foundations of the first years of legal education in the host country?

3. Finally, this panel will analyze the outcomes from these programs: Is this, at the end, a resume building tool for a lawyer or will these graduates really work as foreign and local lawyers?

Business Meeting of the Section on International Legal Exchange at Program Conclusion


1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Labor Relations and Employment Law

Employment Protection for Atypical Workers
Program to be published in the Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal

Moderator: Katherine Van Wezel Stone, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law
Speakers: Stephen F. Befort, University of Minnesota Law School
George Gonos, Professor, Department of Economics and Employment Relations, State University of New York - Potsdam, Potsdam, New York
Michelle A. Travis, University of San Francisco School of Law

In the United States, the labor and employment laws were designed for “regular” workers - those with long term, steady jobs with steady employers. The labor and employment laws give regular workers a right to unionize and bargain collectively, social insurance against unemployment and workplace injuries, a minimum wage guarantee, and health and safety protection. Atypical workers - such as contingent workers, temporary workers, and dependent independent contractors - are often not eligible for those employment rights. This panel will explore the rights and protections that atypical workers can obtain under existing labor and employment laws.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Law and Anthropology

A Cultural Analysis of Intellectual Property

Moderator and Speaker: Madhavi Sunder, University of California at Davis School of Law
Speakers: Alexander A. Bauer, Lecturer, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia
Julie E. Cohen, Georgetown University Law Center
Sonia K. Katyal, Fordham University School of Law
Mark A. Lemley, Stanford Law School
Susan Scafidi, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law

A quarter century ago, Margaret Jane Radin interrupted the hegemonic law and economic discourse on property with a theory of personhood. And the New Jersey Supreme Court declared in the historic case of State v. Shack that “property rights serve human values.” From these our modern “social relations” theory of property was born. Now, the pundits declare that “intellectual property has come of age.” But is intellectual property philosophically and theoretically mature enough to face the world? Unlike its cousins property law or the First Amendment, which bear the weight of values such as autonomy, culture, equality, and democracy, in the United States intellectual property is almost exclusively about incentives. To put it bluntly, there are no “giant-sized” intellectual property theories. But perhaps there should be.

This panel of legal scholars and an anthropologist explores the dimensions of an emerging cultural analysis of intellectual property, in contrast to the traditional economic analysis of intellectual property. The panel will consider: What legal and social changes account for the rise of new social and cultural theories explaining and justifying intellectual property? How are these approaches distinct from traditional economic approaches? Are the new approaches misguided or a long time in coming?

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Legislation

Enacting and Interpreting Statutes in the Constitution’s Shadows
(Program to be published in the University of Dayton Law Review)

Moderator: Bernard W. Bell, Rutgers, The State University of N.J. Center for Law & Justice, Newark
Speakers: Neal E. Devins, College of William and Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law
Philip P. Frickey, University of California Berkeley, School of Law
Lisa A. Kloppenberg, University of Dayton School of Law
Muriel Morisey, Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law

Should judicial construction of statutes be influenced by constitutional principles, and if so, how? Are legislatures competent to resolve constitutional questions and independently protect constitutionally based interests when acting in constitutional areas? This program will bring together scholars to address these questions. Such questions involve the enactment and interpretation of statutes in what might be described as the shadow of constitutional rulings. In particular, these issues address the enactment or interpretation of statutes that may well be upheld against constitutional challenge but infringe upon constitutionally-based interests.

In the past 15 years, in cases like Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991), and Landsgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994), the Supreme Court has adopted and the federal courts have employed “plain statement” canons to further federalism and anti-retroactivity principles in circumstances where courts would not invalidate the statutes as unconstitutional. At the same time, several scholars have condemned the doctrine of construing statutes to avoid substantial constitutional questions as a judicial usurpation. Other scholars have, on the contrary, suggested that statutory interpretation allows courts to engage in a sort of “legislative remand” which initiates a constitutional dialogue with the legislative and executive branches. And all the while, legislative competence in resolving constitutional questions and independently protecting constitutional interests continues to be questioned. This panel will explore these various trends in the caselaw and scholarly writings, and feature scholars who will present their view on the proper influence of constitutionally-based principles on judicial interpretation and legislative responsibilities when acting in constitutionally-sensitive areas.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Part-Time Division Programs

The Balancing Act: Issues and Concerns About Part-Time Student Wellness

Moderator: Brenda Saunders Hampden, Seton Hall University School of Law
Speakers: A. Darby Dickerson, Stetson University College of Law -view outline-
Georgene Kaleina, Law Student, University of Baltimore School of Law
Susan B. Schechter, Golden Gate University School of Law

Within the last decade, empirical data has revealed that lawyers are both unhappy and unhealthy. Generally, lawyers are more clinically depressed than non-lawyers, consume more alcohol and use more recreational drugs than any other profession, and commit or consider suicide at more significantly alarming rates. Divorce among attorneys is reportedly higher than any other profession. This lack of wellness has been attributed to the pressures of the legal profession. Many of the unhealthy patterns resulting from these stresses originate in law school. Law students are introduced to the demands of the profession with its time constraints and deadlines, competition and other stress inducers. For students in part-time division programs, the impact of the stress may be greater, since most part-time students tend to be “non-traditional” in the sense that they are older, married with children, have responsibilities for aging parents, maintain full-time employment and otherwise attempt to balance their lives against the rigors and demands of law school and their worlds.

What type of advice can we give them? How can we assist in maintaining their wellness amidst the constant pressures? What lessons can we teach? As legal educators, how can we be alert to the specific signals that our students may be sending? This panel, consisting of experienced wellness experts in the academy as well as a student participant, will explore several successful initiatives utilized by many law schools. Professor Lake will discuss how various wellness issues affect part-time students differently than full-time students and how wellness issues affect academic performance. Professor Lustbader will discuss methods to promote wellness among part-time students. All panelists will address how schools might deal with students who are experiencing problems coping with issues of depression, stress, drug abuse and alcoholism. What can we learn from them about their successful strategies to maintain balance?

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


1:30 - 3:15 p.m.
Section on Scholarship

Blogging: Scholarship or Distraction?

Moderator: Dennis M. Patterson, Rutgers, The State University of N.J. School of Law, Camden
Speakers: Randy E. Barnett, Boston University School of Law
Victor Fleischer, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law
Lawrence B. Solum, University of Illinois College of Law

One of the most salient developments in the internet revolution is blogging. Blogging has become a widespread cultural phenomenon and has had important implications for politics, the media and education. This panel considers academic blogging and asks the question whether blogging is a new form of scholarly activity or just a diversion from the pursuit of serious intellectual inquiry.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
AALS Executive Committee Program

Topic: K-20 Educational Pipeline Initiatives

Moderator: Sarah E. Redfield, Franklin Pierce Law Center
Topics and Speakers:
The Pipeline Crisis and the Role of Law Schools:
Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School

Law School Initiatives- Comprehensive Model with School of Urban Affairs:
Gary R. Williams, Cleveland State University Cleveland- Marshall College of Law

Comprehensive Pipeline with School of Education:
Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, McGeorge School of Law
Aurora Stevenson, Law Student, McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento, California

The Comprehensive Latino Pipeline:
Karen Sanchez-Griego, Director, Engaging Latino Communities for Education (ENLACE), University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Suellyn Scarnecchia, University of New Mexico School of Law

Mentoring:
Brett Gilbert Scharffs, Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School

Mixed Model:
Beth Bulgeron, Esquire, Thurgood Marshall Academy, Washington, District of Columbia
Richard L. Roe, Georgetown University Law Center

The nation is in a leadership crisis in terms of diversity. All of our judiciary, over half of our U.S. senators, nearly half of our governors, a third of our representatives to Congress, and about one fifth of our state legislators are lawyers and at 90+% those lawyers remain disproportionately white. Law schools have the core and crucial role to train our future leaders, and law schools have strong resources to bring to the issues of diversity, both in terms of their public service commitment and their ability to network and work with their students, alums, communities, universities, and the bench and bar to enrich and expand the quality of the educational pipeline along the way to law school gates. This session highlights the importance of the educational pipeline concept, considers ways in which law schools can be successful working along the pipeline, and offers a variety of real life examples from around the country of work to this end. Written materials will also be provided.


3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Joint Program of Association of American Law Schools and
the Association of American Geographers

Law and Geography: Race, Ethnicity, and Place

Speakers: Alexander B. Murphy, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
Michael A. Olivas, University of Houston Law Center
Moderator/Discussant: M. Isabel Medina, Loyola University New Orleans School of Law

This session, jointly sponsored by the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) and the Association of American Geographers (AAG) begins an exploration of the intersection between geography and the law. We hope this session, and the session on Geographic Technologies and Locational Privacy will develop into a more comprehensive future symposium, continuing collaboration, and possible publications.

This panel will focus on ethnicity and place issues, with a comparative presentation on some of the geographic and legal dimensions of immigration in the United States and Europe, and a dialogue on race, place and college admission policies.


3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Admiralty and Maritime Law

Civil Rights on a Cruise: Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Lines

Speakers: Jack Michael Beermann, Boston University School of Law
Curtis A. Bradley, Duke University School of Law
Sarah H. Cleveland, The University of Texas School of Law
Mary A. Crossley, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Symeon Symeonides, Willamette University College of Law

What are Americans’ civil rights on a cruise? Should the protections of federal civil rights statutes extend to American passengers on foreign-flag ships plying international and foreign waters? These are among the intriguing questions posed by the situation in Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Lines. What does international law have to say about these questions? What is the bearing of the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence on extraterritorial application of U.S. law, when the law involved is a civil rights statute? And what is the bearing of existing case law on the enforcement of statutory civil rights? What particular features of litigation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act are engaged by the special facts of Spector? A panel of experts will address these and other interesting issues. Professor Bradley will discuss extraterritorial application of U.S. civil rights law. Professor Cleveland will delve into relevant international law and human rights norms. Professor Beermann will consider the bearing of general problems of civil rights litigation. Dean Crossley will tackle issues of disability litigation as transposed to shipboard. Dean Symeonides will speak on the choice of law problems the case presents. They will have before them the Supreme Court’s June 6 decision in the case, and will comment not only on the general issues Spector raises, but on the opinions in the case as well.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Antitrust and Economic Regulation

Empirical Approaches to Antitrust

Moderator and Speaker: Keith Norman Hylton, Boston University School of Law
Speakers: Roger Blair, Professor, Department of Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Robert H. Lande, University of Baltimore School of Law -view outline-

Like most areas of legal research, antitrust scholarship consists largely of theoretical and doctrinal work, with relatively little empirical research. While the theoretical and doctrinal issues are by no means resolved, they have been worked over quite a bit by now. And while there has been a great deal of empirical research in industrial organization economics, much of this research does not directly address empirical questions concerning the law - such as, for example, does the existence of an antitrust statute have a significant impact on the competitiveness of a nation’s economy? This panel will examine this and other questions in an effort to gain some insight on the real effects of the law.

This panel will discuss empirical research and methods in antitrust analysis.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Creditors’ and Debtors’ Rights

Beyond Theory: Empiricism and the Law of Creditors’ and Debtors’ Rights
(Program to be published in the Creighton Law Review)

Moderator: Marianne B. Culhane, Creighton University School of Law
Speakers: Michael S. Barr, The University of Michigan Law School
A. Mechele Dickerson, College of William and Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law
Scott F. Norberg, Florida International University College of Law
Bernard R. Trujillo, University of Wisconsin Law School

Rules of law have real world consequence that may stray far from justice and efficiency. Systematic empirical research, both quantitative and qualitative, can discover those variances and help make law more equitable and effective. It can counter legislative tendencies to rely on extreme anecdotes, by providing a more balanced view. Empirical research is more likely than doctrinal work to get wide press coverage, since it deals in facts who, what, where, when and how many that journalists seek. Further, empirical research is particularly persuasive since it can be audited and replicated by others. Much empirical work is being done in the field of creditors’ and debtors’ rights. This program will present four empirical studies that have been conducted or are in the process of being conducted. The panelists will focus on study design, methodology, as well as the results and implications of their findings.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Employee Benefits

Reinventing Retirement:
Reforming Social Security, Medicare and Private Pension Plans

Program to be published in the Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal

Moderator: David A. Pratt, Albany Law School Union University
Speakers: Patricia E. Dilley, University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law
Lawrence A. Frolik, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Marilyn Moon, Vice President and Director of Health Program, American Institutes for Research, Washington, District of Columbia
Pamela Perun, Affiliated Scholar, Urban Institute, Washington, District
of Columbia

The aging of America has focused attention on the financial challenges facing Social Security, Medicare and private retirement plans. This program will consider and evaluate the need for, and different avenues to achieving, reform, including the proposals made by the Bush Administration.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Law and Religion

The (Re)Turn to History in Religion Clause Law and Scholarship
(Program to be published in the Notre Dame Law Review)

Moderator: Lee J. Strang, Ave Maria School of Law
Speakers: Noah R. Feldman, New York University School of Law
Steven K. Green, Willamette University College of Law
Marci A. Hamilton, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Douglas Laycock, The University of Texas School of Law
Steven Douglas Smith, University of San Diego School of Law

Whether the question involves the text or recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of the Ten Commandments, the participation by religious students or schools in publicly funded scholarship programs, or exemptions from general laws for religiously motivated action, it appears that we are witnessing and living through a “(re)turn to history” in religion clause law and scholarship. More and more, judges and scholars alike are paying particular attention to the question, what is the history of the First Amendment’s religion clause (or clauses) and of the perennial problems that have both shaped and been shaped by the doctrines that clause has been understood to produce and the values it is thought to promote? How and to what extent - if at all - is this history relevant to the task of framing and resolving church-state questions or to the challenge of identifying and understanding the good of religious freedom that the First Amendment is thought to protect? The participants in this program are thoughtful students of, and important contributors to, the resurgence of interest in the content and implications of “history” in religion clause law and scholarship.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on North American Cooperation, Co-Sponsored by
Sections on Graduate Programs for Foreign Lawyers,
International Legal Exchange, and Professional Responsibility

Cross-Border Law Practice in North America:
Admissions and Ethics Rules, Foreign Legal Consultants, the Impact of GATS, and Does It All Matter Anyway?

(Program to be published in the Michigan State Journal of International Law)

Moderator: Terence L. Blackburn, Michigan State University College of Law
Speakers: Robert E. Lutz, II, Southwestern University School of Law
Carol A. Needham, Saint Louis University School of Law
Carole B. Silver, Northwestern University School of Law
J. Anthony Van Duzer, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Common Law Section, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
M. Jorge Yanez V., Barrera Siqueiros y Torres Landa, Lomas de Chapultepec, Mexico
Mark E. Wojcik, The John Marshall Law School

Cross-border practice of law has become increasingly common in North America. Clients conduct business and acquire and divest companies across the Canadian, United States and Mexican borders. Both in person and by means of telecommunication, lawyers admitted in one of these jurisdictions provide advice and legal services in other national jurisdictions on such transactions. Bar admissions and ethical standards do not necessarily reflect the realities of multinational business and law practice. The panelists, representing Canadian, U.S. and Mexican approaches to the issues, will discuss the current rules regarding such practice, the availability and utility of the foreign legal consultant forms of practice, and the impact of GATS and similar NAFTA provisions on cross-border admissions and practice, and will make comments and recommendations on the possible reform of current rules.

Business Meeting for Section on North American Cooperation at Program Conclusion


3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Post Graduate Legal Education

Post Graduate Programs for Non-Lawyers

Moderator: William H. Byrnes, IV, St. Thomas University School of Law

What is the function of post graduate programs in the law school and university? Where do such programs fit in? How are non-lawyer programs perceived in the academy? Experiences with collaborative programs: academic and economic aspects.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Teaching Methods

The How Tos and Whys: Exploring the Consequences of Our Pedagogical Choices

Moderator: Paula Ann Franzese, Seton Hall University School of Law
Speakers: Andrew Beckerman-Rodau, Suffolk University Law School -view outline-
Robin A. Boyle, St. John’s University School of Law -view outline-
Julia Patterson Forrester, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Richard C. Reuben, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law -view outline-
Nancy J. Soonpaa, Texas Tech University School of Law

This program will explore many of the “how-tos” of effective teaching, including how to reach the whole class, how (and when) to cross the bridge from the theoretical to the more practical, how to use a variety of teaching techniques to accommodate diverse learning styles, how to “norm” appropriate standards of professionalism and how to determine (and when to adjust) the scope of coverage. Participants will demonstrate and deconstruct some of their pedagogical choices, and offer perspectives on lessons learned.

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Section on Torts and Compensation Systems

What It Means to “Compensate” An Injured Person

Moderator: Guido Calabresi, U.S. Circuit Judge United States Court of Appeals
Speakers: Deborah R. Hensler, Stanford Law School
Andrew Jay Mc Clurg, Florida International University College of Law
Ellen S. Pryor, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Commentator: Marshall S. Shapo, Northwestern University School of Law

Tort law and other compensation systems (e.g., workers’ compensation, social security disability, no-fault) all seek to provide “compensation” to persons who have suffered some form of “injury.” This panel will explore, from a variety of perspectives, what tort and other systems mean or may be meaning when they say that whatever they are doing compensates a person or persons. In other words, this panel will look at what we as a society think we are doing when we “compensate” someone. The speakers and/or participants in the discussion sparked by the speakers may also present ideas about the relationships between what these systems actually do to “compensate” and this more fully thought out sense of what we mean or could mean by “compensation.”

Business Meeting at Program Conclusion


3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
Open Program on Nonprofit Law and Philanthropy

Gathering to Consider Formation as an AALS Section 


5:15 - 6:30 p.m.

Second Meeting of AALS House of Representatives

Presiding: N. William Hines, AALS President and University of Iowa College of Law

Parliamentarian: Elliott S. Milstein, American University Washington College of Law

Clerk: Elizabeth Hayes Patterson, AALS Deputy Director

  • Address of AALS President-Elect Judith C. Areen, Georgetown University Law Center
  • Report of the Nominating Committee, Patricia A. O’Hara, Notre Dame Law School and Chair of the AALS Nominating Committee for 2006
  • Other Business

Representatives of member schools are expected to attend this meeting of the House of Representatives. All law teachers are invited to attend.


6:30 - 7:30 p.m.
AALS Reception for Foreign Law Teachers


MEMBER SCHOOL RECEPTION FOR ALL ATTENDEES

6:30 - 9:00 p.m.
American University Washington College of Law, Loyola University New Orleans School of Law, and Tulane University Law School Reception for all Meeting Registrants
"A Night in Celebration of New Orleans in Support of Our Colleagues"

Roundtrip buses between the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel and American University Washington College of Law will start departing from the Marriott at 6:15 p.m. and will make the final pick up from the campus at 9:15 p.m.


<<< Back to Thursday, January 5 | Proceed to Saturday, January 7 >>>