By Reza Dibadj* on April 10, 2020

Click here for PDF version.

 

The mass media is often justifiably criticized for conveying information with out-of-context “sound bites.”[1] Unfortunately, academic literature is not immune to this problem. In this short Essay, I take four iconic articles—each standing for a well-worn proposition—and make the rather simple argument that the articles themselves are far more nuanced than the sound bites for which they have become famous.

I address four articles: Ronald Coase’s The Problem of Social Cost,[2] Oliver Wendell Holmes’s The Path of the Law,[3] Warren and Brandeis’s The Right to Privacy,[4] and Jensen and Murphy’s CEO Incentives—It’s Not How Much You Pay, But How.[5] According to one well-known study, the first three are the most-cited law review articles of all time.[6] The fourth is a classic article on executive compensation—a topic of great social controversy at the moment—from the business literature.

Continue reading “On Academic Sound Bites” →

By Samuel Rosario on March 16, 2020

Click here for PDF version.

 

Introduction

Systemic sexism is a struggle that has plagued society for eons, not just American culture. Recently, there has been a systematic effort to achieve gender equality in the United States. With the emergence of the “Me Too” movement, women’s rights have moved to the forefront of national concern.[1] As a reaction to public outcry for a diverse workforce, large corporations restructured their bylaws and ethical rules.[2] The upper echelon of the work force used to be dominated by men.[3] However, because of this movement towards gender equality, the work force is increasingly becoming diverse. Now “more than half the U.S. work force . . . consists of minorities, immigrants, and women” thereby making “white, native-born males, though undoubtedly still dominant, . . . a statistical minority.”[4] Further, American companies now have the ability to do “their best to become more adaptable, to compete more successfully for markets and labor, foreign and domestic, and to attract all the talent they can find.”[5]

Continue reading “Gender Bias in the Legal Profession” →

By Alexis and Jessica Ramsey on February 29, 2020

Click here for PDF version.

 

Introduction

On February 19, 2019, President Trump signed the fourth Space Policy Directive, SPD-4.[1] It contains the potential addition of a sixth branch of the United States Armed Forces housed within the Department of the Air Force called Space Force.[2] SPD-4’s mission is to ensure the use of space for the United States’ national security, economy, and people, and SPD-4’s commander will lead any future space warfare.[3]

President Trump’s SPD-4, the fourth space directive he has ordered in the last two and a half years, leaves more questions unanswered than answered.[4] The first Space Policy Directive directed National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) to land back on the Moon in eventual hopes of getting to Mars.[5] The second and third Space Policy Directives dealt with commercialization of space and space traffic.[6] While these first three SPDs are not inherently militaristic or aggressive in their language, focusing rather on peace and cooperation, Space Force is militaristic in name and nature, deviating significantly from the previous SPDs.[7] Continue reading “Space Force and the Outer Space Treaty: One Small Step Forward for a Man, One Giant Leap Backward for Humankind” →

By Cinder Ella Cancilla on November 5, 2019

Click here for PDF version.

 

Like the dawn of a new era is both lit and dark, the cannabis space in California is both revered and barred. Although endorsed by state law, cannabis remains federally prohibited.[1] With conflicting laws operating within California, an attorney’s adherence to professional responsibilities becomes hazy. This Comment provides clarity on how conflicts between state and federal laws significantly affect the duties of an attorney advising a client engaged in commercial cannabis activities (where adherence to those duties is problematic), particularly the associated risks of federal liability. Continue reading “Taking the High Road: An Attorney’s Professional Responsibilities in the Cannabis Industry” →

By Ryan Louie O. Manuel*

Click here for PDF version.

 

Introduction

Sam is an attorney at a midsize firm in San Francisco, California. A potential client, Mr. X, meets with her to hire an attorney who will help him get his business started, a business accelerator and crowdfunding platform that will help finance early-stage startups by using cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Bitcoin, like other “cryptocurrency,”[1] is leading the change in the startup business community. Mr. X was an early adopter, initially investing millions of dollars in Bitcoins in June 2011, when they were worth $15.59 each.[2] Today, a Bitcoin is worth $ 5,267.14. Mr. X’s wealth is tied to cryptocurrencies and he wants to hire Sam’s firm. Mr. X offers to pay five Bitcoins ($30,752.15) per month for an indefinite period of time. The senior partner James is ecstatic and wants to go for it. Sam offers to conduct extensive research to ensure there are no conflicts or potential violations of an attorney’s professional responsibilities. James contends that he saw no issues with accepting Mr. X’s cryptocurrency and argues that two consenting adults are free to contract and decide on the form of payment. Sam sits idly, and utters the words, “reasonableness of fees under American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct (“Model Rule”) 1.5.”  James pauses and asks for a memo.

This article discusses Model Rule 1.5 and the various concerns associated with accepting cryptocurrencies as a form of payment.

Continue reading “Today’s Guide for Practicing Attorneys: Accepting Cryptocurrency for Attorney’s Fees” →

Click here for PDF version.

 

Religious Liberty, Rural Identity, and Same-Sex Marriage

By Luke A. Boso

In November of 2016, Donald Trump stunned the world by winning the U.S. presidential election. Post-election analysis reveals that Trump rode a populist wave fueled by economic and cultural anxieties in America’s rural working-class. Exit polls showed that sixty-two percent of rural voters went for Trump, while only thirty-five percent of urban voters did so.[1]

What made Donald Trump so appealing to rural voters? And what role do LGBTQ rights play in the populist, conservative moment that has seized Congress and the Presidency? Social science research suggests that many people who live in rural areas share a strong collective culture rooted in place. I suggest in a forthcoming Article, Rural Resentment and LGBTQ Equality,[2] that this culture is organized around three core tenets: community solidarity, individual self-reliance, and compliance with religiously informed gender and sexual norms. Heterosexuality and biologically congruent gender expression are interwoven into all three tenets.

When the Supreme Court in 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges[3] decision held that same-sex marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution, an already troubled relationship between rural America and the LGBTQ rights movement was further complicated. After Obergefell, rural communities were suddenly required by law to accept public manifestations of gay, lesbian, and bisexual identities in the form of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. Obergefell granted gay individuals the perceived “special right” to be publicly different in rural communities that demand sameness.[4] Obergefell encouraged gay individuals to both ask and tell in defiance of community solidarity values that counsel silent obedience to the religiously informed norms of heterosexuality and gender-conformity.

Continue reading “Religious Liberty, Rural Identity, and Same-Sex Marriage” →