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” →

Click here for PDF version.

 

By Jerry P. Coleman, USF Adjunct Professor (Evidence, Trial Advocacy, Criminal Externships) and San Francisco Special Assistant District Attorney

September, 2018

Ask any second-year law student just finishing Evidence class and they can tell you all about the hearsay rule and its many exceptions, which serve to establish the reliability of second-hand evidence in trials. From 1980 until 2004 (which constituted the lion’s share of my prosecutorial practice in San Francisco), criminal trial attorneys seeking to introduce an out-of-court statement by an unavailable declarant only had to contend with finding the appropriate firmly-rooted hearsay exception to demonstrate that such statement had adequate “indicia of reliability”.[1]But beginning with his seminal opinion in Crawford v. Washington(2004) 541 U.S. 36, Justice Antonin Scalia penned a jurisprudential oeuvre that created significant hurdles for prosecutors only in eliciting even reliable hearsay, by requiring the state to deal with an additional defense objection based on the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.[2]  Now, nearly a decade and a half later, not only has this growing body of Sixth Amendment law continued to evolve and provide new avenues for the defense to object to out-of-court statements, but it has also required law school evidence professors to add at least an entire class of essentially constitutional law and criminal procedure to their curricula.

Continue reading “How a Conservative Supreme Court Justice Rocked the Criminal Evidence World by Giving Defendants New Constitutional Rights: The Legacy of 2004’s Crawford v. Washington” →

Women in Special Operations: A Battle for Effectiveness Amidst the Pursuit of Equality

By Brittany L. Walter*

Click Here For PDF Version.

[The] Court has repeatedly recognized that neither federal nor state government acts compatibly with the equal protection principle when a law or official policy denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature—equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities.

– Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg[1]

“Inherent differences” between men and women, we have come to appreciate, remain cause for celebration, but not for denigration of the members of either sex or for artificial constraints on an individual’s opportunity . . . such classifications may not be used, as they once were, to create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women.

– Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg[2]

“She does not belong here.” Five simple words. The five words that served as my introduction to the gendered occupation of military life. Despite the fact that I entered the United States Air Force Academy in the 25^th class to accept women, it soon became abundantly clear that many of the traditional beliefs about a woman’s place in such an occupation persisted. The words were spoken, not by a seasoned officer set in his ways and the product of a different time, but by a fellow basic cadet. Further, they were not in response to an evaluation of my abilities as compared to my peers. Instead, they were a cursory observation based solely on a stereotype and perhaps preserved by a culture accepting of such. Continue reading “Women in Special Operations: A Battle for Effectiveness Amidst the Pursuit of Equality” →

A Colorable Showing of a Hybrid Rights Claim Under Strict Scrutiny: A Legal Analysis of What Would Happen when Transgender Identity Clashes with Free Exercise of Religion in California Public Schools

By Anika Hosseini*

Click Here For PDF Version.

Introduction

California is one of the leading states in enacting antidiscrimination laws that provide broad protection to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer and/or Questioning (“LGBTQ”) youths.[1] In 2013, California passed Assembly Bill No. 1266 (“AB 1266”),[2] the first law of its kind in this country.[3] AB 1266 adds a provision to the California Education Code that establishes a right for transgender public school students to access sex-segregated public school facilities and creates programs to recognize their selected gender identity.[4]

According to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, students who expressed a transgender identity while in grades K-12 “reported alarming rates of harassment (78%), physical assault (35%), and sexual violence (12%).”[5] Compared to their non-transgender peers, a disproportionate share of transgender students—nearly one-sixth—drop out of school at some point in their lives.[6] To alleviate such harm, California exercised its police power by enforcing legislative initiatives that prescribed equal treatment of LGBTQ students.[7] However, some argue AB 1266 infringes on the liberty interests of other students—namely their free exercise of religion.[8] AB 1266 brings to light one of the biggest tensions within our Constitution: liberty versus equality. What happens when a transgender youth, exercising his right to access facilities of the gender he identifies with, clashes with another student’s religious beliefs?[9] This paper details previous assertions of the Free Exercise clause and how courts have reconciled conflicts between the free exercise of religion and other constitutional interests. Continue reading “A Colorable Showing of a Hybrid Rights Claim Under Strict Scrutiny: A Legal Analysis of What Would Happen when Transgender Identity Clashes with Free Exercise of Religion in California Public Schools” →