Scott Shapiro on War & International Law
Season 1, Ep. 766
In this episode, Scott J. Shapiro, Charles F. Southmayd Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at Yale Law School, discusses his book The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World (Simon & Schuster 2018) and his essay "Putin Can’t Destroy the International Order by Himself," both of which he co-authored with Oona A. Hathaway, Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law. Shapiro is on Twitter at @scottjshapiro.This episode was hosted by Paula, a 2L at Michigan Law School. She is on Twitter at @polapetit.
NFT Notes 22: Christa Laser on NFTs & Intellectual Property
Season 1, Ep. 765
In this episode, Christa Laser, Assistant Professor of Law at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, discusses her work on blockchain, NFTs, and intellectual property, from the perspective of a law professor and former intellectual property litigator. Among other things, she discusses blockchain patents, copyright in NFT images, and trademark in NFT brands. Laser is on Twitter at @ChristaLaser.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.
Anjali Vats on Critical Race Theory & Intellectual Property
Season 1, Ep. 764
In this episode, Anjali Vats, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, discusses her book "The Color of Creatorship: Intellectual Property, Race, and the Making of Americans," which is published by Stanford University Press. She explains how critical race theory can and should inform our understanding of the history of intellectual property. Vats is on Twitter at @raceip.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.
William Organek on Mass Tort Bankruptcies
Season 1, Ep. 763
In this episode, William Organek, program fellow at the bankruptcy project at Harvard Law School, discusses his new article, "A Bitter Result": Purdue Pharma, a Sackler Bankruptcy Filing, and Improving Monetary and Nonmonetary Recoveries in Mass Tort Bankruptcies. Billy explains why he thinks that creditors in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy received a better result than they would have if some Sackler family members were forced to file their own bankruptcy cases. In particular, he talks about balancing monetary and dignitary interests in bankruptcy cases, and the uses of examiners and trustees to achieve certain non-monetary objectives. Despite these outcomes, Organek maintains that this was a "bitter result" and explains how we might do better in the future. Organek's article was published earlier this year in the peer-reviewed American Bankruptcy Law Journal and is available on SSRN.This episode was hosted by Matthew Bruckner, an associate professor at Howard University School of Law. Bruckner is on Twitter at @Prof_Bruckner.
Andrea Bopp Stark & Geoffrey Walsh on Carceral Bankruptcy
Season 1, Ep. 762
In this episode, Andrea Bopp Stark and Geoffrey Walsh, both staff attorneys at the National Consumer Law Center, discuss their work on fines and fees in bankruptcy case, with a particular focus on their article, Sentenced to a Life of Debt: It Is Time for a Reassessment of How Bankruptcy Law Intersects with Fines and Fees to Keep People in Debt. Geoff and Andrea explain how state and local governments have funded mass incarceration through the imposition of fines and fees in the criminal law arena and how this undermines many of the policy rationales articulated by the Supreme Court in Kelly v. Robinson, which made it much more difficult to discharge criminal justice debt in bankruptcy cases. We discuss possible solutions, including treating this debt like tax debt and why an analogy to tax debt is better than an analogy to student loan debt. Stark and Walsh have published several articles on this topic, including the one we primarily discussed, which is available in the Federal Sentencing Reporter and on the NCLC website.This episode was hosted by Matthew Bruckner, an associate professor at Howard University School of Law. Bruckner is on Twitter at @Prof_Bruckner.
Paul Edelblut on Lucy v. Zehmer
Season 1, Ep. 761
In this episode, Paul Edelblut, the grandson of Welford O. Lucy, discusses the iconic 1954 contract case Lucy v. Zehmer and what he learned about it from his grandfather.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.
Jorge Contreras on Gene Patents
Season 1, Ep. 760
In this episode, Jorge L. Contreras, Professor of Law at the University of Utah College of Law, discusses his book "The Genome Defense: Inside the Epic Legal Battle to Determine Who Owns Your DNA," which is published by Algonquin Books. Contreras describes the landmark Supreme Court patent case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics and explains why it was important. He recounts the story of the case and how he reported on it. And he reflects on what it can tell us about patent policy.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.
Jordana Goodman on Authorship Credit and the Gender Gap
Season 1, Ep. 759
In this episode, Jordana Goodman, Visiting Clinical Assistant Professor at the Boston University School of Law, discusses her new article Ms. Attribution: How Authorship Credit Contributes to the Gender Gap. She argues that misattribution in the authorship of legal work disparately impacts underrepresented members of the legal profession, with a focus on women in patent law. In her article, Professor Goodman reports empirical findings from a large novel dataset of agency actions and responses during the patent examination process in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. She also addresses the larger professional and cultural implications of these findings and proposes reforms. Professor Goodman’s article is forthcoming in the Yale Journal of Law & Technology and is available on SSRN. She is on Twitter at @Jordi_Goodman.This episode was hosted by Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Professor in the School of Law and Professor in the Dwight Look College of Engineering at Texas A&M University. Professor Vishnubhakat is on Twitter at @emptydoors.Disclosure: Professors Goodman and Vishnubhakat are now collaborating on a follow-up paper that explores the gender gap among attorneys in administrative patent litigation before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Aliza Shatzman on Holding Judges Accountable
Season 1, Ep. 758
In this episode, Aliza Shatzman, an attorney and advocate based in Washington, DC, discusses her article "Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it," which will be published in the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law. Here is the abstract:Drawing from the author’s own experience of gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her clerkship and in the years following it by a former DC Superior Court judge, this Article analyzes the deficits in current federal and DC judicial reporting systems to demonstrate the urgent need for reform. I argue that harassment in the judiciary is pervasive, due to both enormous power disparities between judges and law clerks, and various institutional barriers that perpetuate misconduct and discourage reporting. I survey existing methods of judicial discipline in both the federal and DC Courts and argue that these provide insufficient redress for workplace misconduct. I then discuss the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA) (HR 4827/S 2553), which would finally protect judiciary employees, including law clerks and federal public defenders, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enabling employees to sue their harassers and seek damages for harm done to their careers, reputations, and future earning potential. Furthermore, I argue that the DC Courts should be included in the JAA, because they are Article I courts created and regulated by Congress, and DC Courts judges are arguably federal judges for Title VII and disciplinary purposes. I also offer a variety of other proposed reforms, which would both strengthen the JAA and provide additional protections to uniquely vulnerable judiciary employees. I conclude by reflecting on my attempts to report the misconduct I experienced, how the systems failed me when I tried to report, and my efforts to seek justice for myself and accountability for the misbehaving former judge.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.