As part of this workshop, participants have the opportunity to present a mock job talk and receive feedback. Note: Participants for this session were previously selected.
As part of this workshop, participants have the opportunity to present a mock job talk and receive feedback. Note: Participants for this session were previously selected.
This session examines the relationship between corporate purpose and corporate misconduct amid shifting regulatory, political, and institutional conditions. The 2019 Business Roundtable statement reignited debate over corporate ends and spurred corporate commitments to ESG and DEI--many since narrowed, rebranded, or abandoned. Corporate misconduct remains a feature of the modern economy, even as enforcement regimes appear unsettled, with changes in regulatory priorities and political leadership reshaping identification and punishment of misconduct. We explore how corporate purpose concepts intersect with patterns of misconduct. How do claims about purpose shape corporate behavior? Do broader conceptions of purpose meaningfully constrain misconduct or risk functioning as symbolic compliance lacking robust enforcement? How should corporate law and governance respond when normative expectations and enforcement regimes fluctuate?
As technologies like artificial intelligence, data privacy, cybersecurity, and blockchain evolve, the legal landscape must adapt. The group examines how various jurisdictions are responding to these issues, drawing on international frameworks and comparing legal approaches in different countries. Emphasis will be placed on how these regulatory paradigms reflect local values, policy priorities, and their potential convergence on the global stage. This discussion group also explores the implications of emerging technologies for business, intellectual property, and corporate governance, considering how legal frameworks can evolve to balance innovation with safeguarding individual rights and public interests.
This discussion group focuses on attacks on the federal judiciary in our current political climate. District judges enjoining the administration's constitutionally suspect policies have witnessed the Supreme Court staying the injunctions on the emergency or shadow docket. This has raised a new phenomenon--open conflicts between the Supreme Court and lower courts, as the former complain about "defiance" of their interim orders and the latter complain about lack of guidance and clarity in those orders. That phenomenon enables and worsens long-standing divisions and conflicts with the other branches of the federal government. 
There has been a rapid transformation in the legal profession's approach to artificial intelligence, LMS platforms, and more. Initially seen as a threat, AI has unleashed potential for new self-directed learning as well as for easy student shortcuts. The discussion group focuses on the use of these tools in law school pedagogy, the importance of technological competence as a lawyer's ethical obligation, and how best to explore these tools in legal education.
Introducing faculty to an institution is often treated as a single event with a single audience. In reality, faculty arrive through many pathways and experience institutions differently. Adjuncts, visitors, pre-tenure faculty, clinical instructors, online teachers, and lateral hires all face distinct challenges and expectations. Faculty come with differing identities, abilities, familiarity with academia, and networks. Relying on uniform models of orientation and support can lead to confusion, isolation, and uneven success. This discussion session invites all attendees to rethink faculty acculturation as an ongoing, differentiated process rather than a one size fits all experience. This session explores how institutions can create support structures with intentional inclusion for role-specific and diverse realities while still fostering shared culture and connection. _x000D_
Being a law school dean requires managing the expectations of many different groups, including those beyond the core constituencies of students, faculty, and staff. Success often depends on how well you work with other key partners like the provost, other college deans, advisory boards, and alumni. This panel will discuss practical ways to strengthen those relationships, align priorities, and create successful collaborations. We'll discuss how to navigate university politics, make the most of advisory boards, and turn alumni into champions for you and your school. Expect real-world examples of successes and failures, candid advice, and (hopefully) ideas you can put to work right away.
This discussion group addresses the interesting and timely questions related to integrating AI into your pedagogy and classroom. Among the questions considered are: (1) Should students be permitted to "opt out" of using AI; (2) Is unauthorized use of AI a syllabus infraction, policy infraction, or unauthorized use of assistance; (3) Are all or any of these cheating or violations of academic integrity; (4) Do I need to protect my intellectual property and, if so, how; (5) Is AI citable; (6) How do my rubrics need to evolve to meet AI; (7) How do I assess when using AI tools?
10 percent of law schools have received an acquiescence from the ABA to permit delivery of a significant portion of their JD program online. The updated definition of a "distance education course" - under which a course qualifies only if all instruction is delivered exclusively online, rather than exceeding a one-third threshold - marks a significant shift, allowing law schools to offer more online credit hours without acquiescence. The Council is considering more fundamental questions, including whether a physical building remains necessary and whether other Standards should be revised to reflect a modern, online law school. This discussion examines the present an futurof online legal education from regulatory, business, and impact perspectives
This discussion group will explore the critical role law school leaders play in preserving the integrity of a self-regulated legal profession. We will examine three interconnected responsibilities: ensuring lawyers are held accountable for unethical conduct under professional reporting rules; addressing concerning student behavior that may impact Character and Fitness (even when it falls short of academic discipline); and maintaining meaningful engagement from tenured faculty to ensure that a few bad actors do not threaten an important system of protection. We will discuss how to balance candor, compassion, and accountability while upholding the values that will help maintain (and rebuild) public trust in legal education and the profession.
The discussion group analyzes how international, transnational, and domestic legal systems address challenges posed by multinational corporations and global value chains. Key topics include the EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, the U.S. legacy of the Alien Tort Claims Act, ESG due diligence, materiality assessment, duty to report, rating agencies, the experience from other countries, U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and assessing their impact on the evolving regulatory landscape. Through case studies and practical insights, the group emphasizes reconciling corporate interests with human rights and sustainable development globally.
Throughout our Nation's history, the rich and powerful have exploited land opportunities for their benefit and at the expense of small land and property owners. These legal takings include eminent domain, the partition of heirs property, and tax and blight lien foreclosures. The result has been dispossession of the average American._x000D_ _x000D_ This discussion group will explore ways by which the consolidation of real property in the super rich can be redressed, mainly via litigation; will discuss the case of Youngblood v. ConocoPhillips; and will focus on successful lawsuits where the dispossessed have become the repossessed. Ultimately, the discussion group will share their knowledge of and thoughts on how litigation is a viable vehicle to achieve long due justice.
This Group explores the ways in which the current moment has laid bare the deeply rooted problems in the criminal legal system. These problems are not new. But our political climate has intensified them, so that promising paths for reform face strong rhetorical and institutional pushback. In order to address these problems, community driven efforts may offer meaningful hope. Criminal law and procedure scholars are taking note of innovative proposals by advocates who support reforms that are rooted in care, accountability, and safety. Group members plan to share their work in progress on a wide variety of subjects -- and to share ideas about how to support strategies that can build a sustainable and fair justice system.
