7184 research outputs found
Sort by
A Merritt-orious Path for Lawyer Licensing
No full textMore than two decades ago, Professor Deborah Merritt turned her attention to responding to the then-proliferating efforts to raise state passing scores for the bar examination. Writing with Lowell Hargens and Barbara Reskin, two professors of sociology, Professor Merritt challenged the methodology of the studies that purported to show the need to “raise the bar.” In the process, she presciently raised broader concerns about the validity of the bar exam to assess lawyer competence and the impact of the bar exam on the diversity of the legal *884 profession. In the years since, Professor Merritt has continued to critique the bar exam, and her work has laid a foundation for the work of many others--including the authors of this piece-- challenging the validity and adequacy of the current lawyer licensing system. The reach of Professor Merritt\u27s work far exceeds the impact of her academic scholarship. She is as concerned with practice as with theory, and her empirical work and her involvement with those advocating for change have been instrumental in both leading and encouraging others on a similar journey. We, like others, have been inspired by her to continue our work to reform the lawyer licensing process. In this Essay, we discuss and expand on Professor Merritt\u27s groundbreaking work re-envisioning the bar exam and developing more effective alternative licensing methods
Confronting Housing Insecurity- A Key to Getting Kids Back to School
No full textDiscussions about the impact of COVID-19 on children have primarily centered around disruptions in education. Some students are approaching a year since they have been in the classroom, and the challenges and inequities of virtual learning are well documented. But as momentum and planning for reopenings have grown, an issue continues to be overlooked: housing and the looming eviction cliff. Housing insecurity undermines children’s education, and unless we address it, the return to in-school instruction will not solve the inequities harming so many children
The Need for the Tort Law Necessity Defense in Intellectual Property Law
No full textThe COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare inherent tensions between the protection of intellectual property (IP) and the health of individuals touched by life-threatening medical conditions. A few examples have even made front page news. Hospitals are searching desperately for ventilator parts while 3-D printing instructions for such parts remain unshared for fear of liability. And potentially lifesaving medicines remain out of reach because their manufacture and distribution on sufficient scale is limited by the threat of patent infringement. The threat of liability for IP infringement also dampens the ability to innovate under emergency conditions, intensifying the tension between the protection of IP and the protection of human lives. A number of policy responses have been proposed to address this tension, including the exercise of government rights under the Defense Production Act to IP contexts; government use of patented technologies; compulsory licensing; legislation that would allow for emergency overrides to IP protections; and efforts to encourage companies to make their IP freely available on a voluntary basis, most notably through the Open COVID Pledge. But fears of disrupting IP protections have curtailed the use of these measures, leaving the tensions between IP protection and lifesaving access largely untouched. Instead of looking for solutions that would entail legislative action, a stretch of emergency powers, or vague private commitments, we suggest that the law already provides a mechanism for addressing this tension in the form of the age-old common tort law doctrine of necessity (aka lesser-harm or lesser-evil defense). Our proposed use of the necessity defense is specifically designed to address the lack of adequate mechanisms within IP law to balance the social value of preventing harm through unauthorized use of IP against the social value of providing strong property rights in lifesaving technologies. Even where the public interest is explicitly taken into account--such as in the case of judicial decisions to grant an injunction against a patent infringer or under the copyright fair use doctrine--the nature of this public interest remains amorphous, the weight it carries limited, and it is usually untethered from concerns about access to lifesaving technologies. We suggest that the defense of necessity can help inject responsiveness to urgent public health needs into the IP ecosystem in a way that avoids significant changes or impediments to its functioning. While drawing from examples that are specific to a highly disruptive public health crisis, our proposal also responds to broader, systemic shortcomings in the way IP law impacts access to lifesaving technologie
A Magna Carta for Children? Rethinking Children\u27s Rights
No full textChildren’s rights present a unique challenge. On the one hand, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history, with every country having ratified it except the United States. On the other hand, more than thirty years after the CRC was adopted, children’s rights continue to make many adults, from policymakers to parents, uneasy. It is not only in conservative circles—where hyperbolic warnings of so-called nannies in blue berets taking children away from parents stoke fear—that children’s rights have met resistance. Even among human rights advocates, children’s rights are often relegated to the margins and dismissed as not being the serious business of the rights agenda. Some of the resistance is political strategy, but some of it also reflects a genuine lack of understanding of children’s rights and their relationship with the broader human rights agenda.
Amid that muddled landscape, Michael Freeman offers a cogent, authoritative survey and assessment of the history and current state of children’s rights in his recent book A Magna Carta for Children? Rethinking Children’s Rights. For those well versed in children’s rights, reading Freeman’s book is like signing up for a walking tour of your hometown with one of the foremost authorities on the city—you wind your way through familiar territory but are nonetheless enriched at each turn by the insights of, and reflections by, your expert guide. For those less familiar with children’s rights, Freeman’s book may well be the definitive starting point
Greensky, LLC v. Wellness Program Services LLC et al., Order on Plaintiff Greensky LLC\u27s Motion for Reconsideration
Get PDFBarriers to Purchasing Narcan® in Georgia: A Survey of Pharmacy Staff
No full textBackground: In Georgia, recent measures have expanded public access to naloxone-containing products like Narcan® to combat opioid-related overdose deaths. Although laypersons may legally purchase naloxone products without a prescription for use during opioid-related overdose events, barriers may remain.
Methods: We conducted an anonymous telephone survey to investigate three potential barriers to purchasing naloxone (Narcan®) in Georgia: availability, price, and working knowledge of legal requirements among pharmacy representatives. We surveyed pharmacy representatives in select Georgia counties with high volumes or high rates of poisoning deaths compared with other counties. We also compared responses among chain and non-chain representatives. Descriptive statistics are presented concerning the availability, price, and required documentation to purchase Narcan®.
Results: Representatives from all 120 pharmacies contacted completed the survey, comprising 6.8% of eligible pharmacies. Availability of Narcan® varied among counties categorized by poisoning deaths: High Rate Counties (50%; n=40), High Volume Counties (66%; n=38), and Comparison Counties (64%, n=42). Narcan® was more available in chain pharmacies (76.7%; n=73) than in non-chain pharmacies (34.0%; n=47).
Mean prices for Narcan® were similar among county type: High Volume (134.19); and Comparison (120.91 vs. $149.72).
Representatives in chain pharmacies were more likely to state that a prescription was not required to purchase Narcan® (58.9 % vs. 30.0%).
Conclusions: In Georgia, barriers related to availability, price, and dispensing requirements for Narcan® persist, decreasing the likelihood of purchase by those who may need a safe, easily administered form of naloxone. Narcan® was generally more available and cost less in chain pharmacies. Representatives in non-chain pharmacies were more likely to require a non-legally necessary prescription to sell Narcan®. Training/intervention opportunities targeting pharmacy staff may help increase layperson access to naloxone products and could ultimately prevent opioid-related overdose deaths
