LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Cardozo School of Law and YU Global Launch Online Master’s in Labor and Employment Law for Non-Lawyers
No full textCardozo School of Law, in partnership with YU Global, has launched a fully online Master of Studies in Law (MSL) in Labor and Employment Law designed for non-lawyers in fields such as HR, compliance, and management. The 30-credit program equips professionals with legal knowledge to strengthen compliance and advance their careers, offering flexible online coursework taught by leading New York City scholars and practitioners. With a focus on real-world application, the curriculum covers topics such as employment discrimination, workplace investigations, and social media/privacy issues. Dean Melanie Leslie and Dr. Danielle Wozniak emphasized the program’s value in providing professionals with a competitive edge in today’s job market
Brief of \u3ci\u3eAmici Curiae\u3c/i\u3e 676 Law Professors in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and for Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief
No full textAmici 676 law professors submit this brief in support of Plaintiff Jenner & Block’s Motion for Summary Judgment and for Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief (the “Motion”) to emphasize the threat that the President’s Executive Order (the “Order”) presents to the independence and integrity of the legal profession, the rights of clients to seek redress in the courts, and, by extension, the rule of law. As experts in constitutional law, legal ethics, and the history of the legal profession, among other fields, we have a significant interest in ensuring that the principles of free speech, freedom of association, the right to petition the government, and the right to counsel are upheld. As educators, amici have an interest in fostering the next generation of attorneys, and in preparing them to zealously represent clients and causes without fear of reprisal. Many of the amici also recently filed a similar brief in Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00716 (D.D.C.). Jenner and Block has consented to the filing of this brief and the Government has indicated it does not object to its filing
Cardozo Students Learn Mediation Through Intensive Dispute Resolution Courses
Full text linkOver 50 Cardozo students took part in January’s intensive dispute resolution courses, gaining hands-on training in mediation, arbitration, and collaborative law through simulations led by expert faculty and practitioners
Regulating Hidden AI Authorship
Full text linkWith the rapid emergence of high-quality generative artificial intelligence (“AI”), some have advocated for mandatory disclosure when the technology is used to generate new text, images, or video. But the precise harms posed by nontransparent uses of generative AI have not been fully explored. While the use of the technology to produce material that masquerades as factual (“deepfakes”) is clearly deceptive, this Article focuses on a more ambiguous area: the consumer’s interest in knowing whether works of art or entertainment were created using generative AI. In the markets for creative content—fine art, books, movies, television, music, and the like—producers have several financial reasons to hide the role of generative AI in a work’s creation. Copyright law is partially responsible. The Copyright Office and courts have concluded that only human-authored works are copyrightable, meaning much AI-generated content falls directly into the public domain. Producers thus have an incentive to conceal the role of generative AI in a work’s creation because disclosure could jeopardize their ability to secure copyright protection and monetize the work. Whether and why this obfuscation harms consumers is a different matter. The law has never required disclosure of the precise ways a work is created; indeed, failing to publicly disclose the use of a ghostwriter or other creative assistance is not actionable. But AI authorship is different for several reasons. There is growing evidence that consumers have strong ethical and aesthetic preferences for human-created works and understand the failure to disclose AI authorship as deceptive. Moreover, hidden AI authorship is normatively problematic from the perspective of various theories of artistic value. Works that masquerade as human-made destabilize art’s ability to encourage self-definition, empathy, and democratic engagement, turning all creative works into exclusively entertainment-focused commodities. This Article also investigates ways to facilitate disclosure of the use of generative AI in creative works. Industry actors could be motivated to self-regulate, adopting a provenance-tracking or certification scheme. And Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) enforcement could provide some additional checks on the misleading use of AI in a work’s creation. Intellectual property law could also help incentivize disclosure. In particular, doctrines designed to prevent the overclaiming of material in the public domain—such as copyright misuse—could be used to raise the financial stakes of failing to disclose the role of AI in a work’s creation
Doublings: Comedy, Office, Law
No full textThe weightier the profession the greater the need for levity. Lawyers, whose practice engages constantly with trauma, conflict, and death have a finely established and generously expansive tradition of rem levem, stemming back to the Roman games and the officium ludicræ that administered the forum. The early modern reception of the classical tradition witnessed lawyers devising mock trials that mocked, revels that revealed, jocastic customs and saturnalian practices that challenged the agelastic and melancholic quotidian rituals of the juridical. The comedic indeed grows in stature and scope during the period and allows for the argument that the exegete’s quadripartite conception of the levels of the text in fact masks a fifth tier of meaning, the humorous doubling, the satirical punning, and the sensus ridiculus that the enigmatist Antonio de Nebrija notes in the introduction to his Aenigmata iuris.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-chapters/1109/thumbnail.jp
P*LAW 2025: Public Interest Law Internship Application Workshop
Full text linkA Public Interest Law workshop hosted by PILSA on January 29, offering students help with internship application materials like cover letters, résumés, and writing samples.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2024-2025/1059/thumbnail.jp
The End(s) of Bankruptcy Exceptionalism: Purdue Pharma and the Problem of Social Debt
Full text linkThe Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision in the controversial chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization of opioid-maker Purdue Pharma ends the use of nonconsensual third-party “releases,” which discharge (eliminate) liabilities of nondebtors who may share liability with a corporate debtor. Although the majority opinion is correct that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit this, it failed to recognize the problematic exceptionalism of the lower courts which approved those releases or the “social” qualities of Purdue Pharma’s mass tort liability.
Bankruptcy exceptionalism has been a contested concept since it emerged over fifteen years ago and reflects a willingness to bend the rule of law in order to maximize economic recoveries. But the statutory exceptionalism rejected by the Purdue Pharma majority is not its only form. This Article shows that in bankruptcy, the Court has also tolerated “structural exceptionalism,” a willingness to permit deviations from constitutional rules, standards, norms, and values when in tension with insolvency proceedings that involve significant public interests. Seen this way, Purdue Pharma seemed an ideal candidate for a broadly exceptionalist ruling: the company’s mass torts played a unique role in a public health crisis that has taken hundreds of thousands of lives.
Yet, the significant prebankruptcy misconduct of Purdue Pharma and its insiders who sought the releases created a kind of “social debt,” a subset of mass tort liability reflecting serious misconduct. Although the precise boundaries are unclear, the defining features of social debt are its moral gravity, scale, and public spillovers, here liability for drug-marketing fraud, which translate poorly into dollars. Other examples of social debt include large-scale liability for sexual assault and the crisis of gun violence.
The noneconomic demands of social debt are in tension with the economic aspirations of bankruptcy exceptionalism. The Purdue Pharma majority neither recognized this tension nor ended the use of chapter 11 to resolve mass tort liability, an increasingly attractive but problematic substitute for (an exception to) ordinary litigation. Justice Kavanaugh’s flawed but “emphatic” dissent fully embraced bankruptcy exceptionalism without acknowledging the extraordinary, and problematic, power he would vest in bankruptcy judges to resolve social debt.
The important question is not whether to end bankruptcy exceptionalism—all agree that bankruptcy courts must have some flexibility and can play an important role in resolving mass tort liability—but the ends that it serves. We unpack the Supreme Court’s opinion in Purdue Pharma to anticipate the next points of conflict in mass tort reorganization, with emphasis on the emerging problem of social debt. We offer guidance on ways that courts and Congress can balance economic goals of maximizing recoveries with noneconomic concerns presented in social debt bankruptcies, including on what constitutes “consent” to a third-party release and the problematic incentives of privatized fiduciaries who run these cases
Thinking Outside the Box: A Creative Legal Conversation
No full textJoin Cardozo\u27s FAME Center as we host a mixer for FAME students and alumni, and members of the Hollywood Radio and Television Society. The event will feature a moderated panel discussion led by Entertainment Attorney and Cardozo alumna Cathy Perifimos \u2709, focusing on the intersection of legal and creative aspects within the television industry. A reception will follow.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2025/1006/thumbnail.jp
Book Talk with Sarah Staszak
No full textPrinceton Professor Sarah Staszak will be here on April 1 to talk about her new book, Privatizing Justice: Arbitration and the Decline of Public Governance in the United States. The book examines arbitration\u27s shift from a voluntary dispute resolution tool to a mandatory process favoring corporations. Staszak explores its historical and contemporary contexts, linking legal developments to broader institutional, political, and social dynamics.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2025/1015/thumbnail.jp
Dean Melanie Leslie’s Office Hours with Professor Jared Mayer
No full textJoin Dean Leslie and Professor Jared Mayer for the Dean\u27s Office Hours on October 20. They will discuss the economic impact of the tariffs and how American corporations are restructuring, often through litigation, as a result. The two will also answer questions raised by the student attendees.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2025/1021/thumbnail.jp