LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
AI in Law Libraries: Discussing Ethical Considerations and a Way Forward
No full textThis review examines the AALL 2025 program “AI in Law Libraries: Discussing Ethical Considerations and a Way Forward,” focusing on the ethical challenges artificial intelligence presents for law librarians and legal professionals. The author highlights discussions on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, responsible and transparent use of AI, risks such as hallucinations and bias, and broader concerns including environmental impact and the future of human labor. The review emphasizes that the program raised important questions rather than definitive solutions, underscoring the need for ongoing, profession-wide dialogue as AI continues to evolve
1L Open House!
No full textDrop In To:
Chat with a Career Counselor
Collect your name tag for the BigLaw Up-Close: Reception
Enjoy Muffins/Pastries/Coffee and Pizzahttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1047/thumbnail.jp
The Case for a New International Instrument on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions
No full textA new international instrument on copyright limitations and exceptions (L&Es) is pertinent to fostering education and research and enhancing the work of educational, research, and cultural institutions, including libraries, archives, and museums. The existing international instrument on L&Es, the Marrakesh Treaty, sits alone amongst many international copyright instruments for the protection of rightsholders, the Marrakesh Treaty only covering exceptions for print-disabled persons. There is currently no international obligation on countries to guarantee the interests of copyright users in education and research through a set of copyright limitations and exceptions. This has signficant negative effects on access to education and research endeavors, more so in a digital environment where individuals and institutions need greater as well as harmonized L&Es to pursue cross-border and collaborative educational and research activities. This paper traces the history of L&Es in the international copyright system and the events that have led to demands for legally binding international obligations to protect users\u27 interests in copyrighted materials. It argues that contrary to the detractors of a new international instrument on copyright L&Es, there are strategic and substantive reasons to develop and adopt a multilateral treaty instrument on L&Es for education and research purposes. Such an instrument will, amongst other things, further the incremental balancing of the international copyright system; provide the much-needed certainty on the minimum scope of permissible L&Es in national laws; facilitate digital and cross-border education and research; create binding obligations regarding L&Es for education and research; facilitate the realization of the right of education globally; diffuse power in the international copyright system; and protect the policy space for L&Es in developing countries. A new international instrument on copyright limitations and exceptions is fully consistent with existing international copyright rules. It gives lfe to existing rules, including provisions in the TRIPS Agreement and the WIPO Copyright Treaty
Does the PTO Have the Power to Ask Where You Sleep at Night? Pamela Chestek, the Patent Act, and the APA Say No
No full textImagine this scenario: You apply for a trademark, following the longstanding practice of listing your business’s PO Box on the application. Days later, you receive a notice from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO): Your application was rejected for failure to disclose your domicile address—a requirement imposed under the 2019 U.S. Counsel Rule. Having previously suffered harm from making your home address public, you are understandably reluctant to expose it again for something as routine as a trademark application. You stand firm in withholding your domicile address, citing privacy concerns. As a result, your application remains denied, and when you appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, your claim is dismissed for noncompliance with the statutory requirements. If this story sounds familiar, it is because it reflects the real experience of Pamela Chestek, whose trademark application was denied for failure to disclose her domicile address. In effect, the 2019 statutory scheme altered the manner by which a trademark examiner, and then the Board, evaluated Chestek’s application, adversely affecting her rights under the Patent Act without considering or incorporating public comments. This Note argues that the PTO wrongly rejected her application, since the underlying statutory requirement—domicile address disclosure—was improperly promulgated, having failed to comply with the notice-and-comment formalities required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This Note examines the Federal Circuit’s pivotal role in enabling the PTO to exceed its statutory rulemaking authority under the Patent Act, as illustrated by In re Chestek PLLC. It argues that this overreach stems from the court’s conflation of “procedural” as used in the Patent Act’s grant of rulemaking power, with “procedural” as used in the APA’s exemption from notice-and-comment requirements. This misinterpretation permits the PTO to promulgate rules, like the one in Chestek, that materially affect trademark applicants’ rights without adhering to APA-mandated procedures. Finally, this Note considers the broader implications of the Federal Circuit’s deference to PTO rulemaking. It warns that allowing agencies to sidestep the APA threatens the integrity of the administrative law regime as a whole. If one agency can disregard APA procedures with impunity, it sets a troubling precedent for others to follow
CJCR Publishes Volume 26, Issue 3 (Summer 2025)
No full textThe Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution—the country’s preeminent legal journal of arbitration, negotiation, mediation, settlement, and restorative justice—today published the web edition of Volume 26, Issue 3 (Summer 2025). The print edition of the issue has also been released.
Accessible at Volume 26.3: Summer 2025, this issue contains Articles by Michael Saini, Raheena Lalani Dahya, Shely Polak, Giuseppe De Palo, and Mary B. Trevor; and Notes by Molly Baraban, Adam Gaudet, and Cynthia Spitzer.
The print edition of the issue has also been released. This post was originally published on the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution website on September 8, 2025
Beyond Democracy: How a Free Press Supports The Rule of Law
No full textWidespread agreement has existed for centuries that a free press is essential to democracy. But legal scholars have spent almost no effort thinking about why else we might need a free press. This article attempts to widen the aperture. It argues that as the free press is essential to democracy, it is just as essential to a separate value: the rule of law. Recognizing and investigating the connections between the free press and the rule of law is essential right now. It can help us discern how the press can create friction against the erosion of both rule of law and democracy. And it can likewise serve as a revitalizing force for the free press. Even more fundamentally, it can prompt us to do the necessary work of considering what we want the free press, the rule of law, and democracy to be. This Article describes how press functions that the Supreme Court has said are vital to democracy are likewise vital to the rule of law. They include watchdog, educator, and facilitator of the public square. Investigating the way in which the press plays these roles in support of the rule of law yields new understandings of how the press and rule of law may work best. Beyond describing how these traditional free press functions support the rule of law, the Article describes two press roles never fully recognized by the Court—that of curator and empathy-builder. Both roles also play a key part in supporting rule of law
For-Profit Arbitration and the Race to the Procedural Bottom
No full textFor decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed corporate favor by greenlighting mandatory arbitration clauses that modify the arbitration process to limit claims and maximize profit. These modifications include everything from authorizing provisions that require consumers to waive their right to a class action, to corporate specification of the forum, rules, and relevant procedures for arbitration. However, it is not only these company written arbitration clauses that are expanding corporate dominance in arbitration, there is an underexplored profit incentive helping to shape the corporate friendly structure of the arbitration process originating from the arbitration forums themselves.
The print edition of the issue has also been released. This post was originally published on the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution website on November 17, 2025
Antitrust’s Consumer Tradeoffs
No full textIn modern antitrust law, courts are required to ask only one question: did the challenged action harm consumers? This Article asks a different question: which consumers? Over the last few decades, the Supreme Court has increasingly required antitrust plaintiffs to prove not only that they were harmed, but also that their harm outweighed any other consumers’ gains. The doctrine forces courts to pit groups of consumers against each other. In Amex, it was merchants against credit card holders. In Brooke Group, it was consumers buying a product during predation against consumers buying it during recoupment. In cases involving aftermarkets for durable goods, it was sophisticated consumers against less sophisticated consumers. And when it comes to antitrust remedies, it was direct purchasers against indirect purchasers. These tradeoffs follow a pattern: the consumers who lose often are poorer and less powerful than the consumers who win. Consumer tradeoffs like those in Amex and Brooke Group also raise significant barriers to recovery for plaintiffs, even in cases where there is demonstrated consumer harm. And these tradeoffs undermine the democratic appeal of the consumer welfare standard—that everyone’s rights matter equally. This Article shows how courts got into the business of making consumer tradeoffs, how it is harming consumers today, and how to get us out of it
Decision-Making Supports and Cognitive Decline
Get PDFFor persons with a range of cognitive disabilities, supported decision-making, rooted in a human rights approach to disability, has emerged as a tool that permits them to make legally binding decisions and avoid guardianship. As supported decision-making policy has evolved in the United States, state statutes have primarily focused on formal agreements through which individuals can designate trusted supporters to assist in obtaining information, processing that information, and communicating a decision. This Article argues that supported decision-making has promise for preserving the autonomy of persons living with dementia, but that the model of a supported decisionmaking agreement embodied in the state statutes does not fully address the circumstances of those experiencing cognitive decline. The different context requires a different and broader range of supports for decisionmaking. The Article proposes supplemental policy interventions to be more responsive to the needs of people experiencing cognitive decline. These include developing a values-based planning process that combines supported decision-making with advance directives, promoting enhanced guardianship diversion services, and more explicitly requiring decisionmakin