5322 research outputs found
Sort by
How far? The Territorial Scope of Cultural Heritage Protection
Full text linkProfessor Trimble delivered a presentation at the conference Botticelli v. Warhol: Comparative Perspectives on the Use of Cultural Heritage Images , hosted in Florence, Italy by the University of Florence, University of Stockholm, European University Institute, and Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio di Firenze, Pistoia e Prato
Olympic Dreams Dashed: Arbitrating Seconds, Grams, Identity, and Time at the Paris Olympic Games 2024
Full text linkGolden Gate/S.E.T. Retail of Nevada, LLC v. Modern Welding Company of California, Inc., 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 6, 2025)
Full text linkThe Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer in a breach of implied warranty claim. Modern Welding Company of California manufactured an underground storage tank, which was purchased for use by Golden Gate in 2008. Golden Gate discovered a crack in the tank in 2016, and brought suit for breach of implied warranty against Golden Gate in 2019. The district court granted summary judgment for Modern. Golden Gate appealed, arguing that for a claim for breach of implied warranty under the Nevada Uniform Commercial Code is subject to discovery tolling. The Supreme Court of Nevada disagreed, and held that discovery tolling does not apply to a breach of implied warranty claim under the UCC. Additionally, the Court upheld an award of attorney fees to Modern
Fighting the Hypothetical: Why Law Firms Should Rethink the Billable Hour in the Generative AI Era
Full text link“Fighting the Hypothetical: Why Law Firms Should Rethink the Billable Hour in the Generative AI Era” analyzes how the emergence and adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) will fundamentally disrupt the traditional billable hour model that has dominated the industry since the 1960s. Professor Rapoport and Mr. Tiano contend that GenAI’s ability to perform routine legal tasks quickly and accurately will force law firms to shift away from billing structures based primarily on time spent (or inputs) and toward models that better reflect client value (or outputs).
The authors interviewed law firm leaders to gain an “in the trenches” view of emerging trends in this regard. Based on this primary research, there’s no doubt that GenAI is already transforming legal practice by automating tasks traditionally performed by junior associates and paralegals and causing leaders to think about how their firms will make money in the future. The authors discuss how GenAI threatens the pyramid-shaped staffing model that has supported firm profitability and predicts that firms must evolve toward new organizational structures—potentially “rocket,” “diamond,” “starfish,” or “cylinder” models—that rely less on large numbers of junior attorneys and more on technology-enabled senior lawyers providing high-value advice.
Professor Rapoport and Mr. Tiano also discuss how the billable-hour economic model is fraught with inefficiency and poor scalability, talent retention challenges, disincentives to innovate, and ethical concerns around reasonable billing. Despite the shortcomings, the authors observe that law firms haven’t moved away from the billable hour for three primary reasons: (1) there has been no external factor that has had the muscle to catalyze change; (2) clients haven’t had the collective fortitude to effectuate a change; and (3) despite their recognition of the shortcomings, law firms have not changed the model because it is making them wealthy.
The authors predict that this situation will soon change due to the seismic force of GenAI. GenAI will change the legacy economic model as widespread adoption of GenAI as a legal service delivery tool now occurs. When GenAI tools are used to deliver legal services, all frailties in the billable hour economic model are exposed. Most important, when routine work moves from humans to technology, the bottom tier of the pyramid will fail to generate the rich results that law firm partners want
Flagrant Fouls: The First Amendment, Legal Speech, and Attacks on Law Firms and the Rule of Law
No full textThis Essay explores the Trump Administration’s unprecedented campaign targeting major U.S. law firms for retribution and examines such actions in light of the First Amendment’s relationship to these actions. Drawing on historical and doctrinal analyses, the Essay introduces and defends the concept of “legal speech” as a critical cluster of First Amendment protections encompassing the rights of lawyers to speak, associate, petition, and advocate on behalf of clients in an unfettered way and without government retaliation. Executive actions against Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey purport to revoke security clearances, bar access to federal buildings, review hiring practices, and even penalize third-party clients doing business with the federal government—all in apparent response to these firms’ litigation stances, pro bono activities, and affiliations with political adversaries of the president. The Essay situates these actions within a larger historical, constitutional, and legal framework by tracing the doctrinal roots of legal speech through landmark Supreme Court decisions, including NAACP v. Alabama, NAACP v. Button, In re Primus, and Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, which collectively establish that legal advocacy—especially litigation aimed at advancing civil rights and challenging government action—is constitutionally protected expression. The Essay further analyzes how the Administration’s actions mirror past attempts by government to suppress disfavored speech through indirect pressure on third parties, a tactic the Supreme Court unanimously condemned in NRA v. Vullo as recently as May of 2024. The Essay also chronicles how some firms capitulated to administrative pressure without a formal Order issued against them, engaging in what historian Timothy Snyder describes as “anticipatory compliance,” further raising alarm about the erosion of rule-of-law principles. Ultimately, this Essay argues that these Executive Orders constitute clear content-based restrictions on legal speech and are therefore unconstitutional
In the Matter of the Parental Rights as to S.A.T., A Minor Child, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 40 (Oct. 2, 2025)
No full textTHE COURT DETERMINED UNDER N.R.S. § 128.105 THAT TOKEN EFFORTS ALONE CANNOT SUPPORT PRIVATE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND THAT SILENCE DOES NOT ADMIT FAULT
Clark County Deputy Marshals Association and Raymundo Enriquez v. Clark County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada; and the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Clark, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 49 (Oct. 23, 2025)
No full textCLARK COUNTY DEPUTY MARSHALS ARE COURT EMPLOYEES, NOT PART OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY EMPLOYED WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMEN