7300 research outputs found
Sort by
Bad Paper & the Problems with Moral Turpitude in the VA Context
Get PDFMoral turpitude serves as a way to exclude former servicemembers from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) definition of a veteran. As a result, servicemembers who commit offenses deemed morally turpitudinous cannot access VA disability compensation, burial in a VA cemetery, education benefits, many types of VA healthcare, or any other of the multitude of benefits offered by the VA. This issue is especially problematic for veterans with “bad paper”—i.e., those with a less than fully honorable discharge—whose underlying misconduct is related to post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), a traumatic brain injury (“TBI”), or another mental health condition
Introduction to the Symposium Issue
No full textThe following articles stem from the presentations at the 2024 Mizzou Law Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution 40th anniversary symposium. The symposium, titled Dispute Resolution at Forty: Looking Back, Looking Forward, featured some of the top legal scholars, including former Mizzou Law professors, and even a former Journal of Dispute Resolution Editor-in-Chief. The three panels discussed traditional and non-traditional dispute resolution forms, the NextGen Bar Exam, and emerging trends. A highlight of the event included a keynote address with Leonard Riskin, the first director of the Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution
Evergreening\u27s Empirical Chasm
No full textFor more than two decades, policymakers have been told that pharmaceutical innovators companies engage in a practice that is called, disparagingly, “evergreening.” The basic idea is that companies introduce new versions of their drugs that have later expiring patents or regulatory exclusivity. This way, the claim goes, the companies effectively block generic entry for years or decades longer than Congress intended and than is socially desirable. Initially these claims were supported by poorly researched anecdotes. In the last decade, some scholars and advocacy organizations have published papers that purport to provide empirical support for the “evergreening” accusation. But these empirical studies do not bridge the gap from proof of innovation to proof that generic drugs are blocked from the market. Indeed, studies consistently show generic drug approval and launch 12 to 14 years after the FDA first approves a new molecular entity, even while innovators continue to innovate with their molecules. Recent reports claiming that innovators engage in “evergreening” with biologics similarly miss the mark. Misleadingly irrelevant data, combined with inflammatory rhetoric, may therefore be leading policymakers and the public to support policy proposals that have no basis in the real world. And because these proposals aim to curtail or even punish continuing innovation, they will have real-world consequences for patients. This chapter represents an effort to set the record straight
Teaching with AI: Insights from a Faculty Focus Group
No full textThis report summarizes insights from a focus group of law faculty who discussed their experiences and perspectives about using artificial intelligence (AI) in legal education. The focus group took place at the 2025 Works-in-Progress Conference sponsored by the ADR Section of the Association of American Law Schools.
The responses reflect a range of reactions, providing a snapshot of how some faculty are experimenting with AI, evaluating its risks and benefits, and considering how best to achieve their pedagogical goals. Participants expressed interest in using AI as a teaching tool – particularly in communication exercises, simulations, and written assignments – and some reported encouraging results. Many assign students to use bots as conversation partners, though the bots sometimes do not perform as instructed. Some faculty require students to submit transcripts of their AI interactions, which help reveal their reasoning and skill development – especially in how they framed questions and responded to unexpected outputs. There also was a concern about over-reliance on AI and the risks of undermining students\u27 internal development of reasoning and communication skills
The Artificially Intelligent RPS Negotiation and Mediation Coach
No full textThis document describes the artificially intelligent RPS Negotiation and Mediation Coach (“RPS Coach”) tool, which is an outgrowth of the Real Practice Systems (RPS) Project. It is designed to help many different users perform numerous tasks including (1) attorneys anticipating challenges, strategizing, and representing clients, (2) mediators enhancing preparation, communication, and decision-making, (3) disputing parties making better decisions, (4) ADR program administrators developing clear rules, policies, and materials, (5) educators and trainers teaching practical theory and skills, and (6) students and trainees learning practical theory and skills.RPS theory and practice is designed to help attorneys and mediators help their clients make good decisions in negotiation and mediation. The goal is for parties to be as knowledgeable, confident, and assertive as possible when making decisions.
RPS Coach was trained with my writings as well as general dispute resolution authorities. It is designed to address users\u27 needs with clear, practical suggestions understandable to both experts and laypersons. It creates checklists and strategies tailored to specific situations. It asks clarifying questions and invites users to ask follow-up questions. The document describes the value added by RPS Coach compared with an untrained AI tool.Educators can use RPS Coach to develop syllabi, class outlines, simulations, exercises, and materials to achieve specified learning objectives. They can use RPS Coach during class discussions. They also can use it to design and apply rubrics analyzing students’ exams and papers
Getting Help from AI to Update Your Syllabus (Even If You Think It\u27s Just Fine)
No full textLaw school faculty often reuse the same syllabi from year to year, assuming that if a course isn\u27t broken, it doesn\u27t need fixing. But with the upcoming NextGen Bar Exam, new lawyer licensing regimes, and the widespread use of artificial intelligence in legal practice, the context for teaching dispute resolution is changing rapidly.This short article encourages faculty to reflect on their syllabi and consider how generative AI tools can support thoughtful, efficient updates. It offers practical strategies for adapting to bar exam and licensing developments, incorporating AI skills into courses, integrating representation and neutral perspectives, and redesigning assignments to enhance student learning. AI tools can help faculty revise their syllabi to help students gain relevant, practical skills. A companion article provides specific guidance on using AI to promote deeper learning, improve student writing
The Essence of an Antitrust Violation
No full textJudicial embrace of the consumer welfare standard reduced the indeterminacy and political manipulability of U.S. antitrust law. Continual invocations of antitrust’s consumer welfare focus, however, have created the misimpression that consumer harm is a sufficient, not merely a necessary, condition for condemning antitrust-relevant behaviors like agreements in restraint of trade and exclusion-causing unilateral acts. Such a “consumer harm sufficiency” view underlay the plaintiffs’ claims in Epic Games v. Apple and FTC v. Qualcomm and has inspired scholarly proposals to condemn various antitrust-relevant behaviors simply because they occasion consumer harm.
Antitrust economics and dynamic efficiency considerations call for rejection of the consumer harm sufficiency view in favor of an approach that condemns antitrust-relevant conduct only when it (1) enhances the surplus-extractive power of the defendant or its co-conspirator (2) by weakening competitive constraints and (3) is not reasonably necessary to secure efficiencies sufficient to produce a net increase in market output. This Article contends that these three components collectively comprise the essence of an antitrust violation and are each necessary for condemnation of antitrust-relevant conduct.
This view, termed “antitrust essentialism,” is consistent with every major antitrust liability rule except one: the rule of per se liability for certain tying arrangements. The justification offered for condemning tie-ins that do not involve all three essential elements is that they may nevertheless reduce consumer welfare, an argument that embraces the consumer harm sufficiency view.
To reconcile its inconsistent caselaw, ensure that antitrust doctrine optimally protects consumer welfare, and reduce the administrative costs of antitrust litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court should (1) abandon the per se rule against certain tie-ins in favor of a rule of reason that requires substantial tied market foreclosure, a standard consistent with antitrust essentialism; (2) expressly declare that antitrust liability requires the three elements catalogued above; (3) allocate proof burdens on the elements, with the plaintiff having the burden to plead and prove the first two and the defendant having the initial burden to show an absence of the third; and (4) impose a generally applicable “market power enhancement” requirement akin to the existing antitrust injury requirement. Such an antitrust essentialist approach would have led to swift disposition of misguided and costly cases like Epic Games and Qualcomm and would resolve a pending circuit split concerning liability for misrepresentation in the standard-setting process
The Second Amendment Preservation Act: Revealing the Realities of Congress’s Commerce Clause Power
Get PDF“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” When James Madison published this in the Federalist Papers, the United States Constitution was not even a year old. The Framers were striving to convince American citizens of the Constitution’s vitality while simultaneously grappling with the challenges of developing what the new government, as to be set forth in the Constitution, should look like. The challenge, as identified by Madison, was that the government needed the power to govern while retaining the ability to control itself. The Framers sought to address this problem by creating a system of federalism. But rather than adopting a particular section or provision dedicated to federalism, the Framers interwove federalism principles throughout the Constitution. These principles continue to permeate the functioning of the federal government and state governments today