12209 research outputs found
Sort by
Fixing the Last Frontier: How Law and Policy Governing Commercial Fishing Have Failed Alaska’s Environment and Economy
Full text linkWhat Lawyers Could Learn from the Corporate Practice of Medicine
Full text linkProponents of the United States’ domestic experiments in non-lawyer ownership (NLO) of legal practice justify them in terms of increasing “access to justice.” But what if opening ownership of legal practice to investment capital only exacerbates market failures (leading to further consolidation and increased costs to clients), while also compromising professional autonomy and fiduciary duty? The legal profession must be clear-eyed about who are the real winners and losers of such a shift and avoid being blinded by wishful thinking. Prominent legal scholars have repeatedly touted NLO as a solution to the access to justice crisis. However, there is scant evidence from real world to indicate whether NLO is even a partial remedy, let alone a panacea. This Article examines the corporatization of medical practice and the experiences of doctors to better understand potential pitfalls for the legal profession. It does so with a particular eye towards two questions: Who are the beneficiaries of received efficiencies or profits and what legal oversight might be effective in curbing harms to the public? This inquiry reveals that, thus far, there are no clear discernable benefits of NLO to the poor and indigent. To the extent that these systems indicate benefits, they appear to run to lawyers themselves in opening new capital fundraising opportunities and potentially to clients the middle class. Further, examination of the medical context reveals that reliance on state regulation and statutory law has been ineffective at safeguarding professional ethics concerns from the market pressures linked to increased market attention. The Article concludes that influx of non-lawyer capital is likely to increase the risk of consolidation of services which could impact negatively client access and contribute to professional autonomy disenfranchisement. Corporate ownership of legal practices is a space where risk is high and rewards, particularly in terms of access to justice, are unclear at best
A Clash of the Clauses: The Constitutionality of the Nation’s First Public, Religious Charter School
Full text linkInnocent Until Proven Newsworthy: Reviving the Tort of Publication of Private Facts in the Media Ride-Along Era
Full text linkThe Need for Law in Federal Indian Law: A Response to Maggie Blackhawk in Light of the Supreme Court’s Troubling Term for Tribal Sovereignty
No full text
Strategies for Unsecured Creditors to Mitigate the Pro-Debtor Policies of Subchapter V and Suggestions for Changes to the Bankruptcy Code
No full text
Law Enforcement, Reproductive Health Information, and the HIPAA Privacy Rule
No full textOn April 26, 2024, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) promulgated a final rule (Final Rule) amending the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. The Final Rule prohibits HIPAA covered entities and business associates from using and disclosing protected health information (PHI) to conduct criminal, civil, or administrative investigations into an individual for the mere act of seeking, obtaining, providing, or facilitating lawful reproductive health care. The Final Rule also prohibits HIPAA covered entities and business associates from using and disclosing PHI to impose criminal, civil, and administrative liability on any individual, or to identify any individual, for the same purposes. The Final Rule refers to each of these three prohibitions as a purpose-based use and disclosure prohibition. Extraordinarily controversial, the Final Rule has been challenged on a number of administrative law grounds. According to its challengers, the Final Rule exceeds HHS’s authority under the HIPAA statute, contravenes the HIPAA statute, and is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This Article offers an additional, substantive criticism of the Final Rule that runs in the opposite direction. That is, the wording of the Final Rule suggests that the purpose-based use and disclosure prohibitions only apply when a covered entity or business associate has received a request for PHI, such as a request for PHI from law enforcement. If this suggestion is true, the Final Rule ignores the fact that many health industry disclosures of reproductive health information occur without a prior request for PHI. Indeed, many health care providers volunteer (that is, they initiate disclosures of) reproductive health information to alert law enforcement to the provision or receipt of health care that the provider (frequently incorrectly) believes evidences a crime. This Article argues that the Final Rule misses the mark by conditioning the confidentiality of reproductive health information on a covered entity’s or business associate’s receipt of a request for PHI. Allowing covered entities and business associates to volunteer PHI to law enforcement without prior patient authorization undermines the trust necessary for the proper functioning of provider-patient relationships, discourages individuals from seeking reproductive health care, and jeopardizes the health, safety, and welfare of individuals who need reproductive health care. To correct the Final Rule, this Article re-writes the purpose-based use and disclosure prohibitions so they apply to all uses and disclosures of PHI by covered entities and business associates that involve the: (i) conduct of a criminal, civil, or administrative investigation into any individual for the mere act of seeking, obtaining, providing, or facilitating lawful reproductive health care; (ii) imposition of criminal, civil, or administrative liability on any individual for the same mere acts; and (iii) identification of any individual involved in the same mere acts. If adopted by HHS, these re-writes will improve the confidentiality of reproductive health information, restore patient trust in the health care system, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of individuals needing reproductive health care. Addendum: On June 18, 2025, after this Article went to press, a federal district court issued an order vacating most of the Final Rule. The proposals set forth in this Article remain helpful to the extent HHS successfully appeals this order or similar reproductive health privacy rules are promulgated in the future