4328 research outputs found
Sort by
Menstrual Dignity and the Bar Exam
Get PDFThis Article examines the issue of menstruation and the administration of the bar exam. Although such problems are not new, over the summer and fall of 2020, test takers and commentators took to social media to critique state board of law examiners’ (“BOLE”) policies regarding menstruation. These problems persist. Menstruators worry that if they unexpectedly bleed during the exam, they may not have access to appropriately sized and constructed menstrual products or may be prohibited from accessing the bathroom. Personal products that are permitted often must be carried in a clear, plastic bag. Some express privacy concerns that the see-through bag outs test takers’ menstruation as well as their birth-assigned sex — an especially difficult problem for transgender, genderqueer/nonbinary, and intersex individuals who do not wish to share that information.
The authors conducted a study documenting experiences with menstruation and the bar exam and examined BOLE policies and practices relevant to menstruation. The Article uses the data from these studies to delineate the contours and substance of the problem. To guide this analysis, the Article also analyzes BOLE policies under the Equal Protection Clause and local human rights laws, determining that current policies are likely unconstitutional and discriminatory. Finally, the Article proposes a comprehensive Model Policy that appropriately balances BOLE concerns against the important principles of privacy and respect, fairness and non-discrimination, promoting health, providing accommodations, and transparency. If adopted, the Model Policy would bring BOLE policies closer to the goals of the critical intersectional movements urging diversification of the legal profession, bar exam reform, and menstrual justice
Basic Legal Research: Tools & Strategies, Eighth Edition
No full textThis best-selling coursebook on legal research is known for its clear, step-by-step instruction in the basics. Using a building-block approach, Basic Legal Research: Tools and Strategies, Eighth Edition breaks material into discrete, readily comprehensible parts. Ideal as a course book or reference, this text emphasizes online research, with targeted coverage of print materials. Its comprehensive coverage and self-contained chapters offer flexibility to fit a variety of course structures. Useful pedagogy throughout the text includes end-of-chapter checklists, clear examples, and summary charts. Helpful sample pages and examples of research sources guide students through the presentation, and an accompanying workbook provides exercises to test comprehension and to apply legal research tools and strategies.
New to the Eighth Edition: Completely revised material throughout, providing thorough instruction in the latest features and functions of the main research platforms. Updated coverage includes Westlaw, Lexis, and Bloomberg Law. Instruction now fully oriented toward online research: Early chapters address online search strategies and use sample searches to illustrate how to draft a word search. Chapters on individual sources focus primarily on online search techniques while still incorporating targeted descriptions of print sources. Citation explanations cover both the ALWD Guide to Legal Citation (7th ed.) and the Bluebook (21st ed.). New material on citation literacy explains how citation formats communicate weight of authority.https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/fac_books/1111/thumbnail.jp
Submission of Robert H. Lande to House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee Investigation of Digital Platforms
Get PDFThe House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee asked me to submit suggestions concerning the adequacy of existing antitrust laws, enforcement policies, and enforcement levels insofar as they impact the state of competition in the digital marketplace. My submission recommends the following nine reforms:
1. A textualist analysis of the Sherman Act shows that Section 2 actually is a no-fault monopolization statute. At a minimum Congress should enact a strong presumption that every firm with a 67% market share has violated Section 2. This would move the Sherman Act an important step in the right direction, the direction Congress intended in 1890. My submission contains this textualist analysis, a summary of the economics involved, and an analysis of its implications.
2. Congress should enact Conglomerate merger legislation. The antimerger laws successfully blocked only 3 of the 78 largest finalized mergers (defined as cases where the smaller firm was valued at more than $10 billion) that occurred between 2015 and 2019. The antitrust laws would permit the first trillion-dollar corporation, Apple, to merge with the third largest, Exxon/Mobil. In fact, today every U.S. corporation could merge until just ten were left—so long as each owned no more than 10% of every relevant market. My submission proposes model conglomerate merger legislation that would prevent this.
3. Congress should legislatively resurrect the Supreme Court’s Philadelphia National Bank anti-merger presumption. 4. Congress should forbid common stock ownership of competing firms above specified de minimus limits.
5. Congress should should allow indirect purchaser consumers to sue for damages under the federal antitrust laws. 6. Congress should award automatic prejudgment interest to successful victims of antitrust violations.
7. The U.S. Sentencing Commission should double its presumption that cartels raise prices by 10%.
8. The Department of Justice, in its consent orders, should forbid convicted price fixers from returning to the same industry after prison.
9. Congress should enact antitrust whistleblower legislation