Section Highlights

Submitted by Caprice Roberts This discussion group explored threshold requirements for seeking remedies. What makes certain harms cognizable? I moderated the session, and we had a lively discussion of draft articles addressing Article III standing requirements including concrete harms and other strictures for organizational standing. Of course, please check each author’s ssrn page, but for interest, here’s a summary of our discussion. Our whole conversation highlighted access to justice and the shortcomings of the foundational principle: for every wrong, the law provides a remedy. The first speaker was Professor Robert (Bob) Brain, Loyola Law School at Los Angeles.  Bob analyzes complex remedies questions that lie at the heart of the virtual world. For harms, where there is no take-down remedy,

Submitted by Colin Marks This discussion group focused on what role, if any, corporations should play in addressing a variety of non-business issues. Of particular focus were efforts by corporations to nudge public policy through how and where it conducts business. The group quickly split into fiery and differing ideologies broadly represented by two camps. On the one side were those who adopted a viewpoint sympathetic to Milton Friedman, who famously asserted that the responsibility of a corporation is to maximize the wealth to the benefit of its investors. On the other were those who disagreed with this narrow view of corporate purpose. In truth, many of the discussants fell somewhere along a spectrum of beliefs, with many expressing concern

Submitted by Brian Owsley A panel consisting of Rishi Batra, Cassie Christopher, Laura Frase, Max Hare, Scott Johns, Brian Owsley, and Melissa Shultz met to discuss the NCBE’s proposed changes to its UBE starting in 2026.  The new exam is referred to as the Next Gen Bar Exam. Substantive material coverage will be reduced in three ways. First, the new bar will no longer cover several subject matters currently tested. They are Commercial Law (Article 2 will remain as part of Contracts coverage), Conflicts of Law, Family Law, and Wills, Trusts, and Estates. Second, within tested subjects, some material will no longer be tested. Third, within tested subjects, the material will be divided into two groups. Some material, the examiners

Submitted by Brian Owsley Olympia Duhart presented on effective ways to use tutorials in large classes.  Three ideas for effective feedback and assessment.  For practice exams based on what is expected in the final.  The students were assigned oral arguments on cases read for class.  The students could receive feedback immediately with other students as judges.  A tutorial with sample questions that a small set before requiring the others to post their responses. Howard Katz discussed his “Unified Field Theory” method for teaching legal analysis in first-year doctrinal courses.  This method can be used periodically or extensively.  It emphasizes rules and the It connects classroom to exam by modeling what an exam answer looks like or how to develop an

Submitted by Corinna Lain People who enjoy talking about federal court reform are an odd bunch. They can spend hours analyzing the ins and outs of reform proposals that will probably never see the light of day, and they seem to get excited about really depressing things. At least that’s the conclusion we came to at the end of our session. But what fun we had getting there. That’s what makes us an odd bunch. Howard Wasserman (Florida International University) was our fearless leader, and he did an admirable job moderating us and keeping the conversation moving along. Although our panel was from 3:30-6:30 on Friday, we could have kept going for another 3 hours. That’s when you know you’re