621 - 630 of 873 results for: LAW

Is there a "canon" of American legal scholarship? And if so, how does it shape our understanding of, or the way we talk about, the law today? In many other academic disciplines, a central element of any course of advanced study is an encounter with a "canon" of some sort. This is a core set of texts that are perceived as foundational, and that are commonly used as reference points for scholarly advances. In other disciplines, the canon can be an object of emulation or criticism. Indeed, the very idea of a "canon" of legal scholarly is often subject to contestation, e.g., given the barriers women and minority scholars have faced. Drawing on the model of those foundational courses in other disciplines, this seminar aims to provide students with a working knowledge of a set of scholarly writings that can plausibly be characterized as an American "canon." At the same time, the seminar aims to elicit from students a critical engagement with this putative "canon." Particular attention is paid to the manner in which the canon either includes or marginalizes certain voices. Hence, one part of the seminar involves reading material that might be part of an expanded, more diversely populated canon. The seminar is designed for two kinds of student. First, it is a useful course of study for students either interested in academia or those thinking about whether academia might be the right path for them (and indeed, the seminar is modeled on a course at Chicago designed for prospective academics, or those considering that path). Second, the course is a chance to take a deeper dive into ideas that lurk behind many first-course private-law and public-law courses. During the seminar, students will read and discuss a range of texts, many drawn from Fisher and Kennedy's The Canon of American Legal Thought. Students will be asked to write response papers and to lead discussion on certain readings. The precise set-up of the course will depend, however, on enrollment. Finally, students will also have the option of doing a longer paper for additional credit (section 02). After the term begins, students accepted into the course can transfer from section 01 (2 units) into section 02 (3 units) with consent of the instructor. Elements used in grading: class participation, short papers, and optional final research paper. Paper extensions will be granted with instructor permission. No automatic grading penalty for late papers.

When you have finished law school, you will (hopefully) have mastered a good deal of legal doctrine (many of you will review and/or sharpen your mastery of particular rules when you study for the Bar) and mastered a number of skills you will need to fulfill professional roles. (Hopefully, you will learn particular advocacy skills if you will be an advocate; writing skills that will help you whether you draft contracts or legislation, briefs or executive summaries, client letters; and, particularly in the Experiential Learning courses, skills that will help you exercise prudent judgment, collaborate with others, work both efficaciously and empathetically in a diverse world.). The claim that underlies this course is that your "classroom" courses here at SLS -- and at pretty much any of the academically ambitious schools that most of you considered attending -- had both a text (the doctrines and policies in the particular subject area that you were studying) and a "sub-text" (the concepts and themes that recurred across a wide range, maybe all, of your courses.) The goal of this course is to highlight these recurring themes (and remind you or illuminate for you just how often you confronted or will confront these issues), to discuss more overtly and directly the distinct approaches to each of these recurring issues than you might have discussed them before, and to expose you to some ways of approaching these issues that might be less familiar to you. In discussing these issues, we will draw on the insights offered by a wide array of "schools" of legal thought, including, but not limited to, libertarianism, Law and Economics, Legal Realism, Critical Legal Studies, Critical Race Theory, a variety of Feminist Legal Theories (anti-subordination feminism, "cultural" feminism), Langdellian Formalism and neo-Formalism, Law and Society. So, for instance, we will discuss some or all of the following issues: 1. Ways in which legal pronouncements are framed (the tension between the use of rules and standards; between default and mandatory rules); 2. Remedial options and remedial mechanisms (the choice between inalienable entitlements, injunctions, damages, restitution, and distinct forms of punishment; between sliding remedial scales and binary outcome-determinative rules; conduct regulation and output/outcome goals; public enforcement v. mixed public/private enforcement v. private enforcement with differing degrees of collectivization of individual complaints); 3. Issues in the interpretation of both private and public legal texts (textualism, intent-based originalism, flexible purposivism) and distinct theories of why or in what ways texts may be either incomplete or "dated," with some special attention to how to interpret texts that appear to delegate authority (to another decision maker, to a future decision maker) to make narrow, concrete decisions; 4. The interplay between substance and procedure (and its relationship to creating a gap between the law on the books and the law in action; the degree to which substantive rules are framed in the way that they are because rule makers are anticipating procedural barriers to enforcing alternative rules); 5. Institutional competence issues; 6. Alternative visions of human behavior and motivation (individualistic rational choice models with "thin," generally materialistic goals v. thicker rational choice models v. individualistic models influenced by psychologists, advancing richer views of how people process information and form tastes and/or sociological models, focused more on group influence, group maintenance and group conflict); 7. Some recurring substantive issues (how we define operative assent and how we define normatively meaningful consent; how we deal with problems of incommensurable values or deny the possibility of incommensurability; when we do or don't believe people are adequately empowered by "exit" -- finding another provider in a market or subjecting ourselves to a different political body that will make the rules that govern us -- and when we believe power must be exercised politically/collectively; when we believe principal/agent problems are serious and how we think they are "solved"; battles between anti-classification and anti-subordination views of antidiscrimination norms) and 8. The origins of law and the impact of law (is law significantly autonomous or responsive to other social forces (where "social forces" might or might not be understood in significant part in terms of distinctions in power by race, class, gender, LGBTQ status etc.) and to the ideological predispositions of those who articulate it? Is law -- and most particularly the judge-made law we (over?) emphasize in law school -- effectual in achieving social change?) Special Instructions: This class is limited to 30 students. 3Ls/Advanced Degree students will receive first preference, followed by 2Ls and then 1Ls. Elements used in grading: Grades will be based on reaction papers and class participation; there may be formal class presentations as well (depending on class size) that would also figure into grading.

Philosophy of Law: Protest, Punishment, and Racial Justice ( LAW 5811): In this course, we will examine some of the central questions in philosophy of law, including: What is law? What gives law its authority? Must we obey the law? If so, when and why? How should we understand and respond to unjust laws? When is civil disobedience morally permissible? Is civil disobedience ever morally required? What is punishment for? What are prisons for? What does the state owe us? There will be a 50-minute mandatory TA session (Date and Time TBA). Law students have the option to write an independent research paper for R credit with instructor consent. After the term begins, students accepted into the course can transfer, with consent of the instructor, from section (01) into section (02), which meets the R requirement. Elements used in grading: discussion questions, final paper abstract and outline, final paper presentation, final paper, attendance. Note: Previous coursework in philosophy is a requirement for the course. This class is limited to 25 students. Up to five SLS students may enroll directly in Axess. For additional enrollment, please contact the instructor. Cross-listed with Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity ( CSRE 175W), Ethics in Society ( ETHICSOC 175W), and Philosophy ( PHIL 175W/ PHIL 275W).

Workshop will provide students with a structured opportunity to write a research paper on any aspect of feminist legal theory/feminism and the law (broadly defined) that interests them. Students are expected to formulate a research topic by week 4. Paper should be as long as needed to communicate central ideas and no longer. In general, students should aim for 25 - 30 pages in length. We will meet by Zoom as a class four times during the quarter. Students will present possible research topics in classes #1 and #2 for feedback, and update their progress in class #3. Depending on student interest, we will also discuss major themes in feminist legal theory, and current legal topics that relate to feminist concerns. Instructor is available for consultation throughout the quarter, and will review outlines or drafts if students wish. No prerequisites. Elements used in grading: Attendance, Class Participation, Written Assignments, Final Paper. Class meets Thursday, 2:00PM to 4:00PM on April 2, April 16, April 30, and May 14. CONSENT: Interested students may apply to enroll in the seminar by sending a statement of interest to Barbara Fried at bfried@stanford.edu.

In this course, we will work together to develop a detailed and comprehensive understanding of the concept(s) of political representation. We will do so by examining a number of historical and contemporary theories of political representation developed within philosophy and cognate fields. Elements used in grading: a workshop paper, weekly workshop responses to fellow classmates' workshop papers, a class presentation, a workshop recap, a final paper abstract, and a final paper. Cross-listed with Comparative Studies in Race & Ethnicity ( CSRE 371) and Philosophy ( PHIL 371W).

Most significant substantive legal disputes you all confront in law school are "resolved" at least as much by reference to ideological predispositions as any sort of logic internal to legal analysis. We will begin the seminar by discussing some competing views about what key ideological messages are conveyed at law school. But the bulk of the course is devoted to a series of questions that arise for those of us who believe that ideology is important. We examine in modest detail what I would characterize as Right-wing orthodoxy in the law schools, an orthodoxy that took shape in the early days of the Federalist Society. Its key procedural features were allegiance to originalism and textualism and a preference for rules over standards, its key substantive features full-throated or "soft" economic libertarianism and hostility to legal rules that attended to status and identity. It seems implausible from my vantage, though, that this orthodox position can remain so dominant: the entire political Right of the legal academy cannot possibly cling to unadulterated or even slightly modified Reaganite Classical small-l liberalism (domestically) and neoconservatism (internationally) when Reaganism has been largely obliterated as a political force in the Republican Party. That is true even though one must recognize that much of the "policy substance" driving whatever conventional policy agenda MAGA -- or at least much of the Project 2025 branch thereof -- brings to the table is familiar Reaganite resistance to redistribution and regulation. Thus, we will focus more carefully on Right-wing heterodoxy: resistance to these conventional positions from commentators who reject in significant part the Classical small-liberal Reaganite tenets, typically in favor of a more activist, illiberal, significantly theocratic state; the ethno-nationalism associated with the MAGA movement; and/or increased sympathy or support for facilitating or even endorsing what many would label authoritarian rule. We also carefully study 21st century progressive orthodoxy (with its strong focus on countering identity-based subordination) and progressive heterodoxy. We will study heterodoxy and orthodoxy in a number of contexts. We will look, for instance, both at how illiberal academics on the Right have rejected "old FedSoc" race-blindness and, even more carefully, at how and why a number of heterodox political progressives have shunned familiar progressive claims about the centrality of diversity, implicit bias, and the importance of countering individual acts of discrimination; questioned significant claims for disability accommodation and "universal design;" worried about aspects of the regime regulating sexual harassment; and shown less hostility to accommodation of religious objectors to antidiscrimination law. We will examine with some care how those on the Left and the Right have shifted their views about how (and why) power should be allocated between legislatures, agencies (especially historically independent ones), and the President attending with special care to the question of whether certain forms of "presidentialism" facilitate authoritarianism. You will each be expected to prepare two reaction papers (of roughly five to eight pages) over the course of the term, responding to some or all of the readings you have read for a session. 60% of your grade will be based on these papers. You will also be expected to prepare (on four occasions) three or four questions or comments on the session's readings (these can be as short as a few lines or as long as a page). These must be turned in at the very latest by noon before class: I hope I will be able to make some use of these questions and comments in figuring out what aspects of the reading might be most profitable to emphasize during the afternoon's class. 20% of your grade will be based on these four "mini-papers." Finally, 20% of your grade will be based on attendance and participation.

This course will explore the real-world ethical issues attorneys will invariably face during their legal careers. Our objective is to prepare students for the messy (and even career-jeopardizing) situations they will encounter upon entering the profession--with a particular focus on private law firm practice (where many students begin their careers), while also considering the special circumstances encountered by government lawyers and in-house counsel. Students will review the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, state bar ethics opinions, and court cases, as well as current events drawn from headlines in the legal press. Rather than offering a broad survey of the rules, the course will prioritize the issues students are most likely to confront in their careers. We will also explore topical issues such as judicial ethics and the practical pitfalls of rapidly-changing technology, while further examining the role of civility, diversity, and justice in shaping a bar that best serves the not-always-aligned interests of clients, society, and our own personal values. Students are expected to participate in lively dialogue, and grades will be based on a final exam, periodic reflection papers, and classroom contributions.

A survey of the major legal and ethical issues presented in the practice of law. We will examine the concept of the lawyer endorsed by the rules of professional responsibility, the principal-agent relationship, and common law doctrines governing law practice in both civil and criminal settings. We will also assess the tensions between this concept of the lawyer and the personal, political, and economic constraints of law practice. To this end, emphasis will be given not only to the law of lawyering but to the history and sociology of the American legal profession, theories of role morality and professional identity, the sources of cognitive bias that affect perception and judgment, and techniques for navigating ethical dilemmas. Elements used in grading: Attendance, class participation, in-class exercises, short papers and final exam.

This course focuses on issues of professional responsibility and ethical legal practice. Using the framework developed in Albert O. Hirschman's influential Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, but proceeding in the opposite direction, the class will explore a variety of issues ranging from the ethics of cross examination to the special roles of lawyers representing or working for the government to the tensions faced by movement lawyers to decisions about when a lawyer should resign from a legal organization. Much of the focus will be on lawyers who work for public interest organizations or a government, but some of the discussion will consider issues in private practice as well. Materials will include case law, rules of professional responsibility, and less traditional sources. The aim of this course is not to prepare you to pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, because becoming an ethical practitioner is not a matter of acing a multiple choice test. (And you're all smart enough to handle the MPRE on your own.) Rather, it is to get you to think about the hard and messy ethical issues lawyers confront in their professional lives and what kind of attorney you want to become. Student assessment is based on class participation and two short papers. In addition to the regular Thursday class sessions, there will be three or four sessions with guest speakers. Attendance at these sessions is mandatory, but they will be taped for students who cannot attend (but who must attest to attending the sessions and then completing a short assignment.) This course satisfies the Ethics requirement for graduation.