Ariana R. Levinson

What the Awards Tell Us About Labor Arbitration of Employment-Discrimination Claims (pdf)

Jayesh M. Rathod

The Transformative Potential of Attorney Bilingualism (pdf)

Sandeep Vaheesan

Market Power in Power Markets: The Filed-Rate Doctrine and Competition in Electricity (pdf)

James J. White

Taxing the Platypygous (pdf)

Jennifer L. Pomeranz

Taxing Food and Beverage Products: A New Strategy for Prevention (pdf)

Benjamin Holland Able

Model-Based Pricing in Hurricane Insurance: A Case Study for Judicial Reform of the McCarran-Ferguson Act (pdf)

Allison L. Waks

Federal Incarceration by Contract in a Post–Minneci World: Legislation to Equalize the Constitutional Rights of Prisoners (pdf)

2 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 109A

United States Marine Corps Sergeant Dakota Meyer said, “When they told me that I would be receiving the Medal of Honor I told them that I didn’t want it, because I don’t feel like a hero.”¹ This statement reflects the feelings of many real war heroes who deserve and are given recognition yet feel that they are unworthy of such accolades. Unfortunately, there are also individuals who want the recognition of being a war hero but lie about having served. Nevertheless, the First Amendment will continue to guarantee the freedom of speech of those who lie about unearned military honors unless the government can establish a compelling interest and pass narrowly tailored legislation to effectuate that interest. In this context, the compelling government interest is to protect tangible benefits for veterans from people who lie about military service in an attempt to falsely obtain those benefits. Although there are a limited number of permissible content-based restrictions under the First Amendment—inciting imminent lawless action, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, child pornography, and actual threats²—false statements about military awards are not included on that list.³ With that in mind, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Alvarez that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005,⁴ which made it a crime for anyone to make false claims about receipt of military decorations or medals, was an unconstitutional infringement on protected First Amendment speech.⁵ Both the Senate and the House, in response to the ruling, proposed amending legislation to the Stolen Valor Act.⁶ Each amending bill has its own advantages and disadvantages, but a more refined combination of the two bills will be necessary in order for a new Act to be effective and constitutional.

READ MORE

2 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 104A

This Comment suggests that the upcoming decision by the Supreme Court in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant¹ will not change the class action landscape. While the plaintiff bar contends that certain public policy goals will be lost as a result of American Express and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,² this Comment argues that, in the correct circumstances, coordinated individual arbitrations can address at least some of these public policy goals and plaintiff counsel should focus on such coordination efforts (including, for instance, ethically recruiting actually-injured plaintiffs, the use of common plaintiff counsel, the use of common experts, and shared discovery).

READ MORE

Class-Actions and Damages Panel

Featuring: Patrick Hanlon (Stanford Law School), Catherine Sharkey (New York University Law School), John Beisner (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom), David Santacroce (University of Michigan Law School), and moderated by Richard Friedman (University of Michigan Law School).

Class-Actions and Arbitration Panel

Featuring: Brian Fitzpatrick (Vanderbilt Law School), Linda Mullenix (Texas Law School), David Rosenberg (Harvard Law School), Jeffrey Greenbaum (Sills Cummis & Gross),  Maria Glover (Georgetown University Law Center), Gregory Cook (Balch & Bingham), Janet Alexander (Stanford Law School), Hiro Aragaki (Loyola Law School), Brian Murray (Jones Day), and moderated by Margaret Jane Radin (University of Michigan Law School).

Securities Class Actions Panel

Featuring: Dana Muir (University of Michigan Ross School of Business), Catherine Barrad (Sidley Austin), James Cox (Duke Law School), Randall Thomas (Vanderbilt Law School), and moderated by Adam Pritchard (University of Michigan Law School).

Rule 23 Panel

Featuring: Robert Bone (Texas Law School), Linda Mullinex (Texas Law School), Steven Ellis (Goodwin Procter), Daniel Girard (Girard Gibbs), and moderated by Ed Cooper (University of Michigan Law School).

Lunch Keynote

Featuring: Cindy Schipani (University of Michigan Ross School of Business), Terry Dworkin (Indiana University).

2 U. Mich. J.L. Reform A100

Last year, a New York federal district court dismissed a lawsuit by Jacoby & Meyers LLP attacking a New York law that prevents non-lawyers from owning an equity interest in law firms.¹ On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit resuscitated the lawsuit, remanding the case to the district court and granting Jacoby & Meyers LLP leave to amend its complaint.² Non-lawyers owning an equity interest in law firms is not a new idea, as countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom already allow it,³ and the United States should follow their example to a limited extent. Despite the ethical issues present with non-lawyer equity ownership in law firms,⁴ this Comment proposes that the ABA, as well as subsequent state law, create a system that allows law firms to get funding from investors without breaching legal ethics rules.

READ MORE

2 U. Mich. J.L. Reform A96

As the Carnival Triumph debacle splashed across the national consciousness,¹ lawyers shook their heads. Sensationalist news coverage exposed common knowledge in the legal community: cruise passengers have little recourse against carriers, and, as a result, they often bear the brunt of serious physical and financial injuries. Cruise lines, escaping legal accountability for their negligence, sail off undeterred from neglecting passenger safety on future voyages.² While its previous decisions helped entrench this problem, a recently argued case presents the Supreme Court with another opportunity to address it.³

READ MORE

2 U. Mich. J.L. Reform A91

Judges are, without question, vital to our justice system. They interpret, adapt, and apply the law. They resolve disputes for the parties to the case at issue and provide guidance to others in analogous situations. They are the gears that keep the wheels of justice moving. Unfortunately, in the case of our federal courts, many of these gears are missing. Eighty-three of our 874 federal judgeships are vacant,¹ including thirty-four that have been declared “judicial emergencies.”²

READ MORE

Robert W. Emerson

Franchise Goodwill: Take a Sad Song and Make It Better (pdf)

Colette Routel and Jeffrey Holth

Toward Genuine Tribal Consultation in the 21st Century (pdf)

Nicholas Georgakopoulos

An Insurance Structure to Encourage Investment in Preventive Health Care (pdf)

Mark R. Kravitz, David F. Levi, Lee H. Rosenthal & Anthony J. Scirica

They Were Made for Each Other: Professor Edward Cooper and the Rules Enabling Act (pdf)

Stephen B. Burbank

Thinking, Big and Small (pdf)

Paul D. Carrington

Protecting the Right of Citizens to Aggregate Small Claims Against Businesses (pdf)

Daniel R. Coquillette

Past the Pillars of Hercules: Francis Bacon and the Science of Rulemaking (pdf)

Steven S. Gensler

Ed Cooper, Rule 56, and Charles E. Clark’s Fountain of Youth (pdf)

Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr.

Edward Cooper as Curator of the Civil Rules (pdf)

Patrick E. Higginbotham

Iron Man of the Rules (pdf)

Mary Kay Kane

Professor Edward Cooper: The Quintessential Reporter (pdf)

Richard Marcus

Shoes That Did Not Drop (pdf)

Arthur R. Miller

Some Very Personal Reflections on the Rules, Rulemaking, and Reporters (pdf)

Linda S. Mullenix

Professor Ed Cooper: Zen Minimalist (pdf)

Paul V. Niemeyer

Is Now the Time for Simplified Rules of Civil Procedure? (pdf)

Thomas D. Rowe, Jr.

The Twelve-Person Federal Civil Jury in Exile (pdf)

Catherine T. Struve

What Ed Cooper Has Taught Me About the Realities and Complexities of Appellate Jurisdiction and Procedure (pdf)

Joanna R. Lampe

A Victimless Sex Crime: The Case for Decriminalizing Consensual Teen Sexting (pdf)

Patrick A. Thronson

Toward Comprehensive Reform of America’s Emergency Law Regime (pdf)

Compendium of National Emergency Powers(pdf)

2 U. Mich. J.L. Reform A80

I. The Problem

I represent a national non-profit consumer rights organization, as an amicus, in a federal appeal challenging a district court’s approval of a class-action settlement of claims under the federal Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA).¹ My client maintains that the district court erred in finding that the settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” which is the standard for class-action settlement approval under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.² In particular, we argue that the district court committed a reversible legal error when it deferred to the class-action lawyers’ recommendation to approve the settlement because, in those lawyers’ view, it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. We also argue that the district court erred when, in approving the settlement, it relied in part on its belief that the plaintiffs’ counsel, whose work the judge had observed for years, are really good lawyers.

READ MORE

2 U. Mich. J.L. Reform A76

Compounding is the act of combining, mixing or altering ingredients to create a drug tailored to the needs of an individual patient, such as a child who needs a less potent dose, an elderly patient who has trouble swallowing, or an individual with a severe allergy to a drug component. Compounding pharmacies, which engage in large-scale drug compounding, have come under the microscope recently because of the ongoing deadly outbreak of fungal meningitis that began in 2012. Fungal meningitis “occurs when the protective membranes covering the brain and spinal cord are infected with a fungus.”¹ The recent outbreak was caused by steroid shots contaminated with so much fungus that in some cases the fungus particles were visible to the naked eye.² A single compounding pharmacy in Framingham, Massachusetts, the New England Compounding Center, “shipped 17,676 vials of … potentially contaminated [steroid] solution to 75 clinics in 23 states.”³ As of March 4, 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had linked 720 cases of meningitis or other complications, including forty-eight deaths, in twenty states to the epidural steroid injections that all originated from the New England Compounding Center.⁴

READ MORE