The Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools was held this past week in Washington D.C., and it was, as usual, a fun-filled event. AALS has more substance than it did 12 years ago, when I first started attending the meeting, though networking is still the star of the show. Some observations:
- I very much enjoyed the Business Organizations sessions on Disney. We had one session on "Teaching Disney" and another devoted to Disney-related scholarship. Kudos to Deborah DeMott, who organized the sessions.
- Last year I had some unkind words for the Section on Agency, Partnership, LLCs, and Unincorporated Associations. This year's program was a substantial upgrade, with our own Vic Fleischer leading off. Rob Stikoff's presentation on business trusts was excellent. I only wish Larry Ribstein had been left with more time batting cleanup.
- The Wal-Mart panel was largely devoid of fireworks. I spoke about the value of using organizations, rather than doctrine, as the unit of analysis in teaching and scholarship. Scott Moss played the heavy, arguing forcefully that Wal-Mart is good for many of the small communities in which it is located. He also described his work on an employment class action against Wal-Mart, but noted (along with Frank Munger) that Wal-Mart is not the worst employer around. Congrats to Alexi Lahov and Kaaryn Gustafson for staging a successful panel.
- Why is it that "progressives" think fiduciary duties are so great? I attended a concurrent session of the Section on Socio-Economics entitled "Corporate Governance, Fiduciary Duties & Social Responsibility" that started with the assumption that fiduciary law was broken and in need of repair. Ugh!
- Great food! Madison has some good restaurants, but I enjoyed the opportunity to sample some other places in DC: Nora, Ardeo, New Heights, and Mourayo. And, of course, Lebanese Taverna for lunch (twice).
- I started to lose my voice on Wednesday evening at the blogger reception hosted by Prawfs and Co-op, and by the time I gave my presentation at the Wal-Mart panel on Friday it was almost gone.
- The conference ended on a sour note for me, as I came down with some sort of virus on Saturday morning. At first I thought it was food poisoning, but the symptoms seem more consistent with flu. In any event, it made for an exciting plane ride to Madison. I made a point of being seated near the restroom.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d8350a6a5c69e2
Links to weblogs that reference Reflections on AALS:
1. Posted by Jeff Lipshaw on January 8, 2007 @ 4:51 | Permalink
Gordon, I think you and I were in many of the same presentations. To your point last year about engagement, I thought the chance to sit in on the law and economics session on "Incomplete Contracts" was well worth the time: (a) it was interesting, and (b) if for no other reason to hear Alan Schwartz explain how the philosophy of contract (versus the law and economics of contract) was only helpful in dealing with "Dick and Jane," and it was wholly economics that explained the contract between GM and GE. As I mentioned at the time, I was shocked, shocked to discover there are no people working at GM and GE!
2. Posted by Steve Bainbridge on January 8, 2007 @ 13:49 | Permalink
Gordon: It would be great if you could post a write up of the Disney panel. Missing it is the main professional reason I regret having skipped AALS this year.
3. Posted by Gordon Smith on January 9, 2007 @ 23:32 | Permalink
Steve, I just posted some new thoughts on Caremark, which were part of my remarks on the Disney panel. And I refer to some of the discussion on the panel. The AALS will eventually post a podcast of the panel, but it doesn't appear to be up, yet. Any further attempt by me to reconstruct the presentations made by the other panelists would not do them justice.
4. Posted by Elizabeth Nowicki on January 15, 2007 @ 8:45 | Permalink
Gordon,
If you get a second and are so inclined, would you please explain what you mean by "Why is it that "progressives" think fiduciary duties are so great?" What are you balking at?
5. Posted by Gordon Smith on January 15, 2007 @ 9:21 | Permalink
Elizabeth, I was referring to the section on Socio-Economics, which had a breakout session on fiduciary duties. As noted in the post, the session was based on the assumption that fiduciary duties are broken. Apparently, we all know that, so there is no need to actually make an argument. The rest of the session was devoted to "solutions."
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
