The University of Richmond School of Law seeks to fill three entry-level tenure-track positions for the 2016-2017 academic year, including one in corporate/transactional law. Candidates should have outstanding academic credentials and show superb promise for top-notch scholarship and teaching. The University of Richmond, an equal opportunity employer, is committed to developing a diverse workforce and student body and to supporting an inclusive campus community. Applications from candidates who will contribute to these goals are strongly encouraged.
Inquiries and requests for additional information may be directed to Professor Jessica Erickson, Chair of Faculty Appointments, email@example.com.
They've got the details over at Business Law Prof Blog.
After the jump, the NTT announcement.
Posting Title: LEO Lecturer I in Business Law
The Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan invites applicants for a part-time LEO Lecturer I position in Business Law for the fall 2015 and winter 2016 semesters.
Candidates will be expected to teach courses in business law at the undergraduate and possibly graduate levels.
Qualified candidates must have an earned J.D. in from an ABA accredited law school with an excellent academic record and must demonstrate potential to be an outstanding teacher in business law courses. Preference will be given to candidates with significant professional experience as a lawyer and/or evidence of prior excellence in teaching.
How to Apply:
A cover letter is required for consideration for this position and should be attached as the first page of your resume. The cover letter should address your specific interest in the position and outline skills and experience that directly relate to this position.
Please also include evidence of teaching excellence and three references as subsequent pages after your cover letter and resume in a single document.
For Additional Information:
For more detailed descriptions of the Business Law Area, Ross School of Business, and the University of Michigan, please consult our websites:
Business Law Area: http://michiganross.umich.edu/faculty-research/areas-of-study/business-law
Ross School of Business: http://michiganross.umich.edu/
University of Michigan: www.umich.edu
Benefits Information: www.umich.edu/~benefits
Please contact Jackie Riecks via email with questions at firstname.lastname@example.org
Job openings are posted for a minimum of ten calendar days. This job may be removed from posting boards and filled any time after the minimum posting period has ended.
This position is covered under the collective bargaining agreement between the U-M and the Lecturers Employee Organization, AFL-CIO, which contains and settles all matters with respect to wages, benefits, hours and other terms and conditions of employment.
The University of Michigan conducts background checks on all job candidates upon acceptance of a contingent offer and may use a third party administrator to conduct background checks. Background checks will be performed in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
U-M EEO AA Statement:
The University of Michigan is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.
Full time, but non tenure track. Details after the jump.
Job Title: Business Law: Full-time Term Faculty Position
# Positions: 1
The Department of Accounting and Business Law at Quinnipiac University School of Business and Engineering invites applications for a Full-Time Term (non-tenure track) position in business law starting in August 2015. The position is renewable on an annual basis. The successful candidate should have a strong commitment to innovative teaching and student success.
Quinnipiac University is a thriving private university with 6,500 undergraduate and 2,500 graduate students, located in Hamden, Connecticut, approximately 90 minutes from New York City and two hours from Boston. Consistently ranked among the best universities by U.S. News & World Report and recently named one of the 2013 Great Colleges to Work For by The Chronicle of Higher Education, Quinnipiac offers 58 undergraduate majors and 20 graduate and professional programs, including those leading to degrees in both law and medicine. At the core of Quinnipiac is its commitment to teaching and collaboration. Quinnipiac fosters partnerships among students and with faculty; it is a spirited, welcoming campus.
Term faculty are expected to teach four courses each semester which may include on-site and on-line courses. In addition to teaching, the successful candidate will have potential for applied or pedagogical research and a commitment to service including student advising.
Earned J.D. degree from an ABA approved law school.
Relevant professional experience.
Teaching experience strongly preferred.
Quinnipiac University is only considering applicants who have valid authorization to work in the U.S., in this position, for the University. Quinnipiac University does not sponsor employment-based visas for this position.
Applications must be submitted electronically and should include a resume and a thoughtful cover letter describing your interest in the position, and explaining how your background and experience qualify you for this position, curriculum vitae, and copies of recent teaching evaluations. Contact information for three references must be submitted on the application form.
Consideration of candidates will begin upon receipt of applications and will continue until the position is filled.
Quinnipiac University has a strong commitment to the principles and practices of diversity throughout the University community. We welcome candidates who would enhance that diversity. Quinnipiac offers a great work environment, challenging career opportunities, competitive compensation and a comprehensive benefit program.
From Verity Winship:
October 2-3, 2015, Boston University Law School
This annual workshop brings together scholars focused on corporate and securities litigation to present their works-in-progress. The papers may address any aspect of corporate and securities litigation or enforcement, including but not limited to securities class actions, fiduciary duty litigation, or comparative approaches to business litigation. We welcome scholars working in a variety of methodologies, including empirical analysis, law and economics or other fields, and traditional doctrinal analysis. Participants will generally be expected to have drafts completed by the fall, although work in a more formative stage may also be included. Each author will provide a brief introduction, but most of the time in each session will be devoted to collective discussion of the paper.
PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: If you are interested in participating in the conference, which will be held at Boston University Law School on October 2-3, 2015, please send an abstract or draft of the paper you would like to present to email@example.com no later than May 29, 2015. Please include your name, current position, and contact information in the e-mail accompanying the submission. Authors of accepted papers will be notified by June 30, 2015.
QUESTIONS: Any questions concerning the workshop should be directed to the organizers: Professor David Webber (firstname.lastname@example.org), Professor Jessica Erickson (email@example.com) and Professor Verity Winship (firstname.lastname@example.org).
The Southeastern Association of Law Schools (SEALS) is pleased to once again offer its Prospective Law Professors Workshop as part of its annual meeting. This two-day workshop is for those seeking law teaching jobs in Fall 2015. The Prospective Law Professors Workshop will run on Tuesday, July 28, and Wednesday, July 29, at the Boca Raton Resort & Club. The workshop will include practice interviews, practice jobtalks, guidance on drafting CVs and FAR forms, and several panel discussions geared toward prospective law professors. There is no supplemental fee to participate. Participants in the workshop need only pay the standard SEALS registration fee. The number of participants will be limited. For more information on the program, including how to apply, please visit our website at http://sealslawschools.org/seals-prospective-law-professors-workshop/
Ten years ago, on November 16, 2004 (Gordon's birthday), he and I joined forces and started blogging together here at Conglomerate. Most of you know the story, or here's our About page. Earlier that year, I had tried to rally a group blog together, and he was blogging alone. We decided to through our blogging lots in with one another, and the rest is history. I consider blogging with Gordon (and then Vic, Lisa, Fred, Usha, Dave and Erik) to be a privilege, honor and pleasure. I miss the fun days of the early blawgosphere when commercial and commercial-ized blogs were mere rumors, and we read and linked to each other early and often. The issues and concerns that were raised back then seem almost quaint now. The false dichotomy of blogging v. scholarship has been proven, and the spectre of untenured bloggers being fired never quite came to be. Long-form scholarship still has its detractors, but was not displaced by short-form bloggership. The bottom line for me is that blogging continues to be a way for scholars from different disciplines and different geographical areas to engage in real-time discourse and easily make connections, which is even more important in this age of dwindling travel budgets. Finally, it's hard to remember the last ten years of the blawgosphere without recognizing Larry Ribstein and Dan Markel, two pioneers of blogging who are sorely missed. Two people that I met on the internet.
Here is a photo taken in January 2007 with a quorum of Glommers and Friends of the Glom:
For the next couple of weeks, we'll have the chance to hear from two law professors who, like me, are posted at business schools, David Orozco at Florida State and Robert Bird at UConn. They've got an interesting collaboration going on corporate legal strategy, and other subjects of note as well. So welcome David and Robert!
Many of you may remember that a year ago this month, I won the New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest.
I was very excited. Then, my husband told me that I was due a prize for this noble honor. Embedded in the rules for the contest is this paragraph:
The Qualified Winner of each Cartoon Caption Contest will receive a print of the cartoon, with the caption, signed by the artist who drew the cartoon (the “Prize”). If the winner cannot be contacted or does not respond within three (3) days, an alternate winner may be selected, and awarded to the person whose caption received the next greatest number of votes. The approximate retail value of the Prize is $250. Income and other taxes, if any, are the sole responsibility of the winner.
I was not alerted to this by my contact at the New Yorker. Let's call him "M." M emailed me to tell me that I was a finalist, and asked for my address and agreement, which I gave him immediately via email. After I won, I emailed him and asked about my prize. He said the NY was backed up and to remind him in 3 months if I had not heard from him. As you might imagine, I emailed him again on Jan. 8, and he said give him another month. I emailed him again on Feb. 3, and got the same reply. I emailed him again on Mar. 30, but this time his email bounced back. I then tried to email the New Yorker via the "Contact Us" interface and never heard back from anyone.
I then even emailed The Haggler at the New York Times, but I guess he's too busy fixing other people's bills. Today, I tried calling different numbers at Conde Nast, including the NY headquarter number which is eternally busy. Finally, I was given a number that ended in a human's voicemail. I left a message, but I am not hopeful.
If anyone knows someone at the New Yorker who can get me my prize, please let me know!
UPDATE: Right after I posted this, an awesome editor at the caption contest emailed me to say that would send asap. Unfortunately, the email went to my old UI email address, so I can't reply. I tweeted the editor, so maybe we will connect. Here's to social media! BTW, if you need my new email it's email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org.
We are pleased to welcome Sung Hui Kim of the UCLA School of Law as a guest blogger for the next two weeks. Sung is Professor of Law and Director of the General Counsel Initiative, Lowell Milken Institute for Business Law and Policy at UCLA. She has taught Business Associations, Contracts, Professional Responsibility, and Securities Regulation, among other things, and her current research interests lie at the intersections of professional responsibility, securities regulation, and corporate governance. I am particularly fond of her recent papers on insider trading, which you can find here and here. Welcome, Sung!
In addition to his own blog launch, my colleague Eric Orts has agreed to occasionally blog for us for the next couple of weeks. He's the Guardsmark Professor here at Wharton, seconded in the Management Department, and is the director of the school's Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership. He's also the author of Business Persons. Welcome, Eric!
The Lowell Milken Institute for Business Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law is now accepting applications for the Lowell Milken Institute Law Teaching Fellowship. This fellowship is a full-time, year-round, one or two academic-year position (approximately July 2015 through June 2016 or June 2017). The position involves law teaching, legal and policy research and writing, preparing to go on the law teaching market, and assisting with organizing projects such as conferences and workshops, and teaching. No degree will be offered as part of the Fellowship program. Only one fellowship will be offered.
Fellowship candidates must hold a JD degree from an ABA accredited law school and be committed to a career of law teaching and scholarship in the field of business law and policy. Applicants should have demonstrated an outstanding aptitude for independent legal research, preferably through research and/or writing as a law student or through exceptional legal experience after law school. Law Teaching Fellowship candidates must have strong academic records that will make them highly competitive for law teaching jobs.
More information on the fellowship can be found at http://lowellmilkeninstitute.law.ucla.edu/lowell-milken-institute-business-law-and-policy-teaching-fellowship/. Applications must be submitted by November 14, 2014.
So far we haven't said much about the strict scrutiny analysis that comes at the end of the Hobby Lobby opinion. That makes sense given our comparative advantage as corporate law scholars. However it does matter, both in general and for a few points we have discussed, such as Eric's call for paying attention to the interests of Hobby Lobby's employees and Jayne's skepticism as to whether a workable accommodation is truly available.
The majority assumed that assuring that women had access to contraception is a compelling interest, but argued that the mandate is not the least restrictive means to achieving that interest. The Alito opinion considers two alternatives, ultimately resting more on allowing Hobby Lobby to use the already existing accommmodation for religious nonprofits, under which the insurers pay for the contraceptive coverage. If this works, it means that the RFRA objection is met while the employees are still covered. I say "if" because the Court may yet strike down that accommodation as itself invalid under RFRA. That would be a nasty bait-and-switch, but given Justice Kennedy's concurrence, I remain hopeful that at least he will not do so.
The contrast between Alito and Kennedy illustrates at least a different tone in how they apply strict scrutiny. In law school we learn this is strict in theory but fatal in fact, which seems to fit Justice Alito's tone. However, sometimes the balancing is more nuanced and even-handed, as in Justice Kennedy's concurrence. Much anxiety over the opinion stems from a sense that Justice Alito's tone will prevail in future cases.
That could be problematic because of an inherent tension in RFRA. I am a big fan of the statute, but there is merit to some concern. RFRA applies to statutes that do not discriminate against religions either on their face or by intent, but only in effect as applied in some circumstances. Given our rich array of statutes and religious beliefs, that can happen quite a lot. If everytime it does we are going to re-write the law unless the government can satisfy a very toughly-applied strict scrutiny standard, we may be doing a lot of re-writing.
This concern isn't new. It is the core of Justice Scalia's refusal to follow a strict scrutiny standard in Employment Division v. Smith, the case that RFRA overturned. In essence, Scalia chose to follow rational basis scrutiny in such circumstances. But if strict scrutiny risks being too tough, rational basis scrutiny is too weak, providing in effect no religious liberty protection unless statutes explicitly regulate religion. Is a compromise possible?
That leads me to the missed opportunity and my doomed proposal.
The missed opportunity. There is of course an intermediate scrutiny standard of review available in constitutional law jurisprudence. That standard would allow a more even-handed weighing of the competing interests, not favoring plaintiffs as heavily as strict scrutiny or the government as heavily as rational basis. Moreover, precedent was readily available. In free speech cases (a clause separated from free exercise by a semi-colon), in time, place and manner cases the Court basically applies intermediate scrutiny. These cases occur where a statute does not regulate speech explicitly or by intent, but still has the effect of restricting speech--precisely analogous to the situation in Smith and RFRA.
So why did no one in Smith take the intermediate scrutiny route? Or, why didn't Congress do so in RFRA? Beats me. That is actually two missed opportunities.
The doomed proposal. It is still technically possible to re-visit the point. Congress could always amend RFRA. But the statute is now helplessly caught up in the culture wars, in stark contrast to the near unanimity of its passage. It is very hard to envision this weakening of RFRA passing as long as Republicans retain blocking power in the House, Senate, or Presidency.
Which leads to a more complicated version of the doomed proposal. What about a grand bargain? Republicans agree to amend the federal RFRA, and in return Democrats agree to pass the intermediate scrutiny version in a large number of states that currently have no RFRA. To my mind, it's not even a compromise--the result is better at both the federal and state levels. That's not the way the parties see it, but still each side gets a lot out of this. Alas, they both lose something too. Given the state of current politics, I can't see such a bargain working. The spirit of compromise is weak, and both sides are having too much fun rallying their bases with Hobby Lobby.
We are pleased to welcome Max Minzner for a guest blogging stint at the Conglomerate. Max is a Professor and the Associate Dean for Faculty Development at the University of New Mexico School of Law. In addition to teaching at UNM and Cardozo, Max has a wealth of experience in the public sector. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and as Special Counsel to the Director of the Office of Enforcement at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Among his articles is the fantastic new piece (co-authored with Margaret Lemos), For-profit Public Enforcement which appeared this January in the Harvard Law Review.
We are excited to welcome Elizabeth Pollman as a guest blogger for the next two weeks. Elizabeth is an Associate Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, where she teaches business law courses and write about the entity status and constitutional rights of corporations, as well as on law and entrepreneurship. If you are interested in the trading of private company stock, you must read her excellent article on Information Issues on Wall Street 2.0, published last year in the Penn Law Review. Welcome, Elizabeth!