Washington and Lee law professor Lyman Johnson presented at the annual Fiduciary Law Workshop, held this year at Duke Law School. The Fiduciary Law Workshop is intended to foster broad scholarly interest in the field. The Workshop is open to scholars whose work is historical, doctrinal, economic, philosophical, or empirical in methodology.
Prof. Johnson presented his paper titled “Relating Fiduciary Duties to Corporate Personhood and Corporate Purpose.” He was one of twelve scholars to present during the workshop. From the paper:
Corporate personhood and corporate purpose should be taken seriously in theory and doctrine by taking the corporate entity as a socio-legal institution seriously; that is, as a person distinct from associated persons both in juridical status and in its organizational purpose(s). This should extend into the realm of fiduciary duties as well. Coherence demands that the director duties of care and loyalty run to the corporation, at least with respect to the purpose of the corporation. Delaware’s corporation statute, after all, charges the board of directors to direct the business and affairs of the corporation itself, not those of stockholders. And its formulation of the business judgment rule presumes, likewise, that directors are acting in the best interests of the 99 Gold and Miller (2014) (collection). 35 corporation.
Washington and Lee law professor Christopher Seaman recently presented a new research project at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The presentation was part of the Roundtable on Empirical Methods in Intellectual Property co-hosted by Northwestern Law School, Cardozo Law School, and the USPTO on April 29, 2016.
The project is titled Patent Renewal Rates After Alice (with co-author Professor Will Hubbard of Baltimore Law). Professor Seaman and Professor Hubbard propose to study the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), regarding patentable subject matter on previously-issued patents by studying maintenance fee payments (which are required to renew a patent 4, 8, and 12 years after its issuance) between different technological classes.
Abstract: Patent Renewal Rates After Alice
Professor Christopher Seaman’s article The Case Against Federalizing Trade Secrecy, 101 Virginia Law Review 317 (2015), was selected for inclusion in the 2016 edition of the Intellectual Property Law Review. The volume, published annually by Thomas Reuters (West), features the best law review articles related to intellectual property published in last year as judged by the editorial staff. It covers major developments in patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
Many congratulations to Professor Seaman on the selection.
The full table of contents for the 2016 edition may be viewed here: Intellectual Property Review 2016
On May 12, 2016 Washington and Lee Law Professor Victoria Sahani was invited to present her research on third-party funding at the 2016 Judges’ In-Court Seminar for the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The audience included over 20 federal district court judges, magistrate judges, and bankruptcy judges seated in that district. Other presenters at the seminar included Magistrate Judge Andrew Wistrich of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Professor Gregory Sisk of the University of St. Thomas School of Law, and several attorney practitioners.
Washington and Lee law professor Mark Drumbl has a new post at Justice in Conflict on the trial of Dominic Ongwen, child soldier in Uganda’s LRA. His post, titled “Shifting Narratives: Ongwen and Lubanga on the Effect of Child Soldiering,” examines the prosecution of Ongwen for various war crimes. Ongwen’s defense, ultimately unsuccessful, centered on the fact that he was abducted into the LRA as a child and should be excused because of the trauma he suffered at the hands of the LRA. From Prof. Drumbl’s post:
Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether the defense arguments have merit. The point of my commentary is not to revisit these arguments. Grounds for excluding responsibility may, moreover, be reassessed at trial where the burden on the prosecutor is higher than at the confirmation of charges stage. Nor is the point of my commentary to suggest how (and where) a Trial Chamber might hypothetically assess these arguments.
Instead, my point is to emphasize that international criminal law should proceed in consistent and predictable ways. Here, PTC II slipped. Its understanding of the agency of actual and former child soldiers in Ongwen departs from the understanding previously deployed by the Lubanga Trial and Appeals Chambers, in particular in the sentencing judgments.
Washington and Lee law professor Jim Moliterno appeared on Czech TV recently to discuss his work teaching judicial ethics.
Prof. Moliterno is one of the foremost international experts in legal ethics and professionalism. He has engaged in substantial international legal ethics and legal education reform work abroad, designing new lawyer and judge ethics courses in Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Czech Republic, Japan, Indonesia and Thailand. He has trained law professors in China, Thailand, Georgia, Armenia and Serbia. He has trained judges in Kosovo and both judges and prosecutors in Indonesia. He has worked to revise the lawyer ethics code in Thailand and Georgia and lectured extensively on international lawyer ethics topics in Spain, Czech Republic, and Slovakia.
The library at Washington and Lee School of Law has published the annual update to the Law Journal Rankings. The rankings are widely used as a tool for scholars to evaluate law reviews and journals during the publication process. The rankings site was visited over 700,000 times in 2015.
The new rankings reflect a new survey period of 2008-2015. Users may customize rankings for a selection of journals based on subject area categories, country of publication, and format (print or online) among other options. Data is available for over 1500 law journals.
Prior surveys are also available and provide longitudinal data on journal citation starting with 2003 and continuing through 2014.
Questions about the law journal rankings project may be directed to Stephanie Miller at firstname.lastname@example.org.