An article in the summer 2008 edition of the Green Bag entitled Supreme Court Usage and the Making of an ‘Is’ by Brooklyn Law School Professor Minor Myers is interesting reading on a fine point of grammar, namely whether the phrase “the United States” is a singular noun or a plural noun. Today, speakers and writers refer to the US in the singular sense rather than the plural. It may be that current usage is simply a reflection of a decline in grammatical standards. Otherwise one could speculate that contemorary usage is an unconscious move away from the federalist ideal of the Founders and an implicit endorsement of a unitary view of our government. Either way, the article is worth reading. Its abstract, posted this month on SSRN, says:

This survey examines use of the phrases “United States is” and “United States are” in opinions of the United States Supreme Court from 1790 to 1919. The familiar claim, popularized by Shelby Foote in the Ken Burns Civil War documentary, is that the Civil War marked a shift in usage from plural to singular. This survey demonstrates that in the Supreme Court this account of the timing of the change is not accurate. Although patterns of usage changed abruptly in the 1860s, justices continued to use the plural form through the end of the nineteenth century. Indeed, the plural usage was the predominant usage in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s. Only in the beginning of the twentieth century did the singular usage achieve preeminence and the plural usage disappear almost entirely.

Prof. Myers teaches Corporate Law: Advanced Topics, Property and writes on corporate law and local government law, with his most recent scholarship addressing the decisions of corporate special litigation committees. Prof. Myers scholarship includes:

• The Decisions of Corporate Special Litigation Committees: An Empirical Investigation; A Redistributive Role for Local Government;
• The Judicial Service of Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justices; and
• Obstacles to Bargaining Between Local Governments: The Case of West Haven and Orange, Connecticut

The Brooklyn Law School Library held a series of Lunch & Learn Wednesday Workshops this past month primarily for 1Ls on basic legal research. The topics covered were the new term of the US Supreme Court, Case Law Research (link from the Brooklaw Library Weblog), Law Review Research, Statutory Research and Adminstrative Law Research. The slideshows from each session are posted on the new BLS Connect using the trail: Brooklyn Law School Portal > Library > Research Guides and Aids. Video of the Administrative Law Research session is here:

Brooklyn Law School Professor Dana Brakman Reiser posted her working paper on the essential characteristics of charity law on SSRN. The article is entitled Charity Law’s Essentials.

Related to nonprofit organizations, the BLS Library recently added to its collection Starting and Managing a Nonprofit Organization: a Legal Guide by Bruce R. Hopkins (Call #KF1388 .H66 2009). The chapters of this book are: What is a nonprofit organization — Starting a nonprofit organization — Debunking some myths and misperceptions — Nonprofit organizations : much more than charity — Nonprofits and private benefit — From nonprofit to tax-exempt — Charities : public or private? — Governance : board duties and liabilities — Braving annual reporting — Tax exemption : not a paperwork exemption — Charitable giving rules — Government regulation of fundraising — Related or unrelated? — Lobbying constraints – and taxes — Political campaign activities – and more taxes — Donor-advised funds, tax-shelters, insurance schemes – and still more taxes — Subsidiaries : for-profit and nonprofit — Joint venturing and other partnering — Wonderful world of planned giving — Putting ideas into action — Watchdogs on the prowl — Potpourri of policies and procedures — Commerciality, competition, commensurateness — IRS audits of nonprofit organizations — Avoiding personal liability

Here is the abstract of Prof Reiser’s article Charity Law’s Essentials:

Close to two years ago, Systems Librarian Hainan Yu was approached by many students regarding the printing defaults in the Library computer labs.  The Library set the default to print double sided.  This did not mean that a student could not print single-sided, but you had to take an extra step or two to do so.  Due to the large number of student requests, we accommodated the student body and set the default to single-sided printing.

At the start of the Fall semester this year, SBA President Paul Molina brought the issue up again.  This time, the request was to set the default to double-sided printing.  This requires students to take that extra step or two in order to print single sided.  At the time, I asked Mr. Molina to send a survey to the student body to determine their preference.  I explained to him that we recently went through this issue and we wanted a clear mandate from the student body.  My suggestion was to get that mandate and then live with the decision for a reasonable period of time – perhaps 3 to 5 years in order to avoid the ping pong effect.  Coincidentally, soon after that conversation, a student concerned about green initiatives made the same request.

As I know the student body is very busy learning the law, the Library has decided to take the survey on your behalf as part of an assessment process.  Our assessment process is designed to help us, help you better.  Along with the question about double-sided printing, we would like to learn more about what we can do better and what we should stop doing.  I hope that you will participate in the survey when it is sent around in early November.

Setting policies on behalf of the student body that we can live with for a number of years helps everyone.  If we have a set policy in place, such as defaulting to double-sided printing, it provides a definitive statement for the librarians to deliver, and creates a set of expectations for users of the computer labs.  We are going to recommend to Associate Dean Jones-Wooden and SBA President Paul Molina, that student-driven policies involving shared resources be adopted for a reasonable length of time before being reviewed again.

We look forward for your thoughts on our survey!

Law students do not have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to understanding legal topics they encounter in class. Secondary sources provide a great deal of research that will save a lot of time and effort. One of the best secondary sources is the legal treatise. Legal treatises provide an in-depth look at a particular subject. Students should become familiar with some of the major treatises in areas of law that they are researching. Recently ZiefBrief, the blog of the University of San Francisco’s Law Library, provided some links to web pages listing treatises by subject. Here are some useful compilations of treatises by subject:

• Treatises and Services by Subject – Kent Olson
• Legal Treatises by Subject – Meg Krible’s libguide (Harvard Law Library)
• Georgetown Law Library Treatise Finder
• Pace Law Library’s Subject Guide to Legal Treatises

SARA, the Brooklyn Law School Library’ catalog will help students find in its collection treatises both in print and online through Westlaw or LexisNexis. For example, 1Ls in the Criminal Law course, will find in SARA the treatise Wharton’s Criminal Law (KF9219 .W48 1993) both in print in the Main collection and online through Westlaw (database identifier CRIMLAW). Wherever students find them, in most cases, treatises will help to get the research process started.

This month, several Brooklyn Law School student organizations including OutLaws, the National Lawyers Guild and BLSPI presented a panel discussion Transgender Hate Crimes: Victims, Their Families & Advocates Speak Out on transgender hate crimes. The session focused on members of the transgender community who face discrimination, harassment, abuse and violence and featured Leslie Mora and Carmella Etienne, both victims of hate crimes in two separate incidents in Queens, along with the family of Lateisha Green, a young African American woman from Syracuse who was shot to death in a car as she rode with her gay brother, who was wounded by the same gunman.

These cases demonstrate the potential for violence perpetrated against those who are singled out for attack because of their gender identity or expression. Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Andy Marra, senior media strategist at the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), discussed the status of gender identity and expression in federal and state hate crimes law as well as strategies that transgender community members can use to educate the public through the media on issues of gender identity and expression.

Statistics from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs show that murders of LGBT people in 2008 increased 28% from the previous year and that on average, a transgender person is murdered once a month in the United States. The NY Times has an article on the BLS panel discussion in an article that discussed the effort in the State Legislature to include gender identity in NY’s hate crime law. Previous effort to expand hate crime categories have failed to become law in NY. With these high-profile cases involving transgender victims, the outcome this year could be different, particularly as the USHouse of Representatives recently passed a measure expanding the definition of hate crimes under federal law to include a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. See post dated Oct. 11. Furthermore, today the US Senate approved by a vote of 68-29 its companion bill on hate crimes legislation that was part of a $680 billion idefense spending bill.

The BLS Library has in its collection several items on the topic including Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Clients: a Lawyer’s Guide by Joan M. Burda (Cal l # KF337.5.G38 B87 2008) with chapters that include: Representing lesbian, gay, and transgender clients — LGT relationships — LGT families — Children — Adoption — Parenting rights — LGBT students and schools — Representing transgender/transsexual clients — Lesbian, gay, and transgender elders — Estate planning – Immigration.

The library collection also has Transgender Rights edited by Paisley Currah, et als. (Call # HQ77.9 .T716 2006) with chapters entitled Pursuing protection for transgender people through disability laws — The evolution of employment discrimination protections for transgender people — The rights of intersexed infants and children : decision of the Colombian Constitutional Court, Bogotá, Colombia, 12 May 1999 — Do transsexuals dream of gay rights?: getting real about transgender inclusion — Transgender communities of the United States in the late twentieth century — Compliance is gendered: struggling for gender self-determination in a hostile economy — Trans)sexual citizenship in contemporary Argentina / Reinscribing normality?: the law and politics of transgender marriage — Afterword: Are transgender rights Inhuman rights?

The American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA), with the International Law Students Association, will host International Law Weekend (ILW), as part of the 88th Annual Meeting of ABILA in New York City. The 2009 ILW theme is “Challenges to Transnational Governance.” International Law Weekend 2009 will take place at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (42 West 44th Street) on October 22, and at Fordham University School of Law (140 West 62nd Street) on October 23rd and 24th. ILW is free for students and members of ILSA. Online registration is closed on the ILSA web page. Interested students can register onsite at the upcoming ILS.

The two-and-a-half day conference will feature several discussion panels, speakers, and networking events for lawyers and students. Among the many sessions is one called Trade and Climate Change which Brooklyn Law School Professor Claire R. Kelly will chair. The panelists include Steve Charnovitz of George Washington University, Laura Campbell of Environmental Law International and attorney Gary N. Horlick. This session is described in the Full Conference Program: “The nexus of trade and climate change law is complex and convoluted. While some see WTO trade rules as a potential threat to efforts to address climate change, others argue that WTO rules will not threaten such efforts, and could be modified to enhance Members’ abilities to confront climate change. This panel will look at the judiciousness of modifying WTO rules in this context, as well as the prospects for a trade policy response to climate change given the current state of the Doha negotiating round.”

This is a great opportunity for BLS law students to join with hundreds of practitioners, members of the governmental and non-governmental sectors and other students. ILW begins Thursday evening, October 22, with a distinguished opening panel at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, with a reception, open to conference attendees, to follow. More than 30 panels are scheduled for Friday, October 23 and Saturday, October 24 at Fordham University School of Law. A luncheon featuring distinguished guest speaker Lucy Reed, President of the American Society of International Law and partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, will also take place Friday, October 23 at Fordham School of Law.

Earlier this month, Brian Leiter’s Law School Rankings posted the Ranking of Top 40 Law Schools by Student (Numerical) Quality 2009. Using a metric that averaged the 75th and 25th percentile of LSAT scores for the class that entered in fall 2008, the list ranks law schools and gives their average LSAT scores, the average of their 75th/25th Grade Point Average, their approximate class sizes (rounded to the nearest 50). Brooklyn Law School came in tied for number 39 with an average LSAT of 161.5 (compared to 173.0 for number 1 Harvard), a GPA average of 3.380 and a class of 500 that entered in fall 2008 (topped only by Georgetown with 600 and Harvard with 550).

The ranking does not measure other aspects of the student population that would be useful to know, such as the average age of the students, those who have advanced degrees, what kind of work experience they have and the cultural diversity of the entering class. It might also be useful to measure graduating students’ starting salaries, placement rates, and bar exam pass rates as current rankings rely so much on reputation, admissions rates, LSAT scores, and GPAs. While law school rankings often lack real substance, they often do conform to the general reputation these law schools have among lawyers, law students and potential applicants.

Law.com has posted an article entitled Uniform Bar Exam Inches Closer To Reality by Leigh Jones which says that at least 10 states are expected to switch to the so-called Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) and that 22 other jurisdictions may adopt the test in the next few years. Proponents of the UBE say that its use will standardize attorney licensing across the country and would provide financial relief for states by relieving them from having to create their own test questions. Historically, states have retained their own testing autonomy by developing their own exam questions and by using their own pass scores.

The Bar Examiner, the journal of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, has several prominent legal professionals writing Essays on a Uniform Bar Examination advocating the UBE in Volume 78, Number 1 from February 2009. Among them is Diane Bosse, chairwoman of the New York State Board of Law Examiners, who wrote: “The benefits the UBE can bring to the lawyer-licensing are clear; what has been uncertain is whether, in adopting a common set of test instruments, we would need to abandon our long-standing position that a person seeking to become a member of the bar in our state should be required to demonstrate competence in our state-specific law.”

The UBE would have three components: the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE), the Multistate Performance Test (MPT), and the Multistate Essay Examination (MEE). Individual states would continue to perform their own grading. The Law.com article points out that the UBE still has hurdles to overcome as big states like New York, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois and Texas have yet agree to the idea. However, the article quotes John J. McAlary, executive director of the New York State Board of Law Examiners which administers some 15,000 bar examinations each year, as considering the uniform exam.