Category Archives: Uncategorized

Symposium on Trade Secrets

Brooklyn Law School’s Trade Secrets Institute is sponsoring a Symposium: Keeping Your Secrets Secret on Thursday, April 11, 2:30 pm to 5:30 pm at the Subotnick Center, on the 11th Floor of 250 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn NY. To attend the event, RSVP online. The field of trade secret protection has become increasingly complex, in both legal practice and enforcement. The symposium will focus on trade secrets in cloud-based data sharing platforms and the federalization of trade secret misappropriation lawsuits. To view the Agenda, click here.

As more trade secret owners-share information with their employees via “secure” cloud-based data sharing platforms, a number of trade secret misappropriation claims have been arising between employers and departing employees. The result is a need for clarity on the technological and contractual obligations of trade secret owners if they seek protection under the UTSA and state common law. This symposium will also evaluate best practices for companies’ protection of trade secrets while employees are accessing information via numerous outlets, including mobile devices.

The BLS Library has an extensive collection of material on the subject of trade secrets including the second edition of Trade Secrets: Law and Practice (Call # KF3197 .Q56 2012) by David W. Quinto and Stuart H. Singer. The two highly experienced trial lawyers have assembled case law analysis and strategic advice on prosecuting and defending trade secret misappropriation actions, maintaining legally sufficient trade secret protection measures, and supervising outside attorneys in the course of litigation. The book contains an overview of litigation burdens, presumptions and inferences; a comprehensive analysis of the applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) to trade secret misappropriation claims; the latest developments in the evolving approaches to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) preemption of common law and state statutory claims; and an expanded state-by-state analysis of trade secret litigation.

Summer Access to Bloomberg Law, Lexis & Westlaw

sun-wearing-sunglassesThe three legal research databases, Bloomberg Law, Lexis and Westlaw, are available to Brooklyn Law School students this summer.   See the details for each database below.

Bloomberg Law

Bloomberg Law provides unlimited and unrestricted access over the summer.  Student accounts will remain active and available all summer.  Students may use Bloomberg Law without restrictions.  Graduating students have unlimited and unrestricted access to Bloomberg Law for six months after graduation.

Access to Bloomberg Law is through the Bloomberg Law website:   http://www.bloomberglaw.com with a username and password issued by Bloomberg.

Lexis

All students with a registered Lexis Advance ID will automatically have access to Lexis Advance over the summer. No registration is required.  Lexis Advance will remain accessible to students and Lexis Advance may be used for both educational and commercial purposes.  Students who do not have a LexisAdvance ID should contact our Lexis representative, Beth Hoffman, at beth.hoffman@lexis.nexis.com.

Westlaw

Students have the option of extending full access to Westlaw over the summer if they meet one of the following education purposes:

  • Enrolled in summer law school
  • On a law journal or moot court
  • Working as a research assistant for a faculty member
  • Working at an unpaid, non-profit, public interest internship/externship or pro bono work required for graduation, provided you are not being paid for your research and your employer is not being paid for Westlaw research you conduct for your employer.

In order to take advantage of this extension, students must update their registration at:

http://lawschool.westlaw.com/registration/summerextension.asp

Beginning June 1, 2013, student passwords will be limited to 40 hours of access per month during the months of June and July, 2013, unless the password is extended for summer use.   On August 1, 2013, returning students’ passwords will be reactivated to full academic use.  Graduating students who need Westlaw access to prepare for the bar examination can extend their passwords as well for five hours of access in June and five hours in July through 07/31/2013 by completing the summer extension form and indicating that they are a graduating student.

The summer extension form is posted on the Westlaw law school homepage:  www.lawschool.westlaw.com  Students can sign on to the site and select the “need Westlaw this summer” icon.

Recess Appointments

An article in the National Law Journal, New Congressional Research Report Looks at Recess Appointments, examines the D.C. Circuit’s recent ruling in Canning v. National Labor Relations Board in which then-Chief Judge David Sentelle restricted the power of the president to make recess appointments. The appellate court said the president can only make an appointment under “the recess” of the Senate. The case is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court which could uphold the decision, marking a shift toward increased Senate control over the appointment of government officials. The article cites a recent Congressional Research Service report entitled The Recess Appointment Power AfterNoel Canning v. NLRB: Constitutional Implications by legislative attorneys Todd Garvey and David Carpenter.
 
The report states that the case could also decrease the frequency of presidential recess appointments. Since 1981, more than half of all recess appointments have been made in Senate recesses that were during a session, something the president would no longer be able to do. “Thus, by limiting both the periods in which a President may make recess appointments, and the vacancies that may be filled by such appointments, the decision likely would strengthen the Senate’s ‘Advice and Consent’ role, while restricting the President’s authority to make unilateral appointments.”

The Brooklyn Law School Library has in its collection Justice Takes a Recess: Judicial Recess Appointments from George Washington to George W. Bush (Call #KF8776 .G666 2009) by Scott E. Graves and Robert M. Howard. The book explains how the Constitution allows the president to “fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” Examining every judicial recess appointment from 1789 to 2005, the book addresses how presidents have used recess appointments over time and whether the independence of judicial recess appointees is compromised. They argue that these appointments can upset the separation of powers envisioned by the Framers, shifting power away from one branch of government and toward another.

Older Versions of State Statutes

HeinOnline’s State Statutes: A Historical Archive is a newly added library in Hein with PDF versions of historic codes from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Some materials date back to the early 18th century. This new collection includes more than 1,600 volumes and nearly 2,000,000 pages of historical superseded state statutes (but not current state statutes). It is a useful resource for legal researchers and scholars to understand historical statutes. The collection provides online access to superseded state code sections, which researchers previously had to access in microfiche at the Brooklyn Law School Library. Superseded codes give access to the text of the law in force, as amended, on a particular date in time, as opposed to session laws, which provide the text of the law as originally enacted by the legislature. A single code section usually contains small pieces from many different session laws. Determining the text of a code section on a particular date from only the session laws is a difficult and time-consuming process which State Statutes: A Historical Archive makes easier.

Current and some superseded state codes can also be found online in LexisNexis and Westlaw which have older versions of state codes that go back to the early 1990s. To find current state codes or more recent superseded codes which are not a part of Hein’s State Statutes: A Historical Archive library, or to get help using the new HeinOnline database, see a reference librarina at the reference desk.

Prepare to Practice: 5 Databases in 50 Minutes

The Reference Librarians will give a presentation geared to graduating students on “5 Databases in 50 Minutes” on Wednesday, April 10th and we will repeat the presentation on Thursday, April 11th.  Both presentations will be held from 4:00pm to 4:50pm in Library Rom 113M.  You may attend either presentation, but you must register in advance as seating is limited.  Light refreshments will be served.

We will describe and demonstrate the following databases:  Fastcase, HeinOnline, Law360, LexisNexis Academic, and ProQuest Legislative Insight.  These databases are available in the BLS Library to graduating students and alumni, but all students are welcome to attend either presentation.

Registration information for both dates is below.

For April 10th – Register here.

For April 11th – Register here

Hope to see you there!

.

ID Laws and the Constitution

In a recent decision, Barry v. City of New York, Eastern District of New York Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak invalidated the NYC Metropolican Transportation Authority ID Rule, 21 N.Y.C.R.R. §1050.6(d)(3), that requires transit riders to carry identification. Finding the rule to be unconstitutionally vague, the court granted summary judgment in a 2011 lawsuit brought on behalf of plaintiffs Steve Barry and Michael Burkhart, who were taking photographs in a subway station in Queens while waiting for the arrival of a vintage subway train operated by the New York Transit Museum. When the two objected to a police officer who told them they could not take pictures, the officer asked them to produce identification. Burkhart showed the officers a Pennsylvania driver’s license, but Barry, a New Jersey resident, did not, according to the ruling. Barry was charged with violating the MTA ID Rule which requires persons in a “facility or conveyance” of the transit authority to “provide accurate, complete and true information or documents” to NYPD or transit personnel.

The complaint, which the New York Civil Liberties Union filed on behalf of the plaintifffs, claimed that the MTA ID rule was unconstitutionally vague because it did not specify when and under what circumstances an officer can ask a person to turn over documents, or what type of documents would satisfy the rule. The NYCLU says that police have issued 6,542 summonses in the last 10 years to people who failed to provide identification under the ID rule. Citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), the court ruled that the ID Rule is “a criminal law that reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct and vests almost unlimited discretion in the NYPD officers charged with enforcement of the ID Rule.”

The issue of identification cards has come up recently as US Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) and other key Senators are exploring an immigration bill that would force every U.S. worker, whether a citizen or not, to carry a high-tech biometric identity card using fingerprints or other personal markers to prove a person’s legal eligibility to work. See the Wall Street Journal article Senators in Immigration Talks Mull Federal IDs for All Workers. For more on the subject of national identification cards, see the Brooklyn Law School Library’s copy of National Identification Systems: Essays in Opposition (Call #JC596 .N38 2004) edited by Carl Watner and Wendy McElroy. The book recounts the history of national ID cards, covers contemporary technologies, such as microchips, email tracking and camera-based surveillance systems, and imagines a future of rebellion against a government tracking its citizens in the name of security, and offers some hope that American culture does not lend itself to the fanatical control that a high-tech national ID system could make possible.

Changes in Gay and Lesbian Rights

Brooklyn Law School’s OUTLaws will hold its 2nd Annual Alumni Dinner and Community Awards Banquet on Tuesday, April 16 from 7:00 to 9:00 pm at the Forchelli Conference Center, 205 State Street Brooklyn, NY. The theme of this year’s event is “Sea Change: A Year in LGBTQ Rights” recognizing the accomplishments of the gay and lesbian community in the past year. The event also celebrates the launch of OUTLaws’ first-ever pro bono project, the gay and lesbian Brooklyn Legal Assistance Project. BLS alumni, faculty, staff, students, and the general public are invited to attend. Those who want to attend can RSVP by completing the form at this link.

The event’s keynote speaker will be civil rights attorney, educator, radio host, small business owner and 2013 NYC City Council candidate Yetta Kurland, BLS Class of 1997. OUTLaws will present its Alumni Achievement Award to Carol Buell, Class of 1980. Buell is a partner in the Manhattan law firm of Weiss, Buell & Bell. Brad Snyder, Executive Director of the LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York (LeGaL), is the invited guest speaker for the event. In 2012, LeGal in partnership with the Brooklyn Community Pride Center and OUTLaws launched of a pro bono legal clinic devoted to serving the gay and lesbian community of Brooklyn. The clinic is hosted at the BLS offices at 1 Boerum Place in Downtown Brooklyn and meets on alternate Wednesdays.

With this week’s US Supreme Court arguments on the constitutional challenges to California’s ban on same-sex marriage in Hollingsworth v. Perry and the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor which began in the Southern District of New York, the way in which books discuss gay and lesbian rights has changed over the years. The WSJ Law Blog post When the Supreme Court First Wrestled With Gay Rights

 states that in 1958 the Supreme Court issued a 62-word ruling in One, Inc. v. Olesen reversing a ruling in One, Inc. v. Olesen, 241 F. 2d 772 where the Ninth Circuit found a magazine to be “morally depraving and debasing” singling out an article titled “Sappho Remembered” about a lesbian’s influence on a young woman coping with married life. The Circuit Court called the article “nothing more than cheap pornography calculated to promote lesbianism.” In Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court (Call # HQ76.8.U5 M87 2002) by Joyce Murdoch and Deb Price, the authors write that the decision was close, decided only after Justice Tom Clark changed his position and Justice Charles Evans Whittaker agreed to be the fifth vote.

That discussion of legal issues on gay and lesbian rights stands in stark contrast to that in recent items in the BLS Library collection. See Estate Planning for Same-Sex Couples (Call # KF750 .B87 2012) by Joan M. Burda. The book is a tool for lawyers handling legal issues for gays and lesbians. Chapters include information on wills and trusts, children, estate planning, and dealing with senior gay and lesbian clients.

BLS and the Suffrage March of 1913

For Women’s History Month, observed in March in the United States, the blog for the Law Library of Congress, In Custodia Legis, has an interesting post noting that March 2013 is also the Centennial of the 1913 Suffrage March. One of the organizers of the march from New York to Washington was Rosalie Gardiner Jones, an early Brooklyn Law School student, who was known as the “General”.  Early accounts describe her as “a wealthy Long Island young woman”, a socialite from Oyster Bay. Her British and Dutch roots dated back to the early settlement of New York. Jones Beach and Gardiner’s Island were named after her ancestors. She graduated Brooklyn Law School but never worked as a lawyer.

Women’s suffrage had been an issue long before the Suffrage Marches as can be seen in The Woman Who Dared to Vote: The Trial of Susan B. Anthony (Call #KF223.A58 H85 2012) by N. E. H. Hull in the BLS Library collection. The book relates the story of Susan B. Anthony’s attempt to vote on November 5, 1872. Before she could place her vote in the ballot box, a poll watcher objected, claiming her action violated the laws of New York and the state constitution. Anthony protested that as a citizen of the United States and the state of New York she was entitled to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment. The poll watchers gave in and allowed Anthony to deposit her ballots. Anthony was arrested, charged with a federal crime, and tried in court.In addition to telling the story of Anthony’s vote, arrest, and preliminary hearings, as well as the legal and public relations maneuvering in the run-up to the trial, the book summarizes the woman suffrage movement in the post-Civil War era and its subsequent fall into disarray. Hull captures the drama created by Anthony, her attorneys, the politically ambitious prosecutor, and the presiding judge, Supreme Court Justice Ward Hunt, who argued against Anthony’s interpretation of the Reconstruction Amendments as the source of her voting rights. Citing Minor v. Happersett, a key case for the voting rights of women, the book follows the major players through the eventual passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.

Impact of Law School Scholarly Research

Brooklyn Law School’s scholarly journals show increasing strength ranking 7th in a recent analysis comparing the scholarly output in selected journals of all ABA-accredited law schools ranked below the 50th spot in the U.S. News & World Report 2013 Rankings. See Per Capita Productivity of Articles in Top Journals, 1993-2012: Law Schools outside the U.S. News Top 50. Brian Leiter’s Top 70 Law Faculties in Scholarly Impact, 2007-2011 published in July 2012 places Brooklyn Law School at number 41 of the top 70 law faculties with the highest scholarly impact.

Recent scholarship includes an article which Brooklyn Law School Professor Brad Borden and three BLS alumni, Ethan Blinder, Class of 2013, Joseph Binder, Class of 2013, and Louis Incatasciato, Class of 2012, co-authored.  Scheduled for publication in the forthcoming issue of volume 7 of the Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law, the article, A Model for Measuring the Expected Value of Assuming a Greater Share of a Tax Partnership’s Liabilities, for which the abstract reads:

To a very large extent, tax law drives the choice property and business owners make regarding the entity they use for ownership and operation of their enterprises. At an ever-increasing rate, property and business owners choose to operate their enterprises with entities that are subject to partnership taxation (i.e., limited liability companies, limited partnerships, and limited liability partnerships). Once in the realm of partnership taxation, those same parties face numerous decisions that require them to balance tax, state-law, and other economic considerations. This Article presents a situation in which members of tax partnerships would have to balance those considerations to make an informed decision. The Article illustrates that the use of expected cost estimates can help a member of a tax partnership decide whether taking a current flow-through deduction from the tax partnership warrants the member assuming a larger share of the tax partnership’s liability. In presenting the model that can assist with such a decision, the Article opens the possibility of analyzing other vexing decisions that the confluence of partnership taxation and state law presents to members of tax partnerships. Although such decisions are often vexing, the Article illustrates that finding the proper tools to assist with the decision-making process enhances the value of forming an entity that qualifies for partnership taxation.

Free EUR-Lex, N-Lex & EUROPA for EU legal research

EUR-Lex is the European Union’s free and official site to access EU law.  The EU publishes its treaties and secondary legislation (regulations, directives and decisions) in an official gazette which is currently titled the Official Journal of the European Union.  EUR-Lex includes:

  • All issues of the Official Journal (in PDF) from 1998- and many issues of the Official Journal from 1952- (the EU’s goal is to provide all issues here)
  • EU treaties currently in force, including consolidated versions of treaties that the EU amended frequently over time, such as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty on European Union
  • EU treaties in a chronological list dating back to the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community
  • Accession treaties of new EU member states
  • Search features, including the ability to search: by type of document (file category) + keywords; by document number; and by Official Journal cite or European Court Reports (E.C.R.) cite
An enhanced beta version of EUR-Lex currently offers:

In future, the new EUR-Lex also will provide an “authentic electronic version” of the European Court Reports and the ability to view an EU document in up to 3 languages simultaneously.

EU directives apply to all EU member states.  Each EU member state can devise its own means of transposing the goals in a directive into national law. Thus, member state national implementing measures might be in the form of laws, regulations or constitutional amendments.  N-Lex is a gateway (still under development) to find EU member states’ national implementing legislation.  One can search N-Lex by keywords/document type/document number to find an EU member’s national implementing legislation.  N-Lex also allows a researcher to link out to an EU member’s official site containing all available legislation.

The EU also provides free tools to identify its legislation by topic:
Also, I can show BLS researchers how to search our catalog for treatises about EU legal topics, and how to use tools that index legal articles (such as free SSRN and databases LRI and LJI in subscription Westlaw Classic).