Study Rooms Reservations & Library Hours During Reading/Exam Period

During the reading and exam period, you must make a reservation to use a library study room.  Mandatory study room reservations will begin Thursday, Dec. 5, at 8:00 am; at that time all study rooms will be locked and you must go to the first floor circulation desk when your reservation time begins to charge out the key to the room.  The link to the study room reservations is on the library homepage,  under “Related Links” on the right side of the page.

Study Room Policies:desk

  • Study rooms are for the use of groups of two or more students
  • Study rooms may be reserved only for the current day and two days ahead
  • Study rooms may be reserved for periods from 30 minutes up to four hours
  • Students are permitted to reserve a room for no more than four hours per day
  • Reservations violating these policies will be deleted
  • Instructions for making reservations and a list of rooms available are on the study room reservations page

Library hours for the reading and exam period:

  • Thursday, Dec. 5 – Thursday, Dec. 19: 8:00 am – 2:00 am
  • Friday, Dec. 20: 8:00 am – 5:00 pm
  • From Dec. 5 – Dec. 19, the Circulation Desk will close at Midnight; no books can be checked out after Midnight

·        Reminders:

  • Please limit all conversations in the library – remember that your colleagues are studying too
  • no eating in the library; please go to the student lounge or dining hall for all snacks and meals
  • Do not leave valuables unattended. If you step away from your study table or carrel, take anything of value to you with you
  • And Finally, goodluckforexam2

Law School Lowdown

Brooklyn Law School Library’s latest New Books List  with its 55 items is now available thanks to the efforts of Cataloging Librarian Jeff Gabel. The titles on the list cover a wide range of subjects from abortion law and legislation to corporation law, from criminal justice to labor law, and from social media to  rent control in New York.

Law School LowdownOne title of practical interest to law students is Law School Lowdown: Secrets of Success from the Application Process to Landing the First Job (Call # KF283 .S37 2013) by Ian E. Scott. The author, a New York attorney and graduate of Harvard Law School, successfully completed the New York and New Jersey bar examinations and worked at Cleary Gottlieb’s litigation and corporate groups. Since then, he opened his own law practice, Scott Legal Services, P.C., which specializes in new business setup and business immigration.

This practical guide for success has tips on pitfalls to avoid and serves as a blueprint for legal accomplishment on a number of topics including:

  • The law school application process and tips on taking the important Law School Admission Test (LSAT)
  • Selecting a law school, applying for scholarships, and deciding between top-ranked and lower-ranked schools
  • Making the grade during that vital first year at law school
  • The best courses to take in second and third years
  • The advantages of publishing papers while in law school
  • Seeking out summer positions at law firms
  • Taking and passing state bar exams
  • Finding employment at a law firm after graduation
  • Other post-law school options, including judicial clerkships

The book’s useful appendices has yet more advice, and includes a completed model law school application form, effective résumés, and a model brief of a case for class. Based on his own law school experiences, Law School Lowdown addresses both the rigors and satisfactions that comprise the law school experience, offering the advice to will pave the way to a successful career in law. A companion blog called Law School Lowdown: The Site for Practical Law School Success Tips offers additional advice.

Regulating the Digital Investigative State

This week, University of Illinois College of Law Assistant Professor Law Stephen Rushin discussed his article The Legislative Response to Mass Police Surveillance scheduled for publication in volume 79 of the Brooklyn Law Review. The abstract for the article reads:

Police departments have rapidly adopted mass surveillance technologies in an effort to fight crime and improve efficiency. I have previously described this phenomenon as the growth of the digitally efficient investigative state. This new technological order transforms traditional law enforcement by improving the efficiency of everyday policing activities and retaining copious amounts of data on both suspicious and unsuspicious behavior. Empirical evidence shows that police surveillance technologies are common and rapidly expanding in urban America. In the absence of legislative action, police departments have adopted widely disparate internal policies. The Supreme Court had the opportunity to reign in the scope of police surveillance in Jones v. United States. But the Court could not agree on whether technological improvements in efficiency transform an otherwise legal policing tactic into an unconstitutional search. Nor could the Court agree on whether a person may have a reasonable expectation to privacy in public movement. Post-Jones, the jurisprudence of police surveillance emerged as incoherent as ever.

I have previously argued that the judiciary should regulate police surveillance technologies. While it remains possible that the judiciary will someday make such a doctrinal shift, the immediate responsibility for regulating police surveillance technology falls on state legislatures. In this Article, I offer a model statute to regulate mass police surveillance. The model statute limits indiscriminate data collection. It also caps data retention for personally identifiable information. It excludes from criminal court any locational evidence obtained in violation of the statute. And it gives the state attorney general authority to bring suit against police departments that fail to abide by the law. This legislation would give discretion to police departments to craft data policies fitting their city’s unique needs, while also encouraging consistency and fairness.

The 20 minute interview, available here, aired on Law and Disorder Radio, a weekly radio program, addresses law enforcement use of different technological replacements for traditional behavior. At first, these innovations seemed a good thing but recently local law enforcement began to utilize extreme data retention using Automatic License Plate Readers and security cameras with facial recognition. These tools allow law enforcement to monitor an entire community invasively without invading any legally protected areas of privacy. As a result, the public is just beginning to learn the dangers of big data collection by the state. His proposal deals with the length of time local law enforcement retain data.

Surveillance

Tracking and surveillance technology facilitates unprecedented levels of data collection about individuals, often without their knowledge or consent. Government use of that technology has generated controversy and questions about civil liberties and privacy rights, How, or if, government can use these technologies responsibly is a major issue. For more on the subject, see the BLS Library copy of Privacy and Surveillance With New Technologies by Peter P. Swire and Kenesa Ahmad (Call # KF5399 .P75 2012). It offers an overview of government surveillance using new technology and selects five issues (Video surveillance, Border searches of electronic devices, Communication surveillance, Location surveillance, and online tracking) that present complex challenges to civil liberty advocates and government officials alike.

Gettysburg Address: 150th Anniversary

On November 19, 1863, Abraham Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, site of the bloodiest battle of the American Civil War in July of that with more than 7000 killed. Gettysburg attorney David Wills and local officials planned an elaborate dedication ceremony for a national cemetery for the fallen soldiers, inviting state governors, members of Congress, and cabinet members, and prominent orator Edward Everett as the keynote speaker. At the last minute, Willis asked President Lincoln to make a few remarks probably thinking he would not attend or simply deliver a few platitudes. But President Lincoln delivered a two-minute speech that redefined the nation. In a mere ten sentences of about 270 words, Lincoln delivered one of the most important political speeches in American history, one often called the Second Declaration of Independence.

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us–that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion–that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Lincoln's CounselThe Gettysburg Address still matters today. Brooklyn Law School Library’s copy of Lincoln’s Counsel: Lessons from America’s Most Persuasive Speaker by Arthur Rizer (Call # KF368.L52 R59 2010), calls it the Greatest Closing Argument Ever Made: “Even today, brevity in closing arguments isn’t universally appreciated. If an attorney gave a three-minute closing argument, he may be sued for malpractice. Despite this, with the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln used his skills as a persuasive litigator to breathe life into a cause that was costing so much human life. The speech was more than simple dedicatory remarks for a memorial site. He set out a position that advocated why his position was correct, much as a lawyer does in making a closing argument, and he did it quickly and beautifully.”  More importantly, President Lincoln rededicated the nation to the principle of human equality, and to a government that reflected that equality by advancing the economic interests of all Americans. Now, as then, most Americans back Lincoln’s vision and now, as then, some still oppose those principles for both racial and economic reasons.

Social Media: Academic and Legal Risks

An article in the NY Times titled They Loved Your GPA. Then They Saw Your Tweets recently pointed out the consequences of inappropriate postings on social media. The article reads:

As certain high school seniors work meticulously this month to finish their early applications to colleges, some may not realize that comments they casually make online could negatively affect their prospects. In fact, new research from Kaplan Test Prep, the service owned by the Washington Post Company, suggests that online scrutiny of college hopefuls is growing.

Of 381 college admissions officers who answered a Kaplan telephone questionnaire this year, 31% said they had visited an applicant’s Facebook or other personal social media page to learn more about them — a five-percentage-point increase from last year. More crucially for those trying to get into college, 30% of the admissions officers said they had discovered information online that had negatively affected an applicant’s prospects.

Social MediaHigh school students are not the only ones who need to exercise discretion when using social media. Touro Law School Assistant Professor of Law Jonathan Ezor’s PowerPoint presentation Law Students Tweeting Badly demonstrates that law students need to use caution as well.  Beyond the world of academia, an item in Brooklyn Law School Library’s November New Books List shows that the problem goes much further. Social Media: Legal Risk & Corporate Policy by Fordham Law School Adjunct Law Professor Adam I. Cohen (Call #KF390.5.C6 C576 2013)  shows that lawyers and jurists, corporate policymakers, and government regulatory agencies have only just begun to address the practical business and legal risk issues raised by the proliferation of social media channels and content.

The book explores the implications suggested by the precursors of a forthcoming tidal wave of social media-related civil litigation, the spectrum of potential corporate policy approaches to reducing the risks inherent in social media use, and the social media service privacy policy minefield that all social media participants, corporate and individual, will have to navigate if they want to optimize what little control they have over information shared by using social media. The book’s highlights include the practical litigation implications of social media cases likely to be of relevance to business enterprises are examined; the issue of attorney ethics in a social media context; civil cases that have involved social media are discussed and classified by type; the reasons for having a corporate social media policy; a discussion of the fundamental areas generally covered by social media policies; and a policy creation “toolkit” that organizes and provides sample provisions with which to build a social media policy are included.

Congress.Gov Replacing Thomas

 

congress_gov_logo2

The free legislative information website, Congress.gov, is transitioning into its permanent role as the official site for federal legislative information from the U.S. Congress and related agencies. The site, which launched in beta form last fall and features platform mobility, comprehensive information retrieval and user-friendly presentation, is replacing the nearly 20-year-old THOMAS.gov.

Beginning Nov. 19, typing Thomas.gov into a web browser will automatically redirect to Congress.gov. Thomas Twitter followers will be transferred to the Congress.gov Twitter account. THOMAS.gov will remain accessible from the Congress.gov homepage through late 2014 before it is retired.

To help ease the transition for users from THOMAS.gov to the new site, the Library of Congress is offering online training webinars over the next few months. Complete this form if you wish to register for a training webinar.

Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship (CUBE)

This month, Brooklyn Law School will be launching the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship (CUBE). This new initiative will serve as a hub for exploring legal issues surrounding entrepreneurship, and for providing effective legal representation and support for new businesses. It will offer training for the next generation of business lawyers in technology, real estate, media, creative arts, energy, or any other area of enterprise with tools to support and help build the start-up successes of tomorrow.

BLS Associate Professor of Clinical Law Jonathan Askin is the  CUBE Innovation Catalyst and also Founder & Director of the BLIP Clinic. The inspiration for the project is allow BLS  law students to use their law degrees to explore new ways to represent innovative entrepreneurs, embark on ventures of their own, and trail blaze paths for the entrepreneurial lawyer and the legally-trained entrepreneur. BLS Dean and Professor Law Nicholas Allard is making a series of presentations seeking input from faculty and others about plans for the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship (CUBE).

EnterpreneurialThe BLS Library has in its collection Entrepreneurial Practice: Enterprise Skills for Lawyers Serving Emerging Client Populations by Nelson P. Miller, Michael J. Dunn, and John D. Crane (Call # KF300 .M554 2012). The book discusses the increasingly specialized role of law in our complex, technical, regulatory state affecting more people more frequently and more deeply than ever before. It argues that if communities are to prosper, lawyers must standardize law products and services to meet new needs, efficiently fit those services for individual clients, price those services transparently, and deliver them timely by accessible means. Lawyers who learn these new law practice conventions will have more meaningful and rewarding careers that promote the order, openness, health, welfare, and economy of their communities. These lawyers will use more mobile and powerful technology in more clear, precise, and technical means to convey better-suited law products and services to better-served clients.

Lord Mansfield: Justice in the Age of Reason

Brooklyn Law School Professor of Law Emeritus Norman Poser is a widely-respected expert in both international and domestic securities regulation and the author of Broker-Dealer Law and Regulation, International Securities Regulation: London’s “Big Bang,” and the European Securities Markets. Before joining Brooklyn Law School’s faculty in 1980, he worked for the American Stock Exchange as Executive Vice President for Legal and Regulatory Affairs and Senior Vice President of Policy Planning and Government Relations. Professor Poser also served as Assistant Director of the Division of Trading and Markets of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. He has worked as a consultant and expert witness on a wide variety of matters, including engagements in connection with securities litigations and arbitrations for the New York State Attorney General, the World Bank, the Organization of American States, the United States Agency for International Development, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and several prominent securities exchanges.

Lord MansfieldProf. Poser recently published Lord Mansfield: Justice in the Age of Reason available in the BLS Library’s International Collection (Call # KD621.M3 P68 2013). The book is the first modern biography of Lord Mansfield (1705–1793). In it Prof. Poser details the life and times of the great 18th-century judge and statesman, whose legacy continues to have a unique influence on Anglo-American law and society. The son of a minor Scottish nobleman who skirted charges of treason, Mansfield rose through English society to become a member of its ruling aristocracy, confidential advisor to two kings, and friend to statesmen, poets, artists, actors, bishops, soldiers, and members of the nobility. His extraordinary political career – both before and during his unprecedented 32-year tenure as Chief Justice of England – offers a portrait of a fascinating era.

On Wednesday, November 7, 2013 at 6pm in the Subotnick Center at 250 Joralemon Street, there will be a Book Launch followed by a Reception. Those wanting to attend this event are urged to RSVP online at www.brooklaw.edu/mansfield before Tuesday, November 5. There is no charge for this event. Copies of the book will be available for purchase. Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal published a review of Prof. Poser’s book. The review can be found at this link.

Good Council: Representing Brooklyn

On Tuesday, October 29, Brooklyn Law School will present a panel discussion, Good Council: Representing Brooklyn in the Law School’s Moot Court Room, 250 Joralemon Street. The event will run from 6:00 to 7:30. Featured speakers include incumbent NYC Council Member Stephen Levin who represents District 33 which includes Brooklyn Heights, Greenpoint; parts of Williamsburg, Park Slope, Boerum Hill.  Others panelists include former Council Member who have represented this district since 1975: Ken Fisher, Esq., Cozen O’Conner; Hon. Abraham Gerges, Kings County Supreme Court; and David Yassky, Chair of the Taxi & Limousine Commission.  Admission is free, but registration at this link must be made before Friday, October 25.

Brooklyn Law School Professor David Reiss will moderate the event that will focus on the history of the district and the public policy conflicts the panelists have faced in representing it. The panelists will focus on how government responds to dynamic change, the limits of governmental action, and initiatives that have shaped the district to be at the heart of the new Brooklyn.

Visual Artist Rights Act in Federal Court

On October 10, 2013, a group of 17 graffiti artists, who operate 5Pointz, a “graffiti Mecca” in Long Island City, NY where aerosol artists from around the globe paint colorful pieces on the walls, filed a 39-page Complaint in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York against real estate developer G&M Realty LP. The complaint, titled Cohen et al. v. G&M Realty LP et al. seeks an injunction preventing the defendant from demolishing and redeveloping the property. The three counts of the Complaint allege that the proposed demolition would violate the rights of the plaintiffs under the Visual Artist Rights Act of 1990, as well as their contractual rights with the defendant, and the easement rights of the lead plaintiff, Jonathan Cohen. On October 9, 2013, G&M Realty got approval from the New York City Council to demolish the 200,000-square-foot factory building in order to build housing towers in its place. For more on the story, see the NY Times article from earlier this month.

5 Pointz

”Aerosol artists have traveled from as far away as Kazakhstan, Australia, Japan and Brazil for the opportunity to paint their works of visual art on 5Pointz,” the complaint states. “5Pointz is listed in every major guidebook covering New York City, and is included in over 100 international travel guides as well.” According to the Complaint, 5Pointz has been a fixture in Long Island City since 1993 when the owner allowed aerosol artists to create pieces on the walls of five lots in Long Island City. In 2002, the lead plaintiff Jonathan Cohen became a curator and manager of the buildings as collective canvases.

The 5Pointz exhibit has garnered multiple news and art features in the press, examples of which were submitted as exhibits to the complaint. There have been numerous movies and TV programs about 5Pointz over the past two decades, and corporations like Donna Karan have used images of the exhibit as backdrops in advertisements. The defendant property owners have put together a plan to raze the old factories and build two residential towers that would be higher than zoning ordinance in the area would normally permit. The buildings would have 1,000 rental apartments, 30,000 square feet of public space and 50,000 square feet of retail space, according to the developers. Cohen contends that hundreds of original and famous artworks will be lost to the demolition.

The case is pending in Brooklyn’s Federal Court before Judge Frederic Block who heard oral argument on October 17, 2013 on plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction. After the hearing, Judge Block granted a temporary restraining order against the developer landlords from tampering with the building. The Court’s decision to grant a 10-day restraining order is the first step toward getting a permanent injunction.

In her law review article, Defining Fashion, Interpreting the Scope of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, 73 Brooklyn L. Rev. 728 (2008), Elizabeth F. Johnson, Brooklyn Law School Class of 2008, discussed the Visual Artists Rights Act (“VARA”). She cited Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate, 459 F.3d 128 (1st Cir. 2006), as an example of how courts have narrowly interpreted an aesthetic term defined in a statute. In that case, a sculptor brought suit seeking to prevent the destruction of his “public sculpture park” relying in part on VARA which protects “work[s] of visual art” against destruction in certain circumstances. The court held that VARA did not protect the park as a whole, taking a formalistic approach in finding that the park was not “visual art” under VARA.