new faculty Explore
Emerging Areas of the Law
Professor Rob Anderson Empirically Investigates the Role of Ideology in the Federal Courts Alumnus Jack White Clerks in the United States Supreme Court
hands across the water Pepperdine Students Advance the Rule of Law Abroad
Vol. 28, No. 2 fall 2009 Pepperdine Law, the magazine of Pepperdine University School of Law, is published by Pepperdine University. school of law administration Kenneth W. Starr Duane and Kelly Roberts Dean
FA L L 2 0 0 9 V O L U M E 2 8 N U M B E R 2
L. Timothy Perrin Vice Dean Thomas G. Bost Associate Dean, Academics James A. Gash Associate Dean, Student Life
Maureen Weston Associate Dean, Research Herbert E. CiHak Associate Dean, Library and Information Mirielle Butler Assistant Dean, Career Development
9 A Global Classroom 9
the office of public affairs
12 The New Frontier
Rick Gibson (MBA ’09) associate vice president for public affairs
Four Pepperdine Scholars Explore Emerging Areas of the Law
Matt Midura (BA ’97, MA ’05) executive director of university marketing & communications
15 By the Numbers
Megan Huard director of content development Brett Sizemore director of creative services
Ed Wheeler (BA ’97, MA ’99) director of web & multimedia
Jack White ( JD ’03) Completes a Clerkship in the United States Supreme Court
Keith Lungwitz art director
Ron Hall (BA ’79) photographer Jill McWilliams production manager
Pepperdine University School of Law Malibu, California 90263 p: 310.506.6454
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org School of Law Offices Admissions 310.506.4631 Advancement and Alumni Relations 310.506.4492 Career Development 310.506.4634 International Programs 310.506.7597 Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution 310.506.4655 Geoffrey H. Palmer Center for Entrepreneurship and the Law 310.506.4681 Herbert and Elinor Nootbaar Institute on Law, Religion, and Ethics 310.506.7635 Clinical Programs 310.506.7449 Law.Pepperdine.edu LS0907053
22 Expert Advocate
Paul Zwier ( JD ’79) Leads the Trial Advocacy Field and Wages Peace Across the World
24 Lincoln’s Lessons for Lawyers
Rob Anderson, Sarah Fisher, Audra Quinn, Tom Stipanowich, Morgan Thrower contributors Please direct address changes, letters to the editor, comments, and requests to: Pepperdine Law
Professor Rob Anderson Investigates How Legal Rules and Doctrines Influence the Role of Ideology in the Federal Courts
19 Supremely Qualified
PEPPERDINE LAW staff Emily DiFrisco editor Vincent Way copy editor
Eighteen Students Spend Their Summers Advancing the Rule of Law Abroad
Professor Tom Stipanowich Explores Lincoln as a Former Trial Lawyer
28 All in a Day’s Work
Second-year Student Nicole Hutchinson Writes on Her Experience Clerking for Benjamin J. Odoki, Chief Justice of Uganda
31 A Scholar at Large
Sandra Bunn-Livingstone ( JD ’91) Explores Human Rights Law at Cambridge and the U.S. Department of State
In Every Issue Message from the Dean 2 News Shorts 3 Faculty Scholarship 34 Class Actions 38
hands across the water Over the past few years, our law school has become a truly global institution. Message from the Dean
rom our magnificent flagship program in London—which now boasts over 1,000 alumni—to our three mission-focused centers and institutes (Straus, Palmer, and Nootbaar), our students and faculty increasingly find themselves at the proverbial four corners of the globe—indeed, even to Antarctica. Pepperdine's expansion into a genuinely global outreach and transnational worldview embodies what it means to be a welcoming Christian law school committed to seeking justice for “the least of these.” Pepperdine faculty and students have taken up the call to be justice-seekers and peacemakers around the world. Through our Global Justice Program, we have sent students to Kenya, Burma, Nicaragua, Belize, Bangladesh, Armenia, Uganda, Bulgaria, Rwanda, and Thailand, where students have an immediate impact in international human rights, global economic development, and justice through spreading the rule of law. This past summer, 51 of our students served in public interest internships at home and abroad. Also this summer, I had the great privilege of visiting with our students serving in Uganda and Rwanda. They are doing very important work in helping build cultural and institutional commitments to the rule of law. We honor what they are doing, and what other students will do following in their footsteps. I was also privileged to join with Professor Sam Levine in coteaching a course of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives on Law at Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv. And these activities are merely representative of the wide range of scholarly and service efforts on the part of our faculty, as well as our wonderful students. “Going global” is no luxury. Mosquito nets and refugee camps are not for the faint of heart. But the rewards in being of service are beyond measure, and are at the heart of what makes Pepperdine stand as a beacon not only here on the Pacific Rim but in places of need around the planet. In this issue of Pepperdine Law magazine, we tell the stories of 18 of our students who traveled across the globe for public interest work this summer (page 9). We highlight four of our newest professors, Naomi Goodno, Trey Childress, Rob Anderson, and Babette Boliek, whose groundbreaking scholarship gives us cause for much excitement (page 12). We also profile alumnus Jack White (JD ’03), who served as a clerk for Justice Samuel Alito in the U.S. Supreme Court, and alumnus Paul Zwier (JD ’78), one of the nation’s most distinguished professors of advocacy and skills training at Emory Law School. With faculty, alumni, and students in all four corners of the world, we rejoice in our ever-expanding role as a truly global School of Law, and we thank our generous alumni and friends who have come alongside us in this mission.
Blessings, Ken Starr
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
news shorts Straus Institute and Palmer Center Host
The Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution and the Geoffrey H. Palmer Center for Entrepreneurship and the Law hosted “Taking it Upstream: Collaboration, Consensus Building, and Sustainable Development: A Green Leadership (Un)Conference” on September 25 at Pepperdine’s Drescher Graduate Campus in Malibu, California. The symposium was a forum for green-minded community leaders, agencies, planners, architects, developers, engineers, attorneys, and citizens to explore best practices for using collaboration, consensus building, and other enhanced civic engagement techniques to create more sustainable communities and manage potential land use and environmental disputes. The featured interactive “Sustainability Roundtables” focused on communities, transportation, zoning and development controls, construction and design, infrastructure, and resources. The (un)conference was the brainchild of environmental attorney and mediator Steve Zikman (LLM ‘09), who was a Straus Fellow last year. “The morning framing sessions and afternoon roundtables were highly collaborative,” he says. “The conversations were designed to capture the wisdom of the room.” Listen to a podcast with Steve Zikman and panelist Pete Peterson at www.pepperdine.edu/pepperdinepeople/podcasts.
“The council is an important step forward for the Straus Institute and Pepperdine University,” says Professor Tom Stipanowich, the institute’s academic director. “In addition to finding new uses for time and talents of our long-time friends, it has brought into our circle dozens of wise, prominent, and talented new friends from around the globe who care about and are in a position to help us promote Pepperdine's missions of peacemaking and service.”
Straus Institute Welcomes
Council of Distinguished Advisors
Pepperdine’s acclaimed Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, known for its top ranking as the Number One dispute resolution program in the nation, hosted the second meeting of its council of distinguished advisors on September 24. The council, comprising leading lawyers, corporate counsel, judges, educators, professional neutrals, institutional leaders, and creative thinkers, has helped guide the Straus Institute in the continuing evolution of its programs since the council’s inception in 2007.
Members of the council represent 10 states and three countries, including Hong Kong and Beijing, China, and the United Kingdom. The council includes many prominent members who stand at the top of their fields such as Kathy Bryan, president of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution; Madame Wang Hongsong, secretary general for the Beijing Arbitration Commission; William Slate, president of the American Arbitration Association; Siri Marshall, senior vice president of General Mills; Dorothy Nelson, senior judge for the United States Court of Appeals; and Mary Walker, general counsel for the United States Air Force. Visit the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at straus.pepperdine.edu.
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
news shorts ďƒš
Ambassador Kmiec with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
Kmiec Confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Malta Douglas W. Kmiec, Pepperdine’s Caruso Family Chair in Constitutional Law, was confirmed by the Senate as the United States ambassador to the Republic of Malta on Friday, August 7. The vote was unanimous. “The confirmation process is long and thorough, as it must be,” said Kmiec. “Nevertheless, like any examination—and I have both taken and given more than my share—it is satisfying to have it concluded and concluded so well. I know in going to this ancient place of beauty and antiquity where there is history at every turn, that I will be representing the sovereignty of the United States. The fidelity one owes to country and countrymen make that humbling indeed. With the high esteem in which our president and secretary of state are held abroad, it is a particularly good moment to be taking up this responsibility. I embrace it.” The Republic of Malta, a European country located in the Mediterranean, has figured prominently in Christian history. As recorded in the book of Acts, the Apostle Paul shipwrecked onto the island nation. Malta has a long legacy of Roman Catholicism, which continues to be the official and dominant religion in the country.
A wide-ranging writer and engaging speaker, Kmiec writes a syndicated column for the Catholic News Service, and for several years wrote a regular column in the Chicago Tribune. He is also a frequent contributor to the pages of the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, and other periodicals. He is the coauthor (with legal historian Stephen Presser of Northwestern) of three books on the Constitution: The American Constitutional Order; Individual Rights and the American Constitution; and The History, Structure and Philosophy of the American Constitution. In 2008, he authored Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama (Overlook Press/Penguin) which sold out in bookstores around the country and ranked Number One in its category on Amazon during the 2008 presidential campaign. An honors graduate of Northwestern, Kmiec received his law degree from the University of Southern California, where he served on the Law Review and received the Legion Lex Commencement Prize for Legal Writing. Kmiec will be on leave from Pepperdine during his service as ambassador.
One of America’s best known scholars and popular commentators on the law, Kmiec has served on the faculty at Pepperdine and as dean and St. Thomas More Professor of Law at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. He also served for nearly two decades on the law faculty at the University of Notre Dame. Beyond the university setting, Kmiec was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed by the U.S. Senate as assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), U.S. Department of Justice (1988–1989). For several years before his presidential appointment, he served together with (now Justice) Samuel A. Alito, Jr., as deputy assistant attorney general in OLC.
The Republic of Malta is situated centrally in the Mediterranean Sea and has a population of over 400,000.
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
Pepperdine law students sort through Ugandan Court documents in the basement of the courthouse.
School of Law Funds
Public Interest Work for 51 Students
Pepperdine University School of Law awarded more than $122,000 to 51 students for national and international public interest work during the summer of 2009. Thirty-three students worked stateside in locations ranging from Downtown Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., and 18 students traveled abroad to work in Uganda, Rwanda, Thailand, and Belize.
Interest Law; the Dean’s Excellence Fund; the Herbert and Elinor Nootbaar Institute on Law, Religion, and Ethics; and the University’s Lilly Endowment. In addition to the funds raised from these groups, alumnus Michael Bidart (JD ’74) donated $50,000 to further public interest work.
Of the 18 students traveling internationally, nine students served in Uganda, four in Rwanda, two in Thailand, and two in Belize. The other students worked with organizations such as the Children’s Law Center, in Los Angeles, California; Los Angeles County Child Services; the California Women’s Law Center; and World Vision International.
The School of Law deans supported the students’ initiatives, which ran the gamut from legal community service to international human rights. “We are very proud of our more than 50 students who engaged in public interest work across the world this summer,” says Tim Perrin, vice dean for the School of Law. “At Pepperdine we take very seriously our obligation to serve those in need whether locally, nationally, or internationally.”
The public interest stipends came from several sources at the school, including the student group Advocates for Public
Visit the Global Justice Program: law.pepperdine.edu/nootbaar/global-justice.
Nootbaar Institute Sponsors
Law and Religion Section of SSRN
Pepperdine’s Herbert and Elinor Nootbaar Institute on Law, Religion, and Ethics launched the Social Science Research Network’s (SSRN) Law and Religion e-journal on August 27. Robert Cochran, Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law and director of the Herbert and Elinor Nootbaar Institute on Law, Religion, and Ethics, is the e-journal’s editor. SSRN e-journals post scholarly works-in-progress and previously published works on the SSRN Web site. Readers have the ability to download the articles and send suggestions and comments to authors about works-in-progress.
“An SSRN e-journal cuts the time for scholarly exchanges of ideas by 95 percent,” says Cochran. “It used to be that a scholar would write an article and then wait for a year to have it published in a traditional journal. Then, another scholar in the same field could respond, and that response would come out a year later. With the SSRN, articles continue to be published in traditional journals, but SSRN e-journals present those articles to the public for discussion, comment, and influence as soon as an author chooses to post a readable draft.” Pepperdine’s Law and Religion e-journal posts articles written by authors from around that world that explore the intersection of law and religion. The journal’s advisory board comprises 15 distinguished law and religion scholars from across the nation. Visit the e-journal at www.ssrn.com/link/Law-Religion.html.
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
Carol A. Chase
Maureen Arellano Weston
to Serve as Associate Dean for Academics at the School of Law
New Associate Dean for Research
Maureen Arellano Weston, professor of law, was named the new associate dean for research at Pepperdine University School of Law on September 1, 2009. Weston earned her JD from the University of Colorado and her BA from the University of Denver, magna cum laude.
Carol A. Chase, professor of law, has been named the associate dean for academics beginning with the Spring 2010 semester. Chase earned her JD and BA from the University of California, Los Angeles. “I am looking forward to serving the law school community in my new position and am especially excited to work closely with the dean and others in the Dean's Suite,” says Chase. Before joining the Pepperdine faculty, Professor Chase was an assistant U.S. attorney for the criminal division in Los Angeles. She has been an associate in the Los Angeles offices of Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. She is a member of the American Bar Association, the California State Bar, and is admitted to practice in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. District Court for the Central and Eastern Districts of California.
“At Pepperdine, we have scholars of national and international prominence,” says Weston. “It is my honor to work with them and to ensure their work is recognized and fully supported.” An accomplished scholar, Weston is the coauthor of casebooks on both arbitration and sports law and has written numerous articles in the area of mediation, arbitration, and sports law. Her publications include “Universes Colliding: The Constitutional Implications of Arbitral Class Actions,” 47 William & Mary Law Review 1711 (2006); “Reexamining Arbitral Immunity In an Age of Mandatory and Professional Arbitration,” 88 Minnesota Law Review 449 (2004); and “Checks on Participant Conduct in Compulsory ADR: Reconciling the Need for Good Faith Participation, Autonomy, and Confidentiality,” 76 Indiana Law Journal 591 (2001), among many others.
Chase regularly teaches Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, and Trial Practice, and has been honored as a Luckman Distinguished Teaching Fellow. She also received the Howard A. White Award for Teaching Excellence in 2008. She has commented extensively in the media on various legal topics, including the proceedings in People v. Simpson and People v. Jackson appearing for CNN, FOX-TV, E! Entertainment, KCET, and CBS-TV (Canada), and providing radio commentary for the BBC (UK).
“Professor Weston will bring great energy and vision as she builds on the remarkable work of Professor Rick Cupp in the vitally important role of associate dean for research,” says Vice Dean Tim Perrin. “Maureen is a respected scholar and a highly valued colleague, and it is a great day for the law school that she is stepping into this leadership position.” Weston joined the Pepperdine faculty in 2001, from the University of Oklahoma, where she taught Civil Procedure, Pretrial Litigation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, and Disability Law. Before teaching at Oklahoma, she worked for the Colorado law firms of Faegre & Benson, and Holme Roberts & Owen.
Her publications include the trial advocacy textbook, The Art & Science of Trial Advocacy, which she coauthored with School of Law professors Tim Perrin and Harry Caldwell, and a collection of case files, Case Files for Basic Trial Advocacy (LexisNexis 2009) which she coauthored with Perrin, Caldwell, and Professor Naomi Goodno. In addition she has published in the Utah Law Review, Marquette Law Review, Kansas Law Review, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, Pepperdine Law Review, Boston College Law Review, Houston Law Review, and Oregon Law Review.
Admitted to practice in Colorado, she is a member of the American Bar, Hispanic National Bar, and Colorado Bar Associations. She is actively involved with the ABA Section on Dispute Resolution, has served as cochair of the section's Education Committee, and as chair of the section's Representation in Mediation program. Weston teaches Alternative Dispute Resolution, Civil Procedure, Entertainment Dispute Resolution, Ethical Lawyering, International Dispute Resolution, Mediation, Negotiation Theory and Practice, and Sports Law.
To learn more about Pepperdine’s faculty, visit law.pepperdine.edu/ academics/faculty.
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
Returns to Teach Advanced Constitutional Law at Pepperdine
Akhil Amar addresses students at Pepperdine’s 1L orientation on August 19.
Akhil Amar, the Southmayd Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, taught at Pepperdine as a D and L Straus Distinguished Visiting Professor in August, marking his fifth consecutive year teaching “Advanced Constitutional Law: Reading the Constitution.” Amar also spoke at Pepperdine’s 1L orientation on “Living Greatly in the Law.”
Amar graduated from Yale College summa cum laude and went on to Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal. As a preeminent constitutional law scholar, Amar was the second youngest person to be tenured and given a chair in Yale Law School’s history. Amar is the author of several distinguished scholarly books and law review articles and is one of the most frequently quoted academics in America. His most recent book is American Constitution: A Biography (Random House 2005). “Professor Amar fully embodies the twin virtues of excellence and humanity,” says Dean Starr. “We are deeply honored and richly blessed by the Amar family being part of our community.”
Pepperdine to Host tenth Annual
Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr ., Judicial Clerkship Institute
Each year, Pepperdine brings law students from across the country to its campus for the Byrne JCI. Through the institute, students who have been accepted into federal judicial clerkship positions have the opportunity to gain distinctive, comprehensive training from federal judges.
Pepperdine University School of Law will host the Tenth Annual Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., Judicial Clerkship Institute from March 18 to 20, 2010. Federal judges from across the country will again comprise the faculty. As part of the program, Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, and Ken Starr, Duane and Kelly Roberts Dean of Pepperdine University School of Law, will speak on the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the past nine years, students from more than 130 different law schools clerking for more than 320 different judges have attended the program, making it a unique resource for promoting the administration of justice in our federal courts. Sonia Sotomayor, the newest justice of the U.S. Supreme Court has served on the faculty four times, along with many other distinguished members of the federal judiciary.
Visit the Byrne JCI at: law.pepperdine.edu/judicial-clerkship-institute
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
A Global Classroom Eighteen Students Spend Their Summers Advancing the Rule of Law Abroad by Audra Quinn
Uganda, Thailand, Burma, Belize, Rwanda. Pepperdine law students could be found advancing the rule of law or addressing human rights violations in each of these countries this summer. Thanks to stipends from the University, the School of Law, and alumni, 18 students were able to engage in public interest externships abroad. In these second- and third-world countries, the students did more than research legal issues and write memos; they made recommendations on how the courts should rule. Along the way, their ideas about justice were tested and refined. >
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
Uganda Nicole Hutchinson was one of nine students who spent eight weeks working in the Supreme Court of Uganda. She clerked for Chief Justice Benjamin Odoki, who holds the top position on the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country. Hutchinson crafted memos on many hearings that took place in the Supreme Court, highlighting potential policy outcomes and making recommendations on how the Supreme Court should rule. (See Nicole's story on page 28.) Hutchinson was surprised by the number of cases yet to be heard by the Supreme Court. “Uganda has a huge problem with backlog,” she says, recalling one case that had been litigated for over 10 years. “Oftentimes people accused of a crime sit in prison for four or five years before their cases are heard by any judge.” She and some of her fellow students are currently conducting a research project on how to digitize the documents and help reduce the backlog. To get a view of the other side of the judicial system, the court arranged a visit to the prisons on the outskirts of Kampala. Second-year student Ali Arif remembers his experience standing face-to-face with prisoners in solitary confinement cells. “None of the guards were armed and the number of the inmates greatly exceeded the number of the guards,” he says. Despite the overcrowding, Arif called the conditions relatively good and the prisoners well-behaved.
Thai/Burma Border Two students traveled to Thailand for their public interest work. Micheline Zamora completed an internship with the Free Burma Rangers, a multiethnic humanitarian service movement whose mission is to “bring help, hope, and love to people in the war zones of Burma.” “Burma is controlled by the military junta under Senior General Than Shwe,” Zamora explains. “Prior to his governance, a previous leader had established ‘the four cuts’ policy to try to cut off support and supplies to the democratic opposition, essentially dividing Burma into a grid and designating areas as white zones, gray zones, and black ‘free fire zones.’ As a result, many civilians are forcibly removed from their homes or else killed. The situation is pretty bad, and there are many incidents of the army abusing civilians, making them undergo forced labor, raping women and children, and taking their money or property.” Zamora worked as an advocacy intern, helping the organization’s media office to define goals for its growing advocacy campaign. One experience she recounts was at Mae La Refugee Camp, where she interviewed children. “It’s hard to believe the things that these children have had to go through so early in life—some of them came to Thailand from Burma without their families, fleeing with others from their villages or townships just so that they could go to school and find better lives for themselves,” she says. The experience made her very grateful for her own upbringing. “There is so much that we take for granted in the U.S. Education is one example, but another one is birthdays,” says Zamora. Most of the kids I interviewed didn’t know when they were born. The lives these children lead are so bafflingly different from my own memories of childhood, and it is striking how cheerful and grateful they are in spite of the hardships they have endured.”
Joining Forces Pepperdine University School of Law Partners with Uganda
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
Ken Starr, Duane and Kelly Roberts Dean of the School of Law, Colleen Graffy, professor of law and director of Pepperdine Law’s Global Programs, and Jay Milbrandt, director of Pepperdine's Global Justice Program, traveled to Uganda and Rwanda this past summer to visit 13 Pepperdine law students and their externship sites and to formalize a partnership between Pepperdine and the Ugandan judiciary. Together with members of the Ugandan judiciary, Dean Starr signed a memorandum of understanding, a document that made official Pepperdine’s clerkship program with the Ugandan judiciary. Dean Starr also committed that Pepperdine would work collaboratively with the Ugandan judiciary to develop academic and legal reform measures.
Two other students traveled to Belize, a Central American country whose active tourism industry tends to overshadow the dark underbelly of human trafficking and violent crime, much of it drug-related. Lauren Moon and Stephanie Pond spent eight weeks in Belize’s capitol, Belmopan, working for the chief justice. “A typical day involved shadowing one of the Supreme Court justices in trial,” says Moon. “We experienced all levels and divisions of the court both civil and criminal. Following the day’s trial, Stephanie and I would discuss our questions as well as our opinions with the justices in chambers.”
Jesse Clark was one of four students who worked for 10 weeks as legal advisers in the Government Contracts Division of the Rwandan Ministry of Justice. The 1994 genocide in Rwanda completely devastated the country, particularly the legal profession, and Clark says that country’s push for development far exceeds the number of trained legal minds that can regulate it. This often leads to oversights. “It was not uncommon to find a very big obligation in a contract that one of my Rwandan colleagues had completely missed,” he says, noting one agreement with an international development agency that had Rwanda, unknowingly, on the hook for millions of dollars. “They desperately need more Rwandan attorneys,” he says.
Moon says she was also thrilled to contribute to some landmark cases in Belize including the trial of former Belize Prime Minister, Said Musa, and the Mayan Land rights case. Moon also observed the difference in resources available in Belize, as compared to the United States. “A great deal of evidence technology is not available for the average case in Belize. For instance, blood evidence can only be classified by type. Where the technology certainly exists to have more advanced blood and ballistic testing, the finances for equipment do not,” she says. Despite missing out on various summer traditions back home, Moon says there is nowhere else she would rather have been. “Public Interest work is the reason I came to law school, to strengthen the voice of the under-represented.”
Both initiatives are already underway, as nine Pepperdine law students clerked in Ugandan courts this summer. The academic collaboration has also started with Dean Starr serving as the inaugural speaker of the Ugandan Judiciary Distinguished Speaker Series. In addition, four Ugandan judges from the country's commercial courts traveled to Malibu, California, for a Mediating the Litigated Case training at Pepperdine’s Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution from August 10 through 15.
Clark’s most eye-opening experience in Rwanda came in the Gacaca Courts, which address the question of what to do with hundreds of thousands of people guilty of genocide. “There are no judges and no lawyers,” he explains of the system. “The killer gets up in front of his or her local community, admits who they killed, where the bodies are, etc.; and then that is the end of it. In most cases, the génocidaire [the perpetrator of genocide] walks away.” The experience tested Clark’s ideas of fairness under the law. “My American mind tells me that that is not justice. This killer should be put in jail. It took a long time for me to wrap my head around this, but that is how it’s being done here in Rwanda and it seems to be working,” he says, noting it would take another 110 years to prosecute all the prisoners through the original system. As their internships came to a close, the four students in Rwanda received three welcome visitors. Dean Ken Starr, and Colleen Graffy, professor of law and director of Pepperdine Law’s Global Programs, and Jay Milbrandt, director of Pepperdine's Global Justice Program, who traveled to both Rwanda and Uganda to visit students. Rwanda’s minister of justice, Tharcisse Karugarama, told Dean Starr about the good work of Pepperdine students over the summer and enthusiastically requested that the School of Law send more. When Dean Starr inquired whether they had the space to accommodate more students, the justice minister simply said, “We will make space.”
Visit the Global Justice Program at law.pepperdine.edu/nootbaar/global-justice.
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
thenew frontier Pepperdine Scholars Explore Emerging Areas of the Law by Emily DiFrisco
o what extent does legal regulation block new innovation for cellular phones? What role does international civil litigation play in an increasingly global world? Can a mother in Missouri be prosecuted for the suicide death of a young girl she harassed via MySpace? What can political methodology tell us about how organizations make decisions?
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
Each of these questions has been raised by one of four members of the Pepperdine faculty. These professors—the school’s newest—have been trained by the nation’s top institutions and have earned multiple advanced degrees through their research. Their subjects are diverse, ranging from cyberspace law to positive political theory of the judiciary, but they all work on the cutting edge of their fields.
Babette Boliek, assistant professor of law, is the newest member of the faculty, joining the law school this fall. Boliek most recently served as a senior fellow at the Information Economy Project at George Mason University School of Law, where she integrated her background in law and applied economics to analyze media, Internet, and telecommunications issues. Boliek earned three BAs from California State University, Chico, a JD from Columbia University School of Law, and a PhD in economics from the University of California, Davis. While at Columbia, she was both a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and a John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics. Her doctoral and subsequent research and writing focuses on the United States telecommunications industry and the consumer welfare effects of regulation within the industry. “I love to study the impact of legal regulation on private economic activity,” she says. “The economic analysis of law is so interesting because it goes beyond theory to assess legal rules that have real human consequences.” Prior to her position at George Mason, Boliek was a fellow for the Center for Communication Law and Policy, a joint research venture of the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and the Annenberg School for Communication. She previously practiced corporate law at Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman in New York City. While in private practice, she worked primarily with clients in the media and telecommunications industries and her practice areas included mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance, and corporate finance. She also clerked for the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As to why she chose to join the Pepperdine faculty, Boliek says, “At the end of the day it was the mission that attracted me. Pepperdine is a place of faith with a tremendous diversity of thought and experience among faculty members.” This fall she will teach contracts and in the spring, she will teach the second half of contracts and a seminar on telecommunications law. “Everyone loves criminal law and torts, but contracts is the unsung hero,” she says of her enthusiasm for the subject. “There are many examples of how contracts enable private parties to maximize their welfare and
how private contracts may promote overall social well-being. Remember, Branch Rickey brought Jackie Robinson to the Brooklyn Dodgers through a contract.”
Donald (trey) Earl Childress III, associate professor of law, joined the law faculty in 2008. Previously, he worked for the international law firm, Jones Day, in Washington, D.C., as a member of their Issues and Appeals practice, where he focused on Supreme Court litigation, general appellate litigation, and significant motions practice in trial litigation. While in private practice, his appellate work included preparation of writs of certiorari, merits briefs, and amicus briefs in the United States Supreme Court. He has briefed and argued appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and has briefed matters in numerous other trial and appellate courts in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits, as well as in various state courts. He has significant private practice experience in complex civil procedure, conflict of laws, constitutional law, immigration law, international dispute resolution, federal Indian law, and national security law, including cases related to the War on Terror. Childress earned an LLM and JD from Duke University, an MA from Oxford Brookes University, and a BA from the University of Virginia. He served as editor-in-chief of the Duke Law Journal, as a Rotary Ambassadorial Scholar at Oxford Brookes University, and as a clerk for the Honorable Paul V. Niemeyer on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He has cotaught a Supreme Court litigation course at the Georgetown University Law Center and served as a justice in the Georgetown University Law Center Supreme Court Institute. Childress’s primary research interests are international civil litigation, private international law, comparative law, and ethics. He teaches Civil Procedure, International Litigation, Comparative Law, and Ethical Lawyering. “I became interested in international civil litigation for both intellectual and practical reasons,” explains Childress. “As a student at Duke Law School, I received a JD as well as an LLM in international and comparative law. I was intrigued by
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
the important questions that international law presented— namely, what is the role of the state, person, and justice in law.”
put a bill before the Missouri state legislature. She plans to write another article after the federal criminal case against MySpace perpetrator, Lori Drew, is completed.
Upon joining a firm after graduation, Childress thought he would have little chance to put his international credentials to use in private practice, except for cases involving public law matters, which would likely be pro bono. “To my surprise, the practice of civil litigation is now infused with international law,” he says. “From choice of law, to forum selection, to enforcement of judgments, an appreciation for the international dimension of legal practice is no longer a luxury but a necessity. I found in practice that courts consistently were looking for answers to complex international civil litigation questions. That led me here to Pepperdine, where I hope to help answer some of those questions.”
Goodno teaches Civil Procedure, Advanced Criminal Procedure, and Honors Trial Practice. She will also teach an international criminal law course this fall, in which her class will work in collaboration with human rights organizations in Burma, Africa, and many other parts of the world. “Law school isn’t just about the books,” she says. “I tell my students that they do have the power to make a difference in areas such as global justice.”
Naomi Goodno, associate professor of law, focused on history and teaching as an undergraduate at Princeton University. She attended Boalt Law School for the first two years and spent her third year studying at Harvard Law School. While at Boalt Hall, Goodno served as an articles editor for the California Law Review. At Harvard, she was an active member of the mediation program. She has interned at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California, and the Alameda District Attorney’s Office. She also clerked for Judge Arthur L. Alarcon of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After law school, Goodno joined the downtown Los Angeles firm of Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, where she litigated numerous complex civil litigation cases, including white-collar crime, class action, bankruptcy, breach of contract, fraud, and property and employment disputes. She is a member of the California Bar Association, the ABA White-Collar Crime Committee, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Goodno’s research interests include criminal law, international criminal law, trial advocacy, and cyberspace. She chose to investigate cyberspace because it is an emerging area of the law and the laws are outdated in a number of states. A law review article she published titled Cyberstalking, a New Crime: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Current State and Federal Laws was widely read in 2006 when a 13-year-old in Missouri committed suicide after receiving cruel messages from a fictitious MySpace account created by an adult neighbor. “Many state laws have threat requirements that fail to protect against harassing electronic communications, including e-mails, that do not carry explicit physical threats,” says Goodno. Her expertise was sought by numerous news outlets, including NPR and FOX News, and her article was later used to
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
Rob Anderson IV, associate professor of law, earned a BA from Claremont-McKenna College, a JD from New York University, and a PhD from Stanford University. He previously worked for Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, where his practice focused on mergers and acquisitions and financial institutions regulation. At Stanford University his fields included American politics, political organizations, and political methodology (statistics). Anderson’s primary research interests are corporate and securities law, positive political theory of the judiciary, and quantitative and empirical approaches to law. In particular, he has worked extensively on modeling judicial behavior and developing computational and empirical techniques for analyzing corporate transactions and corporate governance. “I went to graduate school because I wanted to acquire the tools I needed to do quantitative research on political organizations,” he explains. “Stanford’s political methodology program is one of the leaders in applying statistical and game-theoretic approaches to studying political phenomena, so it was a natural choice.” Anderson has published in the American Political Science Review, the University of Miami Law Review, and the George Washington Law Review. In addition, he has presented on panels at the Midwest Political Science Association and the American Political Science Association annual meetings, and is a reviewer for the American Political Science Review. Anderson teaches Contracts I and II, Corporations, and Mergers and Acquisitions. “I would describe my interests as encompassing political organizations generally, in which I would include both those organizations traditionally studied by political scientists— such as legislatures, executives, bureaucracies and courts— as well as those organizations traditionally studied by economists—such as partnerships and corporations,” he says. “I chose political science as a graduate discipline because I was interested in researching the common elements of how political organizations, including both governments and firms, make decisions.”
Num83r5 Investigating How Legal Rules and Doctrines Constrain, Channel, and Influence the Role of Ideology in the Federal Courts by Rob Anderson IV associate professor of law
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
How do federal judges decide cases? Empirical scholars of the judiciary have sought answers to this question for decades. But there are some obstacles to studying judges that make clear answers difficult to find.
irst, judges are secretive. They keep their internal deliberations hidden from public view and only a few judges candidly discuss their judicial philosophies. Second, the motivation of federal judges is unclear. Federal judges have lifetime employment and face no significant consequences for good or bad job performance. What motivates a high-level government employee who never faces the electorate and cannot be fired for his or her performance? And more broadly, can we even define objective criteria for what constitutes “good” and “bad” performance by a federal judge? The traditional answer in legal scholarship is that judges make their decisions by “following the law,” and that one trait of a “good judge” is faithful adherence to the rule of law. In most cases what people mean by “following the law” is that judges resolve legal disputes based on authoritative legal materials, such as constitutions, cases, statutes, administrative regulations, and the like. In other words, the decision of the good judge is, to a significant extent, constrained or even dictated by something other than the judge’s own personal preferences about how to resolve cases. Indeed, the whole enterprise of traditional American legal education, which involves reading cases and attempting to discern the underlying legal rules, is premised on this idea. Legal scholars have long recognized, however, that the law does not provide clear answers to all legal questions. Indeed, in most complex legal disputes there are at least some issues that fall between the cracks of statutes, cases, and administrative regulations. As a result, judges are left with considerable leeway in deciding cases. This leeway, sometimes called “indeterminacy,” leaves room for personal, moral, or ideological factors to creep into judges’ decision-making— what might be called “policymaking” by the courts. The argument that judges enjoy this leeway was a major focus of the “legal realist” movement of the first half of the 20th Century, a movement whose proponents argued that law is often indeterminate, possibly even radically indeterminate. In modern scholarship, political scientists have often taken up the mantle of the radical realists, hypothesizing that ideology, not law, is the true driving force in judicial decision making. The notion that judicial decisions are driven by the judge’s ideology, or by other personal attributes such as the judge’s gender, race, religion, and the like, has occupied much of the interdisciplinary literature on law and courts in recent decades. The increased availability of large datasets has enabled study after study purporting to demonstrate a connection between judges’ characteristics and judicial decisions. To the extent this vast literature can be summarized, it has shown that although ideological variables (and some other personal attributes) are clear determinants of
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
some judicial decisions, those factors actually explain very little of the variation in judicial outcomes. Thus, although judicial ideology has a role in filling the gaps in legal reasoning, it does not supplant the role of legal reasoning. This finding itself is probably not very surprising to most realistic observers of the courts. Few would be shocked that Democratic and Republican appointees differ systematically in their behavior on the bench. At the same time, even the most devout legal realists probably realize they would need more than to share a political party with the judge to win their case. As a result, studies that merely point out the influence of extra-legal factors in judicial decision-making often don’t shed much light on the working of the federal judiciary. The real question is how ideology integrates with the legal institutions that indisputably channel and constrain judicial behavior. The fact that ideology matters means that you can estimate the extent to which the relative ideology of different judges drives decisions. The fact that the law matters, however, means that you can evaluate judges according to a fixed reference point, unlike ideology, which is necessarily relative. This basic finding—that both law and ideology matter in judicial decisionmaking—has been the starting point for my own research on federal courts. I have sought to investigate how legal rules and doctrines constrain, channel, and influence the role of ideology in the federal courts. In one paper, I address the way in which Supreme Court justices’ opinion-writing conventions influence the ideological outcome of the case (“Institutions and Equilibrium in the United States Supreme Court,” American Political Science Review). In another paper, I address how the standards of review—the deference appellate courts give to trial courts—interact with ideology in the U.S. Court of Appeals. In both papers, my perspective is that law and procedure do constrain and channel the decisions of federal judges, even at the Supreme Court level where that constraint is most attenuated.
If judging were driven exclusively by ideology, there would be little point to ranking judges. A researcher could order the judges from left to right, but there would be no common ground that one might call “quality” In my most recent work, however, I have engaged more directly with the question of untangling judicial ideology and judicial performance. judicial “quality.” In this research, I have developed a technique for evaluating the performance of federal appellate judges according to the citations other judges make to their decisions. This technique uses the mix of positive and negative citations to evaluate the performance of federal appellate judges according to their own peers. This type of evaluation is only possible, however, if the idea of “following the law” is actually meaningful. If judging were driven exclusively by ideology, there would be little point to ranking judges. A researcher could order the judges from left to right, but there would be no common ground that one might call “quality” judicial performance. But if, as I argue, appellate judges indeed do generally “follow the law,” then empirical techniques can rank judges according to their fidelity to legal precedent. I believe my study shows that there is common ground of judicial quality and fidelity to the rule of law that federal judges both recognize and uphold in their citations. To make the analysis more concrete, my paper applied the judge-ranking technique to evaluate Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a nominee and now justice on the Supreme Court. My study revealed that Sotomayor was one of the most positively cited judges since 1960, together with other renowned judges such as Justice Stephen Breyer (then a judge on the First Circuit) and our own Dean Ken Starr (then a judge on the D.C. Circuit). Moreover, my findings 17
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
suggest that Sotomayor was equally positively cited by Democrats and Republicans, suggesting her rulings have been even-handed as viewed by her colleagues on the federal appellate bench. This type of empirical scholarship has the potential to constructively influence public policy because it contradicts the (I believe) mistaken perception of Sotomayor in the popular press. Although I have no doubt that Sotomayor’s personal politics lean to the left, somehow she has found a way to keep her personal politics out of her judging on the Second Circuit.
The example of Sotomayor illustrates that it is possible to “follow the law” and not to indulge one’s personal political preferences on the bench.
So where does this study leave us in deciding between the legal perspective of judges “following the law” and the political science perspective of judges deciding according to ideology? I believe the answer is that both matter, but both matter to different degrees to different judges. Ideology is a part of judging for some judges, but not for all. Indeed, the example of Sotomayor illustrates that it is possible to “follow the law” and not to indulge one’s personal political preferences on the bench. I believe this research provides an example of how empirical, quantitative research on judging can tell us something, in this case about Sotomayor, that qualitative and impressionistic accounts based on high-profile cases cannot. Yet empirical studies of judges, and especially quantitative studies evaluating judicial performance, are controversial, particularly with judges themselves. Judges have taken some pains to insulate their craft from public view and, quite understandably, some judges do not like quantitative studies revealing what they have kept hidden. Some judges, most notably Judge Harry Edwards of the District of Columbia Circuit, have been vocal critics of empirical scholarship on the federal courts. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a staunch defender of judicial independence, has gone on the road decrying the criticism directed toward judges, both state and federal. The concern is that criticizing individual judges will undermine confidence in the rule of law or otherwise threaten judicial independence.
Send comments to Professor Anderson at email@example.com. Visit his SSRN page at: ssrn.com/author=678736
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
I suspect that Edwards and O’Connor would have concerns about my studies of judicial performance. I also believe, however, that these concerns, although well-intentioned, are outweighed by the positive effects of research on judges. My own view is that the rule of law is not personal, so critical assessment of a person’s performance—even if that person happens to be a federal judge—is no threat to the rule of law. Indeed, systematic empirical studies of judges can uphold, rather than undermine, the rule of law. This is because the alternative to quantitative assessment of judges is not the absence of criticism of judges, but rather ad hoc criticism based on individual high-profile cases. But decision-making in individual cases is exactly where the independence of judges should be protected. Assessing judges with quantitative data based on their whole body of work, rather than on impressionistic reactions from individual cases, shields judges who make unpopular decisions occasionally, when those decisions are really warranted by the law, but exposes those judges who indulge their ideological predilections too frequently, under the guise of the law. This balance of judicial independence and accountability, more than anything else, is where empirical scholars of the judiciary can make a unique contribution. 18
supremely qualified Alumnus Jack White ( JD '03) Completes a Clerkship in the United States Supreme Court by Audra Quinn
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
his star didn’t take long to rise. He Working as a clerk in the United was active in law school activities— States Supreme Court is one of the editor-in-chief of the Pepperdine Law most prestigious and simultaneously Review, president of the Christian grueling roles an up-and-coming lawyer Legal Society, active in the Black can have. It also puts said lawyer in an Law Student Association, a student excellent position. “You can pretty much mentor for incoming first year go anywhere from here,” is an unwritten students, and the leader of a student fact for clerks in the High Court. Bible study on campus. He won Jack L. White (JD ‘03) found himself in several awards including the AWP this very coveted position. After clerking for award, and top honors in a national Justice Samuel Alito for the 2008 – 2009 trial competition. “The law school Supreme Court term, a year in which the established a leadership award Court tackled topics ranging from fleeting solely because we were looking for expletives to the Clean Water Act, the legal an appropriate avenue for honoring world is at White’s feet. Yet, the 35-year-old Jack, and how much he impacted the father of three unashamedly admits, “I don’t school after just his first-year,” says Jim know what I want to be when I grow up.” Gash, associate professor of law and He may not be 100 percent sure of associate dean for student life, who where he’s going, but he has no confusion served as White’s faculty mentor. about where he came from. Born and Still, White did not know where raised in Southern California, White his passion for the law would take is the son of African American parents him. “I was blessed to have Professor who were born in the segregated South. Jim Gash as my mentor, and he Jack White and his team won “I have very hard-working parents,” he out early in my law school says, noting that they are both educators. the Tournament of Champions, figured career that I didn’t know what “They were simultaneously intensely was going on,” White laughs. “He loving and intensely exacting.” the nation's premiere trial looked at me and said, this kid gets White says he always knew he wanted competition, during his third the law stuff, but he doesn’t know to attend law school, but after high school, anything about career progression.” felt a strong desire to serve his country. year of law school in 2003. Gash began introducing White “I was very young and very patriotic. I to his network of lawyers and knew I wanted to have the biggest impact From top left: Allyson Rinella, judges to help him make some I could, so I wanted to become a military Marty Dearcangelis, Georgia decisions about his future. “I was officer,” he relates. White was accepted sold on the idea of becoming a into the U.S. Military Academy at West Woodruff, and Jack White. clerk,” White says, and upon passing Point, and upon graduation, served for the bar, he applied for a clerking five years in the United States Army, rising position with Judge Samuel Alito, in the ranks as fast as regulations allowed who was serving on the Third Circuit at the time. and traveling extensively from Korea to the deep South. White White recounts his first meeting with the judge, at his chambers found a talent in the oratorical and served as a minister, preaching in in New Jersey a few weeks after the September 11, 2001, tragedy. congregations from Savannah, Georgia, to San Francisco, California. “It was a traumatic time for everyone, but I was in the moment. Once he fulfilled his commitment to the military, White was eager I was determined to clerk for a federal appellate judge, so my to get into law school. “I had read about the notion of attorneys as determination trumped any emotion I was experiencing,” he trustees of the law, and that meant something to me,” he says of his says. That may have had something to do with White’s accidental interest in the law. “Also, the exercise of advocacy and persuasion, scheduling of his meeting with Alito on Columbus Day, a federal and the notion of taking someone with a concern that they cannot holiday. Alito accepted the meeting without question. address on their own, holding their hand through what for them are “I showed up and no one was at the courthouse but him. No janitors, dire straits, and getting them to the other side, that appealed to me.” no law clerks, no one, and I realized that Judge Alito had gone in that White was accepted to several of the most prestigious law schools day probably to work—because there’s always work to be done—but in the country, but says that he was convinced to attend Pepperdine by his father who “extolled the virtues of the school.” At Pepperdine,
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
also to meet with me. He was incredibly gracious,” says White. Alito took the time to explain to White how he prepared for oral arguments and what he required of his law clerks in contributing to the decision-making process. Then, he took White on a tour of his chambers and the courthouse. This personal attention still stands out vividly in White’s mind. “From that moment forward, my admiration for him has been beyond respect. I respect every federal appellate judge, but there’s a sincere affection there. He’s a good and honorable man, a good father, a good husband, and a decent human being.” White started work as a clerk in 2003, working with three other clerks. “It was like drinking from a fire hose,” recalls White of the information overload. Tangibly, he says his knowledge of the substantive law, legal writing skills, and research grew exponentially,
“Jack was a fine clerk when I was serving on the Third Circuit, and I was very pleased that he agreed to leave private practice to clerk for me again on the Supreme Court. As I expected, his work here was outstanding, and I look forward to following his legal career. I am sure he will be a star.” –Justice Samuel Alito but the biggest lesson he learned working under Alito was cultivating a work ethic. “Judge Alito worked tirelessly, and I learned from that. I never saw any corners cut. I don’t think there’s anything that Judge Alito did not read that came across his desk.” After his clerkship ended, White went on to work at two national law firms—Kirkland & Ellis and Akin Gump. When Judge Alito was elevated to the Supreme Court, he called upon a select few of his former clerks to join him in the High Court. White was among the few chosen for one of the most prestigious judicial clerkships in the country. “This was my dream,” White says, explaining that when he found out he was chosen, his wife, Lizbeth (JD ‘04), was pregnant with their third child. “I said, ‘Do you think we can do this?’ and she
said, ‘What do you mean can we do this? There’s no choice.’” Among many other responsibilities, clerks at the High Court are tasked with reading every one of the approximately 10,000 petitions for certiorari that arrive at the Supreme Court every year—petitions that are, to the person or body that files them, of the utmost importance. Each is carefully read and reviewed, and then submitted to the justices, who vote on which petitions should be granted a hearing. Fewer than five percent of the cases filed survive this culling process each year. “Although we are not making the decisions, we want to provide the best possible counsel to our boss,” explains White, who notes that he found every case, without exception, interesting. “There was one case that I had to look at for two or three days and figure out how to make myself very interested in it. Once I convinced myself, it was fascinating.” Behind closed doors, the Supreme Court is full of “magnificent people,” he says. “In the Court there is a whole cadre of very dedicated and competent people who really make the wheels turn.” White says he was heartened to discover that, like in the military and in ministry, there is a collaboration that exists on all levels of the Supreme Court to serve a purpose that is bigger than any individual. That collaboration extended to Justice Alito’s chambers, where White says the justice engendered a very open forum for debate. “I certainly would never say, ‘Oh, that’s just dumb.’ I would share my opinion with respect and deference to his position and the respect that I have for him just in general. I was raised by Southern parents—you respect your elders.” White said it was challenging to be away from his family, especially having a newborn child. “My baby boy was born 10 days after I started my clerkship. Everyday I would go home from the Supreme Court of the United States and look at him, and remember that as important as everything felt that I was doing during the day, there were things that were more important.” Upon completing the most “supreme” job training there is in the legal profession, White had many options laid out before him. He accepted a position at the Lanier Law Firm and expects to be based in Houston, Texas. “My thinking is based on what’s going to be best for me and my family,” he says of the decision. “I always said ‘before I became a clerk on the Court, I was a husband and a father, and when I leave, I will still be a husband and father.’” He’s got the short-term plan down, but as for the long-term, he’s still not quite sure. “I’ve got a whole lot of ideas,” he says, noting that becoming a judge is no longer his main objective. “I know what I want to do when I grow up—something that has a direct impact on people’s lives,” he says. “I don’t want to just be. I want to do.” Justice Alito himself says that he’s not worried about White’s future. “Jack was a fine clerk when I was serving on the Third Circuit, and I was very pleased that he agreed to leave private practice to clerk for me again on the Supreme Court,” he says. “As I expected, his work here was outstanding, and I look forward to following his legal career. I am sure he will be a star.”
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
Expert Advocate Paul Zwier (JD ’78) Leads the Trial Advocacy Field and Wages Peace Across the World Finishing his bachelor’s degree at the end of the Vietnam War, Paul J. Zwier, like many of his contemporaries, faced difficult questions about his obligations to country and to creating peace. by Emily DiFrisco
“While the war ended before I was forced to make a choice, I was determined to live in a way that sought to make a difference,” says Zwier, who earned his bachelor’s degree from Calvin College. There, he was “inspired to look at my life’s work as one of finding and living out a vocation, where my passion fit the world’s greatest need.” The answer to the vocation question was law school. “I think my decision to go to law school fit my passion for being an advocate and trying to make a difference for good in the real world of disputes,” he explains. Zwier moved from Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he grew up as the second of six children, to California to attend Pepperdine’s law school. “The classes and professors inspired me to see not only the grays in people’s behaviors and situations (and reject too-easy and simplistic solutions to problems) but also to start to see the beauty of the common law,” he says of his legal education. “Pepperdine helped me see that I could P E P P E R D I N E L AW
have faith in common law processes. Not that they are perfect, but just the best we have. My education led me to see that the radical genius of the common law is that it balances power by giving fact-finding authority to the jury.” Zwier was involved in law school activities such as moot court and the Pepperdine Law Review. “Pepperdine’s moot court program gave me confidence to speak; its Law Review gave me the discipline to write carefully, clearly, and comprehensively,” he says. After Pepperdine Zwier earned an LLM from Temple University, and as a young graduate student, he attended the National Institute of Trial Advocacy’s (NITA) trial program in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. “I met some of the best trial lawyers and teachers then working in the U.S.; I was asked back the next year [in 1983] to join the faculty,” he remembers. “I have been involved with NITA since then, writing problems, developing programs, and teaching trial advocacy.” 22
Upon joining the faculty of NITA, Zwier continued to distinguish himself as a teacher and scholar of advocacy and skills training. He was professor of law and director of the lawyering skills program at University of Richmond’s T. C. Williams School of Law, and professor of law and director of the Center for Advocacy and Dispute Resolution at University of Tennessee College of Law. Zwier is currently professor of law and director of the Center for Advocacy and Dispute Resolution at Emory Law School, in Atlanta, Georgia, where he has revolutionized the school’s curriculum. Once a fledgling program, it now features advanced classes on legal advocacy in the labor and employment, medical malpractice, and criminal areas, as well as in mediation and negotiation. The program’s mainstay is the Kessler-Eidson Program for Trial Techniques, which every second-year Emory law student must take. In Trial Techniques Zwier gives students intense instruction in every aspect of trial advocacy: making opening statements and closing arguments, examining witnesses, introducing evidence, and dealing with objections, in both jury and non-jury trials. Despite the challenge, many students say that Trial Techniques is the best part of their law school experience.
“We also developed training materials to teach Kenyan lawyers and law professors to teach advocacy skills for themselves,” Zwier explains. “Our aim is to put ourselves out of work as more and more Kenyans take over the training and material development, and as Kenyan law professors teach these skills to the next generation of Kenyan lawyers and judges.” Whether training lawyers on the other side of the globe or teaching law students in Atlanta, Georgia, Zwier inspires others to look beyond the cases. “I like to teach from the bottom up, that is, show how real-world problems raise very important moral and social issues, and that theory informs practice, but practice also informs theory,” says Zwier of his teaching philosophy. “I like to create simulations drawn from real-world situations to teach lawyers and judges about practical peacemaking.”
Paul J. Zwier Fast Facts erved as the National Institute of Trial Advocacy’s S (NITA) associate director of in-house training from 1998 to 2003
When he isn’t training the next generation of trial lawyers, Zwier stays true to his commitment to serve the world’s neediest. Through organizations such as Lawyers Without Borders and the Carter Center, Zwier has taught advocacy and rule of law for the international criminal court and for lawyers and judges in Tanzania, The Hague, Scotland, England, Hong Kong, Ireland, China, the Republic of Georgia, Ukraine, Liberia, Rwanda, Kenya, and Mexico.
Director of NITA’s public programs from 1999 to 2007 Received NITA’s Prentice Marshall Award in 1998
“It’s my passion,” he says of his advocacy training around the world. “I have learned much from these experiences about the perils of rule of law development efforts, especially relating to the problem of violence against women. How can I promote human rights for women and respect the culture of the other?”
Tenured at three institutions: University of Richmond, University of Tennessee, and Emory University Teaches Torts, Evidence, Advanced Trial Advocacy, and Advanced Negotiation Seminar
The answer is advocacy training. “Advocacy training, which involves role playing, seems to provide an important experience for the evolution of human rights in both the judiciary and in the individual advocate,” he says. “What is most inspiring is to see the confidence it gives the women advocates as well as the judges as they work for human rights, not only in law-reform work, but using existing laws to call the powers that be into account.”
Has published numerous books and articles, including Torts: Cases, Problems, and Exercises 3rd. (with Weaver, Bauman, Cross, Klein, Martin) (LexisNexis, 2009); Supervisory and Leadership Skills in the Modern Law Practice, (NITA 2006), Legal Strategy (NITA, 2005), Effective Expert Testimony, 2d. (with Malone) (NITA, 2006), Advanced Negotiation and Mediation Theory and Practice (with Guernsey) (NITA 2005); Looking to “Ground Motive” for a Religious Foundation for Law, 54 Emory L. J. 357, (2005), and The Utility of a Nonconsequentialist Rationale for CivilJury-Awarded Punitive Damages, 54 Kansas L. Rev. 403 (2006).
Zwier’s recent travels have taken him to Arusha to work with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and Kenya. He was part of a team of lawyers who traveled to Arusha in January 2006 to train the prosecutors in that country’s ongoing genocide trials, and this past summer, he worked in Kenya, where he created case files and programming designed to specially teach Kenyan magistrates and lawyers to prosecute rape and domestic violence cases under Kenyan law. 23
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
“Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser, in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.”1 –Abraham Lincoln
for Lawyers by Thomas J. Stipanowich
William H. Webster Chair in Dispute Resolution and Academic Director of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution Illustration of Lincoln by Thomas J. Stipanowich
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
t a time when much attention is focused on the roles and responsibilities of attorneys outside the courtroom and American trial dockets have contracted significantly, the foregoing admonition is often quoted. Its potency derives not only from its strong and succinct prose, but from the fact that it sprang from the pen of a trial lawyer more than 150 years ago. And not just any trial lawyer, but one whose career embraced the full spectrum of practice—from the humdrum of frontier circuit courts to the role of “lawyer’s lawyer” before his state’s highest tribunal. One who in later years, as president of the United States, led his country through its ultimate, defining crisis. There is no evidence that Abraham Lincoln ever delivered the lecture for which he committed these
words to paper in the 1850s, but there is no doubt they were a touchstone of his own practice. The recent publication of the Lincoln Legal Papers comprises extant documents relating to more than 5,400 legal matters handled by Lincoln and his partners and a wave of new scholarship mining new or rediscovered sources provide us with a vast array of information about how Lincoln approached legal conflict. His attitudes and practices are to some extent reflective of the legal community of which he was a part, but also evince the extraordinary character of one who believed he was called to great things. The principles that animated his practice—summarized below—are just as relevant today as they were in Lincoln’s day, and offer valuable guideposts for modern lawyers.
Use litigation as a last resort—and be frank with your client about its costs and risks.
veteran of many years of rough-and-tumble advocacy around frontier Illinois’ Eighth Judicial Circuit, Lincoln could be a formidable opponent in the courtroom. Besides having a way with a jury, he was comfortable wielding any and all procedural arguments or technical devices that might avail a client of victory or postpone or ameliorate defeat. His law partner William Herndon asserted that Lincoln was even better in a “set piece battle” before appellate judges, where his intense emphasis on preparation and well-developed logic came to the fore. And yet, time and again, Lincoln discouraged clients from pursuing litigation or strongly cautioned them about the costs and risks of vouchsafing their cause to a judge or jury.2 One who espoused such great faith in the power of reason and logic and himself exhibited great precision of mind must have keenly discerned the limitations of legal process: crowded circuit court dockets, with court sessions in most counties limited to a few days a year; the difficulties of procuring evidence and witnesses; the unpredictability of local tribunals and juries; and the difficulties of executing on a debt in the face of a determined recalcitrant debtor.3 Lincoln was also aware in a very personal way of the reputational cost of being sued. He experienced extreme indignation and anguish when two surviving partners of his father-in-law’s business brought what turned out to be an unjustified cause of action against Lincoln for withholding monies due the partnership that he had allegedly collected—in essence charging him with fraud.4 Furthermore, he lived in a society which depended less upon banks than upon personal credit evidenced by promissory notes, and individuals were accustomed to functioning both as creditors and debtors. In times of economic downturn—including nationwide panics in 1837 and 1857—many a promissory note would remain unpaid by its due date, and for a variety of reasons the most rational solution for a creditor was usually to make appropriate accommodations rather than seek foreclosure. Lincoln favored such adjustments wherever possible— perhaps calling to mind his own years of toil to repay the obligations of a failed business that he ruefully labeled “the National Debt.” In a letter to one Louisville wholesaler who had retained him to collect debts from central Illinois merchants, Lincoln explained, We have been receiving promises from time to time of the payment of those notes, but which payment has not yet been made. Unless payment is soon made we shall commence suits, though this course we shall regret, for they are honest and honorable men, but they are hard pressed.5 Not surprisingly, Lincoln reserved his greatest contempt for those who would “stir up litigation”: A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it.6
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
Begin negotiating cooperatively and encourage the reliance of others by behaving in a logical and predictable way. Look for trade-offs.
n the frontier communities in which Lincoln practiced, a cooperative approach to negotiating legal disputes was facilitated by the bonds of familiarity. The uncertainties of negotiation were reduced because many of the lawyers Lincoln negotiated with were well known to him—even to the point of sharing beds while riding the circuit. Lincoln would regularly serve alongside attorneys who would, the next day, appear against him in another case. He also had occasion to appear for and against some clients, including the Illinois Central Railroad.7 In a few cases he appeared for both sides at different times!8 Relational connections also reinforced the likelihood of a collaborative solution; Lincoln and his peers could avoid extreme positional bargaining and the posturing that goes with it. In some cases, personal familiarity with both parties encouraged Lincoln to play the role of mediator, as reflected in the following message to a suitor client: I understand Mr. Hickox will go . . . for the purpose of meeting you to settle the difficulty about the wheat. I sincerely hope you will settle it. I think you can if you will, for I have always found Mr. Hickox a fair man in his dealings. If you settle, I will charge nothing for what I have done, and thank you to boot. By settling, you will most likely get your money sooner, and with much less time and trouble.9 Lincoln understood the power of a meaningful trade-off—the quid pro quo—in achieving a bargain. As a youthful member of the Illinois legislature Lincoln became adept at “logrolling”—the practice of obtaining another legislator’s vote on a particular bill in exchange for support on another matter of consequence to the other. Lincoln’s political acumen was demonstrated by his successful effort to bring the state capital to Springfield. The same skills were of great value in the negotiation of legal disputes where, to use Lincoln’s metaphor, “a stitch in time may save nine.”10 Of course, if a cooperative approach failed to produce a positive response, Lincoln was capable of shifting tactics. As a competitive bargainer he would be in a position to draw upon his formidable trial advocacy skills; at the same time, his innate objectivity would render him less susceptible to an opponent’s efforts to manipulate or mislead him and his client.
Seek creative ways of bridging the gap to an agreement that achieves a client’s key goals and priorities in a simple, straightforward manner.
he creative use of consent judgments to resolve slander cases was only one example of Lincoln’s penchant for inventive methods of resolving disputes. Lincoln and other lawyers made regular resort to binding arbitration—consigning legal disputes to judgment by private persons outside the courts. In a society where circuit courts met only a few days a year, with long gaps between sessions, arbitration was probably an appealing alternative for deciding cases of all kinds.11 In addition to serving as an advocate in arbitrations, Lincoln had experience as an arbitrator. In one matter regarding a boundary dispute between adjoining property owners, Lincoln drew upon his earlier experience as a surveyor to render an arbitration award in the form of a drawing depicting the decreed boundary.12 In a case involving a client with what Lincoln considered a less-than-stellar case, he persuaded the parties to engage in an abbreviated arbitration procedure in a hotel room before the presiding circuit judge on the eve of trial. When the defendant was unable to come up with the full $125 cash down payment to pay Lincoln’s client, as directed by the judge in his award, Lincoln loaned him the balance—sixteen dollars—in order to complete the transaction.13 Not surprisingly, Lincoln often found himself playing the role of informal mediator.14 In another legal dispute negotiations had resolved all issues save for one. Lincoln and opposing counsel—who apparently had a good working relationship— bridged this final gap by getting the parties to agree that the matter would be resolved by the lawyers themselves acting as “referees.” The final written settlement agreement incorporated the term reflecting the lawyers’ mutual resolution.15
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
Do not place your own financial interests or ego above the interests of the client.
ne of Lincoln’s most extraordinary qualities was his ability to temper his own financial and emotional needs in the interests of fairness or effective service to his client. Although Lincoln believed in charging fair fees and would often ask for a retainer before rendering services, he professed that “an exorbitant fee [or retainer] should never be claimed” and his own rates tended to be sufficiently low that he was once brought before a kangaroo court of circuit-riding lawyers presided over by his friend Judge David Davis and “fined” for taking such small fees. On occasion he would also offer to relinquish all or part of his fee in order to bring about a settlement.16 Most remarkable, perhaps, was Lincoln’s capacity to overlook slights and humiliations if the interests he was serving required it. In 1854 Lincoln was retained in connection with a case of considerable national significance: Cyrus McCormick had sued John Manny for infringing one of the patents on his famous reaper, and Lincoln was retained by the defense. He engaged in extensive study and analysis before traveling to Cincinnati, Ohio, in order to meet with the client and make final preparations for what promised to be one of the most important trials of his career. When he arrived in Cincinnati, however, he was confronted by two other eastern lawyers, both highly prominent and experienced in business litigation, who had also been retained by Manny. It quickly became clear that they had their own ideas about how to conduct the case and that they regarded their Illinois colleague as an interloping ignoramus. The lawyers made a point of excluding Lincoln from their deliberations and even their meals. Later, when Lincoln tendered a carefully prepared memorandum summarizing his arguments for the defense, it was returned to him unopened. Lincoln was relegated to the role of spectator at the trial, but despite his wounded feelings took the opportunity to watch and learn. Some years later, in the dark days of 1861, Lincoln realized that he—and the country—needed a highly intelligent, forthright and well-organized individual to help supervise the Union’s war effort. Despite all, he turned to none other than one of the lawyers who had treated him with such callous disrespect in the McCormick litigation—and Edwin M. Stanton became Lincoln’s Secretary of War for the remainder of the Civil War.17
1 Abraham Lincoln, Notes for a Law Lecture, [hereinafter Notes] in 1 The Papers of Abraham Lincoln: Legal Documents and Cases 12 (Daniel W. Stowell et al. eds., 2008)[hereinafter PAL]. 2 Take, for example, a letter written to a would-be suitor late in Lincoln’s practice: Yours of Feb. 28, 1859, is received. I do not think there is the least use of doing any more with the law-suit. I not only do not think you are sure to gain it, but I do think you are sure to lose it. Therefore the sooner it ends the better. Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Haden Keeling (Mar. 3, 1859), in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at 15. 3 See, e.g., ch.2 Cannan v. Kenney, in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at 27, 40 (claim to recover possession of horse resulting in four years of legal proceedings); ch.12 James Bell & Company for the use of Speed v. Hall, in id., at 251, 258 (last of debts collected five years after court judgment). 4 Ch. 30 Oldham and Hemingway v. Lincoln et al, in 2 PAL, supra note 1, at 355. 5 Letter from Stuart & Lincoln to Thomas Bohannan (Aug. 7, 1839), in 4 PAL, supra note 1, at 199. 6 Notes, supra note 1, 12-13. 7 Historical Introduction, in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at xli.
8 See, e.g., ch. 5 Hall v. Perkins/Perkins v. Hall, in 1 PAL, supra note 1, 60, at 73, 88. 9 Letter of Abraham Lincoln to Abraham Bale (Feb. 22, 1850), in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at 5. 10 Letter of Abraham Lincoln to Mason Brayman (Mar. 31, 1854), in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at 8. 11 Sometimes the parties employed arbitration without agreeing to be bound by the result; in such cases either party might refuse to abide by the award. See, e.g., ch. 5 Hall v. Perkins, 1 PAL, supra note 1, 60, at 70, 83. 12 See ch. 54, Lincoln the Lawyer Outside the Courtroom, in 4 PAL, supra note 1, 193, at 207-208. 13 Julie M. Fenster, The Case of Abraham Lincoln (2007) 46-47 (discussing the case of Webster v. Angell and Rhodes). 14 See Steiner, supra note 11, at 98. 15 Ch. 26 A Tour of the Circuit with Lincoln, in 2 PAL, supra note 1, 211, at 225-226 (discussing Gill and Rupert v. Webster). 16 See supra note 14. 17 William Lee Miller, Lincoln’s Virtues: An Ethical Biography 410-426 (2002).
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
Second-year law student Nicole Hutchinson stands with Chief Justice Benjamin J. Odoki.
All in a
My Experience Clerking for Benjamin J. Odoki, by Nicole Hutchinson Chief Justice of Uganda
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
n my first day of work in Kampala, Uganda, I was told that I would work a thousand times harder in my summer externship than any other student. I was one of nine Pepperdine law students in Africa, and Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire, the justice who gave us our externship assignments, delivered the news that I would be working for Benjamin J. Odoki, chief justice of the Ugandan Supreme Court. insights to several issues. Our conversations moved beyond cases, and I learned about Ugandan culture, Ugandan law, and about the chief justice’s own experiences. I also had the opportunity to watch the Supreme Court hearings for the cases. As I observed, two things stood out to me. The first was that the lawyers were often unprepared. On one occasion, a lawyer stood up in front of the Supreme Court and said that he had not turned in his brief and would like more time. I was shocked by this. I can only imagine what Justice Scalia’s (or any of the other justices’) reaction would be if a lawyer showed up to the United States Supreme Court and said, “I am sorry, but I am not prepared.” When I first met the chief justice, I was more than a little nervous. Adding to the tension was the fact that he had never had a student working in his chambers. Fortunately, the chief justice was friendly and welcoming, and he immediately had a project for me. He handed me a book and asked me to update the statutes, all of which had been revised, to complete as soon as possible. It was a daunting task considering my lack of familiarity with Uganda’s laws, but five days later, when the chief justice returned, I had completed the project, and he was surprised and delighted.
To me it showed a lack of respect for the judicial system, but the Ugandan Supreme Court justices, while somewhat annoyed, allowed the lawyer to have more time. The second
Sadly, Uganda’s prisons were packed. Large numbers of people are held for months, sometimes even years, awaiting trial.
As a reward he gave me two large case files—the first of many I would receive over the summer. He asked me to research the issues and write a memorandum explaining how the Supreme Court should rule and why. The chief justice and I would then sit and discuss the case at hand. Our discussions would cover not only any relevant Ugandan laws and international precedent but also relevant policy implications that the different legal interpretations might have. The chief justice told me that he appreciated hearing my perspective on the cases because, coming from a different culture, I had offered new 29
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
thing that stood out to me was that anyone is allowed to argue in front of the Supreme Court, including the parties themselves. When I mentioned these observations to the chief justice he was very interested to learn that the same things did not happen in the United States. After a few weeks, the chief justice invited me travel with his staff to western Uganda, and I jumped at the opportunity. Over the course of three days, we visited several rural towns and saw High Courts, magistrate courts, and prisons. The purpose of the trip was for the chief justice to inspect both the courts and prisons in western Uganda, and through conversations with judges, magistrates, community leaders, prison officials, and even prisoners, determine what resources needed to be allocated to the area. In recent years Uganda has experienced tremendous population growth and the government infrastructure is struggling to keep up. The judges and the magistrates that I met on the trip discussed the heavy workloads resulting from the shortage of necessary personnel. Despite the daunting backlog, the judges remained positive about the progress that has been made in recent years, particularly with regards to fighting corruption. Sadly, Ugandaâ€™s prisons were packed. Large numbers of people are held for months, sometimes even years, awaiting trial. Despite the overcrowding, the conditions were relatively good, and the prisoners were well-behaved. Near the end of the summer, Dean Ken Starr came to Uganda to visit with students and sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Ugandan judiciary. The MOU formalized the relationship between Pepperdine and the Ugandan judiciary. Pepperdine committed to continue the clerkship program and to work with Uganda to develop academic and legal reform measures.Â
(top) Standing near Murchison Falls with giraffes. (bottom) At a camp for internally displaced persons.
Together with the other Pepperdine students, Dean Starr and I traveled to northern Uganda to visit the internally-displaced-persons camps. We had the opportunity to visit with the residents of the camp and participate in a training session to teach local community leaders alternative dispute resolution techniques in order to foster peace and reconciliation in northern Uganda. As my six weeks in Uganda came to an end, I prepared to leave those who had become my friends and colleagues. On my last day, the chief justice invited me to his house to meet his family and to say goodbye. I returned to Pepperdine with fond memories, a better sense of the problems facing the Ugandan judicial system, and a great admiration for the amount of work that the Ugandan judges are able to accomplish with limited resources. Nicole Hutchinson is a joint JD/MPP student.
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
Sandra Bunn-Livingstone ( JD â€™91) Explores Human Rights Law at Cambridge, the U.S. Department of State, and Beyond. by Sarah Fisher 31
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
Sandra Bunn-Livingstone (JD ’91) first became interested in human rights while earning a PhD at Cambridge University. She spent a total of 10 years in academia at Cambridge, first studying human rights and treaty law and then teaching a multitude of courses, including commercial, corporate, international, European, and human rights law for the law and international relations faculties.
Sandra Bunn-Livingstone receives her PhD in a ceremony at Cambridge University.
Examining human rights law in an academic setting prepared her for her next job: heading up the Multilateral and European Affairs Teams for the Office of International Religious Freedom in the State Department. Her tasks included advising the U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom, participating in international human rights delegations to the United Nations European Union, Organization for Security Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Organization of American States (OAS) and their human rights bodies, and helping to draft resolutions to safeguard religious freedom and other human rights. “The academic examination of religious freedom is crucial, as P E P P E R D I N E L AW
academics and thinkers are flushing out the particulars to move the needle on human rights,” says Bunn-Livingstone. “Working in the State Department, one person cannot make policy, but one person can contribute to the discussion.” Bunn-Livingstone did just that at State, finding that more often than not, a conversation on religious freedom is a discussion about a number of human rights issues. She stresses that freedom of religion as a civil and political right goes much deeper than a simple right to belief and practice without fear of reprisal; it goes hand in hand with free speech. “It's very rare that it's the only human right that's abused,” explains Bunn-Livingstone. “With religious freedom abuse comes abuses of free speech, free press, and freedom of assembly and association. And when there is a state religion, pressures are applied to its citizens who do not practice that religion.” During her tenure with the State Department, Bunn-Livingstone became particularly concerned with “Defamation of Religion” laws emerging internationally, established supposedly to protect religion, but which actually act as covert means of curtailing free speech. “On a macrocosmic level, my biggest human rights concern is about the Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference promoting restrictions on free speech and religious freedom,” she says. “‘Defamation' at the international level is being used in countries around the world to justify restrictions on freedom through apostasy, blasphemy, and anti-conversion laws. Multiple countries in the Middle East, Near East, North Africa, Central and Southeast 32
Sandra Bunn-Livingstone (second to right) stands with Dean Ron Phillips (far right) at her law school graduation in 1991.
"Sandra is a most interesting and articulate woman of faith who has done a great many significant things in her career,” says Ron Phillips, who currently serves Pepperdine as vice chancellor and law school Dean Emeritus. “With deep roots in California, her ancestors were involved in the establishment of the San Juan Capistrano Mission. She, herself, is constantly on a ‘mission’ to improve the world around her."
Asia utilize such laws to restrict, fine, imprison, torture, and even sentence to death citizens who seek to practice their civil and political right to freedom of religion and belief under Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Bunn-Livingstone was presented with a Meritorious Honor Award by Assistant Secretary of State Barry Lowenkron in July 2007 for her work with the United Nations Human Rights Council to advance religious freedom and counter defamation laws. She calls the honor the highlight of her career with the State Department. Her legal career began at Pepperdine, where she connected with students and then dean of the School of Law Ronald Phillips. “Sandra is a most interesting and articulate woman of faith who has done a great many significant things in her career,” says Phillips, who currently serves Pepperdine as vice chancellor and law school Dean Emeritus. “With deep roots in California, her ancestors were involved in the establishment of the San Juan Capistrano Mission. She, herself, is constantly on a ‘mission’ to improve the world around her.” Following law school, she left California and traveled the globe. She studied international comparative law in Moscow and Warsaw and advanced international legal studies at Salzberg University in Austria. She worked in six law firms on three continents and married Englishman David Livingstone—a relative of the famous Scottish explorer—before heading to the United Kingdom. In 2008 she took her 20-year focus on human rights in a new direction and ran as a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in her home state of Arizona. She stood on a platform of S-A-N-I-T-Y (secure borders, alternative energy solutions, Nafta reform, immigration reform, trade that is fair, and yes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). She missed out on the Republican nomination by a very small margin of just a few hundred votes, but calls the experience of running one of the most fulfilling of her career. She may well run again in the future. In the meantime, she returned to Washington, D.C., with her husband
and two children and is now executive director of Jus Cogens, LLC, an organization that promotes human rights and provides international law counsel. Her next project is to complete and publish a book she has been working on since leaving Cambridge in 2006. Bunn-Livingstone is already the author of Juricultural Pluralism Vis-a-Vis Treaty Law: State Practice and Attitudes (Developments in International Law) (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 2002, reprinted 2004). Her new book traces developments in 20th-century international law and the human rights pioneer Lord Arnold McNair (1885 – 1975). The work, preliminarily titled “Herculean Contributions to the Development of International Law: A Biography of Lord Arnold Duncan McNair,” will explore the man she calls central to the modern foundation of the international legal system. “I was honored by his family to be asked to write the book. As the first president of the European Court of Human Rights, and a president of the International Court of Justice, he was championing human rights on the ground before the League of Nations and the United Nations,” she explains. McNair's granddaughter entrusted her with “a literal treasure chest filled with archives including a marked-up handwritten Treaty of Versailles, Cambridge Union menu cards signed by King George V and Winston Churchill, and McNair's notes on his 1931 seminal work, The Law of Treaties,” she says. In addition to completing her book on McNair and heading up Jus Cogens, Bunn-Livingstone has returned to human rights law—her career-long passion. It stems from her strong belief in natural law, human dignity, and the idea that, as beings made in the image of God, humans have intrinsic value. “I strongly believe that we are on this planet for a life of service,” she contends. “There is nothing so sacred as advocating for those who cannot do so for themselves. Every individual has value.”
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
f a c u l t y WR I T I NGS
and Speaking Engagements 2008-2009
Roger P. Alford
Herb E. Cihak
Bruce J. Einhorn
Free Speech and the Case for Constitutional Exceptionalism, 106 Michigan L. Rev. 1071 (2008).
Direct Democracy in Political Encyclopedia of U.S. States and Regions (CQ Press 2008).
e Nonuse of Constitutional ComparaTh tivism by Inferior Courts, 76 Fordham L. Rev. (2008).
Cihak presented at the China-United States Conference on Legal Information and Law Libraries regarding law library issues from May 27 to 30, in Beijing, China.
The Future of Investment Arbitration (with Catherine Rogers, Oxford University Press 2008).
Robert Anderson IV Measuring Meta-Doctrine: An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Minimalism in the Supreme Court, 32 HARV. J.L. & POL’Y 1045 (2009).
Robert F. Cochran, Jr. Lawyers, Clients, and Moral Responsibility (with Thomas L. Shaffer, West, 2d ed. 2009). Faith and Law: How Religious Traditions from Calvinism to Islam View American Law (NYU Press 2008).
Einhorn will publish an article on the effect of cultural differences on credibility determinations in immigration court proceedings in the Albany Government Law Review in October 2009. Einhorn has been named Of Counsel to the international and immigration law firm of Wolfsdorf Immigration Law Group in Santa Monica, California, where he will supervise complex federal trial and appellate litigation. He will present at a seminar sponsored by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America on Israel, its struggle against terrorism, and the application of international law, in Santa Monica, California, on August 11, 2009.
Christine Chambers Goodman Thomas G. Bost eason, Freedom, and Apocalyptic Vision: R Churches of Christ and the Practice and Teaching of Law in Faith and Law: How Religious Traditions from Calvinism to Islam View American Law (Robert F. Cochran, ed., NYU Press 2008).
Jack J. Coe, Jr. Circulation of Draft Awards Under the 2004 U.S. Model BIT in The Future of Investment Arbitration (Roger Alford & Catherine Rogers, eds., Oxford University Press 2009). Settlement Patterns and the Role of Third-Party Neutrals in Investor-State Dispute (book chapter forthcoming).
Donald Earl Childress III Comity as Conflict: Resituating International Comity as Conflict of Laws (forthcoming). The Role of Ethics in Private International Law in The Role of Ethics in International Law (Donald Earl Childress III, ed. Cambridge University Press forthcoming 2010). Childress spoke on “Comity as Conflict: Resituating International Comity as Conflict of Laws” at the Journal of Private International Law BiAnnual Conference at New York University School of Law in April 2009; attended the ABA National Conference on Professional Responsibility in Chicago, Illinois, in May 2009; and spoke on “The Future of Legal Categories” at the International Association of Procedural Law in Toronto, Canada, in June 2009. He will be a part of a conference on “Methodological Approaches to Comparative Law” as part of the American Society of Comparative Law Annual Meeting at Roger Williams University School of Law in Bristol, Rhode Island, in October 2009. He is organizing and will be presenting at a conference on “The Role of Ethics in International Law” that is cosponsored by American Society of International Law in Washington, D.C., in November 2009.
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
Richard L. Cupp, Jr. Bioethics and the Explosive Rise of Animal Law, 9 The American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2009). Moving Beyond Animal Rights: A Legal/ Contractualist Critique, 46 San Diego L. Rev. 27 (2009). Preemption’s Rise (and Bit of a Fall) as Products Liability Reform: Wyeth, Riegel, Altria, and the Restatement (Third)’s Prescription Product Design Defect Standard, Brooklyn L. Rev. (forthcoming 2009). Cupp spoke on “Engaging Veterinarians in the Animal Law Debate over Noneconomic Damages for Negligent Death of a Pet,” for a national webinar hosted by the American Veterinary Medical Association on February 22, 2009. He gave a presentation to the faculty of Faulkner University School of Law on “Developing Faculty Scholarship and Prominence” in Montgomery, Alabama, on September 19, 2009.
Protecting the Party Girl: A New Approach for Evaluating Intoxicated Consent 2009 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 57 (2009). Retaining Diversity in the Classroom: Strategies for Maximizing the Benefits That Flow from a Diverse Student Body, 35 Pepp. L. Rev. 663 (2008). Goodman cowrote an op-ed titled “An Open Letter to President Faust and the Harvard Community,” published in the Harvard Crimson newspaper on June 2, 2009. The article sets forth specific strategies to help low-income students make the most of their Harvard experience through expanded academic, financial, and counseling support services.
Naomi Goodno Protecting “Any” Child: The Confidential Marital Communications Privilege In Child Molestation Cases (forthcoming). Goodno spoke at Chase Law School in January 2009 on the use of evidentiary privileges in criminal cases.
Bernard James Education Policy and the Law: Cases and Commentary (Vandeplas Publishing 2009, with Meg Penrose). James participated in two webinars on “State Juvenile Records Laws and Interagency Collaboration,” with U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which were broadcasted several times between June 19, 2008 and May 20, 2009.
James presented the keynote address at the National Association of School Resource Officers 19th National Convention in Baltimore, Maryland, from June 29 to July 3, 2009. The address will be published in the NASRO Journal of School Safety (Fall 2009). He spoke at the Tennessee Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, on August 3, 2009 on the topic of “Safe Schools, Juvenile Justice, and Interagency Collaboration.” He also conducted an education law seminar on safe schools and the law for the U.S. Attorney of the Northern District of Indiana in Michigan City, Indiana, on August 11, 2009.
Janet E. Kerr The Creative Capitalism Spectrum: Evaluating Corporate Social Responsibility Through a Legal Lens, 81 Temple L. Rev. (Spring/Summer 2009). A New Era of Responsibility: A Modern American Mandate for Corporate Social Responsibility, UMKC L. Rev. (forthcoming).
Douglas W. Kmiec ondiscrimination or Deregulation: A N U.S.-E.U. Comparison (The 2007 Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention: Corporations: Is the U.S. Legal Regime Undermining American Competitiveness?), 12 Texas Rev. L. & Pol. 405 (2008). Standing Still: Did the Roberts Court Narrow, but Not Overrule, Flast to Allow Time to Rethink Establishment Clause Jurisprudence? (Symposium: An Enigmatic Court? Examining the Roberts Court as It Begins Year Three), 35 Pepp. L. Rev. 509 (2008). Yoo’s Labour’s Lost: Jack Goldsmith’s Nine-Month Saga in the Office of Legal Counsel 31 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 795 (2008) (book review of The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration, by Jack Goldsmith).
Kristine S. Knaplund The Evolution of Women’s Rights in Inheritance, 19 Hastings Women’s L.J. 3 (Winter 2008). e Right to Privacy and America’s Aging Th Population, 86 Denver University L. Rev. 439 (2009). Legal Issues of Maternity and Inheritance for the Biotech Child of the 21st Century, 43 ABA Real Property, Trust and Estate L. J. 393 (Fall 2008).
Can the ‘Death Tax’ Kill Charity Too? The Impact of Legislation on Charitable Bequests (forthcoming). Knaplund spoke on “The New Biology and Its Implications for Estate Planning” at the 23rd Biennial Advanced Estate Planning Symposium for the Colorado Bar Association in September 2009; on “Hot Topics in Bioethics” at the ABA Real Property, Probate, Trust and Estate Fall Leadership Meeting in Montreal, Canada, in November 2008; on the “Evolution of Women’s Rights in Inheritance: Using Wills to Examine Women’s Property” at the Women’s History Network of British Columbia, in October 2008; on “The Right to Privacy and America’s Aging Population” at a Whittier Law School faculty colloquium in October 2008; and on “Issues of Inheritance for the Bio-tech Child of the 21st Century” at the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel in Denver, Colorado, in September 2008.
Angeles, California; Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; New York University, New York, New York; Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; University of Athens International Summer Symposium, Delphi, Greece; International Academy of Trial Lawyers Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California; and California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California. He will speak at Darwin University and Natural History Museum, Darwin, Australia; New Hampshire Humanities Council, Concord, New Hampshire; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, in fall 2009. Larson delivered three different lectures on campus at Pepperdine during 2009. He was taped for documentaries for PBS and BBC and was featured on various national and local radio and TV shows.
Samuel J. Levine
Edward J. Larson Murder Will Out: Rethinking the Right of Publicity Through One Classic Case 62 Rutgers L. Rev. (Fall 2009).
Introduction to Symposium: The Supreme Court’s Hands-Off Approach to Religious Doctrine, 84 Notre Dame L. Rev. 793 (2009).
Prejudiced Results: Darwin and Race, BookForum, Feb./Mar. 2009 at 36.
Rethinking the Legal Reform Agenda: Will Raising the Standards for Bar Admission Through Minimum Legal Education Requirements Promote or Undermine Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law? (with Russell G. Pearce), 77 Fordham L. Rev. 1635 (2009).
Introduction to Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (Modern Library 2009).
Preface: AALS Jewish Law Section Papers, 23 J.L. & Rel. 375 (2007 – 2008).
Myth 20: That the Scopes Trial Ended in Defeat for Antievolutionism, in Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion 178-186 (R. Numbers ed., Harvard University Press 2009).
Emerging Applications of Jewish Law in American Legal Scholarship: An Introduction, supra at 43.
e Reception of Darwinism in the NineTh teenth Century, 21 Science and Christian Belief 1 (2009).
Postmodern Developments in the Debate, in Darwin and the Bible: The Cultural Confrontation 117-129 (R. Robbins and M. Cohen eds., Penguin 2009). The Legal Battle Between Creation and Evolution in the Classroom supra at 155-165. Biology and the Emergence of the Eugenics Movement in Law, in Biology and Ideology (D. Alexander ed., Chicago University Press forthcoming 2009). Larson spoke at AALS Annual Meeting, in San Diego, California; Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina; University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia; Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina; Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; San Diego State University, San Diego, California; University of San Diego, San Diego, California; Skirball Cultural Center, Los
Lost in Translation: The Strange Journey of an Anti-Semitic Fabrication, from a Late NineteenthCentury Russian Newspaper to an Irish Legal Journal to a Leading Twentieth-Century American Criminal Law Textbook, 29 Dublin U. L.J. 260 (2007), reprinted in 45 Crim. L. Bull. (forthcoming 2009). Louis Marshall, Julius Henry Cohen, Benjamin Cardozo, and the New York Emergency Rent Laws of 1920: A Case Study of the Role of Jewish Lawyers and Jewish Law in Early Twentieth-Century Public Interest Litigation, 33 J. Legal Prof. 1 (2008), reprinted in Jews & Legal Prof. (Marc Galanter and Suzanne Last Stone, eds.) (forthcoming). Of Inkblots and Omnisignificance: Conceptualizing Secondary and Symbolic Functions of the Ninth Amendment, in a Comparative Hermeneutic Framework, Mich. St. L. Rev. (forthcoming). Miranda, Dickerson, and Jewish Legal Theory: The Constitutional Rule in a Comparative Analytical
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
f a c u l t y WR I T I NGS Framework, 69 Maryland L. Rev. (forthcoming 2009). Goldman v. Weinberger: Religious Freedom Confronts Military Uniformity in Law and Religion: Cases in Context (Leslie C. Griffin ed., Aspen forthcoming). Levine spoke at a faculty colloquium on the “Law and ‘Spirit’ of Legal Ethics” at the University of Notre Dame Law School in February 2009 and on the same topics at the University of San Diego School of Law in February 2009. He was the program organizer and moderator and presented on “Living an Ethical Professional Life” at the Center for Ethics at Yeshiva University in January 2009. He spoke on “Scriptural Interpretation and Constitutional Interpretation” at the Section on Law and Religion at the Association of American Law Schools’ annual meeting in San Diego, California, in January 2009.
Barry P. McDonald Campaign Finance Regulation and the Marketplace of Emotions, 36 Pepp. L. Rev. 395 (2009) (symposium issue). ree Speech and Press in the Modern Age: F Symposium Introduction, 36 Pepp. L. Rev. (2009) (symposium issue). Getting Beyond Religion as Science: “Unstifling” Worldview Formation in American Public Education, 66 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 587 (2009). If Obscenity Were to Discriminate, 103 Nw. L. Rev. 475 (2009); 103 Nw. L. Rev. Colloquy 72 (2008). McDonald hosted a panel discussion on problems facing the traditional media and its role as information agent of the public at the January 2009 AALS conference.
Anthony Miller Miller spoke on “Alternate Dispute Resolution” at the Southern California Association of Law Librarians Annual Meeting in March 2009.
Grant S. Nelson Nelson presented a paper entitled “Confronting the Mortgage Meltdown: A Brief for the Federalization of State Mortgage Foreclosure Law, ” at the Pepperdine Law Review Symposium “Bringing Down the Curtain on the Current Mortgage Crisis and Preventing a Return Engagement,” on April 17, 2009. Symposium papers will be published later this year by the Pepperdine Law Review.
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
and Speaking Engagements 2008-2009 He published the 8th edition of Real Estate Transfer, Finance and Development in June 2009 with West Group. Earlier editions were coauthored by Nelson and Dale A. Whitman, and this edition featured additional coauthors Ann M. Burkhart and Wilson Freyermuth.
Gregory L. Ogden
Richard M. Peterson Peterson presented at the 31st International Congress on Law and Mental Health at New York University Law School in June.
Robert J. Pushaw, Jr.
Ogden was a reporter for the Revised Model State Administrative Procedure Act (MSAPA) project at the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws from 2006 to 2008. He participated in a drafting committee meeting in Chicago, Illinois, in March 2009. He was a reporter on the Revised MSAPA project, prepared materials on Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the MSAPA for the American Bar Association Administrative law Section at their Spring 2009 Regulatory Conference in Williamsburg, Virginia, in April 2009. He spoke at the spring 2009 NAALJ meeting in Little Rock, Arkansas, on the topic of “The Model State APA Draft Revision Project (article 4, adjudication).” He spoke on “Adjudication Ethics” for ALJ’s at the 2009 National Conference of Regulatory Attorneys annual meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, in June 2009. He was a reporter on the Revised Model State Administrative Procedure Act project at the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws from 2006 to 2009, and was a reporter at the 2009 annual meeting of NCCUSL in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in July 2009. He will speak at the fall 2009 National Association of Hearing Officers annual meeting in Boise, Idaho, on a number of the topics. He will be a reporter on the Revised Model State Administrative Procedure Act project at the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 2006 to 2010, and he will participate in the fall drafting committee meeting in Chicago, Illinois, in October 2009. He will speak at the fall 2009 NAALJ annual meeting in Orlando, Florida, on the topic of current developments in federal and state administrative law in November 2009.
L. Timothy Perrin The Perplexing Problem of Client Perjury in Prosecutorial Misconduct: Problems and Perspectives 51-88 (Icfai University Press 2008) adapted from 76 Fordham L. Rev. 1707 (2007).
Partial-Birth Abortion and the Perils of Constitutional Common Law, 31 Harv. J.L. and Pub. Pol’y 519 (2008). Creating Legal Rights for Suspected Terrorists: Is the Court Being Courageous or Politically Pragmatic? 84 Notre Dame L. Rev. (forthcoming 2009). Justifying Wartime Limits on Civil Rights and Liberties, 8 Chap. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2009).
Peter Robinson Robinson will publish an article in the American Journal of Trial Advocacy this fall. He will speak at the First International Conference of Judicial Mediation in Paris, France, on October 16 and 17.
Shelley Ross Saxer Banishment of Sex Offenders: Individual Liberties, National Rights and the Dormant Commerce Clause, Environmental Justice, and Alternatives, 86 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1397 (2009). Faith in Action: Religious Accessory Uses and Land Use Regulation, 2008 Utah L. Rev. 593 (2008). Assessing RLUIPA’s Application to Building Codes and Aesthetic Land Use Regulation, 2 Alb. Gov’t L. Rev. 623 (2009). Faith in Action: Religious Accessory Uses and Land Use Regulation will be reprinted in the 2009 – 2010 Land Use & Environment Law Review (Thomson-West forthcoming 2010). Saxer spoke on “Innovative Teaching and Research Strategies for Land Use and Development Law” at the Southeastern Association of Law Schools annual meeting in August 2009. She was a panelist at the conference “Religious Liberty and Religious Property Disputes: Who Owns the Lord’s House?” at Pepperdine in January 2009, and she was a panelist and contributor for the Albany Government Law Review Symposium: God and the Land in October 2008.
Mark S. Scarberry Historical Considerations and Congressional Representation for the District of Columbia: Constitutionality of the D.C. House Voting Rights Bill in Light of Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment and the History of the Creation of the District, 60 Ala. L. Rev. 783 (2009). Scarberry spoke on “The Bankruptcy Bailout” at the American Bar Association conference in August 2009 and was quoted at length in the August 2009 ABA Journal.
Kenneth W. Starr From Fraser to Frederick: Bong Hits and the Decline of Civic Culture, 42 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 661 (2009) (symposium issue). Our Libertarian Court: Bong Hits and the Enduring Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian Colloquy (Symposium: Speech and the Public Schools after Morse v. Frederick), 12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1 (2008). The Roberts Court and the Business Cases (Symposium: An Enigmatic Court? Examining the Roberts Court as it Begins Year Three), 35 Pepp. L. Rev. 541 (2008). Dean Starr presented at a law forum titled “Global Commitment to the Rule of Law,” from May 29 through 31 in Doha, Qatar. He gave a keynote address on “The Rule of Law Today.” He spoke as part of a panel on “The Roberts Court-Three’s a Charm?” at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting in August in Chicago, Illinois. He also spoke on “Leading in Tough Times: Communicating Bad News, Maintaining Morale, and Career Services in a Down Legal Market” at the ABA Law Deans’ Workshop in August in Chicago, Illinois. He inaugurated the Ugandan Judiciary Distinguished Speaker Series in Uganda in July.
Thomas J. Stipanowich The Future of Commercial Arbitration (with Richard Chernick, William F. Rylaarsdam, and Stephen J. Ware) 9 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. 415 (2009). Arbitration Law and Practice (with Roger Alford, forthcoming 2009) (Aspen 2005). Arbitration and Choice: Taking Charge of the “New Litigation”, 7 DePaul Bus. & Com. L.J. 3 (forthcoming 2009) (symposium issue).
Arbitration: The “New Litigation”, 2010 U. Ill. L.Rev. 1 (forthcoming Jan. 2010).
Stipanowich presented at a law forum titled, “Global Commitment to the Rule of Law,” from May 29 through 31 in Doha, Qatar. He spoke on a panel on the latest methods of dispute resolution.
H. Mitchell Caldwell, Carol A. Chase, and Christine Chambers Goodman
Peter T. Wendel Deconstructing Legal Analysis: A 1L Primer (Aspen, 2009). He presented at the University of La Verne College of Law as part of their faculty scholarship series. He also has been invited to conduct academic success workshops this fall at law schools across the country, including Berkeley, USC, Stanford, Harvard, Boston University, Boston College, DePaul, Notre Dame, the University of Chicago, Northwestern, Loyola of Chicago, The Boyd College of Law (UNLV), St. Thomas University, McGeorge University, and the University of North Carolina.
Unpredictable Doom and Lethal Injustice: An Argument for Greater Transparency in Death Penalty Decisions, Temple L. Rev. (forthcoming, Winter 2010).
H. Mitchell Caldwell, Carol A. Chase, Naomi Goodno, and L. Timothy Perrin Case Files for Basic Trial Advocacy (LexisNexis 2009).
Maureen Arellano Weston Anatomy of the First Public Sports Arbitration: Surprising Practical, Legal, and Policy Issues in USADA v. Landis, Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. (forthcoming). Doping Control, Mandatory Arbitration, and Process Dangers for Accused Athletes in International Sports, Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. (forthcoming 2009). Simply a Dress Rehearsal? U.S. Olympic Sports Arbitration and the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Univ. Georgia Int’l L.J. (forthcoming 2009). Weston spoke on Olympic arbitration at the ABA Section on Dispute Resolution’s Annual Conference in New York in April 2009. She spoke on ethical issues in sports representation at the Sports Lawyers Association’s annual conference in Chicago, Illinois, in May 2009. She spoke on Arbitration Law and Practice at Hamline University in July 2009. She presented and organized the Symposium on “Arbitrating Sports: Reflections on Landis/USADA, the Olympic Games, and Future of Sports Dispute Resolution” held at Pepperdine University School of Law in February 2009. She also spoke at the University of Georgia School of Law, Law Review Symposium on International Commercial Arbitration in January 2009, at Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution Symposium in October 2008, and presented faculty colloquia at Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota, in February 2009 and at University of Colorado School of Law in October 2008.
Carol A. Chase and Christine Chambers Goodman Chase and Goodman published an op-ed piece titled, “Death Penalty Criteria Must Be Transparent” in the Sacramento Bee on July 2, 2009. They spoke on the same topic in a live radio interview for Capitol Public Radio in Sacramento, California, on July 9, 2009.
Selina K. Farrell and Nancy L. N. McGinnis Introduction to Legal Citation: The Bluebook Made Easy (West Law School Publications, Spring 2010).
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
cl ass ac tions
Edward R. Ulloa
Kelly Lynn Anders book
1974 Mark Travis has retired to Reno, Nevada, after 33 years as a criminal prosecutor. He spent the final 16 years as a deputy district attorney in Yolo County, California. He recently published his novel Commitments through Virtualbookworm. com Publishing. The book is a fictionalized version of his law school years.
1980 Jeffery D. Palumbo was selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America 2010. He is a partner at Damon Morey LLP, in Buffalo, New York.
cases involving mortgage and medical fraud including numerous high-profile cases.
1993 Don Franchi married Mirissa McMurray on May 17, 2009.
Lisa Monet Wayne of Denver, Colorado, was sworn in as first vice president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) at the association’s 51st annual meeting in Boston, Massachusetts, on August 8. Lisa Wayne is an attorney in private practice in both state and federal courts around the country. She handles serious felonies, violent crime, and complex white-collar P E P P E R D I N E L AW
1998 Angela Turriciano Otto (BS ’95, JD ’98) was recently selected as one of Las Vegas’ 40 Under 40 by In Business Las Vegas. She works at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, in Las Vegas, Nevada.
1995 Edward R. Ulloa was made partner at Hawkins, Parnell & Thackston in Los Angeles, California. His practice involves the defense of asbestos and toxic tort litigation on behalf of manufacturers of pumps and gaskets, automotive friction products, construction materials and insulation.
1985 Lynn Morrow of Adams & Reese was selected as one of the 2009 Best of the Bar winners by the Nashville Business Journal in Nashville, Tennessee. The list features 100 local lawyers nominated by their peers.
1996 Kelly Lynn Anders published the book The Organized Lawyer (Carolina Academic Press, 2009). She is the associate dean for student affairs at Washburn University School of Law.
1997 Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson of Jacobson & Han LLP has been named as a Southern California “Super Lawyer Rising Star” in the area of immigration law by the publishers of Los Angeles Magazine and Law & Politics Magazine. 38
Jad Davis was made a shareholder at Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley. Sean P. Flynn (MBA ’00, JD ’01) was made a shareholder at Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley.
2002 Sebastian E. Lee is an associate in the Law Offices of Michael B. Goldstein in Beverly Hills, California.
2003 Jon Lambiras has been named an officer in the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Association of AttorneyCertified Public Accountants. He recently presented a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar regarding class actions to the chapter. Also, Jon recently published “Hacked,” a chapter in Computer Fraud Casebook: The Bytes that Byte (Wiley Publishing 2009).
Heather A. Lamoureux published Resolving Conflict and Improving Communication: A Guide for Healthcare Professionals (Kingsley Publishing 2009). She received a Queen’s Counsel appointment in 1990 and was appointed to the Provincial Court of Alberta Criminal Division in 1995. In addition to sitting as a full-time judge, she is an adjunct professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary. Ryan Yahne has become an accredited professional (AP) in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) in Spokane, Washington. He is a Winston & Cashatt attorney.
2004 Daniel Smith is counsel and director of the Guitar Center Music Foundation, in Los Angeles, California. Adam Sullivan is counsel in the legal and business affairs department of Square Enix, in El Segundo, California. Square Enix is a video game and publishing company based in Tokyo, Japan.
2006 Amber Leavitt (BA ’02, JD ’06) and Peter Leavitt welcomed their daughter Eva Naomi Leavitt on April 24, 2009. Amber is an associate at Workman Nydegger in Salt Lake City, Utah. Sevana D. Zetlian wed Leo J. Ohanian on June 27, 2009 in Beverly Hills, California.
Ryan Sorahan will be clerking in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for Judge Kent A. Jordan. He was previously an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Orange County, California. Jessica J. Uitto has joined Moses & Townsend, PLLC, in Nashville, Tennessee. She was previously a pro bono attorney in the family law division of the Legal Aid Society in Nashville. She is licensed to practice law in Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
2008 Maggie Keegan Gross is an estate planning attorney at Le + Pelletier, LLP, in Los Angeles, California. Jeff Hassler is a law clerk for Justice Donald W. Lemons of the Supreme Court of Virginia. He and his wife Lyric welcomed their second child, Eliana Abigail Monica Hassler, on August 19. Laura Hock is completing a two-year clerkship with the Honorable Stephen M. McNamee of the United States District Court, District of Arizona. She will continue through September 2010.
2009 Nidya Aldana started a year-long Nootbaar Fellowship with Pepperdine's Special Education Clinic this fall. Michael B. Cooper has begun a one-year clerkship for 2009-2010. He is clerking for senior judge Ronald S. W. Lew in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Tom Steele has begun a fellowship with the American Board of Trial Advocates in Los Angeles County.
Mary (Huebert) Lang is clerking for Judge Michael W. McConnell on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. His chambers are in Salt Lake City, Utah.
L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U
cl ass ac tions
hile pursuing a master's degree at the University of Virginia in 2002, Eileen
Moore (JD ’78) listened to her professor talk about Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 Supreme Court case that found racial segregation in America’s public school system to be unconstitutional.
The Courts vs. The Movies Justice Eileen Moore (JD ’78) Examines Race Relations in Her New Book by Morgan Thrower
P E P P E R D I N E L AW
Moore, who has been an associate justice on the California Court of Appeal since 2000, was flooded with memories. As a child, she had watched her mother cry because she didn’t know what to say to a white man who wouldn’t serve a black man lunch. Moore’s parents debated whether the family should wait for white buyers to make an offer to purchase their home, versus selling to a black family and risk the value of their neighbors’ homes decreasing. Moore wondered why it was so difficult for her parents to see what the Supreme Court justices saw—that inequality in all its forms is wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated. Why did so many people, her parents among them, allow a system of racial apartheid to exist for so long? At the time, Moore had just begun looking for a topic on which to write her thesis, and she couldn’t stop thinking about the questions brought up by these memories. “I was really trying to solve a puzzle. I wanted to know why fair-minded, decent, and good Americans, dedicated to the ideals of democracy, would permit one race to treat another indecently as we did for a long time,” says Moore. “Common sense told me that Americans were receiving incorrect information from somewhere. I decided to look at two obvious sources of information and see if my search helped me solve the mystery.” Moore’s two sources were the United States Supreme Court and the film industry. The former is considered conservative while the latter is traditionally viewed as a bastion of liberal idealism. “I devised the idea of comparing the two, to see just what legal and cultural messages each was sending to the American people,” she says. Moore completed her thesis in 2004. Her look into the American psyche became the beginnings of her new book Race Results: Hollywood vs. the Supreme Court, Ten Decades of Racial Decisions and Film (Cool Titles, October 2009). In it she gives a decade-by-decade comparison of Hollywood films and Supreme Court decisions and shows how this affected our lives. Beginning in 1915 and continuing on through the new millennium, the book shows the United States Supreme Court to be far more fair and liberal in their treatment of African Americans than Hollywood. “For most of the 20th century, those supposedly conservative justices, isolated by their privileged positions in their ivory tower, seemed to know more about what was going on in our society than the supposedly liberal producers, directors, and studios of Hollywood,” Moore reflects. “I am not exactly sure what I was expecting, but I was definitely surprised at what I found.”
Orientation 2009: Finding Your Purpose in the Law
ď ľ Akhil Amar, Southmayd Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University and one of Pepperdine's D and L Straus Distinguished Visiting Professors, gave an address on "Living Greatly in the Law." ď ą Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm in Houston, Texas, spoke on practicing law with integrity.
24255 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, California 90263
on the horizon 2009â€“2010 ďƒ˘
U.S. Supreme Court Admissions Ceremony, Washington, D.C.
"The First Monday in October: The Roberts Court, 2009" Panel Discussion and Law Alumni Reception, Washington, D.C.
Lecture with Baroness Caroline Cox, Malibu, California
October 15 Third Annual East Coast Professional Skills Program in Dispute Resolution, Cosponsored by Vermont Law School, Woodstock, Vermont
National Entertainment Moot Court Competition, Malibu, California
California Bar Admissions Ceremony, Malibu, California
January 7 AALS Annual Conference & Reception: "Napa In New Orleans," New Orleans, Louisiana
33rd Annual Law School Dinner, Beverly Hills, California Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr. Judicial Clerkship Institute, Malibu, California Pepperdine Law Review Symposium, Malibu, California
law.pepperdine.edu School of Law
Palmer Center for Entrepreneurship and the Law 310.506.4681
Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution
Nootbaar Institute on Law, Religion, & Ethics 310.506.7635
Alumni Affairs Moot Court