Vol. 46, 2012
Building for the Future
t/ t/FX%FBMMFTTPOTGPSUIF"รฒPSEBCMF$BSF"DU t/POQSPรถUBOEOPUKVTUGPSQSPรถUDPSQPSBUJPOT t/ t4UVEFOUTHBJOWBMVBCMFFYQFSJFODFJO%$ t4U
7PM t*44/ Editorโs Note: The Advocate is published annually by the 6OJWFSTJUZPG(FPSHJB4DIPPMPG-BXGPSBMVNOJ GSJFOETBOE NFNCFSTPGUIFMBXTDIPPMDPNNVOJUZ1MFBTFDPOUBDUUIF0รณDF PG$PNNVOJDBUJPOTBOE1VCMJD3FMBUJPOTBUPS email@example.comJGZPVIBWFBOZDPNNFOUTPSTVHHFTUJPOT Dean3FCFDDB)BOOFS8IJUF Associate Dean for Academic & Student Affairs 1BVM.,VSU[ Associate Dean for Faculty Development Dan T. Coenen Associate Dean for Administration1BVM#3PMMJOT
Director of Dean Rusk Center$%POBME+PIOTPO +%A Director of Law Library$BSPM"8BUTPO +%A
Executive Director of Alumni Programs & Special Events +JMM$PWFOZ#JSDI Senior Director of Development(SFHPSZ$i(SFHw4PXFMM +%A Director of Business & Finance&MBJOF,.JUDIFMM
Director of Diversity Programs & Associate Director of Admissions (SFHPSZ-3PTFCPSP +%A
E-mail departmental inquiries to: "ENJTTJPOToVHBKE!VHBFEV "MVNOJ1SPHSBNToMBXEBXH!VHBFEV $PNNVOJDBUJPOToMBXDPNN!VHBFEV %FWFMPQNFOUoMBXHJGUT!VHBFEV (SBEVBUF-FHBM4UVEJFToJOUMHSBE!VHBFEV -BX-JCSBSZoDXBUTPO!VHBFEV -FHBM$BSFFS4FSWJDFToMDT!VHBFEV 3FHJTUSBSoMBXSFH!VHBFEV 2011โ12 Board of Visitors $IBJS,BUIFMFO7"NPT &MFBOPS' #BOJTUFS &MJ[BCFUI#$IBOEMFS -BVSB)BVDL$PWJOHUPO &EXBSE 5.(BSMBOE ,FOOFUI.)FOTPO+S 1)BSSJT)JOFT 3%BMF )VHIFT ,FOOFUI,MFJO .JDIBFM+4IBSQ 3FHJOBME34NJUI 8JMMJBN+4UFNCMFS "VESFZ#PPOF5JMMNBOBOE+PFM08PPUFO 2012โ13 Law School Association Council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
internships 16 D.C. prove valuable
Director of Communications & Public Relations ) FJEJ..VSQIZ
'SPNUIF1BDLFSTUP1BUBHPOJB/POQSPรถUBOEOPUKVTUGPSQSPรถUDPSQPSBUJPOT Associate Professor Usha Rodrigues explores new corporate forms that blend traditional nonpro๏ฌt goals with the ability to make a pro๏ฌt.
Information Technology Librarian Jason Tubinis highlights mobile apps that are tailored toward those in the legal profession.
)FJEJ.VSQIZ FEJUPSBOEXSJUFS$JOEZ3JDF QSJODJQBMXSJUFS $SJTTJOEB1POEFS JOUFSON1SJOU%FTJHO4UVEJP EFTJHOBOE QSPEVDUJPO$SFBTFZ1SJOUJOH4FSWJDFT QSJOUJOH
Top news from Georgia Law.
ยช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รณDF 1FBCPEZ)BMM 4PVUI +BDLTPO4USFFU 6OJWFSTJUZPG(FPSHJB "UIFOT ("5FMFQIPOF 75%% 'BY
Key events and institutional briefs.
Associate Professor Elizabeth Weeks Leonard (J.D.โ99) discusses the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and considers whether the Supreme Courtโs ruling this summer compares, in terms of constitutional signi๏ฌcance, to the courtโs decisions during the New Deal era.
4JCMFZ-FDUVSFSFYQMPSFTUIFSPMFPGUIF8PSME$PVSU International Court of Justice Judge Joan Donoghue presented โThe Role of the World Court Todayโ as the schoolโs 108th John A. Sibley Lecturer.
contents 17 Notable guests
Photo by Bob Brussack (J.D.’76)
Photo by Bob Brussack (J.D.’76)
General Counsel for Coca-Cola delivers 30th Edith House Lecture
Serving as this year’s Edith House Lecturer was General Counsel for Coca-Cola North America Leslie Turner. Turner
Rusk Center Reports
Dean Rusk Center updates and initiatives.
Distinguished Research Professor and Rogers Chair Alan Watson and Professor Eugene Wilkes retired on June 1 after collectively dedicating more than 60 years of service to the law school.
A photo essay of the graduation ceremony and excerpts from the keynote address delivered by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Story (J.D.’78).
The latest on faculty scholarship and achievements.
Georgia Law bids farewell to two longtime professors
Class of 2012 Commencement
Student activities, accomplishments and proﬁles.
ABOUT THE COVER: The Sutherland Courtyard is now a highlight of the law school’s facilities thanks to a renovation that created almost 4,000 sq. ft. of additional space as well as a more attractive and functional courtyard. Photo by Dennis McDaniel.
Alumni news, events and proﬁles.
Kurtz and Wooten receive Scroll Awards Associate Dean Paul Kurtz and attorney Joel Wooten (J.D.’75) were named the recipients of this year’s Distinguished Service Scroll Awards – the highest honor given by the Law School Association.
More Space + New Look = S
tudents, faculty and staff are reaping the rewards of a recent renovation to the law school’s primary building. Almost 4,000 sq. ft. of additional building space was captured by enclosing the law school’s Sutherland Courtyard with multifunctional corridors.
PHOTOS: A – A view of the law school’s threestory glass wall from the Sutherland Courtyard. B – The Sutherland Courtyard is now a favored study space at the law school. C – The use of white marble and black granite enhances this wider passageway and gathering space on the bottom floor. D – One of the seven new group study/interview rooms. E – When enclosing the courtyard, builders captured space on C both sides of the open area. A lounge area and meeting rooms were created on one side, while a wide corridor with seating was constructed on the other. F – A view of the third floor hallway showing the grand staircase and glass wall with views of the Sutherland Courtyard. G – The fountain in the courtyard greatly adds to the atmosphere of this private space for the law school community. H – The new student lounge area. I – A view of the Sutherland Courtyard from the patio.
Photo A by Bob Brussack (J.D.’76). Photos D, F and H by Dennis McDaniel
Designed primarily for student use, these changes were made to repurpose underutilized areas and to address the overcrowding of public spaces. Among the newly created areas are: a beautiful, yet functional, courtyard; a large student lounge (which houses a Jittery Joe’s Coffee shop); seven group study/interview rooms; a greatly expanded and upgraded locker room and additional student organization ofﬁces. B The use of black granite and white marble dramatically enhanced the law library entrance and the hallways located in the north end of the building. Likewise, the installation of a glass wall spanning three ﬂoors and an underlit grand staircase opened up the facility to natural light as well as provided wider walkways and supplemental gathering spaces, promoting increased student-faculty interaction. The three-story glass wall provides views of the Sutherland Courtyard, now one of the highlights of the law school’s facilities. Featuring silver cloud granite benches and ﬂooring, outside seating and lighting as well as a water fountain, this private courtyard has become a popular spot for studying, gathering with friends, meeting with professors or just taking a break from the day. Plans for carrying this new look and improved functionality throughout the rest of the law school’s primary building are still under development, with this summer’s renovations to focus on the rotunda area, including the cupola. For information on how you can support future enhancements at Georgia Law, please contact the Ofﬁce of Development at 706-542-7639 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Enhanced Learning Environment G
To view more photos or watch a video of last summerâ€™s renovation, please visit www.law.uga.edu/building-future.
New Deal Lessons for the Affordable Care Act: The General Welfare Clause BY ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ELIZABETH WEEKS LEONARD (J.D.’99)
ast winter, I participated in a panel of law professors brought together to consider the recently enacted federal health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA).
The Potential for Constitutional Crisis The questions put to our panel were these: Is a constitutional crisis on the order of 1937 looming? Are there structural similarities between the present period and the New Deal period? My short answer to the ﬁrst question is: No, there is not a constitutional crisis. My longer answer to both questions is that any crisis, or constitutionally signiﬁcant structural similarity, concerns the spending power, not the commerce power, where most of the public attention has focused. More importantly, the controversy surrounding the ACA, if a crisis at all, is political, not constitutional. With crisis comes opportunity. In this case, the controversy provides an opportunity for us to carefully consider whether 4
the United States’ traditional, predominantly private-market approach to health care is an approach we want to continue to employ. Put another way, the now-raging debate may lead us to recognize that expansion of the federal welfare state toward a universal “Medicare for All” approach is not only plausible but preferable. First, why I say that no constitutional crisis is looming: The economic conditions and abject nationwide suffering beginning with the crash of 1929 compelled the law to ﬁnd a way to address societal needs. Individual liberties came to encompass freedom from want and demand for afﬁrmative government intervention.1 In 2012, there is no similarly compelling, nationwide crisis, demanding government response. Ever-increasing health care costs, consuming an ever-increasing share of gross domestic product and rising numbers of uninsured, while serious national concerns, are not comparable to the Great Depression. Most Americans agree something needs to be done to ﬁx the U.S. health care system. But there is no similar urgency for the U.S. Supreme Court to radically redeﬁne the scope of individual rights and governmental power. The Great Depression forced our nation to rethink across the board the relationship of citizens and government. The current health care “crisis” does not involve concepts as looming or stakes as large. www.law.uga.edu
Depression photos courtesy of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library website, version date 2009. This page, 1932; page 5, 1935. Photo top right by Samuel Perry, Shutterstock. Photo page 5 bottom right by John Churchman, Getty Images
Editor’s Note: This essay is based on Leonard’s remarks for the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 2012 Symposium on “FDR and the New Deal: Are There Constitutional Law Lessons from the New Deal for the Obama Administration?” Leonard expresses special thanks to her co-panelists, Mark Tushnet and David Bernstein, for illuminating discussions and to Georgia Law Professors Dan T. Coenen, Lori A. Ringhand, Logan E. Sawyer III and Christian Turner for helping her to develop ideas for this paper.
“… the structural issues before the Supreme Court during the New Deal may indeed provide useful lessons for the current period.”
In conceiving a present-day constitutional crisis, one might view the New Deal as representing unprecedented expansion of federal power, and the constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act as inviting the Supreme Court to contract federal power. I maintain that the ACA’s minimum essential coverage provision,2 or “individual mandate,” is constitutional under existing precedent.3 The issue, then, is whether the Supreme Court takes this opportunity to set forth new limits on the commerce power. I also believe the 26 states’ challenge to ACA’s Medicaid expansion4 is unsupported by precedent. But again, the issue is whether the Supreme Court will decide to impose new limits on the conditional spending power.5 Even framing the issues in these terms, the current controversy simply is not driven by an overwhelming public demand to decrease federal power in response to societal needs or wants, similar to the demand to expand federal power during the New Deal. Let me take these points one step further: Even if there were a legitimate question whether the individual mandate, in particular, exceeds the commerce power, the objection is to the form, not the substance, of expanded federal power. Congress could get to the same result in other ways, which similarly depend on broad federal power.6 For example, Congress could condition the requirement to obtain health insurance on taking advantage of some privilege (for example, securing federal student loans) or engaging in some activity (including accessing medical care) or it could truly style the law as a federal tax, with a credit for obtaining insurance and redistribution under the spending power, essentially “Medicare for All.” Any of these alternatives would quite clearly pass constitutional muster, but federal power would still be expanded at least as much as by the currently enacted individual mandate. www.law.uga.edu
It was the political process, not the Constitution, that blocked these approaches. Consider the possibility of Medicare for All: Accepting a government health care program (whether administered entirely by the federal government or in cooperation with states, i.e., Medicaid for All) as a constitutional alternative to the individual mandate,7 the real question before the Supreme Court, the real possibility for limiting federal power, does not concern the commerce power but rather the spending power.
New Deal Decisions Viewing the current controversy through this lens, the structural issues before the Supreme Court during the New Deal may indeed provide useful lessons for the current period. The most important work of New Deal cases with respect to health care policy was not the expansion of commerce power8 or the demise of economic liberties,9 but the establishment of the federal welfare state under the spending power. The New Deal cases affected this outcome in two respects: ﬁrst, by adopting a broad interpretation of the “General Welfare Clause” as a freestanding source of congressional authority; and, second, by endorsing a cooperative federalism approach to addressing social problems. Especially important for health care were the New Deal cases upholding the Social Security Act (SSA),10 the statute that now includes two core government health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid.
The 1935 SSA extended very limited public health funding to states,25 and those provisions faced no constitutional challenge.
Post-New Deal Health Care Legislation Post-New Deal federal health care legislation was similarly modest and targeted particular health care infrastructure needs or groups, including the very elderly, deemed especially deserving of government assistance.26 By and large, federal legislation over the past century has been centered on supporting access to private health insurance, especially through tax-based subsidization of employer-based health insurance programs.27 The 1965 enactment of Medicare and Medicaid represents the high-water mark of direct federal involvement in providing and paying for health care. Johnson’s Great Society programs did not arise out of the same nationwide economic depression as the New Deal but in many ways took up the unﬁnished business of Roosevelt’s social policy agenda.28 In the civil rights era, there was a sense that lack of access to essential social services perpetuated inequality just as much as direct discrimination. Congress addressed lack of access to medical care with three programs: Medicare Part A, covering inpatient hospital care; Medicare Part B, covering physician services; and Medicaid, providing government health insurance to the “deserving” poor.29 These programs established a nationwide single-payer health care system, albeit limited to the elderly, disabled and certain poor Americans. The programs were enacted as amendments to the SSA, and Congress’ spending power authority to establish them under Butler, Helvering and Steward Machine was never questioned. Indeed, since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has struck down no federal program as exceeding the spending power.30 The only signiﬁcant political objection to Medicare and Medicaid came from the physician community, which feared government control of the practice of medicine and intrusion on the physician-patient relationship.31 Those concerns were addressed by giving considerable concessions to doctors, including the addition of Part B itself, www.law.uga.edu
Photo courtesy of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library website; version date 2009 by Dorothea Lange, 1935
Three cases were of pivotal importance. First, a pre-cursor decision in 1936, United States v. Butler,11 although striking down President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Agricultural Adjustment Act on 10th Amendment grounds (and under the Supreme Court’s then-prevailing view that agricultural production was not “commerce”), endorsed a broad Hamiltonian interpretation of spending power as not merely ancillary to the other enumerated powers.12 As long as Congress was addressing a general, not merely a speciﬁc, concern, the spending power could reach it.13 Second, a pair of companion cases in 1937 carried the Butler General Welfare Clause interpretation forward to uphold the SSA. In Helvering v. Davis,14 the Supreme Court validated both Title VIII, imposing mandatory payroll taxes on employers, and the separate Title II, authorizing payment of government pensions to old-age workers. The Supreme Court held that both the taxing and spending provisions of the SSA fell within the General Welfare Clause,15 recognizing that the problem of the elderly in need of support was clearly nationwide.16 In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis,17 the Supreme Court likewise upheld the federal unemployment compensation tax on employers. Under the SSA, employers received a credit against the federal tax for any amount paid to a state unemployment compensation program.18 The Supreme Court rejected claims that the provision was an unconstitutional tax, or that it invaded states’ reserved powers or otherwise coerced states.19 Steward Machine, accordingly, established the constitutional basis for the conditional spending power. The federal government could achieve broad policy objectives, not by commandeering or directly regulating states, but by incentivizing with secured funds states’ participation in federal programs. The success of the SSA cooperative federalism strategy soon became evident. In 1930, before the New Deal, only one state (Wisconsin) had a state unemployment compensation program.20 By 1937, after enactment of the SSA, 43 states had passed unemployment compensation laws.21 But where was health care in the New Deal? The Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the General Welfare Clause and constitutional approval of the SSA old-age pension and unemployment compensation provisions seemingly would similarly have supported a national health care program. Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union Address and aspirational “Second Bill of Rights” included “[t]he right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.”22 But the framers of the 1935 SSA put that goal to one side due to political objections, including widespread fear of socialized medicine and fragile political support for the act itself.23 Health care would not be added to the SSA until 30 years later as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. Before the New Deal, federal funding for health care was limited to public health aims, including infectious disease control focused on the immigrant population, with some assistance to pregnant women, infants and disabled children.24
covering physician and outpatient services, along with the originally proposed Part A coverage for inpatient hospital care. The law also allowed physicians to bill patients directly for the cost of care not covered by Medicare.32 Medicare and Medicaid also maintained active roles for private insurers and providers as government contractors to administer the programs and process claims.33 Private insurance companies, including Blue Cross and Blue Shield, some of the earliest insurance companies, which were founded by associations of hospitals and physicians, have long served as Medicare and Medicaid contractors. The absence of any comparable expansion of the federal welfare state since 1965 is not because such programs would be unconstitutional. Rather, federal health reform policy has been driven by a deep commitment to private solutions, especially by shoring up the now-dominant employer-based system, through which the majority of insured Americans receive their coverage.34 In terms of federal health care legislation, the 2003 enactment of Medicare Part D, an optional outpatient prescription drug beneﬁt, was as dramatic as it has gotten.35 And this George W. Bushera program reﬂects a conspicuously private-market “managed competition” model,36 complete with a gaping 100%-self-pay “doughnut hole.”37 The federal government pays a portion of beneﬁciaries’ routine, low-cost prescription drugs, and an even larger portion of catastrophic, high-cost drugs but provides no assistance for drug costs between those two extremes. By design, private “pharmacy beneﬁt managers” compete to enroll Medicare beneﬁciaries in their Part D prescription drug plans. It is clear that even within big government programs, the private market continues to dominate health care delivery.
Machine,39 revived in South Dakota v. Dole,40 that federal conditions on funding to states could, at some as-yet-unidentiﬁed point, become so coercive as to violate the anti-commandeering limit on the commerce power. Acknowledging that the Medicaid program has been in place for more than 50 years, with every state voluntarily agreeing to go along with both it and many changes to federal requirements over the life of the program,41 a discontented group of states argued that the ACA’s particular expansion of Medicaid has “pass[ed] the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’”42 If the Supreme Court takes this opportunity to limit the spending power and restrict the congressional amendment of existing cooperative programs, that decision could have signiﬁcant implications that could give rise to a constitutional crisis. The New Deal established a ﬁrm foundation for cooperative federalism, on which Medicaid and so many other programs are built. Writing in 1958, Arthur Miller quoted President Woodrow Wilson, opining, at the turn of the century, that “the question of the relation of the States to the federal government is the cardinal question of our constitutional system.”43 But by the time Miller wrote, 50 years later, he maintained “that question has largely been settled.”44 To Miller, Helvering and Steward Machine, upholding the SSA, “gave ﬁnal constitutional approval to the outlines of cooperative federalism. Once breached, the dam has never been repaired; the trickle became a stream and then a ﬂood.”45 Going forward, Miller envisioned states as not much more than federal “housekeepers.”46 By and large, any new, important activities of state governments are federally funded: “When new problems arise, eyes swivel to Washington, not to the state capitol.”47 Consistent with Miller’s prescience, ACA derives from federal legislation but relies heavily on state cooperation to put in place comprehensive reforms. That expectation is not limited to Medicaid. State-based health insurance exchanges are intended to be the central pillars of the reformed private market for individual and small-group health insurance.48 Also, states were invited to assist the federal government in establishing stop-gap, high-risk insurance pools, almost as soon as ACA was enacted.49 Recently, federal authorities passed on the task of deﬁning a fundamental component of the private market health reforms, the “essential health beneﬁts” package, to the states.50 Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Medicaid expansion would have implications for the operation of those provisions of ACA, as well as a host of other long-standing cooperative federal-state programs.
“The New Deal established a ﬁrm foundation for cooperative federalism, on which Medicaid and so many other programs are built.”
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Against that historical backdrop, the sleeper issue in the Affordable Care Act litigation that provides the real potential for contraction of federal authority concerns the scope of the spending power. Before the three days of oral arguments in March, which offered their own surprises, the Supreme Court’s most unlikely move was granting certiorari to the states’ Medicaid challenge in the Florida lawsuit. No circuit court had ruled in the states’ favor on that question, and similar challenges to even broader, more sweeping expansions of Medicaid in the past have not succeeded.38 The states’ argument rests on a suggestion in Steward www.law.uga.edu
“The crisis – or more properly, the opportunity – is political.”
The implications of Supreme Court review of the conditional spending power were highlighted in a different case this term, Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California.51 The question in Douglas was whether Medicaid beneﬁciaries or providers could sue states to force compliance with federal statutory requirements. Precedent is clear that there is no individually enforceable statutory right to state compliance with a federal conditional spending program under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.52 The Douglas petitioners, however, sought to overturn California’s Medicaid policies, not by way of Section 1983, but simply as state laws that are preempted by federal Medicaid laws.53 After granting review and hearing argument, the Supreme Court declined to answer the question because federal authorities had, after the ﬁling of the cert petition, approved California’s allegedly noncompliant Medicaid program.54 Thus, the question remains unresolved. The possibility of Supremacy Clause challenges to state laws purporting to implement federal standards could radically affect the administration of cooperative programs on which foundation many of ACA’s provisions rest. For example, if states agree, but then fail, to establish ACAcompliant health insurance exchanges, could individuals sue to force them to do so?55 More generally, can individuals sue to prevent systematic state misconduct under federal programs?
Is There a Constitutional Crisis? Returning to the questions put to our panel: The current crisis, if any, is political, not constitutional. Assuming that we agree Congress could get at the health insurance coverage and health care access problems another way, through different exercises of the commerce and spending powers, then there is no “crisis” about the scope of federal authority. 8
Moreover, there is no pressing need to contract or expand federal power in order to address major and novel societal problems. There is nothing for which the law needs to ﬁnd a new way. The crisis – or more properly, the opportunity – is political. Most Americans agree we need to do something about the health care system. And most people are deeply troubled by many commercial insurance practices, including the manner in which insurers currently exclude individuals and price health insurance policies for those who arguably need coverage the most.56 To address those concerns, the one solution that made it through Congress – a solution initially proposed by a conservative think-tank in response to Clinton’s health reforms57 – was to require most everyone to purchase insurance before they think they need it and to put in place federal tax incentives and subsidies to help individuals comply. Politically, that approach reveals that we remain more comfortable with a private, competitive market for health care, rather than Medicare for All. So either we get comfortable with Medicare for All and tackle all of the challenges of a single-payer system or we continue to put incentives, subsidies and nudges in place, perhaps even excising the individual mandate from ACA, and see if people come around on their own.58 The political opportunity in the ACA litigation, however the Supreme Court rules on the individual mandate, lies in highlighting to the electorate the alternative of a more comprehensive, general welfare approach to health care. Where that opportunity could derail into crisis is if the Supreme Court, for the ﬁrst time in 75 years, substantially limits Congress’ authority to enact or administer new federal or cooperative federal-state health care programs.
See DAN T. COENEN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THE COMMERCE CLAUSE 44 (2004) (describing social and economic context out of which seminal Supreme Court precedent arose). 2 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a) (Supp. IV 2010) (requiring that every U.S. citizen, other than those falling within speciﬁed exceptions, maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage for each month beginning in 2014); see also id.§ 5000A(b) (imposing a federal tax penalty for noncompliance). 3 See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). 4 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) (Supp. IV 2010) (extending Medicaid eligibility to adults under age 65 (who are not pregnant and not already covered) with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level).
Photo courtesy of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library website; version date 2009 by Dorothea Lange, 1936
5 See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 211 (1987) (“Our decisions have recognized that in some circumstances the ﬁnancial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns to compulsion.’”) (quoting Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590 (1937)). 6 See U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-11-392R, PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE: EXPERT VIEWS ON APPROACHES TO ENCOURAGE VOLUNTARY ENROLLMENT (2011) [hereinafter GAO Report], available at www.gao.gov/assets/100/97317.pdf; Einer Elhauge, The Irrelevance of the Broccoli Argument against the Insurance Mandate, NEW ENG. J. MED., Dec. 21, 2011, available at www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/ NEJMp1113618. 7 Even some of the strongest proponents of the view that the individual mandate is unconstitutional agree that Medicare for All is constitutional. See AALS Hot Topic Panel Question and Answer Session, 62 MERCER L. REV. 650, 660 (2011) (quoting remark by Professor Randy Barnett: “I just want to say, and maybe we’ll end on a point of agreement here, that if Medicare is constitutional, then Medicare for everyone is constitutional.”). 8 See NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937). 9 See West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). 10 Pub. L. No. 74-271, 49 Stat. 620 (1935). 11 297 U.S. 1. 12 Id. at 66. 13 Id. at 66-67. 14 301 U.S. 619 (1937). 15 Id. at 909. 16 Id. at 909-10. 17 301 U.S. 548 (1937). 18 Id. at 574. 19 Id. at 585-87. 20 Id. at 587. 21 Id. at 587-88. 22 President’s Message to Congress on the State of the Union, 12 PUB. PAPERS 41 (Jan. 11, 1944). 23 See PAUL STARR, THE SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN MEDICINE 266-69 (1982); Robert I. Field, Regulation, Reform and the Creation of Free Market Health Care, 32 HAMLINE J. PUB. L. & POL’Y 301, 308 (2011). 24 See LAWRENCE O. GOSTIN, PUBLIC HEALTH LAW: POWER, DUTY, RESTRAINT 155-61 (2d ed. 2008); STARR, supra note 23, at 240-42; Elizabeth Fee & Theodore M. Brown, The Unfulﬁlled Promise of Public Health: Déjà Vu All Over Again, HEALTH AFF., Nov./Dec. 2002, at 31, 34-35. 25 See STARR, supra note 24, at 270. 26 See STARR, supra note 24, at 270-71 (describing limited government health care programs, including poor farmer subsidies); see, e.g., Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, Pub. L. No. 75-717, 52 Stat. 1040 (1938) (expanding FDA’s regulatory role); Hospital Survey & Construction Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 79-725, 60 Stat. 1040 (funding new hospital construction and expansion); Kerr-Mills Act, Pub. L. No. 86778, 74 Stat. 924 (1960) (providing federal assistance to the very poor elderly); see also THEODORE R. MARMOR, THE POLITICS OF MEDICARE 27-30 (2d ed. 2000) (describing limited government assistance under Kerr-Mills Act). 27 See David A. Hyman & Mark Hall, Two Cheers for Employment-Based Health Insurance, 2 YALE J. HEALTH POL’Y L. & ETHICS 23, 25-26 (2001) (discussing the historical rise of employment-based coverage, including wage and price controls, tax code incentives, and union pressure); Elizabeth Weeks Leonard, Can You Really Keep Your Health Plan? The Limits of Grandfathering Under the Affordable Care Act, 36 J. CORP. L. 753, 760-61 (2011) (describing historical events that gave rise to employer-based health insurance). 28 See STARR, supra note 24, at 367; Fee & Brown, supra note 25, at 39. 29 See MARMOR, supra note 27, at 59-60 (describing the three parts of the legislation); STARR, supra note 24, at 369 (similarly describing the “three-layered cake”). 30 Erwin Chemerinsky, A Defense of the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate, in Brad Joondeph, Our Pending National Debate: Is Health Care Reform Constitutional? 62 MERCER L. REV. 605, 618 (2011) (“Since 1937, the Supreme Court has struck down no major social program.”); COENEN, supra note 2, at 185 (“In the post1936 period, the Court has upheld federal spending programs without exception.”). 31 See MARMOR, supra note 27, at 58; STARR, supra note 24, at 369; Field, supra note 24, at 313. 32 See MARMOR, supra note 27, at 60-61.
33 See 34
Field, supra note 24, at 313-14. See Leonard, supra note 28, at 760 (noting that 61% of the non-elderly population obtains health insurance from an employer plan); see, e.g., Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-222, 87 Stat. 914 (providing grants to employers for adding HMOs to health plans); Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829 (creating extensive federal regulation of employee beneﬁt plans, including health plans); Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-272, 100 Stat. 82 (allowing employees to maintain employer-based health insurance after termination for certain qualifying events); Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (allowing employees to change jobs without being excluded from health plans for pre-existing conditions). 35 The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-173, 117 Stat. 2066. 36 See Jonathan Oberlander, Through the Looking Glass: The Politics of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, 32 J. HEALTH POL. POL’Y & L. 187, 201-02 (2007). 37 42 U.S.C. § 1395w–102(b). 38 See Florida v. HHS, 648 F.3d 1235, 1265 (2011) (citing cases). 39 301 U.S. at 589-90. 40 483 U.S. at 211 41 See Brief of Amici Curiae Health Law & Policy Scholars and Prescription Policy Choices in Support of Respondents on the Constitutional Validity of the Medicaid Expansion at 1-13, Florida v. HHS, No. 11-400 (U.S. Feb. 17, 2012) available at http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com/ﬁle/view/Health+Law+%26+ Policy+Scholars+amicus+%2811-400+Medicaid%29.pdf (describing Medicaid program expansions). 42 Dole, 483 U.S. at 211 (quoting Steward Machine, 301 U.S. at 589-90). 43 Arthur S. Miller, The Constitutional Law of the “Security State”, 10 STAN. L. REV. 620, 635-36 (1958). 44 Id. at 636. 45 Id. at 629. 46 Id. 47 Id. 48 42 U.S.C. § 18031 (Supp. IV 2010). See also Troy J. Oechsner & Magda Schaler-Haynes, Keeping It Simple: Health Plan Beneﬁt Standardization and Regulatory Choice under the Affordable Care Act, 74 ALB. L. REV. 241, 284-93 (2010-2011) (describing the operation of exchanges). 49 42 U.S.C. § 18001 (Supp. IV 2010); News Release, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., HHS Secretary Sebelius Announces New Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (July 1, 2010), available at www.hhs.gov/news/ press/2010pres/07/20100701a.html. 50 See News Release, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., HHS to Give States More Flexibility to Implement Health Reform (Dec. 16, 2011), available at www. hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/12/20111216c.html. See also Alan Weil, The Value of Federalism in Deﬁning Essential Health Beneﬁts, 366 NEW ENG. J. MED. 679, 679 (2012), available at www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1200693. 51 Nos. 09-958, 09-1158 & 10-283 (U.S. 2011) (consolidated). 52 See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002); Sanchez v. Johnson, 416 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying Gonzaga in Medicaid context). 53 Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., No. 09-958 (U.S. 2011), available at www.supremecourt.gov/qp/09-00958qp.pdf (questions presented). 54 Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., -- S.Ct. --, 2012 WL 555204 (U.S.). 55 See Sara Rosenbaum, Equal Access for Medicaid Beneﬁciaries — The Supreme Court and the Douglas Cases, 365 NEW ENG. J. MED. 2245 (2011), available at www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1111428 (discussing implications of private oversight of ACA implementation). 56 See Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: Public Opinion on Health Care Issues, THE HENRY J. KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION, at 6 (Sept. 2011), available at www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8230-F.pdf. 57 See Stuart M. Butler, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, at 6 (1989), available at http://healthcarereform. procon.org/sourceﬁles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans. pdf. 58 At least some studies suggest that most uninsured people actually want health insurance but simply cannot afford it and that other ACA provisions may make it affordable enough for most. See GAO Report, supra note 7, at 14 (noting experts’ conclusions that most people would prefer to purchase health insurance but that high cost is a barrier); John F. Sheils & Randall Haught, Without The Individual Mandate, The Affordable Care Act Would Still Cover 23 Million; Premiums Would Rise Less Than Predicted, HEALTH AFF., Nov. 2011, at 1 (summarizing Lewin group study ﬁndings that 23 million people would still get coverage, only 7.8 million fewer than with the mandate).
From the Packers to Patagonia
Nonproﬁt and Not-just-for-proﬁt Corporations BY ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR USHA RODRIGUES
ou know the professors at the University of Georgia School of Law are a distinguished bunch. We count former U.S. Supreme Court clerks, former editors-in-chief of premier law reviews and former law ﬁrm partners among our own. But did you know that three members of the faculty are also co-owners of a legendary NFL team? Yes, Associate Dean for Faculty Development Dan T. Coenen, Martin Chair James C. “Jim” Smith and I each own a share of the Green Bay Packers. But don’t think that we will be quitting our day jobs anytime soon – the Packers are our country’s only publicly held, nonproﬁt professional sports team. I recently wrote about the Packers – and about larger questions regarding the choice of business-entity form in an article titled “Entity and Identity.”1 In fact, a key idea in that piece came from the Green Bay Packers’ unusual business form. The Packers are unique in that they are a non-tax-exempt nonproﬁt organization. That is to say, although the Green Bay Packers corporation is a nonproﬁt, it is not a tax-exempt organization. As a result, you do not receive any deduction for donating to the organization, and it pays taxes just like a for-proﬁt corporation does. Although share certiﬁcates are issued (one is hanging on my ofﬁce wall, if you have any doubt), this “stock” is largely ceremonial because no proﬁts (i.e., dividends) may be distributed, and shareholders do not even receive preference in obtaining the notoriously hard-to-get tickets to Lambeau Field games. Shareholders may not sell their shares; they can only give them away. Thus, shareholders have no possibility of making a 10
proﬁt on their “investment” and receive no tax deduction for the money they channel to the Packers. Indeed, one could fairly say that being a shareholder of the Green Bay Packers provides one, and only one, beneﬁt: that of being a shareholder of the Green Bay Packers. I argued in “Entity and Identity” that people are willing to spend money on a share that holds no management authority and no possibility of a return on investment because they want to create and participate in a special kind of identity – a social identity. Social identity theory, which originated in psychology, postulates that one’s concept of self is made up both of idiosyncratic traits (personal identity) and membership in various group categories (social identity). Social identity can be deﬁned as “self-conception as a group member.2” It suggests that an individual divides the world into categories, and that one’s sense of self derives largely from the categories in which one belongs. Social identity theory holds that personal identiﬁcations are important to personal identity: “I am a friend of Suzie” or “I need my morning coffee” have a lot to say about who an individual is. But social identiﬁcations, such as “I am a Dawgs football fan” or “I am a Georgia lawyer,” are prominent, too. The key teaching of this work is clear: The knowledge that one is a member of certain groups represents a constitutive part of one’s identity. The nonproﬁt entity form, I argue, creates a special kind of social identity – one that hinges on the fact that its participants share a unique and nonpecuniary bond. Each characteristic of Packers ownership supports the proposition that it is really identity that the Packers are selling when they market shares – the social identity of belonging to an organization rooted in a small city in Wisconsin.3 At least before the 2012 stock sale, most shareholders were Green Bay residents, demonstrating a strong sense of place. Remember, this stock may not be sold but may be given as gifts, emphasizing the noncommercial nature of corporate “ownership.” www.law.uga.edu
Besides having the right to elect a board (which has no say in the actual management of the team itself ), shareholders have only one governance power – the ability to veto any move by the Packers outside of Green Bay. To say the least, this power suggests the connectedness of shareholdership to the rich history of the Green Bay Packers, which in turn is intimately associated with smallcity America and tellingly disassociated from the big-city glitz of modern professional sports. To protect against one person (or a small group of persons) taking control of the team, the articles of incorporation prohibit any shareholder from owning more than 200,000 shares. Although shareholders do not receive coveted tickets to Packers games, there is an annual Shareholders Day, which is attended by thousands – in striking contrast to the sparsely attended shareholders meetings of a typical public corporation. What is more, the events of Shareholders Day focus on key elements of the team’s identity – tailgating parties, visits to the Packers Hall of Fame and the purchase of special shareholder paraphernalia. The Packers’ ﬁfth stock offering, ending on February 29, 2012, sold more than 268,000 shares. The offering raised more than $67 million, which will be used for the expansion of Lambeau Field.4 Professors Coenen, Smith and I all received shares as gifts this past holiday season as part of this latest offering. In “Entity and Identity,” I argued that choice of business form matters for reasons that go beyond economic advantage. In fact, there has been a recent explosion in new corporate forms that respond to the public’s hunger for organizational forms that, while allowing for the making of proﬁt, also stress goals beyond proﬁt maximization.
Low-profit Limited Liability Companies The most established of these forms is the low-proﬁt limited liability company (L3C), which was created by the Vermont legislature only in 2008. The motivation behind the L3C form stems from the tax treatment of foundations. Foundations are in something of a bind: They are required to spend 5 percent of their assets in order to maintain their tax exempt status, yet they also want to preserve and grow their capital. The Internal Revenue Code penalizes private foundations that make investments that jeopardize the accomplishment of their exempt purposes but allows private foundations to make program-related investments (PRIs). To qualify: (1) the primary purpose of the investment must be to accomplish a foundation’s exempt purpose; (2) no signiﬁcant purpose of the investment can be the production of income or the appreciation of property; and (3) no purpose of www.law.uga.edu
Martin Chair Jim Smith (left), Associate Professor Usha Rodrigues (center) and Associate Dean Dan Coenen each own a share of the Green Bay Packers, our country’s only publicly held, nonprofit professional sports team.
the investment can be to electioneer, and only limited lobbying is permitted. PRIs permit foundations to garner some ﬁnancial return, and investment in PRIs counts toward the 5 percent annual distribution requirement. The problem with PRIs is that uncertainty often surrounds whether a given investment will qualify for the exception. Enter the L3C. The social entrepreneurs who designed the L3C aimed to create an entity in which foundations can safely invest. The catch is that by statute the L3C cannot be formed for the purpose of producing income or property appreciation (although the mere fact that the organization produces signiﬁcant income does not necessarily mean that it violates this requirement). Promoters of the L3C envision a hybrid organization that permits several different tiers or tranches of investment, with “senior” tranches that focus on money making and “junior” tranches that focus on other values. Assume, for example, the investment is in rehabilitating a historic building in downtown Athens that has fallen into neglect but which could provide attractive ofﬁce space and banquet facilities if properly repaired. The investment is one that is socially beneﬁcial because of its historic preservation value. It could generate some investment returns, but not enough to make the investment viable on its own. The idea is that private foundations, interested in availing themselves of PRIs with minimum hassle, could invest in junior tranches that would receive only a modest ﬁnancial return. L3C promoters posit that the entity could also create multiple tiers of membership. An intermediate ownership tier would target socially responsible investors who are looking to help the community and are willing to accept a lower than market rate of return. Finally, the L3C could create a tier of investment that offers market-rate returns to private investors. For now it remains unclear whether the IRS will accept these new entities’ claims to qualify for the PRI exemption. Advocate 2012
Senior: banks, venture capital Middle: socially responsible investors Junior: private foundations
Market 4% 1–2%
In 2008, L3C advocates failed in their attempt to have legislation passed that would amend the Internal Revenue Code’s PRI deﬁnition to match L3C structure. Another effort was made in 2011, and this bill is still pending in the House Ways and Means Committee.5 No matter the fate of the PRI bill, I argue the L3C as a form is unlikely to succeed because it reduces the social identity value of participating in a nonproﬁt. The L3C challenges the traditional conception of entity as a collection of individuals with a common purpose – be it to maximize proﬁt (the for-proﬁt corporation, LLC or partnership) or to maximize beneﬁts for society or members (the nonproﬁt). The L3C form contemplates for-proﬁt and nonproﬁt investors living side by side. Not only does that seem like a recipe for owner vs. owner conﬂict – it also dilutes the “warm glow” for nonproﬁt participants to know that some of their fellows are just looking to make a buck. (“Warm glow” is a term economists use to describe the positive feeling people get when they help others.)
Other New Business Models
“Choosing the beneﬁt corporation form reﬂects a kind of credible commitment: It signals to shareholders more powerfully than any slogan can that maximizing wealth is not the ultimate goal of this particular corporation.”
Even in the few months since “Entity and Identity” was published, two new organizational forms have arisen that indicate how much value people place on marrying for-proﬁt and nonproﬁt features. Maryland passed the ﬁrst beneﬁt corporation statute in 2010.6 The “beneﬁt corporation” and California’s “ﬂexible purpose corporation” (which debuted this year), unlike the L3C, do not contemplate mixing nonproﬁt and for-proﬁt investors. They do however offer new possibilities to those who are interested in doing good while also doing business. Although beneﬁt corporations are for-proﬁt entities, they have as a purpose creating a “general public beneﬁt” that is deﬁned as having “a material, positive impact on society and the environment, as measured by a third-party standard, through activities that promote a combination of speciﬁc public beneﬁts.” These beneﬁts include, among other activities, providing beneﬁcial products or services, promoting economic opportunity beyond regular job creation, preserving the environment, improving human health, and promoting the arts, sciences or advancement of knowledge. Each year these corporations must send shareholders an annual beneﬁt report describing how they have followed through on their commitment to improve societal or environmental welfare. 12
The corporation is also required to post the beneﬁt report on its website, so the public can access it. The report should detail how the corporation pursued a general public beneﬁt (and any other speciﬁc beneﬁt identiﬁed in the company’s charter), any negative circumstances that impacted achieving the targeted beneﬁts and how successful the corporation was in achieving its goals. Success in providing these beneﬁts is measured against a thirdparty standard that the board is responsible for selecting and utilizing. Since the third-party standard essentially deﬁnes whether or not the corporation achieved its goals, the report must include the rationale for selecting or changing the standard.7 Organizations that provide various standards against which a beneﬁt corporation may be evaluated include Beneﬁt Labs, Global Reporting Initiative, Green Seal and Green America. Ordinary corporations become beneﬁt corporations by amending their charters; and according to The Wall Street Journal, “hundreds of existing businesses” plan to reincorporate as beneﬁt corporations in the coming months – Patagonia already has, and Ben & Jerry’s plans to incorporate as a beneﬁt corporation in Vermont during the next few months.8 Corporate law scholars are divided on the wisdom of the beneﬁt corporation. Corporate lawyers know directors already receive considerable leeway from courts in deciding what constitutes spending “in the best interests of the corporation” – and that freedom is certainly broad enough to encompass charitable giving, political donations and support for environmental protection. So why do we need a beneﬁt corporation? William Clark, a partner at Drinker, Biddle & Reath, observes that the form’s structure “tells directors that it’s their duty to consider other interests, rather than say they ‘may’ consider them.” In contrast Charles Elson, a corporate law professor at the University of Delaware’s John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance has observed “for an investor, this is a terrible idea.”9 I’m not sure if we need beneﬁt corporations either, but I see the appeal. Choosing the beneﬁt corporation form reﬂects a kind of credible commitment: It signals to shareholders more powerfully than any slogan can that maximizing wealth is not the ultimate goal of this particular corporation. Most recently, on January 1, 2012, California not only began authorizing beneﬁt corporations but also introduced yet another new business form, the ﬂexible purpose corporation. These organizations must either (1) engage in one or more charitable or public purpose activities that a nonproﬁt www.law.uga.edu
public beneﬁt corporation is normally authorized to carry out or (2) promote the positive effects of the entity’s activities on the corporation’s employees, suppliers, customers, creditors, the local community, society as a whole and the natural environment. Unlike the beneﬁt corporation, FPCs are not required to pursue a “general public beneﬁt” that will be judged according to a thirdparty standard. Instead, FPCs may focus on more speciﬁc purposes. As a result, if shareholders are dedicated to one particular cause, the FPC might well present a more attractive form. While beneﬁt corporations must take into account the interest of employees, customers, community and the environment, ﬂexible purpose corporations are only authorized, not required, to do so. The FPC’s annual report must contain an evaluation of whether the corporation achieved its special purpose that year. Corporations with fewer than 100 shareholders may waive this requirement, making it less of a burden on the corporation but also increasing the risks that managers will not follow through on their commitments to the desired corporate purpose.
Dominic Abrams & Michael A. Hogg, An Introduction to the Social Identity Approach, in Social Identity Theory, (Dominic Abrams & Michael A. Hogg eds., 1990).
Something of the history of the Packers is captured in the following paragraphs, written by Associate Dean Dan T. Coenen: What is this sacred thing that is the Green Bay Packers? It is the team of Lambeau and Lombardi, and the great stadium and busy street that will always bear their names. It is the home place of Herber, Hutson and Hornung. And of modern heroes, too – like Lofton, Sharpe, Butler and Woodson. The Packers are the team of the underdog – of 17th-round pick Bart Starr, undrafted freeagent Willie Wood, former high school coach Mike Holmgren, the once-homeless Donald Driver. The Packers are a team of names that deﬁne the very meaning of athletic competition – Johnny “Blood” McNally, Clarke Hinkle, Forrest Gregg, Willie Davis, Ray Nitschke, Jimmy Taylor, Herb Adderley, Reggie White and Brett Favre. The Packers are a team of constancy and tradition. The team that for 90 years has been a pillar of its league. That has played in one city longer than any other NFL franchise. That has won more championships than any other NFL club. The Packers are the team of the ordinary person – owned by more than 360,000 fans, whose shares do not have a dime’s worth of ﬁnancial value and never will. It is the team that in 1920 was brought into the NFL by a local meat-canning company. A team that was saved by its community in 1923, when 400 supporters gathered in an Elks Lodge to pitch in $5000 to keep it aﬂoat. And saved again in 1935, and then again in 1950, with still more purchases of worthless stock made by local citizens, including a woman who showed up at the team ofﬁce with $25 in quarters collected in a matchbox. The Packers are the team of small town America. The team that represents on the international stage a city of 100,000 people. The team that operates in what is by far the smallest metropolitan area, with by far the smallest television market, of any NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB club. The Packers are the Green and Gold. The pride of the Black and Blue Division. The great rival of the Chicago Bears. The antithesis of the Dallas Cowboys. The Packers are the team of Cheeseheads. The team of the Lambeau Leap. The team of bratwursts and beer. The Packers are the team of TitleTown, USA. The team that claimed victory in the Ice Bowl. The team that won the ﬁrst Super Bowl. The team that, during the Glory Years of the 1960s, became so mighty that in a single decade it claimed ﬁve NFL championships, including three in consecutive seasons. A team that so dominated an era that it produced even the most deserving player not yet inducted into the NFL Hall of Fame – ﬁve-time All-Pro Jerry Kramer, who remains excluded only because so many of his teammates (10 in all) gained entry before him. The Packers are the team that, even while producing only three winning seasons during all of the 1970s and 1980s, packed its stadium for every game it played. The Packers are the team that for six decades has seen its season-ticket waiting list grow so fast that it now numbers 81,112 and includes would-be buyers who have been on it for more than 30 years. The Packers are the team that, according to current projections, will be unable to sell tickets to the fans who apply for them today until, at the earliest, 2074. The Packers are the team of the “frozen tundra,” with its still-domeless stadium in an era of professional sports comfort and glitz. The team of sub-zero tailgaters, who come to the shrine of their team – and often to away games as well – from every walk of life. The team of fans decked out in hunting boots, snowsuits and ski masks – fans who dreamt the night before of a frosted ﬁeld and the piercing chill of a bitter-cold December Sunday afternoon. The Packers are of, by and for the people of Wisconsin. They stayed when the Braves left. They always will stay. They are in the very air that the people of their city and their state inhale. They are what those of us who cherish their legacy most hope for ourselves to be – open to dreams, ﬁlled with purpose, spirited, resilient, unpretentious and, on our best days, a source to others of meaning, memories and joy.
Conclusion A new form of business organization is a rarity. The last major form was the limited liability company, or LLC, and that debuted in 1977. Today, we are experiencing a surge of interest in new business forms that meld traditional nonproﬁt goals with the ability to make a proﬁt. In the L3C, for-proﬁt and nonproﬁt investors invest side by side. This blending of interests may not work if it dims the “warm glow” nonproﬁt-minded investors desire. In contrast to the participants in any given L3C, shareholders of a beneﬁt corporation and a ﬂexible purpose corporation all are on the same page. They want to make a proﬁt but also to contribute to some greater good. Only time will tell what success these exciting new business forms will have in the coming years. Their very existence, however, illustrates the range of values that modern-day shareholders bring to “investment” decisions. Some seek only proﬁt; others look for something more. Some will say that being a shareholder of the Green Bay Packers involves little more than succumbing to a marketing ploy designed to fund stadium improvements. But I prefer to think that it ties me to a deep and valuable tradition – indeed, a tradition that includes earlier sales of similarly “worthless” stock that were critical to ensuring the very survival of this storied team. When September comes, I will be heard cheering on the Packers as usual. But now that I’m a shareholder, I suspect that my shouts will have an added measure of both volume and meaning. Go Pack!
H.R. 3420, 112th Cong. (2011).
Md. Code Ann., Corps & Ass’ns, §5-6C-01 to -08 (2011). As of this writing, seven states had passed beneﬁt corporation legislation, with legislation pending in three other states and the District of Columbia.
http://beneﬁtcorp.net/storage/The_Need_and_Rational_for_Beneﬁt_ Corporations__11-16_version.pdf – at page 19; see also CAL. CORP. CODE § 14601(g), available at 2011 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 728 (A.B. 361).
Usha Rodrigues, Entity and Identity, 60 Emory L.J. 1257 (2011).
Apps to Make Your Work Easier BY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIBRARIAN JASON TUBINIS
o you need to get docket information from a bankruptcy court? There’s an app for that. How about referencing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at Starbucks? There’s an app (or two) for that as well. Need to calculate what the deadline is for ﬁling a response while taking court holidays into account? Fortunately, there’s an app for that, and it’s less than one dollar. There is an increasing number of apps that can make a legal professional’s life more convenient. Some such apps are fairly straightforward and could have practical application in any professional or business setting – document annotation apps or apps that scan business cards and enter the contact information right into your smart phone’s address book. An increasing number, however, are narrowly tailored toward the legal profession – mobile access to the Congressional Record or apps that serve as a portable interface to legal research systems like Fastcase, Westlaw and Lexis.
Apps for the legal profession How do apps help someone with the practice of law or legal research? More than you would expect. Maybe it is because lawyers are notoriously famed for their addiction to the Blackberry, setting a precedent for the adoption of mobile technology. Maybe lawyers were quick adopters of the iPhone, the iPad and other smart phones and tablet computers. It may be something else completely, and whatever it may be, it has resulted in a net beneﬁt for the legal professional. Particularly helpful is that many apps are in some aspects more convenient than their bulkier, desktop-bound counterparts. Apps are usually created for small-to-medium sized touch screens, and their simpliﬁed design and functionality reﬂects that. In streamlining the look and feel of an app, the ﬁnal product is in many ways far more convenient and ultimately more efﬁcient. Some apps are also very narrowly tailored to perform a speciﬁc task, emphasizing the ease of use far more than heavier, feature-laden services available on conventional computers. 14
All of this results in a common story. A lawyer tries out an app, and it turns out to be kind of useful in court or in his practice. He tries it out a little longer – exploring everything that it can do – and before long the app is now his new standard way of interacting with the material. The following will provide you with some apps you can try out to see if the same will happen to you.
Fastcase www.fastcase.com/iphone One app everyone practicing law in Georgia should be aware of is the Fastcase app. To members of the State Bar of Georgia, the name Fastcase should be very familiar. Freely accessible to any member of the bar, Fastcase is a legal research service that offers access to the primary law of every state, federal material, cases, statutes, regulations, court rules and more. The free iPhone app offers an impressive set of tools for something meant to be stored in your pocket. One review of the app appearing in iPhone J.D. by Jeff Richardson went so far as to say that the usefulness of the app “is a compelling reason for any attorney not using an iPhone to purchase one today.” The main screen of the app allows you to search for case law or statutes with operators like “and”/“or” speciﬁc phrases designated with quotation marks and other functions. After searching you can narrow your results by jurisdiction and date range or enable a feature called “authority check” when searching for case law. Authority Check will note how many times the case has been cited and how many times the case is cited by cases returned by the search. Full text versions of cases are available with links to cited cases within the document. Search terms are highlighted in cases, and a “most convenient” button will bring up the section of the case that has the best match with the search terms. Cases can be saved and recalled at a later time but cannot be e-mailed, so it serves more as a reminder when sitting in front of a full computer or laptop later. Searching for statutes is similar, but with a few restrictions. After ﬁnding a desired law, you cannot navigate to the next or previous section of the code and to locate a speciﬁc statute you must browse by title, then chapter, then section. www.law.uga.edu
What is an app? Court Days and Court Days Pro www.lawonmyphone.com/court-days and www.lawonmyphone.com/court-days-pro These are date calculator apps – apps designed to ﬁgure out the deadline for when documents are due, when responses are required, how much time is left, etc. With Court Days, after selecting a jurisdiction, start date and whether you want to ﬁnd dates before or after the start date, the app will calculate the number of court days and calendar days from the current date. The “court days” takes into account legal holidays like national or state holidays and weekends. Court Days Pro takes this one step further by allowing the user to program in “rules” to help calculate dates based on speciﬁc “events.” An event is an occurrence, something like a motion being ﬁled. A simple rule would be something like having 30 days to respond after that motion was ﬁled. Using the app to create the event and the associated rule, whenever a motion was ﬁled, the date of the event would be entered and the app would calculate the date 30 days out while also accounting for legal holidays. Rules can become rather complex and programming them all in can take some time; but after the initial investment of effort, the app will help track a myriad of deadlines automatically. Court Days is $.99 and Court Days Pro is $2.99.
FedCtRecords and FedCtBank www.fedctrecords.com These iPhone apps, both created by the same developer, allow for access to the electronic records of the Federal District Courts (FedCtRecords) and the Federal Bankruptcy Courts (FedCtBank). At $10 apiece, these apps are designed to provide an iPhone friendly interface for PACER. An account with PACER is still required, and any fees that would normally be accrued will still apply when viewing a docket. PACER does have a mobile version for its site, but viewing actual documents is cumbersome. Using these apps, you can select a court and search using the ﬁelds typically found on PACER. Dockets retrieved can be viewed with the app and saved as a PDF (the app will not open the PDF, though). Cases can be saved in a My Cases location for quick reference later.
QR Codes To conclude, here is some information on a piece of technology that is enabled by apps. You may have seen the odd squares that look like pixelated glitches appearing on signs and advertisements. These are QR Codes, short for “quick reference” codes. Rather than typing in Web addresses to get to websites, QR Codes provide an alternative way to navigate to the same online sites. To use QR Codes, you need to get a free app capable of reading the code, like QR Code Reader and Scanner for the iPhone or ScanLife Barcode & QR Reader for Android enabled smartphones. Opening the app and scanning the QR Code can direct you not only to a mobile website but also to images, audio or video clips. The latter can be useful if QR Codes have been integrated into displays or informational signage, augmenting the content presented or providing additional information that can be stored on a mobile device (like a map or a schedule).
The word “app” is an abbreviation of the term “application.” Applications, in computer terms, are programs designed to add functionality or perform particular tasks. If this definition sounds very broad, that is because it is. Applications probably encompass a majority of your interactions with your computer, from word processing to e-mail to browsing the Web.
Why a plethora of apps? Why has the number of apps exploded? The same reason MP3 players, touch pads on smart phones and tablet computing have become so common – the tech juggernaut and cultural icon, Apple. Apple initially decided to open up the development of applications for the iPod Touch and iPhone by releasing their “SDK” (Software Development Kit) to anyone that wanted to try, rather than try to limit development with a small collection of handpicked developers. They also provided a platform for distributing these products – the “App Store” – a sleek, intuitive interface for developers and consumers. Between the means (SDK), the method (App Store) and the motivation (Apple is just a little popular these days), the “app” was born in its modern incarnation.
Photo by Lonnie D. Tague, DOJ Photographer
Students gain valuable experience from D.C. internship program
his spring, Georgia Law launched its Washington, D.C., Semester in Practice program through which up to 15 second- and third-year law students can earn course credit while living and working in our nation’s capital for a semester. Participants have the option to stay in housing maintained by UGA while working 35 hours per week at entities such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to name a few. “Our students are not only gaining full-time, hands-on, legal work experience critical to compete in today’s legal employment market, but they are doing so in a wide range of placements not available outside of Washington, D.C.,” program instructor and 1997 Georgia Law graduate Jessica L. Heywood said. “In just its ﬁrst semester, the program allowed several of our students to participate in litigation matters of national, historic signiﬁcance as well as in rulemaking for new legislation. “Additionally, our students were able to broaden their own professional networks,” Heywood added. “Many of our spring students have received summer and permanent job offers as a direct result of their participation in the program.” Third-year student Karen E. Tanenbaum, who served as an intern in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, said she signed up for the clinical program for that very reason – to network. “I enrolled in the D.C. program because I knew I wanted to move there after graduation,” Tanenbaum said. “In a place like D.C., where connections are everything, this clinic is an invaluable way to jumpstart a legal career in the area.” For other participants, it was the chance to gain experience in a specialized ﬁeld that drew them to enroll in the clinic.
Georgia Law students participating in the school’s new Washington, D.C., Semester in Practice program had the opportunity to meet with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (center) while working full-time in our nation’s capital at various internships.
“Given my bachelor’s degree from UGA’s Terry College of Business as well as my genuine interest in economics and ﬁnance, I wanted a placement that addressed how those subjects intersect with the law,” second-year student Michael V. Mannino said. And his internship in the Ofﬁce of General Counsel for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission did just that. “The CFTC specializes in a niche area of the law, the regulation of futures and commodities, that gave me a unique work experience not available in many other legal environments,” Mannino said. “It is my hope that this experience will give me the credentials necessary to specialize in this area of the law after I graduate.” Heywood said she is conﬁdent it will. “Whether students in the D.C. Semester in Practice program decide to remain in Washington or go elsewhere, they have gained work experience very few law students have on their résumés. Our students are quite lucky to have this opportunity,” Heywood said.
Top honors for Georgia Law As one of the top public law schools in the country, Georgia Law routinely receives a variety of recognitions. During this past year alone, the school was named the fifth “best value” law school in the nation for providing a quality legal education at an affordable price and second for having a high graduate standard of living. —preLaw magazine, 2011 With 13 clinical programs, it is no surprise the school was recognized as having the second highest ratio of servicelearning opportunities for its students. Based on 2011 numbers, the school was listed as offering more than 450 clinical positions. —National Jurist magazine, 2011
Another testament to Georgia Law’s status is the success of its alumni body. In a listing that looked at where partners in the nation’s 100 largest law firms earned their law degrees, UGA was named as the number one feeder school for firms located in Atlanta and a top 50 feeder school for those nationwide. —Journal of Legal Education, 2011
The Alexander Campbell King Law Library was also noted for its prominence and was featured in the Georgia Library Association’s Georgia Library Spotlight as a leader in the provision of information in electronic formats and for maintaining a large collection of historical state documents. —gla.georgialibraries.org, 2011 www.law.uga.edu
Georgia Law welcomes notable guests
ach year, the law school is fortunate to welcome a variety of distinguished guests. Whether meeting with students one-on-one, giving a presentation or participating in a conference, these visitors enrich the intellectual atmosphere by offering unique perspectives on timely issues. These visits are highlighted throughout the magazine and below.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spent two days at the law school this past fall. He led a few classes, met with students in small groups, held a Q&A for law school students and faculty, and helped judge the biennial international moot court exchange with Gray’s Inn of London. This was the justice’s ﬁfth visit to Georgia Law since 2003. The school also welcomed Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, who stopped by during a visit to campus and discussed current issues facing the state with members of the law school community.
Several members of the Georgia state legislature Deal and its judiciary gathered in Athens for the First Annual Symposium of Law & Politics. This event included: Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Carol W. Hunstein, Georgia Court of Appeals Chief Judge John J. Ellington (J.D.’85), Georgia Senate President Pro Tempore Tommie A. Williams and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia Edward J. “Ed” Tarver (J.D.’91). The conference was hosted by the school’s Georgia Association of Law & Hunstein Politics and focused on current issues in Peach State politics such as immigration, judicial budgetary issues, congressional redistricting and the new Georgia Evidence Code. www.law.uga.edu
Additional legislative ofﬁcials who gave lectures at the law school included: U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, who spoke on issues facing elected representatives in Washington, D.C., and Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp, who shared his thoughts on the 2012 presidential primary dates. On the judicial side, Georgia Supreme Court Justice Harold D. Melton (J.D.’91) shared his thoughts on balancing legal responsibilities with one’s personal faith, while Georgia Supreme Court Justice David E. Nahmias discussed his role on the court and current issues. Chambliss Also, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Judge J. Randal Hall (J.D.’82) presented “Professionalism – A View From the Bench” to ﬁrst-year law students and Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Keith R. Blackwell (J.D.’99) spoke to Associate Professor Elizabeth Weeks Leonard’s (J.D.’99) Torts class.
Adams to step down from UGA presidency in 2013 University President Michael F. Adams recently announced his decision to step down as president at the conclusion of the 2012–13 fiscal year. At the end of his 16 years in office, he will stand fifth in length of service among the university’s 21 presidents, tied with founding President Abraham Baldwin. Adams plans to stay engaged with the university and the Athens community after his presidency, with an eye toward teaching and writing.
Photo by Bob Brussack (J.D.’76)
HIRSCH HALL HIGHLIGHTS
Sibley Lecturer explores the role of the World Court
he International Court of Justice is a “potent” force in international law, according to Judge Joan E. Donoghue, who sits on the global governing bench. The judge said she chose the word deliberately as a medicine can be potent but so can a poison, and people often put the court into one of the two categories. In her role as Georgia Law’s 108th Sibley Lecturer, Donoghue explored these opposing views and educated a packed Hatton Lovejoy Courtroom about this judicial body and its role in the growing area of international law and dispute resolution authorities. The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, was established in 1945 by the United Nations and replaced its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was created in 1920 under the League of Nations. With 15 judges from countries around the world, and only one from any particular nation, the International Court of Justice hears two types of cases – ones where two states have a dispute and ones where the judicial body is asked to render an advisory opinion in response to other organs of the U.N. “Most of the court’s caseload, though, about 80 percent, is in the form of contentious cases, where one state brings a case against another state,” Donoghue said. “[The World Court’s] U.N. charter does not require all states to come before the court – there is no mandatory jurisdiction. … The court has jurisdiction in contentious cases only if a state consents to the court’s jurisdiction,” she added. Donoghue estimated that about one-third of the states in today’s world accept the court’s compulsory jurisdiction and said the United States initially consented but withdrew its support approximately 25 years ago when a controversial ruling was made in a case between the United States and Nicaragua. “Since the 1980s, the U.S. has avoided treaties requiring disputes going to the World Court and participates only in the optional treaties now,” she said. In addition to settling disputes, Donoghue said the court’s other main purpose is to clarify and ﬁll out the content of international law. It is this role, according to the judge, that is the most sensitive and the most controversial of the court. “International law, like domestic law, is not always precise and clear. The court has to elaborate and interpret as it’s working
through its cases. In many of our cases we, on the court, face delicate questions about whether to address issues narrowly or broadly. These are all factors that inﬂuence the way members of the world community view the World Court.” It is notable that the jurisprudence of the court does not bind anyone other than the parties to the case, its decisions cannot be appealed, and the court is not bound by its own precedents in the way a common law court is. Watch Donoghue’s lecture online “The law-shaping function of at www.law.uga.edu/multimediaour court is not limited precisely gallery-recent-events. to the pronouncements in our judgments themselves. I think it also percolates in the background of many national decisions that have implications with respect to international law. The prospect of adjudication in the ICJ might deter certain national behavior but it might also embolden a state that makes a judgment that whatever action it’s considering would be upheld by the ICJ, if there were a case,” she said. Donoghue added that when lawyers go to look at international law on a particular question, one of the ﬁrst sources they go to is the World Court and where they cannot ﬁnd a speciﬁc case that answers the question they attempt to extrapolate from other cases to try to ﬁgure out how they think the court might react. In her closing remarks, Donoghue said, “As students in a great American law school your professors constantly challenge you by ﬁrst asking you to embrace one position; and just when they’ve got you convinced that position is right, they then tear it to shreds. But it’s that process of constantly questioning and reﬂecting on things that you as law students need to hold on to as you move forward in your career, because it’s when you become too certain in your views that you lose your ability to really think carefully about questions like, ‘Is the World Court a good idea or not?’”
“The law shaping function of our court is not limited precisely to the pronouncements in our judgments themselves.”
The Sibley Lecture Series, established in 1964 by the Charles Loridans Foundation of Atlanta in tribute to the late John A. Sibley, is designed to attract outstanding legal scholars of national prominence to Georgia Law. Sibley was a 1911 graduate of the law school.
HIRSCH HALL HIGHLIGHTS
Photo by UGA Public Affairs’ Dot Paul
Students support Athens music scene Georgia Law’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society joined forces with UGA’s Music Business Program and Nuçi’s Space to host a conference on current music industry business and legal issues. Titled “Protect Athens Music,” the symposium addressed topics such as booking, contracts, and copyright issues, and panelists included legal and business music professionals. The event was followed by a free legal clinic where experienced entertainment law attorneys provided local musicians with one-on-one consultations.
Among those offering their expertise at the “Protect Athens Music” conference were: (l. to r.) Georgia Lawyers for the Arts Executive Director Lisa Moore, Director of Writer/Publisher Relations for BMI Atlanta David Claassen, Georgia Law Cobb Professor David Shipley, entertainment attorney and Slush Fund Recordings Owner David Prasse and R.E.M. Manager Bertis Downs (J.D.’81).
7th Annual WIPI event addresses range of public interest matters
Conference focuses on civil and human rights
Each year, the school’s public interest law conference seeks to bring together both practitioners and students to discuss real issues confronting attorneys and others working in the field of public interest, and this year was no exception. Exploring topics ranging from judicial budget cuts to the sustainability of animal farming were: Chief Justice Carol W. Hunstein of the Supreme Court of Georgia; Joyce Tischler, cofounder of the Animal Legal Defense Fund; and Tom C. Rawlings (J.D.’92), Guatemala field office director for the International Justice Mission, to name a few. Also participating as this year’s keynote speaker was attorney Jan R. Schlichtmann, who became famous during the 1980s as a result of his lawsuit alleging that chemicals from several companies had contaminated drinking water in a town north of Boston.
The Georgia Law Review hosted a conference in the fall that explored civil and human rights issues of today and tomorrow. Titled “Civil Rights or Civil Wants,” the symposium featured panels on immigration, international civil rights, education and privacy. The forum sought to jumpstart conversations about civil rights matters that face the world today and to explore the issues that our nation faces in an increasingly interconnected global society. The event also concluded the law school’s commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of UGA.
Keynote speaker James Salzman, Mordecai Professor of Law and Nicholas Institute Professor of Environmental Policy at Duke University (left), explored the challenges and opportunities for creating markets for ecosystem services. Also delivering a keynote address was Dorinda Dallmeyer (J.D.’84), Environmental Ethics Certificate Program director at the UGA College of Environment and Design, who discussed balancing human impacts on Georgia’s natural habitats. www.law.uga.edu
Stacey Abrams, the House minority leader for the Georgia General Assembly and state representative for the 84th District, served as the keynote speaker. She is the first woman to lead either party in the Georgia General Assembly and the first African-American to lead a party caucus in the state’s House of Representatives.
Symposium seeks to balance Georgia’s growth with the things that grow How to balance the long-term sustainability of Georgia’s ecosystems with efforts to stabilize and improve its economy was the topic of discussion at the 24th Annual Red Clay Conference. Panelists explored options for reconciling what are often considered divergent goals and looked at market-based conservation tools, the impact of non-indigenous species, longleaf pine restoration and possible changes to the federal endangered species list. Advocate 2012
HIRSCH HALL HIGHLIGHTS
General Counsel for Coca-Cola delivers 30th Edith House Lecture
“Being mindful of your social license to operate sometimes makes plain old good business sense.”
Photo by John Disney/Daily Report
erving as this year’s Edith House Lecturer was General Counsel for Coca-Cola North America Leslie M. Turner. During her presentation, titled “Winning or Winning With Integrity? A Lawyer’s Role in the Corporate World,” Turner explored how businesses today must have a “social license to operate” and discussed the idea that to obtain this license corporate lawyers must go beyond advising on what a company can do and look at what they should do. “Businesses don’t operate in markets, they operate in communities – real live places with real live people,” Turner said. “Businesses need the approval and acceptance of real live consumers who buy their products.” This is why, Turner said, branding and marketing can only go so far in helping a company be successful. “We have learned that one of the reasons that consumers choose a company, or that our consumers choose our company, has a lot to do with how they feel about us as a company and as a corporate citizen,” Turner said. “For The Coca-Cola Company, for any company – whether you are operating in the U.S. or around the world – having a social license to operate means being a good steward of [your] consumers’ and [your] communities’ well being and operating morally, ethically and with integrity.” Not only is this stewardship beneﬁcial to the people directly impacted by the company’s decisions, but it can also be good for the organization’s bottom line. For example, Turner noted that last October, Newsweek reported that companies that actively manage environmental matters actually outperform those that do not. “Being mindful of your social license to operate sometimes makes plain old good business sense,” she said. Also increasing the need for businesses to be mindful of their social perception is the “age of transparency” that has been ushered in by the reach of digital connections, Turner stated. “There isn’t much that goes on in the world today that isn’t known instantly,” she added. “We have an explosion of information accessible at the touch of a ﬁnger and available in the palm of our hands, in everybody’s hands. … [It’s] quickly analyzed and sometimes blown out of proportion and distorted, and thoughtful discussion about it might be the one thing that gets lost in the shufﬂe.” Turner said this is why it is so important for lawyers to look at what a company should do, not just at what is or is not legal. “Gaining and retaining a social license to operate requires inhouse counsel to assess, to be cognizant of [and] to counsel on more than the letter of the law,” Turner said.
Watch Turner’s lecture online at www.law.uga. edu/multimedia-galleryrecent-events.
She gave several recent examples of companies whose social license to operate was threatened by decisions they made on issues such as labor standards and water usage and pointed out that while the lawyers in each case had certainly performed their professional obligations, the companies still had difﬁculties or challenges in their ability to reach their business goals due to negative consumer reactions. “As lawyers we have to be business partners and counselors. We have to understand what gets in the way of people wanting to receive or access our products, develop the best way to solve conﬂicts and understand how businesses make money,” Turner said. “But as counselors I believe that we have an obligation to advise our business colleagues on the importance of not simply winning, but winning with integrity.” To achieve this, Turner said, lawyers must have an unwavering, laser focus on what the company should do. They need to take into consideration the needs, interests and concerns of the company’s consumers, as well as of the communities in which the business operates, and then advise on the best course of action. “[A]dvising on what a company should do is the difference between being a lawyer and a counselor. It’s showing leadership and being a partner with the business. Raising your hand can cause scrutiny, and it is not always the most comfortable space to be in. But being a counselor can make a palpable difference in how a company operates and how it is perceived.” This type of leadership, Turner said, takes tremendous courage and requires lawyers to stand up to the “win by any means necessary mentally,” which can be found in a variety of environments. “[It] really doesn’t matter if you are in-house or private practice or your own practice or government, I believe that as lawyers – because of the principals that we represent and the ethics that we have – that we have the opportunity, and sometimes the unique one, to call out and question … ‘Are we standing for integrity?’” The Edith House Lecture Series is hosted annually by the Women Law Students Association in honor of one of the ﬁrst female graduates of Georgia Law. House, a native of Winder, Ga., was co-valedictorian of the law class of 1925, the ﬁrst class with women graduates.
RUSK CENTER REPORTS
Former U.S. ambassador addresses atrocity crimes America’s first Ambassadorat-large for War Crimes Issues, David Scheffer, spoke to the law school community earlier this spring about atrocity crimes past, present and future.
atrocities – found its purpose as mass killings and ethnic cleansing consumed entire regions of the Earth.”
Scheffer drew from his book, All the Missing Souls: A Personal History of the War Crimes Tribunals – a personal account of his involvement in helping to establish international criminal tribunals and his experience heading the U.S. team negotiating the statute of the International Criminal Court.
“That lack of experience was something we had to overcome in 1993 and 1994 as we were building the first two of these tribunals,” he added.
Watch Scheﬀer’s lecture online at www.law.uga.edu/multimediagallery-recent-events.
During his talk, Scheffer discussed why the highest political and military leaders are increasingly at risk of indictment and prosecution today and why the mission of accountability grows with every passing year. Scheffer said to comprehend these two issues it is important to look back at crises that occurred during the 1990s, when “one of the most ambitious judicial experiments in the history of humankind – a global assault on the architects of
Before he took his ambassadorship with the Clinton administration in 1993, the “old world” did not have any international criminal courts, Scheffer noted. Because there was no precedent and little knowledge of how to prosecute genocide, he said establishing international criminal courts was a challenge.
Massive atrocities ensued as the decade went on, hindering the team’s progress. “[The atrocities] were extremely disruptive of rational policy making in the aftermath of the Cold War,” Scheffer said. After revisiting fundamentals, five tribunals were established: Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and the permanent International Criminal Court. “The grand objective since 1993 has been to end impunity at the highest levels of government and the military,” he added. “Not only for genocide, which captures the popular imagination with its heritage in the Holocaust, but also for the far-less understood offenses of crimes against humanity and war crimes.” —Crissinda M. Ponder
Overview of conference projecting IP questions into the future
ncouraging an international group of intellectual property law scholars to consider the most pressing issues on the horizon, the Dean Rusk Center for International Law and Policy, in cooperation with the Journal of Intellectual Property Law, hosted a day-long conference titled “Back to the Future: Global Perspectives on the Future of IP Law in the Next Decade” during March. The conference brought together renowned scholars from every branch of IP law – copyright, patent and trademark – including Orit Fischman Afori from Israel, Annette Kur from Germany and Alain Strowel from Belgium. Both Afori and Strowel emphasized the way historical movements in copyright law will continue to shape its immediate future. Strowel looked at the past decade to forecast the next, opining that judicial developments are likely to be far more important than legislative changes. Afori took a longer historical view, highlighting key moments in centuries of copyright law and reached a conclusion quite similar to Strowel’s: judicial, rather than legislative, developments will dominate. In the third copyright presentation, Michael J. Madison explored the shifting boundaries of the seemingly simple notion of a “work.” The second conference panel focused on trademark law, in both the United States and the European Union. Kur used the ﬁndings of a 2011 trademark study conducted by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition to frame her comparison of U.S. and EU approaches to trademark. She took special note of the different www.law.uga.edu
ways these systems tackle questions that turn on the actual use of a mark in a given geographical area. Mark P. McKenna explored continuing controversies regarding the reach of the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Dastar Corp. v. 20th Century Fox, a case about the boundary between trademark and copyright law. Stacey Dogan urged IP scholars and advocates to take up the challenge of pushing back against overly expansive trademark claims by showing the vital social values promoted by uses that, under current law, are arguably infringements. The ﬁnal panel explored the future of patent law. Andrew W. Torrance shared new data about the rates at which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Ofﬁce makes various objections to an inventor’s patent application. This new data set promises to open exciting avenues of analysis in the future. The other panelists focused on design patent law, a mode of protecting ornamental designs for goods. Mark D. Janis and Jason Du Mont compared the EU and U.S. approaches to the question of functionality, an exclusion that prevents design protection. Additionally, Rebecca Tushnet explored the difﬁculties courts have in determining the proper scope to give design patents. A given design makes an overall impression, and that impression is what the law protects. But similar impressions from competing designs may arise from their use of unprotectable features of prior art designs. Deploying insights from copyright law, Tushnet considered various potential responses to this ongoing conundrum.
—Georgia Law Professor Joseph S. Miller Advocate 2012
RUSK CENTER REPORTS
Symposium explores energy security issues
he Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law hosted a daylong conference on energy security issues in international law during February. Titled “Striking the Right Balance: Energy Security in International Law,” the event brought together a mix of leading academics, policy makers and practitioners to engage in important dialogue on the intersection of energy, security and international law. Through three different panel discussions and a keynote speech, participants presented and discussed what the concept of “energy security” means in a legal context and also the right balance in forging a strong and sustainable energy security strategy in the midst of competing legal paradigms of investment, national security, environmental, international trade and energy regulatory law. A notable highlight was the keynote talk by Commissioner William C. Ostendorff of Commissioner William Ostendorff of the U.S. the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission delivered Commission. the keynote address at the “Striking the Right Speaking from a regulator’s Balance: Energy Security in International Law” perspective, Ostendorff discussed energy security issues and the conference. legal framework of nuclear energy regulation at both the domestic and the international levels. He also commented on the need for international cooperation within the realm of energy safety and security issues in light of the continued increase in global energy demand, deepening environmental pressure and the global population’s need for access to affordable and reliable energy resources. Moderated by third-year law students, conference panels were clustered around a variety of salient topics within the theme of energy security:
American Society of International Law Midyear Meeting The American Society of International Law Midyear Meeting and Research Forum will take place this fall in Atlanta and at Georgia Law in Athens. It will coincide with the 35th anniversary of the law school’s Dean Rusk Center for International Law and Policy. Fittingly, Dean Rusk, a former member of the law school faculty, was honorary president of ASIL while U.S. Secretary of State; moreover, Louis October 19–21, 2012 B. Sohn was ASIL president while serving as the inaugural holder of Atlanta/Athens For more information, please visit Georgia Law’s Woodruff Chair in www.asil.org/midyear. International Law. Highlights will include a career fair, panel discussions, keynotes, the Second Annual ASIL Research Forum and the launch of a regional interest group, ASIL Southeast, as well as the fall meeting of the society’s executive council.
s NUCLEAR ENERGY SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES OPERATING AT THE international level. s THE ISSUE OF INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR LIABILITY EXAMINED THROUGH BOTH A domestic and an international lens. s THE EFFECT OF FRAGMENTATION OF ENERGY REGIMES UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF international law. s THE IMPACT OF 2USSIAS RECENT ACCESSION TO THE 7ORLD 4RADE Organization colliding with the potential for WTO regulation of international energy markets. s THE VITAL ROLE ENERGY PLAYS IN THE EXPLORATION OF A SUSTAINABLE long-term global energy security strategy engaging developed and developing countries. —Halley E. Espy, executive conference editor of the Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law
Writer shares insights on Zimbabwe Award-winning author Peter Godwin (center) spoke with Dean Rusk Center Director Don Johnson (J.D.’73) and Assistant Director Laura Kagel (J.D.’06) prior to his well-attended lunchtime presentation addressing Robert Mugabe’s dictatorship in Zimbabwe. Drawing on his book, The Fear, Godwin shared vivid accounts of deteriorating human rights and economic conditions in a country that was once considered a model for post-colonial Africa and discussed factors that have kept Mugabe from being held accountable under international law.
Georgia Law bids farewell to two longtime professors
fter collectively dedicating more than 60 years of service to Georgia Law, professors Alan Watson and Donald E. “Eugene” Wilkes Jr. retired June 1. Watson, the holder of the Rogers Chair of Law and a Distinguished Research Professorship, is regarded as one of the world’s foremost authorities on Roman law, comparative law, legal history, and law and religion. He holds 13 degrees (one is by decree and six are honorary) from the universities of Glasgow, Oxford, Edinburgh, Pretoria, Palermo, Belgrade and Stockholm. A master of more than 12 Alan Watson, the holder of the Rogers Chair of Law languages, Watson has authored and a Distinguished Research Professorship, retired more than 150 articles and books, after 23 years of service to the law school. and several of his titles have been translated into various dialects. Professor Eugene Wilkes, photographed with Watson attended several sessions some of his scholarship produced during his 41regarding the development of a common law for the European Union and, at the year tenure at Georgia Law, retired on June 1. request of the U.S. Agency for International Development, he served as a member of the two-person U.S. His scholarship includes approximately 250 published works team which helped revise the draft civil code for the Republic of including ﬁve books, 14 law review pieces, two book chapters, Armenia. ﬁve encyclopedia entries and more than 160 articles in magazines, In 1997, he was elected Visiting Honorary Professor of Private newspapers and professional journals. Law at the University of Edinburgh, the highest honorary award Prior to teaching at Georgia Law, Wilkes clerked for U.S. District bestowed by the Scottish faculty. Court for the Middle District of Florida Judge Ben Krentzman. He regularly serves as a distinguished lecturer at leading During his early years in Athens, he took a leave of absence to universities in the United States and abroad, including serve as a Fellow in Law and the Humanities at Harvard University institutions in France, Germany, Holland, Israel, Italy, Poland, from 1975 to 1976. South Africa and Yugoslavia. And, this fall, Watson will be While one of Wilkes’ highlights during his teaching career is presented with a lifetime achievement award by the American having been interviewed by “60 Minutes” correspondent Harry Society of Comparative Law. Reasoner during May 1985 (a segment that subsequently aired), Of his 23-year tenure at Georgia Law, Watson said he enjoyed Georgia Law’s 1990 graduation holds a special place in his heart – it many memorable experiences and will miss teaching “some of the is the year his daughter, Karen, received her law degree. best and nicest students” he has ever encountered. “Dean Ron Ellington allowed me to hand her her diploma,” During retirement, he plans to continue his involvement Wilkes said. “It was just a beautiful day. I remember the exact date – with the Alan Watson Foundation, which was established May 19, 1990.” by his colleagues at the University of Belgrade to promote The thing Wilkes said he will miss most in his retirement is a multidisciplinary understanding of law by encouraging helping to “broaden the horizons” of his students and “providing scholarship broadly focusing on the correlation between law and new perspectives.” society. Watson will also maintain an ofﬁce at the law school, Grading exams, however, is what he will miss the least. where he will continue his research activities. “I think most professors will agree with me on this,” he added. Wilkes, who earned both his undergraduate and law degrees Wilkes will maintain an ofﬁce at the law school and actively from the University of Florida, joined the law school’s faculty in engage in research and writing, primarily in the area of the history of 1971. Specializing in the ﬁelds of criminal procedure, English the writ of habeas corpus. Additionally, he will continue his pursuit legal history and postconviction remedies, he is a leading expert of supporting the aviary population and add further credence to his on the writ of habeas corpus. moniker a “friend of liberty and birds.” —Crissinda M. Ponder www.law.uga.edu
Faculty Notes The following will summarize the scholarly productivity of Georgia Law’s distinguished faculty during the calendar year 2011 and year-to-date 2012.
Diane Marie Amann “John Paul Stevens, Originalist” in Northwestern University Law Review (forthcoming 2012); “Politics and Prosecutions, From Katherine Fite to Fatou Bensouda” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Humanitarian Law Dialogs (E. Andersen and D. Crane eds.) (forthcoming 2012); and “Cecelia Goetz, Woman at Nuremberg” in 11 International Criminal Law Review 607 (2011).
Peter A. Appel “Public Regulatory Encouragement to the Adoption of Private Ordering Systems to Achieve Environmental Protection Through Sustainable Commerce” in Corporate Governance After the Financial Crisis (Edward Elgar Publishing, forthcoming 2012) (with Dr. T. Rick Irvin (J.D.’08)); and “Wilderness, the Courts and the Effect of Politics on Judicial Decisionmaking” in 35 Harvard Environmental Law Review 275 (2011).
Randy Beck “Transtemporal Separation of Powers in the Law of Precedent” in the Notre Dame Law Review (forthcoming 2012); “Fueling Controversy” in 95 Marquette Law Review 735 (2012); and “Self-Conscious Dicta: The Origins of Roe v. Wade’s Trimester Framework” in 51 American Journal of Legal History 505 (2011).
Lonnie T. Brown Jr. “Civility and Collegiality – Unreasonable Judicial Expectations for Lawyers as Ofﬁcers of the Court” in the St. Mary’s Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics (forthcoming 2012) (symposium).
Elizabeth Chamblee Burch The Law of Class Actions and Other Aggregate Litigation, 2d ed. (Foundation Press, forthcoming 2013) (with R. Nagareda et al.); “Financiers as Monitors in Aggregate Litigation” in the New York
University Law Review (forthcoming 2012); “Governing Securities Class Actions” in the University of Cincinnati Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (symposium); “Optimal Lead Plaintiffs” in 53 Corporate Practice Commentator 893 (2012) (reprinted from 64 Vanderbilt Law Review 1109 (2011)); “Group Consensus, Individual Consent” in 79 George Washington Law Review 506 (2011) (symposium); and “Litigating Together: Social, Moral, and Legal Obligations” in 91 Boston University Law Review 87 (2011).
Andrea L. Dennis “Prosecutorial Discretion and the Neglect of Juvenile Shielding Statutes” in 90 Nebraska Law Review 341 (2011).
Jaime L. Dodge “The Limits of Procedural Private Ordering” in 96 Virginia Law Review 724 (2011).
María Eugenia Giménez (LL.M.’89)
“Regulating Mandatory Arbitration” in 2012 Utah Law Review (forthcoming 2012).
“United States Support for Higher Education Partnership Projects in Palestine: A Path Difﬁcult to Tread” in Imagining a Shared Future: Perspectives on Law, Conﬂict and Economic Development in the Middle East (K. Byttebier and K. Van der Borght eds.) (CMP Publishing, 2011).
Ronald L. Carlson
Matthew I. Hall
Evidence: Teaching Materials for an Age of Science and Statutes, 7th ed. (LexisNexis, forthcoming 2012) (with E. Imwinkelried et al.); A Student’s Guide to Elements of Proof, 2d ed. (West, 2011); and Trial Handbook for Georgia Lawyers, 2011-2012 ed. (West, 2011).
“Standing of Intervenor-Defendants in Public Law Litigation” in 80 Fordham Law Review 1539 (2012); and “Asymmetrical Jurisdiction” in 58 UCLA Law Review 1257 (2011).
Thomas V. Burch
Dan T. Coenen “The Originalist Case Against Congressional Supermajority Voting Rules” in 106 Northwestern University Law Review (forthcoming 2012).
Harlan G. Cohen “Finding International Law, Part II: Our Fragmenting Legal Community” in 44 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (forthcoming 2012); and “From Fragmentation to Constitutionalization” in 24 Paciﬁc McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal 11 (2011).
Julian A. Cook III Inside Investigative Criminal Procedure: What Matters and Why (Aspen Publishers, 2012).
Erica J. Hashimoto “Class Matters” in 101 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 31 (2011).
Walter Hellerstein “Comparing the Treatment of Charities Under Value Added Taxes and Retail Sales Taxes” in VAT Exemptions: Consequences and Design Alternatives (R. de la Feria ed.) (Kluwer Law International, forthcoming 2012); “Formulary Apportionment in the EU and the US: A Comparative Perspective on the Sharing Mechanism of the Proposed Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base” in Tax Mobility (A. Dourado ed.) (International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, forthcoming 2012); “Horizontal Tax Coordination in the United States” in Horizontal Tax Coordination (M. Lang ed.) (Kluwer www.law.uga.edu
The Athens Justice Project honored Associate Dean Paul Kurtz (left) for his public interest work by naming him the 2011 recipient of the Milner S. Ball Social Justice Award. He was presented with the award by Hosch Professor Tom Eaton during a luncheon in October.
role models,” Kurtz said. “They come up with big ideas and devote themselves to building structures and programs to help their fellow human beings.
Kurtz honored for philanthropic work
“The second group consists of people who have a good heart and are willing to go to meetings, write memoranda, draft legislation and reports, attend charity events and write checks from time to time,” Kurtz added. “This is where I fit in.”
This past fall, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs and Hosch Professor Paul M. Kurtz was presented with the Athens Justice Project’s Milner S. Ball Social Justice Award. He was selected for this honor because of his outstanding and continued support of countless community organizations and causes as well as for his tireless work on behalf of indigent criminal defense in Georgia and on the reform of family law nationally. Upon receiving the award, Kurtz recognized three types of people who “help move the social justice cause forward.” “In the first group are those like [the late Caldwell Chair in Constitutional Law Milner S. Ball (J.D.’71) for whom the award is named] who are creative, inspirational and true
Law International, forthcoming 2012); “Reﬂections of a Third-Country Observer on the Proposed CCCTB CFC Rules” in CCCTB and Third Countries (M. Lang ed.) (Kluwer Law International, forthcoming 2012); “Tax Planning Under the CCCTB’s Formulary Apportionment Provisions: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” in CCCTB: Some Selected Issues (D. Weber ed.) (Kluwer Law International, forthcoming 2012); revision of State Taxation, 3d ed. (Warren Gorham & Lamont, 2012 & 2011) (with J. Swain); “Challenging Legal Issues Confronting VAT Regimes” in 62 Tax Notes International 571 (2011) (with J. Sedon); “The Market State Approach to the Attribution of Receipts From Services” in 59 State Tax Notes 331 (2011) (with J. Swain); “The Quest for ‘Full Accountability’ of Corporate Income” in 61 State Tax Notes 627 (2011); “The Questionable Constitutionality of Amazon’s Distribution Center Deals” in 62 State Tax Notes 667 (2011); “International Tax Developments in the United States: Fighting Fraud and Tax Haven Abuse – Lessons From the American States” in Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance: Symposium on EU Tax www.law.uga.edu
Thirdly, Kurtz said, are those working on the frontlines who actually deliver social services to those who need them. This includes public defenders, social workers, lawyers who do pro bono work, volunteers and other public servants. “They do ‘social justice’ every day as they deal with the sometimes intractable problems of real people,” Kurtz said. “It is these people who inspire me and the others who are found in the first two groups. … These are the real heroes of the social justice community, and they are the ones who we should pause to honor and thank today.” Originally called the Athens Justice Project Social Justice Award, the accolade was renamed two years ago in honor of Ball, who served as a professor at Georgia Law for almost 30 years and was well known for his altruism.
(G. Koﬂer et al eds.) (LexisNexis, 2011); and “Tax Aspects of Fiscal Federalism in the United States” in Tax Aspects of Fiscal Federalism (C. Sacchetto and G. Bizioli eds.) (International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 2011).
Fazal Khan “Elementary for Watson? The Challenge of Incorporating Artiﬁcial Intelligence into Medical Practice” in the Journal of Health & Life Sciences Law (forthcoming 2012) (with A. Swanson); “Gene Patents No More? Deciphering the Meaning of Prometheus” in the Annals of Health Law: Informed Consent (forthcoming 2012) (with L. Kessler); “Genomics Unbound: The Bright Future of Genetic Testing and Therapy in Light of Prometheus” in the Nevada Law Journal (forthcoming 2012) (with L. Kessler); “Verify, Then Trust: How to Legalize Off-Label Marketing by Drug Companies” in the Penn State Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (with J. Holloway); “Data Bank Information Needs Careful Interpretation” in 55 American Medical News 23 (2012); and “Combating Obesity Through the Built Environment: Is There a Clear Path to Success?” in 39 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 387 (2011).
Elizabeth Weeks Leonard (J.D.’99) “Death Panels and the Rhetoric of Rationing” in 12 Nevada Law Journal (forthcoming 2012) (symposium); “States’ Rights: Point/Counterpoint” in Debates on U.S. Health Care Reform (W. Parmet ed.) (SAGE Publications, forthcoming 2012); “Affordable Care Act Litigation: The Standing Paradox” in 38 American Journal of Law & Medicine 410 (2012) (symposium); “The Rhetoric Hits the Road: State Challenges to Affordable Care Act Implementation” in 46 University of Richmond Law Review 781 (2012) (symposium); “Can You Really Keep Your Health Plan? The Limits of Grandfathering Under the Affordable Care Act” in 36 Journal of Corporation Law 753 (2011) (symposium); “Introduction: The Role of States in Federal Health Care Reform” in 20 Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy 181 (2011) (symposium); “Rhetorical Federalism: The Role of State Resistance in Health Care Decisionmaking” in 39 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 73 (2011) (symposium); and “Medical-Legal Partnership: Three Voices From the Law School Clinic” in Vulnerable Populations Advocate 2012
FACULTY ACCOMPLISHMENTS and Transformative Law Teaching: A Critical Reader (Carolina Academic Press, 2011) (with M. Musumeci and B. Arellano).
Hillel Y. Levin “Contemporary Meaning and Expectations in Statutory Interpretation” in 2012 University of Illinois Law Review (forthcoming 2012); and “Resolving Interstate Conﬂicts Over Same-Sex NonMarriage” in 63 Florida Law Review 47 (2011).
Timothy L. Meyer “Global Public Goods and Governance Risk” in 22 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law (forthcoming 2012); book review of International Organizations: Politics, Law, Practice by I. Hurd in 106 American Journal of International Law (forthcoming 2012); “Codifying Custom” in 160 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 995 (2012); and “Federalism and Accountability: State Attorneys General, Regulatory Litigation, and the New Federalism” in 19 Revista Brasileira de Estudos Constitucionais (2011) (reprinted from 95 California Law Review 885 (2007)).
Joseph S. Miller
“Bilski v. Kappos: Everything Old is New Again” in 15 Lewis & Clark Law Review 1 (2011) (symposium); “Joint Defense or Research Joint Venture? Reassessing the Patent-Challenge-Bloc’s Antitrust Status” in 2011 Stanford Technology Law Review 5 (2011); and “Substance, Procedure, and the Divided Patent Power” in 63 Administrative Law Review 31 (2011).
“A Conﬂict Primacy Model of the Public Board” in the University of Illinois Law Review (forthcoming 2013) (symposium); “Corporate Governance in an Age of Separation of Ownership From Ownership” in 53 Corporate Practice Commentator 745 (2012) (reprinted from 95 Minnesota Law Review 1822 (2011)); and “Entity and Identity” in 60 Emory Law Journal 1257 (2011).
Peter B. “Bo” Rutledge
“Accounting for Time: A RelativeInterest Approach to the Division of Equity in Hybrid-Property Homes Upon Divorce” in 100 Kentucky Law Journal (forthcoming 2012).
Arbitration and the Constitution (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 2012); “Arbitration Clauses in Credit Card Agreements: An Empirical Study” in 9 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (forthcoming 2012) (with C. Drahozal); “Contract and Choice” in 2012 Brigham Young University Law Review (with C. Drahozal) (forthcoming 2012); “Convergence and Divergence in International Dispute Resolution” in 19 Journal of Dispute Resolution (forthcoming 2012) (symposium); “Toward a Functional Approach to the Sovereign Equality of Nations” in 53 Virginia Journal of International Law (forthcoming 2012) (symposium); “TRIPS and BITS:
Lori A. Ringhand “Aliens on the Bench: Lessons in Identity, Race and Politics From the First ‘Modern’ Supreme Court Conﬁrmation Hearing to Today” in 2010 Michigan State Law Review 795 (2011); and “May it Please the Senate: An Empirical Analysis of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings of Supreme Court Nominees, 1939-2009” in 60 American University Law Review 589 (2011) (with P. Collins).
Colloquium series bring notable scholars to campus Georgia Law hosts two colloquium series each year that provide a forum for provocative and innovative legal scholarship by bringing legal academics from around the country to Athens to present their latest research to faculty and students. Below is a summary of the 2011–12 presenters.
Deborah J. Cantrell, University of Colorado at Boulder
Katerina Linos, University of California, Berkeley
Scott Dodson, College of William & Mary
Julia D. Mahoney, University of Virginia
Howard M. Erichson, Fordham University
Oren Perez, Bar-llan University (Israel)
Brett Frischmann, Yeshiva University
Mae C. Quinn, Washington University in St. Louis
E. Lea Johnston, University of Florida Prasad Krishnamurthy, University of California, Berkeley Ethan J. Leib, Fordham University Gerald F. Leonard, Boston University 26
Chaim Saiman, Villanova University Henry E. Smith, Harvard University Scott E. Sundby, University of Miami
George A. Bermann, Columbia University Andrea K. Bjorklund, McGill University Chris Brummer, Georgetown University Robert M. Chesney, The University of Texas Laura A. Dickinson, George Washington University Andrew T. Guzman, University of California, Berkeley Douglas Stinnett, University of Georgia Joel P. Trachtman, Tufts University Ingrid B. Wuerth, Vanderbilt University
An Essay on Compulsory Licenses, Expropriation and International Arbitration” in 13 North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology (forthcoming 2012) (symposium); “The Proportionality Principles and the (Amount in) Controversy” in American Illness (Yale University Press, forthcoming 2012); “Zugang zum OGH aus Sicht der USA” in Der Zugang zum OGH in Zivil- und Strafsachen (Judicial Conference of the Supreme Court of Austria, forthcoming 2012); International Civil Litigation in the United States Courts, 5th ed. (Aspen Publishers, 2011) (with G. Born); “Arbitration and Kompetenz” in 3 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation 217 (2011) (symposium); “Contract and Procedure” in 94 Marquette Law Review 1103 (2011) (with C. Drahozal); “Samantar and Executive Power” in 45 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 885 (2011) (symposium); and “Samantar, Ofﬁcial Immunity and Federal Common Law” in 14 Lewis & Clark Law Review 589 (2011) (symposium).
Margaret V. Sachs Securities Litigation and Enforcement: Cases and Materials, 3d ed. (West, 2011) (with D. Nagy and R. Painter).
Logan E. Sawyer III “Constitutional Principle, Partisan Calculation, and the Beveridge Child Labor Bill” in 31 Law and History Review (forthcoming 2013); and “Creating Hammer v. Dagenhart” in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (forthcoming 2013).
David E. Shipley “The Chevron Two-Step in Georgia” in 46 Georgia Law Review (forthcoming 2012); and “The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act at Twenty: Has Full Protection Made a Difference?” in 18 Journal of Intellectual Property Law 1 (2011).
James C. Smith “Property and Sovereign Power” in Property and Sovereignty (Ashgate Publishing, forthcoming 2012); “Some Reﬂections on the Merits of Property Tax” in Tax Law and Policy: Beyond Economic Efﬁciency (Aspen Publishers, forthcoming 2012); “Homestead Laws,” “Liens,” “Subdivision Controls” and “Warranties” in the Encyclopedia of Housing, 2d ed. (A. Carswell ed.) (SAGE Publications, forthcoming 2012); Glannon Guide to Property, 2d ed. (Aspen Publishers, 2011); revision of Federal Taxation of Real Estate (Law Journal Seminars-Press, 2011) (with A. Samansky); revision of Friedman on Contracts and Conveyances of Real Property, 7th ed. (Practising Law Institute, 2011); and “Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Law of Neighbors” in 39 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 757 (2011).
Larry D. Thompson “The Reality of Overcriminalization” in 7 Journal of Law, Economics & Policy 577 (2011) (symposium).
Travis M. Trimble (J.D.’93) “Environmental Law” in 62 Mercer Law Review 1151 (2011).
Christian Turner “State Action Problems” in 65 Florida Law Review (forthcoming 2013); and “Law’s Public/Private Structure” in 39 Florida State University Law Review (forthcoming 2012).
Brown receives prestigious appointments Cleveland Distinguished Chair of Legal Ethics and Professionalism Lonnie T. Brown Jr. was the recipient of several honors this past year. He was appointed to serve on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam Drafting Committee by the National Conference of Bar Examiners. This seven-member committee, consisting of some of the leading experts in the field of legal ethics, is responsible for drafting the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam. Brown was also selected to serve on the State Bar of Georgia’s Formal Advisory Opinion Board. This board drafts Proposed Formal Advisory Opinions concerning the proper interpretation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct or any of the grounds for attorney disciplinary action as applied to a given state of facts. The opinions, if approved by the Supreme Court of Georgia, provide additional guidance to lawyers with regard to their professional responsibility. “Both of these roles allow me to be actively involved in educating members of the profession about their ethical responsibility as attorneys, which is incredibly important to me,” Brown said. “In addition, my involvement also serves to enhance my knowledge and understanding of the subject matter by affording me the opportunity to gain insights from various respected experts in the field.” In addition to this involvement in the broader legal profession, Brown is also dedicated to the classroom as is evidenced by his recent induction into the UGA Teaching Academy. Membership in the academy is an honor granted to only a select few UGA faculty members each year who have demonstrated a significant commitment to the teaching-learning enterprise. Additionally, Brown was named a Senior Teaching Fellow for the 2011–12 academic year by UGA’s Center for Teaching and Learning. Only eight seniorlevel university professors are chosen annually for this program, which provides dedicated, highly motivated and innovative faculty members the opportunity to learn from and collaborate with one another. Advocate 2012
Recent faculty appointments and honors Woodruff Chair in International Law Diane Marie Amann has been elected to the executive committee of the American Society of International Law’s Lieber Society on the Law of Armed Conflict. Director of the Criminal Defense Clinic Russell C. Gabriel (J.D.’85) was honored by the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers with its President’s Award for his excellence in service as chairperson of the organization’s Indigent Defense Committee. Assistant Professor Matthew I. Hall was one of 10 tenure-track junior faculty members to be named a 2011–13 Lilly Teaching Fellow by the UGA Center for Teaching and Learning. To be selected for this honor, one must demonstrate a passion for and commitment to excellence in teaching. Distinguished Research Professor and Shackelford Distinguished Professor in Taxation Law Walter Hellerstein was an invited witness before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance at an April hearing on “Tax Reform: What It Means for State and Local Tax and Fiscal Policy.” During his testimony, Hellerstein provided an overview of federal-state tax coordination in an effort to assist the committee in determining the appropriate role of Congress with regard to matters of state taxation. Associate Professor Elizabeth Weeks Leonard (J.D.’99) has been appointed chair-elect of the Association of American Law Schools’ Section on Law, Medicine and Health Care. Lori A. Ringhand, who was promoted to Hosch Professor in May, was awarded the 2012 Neal Tate Award by the Southern Political Science Association – an honor reserved for outstanding papers in judicial politics. Peter B. “Bo” Rutledge, the new holder of the Talmadge Chair, has been selected to serve on the board of directors for the Atlanta International Arbitration Society.
This year, the Georgia Law student body honored (l. to r.) Assistant Professor Christian Turner, Associate Professor Erica Hashimoto and Cleveland Distinguished Chair of Legal Ethics and Professionalism Lonnie Brown with the John C. O’Byrne Memorial Award for Significant Contributions to Furthering Faculty-Student Relations, the C. Ronald Ellington Award for Excellence in Teaching and the Student Bar Association Professionalism Award, respectively.
Assistant Professor Logan E. Sawyer III was named a member of the 2011–12 UGA Teaching Academy Fellows program. Approximately 20 early-career faculty members campus wide were selected to participate. Professor and Law Library Director Emeritus Erwin C. Surrency (J.D.’48) was selected for inclusion in the American Association of Law Libraries Hall of Fame for his years of distinguished service to the AALS and for his significant contributions to the profession. Sibley Professor in Corporate and Business Law Larry D. Thompson has been appointed by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to serve a threeyear term on the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure for the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Camilla E. Watson
Michael L. Wells
Federal Income Taxation: Model Problems and Outstanding Answers (Oxford University Press, 2011); Federal Tax Practice and Procedure, 2d ed. (West, 2011); and Tax Procedure and Tax Fraud, 4th ed. (West Nutshell Series, 2011).
“Civil Recourse, Damages-As-Redress, and Constitutional Torts” in 46 Georgia Law Review (forthcoming 2012); Cases and Materials on Federal Courts, 2d ed. (West, 2011) (with W. Marshall et al.); and “Time and Change in JudgeMade Law: Convergence, Divisions of Authority, and the Restatement” in 1 Wake Forest Law Review Online 21 (2011) (www.wakeforestlawreview.com).
Carol A. Watson (J.D.’87) “Citation Advantage of Open Access Legal Scholarship” in 103 Law Library Journal 553 (2011) (with J. Donovan); and “Technology Management Trends in Law Schools” in 103 Law Library Journal 441 (2011) (with L. Reeves).
Sonja R. West “Monster in the Courtroom: What U.S. Supreme Court Justices Really Fear About Video Cameras” in the Brigham Young University Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (symposium); and
View more faculty highlights at www.law.uga.edu/faculty-highlights.
“Awakening the Press Clause” in 58 UCLA Law Review 1025 (2011).
Rebecca Hanner White Cases and Materials on Employment Discrimination, 8th ed. (Aspen Publishers, forthcoming 2012) (with M. Zimmer and C. Sullivan).
Donald E. Wilkes Jr. Federal Postconviction Remedies and Relief Handbook, 2011 ed. (West, 2011); State Postconviction Remedies and Relief Handbook, 2011-2012 ed. (West, 2011); and “From Oglethorpe to the Overthrow of the Confederacy: Habeas Corpus in Georgia, 1733-1865” in 45 Georgia Law Review 1015 (2011). www.law.uga.edu
Anne Profﬁtt Dupre – a respected scholar, teacher, mentor and friend
n June 22, 2011, the Georgia Law community lost a person who touched many of our lives on a variety of levels. Anne Profﬁtt Dupre was a respected scholar, a dedicated teacher, a wise mentor, a valued colleague and a treasured friend. After a courageous battle with cancer, she died at the age of 58. Dupre joined the law school community in the fall of 1985 as a ﬁrst-year student. She became editor-in-chief of the Georgia Law Review, graduated ﬁrst in her class and was inducted into the Order of the Coif. After graduation in 1988, she served as a judicial clerk for U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson and for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun. She then practiced law in Washington, D.C., before
returning to Athens as an assistant professor of law in 1994. A nationally recognized scholar in the areas of education law and policy, Dupre also specialized in contract law. She held a J. Alton Hosch Professorship, was the recipient of several teaching honors and greatly contributed to the academic environment at the law school, UGA and the wider teaching academy through her active service and involvement. She is survived by her husband, William “Bill” Dupre, and her father, George Profﬁtt.
The following excerpts will provide insight into some of the ways in which Dupre touched the lives of so many. These were taken from the law school’s online tribute page – www.law.uga.edu/memory-anne-proffitt-dupre. Please feel free to visit and add your own. “Professor Dupre and I had a special, ﬁrstday relationship. Our section was her ﬁrst – both her ﬁrst year teaching, and the very ﬁrst class she taught. And I was the ﬁrst student she ever called on. … Naturally, I was terriﬁed. And so, as it turned out, was Professor Dupre. She told me later how she’d worried over that ﬁrst day, that ﬁrst student to be called on. What would happen if she picked someone who was unprepared or who couldn’t take the pressure? … When I walked into class that ﬁrst morning, I’d been proud that I’d even read the cases for the ﬁrst day … . When I walked out, I knew that this class and this professor would challenge my intellect in a way I’d never experienced before. She made me into a thinker. She brought out the best in me.” —Juliana Rowland (J.D.’97)
“Anne was one of the smartest, funniest, most fearless people I’ve ever known. Particularly as a young woman entering law teaching, there was no greater role model for [me] to look up to than Anne. She was a friend, colleague, teacher, scholar and mentor, and she excelled at all of these roles.”
“Of all of the important lessons she taught us, the two that had the greatest impact in my life were: (1) to always be prepared (for anything, from an argument to a wine tasting), and (2) to always be proud of being a lawyer, a profession whose value society often takes for granted.” —Glianny Fagundo (J.D.’00)
—Associate Professor Sonja R. West “Anne Dupre is the best teacher I ever had. She taught attention to detail, organization, and preparation. She demanded rigorous thinking. She questioned us, ‘probing’ – her word – for weakness and when she found it she excised it. I hated her most of my ﬁrst year. But I grew to love her. Now, I appreciate the debt I owe her. She prepared me for my professional life like no other teacher or experience in the Academy.” —E. Howard Merry (J.D.’99)
“Professor Dupre had the ability to bring out the best in people because she saw what others oftentimes overlooked. She recognized potential – especially the kind that extended outside the classroom – and she challenged others to expand their outer limits. She has helped so many to uncover and develop their talents. Professor Dupre pushed those around her toward excellence, and those who listened thrived. She saw past herself, always working to motivate others.” —Jenah L. Zweig (J.D.’11)
The law school community has established the Anne Profﬁtt Dupre Scholarship as a tribute to this beloved professor. If you would like to participate in this lasting memorial, please send your check payable to the University of Georgia Foundation for the Professor Anne Profﬁtt Dupre Scholarship to the Ofﬁce of Development, University of Georgia School of Law, 225 Herty Drive, Athens, GA 30602. www.law.uga.edu
Advocacy teams capture two national titles among other honors
eorgia Law’s moot court and mock trial teams once again earned several top honors during the 2011–12 advocacy season, including two national championships, two regional crowns, domination at the state level and a top 10 ﬁnish internationally.
National Title: Buffalo-Niagara Mock Trial Competition Georgia Law took home the national championship trophy at the 8th Annual Buffalo-Niagara Mock Trial Competition. Representing Georgia Law were (l. to r.) third-year students B. Clarke Nash, Chadrick A. Mance, Samuel E. Meller and William F. Carter. In addition to capturing first place with his teammates, Nash won the Best Advocate Award.
Texas Bar Association National Trial Competition Securing the Region 5 championship title at this year’s Texas Bar Association National Trial Competition were third-year Georgia Law students Grace N. Witte (left) and Scott S. Eren. This is the third time in the past five years a team from Georgia Law has captured first place during the regional round of this tournament.
Intrastate Moot Court Competition Georgia Law continued its dominance in the Intrastate Moot Court Competition, taking home both the top trophy and the Best Brief Award. This is the seventh consecutive year UGA has won this tournament, which has teams from all five of the state’s law schools competing for top honors, and the ninth straight year it has earned the best brief title. This year’s championship team consisted of second-year students Tyler A. Dillard, Nicholas H. Howell and Emir Sehic.
National Title: Legal Ethics and Professionalism Moot Court Competition The school’s other national win of the season came at Mercer University School of Law’s Legal Ethics and Professionalism Moot Court Competition, where third-year students R. Tyler Fisher (left) and Miguel A. Trujillo secured first place. Trujillo also was named best oralist of the championship round.
ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition Georgia Law went undefeated through all five rounds and captured first place at the regional level of the American Bar Association National Appellate Advocacy Competition, held in Atlanta. The team consisted of (l. to r.) second-year students Nneka A. Egwuatu, Rory A. Weeks, who received an award for best oralist, and Emily A. Cook. The trio went on to finish as semifinalists during the national round of the competition.
Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot Georgia Law finished ninth in the world at this year’s Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot held in Vienna, Austria. Third-year students Melissa L. Bailey, Jennifer L. Case and Hillary L. Chinigo secured the top 10 finish against a field of more than 280 teams from almost 70 countries. They also recorded the second highest finish out of the 52 teams competing from the United States.
Negotiation team wins second national championship
eorgia Law captured its second national negotiation championship trophy in two years when it won the Robert R. Merhige, Jr. National Environmental Negotiation Competition this spring. Second-year students Christopher A. Knapik and Christopher S. Smith participated in several rounds of competition involving negotiations between governmental and private parties concerning current environmental law issues against teams from schools such as the Georgetown University Law Center and the Lewis & Clark Law School. Georgia Law also ﬁnished among the top eight teams in the country at the Transactional LawMeet held at Drexel University in March. Third-year students Rachel E. Hudgins and Meghan R. Plantz represented an executive in the negotiation of a hypothetical employment contract and tied for third place with their draft term sheet as part of the written portion of the tournament. Prior to advancing to the national round, this pair ﬁnished in second place at the southeastern regionals, which was hosted by Georgia Law in Athens earlier in the year. “Transactional competitions, like advocacy tournaments, give law students a chance to hone their practical legal skills,” Business Law and Ethics Program Instructor Carol Morgan (J.D.’79) said.
Second-year students Christopher Knapik (left) and Christopher Smith brought home the national championship trophy from the Robert R. Merhige, Jr. National Environmental Negotiation Competition.
“Transactional competitions have emerged in recent years to provide opportunities for law students interested in transactional practice to build their drafting and negotiation skills. This experience is extremely valuable for our students to help them become more prepared for the practice of law,” she added.
Watch the ﬁnal round of the Merhige competition where Georgia Law captured the national championship at http://tinyurl.com/merhige2012.
Pledge-A-Day, support a fellowship Georgia Law students, in conjunction with the law school’s Office of Development, have created a new way to support classmates pursuing non-paid public interest work during the summer months. It is called Pledge-A-Day, and it is spearheaded by the Equal Justice Foundation. Combining this new pool of dollars with money raised during the annual EJF auction and other fundraising activities, this student group hopes to provide even more fellowships and/or increased monetary awards in the future.
For the last four years, approximately 12 students annually have received an EJF fellowship.
“… it is a clear expression of the unity and camaraderie that exists at the core of the law school student body.”
Pledge-A-Day campaign chair and second-year law student Mary Beth Martinez said encouraging students with paid summer employment to donate to other students who have volunteered to work for various public service organizations not only advances collegiality among the student body but also furthers the goal of giving back to the community. www.law.uga.edu
“EJF is the only student organization at Georgia Law that is devoted to giving money raised by students to students,” Martinez said. “And in that way, it is a clear expression of the unity and camaraderie that exists at the core of the law school student body. We are truly all in this together.”
Recent placements have included positions with the ACLU of Georgia, Advocates for the Children of New York, the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, the DeKalb County Child Advocacy Center, the Immigration Department of the Latin American Association, the South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Georgia and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
For information on how you can support Georgia Law students, please contact the law school’s Director of Annual Giving Phyllis Cooke at email@example.com or 706-542-7637. Advocate 2012
Jennifer W. McNeely: Advocating for change
hen recent graduate Jennifer W. McNeely was younger, a not-so-typical trip to a fast food restaurant sparked a passion in her that still holds signiﬁcance. “There was a woman there and she was trying to place an order, but she was deaf,” McNeely said. “I could see her frustration – where she was just trying to order food and how rude the cashier behind the counter was to her. I just thought how someone has to be able to stand up and say, ‘You can’t treat people like that. That’s wrong.’” This incident was one of the reasons she wanted to learn sign language and build a relationship with members of the hearing-impaired community. “These people are members of our society, and we need to make sure that we accommodate them and do what we can to make them feel just as normal as anyone else,” McNeely added. By becoming a sign language interpreter, attending silent dinners and participating in workshops to educate members of the deaf community about their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, McNeely knew advocating for the hearingimpaired would become one of her future responsibilities. “I wanted to pursue a law degree and be able to make a difference,” she said. “I know it is important to have someone in your corner who knows the ropes of the system.” McNeely’s current career plans lie in the political realm, where she aspires to ﬁnd a way to improve the treatment of disadvantaged people in our society. “Law and politics go hand-in-hand, and any signiﬁcant social
change must involve both,” she added. Speciﬁcally, she would like to do pro bono work on behalf of the hearingimpaired. “Whether it’s ensuring they have an interpreter when going to court or helping them ﬁle the proper forms with government agencies, I want to do my part in making sure they have someone on their side that cares about their interests,” McNeely said. But, her helping hands will not end there. She also desires to assist young ladies and older women transition into and readjust to the workforce, respectively. “With the economy as it is, there are many women who are being forced to reenter the workplace and lack current ofﬁce skill sets to market themselves,” she added. “There are also a number of high school girls graduating who have never owned a proper-ﬁtting suit or worked in corporate America, and they are looking for jobs in a very difﬁcult market.” Her goal is to equip women with the tools they will need to conﬁdently apply for jobs, through business attire donations, networking events and workshops. Because of the women who selﬂessly offered their time, talents and skills to shape her into the woman she has become, McNeely understands the importance of improving the quality of life for others. “I would not be the person I am today without the women in my life who have loved me, admonished me and taught me that no one is an island and everyone needs someone to care about them.”
David W. Mullens: From crocodiles to bulldogs
s a lover of “Matlock” and “Perry Mason” and a member of a politically passionate family, attending law school has always been an item on rising second-year student David W. Mullens’ to-do list. Mullens knew his skill set – ﬁghting for his beliefs and public speaking – would beneﬁt him in his quest to advocate for people and explore political issues, both of which have been important to him since childhood. Growing up in Tampico, Mexico, where he lived from age 5 to 15, Mullens was not able to play on a pee wee football team, but he did ﬁnd ways to have fun. “I grew up saying, ‘Hey mom, can I go throw coconuts at the crocodiles?’” he said. “I feel like it was a really cool childhood.” Unfortunately, he added, Tampico is not what it once was, as violence has destroyed the beauty for which the coastal city was once known.
John A. Eunice: Driven to make a difference
ising third-year student John A. Eunice grew up playing baseball, knowing there was nothing else he would rather be doing. “It gave me the opportunity to travel around to different ballparks, and there’s just nothing like the seventh-inning stretch. I loved it,” he said. Eunice’s plan was to go to college and play baseball. However, he underwent hand surgery during his freshman year of high school, which ended his dream of playing the game at a competitive level. “I had to ﬁnd something else to do,” he said. “I had the opportunity to live in Washington, D.C., for my junior year of high school and work for former Congressman and now Sen. Saxby Chambliss as his page. Following that awesome experience I got involved in a couple of local campaigns and decided I wanted to run for ofﬁce.” Elected at the age of 18 as an at-large councilman for the city of Valdosta, Ga., and becoming the youngest person ever elected to a city council in the Peach State, Eunice represented 50,000 people in his local governmental position while also attending Valdosta State University full-time and working for Coca-Cola Enterprises. During his second term on the city council, his colleagues elected him to be mayor pro tempore and represent the city in the absence of the mayor. After earning his undergraduate degree in public relations, Eunice accepted a full-time position with Coca-Cola and enrolled in Valdosta State’s graduate school to pursue a master’s in public administration. “I knew that I wanted to be involved in the public sector, and I felt that having that additional degree in public administration would help me with some areas that I wasn’t as strong in, such as budgeting and human resource management.” Most of Eunice’s public administration professors also held law degrees in addition to their doctoral degrees in public policy,
which gave Eunice a sense of how to bridge the gap between his interests in legislation and public service. “It really solidiﬁed in my mind that attending law school would be the best way for me to get a working knowledge of the law and how legislation affects people, in addition to being a more effective worker in the public sector.” Still serving on the Valdosta city council during his academic and occupational endeavors, Eunice decided to apply to law school, and Georgia Law was on the top of his list. “This school has such a rich history of success and of preparing people to be effective attorneys, whether it be in the corporate sector, the public sector or the private sector,” he said. “Athens is such a great town. The professors and the faculty here are second to none. There’s just nowhere else that I would want to be. I’m a Georgia boy, and this is home.” Other than passing the bar exam after law school, Eunice’s career goals are not set in stone, but he aspires to use his law degree to give back in some way. “I hope that people view me as someone who put the act of helping people at the forefront,” he said. “I hope that when I’m 50 or 60 years old that I can look back and say ‘I made a difference.’”
Mullens regards his expatriate upbringing as a signiﬁcant piece of his identity. So, when a study abroad trip to Spain became available during his undergraduate studies, Mullens jumped at the opportunity. “It was a full language immersion program and it really took my Spanish from street ﬂuency to business ﬂuency,” he said. “Spaniards are very different from people in Mexico, and it was just cool to experience that – a much older culture, for sure.” While adjusting to life as a law student presented its challenges, Mullens drew on his past experiences to help him excel. “Really getting immersed in the subject is vital to do well, especially going from undergrad to law school. That ﬁrst year is the big challenge,” he said. “You do well sometimes, and sometimes you learn how much more there is to know about the law.”
Coffee, ﬁrst and foremost, is a factor that keeps him focused on his studies. On a deeper level, having lived as both a ﬁrstand third-world child pushes him to seek a brighter future. “Anytime I think, ‘Oh man, this torts assignment will take forever’ or ‘I don’t know about this memo,’ I draw on where I’ve come from and where I’ve always wanted to go,” Mullens said. “That sounds very trite, but it’s also very true.” During law school, Mullens hopes to establish his craft and personal network to help propel him into the Georgia job market. “The big reason why I’m in law school is down the road I’d love to get involved behind the scenes and help affect policy,” he added. “I’m not naïve, I know that a lot of people go into it and it doesn’t always work out. But I’ve seen a society collapse, and those people were my neighbors. They were good people, and it could happen anywhere.”
—All proﬁles and photos by Crissinda M. Ponder
Photo by Dennis McDaniel
Photo by Dennis McDaniel
CLASS of 2012
Going the distance Serving as the keynote speaker at this year’s Commencement was Judge Richard W. Story (J.D.’78) of the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Story congratulated the graduates on their momentous accomplishment of earning a law degree, but reminded them that this is actually only a step toward their ultimate goal of ﬁnding their way into the legal profession. “It will be easy to become discouraged. It will be easy to question whether it is even worth it to continue the quest that you began three years ago,” Story said. “[G]oing the distance will not only be worth it, it is essential to all of us that you take your place in this honorable profession that we call the practice of law.” Story explained that the health of our system of justice is critical to the health of our nation, and it is up to new lawyers to take up the mantle of the profession to assure that the dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is passed on for generations to come. “People love to disparage lawyers and our entire system of justice. Yet, they often fail to see that it is the very system that preserves and protects their most basic freedoms,” Story said. “In this democracy that we enjoy, the courts are the ﬁnal defense when government seeks to abridge the rights of individuals.” And, Story added, the only way courts can function is through lawyers. “Pursue your professional dream by whatever means you choose … but never forget that you have a professional responsibility to protect the freedoms and rights of all people in this great land.” Watch Story’s presentation online at www.law.uga.edu/multimediagallery-recent-events.
Presenting Law School Association President-elect Santhia Curtis (J.D.’91) (left) and Dean Rebecca White (left center) with a check representing the 2012 class gift of $89,412 are Legacy Gift co-chairs Micah Engler and Rebekah McCorvey. This is the highest amount pledged since the program was started in 2000. Assisting the class in reaching its goal was an anonymous donor who matched the students’ pledges, dollar for dollar.
With a crowd of more than 2,500 attending graduation, it is not always easy to find your friends and family. Here, Connor Magill waves at the other members of his party.
View more photos from this year’s Commencement at www.law.uga.edu/photo-gallery.
Photo by Dennis McDaniel
Khaleedah Johnson is all smiles as she walks across the platform.
Photo by Dennis McDaniel
Faculty participate in the festivities, celebrating with former students as they transition from 3Ls to Georgia Law alumni. Shown here is (l. to r.) Associate Dean Dan Coenen with recent graduates Jim Wilson, Alex Shalishali and Thomas Whitley.
Part of what makes graduation so special is sharing it with family and friends. Here, Rachael Ivey (left) poses with her longtime friend Wei Wang after the ceremony.
Brittany Bolton (right) waits for the processional to begin with fellow classmates (l. to r.) Bailey Blair, Ben Brighton and Patrick Brooks.
Law School Life GJICL dedicates issue to Gabriel Wilner Photo by UGA Public Affairs’ Andrew Davis Tucker
The Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law dedicated its most recent edition, Vol. 39, No. 3, in memory of former Associate Dean and Kirbo Chair Gabriel Wilner. Wilner was instrumental in the formation of the journal and served as faculty adviser. Third-year law student and Editor-in-Chief Lindsey Green (left) and Rusk Center Director Don Johnson (J.D.’73) (center) presented a copy of the journal to Wilner’s wife, Gisele, during a ceremony in April.
Student groups give back This year, the Public Interest Law Council continued its tradition of helping coordinate a law school wide community service day to benefit local organizations such as the Butterfly Dreams Farm Therapeutic Riding Program. Pictured above is first-year student Lindsay Tatum. Several other student groups also participated in local programming throughout the year such as Street Law, whose members helped train high school students for the new Athens Peer Court. Watch videos about Georgia Law students giving back at www.law.uga.edu/multimedia-gallery-recent-events.
Garda speaks on student rights Robert Garda, an expert in education law from Loyola University New Orleans, visited Georgia Law during the spring where he discussed special education in charter schools as part of a lunch-time presentation and explored the benefits of diversity for white students during a lecture in the UGA Chapel. View more photos of law school events at www.law.uga.edu/photo-gallery.
Visits by alumni Georgia Law is fortunate to have a large number of alumni who return to campus to help equip the next generation of lawyers. Among the many visitors this year was Joey Loudermilk (J.D.’78),, general counsel for Aflac, who spoke to Associate Professor Usha Rodrigues’ Corporations class.
Kurtz and Wooten receive Scroll Awards A
ssociate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs Paul M. Kurtz and attorney Joel O. Wooten (J.D.’75) were presented with the Law School Association’s highest honor – the Distinguished Service Scroll Award – in June. Given at the alumni breakfast held in conjunction with the State Bar of Georgia Annual Meeting, this award recognizes dedication and service to the legal profession and the law school. Kurtz, who also holds a Hosch Professorship, will retire at the end of the 2012–13 academic year after almost 40 years of service to Georgia Law. He joined the law school faculty in 1975 as an assistant professor, and his core teaching load during his tenure primarily consisted of family law, criminal law and constitutional law (which was dropped when he became associate dean in 1991). In addition to overseeing academic programming and student life at the law school, Kurtz is the coauthor of Family Law: Cases, Text, Problems and author of Criminal Offenses in Georgia. He also serves as associate editor and is a board of editors member for Family Law Quarterly, where for many years he published his “Annual Survey of Periodical Literature.” Kurtz has long been active in the area of indigent defense and uniform state laws. He served on the 11-member Public Defender Standards Council from 2003 to 2009, and he currently represents Georgia in the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. He served two terms on the board of the UGA Athletic Association and served a number of terms on the University Council (the governing legislative body of the university), where he chaired its executive committee. He has been a UGA Senior Foundation Fellow, where he mentored recipients of the university’s highest undergraduate scholarship. Additionally Kurtz chaired the Meigs Selection Committee that recently www.law.uga.edu
named the winners of the university’s highest teaching honor. A well respected lawyer and counselor, Wooten has served as managing partner of the Butler, Wooten & Fryhofer law ﬁrm since it was founded in 1988. This Georgia Law alumnus is a trial lawyer with experience as lead counsel handling all types of civil litigation including class actions, environmental cases, business litigation, product liability and trucking cases. Very active in the legal community, Wooten has served in numerous leadership positions with the State Bar of Georgia, the Columbus Bar Association and the American Bar Association, and he was a founding member of the Georgia Center for Law in the Public Interest. His law school service includes serving on both of the law school’s alumni boards – the Law School Association Council (1997–99) and the Board of Visitors (present member). He served as chair of the University System of Georgia Board of Regents for the 2004–05 term and was a member of the board from 1999 to 2006. Wooten was honored by the state bar with its Tradition of Excellence Award in 2000, by the ABA with its National Constabar Leader of the Year Award in 1993 and by GreenLaw with its Ogden Doremus Award for Excellence in Environmental Law in 2007. He has also been named one of Georgia Trend’s “100 Most Inﬂuential Georgians” and a Georgia Super Lawyer.
“… this award recognizes dedication and service to the legal profession and the law school.”
Robert P. Hall III: Advancing energy for a brighter tomorrow
obert P. “Rob” Hall III (J.D.’85) has always been driven by a strong desire to serve others, and he believed a law degree would give him the ability to fulﬁll that desire on a larger scale. “As I watched the leaders of my community, a number of those who were helping people had law degrees or had pursued college degrees and professional degrees, and I felt that by following a similar path I could be of some help to the broader community,” Hall said. After a two-year stint as an attorney in Savannah, Ga., Hall headed to Washington, D.C., to serve as legislative counsel to then-U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn. In his next career move, Hall took advantage of an opportunity to work for the National Retail Federation, the world’s largest retail trade association, as its international trade counsel. There, he addressed international trade issues ranging from the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization Agreement to international labor standards and sweatshop prevention. Hall then found employment in the energy industry, which later led him to his current executive counsel position with General Electric, where he leads the corporation’s energy lobbying for the United States. As “energy vendors,” GE Energy builds power plants, cleans water with membrane technology and is heavily involved with renewable energy – solar and wind.
“We are trying to promote policies that help those industries along and also work with our customers to try to understand public policy impacts on them and on us, too, to do business,” he added. Recently, Hall has been working on understanding the phenomenon of shale gas – natural gas that has been discovered through new drilling techniques. “We’re trying to ensure that the laws that are there allow companies to continue to produce natural gas, which is great for the economy as it helps lower fuel costs and provides fewer emissions. Plus, natural gas is a cleaner fuel than other fossil fuels,” he said. Hall added that GE is also delving into the digital energy space and working on the power grid in terms of transmission and distribution. However, he said lobbyists face scrutiny from the public and it can be difﬁcult to successfully petition the government for change. “In general, although there have been a very few rotten apples in the lobbying industry over the years, some members of the public have developed unfavorable opinions about all lobbyists, and that’s really unfortunate,” he said. According to Hall, because of federal government budget constraints – true for anyone working in policy in D.C. – the energy industry faces challenges when attempting to implement innovative techniques for energy production. “Anything that moves in Congress, they have to ﬁnd new money to pay for it,” Hall said. “We have to be creative about ﬁnding ways to shut down ineffective programs or move some money around from other places to try to do something to help us grow the economy. It’s all about tax shifting, cost shifting or cost sharing.” Finding new money is a skill in which Hall prides himself, which translates into his community outreach. “Through a lot of church and charity work I’ve done over the years, I’ve been a successful fundraiser,” he said. Hall led a campaign that raised $9 million to build a kitchen for Food & Friends, a D.C.-based organization that prepares and delivers more than 1,500 specialized meals and groceries per day – in conjunction with nutrition counseling – to men, women and children living with HIV/AIDS, cancer and other life-challenging illnesses. “I’m very proud of having accomplished that,” he added. “It’s the singular, most signiﬁcant thing I think I’ve done.” —Crissinda M. Ponder
Rishi R. Hingoraney: Lobbying for communicators
ishi R. Hingoraney (J.D.’02) came to Georgia Law with a deep interest in international law, which is why he originally moved to Washington, D.C., after graduation. However, once he was there, he began to explore alternative career paths. “I got a much better sense of the broad array of public policy careers that were available,” Hingoraney said. This exposure to public policy work landed him a job in media law. Hingoraney started out conducting legislative research for an association management company, and their biggest client was the National Newspaper Association – a trade association of more than 2,000 community papers nationwide. A short time later, he became a lobbyist on behalf of the NNA, working on First Amendment and small business issues on Capitol Hill. “From that, I really gained an interest in the intersection between media law and technology,” he added. This enthusiasm led Hingoraney to a position with the Association of Public Television Stations, an organization whose membership was undergoing a digital transition during his employment. He helped APTS member stations get their content online and develop their mobile platforms, and he also worked on legislation dealing with transformative technology issues familiar to the mass communication industry. This previous work experience blazed a trail for the National Public Radio lobbyist career Hingoraney enjoys today. He represents NPR and its 800-plus member stations before federal agencies and Congress by pushing the organization’s legislative agenda forward and protecting stations from harmful legislation. “The great thing about NPR is that I am able to marry my interests in new newsgathering efforts and new technology,” Hingoraney said. “Our broadcast content reaches 34 million listeners a week, but we are also very aggressive about getting our content online and out through mobile platforms. I was able to put my experience from newspapers and from the public television folks toward helping NPR and our member stations in getting their content out on multiple platforms. It really is an exciting time.”
Of the signiﬁcant challenges facing the public radio industry, Hingoraney cites two major obstacles – one of them is preserving federal funding. “We’ve been working with members of Congress to educate them about the importance of public radio and how important it is to have a federal investment in local stations,” he said. The other challenge is assisting stations with delivering their content via multiple platforms without the threat of copyright and intellectual property issues. Distributing music through broadcast and online channels and placing content online can raise several “thorny and complex intellectual property issues,” and these issues consume much of his time, according to Hingoraney. He also works to help promote more wireless broadband deployment. “In order to have a seamless audio experience through mobile platforms you need to have a really good mobile wireless network,” he explained. His advice to others looking to pursue nontraditional legal employment – it is okay to step outside of your comfort zone. In fact, he says one of his greatest accomplishments was being able to chart his own path after law school. “Be prepared to do things that you weren’t trained to do in law school and be prepared to do things for a little while that don’t look like practicing law,” Hingoraney added. “Eventually you’ll realize that the skills that you’ve acquired in law school at Georgia will help you tremendously along the way. “Law school taught me how to build an argument, how to anticipate my opponent’s arguments and how to think on my feet,” he said. “I think those are really, really valuable skills for a lobbyist to have.” —Crissinda M. Ponder
Joan E. Prittie: Helping victims of domestic violence
or Joan E. Prittie (J.D.’93), working in the ﬁeld of domestic violence is a calling, despite its challenges. “Domestic violence is an underreported phenomenon, and although there is much more recognition and understanding of it in today’s climate than there has been in earlier years, that is still a main issue – trying to help people understand the prevalence and the signiﬁcance,” Prittie said. Her ﬁrst real exposure to domestic violence came when she worked as an attorney with the Prisoner Legal Counseling Project, which operated from 1972 to 1996. It was there she worked on the legal side of the issue by producing clemency petitions for battered women who had killed their abusers. Seeing a great need in this area, she and PLCP colleague Maureen Cahill (J.D.’79), who is now the student services librarian at Georgia Law, began looking into the cases of women who were in Georgia prisons for harming or killing their assaulters – at the request of the Georgia Commission on Family Violence. This work formalized into the Battered Women’s Clemency Project, which received support from Georgia Law during the mid-1990s and allowed Prittie’s team to recruit law students to assist with the investigation and preparation of the petitions. Prittie credits this immersion in clemency work for her broad knowledge of domestic violence. “I had to do a great deal of study in order to do that project, because I had had little experience or real knowledge of it prior to that,” she said. Unfortunately, a Supreme Court decision overruling an opinion regarding court access for indigent inmates caused the Prisoner Legal Counseling Project to close down. When contemplating her next career move, Prittie decided to approach domestic violence from a different angle. “I realized that one of the most gratifying aspects of the work that I did as an attorney for the prison project was often talking people out of utilizing the legal system,” she said. “A lot of what I found to be particularly satisfying was not always the practice of law but, sometimes, the non-practice of law.” Knowing she wanted to be a part of the mission to prevent people from committing the crimes that led to prison sentences in the ﬁrst place, Prittie looked for work in the nonproﬁt sector, which eventually led her to her current position as executive director of Project Safe.
This Athens-based organization, dedicated to preventing domestic violence, provides advocacy and systems change work, crisis intervention, education and prevention programs and ongoing supportive services for survivors of domestic violence and their children. “I’m chief fundraiser and CEO and head of sanitation and repair,” she said. “I work with a wonderful board of directors to oversee the direction of an organization that is multifaceted.” In 2010, she was recognized for her work at Project Safe with the Sunshine Peace Award. She was one of only 15 recipients across the nation to receive the award, which honors individuals who develop resources and facilitate the social change necessary to end violence against women and children. Prittie said the challenges present in the domestic violence prevention ﬁeld range from awareness and education – understanding why violence occurs and how to prevent it – to adequate federal and state funding. “We have done a good job of criminalizing the behavior and providing for criminal sanctions, but that does not always do the trick,” she said. While she is proud of what Project Safe has accomplished during her 13-year tenure, Prittie recognizes there is more work to be done. “We need to culturally look beyond criminal law to ﬁnd ‘What else is there?’” she said. “There are different causes to domestic violence, and so I think we need to continue to pursue partnerships between researchers and practitioners to really ﬁgure out a more nuanced understanding and, therefore, a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to trying to stop violence. We then need to work further with policymakers to implement those ﬁndings.” —Crissinda M. Ponder
2011 grads inducted into the Order of the Coif
nduction into the Order of the Coif is one of the highest honors one can receive from their law school. It signiďŹ es the highest academic achievement in the study of law and is awarded to those who graduate in the top 10 percent of their class.
The Class of 2011 Order of the Coif members are: (front, l. to r.) Austin Roberson, Lori Chriss, Ashley Frazier, Whitney Livengood, Meredith Macon, Texys Morris, (back, l. to r.) Patrick Schwedler, Jason Sheppard, Joshua Silk, Philip Thompson, Jennifer Virostko and Brendan White as well as (not shown) Julie Burke, Ryan Burke, Thomas Clarkson, Catherine Curlet, Tanner Ivie, John Little, Meredith Lee, Amanda McCallum, Charlotte Murphy, Andrew Pinson and Christopher Trant. Helping recognize this yearâ€™s inductees were Associate Professor Erica Hashimoto (front, far left), Associate Dean Paul Kurtz (front, far right) and Dean Rebecca White (front, second from right).
A report from development
1. The lottery-funded HOPE scholarship does not apply to law students.
My decision to go to law school was based on my firmly held belief that all issues that are important in society ultimately become legal issues and that my desire to help others could best be accomplished by using a legal education to translate the hopes and fears of people into judicially cognizable language and, thus, be a lawyer.
3. In-state tuition and fees for law students (excluding books and living expenses) are almost $18,000 per year.
My desire to attend Georgia Law was based on two facts: It was the best law school in Georgia and, as the state school, it was the only one I could afford. In the spring of 1983, I graduated from our law school and returned to my hometown of Tifton, Ga., to practice law and to put into action my desire to help others solve their legal problems. Today, in the spring of 2012, I have returned to our law school to work with our alumni and friends to raise the financial support that will be needed to educate the next generation of lawyers to take our place as stewards of the justice system. To help educate and prepare the lawyers of the future is the only reason that I could have been rooted out of my beloved Tifton â€“ where I graduated from high school, where Leah and I raised our three children and where I have been an active attorney for almost 30 years. Plain and simple â€“ it takes money to help prepare the next generation of lawyers to whom we shall pass the baton of justice stewardship. That is why I am here. That is why I am asking you to help our law school. This is the place that taught you the critical and analytical thinking skills you have needed to become a success in your chosen profession. And, here are some important facts for you to consider:
2. Funding from the state cannot be used for scholarships.
Please join me in giving back to our law school in one or more of the following ways: t5IFNPTUJNNFEJBUFBOEDSJUJDBMOFFETBSFHJGUTUPUIF-BX4DIPPM Fund (aka the annual fund). Annual fund dollars raised this year are used next year for scholarships and other student-related support. t"NBKPSHJGUJTBPOFUJNFHJGUPSBHJGUQBJEPWFSTFWFSBMZFBSTUIBUXJMM fund a scholarship or other needed student-related purpose on its own. As the donor, you tell us how you want your money used. t"QMBOOFEHJGUDPNFTGSPNZPVSFTUBUFBTTFUTPSMJGFJOTVSBODFQSPDFFETUIBUXJMM honor your legacy and continue to help students. Many of you reading this article already understand the financial needs of the law school and realize that you have a duty to give back to the institution that sharpened and refined your skills to become the professional person you are today. To you, I say â€œthank you.â€? To everyone else, I say â€œplease join us in support of our law school and its students of today and tomorrow.â€? Our law school has been serving this state and the legal profession for more than 150 years. It is our turn to keep it strong if we expect great things of the next generation of lawyers to whom we will pass the responsibility of stewarding and shepherding our system of justice. Please call or e-mail the development office today to discuss how you want to invest in the future of our law school and the lawyers it will produce. â€”Senior Director of Development Gregory C. â€œGregâ€? Sowell (J.D.â€™83)
Photo by Dennis McDaniel
Law School Life
7th Annual Georgia Law Alumnae Evening U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Sally Quillian Yates (J.D.’86) (right) delivered the keynote address at this year’s alumnae evening. During her presentation, she discussed the progress women have made in the legal profession but cautioned that there are still big issues out there that need to be addressed, such as human trafficking.
Joseph Henry Lumpkin Society Georgia Law coordinates two functions each year in special recognition of its Joseph Henry Lumpkin Society members (annual donors of $1000 or more to the law school). Among those attending the fall Champagne and Strawberries Reception were U.S. District Court Judge Steve Jones (J.D.’88) (left) and Law School Association Council President J. Tom Morgan (J.D.’80) (right). Additionally, Herbert Short (J.D.’85) and his wife, Lisa, hosted the JHLS Spring Twilight Affair at their home in Atlanta.
Among those enjoying the evening were 2009 classmates (top, l. to r.) Jahnisa Tate, Carolina Bryant and Suzannah Gill. Watch Yates’ presentation online at www.law.uga.edu/multimedia-gallery-recent-events.
Regional alumni receptions Alumni in New York City and Washington, D.C., as well as those in the Georgia cities of Columbus, Macon and LaGrange, had the opportunity to gather and reconnect at Georgia Law regional events. Shownn here at the home of Ken (J.D.’78) and Chris Henson in Columbus are: (l. to r.) Bunky (J.D.’60) and Cherry Pease, se Mike Hipps (J.D.’75), Caroline Castle (J.D.’04) and Betty Hipps.
Class Notes Notables In an effort to provide Class Notes listings in a timely manner, this editorial section now only appears in its entirety in the law school’s quarterly electronic newsletter, News@GeorgiaLaw, and online. Below are some Class Notes “notables” from April 2011 to April 2012. For a full listing, please visit www.law.uga.edu/alumni.
21st Annual Law School BBQ The law school’s BBQ always draws a crowd that ranges from newborns to old, familiar faces, and this year was no exception. Above, a trio of Georgia Law legends were photographed together – (l. to r.) Dean Emeritus Ralph Beaird, Carter Chair Emeritus Perry Sentell (LL.B.’58) and Callaway Chair Emeritus Verner Chaffin (LL.B.’42).
Georgia Law midyear events For the second year in a row, Georgia Law held its midyear alumni reception and breakfast in the Classic City. Participating in the festivities were (l. to r.) Kevin Sweat (J.D.’10), Kristin Lowry (J.D.’07), Scott Lowry (J.D.’07) and Kevin Epps (J.D.’08).
View more photos from this year’s alumni events at www.law.uga.edu/photo-gallery.
Luis A. Aguilar (1979) of Atlanta, GA, was sworn in for his second term as a member of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Wayne R. Allen (1992) of Douglasville, GA, was elected by the Legislative Services Committee as legislative counsel for the Georgia General Assembly. Hubert J. Bell Jr. (1981) of Atlanta, GA, was appointed by the Georgia Supreme Court to a five-year term on the Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution and was appointed by the president of the state bar to a third three-year term on the Investigative Panel of the State Disciplinary Board. Lisa R. Blanco (1998) of Atlanta, GA, has joined Energy Technology Ventures, a joint venture between GE, NRG Energy and ConocoPhillips, as general counsel and chief compliance officer. Susan R. Boltacz (1980) of Atlanta, GA, who is the group vice president and director of tax information reporting at SunTrust Bank, was appointed by the Internal Revenue Service as a member of its Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee. Emmet J. Bondurant II (1960) of Atlanta, GA, was selected to receive the 2011 American Inns of Court Lewis F. Powell Jr. Award for Professionalism and Ethics. Valerie Caproni (1979) of Washington, D.C., was appointed vice president and deputy general counsel, litigation and investigations for the global security company Northrop Grumman Corp. George H. Carley (1962) of Decatur, GA, plans to retire in July after more than 30 years of service on the bench. He will serve as chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court before stepping down, which will allow him to make history as being the first judge in Georgia to serve as presiding judge and chief judge of the state Court of Appeals and presiding justice and chief justice of the state Supreme Court. Aaron Cohn (1938) of Columbus, GA, the nation’s longest serving juvenile court judge, retired in September at the age of 95 after more than 45 years on the bench. Ertharin Cousin (1982) of Chicago, IL, was appointed executive director of the United Nations World Food Programme. J. Griffin Doyle (1979) of Athens, GA, was named UGA’s vice president for government relations. Neil C. Gordon (1979) of Atlanta, GA, was elected president of the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees. Jack N. Halpern (1975) of Atlanta, GA, received the Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Goldstein Human Relations Award for his commitment to promoting economic development in Atlanta’s minority business community as well as his long history of philanthropy in the Jewish community. John P. Jett (2008) of Atlanta, GA, was appointed to the national board of the Young Lawyers Division of the Federal Bar Association. Weyman T. Johnson Jr. (1979) of Athens, GA, was elected as chairman and president of the Multiple Sclerosis International Federation. Stanley S. Jones Jr. (1977) of Atlanta, GA, received the Sandy Brandt Volunteer Service Award from Mental Health America in recognition of his 40 years of dedicated service. Steve C. Jones (1988) of Atlanta, GA, was selected to serve as president of the UGA Alumni Association for 2011–13. Mark A. Lewis (1992) of Bozeman, MT, has been named the NCAA’s executive vice president for championships and alliances. Barbara Mendel Mayden (1976) of Nashville, TN, has been nominated to serve on the American Bar Association’s board of governors as a representative of the ABA Sections. John C. Pridgen (1975) of Cordele, GA, served as the 2011–12 president of the Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia. W. Scott Sorrels (1984) of Alpharetta, GA, has received the 2011 Silver Buffalo Award, the Boy Scouts of America’s highest commendation that is given to individuals who contribute noteworthy and extraordinary youth service on a national basis.
letters to classmates… EXCERPTS FROM REUNION COMMITTEE MEMBERS
instant In a society that places increasing importance on t and information, we should take time to pause, to reflec ce to do just to remember. Our 25th reunion gives us a chan l days. All that. All of us have memories of our law schoo s. All of us have memories of us have memories of our law school classmate mber sitting in the back of our law school professors. For me, I vividly reme ing a Coke during Georgia row of Classroom F eating Peanut M&Ms and drink enough to take a class from Practice, all the while wondering why I was dumb whenever I eat Peanut M&Ms Dean Ellington during my third year. To this day, called upon in that class. and drink a Coke, I think of my efforts to avoid being —Stephen L. “Steve” Cummings, Class of 1987
It’s hard to believe we graduated from our beloved law school 50 years ago this year! —Justice George H. Carley, Class of 1962
I remember the quality of our professors, not just our first year, but throughout law school. In thinking back to those days, it occurred to me that I never thank ed them or the administration for providing us with these excel lent professors. It’s a little late, but thank you. —Steven L. Beard, Class of 1977
November 2 & 3, 2012 s School of Law s Athens, Ga.
For the classes of 1957, 1962, 1967, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2007.
[M]y time both in and out of the classroom at Georgia Law left me with lifelong friends. We saw each other through good times and bad . and continue to do so out here in the real world —Christopher M. Gant, Class of 2007
Is it possible that 35 years have passed since our graduation from law school? With great fondness, I remember that day in June when we received our diplomas in the Fine Arts Building. Stan Jones was the president of our class. Jack Watson gave our commencement address. It was a day of celebration and excitement. —David B. Bell, Class of 1977
To learn more about Reunion Weekend or to register to attend, please visit www.law.uga.edu/upcoming-alumni-events.
Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage
PAID Permit No. 165 Athens, GA
Michael F. Adams UGA President firstname.lastname@example.org Tom S. Landrum UGA Senior Vice President for External Affairs email@example.com Rebecca Hanner White School of Law Dean firstname.lastname@example.org
Why I Support Georgia Law… “to preserve and improve our great law school for future generations.”
Charles B. Haygood Jr. (J.D.’66) Haygood, Lynch, Harris, Melton & Watson Forsyth, Ga.
I am privileged to have received both my undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Georgia. During my seven years in Athens, I was exposed to world class teachers in a great environment that prepared me well for my career in law. Even before graduation, I made a promise to myself that I would give back to the university that gave me so much. My giving to Georgia Law began soon after my three children graduated from college. Making only small gifts at first, I gradually escalated my giving to the Joseph Henry Lumpkin Society level. I look upon my gifts as a solid investment toward the future of the law school. I am honored to have been selected as a member of the Law School Association Council in 2008. Serving on the council has made me aware of the significant impact alumni contributions play in making our law school even better. For example, I have learned that public dollars cannot be used for scholarships. Alumni donations to the Law School Fund (also known as the annual fund) help provide scholarship support for deserving students who would otherwise receive no financial assistance. As these annual fund dollars are used to attract and support bright and deserving students, Georgia Law is strengthened which, in turn, enhances the value and reputation of my own law degree. We all have heard the saying, “Give until it feels good.” Well, I definitely get a good feeling each year when I contribute to Georgia Law – I have seen firsthand the results of alumni giving. On several occasions, I have had the opportunity to meet many of our scholarship students, and I can assure you they are confident, extremely bright and grounded. I urge all Georgia Law alumni and friends to join me in making annual contributions to the Law School Fund in order to preserve and improve our great law school for future generations.
To join those who already support Georgia Law by making a gift to the Law School Fund, please contact Phyllis Cooke, director of annual giving, at 706-542-7637 or email@example.com or visit our website, www.law.uga.edu/giving, to make your gift online.