Offerings

Key:
+ subject to prerequisites, co-requisites, exclusions, or professor permission
1L first year required course
a extends over more than one quarter
c/l cross listed
e first-year elective
l Lecturer-taught seminar/simulation class
m seminar
p meets the professional responsibility/ethics requirement
r papers may meet substantial research paper (SRP) graduation requirement
s meets the professional skills requirement
u simulation class
w may meet writing project (WP) graduation requirement
x offering available for bidding
(#) the number of Law School credit hours earned for successful completion
  • Greenberg Seminar: Redistribution in America and Abroad

    LAWS 95902 - 05 (1) a, x
    The redistribution of resources is perhaps the most important -- and controversial -- task of government. In this seminar, we will consider redistribution both in America and abroad. The following are some of the issues we will examine: What circumstances prompt governments around the world to engage in redistribution? Is redistribution an effective or feasible response to rising inequality? What are the economic costs and benefits of redistribution? How do the affluent prevent greater redistribution in democracies given their relatively small numbers? The materials we will cover include works by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, Lawrence Lessig, and Thomas Piketty. Graded Pass/Fail.
    Autumn 2014
    Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Michael Albertus
  • Greenberg Seminar: Redistribution in America and Abroad

    LAWS 95902 - 05 a
    The redistribution of resources is perhaps the most important -- and controversial -- task of government. In this seminar, we will consider redistribution both in America and abroad. The following are some of the issues we will examine: What circumstances prompt governments around the world to engage in redistribution? Is redistribution an effective or feasible response to rising inequality? What are the economic costs and benefits of redistribution? How do the affluent prevent greater redistribution in democracies given their relatively small numbers? The materials we will cover include works by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, Lawrence Lessig, and Thomas Piketty. Graded Pass/Fail.
    Winter 2015
    Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Michael Albertus
  • Greenberg Seminar: Redistribution in America and Abroad

    LAWS 95902 - 05 a
    The redistribution of resources is perhaps the most important -- and controversial -- task of government. In this seminar, we will consider redistribution both in America and abroad. The following are some of the issues we will examine: What circumstances prompt governments around the world to engage in redistribution? Is redistribution an effective or feasible response to rising inequality? What are the economic costs and benefits of redistribution? How do the affluent prevent greater redistribution in democracies given their relatively small numbers? The materials we will cover include works by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, Lawrence Lessig, and Thomas Piketty. Graded Pass/Fail.
    Spring 2015
    Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Michael Albertus
  • Greenberg Seminar: Villains: Real and Imaginary

    LAWS 95902 - 07 (1) a, x
    There can be no heroes without villains, whether in literature, popular media, or the law. This seminar explores real and imaginary villains: how such villains are created, who creates them, and how these so-called villains experience their vilification. In particular, we consider villains in the corporate and government contexts — the evil CEO, the corrupt politician, the unscrupulous lobbyist — and how they are portrayed (or mis-portrayed) in films, newspapers, and novels. We will meet on Wednesday evenings throughout the year. Graded Pass/Fail.
    Autumn 2014
    Anthony Casey, Jennifer Nou
  • Greenberg Seminar: Villains: Real and Imaginary

    LAWS 95902 - 07 a
    There can be no heroes without villains, whether in literature, popular media, or the law. This seminar explores real and imaginary villains: how such villains are created, who creates them, and how these so-called villains experience their vilification. In particular, we consider villains in the corporate and government contexts — the evil CEO, the corrupt politician, the unscrupulous lobbyist — and how they are portrayed (or mis-portrayed) in films, newspapers, and novels. We will meet on Wednesday evenings throughout the year. Graded Pass/Fail.
    Winter 2015
    Anthony Casey, Jennifer Nou
  • Greenberg Seminar: Villains: Real and Imaginary

    LAWS 95902 - 07 a
    There can be no heroes without villains, whether in literature, popular media, or the law. This seminar explores real and imaginary villains: how such villains are created, who creates them, and how these so-called villains experience their vilification. In particular, we consider villains in the corporate and government contexts — the evil CEO, the corrupt politician, the unscrupulous lobbyist — and how they are portrayed (or mis-portrayed) in films, newspapers, and novels. We will meet on Wednesday evenings throughout the year. Graded Pass/Fail.
    Spring 2015
    Anthony Casey, Jennifer Nou
  • Greenberg Seminar: Wine and the Law

    LAWS 95902 - 06 (1) a, x
    This seminar will consider the law and politics of wine production and regulation in the US and elsewhere. There will be an empirical research component. Graded Pass/Fail.
    Autumn 2014
    Tom Ginsburg, Jonathan Masur
  • Greenberg Seminar: Wine and the Law

    LAWS 95902 - 06 a
    This seminar will consider the law and politics of wine production and regulation in the US and elsewhere. There will be an empirical research component. Graded Pass/Fail.
    Winter 2015
    Tom Ginsburg, Jonathan Masur
  • Greenberg Seminar: Wine and the Law

    LAWS 95902 - 06 a
    This seminar will consider the law and politics of wine production and regulation in the US and elsewhere. There will be an empirical research component. Graded Pass/Fail.
    Spring 2015
    Tom Ginsburg, Jonathan Masur
  • Health Law and Policy

    LAWS 78801 - 01 (3) c/l, w
    This course will explore various policies that underlie regulation of the provision of health care in the United States. We will begin with an examination of the principal government programs for financing the delivery of health care in America -- Medicare and Medicaid. This first third of the course will focus on how these programs seek to resolve the tension between controlling costs, promoting quality, and assuring access. We will next address other federal legislation affecting the delivery of health care, including the Affordable Care Act. We will then move to a consideration of policy issues relating to managed care organizations, including the functioning of these organizations and the impact of ERISA on their actions. Next, we will explore issues relating to the behavior of physicians, hospitals, and nursing homes. This exploration will focus on the impact of the antitrust, labor, and tax laws on these entities. The goal of the course is to expose the student to the conflicting law and policy issues that impact on the delivery of health in this country. The grade will be based on a final written paper or an in-class examination – depending on how many students enroll. (11/10/14 update: There will be not be an exam as too few students elected that option.) Class participation will also be taken into account.
    Autumn 2014
    Jack Bierig
  • Hinton Moot Court Competition

    LAWS 99911 - 01 a, w
    The Hinton Moot Court Competition is open to all second- and third-year students (except those third-year students who made it to the semi-finals during the previous year). The competition provides students the opportunity to develop skills in writing and appellate advocacy. Moot Court participants advance through three rounds. The Fall Round: The focus of the preliminary round is on oral argument—no brief writing is required at this stage. After studying the briefs and record of an actual case and participating in practice arguments with student judges, each competitor must argue both sides of the case to panels of local alumni attorneys. Approximately 12-14 students advance to the semi-final (Winter) round. The Winter Round: The students who have advanced to the semi-final round must brief and argue a new case during the Winter quarter. A panel of faculty members judge the semi-final arguments and select the four best advocates on the basis of their written and oral advocacy skills. Semifinalists are recognized as winners of the Mulroy Prize for Excellence in Appellate Advocacy. The Spring Round: The four finalists work in teams of two on another new case during the Spring quarter. A panel of distinguished judges, usually federal appellate judges, presides at the final argument before the Law School community. The winning team is awarded the Hinton Cup; the runners-up are awarded the Llewellyn Cup. Students participating in the semifinal round may be eligible for three pass/fail credits and may satisfy the WP graduation requirement. Please see the Student Handbook for additional details.
    Autumn 2014
  • Hinton Moot Court Competition

    LAWS 99911 - 01 (0 to 3) +, a, w
    The Hinton Moot Court Competition is open to all second- and third-year students (except those third-year students who made it to the semi-finals during the previous year). The competition provides students the opportunity to develop skills in writing and appellate advocacy. Moot Court participants advance through three rounds. The Fall Round: The focus of the preliminary round is on oral argument—no brief writing is required at this stage. After studying the briefs and record of an actual case and participating in practice arguments with student judges, each competitor must argue both sides of the case to panels of local alumni attorneys. Approximately 12-14 students advance to the semi-final (Winter) round. The Winter Round: The students who have advanced to the semi-final round must brief and argue a new case during the Winter quarter. A panel of faculty members judges the semi-final arguments and selects the four best advocates on the basis of their written and oral advocacy skills. Semifinalists are recognized as winners of the Mulroy Prize for Excellence in Appellate Advocacy. The Spring Round: The four finalists work in teams of two on another new case during the Spring quarter. A panel of distinguished judges, usually federal appellate judges, presides at the final argument before the Law School community. The winning team is awarded the Hinton Cup; the runners-up are awarded the Llewellyn Cup. Students participating in the semifinal round may be eligible for three pass/fail credits and may satisfy the WP graduation requirement. Please see the Student Handbook for additional details.
    Winter 2015
    Daniel Abebe, Elizabeth Duquette, Richard H. McAdams
  • Hinton Moot Court Competition

    LAWS 99911 - 01 (0 to 3) +, a, w
    The Hinton Moot Court Competition is open to all second- and third-year students (except those third-year students who made it to the semi-finals during the previous year). The competition provides students the opportunity to develop skills in writing and appellate advocacy. Moot Court participants advance through three rounds. The Fall Round: The focus of the preliminary round is on oral argument—no brief writing is required at this stage. After studying the briefs and record of an actual case and participating in practice arguments with student judges, each competitor must argue both sides of the case to panels of local alumni attorneys. Approximately 12-14 students advance to the semi-final (Winter) round. The Winter Round: The students who have advanced to the semi-final round must brief and argue a new case during the Winter quarter. A panel of faculty members judges the semi-final arguments and selects the four best advocates on the basis of their written and oral advocacy skills. Semifinalists are recognized as winners of the Mulroy Prize for Excellence in Appellate Advocacy. The Spring Round: The four finalists work in teams of two on another new case during the Spring quarter. A panel of distinguished judges, usually federal appellate judges, presides at the final argument before the Law School community. The winning team is awarded the Hinton Cup; the runners-up are awarded the Llewellyn Cup. Students participating in the semifinal round may be eligible for three pass/fail credits and may satisfy the WP graduation requirement. Please see the Student Handbook for additional details.
    Spring 2015
  • History of Civil Liberties in the United States

    LAWS 70707 - 01 (3) c/l, m, r, w, x
    This seminar examines changing understandings of civil liberties in American legal history. It emphasizes legal and ideological contests over the meaning of free speech, religious freedom, and reproductive rights during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Readings explore the intersection between legal struggles and broader developments in social, cultural, and political history, with a particular focus on the labor, civil rights, and feminist movements. The grade is based on a final written paper and class participation.
    Spring 2015
    Laura Weinrib
  • Housing Initiative Clinic

    LAWS 95013 - 01 (1 to 3) a, s
    The Housing Initiative is a transactional clinic in which students provide legal representation to community-based housing developers, tenant groups, and other parties involved in affordable housing development. Students serve as deal lawyers, advising clients on structuring issues; negotiating, drafting and reviewing construction loan documents, construction contracts, purchase and sale agreements, partnership agreements, and other contracts; securing zoning and other governmental approvals; assisting clients in resolving compliance issues under the applicable state and federal housing programs; and participating in the preparation of evidentiary and closing documents. Some of our work also involves community organizing and legislative and policy advocacy around affordable housing and public housing issues. In addition to working on specific transactions and projects, students in the Housing Initiative Clinic meet as a group in a weekly seminar in Autumn quarter, and periodically during Winter and Spring quarters, to discuss the substantive rules and legal skills pertinent to housing transactions and to examine emergent issues arising out of the students' work. During the Autumn quarter seminar, returning clinic students need only attend the first hour; new students should attend for the full two hours. Academic credit for the Housing Initiative Clinic varies and is awarded according to the Law School's general criteria for clinical courses as described in the Law School Announcements and by the approval of the clinical faculty.
    Autumn 2014
    Jeff Leslie
  • Housing Initiative Clinic

    LAWS 95013 - 01 (1 to 3) a, s
    The Housing Initiative is a transactional clinic in which students provide legal representation to community-based housing developers, tenant groups, and other parties involved in affordable housing development. Students serve as deal lawyers, advising clients on structuring issues; negotiating, drafting and reviewing construction loan documents, construction contracts, purchase and sale agreements, partnership agreements, and other contracts; securing zoning and other governmental approvals; assisting clients in resolving compliance issues under the applicable state and federal housing programs; and participating in the preparation of evidentiary and closing documents. Some of our work also involves community organizing and legislative and policy advocacy around affordable housing and public housing issues. In addition to working on specific transactions and projects, students in the Housing Initiative Clinic meet as a group in a weekly seminar in Autumn quarter, and periodically during Winter and Spring quarters, to discuss the substantive rules and legal skills pertinent to housing transactions and to examine emergent issues arising out of the students' work. During the Autumn quarter seminar, returning clinic students need only attend the first hour; new students should attend for the full two hours. Academic credit for the Housing Initiative Clinic varies and is awarded according to the Law School's general criteria for clinical courses as described in the Law School Announcements and by the approval of the clinical faculty.
    Winter 2015
    Jeff Leslie
  • Housing Initiative Clinic

    LAWS 95013 - 01 (1 to 3) a, s
    The Housing Initiative is a transactional clinic in which students provide legal representation to community-based housing developers, tenant groups, and other parties involved in affordable housing development. Students serve as deal lawyers, advising clients on structuring issues; negotiating, drafting and reviewing construction loan documents, construction contracts, purchase and sale agreements, partnership agreements, and other contracts; securing zoning and other governmental approvals; assisting clients in resolving compliance issues under the applicable state and federal housing programs; and participating in the preparation of evidentiary and closing documents. Some of our work also involves community organizing and legislative and policy advocacy around affordable housing and public housing issues. In addition to working on specific transactions and projects, students in the Housing Initiative Clinic meet as a group in a weekly seminar in Autumn quarter, and periodically during Winter and Spring quarters, to discuss the substantive rules and legal skills pertinent to housing transactions and to examine emergent issues arising out of the students' work. During the Autumn quarter seminar, returning clinic students need only attend the first hour; new students should attend for the full two hours. Academic credit for the Housing Initiative Clinic varies and is awarded according to the Law School's general criteria for clinical courses as described in the Law School Announcements and by the approval of the clinical faculty.
    Spring 2015
    Jeff Leslie
  • How to Avoid a Regulatory Nightmare: Compliance and Regulatory Strategies for the Post Crisis World

    LAWS 94814 - 01 (3) l, m, s, w, x
    Since the financial crisis of 2008, regulators and prosecutors around the world increasingly expect companies to have state of the art governance, risk and compliance programs as a condition for remaining in business and for avoiding liabilities for regulatory missteps. Increasingly, regulatory rules are becoming more complex and authorities are becoming more unforgiving, with stepped up efforts to secure criminal and civil penalties against companies, their executives, lawyers and auditors. For companies, such liability can at best result in plummeting share prices, and at worst the shutting down of an enterprise. For individuals, they can result in incarceration, fines, penalties and removal from the business. While many of the principles apply to all industries, the seminar will explore the regulatory and legal foundations for these programs primarily through the lens of the financial services sector, which includes banks, brokerage firms, investment companies and investment advisers. We will also explore how the design and execution of these programs can avoid or limit potential liabilities from regulatory and criminal authorities. From the perspective of a corporate executive or counsel, students will develop the ability to understand the fundamentals of regulatory regimes overseeing these businesses, as well as strategies for successfully engaging the regulators. Students will consider the steps a firm should take to mitigate regulatory and reputation risk, including the importance of an effective corporate ethics program, as well as how, in the process, a firm can enhance its brand, meet the expectations of its board of directors and create value for its shareholders. The grade is based on a final take-home exam, a short research paper and class participation.
    Spring 2015
    Charles Senatore
  • Human Rights and the Responsibility to Protect

    LAWS 96204 - 01 (2) m, x
    Despite its very recent development, the doctrine of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (RtP) is now a prominent normative framework in global governance. One of the most significant driving factors in its emergence has been despair about the international community’s failure to intervene in the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 and in the Srebenica Massacre in 1995. RtP doctrine rejects a Westphalian conception of state sovereignty, and is instead predicated upon the view that the sovereignty of state governments is conditional upon them neither perpetrating, nor allowing the perpetration of, certain kinds of egregious human rights abuses within their borders. In this seminar we will begin by surveying the recent history of RtP as a guiding normative framework in international law and politics, and considering some of the challenges that have arisen around the implementation of RtP. We will then investigate three sets of questions related to RtP – and though our questions will be theoretical, we will be aiming to respond to them in a way that is informed by empirical considerations. First, what should we make of the provocative claim that RtP mobilizes a set of parochially Western values, or that it is a pretext for powerful states to enact a neo-Colonialist agenda in Africa and the Middle East? Second, if we have rejected the first criticism, are there nevertheless in-principle reasons to doubt the effectiveness of RtP as a means of decreasing egregious humanitarian abuses in the long term? Third, does the emergence of RtP as a norm in global governance shed any light on the debate in Human Rights Theory, between those who think we must understand human rights primarily as institutional artefacts (i.e. proponents of the Political conception of Human rights), and those who think we can properly regard human rights as a species of natural rights (i.e. proponents of the Orthodox conception of Human Rights)? The grade is based on a final research paper (90%) and class participation (10%).
    Winter 2015
    Robert Simpson
  • Immigration Law

    LAWS 50001 - 01