DOCSLIB.ORG

The University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2003-2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Miscellaneous Law School Publications Law School History and Publications 2003 The niU versity of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2003-2004 University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/miscellaneous Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the Legal Education Commons Citation University of Michigan Law School, "The nivU ersity of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2003-2004" (2003). Miscellaneous Law School Publications. http://repository.law.umich.edu/miscellaneous/2 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School History and Publications at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Miscellaneous Law School Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Michigan Law School FACULTY 2003-2004 " l arrived at the U of M Law School itmnediately after finishing a Ph.D. in history with the hope and expectation that law school would constitute another major step in my intellectual growth, not just professional or vocational training in law as a trade. My expectations were more than met by the crew of humanistic intellectuals- not just historians but accomplished scholars in philosophy, literature, political theory, anthropology, psychology, and other fields - that made up a large part ofthe Michiganfaculty. In this atmosphere, the study of law 1 was the best sort of professional training, the kind that equipped me both to enter the profession at a high level-for me, a Supreme Court clerkship - and to get the critical perspective and intellectual training that prepared me for the academic position that 1 had aimed at front the start. " Get·ald F. Leonard, '95 Professor Boston University School of Law "As you listen to skilled attorneys and work with judges, you realize the kind of sophisticated, c01nplex understanding they have of what the law means and how it informs so many facets of society. They believe that, they express it, and their work is better for it. At Michigan, 1 had the opportunity to learn from and work with a faculty that was committed to helping students appreciate that kind of complexity." Abigail V. Carter·, '00 Associate, Bredhoff & Kaiser Washington, D.C. 2 E \ CULTY Layman E. Allen Layman E. Allen has been a pio­ drafting and interpretation of of games about logic, mathemat­ neer in the use of mathematical legal documents ranging from ics, and law, the most notable logic as a tool of analysis in law constitutions and statutes to con­ being WFF 'N PROOF, EQUA­ as well as in the use of comput­ tracts and by-laws. In the field of TIONS, and The Legal Argument ers in the field of legal research. artificial intelligence and law the Game of Legal Relations. He has developed a formal legal relations language has led to Professor Allen is a graduate of system of the logic of legal rela­ generative expert systems that Princeton with an A.B., Harvard tions, which includes underlying facilitate analysis of legal provi­ with an M.PA., and Yale with an systems of propositional, predi­ sions having multiple interpreta­ LL.B. His research interests are cate, class, deontic, action, time, tions stemming from ambiguous mathematical logic, computers and capacitive logic. The primary expression of logical structure. and law, instructional gaming, and application of the logic of legal His interest in teaching mathe­ artificial intelligence. He came to relations and its accompanying matical logic to lawyers has led Michigan Law School from Yale legal relations language is in the to the development of a series in 1966. The University of Miehigan Law School is the national leader in the interdisciplinaey study of the law. Many of our faculty hold appointments in other University depar·tments. Their multidisciplinary approach to questions of human behavioe and 3 soeial policy offers our students the opportunity to pursue a deept>r understanding of the law and legal institutions. Reuven S.Avi-Yonah, the Irwin I. Hebrew University and then professor of history at Boston Cohn Professor of Law, special­ earned three degrees from College. In ad dition, he has prac­ izes in international taxation and Harvard: an A.M. in history, a ticed law with Milbank,Tweed, multinational enterprises, and is Ph.D. in history, and a J.D., magna Hadley & McCloy, New York; widely published in these subject cum laude, from Harvard Law Wachtel!, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, areas. He also served as consult­ School. Avi-Yonah has been a vis­ New York; and Ropes & Gray, ant to the U.S. Treasury on tax iting professor of law at the Boston. His teaching interests competition and to the joint University of Michigan, New York focus on various aspects of taxa­ Committee on Taxation on inter­ University, and the University of tion and multinational enterprise. national tax simplification. Pennsylvania. He has also served Professor A vi-Yonah earned his as an assistant professor of law B.A., summa cum laude, from at Harvard and as an assistant Reuven S. Avi- Yonah Michael S. Barr Michael S. Barr. who joined the University. an M. Ph il in the Policy Planning Staff of the faculty as an assistant professor International Relations from State Department Treasury in fall 200 I , teaches Financial Magdalen College, Oxford, as a Secretary Robert E. Rubin's Institutions, Jurisdiction and Rhodes Scholar. and his J.D. from special assistant deputy assistant Choice of Law, and Transnational Yale Law School. Barr clerked for secretary of the Treasury for Law. His research currently Justice David H. Souter of the community development policy; focuses on access to capital and Supreme Court of the United and special advisor to the financial services. He has also States. and for Judge Pierre N. President. Ban· has been a visiting written on international labor Leval. then of the Southern fellow at the Brookings and environmental rights in trade District of New York. He served Institution. where he remains a agreements, refugee law. and in senior positions in the U.S. nonresident senior fellow. health policy Barr earned his government from 1994 to 200 I : B.A., summa cum laude, from Yale special advisor and counselor on .. I have been prepared for my work as a writer, Lawyer, advocate, and teacher, because of my time at what is one o.fthe.finest Law sclwols in the country. /learned how to ask the hard questions, and I Learned how to start anstcering them- this is a process that continues without end, but it was in Ann .4rbor that it had its 4 Mart. I have been able to write two books about diversity and civil rights. based on my training ell Jlllichigan. I owe a debt ofgratitude to the institution and especially itsj(Lcttfty. " F'r·ank Wu , '91 PI'Ofessor. Llowar·d Univer·sity Law Sehool Omri Ben-Shahar is the founder designed the new interdiscipli­ contract law. His work has been and director of the John M. Olin nary course Analytical Methods publi shed in many journals. Center for Law and Economics. for Lawyers. He is also the coor­ among them the Yale Law journal, Before joining the Law School dinator of the Law and University of Chicago Law Review, faculty fulltime, he taught as an Economics Workshop. Ben­ Journal of Law, Economics and assistant professor of law and Shahar holds a B.A. in economics Organization, journal of Legal economics at Tel-Aviv University, and LL.B. from Hebrew Studies, American Law and was a research fellow at the University, and an LL.M., S.J.D. , Economics Review, and University Israel Democracy Institute, and and Ph.D. in economics from of Pennsylvania Law Review. He is clerked at the Supreme Court of Harvard, where he was a also a frequent presenter at Israel. Ben-Shahar teaches Fullbright Fellow and an Olin annual meetings of the American courses in Contracts and Fellow in Law and Economics. Law and Economics Association. Economic Analysis of Law. an d Ben-Shahar writes in the field of Omri Ben-Shahar Laura Beny Laura Beny won the N ational paper "Market-Based Approaches based National Buneau of Science Foundation and Harvand to African Wildlife Conservation" Economic Research. From 200 I to Prize fellowships in support of her won the John G Sobieski Awand 2003, Beny practiced law at work toward her M.A. and Ph.D. in for outstanding senior thesis. She Debevoise & Plimpton in New economics at Harvard University helped an internationally nenowned York City Her nesearch intenests and earned her J.D. at Harvand Law labor economist at Harvard include a broad range of topics at School and her B.A. with distinction University to analyze the impact of the intersection of law and in economics at Stanfond labor market neforrns in the economics, finance, and University At Harvard Law School, People's Republic of China and to development. Beny is a member of she won the John M. Olin Prize for assemble a database of U.S. public the American Law and Economics Outstanding Paper in Law and companies providing stock option Association. She was admitted to Economics and was a John M. Olin compensation to nonexecutive the New York Bar in 2002. Fellow in Law and Economics from employees during her work with 1997 to 200 I. At Stanford, her the Cambridge, Massachusetts- ·'Michigan 's opportunities for interdisciplinary study are unpctralleled . In my short time here, I h11ve taken conrses in bu siness, economics, and na tural resonrr·e management.
Recommended publications
  • Keeping Faith with the Constitution in Changing Times

    Keeping Faith with the Constitution in Changing Times

    Vanderbilt Law School Program in Constitutional Law & Theory and The American Constitution Society Present KEEPING FAITH WITH THE CONSTITUTION IN CHANGING TIMES October 6-7, 2006 Flynn Auditorium Vanderbilt Law School What does it mean to be faithful to the meaning of the Constitution? Can progressive approaches to constitutional interpretation persuasively lay claim to principle, fidelity, adherence to the rule of law and democratic legitimacy? How can these approaches be effectively communicated and made part of the public debate about the Constitution? A diverse group of scholars, lawyers, journalists and judges will address different aspects of this inquiry over two days of panel discussions and roundtable conversations during “Keeping Faith with the Constitution in Changing Times,” a conference sponsored jointly by Vanderbilt Law School’s Program in Constitutional Law & Theory and the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. CONFERENCE SCHEDULE Friday, October 6 8:45-9:15 Continental Breakfast in North Lobby 9:15-9:45 Opening Remarks Dean Ed Rubin, Vanderbilt Law School Lisa Brown, Executive Director, ACS 9:45-10:30 Origins of the Debate over Originalism and the Living Constitution (Christopher Yoo, Moderator) Barry Friedman Howard Gillman 10:30-10:45 Break 10:45-12:15 Constitutional Fidelity Over Time (Ed Rubin, Moderator) Erwin Chemerinsky Marty Lederman John McGinnis 12:15-1:30 Lunch North Lobby 1:30-3:00 The Varieties of Historical Argument (Deborah Hellman, Moderator) Peggy Cooper Davis Robert Gordon Richard Primus
  • A Case for the Twenty-First Century Constitutional Canon: Schneiderman V

    A Case for the Twenty-First Century Constitutional Canon: Schneiderman V

    C:\program files\qualcomm\eudora\attach\394840.doc Saved on: 1/22/2003 6:15 PM A Case for the Twenty-First Century Constitutional Canon: Schneiderman v. United States DAVID FONTANA∗ I. INTRODUCTION Hidden in the basements of American law libraries and in the Westlaw and Lexis databases is a generally ignored 1943 case, Schneiderman v. United States.1 Schneiderman is a case of substantial importance and in- terest that has belonged in the constitutional canon for some time. In Schneiderman, the Supreme Court of the United States blocked the gov- ernment’s attempt to denaturalize an American citizen, a leader of the Communist Party, because the Court found that Communists could be “at- tached to the principles of the Constitution.”2 The Court also announced a new, relatively high evidentiary burden that the government has to meet in order to strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship.3 Schneiderman is of even greater importance after September 11, 2001, because it sheds light on several key issues facing both this country and its law students and lawyers. September 11, 2001 was a monumental day in American history, politics, culture, and law. The after-effects of that day have just begun to trickle into university classrooms across the country. There are many reports of course offerings that address topics related to September 11. For instance, immediately after September 11, the Univer- ∗ D.Phil. expected, Oxford University, 2004; J.D. expected, Yale University, 2004; B.A., Univer- sity of Virginia, 1999. Many thanks to the following individuals for their assistance with this project and for their comments on all or part of the ideas in this Article: Bruce A.
  • Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars Supporting Puerto Rico

    Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars Supporting Puerto Rico

    April 12, 2021 The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable Charles Schumer Speaker of the House Senate Majority Leader U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Kevin McCarthy The Honorable Mitch McConnell House Republican Leader Senate Republican Leader U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20510 Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Schumer, and Leaders McCarthy and McConnell: We, the undersigned legal and constitutional scholars, write to express our strong opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R. 2070, and its Senate companion bill, S. 865, and to register our equally strong support for the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act, H.R. 1522, and its Senate companion bill, S. 780. Like all Americans, we support self-determination. But unlike the supporters of the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, we believe that genuine self-determination requires the United States to offer Puerto Ricans a real choice. By “real,” we mean constitutional and non-territorial. Puerto Rico’s self- determination options must be constitutional, for the obvious reason that neither Congress nor Puerto Rico has the power to implement an unconstitutional option. And they must be non-territorial, because a territorial option is not self-determination. There are two, and only two, real self-determination options for Puerto Rico: statehood and independence. Yet the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act defies constitutional reality by calling upon Puerto Ricans to define other non-territorial options. There are no other non-territorial options. For many decades, advocates of “commonwealth” status argued that it was non-territorial.
  • Originalism at Home and Abroad

    Originalism at Home and Abroad

    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2014 Originalism at Home and Abroad Yvonne Tew Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1923 52 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 780 (2013-2014) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Originalism at Home and Abroad YVONNE TEW* Originalism is typically thought to be a uniquely American preoccupation. This Article challenges the conventional view that originalism enjoys little sup- port outside the United States by showing that the sto- ry of originalism-bothat home and abroad-is more nuanced than has been appreciated. This Article ex- amines how originalism has developed in two unex- plored contexts-Malaysia and Singapore-to show that originalism not only thrives outside the United States but that it takes on distinct variations reflecting the cultural, historical,and political conditions of in- dividual nations. The Article argues that whether originalism thrives, and the form that it takes, is con- text driven and culturally contingent. The account that this Article provides of how original- ism is practiced in the world beyond the United States tests familiar assumptions in the mainstream debates over originalism. First, it shows that existing ac- counts of the origins of originalism are incomplete * Associate-in-Law, Postdoctoral Research Scholar, and Lecturer-in-Law, Columbia Law School; Ph.D., University of Cambridge; Master of Laws (LL.M.), Harvard Law School; B.A.
  • Articles the Anticanon

    Articles the Anticanon

    VOLUME 125 DECEMBER 2011 NUMBER 2 © 2011 by The Harvard Law Review Association ARTICLES THE ANTICANON Jamal Greene CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 380 I. DEFINING THE ANTICANON ............................................................................................ 385 II. DEFENDING THE ANTICANON ........................................................................................ 404 A. The Anticanon’s Errors..................................................................................................... 405 1. Dred Scott v. Sandford ............................................................................................... 406 2. Plessy v. Ferguson ...................................................................................................... 412 3. Lochner v. New York ................................................................................................... 417 4. Korematsu v. United States ....................................................................................... 422 B. A Shadow Anticanon ........................................................................................................ 427 III. RECONSTRUCTING THE ANTICANON ............................................................................ 434 A. Historicism ........................................................................................................................ 435 1. Dred Scott ...................................................................................................................
  • January 31, 2020 to the United States Senate the Signatories of This Letter Are Professors of Law and Scholars of the American C

    January 31, 2020 to the United States Senate the Signatories of This Letter Are Professors of Law and Scholars of the American C

    January 31, 2020 To the United States Senate The signatories of this letter are professors of law and scholars of the American constitution who write to clarify that impeachment does not require proof of crime, that abuse of power is an impeachable offense, and that a president may not abuse the powers of his office to secure re- election, whatever he may believe about how beneficial his continuance in power is to the country. Impeachable conduct does not require proof of any crime. Impeachment for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” under Article IIof the U.S. Constitution does not require proof that a president violated any criminal law. The phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a term of art consciously adopted by the drafters of the American constitution from Great Britain. Beginning in 1386, the term was frequently used by Parliament to describe the wide variety of conduct, much of it non-criminal abuses of official power, for which British officials were impeached. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” was introduced into the American constitution by George Mason, who explained the necessity for expanding impeachment beyond “treason and bribery” by drawing his colleagues’ attention to the ongoing parliamentary impeachment trial of Warren Hastings. Hastings was charged with a long list of abuses of power that his articles of impeachment labeled “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but which even his chief prosecutor, Edmund Burke, admitted were not prosecutable crimes. On George Mason’s motion, the Philadelphia convention wrote into our constitution the same phrase Parliament used to describe Hastings’ non-criminal misconduct. No convention delegate ever suggested that impeachment be limited to violations of criminal law.
  • Re-Examining Nuremberg As a New Deal Institution: Politics, Culture and the Limits of Law in Generating Human Rights Norms

    Re-Examining Nuremberg As a New Deal Institution: Politics, Culture and the Limits of Law in Generating Human Rights Norms

    Re-examining Nuremberg as a New Deal Institution: Politics, Culture and the Limits of Law in Generating Human Rights Norms By Elizabeth Borgwardt* Major Airey Neave, famous at age twenty-nine for his multiple escapes from Nazi prisons, noticed the unusually brilliant shine on Colonel Burton Andrus' helmet, as the two officers stood waiting outside the prison wing of the Palace of Justice at Nuremberg on the afternoon of October 19, 1945. Neave was a German-speaking London barrister whose wartime heroics with the clandestine British intelligence service, MI-9, had involved disguising himself variously as a Dutch electrical worker, a German corporal, and a German artillery lieutenant.1 The afternoon before, Francis Biddle, former U.S. Attorney General and the American judge at Nuremberg, had cavalierly informed Neave that the young major was to serve copies of the Nuremberg Charter, along with a detailed criminal indictment, on the Nazi leaders incarcerated in the Palace of 2 Justice. * Assistant Professor of History, University of Utah. J.D. (Harvard); Ph.D. (Stanford); M.Phil, International Relations (Cambridge). 1. Major Neave had escaped from the supposedly escape-proof Nazi prison in Colditz Castle, Saxony, a feat which so impressed the senior members of London's Middle Temple that they waived his final Bar examinations. He learned German as an exchange student in Berlin in 1933, where he unwittingly participated in a Nazi youth march. His memoir, although not published until the late 1970s, was based on his contemporaneous notes and on a memo he filed with the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945. See Airey Neave, Memorandum for the General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal (Oct.
  • The Age of Consent

    The Age of Consent

    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2014 The Age of Consent Philip Chase Bobbitt Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Philip C. Bobbitt, The Age of Consent, 123 YALE L. J. 2334 (2014). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/229 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE YALE LAW JOURNAL PHILIP C. BOBBITT The Age of Consent On three October afternoons in the fall of 1974, Grant Gilmore, a Sterling Professorof Law at Yale, delivered his Storrs Lectures, the lecture series at Yale Law School whose speakers had included Roscoe Pound, Lon Fuller,and Benjamin Cardozo. Gilmore was a magisterialscholar: the author of a prize-winning treatise, Security Interests in Personal Property, and what remains the leading treatise on admiralty law; he was the Chief Reporter and draftsman for Article 9 of the Unform Commercial Code; and his PhD on French poet and critic Stiphane Mallarmi had led to an appointmentat Yale College before he moved on to study law. Professor Gilmore's Storrs Lectures were titled "The Ages of American Law." Following Karl Llewellyn, Gilmore divided American legal history into three distinct eras. The Age of Discovery roughly spanned the yearsfrom the mid-eighteenth century through the Civil War, during which the United States grandly constructed a new legal edifice upon the foundations of the English common law.
  • University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 08/09 University of Michigan Law School

    University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 08/09 University of Michigan Law School

    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Miscellaneous Law School Publications Law School History and Publications 2008 University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 08/09 University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/miscellaneous Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the Legal Education Commons Citation University of Michigan Law School, "University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 08/09" (2008). Miscellaneous Law School Publications. http://repository.law.umich.edu/miscellaneous/16 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School History and Publications at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Miscellaneous Law School Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. o turn the pages of this slim booklet is to begin to know some of the most distinguished legal scholars in the world. Among these members of the TMichigan Law faculty are leaders in constitutional. international. tax. envi­ ronmental, and business law. and in many other areas of scholarship, as well. For students hoping to build a world-class legal education. there is no better foundation. But these printed pages exist in only two dimensions. while legal education, like the real world. exists in three. Stepping inside the magnificent buildings of the University of Michigan Law Quad brings these photographs and stories to life. Tw o-dimensional biographies become three-dimensional professors Here. beneath the vaulted ceilings of Hutchins Hall, an internationally renowned intellectual property expert who testified before Congress yesterday will exchange views on Internet file sharing with a passing student.
  • University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2005-2006 University of Michigan Law School

    University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2005-2006 University of Michigan Law School

    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Miscellaneous Law School Publications Law School History and Publications 2005 University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2005-2006 University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/miscellaneous Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the Legal Education Commons Citation University of Michigan Law School, "University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2005-2006" (2005). Miscellaneous Law School Publications. http://repository.law.umich.edu/miscellaneous/19 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School History and Publications at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Miscellaneous Law School Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. University of Michigan Law School 2005-2006 Fa c u I ty ayman E. Allen has been a pioneer in the use of mathematical logic University of Michigan Law School as a tool of analysis in law as well as in the use of computers in the fieldL of legal research. He has developed a formal system of the logic of LEGAL RELATIONS, which includes underlying systems of propo­ Faculty sitional, predicate, class, deontic, action, time, and capacitive logic. The primary application of the logic of LEGAL RELATIONS and its "I arrived at the U of M Law School immediately after fi nishing a Ph.D. accompanying LEGAL RELATIONS language is in the drafting and interpretation of legal documents ranging from constitutions and stat­ in history with the hope and expectation that law school wou ld consti­ utes to contracts and bylaws.
  • KEVIN M. STACK Vanderbilt University Law School 131 21St Avenue South Nashville, TN 37203 (615) 343-9220 Kevin.Stack@Vanderbilt.Edu

    KEVIN M. STACK Vanderbilt University Law School 131 21St Avenue South Nashville, TN 37203 (615) 343-9220 [email protected]

    KEVIN M. STACK Vanderbilt University Law School 131 21st Avenue South Nashville, TN 37203 (615) 343-9220 [email protected] EMPLOYMENT VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL Lee S. and Charles A. Speir Professor of Law, August 2017-present Director of Graduate Studies, Ph.D. Program in Law & Economics, July 2016-present Associate Dean for Research, July 2008-July 2010, July 2012-July 2015 Professor of Law, September 2007-August 2017 Visiting Scholar, University of Sydney, Faculty of Law, Spring 2018 BENJAMIN N. CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW, Yeshiva University Associate Professor, September 2005-September 2007 Assistant Professor, July 2002-September 2005 JENNER & BLOCK, Washington, DC Associate, 2000-02 THE HONORABLE A. WALLACE TASHIMA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Law Clerk, 1998-99 THE HONORABLE KIMBA M. WOOD, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Law Clerk, 1997-98 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL, New York, NY Summer Associate, 1997 WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, Washington, DC Summer Associate, 1996 EDUCATION YALE LAW SCHOOL, J.D., 1997 Felix S. Cohen Prize (awarded by faculty for best student essay relating to legal philosophy), 1997 YALE LAW JOURNAL, Staff Editor and Senior Editor, 1995-97 YALE JOURNAL OF LAW & THE HUMANITIES, Articles Editor, 1995-96 Coker Fellow, 1995 DeVane Lecture Series (Hon. Guido Calabresi) Teaching Assistant, 1997 UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD (NEW COLLEGE), M.Litt. in Philosophy, 1996 (completed 1995) Fulbright Scholarship, 1992-94 Overseas Research Students Award, 1992-94 BROWN UNIVERSITY, B.A. (Philosophy), magna cum laude and with honors, 1991 Philosophy Department Commencement Speaker, 1991 Phi Beta Kappa Society, 1990 Honors Thesis in Philosophy Kevin M.
  • University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2009-2010 University of Michigan Law School

    University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2009-2010 University of Michigan Law School

    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Miscellaneous Law School Publications Law School History and Publications 2009 University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2009-2010 University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/miscellaneous Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the Legal Education Commons Citation University of Michigan Law School, "University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2009-2010" (2009). Miscellaneous Law School Publications. http://repository.law.umich.edu/miscellaneous/9 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School History and Publications at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Miscellaneous Law School Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. o turn the pages of this slim booklet is to begin to know some of the most distinguished legal scholars in the world. Among these members of the TMichigan Law faculty are leaders in constitutional, international, tax, envi­ ronmental. and business law, and in many other areas of scholarship, as well. For students hoping to build a world-class legal education, there is no better foundation. But these printed pages exist in only two dimensions. while legal education, like the real world, exists in three. Stepping inside the magnificent buildings of the University of Michigan Law Quad brings these photographs and stories to life. Two-dimensional biographies become three-dimensional professors. Here, beneath the vaulted ceilings of Hutchins Hall, an internationally renowned intellectual property expert who testified before Congress yesterday will exchange views on Internet file sharing with a passing student.