DOCSLIB.ORG

Boyd's Legacy and Blackstone's Ghost Robert K

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Boyd's Legacy and Blackstone's Ghost Robert K University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2000 Boyd's Legacy and Blackstone's Ghost Robert K. Rasmussen Douglas G. Baird Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert K. Rasmussen & Douglas G. Baird, "Boyd's Legacy and Blackstone's Ghost" (John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 94, 2000). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL JOE C. DAVIS WORKING PAPER SERIES Working Paper Number 99-8 December 15, 1999 BOYD’S LEGACY AND BLACKSTONE’S GHOST Douglas G. Baird and Robert K. Rasmussen A revised version of this paper is forthcoming in the 1999 Supreme Court Review The Law School Vanderbilt University This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id= 205368 Boyd’s Legacy and Blackstone’s Ghost Douglas G. Baird* and Robert K. Rasmussen† Great battles are often fought in unlikely places. Last Term, the Supreme Court entertained an ordinary commercial law dispute between a financing bank and a group of real estate investors over the ownership of 15 floors of an office building in downtown Chicago.1 At issue was the ability of the partnership to restructure the bank’s loan in Chapter 11. The partnership offered a plan that, in its view, left the bank with more than it would receive through a state law foreclosure, yet allowed the prebankruptcy investors in the partnership to remain as owners and enjoy significant tax benefits. When the bank turned down the partnership’s plan, the bankruptcy court had to decide whether the plan could be confirmed over the bank’s objection. * University of Chicago Law School. † Vanderbilt Law School. We are grateful to Barry Adler, Rebecca Brown, Constance Fleischer, John Goldberg, J. Winston King, Richard Levin, Ronald Mann, Bruce Markell, James Millstein, David Strauss, Cass Sunstein, Todd Zywicki, colleagues at workshops at Chicago, Columbia, and Vanderbilt, and participants at the Bankruptcy Roundtable at the University of Pennsylvania Institute for Law and Economics for their help. One of us wrote an amicus curiae brief on behalf of a group of law professors supporting the position of the bank and the Solicitor General. The other worked with the debtor’s counsel. 1 Bank of America National Trust Savings Association v 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership, 119 S Ct 1411 (1999). Baird & Rasmussen — Page 1 On its face, it might seem that such a dispute would not occupy the attention of a Supreme Court that now hears only about 80 cases a year. The property was well run, and no one suggested that its day-to-day operations needed to be revamped.2 Uncertainty about the value of the building was not a source of dispute either; both the bank and the investors agreed that the remaining balance on the loan far exceeded the market value of the property. Similarly, no one doubted either the existence of substantial tax benefits for the investors or the willingness and ability of the investors to add several million dollars to the pot to retain them. The inability of two sophisticated parties to reach a mutually beneficial bargain had few effects on anyone else. Their failure to make a deal, however, gave the Court the chance to address the most important open question under the Bankruptcy Code. Everything revolved around on a single clause in Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. With its statutory and caselaw antecedents, the language of this clause addresses the pivotal controversy in the law of corporate 2 Indeed, the bank was concerned because some of the debtor’s employees were leaving and it feared that equally able replacements might not be found. See In re 203 North LaSalle Street Limited Partnership, 190 Bankr 567, 591-92 (Bankr ND Ill 1995), affirmed, 195 Bankr. 692 (ND Ill 1996), affirmed, 126 F3d 955 (7th Cir 1997), reversed and remanded, 119 S Ct 1411 (1999). The bank also pointed to one prepetition tax payment that the debtor had mishandled, but the bankruptcy Baird & Rasmussen — Page 2 reorganizations for most of this century. The interpretation one chooses shapes all of Chapter 11, and the choice among interpretations turns in large part on the interpretative methodology one uses. Hence, a two-party dispute over an ordinary office building in Chicago joins a major debate over statutory interpretation. The precise legal issue can be set out simply. To the extent that it was owed more than its collateral was worth, the bank held an unsecured claim in addition to its secured claim. Every claim in Chapter 11 is placed into a class, and the bank’s claim was of a sort that had to be put in a class by itself.3 Hence, when the bank voted against the plan, a class of unsecured claims necessarily voted against it as well. Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in relevant part, that when a class of unsecured claims dissents from a plan of reorganization, the bankruptcy court can confirm the plan only if: [T]he plan . is fair and equitable. [T]he condition that a plan be fair and equitable . includes the following requirement[ ]: . court rejected this complaint, as well as the complaint that the management fee was too high. 3 We are oversimplifying matters somewhat. The question of whether the bank’s deficiency claim ought to be classified separately from other unsecured claims is an issue on which the courts are divided. The question, however, is settled in the Seventh Circuit and was not before the Court in LaSalle. See In re Woodbrook Associates, 19 F3d 312 (7th Cir 1994). Baird & Rasmussen — Page 3 the holder of any [junior] interest . will not receive or retain under the plan on account of such junior . interest any property.4 In other words, to confirm the plan, the court had to find that the plan was “fair and equitable,” which, at a minimum, requires that the old investors not receive any “property” “on account of” their old interests. None of these words is defined in the Bankruptcy Code, but the phrase “fair and equitable” had been used in two previous bankruptcy laws and in judicial opinions before then. In writing for the Court, Justice Souter examined the origins of the “fair and equitable” language and concluded—on the basis of this history—that §1129(b) required adherence to “absolute priority.”5 Under a regime of absolute priority, old equity cannot receive anything if a dissenting class was not being paid in full. If old equity could participate at all, it would be required to contribute an infusion of new capital. Old equity could not be given any breaks. Old equity had to pay “top dollar” for the new interest.6 The bankruptcy court 4 11 USC §1129(b)(2). 5 119 S Ct 1416-17. 6 Id at 1423. Baird & Rasmussen — Page 4 had not taken sufficient steps to ensure that this had in fact been the case.7 Hence, the plan could not be confirmed and the Court remanded. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that one could resolve the case without recourse to history, the concept of “absolute priority,” or anything beyond the words in the statute. The plan, in substance, gave the old equityholders the exclusive right to the equity of the reorganized entity. Such an exclusive right was a stock option, something ordinarily regarded as “property” and hence “property” within the meaning of the statute.8 Because the plan gave this option only to the old equityholders, they received it “on account of” their old interest. Hence, the plan did not meet the specific requirement set out in §1129. Justice Thomas concluded that the Court could reject the debtor’s plan without having to ask whether, as a general matter, the plan was “fair and equitable.” He never had to invoke the principle of absolute priority. 7 Justice Stevens in dissent agreed with most of this analysis, parting company with the majority only over the issue of whether the thorough and financially sophisticated opinion of the bankruptcy court paid sufficient attention to this specific question. 8 Id at 1424. Baird & Rasmussen — Page 5 While Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion as Justice Souter, the methodology he advanced would require lower courts to apply the Bankruptcy Code differently as a general matter. For Justice Thomas, the obligation of a reviewing court in bankruptcy cases is to set out “a clear method for interpreting the Bankruptcy Code.”9 This method should eschew exploring the origins of words such as “fair and equitable” when the focus is the meaning of an ordinary word such as “property.” Instead of importing the mysticism and uncertainty of common law judging into statutory interpretation, courts should allow the plain language of the statute to speak for itself. An interpretative approach that focuses on words and their ordinary meaning yields more certain outcomes and provides better guidance to lower courts than one that attempts to discover a seamless web woven through decades-old cases and repeated statutory enactments. For every case in which a nuanced common law approach sheds valuable insight, there are ten in which it leads judges astray.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jerome Frank's Impact on American Law
    Michigan Law Review Volume 84 Issue 4 Issues 4&5 1986 The Iconoclast as Reformer: Jerome Frank's Impact on American Law Matthew W. Frank University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Judges Commons, and the Legal Biography Commons Recommended Citation Matthew W. Frank, The Iconoclast as Reformer: Jerome Frank's Impact on American Law, 84 MICH. L. REV. 866 (1986). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol84/iss4/29 This Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 866 Michigan Law Review [Vol. 84:861 THE ICONOCLAST AS REFORMER: JEROME FRANK'S IMPACT ON AMERICAN LA w. By Robert Jerome Glennon. Ithaca: Cornell Uni­ versity Press. 1985. Pp. 252. $24.95. In the first half of this century, Jerome Frank achieved prominence as a corporate attorney, a legal realist, a New Deal administrator, and finally as a federal appellate court judge. A study of Frank's career does more than testify to the man's extraordinary breadth of interest, energy, and ability; it serves as a pane through which one may witness the enormous changes in law and legal theory from 1930 to 1957. In The Iconoclast as Reformer: Jerome Frank's Impact on American Law, Professor Robert Glennon 1 traces Frank's career and attempts to evaluate Frank's influence in these areas.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Investor Tom C.W
    The New Investor Tom C.W. Lin EVIEW R ABSTRACT A sea change is happening in finance. Machines appear to be on the rise and humans on LA LAW LA LAW the decline. Human endeavors have become unmanned endeavors. Human thought and UC human deliberation have been replaced by computerized analysis and mathematical models. Technological advances have made finance faster, larger, more global, more interconnected, and less human. Modern finance is becoming an industry in which the main players are no longer entirely human. Instead, the key players are now cyborgs: part machine, part human. Modern finance is transforming into what this Article calls cyborg finance. This Article offers one of the first broad, descriptive, and normative examinations of this sea change and its wide-ranging effects on law, society, and finance. The Article begins by placing the rise of artificial intelligence and computerization in finance within a larger social context. Next, it explores the evolution and birth of a new investor paradigm in law precipitated by that rise. This Article then identifies and addresses regulatory dangers, challenges, and consequences tied to the increasing reliance on artificial intelligence and computers. Specifically, it warns of emerging financial threats in cyberspace, examines new systemic risks linked to speed and connectivity, studies law’s capacity to govern this evolving financial landscape, and explores the growing resource asymmetries in finance. Finally, drawing on themes from the legal discourse about the choice between rules and standards, this Article closes with a defense of humans in an uncertain financial world in which machines continue to rise, and it asserts that smarter humans working with smart machines possess the key to better returns and better futures.
    [Show full text]
  • Jerome Frank's Fact-Skepticism and Our Future*
    JEROME FRANK'S FACT-SKEPTICISM AND OUR FUTURE* EDMOND GAHNt I WHEN Dean Rostow asked me to describe the main features of Jerome Frank's legal philosophy, I resolved that-no matter how tentative my sum- mary might be-I must speak in the perspective of the future. For one thing, this is the way he habitually faced and spoke and wrote; it is the way to be faithful to his thought. For another, his philosophy-which he called "fact- skepticism"'-is nothing more or less than a bold confrontation of the future and a flinging of gages at its feet. I believe that Jerome Frank's fact-skepti- cism represents an epoch-making contribution not only to legal theory and procedural reform, but also to the understanding of the entire human condition. The history of our time will record whether we profited by the challenges he bequeathed to us. For about twenty-five years Jerome Frank's coruscating and marvelously restless mind planned and built and developed the meaning of fact-skepticism. Fully aware that his approach was novel, he deliberately repeated and reiter- ated his doctrines, phrased them first this way then that, and summoned analogies from every corner of the cultural world to make his ideas clearer. To justify the repetitions, he used the following story: "Mr. Smith of Denver was introduced to Mr. Jones at a dinner party in Chicago. 'Oh,' said Jones, 'do you know my friend Mr. Schnicklefritz, who lives in Denver?' 'No,' answered Smith. Later in the evening, when Smith referred to Denver, Jones again asked whether Smith was ac- quainted with Schnicklefritz, and again received a negative reply.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust and Baseball: Stealing Holmes
    Antitrust and Baseball: Stealing Holmes Kevin McDonald 1. introduction this: It happens every spring. The perennial hopefulness of opening day leads to talk of LEVEL ONE: “Justice Holmes baseball, which these days means the business ruled that baseball was a sport, not a of baseball - dollars and contracts. And business.” whether the latest topic is a labor dispute, al- LEVEL TWO: “Justice Holmes held leged “collusion” by owners, or a franchise that personal services, like sports and considering a move to a new city, you eventu- law and medicine, were not ‘trade or ally find yourself explaining to someone - commerce’ within the meaning of the rather sheepishly - that baseball is “exempt” Sherman Act like manufacturing. That from the antitrust laws. view has been overruled by later In response to the incredulous question cases, but the exemption for baseball (“Just how did that happen?”), the customary remains.” explanation is: “Well, the famous Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. decided that baseball was exempt from the antitrust laws in a case called The truly dogged questioner points out Federal Baseball Club ofBaltimore 1.: National that Holmes retired some time ago. How can we League of Professional Baseball Clubs,‘ and have a baseball exemption now, when the an- it’s still the law.” If the questioner persists by nual salary for any pitcher who can win fifteen asking the basis for the Great Dissenter’s edict, games is approaching the Gross National Prod- the most common responses depend on one’s uct of Guam? You might then explain that the level of antitrust expertise, but usually go like issue was not raised again in the courts until JOURNAL 1998, VOL.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Supremacy and the Modest Constitution
    Judicial Supremacy and the Modest Constitution Frederick Schauert INTRODUCTION Judicial supremacy is under attack. From various points on the politi- cal spectrum, political actors as well as academics have challenged the idea that the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, have a spe- cial and preeminent responsibility in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. Reminding us that treating Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution as supreme and authoritative has no grounding in constitu- tional text and not much more in constitutional history, these critics seek to relocate the prime source of interpretive guidance. The courts have an important role to play, these critics acknowledge, but it is a role neither greater than that played by other branches, nor greater than the role to be played by "the people themselves."' The critics' understanding of a more limited function for the judiciary in constitutional interpretation appears to rest, however, primarily on a highly contestable conception of the point of having a written constitution in the first place. According to this conception, a constitution, and espe- cially the Constitution of the United States, is the vehicle by which a de- mocratic polity develops its own fundamental values. A constitution, therefore, becomes both a statement of our most important values and the vehicle through which these values are created and crystallized. Under this conception of the role of a written constitution, it would indeed be a mis- take to believe that the courts should have the preeminent responsibility for interpreting that constitution. For this task of value generation to devolve Copyright © 2004 California Law Review, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • JUDGE JEROME FRANK Tamm Arnoldt
    JUDGE JEROME FRANK Tamm ARNOLDt EW SUCH brilliant, original and many-sided men as Jerome Frank have ever attained judicial eminence in the history of any bench, here or abroad. He was an economist in the sense that he knew and could com- pare all of the different theories by which men of various and conflicting doc- trinaire views strove to create principles which, if followed, would make a na- tion's economy rational, scientific and neat as a trivet or an apple pie. He also knew, perhaps better than any other living judge, the practical problems of finance. As Mr. Justice Douglas recently pointed out,' Jerome Frank "had no superior when it came to an understanding of the ways of high finance and to an analysis of regulatory measures dealing with it." This practical knowledge prevented him from ever being caught in the web of any economic doctrine. He was a lawyer of great technical skill, and he had an extraordinary grasp of the deductive system of wheels within wheels which gives the law its appearance of predictability. He also read widely and with complete skepticism the litera- ture of that brooding omnipresence in the sky known as Jurisprudence or the higher law. He was a student of psychiatry and was able to use that knowledge in his treatment of legal problems. As a writer, he developed a legal philosophy which had tremendous impact on the legal thinking of our time. On the bench, he produced a series of judi- cial opinions outstanding in their uniform fairness, equity and economic soundness.
    [Show full text]
  • “Clean Hands” Doctrine
    Announcing the “Clean Hands” Doctrine T. Leigh Anenson, J.D., LL.M, Ph.D.* This Article offers an analysis of the “clean hands” doctrine (unclean hands), a defense that traditionally bars the equitable relief otherwise available in litigation. The doctrine spans every conceivable controversy and effectively eliminates rights. A number of state and federal courts no longer restrict unclean hands to equitable remedies or preserve the substantive version of the defense. It has also been assimilated into statutory law. The defense is additionally reproducing and multiplying into more distinctive doctrines, thus magnifying its impact. Despite its approval in the courts, the equitable defense of unclean hands has been largely disregarded or simply disparaged since the last century. Prior research on unclean hands divided the defense into topical areas of the law. Consistent with this approach, the conclusion reached was that it lacked cohesion and shared properties. This study sees things differently. It offers a common language to help avoid compartmentalization along with a unified framework to provide a more precise way of understanding the defense. Advancing an overarching theory and structure of the defense should better clarify not only when the doctrine should be allowed, but also why it may be applied differently in different circumstances. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1829 I. PHILOSOPHY OF EQUITY AND UNCLEAN HANDS ...................... 1837 * Copyright © 2018 T. Leigh Anenson. Professor of Business Law, University of Maryland; Associate Director, Center for the Study of Business Ethics, Regulation, and Crime; Of Counsel, Reminger Co., L.P.A; [email protected]. Thanks to the participants in the Discussion Group on the Law of Equity at the 2017 Southeastern Association of Law Schools Annual Conference, the 2017 International Academy of Legal Studies in Business Annual Conference, and the 2018 Pacific Southwest Academy of Legal Studies in Business Annual Conference.
    [Show full text]
  • Jerome Frank's Views on Trial by Jury
    Missouri Law Review Volume 22 Issue 1 January 1957 Article 8 1957 Jerome Frank's Views on Trial by Jury Julius Paul Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Julius Paul, Jerome Frank's Views on Trial by Jury, 22 MO. L. REV. (1957) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol22/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Paul: Paul: Jerome Frank's Views on Trial by Jury JEROME FRAN'S VIEWS ON TRIAL BY JURY JULIUS PAUL6 I must say that as a litigant I should dread a lawsuit beyond almost anything short of sickness and death.--JumE LEARNED HAND. As one who professes to be a thoroughgoing democrat, Jerome Frank has a respect for the historical basis of trial by jury, but as a lawyer and now a judge, he finds the jury system not only a grossly inefficient system of finding the facts, but also a system that has dangerously outgrown its original functions. In most jury eases, then, the jury determines not the "facts" but the legal rights and obligations of the parties to the suit. For the judgment of the court follows the general verdict of the jury, so that the verdict, since it produces a judgment which determined the respective rights and obligations, decides the law of the par- ticular ease.
    [Show full text]
  • A Colleague's Observation... Jerome Frank As Prophet: Courts on Trial Revisited Damian L
    University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 22 Article 3 Number 3 Spring, 1992 1992 A Colleague's Observation... Jerome Frank as Prophet: Courts on Trial Revisited Damian L. Halstad Hoffman, Comfort, Offutt, Scott & aH lstad, LLP Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Halstad, Damian L. (1992) "A Colleague's Observation... Jerome Frank as Prophet: Courts on Trial Revisited," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 22: No. 3, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol22/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A COLLEAGUE'S OBSERVATION ... JEROME FRANK AS PROPHET: COURTS ON TRIAL REVISITED By Damian L. Halstad, Esquire In 1949, legal philosopher and fed­ edges, are simply attributable to hu­ asks, ifthe facts to which we are apply­ eraljudge Jerome Frank published his man nature. An honest witness may ing the rule are wrong? Further, how most important legal treatise, Courts erroneously observe, recollect, or ar­ remedial is an appellate court when it On Trial. J Widely received as a com­ ticulate the facts, or may be uncon­ too is basically constrained by the fac­ prehensive and incisive criticism of sciously swayed by subtle subliminal tual findings of the trial court? The our trial courts, the book sought to biases.
    [Show full text]
  • William O. Douglas As a Common Law Judge
    ESSAY WILLIAM 0. DOUGLAS AS A COMMON LAW JUDGE MELVIN I. UROFSKY* Few Justices of the United States Supreme Court created as much controversy during their lifetimes as did William 0. Douglas.1 During his record thirty-six years on the bench, he forcefully spoke on issues as wide-ranging as American foreign affairs and the environment; traveled around the world, visiting "strange lands and strange people"; 2 wrote dozens of books and articles on a variety of topics aimed at the general public; 3 and divorced and remarried three times.4 In addition, he cham- pioned the liberal position on nearly every issue before the Court. Justice Douglas's political and judicial liberalism, as well as his idiosyncratic lifestyle, infuriated conservatives. In 1970, these conservatives, led by then-Congressman Gerald R. Ford, attempted to impeach him.5 Of course, Douglas has not been without his champions. Upon his retirement from the Court, his former pupil, lifelong friend, and occa- sional colleague, Abe Fortas, declared that "[t]hroughout his life, Doug- las has fiercely occupied high ground-the highest that life on this earth offers. He is, of course, an idealist; but, for him, ideals are not abstrac- tions; they are objectives demanding present fulfillment."'6 One of his favorite law clerks, Vern Countryman, wrote extensively on Douglas and the enduring impact his opinions and dissents have had on American * Professor of History, Virginia Commonwealth University. B.A., Columbia University, 1961; Ph.D., Columbia University, 1968; J.D., University of Virginia, 1983. 1. Justice William 0. Douglas served on the Supreme Court from 1939-1975.
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Oral History Package
    , I . " _ MIL.TON V. FRE-EMAN, ESQUIRE .: _ Oral J:listory Project- - ' . '.fheHistorical Socie,ty of the Distri�� of Cohimbia Ci-rcuif .- . .. ·. - .. •' ' Oral History Project United States Courts The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit District of Columbia Circuit Milton V. Freeman, Esquire Interview conducted by: Phyllis Hurwitz Marcus, Esquire May 18,1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ................................................................ i Oral History Agreements .. Milton V. Freeman, Esq. ............................................. 11 Phyllis Hurwitz Marcus, Esq. ........................................ iv Biographical Sketches Milton V. Freeman, Esq. ............................................ vi Phyllis Hurwitz Marcus, Esq. ........................................ vii Oral History Transcript of Interview on May 18, 1995 ........................... 1 Index ............................................................... A1 NOTE The following pages record an interview conducted on the date indicated. The interview was electronically recorded, and the transcription was subsequently reviewed and edited by the interviewee. The contents hereof and all literary rights pertaining hereto are governed by, and are subject to, the Oral History Agreements included herewith. 0 1997 Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. All rights reserved. PREFACE The goal of the Oral History Project of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit is to preserve the recollections of the judges who
    [Show full text]
  • The GW Psychiatrist- Spring 2016
    Issue 1 | VolUme 4 | spring 2016 The GW Psychiatrist The Newsletter of the George Washington University Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences GLOBAL MENTAL HEALTH P. 3 RESIDENCY 2016 P. 6 FIVE TRIMESTERS CLINIC P. 8 3 The Chair’s Column: Why Global Mental Health? 4 International Perspectives in Psychosomatic Medicine 5 From the Program Director 6 From the Associate Program Director: On Core Values and Recruitment 6 Reflections on the Residency Fellowship in Health Policy 7 Updates from Children’s National Health System 7 World Handball Champion? Sam Goodman, M.D., Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry 8 Five Trimesters Clinic: Notes on the 2nd Biennial Perinatal Mental Health Conference 9 Great Expectations: The Intern Perspective 9 Kudos & Congrats 10 Emotionally Focused Therapy 11 Changing Faces of Leadership in Psychiatry 11 Sanity and Survival: Grand Rounds Summary ThaNk yoU, WrITerS aND reaDerS! Editor: Jason Emejuru, MD Contributors: Victoria Anderson, Trevor Forde | Advisor: Lori Kels, MD, MPH Senior Marketing Manager: Sean Liphard Design: Kelly Sullivan DeParTmeNT of PSychIaTry aND BehaVIoral ScIeNceS 2120 L Street, NW, Suite 600 | Washington, DC 20037 202.741.2888 | gwdocs.com/psychiatry The Chair’s Column: Why Global Mental Health? treated patients in clinics for immigrants and refugees, and conducted asylum eval- uations for political refugees in our Human Rights Clinic. By 2015, the global mental health track had enabled GW psychiatry residents to train in 10 countries and to publish a number of journal articles. However, our global mental health curriculum provided all our psychiatry residents with expertise as applicable in the U.S., as in low income countries.
    [Show full text]