Banks in Trouble Abortion and the Law Board of Visitors
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
40 FALL 1988 Banks in Trouble Abortion and the Law 1----------------Board of Visitors FALL 1988 40 (VOL. 23, NO.1) FROM THE DEAN 2 The Advanced Curriculum Striking a balance between depth and breadth. By Paul Brest FEATURE ARTICLES 4 HighTech The dynamic new world ofhigh technology demands fresh approaches to law and legal education. An interview with.John H. Rlrton STAFF 10 DEPARTMENTS Editor: Constance Hellyer Abortion and the Law Associate Editor: Jo Ann Coupal 18 Art Director: Barbara Mendelsohn What would happen ifthe Supreme Court over School ews Designer, Board of Visitors Report: turned Roe v. Wade? Less than you might think. Nancy Singer Student intern: Helen Surh (AB'89) ByJohn Kaplan Production artists: Joanna McClean, 58 Elizabeth Fischbach Class Notes STANFORD LAWYEH. (I~SN 0585-0576) is published semi-annually for alumni/ae 14 and friends of Stanford Law School. Correspondence and materials for pub Banks in uouble lication arc welcome and should be sent 82 to: Editor, Stanford Lawyer, Stanford Something's got to give. Here are some innovative In Memoriam Law School, Stanford, CA 94305-8610. proposals. Copyright 1989 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Universiry. Reproduction in whole or in By Kenneth E. Scott 88 part, without permission of the pub Alumni/ae Gatherings lisher, is prohibited. Photocopies of indi vidual articles may be requested from Bell Communications Research, Inc., BOARD OF VISITORS Room PYA 1G-' '4, 6 Corporate Place, Piscat3\vay, NJ 08854- 92 Indices: Articles published since 1980 Letters are listed in Currenr Law Index, Legal Trac, and Dialog's Legal Resource Index. 33-48 Issues of the magazine since 1980 are Report on the 1988 Meeting-a hard-working series available on microfiche through William S. Hein & Co., Inc., 1285 Main Street, of sessions on, among other things, three developing Back Cover Buffalo, NY '4209. academic programs. Coming Events Q :no ~ z Q o ~ (J) On Legal Education: The Advanced Curriculum By Paul Brest HEREhas been a growingsense amongboth faculty andstudents thatouradvanced curriculum is in need ofrevision. By contrastto the first year, which excites and engages almost all students, the second and third years seem somewhat dull. Students have little sense of progression-of deepening knowledge or of greater challenge- as they move from one year to the next. This problem is not peculiar to Stanford. Students encounter essen tially the same course of studies with the same limitations at all major law schools in the country. What I believe distinguishes Stanford is our commitment to embark on some bold experiments to redesign the ad vanced curriculum. 2 Fall 1988 STANFORD LAWYER It is noteworthy that two groups of faculty, responsible to discourage would-be business studying two different areas of legal study lawyers from understanding the needs of mi business law and public interest law-have nority groups and the poor, or to deny would come to the same conclusion: that the best be public interest lawyers a solid grasp of the legal education requires the development of world ofbusiness law. Furthermore, it would be courses that build on foundational knowledge a great error to encourage any law student to and then become more demanding semester commit himself or herself in advance to be by semester. There are skills and bodies of coming a business lawyer, poverty lawyer, knowledge-including knowledge about the litigator, or whatever. social, economic, political, andpracticalworlds Instead, we must offer students the oppor in which the law operates-that one must tunity to acquire the foundational knowledge master to be a well-qualified practitioner in necessary to pursue advanced courses in several any field of law. fields. A student who wishes to concentrate Moreover, the very process ofacquiring mas heavily in one area will find a plentiful curricu tery over one domain prepares students to lum available. But students may decide-as I master other fields of law as well. At one level, hope many would-to develop a reasonable the curriculum has always reflected this insight; degree of sophistication in more than one area, thus, the main purpose of the first-year courses to make connections among different disci is to teach students to "think like law plines, and to take advantage ofour rich curric yers." Beyond this, however, we believe that ulum to expand their intellectual horizons. a student who is well trained as a business I can assure you that we shall not compromise lawyer will be better prepared to learn how the breadth of knowledge that has become a to address the needs of poor clients, and vice hallmark of a Stanford legal education. versa, than someone who has had only a smor We are keenly aware of our responsibility gasbord legal education-a smattering of this, to prepare lawyers to address the problems of that, and the other. (My colleague, Gerald an increasingly complex, technical, and spe Lopez, has described our new approach as cialized world. But only a wide-ranging curric "anti-generic" legal education, because of the ulum can prepare ourstudents to address issues importance it ascribes to a student's gaining a that neither we nor they can presently antici degree of expertise in at least some area oflaw.) pate. Thus, the challenge facing us is to strike Thus, we are on our way to developing the balance between an education that is deep coordinated, sequenced courses ofstudy in sev and one that is broad. eral areas of legal study. In Law and Business, I look forward to keeping you informed of for example, background courses in accounting our continuing work on the advanced cur and financial economics provide the skills riculum, and to having your reactions as we necessary for the basic offerings in business work better to prepare our students for their associations, capital markets, and their regula futures as lawyers, policymakers, and public tion. These in turn lead to a rich choice of citizens. D advanced theoretical and prac- tical courses concerned with domestic and international busi ness transactions. The curricu "The challenge facing us is to strike lum in Lawyering for Social Change begins with courses in the balance between an education that legal and social theory and the Lawyering Process, which pro is deep andone that is broad." vide the foundation for advanced work, including supervised clini- cal practice at the East Palo Alto Community Law Project. These curricular developments are not intended to press students to pursue separate, mutually exclusive "tracks." It would be ir- STANFORD LAWYER Fall I988 3 An interview with John H. Barton '68, Professor of Law Professor Barton is orga nizing the School's new International Center for Law and Technology. He was a systems engineer before enrolling at Stan ford Law School, where he served on the Law Re view and was named to the Order of the Coif A member of the faculty since 1969, he teaches the seminar in Law and High Technology and courses in International Business, Human Rights, Law in Radically Different Cultures, and, on occasion, International Environmen tal Law and first-year Contracts. Barton is the author offour books, the most recent being The Regulation of International Business, with Bart Fisher (Little, Brown, 1986). An earlier book written with James Gibbs, Victor Li, and John Merryman, Law in Radically Different Cultures (West, 1983) received a certificate ofmerit from the Ameri can Society of International Law. Barton serves frequently as a consultant and adviser on legal technological issues to governmental and private bodies. He was interviewed July 19, 1988, by Constance Hellyer, editor of this mag azine and, coincidentally, a member ofthe National Association of Science Writers. 4 Fall/988 STANFORD LAWYER Technology is creating -on a global scale new forms ofproperty, new ways of doing business, and new social realities. What does this mean for law and the legal system? hy the current excitement over "Law and Technology"? Haven't lawyers been dealing with technolog ical issues since the Industrial Revolution? There are big differences between today's high tech companies and traditional manufacturing firms. The life cycles ofhigh-tech products are typically shorter, and R&D budgets typically larger. A company's competitive advantage is more in technological innovation than in mar keting or manufacture. And the key resource is people-the human resource. This means a different kind oflegal practice, as anyone who compares a Palo Alto practice with an East Coast practice will tell you. More broadly, it's a phenomenon of the Pacific Rim - which is highly interlinked and is about to develop a host ofnew linkages with the diaspora of talent and money from Hong Kong. We're seeing the emergence of an inte grated industrial complex from California to Japan and Southeast and East Asia. This com plex is finding an essentially new way of doing business. So it's not just a matter ofbeing faster and fancier? Not at all. The nature of international compe tition has fundamentally changed. Today, our competition with other countries is in tech nological capabilities. Yet our trade law, for example, is designed for old market concepts "Technology is not that don't take into account product cycles and learning curves and, more seriously, don't recognize that there's a significant benefit acrown jewel-iti aprocess when another country has an innovation that develo~ we're able to use. We have an opportunity that you use and which we don't fully appreciate-for a free global market ofscientific ideas, a free market It dies if you of technology. hide it:' lnstead, we seem to want to keep it to ourselves. But that's foolish.