DOCSLIB.ORG

Faculty Biographies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Faculty Biographies Faculty Biographies Jennie Lee Anderson is President of the Pound Civil Justice Institute, and a founding partner of the San Francisco law firm of Andrus Anderson LLP. Ms. Anderson exclusively represents plaintiffs in a variety of class and complex cases in both state and federal court, including consumer, antitrust, employment and product liability matters. Ms. Anderson has served as lead counsel, liaison counsel and on the plaintiffs’ steering committee in multiple state and nationwide class or mass actions. She lectures frequently across the country on a variety of issues relating to class and complex litigation. Ms. Anderson also serves on the American Association for Justice Board of Governors and is the past Chair of the AAJ Class Action Litigation Group, Antitrust Litigation Group and Business Torts Section. Ms. Anderson is active in the American Bar Association, Consumer Attorneys of California, Public Justice and the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association. She also serves on the Board of Directors for Legal Aid at Work. Lori E. Andrus is a founding partner of the San Francisco law firm of Andrus Anderson LLP. She prosecutes class actions and complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country, representing individuals who have been harmed by dangerous pharmaceuticals or medical devices, defrauded or discriminated against by large corporations, or sold defective products. A recognized leader in mass torts, Ms. Andrus has also maintained a long-term commitment to diversifying leadership in complex legal matters, and co-chaired Duke Law School’s 2017 and 2018 symposia on increasing diversity in legal leadership positions. Ms. Andrus is Parliamentarian of the American Association for Justice (AAJ), and is a Past Chair of its Women Trial Lawyers’ Caucus. She is a governor of Consumer Attorneys of California, and is a member of numerous other legal organizations. A graduate of Boston University and Duke University School of Law, she is admitted to practice in California, the District of Columbia, and New York. Lynn A. Baker holds the Frederick M. Baron Chair in Law at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, Texas. Professor Baker's wide-ranging scholarly and teaching interests include Professional Responsibility (especially issues involving aggregate litigation and group settlements), attorney fees, mass tort litigation, and Large settlements. Her scholarship and teaching are informed by having served as an expert and consultant to lawyers throughout the country on dozens of large-dollar, large-group, mass tort settlements and having been a court- appointed allocation Special Master in mass tort settlements. A graduate of Yale Law School, Yale College, and Oxford University (Marshall Scholar), she was a Law Clerk to the Hon. Amalya L. Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She is an elected Member of the American Law Institute. In her spare time, she enjoys tournament bridge, and is a two-time world champion. Thomas A. Balmer has served on the Oregon Supreme Court since 2001 and was Chief Justice from 2012 to 2018. A graduate of Oberlin College and the University of Chicago Law School, he practiced with law firms in Boston and Washington, D.C., and worked in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice before returning to his hometown of Portland in the 1980s. In private practice in Oregon, he handled primarily business litigation, appeals, and antitrust and regulatory matters. From 1993 to 1997, he was Oregon's Deputy Attorney General, advising the Attorney General and other statewide elected officials on constitutional and administrative law issues. He also argued election and constitutional law cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and state trial and appellate courts. As Chief Justice, Justice Balmer oversaw the Oregon judiciary's successful implementation of eCourt, an integrated software and hardware project for electronic filing and service and digital case and document management, including interactive digital forms to assist self-represented litigants. He worked with the Oregon legislature to increase judicial compensation, add new judges, and obtain state assistance to replace or renovate inadequate courthouses across the state. During his term as Chief Justice, Justice Balmer chaired the Conference of Chief Justices Civil Justice Improvements Committee and led a two-year effort that resulted in a report, Call to Action: Achieving Civil Justice for All (2016), with wide-ranging recommendations for reducing cost and delay in civil cases in state courts. He is a member of the American Law Institute, has written widely on antitrust, state constitutional law, and legal history, and has been an adjunct professor of law (antitrust) and an adjunct professor of political science. Jennifer Bennett is a Staff Attorney at Public Justice, where she focuses on appellate and Supreme Court litigation. Jennifer litigates precedent-setting appeals on a wide range of issues, including civil rights, workers’ rights, consumer protection, and government transparency. Her recent work includes a unanimous Supreme Court victory on behalf of transportation workers fighting forced arbitration, a Fifth Circuit victory on behalf of a father killed by Texas jailers, and a Ninth Circuit victory vindicating the public’s right to access court records. Jennifer earned her J.D. from Yale Law School and her B.A. summa cum laude from Yale University. She clerked for the Honorable Marsha Berzon of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Honorable Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the Honorable Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Robert Bone is Professor of Law and holds the G. Rollie White Excellence in Teaching Chair at The University of Texas School of Law. He joined the UT faculty in January 2010. Previously he was the Robert Kent Professor in Civil Procedure at Boston University School of Law. Professor Bone received his B.A. degree from Stanford University in 1973 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1978. Following law school, he clerked for United States District Court Judge W. Arthur Garrity, Jr. and served as an associate at the Boston law firm of Hill & Barlow, before joining the University of Southern California law faculty in 1983. Professor Bone became a member of the BU Law School faculty in 1987, where he served before moving to UT Law School in 2010. He was also a Visiting Professor at Columbia Law School for the fall term 1998 and at Harvard Law School for the fall term 2001. Professor Bone is a leading scholar in the fields of civil procedure, complex litigation, and intellectual property. He has published numerous articles in leading law journals, a book entitled THE ECONOMICS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and several essays in other books. He is also a co-author of the second edition of a complex litigation casebook, THE LAW OF CLASS ACTIONS AND OTHER AGGREGATE LITIGATION. Elizabeth Cabraser is a senior partner of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, one of the country's largest law firms serving plaintiffs seeking redress for financial and consumer fraud, anti- competitive practices, harmful drugs and products, and public health and environmental disasters. Since 1978, she has served as court-appointed lead and class counsel in scores of federal class actions, multi-district and state coordinated proceedings. These multi-state cases have included tobacco, the Exxon Valdez disaster, Breast Implants, Fen-Phen (Diet Drugs), Vioxx, Toyota sudden acceleration, numerous securities and investment fraud cases, the national opioids litigation, and the historic Holocaust human rights litigation. Ms. Cabraser's recent work includes the negotiation, drafting, approval and implementation of major class action settlements, including the vehicle buyback and restitution program in the VW "clean diesel" Litigation and the economic loss class settlement in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill litigation, that undertake delivery of billions of dollars in recoveries to consumers, businesses, and employees in innovative ways. Ms. Cabraser served on the Federal Civil Rules Advisory Committee from 2010-2017 and on its Rule 23 subcommittee. Zachary D. Clopton is Professor of Law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. His research and teaching interests include civil procedure, complex litigation, international litigation, and national security law. Clopton clerked for the Honorable Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Chicago and he worked in the national security group at Wilmer Hale in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining Northwestern, Clopton was as an Associate Professor of Law at Cornell Law School. He also was a Public Law Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. Clopton earned a BA from Yale University, an MPhil in International Relations from Cambridge University, where he was a Gates Foundation Scholar, and a JD from Harvard Law School. Sarah Crooks, a partner in the Business Litigation department of Perkins Coie in Portland, focuses her practice on navigating clients through complex business litigation, class action lawsuits and attorney general investigations across a variety of industry sectors, including the telecommunications, food and restaurant, childcare and education and real estate sectors. Sarah also has extensive experience representing clients in the areas of consumer protection, securities litigation, fraudulent transfer litigation and will contests. Sarah dedicates a significant portion of her time to pro bono work and volunteer efforts to serve the legal community. Since 2002, she has served as a volunteer attorney for Legal Aid Services of Oregon, representing victims of domestic violence in obtaining restraining orders. Sarah is also involved with the American Bar Association, the Multnomah Bar Association (past President), and Oregon Women Lawyers (past President). In 2012, the Oregon Bench & Bar Commission on Professionalism recognized Sarah with the Justice Edwin J.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nathaniel Persily
    5/16/2017 NATHANIEL PERSILY Stanford Law School 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305-8610 Phone: (917) 570-3223 Email: [email protected] Fax: (650) 725-9875 Web: http://www.persily.com/ ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS STANFORD LAW SCHOOL STANFORD, CA JAMES B. MCCLATCHY PROFESSOR OF LAW 2013 – present • Courtesy Appointments: Departments of Communication and Political Science • Courses: The Law of Democracy; Regulation of the Political Process; Contemporary Issues in Law and Politics; Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Political Campaigning and the Internet, Policy Practicum on Campaign Finance. • Service: Appointments Committee, Careers in Teaching Committee. • Significant Grants, Awards, and Fellowships: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (2017-2018); Andrew Carnegie Fellowship (2016- 17); Stanford Cyber Initiative Grant (2016-17); Hewlett Foundation and Democracy Fund Grants for Campaign Finance Task Force (2016-17). COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL NEW YORK, NY CHARLES KELLER BEEKMAN PROFESSOR OF LAW AND PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 2008 – 2013 PROFESSOR OF LAW 2007 – 2008 • Courtesy Appointment: Department of Political Science (2007– 2013). • Courses: Constitutional Law; Advanced Constitutional Law: The Political Process; Freedom of Expression; Contemporary Issues in Law and Politics; Redistricting and Gerrymandering. • Service: Lateral Appointments Committee Chair (2010-2012), Curriculum Committee Chair (2009-2010), Advisory Committee Chair (2008-2009), Intellectual Life Committee; Resources and Development Committee, Committee on Professional Development. • Center for Law and Politics: Founding Director. • DrawCongress.org: Founder. • Instructor in University of Amsterdam Summer Program, July 2011. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL PHILADELPHIA, PA PROFESSOR OF LAW 2005 – 2007 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW 2001 – 2005 1 5/16/2017 • Secondary Appointment: Department of Political Science (2003-2007).
    [Show full text]
  • The Promise and Pitfalls of the New Voting Rights Act
    TH AL LAW JO RAL NATHANIEL PERSILY The Promise and Pitfalls of the New Voting Rights Act ABSTRACT. In the summer of 2oo6, Congress reauthorized the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) with a unanimous vote in the Senate and with limited opposition in the House of Representatives. The veneer of bipartisanship that outsiders perceived in the final vote glossed over serious disagreements between the parties over the meaning of the central provision of the new VRA, which prohibits voting laws that "diminish the ability" of minority citizens "to elect their preferred candidates of choice." Those disagreements came to the surface in a fractured Senate Committee Report released only after Congress had passed the law. This Article describes the unprecedented legislative history of this law, and the political and constitutional constraints that led the law to take the form that it did. It also presents an interpretation of the new retrogression standard that avoids the partisan bias of alternatives while emphasizing the importance of racially polarized voting to the constitutionality and meaning of this new law. It urges that the new law be read as preventing redistricting plans that reduce the aggregated probability across districts of the election of candidates preferred by the minority community and disfavored by whites. AUTHOR. Professor of Law and Political Science, Columbia Law School; Sidley Austin Visiting Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. I am indebted to Erica Lai for research assistance and to librarian Bill Draper for an enormous amount of help collecting materials related to the legislative history of the new VRA.
    [Show full text]
  • Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School Of
    ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on fundamental issues of democracy and justice. Our work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to presidential power in the fight against terrorism. A singular institution – part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group – the Brennan Center combines scholarship, legislative and legal advocacy, and communications to win meaningful, measurable change in the public sector. ABOUT THE MONEY & POLITICS PROJECT To promote more open, honest, and accountable government, and to ensure that each citizen’s voice is heard in our democracy, laws governing money and politics must put the voter squarely at the center of the electoral process. The Brennan Center’s Money & Politics project supports grassroots/small donor public funding systems that enhance voters’ voices, as well as disclosure requirements and contribution limits that mitigate real and perceived excessive influence on elected officials. We are a leader in defending federal, state, and local campaign finance and public financing laws in court. In addition, we provide legal guidance to state and local officials and advocates, and publish reports and submit testimony in support of reform proposals. To restore the primacy of voters in elections and the integrity of the democratic process, the Brennan Center is responding to the Citizens United decision with a multi-pronged effort that endorses public financing of elections; modernizes voter registration; demands accountability in corporate political spending; and with this symposium, is beginning a multi-year effort to promote new jurisprudence that advances a voter-centric view of the First Amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • A Third Way for the Voting Rights Act: Section 5 and the Opt-In Approach
    \\server05\productn\C\COL\106-3\COL306.txt unknown Seq: 1 31-MAR-06 11:58 ESSAY A THIRD WAY FOR THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT: SECTION 5 AND THE OPT-IN APPROACH Heather K. Gerken * One of the most powerful and intrusive civil rights provisions ever passed—section 5 of the Voting Rights Act—is scheduled to sunset in 2007. Congressional hearings on its fate have already begun. Section 5 requires select localities—mostly states in the Deep South—to ask the federal govern- ment’s permission before making any change in the way they run elections. Despite its successes, section 5 remains extremely controversial. Even experts on the Act are deeply divided as to what Congress should do. Our choice is not, as the current debate suggests, between maintaining the Act’s decades-old regulatory structure and allowing section 5 to expire. There is a more dynamic approach, a middle ground that avoids the problems identified by the Act’s critics while maintaining a robust safety net for minority voters. This Essay sets out to describe what such a third ap- proach would look like. It proposes an “opt-in” system that would privilege local control and community involvement in voting rights enforcement. Such an approach would provide the right types of incentives for those in- volved in policing racial politics and deploy civil rights enforcement resources more effectively than the current system. More intriguingly, an opt-in ap- proach would create a new set of institutional incentives for political elites to pay attention to the needs and concerns of those most affected by their deci- sions.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvard Law School Faculty 20–​21
    Harvard Law School Faculty – 1 Professors and Assistant Professors of Law 3 Professors Emeriti and Emeritae 48 Affiliated Harvard University Faculty 55 Visiting Professors of Law 61 Climenko Fellows 73 Lecturers on Law 75 Endowed Chairs at Harvard Law School 95 2 HARVARD LAW SCHOOL FacULTY 2020–2021 Professors and Assistant Professors of Law William P. Alford Jerome A. and Joan L. Cohen Professor of East Asian Legal Studies Courses: Engaging China, Fall 2020; The Comparative Law Workshop, Fall 2020; Comparative Law: Why Law? Lessons from China, Spring 2021. Research: Chinese Legal History and Law, Comparative Law, Disability Law, International Trade, Law and Development, Legal Profession, Transnational/Global Lawyering, WTO. Representative Publications: An Oral History of Special Olympics in China in 3 volumes (William P. Alford, Mei Liao, and Fengming Cui, eds., Springer 2020) Taiwan and international Human Rights: A story of Transformation (Jerome A. Cohen, William P. Alford, and Chang-fa Lo, eds., Springer 19); Prospects for The Professions in China (William P. Alford, Kenneth Winston & William C. Kirby eds., Routledge 1); William P. Alford, To Steal A Book Is an Elegant Offense: Intellectual Property Law in Chinese Civilization (Stanford Univ. Press 1995). Education: Amherst College B.A. 197; St. John’s College, Cambridge University LL.B. 197; Yale University M.A. 1974; Yale University M.A. 1975; Harvard Law School J.D. 1977. Appointments: Henry L. Stimson Professor of Law, 199–18; Director, East Asian Legal Studies, 199– present; Vice Dean for the Graduate Program and International Legal Studies, 2002–2020; Chair, Harvard Law School Project on Disability, 4–present; Jerome A.
    [Show full text]
  • Articles Fragile Democracies
    VOLUME 120 APRIL 2007 NUMBER 6 © 2007 by The Harvard Law Review Association ARTICLES FRAGILE DEMOCRACIES Samuel Issacharoff TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1407 I. AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM ...........................................................................................1415 II. TYPOLOGIES OF PROHIBITIONS.......................................................................................1421 A. Content Restrictions on Electoral Speech......................................................................1423 B. Party Prohibitions ............................................................................................................1429 1. Insurrectionary Parties .................................................................................................1433 2. Separatist Parties...........................................................................................................1437 3. Antidemocratic Majoritarian Parties ..........................................................................1442 C. Party Exclusion from the Electoral Arena.....................................................................1447 III. THE SAFEGUARDS OF DEMOCRACY ..............................................................................1451 A. Procedural Protections .....................................................................................................1453 B. The Substance of Antidemocracy ....................................................................................1459
    [Show full text]