Source: https://www.lawweekly.org/?offset=1550764226168
Timestamp: 2019-09-22 06:55:49
Document Index: 7987066

Matched Legal Cases: ['§406', '§406', '§406', '§406', '§406', '§406', '§406']

Vice-Chancellor Laster '95 Tells VLBR What's Next in Corporate Law
Last Friday, John W. Glynn and the Virginia Law Business Program co-hosted A View From the Boardroom: Directors in an Era of Activism. The event included a variety of panelists and, as the keynote speaker, Delaware Chancery Court Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster ’95. Speakers throughout the day discussed a variety of hot-button corporate legal matters, including issues around activist investors, what it means to maximize value while serving as a member on a corporate board, and topics surrounding diversity in the boardroom.
The day kicked off with an all-female panel that discussed the question of how to improve diversity on corporate boards. Mary Margaret Frank, a professor of business administration at Darden, discussed the pitfalls of regulations mandating a certain number of women on corporate boards. Frank emphasized the importance of seeking quality over quantity and her optimism that, by letting market forces work, companies will realize the value of board diversity and suffer adverse consequences if they do not move with the tide. Gloria Larson ’77, President in Residence at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, agreed with Frank and discussed how important male allies are. And our own Michal Barzuza of UVA Law echoed Frank and Larson on how critical it is to expand the search when seeking new board directors. Without a thorough search, the best female candidates can go unnoticed.
Panelists during the rest of the day discussed the continued growth of activist investors, individual people or firms that acquire large shares of stock in a company to try and influence who sits on the board and what company decisions look like. While panelists thought some players in the investing sector played bigger roles than others and had differing ideas on what activism would look like in the future, most agreed that activism is here to stay. As we continue to see growth in activist investing and outsiders work to gain control over board seats, the role of those on the board to maximize value becomes increasingly complex. Laster discussed the role boards should play in maximizing company value, even if that means merging the company or otherwise ending its corporate life.
Laster, who graduated first in his UVA Law class before clerking, starting his own law firm, and beginning his service on the Delaware Court of Chancery, spoke to students to discuss the key fundamentals behind corporate law and boards of directors. He centered in on key questions such as to whom board members owe fiduciary duties, what those duties are, and what happens when these duties are breached. Laster discussed the differing standards of review on the Court of Chancery and how critical these standards are in making decisions. In closing, Laster encouraged students to apply for clerkships and to not overlook how valuable clerking at the state level can be.
After spending last semester in Corporations with Professor Curtis, I thought Laster did an excellent job summarizing the key doctrines of corporate law and describing what big issues remain relevant. Most compelling to me was his discussion on what it means to maximize shareholder value. He stressed the importance of remembering that, in aiming to maximize shareholder value, board members shouldn’t necessarily be doing whatever is in their power to keep the company alive as its own entity. Sometimes the best move is to pursue a merger, allow a takeover, or otherwise terminate the corporation for the sake of creating the most value for investors. Laster cited movie rental companies as an example of this important point; these businesses faced an increasingly uphill battle in maintaining value for stakeholders and some, instead of trying to stay relevant, looked for ways to maximize value beyond remaining a corporate entity. Laster emphasized the importance of strategy in the boardroom and left the audience with a lot of great takeaways.
Several students attended all the panels and discussions held in Caplin Pavilion, excited to learn more about what key issues were dominating the corporate legal profession. Read Mills ’20, said, “The keynote address was fantastic. Vice Chancellor Laster provided valuable insight into how courts view and assess a corporation’s fiduciary duties to activist shareholders. I was really interested to hear his perspective on why Delaware’s standard of conduct and standard of review work together to give corporations flexibility and promote efficiency.” Sydney Mark ’20 also found the event to be a great learning experience. Mark told the Law Weekly, “I thought Professor Curtis did a great job of getting a variety of opinions and thought it was a well-done event. Everyone should be required to listen to the first panel because they were amazing and [the panel] is totally applicable beyond the boardroom.”
Mark and Mills, along with several others, really enjoyed the day spent learning about the big issues that they and their colleagues could be directly addressing in their future legal careers. As these issues continue to evolve, it is important to continue to be engaged in the conversation. Events like this help students take control of their learning and hit the ground running when they enter the legal profession after law school.
2Ls Toast a Job (Halfway) Well Done
Jamie Butkus ‘20
Last Wednesday evening, the UVA Law Class of 2020 celebrated the halfway point of law school with a “Midway Toast” in Caplin Pavilion. And like most law school events serving complimentary food and alcohol, there was strong turnout. A handful of professors and other Law School faculty stopped by, along with Dean Risa Goluboff, who gave the event’s keynote.
The Class of 2020 throngs Caplin Pavilion on Wednesday. Photo Kolleen Gladden ‘21/Virginia Law Weekly
After everyone settled in, Dean Goluboff spoke about the significance of the Class of 2020 being halfway done with law school. Dean Goluboff encouraged the 2L class to reflect on how much we have learned these past eighteen months, both inside the classroom and through legal internships.
Dean Goluboff also discussed how a solid legal education comes from three sources: traditional doctrinal classes, practical experience, and studying topics outside of one’s usual interests. The Dean stressed this third point: that engaging in a variety of classes and experiences makes for a well-rounded attorney. Dean Goluboff maintained that lawyers need to be flexible in their approach to the law and avoid specializing too quickly, since attorneys often shift the focus of their practice at some point in their careers. Accordingly, she encouraged the Class of 2020 to get out of our comfort zones the next three semesters, both academically and experientially.
A few 2Ls weighed in on their feelings after the Midway Toast. Lena Welch ’20 told the Law Weekly, “The next morning, I saw a fellow 2L who told me he did not attend the toast. He also expressed his thoughts that law school should only be two years. In response, I shook my head, explaining to him ‘Dean Goluboff said she hoped no one would ever say that.’ And I agree––if it were only two years, I wouldn’t have time to attend the Lego Movie 2[1] with my sectionmates after chatting with them at the toast!” Taylor Elicegui ’20 further remarked on the toast, “The 2L Toast was a lovely event. Dean Goluboff’s speech inspired me to think about all that I’ve learned and set some goals for the next year and a half. It was also great to get so many of my section mates all together in one place.”
As I reflect on my first three semesters at UVA Law, I realize that my experience has far exceeded what I expected when I moved to Charlottesville eighteen months ago. This isn’t to say that the road to this point has been easy. In the words of one of my friends during the Fall of 1L, looking up at me from his laptop while typing an LRW assignment the night before it was due: “Law school is hard.”
Orientation. The first cold call. Noticing that your classmates are way smarter than you. Keeping up with readings. The Civ Pro review session where you realize you know nothing. Finals. Applying to jobs. Journal tryouts. Cramming. Finals. Summer jobs. OGI. Lacking motivation after OGI. Not really doing the readings. Cramming again. Finals again. Rinse, Repeat.
And no, you shouldn’t make comparisons between the Law School and Disneyland. That is some Mickey Mouse heresy right there.
Still, I think that most of us have enjoyed our first eighteen months at UVA Law so far. As I flew back to Charlottesville a few weeks ago, I found that I had missed this place and I was looking forward to seeing friends and catching up with classmates again.
I feel incredibly grateful and privileged to attend this institution, and I think most of us feel the same way.
Cheers to that. Halfway done.
jab9ed@virginia.edu
[1] Editor’s note: this is the fourth Lego Movie to be released since the series began.
Law at the Cutting Edge
Conor J. Hargen ‘20
Anyone on North Grounds last Friday would have seen a plethora of signs for the Digital Democracy Symposium. They also probably would've noticed traffic worse than normal. That’s because Friday, January 25 was a busy day for the Law School, even by the standard of busy days for the Law School.
Panelists address the LIST Conference on Friday. Photo courtesy Grace Tang ‘21.
The Law Innovation Security and Technology organization (LIST) was at it again, hosting the Digital Democracy Symposium in coordination with the Center for Democracy & Technology, co-sponsored by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, the Black Law Students Association, the Center for National Security Law, the Federalist Society, the J.B. Moore Society for International Law, the Minority Rights Coalition, and, last but not least, the Virginia Law Review. The symposium consisted of four panels, an introduction by Dean Goluboff, and a keynote address by Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin. Yes, Friday, January 25 was a busy day indeed.
The goal of this massive undertaking was to examine how technology is threatening democratic institutions and how governments across the globe can respond. LIST Co-Founder and VLR Online Development Editor Chinmayi (“Chinny”) Sharma (’19) wanted to demonstrate that “technology is not some niche subject matter for fringe academics but rather the connective tissue for all areas of the law.” Panels comprising industry leaders tackled the biggest issues of the day, from trustbusting tech giants like Facebook and Amazon to examining the racial biases in cybersecurity.
After Dean Goluboff kicked off the day’s events, Professor Thomas Nachbar moderated the first panel examining “Trustbusting in the Internet Age.” The goal of the discussion was to analyze antitrust law in the digital age and whether government should do more to break up big tech companies’ market power. With the success of private sector growth, functional overlaps now exist in services provided by FAANG companies. It has become impractical to place innovative technology into clear silos, making it more difficult to apply traditional antitrust regulations.
Merritt Baer, Principal Security Architect for Global Accounts at Amazon Web services; Bebette Boliek, Professor of Law at Pepperdine; Rafi Martina ’10, Senior Policy Advisor to U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.); and Chris Riley, Director of Public Policy at Mozilla, engaged in a lively discussion addressing these issues. The panel highlighted gaps in current antitrust laws such as lack of precedent, blurred lines for smaller instances of harm, and the need for antitrust to adapt to better technology ecosystems.
“I thought the Digital Democracy event was timely. ‘Big Tech’ controversies have been omnipresent in the news, and I was really glad that LIST put on an event with leading experts from the industry, government, and media to discuss these issues” said Arjun Ogale ’21. “I particularly enjoyed the ‘Trustbusting’ segment, which focused on how the FTC and antitrust regulators could both level the playing field among competitors and protect consumers at the same time.” Matthew Hoake ’21 agreed. “My favorite panel discussion was ‘Trustbusting in the Internet Age.’ It was great to hear competing arguments for whether or not to use current antitrust authority from those who thought more regulations were appropriate.”
Balkin Keynote
Vice Dean Leslie Kendrick ’06 warmly introduced keynote speaker Jack Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. Balkin is also the founder and director of Yale’s Information Society Project, which studies law and new information technologies. “Balkin is an incredible scholar,” said Dean Kendrick, “and he has written on a wide variety of issues.”
In his address, Balkin discussed the rise of social media and its effects on free speech, as well as new issues in the age of digital infrastructure. Balkin’s speech was both informative and relevant to what we as consumers see on our social media feeds every day. He stressed three key concepts, “freedom of speech is triangular, freedom of speech is not free, and social media rests on business models.”
In light of the challenges facing free speech on social media, and considering biases such as advertising and other monetary incentives, Balkin suggested using information fiduciaries to reduce conflicts of interest. Similar to using a fiduciary in a business to maintain good faith and trust, an information fiduciary could be used for social media.
“I thought Jack Balkin’s keynote provided some insightful thoughts on our world’s current concerns with cyberspace. Most importantly, I appreciated his analysis of how the current tech giants, Facebook and Google for example, sustain themselves and make profits through gaining a large share of the advertising market, which makes it harder for other forms of media to survive,” said Hoake.
Next up was a panel of authors recently published in the Virginia Law Review. They discussed the potential for new technologies to effect existing government functions, from fake news to DUI smartphone apps. Jacob Ruby ’19 and Michael Weisbuch ’19 moderated.
Adam Gershowitz ’01, Associate Dean and Professor at William & Mary Law School, shared his research into technological changes in the criminal justice system. He examined everything from advancements in police investigation technologies to an iPhone app created by private DUI attorneys that helps users calculate their BAC and know what to say if they’re pulled over for driving drunk.
Sarah Haan, professor at Washington & Lee School of Law, discussed the impact that social media has on political awareness and its toxic effect on fact-based reasoning. Haan’s research also examined tech companies’ responses, including Facebook’s efforts to combat fake news after the 2016 presidential election. These topics are discussed at greater length in her forthcoming Indiana Law Journal article: “Post-Truth First Amendment.”
Katelyn Ringrose, a 3L at Notre Dame Law School, discussed her recent note in the Virginia Law Review. She examined the history of data gathering in law enforcement, from mugshots to DNA forensics, and shared the alarming statistic that 50 percent of all Americans have their personal information stored in a law-enforcement database in some capacity. Ringrose also discussed modern controversies in police technologies such as the use of body-worn cameras by police officers and the murky regulations governing their use.
Jacob Rush ’20 addressed issues of election security from his VLR article. In his presentation, Rush called attention to the fact that election vulnerability is no new issue, and controversies surrounding the 2016 presidential election simply “jolted everyone from their slumber.” Rush further argued that the privatization of election systems presents fundamental risks to election credibility and safety, pointing out that allowing for-profit companies to handle government elections is “nonsense on stilts.”
Does Big Brother See Color
Jay Stanley of the ACLU moderated the third panel of the day, which addressed the potential for technology to reinforce prejudice. Brandi Collins, Senior Campaign Director at Color of Change; Natasha Duarte, Policy Analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology; Margaret Hu, Associate Professor at Washington & Lee School of Law; Jeramie Scott of the Electronic Privacy Information Center; and Andrew Selbst, visiting fellow at Yale Law School, all spoke on issues of race and technology.
“One of my main takeaways was technology’s impact on the scope of the issues we face today.” said Joy Wang ’21. “Rather than individual interactions that result from racial bias in profiling, algorithms are applying flawed profiling to almost anyone plugged into tech. Another important point from the panelists is that the notion of technology as an instrument of objectivity is in fact a myth. Codes are written by people, who will inevitably inject some of their own biases into the program.”
The last panel, titled “Information Industrial Complex,” discussed the need for government–private sector cooperation to solve national security problems, including problems created by the private sector. Ellen Nakashima, National Security Reporter for the Washington Post, moderated an engaging discussion between Cliff Chen, Assistant General Counsel at the CIA; Matt Olsen, Chief Trust and Security Officer at Uber; Peter Swire, Professor of Law and Ethics at Georgia Tech; and Ben Wittes, Editor-in-Chief of Lawfare, who skyped in on the big screen.
There was some lively banter between the panelists, who knew a great deal about the subject as many had worked on the public and private sides of this issue. As private companies become increasingly global, retrieving data from other countries for national security purposes becomes more difficult, as does doing business in other countries where data-collection regulations are still unclear. Forcing private companies to cooperate in data sharing is still an open question as well, although all panelists agreed that “the relationship between the government and private sector is imperative.”
Speaking events ended with closing remarks from Greg Nojeim ’85, Senior Counsel and Director at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), with a reception to bring the busy day to an end.
When asked about the desired impact of Friday’s many events, LIST President Jeremy Gordon ’20) said: “The Law School has a critical role to play as a home of extraordinary legal expertise and intellectual firepower in addressing the challenges that emerging technology poses to democratic institutions. LIST is committed to continuing those conversations and supporting future leaders in this area of the law.”
Tryouts Announced for Libel 111
John Dao ‘19
(Libel “Troika”)
Did you make a New Year’s resolution to make more friends? Do you miss the sound of laughter and general happiness? Did you get grades back and decide you suddenly don’t like law school? Then auditioning for the 111th Libel Show is for YOU!
Rewind in case you’ve spent your law school career in a library: The annual Libel Show is a tradition that harkens back to the days when fraternity hazing was welcomed. In fact, the Libel Show is actually the oldest non-continuous UVA Law tradition![1] More importantly, it’s a fun way to meet people and get a free t-shirt.[2] Also, you can participate in such a variety of ways. Some people act in skits; others sing or dance in the songs. We also have a full band for every performance. We even have some people participate in ALL THE WAYS––they get gold stickers.
Being a cast member in the show isn’t actually a large commitment. After being cast, each skit only rehearses for half an hour each week until “Tech Week,” which is the week the show goes up and consists of running through the entire show for light and music cues. Although each cast member is required to be present for the entire performance, they are only required to actively participate during their actual scene. Outside of those scenes, cast members will often study backstage or head further down the hall to socialize.
“Shut up, and tell me how to audition!” you say? All auditions are held the week of January 28. Here’s a simple breakdown of all the available audition times:
Acting: Show up any time within the following windows and read a short skit! Can be accomplished the same time as the singing audition.
Tuesday, January 29 through Thursday, January 31, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in WB154
Singing: Show up any time within the following windows and sing a short acapella piece or rap material! Can be accomplished the same time as the acting audition.
Dance: Show up for one of the following audition workshops to learn a short dance routine!
Friday, February 1, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 pm or Saturday, February 2, from 10:37 a.m. to 12:37 p.m.[3] (North Grounds Rec Center Multipurpose Room 1)
Band: Bring your musical instrument to audition during the following windows!
Tuesday, January 30, and Wednesday, January 31, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in WB152
Email libelshow111@gmail.com with any questions!
Testimonials about how the Libel Show has changed some people’s lives:
“I used to have only two good friends at the Law School, but after Libel I now have three!” – Nicole Llinares
“Some of my students are such little shits; it feels so good to see their lives being lampooned in skits.” – anonymous UVA Law Professor
“I used to be the most popular kid in my class, but now I’m the most popular student in the whole school” – John Dao
“I wasn’t a part of Libel last year, and I really regret it.” – Darden Student who doesn’t even go here
[1] Yes, we did check this fact against a list of the eldest tenured professors.
[2] Free t-shirt subject to availability. Free beer guaranteed, however.
[3] We’re like totally whimsical like that.
iTrek Trip Brings UVA Law Students to Israel
Over winter break, forty-four UVA Law students and one UVA Batten School of Policy student participated in the iTrek trip to Israel. The seven-and-a-half-day trip traversed the country, with the group traveling from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, up to the Golan Heights and Syrian border, and concluding in Tel Aviv. The trip allowed the students to explore the interesting legal questions presented by a complicated place, but they also learned about its historical and religious roots and the vibrant cultures that exist today.
iTrek participants pose in front of an inspirational backdrop. Photo courtesy of Lena Welch ‘20
In addition to the tour educator who stayed with the group for the entire trip, the students heard from such speakers as a former President of the Israeli Supreme Court, a lawyer who focuses on bringing lawsuits on behalf of terror victims, a retired colonel and expert in geopolitics, and a former policy advisor to President Shimon Peres. Additionally, the group heard from a couple of journalists tasked with decoding the complexities of Israel.
The first full day in the country struck a serious tone as the group toured the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum and the Old City of Jerusalem. For those who have been to a different Holocaust museum or even for those who have been to the Yad Vashem, it provided a powerful experience as it attempts to give each victim a memorial and a name. The Old City was another powerful experience as the students toured the Church of the Holy Sepulchre—the location of the burial of Jesus Christ and as such a holy place for Christians—and the Western Wall, the most religious site for the Jewish people.
"Having the first stops of the first full day of the trip be at Israel's National Holocaust Memorial Museum and Jerusalem's Old City provided historical context to the trip,” Julian Kritz ’20, one of the four student leaders, said. “It showed us the immediate necessity of the modern state, born out of the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the long-term Jewish connection to the country, born out of independent sovereignty of the ancient Jewish kingdoms."
The following day, the students traveled to Bethlehem, which is located in the West Bank. The group spent the morning learning about the occupation with the help of a local Palestinian guide. The separation or security barrier, a refugee camp, and even a trip to the Banksy Museum at the Walled Off Hotel introduced them to different perspectives. The group then made its way up to Manger Square to the Church of the Nativity, the location where Jesus Christ is believed to have been born. The church represents another interesting illustration of compromise, as it features locations dedicated to the Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, and Roman Catholic churches.
On Sunday, the students visited the Supreme Court and met with Justice Asher Grunis LLM ’72. Justice Grunis provided an expert perspective into the legal system of Israel, including the interesting issues that face a nation without a written constitution, the function of the basic laws, and the limited standing requirements. The students also learned about the mechanics of the court system in Israel.
After a dip in the Dead Sea, the group toured Masada before traveling north to the Golan Heights. After a briefing of the geopolitical problems dominating the region by expert Miri Eisin, the students took an ATV tour by the Syrian border. The group visited Capernaum and the Sea of Galilee before eating at a Druze restaurant, where they learned about the Druze people, a religious minority in Israel, Syria, and Lebanon.
The group closed out its trip in Tel Aviv. After learning about the novel ways in which Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and Shurat HaDin fight on behalf of terror victims, the students traveled to the newly remodeled Peres Center for Peace and Innovation to learn about the late Israeli statesman as well as the impressive future that awaits the start-up nation.
"The goal of the trip, which we hope succeeded, was to show participants a holistic picture of the country,” Kritz said. “We met with Palestinians and Israelis and traveled the entirety of the country. We hope that participants came away with an appreciation for the complexities of Israel and a desire to keep learning more. I know I, as a leader of the trip, left having more questions than answers."
“I had heard great things about iTrek, so I had high expectations, and the trip was even better than I thought it would be,” Tyler Fredricks ’19 said. “All of the leaders were incredibly knowledgeable about Israel and created an engaging, fun, and open environment where we could ask questions and learn more about the country.”
Throughout the trip, the group engaged in processing sessions to discuss and think critically about the narratives they had been presented or the challenging topics they were forced to confront. But the students were left with questions about Israel.
“I think what really stuck with me from the trip was that ‘one’ Israel doesn’t exist,” Cosi Piehler LLM ’19 said. “I came there pretty uninformed and with a somewhat blurry image in mind. Throughout the trip, I realized that Israel cannot be described in one picture or image, but I got a new image that added to the puzzle every day . . . . And I think the other thing that was really striking to me was how much reality differs from what we see in the media and what international law for example dictates. People kind of create their own reality there, which you can only understand if you’ve been there.”
In addition to the educational, religious, and historical elements of the trip, the iTrek included meals that highlighted the mixture of cultures in Israel. Indeed, the main social aspect of the trip surrounded the dining table, as participants connected with one another as well as the three Israeli law students who accompanied the UVA group.
“From a walking food tour in Tel Aviv, to an introspective processing session after visiting the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial, to visiting Banksy’s Walled Off Hotel in Bethlehem in the West Bank, to driving ATVs through the mountains of the Golan Heights, iTrek did a great job at showing Israel’s diversity, exploring the Arab-Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and building a personal connection to the country,” Fredricks said.
SCOTUS Clinic Wins Big
Students in the UVA Law Supreme Court Clinic reacted with dignified delight earlier this month when the United States Supreme Court ruled for a petitioner represented by the clinic in Culbertson v. Berryhill, 586 U.S. ­__ (2019) in a 9–0 opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. Clinic Director Professor Dan Ortiz argued the case on behalf of petitioner Richard Allen Culbertson, an attorney who represented plaintiffs appealing denials of Social Security benefits, and the clinic students researched, drafted, and edited the briefs in addition to helping Professor Ortiz prepare for oral arguments.
The UVA SCOTUS Clinic poses for a photo on the steps of the Supreme Court. Photo University of Virginia.
Clinic student and Friend of the Law Weekly Lauren Schnepper ’19 outlined the (admittedly rather dry) facts of the case for the paper. Culbertson appealed a client’s denial of Social Security benefits to both the district court and the Social Security Administration, eventually earning the client an award of $35,211 in past-due benefits. Culbertson sought attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §406(a) (aka Title II of the Social Security Act), which governs fees for representation in administrative proceedings, and §406(b), which applies to fees for representation in court. Section 406(b) caps attorney’s fees at no more than 25 percent of past-due benefits. The district court and United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that §406(b)’s 25% cap limits the aggregate fees awarded for representation before both the court and the agency, while Culbertson argued that §406(b)’s cap applied only to court representation.
The clinic—and Professor Ortiz at oral arguments—emphasized a textual argument. Section 406(b) is titled “Fees for representation before the court” and states, “Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits.” (Emphasis added.) The clinic argued that the crucial phrase was “such representation”—that is, that this portion of the statute referred only to representation “before the court,” and that its attorney’s fee cap did not apply to proceedings before an agency.
The Court agreed with the UVA Law Supreme Court Clinic unanimously, holding in an opinion by Justice Thomas that “the statute’s language is plain” (internal quotations omitted) and that “applying §406(b)’s 25 percent cap on court-stage fees to §406(a) agency-stage fees, or the aggregate of §§406(a) and (b) fees, would make little sense.” The Solicitor General’s office switched positions and supported reversal of the Eleventh Circuit, so the respondent was represented by amicus curiae Amy Weil, who argued reading the statute not to cap damages would result in attorneys’ suing their clients to recover attorney’s fees. Justice Sonia Sotomayor advanced that position at oral arguments, but Professor Ortiz riposted that Congress had elsewhere in the statute provided for aggregate caps and that its failure to do so in this section should be read as intentional. He also noted that the vast majority of Social Security disability claimants are judgment-proof, so the Court shouldn’t worry about attorneys’ suing clients to get their fees. Clinic students were confident they had a “strong textual argument,” according to Schnepper, but others reportedly worried after oral argument that Justice Sotomayor would vote against their position. But their worry turned out to be in vain; Justice Sotomayor joined Justice Thomas’s opinion without comment.
The victory was a long time coming for the Supreme Court Clinic students, who began work on Culbertson on their first day of fall semester. Students spent the semester researching the facts, the legal issues, the circuit split (the Fourth and Fifth Circuits joined the Eleventh in holding that the cap applied to agency proceedings while the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth agreed with the Court’s ultimate holding), and opposing arguments. Schnepper called the clinic “one of the most demanding things I have done in law school” but called winning at the Supreme Court “amazing.” Annie Chiang ’19 agreed, saying she was “really excited to see that the win was unanimous” and noting her personal excitement that Justice Thomas wrote the opinion given his textualist prowess. Professor Ortiz lauded the clinic students for authoring all but the final redrafting of briefs and mooting him before oral arguments. “The fear of their embarrassing me, an easy prospect, really forced me to up my game. That’s always healthy.”
Participants in Culbertson lavished praise on the clinic for giving them the chance to participate in such a high endeavor. Chiang called the clinic “a very substantive opportunity for me to learn from really smart and talented people at the law school” and credited Professor Ortiz with helping the students understand “how to best communicate legal ideas—something applicable to this coming semester in the clinic and beyond.” Schnepper attended the oral argument in the case and, being able to anticipate the Justices’ questions and even having answers to a few, had “one of [her] cooler law school experiences.”
Other cases remain for the Supreme Court Clinic: On January 11, the Court granted certiorari in Quarles v. United States, an Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) case in which the clinic represents petitioner Jamar Alonzo Quarles. But for now, clinic students are doing something classically, authentically law school-ish: reveling in the glory of a unanimous opinion on a highly technical issue. Hats off from the Law Weekly to the UVA Law SCOTUS Clinic.
The Law Weekly has published its last edition of 2018. See you in January!
Law Review to Vote Friday on Selection Overhaul
The editorial board of the Virginia Law Review (VLR) will vote Friday on a contentious plan that would overhaul how this Law School’s flagship journal selects its members. The new plan, obtained by the Law Weekly, would limit the number of members admitted on the basis of grades and select half the membership on the basis of a holistic review of applicants’ grades, writing competition performance, and personal statement. The managing board approved the plan by a narrow 16-11 vote.
Current VLR policy is this: The students with the top fifteen GPAs are automatically admitted to VLR, as are the top fifteen performers on the write-on not already admitted by grades. After that, the five students with the next highest grades who also score in the top half of the write-on are admitted, as are the next five highest write-on performers in the top half of the class in grades. Finally, up to ten students are admitted through the Virginia Plan, which considers personal statements specifically tailored to diversity, but is restricted to students in the top half of the class in both GPA and write-on score.
The new plan replaces the Virginia Plan with an authentically holistic review—eliminating the top-half requirement—and removes the Virginia Plan’s quasi-requirement that candidates come from a historically disadvantaged group. Some of the plan’s features are the same as in years past: the ten students with the highest GPAs would be automatically admitted (down from fifteen), as would the students with the top fifteen write-on scores. But the other twenty-five would be selected by VLR’s Membership and Inclusion Committee.
The seven-person committee would be made up of VLR’s Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, a new “Membership and Inclusion Editor” (all three selected by the outgoing managing board) and four members selected by the editorial board and new managing board. The committee would select between fifty and seventy-five students based on an evaluation of their personal statements and their written competition (with the understanding that some of their picks will make VLR through other means and the hope that they would have about fifty candidates to choose from after that). Those students’ information would be sent to the Student Records office, which would send back the students’ cumulative grade information based on relative GPA tier—the committee would not know students’ exact GPAs, just their position in tiers relative to their classmates. And for students whose GPAs come back in the bottom third of the class, VLR would receive no tier information; they would know only that the student is in the bottom third. The members of the committee would then weigh the students’ grade information, their write-on scores, and their personal statements to select twenty-five of them for membership on VLR. Students must receive the votes of five of the committee’s seven members to be admitted.
Supporters and opponents disagreed markedly about the new plan’s merits. Most VLR members who spoke with the Law Weekly did so on condition of anonymity: several pointed to an email sent by VLR Managing Editor Aparna Datta ’19—obtained by the Law Weekly—that informed members that the proposal was “internal and confidential to VLR.” (VLR sources say this was meant to avoid panic among the 1Ls at a stressful time.) Nonetheless, the Law Weekly spoke with nearly a dozen VLR members about the plan, including members of the managing board.
Supporters contend the plan will strengthen VLR by allowing for greater diversity of membership and removing arbitrary hurdles to getting the best students on Law Review. Opponents criticize the plan’s concentration of power in a small number of people, its potential for abuse, and its dilution of what it means to “be on Law Review.”
Several VLR members who spoke with the Law Weekly agreed the current lack of underrepresented students on VLR is a problem, but expressed concern with leaving the selection of half of Law Review’s members to a committee they claim is secretive, opaque, and rife with potential for abuse. “The opposition,” one member told me, “agrees the current lack of diversity is a problem, but thinks this plan is fundamentally flawed because it gives too much power to too few people.”
Another member concurred: “It’s problematic that our current system—one written exam graded on a curve—leaves an unrepresentative group at the ‘top’ of the class,” they told me. “Perhaps [grades and the writing competition] are arbitrary, but discretionary selection from a committee is surely more arbitrary.” Another VLR member agreed: This process “will create opacity, confusion, and stress among 1Ls” unsure how exactly one “gets on Law Review.” Other members worried about the potential for backroom politics, or at least the perception of unfairness. “People will inevitably wonder whether popularity, politics, networking, or other inappropriate factors played a role,” a member said. “Especially since the personal statements will be impossible to keep totally anonymous.”
Another member—who supported last year’s expansion of the Virginia Plan but opposes this plan—echoed that concern, worrying that this “gooey process” could spawn selection based on popularity or even corruption and collusion among the members of the committee, who, though required to give weight to each of grades, the write-on, and the personal statement, are under no obligation to disclose their weighting or have a consistent metric for balancing the three factors. One member called the committee’s discretionary power “insane.”
Supporters of the plan respond that these concerns are overblown or just plain wrong. Editorial board member Kareem Ramadan ’20 told the Law Weekly that while the small number of people selecting half of VLR is a “valid concern,” the concern that the committee would pick members based on politics or favoritism instead of merit is misguided. “I can’t imagine five of the seven people on the committee won’t care about grades,” Ramadan said.
Several supporters also pointed out that scores on the writing competition and GPA are highly correlated; perhaps unsurprisingly, those who do well on law school exams also tend to do well in the writing competition. This means that under the new plan, while the committee wouldn’t see the grades of applicants until after it has narrowed the pool to fifty-or-so candidates, it would have a good idea of candidates’ caliber based on their writing competition results. What’s more, supporters dispute the idea that grades and write-on scores are any less arbitrary than the holistic process that will be applied by the committee. “[M]argins for admission to the law review are incredibly fine,” one member told me, “and there are a vast number of extraordinarily qualified candidates.”
Supporters also contend the holistic review will allow the committee to take into account compelling life experiences that would benefit VLR. “[G]rades and journal tryout scores are clearly not the only markers of success,” Dana Raphael ’20, an editorial board member, told the Law Weekly. “People with fascinating and varied backgrounds—particularly backgrounds that would make adept members such as prior editing experience—should be considered fully for VLR.”
Another member concurred, telling the paper, “I believe that an array of skills, perspectives, and experiences prior to law school is not only valuable but necessary to the continued strength of this publication.” Responding to criticism that too much power is vested in the seven committee members, this member told the paper, “It is set up so that, functionally, the outgoing Managing Board is able to choose about half of the members and the full membership of VLR is able to choose the other half, and any student who is accepted to VLR through the committee process must receive a supermajority of votes, which I think will both do a good job of allowing various perspectives of the broader Law Review to be heard and ensuring that so-called ‘back-room politics’ are virtually impossible.”
Most contentious was the idea, pitched by some opponents of the plan, that selecting half of VLR’s membership through a holistic process will lead to a dilution of what it means to be on Law Review. “I worry that the new discretion-heavy process may take away from some of VLR’s cachet in job and clerkship interviews. Before, being on VLR meant you finished your 1L year at the top of your class or as one of the standouts in the writing competition,” the source told the Law Weekly. “I’m not sure what being on law review will mean to employers or judges if no one knows how students are chosen for membership.”
Another member told the paper the new plan would be “catastrophic in the long term” as it becomes clear that law review membership is no longer a proxy for either high grades or stellar writing. One member was blunter: “Excellent grades—grades good enough to place a student in the top 10 percent of the class—do not happen by accident but are the result of hard work. This plan diminishes the value of grades while vesting discretionary authority in a committee of seven.”
Supporters of the plan sharply disputed the idea that the plan would lessen VLR’s cachet, pointing to the law reviews of Harvard and Columbia Law Schools, which both utilize holistic admissions processes and have not suffered corresponding reputational damage. “The University of Virginia produces exceptional graduates,” Raphael said, “and changing the process by which students are admitted to VLR is unlikely to affect anyone’s employment opportunities.” Another member added, “I think that the implication that [the prestige element] will change is an exaggeration, if not patently false” but also said the worry about prestige “misses the mark,” and that the value in Law Review is not conferring the benefits of membership on its students, but “in the quality and diversity of its scholarship.”
VLR Editor-in-Chief Campbell Haynes ’19 voiced support for the plan in his personal capacity, writing to the Law Weekly, “This membership reform proposal is the result of months of hard work, research, and outreach to other law reviews.” He wrote that the new process “will make our membership process fairer and more open to all” because “selecting a sizable portion of the Review through holistic review will allow VLR to ensure that all students have the opportunity to be fully considered.” Haynes concluded, “It will also allow us to identify potential editors who are strong across the board. That will make us even better at our main job: publishing thought-provoking legal scholarship.”
This is the last edition of the Law Weekly for the semester; there will be no follow-up to this report until January. The leak that produced this piece, as well as long experience with law students, leave us skeptical that we will have to wait until then to hear of the result of Friday’s vote, however. Readers are encouraged to keep their ears perked on Friday. And a timely reminder: tips may, as always, be sent to editor@lawweekly.org.
*Editor’s Note: This article has been edited to reflect that the initial review of candidates for VLR will take into account not just candidates’ personal statements, but also their writing competition scores. It has also been edited to reflect that the managing board approved the plan by a vote of 16-11, not 14-11.
Justice Kennedy Swings by Law School
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy visited the University of Virginia School of Law on November 15 and 16, christening the new Karsh Center for Law and Democracy and displaying a humorous side rarely seen from the bench.
Retired Justice Kennedy onstage. Photo Kolleen Gladden ‘21.
Kennedy, 82, was originally scheduled to visit the Law School in September, but the visit was postponed due to Hurricane Florence’s approach. This rescheduled visit took place on the Thursday and Friday preceding the Thanksgiving Recess, but attendance at Kennedy-related events was undiminished.
Several venues in the Law School played host to the retired justice—Professor Micah Schwartzman ’05 described Kennedy as “generous with his time”—starting with a combined sitting of Professor J. Scott Ballenger ’96’s Civil Liberties and Professor Schwartzman’s own Religious Liberties courses on Thursday. There, Justice Kennedy—the author of famed civil and religious liberties cases such as Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges—lectured on his jurisprudence and took questions from students.
Next on Thursday, Kennedy participated in a lunch in the faculty lounge with a group of students selected from diverse backgrounds. The justice talked about his own experience in the law: law school at Harvard, returning home to take over his father’s law practice in Sacramento, and being appointed by President Gerald R. Ford to the Ninth Circuit. He quoted Aristotle, stuck up for the Socratic method, and recalled the very different days during which he began his law practice in Sacramento, days he said lived up to the term “old-boys club.” Asked his favorite film, Kennedy gave a classic Kennedy answer: Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, the 1967 version starring Spencer Tracy, in which Tracy’s daughter is set to marry a black man, which makes her parents uneasy. As Kennedy describes the film, Tracy’s character stands out on his San Francisco balcony wrestling with his convictions, finally realizing that he’s wrong, that his opposition to the marriage was derived from his prejudice.
Readers needn’t be experts in Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence to know he was often held to have changed his own mind. From Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which he joined the joint opinion upholding the core of Roe v. Wade despite previous opposition to legalized abortion, to Fisher v. Texas, in which he upheld the University of Texas’s affirmative action program after previously voting to strike it down, Justice Kennedy was renowned on the bench for his willingness to reconsider his own previous positions. Kennedy largely avoided providing answers to substantive legal questions, responding to Molly Cain ’20’s thoughtful question about how his opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway—upholding explicitly Christian prayer by councilmembers in municipal meetings—might influence zoning variance decisions relating to religious minorities with a fascinating story about his own experience representing a client before a zoning commission.
On Friday, Justice Kennedy appeared in Caplin Auditorium as part of the kickoff of the Karsh Center for Law and Democracy. Funded by a record $44 million donation from philanthropist financiers Bruch Karsh ’80 and Marth Lubman Karsh ’81, the Karsh Center promotes “civil discourse and democratic dialogue, civic engagement and citizenship, ethics and integrity in public office, and respect for the rule of law.”[1] Justice Kennedy’s visit was the perfect fit for the Karsh Center’s kickoff. Professor Schwartzman told the Law Weekly, “Justice Kennedy—both in the classroom and at his public interview—emphasized the importance of reason-giving in judicial decision making. The Court’s only power is the power to persuade by the reasons it gives. The mission of the Karsh Center is to foster civil discourse, which is about the exchange of reasons and about justifying how we relate to one another under the rule of law.”
Dean Risa Goluboff introduced the Karshes to talk about their gift and about Justice Kennedy. Telling the story of how he moved to California to clerk for then-Judge Kennedy, Bruce Karsh reflected on Kennedy as a boss, calling him “courteous and kind” and recalling how the judge would invite him over to his house for dinner to spend time with his young family. Bruce Karsh went on to work for O’Melveny & Myers and then in private equity, co-founding Oaktree Capital Management. Martha Karsh spoke next, calling Kennedy “a beacon of wisdom, jurisprudence, and leadership.” She thanked Kennedy for welcoming Bruce and her to their family and California and quoted Jefferson: “Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.”
After the Karshes finished speaking, Dean Goluboff introduced David Rubenstein, who interviewed Kennedy for the event as part of his David Rubenstein Show on PBS. The conversation between Rubenstein and Kennedy centered on Kennedy’s years on the court and his reasons for leaving. To the latter question, Kennedy answered, “It’s hard leaving something you love, but you can do it for something you love more,” telling of how he had spent too many years working away from his wife Mary. Quizzed about his feelings toward his successor, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh—who clerked for Kennedy and endured a brutal confirmation process that included accusations of past sexual misconduct—Kennedy ducked the direct question, but said, “The public will see that the system works” and reassured the audience that the Court “is operating in a collegial, thoughtful way.” When Rubenstein noted there were now two former Kennedy clerks on the Court (Kavanaugh and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch), Kennedy quipped, “All we need is one more and we can rule the world,” drawing laughter from the unsuspecting audience. That wasn’t his only laugh line; Kennedy caused laughter throughout the audience with his surprisingly on-point imitation of President Ronald Reagan, who knew Kennedy when he was governor of California and who nominated Kennedy to the Supreme Court.
After talking with Kennedy about the inner workings of the Court, Rubenstein asked about his plans for the future. Writing and teaching, Kennedy replied. He also expressed an openness to sitting on the lower courts and brought up Aristotle again. Aristotle thought, Kennedy said, that democracy was a bad form of government because it could not mature. “Our destiny—our duty—is to prove him wrong.” Kennedy wrapped up by telling the crowd what he wanted the American people to know. He reiterated his faith in the Supreme Court, telling the audience that the Court “is dedicated to finding what the law is,” that its work is “not a partisan exercise,” and that “the work of freedom is never done.”
[1] https://www.law.virginia.edu/karsh/about.