Volume 42 Issue 1

Here’s a look at Volume 42 Issue 1:

1) A Critique of Best Practices in Legal Education: Five Things All Law Professors Should Know, by Michael T. Gibson, Professor of Law at the Oklahoma City University School of Law

Professor Gibson has written a critique of four of the central claims in Best Practices in Legal Education, a 2007 publication that he argues can increase the rigors of legal teaching but “barely touches” current empirical research on legal education and teaching in general.

A synopsis of the article is available here.

2) The Romantic Corporation: Trademark, Trust, and Tyranny, by Malla Pollack, Associate Professor of Law at the Florida Coastal School of Law

Professor Pollack has written a piece which casts doubt on the historical notion that “the welfare of large corporations is central to the United States’ national interest.” The piece discusses and illustrates several ways corporate personhood is used to “manipulate” the public.

A synopsis of the article is available here.

3) The “Walkaway Shop”: Long-Term Union Avoidance And Management Decisions to Open New Facilities As Lawful Conduct under the National Labor Relations Act, by Garrett Wozniak, Comments Editor, University of Baltimore Law Review

This Comment develops a framework for determining when management decisions to create new work should be considered unlawful under the NLRA in light of Boeing’s decision to open a South Carolina plant in 2011. The Comment explains why Boeing did not transfer work from one facility to another and suggests that a management decision to create new work should not be considered violative of the NLRA unless the decision is made with the purpose of discouraging union activity. The piece argues that union avoidance should not be per se unlawful and proposes that management conduct be analyzed under a modified version of the test for partial closings.

A synopsis of the article is available here.

4) Estate Planning for the Posthumously Conceived Child: A Blueprint for the Sperm Donor, by Brooke Shemer, Staff Editor, University of Baltimore Law Review

Given the ability to preserve frozen sperm for at least ten years and the growing use of reproductive technology, an increasing number of children are being conceived from their father’s banked sperm after that parent’s death. Whether these posthumously conceived children may inherit through the deceased father’s estate implicates numerous concerns for legislators, families, and estate planners. Under the proposed solution, Maryland donors would complete a consent form at the time of the donation, creating a signed, written, and witnessed record that expresses the unequivocal intent for the posthumous reproduction to occur and the desire to financially provide for the child. Further, the donor would be required to engage in estate planning during his lifetime to ensure a source of funds for the child’s inheritance.

A synopsis of the article is available here.

As always our most recent issues are available on the University of Baltimore School of Law’s website.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: