Author: Dave Hoffman

1

The [Law School] Adjunct Problem

Adjunct-ActionAmerican higher education, under pressure on all fronts, has squeezed adjuncts. Adjuncts, in turn, have protested in a variety of public fora, and now seek government regulation to ameliorate the conditions of their employment. In general terms, the problem is this: universities have high fixed labor costs (TT faculty), weak manager oversight – and consequently spiraling costs, and increasing student demand for expensive facilities. Their ability to raise prices is constrained (at least more than it used to be.)  The result is that adjuncts, who typically aren’t organized and who have little job security, can be treated like workers in the rest of the economy – i.e., terribly so long as market conditions permit.  At a variety of schools – including mine – unionization movements are afoot.

One wrinkle concerns the “fate” of law school adjuncts. Law schools typically employ adjuncts to teach cutting edge areas in practice, and those adjuncts are almost always otherwise employed as full-time lawyers and judges. Those lawyers and judges provide students with opportunities to understand developments in practice that no full-time instructor could deliver (whether or not that instructor ever writes a law review article). They also can be sources for leads on jobs, and can model professionalism.  The networking and professional development street runs in both directions.  For many law school adjuncts, association with the school brings significant professional benefits, which are more likely to motivate taking the gig than the relative pittance adjuncts are paid. Lawyers routinely highlight their law school teaching expertise in advertising – “Teaches criminal advocacy at X…”, “Professor teaching ERISA at Y….”  (I can’t prove that clients care about this kind of puffing, but the prevalence of claims in the market suggests they might.) Adjuncts also can use the experience to deepen their knowledge of a field, thus improving their skills.  Or, as Eric Goldman once commented, “There are lots of good reasons to be an adjunct, but the pay is definitely not one of them.”

Now, like university adjuncts more generally, law school adjuncts can feel like second-class citizens. They are rarely if ever even mildly integrated into the faculty.  They usually teach in the evening (when their practices permit them to).  They don’t have offices on campus.  And teaching takes more time than many of them have to give. With that all said, mandating that law school adjuncts be treated like teachers in the rest of the university – and given higher benefits and salary –  is profoundly foolish and unwise.  I realize that that is very easy for me to say.  But  I have heard that at many schools, university-wide adjunct policies designed to make adjuncts’ lives better – some, of course, prompted by unionization – have had perverse effects when applied to law school adjunct faculty.   Law schools are already stretched thin, and there already is a secular trend against adjunct teaching given the reduced numbers of students.  When lumped in with & bumped up with the rest of the university’s adjuncts, law schools respond by employing many fewer adjuncts.

And even in a better law school market, law school adjuncts really are differently situated than their undergraduate counterparts.  Treating them like oppressed graduate students will harm law students, law schools, and lawyers alike.

2

Article Stub: Contracting into Federal Common Law

 

L.B. would hate this idea.

L.B. would hate this idea.

[I'm writing a series of posts I call article stubs - the germs of papers I'll likely never write. Here was the first, finding offerors under 2-207. Dan Markel might - or more likely might not - approve. I used to talk about these pre-draft ideas with him, and he mercifully steered me off most of them before they saw the light of day. In his honor, here's another bad idea. Feel free to tell me so.]

“There is no general federal common law.” We all know it, even though we sometimes, wrongly, qualify the statement “…in diversity cases.”  Though the decision’s constitutional roots are at best obscure, Erie teaches us that federal judges can’t create substantive rules of decision without constitutional or statutory sources. It’s an iconic case – and an ironic one, as it might be an example of the roving lawmaking that it abjures.

But what if you generally liked that set of precedents that followed Swift and preceded Erie?  What if you, as Justice Swayne once did, proudly hold that “We shall never immolate truth, justice, and the law, because a state tribunal has erected the altar and decreed the sacrifice.” What if you just wanted to empower federal judges hearing your contracts case to resort to their own intuitions – guided, no doubt, by the informed views of other federal courts.  Could you contract into a general federal common law framework? Under traditional conflicts principles, the answer is likely “no.”  See Restatement 187 cmt. f (“The forum will not, for example, apply a foreign law which has been chosen by the parties in the spirit of adventure or to provide mental exercise for the judge. Situations of this sort do not arise in practice.” ) But traditional conflicts principles needlessly discourage innovation and now motivate parties to choose  arbitration (where they can benefit ex ante by giving ex post discretion to decisionmakers.) Courts should accept a wider range of choice of law clauses, and should start by permitting parties to opt out of Erie.

Discuss.

 

2

Article Stub: Finding Offerors under 2-207

Boxing-Winner

[I'm planning to write a series of posts I'll call article stubs - the germs of papers I'll likely never write. Dan Markel might - or more likely might not - approve. I used to talk about these pre-draft ideas with him, and he mercifully steered me off most of them before they saw the light of day. In his honor, here's a bad idea. Feel free to tell me so.]


 

UCC 2-207, the battle-of-the-forms provision, is famously a mess.  White and Summers describe it as “an amphibious tank that was originally designed to fight in swamps, but was sent to fight in the desert.” That’d be even more accurate if you replaced “tank” with “Ford Pinto.”  Complexities about.  (Check out this fabulous flowchart produced by one of my students, which provides one path through the maze.) But even if you work  your way through the various intricacies of the provision, resolving debates about the meaning of “expressly made conditional,” and the “knock-out rule,” a deep policy problem lurks: who, exactly, is the offeror?

The question is important because, although the provision was designed to account for a flurry of forms, it clearly privileges those forms which come first-in-time, typically finding the first mover to be an offeror. Unfortunately for the second mover (which can be a nano-second slower online) the merchant offeree’s additional terms are incorporated into the contract only if they are immaterial. Most terms that you’d care to litigate about are material. Summers and White point out that avoiding first form favoritism is an important policy goal, but proceed by privileging that first form as the offer anyway.  (See the 4th edition of their Hornbook, p. 32, n.3)  We can see the importance of the choice clearly by pairing Hill (offeror is the firm) with Klocek (offeror is the consumer). But the cases stand uneasily against each other, because the key analytic move (who goes first and why) is buried — to be fair, less so in Klocek than in Hill. (I’m sweeping broadly here, and avoiding knock-out complications.)

At some level, this confusion is unavoidable — 2-207 is a badly drafted mess.  But in particular here, the problem is that although important consequences flow from making one or the other party the offeror, the Code provides no guidance in making that choice – it doesn’t even use the word offeror in the section.  Doctrine would be marginally  more clear if we made the decision as to who is the offeror explicitly a policy choice. Courts might, for example, make sellers offerors because they bear default liability burdens (warranty, nondelivery) under the UCC. Or courts could empower buyers because they typically initiate transactions, thereby spurring commerce.  Or make the choice depend on some kind of rough information-forcing default allocation.  The key realization is that 2-207 buries the lede, and that courts which simply follow the provision leave us in the dark.

0

Evolving Contract Schemas

A Meeting of the Minds

A Meeting of the Minds?

With co-authors, I’ve been working on a series of experimental papers about contract law that appear to be converging on a theme: what individuals think “contract” means has purchase in the real-world, and that contractual schema is evolving.

A schema is nothing more than a mental model – a framework – to help us organize and process information. A contract schema is the set of background assumptions that we fill in when we think about a legally operative bargain. For those of us who grew up in a largely off-line world, our contract schema involve “doing the paperwork,” “getting it in writing,” and “signing on the dotted line.” (See this article for details). Indeed although most contracts law professors make fun of the metaphor of the meeting of the minds, it captures a real heuristic for a certain segment of society. That so even though form contracts have been part of modern life since the 50s, and almost none of us ever actually negotiate contracts that could end up in court. Indeed, when I started teaching in 2004, students routinely would say “she signed it, she must be bound to it,” even in cases like Specht.  Since this mental model is quite a ways from the reality of online contract, consumers may think they are in contracts when they aren’t, and visa versa.

But what happens when contracts widely explored in pop culture – and presented to you in your formative years – were never signed, never reduced to writing, never negotiated.  The cheerios arbitration debacle, facebook’s demystified terms, your cellphone contract, your cable company’s impossible-to-escape relationship.  What happens when every time you think “contract,” you don’t call up the mental image of a “signature on vellum” but instead “loki on steroids.”  And when companies, realizing this, increasingly pushed “no contract” plans that were actually contracts, just without penalty clauses attached.

Perhaps citizens born after 1980 will have dramatically different attitudes toward contract than those born before. If that’s true, we’ll increasingly find cohort effects in contracting behavior online, as lay intuitions about how to respond to “contract” increasingly turn on the age of the promisee. For those coming of age offline, “click to agree” calls up memories of signature, and consequently infuses bargains with personal honor; for those born digital, “click to agree” means “nothing good is about to happen to me.” Those attitudes toward contract will play out in behavior – in likelihood to breach, to shirk, and to behave opportunistically.

At some point we expect to have direct evidence worth sharing in support of this argument! For now, I thought start discussion by fast forwarding fifteen years, when many judges born in the digital age will have assumed the bench. What changes in contract doctrine follow from changes in contract’s schema? Then again, will there be any contract cases left to decide, or will they all been sucked into arbitration’s black hole?

 

9

Dan Markel, My Friend

Dan Markel had many friends.  You, the reader, know that if you have been surfing the law professor blogosphere, which is full of tributes, notes of gratitude and sadness, and a residue of shock and disbelief.  Indeed, Dan Markel knew more legal academics – by which I mean he had more meaningful conversations and was actually friends with more people – than anyone in the country. Everyone knew him or had a story about him. Even in conversations he wasn’t a part of, at conferences he’d never attended, he was a common point of reference. He was our Kevin Bacon.

I’ve been friends with Dan since law school. He gave me comments on my first paper.  They were tough (“why are you writing a 25 page literature review that no one, including you, will care to read”) but right. And he gave me tough comments on my second paper. Again, he was right.  And my third paper. And my fourth. He didn’t stop when it became obvious that he was also giving hours of time weekly to literally dozens of other people’s work, when he was blessed with two young sons, when he built an active intellectual life at FSU, when he undertook a brutal travel schedule. He gave of himself despite writing scores of articles (and books and op-eds and drafts and more articles) of his own. His unselfishness and rigor were daunting. Where did he find the time? The energy?

But I couldn’t help but keep asking for his help, because no one gave comments like Dan Markel. He wanted to get your arguments right – and he wanted you to write the best version of yourself possible. On the Prawfs thread, I laughed to read a comment that someone can’t help but remember him asking if she had written a “puzzle paper or a problem paper.” Take heart! He thought the third option was not worth your effort. Dan never let you be lazy, and he was a celebrant when you hit a home run. Or even a double. And getting comments from Dan meant giving comments to Dan, which usually involved reading long articles with surprising payoffs, or getting an email and reading just a few pages where Dan had cited your work and wanted to be sure he’d done it justice. Dan attacked his own work like he worked on yours — unsentimentally, methodically, tirelessly, approaching greatness.

Dan reached out constantly.  As I wrote on twitter (which he hated and which he told me I was wasting my time on), in the 17th century, he’d have been Pepys.  In the 19th century, he’d have been a famous letter writer (and romantic poet!)  In the 20th century, he’d have spent most of his income on long-distance phone calls. As it was, I -and many others-got regular calls from him, resulting in a conversation on one of his long walks, or on the way to pick up his boys from day care, or just on a drive.  In each of those conversations he was open & seemingly without that part of our brains which says “don’t say that, it could be embarrassing; don’t admit that, I might make myself vulnerable.” He was wide open. In the last few years, he shared good and bad news alike, and there were times when he was so raw it hurt to listen to him. But those conversations were never monologues – even in the worst of times, Dan always asked about my family. He always strove to be a mensch.

Dan was a person of enormous seriousness and integrity, who cared deeply for his children and his friends. He was a world-builder without an obvious ideological agenda, unique among the hundreds of professors I’ve met in a decade of teaching. I’m so sorry he was taken from us so soon. And I’m so angry that that he died in a way so antithetical to the humane, intellectual, sensitive way that he lived.

0

Introducing Guest Blogger Brishen Rogers

rogers_profileI’m delighted to welcome Brishen Rogers (Temple) as a guest blogger for the next month.  Brishen teaches torts, employment discrimination, and a seminar on current issues in labor law. Prior to joining the Temple faculty, Professor Rogers was a Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School.

Professor Rogers’ scholarship draws on the social sciences and liberal political theory to better understand the role of law in constituting and regulating paid work relationships, with a particular focus on issues of concern to low-wage workers.  One current project explores the role of law and social norms in shaping workers’ preferences towards unionization; another explores the proper role for minimum workplace entitlements in an egalitarian liberal state.  His work has been published in the Harvard Law Review Forum, and the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, among others.

Professor Rogers received his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School and his B.A., with high distinction from the University of Virginia.  Prior to law school, he worked as a community organizer promoting living wage policies and affordable housing, and spent several years organizing workers as part of SEIU’s “Justice for Janitors” campaign.  Welcome Brishen!

4

Judge, Jury, and Arbitrator: The NBA Constitution

nba-releases-its-formerly-secret-constitutionThe NBA has finally made its constitution available online. Notwithstanding the grand title, the document styles itself as a mere contract: “This Constitution and By-Laws constitutes a contract among the Members of the Association . . . The Association and each of its Members shall be subject to the oversight and control of the Board of Governors of the Association as set forth herein and shall be governed by the Constitution and By-Laws, rules, regulations, resolutions, and agreements of the Association, as they may be modified or amended from time to time.”

The justification for Commissioner Silver’s actions turns on this document. Article 24 vests in the Commissioner the power to suspend members, though Don Sterling is permitted an evidentiary contest (which didn’t make the news today):

“Following an opportunity for the affected party to submit evidence and be heard, all actions duly taken by the Commissioner pursuant to this Article 24 or pursuant to any other 39 Article or Section of the Constitution and By-Laws, which are not specifically referable to the Board of Governors, shall be final, binding and conclusive, as an award in arbitration, and enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. In connection with all actions, hearings, or investigations taken or conducted by the Commissioner pursuant to this Article 24, (i) strict rules of evidence shall not apply, and all relevant and material evidence submitted may be received and considered, and (ii) the Commissioner shall have the right to require testimony and the production of documents and other evidence from any Member, Owner, or Referee, any employee of any Member or Owner, and/or any employee of the Association, and any person or Entity not complying with the requirements of the Commissioner shall be subject to such penalty as the Commissioner may assess.”

Article 13(a) then permits the Commissioner to force a sale:

“The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following: (a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association. [If 13(a) is triggered, the league will conduct an evidentiary hearing, at which] the Member or Owner so charged  shall have the right to be represented by counsel. Strict rules of evidence shall not apply, and all relevant and material evidence submitted prior to and at the hearing may be received and considered . . . The affirmative vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all the Governors shall be required to sustain the charges.”

Importantly, “The decisions of the Association made in accordance with the foregoing procedure shall be final, binding, and conclusive, and each Member and Owner waives any and all recourse to any court of law to review any such decision.”

Professor Michael McCann has argued that this last “waiver of recourse” clause is probably enforceable in a breach of contract case.  I don’t think that’s right — or at least, I don’t think it’s a home-run of a claim. But what’s even more mysterious to me – and maybe readers can help – is the idea that the contract clause stating that the Commissioner’s decision on the suspension will be treated  “as an award in arbitration” is sufficient to trigger the FAA’s arbitration privilege.

I would have thought that to take advantage of the FAA, there needs to be clear cut language which sends a dispute to arbitration, before an arbitrator who is distinct from the “prosecuting” party. After all, if the NBA can create a self-preserving and self-executing arbitration process, which can’t your credit card company!  But perhaps there’s something special about the NBA’s constitution which suspends the normal rules?

(All of this, obviously, is merely about the procedural merits.  Substantively, the Commissioner’s remarks were correct, nicely delivered and proportionate.)

Screen-Shot-2012-11-30-at-9.04.45-AM
0

Misunderstanding General Mills

On April 15, General Mills added language to its website which purported, “in exchange for benefits, discounts,” to subject consumers’ claims for use of General Mills products to arbitration and a class-waiver. General Mills, notably, was free to sue in court at will. When the Times noted the change, General Mills reversed course, stating:

[W]e never imagined this reaction. Similar terms are common in all sorts of consumer contracts, and arbitration clauses don’t cause anyone to waive a valid legal claim. They only specify a cost-effective means of resolving such matters. At no time was anyone ever precluded from suing us by purchasing one of our products at a store or liking one of our Facebook pages. That was either a mischaracterization – or just very misunderstood.

 Like Jeremy Telman, I found the emphasized sentence to be mysterious. There are only two ways to square the historic facts with “mischaracterization — or just very misunderstood” claim:

(1) General Mills thinks that “suing us” and “brining a claim in our bespoke arbitral forum” are the same thing; or

(2) General Mills believes that liking “one of our Facebook pages” isn’t the same as “joining our sites as a member [or] joining our online community.”

The first claim is sophistry, the second is frivolous. Roderick Palmore, GC of General Mills, Chicago Law grad, and head of compliance, had a bad week.

But what’s triply irritating about this whole saga is the lack of precision in the Times and elsewhere as to what, exactly, is wrong with the terms. General Mills is right to point out that many consumer contracts contain arbitral class action waivers, though many do not.  Contrary to the other speculation, there’s nothing per se illegal about provisions which shift costs in litigation. General Mills’ arbitration proceeding is actually quite generous about cost shifting, waiving a filing fee for disputes under $5000, and paying for the arbitrators themselves. Though proceduralists generally recoil from arbitration trumping procedure, what’s obviously at stake here isn’t individuals losing “their” right to sue, it’s class action lawyers losing their right to act as private attorneys general in quasi-regulatory cases. The ultimate question here – are class actions in federal court required for consumer protection – is harder than the commentariat has acknowledged.

But there is a legal problem with these particular Terms.  I don’t think they create a contract which binds consumers. Here’s the now-deleted triggering paragraph:

In exchange for the benefits, discounts, content, features, services, or other offerings that you receive or have access to by using our websites, joining our sites as a member, joining our online community, subscribing to our email newsletters, downloading or printing a digital coupon, entering a sweepstakes or contest, redeeming a promotional offer, or otherwise participating in any other General Mills offering, you are agreeing to these terms.

The problem is that most people who participate in such activities are probably not actively required to click to agree to these terms, and consequently aren’t bound to them under traditional (or Principles of Software Contracts) doctrinal rules. They will lack notice, and consequently not be contractually engaged. Even the FAA requires a contractually enforceable arbitration clause to subject claims to binding arbitration – such terms can’t be imposed absent agreement. That is, the terms are unenforceable not because of their content but because of the process of their adhesion.

General Mills obviously knows this. Indeed, I bet that Mr. Palmore has a memo in his file from some aGC, or associate at a law firm, saying so.  But he proceeded with the term rollout anyway because he knows that the issue will be required to be presented to an arbitrator first under the FAA. [Update: I'm informed that assent issues are instead usually reserved to courts in the first instance.]  Maybe that arbitrator will ignore the law!  And, he hopes, the in terrorem effects of the purported class-waiver of the clause will sufficiently deter plaintiffs in large false-labeling cases so as to make the terms’ eventual defeat cost-justified.

Or, to put it differently, contract law provides a clear path to enforceability of terms just like these. General Mills attempt to shortcut that path should be seen as an attempt to leverage consumers’ ignorance of the law, and lawyers’ risk aversion, to drive down claims. It’s bad – not good – news for consumer advocates that General Mills withdrew this sally. It would have been a excellent test case of the limits of Carnival Cruise and Concepcion.

Now you can insist on control of your material. You can insist on veto power over everything; down to casting and choice of directors and script approval, you can insist on all those things. J.K. Rowling insisted on all those things. And J.K. Rowling got all those things because there were enough people interested in that. Now if you’re not J.K. Rowling, and you insist on all those things, the studios are not going to be very interested or less studios will be interested in it so you’ll get less money or none at all. Or alternatively, you can not insist on everything and you can just sell them the book and what they do with it is what they do with it and you have to live with it. You no longer have approval over anything, you no longer have…you know what I mean? And those are the two extremes. In between of course there’s a vast area of shades of gray.

— George R. R Martin

0

George R. R. Martin on Copyright, Inheritance, and Creative Control

He cares much more about French dynastic history than you do.

He cares much more about French dynastic history than you do.

This is Part 3 of the interview I did with George R. R. Martin in  2007.  For background and part 1, click here.  For Part 2, click here. For the audio file, click here.

HOFFMAN: Yeah, but you just generally right. The trope something that really speaks to folks. I guess maybe that raises a question about your fans generally. You’ve obviously got a huge fan base and I’ve been reading a little bit about them. One question that comes up a bunch of different times is fan fiction and what do you think about fan fiction?

MARTIN: I’m opposed to fan fiction.

HOFFMAN: Why?

MARTIN: Well number one, its copyright infringement and it can potentially endanger my copyrights and my trademarks if I were to allow it. Also, yes maybe it’s a gesture of love that they love your characters and they love your world and all that but it’s not the kind of gesture of love that I really want. And for aspiring writers and some of these people, sure it’s a wide range of fan fiction writers, some who are terrible. Some of them are actually talented writers. I think for the talented writers it’s particularly tragic because they should be doing their own material.

Read More

[If] you read some fantasy, the magic is omnipresent. In Harry Potter the magic is omnipresent, a primarily magic universe. They got magic for everything there. Every time you turn around there’s a new magic thing that’s popping up. A magic hat or a magic sword or a spell to solve something. Because magic is so omnipresent, you don’t have to [resort] to mundane ways to…solve a murder mystery. “Who murdered Joe? Well we’ll just give him the truth spell and he’ll tell us who murdered Joe,” or “We’ll just cast this other spell and open the veil of time and we’ll be able to see who murdered Joe.” If those options exist then it’s very difficult to write a traditional John Grisham type novel or a detective novel or anything that depends on evidence and all that because there are all these magical ways of getting it.

0

Lawyers in Westeros

An uncomfortable chair in a modern partner's office?

An uncomfortable chair in a modern partner’s office?

This is Part 2 of the interview I did with George R. R. Martin in  2007.  For background and part 1, click here.  For the audio file, click here.

 HOFFMAN: Are there lawyers in your books that are just in the wings off stage that haven’t yet appeared?

MARTIN: That’s an interesting question. I hadn’t really considered that until I started reading those links that you sent me. There are certainly laws but are there special classes of advocates who make their living by interpreting those laws? My inclination is probably not because the laws my books are administered by lords. In some ways it’s government as much for men than law. We like to say our government in the United States is a government of laws not men. In some ways the Seven Kingdoms I think is the reverse. There is basis of a law but also a lot depends on who is interpreting it and who is sitting in the Lord’s seat, who is sitting on the Iron Throne and how they settle these disputes.

HOFFMAN: Well those are ultimate questions but I think in two places one could have imagine lawyers and one of them again will be this church trial because there were church lawyers in the ecclesiastical church system there were lawyers who specialized in canon law. And the second one was at least twice I can think of in the books there’re trials by combat. And I don’t really know what the other alternative would be but I assume would be trial by jury – the path that Tyrion did not choose both times. And I was thinking —

MARTIN: Well he does choose in the first…in the second…second of his two trials, he is being tried – it’s not by jury – it’s by lord. There’s no jury of his peers, no twelve people that are randomly picked but there are three lords sitting on his case and hearing the evidence.

Read More