* Charles Fried is pretty sure Senator Ted Cruz is crazy for saying there was only one Republican on the Harvard Law faculty. But the joke’s on Fried… no one considers a Reagan appointee a Republican anymore, you silly goose! [New Yorker]
* Brian Leiter and Paul Campos had a little dispute. This article sums it up and has some interesting thoughts on just how little law professors care now about their own teaching methods. Don’t read this if you’re averse to honesty. [The Faculty Lounge]
* Fisticuffs erupt over messing with the thermostat. This is an official warning to the other ATL editors if that office is too hot next week… [LegalJuice]
No, Professor Jacobson, you won’t be getting her scalp.
Yesterday we mentioned the latest issue to arise in the contentious Massachusetts Senate race between incumbent Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor turned political candidate and national celebrity. On his blog, Legal Insurrection, Professor William Jacobson of Cornell Law School effectively accused Warren of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Massachusetts.
Are the accusations valid? Let’s hear from some experts — and from you, through a pair of reader polls….
This is a continuation of our prior post about an event we recently attended at Georgetown Law School, “On Liberty: A conversation between Justice Stephen Breyer and Professor Charles Fried.” For more background about the event, click here.
For the conclusion to our write-up, keep on reading. We bring you a “true confession” from Justice Breyer, as well as Professor Fried’s interesting views on gay marriage.
(Before returning to Harvard Law School, Professor Fried was a justice on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state’s highest court. But he was back in academia when they decided the gay marriage case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.)
Our coverage continues, after the jump.
As we mentionedearlier, on Friday we headed downtown to Georgetown Law School for “On Liberty: A conversation between Justice Stephen Breyer and Professor Charles Fried,” of Harvard Law School. We were invited to this event by Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal (whom we thank for his hospitality).
Yesterday we shared with you our photos from the event. Now, the first half of our write-up — after the jump.
As we mentioned lastweek, on Friday we were delighted to attend “On Liberty: A conversation between Justice Stephen Breyer and Professor Charles Fried,” of Harvard Law School.
We were invited to this event by Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal, a legal academic celebrity (and former Breyer clerk). Professor Katyal did an excellent job as moderator of the discussion.
A more detailed report will follow in short order. For now, check out our pretty blurry pictures — after the jump.
We just got back from the very interesting discussion between Justice Stephen Breyer and Harvard Law School Professor Charles Fried, held at Georgetown Law School, and moderated by Professor Neal Katyal. We’ll post a full report — and photos — in the near future.
For now, though — we’re running out the door again — here’s our favorite part of the discussion.
Professor Katyal poses a hypothetical concerning whether, consistent with the First Amendment, a law could be passed forcing networks to replace entertainment shows like “Lost” with more civic-minded, educational fare, like vice-presidential debates. The example raises a tension between First Amendment freedom and Justice Breyer’s conception of the First Amendment’s purpose: promoting civic awareness and participation.
Professor Fried — who is a very dignified, elegant, and professorial older gentleman — starts to respond.
Professor Fried: “I watched Grey’s Anatomy for the first time last night, while flossing my teeth, in the other room. My wife doesn’t allow me to floss in the same room as her.”
[Laughter at this totally random domestic confession. The audience takes a moment to imagine Professor Fried in paisley pajamas, flossing his teeth, while his wife awaits his return in the bedroom.]
Professor Fried: “And I can assure you, the show is far more entertaining than any vice-presidential debate!”
Justice Breyer: “Gray’s Anatomy? I thought that was a medical text.”
Professor Fried: “You watch it, you’ll see that it ain’t!”
Unfortunately, the discussion quickly turns to campaign finance reform. We never learn whether Professor Fried favored “Dr. McDreamy” or “Dr. McVet” for Meredith Grey.
It’s only a matter of time before Justice Stephen Breyer takes out — or maybe grants himself? — a temporary restraining order against us. We are just following the poor man around.
We were present when Jeffrey Toobin interviewed Justice Breyer, at the New Yorker Festival. We caught SGB again on Tuesday night, when he debated Justice Scalia. And now we’re off to see him again, for the third time in as many months.
We’re heading across town to Georgetown Law, to attend A Conversation with Justice Breyer and Harvard Law Professor Fried. And we have high hopes for this star-studded extravaganza.
Justice Breyer’s intellectual sparring partner is Professor Charles Fried, one of the country’s leading conservative legal minds. In case you’re not familiar with his breathtaking resume, the highlights include service as the U.S. Solicitor General, from 1985 to 1989, and on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, from 1995 to 1999. Now he’s just slumming it, as the Beneficial Professor of Law of Harvard Law School.
(Great title! Better than being the Superfluous Professor of Law — which, sadly enough, is a title for which there is much competition.)
Oh, and the moderator is a star too: the phenomenally brilliant Professor Neal Katyal, a former law clerk to Justice Breyer, who successfully argued the historic case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld before the Supreme Court. Professor Katyal is one of the few young legal minds who can be mentioned in the same breath as Professor Noah Feldman — which is high praise.
In light of his celebrity — he even appeared on The Colbert Report, and was hilarious — we crowned Professor Katyal the Paris Hilton of Legal Academia. As we explained to the Paris Hilton of the Federal Judiciary, any comparison to Paris is meant only as a compliment. (Even Camille Paglia still likes her, despite the recent overexposure.)
We shall return. And we’ll bring you a full report of the exciting proceedings. Ciao! A Conversation with Justice Breyer and Harvard Law Professor Fried [Georgetown Law]
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past six years. You can reach them by email: [email protected].
Since late last year, things have been booming in Hong Kong / China in cap markets, especially Hong Kong IPOs. M&A deal flow has recently been getting a bit stronger as well. Although one can’t predict such things with any certainty, all signs are pointing to a banner entire 2014 for the top end US corporate and cap markets practices in Hong Kong / China. This is not really new news, as its been the feeling most in the market have had for a few months now and things continue to look good.
The head of our Asia practice, Evan Jowers, has been in Hong Kong for about 10 days a month (with trips every other month to both Shanghai and Bejing) for the past 7 months, and spending most of his time there meeting with senior US hiring partners at just about all the major US and UK firms there, as well as prospective candidates at all associate levels and partner levels, and when in the US, Evan works Asia hours and is regularly on the phone with such persons, as our the other members of our Asia team. Our Yuliya Vinokurova is in Hong Kong every other month and Robert is there about 5 times a year as well. While we have a solid Asia team of recruiters, Evan Jowers will spend at least some time with all of our candidates for Asia position. We have had long standing relationships, and good friendships in some cases, with hiring partners and other senior US partners in Asia for 8 years now.
The evolution of relationships between the genders continues. Currently, in law firms, there is an interesting conundrum; balancing the desire for a gender-blind workplace where “the best lawyer gets the work and advances” and the reality of navigating the complicated maze created by the fact that, in general, men and women do possess differences in their work styles. These variations impact who they work with, how they work, how they build professional connections and how organizations ultimately leverage, reward and recognize the talents of all.
Henry Ford sat on his workbench and sighed. A year earlier, he had personally built 13,000 Model Ts with his own hands. Fashioning lugnuts and tie rods by hand, Ford was loath to ask for help. Sure, there were things about the car that he didn’t quite understand. This explains the lack of reliable navigation systems in the Model T. But Ford persevered because he knew that unless he did everything, he could not reliably call these cars his own.
“Unless my own personal toil is responsible for it, it may as well be called a Hyundai,” Ford remarked at the time.
The preceding may sound unfamiliar because it is categorically untrue. And also monumentally stupid. Henry Ford didn’t build all those cars by hand. He had help and plenty of it. Almost exactly one hundred years ago, Henry Ford opened up the most technologically advanced assembly line the world had ever seen. Built on the premise that work can be chopped up into digestible pieces and completed by many men better than one, the line ushered in an age of unparalleled productivity.
Today, an attorney refers business because he can’t do everything the client asks of him.
There are three reasons why this is way dumber than a made-up Henry Ford story…