Justin De La Cruz Martinez v. Timothy Creany

USDC for the Western District of Pennsylvani

Jury nullification in the US (Glenn Reynolds, University of Tennessee College of Law)

Imagine you are a juror in a criminal trial. The evidence is overwhelming that the defendant is guilty. But you can’t shake the feeling that it would be unjust to convict. Maybe you don’t believe what the defendant did should be treated as a crime. Or maybe you simply believe the defendant deserves mercy. Can you vote to acquit, or must you vote according to the evidence? It turns out that, in the US and the UK, jurors do have the power to acquit, even if they believe a defendant committed the charged crime. This is known as jury nullification. In this episode, host Janelle Wrigley chats with Professor Glenn Reynolds from the University of Tennessee College of Law. They discuss the history of jury nullification in the US, the role of the jury, and the debate on whether jurors should be told they have the power to nullify if they believe a conviction would be unjust

Can LLM Chatbots Provide Effective Legal Advice? An Analysis of Current Capabilities and Limitations

This post explores the current capabilities and limitations of LLM chatbots in the legal domain. It is the first in a blog series titled ‘GenAI and Consumer Law’, which draws on insights from an ongoing research project that explores the potential of large language models (LLMs) in enhancing India’s consumer grievance redressal system

Faithfulness as a Husband, Father, and Attorney

Wednesday, September 4, 2024 | 12:30 PM | Eck Hall of Law, Room 3140 The St. Thomas More Society hosts Notre Dame Law School alum Michael Bradley, who speaks of faithfulness as a husband, father, and attorney. Michael was a Polking Fellow, clerked for Judges Hardiman and Pryor, and is starting at Jones Day in D.C. He\u27s also the father to five young children. He will be speaking about incorporating your faith in your career and how to maintain a strong family and spiritual life as a lawyer. Sponsor: St. Thomas More Societyhttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_posters/1877/thumbnail.jp

In Re: Raj Patel

USDC for the District of Delawar

Vertiv Inc. v. Wayne Burt PTE Ltd

USDC for the District of New Jerse

USA v. Ernest Fennell, Jr.

USDC for the District of Delawar

Brandeisian Banking

Banking law shapes the structure of the banking system, which in turn shapes the structure of the economy. One of the most significant ways that banking law in the United States traditionally sought to promote Brandeisian values of stability and decentralization was through a combination of carrots and sticks that enabled small banks across the country to thrive. To see this requires a richer understanding of Brandeis as someone who valued not just atomistic competition but also small business and broad flourishing. It also requires a deeper understanding of the ways different parts of banking law worked together during the heart of the twentieth century. Following the New Deal, banking law imposed significant restrictions on the ability of banks to expand in scale or scope, resulting in a proliferation of small, community-oriented banks. At the same time, banking law also limited entry, allowing banks to often operate as local monopolies or oligopolies, insuring deposits, and limiting the ability of banks to pay interest on deposits. By supporting the profitability of banks and the value of a bank charter, these guarantees and restraints made bankers less inclined to take risks that might result in their bank failing. The net result was a banking system that was both remarkably stable and remarkably diffuse. Although the same conditions cannot be readily replicated today, understanding the way banking law simultaneously promoted stability and broad economic opportunity is critical to understanding the ways that banking law has, and could again, serve Brandeisian aims