Participant Actions and Intermediate Outcomes in Initial Joint Sessions and Initial Caucuses

Historically, the initial mediation session usually was a joint session where the mediator and the disputants met together to exchange information and discuss the substance of the dispute. Accordingly, the main components of the initial mediation session and the informational and communication benefits they were thought to provide were discussed in the context of the disputants being together and speaking directly. Today, however, many actions that traditionally took place during the initial joint session, including the discussion of substantive matters and exchanges between the parties, are less likely to occur during initial joint sessions than they did historically and are more likely to take place during initial separate caucuses. These changes lead to questions about whether the actions historically discussed as contributing to mediation outcomes (a) still show these relationships in initial joint sessions today and (b) have the same benefits when they take place during initial caucuses instead of during initial joint sessions

Beyond Blinders and Boomerangs: Assessing State Business Taxation

Karl A. Frieden’s article, “Wearing Blinders in the Debate Over Business’s ‘Fair Share’ of State Taxes” and his subsequent article, “The Boomerang Effect of the Business ‘Fair Share’ Tax Debate,” jointly contend that progressive calls to strengthen state corporate income taxes (CITs) are misguided because businesses allegedly overpay certain other state and local taxes. This essay argues that, while Frieden does raise some valid points about the efficiency of specific tax design choices, his core argument fundamentally misconstrues the central issues: the ultimate incidence of business taxes, the pursuit of equity and efficiency, and the importance of combating harmful tax avoidance. His approach suffers from what might be termed the “incidence fallacy,” and it relies on a straw man representation of progressive arguments, especially those of the group he labels “BEMS” (Dan R. Bucks, Peter D. Enrich, Michael Mazerov, and Darien Shanske)

The Artificially Intelligent RPS Negotiation and Mediation Coach

This document describes the artificially intelligent RPS Negotiation and Mediation Coach (“RPS Coach”) tool, which is an outgrowth of the Real Practice Systems (RPS) Project. It is designed to help many different users perform numerous tasks including (1) attorneys anticipating challenges, strategizing, and representing clients, (2) mediators enhancing preparation, communication, and decision-making, (3) disputing parties making better decisions, (4) ADR program administrators developing clear rules, policies, and materials, (5) educators and trainers teaching practical theory and skills, and (6) students and trainees learning practical theory and skills.RPS theory and practice is designed to help attorneys and mediators help their clients make good decisions in negotiation and mediation. The goal is for parties to be as knowledgeable, confident, and assertive as possible when making decisions. RPS Coach was trained with my writings as well as general dispute resolution authorities. It is designed to address users\u27 needs with clear, practical suggestions understandable to both experts and laypersons. It creates checklists and strategies tailored to specific situations. It asks clarifying questions and invites users to ask follow-up questions. The document describes the value added by RPS Coach compared with an untrained AI tool.Educators can use RPS Coach to develop syllabi, class outlines, simulations, exercises, and materials to achieve specified learning objectives. They can use RPS Coach during class discussions. They also can use it to design and apply rubrics analyzing students’ exams and papers

Time to REDRESS® Hazing: Changing the Way Universities Deal with Hazing Claims and Allegations

Every year, excited eighteen-year-olds step foot on a college campus ready to start a new chapter. Ready to try new things, these students join various organizations eager to make new friends and connections. Daniel Santulli was no different. He was an excited nineteen-year-old freshman at the University of Missouri in the fall of 2021. Santulli decided to join the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity and was ready to make lifelong friendships. However, on October 20, 2021, Santulli suffered a life-altering injury due to an alcohol-related hazing incident. Santulli was “marched, shirtless and blindfolded, into the basement of the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house” and was subjected to finishing bottles of hard liquor. Security footage revealed Santulli drinking alcohol through a beer bong and then falling onto the floor. His supposed “brothers” left Santulli on a couch and then later as they moved his limp body, they dropped him on a tiled floor where he hit his head. That evening, Santulli experienced cardiac arrest and suffered damage to his occipital cortex. The severity of Santulli’s injuries resulted him being unable to walk or talk and in need of lifelong care

From Sheltering to Sentencing: An Examination of Immigrant Harboring Under 8 U.S.C. § 1324

Imagine you are washing dishes in the restaurant where you work when government officials walk through the front door. You hear them announce that they have a warrant to search the restaurant and ask to speak with the owners. Amidst all of the confusion and panic, you become instantly alarmed. If the owners are arrested, you will lose your job, your living space, and your means of transportation. Even more terrifying, you realize the impending raid likely indicates your imminent removal from the country. You are one of the estimated 11,047,000 unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States. If your status is discovered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), you will be ordered to leave or, worse, forcibly removed from the country

Discovery, Injury, and Diligence: Reconciling Subjective and Objective Copyright Limitations Standards Post-Warner Chappell

This Article examines the evolving interpretation of the Copyright Act\u27s statute of limitations in light of RADesign, Inc. v. Michael Grecco Productions, Inc., a case pending before the Supreme Court. Following the Court\u27s decision in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy (2024), which left open the question of whether copyright claims can be based on infringement occurring more than three years prior, the circuit courts remain split on whether the three-year statute of limitations runs from the time of infringement (the injury rule ) or from when the copyright holder discovers the infringement (the discovery rule ). Through analysis of the Grecco case, which involves photographs allegedly infringed in 2017 but discovered in 2021, this Article explores the tension between objective and subjective standards for determining reasonable diligence in discovering infringement. We propose a framework that considers the nature of copyrighted works, technological capabilities, and industry practices, while examining the potential role of proportionality in evaluating reasonable discovery efforts. The Article draws parallels to property law concepts like adverse possession and inquiry notice to argue for a balanced approach that protects creators\u27 rights while maintaining legal certainty. This analysis is particularly timely given the challenges digital creators face in monitoring vast online spaces for infringement and the Supreme Court\u27s opportunity to resolve the circuit split on this fundamental issue of copyright law

Bad Paper & the Problems with Moral Turpitude in the VA Context

Moral turpitude serves as a way to exclude former servicemembers from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) definition of a veteran. As a result, servicemembers who commit offenses deemed morally turpitudinous cannot access VA disability compensation, burial in a VA cemetery, education benefits, many types of VA healthcare, or any other of the multitude of benefits offered by the VA. This issue is especially problematic for veterans with “bad paper”—i.e., those with a less than fully honorable discharge—whose underlying misconduct is related to post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), a traumatic brain injury (“TBI”), or another mental health condition