Search

This Article examines the judicial role in professional ethics regulation through the lens of the judiciary's own self-governance on sexual misconduct. The #MeToo movement exposed the long-enduring silence of the courts. Headlines featured judges like Alex Kozinski, who retired from the Ninth Circuit in 2018 after numerous former clerks went to the media with credible allegations of sexual misconduct. In 2019, at the instruction of Chief Justice Roberts, the federal judiciary amended the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to make clear that misconduct includes unwanted, offensive, or abusive sexual conduct and to include protections for those who report such behavior. But many argue the reforms do not go far enough. Congress, in the wake of media outcries, held hearings in early 2020. The judiciary's tepid response holds consequences not only for the judges and the survivors of sexual misconduct but also for the legal profession as a whole. Leaving meaningful #MeToo remedies to journalists and lawmakers threatens judicial independence; it sets a precedent that could influence further intervention into other areas of professional conduct governance that is traditionally reserved for the courts. After offering additional reforms for addressing sexual misconduct in the judiciary, this Article concludes by reflecting on lessons that can be drawn about the judicial role in professional ethics regulation more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What happens when artificially intelligent robots misbehave? The question is not just hypothetical. As robotics and artificial intelligence systems increasingly integrate into our society, they will do bad things. We seek to explore what remedies the law can and should provide once a robot has caused harm. Remedies are sometimes designed to make plaintiffs whole by restoring them to the condition they would have been in "but for" the wrong. But they can also contain elements of moral judgment, punishment, and deterrence. In other instances, the law may order defendants to do (or stop doing) something unlawful or harmful. Each of these goals of remedies law, however, runs into difficulties when the bad actor in question is neither a person nor a corporation but a robot. We might order a robot-or, more realistically, the designer or owner of the robot-to pay for the damages it causes. But it turns out to be much harder for a judge to "order" a robot, rather than a human, to engage in or refrain from certain conduct. Robots can't directly obey court orders not written in computer code. And bridging the translation gap between natural language and code is often harder than we might expect. This is particularly true of modern artificial intelligence techniques that empower machines to learn and modify their decision-making over time. If we don't know how the robot "thinks," we won't know how to tell it to behave in a way likely to cause it to do what we actually want it to do. Moreover, if the ultimate goal of a legal remedy is to encourage good behavior or discourage bad behavior, punishing owners or designers for the behavior of their robots may not always make sense-if only for the simple reason that their owners didn't act wrongfully in any meaningful way. The same problem affects injunctive relief. Courts are used to ordering people and companies to do (or stop doing) certain things, with a penalty of contempt of court for noncompliance. But ordering a robot to abstain from certain behavior won't be trivial in many cases. And ordering it to take affirmative acts may prove even more problematic. In this Article, we begin to think about how we might design a system of remedies for robots. Robots will require us to rethink many of our current doctrines. They also offer important insights into the law of remedies we already apply to people and corporations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This legal-literary essay engages the current social and jurisprudential moment, encapsulated by the hashtag #metoo.1 It focuses on the allegations, made in the first week of December 2017, that Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski verbally sexually harassed former law clerks Emily Murphy and Heidi Bond. I wrote the lioness's share of the piece during December 10-11--that is, in the days before news outlets reported that other women complained of Kozinski touching them on the thigh or breast while propositioning them for sex or discussing recent sexual encounters2--and concluded that Kozinski was unlikely to face impeachment or meaningful judicial censure, but that he should nevertheless resign because his maintenance of his judicial position was untenable. What occurred next proved a shocking installation in the annals of American judicial history: After hiring feminist icon Susan Estrich3 as counsel and asserting that the claims against him were "not true,"4 Judge Kozinski did retire on December 18, 2017, explaining that he could not "be an effective judge and simultaneously fight this battle. . . . Nor would such a battle be good for [his] beloved federal judiciary.". Beyond qualifying me, for the first time in my life, more as a baffled Hildegard von Bingen6 than as a grouchy Cassandra,7 the most notable aspect of my essay is its form. It is auto-fiction,8 composed in the style of a letter of recommendation that an unnamed U.S. law professor attempts to write for a student who seeks a clerkship with Judge Kozinski during those frenzied and confusing first weeks of December. The "letter" also contains editorial comment flags, written by an unidentified colleague. The "foul papers"9 style of this letter permits an expression of the intense emotion catalyzed by the allegations against Judge Kozinski, and also allows us to consider the double bind that law professors and law students find themselves in with regard to clerkship applications tendered within a legal culture shaped by male dominance and white supremacy. Further, the document's footnotes denote the copious subtext that can lie beneath the surface of oppressed people's sometimes strangled speech. The employment of the comment flags allows for a certain amount of "cross talk" to this outpouring, critiques that mainly express the position of the hegemonic power structure (except for some gadfly citations to Janet Halley, Jacob Gersen, and Jeannie Suk). In these comment flags, we can see how even the most basic aspects of legal discourse (Bluebook conventions; formatting; professionalism) encourage denial of the emotional disorganization and rage that flow from sexual harassment and other kinds of oppression. We also can discern how legal discourse's obsession with "relevance" stymies the engagement of racial, class, and queer intersectionalities. Additionally, it is worth noting that some of these comment flags ask hard and valuable questions. Together, this contest of voices and perspectives interrogates why calls for Kozinski's resignation were "off the wall" on December 8--that is, that they were so unthinkable that he could gleefully brush them off during that first week of the month10--but legitimate on December 18. N.B.: The piece is written as if it is still December 11, just after the allegations of verbal harassment were reported, but before the complaints about physical touching came out in national news. That is, it is "written" in the moments before Judge Kozinski's reputation suffered irreparable blows, and his remained a sought-after clerkship despite longstanding rumors and complaints of his misogyny. In my efforts to harness the legal-literary style to uncover the effects and constructions of oppression, I take inspiration from DERRICK BELL'S FACES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WELL: THE PERMANENCE OF RACISM (1993), Richard Delgado's Storytelling for Oppositionists and Others: A Plea for Narrative, 87 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 2411 (1989), and PATRICIA WILLIAMS' THE ALCHEMY OF RACE AND RIGHTS (1992). I also build upon Kathryn Abrams and Hila Keren's Who's Afraid of Law and the Emotions? 94 MINN. L. REV. 1997 (1998). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a keynote address to Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, at the conference "The Future of Class Action Litigation: A View from the Consumer Class" held at New York University's School of Law, who is in conversation with speaker Arthur R. Miller.

The article presents the career profile of judges of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit including Alex Kozinski, Carlos T. Bea and Marsha S. Berzon. Topics discussed include Kozinski's role as Chief Judge and his nomination by President Ronald Reagan to the Ninth Circuit, appointment of Bea to the San Francisco, California Superior Court in 1990, and the role played by Berzon as a law clerk under Judge James R. Browning.

The article focuses on the use of intellectual property in protecting publicity rights lawsuits asserting the copyright and trademark infringement claims. It discusses the Chief Judge Alex Kozinski's warning on the intersection of publicity rights and intellectual property protection in the digital age focusing on copyright and trademark infringement claims. It presents the views of sociologists Georg Wilhelm, Friedrich Hegel and Immanuel Kant on safeguarding identity by copyright protection.

The article presents profiles of the judges that serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as of April 2014, including information on Chief Judge Alex Kozinski's education at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, and Senior Judge Arthur L. Alarcón's role as a Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Army from 1943 to 1946. Judges Carlos T. Bea, Marsha S. Berzon, and Jay S. Bybee are mentioned, along with judicial nominations by then-U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The article discusses investigation of Delaware physician Earl B. Bradley that resulted in a conviction and sentence of fourteen consecutive life terms for the sexual abuse of children. It also discusses decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski regarding restricting searches of computers in order to minimize privacy intrusion while permitting effective law enforcement. It describes Kozinki's computer search decision in context of the law governing the search and seizure of computers and reflects on the dangers of inevitable discovery.

The article offers information on the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Senior Judge Arthur Alarcón, and Judge Carlos T. Bea. Information is provided on the U.S. president that nominated each of the judges, their educational history, and their prior work experience.

The article presents a list of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which include Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Judge Carlos T. Bea, and Judge Jay S. Bybee.

The article profiles several judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judges being profiled include Alex Kozinski, who is serving a seven-year term as Chief Judge, Arthur Alarcón, who was a deputy Los Angeles County district attorney, and Carlos T. Bea, who served as litigator in San Francisco. Other judges include Robert R. Beezer and Marsha S. Berzon.

The article discusses a court case wherein the defendant's drug testing result beyond the government's warrant. The Ninth Circuit under Chief Judge Alex Konzinski examines the scope of Fourth Amendment, a law that protects individuals from intrusion of the government. The court reviewed the scope of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seizure of records relating to bribery and racketeering.

The article focuses on the U.S. property rights law and the call for its modification. It notes that the role of law is in unstable tension with the role of social science when considering social reform. It mentions several views from notable individuals concerning the property law in the country such as Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski, dean Anthony Kronman and professor Hanoch Dagan.

The article profiles the judges of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court in the U.S. It includes Chief Judge Alex Kozinski in Pasadena, California, Senior Judge Arthur Alarcón in Los Angeles, California, and Judge Carlos T. Bea in San Francisco, California. It adds the profiles of Senior Judge Robert R. Beezer in Seattle, Washington, Judge Marsha S. Berzon in San Francisco, California, and Judge Jay S. Bybee in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The article presents a speech by Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, delivered on January 2009 at a symposium. He believes that a constitutional crisis is a political crisis where people chose to ignore the Constitution. He also mentions that the book "Hitler's Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich," by Ingo Müller provides an example of a constitutional crisis.

This article profiles the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. They include Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Senior Judge Arthur Alarcon, Judge Marsha S. Berzon and Judge Jay S. Bybee. It provides the educational background of each judge. Their achievements in practicing law are also given.

Presents a speech by Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, delivered at the 15th Judicial Conference of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, in October 2002. Act which created the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Claims Court; Achievements as chief judge of the Claims Court.

Several letters to the editor are presented in response to the article "Jurors on Film" by judge Alex Kozinski and John Major, published in a previous issue of the periodical.

Presents the transcript of the debate between Judge Alex Kozinski and professor Stephen Bright on the modern view of capital punishment in the United States. Citation of criminal statistics; Deterrent effects of the death penalty such as retribution and specific deterrence; Elimination of the death penalty.