Items

• 

  13th Annual South Asia Legal Studies Workshop, 2019 Program

  Item Type:

  Conference Proceeding
  Date:

  October 17, 2019
• 

  Interview of Professor Dirk Hartog by Emeritus Prof. Bill Clune on Willard Hurst and Legal History, July, 2018

  Item Type:
  Date:

  2018-07
  Abstract:

  Legal history has changed a lot since Hurst. A large secondary literature has appeared within and outside law schools, and many more legal historians have been appointed. The field has also moved in new directions such as gender and sexuality, race and the significance of the Civil War, borderland citizenship, and viewing legal history through the lens of imperialism, colonialism, and Atlantic World studies. Over the last 30 years, Hurst’s interest in the history of capitalism and economic growth diminished, but in the last ten years it has become central again through the lens of slavery studies, particularly the debate over whether slavery and slave law were capitalist or anti-capitalist. A debate has developed about the origins of anti-slavery conventions from older sources or modern human rights conventions. Another shift that has occurred away from Hurst’s focus on statutes toward story telling from trial transcripts and finding the voices of subaltern populations. On the other hand, an interesting rebirth of Hurst’s focus is that some of Professor Hartog’s Indian students see his work as relevant to post-colonial history in India. In retrospect, Hurst’s work had strengths and weaknesses. In framing the history of capitalism, he largely ignored oppressed and unrepresented groups, but he did recognize the ruthless greed of the communal “we” that plundered the northern forest. His brilliance came in framing lawmaking as an exercise of improvised social construction cutting across doctrinal areas guided by an underlying consensus of economic liberty and constraints (constitutionalism). Law students can learn important lessons from a legal history course. One is the historicity of law viewed from the outside as influenced by context and from the inside as having its own sense of history and context. Reflecting a “living law” perspective, Chief Justice Warren in the Brown case said that we can’t know what the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended, but we must decide what it means today. Justice Scalia adopted the more conservative approach of originalism, but adherence to the text of the Amendment is what preserves birthright citizenship. Courts generally reflected societal views on same sex marriages as they changed drastically over 20 years. Professor Hartog wrote a book on slavery and freedom in New Jersey which highlighted the concern of legislators that freed slaves might end up on tax-supported poor relief rolls, especially given high rates of interstate mobility. The book follows Hurst in tracing legal change to multiple influences that cut across doctrinal categories (e.g., taxation, not just emancipation) but departs from Hurst on the importance of migration. Law and economics, sometimes viewed as the rival of legal history, reflects the historical influence of economic forces on law and judges’ awareness of such considerations. As for acceptance of legal history among law students, Professor Hartog experienced a great deal of skepticism at Indiana when he taught legal history as a required course but very little when he arrived at Wisconsin, undoubtedly because of Hurst’s legacy. Periodization in history offers an interesting perspective on Hurst. Hurst saw a long period of consensus and conflict around economic liberty and regulation continuing perhaps to the present day and was not interested in conventional periods dated by Presidential terms or conventional labels (e.g., the Gilded Age). Historians since Hurst might emphasize longer and wider periods such as the international slave trade. Immigration and race is another recent example of interest to historians dating from the Chinese Exclusion Act. The idea of an underlying broad consensus is something that may have been lost in recent historical studies.
• 

  Reflections on Frank Remington, the ABF Survey, and the Wisconsin Law School

  Item Type:

  Working Paper
  Date:

  2019
  Abstract:

  This paper is about the significance and impact of Frank Remington and Herman Goldstein’s research on criminal justice administration flowing from the large American Bar Foundation project on the administration of national justice in the 1950’s (funded by the Ford Foundation). The focus of the project was revolutionary for its time: a study of the discretion exercised by public officials at every stage of the criminal justice system: police, prosecutors, bail bondsmen, probation officers, lawyers, and judges. The goals of the project, to produce a new type of scholar of criminal law and to improve the administration of justice, were realized across a range of impacts on research, research institutions, and academic disciplines. Impacts on research included five large monographs written by the project staff, major law review articles written by professors who visited Madison and studied the project’s findings, and Goldstein’s pioneering work on problem-oriented policing. Impacts on academic disciplines included the Wisconsin Law School’s criminal justice administration course, Wisconsin’s clinical law programs, the curriculum of the School of Criminology at Berkeley, and the expansion of the focus on criminal law in departments of sociology, criminology, and political science. Impacts on research institutions included the establishment of the School of Criminal Justice Administration at SUNY Albany, the Vera Foundation (later Institute) in New York City, the Police Foundation in Washington DC, the Center for Court Innovation, and the President’s Commission on Crime and Law Enforcement. The Wisconsin work is seen as in the tradition of Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy in regarding the primary purpose of criminal justice system as providing institutions for solving concrete problems and achieving situational justice rather than as the interpretation of rules. In that tradition, the author calls for more research on problem-oriented prosecution and judging in addition to the existing research on policing.
• 

  Interview with Professor Herman Golstein about studying policing strategies and teaching criminal law and policing classes at the University of Wisconsin Law School

  Item Type:

  Interview
  Date:

  2018-05-10
  Abstract:

  This interview of Herman Goldstein (by Bill Clune) discusses the impact of the American Bar Foundation study of the criminal justice system on the innovative criminal law courses developed at Wisconsin, namely Criminal Justice Administration, and Goldstein’s courses on problem-oriented policing. Frank Remington was the director of research of that study and Herman Goldstein was a field researcher. Four radical changes from the previous model of teaching criminal procedure (which mainly covered Supreme Court cases) were: (1) the idea of an interconnected system, from first contact with the police all the way through to parole and corrections, (2) the pervasive role of low visibility discretion at every stage, (3) the differential impact of police interventions on different groups of people (e.g., homosexuals, poor, minorities), and (4) the importance of distinct behavioral problems as to what occurs in the criminal justice system (e.g., street prostitution, public intoxication). An interesting instructional insight is how these features emerged in the classroom, for example, as Remington explored the appropriateness of aggressive police surveillance (e.g., wiretapping, stings), for various behaviors (e.g., street prostitution, shoplifting, organized crime, and terrorism). Important impacts of the Wisconsin work were changes in how criminal procedure is taught at many law schools, administrative regulations of police-citizen interactions (e.g., street prostitution, use of force), the development of alternatives to incarceration (e.g., intoxication, mental illness), and the prolific growth of the field of problem-oriented policing across research, policy, and practice, and of related fields such as environmental criminology. Abstract by Bill Clune.
• 

  Three Fragments on Doing Legal History, or Willard Hurst and Me

  Item Type:

  Working Paper
  Citation:

  Working paper
  Date:

  2019
  Abstract:

  Abstract by Emeritus Professor Bill Clune, October, 2019 This paper (a work in progress not to be quoted or cited without permission) has three fragments or parts, first, an overview of what is it like to do legal history today, second, Willard Hurst’s distinctive view of legal history, with its significant omissions and flaws, and, third, notwithstanding these flaws, reasons why Hurst’s work is admired and relevant to this day. Hartog taught legal history at Wisconsin while Hurst was an Emeritus Professor, considers Hurst a mentor, and has regularly assigned readings from Hurst in his own courses. OVERVIEW: Legal history involves a love of legal sources like archives and trial transcripts which require the historian to look beyond the law library. It is about but does not cause big major changes, such as feminism. As taught in law schools it represents a kind of humanism, an understanding of past choices and lost alternatives, and a sense of modesty and normative restraint. It also brings a critical posture toward conventional legal histories, the histories within law, lawyers’ histories, as well as toward conventional narratives of legal change, such as evolutionary or leftist determinism and originalism. But is legal history anything more than humanism and a critique of bad history within law? Willard Hurst certainly thought so. HURST AND LEGAL HISTORY: The second part of the paper examines Hurst’s views as illustrated in Hurst’s book published in 1965, Justice Holmes on Legal History, as well as other works. Hurst agreed with Holmes on the importance of “will” as a creative force, which Hurst called individualism. Hurst’s individualism, while a source of energy, was not idealized, as it contained strong elements of fallibility, greed, ambition, and waste. Hurst saw American legal history in terms of sequence and context, a contingent consequence of American democracy. He agreed with Holmes that that law expressed the cumulative expression of deeply held values which led to the large and durable patterns we call institutions. For Hurst, these deeply held values were the middle-class point of view (individualism) and constitutionalism as both an enablement and a constraint on self-interest. The creative potential of individuals was released through laws such as property, contract, and business corporations. For Hurst, these embodied a faith in “manipulation and contrivance to increase yields from nature and social relations” (other people). Limits on these freedoms were created because of the abuse of power. “Constitutionalism” referred to representative democracy and the police power rather than constitutional law made by judges. Hurst was part of the Lochner generation in viewing the Supreme Court as an obstacle to benign social legislation (such as workers’ compensation for accidents). And he could not imagine constitutionalism as an expression of group or democratic aspirations. Hurst thus imagined a continuing community of politically competent Americans who made the policies and the laws and who constructed legislation in their image from the 19th century through the New Deal up to 1960, a view that seems to define American civilization yet leaves out much of American legal history. Omitted were the many groups who were excluded from democracy (women, African-Americans, Native Americans), and those injured by law, for example, by the fugitive slave acts and legal violence of the federal government in expropriating Native American lands (such as by the rights sought by the Pikes Creek settlers featured in Hurst’s widely read 1956 book, Law and the Conditions of Freedom). Hurst’s view of history as a gradual evolution toward the national economy culminating in the New Deal paid little attention to political parties, race conflict, populist crises, waves of immigrants, progressives, and labor movements. He saw constitutional rights as the enemy of benign social legislation rather than as a counter majoritarian source of power, a view that gained strength beginning in the 1960’s at the same time that he was writing. He showed no interest in the mobilization of subordinated classes and was dismissive of new left historians during the time that Hartog was at Wisconsin. His view of a homogenous American culture was shattered by the drastic cultural fragmentations that occurred toward the end of his career. A recurrent puzzle is Hurst’s lack of historical periodization that other historians would recognize as distinctive phases of development (for example, ecological problems and policies other than Hurst’s brilliant work on the destruction of Wisconsin’s northern forests). A disturbing note is Hurst’s citation in his Holmes book of Buck v. Bell as an example of how society should take steps improve health and technology, roughly the same rationale invoked by Justice Holmes in his opinion for the Court refusing to strike down the Virginia law requiring compulsory sterilization. Hartog does not believe Hurst was racist or eugenicist, rather that he saw the law as a plausible exercise of the police power, which for Hurst also included public education, public health, roads, and social. But, written in 1965, it was another example of how Hurst had grown out of step with the times. HURST'S RELEVANCE TODAY: Despite the flaws, there remains much to admire and emulate in Hurst’s work. First, Hurst’s emphasis on the ideal of a middle class as a unifying force is validated by the long struggles of groups since the Civil War to become middle class as the only way to gain access to the legal benefits and rewards that America offered. Second, what excites Hartog about Hurst’s portrayal of American law is his willingness to look at law as a human activity that takes shape across legal/doctrinal silos. All rights, Hurst wrote, were “limited by the neighborhood of principles of policy which are other than those on which the particular right as founded.” His willingness to imagine legal fields as united by common problems and by a shared culture and common context stimulated a legal history that crossed challenged and transformed legal doctrine. Third, disdaining a search for origins (the notion that the past contained the germ of an answer to legal problems), his work is remembered for always starting in the middle of things. Legal and economic pasts were understood retrospectively and adapted. Fourth is his focus on contingency. Contexts would always bleed into new sequences. He said that “the life of the law represents no homeostatic functionality or self-adjusting process but the product of the qualities and defects of men’s will, and feeling.” This meant for him the law was fundamentally legislative and character, and ”the secret route from which law draws all the juices of life is consideration of what is expedient for the community concerned.” In that sense one might say that for Hurst law was always politics, even if he seemed unconcerned with party politics, and that led him to a critique of what he called organic metaphors and evolutionary portraits of legal change. The middle class may have defined much of law in crucial moments of American history, but those middle-class manifestations of law were dependent on contingent, accidental decisions and relationships of many men and women and institutions who differed and fought about many things. He did not emphasize the explicit political struggles that underlay those decisions, but no reading of Hurst can escape a sense of the constant and continual underlying presence of the struggles. In that sense, his writings prefigure the strongest features of what would became critical legal studies.
• 

  Interview of Stewart Macaulay and Bill Whitford by Bill Clune, Tuesday, May 29, 2018

  Item Type:

  Interview
  Date:

  2018-05-29
  Abstract:

  The Contracts Law in Action materials and coursebook grew out of other contracts books that emphasized law in action/ legal realism, such as Macneil, Kessler & Sharp, and Fuller. A law in action approach to contracts can be understood as an empirically-oriented alternative to casebooks that feature contract-formation (offer, acceptance, etc.) and doctrinal analysis. The Macaulay/ Whitford book begins with remedies which severely constrain the empirical odds of successful litigation. Lawsuits based on lost profit (“you promised to give me money”), or expectation damages, almost never succeed because of a variety of defenses, such as the obligation to mitigate damages, reasonably foreseeable damages, and others. The rule that successful parties do not recover the costs of litigation means that many recoveries are not financially worthwhile. Restitution as a remedy is based on a distinct conception of damages (restoration of losses). Other law-in-action themes are relational contracts, inconsistency of doctrines (doctrine and counter doctrine), the contextual background of cases, and the dominance of more powerful parties. Relational contracts between parties whose transactions are embedded in ongoing relationships, such as employment, marriage, and commercial supply agreements, are based on trust rather than legalities, and disputes are usually resolved through negotiation rather than litigation. Inconsistency of contract doctrines (doctrine and counter doctrine) increases the uncertainty of recovery. Research on the contextual background of cases reveals unanticipated consequences, strong arguments neglected on appeal, and multiple rounds of judicial and legislative maneuvers that result in mixed or unclear success by the winner of a single case. The dominance of one party to contracts, characteristic of consumer transactions and employment, means that consent of the less powerful party is a formality, and the more powerful party has virtually all practical rights and remedies (including binding arbitration). The Wisconsin progressive tradition can be seen in attention to cases and legislation that attempt to redress imbalances of power (e.g., restrictions on do not compete clauses, automotive lemon laws) which are sometimes successful but often unsuccessful because of the legislative and judicial influence of powerful elites in legislatures and courts.
• 

  Interview of Walter Dickey by Bill Clune, Tuesday, May 22, 2018, on the Criminal Justice Administration course

  Item Type:

  Interview
  Date:

  2018-05-22
  Abstract:

  Walter Dickey took Criminal Justice Administration as a student when it was an optional 3-credit second-semester course and taught the updated required version when he joined the faculty in 1976 and began collaborating with Frank Remington and Herman Goldstein. At the time, both Remington and Goldstein were interested in teaching the course as a study of how to make the criminal justice system more fair and effective in reducing threats to public safety with the least possible harmful side effects. The starting place for both views was the behaviors that came to the attention of law enforcement. The course was organized to encourage analysis of a set of common questions: what is the behavior that attracts law enforcement, how does law enforcement learn of the behavior, what is the response, how fair and effective is the response, and how could authority be conferred in a more effective manner. With his problem-oriented policing, Goldstein emphasized solutions beyond criminal law, while Remington believed that the system itself must and could be improved, but there was considerable overlap and mutual reinforcement, as illustrated by the problem of public intoxication. With Remington’s guidance, Wisconsin became the first state to allow police officers to place intoxicated individuals in detox centers rather than jails. Incarceration of drunks, often for one night, had been one of the most common functions of law enforcement and was essentially a failed social experiment. In an example of problem-oriented policing, Goldstein developed a complimentary solution that did not involve law enforcement -- a token system by which bartenders could offer intoxicated patrons a token for a cab ride home and another for retrieving their cars in the morning. Another example fitting the general framework (of law enforcement investigation and response) was stop and question or stop and frisk, an intrusive practice that had been shown to have strong negative effects on public safety due to loss of community goodwill and citizen cooperation with the police. Remington was instrumental in developing Wisconsin legislative guidelines for when such stops were justified, the factual predicate required for police intervention. An example of a particularly harmful policy was the Ramparts program in Detroit where police decoys posed as unconscious victims, and the police ended up chasing and killing people who tried to rob the undercover officers. A parallel example at the federal level was ABSCAM, a much-publicized incident where undercover FBI agents solicited bribes from public officials. U.S. Attorney General Edward Levi asked Remington what the predicates for such “sting” activities should be, as well as other covert surveillance, leading eventually to a set of federal guidelines (guidelines subsequently diluted after 9-11 by the Patriot Act). Remington had a legal process view of the criminal justice system, successfully arguing that when legal process was removed as a first-year requirement Criminal Justice Administration should take its place as a required first year course. He regarded Supreme Court decisions as ineffective because they ruled out specific activities but otherwise left unlimited authority in place. He preferred legislative or administrative rules as long as they were carefully tailored to the behavioral problem and the complexities of criminal justice (for this reason doubting the utility of applying the standard rules of the Administrative Procedure Act). The Criminal Justice Administration course was (and is) an outstanding example of integrating empirical knowledge about the law into a law course. The large American Bar Foundation survey of criminal justice, which Remington helped direct, was revolutionary in revealing how the system actually operated in practice. Faculty from other prominent law schools visited Wisconsin and attended seminars built around those findings and left with ideas for modifying their own courses. One such seminar attended by Dickey he called perhaps the most intensive intellectual experience of his life. Social scientists involved in the survey had enormous positive influence, including Herman Goldstein and Don Newman at Wisconsin, and Lloyd Ohlin at Harvard. Goldstein, Remington, and Dickey stressed that “cops know things,” as when one officer identified a book seller on campus who was serving as a fence for stolen coursebooks by not asking for identification and sponsored regulation that required ID, and another officer who sponsored municipal regulation of pool tables the confined location of which he had determined was responsible for many bar fights. More broadly, Remington viewed empirical facts as essential for problem solving in criminal justice. Remington advised Dickey, early in Dickey’s career at UW that rather than write a doctrinal article on reckless murder thereby retreating into the ivory tower, “the young professor should, with knowledge of accepted wisdom about an intractable problem, search out new knowledge, previously undiscovered facts, missed connections between facts, and by an act of imagination place that new knowledge in revealing relationship to what is already known.” Walter Dickey and Michael Smith, What We Do, The Gargoyle, Spring/Summer 2002, https://perma.cc/3Q49-9VH7 Clinical programs at Wisconsin offered hands-on experience and many empirical findings. The Legal Assistance to Inmates clinical program (LAIP), directed by Dickey, exposed students and faculty to multiple versions of sentencing systems (guidelines, determinate, indeterminate) and allowed access to pre-sentencing reports that yielded rich insights into the people who were accused of crimes and their encounters with the system. In LAIP, the presentence report served as the best statement of the factual basis for the crime, usually more complete than the guilty plea. It also was the basis for prison classification and parole decisions, both release and revocation. Staff realized how frequently errors were made and often tried to correct them, particularly in the Federal “mandatory” guideline system. Dickey wrote an article about the importance of accuracy in the sentencing report. In later years, presentence reports were used as “problems” in sentencing, and as useful illustrations in the work of Dickey and UW Law Professor Michael Smith on model sentencing. Dickey and Smith developed model sentences as guidance for judges and a “reasoning” process approach to the imposition of sentences, based on the view that sentencing was a legal decision and should be approached by applying facts to a legal standard. This work became nationally and internationally known and influential. Professor Dickey stressed the importance of listening to clients who often came from different worlds than law students and lawyers, fully informing them, and not overruling their preferences. A common example arose in plea bargaining and probation. Rather than threaten clients that the judge might throw the book at them, Dickey taught students to inform clients about the risks of probation, which could turn into a life sentence on the installment plan due to the many reasons for revocation of probation unrelated to the original crime. Clients should be asked to consider whether a 30-45 day jail sentence might leave them better off. Dickey also stressed the importance of listening and good judgment, qualities not conferred by traditional appellate case analysis. A point sometimes heard from students was that because of its emphasis on real empirical impacts the course might be viewed as much sociology as law. But many students valued the course greatly, precisely because of the exposure it provided to multiple aspects of the law as actually practiced (far more so than the traditional criminal procedure courses organized around analysis of Supreme Court cases on the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments). In addition, the professors emphasized that students would be serving in multiple roles impacted by and impacting criminal law later in their careers, such as legislator, community leader, judge, prosecutor, and public defender. True to that thought, Remington and Dickey sent letters to students who had taken the course, 10, 15 years after graduation, asking (in effect), “this is what we were trying to do, was it of value?” 100% said yes, and most said they had never tried a criminal law case.
• 

  Interview with Professors Cecelia Klingele and Keith Findley about teaching criminal procedure at the University of Wisconsin Law School

  Item Type:

  Interview
  Date:

  2018
  Abstract:

  This interview with Professors Cecelia Klingele and Keith Findley is about the course they teach, Introduction to Criminal Procedure, which is the modern version of the course on Criminal Justice Administration developed by Frank Remington and Herman Goldstein. The course emphasizes exposure to the whole system of criminal justice in chronological sequence, the ubiquitous prevalence of discretionary decision making, disparate impacts on population sub-groups, and criminal justice reform. Whereas traditional courses in criminal procedure are organized doctrinally, fourth amendment, fifth amendment sixth amendment, this course is organized sequentially and introduces Supreme Court cases as they relate to each phase. The chronological phases reviewed in the course begin with how crimes are recognized in the system, the decision to investigate and investigative methods -- call and response, proactive policing like stop and frisk, undercover investigations and surveillance, and problem-oriented policing. Then follow the decision to charge, roles of the lawyer and prosecutor, pre-trial discovery practice, including disclosure decisions by the prosecutor, plea-bargaining, the plea, plea negotiations, what plea to offer, a bit on trials (very few occur relative to pleas), sentencing decisions by the prosecutor, and, time permitting, sentencing decisions by the court. The course covers the important Supreme Court cases as they relate to the chronological stages, but fewer cases are included than in traditional courses because these cases are considered as remote from the real practice of criminal law and are rarely encountered in discussions with practitioners. The course emphasizes the central role of discretionary decision-making. Discretionary decision-making feels uncertain for students, and discretion is a difficult concept involving reasoned judgment between competing legal principles, rather than arbitrary, unmoored or biased judgments. In the final examination for the course, students must engage with the legal sources that guide discretion, such as the supplemental statute pack, ethnical principles, and ABA standards. The teachers strive to convince students that formulation of policies and standards, such as use of force policies, and differences between policies, can make a real difference. Students have direct experience of how discretion operates through non-classroom activities such as police ride-alongs, and simulated plea bargaining, assisted by the observations and commentary of prosecutors, judges, and defense lawyers. In addition, four evening discussion panels are mandatory -- on policing (with police chiefs), prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. Students get to ask questions. Panelists discuss their roles and the exercise of discretion. All of these activities are generally well received by students. Disparate impacts on sub-groups and criminal justice reform are emphasized throughout the course. Professor Klingele made anonymized slides of quotes from observations of students in their police ride-alongs for discussion in class. Students can see their classmates talking about such issues as profiling or where economic disparity played a role in someone being entangled in crime in some way. Inequalities also appear in the details of police investigation, appointment of counsel, and standards for indigency. In computing who qualifies for appointed counsel, students see that it is only the truly destitute who qualify and that there is a large middle group of non-affluent people who will be unable to afford an attorney. Further on disparate impact, the materials include sections on stop and frisk, the use of force by police, and mass incarceration and its causes. The course requires and conveys extensive empirical knowledge about the realities of the practice of criminal justice. Both professors are consumers of social science research which they naturally bring into their teaching. They also have extensive contact with and observation of the system and its various actors, for example, informal interactions with police and prosecutors, and service with various agencies and groups, such as the police and fire commission, the Board of Public Defenders, and the Children and Family Youth Justice Bureau. The non-classroom activities experienced by students in the course require regular interactions by the professors with police, lawyers, prosecutors, and judges. Thus, the empirical knowledge base of the course comes from both formal and informal research, much of the latter embedded in continuing experience in the field.
• 

  Legal Realist Innovation in the Wisconsin Law School Curriculum 1950-1970: Four Influential Introductory Courses

  Item Type:

  Working Paper
  Date:

  2018-12
  Abstract:

  This paper is about four courses developed by faculty of the Wisconsin Law School from about 1950-1970 that reflected the law-in-action instructional goals of American legal realism: Legal history by Willard Hurst; Criminal Justice Administration by Frank Remington, Herman Goldstein and colleagues; The Wisconsin contracts course by Stewart Macaulay, Bill Whitford and colleagues; Legal Process by Willard Hurst, Lloyd Garrison, Carl Auerbach and colleagues. Eight themes in the courses are discussed: 1. Major flaws in the legal reasoning of appellate decisions (e.g., as internally incoherent, un-predictive of later results, politically biased under the guise of formal reasoning) 2, The importance of practical remedies over theoretical rights 3. The importance of legal agencies and law practice beyond appellate and other court decisions (e.g., legislation, administrative law) 4. The importance and impact of discretionary decisions of lower level public officials (for lawyers and citizens) 5, How private actors react to law and influence outcomes (and the role of lawyers in advising them) 6. Growth of legal policies over time in relationship to the wider society & economy (legal history) 7. The gap between social needs and justice and real legal outcomes and workable legal reforms (political progressivism) 8. The importance of empirical research on law, interdisciplinary research and social scientists on law school faculties or in collaboration with law faculty members.
• 

  Legal Realist Innovation in the Wisconsin Law School Curriculum 1950-1970: Four Influential Introductory Courses PowerPoint presentation

  Item Type:

  Lecture
  Date:

  2019-03-08
  PowerPoint presentation given by Professor William Clune focusing on four courses - Legal Process, Legal History, Criminal Justice Administration and Contracts.
• 

  Remembering UW’s Black Student Strike Of 1969 - Interview of Justice Geraldine Hines

  Item Type:

  Article
  Date:

  2019-03-04
  An article featuring UW Law alum Judge Geraldine Hines discussing her experiences as a law student in the late 1960s, focusing on the Black Student Strike in 1969. The article also included an embedded interview with Justice Hines that aired on Wisconsin Public Radio's Morning Edition on March 4, 2019.
• 

  International Intellectual Property Law

  Item Type:

  Lecture
  Date:

  2008
  Global Legal Studies Workshop on Global Issues 2008 Workshop 1
• 

  Women Lead the Way: From Violence to Non-Violence, From Greed to Sharing, From Hate to Love

  Item Type:

  Lecture
  Date:

  2017
  J. Jobe and Margerite Jacqmin Soffa Distinguished International Visitor Lectures