Symposia
 |
The Creeping Legalism Labor Arbitration October 9, 2009 As a method of dispute resolution, labor arbitration falls somewhere in between non-binding forms of dispute resolution and more formal dispute resolution processes. This "in-between" status has made it difficult at times for the participants in labor arbitration to decide what role the law and legally related constructs should play in labor arbitration. For many years, practitioners and scholars intensively debated the extent to which labor arbitration was becoming too legalistic. While little attention was paid to this issue in the 1990s, recent developments have made the "creeping legalism" issue particularly relevant. First, the increased regulation of the employment relationship has placed labor arbitrators in a position to interpret issues of external law when deciding collective bargaining disputes. Second, the proliferation in the use of individual employee rights arbitration, which by nature is more legalistic, might have affected the practice of labor arbitration. To the extent that some of the same players participate in both, labor and employee rights arbitration, one would expect the legalistic character of individual employee rights arbitration to spillover to labor arbitration, and perhaps other forms of alternative dispute resolution. The recent United States Supreme Court’s decision in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, which holds that a bargaining contract provision requiring employees to arbitrate age discrimination claims is enforceable and thus precludes later litigation of such claims, accentuates the importance of this issue. This symposium seeks to reignite the discussion on the legalization of labor arbitration. The presenters will explore the history of "creeping legalism" and evaluate its effect on the practice of labor arbitration. The presenters will also assess the effect of the legalization of labor arbitration in other forms of dispute resolution, as well as identify future trends. |
 |
Collaborative Governance: The Future of Regulation: An Interdisciplinary and International Review April 2-3, 2009 President Obama recently emphasized that government should be both participatory and collaborative. Collaboration, when properly executed, expands the information and insight that is available to agencies, and the focused deliberation can result in policies that would be difficult to achieve otherwise. The essence of collaboration is the bilateral nature of the discussions, with the agency engaging in a give and take, instead of simply informing itself to make the decision alone. Collaboration can take many forms and be employed throughout the regulatory process: it might be a scoping session to develop the issues that need to be taken into account in a new rule; it might be a policy dialogue or roundtable in which the science or other important components are discussed; it might be recommendations to the agency concerning a proposed rule; or, indeed, the collaboration might be entirely within the private sector to establish a policy in lieu of mandatory regulation. While these are certainly helpful in informing the agency, they stop short of securing the ultimate benefit of collaboration: an actual agreement on the major provisions of a new policy. On the other hand, if not used properly, a collaborative approach can waste valuable time or lead to deficient decisions. Thus, doing right and in the right situations is critically important. This timely program will explore the regulatory use of collaborative governance and develop recommendations for its appropriate use. |
 |
Mulling over the Missouri Plan — A Review of State Judicial Selection and Retention Systems February 27, 2009 Increasingly politicians, academics, and attorneys passionately debate the systems of selecting and retaining state judges. The Missouri Plan was originally conceived and adopted by many states to eliminate, or at least reduce, the role of politics in judicial selection and decision-making. Yet, the recent debate has been almost entirely political and has led to new special interest groups, expensive media campaigns, and legislation promising reform. The intention of "The Missouri Plan," also known as a "merit selection plan," is to provide for the selection of judges based on merit, rather than on political affiliation. Under the plan as applied in Missouri, a nonpartisan judicial commission made up of attorneys appointed by the bar, lay citizens appointed by the governor, and the Missouri Chief Justice, nominate a pool of judges from which the governor selects. Since its inception, the Missouri Plan has served as a national model for the selection of judges and has been adopted in various forms in more than 30 other states. As such, the debate over whether to preserve, repeal, or reform the Missouri Plan in its mother state will have national implications. Bringing together some of the nation’s most prominent scholars, federal and state judges, lawyers, and students alike, the 2009 Missouri Law Review Symposium, Mulling over the Missouri Plan: A Review of State Judicial Selection and Retention Systems, seeks to infuse an academic perspective into an already heated debate. Recent developments have raised a number of questions to be addressed by the symposium participants: What are the effects of special interest influence on the selection and election of judges and judicial decision-making in the pursuit of the balance between independence and accountability? How well do retention votes work to balance judicial independence with the will of the public in a merit-selection system? What are the arguments for reforming the Missouri Plan? Who are the constituencies urging reform or preservation? What is the best way to preserve fair and impartial state courts? |
 |
Missouri v. Holland Symposium February 15-16, 2008 In the 1920 case Missouri v. Holland, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously declared, "We must consider what this country has become in considering what [the Tenth] Amendment has reserved." The Supreme Court upheld the federal government's ability to regulate, through exercise of the Treaty Power, activity that otherwise would be reserved to the states. During the era when the Court adopted an expansive view of Congress' ability to regulate through the Commerce Clause, the import of Missouri v. Holland receded. But as the Court has increasingly cabined the scope of the Commerce Clause, and in a world where everything from the death penalty, to greenhouse gas emissions, to access to medical care has become the subject of multilateral treaty regimes, the ability of the federal government to invoke the Treaty Power in regulating the states is once again central to discussions of federalism in the United States. This gathering of scholars will reexamine Missouri v. Holland and explore the intersection of federalism and international law from a variety of perspectives. The papers and commentary will address, among other topics, the following: Has increased global regulation altered the relationship between the states and the federal government in such a way as to require a fundamental reconsideration of Missouri v. Holland? Given the range of regulation now delegated to international organizations and courts, does federalism provide any limitations on the federal government's foreign affairs powers? In a system of dual sovereignty, what are the limitations on state participation in international law making in areas such as the environment and human rights? What are the implications of multiple layers of governance for the development of domestic and international law? |
 |
Innovative Models of Lawyering: Collaborative Law and Other Processes October 12, 2007 The Center sponsored a symposium entitled "Innovative Models of Lawyering: Collaborative Law and Other Processes." David Hoffman, the founding partner of the Boston Law Collaborative, LLC, and a former chair of the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution, gave the keynote presentation entitled, "Practicing Law as Form of Dispute Resolution: Towards a Unified Field Theory of ADR." Prof. John Lande presented the results of his empirical study of Cooperative Practice in Wisconsin and Center Director Robert Bailey and Prof. Stephen Easton moderated discussions. Articles based on the presentations will be published in the Journal of Dispute Resolution, including an article by Lawrence P. McLellan (LLM ’06). More Information (PDF) |
 |
A Festschrift in honor of Dale A. Whitman April 13-14, 2007 In his long and distinguished career as a scholar, teacher, colleague, dean, AALS president and reporter for the Restatement of Property (Third) - Mortgages, Dale A. Whitman has made immeasurable contributions to law teaching, the legal profession and law reform. Please join the University of Missouri - Columbia School of Law, and these distinguished property scholars, in celebrating Professor Whitman's contributions through this conference exploring current topics in the law of property and real estate finance. |
 |
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Bankruptcy Reform February 24-25, 2006 On April 20, 2005, President Bush signed into law the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, the most sweeping bankruptcy reform legislation to be passed by Congress in over a quarter of a century. This legislation has become the subject of contentious debate among academics, bankruptcy judges, and practitioners. Some argue that this reform legislation threatens to undermine the bankruptcy system itself. This symposium examines bankruptcy reform by gathering experts from various fields, including law, psychology, and the judiciary. Addressing topics ranging from the role of race in bankruptcy reform, to using social science research to test the assumptions underlying bankruptcy reform, to the impact of means testing on the bankruptcy system, the goal of this symposium is to afford greater insight into the future of bankruptcy. |
 |
Reflections on Judging: A Discussion Following the Release of the Blackmun Papers February 25-26, 2005 This symposium examines the role of judges in our constitutional order and the factors that influence judicial decision-making by gathering experts in various fields, including law, political science, psychology and journalism, as well as members of the judiciary. Discussing topics ranging from Justice Blackmun's legal legacy, to the public's perception of the courts, to the role of politics, judgment and psychology in judicial decisionmaking, the symposium hopes to provide greater insight into the act of judging. |
 |
Fear and Risk in Times of Democratic Crisis February 20-21, 2004 The events of September 11, 2001, and the recent war with Iraq have sparked renewed interest in questions pertaining to decision-making in times of crisis, including issues such as the balance between security and liberty, executive authority and separation of powers, increased government secrecy and public health responses. Much of this renewed debate focuses on constitutional and democratic theory and doctrine without examining broader influences on the creation and application of those theories and doctrines. Specifically there has been minimal discussion of the effects of fear and risk perception on law in times of democratic or constitutional crisis. This symposium will bring together interdisciplinary perspectives from specialists in the fields of history, political science, psychology, and law and will explore social science perspectives on law during constitutional or democratic crises and engage in historical analyses of various crises or judicial responses to crises. |
