Bill Would Bar Judges From Hearing Donors' Cases
By Evan Weinberger
Law 360
August 26, 2010

EXCERPT:

James Sample, a Hofstra Law School professor, said that the law was a preemptive strike aimed at keeping control of campaign spending in judicial campaigns that critics refer to as an “arms race.” More than $9.3 million was spent for an Illinois Supreme Court race in 2004, much of it by outside third-party groups, the costliest judicial election so far.

But the law will have a limited effect because the seven California Supreme Court justices — one chief justice and six associate justices — are appointed by the state's governor to 12-year terms and then are subject to retention elections.

“I think it's a step in the right direction,” Sample said. “California doesn't yet have a money and courts problem the way many other states around the country do, and part of that is because the state Supreme Court is not elected.”

Read the full article at law360.com.

Sample: Contributions, Expenditures, and Caperton Contributions
By James Sample
Election Law Blog
August 20, 2010

EXCERPT:

Rick Hasen is a friend and mentor for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration. And--in yet another testament to Rick exemplifying the highest, but oft-ignored ideals of the blogging genre--he invited this guest post precisely because he knows that I disagree with him, though only with respect to one small part of his analysis.

In June, 2009, Rick did something rather remarkable on this blog: he suggested that a Supreme Court Justice had made an inadvertent error in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc., radically changing its meaning. In blogging on the date of the decision in Caperton, involving constitutional standards dictating when a judge must recuse himself based on campaign contributions, Rick noted that "given the key distinction in campaign finance law between contributions and expenditures," he "thought it was very curious that Justice Kennedy frames the issue at the beginning of the case as follows: 'The basis for the motion was that the justice had received campaign contributions in an extraordinary amount from, and through the efforts of, the board chairman and principal officer of the corporation found liable for the damages.'"

Read the full article at electionlawblog.org.

Professor Andrew Schepard's paper,"Kramer vs. Kramer Revisited: A Comment on the Miller Commission Report and the Obligation of Divorce Lawyers for Parents to Discuss Alternative Dispute Resolution with their Clients", made SSRN's top-ten download list for LSN: Divorce.

In S.E.C. Fraud Suit, Texas Brothers Stand Firm
By David Segal
New York Times
August 23, 2010

EXCERPT:

How strong is the case? “Pretty strong,” said Ronald J. Colombo, an associate professor of securities and corporate law at Hofstra University, “though not a no-brainer.”

Professor Colombo, based on his reading of the complaint, said the S.E.C. was likely to argue that assets in those trusts were under the control of the Wylys. He said that when a person can command a trust to buy specific paintings and jewels, at a specific price, on a specific date, as the Wylys regularly did, that person would seem to be controlling it.

Read the full article at nytimes.com.

In connection with its Project Outreach, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will visit Hofstra on November 3, 2010, to hear a case pending before it. As part of the Court’s visit, two Hofstra students – 3Ls Michael Zisser and Michael Levin – will be permitted to assist in the preparation of an amicus brief to be filed with the Court. One of the students will also be permitted to deliver an oral argument in the case. Professor Frank Gulino, a member of the Bar of the Court, will serve as attorney of record for the amicus curiae and will supervise and sign off on the work of the students.