STANFORD LAW REVIEW

Celebrating its 50th anniversary asone of the nation's leading scholarly journals.

Published 6 times annuaLLy

Planned highlights for Volume 50 (November 1997-June 1998) include:

"50th Anniversary Remarks" Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor '52

"Gerrymanders: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" John Hart Ely

"Mandating Anonymity in Campaign Finance Contributions" .. , Ian Ayres and Jeremy Bulow

"Cyberspace Privacy" , , , Jerry Kang

"Judges as Advice Givers" , Neal Katyal

"A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics" , Christine Jails,

Cass Sunstein, and Richard Thaler

"Review of James Q. Wilson's Moralludgment:

Does the Abuse Excuse Threaten Our Legal System?" , Victoria Nourse

Subscriptions

Nathaniel Persily '98 and WarrenChristopher '49, presidents ofVols. 50 and 1, respectively

Stanford Law ReviewStanford Law SchoolCrown QuadrangleStanford, CA 94305-8610

Telephone: 650/725-0183Fax: 650/723-0202@http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/lawreview

$40 for one year$75 for two years$110 for three yearsadd $5 for foreign addresses

ISS U E 5 2 , SPRING 1 9 9 8

_______LLA---LlJ'--'J'__�o-J'-- _

16Juries on Trial

A dialogue featuring the School's inaugural Judge JohnCrown Professor and a colleague fresh from the front:

Barbara Allen Babcock and George Fisher

20Professors in Print

Three excerpts and a current bibliography.Compiled by Erika Wayne

_____--"DL.-J,E-----J:P~A'--"R'_LM'__IoE_uNL_lT_..S _

3News Briefs

Celebrating a Nobel laureate, a Stanford victory for publicservice loan recipients, and more.

14From the Dean

Why professors should write, as well as teach.

23Classmates & Sidebars

The ever-popular class columns, with sidebars on:the head of the Commodity Futures

Trading Commission ... 31the DOl's immigrant-labor expert .. . 43

the DOE's assistant secretary for renewable energy ... 45and five alumni who are "In Print."

32Alumni Weekend 1997

57In Memoriam

58Law Gatherings

Inside Back CoverComing Events

____~C~O---.lLE.~.,~ _

Professors Barbara Allen Babcock(a fanner defense attorney)

and George Fisher (a fanner prosecutor)shed light on our oft-maligned jury system.

Photograph by Lori Eanes

STANFORD LAWVER o

Tax ReformI enjoyed Professor Bankman's article relative to reformation of thecurrent income tax law ['Tax Reform," Stanford Lawyer, Fall 19971.I was also pleased to note that, while the sidebar referred primarily toa flat tax plan, it also made mention of a consumption tax.

It has long troubled me, however, that even when a consumptiontax is mentioned by an economist or a politician, there is neverexpressed the fundamental reason why such a tax is the fairest kind oftax: that it taxes the use-and hence the inability of anyone else to

use-the resources of the earth, which once belonged to no one, or toall mankind, or (arguably) to all creatures.

To me, it is difficult to understand how conservationists andenvironmentalists, sociologists and philosophers, or anyoneconcerned with what is happening to our planet and human lifethereon, can fail to understand and appreciate the concept ofreturning to society via taxes some consideration for that which onedraws from the primary asset of society, the world resources.

I have drafted a brief essay suggesting some thought that mightopen the mind to consider what reasoning society should use as itsbasis for taxation ...

-Edgar C. Keller '49

(1) For a copy of the aforementioned essay, "A PoLemic for SociaLConsciousness in Taxation," contact Mr. Keller at 323 West Court St.,Suite 302, San Bernardino, CA 923401; teLephone 909/889-2681; orfax 909/888-60]7.

Magazine ReorientationThe new Stanford Lawyer is on the mark. I'm very impressed.

- Alan Pick '70

Thanks for the splendid magazine.- Judith Tracy '91

Letters may be sent to the Stanford Lawyer Editor, Stanford Law SchooL,Crown QuadrangLe, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, CA 94305-8610.Fax: 650/725-9786. E-maiL: Law.ALum.Pubs@forsythe.stanford.edu

#52 (Vol. 32, No.2)Spring 1998

DEANPaul Brest

Richard E. Lang Professor of Lawand Dean

ASSOCIATE DEANEXTERNAL RELATIONS

Susan S. Bell

COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTORAnn Dethlefsen

EDITORConstance Hellyer

ART DIRECTORMimi Fujii

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Deborah Fife, Richard C. Reuben,John Boykin

CLASS CORRESPONDENTS56 praiseworthy alumni

EDITORIAL INTERNMichael Finney (AB '00)

PRODUCTION ASSISTANTSJoanna McClean, Cheryl Nakashima

STANFORD LAWYER (lSSN 0585-0576)is published for alumni and friends of

Stanford Law School. Correspondence andinformation should be sent to:

Editor, Stanford Lawyer,Stanford Law School, Crown Quadrangle,

559 Nathan Abbott Way,Stanford, CA 94305-8610.

E-mail: Law.Alum.Pubs@forsythe.stanford.edu

Copyright 1998 by the Board of Trusteesof Leland Stanford Junior University.

Reproduction in whole or in part,without permission of the publisher,

is prohibited.

STANFORD LAWYER is listed in:Dialog's Legal Resource Index;

and Current Law Index and LegalTrac(1980-94). Issues of the magazine since 1966

are available on microfiche throughWilliam S. Hein & Co., Inc., 1285 Main Street,

Buffalo, NY 14209-1987.

Printed on recycled paper.

S I' R I N 1 9 9 8

Aquick update on your Law School, its impact, and ways you can enjoy its resources and activities.

89

Stanford initiative has national impact

Public interestgrads saved from

tax ambush

Continued on page 4

If someone loans you money andlater forgives the loan, do you haveto pay income tax on the amountforgiven? Generally, yes.

But what if the loan is made by aneducational or other nonprofit institutionto encourage public service? And what ifthe recipient is an altruistic graduate whohas served for years in a relatively low­paid public interest job?

Given the ambiguity of the tax code,no one-the Internal Revenue Service,the lending schools, or the recipients­could be sure.

The question is more than academic.Some of the initial recipients of StanfordLaw School's pioneering Loan RepaymentAssistance Program (LRAP-see box onpage 5) have served long enough to havetheir loans forgiven by the School. Wouldthey then be hit by huge tax bills? If so,Tom Waldo '87 (pictured on p. 4) andother public interest lawyers with LRAPloans might ultimately be forced toabandon the work they love--defeatingthe whole purpose of LRAP This tax

9NRp5

Myron Scholes helped develop method for valuing variable assets

Former professor winsNobel Prize in economics

Though there's no Nobel Prize inlaw, the School recently hadreason to celebrate news fromStockholm: Former professorMyron Scholes won the 1997Nobel Memorial Prize inEconomic Sciences. He sharedthe honor with Robert C. Mertonof Harvard Business School.

Scholes joined the StanfordLaw School faculty in 1983 inthe first-ever joint appointmentbetween the Law School and the

Laureate with daughters Graduate School of Business.An economist by training, he

taught finance to law students for five years before giving up his lawschool affiliation to become a research associate at the Hoover Institution.

Scholes is currently the GSB's Frank E. Buck Professor of Finance,Emeritus, and a principal and limited partner of Long-Term CapitalManagement, L.P, a firm he cofounded in 1994.

Scholes and Merton (along with the late Fischer Black) originallydeveloped a method for valuing stock options and, it happened, avariety of other derivatives. The methodology has since proven useful inmany contexts. "Corporate strategists use the theory to evaluate businessdecisions; bond analysts use it to value risky debt; regulators use it tovalue deposit insurance; wildcatters use it to value exploration leases,"said The Economist magazine in 1991. It has even been employed tovalue the option to settle a lawsuit, and is used by the Internal RevenueService and the courts to value option contracts. Indeed, notes TheEconomist, "the model can be used to examine any 'contract' whoseworth depends on the uncertain future value of an 'asset.'"CD Stanford press release: http://www-leland.stanford.edu/dept/news/release/971014scholes.html

PUBLIC INTEREST (continued)

threat has implications not only for Stanfordand its alumni, but also for similar law andother graduate school programs throughoutthe nation.

Two attempts in previous years to passlegislation protecting LRAP-type loans fromtaxation had foundered. Undeterred, Stan­ford Law School initiated a third-andsuccessful-effort. It turned out to be aninteresting lesson in how Washington works.

ere are some excerpts from thediary maintained by AndrewPodolsky, the School's Managerof Administrative Programs andpoint person on the effort to

ensure that public interest loancancellations will not be subject to taxation.

9/18/96 Something has to be done-andsoon-to protect our LRAP participants fromwhopping tax bills. But can we succeed whereothers failed? Les Ramirez, a JSD studentwho recently spent a year in Washington as aWhite House Fellow, has suggested we startwith the administration. His phone callsproduce a solid referral to the TreasuryDepartment.

9/24/96 Got a go-ahead from Frank Brucato[Stanford Law School's Associate Dean forAdministration] to call the Treasury's SeniorAnalyst for Tax Policy. She agrees toshepherd a solution through the bureaucracy.

10/22/96 Today Frank and I met with LarryHorton, the University's Director ofGovernment & Community Relations. Larrybelieves it may be possible to get legislationmaking canceled LRAP loans nontaxable­but nothing in politics can be guaranteed. Wewill need the cooperation of both the admin­istration and Congress.

10/29/96 [Stanford President] Gerhard Casperapproved putting the University's name-andresources-behind the Law School's proposal.

11/27/96 The day before Thanksgiving. Afrenzy of phone calls from Washington started

at 3:45 p.m. We will meet with the TreasuryDepartment's Assistant Secretary for TaxPolicy, Donald Lubick, next week!

12/3/96 On a plane to Washington: JoeBankman [Ralph M. Parsons Professor of Law& Business] has cut short a family ski trip toaccompany Frank, Larry, and me. I hope itturns out to be worth it.

12/4196 A very successful meeting. We spentalmost an hour with Lubick and several of hisstaff. They will try to include our proposal innext year's federal budget. Having Joe andLarry there really helped.

lRAP participant Tom Waldo '87 is dedicated to reforming the timber program in

Alaska's Tongaas National Forest-a program that, he says, "not only ravages old

growth habitat, but also costs taxpayers some $30 million a year in subsidies." Once

president of the Stanford Environmental law Society, Tom is a staff attorney for the

Earthjustice legal Defense Fund (formerly titled Sierra Club legal Defense Fund). He

and his wife, Anitra Fagre Waldo '87, live modestly with their two children in Juneau.

"A big tax bill would have wiped us out," says Tom.

9/24/97 Oops. The Treasury Departmentcalled to say that a technical clarification isneeded and will be going to Congress soon.Will this ever end?

12/20/97 We remain optimistic that thesubstance of the legislation shielding canceledLRAP loans from taxation will survive thelegislative meat grinder. In the meantime,thanks are due to many individuals whowurked together to ensure that a tax glitchwould not undermine the purpose and successuf puhlic interest loan programs all over thecountry.CD Andrew Podolsky, Manager, AdministrativePrograms, 650/725-3275 or e-mail:andrewp@leland.stanford.edu

2/6/97 Hurrah! The President referred to ouridea in a press conference, and it got asentence in the administration's proposed1998 budget.

3/26/97 The Treasury Department releasedproposed legislative language to amend theInternal Revenue Code. Now we must findmembers of Congress to introduce thelanguage formally.

4/24/97 Dale Tate of Stanford University'sGovernment & Community RelationsDepartment has sacrificed her vacation tocontact Stanford's friends in Congress andto muster support from other schools withpublic interest loan programs.

6/12/97 Congressman Xavier Becerra, JD '84,serves on the House Ways & Means Com­mittee. He recently introduced the proposedlanguage, and today it passed in the House.

6/27/97 Sen. Chris Dodd introduced theproposal on the Senate floor late last night. Itpassed by a voice vote.

7/22/97 Yikes! Members of Congress arethreatening to strip our proposal from thebudget before sending the reconciled versionto the President. The Treasury Departmenthad included a provision unrelated to publicinterest loans, and the Wall Streetlournal hasrun an op-ed opposing it.

7/28/97 Compromise achieved. The objec­tionable provision has been deleted, and thepublic interest loan language remains. Close call.

7/31/97 The 1998 federal budget, includingthe LRAP provision, has been approved byCongress and awaits the President's signatureto become law.

8/5/97 In a nationally televised ceremony,President Clinton today signed the TaxpayerRelief Act of 1997 into law. We had a smallcelebration in Crocker Garden-I guess mydiary ends here.

Stanford Law School iscommitted to providing itsgraduates with a choice ofcareers regardless of theirfinancial resources. In 1985,the School acted to lower thebarriers to pubLic interestcareers by establishing oneof the nation's first LoanRepayment AssistancePrograms (LRAP).

How it works. LRAP heLpsgraduates in low-paying pubLicinterest positions repay theireducationaL debt by awardingthem new Loans that may bepartially or compLeteLy forgivendepending on the number ofyears of qualifying empLoymentfollowing Law SchooL. Agraduate may now earncompLete forgiveness of his orher LRAP loans after five yearsof fuLL-time public interest work.

Recipients. About 80Stanford Law SchooL graduatesin pubLic interest work arecurrently receiving heLp withtheir educationaL Loans. Tenparticipants are expected toquaLify for LRAP Loanforgiveness in 1998.

Benefactors. HarLe and theLate Kenneth Montgomery, andMiles '52 and Nancy Rubin.

Financial need. The growingsuccess of the program,measured by participation, hasraised the cost to $450,000 thisyear. ULtimately, the SchooL'sLRAP costs are expected tostabilize at between $500,000and $550,000 annuaLLy. Thepermanence of this publicinterest loan program dependsupon raising its endowment by$10 million.

Today's Law studentsgenerally Labor under a burdenof education debt aLmostunimaginabLe to graduates of adecade or more ago. (Theaverage debt accrued bymembers of the Class of 1997was $65,513.) Contributionstoward student aid of aLL kindsare both needed and weLcome.CD For information on these andother giving opportunities.contact Catherine Nardone.Director of Development,650/725-8115. or e-mail:rinnie.nardone@forsythe.stanford.edu

Kathleen Sullivan is a "legaleagle" and one of the state's"most influential lawyers,"according to CaliforniaLawyer (December 1996).Sullivan, a constitutionallaw expert of nationalrenown, is the School'sinaugural Stanley MorrisonProfessor of Law.

FO RD

<D For more on these and otherprofessors. visit http://www­leland.stanford.edu/group/law/

professor, was among"The Public Sector 45"singled out by the AmericanLawyer (January/February1997). Presently a memberof the University of Virginiafaculty, she plans to takeup residence at Stanfordfor the opening of the1998/99 school year.

Richard Ford was featuredamong "25 youthful attor­neys" who "will help usherCalifornia law into the 21stcentury" by California LawBusiness (October 21, 1996).Ford was also named inSeptember 1997 to theSan Francisco HousingAuthority Commission. A1994 recruit to the faculty,he was recently promoted toassociate professor.

Pamela Karlan. a votingrights champion whorecently signed on as a full

Also the subject of a featurearticle in AmLaw Tech ("TheNetty Professor," Spring1997), Grundfest is Stan­ford's first W. A. Franke Pro­fessor of Law and Business.

Paul Goldstein was named tothe "Century Club" of"100people to watch as Americaprepares to go through thegate of the next millennium"(Newsweek, April 21, 1997).An authority on intellectualproperty, Goldstein is theSchool's Stella W. and Ira S.Lillick Professor of Law.

Michael Klausner. who joinedthe faculty in 1997 as a fullprofessor, is coauthor (withMarcel Kahan) of anotherCorporate Practice Commen­tator top ten, "Path Depen­dence in CorporateContracting: IncreasingReturns, Herd Behaviorand Cognitive Biases,"74 Wash U LQ 347.

Ronald J. Gilson wrote one ofthe "best corporate andsecurities articles of 1996,"according to CorporatePractice Commentator(vol. 39, no. 1, 1997).The article is "CorporateGovernance and EconomicEfficiency: When DoInstitutions Matter?" 74Wash U LQ 327. Gilson isthe School's Charles].Meyers Professor of Lawand Business.

B RE51

The outspoken labor lawexpert was also the subjectof the cover article in theSeptember 1996 CaliforniaLawyer. Now on leave asCharles A. BeardsleyProfessor of Law, Gouldhas been chairman of theNational Labor RelationsBoard since March 1994.

Paul Brest is one of the "100most influential lawyers inAmerica", selected by theNational Law Journal for itsannual Profiles in Powerroster (April 28, 1997). Citedas both a constitutional lawscholar and an innovativelegal educator, Brest has beenRichard E. Lang Professor ofLaw and Dean since 1987.

Mid-career and junior professors gain recognition

Joseph Grundfest is also a1997 National Law Journalhonoree, in his case for beinga "leader in the corporategovernance movement,"advisor to the New YorkStock Exchange and FederalReserve System, and otherroles. Grundfest and hisassociates on the SecuritiesClass Action Clearinghousewebsite team received aComputerworld SmithsonianAward on]une 9,1997, fortheir innovative use ofinformation technology.

William B. Gould IV has forthe second year been listedby Ebony magazine (May1997) among its "100+ MostInfluential Black Americansand Organization Leaders."

GOULD

Listmakers discover many nationalleaders among current faculty

Miguel A. Mendez is one ofthe "100 Most InfluentialHispanics for 1997,"according to HispanicBusiness magazine (October1997). Reportedly the onlytenured Hispanic professorat the top three law schools,Mendez is an expert oncriminal law and procedureand the School's AdelbertH. Sweet Professor of Law.He was recently honored bythe California legislature(in a special resolution)upon his twentiethanniversary as a StanfordLaw School professor, and byPublic Advocates for twentyyears of service as anAdvocates board memberand chair.

The faculty ofStanford LawSchool abounds

in talent and leadership.The School knows it, andnow the media seem toknow it, too. The pastyear has produced thefollowing citations:

The Road toAcademia

From: Committee to Promote StanfordAlumni/ae in Law Teaching

Would you like to enter the teachingprofession? Help is at hand.

When: Contact the Committee by July1998 to participate in this year'sapplication process of the Associationof American Law Schools (AALS).

AALS services: The Association collectsapplications for teaching positions eachAugust for distribution to interested lawschools. In early November, the AALSholds a national job fair where lawschools interview candidates.

To: Stanford Law School graduates withacademic aspirations

CD Stanford's Academic Affairs Coordinator:650/723-3960.

Association of American Law Schools:202/296-8851; or 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W.,Suite 800. Washington, D.C. 20036-2065.

What: A written guide, How to Get aJob Teaching Law, plus individualadvice on the process of obtaininga teaching position.

Help may also take the form of role­playing for job interviews and coachingfor job talks.

CD Book: Harvard UniversityPress. 1997. $29.95. Leadingreviews: New York Times.Sept. 28, 1997; AtlanticMonthly. November 1997.Rhode bio: http://www­leland.stanford.edu/group/law/faculty/rhode.htm

• Child-care attendantsearn less on average thanparking-lot attendants.

And more. "A scrupulouslyresearched, balanced,sobering and sober book,"says the New York Times.

Deborah Rhodesucceeded to the presidencyof the American Associ­ation of Law Schools onJanuary 1, 1998. AtStanford, she is Ernest W.McFarland Professor of Lawand a former director of theInstitute for Research onWomen and Gender.

Rhode regularly dis­cusses gender issues in her"Equal Rights" column inthe National Law Journal.

• Men are over 15 timesmore likely to default onchild support than oncar payments.

• 20 percent of divorcinghusbands use the threat ofa child custody fight to getfinancial concessions.

• The U.S. has more thantwice as many shelters foranimals as for batteredwomen.

• Between a third and a halfof all women are assaultedby a spouse or partner atsome point in their lives.

result in conviction andincarceration is only10 percent.

• White males account for95 percent of seniormanagers, 80 percent of theForbes list of richestAmericans, and 80 percentof congressional legislators.

• Employed women spendabout twice as much time onfamily matters as employedmen do, and women average2 to 3 fewer hours of leisureper day.

• Elementary school girlsreceive smaller allowancesbut perform more choresthan boys do.

• The likelihood that aformal rape complaint will

Professor Deborah Rhode haswritten a widely noted bookdescribed in the AtlanticMonthly as "an excellentguide to sexism in our time."Titled Speaking of Sex: TheDenial of Gender Inequality,the book offers abundantevidence that women arestill relatively disadvantagedin society. To wit:

Rhode bookpresentsevidence onstatus ofwomen

Crowd of 2000 attends event honoring Crown family generosity

lishment of the Judge John CrownProfessorship in Law (see page 19).

The late Judge Crown, a longtimeChicago jurist, was deeply interested inthe law and teaching of trial procedure,especially as related to evidence. TheBorden case-based on circumstantialevidence and resonant with con­temporary parallels-proved an aptcase study.

Here, in period costume, were theStanford dramatis personae:

The zealous coronerHe decapitated the victims and brought a skull to court.

Played by Robert Weisberg '79, Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr.Professor of Law and Vice Provost of Stanford University

1893, in New Bedford, Massachusetts.This time it was September 16, 1997, ina dramatization at Stanford Law School.

The Stanford event, whichattracted nationalattention, wasoccasioned by thelatest in a numberof remarkabledonations by theCrown family ofChicago: the estab-

Lizzie Borden acquitted in dramaticStanford retrial

Arhyming defender"Without an axe and bloody dress, Lizzie is no murderess."

Played by Barbara Allen Babcock, inaugural Judge JohnCrown Professor of Law

It was deja vu all over again. Accusedaxe-murderer Lizzie Borden-despite

considerable circumstantial evidence-was freed. The first time was June 20,

The accusedAppearances were against her,

but she had many supporters.

Played by Julia Wilson ('98)

l!

Ano-nonsense prosecutorSome of his best evidence had to be excluded.

Played by Charles]. Ogletree, Jr. , AB '74, AM '75; HarvardLaw School professor and member of the Stanford UniversityBoard of Trustees

Anotable benchTheir adherence to the rules of evidence was exemplary.

Played by Sandra Day O'Connor '52, Associate Justice of theU.S. Supreme Court, and William H. Rehnquist '52, ChiefJustice of the United States

.,1,c ' ,~ S.,r:; . - • I "~

The police detectiveHe may-or may not­

have found the weapon.

Played by George Fisher,Associate Professor of Law

Stanford spokesman"Our axe was not involved in this

unfortunate case."

President Casper

CD See page 11 for information on how to obtaina videotape of this and other events of interest.

Ajury of her peersThey entertained reasonable doubt.

Played by Gerhard Casper, Professorof Law and President of StanfordUniversity; Provost Condoleezza Rice;and an auditorium packed withstudents, faculty, and alums

Curtain callThe cast included CaraRobertson '97 (second from

left, as Lizzie's sister, Emma)

and Professor Janet CooperAlexander, AM '73 (far

right, as the Borden's maid,

Bridget Sullivan.

NarratorShe limned the historical and legal context.Played by Kathleen Sullivan, Stanley MorrisonProfessor of Law

Missed Lizzie? Enjoy serious TV?

Cyberspace lawMargaret Jane Radin, Wm. BenjaminScott and Luna M. Scott Professor ofLaw, discusses the rapidly developinglaw of the Internet in a July 1997interview. The half-hour show was partof Stanford Channel's Interchange series.Radin cofounded and codirectsStanford's Cyberspace Law Institute.

<D For VHS tapes (at $24.60 each) andviewing information. telephone 650/723­5100 or visit http://tsc.stanford.edu/tsc/

Genetic testing issuesThe availability of tests for geneticsusceptibility to disease raises a host ofissues. A landmark conference focusingon breast cancer was convened in SanFrancisco on November 23, 1996, bythe Stanford University Program inGenomics, Ethics and Society.Participants included SUPGES chairHenry (Hank) Greely of the LawSchool and Thomas Raffin of theMedical School, with other authoritiesfrom around the nation. A video recordof the day-long confab was made byStanford Channel and broadcast in sixinstallments during April andNovember 1997. The series is titledGenetic Testing and Breast Cancer:Moral, Legal and Social Issues.

War crimes and justiceJustice Richard Goldstone, formerchief prosecutor for the U.N. CriminalTribunal for the former Yugoslavia,discusses his work on Issues and Ideas.The March 1997 show is titled"Assessing the Work of the U.N.War Crimes Tribunals." JusticeGoldstone is teaching a short courseon the subject as Herman PhlegerVisiting Professor of Law during theLaw School's 1998 January term. Aseasoned South African jurist, he iscurrently a justice of that nation'sConstitutional Court.

Lessons from the O.J. trialCan courtroom showmanship swayjuries? Unfortunately, yes, says formerprosecutor George Fisher. Usingexamples from the O.J. Simpson trial,the Stanford Law School associateprofessor discusses how clever trial workcan trump reflective thinking. Thehour-long show, "Trusting theAmerican Jury," was broadcast inOctober 1997 as part of StanfordChannel's Issues and Ideas series.

UC-Berkeley political scientist NelsonPolsby (coauthor, New Federalist Papers).The video, "Does the Constitution StillWork? Perspectives on the Framers' Vi­sion and American Politics Today," firstaired November 21 on Stanford Presents.

American familiesProfessor Michael Wald participated inan Alumni Weekend 1997 panel titled"Ties That Bind: Redefining AmericanFamilies." The interdisciplinary dis­cussion also included two renownedemeriti: human biology professorSanford Dornbusch and psychologyprofessor Eleanor Maccoby. Wald, theLaw School's Jackson Eli ReynoldsProfessor, recently served as deputygeneral counsel of the U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services. MiltonChen of KQED moderated theNovember 14 Stanford Presents video.

Business and the environmentAn expert panel sponsored by StanfordLaw School looks at the role of businessand the legal community in preventingand reversing environmentaldegradation in the U.S. and abroad.Barton H. (Buzz) Thompson, Jr.,JD/MBA '76, Robert E. ParadiseProfessor of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Law, moderated thehour discussion. "Common Ground:Business and the Environment" aired inAugust 1997 on Stanford Presents.

The Constitution todayAlso a product of Alumni Weekend1997, this program brings together fournoted authors: Stanford president andlaw professor Gerhard Casper (SeparatingPower); history professor Jack Rakove(Pulitzer Prize-winning OriginalMeaning); the new Stanley MorrisonProfessor of Law, Kathleen Sullivan(coauthor, New Federalist Papers); and

Foreign policy issuesAmong the highlights of AlumniWeekend 1997 was the forum,"Changing Rivals, Changing Partners:Issues of International Diplomacy."Moderated by Professor ThomasHeller, the panel featured recentSecretary of State Warren Christopher'42, recent Defense Secretary (nowStanford professor) William Perry,fonner White House adviser (nowStanford provost) Condoleezza Rice,and Carnegie Corporation presidentemeritus David Hamburg. Heller isthe Law School's associate dean forinternational programs, as well asLewis Talbot and Nadine HearnShelton Professor of InternationalLegal Studies. The 90-minute videoof the forum, which debuted onStanford Presents December 5, shedslight on such issues as post-Cold Wardiplomacy, and U.S. relations with anincreasingly assertive China.

Borden and other videotaped Stanford programs are available by mail

\ ["0 ob..io , video",pe of theY~~zie Borden event (pages 8-10)

directly from Stanford Channel, theUniversity's television station. The90-minute dramatization, titled "LizzieBorden on Tria!," was broadcast inNovember 1997 in the station'sStanford Presents series.

Videos of discussion programs onlaw and policy featuring Stanford lawprofessors are also available fromStanford Channel. Some recentprograms of interest:

Onward and UpwardDonations are already making a difference

Midway through its five-year course, the Campaignfor Stanford Law School has come far but still has away to go. Some $62 million in pledges and donationshas been received, as the School continues to strivetoward a goal of $75 million or more.

Other developments:

• Two endowed chairs were established last spring:the Judge John Crown Professorship in Law and theW. A. Franke Professorship in Law and Business.Both are now held by renowned members of thepermanent faculty, Barbara Allen Babcock and JosephA. Grundfest '78, respectively.

• The long history of Crown family philanthropy toStanford Law School was celebrated September 16with a thought-provoking dramatization of the famousLizzie Borden murder case. ChiefJustice William A.Rehnquist '52 and Associate Justice Sandra DayO'Connor '52 appeared as judges in this widelyattended event (mure on pages 8-10).

• A $l-million gift from philanthropist Joseph Gouldfunded the renovation of a nearby building nowknown as the Martin Daniel Gould Center forConflict Resolution Programs (see page 13).

• Law Fund donations for fiscal year 1996/97 rose to$2.75 million (compared to $2.1 million the previousyear). The participation rate also increased to aheartening 37 percent (from 34 percent in 1995/96).Huzzahs to Charles E. (Chuck) Koob '69, Law Fundchair these past three years.

• The leadership of the Law Fund remains strong,with Michael A. Kahn '73, of Folger Levin &Kahn LLP, accepting the baton from Koob onSeptember 1, 1997.

<DCampaign news: http://www-leland.stanford.edu/grou p/law/cam pa ign/

1LsToday

They're smart, diverse, and accomplished

The Class of 2000 combines academicachievement with personal histories that enlargethe law school experience for all. Sume stats:

Total 1L students: 178

Men: 107

Women: 71

Age range: 20-47

Average age: 25

Colleges represented: 77States: 34Foreign nations: 7

Ethnic minority students: 53 (total)Chicanos: 17Asian Americans: 16African Americans: 12

Native Americans: 6Puerto Ricans: 2

LSAT median: 167GPA median: 3-79

Advanced-degree holders: 55 (total)MA or MS: 41

PhD: 14

Rhodes, Fulbright, or Truman scholars: 11

Former White House staffers: 2

Republican legislators: 1

Poets and physicists: 1 each

Numher requesting financial aid (loansand/or scholarships): 135Tuition scholarships awarded: 75Average scholarship award: $9.982(40 percent of full tuition, excludingroom and board)

<D

Web resources II

Library expressA streamlined URL for Stanford's Robert

Crown Law Library website.<D http://Law-Library.stanford.edu/

Campaign newsletterArticles from recent issues of theCampaign Brief, newly available

on your desktop.<D http://www-LeLand.stanford.edu/group/Law/

campbrief/Cover.htmL

The Law School's websites continue togrow. Here, for your reference, are somenew pages and CRLs. The School's core

website, with links to all, remains<D http://www-LeLand.stanford.edu/group/Law/

Bookmark it!

Pioneering womenWomen's Legal History Biography

Project-a growing archive that currentlyprovides a bibliography on early womenlawyers and several original biographicalstudies of such women by law students.

Taken from a course, American Women'sLegal History, taught by Judge JohnCrown Professor Barbara Babcock.

<D http://www-LeLand.stanford.edu/group/WLHP/

Coming eventsStanford gatherings in your neighborhood

and on campus. Don't be a stranger.<D http://www­

LeLand.stanford.edu/group/Law/aLumni/

Alumni Weekend 'fJ1 photosThese photographs are the initial offeringsat a new Law School site, currently under

construction, which will offer animproved architecture and a variety of

advanced features.<D http://lawschooL.stanford.edu/

Law students interested in alternative methods ofdispute resolution can now learn in the conducivesurroundings of the new Martin Daniel GouldCenter for Conflict Resolution Programs. Lessthan one block from Crown Quad, the remodeledand renamed building offers more flexibility forclinical teaching and interactive work than thetypical classroom set-up.

ADR teaching commonly involves role­playing, modeling, simulated negotiations andmediations, and small group break-outs. Forexample, in the seminar pictured above, twopracticing attorneys demonstrated a moot labornegotiation, which was followed by a roundtablediscussion.

The Gould Center brings under one roof notonly the Law School's innovative Program inDispute Resolution, but also the interdepartmentalStanford Center for Conflict Negotiation(SCCN)-making synergistic interaction betweenthe two groups likely.

The new center was made possible byphilanthropist Joseph B. Gould of Las Vegas as apermanent memorial to his late son.

New Gould Center housesconflict resolution programs

The School's faculty, as well as being committed teachers, constituteacommunity of scholars. Scholarly work advances knowledge and

enriches teaching to the benefit of students and society.

by PauL BrestRichard E. Lang Professor and Dean

d' SPRING 1998

AW PROFE ORS

were not al­ways scholars.Even after legal

education moved from thelaw office into the classroom,few law schools expectedtheir faculty to engage insustained scholarship.

Today, law professors areexpected to producescholarship of the samequality and quantity as theircolleagues in the sciencesand humanities. At Stanfordall tenured appointmentsmust be approved by aUniversity Advisory Board,a group of seven highlyrespected (and highlycritical) faculty drawn fromvarious disciplines. Theburden is on the School toprove-through writtenevaluations from experts inthe field-that a candidate

for tenure is among the verytop scholars in his or her field.

Of course, teachingmatters as well-much moreso in the Law School thanin some other parts of theUniversity, and much moreat Stanford than at manylaw schools of comparablestature. We have declinedto appoint good scholarswith poor teaching records.And we rightly prideourselves on having one ofthe finest teaching facultiesin the country.

At the same time, theprestige of a law schooldepends almost entirely onits faculty's scholarlyreputation. Look at the topten or so law schools innational rankings and youwill find those thought tohave the best scholars. Thus,for applicants to whomprestige is a factor indeciding which law school

to attend, and for graduateswho care about how othersvalue their degrees, thefaculty's scholarship plays adeterminative role.

That is the reality of thesituation. But is it right? Myown answer is "yes."

A core mission of theAmerican university is thefaculty's advancement ofknowledge throughscholarship. (This is themain justification for theextraordinary institution oftenure-part of the systemof academic freedomdesigned to permit faculty toexplore controversial issueswithout the fear ofretaliation.) In additionto contributions to legaltheory, law schools have aparticular responsibility toassist policymakers, the har,and the bench.

Indeed, it is theohligation to produce

WHY SHOULD LAWPROFESSORS WRITE?

scholarship that justifiesthe relatively lightteaching schedules ofuniversity professorscompared, say, to

elementary or secondaryschool teachers. Whatmakes being a professor afull-time job rather than asinecure is the tremendousamount of time that facultyspend in research andwriting. The "Professors inPrint" section of StanfordLawyer and the honorsregularly awarded for ourfaculty's scholarshipprovide evidence that thistime is well spent.

Also, it is generally themost creative scholars whobring innovation of the bestkind into the classroom. Theprofessor who spends herhours outside the classroomwrestling with ideas is farmore likely to challenge herstudents to do likewise thanthe professor who is mainly aconsumer of other people'sthinking. It is no coinci­dence that many of our mostinnovative courses-insubjects ranging from

business transactions to civilrights to high-tech law-aredeveloped by facultymembers doing cutting-edgescholarship in those areas.

As for the caveats, firstthere is the issue of clinicalinstruction. Stanford hashad a tradition-beginning

some years ago with facultyincluding Barbara Babcock,Paul Goldstein, MiguelMendez, Bill Simon,Michael Wald, and myself,and continuing throughGeorge Fisher-ofproductive scholars doingsome clinical teachingthrough simulation or thesupervision of practice. Butfull-time clinical teaching isso labor intensive that itnecessarily affects one'sscholarly output. To address

this reality, some law schoolshave permanent clinicalfaculty. Others, includingStanford, have relied mainlyon multi-year arrangementswith lecturers, who are notpermanent members of theUniversity's professoriate.As with any institutional

arrangement, there is no one"right" structure for this, andwe regularly reexamine andtry to improve on theexisting arrangements.

Second, whenever morethan one criterion of meritis involved-here, teachingand scholarship--there areinevitable tradeoffs. Whilescholarly reputation maydetermine the institution'sprestige, an essential partof Stanford Law School'smission is to prepare

students for law practice­and increasingly forbusiness, public service,and law teaching as well.The School's appoint-ment, promotion, andcompensation policies taketeaching very seriously. It isno accident that the faculty-

wide average on studentevaluations is better than 4on a 5-point scale-nomean feat with a studentbody whose views andinterests are as diverse andwhose judgment is as criticalas ours.

Dean Brest welcomescomments on the Schooland legal education ingeneraly. Please write theDean or send e-mail topbrest@stanford.edu

STANfORD LAWYER ED

Two professors-a former prosecutor and a former defender­

discuss our oft-maligned jury system and how it might be reformed.

Barbara Allen BabcockJwige John Crown Professor of Law

George FisherAssociate Professor of Law

THE JURY IN CRIMINAL CASES has long been both revered andreviled. Lately, however, courtroom cameras and globalcommunications have made the institution of the jury not onlymore visible, but also more controversial. Recent unpopularverdicts have provoked questions about the efficacy of the wholejury system and stirred calls for reform.

Stanford Lawyer asked two faculty members from differentsides of the aisle to discuss the criminal jury system and offer theirthoughts about reform. Barbara Babcock, former director of thePublic Defender Service of the District of Columbia, provides adefense perspective. George Fisher, a former Massachusettsassistant district attorney, gives a prosecutor's view. Theirdiscussion is moderated by Richard C. Reuben, a StanfordlSD candidate and associate director of the Stanford Center onConf7.ict and Negotiation.

Reuben: What makes the jury a special institution?

Babcock: The criminal jury represents the will of thecommunity, and is a potential dispenser of mercy as well asjustice. Defense lawyers see the jury as the only institutionthat stands between a defendant and the total loss ofliberty-and thus we feel a powerful connection to those12 people. We turn to them for our clients' salvation andfor our own.

~ SPRING 1998

Fisher: I am a big supporter of the jurysystem, but I am not sure manyprosecutors feel the same connectionwith juries that Barbara describes as adefense lawyer.

Prosecutors usually don't go forwardunless we feel sure we have a guiltydefendant and a case we should win.From our perspective, all the prosecutioncan get from a jury is a confirmation,or rejection, of what we know is right.The jury can seem like an obstacleto overcome.

On the other hand, the defense canget a gift from the jury in the form of anacquittal or a hung verdict.

Babcock: That's really interesting,because a defense lawyer has just theopposite feeling-that everyone in thecourtroom is against you, especially ifyou're representing somebody who hasbeen accused of something trulyreprehensible. The judge is againstyou. The court reporter is against you.The bailiff is against you. It's just youand the jury as the only bulwarkagainst the vastly greater resourcesof the state.

Fisher: This notion of a disparityof resources may be a fallacy. A typicalprosecutor in a typical case doesnot have significant access to vastinvestigative resources.

Babcock: He has the whole policedepartment!

Fisher: You know what happens when aprosecutor calls a cop and says, "Pleasefingerprint this piece of evidence"? Youget, "We don't have time." Now, it's truethat when you are working on thehigher-level crimes, you actually mighthave an investigator dedicated to thecase. But otherwise, having the greatresources of the state often means yourown car and a map.

Reuben: If the jury is such a vitalinstitution, why are we havingdifficulty getting people to serve?

Babcock: In many places, and tomany people, jury service hasbecome more of an unreasonableburden than a duty and aprivilege of citizenship.

I'm studying women's legalhistory and am reminded ofhow for years women fought ashard to be able to serve onjuries as to vote, especially inthe West. Jury service is aunique opportunity toparticipate in public life, butwe need to figure out waysto make it a more edifyingand interesting experience.

This will take moneyand commitment, butwhat needs to be done isnot a great mystery. We know the thingsthat work: Written questionnaires tospeed up the process. Protections for jurorprivacy before and after the verdict.Pleasant places for jurors to be whileserving. RedUCing the number ofperemptory challenges, so large numbersof people are not insulted by beingsubpoenaed to court and then rudelystricken from service. Increasing the ratesof pay on a daily basis. And just generally,more civility and appreciation for thecitizens who come to serve.

Reuben: We seem to be seeing moreexamples of jury nullification, as in the failedassisted-suicide prosecutions of Dr. JackKervorkian in Michigan, and, arguably, the0.]. Simpson case. Is this a troublingdevelopment?

Fisher: I don't think so. Nullificationcan be an important reflection ofcommunity values. The Kervorkiancases are a good example. The jury said,"Maybe he did it. And maybe the

prosecution is properly charging underthe law as we have it. But we don'tlike the law, and we, as a jury,reject it."

It's not enough of an answer to saythat it's the legislature's job-and not thejury's-to write the laws. The legislatureusually doesn't look at laws up close, intheir application to particular cases.That's a job we give the jury.

Babcock: I absolutely agree.

Reuben: Can there, then, be such a thing as

a wrong jury verdict?

Fisher: Juries certainly can get the factswrong. One of my colleagues, forexample, prosecuted a serial rapist. Therewere several identifications of thedefendant, but the jury still acquittedhim. It apparently got stuck on theabsence of any evidence about the rapist'sfingerprints on one victim's raincoat.

STA fORO LAWYER ED

Of course, you generally don't get finger­prints from a raincoat, but a prosecutorconstantly has to be on the alert for theone thing that a juror might seize on toacquit a defendant.

This is my paradigm of a wrongverdict: a decision to acquit based onnon-evidence in the face of a lot of directevidence of guilt.

Babcock: I have a slightly different take.A friend of mine was on a jury recently,and there was a juror whose insistencethat the government had to have an eye­witness hung the jury. Another friend wason a jury with someone who refused todeliberate, and again hung the jury.

These kinds of outliers can lead towrong verdicts, but that's what voir dire isfor-to identify those unfit to serve.

Reuben: Speaking of voir dire, there hasbeen much debate about peremptorychallenges in recent years. Do you seemeaningful reforms in this area?

Fisher: We may see some on a state-by­state basis. Most prosecutors wouldprobably favor a limitation, or a leastwould be neutral, because prosecutorsdon't imagine they need to craft a jury.They just want someone they think willlook at the evidence fairly and will havethe moral strength to face another personand say, "You're guilty."

Babcock: Defense lawyers are generallyagainst peremptory reform. I would notwant to abolish the peremptory chal­lenge altogether for the reasons I justsuggested-the need to rid the jury ofoutliers, as well as to remove anyone the

defendant hates orfears for someirrational reason.After all, it is thedefendant's jury.

But I thinkthat reducingthe number ofperemptorychallengeswould be awelcomereformbecause it

would also cut

~ SPRING 1998

back on the big business of jury selection.At its heart, this business is dedicated tothe idea that the result will differdepending upon who is in the jury hox­which I think goes against the democraticideals of the jury. What we need to do isto get rid of this elaborate, expensive, andtime-consuming jury selection process.

One way to do it is to expand thepool of potential jurors, and to find outmore about their suitability for aparticular case through questionnaires.Then they could be stricken at anadministrative level rather than in thecourtroom, where they may feel insultedor as though their time has been wasted.

Fisher: I agree that the number ofperemptories should be reduced, but notthat the jury is the defendant's jury. It'sthe court's jury---Dr really, thecommunity's jury-sitting neutrallybetween both parties as an independentfact-finding body that represents the willof the community.

Babcock: But doesn't the fair cross-sectionrequirement really reflect that it is thedefendant's jury? It's a fair cross section ofthe defendant's community.

Fisher: It's also the government'scommunity.

Babcock: But the government is muchmore widespread than the defendant­and remember, it is the defendant whostands to be severed from the community.

Reuben: Would reducing the number ofperemptories solve the problem of games­manship that the peremptory challenge issuein part represents?

Fisher: I would favor eliminating lawyer­conducted voir dire altogether. I prac­ticed in a state [Massachusetts] where itdoesn't exist, and I don't see anyadvantage in letting lawyers quiz the jurythat justifies the time.

If we're trying to reduce the amountof time spent on peremptories, then I amnot sure that merely reducing the numberof peremptories-without also limitinglawyer-conducted voir dire-willaccomplish the goal. I am not convincedthat it takes substantially less time to

exercise threeperemptoriesthan to exercisesix if the lawyer isgoing to strugglehard with thosethree. I think theperemptorychallenge processsometimes becomesan excuse for lawyersto put their theory before the jury at animproper time.

But assuming we have peremptories,I am not as concerned as Barbara aboutwhether jurors feel insulted when they'redrnrred from a jury. That seems a lesserconcern than all the other things we'reworried ahout in the courtroom, such asgetting a proper verdict.

Babcock: I don't know where I'd putperemptories on the spectrum, but I dothink that's part of what makes juryservice unappealing to people. They oftenwalk away with the feeling that they havebeen struck on the basis of race or gender,which is so common. It's particularlyaggravating when it happens in acourtroom, because a courtroom issupposed to be a place of justice. Every­where we turn, on the streets, at work,etc., we run into prejudice and say "Well,this is life." But the courtroom-thehallowed halls of justice-is supposed tobe different.

Reuben: Are there any other reforms thatare worth considering?

Babcock: How about giving the openingstatements before voir dire? Each sidegives its opening statement to the entirepool so everyone can see what thegovernment is seeking to prove, andwhat the defense will seek to prove.Some courts have tried this, and itseems like a great option fll[ cuttingdown on voir dire.

Fisher: We would have to worry abouthow carefully people are listening whenthey have not yet been burdened withhaving to make a decision. Moreimportantly, though, juries aresupposed to be neutral at the timethey're picked.

After I've given my openingstatement, I hope they're leaning in mydirection. I know that my statement isnot evidence. But it is a summary, insome detail, of the evidence they will behearing, and by the end of my statement,I would certainly like for them to havebegun forming the opinion that I amright, and that the defendant should beconvicted if they find the evidence iswhat I say it is.

Reuben: As we tum the comer into the nextmillennium, what do you see as the biggestchallenge, the biggest need, for the criminaljustice system?

Fisher: I think the biggest need for thecriminal justice system is to persuade thepublic that the system is in fact effectiveagainst crime. The crime rate is falling,and I think once the public is confidentthat the system can work, most of theother pieces might fall into place. Maybe

Crown Jewels

then, people will be more willing to takepart in juries.

Babcock: I see it just the other way. Ithink we need to divorce the questionabout crime rates from how the adjudi­cation system is working. We need to con­centrate on making the criminal justicesystem fair, not only in convicting theguilty but in doing it with respect for theirrights-respect that can only come fromrealizing the enormity of the deprivationswe heap on people convicted of crimes.

We've focused a lot here on problemswith the jury, but I think most of thecases that make it that far are triable,reasonable cases that ought to go to thejury for one reason or the other. Whilesome mistakes are made, as with anyhuman institution, most of the time thejury gets it right.

The bigger problem, as I see it, is inthe treatment and representation ofpeople earlier in the process-undue

force and invasions of privacy in arrestand search, the essentially unregulatedand unfair plea bargaining that is afeature of most systems, the draconiansentences, and the rampant ineffectiveassistance of counsel, most horribly indeath penalty cases. This is where reformefforts really need to be concentrated­not so much on the jury, whichcontinues to function admirably mostof the time.

CD See also Babcock: "A Unanimous Jury isFundamental to Our Democracy," 20

HarvardJournal of Law & Public Policy 469(Winter 1997).

Fisher: "The O. J. Simpson Corpus:'49 Stanford Law Review 971 (1997).Plus Lawrence M. Friedman and Fisher,"Some Thoughts About Crime andPunishment:' in The Crime Conundrum:Essays on Criminal Justice, edited byFriedman and Fisher. Boulder, Colo.:Westview Press, 1997.

PHOTOGRAPHY BY MARCO ZECCHIN

The Sullivan/Fisher dialogueabove illustrates the harmonyof interests between theSchool and a family of donorswho created an endowedprofessorship last spring inhonor of one of theirmembers, judge john Crown,AB '51. Some 25 years ago, thissame family-the Crowns ofChicago-played a key role in

building Crown Quadrangleand its intellectual core,Robert Crown Law Library.

judge Crown knew beforehis death in March 1997 thatthe professorship was beingestablished. A 22-year veteranof the Cook County CircuitCourt, he affirmed his desirethat the chair supportteaching and scholarship on

the justice system, particularlyin the areas of evidence,advocacy, and professionalresponsibility. He also wasdelighted at the prospect thatBarbara Allen Babcock, aformer assistant attorneygeneral and the seniorparticipant in this dialogue,would be the inaugural judgejohn Crown Professor.

The Crown family'sunparalleled generosity toStanford Law School wascelebrated September 16, 1997,with a public dramatization ofthe unforgettable LizzieBorden case (see pages 8-10).Crown Professor Babcockportrayed the defense counseland George Fisher the rankingpolice officer.

The Crown family­honored guests at thatevent-was photographedin Crown Library. They are(left to right): jim Crown, jD'80; Bill Wallace; ElizabethCrown; BilL BS '85, MS '86,and Robin (Voss), MS '86,Crown; Renee and LesterCrown; joanne Crown; SaraStarr; janet Crown Petersonand Gunnar Peterson; SusanCrown; and Bill Kunkler. Theportraits are of the late judgejohn Crown and his brother,Robert Crown.

SrANFOItD LAWVIIt ~

Civil liberties. class action suits. intellectual property. taxation. securities regulation ...Aconcise bibliography of faculty writings published

between June and December 1997.

'~;

\ . ~,' "

...CL.>ri....m....e......a....n....d'Yp""u..,nlLli""'shUJm...........e....nt-"-----------Liu.f4jlg...a".,ti....o-'-'-n....a!Aw"-'a.....r~d!"'-s C""o"-'n~la'_"wL._partnership

"If history is worth anything, it is inpart because it has the power to warn uswhich roads not to take again. Theremay be areas of human life in whichpeople have profited from understand­ing history, but criminal justice is defi­nitely not one of them. In this field,each generation seems to undo the lastgeneration's reforms. Each generationresurrects old failures and trots themout as new.

"A previous generation hailed inde­terminate sentencing as a great innova­tion that would help criminals on theroad to rehabilitation. Our generationis sending this system to the dust heap.A previous generation buried the chaingang. Our generation is digging it up for

. "new servICe.

-Lawrence M. Friedman and George Fisher"Some Thoughts About Crime and Punishment"(See Chapters)

~ SPRING 1998

"For 40 years, the traditional method ofcompensating attorneys in personalinjury litigation, the contingency fee,made tobacco cases a strikingly poorinvestment. Tobacco plaintiffs' lawyersinvariably went home empty-handed, aconsequence of an unbroken string offailed cases.

"Now, however, plaintiffs have suc­ceeded in launching a wave of litigationthat threatens the very foundations ofthe industry, and tobacco has agreed toa $368.5-billion settlement. And thequestion arises whether the veritablearmy of personal injury lawyersinvolved in the recent deluge of privateclass action lawsuits and state healthreimbursement claims should beallowed to reap perceived mega-awardswithout congressional constraint."

-Robert L Rabin''A Job for Arbitrators, Not Politicians-Tobacco:The Settlement Leaves the Question of What isFair Compensation for the Attorneys" (SeeNewspaper Articles)

"Few books change one's life, but thisone did mine. I first studied constitu­tionallaw at Harvard Law School in asuperb class taught by Laurence H.Tribe from the Ninth Edition of GeraldGunther's casebook. Little did I imag­ine then that I would be fortunateenough to have a career practicing,teaching and writing about constitu­tional law, or to have each of theseremarkable men as colleagues. Still lessdid I imagine that I would one daybecome coauthor of this casebook.

"Gerry's invitation to me to workwith him was an extraordinary profes­sional honor; collaborating with him onthis edition has been an extraordinaryprofessional pleasure. I am deeply grate­ful to him for both, and for the wise andarchitectonic sense of constitutionallaw he has given me, beginning longbefore we ever met."

-Kathleen M. Sullivan"Introduction," Gerald Gunther and Kathleen M.Sullivan, Constitutional Law, 13th ed.(See Books)

________~ications,199-1--7--------BOO K S

Joseph Bankman and William A. Klein, Federal Income Taxation.New York: Aspen Law and Business, 1997.

Gerhard Casper, Cares of the University: Five-Year Report to the Boardof Trustees and the Academic Council of Stanford University. Stanford:

Stanford University Office of the President, 1997.

William Cohen and Jonathan D. Yarat, Constitutional Law: Casesand Materials. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1997.

William Cohen and David J. Danelski, Constitutional Law: CivilLiberty and Individual Rights. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1997.

Marc A. Franklin and David A. Anderson, Cases and Materials onMass Media Law, 1997 Supplement. Westbury, N.Y.: FoundationPress, 1997.

Marc A. Franklin, T. Barton Carter, and Jay B. Wright, The First

Amendment and the Fifth Estate: Regulation of Electronic Mass Media,7th ed. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1997.

Marc A. Franklin, T. Barton Carter, and Jay B. Wright, The FirstAmendment and the Fifth Estate: Regulation of Electronic Mass Media,1997 Supplement. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1997.

Lawrence M. Friedman, American Law: An Introduction, revised and

updated edition. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997.

Lawrence M. Friedman and George Fisher, The Crime Conundrum:Essays on Criminal Justice. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1997.

Joseph A. Grundfest and Michael A. Perino, Ten Things We Knowand Ten Things We Don't Know About the Private Securities LitigationReform Act of 1995. (Congressional testimony republished in theCorporate Law and Practice Course Handbook Series.) New York:

Practicing Law Institute, September 1997 (PLI no. B4-7199).

Gerald Gunther, The Art and Craft ofJudging in the United States:Reflections ofJudge Learned Hand's Biographer (Louis D. Brandeis

Memorial Lecture). Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences andHumanities, 1997.

Gerald Gunther and Kathleen M. Sullivan, Constitutional Law,13th ed. Westbury, NY: Foundation Press, 1997.

Gerald Gunther and Kathleen M. Sullivan, Teacher's Manual forUse with Constitutional Law, 13th ed. Westbury, N.Y.: FoundationPress, 1997.

Gerald Gunther and Kathleen M. Sullivan, Constitutional Law,13th ed., 1997 Supplement, Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1997.

CHAPTERS

William F. Baxter, "Choice of Law and the Federal System," in

A Conflict-of-Laws Anthology, Gene R. Shreve, ed. Cincinnati:

Anderson Publishing, 1997.

John J. Donohue, "Some Perspective on Crime and Criminal JusticePolicy," in The Crime Conundrum: Essays on Criminal]ustice,

Lawrence M. Friedman and George Fisher, eds. Boulder, Colo.:

Westview Press, 1997.

Lawrence M. Friedman and George Fisher, "Some Thoughts About

Crime and Punishment," in The Crime Conundrum: Essays on

Criminal]ustice, Lawrence M. Friedman and George Fisher, eds.

Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1997.

Robert L. Rabin, "Federal Regulation in Historical Perspective," in

Law and the Environment: A Multidisciplinary Reader, Robert V.Percival and Dorothy C. Alevizatos, eds. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press, 1997.

Deborah L. Rhode, "Feminist Critical Theories," in Sourcebook on

FeministJurisprudence, Hilaire Barnett, ed. London: Cavendish

Publishing, 1997.

Deborah L. Rhode, "Media Images/Feminist Issues," in Feminism,Media, and the Law, Martha A. Fineman and Martha T. McCluskey,

eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Deborah L. Rhode, "The 'Woman's Point ofYiew'," in Sourcebook

on Feminist Jurisprudence, Hilaire Barnett, ed. London: Cavendish

Publishing, 1997.

ARTICLES

Janet Cooper Alexander et aI., "Class Action Litigation" (Panel at

Conference: "Civil Justice and the Litigation Process: Do the Merits

and the Search for Truth Matter Anymore!"). 41 New York LawSchool Law Review 337 (1997).

John H. Barton, "The Balance Between Intellectual Property Rights

and Competition: Paradigms in the Information Sector," 18

European Competition Law Review 440 (1997).

Lawrence M. Friedman, "Dead Hands: Past and Present in Criminal

Justice Policy," 27 Cumberland Law Review 903 (1997).

Lawrence M. Friedman, "The War of the Worlds: A Few Comments

on Law, Culture, and Rights," 47 Case Western Reserve Law Review379 (1997).

Thomas C. Grey, "Plotting: The Path of the Law," 63 Brooklyn Law

Review 19 (1997).

STANfOI(I~ LAWYfR ED

Thomas C. Grey, "Slogans, Amens, and Speech Codes," 10

Academic Questions 18 (1997).

Thomas C. Heller, "Modernity, Membership, and

Multiculturalism," 5 Stanford Humanities Review 2 (1997).

Janet Halley, "Culture Constrains," 23 Boston Review 39(October/November 1997).

Mark Kelman and Gillian Lester, "State Disparities in the

Diagnosis and Placement of Pupils with Learning Disabilities,"

30 journal of Learning Disabilities 599 (1997).

Michael Klausner and Marcel Kahan, "Standardization and

Innovation in Corporate Contracting (or 'the Economics of

Boilerplate')," 83 Virginia Law Review 713 (1997).

Miguel A. Mendez, "Lawyers, Linguists, Story-Tellers, and

Limited English-Speaking Witnesses," 27 New Mexico LawReview 77 (1997).

Deborah L. Rhode, "Harassment is Alive and Well and

Living at the Water Cooler," 8 Ms. 28

(Novemher/Decemher 1997).

Kathleen M. Sullivan and Susan Estrich, "Calling Canard:The Case Against the Vice President," 217 The New Republic18 (November 3, 1997).

Kathleen M. Sullivan, "Cheap Spirits, Cigarettes, and Free

Speech: The Implications of 44 Liquormart," 1997 SupremeCourt Review 123 (1997).

Ascholarly journal on the cutting edge of internationalissues. including international trade. public internation­allaw. comparative law. and human rights.

Submissions welcome. Please send to the attention ofthe Submissions Editor at the address below.

Subscriptions: $26/volume (2 issues).Foreign subscribers. please add $3.

Stanford Journal of International LawStanford-law SchoolStanford. CA 94305-8610

Telephone: 650/723-1375

.~ S P R I N G I 9 9 8

Kathleen M. Sullivan, "Lecture on Constitutional Law:

Political Money and Freedom of Speech," 30 U.C. Davis LawReview 663 (1997).

Kathleen M. Sullivan, "Speech and Power," 265 The Nation 18

(July 21,1997).

Robert Weisberg and Guyora Binder, "Cultural Criticism of

Law," 49 Stanford Law Review 1149 (1997).

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Robert L. Rabin, "A Job for Arbitrators, Not Politicians­

Tohacco: The Settlement Leaves the Question of What is Fair

Compensation for the Attorneys," Los Angeles Times, August

21, 1997, p. B9.

Deborah L. Rhode, "Fleeing Home for the Comforts of an

Office," National Law journal, October 6, 1997, p. A23.

Deborah L. Rhode, "Fluttering Eyes Won't Cut It with Law

Clients," National Law journal, June 23,1997, p. A15.

Deborah L. Rhode, "Single-Sex Schools Can Only Be Way

Stations," National Law journal, August 18, 1997, p. A19.

Kathleen M. Sullivan, "A Thousand Opinions, One Voice,"

New York Times, July 25, 1997, p. A15.

(i) This bibliography was compiled by reference librarian ErikaWayne of the Robert Crown Law Library. Continuously updated.it is available online at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/law/library/what/lawbib.htm

STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEWAn academic journal published twice a year by

students of Stanford Law School.

Current SymposiumDismantling the Welfare State:

Welfare Reform and Beyond (Winter 1998)

Upcoming SymposiaLiving Longer: A Legal Response

to Aging in America (Spring 1998)Campaign Finance Reform (Winter 1999)

Affirmative Action and States' Rights (Spring 1999)Challenges for the Next Century

(lOth Anniversary Issue)

Subscriptions$46 (2/year)

Stanford Law & Policy ReviewStanford Law School

Stanford. CA 94305-8610(6501725-7297

Current e-mail: jmunn@stanford.eduWeb page: http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/SLPR/

Stanford Law School alumni and friends mingledwith the next generation, talked with notable professors,

and participated in planning future get-togethers.

Washington, D.C. denizensconversed with faculty authorKathleen Sullivan (near right)September 3 at Arnold &Porter. The topic: "PoliticalMoney and Freedom ofSpeech." Sullivan, a con lawexpert, coauthored the land­mark New Federalist Papers.Alum attendees (far right, I-r)included Naomi Mezey '95,Charlie Moore '95, andCarlton Osborne '95. Seeopposite page for news of moreD.C. gatherings.

l.il) SPRING 1998

PHOTOGRAPHY BY JOE PINEIRO

_ea£1:Coast~_

Aspiring Stanford Lawyers-incoming students, aswell as current students in town as summer asso­ciates-met local alumni and friends of the Schoolat receptions in several cities.

The New York City reception on July 31 washosted by Robert Bodian '80 at Bodian & Eames's38th floor offices. Guests included (left, l-r) Nicoleand Sean (3L) O'Connor, Guadalupe Garcia (3L)and Takahiro Saito (3L). Additional New York LawSociety events appear on the opposite page.

The Washington, D.C. reception for incom­ing students and summer associates was July16 at Arnold & Porter. Edward Hayes '72(left) and lL Janelle Kellman (below) weresnapped there, as were (center left, l-r) thedirector of the FfC Bureau of Competition,William Baer '75, and law society co-chairDavid Hayes '78.

Other D.C. summer events included aJune 12 gathering of recent grads ('90 to '97)at the downtown Daily Grill, and a June 19dinner for the classes of '86, '87, and '88 chezMarc Rotenberg '87 and co-hosted by IvanFong '87.

New York City grads heard Profes­sor Deborah Rhode (below left, atright) on the topic of her book,Speaking of Sex: The Denial of GenderInequality (see page 7). The October29 luncheon was cosponsored by theStanford Law Society of New York,the NOW Legal Defense and Educa­tion Fund, and Stanford's Institutefor Research on Women and Gender.

In addition, the Stanford LawSociety, chaired by Cheryl Krause'93 (below), sponsored a gathering ofrecent grads ('90-'97) at the Man­hattan digs of Greg Kennedy '92.Stanford Manhattanites also meetfrequently for informal happy hours.

STANFORD LAW'YER ~

Silicon Valley alums held their reception for localincoming students and summer associates on july 16at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Palo Alto.Shown here are Robin Feldman '89 and Tony Anas­tasi '40 (above l-r), a quartet including Alan Austin'74 and 2L Amy Korytowski(above right), and 1LNolan Highbaugh and Ira Ehrenpreis '95 (right).The Stanford Law Society of Silicon Valley, chairedby Feldman, sponsors a variety of events on andoff campus.

San Francisco incoming students and summer associates met their StanfordLaw seniors on july 22 at Pillsbury Madison & Sutro. Karen james jaenike'96 (above, left) helped organize the event, which featured remarks byProfessor-alum Robert Weisberg '79 (right).

~ SPRING 1998

PHOTOGRAPHY BY MARCO ZECCHIN

fhe 1997 American Bar Association meeting in San Franciscoccasioned an August 5 Stanford breakfast at the Fairmont. NLRBhair and professor-on-leave William B. Gould IV (above), AALS in­oming president and professor Deborah Rhode (below, center), and

I anhattan attorney Marsha Simms '77 (below, right) were among thettendees.

Crown Quadrangle was the site of the now-annual recep­tion during lL Orientation introducing local alums to thenew students. The 1997 edition on September 3 includedremarks by Dean Brest (left) on the Law School as anextended community.

The community-building represented by incoming student/summerassociate receptions and by the Orientation reception (wp of page)continued into the fall with a series of intimate gatherings for localalums and lLs at the Dean's residence. In this November 13 photo,Dean Paul Brest (above, center) greets lL Barbara Rhomberg (left) andNancy Mahoney Cohen '75 (right).

STANfORD LAWYER <D

~'-----------------

The Seattle Law Society met at the Rainier Club onNovember 5 for dinner and a panel discussion on "TheBusiness of Sports" organized by society co-chair AlexAlben '84 (below, left). Other principals (right, l-r) wereMariners president Chuck Armstrong '67, Law Societyco-chair Jake Jacobson '77, and professor Robert Weis­berg '79.

On June 6, Seattlites lunched with professor MarkKelman, who shed light on "The New Law and Psycho­logy Movement."

Westside Los Angeles grads (above) met November 20 at O'Melveny & Myers inCentury City to help plan Stanford Law School alumni programs in the nation'slargest city. A parallel meeting of Downtown alums rook place earlier that same day(see page 63). Shauna Jackson '91 attended both and chaired the Westside confab.

~ SPRINC \008

The Stanford Los Angeles commu­nity offered its hospitality to incom­ing students and summer associates onJuly 10 at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.Shown (below, l-r) in a cross-genera­tional conversation are 2L RukaiyahAdams and Martin Perlberger '54.

Stanford Law SchoolLaw Society Committee Members and

Regional Representatives

Grassroots planning: This congenial group of alums convened over lunch November 20 todiscuss Los Angeles Law Society activities for the upcoming year. A complementary meet­ing was held for Westside alums that evening (see page 62). Similar Law SocietyPlanning Committees have met in San Francisco, the Silicon Valley, and Washington, D.C.Planning meetings in other cities are also in the works. If you would like to join your localplanning committee, contact your Law Society Chair (see listings) or the Alumni Programsoffice at 650/723-2730. E-mail: Law.Alumni.Relations@forsythe.stanford.edu

Stanford Law Society ofChicagoCommitteeEileen Kelly '86Gerard Kelly '86William Landreth, AB '69Duane Quaini '70John Sabl '76Garrett Shumway '86Bruce Toth '80

Stanford Law Society of DenverChairBruce Sattler '69303/592-9000

Stanford Law Society ofLos AngelesDowntown ChairGeorge Stephens, Jr. '62213/683-6211Westside ChairShauna Jackson '91310/289-2363

CommitteeJennifer Austin '97Stephen Bauman '59Deborah Bruenell '85James Boyle, Jr. '54Mark Bronson '89Sharon Brown '94David Chen '94Warren Christopher '49Joseph Coyne, Jr. '80Hal Coskey '54Donald Crocker '58Louis Eatman '74Samuel Freshman '56Ronald Fung '78James Gansinger '70Melissa Gleiberman '93Steven Gonzalez '97David Graubert '96Allen Gresham '56Elizabeth Grimes '80Rex Heeseman '67Don Hernandez '86Peter Huie '96

Deane Johnson '42Gregory Karasik '84Jennifer L. King '87Stephen Kroft '68Mavis Lee '92Brian Levey '93Darrel Menthe '96R. Chandler Myers '58Peter Nichols '81J. Dan Olincy '53Antony Page '97Jack Paul '52Pamela Prickett '79Howard Privette '88William Renton '67Rufus Rhoades '59Eric Roth '95Renee Rubin '92Darrell Sackl '73Stephanie Sasaki '96Lynn Savory '97Stephen Scharf '75Claudia Schweikert '95R. Carlton Seaver '75

Charles Siegal '75Charles Silverberg '55Laurence Stein '85John Sturgeon '62Alan Wayte '60Roy Weatherup '72Daniel Weiss '96Richard Williams '71

Stanford Law Society ofMinnesotaCo-ChairsBruce Machmeier '80612/344-9300Deborah Swenson '95612/344-9454

Stanford Law Society ofNative American AlumniContactColin Hampson '94202/682-0240CommitteeHon. Robert Ames '54Kip Bobroff '94Carrie Garrow '94Julie Hansen '90Tracy Labin '94Chris McNeil '78Mary McNeil '78Wilson Pipestem '95W. Richard West '71

Stanford Law Society ofNew YorkChairCheryl Krause '93212/427-6762CommitteeRobert Bartkus '76Richard BeattieJerome Blake '92Elaine Chiew '96Mark Cunha '80Brian Daly '96Barbara Diggs '96Louis Friedman '86Adam Glass '81Gail Block Harris '77John Huhs '70Philip Huyck '66Deane Johnson '42Drew Katz '96Gregory Kennedy '92Elizabeth Kim '95Paul Kingsley '82Chuck Koob '69Peter Langerman '82

STANFOIl.D LAWYER ~

Daniel Levy '96 Randall Short '70 Elster Haile'41 Robert Bell '80David Loring '67 Samuel Sperry '68 Julie Hansen '90 Steven Benz '90Martha Luft '83 Charles Stark '65 Scott Harrington '51 Eric Berson '75Lawrence Makow '94 James Sutton '88 Leelane Ellis Hines '59 Hon. Anne Bingaman '68Eric Marcus '76 Anne Thornton '73 John Hopkins '57 Brooksley Born '64Michael Melcher '94 Ricard Ulmer '86 Joseph Huber '67 Sharon Buccino '90Laurel Nichols '72 Hon. Vaughn Walker '70 John Kelley '81 Eva Marie Carney '83Rise Norman '88 Christopher Westover '68 Robin Kennedy '78 Steven Dunne '90James O'Rourke '95 Marc Zilversmit '87 Sallie Kim '89 Robert Edwards, Jr. '90Victor Palmieri '54 Lilliemae Stephens '96 Cornelius Golden, Jr. '73Shirley Parker '62 Stanford Law Society of Seattle Stuart Klein '83 Edward Hayes, Jr. '72Michael Pearce '91 Co-Chairs James Koshland '78 Clifford Hendler '78John Quigley '80 Alex Alben '84 Cynthia Ladd '84 Hon. Roderick Hills '55Michael Quinn '93 206/957-2000 Michelle Lee '92 Linden Joesting '88Jenik Radon '71 Jake Jacobson '77 Edward Leonard '71 William Kroener III '70Michael Robinson '96 206/689-5650 Yvonne Leyba '87 William A. Rivera '95Eric Rothfeld '77 Committee Ellen Leznik '95 Adam Rosman '95Catherine Ruckelshaus '89 Charles Armstrong '67 L. Patricia Moncada '86 Neil Shapiro '85Selig Sacks '72 Pat Sainsbury '68 Stephen Neal '73 William Randolph Smith '75Willow Sanchez '95 Peter Ehrlichman '75 Sarah O'Dowd '77 Gary Wilson '68Marsha Simms '77 George Willoughby '58 Luther Orton '72 Jonathan Wroblewski '86Thomas Toothaker '71 Carlton Osborne '95

Stanford Law Society of Daryl Pearson '49 Regional RepresentativesStanford Law Society of Silicon Valley Karen Peterson, AM '76San Francisco Chair Keith Petty '48 AtlantaChair Robin Feldman '89 Rachel Ratliff '96 Tad Lipsky '76Sara Peterson '87 650/725-9045 Thomas Reese '60 404/676-2121415/343-2122 Committee Mark Reinstra '92Committee Marcia Adams '78 George Roberts DallasBetsy Allen '90 Fred Alvarez '75 Archie Robinson '63 Tyler A. Baker III '75Steven Abbott '94 Anthony Anastasi '40 Thomas Rosch '89 214/855-3070Lawrence Calof '69 Edward Anderson '78 Marilyn Rosenberg '86Robert Cathcart '34 Alan Austin '74 John Roos '80 New MexicoP. Y. Nicole Chang '95 Harry Barry '83 RoseAnn Rotandaro '95 Teresa Leger de FernandezMary Cranston '75 Helen Baumann '71 Barbara Roupe '76 '87Alex Duarte '84 Lee Bendekgey '82 Richard Ryan '34 505/982-3622Michael Duncheon '75 Christopher Boyd '92 Ignacio Salceda '92 Kendyl Monroe '60Frederick Fields '64 Judith Brown '95 John Schlicher '73 505/451-7454James Gaither '64 Debra Cauble '78 Peter Staple '81Paul Ginsburg '68 Nancy Mahoney Cohen '75 Isaac Stein '72 OhioMelvin Goldman '63 Beth Cohn '95 Geraldine Steinberg '63 Don Casto III '69Janet Hanson '81 Virginia Coles '85 Marcia Kemp Sterling '82 614/228-5331Darryl Hamm '88 Daniel Cooperman '76 Marilyn Taketa '69Mary Hernandez '84 James Danaher III '58 J. Richard Thesing '66 Paris, FranceMortimer Herzstein '50 Craig Dauchy '74 Jennifer Wald '91 Bernard Phillips '74Hon. Susan Illston '73 Thomas DeFilipps '81 Ann Yvonne Walker '79 33/1/45-24-91-39Karen Jaenike '96 Mary Dillahunty '94 Hon. Miriam Wolff '40Anthony Justman '91 Louis Dienes '94 PhoenixMichael Kahn '73 Martha Dienes '94 Stanford Law Society of Richard Mallery '63Cynthia King '94 Philip DiMaria '38 Washington, D.C. 602/382-6232Stephanie Lamarre '92 Lynn Dubois '94 Co-ChairsJohn Larson '62 Ira Ehrenpreis '96 David Hayes '78 San DiegoMichelle Lee '92 Robin Faisant '58 202/637-2288 Theodore Cranston '64John Levin '73 Ian Feinberg '79 Mathew Nosanchuk '90 619/677-1410Robert Lu '96 Michelle Greer Galloway '89 202/293-6400Julie McMillan '84 Anne Gardner '58 Committee CD Stanford Law SchooLJ. Sanford Miller '75 Mark Gates, Jr. '62 Terry Adlhock '70 ALumni Office: 650/723-2730; orThomas Pulliam '69 Paul Goldstein '86 Edwin Allen '79 e-maiL Law.ALumnLRelationsDonald Querio '72 Daniel Gonzales '84 William Allen '56 @forsythe.stanford.eduElizabeth Roemer '81 Matthew Greenberg '86 James Atwood '69

C!' SPRING 1998

• ~\/antsCQmu]g_I~~1 _

Mark your calendar and watch the mail for details on these and other gatherings of interestto alumniand friends of Stanford Law School.

1-9-~y---------------------

February 12

March 7

March 10

March 23-24

April 4

April 9

June 14

Summer

October 8-11

Silicon Valley Law Society"Does Washington Understand Silicon Valley?"At Stanford

SPILF "Bid for Justice" AuctionFundraiser sponsored by the Stanford Public Interest Law FoundationAt Stanford

San Francisco Law SocietyBrown-bag lunch with Pmf. Michael KlausnerSan Francisco

Directors' College (see back cover)At Stanford

"Where Do We Go from Here: A Colloquium on Race in the 21 st Century"Keynote speaker: Cornel West, Harvard University. Closing address: ConstanceRice, Western Region Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.Sponsored by the Stanford Black Law Students Association (BLSA) andStanford Law School.At Stanford

Jackson H. Ralston LectureWarren Christopher '49At Stanford

CommencementAt Stanford

Receptions for Summer Associates and Incoming StudentsIn Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, andWashington, D.C.

Alumni Weekend 1998At Stanford

<D For information and reservations, contact the School's Alumni Office. Telephone: 650/723-2730.E-mail: Law.AlumnLRelations@forsythe.stanford.edu

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

STANFORD LAw SCHOOL

CROWN QUADRANGLE

559 NATHAN ABBOn WAY

STANFORD, CA 94305-8610

Non Profit OrganizationU.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 818

San Francisco, CA

Stanford Law School offers innovative executiveeducation programs focusing on the critical intersectionof law and business. These programs bring togetherleading executives, directors, attorneys, regulators, andscholars to explore today's most challenging businessand legal issues. Anew paradigm in executive education,the Stanford Law School executive programs ~e basedon continuous dialogue between members o(thesediverse constituencies.

In 1998 we are presenting three compellingprograms focused on helping your organization addressthe challenges resulting from today's complex andrapidly changing business and legal environnlent.

1998 Executive Education Programs

General Counsel Institute '98January 15-16The only educational forum of its kind, designed specifically forsenior legal officers with broad decisionmaking and leadershipresponsibiUties to address the unique challenges faced by seniorgeneral counsel who must effectively solve problems, preventand/or manage crises, and lead the organization through amyriad of legal challenges.

Directors' College '98March 23-24Stanford Law School's flagship executive program, designedfor directors, executives with board responsibiUty, and generalcounsel to explore the most challenging issues facing today'sboards and to focus on effective strategies for Unking gover­nance to corporate performance.

Technology & Business Strategy Sununit '98June 28-29Acutting-edge executive program, designed for senior corporateexecutives and their legal counsel, to explore, through provoca­tive keynote presentations and collaborative breakout sessions,mission-critical issues and poUcies arising out of the strategicuse of technology in today's global enterprises.

For more information contact:Director, E.xecutive Education ProgramsStanford Law School, Stanford, CA 94305-8610Phone: (650)* 723-5905, Fax: (650)* 725-1861• From some states, )'OU may need (0 dial area code 415

E-mail: hllint@leland.stanford.eduWeb site: http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/c1e-execl

hoolExecutivAt Ibe Inlers