Below is footage of a panel discussion between Justice Stephen Breyer, Professor Martha Nussbaum, Judge Richard Posner, and Professor Richard Strier that took place at the University of Chicago in 2009. The subject of the discussion is “Shakespeare and the Law,” and the purpose of the panel was to counteract what was perceived as growing complacency and unoriginality in the law-and-literature movement. That these four figures are on the same panel is reason enough to watch the video.
“Terms of use,” also called “terms of service,” are agreements between website owners and users of the website. By consenting to the “terms of use,” a user manifests his or her assent to certain conditions in order to access the website; in some cases, accessing a website will itself constitute acquiescence to the restrictions and conditions explained in the “terms of use.” “Terms of use” may explain what will happen to someone who hacks into the website, may divest users of certain legal rights as a condition for use, or may detail the consequences of behaving or transacting in certain ways on the website. Social networks such as Facebook are notorious for frequently modifying their “terms of use,” and “terms of use” are often subject to criticism for their allegedly unfair contracting and bargaining practices and for concealing or obscuring information in shrinkwraps, browsewraps, and clickwraps.
A privacy policy is a disclosure regarding the information a website collects and how that information is used by the website owner. Not all websites have privacy policies, but privacy policies are required of websites directed at children. Websites containing health data for patients or banking and financial data for customers are also required to have and display privacy policies. A privacy policy discloses what personal information is gathered by the website and states whether, for instance, a website uses cookies or targeted advertising, and whether the data collected by the website is shared with third parties.
Unlike “terms of use” or privacy policies, acceptable use policies generally are between employers and employees and govern the ways in which employees and other authorized users handle websites or networks of the employer. The laws governing acceptable use policies are strict. For instance, acceptable use policies must be clear and made known to employees; they must also explain what sanctions are appropriate or applicable if the acceptable use policy is violated.
The field of premises liability has to do with the potential tort liability of a landholder or landowner for injuries or damages sustained on his property. Such liability is determined not by the legal status of the landholder or landowner, but by the legal status of the injured party. For example, if the injured party is a trespasser, then the landholder or landowner could not have owed the injured party a duty of reasonable care because the landholder or landowner did not know or have reason to know of the trespasser’s presence on his property. A “trespasser” is someone who, without the permission or consent of the landholder or landowner, enters or remains on the landholder’s or landowner’s property. We say that the landholder or landowner does not owe a duty to unforeseeable trespassers, even if the property possesses dangerous conditions, because we believe that people should not be held accountable for the behavior of others that cannot be known or reasonably discovered. If a reasonable person with ordinary intelligence could not infer the existence of Person X on the property, then that reasonable person cannot be made to suffer simply for acting reasonably; after all, we want to encourage reasonable behavior among acting agents within our society.
As with all areas of the law, there are exceptions to the rule that a landholder or landowner owes no duty to trespassers. One such exception is called the “attractive nuisance doctrine,” which maintains that a reasonable landholder or landowner ought to be aware that certain conditions on the property might draw trespassers onto the property. The classic example is a swimming pool that would seem attractive to children and, therefore, would likely lure children onto the property. Another exception involves the existence of paths or shortcuts on the property that might give rise to the reasonable expectation that trespassers will regularly use the paths or shortcuts and, hence, might also injure themselves because of the conditions of the property on or around the paths and shortcuts. In such a situation, a court may deem the landholder or landowner to have owed a duty to the reasonably foreseeable trespassers.
A “licensee” is another legal category of persons on the property of a landholder or landowner. Unlike trespassers, licensees enter or remain on the property of a landholder or landowner with the landholder’s or landowner’s express or implied consent. What distinguishes a “licensee” from an “invitee” (another legal status that will be discussed below) is the fact that the licensee tends to be on the property for his own benefit rather than for the benefit of the landholder or landowner. Examples of licensees include social guests who have entered on the property of another with the intent of visiting the landholder or landowner, who, let us say, is a neighbor. A landholder or landowner generally owes a licensee a duty of reasonable care with regard to activities undertaken on the property, as well as a duty to warn or make safe any dangerous conditions known to the landholder or landowner but not to the licensee. Because a licensee is on the landholder’s or landowner’s property by consent, but not by express invitation, we do not force landholders or landowners to use reasonable diligence to ascertain the existence of dangerous conditions on the property. The costs of holding landholders or landowners to such a high standard (time, money, and energy spent searching the property for conditions that may not exist for the benefit of people who may never enter the property, even if they have the permission to do so) outweigh the potential benefits (reducing the probability that a potential visitor would be injured on the property). Therefore, the duty of a landholder or landowner to a licensee is measured by a standard somewhere between those standards applicable to trespassers and invitees.
An “invitee” is a person having express permission to enter or remain on the property of the landholder or landowner for the benefit of the latter. An example might be a plumber or handyman who has been asked onto the property to perform some service for the landholder or landowner. Landholders and landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to invitees. Because the landholder or landowner is not only aware of the presence of an invitee on the property, but also the very cause of that presence (but for the landholder’s or landowner’s invitation, the invitee would not be on the property), we require the landholder or landowner to inspect the property and to make reasonable efforts to discover dangerous conditions on the property. We also require the landholder or landowner to make any dangerous conditions safe for the invitee.
These categories seem straightforward in theory but are often complicated in practice. What they tell us is that, in the workaday world, “duty” is not sacrosanct; it is contextual and subject to many interpretations depending on the facts at hand and the perceived relationship of the parties.
Donna Meredith
Donna Meredith is a freelance writer living in Tallahassee, Florida. She taught English, journalism, and TV production in public high schools in West Virginia and Georgia for 29 years. Donna earned a BA in Education with a double major in English and Journalism from Fairmont State College, an MS in Journalism from West Virginia University, and an EdS in English from Nova Southeastern University. She has also participated in fiction writing workshops at Florida State University and served as a newsletter editor for the Florida State Attorney General’s Office. The Glass Madonna was her first novel. It won first place for unpublished women’s fiction in the Royal Palm Literary Awards, sponsored by the Florida Writers Association, and runner up in the Gulf Coast novel writing contest. Her second novel, The Color of Lies, won the gold medal for adult fiction in 2012 from the Florida Publishers Association and also first place in unpublished women’s fiction from the Florida Writers Association. Her latest book is nonfiction, Magic in the Mountains, the amazing story of how a determined and talented woman revived the ancient art of cameo glass in the twentieth century in West Virginia. She is currently working on a series of environmental thrillers featuring a female hydrogeologist as the lead character.
Ted Stevens, still sporting a host of flaws, returns as a criminal defense lawyer in another gripping courtroom mystery by Terry Lewis.
Delusional, the third in the Ted Stevens series, follows Conflict of Interest and Privileged Information. It is Lewis’s most compelling book yet.
In Delusional Ted is appointed by the court to defend Nathan Hart, a young man confined to the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee for murdering his family—a crime Ted prosecuted.
Now Nathan is accused of murdering Aaron Rosenberg, a psychologist and administrator at the mental hospital. The motive? Rosenberg denied Nathan’s latest request to be released.
Not only did Nathan threaten to kill Rosenberg, but also an eyewitness placed Nathan at the murder scene, where his clothes were later found with blood stains.
The novel alternates first person accounts between Ted and Nathan, creating strong psychological profiles of both men and powerful suspense. This technique keeps us deeply involved and probing for the truth until the last pages.
As Ted delves into hospital affairs, he begins to wonder, despite all the evidence to the contrary, if Nathan might be innocent. Ted’s doubts infect the reader, but as we learn how clever and warped Nathan is, we don’t want to be manipulated by him any more than Ted does.
Nathan Hart is a fascinating character. We never doubt that he is mentally ill. We might give him a pass on believing God talks to him, because as he puts it: “Communication with the creator of the universe is not the sign of a mind out of touch with reality but of a soul in touch with the cosmos.”
But Nathan also believes his family members were involved in a worldwide conspiracy, part of a covert agency called “The Unit.” His evidence? Dog-eared magazines left on an end table. The arrangement of food in the refrigerator. A door left slightly ajar. You get the idea—Nathan is nuts. But he is also highly intelligent and can be charming at times.
What Ted has to determine is whether Nathan’s claims of innocence are valid—or just the rants of a delusional, paranoid schizophrenic.
Several staff members, though it seems unlikely, could have murdered Rosenberg. Frank Hutchinson, legal counsel at the hospital, might have motive. His wife, a psychologist, is rumored to have had an affair with the deceased. Dr. Rebecca Whitsen, Nathan’s psychologist; and James Washington, a social worker; had access to Nathan’s clothes and his food and medications—and Nathan swears he was being poisoned. Another possibility is the hospital’s Chief of Security. He is being investigated for sexual misconduct with patients. Rosenberg pushed the investigation, in which Nathan served as a witness.
Nathan also believes his uncle, a professor of international studies, could be behind the murder because of the Hart family’s connections to “The Unit.” Ted dismisses that as nonsense, but might the uncle have other reasons to want his nephew incarcerated?
And since this is a mental hospital, other patients with criminal tendencies provide alternatives Ted can present to a jury. Donnie Mercer is an inmate capable of violence. And then there is the mysterious Cindy Sands, a former patient who once stalked Dr. Whitsen.
Like any good series, this one has personal issues that develop from book to book. The client isn’t the only one with delusions. Ted Stevens fools himself into believing he has his addictions under control, but his substance abuse jeopardizes his career and the stability of his family.
Ted drinks and uses drugs to overcome “constant melancholy, which at times became a sadness so deep and dark nothing could penetrate it.” When under the influence, he demonstrates poor judgment and loses control of his temper. He creates more problems for himself, and then has even more reason to descend into that dark hole.
Watching layer upon layer of this psychological mystery peel away to reveal the truth is pure pleasure. The final judgment is messy, like real life, where evaluating good and evil can be difficult.
If you enjoy a good legal thriller, you’ll love this one for its complex characters and riveting plot.
Terry Lewis brings a wealth of courtroom experience to bear on his novels. He has been a circuit court judge in the Second Judicial Circuit in Florida since 1998, with prior service as a county judge in that circuit from 1989-98. His most famous decision occurred during the 2000 presidential election when he determined Florida’s secretary of state had to include recounted ballots in her final state presidential tally. The decision was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court, and George W. Bush became president.
Terry Lewis
At common law, burglary was defined as the “breaking and entering into the dwelling of another, at night, with the intent to commit a felony therein.” Nearly all jurisdictions in the United States today punish as burglary conduct that does not meet one or more of the elements of that definition; those elements, however, continue to be recognized, in some jurisdictions and under particular circumstances.
At common law, a person could become a “burglar” (i.e., one guilty of burglary) if he had but an intent to commit a different crime (i.e., not just breaking into the dwelling) and yet, having broken into the dwelling, had not committed that intended crime. The intent to break into the dwelling was not relevant to an evaluation of the elements of the crime of burglary; what was relevant was the reason (i.e., the person’s intent) for doing something criminal within the dwelling. Even before a person entered the house unlawfully, he could have been, according to the elements of the crime, guilty of attempted burglary. Burglary is inchoate to a theft or to other crimes that the person committing the burglary also intends to commit inside the dwelling. In other words, the classification of “burglary” obtains if a person breaks into a house but does not actually commit the felony he intends to commit inside the house.
To be convicted of burglary at common law, one had to actually break into the house; the burglar had to create an opening through which to pass. It was not enough that the owner of the home left open a door or a window through which the burglar crawled. If person X saw the door to person Y’s home left wide open, or if person Y invited person X into the home, and person X then entered through the door intending to steal silverware, then person X could not be guilty of burglary. And if the door were closed, but it was daytime, and person X busted through the door, he could not be guilty of burglary because it was not nighttime. It was once apparently believed that the greatest danger to homeowners was during the night, and although statistics may suggest that is still the case, there is no longer a “nighttime” element to burglary.
In most states within the United States, if not all of them, the “breaking” element of burglary has been done away with; instead, if a person’s presence on the property of another is unlawful, and the person satisfies the other elements of burglary, with the exceptions mentioned above, then that person may be guilty of burglary. Most states still retain the “entry” element of burglary, and this element is satisfied if any part of the body enters the structure, if only for a moment.
No states in the United States retain the “dwelling” requirement. At common law, a “dwelling” was, more or less, a house; a place of business didn’t qualify. Therefore, someone could break into your office, steal your equipment, and not be guilty of burglary. Most states in the United States no longer require an “intent to commit a felony”; rather, the word “felony” has been dropped and replaced with “crime.” Therefore, a person could be guilty of burglary for breaking into a home with the intent to commit any crime, even a misdemeanor. This is not true in all jurisdictions, however, as some states still provide that, to be guilty of burglary, a person breaking into the home must do so with the intent to commit either a felony or some other theft crime.
We do well to remember the consequences visited upon Augustine when, as a teenager, he succumbed to sin and shook a person’s pear tree in order to steal the fallen pears—not because he was hungry or in need, but because he delighted in the sin. “To shake and rob,” he said, “some of us wanton young fellows went, late one night (having, according to our disgraceful habit, prolonged our games in the streets until then), and carried away great loads, not to eat ourselves, but to fling to the very swine, having only eaten some of them; and to do this pleased us all the more because it was not permitted.”[1]
The mature Augustine, looking back on this event, acknowledged that theft violates and is punished by law—not just human law, he adds, pursuant to the teachings of Jesus, but the law written on men’s hearts. He relates that he suffered (and suffers) from shame and regret as a result of this sin, and his shame or regret is punishment that humans cannot implement ourselves; it is punishment that we must rely on God to summon forth in our hearts and minds. “It is foul,” Augustine says of his sin, adding, “I hate to reflect on it. I hate to look on it.”[2] One wonders whether human punishment based on human law can ever have the same long-lasting effect as divine punishment for violating the law written on human hearts.
Augustine does suggest that there is a law of man and a law of God and that he violated both; the consequences for violating man’s law would have been different from the consequences of violating God’s law, especially insofar as his punishment may not be of this world, although the Christian believer in the triune God must acknowledge that God’s sovereignty and sovereign law precede and have jurisdiction over all men’s actions, for God does not let anything come to pass that he does not know about or have control over.
Simon Stern, who is an associate professor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, has posted the following abstract to the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). The paper, which will interest readers of this site, will be published in the Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law.
This book chapter discusses the use of literary material as a means of studying criminal law. The chapter provides an overview on various methods of combining legal and literary materials (law in literature, literature in law, law as literature, legal aesthetics) and offers two case studies (Susan Glaspell’s “A Jury of Her Peers” and Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) to show how literature can open up questions both about substantive criminal law doctrines and also about the grounds on which those doctrines are applied. Along the way, the discussion shows how various scholars of criminal law, such as Nicola Lacey and Anne Coughlin, have raised questions that have also provoked the interest of literary scholars such as Dorrit Cohn and Blakey Vermeule.
The chapter also serves as a bibliography for scholars seeking further resources that examine criminal law through the lens of literature. These resources include bibliographies of primary texts (such as crime-based fiction, “dying confessions” circulated at executions, and movies), secondary texts (discussing law and criminal behavior in relation to fiction, drama, and poetry), and web-based resources (such as the Old Bailey Sessions Papers Online). In that spirit, the chapter also discusses some research that is often overlooked in discussions of criminal law and literature – such as Todd Herzog’s research on Weimar-era true-crime narratives that were created from actual case files; Jonathan Eburne’s research on crime in the work of the French surrealists; Lorna Hutson’s research on civic plots of detection in renaissance drama and their relation to the development of evidence law; and Lisa Rodensky’s work on narrative modes in Victorian fiction and their relation to the treatment of mens rea in contemporaneous legal thought.
An earlier version of this piece appeared here in The Alabama Lawyer.
As a staff attorney to Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, I read several briefs and petitions each day. I have noticed that certain grammatical errors are systemic among attorneys. Some errors are excusable; others aren’t. Here are seven errors that are inexcusable.
1. “Whoever” and “Whomever”
Many attorneys do not know the difference between whoever and whomever. Test your knowledge by answering these questions:
Which of the following sentences is correct?
A. Give the document to whoever requests it.
B. Give the document to whomever requests it.
Which of the following sentences is correct?
A. Whoever arrives first will get a copy.
B. Whomever arrives first will get a copy.
If you answered A to both questions, you were correct. Here is a trick to help determine whether to use whoever or whomever:
STEP ONE: Imagine a blank space where you wish to use whoever or whomever.
Example: Give the document to ______ requests it.
STEP TWO: Split the blank space to create two sentences; then fill in the blanks with the pronouns he or him.
Example: Give the document to him. He requests it.
STEP THREE: Whenever you fill in the blank space with a him/he combination, use whoever. As we have already seen, the previous sentence should read, “Give it to whoever requests it.” Whenever you fill in the blank space with a him/him combination, use whomever.
Him/He = whoever
Him/Him = whomever
Here are more examples:
STEP ONE: You should hire ______ Pete recommends.
STEP TWO: You should hire him. Pete recommends him.
STEP THREE: You should hire whomever Pete recommends.
STEP ONE: This letter is to ______ wrote that brief.
STEP TWO: This letter is to him. He wrote that brief.
STEP THREE: This letter is to whoever wrote that brief.
STEP ONE: The prize is for _____ wins the contest.
STEP TWO: The prize is for him. He wins the contest.
STEP THREE: The prize is for whoever wins the contest.
STEP ONE: The lawyer made a good impression on ______ he met.
STEP TWO: The lawyer made a good impression on him. He met him.
STEP THREE: The lawyer made a good impression on whomever he met.
STEP ONE: The lawyer tried to make a good impression on ______ was there.
STEP TWO: The lawyer tried to make a good impression on him. He was there.
STEP THREE: The lawyer tried to make a good impression on whoever was there.
2. “Who” and “Whom”
The difference between who and whom has fallen out of favor in common speech, but retains its importance in formal writing. Use who if the pronoun is a subject or subject complement in a clause. Use whom if the pronoun is an object in a clause. A trick to help determine whether to employ who or whom is to rephrase the sentence using a personal pronoun such as he or him. Consider the following:
A. Proper: Whom did you meet? (Rephrase: I met him.)
Him is objective, so whom is proper.
Improper: Who did you meet?
B. Proper: Who do you think murdered the victim? (Rephrase: I think he murdered the victim.)
He is subjective, so who is proper.
Improper: Whom do you think murdered the victim?
C. Proper: Who was supposed to finish that brief last week? (Rephrase: He was supposed to finish that brief last week.)
He is subjective, so who is proper.
Improper: Whom was supposed to finish that brief last week?
D. Proper: Justice Brown is the man for whom I voted. (Rephrase: I voted for him.)
Him is objective, so whom is proper.
Improper: Justice Brown is the man who I voted for.
3. “As Such”
I used to practice at a mid-sized law firm in Atlanta. Tasked with reviewing the writing of all associate attorneys at the firm, one partner became hardheaded about two words: “as such.” He always struck through the word “therefore” and replaced it with the words “as such.” He did this so often that I finally decided to correct him. I was tired of watching him substitute a grammatical error for a sound construction.
When I spoke up, he got defensive. “As such means ‘therefore,’” he said.
He was wrong.
The Random House Dictionary (2013) describes “as such” as an “idiom” that means “as being what is indicated” or “in that capacity.” In other words, after you have described something, you use the phrase “as such” to refer back to that something “as described.” Here are examples:
In these examples, “as such” properly refers back to a definite antecedent.
“As such” appears regularly in legal writing. Whenever I see this construction misused, I think about that partner in Atlanta and become agitated.
“As such” is a simple construction; as such, it entails a simple application. Don’t be shy about calling out your colleagues when you see them misuse this construction, even if you are a “lowly” associate. You might just save them—and the partners—from embarrassment.
4. The Colon
Although many rules govern the use of colons, I want to focus on this one: Never place a colon between a preposition and its object or between a verb and its complement. Likewise, never place a colon after such words or phrases as especially, including, or such as.
These sentences violate this rule:
No colon is necessary in these sentences.
5. Subject-Verb Agreement: “Neither,” “Nor,” “Either,” “Each,” and “Number”
Attorneys generally understand subject-verb agreement. A verb must agree with its subject in number. That is, a singular subject must take a singular verb; a plural subject must take a plural verb. The following words, however, give attorneys trouble: neither, nor, either, each, and number. What follows should clarify how to make these nouns agree with a verb.
Neither Mel’s clients nor his associate ___ going to the meeting tomorrow.
When you pair neither and nor as conjunctions linking two nouns, choose the noun closest to the verb and let that noun determine whether you use is or are. In the example above, associate is closest to the verb. Associate is singular, so the proper verb is is.
Neither of the partners ___ attending the meeting.
Neither is singular and the subject of the sentence. It requires a singular verb: is. The verb is not are if the plural noun (partners) is not the subject. Partners is not the subject; it is part of a prepositional phrase.
___ either of you available to take his deposition tomorrow?
Either is singular and the subject of the sentence. It requires a singular verb: is. The verb is not are if the plural noun (you) is not the subject. You is not the subject; it is part of a prepositional phrase.
Each of you ___ contributed valuable insights to the case.
The pronoun each is the subject of the sentence. Each is singular and requires a singular verb: has. Many attorneys will write have because they think that each is plural or that the verb must modify the plural noun you. You is part of a prepositional phrase and cannot serve as the subject of the sentence.
The number of thefts ___ increasing.
Number can be singular or plural depending on the context. Here, number is used with the definite article the. Therefore, the singular verb (is) applies. In most cases, if number is used with the indefinite article a, then the plural verb (are) applies.
6. The Possessive Form of Nouns Ending in “S”
My sixth grade teacher instructed me never to add ’s after a singular noun ending with an s or s sound. She was wrong. The trick to nouns ending with an s or an s sound is that no trick exists: the rule is the same for these nouns as for all other nouns (with a few notable exceptions, such as the words “its” and “yours”). To form a singular possessive, add ’s to the singular noun. To form a plural possessive, add an apostrophe to the plural noun. Here are some examples:
Singular Noun
Mr. Jones Mr. Jones’s
Mrs. Burnes Mrs. Burnes’s
The boss The boss’s
Plural Noun
The Joneses The Joneses’
The Burnses The Burnses’
The bosses The bosses’
7. “Only”
Only is one of the most regularly used words in the English language. It is also one of the most regularly misused modifiers. Below are examples of how attorneys misuse only in petitions and briefs. I have altered the language in these examples to conceal the identity of the authors.
A. “The appellant only references the reason why the appellee did not seek counseling.”
This sentence implies that the appellant does nothing—nothing at all—but reference the reason why the appellee did not seek counseling. The appellant does not eat, sleep, think, talk, love, feel, or breathe. The only thing he does is reference the reasons why the appellant did not seek counseling. He must be a robot. The author of this sentence intended to say the following: “The appellant references only the reason why the appellee did not seek counseling.” This revised sentence means that, of all the reasons from which he could have chosen, the appellant referenced only one. The appellant could have referenced other reasons, but did not.
B. “He only robbed two people.”
This example suggests that “he” has never done anything—anything at all—but rob two people. If all you have ever done is rob two people, your entire existence has been a crime. The author of this sentence intended to say the following: “He robbed only two people.” This revised statement should cause one to ask, “That’s it? Just two people?”
C. “The agency granted the application on the condition that the hospital only will move 300 beds.”
A hospital that does nothing but move 300 beds will not help sick patients. The author of this sentence should have written, “The agency granted the application on the condition that the hospital will move only three-hundred beds.” In this revised sentence, “only” modifies “three-hundred beds” rather than the verb “will move.”
■
Attorneys are educated; we tend to avoid using language if we aren’t certain about its grammatical soundness. But something about the foregoing rules baffles us.
The rules, though, are easy. What’s difficult is overcoming habits and industry-wide error. If you aren’t certain about a rule, don’t just ask your colleagues for the solution. And don’t take your colleagues’ suggestions at face value. Consult a good, reliable grammar book. Doing so will improve your writing and possibly raise the quality of writing among the entire profession.
James Elkins of West Virginia University College of Law has edited Lawyer Poets and That World We Call Law (Pleasure Boat Studio, 2013), an anthology of poems about the practice of law. Professor Elkins has been the longtime editor of Legal Studies Forum. Contributors to the anthology include Lee Wm. Atkinson, Richard Bank, Michael Blumenthal, Ace Boggess, David Bristol, Lee Warner Brooks, MC Bruce, Laura Chalar, James Clarke, Martin Espada, Rachel Contreni Flynn, Katya Giritsky, Howard Gofreed, Nancy A. Henry, Susan Holahan, Paul Homer, Lawrence Joseph, Kenneth King, John Charles Kleefeld, Richard Krech, Bruce Laxalt, David Leightty, John Levy, Greg McBride, James McKenna, Betsy McKenzie, Joyce Meyers, Jesse Mountjoy, Tim Nolan, Simon Perchik, Carl Reisman, Charles Reynard, Steven M. Richman, Lee Robinson, Kristen Roedell, Barbara B. Rollins, Lawrence Russ, Michael Sowder, Ann Tweedy, Charles Williams, Kathleen Winter, and Warren Wolfson.
James Elkins
Professor of Law and Benedum Distinguished Scholar, West Virginia University College of Law
The Literary Lawyer: A Forum for the Legal and Literary Communities 