Discussion Groups are a session format introduced by the Program Committee in 2016 to facilitate scholarly discussion and engagement. Discussion Groups do not feature formal presentations; rather, the objective is to facilitate a lively and engaging real-time discussion. Participants consist of a mix of the invitees identified in the original proposal along with additional individuals selected from this call for participation.
If you have expertise to contribute to one or more of these discussion groups, review their full descriptions below and submit an abstract by Tuesday, August 31, 2021 for a chance to participate.
Discussion Group Requirements
Critical Evidence Reform: How Do We Change Prior Conviction Impeachment in the U.S?
Wednesday, January 5, 2022, 11 am – 12:15 pm Eastern
This Discussion Group will build on the momentum for reform of various facets of the
criminal law to focus attention on the problem of prior conviction impeachment. Evidence law in
almost every U.S. jurisdiction now permits witnesses’ prior convictions to be introduced as
evidence in order to impeach their credibility.
Status of U.S. Legal Regulatory
Thursday, January 6, 2022, 12:35 – 1:50 pm Eastern
This session will focus on recent, groundbreaking changes to the regulation of legal
practice and legal services in the U.S. Recently, Utah created a groundbreaking “regulatory sandbox” (using a model from the financial services space) to incubate and test new ways of delivering legal services. Arizona eliminated rules barring non-lawyer ownership and investment in law firms and authorized a new type of legal service provider, Legal Paraprofessionals. A handful of states adopted some form of diploma privilege for 2020 graduates, eliminating the need to pass a bar exam for entry into the profession, and states across the country began considering these and other reforms to legal regulation.
A Very Online Economy: Meme Trading, Bitcoin, and the Crisis of Trust and Value(s)— How Should the Law Respond?
Friday, January 7, 2022, 12:35 pm – 1:50 pm Eastern
Emergent forces emanating from social and financial technologies are challenging many
underlying assumptions about the workings of markets, the nature of firms, and our social
relationship with our economic institutions. The 21st century economy and financial architecture
are built on faith and trust in centralized institutions. Perhaps it is not surprising that in 2008, a
time where that faith and trust waned, a different architecture called “blockchain” emerged. It
promised “trustless” exchange, verifiable intermediation, and “decentralization” of value
The Law of the Foreign Commerce Bureaucracy
Saturday, January 8, 2022, 12:35 – 1:50 pm Eastern
This group will bring together scholars from various legal subfields to confront the
question of how foreign relations law is made in the area of economic law and policy. The intent
of this group is to take up the diffusion of authority in foreign commercial affairs and to leverage
administrative law expertise among those working deeply on the literature on bureaucratic
authority both in the executive branch and in Congress.
Bridges and Barriers to Educational Equity: Should Law Schools Continue to Use Remote Learning Technology and Pedagogy for In-person Classes?
Sunday, January 9, 2022, 12:35 – 1:50 pm Eastern
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in substantial and profound disruptions to personal
and professional lives around the globe. As with educational and legal environments more
broadly, among the more significant of these disruptions for law schools was the need to rapidly
transition from in-person instruction to remote synchronous learning. In doing so, nearly all law
schools and most individual faculty members adopted a range of technologies (e.g., Zoom,
Panopto) and pedagogical practices (e.g., regular checkpoint assessments, recording classes and
making these available to all students) that they were unaware of, were unfamiliar with, or had
even rejected on policy grounds prior to the pandemic. Experiences of students and faculty with
the technologies and practices have varied, with remote learning working well for some and not
as well for others. For faculty as with students, there is some evidence that these impacts have
been systematic, reinforcing or magnifying broader structural inequities in legal education. For
others, however, the changes have been liberating or represented the type of educational supports that have been missing from legal education.