Feed on
Posts
Comments

On August 5, the SEC approved a final “pay ratio” rule requiring large public companies to disclose the ratio of chief executives’ pay to the median pay of employees. Companies will have to report the ratio every three years, in registration statements, proxy and information statements, and annual reports. The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 mandated the rule, but there was substantial resistance to it from corporate interest groups that claimed it would necessitate complex accounting changes and be too costly. To accommodate companies with fewer resources, the rule exempts smaller reporting companies, emerging growth companies, foreign private issuers, MJDS filers, and registered investment companies. The rule, which will take effect in 2017 (disclosures will not begin until 2018) is intended to provide valuable information to investors and shareholders in evaluating whether executive pay is excessive.

Related Reading:

SEC Adopts Rule for Pay Ratio Disclosure,” SEC Press Release, Aug. 5, 2015.

SEC’s New Pay Ratio Disclosure Rule Explained,” Richard C. Shea, The National Law Review, Aug. 11, 2015.

Editorial, “A Long Time Coming, Sunlight on the Executive Pay Gap,” The N.Y. Times, Aug. 6, 2015.

Share

A recent press release from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP.org) states that “the overall employment rate for the Class of 2014 was 86.7% of graduates for whom employment status was known, the first year that the rate has increased since 2007.” The number of graduates who reported that they were working in short-term and/or part-time jobs also declined, and the percentage of graduates who reported “jobs that were full-time, long-term, and bar passage required jumped three full percentage points, to 62%, up from an historic low of just 57% for the Class of 2011.” The national median salary for 2014 graduates was $63,000, a slight increase over the previous year’s rate of $62,467. There are even predictions that there will be more jobs than law graduates by 2017 – let’s dream big!

Related Reading:

Shrinking Number of Law Graduates Boosts Employment Rate for Class of 2014, Deborah Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal, July 30, 2015.

POST WRITTEN BY: Cassandra Castellano (J.D. expected ’17, Pace Law School) & Lucie Olejnikova

Pace Law School hosted its Annual Louis V. Fasulo Moot Court Competition for the 2015 January Class on July 8, 2015. About 40 lawyers and judges participated in judging this exciting competition. The students were prepared and delivered an exciting evening of well-reasoned and persuasively delivered legal arguments.

The students argued the merits of the case of People v. Foster, No. 1423-15 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Apr. 15, 2015), authored by Professor Peter Widulski. Professors Vicky Gannon, Tamar Gribetz, Gail Whittemore, and Peter Widulski worked with the students throughout their summer semester and prepared them for their presentations. The panels of judges, many of whom were Pace alumni, challenged our students with great line of questioning. Our students rose to the occasion and received high praises and great feedback from the judges.

top16croppedThe comradery, intensity, and enthusiasm of the students provided for a wonderful competition. After the preliminary rounds, the top 15 students - Chanel Clinton, Stephanie Correa, Gianna Del Grippo, Katherine Ehrlich, Steven Filosa, Justin Grant, Brittany Hanley, Patricia Lam, Vito Marzano, Jonathan Poling, Daniel Rodriguez, Dennis Salzbrunn, Conor Strong, Mark Uzorka and Scott Wenzel - competed for top oralist. As the evening moved on, Katherine Ehrlich, Steven Filosa, Justin Grant, Vito Marzano, Daniel Rodriguez, Conor Strong, Mark Uzorka and Scott Wenzel met head to head in an exciting top 8 semi-final round, making it a difficult job for the judges to pick the finalists.

top4smallVito Marzano, Conor Strong, Mark Uzorka and Scott Wenzel prevailed and earned their spot in top 4. Vito Marzano won the overall competition as Best Advocate, Conor Strong won second place and Mark Uzorka won third place. All three students received generous Pieper Bar Review gift certificates, as an acknowledgement of their accomplishment.

Thank you to Loretta Musial, Prof. Louis Fasulo, Catherine Peña (’15), the 1L Legal Skills Writing and Research faculty for preparing and supporting the students, Dean Yassky, Chartwell Food Services and of course our volunteer judges. Special thanks also to the Advocacy Honor Board for running the competition: Cassandra Castellano, Brianne Cunningham, Washington Paul Alvarez, Vittoria Fiorenza, Michael Giordano, Hanna Shoshany and Michael Pesin-Virovets.

Congratulations to Vito Marzano, Conor Strong, Mark Uzorka, and Scott Wenzel on this wonderful achievement! 

The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, issued an opinion on an appeal of a Labor Commission decision in Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Berwick, CGC 15-546378. The plaintiff, Barbara Berwick, maintained she was an employee of Uber, and was therefore owed reimbursement for expenses incurred and wages earned between July 15 and September 15, 2014. Uber claimed that it is merely a technological platform, that it provided only the ability for the passengers and the drivers to facilitate a private transaction, and that its drivers are independent contractors.

In order to determine whether Ms. Berwick was an employee of Uber or an independent contractor, the court analyzed the written agreement between Ms. Berwick and Uber and the circumstances of her employment according to a list of factors from S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989). It found that Uber controlled every aspect of its operation. It did background checks on its drivers, required that drivers provide personal banking and residence information, along with social security numbers, and that drivers maintain their cars according to industry standards. Ms. Berwick’s car and her labor were her only assets. The court held

[a]side from her car, Plaintiff had no investment in the business. Defendants provided the iPhone application, which was essential to the work. But for Defendants’ intellectual property, Plaintiff would not have been able to perform the work. In light of the above, Plaintiff was Defendants’ employee.

Ms. Berwick was awarded $4,152.20 in expenses and interest. Uber has appealed the decision, and its officials issued a statement, saying that the “ruling is non-binding and applies to a single driver.”

Related Readings:

The goal of the EPA’s Clean Water Rule is to protect waters historically covered by the Clean Water Act. It clearly defines water sources that affect the health of downstream waters, protects waters next to lakes and rivers, and focuses on streams, not ditches, unless they are constructed out of or function like streams. The rule does not protect any water sources not historically protected by the Clean Water Act. The supplementary material to the rule states:

This final rule does not establish any regulatory requirements. Instead, it is a definitional rule that clarifies the scope of “waters of the United States” consistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA), Supreme Court precedent, and science. Programs established by the CWA, such as the section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, the section 404 permit program for discharge of dredged or fill material, and the section 311 oil spill prevention and response programs, all rely on the definition of “waters of the United States.” Entities currently are, and will continue to be, regulated under these programs that protect “waters of the United States” from pollution and destruction.

The EPA has a website that includes a number of fact sheets. The Clean Water Rule will be effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register. The official public docket for the rule is EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880.

Related reading:

The oral advocacy program at Pace Law School is a robust one as students have the opportunity to learn and practice oral advocacy skills by participating in the mock trial advocacy and the moot court competitions. Oral advocacy education is a critical addition to the traditional classroom learning emphasizing the value of preparation, hard work, and collaboration. It is an intense learning experience which instills great confidence in our students. During the 2014-2015 academic year, Pace law students participated in a total of 29 trial and moot court competitions in the areas of criminal law, civil rights, constitutional law, immigration law, labor law, client counseling, mediation, arbitration, negotiations, international environmental law, securities dispute resolution, energy and sustainability, international public law, international commercial arbitration, international criminal law, evidence, baseball arbitration, sports law, voir dire skills, trial skills, appellate advocacy skills, and more. Congratulations Teams and Coaches on a job well done! Special thanks goes to the Director of the Pace Oral Advocacy Skills Program, Prof. Louis V. Fasulo, the Pace Moot Court BoardMs. Loretta Musial, the administrative assistant, and all the coaches!

Mock trial competitions Pace law students participated in during 2014-2015 academic year:

National Sports Law Negotiation Competition // Thomas Jefferson School of Law (September 19-21, 2014) Sports Law Negotiation
Coach: Jared Hand, Esq.
Team Members: John Darminio (3L), Eddie Johannes (3L), Jesse Kantor (3L), Max Spaeth (3L)
The competition involved three different negotiations sports law fact patterns: 1) Preserving Torrey Pines; 2) Behind the Mask; and 3) Serving up Supplements, which involved an athlete’s use of supplements potentially leading to a failed PED test.

Stetson National Pre-Trial Competition // Stetson School of Law (October 16-19, 2014) Stetson National Pre Trial
Coach: Prof. Eylan Schulman
Team Members: Cassandra Castellano (2L), Malini Dhanraj (2L), Catherine Peña (3L), Ancy Thomas (2L)
The competition involved a problem dealing with a plaintiff’s termination as a result of her exercise of her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act to care for her mother, who was undergoing cancer treatment.

In Vino Veritas Golden Gate Mock Trial Competition // Golden Gate Law School (October 23-26, 2014)
Coach: Prof. Keith Sullivan
Team Members: Arthur Muller (3L), Vittoria Fiorenza (2L), Kiera Fitzpatrick (3L), Alex Zugaro (3L)
The competition involved a criminal case of the United States of America v. Kelly Tipple Barrett, dealing with a scheme to defraud dozens of victims by siphoning cash from the equity in their homes, where the defendant was charged with eight counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 1343 and two counts of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 1028A.

St. John’s National Civil Rights Trial Competition // St. John’s University School of Law (October 23-26, 2014)
Coach: Hon. Alexander Hunter
Team Members: April Booker (3L), Fationa Mamo (3L), Mathieu Reno (3L), Brittany Richardson (2L)
The competition titled “A Valentine’s Day Wedding” involved a claim by Plaintiff alleging that the defendant denied him/her full and equal accommodations/facilities/services because of his/her sexual orientation.

Judge Paul Joseph Kelly, Jr. Invitational Trial Competition // Fordham University School of Law (October 25-26, 2014).
Team Members: Joseph Fortunato (3L), Sameer Ponkshe (3L)
In this year’s competition titled United States v. Rishi Ramnarain the defendant was charged with conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

ABA Negotiation Competition // ABA, Long Island, NY (November 9-10, 2014)
Coach: Stephanie Chow
Team Members: Alex Cirocco (2L), Patrick Lanciotti (2L), Tatiana Rugel (2L), Albert Vetere (2L)
The competitors negotiated a series of legal problems in simulations consisting of a common set of facts known by all participants and separate confidential information known only to each side’s representatives. All simulations deal with the same general topic, but the negotiation situation varies by round and level.

Buffalo-Niagara Mock Trial Competition // SUNY Buffalo Law School (November 6-11, 2014) Buffalo Niagara
Coach: Prof. Saad Siddiqui
Team Members: Zach Benoit (2L), Michael Pesin (2L), Debbie Robbins (3L), Hanna Shoshany (3L)
The competition involved a defendant, Melbourne G. Drysdale (Mayor of Buffalo Niagara) who was charged with second degree conspiracy to commit assault/attempted murder of Jean Hathaway (Council President of Buffalo Niagara) in the midst of a highly contented political race (Drysdale ran for the fourth time while Hathaway ran to be the first female mayor). Drysdale allegedly intended to secure the victim’s cell phone because the victim threatened to publicly disclose incriminating photos of Drysdale dressed as a woman.

ABA Labor Law // New York, NY (November 22-23, 2014) ABA Labor Law
Coach: Prof. John Meringolo
Team Members: Michael Chiaramone (2L), Michael Giordano (2L), Samantha Osgood (2L), Victoria Wagnerman (2L)
John Astarita (3L), Peter Garcia (2L), Marissa Koerner (2L), Sarah Lusk (2L)
The competition involved a lawsuit by two employees (dancers) seeking compensation and alleging they were employees rather than independent contractors and thus it was unlawful for the owner of the club to charge them money for working in the club.

National Baseball Arbitration Competition // Tulane University Law School (January 29-31, 2015)
Coach: Jared Hand, Esq. & Daniel Masi
Team Members: John Darminio (3L), Jesse Kantor (3L), Steven Stieglitz (3L)
The National Baseball Arbitration Competition is a simulated salary arbitration competition modeled closely on the procedures used by Major League Baseball (MLB). Competitors were assigned three players to argue for or against their requested salaries.

National Black Law Student Association Thurgood Marshall Mock Trial Competition // Connecticut, NY (January 29-31, 2015) image
Coach: Hon. Alexander Hunter
Team Members: Michael Armstrong (3L), Bianca Olliver (2L), Brittany Richardson (2L), Sean Sykes (2L)
The competition involved a defamation case where the plaintiff, Aaron Ahmed Abdullah, alleged losing a presidential race as a result of racist remarks made by the current president on Twitter. Pace team advanced to the semi-final round!

National Trial Competition // Syracuse University School of Law (January 30-31, 2015)
Coach: Joel Seidemann
Team Members: Luis Felix (3L), Joseph Fortunato (3L), Kenyon Griffin (3L), Matt Reno (3L)
The competition involved a case of People of the State of Lone Star v. Peter Paul Seeger, in which the defendant was charged with first degree assault and domestic violence for seriously injuring the victim and long time intimate companion, Adriana Testa, with a hammer.

John L. Costello National Criminal Trial Advocacy Competition // George Mason University School of Law (February 5-8, 2015)
Coach: Joseph Servino, Esq.
Team Members: Zach Benoit (2L), Malini Dhanraj (2L), Sam Nath (3L)
The competition involved a case of Commonwealth of Virginia v. Delphine Fisher, where the defendant was charged with murder in the first degree, and accused of killing her husband, Harry Fisher, by setting fire to the house where he was sleeping.

Pace Law School Round Robin Mock Trial Competition // Pace Law School, NY (February 6-7, 2015) Round Robin
Coach: Prof. Keri Gould
Team Members: Paul Cirner (2L), Vittoria Fiorenza (2L), Debbie Robbins (3L), Max Spaeth (3L)
This first annual internal mock trial competition welcomed four schools to participate in the competition involving a case of State v. Ravine, in which the defendant raised the defense of battered women syndrome. Vittoria Fiorenza of Pace won Best Prosecution Advocate Award.

ABA Client Counseling Competition // Brooklyn, NY (February 20-21, 2015)
Coach: Stephanie Chow
Team Members: Rana Marie Abihabib (2L), Malini Dhanraj (2L), Catherine Papandrew (2L), Levan Thomas (3L)
The competition involves different client matters in each round allowing competitors to develop interviewing, planning, and analytical skills in the lawyer-client relationship. The competition focuses on promoting greater knowledge and interest in the preventive law and counseling functions of law practice.

Queens County District Attorney Mock Trial Competition // Queens, NY (March 7-8, 2015)
Coach: Joseph Servino, Esq.
Team Members: Michael Chiaramonte (2L), Vittoria Fiorenza (2L), Hanna Shoshany (3L), Victoria Wagnerman (2L)
The competition involved a criminal case of People v. Jay Gurley, where the defendant was charged with first degree murder and accussed of shooting and killing Ruby Brown with a pistol.

Estrella Trial Advocacy Competition // Estrella, LLC in San Juan, Puerto Rico (March 7-8, 2015)
Coaches: Prof. Louis V. Fasulo & Prof. Keith Sullivan
Team Members: Kiera Fitzpatrick (3L), Michael Giordano (2L), Catherine Peña (3L), Sameer Ponkshe (3L)
The competition involved a civil law suit alleging negligence after a summon-wrestling competition went wrong, exploring issues of agency, scope of employment, and assumption of risk.

Show Me Challenge National Voir Dire Tournament // University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (April 9-11, 2015)
Coach: Prof. Eylan Schulman
Team Members: Graham Chapman (3L), Alex Cumella (3L), Courtney Schneider (3L)
The competition involved a wrongful death law suit in which the mother of the victim alleged that her son died as a result of being mistreated by police officers who tasered him multiple times and physically restrained him while in custody causing him to suffer a cardiac arrest.

Moot court competitions Pace law students participated in during 2014-2015 academic year:

National Latina/o Law Student Association Moot Court Competition (September 18-19, 2014) NLALSA1
Team Members: Brielle Emhof (2L), Marissa Koerner (3L), Julisa Medina (3L)
The competition involved an issue of whether a city’s residency ordinance, requiring city employees to regulate residency in the state based on immigration status and prohibiting landlords from renting to undocumented individual, was preempted under the “regulation of immigration.”

National Moot Court Competition // New York City Bar (November 19-20, 2014)
Coach: Prof. Josh Scheier
Team Members: Donato Callara (3L), CJ Croll (3L), Annmarie Stepancic (3L)
The students chosen to participate in this competition are the top three students from the grand moot competition. The competition involved a case of Bolton Chemists Corp. et al.  v. Starke Pharm., Ltd., exploring the issues of preemtory srikes based on perceived sexual orientation and the Sherman Acts reach over foreign anti-competitive conduct that shares a reasonable causal nexus with domestic effects.

International Environmental Moot Court Competition // Stetson Law (February 6-8, 2015)
Coach: Prof. Matthew Brotmann
Team Members: Steven Lapkoff (2L), Kelly Nishikawa (3L), Charter Williams (3L)
The competition involved shark finning and trade restrictions issues in which a fictional State of Alopias violated international law because its nationals continued the practice of finning and spinning of mako sharks within its territorial waters and exclusive economic zone, and whether the fictional republic of Rhincodon violated international law by banning the importation of fish and fish products from the States of Alopias as a result of the questionable practice. Charter Williams of Pace received an award as Best Oralist in the preliminary rounds.

National Appellate Advocacy Competition (NAAC) // Brooklyn, NY (February 19-21, 2015)
Coach: Prof. Jennifer Arlin
Team Members: Brielle Emhof (2L), Meredith Gabay (2L), Eve Lincoln (2L)
The competition involved an appeal in an employment discrimination lawsuit brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 of Chuck Duncan v. Bigmart, Inc., in which the issues dealt with the review of  motion to dismiss after the jury verdict and the applicable standard for measuring the sufficiency of a complaint asserting private 
employment discrimination. Eve Lincoln of Pace received an oralist recognition.

Immigration Law Competition // NYU Law (February 20-22, 2015) Immigration Law
Coach: Prof. Vanessa Merton
Team Members: Washington Paul Alvarez (2L), Esma Onal (3L)
The Immigration Law Competition focuses on the latest immigration law issues. The competition involved an issue of whether federal immigration law preempts a city immigration law related ordinance, and whether Federal District Court has subject matter jurisdiction to review de novo a denial of naturalization application and grant declaratory relief once removal proceedings have begun.

Animal Rights Law Moot Competition // Lewis & Clark Law School (February 27 – March 1,  2015)
Coach: Mary A. Liebowitz & Dhara Patel
Team Members: Brad Landau (2L), Andrea Rodricks (3L)
The competition involved the issue of unconstitutionality of a fictitious statute, the Meat Eater’s Right to Know Act (MERK Act), which required slaughter plants to capture video in all locations where animals are kept. The problem included a challenge to the act by the American Slaughterhouse Association under both the First and Fourth Amendments.

National Energy and Sustainability Moot Court Competition // West Virginia University College of Law (March 12-14, 2-15)
Coach: Prof. Karl Rabago and John Bowie
Team Members: Rafael Corbalan (3L), Levan Thomas (3L)
The competition involved two issues: whether a particular midstream gas provider could be considered a public utility; and whether there was sufficient evidence in the Army Corps of Engineers’ record to uphold a jurisdictional determination of wetlands and deny a permit needed to construct a pipeline.

International Criminal Court Moot Court Competition Regional Round // Pace Law School, NY (March 20-21, 2015) ICC2015
Coach: Prof. Peter Widulski
Team Members: Nina Lee (2L), Brittany Patane (2L), Luis Rodriguez (2L), Ancy Thomas (2L), Anthony Ortiz (2L)
The competition titled Situation in Astafur, involved four issues: whether Astafur was competent to make an Article 12(3) Declaration, triggering the jurisdiction of the Court over war crimes committed in Pantos, despite its lack of effective control over the territory of Pantos at the time of submission of the Declaration; whether the Court had jurisdiction under the objective territorial principle over crimes committed by a Non-Party State (Braanos) via cyberspace that have an effect in a State (Astafur) that has lodged an Article 12(3) Declaration; whether the widespread disruption of communications and electricity during a revolt against the government of Astafur via a DDS attack constituted a war crime; and whether there should be two different victims’ legal teams under separate Victims’ Legal Representatives in this case because one portion of the victims supported secession and the other favored remaining part of Astafur.

Prince Evidence Competition // Brooklyn Law School (March 26-28, 2015)
Coach: Prof. Peter Widulski
Team Members: Marina Gubenko (2L), Jaclyn Halk (2L), Cassandra Papandrew (2L)
The competition involved an appeal to the US Supreme Court in the case of John Habib v. United States, exploring FRE 702 (expert psychiatric testimony regarding he credibility of a witness); the applicability of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination to the production of corporate documents in the possession of the defendant; and the qualification of statements as evincing religious bias made by jurors during deliberations as extraneous prejudicial information under FRE 606(b)(2)(A) and whether said statements deprived the defendant of his Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial and an impartial jury.

Thurgood Marshall Federal Bar Memorial Moot Competition // Federal Bar Association, Washington DC (March 26-27, 2015)
Coach: Prof. John Meringolo
Team Members: John Astarita (3L), Joseph Fortunato (3L), Ashley Kersting (2L), Jacob Sher (2L)
The competition involved a criminal case of Kenny Bearson, a defendant who challenged police’s authorization to conduct search and seizure of his home under the Fourth Amendment and the admissibility of a third-party confession under the Sixth Amendment.

Jessup International Moot Court Competition // Shearman & Sterling, LLP, NY (February 12-15, 2015) Jessup small
Coach: Prof. Lucie Olejnikova
Team Members: Cassandra Castellano (2L), Bianca François (3L), Eileen Henry (2L), Michael Pesin (2L), Susi Yanez (2L)
The competition involved a case of Agnostica v. Reverentia, in which students explored the issues of treaty interpretation involving alleged breach of bilateral trade treaty, lawfulness of holding a referendum to secede, lawfulness of secession and subsequent annexation, and the removal of property as a result of the allegedly breached bilateral treaty.

Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot // Vienna, Austria (March 28 – April 2, 2015)
Coaches: Bryn Fuller, Esq. & Prof. Linda Wayner
Team Members: CJ Croll (3L), Brianne Cunningham (2L), Seham Elmalak (3L), Sara Girgis (2L)
The competition involved a case of Vulcan Coltan Ltd. v. Mediterraneo Mining SOE, in which the buyer, Vulcan Coltan Ltd. and the seller, Mediterraneo Mining entered into a contract for the sale of Coltan, a rare mineral. The competitors dealt with procedural and substantive issues:  the controversial application of the CISG to contracts formed in a commodity market; and whether a third party (a parent company in this case) can be forced into arbitration proceedings and whether the Emergency Arbitrator’s order had merit. The Pace team advanced to the top 32 round.

20th Edition Bluebook changes

The 20th edition of the Bluebook was recently released. The numbering of the rules in the Bluepages (non-academic citation) now parallels the numbering in the Whitepages (academic citation). Typeface rules were relaxed to permit use of large and small caps in court documents for stylistic purposes. Rule 14 includes more examples of citations for a wide variety of administrative materials. Rule 15 adds a citation format for e-books. Rule 18 was revised and is much clearer. It no longer distinguishes between direct and parallel citations to Internet sources, and no longer requires that the URL be preceded by “available at.”

Unfortunately, the rule for citing the date for statutes was not revised. The preference remains the date on the print edition of the code cited, and the rule for citing the electronic version on Westlaw, Lexis, or Bloomberg Law remains the same. Here’s hoping the editors of the next revision come up with a better date parenthetical than 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956 (Westlaw through Pub. L. No. 113-93 (excluding Pub. L. No. 113-79)).

The chart linked on the right includes a list of the major revisions to the 20th edition from its preface.

Two million downloads! Memorial Day saw the Pace Law School collections in the Pace Digital Commons surpass the 2,000,000 download mark. The two millionth download was an article by Professor Bennett Gershman, Prosecutorial Ethics and Victims’ Rights: The Prosecutor’s Duty of Neutrality. The Law School Digital Commons began in 2006 by collecting faculty scholarship, and has since expanded to include three series collections and six journal collections.

Faculty Publications (902,556 downloads) collects the scholarship of our distinguished full-time faculty, with occasional contributions from our adjuncts. The top five downloaded papers written by our current faculty are:

Our law reviews:

The top five downloaded articles from our law reviews are:

Other collections in the Pace Law Digital Commons include:

The Pace Law Digital Commons is managed by Cynthia Pittson, Head of Reference Services, with assistance from Alyson Carney, Public Services Assistant.

Human Rights Watch (HRW), in cooperation with the International Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), Amnesty International, and Dr. Paula Gerber of Monash Law School and the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law in Melbourne, Australia, unveiled its online interactive platform mapping the status of LGBT rights worldwide.

In recent years, there have been significant advances for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people worldwide. But many countries impose legal sanctions that target LGBT people, often for political gain. Today, 80 countries criminalize consensual same-sex relations or discussion of LGBT rights, and punishments include prison sentences, flogging, and even the death penalty.

This  platform allows users to filter the collected data by sentence category, type of law, type of “crime” and whether a country criminalizes same-sex relations between women. Users may browse the platform by country and explore the collected data in variety of forms, including lists, maps, statistical displays, and others.

LGBT data

Death Penalty Worldwide (DPW) was founded in 2011 with the intent, among others, to provide “comprehensive, transparent data regarding death penalty laws and practices in the 93 countries and territories that retain capital punishment.”

The DPW website offers access to resources, papers, publications, and a death penalty searchable database. The basic search offers the option to narrow by country, region, or a method of execution. The advanced search offers more control over the search including the option to search by keyword or any of the available and collected country details, such as population, language, number of execution in a given year, what crime is punishable by death penalty, etc.

Additionally, the online platform also offers commentary on international legal issues, including, among others, access to courts, death row conditions, discrimination, due process, extradition, foreign nationals, innocence and wrongful convictions, mental illness, methods of execution, and women rights.

DPW

Older Posts »