Feed on

Pace Law School hosted its annual Louis V. Fasulo 1L Moot Court Competition on the weekend of March 28-29, 2015. Over 160 first year law students and over 100 Judges participated in this exciting event. The students argued the merits of a fictitious case Petrillo v. Rooks, No. 14-85FD (W.D. Ala. Nov. 17, 2014) at the fictitious Thirteenth Circuit – the subject of their 1L brief – concerning two issues:

  1. Whether Rev. Rooks was a servant or employee of the defendants (BMCC and Rev. Yun) acting within the scope of his employment when he persuaded Mrs. Petrillo (member of the church’s congregation) to invest in Rook’s private B&R business, or whether the defendants were negligent in hiring and supervising Rev. Rooks; and
  2. Whether, in any event, the litigation, adjudication, and potential award of any relief to Mrs. Petrillo would violate both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, and thus precluding Mrs. Petrillo from recovery.

Professors Carol Barry, Alissa Bauer, Francis Carroll, Vicky Gannon, Tamar Gribetz, Lucie Olejnikova, Cynthia Pittson, Margaret R. Smith, Diane Webster, Gail Whittemore, and Peter Widulski worked with and guided the students throughout the spring semester in writing their first appellate brief and in their preparation for their first oral argument. The students were presented with challenging questions from great and lively panels of experienced Judges and attorneys.

The comradery and the intensity of the competition provided for a stimulating weekend. After Saturday’s preliminary rounds, the top 64 students advanced to the next round and argued on Sunday. Congratulations to the top 64: Matthew Arpino, Britny Auletti, Wojciech Balakier, Thomas Baroni, Emily Bendana, Desiree Berger, Christin Brown, Monica Calderon, Angelica Cancel, Nicholas Chabert, Amelia Christian, Leonard Cohen, Samantha Colon, Brianna Ciuffi, Thomas DeGrace, Deanna DiCaprio, Regina DiOrio, Alexandra Dobles, Robyn Downing, Brian Dwyer, Michael Fortini, Christina Fuhrman, Alyssa Fulginiti, Kathleen Fulton, Michael Giannini, Yelena Gordiyenko, Tyson Lord Gray, Andrew Gruna, Ashley Hausmann, Samantha Hazen, Hannah Hollingsworth, Kristin Jung, Bryan Kelly, Haseeb Khan, Luis Leon, Michael Liik, James Logan, Wilfredo Lopez, Alexander Lowell, Nicole Maguire, Sarah Main, Michael Manchester, Craig Manolas, Michael Marchman, Christopher McClain, Jordan Montoya, Michael Moore, Joseph Moravec, Adrienne Novak, Christina Oddo Andrea Oosgod, Daniela Parra, Rachel Partington, Kara Paulsen, Daniel Plaia, Melissa Reitberg, Richard Roman, Jeanine Ruggerio, Kevin Sheehan, Lisa Shiderly, Christopher Smith, Frank Smith, Benjamin Sonnenfeldt, Emily Svenson, Samantha Tooma, Shivani Trivedi, Alyse Velger, Eli Wagschal, Elizabeth Wanyo, and Kirsten Yerger.

The students argued well in the advanced rounds making it difficult for the Judges to choose the top 32. Nevertheless, the following are this year’s top 32: Christin Brown, Monica Calderon, Angelica Cancel, Briana Ciuffi, Leonard Cohen, Regina DiOrio, Robyn Downing, Michael Fortini, Alyssa Fulginiti, Yelena Gordiyenko, Tyson Lord Gray, James Logan, Wilfredo Lopez, Alexander Lowell, Nicole Maguire, Sara Main, Michael Manchester, Craig Manolas, Christopher McClain, Andrea Osgood, Kara Paulsen, Daniel Plaia, Melissa Reitberg, Richard Roman, Jeanine Ruggerio, Lisa Shiderly, Benjamin Sonnenfeldt, Shivani Trivedi, Alyse Velger, Eli Wagschal, Elizabeth Wanyo, and Kristin Yerger.

1L spring2015 top8 CP1The top 32 argued very well making it challenging for the Judges to pick the top 8. However, Monica Calderon, Angelica Cancel, Tyson Lord Gray, James Logan, Wilfredo Lopez, Christopher McClain, Andrea Osgood, and Kristin Yerger rightfully earned their spot in the top 8 semi-final round.

The final four students – Tyson Lord Gray, James Logan, Christopher McClain and Kristin Yerger – did a superb job in the final round making it an exciting event for the Judges and the spectators. Kristin Yerger won the competition as Best Advocate and received a $1000 Pieper Bar Review Certificate; Tyson Lord Gray placed second receiving an $800 Pieper Bar Review Certificate; and Christopher McClain won third place receiving a $500 Pieper Bar Review Certificate.

Special Thanks to Loretta Musial, Prof. Louis V. Fasulo, the Judges, the 1L Legal Skills Professors for their work with the first year class and for coming to support the students at this event, Pieper Bar Review for donating the first, second, and third gift certificates prizes, Dean David Yassky, Chartwell Food Services for providing refreshments throughout the day, and the members of the Moot Court Honor Board, including Cassandra Castellano, CJ Croll, Bianca Francois, Arthur Miller, Catherine Peña, Andrea Rodricks, and Michael Pesin-Virovets, among others, who once again put on an excellent event.

Congratulations to Kristin Yerger, Tyson Lord Gray, Christopher McClain and James Logan on this wonderful achievement!


Information on summer access to Lexis, Bloomberg Law, and Westlaw for students who are NOT graduating in May:

Lexis has no restrictions on use over the summer, and you do not have to do anything to extend your password.

Bloomberg Law has no restrictions on use over the summer, and you do not have to do anything to extend your password.

Westlaw requires that you extend your password for the summer to have full access to Westlaw. If you don’t extend your password, you will only have access to Westlaw for 10 hours in June and 10 hours in July.

Summer password extension is available only if a student has a permissible academic use for the password this summer (a summer associate position is not considered a permissible use). Permissible uses include:

  • Summer classes / study abroad
  • Law review and journal, including write-on competitions
  • Moot court
  • Research assistant positions
  • Unpaid internships / externships

Information on access to Lexis, Bloomberg Law, and Westlaw for students who ARE graduating in May:

Lexis gives full access to students graduating in May 2015 through the end of July 2015. The Lexis Law School Graduate Program allows graduating students to apply for free extended access to Lexis Advance through the end of December 2015. Graduates working for a public interest organization may sign up for the Lexis ASPIRE Program, which permits job-related access to Lexis Advance for the duration of the public interest work.

Bloomberg Law allows access to graduating students for six months after graduation. You do not need to do anything to extend your access.

Westlaw allows graduating students to extend access while studying for the bar by registering for its Grad Program. Registered May graduates will retain access to Westlaw for a limited number of hours through November. Graduates  also retain access to a number of career-related databases for 18 months following graduation.

lawschoolnewsLooking for news from law schools? Check out the Law School News portal, created by Elmer of CALI, currently featuring 93 law school RSS news feeds in one convenient place. Users can search the portal or browse the alphabetical list of feeds. Users can also subscribe to the Law School News feed and receive all the collected news at once.

Looking for RSS reader-aggregator? Check out this list:

To follow up on our May 2013 post written by Cynthia Pittson, Monica Berger of New York City College of Technology at CUNY, and Jill Cirasella, of Graduate Center also at CUNY, in their Beyond Beall’s List: Better Understanding Predatory Publishers offer an updated overview of what predatory open access (OA) journals are, how to recognize them, and what is the suggested role of librarians in dealing with these publishers. The authors describe these journals by saying that

[they] exist for the sole purpose of profit, not the dissemination of high-quality research findings and furtherance of knowledge. … predatory journals are primarily fee-collecting operations – they exist for that purpose and only incidentally publish articles, generally without rigorous peer review, despite claims to the contrary.

Although the authors recognize that predatory publishing is not a new concept to open access journals, they note that

their recent explosion was expedited by the emergence and success of fee-charging OA journals.

The authors further address the reliability of Jeffrey Beall’s (the current expert and go-to-person on predatory publishing who maintains the blacklist of predatory OA publishers and journals) findings and introduce the work of Walt Crawford, Karen Coyle, and Jill Emery outlining other considerations when assessing predatory OA publishers and journals.

The authors conclude by recommending that

we should seek to understand their methods, track their evolution, and communicate their characteristics to our patrons.

Project of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, the Weapons Law Encyclopedia is the

world’s first-ever online encyclopaedia of public international law applicable to weapons. … [it] aims to provide accurate, up-to-date information on weapons, the effects of their use, and their regulation under international and national law….

weaponslawencyclopediaThis website is available online at no charge making this resource accessible by anyone. It was launched in December 2013 and users may also download it as a paid iPhone/iPad app. The goal of the encyclopedia is to provide technical characteristics of weapons and their intended use, impacts of weapon use, and the international rules and norms governing the use of weapons. The encyclopedia includes four sources of information:

  • Historical and technical information about weapons as well as information about their intended use;
  • Treaties governing and related to the use of weapons outlining the evolution of international regulatory instruments;
  • Case law (judicial decisions issued by international, regional judicial, and quasi-judicial bodies); and
  • Glossary summarizing concepts of weapons law.

The Weapons Law Encyclopedia can be browsed by the identified categories, searched using free text search and results can be filtered by the identified categories. 

Additionally, each category can be browsed or searched. When displaying the weapons listing category, entries are further subdivided into legal regulation, main injury or damage mechanism, and policy theme categories. Treaties listing category is further subdivided into arms control and disarmament, International Humanitarian Law, and Terrorism categories. Case Law listing entries are further subdivided by courts: ICJ, Int’l Criminal Tribunals, National jurisprudence, Regional Human Rights bodies, and others. Lastly, glossary listing is an alphabetical listing of entries.

Pace University libraries have adopted a Discovery Service that searches not only the Library catalog, but many full-text interdisciplinary subscription databases. Rather than search the catalog and then relevant databases separately, you can search all of these resources at once. This includes HeinOnline, Academic Search Complete, Environment Complete, JSTOR, Business Search Premier, and many more.


If you create an account for the Discovery Service you can folder documents and share them as well.

For instance, a keyword search for climate change and water supply retrieves this mix of articles and books accessible to the Pace community. Filters on the left allow you to limit by date, type of resource, subject, and a wide variety of other options. What isn’t included? Resources from Westlaw, Lexis and Bloomberg Law.

The National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice and the ABA Criminal Justice Section present a new addition to the criminal law related resources – the National Inventory of the Collateral Consequences of Conviction (NICCC).

NICCCThis fully searchable national inventory makes each jurisdiction’s collateral consequences accessible to the public. The inventory maps the triggers of collateral consequences across the federal and all state jurisdictions, as well as District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. Users may search the database by keyword and results can be sorted by category (i.e. employment, judicial rights, education, housing, motor vehicle licensing, etc.), type (i.e. mandatory, discretionary, etc.), offenses (i.e. any, any felony, any misdemeanor, sex offense, crime of moral turpitude, etc.), jurisdiction, or duration (i.e. any, permanent, specific, conditional, etc.).

The results are displayed in a table listing the citation and title of the collateral consequence, the triggering offense category, consequence type, and duration category. Result list can be exported into an excel spreadsheet and individual result pages can be printed.

The website offers very thorough user guide explaining what collateral consequences are, addressing questions about the inventory database, search capabilities, and the results. The site also offers a thorough list of bibliographies (resources) divided into three major categories:

  • Inventories and Studies of Collateral Consequences
  • Standards, Policies, and Model Legislation
  • Reports and Law Review Articles

The website makes it clear that it is intended for educational and informational purposes only, and that no part of this websites constitutes legal advice. Further,

The website [makes] it possible for criminal and civil lawyers to determine which collateral consequences are triggered by particular categories of offenses, for affected individuals to understand the limits on their rights and opportunities, and for lawmakers and policy advocates to understand the full measure of a jurisdiction’s sanctions and disqualifications. It also [is] possible through the website to perform inter-jurisdictional comparisons and national analyses.

This is an excellent addition to the criminal law related tools available online; making it much easier for anyone to look up what collateral consequence a particular conviction triggers, what is the duration of such consequence and whether such consequence is mandatory.

The Writing Center at George Washington Law School has posted information on the over 150 legal writing competitions around the country. The competitions cover a wide range of legal topics, and information on eligibility is included.

Learn more about Legal Writing Competitions  (updated February 23, 2015).

A White House Press Release announced that on Wednesday, February 11, 2015, “President Obama transmitted to Congress a proposed authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF, against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also known as ISIL.

ISIL poses a threat to U.S. national security, which is why U.S. armed forces are already working with some 60 other nations and partners to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. The President has said that we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together, and enacting a bipartisan AUMF against ISIL would provide a clear and powerful signal that the United States stands united behind the efforts to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.”

Related Readings:
President Obama’s letter to Congress on AUMF
White House blog: What You Need to Know About the AUMF.

The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies reported in its February 12, 2015 press release the publication of a comprehensive regional study on the “conditions, laws, policies, and practices throughout the Northern Central America-Mexico-United States corridor” related to migration. This thirteen chapter study is the result of a two-year regional investigation and focuses on the practices in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, and United States. It concludes that the human rights of migrant children and of children whose parents are migrants are being systematically violated and it calls on those five countries “to reform laws and policies and to develop a regional response to guarantee children’s rights in countries of origin, transit, and destination.”

The study overall finds four major shortcomings that deny the basic rights of children and adolescents in the context of migration: (1) lack of attention to the root causes of migration including social exclusion, marginalization and poverty, violence, and the need to reunify with family, (2) policies that prioritize immigration enforcement—such as detention and deportation—over the rights and best interests of children and adolescents, (3) an absence of adequate reintegration programs for repatriated children, and (4) the lack of comprehensive regional accords and policies informed by human rights, human development, humanitarian law, and international refugee law.

Older Posts »