Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

RFP for the 2009 Business Associations AALS Mid Year Conference

The following announcement went out today:

TO:  Business Associations, Corporate Finance and Securities Regulation Law Teachers
FROM:  Planning Committee on 2009 AALS Conference on Business Associations: Taking Stock of the Field

Steven [sic] Bainbridge, University of California at Los Angeles
Dorothy Brown, Washington and Lee University
Thomas Joo, University of California at Davis
Donna Nagy, Indiana, Chair
Steven Ramirez, Loyola University, Chicago
Larry Ribstein, New York University School of Law
Kellye Testy, Seattle University

SUBJECT: Request for Proposals

We are planning the AALS 2009 Mid-Year Program on Business Associations: Taking Stock of the Field, which will be held in mid-June 2009 (precise dates TBA). Towards this end, we are soliciting proposals from law faculty who wish to present on the topic: “Business Associations Pedagogy: Innovative Approaches to Teaching Basic and Advanced Courses.”
We are planning both a 90 minute plenary session and a set of 90 minute concurrent sessions on pedagogical approaches to the basic and advanced corporation and unincorporated business association courses. In particular, we are interested in exploring alternatives to the traditional case method.

We are specifically interested in receiving proposals in the following areas:

1. Technology: Beyond PowerPoint. A plethora of new technologies have become available in recent years that may offer opportunities for innovative teaching: blogs, wikis, social networking sites, texting, film and other media, and other Web 2.0 technologies. There are numerous reasons for considering the use of technology tools in legal education. These include the recognition of different learning styles, incorporation of multiple learning experiences, accommodation of disabled students, the ability to access information that is not readily available at the location, and communication with students outside of the classroom. Conversely, as indicated by periodic reports that law faculty are banning laptops in the classroom, there may be concerns that technology impedes rather than facilitates the learning experience.

2. Using Case Studies Instead of Cases. In contrast to the traditional Socratic method to discuss appellate opinions, some faculty are adopting the Business School case study method. For example, they use situational case studies and interactive simulations that place students in the roles of lawyers and policy makers to teach fundamental lawyering skills such as investigating facts, counseling, and resolving ethical dilemmas. Is this an appropriate pedagogical tool in the basic course.

3. Law Stories in the BA Classroom. There are a couple of text series now available that provide the background “stories” for selected “iconic” cases in a field, including Business Associations. Are these tools useful only as supplements or is there a “Great Case” model of teaching analogous to the “Great Books” approach to undergraduate instruction?

4. Transactional Courses in the Advanced Curriculum. A number of schools are offering sophisticated transactional clinical courses, which provide students with a broad exposure to the transactional practice. In these courses students learn to identify the objectives of the business or organizational client that wants to enter into a particular transaction, and how to structure, negotiate and draft appropriate documents. For example, students can learn how to finance a start-up company, sell a private company, advise a community-based organization engaged in economic development projects, or manage a myriad of environmental issues that arise when selling a business. Should these transactional clinical courses be taught by a group of tenure-track faculty or adjuncts? Should they use live clients or simulations?

5. Empiricism in the Classroom. Empirical analysis is becoming an important component of Business Associations scholarship. But does it translate into the classroom in either the basic or the advanced courses?
We do not mean to limit the range of proposals to those areas. Innovative teaching methods of all types are welcome.

Interested faculty should submit a 300-500 word written proposal of the proposed presentation not later than May 1. Please submit the description by email to ba@aals.org. The presentations will not be published.

The chosen speakers must register for the Workshop and will be responsible for their own travel and other expenses. Any questions should be directed to Professor Stephen M. Bainbridge, UCLA School of Law, bainbridge-at-law-dot-ucla - dot - edu.

To which I add a personal FAQ, that I will update as questions come in:

1. The precise dates have not been determined. Probably late June or early July.


2. The location has not been chosen. It will be a staff decision based on hotel availability and pricing. My guess is that it will end up being somewhere in the Boston to Washington corridor, although I personally continue to lobby for Santa Monica. It’s really unfair that those of us on the West Coast end up doing 90% of conference traveling, while those on the East Coast normally can practically take a taxi to one of these things.


3. The RFP deals only with one afternoon out of a planned the three-day conference. There are going to be a lot of other topics covered at the program beyond those discussed in the RFB, including many substantive rather than pedagogic topics.


4. My recollection of the meeting is that there may be one more RFP, but don’t hold me to that, as my notes from the meeting are at home.