Faculty Publications

I suffer from imposter syndrome.[1] I am filled with self-doubt, never quite feel as though I belong, and fear that I will be discovered to be less than. I tend to assume any successes I have are due mainly to luck. I felt this way in law school, as a Biglaw associate, and still today at times in academia.

It turns out I’m not alone. Unfortunately, imposter syndrome is very common among law students (and lawyers), especially those from underrepresented and marginalized populations.[2] Not surprisingly, students who feel out of place, unqualified to be in the room, and deficient when internally comparing themselves to their peers, are less likely to participate in class. Because imposter syndrome disproportionately affects women, minorities, and first-generation law students,[3] the classroom is at risk of becoming a homogeneous environment.

In recent years, there has been increased academic interest in both the neurological effects of compulsive gaming and the potential tort liability of game developers who scientifically engineer games in order to addict users. Scholars from various disciplines are currently debating the scope and potential solutions to the problems associated with Gaming Disorder, now a globally recognized illness. This article contributes to this discussion by offering a multidisciplinary analysis of the scope of video game addiction, its neurological bases, and its relation to the legal rights and responsibilities of victims and game developers. In addition, this article explores the practical significance of, as well as normative and moral foundations for, holding video game developers accountable. It argues the novel theory that video game developers who succeed in their expressed intention to rewrite the neural pathways of gamers should be held liable for the intentional tort of battery.

It further contends that private redress based on an intentional battery cause of action is preferable to actions grounded in negligence or failure to warn because in a battery suit, there is no need to prove that the plaintiff was harmed—offensive contact suffices. Moreover, battery claims may be preferable as a matter of public policy. Game developers will be more inclined to reconsider their actions if they are unable to pass off costs of improprieties to their insurers. Such deterrence is particularly desirable where defendants are committing intentional wrongs for financial gain.

One particularly effective chapter is titled “Defending Individuals in Government Investigations,” written by Karen Seymour and Allison Caffarone. The 40-page chapter comprehensively analyzes the wide range of issues that such a client representation entails, including the client’s role in the investigation, conflicts of interest, joint representation, understanding and managing your client, accessing documents, whether your client should speak with government counsel and company counsel, obstruction of justice issues, payment issues, and special considerations for clients located outside the United States.

This Article summarizes and comments on a 2021 survey by the American College of Tax Counsel (ACTC) on the policies and procedures followed by law and accounting firms in drafting tax opinions. The Article provides background on the contexts in which tax opinions are issued and considerations that are relevant to the composition of such opinions; defines and distinguishes among the levels of assurance at which tax opinions are typically provided; and presents an overview of ethical rules and related considerations, including Circular 230 and the Code's preparer penalty provisions, implicated in the process of drafting and issuing tax opinions. The Article concludes by making several suggestions to professional firms that are engaged in establishing or reviewing their own opinion processes and to ACTC on how to move forward with its effort to provide useful information and materials to tax professionals.

The United States Department of Justice has come under attack in recent years
because of its increased attention to, and prosecution of, crimes committed during the
course of its investigations '-obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false
statements. These crimes have been labeled "cover-up ' or "process crimes," and the charging prosecutors have been criticized as bringing such charges only against high-profile defendants as to whom there is insufficient evidence to charge the "more serious" underlying offenses that prompted the initial investigation. Some critics have gone so far as to label these prosecutions "vindictive." Much of this criticism is misplaced.