Accreditation will be requested for these programs from every state with mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) requirements for its lawyers. Please be aware that each state has its own rules and regulations, including its definition of “CLE”. Check with your state agency for confirmation of this program’s approval. Attorneys seeking to obtain MCLE credit in Pennsylvania are required to pay state accreditation fees directly to that state. Certificates of attendance will be available at the conclusion of the program. In order to receive CLE credit, all attorneys will be required to sign in on the sign in sheets and obtain a Uniform Certificate of Attendance. Registration fees must be paid in full before registrants can receive credit.
The following CLE sessions will be offered:
Thursday February 12, 2009
Suffolk University Law School
120 Tremont Street, Boston, MA
4:00 pm – 5:30 pm , Room 285
Managing the Bailout: Execution and Oversight of the Federal Response to the Financial Crisis (CLE)
This panel will examine the challenges of policy execution and oversight posed by Troubled Asset Relief Program approved by Congress in October 2008. The conditions under which TARP was implemented were daunting: a massive budget; short time frame, and high uncertainty about the character of the problem to be addressed. What were the major design and implementation challenges, and how well have they been addressed? Have oversight mechanisms established since October 2008 proved effective?
Sponsored by the Rappaport Center for Law and Public Service, and the ABA Section of Business Law
Friday, February 13, 2009
Fairmont Copley Plaza
State Suite B, Lower Lobby Level
138 St. James Avenue, Boston, MA
9:00 am – 10:30 am Recent Developments in Education Law (CLE)
The emerging area of professors suing students; schools giving student identifying information to music companies; parents right to "opt out" of curriculum they find offensive; student speech and the "Columbine factor".
On this panel you will hear from Karen Orr, the attorney who obtained immunity for two Purdue University students when they were sued by their professor after they complained about him.
The panel will also discuss cases like the Tenebaum and Arista Records case involving issues of student privacy, criminal prosecution and so called piracy actions. Presenters include Judie Tenenbaum, an attorney and the mother of Joel Tenenbaum, the B.U. graduate student who the Recording Industry of American (RIAA) is suing for file sharing music. The RIAA subpoenaed the contents of Ms. Tenenbaum's home computer.
We also discuss parents' decision not to have their second grade and kindergarten age children read books about gay marriage and the right of the school to control its curriculum in the Parker v. Hurley case. Hear from attorneys like John J. Davis who represented the town and the school. Hear from attorneys representing the parents.
We will also discuss the emerging limitation on student speech caused by the "Columbine factor".
Panelists:
- John J. Davis, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, Boston, MA
- Robert Sinsheimer, Denner Pellegrino, Boston, MA
- Karen Orr, Stuart and Branigin, LLP, Lafayette, IN
- Judie Tenenbaum, attorney, mother of Joel Tenenbaum
Moderator:
- Caroline Newcombe, Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles, CA
10:45 am – 12:15 pm Recent Developments in Communications Law (CLE)
Fox v. FCC and fleeting expletives before the Supreme Court; Network Neutrality and claims that Comcast interfered with peer to peer applications. The FCC order involving Free Press and Comcast.
On November 4, 2008 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fox v. FCC. This is the famous Cher "fleeting expletives" case. According to one paper, this case could have "the most profound effect on federal regulation of broadcasting in 30 years." It also the first time the Court has looked at so called indecency issues in a long time. Finally, it involves fundamental administrative law issues of what constitutes arbitrary and capricious actions. Hear from Maureen O'Connell, attorney for Fox. Hear from Matthew Berry, General Counsel, FCC, on the Comcast issue as well as the Fox case. Hear from attorney Seamus Duffy who represents Comcast.
10:45 am – 12:15 pm Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives: Lasting Model or Historical Artifact? (CLE)
Although the possibility is imminent in light of the change in administration, neither Congress nor the Environmental Protection Agency has enacted legislation or promulgated rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions or institute a cap-and-trade program. During the last few years, in the absence of a federal regulatory scheme, groups of states have formulated regional greenhouse gas initiatives to establish regional cap-and-trade programs. Of these, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”), formulated by the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, is the most advanced. Two other regional programs, the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and the Western Climate Initiative, are on a slower track.
Formulated by states that did not want to sit idly on the sidelines as the federal government failed to take action, the regional initiatives came into being to fill the regulatory gap. Many commentators believe that these programs might be around for a long time, in light of the current economic situation and congressional reluctance to impose carbon dioxide emission surcharges on energy prices. Others demur. Whichever body of opinion turns out to be correct, questions abound as to whether the regional initiatives are effective mechanisms for greenhouse gas regulation, whether they will survive legal scrutiny, and whether they ultimately will be pre-empted by federal legislation or agency rules. The Panelists will address these issues from several different perspectives.
Co-sponsored by the Standing Committee on Environmental Law and the Section of Environment, Energy and Resources
1:45 pm – 3:30 pm Implementing Health Reform: The Massachusetts Example (CLE)
When Massachusetts enacted An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care in April 2006, it undertook a comprehensive and visible effort to reform health insurance and health care practices. By requiring every Massachusetts resident to obtain health insurance coverage or its equivalent by July 1, 2007, Massachusetts hoped to eliminate lack of insurance as a cause of inadequate health care. The statute also established reporting and goal-setting mechanisms aimed at improving the quality of health acre services, including reducing racial and ethnic disparities. A study conducted after the first year in which insurance was required for all who have access to affordable coverage, shows that uninsurance was reduced and access to care improved. As a result, the Massachusetts experience seems to many to offer a model to inform the efforts of other states and the nation in addressing access to, and the quality of, health care. This panel will explore the Massachusetts experience in implementing the universal coverage mandate and the areas in which the Massachusetts experience may or may not provide a useful model for the nation. Panelists will include representatives of the major agencies involved in the program and private business and insurance interests also affected by the statute. This panel is comprised of state officials charged with implementing health reform and representative of the insurance industry, legal services and private law.
3:30 pm – 5:00 pm Family Medical Leave Act Update (CLE) CANCELLED