Ipse Dixit

In this episode, Jon J. Lee, Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Research and Frank Elkouri and Edna Asper Elkouri Professor in Law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law, discusses his article "Sanctioning Lawyer-Criminals," which is published in the Washington and Lee Law Review. Lee begins by explaining how the legal profession regulates itself and disciplines lawyers. He describes the history of how the legal profession has disciplined lawyers who commit crimes, including which crimes it has considered worthy of discipline and why. He presents an empirical study of how different jurisdictions currently discipline lawyers for criminal activity. And he reflects on how the legal profession ought to address criminality. Lee is on Twitter and Bluesky.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Philip Hackney, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, discusses his draft article, "Arts Tax Policy: Democracy or Plutocracy?," which will be published in the Loyola L.A. Law Review. Hackney begins by explaining how the tax code conceptualizes art. Then he explains how the tax code conceptualizes charitable organizations and treats them differently from non-charitable organizations. He reflects on the justifications for tax exemption and deduction, especially in relation to the arts sector, focusing on the equitably of subsidizing organizations that primarily benefit and are controlled by the wealthy. And he explains how tax policy could be more equitable and progressive in relation to the arts sector. Hackney is on Twitter and Bluesky.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Jeremy Bearer-Friend, Associate Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School, and Sarah Polcz, Acting Professor of Law at UC Davis School of Law, discuss their article "Sharing the Algorithm: The Tax Solution to Generative AI," which is published in the Columbia Journal of Tax Law. Bearer-Friend and Polcz begin by outlining some of the social problems associated with generative AI and explaining why existing proposals to address those problems are inadequate. They then propose an alternative model, consisting of an equity tax on AI companies, and explain why it would be both effective and preferable to alternative approaches. Bearer-Friend is on Twitter and Bluesky. Polcz is also on Twitter and Bluesky.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Stephen K. Urice and Simon J. Frankel discuss their book Law, Ethics, and the Visual Arts, the sixth edition of which was just published by Cambridge University Press. Urice and Frankel describe the creation of the book and the academic study of art law by John Henry Merryman, and discuss their own respective background in art law. They explain how the study and practice of art law fits into the study and practice of law more generally. And the reflect on how they expanded and amended the book for this new edition. Urice and Frankel are on LinkedIn.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Christopher T. Brooks, Professor of History at East Stroudsburg University, discusses his work on appellate judicial selection. He explains that state appellate judges are usually either elected or appointed with the advice of nominating committees. He argues that both methods are flawed, and that it would be better for judges to be appointed by elected nominating committees. Brooks is on LinkedIn.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Sharon Yadin, Senior Lecturer of Law and Regulation at the Yezreel Valley College School of Public Administration and Public Policy, discusses her draft article "The Hidden Nature of Regulation," which will be published in the Harvard Negotiation Law Review. Yadin begins by describing the conventional bifurcation of regulation into "hard" and "soft" approaches. She observes that in practice, regulation is always negotiated between regulators and regulated parties. And she explains how this alternative perspective on the nature of regulation should inflect our approach to it. Yadin is on Twitter and Bluesky.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Nikola Datzov, Associate Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law, discusses his article "AI Jurisprudence: Toward Automated Justice," which will be published in the Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. Datzov begins by briefly explaining how AI models works and why judicial systems are primed to use them in certain ways. He provides a taxonomy of how judges could use AI models. And he reflects on benefits and risks associated with the judiciary's use of AI.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, John Tehranian, Paul W. Wildman Chair and Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School and a founding partner of One LLP, discusses his new book, "The Secret Life of Copyright: Intellectual Property and Inequality in the Age of AI," which is published by Cambridge University Press. Tehranian begins by describing the critical IP theory movement and how his work fits into that movement. Then he explains how copyright doctrine creates systemic inequality in the allocation and use of copyright, through its definition of ownership, joint authorship, and derivative works, as well as the relationship between copyright and the First Amendment. Tehranian is on Twitter. This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Thomas Basboll, a resident writing consultant at the Copenhagen Business School and the author of the Inframethodology blog, discusses his work on plagiarism, among other things. Basboll begins by introducing himself. He then discusses a series of articles he wrote on a plagiarism incident in the discipline of critical management studies. He reflects on the reaction to his articles - or the lack thereof - and what it can tell us about the institutional role of academic plagiarism norms. He also discusses alternative approaches to pedagogy and plagiarism that could be more effective. Basboll is on Twitter.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Courtney Cox, Associate Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law, discusses her new article "Super-Dicta," which is published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Cox begins by explaining what she means by "super-dicta," then reflects on what the concept can tell us about the judging process and jurisprudence more generally. Here is the abstract:A weird thing happens when a conscientious, rational judge lacks certainty and has the humility to know it: she will often decide cases for reasons that differ from the reasons in her opinions. To illustrate, suppose she thinks it’s 50/50 whether Defendant’s copying infringed or was fair use. She could rationally flip a coin. But if she does, and she finds for Defendant, it will not be because of fair use. Rather, it will be because she thought it was 50/50 whether the copying was fair use—and the coin landed tails.Coin-flip cases are rare, but uncertainty is not. There are more sophisticated tools for responding rationally when the judge’s doubts about what she ought to do are not in complete equipoise. And so, the point remains: when a judge is uncertain about what she ought to do and is rational in pursuit of that aim, the actual reason for her decision and the ratio decidendi will diverge. And unlike much of the literature arguing we cannot take opinions at face value, the phenomenon I describe arises from anti-cynical premises: a judge who aims at what is right.I call the judge’s actual reasoning “Super-Dicta.” Super-Dicta is so-called because it is super important: it is directly necessary to the decision—and not just causally, but as part of a judge’s rationale. But even though it is the decisive reasoning, it would appear to have the status of dicta: whether expressed, or not, Super-Dicta is not purely objective, limited to law or facts. It encompasses the judge’s subjective reasoning based on her uncertainty. That is, it is reasoning that resolves a case that is hard for the judge, not just hard.Should Super-Dicta appear in an opinion? That normative question is probably moot, at least if understood as one of substantive jurisprudence. While a coin flip may be rational, disclosing it is not. Accordingly, a judge responding rationally to uncertainty will not disclose that in her opinion. And if she tries, the resulting legal standard would turn on an odd consideration: facts about the judge, namely, that she is uncertain and the extent of her doubts. The result: judicial opinions—at least those by mere mortals—can be transparent or objective, but not both. So-called “hard case” doctrines must be revisited in this light.Cox is on Twitter and Bluesky.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Richard Albert, Hines H. Baker and Thelma Kelley Baker Chair in Law at the University of Texas School of Law, and Kevin Frazier, AI Innovation & Law Fellow at The University of Texas School of Law, discuss their draft article, "Should AI Write Your Constitution?" They begin by explaining how much constitution writing and amending in taking place in the world right now, and reflecting on the values that should inform the creation and amendment of constitutions. They describe their survey of international constitution writers, and how it informed their assessment of how AI can and should - and shouldn't! - be used in drafting and amending constitutions. They also provide a set of best practices for using AI in relation to constitutions. Albert is on Twitter and Bluesky. Frazier is also on Twitter and Bluesky.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Jacob M. Schriner-Briggs, a Visiting Assistant Professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses his article "Against First Amendment Traditionalism," which will be published in the Kentucky Law Journal. Schreiner-Briggs begins by observing that the Supreme Court has recently suggested that its "history and tradition" based interpretation of the Second Amendment is also appropriate for interpreting the First Amendment. He explains why such an approach would affect the First Amendment differently from the Second Amendment, potentially increasing the government's ability to regulate politically disfavored favored speech. And he argues that this would be a normatively undesirable outcome, in relationship to pluralist democratic values. Schriner-Briggs is on Bluesky.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Franklin Graves, Senior Counsel at LinkedIn, discusses his article "Upload Complete: An Introduction to Creator Economy Law," which will be published in the Belmont Law Journal. Graves begins by explaining what he means by a creator and the creator economy. He reflects on what made the creator economy possible and the kinds of opportunities it provides to creators, platforms, and advertisers alike. He discusses how different bodies of law affect the creator economy, including privacy law, competition law, and copyright. And he offers his predictions for the future of the creator economy. Graves is on Twitter, Bluesky, and of course, LinkedIn.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.