Author Archive

Schools for Misrule: some early blog reactions

Several interesting reactions to my book already from around the blogosphere:

  • University of Illinois law professor Larry Ribstein (who commented at my speech there last week): “There was a good turnout and a lot of deserved buzz for this very interesting book. … The book deserves a lot of attention, particularly from law professors and their students as a source of critical perspective on trends in legal education. There is little doubt that the ideas Olson criticizes are hatched mainly in law schools rather than by practicing lawyers and judges, and have led to costly and questionable litigation.” And a response from Scott Greenfield, who says the book’s premise that law professors have great influence over the state of the law “warms the cockles of lawprofs’ hearts given that most of the legal profession considers their influence marginal at best.”
  • Ted Frank: “should be required reading for law students, and deserves a place on any Federalist Society member’s bookshelf.”
  • Alan Crede writes a lengthy and thoughtful review at Boston Personal Injury Lawyer Blog. He notes that on, e.g., the work of legal clinics, “the traditional taxonomy of liberal and conservative breaks down when you start to deal with many fine-grain legal issues.” And: “There are at least two law professors – Tim Wu and Elizabeth Warren (who is now in the Obama administration) – who possess rock star cachet in progressive circles” and can hardly be charged with any sort of airy unwillingness to engage with the demands of practical law reform. Crede generously concludes “whether you agree with Olson’s conclusions or not, there is a lot that you can learn from ‘Schools For Misrule.'”
  • Perhaps my favorite review so far (aside from the great one in Publisher’s Weekly) is from Ira Stoll at Future of Capitalism. It begins: “Of all the possible explanations for Barack Obama, one of the most intriguing is that, like Bill Clinton before him, he was both a law school graduate and a law school professor.” Stoll summarizes many of the book’s themes, particularly as regards “public interest”, human-rights and institutional-reform litigation, and includes this takeaway: “Any donor or foundation wanting to reshape legal education would find Mr. Olson’s book a fine place to begin.”

2 year old takes methadone, doctors told to pay $2 million

Alabama: “A Jefferson County jury has awarded $2.4 million from an emergency physicians group to the mother of a 2-year-old who died after ingesting methadone.” Lawyers said the emergency department failed to take proper steps to rule out drug overdose as a reason for the child’s condition. [AP/WHNT via White Coat]

Plus: A more explanatory news account (h/t commenter John Rohan).

Charity blue-jean donation program

It’s endangered by CPSIA, since organizers have no easy way to know whether a recyclable pair of kids’ jeans might have lead-containing brass in its buttons or zipper and thus be unlawful to sell (though not in fact dangerous). [Nancy Nord]

P.S.: Demise of print publication of Mothering Magazine after 35 years attributed in part to CPSIA and other CPSC regulations that devastated many advertisers [Handmade Toy Alliance]

Publisher’s Weekly on Schools for Misrule: “cutting-edge, hard-hitting, witty, astute”

My new book — officially out today — gets a great review in Publisher’s Weekly. “Part historical overview and part cutting-edge commentary. … This hard-hitting, witty account reveals the effect of law on the individual and the collective and astutely forecasts the future of law reform, in the academy, in politics, and across the globe.” Read the whole thing here.

An unconstitutional patent false-marking statute

Along with the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, I’ve filed an amicus brief (a first for me) urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to recognize the constitutional flaws in the federal “false marking” statute, which empowers private parties to sue over inaccurate (in practice, mostly expired) patent markings on products and collect fines of a generally criminal/punitive as opposed to civil/compensatory nature. Here’s our argument in a nutshell, from the Cato website:
Read On…

BoingBoing applauds cops’ lawlessness

Sure. What could go wrong with that? Relatedly, Ann Althouse wonders how we’ll all react next year when Group X demands the right to occupy the Wisconsin capitol for 10+ days. Consistently? (& welcome Instapundit readers).

More: “Did Wisconsin Police Violate the First Amendment through Selective Enforcement of Limits on Protests?” [Hans Bader]