Well, this would a hard one online, as I see Senator Fetterman much more positively than you do. But in person sometime, absolutely!
01.03.2026 16:25
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Well, this would a hard one online, as I see Senator Fetterman much more positively than you do. But in person sometime, absolutely!
I think this is a misread of the electorate, and what Lamb was selling, but YMMV.
To the extent the below intends to make an empirical claim, it would help to know what % of self-identified jews (narrowed by UCLA affiliates?) have to not think of Israel as identity-constitutive to for that number to have legal purchase.
bsky.app/profile/fish...
I couldn't disagree more with the framing and conclusions of this thread.
Particularly, I wonder about the leveraging of an asserted "deep division" about the importance of Israel to Jews in considering Title VII legal actions.
This is a great post. Commoditizing rote tasks makes the bespoke ones more valuable; in the case of contracts, to my mind that’s a case for (among other things) more commercially-minded legal training.
Thanks!
New post, whistling past the graveyard of transactional practice. I ask: if AI is so good at turning nuggets of ideas into text, why would we write contracts down at all?
substack.com/home/post/p-...
A pro-natal policy!
Again, I can only go by my own experience. The sentiments by law professors I see here w/out pushback is pervasive and gross.
And the twitter rancid stuff is mostly bots for people for whatever reason have decided to drink from the sewer hose.
I have no idea what you are seeing on twitter, or why, but my feed there is AI & sports. Whose eyes are you going to believe anyway?
In terms of brain rot, the group think for law professors leading them to truly unfortunate views is a locally bad treatment. But I see much more antisemitism on here than on there, mostly because of LPE law faculty that I happen to follow here but who have left there.
Gotta say, it seems (much) worse to be here every time I pop in.
Important challenge lodged by Derek Muller to the ABA Council on Legal Education's proposals on forced experiental education. The ABA has spent a decade lurching from one disaster to another, and looks to be about to step again on its own rake.
excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2026/2/...
For a substack, I'm collecting terms about AI use (whether disclosure or warrants against it) in law review publication agreements. Please drop examples below if you are willing -- I think it's interesting to see how journals are (and are not) reacting to the revolution.
Yeah, I don't think that the choice of law clause works perfectly -- though firms try this as arbitrage for noncompetes, ultimately for most things you are going to want the state's own courts to enforce the deal against fraud/tort suits and they are hostile to this gamesmanship.
But one just requires New York or California to act, the other a trifecta and 60 votes in the senate.
I argue that as courts haven’t really tested this boilerplate yet, it would be good to think now about how these terms shape real accountability.
New post, on how AI's TOU purport to shape the technology's legal landscape. Vendors disclaim accuracy, ban reliance, cap damages, and push regulatory burden downstream. It's actually wild how *little* our new AI overlords really promise to deliver.
profhoffman.substack.com/p/ais-terms-...
This is a really useful service and a well-designed website!
Surprised random anti-Israel stuff wasn't addended as well.
It now is formatted as if the "Editors" wrote it. LOL, such classic nonsense.
Eh-- it's also 100% true that liberal (mostly conlaw and crimlaw) professors routinely opine about areas well outside of things they've written about, as if clerking for some judge gave a lifetime superpower to be expert on all things.
Of interest to @kprofsblog.bsky.social,who no doubt will find much to disagree with!
New post, about the problems of performative consumer protection regulation.
profhoffman.substack.com/p/ozymandias...
The paper takes on questions of method, while offering the largest study of contracting practice in the literature.
We are super grateful for all the feedback we got on the old draft, and hope this one is loads better!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Those environments—adhesive terms, automated enforcement, platform rules, and routinized non-negotiability—are themselves shaped by legal doctrine operating in the background. So it's a loop, with distributive and normative consequences.
We frame a core challenge to evaluating whether contract doctrine should track ordinary intuitions: endogeneity.
People do not form their intuitions about obligation by reading cases or absorbing doctrine but rather from learning about the contracting environments they repeatedly inhabit.
New(ish) draft, with Tess Wilkinson-Ryan and Emily Campbell, "Lessons In Contract."
The paper draws on an earlier circulating draft ("contracts for everyone") but has ~50% new text and 100% new orientation: what do we learn from K experience, and what does it mean for doctrine.
Submit a paper!
New distraction from doomscrolling. What can wrestling teach us about what's missing in contract practice (and law) today?
open.substack.com/pub/profhoff...