Table of Contents

Blockchain Jenga: The Challenges of Blockchain Discovery and Admissibility Under the Federal Rules

Emily Knight, Hofstra University - Maurice A. Deane School of Law

Adapting Law Lectures to Maximise Student Engagement: Is It Time to 'Transform'?

Liam Elphick, The University of Western Australia Law School, Melbourne Law School, University of California, Berkeley - Berkeley Comparative Equality & Anti-Discrimination Law Study Group

Actual Legal Aspects of the Referencing and Indexing of Scientific Publications in Bulgaria

Darina Dimitrova, University of Economics - Varna

Response to McGeveran’s The Duty of Data Security: Not the Objective Duty He Wants, Maybe the Subjective Duty We Need

Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, University of Nebraska at Lincoln - College of Law, International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE)

Artificial Intelligence and Law: An Overview

Harry Surden, University of Colorado Law School

Methods of Data Research for Law

Bart Custers, Leiden University - Center for Law and Digital Technologies

Online Dispute Resolution for Smart Contracts

Amy J. Schmitz, University of Missouri School of Law
Colin Rule, Modria


LEGAL INFORMATION & TECHNOLOGY eJOURNAL

"Blockchain Jenga: The Challenges of Blockchain Discovery and Admissibility Under the Federal Rules" Free Download

EMILY KNIGHT, Hofstra University - Maurice A. Deane School of Law
Email:

Blockchain technology enables a user to participate in a variety of transactions — ranging from executing business dealings with bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies, to storing valuable information on a secured database. As blockchain becomes a widely used technology in the public and private sectors, companies that store data on a distributed ledger will inevitably be faced with mounting legal questions relating to the civil discovery and evidentiary processes; vital questions that the courts must resolve. A two-part solution is necessary in order to adequately resolve these emerging concerns: amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, and embracing blockchain technology to facilitate the civil litigation process. Blockchain Jenga: The Challenges of Blockchain Discovery and Admissibility Under the Federal Rules, examines some of these issues and suggests a way for the courts and the legislature to adequately address admissibility and discovery of information stored on the chain.

"Adapting Law Lectures to Maximise Student Engagement: Is It Time to 'Transform'?" Free Download
28(1) Legal Education Review 5, 2018

LIAM ELPHICK, The University of Western Australia Law School, Melbourne Law School, University of California, Berkeley - Berkeley Comparative Equality & Anti-Discrimination Law Study Group
Email:

Technological advances have undoubtedly brought significant benefits to students in higher education. Classes can be recorded for students who are unable to attend, communication between students and staff can be facilitated more easily online, and web-based tools and resources improve learning and university efficiency. However, this has not come without a cost. Class attendance has long been considered a significant issue in higher education, and has dramatically declined in the past decade. This is especially prominent in lectures, which have traditionally focused on information transfer from an instructor to their students without requiring students to think critically or respond. This is in contrast to tutorials and other workshop-style classes that are heavily problem solving-based. As Huff notes, this traditional style of lecturing often leads only to undeveloped information transfer from the lecturer to the student ‘without passing through the brains of either’. In such circumstances, lecture recordings capture most important information that students require, with significant resulting impact on attendance rates. In a study of a psychology class, Grabe, Christopherson, and Douglas found that 61 per cent of voluntary absences from class can be attributed to the availability of online lecture notes. A University of Western Australia (UWA) study conducted by Mascher and Skead found that 80 per cent of students attend classes because they do not want to miss something not picked up on a recording or because a class is not recorded.

Dwindling student attendance is a major teaching and learning concern of higher education institutions worldwide. For many years, studies have shown that low attendance rates result in a significantly less effective teaching and learning environment. Higher student attendance directly corresponds with more positive student evaluation of teachers, and with higher grades and deeper learning. Collett, Gyles, and Hrasky found that a class taught fully online had significantly lower performance on multiple-choice tests when compared to a class taught through a combination of online and in- class instruction. Furthermore, if lectures fail to engage students or even draw them to the university campus, then this will have significantly adverse implications for traditional campus-based universities in an increasingly globalised, online, and competitive higher education market.

Law schools face their own particular challenges, too. Law students are expected to develop the skills to critically interpret, apply, analyse, and comment on legal issues and principles. However the traditional, ‘one-way’ information transfer style of lecturing is far more adept to rote learning than to developing skills in critical analysis. How, then, can universities respond to this problem?

One solution is shifting to ‘transformative’ teaching, whereby students’ learning and experience is ‘transformed’ and dynamic relationships between teachers, students, and a shared body of knowledge are created in order to promote student learning and personal growth. Transformative teaching and learning has its roots in the late-twentieth century, but has achieved significant traction in higher education literature in the past 10 years. Transformative teaching methods are designed to substantially increase student engagement and interest through transforming, or altering, students’ outlook or learning styles. As lectures, the most fundamental educational tool in legal education, ordinarily contain few transformative aspects, this style of class is ripe for such transformation.

This article outlines an empirical study of students, staff, and executives at the UWA Law School to determine preferences for transformative teaching techniques and how they would best improve engagement and enjoyment in a lecture environment. Through a mix of student-centred learning, problem-based learning and active learning, an adaption of lectures to include more transformative techniques will be proposed — a formative resuscitation that would not go as far as King’s suggestion in the 1970s of a ‘radical departure from the normal type of classroom teaching’. This exploratory process will assist law schools, and indeed other university faculties, in improving attendance, engagement, and learning outcomes in lectures, with the aim of contemporising and helping transform student experiences at university. An emphasis on transformative teaching will also provide support for the continued use of ‘small seminar-style’ classes that are already utilised in many Australian law schools. Following an examination of relevant transformative teaching literature in Part II and a brief methodological outline in Part III, results of the study are analysed in Part IV and a set of key recommendations for law lectures proposed in Part V.

"Actual Legal Aspects of the Referencing and Indexing of Scientific Publications in Bulgaria" Free Download

DARINA DIMITROVA, University of Economics - Varna
Email:

This paper examines the indexation of scientific publications in the context of the requirements of the digital society. The process is examined in terms of the interconnection development of the academic staff and the necessity of dissemination of scientific works through publication in referenced and indexed editions. The emphasis is on legal publications, which are examined in comparison to other scientific publications. On the basis of this analysis the author makes conclusions, generalisations and practical recommendations.

"Response to McGeveran’s The Duty of Data Security: Not the Objective Duty He Wants, Maybe the Subjective Duty We Need" Free Download
103 Minn. L. Rev. Headnotes 139 (2019)

JUSTIN (GUS) HURWITZ, University of Nebraska at Lincoln - College of Law, International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE)
Email:

William McGeveran’s recent article, The Duty of Data Security, is a significant contribution to ongoing debates about what duty firms holding electronic information about consumers owe in ensuring the security of that data. It also supports the opposite conclusion from that which McGeveran articulates. McGeveran frames the article as identifying a clear duty of data security. This response argues that in his efforts to locate a clear duty in existing data security law he has identified a standard that, in all meaningful ways, is one of subjective (not objective) reasonableness – and therefore offers no clarity at all. There is likely room for disagreement on both sides of this argument – both that which McGeveran makes and my response to it. The ultimate purpose this this response, however, is to recognize this aspect of the duty that McGeveran has identified and to reframe it in the familiar terms of objective vs. subjective reasonableness. This distinction is both useful and important, and has gone unremarked upon in two decades of discussions about the data security obligations.

"Artificial Intelligence and Law: An Overview" Free Download
Georgia State University Law Review, Vol. 35, 2019
U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-22

HARRY SURDEN, University of Colorado Law School
Email:

Much has been written recently about artificial intelligence (AI) and law. But what is AI, and what is its relation to the practice and administration of law? This article addresses those questions by providing a high-level overview of AI and its use within law. The discussion aims to be nuanced but also understandable to those without a technical background. To that end, I first discuss AI generally. I then turn to AI and how it is being used by lawyers in the practice of law, people and companies who are governed by the law, and government officials who administer the law. A key motivation in writing this article is to provide a realistic, demystified view of AI that is rooted in the actual capabilities of the technology. This is meant to contrast with discussions about AI and law that are decidedly futurist in nature.

"Methods of Data Research for Law" Free Download
Custers B.H.M. (2018), Methods of data research for law. In: Mak V., Tjong Tjin Tai E., Berlee A. (Eds.) Research Handbook in Data Science and Law. Research Handbooks in Information Law Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 355-377.

BART CUSTERS, Leiden University - Center for Law and Digital Technologies
Email:

Data science and big data offer many opportunities for researchers, not only in the domain of data science and related sciences, but also for researchers in many other disciplines. The fact that data science and big data are playing an increasingly important role in so many research areas raises the question whether this also applies to the legal domain. Do data science and big data also offer methods of data research for law? As will be shown in this chapter, the answer to this question is positive: yes, there are many methods and applications that may be also useful for the legal domain. This answer will be provided by discussing these methods of data research for law in this chapter. As such, this chapter provides an overview of these methods.

"Online Dispute Resolution for Smart Contracts" Free Download
2019 Journal of Dispute Resolution 103
University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2019-11

AMY J. SCHMITZ, University of Missouri School of Law
Email:
COLIN RULE, Modria
Email:

Smart contracts built in the blockchain are quietly revolutionizing traditional transactions despite their questionable status under current law. At the same time, disputes regarding smart contracts are inevitable, and parties will need means for dealing with smart contract issues. This Article tackles this challenge, and proposes that parties turn to online dispute resolution (“ODR?) to efficiently and fairly resolve smart contract disputes. Furthermore, the Article acknowledges the benefits and challenges of current blockchain ODR start-ups, and proposes specific ideas for how designers could address those challenges and incorporate ODR to provide just resolutions that will not stymie efficiencies of smart contracts. Nonetheless, the Article also raises pivotal cautions and questions for ensuring the fairness and transparency of these solutions over the longer term.

^top

About this eJournal

This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts in all areas of legal information scholarship. Topics include (but are not limited to): 1) the impact of legal information on domestic, comparative, and international legal systems; 2) the treatment of legal information authorities and precedents (e.g., citation studies); 3) the examination of rules, practices, and commentary limiting or expanding applications of legal information (e.g., citation to unpublished opinions and to foreign law); 4) the study of economic, legal, political and social conditions limiting or extending access to legal information (e.g., trends in the legal publishing industry, intellectual property regimes, and open access initiatives); 5) the finding and use of legal information by academics to produce legal scholarship, by law students to learn the law, by attorneys in practice, and by judges and others decisionmakers to determine legal outcomes; 6) the history of legal information systems and technological advancements; 7) legal information system design and assessment; and 8) the relationship of substantive areas of law (such as information law, intellectual freedom, intellectual property, and national security law) and other academic disciplines (e.g., information science) to legal information. This includes the scholarship of law librarians, other legal scholars, and other academic disciplines.

The eJournal also includes working papers, forthcoming articles, recently published articles, and selected documents (such as White Papers, briefings, reports, course materials) on the practice of law librarianship. Submissions are welcome in all areas of law librarianship including: 1) administration, management, and leadership; 2) facility design and construction; 3) evaluating and marketing law library services; 4) all aspects of public, technical, and technology services; 5) collection development, including sample collection development policies and procedures; 6) electronic resource management and development including licensing, digitization, and institutional repositories; 7) research and reference services; and 8) legal research instruction teaching methods and substantial or innovative course materials.

Editors: Randy J. Diamond, University of Missouri, and Lee F. Peoples, Oklahoma City University

Submissions

To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: sales@ssrn.com

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

Directors

LSN SUBJECT MATTER EJOURNALS

BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - Pritzker School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu

RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.

Advisory Board

Legal Information & Technology eJournal

DUNCAN ALFORD
Associate Dean/ Director of the Law Library, University of South Carolina School of Law, Associate Dean for the Law Library & Professor of Law, University of South Carolina - Coleman Karesh Law Library

BARBARA BINTLIFF
Professor, University of Texas School of Law

PAUL D. CALLISTER
Library Director & Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law - Leon E. Bloch Law Library

MICHAEL CHIORAZZI
Associate Dean for Information Services; Dean’s Distinguished Director, Law Library, and Editor, Legal Reference Services Quarterly, University of Miami - School of Law

MARK ENGSBERG
Assistant Professor of Law and Director of Library Services, Emory University School of Law - Hugh F. MacMillan Law Library

PENNY A. HAZELTON
University of Washington - School of Law, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Library and Computing Services, University of Washington School of Law - Gallagher Law Library

MARCI HOFFMAN
International & Foreign Law Librarian, University of California School of Law Library - Boalt Hall Law Library

MARY A. HOTCHKISS
Director, Academic Advising, Senior Law Lecturer, University of Washington School of Law

RICHARD A. LEITER
Professor of Law and Director, University of Nebraska College of Law, Schmid Law Library

CAROL A. PARKER
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of Texas at El Paso

MARYLIN J. RAISCH
Associate Law Librarian for International and Foreign Law, Georgetown University Law Center

JANET SINDER
Library Director and Professor, Brooklyn Law School