Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

Following the Herd: Bringing Electronic Casebooks into the Law School

Abstract: Should law school faculty integrate electronic casebooks into their courses? After describing the eTextbook market forces, this article posits that digital casebooks will not only be in great demand, but also can assist in lowering the cost of legal education while creating more practice-ready students. The article will also illustrate the recent technological improvements in eCasebook platforms that will address the unique needs of law students, thereby increasing acceptance and usage. The article concludes with a brief survey of current eCasebook alternatives and an argument for the creation of value-added open-source, open-access digital casebooks with assistance from the law library.

Rent-a-Bank: Bank Partnerships and the Evasion of Usury Laws

Abstract: “Rent-a-bank” arrangements are the vehicle of choice for subprime lenders seeking to avoid state consumer protection laws. In a rent-a-bank arrangement, a nonbank lender contracts with a bank to make loans per its specifications and then buys the loans from the bank. The nonbank lender then claims to shelter in the bank’s federal statutory exemptions from state regulation. The validity of these arrangements is the most bitterly contested legal question in consumer finance. The rent-a-bank phenomenon is a function of a binary, entity-based regulatory approach that treats banks differently than nonbanks and that treats bank safety-and-soundness regulation as a substitute for consumer protection laws. The entity-based regulatory system is based on the dated assumption that transactions align with entities, such that a single entity will perform an entire transaction. Consumer lending, however, has become “disaggregated,” so the discrete parts of lending—marketing, underwriting, funding, servicing, and holding of risk—are frequently split up among multiple, unaffiliated entities. The binary, entity-based regulatory system is a mismatch for disaggregated transactions involving a mosaic of bank and non-bank entities. The mismatch facilitates regulatory arbitrage of consumer protection laws through rent-a-bank arrangements, as nonbanks claim favorable regulatory treatment by virtue of the involvement of a bank in parts of a transaction. The vitality of rent-a-bank arrangements depends on legal doctrine. This Article shows that the “valid-when-made” doctrine used to support rent-a-bank arrangements, is not, as claimed, a well-established, centuries old, “cardinal rule” of banking law, but a modern fabrication. The doctrine is not valid, but made up. Because the doctrine never existed historically, it cannot be essential for the smooth functioning of credit markets. This Article argues that the better approach to disaggregated transactions is a presumption that bank regulation does not extend beyond banks, coupled with an anti-evasion principle that looks to substance over form. Such an approach would create greater certainty about the legality of transactions, while effectuating both state consumer protection laws and federal bank regulation policy.

The Protected Profits Benchmark: Responses to Comments

Abstract: In my earlier article, I proposed the "Protected Profits Benchmark" (PPB) price standard for determining whether or not a vertically integrated monopolist is engaged in a refusal to deal or price squeeze in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The PPB would be used where market benchmarks do not exist or do not apply. Violating the PPB price involves profit-sacrifice, which suggests anticompetitive animus. When products are homogeneous, a wholesale price that violates this price standard would exclude an equally efficient entrant. As a result, there will be less competition in the downstream (output) market in which the entrant is trying to compete. This article responds to several Comments. While the Commentors all agree that refusals to deal and price squeezes can be determined by the use of some price benchmark, contrary to the Court’s suggestion in Trinko and linkLine, the Commentors have raised a number of issues. These include whether the PPB is the proper standard, whether it is administrable, and whether it should be adjusted for particular fact situations. The Response article explains either how the Commentors’ concerns can be incorporated into the standard or why they should not be incorporated.

The Inside Scoop: What Federal Judges Really Think about the Way Lawyers Write

Abstract: A recent survey indicates that what troubles federal judges most is not what lawyers say but what they fail to say when writing briefs. Although lawyers do a good job articulating legal issues and citing controlling, relevant legal authority, they are not doing enough with the law itself. Only fifty-six percent of the judges surveyed said that lawyers "always" or "usually" make their client's best arguments. Fifty-eight percent of the judges rated the quality of the legal analysis as just "good," as opposed to "excellent" or "very good." The problem seems to be that briefs lack rigorous analysis, and the bulk of the work is left to busy judges. Many judges also indicated that lawyers often make redundant or weak arguments that detract from the good ones. What judges really want is shorter, harder hitting briefs.

Legal Solutions for Universal Health Coverage

Abstract: Among all global health initiatives — such as the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, Roll Back Malaria, and the Stop TB Partnership — universal health coverage (often abbreviated as UHC) has garnered the most political attention. The “sustainable development goals” adopted by all United Nations (UN) member states in 2015, have a single health goal, to ensure healthy lives and as well as promote well-being “for all at all ages.” Its most important target is to achieve universal health coverage by 2030.