FedSoc Forums

As NATO launches Trident Juncture, exercises that will demonstrate the organization's largest show of force for 20 years, allies and foes alike will monitor performance. At a time when tensions are rising due to a belligerent Russia and autocratic Turkey, NATO countries are assessing commitment levels, capability, and resolve. As America asks for financial commitments to be met, it also seeks a level of democratic commonality among member nations. Is America in a position to lead on all these critical issues when a strong organization of states joined around Western values must be cohesive and prepared?
Featuring:
Ambassador Kurt Volker, Executive Director, McCain Institute
Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Moderator: Daniel West

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Finance and Philosophy provides a concise and witty account of how bankers and financial regulators think, of the alleged causes of the cycles of booms and busts, of the implicit and often un-thought-out assumptions shaping retirement finance, fiat money, corporate governance. Pollock deftly shows how poorly bankers have measured the risk their banks have been exposed to. With candor and clarity, he uncovers the persistent and unavoidable uncertainty inherent in the business of banking. We learn that a banker’s confidence in his ability to measure banking risk accurately is the lure which has repeatedly led to bank failures. Pollock has a modest and compelling suggestion: Acknowledge the unavoidability of ignorance with respect to financial risk, and, in the light of this ignorance of the future, act moderately.
Featuring:
Alex Polluck, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
Wayne Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Af, American Bankers Association
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In its Janus v. AFSCME decision this past June, the Supreme Court held that it violated the First Amendment for states to force their employees to subsidize the speech of labor unions. But are workers getting the relief that Janus promised? Rather than follow the ruling, some unions have reportedly claimed that members have to take action to opt-out of fee payments and may do so only during opt-out periods months or even years in the future. Others have refused to issue refunds of fees unlawfully collected from non-members. And, despite the opinion's strong language criticizing “exclusive representation” schemes under which a state or school board appoints a union to represent and speak for non-members, unions have continued to insist that they have the right to represent workers who disagree with union positions. These issues and more are currently being played out in state legislatures and litigation across the country. Robert Alt, who is President and CEO of Ohio’s Buckeye Institute, is at the center of it all, leading efforts to protect workers’ rights. He will survey the key issues that have arisen in Janus’s wake, describe the union strategies that keep workers from exercising their rights, discuss the major court cases, and share his thinking on how labor relations are poised to change in the near future.
Featuring:
Mr. Robert Alt, President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The Trump Administration has made clear that it is engaged in a regulatory reform effort. One stated goal of that effort is to ensure that administrative enforcement actions rely on legally binding authority such as laws and regulations and that enforcement actions are not brought for “violations” of non-binding materials such as guidance or staff views. The Department of Justice, which is the prime litigating authority for the federal government, has issued statements disclaiming department or agency guidance as legally binding authority. More recently, independent agencies, including the Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection issued an interagency statement stating that “guidance does not have the force and effect of law, and the agencies do not take enforcement actions based on supervisory guidance." And, most recently, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission stated that “all staff statements are nonbinding and create no enforceable legal rights or obligations of the Commission or other parties.” While potentially a positive step, significant questions remain about the scope of the statements and how they will be implemented in practice.
This Teleforum will discuss the implications of these statements and this effort. Will this step rein in regulation through adjudication? Will this step reduce the issuance of guidance itself leading to enforcement against behaviors that could have been redirected through guidance? What role should the federal enforcement authorities play in signaling through guidance and statements what they find problematic when the laws are broad enough to not provide a clear message?
Featuring:
John C. Richter, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to attorneys from Minnesota, New York, and California, to fill the CLE credit known as Diversity/Elimination of Bias credit.
CLE will only be applied for in these three states.
There will be no charge for this event.
Electronic Sign-in link: (CLICK HERE)
CLE Materials: Link (CLICK HERE)
Diversity CLE Teleforum 2018: Litigation For A Higher Cause
Representing a client with religious or spiritual motivations can pose unique problems for attorneys in representing these clients. Problems might occur surrounding how the client wants the case to be handled, or how the attorney chooses to litigate the case. In dealing with clients and how to possibly resolve issues surrounding religion, the best source to discover what can and cannot be done is the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). While each state can determine whether or not to adopt the MRPC, it serves as a baseline in determining the course of action if a dispute regarding the client's religion is involved.
Important rules that might help to answer these questions could be Rule 1.3, 1.16, 2.1, and 8.4. For Rule 1.3 (Diligence), the attorney has the duty to act with diligence in representing the client and as stated by comment 1 of this rule act "despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer." The lawyer may also act with professional discretion in how the action is handled. Therefore, the attorney has some room to act in the best interest of the client if there is some issue surrounding religion or spirituality.
Rule 1.16 (Declining Or Terminating Representation), the attorney can decline to take a prospective client's case or withdraw from the case if the client wants the attorney to break some law, the client wants to choose a course of action repugnant and is fundamentally disagreeable to the attorney. This rule also provides the ability for the attorney to refuse to help a prospective client if before the relationship occurs the attorney might be aware that a possible issue could arise due to the client's religious or spiritual beliefs.
Rule 2.1 (Advisor), in performing their duties, an attorney can give other advice rather than legal, which can include moral, economic, social, and political considerations relevant to the case. Here, the attorney has the ability to make the client aware of how their religious or spiritual obligations could affect the case, and whether pursuing those options would create the best outcome.
Rule 8.4 (Misconduct) applies because it deals with professional misconduct and includes language that prohibits attorneys from discriminating on the basis of a number of factors including religion. The language referring to anti-discrimination is part g of the rule. Many states have not adopted this rule or have adopted the rule in part. But a violation of Rule 8.4 could result in a disciplinary action against the attorney.
Featuring:
Prof. James A. Sonne, Professor of Law and Director, Religious Liberty Clinic, Stanford Law School
Walter Weber, Senior Litigation Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice

**Additional CLE Instructions:

Please check this event page the morning of the event, where there will be a dropbox link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.
Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Monday, October 22.
An electronic sign-in link will go live 10 minutes before the call start time. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, within 10 minutes of the start time of the call.
Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.
Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be accessible on the event page up until the conclusion of the event, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.

Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Teleforum
CLE not offered if Teleforum listened to after the event is concluded.

Written Materials are accessible through the link included on your ticket
The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to acquire one hour’s worth of ethics CLE credit.
Our visiting expert in legal and judicial ethics will discuss a recent regulatory development in the field, with the purpose of translating this development into practical wisdom about the likely impact on the practice of law in 2018 and beyond:
In August 2016, the American Bar Association approved Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g). The new provision provides that it is misconduct for an attorney to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Comment [4] explains that “conduct related to the practice of law . . . includes representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law.”
The Model Rules are just that — models, that do not apply in any jurisdiction. Now the project goes to the states, as state courts consider whether to adopt Rule 8.4(g).
To date, seven states have rejected the rule: Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, and Tennessee have rejected the proposal. The Attorneys General of four states have concluded that adopting the rule would violate the First Amendment: Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Only Vermont has adopted the model rule in its entirety.
In this teleforum, Professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston will discuss the constitutional issues surounding Model Rule 8.4(g). Specifically, he will address how the Supreme Court’s recent decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018) calls into question the state bar’s ability to regulate attorney speech, and how it will affect attorneys in their practice of law throughout the next few years.
Professor Blackman will also give his insights on the rising relevance of social media in regards to the law, and what implications exist for practicing attorneys who use social media.
Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston

Call begins at 1:55 p.m. Eastern Time.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
Because we are offering CLE for this Teleforum, it is open to non-members as well. The Teleforum call-in number will be available with the CLE materials upon registration.
One hour of ethics CLE available in some jurisdictions pending approval*
$25 for CLE (Federalist Society members)$50 for CLE (non-Federalist Society members)
Charges apply ONLY to those seeking CLE credit.
Registration for CLE credit is required.Attendance must be verified during the presentation.**No registration or fee is required if you are not seeking CLE credit.

*Please note CLE applications will be made in accordance with any states that are requested during registration up until the day of the Teleforum. CLE credit is not guaranteed, as the decision to accredit the course is made by each individual state bar, but all states that attorneys request will be applied to.
**Additional CLE Instructions:

Please check your confirmation email for the link to the ticket, where there will be a drop box link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.
Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Thursday, October 18.
A registration page link will be sent to you the afternoon of October 18. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, preferably within the first 5 minutes of the call.
Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.
Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be provided with your confirmation email, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.

In this book, Peter J. Wallison argues that the administrative agencies of the executive branch have gradually taken over the legislative role of Congress, resulting in what many call the administrative state. The judiciary bears the major responsibility for this development because it has failed to carry out its primary constitutional responsibility: to enforce the constitutional separation of powers by ensuring that the elected branches of government―the legislative and the executive―remain independent and separate from one another. Since 1937, and especially with the Chevron deference adopted by the Supreme Court in 1984, the judiciary has abandoned this role. It has allowed Congress to delegate lawmaking authorities to the administrative agencies of the executive branch and given these agencies great latitude in interpreting their statutory authorities. Unelected officials of the administrative state have thus been enabled to make decisions for the American people that, in a democracy, should only be made by Congress. The consequences have been grave: unnecessary regulation has imposed major costs on the U.S. economy, the constitutional separation of powers has been compromised, and unabated agency rulemaking has created a significant threat that Americans will one day question the legitimacy of their own government. To address these concerns, Wallison argues that the courts must return to the role the Framers expected them to fulfill.
The Hon. Peter J. Wallison joins us on this Teleforum to discuss the book and give some additional insights,
Featuring:
Hon. Peter J. Wallison, Senior Fellow, Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In December 2017, the Federal Communications Commission adopted its landmark Restoring Internet Freedom Order that repealed the public utility-like regulations which were applied to broadband Internet service providers by the Obama Administration’s FCC. The Free State Foundation has just published a new book, Reader on Net Neutrality and Internet Freedom, edited by Free State Foundation President Randolph May and Senior Fellow Seth Cooper, that offers a defense of the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order. The book provides a wealth of information and key insights into the long-running debate surrounding “net neutrality” regulation. The Reader's twenty-four selected writings explore both legal and policy rationales that support the FCC’s December 2017 action. They explain why, from the perspective of the papers' authors, the FCC’s approach to regulation of Internet services adopted in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order is pro-consumer, pro-investment, pro-innovation and, therefore, why it should be preserved.
The book is now available in print on Amazon here for $9.95 or for your Kindle here for $2.99. And it is available from Apple and various other digital bookstores here for $2.99.
Featuring:
Randolph May, President, The Free State Foundation
Seth Cooper, Senior Fellow, The Free State Foundation
Daniel Lyons, Associate Professor, Boston College Law School and member of FSF's Board of Academic Advisors
Blair Levin, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution


Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In June 2018, the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of AT&T in the $85.4 billion proposed merger of AT&T and Time Warner. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon presided over the case and held that the government had failed to meet its burden of proof in demonstrating that the merger would decrease competition. The Antitrust Division argued that the merger would result in higher carriage fees for various TV channels, and that the merger would create incentive for Comcast-NBC Universal and AT&T to work together to limit the growth of new entrants to the market. Judge Leon found these arguments unpersuasive, delivering a sweeping rejection of the Justice Department’s arguments, and ruling in favor of the merger with no additional requirements. Judge Leon held that an evaluation of such a merger has to be seen in the context of the dramatic changes in the technological landscape, including such companies as Netflix, and Hulu, and new powerful entrants to the market such as Google, and Amazon. The ruling could potentially have a great impact on the future of antitrust law and tech-company mergers.
The Antitrust Division appealed the District Court’s ruling. Joshua Wright joins us to discuss the merits of the appeal, as well as the greater implications for national antitrust law.
Featuring:
Joshua Wright, Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The “right to be forgotten” refers to the right of individuals to have a company remove or delete their personal data when the company has no apparent justification for continuing to keep it. The “right to be forgotten” was established by the European Court of Justice in 2014, when it ruled that individuals had the right to request the removal of links to either irrelevant or outdated materials. Over half a million requests for link removals have occurred since the ruling, of which Google acquiesced to nearly half.
Earlier this year, the High Court of Great Britain ruled against Google in a landmark court case, and sided in favor of advocates for the right to be forgotten, ruling that Google had to comply with a businessman who requested his previous criminal record of a sentence served over a decade previously be removed from the search engine.
Currently Google is again before the European Court of Justice, seeking to win a case against a French data protection authority. The data protection authority argues with the support of both the French and Austrian governments, that the right to be forgotten should apply worldwide. Google is joined by various media companies to combat this approach, and the decision will undoubtedly have significant implications for search engines and social media giants including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Twitter. The issue poses tough questions for how to balance individual rights to privacy, with the public right to information.
Professors Jane Roberta Bambauer, and Meg Leta Jones, join us to discuss and debate this controversial issue, and predict what it may mean for global corporations moving forward.
Featuring:
Prof. Meg Leta Jones, Assistant Professor of Communication, Culture & Technology, Georgetown University
Prof. Jane Bambauer, Professor of Law, James E Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.