April 2013 - DePaul University College of Law

In this issue:
DePaul Law News
2
Student Editorials
4
Entertainment
8
Courtesy of US News & World Report
By: Cause of Action Editorial Board
When the graduating 3Ls started classes at DePaul
College of Law in the fall of 2010, the school was
ranked 84 by U.S. News and World Report. DePaul's
latest ranking was a dismal 109. That‘s a 23 percent
decrease, but what does this actually mean about the
value of a DePaul Law degree?
The drop in rankings, at least in some part, is due to
DePaul's post-graduation employment rate. This was
the first year that U.S. News and World Report
considered employment rates at the date of
graduation rather than 9 months out. The 16 percent
employment statistic reflects the number of graduates
in 2011 who had accepted a legal-preferred job at
graduation. This statistic is quite accurate as just
earlier this year, a class action lawsuit alleging that
DePaul had misreported its employment numbers was
dismissed out of court. That law suit was in full
swing at the time that DePaul College of Law
reported its 2011 employment placement statistics.
The College of Law has sprung to action this
spring with the announcement of the 2014 ranking
of 109. Dean Gregory Mark held two town hall
meetings to discuss the rankings drop and
professors and deans formed committees to
explore possible reactions to the news. Students are
invited to participate in the following committees:
Student Life (examining the student handbook what works and what doesn't), Curriculum
(particularly examining 1L curriculum), Legal Skills
Programs (clinics and externships), and Academic
and Professional Development (rankings).
Cause of Action wanted to continue that debate in
this month‘s Demon‘s Advocate.
Continued on Page 4
Party in the City Where the Heat is On (Not Yet)
By: Goli Rahimi ‘14
Someone told me that finals are
less than two weeks away, so I‘m
just going to ignore that and talk
about summertime.
Summer in Chicago is one of the
most exhilarating experiences. You
can spend an entire weekend going
to free concerts, seeing new plays,
laughing at improv, sampling new
foods, and still not put a dent in
your Chicago Summer To-Do List.
If you‘re at a loss as to where to
start, check out some of my
favorites:
1. Millennium Park Saturday Morning
Workouts (June 8-August 31) – for
all you exercise lovers, head over
to Millennium Park every Saturday
morning for free Pilates, Zumba, Tai
Chi, and Yoga classes.
2. Chicago Blues Fest (June 6-9)
Grant Park – the 30th Annual Blues
Fest is one of Chicago‘s most
exciting (free) public concerts. Did I
mention it‘s free?
3. Rib Fest (July 5-7) Uptown – I
don‘t need to explain this one.
4. Taste of Chicago (July 10-14) Grant
Park – lol jk, don‘t go to this unless
you like overpriced corn on the cob
and sweating.
5. Lollapalooza (Aug 2-4) Grant Park
– Only here because I knew I‘d get
yelled at if I omitted it, but I guess
it‘ll be pretty cool. Especially if you
got overexcited and spent $200 on a
one-day pass from Stubhub.
Concerts, food, workouts, what
else? I‘ve saved my favorites for last.
I owned my own theatre company
prior to law school and if I had a
dime for every time I heard ―theatre
is a dying art‖ I probably wouldn‘t
need to go to law school. I would
like to eliminate this rumor, and I
hope you can help me by attending the
following:
1. Fat Pig at Steppenwolf (May 28 –
June 16) – this is one of the most
inappropriate, shallow, painfully
hilarious plays you will ever see. It‘s
like Book of Mormon without song (also
go see that).
2. Big Lake, Big City at Lookingglass
Theatre Company (begins June 19) –
from the writer of House of Cards and
Mad Men and directed by David
Schwimmer, this Chicago-centered
play is filled with shady characters and
ridiculous plot lines.
3. 100 Proof Comedy at ComedySportz
(Monday nights, tickets $10) – laughing
is fun; I like it.
If these don‘t tickle your fancy, make
sure you check out Metromix, RedEye, Chicago Reader, Facebook, or
just Google ―stuff to do in Chicago
because that article in Cause of Action
didn‘t really tickle anything of mine.‖
2013-2014 Executive 12
and Editorial Boards
Special points of
interest:

Interview with Dean
Bill Chamberlain of
LCS

A Letter to my 1L
Self

2012-13 Service
Award Winners

Demon‘s Advocate:
USNWR Rankings

Boston Bombings

Breed-Specific
Legislation

Developing Chicago
Food Truck Laws

April Movie Reviews

Making a Deal with
the Devil
Page 2
D e Pa u l N e w s & E v e n t s
D e a n B i l l C h a m b e r l a i n o n W h a t L C S c a n d o f o r Yo u
By: Joseph Homsy, ’14
Law Career Services is there to help
us get jobs and send
us on our merry way.
At least, that‘s what
we think. After
spending some time
with Dean Bill Chamberlain, I found myself
thinking about it another way. LCS is
Professor Emily Cauble
there to provide a
Dean Bill Chamberlain
service to us, to help
us find jobs, but it‘s
our responsibility to work to get that job.
Read on for more of Dean Chamberlain‘s
thoughts on the matter.
Joseph Homsy: What is your background?
Bill Chamberlain: I‘m from upstate New
York, but I‘ve been in Chicago about thirty
years. I went to Cornell University for undergrad, got a Masters Degree at Purdue, worked
on a PhD. at UT-Austin, and got a law degree
from Northwestern. Between my PhD. and my
J.D., I was a professional singer for a few years,
singing at the Lyric Opera House in Chicago.
After law school, I worked at Schiff Harden for
a few years doing some estate planning real
estate, and environmental law and then went
over to the City of Chicago Law Department
for about seven years. Then, I turned my attention to career services, and worked at John
Marshall, the University of North Carolina, and
Northwestern before coming to DePaul this
past June.
JH: What did you like about practicing law?
BC: I liked interacting with the people, which I
did a lot of when I did the estate planning. Even
though I liked that, I found that I wasn‘t that
interested in estate planning, because a lot of it
was tax. So I decided that, long term, the best
thing for me was not practicing law, but actually
helping law students. That‘s when I got into
career services and never looked back.
JH: What does Law Career Services envision
as its goal, or mission, for the students?
BC: Our goal is to connect to the students,
because we want them to come to the events
and the programs for their benefit. If they
don‘t take advantage of all these meetings with
alumni they could miss out on an opportunity
to get their foot in the door. Our first goal is
to get people to come to our events and then,
set up one-on-one meetings, so we can set up a
strategy from day one of their law school career. And, second, we want to make sure that
people know about the opportunities available
to them. What it comes down to is which
students are the most assertive, because they
are the ones that will get the available jobs.
People can come to the programs, see the
steps they have to take, meet with us, and
follow those steps to get those jobs.
JH: What about the recently released US
World and News Report law school rankings?
BC: I think it will only affect prospective
students. There are a few big firms that will
look at the rankings, but apart from them, the
rankings won‘t affect the job search. Obviously, people in law schools, other academics,
and prospective students will care, but for the
current students who are here, it‘s the same
as it has always been. The people who are
proactive and going out to find a job will find
their job. People won‘t get jobs based on the
rankings, but they will get them based on
their experiences and contacts. The more
experience you have, the more likely you are
to be employed. Our job is to generate any
opportunities we can for the students. Once
we get students the information about those
jobs, they have to take the initiative, apply and
hopefully get accepted.
JH: Finally, what sets DePaul students apart
from students at other law schools??
BC: DePaul students are a really tight knit
group and they don‘t feel entitled to anything.
They work hard and that really pays off in the
end.
T h i n g s I ’d L ove t o S e e a t D i ve r s i t y We e k N e x t Ye a r
By: Rachael Dickson ‘15
I'm an idealist - even where things seem to be
excellent, I'd always like to see them get better.
SBA's Diversity Week this year was great, but I
think it can improve next year. I have often
heard peers express a disconnect with the
whole idea of diversity. How can a white heterosexual cisgendered law student from a privileged background relate to diversity?
What is diversity? Why is diversity something
we should work to achieve? I would love to see
a panel discussing this. Let's pull in professors
with expertise in cases that address diversity in
higher education. Let's invite attorneys from law
firms with diversity initiatives to discuss why
they value it so much. Maybe we can even pull
in a sociologist to talk about diversity from a
scientific viewpoint. An unflinching academic
look at what we're discussing would set the
tone for a diversity week to which everyone
feels able to contribute.
I'd also love to see students more actively
involved in an exchange of thoughts and
ideas as well. They don't need to be solely
focused on the law. I remember a potluck at
my undergrad encouraged students to bring
dishes from their childhood or heritage with results ranging from mac and cheese to
soup made from pumpkin seeds.
DePaul itself has a rich history of diversity
waiting to be mined. I remember hearing on
my school tour that DePaul was one of the
first law schools to allow Jewish students.
I‘ve met an attorney whose mother graduated from DePaul Law in the 1930s. I am so
curious to know more. I'd love to learn
more about that history and the Vincentian
philosophy that led to such diverse policies.
This philosophy is what lies behind the approval of student organizations you might
not ordinarily see at a Catholic school, such as
Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
One issue in discussing diversity in an academic setting is the huge amount of topics
available but the limited time to cover them.
The Smithsonian Folklife Festival, which I wandered across a few times when I was living in
Washington, D.C. area, focuses on three main
topics a year. This upcoming year, they're looking at Hungarian Heritage, endangered languages and cultures, and African American identity. I think this concept of taking an in depth look at
specific issues could be transferred to our Diversity
Week as well. These topics could run the gamut
from Chicago's Polish culture to diversity policies in
big law firms.
Again, from my experience with this year's
Diversity Week, it was really fantastic. But with
such an important topic, I really hope that our
efforts to cover it only improve in the future.
Volume I, Issue IV
Page 3
G o l d S t a r s a n d H i g h F i ve s : A L e t t e r t o 1 L s
By: Leah Farmer ‘13
Who am I? I am a graduating 3L. I laugh at inappropriate times. I turn on a Southern drawl if I
think it will help in a situation. I am an untested
pacifist. I am both the same person I was in 2010
as an entering 1L and a completely new person.
What would I say if I could talk to 1L Leah?
I think I might just give her a high five, a ―go
team‖ slap on the ass (come on, who wouldn‘t
want to slap herself on the ass?), or at the very
least, a gold star. Why? Law school is difficult,
stressful, competitive and filled with unknowns. I
have learned that you have to be nice to yourself. I also think you have to remember that law
school is not just about learning the law—it's also
about learning who you want to be. So, what is
my advice to you as you finish your first year?
Cultivate new experiences. You have the opportunity to take these three years in school and do so
many things with them. The relationships and
experiences that you have will define your memories for a lifetime. So yes, definitely study and be
diligent, but also make some choices that keep
you sane and build you up as a person (I thought
about just inserting the lyrics to ―I Hope You
Dance‖ here, but I am pretty sure I‘d lose
some friends over that choice). Figure out
how to make the time you have left in school
fun. Travel. Try a strange class. Do a study
abroad. Just don‘t get to the end and realize
the only thing you did was sit in the law library.
Hold onto your friends in 2L and 3L years. The
nice thing about 1L year is that you and all of
your friends have the same classes. That will
change in the later years. It will be hard to
track down the people in person that always
know just what to say to make that bad day
better. Do it anyway. It‘s worth it.
Learn when to say yes and when to say no. Is
there a networking event coming up where
you won‘t know anyone? Say yes and go anyway. Push your boundaries. There will never
be another time in your legal career where
you have the free awkward pass that is handed out to all law students. Attorneys know
we don‘t know what we are doing and they
don‘t care. Just give it a try. However, when
that seventh executive board asks you to join?
Say no. I loved all the organizations that I
worked with and the opportunities I had, but
I also love naps and free time. I should have
given myself more room to breath in my 2L
year.
Give back. It does not matter how you do it,
but don‘t go through law school without giving back some way. Whether you volunteer
or just dedicate yourself to being the best
darn mentor to the new 1Ls next year, you‘ll
feel better about your day when you brighten
someone else‘s!
Celebrate the victories. Sometimes in law school
(or in other competitive environments) your
successes can make things weird for other
people. Get rid of those people. Or, you can
feel too busy or too stressed to celebrate an
important accomplishment. Celebrate anyway.
Now, I am not saying you should do your
very own discount double-check end-zone
dance in everyone‘s faces, but don‘t be afraid
to toot your own horn. Just learn how to do
so graciously. If you need pointers, let me
know. I am sure I have a Miss Manners book
somewhere. At the very least, give yourself a
pat on the ass or a gold star—it‘s well earned.
C o n g r a t u l a t i o n s t o 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 3 S e r v i c e Aw a r d W i n n e r s
2013 Benjamin Hooks Distinguished
Public Service Award Winners
(Graduates who have earned 200+ hours of service)
Azeema Akram
Lance Johnson
Cailee Alderman
Courtney Kelledes
Robert Alexander
Julie Kim
Nour Bahrani
Stephanie Kuhlmann
Rebecca Birger
Kevin Lall
Jeffrey Boucher
Erin Lavery
Katherine Calhoun
Catherine Leonard
Robert Casey
Allyson Martin
Peter Chambers
Rachel Milos
Kelly Craig
Jordan Mobley
Ryan DeGroot
Jason Newton
Sean Dutton
Flavia Pocari
Kelli Fennell
Victor Price
Sarah Gorham
Sean Price
Kathleen Groark
Michael Puthoff
Anita Gupta
Cristian Rich
Kalyn Hill
Susan Ritacca
Laura Horner
Joseph Scott
Darron Hubbard
Elizabeth Stubbins
Michael Ibrahim
2013 President’s Award Winners
(Non-graduates with 200+ hours of service
Rasheda Armstrong
Kyle Brennan
Javier Castro
Erin Calandriello
Cathleen Doolan
Stephanie Fuller
Roberto Hernandez
Colleen Hurley
Caroline O‘Connell
Bianca Pucci
Catherine Ryan
Forrest Sumlar
Daniel Watkins
2013 Chancellor’s Award Winners
(for completing 100+ hours of Service)
Jason Agrimonti
Mathew Kerbis
Rachel Brown
Stephanie Mulcahy
Michelle Cass
Douglas Persoon
Brandon Clark
Evan Powell
Megan Davis
Cortney Redman
Matthew Dostal
Lee Robbins
Britt Florin
Elliott Robinson
Katherine Galbraith
Michael Santomauro
Samuel Gieryn
Erin Sostock
Margarita Gokhberg
Martha Soto
Sarah Hunter
Samantha Staroba
Samuel Jackson
Danielle Stevens
Samuel Keen
Robin Wagner
Guy Keller
Sarah Wilson
Dean’s Certificate of Pro Bono Service
(For completing 50+ hours of legal service)
Emily Cannata
Bethany Nystrom
Sabrina Elliott
Maria De Fatima Parente
Katherine Gilliard
Marie Silver
Daniel Korso
Cami Taylor
Ryan Leal
Deanna Yaeger
Courtney Morso
Dean’s Certificate of Service
(For completing 50+ of non-legal service)
Adenike Adubifa
Lindsay Jurgensen
Geraldine Arruela
Kinza Khan
Cynthia Bedrosian
Christina Kurow
Meghan Bonham
Talen Mack
Gabriel Borges
Marina Merjan
Marcela Castillo
Jodi Myskiw
Ashley DeVeaux
Monica Racia
Nerissa Diaz
Jessica Robinson
Katie Filous
Andrew Sanchez
Angelica Griffin
Hannah Scruton
Erin Grotheer
Stefani Silberstein
Lesley Gwam
John Slagle
Brian Jant
Ashley Steinhoff
Justin Joseph
Ana Valenzuela
Page 4
Editorials
The Demon’s Advoc ate
The Demon‘s Advocate is an ―opposing viewpoints‖ column which seeks to explore the varying opinions in a balanced pro/con debate.
The column encourages critical thinking and issue awareness by providing opposing views on a contentious legal issue.
This Month’s Topic: U.S. News & World Report Rankings drop—Should I be worried about my DePaul College of Law degree?
By: Steven O’Connor ‘15
The city of Chicago is home to one
of the most crowded legal markets in
the nation. Between the University of
Chicago, Northwestern, Kent, Loyola,
DePaul, and John Marshall, roughly
1,000 new attorneys hit the bricks
every November looking for jobs. Each
and every advantage a newly minted
J.D. can get counts, which is why many
of us were so disappointed by the College of Law‘s freefall in the rankings. Admittedly, DePaul was never
playing in the same league as any school except Loyola and John Marshall; even prior to the new rankings, DePaul was holding a steady fifth
of six schools in the city. But this hardly makes a drop inconsequential...our national profile, as well as our reputation among prospective
students, has certainly been tarnished.
It is difficult to find exact figures on how the rankings affect potential hires. But there is one constant: the further from number one,
number ten, or past one hundred, the worse the employment figures
become.
To be sure, the rankings are more reactive than proactive. No
school that reports excellent employment numbers then takes a tumble in the rankings. The chicken in this case, very clearly comes before
the egg. However, to the extent that rankings can control the future
of a law school and its graduates, USNWR does a fine job. When
rankings drop, the quality of the applicant pool is diminished. While
Dean Burns and the rest of his colleagues in the Admissions Department are undoubtedly scrambling to hold on to the highest quality
admitted students they can, some are sent running for the hills (or,
more accurately, Loyola). Elise [Last name withheld], an incoming 1L,
was admitted to both DePaul and Loyola. After seeing the new rankings, she chose Loyola, saying, ―I just looked at the numbers. Loyola
actually makes the most sense.‖
That conversation is undoubtedly happening many times over as
students begin to submit tuition deposits. If a law school can only
attract lower-tier applicants, employers are going to take notice, and
begin to look elsewhere to fill their vacancies. LSAT averages drop,
GPA averages drop, employment rates fall, and DePaul becomes the
―backup school‖ of the Chicago area. Each of those, by the way, are
measures used by U.S. News when they compile the rankings. By not
attracting higher quality applicants, the rankings, and the numbers they
are based upon, become a self-fulfilling prophecy. While it‘s probable
that this downward spiral won‘t affect any student currently reading
this paper, the legacy of this institution is in jeopardy.
Continued on Page 10
By: Pasquale Neri ‘14
For the past two years, we have
studied the law. We know how to
strictly scrutinize a statute in order to
see if it passes constitutional muster.
Copyright students like myself know
what is and what is not eligible for
protection. Administrative process
students know how to figure out just
how much ―process‖ one is ―due‖
before he or she can be deprived of
life, liberty, or property. DePaul has taught us (and taught us to
teach ourselves) the very same law that students learn at schools like
Yale. I‘ll say this: I know we can apply the parole evidence rule just
as well as those Ivy Leaguers.
Over the past two years, we have learned a lot about ourselves,
both personally and professionally. We have tried our hands at a
wide variety of new challenges. We have been able to sharpen our
interests. We have been forced to reevaluate the way we approach
certain situations, projects, or problems. DePaul has given us a new
lens through which, at times, to view the world. I‘ll say this: that lens
would be exactly the same coming from any other school.
During the past two years, I have met people who I am proud to
call friends, colleagues, and mentors. I have watched as fellow students have accomplished great feats—for themselves, for the school,
and for humanity. I have listened as my classmates answered questions in class, adding to my understanding of the subject and helping
me develop my own arguments. I have struggled as my professors
pushed me to close the circle. DePaul has made this possible. I‘ll say
this: I can't imagine building stronger or more enjoyable relationships at any other school.
But now a group of fellow lawyers—prestigious people all—have
compiled an ordered list, and that list tries to tell us that a legal
education from DePaul isn‘t as valuable as it used to be. I‘d like to
thank that group for its concern, but I really don‘t care what they
have to say.
I‘ve drank with my professors in foreign countries, talking politics
and sports and life and law until four in the morning. I‘ve discussed
my career with the Dean of the school, multiple times. I probably
could have transferred to a higher ranked school, but I didn‘t, and I
was rewarded with the ability to challenge myself by writing an article about the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering—getting
feedback from an eminently qualified professor in the process. I
spotted a gap in the student organizations here on campus and am in
the process of filling it, allowing me to leave my mark on the school
and open the door for a breadth of opportunities
Continued on Page 10
Page 5
Volume I, Issue IV
Boston Marathon Bombing: One Suspect Dead, One in Custody, Many Legal Questions
By Mike Hornback ‘15
On Monday April 15, our nation experienced the horrific results of what few determined individuals are capable of executing.
The Boston Marathon attack was the worst
bombing on U.S. soil since the nation wen on
high alert following the events of September
11, 2001. The resulting images distributed on
television and social media of the Boston Marathon Bombing share much in common with
the images that are ingrained into our collective memory of an airliner crashing into The
World Trade Centers. From the time of the
first explosions that left three dead and over
170 injured, to the death of one brother and
the capture of the other brother suspected to
be responsible for the bombing, a mere 101
hours had passed. The proliferation of cameras in our modern society played an integral
part in the capture of the suspects, as did
eyewitnesses who were able to identify the
bothers as the bombers.
Upon the capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, it
was quickly reported that he was not read his
Miranda rights. The government said that this
had not violated Tsarnaev‘s rights and defended
this omission by using the public safety exception. As Professor Deborah Tuerkheimer said,
―[However] should this case proceed to trial,
and the government wish to use the preMiranda statement, we can expect litigation
around the applicability of the public safety
exception to a wider range of circumstances
than those originally contemplated by the Supreme Court.‖
As the investigation surrounding the bombing
continues, it is certain that many more legal
issues will rise. A few of the legal issues were
settled on April 22,, when a federal magistrate
stood before Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and formally
charged him with the use of a weapon of
mass destruction. This formal charge also
answers the question of whether or not he
would be tried by a military court as an
enemy combatant, but still leaves open the
questions of whether or not Massachusetts
will try Tsarnaev on other charges, and if the
death penalty, which is available in the federal charges, will be sought..
With our astute legal minds, we know that
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is entitled to a fair trial
before his peers. As with previous instances
of mass killings, the Federal Courts have the
ability to change the venue as they did with
the trial of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy
McVeigh. Whether or not changing venues
will be enough to assure a fair trial is a question that will only be answered with the
passage of time.
S o r r y I C a n ’t H e l p Yo u , I ’ m O n l y a L aw S t u d e n t
By Dana O’Leary ‘15
Most of the time, being a law student is pretty
cool. You get to brag to other people about
how interesting law school is, and feel superior
to lay people who know far less about the law
than you do. However, when your friends and
family start asking you how to solve their legal
problems, and your doorman asks you to represent him in a totally frivolous lawsuit, law student life becomes more annoying and awkward
than cool. At times, it can be tempting to give
these people legal advice. However, unless you
want to be sued for malpractice and possibly
never being able to sit for the bar, it is probably
best to keep your newfound legal expertise to
yourself.
I spoke with three DePaul Law professors to
get advice from them on how to handle these
types of questions. All three had one sentiment
in common: be honest. Yes, it can be awkward
to tell a family member that you can‘t advise
them about their legal problems, but you
have to do it, for the sake of your futurelawyer-self. Don‘t make your refusal more
awkward by being rude or mean to the person to whom you‘re speaking. As Professor
Michael Jacobs puts it, ―You don‘t have to be
cold.‖ He suggests that students should tell
family and friends that you sympathize with
them, but you are still a student, and it is
ethically wrong for students to give legal
advice. If these people care about you, they
should understand.
Professor Mark Moller delves even deeper
into the ethical side of giving out legal advice
as a law student. As Professor Moller states,
―Beginning lawyers fail to realize that you can
be deemed to be in a lawyer/client relationship with someone if there is ambiguity about
the nature of the relationship.‖ That means,
when someone asks you if they have a case,
an answer as simple as, ―I don‘t know, I‘ll get
back to you,‖ can be enough to give that person a reasonable expectation that you‘re acting
as their lawyer. If that person waits around for
you to get back to them until the statute of
limitations runs out and his or her claim is
barred, there‘s a good chance that you‘ll be
defending a malpractice lawsuit in the future.
All of this is not to say that you should completely disown the idea of helping friends and
family with their legal problems – this will be
okay once you are an actual lawyer. Professor
Mark Weber says that students should, ―make
sure to develop [their] network of friends and
family.‖ He explains that family and friend contacts are often very important, and once you
are a lawyer many cases can come your way
through these people. But take care to never
give these people legal advice until you are a
licensed attorney. Until then, do not give anyone casual legal advice, ever.
Page 6
The Bitcoin Conspiracy: Tulip Bubble of the 21st Century
By: Mike Hornback ’15
If you are not familiar with what a Bitcoin
is, you are not alone.
Simply put, Bitcoins
are a digital, mathematical currency.
Bitcoins are not minted, but rather they are
―mined.‖ This means that they are not
backed by any precious metals, national central banks, or governments. Mining Bitcoins
requires computers to solve ever more difficult mathematical proofs. The mining process
requires energy consumption meant to be
greater than the value of the Bitcoin. This is
to ensure the finite amount of Bitcoins will
not be discovered until the year 2140. As of
April 14, 2013, the estimated power consumption for mining surpassed $150,000 per
day while Bitcoin miners were making an
estimated $467,000 per day. The value of a
Bitcoin is determined completely its demand.
Bitcoin‘s first taste of mainstream coverage
came during the 2012 Presidential Elections.
T
c h n o of
l o computer
g y a n d Shackers
ocial M
e d ito
a : extort
Rape
A egroup
tried
$2million in Bitcoin from presidential candidate Mitt Romney. That was the price the
hackers demanded to not release Mitt Romney‘s tax returns. Computer hackers have
preferred this digital mathematically based currency because it retains the anonymity of cash
while being able to be spent online.
All the hoopla surrounding Bitcoins in recent
weeks has been due to the astonishing rise in
value. The first commercial transaction involving
Bitcoins happened in May 2010, when one
Bitcoin user paid 10,000 Bitcoins for a pizza
delivery. Back then, each Bitcoin was worth a
fraction of $.01. The price for that pizza would
equal to $1.7million according to exchange rates
on April 10, 2013. The value of this currency
has increased by over 1000% since the beginning
of this year and in its totality is worth over $1.8
billion.
The sudden rise in Bitcoin value caused by
Cypriot citizens withdrawing money from savings accounts to avoid E.U. imposed taxes and
buying Bitcoins. This makes sense, as with a
commodity that has a finite amount, when the
commodity becomes scarce, the value increases.
The value of a Bitcoin is published by Bitcoin
exchanges such as Mt.Gox. These exchanges
are necessary for the Bitcoin economy, but are
self-regulated and not accountable. At a certain
C upoint,
l t u r the
e F increase
r i e n d oin
r value
F o e ?was noticed by speculators and that‘s when large investors came in.
Bitcoin is merging the world of anonymity
with financial speculation. Bitcoins differ from
other currency because there is a finite amount
of them, 21 million to be exact. Once all 21
million Bitcoins are mined, no more Bitcoins
can be introduced into the economy. Having
a finite amount of a currency gives speculators one more value to plug into their financial calculations. This simplifies speculation, as
long as there is a demand for the Bitcoins the
value will more than likely not go down because more Bitcoins cannot just be made.
This allows for a relatively small amount of
large traders to manipulate the market. This
is most likely what caused a 61% fall from its
peak value of $266 as holders of Bitcoins
started to cash in on April 10th, 2013. This is
where it gets scary. Bitcoins are in demand
because, other than investment opportunities,
of the anonymity it offers. No other currency
in the world allows for secure online transactions the way Bitcoins do.
Just about anything can be purchased with
Bitcoins, for example an individual in the U.S.
bought a 2007 Porsche Cayman S valued at
$39,000 for 300 Bitcoins. Due to the anonymity, not only can Bitcoins make money
laundering extremely easy but any transaction
can become nearly untraceable. Bitcoins may
soon become the perfect avenue for circumventing restrictions on drugs, guns, and counterfeit products, and even more heinous
crimes.
Technology and Social Media: Rape Culture, Friend or Foe?
By: Marina Merjan, ‘15
By now, the gruesome events that transpired on the night of August 11, 2012 in
Steubenville, Ohio are so familiar to us that
the stomach-churning details hardly need
recounting. That night 16-year-old Jane Doe,
unconscious after a night of partying and
drinking with her peers, was dragged from
party to party while Trent Mays, 17, and
Ma‘lik Richmond, 16, took turns sexually
assaulting and raping her. Not a single witness to the events came to Doe‘s aid; on the
contrary some of them photographed and
videotaped the rapes, tweeted, and texted
about them. ―Yeah dude, she was like a dead
body. I just wanted some sexual attention.‖
This was a text that Mays sent to one of his
friends on the night he raped Steubenville‘s
Jane Doe.
This text is just one example of the dual
and diametrically opposed roles that social
media and technology played in the Steubenville tragedy. In one sense they were instruments used to perpetuate the rape culture
that plagues society; on the other hand,
because the victim had no recollection of
the events that transpired on the night the
boys raped her, they became the crux of the
prosecution‘s evidence. The prosecution used
the digital and social media record to reconstruct the events of the night, a strategy that
proved successful— the judge convicted both
boys on all charges. DePaul Law Professor
Deborah Tuerkheimer aptly summed up the
outcome: ―Despite untoward attacks on the
girl‘s character, there was some measure of
justice in the end.‖
According to FORCE, an activist effort promoted to defeating the culture of rape by
promoting a culture of consent, rape culture
exists when people are ―surrounded with
images, language, laws, and other everyday
phenomena that validate and perpetuate
rape.‖ In the aftermath of the Steubenville
verdict, a distinct rhetoric emerged relating to
the role of social media and technology as
evidence in criminal cases: namely, that one
should be cautious about which images are
captured and how they are shared.
While this lesson is, in itself, increasingly
valid in an era of ubiquitous social media use,
it trivializes and detracts from the larger issue
and lesson to be garnered from Steubenville:
that rape is a serious crime with many personal and social repercussions, and, if ever tempted, one would be better off simply not raping.
Used under an Attribution Non-Commercial Creative Commons License, Photo by Flickr User IntelFreePress
―No pictures should have been sent out, let
alone be taken.‖ This statement comprised the
heart of Trent Mays‘ apology to the court, the
victim, and her family. So while some measure of
justice is better than no justice at all, we would do
well as a society to start recognizing the idiosyncrasies of rape culture and rejecting the flawed
logic that perpetuates it.
Volume I, Issue IV
Page 7
Punish Deeds, Not Breeds: Chicago’s Breed Specific Legislation
By: Mollie Peskind ‘14
Breed Specific Legislation is a trend that
threatens our canine families. Breed Specific
Legislation, also referred to as ―BSL‖ are laws
that regulate or ban certain breeds completely, in hopes of reducing dog attacks. Regulated breeds include: American Pit Bull Terrier,
Staffordshire Terrier, Rottweiler, German
Shepherd, and a variety of other breeds. Any
dog that contains a mix of a banned breed, or
simply resembles these breeds, will be regulated under BSL.
There is no evidence, however, that BSL
makes communities safer. While conducting a
study of human fatalities resulting from dog
bites, the Center for Disease Control finds
that BSL is ineffective. The Center cites some
problems with BSL, including inaccurate dog
bite data, and difficulty identifying dog breeds
(especially mixed breeds). Not only is the
data inaccurate because of the difficulty in
identifying dog breeds, BSL also gives owners
incentive to put their dogs into hiding rather
than give up their canine family member; it
punishes good owners and dogs and gives the
public a false sense of security.
This legislation can also add to the problem
of encouraging ownership by irresponsible
people. For a certain segment of society owning a banned breed of dog will bolster their
self-image of living as an ―out-law.‖
While Illinois has banned the use of BSL,
some Chicagoans have once again started
talking about lifting the state ban. As a result
of the 2012 New Year‘s Day attack of a jogger by two dogs identified as pitbulls, serious
conversation has been ignited over whether
there should be a ban on the breed. Chicago
would be able to pass a BSL over the state
legislation by using the ―Home Rule‖ power.
This is how Denver instituted a BSL over
Colorado‘s prohibition of BSL. City officials
speak of hearing ―nothing but bad‖ results
from pitbull ownership. However, numerous
veterinarians and trainers agree that a dog is
only as bad as its owner, and that aggression
comes from the socialization of the dog.
Nothing makes pitbulls or other large breeds
genetically more dangerous or aggressive.
As a result of strong opposition to Breed
Specific Legislation, the city of Chicago has
now said it will take measures that are not
breed specific. The city will focus on campaigning for dog registration, in order to hold
negligent owners liable for dog attacks, regardless of breed. The city will begin cracking
down on unregistered dogs, and enforcing
leash laws. In the city of Chicago there is an
estimated dog population of nearly 500,000
dogs, but only 30,000 are registered. After
incidents such as the 2012 jogger attack, the
city will start holding negligent owners accountable, punishing the owners, rather than
the dogs.
The truth about dog attacks is that roughly
97 percent of dogs involved in fatal dog attacks were unneutered; unneutered dogs are
2.6 times more likely to bite than a neutered
dog. Furthermore, 78 percent of the dogs in
dog bite cases were maintained not as pets,
but for guarding, image enhancement, fighting,
or breeding. It should also be noted that 84
percent of ―dangerous dogs‖ were maintained
by reckless owners who abused or neglected
them. Clearly breed discriminatory laws are
not the answer to our dog bite issues, instead
punishing the people who are responsible for
creating aggressive dogs is a more appropri-
An American Pit Bull Terrier. Used under a Attribution
Non-Commercial Creative Commons License,
Photo by Flickr User Eileen McFall, username Outlier*
ate solution.
For now, it seems the discriminatory practice
of Breed Specific Legislation is not in the cards
for Chicago. However, as long as there are careless dog owners in Chicago, banning specific
breeds will always be an unfortunate possibility.
These negligent owners make it impossible for
the city to place liability on the owners, and
eventually the city will be pressured to place the
blame on the breeds. It is imperative that responsible dog owners in Chicago support the city
in its mission to remain breed neutral in its dog
regulation laws; let‘s punish the deed, not the
breed.
Page 8
Arts & Entertainment
C h i c ago R o l l s O u t N ew Fo o d Tr u c k L aw s
By: Pete Chambers ‘13
Did you hear the one about the guy who
started a food truck in Chicago? . . . Yeah,
me neither. Until recently, the food truck
scene in this city was absolutely abysmal.
Several gourmet trucks were struggling to
get by under the city‘s health and sanitation
standards by serving food prepared and
wrapped in an off-site kitchen. The food
truck ―lobby‖ first arose when Chef Matt
Maroni of the GaztroTruck partnered with
Alderman Scott Waguespack to propose the
first set of amendments to existing ordinances. Once they were able to prove that several food trucks met the city‘s strict cleanliness
standards (some even to a higher extent than
their restaurant counterparts) their next
challenge came from a powerful restaurant
lobby and a mostly-uncooperative city
council.
The Illinois Restaurant Association had long
spearheaded the anti-food truck movement
because it were concerned about the livelihood of local restaurants. Speaking on their
behalf was Alderman Tom Tunney, owner of
the Ann Sather chain of restaurants. After the
Waguespack ordinances stalled in committee,
Tunney worked with Mayor Emanuel‘s office
on new ordinances which, after great debate,
passed 44-1 with one alderman abstaining from
the vote. While several food truck owners
called for Tunney‘s recusal from committee
and a final vote on the issue, he remained active in negotiations, even acknowledging his
potential conflict of interest when he stated,
―My long-term experience as a restaurateur
provides valuable insight into the effect that
this legislation will have on our industry.‖
The most notable accomplishment coming
from the ordinances allowed for food prepara-
tion on the trucks themselves. Yet with any
legislative compromise come inevitable losses.
The ordinances increased food truck licensing
and penalty fees, limited a truck‘s hours of
operation, mandated that all trucks be
equipped with a GPS tracking device, and, last
but not least, kept in place the 200-foot buffer
rule. The buffer rule states that trucks are not
allowed to park within 200 feet of a brick and
mortar restaurant with the exception of designated food truck stands. On the day the ordinance passed, Flirty Cupcakes famously tweeted at Emanuel‘s office claiming that the ordinance would ―kill the industry.‖
While existing food truck operators saw the
2012 ordinances as a potential death sentence
for the industry, a new wave of local entrepreneurs saw the silver lining- cooking onboard
meant that chefs could serve fresh, hot food.
Continued on Page 11
A p r i l M ov i e R ev i ew s
By: Crystal Montanez ‘15
Evil Dead
Remakes have littered the current entertainment scene for a while now, and many have not lived up to the
standard set by the original films that they try to emulate. As a result, moviegoers have been subjected to movies that make a mockery of the original films and take away from the magic that many of these franchises once
had. While remakes and film adaptations are often synonymous with a bad movie experience, Evil Dead is one of
the first in a long time that does not leave a bad taste in your mouth. However, if you planned on eating during
the film you are better off waiting until after it‘s over. Evil Dead begins like most horror films do, in a setting that
starts out peaceful and fun, but is one mistake away from unleashing a great evil. The film brings together several
fresh-face actors that evoke the traditional quality from horror franchises past, and is only one of the few reasons why Evil Dead is a great modern remake. The actors successfully allow viewers to feel as though what is
occurring to them could easily happen to anyone, no matter how far-fetched. The film is not for those with a
weak stomach as blood and gore permeate the film,. Evil Dead is especially refreshing because even if you have
seen the original, the movie does not come off as predictable, but amounts to a very entertaining experience.
Courtesy of Ghost House
G.I. Joe Retaliation
Movie adaptations continue to dominate the current movie entertainment experience, and unfortunately many of
these movies contain more in terms of action than a well-developed story. Directors and writers would rather fill
the screen with explosions and beautiful women than actually give viewers movies worth seeing. G.I. Joe is the paradigm of a unimaginative, horribly written film that lacks any authenticity and disgraces the franchise name. To make
matters worse, the movie added a last-minute application of 3D technology that exemplifies the many reasons why
I hope the 3D craze soon becomes extinct. The 3D in the film creates a blurring effect in many of the scenes that
takes away from the experience and will surely give many viewers a headache. While the film definitely delivers with
explosions, strong heroines, and a big name star, the plot fails in many areas and changes several storylines to greatly depart from the original G.I. Joe franchise. It is painfully apparent that Dwayne Johnson, the lead, has been involved in too many films recently because his acting is lackluster and emotionless. As long as you walk in the theater with the understanding that all you are going to get is a little plot with a lot of action, then this movie is perfect
for you. However, save yourself the three dollars and headache, and watch the film without the 3D.
Courtesy of Paramount Pictures
Page 9
Volume I, Issue IV
C a l l o n C h r i s s i e – E v e r y o n e ’s F r e a k i n g i n t h e F i n a l S t r e t c h
By: Chrissie White ‘14
Dear Chrissie,
Things are starting to get real. The stress of
finals has set in, and it seems like my classmates are even more stressed out this semester than they were last semester. Any advice
for this final push? I‘m freaking. Everyone‘s
freaking!
Sincerely,
Too busy to come up with a catchy sign-off
Dear Too Busy,
Things can get stressful this time of year, but
I can tell you this: in just a few weeks it will be
over. Leave it all on the field. Use these last
couple weeks to prepare yourself as well as
possible so you can walk away knowing you
did all you could to get the best grades you
can. Here are a few tips to help you make the
most of the time you have left to prepare:
1. Carefully consider your clique. Has your
study group been making progress, or do you
find yourselves getting off-track frequently? Surround yourself with people who will encourage
you to dig deeper and get things done. If you‘re
just hanging out with your besties, save it for
after the last final.
2. Make a to-do list every day, but cut out the
frills. Put items on the list that actually worked
for you last semester. Maybe add a few things
that you should have done as well, and make
actual efforts to do them. Just don‘t let the list
get so long that it‘s impossible to finish. That will
add stress where it shouldn‘t have been in the
first place.
3. Step away from the student lounge. If
you‘re ever caught in a situation where everyone around you is complaining about how many
hours they‘ve spent outlining and how they
haven‘t slept in days, and you‘re feeling like a
slacker because yaou aren‘t so hardcore, just
politely make up an excuse and get the heck out
of there.
4. Take care of yourself. We‘ve all been there.
The anxiety comes over us, and suddenly we
can‘t even think straight enough to decide
which book to crack open. Sometimes you
just need a break, and you are the only one
who knows when and how often you need
one. Do what you need to do to calm down,
and then get back to it.
5. Think about the big picture. For some,
the goal is Law Review. For others, it‘s a law
degree. Either way, when you look back on
your first year, you should be proud of how
far you‘ve come.
Well, Too Busy, I don‘t want to minimize
the importance of final exams, but I realize
that time is precious, so I will keep this one
short. Like Usher said on one of the most
recent episodes of The Voice, which I enjoyed
watching during a much-needed break from
schoolwork, ―Luck favors the prepared.‖
You‘ve got this.
All the best,
Chrissie
No Summar y Judgment for the Devil
By: Magdalena Serafin ‘15
With special thanks to Professor Wayne Lewis for
his input and analysis.
Let‘s say you sold your soul in exchange for
your heart‘s desire. You then get exactly what
you wish for, but in a way that leaves the point
of your wish unsatisfied- or even completely shot
to hell. Under the common law of contracts, do
you get to keep your ticket to the pearly gates,
or do you have to give the devil his due?
The best example of ―be careful what you wish
for‖ arises in the movie Bedazzled, a modern-day
retelling of the legend of Faust. In Bedazzled, the
devil goes down to Oakland, CA, looking for a
soul to steal. She finds her opportunity with
Elliot, a hapless support technician, who says he
would give anything for his love interest, Alison,
to be with him.
The devil tells Elliot she can help him out, and
he signs a contract for performance: seven granted wishes for his soul. The devil then technically
grants each wish Elliot makes (to be rich and
powerful, to be President of the United States,
to be intelligent and witty) but ruins each in turn
by adding something Elliot did not specifically
want (respectively, makes Alison hate him,
makes him Lincoln on the night of the assassination, makes Elliot gay). This angers Elliot, who
refuses to make his final wish.
Ultimately, in the movie, Elliot folds under the
devil‘s pressure and makes his final wish, which
turns out to satisfy a clause voiding the contract
because the wish is selfless. However, if Elliot
had stuck to his guns and refused to make the
wish, would the devil succeed in a breach-ofcontract action against him? Under the frustration-of-purpose doctrine, likely not.
Per the Restatement of Contracts Section 265,
―Where, after a contract is made, a party‘s principal purpose is substantially frustrated without
his fault by the occurrence of an event the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption on
which the contract was made, his remaining
duties to render performance are discharged...‖
Elliot‘s stated purpose is to be with Alison, and
his basic assumption in dealing with the devil is
that during the course of performance, she will
not make him undesirable to his love interest
(or about to die).
Under the doctrine, to excuse performance,
both parties need to be aware of the purpose
for which the contract is made and without that
purpose, the contract is essentially valueless to
the party seeking relief. Here, the devil is well
aware of Elliot‘s purpose; he states it aloud, and
it is the reason she even approaches him with
her offer. The traditional elements precluding
enforcement of a contract under the doctrine
are satisfied here.
The devil may try to undermine the doctrine by arguing for preclusion of evidence
of Elliot‘s oral statement of purpose under
parol evidence. However, as the contract is
signed in California, its extremely lenient
rule of admissibility would likely apply, and
the evidence would at the very least make it
before a judge, if not all the way to the jury.
Elliot‘s odds of a successful affirmative
defense are good. In the seminal frustration
case Krell v. Henry (1903) 2KB 740, a landlord sued a tenant for non-payment for an
apartment. Tenant had specifically rented
the room to watch the coronation procession of Edward VII, who subsequently fell ill.
As the coronation was indefinitely postponed and defendant‘s purpose for the
room frustrated, the court ruled in defendant‘s favor- and the landlord had nothing to
do with making the king sick. Here, rather
than an act of nature or by a third party, it
is the devil herself that is causing the frustration of Elliot‘s purpose. Under contract
common law, and for public policy and fairness considerations, the court is unlikely to
have sympathy for the devil.
Page 10
Demon’s Advocate (O’Connor)
Continued from Page 4
Demon’s Advocate (Neri)
Continued from Page 4
I‘d be hesitant to estimate how much lower our employment figures
can go, but as Dean Mark noted in both of the town halls he hosted,
the numbers being submitted in the following two years are not
likely to be any better. Our ranking, at this point, depends entirely
on how poorly every other school in the nation has performed since
2011. Should we fall again in 2014 and 2015, the prospects of every
future graduate of the DePaul College of Law are severely impacted.
We should take pride in being DePaul students. Dean Mark was
correct when he told the student body that this institution is an
integral part of the Chicago legal community. But we should never
put that card in our back pocket, and wander through this process
ignorant of how the rest of the world views us. I have had
exceptional professors at DePaul, and been surrounded by some
truly remarkable, and intelligent students in my short time here. But
employers don‘t get to come to our classes, or study in our
libraries. They get to interview us, and they get to see how our
school performs relative to every over ABA accredited law school in
the nation. That is why we should be worried about the rankings,
and why we should continue to push the administration to be
proactive in our mission to move DePaul closer to the top of the
list.
for future DePaul Law Students.
Surely, the rankings have room to consider these types of experiences, right?
Obviously, much of what is described in the above paragraph is personal—but therein lies exactly what I‘m trying to say. Law school is
what you make of it. We all pay a lot of money to be here, work hard
to get good grades, and scour the globe to find jobs after graduation.
In doing so, we have all earned the administration‘s most diligent efforts to make DePaul Law the best school it can be. But, if paying and
studying is the extent of your efforts, then after your third year you‘ll
have a J.D. and a place on a list. This editorial contains the reasons the
rankings don‘t matter to me. Do you have any similar reasons of your
own?
I‘m not trying to disparage anyone who is legitimately concerned
about the rankings, nor am I trying to marginalize anyone who only has
time to go to class. I‘ll say this, though: Yale can keep the list, because
DePaul will always be more than a number to me.
To view the rankings and the methodology used to calculate
them, visit http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/
best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings
Page 11
Volume I, Issue IV
Overheard in Class
Submit your quotes to [email protected]
―They were driving home drunk and stole a T-roof. Stay classy, New
Jersey.‖
―What‘s McCarthyism? Throw the Commies in the ocean!‖
―I can‘t be in Scalia‘s brain. If I could, I‘d be manipulating it!‖
―Maybe this is just rich people wasting their money, and what could
be better than that?!‖
―Judge Hand stayed his hand, so to speak. . . . That was lame. He
stayed his hand. It gets better if you say it twice!‖
―English isn't my first language <15 second pause> I don't know what
is...but it ain't English.‖
Professor: So what's the defendant's name?
Student: Harry Rodd
Professor: One more time…?
Food Trucks in Chicago
Continued from Page 8
Several food trucks hit the streets in the 10 months since the ordinances were passed but it took until January 31, 2013 for one to
finally meet the stringent inspection standards in order to obtain a
mobile food preparer license. When asked what enabled him to pass
the test, Dan Salls, owner of The Salsa Truck stated, ―Tenacity, patience, courage [and a] willingness to meet the City in the middle.
While Chicago‘s streets are littered with 2013 James Beard Award
finalists, the food truck industry has a long way to go before it gets
the national attention that our restaurant scene holds. One group
hoping to effectuate that change is the Institute for Justice. Their
Clinic on Entrepreneurship, located at the University of Chicago Law
School, is directed by practicing attorneys Beth Kregor and Erika
Pfleger and is staffed by second and third year U of C Law students.
Along with amending the ordinances, Kregor calls for the city officials to figure out a way to lay out a licensing process that can proceed smoothly and transparently for new trucks, a sentiment that
Salls echoed in discussing some of the hardships that he faced in
getting his truck up to snuff.
Currently, food truck advocates have taken their case to the
courts as the IJ has brought a lawsuit challenging the GPS requirement and 200 foot rule as unconstitutional. ―The litigation is still in
its initial stages, but we are determined to fight hard and long for all
food trucks in Chicago to be free from unreasonable protectionist,
invasive laws!‖ Kregor states. The Chicago food truck debate is far
from over, but at least now we can ignore our manners and have
that debate with freshly cooked food in our mouths.
2013-2014 Organization Executive Boards and Journal Editorial Boards
Asian Pacific American Law
Student Association
President– Pirada Molina
Vice President– Votey Cheav
Treasurer– Rabia Muqueet
Secretary– Alfredo Asuncion
Academic Chair– Kinza Khan
Social Chair– Aziza Khatoon
Special Series Chair– Alexander Navarro
American Constitutional Society
President– Michael Slugocki
Appellate Moot Court Society
President– Brad Kaye
VP Recruitment– Sabrina Elliott
VP Finance– Philip Barrett
VP Team Management– John Morris
VP Cultural Heritage Comp.– Mustafa Hessabi
Art & Cultural Heritage Law Society
President– Sarah Ebel
Vice President– Molly Gron
Treasurer– Kyle Brennan
Secretary– Corinne Smith
Events Chair– Alyssa Newswanger
Scholarship Reception Chair– Sarah Hunter
Black Law Students Association
President– Jamilah Pate
Vice President– Corey Walker
Treasurer– Maurche Belk
Social Chair- Candace McPherson
Secretary– Adenike Abudifa
Business and Commercial Law Journal
Editor-in-Chief– Meaghan VanderWeele
Executive Editor– Bridget Hanson
Executive Editor– Matt Thomas
Managing Business Editor-Lindsey Conley
Lead Articles– Votey Cheav
Notes and Comments– Jamie Leberis
Symposium Editor– Desalina Williams
Decalogue Society
President- Adam Rogozinsky
DePaul Law Review
Editor-in-Chief– Daniel Connors
Executive Editor– Kyle Simcox
Lead Articles– Matthew Novaria
Notes and Comments- Jonathon Reinisch
Symposium Editor- Jenna Moran
Business Manager- Kyle Molidor
Associate Editor- Michael Cannell
Associate Editor- Andrew Donivan
Associate Editor- Sydney Hutt
Associate Editor- Emily Jenkinson
Associate Editor- Tara Kennedy
Associate Editor- Courtney Mathews
Associate Editor- Emily Steinberg
Associate Editor- Kevin Wender
Entertainment Law Society
President– Jessica Foote
Vice President– Dana O‘Leary
Treasurer– Michael Ladak
Secretary– Katlyn Gregg
Publicity/Promotions– Lesley Gwam
Environmental Law Society
President– Danny Pauley
Vice President– Alex Gillett
Treasurer– KC Harpring
Secretary– Elena Tinaglia
Marketing/Recruitment– Tehni Zaman
Federalist Society
President– Ben Rios
Journal of Art, Technology & IP Law
Editor-in-Chief- Aaron Cooper
Business and Lead Articles- Chris Galligan
Seminar Articles Editor- Vanja Vidackovic
Legislative Updates Editor- Jennifer Shield
Notes and Comments - Elizabeth Lembeck
Summaries Editor- Daniel Organ
Technical Productions Editor- Melissa Reeks
Journal of Health Care Law
Editor-in-Chief– Gretchen Harper
Managing Business Editor– Josh Gertz
Exec. Text Editor– Andrea Preisler
Authorities Editor– Tyler Scheid
Journal for Social Justice
Editor in Chief- Javier Castro
Business Editor- Francesca Noyes
Acquisitions Editor- Stephanie Northrop
Articles Editor- Courtney Morso
Articles Selection Editor- Mason Klein
Citations Editor- Joe Cindric
Latino Law Student Association
President– Geraldine Arruela
Vice President– Roberto Hernandez
Treasurer– Randy Tejada
Social Chair– Maritsha Garcia
Outreach Chair– Alexander Navarro
Academic Chair– Jennifer Catalan
Outlaws
President- Eric Langston
Vice-President- Rachael Dickson
Treasurer- Sabrina Elliott
Phi Alpha Delta
Justice- Goli Rahimi
Vice Justice- Colleen Hurley
Treasurer- Mike Hornback
Marshall- Alyson Hau
Clerk/Alumni Chair- Genevieve Niemann
Events Chair- Jessica Foote
Recruitment- Chrissie White
Board Member at Large- Rachael Dickson
Public Interest Law Association
President– Robin Wagner
Vice President– Jacqueline Horn
Treasurer– Caleb Brown
Secretary/Publicity– Brittni King
Auction Chair– Hannah Scruton
Society for Asylum and Immigration Law
President– Zara Rashid
Vice President- Ana Valenzuela
Treasurer– Geraldine Arruela
Secretary– Marie Silver
Community Outreach– Jennifer Catalan
Sports Law Journal
Editor-in-Chief– Amy Neustedter
Executive Editor– Andrew Bush
Symposium and Tech. Editor– Nick Gutierrez
Notes and Comments– Tom Conlon
Student Bar Association
President– Anna Szymczak
Vice President– Kimberly Voichescu
Treasurer– Angelica Griffin
Secretary– Eric Langston
Faculty & Curriculum Chair– Brandon Clark
DAC Chair– Joseph Homsy
Social Chair– Emily Mannix-Slobig
Women’s Bar Association
President– Catherine Ryan
Vice President– Christina Kuklinski
Secretary– Haley Guion
Treasurer– Katie Filous
Community Service Chair– Ariel Bilyeu
Social Chair– Samantha Odyniec
SBA Liaison– Kim Voichescu
Cause of Action Editors
GO GREEN!
Pete Chambers ‗13, Co-editor-in-chief
Corey Walker ‗14, Co-editor-in-chief
Joseph Homsy ‗14, DePaul News & Events Editor
Michael Hornback ‗15, Student Editorials Editor
Magdalena Serafin ‗15, Arts & Entertainment Editor
Rachael Dickson ‗15, Copy Editor
If you‘d like to receive Cause of Action as an e-newsletter, please email
[email protected].
For previous issues of Cause of Action, visit the DePaul Student Bar Association‘s website at www.depaulsba.com.