Around Syracuse Law

College of Law News

June 1, 2022

College of Law Holds Commencement for Class of 2022

On Friday, May 6, Syracuse University College of Law held Commencement for its 199 J.D. and 33 LL.M. graduates. The event, the first in-person Commencement since 2019, featured the first graduating class of JDi students. Luke Cooper L’01 CEO of Latimer Ventures, Partner at Preface Ventures, and 2022 Visiting Scholar at the University of Maryland Baltimore was the Commencement speaker.

Luke Cooper and Judge McKee at College of Law Commencement — College of Law Commencement, 2022

Syracuse University Chancellor Kent Syverud provided remarks and announced the Hon. Theodore A. McKee L’75 Endowed Law Scholarship, thanks to the generosity of Board of Advisors Member Richard M. Alexander L’82, Chairman of Arnold & Porter, and his wife Emily. The scholarship will provide Syracuse Law students with the education and cultural context to enable them to carry forward the legacy of Judge McKee, who has served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for 27 years.

Professor Todd Berger received this year’s Res Ipsa Loquitur Award, given to a faculty member for “service, scholarship, and stewardship” to the students. Professor Richard Risman was voted by the LL.M. Class of 2022 as the recipient of the Lucet Lex Mundum Award, for his significant impact on the successes and experiences of the LL.M. students during their studies.

In his remarks to graduates, Cooper emphasized the importance of always embracing the most authentic pieces of ourselves and broadcasting how these strengths can play to our advantage in overcoming challenges. Reflecting on his personal journey, he also encouraged students to find their purpose and to find the “mud” that’s beneath and around all of us, and to ask themselves how they will help clear the mud and bring about a more inclusive world. “A great orator once asked, what’s most important… the flower… or the ground that grows it? In order for the flower to fully blossom and mature it must traverse a muddy path slowly, and with intention, bending it toward the light. That muddy path contains the secrets to its beauty… the secrets to its magic.”

Syracuse Law Graduates Inaugural Class of Ground-breaking Online JD Program

On May 6, 2022, students in the inaugural class of Syracuse University College of Law’s first-of-its-kind JDinteractive (JDi) program graduated alongside their peers in the College’s residential JD program. This fully ABA-accredited program is the first in the nation to combine live online class sessions with self-paced class sessions. Its innovative design served as a model for other law schools pivoting to online education amid the pandemic.

The members of the inaugural class, which comprised 45 of the 199 College of Law’s JD recipients this year, distinguished themselves in their legal studies. Many are graduating with honors and were active in extracurricular activities and pro bono work. Twelve served on the Syracuse Law Review or other journals, many participated in the Student Bar Association and other student organizations, and some started new student organizations.

“I’m extraordinarily proud of all our 2022 graduates, but I’m particularly pleased to see our inaugural JDi cohort earn their law degrees,” says Dean Craig Boise. “From across the country and around the world, they have studied with us year-round for more than three years, while balancing full-time work and family obligations. They are incredibly talented and motivated, and we’re honored to count them among our Syracuse Law alumni family.”

Consistent with the program’s goals of increasing access to legal education, the JDi graduates are a diverse group:

They hail from 25 different states, including Hawaii and Alaska, and have taken classes while living in multiple countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, and Japan.
Eleven are members of the military or military-affiliated, including high-ranking, retired veterans and spouses of active-duty military personnel based in Germany and New Mexico.
30% are students of color.
Their median age is 35.

“These students are the embodiment of the goal at the core of JDi: to expand access to legal education and the legal profession,” says Professor Shannon Gardner, Associate Dean for Online Education. “Without this program, this diverse group of talented, accomplished, and ambitious grads would not have been able to pursue their aspirations of becoming lawyers.”

“Designing JDi required us to rethink how we deliver education and gave us the opportunity to take the best of what we do in our residential program and translate it into the online space,” says Professor Nina Kohn, Faculty Director of Online Education, who led the design and launch of JDi. “We could not be prouder of these students for their achievements here. Their success shows that—with careful planning and an insistence on always putting student learning first—we can deliver a high-quality legal education to students no matter where they may be located.”

College of Law Adds Five New Board of Advisors Members

This year, the College of Law has appointed five new Board of Advisors members: Peter Carmen L’91; Prashanth (PJ) Jayachandran G’98 L’98; Terence Lau L’ 98; Benita Miller L’96, and David Wales L’95. These appointments reflect the heft of the College of Law’s alumni and underscore the College’s commitment to project on its board the diverse talent and leadership represented by its alumni community.

Peter Carmen

Chief Operating Officer, Oneida Indian Nation and its enterprises

Peter Carmen

In this role, Carmen works closely with Oneida Indian Nation leadership to oversee the daily operations and administration for Oneida Nation Enterprises LLC, which includes Turning Stone Resort Casino, YBR Casino & Sports Book, Point Place Casino, Oneida Innovations Group, The Lake House at Sylvan Beach, The Cove at Sylvan Beach, SavOn Stores, Maple Leaf Markets, The Preserve hunting grounds, Salmon Acres fishing lodge, five golf courses, three marinas, two spas, and dozens of restaurants. His role also includes oversight of Oneida’s administration, including Legal, Finance, IT, Human Resources, Governmental Affairs, Security, Marketing, and Supply Chain, and he works with the Oneida leadership in overseeing the Oneida Indian Nation Police Department.

Prashanth (PJ) Jayachandran

Prashanth (PJ) Jayachandran

Chief Supply Chain Counsel for Colgate-Palmolive Company

As lead counsel for the Global Supply Chain, Jayachandran oversees global commercial contracting, labor relations, and legal issues related to logistics, transportation, trade, manufacturing, and product distribution. Jayachandran also addresses key global policy issues related to human rights, environmental impact, and sustainability. In his prior roles for Colgate, Jayachandran served as Chief Human Resources and Benefits Counsel, and Division General Counsel for Colgate Asia.

Jayachandran serves as Distinguished Lecturer for the College of Law’s JDinteractive program, teaching a course related to corporate sustainability (“The Corporate Lawyer in a Sustainable World”).

Terence Lau

Dean, College of Business at California State University, Chico

For the past four years, Lau has been Dean of the College of Business at California State University, Chico. Previously, Lau held several senior academic leadership positions at the University of Dayton School of Business Administration, including as Executive Director of Academic and Corporate Relations, at the University of Dayton China Institute; Associate Dean of Undergraduate Program; Department Chair, Department of Management and Marketing; Director, International Business Program; and Professor of Business Law.

Lau was also a U.S. Supreme Court Fellow, assigned to the Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice, which aids the Chief Justice in his administrative, policy, and ceremonial responsibilities, among other tasks. Prior to his Fellowship, Lau was an attorney in Ford Motor Company’s International Practice Group

and served as director of Ford’s Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Governmental Affairs.

Benita Miller

Executive Director, Powerful Families Powerful Communities; and Executive on Loan, State of New Jersey Department of Children and Families

Miller is currently the Executive Director of Powerful Families Powerful Communities and an Executive on Loan to the State of New Jersey Department of Children and Families overseeing a five-year demonstration project created to re-imagine New Jersey’s child welfare system through a human-centered design process that leverages the voice of community members as co-designers. She previously served as the President and CEO of Children’s Aid and Family Services in New Jersey. Prior to her work in New Jersey, Miller served as the Executive Director of Brooklyn Kindergarten Society where she expanded the agency’s early childhood education footprint from five to seven centers as well as built the first sensory gym co-located in New York City Housing Authority development.

David Wales

Partner, Antitrust/Competition, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP’s Washington, D.C. office

Wales is recognized as a leading antitrust lawyer and has over 25 years of experience in both the private and public sectors. His practice focuses on providing antitrust advice to U.S. and international clients in a wide range of industries on all aspects of antitrust, including mergers and acquisitions, alliances, criminal grand jury investigations, dominant firm conduct, distribution arrangements, licensing, and competitor collaborations.

“The College of Law benefits greatly from our dynamic, engaged Advisors who provide essential guidance in support of our mission and our students,” says Dean Craig Boise. “Peter, PJ, Terence, Benita, and David bring varied backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences to our distinguished Board. I look forward to working with them closely as we continue to advance our mission and prepare our students for their careers in law.”

“Law schools must anticipate and respond to a rapidly changing legal profession, with innovative educational offerings and opportunities for students,” said Board of Advisors Chair Robert M. Hallenbeck L’83. “These four highly regarded lawyers and community leaders will help provide insight into the future of the profession that will ensure that the College of Law is well-positioned to meet the needs of our students and build a bench of influential and practice-ready Orange lawyers.”

The Cold Case Justice Initiative Announces the Second Annual Wharlest And Exerlena Jackson Legacy Project Interactive Program

The Wharlest and Exerlena Jackson Legacy Project and the College’s Cold Case Justice Initiative (CCJI) hosted the second annual Program on April 1 and 2, 2022 in honor of the memory of Wharlest and Exerlena Jackson for their major contributions and sacrifices to the cause of racial justice, civil rights, voting rights, and full civic engagement

This year’s program theme was: Honor Their Memories. Continue Their Legacy. The second annual program of the Wharlest and Exerlena Jackson Project was designed to recognize the sacrifices of the Jacksons for civil rights, to provide information and resources for students to achieve their aspirations and goals, and to continue the Jacksons’ legacy for racial and social justice.

The program featured a keynote presentation by Brad Lichtenstein and Yoruba Richen, directors of the PBS Frontline documentary, “American Reckoning,” about the lives of Wharlest and Exerlena Jackson, and the Black community’s resistance to racial injustice. There were remarks by Jackson family members, including Denise Jackson Ford and Wharlest Jackson, Jr., CCJI Director Professor Paula C. Johnson, and law students in the Cold Case Justice Initiative, among other presenters

IAPP, Syracuse Law Partner to Present Inaugural Kurt Wimmer L’85 IAPP Westin Scholar Award

The International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), the largest and most comprehensive global information privacy community and resource, is partnering with the College of Law to present the new annual Kurt Wimmer IAPP Westin Scholar Award in memory of Kurt Wimmer L’85, a longtime privacy professional and 1985 graduate of the College of Law who passed away earlier this year.

With the growing need for well-qualified privacy and data protection professionals, this award will support law students who consider a career in privacy and data protection. “Kurt Wimmer was an exceptional privacy leader and lawyer and has left an indelible mark in the field,” says J. Trevor Hughes, IAPP President and CEO. “We’re pleased to offer this award in Kurt’s memory at a time when developing privacy professionals is essential to the privacy industry, and we look forward to recognizing outstanding students and emerging lawyers with this honor.”

As a privacy and technology lawyer, Wimmer had a passion for working closely with clients including Facebook, Microsoft, Samsung, and other multinationals, in addition to non-traditional clients such as the National Football League and National Hockey League. He provided invaluable counsel in navigating constantly evolving challenges with acumen and alacrity. Most recently, he had served as Co-Chair of Covington & Burling’s global data privacy and cybersecurity practice in Washington, DC.

Congratulations to 3L Clifton L. Stacy III for being named the inaugural Kurt Wimmer IAPP Westin Scholar. Stacy will receive a $1000 stipend, free membership to the IAPP for two years, and the opportunity to pursue career-advancing certifications for privacy professionals through IAPP, free of charge.

SPL, CSET Publish Groundbreaking AI Framework for Judges

As artificial intelligence transforms the economy and American society, it will also transform the practice of law and the role of courts in regulating its use. What role should, will, or might judges play in addressing the use of AI? And relatedly, how will AI and machine learning impact judicial practice in federal and state courts?

To provide a framework for judges to address AI, the Institute for Security Policy and Law at Syracuse University and the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University have published the first-of-its-kind policy brief “AI for Judges.”

Law rarely, if ever, keeps pace with technology. The legislative and appellate processes simply do not move at the same pace as technological change and could not do so if they tried. Likewise, scholars and commentators are currently better at asking questions than answering them.

To access the report and more news on AI and the law, visit securitypolicylaw.syr.edu/our-work/law-policy- artificial-intelligence

Syracuse Law Offers AccessLex Institute’s Helix Bar Review to Students at No Charge

In a national first, the College of Law has partnered with legal education nonprofit AccessLex Institute to offer AccessLex’s interactive Helix Bar Review prep course free of charge to all Syracuse Law students.

Helix Bar Review is a state-of-the-art, comprehensive bar review program that offers students full access to the program during their third year of law school, up to 20 weeks before the bar exam. Early access is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Helix Bar Review, and it ensures that students with multiple responsibilities can start their review early and complete the entire course on the schedule they choose. Other bar preparation programs are not fully open until much later.

Helix Bar Review’s online, adaptive learning platform uses an integrated content approach, an active learning interface, personalized pathways, and flexible access options designed to adapt to individual learning styles and to help students efficiently use study time to confidently prepare for the bar exam.

While Helix Bar Review uses all the traditional components of a bar review course—such as substantive law outlines, practice questions, and flashcards—the program employs active learning and other methods that are based on the most up-to-date learning science and support long-term retention of knowledge. Learning methods include short videos, illustrations, checklists, and workshops called “Pass Classes.”

“Continuing our track record of innovation in legal education, I am thrilled that Syracuse Law is the first school to partner with AccessLex as they launch their new Helix Bar Review program. This groundbreaking program offers the tools and preparation our graduates need to efficiently and effectively prepare for the bar exam,” says Dean Craig Boise. “At Syracuse Law, we are laser-focused on student success at every step of the law school journey. This partnership will give our students a distinct edge in studying for the bar exam—setting them squarely on the path to career success—while reducing their debt by eliminating the need to finance a commercial bar prep course.”

“We are grateful, honored, and excited to be partnering with Syracuse Law in bringing Helix Bar Review to its students. At AccessLex, we have long said it is an accident of history that the bar exam preparation industry exists as it currently does, which makes this, potentially, a seminal moment in legal education,” says AccessLex President and Chief Executive Officer Christopher P. Chapman. “As the leader of a law school whose reputation for innovation and progressive action is well known, Dean Boise recognizes that the Helix approach to bar prep tracks with his strategic vision for student success. It is why we feel Syracuse Law is a perfect partner for the public launch of this game-changing endeavor.”

“We know there are law students who do not purchase a commercial bar prep program because of the cost implications,” says Kelly Curtis, Teaching Professor and Director of Academic and Bar Support at the College of Law. “The additional cost of bar prep should never be a barrier to a graduate’s success on the bar exam. With this partnership, we remove that barrier.”

Race and Justice in Central New York” Series Wins NYSBA Award

The New York State Bar Association Committee for Bar Leaders of NYS has announced that “The Bond, Schoeneck & King Series on Race and Justice in Central New York” is the 2021 winner of the NYSBA “Innovation Award” for medium-sized associations. The series—launched in the fall 2020—is a collaboration among the College of Law, Onondaga County Bar Association, Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC, and other community partners and CNY law firms. The series was created with the goal of helping people examine and better understand the structure of local and national legal systems and their impact on disparate outcomes for those in historically disenfranchised groups.

As Professor Paula Johnson, Director of the Cold Case Justice Initiative and a “Race and Justice in CNY” project coordinator, explained at the series launch, “The deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and other unarmed Black people and people of color at the hands of law enforcement compelled the Bar Association and the College of Law to respond in ways that involved, informed, and collaborated across our community.”

The inaugural event in the series was the “Racial Justice Community Book Read,” which discussed the memoir, Just Mercy, by Bryan Stevenson. Professor Johnson and Associate Dean of Equity and Inclusion Suzette Meléndez, a member of this collaborative, were two of the facilitators who led these book discussions, along with other community members. The Series also included a June 2021 discussion of “The State of Police Reform in Central New York,” a Facebook Live event moderated by Professor Johnson that convened officials from Syracuse-area towns and law enforcement organizations.

Brian J. Gerling L’99 Named Executive Director of Innovation Law Center

Syracuse University College of Law alumnus Brian Gerling L’99 is the new Executive Director of the Innovation Law Center (ILC). Gerling, who brings nearly two decades of intellectual property and commercial litigation experience to the role, takes the helm from M. Jack Rudnick L’73, who will remain engaged with the ILC as Senior Advisor.

Gerling most recently served the College of Law as an adjunct professor, teaching innovation law and technology law courses. In his new role, he will continue to teach as a member of the College of Law faculty. He also will retain his Of Counsel affiliation with Syracuse law firm Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC, where his practice focuses on IP, data privacy, emerging technology, and economic development.

Gerling serves on the Board of the Central New York International Business Alliance and on the Technology Council of the Manufacturers Association of Central New York, and he holds other ex officio board positions. In addition to his J.D., cum laude, from Syracuse University College of Law, Gerling holds a B.S. in Biology from the State University of New York at Binghamton.

As ILC Executive Director, Gerling oversees the center’s applied learning course—the Innovation Law Practicum—in which students from the College of Law and across Syracuse University gain practical skills and experience assisting companies with IP, regulatory, and market landscape research, as well as capital sourcing.

Gerling will work with Professor Shubha Ghosh and the Syracuse Intellectual Property Law Institute to administer the College’s Curricular Program in Technology Commercialization Law Studies. He also will direct the New York State Science and Technology Law Center (NYSSTLC), which is a grantee of the Empire State Development´s Division of Science, Technology, and Innovation (NYSTAR).

“As one of ILC’s brightest alums and biggest advocates—and a former student of its founder Ted Hagelin—Brian brings expertise and enthusiasm to the center. His deep and wide-ranging practice experience in IP law, and especially emerging technology, will enrich our students’ educational experiences,” says Dean Craig Boise. “I look forward to working with Brian to build on Jack Rudnick’s remarkable work expanding ILC and NYSSTLC so that our students continue to get real-world experience working with a wide variety of technology clients.”

Risks Lurk in Popular Retail Investment Products

June 1, 2022

Risks Lurk in Popular Retail Investment Products

As part of his ongoing scholarship, Professor A. Joseph Warburton examines investment products that are popular with the public. Warburton’s most recent research into two investment products finds that both contain risks that are not transparent to investors and come mainly in the form of embedded financial leverage or borrowed money that these investment products take on, putting investors’ money at risk.

In his Business Lawyer feature below, Warburton analyzes business development companies (BDCs), a type of investment company popular today among retail investors and retirees because of the high dividends BDCs pay. But because of leverage, BDCs incur more risk than the market benchmarks and significantly underperform once you account for that extra risk.

An earlier article in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies co-written with Michael Simkovic of the University of Southern California, shines a light on a surprising degree of borrowing activity by the everyday mutual funds

Business Development Companies: Venture Capital for Retail Investors | 76 Business Lawyer 69 (January 2021)

A BDC is a type of investment company that finances small and growing American businesses. After raising capital in public markets, BDCs then fund companies considered too small or risky by traditional lenders. Many BDCs are open to retail investors and offer an alternative to private venture capital firms that are often out of reach. Investors are attracted to BDCs because of their potential to pay out high income, but the rewards come with risks.

BDCs are favored by Congress, which excused these types of companies from key provisions of the regulations that govern other investment companies. BDCs are allowed, for example, to incur greater leverage through borrowed money. The more capital BDCs can obtain from investors, according to Congress, the more BDCs can finance small and growing enterprises, thereby promoting job creation and economic growth. BDCs have largely stepped into a role that banks have vacated, becoming an important component of the financial system for small and midsize businesses. While Congress has championed BDCs as a way for small and midsize businesses to obtain financing and grow, it has not analyzed hard evidence on how BDCs perform for the investing public, as this article does.

This article is the first academic study to examine the BDC comprehensively. Why has the literature overlooked BDCs? One reason is the complexity of the regulatory framework. Another reason is the lack of available data. Warburton’s research and findings address both obstacles.

Through his research, Warburton explores the history of BDCs and their purpose. He dissects the laws that govern BDCs – which are neither exempt from the Investment Company Act of 1940 nor fully regulated by it. In order to fulfill their mission of assisting emerging enterprises, BDCs are highly restricted in their investments and activities. The Investment Company Act requires that BDCs finance primarily private or small public companies, which restricts their assets to illiquid or thinly traded securities. To promote the growth of BDCs (and the growth of companies in which they invest), key provisions of the Act are applied to BDCs in a relaxed manner. The rules permit BDCs to engage more freely in leverage and related-party transactions than other investment companies.

Next, Warburton’s research shows an empirical analysis of BDCs using a unique dataset built from hand-collected information from BDC filings. The figure below displays the number of BDCs in existence, by year, for all BDCs and publicly traded BDCs, revealing that BDC formation has come in two major waves: 2004–06 and 2011–15.

Today, there are more than 50 BDCs that are exchange-traded and available to retail investors. In addition, dozens of BDCs are public but not exchange-traded, and others that are private.

Looking at the performance of publicly traded BDCs over a 21-year period, the research shows that BDCs live up to their reputation for high income, with the typical BDC yielding about 10%. Moreover, the total returns (stock returns plus dividends) of BDCs appear to match or beat the benchmark indices (high-yield bonds and leveraged loans). However, BDCs incur substantially greater risk than the benchmarks. BDCs are permitted to be highly leveraged, nearly all BDCs employ leverage, and their performance is highly volatile. On a risk-adjusted basis, the typical BDC significantly underperforms the benchmarks, trailing by four to six percentage points per year.

During the March 2020 market crash at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, shares of publicly traded BDCs declined by over three times as much as the benchmarks, on average.

The figure to the right shows the performance of $10,000 invested in an index of publicly traded BDCs during 2020, compared to the two market benchmarks (high-yield bonds and leveraged loans). The $10,000 investment in BDCs was worth $9,115 at the end of 2020, versus $10,711 if invested in high-yield bonds and $10,312 if invested in leveraged loans. BDCs were also more volatile over the year than the benchmarks, which themselves are among the riskiest parts of the fixed-income market.

Warburton advises retail investors and their financial advisors to consider the findings of this research before investing in publicly traded BDCs. Before adding a BDC to your portfolio, be sure to consider its track record and avoid BDCs with a history of negative risk-adjusted performance.

Mutual Fund Borrowing Poses Risk to Investors

Reprinted from the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation | A. Joseph Warburton and Michael Simkovic (University of Southern California), January 3, 2020

Millions of Americans rely on mutual fund investments to pay for their retirement, but mutual funds contain hidden, previously under-appreciated risks.

Warburton and Simkovic’s new study published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, “Mutual Fund Borrowing Poses Risks to Investors”, provides evidence that mutual funds borrow in an attempt to improve their performance. Those attempts not only fail to boost average returns, they also increase the volatility of returns, potentially creating serious problems for those who need to withdraw their money at a time when the market is down.

The Investment Company Act of 1940 permits mutual funds to have a capital structure that is up to one-third debt. Warburton and Simkovic’s paper is the first to study the performance of open-end funds that exploit their statutory borrowing authority.

Through their research, the team constructed a database using information contained in annual filings of open-end domestic equity funds covering 17 years from 2000 to 2016. They discovered that a surprising number of funds—18 percent— bulked up at some point by borrowing money for leverage. These borrowing funds underperform their non-borrowing peers by 62 basis points per year on a total return basis, while also incurring greater risk. After accounting for risk, borrowers underperform by 48 to 72 basis points annually. The research explains that funds often borrow in an unsuccessful effort to juice performance after having lagged in the mutual fund rankings.

Mutual funds that borrow are plain-vanilla mutual funds, not exotic investment vehicles often associated with leverage, such as alternative funds and levered index funds. By contrast, Warburton and Simkovic found that funds that use derivatives and other financial instruments perform about as well as unleveraged mutual funds, before and after adjusting for risk, and with less volatility. This suggests that many mutual funds use derivatives to hedge risk rather than as a substitute for leverage through the capital structure.

Concerned about leverage, regulators have recently been examining funds’ use of derivatives, but that focus may be too narrow as borrowing also presents a risk to investors. The SEC has recently proposed new rules on the use and reporting of derivatives by registered investment companies. According to their research, Warburton and Simkovic suggest that regulators would benefit from collecting further data on mutual fund borrowing, to provide greater transparency into mutual fund capital structure.

Conclusion

Professor Warburton advises individuals to investigate leverage before putting money into any investment product. Although this can require digging into the fund’s annual report, a phone call to the fund might be sufficient. The effort is worthwhile in the end. Funds that borrow money for leverage carry extra risk. He adds, “If you decide that you are ok with that extra risk, then be sure to consider the fund’s track record. Avoid funds with a history of negative risk-adjusted performance when using leverage.”

Law & Crypto: An Oxymoron?

June 1, 2022

In August, 2022, Syracuse University College of Law will offer an intensive, 2-credit course in Crypto & Digital Assets. Professor Jack Graves will formally serve as the course instructor but will make liberal use of cameos by a wide range of experts from both the private and public sectors, including SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce. This broad range of perspectives and expertise should be uniquely valuable in providing students with an appropriate analytical framework for taking on a variety of challenging legal issues arising in real time in this rapidly evolving area of commercial law.

This essay by Professor Graves delivers an overview of the course content and a brief survey of the dynamic concepts and features of cryptocurrency and digital assets and their implications.

An Introduction to Bitcoin as the Prototypical and Still Dominant Cryptocurrency

It all began with Bitcoin,1 a “peer-to-peer” version of electronic cash that would operate on a fully decentralized platform, without any need for intermediaries. Instead of relying on trusted intermediaries, the platform itself would supply the requisite trust by distributing copies of the public blockchain ledger to every node (individual computer) on this decentralized network. In effect, the digital chain of blocks on the ledger would function as the currency. This distributed public ledger would be made immutable (and therefore trusted) using cryptographic hashing functions. This would make it effectively impossible to change previous entries to the ledger without a majority of the CPU power of the nodes on the network participating (practically impossible and presumably against the interests of any majority as holders of a sizeable financial stake in the network).2

The idea of “law and crypto” is arguably oxymoronic at its core, as the early individuals who conceptualized, deployed, and nurtured the Bitcoin blockchain had little, if any, regard for any potentially applicable legal or regulatory structure. In fact, they were in large part motivated by dreams of creating an entirely autonomous, decentralized financial system that was independent of, and fully beyond the reach of, any government. Today, however, the newly emerging ecosystem of cryptocurrencies and digital assets has expanded far beyond that described by Satoshi Nakamoto in his famous 2009 white paper. While the Bitcoin protocol has largely remained true to its roots, as originally conceptualized, many of its digital offspring have significantly diverged in both concept and purpose. Virtually all, however, retain the basic idea, at least in principle, of employing digital blockchain technology to provide broader and more efficient accessibility to key elements of the global financial system.

Depending on what week it is, the total market capitalization of cryptocurrency and related digital assets is likely somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion US dollars (and reached closer to 3 trillion during late 2021). Somewhat over half of this total is, at any given time, represented by the two most popular cryptocurrencies—Bitcoin (the original) and Ether (or ETH), the coin of the Ethereum network, which tends to be used in a broader range of decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms beyond simple cryptocurrency trading. Of these two, Bitcoin’s market capitalization is a little more than double that of ETH, though the importance of ETH to DeFi broadly is particularly significant. ETH is also important for its efforts to change the way its blockchain is secured, as more fully addressed later in this essay.

Perhaps it shouldn’t surprise us that Bitcoin and its progeny have developed in somewhat of a legal vacuum. After all, the original Bitcoin idea arguably had deep anti-government (or at least a lack of trust in government) libertarian roots, and its market capitalization was relatively insignificant until about five years ago, only really taking off in the past couple of years. As such, we are presented today with a unique opportunity to examine the development and application of a new and evolving field of law. What follows is a very brief (in the limited space available) survey of some of the major issues.

A Few Key Concepts and Definitions

We should first set out key concepts and definitions. The value of a Bitcoin is entirely a product of market forces. With no obvious objective value, it is determined solely by supply (which is growing but ultimately limited) and demand (in effect, whatever the market is willing to pay). When first introduced by Nakamoto, it was worth nothing in the absence of the first buyer. Since then, however, the value has risen generally and fluctuated significantly over time, with a high in excess of $65,000 per Bitcoin in late 2021 and a current price as of this writing of about $30,000. To date, Bitcoin has shown a tendency to fluctuate in value over time to an extent much greater than most traditional currencies.

“Altcoins” are cryptocurrencies with floating values other than Bitcoin. These include ETH and a few dozen other coins with significant market caps, as well as hundreds of less financially significant altcoins. In contrast to Bitcoin and Altcoins, “Stablecoins” are pegged to a specific currency (such as the US dollar). Stablecoins are not typically intended as investments themselves (as they should not vary in value) but are instead typically used to facilitate transactions in Bitcoin or Altcoins by removing price uncertainties from one side of the transaction. Perhaps the ultimate stablecoin is one issued by a national central bank.

Digital assets also include what are called non-fungible tokens, or “NFTs” (unlike “fungible” currencies, each NFT is unique). The potential use of NFTs to represent specific property interests is arguably limitless, but we’ll address a few examples a little later below. With these basic concepts in hand, we now turn to some of the legal issues presented.

Anonymity

From the outset, one of the key features of cryptocurrency has been the anonymity of its owner (much like physical cash). Such ownership is reflected in the public blockchain ledger by a public cryptographic key visible to anyone. However, a corresponding private key is necessary to access and transfer ownership of the cryptocurrency at issue. The visible public key itself provides no information linking it to the holder of the private key (as a practical matter, the owner). For example, the original Bitcoin mined by Nakamoto is identifiable in the earliest blocks of the Bitcoin chain. However, this public information provides no help in identifying the real Nakamoto, as these blocks remain untouched today (leaving many to wonder if Nakamoto is still alive, has lost the private key, or simply has chosen, at least to date, not to try to cash in on a rather sizeable fortune).

This feature made Bitcoin particularly attractive for illegal activity in which the anonymity of a sender or receiver of funds was crucial. Perhaps the most famous was the modern-day version of “Silk Road,” which operated on the dark net during the early Bitcoin years. Ransomware attacks also frequently demanded payment in Bitcoin based on its perceived lack of traceability.

Many anonymous users of crypto are ultimately identified when they attempt to transfer or exchange anonymous cryptocurrency for other assets where the owner is identifiable on the other side of the transaction (much as the holder of “dirty” cash may be identified when attempting to deposit it into a bank account). The U.S. Department of Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has been active in recent years in seeking to apply Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) laws to cryptocurrency transactions, with at least some degree of success.

FinCEN’s effectiveness has been challenged in at least two ways—one jurisdictional and one practical. Many cryptocurrency exchanges operate outside of the U.S. or operate only smaller more limited subsidiaries within the U.S., specifically to avoid U.S. regulation. Moreover, cryptocurrencies do not necessarily require institutional exchanges, as individuals can engage in transactions on the blockchain directly with “hard” wallets, or hardware that directly accesses the public blockchain ledger (the original anonymous means envisioned by Nakamoto). Regulatory oversight of these sorts of transactions is far more difficult until and unless the cryptocurrency is exchanged for assets through some sort of institution subject to AML or KYC rules. While institutional exchanges unquestionably facilitate the work of FinCEN, they also raise a variety of additional issues.

Cryptocurrency Exchanges

While the original developers of Bitcoin had no need for institutional “exchanges,” most subsequent investors in Bitcoin were far more comfortable buying and selling coins through a trusted intermediary. Unfortunately, the first such major exchange, Mt. Gox, rather spectacularly failed in 2014, through some combination of theft, fraud, and/or mismanagement, highlighting at this very early stage the potential risks associated with third-party intermediaries in transferring and custodying digital assets.

In the U.S., these exchanges are potentially subject to the full range of securities laws, as broker-dealers of securities governed by the 1933 Securities Act and 1934 Exchange Act, as well as the 1940 Investment Company Act and Investment Advisors Act. However, cryptocurrency exchanges also raise additional issues. While a traditional securities trading institution is required to segregate client shares, thereby protecting them from claims by creditors of the institution, a cryptocurrency exchange does not do so. As a result, if an institutional exchange fails, its customers are essentially treated just like general creditors in bankruptcy. In effect, a typical cryptocurrency exchange is in some ways more like a bank than a stockbroker—but unlike a bank, the customer’s assets are not federally insured.

Today’s crypto investor can choose from a variety of exchanges, most of which have come a long way since the days of the Mt. Gox fiasco. Nevertheless, the means and methods for regulating cryptocurrency exchanges appear very much in their infancy and will undoubtedly evolve along with broader regulatory issues, including one of the most fundamental questions—is cryptocurrency a security?

Is Cryptocurrency a Security?

As originally envisioned, Bitcoin was arguably intended as a form of electronic currency—first and foremost intended as a form of payment or medium of exchange. Over time, however, Bitcoin has gained little traction in this respect (outside of its use in illicit transactions), at least in part because of its continuing fluctuation in value. While a variety of altcoins are specifically linked to transactional uses in an associated digital ecosystem, most buyers and sellers of Bitcoin today are almost certainly engaged in investment activities with a reasonable expectation of profit, thereby likely satisfying at least two out of three elements of the traditional Howey test used to identify a security. The more difficult question, at least as applied to Bitcoin and ETH (the cryptocurrency used on the Ethereum blockchain), is whether they meet the third element—in effect, whether such reasonably expected profits will arise “solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.”

To understand this issue better, we need to consider the nature of a “decentralized” blockchain. Rather than sitting on a centralized server, the public blockchain ledger sits on thousands of individual computer nodes within a broad network. Everyone is responsible for it, but no one owns it. So, who is responsible for generating expected investment profits on a truly decentralized blockchain?

Everyone? No one? And how should we apply the third element of Howey in this context? This is but one of the challenging questions presented in determining whether, how, or when to treat cryptocurrencies as securities—a subject on which there is a broad range of views within the SEC itself.

While Bitcoin and ETH arguably continue to adhere to the original decentralized model, many altcoins and other digital assets do not. Instead, they involve some sort of initial or ongoing promoter, whose efforts at least arguably drive any expected investment profits. In one of the earliest published opinions on the issue, the SEC found “The DAO,” an unincorporated organization, to have offered a security when selling DAO Tokens to its investors. Put simply, a generic “decentralized autonomous organization,” or DAO, is an organizational entity that functions entirely on a blockchain.4 This specific DAO (“The DAO”) was organized by a German corporation to run on the Ethereum blockchain, with investors spending ETH to purchase DAO Tokens. In this specific context, the SEC published a detailed report in which it had little difficulty finding DAO tokens to be securities based on reliance by investors on the efforts of the promoter and third parties to meet their profit expectations, thereby satisfying all three elements of the Howey test.5

Should any cryptocurrency that is not fully decentralized be deemed a security? Should a cryptocurrency be deemed a security even if it is fully decentralized? These are questions without clear and consistent answers from the SEC today (though we certainly have some thoughts from various Commissioners). Moreover, the idea of decentralization, in its purest sense, raises some additional interesting questions.

Other Issues with Decentralization

The above-discussed SEC DAO report addressed an event that is better known by many as the “DAO hack.” Once The DAO had been fully funded (with ETH valued at about $10 million), an unknown “attacker” managed to divert $3.6 million worth of this ETH to a blockchain address controlled by the attacker. Because of the way The DAO was structured, however, these funds could not be moved on from this new address for 27 days. In deciding what to do about this “hack,” the Ethereum blockchain faced a fundamental question. One of the most basic concepts underlying Bitcoin and its progeny was the idea that transactions on the blockchain were to be immutable and non-reversible. In effect, the code was to be law. Should the decentralized Ethereum blockchain violate this basic principle and essentially wipe clean the blocks containing the attack, thereby returning the blockchain to its pre-attack state? Ultimately, the majority of nodes on the network (remember, with decentralization, the majority at any given time rules absolutely) decided to wipe out all the blocks funding the DAO, thereby eliminating the effect of the attack and returning the ETH spent to the investors. However, the issue was sufficiently contentious to result in what is called a “hard fork,” effectively splitting the previously single chain into two independent forks— today called Ethereum or ETH (the majority) and Ethereum Classic or ETC (a minority adhering to basic principles and keeping the immutable original chain intact).

While the Ethereum hard fork is now ancient history in crypto terms, the issue is very much alive today in an arguably even more extreme form. When dealing with a blockchain, should the chain in fact be “irreversible,” as initially recognized by a majority of nodes on the decentralized network? If not, who, if anyone, should have the right to reverse a transaction, thereby arguably depriving someone with rights reflected in the blockchain, without due process? The decentralized Juno blockchain community recently voted to deprive a very large user of tokens (worth millions of dollars) that the community believed the user should not have received but had been conveyed to the user based on the blockchain code, as written. Should code be law as to the blockchain record? If not, should a majority be allowed to rewrite the record without due process? And if a community member is deprived of property, who is legally liable?

In theory, a decentralized autonomous organization (a DAO, here used generically) is an unincorporated organization. To the extent the purpose of the DAO is in some fashion to make and share profits, this likely means the DAO is a general partnership under most U.S. state law—a result with which most DAO members would likely be quite unhappy upon realizing the extent of their individual liability. In fact, most DAO members likely assume their unincorporated autonomous organization operates beyond state laws governing entity formation. Again, the law is just beginning to grapple with the issue. Vermont and Wyoming have each enacted legislation allowing a DAO to register as an LLC, which could help address a variety of the existing challenges. However, many DAO’s remain unregistered, and most states have yet to address the issue.

Is Cryptocurrency a Commodity— In Effect, Digital Gold?

Many within the trade have argued that cryptocurrency should be regulated as a commodity, rather than a security, analogizing it to “digital gold.” In fact, the analogies to gold, as a stable store of value and hedge against the inflation-driven devaluation of fiat currencies can be traced to Bitcoin’s earliest days. While attractive on its face, the approach is not without challenges.

The Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulates the sale of commodity futures (derivatives of the commodities themselves), rather than current sales of commodities. As such, the CFTC would provide little, if any, regulatory oversight with respect to current sales of cryptocurrency. Of course, this may be part of the attraction for the crypto trade, as market regulation would be far more limited under the CFTC than the SEC. However, there are also practical conceptual challenges in analogizing cryptocurrency to digital gold.

To date, the values of Bitcoin, specifically, and cryptocurrencies, generally, have behaved very little like gold or silver, often thought of as stable stores of value. Whatever one may think of the value of a cryptocurrency—and these views range from worthless to almost infinite—market values have demonstrated extraordinary fluctuation and have tended, generally, to track the most speculative of traditional equity investments, thereby lending little if any stability to the broader financial market. The “digital gold” concept also raises additional issues related to its mining.

Mining as the Basis for Crypto Security and Its Environmental Achilles Heel

While Bitcoin remains the most significant cryptocurrency, by far, it arguably has a serious problem with its basic security mechanism—mining. New blocks are added to the blockchain containing new transactions (about 1 block every 10 minutes on the Bitcoin blockchain) when a digital miner solves a very difficult iterative math problem (it gets harder as miners’ computers get faster). Once solved, published, and accepted by a majority of the network, the blockchain record is essentially immutable, and the miner is rewarded with Bitcoins (the basic model is very much driven by libertarian financial incentives). However, because the financial incentives motivate the use of more and faster computer power in the quest for new coins, and the iterative math problem gets harder as the computers trying to solve it get faster, the Bitcoin carbon footprint is enormous and will keep growing indefinitely.

China has banned cryptocurrency, at least in part due to the mining issue, and many other countries have expressed concerns over its growing environmental impact. As a result, numerous new altcoins have moved from using “proof of work,” or PoW (the original Bitcoin mining concept) to “proof of stake,” or PoS (an alternative means of securing the content of the blockchain that uses far less energy). While Bitcoin and the Ethereum chain still rely on PoW, the Ethereum chain is attempting to move to PoS, but the success of this move remains unclear at this time. There is no indication to date of any intent to modify the Bitcoin blockchain to move it away from the original PoW model.

Stablecoins That Are Not

So far, we’ve largely focused on Bitcoin and altcoins that also fluctuate in value (arguably making them better potential candidates for investment than for payment mechanisms). Stablecoins are fundamentally different in that they are primarily intended as a means of exchange to facilitate payment. For this purpose, fluctuations in value are generally detrimental, so stablecoins are “pegged” to a fiat, or government-issued, currency, such as the US dollar. Of course, a stablecoin could be issued directly by a national government.

While China has banned private cryptocurrencies, it was one of the first countries to institute a national digital currency (a Central Bank Digital Currency, or CBDC) with the adoption of the “digital yuan.” The U.S. government has also suggested, in various statements and official publications, the potential for a government-issued CBDC. Potential options for use of a U.S.- issued CBDC might include large wholesale (e.g., central bank) transactions, retail (e.g., business-to-consumer) transactions, or both. In any event, a government-issued CBDC would be supported in much the same manner as any other government-issued fiat currency.

Privately issued stablecoins present additional opportunities and additional potential risks. In the absence of any current U.S.-issued CBDC, multiple private stablecoins have been issued and pegged to the US dollar. In theory, each of these is supported by sufficient assets (often including some combination of crypto and government currencies) to maintain the value of the currency at $1 U.S. per coin. While a handful of coins have emerged with sufficient market capitalization to be useful in fulfilling the role of a stable medium of exchanging more volatile digital assets, regulators have expressed concerns over the stability of the coins in the event of significant market stress. Indeed, we recently witnessed the spectacular crash of one of these preeminent stablecoins, the TerraUSD.

The stress of broader financial market downturns in May 2022 caused the TerraUSD to lose its peg (fall below $1 U.S.), which quickly led to a digital version of an old-fashioned bank run in the days before federal deposit insurance. Once started, confidence fell into an ever-accelerating death spiral until the TerraUSD stablecoin and its associated Luna altcoin (intended, at least in part, to provide support for the stablecoin) were essentially worthless.

Stablecoins undoubtedly fulfill a key transactional role as a digital means of payment or exchange, and there may be roles for both public and privately issued coins. However, the TerraUSD collapse provides an obvious example of the need for some sort of regulation in this area if stablecoins are to fulfill their intended transactional roles.

Non-fungible tokens are fundamentally different from coins, which are essentially fungible. One Bitcoin or ETH is functionally equivalent to another. In contrast, each NFT is, at least in theory, unique. An obvious example is digital art, where a single specific NFT controls ownership of a single specific piece of digital art. This raises some obvious legal questions as to the law governing such personal property. Should the law treat digital art like tangible physical works of art, or should we solely apply intellectual property rules? And what about digital real estate in virtual realities beyond the physical one?

Yuga Labs, the entity behind the Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT, recently engaged in a sizeable sale of “Otherside” (a virtual space in the Metaverse) property, offering virtual deeds in Otherside in exchange for Ape Coins (an altcoin minted by Yuga Labs).7 While these transactions focused on the virtual metaverse, the value of digital assets exchanged was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Are deeds to virtual land in Otherside governed solely by code on the relevant blockchain, or does traditional real property law have a role to play in the metaverse? Or do we need to take entirely new and different approaches to apply law to the virtual world?

Responsible Development of Digital Assets

As the reader will likely note, it is challenging to capture even a brief overview of “the Law and Crypto” in a short piece like this, and there is an increasingly urgent need to begin to address the issues raised

in this survey, and many more. Earlier this year, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets,8 essentially encouraging regulators and market participants to work together in a manner both encourages innovation and protects consumers. Achieving both will be no small order, but acknowledging the need is undoubtedly a significant step in the right direction.

SEC Chair Gary Gensler has characterized the current transactional environment involving digital assets as akin to “the Wild West,” which is likely true to a large extent. Others have suggested that perhaps this Wild West environment is helpful in promoting innovation. At the end of the day, however, even the Wild West was largely tamed over time, and the shape of the process of understanding and regulating digital assets while simultaneously promoting responsible innovation will undoubtedly be an interesting one for those of us in its midst. ■

1. While Bitcoin itself borrowed from a variety of earlier ideas, the first version of what we now think of as cryptocurrency initially appeared in a white paper published in 2009 by Satoshi Nakamoto (a pseudonym—the real author or authors remain anonymous). See Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, at https://bitcoin.org/ bitcoin.pdf.

2. A detailed explanation of the blockchain technology upon which Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are built is beyond the scope of this article. However, an excellent video explanation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4&t=2s.

3 SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 US 293 (1946).

4 The use of various DAOs, generally, is quite common, for example, in association with the Ethereum blockchain.

5 For a fuller explanation, see Securities and Exchange Commission, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Release No. 81207 / July 2017, Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO. Available at: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf.

6 The blockchain code had functioned as written but had been flawed, and this flaw was exploited by the attacker.

7 See https://cryptobriefing.com/yuga-labs-otherside-nft-sales-break-310m/.

8 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/03/09/executive-order-on-ensuring-responsible-development-of-digital-assets/

Syracuse University College of Law Adds Terence Lau L’98 to its Board of Advisors

May 31, 2022

(Syracuse, NY | May 31, 2022) Syracuse University College of Law has added Dean of the College of Business at California State University, Chico, Terence Lau L’98 to its Board of Advisors, effective September 1, 2022. Lau has extensive experience as a lawyer and as a higher education leader, both domestically and internationally.

“Terence brings a unique, critical set of experiences to the College, as legal education continues to evolve at a rapid pace. His industry experience and his decades-long track record as a leader in higher education, particularly at the intersection of business and law, will certainly enrich our programs and practices,” says Dean Craig M. Boise. “By coming back to his alma mater as a member of our Board, Terence will help shape how we continue on our path to creating best-in-class 21st-century legal education.”

“On behalf of the Board of Advisors, I welcome Terence to our group and am looking forward to working with him on furthering educational excellence at the College,” says Board of Advisors Chair Robert M. Hallenbeck L’83. “His understanding of the challenges in higher education will greatly benefit the Board and College.”

“I am excited to give back to Syracuse Law, where I started my legal and academic career. The law school played an integral role in all facets of my professional life, and I believe what I’ve learned and experienced in academia will directly benefit the College,” says Lau. “Higher education continues to face myriad challenges that demand focus, creativity, and forward-looking solutions. I hope my involvement on the Board will help the College of Law meet those challenges.”

Lau is the long-time editor of the American Business Law Journal and has written extensively on international business law topics in several law journals.

Lau received a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Wright State University in 1995 and his J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law in 1998.

Disability Law Fellow Nana Gochiashvili LL.M. ’22 Awarded Fellowship at Jindal Global Law School in Delhi, India

May 24, 2022

Nana Gochiashvili LL.M. ’22, Disability Law Fellow from the country of Georgia, was recently awarded a one-year fellowship at Jindal Global University, located in Delhi, India. Gochiashvili will serve as an Assistant Professor and Assistant Dean of International Internships at the Jindal Global Law School (JGLS) of O.P. Jindal Global University. This is a competitive position and prestigious fellowship, with an application process open to interested candidates from all over the world.

Beginning in July of 2022, Gochiashvili will begin her fellowship by teaching, conducting research, and overseeing and monitoring the planning, development, and implementation of new courses in disability law. She will also conduct independent research, participate in workshops, and present public lectures. Content for her courses will be based on content from disability law classes taught by Professor Arlene Kanter, Faculty Director of International Programs, which Gochiashvili participated in during her 2021-22 LLM year.

Continuing her work in disability law, Gochiashvili will join Kanter on June 14-16 as one of five students to attend the Conference of States Parties Meeting on the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities at the United Nations.

The College of Law mourns the passing of José Bahamonde-González L’92

May 23, 2022

“José lived his life with purpose, and he engaged in his profession with genuine intentionality to serve and advance the interests of justice for all people especially those whose voices were not heard within our legal systems. His legacy is one that should be emulated by everyone, and it will continue to serve as an example for students to whom he dedicated so much of life, passion, and energy,” Suzette Meléndez, Associate Dean for Equity and Inclusion

Bahamonde-González L’92 was the recipient of the 2020 College of Law Latin American Law Students Association Legacy Award.

Alexis Telga L’23 Named as Student Representative to the Board of Trustees

May 17, 2022

Alexis Telga L’23, a third-year law student in the College of Law, has been named as the law student representative to the Board of Trustees.

Among other students named to the Board from the Whitman School of Management, the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, and the College of Arts and Sciences, Telga will serve as a representative of the campus community and share diverse perspectives and insights with the Board and its various committees. She will also serve as a vital voice in helping the University implement strategic objectives in support of its mission and vision.

Telga is joined by academic dean representative Craig Boise, dean of the College of Law, as a representative to the Board of Trustees for the 2022-23 academic year.

College of Law Holds Commencement for Class of 2022

May 17, 2022

Students at the 2022 Commencement Ceremony

On Friday, May 6, Syracuse University College of Law held Commencement for its 199 J.D. and 33 LL.M. graduates. The event, the first in-person Commencement since 2019, featured the first cohort of graduating online J.D. students. Luke Cooper L’01 CEO of Latimer Ventures, Partner at Preface Ventures, and 2022 Visiting Scholar at the University of Maryland Baltimore was the Commencement speaker.

Syracuse University Chancellor Kent Syverud provided remarks and introduced the Hon. Theodore A. McKee L’75 Endowed Law Scholarship, thanks to the generosity of Board of Advisors Member Richard M. Alexander L’82, Chairman of Arnold & Porter, and his wife Emily. The scholarship will provide Syracuse Law students with the education and cultural context to enable them to carry forward the legacy of Judge McKee, who has served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for 27 years.

Professor Todd Berger was voted by the J.D. Class of 2022 as the recipient of the Res Ipsa Loquitur Award, given to a faculty member for “service, scholarship, and stewardship” to the students. Professor Richard Risman was voted by the LL.M. Class of 2022 as the recipient of the Lucet Lex Mundum Award, given to a professor who has made a significant impact on the successes and the experiences of the LL.M. students during their studies.

Class of 2022 President Gabriella Kielbasinski remarked, “Class of 2022, we have struggled, and studied, and sacrificed for that idea of a career that we now get to pursue. We have lived through some historic, and sometimes exhausting moments, and while today is a great triumph, I also know that some of us feel like we just need a second to catch our breaths, but I have high hopes for our futures. Because, yes, these have been unprecedented times, but I believe that unprecedented times can only create unprecedented lawyers.”

LL.M. Student Bar Association Representative Sindy Perez Ospino said, “To my fellow LLM classmates, I want to acknowledge the unique challenges that we as international students sometimes face. But, in a year rocked by invasions, coups, human rights violations, and a pandemic, we must remember that we have to be resilient and continue fighting for our dreams, to speak up, and not give up. Thank you, LL.M. students, for showing me the meaning of kindness, resilience, and brotherhood. “

Hannah Gavin L’23 Awarded the Office of Veteran and Military Affairs Family Member Scholarship

May 11, 2022

Hannah Gavin L’23 has been awarded the Office of Veteran and Military Affairs Family Member Scholarship by the Office of Veterans and Military Affairs (OVMA). Part of Syracuse’s commitment to being the best home for veterans and their families, these awards provide impactful financial assistance to military-connected students.

Gavin’s father, a veteran, attended Syracuse University to pursue a degree in education. The experiences he shared with Hannah inspired her to follow in his footsteps at the University, with the goal of pursuing a law degree. Gavin, a second-year student in the College of Law, has dreamt of being a lawyer since she was a young child and hopes to one day become a family law attorney to support families across the country and the world.

“I hope to pursue a career in a public interest firm providing legal support to those unable to afford private counsel,” she says.

This scholarship will allow Gavin to participate in internships this summer and next year to pursue that career.

First Generation Law Student Association (FGLSA) Provides Support to Students

May 11, 2022

2L Erica Glastetter created the First Generation Law Students Association in the fall of 2021, connecting with her other first-generation classmates to develop a network of mentors and prepare for the demands of the law school experience. As reported by the Daily Orange, FGLSA collaborates with the admissions office at the College of Law to connect with applicants who identify as first-generation law students. Around 60 mentors and mentees participated in the program this year, including 2L Caroline Synakowski, FGLSA’s treasurer.

“Imposter syndrome is a very real issue for law students and especially first-generation law students,” Synakowski said. “Knowing that I am surrounded by people with similar backgrounds and life experiences is a truly encouraging thing to have.”

FGLSA works with the College of Law’s JDinteractive program, along with similar groups at schools like Yale University and Seton Hall University. Voted the 2021-22 Student Organization of the Year by the Student Bar Association, the group is growing in both size and reach, recently announcing a new scholarship that will help pay for an SU first-generation law student’s education.

“We just formed this built-in support system,” Glastetter said. “If you’re struggling with something, we’re there to give you advice or tell you what not to do, because we learned the hard way by doing it ourselves.”