By Professor Jeffery Atik

Neil Irwin's The Alchemists delivers on its promise: the book is a central banker's view of the 2007/2008 Financial Crisis and the more recent (and related) Euro Crisis. Only the subtitle disappoints: The Alchemists isn't quite the story of the three central bankers depicted on its cover (Bernanke, Trichet and Mervyn King). Rather, The Alchemists offers a thorough treatment of Bernanke's crisis-plagued tenure at the Fed and insightful coverage of the ECB's Trichet - until Trichet morphs into Mario Draghi just in time for the worst of the Euro Crisis. Plus the odd bit of Bank of England's Mervyn King thrown in for comic relief. No doubt Irwin's project was inspired by Liaquat Ahamed's Lords of Finance, winner of the 2010 Pulitzer Prize, which treats four central bankers (their philosophies and their quirks) from the 1920s: the UK's Montague Norman, France's Emile Moreau, Germany's Hjalmar Schacht and the Fed's Benjamin Strong. Now these were central bankers: they dominated the monetary policies of their day.

Our contemporary central bankers lack some of the color of their predecessors (save Mervyn King, who is pretty darn colorful). Moreover, their field of action is much more circumscribed. They can be checked by other personalities within their respective institutions, by intimidating political leaders, and by uncooperative markets. These bankers do manage, at least in this account, to largely have their way in responding to the crises, through will and manipulation, and by playing on the palpable belief that no one else has any better idea of what to do.

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This post originally appeared on KCET's website.

Is candidate centered campaign fundraising a thing of the past?

Greetings, and welcome to the Super PAC era. Thanks in part to the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United, we now have new entities called "Super PACs," which are organizations that can raise and spend unlimited political funds.

Contributions given directly to candidates are unlimited, but again, contributions to outside groups such as Super PACs are not. Therefore, as many predicted, individuals and entities who wish to support candidates but have given up to the legal limit, now have a new outlet for their campaign donations. This pattern, however, is nothing new. Before there were Super PACs big donors gave to political parties or other outside organizations like independent expenditure groups.

Campaign fundraising by candidates is increasingly being marginalized and fundraising by independent groups including Super PACs is coming to the forefront. We are seeing this phenomenon play out real time in the Los Angeles mayoral race where the contribution limit to candidates is $1,300 both in the primary and the runoff elections. While fundraising by candidates is still outpacing fundraising by Super PACs in the mayoral race, at some point in the near future that could change. In this election both candidates have raised approximately $5.7 million and independent groups have raised roughly $4.7 million for Greuel and $1.3 million for Garcetti. That means about one-third of the money raised in the mayor campaign has been raised by outside organizations. Again, the lion's share has gone to groups supporting Greuel.

By Professor Jeffery Atik

The Federal Reserve's Dan Tarullo has been a key player in post-Crisis U.S. bank reform and in the negotiation of Basel III, the set of international banking rules that guides regulation in major financial centers. In a speech made last Friday (May 3, 2013) Tarullo expressed some satisfaction with the U.S. and Basel III reforms -- and identified a risk needing further regulatory attention: runs on short-term wholesale funding.

Short-term funding has always constituted a vulnerability to the banking system. The traditional magic of banking involves the transformation of maturities -- banks borrow on a short-term basis and lend for the medium- or long-term. In ordinary times this works out splendidly -- as the short-term rates banks pay tend to be lower (over the long term) than the long-term rates they earn. And in ordinary times, short term funding is quite stable.

The dominant form of short-term funding was traditionally bank deposits. Deposits are essentially loans made to a bank by its depositors. Deposits are legally short-term, but practically rest in the hands of banks for substantial periods. Short-term funding becomes problematic, of course, when depositors systematically demand repayment: this is the old-style bank run. Post-Depression era deposit insurance has largely eliminated bank runs, at least in the United States, and so the ordinary insured bank deposit is (from the perspective of the bank) a trusty source of short-term funding.

By Professor Jeffery Atik

In this collection of essays, Arjun Appadurai links his role as leading globalization scholar to his practice as activist on behalf of the slum dwellers in his native city of Mumbai (or Bombay, the abandoned name Appadurai seems to prefer). Appadurai redeploys globalization theory (and more generally modernization theory, of which globalization is a part) as an ethical practice. He calls for cultivating the capacity to aspire among the world's poor -- an unabashedly cultural project with political and developmental implications. Appadurai argues that the poor must be enabled to aspire -- these aspirations will, in turn, define new and different trajectories from those promised by the passé globalist.

Globalization has failed in its predictions -- and so has failed as science. Globalization, it was thought, would lead to convergence and homogenization, more democracy and tolerance and less nationalism and violence. Yet the world we now see displays strong (and growing stronger) national states and continued developmental disparities. Those enabled by knowledge migrate; their home countries capture disappointing returns from their educational investments. New digital capacities have been harnessed by jealous ethnic groups to reinforce local identities; they can encourage aggression and conflict.

By Patrick Kelly, Guest Alumni Blogger

Regarding the crisis in the courts that I discussed in my previous blog post, I have been asked "What is the Bar doing about it?" The answer is: The Bar as an agency of the government can only take limited action; however, it is strongly supporting the work of the Bench-Bar Coalition and the Open Courts Coalition that exist for the sole purpose of keeping the courts open for the public through increased funding. I am on the steering committee of the latter group, chaired by Paul Kiesel and Naill McCarthy, and we are working together to facilitate budget discussions between the various departments of the court.

More importantly, we have been regularly meeting with court officials, representatives of the executive branch and legislators. For example, on March 11, both the BBC and the OCC traveled to Sacramento to meet with legislators and support the court by attending the Chief Justice's State of the Court address. I personally met with many legislators, including the chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, to underscore the crisis and secure full funding for our courts. I am pleased to say that everyone with whom we met understands the importance of the issue to their constituents and agrees we are at risk of losing many of the benefits of our justice system. To a person they support increased funding for the courts.

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

This op-ed originally appeared in the April 24, 2013 edition of the Daily Journal.

Last week's episode of the popular TV show "Glee" dealt with the issue of gun violence. At the high school where the show is set, two random gun shots are fired. Terrified, everyone shelters in place until the SWAT team gives the all clear. Police search for the culprit. Later, it is revealed that the shots were inadvertently fired by Becky, a character with Down's syndrome. Scared and frustrated that her high school experience was ending, and facing what she believed to be an uncertain future, she decided to bring a gun to school.

"Glee" has received praise and awards for how it contributes to society's understanding of people with disabilities. One of the main characters on "Glee," Artie, uses a wheelchair (although the actor who plays Artie does not). The show has gracefully managed the line between highlighting how thoughtless socially constructed barriers can make Arnie's life difficult, but for the most part, he is just one of the gang going through what all the characters go through: falling in love, deciding what he wants to be, and always singing and dancing. Similarly, having Becky, a character (and actor) with Down's syndrome, allows an exploration of the sometimes stigmatizing ways in which people perceive her, while also allowing her to be a high school student trying to find her way in life. The show does not revolve around these disabilities, but neither does it ignore them.

For many viewers, "Glee" has helped shape perceptions of what it would be like to have a world where people with disabilities are in the mainstream. Culture has power - for too long, the only depictions of people with disabilities in TV, movies, and books were as villains (think Captain Hook or Captain Ahab) or as helpless and childish (think Tiny Tim). "Glee" does much better than that. For other viewers, especially the younger generation, "Glee" is just a reflection of what their world already looks like, where civil rights laws have required the inclusion of students with disabilities into mainstream life to the greatest extent possible. Among other laws, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act remedied the traditional exclusion of students with disabilities from schools, and the Americans with Disabilities Act has helped improve accessibility of public spaces. When I am teaching my law students about these laws, many of them have grown up with people who use wheelchairs or developmental disabilities in their schools and lives. But for those that have not, often times the characters on "Glee" serve as their proxies for people with these disabilities.

By Associate Visiting Clinical Professor Lara Bazelon

In the Supreme Court case of Metrish v. Lancaster, the state appeals the finding of the Sixth Circuit's grant of habeas relief to Burt Lancaster (no relation to the actor), who was twice tried and found guilty for the murder of his girlfriend. In the first trial, Lancaster raised both insanity and diminished capacity defenses. The jury rejected both, but because of an unrelated constitutional error, the conviction was set aside.

At the second trial, Lancaster again sought to raise the insanity defense. In the interim, however, the Michigan Supreme Court abolished the defense. That decision was applied to Lancaster retroactively. Lancaster was once again convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

After exhausting his state court appeals, Lancaster filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Lancaster lost in the district court, but prevailed before a divided panel of Sixth Circuit judges, which granted the writ after finding that Lancaster's due process rights were violated.

To find in Lancaster's favor, the panel had to clear two exceptionally high hurdles erected by the United States Supreme Court's retroactivity and habeas jurisprudence. On the retroactivity front, the court of appeals had to find that the Michigan courts' abolition of the diminished capacity defense was "unexpected and indefensible." On the habeas front, the bar was even higher: the Sixth Circuit had to find that the Michigan courts' decision to apply retroactively to Lancaster its "unexpected and indefensible" decision was "so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement" among reasonable jurists.

You may be wondering exactly what kind of habeas petitioner could possibly prevail under either standard, much less both. I'm not sure I know the answer, but I'm pretty sure it isn't Lancaster.

The dissenting judge on the Sixth Circuit panel laid bare the shaky foundations of her colleagues' opinion. Simply put, the majority could not overcome a standard of review so highly deferential that it allowed federal judges to grant relief to state court petitioners only in cases of "extreme malfunctions in the states' criminal justice systems."

My take: This dissent, coupled with SCOTUS' decision to grant cert, signals swift reversal.

By Professor Jeffery Atik

Nassim Nicholas Taleb is back, and in his new book he asserts that his signature idea was not The Black Swan (that was so last book), but rather Antifragility. This second idea shares a viral quality with the first; like the Black Swan, once you catch the notion of antifragility, it's hard to get rid of it.

Antifragility is the characteristic of certain systems to grow stronger when stressed; it is the mirror concept to fragility (where stress destroys). Exercise stresses our muscles, and so renders us stronger. As Taleb insists, antifragility is not robustness -- robustness is merely resistance to stress. Stress improves the antifragile. And in a world where stresses cannot be avoided, it is better to be antifragile.

I admit to being a Taleb fan -- and not everyone is. Most all -- critics and admirers -- agree he is an engaging and imaginative thinker. But he does seem to go out of his way to be, shall we say, difficult. Antifragile is an odd book -- it is a collection of personal essays mixed with some rather formal decision theory. That said, the personal (and the fictional) do serve the argument.

I am excited to introduce our second guest alumni blogger. We are proud to welcome Pat Kelly to our Summary Judgments blog. In addition to being a Western Region Managing Partner at Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Pat is the current President of the California State Bar. He is also a member of the Law School's Board of Overseers. We are looking forward to having Pat blog about many of the important issues facing the bar, including the court funding crisis.

-Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

By Patrick Kelly, Guest Alumni Blogger

I believe the current court funding crisis is the greatest threat to our justice system and access to justice for our citizens I have seen in my 42 years of practice. I have focused upon this as the number one issue affecting the public and lawyers in California and have made it an integral part of every speech and discussion I have had since taking office in October. Examples of the carnage caused by these funding cuts exist everywhere in California -- seven courthouse closures in Fresno, four courthouse closures in San Bernardino County and 10 courthouse closures in Los Angeles County, just to name a few examples.

The real toll is to the users of our courts -- the citizens of California who have a constitutional right to full and fair access to our justice system. Not only are we losing the neighborhood court system that provided access to all, but also user fees have escalated to the point that we are moving toward a disastrous pay-for-play system that is certainly not what the framers of our Constitution had in mind when they defined our rights. Moreover, the framers of our Constitution could not have envisioned a system where the rich have access through private judging whereas those less affluent and the poor have to stand in a line that because of a decline in resources is growing longer. These cuts have also threatened small businesses, the very engine of California's economic recovery. The importance of this issue cannot be overstated. Paraphrasing Alan Greenspan, one of the key elements of business growth is ready access to a justice system that provides prompt dispute resolution.