91��Ƶ

Haub Law Professor Elyse Diamond was featured speaking about the opening of the Legal Hand Call-In Center.

“According to this Thinx settlement, Thinx said they'd help ensure PFAS is not ‘intentionally added,’ which is different from saying a product doesn't have PFAS,” Bridget Crawford, professor of law at 91��Ƶ and author of Menstruation Matters: Challenging the Law’s Silence on Periods, told me. “This settlement and current laws don’t require menstrual product manufacturers to reveal all chemicals in their products or to affirmatively demonstrate product safety, such as thorough product testing for toxic chemicals."

Haub Law Professor Bennett Gershman pens an op-ed in New York Law Journal about the changes needed in the Prosecutor Conduct Commission.

John Bandler is an adjunct professor at Elisabeth Haub School of Law at 91��Ƶ who teaches about law as it intersects with cybercrime:

What is a cybersecurity framework?

A cybersecurity framework is basically voluntary guidance for organizations, to help them manage their cybersecurity program and measures. It is a “best practice”.

There are many cybersecurity frameworks, from different organizations, with different layout, focus, and language. The organizations developing them may have different business models.

Haub Law Professor Randolph McLaughlin provides insights and perspectives about police culture and the killing of Tyre Nichols.

An ethics opinion by Bennett L. Gershman, a 91��Ƶ law professor and former Manhattan prosecutor, accompanied the letter and said “it is plausible that the Chief Justice’s spouse may have leveraged the ‘prestige of the judicial office’” to “raise their household income.” He added that those concerns, coupled with what he described as the chief justice’s lack of disclosure of potential conflicts, “threaten the public’s trust in the federal judiciary, and the Supreme Court itself.”

In an analysis filed along with the complaint, 91��Ƶ law professor Bennett Gershman writes that “it is plausible that the Chief Justice’s spouse may have leveraged the ‘prestige of judicial office’ to meaningfully raise their household income.” “That concern, together with the failure of the Chief Justice to recuse himself in cases where his spouse received compensation from law firms arguing cases before the Court, or at least advise the parties of his spouse’s financial arrangements with law firms arguing before the Court, threaten the public’s trust in the federal judiciary, and the Supreme Court itself,” Gershman wrote.