In today’s increasingly tech-savvy society, social media is perhaps the simplest and most convenient way to stay in touch with friends—and former clients, customers, and coworkers. This increased ease in connectivity is particularly troublesome for employers seeking to enforce their non-solicitation agreements and for employees wary of violating those agreements. The critical and unsettled point of contention is deceptively simple: Can social media conduct, like a Facebook wall post or a LinkedIn profile change, constitute “solicitation?”
A basic non-solicitation agreement between employer and employee generally comes into effect after the employment relationship has terminated, and it requires that the former employee refrain from “soliciting” former coworkers, clients, or customers for a specified length of time. The most commonly litigated issues in non-solicitation cases are the nuanced meaning of the term “solicitation” within the context of the particular agreement and whether an employee’s actions fall within that definition. In the world of social media interactions, defining “solicitation” becomes all the more complex.
Intelligence gathering and analysis have long played a critical role in national security efforts. Historically, and with good reason, the extent, reach, and effect of intelligence activities have remained in the shadows, escaping the notice of many in government, as well as the attention of the American public. In the age of the twenty-four hour news cycle, though, this situation is beginning to change: rare since Edward Snowden’s revelations about what our intelligence services have been up to, both domestically and abroad, has been the week in which some intelligence-related activity has not made headlines.
In light of the Snowden revelations and other reports about the intelligence activities in which the United States is engaged, some historical context may be useful—both to assuage our fears and to manage our expectations. For every generation mistakenly supposes that the startling events of its time are the worst ever to have occurred, only to be confronted with historical antecedents that give us some perspective on modern events and offer lessons that may help us address their consequences.
Read more from the most recent On Remand article, a book review of Kenneth A. Daigler’s Spies, Patriots, and Traitors: American Intelligence in the Revolutionary War entitled Game of Spies by Professor Lawrence Friedman here.
The New England Law Review’s Spring 2014 symposium, “A Look Back at the History of Capital Punishment,” centered on Professor Evan J. Mandery’s book, A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America. New England Law | Boston was honored to have Professor Mandery in attendance, along with Professor Phyllis Goldfarb of George Washington University Law School; Professor Michael Meltsner from Northeastern Law School; the Honorable Michael Ponsor, Associate Justice of the United States District Court of Massachusetts; and Professor Carol S. Steiker from Harvard Law School. Discussions during the symposium covered a range of topics, from the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court cases, to issues of race and the influence of media on the public’s perception of the death penalty. Live Twitter coverage of the symposium appears here.
Professor Mandery, a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, teaches at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and serves as the chairperson of the college’s Department of Criminal Justice. A Wild Justice is not Professor Mandery’s only book on the subject of capital punishment; he has also written a textbook, Capital Punishment: A Balanced Examination, which is now in its second edition, as well as numerous law review articles and commentaries on the death penalty and other criminal law issues facing the justice system. In addition to his non-fiction books about capital punishment, Professor Mandery has written three novels: Q: A Novel, First Contact (Or It’s Later Than You Think) – Parrot Sketch Excluded, and Dreaming of Gwen Stefani; two short stories: The Christmas Miracle Event and The Son Also Rises; and a non-fiction book The Campaign: Rudy Giuliani, Ruth Messinger, Al Sharpton and the Race to be Mayor of New York City, which was published in paperback as Eyes on City Hall.
Personal interests and motivations differ from person to person. The consequences of a criminal conviction are life-altering and may include moral condemnation, retribution, and incarceration.
Corporations, on the other hand, typically have one motivation: maximizing profit. Corporations, with their “vast size, wealth, and power,” do not possess a conscience. They will never face the moral condemnation, imprisonment, or death penalty that so many human beings fear. Rather, corporations face criminal fines that are often treated as “a mere cost of business or a slap on the wrist.” These fines do not serve the purpose of moral condemnation or retribution, but rather serve mere regulatory functions.
The Honorable Judge William G. Young, speaker at New England Law Review’s Fall 2013 Symposium, is a United States Federal Judge for the District of Massachusetts. A native of Huntington, New York, Judge Young received his A.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard University in 1962, served our nation as a United States Army Captain from 1962 to 1964, and earned his LL.B. from Harvard Law School in 1967.
Following his graduation, Judge Young served as a law clerk to the Honorable Raymond S. Wilkins of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (1967–1968), Special Assistant to the Massachusetts Attorney General (1970–1972), and Chief Counsel to Governor Francis W. Sargent (1972–1974). After serving on the Massachusetts Superior Court for eight years, President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Young to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in March 1985. Judge Young went on to serve as Chief Judge from 1999 to 2005.
The New England Law Review is proud to announce its membership selection for Volume 49:
Click on each Associate name above to learn a little about each member.
Congratulations to you all! We look forward to working with you.
On July 26h, 2014, the New England Law Review launched its Editor Blog, the newest component of On Remand.
Upcoming blogs will be written by Editors of the New England Law Review, and commentary will be moderated by the Executive Online Editor. The goal of our Editor Blog is to promote our authors, upcoming content in both the print publication and On Remand, keep readers in touch with our publication process, happenings within the Law Review, and other news-worthy commentary.
We hope that you’ll follow our blog and join in the commentary!
Those inside and outside the legal academy are still coming to terms with the sudden and tragic loss of Florida State University law professor Dan Markel, who was shot and killed at his Tallahassee home on Friday. Dan touched the lives of hundreds of students and colleagues. I was fortunate to know him since law school, and wanted to share some (admittedly scattered) memories of a friend lost too soon.
Even as a 1L, when most of us felt uncertain and trembling about our career decisions (or even just making it through the next class), Dan carried a certain unusual confidence. In criminal law, he argued in favor of sending people to “virtue schools.” He lugged his old Macintosh laptop to all classes, dragging the plug carefully across the floor behind his classmates’ chairs. On Saturday afternoons after synagogue, he was known to offer friends a mean vegetarian chopped liver. He was a character, and a sincere one.