Dru Stevenson, Professor of Law

If you want to know what kept lawyers awake at night over the last six years, don't look at the headlines. Look at the Ethics Opinions.  In 2020, the ABA was worried about how we work from our kitchen tables (Op. 20-495). By 2024, they were worried about whether our computers were lying to us (Op. 24-512). And just this month, with Op. 521, they’ve turned the lens back on the judges themselves—reminding us that the 'appearance of impropriety' isn't just a courtroom standard; it’s a management standard. I compiled a list of all the formal ethics opinions from the American Bar Association from 2020 onward (up to today, Feb. 24, 2026). I have hyperlinks to download the opinions free online. ·        ABA Formal Op. 26-521 The Judicial Canons of Ethics Applicability to the Administrative and Supervisory Role of a Judge ·        ABA Formal Op. 26-520 A Lawyer’s Obligation to Convey Information to a Former Client or Successor C...

The American Bar Association  Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility just posted a new ethics opinion related to judges: ABA Formal Op. 26-521 The Judicial Canons of Ethics Applicability to the Administrative and Supervisory Role of a Judge From the Executive Summary:         This opinion examines the ethical obligations of judges under the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct when exercising administrative, employment, and supervisory authority. The Canons and Rules governing impartiality, integrity, and independence - particularly Canons 1 and 2 and associated rules require judges to administer chambers and court staff with the same fairness and neutrality that guide adjudication. The opinion explains that ethical duties extend beyond the courtroom to include merit-based appointments, the prevention of bias and harassment, and the avoidance of favoritism or the appearance of impropriety in all administrative decisions. Judges fulfill t...

In my Administrative Law and Statutory Interpretation classes, we talk about how broadly or narrowly the courts should construe ambiguous phrases or passing references when Congress delegates some authority, or entrusts some responsibility, to the Executive Branch. Last Friday, the Supreme Court revisited this in the landmark case  Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump (2026) . This isn't just about the $175 billion in tariffs or the trade deficit; it’s about how a single word in a 1977 statute became the front line for the modern Major Questions Doctrine (MQD) . The Statutory "Sleight of Hand" The administration’s entire legal argument rested on two words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA): "regulate" and "importation" . They argued that because the President can "regulate importation" during a national emergency, he can naturally impose a tariff. But as I discuss in the video, Chief Justice Roberts—and five other justic...

 Imagine, for a moment, that you are a partner at a busy law firm. You have a massive brief due by the end of the week, and you need a junior associate to draft a research memo. In a perfectly free market, you would walk out to the bullpen, find an associate, and start haggling. You’d negotiate the hourly rate for this specific task, draft a quick contract, and then spend the rest of the week nervously monitoring them to make sure they actually did the work instead of playing solitaire. Sounds exhausting, right? Yet, according to pure, unadulterated free-market economic theory, that is exactly how the world should work. Free markets are incredibly efficient. We are told that independent, rational actors negotiating prices is the best way to allocate resources. So, if the free market is so perfect, why do we have companies at all? Why do we have these massive, top-down, command-and-control institutions where people don't negotiate, but simply follow orders? In my Law & Economic...

In the early 1900s, an elderly aristocratic man living in Russia was observing the rising tide of political unrest around him. He noticed that young dissidents, eager for change, were increasingly arming themselves against the government's police force. They believed that to protect themselves, and to be taken seriously, they needed weapons. But the old man saw a fatal flaw in their logic. He began writing essays arguing a completely counterintuitive point: bringing a weapon to a standoff doesn't protect you; it makes you a target. He warned that the moment a dissident picks up a gun, they validate the tyrant’s use of violence. They trade their most powerful weapon—moral asymmetry—for a game they will ultimately lose. His contemporaries thought he was hopelessly naive. But one of his essays found its way to a young, relatively unknown lawyer organizing protests in South Africa. The young lawyer read it, abandoned his initial thoughts of armed resistance, and went on to change t...