C|M|LAW’s Leon and Gloria Plevin Professor of Law, Browne C. Lewis’ book, Papa’s Baby, was reviewed favorably in the Spring 2013 issue of the Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences. The review, by Debra Eckert-Casha, calls Lewis’ work “captivating.”  She writes “educators should enjoy stimulating discussions with their students based up on the many ideas Lewis proposes.  . . . Papa’s Baby is well-worth reading.  Considering the current times and advancements in reproductive technology, the implications for policy to ensure protections for children should receive thoughtful attention.

The book review is available in the spring issue of the Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, vol. 105, no. 2, at page 60.

C|M|LAW Professor and Associate Dean Mark Sundahl was quoted in this week’s issue of Crain’s Cleveland Business News in an article regarding the recent decision to make permanent the commercial docket at the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.  A three-year pilot program in which the operation of a commercial docket was tested returned favorable results, which led to the decision by the County Court judges to make the docket permanent.  The commercial docket creates, in effect, “commercial courts” that are presided over by judges appointed to handle the cases on the docket.  By hearing a greater volume of commercial cases, the judges have the opportunity to gain familiarity with business issues and expertise in commercial law.  In the article, Sundahl states that “[t]he quick resolution of disputes and the ability of a business to have confidence in the consistent and fair application of the law allows for businesses to operate in an environment of certainty and predictability.  All of this lowers the cost of doing business and increases the profit margin.”
You may access the article here:

C|M|LAW Professor John Plecnik was recently quoted in Tax Notes Today.  The quote was in regard to two cases in U.S. Tax Court that Professor Plecnik is supporting pro bono as co-counsel  with Cleveland Legal Aid.  Both cases involve the so-called Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) ban under section 32(k) of the Internal Revenue Code.

An excerpt from the article, entitled TAXPAYER ADVOCATE CRITICIZES IRS 
USE OF EITC BAN, PLANS REVIEW, follows:

Plecnik said one might be left with the impression that there is no standard at all for imposing the ban on taxpayers, adding that he thinks the IRS is using the dictionary definitions of reckless or intentional disregard. However, the legislative history for section 32(k), in which the ban can be found, shows that section 6662, which does have a clear
definition of reckless or intentional disregard, was referenced in relation to section 32(k), he said.

“I think that the correct definition is best laid out in the regulations to 6662, where disregard is reckless if the taxpayer makes little or no effort to determine whether a rule or regulation exists under circumstances which demonstrate a substantial deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe,” Plecnik said. “There are tons of cases dealing with when it’s appropriate to apply 6662 penalties, and they typically don’t apply where someone goes to a return preparer in good faith, essentially does their best, and says, ‘Hey, I’m paying you, get it done,’ and gives them all the information as best they can.”