Attending CALIcon21 means discovering the hottest innovations and gaining insights into which teaching methodology/technology will shape legal education.

Don't miss out on the latest from CALIcon Conference!  

The CALIcon Conference, also known as " The Conference for Law School Computing® ", is one of the longest-running legal education conferences in the United States. The conference brings together law school faculty, librarians, IT professionals, and administrators to share ideas, innovations, experiences and best practices in legal education/technology that you can use at your law school. It is eclectic, engaging, and fun!

Attending means discovering the hottest innovations and gaining insights into which teaching methodology/technology will shape our future.

• Unique opportunities to network with key individuals
• Mingle with sponsors to launch new deals
• In 2020, over 1100 registrants including 41% law librarians, 25% law faculty, and 9% Teknoids

Registration Cost:  $50.00

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer S. Martin is when agreements that are not enforceable as contracts because they are not supported by consideration are nevertheless enforceable due to reliance on the promise, often referred to as promissory estoppel. It discusses reliance as it pertains to gift promises, including charitable donations. The podcast examines the rule for promissory estoppel, as set forth in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90, as well as the form of remedy permitted in cases based upon reliance. To illustrate, the podcast uses several hypotheticals and looks at the following cases: Kirksey v. Kirksey, Ricketts v. Scothorn, and Bouton v. Byers.

At its Annual Membership Meeting on Tuesday, January 19, 2021, the Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI) Board of Directors appointed five new members to fill the vacancy of outgoing Board Members whose term ended on January 1, 2021. The Nominations Committee conducted 43 interviews and reviewed bios from all candidates. 

All CALI Board members are unpaid volunteers.

The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is when rights under a contract may be assigned to third parties, and when duties may be delegated to third parties. Using hypotheticals to illustrate, it discusses the exceptions that limit the transfer of rights and duties to a third party. The assignability of the right to receive money, and the liability involved with the delegation of a duty to pay money, are also covered. Finally, it examines prohibitions of assignment of rights or delegation of duties, including what it means to enforce such a prohibition. UCC Article 9, UCC § 2-210(5), and UCC § 2-210(6) are discussed.

Serving the need for law students to understand the law better, the Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction establishes the Legal Research Revision Fellowship initiative. The Fellowship is composed of seven notable professionals from the legal research community across several U.S. law schools. The Fellowship’s goal is to revise up to 70 CALI Legal Research lessons to reflect today’s teaching pedagogy and current circumstances. All revisions are peer-reviewed by the Fellowship Team. Everyone at the CALI member law schools will have access to these updated lessons in mid-2021.

The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer S. Martin is when silence itself can be acceptance of an offer. Acceptance is simply the name given to an offeree’s action in making the offeror’s promise enforceable. This podcast looks at the exceptional cases where notification of the intention to accept an offer is accomplished by silence.

Learning Outcomes
On completion of the podcast, the student will be able to:
1. Explain that silence is almost never acceptance and that the presumption is against silence is being acceptance.
2. Identify and apply the exceptions to this rule whereby silence can be acceptance:
A. The offeree takes a benefit with the reasonable opportunity to reject it and an expectation of compensation.
B. Where there is prior conduct indicating an offeree should be bound by silence.
C. Where the offeror indicates silence can be acceptance and the offeree intends to accept.
D. Where there is an exercise of dominion by the offeree of the offeror’s property.