In her article, “Legal Professional Privilege in a Digital World: A Comparative Analysis,” published in Volume 15 of the British Journal of American Legal Studies(Spring 2025), Pace Haub Law Professor Lissa Griffin and co-author Dan Jasinski explore the evolving challenges to legal professional privilege in an increasingly digitized criminal justice system.
Focusing on the United States and England & Wales, the article analyzes how the routine use of technology—email, cloud storage, mobile devices—introduces new vulnerabilities in client-lawyer confidentiality. The authors examine the risks of interception, device searches, and the erosion of traditional protections, arguing for heightened awareness among practitioners and a rethinking of judicial and legislative approaches to digital-era privilege
“Increased digitalisation of a lawyer's routine tasks poses increased risks to their client's interests,” they write, calling on courts and lawmakers to preserve the core principles of adversarial justice by protecting this foundational ethical duty.
In his article, The 'Realness' Key to Compelled Passcode Production, published in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology (Vol. 115, 2025), Pace Haub Law Visiting Assistant Professor Gabriel Pell offers a novel framework for applying the Fifth Amendment’s Foregone Conclusion exception to compelled passcode entry.
In her article, Representing Climate Wreckers, published in the NYU Environmental Law Journal (2025), Pace | Haub Environmental Law Professor Camila Bustos examines the ethical responsibilities of attorneys representing fossil fuel companies—termed "climate wreckers"—and argues for a reevaluation of professional conduct standards in light of the climate crisis.
In his article, The Sound of Science in Major Questions Doctrine Jurisprudence, published in Natural Resources & Environment (ABA, Spring 2025), Pace | Haub Environmental Law Professor Josh Galperin (with co-author Terra Baer) examines how the U.S. Supreme Court’s use of the major questions doctrine undermines core constitutional and statutory principles—particularly when the Court treats congressional silence as legislative intent.