Law School Offers Crash Course in Pot Law
The University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law is hosting a workshop on the ins and outs of legal pot in California, and the risks and obstacles marijuana businesses face.
January 24, 2018 at 02:42 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
What are the risks involved with starting a marijuana business?
What does the ongoing federal ban on marijuana mean for California's recent legalization of recreational cannabis?
What kinds of insurance should cannabis-related ventures have?
Those are some of the questions professors at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law and marijuana experts will answer at a Feb. 2 workshop covering the basics of entering the burgeoning legal cannabis industry.
“This is going to be a $20 billion-a-year business just in California, as adult use launches. It's a massive economic event,” said McGeorge professor Francis Mootz III. “There is confusion, as things get settled. Lawyers are poring over this, figuring out how it works. [Marijuana] is going from state illegal to heavily state regulated, so it's this whole culture shift that has to take place.”
The McGeorge workshop is just the latest example of law schools wading into the hazy issue of legal pot. A growing number of schools now offer courses on marijuana law and the policy issues surrounding legalization. Vanderbilt University Law School professor Robert Mikos published the first-ever casebook on marijuana law in 2017.
And several law schools have already hosted conferences for attorneys who represent marijuana industry clients. The University of Denver Sturm College of Law co-sponsored a two-day conference in July with the Cannabis Law Institute. Seattle University School of Law has for the past five years held the Northwest Marijuana Law Conference, which examines trends in Washington and other states where cannabis is legal.
McGeorge's upcoming executive training session, which is being hosted by the school's Capital Center for Law & Policy, is unique in that it isn't strictly targeted at attorneys. Rather, it's designed to help a wide array of people get a handle on the opportunities and risks associated with pot, from those who would like to become involved in some way in the marijuana industry to the lawyers, real estate brokers, insurance agents and other professional services providers who want to assist clients in that space. The program is also geared toward state regulators who want the lay of the marijuana land, Mootz said.
“Folks who have already been in this business have obviously been sort of underground—they aren't generally hiring lawyers, accountants and insurance brokers,” he said. “But it's really a complex regulatory scheme. We think it will be beneficial for lawyers to get an understanding of the issues, but it is a broader outreach to folks who are business owners and even state regulators to understand how it works.”
The topic is particularly timely in California, where the sale of recreational marijuana became legal on Jan. 1. Just days later, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer follow the 2013 marijuana guidelines established by the Obama administration that advised U.S. attorneys to deprioritize the prosecution of marijuana crimes in states that have legalized cannabis. (Marijuana remains illegal under federal law.) The McGeorge workshop will address that development and what it could mean for pot businesses.
“Attorney General Jeff Sessions' Jan. 4 announcement that the Department of Justice will no longer follow Obama-era policies towards cannabis regulation has sent ripples through the industry,” said McGeorge professor Michael Vitiello, a marijuana law expert who will present at the workshop. “Experts in the field are unsure what the long-term effect is, but some predict increasing chances of Congress reversing that position.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readLaw Firms Are Turning to Online Training Platforms as Apprenticeship Model Falters
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readClass Action Lawsuit Targets 40 Private Colleges and Universities Over Alleged Price-Fixing
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250