The University of Chicago Law Review
Recent publications
- Volume 92.8December2025
- Volume 92.7November2025
- Volume 92.6October2025
- Volume 92.5September2025
- Volume 92.4June2025
- Volume 92.3May2025
- Volume 92.2March2025
- Volume 92.1January2025
- Volume 91.8December2024
- Volume 91.7November2024
- Volume 91.6October2024
- Volume 91.5September2024
- Volume 91.4June2024
- Volume 91.3May2024
- Volume 91.2March2024
- Volume 91.1January2024
- Volume 90.8December2023
- Volume 90.7November2023
- Volume 90.6October2023
- Volume 90.5September2023
- Volume 90.4June2023
- Volume 90.3May2023
- Volume 90.2March2023
- Volume 90.1January2023
- Volume 89.8December2022
- Volume 89.7November2022
- Volume 89.6October2022
- Volume 89.5September2022
- Volume 89.4June2022
- Volume 89.3May2022
- Volume 89.2March2022
- Volume 89.1January2022
- Volume 88.8December2021
- v88.6October2021
- v88.4June2021
- v88.3May2021
- 87.1January2020
- 84.4Fall2017
- 84.3Summer2017
- 84.2Spring2017
- 84.1Winter2017
- 84 SpecialNovember2017
- 81.3Summer2014
- 80.1Winter2013
- 78.1Winter2011
Featured
Law Review Symposium 2022
Room V
Labor market power is a hotly debated issue that has garnered increasing scholarly attention in legal academia. With market power comes questions of regulation. This Symposium will explore how law can address and regulate the labor market to respond to its failures. The Law Review will bring together perspectives from law, economics, history, and sociology. Scholars will engage with antitrust enforcement, unionization, and other means of workplace regulation.
Featured
Financial Regulations in the Crucible
Financial regulation in the United States is in crisis. The agencies responsible for safeguarding the massive and crucial flows of money, credit, and risk at the heart of the U.S. face overlapping crises of legitimacy. In part, this flows from a perception that they have failed to learn the lessons of the 2008 financial crisis. But in part it is also because they are increasingly seen as counter-democratic bodies.
Gillian K. Hadfield
Professor of Law and Professor of Strategic Management at the University of Toronto
Charles Barzun
Armistead M. Dobie Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
I thank Professors Jeremy Kessler and David Pozen for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this Response. I have made substantial revisions as a result of them, though I suspect the authors will continue to think that I have misunderstood their central claims and motivations.
I. The Life-Cycle Theory