The purpose of this essay is merely to examine the pertinent antitrust issues. The essay proceeds on the assumption that the AALS policy, whose terms are precatory, speaks to what is in fact an agreement among law schools. As noted below, the policy itself contemplates that law school deans will seek waivers, in individual cases, extending the time periods for up to two months. Were the policy to be litigated, law schools might dispute the existence of an agreement. We believe, though, that the nature of the policy strongly suggests that it represents an agreement among law schools and that any litigation would yield consistent evidence. Nothing in our individual experiences as faculty members suggests otherwise.6 Reviewing the policy on that basis, we conclude that the policy violates federal antitrust law.
Royce de R. Barondes & Thomas A. Lambert, Should Antitrust Education Be Mandatory (for Law School Administrators)?, 38 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1299 (2005)