Managing Director, Climenko Fellowship and
Assistant Dean for Academic Career Advising

Susannah directs the First-Year Legal Research and Writing Program and teaches a section in the program.

Jennifer Barrow’s scholarship focuses on criminal and military law, with an emphasis on sentencing.  Her research scrutinizes the increased power of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches at the expense of the jury and suggests reforms.

Colin Doyle’s research examines how technological upgrades to existing criminal legal processes affect both the application and meaning of state and federal constitutional law, with a specific focus on decisions at the margins of criminal law, including bail setting and fees and fines determinations. I’m particularly interested in how information that can be extracted from new technological processes can inform and challenge longstanding beliefs and practices within constitutional law, criminal law, and criminal procedure.

Gregory Elinson’s research examines the interstices of our constitutional system, exploring the institutions and interactions not formally specified in the Constitution that nevertheless scaffold the separation of powers. His scholarship has been published or is forthcoming in Vanderbilt Law Review and Emory Law Journal, as well as several leading peer-reviewed social science journals. Greg holds a J.D. from Stanford Law School, a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley, and a B.A. from Harvard College.

Daniel Francis is a Climenko Fellow and Lecturer in Law at Harvard Law School, where he writes about regulation and competition.  His research focuses on antitrust as well as constitutional and other rules that facilitate, constrain, and shape regulatory action and competitive processes.  He has a particular interest in digital and high-technology markets.

Michael Francus’ research focuses on gatekeeping mechanisms in the Bankruptcy Code, and how they allow or restrict bankruptcy access for individuals, legal entities, and governments. His current projects explore how states can use municipal bankruptcy to circumvent the Code’s prohibition on state bankruptcy petitions, and how the Code’s insolvency standards do, and should, affect bankruptcy access for student-loan debt and corporate debt. His scholarship has appeared in the Pepperdine Law Review, the Stanford Law Review Online, and the University of Chicago Law Review Online.

Owen Gallogly studies the jurisdiction and powers of the federal courts, with a particular focus on issues of structural constitutionalism.

Chris Havasy has research and teaching interests in administrative law, constitutional law, legislation and statutory interpretation, corporate law and governance, and torts. His current projects examine the political legitimacy of the administrative state; how to structure interest group lobbying in democratic institutions; the use Enlightenment political thought in constitutional interpretation; the relationship between the concepts of legitimacy in administrative law and corporate governance; and theories of power, democracy, and legitimacy in corporate governance. His work has appeared or is forthcoming in the Virginia Law Review, Vanderbilt Law Review, and Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

Caitlin Millat’s scholarship focuses on public education law and policy, with a particular focus on structural and systemic reform and the roles private and public actors, legal and extralegal alike, can and should play in equity-based reform efforts. Her current work considers the scope and impact of a reemergent wave of litigation aimed at recognizing a federal right to a minimum level of education, as well as examines the limitations of and alternative solutions to outmoded bureaucratic structures in public education systems.

Caley Petrucci is a Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. Her scholarship focuses on corporate law, with an emphasis on corporate transactions. By combining doctrinal and empirical frameworks, Caley’s scholarship illustrates developments in corporate law over time, informs courts, boards, and transaction planners, and advances normative arguments about how corporate law should be modified in light of these doctrinal developments and empirical findings. Her recent research examines the development of corporate law in a dealmaking context, with particular attention to contractual agreements and the interim period between signing and closing in M&A transactions. Caley’s scholarship has been published in the Harvard Law Review and Columbia Law Review.

Francesca’s scholarship focuses on structural constitutional rights, federalism, and the federal courts. In particular, her research examines the democratic relationships between citizens and government institutions, and how those institutions can be restructured to better advance legal and political equality.

Alicia Solow-Niederman’s research evaluates how digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence, both challenge and offer opportunities to improve modes of public and private governance.  In particular, her scholarship explores how to regulate technologies in a way that grapples with social, economic, and political power, as well as how emerging technologies interact with or put pressure on legal values and institutions.

James Toomey researches in bioethics and health law. He is currently working on questions related to when and how the law ought to intervene in the decision making of people with dementia, a project which relies on both empirical and normative work, and he has become particularly interested in the importance of the narrative coherence of life stories in this context. He is also interested in the intersection of bioethics and political philosophy, and has written about the constraints political liberalism places on regulations of biotechnologies that raise profound and contested questions about the good life.

Sarah Winsberg’s research in legal history examines the process of making legal categories. Looking beyond the courtroom and the best remembered legal thinkers, she shows how long-forgotten writers’ and editors’ work in labeling and annotating cases produced gradual, yet ultimately profound, change in the law.