Podcasts about model rules

arizona judge ethical appeals aba shareholder cle division one recent developments greenberg traurig professional responsibility legal ethics model rules arizona court jennifer perkins

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 29, 2023 62:51

In this CLE webinar, Judge Jennifer Perkins of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge Margaret Downie, and Greenberg Traurig shareholder Andy Halaby discussed the following areas of legal ethics and professional responsibility:Using artificial intelligence for preparation of legal documents: some ethical implications and the development of guidelines and best practices.Insights into when unprofessional conduct becomes unethical conduct and how supervisory attorneys (and others) can help younger lawyers avoid some common ethical pitfalls. Ethical and other issues facing compliance lawyers under Arizona's Alternative Business Structure (ABS) law and some takeaways from Arizona's experience three years into this experiment.Brief overview of the ABA's amendment to Model Rule 1.16.Featuring:Hon. Margaret H. Downie, Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Arizona Supreme CourtAndrew F. Halaby, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurigHon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

Professional Responsibility Rules When Dealing With Clients Who Have Diminished Capacity

ACTEC Trust & Estate Talk

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 5, 2023 12:14

A law professor explores the legal ethics of representing clients with diminishing capacity and reviews the ins and outs of the ABA's Model Rule 1.14 and ACTEC's Model Rules of Professional Conduct on the topic. The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, ACTEC, is a professional society of peer-elected trust and estate lawyers in the United States and around the globe. This series offers professionals best practice advice, insights and commentary on subjects that affect the profession and clients. Learn more in this podcast.

united states trust clients capacity american colleges aba diminished professional responsibility professional conduct model rules

Enabling the Enablers

Bribe, Swindle or Steal

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 23, 2023 22:24

Scott Greytak of Transparency International U.S. joins the podcast to talk about the many loopholes that permit U.S. lawyers to work for criminal actors as they exploit the U.S. financial system. He brings us up-to-date on the ABA's recent change to its Model Rules of Professional Conduct and when we'll see the ENABLERS Act revisited.

enabling aba enablers professional conduct model rules

Encore Investigation: An Attorney's Vicarious Liability

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 22, 2023 55:55

Private investigators must be aware of how their actions may impact others. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Conduct sets forth directives for behavior not only for attorneys but for non-lawyers as well and are enforceable in all but eight states. Violations can result in sanctions or worse. Therefore. If a lawyer retains an investigator, that attorney is liable for the investigator's actions. Certainly, there are gray areas in investigation tactics, but some, particularly when it applies to surveillance, pretexting, GPS tracking, and social media are mine-fields unless there is a clear understanding between the investigator and the attorney regarding the assigned tasks. Whose responsibility is it then? Ultimately it is counsel's responsibility, but private investigators must also take the lead to ensure what techniques can be used for a particular assignment. Join PI's Declassified and Attorney Forrest Plesko discuss strategies to avoid these ethical pitfalls.

private attorney gps investigation conduct liability violations american bar association private investigators pis declassified vicarious model rules talk radio on line francie koehler

Encore Investigation: An Attorney's Vicarious Liability

baseball recruiting college baseball d1baseball high school baseball model rules

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 22, 2023 55:55

Private investigators must be aware of how their actions may impact others. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Conduct sets forth directives for behavior not only for attorneys but for non-lawyers as well and are enforceable in all but eight states. Violations can result in sanctions or worse. Therefore. If a lawyer retains an investigator, that attorney is liable for the investigator's actions. Certainly, there are gray areas in investigation tactics, but some, particularly when it applies to surveillance, pretexting, GPS tracking, and social media are mine-fields unless there is a clear understanding between the investigator and the attorney regarding the assigned tasks. Whose responsibility is it then? Ultimately it is counsel's responsibility, but private investigators must also take the lead to ensure what techniques can be used for a particular assignment. Join PI's Declassified and Attorney Forrest Plesko discuss strategies to avoid these ethical pitfalls.

private attorney gps investigation conduct liability violations american bar association private investigators pis declassified vicarious model rules talk radio on line francie koehler

New D1 Baseball Recruiting Model Rules - Important to Know

Premier Athletes

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 29, 2023 9:39

Create a free profile on Alex's baseball-specific recruiting platform called Premier Athletes. Learn more about Alex's Premier Athletes Recruiting Program here. I wanted to share some crucial news about the changes in the NCAA Division I college baseball recruiting rules. These new rules will significantly impact the recruiting process for high school underclassmen. I encourage you to check out my latest YouTube video or podcast episode for a more in-depth look at these rule changes and their impact on the recruiting landscape. You'll find expert insights, analysis, and advice to help you navigate the new rules. In a nutshell, the changes will prevent communication between college coaches and high school underclassmen, including scholarship or roster offers, until August 1st going into their junior year. So the summer after their sophomore year. This shift in the recruiting timeline is intended to give student-athletes and their families more time to research, make informed decisions, and focus on skill development. Please feel free to reach out if you need further assistance. I'm here to support you and your son through the recruiting process.

Attorney Misconduct & Discipline

Lawyer 2 Lawyer - Law News and Legal Topics

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 8, 2023 35:30

Rule 8.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, dealing with Misconduct, is subtitled with the phrase “Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession”. When attorneys engage in unethical behavior, it is believed that their actions harm the industry. As such, disciplinary procedures are a key feature to maintaining the legitimacy of not only the profession, but the legal system as a whole. Usually, attorney disciplinary matters don't enter the broader public discourse, but, in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, we have seen an increase in high-profile attorney disciplinary matters. Attorneys like Rudy Giuliani and John Charles Eastman, and the disciplinary charges brought against them in DC and California respectively, have been featured prominently in the news of late, and so it's time we turn our attention to the issue of attorney misconduct and discipline. In this episode, host Craig Williams joins guest Leslie C. Levin, professor of law at University of Connecticut School of Law to take an overall look at prominent attorneys who have come under fire for their violation of the rule of law, measures taken to regulate attorney's actions, and the consequences that could stem from their actions.

university california law dc discipline integrity maintaining attorney profession rudy giuliani misconduct connecticut school craig williams professional conduct model rules

Attorney Misconduct & Discipline

Legal Talk Network - Law News and Legal Topics

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 8, 2023 35:30

Rule 8.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, dealing with Misconduct, is subtitled with the phrase “Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession”. When attorneys engage in unethical behavior, it is believed that their actions harm the industry. As such, disciplinary procedures are a key feature to maintaining the legitimacy of not only the profession, but the legal system as a whole. Usually, attorney disciplinary matters don't enter the broader public discourse, but, in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, we have seen an increase in high-profile attorney disciplinary matters. Attorneys like Rudy Giuliani and John Charles Eastman, and the disciplinary charges brought against them in DC and California respectively, have been featured prominently in the news of late, and so it's time we turn our attention to the issue of attorney misconduct and discipline. In this episode, host Craig Williams joins guest Leslie C. Levin, professor of law at University of Connecticut School of Law to take an overall look at prominent attorneys who have come under fire for their violation of the rule of law, measures taken to regulate attorney's actions, and the consequences that could stem from their actions.

university california law dc discipline integrity maintaining attorney profession rudy giuliani misconduct connecticut school craig williams professional conduct model rules

Ethical Rules Need To Change

Vandenack Weaver Truhlsen - Legal Visionaries

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 27, 2022 33:38

How has technology and remote practice effected the ethical rules of law? Listen in to today's episode when our host Mary Vandenack, CEO, Founder and Managing Partner at Vandenack Weaver Truhlsen, and her guest Dan Siegel, an attorney in the Philadelphia area and a nationally recognized authority on legal ethics and technology discuss updating the Model Rules to reflect the current practice of law. Tune in as they talk about which model rule is most important to change, how the use of social media has impacted the rules, confidentiality, licensing issues, and much more.A Hurrdat Media Production. Hurrdat Media is a digital media and commercial video production company based in Omaha, NE. Find more podcasts on the Hurrdat Media Network and learn more about our other services today on HurrdatMedia.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

ceo founders leadership innovation philadelphia wellness managing partners ethical omaha dan siegel hurrdat media hurrdat media network hurrdat media production lawyer podcast model rules

Episode 110 - "Are You Calling Them A Liar?"

10,000 Depositions Later Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 16, 2022 13:39

In this episode Jim Garrity tackles the propriety of a question often heard in depositions when the deponent has just contradicted the testimony of another witness: "Are you calling them a liar?" Is this objectionable? If so, what's the objection? If it's objectionable and you don't object, is it per se reversible error? Is there a better way to ask the question? So many questions, so little time. But Jim answers them all and more, in just 13 1/2 minutes. (And speaking of time, do you have time to leave a 5-star rating for our podcast wherever you listen to our show? It takes no more than ten seconds, and our entire team will be forever grateful. Those 5-star ratings are like Kobe beef to the crew. Thanks!)SHOW NOTESMerritt v. Arizona, No. 21-15833, 2022 WL 3369529, at *2 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2022)g. “[T]he prohibition on improper vouching based on evidence outside the record extends to civil trials")Easter v. Mills, 239 Or. App. 209, 213, 243 P.3d 1212, 1214 (2010) (“The Oregon Supreme Court has recently reviewed and elaborated on its decisions on this subject. In State v. Lupoli, 348 Or. 346, 357, 234 P.3d 117 (2010), the court stated:“This court has long held that one witness may not give an opinion on whether he or she believes another witness is telling the truth. * * * Applying that principle is a straightforward matter when one witness states directly that he or she believes another witness, or that the other witness is honest or truthful. However, statements that fall short of such overt vouching also may be impermissible”)United States v. Pereira, 848 F.3d 17, 22 (1st Cir. 2017) (“In United States v. DeSimone, 699 F.3d 113 (1st Cir. 2012), this court clarified that although [i]t is improper for an attorney to ask a witness whether another witness lied on the stand[,] ... [i]t is not improper to ask one witness whether another was “wrong” or “mistaken,” since such questions do not force a witness to choose between conceding the point or branding another witness as a liar. There is no error in simply asking a witness if he agreed with or disputed another witness's testimony”)Broyles v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., No. CV 3:10-857 JJB-CBW, 2017 WL 3946261, at *3 (M.D. La. Aug. 21, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 10-857-JJB-CBW, 2017 WL 3928939 (M.D. La. Sept. 7, 2017) (order adopting magistrate's report recommending the granting of motion in limine to exclude testimony as to one witnesse' opinion of another's testimony); see also Defendants' Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence As To One Witness' Opinion Of Another Witness' Testimony (CM/ECF Doc. 588), Defendants' Memorandum In Support Of Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence As To One Witness' Opinion Of Another Witness' Testimony (Doc. 588-1), Joseph N. Broyles, et al. v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., et al., Civil Action No.: Case 3:10-cv-00854-SDD-CBW Document 588 (M. D. La. filed May 13, 2016), Consolidated With: Civil Action No. 3-10-Cv-00857-JJB-SCR; CM/ECF Doc. 672 (Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To S&Y Parties' Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence As To One Witness' Opinion Of Another Witness' Testimony)United States v. Rivera, 780 F.3d 1084, 1096–97 (11th Cir. 2015) (“As to the propriety of questions by a prosecutor that prod a defendant to accuse another witness of lying, we have held that such questions are not proper. United States v. Schmitz, 634 F.3d 1247, 1268 (11th Cir.2011). . . .Of course, the fact that a prosecutor should not ask a testifying defendant whether another witness was lying does not mean that the prosecutor will be prohibited from pinning down a defendant's testimony by focusing the latter on conflicts between his account of a certain event and another witness's testimony on that point. Indeed, in Schmitz, we cited with approval the Third Circuit's observation that “it is often necessary on cross-examination to focus a witness on the differences and similarities between his testimony and that of another witness. This is permissible provided he is not asked to testify as to the veracity of the other witness”)United States v. Schmitz, 634 F.3d 1247, 1268–70 (11th Cir. 2011) (“We hold that it is improper to ask a testifying defendant whether another witness is lying”)Southern Union Co. v. Sw. Gas Corp., 281 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1127 (D. Ariz. 2003) (propriety of such a question may depend on the context in which the question is asked, citing cases for proposition that ‘were they lying' questions may not always be improper, and that the balance may shift in favor of admitting lay opinion as the distance increases between the opinion and the ultimate issues)Easter v. Mills, 239 Or. App. 209, 214–15, 243 P.3d 1212, 1215 (2010) The question at issue here, and the answer it elicited, were not of the same sort found to be objectionable in those cases. Here, A.H.'s mother was not asked whether she believed that A.H. was telling the truth (nor did her answer reveal whether she believed that A.H. was telling the truth). Rather, she was asked if she knew of any motive A.H. would have to lie. Admittedly, this line of questioning may skate close to the edge of what is permissible, given the real danger that it might elicit a response that includes a comment on the credibility of a witness, even if the question does not specifically call for such a response. Here, however, the response did not contain the mother's opinion as to whether A.H. was telling the truth. Moreover, as the state notes, the defense theory of the case was that A.H. had a motive to lie about the abuse, because she was angry with petitioner and petitioner's daughter. In that circumstance, questions of A.H.'s mother concerning whether she knew if her daughter had such a motive were permissible. Her response to the challenged question merely was that she did not know of any motive that her daughter had to fabricate the allegation of abuse. We conclude that the post-conviction court correctly determined that the question and answer at issue here were permissible”)Com. v. Baran, No. 1804251, 2006 WL 2560317, at *16 (Mass. Super. June 16, 2006), aff'd, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 256, 905 N.E.2d 1122 (2009) (vacating criminal convictions in part based on prejudicial vouching; “Moreover, the issue concerning the vouching of credibility is not limited to experts: “[I]t is a fundamental principle that ‘a witness cannot be asked to assess the credibility of his testimony or that of other witnesses.' Commonwealth v. Montanino, 409 Mass. 500, 504, 567 N.E.2d 1212 (1991). To violate this principle, testimony supporting a witness's credibility “need not be direct. The question is whether the witness's testimony had the same effect as if [the witness] had directed his comments specifically to [another witness's] credibility”)Schmitz v. City of Wilsonville, No. CV-96-1306-ST, 1999 WL 778586, at *4–6 (D. Or. Sept. 17, 1999) (declining to extend vouching to civil cases; but finding no plain error from comments and denying motion for new trial)Sneed v. Burress, 500 S.W.3d 791, 795 (Ky. 2016) “(It is equally impermissible for an attorney to phrase her remarks so as to indicate that a witness is lying based on the evidence presented. Of course, pointing out inconsistencies in a witness's statements and other evidence—and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom—is entirely permissible to the extent that it otherwise comports with our rules of practice and procedure. However, counsel is not permitted to make affirmative conclusions as to the credibility of a witness. Determining witness credibility “is within the exclusive province of the jury.” Id. (citation omitted).”) Also held can be considered harmless error based on circumstsances, but remanded for retrial)State v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748, 779–80, 931 A.2d 198, 218 (2007) The other claimed improprieties in the present case, however, involve a variation on the classic type of Singh violation in which a defendant is asked whether another witness is lying, instead asking the defendant whether a witness' testimony was “true,” “right” or “accurate” and whether the defendant agreed with certain statements of other witnesses. Although these questions did not ask the defendant overtly to say whether a witness was wrong or mistaken, effectively, they essentially asked the same improper question, only phrased in the positive rather than in the negative. See United States v. Freitag, 230 F.3d 1019, 1024 (7th Cir.2000) (asking defendant if testimony of other witnesses is true is improper because it “invades the province of the jury; indeed asking if testimony is true implies that if it is not, it is a lie, which is a credibility question for the jury to decide”); see also United States v. Sanchez–Lima, 161 F.3d 545, 548 (9th Cir.1998) (reversible error when one government witness permitted to testify, over defense objection, that another government witness was telling truth, because determination of witness credibility is for jury and such testimony constituted bolstering by inadmissible evidence)Hunter v. State, 397 Md. 580, 591, 919 A.2d 63, 69 (2007) (“We agreed with the trial court that this line of questioning was impermissible because the attorney was effectively asking the witness to say “whether the witness who gave [the statement] [ ] testified falsely.... [O]ne witness cannot be asked to characterize the testimony of another Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. Lycan, 57 Kan. 635, 47 P. 526, 528 [ (1897) ] ), since that is exclusively the function of the jury.” Id. at 314–15, 171 A. at 55. Thus, as early as 1934, we held that “were-they-lying” questions are impermissible in civil cases.”; reversing judgment and ordering new trial)Eggleston v. Com., No. 2010-CA-002291-MR, 2012 WL 6061711, at *2 (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2012)In Moss, our Supreme Court reaffirmed the longstanding rule that it is improper to require a witness to comment upon the credibility of another witness: With few exceptions, it is improper to require a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness. A witness's opinion about the truth of the testimony of another witness is not permitted. Neither expert nor lay witnesses may testify that another witness or a defendant is lying or faking. That determination is within the exclusive province of the jury")State v. Airhart-Bryon, 13 Wash. App. 2d 1003, review denied, 196 Wash. 2d 1018, 474 P.3d 1052 (2020) (“Airhart also cites Boehning to argue prosecutors commit flagrant misconduct as a matter of law whenever they ask one witness if another is lying. Boehning generally supports this proposition. 127 Wn. App. at 525, 111 P.3d 899. However, our Supreme Court's longstanding requirement is that allegations of prosecutorial misconduct be evaluated “ ‘in the context of the entire record and the circumstances at trial.' ” See, e.g., Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d at 442, 258 P.3d 43 (quoting Magers, 164 Wn.2d at 191, 189 P.3d 126). Here, we look to the context of the entire record to conclude there was no incurable misconduct”)Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs. v. P.F, 137 Md. App. 243, 268, 768 A.2d 112, 126 (2001) (“The second reason assigned by the Bohnert Court was that a social worker's opinion regarding the credibility of the child invades the fact finder's role in assessing credibility and resolving disputed facts. Citing well-established limitations on the role of witnesses, the Bohnert Court held that the social worker's opinion constituted an improper “vouching” for the credibility of the alleged victim. In a criminal case tried before a jury, a fundamental principle is that the credibility of a witness and the weight to be accorded the witness' testimony are solely within the province of the jury.... It is also error [in civil cases] for the court to permit to go to the jury a statement, belief, or opinion of another person to the effect that a witness is telling the truth or lying....”, (citing Bohnert v. State, 312 Md. 266, 277, 539 A.2d 657, 662 (1988)It is also error for the court to permit to go to the jury a statement, belief, or opinion of another person to the effect that a witness is telling the truth or lying. Thompson v. Phosphate Works, 178 Md. 305, 317-319, 13 A.2d 328 (1940); American Stores v. Herman, 166 Md. 312, 314-315, 171 A. 54 (1934). The Court of Special Appeals said in Mutyambizi v. State, 33 Md.App. 55, 61, 363 A.2d 511 (1976), cert. denied, 279 Md. 684 (1977): Whether a witness on the stand personally believes or disbelieves testimony of a previous witness is irrelevant, and questions to that effect are improper, either on direct or cross-examination.”)Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1084 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The current version of the Model Rules similarly states that, in both civil and criminal trials, a lawyer shall not “state a personal opinion as to ... the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused.” Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 3.4(e) (2015). In sum, our prior case law indicates that attorneys may not rely on evidence outside the record during closing argument and that prosecutors may not vouch for witnesses' credibility. We now make clear that the prohibition on improper vouching based on evidence outside the record extends to civil trials”)Shuang Ying Nancy Zhang v. A-Z Realty & Inv. Corp., et al., No. EDCV 19-887-KK, 2022 WL 17361983, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2022) (“In addition, “counsel in a civil trial may not rely on evidence outside the record during closing argument")Fed. R. Evid. 608. A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness.Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons (The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence)Rule 602. Need for Personal Knowledge. (A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness's own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness's expert testimony under Rule 703.Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses (If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness's perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702)

Is Nonlawyer Ownership of Legal Service Providers Really That Bad? (Ethics Attorney Jim Doppke)

chicago arizona utah ethics robinson attorney ownership service providers professional conduct legalservice model rules

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 1, 2022 45:45

Ethics attorney Jim Doppke makes his fourth appearance on the show to discuss the pros and cons of liberalizing legal ethics rules like Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 that prohibit people who are not lawyers from owning an interest in legal services companies and preventing them from sharing in legal fees. In recent years, states like Utah and Arizona that are testing the waters and permitting lawyers to team up with others to provide legal services and share legal fees. Jim discusses the ethical implications of these programs and explores preliminary statistics from the programs that trac the number of people served and the number of complaints raised about the services. Jim is an ethics attorney with the Chicago firm of Robinson, Stewart, Montgomery & Doppke. Before that, he spent most of his career as a prosecutor with the Illinois ARDC (the Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission). He also has a legal ethics focused podcast called Legal Ethics Now and Next.

'Responsible Algorithms: Guiding Principles for Automated Decision-Making in Commercial Transactions': 3CL/CPLC Seminar (audio)

Cambridge Law: Public Lectures from the Faculty of Law

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 29, 2022 40:27

Speaker: Professor Teresa Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (University Carlos III of Madrid) Held jointly with the Cambridge Private Law Centre. Biography: Professor Rodriguez de las Heras Ballell is Professor of Commercial Law, Carlos III University of Madrid, Spain. She works extensively in the area of AI, the digital economy and fintech, and is a member of EU Expert Groups on Liability for AI and other emerging technologies, on the Platform Economy and on Model Contract Terms for B2B Data Sharing and Cloud Computing. She is also an expert at UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL in Working Groups on Enforcement (Technology), Warehouse Receipts and Digital Economy (AI for international trade, Data transactions, Online Platforms) and has been the Spanish Delegate to UNCITRAL WG VI on Security Interests and WG IV on E-Commerce (Projects on AI in international data and Data transactions), and to UNIDROIT for the MAC protocol to the Cape Town Convention. She is an active member of the European Law Institute, and has been involved in many ELI projects: as the author of “Guiding Principles on ADM in Europe”, (2022), as co-reporter to the Project on Algorithmic Contracts, as a member of the project on Model Rules for Online Platforms and as assessor to the project on Smart Contracts and Blockchain. Her main other research interests focus on international business transactions and secured transactions and corporate finance. 3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

'Responsible Algorithms: Guiding Principles for Automated Decision-Making in Commercial Transactions': 3CL/CPLC Seminar (audio)

Cambridge Law: Public Lectures from the Faculty of Law

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 29, 2022 40:27

Speaker: Professor Teresa Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell (University Carlos III of Madrid) Held jointly with the Cambridge Private Law Centre. Biography: Professor Rodriguez de las Heras Ballell is Professor of Commercial Law, Carlos III University of Madrid, Spain. She works extensively in the area of AI, the digital economy and fintech, and is a member of EU Expert Groups on Liability for AI and other emerging technologies, on the Platform Economy and on Model Contract Terms for B2B Data Sharing and Cloud Computing. She is also an expert at UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL in Working Groups on Enforcement (Technology), Warehouse Receipts and Digital Economy (AI for international trade, Data transactions, Online Platforms) and has been the Spanish Delegate to UNCITRAL WG VI on Security Interests and WG IV on E-Commerce (Projects on AI in international data and Data transactions), and to UNIDROIT for the MAC protocol to the Cape Town Convention. She is an active member of the European Law Institute, and has been involved in many ELI projects: as the author of “Guiding Principles on ADM in Europe”, (2022), as co-reporter to the Project on Algorithmic Contracts, as a member of the project on Model Rules for Online Platforms and as assessor to the project on Smart Contracts and Blockchain. Her main other research interests focus on international business transactions and secured transactions and corporate finance. 3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Line of Sight Gaming Podcast Episode 30 - Incorporating Scenario Design into Model Rules

Line of Sight Gaming Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 7, 2022

design incorporating scenario gaming podcasts line of sight model rules

Technology Ethics for Lawyers with Daniel Gold

Emerging Litigation Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 3, 2022 40:59

Attorneys are increasingly required to demonstrate technological proficiency in addition to remaining current on the law and legal practice. It's not just a skill requirement but an ethical one, too, as states continue to adopt new rules. The challenge for attorneys, judges, and the rule makers is that technology is generally evolving faster than they can keep up. This creates grey areas and blind spots that pose risks to busy litigators with already full plates and hectic schedules. In 2012 the American Bar Association amended Comment 8 to Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Lawyers Duty of Competence) to address technology competency. “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.” Most states (40) have rules addressing technology competence among attorneys. Daniel Gold is the Managing Director of BDO's E-Discovery Managed Services practice group and the creator of BDO's Athenagy™, the only patent pending business intelligence solution in the world that created a Common Data Model and data driven insights fueled by both M365 E5 Compliance Suite's Microsoft Advanced E-Discovery and RelativityOne. Daniel has nearly 20 years of experience in the legal space. As a practicing lawyer, he identified that by harnessing new forms of legal technology, both lawyers and legal professionals could be vastly more productive. This realization led him to the legal service provider space and with it, came years of success at consulting with some of the largest corporate law departments and law firms across the country. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

gold journal managing directors lawyers attorney litigation competence hb american bar association bdo full court press professional conduct emerging issues fastcase technology ethics model rules common data model

The Perfection of Ethics for a Life in the Law

The Wake Up Call for Lawyers

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 25, 2022 20:34 Transcription Available

Ordinarily, when I think of ethics they either feels legalistic, like the rules of professional conduct, or else I think of the rules I learned in Sunday school. Mindfulness offers an invitation to consider ethics in a different way: not so much as rules but more as a way of life that feels right and has better all-around consequences. For me, the motivation to discover that life is more motivating than the Model Rules or the Ten Commandments. It also feels more optimistic.

meditation mindfulness lawyers ethics perfection ten commandments law students ordinarily legal professionals model rules

Model rules 1.1-1.4

Taking Ls But Never Losing

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 31, 2022 4:52

Check ur notes --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/fgoldbuster/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/fgoldbuster/support

model rules

Professional Nurse-Patient Boundaries

Nursing: Sound Reports

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 29, 2022 9:07

Diane Burkert, BSN, RN, Health Professions Investigator with the Iowa Board of Nursing, joins us to discuss the Board's rules regarding maintaining professional relationships with patients and families. Host: Anne Ryan ******************** Resources: Iowa Legislative Code citations: 655 Chapters 6.2(4)e, 6.3(7)f and 4.6(5): https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/rule/02-24-2021.655.6.2.pdf https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/rule/11-17-2021.655.6.3.pdf https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/rule/02-23-2022.655.4.6.pdf National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN): https://www.ncsbn.org/transcript_ProfessionalBoundaries.pdf https://www.ncsbn.org/21_Model_Rules.pdf

board professional boundaries patients nurses chapters nursing rn bsn state boards model rules iowa board

OA611: Cipollone to Testify! Andrew Called It! Here's What To Expect.

Opening Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 8, 2022 68:42

Today's episode pays off a bet Andrew made last month that the January 6 Committee would eventually secure the testimony of White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. Find out why that's such a big deal! In addition to explaining how the J6 Committee came to secure Pets of Belonging's testimony, Andrew answers your questions regarding whether this is some kind of elaborate con (No), how Cipollone's answers are likely to interact with executive and attorney-client privilege (frequently), and the likelihood that he will help round out the successful case for prosecuting Donald Trump for crimes in connection with the 1/6 Insurrection (EXTREMELY!). It's a big deal! After the main breakdown, we share a thoughtful and informative letter from a listener who helps put the Supreme Court's recent (atrocious) decision in Carson v. Makin (that we broke down in Episode 608) permitting direct government aid to expressly religious schools into a fuller context. It's an Andrew Was Wrong (About Rural Maine) and an important object lesson that you can never trust the fact section in a SCOTUS case involving religion these days. Links: The brilliant and hilarious Merrill Markoe captured the live-captioning of Pat Cipollone's name as Patsy Baloney (and others) on Twitter. For the background for the crime-fraud exception, check out Rule 1.2 and Rule 1.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. You can check out the Senate Judiciary testimony of Jeff Rosen as well as Richard Donohue for all sorts of new goodies, some of which we covered on the show! Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Carson v. Makin., which we previously broke down in Episode 608 with Andrew Seidel. Finally, secret link! CLICK HERE to read the Kurt Olsen draft complaint for the DOJ, which we discovered in all its madness after the end of the record. Remember you can still donate to the Opening Arguments Foundation at OAfund.org!

donald trump supreme court pets belonging committee scotus doj testify makin senate judiciary j6 committee professional conduct pat cipollone andrew seidel cipollone model rules merrill markoe jeff rosen

Nursing Education: Regulation Considerations

Nursing: Sound Reports

Play Episode Listen Later May 31, 2022 25:09

Dr. Jimmy Reyes, Associate Director of Nursing Practice and Nursing Education and Anne Ryan, Host discuss the history and development of nursing education regulation and how the Board currently regulates nursing education. Dr. Reyes draws on his experience and expertise to provide insights and share challenges in this field. ******************** Resources: Iowa Legislative Code citations: 655- Chapter 2: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/law/administrativeRules/rules?agency=655&chapter=2&pubDate=05-04-2022 National Council of State Boards of Nursing- Model Rules (Published Aug 2021): https://www.ncsbn.org/21_Model_Rules.pdf

board regulation considerations reyes associate director state boards nursing practice nursing education pubdate model rules

Versicherungsfunk Update 25.04.2022

Versicherungsfunk

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 25, 2022 2:45

Die Themen im heutigen Versicherungsfunk Update sind: Allianz dampft Software-Pläne ein Die Allianz legt das Thema Allianz Betriebssystem (ABS) zu den Akten. Ziel war es, dieses Betriebssystem auch anderen Versicherern anzubieten, folglich zum Software-Anbieter zu werden. Ein Problem sei der hohe Anpassungsbedarf von ABS. Das berichtet die „Süddeutsche“. Zudem gebe es eine Reihe von etablierten IT-Dienstleistern, die Standard-Lösungen auch für Versicherer bieten. Zu diesen zählt unter anderem der deutsche Software-Riese SAP. Auf diese Angebote werde von Versicherern weit häufiger zurückgegriffen. mehr >>> www.versicherungsbote.de/id/4905735/Allianz-wird-doch-kein-Software-Haus/ Globale Mindeststeuer möge erst 2024 greifen Der weltweite Dachverband der Versicherungswirtschaft (GFIA) fordert in einer mit dem Gesamtverband der deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft (GDV) abgestimmten Stellungnahme, den Erstanwendungszeitpunkt der Mindestbesteuerungsregeln auf den 1. Januar 2024 zu verschieben. Anderenfalls stehe nicht mehr genügend Zeit für die Umsetzung zur Verfügung. Zudem kritisiert die GFIA die in den Model Rules vorgesehene Begrenzung des Steuersatzes für die Berechnung latenter Steuern auf 15 Prozent. VGH Versicherungen mit solidem Geschäftsverlauf Die VGH Versicherungen haben im Jahr 2021 Bruttobeitragseinnahmen von rund drei Milliarden Euro eingefahren. Lediglich bei der Provinzial Lebensversicherung sanken die Beiträge. Hier gaben die Einmalbeiträge deutlich nach. Dafür haben sich die Überschüsse in allen Bereichen positiv entwickelt. Deutsche machen Milliarden-Gewinne mit Kryptowährungen Die Bundesbürger erzielten mit Kryptowährungen 2021 Gewinne in Höhe von umgerechnet 5,8 Milliarden US-Dollar. Nur in Großbritannien und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika sprudeln die Gewinne noch mehr. Dies geht aus einer neuen Handelskontor-Infografik hervor. Geringere Fahrleistung durch Corona Deutsche Autofahrer legten durchschnittlich 10.928 km im vergangenen Jahr zurück. Im Jahr 2019 waren es noch 11.371 km. Das geht aus einer Auswertung des Online-Portals Check24 hervor. Mehrheit junger Menschen offen für Pflege von Angehörigen Die Mehrheit der jungen Menschen in Nordrhein-Westfalen ist bereit und offen für die Pflege von Angehörigen. Nach einer Sonderauswertung des Pflegereports der DAK-Gesundheit gaben dies 68 Prozent der Befragten an. Mehr als ein Viertel der 16- bis 39-Jährigen ist demnach schon täglich in der Pflege ihrer nahen Verwandten aktiv.

【資誠稅務一點通】兩岸與國際租稅Update (近期國際稅務更新2)

PwC Taiwan (資誠)

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 16, 2022 11:23

#數位經濟課稅 #國際租稅 #BEPS #稅基侵蝕及利潤移轉 #全球利潤分配稅制 #Pillar1 #支柱一 #Pillar2 #支柱二 #反避稅 OECD於2022年2月18日公布全球利潤分配稅制（又稱支柱一，Pillar 1）第二部分細節法規架構（Model Rules）的徵求意見稿，針對如何確定稅基提出更為明確的指引。本期說明稅基確定的主要內容，及Pillar One法規架構的13項內容。另外，針對香港及新加坡將引進的國內最低稅負制，說明研擬導入的措施及稅率。資誠提醒，如同目前全球的稅務趨勢變化，對大型企業加稅，並將對不動產課徵累進稅率，企業的成本勢必上升，台資企業必須密切觀察各國變動情勢，以進行相關調整因應。歡迎成為資誠會員：https://pwc.to/2V8Lh8v

pillar beps pillar one model rules

Pillar Two model rules

PwC's Tax Bites Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 16, 2022 20:08

On 22 December, the European Commission issued 2 proposals. One proposal deals with the introduction of the global minimum tax in the EU by 2023. The EU proposal deviates from the OECD proposal on a number of topics. Find out how the proposal will look like in this Tax Bites episode with Jean-Philippe van West and Isabel Verlinden. In addition, we also discuss the proposed directive covering the ‘unshelling' of the EU: the proposed ATAD 3, or should we say, ‘new DAC'. Let us know what you think!

west european union pillar european commission oecd jean philippe dac pillar two model rules

OECD releases Pillar Two model rules: What's next?

Tax News & Views

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 3, 2022 13:44

For the first time since the OECD announced its Pillar Two solution, local governments and multinational corporations are starting to see how the proposed tax framework, or at least part of it, will work. In this latest episode, Deloitte Tax leaders Alison Lobb and Bob Stack look at the recently published Pillar Two rules and how they may impact multinational corporations based in the US.

business tax releases pillar oecd corporate tax pillar two model rules deloitte tax

【資誠稅務一點通】兩岸與國際租稅Update (全球最低稅負之法規架構)

PwC Taiwan (資誠)

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 28, 2022 14:04

#BEPS #全球最低稅負 #租稅優惠 #數位經濟 #CFC 本期說明OECD發布全球最低稅負制（支柱二，Pillar Two）的法規架構（Model Rules），包含數位經濟對利潤分配規則的衝擊、第二支柱的規定說明及有效稅率計算方式、全球防止稅基侵蝕規定基本原理、最後有相關範例說明及未來預計時程。資誠建議台資企業宜根據全球防止稅基侵蝕規定的不同變化，啟動方案規劃；並發現主要受影響的國家，提前針對重要議題進行調整。歡迎成為資誠會員：https://pwc.to/2V8Lh8v

cfc beps pillar two model rules

BEPS 2.0 – the time is now

Tax & Law Hörfunk

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 21, 2022 25:19

Kurz vor Weihnachten haben die OECD und EU mit den Model Rules und einem Richtlinienentwurf die Eckpfeiler für eine neue Weltsteuerordnung gesetzt. Im Kern geht es um ein neues Verständnis der Besteuerung der digitalen Geschäftsmodelle, die einhergeht mit neuen komplexen Regeln (Income Inclusion Rule, Undertaxed payment rule, Subject to Tax Rule) und als Basis für die folgenden nationalen Umsetzungen dienen. Dirk Nolte und Katharina Rapp ordnen im Gespräch mit Hermann Gauß das Wesentlichste ein und verdeutlichen, dass es für betroffene Unternehmen jetzt Zeit ist zu handeln und man nicht weitere Details abwarten sollte, sondern sich auf eine neue Form der Gewinnbesteuerung vorbereiten muss.

european union gesch weihnachten unternehmen tax basis verst kurz subject oecd im kern besteuerung eckpfeiler umsetzungen beps model rules

Around the GloBE: Exploring the Pillar Two Model Rules

Inside International Tax

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 11, 2022 33:26

globe pillar pillar two model rules

EY ITTS Washington Dispatch, December 2021

Ernst & Young ITS Washington Dispatch

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 11, 2022 15:48

The Ernst & Young ITTS Washington Dispatch brings you a monthly review of US international tax-related developments. In this edition: Biden Administration's Build Back Better legislation stalls in Congress; Senate Finance Committee releases updated international tax provisions – Senate Foreign Relations Committee Republicans urge vote on 2010 US-Chile tax treaty – Treasury releases final foreign tax credit regulations – IRS issues final rules on tax consequences of transition from LIBOR and other interbank offered rates in certain financial contracts – OECD releases Model Rules on Pillar Two Global Minimum Tax – OECD releases 2020 peer review report on BEPS Action 5 on Exchange of Information of Tax Rulings.

washington congress exchange irs tax treasury biden administration ey oecd dispatch build back better ernst young libor senate finance committee model rules itts beps action

Ethics and Batson – Race Discrimination in Juries

California MCLE Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 5, 2022 31:24

The Batson rule, prohibiting exclusions from jury based on race, is widely viewed as nearly impossible to enforce in practice. However, where Botson fails, do the Model Rules of Professional Conduct have anything to say?. The United States has a long history of racial discrimination in juries. In 1875, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act which prohibited race-based discrimination in jury service. Despite the federal law, states continued to remove prospective black jurors. Over time, techniques to exclude nonwhites shifted from vague requirements for jury service to excluding jurors using peremptory challenges. Despite the landmark case Batson v. Kentucky (1986) in which the Supreme Court held that the state may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors solely on the basis of race, the practice persists today. Legal ethics scholar, Prof. Peter Joy, explains the Batson standard and the ways in which the framework falls short. He discusses the legal ethics of racial discrimination in jury selection and considers alternatives to peremptory challenges to combat discrimination.

congress kentucky legal supreme court prof ethics civil rights act juries batson professional conduct model rules race discrimination

EY Cross-Border Taxation Spotlight for Week ending 23 December 2021

EY Cross-Border Taxation Alerts

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 23, 2021 4:16

A review of the week's major US international tax-related news. In this edition: Senator Joe Manchin will not support Build Back Better Act; Majority Leader will bring forward ‘modified' version of bill in new year – OECD releases Model Rules on the Pillar Two Global Minimum Tax.

business podcasting podcasters tax spotlight ey taxation oecd joe manchin crossborder ernst young build back better act majority leader week ending model rules

Jim Doppke on the Ethics of Legal Tech and the Duty to Supervise Robots (2019)

Pharmacy Revenue Cycle News

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 22, 2021 44:17

Legal ethics attorney Jim Doppke returns for an encore appearance to discuss the impact that legal tech and legal innovation have on the Rules of Professional Conduct and other rules that govern how lawyers practice law. Jim explains how Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Lawyer's Duty of Competence) and 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance) are implicated by advances in legal technology and legal innovation. A comment to Rule 1.1 (and adopted by most states) says that as part of a lawyer's duty of competence, lawyers must stay abreast of changes in technology. MRPC 5.3 states that lawyers must actively supervise “non-lawyer” assistance they engage to help out on legal matters. Historically, this meant that lawyers needed to supervise others lending them a hand–like a paralegal. However, Jim points out that the rule specifically relates to “assistance” and not just “assistants”. This is significant, because certain legal tech, like artificial intelligence (AI), is really non-lawyer “assistance.” So, as Jim points out, if lawyers are going to use AI, they must supervise the training of the algorithms to ensure accuracy, just like they are obligated to supervise the work of their paralegals and other assistants to make sure their work is accurate. In a similar vein, Jim points out that as the use of ALSPs (alternative legal service providers) increases, there too is another situation in which lawyers must supervise work done by those who may not be attorneys.

ai robots legal lawyers ethics intelligence duty artificial historically competence legaltech professional conduct supervise model rules alsps mrpc

Chili Bowl entry update, unified dirt late model rules, Perrego joining Super DIRTcar Series | Daily 12-22-2021

Daily | Conversations

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 22, 2021 8:37

Ricky Thornton Jr. is set to make his Chili Bowl debut and we've got details plus a total entry list update. We are also talking Silver Crown rides, Anthony Perrego's new deal, and the unified dirt late model rules.

entry unified motorsports modified midgets chili bowl usac late model sprint car dirt track model rules dirtcar

MFN Model Rule-Proposal to Rescind

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 23, 2021 3:32

CMS has proposed to rescind the Most Favored Nation Interim Final Rule. Comments are due to CMS by October 12. 2021.

proposal cms model rules

IRS Goes After Cryptocurrency User Data; The New State Bar Association Rules That Restrict Speech

Administrative Static Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 24, 2021 25:00

IRS Goes After Cryptocurrency User Data NCLA Litigation Counsel Adi Dynar joins the show to discuss thelawsuit James Harper v. Charles P. Rettig, et al. NCLA contends the IRS violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment constitutional rights by obtaining his private financial information from virtual-currency exchanges without following statutory limitations on its power to issue subpoenas. In August 2019, James Harper received a letter from the IRS accusing him of not having “properly reported” his “transactions involving virtual currency.” A press release followed shortly thereafter stating, “Taxpayers should take these letters very seriously” and “correct past errors.” Mr. Harper, one of more than 10,000 cryptocurrency holders who received such a letter, filed a lawsuit challenging the IRS's questionable information-gathering practices. Read more about the case here: https://nclalegal.org/james-harper-v-charles-p-rettig-et-al/ The New State Bar Association Rules That Restrict Speech NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little joins the show to discuss the new state bar association rules that restrict speech. ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) is intended to “more effectively guard against harassment and intimidation in the legal community,” but its vague language exposes attorneys to discipline even if they lack any intent to discriminate against others. Because “harassment” has no fixed meaning, bar officials would be free to adopt an expansive definition in cases involving speech they find distasteful, declare that the speaker “reasonably” should have been aware of that definition, and impose career-ending sanctions on the speaker. The Model Rule does not even require a showing that the lawyer intended to discriminate against or harass anyone. These defects will inevitably chill attorneys' speech in the future. Nearly 20 states have either completely or largely rejected the adoption of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) because of its infringement on free-speech rights. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

speech cryptocurrency irs taxpayers restrict new state state bar bar association fifth amendment charles p user data rettig james harper model rules ncla

A CLE Webinar - Some Recent (and Ongoing) Developments in Legal Ethics

president owner webinars wide ongoing appeals developments perkins professor emeritus ramifications american bar association division one legal ethics model rules arizona court

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 29, 2021 59:37

In this CLE Webinar, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins of the Arizona Court of Appeals and Professor Emeritus of Law William Hodes will discuss the following three areas of lawyer professional responsibility.* The American Bar Association adopted Model Rule 8.4(g) in August 2016 to provide enforceable regulations against discrimination and harassment by lawyers on the basis of sex, race, and several other characteristics. But the Rule has proven to be controversial, and even five years later the controversy seems to be increasing rather than fading from view.* Wide adoption of computer-based and online technology has dramatically affected the practice of law, beginning well before the dawn of this century. Ramifications for legal ethics include responding to online criticism by clients or opposing parties, working remotely outside the state of licensure, preventing and dealing with data breaches involving confidential client information, maintaining competency to practice law beyond knowledge of legal doctrine and familiarity with procedural requirements, using artificial intelligence to conduct judge-specific legal research, and avoiding ex parte or other improper communications through interactions on social media.* Model Rule 1.2(d) and its predecessors have always prohibited lawyers from knowingly assisting clients in carrying out fraudulent or criminal schemes. But how does a lawyer know when a client is up to no good? In suspicious circumstances, is there an unavoidable tension among client loyalty, client service, self-protection., and good citizenship? An uncomfortable "client audit" can become necessary, in litigation and non-litigation matters.Featuring:-- William Hodes, Owner and President, The William Hodes Law Firm-- Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

EP 111 - Janet Falk - How Media Strategy Should be Part of Litigation Strategy

Legal Mastermind Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2021 28:03

EP 111 - Janet Falk - How Media Strategy Should be Part of Litigation StrategyJanet Falk is the Founder and Chief Strategist at Falk Communications and Research. Check out Janet's company here: https://janetlfalk.com/ On This Episode, We Discuss...- How to come up with talking points with reporters.- Prepare to announce the case when you represent the plaintiff- Prepare to defend your client- Be aware of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Model Rules during trial- Prepare for the decision/verdict- Promote the case after trial

founders strategy media research legal promote litigation chief strategist we discuss media strategies professional conduct model rules janet falk

OA486: Apportionment Might NOT Be Final

Opening Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 30, 2021 70:07

You all probably heard by now that NY lost a House seat by 89 people... But did they? Andrew argues that this has been misreported. Find out why! Along the way, find out way more than you ever wanted to about the math and Al Gore Rhythms behind apportionment! Also, Rudy Giuliani had some things taken in what shouldn't be called a "raid." Couldn't' have happened to a nicer obvious criminal! Then we answer some feedback on the previous episode, OA485: What If Your Client Tells You They’re Guilty? Links: OA307: Apportionment - The Census Fight Is Not Over, NPR 2020 Census Results, 13 US Code § 141 - Population and other census information, Executive Order on the Census, 2020 Census Apportionment Results, 2 U.S. Code § 2b, Method of Equal Proportions, Reapportionment Under the 1950 Census, "Computing Apportionment," US Census Bureau, Model Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal

house ny code npr method guilty population census executive orders rudy giuliani tribunal us census bureau apportionment model rules us code

A Discussion of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g)

That Said With Michael Zeldin

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 9, 2021 58:38

American Bar Association Model Rule 8.4(g) defines professional misconduct in relevant part as “conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Because the 8.4(g) professional misconduct definition is broad and applies to a wide swath of undefined activity, the model rule has prompted spirited debate in light of the serious competing interests implicated. Join us for a discussion of contrasting views from Professor Josh Blackman and Mr. Robert Weiner. Featuring: -- Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston-- Robert Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP -- Moderator: Kim Colby, Director of the Center of Law and Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society

director law professor partner religious freedom south texas college model rules christian legal society robert weiner

John Dean, Guest –That Said with Michael Zeldin

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 24, 2021 68:23

John Dean, best known for his treatise on Richard M. Nixon joins Michael Zeldin to discuss his recent psychological investigation into the psyche and personality of former President Donald J. Trump. Dean has partnered with Bob Altemeyer, a professor of psychology whose expertise is the study of authoritarianism, to see why Trump's base is so faithful to him, no matter what he does. Why do evangelical Christians support him, for example, despite his well-documented sexual predations? Why do so many working class Americans support him, despite the way he works against their interests? Why do facts and logic not change their minds? "Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers” is the first book to take a deep dive into the psychology of Trump's base: How do Trump's communications campaigns continue to appeal to them, while taking actions so contrary to their economic, health and religious interests. Why do his followers believe the flagrant lies about his record, despite so much proof to the contrary? How do they continue to have faith in a man whose irrational words continue to contradict reality and who to this day warns them: “What you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening.” Guest John Dean John Dean served as Counsel to the President of the United States from July 1970 to April 1973. Before becoming White House counsel at age thirty-one, he was the chief minority counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives, an associate director of a law reform commission, and an associate deputy attorney general at the US Department of Justice. His undergraduate studies were at Colgate University and the College of Wooster, with majors in English Literature and Political Science; then a graduate fellowship at American University to study government and the presidency before entering Georgetown University Law Center, where he received his JD with honors in 1965. John recounted his days at the Nixon White House and Watergate in two books: Blind Ambition (1976) and Lost Honor (1982). After retiring from a business career as a private investment banker doing middle-market mergers and acquisitions, he returned to full-time writing and lecturing, including as a columnist for FindLaw's Writ (from 2000 to 2010) and Justia's Verdict (since 2010), and is currently working on his twelfth book about Donald Trump's presidency. Trump's election has resulted in renewed interest in (and sales of) John's earlier New York Times best-sellers: Conservatives Without Conscience (2006), which explained the authoritarian direction of the conservative movement that resulted in Trump's election a decade before it happened, and Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches (2008), which addresses the consequences of GOP control of government. His most recent bestseller, The Nixon Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew It is being developed by Amazon Studios into a feature film entitled “Watergate.” John Dean held the Barry M. Goldwater Chair of American Institutions at Arizona State University (2015-16), and for the past decade and a half he has been a visiting scholar and lecturer at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School of Communications. John has been teaching a long-running continuing legal education (CLE) program series which examines the impact of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct on select historic events from Watergate with surprising results, along with the lasting impact of Watergate on the legal profession – The Watergate CLE. Since 2017 he has been a political/legal commentator for CNN, and currently is working on his twelfth book Follow John on Twitter: @JohnWDean Host Michael Zeldin Michael Zeldin is a well-known and highly-regarded TV and radio analyst/commentator.

John Dean, Guest –That Said with Michael Zeldin

That Said With Michael Zeldin

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 24, 2021 68:23

John Dean, best known for his treatise on Richard M. Nixon joins Michael Zeldin to discuss his recent psychological investigation into the psyche and personality of former President Donald J. Trump. Dean has partnered with Bob Altemeyer, a professor of psychology whose expertise is the study of authoritarianism, to see why Trump's base is so faithful to him, no matter what he does. Why do evangelical Christians support him, for example, despite his well-documented sexual predations? Why do so many working class Americans support him, despite the way he works against their interests? Why do facts and logic not change their minds? "Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers” is the first book to take a deep dive into the psychology of Trump's base: How do Trump's communications campaigns continue to appeal to them, while taking actions so contrary to their economic, health and religious interests. Why do his followers believe the flagrant lies about his record, despite so much proof to the contrary? How do they continue to have faith in a man whose irrational words continue to contradict reality and who to this day warns them: “What you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening.” Guest John Dean John Dean served as Counsel to the President of the United States from July 1970 to April 1973. Before becoming White House counsel at age thirty-one, he was the chief minority counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives, an associate director of a law reform commission, and an associate deputy attorney general at the US Department of Justice. His undergraduate studies were at Colgate University and the College of Wooster, with majors in English Literature and Political Science; then a graduate fellowship at American University to study government and the presidency before entering Georgetown University Law Center, where he received his JD with honors in 1965. John recounted his days at the Nixon White House and Watergate in two books: Blind Ambition (1976) and Lost Honor (1982). After retiring from a business career as a private investment banker doing middle-market mergers and acquisitions, he returned to full-time writing and lecturing, including as a columnist for FindLaw's Writ (from 2000 to 2010) and Justia's Verdict (since 2010), and is currently working on his twelfth book about Donald Trump's presidency. Trump's election has resulted in renewed interest in (and sales of) John's earlier New York Times best-sellers: Conservatives Without Conscience (2006), which explained the authoritarian direction of the conservative movement that resulted in Trump's election a decade before it happened, and Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches (2008), which addresses the consequences of GOP control of government. His most recent bestseller, The Nixon Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew It is being developed by Amazon Studios into a feature film entitled “Watergate.” John Dean held the Barry M. Goldwater Chair of American Institutions at Arizona State University (2015-16), and for the past decade and a half he has been a visiting scholar and lecturer at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School of Communications. John has been teaching a long-running continuing legal education (CLE) program series which examines the impact of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct on select historic events from Watergate with surprising results, along with the lasting impact of Watergate on the legal profession – The Watergate CLE. Since 2017 he has been a political/legal commentator for CNN, and currently is working on his twelfth book Follow John on Twitter: @JohnWDean Host Michael Zeldin Michael Zeldin is a well-known and highly-regarded TV and radio analyst/commentator. He has covered many high-profile matters, including the Clinton impeachment proceedings, the Gore v.

ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) in Pennsylvania

Pharmacy Revenue Cycle News

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 1, 2021 50:20

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g) holds it misconduct for an attorney to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination” in connection with the practice of law. Scholars have criticized the Rule as chilling speech on matters of public concern and unlawful viewpoint discrimination; several state attorneys general concluded the rule is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Pennsylvania adopted a modified version of Rule 8.4(g), including “words or conduct” within its ambit. In Greenberg v. Haggerty (E.D. Pa. 2020), an attorney represented by the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute obtained a preliminary injunction against Pennsylvania’s enforcement of the rule. Pennsylvania officials have appealed to the Third Circuit. HLLI’s Ted Frank will discuss Rule 8.4(g) and its consequences for speech, the Greenberg decision and appeal, and the prospects for future litigation. Featuring: -- Ted Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and the Center for Class Action Fairness.

director pennsylvania scholars litigation greenberg senior attorney third circuit professional conduct model rules ted frank class action fairness

MFN Model Rule under Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 28, 2020 4:25

A judge in Maryland has issued a 14-day Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting CMS from implementing the Most Favored Nation (MFN) Model Rule on January 1, 2021.

maryland cms temporary restraining order model rules

Lawyers Duty of Technology Competence (2020 Edition) With Jim Doppke

Learned Hands: The Official Podcast of the Westerosi Bar Association

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 8, 2020 31:51

Ethics attorney Jim Doppke returns to Technically Legal to talk legal ethics and technology. Jim is a former prosecutor for the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and is now in private practice with Robinson, Stewart, Montgomery and Doppke. Jim counsels attorneys and businesses on legal ethics issues and represents attorneys and attorney candidates in ARDC proceedings. Way back in 2017, Jim was our first guest and he talked about what was then a fairly recent change to Comment 8 to Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (a lawyer’s duty of competence). In response to changes in technology, the American Bar Association added language to MRPC 1.1 , Comment 8 stating attorneys must understand “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” (To date, more states than not require attorneys to be “technologically competent.”) We brought Jim back to talk about what has changed since he first appeared on the podcast because his original episode is still one of the most downloaded. Jim says a few things have changed since the tweak to the Rule 1.1: More lawyers using artificial intelligence (AI), especially for contract review and litigation, more lawyers using tech in general (especially since COVID-19) and that there are now other legal ethics rules that touch on the use of technology (like MRPC 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance). Technically Legal is hosted by Chad Main, an attorney and the founder of Percipient, a tech-enabled alternative legal services provider.

covid-19 ai technology law tech legal lawyers ethics duty montgomery law firms competence american bar association legaltech professional conduct model rules mrpc

Episode 9: "Blood On My Name"

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 13, 2020 135:32

In this episode, inspired by Jaime "the Kingslayer" Lannister's iconic so many vows speech, Merry & Clint ask: Did Jaime Lannister appropriately choose which vows to uphold and which vows to forsake from a conflict of interest perspective? From an ethical one? The Kingslayer's disciplinary hearing also features:an in-depth comparison of lawyers and knights!enough discussion of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct that this really feels like it should count as ethics CLE hours!the return of Kiwi and Doc Holiday accents, as well as your favorite burrito shop!condemnations of nihlism, role morality, and Gerold Hightower!the announcement of the WBA's terribly creative punishment for Jaime!References & Supplemental Reading:American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct The Preamble to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional ConductLuban, David and Wendel, W. Bradley, "Philosophical Legal Ethics: An Affectionate History," 30 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 337 (2017)Chloe's Braime Spotify Playlist Support the show (https://www.WesterosBar.org)

blood clint references kiwi cle american bar association wba wendel doc holiday kingslayer professional conduct legal ethics model rules georgetown journal

#55 From Virtual Spring Meeting: Antitrust & CP Ethics Meets Hollywood Squares

Our Curious Amalgam

Play Episode Listen Later May 26, 2020 69:09

This special episode is the audio of a program that ran during the ABA Antitrust Section’s popular Virtual Spring Meeting April 20-May 1, 2020 – enjoy! This exciting, challenging, and humorous game show will examine the application of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility to ethical questions confronting antitrust and consumer protection lawyers, and will address issues such as conflicts of interest, informed consent, multiple representation, joint defense agreements, preservation of client confidences, and others. SESSION CHAIR/MODERATOR Douglas M. TWEEN, Linklaters LLP, New York, NY SPEAKERS Patricia A. CONNERS, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL Danielle S. HAUGLAND, Global Director, Business Development, Integreon, Seattle, WA Eric M. MEIRING, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC Patrick S. THOMPSON, Perkins Coie LLP, San Francisco, CA

Model Rule 1.6(b) Meets Climate Change

Law To Fact

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 13, 2020 25:26

In this episode...Professor Victor Flatt, The Dwight Olds Chair in Law at The University of Houston Law Center and the 2019 Haub School of Law at Pace University Visiting Scholar, explains the requirements of Model Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.6(b), which permits attorneys to disclose information to prevent death or serious bodily harm and how bar associations can use the rule to prevent further climate change. He presents his theory in his most recent article, Disclosing the Danger: State Attorney Ethics Rules MEet Climate Change, to be published in the Utah Law Review.About our guest...Professor Victor B. Flatt returned to the University of Houston in 2017 as the Dwight Olds Chair in Law and the Faculty Director of the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources (EENR) Center. He also holds an appointment as a Distinguished Scholar of Carbon Markets at the University of Houston’s Global Energy Management Institute. He was previously the inaugural O’Quinn Chair in Environmental Law at UHLC from 2002-2009.Professor Flatt’s teaching career began at the University of Washington’s Evins School of Public Affairs, and he has previously taught at Georgia State University College of Law, and most recently at the University of North Carolina School of Law, where he was the inaugural Taft Distinguished Professor in Environmental Law and the Co-Director of the Center for Climate, Energy, Environment, and Economics (CE3).Professor Flatt is a recognized expert on environmental law, climate law, and energy law. His research focuses on environmental legislation and enforcement, with particular expertise in the Clean Air Act and NEPA. He is co-author of a popular environmental law casebook, and has authored more than 40 law review articles, which have appeared in journals such as the Notre Dame Law Review, Ecology Law Quarterly, Washington Law Review, Houston Law Review and the Carolina Law Review. Six of his articles have been recognized as finalists or winner of the best environmental law review article of the year, and one was recognized by Vanderbilt University Law School and the Environmental Law Institute as one of the three best environmental articles of 2010, leading to a seminar and panel on the article in a Congressional staff briefing.Professor Flatt has served on the AALS sub-committees on Natural Resources and Environmental Law and was chair of the AALS Teaching Methods Section. He has served on many other boards and committees in his career including the national board of Lambda Legal, and the Law School Admission Council’s Gay and Lesbian Interests section. He is currently on the Advisory Board of CE3, a member of the ABA’s Section on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Law Congressional Liaison Committee, and a member scholar of the Center for Progressive Reform.Law to Fact is a podcast about law school for law school students. As always if you if you have any suggestions for an episode topic concerning any matter related to law school, please let us know! You can email us at leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet to @lawtofact. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter and Instagram (@lawtofact) and to like us on FaceBook! And finally, your ratings and reviews matter! Please leave us a review on iTunes. Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact? Join our mailing list by visiting us at www.lawtofact.com. This episode is sponsored by Kaplan Bar Review. Getting ready for the bar exam means you’ll need to choose the study program that’s right for you. Kaplan Bar Review will get you ready to take on t

Ethics CLE Teleforum: Model Rule 8.4(g) Update, What Attorneys Should Be Aware Of In 2019/2020

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 1, 2019 49:29

ethics attorney aware model rules teleforum

Ethics CLE Teleforum: Model Rule 8.4(g) Update, What Attorneys Should Be Aware Of In 2019/2020

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 1, 2019 49:29

ethics attorney aware model rules teleforum

Episode 23: Jim Doppke on the Ethics of Legal Tech (and the Duty to Supervise Robots)

ai robots legal lawyers ethics duty competence legaltech professional conduct supervise model rules

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 5, 2019 43:13

Legal ethics attorney Jim Doppke discusses the impact that legal tech and legal innovation have on the Rules of Professional Conduct and other rules that govern how lawyers practice law. Jim explains how Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Lawyer’s Duty of Competence) and 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance) are implicated by advances in legal technology and legal innovation. A comment to Rule 1.1 (and adopted by most states) says that as part of a lawyer’s duty of competence, lawyers must stay abreast of changes in technology. Rule 5.3 states that lawyers must actively supervise “non-lawyer” assistance they engage to help out on legal matters. This is significant, because certain legal tech, like artificial intelligence (AI), is really non-lawyer “assistance.” So, as Jim points out, if lawyers are going to use AI, they must supervise the training of the algorithms to ensure accuracy. In a similar vein, Jim points out that as the use of ALSPs (alternative legal service providers) increases, there too is another situation in which lawyers must supervise work done by those who may not be attorneys. In the legal tech founder segment, we talk to Jeffrey Eschbach, the founder of Page Vault. Page Vault software permits users to capture webpages and social media for use in legal matters. The captures are forensically sound, delivered in pdf format and include vital metadata strengthening evidentiary value. Technically Legal is hosted by Chad Main, an attorney and the founder of Percipient, a tech-enabled alternative legal services provider.

The New Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers

ACTEC Trust & Estate Talk

Play Episode Listen Later May 28, 2019 10:56

A discussion of the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct surrounding scope of representation, communication, confidentiality, and conflict of interest. The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, ACTEC, is a professional society of peer-elected trust and estate lawyers in the United States and around the globe. This series offers professionals best practice advice, insights, and commentary on subjects that affect the profession and clients. Learn more in this podcast.

united states trust law lawyers ethics american colleges new rules aba professional conduct model rules

Professional Responsibility: Client Conflicts of Interest

Law To Fact

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 18, 2019 26:47

In this episode Dean Jill Gross, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs explains one of the most tested subjects of Professional Responsibility, how to identify attorney-client conflicts of interest. Dean Gross highlights what she defines as the three different types of conflicts of interest and then offers an excellent analytical tool for determining when potential conflicts exist and evaluating the severity of the conflict.Some key takeaways are(1) Client conflict can be divided into three categoriesa. Those that do not rise to the level of conflict for ethical purposes b. Those that are serious enough that a lawyer must take some action but are waivable such that an attorney can continue representation and, c. Those that are so serious that they cannot be waived; under no circumstance can a lawyer represent both clients. (2) Length of time between representations also plays a factor in determining conflicts of interest(3) Read the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and your stats rules on professional responsibility to assure success on any professional responsibility exam.About our guest…Professor Jill I. Gross is a nationally known expert in the field of securities dispute resolution and teaches courses in the areas of dispute resolution, ethics, securities law, and lawyering skills. She was the James D. Hopkins Professor of Law, a two-year rotating endowed Chair, from 2013-2015, Director of the Investor Rights Clinic from 1999-2015, and Director of Legal Skills Programs from 2010-2015. She also has taught at Cornell Law School, UNLV’s Boyd School of Law and Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.Want to learn more about Dean Gross? Visit https://law.pace.edu/faculty/jill-grossAs always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know! You can email us at leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet to @lawtofact. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter and Instagram (@lawtofact) and to like us on FaceBook! And finally, your ratings and reviews matter! Please leave us a review on iTunes.Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact? Join our mailing list by visiting us at www.lawtofact.com.

10.1.3.2 Keystroke-Level Model/ Rules for M's

Designing Interactive Systems I '18

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 8, 2019 19:24

model rules

Diversity and Elimination of Bias CLE Credit Teleforum: Litigation For A Higher Cause

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 30, 2018 61:09

The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to attorneys from Minnesota, New York, and California, to fill the CLE credit known as Diversity/Elimination of Bias credit. CLE will only be applied for in these three states.There will be no charge for this event. Electronic Sign-in link: (CLICK HERE) CLE Materials: Link (CLICK HERE)Diversity CLE Teleforum 2018: Litigation For A Higher Cause Representing a client with religious or spiritual motivations can pose unique problems for attorneys in representing these clients. Problems might occur surrounding how the client wants the case to be handled, or how the attorney chooses to litigate the case. In dealing with clients and how to possibly resolve issues surrounding religion, the best source to discover what can and cannot be done is the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). While each state can determine whether or not to adopt the MRPC, it serves as a baseline in determining the course of action if a dispute regarding the client's religion is involved.Important rules that might help to answer these questions could be Rule 1.3, 1.16, 2.1, and 8.4. For Rule 1.3 (Diligence), the attorney has the duty to act with diligence in representing the client and as stated by comment 1 of this rule act "despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer." The lawyer may also act with professional discretion in how the action is handled. Therefore, the attorney has some room to act in the best interest of the client if there is some issue surrounding religion or spirituality. Rule 1.16 (Declining Or Terminating Representation), the attorney can decline to take a prospective client's case or withdraw from the case if the client wants the attorney to break some law, the client wants to choose a course of action repugnant and is fundamentally disagreeable to the attorney. This rule also provides the ability for the attorney to refuse to help a prospective client if before the relationship occurs the attorney might be aware that a possible issue could arise due to the client's religious or spiritual beliefs. Rule 2.1 (Advisor), in performing their duties, an attorney can give other advice rather than legal, which can include moral, economic, social, and political considerations relevant to the case. Here, the attorney has the ability to make the client aware of how their religious or spiritual obligations could affect the case, and whether pursuing those options would create the best outcome. Rule 8.4 (Misconduct) applies because it deals with professional misconduct and includes language that prohibits attorneys from discriminating on the basis of a number of factors including religion. The language referring to anti-discrimination is part g of the rule. Many states have not adopted this rule or have adopted the rule in part. But a violation of Rule 8.4 could result in a disciplinary action against the attorney. Featuring: Prof. James A. Sonne, Professor of Law and Director, Religious Liberty Clinic, Stanford Law SchoolWalter Weber, Senior Litigation Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice **Additional CLE Instructions:Please check this event page the morning of the event, where there will be a dropbox link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Monday, October 22.An electronic sign-in link will go live 10 minutes before the call start time. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, within 10 minutes of the start time of the call. Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be accessible on the event page up until the conclusion of the event, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.

Diversity and Elimination of Bias CLE Credit Teleforum: Litigation For A Higher Cause

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 30, 2018 61:09

The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to attorneys from Minnesota, New York, and California, to fill the CLE credit known as Diversity/Elimination of Bias credit. CLE will only be applied for in these three states.There will be no charge for this event. Electronic Sign-in link: (CLICK HERE) CLE Materials: Link (CLICK HERE)Diversity CLE Teleforum 2018: Litigation For A Higher Cause Representing a client with religious or spiritual motivations can pose unique problems for attorneys in representing these clients. Problems might occur surrounding how the client wants the case to be handled, or how the attorney chooses to litigate the case. In dealing with clients and how to possibly resolve issues surrounding religion, the best source to discover what can and cannot be done is the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). While each state can determine whether or not to adopt the MRPC, it serves as a baseline in determining the course of action if a dispute regarding the client's religion is involved.Important rules that might help to answer these questions could be Rule 1.3, 1.16, 2.1, and 8.4. For Rule 1.3 (Diligence), the attorney has the duty to act with diligence in representing the client and as stated by comment 1 of this rule act "despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer." The lawyer may also act with professional discretion in how the action is handled. Therefore, the attorney has some room to act in the best interest of the client if there is some issue surrounding religion or spirituality. Rule 1.16 (Declining Or Terminating Representation), the attorney can decline to take a prospective client's case or withdraw from the case if the client wants the attorney to break some law, the client wants to choose a course of action repugnant and is fundamentally disagreeable to the attorney. This rule also provides the ability for the attorney to refuse to help a prospective client if before the relationship occurs the attorney might be aware that a possible issue could arise due to the client's religious or spiritual beliefs. Rule 2.1 (Advisor), in performing their duties, an attorney can give other advice rather than legal, which can include moral, economic, social, and political considerations relevant to the case. Here, the attorney has the ability to make the client aware of how their religious or spiritual obligations could affect the case, and whether pursuing those options would create the best outcome. Rule 8.4 (Misconduct) applies because it deals with professional misconduct and includes language that prohibits attorneys from discriminating on the basis of a number of factors including religion. The language referring to anti-discrimination is part g of the rule. Many states have not adopted this rule or have adopted the rule in part. But a violation of Rule 8.4 could result in a disciplinary action against the attorney. Featuring: Prof. James A. Sonne, Professor of Law and Director, Religious Liberty Clinic, Stanford Law SchoolWalter Weber, Senior Litigation Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice **Additional CLE Instructions:Please check this event page the morning of the event, where there will be a dropbox link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Monday, October 22.An electronic sign-in link will go live 10 minutes before the call start time. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, within 10 minutes of the start time of the call. Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be accessible on the event page up until the conclusion of the event, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.

Ethics CLE Teleforum 2018: New Issue in Legal Ethics, ABA Model Rule 8.4(g)

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 25, 2018 61:46

Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group TeleforumCLE not offered if Teleforum listened to after the event is concluded. Written Materials are accessible through the link included on your ticketThe Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to acquire one hour’s worth of ethics CLE credit.Our visiting expert in legal and judicial ethics will discuss a recent regulatory development in the field, with the purpose of translating this development into practical wisdom about the likely impact on the practice of law in 2018 and beyond:In August 2016, the American Bar Association approved Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g). The new provision provides that it is misconduct for an attorney to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Comment [4] explains that “conduct related to the practice of law . . . includes representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law.”The Model Rules are just that — models, that do not apply in any jurisdiction. Now the project goes to the states, as state courts consider whether to adopt Rule 8.4(g).To date, seven states have rejected the rule: Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, and Tennessee have rejected the proposal. The Attorneys General of four states have concluded that adopting the rule would violate the First Amendment: Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Only Vermont has adopted the model rule in its entirety. In this teleforum, Professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston will discuss the constitutional issues surounding Model Rule 8.4(g). Specifically, he will address how the Supreme Court’s recent decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018) calls into question the state bar’s ability to regulate attorney speech, and how it will affect attorneys in their practice of law throughout the next few years. Professor Blackman will also give his insights on the rising relevance of social media in regards to the law, and what implications exist for practicing attorneys who use social media. Featuring:Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, HoustonCall begins at 1:55 p.m. Eastern Time.Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138. Because we are offering CLE for this Teleforum, it is open to non-members as well. The Teleforum call-in number will be available with the CLE materials upon registration.One hour of ethics CLE available in some jurisdictions pending approval*$25 for CLE (Federalist Society members)$50 for CLE (non-Federalist Society members)Charges apply ONLY to those seeking CLE credit.Registration for CLE credit is required.Attendance must be verified during the presentation.**No registration or fee is required if you are not seeking CLE credit. *Please note CLE applications will be made in accordance with any states that are requested during registration up until the day of the Teleforum. CLE credit is not guaranteed, as the decision to accredit the course is made by each individual state bar, but all states that attorneys request will be applied to. **Additional CLE Instructions:Please check your confirmation email for the link to the ticket, where there will be a drop box link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Thursday, October 18.A registration page link will be sent to you the afternoon of October 18. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, preferably within the first 5 minutes of the call.Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be provided with your confirmation email, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.

Ethics CLE Teleforum 2018: New Issue in Legal Ethics, ABA Model Rule 8.4(g)

ACTEC Trust & Estate Talk

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 25, 2018 61:46

Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group TeleforumCLE not offered if Teleforum listened to after the event is concluded. Written Materials are accessible through the link included on your ticketThe Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to acquire one hour’s worth of ethics CLE credit.Our visiting expert in legal and judicial ethics will discuss a recent regulatory development in the field, with the purpose of translating this development into practical wisdom about the likely impact on the practice of law in 2018 and beyond:In August 2016, the American Bar Association approved Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g). The new provision provides that it is misconduct for an attorney to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Comment [4] explains that “conduct related to the practice of law . . . includes representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law.”The Model Rules are just that — models, that do not apply in any jurisdiction. Now the project goes to the states, as state courts consider whether to adopt Rule 8.4(g).To date, seven states have rejected the rule: Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, and Tennessee have rejected the proposal. The Attorneys General of four states have concluded that adopting the rule would violate the First Amendment: Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Only Vermont has adopted the model rule in its entirety. In this teleforum, Professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston will discuss the constitutional issues surounding Model Rule 8.4(g). Specifically, he will address how the Supreme Court’s recent decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018) calls into question the state bar’s ability to regulate attorney speech, and how it will affect attorneys in their practice of law throughout the next few years. Professor Blackman will also give his insights on the rising relevance of social media in regards to the law, and what implications exist for practicing attorneys who use social media. Featuring:Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, HoustonCall begins at 1:55 p.m. Eastern Time.Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138. Because we are offering CLE for this Teleforum, it is open to non-members as well. The Teleforum call-in number will be available with the CLE materials upon registration.One hour of ethics CLE available in some jurisdictions pending approval*$25 for CLE (Federalist Society members)$50 for CLE (non-Federalist Society members)Charges apply ONLY to those seeking CLE credit.Registration for CLE credit is required.Attendance must be verified during the presentation.**No registration or fee is required if you are not seeking CLE credit. *Please note CLE applications will be made in accordance with any states that are requested during registration up until the day of the Teleforum. CLE credit is not guaranteed, as the decision to accredit the course is made by each individual state bar, but all states that attorneys request will be applied to. **Additional CLE Instructions:Please check your confirmation email for the link to the ticket, where there will be a drop box link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Thursday, October 18.A registration page link will be sent to you the afternoon of October 18. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, preferably within the first 5 minutes of the call.Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be provided with your confirmation email, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.

California’s New Rules of Professional Conduct: What You Need to Know [LGE 017]

Lawyers Gone Ethical

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 5, 2018 44:44

I’m diving into the changes that came about with the new revamp of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Several years ago, the California Supreme Court convened a commission to work on bringing California's Rules into alignment with the ABA Model Rules. The Commission’s Rules were recently adopted by the Supreme Court and they go into affect later this year in 2018. In this episode, I’m breaking down what California lawyers need to know about the changes and how they impact their law practices. What I Explain In This Episode: California still hasn’t adopted the Model Rules; they simply amended California’s existing rules The way the rules are numbered have been completely revamped and they’re a bit confusing California is finally aligned with best practices when it comes to advance fees and now require that lawyers deposit those fees in client trust accounts What about sex with clients? When can a lawyer have sex with his/her client? The new client communication rule (CA New Rule 1.4) requires lawyers to advise their clients and manage their expectations as they relate to a lawyer’s conduct and capabilities What should a lawyer do when a client is engaging in conduct that is legal under California law but not legal under Federal law. This proposed Rule 1.2.1 was not adopted yet and is still up for discussion The new conflict of interest rules (New Rule 1.7, replacing old Rule 3-310) require that lawyers look more globally at the client and the relationship to find any conflicts New Rule 1.18 provides rules that apply to the attorney-client consultation and what confidentiality issues exist How this old rule (CA old Rule 2-400) provided greater protection for a lawyer who was accused of discrimination. The new rules are stricter and in some regard, less fair, when it comes to these allegations Resources: You can find all of the new rules here. California Lawyers Association Solo and Small Firm Section Webinar: CA Rules of Professional Conduct: What the 2018 Rule Updates Mean to You– June 7th, 2018 Presented by James Ham and Megan Zavieh Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday. If you enjoyed this episode, please help me get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, and Google Play, and be sure to share this podcast with a friend. Be sure to connect with me and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook LinkedIn Website Email me at megan[at]zaviehlaw[dot]com This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

california supreme court federal google play commission new rules stitcher radio new rule california supreme court professional conduct james ham model rules california rules aba model rules

# 76: ABA Model Rule 8.4(g): Bad Idea or a Threat to Liberty?

Cross & Gavel Audio

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 8, 2018 37:36

In August 2016, the American Bar Association, seeking to impose a "cultural shift" on the legal profession and change how lawyers think about gender and marriage, amended Model Rule of Professional Responsibility 8.4. The rule has no legal force-- it simply suggests a "model" from the ABA for states to follow in their ethics codes-- until a particular state adopts it. Yet the Model Rules are influential, followed by many states as a matter of course. The current rule-- the rule that ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) would amend-- combats invidious discrimination and disciplines lawyers who corrupt the legal process through bias and prejudice in the course of representing a client. The proposed rule would expand the conduct for which lawyers could be disciplined to any "conduct related to the practice of law," which is defined to include "interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law." In addition to this expansive reach into employment law and social activities, the rule does away with the requirement that the words or conduct that could be censured are "prejudicial to the administration of justice." Under the proposed rule, a mere "offense" given by words or conduct could subject a lawyer to a grievance, even though it has nothing to do with protecting clients, the court, or justice. It's a bad idea. And it is a threat to religious liberty and lawyers' autonomy. Host Mike Schutt, who taught Professional Responsibility as a Regent Law professor is joined by Kim Colby to discuss the rule and its implications. Kim Colby is the director of Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom , where she has worked since graduating from Harvard Law School in 1981. She has represented religious groups in several appellate cases, including two cases heard by the United States Supreme Court. She has filed numerous amicus briefs in federal and state courts. Ms. Colby has prepared several CLS publications addressing issues about religious expression in public schools, including released time programs, implementation of the Equal Access Act, and teachers’ religious expression. For more resources on this rule-- including videos explaining the issues and critical scholarship-- visit the Christian Legal Society 8.4 Resources page. Cross & Gavel is a production of Regent University School of Law and the Christian Legal Society.

What should attorneys have in their Engagement Letters?

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 1, 2018 12:33

The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel's Fellows discuss the ins-and-outs of effective professional Engagement Letters. Engagement Letters or Engagement Agreements are an invaluable tool for attorneys and set the stage for the representation and managing a client's expectations. Please visit ACTEC Foundation to read more about the 3rd Edition of Engagement Letter, created by the ACTEC Professional Conduct Committee. The document builds on the initial editions by: Updating the forms and checklists to address the latest version of the Model Rules and modern challenges to a lawyer's ethical responsibilities; Respond to other changes in the law; Provides cross references to the latest edition of the ACTEC Commentaries; Includes checklists and forms that address a variety of engagement scenarios that were not dealt with in the prior Edition; Offers additional drafting options; Includes Word versions of each letter. ACTEC Trust & Estate Talk offers professionals best practice advice, insights, and commentary on subjects that effect the profession and clients. ACTEC, a professional society of peer elected trust and estate lawyers, is passionate about estate and trust issues including elder law, estate planning, wealth planning, probate law, wills, living wills, power of attorney, guardianship, medical power of attorney, trusts, irrevocable trusts, special needs trusts, charitable trusts, trust funds, Rockefeller trusts, marital trusts, asset protection, family partnerships, estate taxes, gift taxes, tax legislation, tax law, and tax reform.

trust engagement letter lawyers letters respond consulting attorney offers includes agreement american colleges agreements rockefeller fellows model rules

Using the Licensing Power of the Administrative State: Model Rule 8.4(g)

FedSoc Events

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 20, 2017 89:11

At its August 2016 meeting in San Francisco, the American Bar Association approved a major change to its Rules of Professional Conduct that will affect all lawyers if adopted by their licensing states. In pertinent part, the new Rule 8.4(g) would make it professional misconduct for a lawyer to “harass or knowingly discriminate against persons on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or socioeconomic status." The new Rule applies to “conduct related to the practice of law" which (1) represents an expansion from the present conduct performed “in the course of representing a client" and (2) new Comment 3 defines conduct to “include[e] the operation and management of a law firm or law practice."Ms. Paulette Brown, Partner, Locke Lord LLP; Immediate Past President, American Bar AssociationMr. Stephen Gillers, Elihu Root Professor of Law, New York University School of LawProf. Ronald D. Rotunda, Professor, Doy and Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman UniversityHon. Ken Paxton, State Attorney General, TexasModerator: Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme CourtProfessor Rotunda's PowerPoint Slides

Using the Licensing Power of the Administrative State: Model Rule 8.4(g)

FedSoc Events

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 20, 2017 89:11

At its August 2016 meeting in San Francisco, the American Bar Association approved a major change to its Rules of Professional Conduct that will affect all lawyers if adopted by their licensing states. In pertinent part, the new Rule 8.4(g) would make it professional misconduct for a lawyer to “harass or knowingly discriminate against persons on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or socioeconomic status." The new Rule applies to “conduct related to the practice of law" which (1) represents an expansion from the present conduct performed “in the course of representing a client" and (2) new Comment 3 defines conduct to “include[e] the operation and management of a law firm or law practice."Ms. Paulette Brown, Partner, Locke Lord LLP; Immediate Past President, American Bar AssociationMr. Stephen Gillers, Elihu Root Professor of Law, New York University School of LawProf. Ronald D. Rotunda, Professor, Doy and Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman UniversityHon. Ken Paxton, State Attorney General, TexasModerator: Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme CourtProfessor Rotunda's PowerPoint Slides

Jim Doppke on MRPC 1.1

donald trump supreme court nbc hint evans fcc fourteenth amendment who's afraid professional conduct ivy tech model rules

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 19, 2017 34:18

In our inaugural episode, legal ethics attorney Jim Doppke of Chicago's Robinson Law Group discusses changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct (ethics rules for lawyers) addressing the impact of technology on modern legal practice. In 2012 the American Bar Association amended Comment 8 to Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (a lawyer's duty of competence) in response to changes in technology. The Comment now suggests attorneys must understand "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” To date, more than twenty-five states require attorneys to stay abreast of changes in technology relating to law practice. In this episode, Jim discusses the ethical obligations of attorneys to keep up with changes in legal technology and offers tips on how attorneys can begin to become for "technologically competent." Technically Legal is hosted by Chad Main, an attorney and the founder of Percipient, a tech-enabled alternative legal services provider.

technology legal ethics american bar association professional conduct model rules mrpc

OA112: Who's Afraid of the FCC?

Opening Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 12, 2017 69:48

Today's rapid-response episode begins with a discussion of a recent petition to the Supreme Court for certiorari filed in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, and in particular, an amicus curiae brief submitted by 76 employers. How does this brief affect the future of gay rights in this country? Listen and find out! Next, our main segment looks at Donald Trump's recent threat to have the FCC "revoke NBC's license," and rewards you with a deep dive into what the FCC is and what it can and cannot do. (Hint: it cannot revoke NBC's "license.") Remember that we first discussed the FCC's "Common Carrier" regulatory authority back in Episode 64 and Episode 65 in evaluating the history of the net neutrality movement. After that, we answer two related listener questions from patrons John Funk and Secular Ewok about the attorney-client relationship and some crazy situations. Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #45 about the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in the context of a business license. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links As background to this issue: we first discussed Hively v. Ivy Tech back in Episode 60, and then followed up with our discussion of Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91. This is the cert petition filed by Evans. And this is the amicus brief filed by the 76 employers that you should definitely read. Here's the New York Times story about Trump threatening NBC. And, of course, you can read the FCC's description of its own regulations. The FCC derives its authority to regulate broadcast media from 47 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter C. Finally, you can click here to read Rule 1.2 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Ethics CLE Teleforum 2017: Recent Developments Impacting the Ethical Practice of Law

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 2, 2017 64:33

Our panel of three experts in legal and judicial ethics will discuss several recent cases and regulatory developments in the field, with an eye towards translating these developments into practical wisdom about their likely impact on law practice in 2017 and beyond.The following topics will be discussed: Unauthorized Practice of Law and Its Growing Implications for LawyeringWe will examine some of the recent developments in UPL and its application to the delivery of legal services. New business structures and services are beginning to test the old legal concepts. And, as some recent cases illustrate, the ABA’s modification of Model Rule 5.5 may now be outdated.Recent Developments in Attorneys’ FeesAs practice continues to evolve, the ABA, the state bars, and some courts have provided more guidance on lawyer issues relating to attorneys’ fees. In some cases, lawyers are using creative language to protect their rights and in other cases, client protection remains an important interest.A Sampling of Ethical Pitfalls in the Electronic AgeMany seminars and much advertising tout the virtues of establishing or enhancing a lawyer or a firm's online presence and technical tools. Increasing business, facilitating lawyer-client communications, and better managing litigation are only a few of the benefits that can result. But there is a dark side to the adoption of Electronic Age technology as well. Chief among the dangers is the unauthorized disclosure of client confidences, through inadvertence or third party mischief, but that hardly exhausts the dangers. Recent cases and ethics opinions reveal an array of other difficulties that can arise.AdvertisingAs an increasing number of American lawyers handle more matters that touch on more than one state, the rules governing lawyer advertising in various formats have become less and less uniform across state lines. Every state has rules that are based on Part 7 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, but almost every state made detailed and widely varying amendments before local adoption. The ABA has begun formal consideration of a proposal developed by the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL) that would greatly simplify the Model Rules provisions, while eliminating most regulations that speak to matters of taste rather misrepresentation or other harms to clients.Featuring:Prof. W. William Hodes, Professor Emeritus of Law, Indiana University & President, The William Hodes Law FirmProf. John S. Dzienkowski, Professor of Law & Dean John F. Sutton, Jr. Chair in Lawyering and the Legal Process, Texas Law

american president law professor chief ethics attorney increasing impacting johns indiana university professor emeritus aba sampling recent developments lawyering texas law upl professional conduct ethical practice model rules electronic age unauthorized practice teleforum ethical pitfalls

Ethics CLE Teleforum 2017: Recent Developments Impacting the Ethical Practice of Law

Signals from the Frontline

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 2, 2017 64:33

Our panel of three experts in legal and judicial ethics will discuss several recent cases and regulatory developments in the field, with an eye towards translating these developments into practical wisdom about their likely impact on law practice in 2017 and beyond.The following topics will be discussed: Unauthorized Practice of Law and Its Growing Implications for LawyeringWe will examine some of the recent developments in UPL and its application to the delivery of legal services. New business structures and services are beginning to test the old legal concepts. And, as some recent cases illustrate, the ABA’s modification of Model Rule 5.5 may now be outdated.Recent Developments in Attorneys’ FeesAs practice continues to evolve, the ABA, the state bars, and some courts have provided more guidance on lawyer issues relating to attorneys’ fees. In some cases, lawyers are using creative language to protect their rights and in other cases, client protection remains an important interest.A Sampling of Ethical Pitfalls in the Electronic AgeMany seminars and much advertising tout the virtues of establishing or enhancing a lawyer or a firm's online presence and technical tools. Increasing business, facilitating lawyer-client communications, and better managing litigation are only a few of the benefits that can result. But there is a dark side to the adoption of Electronic Age technology as well. Chief among the dangers is the unauthorized disclosure of client confidences, through inadvertence or third party mischief, but that hardly exhausts the dangers. Recent cases and ethics opinions reveal an array of other difficulties that can arise.AdvertisingAs an increasing number of American lawyers handle more matters that touch on more than one state, the rules governing lawyer advertising in various formats have become less and less uniform across state lines. Every state has rules that are based on Part 7 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, but almost every state made detailed and widely varying amendments before local adoption. The ABA has begun formal consideration of a proposal developed by the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL) that would greatly simplify the Model Rules provisions, while eliminating most regulations that speak to matters of taste rather misrepresentation or other harms to clients.Featuring:Prof. W. William Hodes, Professor Emeritus of Law, Indiana University & President, The William Hodes Law FirmProf. John S. Dzienkowski, Professor of Law & Dean John F. Sutton, Jr. Chair in Lawyering and the Legal Process, Texas Law

american president law professor chief ethics attorney increasing impacting johns indiana university professor emeritus aba sampling recent developments lawyering texas law upl professional conduct ethical practice model rules electronic age unauthorized practice teleforum ethical pitfalls

Signals from the Frontline #530: NewHammer 40k Infantry and Large Model Rules!

Play Episode Listen Later May 8, 2017 27:58

We talk about how infantry and large models work in NewHammer! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

large frontline signals infantry model rules

ABA Model Rule 8.4 3-4-2017

FedSoc Events

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 15, 2017 75:35

In August 2016, the American Bar Association (ABA) added new anti-discrimination guidelines for lawyers to its Model Rules of Professional Conduct through section 8.4. This section now binds lawyers to adhere to particular speech codes in the many states that have adopted it. -- The provision labels engagement “in conduct that [a] lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law." The ABA has defined discrimination and harassment to include “harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others. Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature." The conduct guidelines extend to “the practice of law," including, “representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and other while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law." -- Some have described this section as infringing on the rights on lawyers to speak their mind, while others have argued it is necessary to prevent discrimination within the profession. This debate will discuss the implications of Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 and its impact on workplace discrimination and lawyers' rights. -- This debate was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law and Mr. Robert N. Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. Moderator: Hon. Lavenski Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit.

new york new york city law partner court sexual appeals circuit harassment aba weiner columbia law school ucla school professional conduct eugene volokh robert n american bar association aba model rules gary t schwartz

Learn a bit about our next Supreme Court Judge - Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch -

Old Guard Audio

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 31, 2017 28:54

Learn a bit about our next Supreme Court Justice - Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch - President Donald Trump nominates Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of The United States of America On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society established this annual lecture in Barbara's memory because of her enormous contributions as an active member, supporter, and volunteer leader. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. In 2013, the Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit delivered the lecture. He was introduced by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society. 0:09 I want to welcome you all 0:12 13th annual Barbara 0:14 memorial lecture I am eugene meyer 0:17 President of the Federal society and 0:19 this memorial lecture series started as 0:22 many of you know with Ted Olson 0:24 inaugural lecture which reminded us of 0:26 what it means to be an American and how 0:28 are legal tradition is part of our 0:30 identity as Americans both dead and 0:33 Barbara understood this disconnection 0:36 between our tradition our identity we 0:40 want the lecture series to remind 0:42 lawyers of it so that they foster legal 0:44 principles that advanced individual 0:46 freedom personal responsibility and the 0:48 rule of law tends inaugural lecture was 0:52 followed by ken starr Robert Bork 0:55 Justice Scalia judge Randolph Vice 0:58 President Cheney and chief justice 1:00 roberts and judges he gets Jones Douglas 1:03 Ginsburg and Dennis Jacob's former 1:06 attorney General Michael Mukasey and 1:08 entrepreneur Peter teal that brings us 1:11 to today's lecture is my honor to 1:14 introduce for today's lecture the 1:17 Honorable Neil gorgeous is a judge for 1:20 the US Court of Appeals on the tenth 1:22 circuit where he served since 1986 1:25 before his clerkship a force judgeship 1:28 rather he clerked 1:31 all the way clerkship applications or 1:34 and things are going these days you have 1:36 no idea what the order is gonna fit 1:40 I actually think they're going to send 1:41 out the clerkship applications or with 1:43 with the emits with the additions to law 1:45 school the way way it's going but anyone 1:47 on before his clerkship he clerked for 1:49 justices wieden kennedy and on the court 1:52 of appeals for judges and tell he was a 1:55 partner Kelly cuber and principal deputy 1:57 associate attorney general in addition 2:00 to his judge ship is also currently an 2:03 adjunct law professor at the University 2:04 of Colorado where he he taught what he 2:06 taught yesterday accident yesterday 2:08 evening and I'd say beyond his paper 2:13 resume judge course which is widely 2:15 viewed as one of the best legal minds of 2:17 his generation 2:19 additionally even as young age he has 2:22 met heard many of his clerks who have 2:25 gone on too many prestigious legal jobs 2:27 including clerkship for the US supreme 2:29 court without further ado it is my honor 2:33 to introduce to you judge neil questions 2:46 actually Jean with the judicial salaries 2:50 being what they are and clerkship 2:52 bonuses what they become I've been more 2:58 than tempted to throw in another 2:59 application justice candidate see where 3:02 it goes 3:05 I'm not sure I want to be a law partner 3:07 again but I wouldn't mind being putting 3:08 those little room and told right briefs 3:10 all day for the price that they're 3:11 getting paid 3:12 Eric thank you for that very kind 3:14 introduction 3:15 it's an honor to be with you in a 3:18 special pleasure to be part of a lecture 3:20 series dedicated to the memory Barbara 3:22 Olson and the causes that she held dear 3:26 the rule of law limited government and 3:29 human liberty and it's not a little dot 3:31 little bit daunting to be added the list 3:33 of folks you've mentioned who given this 3:35 talk before 3:36 let me begin by asking whether any of 3:41 you have ever suffered through a case 3:43 that sounds like this one in the course 3:46 of time this suit has become so 3:48 complicated that no man alive knows what 3:52 it means a long procession of judges has 3:57 come in and going out the Legion of 3:59 bills and the suit had become 4:01 transformed into mere Bills of mortality 4:04 but still it drags its very length 4:07 before the court parentally hopeless 4:11 how familiar to set 4:14 could it be a line lifted maybe from a 4:16 speaker at a recent electronic discovery 4:18 conference from a brief for sanctions 4:23 your latest case maybe from a recent 4:26 judicial performance complaint 4:28 well of course the line comes from 4:31 Dickens Bleak House published 1853 it 4:35 still resonates today though because the 4:37 laws promise of deliberation and due 4:39 process sometimes ironically invites the 4:42 in justices of delay and ear resolution 4:45 like any human Enterprise the laws 4:48 crooked timber occasionally produces the 4:50 opposite of the intended effect we turn 4:53 to the law earnestly to promote a worthy 4:55 idea and wind up with a host of 4:57 unwelcome side effects that do more harm 4:59 than good 5:00 in fact when you think about it the 5:02 whole business is something an irony we 5:04 depend upon the rule of law to guarantee 5:06 freedom but we have to give up freedom 5:08 to live under the laws rules and around 5:11 about way that leads me to the topic I'd 5:14 like to discuss with you tonight laws 5:16 irony Dickens had a keen eye for it but 5:21 even he was only reworking familiar 5:22 themes Hamlet rude the laws delay girder 5:26 left the practice of law and discussed 5:28 after witnessing thousands of aging 5:30 cases waiting vainly for resolution in 5:33 the courts of his time 5:34 demosthenes made similar complaints 5:37 2,000 years ago and truth is I fully 5:40 expect lawyers and judges to carry on 5:42 similar conversations about the laws 5:44 ironies 2,000 years from now but just 5:49 because some unwelcome ironies maybe as 5:52 endemic to law as they are to life 5:54 Dickens would remind us that's hardly 5:56 reason to let them go unremarked and 5:58 then addressed so it is I'd like to 6:01 begin by discussing a few of the laws 6:03 ironies that I imagine he would consider 6:05 worthy of attention by us in our own 6:08 time consider first hour version of the 6:12 Bleak House irony 6:14 yes i'm referring to civil discovery 6:18 the adoption of the modern rules of 6:21 civil procedure in 1938 marked the start 6:25 of a self-proclaimed experiment with 6:28 expansive pretrial discovery something 6:31 previously unknown to the federal courts 6:33 more than 70 years later we still call 6:36 those rules the new and the modern rules 6:39 of civil procedure that's a pretty odd 6:42 thing when you think about it maybe the 6:44 only thing that really sounds newer 6:46 modern after 70 years is keith richards 6:49 of The Rolling Stones some might say 6:54 looks like he's done some experimenting 6:56 to in any event or 1938 forefathers 7:02 expressly rested their modern discovery 7:04 experiment on the assumption that with 7:07 ready access to an opponent's 7:09 information parties to civil disputes 7:11 would achieve fair and cheaper merits 7:13 based resolutions 7:15 how's that working out for you 7:18 does modern discovery practice really 7:22 lead to faster and more efficient 7:24 resolutions based on the merits 7:26 I don't doubt it does in many cases but 7:28 should we be concerned when eighty 7:30 percent of the american college of trial 7:32 lawyers say the discovery costs and 7:34 delays keep injured parties from 7:36 bringing valid claims to court or 7:39 concern when 70-percent also say 7:42 attorneys use discovery cost is a threat 7:44 to force settlements that aren't merits 7:47 based at all 7:48 have we may be gone so far down the road 7:51 of civil discovery that ironically 7:53 enough we begun to undermine the 7:55 purposes that animated our journey the 7:57 first place 7:58 what we have today to be sure is not 8:01 your father's discovery producing 8:04 discovery anymore doesn't mean rolling a 8:05 stack of bankers boxes across the street 8:09 we live in an age when every bit and 8:11 byte of information is stored seemingly 8:12 forever and is always retrievable if 8:15 sometimes only at the cost of a small 8:17 fortune today the world sends 50 8:20 trillion emails a year an average 8:22 employees sends or receives over a 8:23 hundred everyday that doesn't begin to 8:25 count the billions of instant messages 8:27 shooting around the globe 8:30 this isn't a world the writers of the 8:31 discovery rules could have imagined in 8:33 1938 no matter how modern they were no 8:37 surprise then that many people now 8:39 simply opt out of the civil justice 8:41 system altogether private ATR bounds but 8:45 even now the federal government has 8:46 begun avoiding its own court system 8:49 recently for example it opted for 8:51 private ADR to handle claims arising 8:53 from the BP oil spill 8:55 now that may be an understandable 8:57 development given the costs and delays 8:58 inherent in modern civil practice but it 9:01 raises questions to about the 9:03 transparency and independence of the 9:05 decision-making the lack of the 9:07 development of precedent in the future 9:09 role of our courts and civic life for 9:13 society aspiring to live under the rule 9:15 of law does this represent an advanced 9:17 perhaps something else we might even ask 9:21 what part the rise of discoveries played 9:23 in the demise of the trial surely other 9:26 factors are play here given the 9:27 disappearance criminal trials as well 9:29 but we've now trained generations of 9:32 attorneys as discovery artists rather 9:34 than trial lawyers they're skilled in 9:37 the game of imposing invading costs and 9:40 delays their poets of the nasty gram 9:43 able to write interrogatories in iambic 9:47 pentameter get terrified of trial the 9:53 founders thought trials were a bulwark 9:55 of the rule of law as far as Hamilton 9:58 saw the only room for debate was over 9:59 when / weathered retrials were in his 10:02 words either a valuable safeguard the 10:04 liberty with a very palladium 10:06 self-government what is that still 10:08 common ground today no doubt our modern 10:11 discovery experiment is well-intentioned 10:13 get one of its effects has been to 10:15 contribute to the death of an 10:17 institution once thought essential to 10:19 the rule of law 10:20 what about our criminal justice system 10:23 you might ask it surely bears its share 10:27 of ironies to consider this one without 10:30 question the discipline of writing the 10:33 law down of Cardiff eyeing it advances 10:35 the laws interest in fair notice but 10:38 today we have about 5,000 federal 10:41 criminal statutes on the books 10:43 most of them added in the last few 10:45 decades and the spigot keeps pourin with 10:48 literally hundreds of new statutory 10:50 crimes think every single year 10:53 neither does that begin to count the 10:55 thousands of additional regulatory 10:56 crimes buried in the federal register 10:58 there are so many crimes cowled in the 11:02 numbing fine print of those pages the 11:05 scholars have given up counting and are 11:07 now debating their number when he led 11:10 the Senate Judiciary Committee Joe Biden 11:12 worried that we have assumed a tendency 11:14 to federalize quote everything that 11:16 walks talks and moves maybe we should 11:19 say hoots too because it's now a federal 11:23 crime to misuse the likeness of woodsy 11:25 the owl or is more words give a hoot 11:29 don't pollute businessmen who import 11:32 lobster tails and plastic bags rather 11:34 than cardboard boxes can be brought up 11:36 on charges mattress sellers remove that 11:39 little tag 11:40 yes they're probably federal criminals 11:42 to whether because of Public Choice 11:45 problems or otherwise there appears to 11:47 be a ratchet relentlessly clicking away 11:49 always in the direction of more never 11:52 fewer federal criminal walls some reply 11:55 that the growing number of federal 11:56 crimes isn't out of proportion to our 11:58 population and its growth others suggest 12:01 that the proliferation of federal 12:02 criminal laws can be mitigated by 12:04 allowing the mistake of law defense to 12:06 be more widely asserted but isn't there 12:09 a trouble irony lurking here in any 12:11 event without written laws we lack fair 12:14 notice of the rules we as citizens have 12:16 to obey but with too many written laws 12:19 don't we invite a new kind of fair 12:22 notice problem and what happens to 12:24 individual freedom and equality when the 12:26 criminal law comes to cover so many 12:28 facets of daily life 12:30 the prosecutors can almost choose their 12:32 targets with impunity the sort of 12:36 excesses of executive authority invited 12:38 by too few written laws led to the 12:40 rebellion against King John and the 12:42 ceiling of the Magna Carta one of the 12:44 great advances in the rule of law and 12:46 history bears warning the too many the 12:49 too much and too much an accessible law 12:51 can lead to executive access as well 12:55 Caligula sought to protect his authority 12:58 by publishing the law a hand so small 13:01 and posted so high that no one could 13:04 really be sure what was and wasn't 13:05 forbidden no doubt 13:08 all the better to keep us on our toes 13:10 sorry in federal 62 more seriously 13:19 Madison warned that when laws become 13:20 just a paper blizzard citizens are left 13:22 unable to know what the law isn't to 13:24 conform their conduct to it it's an 13:27 irony of the law that either too much or 13:28 too little can impair Liberty our aim 13:31 here has to be for a golden mean and it 13:33 may be worth asking today if we've 13:35 strayed too far from it 13:37 ok beyond the law itself there are other 13:40 ironies of ironies here emanating from 13:43 our law schools target-rich environment 13:47 you say well let's be kind of the 13:50 professors in the room and just take one 13:51 example in our zeal for high academic 13:54 standards we have developed a dreary 13:57 bill of particulars every law school 13:59 must satisfy the win ABA accreditation 14:02 law schools must employ a full-time 14:04 librarian they're not a part-timer they 14:08 must provide extensive tenure guarantees 14:10 they invite trouble if their student 14:12 faculty ratio reaches 32 one out the 14:15 same ratio found many in public 14:17 procol schools keep in mind too that 14:20 under ABA standards adjunct professors 14:22 with actual practice experience includes 14:25 me here account only as one-fifth of an 14:28 instructor 14:32 maybe they're onto something after all 14:34 might be worth pausing to ask whether 14:39 commands like these contribute enough to 14:41 learning to justify the barriers to 14:44 entry and the limits on access to 14:46 justice that they impose a legal 14:49 education can cause students today two 14:51 hundred thousand dollars that's on top 14:54 of an equally swollen some for an 14:57 undergraduate degree yet another a VA 14:59 accreditation requirement in England 15:03 students can earn a law degree in three 15:05 years is under graduates or in one year 15:08 of study after college 15:09 all of which must be followed by 15:11 on-the-job training and none of this is 15:14 thought to be a threat to the rule of 15:15 law there one might wonder whether the 15:18 sort of expensive an extensive 15:20 homogeneity we demand is essential to 15:22 the rule of law here 15:25 alright so far I've visited ironies 15:28 where the law aims at one virtue and 15:31 risks a corresponding vice but it seems 15:34 to me that the laws most remarkable 15:36 irony today comes from precisely the 15:39 opposite direction of ice that hints at 15:41 virtues in the rule of law today our 15:45 court our culture positively buzzes with 15:48 cynicism about the law are shared 15:51 profession and project so many see law 15:54 is the work of robe hacks and shiny 15:57 suited shills judges who ruled by 16:00 personal policy preference lawyers who 16:03 seek to razzle-dazzle them on this view 16:07 the only rule of law is a will to power 16:09 baby in a dark moment you've fallen prey 16:13 to doubts along these lines yourself but 16:17 i wonder whether the laws greatest irony 16:20 might just be the hope obscured by the 16:22 cynics shadow 16:24 I wonder whether cynicism about the law 16:26 flourishes so freely only because for 16:29 all its blemishes the rule of law in our 16:31 society is so fundamentally successful 16:34 and sometimes it's hard to see a 16:37 wonderful like David Foster Wallace's 16:39 fish surrounded by water 16:43 yet somehow unable to appreciate its 16:46 existence were like Chesterton's 16:48 man-on-the-street who's asked out of the 16:51 blue 16:51 why he prefers civilization to barbarism 16:53 and who has a hard time stammering out a 16:56 reply because the very multiplicity of 16:58 proof which should make reply easy and 17:01 overwhelming makes it impossible now the 17:05 cynicism surrounding our project our 17:07 profession is easy enough to see when 17:09 Supreme Court justices try to defend 17:11 laws a discipline when they explain 17:13 their jobs interpreting legal texts when 17:17 they evoke and echo the traditional 17:19 federalist 78 conception of a good judge 17:22 their mocked often viciously personally 17:26 leading voices call them deceiving 17:29 warned that behind their a nine-page 17:32 facades lurk cruising partisans even law 17:36 professors hurry to the microphone to 17:38 express complete discussed and accuse 17:40 them of perjury and intellectual 17:42 security actual quotes everyone if this 17:47 bleak picture I've sketched were 17:49 inaccurate one if I believe the judges 17:52 and lawyers regularly acted as shoes and 17:54 hacks and hang up the road i turn my 17:57 license but even accounting for my 18:00 native optimism i just don't think 18:02 that's what a life in the law it's about 18:04 heart i doubt you do either as a working 18:08 lawyer I saw time and again the 18:11 creativity intelligence hard work 18:13 applied to a legal problem can make a 18:16 profound difference in a client's life I 18:19 saw judges injuries that while human and 18:21 imperfect strove to hear earnestly and 18:24 decide and partially I never felt my 18:27 arguments to court for political ones 18:29 the ones based on rules of procedure and 18:31 evidence president standard interpretive 18:34 techniques the prosaic but vital stuff 18:37 of a life in the law as a judge now 47 18:41 whatever years I see colleagues everyday 18:46 striving to enforce the Constitution the 18:48 statutes passed by Congress the 18:50 president's to bind us 18:52 the contracts the parties adopted 18:54 sometimes they do so with quiet 18:56 misgivings about the wisdom of the 18:58 regulation addition sometimes was 19:00 concerned about their complicity in a 19:03 doubtful statute but enforcing the law 19:05 all the same believers that ours is 19:08 essentially adjust legal order now 19:11 that's not to suggest that we lawyers 19:13 and judges bear no blame for ages 19:15 cynicism about the law take our self 19:19 adopted Model Rules of Professional 19:20 Conduct they explained that the duty of 19:24 diligence we lawyers or clients and i 19:26 quote does not require the use of 19:29 offensive tactics or preclude treating 19:35 people with courtesy and respect now 19:40 how's that for professional promise to 19:42 the public 19:43 I view is sort of an ethical commandment 19:46 as I tell my students that is a lawyer 19:48 you should do unto others before they 19:49 can do unto you 19:50 no doubt we have to look hard in the 19:56 mirror when our professions reflected 19:58 image and popular culture is no longer 19:59 Atticus Finch but Saul Goodman of course 20:06 we make our share of mistakes to as my 20:08 now teenage daughters gleefully remind 20:10 me 20:11 donning a robe does not make me any 20:13 smarter but the road does mean something 20:16 and not just that I can hide the coffee 20:18 stains on my shirt 20:20 it serves as a reminder of what's 20:22 expected of us what Burke called the 20:24 cold neutrality of an impartial judge it 20:28 serves to is a reminder of the 20:29 relatively modest station as judges are 20:32 meant to occupy a Democratic Society in 20:35 other places judges wear scarlet and 20:37 Irma here we're told to buy our own 20:40 robes and I can attest the standard 20:43 choir outfit at the local uniform supply 20:45 stores a really good deal 20:47 ours is a judiciary of honest black 20:52 polyester in defending laws of coherent 20:57 discipline now I don't mean to suggest 20:59 that every hard legal question as a 21:01 single right answer the Sun platonic for 21:04 absolute truth exists for every crazy 21:06 naughty statute or oiled regulation if 21:09 only you possess superhuman power to 21:11 discern it i don't know about you but I 21:14 haven't met many judges resemble some 21:15 sort of legal Hercules well maybe my old 21:19 boss fire and light but how many of us 21:22 are going to lead the NFL in Russia 21:24 when a lawyer claims absolute 21:27 metaphysical certainty about the meaning 21:29 of some chain of ungrammatical 21:31 prepositional phrases tacked onto the 21:34 end of a run-on sentence buried in some 21:37 sprawling statutory subsection I start 21:41 worrying for questions like those my 21:44 only gospel is skepticism I try not to 21:47 make a dog out of it but to admit the 21:50 disagreement does and will always exist 21:53 over hard and find questions of law like 21:55 that doesn't mean our disagreements are 21:57 matters of personal will of politics 21:59 rather than an honest effort of making 22:01 sense of the legal materials at hand the 22:05 very first case i wrote for the tenth 22:06 circuit to reach the united states 22:08 supreme court involved a close question 22:10 statutory construction and the court 22:12 split 54 Justice Breyer wrote to affirm 22:16 he was joined by justices Thomas 22:19 Ginsburg Alito and Sotomayor Chief 22:25 Justice Roberts descended and he was 22:27 joined by Justice Stevens Scalia and 22:29 Kennedy that's a lineup that the public 22:32 doesn't often hear about but it's the 22:34 sort of thing that happens quietly day 22:37 in and day out in courts throughout our 22:38 country as you know but the legal cynic 22:41 overlooks the vast majority of disputes 22:44 coming to our courts are ones in which 22:45 all judges agree on the outcome intense 22:48 focus on a few cases where we disagree 22:50 suffers from a serious selection effect 22:52 problem over ninety percent of the 22:54 decisions issued by my quarter unanimous 22:56 and that's pretty typical of the federal 22:58 appellate courts forty percent of the 23:01 Supreme Court's cases are unanimous to 23:03 even though they face the toughest 23:05 assignments and nine not three judges 23:07 have to vote in every single dispute in 23:10 fact the Supreme Court's rate of descent 23:12 has been largely stable for 70 years 23:15 you don't hear that this despite the 23:18 fact that back in 1945 eight of the nine 23:20 justices have been appointed by a single 23:22 president and today's sitting justices 23:25 were appointed by five different 23:26 presidents even in those few cases where 23:30 we do disagree the cynic also fails to 23:33 appreciate the nature of our 23:34 disagreement we lawyers and judges may 23:37 dispute which two 23:38 was legal analysis are most appropriate 23:39 for ascertaining a statute's meaning we 23:43 may disagree over the order priority we 23:46 should assign two competing tools and 23:48 the consonants with the Constitution we 23:50 may even disagree over the results are 23:52 agreed tools yield in particular cases 23:54 these disagreements sometimes produce 23:56 familiar lineups but sometimes not 23:58 consider for example the debates between 24:01 Justice Scalia and Thomas over the role 24:03 of the rule entity or their 24:05 disagreements about the degree of 24:07 deference to President or some of the 24:09 debates you've heard today between and 24:11 among textless original lists these 24:15 debates are hugely consequential final 24:17 but their disputes of legal judgment not 24:20 disputes about politics or personal will 24:22 in the hardest cases as well many 24:26 constraints narrow the realm of 24:27 admissible dispute closed factual 24:30 records and adversarial process for 24:32 parties not courts usually determined 24:33 issues for decision standards of review 24:36 the command deference to finders of fact 24:38 the rules requiring us appellate George 24:40 judges to operate and collegial panels 24:42 where we listen learn from one another 24:44 the discipline of writing reason giving 24:46 opinions and the possibility of further 24:48 review to be sure these constraints 24:51 sometimes point in different directions 24:53 i'm not advocating a single right answer 24:55 to every problem but that shouldn't 24:57 obscure how those tools those 24:59 constraints often served to limit the 25:02 latitude available to all judges even 25:05 the cynics imagine judge would like 25:06 nothing more than imposes policy 25:08 preferences on everyone else 25:10 and on top of all that what today 25:12 appears to be a hard case tomorrow 25:14 becomes an easy one and accretion to 25:16 precedent as a new constraint on the 25:18 range of legally available options in 25:20 future cases now maybe maybe i do 25:24 exaggerate the cynicism that seems to 25:27 pervade today or maybe the cynicism i 25:29 see is real but endemic to every place 25:31 and every time and it seems something 25:33 fresh 25:34 only because this is our place in our 25:36 time after all lawyers and judges have 25:39 never been much loved Shakespeare wrote 25:42 the history of King Henry the sixth and 25:44 three parts in all those three plays 25:47 there's only a single joke 25:49 Jack cadence followers come to London 25:52 intent on rebellion and they offer their 25:55 first rallying cry let's kill all the 25:58 lawyers as in fact that he pretty much 26:01 did but but maybe just maybe the 26:06 cynicism about the rule of law whatever 26:08 the place whatever the time is its 26:10 greatest irony 26:12 maybe the cynicism is so apparent in our 26:14 society only because the rule of law 26:16 here for all its problems is so 26:19 successful 26:20 after all who can make so much fun of 26:23 the law without being very sure the law 26:25 makes it safe to do so don't our friends 26:30 our neighbors and we ourselves expect 26:33 and demand not just hope for justice 26:35 based on the rule of law our country 26:39 today shoulders an enormous burden the 26:43 most powerful nation on earth the most 26:45 obvious example of people struggling to 26:48 govern itself under the rule of law our 26:51 mistakes and missteps halted by those 26:54 who do not wish as well they're easy 26:57 enough to see even by those who do 26:59 neither should we try to shuffle our 27:01 problems under the rug 27:03 we have far too many to ignore today 27:06 the fact is the law can be a messy human 27:11 business a disappointment to those 27:13 seeking truth and some absolute sense 27:15 expecting more of the diviner oh except 27:18 for those of us wearing the robes and 27:21 it's easy enough to spot examples where 27:23 the laws ironies are truly better but it 27:26 seems to me that we shouldn't well so 27:29 much on the better that we never savor 27:31 the sweet it is after all our shared 27:34 profession to which we devoted our 27:36 professional lives the law that permits 27:38 us to resolve their disputes without 27:40 resort to violence to organize our 27:42 affairs with some measure of confidence 27:44 is through the careful application of 27:47 the laws existing premises were able to 27:49 adapt and generate new solutions to 27:51 changing social coordination problems as 27:53 they emerge and when done well the law 27:56 permits us to achieve all this in a 27:58 deliberative non-discriminatory and 28:00 transparent 28:00 way those are no small things here then 28:05 is the irony I'd like to leave you with 28:07 tonight if sometimes the cynic and all 28:10 of us fails to see our nation successes 28:14 when it comes to the rule of law 28:16 maybe it's because we're like David 28:17 Foster Wallace's fish was oblivious to 28:20 life-giving water in which it swims 28:22 maybe we overlooked our nation's success 28:25 living under the rule of law only 28:28 because for all our faults that success 28:31 is so obvious it's sometimes hard to see 28:34 thank you

Investigation: An Attorney's Vicarious Liability

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 22, 2016 55:55

Private investigators must be aware of how their actions may impact others. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Conduct sets forth directives for behavior not only for attorneys but for non-lawyers as well and are enforceable in all but eight states. Violations can result in sanctions or worse. Therefore. If a lawyer retains an investigator, that attorney is liable for the investigator's actions. Certainly, there are gray areas in investigation tactics, but some, particularly when it applies to surveillance, pretexting, GPS tracking, and social media are mine-fields unless there is a clear understanding between the investigator and the attorney regarding the assigned tasks. Whose responsibility is it then? Ultimately it is counsel's responsibility, but private investigators must also take the lead to ensure what techniques can be used for a particular assignment. Join PI's Declassified and Attorney Forrest Plesko discuss strategies to avoid these ethical pitfalls.

private attorney gps investigation conduct liability violations american bar association private investigators pis declassified vicarious model rules talk radio on line francie koehler

Investigation: An Attorney's Vicarious Liability