We respect the privacy of our visitors but can't help but wonder why so many people are visiting us today -- especially those visiting the entry on Top Ten Legal Stories of 2008. If you don't mind sharing, was that post mentioned in an email or some other source?
Details here. The line-up is excellent and the interplay between practitioners and academics will be intense, insightful, and informative for everyone. Mitt Regan, Jeff Baumann., and Carole Silver are heading up the conference.
Btw, over the last five years we've seen an explosion of articles, studies and analyses from the legal academic community in a vein that challenges Judge Harry Edwards's famous complaint of a "Growing Disjunction between Legal Education and the Legal Profession." Harvard, Georgetown, Indiana, and now Stanford have formidable centers on the legal profession. The Michigan alumni data set and the "After the JD" project have provided reams of data about the profession itself. Policy battles over diversity have increasingly moved away from mere rhetoric and towards hard data -- including the data in Richard Sander's much-bruited articles and the responses to those articles.
When I recently re-read my lecture notes from ten years ago on the structures and demographics of private practice, I was shocked at how elementary the topics were. Today's students, and today's law firms, have a far better empirical grasp of the profession. So here's a tip of the cap for the academics who are creating this "growing conjunction."
According to this story, which is unfortunately under a reg wall, in the suit brought by Jose Padilla against former OLC lawyer (and current UC-Berkeley Law prof) John Yoo, the government lawyers representing Yoo want to selectively reveal long-sought-after OLC memos to the plaintiff's lawyer -- but not necessarily to the Senate or public.
The ABA's House of Delegates will soon be reconsidering an amendment to Rule 1.10 that would permit screening in some matters involving laterally hired attorneys. In August 2008, the House voted to postpone consideration of a similar proposal by a single vote. Should it be adopted this time? For an argument against screening, see Monroe Freedman's comments here. For the Report in favor of screening, look here. (Update: I neglected to reference David McGowan's excellent thoughts on the subject here, which includes Monroe Freedman's further comments on the topic.) The BNA has run a recent story about the upcoming vote here (password required). What do you think?
WSJ Law Blog reports on this new 6th Circuit decision upholding sanctions against a lawyer for publicly criticizing judges. . . . . Endofesq reports on scathing criticism of the economics of the law school financial model -- some of which comes from law profs/deans themselves. (Bring back the LL.B for undergrads, I say. And while we're at it, be candid with applicants and students about the economics of the degree they're investing in.)
As I explained in an earlier post, I bought a copy of Owen's Law Quizzer (4th ed., 1914) at a used book store. The Quizzer, which has a series of questions and suggested answers on a variety of legal topics, was designed to assist students in their law studies or bar examinations. Today I'll offer an easy question about pleading the statute of limitations in defense to a suit on a debt.
"Q: Should an attorney advise his client to set up the statute of limitations as a defense?"
To figure it out, I call a lawyer, say someone I know who specializes in criminal law, to get her advice. (Although Massachusetts has not adopted Rule 1.6(b)(4), I'm assuming that a consultation of this sort would be ethically permissible.) Let's also assume that my friend is not in Massachusetts and is in a jurisdiction that has adopted Model Rule 1.6, which no longer has a "criminal act" condition to trigger discretionary disclosures.
My friend tells me that the act in question is not criminal, so I can't disclose under the Massachusetts Rule. My lawyer friend, however, can disclose under her jurisdiction's version of Rule 1.6. Can my friend disclose this information? And if so, isn't this a potential way around the stricter confidentiality provisions that exist in some states? (Notably, the Massachusetts rules have no choice of law provision, and let's assume that my friend's jurisdiction also lacks such a provision. )
Some questions. Can my lawyer friend disclose? If so, are there any viable legal malpractice claims against her or me? If I knew in advance that the lawyer would probably tell me that the act was not criminal and that she would disclose under her own jurisdiction's rules, have I violated my own jurisdiction's confidentiality provisions? I considered making this into an exam question, but my students would never forgive me. Thoughts?