Legal Ethics Forum

Uniform Bar Exam in the News

Interest in a uniform bar exam is increasing, according to the USA Today. The story notes that the issue got considerable attention at a recent bar examiners conference in Phoenix.

I had two reactions to the story.  First, I think this was my first link to the USA Today.  It may be the most widely read American newspaper, but it doesn't typically offer much fodder for law-related blogs! (Indeed, I got the link to the story from the ABA Journal.)

Second, and more seriously, I was happy to read that there is growing interest in the concept of a uniform bar exam.  As I argued last month, the potential benefits from a uniform bar exam far outweigh the potential costs.  I hope the story continues to get attention and, more importantly, that bar examiners give serious thought to adopting a uniform examination.

Michelle Gallant: "Uncertainties Collide: Lawyers and Money Laundering, Terrorist Finance Regulation"

Article by Michelle Gallant.  Abstract:

The tasking of Canadian lawyers with anti-money laundering, anti-terrorist finance obligations is a project fraught with uncertainty. It is not clear that the strategy of pursuing criminal finance, the underlying reason for the conscripting of lawyers into the war on criminal finance, works to deter crime. Whether there is space within Canadian legal norms to accommodate any conscription of lawyers is uncertain. And whether a new emergent model, regulation through professional governance, is an effective vehicle through which to deal with the conjunction of lawyers and criminal finance is uncertain. In charting the course of Canadian developments, this article demonstrates the problematic nature of the convergence of lawyers and anti-criminal finance regulation.

In a similar vein, I've previously posted on the idea of a new (and problematic) role that perhaps is emerging in the US: Officer of the Executive Branch.  Traditionally, lawyers were "Officers of the Court," and more recently, in the Model Rules, they are acknowledged as "Officers of the Legal System."  The idea is that lawyers have significant duties to the legal systems which grant lawyers the right to practice and which regulate that practice.  Our duties don't run only to clients; they also run to the system.  

If, increasingly, it is the federal government that permits lawyers to "do law" and that defines the outer limits of what we're permitted to do, then it's inevitable that some people will increasingly view lawyers as owing duties to the federal agencies.  The idea is problematic, and I have huge reservations about how it might be applied, but we've seen a lot more of that, and it will only increase.  One of the difficulties with the notion is that federal bureaucrats aren't necessarily steeped in the lawyerly virtues and hence may stress the agency's needs over the needs of clients.  The traditional role of "officer of the court" didn't raise the same danger, because most judges have a deep understanding of the practice of lawyering, and rule making in that sphere typically includes the participation of lawyers.

Three great sites: California Attorney's Fees; New York Attorney Malpractice Blog; Freivogel on Conflicts

You may already know these speciality sites, but I thought I'd mention:

California Attorneys Fees.

New York Attorney Malpractice Blog, and 

the incredibly useful Freivogel on Conflicts.

Zealous advocacy for accused terrorists

Story here.  Criminal defense lawyers for the accused terrorists who will be tried in NYC are saying that their clients will plead not guilty so that they will have more opportunities for criticizing the United States.  In response, Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said that "we have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disruption, as federal courts have done in the past."  

Lawyer involved in murders of witnesses?

WSJ law blog has a surreal story about allegations against a criminal defense lawyer.

Tony Mauro: "Do Defendants Get Enough Warning About a Guilty Plea's Consequences?"

Fascinating article here, about the problem of advising criminal defendants of all the adverse consequences of pleading guilty.  It looks as if the ABA and other groups will be moving toward more uniform standards.  

Extensive recusals within DOJ related to prior legal work for detainees

The issue of recusals within the DOJ is being pushed in some quarters as a hot political issue.  From reading the editorial at the Washington Times, a recent blog entry, and an older account from American Lawyer media, it seems to me as if the recusal rules within DOJ, which are in some ways even stricter than the Model Rules, are working as they should.

Lawyer (and alleged ponzi schemer) targeted people who invested in law suits

Story here.  Key graf:

Fort Lauderdale, Fla., law firm leader Scott Rothstein would piggyback on actual lawsuits, including one tawdry case his firm was handling, to solicit investors in an alleged Ponzi scheme, according to a lawsuit by investors claiming more than $100 million in losses.

Plaintiffs lawyer posts Youtube video about new suit; gets sued for defamation; moves to strike defamation suit under SLAPP law

Story here.  Youtube video here.  

NY news that you'd expect to hear coming out of Baltimore or Chicago

According to Point of Law, "The ethics counsel to the New York state senate told senators to hand-deliver ethics filings, rather than mailing them, to avoid coverage under the federal mail fraud statute."  (Hmm, what's the 1.2(d) analysis on that?)