Legal Ethics Items (October 11, 2010)

• Tax Prof Blog: law schools drop some night programs.
• News account re Fish v. Rutan & Tucker: in California, a patent lawyer who loaned a client money and took a security interest was required to indemnify his prior law firm when the client sued the firm, because the patent lawyer's acts violated the applicable ethics rules. One of the interesting wrinkles was that the partnership agreement provided that departing partners who then competed locally lost indemnity rights against the firm -- an anti-competitive provision that was nonetheless deemed reasonable.
• A Massachusetts case, Commonwealth v. Wayne Miranda, explores whether the payment of relocation expenses and reward money to witnesses in a criminal trial amounted to compensating witnesses.  The court affirmed the conviction but enunciated a rule for the future: "While the contingent monetary rewards in this case neither violated due process nor constituted structural error, we declare, exercising our superintendence authority, that prosecutors in the future may not provide (or participate in providing) monetary awards to witnesses contingent on a defendant's conviction. In so declaring, we recognize that, to prove the crime charged, prosecutors often need to procure the cooperation and truthful information or testimony of reluctant witnesses. The interests of justice, however, are not well served when a witness's reward is contingent on the conviction of a defendant rather than the provision of truthful information or testimony."
• At Balkinization, Jason Mazzone isn't too impressed with the New York Times's take on the political activities of Justice Thomas's wife.  (Renee Knake had commented on the article here.)
• Toledo Blade recaps the judicial race for chief justice of Ohio, where the rival candidates' campaigns are focusing on gender diversity and political diverity.
• Prof. Neil Hamilton comments on Professor Thomas Morgan's book, The Vanishing American Lawyer.
• In New Zealand, a suggestion that barristers return to the wearing of gowns and wigs for serious criminal trials is met with the counter-argument that formal dress is the "fawning debris of a stratified society in which the quality of the cloth was the quality of the wearer."
• In the UK, lawyers from Lincolnshire welcomed the introduction of the Legal Ombudsman, who can force lawyers to pay compensation to clients or return fees to clients in amounts up to £30,000.
• In Australia (WSJ), the SA-Attorney General highlighted the potentially high costs of national regulation of lawyers, commenting that  "the question really comes down to, is it going to be the Rolls-Royce centralist model or a federal model with minimal cost?"
• In Scotland, there continues to be debate over alternative business structures.