Legal Ethics Forum

Jamie Harmon wins new trial on money laundering charges

I had commented previously about Jamie Harmon (then known as Jamie "Harley"), the San Jose criminal defense attorney who was convicted of money laundering. I can't get full access to the Law.com article, but it appears that the trial judge granted Harmon a new trial on the basis of faulty jury instructions. My prior post is here.

People v. DSK: What Should Vance Say

In light of next Tuesday's announcement of the next step in the DSK case -- and the NYT story today on the  political consequences to D.A. Vance whatever he does, consequences he is supposed to ignore and I assume he will -- one question is: If drops the charges, should he explain?

Some quoted in the NYT story say that to mend fences with the minority community and women he will need to explain a decision to drop the charges.

Wrong, I say. He should say nothing else. There are two civil cases pending. Just about any explanation he gives for not going forward -- assuming that's what he decides -- will interfere with the civil cases.

True, not going forward may itself carry an implication in the minds of some, but that is the unavoidable conseuquence of such a decision.

A statement that, hypothetically, reflected on  the complaining witness's credibility or the strength of the proof would be gratuitous and improper.

Not that Vance's  reasons won't leak out from one corner or another anyway, but they won't be directly attributed to him. 

Susan Saab Fortney at Hofstra

I'm delighted to say that Susan Saab Fortney has arrived at Hofstra as our new Lichtenstein Distinguished Professor of Legal Ethics. Susan has done extensive and important research and writing in lawyers' ethics, including a casebook on lawyer malpractice, and is a terrific speaker. Among other things, she will be in charge of Hofstra's biennial ethics conference. Susan comes to us from Texas Tech Law School, where she was the Interim Dean and the Paul Whitfield Horn Professor. She served with the SEC as Finance and Enforcement Attorney for two years, and was in private practice for nine years, before beginning to teach law in 1988.

More on HP's hiring directly from law schools

I discussed it about a year ago, and now the WSJ Law Blog has a follow-up on HP's hiring of newly minted lawyers. (ht: State Bar of Michigan blog)  If this trend takes off, it could be huge. But let's take it one step further. Suppose that HP hires a bright, hard-working college graduate and trains them to work in the licensing department, drafting and finalizing contracts under the supervision of a lawyer. After a few years of work and training, should we permit that person to sit for the bar? Presumably the person would also take a prep course for passing the exam. (In California, you can get your architecture license by passing a comprehensive series of tests after either (1) getting an architecture degree, or (2) working in an architect's office for a period of time.)

ABA imposes lenient punishment on Villanova for reporting false data; says that Villanova's voluntary disclosure prevented worse punishment

ABA Journal carries the story.  The ABA's letter to Villanova, here, suggests that had not Villanova volunteered the information about its false data, an appropriate sanction would have included probation or being stricken from the rolls of accredited law schools.  The punishments also include several shaming sanctions.

Query: suppose the current spate of lawsuits against law schools for allegedly false numbers turns up discovery of the knowing use of false stats and suppose further that the school(s) didn't self-report. What sanctions?

UK law student allegedly was rioter/looter

If true, that would be tough to explain to the C&F committee. The detained student is denying the charges.

Third Circuit reverses finding that lawyer violated 3.5 by contacting juror after verdict

It's a rule that doesn't generate many opinions, so you might find this one interesting. In Adams v. Ford Motor Co., the Third Circuit explores the text of the rule, analyzes the due process rights of the accused lawyer, and then reverses the magistrate's finding that the lawyer had violated 3.5. [edited]

UPDATE: As Dan Abrams points out in the comments, the Third Circuit had to deal with a standing issue. Sometimes courts will say something negative about an attorney's behavior and the attorney has no standing to challenge the dicta.

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/083950p.pdf

Sen. Grassley responds to the ABA's response to Sen. Grassley

Gary Rosin at the Faculty Lounge alerted us to Sen. Grassley's response to the ABA's response to the senator's questions about accreditation. Among other things, Grassley emphasizes how stacked the ABA's accreditation process is with academics and Deans. If the judges, lawyers, hiring partners, clients and students are disappointed with US law schools, then "capture" of the accreditation process by the folks being regulated is an attractive hypothesis.

Solicitation of Clients

I have argued that solicitation of clients has considerable value to members of the public (ULE, 4th ed., ch. 11), and that State Bar v. Went for It might well have come out differently if the content- and speaker-based discrimination in the law had been argued to the Court (ULE, pp. 336-338) (citing RAV v. St. Paul). These points have been strengthened by the Court’s recent opinion in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S.Ct. 2653, where the Court (6-3) struck down a Vermont restriction on solicitation involving the use of pharmaceutical records to market brand-named drugs.

As the Court said in Sorrell, "the law imposes a burden based on the content of the speech and the identity of the speaker." (At 2665) This, of course, is exactly what the restriction on plaintiffs’ lawyers’ solicitation did in Went for It, preventing them for 30 days from countering the claims of defendants, their lawyers, and their adjusters that the injured people were better off settling immediately, without lawyers.

In the course of the Sorrell opinion, the Court reiterated that in-person solicitation has "considerable value." (At 2663). The Court also said that "Lawmakers may no more silence unwanted speech by burdening its utterance than by censoring its content." (At 2664). And: "An individual’s right to speak is implicated when information he or she possesses is subjected to ‘restraints on the way in which the information might be used or disseminated.’" (At 2665). Citing RAV v. St. Paul, the Court in Sorrell condemned the "viewpoint discrimination" in the Vermont statute. (At 2663).

More lawsuits against law schools for allegedly inflating numbers

Seems like the dam is bursting. In addition to the pending suit against Thomas Jefferson, there are now suits against New York Law School and Cooley. It seems that Cooley provoked the suit by bringing an ill-advised suit against its critics.  ABA Journal; Tax law Prof Blog. I haven't had time to read the new complaints, but I thought that the complaint against Thomas Jefferson had been well researched and well written. My sense is that plaintiffs firms will be ready to jump in and sue lots more schools if these initial suits survive challenges at the pleading stage. Who can doubt that the existence of these suits will change the way schools talk about job and salary data?  (Prior coverage of suit against TJLS here and here.)

UPDATE: Coincidence: When I checked on this new posting, there were ads for Cooley next to the post both on Google reader and at the site.