Law Commons^™

Critical Review Of The Use Of The Rorschach In European Courts, Igor Areh, Fanny Verkampt, Alfred Allan

Research outputs 2014 to 2021

In relation to the admissibility of evidence obtained using projective personality tests arose in F v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatam (2018). The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that an expert’s report can only be accepted if it is based on the international scientific community’s standards, but has refrained from stipulating what these standards are. It appears timely for European psychologists to decide what standards should be applied to determine whether or not a test is appropriate for psycholegal use. We propose standards and then apply them to the Rorschach because it was used in this case …

International Arbitration And Attorney-Client Privilege — A Conflict Of Laws Approach, Susan Franck

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Privilege determinations in international arbitration are currently the equivalent of the “wild west,” with minimal predictability and massive pockets of tribunal discretion. Yet protecting privilege in international arbitration — when the same document or communications with lawyers that is protected by United States law may receive no protection under another law — is fundamental to safeguarding attorney-client relationships within a global environment, incentivizing procedural integrity of dispute resolution, and ensuring that justice is done. As it is not clear what law applies to privilege and client confidentiality (let alone how the law is determine), this Essay begins to bridge the …

The Privilege Doctrines--Are They Just Another Discovery Tool Utilized By The Tobacco Industry To Conceal Damaging Information?, Christine Hatfield

Pace Law Review

This Comment will analyze the tobacco companies' use of the privilege doctrines to avoid litigation over the past thirty years, specifically focusing on the last fifteen years of litigation between this industry and its accusers. Part II of this Comment will discuss the pertinent discovery rules and the manner in which they are abused. Part III will examine the development, scope and limitations of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines, considering with particularity the corporate context and the applicability of the crime-fraud exception to these doctrines. Part IV will review the case law of the tobacco litigation, focusing on …

Causation And "Legal Certainty" In Legal Malpractice Law, Vincent R. Johnson

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

A line of California cases holds that causation of damages in legal malpractice actions must be proven with “legal certainty.” This Article argues that judicial references to legal certainty are ambiguous and threaten to undermine the fairness of legal malpractice litigation as a means for resolving lawyer-client disputes. Courts should eschew the language of legal certainty and plainly state that damages are recoverable if a legal malpractice plaintiff proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that those losses were factually and proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of duty.

"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

U.S. attorneys often hire consulting experts who potentially never get named as testifying experts. The same practice is evident in Australia, where the colloquial distinction is between a “clean” and a “dirty” expert, the latter being in the role of a consultant who is considered a member of the client’s “legal team.” A “clean” expert named as a witness is then called “independent,” signaling that he or she is not an advocate. In contrast to the U.S. discourse concerning consulting and testifying experts, focused on discovery issues, the conversation in Australia betrays immediate ethical concerns that both (i) explain why …

The Ethical Limits Of Discrediting The Truthful Witness: How Modern Ethics Rules Fail To Prevent Truthful Witnesses From Being Discredited Through Unethical Means, Todd A. Berger

Marquette Law Review

Whether the criminal defense attorney may ethically discredit the truthful witness on cross-examination and later during closing argument has long been an area of controversy in legal ethics. The vast majority of scholarly discussion on this important ethical dilemma has examined it in the abstract, focusing on the defense attorney’s dual roles in a criminal justice system that is dedicated to searching for the truth while simultaneously requiring zealous advocacy even for the guiltiest of defendants. Unlike these previous works, this particular Article explores this dilemma from the perspective of the techniques that criminal defense attorney’s use on cross-examination and …

Eliminating Political Maneuvering: A Light In The Tunnel For The Government Attorney-Client Privilege, Patricia E. Salkin, Allyson Phillips

Patricia E. Salkin

The long recognized common-law privilege afforded to certain conversations between attorneys and their clients has been the subject of troubling opinions when the lawyer and client are high ranking government officials. In a series of opinions from the 7th, 8th and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals, the courts refused to recognize the existence of the attorney-client privilege for the government actors under the circumstances surrounding the cases. However, recent opinions from the 2nd Circuit state that these other courts were simply wrong, setting the stage perhaps, for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the issue. Whether this privilege is equally …

Social Media And Legal Ethics, Jonathan I. Ezor

Jonathan I. Ezor

A presentation on the legal issues arising out of attorney use of social media services, including for electronic discovery

Why Cops Lie, Peter Keane

Publications

Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.

Making Stuff Up, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Beginning with an article in this Journal almost thirty years ago, Professor Underwood continues to research and write about legal ethics and litigation. In this Commentary, he offers a witty look at several cases where, in his opinion, the judge allowed improper arguments to the jury.

Toward Ethical Plea Bargaining, Erica J. Hashimoto

Scholarly Works

Defendants in criminal cases are overwhelmingly more likely to plead guilty than to go to trial. Presumably, at least a part of the reason that most of them do so is that it is in their interest to plead guilty, i.e., they will receive a more favorable outcome if they plead guilty than if they go to trial. The extent to which pleas reflect fair or rational compromises in practice, however, depends upon a variety of factors, including the amount of information each of the parties has about the case. Some level of informational symmetry therefore is critical to the …

Always Be Disclosing: The Prosecutor's Constitutional Duty To Divulge Inadmissible Evidence, Brian D. Ginsberg

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Remarkable Stratagems And Conspiracies": How Unscrupulous Lawyers And Credulous Judges Created An Exception To The Hearsay Rule, Marianne Wesson

Publications

This paper, a companion piece to the author's earlier exploration of the case of Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon, describes the remarkable record of unethical conduct compiled by the eminent and respectable attorneys for the insurance companies in the course of that litigation. When married with the Supreme Court Justices' uncritical willingness to accept the false narrative thus contrived, these attorneys' misconduct led to the creation of an important rule of evidence - a rule of questionable merit. This article aims to remind us that lawyers who are willing to distort the process of litigation have the power …

Prosecutors, Ethics, And Expert Witnesses, Paul C. Giannelli, Kevin C. Mcmunigal

Faculty Publications

Commentators who have examined the DNA exonerations have noted the disturbing role that prosecutors have played in these wrongful convictions. Another significant contributor to these miscarriages of justice is the misuse of expert testimony, a third of the cases according to some sources. This Article examines the intersection of these two factors - the prosecutor's role in using and presenting expert testimony.

Prosecutorial misconduct may occur during most stages of a trial, beginning with the selection of witnesses, including the improper "shopping" for experts. Additional abuses occur when prosecutors fail to abide by rules governing the pretrial disclosure of scientific …

Eliminating Political Maneuvering: A Light In The Tunnel For The Government Attorney-Client Privilege, Patricia E. Salkin, Allyson Phillips

Scholarly Works

The long recognized common-law privilege afforded to certain conversations between attorneys and their clients has been the subject of troubling opinions when the lawyer and client are high ranking government officials. In a series of opinions from the 7th, 8th and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals, the courts refused to recognize the existence of the attorney-client privilege for the government actors under the circumstances surrounding the cases. However, recent opinions from the 2nd Circuit state that these other courts were simply wrong, setting the stage perhaps, for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the issue. Whether this privilege is equally …

Life Sciences, Technology, And The Law - Symosium Transcript - March 7, 2003, Philip R. Reilly, David H. Kaye, Jonathan J. Koehler, Richard O. Lempert

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Life sciences, Technology, and the Law Symposium held at the University of Michigan Law School Friday, March 7, 2003

First, Do No Harm: The Use Of Covert Video Surveillance To Detect Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy- An Unethical Means Of "Preventing" Child Abuse, Michael T. Flannery

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Since it was first identified in 1977, Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy has uniquely affected the way in which the medical and legal communities deal with the issue of child abuse. Inherent in the medical response to the disease are issues of suspicion, investigation, identification, confrontation, and, of course, the health of an innocent child. Given the deceptive dynamics of the disease, however, denial and disbelief naturally overshadow every action taken by medical professionals in pursuing these issues. Fortunately, as medical knowledge about the dynamics of the disease continues to develop, medical professionals become more willing and better able to identify …

A Bludgeon By Any Other Name: The Misuse Of Ethical Rules Against Prosecutors To Control The Law Of The State, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

My objective here is threefold: (1) to explain these ethical rules and demonstrate how each is in conflict with longstanding principles of federal criminal law; (2) to explain why these rules are illegitimate, both as rules of ethics and as rules of positive law; and (3) to offer some observations on how the dispute over these rules can sharpen our thinking about the nature and proper limits of ethical rules governing lawyers.

What About The Children? Are Family Lawyers The Same (Ethically) As Criminal Lawyers? A Morality Play, Robert H. Aronson

Articles

A fictional account of a lawyer, representing a woman in a divorce case, who learns from her client that her live-in boyfriend has hit her and her five-year-old daughter. Is her ethical duty to protect the child greater than her responsibility to maintain the attorney-client privilege. She discusses the matter with two evidence professors in search of a solution.

Prosecutorial Misconduct In Presenting Evidence: "Backdooring" Hearsay, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Rules of evidence are designed to bring about just and informed decisions. One of these rules, the hearsay rule, is designed to ensure that juries receive reliable evidence, and that out-of-court statements ordinarily are inadmissible. Prosecutors are well aware of these evidentiary restrictions, but occasionally seek to circumvent them. The author describes methods used by some prosecutors to manipulate the hearsay rule and thereby distort the truth-finding process of the trial.