Law Commons^™

Functional Neuroimaging Information: A Case For Neuro Exceptionalism?, Stacey A. Tovino

Scholarly Works

The field of neuroethics has been described as an amalgamation of two branches of inquiry: “the neuroscience of ethics” and “the ethics of neuroscience.” The neuroscience of ethics may be described as “a scientific approach to understanding ethical behavior.” The law and ethics of neuroscience is concerned with the legal and ethical principles that should guide brain research and the treatment of neurological disease, as well as the effects that advances in neuroscience have on our social, moral, and philosophical views. This Article is a contribution to the law and ethics of neuroscience.

No longer new or emerging, the burgeoning …

The Curious Incident Of The Law Firm That Did Nothing In The Night-Time, Nancy B. Rapoport

Scholarly Works

This essay argues that organizations (here, the Milbank, Tweed law firm) often ignore obviously bad behavior by their employees because of various psychological and sociological factors that prevent them from recognizing the behavior as bad in the first place.

The Relationship Between Defense Counsel, Policyholders, And Insurers: Nevada Rides Yellow Cab Toward "Two-Client" Model Of Tripartite Relationship. Are Cumis Counsel And Malpractice Claims By Insurers Next?, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

It happens constantly in civil litigation. An insurance company hires a lawyer to defend its policyholder from a third party’s claim of injury. But just who is the lawyer’s “client?” Is it the policyholder who is the named defendant in the case and is “represented” in court proceedings? Or is it the insurer who, in most cases, selected the attorney, pays the attorney, supervises the litigation, and has (by the terms of the liability insurance policy) the right to settle the case, even over the objections of the policyholder? Ordinarily, the liability insurer has both the duty to defend a …

Lawyer Professional Responsibility In Litigation, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

A perennially-vexing litigation issue concerns the limits of permissible attorney argument. More than a few lawyers have been tripped up by the occasional fuzziness of the line between aggressive advocacy and improper appeals to passion or prejudice. See Craig Lee Montz, Why Lawyers Continue to Cross the Line in Closing Argument: An Examination of Federal and State Cases, 28 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 67 (2001-2002)(problem of violations results from lack of uniformity and clarity of ground rules as well as errors of counsel). In Cohen v. Lioce, 149 P.3d 916 (Nev. 2006) the Nevada Supreme Court both provided significant guidance …