Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | Open Access Articles

The Privilege Doctrines--Are They Just Another Discovery Tool Utilized By The Tobacco Industry To Conceal Damaging Information?, Christine Hatfield Aug 2018

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 …

Go to article

Causation And "Legal Certainty" In Legal Malpractice Law, Vincent R. Johnson Jul 2018

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.

Go to article

The Paragraph 20 Paradox: An Evaluation Of The Enforcement Of Ethical Rules As Substantive Law, Donald E. Campbell Jul 2018

The Paragraph 20 Paradox: An Evaluation Of The Enforcement Of Ethical Rules As Substantive Law, Donald E. Campbell

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

This Article addresses an issue courts across the country continue to struggle with: When are ethics rules appropriately considered enforceable substantive obligations, and when should they only be enforceable through the disciplinary process? The question is complicated by the ethics rules themselves. Paragraph 20 of the Scope section of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct includes seemingly contradictory guidance; it states the Rules are not to be used to establish civil liability, but also that they can be “some evidence” of a violation of a lawyer’s standard of care. Most states have adopted this paradoxal Paragraph 20 language. Consequently, courts …

Go to article

Review Of Privileged Documents In Trial And Deposition Preparation Of Witnesses In New York: When, If Ever, Will The Privilege Be Lost?, Michael J. Hutter May 2018

Review Of Privileged Documents In Trial And Deposition Preparation Of Witnesses In New York: When, If Ever, Will The Privilege Be Lost?, Michael J. Hutter

Pace Law Review

This article will examine New York’s refreshing recollection doctrine in the context of trial and deposition preparation of witnesses as to the consequences of the witness’s review of privileged writings. Initially, Part II will discuss Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The discussion will serve as the backdrop for the analysis of the above-mentioned issues under New York law. Part III will then examine the refreshing recollection doctrine as developed and applied to testifying witnesses at a trial or deposition by the New York courts. The examination will point out the doctrine’s key rules. Part IV discusses the …

Go to article

Prosecutorial Summation: Where Is The Line Between "Personal Opinion" And Proper Argument?, James W. Gunson Apr 2018

Prosecutorial Summation: Where Is The Line Between "Personal Opinion" And Proper Argument?, James W. Gunson

Maine Law Review

Prosecutorial forensic misconduct has become front page news in Maine. Since April of 1993, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, has reversed convictions in three highly publicized cases based on remarks made by the prosecutor. In State v. Steen, the prosecutor asked the defendant to give his opinion concerning the veracity of other witnesses and suggested in closing argument that the favorable testimony given by the defense's expert witness resulted from the fee he had received. The Law Court vacated the gross sexual assault conviction, finding that the prosecutor's questions and closing argument “clearly suggested” to …

Go to article

Panel Discussion: Ethnographic Evidence Feb 2018