Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility
The Emperor's New Clothes: Cloaking Client Protection Under The New Model Court Rule On Insurance Disclosure The Fourth Annual Symposium On Legal Malpractice And Professional Responsibility: Comment., Nicole D. Mignone
St. Mary's Law Journal
Traditionally, the legal profession prides itself on its ability to self-regulate and prefers to “take care of its own” in the disciplinary realm. The Model Court Rule on Insurance Disclosure (the Rule) invites an initial effort toward the legal profession’s self-regulating ideals and client protection. The Rule requires private practice attorneys to report to their state whether they plan to maintain liability insurance, which is then disclosed to the public. Unfortunately, the Rule’s ambiguous language and requirements create worrisome issues for both the attorney and client. Attorneys without malpractice insurance may be indirectly forced to obtain it. This expense could …
Ethics And Due Diligence: A Lawyer's Perspective On Doing Business With Mexico., Rona R. Mears
Ethics And Due Diligence: A Lawyer's Perspective On Doing Business With Mexico., Rona R. Mears
St. Mary's Law Journal
The focus of this study is to survey ethical issues faced by legal practitioners in providing legal counsel for international business transactions, with special attention to lawyers counseling clients who are doing business with Mexico. This paper is intended for lawyers who practice in the United States (U.S.), involved in counseling clients outside the U.S. The purpose of this study is to highlight only those issues that raise special difficulties for such a practitioner, and then to provide practical advice on how to avoid ethical problems in U.S.-Mexico transactions. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MPRC), the International Code of …
A Trial Court's Refusal To Question Prospective Jurors About The Specific Contents Of Pretrial Publicity Which They Had Read Or Heard Did Not Violate A Defendant's Sixth Amendment Right To An Impartial Jury, Or Fourteenth Amendment Right To Due Process., Karen A. Cusenbary
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Mu'Min v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court held a defendant has no right to ask jurors about the potential influence of prejudicial pretrial publicity. A defendant may ask only if the jurors can remain impartial. The Court mandates that overturning a trial court’s jury selection is allowable only if manifest error renders the trial fundamentally unfair. The Court did not find that the case involved sufficient public passion to necessitate a more extensive jury examination by the trial court to include inquiries involving the effect of pretrial publicity. The ruling in Mu'Min leaves too much discretion to the …