Law Commons^™

Sparking A Movement: A Coordinated, Bottom-Up Approach To Increase Voluntary Pro Bono Service And Mend The Justice Gap, David W. Lannetti, Jennifer L. Eaton

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

For decades, the legal profession has tried and tried again to increase pro

bono representation and reduce the ill effects of the Justice Gap. A common

and increasing theme has been a top-down approach focused on laudable

platitudes, jurisdictional reporting policies, and aspirational guidelines to

inspire attorneys to voluntarily serve low-income Americans. These efforts

have enjoyed very little success, however, and with the Justice Gap only getting

worse, a new solution is needed. This Article shifts the focus away from

these top-down methods and mandates, which lack accountability and incentives,

to a bottom-up approach that offers a more viable solution …

Aristotle On Animals, Agency, And Voluntariness, Nancy E. Schauber

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

In this article, I propose a way of reading the text that has both interpretive and philosophical merits. It is a more straightforward and literal reading of the text, requiring less interpolation than alternative readings. It also attributes to Aristotle a theory of moral responsibility which is, if not correct, at least as worthy of attention as many of the contemporary theories under debate. My own view is that the objections raised miss their target not because they fail to voice legitimate concerns about an adequate theory of moral responsibility, but because what Aristotle offers in the text in question …

Virginia State Bar Committee To Study The Virginia Code Of Professional Responsibility: Substantive Differences Between The Virgina Rules Of Professional Conduct And The Code Of Professional Responsibility, Tom Spahn

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

The Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct contain provisions that: - require Virginia lawyers to take action that is not required under the Code; - prohibit conduct that is permitted by the Code; - permit conduct that is prohibited by the Code; and - permit conduct that is not explicitly permitted by the Code. The following lists describe these four categories of substantive changes. Each change refers to the applicable Rules provision, as well as the relevant Code provision (if any). For more detailed information, please refer to the Detailed Comparison Chart or to the Rules themselves.

State Regulation Of Federal Prosecutors: The Impact On Contact With Represented Persons In Virginia, Robert H. Burger

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

The first section of this paper analyzes the ethics rule promulgated by the Department of Justice. The DOJ rule governs those circumstances in which federal prosecutors may communicate with individuals known to be represented by counsel, without the consent of such counsel. The second and third sections of this paper discuss the judicial and statutory rejection of the DOJ rule respectively. First, in O'Keefe v. McDonnell Douglas," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reasoned that the DOJ lacked authority to promulgate their ethics rule. As a result of this conclusion, the Eighth Circuit held the DOJ rule …

Mcdade Amendment: Moving Towards A Meaningful Limitation On Wrongful Prosecutorial Contact With Represented Parties, Nina Marino, Richard Kaplan

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

In Part I, this article will examine the anti-contact rule, its history, goals, and the path it has taken in the context of prosecutorial contact with represented parties. Part II will discuss the McDade Amendment, its genesis and purpose. Part III will discuss the struggle undertaken by the Department of Justice [hereinafter "DOJ"] as it seeks to exempt its lawyers from the anti-contact rule. Finally, Part IV looks at arguments for and against prosecutorial exemption from the anti-contact rule.