Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (5)
- Boston University School of Law (4)
- St. Mary's University (3)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (3)
- University of Kentucky (3)
-
- Case Western Reserve University School of Law (2)
- University of Colorado Law School (2)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (2)
- American University Washington College of Law (1)
- Cleveland State University (1)
- Florida A&M University College of Law (1)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (1)
- New York Law School (1)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (1)
- Roger Williams University (1)
- UC Law SF (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Faculty Scholarship (6)
- Scholarly Works (6)
- All Faculty Scholarship (5)
- Faculty Articles (3)
- Law Faculty Scholarly Articles (3)
-
- Faculty Publications (2)
- The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8) (2)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (1)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (1)
- Bar Associations (1)
- Faculty Scholarly Works (1)
- Journal Publications (1)
- Law Faculty Articles and Essays (1)
- Life of the Law School (1993- ) (1)
Articles 31 - 34 of 34
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Uniform Rule Governing The Admission And Practice Of Attorneys Before United States District Courts, Michael S. Ariens
A Uniform Rule Governing The Admission And Practice Of Attorneys Before United States District Courts, Michael S. Ariens
Faculty Articles
The increase in the interstate and international practice of law necessitates a review of the rules governing the admission of attorneys to practice before federal district courts. By virtue of the sweep of their jurisdictional net, federal district courts are likely to be the fora for litigating most interstate or international disputes. The present rules, based upon the antiquated notion that lawyers only rarely practice law in federal district court, and then only in the federal district court located in the state in which they practice, do not address this change in the practice of law.
For these reasons, a …
Legal Ethics And Class Actions: Problems, Tactics And Judicial Responses, Richard H. Underwood
Legal Ethics And Class Actions: Problems, Tactics And Judicial Responses, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
Perhaps no procedural innovation has generated more controversy than the class action. As Professor Arthur Miller has observed, debate over “class action problem[s]” has raged at several different levels. For example, opponents and proponents of class actions disagree on whether such actions produce socially desirable results in an economical fashion and whether an already overburdened judiciary can handle the additional supervisory demands of the class action. Recently, a somewhat more ideological dialogue has addressed the merit of publicly funded class actions. Such questions arise only indirectly in the context of class action litigation. However, a certain hostility toward class actions …
Adversary Ethics: More Dirty Tricks, Richard H. Underwood
Adversary Ethics: More Dirty Tricks, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
In this article the author provides a primer on the more common forms of cheating employed by trial lawyers. Another purpose is to suggest that there are antidotes that may be administered to curb these abuses, assuming that trial attorneys are alert enough to invoke them, and trial judges are willing to apply them.
Curbing Litigation Abuses: Judicial Control Of Adversary Ethics—The Model Rules Of Professional Conduct And Proposed Amendments To The Rules Of Civil Procedure, Richard H. Underwood
Curbing Litigation Abuses: Judicial Control Of Adversary Ethics—The Model Rules Of Professional Conduct And Proposed Amendments To The Rules Of Civil Procedure, Richard H. Underwood
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
This Article addresses the effectiveness of recent developments and proposals related to abusive litigation, and discusses them in the context of recent opinions illustrating the power of the trial judge to control the excesses of the adversary system. It rejects the countersuit as a time-consuming and costly means of controlling litigation abuses, and concludes that “tinkering changes” in the rules of procedure cannot bring about true reform. It is urged here that the burden resulting from abuse of litigation can only be relieved by changes which foster stronger judicial control of adversarial ethics, and greater judicial involvement in the pretrial …