Law Commons^™

Model Rule 8.4(G) And The Profession’S Core Values Problem, Michael Ariens

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Model Rule 8.4(g) declares it misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” The American Bar Association (ABA) adopted the rule in 2016 in large part to effectuate the third of its four mission goals: Eliminate Bias and Enhance Diversity. The ABA adopted these goals in 2008, and they continue to serve as ABA’s statement of its mission.

A …

A “License To Kale”—Free Speech Challenges To Occupational Licensing Of Nutrition And Dietetics, Taylor J. Newman, Angela E. Surrett

St. Mary's Law Journal

State licensing of medical professions has occurred for over a century. Recently, these licensure statutes have been subject to First Amendment challenges, alleging occupational licensure impermissibly restricts freedom of speech. This Comment addresses these free speech challenges, arguing occupational licensure statutes, at least for medical professions, only incidentally impacts free speech—if at all—by permissibly regulating medical professional conduct necessarily requiring speech. Within, the authors ultimately describe, demonstrate, and recommend a legal framework, the other factor/personal nexus approach. This approach helps determine the point at which speech becomes regulable professional conduct subject to licensing, utilizing the nutrition and dietetics profession, and …

The Bumble Bill: A Critical Analysis On Texas’S New Law Taking Indecent Exposure Regulations Online, Ashley B. Huron

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Hearsay In The Smiley Face: Analyzing The Use Of Emojis As Evidence, Erin Janssen

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

The Right To Be Forgotten: Comparing U.S. And European Approaches, Samuel W. Royston

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Article compares the European and United States stances regarding the right to be forgotten. Within that context, this Article explores the implications of technological advances on constitutional rights, specifically the intersection of the right to free speech and the right to privacy, commonly referred to as the "right to be forgotten" paradox. In the United States, the trend is to favor free speech, while Europe places an emphasis on human rights. Each approach is analyzed based on supporting case law. The consequences of each approach on society, both long- and short-term, are also discussed. This Article argues that a …