Law Commons^™

Revisiting Trial Basics Every Time: A Ritual For Courtroom Success, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

With fewer cases progressing to trial, many attorneys do not have adequate opportunities to practice the skills necessary to be successful in the courtroom. Here the author provides a useful and uncomplicated examination of the basic trial advocacy skills, which should be reviewed each time an attorney prepares for trial. Writing for the busy practicing attorney, the author concisely addresses six key stages of trial: voir dire, opening statement, direct examination, cross-examination, impeachment, and closing argument.

Taking Better Depositions By Thinking "Outside The Box", Maureen A. Howard

Articles

While there are reasons a lawyer may ask questions in a deposition to confirm what she thinks she already knows—nailing down facts for a summary judgment motion, confirming factual and legal theories, perpetuating a witness’s testimony, or facilitating settlement by flexing favorable facts—gathering information the lawyer does not know remains the primary goal of almost every deposition. Despite this, lawyers too often ask questions based on what they already know, limiting the universe of answers and undermining the goal of gathering information.

By the time a lawyer notes depositions, she has already built a “working model” of the case based …

Debate: The Future Of Mass Torts, Sergio J. Campos, Howard M. Erichson

Articles

No abstract provided.

Taking The Business Out Of Work Product, Michele M. Destefano Beardslee

Articles

Over the past fifteen years, a common set of questions has surfaced in different areas of scholarship about the breadth of the corporate attorney's role: Should the corporate attorney provide business advice when providing legal advice? Should the corporate attorney provide counsel related to other disciplines such as public relations, social responsibility, morals, accounting, and/or investment banking? Should the corporate attorney prevent corporate wrongdoing? Questions like these resound in the scholarship addressing the risks and benefits of multi-disciplinary partnerships, gatekeeping, moral counseling, ancillary services, and the application of the attorney-client privilege. When looked at in combination, these segregated discussions equate …

Judges' Gender And Employment Discrimination Cases: Emerging Evidence-Based Empirical Conclusions, Pat K. Chew

Articles

This article surveys the emerging empirical research on the relationship between the judges' gender and the results in employment discrimination cases.

The Rome I Regulation Rules On Party Autonomy For Choice Of Law: A U.S. Perspective, Ronald A. Brand

Articles

This chapter was presented at a conference in Dublin on the (then) new Rome I Regulation of the European Union in the fall of 2009. It contrasts the Rome I rules on party autonomy with those in the United States. In particular, it considers the rules in the Rome I Regulation that ostensibly protect consumers by discouraging party agreement on a pre-dispute basis to the law governing a consumer contract. These rules are compared with the absence of private international law restrictions on choice of forum and choice of law in the United States, even in consumer contracts. The result …

Arbitral And Judicial Proceedings: Indistinguishable Justice Or Justice Denied?, Pat K. Chew

Articles

This is an exploratory study comparing the processes and outcomes in the arbitration and the litigation of workplace racial harassment cases. Drawing from an emerging large database of arbitral opinions, this article indicates that arbitration outcomes yield a lower percentage of employee successes than in litigation of these types of cases. At the same time, while arbitration proceedings have some of the same legal formalities (legal representation, legal briefs), they do not have other protective procedural safeguards.

Effective Pre-Trial Motions: Persuading The Judge, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

Victories won in pre-trial motions can significantly affect the direction and outcome of a trial. For this reason, successful trial lawyers prepare for motions with the same thoroughness that they employ for the trial itself. Arguing a motion to a trial judge, however, is different from arguing your case to a jury; to be effective, an advocate needs to be mindful of the difference.

Judges generally resist what they perceive as emotional manipulation, theatrics, or excessive rhetoric. Many judges expect lawyers to cleanly and succinctly argue the facts and the law without employing any appeal to emotion. That being said, …

The Price Of Pay To Play In Securities Class Actions, Adam C. Pritchard, Stephen J. Choi, Drew T. Johnson-Skinner

Articles

We study the effect of campaign contributions to lead plaintiffs—“pay to play”—on the level of attorney fees in securities class actions. We find that state pension funds generally pay lower attorney fees when they serve as lead plaintiffs in securities class actions than do individual investors serving in that capacity, and larger funds negotiate for lower fees. This differential disappears, however, when we control for campaign contributions made to offcials with infuence over state pension funds. This effect is most pronounced when we focus on state pension funds that receive the largest campaign contributions and that associate repeatedly as lead …

Ask And What Shall Ye Receive? A Guide For Using And Interpreting What Jurors Tell Us, Barbara O'Brien, Samuel R. Sommers, Phoebe C. Ellsworth

Articles

We review the extensive body of studies relying on jurors' self-reports in interviews or questionnaires, with a focus on potential threats to validity for researchers seeking to answer particularly provocative questions such as the influence of race in jury decision-making. We then offer a more focused case study comparison of interview and questionnaire data with behavioral data in the domain of race and juror decision-making. Our review suggests that the utility of data obtained from juror interviews and questionnaire responses varies considerably depending on the question under investigation. We close with an evaluation of the types of empirical questions most …

No Harm, No Foul? Why Harmless Error Analysis Should Not Be Used To Review Wrongful Denials Of Counsel To Parents In Child Welfare Cases, Vivek Sankaran

Articles

The application of a harmless error standard by appellate courts reviewing erroneous denials of counsel in child protective cases undermines a critical procedural right that safeguards the interests of parents and children. Case law reveals that trial courts, on numerous occasions, improperly reject valid requests for counsel, forcing parents to navigate the child welfare system without an advocate. Appellate courts excuse these violations by speculating that the denials caused no significant harm to the parents, which is a conclusion that a court can never reach with any certainty. The only appropriate remedy for this significant problem is a bright-line rule …

A New Role For Secondary Proceedings In International Bankruptcies, John A. E. Pottow

Articles

Secondary proceedings-the ugly stepsisters to main proceedings-get short shrift in international bankruptcy scholarship. This article seeks to remedy that deficiency. First, it describes what it argues are the traditional conceptions-both stated and implicit-of secondary proceedings in international bankruptcies. Second, it offers a revised way of thinking about secondary proceedings, proposing to restrict their scope through the use of "synthetic" hearings. Third, it addresses some problems with the proposed new role of secondary proceedings and sketches a possible solution involving the creation of an international priorities registry.

The Asymmetry Of Duty In Criminal Trial Practice, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

Although the American trial system has been likened to an arena in which mental combatants fight “to the death” (the verdict), each warrior similarly skilled and equally committed to vanquishing the other in a forum with formal rules of engagement enforced by a learned and impartial judge, the role of the criminal prosecutor is qualitatively different than that of other advocates. This is because, unlike any other lawyer, a criminal prosecutor has an affirmative duty to the opposing party.

A lawyer who represents an individual client is duty-bound to advance that client’s interests vigorously within the bounds of the law. …