Law Commons^™

Lawyers Judging Experts: Oversimplifying Science And Undervaluing Advocacy To Construct An Ethical Duty?, David S. Caudill

David S Caudill

My focus is on an apparent trend at the intersection of the fields of evidentiary standards for expert admissibility and professional responsibility, namely the eagerness to place more ethical responsibilities on lawyers to vet their proffered expertise to ensure its reliability. My reservations about this trend are not only based on its troubling implications for the lawyer’s duty as a zealous advocate, which already has obvious limitations (because of lawyers’ conflicting duties to the court), but are also based on the problematic aspects of many reliability determinations. To expect attorneys - and this is what the proponents of a duty …

Legal Ethics And Scientific Testimony: In Defense Of Manufacturing Uncertainty, Deconstructing Expertise And Other Trial Strategies, David Caudill

David S Caudill

No abstract provided.

Keep Your “Friends” Close And Your Enemies Closer: Walking The Ethical Tightrope In The Use Of Social Media., John G. Browning

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

This Article will examine the ethical issues posed by lawyers’ use of social media platforms in light of the ABA Ethics Commission 20/20 changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Social networking has had a transformative effect both on the way society shares information and on the legal profession. Much of the discussion to date focuses on the discovery and use of evidence from social media sites in criminal cases and civil litigation, but attention must also be directed to the ethical quandaries posed by the legal profession’s use of social media. This Article will consider issues such as …

Evidentiary Standards In The Legal Malpractice Trial-Within-A-Trial., F. Parks Brown

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Like malpractice actions in general, the standards of proof required for each element of a legal malpractice claim evolved as legal malpractice claims became increasingly common. State and federal courts consequently produced a diverse range of opinions as jurisdictions continually adjust to evolving standards. The courts often seek to balance these standards of proof against their own precedent and the need to serve their particular notions of equity and justice. Perhaps the most contentious of these evolving standards of proof is the current state of the causation element, which is a critical test that must be satisfied to prevail in …

Speaking Science To Law, Deborah Hussey Freeland

Deborah M. Hussey Freeland

involving a strong scientific consensus, the powerful qualities of scientific knowledge are easily lost in translation. Moreover, even prominent scientists who are committed to providing accurate information to legal fact-finders may suffer reputational harm simply for participating in an adversarial process.

This article analyzes the connection between law and science through the expert witness from the perspectives of epistemology and cross-cultural communication, focusing on the distinct ways in which scientists and lawyers know, value and express their knowledge. When a lawyer meets with a scientific expert witness, more confusion attends their interaction than either likely realizes. Linguistic translation is necessary--but …