Courts Commons^™

The Paragraph 20 Paradox: An Evaluation Of The Enforcement Of Ethical Rules As Substantive Law, Donald E. Campbell

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

This Article addresses an issue courts across the country continue to struggle with: When are ethics rules appropriately considered enforceable substantive obligations, and when should they only be enforceable through the disciplinary process? The question is complicated by the ethics rules themselves. Paragraph 20 of the Scope section of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct includes seemingly contradictory guidance; it states the Rules are not to be used to establish civil liability, but also that they can be “some evidence” of a violation of a lawyer’s standard of care. Most states have adopted this paradoxal Paragraph 20 language. Consequently, courts …

"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

U.S. attorneys often hire consulting experts who potentially never get named as testifying experts. The same practice is evident in Australia, where the colloquial distinction is between a “clean” and a “dirty” expert, the latter being in the role of a consultant who is considered a member of the client’s “legal team.” A “clean” expert named as a witness is then called “independent,” signaling that he or she is not an advocate. In contrast to the U.S. discourse concerning consulting and testifying experts, focused on discovery issues, the conversation in Australia betrays immediate ethical concerns that both (i) explain why …

Causation And "Legal Certainty" In Legal Malpractice Law, Vincent R. Johnson

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

A line of California cases holds that causation of damages in legal malpractice actions must be proven with “legal certainty.” This Article argues that judicial references to legal certainty are ambiguous and threaten to undermine the fairness of legal malpractice litigation as a means for resolving lawyer-client disputes. Courts should eschew the language of legal certainty and plainly state that damages are recoverable if a legal malpractice plaintiff proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that those losses were factually and proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of duty.

Forum Selection Clauses And Consumer Contracts In Canada, Tanya J. Monestier

Journal Articles

Every day, billions of people use the online social media platform, Facebook. Facebook requires, as a condition of use, that users “accept” its terms and conditions—which include a forum selection clause nominating California as the exclusive forum for dispute resolution. In Douez v. Facebook, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether this forum selection clause was enforceable, or whether the plaintiff could proceed with her suit in British Columbia.

The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately decided that the forum selection clause was not enforceable. It held that the plaintiff had established “strong cause” for departing from the forum selection clause. …

The Impact Of The Singapore International Commercial Court And Hague Convention On Choice Of Court Agreements On Singapore’S Private International Law, Wei Yao, Kenny Chng

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The advent of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and the enactment of the Hague Convention on Choiceof Court Agreements 2005 (the Hague Convention) in Singapore presents an intriguing case study of the issues raised by theco-mingling of the rules of an international convention, jurisdictional rules for an international commercial court, andtraditional common law jurisdictional principles within the private international law and procedural rules of a singlenational jurisdiction. This article highlights several key issues raised by the interaction between the SICC, HagueConvention, and common law jurisdictional rules, and proposes solutions to streamline these three sets of rules into acoherent and …

Singapore High Court Rejects Application To Adjourn Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Award, Wei Ming Tan, Aaron Yoong, Lixin Chen

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

In the recent decision of Man Diesel & Turbo SE v I.M. Skaugen Marine Services Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 132, the Singapore High Court (“HC”) rejected an application to adjourn the enforcement of an arbitral award that was also the subject of a setting aside application in Denmark, the seat of the arbitration. This case is the first of its kind in Singapore and provides clarity as to when litigants can seek an adjournment of proceedings to enforce a foreign arbitral award.

The Impact Of The Singapore International Commercial Court And Hague Convention On Choice Of Court Agreements On Singapore’S Private International Law, Wei Yao, Kenny Chng

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The advent of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and the enactment of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 (the Hague Convention) in Singapore presents an intriguing case study of the issues raised by the co-mingling of the rules of an international convention, jurisdictional rules for an international commercial court, and traditional common law jurisdictional principles within the private international law and procedural rules of a single national jurisdiction. This article highlights several key issues raised by the interaction between the SICC, Hague Convention, and common law jurisdictional rules, and proposes solutions to streamline these three sets …

Twelve Injured Men: Why Injured Jurors Should Not Receive Workers' Compensation Coverage From The Courts, Corey Baron

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that the legislature should add a provision to New York’s Workers’ Compensation Act that expressly precludes jurors from coverage. Such a provision would comport with the policy underlying the statute, the statute’s structure, and the statute’s language. Moreover, that legislative provision would prevent the court from wasting the considerable time and expense of grappling with other courts’ inconsistent interpretations of workers’ compensation statutes and their underlying policies. First, Part I of this Note provides an overview of the workers’ compensation law and explores the policies underlying the advent of workers’ compensation statutes. Then, Part II surveys …

What Makes A Good Judge?, Brian M. Barry

Reports

This article overviews research demonstrating the factors beyond the law that can affect judicial decision-making.

Scotus's 2017-2018 Term: More Of The 'Passive Virtues', John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[exerpt] "Examine a timelier topic: the court's decision to effectively punt on the major religious freedom and partisan gerrymandering cases it was poised to decide this term. For the court's restrain in these cases may have some relation to our turbulent political times."

Brief Of Amicus Curiae, In Re Opinions & Orders Of This Court Addressing Bulk Collection Of Data Under The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, No. Misc. 13-08 (Fisa Ct. June 13, 2018), Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Under separation of powers doctrine, Congress lacks the authority to pass statutes to grant, or deny, the FISC jurisdiction over its opinions. All three branches agree that FISC is an Article III court. Constitutional courts are vested with “the judicial power” of the United States, which is insulated from the other two branches. It includes the power to issue opinions disposing of cases. If the other branches could strip the courts of authority over their judgments, they would be able to manipulate the law, undermining the protections for judicial independence. The “least dangerous branch” would lose all power. All it …

“Who Will Judge The Many When The Game Isthrough?”: Considering The Profound Differencesbetween Mental Health Courts And “Traditional”Involuntary Civil Commitment Courts, Michael L. Perlin

Seattle University Law Review

For forty years, we have known that involuntary civil commitment hearings are—in most jurisdictions—“charades.” When the Supreme Court noted, in Parham v. J.R., that the average length of a civil commitment hearing ranged from 3.8 to 9.2 minutes, the reaction of many who had done these cases was, “What? So long?!” The characterization of such hearings as being a “greased runway” to a state institution has never been disputed. Lawyers representing these individuals were bored or contemptuous; judges simply wanted to get cases moving; opposing counsel looked at their wrist watches to see when the cases would be done. This …

Law School News: Dean Yelnosky Applauds Uniform Bar Exam Decision 06-08-2018, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

My Name Is Not 'Respondent Mother': The Need For Procedural Justice In Child Welfare Cases, Vivek S. Sankaran

Articles

You are a parent whose children are in foster care. Your court hearing is today, after which you hope your children will return home. Upon leaving the bus, you wait in line to enter the court. At the metal detectors you’re told you can’t bring your cell phone inside. With no storage options, you hide your phone in the bushes, hoping it will be there when you return.

Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2017-2018, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

SCI Papers & Reports

During the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2017 – corresponding to the 2017-2018 academic year –the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in 98% of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, offered a variety of programs related to the Supreme Court, and continued to integrate the moot court program into the education of Georgetown Law students.

A list of all SCI moot courts held in OT 2017 – arranged by argument sitting and date of Moot, and including the name and affiliation of each advocate and the number of observers – follows the narrative portion …

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Jared Goldstein's Blog: Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling: No Constitutional Right To Discriminate (For Now) 06-05-2018, Jared A. Goldstein

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Batson For Judges, Police Officers & Teachers: Lessons In Democracy From The Jury Box, Stacy L. Hawkins

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

In our representative democracy we guarantee equal participation for all, but we fall short of this promise in so many domains of our civic life. From the schoolhouse, to the jailhouse, to the courthouse, racial minorities are underrepresented among key public decision-makers, such as judges, police officers, and teachers. This gap between our aspirations for representative democracy and the reality that our judges, police officers, and teachers are often woefully under-representative of the racially diverse communities they serve leaves many citizens of color wanting for the democratic guarantee of equal participation. This critical failure of our democracy threatens to undermine …

Vulnerability, Access To Justice, And The Fragmented State, Elizabeth L. Macdowell

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article builds on theories of the fragmented state and of human and institutional vulnerability to create a new, structural theory of “functional fragmentation” and its role in access to justice work. Expanding on previous concepts of fragmentation in access to justice scholarship, fragmentation is understood in the Article as a complex phenomenon existing within as well as between state institutions like courts. Further, it is examined in terms of its relationship to the state’s coercive power over poor people in legal systems. In this view, fragmentation in state operations creates not only challenges for access, but also opportunities for …

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

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Habitual Residence V. Domicile: A Challenge Facing American Conflicts Of Laws, Mo Zhang

Maine Law Review

Habitual residence has now become an internationally accepted connecting factor in conflict of laws and is widely being used as an alternative to, or replacement of, domicile. This concept, however, remains remote to American conflict of laws. Although the use of habitual residence in the U.S. courts is mandated by the codification of the Hague Child Abduction Convention, there is still a lack of general acceptance in American conflict of law literature. The Article argues that habitual residence should be adopted as a conflict of law connecting factor in American conflict of laws, and it would be unwise for the …

A Status Update For Texas Voir Dire: Advocating For Pre-Trial Internet Investigation Of Prospective Jurors, Luke A. Harle

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Internet provides trial attorneys an additional tool to investigate the backgrounds of prospective jurors during voir dire. Online searches of a person’s name and social media accounts can reveal information that could be used as grounds for a challenge for cause or to facilitate intelligent use of peremptory strikes. Texas lawmakers have not yet provided any official guidance as to whether attorneys can investigate prospective jurors online or how they might do so, should it be allowed. Texas’s current voir dire structure, judicial opinions, and ethics opinions, together, support the notion that Texas trial attorneys should be given opportunities …

Social Work Students’ Attitudes And Beliefs About Mental Health Courts, Nicholas Bettosini, Conrad Paul Akins-Johnson

Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations

Mental Health Courts (MHCs) are a diversion program for mentally ill offenders in lieu of incarceration. The Substance Abuse and Mental Services Administration (SAMHSA) developed these specialized court programs in the 1990’s to assist mentally ill offenders in overcoming barriers to treatment. While new laws have begun to change the way mentally ill offenders are viewed from a law enforcement standpoint, social workers’ attitudes and beliefs about these programs have not been studied. This quantitative study’s purpose was to examine Master of Social Work (MSW) Graduate students’ attitudes and beliefs of mentally ill offenders and MHCs. Social work student participants …

Charting A New Course In Cuba? Why The Time Is Now To Settle Outstanding American Property Claims, Marco Antonio Dueñas

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

The recent warming of relations between the United States and Cuba offered generations of Cubans; Americans; and Cuban Americans renewed hope for normalized relations. One obstacle—satisfactory resolution of property claims—stands in the way; which dates back to the Cuban government’s nationalization of all U.S. assets on the island. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (the “Helms-Burton Act”) predicates resolution of these decades-old property claims by the Cuban government as an essential condition for the full resumption of economic and diplomatic relations between the two neighbors. Separated by only ninety miles of Caribbean Sea; but more than a …

Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Is There A Better Alternative?, Emily Osmanski

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

As the world has transitioned from national; isolated economies with localized issues into a globalized and interconnected economy with cross-border disputes; the law has struggled to keep up. Recent trade negotiations have highlighted the difficulty states face in promoting trade; while also creating a fair; accessible; and equitable forum for producers and consumers with nationalities touching every area of the globe. For several decades; Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has been in place to address claims brought by foreign investors against the host states. External improvements have helped support foreign direct investment and the ISDS model of dispute resolution; such as …

"It's Not You, It's Your Caseload": Using Cronic To Solve Indigent Defense Underfunding, Samantha Jaffe

Michigan Law Review

In the United States, defendants in both federal and state prosecutions have the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. That right is in jeopardy. In the postconviction setting, the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel is prohibitively high, and Congress has restricted federal habeas review. At trial, severe underfunding for state indigent defense systems has led to low pay, little support, and extreme caseloads—which combine to create conditions where lawyers simply cannot represent clients adequately. Overworked public defenders and contract attorneys represent 80 percent of state felony defendants annually. Three out of four countywide public defender systems and fifteen …

Prior Mental Health Treatment And Mental Health Court Program Outcomes, Lauren Rubenstein

Student Theses

In response to the high volume of mentally ill individuals involved in the criminal justice system, mental health courts have emerged as an alternative to incarceration for these individuals. Based on the literature, it is hypothesized that participants with a history of prior mental health treatment will have better outcomes in MHC programs, including more compliant behavior and more successful completion of the program than participants with no history of prior mental health treatment. The findings of this research can be used in order to help MHC programs better accommodate all participants regardless of their treatment history.

Fairness In The Exceptions: Trusting Juries On Matters Of Race, Virginia Weeks

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Implicit bias research indicates that despite our expressly endorsed values, Americans share a pervasive bias disfavoring Black Americans and favoring White Americans. This bias permeates legislative as well as judicial decision-making, leading to the possibility of verdicts against Black defendants that are tainted with racial bias. The Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado provides an ex post remedy for blatant racism that impacts jury verdicts, while jury nullification provides an ex ante remedy by empowering jurors to reject convicting Black defendants when to do so would reinforce racially biased laws. Both remedies exist alongside a trend limiting the …

Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone

Pepperdine Law Review

The 2016 Presidential and Senate elections raise the possibility that a conservative, life-tenured Supreme Court will preside for years over a politically dynamic majority. This threatens to weaken the public’s already fragile confidence in the Court. By lowering the political stakes of both national elections and its own decisions, federalism may enable the Court to defuse some of the most explosive controversies it hears. Federalism offers a second-best solution, even if neither conservatives nor liberals can impose a national political agenda. However, principled federalism arguments are tricky. They are structural, more prudential than legal or empirical. Regardless of ideology, a …

Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall

Pepperdine Law Review

Over the last twenty-five years, some of the most significant Supreme Court decisions involving issues of national significance like abortion, affirmative action, and voting rights were five-to-four decisions. In February 2016, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia turned the nine-Justice court into an eight-Justice court, comprised of four liberal and four conservative Justices, for the first time in our nation’s history. This article proposes that an evenly divided court consisting of eight Justices is the ideal Supreme Court composition. Although the other two branches of government have evolved over the years, the Supreme Court has undergone virtually no significant changes. …

Justice As Fair Division, Ian Bartrum, Kathryn Nyman, Peter Otto

Pepperdine Law Review

The current hyperpoliticization of the Court grows out of a feedback loop between politicized appointments and politicized decision-making. This Article suggests a change in the internal procedures by which the Court hears and decides particular cases. A three-Justice panel hears and decides each case. Appeal to an en banc sitting of the entire Court would require a unanimous vote of all non-recused Justices. This Article explores several possible approaches in selecting the three-Justice panel. This Article proposes that applying a fair division scheme to the Court’s decision-making process might act to reverse this loop and work to depoliticize the Court …