Welcome to our community of professional responsibility teachers! This web site provides teaching resources, ranging from syllabi and powerpoints to real time updates and videos. The web site accompanies our casebook Professional Responsibility: A Contemporary Approach (3d ed. 2017). The Casebook uses the problem method and offers learning outcomes, multiple choice assessment questions, role plays and simulations, and an interactive online version that includes short audio lectures. Please feel free to share your ideas and resources with our community of adopters.
You may review the Table of Contents here.
We look forward to getting to know you and working with you and our fellow adopters.
The Authors (Bruce A. Green, Peter A. Joy, Sung Hui Kim, Renee Newman Knake, Ellen Murphy, Russell G. Pearce & Laurel S. Terry)
From the ABA Journal:
The ABA House of Delegates on Monday voted in favor of amending Rule 7 of ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which addresses lawyer advertising.
Lucian Pera, of Adams and Reese in Memphis, Tennessee, and chair of the Center for Professional Responsibility, told delegates that in the decades since the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona allowed for lawyers to advertise their services, there’s been a “breathtaking variation in advertising rules” among states. He said the amendments were necessary to clarify and simplify these rules.
Resolution 101 amends Rules 7.1-7.5, and was informed 2015 and 2016 reports by the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers. The Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility worked on the edits over the course of two years, holding at least two open hearings. A detailed article on their work is available here.
No one rose to oppose the amendment, and the majority of delegates voted in favor of the amendments.
For those of you teaching PR during 2018-2019, you may wish to advise your students regarding the appearance of revised rules on the MPRE. Here is the position of the NCBE as posted on its website:
Amendments to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct or the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct will be reflected in the examination no earlier than one year after the approval of the amendments by the American Bar Association. Until that time, the examination may include questions that test on the rules before amendment.
Lodestar rising? Calif. federal judges are opting for lodestar awards in megacases | Reuters by Alison Frankel (Reuters) – It’s always no…
Source: OTHERWISE: Lodestar rising? Calif. federal judges are opting for lodestar awards in megacases | Reuters
(Reuters) – It’s always notable when a federal judge presiding over a big class action slashes a fee request by millions of dollars – but I think there’s another story lurking beneath the dollar signs in an opinion
issued Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of San Jose.
Three plaintiffs’ firms that obtained nearly $170 million for artists and engineers whose job prospects suffered under an alleged no-poaching agreement among animation studios asked
Judge Koh to award them $31.5 million for squeezing a $150 million settlement from Disney and Dreamworks. The judge instead granted them $13.8 million. She previously awarded $4.7 million in fees for a smaller classwide settlement, bringing the total fees for plaintiffs’ lawyers from Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Susman Godfrey to about $18.5 million.
Notably, Judge Koh’s award was based not on the recovery the firms won for class members but on their hourly billings. The firms wanted the judge to grant them 21 percent of the class recovery, which, they argued, is less than the 25 percent benchmark established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Judge Koh, however, applied the alternative lodestar approach.
In Janus v. American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees in a 5 -4 vote the United States Supreme Court struck an Illinoi…
Source: OTHERWISE: Oregon Bar Dues Challenged on First Amendment Grounds
In Janus v. American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees in a 5 -4 vote the United States Supreme Court struck an Illinois law requiring public employees represented by an AFSCME local to pay “agency fees” to the union for its representation which protected the interests of all bargaining unit members. The majority rejected that argument – holding that union advocacy on matters such as state budgets was political speech which the objecting members could not be compelled to “subsidize”.
Now two Oregon lawyers are objecting to the fees charged by the Oregon State Bar to which they are obligated by statute to contribute. In their complaint Diane Gruber and Mark Reynolds object to a statement by the State Bar denouncing “White nationalism”. I would vote for that statement every day if it were offered before the voluntary New Jersey State Bar Association of which I have been an active member for thirty years. But the Oregon State Bar is not a voluntary organization for lawyers who want to practice in the State. So though Gruber and Reynolds may have ideological views I find abominable, they do seem to have grounds for their complaint relying on Janus. – gwc
If you’re in search of a tutorial – for you or your students – on CasebookPlus, West has videos for each.
Faculty Instructions – http://faculty-casebookplus.com/
Student Instructions – http://store.westacademic.com/casebookplus/
Also, feel free to send me any questions! email@example.com
If you’re students are using used copies of the Pearce Knake textbook and need to purchase access to the CasebookPlus questions and other lending library materials, they may do so here for $35.
Submissions and nominations of articles are being accepted for the ninth annual Fred C. Zacharias Memorial Prize for Scholarship in Professional Responsibility. To honor Fred’s memory, the committee will select from among articles in the field of Professional Responsibility with a publication date of 2018. The prize will be awarded at the 2019 AALS Annual Meeting in New Orleans. Please send submissions and nominations to Professor Samuel Levine at Touro Law Center: firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>. The deadline for submissions and nominations is September 1, 2018.