AALS PR Section Newsletter

As Chair of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Professional Responsibility, I recently wrote this note in our PR Section Newsletter, which you can download here. The newsletter, organized by Professor Ben Edwards, is packed full of information about the Section, new scholarship in PR, and other helpful items. Enjoy!

***

I hope this newsletter finds you safe and well amidst a season of closings and cancellations brought on by COVID-19. As I write this note, we are on week 10 of quarantine here in our home, where my partner is trying to operate his law firm and our middle-school- and high-school-aged children have been teaching themselves cello and calculus, among other things. I imagine all of you, like me, moved your classes online in March and became a much-needed support system for our students who are facing unprecedented challenges. We count ourselves lucky because, so far, we have remained healthy but I am mindful that this may not be the case for many of you. It is strange times, indeed. Thank you for taking a moment in all of the coronavirus chaos to read this. I have to admit, I’ve been procrastinating about writing to all of you because I have struggled to know exactly what to say in my capacity as the Chair of the Section on Professional Responsibility at a time of such loss and uncertainty.Read More »

Call for Papers – Legal and Judicial Ethics in the Post-#MeToo World – AALS Annual Meeting

Call for Papers

AALS Section on Professional Responsibility 2021

Co-Sponsored by AALS Sections on Civil Rights,

Employment Discrimination Law, Leadership, and Minority Groups

Legal and Judicial Ethics in the Post-#MeToo World

The Section on Professional Responsibility seeks papers addressing the role of legal and judicial ethics in the Post-#MeToo world. This program calls for scholars to confront big questions facing the profession about sexual discrimination, harassment and other misconduct. In 2016, the American Bar Association amended Model Rule 8.4(g)  to say that it is professional misconduct 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 socio-economic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Few jurisdictions have adopted this change, and some explicitly rejected it on First Amendment grounds. In 2019, the federal judiciary amended the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges to make clear that misconduct includes engaging in unwanted, offensive, or abusive sexual conduct and to protect those who report misconduct, but some argue the reforms do not go far enough and they do not apply to state judges or to the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress held hearings on sexual misconduct in the federal judiciary in early 2020. Lawyers and members of the judiciary have avoided investigations into credible allegations of sexual assault, discrimination, and harassment by resigning their positions, only to move on in other positions in the legal profession and, in some instances, repeating the same misconduct. Headlines regularly feature attorneys and their involvement in sexual misconduct in the workplace and beyond, whether as bystanders, facilitators, or perpetrators. This program seeks contributions to address these complex and controversial issues. Panelists will discuss the role of lawyer and judicial ethics as a means to remedy the enduring sexual misconduct in the legal profession and beyond.  Jaime Santos, founder of Law Clerks for Workplace Accountability and commentator for the acclaimed podcast Strict Scrutiny, is confirmed as a presenter. At least two additional presenters will be competitively selected from this call for papers.

Topics discussed at the program might include:

  • Does ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) addressing sexual harassment run afoul of the First Amendment? 
  • Is ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) merely a values statement or is it a source for discipline?
  • What obligations, if any, do disciplinary authorities have to investigate credible, public information about alleged sexual misconduct by the lawyers licensed to practice in their jurisdictions?
  • Should regulators adopt new rules or policies to address sexual misconduct, including the ability of lawyers and judges to avoid investigations by resigning their positions?
  • If other areas of law (criminal, civil) do not cover aspects of sexual misconduct, is there a role for professional conduct rules to do so because of the lawyer’s special role in society?
  • What reporting obligations do law schools have as they certify students’ fitness in bar admission applications? How does this fit within the Title IX framework?
  • Should ethical rules on sexual misconduct that apply to the federal judiciary also apply to the U.S Supreme Court?
  • How should reporting systems be improved?

To be considered, please email your paper to Renee Knake, Chair of the Section on Professional Responsibility, no later than August 1, 2020 at rknake@uh.edu Preference will be given to completed papers, though works-in-progress are eligible for selection.  The Call for Paper presenters will be responsible for paying their registration fee and hotel and travel expenses.  Please note that AALS anticipates that the Annual Meeting will go forward (https://am.aals.org/), and the theme is The Power of Words.

Call for Papers: New Voices in Professional Responsibility—Works in Progress Session AALS Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Thursday, January 3, 3:30-4:45 pm

AALS Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Thursday, January 3, 3:30-4:45 pm

The Professional Responsibility Section is pleased to host a works in progress session during the 2019 Annual Program. Papers selected will be presented at the session along with commentary from a scholar in the field. Papers can be on any professional responsibility topic from professors with seven years or less of full-time teaching experience. Submitted drafts should be near completion with the expectation that they will be submitted for publication during the spring law review submission cycle.

Papers should be submitted to Melissa Mortazavi, via email at melissa.mortazavi@ou.edu, no later than September 17, 2018, with the subject line: PR Works in Progress.

ABA House of Delegates Amends Lawyer Advertising and Solicitation Rules (updated with information about MPRE testing)

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.

Leading Voices Weigh In On TIKD Antitrust Suit – National Law Review by Annie Dike

Opposing Views

“The Florida Bar basically said: ‘This is our monopoly. TIKD is violating it, and any lawyer that participates with TIKD is putting their license at risk.’ Now you have the fox guarding the henhouse, and the Florida Bar does not have the authority to do that,” Pete Kennedy, attorney for TIKD in the ongoing antitrust suit against the Florida Bar that we reported on in December, recently told us in an exclusive IMS interview.

Kennedy had previously argued this position in 2016 when he joined forces with other “access to justice” companies in filing a persuasive amicus brief on behalf of LegalZoom in the antitrust case the Supreme Court decided against the North Carolina Dental Examiners Board. Like the tooth whiteners in the Dental Examiners case, TIKD, a tech startup that makes legal services (e.g., handling traffic tickets) accessible to Florida residents through a smartphone app, is now pursuing similar antitrust claims against the Florida Bar for using unauthorized practice of law allegations to push TIKD out of the Florida market. After the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in the TIKD case, we spoke with the following lead voices in this matter:

  • Pete Kennedy, the antitrust attorney for TIKD and LegalZoom in the filing of an amicus brief in the Dental Examiners case;
  • Tom Spahn, President and COO of TIKD;
  • Ken Friedman, VP and in-house counsel for LegalZoom, the first legal tech company to sue a state bar association;
  • Tom Gordon, Executive Director at Responsive Law, who joined LegalZoom in the amicus brief filed in the Dental Examiners case; and
  • Renee Knake, Professor of Law & Doherty Chair in Legal Ethics, University of Houston Law Center who contributed to the amicus brief filed by LegalZoom in the Dental Examiners case.

Questions to Consider

Our initial question to these parties: Why all the work of filing a costly and protracted antitrust suit against the Florida Bar? “We really struggled with the decision to file this suit,” Tom Spahn, TIKD President and COO, explained. “It is incredibly costly for a startup company to assume the legal costs of a suit like this, but we believe in the legal industry we are creating.

Not only do we provide an affordable, guaranteed service to the economically-disadvantaged who cannot easily clear a check the size of a traffic ticket, we also provide guaranteed clients with a legal need to the many lawyers out there who are underworked or underemployed, and we wish the Florida Bar could see that. We’ve been transparent from the beginning in trying to set up a business model that would not violate the Bar’s rules, and the Bar refused, and still refuses, to speak with us.”

“What is unique about this case is the incumbent,” Kennedy explained. When TIKD, a company that is operating successfully in Georgia, Maryland, Washington, D.C., Virginia and California, began offering its services to residents of Florida, a competitor, The Ticket Clinic, a law firm based in Miami that offers similar traffic ticket-handling services, filed an ethics complaint with the Florida Bar. While the complaint was under investigation, the Bar issued an informal ethics opinion giving the impression that attorneys working with TIKD were acting in violation of the ethics rules governing the unauthorized practice of law. “We do not know how the informal opinion was disseminated or how it got in the hands of The Ticket Clinic lawyers, but they began using it to contact attorneys who were working with TIKD and telling them, in doing so, they were putting their license at risk,” Kennedy said, which essentially put TIKD out of business in Florida.

In response, Tom Gordon, Executive Director at Responsive Law, who joined in the LegalZoom amicus brief, explained: “Just like Avvo and JustAnswers offers users an answer to a legal question for a two-digit price as opposed to a four-digit price, these tech companies are not engaging in an unauthorized practice of law. Rather, they are making legal services more affordable and accessible to disadvantaged people. It is frustrating and unfortunate to see an organization of lawyers thwart competition in this area and they are not immune.”

Supervision

When it comes to antitrust allegations, are state bars immune? Not according to the DOJ. Not entirely, at least. In its Statement of Interest recently filed in the TIKD case the DOJ has made it clear: without active supervision (not an ongoing rubber stamp of approval) by the state supreme court, state bar associations are not immune.

However, even with supervision from the supreme court, Renee Knake, Professor of Law who contributed to the LegalZoom amicus brief, claims: “It’s a legal monopoly. The legal profession is unique in that, in support of their argument for immunity, they claim they are an ‘arm of the court,’ but the court is also made up of lawyers, many of whom will soon be returning the practice. Meaning, at every stage of the intended separation of powers, there are lawyers; their regulations are all enacted, enforced, and interpreted by lawyers.”

“The Supreme Court made clear in the Dental Examiners case that letting professionals enforce their own monopolies creates a ‘real danger’ that they will act to further their ‘own interest,’ rather than the public interest,” Ken Friedman, VP and in-house counsel for LegalZoom, commented. “State bars should not be able to argue sovereign immunity to sidestep the Supreme Court’s ruling and I am not at all surprised by FTC vigilance where they feel the Dental Examiners decision is not properly followed.”

By filing a Statement of Interest in the TIKD suit, a case that will likely change the face of the legal tech sector, the DOJ has definitely solidified its interest in the matter and aligned its position with that of companies like TIKD, LegalZoom, and Avvo that are seeking to compete in this market.

“To be sure,” the DOJ explained in this Statement of Interest, “new and innovative mobile device apps can be disruptive. Business models entrenched for decades have witnessed new competition from mobile platforms that can profoundly change an industry. But almost invariably, the winners from the process of innovation and competition are consumers.”

In response to a request to the Florida Bar for a statement concerning this matter, we were informed: “It is the policy of the Florida Bar never to comment on pending litigation.” We were encouraged instead to include their position as stated in the Bar’s filings in this matter wherein the Bar has asserted that it is immune from antitrust allegations because it is “an agency of the State of Florida, an arm of the Florida Supreme Court, specifically authorized to conduct investigations of the unlicensed practice of law.” Meaning, according to the Bar, the anticompetitive conduct alleged in TIKD’s complaint was not “taken by or controlled by ‘active market participants.’”

Conclusion

Now that you have heard from many of the lead voices in this matter, including the DOJ, we want to hear from you, followers: What do you think of the Florida State Bar’s conduct in this matter, its argument for immunity, and the likely outcome of this pivotal case?

 

Link to the National Law Review article here.

ILEC 2018 Melbourne Call for Proposals due July 31, 2018

International Legal Ethics Conference VIII
Legal Ethics in the Asian Century

6-8 December 2018
Melbourne

Proposals for presenting a paper or panel at ILEC VIII are cordially invited. Presenters are encouraged to submit papers within one of the following streams:

  1. Technology, Legal Ethics and Society
  2. Interdisciplinary and Empirical Approaches to Legal Ethics
  3. Philosophy and Legal Ethics
  4. Regulation of the Profession(s)
  5. Ethics and Legal Education
  6. Globalisation and Legal Ethics
  7. Legal Ethics and Access to Justice

The Conference will be organised into sessions of 90 minutes each. Normally, three to four papers will be presented in any one session.

Proposals for a paper should include a title and abstract of between 100 and 300 words. Please also include your name, institutional affiliation (if any) and up to six keywords describing your topic.

Alternatively, a proposal for a Panel involving discussion or other formats will be considered. If you are proposing a panel, please state the title of the panel, with a brief description, together with the names of the panellists presenting. Where possible, we would encourage panel proposals to be submitted with the full set of abstracts appended.

Proposals should either indicate the stream in which the paper or panel is to be presented or clearly identify an alternative theme within which the proposal sits. We will seek to accommodate alternative themes where viable.

In order to accommodate as large and diverse a group of presenters as possible, participants are requested to submit no more than two proposals.

The deadline date for proposals is July 31, 2018.

Proposals should be submitted by email to law-lprn@unimelb.edu.au with the subject heading “ILEC8 paper proposal.

From the ABA Journal: “Opinion makes confidentiality exception for ‘generally known’ info”

Here are my thoughts on the new Formal Opinion 479 from the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility offering guidance about what constitutes “generally known” information under ABA Model Rule 1.9, as published in the March 2018 issue of the ABA Journal.

“I agree that this definition makes sense, though I don’t think it necessarily resolves what is generally known in every instance,” says Renee N. Knake, who teaches legal ethics at the University of Houston Law Center and recently co-wrote Professional Responsibility: A Contemporary Approach. “Inevitably gray areas will arise, but I do think that the opinion offers helpful guidance as to what may constitute ‘generally known.’ ”

She says questions remain as to what “minimum threshold of publications” are necessary to establish that the information is generally known.

“What about other sources, such as a public survey or opinion poll?” she says. Regarding wide recognition in the former client’s industry or profession, Knake asks whether it is “possible to rely as well on expert opinions.”

Further, “information that is publicly available is not necessarily generally known,” the opinion reads. “Certainly, if information is publicly available but requires specialized knowledge or expertise to locate, it is not generally known within the meaning of Model Rule 1.9(c)(1).”

“The opinion is striving to achieve a balance here,” Knake says. “Defining ‘generally known’ to include any public record would address the gray area problem, but it doesn’t sufficiently protect the sort of information contemplated under the umbrella of confidentiality afforded by Model Rule 1.9.”

Model Rule 1.9(c)(2) prohibits a lawyer from “revealing information about a former client,” Knake says. “The difference between ‘reveal’ versus ‘use’ is significant, and the lawyer may only use a public record that has otherwise been revealed by another source and spread widely.”

You can read the full article here: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/ethics_opinion_makes_confidentiality_exception_for_generally_known_info

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“This sounds like my ethics class in law school…” Justice Sotomayor

The Supreme Court heard arguments today in McCoy v. Louisiana, which presents the question of whether it is unconstitutional for defense counsel to tell the jury that a client is guilty when the client insists he is innocent. It also raises interesting questions about the ethical obligations under ABA Model Rule 1.2 that “a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation” and ABA Model Rule 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal.

As Justice Sotomayor observed in questioning McCoy’s attorney, “this sounds like my ethics class in law school, and this very hypothetical of what do you do with a lying client?” Full oral argument transcript is here.

Adam Liptak noted in the NY Times that the justices seemed likely to side with McCoy: “Several justices said a decision as fundamental as admitting guilt in a capital case belonged to the client rather than the lawyer.” Full article here.

Cross-posted at the Legal Ethics Forum

Section on Professional Responsibility AALS Annual Meeting Events in San Diego Jan. 6, 2018

On behalf of the Executive Committee for the Section on Professional Responsibility, I am writing to remind you about the fabulous day of events planned for the AALS Annual Meeting in sunny San Diego on Saturday, January 6, 2018. Please note the 11/30 RSVP deadline for lunch. And congratulations to scholars selected from the call for papers for both the plenary session as well as the works-in-progress session. We hope you will join us!

8:30-10:15 PR Section Plenary Session – The Ethics of Legal Education
Deans Dan Rodriguez (Northwestern Law) and Andy Perlman (Suffolk Law) as well as Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law Joan Howarth (Michigan State Law) are confirmed speakers. Two additional panelists were selected from the call for papers: David McGowan, Lyle L. Jones Professor of Competition and Innovation Law (USD Law) and Brian Tamanaha, John S. Lehmann University Professor (Washington University St. Louis Law).

11:30-1:30 PR Section Lunch and Annual Meeting, hosted by the University of San Diego Law School
A bus will depart the AALS hotel lobby at 11:30AM, with lunch beginning at noon, followed by the annual meeting and presentation of the Zacharias Award. The bus will return to the hotel at 1:30PM. USD Law is generously providing this lunch for our section, but you must RSVP in advance no later than November 30 in order to attend. Please RSVP to Pam Watson: phwatson@law.tamu.edu with “AALS PR Section Lunch RSVP” as the subject.

3:30-5:15 PR Section Works-in-Progress Session
Peter Marchetti (Thurgood Marshall Law), The Need to Regulate For-Profit Law Schools to Prevent Inherent Conflicts of Interest (commentary by Ben Barton—Tennessee Law)
Irene Joe (UC Davis Law), Ethics of Mass Prosecution (commentary by Ellen Yaroshefsky—Hofstra Law)
Veronica Root (Notre Dame Law), Two Paths Forward (commentary by Renee Knake—Houston Law)
Moderator, Ben Edwards (UNLV Law)

Section on Professional Responsibility AALS Annual Meeting Events in San Diego Jan. 6, 2018

On behalf of the Executive Committee for the Section on Professional Responsibility, I write to share with you a fabulous day of events planned for the AALS Annual Meeting in sunny San Diego on Saturday, January 6, 2018. Please plan to join us.

8:30-10:15 PR Section Plenary Session – The Ethics of Legal Education
Deans Dan Rodriguez (Northwestern Law) and Andy Perlman (Suffolk Law) as well as Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law Joan Howarth (Michigan State Law) are confirmed speakers, and others will be selected from a call for papers. Proposals are due August 15–details here.

11:30-1:30 PR Section Lunch and Annual Meeting, hosted by the University of San Diego Law School
A bus will depart the AALS hotel lobby at 11:30AM, with lunch beginning at noon, followed by the annual meeting and presentation of the Zacharias Award. The bus will return to the hotel at 1:30PM. USD Law is generously providing this lunch for our section, but you must RSVP in advance no later than November 30 in order to attend.
Please RSVP to Pam Watson: phwatson@law.tamu.edu with “AALS PR Section Lunch RSVP” as the subject.

3:30-5:15 PR Section Works-in-Progress Session

Proposals are due September 30–details here.
Proposals are due September 30–details here.

AALS Section on Professional Responsibility Call for Papers – The Ethics of Legal Education – 2018 AALS Annual Meeting

Call for Papers

AALS Section on Professional Responsibility

The Ethics of Legal Education

2018 AALS Annual Meeting

San Diego, CA

January 3-6, 2018

The Section on Professional Responsibility is pleased to announce a Call for Papers for the Section’s 2018 Program: The Ethics of Legal Education. In addition to featuring invited speakers (Professor Joan Howarth, Dean Andrew Perlman, and Dean Daniel Rodriguez), we will select up to two speakers from this call.

This panel will explore the ethical challenges U.S. law schools have faced during the past decade and will consider the path ahead. Speakers will address various subjects that may include: alternative and accelerated degree programs, for-profit law schools, accreditation decisions, admissions and scholarship practices, employment issues, and litigation filed by students and alumni against law schools. The panel will explore the factors that have influenced ethical and values-based decision-making, leadership challenges, and how law school leaders’ ethics and values in this area may influence the future of the legal education and the legal profession.

Participants need not write a paper, but will have the option to publish a paper if they choose to do so.

Any member of the full-time faculty of an AALS member school may submit a 500-1500 word proposal by August 15, 2017 to Renee Knake at rknake@central.uh.edu. The title of the email submission should read: Submission – 2018 AALS Section on Professional Responsibility.

The Planning Committee for the Annual Meeting of the Section on Professional Responsibility will review all submissions and select up to two papers by September 1, 2017. Please note that all faculty members presenting at the program are responsible for paying their own annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.

Any questions should be directed to 2018 Program Co-chairs Renee Knake at rknake@central.uh.edu or Paula Schaefer at paula.schaefer@tennessee.edu.

 

 

AALS Section on Professional Responsibility Call for Papers – 2018 AALS Annual Meeting

The AALS Section on Professional Responsibility invites papers for its program “Professional Responsibility 2018 Works in Progress Workshop” at the AALS Annual Meeting in San Diego. Two papers will be selected from those submitted.

WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION:

This workshop will be an opportunity to test ideas, work out issues in drafts and interrogate a paper prior to submission. It will pair each work in progress scholar with a more senior scholar in the field who will lead a discussion of the piece and provide feedback. Successful papers should engage with scholarly literature and make a meaningful original contribution to the field or professional responsibility or legal ethics.

ELIGIBILITY:

Full-time faculty members of AALS member law schools are eligible to submit papers. Preference will be given to junior scholars focusing their work in the area of professional responsibility and legal ethics. Pursuant to AALS rules, faculty at fee-paid law schools, foreign faculty, adjunct and visiting faculty (without a full-time position at an AALS member law school), graduate students, fellows, and non-law school faculty are not eligible to submit. Please note that all faculty members presenting at the program are responsible for paying their own annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.

PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE:

Two papers will be selected by the Section’s Executive Committee for presentation at the AALS annual meeting.

There is no formal requirement as to the form or length of proposals. However, the presenter is expected to have a draft for commentators one month prior to the beginning of the AALS conference.

The paper MUST be a work in progress and cannot be published at the time of presentation. It may, however have been accepted for publication and be forthcoming.

DEADLINE:

Please email submissions to Ben Edwards, Associate Professor, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law, at ben.edwards.unlv@gmail.com on or before September 30, 2017. The title of the email submission should read: “Submission – 2018 AALS Section on Professional Responsibility.”

Supreme Court hears argument today on a lawyer’s bad advice

From today’s New York Times:

The Supreme Court is taking up the case of a longtime U.S. resident who is facing deportation to South Korea after pleading guilty to a drug crime based on his lawyer’s bad advice.

The justices are hearing arguments Tuesday in an appeal by Jae Lee, who has lived in the United States for 35 years and has never been back to South Korea since coming to the United States when he was 13.

The case has taken on increased importance because President Donald Trump has promised to step up deportations, with a special focus on immigrants who have been convicted of crimes. The American Bar Association has estimated that one of every 10 criminal defendants is not an American citizen.

Lee agreed to plead guilty to possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute after his lawyer, Larry Fitzgerald, assured him that doing so would not make him subject to deportation. The lawyer was wrong.

The issue in Lee’s appeal is whether the lawyer’s recommendation to take the deal offered by prosecutors was so bad that it amounts to a violation of Lee’s constitutional right to a lawyer.

Both sides agree that Fitzgerald’s performance was deficient in representing Lee. The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that immigrants have a constitutional right to be told by their lawyers whether pleading guilty to a crime could lead to their deportation.

But Lee almost must show that the bad lawyering mattered to the outcome of the criminal case.

Full article here.

Prawfsblawg Symposium on Law’s New Frontiers

Prawfsblawg recently hosted Law’s New Frontiers, a symposium focused on the books by Richard & Daniel Susskind, The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts and Gillian K. Hadfield, Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Invented Law and How to Reinvent It for a Complex Global Economy. The bottom line? Both books are must-reads for those interested in the future of the legal profession. Here are links to the contributions:

Dan Rodriguez, Law’s New Frontiers: an on-line symposium

Phil Weiser, What Susskind can teach law school educators

Andy Perlman, Predicting the future of legal services

Phil Weiser, Hadfield’s anti-institutional innovation agenda and the administrative state

Renee Knake, What is missing from Hadfield’s Rules for a Flat World and the Susskinds’ The Future of the Professions?

Daniel Sokol, The future of law, innovation and disruptive technologies

Andy Perlman, Legal education in the 21st century

Jeff Lipshaw, A response to the Susskinds mostly and Hadfield

Bill Henderson, Losing the scholarly prose

Javier de Cendra, Some reflections on technology, law and legal systems following “The Future of the Professions” and “Rules for a Flat World”

Andy Perlman, Towards the law of legal services: reflections on Gillian Hadfield’s “Rules for a Flat World”

Stephen Denyer, Rules for a Flat World: the UK experience

Cross-posted at the Legal Ethics Forum

Jotwell Review on The Commercialization of Legal Ethics

Earlier this week, Professor Amy Salyzyn published a Jotwell review of my recent essay, The Commercialization of Legal Ethics.  I’m grateful that she read it, and I hope her review encourages you to read it as well.  She says:  “Professor Knake’s essay is important, compelling and timely: a ‘must-read’ for those interested in the future of legal services markets both in the United States and abroad.”

Another excerpt from her review:

Previous scholarship has shown us how legal ethics in America has become “federalized” and “privatized.”1 In a recent essay in the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Renee Newman Knake outlines another modern phenomenon: the “commercialization” of legal ethics. Reading this piece, it becomes clear that the significant complexity now characterizing the regulatory environment for legal services in the United States, with state bars, courts, federal agencies and clients all now playing a role, shows no signs of waning.

The full review is available here.  And here is a link to the essay: Renee Newman Knake, The Commercialization of Legal Ethics, 29 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 715 (2016), available at SSRN.  Casebook adopters–excerpts from this essay will appear in our Third Edition, which will be published spring 2017 in time for fall use.

 

Teaching the Torture Memos

I’m wrapping up Chapter 2 today, teaching the pieces by Luban and Mukasey/Filip on the torture memos that appear at the chapter’s conclusion. This article from Clare Keefe Coleman has been helpful in framing the discussion: Teaching the Torture Memos: “Making Decisions Under Conditions of Uncertainty,” 62 J. Legal Educ. 81 (2012). Abstract follows the jump.Read More »

What do female Olympians and Supreme Court justices have in common? Apparently the media can’t stop focusing on their husbands (or lack of them)

The headlines and tweets in recent days about the media’s gendered coverage of female Olympians are strikingly similar to findings from a media study I conducted with Professor Hannah Brenner on the gendered coverage of female Supreme Court nominees.  (Remember the headlines when Obama nominated Justices Kagan and Sotomayor?  “Then Comes the Marriage Question” was one of many in this vein…)

Vox offers a critique of the Olympics coverage here:  Women are crushing it at the Rio Olympics, but the media keeps focusing on their husbands. For a summary of our media study on Supreme Court nominees, click through the slides below and read our article.

 

Cross-posted at the Legal Ethics Forum blog

ABA revises Model Rule 8.4 to include a provision addressing harassment and discrimination

From the ABA press release:

ABA strengthens provision making harassment, discrimination “professional misconduct”

The American Bar Association adopted Monday a revised resolution to strengthen language in Rule 8.4 that would classify harassment or discrimination in the practice of law professional misconduct subject to disciplinary action.

While the proposal drew widespread interest in the legal profession and division among ABA entities during the past few months, recent changes, including incorporating a knowledge requirement in the specific language of the model rule, served to bring near unanimous agreement in the final vote. More than 70 ABA members signed up to speak on behalf of the revised proposal, while none spoke against it. The House approved the change by voice vote with only a few members voting “no.”

Read more here.