Our co-author Bruce A. Green has a terrific piece in the current volume of The Professional Lawyer titled “The Challenges and Rewards of Teaching Legal Ethics.” As a newer member of the PR community, I can’t agree enough with Bruce’s recognition of the support of the community of PR professors. Thank you all.
Don’t miss this article!
My students have been quite interested in the complaints filed against now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, so I prepared some materials for our class today. I have a set of slides I’m happy to share – email me @ email@example.com. For quick research, two pieces I can recommend, both from Russell Wheeler @ the Brookings Institute, are the recent short but concise and clear summary article “What’s happening with the ethics complaints against Brett Kavanaugh?” along with 56 Ariz. L. Rev. 479 (2014), A Primer on Regulating Federal Judicial Ethics.
This week, the ABA released a formal opinion clarifying (somewhat) the obligations lawyers have when a data breach occurs involving (or having a substantial likelihood of involving) material client information.
Just in time for Cybersecurity Awareness month 2018.
You can find Formal Opinion 483 here.
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! firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
Thanks to the generosity of Prof. Deborah Rhode from Stanford, the International Association of Legal Ethics (IAOLE) has funds that likely will be used to fund an early career scholar’s attendance at the ILEC 2018 in Melbourne in December 2018. For additional information about the Deborah Rhode prize for scholarship, see https://law.unimelb.edu.au/ilec2018#iaole-deborah-rhode-prize.
For information about ILEC 2018 and information about past ILEC conferences, see:
(Hat tip: IAOLE President Prof. Alice Woolley, U. of Calgary)
Law students and lawyers alike often go down the rabbit hole when considering what is and is not attorney-client privilege communications in the corporate context. On February 23, 2018, Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in SodexoMagic LLC v. Drexel University that sets out a set of hypotheticals for the parties to determine when privilege exists. He comprised this set of hypotheticals after reviewing 50 documents in camera submitted by the parties as samples of disputed claims of privilege.
This court order is an extremely valuable resource for explaining privileged communications that can be withheld from production, and those that are not. The challenged communications involved internal emails within the two corporations. Some of the emails were between corporate counsel and employees of the corporation, and some were between others working with the corporate attorneys acting on their behalf. When the corporate attorneys or their subordinates, such as paralegals, were providing legal advice, the privilege applied. When the lawyers or their subordinates were “acting in a purely ‘scrivner-like’ role, their emails and documents (including draft agreements) are themselves not privileged communications.” Judge Baylson then proceeds to analyze 13 of the emails and documents and explains which are and are not covered by attorney-client privilege.
This is a great order to review attorney-client privilege, and one that will make it into the next edition of Professional Responsibility: A Contemporary Approach!