October 27, 2005

PL 100--Intro.
In class today, Thursday 10/27, we went over the Mangan brief, and the related MaineCPR rules. The assignment for Tuesday 11/1 is brief the Weinstein Grievance Commission decision. (You can e-mail me for the citation if you were not in class.)

PL 205 Legal Research
In class today, Thursday 10/27, we went over the Shea brief. The assignment for Tuesday 11/1 is to brief Parent v. EMMC, 2005 ME 112. Since this case includes a dissenting opinion, include in your brief a paragraph at the end that simply states what the view of the dissenting justices was.

October 25,2005

PL 100--INTRO.
In class today, Tuesday 10/25, we went over the Sargent v. Buckley case. I handed out a sample format to use in future case briefs. The assignment for Thursday is to do a case brief, in my format, of Board of Overseers v. Mangan, 2001 ME 7. (If you missed class, you can e-mail me for a copy of the sample format.)

PL 205---LEGAL RESEARCH
In class today, Tuesday 10/25, we went over the Beam v. Cullett case. We also went over some search techniques in westlaw. The assignment for Thursday is to do a case brief of Commonwealth v. Shea at p. 576 of your textbook. You should also continue to work on the Digest researchand write-ups.

October 20, 2005

PL 100--Intro.
In class today, Thursday 10/20, we went over Opinion #159. I also went over two additional Opinions, #105 and #155. The assignment for Tuesday 10/25 is to read in the textbook pp. 278-283. Then read and do a case brief of the case I handed out, Sargent v. Buckley, using the sample case brief format found on p. 284.

For those who need to make up an assignment, do a summary of Ethics Commission Opinion #8, found at www.mebaroverseers.org (then go to Ethics Opinions)

PL 205--Legal Research
In class today, 10/20, we went over Maine v. Warmke. The assignment for Tuesday 10/25 is to do a case brief Beam v. Cullett, found at p. 567 of your textbook. Also. I would like you to read the Westlaw booklets that I handed out at the beginning of the semester, as well as pp. 220-237 of the textbook.

October 18, 2005

PL 100--Intro.
In class today, Tuesday 10/18, I handed back the Summaries of Commission Opinion #186. We went over the assignment on how to do a conflicts check, and I collected those papers. The assignment for Thursday 10/20 is to write a Summary of Commission Opinion #159. If you were not in class, the Opinion can be found at the website of the Maine Overseers of the Bar, which is:
http://www.mebaroverseers.org/ (go to Ethics Opinions and find #159).

PL 205--Legal Research
In class today I handed back the Bouchard case briefs, and we went over them. I asked the class to add a new element to the briefs, "Contentions on Appeal"; "Defenses" relates to the defendant's position at trial about why the defendant is not liable or guilty, and "Contentions on Appeal" contains the Appellant's issues on the appeal. The assignment for Thursday is to do a case brief of Maine v. Warmke, 2005 ME 99, available from the Maine Supreme Court's public domain site.

October 6, 2005

PL 100--Intro.
In class today, Thursday, 10/6, We went over the Freivogel and Hricik articles, as well as Opinion 186. We will not meet as a class on Tuesday, October 11 or Thursday October 13. The next class meeting will be Tuesday October 18. I will, however, be in the Husson library on Tuesday October 11 from 1-3 pm, and can go over anything you'd like help with at that time.

The assignment for Tuesday October 18 is to write a description of how to organize and use a good system for checking conflicts of interest. It should have three basic components: 1) what information is needed (for example, what information you might put on cards, such as name of client [current client/former client?], name of adverse parties [their own card?] etc. Would there be one set of cards all together, or would there be separate divisions [cases accepted/ initial interview only?]; 2) how would you actually go about checking the cards--create several different scenarios and tell what you would check for in the cards. Would you check a prospective client to see if he has been a client in the past? Would you check to see if he's been an adverse party in the past? For each check you'd do, cite to the exact section of the MeCPR to explain what conflict you'd be looking for. Create as many scenarios as you can think of--e.g. client comes in and wants to sue X; do you need to check to see if client is former or current client/ if client is currently or formerly adverse/ if party adverse to client is a former or current client or is formerly or presently adverse etc.; 3) describe when you would run the check (being informed by the Freivogel article). I'll be looking for a good system, and for your clarity of organization and expression.


PL 205--Legal Research

In class today I handed out a sample case brief, and we went over how I would like to do case briefs--a variation from what is discussed in the textbook in chapter 4. We will not meet as a class on Tuesday, October 11 or Thursday October 13. The next class meeting will be Tuesday October 18. I will, however, be in the Husson library on Tuesday October 11 from 1-3 pm, and can go over anything you'd like help with at that time.

The assignment for Tuesday October 18 is to do a case brief of a recent Maine Supreme Court decision, State v. Bouchard, 2005 ME 106. Use the public domain site to access the case (www.courts.state.me.us/opinions). Only brief the theft by deception issue. In addition, I handed out more cases to find in the Maine Key Number Digest. You should be making steady progress on those research questions.