March 25, 2010
PL 305--Legal Ethics
In class tonight, Thursday 3/25, I first returned the midterm exams. I distributed two handouts, the homework assigned that is reproduced below, and Rules 7.1 through 7.6 of the MRPC. We then started our discussion of Chapter 6 of the text, and our examination of the Maine advertising and solicitation ethical rules. I also gave some background about the cases that were discussed in the Milavetz case assigned for next week.
Assignment #2, due at the beginning of class Thursday, April 1, 2010
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Milavetz v. United States, decided March 8, 2010. The case can be found on the website of the U.S. Supreme Court.
To access the case, go to
http://www.supremecourt.gov
Under “Recent Decisions” (on the right) select Milavetz v. U.S.
Read and prepare to discuss the entire decision, but brief only Part III (C) of the Court’s opinion (pp. 18-23).
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Whatever you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.
In addition, write a paragraph discussing Justice Thomas’ concurrence in the case. Address these specific questions:
• Does Justice Thomas agree with the Zauderer standard of review (does he agree that this is a correct the First Amendment standard)?
• Does he agree with the standard of review chosen by the Court in Milavetz. (does he agree that this is a correct the First Amendment standard)?
• Does he agree that Milavetz loses the case?
• And for all these questions, a short explanation of why he holds his position
Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer our questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 4/1, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.
In class tonight, Thursday 3/25, I first returned the midterm exams. I distributed two handouts, the homework assigned that is reproduced below, and Rules 7.1 through 7.6 of the MRPC. We then started our discussion of Chapter 6 of the text, and our examination of the Maine advertising and solicitation ethical rules. I also gave some background about the cases that were discussed in the Milavetz case assigned for next week.
Assignment #2, due at the beginning of class Thursday, April 1, 2010
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Milavetz v. United States, decided March 8, 2010. The case can be found on the website of the U.S. Supreme Court.
To access the case, go to
http://www.supremecourt.gov
Under “Recent Decisions” (on the right) select Milavetz v. U.S.
Read and prepare to discuss the entire decision, but brief only Part III (C) of the Court’s opinion (pp. 18-23).
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Whatever you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.
In addition, write a paragraph discussing Justice Thomas’ concurrence in the case. Address these specific questions:
• Does Justice Thomas agree with the Zauderer standard of review (does he agree that this is a correct the First Amendment standard)?
• Does he agree with the standard of review chosen by the Court in Milavetz. (does he agree that this is a correct the First Amendment standard)?
• Does he agree that Milavetz loses the case?
• And for all these questions, a short explanation of why he holds his position
Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer our questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 4/1, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.
posted by sol goldman | 5:09 PM
|
0 comments
