PL 305--Legal Ethics
In class tonight, Thursday 4/22, I distributed two handouts: one is the assignment due next week (copied below), and the second is MRPC 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4. We went over the assignment, and then went over the Maine Rules and the concepts in the text. We then started going over the cases at the end of Chapter 8, getting as far as the the Pincay case on p. 359.
Assignment#3
For this assignment, I would like you to write a paper comparing the analysis and outcome of four cases dealing with whether there is “excusable neglect” when someone misses a deadline, especially if it is the paralegal who messes up.
By “comparing”, I intend that you should discuss the following:
• whether the facts of the cases are basically the same, or whether they are distinguishable from each other (how do the excuses compare with each other?; how do the systems intended to prevent mistakes compare to each other?;
• whether the decisions by the various courts are basically in agreement with each other (do the courts apply the same definition of what is “excusable”?; do the appellate courts accord the same deference to the discretion of the trial court?)
After doing this comparison, you should also give your own view on whether each of the cases was correctly decided (by the court that is writing the decision, not by any lower court), or not, and why you come to your conclusion.
Here are the specific cases to compare :
• the textbook case of Pincay v. Andrews (p. 359)
• the Maine Supreme Court case of Lane v. Williams, 521 A.2d 706 (Me. 1987)
• the Maine Supreme Court case of Gregory v. City of Calais, 2001 ME 82.
• the Maine Superior Court case of Batchelor v. Martin, 2002 WL 1065578
For the cases that have a dissenting opinion, I also want you to include that dissent in your comparison.
(all of the Maine cases are available through Westlaw)
The assignment is due at the beginning of the class on Thursday April 29.
If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the assignment to me by the beginning of class. I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time. In terms of timeliness, any attachment that I cannot open will not be considered received; so the safest course is to copy and paste the paper into your e-mail as well as to attach it.
You are not allowed to collaborate with other students. The work should be entirely your own. The only sources you should be consulting are the briefs and the oral argument. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
In addition, I would like you to read for next week some disciplinary decisions found on the website of the Maine Overseers of the Bar.
Two of the disciplinary decisions are regarding James MacAdam (the lawyer involved in the Batchelor case). They are the Grievance Commission decisions of December 1, 2003, and November 18, 2004.
In addition, read the decisions regarding Seth Carey (February 12, 2009); Peter Bos (January 2, 2009); and Margaret Shalhoob (December 1, 2009);
They can all be accessed by going to www.mebaroverseers.org/discipline/disciplinary_decisions.shtml
(or else just going to the mebaroverseers.org site and scrolling down on the home page to “view all decisions”).
The decisions are then arranged chronologically.
