February 22, 2011

PL 305--Legal Ethics
In class tonight, Tuesday 2/22, I handed back the Corey brief, and we reviewed it. I distributed my version of the brief. I also distributed two other handouts, one regarding a client who is having trouble with telling the truth, and the other an Ethics Opinion regarding conflicts of interest created at the initial consultation. We went over the rules regarding candor to the tribunal created by the lying client, and began the discussion about the conflict of interest problem. The assignment for next Tuesday 3/1 is to review chapter 5 of the text, preparing especially a comparison of the approaches to disqualification taken by the various court opinions at the end of the chapter. Also, for the conflict Ethics Opinion I distributed, evaluate whether the answer comes out the same under Maine's new MPRC. In addition, prepare to discuss what procedures a law office should have had in place in order to avoid the conflicts problem.

February 15, 2011

PL 305--Legal Ethics
In class tonight, I collected the Corey briefs, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts, a role-playing scenario regarding an honesty-challenged client, and my version of the Corey brief. The assignment for next Tuesday, February 22, is to read and prepare to discuss Chapter 5 of the text.

February 8, 2011

PL 305--Legal Ethics
In class tonight, Tuesday 2/8, I distributed 5 handouts: Maine Ethics Opinion #195 regarding unencrypted e-mails; MRPC 1.6 Comments and Reporter's Notes; MRCivP 26 regarding work product discovery and inadvertent disclosure; a sample brief template; and a sample brief of the textbook HPD v. Clorox case. We went over the operation of Rule 1.6, and its relationship with the Maine Rules of Evidence regarding privilege. We then talked about the HDP case, and how it would be briefed. The assignment for next Tuesday 2/15 is to read the handouts; to read MRPC 3.3, 1.18. and 1,9(c)(2); and to do a case brief of the Maine Supreme Court case of Corey v. Norman, Hanson and Detroy, 1999 ME 196, 742 A.2d 933. The case can be accessed from the Maine Supreme Court site
http://www.courts.state.me.us/court_info/opinions/supreme/index.shtml
select 1999, and then opinion #196
For the "Facts", "Issues" ,and "Holding" segments of the brief, only brief the issue regarding the inadvertent disclosure. Please e-mail me with any questions you have about the brief.

February 1, 2011

PL 305--Legal Ethics
In class tonight, Tuesday 2/1, I distributed three handouts: an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Evidence regarding attorney-client privilege; an excerpt from the Maine Probate Code regarding rules about making wills (which we used for discussing how much advice is allowed without crossing the line); and a role-playing scenario raising the question of which policies make sense in terms of allowing (or not) some legal work by those other than attorneys. We discussed some of the concepts of Chapter 3 of the text regarding the Unauthorized Practice of Law. I went over one recent probate case, Estate of Gonzalez, 2004 ME 109, to demonstrate how the text of a statute doesn't always answer even simple legal questions; I went over another, Carey v. Indian Rock Corp. 2005 ME 6, regarding the extent that corporate officers can defend their corporations in civil suits; and I went over a third, Winkelman v. Panama City School District, 550 U.S. 516, to update the text in terms of parents' rights to represent their children in Special Education lawsuits. We also discussed the difference between confidentiality requirements and the rules of privilege. Finally we spent a short time in the computer lab, going over Westlaw sign-in, the "Notes of Decisions" section after statutes, and the use of the Headnotes in Westlaw. The assignment for next Tuesday 2/8 is to read Chapter 4 of the text. Also read Rule 1.6 of the Maine Rules of Professsional Conduct. Finally, go the mebaroverseers.org website and read the comments and reporter's notes to Rule 1.6.