Paralegal v. Lawyer/Brown v. Hammond

You discover that while the attorney you are working for is representing a celebrity, Whitney Tears, in a controversial child custody case, your employer has been secretly leaking information to a reporter. The information is from an investigation conducted by the Division of Human Services and has very personal information, some of which puts poor Whitney and is embarassing and puts her in a bad light. You confront her about these "leaks" and she replies, "Deal with it."
You really need this job but you think these actions are disloyal, despicable, devious and dishonest and downright dirty. You must take action! Based on Paralegal and Brown, explain what you would do and explain why.
Please post your comment by Sunday.

First Amendment Blog

This posting is for the purpose of developing discussion among us in order to define areas of interest relating to the First Amendment.
I am hoping students will go to First Amendment.org and look at the topics. Explore a few and try and get a sense of 3 that might interest you. There are some very interesting issues (to me, and I hope you).
Just today there were a number of 1st Amendment issues in the paper: Hip-Hop lyrics, protecting reporters from having to disclose their sources (Shield laws....there is no federal shield law, but many states have them).
Here is what I am looking for......post something like this: I am interested in dress codes and the First Amendment. I want to see what the cases are saying about this....sounds like a clash of interests...kids wanting to wear clothes that express themselves and school administrators that are concerned with running the school.
My hope would be you will find someone with similar interests and you can exchange so insights.

Debra v. Larry

With respect to the Complaint we have started looking at between Larry Birkhead and Debra Opti, please start a discussion of disciplinary rules that you think might apply. Be sure to cite the particular rule and explain why you think they might be "in play" with respect to the actions you are reading about.

Determinators/Hamdan v. Rumsfeld/Dissents only (starts at 103)

Please use this blog to discuss the case.........sort out the facts.........what are the issues.........what questions do you have? What do you think they meant when they said........?
We want to use this to bring the whole group along so we can carry on a conversation about the case during Constitution Day.

Accelerators/Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (Justice Stevens opinion only)

Please use this blog to discuss the case.........sort out the facts.........what are the issues.........what questions do you have? What do you think they meant when they said........?
We want to use this to bring the whole group along so we can carry on a conversation about the case during Constitution Day.

Front Row/Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Please use this blog to discuss the case.........sort out the facts.........what are the issues.........what questions do you have? What do you think they meant when they said........?
We want to use this to bring the whole group along so we can carry on a conversation about the case during Constitution Day.

The Bar/Rumsfeld v. Padilla

Please use this blog to discuss the case.........sort out the facts.........what are the issues.........what questions do you have? What do you think they meant when they said........?
We want to use this to bring the whole group along so we can carry on a conversation about the case during Constitution Day.

Brainstormers/Ex parte Quirin

Please use this blog to discuss the case.........sort out the facts.........what are the issues.........what questions do you have? What do you think they meant when they said........?
We want to use this to bring the whole group along so we can carry on a conversation about the case during Constitution Day.

The article below involves the interplay between ethical violations, contempt and criminal and civil law. Thought it might be of interest. "Give it a reading" and we will talk about it on Tuesday evening.

September 7, 2007

Duke Case Prosecutor Reports to Jail

By MARIA NEWMAN

The former prosecutor who charged three Duke lacrosse players with rape — charges that were later dropped — reported to jail today to serve a 24-hour sentence for lying to a judge about evidence he had withheld that helped exonerate the young men.

The disbarred former district attorney, Mike Nifong, said nothing to reporters as he arrived at the courtroom early this morning, surrounded by television cameras as well as supporters and others who shouted criticism at him.

Mr. Nifong charged the three players with raping a young woman they had hired to dance at a party in March 2006.

Judge W. Osmond Smith III of Superior Court said Mr. Nifong “willfully made false statements” to the court last September when he insisted that he had given defense lawyers all of the results from a critical DNA test. The judge found that Mr. Nifong had provided the lawyers with what he knew to be an incomplete report, omitting results showing that the DNA of multiple men, none of whom were the lacrosse players, had been found on the woman,.

Mr. Nifong was disbarred for ethics violations for the way he handled the case. Roy Cooper, the North Carolina attorney general, took the case from Mr. Nifong in January and announced in April that the woman was not credible and that the former students — David F. Evans, 24, Reade W. Seligmann, 21, and Collin Finnerty, 20 — were innocent. He declared the three victims of a “tragic rush to accuse.”

Today, as Mr. Nifong entered the jail house, some supporters carried signs that said “We believe in your integrity and goodness.” A group of critics also watched Mr. Nifong as he arrived to begin serving his sentence, and one woman shouted out, “Justice works!” The Associated Press reported.

As that jailhouse drama played out, lawyers for the three players were in talks with city officials over a settlement to avoid a lawsuit they said their clients would file, The Herald-Sun of Durham reported.

The newspaper said in today’s edition that lawyers for the three falsely accused men were willing to set aside a civil rights lawsuit if the city agreed to pay each of them $10 million and to put in place reforms to make sure police investigations remain independent of the prosecutors who try cases in court.

Introduce Yourself/Fall 07/Intro to Paralegal Studies

Please use this session to introduce yourself. Why are you taking this course? What are your interests in the law? Favorite legal area? Favorite legal movie or television show?

One area you would like to learn more about.