Legal Ethics Roundup No. 15 - 60 Minutes on Eastman, IN AG abortion critique reprimand, TX judge censure on same-sex marriage, Burger Prize ethics, Clair Huxtable legacy, jobs/events & more (11.06.23)
Your Monday morning tour of all things related to lawyer and judicial ethics.
Welcome
Thank you for being here. Welcome to what captivates, haunts, inspires, and surprises me every week in the world of legal ethics.
Each week the Legal Ethics Roundup is viewed by more than 1,000 readers across the United States and in 17 different countries. Subscribers include judges, lawyers, professors, state bar administrators, students, government officials, and people who care about the future of our democracy.
If you haven’t subscribed yet, what’s stopping you? It’s free! And you’ll never miss the latest roundup. (Please also consider becoming a paid subscriber, which helps to support this weekly newsletter and unlocks special bonus content, along with the ability to post comments.)
New Feature this Week - Must Watch/Listen List
New this week is a list of “must watch/listen” media clips. I’m not sure whether this will become a regular Roundup feature, but I’ll include it whenever we have items focused on legal ethics like the excellent 60 Minutes report which aired last night.
60 Minutes Reports on the Role of Lawyers in January 6. This 10 minute report from 60 Minutes includes in-depth, thoughtful interviews with lawyers John Eastman and Greg Jacob about the consequences of Eastman’s legal advice that then-Vice President Mike Pence could determine the outcome of the 2020 election. Both graduates of the University of Chicago Law School, Eastman and Jacob offer very different explanations about the (il)legitimacy/(il)legality of that advice and its role in the January 6 violence. Even if this story seems like old news, it’s worth your time to listen to their interviews. And this 60 Minutes coverage is a great introduction for students if you plan to cover the topic in class. Here’s a link to watch ad-free. (Scroll down to the end of the Roundup for an update on Eastman’s disciplinary trial before the California State Bar.)
Legal Tenzer Podcast on Supreme Court Ethics. You can listen to Leslie Tenzer (Pace) and I talk about the ongoing debate over whether the United States Supreme Court needs an ethics code in this 20 minute conversation which aired last week. Leslie’s podcast is also a great teaching tool and she features a range of law-related topics in her weekly posts. The link to our episode is here, and you can find a list of others here.
Highlights from Last Week(s) - Top Ten Headlines
Your top ten includes highlights from the past couple of weeks, since we took a Legal Ethics Eras Tour last week.
#1 Yelp Fails to Disqualify Paul Weiss in Google Antitrust Case. From Law.com: “A recent ruling allowing Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison to continue representing Google in antitrust litigation, despite not seeking a waiver from former client Yelp, shows it takes more than alleging an inherent client conflict to get a large firm kicked off a case.” Read the full article here.
#2 Loss of Fees Over Undisclosed Romance? From Law360: “Jackson Walker LLP could have to return millions in fees earned in cases before a Texas bankruptcy judge involved in an undisclosed relationship with a former firm partner, though the complex overlap of bankruptcy and ethics rules makes it tough to know what other risks the firm faces.” For more on the romantic relationship which led the judge to resign, see Legal Ethics Roundup No. 12. And to catch up on all of it, listen to this episode of Lawyers Behaving Badly where podcast hosts Karen Delaney and Jennifer Judge answer this question: “What the hell is going on in the Southern District of Texas?”
#3 World Justice Project 2023 Rule of Law Index Released - US Drops on Accessibility and Affordability of Civil Justice. From the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel: “The World Justice Project's 2023 Rule of Law Index ranks the U.S. 116th out of 142 countries on ‘accessibility and affordability of civil justice.’ This is a drop from the country's 108th place in 2020. This factor measures: the accessibility and affordability of civil courts, including whether people are aware of available remedies, can access and a afford legal advice and representation, and can access the court system without incurring unreasonable fees, encountering unreasonable procedural hurdles, or experiencing physical or linguistic barriers. The U.S. rank dropped over 40 spots from 2015 to 2021.” For more on the implications of this decline, see this insightful analysis from William Hubbard (South Carolina) in his op-ed at TaxProf Blog: “Stalled U.S. Rule Of Law Recovery Demands Systemic Change.” (In addition to serving as dean of the University of South Carolina School of Law, Hubbard is co-founder and chair of the board for the World Justice Project.)
#4 Indiana AG Reprimanded by IN Supreme Court for Critique of Abortion Provider. From NPR: “Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita made national headlines in 2022 when he criticized a doctor who provided an abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio. In doing so, he also violated two rules governing attorney conduct, according to the Indiana Supreme Court. The high court issued a public reprimand of Rokita on Thursday, saying his comments about Dr. Caitlin Bernard were highly likely to create improper influence and also ‘had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden the physician.’” Read to the full coverage here.
#5 Texas Judge Censured Over Same-Sex Marriage Seeks Reversal. From the USA Today: “The Texas Supreme Court is reconsidering the case of a justice of the peace who for years turned away gay couples who wanted to get married even after same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide. Oral arguments began Wednesday in the case of Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in Waco who was reprimanded by the state’s judicial conduct commission in 2019 for presiding over only heterosexual weddings.” Read more here.
#6 Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Lindke & O’Connor Ratcliff Cases. The Court agreed to heard argument in two cases involving the same issue—can public officials block people on their personal social media accounts? The outcomes might not seem immediately related to lawyer and judicial ethics, but they matter for at least two reasons. First, the ability to block users should be important to the many judges who use Facebook, Twitter, and other social media tools as well as lawyers who are public officials and post on social media. Second, these cases pick up on a Supreme Court decision from 2006 involving a lawyer-whistleblower, Los Angeles district attorney Richard Ceballos. Listen to the recorded arguments here.
#7 Three of the Eight Lawyers Indicted with Former President Have Flipped. What Might This Mean for Attorney-Client Privilege? From UVA Today: “Three attorneys for former President Donald Trump have pleaded guilty in a wide-ranging racketeering indictment that accuses Trump and 18 others of election tampering in Georgia, and agreed to testify against other defendants in the case, including Trump. Prosecutors in Georgia say illegal actions by lawyers Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro and Jenna Ellis were part of an attempt to overthrow the 2020 presidential election results in the state. In October, each person cut a deal with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to avoid jail time in exchange for their testimony against other targets in the investigation. The prospect of Powell, Chesebro and Ellis testifying against their former client raises questions about the concept of attorney-client privilege.” Read more here.
#8 Continued Calls to Disbar Chesebro, Giuliani, and Powell. Lawyers Defending American Democracy filed supplemental bar complaints in California and New York against Kenneth Chesebro after his guilty plea. Over at the ABA Litigation Section Ethics and Professionalism Committee, Jeanne Huey (Hunt Huey PLLC) offered her take on whether Sidney Powell will finally face discipline in Texas after her guilty plea. Read her post here. Meanwhile, the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility heard oral argument Thursday on disbarment for Rudy Giuliani. The Legal Profession Blog offers predictions and includes a link to the argument if you want to watch it. Need to catch up on why they’re all facing disbarment? Read Legal Ethics Roundup Bonus Content No. 1.
#9 Thomas and His Forgiven RV Loan, the Latest Ethics Controversy at SCOTUS. From Reuters: “New findings that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas apparently failed to repay at least a ‘significant portion’ of a $267,230 loan he received from a wealthy benefactor prompted Senate Democrats on Thursday to step up their criticism of the court's lack of an ethics code.” Two ethics experts weighed in. Again, from Reuters: “Steven Lubet, a legal ethics expert who teaches law at Northwestern University, said Thomas's failure to disclose the motor coach loan ‘is more significant than the past failures.’ ‘There isn't even a plausible excuse this time,’ Lubet said. ‘The directions could not be more clear. It's a quarter of a million dollars - it's hard to attribute that to inadvertence.’ ‘Thomas's votes can send someone to prison for life or financially destroy them for breaking the law,’ added Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert who teaches law at New York University. ‘Yet he repeatedly breaks the law, confident that he is immune to consequences.’" Read the full article here.
#10 Walt Nauta Keeps Lawyer Stanley Woodward, Despite Potential Conflict. From the Washington Post: “The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s pending trial for allegedly mishandling classified documents cleared the way Friday for a second one of Trump’s employees and co-defendants to keep his lawyer when the case goes before a jury next year. Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision ends a long period of wrangling between special counsel Jack Smith and lawyers for two Trump aides who have been charged in the case. Prosecutors had questioned whether there is a conflict of interest because lawyers for the two men have also represented some potential witnesses. Friday’s hearing was held to determine whether Waltine ‘Walt’ Nauta — a longtime valet to the former president who is charged with helping his boss obstruct government efforts to retrieve classified documents — could keep Stanley Woodward as his lawyer, despite Woodward having previously represented a different Trump employee who is expected to testify against Nauta.” Read the full article here. Philip Schrag (Georgetown Law) tipped me off to the decision, and sent me some thought-provoking questions about Judge Cannon’s ruling. For those of you teaching legal ethics this semester, these are great discussion points (and potential exam questions): “(1) Does it set up a situation, like the one involving Mr. Schwartz (the lawyer in the Abner Louima case) in which, if Nauta is convicted, he might successfully appeal on the ground that the judge should have rejected his waiver and deemed the conflict nonconsentable? See 283 F. 3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002)? (2) Would the cross-examination of former client Taveras to benefit Nauta violate Rule 1.9(c) (Florida Rule 4-1.9(b))? (3) Why is there no discussion of consent from Taveras? (Perhaps he already consented at the prosecutor’s request??) (4) If there is a conflict of interest, how is that solved by having Woodward’s co-counsel cross examine Taveras? Florida has Rule 1.10(a).” We shall see how it all plays out.
Regulatory Reform Watch
While bar associations and disciplinary bodies often have been reluctant to mandate civility as part of their regulatory reform agenda, perhaps the award received by David Grenardo (St. Thomas) for his forthcoming essay will be a source of inspiration. From the Minnesota Lawyer:
A leading proponent of mandatory civility in the legal academy has just claimed a top prize for his essay on the subject. David Grenardo, professor and associate director of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions at St. Thomas Law, won the 2023 American Inns of Court Warren E. Burger Prize for his most recent scholarship on the topic. This prize recognizes the best scholarship that contributes in the areas of professionalism, ethics, civility, and excellence. …
The award-winning essay, titled “Debunking the Major Myths Surrounding Mandatory Civility for Lawyers Plus Five Mandatory Civility Rules That Will Work,” suggests mandatory civility rules and responds to arguments against mandatory civility. This essay is forthcoming in the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics. … Grenardo lays out five proposed rules of mandatory civility in the essay. These rules include avoiding disparaging personal remarks, good faith communication with opposing counsel, granting reasonable time extensions when it does not prejudice the client, identifying changes made in documents, and committing oral understandings to writing accurately and completely.
Read the full essay here.
This Week in Ethics History
November 7, 1989. The Texas Lawyer’s Creed—A Mandate for Professionalism was issued by the Supreme Court of Texas and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, an effort spearheaded by Justice Eugene Cook, who has been called the “father of legal professionalism” in Texas.
Recommended Reading — Recent Books
This week’s recommended reading includes two new books, hot-off-the-presses just in time for holiday gift-giving. (This a preview of a forthcoming Bonus Content post I’ll share later this month filled with lots of ethics-themed gifts like these books and much more. Keep an eye out for it!)
Supreme Bias: Gender and Race in U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings by Christina L. Boyd (University of Georgia), Paul M. Collins, Jr. (UMass Amherst), and Lori A. Ringhand (University of Georgia). The book draws from and builds upon a 2012 media study conducted by Hannah Brenner Johnson and me about gender bias and Supreme Court confirmation hearings as well as our book Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court. Here’s a brief description from the publisher, Stanford University Press:
In Supreme Bias, Christina L. Boyd, Paul M. Collins, Jr., and Lori A. Ringhand present for the first time a comprehensive analysis of the dynamics of race and gender at the Supreme Court confirmation hearings held before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Drawing on their deep knowledge of the confirmation hearings, as well as rich new qualitative and quantitative evidence, the authors highlight how the women and people of color who have sat before the Committee have faced a significantly different confirmation process than their white male colleagues. Despite being among the most qualified and well-credentialed lawyers of their respective generations, female nominees and nominees of color face more skepticism of their professional competence, are subjected to stereotype-based questioning, are more frequently interrupted, and are described in less-positive terms by senators. In addition to revealing the disturbing extent to which race and gender bias exist even at the highest echelon of U.S. legal power, this book also provides concrete suggestions for how that bias can be reduced in the future.
Read more and buy the book here.
The Legal Tech Ecosystem: Innovation, Advancement & the Future of Law Practice by Colin Levy (Malbek). This book advances a growing conversation about the future of legal services, one that my own Law Democratized: A Blueprint for Solving the Justice Crisis, will join in January. Here’s a brief description from the back cover:
The legal landscape is evolving at an unprecedented pace, with the seismic shifts of recent years demanding a fresh perspective on the role of technology and innovation within the legal profession. The Legal Tech Ecosystem delves into this essential transformation, shedding light on the crucial interplay between law and technology in today’s complex world.
At its core, this book addresses the profound changes unfolding in the legal domain, driven by macro-economic forces. These changes have placed an ever-increasing burden on legal departments to accomplish more with fewer resources. A quartet of pillars—the explosive growth of regulations, the challenges posed by globalization, the convergence of risk dimensions, and the pressure on corporate profits—has created an environment where legal professionals must adapt swiftly to succeed.
While emerging legal technology has provided effective solutions to these challenges, The Legal Tech Ecosystem emphasizes that technology alone is not sufficient. Legal departments must undergo a fundamental digital transformation, rethinking their structures, processes, and approaches to truly capitalize on the benefits technology brings. The real value lies in data—capturing it, analyzing it, and deriving transformative insights from it.Read more and buy the book here.
Legal Ethics in Pop Culture
A terrific new article from Kellyn McGee (Wiedener) takes up legal ethics issues confronted by Black women lawyers on television - From Clair to Annalise: How to Get Away with Being a Black Woman Lawyer on Television. Here are some highlights:
Clair Huxtable was the iconic mother, wife, and lawyer on The Cosby Show, an American television sitcom that premiered in September 1984. She appeared to be the perfect lawyer—partner in a law firm, prepared for every case, triumphant in every case, and never stepping over, or anywhere near, the boundary line of legal ethics—all while mothering children ranging in age from 5 to 20 years and supporting her equally successful obstetrician/gynecologist husband. In all her perfection, Clair presumably inspired young women to become lawyers during the middle 1980s through the early 1990s, and beyond.
McGee is right - growing up with Clair in my living room on Thursday nights absolutely was part of what inspired me to fill out my law school applications in the mid-1990s . But back to the article:
Clair Huxtable was a tough act to follow. The Black women lawyers who came after her on scripted television brought more realism to what it really means to be Black, woman, and a lawyer. These characters have helped direct the professional identities of their real counterparts in the decades since Clair entered our living rooms. This article explores the images of Black woman lawyer characters on scripted television since 1984 and how those images compare or contrast with Clair Huxtable and real-life Black women lawyers. …
In the 30 years since The Cosby Show ended, the progeny of Clair Huxtable include Freddie Brooks (A Different World), Maxine Shaw (Living Single), Renee Raddick (Ally McBeal), Joan Clayton (Girlfriends), Jessica Pearson (Suits), Annalise Keating (How to Get Away with Murder), and Judge Lola Carmichael (All Rise). These characters have helped direct the identities of today’s Black women lawyers—both self-identities and the perceptions of them from non-lawyers—in the decades since Clair Huxtable entered our living rooms. … Of these fictional lawyers who committed clear violations of legal ethics rules, Jessica was the only one who was disbarred. Annalise did face a disbarment hearing for her misconduct but was able to keep her license after a lengthy probation. There is a dearth of legal scholarship on lawyer discipline that includes discussions on the race of the lawyers being disciplined, likely because only 26 states collect race and ethnicity data. (American Bar Association 2022)
And from the article’s conclusion:
While the careers of Clair and most of the other characters were presented as generally positive with respect to their race and gender, The Cosby Show did not capture the full and authentic experience of Black woman lawyers working in a profession dominated by White men. … Perhaps a television writer could create a series (maybe a drama) that would follow college student Clair on her path to law school, and give the viewers the backstory of how she came to be a wife, mother of five, and partner in a prestigious law firm as a Black woman in the 1980s.
Now THAT is a show I’d love to see. (David Kelley? Kerry Washington? Are you reading?) Download the full article from SSRN here.
Lawyer of the Week
Our lawyer of the week is Jennifer Mnookin, Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Prior to her appointment as chancellor in 2022, she was dean of the UCLA School of Law and a faculty member of the University of Virginia School of Law. Interestingly, Mnookin is an excellent example of what Patricia Salkin (Touro University) identifies in her research as a movement toward an increasing number of female lawyers leading universities - for more on that see Salkin’s book May It Please the Campus: Lawyers Leading Higher Education. Mnookin is our lawyer this week because of a statement she shared on November 2 with the University of Wisconsin community, a message that applies broadly especially during this time of heightened tensions on university campuses and across all aspects of our lives. Please take a moment to read her words in a message she titled “Choosing Humility, Not Hate.”
Judge of the Week
Last week Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, announced the nomination of Mary T. Moreau to the Supreme Court of Canada. From the official announcement: “Chief Justice Moreau’s esteemed judicial career includes 29 years on the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. In 2017, she was appointed Chief Justice of that court. Prior to becoming a judge, Chief Justice Moreau practiced criminal law, constitutional law, and civil litigation in Edmonton, Alberta. Throughout her career, she has been extensively involved in judicial education, administration, and ethics, both in Canada and internationally.” On ethics specifically, she was a member of the National Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics from 2014 to 2017. Assuming she is confirmed, Canada will for the first time have a majority female Supreme Court. As the National Observer reported:
While Mary Moreau's nomination to Canada's top court is history-making, she told members of Parliament and senators on Thursday that she looks forward to the day when it's not. The chief justice of the Court of King's Bench of Alberta reflected on how far the legal profession and courts have come on women's representation during a hearing held to scrutinize her resume and readiness to join the Supreme Court of Canada. Her appointment to the court would make it so that five out of nine justices are women. Women would hold a majority on the bench for the first time in the court's 148-year history.
For her commitment to judicial ethics and her history-making appointment, Moreau is our judge of the week. (Scroll down for more - her words of wisdom conclude this Roundup.)
Accountability in Our Democracy
This part of the roundup focuses on the legal profession’s accountability in our democracy. We first looked at the ways lawyers can be held accountable through the discipline system and malpractice claims, and then examined the First Amendment and lies told by lawyers. Next we focused on non-governmental organizations with a mission to reform lawyer and judicial ethics and then confirmed that yes, Congress does have the authority to hold the Supreme Court accountable for ethics issues. Other accountability issues have included reforms to the character and fitness process in lawyer licensing, and questions about where the line should be drawn when lawyers “manufacture” lawsuits and whether cameras in the courtroom further accountability in our democracy. Most recently, we debated the merits of unauthorized practice of law rules.
This week we take a deeper-dive into malpractice claims, thanks to a new research study from Robert M. Jarvis and Debra Moss Vollweiler (both of Nova Southeastern University) — Legal Malpractice in Florida: A Statistical Profile.
From the abstract:
Little empirical research exists about the incidence of legal malpractice. To help fill the gap, the authors spent 1,000 hours mining the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation’s legal malpractice database, a rich but underutilized resource. As their results make clear, every lawyer is at risk of being sued for legal malpractice.
They open with a “primer” on malpractice, which is a helpful review especially for our readers who are not legal ethics experts.
Legal malpractice is a civil cause of action brought by a client against an attorney for violating one or more duties to the client. To be viable, a claim of legal malpractice must allege: 1) that the attorney was employed by the client; 2) that the attorney failed to perform one or more duties that the attorney owed to the client; and 3) that the attorney’s action or inaction was the proximate cause of the client’s loss. In certain instances, however, a claim of legal malpractice may be brought by a third party, such as a will beneficiary, that the attorney reasonably should have known would be prejudiced by the attorney’s negligence.
Legal malpractice actions often are confused with bar discipline cases. In the latter, a client, an opposing attorney, or a judge files (or refers) a complaint to The Florida Bar alleging that a lawyer has violated one or more of the ethics rules that have been promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court. Following an investigation by the Bar, sanctions—which can range from reprimand to suspension to loss of license—are determined by the Florida Supreme Court pursuant to its constitutional authority to “discipline . . . persons admitted” to the practice of law. Thus, the key difference between a legal malpractice action and a bar discipline case is that in the former only the lawyer’s wallet is at risk, while in the latter the lawyer’s license to practice is on the line. Of course, a legal malpractice action can lead to a bar discipline case and vice versa. While the violation of an ethics rule does not constitute legal malpractice negligence per se, “a lawyer’s violation of [such] a rule may be evidence of a breach of the applicable standard of conduct.” Bar discipline statistics are systematically collected and released by The Florida Bar. … Accordingly, in this essay our focus is solely on legal malpractice claims.
Their study offers lots of interesting data points. This table summarizes one item that should be especially interesting to readers, a “top ten” list of common lawyer errors.
Here’s their bottom line:
Lawyers who become the subject of a legal malpractice claim often feel blindsided. It therefore is heartening to know, as our statistics make clear, that most claims are the result of behavior that is within the lawyer’s control: avoiding conflicts of interest; being diligent; being thorough; not missing deadlines; and properly handling client funds and property. Additionally, for most of the lawyers in our study, their legal malpractice insurance policies appear to have worked as intended, shielding them from significant liability even when a payout to the other side occurred. The foregoing is the good news. The bad news is this: as Professor Ramos found nearly 30 years ago, and as our statistics reconfirm, just about any lawyer is at risk of being sued for legal malpractice.
Read the full study here.
Get Hired
Did you miss the 40+ job postings from previous weeks? Find them all here.
Assistant General Counsel/FOIA Consultant/Ethics Officer, Illinois Department of Insurance — Springfield. The Illinois Department of Insurance seeks an organized, professional, ethically-focused, and results-oriented individual to serve as Assistant General Counsel/FOIA Consultant/Agency Ethics Officer. More details here.
Conflicts Attorney, McDermott, Will & Emery — Chicago. Conduct conflict analysis on new firm business and lateral hires; prepare, audit, and present conflict reports to attorneys to resolve issues in a timely manner; consult with partners, General Counsel’s office, and Professional Responsibility Committee to create and maintain effective screening restrictions and ensure appropriate ethical waivers are in place. More details here.
Employment and Ethics Attorney, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality — Austin, hybrid optional. Responsibilities include advising the agency on ethics laws and policies; performing professional legal work related to employment law and ethics; investigating internal complaints related to personnel issues and other matters; developing policies, rules, standard procedures, and training modules; and reviewing/implementing legislative or regulatory changes related to employment matters and ethics. More details here.
General & Professional Liability Attorney, Bartlett LLP — New York. Bartlett’s Professional Liability practice is engaged on behalf of professionals in industries including healthcare, law, design and engineering. More details here.
Upcoming Ethics Events & Other Announcements
Did you miss an announcement from previous weeks? Find them all here.
SEALS Annual Meeting Professional Responsibility Discussion Group. The Southeast Association of Law Schools annual meeting will be July 21-27 at the Marriott Harbor Springs Resort & Spa in Fort Lauderdale, FL. If you want to be part of the PR Discussion Group on “Teaching PR in Divisive (and Strange) Times” email Ben Barton (Tennessee) at bbarton@utk.edu.
November 7 — Federal Bar Association, Webinar: A Conversation on Ethics and the United States Supreme Court. From the program description “Over the years, there has been much debate about the creation of legislation that would set ethics rules for the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as what such rules would cover and how they could be enforced.” Speakers include: Virginia Canter (Chief Ethics Counsel for CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), Hon. Andre M. Davis (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Ret.)), and Charles G. Geyh (Indiana University). The webinar is live from 2-3PM eastern. More details here.
November 16 — Book Discussion on Big Money Unleashed: The Campaign to Deregulate Election Spending. The UCI Law Center for Empirical Research on the Legal Profession will host an online discussion from 3-4PM pacific with Ann Southworth (UCI) about her forthcoming book which will be published in December. Comments by: John Bliss (University of Denver), Bryant Garth (UCI), Richard L. Hasen (UCLA), Mary Ziegler (UC Davis). Moderated by: Swethaa Ballakrishnen (UCI). More info and registration here.
November 22 — John Eastman California State Bar Hearing. Final written closing arguments are due November 22, and presumably we will have a final decision on disbarment by the end of the year. (H/T Luke Johnson)
December 1 — Georgia State Law Review Call for Papers Deadline — “AI & the Law: Practice, Ethics, & Access.” The Georgia State Law Review has announced its 2024 Symposium: “AI & the Law: Practice, Ethics, & Access.” The Law Review invites authors to submit articles or essays for Volume 40, Issue 4 for publication in a Symposium Edition. More details here.
February 7 — International Legal Ethics Conference Call for Papers Deadline. Submissions opened last week for the 10th biennial meeting of the International Legal Ethics Association, which will be held July 17-19, 2024, in Amsterdam. (I love this conference. It’s where I got my start as a legal ethics scholar, a wonderful community of academics and experts who care deeply about lawyer and judicial ethics.) More information here.
Wisdom for the Week
“All [people] should be able to see themselves reflected in their justice system in order to have faith in it.” — Chief Justice Mary T. Moreau in her questionnaire for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada
Keep in Touch
Feedback? This weekly roundup is a work-in-progress. Please share feedback about what you love (or don’t love) and what you’d like to see here in the future.
News tips? Announcements? Events? A job to post? Reading recommendations? Email legalethics@substack.com - but be sure to subscribe first, otherwise the email won’t be delivered.
Teaching Professional Responsibility or Legal Ethics? Check out the companion blog for my casebook Professional Responsibility: A Contemporary Approach for teaching ideas and other resources.
Did a brilliant colleague forward this to you? If so, subscribe now to get the next Legal Ethics Roundup delivered directly to your in-box.
I wish you a wonderful week! See you next Monday.