Monday, August 4, 2008

JetBlue's Newest a la Carte Charge: Pillow and Blanket For $7

Story on this decision here.  "Shares rose 22 cents, or 4.2 percent."  Fine.  I hereby announce that I am charging $1 for every time your kid kicks me in the back of my airplane seat.  And a bonus $5 for anyone who uses my seatback as a lift device and lets go, turning it into a catapult device for me. Shares in me have just risen 35 cents, or 466%.  [Alan Childress]

August 4, 2008 in Blogging | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Office Policy No Defense To Failure To Provide Client File

The Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct reprimanded an attorney who, after representation of a client and his business had ceased, rebuffed repeated attempts by new counsel to obtain the client's file. He had informed the client's new counsel that "it was his firm's policy to not provide clients' with their files." He also had been contacted by the Office of Professional Conduct prior to the filing of formal charges and advised the Executive Director that it was his "longstanding practice and policy that files in his law office were his property." After a hearing, a violation of Rule 1.16(d) was found. (Mike Frisch)

August 4, 2008 in Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Hellman on Federal Judicial Ethics

Posted by Alan Childress

Arthur Hellman (University of Pittsburgh) -- shown right [and below left when he teaches on the west coast, with a difference explained here] -- has just re-posted to SSRN's journal of Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility his revised and updated article (also appearing last year in Pitt's law review, vol. 69). It's called "The Regulation of Judicial Ethics in theHellmanad Federal System: A Peek Behind Closed Doors."  The abstract is:

Ethical issues involving federal judges have been much in the news recently. Among other developments, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to consider impeaching a federal district judge; the Judicial Conference of the United States announced two major policy initiatives; and a committee chaired by Justice Stephen Breyer issued an in-depth report on the operation of the judicial misconduct statutes.

This article addresses two aspects of federal judicial ethics. The first involves conflict of interest and disqualification. Under the law, a federal judge is disqualified from hearing a Canola_mayo_jar_bf case if (among other circumstances) the judge's impartiality "might reasonably be questioned," or if he or she has "a financial interest ... in a party to the proceeding." The first-quoted prohibition has generated a large body of case law. The second has proved to be a fertile ground for muckraking by investigative reporters, in part because judges can easily fail to remember or recognize that they own shares in corporations that are parties to cases on their dockets. In September 2006 the Judicial Conference of the United States directed all federal courts to institute "automatic conflict screening" using standardized hardware and software. This is a substantial step forward, but a purely internal screening program does not serve the interest in transparency.

The second set of issues involves the operation of the misconduct statutes. A 1980 statute, now codified as Chapter 16 of Title 28, creates a detailed set of procedures for handling complaints against judges and taking appropriate action in instances of judicial misconduct. The Breyer Committee found that in handling the vast bulk of complaints, the judiciary has properly implemented the 1980 Act, but that in high-visibility cases, the rate of error is "far too high." The committee's report and other recent developments point to several aspects of the system that deserve scrutiny. Primary among these is the lack of visibility; neither the availability of the process nor the outcomes of proceedings are sufficiently publicized.

August 4, 2008 in Abstracts Highlights - Academic Articles on the Legal Profession | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Indiana Law: Lateral and Entry Level Positions

[Posted By Bill Henderson]

[Interested in building a truly great law school?  Want a high quality life for you and your family? Consider this opportunity, which ran on SSRN Professional Announcements last week. wdh]

In 2007, Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington received a $25 million gift from the Lilly Foundation for the purpose of attracting and retaining leading scholars and teachers. The gift will enable the Law School to hire up to five senior level professors without limitation to specific curricular subject. In addition, the Law School is seeking outstanding applicants for several entry level openings. Although the entry level and lateral hiring committees are particularly interested in hiring scholars that will leverage and extend the School's current strengths, all qualified candidates will receive careful consideration.                

About the Law School.  The attractions of Indiana Law include:

  • Highly collegial faculty with a longstanding focus on globalization, international law, interdisciplinary research, and law & society scholarship.
  • Attractive law school facilities, including a top-ranked law library.
  • Integration with a major research university on one of the nation's most beautiful campuses. 
  • Excellent, ambitious JD, LLM, and SJD students with strong entering credentials.
  • Strong commitment to curricular innovation to keep pace with a rapidly changing legal profession.
  • Three course teaching load, small average class size, and an excellent student-faculty ratio that will further improve through new faculty hiring.
  • Excellent support for conference travel related to scholarship and professional service and development.
  • A lovely, vibrant Big Ten college town.
  • An active and supportive alumni base.
  • Competitive salary and benefits.

Application Procedure.  The entry level and lateral appointments committees invite      confidential inquiries from scholars at other institutions.  Women and underrepresented minorities are encouraged to apply. Interested candidates should submit a c.v. and a letter summarizing their future career goals in the areas of scholarship, teaching, and service. Please direct these materials, either electronically or through regular mail to the chair of the entry level or lateral appointments committees:          

Entry Level Contact:
    Jeannine Bell, JD, PhD                    
    Professor of Law & Whistler Faculty Fellow                    
    211 S. Indiana Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405     
    Ph. 812-856-5013          

Lateral Level Contact:
    Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, JD, PhD                    
    Willard & Margaret Carr Professor of Law                    
     211 S. Indiana Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405      
     Ph. 812-855-0697          

Indiana University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. 

August 4, 2008 in Teaching & Curriculum | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Ready For My Close Up

The South Carolina Advisory Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct has recently opined that a judge may participate in a television documentary concerning a case that he had prosecuted while serving as an assistant solicitor with the following limitation:

As long as the participation presents the judge as the assistant solicitor and avoids references to the judicial office, there will be little opportunity that (1) the private parties' interests are advanced by the prestige of the judicial office, or that (2) the judge's capacity, office, or duties will be cast in reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judge may participate in a television production discussing a case in which the judge served as assistant solicitor.

(Mike Frisch)

August 3, 2008 in Judicial Ethics and the Courts | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)