In an interview in Texas, on amicus briefs, she said, ““I have to confess, I don’t read all of those. In fact, I don’t read most of them.”
But in this study, which I blogged earlier this week, Justice Ginsburg cited amici in 9 out of 21 opinions last term, ranking her 4th on the Court. So if she doesn’t read most of them, but cites them in nearly 40% of her opinions, who is reading them? Ahem.
In this letter to the Editor, the ABA President responds to a piece last week about addressing the justice gap through deregulation of the legal profession.
The American Bar Association strongly agrees that our nation must expand access to justice for low-income Americans (“Addressing the Justice Gap,” editorial, Aug. 24).
However, a rush to open the practice of law to unschooled, unregulated nonlawyers is not the solution. This would cause grave harm to clients. Even matters that appear simple, such as uncontested divorces, involve myriad legal rights and responsibilities. If the case is not handled by a professional with appropriate legal training, a person can suffer serious long-term consequences affecting loved ones or financial security. It also could lead to a violation of the law.
The A.B.A. believes that more funding is needed for legal assistance for the poor. The Legal Services Corporation, which provides core funding for the legal aid system, deserves the full appropriation ($450 million) proposed by the president.
Make no mistake: the organized bar is doing its part. The A.B.A. supports lawyer-contributed pro bono services and calls on state bar associations to implement reporting of pro bono work.
We also endorse a unique solution to legal aid funding known as Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts. Unfortunately, that historical financial resource has declined substantially during the economic downturn, making federal support for the Legal Services Corporation even more essential for the growing population in poverty.
Addressing the justice gap requires all segments of society, not lawyers alone, to shoulder responsibility. Nothing is more precious than our freedom, and that comes from access to justice. We must expand legal services for those in need, provided by first-rate trained lawyers.
Shocker. The head of the lawyer’s cartel wants to increase access to justice by having taxpayers pay for more legal services, rather than allowing any sort of competition on the marketplace.
I don’t see this suit turning out well. He went to a strip club, had too much to drink, and wound up with a $30k charge on his credit card.
The club wrongfully served plaintiff excess alcoholic beverages such that plaintiff was no longer capable of conducting financial transactions,” Ilg said in papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court.
But that didn’t stop transactions from happening.
“Thereafter, defendant wrongfully charged $28,109.60 to plaintiff’s credit card, a sum far in excess of any reasonable costs for said alcoholic beverages,” the suit says.
Oh, he *only* got alcoholic beverages? I doubt it.
H/T MM
My econ professor at GMU once said if an endangered species ever entered his property, he would kill it, bury it, and tell no one. I laughed.
This Idaho man, who killed an endangered grizzly bear who threatened his family, made the big mistake. He told the authorities. Now he is looking at up to a year in prison.
Supporters said that Hill, a father of six, acted responsibly in shooting the female grizzly on May 8, which appeared with two cubs in the yard of his home near Porthill, Idaho, while his children were playing outside.
“It seems unjust to me that someone would be charged when they were protecting their family,” state Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, said after the hearing. “I’m at a loss to understand why the U.S. government is pursuing this in the manner they are.”
After shooting the grizzly with a bolt-action rifle, Hill contacted the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
“Jeremy did the right thing, he called Fish and Game,” Keough said. “I think that prosecuting this case really sets back the grizzly bear recovery effort. … People are saying, ‘Boy, if that happened to me, there’s no way that I’d report it.’ That’s a human reaction.”
Really. Overcriminalization fail. I guess the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Idaho is having a slow summer.
Professor Friedman has a post on why he does not use any technology in the classroom to aid his teaching.
But for the most part I teach as I was taught: I ask questions, call on students to answer those questions, and the discussion continues from there.
Which leads to the point I typically raise with Louis: altering one’s teaching to appeal to different learning styles among students is well and good and consumer-friendly, but in much of the practice of law, an endeavor which requires learning on the job for much of one’s career, no one is going to adapt to the way students’ preferred learning mode. That is, the judge will not explain his evidentiary ruling visually, the senior partner will not illustrate his point with a movie clip from The Departed, and you will be hard-pressed to find the Classics Illustrated versions of the cases you need to read and understand for the summary judgment brief due at the end of the week.
I find this entire argument entirely backward-looking, not to mention unpersuasive.
I think my post comparing Norman Rockwell’s law student of 1927 (pictured) to the law student of today.
Let’s break this down. He teaches as he was taught. That Burkean approach to teaching presumes that his professors did an ideal job, and no derivations thereof could possibly be an improvement. I mean, asking questions and getting answers, at a high level of generality, is how all classrooms work. But what about, I don’t know, asking questions through an electronic chat? Or letting students answer questions in a similar fashion. This screams more that the professor is incapable of working with the technology than a normative judgment that it wouldn’t work well.
I also think Professor Friedman misunderstands how technology can foster learning. No judge will explain a ruling with a powerpoint, certainly. But the vast-vast-vast majority of communications any lawyer engages in are electronic. Far more emails and chats are exchanged than court appearances and meetings with senior partners. Teaching law students to communicate effectively, and concisely, with electronic communications is an under-appreciated skill. Not to mention the explosion of electronic discovery and online research. Certainly these tools were not taught in the good ‘ol days, but they are essential for any lawyer today.
When the technology can be a complement to the traditional classroom technology, then we are in business. The law student of 1927 is not the law student of today.
My classroom will be different.