Additional Materials

Additional materials for which you will be held responsible on the exam:

Kansas Cases:

Alexander v. Jesuits of Mo. Province, 175 F.R.D. 556 (D.Kan 1997)
In re Rathbun, 124 ).3d 1 (Kan. 2005)
In re Albin, 982 P.2d 785 (1999)
In re Adoption of Baby Girl T, 21 P.3d 581 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001)
In re Friesen, 991 P.2d 400 (Kan. 1999)
In re Bryan, 61 P.3d 641 (Kan. 2003)

ABA Formal Opinions:

93-379
95-397
95-396
94-383
94-384
97-407
88-356
01-421
99-413
06-422
07-446
00-418
00-420
02-425
92-367

ABA Informal Opinions:

Op. 1470 (1981)


You will be expected to know both the number of the opinions or names of cases and the substantive content thereof for the exam.

Readings fro 11/17`

Please read:

ABA Op. 95-396 (1995)
ABA Op. 97-408 (1997)
ABA Op. 92-362 (199)
Holdren v. General Motors, 13 F.Supp.2d 1192 (D.Kan. 1998)

Readings on Rule1.7 for Class on 27 Oct. 2008

Please read:

Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980)
Fiandanca v. Cunningham, 827 F.2d 825 (1987)
IBM v. Levin, 579 F.2d 271 (1978)

Assignment for Monday, 13 October

Privilege:

Commonwealth v. Mrozek, 657 A.d 997 (1995)
Kobluck v. Univ. of Minn., 574 NW.2d 436 (1998)

Work Product:

Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947)

Rule 1.6:

ABA Formal Op. 99-413
Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383 (1981)
ABA Formal Op. 98-411 (1998)

Readings for Class on 6 Oct.

Please read:

In re Cooperman, 633 N.E .2d 1069 (N.Y. 1994)

In re Gastineau, 857 P.2d 136 (Ore. 1993)

ABA Formal Op. 93-373 (1993)

ABA Formal Op. 93-379 (1993)

Goldfarb v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 773 (1975)

Please read and do a Kansas MetaJuris search on KRPC 1.8 (a).

Readings for Class on 9/15 & 9/22

You should read KRPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1.

You should read:

ABA Comm. on Ethics Opinion 1273, 20 Nov. 1973
In re Bloom, 745 P.2d 61 (Cal. 1987)
Attorney Grievance Comm. v. Protokowicz, 619 A.2d 100 (Md. 1993)
Iowa Sup. Ct. Bd. of Prof. Ethics v. Hill, 576 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 1988)
Lucas v. Hamm, 364 P.2d 685 (Cal.1961)
Woodruff v. Tomlin, 616 F.2d 924 (6th Cir.1980)
People v. Belge, 83 Misc. 2d 186 (Co.Cty. 1975)
N.Y. State Ethics Opinion 479 (1978)

Suggested Reading:

Hoeflich, "Legal Ethics in the 19th Century...," in Sources of the American Law of Lawyering (2007)

Problem:

You receive a call from another lawyer asking you to represent John Doe, who has recently been arrested and charged with terrorism in connection with an explosion at a shopping mall which resulted in the deaths of 140 men, women and children. The prosecution intends to seek the death penalty. Doe has told the other lawyer that he wants to plead not guilty, even though the case against him is strong enough to make the death penalty a likely sentence because this is the only way he can get media coverage for his cause; i.e. he wants to be a martyr. You are opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances. First question: may you refuse the case? Second question, if you accept the case, may you, against your client's wishes, enter a plea on his behalf of guilty but insane, which would guarantee that he would not be executed but would deny him a hance to speak in court, publicize his cause, and martyr himself?

This question is based loosely on the Unibomber case.

Don't forget to check for Kansas cases relevant to 1.1-1.4 and 2.1 in the Kansas case listings in MetaJuris.

First Assignment

We will discuss the ethical issues relating to admission to the Bar during our first class. In preparation for this you should read: Keith Swisher, "The Troubling Rise of the Legal Profession's Good Moral Character, "82 ST. JOHNS L.REV. (2008); an electronic draft of the article is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1018546, although you may need to access this from the law library unless you have a password to ssrn.

Welcome

This blog is intended primarily for the students in my Professional Responsibility Class at the KU Law School. Anyone else, of course, is free to view it. I am not a member of the Kansas Bar and posts to this blog are intended solely for teaching purposes and do not constitute legal advice.