DOCSLIB.ORG

PDF Download

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MARCH/APRIL 2019 TURN TO PAGE 5 FOR 2019 KBA Annual Convention Details Individual Own Occupation Disability Coverage for Kentucky Attorneys Affordable KBA Rates from Metlife KBA Member Semiannual Rates Monthly Coverage Amount: $3,000 $5,000 $10,000 Under 30 yrs $152 $252 $502 30-39 yrs $213 $354 $705 40-49 yrs $352 $585 $1,167 ✓ No Medical Exam (Under Age 50) ✓ No Tax Returns ✓ Apply for up to $10,000/month Coverage ✓ Residual Disability Coverage ✓ Industry Standard Disability Definition ✓ Easy Online Application Visit www.NIAI.com/Attorneys for KBA quotes and application Call or Email TODAY | 800.928.6421 | [email protected] | www.NIAI.com This issue of the Kentucky Bar Association’s VOL. 83, NO. 2 B&B-Bench & Bar was published in the month of March. COMMUNICATIONS & PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE Contents James P. Dady, Chair, Bellevue 2 President’s Page Paul Alley, Florence By: Douglas C. Ballantine Elizabeth M. Bass, Gallatin, Tenn. Rhonda J. Blackburn, Pikeville 5 2019 KBA Annual Convention Preview and Jenn L. Brinkley, Bowling Green Registration Information Frances E. Catron Cadle, Lexington Anne A. Chesnut, Lexington 14 Q & A with “Survivor” Winner Kentucky Attorney Nick Wilson Elizabeth A. Deener, Lexington 16 Book Review: Brian Haara’s “Bourbon Justice: Tamara A. Fagley, Lexington How Whiskey Law Shaped America” Cathy W. Franck, Crestwood By: James P. Dady Lonita Baker Gaines, Louisville William R. Garmer, Lexington Features: Information Governance P. Franklin Heaberlin, Prestonsburg 20 Information Governance: “Do You Actually Know Judith B. Hoge, Louisville What You Don’t Know?” Jessica R. C. Malloy, Louisville By: Sandra J. Reeves Eileen M. O'Brien, Lexington Sandra J. Reeves, Corbin 24 Lessons from O’Neill v. Bank of America – Hacked Law Firms Gerald R. Toner, Louisville Left Holding the Bag Sadhna True, Lexington By: Adam C. Reeves Zachary M. Van Vactor, Louisville Michele M. Whittington, Frankfort Columns PUBLISHER 26 University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law John D. Meyers 28 Northern Kentucky University Salmon P. Chase College of Law EDITOR 30 University of Kentucky College of Law James P. Dady 32 Young Lawyers Division MANAGING EDITOR By: Jennifer “Jenna” Scholl Overmann Shannon H. Roberts 34 Effective Legal Writing By: Professor Jennifer Jolly-Ryan DESIGN & LAYOUT Jesi L. Ebelhar 36 Law Practice Management By: Stephen E. Embry The B&B - Bench & Bar (ISSN-1521-6497) 38 Shop Talk is published bi-monthly by the Kentucky Bar Association, 514 West Main Street, Frankfort, By: Michael Losavio KY 40601-1812. Periodicals Post­­age paid at Frankfort, KY and additional mailing offices. Bar News All manuscripts for publication should be sent 42 Debra Hembree Lambert Formally Sworn In to the Man aging Editor. Permission is granted as Supreme Court Justice for reproduction with credit. Publication of any article or statement is not to be deemed an 44 Kentucky Bar Association Audit Information endorsement of the views expressed therein by the Kentucky Bar Association. 46 Ethics Opinion E-447 Bench & Bar Subscription Price: $20 per year. Members Departments subscription is included in annual dues and is not less than 50% for the lowest subscription price paid by subscribers. For more information, call 48 Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program (502) 564-3795. 49 Kentucky Bar Foundation Visit our website to POSTMASTER 50 Continuing Legal Education check out the latest Send address changes to: Hot Topics article. B&B - Bench & Bar 514 West Main Street 56 Who, What, When and Where Frankfort, KY 40601-1812 Several inside graphics by ©istockphoto.com/JesiWithers BENCH & BAR | 1 PRESIDENT'S PAGE the Benefits of a Mandatory Bar Association BY: DOUGLAS C. BALLANTINE KBA PRESIDENT lot of Kentucky lawyers understand- that—voluntary. Typically, voluntary bars provide for the profes- ably do not focus on the structure sional needs of their members, such as continuing education and Aof our Kentucky Bar Association networking opportunities, and lobbying on legislation and political (KBA), or on the structure of other states’ issues that support the interests and purposes of the association. bar associations. In the world of state bar associations, however, there are “mandatory” bar associations, also The Kentucky Bar Association is established as an independent known as “integrated” or “unified” bar associations, and there are agency of the Supreme Court of Kentucky. Its authority to regulate “voluntary” bar associations. As you might expect, non-mandatory the profession in Kentucky, delegated by the Kentucky Supreme bar associations are the ones called voluntary bar associations. Court through rules, is derived from Section 116 of the Kentucky Constitution, which states: “The Supreme Court shall have the There are approximately 30 states that, like Kentucky, have man- power to prescribe rules governing its appellate jurisdiction, rules datory bar associations. A mandatory bar association requires for the appointment of commissioners and other Court personnel, membership in order to practice within that particular state. Typ- and rules of practice and procedure for the Court of Justice. The ically, mandatory bar associations are created either by the state’s Supreme Court shall, by rule, govern admission to the Bar and the legislature, or by the state’s Supreme Court. In the short space for discipline of members of the Bar.” this column, there is no way to discuss in detail all of the differences between mandatory and voluntary bar associations, but it is worth SCR 3.025 sets out the mission and purpose of the KBA: “The noting some of those differences, and some of the benefits we enjoy mission and purpose of the association is to maintain a proper as members of a mandatory bar association state. discipline of the members of the bar in accordance with these rules and with the principles of the legal profession as a public calling, There are differences among virtually every mandatory bar and to initiate and supervise, with the approval of the court, appro- among virtually every voluntary bar. Generally, though, mandatory priate means to insure a continuing high standard of professional bars supervise the admission process, discipline, licensing, con- competence on the part of the members of the bar, and to bear a tinuing legal education and other requirements of maintaining a substantial and continuing responsibility for promoting the effi- license to practice law, and provide supportive services. In vol- ciency and improvement of the judicial system.” untary bar states, licensing fees are still required and paid, which typically would be used for discipline and regulatory matters; how- As noted on the KBA’s website discussing the history of the KBA, ever, there are generally no supportive services provided under the the first meeting of lawyers from across Kentucky was held in 1871, licensing fees. Participation in a voluntary bar association is just during which a voluntary association was created. In 1934, the 2 | MARCH/APRIL 2019 With our coverage. DON’T LOSE SLEEP worrying over your legal protection – get coverage from Lawyers Mutual, a group of seasoned legal professionals dedicated exclusively to assisting Kentucky lawyers. Our claims prevention expertise and unparalleled service will put your mind at rest. Call (502) 568-6100 today. BY KENTUCKY LAWYERS. FOR KENTUCKY LAWYERS. Waterfront Plaza | 323 West Main Street, Suite 600 | Louisville, KY 40202 | 502.568.6100 | 800.800.6101 | LMICK.com lmick_emoji_bb_8.5x10.875.indd 1 1/11/19 9:59 AM 2019 KBA Annual Convention PRESIDENT'S PAGE DETAILS ON PAGE 5 Kentucky General Assembly passed an act creating an all-inclu- Without getting down into the weeds, there have been several sive bar association which authorized the Court of Appeals (now cases in the last few years that in some way or another challenge Supreme Court) to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations the existence of mandatory bars. The rub with some mandatory defining the practice of law and to establish a code of professional bars has been that the bar took a public position on a controversial responsibility to govern the discipline of members of the bar. Since political issue or legislative proposal, in the bar’s publication or other then, the Kentucky Bar Association has been the mandatory bar public forum. Because one or more members of the mandatory bar association of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. disagreed with the position the bar took, the member objected to having paid mandatory dues used to subsidize views with which SCR 3.030(1) states “All persons admitted to the practice of law the member disagreed. in this state shall be, and they are, members of the [Kentucky Bar A]ssociation.” Probably the most notable of these cases was Keller v. State Bar of California, which upheld the challenge under the First Amendment Because the KBA is a mandatory bar, it is able to provide its mem- to the use of mandatory fees “when such expenditures are not neces- bers and the public a number of services that may not be provided sarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal by voluntary bar associations, such as: profession or improving the quality of legal services.” Conversely, the Court held that a mandatory bar may constitutionally use a KENTUCKY LAWYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM and member’s compulsory fees to fund activities germane to regulating EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services but not to fund “non-germane” activities the member opposes. KBA ETHICS HOTLINE: Free, informal ethics opinion pro- vided promptly to members to determine ethical course to The Kentucky Bar Association is very careful in its activities to take in a situation. observe the ruling of Keller. Indeed, as noted on the KBA’s website: CLIENT SECURITY FUND: Fund created by the Supreme The programs of the Bar and its commissions and committees Court to help provide indemnification to clients who may are used to accomplish its goals and mission.
Recommended publications
  • THE UNITED STATES COURTS of APPEALS DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION for PHASE 1 a Multi User Data Base Created by a Grant from the Natio

    THE UNITED STATES COURTS of APPEALS DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION for PHASE 1 a Multi User Data Base Created by a Grant from the Natio

    THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION for PHASE 1 A Multi User Data Base Created by a Grant from the National Science Foundation (SES-8912678) Principal Investigator: Donald R. Songer Professor of Political Science University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 email: Dsonger @ sc.edu Table of Contents General Introduction................................... 3 Files Distributed...................................... 7 Sampling & Weighting................................... 8 Reliability Analysis................................... 9 Variable list.......................................... 10 DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES Basic Case Characteristics General Description.......................... 17 History & Nature of Case..................... 21 Participants Appellants................................... 32 Respondents.................................. 58 Other Participants........................... 66 Issue Coding Basic Nature of Issues & Decision............ 68 Provisions Cited in Headnotes................ 95 Threshhold Issues............................102 Criminal Issues..............................109 Civil Law Issues.............................118 Civil Government & Administrative Law........127 Diversity Issues.............................134 Judges and Votes..................................135 Appendix 1: Alphabetical List of Variables.............147 Appendix 2: Variable List in Input Order...............152 Appendix 3: List of Appeals Court Judge Codes..........158 Appendix 4: List of District Court Judge Codes.........173
  • FIXING the VOTE Wendy Weiser, Michael Waldman, Myrna Pérez, Diana Kasdan CONGRESS and the CRISIS in the COURTS Alicia Bannon R

    FIXING the VOTE Wendy Weiser, Michael Waldman, Myrna Pérez, Diana Kasdan CONGRESS and the CRISIS in the COURTS Alicia Bannon R

    FIXING THE VOTE Wendy Weiser, Michael Waldman, Myrna Pérez, Diana Kasdan CONGRESS AND THE CRISIS IN THE COURTS Alicia Bannon REFORMS TO CURB MASS INCARCERATION Inimai Chettiar, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Nicole Fortier NATIONAL SECURITY, LOCAL POLICE Michael Price PLUS: DEMOCRACY TODAY Bill Moyers ‘MONEYBALL’ FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE Peter Orszag ON POLITICAL POLARIZATION Richard Pildes, Monica Youn, Robert Bauer, Benjamin Ginsberg WILL SOCIAL MEDIA CHANGE OUR POLITICS? Walter Shapiro THE LIES WE TELL ABOUT THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL Andrew Cohen AN INNOVATION MOMENT FOR CAMPAIGN REFORM Gov. Andrew Cuomo, AG Eric Schneiderman, Lawrence Norden, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Lawrence Lessig1 The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice. We work to hold our political institutions and laws accountable to the twin American ideals of democracy and equal justice for all. The Center’s work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism. A singular institution — part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group, part communications hub — the Brennan Center seeks meaningful, measurable change in the systems by which our nation is governed. About Democracy & Justice: Collected Writings 2013 The material in this volume is excerpted from Brennan Center reports, policy proposals, and issue briefs. We’ve also excerpted material from public remarks, legal briefs, congressional testimony, and op-ed pieces written by Brennan Center staff in 2013.

  • Detroit Free Press V. U.S. Dep't of Justice and A

    Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice Volume 37 Article 5 Issue 3 Electronic Supplement April 2016 Mean Muggin’ No More: Detroit Free Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice and a Non-Trivial Privacy Interest in Booking Photographs Meghan Looney Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/jlsj Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, Internet Law Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, and the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation Meghan Looney, Mean Muggin’ No More: Detroit Free Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice and a Non-Trivial Privacy Interest in Booking Photographs, 37 B.C.J.L. & Soc. Just. E. Supp. 45 (2016), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/jlsj/vol37/iss3/5 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MEAN MUGGIN’ NO MORE: DETROIT FREE PRESS v. U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE AND A NON-TRIVIAL PRIVACY INTEREST IN BOOKING PHOTOGRAPHS * MEGHAN LOONEY Abstract: On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that criminal defendants have a legitimate privacy interest in their booking pho- tographs, thereby reversing and remanding a grant of summary judgment in favor of the Detroit Free Press’s request for the booking photographs of four police of- ficers who had recently been indicted for bribery and drug conspiracy.
  • If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov

    If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • COURT',.---------. DIRECTORY MARCH 1987 '. 106091 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization cfiglnating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this c~d material has been granted by Public Domain/Administrative Office of the United states Courts to the National Crimi nat Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of th~ht owner. UNITED STATES COURT DIRECTORY Issued by: The Administrative Office of the United States Courts Wa~hington, D.C. 20544 Contents: Personnel Division " Office of the Chief (202-633-6115) Printing & Distribution: Administrative Services Division Printing & Distribution Facility (301-763-1865) The information in this Directory is current as of February I, 1987. TABLE OF CONTENTS Supreme Court . ................................................................................ United States Courts of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit ............................................... "................... 2 First Circuit. .. 4 Second Circuit. .. 5 Third Circuit. .. 8 Fourth Circuit. .. 10 Fifth Circuit ................................................................................. 12 Sixth Circuit ................................................................................
  • Judicial Branch

    Judicial Branch

    JUDICIAL BRANCH SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES One First Street, NE., 20543, phone (202) 479–3000 JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., Chief Justice of the United States, was born in Buffalo, NY, January 27, 1955. He married Jane Marie Sullivan in 1996 and they have two children, Josephine and Jack. He received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1976 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979. He served as a law clerk for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1979–80 and as a law clerk for then Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1980 term. He was Special Assistant to the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice from 1981–82, Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, White House Coun- sel’s Office from 1982–86, and Principal Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice from 1989–93. From 1986–89 and 1993–2003, he practiced law in Washington, DC. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003. President George W. Bush nominated him as Chief Justice of the United States, and he took his seat September 29, 2005. ANTONIN SCALIA, Associate Justice, was born in Trenton, NJ, March 11, 1936. He married Maureen McCarthy and has nine children, Ann Forrest, Eugene, John Francis, Catherine Elisabeth, Mary Clare, Paul David, Matthew, Christopher James, and Margaret Jane. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B.
  • Enough for a Minyan: a Jewish Who's Who of Biden's Cabinet

    Enough for a Minyan: a Jewish Who's Who of Biden's Cabinet

    YOUR SHABBAT EDITION • JANUARY 22, 2021 Stories for you to savor over Shabbat and Sunday GET THE LATEST AT FORWARD.COM 1 GET THE LATEST AT FORWARD.COM News Enough for a minyan: A Jewish who’s who of Biden’s cabinet-to-be By Jacob Kornbluh As President-elect Joe Biden announced his picks for Hannah and Michael — would be raised Jewish, but that the Cabinet, the joke went around on Jewish Twitter the family would also celebrate Christmas. that the West Wing would have a minyan. A Harvard Law School graduate, Klain first served as Indeed, at least 10 prominent Jews have been chief of staff to former Vice President Al Gore and later nominated to key positions. There’s Ronald Klain (chief as chief of staff to Biden during his first term as vice of staff); Anthony Blinken (Secretary of State); Janet president. In 2014 he was appointed as President Yellen (Treasury); Merrick Garland (Attorney General); Barack Obama’s Ebola response coordinator. Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security); and Avril Klain — an active Twitter user — played a key role in Haines (Director of National Intelligence). One level drafting Biden’s plan to address COVID-19 during the down are Wendy Sherman (deputy Secretary of State); presidential campaign. Eric Lander (science and technology adviser); Ann Neuberger (deputy National Security Adviser); and Tevi Troy, a historian and author of “Fight House,” a David Cohen (deputy CIA director). book about rivalries at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, pointed out that a number of Jews have preceded Klain Plus there’s Doug Emhoff, the Jewish husband of Vice in the role.
  • Judiciary Supreme Court of the United States

    Judiciary Supreme Court of the United States

    JUDICIARY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES One First Street NE 20543, phone 479±3000 WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST, Chief Justice of the United States; born in Milwaukee, WI, October 1, 1924; son of William Benjamin and Margery Peck Rehnquist; married to Natalie Cornell of San Diego, CA; children: James, Janet, and Nancy, member of Faith Lutheran Church, Arlington, VA; served in the U.S. Army Air Corps in this country and overseas from 1943±46; discharged with the rank of sergeant; Stanford University, B.A., M.A., 1948; Harvard University, M.A., 1950; Stanford University, LL.B., 1952, ranking first in class; Order of the Coif; member of the Board of Editors of the Stanford Law Review; law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson, Supreme Court of the United States, 1952±53; private practice of law, Phoenix, AZ, 1953±69; engaged in a general practice of law with primary emphasis on civil litigation; appointed Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, by President Nixon in January 1969; nominated Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by President Nixon on October 21, 1971, confirmed December 10, 1971, sworn in on January 7, 1972; nominated by President Reagan as Chief Justice of the United States on June 17, 1986; sworn in on September 26, 1986. JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; born in Chicago, IL, April 20, 1920; son of Ernest James and Elizabeth Street Stevens; A.B., University of Chicago, 1941, Phi Beta Kappa, Psi Upsilon; J.D. (magna cum laude), Northwestern University, 1947, Order of the Coif, Phi Delta Phi, co-editor, Illinois Law Review; married to Maryan Mulholland; children: John Joseph, Kathryn Jedlicka, Elizabeth Jane Sesemann, and Susan Roberta Mullen; entered active duty U.S.
  • Federal Cases Involving Unauthorized Disclosures to the News Media, 1778 to the Present

    Federal Cases Involving Unauthorized Disclosures to the News Media, 1778 to the Present

    Federal Cases Involving Unauthorized Disclosures to the News Media, 1778 to the Present Introduction and Methodology This chart attempts to comprehensively survey every federal case involving an effort by law enforcement, an executive branch agency, the courts, or Congress to formally investigate or prosecute someone for, or compel the disclosure of information about, the unauthorized disclosure of government information to the news media. In short, it is our attempt at an exhaustive list of “leak” cases. Please note that, in addition to the cases one would usually think of as “leaks” matters—that is, cases arising out of the disclosure of national defense information, such as those involving Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden—we include cases where courts have ordered an investigation into grand jury leaks (e.g., BALCO, Taricani, and Walters), where Congress has formally investigated a leak (e.g., Nugent, Schorr, and Phelps/Totenberg), where the leak involved non-national security information (e.g., Agnew and Lacker), where the surveillance or targeting of reporters was conducted as part of domestic espionage activity (e.g., Project Mockingbird), and where a Privacy Act plaintiff who has had information leaked to the press about a pending investigation seeks a subpoena to uncover the source (e.g., Lee and Hatfill). This chart excludes cases involving purely internal unauthorized disclosure inquiries within the government (such as the Raj Rajaratnam inquiry at the SEC1), unless they involve the formal investigation of members of the news media. We include the two cases involving U.S. submarine-based surveillance (Operations Holystone and Ivy Bells), where senior officials actively discussed using the 1950 amendment to the Espionage Act regarding the publication of communications intelligence to prosecute the outlet.
  • Overview: Biden Administration: Cabinet Members and Biographies President-Elect Biden's Cabinet Is Currently Expected to Incl

    Overview: Biden Administration: Cabinet Members and Biographies President-Elect Biden's Cabinet Is Currently Expected to Incl

    Overview: Biden Administration: Cabinet Members and Biographies President-elect Biden’s Cabinet is currently expected to include all heads of major agencies and departments; the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; the Director of National Intelligence; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and the White House Chief of Staff. This document is organized alphabetically by last name. General Lloyd J. Austin III Secretary of Defense Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III was born in Mobile, Alabama and raised in Thomasville, Georgia before graduating from the United States Military Academy (West Point) with a BS. General Austin also holds an MA in counselor education from Auburn University and an MBA from Webster University. General Austin’s Army career began in 1975. Since then he has led joint forces in combat at the one-, two-, three- and four-star ranks. He has been a Commanding General for the 10th Mountain Division and Fort Drum; Chief of Staff and Commander for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) at the Department of Defense; Commander of the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps; Director of the Joint Staff; member of the Reserve Forces Policy Board; Vice Chief of Staff for the Army; and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Requirements Oversight Council. He has served around the world, including Operation Safe Haven in Panama with the 82nd Airborne Division; Operation Iraqi Freedom as the assistant division commander for the 3rd Infantry Division; and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan as the commander of the 10th Mountain Division.
  • Luxembourg Forum 2017 University of Michigan Law School

    Luxembourg Forum 2017 University of Michigan Law School

    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Event Materials Law School History and Publications 2017 Luxembourg Forum 2017 University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/events Part of the Legal Education Commons Citation University of Michigan Law School, "Luxembourg Forum 2017" (2017). Event Materials. http://repository.law.umich.edu/events/29 This Program is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School History and Publications at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Event Materials by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LUXEMBOURG FORUM 2017 COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION VISIT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL April 15-17, 2017 6 Conference Schedule 12 Participant Bios 22 Central Campus Map 3 WELCOME It is a great pleasure and honor to welcome the Court of Justice of the European Un ion to Ann Arbor for discussions with the Law School faculty, the Michigan Supreme Court, and judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The visit comes as part of a series of exchanges between the U.S. Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice, which have been taking place for nearly two decades, and which have more recently become known as the "Luxembourg Forum." The Law School, which pioneered the study of European Union law and whose collective faculty scholarship places Michigan Law among the leaders in international legal education , has a special and longstanding connection to these exchanges, having facilitated the meetings on both sides of the Atlantic since their inception.
  • P. Brooks Fuller a Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The

    P. Brooks Fuller a Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The

    WORDS, WOUNDS, AND RELATIONSHIPS: A MIXED-METHOD STUDY OF FREE SPEECH AND HARM IN HIGH-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTS P. Brooks Fuller A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School Media and Journalism. Chapel Hill 2017 Approved by: Cathy L. Packer R. Michael Hoefges George W. Noblit William P. Marshall Victoria S. Ekstrand © 2017 P. Brooks Fuller ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT P. Brooks Fuller: Words, Wounds, and Relationships: a Mixed-Method Study of Free Speech and Harm in High-Conflict Environments (Under the direction of Cathy L. Packer) This dissertation is a mixed-method, socio-legal study of First Amendment issues and social practices surrounding free expression and harm in high-conflict speech environments, such as ongoing political protests. Scholarly literature and case law on harmful speech makes clear that context is crucial for courts to understand the relative harms and values associated with speech in such environments. The outcome of a court’s contextual analysis can profoundly impact the outcome of a case involving allegedly harmful speech that falls at the borderlines of First Amendment protection. However, American courts have not articulated clear frameworks for conducting contextual analysis. Thus, lower courts have used an array of contextual factors, often implicitly and in ways that fail to grasp aspects of context that are critical for participants who engage daily in persistent, heated ideological debate in high-conflict environments. Using legal analysis and ethnographic field methods, this dissertation studies how courts conduct contextual analysis in true threats and incitement cases and how participants who engage daily in pro-and-anti-abortion advocacy at a local clinic use context to determine whether and to what extent speech causes harm.