Volume 33 No. 6 Nov/Dec 2020 Partner up with POWER Is Your Firm Concerned About Expenses in This Current Economic Cycle?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q
Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Cleveland State Law Review Law Journals 2003 Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q. Cutler Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons How does access to this work benefit oy u? Let us know! Recommended Citation Christopher Q. Culter, Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad, 50 Clev. St. L. Rev. 335 (2002-2003) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTHING LESS THAN THE DIGNITY OF MAN: EVOLVING STANDARDS, BOTCHED EXECUTIONS AND UTAH’S CONTROVERSIAL USE OF THE FIRING SQUAD CHRISTOPHER Q. CUTLER1 Human justice is sadly lacking in consolation; it can only shed blood for blood. But we mustn’t ask that it do more than it can.2 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 336 II. HISTORICAL USE OF UTAH’S FIRING SQUAD........................ 338 A. The Firing Squad from Wilderness to Statehood ................................................................. 339 B. From Statehood to Furman ......................................... 347 1. Gary Gilmore to the Present Death Row Crowd ................................................ 357 2. Modern Firing Squad Procedure .......................... 363 III. EIGHTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE ................................ 365 A. A History of Pain ......................................................... 366 B. Early Supreme Court Cases......................................... 368 C. Evolving Standards of Decency and the Dignity of Man............................................... -
Cal 2004-165
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONDUCT FORMAL OPINION NO. 2004-165 ISSUE: 1. What are the ethical responsibilities of a member of the California State Bar who uses outside contract lawyers to make appearances on behalf of the member’s clients? 2. What are the ethical responsibilities of the outside contract lawyer who makes the appearances? DIGEST: 1. To comply with his or her ethical responsibilities, a member of the California State Bar who uses an outside contract lawyer to make appearances on behalf of the member’s client must disclose to his client the fact of the arrangement between the member and the outside lawyer when the use of the outside lawyer constitutes a significant development in the matter. Whether the use of the outside lawyer constitutes a significant development will depend upon the circumstances in each situation. If, at the outset of the engagement, the member anticipates using outside lawyers to make appearances on behalf of the member’s client, the member should address the issue in the written fee agreement with the client. If the member charges the outside lawyer’s fees and costs to the client as a disbursement, the member must state the client’s obligations for those charges in the written fee agreement. In addition, the member remains responsible to the client, which includes responsibility for competently supervising the outside lawyer. Finally, the member must comply with the ethical rules concerning competence, confidentiality, advertising, and conflicts of interest that apply to his or her role in any such arrangement. -
JUDICIAL COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA November 25, 2019 Council Room Matheson Courthouse 450 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 8
000001 JUDICIAL COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA November 25, 2019 Council Room Matheson Courthouse 450 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant Presiding 1. 9:00 a.m. Welcome & Approval of Minutes .......... Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant (Tab 1 – Action) 2. 9:05 a.m. Chair's Report ........................................ Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant (Information) 3. 9:10 a.m. Administrator's Report ............................................ Judge Mary T. Noonan (Information) 4. 9:20 a.m. Reports: Management Committee ......... Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant ad hoc Budget & Finance Committee ................................ Judge Mark May Liaison Committee ............................................................. Judge Kara Pettit Policy & Planning Committee ....................................... Judge Derek Pullan Bar Commission..................................................................... Rob Rice, esq. (Tab 2 - Information) 5. 9:40 a.m. Technology Committee Report & Recommendations ... Justice John Pearce (Tab 3 - Action) Heidi Anderson 10:40 a.m. Break 6. 10:50 a.m. Creation of Joint Task Force on Procedural Reforms for Justice Courts ...... (Tab 4 - Action) Judge Kate Appleby Michael Drechsel 7. 11:05 a.m. Proposed Amendment to Utah Code § 78A-7-206 Compensation to Justice Court Judges.................................................................. Judge Rick Romney (Tab 5 - Action) Jim Peters 8. 11:15 a.m. Budget & Finance Committee: Market Survey and Clerical Reallocation Recommendation -
Saugus Clerk Reed Dead at 57 336 Receive Vaccinations at Lynn
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2021 Swampscott plans special Town Meeting By Trea Lavery ITEM STAFF SWAMPSCOTT — The town will hold a special town meeting on March 1 to decide Wendy Reed whether to approve a replacement to the Swampscott Middle School roof. Peter Spellios, chair of the Select Board, explained in the board’s Wednesday night Saugus meeting that the repair could not wait to be approved at the annual town meeting in May. clerk “This project is of signi cant scale and it takes time to mobilize,” Spellios said. “The duration of the project will take the entire- Reed ty of the summer. Therefore, it is important COURTESY PHOTO that that project is able to start the day af- ter school is over.” Mary Darby gives the camera a thumbs up after being vaccinated at Mass Gen- While some parts of the roof have been dead eral Brigham Healthcare Center in Lynn. repaired or replaced over the last 20 years, Town Administrator Sean Fitzgerald ex- plained that much of the roof was installed 336 receive vaccinations in 1996, and has outlived its expected life at 57 cycle. The part of the roof that holds solar By Elyse Carmosino panels, however, will not have to be re- ITEM STAFF placed. at Lynn medical center While there is not yet a set price for the SAUGUS — Board of project, it is expected to cost up to $2 mil- Selectmen clerk and for- By Gayla Cawley received the rst dose of the P zer vaccine lion. A more speci c price will be deter- mer School Committee ITEM STAFF over the rst two days of a new COVID-19 mined before the March 1 town meeting. -
Star Channels, Feb. 18-24
FEBRUARY 18 - 24, 2018 staradvertiser.com REAL FAKE NEWS English comedian John Oliver is ready to take on politicians, corporations and much more when he returns with a new season of the acclaimed Last Week Tonight With John Oliver. Now in its fi fth season, the satirical news series combines comedy, commentary and interviews with newsmakers as it presents a unique take on national and international stories. Premiering Sunday, Feb. 18, on HBO. – HART Board meeting, live on ¶Olelo PaZmlg^qm_hkAhghenenlkZbemkZglbm8PZm\aebo^Zg]Ûg]hnm' THIS THURSDAY, 8:00AM | CHANNEL 55 olelo.org ON THE COVER | LAST WEEK TONIGHT WITH JOHN OLIVER Satire at its best ‘Last Week Tonight With John hard work. We’re incredibly proud of all of you, In its short life, “Last Week Tonight With and rather than tell you that to your face, we’d John Oliver” has had a marked influence on Oliver’ returns to HBO like to do it in the cold, dispassionate form of a politics and business, even as far back as press release.” its first season. A 2014 segment on net By Kyla Brewer For his part, Bloys had nothing but praise neutrality is widely credited with prompt- TV Media for the performer, saying: “His extraordinary ing more than 45,000 comments on the genius for rich and intelligent commentary is Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) s 24-hour news channels, websites and second to none.” electronic filing page, and another 300,000 apps rise in popularity, the public is be- Oliver has worked his way up through the comments in an email inbox dedicated to Acoming more invested in national and in- entertainment industry since starting out as a proposal that would allow “priority lanes” ternational news. -
The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion Interim No
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONDUCT FORMAL OPINION INTERIM NO. 08-0002 ISSUES: Does an attorney violate the duties of confidentiality and competence he or she owes to a client by using technology to transmit or store confidential client information when the technology may be susceptible to unauthorized access by third parties? DIGEST: Whether an attorney violates his or her duties of confidentiality and competence when using technology to transmit or store confidential client information will depend on the particular technology being used and the circumstances surrounding such use. Before using a particular technology in the course of representing a client, an attorney must take appropriate steps to evaluate: 1) the level of security attendant to the use of that technology, including whether reasonable precautions may be taken when using the technology to increase the level of security; 2) the legal ramifications to a third party who intercepts, accesses or exceeds authorized use of the electronic information; 3) the degree of sensitivity of the information; 4) the possible impact on the client of an inadvertent disclosure of privileged or confidential information or work product; 5) the urgency of the situation; and 6) the client‟s instructions and circumstances, such as access by others to the client‟s devices and communications. AUTHORITIES INTERPRETED: Rule 3-100 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. Rule 3-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. California Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1). STATEMENT OF FACTS Attorney is an associate at a law firm that provides a laptop computer for his use on client and firm matters and which includes software necessary to his practice. -
The Regulation of Lawyer Referral Services: a Preliminary State-By-State Review
THE REGULATION OF LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICES: A PRELIMINARY STATE-BY-STATE REVIEW Prepared by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Lawyer Referral and Information Service I. Overview Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) programs across the country provide an efficient mechanism for providing attorneys with direct referrals of potential clients, while also providing access to legal services to typically middle-class Americans who may otherwise lack the knowledge or information necessary to independently seek out counsel. Every state has developed regulatory schemes defining these programs and the parameters for attorney involvement, and in some cases even dictating the operation of LRS programs themselves. A review of the LRS rules in all fifty states undertaken by the ABA Standing Committee on Lawyer Referral and Information Service reveals a broad continuum of regulation of LRS programs across the country. This report summarizes the preliminary findings of this review, with further research ongoing. II. Analysis of State LRS Regulatory Schemes There is a wide variation among the states in the manner in which LRS programs are regulated. The predominant approach involves defining the conditions under which lawyers may participate in LRS programs through court rule; specifically, rules of professional conduct. But there are also states that have court rules defining how LRS programs are to be operated (including two states that engage in regulation via statute in addition to court rule), and the applicability of LRS regulatory approaches are controlled, in part, on how states define “lawyer referral service,” and these definitions often vary. A. The Basis and Focus of LRS Regulation The approaches undertaken by the states in regulating LRS programs may be easily divided into two distinct areas of focus: a focus on regulation of attorney participation in LRS programs, and a focus on regulation of LRS programs themselves. -
Meeting Materials
JUDICIAL COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA April 16, 2018 Council Room Matheson Courthouse 450 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant Presiding 1. 9:00 a.m. Welcome & Approval of Minutes........... Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant (Tab 1 – Action) 2. 9:05 a.m. Chair’s Report ......................................... Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant 3. 9:10 a.m. Administrator’s Report .................................................. Richard Schwermer 4. 9:20 a.m. Reports: Management Committee .......... Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant Liaison Committee ......................................... Justice Thomas Lee Policy and Planning ....................................... Judge Derek Pullan Bar Commission...................................................... Rob Rice, esq. (Tab 2 – Information) 5. 9:30 a.m. Legislative Policy Discussion ................................................. Jacey Skinner (Information) 6. 9:40 a.m. FY2019 Spending Recommendations............................ Richard Schwermer (Action) 7. 10:15 a.m. Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission Report .............Jennifer Yim (Information) John P. Ashton 8. 10:35 a.m. Senior Judge Certifications ................................................ Nancy Sylvester (Tab 3 – Action) 10:45 a.m. Break 9. 10:55 a.m. Appellate Mediation Program Report ............................... Michelle Mattson (Tab 4 – Information) 10. 11:15 a.m. New Justice Court Judge Certification ......................................... Jim Peters (Action) 11. 11:25 a.m. Board of Justice Court Judges Report .................... Judge Reuben Renstrom (Information) Jim Peters 12. 11:40 a.m. Executive Session 13. 12:00 p.m. Adjourn Consent Calendar The consent calendar items in this section are approved without discussion if no objection has been raised with the Administrative Office of the Courts or with a Judicial Council member by the scheduled Judicial Council meeting or with the Chair of the Judicial Council during the scheduled Judicial Council meeting. -
Rules of Professional Conduct
California Rules of Professional Conduct 2021 California Rules of Professional Conduct and Other Related Rules and Codes Volume 1 Rules of Professional Conduct State Bar Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6000 et seq.) “1992” Rules of Professional Conduct “1989” Rules of Professional Conduct “1975” Rules of Professional Conduct Rules Cross-Reference Tables Published by the State Bar of California Office of Professional Competence Pub. No. 250 2021 PRODUCTION STAFF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH EDITOR Mimi Lee Randall Difuntorum Lauren McCurdy Andrew Tuft PRODUCTION EDITOR Lauren McCurdy DISTRIBUTION Angela Marlaud ASSISTANT EDITOR WEB PRODUCTION Mimi Lee Mimi Lee TABLE OF CONTENTS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 1.8.6 Compensation from One Other than Client CROSS-REFERENCE TABLES 17 Current Rules to the “1992” Rules iii Rule 1.8.7 Aggregate Settlements 18 “1992” Rules to the Current Rules vii Rule 1.8.8 Limiting Liability to Client 18 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 1.8.9 Purchasing Property at a Foreclosure or a Sale Subject to Judicial Review 18 Rule 1.0 Purpose and Function of the Rules of Professional Conduct 1 Rule 1.8.10 Sexual Relations with Current Client 18 Rule 1.0.1 Terminology 2 Rule 1.8.11 Imputation of Prohibitions Under Rules 1.8.1 to 1.8.9 19 CHAPTER 1. LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP 3 Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients 19 Rule 1.1 Competence 3 Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest: General Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation and Allocation of Rule 20 Authority 4 Rule 1.11 Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Rule 1.2.1 Advising -
Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 114 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 114 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 161 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2015 No. 155 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. and was from the highway trust fund. It is sim- newspapers, and in small newspapers called to order by the Speaker pro tem- ply an empty shell. all across the country. There really is pore (Mr. FLEISCHMANN). It really doesn’t have to be this hard. no controversy. There is a single solution that is sup- f Indeed, in the over two dozen States ported by everyone outside of Capitol that have raised transportation rev- DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO Hill, one that has been employed by six enue since 2012, the legislators who TEMPORE red Republican States already this voted for more transportation revenue The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- year and championed by Ronald got reelected by a higher percentage fore the House the following commu- Reagan when he was President: raise than the legislators who voted against nication from the Speaker: the gas tax. Our problems are that we it. It is broadly supported, not politi- are trying to fund 2015 infrastructure cally controversial, and is desperately WASHINGTON, DC, with 1993 dollars—the last time we October 22, 2015. needed. I hereby appoint the Honorable CHARLES J. raised the Federal gas tax. I am glad my colleagues were able to FLEISCHMANN to act as Speaker pro tempore I have a bill that will accomplish this reach a compromise on the Transpor- on this day. -
State Bar of California Acting Executive Director: Jeffrey T
LEGAL/ACCOUNTING REGULATORY AGENCIES State Bar of California Acting Executive Director: Jeffrey T. Gersick ♦ (415) 538-8200 ♦ (213) 765-1000 ♦ To ll-Free Complaint Hotline: 1-800-843-9053 ♦ Ethics Hotline: l-800-2ETHJCS ♦ Internet: www.calbar.org he State Bar of California was created by legislative of investigators and prosecutors. The act in 1927 and codified in the CaliforniaConstitution Bar recommends sanctions to the at Article VI, section 9. The State Bar was established California Supreme Court, which makes final discipline de asT a public corporation within the judicial branch of govern cisions. However, Business and Professions Code section ment, and membership is a requirement for all attorneys prac 6007 authorizes the Bar to place attorneys on involuntary in ticing law in California. Over 165,000 California lawyers are active status if they pose a substantial threat of harm to cli members of the State Bar. ents or to the public, among other reasons. The State Bar Act, Business and Professions Code sec On March 1, State Bar Executive Director Steve Nissen tion 6000 et seq., designates a Board of Governors to run the announced his resignation in order to accept a position within Bar. The Board President is usually elected by the Board of Governor Gray Davis' administration. Nissen, who officially Governors at its June meeting and serves a one-year tenn left on March 19, had served at the Bar for only 16 months, beginning in September. Only governors who have served on arrivingjust prior to then-Governor Wilson's veto of the Bar's the Board for three years are eligible to run for President. -
State Court Organization, 1998 Conference of State Court Administrators, Court Statistics Committee
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics State Court Organization 1998 Victim-offender relationship in violent crimes (rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault) by sex of victim Courts and judges Judicial selection and service Judicial branch Appellate courts Trial courts The jury The sentencing context Court structure U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics State Court Organization 1998 By David B. Rottman Carol R. Flango Melissa T. Cantrell Randall Hansen Neil LaFountain A joint effort of Conference of State Court Administrators and National Center for State Courts June 2000, NCJ 178932 U.S Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director, BJS This Bureau of Justice Statistics report was prepared by the National Center for State Courts under the Supervision of Steven K. Smith and Marika F.X. Litras of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The project was supported by BJS grant number 98-BJ-CX-K002. Principle staff for the project at the National Center for State Courts were David B. Rottman, Ph.D., Carol R. Flango, Melissa T. Cantrell, Randall Hansen, and Neil LaFountain. Tom Hester and Carol DeFrances of BJS provided editorial review. Jayne Robinson administered final production. This report was made possible by the support and guidance of the Court Statistics Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. Please bring suggestions for information that should be included in future editions to the attention of the Director of the Court Statistics Project, National Center for State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8798.