Discontent Over Civil Litigation Creates Backdrop for Judicial Conference

Corporate counsel almost unanimously agree that civil litigation is too expensive, while 90 percent say that it takes too long, according to a new survey conducted for a major judicial conference on civil justice that convenes next week.

The conference, which will take place at Duke University School of Law on May 10 and 11, brings together key federal judges, lawyers and academics to discuss the need to reform civil rules and practices on issues ranging from electronic discovery to the use of experts. The impact of recent Supreme Court decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, raising requirements for what must be included in initial pleadings in civil cases, is another major focus of the two-day conference. The main sponsor is the U.S. Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.

The meeting responds to recent surveys indicating that those involved in civil litigation see "significant problems of cost and delay," said Judge John Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the conference organizer. Even before it opens, the conference is being compared to the historic Roscoe Pound Conference of 1976, held in St. Paul, Minn. to discuss civil justice problems, which launched several reforms. "This conference hopes to build on the legacy" of that meeting "and all it contributed to the reform of the administration and delivery of justice in the federal system," said Judge Mark Kravitz of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Kravitz chairs the civil rules advisory committee.

To prepare for the meeting, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System canvassed chief legal officers and general counsel who are members of the Association of Corporate Counsel from around the country. Fifty-five percent agreed the civil justice system is "too complex," while 97 percent agreed that it is "too expensive." In addition, 80 percent disagreed with the statement: "Outcomes are driven more by the merits of the case than by litigation costs."

On the issue of pleadings, nearly 75 percent of those surveyed said that so-called "notice pleadings" -- short statements of a complaint -- make it difficult to identify the issues of litigation at an early stage. The high court's Twombly and Iqbal rulings sought to increase what must be included in initial pleadings, but consumer advocates say the bar is too high, and have sought help from Congress in undoing the rulings. Other critics think the decisions amounted to improper changes in the federal rules of civil procedure, and hope the conference will lead to clarification of the rules. The rulings have been cited in hundreds of decisions on whether to dismiss civil suits.

"The organized federal judiciary is trying to take charge, and that's a good idea," said Alan Morrison, associate dean of George Washington University Law School, and former director of Public Citizen Litigation Group. "This is a big deal event." Morrison said the conference has already generated dozens of research studies, papers and surveys. "Empirical research proves certain things," Morrison said, "but does it tell us how to improve?"

Koeltl said the Duke conference does not mean that the federal judiciary has decided to amend or clarify the rules on pleadings. "We don't go into the conference with a predetermined set of conclusions," the judge said. "That's why we spent so much time on empirical research." Koeltl added that "the civil rules committee is very much looking at Iqbal and Twombly and its effects."

John Vail, vice president of the Center for Constitutional Litigation, said that while some of the studies that will be presented at Duke are empirical, others, like the survey of corporate counsel, are not, and represent the desire of businesses to "create a whole different set of rules for themselves." Vail said.

Sports and the Law: Will Ben Roethlisberger’s NFL Suspension Stand?

On Wednesday, Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger became the first NFL player never charged or convicted of any crime to be suspended under the NFL Personal Conduct Policy. According to Commissioner Roger Goodell, the decision to suspend Roethlisberger was the result of “some bad decisions” that Roethlisberger made in recent weeks, which emerged during the Georgia police’s investigation of him for sexual assault.

Allegations of sexual assault are not to be taken lightly. However, not all such allegations are true. (See the Duke Lacrosse scandal). And, whether Roger Goodell even has the power to suspend a player where no criminal wrongdoing is found is questionable. The issue depends entirely upon how one interprets a few important clauses in the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement…

For starters, while Commissioner Goodell claims to have the power to suspend Roethlisberger under the NFL Personal Conduct Policy, whether the NFL Personal Conduct Policy is even part of the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) is not entirely clear. NFL club-owners announced the league’s current Personal Conduct Policy on April 10, 2007, which postdates the most recent CBA. While the NFL Personal Conduct Policy was informally approved by a group of NFL players, the NFL Personal Conduct Policy was never written and signed into the CBA (at least not according to publicly available information). This may present a problem for Commissioner Goodell’s enforcement of the NFL Personal Conduct Policy because Article LV, Section 19 of the NFL CBA states that “[n]one of the Articles of this Agreement may be changed, altered, or amended other than by a signed written agreement.”

Meanwhile, even presuming the NFL Personal Conduct Policy is not part of the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement, Commissioner Goodell may still argue that Paragraph 15 of the NFL Player Contract allows him to suspend Roethlisberger for “being deemed guilty of any other conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football.” Paragraph 15 of the NFL Player Contract is part of the CBA, as it is incorporated by reference as Appendix C. However, it is not clear that Ben Roethlisberger has done anything “detrimental to the League or professional football” (most of this conduct relates to gambling or using/distributing drugs) nor is it clear that he is in any way “guilty” as the term may be defined by that paragraph.

Finally, it is worth noting that Paragraph 11 of the NFL Player Contract grants individual club owners the power to terminate any player contract if that player “is engaged in personal conduct, reasonably judged by [the club] to adversely affect or reflect on [the club].” This clause seems to be far broader than Paragraph 15 of the NFL Player Contract and may present grounds for the Steelers to terminate Roethlisberger’s contract. However, this clause extends only to a player’s team, and not to the Commissioner, who is acting on behalf of the league overall.

Thus, Ben Roethlisberger may have strong grounds to challenge Commissioner Goodell’s suspension in court (after a bizarre, required appeal to the Commissioner himself), either by alleging his suspension is arbitrary and capricious in light of the collective bargaining agreement, or arguing that the suspension is an illegal group boycott of his services under Section 1 of the Sherman Act (a claim that is far stronger in some circuits than others).

constitutional law: an overview

The broad topic of constitutional law deals with the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. As the Constitution is the foundation of the United States, constitutional law deals with some of the fundamental relationships within our society. This includes relationships among the states, the states and the federal government, the three branches (executive, legislative, judicial) of the federal government, and the rights of the individual in relation to both federal and state government. The area of judicial review is an important subject within Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution. Consequently, study of Constitutional Law focuses heavily on Supreme Court rulings.

While the topic also covers the interpretation and implementation of state constitutions, without qualification it is usually understood as referring to the Federal Constitution.

The Constitution establishes the three branches of the federal government and enumerates their powers. Article I establishes the House of Representatives and the Senate. See U.S. Const. art. I. Section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress. See U.S. Const. art. I., § 8. Congress has specifically used its power to regulate commerce (the commerce clause) with foreign nations and among the states to enact broad and powerful legislation throughout the nation. The sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to collect a national income tax without apportioning it among the states. See U.S. Const. amend. XVI. Section 9 of Article I prohibits Congress from taking certain actions. See U.S. Const. art. I, §9. For example, until the passage of the 16th Amendment Congress could not directly tax the people of the United States unless it was proportioned to the population of each state. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 9. Section 10 of Article I lists a number of specific actions that individual states may no longer take. U.S. Const. art. I, § 10.

Article II of the Constitution establishes the presidency and the executive branch of government. The powers of the President are not as clearly enumerated as those of the Congress. He is vested with the "executive" power by section 1. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. Section 2 establishes him as the "commander and chief" and grants him power to give pardons, except in cases of impeachment, for offenses against the United States. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 2. Section 3 provides the power to make treaties (with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate) and the power to nominate ambassadors, ministers, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 3.

The role of the Supreme Court and the rest of the judicial branch of the federal government is covered by Article III. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2.

Article V of the Constitution provides the procedures to be followed to amend the Constitution. See U.S. Const. article V. Currently, the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times (including the Bill of Rights).

Article VI of The United States Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land." See The Supremacy Clause: U.S. Constitution, art. VI, § 2. Furthermore, all federal, state, and local officials must take an oath to support the Constitution. This means that state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties. The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it. That power is not itself explicitly set out in the Constitution but was declared to exist by the Supreme Court in the decision of McCulloch v. Maryland.

The first section of the fourth article of the Constitution contains the "full faith and credit clause." See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. This clause provides that each state must recognize the public acts (laws), records, and judicial proceeding of the other states. The Fourth Article also guarantees that a citizen of a state be entitled to the "privileges and immunities" in every other state. See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2.

The power of the federal government is not absolute. The tenth Amendment specifically states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." See U.S. Const. amend. X.

Specific provisions of the Constitution protect the rights of the individual from interference by the federal and state governments. The first ten amendments, called the Bill of Rights, were enacted in 1791 to provide a check on the new federal government. See The Bill Of Rights: U.S. Const. amendments I - X. The first eight amendments provide protection of some of the most fundamental rights of the individual. For example, the First Amendment protects the fundamental civil rights of free speech, press and assembly. See First Amendment Rights. Subsequent amendments have also broadened the protection afforded the rights of the individual. The 13th Amendment made slavery illegal. See U.S. Const. amend. XIII. The fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from abridging "the rights and immunities" of any citizen without due process of law. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as affording citizens protection from interference by the state with almost all of the rights listed in the first eight amendments. The exceptions are the right to bear arms in the second Amendment, the 5th Amendment guarantee of a grand jury in criminal prosecutions, and the right to a jury for a civil trial under the seventh Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees the equal protection of the laws. See Equal Protection. The right to vote is protected by the 15th Amendment ("right to vote shall not be denied... on account of race."), the 19th Amendment (guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of sex), and the 24th Amendment (extending the right to vote to those who are 18 years of age). See U.S. Const. Amendments XV, XIX, and XXIV.

Inmate's Frivolous Legal Actions

[Note: Though sometimes absurd, don't loose sight of the fact that
many prisoner's suits are meritorious and have led to significant legal
gains, or that they can be an important (sometimes the only) balance
against otherwise unrestrained powers of prison officials or
legislators. A number of such cases are at the end of this file --
Staff]
-----

* (U.S. v. Bottoson): Bottoson, convicted of federal firearms charges
and postal fraud, and faced state court charges for the kidnapping and
murder of a female postal employee. The defendant sought post-conviction
relief in the federal court, and in a letter to the court said: "This
defendant is accused of murder in the state of Florida, this defendant
goes to a church which believes in the raising of the dead, which is the
defendants right under the Constitution of the United States. This
defendant wrote a letter ... stating his religious belief that if the
body of the deceased [postal employee] were to be taken from the ground
and brought into the defendants church the Lord of life would bring back
the deceased. ... The defendant feels his 'Religious Freedom' under the
constitution were violated, anyone has the right to his/her own belief
under Freedom of Religion. Defendant now asks this court to uphold his
rights under the constitution of the United States."

* A suit by a prisoner who claimed that the Department of Corrections
planted an electronic device in his brain. (Calif.)

* (Moody v. Miller): A Texas inmate filed twenty-two complaints,
alleging civil rights violations, including violations of his right to
use the telephone, his right not to be required to walk barefoot across
a cold floor, his right not to be issued pants that are too small.

* A suit by Lee Barnett challenging the stamping of his mail to
indicate it was sent from a state prison. (Calif.)

* A Georgia inmate filed petition alleging that he was a victim of a
"Behavior Modification Program" conducted by the prison, and that the
"controlling system is a watchful eye of the State through electronic
suveillance of the human body ..." The system, he claimed, "combs" his
body and "wantonly monitors and picks up sounds and voices, but is also
tuned directly to plaintiff's brain." The plaintiff sought $500,000 in
damages, claiming the State had "no right without any permission from
plaintiff to probe his mind and body with electric current or parabolic
sound waves." (Jones v. Ault)

* A prisoner in Idaho filed suit after guards refused to "tidy up" his
cell after a search.

* (Gordon v. N.J.): The Inmate, a "certified candidate for the office
of President of the U.S." filed suit claiming "that he was unlawfully
arrested in December 1975 while campaigning in the New Hampshire
primary, and unlawfully jailed until March 15, 1976, and accordingly
claimed that the 1976 presidential election was fraudulent and that new
"legal" elections had to be held for the office of President. He also
claimed that "Had there been a free legal 1976 Presidential election, he
would now be the President."

* Beaty v. Bury: A death-row inmate sues corrections officials for
taking away his Gameboy electronic game. (Arizona)

* (Demos v. Kincheloe...): This inmate filed 184 separate actions in a
little more than three yearsincluding ones alleging: all Washington
State law is unconstitutional because statutes subsequent to the 1881
code were not ratified by Congress; a claim for damages because prison
guards refused to address him by his Islamic name; a request to require
Congress to redraft language in the Declaration of Independence; a claim
of unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex because the State would
not honor his request to be transferred to an all-women correctional
institution; and a claim that the U.S. Treasury Dept violated his civil
rights by discontinuing the practice of backing treasury notes by
silver.

* Trice v. Reynolds: Ex-chef sues because the food was bad, yet he
wanted bigger portions. (Oklahoma)

* Searight v. N.J.: Searight claimed he was taken to the Eye, Ear and
Speech Clinic, where the State of New Jersey unlawfully injected him in
the left eye with a radium electric beam, and that someone now talks to
him on the inside of his brain. He sought $12 million in damages

* Murderer sues for $25,000, claiming a "defective" haircut resulted in
lost sleep, headaches, and chest pains. (New York)

* Sir Keenan Kester Cofield an Alabame inmate was creative. Besides
filing over a hundred actions against prison officials in various
Alabama courts.. One court said "Cofield is an overly litigious fellow.
Among the many suits he has brought from his jail cell are suits against
both McDonald's and Burger King for using pork fat in the oil used to
fry french fried potatoes, thereby poisoning his body, mind and soul. He
has brought at least three libel actions against various newspapers for
prematurely printing his obituary. He also brought an action against
Coca-Cola alleging that a bottle of Coke he drank was filled with ground
glass. He has threatened or sued various restaurants in various cities
alleging food poisoning; it was later discovered that Cofield was
incarcerated at the time he supposedly was eating in these restaurants."

* Young v. Murphy: Prisoner sues for not receiving scheduled parole
hearing, though he was out on escape when the hearing was held.
(Mississippi)

* Inmate, calling himself a sports fanatic, complains that, as a result
of cruel and unusual punishment, he was forced to miss the NFL playoffs,
especially between Miami and San Diego, San Diego and Pittsburgh, and
Dallas and San Francisco. (Arkansas)

* Carter v. Ingalls: Inmate filed suit against the Georgia State Prison
hospital administrator, alleging receiving improper medication for his
ailments, which included "blue ink and glass in the General sensory
area" of his brain, along with amnesia and failing eyesight and claimed
the proper medication was "Cocane of Porcane." In a letter to the
court,he claimed the hospital had put the blue ink and glass in his
brain, had put his head in a sack with a rattlesnake which bit his face
and cracked his skull, and that he was forced to have sexual contact
with the snake.  In a separate action against the warden and an inmate,
Carter alleged that the warden had "gave hisreliable informers fake
Pictures of me haveing [sic] sex with a dog ..."

* Brittaker v. Rowland: Inmate says his meal was in poor condition. He
claims his sandwich was soggy and his cookie was broken. (Calif)

* Beverly v. Groose: Suit says inmates working in prison law library
should be paid same rate as attorneys. (Missouri)

--- Florida A.G.'s Top 10 Frivolous Prison Inmate Lawsuits

10) Prisoner claims discrimination because he was not given a Department
of Corrections raincoat like other inmates. (Walker v. DOC)

9) Prisoner sues to be served fresh rather than reconstituted milk.
(Gerteisen v. Bowers)

8) Prisoner sues for right to conduct martial arts sparring and full-
contact fighting as part of his religion. (Gibson v. Miller)

7) Prisoner sues over being served three cheese sandwiches a day for one
week while in disciplinary confinement. (Derks v. Perrin, Jr.)

6) Prisoner sues because he was required to eat off of a paper plate.
(Procup v. Strickland, et al)

5) Prisoner who has filed more than 140 actions in state and federal
court sues over finding gristle in his turkey leg. (Attwood v. Bowers)

4) Prisoner sues to be served fruit juice at meals and three pancakes
instead of two. (Spradley v.Rathman)

3) Prisoner who murdered five people sues after lightning knocks out the
prison's TV satellite dish and he must watch network programs which he
says contain violence, profanity and other objectionable material.
(Jackson v. Barton)

2) Prisoner sues to be given Reeboks, Adidas, Pony or Avia brand
hightops rather than inferior brand sneakers issued by prison. (Brown v.
Singletary)

1) Prisoner who lost a lawsuit claiming his rights as a Muslim were
violated because the prison put "essence of swine" in his food announces
his conversion to Satanism and sues for tarot cards and doves' blood.
(Marshall v. DOC)

-- Suits By Harry Franklin, An Inmate In The Oregon State Penitentiary

* Franklin claimed he was denied daily half-hour out-of-cell walks. The
judge found this claim surprising, because in other filings Franklin
alleged he was crippled.

* He claimed prison guards abridged his "right to be supplied" with T-
shirts, a claim which had previously been dismissed.

* He claimed he did not receive "some unspecified medical treatment
because an officer neglected to wake him from his afternoon nap,"
causing him "mental frustration," which the judge learned meant "that
someone got his dander up."

* Franklin sued prison guards who he alleged "wear clopping heels on
their boots, which causes plaintiff to feel he's in a Natsy [sic] prison
camp."

* He asserted that his right to free speech was violated because prison
staff discliplined him "for commenting on a guard's allegedly out-of-
wedlock birth."

* He sought $3 million in damages for "mental frustration" he suffered
when a Portland television station allegedly misidentified a "14 wheeler
tractor and trailer rig" as an "18 wheeler."

* Franklin launched constitutional challenges to Oregon statutes which
denied felons the ability to be candidates for public office or to vote
during their incarceration.

* Franklin brought up some Oregon history in one of his claims. In
1923, the D'Autermont boys robbed a train in the Sikiyou Mountains,
killing several railroadmen. According to Franklin, since the incident,
trains blew their whistles as they pass the penitentiary in the early
morning hours, violating his "right to public piece [sic]." The judge
found that "Even assuming the railroads do carry on such a heinous
practice, it would not violate one of Franklin's federally protected
rights."

* He sued "Ronal Regan and his constiuants [sic]" for $8.9 million for
"violation of undue restraint" in connection with an Oregon seatbelt
law. he believed the law was underinclusive because it did not apply to
bicycles and horses as well as cars.

* He complained that he lost sleep on three occasions because the
penitentiary's steam heater pipes snap and pop, and that he endured
"Harassment by Water" because the prison authority's over-watering of
the prison yard in the summer made it difficult for him to find a dry
place to lie down.

* He claimed the pentitentiary's cleanliness rules violated his
"constitutional right to accumulate an unlimited number of newspaper
clippings."

* Franklin was also a reformer, suing Oregon's governor, attorney
general, legislators, and judges for failing "to pass Legislation which
would keep our System such as The Courts, &/or Jails from being so
corrupt."

* He complained that the penitentiary food service bakes desserts in
aluminum rather than stainless steel pans, and that he could not eat
from aluminum pans because the "scrapings" from the pans would "settle
in [his] Human Joints."

===================================================

Top Ten Non-Frivolous Lawsuits Filed By Prisoners

Prison Guards routinely sexually assault female prisoners.  One officer
sexually fondles a prisoner who is receiving medical care in the
infirmary, forces her to perform oral sex, then rapes her.  Another
officer forces a prisoner to perform oral sex while she empties trash as
part of a work detail.  Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia, D.C.
(1994) (post trial order).

Prisoners restrained in handcuffs and shackles have their heads bashed
into walls and floors by prison guards, their bodies repeatedly kicked
and hit with batons, their teeth knocked out, their jaws fractured,
their limbs broken, and their bodies burned with scalding water.  Madrid
v. Gomez, Cal. (1995) (post trial order).

Confined youth are routinely beaten by facility staff, staff trafficking
in illegal drugs is rampant, and sexual relations between staff and
confined youth is commonplace.  D.B. v. Commonwealth, Penn. (1993)
(consent decree).

Dozens of women. some as young as 16, are forced to have sex with prison
guards, maintenance workers, and a prison chaplain.  Many become
pregnant and are coerced by prison staff to have abortions.  Cason v.
Seckinger, Ga. (1994) (consent decree).

A 17 year-old boy, in jail for failing to pay $73 in traffic fines, is
tortured for 14 hours and finally murdered in his cell by other
prisoners.  Another teenage had been beaten unconscious by the same
prisoners several days earlier.  Yellen v. Ada County, Idaho (1985)
(consent decree).

Prison officials ignore warnings by the Commissioner of Health and fail
to implement basic tuberculosis detection and control procedures.  Over
400 prisoners are infected in a single prison.  Austin v. Dept. of
Corrections, Penn. (1992) (post hearing order).

Prison staff engage in sexual relations with female prisoners and allow
male inmates to enter the prisons to engage in forcible intercourse with
the women prisoners.  Hamilton v. Morial, La. (1995) (consent decree
pending court approval).

Several suicidal children are transferred to the state mental hospital
where they are placed, naked or in paper gowns, in four point
restraints, hands and feet found to the four corners of their beds, and
then forcibly injected with psychotropic drugs as part of "aversive
therapy."  Robert K. v. Bell. S.C. (1984) (consent decree).

A prisoner gives birth on the floor of the jail without medical
assistance three hours after informing prison staff that she was in
active labor.  Other prisoners have deformed or stillborn babies as a
result of receiving almost no pregnancy-related medical care.  Yeager v.
Smith and Harris v. McCarthy, Cal. (1989) (consent decree).

Single person cells house four or five prisoners with mattresses on the
floor soaked by overflowing toilets, the drinking water is contaminated
with sewage, and prisoners' cells are infested with rats.  Carty v.
Farrelly, U.S.V.Is. (1994) (consent decree).

Letter to a Young Law Student

Don't go to law school: But if you must, take my advice.

I started law school 10 years ago this week. While you may be aware that I consider the law to be mostly very funny, I take law school pretty seriously. When I started law school I had no idea what I was in for: maybe some hybrid of debate camp and LA Law. In actual fact, for me, law school was a cross between boot camp and a cave.

Some small fraction of every incoming One-L class is comprised of people destined to take the legal world by storm. These are the people who intend to get straight A's, outline every case, make law review, clerk for a Reagan appointee, and spend the rest of their days in a leviathan corporate law firm where they will do whatever it is that's done in such places. These are the people law school was built for: people who think in zero-sum terms about everything—grades, jobs, and salaries. I wish them the very best of luck for the next three years. This advice is not for them.

This advice for the rest of you—who applied to law school simply because you took the LSATs, and who took the LSATs simply because the MCATs were too hard. This advice is for the people who graduated college with the generalized sense that they ought to be doing good works on this planet but were uncertain how to go about it. In short, this advice is for those of you who, like me, went to law school hoping that the experience would be stimulating and/or mind-expanding; a liberal-arts grad school for political people. Because you are doubtless trying to memorize the "blue book" this week, this advice is pre-outlined for your convenience.

CLEO Schedules Mid-Winter Academic Enhancement Seminar and Bar Prep Seminar for January

WASHINGTON, D.C. – January 8-10, 2010, the Council on Legal Education Opportunity (CLEO) will host its annual Mid-Winter Academic Enhancement Seminar for first year law students and the Mid-Winter Bar Preparation Seminar for third year law students. Both seminars will be held at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City in Arlington, Virginia. More than 300 students combined are expected to attend the seminars

The Mid-Winter Academic Enhancement Seminar is specifically designed to reinforce analytical, reading, writing, studying and test-taking skills that were introduced in CLEO’s pre-law preparatory programs (Summer Institute and Attitude Is Essential Seminar) for first year law students. The purpose of the seminar is to improve student retention, graduation and bar passage rates. The seminar presenters include law school professors and legal practitioners who address various topics such as: preparing for law school examinations, developing legal writing skills, time management strategies, developing good study habits and class preparation.

The Mid-Winter Bar Prep Seminar is designed for third year CLEO Fellows and Associates who intend the take the July or February bar examination after graduation. The primary objective of this seminar is to reinforce analytical, writing and test-taking skills necessary to pass the bar examination. The seminar focuses on the bar application process and the three major components of the bar exam: Multi-state Examination (MBE), Essay Questions (MEE) and Multi-State Performance Test (MPT). The seminar presenters include law professors, bar examiners and former CLEO Fellows and Associates who have passed the bar examination.
In addition to building academic skills, the seminars also provide an excellent opportunity for the law students to network with their peers and CLEO alumni from around the country. For more information about the Mid-Winter Seminars or other seminars offered by CLEO, please visit www.cleodiverCITYnetwork.org.

Both seminars are funded by the U.S. Department of Education through the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program.

Background:

In 1968, the Council on Legal Education Opportunity (CLEO) was founded to expand opportunities for minority and low-income students to attend law school. CLEO is committed to diversifying the legal profession by expanding legal education opportunities to minority, low-income and disadvantaged groups. Since its inception, more than 8,000 students have participated in CLEO's pre-law and law school academic support programs, successfully matriculated through law school, passed the bar exam and joined the legal profession.

Judge removed from Ohio serial killings case

(CNN) -- The Ohio Supreme Court has removed a Cleveland judge from a case after attorneys for serial killer suspect Anthony Sowell accused her of bias as a result of postings about their client on a newspaper website.

Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold was removed from the case Thursday, and it has been turned over to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court for reassignment to another judge.

Sowell faces murder, attempted murder, rape and attempted rape charges in connection with the killings of 11 women and attacks on five other women. He was arrested after the bodies of the slain women were found at his house last fall, and he has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

Read the indictment (PDF)

Sowell's attorneys, John P. Parker and Rufus Sims, filed an affidavit Monday seeking Saffold's disqualification, according to court documents.

They alleged that Saffold had "improper," ex parte conversations with the former judge on the case, Timothy McGinty, and a newspaper reporter from The Cleveland Plain Dealer. They also said that e-mails from the judge's personal and office accounts allegedly were sources of information for a March 26 Plain Dealer article and that the judge has a financial interest in the case because she and her daughter have sued the newspaper over the apparent use of her e-mails as sourcing for that article.

The defense said someone using the moniker "lawmiss" posted derogatory comments on the newspaper's website about attorney Sims and Sowell.

Those comments were linked to Saffold's account, but she has denied posting them and has said her court computer was not used to make them.

Saffold could not be reached for comment Thursday.

However, she filed a response to the defense, insisting she harbors no bias in the case and denying she had any improper conversations about it with others. She also said her civil suit against the newspaper has nothing to do with the case against the defendant.

Still, acting Chief Justice Paul E. Pfeifer found the concerns over Saffold's e-mail accounts and the public postings particularly troubling.

"Although Judge Saffold denied that she was the source of these online comments, she has admitted that the comments originated from the online account shared by her and members of her family and that the comments were posted by her daughter," Pfeifer said in his ruling.

He said the "unfortunate postings" impede Saffold's ability to resolve legal issues in the case that would appear to be objective and fair.

While there's no evidence of Saffold's actual bias, Pfeifer said, "disqualification is appropriate where the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial system is at stake."