A Comedic De-Briefing of the Law: 2021

A Comedic De-Briefing of the Law: 2021
  

Course Description

This class is a comprehensive de-briefing of the law.  Starting with ethics, we review the crazy predicaments some ethically-challenged attorneys have found themselves.  You will have to decide based on the severity of the facts and the relevant model rule, would you take a deal for that violation. While Hollywood might not be setting the finest examples when it comes to actual morals and ethics, they do a good job of exhibiting legal ethics.  We will explore the Model Rules through the eyes of Hollywood.  From Hollywood, it’s not a long journey to our legal rock stars – the Nine! The Supreme Court, aka, the Real League of Justice, has been busy exerting their super hero legal powers.  We will review recent landmark Supreme Court case.  For example, Masterpiece Cakeshop and stale white wedding cake: discrimination or a valid excuse to skip your cousin’s wedding? Finally, we will take a countdown of the Top 10 Wacky cases.  You might be surprised what you will learn about legal strategy from these headline cases.

Introduction

Deal or No Deal: Ethics on Trial (ethics)

• Review of Model Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.15, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 7.1, 7.3, 8.3, 8.4
• In re Felix Anthony Dejean IV, case no. 16-DB-069 (chest bumping opposing counsel)
• In re: Michael Peterson (attorney accused of forging judges signature on order)
•  Jackson v. Bank of America, case no. 16-16685 (11th Cir.) (very, very lengthy complaint)
• In re: Howard Shipley, case no. 14D2827 (U.S. Supreme Court)
• In re: Brett Klein (Judge who ordered attorneys be paid in $10 coupons to a woman’s store).
• In re: M. Scott Vayer, 2018 NY Slip Op 02283, 160 AD3d 232 (Attorney suspended 7 years ago forgot and was suspended again for practicing law)
• In re: Jamie Casino (review of attorney ads and Rule 7.1)
• Pi-Net International Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase (Attorney filed brief in excess of 14,000 words by deleting spaces).
• Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee v. Larry Edward Parrish, (Attorney suspended 6 months for saying judge took bribes)
• Law Society of Ontario v. Goldfinger, (attorney advertised that he had the Midas touch).
• In re Trombley, (Misused trust funds of step sister)
• In re McMillan, case no. 2016-01327 (NY Supreme Court) (Misused funds from mothers estate to the detriment of sister)
• In re Mason (Attorney hired prostitute and Rule 8.4)
• In re David Elliott, commission case no. 2018PR00056 (Attorney was dilatory in registering cars).
• In re: Ballentine, (Suspended for 2 years for filing taxes late and a criminal conviction for offering taxable goods for sale without a valid sales tax license).
• In re Swindle, (Attorney threatened to sue school for suspending kindergarten student).
• In re Hartke, case no. 15-BG-984 (2016) (Attorney suspended 6 months for sleeping during CLE class)
• In re: Pearson, case no. 15-BD-031 (Attorney sued dry cleaner 67 million for lost pants)
• Text a lawyer plans
• In re: Steele, case no. 49S00-1509-DI-527 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2015) (Gave away $150,000 retainer as spot bonuses to employees).
• In re: Kurzman (case no. A14-1416) (Insinuated witness molested boys)
• In re: Quitschau, case no. 2017PR00084 (Attorney created fake dating profile for opposing counsel)
• In re: Salvador Perricone, case no. 17-DB-016 (Louisiana) (Recommended disbarment for blog posts by prosecutor).
• In re Adams, case no. 2017AP1240 (Wisconsin) (Blogging rules to scare you)
• In re Gross, case no. 18-72-A1 (Interim suspension for attorney who gambles away money for marijuana business)
• In re Benbow, (attorney and client caught in a sex act on videotape at courtroom)
• In re Gaubert, case no. 17-DB-041 (Taxi sex leads to discipline)
• In re Horton, (judge serves jail time for throwing lavish party with campaign funds).
• In re: Robert Ratiner, (Childish behavior directed to opposing counsel, including throwing paper wads, threatening witness with jail time, kicked a table leg repeatedly during trial, and asked opposing counsel to remove “that large booger hanging from your nose?”)

Striving to be the best of the best of the best, Sir! Leaning how to be a legal superstar from Hollywood (Professionalism (1.0 hour) and ethics (40 minutes)

• What is professionalism and how is it different than ethics?
• Professionalism – striving to be the best of the best of the best!
• Ethics – “Here lies a lawyer about whom no complaints were made” epithet.  
• Chief Justice Harold Clarke’s distinction
• “To my clients, I offer faithfulness, competence, diligence, and good judgment. I will strive to represent you as I would want to be represented and to be worthy of your trust.”
• WWGPD? 
• “To the opposing parties and their counsel, I offer fairness, integrity, and civility. I will seek reconciliation and, if we fail, I will strive to make our dispute a dignified one.”
• “To the courts, and other tribunals, and to those who assist them, I offer respect, candor, and courtesy. I will strive to do honor to the search for justice.” 
• “To my colleagues in the practice of law, I offer concern for your welfare. I will strive to make our association a professional friendship.”
• “To the profession, I offer assistance. I will strive to keep our business a profession and our profession a calling in the spirit of public service.”
• To the public and our systems of justice, I offer service. I will strive to improve the law and our legal system, to make the law and our legal system available to all, and to seek the common good through the representation of my clients.
• Three Professionalism Tips from Hollywood for 2020
• To Kill a Mockingbird – pro bono to a better world!
• OJ Trial vs. Guyger Trial
• What role can pro bono play in fostering diversity?
• What fears/hesitations do you have with pro bono work?
•  Does justice have a price tag?
• My Cousin Vinny – being a mentor
• Dangers of taking a case as a learning experience
• Pros/cons
• How can an attorney mentor help alleviate these fears?
• Few Good Men – How do you approach the practice of law? Type A or Type Z?
• Parting words from Honest Abe and Gregory Peck

 Supreme Court Review

• Bostock v. Clayton County
• California v. Texas
• Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee
• Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
• Iancu v. Brunetti
• Mitchell v. Wisconsin
• Quarles v. United States
• Kisor v. Wilkie
• Return Mail v. Postal Service
• Apple v. Pepper
• National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra
• Janus v. AFSCME
• Gill v. Whitford
• Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
• South Dakota v. Wayfair
• Collins v. Virginia
• McCoy v. Louisiana
• Murphy v. NCAA
• Hawaii v. Trump

Top 10 Wacky Cases

• State v. Lawrence – restitution for smuggling gold nuggets in his rectum
• United States v. Chris Collins – dumbest insider trading case in history!
• Fen-phen litigation – using settlement proceeds to purchase a race horse
• Bollea v. Gawker – Right to privacy of private parts
• Deflategate – the Federal Arbitration Act and Arbitrator’s award
• Cynthia Kissner and Leonard Werner v. McDonalds – a person was forced to buy quarter-pounders with cheese
• Sugawara v. Pepsico, case no. 2:08-CV-01335 (lawsuit against crunch-berries because no actual berries)
• United States v. Bishop, (Continuance sought based on eclipse)
• In re: Subway Footlong Sandwich Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, case no. 16-1652 (7th Cir.) (Class action setlement rejected because clients received nothing of value).
• Morland-Jones v. Taerk, case no. CV-12-463877 (Ontario Superior Court) (Parties needed a kindergarten teacher)
• Asghar v. Alon, 2018 ONSC 3342 (CanLII) (Plaintiff loses defamation case by being such a jerk that court assumes defendants statements have to be true).
• Nassau County v. Pericles Linardos, (Guy was fined $20,000 for chopping trees in his own yard)

Disclaimer:  All views or opinions expressed by any presenter during the course of this CLE is that of the presenter alone and not an opinion of the Oklahoma Bar Association, the employers, or affiliates of the presenters unless specifically stated. Additionally, any materials, including the legal research, are the product of the individual contributor, not the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Oklahoma Bar Association makes no warranty, express or implied, relating to the accuracy or content of these materials.