A Comedic De-Briefing of the Law: 2022-2023
A Comedic Review of the Supreme Court, Legal Ethics, & Headline Cases
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.
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 while 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.
Agenda:
Deal or No Deal: Ethics on Trial (Ethics)
In this section, we will review the Model Rules of Professional Conduct by seeing how they were applied in various recent attorney discipline cases. We will include the following model rules and cases:
· 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 Prewitt (mixing romance with business)
· Alex Jones’ texting case (Lawyer accidently sent thousands of privileged texst messages to opposing counsel in Alex Jones defamation case.
· In re: Chung (lawyer disciplined for creating fake news, then citing to it in court)
· In re: Gundy (judge sanctioned for continually showing up to work late)
· In re: Kolb (lawyer disciplined for making demand for future pain and suffering on behalf of client who died 9 months ago)
· In re: Hegg (attorney not reinstated after murder for hire scheme)
· In re: Jackson (attorney disciplined for tweeting confidential information)
· In re: Elstein (lawyer disciplined for staging fake depositions)
· In re: Lynum (attorney disciplined for disparaging judge on social media)
· In re: Sablone (attorney disciplined for double-billing)
· In re: Thollander (attorney disciplined for saying “gadzooks” in open court)
· In re: Calpin (lawyer disciplined for posting negative review of client on Yelp)
· 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 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)
· 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: John Murphy (judge disciplined for erratic behavior in court, including inviting defense counsel to back hallway for a fight)
· In re: Anthony Baker (lawyer sanctioned for throwing a tantrum in court)
· In re: Adams and Bell (judges disciplined for drunken excursion to strip club and White Castle during judicial conference)
· In re: Harrod III (attorney disbarred for faking signatures on a will and lying about it during probate proceedings)
· In re: Sutton (attorney disciplined for calling the judge a cockroach and submitting false billing)
· In re: Avenatti (attorney discripline in extortion case)
· In re: Cohen (attorney discipline in perjury case)
· In re: Thomas Cope (attorney faced ethics probe for shooing racoon off of boat)
· In re: Diaco (Lawyers disbarred for concocting litigation strategy to get opposing counsel drunk and busted for a DUI)
Hollywood Professionalism (Professionalism and Ethics)
In this section, we review the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility as those rules are depicted in popular movies. We also analyze the difference between professionalism and ethics, encouraging attorneys to view their career as a professional calling. During this class, we will review the following Model Rules:
· To Kill a Mockingbird (Model Rule 2.1 – Advisor)
· 12 Angry Men (Model Rule 3.5 – Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal)
· My Cousin Vinny (Model Rule 1.1 – Competence)
· Anatomy of a Murder (Model Rule 3.3 – Candor towards the Tribunal)
· Witness for the Prosecution (Model Rule 3.8 – Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor)
· Philadelphia (Model Rule 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Counsel)
· Presumed Innocent (Model Rule 8.4 – Misconduct)
· And Justice for All (Model Rule 1.2 – Scope of Representation)
· As time allows, we will also cover situations depicted in Better Call Saul, L.A. Law, Suits, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, The Practice, How to Get Away with Murder, Night Cour and Trial and Error.
Supreme Court Review
The Supreme Court has been extremely busy of late. Love them or hate them, we must learn from them. During this session, we review the recent Supreme Court decisions and how those holdings will impact future cases.
· Dobbs v. Jackson,
o Right to privacy v. Right to life
· NY State Rifle Assoc. v Bruen
o 2nd Amendment and self defense
· Iancu v. Brunetti
o Copyright, the F bomb, and viewpoint discrimination
· Van Buren v. United States,
o Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
· California v. Texas,
o Standing to challenge ACA
· Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
o Free exercise clause and non-discrimination provisions
· Ramirez v. Collier,
o Free Exercise Clause and Prisoner’s rights
· Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
o Free speech rights in public schools v. School’s right to discipline
· Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
o Fifth Amendment applied to unions
· Lange v. California
o Fourth Amendment and homes
· Collins v. Yellen,
o Presidential powers v. Congressional powers
· NCAA v. Alston
o Anti-trust and amateurism rules
· Mitchell v. Wisconsin
o 4th Amendment and unconscious consent
· Clayton v. Bostock County
o Title VII and sex discrimination
o Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
· 2022-2023 term – cases to watch
Top 10 Wacky Cases
During this session, attorneys will learn how to litigate headline cases and the trial strategies that won the day … and lost the day. We will cover the following cases:
· Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard (Defamation)
· State v. Elizabeth Holmes (Fraud and SEC violations)
· Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio (person arrested for operating a parody site of police department)
· State v. Lawrence – restitution for smuggling gold nuggets in his rectum
· Ohio v. Bryant (whether defendant’s foul-mouth outburst justified increase in prison sentence)
· Chaturvedi v. City of Moradabad (a 22 year old lawsuit over 25 cents)
· State v. Brophy (“How to Murder Your Husband” author found guilty of murdering husband)
· In re: Brittney Spears (attorney ethics meets celebrity law)
· State v. Brittney Griner (navigating forgeign law and policy)
· 22 Masseuses v. Deshaun Watson
· 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
· Phil Mickelson v. PGA (anti-trust and golf)
· State v. Kyle Rittenhouse (self-defense is an offense?)
· John Gruden v. NFL (defamation lawsuits and tortious interference with contract)
· 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 settlement rejected because clients received nothing of value).
About the Presenter: Joel Oster, Esq.,
Joel is a seasoned litigator and regular speaker to attorneys and non-attorneys alike. He currently is in private practice in Kansas City, specializing in constitutional litigation, campaign finance, sports law and appellate advocacy. He previously served as senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom at its Kansas City Regional Service Center. While at ADF, he was counsel for the Town of Greece, New York in the landmark case Galloway v. Greece. Joel argued the case before the United States District Court for the Western District of New York and the Second Circuit, and was part of the legal team presenting the case to the U.S. Supreme Court where they successfully defended the Town against a challenge to its practice of opening its sessions with an invocation.
Oster regularly litigates First Amendment issues. As lead counsel in Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Obama, Oster skillfully defended the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer against an Establishment Clause challenge. Before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, he successfully defended the right of an organization to have a pro-life specialty license plate in Missouri in Roach v. Stouffer. In Wigg v. Sioux Falls School District, he successful represented an elementary school teacher in obtaining equal access to school facilities after contract time after she was denied that right based on the viewpoint of her speech. In addition, Oster has defended various churches based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, against discriminatory zoning codes and regulations. Oster also has defended various individuals, corporations, and political committees against discriminatory and unconstitutional campaign finance regulations.
Joel has also spoken to thousands of attorneys across the United States and has learned from their successful and unsuccessful legal practices. Joel brings this practical perspective to all his seminars.
Oster earned his J.D. in 1997 from the University of Kansas School of Law. Oster is admitted to the bar in Kansas, Missouri, Florida, and numerous federal courts.
Joel is a seasoned litigator and regular speaker to attorneys and non-attorneys alike. He currently is in private practice in Kansas City, specializing in constitutional litigation, campaign finance, sports law and appellate advocacy.
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.