Federal Civil Rules Handbook (31st ed.)

This is our 31st edition of the Federal Civil Rules Handbook. Our founding goal for the Handbook has remained constant over these many years—to assist practicing lawyers, judges, and scholars in locating quick, reliable answers to pressing questions in federal civil practice. From the inception, the Federal Civil Rules Handbook has aimed to bridge the ravine between a simple, austere reprinting of the Rules, and costly but exhaustive multi volume treatises exploring the Rules in comprehensive depth. The handbook occupies the middle-ground – a reprinting of the Rules accompanied by a sensibly comprehensive compendium of practical, quickly-accessed distillations of the Rules in operation; an affordable, annually current, predictably organized, single-volume, easily referenced tool for understanding and applying the Federal Civil Rules. Co-authored with Professor Steven Baicker-McKee of Pittsburgh, Pa

Federal Practice & Procedure - CIVIL RULES: Quick Reference Guide

With this Volume 12B, the principal text of the Federal Civil Rules Handbook is incorporated into the Nation\u27s leading scholarly treatise on federal civil practice, Federal Practice & Procedure as written by Professors Wright and Miller. Co-authored with Professor Steven Baicker-McKee of Pittsburgh, Pa

Taking on the Ethical Obligation of Technology Competency in the Academy: An Empirical Analysis of Practice-Based Technology Training Today

Today’s lawyers must be technologically competent, per ABA Model Rule 1.1. Law schools and law firms were keenly aware of this expectation and summarily responded. While law firms offered more professional development opportunities, law schools began offering a variety of courses focusing on technology skills. These courses have increased and evolved over time as the curriculum has changed with the technology. Parts I and II present the evolution of ethical requirements surrounding legal technology competency and offers a description of the lawyering competency models most prevalently discussed today. Parts III and IV review data about technology trends seen at the most innovative law firms and examine curricular offerings in technology or technology-related fields at ABA-accredited law schools. This article then offers a comparative analysis between multiple empirical studies to determine whether key areas of technology training were reflected in the legal education curriculum and were sufficient to meet the ethical expectations set by the ABA. Lastly, this article recommends that law schools should increase technology instruction to meet ethical standards. These recommendations should be considered for implementation at ABA-accredited schools in light of ABA Standard 301(a), the forecasted changes planned by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), as well as the new virtual practice landscape set by the COVID 19 pandemic

The Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education: Achieving Student Body Diversity in All Levels of Education

This Article addresses the legal standard by which school admissions programs may be judged and validated as school districts struggle to achieve student body diversity. As the Supreme Court recognized in its seminal decision, Brown v. Board of Education, education “is the very foundation of good citizenship.” Twenty years after that case was decided, Thurgood Marshall, who had argued that separate was not equal in the Brown case, observed as a Justice of the Court that “unless our children begin to learn together, there is little hope that our people will ever learn to live together.” Because achieving student body diversity cannot be separated from a consideration of the race of the students, school admission programs face a constitutional challenge, whether they consider race as part of its selection process or do not consider the racial composition of their student bodies and are, therefore, not diverse. Taking center stage in this struggle is Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, a highly selective magnet school that was recently sued by a coalition of parents of Asian America students challenging changes it made to its admissions policy. . A federal district court has invalidated the program on equal protection grounds, and an appeal of that decision is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth District. Although the Supreme Court has twice upheld race-conscious plans used by colleges and universities, there is some question whether the Court will apply this precedent to elementary, middle, or high school plans or whether the Court will continue to allow race to be considered in any admissions program at any level of education. In light of the importance of diversity in this nation’s classrooms, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, the principles established by the Supreme Court upholding race-conscious admissions plans should continue to apply and should not be limited to colleges and universities but should apply with equal force to elementary, middle, and high school admissions programs. If these principles are not applied to these programs or if the Supreme Court invalidates any consideration of race in admissions programs at all levels of education, then the late Justice Ginsburg’s warning will come to pass: Schools will not stop considering every characteristic of applicants, including race, to achieve student body diversity but will instead resort to “winks, nods, and disguises” to achieve that goal. If the principles are applied, and schools are permitted to consider race as one factor of many for each applicant, then the Brown v. Board of Education legacy will endure, and schools can work openly to achieve diversity at all levels of education

A Singular Test for Automatic Perfection of Accounts and Payment Intangibles

Article 9 grants automatic perfection to assignments of accounts and payment intangibles that do not constitute a significant amount of the assignor’s outstanding accounts or payment intangibles. Although the concept of significance appears easy to implement, courts have created disparate tests to determine significance. Nevertheless, each of those tests either creates inefficiencies in application or is disjointed from the statutory text. This Article argues courts should interpret significance is a manner congruent with the first principles of Article 9 and hold that significance only exists when a transaction is either objectively or subjectively intended to further commercial financing

A Singular Test for Automatic Perfection of Accounts and Payment Intangibles

Article 9 grants automatic perfection to assignments of accounts and payment intangibles that do not constitute a significant amount of the assignor\u27s outstanding accounts or payment intangibles. Although the concept of significance appears easy to implement, courts have created disparate tests to determine significance. Nevertheless, each of those tests either creates inefficiencies in application or is disjointed from the statutory text. This Article argues courts should interpret significance in a manner congruent with the first principles of Article 9 and hold that significance only exists when a transaction is either objectively or subjectively intended to further commercial financing

A Student\u27s Guide to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (25th ed.)

(2022-2023 Edition) The Student\u27s Guide supplies an introduction to students on general principles of federal practice, followed by a Rule-by-Rule distillation and explanation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designed either as a stand-alone work or a companion piece supporting casebooks. Co-authored with Professor Steven Baicker-McKee of Pittsburgh, Pa

Privacy in Discovery after Dobbs

Modern discovery in civil courts has been criticized for its overbreadth and expense, leading to a series of changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure focused on proportionality. At the same time, there has been increasing interest in privacy in civil discovery, given the rise in litigants’ requests for broad production of social media, cell phone data, and wearable technology. Aside from other compelling reasons to establish privacy bounds for discovery, there are two developments, both deriving from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs, that make this issue crucial. First, by overruling Roe v. Wade, Dobbs deals a blow to the constitutional right to privacy, which protects against unfettered discovery. Second, with legislatures across the country rushing to criminalize abortion, women and those who support them face threats that discovery will be used to uncover evidence that they have violated those laws. This article argues that (1) the constitutional right to privacy against compelled disclosure of personal information survives Dobbs. While Roe did provide precedent for privacy protection in discovery, Dobbs does not implicate the privacy interest in shielding from disclosure information concerning intimate matters. (2) In addition, other Supreme Court precedent supports the right to privacy against disclosure of intimate information, including reproductive matters. (3) Third, the right to privacy is protected by reference to other federal legislation and public policy, including FOIA and HIPAA protections. (4) Finally, state constitutional privacy, privileges and case law are not implicated by the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs, and provide protection in state law cases. Together, these principles give courts strong precedent to use their discretion to deny requests for discovery of information whose relevance is outweighed by privacy interests

Discriminatory Zoning: City of Edmonds v. Oxford House. A Case Study on Dismantling City-Imposed Family Composition Mandates

This article introduces zoning laws that try to define “family” and that try to restrict occupancy. In City of Edmonds, the U.S. Supreme Court makes a clear distinction between rules designed to be exclusionary by focusing on the zoned nature of a neighborhood (single-family homes, for example) and rules that limit total occupancy for public health and safety reasons. The point of this article is to describe this distinction, while also appreciating the limits of local zoning efforts by federal laws such as the Fair Housing Act, to prevent zoning from resulting in discrimination derived from city-imposed family composition mandates. As many as thirty percent of American families have a family member with a disability that affects accessibility. Making communities accessible requires attention to design, planning, and zoning. We not only need to remove physical barriers to access, but we also need to address the coordination of permissible uses, including the location of such uses as group homes, senior housing, drug rehabilitation centers, and medical marijuana dispensaries, among others. These uses often raise conflicts with current property owners, who also will be upset with the politicians if they were to sanction these uses in otherwise restricted districts. Consequently, discussions of accessibility must go beyond design matters and focus on the coordination of uses within a community