Conceptualizing Student Practice for the 21st Century: Educational and Ethical Considerations in Modernizing the District of Columbia Student Practice Rules

This article traces the history of the amendment process. It provides a short history of student practice rules and then, using the student practice rule in effect in the District of Columbia prior to the 2014 amendments, describes the various components of those rules that courts and bars across the nation have implemented to assist courts, advance legal education, and preserve advocates’ ethical obligations to clients. It then describes some of the comments to the proposed amendments offered by the District of Columbia Bar and other D.C. lawyers during the public comment period and the modifications to the District of Columbia student practice rule that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals accepted. Finally, it discusses some areas of disagreement that arose during the process and a description of the reasons for those disagreements

Three Generations of Participation Rights in European Administrative Proceedings

This paper develops a conceptual framework for analyzing the development of participation rights in Community administration from the early 1970\u27s to the present day. Procedural rights can be divided into three categories, each of which is associated with a distinct phase in Community history and a particular set of institutional actors. The first set of rights, the right to a fair hearing when the Commission inflicts sanctions or other forms of hardship on individuals, first emerged in the 1970\u27s in the context of competition proceedings and later in areas such as anti-dumping and structural funds. This phase was driven by the Court of Justice and an English, and to a lesser extent, German conception of the value of a fair hearing. The rise of transparency in the 1990\u27s-- the requirement of openness in all Community institutions, including administration--marks the second stage. The drive for transparency was led by certain member countries with longstanding traditions of open government--the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden--as well as the European Parliament. The most recent phase in the development of process rights is the debate on whether and under what conditions, individuals, firms, and their associations, billed civil society, should take part in Community legislative and rulemaking proceedings. The Commission and now the Convention on the Future of Europe have been the keenest proponents of giving citizens and their associations a right to participate in rulemaking and legislative proceedings. Civil society participation is then critically examined. Representation--not expertise or good management practices--is the only justification for allocating power, within the Community policymaking process, to individual citizens and their organizations. Yet there is no consensus in Europe, where republican, corporatist, and liberal traditions continue to flourish, on the legitimacy of representation outside of political parties and the electoral process. Without wider consensus, I conclude that associational participation in Community policymaking should not be entrenched and that the Commission should, in mediating the informal influence of civil society actors, act in awareness of its innate institutional bias toward liberal interest group pluralism

The Laws of Agency Lawyering

The great variety of agency rules governing lawyers raises interesting questions that are worth exploring. This Article begins that exploration. Part I lays the groundwork by briefly examining how the ABA Model Rules treat regulatory lawyering to raise the question of what regulatory gaps the agency rules might be expected to fill. Part II sets forth several possible theories of agency rule variation. Part III compares agency rules along a number of dimensions, examines some similarities and differences across agencies as well as between the agency rules and the Model Rules, and offers speculations about what may be driving the differences that exist

Three Generations of Participation Rights in European Administrative Proceedings

This paper develops a conceptual framework for analyzing the development of participation rights in Community administration from the early 1970\u27s to the present day. Procedural rights can be divided into three categories, each of which is associated with a distinct phase in Community history and a particular set of institutional actors. The first set of rights, the right to a fair hearing when the Commission inflicts sanctions or other forms of hardship on individuals, first emerged in the 1970\u27s in the context of competition proceedings and later in areas such as anti-dumping and structural funds. This phase was driven by the Court of Justice and an English, and to a lesser extent, German conception of the value of a fair hearing. The rise of transparency in the 1990\u27s-- the requirement of openness in all Community institutions, including administration--marks the second stage. The drive for transparency was led by certain member countries with longstanding traditions of open government--the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden--as well as the European Parliament. The most recent phase in the development of process rights is the debate on whether and under what conditions, individuals, firms, and their associations, billed civil society, should take part in Community legislative and rulemaking proceedings. The Commission and now the Convention on the Future of Europe have been the keenest proponents of giving citizens and their associations a right to participate in rulemaking and legislative proceedings. Civil society participation is then critically examined. Representation--not expertise or good management practices--is the only justification for allocating power, within the Community policymaking process, to individual citizens and their organizations. Yet there is no consensus in Europe, where republican, corporatist, and liberal traditions continue to flourish, on the legitimacy of representation outside of political parties and the electoral process. Without wider consensus, I conclude that associational participation in Community policymaking should not be entrenched and that the Commission should, in mediating the informal influence of civil society actors, act in awareness of its innate institutional bias toward liberal interest group pluralism

Labor Guide to Labor Law

[Excerpt] This book is a practical guide to labor law in the private sector. The first 8 chapters present a discussion of legal principles primarily based on the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 1947, as amended, commonly referred to as the “Act.” The remaining chapters discuss principles based on the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, as well as on the LMRA

Statement of Professor Samuel Estreicher Before the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations, Panel on Private Dispute Resolution Alternatives

Testimony_Estreicher_092994.pdf: 154 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020