Giving Up the Ghost: Alaska Bar Ethics Opinion 93-1 and Undisclosed Attorney Assistance Revisited

Twenty years ago, the Alaska Bar Association adopted Ethics Opinion No. 93-1 which permitted attorneys to ghostwrite pleadings and provide other undisclosed services to pro se litigants. The goal of this ethical guidance was to enable attorneys to assist low-income individuals who could not otherwise afford representation. Ethics Opinion No. 93-1 construed ghostwriting broadly as an attorney\u27s undisclosed assistance to a pro se client whether by providing legal advice or drafting pleadings or other documents. This Note argues that, despite the moral allure of its theoretical justifications, ghostwriting is unnecessary, provides little demonstrable benefit to pro se litigants, and potentially conceals the unethical practice of law. Ghostwriting may also confuse the interactions between judges and pro se litigants in a way that works against the pro se party\u27s interests. Specifically, this Note argues that ghostwriting may cause judges to misapprehend pro se litigants\u27 legal understanding and to withdraw prematurely the solicitude those judges are otherwise required to give. Therefore, the Alaska Bar Association should revise its guidance on ghostwriting to require attorneys providing unbundled services to append their Alaska Bar Number on their submissions. This requirement would discourage abuses, enable judges effectively to manage pro se litigants, and still permit experimentation in the unbundled legal market

Are We Insane? The Quest for Proportionality in the Discovery Rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Atrial fibrillation is a common heart arrhythmia which is characterized by a missing or irregular contraction of the atria. The disease is a risk factor for other more serious diseases and the total medical costs in society are extensive. Therefore it would be beneficial to improve and optimize the prevention and detection of the disease.   Pulse palpation and heart auscultation can facilitate the detection of atrial fibrillation clinically, but the diagnosis is generally confirmed by an ECG examination. Today there are several algorithms that detect atrial fibrillation by analysing an ECG. A common method is to study the heart rate variability (HRV) and by different types of statistical calculations find episodes of atrial fibrillation which deviates from normal sinus rhythm.   Two algorithms for detection of atrial fibrillation have been evaluated in Matlab. One is based on the coefficient of variation and the other uses a logistic regression model. Training and testing of the algorithms were done with data from the Physionet MIT database. Several steps of signal processing were used to remove different types of noise and artefacts before the data could be used.   When testing the algorithms, the CV algorithm performed with a sensitivity of 91,38%, a specificity of 93,93% and accuracy of 92,92%, and the results of the logistic regression algorithm was a sensitivity of 97,23%, specificity of 93,79% and accuracy of 95,39%. The logistic regression algorithm performed better and was chosen for implementation in Java, where it achieved a sensitivity of 97,31%, specificity of 93,47% and accuracy of 95,25%.Förmaksflimmer är en vanlig hjärtrytmrubbning som kännetecknas av en avsaknad eller oregelbunden kontraktion av förmaken. Sjukdomen är en riskfaktor för andra allvarligare sjukdomar och de totala kostnaderna för samhället är betydande. Det skulle därför vara fördelaktigt att effektivisera och förbättra prevention samt diagnostisering av förmaksflimmer.   Kliniskt diagnostiseras förmaksflimmer med hjälp av till exempel pulspalpation och auskultation av hjärtat, men diagnosen brukar fastställas med en EKG-undersökning. Det finns idag flertalet algoritmer för att detektera arytmin genom att analysera ett EKG. En av de vanligaste metoderna är att undersöka variabiliteten av hjärtrytmen (HRV) och utföra olika sorters statistiska beräkningar som kan upptäcka episoder av förmaksflimmer som avviker från en normal sinusrytm.   I detta projekt har två metoder för att detektera förmaksflimmer utvärderats i Matlab, en baseras på beräkningar av variationskoefficienten och den andra använder sig av logistisk regression. EKG som kommer från databasen Physionet MIT används för att träna och testa modeller av algoritmerna. Innan EKG-signalen kan användas måste den behandlas för att ta bort olika typer av brus och artefakter.   Vid test av algoritmen med variationskoefficienten blev resultatet en sensitivitet på 91,38%, en specificitet på 93,93% och en noggrannhet på 92,92%. För logistisk regression blev sensitiviteten 97,23%, specificiteten 93,79% och noggrannheten 95,39%. Algoritmen med logistisk regression presterade bättre och valdes därför för att implementeras i Java, där uppnåddes en sensitivitet på 91,31%, en specificitet på 93,47% och en noggrannhet på 95,25%

Discovering Discovery: Non-Party Access to Pretrial Information in the Federal Courts 1938-2006

In the modern era, the pretrial process is critical to the disposition of almost all litigation. The vast majority of cases never go to trial. Those which are contested at trial and upon appeal are often decided upon the results of the information gather before trial. This is true in both private litigation and in public interest cases where private attorneys general may only function effectively with court-enforced discovery. Despite the significance of the Article III courts to our society, transparency in their processes for resolving civil disputes has been severely compromised. Threats to openness emanate from multiple sources. This article considers the legal history and case law of one aspect of openness in the federal courts: public access to discovery material gathered by parties engaged in federal litigation. The public, the press, researchers, and various others have legitimate interests in this information. This right should include pretrial material unprotected by valid protective orders issued under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Discovery and Testimony of Unretained Experts: Creating a Clear and Equitable Standard to Govern Compliance With Subpoenas

Hearing impairment is known to be one of the most frequent sensory impairments. This condition is known to be a hidden disorder which is under recognised and under treated all around the world. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates suggest that there are over 275 million people with hearing impairment and 80% of them living in low and middle income countries. Moreover, the estimates suggest that incidence and prevalence of hearing loss and also the number of people with hearing loss accessing services varies considerably across countries. This rises the need for health promotion (or public awareness campaigns) directed to increase awareness and education of hearing loss and hearing healthcare. This paper provides brief discussion on ‘Stories and storytelling’, ‘Cross-culture and cross-cultural communication’ and ‘Health promotion and cultural sensitivity’. The central focus of this paper is to highlight the applications of storytelling in different cultural context in health promotion, particularly to hearing loss public awareness campaigns

Do You See What I See - Reflections on How Bias Infiltrates the New York City Family Court - The Case of the Court Ordered Investigation

That the Family Court is ill-equipped to address the needs of the hundreds of thousands of cases handled therein is not news. Exploding caseloads, complex problems, and minimal resources are just a few of the ingredients that combine to undermine the Court\u27s ability to fulfill its promise. What has been given less attention until very recently is the extent to which the Family Court\u27s failures disproportionately impact low-income families of color. Any analysis of the Court\u27s impact or efficacy must consider the context I have described in my observations of the Court- the images of black and brown litigants hurrying through courtrooms where they are often disrespected. These images raise questions about the role of bias in the Court and the extent to which the Court\u27s failings disproportionately impact people of color. The historic failure to consider the disproportionate impact of Family Court\u27s ills upon black and brown litigants may have set the groundwork for practices that unwittingly perpetuate bias. In the midst of the hurried pace, huge caseloads, and inadequate resources that define Family Court, a number of quick fixes and shortcut practices have emerged. These practices include officially sanctioned shortcuts like the ever-expanding use of court attorney referees to preside over cases, and unofficially sanctioned practices like ex parte communications between certain judges and some institutional providers. While the failures of Family Court create myriad problems for parties who seek justice there, I limit my focus here to examining the officially sanctioned practice of using New York City Administration for Children\u27s Services (ACS) caseworkers to conduct court-ordered investigations in private child custody proceedings as one example of how a seemingly innocuous practice might countenance bias. In many ways, a telling representation of how the norms of practice in Family Court deviate from accepted norms of practice and how that deviation is not just tolerated, but embraced. The standard explanations advanced to justify these deviations focus on the nature of the cases and the enormity of the docket in Family Court - the cases do not lend themselves to traditional adversarial processing; the dockets are crushing and these practices are stop gap measures. I posit an additional explanation: these deviations represent a not-so-subtle case of the kind of differential treatment that gets institutionalized when the consumer is poor and of color, and, as a consequence, disenfranchised

What Makes A Court Problem-Solving: Universal Performance Indicators for Problem-Solving Justice

This report identifies a set of universal performance indicators for specialized "problem-solving courts" and related experiments in problem-solving justice. Traditional performance indicators related to caseload and processing efficiency can assist court managers in monitoring case flow, assigning cases to judges, and adhering to budgetary and statutory due process guidelines. Yet, these indicators are ultimately limited in scope. Faced with the recent explosion of problem solving courts and other experiments seeking to address the underlying problems of litigants, victims, and communities, there is an urgent need to complement traditional court performance indicators with ones of a problem-solving nature. With funding from the State Justice Institute (SJI), the Center for Court Innovation conducted an investigation designed to achieve three purposes. The first was to establish a set of universal performance indicators against which to judge the effectiveness of specialized problem-solving courts, of which there are currently more than 3,000 nationwide. The second purpose was to develop performance indicators specific to each of the four major problem-solving court models: drug, mental health, domestic violence, and community courts. The third purpose was to assist traditional court managers by establishing a more limited set of indicators, designed to capture problem-solving activity throughout the courthouse, not only within a specialized court context