The Evolution of Unbundling in Litigation Matters: Three Case Studies and a Literature Review

Perhaps the most famous “bundle ” in United States law is the meta-phor used to conceptualize property rights. Law students learn that one way to understand property is as a bundle of rights: the right to possess, the right to exclude, the right to sell, the right to destroy, the right to de-vise, etc. 1 One reason to conceptualize anything in terms of a bundle is to consider what happens if someone or something—the state, a third par-ty—unties the binding or pulls out one of the sticks. In property, this thought exercise helps students understand many of the doctrines taught in the canonical first year course, including easements, adverse posses-sion, and the rule against perpetuities. Forrest “Woody ” Mosten, whom some called the “Father of Un-bundling ” in the practice of law,2 no doubt had all this in mind when, in the 1990s, he began traveling the nation with a bundle of popsicle sticks tied together with a ribbon. To each stick, Mosten attached a label that represented some aspect of legal practice, such as researching the law or negotiating with opposing parties. 3 During his presentation, Mosten would untie the ribbon and wave around the now-separated popsicle sticks to emphasize his point that unbundling in the practice of law was possible and desirable. 4 Mosten’s road show comprised part of a trend towards the recognition, legitimization, and promotion of limited legal assistance 5 in litigation matters. The trend began in California 6 and since has spread to almost every state in the nation, 7 with most of the actio

Probate and trust litigation

Meeting proceedings of a seminar by the same name, held August 28, 2020

90 Hot Tips in Estate, Trust and Probate Prcatice

Meeting proceedings of a seminar by the same name, held December 21, 2022

90 Hot Tips in Estate, Trust and Probate Practice

Meeting proceedings of a seminar by the same name, held December 21, 2021

8th annual reality CLE

Meeting proceedings of a seminar by the same name, held October 29-30, 2020

A Lawyer\u27s Duty of Communication

Meeting proceedings of a seminar by the same name, held March 15, 2022

Ethics Issues Inherent in Special Immigrant Juvenile State Court Proceedings - Practical Proposals for Intractable Problems

Immigration advocates have long noted how ethical challenges pervade certain areas of their practice, particularly in the employment and spousal contexts. A significant body of literature exists that attempts to identify clear, professional norms for grappling successfully with thorny ethical questions inherent in those areas. This article expands that scholarship by studying the ethics issues that arise for counsel representing youth seeking Special Immigrant Juvenile ( SIJ ) status in state court. Using SIJ case studies to explore questions of confidentiality, conflicts, and candor, this article uncovers key factors that complicate practitioners\u27 ability to comply with existing ethical mandates. One defining feature of SIJ relief is the requirement that separate proceedings be brought in state court as the first step in establishing youth\u27s eligibility for relief. Other distinguishing factors include the effects of abandonment, abuse, and neglect on the SIJ youth. In addition, the decision-making capacity of SIJ minors is subject to scrutiny under the relevant ethics rules due to their age. These factors combine with a systemic lack of resources to pressure SIJ advocates into unworkable attorney-client relationships rife with conflicts of interests. This project confirms that SIJ practitioners receive inadequate guidance from existing rules of professional conduct and proposes practical reforms of the state court SIJ process, as well as new trainings on implementation of core ethics rules in the SIJ representation. The article concludes with an invitation for further study of these proposals as a critical step in offering long-overdue relief to SIJ counsel

ANDREA P. LINDSTROM, Petitioner/Appellant, v. CUSTOM FLOOR COVERING, INC. dba CARPETS OF AMERICA, INC., Respondent/Appellee. : Brief of Appellee

BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE Appeal from the First District Court, Cache County, Judge Thomas L. Willmor