Doing Business in South Africa

[Excerpt] This brochure illustrates important features of doing business in South Africa. The legal system within which business operates is closely based on overseas, particularly English, models. The concepts and rules will be familiar to overseas investors and trading partners

“I Treat Everyone with Respect”: Debt Collection Attorneys as Agents of Institutionalized Racism in a Color-blind America

How do debt collection attorneys understand their work in light of increased regulation of the industry and its historic structural racism? Drawing on over sixty hours of observation in two small claims courts, analysis of three months of cases, and semi-structured interviews with eight debt collection attorneys, I argue that attorneys reinforce the instutionalized racism of debt collection through their use of color-blind racism. Attorneys understand the state of the debt collection industry as inevitable, denying inconsistencies in their practice that privilege white defendants. Additionally, attorneys view themselves as helping rather than exploiting debtors, in contrast to frequent aggressive action without regard to its consequences for defendants’ lives. Attorneys who act with greater flexibility demonstrate the potential for lawyers to challenge the institutional racism of debt collection. However, the historic and contemporary stigma associated with debt collection in addition to the lack of professional prestige available to these attorneys gives significance to color-blindness not only as an explanatory device but, also, as a stigma management strategy. The necessity of stigma management in addition to the lack of professional stability and autonomy for many debt collection attorneys complicates the potential for future change

The Difference Between Filing Lawsuits and Selling Widgets: The Lost Understanding that Some Attorneys’ Exercise of State Power is Subject to Appropriate Regulation

[Excerpt] It is often argued that all attorneys practicing in the United States – regardless of the function they perform in the American justice system – are purely private actors working in a free market system. This article examines whether it is true that all attorneys in every instance should be equated, as a matter of public policy, with other private actors. This article explores why not all attorneys function in a free market, and consequently their remuneration should not always remain unregulated. Attorneys who file lawsuits can, by simply filing a complaint at their unfettered discretion, immediately subject defendants to the threat of a default judgment and necessitate their spending money and resources toward their defense. That dynamic results in a situation in which a defendant will be made to pay any amount to the plaintiff in settlement, provided the settlement demanded is less than the defendant’s costs of defense and the plaintiff’s attorneys’ costs for filing the case are minimal (as they universally are). This article proceeds to discuss a short history of attorney regulation – from Roman times to the present, a story beginning with severe limits on attorneys’ influence and ending in a regime of rules that encourage the filing of lawsuits and do little to restrain them – and an examination of how that breakdown of attorney regulation occurred over time. This article concludes with a discussion of Supreme Court precedents indicating that private attorneys who file lawsuits should be considered state actors in most circumstances in which they trigger the authority of the state and, through the state, the threat of a default judgment and the consequent necessary expenditure of defense costs. This article concludes that attorneys who file lawsuits are qualitatively different than other private actors who seek to sell products to willing buyers in a free market system, and hence private attorneys who file lawsuits are more appropriately subject to regulation

Appellees’ Principal and Response Brief

Fighting Arizona\u27s Attack on Ethnic Studies - Maya Arce, et al. v. John Huppenthal, et. a

The Big Lebowski: The Dude’s Lessons in Law and Leadership for Military and National Security Attorneys

The Big Lebowski is a cultural phenomenon that has prompted academic research into the nature of cult cinema, provided fodder for a host of law review quotes, and motivated a tradition of fan festivals and midnight screenings. However, most viewers do not realize that The Big Lebowski also serves as an engaging training tool for military and national security attorneys. Disguised as an impish play on film noir and hard-boiled detective fiction, The Big Lebowski’s unpretentious treatment of delicate topics contains poignant lessons for military and national security attorneys that include: (1) the risks facing national security attorneys when they lose focus on their professional and moral responsibilities, (2) the unexpected ways military attorneys should expect to encounter mental health concerns and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), (3) the importance of values and how they impact the success of a national security legal office, and (4) the role of the attorney in military operations. Military and national security attorneys who adopt the lessons of The Big Lebowski will be better lawyers and leaders

Appellees’ Reply Brief

Fighting Arizona\u27s Attack on Ethnic Studies - Maya Arce, et al. v. John Huppenthal, et. a

A Fair Trial: When the Constitution Requires Attorneys to Investigate Their Clients\u27 Brains

The U.S. Constitution guarantees every criminal defendant the right to a fair trial. This fundamental right includes the right to a defense counsel who provides effective assistance. To be effective, attorneys must sometimes develop specific types of evidence in crafting the best defense. In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that defense attorneys did not provide effective assistance when they failed to consider neuroscience. But when must defense attorneys develop neuroscience in order to provide effective assistance? This question is difficult because the standard for determining effective assistance is still evolving. There are two leading approaches. First, in Strickland v. Washington, the Court adopted a two-prong “reasonableness” test, which, according to Justice O’Conner, may result in court decisions that fail to properly protect a criminal defendant’s rights. Recently, courts have adopted a second approach based on guidelines promulgated by the American Bar Association. This Note aims to answer this question. It first provides a background on the right to effective assistance of counsel and briefly describes neuroscience evidence, oppositions to and limitations on in its use, and its admissibility in court. Second, this Note attempts to give some guidance to attorneys by exploring the American Bar Association and U.S. Supreme Court standards. Third, it summarizes the results of a statistical analysis conducted by the author, which helps further define when courts require attorneys to develop neuroscience evidence. It concludes by arguing that attorneys need guidance to ensure they are not violating the Sixth Amendment. This Note expands on the American Bar Association’s standard and suggests a framework attorneys may use to determine whether they should develop neuroscience evidence to ensure that their client has a fair trial

A Fair Trial: When the Constitution Requires Attorneys to Investigate Their Clients\u27 Brains

The U.S. Constitution guarantees every criminal defendant the right to a fair trial. This fundamental right includes the right to a defense counsel who provides effective assistance. To be effective, attorneys must sometimes develop specific types of evidence in crafting the best defense. In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that defense attorneys did not provide effective assistance when they failed to consider neuroscience. But when must defense attorneys develop neuroscience in order to provide effective assistance? This question is difficult because the standard for determining effective assistance is still evolving. There are two leading approaches. First, in Strickland v. Washington, the Court adopted a two-prong “reasonableness” test, which, according to Justice O’Conner, may result in court decisions that fail to properly protect a criminal defendant’s rights. Recently, courts have adopted a second approach based on guidelines promulgated by the American Bar Association. This Note aims to answer this question. It first provides a background on the right to effective assistance of counsel and briefly describes neuroscience evidence, oppositions to and limitations on in its use, and its admissibility in court. Second, this Note attempts to give some guidance to attorneys by exploring the American Bar Association and U.S. Supreme Court standards. Third, it summarizes the results of a statistical analysis conducted by the author, which helps further define when courts require attorneys to develop neuroscience evidence. It concludes by arguing that attorneys need guidance to ensure they are not violating the Sixth Amendment. This Note expands on the American Bar Association’s standard and suggests a framework attorneys may use to determine whether they should develop neuroscience evidence to ensure that their client has a fair trial

Appellees’ Principal and Response Brief

Fighting Arizona\u27s Attack on Ethnic Studies - Maya Arce, et al. v. John Huppenthal, et. a

Representation of Parties in Arbitration By Non-Attorneys

The issue of the representation of clients in legal or quasi legal proceedings by non-attorneys has been a troubling one. Not only are such services being offered by non-attorneys in the form of transactional services, i.e., advising, drafting deeds and documents, etc., but has spread to actual representation of parties before administrative agencies. Moreover, as more and more disputes are being resolved through alternative dispute mechanisms, such as arbitration, non-attorneys are also representing clients in such proceedings in civil litigation-often involving complex issues and significant sums of money-against other litigants who are usually represented by skilled attorneys. The ABA recently released a Discussion Draft for Comment regarding the extent to which non-lawyers were involved in these proceedings. The draft notes that in certain areas, the amount of legal oversight is sufficient to ensure competence, where in other areas it is in not. The Securities Industry Conference on Arbitration has examined this issue at length and released the report that follows