Foreword: Symposium on Forensic Expert Testimony, \u3ci\u3eDaubert\u3c/i\u3e, and Rule 702

On October 27, 2017, the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules held a Symposium to obtain input and guidance on critical matters involving the admissibility of expert testimony. The Symposium consisted of presentations and discussions by brilliant scientists, outstanding federal judges, academics with deep expertise in both evidence and science, and stellar practitioners from private and public practice. The transcript of the Symposium and the accompanying articles establish an important agenda for the Advisory Committee to tackle over the next few years

Expanding (or Just Fixing) the Residual Exception to the Hearsay Rule

The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules (“the Committee”) has been considering whether to amend Federal Rule of Evidence 807 (known as the residual exception to the hearsay rule) to improve the way the Rule functions—and also to allow the admission of more hearsay if it is reliable. At the conference sponsored by the Committee in October, 2016—transcribed in this Fordham Law Review issue—the Committee submitted a working draft of an amendment that was vetted by the experts at the conference and reviewed favorably by most. This Article analyzes the arguments in favor of and against the reform of the residual exception and will set forth and explain the Advisory Committee’s approach to a possible amendment

The Phillip D. Reed Lecture Series: Conference on Possible Amendments to Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b), 807, and 801(D)(1)(a)

PROFESSOR CAPRA: Thank you, Judge. So let’s start today with some basic details. There will be a transcript of these proceedings, and it will be published in the Fordham Law Review. I’d like to thank the Fordham Law Review for taking this on and agreeing to do it

Ethical Issues Arising When a Lawyer Leaves a Firm: Restrictions on Practice

Restriction on covenants not to compete have been a long-time feature of legal practice. Rules prohibiting law firms from restricting lawyers\u27 ability to practice or imposing penalties on lawyers that leave a firm attempt to balance the law firm\u27s interest in survival in a competitive market with the countervailing interests of attorney mobility, and protecting clients\u27 choice of counsel. Restrictions on covenants not to compete should be vigorously enforced, and the exception that allows for the forfeiture of retirement benefits by attorneys that choose to leave a firm should be narrowly applied to only those funds to which the departing attorney is not already entitled

Electronically Stored Information and the Ancient Documents Exception to the Hearsay Rule: Fix It Before People Find Out About It

The earliest innovations in electronic communication are now over twenty years old—meaning that the factual assertions made by way of these electronic media are potentially admissible for their truth at a trial if (and simply because) they were made more than twenty years ago. This is due to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(16), the so-called “ancient documents” exception to the hearsay rule. This Article argues that the ancient document exception needs to be changed because its rationale, while never very convincing in the first place, is simply invalid when applied to terabytes of prevalent and easily retrievable electronically stored information (ESI)