Transforming the Privately Owned Shopping Center into a Public Forum: Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins

A recent Supreme Court decision has affirmed a state\u27s choice to provide its citizens access to privately owned shopping centers for the purpose of exercising free speech and petition rights. The United States Supreme Court in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins held that state consitutional provisions permitting individuals to exercise free speech and petition rights on private shopping center property do not violate the shopping center owner\u27s property rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments or his free speech rights under the first and fourteenth amendments. There exists a delicate balance between the competing in- terests of the shopping center owner and the interests of those who seek to exercise free speech on his property. Thus, when an attempt is made to exercise free speech on private property that is held open to the general public, and the owner seeks to prohibit that free expression, a clash of fundamental constitutional rights can result

The Delivery of Legal Services through Multidisciplinary Practices

During the last decade, the Big Six accounting firms entered into the legal services market overseas by establishing, acquiring, or forming ties with law firms around the world. These entities or business relationships have been called multidisciplinary practices or MDPs. Unlike the United States, many European countries do not prohibit partnerships and fee splitting arrangements between lawyers and nonlawyers. The February 1998 issue of the American Bar Association Journal published an article entitled Squeeze Play describing a turf war between the major accounting firms and lawyers practicing law in Europe. KPMG Peat Marwick, Arthur Andersen, Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse, and Coopers & Lybrand and other accounting firms now offer a bundle of services such as appraisals, litigation support, alternative dispute resolution, estate planning, business planning and international tax practice. These services are often rendered by attorneys who are employees of the nonlawyer accounting firm and many argue that such activity is the unauthorized practice of law (UPL)

The Delivery of Legal Services through Multidisciplinary Practices

During the last decade, the Big Six accounting firms entered into the legal services market overseas by establishing, acquiring, or forming ties with law firms around the world. These entities or business relationships have been called multidisciplinary practices or MDPs. Unlike the United States, many European countries do not prohibit partnerships and fee splitting arrangements between lawyers and nonlawyers. The February 1998 issue of the American Bar Association Journal published an article entitled Squeeze Play describing a turf war between the major accounting firms and lawyers practicing law in Europe. KPMG Peat Marwick, Arthur Andersen, Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse, and Coopers & Lybrand and other accounting firms now offer a bundle of services such as appraisals, litigation support, alternative dispute resolution, estate planning, business planning and international tax practice. These services are often rendered by attorneys who are employees of the nonlawyer accounting firm and many argue that such activity is the unauthorized practice of law (UPL)

Corporate Responsibility and the Regulation of Corporate Lawyers

On July 30, 2002, in an effort to demonstrate to the American public a resolve to crack down on corporate scandals such as Enron, Adelphia, WorldCom, and Global Crossing, President Bush signed into law the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”. Proclaiming that the new law will restore investor confidence, reform the oversight of public accounting and increase the transparency of corporate financial statements

Search and Seizure of Containers Found in Automobiles: The Supreme Court Struggles for a Bright Line Rule

Two recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court have added a new dimension to the law of search and seizure of automobiles and containers found within motor vehicles. The plurality opinion in Robbins v. California\u27held that a closed opaque container found in the luggage compartment of a station wagon during the course of a lawful vehicle search could not be seized without a warrant. However, in New York v. Belton, a majority held that a police officer, incident to a lawful custodial arrest of an occupant of an automobile, may search the passenger compartment of that automobile and examine contents of any containers, open or closed, found therein