Nourishing the profession; report on professionalism calls for ethics training, civility rules in court
Article Abstract:
The Professionalism Committee of the ABA Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar sponsored 'Teaching and Learning Professionalism,' a report by Harry Haynsworth, which coincides with efforts of state bar associations and licensing authorities to enhance professionalism. As reasons for the decline in professionalism the report cites decreased courtroom civility, economic demands on attorneys that make it harder for them to devote time to public service work, and a decreased perception of the practice of law as a calling. Distribution of the report to law schools totaled 8,000 copies.
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
The real insiders; SEC may take securities trading issue to Supreme Court
Article Abstract:
The SEC may have the US Supreme Court determine its authority to proceed against those who misappropriate private information to gain advantage with their stock investments. The federal circuits are split on the misappropriation theory, with the courts of appeals for the 4th and 8th Circuits having rejected it while the 3rd, 7th and 9th have adopted the theory. The 8th Circuit has granted a rehearing en banc in the misappropriation case of United States v. O'Hagan, setting the stage for an eventual Supreme Court ruling in this case.
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
One toke over the line; a pot grower's Supreme Court loss scuttles double jeopardy challenges by drunk drivers, sex abusers
Article Abstract:
The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Ursery on June 24, 1996, that a marijuana grower who had been criminally convicted was not subject to double jeopardy by the outcome of a civil proceeding which required a payment to settle a forfeiture claim. The court ruled that double jeopardy was not a concern because its goals were remedial rather than punitive. A concurring opinion ruled that only successive prosecution, rather than successive punishment was banned under the double jeopardy clause.
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Law firm web sites: going beyond the brochure: areas for other professionals and full or partial interactivity could draw larger audiences
- Abstracts: Two cheers for shifting the presumption of validity: a reply to Professor Hopperton. The presumption of validity in American land-use law: a substitute for analysis, a source of significant confusion
- Abstracts: Public and private approaches for redesigning social security. Social security's financing problems: realities and myths
- Abstracts: Settling the score; good negotiation skills pave the way for better settlements. LSC setbacks offer new opportunities; volunteers and private contributions can help the poor attain equal justice
- Abstracts: Beyond managerialism in criminal justice. Conditional bail decision making in the magistrates' court. The imposition of conditions in bail decisions: from summary punishment to better behaviour on remand