Summer 2014 Class Assignments
Class assignments are listed alphabetically by course name. All will be posted as received. If you do not see the assignments you are looking for, check TWEN, your professor's personal homepage or return to this web page to check again later.
Students are asked to read pages 1 – 61 of the Dressler casebook. This assignment will be covered over the first week of class. We will not likely discuss our first substantive case, In re Winship, until Tuesday June 24.
Please be sure to purchase the 3d edition of the Lee & Harris casebook (in stock now at the SU Law bookstore). All of the assignments below reference page numbers in the 3d edition of the text.
If you have purchased the wrong edition of the casebook and cannot return it, please get in touch with me via e-mail (firstname.lastname@example.org).
I look forward to meeting each of you during our first class on June 23, 2014. I will distribute the full course syllabus then.
Monday, June 23
- Topic: Basic principles
- Read and be prepared to discuss Lee & Harris (3d ed. 2014): pp. 1–41.
- Also review Model Penal Code (MPC): § 1.02.
Tuesday, June 24
- Basic principles and actus reus
- pp. 45–57, 149–64.
- MPC § 2.01
Wednesday, June 25
- Actus reus
- pp. 164–81, 98–110.
Thursday, June 26
- Mens rea
- pp. 201–03, 215-16, 221–32, 249–57.
Register for this course on TWEN. The textbook for this course is Morgan & Rotunda, Professional Responsibility, Problems & Materials, (11th ed. University Case Book Series). The second book is 2014 Selected Standards on Professional Responsibility also by Morgan and Rotunda.
Introduction – Chapter 1 (pages 1-46); Chapter 2 (Problem 1)
Chapter 2 (Problems 2 & 3) (pages 46-82)
June 5 and June 9
Chapter 3 (Problems 4, 5 & 6) (pages 83 – 131) (plus an extensive discussion of contingent fee agreements)
Register for this course on TWEN. Required Books: Lisa G. Lerman and Philip G. Schrag, Ethical Problems in the Practice of Law (3d Ed., Wolters Kluwer 2012) [referred to as “Text”].
Monday June 2
Introduction and Chapter 1: Regulation of Lawyers
Introduction to the course (Text: pp. 1-56; Model Rules: Preamble and note on Scope)
Institutions that regulate lawyers
State ethics codes
Admission to practice (pp. 57-78; Model Rule 8.1)
- The character and fitness inquiry
- 1-2 Weed
- In re Mustafa“Missing moot court money
- 1-3 The Doctored Resume
See, WA Admission to Practice Rule (APR) 3 and 21-24 and the Application for Bar Examination in the WA ST Bar Adm. Requirements Generally Folder
Tuesday, June 3
Professional discipline (pp. 79-116; Model Rules 5.1-5.3, 8.3; RPC 8.3)
- Process and grounds for discipline
- 2-1 “ I’m Not Driving”
- Reporting misconduct by other lawyers
- 2-2 Exculpatory Evidence
Thursday, June 3
Chapter 2: Lawyer Liability
Professional discipline, cont. (pp. 117-155)
- Lawyers’ responsibility for ethical misconduct
- by superiors and colleagues
- 2-3 The Little Hearing
- Legal protections for subordinate lawyers
Kelly v. Hunton & Williams “The whistleblowing associate”
Civil liability of lawyers – Read Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wn.2d 251, 261-66, 830 P.2d 646 (1992); Cotton vs. Kronenberg 111 Wn. App. 258 in Cases Folder.
Legal malpractice vs. breach of fiduciary duties:
Compare Hizey v. Carpenter with Eriks v. Denver, 118 Wn.2d 451, 462-463 (1992) ("The general principle that breach of ethical duties may result in denial or disgorgement of fees is well recognized. S. Gillers & N. Dorsen, Regulation of Lawyers: Problems of Law and Ethics 265 (2d ed. 1989);
Duties owed to third parties (non-clients):
Bohn v. Cody, 119 Wn.2d 357, 363, 832 P.2d 71 (1992) ("under certain circumstances, an attorney may be held liable for malpractice to a party the attorney never represented.")
The modified multi-factor balancing test involves analysis of the following six factors:
((1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to benefit (previously affect) the plaintiff;
(2) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff;
(3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury;
(4) the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury;
(5) the policy of preventing future harm; and
(6) the extent to which the profession would be unduly burdened by a finding of liability.
See Trask v. Butler, 123 Wn.2d 835 (1994) (modifying the Bohn multi-factor test)
Criminal liability of lawyers
Client protection funds