ABA Journal Online Daily News By Stephanie Francis Ward Posted August 14, 2017, 12:15 pm CDT
The stigma of attorneys seeking help for mental health disorders needs to be eliminated, according to a report released Monday by various groups, including the American Bar Association’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs.
"To be a good lawyer, one has to be a healthy lawyer. Sadly, our profession is falling short when it comes to well-being," states the report (PDF) from the the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being.
It cites a 2016 study done by the commission and the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, which found that out of 13,000 lawyers surveyed, between 20.6 and 36.4 percent could be considered problem drinkers. The study also found that 28 percent of those surveyed suffered from depression, and 19 percent had anxiety.
The 73-page report, titled "The Path to Lawyer Well-Being: Practical Recommendations for Positive Change," also cites a 2016 study of law student well-being. Out of 3,300 students surveyed, 43 percent reported binge drinking at least once in the prior two weeks. The study defined binge drinking as consuming at least four alcoholic drinks in one sitting for women, and at least five in one sitting for men.
The Conference of Chief Justices, which helped develop the report, endorsed its recommendations last week, according to an ABA press release. Other recommendations include partnering with lawyer assistance programs, fostering respectful engagement in the profession and enhancing lawyers’ sense of self-control in their work responsibilities.
"Practices that rob lawyers of a sense of autonomy and control over their schedules and lives are especially harmful to their well-being. Research studies show that high job demands paired with a lack of a sense of control breeds depression and other psychological disorders," the report states. "Research suggests that men in jobs with such characteristics have an elevated risk of alcohol abuse."
Bree Buchanan, director of the State Bar of Texas’ LAP program, and James C. Coyle, attorney regulation counsel for the Colorado Supreme Court, co-chaired the task force. Their report includes action plans with checklists for stakeholders.
"The legal profession is already struggling. Our profession confronts a dwindling market share as the public turns to more accessible, affordable alternative legal service providers. We are at a crossroads," Buchanan and Coyle wrote. "To maintain public confidence in the profession, to meet the need for innovation in how we deliver legal services, to increase access to justice, and to reduce the level of toxicity that has allowed mental health and substance use disorders to fester among our colleagues, we have to act now." Read online
ABA Journal Online Daily News By Lee Rawles Posted August 14, 2017
ABA President Linda Klein said "the lawyers of America must lead in bringing people together and defending the values that unite us," in a speech to the ABA House of Delegates at the organization's annual meeting Monday in New York City.
Klein began her remarks by drawing attention to Saturday’s rally by white nationalists and similar groups that left a 32-year-old counterprotester dead in Charlottesville, Virginia. Klein had released a statement Sunday.
"We come to New York to celebrate the rule of law, and what do we see?" Klein asked. "We see people filled with hate coming to the hometown of the author of the Declaration of Independence.
"The principles of tolerance and liberty will always prevail over the forces of hatred and racism. Hate will not rule our country; tolerance and lawfulness will. Nothing is more basic to our profession and to our country."
Klein called on all American lawyers to continue the association’s mission to defend liberty and pursue justice.
"Our country needs us, and it needs us now," she said.
Klein began her term in office at the close of the 2016 annual meeting last August. At that time, she had intended to focus on assisting veterans with legal issues; working to ensure children’s access to a quality education; and increasing the resources and tools available to members.
Those were goals that were achieved, and she outlined some of those successes:
• The ABA Commission on the Lawyer’s Role in Assuring Every Child’s Right to a High-Quality Education was established, and it studied how lawyers can contribute to children’s educational opportunities through litigation and volunteering. A printed version of their report will be published shortly.
• ABA Blueprint was launched to assist solo and small firms and provide member-only discounts on firm management products and consultations.
However, the year also brought surprise challenges.
Klein shared an experience she had last August while visiting the USS George Washington, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. She met the crew and then was given the opportunity to climb into the "smallest, hottest, fastest plane" she’d ever been in, and be shot off the deck of the carrier via a steam-powered catapult. Only the skill of the crew and laws of physics stood between her and a sharp drop into the ocean.
"So that’s how my year began. And that’s pretty much what it’s been like the whole year through," Klein said to laughter from the audience.
It was the hard work of a "400,000-member aircraft carrier" that helped her navigate that year, Klein says.
Some of the situations that required response during her tenure were attacks on the independence of the judiciary by President Donald Trump, after his travel ban was blocked by courts; a lawsuit filed by the association against the Department of Education to protect the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program; threats to completely defund the Legal Services Corp.; and a plan by Arkansas to execute seven men in 11 days before their lethal injection drugs expired.
"By focusing on the basics, our ABA was prepared and ready," Klein says. "We responded quickly and decisively to the challenge."
One of the successes the ABA had in response to these challenges was with its lobbying efforts on behalf of the Legal Service Corp. Congress is still developing next year’s budget, but the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies has recommended that instead of defunding the LSC, its fiscal 2018 budget should be maintained at $385 million, the same amount the civil legal-aid provider received this year.
For support throughout the year, Klein thanked her family, ABA staff members and her partners at Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, where she is the senior managing shareholder.
"Thank you for a special year," Klein said to the delegates. "Our defining moment—our year." Read more
ABA Journal By Debra Cassens Weiss Posted August 3, 2017
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that it is adopting an electronic filing system beginning Nov. 13.
The system will make "virtually all new filings" available to the public at no cost, the Supreme Court said in its announcement. The National Law Journal (sub. req.) has a story.
Initially, official filing of documents will continue to be on paper, but parties represented by lawyers will also have to submit electronic versions. Those without lawyers will have their documents scanned by court personnel and made available to the public.
The announcement follows the rollout of the Supreme Court’s redesigned website on July 28. Helpful changes include information about cases being argued on particular days and etiquette information for court visitors, according to a previous National Law Journal story (sub. req.).
Fix The Court, a Supreme Court transparency advocate, reacted to the electronic filing announcement in a statement: "Most federal appeals courts have required electronic filing for years, so I’m pleased the Supreme Court has finally joined its institutional counterparts by implementing this policy," executive director Gabe Roth said.
Roth also said he hopes the change will lead to other improvements, such as live audio for oral arguments and a software-based conflict check system. Read online
Most often, the US Supreme Court grants or denies petitions to hear a case after reviewing a written request called a "petition for writ of certiorari". Also called "the writ of cert", it is reviewed by the Justices and granting the petition depends on whether or not it passes "the rule of four". If it does, the case is probably one of three types: a case of national importance, a case in which a lower court decision has invalidated federal law, or a case involving a split decision in lower courts. Famously, Bush v. Gore was an example of national importance, Gonzales v. Raich was a case in which a lower court invalidated federal law, and Obergefell v. Hodges was selected by the Court in order to resolve a circuit split decision. By following this protocol of case selection, the Court has been designed to be reactive to legislative decisions made in other branches of government, as opposed to an active legislative body that seeks to create and institute new laws. Overall, the result of this design is a Court that prioritizes case selections that will enable them to enforce the uniformity of federal law throughout the country.
Former Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein assesses the Trump administration’s first six months and responds to questions about an infamous photo that showed her sitting at the same table as Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a dinner in Moscow in 2015.
The U.S. Supreme Court may be too small, according to Judge Richard Posner.
A 19-member court would increase diversity and might have more quality justices, Posner said at a recent talk at the University of Chicago. The Chicago Tribune summarized Posner’s comments.
Posner, a federal judge on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is the city’s "favorite smarty pants judge," according to the Tribune.
Justices and other federal judges are appointed by politicians, with Senate confirmation, Posner pointed out. "Those politicians don’t care about quality beyond a minimum, a very low minimum," he said.
Posner said politicians are more concerned with political leanings of potential judges, as well as the need to appoint "tokens," such as women or Hispanics. "So you end up with mediocre courts that are highly politicized," Posner said (at around 25 minutes, 30 seconds into this video, noted by How Appealing). "In the Supreme Court, we have extremely reactionary Supreme Court justices, appointed by Bush mainly."
Posner didn’t specify George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush. George H.W. Bush appointed Clarence Thomas, while George W. Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Anthony Alito Jr.
One idea, voiced by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, is a 19-member Supreme Court. Posner likes the idea.
"If the Supreme Court was much larger, they might say, ‘Well, OK, we have 19 justices, 12 of them are highly politicized, but we have these extra seven seats, so we’ll appoint some of the people just on basic quality,’ and that would make a big difference," Posner said. In addition, a 19-member court "would inevitably have more diversity," Posner said.
Posner had another suggestion for the judiciary in a recent piece for Slate. He said "there should be mandatory retirement for all judges at a fixed age, probably 80" and there is "no need for octogenarians" on the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a new Slate piece, Posner said he believes the quality of lawyers can be very important in a jury’s verdict.
"Very often the lawyers are totally mismatched in quality—by quality, I mean ability to sway a jury," he wrote. "The quality difference need not be intellectual; often it is personality. Some lawyers are simply very good at coming across to a jury as nice—wouldn’t lie, wouldn’t exaggerate—and when such an attorney is up against a mean or pompous lawyer, the nice guy has a big advantage." Read online
Advisers to President Donald Trump fear he could face legal jeopardy for allegedly drafting a misleading statement about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer, according to published reports.
Multiple sources tell the Washington Post that Trump dictated the statement on behalf of his son that said the June 2016 meeting was primarily about the adoption of Russian children. ABC followed with its own story about Trump’s involvement, based on two senior level sources.
The full statement drafted for Trump Jr. read: "We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up."
Trump Jr. later released emails showing he was told he would receive damaging information about Hillary Clinton at the meeting. The emails indicated Trump Jr. would receive documents with high-level information that was part of the Russian government’s support for Trump.
According to the Washington Post, advisers worry Trump’s involvement in the statement "leaves him needlessly vulnerable to allegations of a cover-up."
The Post article points out that misleading the public and the media is not a crime. But advisers fear any indication that Trump was trying to hide his campaign’s contact with Russians would draw additional scrutiny from special counsel Robert Mueller as he looks into possible obstruction of justice.
Lawyers had initially planned to reveal details of the meeting before the story broke, characterizing the meeting as a possible setup by Democrats, according to the Post. But Trump overruled the consensus that there needed to be transparency.
Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow issued this statement about the Post article: "Apart from being of no consequence, the characterizations are misinformed, inaccurate, and not pertinent."
Trump Jr.’s lawyer, Alan Futerfas, told the Post that he had no evidence to support the theory that Trump had intervened. Drafting a statement, he said, is "a communal situation that involved communications people and various lawyers." Read online
A Nevada judge has issued an execution warrant for an inmate who wants to end his appeals and so he can be put to death.
Judge Jennifer Togliatti of Clark County on Thursday ordered the execution of Scott Dozier to take place the week of Oct. 16, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports. He would be the first inmate executed in Nevada since 2006.
Dozier was sentenced to death in 2007 for the 2002 murder of an Arizona resident whose torso was discovered in a suitcase. Dozier was also convicted of second-degree murder in 2005.
Togliatti asked Dozier whether he was concerned about reported problems with the drugs that could be used in his execution. Dozier said it didn’t change his quest to die, according to the article. "Quite frankly, your honor, all those people ended up dead, and that’s my goal here," Dozier said.
"Once they start, they’re going to get it done one way or another," he said. "Ideally it will not be terrible or painful, but if it is, I’m kind of committed at that point."
Clark County Assistant District Attorney Giancarlo Pesci told the judge that the Department of Corrections says it will get the drugs needed for execution, though one of the drugs in its stockpile expired recently. "I can’t tell you which drug or drugs" will be used, Pesci said.
State law doesn’t provide a protocol for execution drugs, the article reports. Read online
On July 18, 2017 I was taken by ambulance to the hospital after becoming sick during a
non-jury trial on the foreclosure of my home. I was alone and without counsel to represent me.
Presiding Judge Ann Melinda Craggs continued the trial without me and ruled for the bank.
A FOIA response May 18, 2017 confirms a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the mental health screening imposed by the Florida Supreme Court on bar applicants. Nelson D. Hermilla, Chief, Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Branch, Civil Rights Division, wrote,
Dear Mr. Gillespie: This is in response to your April 29, 2015 Freedom of Information Act request, received by the Civil Rights Division, seeking access to records on the U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the mental health screening imposed by the Florida Supreme Court on bar applicants.
The records you have requested pertain to an ongoing law enforcement proceeding. After
consideration of the responsive records, I have determined that access to the documents should be denied pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(7)(A), since disclosure thereof could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings. I have further determined that certain information within these records that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C.§552(b)(7)(A) should also be denied pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(5), since the records consist of attorney work product and include intra-agency memoranda containing pre-decisional, deliberative material; and 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(7)(C) since disclosure of information contained in these records could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy...
The FBBE 2015-16 proposed budget cites a "federal investigation" and a $100,000 increase in attorneys fees: "This is primarily due to the increase in attorney fees with regard to the federal investigation by $100K". (Page 14). "Bob Burgoyne of Norton Rose Fulbright has been retained to represent the board in the federal investigation." (Page 41)
The Declaration of Independence is the statement adopted by the Second Continental Congress meeting at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies,[2] then at war with the Kingdom of Great Britain, regarded themselves as thirteen newly independent sovereign states, and no longer under British rule. Instead they formed a new nation—the United States of America. John Adams was a leader in pushing for independence, which was passed on July 2 with no opposing vote cast. A committee of five had already drafted the formal declaration, to be ready when Congress voted on independence. The term "Declaration of Independence" is not used in the document itself. Read more
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Read more
Every nation has a creation myth, or origin myth, which is the story people are taught of how the nation came into being. Ours says the United States began with Columbus's so-called "discovery" of America, continued with settlement by brave Pilgrims, won its independence from England with the American Revolution, and then expanded westward until it became the enormous, rich country you see today.
That is the origin myth. It omits three key facts about the birth and growth of the United States as a nation. Those facts demonstrate that White Supremacy is fundamental to the existence of this country.
A. The United States is a nation state created by military conquest in several stages. The first stage was the European seizure of the lands inhabited by indigenous peoples, which they called Turtle Island. Before the European invasion, there were between nine and eighteen million indigenous people in North America. By the end of the Indian Wars, there were about 250,000 in what is now called the United States, and about 123,000 in what is now Canada (source of these population figures from the book _The State of Native America_ ed. by M. Annette Jaimes, South End Press, 1992). That process must be called genocide, and it created the land base of this country. The elimination of indigenous peoples and seizure of their land was the first condition for its existence.
B. The United States could not have developed economically as a nation without enslaved African labor. When agriculture and industry began to grow in the colonial period, a tremendous labor shortage existed. Not enough white workers came from Europe and the European invaders could not put indigenous peoples to work in sufficient numbers. It was enslaved Africans who provided the labor force that made the growth of the United States possible.
That growth peaked from about 1800 to 1860, the period called the Market Revolution. During this period, the United States changed from being an agricultural/commercial economy to an industrial corporate economy. The development of banks, expansion of the credit system, protective tariffs, and new transportation systems all helped make this possible. But the key to the Market Revolution was the export of cotton, and this was made possible by slave labor.
C. The third major piece in the true story of the formation of the United States as a nation was the take-over of half of Mexico by war -- today's Southwest. This enabled the U.S. to expand to the Pacific, and thus open up huge trade with Asia -- markets for export, goods to import and sell in the U.S. It also opened to the U.S. vast mineral wealth in Arizona, agricultural wealth in California, and vast new sources of cheap labor to build railroads and develop the economy.
The United States had already taken over the part of Mexico we call Texas in 1836, then made it a state in 1845. The following year, it invaded Mexico and seized its territory under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. A few years later, in 1853, the U.S. acquired a final chunk of Arizona from Mexico by threatening to renew the war. This completed the territorial boundaries of what is now the United States.
Those were the three foundation stones of the United States as a nation. One more key step was taken in 1898, with the takeover of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam and Cuba by means of the Spanish-American War. Since then, all but Cuba have remained U.S. colonies or neo-colonies, providing new sources of wealth and military power for the United States. The 1898 take-over completed the phase of direct conquest and colonization, which had begun with the murderous theft of Native American lands five centuries before.
Many people in the United States hate to recognize these truths. They prefer the established origin myth. They could be called the Premise Keepers. Read more
