|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 21, 2016 6:09:15 GMT -6
I would add that ethical concerns don't seem to be a huge issue here in Talossa. We aren't suing each other in tort or to recover fiscal damages. But I imagine an ethical violation, if we enforced them, would come in the form of censure or possible disbarment for the most egregious offenses.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 20, 2016 12:53:40 GMT -6
I understand. Nevertheless, I do think that if an apprentice is going to practice, which I think is the best way to learn, that the supervising attorney should, well, supervise.
To the best of my knowledge, we don't have clearly stated ethical rules here in Talossa (in NY, also, our rules are advisory). In terms of borrowing common law, my understanding of Talossan Law follows that where a conflict arises between Talossan and Wisconsin law, Talossan law takes precedent, but in instances where Talossan Law is non-existent, we borrow from Wisconsin law. Hence the common law of Wisconsin, provided it doesn't conflict with Talossan law, is wholly applicable anyway. If my understanding is correct (and please tell me if I'm wrong), it stands to reason that we should be taking cues from Wisconsin law, common law or statutory, anyway.
As to the reasonableness standard - perhaps the Cort could issue, as courts do anyway, guidance on how to interpret the statute. As I think we're entering a pretty interesting area that, to the best of my knowledge, perhaps hasn't played such a large role, legislative intent (providing some legislatures debate this) could also shed light on what is meant with a reasonableness standard. Also, Talossa is a common law nation; common law nations borrow from each other anyway.
How is: "Further, during the aforementioned apprenticeship, the attorney may issue a student practice order, allowing said student to practice law, but retains liablity for ethical breaches of the student apprentice if that ethical breach is causally connected the supervising attorney recklessly disregarding the actions of the attorney as it relates to the specific instance of malpractice."
This wording needs to be fixed. But a mens rea of "reckless" is pretty high, and requiring causation to a specific instance (i.e., not a general "they just didn't provide a lot of oversight") I think addresses some concerns.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 19, 2016 7:49:44 GMT -6
Further, during the aforementioned apprenticeship, the attorney may issue a student practice order, allowing said student to practice law, but accepts all ethical and legal issues as their own, within reason, that may arise from that student's work. This part makes me a little nervous. Maybe the contents of a student practice order would tighten up the risk some, but I'm not familiar with those (are they a NY thing?). I based this on the concept that we have in NY. I'm sure there is something similar in other states. (see e.g., how the NY 3d Dept approaches this (805.5) www.nycourts.gov/ad3/Admissions/AdmissionsRules.html) I added the other part for ethical concerns. Under the MRPC, a supervisor is, more so than not, liable for ethical violations of their underlings. I had MR 5.2 and 5.3 in mind with this. To my understanding, I didn't introduce anything that isn't common in the US system.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 18, 2016 14:13:48 GMT -6
So... I put forth an idea for an act to amend the current scheme. Any thoughts on that?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 17, 2016 12:30:16 GMT -6
As a compromise, what if we temporarily amended the statute to provide a temporary window that will expire on a certain date if the Clark does not renew, for an alternative method to admit new attorneys.
Something like:
The Judiciary Stimulation Act
WHEREAS El Lexhatx § C (1.6) sets out the statutory requirements for admission to the Royal Talossan Bar;
WHEREAS it remains desirable that only those individuals who demonstrate an understanding of Talossan law practice law in the Kingdom of Talossa
WHEREAS it is nonetheless equally important to grow the practice of law in the Kingdom of Talossa
WHEREAS the current statutory scheme remains desirable but inhibits the ability to grow the judiciary
THEREFORE El Lexhatx § C, 1.6 shall be amended to include the following clause:
1.6.1.25 Any member of the Royal Talossan Bar may petition the Chancellor to admit a student who has completed an apprenticeship for a period of no less than five months, for which the attorney and Chancellor shall exercise reasonable discretion, to be admitted to the Royal Talossan bar. Further, during the aforementioned apprenticeship, the attorney may issue a student practice order, allowing said student to practice law, but accepts all ethical and legal issues as their own, within reason, that may arise from that student's work. This clause shall remain the law of the Kingdom of Talossa for a period of no more than two years from the date of enactment, unless renewed by appropriate legislative means.
-------
Should there be a line in there that says something like, "those individuals who seek admission through these means are exempt from the statutory requirements enumerated elsewhere, except for 1.6.1.3.1.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 11, 2016 9:39:57 GMT -6
Perhaps not doing away with the bar exam, per se, but allowing for "student admission" or a trial period before full admission. Or a showing that a candidate has received a minimum of one year legal training in their home country with a certification that they have read the Organic Law, el Lexhatx. I would also say encourage the Bar to adopt the MPC, with a few modifications.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 10, 2016 15:57:00 GMT -6
Perhaps a change to admission requirements may be in order? For instance, an individual who complete the apprenticeship requirement and scores higher (say 85 or 90%) on the bar may be admitted without taking a course?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 9, 2016 6:09:18 GMT -6
I have a few questions about bar admission. If they have been answered before, please direct me to that post/page (I tried to search but didn't find anything).
(1) How does one properly cite El lexhatx? Has the Cort formally or informally adopted the Bluebook? If so, do rules B20/21 dictate or is there a special citation style?
(2) Admission to the Royal Talossan Bar is governed by El Lexhatx (C)(1.6.1.3.1), which requires that an "applicant must ... have been a citizen in good standing for not less than six months." El Lexhatx (C)(1.6.1.3.1). Absent any other direction, I interpret this statute to have some ambiguity as to what qualifies as six months. Thus, two questions present themselves concerning only to the facts of my situation: (1) does the fact that I was a citizen for seven years count towards that six months?; or (2) does the six-month counter start upon an applicant's most recent grant of citizenship? This question may be moot considering other issues discussed below.
(3) El Lexhatx further requires an applicant to have completed a course of study in Talossan Law at the Royal Law Academy, El Lexhatx (C)(1.6.1.3.2), however I cannot find where one might enroll in such a course. Perhaps some direction? however, there is a post from earlier this year/last year about AD administering a course that doesn't seem like it went anywhere. Any idea when that will happen?
(4) Has there been some codification or some type of guideline on civil procedure?
(5) I assume, of course, the Cort entertains suits brought by pro se plaintiffs, even if El Lexhatx offers no guidance on the issue. Is this assumption safe?
|
|