This blog is primarily for my clients, although other attorneys and individuals are welcome to browse as they would like.
There are multiple purposes.
I would be lying if I said I wasn't in some way trying to get some hits on my website and maybe a client or two.
Second, my client needs to know that they have an ethical attorney. Each week I review a new rule of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Responsibility and describe some of the controls internal to my firm that help me stay within those rules of ethics.
Each week I summarize one or two of the cases that have been passed down from the Arkansas Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, which helps me stay abreast of the latest changes in the law.
I am sure that other posts are sure to come.
Josh
Friday, June 26, 2009
Weekly Ethics Review: Rule 1.1
The Arkansas Rules of Professional Responsibility require attorneys to provide competent representation to a client. Competence requires a combination of legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation.
There are several factors that determine whether a lawyer has the necessary knowledge and skill to handle a particular case. Questions that all lawyers should ask themselves are: how complex or specialized is this case? Am I experienced enough to handle this case? Do I have any special training or experience in this particular area of law? Should I talk to an attorney who is an expert in this field? The most important question is whether the attorney has the time to devote to research and study. A law license shows the world that an attorney is competent to practice law. If the attorney has the time to study, then the attorney has the knowledge and skill to take the case.
A lawyer has to thoroughly investigate the facts and applicable law to any situation. The lawyer must adequately prepare. Maintaining the competence that Rule 1.1 requires is a matter of continual study of changes in the law and fulfilling the requirements of continuing legal education (CLE). How do I do that?
Every Thursday the Arkansas Judiciary publishes the latest Appeals Court and Supreme Court cases. I review those cases each week, and as you can probably see, I type a short blog entry on one or two of them. I read the local legal news so that I know what laws are being passed and what other judges are doing. For example, I posted a link on my website to a story where a Judge decided it was ok for a church affiliated school to obtain financing by bonds. And of course I keep up with my CLEs.
Next week: Rule 1.2 - Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer (Part 1)
There are several factors that determine whether a lawyer has the necessary knowledge and skill to handle a particular case. Questions that all lawyers should ask themselves are: how complex or specialized is this case? Am I experienced enough to handle this case? Do I have any special training or experience in this particular area of law? Should I talk to an attorney who is an expert in this field? The most important question is whether the attorney has the time to devote to research and study. A law license shows the world that an attorney is competent to practice law. If the attorney has the time to study, then the attorney has the knowledge and skill to take the case.
A lawyer has to thoroughly investigate the facts and applicable law to any situation. The lawyer must adequately prepare. Maintaining the competence that Rule 1.1 requires is a matter of continual study of changes in the law and fulfilling the requirements of continuing legal education (CLE). How do I do that?
Every Thursday the Arkansas Judiciary publishes the latest Appeals Court and Supreme Court cases. I review those cases each week, and as you can probably see, I type a short blog entry on one or two of them. I read the local legal news so that I know what laws are being passed and what other judges are doing. For example, I posted a link on my website to a story where a Judge decided it was ok for a church affiliated school to obtain financing by bonds. And of course I keep up with my CLEs.
Next week: Rule 1.2 - Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer (Part 1)
This Week in Arkansas Law
Repressed Memory Syndrome and the Statute of Limitations
The Supreme Court affirmed the Pulaski County Circuit Court this week on whether Repressed Memory Syndrome amounts to insanity as to toll the statute of limitations under A.C.A. 16-56-116. This section of the Arkansas Code allows a plaintiff who had a disability when the act precipitating the law suit took place to still bring their lawsuit three years after the disability was removed, even if the statute of limitations had already run.
The Court decided that the defendants had not fraudulently concealed the abuse from the plaintiff because the plaintiff could not show that it was a material fact in the summary judgment phase of litigation. The Court further decided that Represed Memory Syndrome was not shown to affect the ability to recall memories does not affect the ability to reason. Finally the Court decided that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for additional discovery.
Double Jeopardy After Mistrial
The Supreme Court decided that a Jefferson County man would go free after the Trial Court declared a mistrial without an overruling necessity for doing so. A mistrial is a harsh remedy that should only be used if an error occurred in trial that was incurable. That error must be an overruling necessity, which is defined as a forceful or compelling emergency circumstance over which neither the attorneys nor the judge had control.
The Supreme Court decided that there was not an overruling necessity. The Judge could have issued a statement to the jury that would have corrected the error. The defense attorney offered to correct the error in front of the jury. The Trial Court decided that these would not suffice to correct the error at trial and declared a mistrial. The defendant claimed protection under the Double Jeopardy provisions of the Arkansas Constitution. The Trial Court denied that protection. However, the Supreme Court declared that the defendant could not be made to stand trial again because he had already been prosecuted.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Pulaski County Circuit Court this week on whether Repressed Memory Syndrome amounts to insanity as to toll the statute of limitations under A.C.A. 16-56-116. This section of the Arkansas Code allows a plaintiff who had a disability when the act precipitating the law suit took place to still bring their lawsuit three years after the disability was removed, even if the statute of limitations had already run.
The Court decided that the defendants had not fraudulently concealed the abuse from the plaintiff because the plaintiff could not show that it was a material fact in the summary judgment phase of litigation. The Court further decided that Represed Memory Syndrome was not shown to affect the ability to recall memories does not affect the ability to reason. Finally the Court decided that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for additional discovery.
Double Jeopardy After Mistrial
The Supreme Court decided that a Jefferson County man would go free after the Trial Court declared a mistrial without an overruling necessity for doing so. A mistrial is a harsh remedy that should only be used if an error occurred in trial that was incurable. That error must be an overruling necessity, which is defined as a forceful or compelling emergency circumstance over which neither the attorneys nor the judge had control.
The Supreme Court decided that there was not an overruling necessity. The Judge could have issued a statement to the jury that would have corrected the error. The defense attorney offered to correct the error in front of the jury. The Trial Court decided that these would not suffice to correct the error at trial and declared a mistrial. The defendant claimed protection under the Double Jeopardy provisions of the Arkansas Constitution. The Trial Court denied that protection. However, the Supreme Court declared that the defendant could not be made to stand trial again because he had already been prosecuted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)