Professional Responsibility & Legal Education
- Corporate Practice
- Ethics in Litigation
- Legal Education
- Pro Bono Service
|The Electorate and the Courts - Event Audio/Video|
Closing Panel: The Electorate and the Courts
|Showcase Panel IV: Textualism and Statutory Interpretation - Event Audio/Video|
In recent years, textualism has come to replace legislative history as the most important tool available to Supreme Court Justices when interpreting statutory text. This panel will examine the new textualism and will debate its merits. What are the arguments for and against textualism? When, if ever, ought a judge consider legislative history? This panel will also address the question of whether theJjustices all share the same approach to statutory interpretation or whether they continue to diverge in predictable ways. What effect does the choice of interpretive techniques have on congressional drafting of legislation in the future?
The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on "Textualism and Statutory Interpretation" on Saturday, November 16, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
Showcase Panel IV: Textualism and Statutory Interpretation
|Sixth Annual Rosenkranz Debate - RESOLVED: Courts are too Deferential to the Legislature - Event Audio/Video|
The Sixth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 16, 2013, during The Federalist Society's 2013 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the debate was "RESOLVED: Courts are too Deferential to the Legislature" and featured Prof. Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Judge Jerry Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit moderated.
Sixth Annual Rosenkranz Debate
|Regulation of the Legal Profession in the 21st Century: Should Professional Regulation Favor Social Policy over Client Protection? - Event Audio/Video|
In 1990, the Supreme Court unanimously held that an integrated state bar association, which all lawyers licensed in a state must join, could not use the compulsory dues paid by its members to pursue political or ideological activities unrelated to regulating the legal profession or improving the legal system. Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990). The Court explained, “[T]he extreme ends of the spectrum are clear: Compulsory dues may not be extended to endorse or advance a gun control or nuclear weapons freeze initiative; at the other end of the spectrum petitioners have no valid constitutional objection to their compulsory dues being spent for activities connected to disciplining members of the Bar or proposing ethical codes for the profession.” Id., at 15-16.
In the nearly 25 years since the Court decided Keller, the entities empowered to promulgate ethical rules binding on the lawyers practicing in a state have imposed a variety of regulations, some of which are more closely and clearly related to the regulation of the legal profession than others. Requirements like continuing legal education and contributions to client security funds are generally seen to fall within the scope of permissible regulation. The imposition of mandatory diversity training in Minnesota and a requirement that law students perform a specified number of hours of pro bono work as a condition to their becoming licensed to practice in New York look different.
Should state regulation of the bar be limited to imposing rules whose purpose is the protection of client interests? Or, can the regulators impose rules designed to make lawyers “better” people in the belief that “better” people will better serve their clients? How far can the organized bar go in “proposing ethical codes for the profession?” To what extent do programs like mandatory diversity training and requiring law students to perform a specified number of pro bono hours serve the interests of clients?
The Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group hosted this panel on "Regulation of the Legal Profession in the 21st Century: Should Professional Regulation Favor Social Policy over Client Protection?" on Saturday, November 16, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
Professional Responsibility: Regulation of the Legal Profession in the 21st Century: Should Professional Regulation Favor Social Policy over Client Protection?