Tue.Feb 18, 2020

Krotoszynski on The Disappearing First Amendment (Preface and Chapter 10) @UALawSchool

Media Law Prof Blog

Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., University of Alabama School of Law, has published The Disappearing First Amendment (Preface and Chapter 10) (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Here is the abstract. The standard account of the First Amendment posits that the U.S. Supreme

Arizona Litigator Named New Chair of ABA Center for Innovation

Media Law

An Arizona litigator and former chair of the American Bar Association’s Section of Litigation has been named as the new chair of the governing council of the ABA Center for Innovation , a program whose mission is to encourage and accelerate innovations the improve the affordability, effectiveness, efficiency and accessibility of legal services. The new chair, Don Bivens , is a partner in the Phoenix firm Snell & Wilmer , where his practice focuses on complex litigation and corporate investigations. He is the husband of ABA President-elect Trish Refo , who is also his law partner. Bivens takes over as chair from Daniel B. Rodriguez , the former dean of Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, who recently resigned from the position. The Center for Innovation was created in 2016 on the recommendation of the ABA’s Commission on the Future of Legal Services, whose 2016 Report on the Future of Legal Services in the United States called for, among other things, the ABA to create a center that “would be responsible for proactively and comprehensively encouraging, supporting, and driving innovation in the legal profession and justice system.” Bivens, according to his law firm biography, is a former chair of the Supreme Court of Arizona’s Committee on Civil Justice Reform and is a member of its Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services. He is a member of the American Law Institute and a past president of the Western States Bar Conference, the State Bar of Arizona, and the Maricopa County Bar Association. He has held a number of leadership roles within the ABA, including as a member of the board of governors from 2007 to 2010 and as both a former and current member of the House of Delegates. He chaired the Litigation section in 2013 to 2014. I have reached out to both Bivens and the ABA for more information about the appointment.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

Carroll on Promoting Journalism as Method @erinccarroll13

Media Law Prof Blog

Erin Carroll, Georgetown University Law Center, is publishing Promoting Journalism as Method in the Drexel Law Review. Here is the abstract. The marketplace of ideas has been a centerpiece of free speech jurisprudence for a century. According to the marketplace

Sanders takes on Bloomberg. See question he wouldn’t answer. | CNN Town.

Communications And Entertainment Law Blog

CNN 52

Heymann on Who Owns (What We Characterize as) the News @WMLawSchool

Media Law Prof Blog

Laura A. Heymann, William & Mary Law School, has published Who Owns (What We Characterize as) the News? in volume 6 of Critical Analysis of Law (2019). Here is the abstract. Will Slauter’s Who Owns the News? 2019) is subtitled

Meet the Journalist Who Exposed Bloomberg’s Racist Defense of Targeting.

Communications And Entertainment Law Blog

Revised ABA Report on Innovation Stripped Out All Mention of Rule 5.4

Media Law

As reported here yesterday , the American Bar Association House of Delegates voted to approve a resolution calling on states to consider innovative approaches to the access-to-justice crisis, including consideration of regulatory innovations that could improve the accessibility, affordability and quality of civil legal services. But some were critical of the final version of the resolution (Resolution 115) because of a last-minute revision that added a fourth clause that said, “[N]othing in this Resolution should be construed as altering any of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 5.4, as they relate to nonlawyer ownership of law firms, the unauthorized practice of law, or any other subject.” One ABA insider described this as having “defanged” the original resolution and intended to appease delegates who see the potential for private investment in law practice as a threat. But others say the changes were simply intended to clarify what was already true, which is that the resolution was not meant to be an amendment of the Model Rules. “This was an attempt to address the concerns that we were hearing that the resolution was recommending a change to the Model Rules,” Andrew M. Perlman, dean of Suffolk Law School and the original chair of the Center for Innovation, told me last night. “That was never our intention. Our intention was to spur states to be thinking about innovations that could improve the affordability, accessibility and quality of legal services.” Since writing yesterday’s post, I have learned that not only was the resolution revised, but the report that supported the resolution was also substantially revised, most notably to eliminate any reference to Rule 5.4 and to the delivery of legal services by anyone other than a lawyer. As I wrote in my post yesterday, the original version of the report in support of the resolution , which was signed by Daniel B. Rodriguez , the immediate-past chair of the Center for Innovation and former dean of Northwestern’s Pritzker School of Law, said that the resolution “calls for U.S. jurisdictions to consider regulatory innovations that foster new ways to deliver competent and cost-effective legal services and have the potential to improve the accessibility, affordability, and quality of those services while retaining necessary and appropriate client and public protections.”. A section of that report, titled “Categories of Regulatory Innovation,” described the three broad areas of regulatory reform currently being considered in states such as Arizona, California and Utah: Authorizing and regulating new categories of legal services providers. Experimenting with variations to Rule 5.4, which prohibits lawyers from partnering and sharing fees with those who are not lawyers. New approaches to the unauthorized practice of law. That version described current efforts around each of these categories and the reasoning behind them, but without taking a position for or against them. In the revised and final version of the report , which is now signed by Don Bivens, Rodriguez’s successor as chair of the Center for Innovation, that entire section of the report has been cut out, as have been all references to Rule 5.4 and to new categories of legal services providers. Also eliminated was a section titled, “The Need for Regulatory Innovation,” which stated: “As noted above, the evidence is clear that existing solutions to the access to justice crisis are insufficient and that we need new ideas, such as regulatory reforms to unlock new delivery models. Although the need for change is compelling, the evidence does not yet support any particular regulatory innovation.” Several people have told me that the impetus for the changes that resulted in the final version of Resolution 115 was concerns raised by delegates from the New York State Bar Association. The fourth clause was negotiated with them in order to get their support for the resolution. But Perlman says the addition of the fourth clause in no way undermines the significance of this resolution, which was never meant to be an endorsement of any specific innovations or to amend the Model Rules. “The significance is that now the ABA is on record as encouraging states to consider regulatory innovations,” Perlman said. “That’s a major statement form the ABA, and it’s a recognition that many states around the country are already doing this — that the train has already left the station. “My hope,” he continued, “is that this resolution will prompt additional states to start doing what those states have begun to do.”

More Trending

LawNext Episode 63: Legal Analytics Super Session from #Legalweek20

Media Law

The growing use of legal analytics is rapidly transforming the practice of law. Within law firms, analytics drive litigation strategy, business development efforts, and hiring decisions. Within corporate legal departments, analytics drive outside counsel hiring and internal business operations. .

Bloomberg Misleads on Stop-And-Frisk - FactCheck.org

Communications And Entertainment Law Blog

It amazes me that people can live in America and not have any familiarity with major news stories. As my paternal grandmother, born in the 1880s always said; "some of us are not ready yet."