Chemerinsky on access to the judicial system in the US

Constitutional law scholar and UC Irvine School of Law Dean, Erwin Chemerinsky has published an op-ed piece in which he argues that the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority is aggressively closing the courthouse doors even when it requires a tortured reading of federal statutes to do so.  You can read the article here.

Comments on Turner v Rogers -- UPDATED

Here is a list of links to articles or comments on the Supreme Court's decision in Turner v Rogers (thanks to the SCOTUS blog for the list):

SCOTUS blog
Washington Post
New York Times
Courthouse News Service
JURIST
The Boston Globe
Concurring Opinions
Constitutional Law Prof Blog

UPDATE 6/22:  Here are a few more links

The Atlantic
Concurring Opinions
ACSblog

Class action alleges public defender caseloads result in violation of right to counsel

The ABA Journal.com is reporting today that three inmates have filed a class action suit against two cities in Washington state, contending that excessive public defender caseloads in municipal court have deprived them and other defendants of their constitutional right to counsel.  Go here for the story in the Seattle Times.

Supreme Court decides Turner v Rogers

Back in March the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case called Turner v. Rogers (formerly titled Turner v. Price) which asked the court to decide whether an indigent client has a right to an attorney for civil contempt proceeding that could lead to jail time. I posted a number of links to comments on the oral argument the day after it was heard here. 

Yesterday, the Court announced its decision holding (on a 5 to 4 vote) that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not automatically require the state to provide counsel at civil contempt proceedings to an indigent noncustodial parent who is subject to a child support order, even if that individual faces incarceration.   In this case, however, the petitioner’s incarceration violated due process because he received neither counsel nor the benefit of alternative procedural safeguards that would reduce the risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty.  The opinion, as well as the lower court's opinion and the briefs and other relevant documents in the case are available here.

Here is a comment on the case at the Legal Ethics Forum (with links to two others here and here).  The Wall Street Journal law blog has the story here.

I will continue to update this post with links to comments on the case as I see new ones.

How not to practice law (as a judge): order defendants to go to church

Here is an interesting little story about a Mississippi judge who has been reprimanded for ordering defendants to attend church as a condition of bail.  You can read the reprimand here.  More on the story here.  Thanks to the First Amendment Center blog for the link. 

Podcast on right to counsel

Here is a link (also here) to a podcast with Suffolk Law Professor Christopher Dearborn in which he discusses his article on the right to counsel prior to custodial interrogation, You Have the Right to an Attorney, but Not Right Now.

Changes to Federal Rule 11 on sanctions for frivolous lawsuits, again?

The Blog of the Legal Times is reporting today that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee is getting ready to vote on legislation that would restore the system of mandatory sanctions on lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits.  The text of the proposal is available here.  It would make sanctions mandatory once a judge has found a lawsuit to be frivolous under Rule 11 of the rules of civil procedure, and it would remove a 21-day “safe harbor” under which lawyers can now withdraw a lawsuit to avoid threatened sanctions.  As expected, "the proposal has drawn enthusiastic support from business groups who say it would eliminate wasteful litigation, while opponents say it would lead to costly side battles that will consume judges’ time."  Wasn't the approach supported by the bill tried and eventually rejected?  

NYC bar issues opinion on litigation lending industry -- UPDATED

Back in November of last year and then again in January of this year, I reported on a series of articles on the entities that lend money to litigants in exchange for an assignment of an amount of the potential proceeds of the litigants' legal action.  Then, later that month, I reported that the Illinois legislature rejected a proposal to regulate litigation financing companies.

Now, the New York City Bar has issued a opinion on ethical issues raised by the use of litigation lending services.  The opinion is available here. The New York Law Journal has an article on it here.  Finally, the ABA Journal has a short summary here.

The Wall Street Journal law blog has more on the story here.

Ohio State Univ football scandal includes possible discipline for disclosure of confidential information

The Legal Profession blog is reporting that Ohio Supreme Court's Office of Disciplinary Counsel  has filed a complaint accusing a lawyer of violating his duty of confidentiality by sending three e-mails to former Ohio State Univerisity football coach Jim Tressel.  In the emails, the lawyer told Tressel that certain players had been given free tattoos in exchange for signed memorabilia.  This conduct, in case you don't know, violates NCAA rules.  The reason sending the messages is arguably a violation of the rules is that the lawyer, learned of the situation when the owner of the tattoo parlor came to him for legal advice about a federal-drug investigation against him.  Go here for more details.

Disbarment recommended for one of the "kings of torts"

Back in March I reported (here) on the possible disbarment of attorney Stanley Chesley, a very successful plaintiffs' lawyer who some consider to be the father of the modern-day mass tort.  I actually worked with Chesley a long time ago, when I was starting out, in a mass disaster fire case and it really bothers me to see his career -- during which he helped many people -- go down in flames like this. 

The Wall Street Journal blog is reporting (here) that the Kentucky Bar Association board of governors voted to disbar him for allegedly taking more than his share – $7 million, to be exact – in fees from a 2001 diet drug settlement.  The Lexington Herald-Leader has more details here.