How should an ethical prosecutor deal with a high-publicity rape case?

A recent editorial in the National Law Journal asks "How should an ethical prosecutor deal with a high-publicity rape case?" (see here)  My answer is simple: the same way he or she should handle a no publicity one and according to what is expected by the rules of professional conduct. Why should there be any difference?

Court reverses conviction because prosecutor read privileged communication between defendant and his lawyer

In a recent case, Connecticut Supreme Court considered "whether a prosecutor’s intrusion into communications between a defendant and his attorney that are subject to the attorney-client privilege requires the dismissal of the criminal charges against the defendant."  Finding that the prosecutor came into possession of and read certain written materials belonging to the defendant that were subject to the attorney-client privilege, the court reversed the conviction - which was obtained after the lower court had denied a motion to dismiss the charges based on the prosecutor's conduct.  Interestingly, the court held that the conviction should be reversed regardless of whether the prosecutor's conduct was intentional.  The opinion was not unanimous.  You can read the opinion here. You can read the dissenting opinion here.

Thanks to the legal profession blog for the information.

How not to practice law: don't care about the details

The Legal Profession blog is reporting (here) that the California State Bar Court Review Department has suspended an attorney who allowed his office assistant to sign his name to pleadings from July 2005 to February 2007.  The attorney denied misconduct but offered this explanation of the practice: "[i]t's just easier for me to do that. I don't like details. I leave the details to her."  The opinion is available here.

Big firms make profits, pro bono plunges

The Wall Street Journal law blog is reporting on a study by the American Lawyer magazine in its just-released July pro-bono issue that concludes that many lawyers were too busy representing paying clients to counsel non-paying ones. Go here for the story in the WSJ, go here for the story by American Lawyer magazine.

Illinois amends lawyer trust account guidelines

The Supreme Court of Illinois has announced amendments to existing lawyer trust account guidelines. The new amendments to Rule 1.15 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct help clarify the obligations that all lawyers have to manage and protect client funds. Go here for more on the story. Go here to view the new rule changes.

Recap of the Supreme Court cases on lawyering issues

The Legal Ethics Forum has a short summary of the eight lawyering cases decided by the US Supreme Court this past term here (and it also includes a summary of the lawyering cases already on the docket for next term).

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.