Louisville Lawyer
Vol. XVI, No. 2 FALL, 1971
Moot Court Competition;
Bob LaFramenta Heads Program
300 •
Ill
Three-hundred freshmen will make the
1971-'72 Moot Court competition the larg­est
and most competitive in the history
of he University of Louisville, School of
Law. However, neither the true potential
of the Moot Court Club nor that of the
paricipating students can ever be realized
without the support and cooperation of
the downtown Bar and the local judiciary.
This year's Moot Court program is
headed by senior Robert D. LaFramenta,
who, coupled with his duties as Moot
Court President, is an editor of the Law
Journal.
In organizing the Moot Court Club for
'71-'72 LaFramenta decided that to ac­commodate
such a large group of fresh­men
the overall structure of the Club was
in need of change. Instead of one com­petitive
decision, as has been the practice
in the past, there will be two competitive
divisions. Each division will be respon­sible
for preparing and briefing separate
factuf;l.l situations. From each division will
emerge a Moot Court champion. The lim­ited
library space available to the students
has made this change imperative.
Also new this year is the Research­Mentor
system, whereby the Freshman
class is divided into approximately thirty-
2 U of L 'Lex Fillies'
Attend Duke Confab
On October 1-3, the Southern Regional
Conference of the National Conference of
Law Women was held at Duke University
School of Law in Durham, North Caro­lina.
Representing the University of
Louisville School of Law at the confer­ence
were two senior women law stu­dents,
Louise Lancaster and Ellen Ewing.
The conference evolved out of last
spring's National Conference of Law
Women in Chicago at which uke was the
only southern school represented. As a
result of this limited representation by
southern law schools, the Southern Re­gional
Conference was organized by the
Duke women law students organization
with financial support from the Russell
Sage Foundation in New York Citty. Also
instrumental in the realization of this
conference was the support afforded the
women students by the Duke Law School
administration. The apathetic image pre­sented
by the southern schools at the Na­tional
Conference was completely dis­pelled
as the Southern Regional Confer­ence
attracted 105 women law students
The theme of the conference, "Women
from seventeen southern schools.
sex-discrimination. In one of the cases,
Reed v. Reed, the Idaho Supreme Court
upheld a state statute which, in the ap­pointment
of estate administrators, gives
nificance of the Court's decision in the
preference to men over women. The sig­who
worked on the brief for the appel­Reed
case, according to Ms. Ginsburg,
lant, could be limited as Idaho has since
changed this statute.
In Alexander v. Louisiana, the Supreme
Court will consider the constitutionality
of a state statute excluding all women
from jury duty, except those who volun­teer,
and, in Stanley v. lllinois, will de­termine
the right of a father of three off­spring
of an 18-year common law rela­tionship
to be considered for appointment
as guardian upon the death of the
mother.
Other speakers included Elizabeth
Dunst, Office of the General Counsel of
the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, and Nancy Stearns, attorney for
the Center for Constitutional Rights in
New York City. Ms. Dunst and Ms. Stearns
addressed themselves to the problems
faced by a woman in the practice of law.
Their anecdote ranged from humorous
experiences to demeaning encounters in­cluding
a woman attorney being called
to the bench by a New York Federal Dis­trict
Court judge and told, in a tone suf­ficiently
audible for those in the court
room to hear, that he was a happily mar­ried
man.
five groups of eight students, each group
being led by two mentors, both of whom
are upperclassmen and previous Moot
Court participants. The mentors will guide
the freshmen through exhaustive research
of their respective moot court problem
and the specific issues involved therein.
Each student will be responsible for a
comprehensive memorandum of applicable
law as to the problem, at the close of the
first semester. All facets of the problem
will be probed by the mentors and their
student groups with the hope of provid­ing
each freshman with a complete grasp
of the issues he will eventually argue.
Beginning second semester the student
groups will be divided into two four-man
teams who will brief the problem and par­ticipate
in oral elimination rounds. Stu­dents,
professors, practicing attorneys and
local judiciary will serve as judges for
the elimination rounds.
The goal of the mentor system is to
upgrade the quality of student briefs and
enrich the student's ability to understand
the depth of the issues on oral argument.
It will furher serve as an invaluable
guide for research of future legal prob­lems.
NATIONAL MOOT COURT
Students to represent the University
of Louisville in National Moot Court Com­petition
were chosen at the close of last
year. Those students are John Southard,
Richard Duerr and Edward Kagin. Na­tional
competition will begin in the early
part of November, 1971, in Raleigh, North
Carolina.
BI-STATE COMPETITION
Tentative plans are being made for a
bi-state, five school Moot Court compe­tition
between Memphis State University,
Vanderbilt University, University of Ten­nessee,
University of Kentucky and the
University of Louisville. The logistics of
this competition have not been worked
out as of this date. It is the hopes of the
schools tha his competition will take place
in the early spring.
As already stated, it is only with the
continued cooperation of the downtown
Bar that the University of Louisville Moot
Court Club will be able to implement any
of their plans or continue to function as
a creative Law School force. We solicit
and welcome any assistance which the
practicing attorneys may give the Moot
Court Club in the form of volunteering
as judges for the Moot Court competition
and offer a sincere thanks for all past
help.
James U. Smith, Vice-President, Moot
Court Club
In and Under the Law," was explored
through addresses by women attorneys
and numerous workshops conducted by
women attorneys and law students. Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, Professor at Rutgers
University School of Law on leave to
Harvard Law School, in her keynote ad­dress
covered a broad spectrum of prob­lems
confronting women under the law
and revealed surpriSmg statistics on
women in law. (The complete text of the
address which appear in th Journal of
Family Law, Vol. II, No. 2.) Law Students Needed
Mrs. Ginsburg defined the plight of the
educated women through graffitti ob­served
scrawled on the wall of a study
carrell: "Study hard; Get good grades;
horrid kids; Die, and be buried." Since,
Get your degree; Get married; Have three
as Mrs. Ginsburg disclosed, 44 per cent
of the freshman class at Rutgers School
of Law and 50 per cent of the freshmen
at Northeastern Law School in Boston
are women, women's heretofore pre­destined
role may be changing.
Mrs. Ginsburg noted that the United
States Supreme Court will hear three
cases during the fall term dealing with
For Juvenile Program
Several law students are presently
working as volunteer probation officers
in a program sponsored by the Jefferson
County Metropolitan Social Service De­partment.
Volunteers participate in a
concentrated training session, which is
scheduled at convenient times to ac­commodate
students. Training includes
high delinquency neighborhood observa­tion,
panel discussions with trial com­missioners,
visits to juvenile centers, and
various other discussions with qualified
probation officers.
Upon completion of training each vol­unteer
is assigned one juvenile with whom
he spends two or three hours a week.
The time and place of these meetings is
left to the discretion of the volunteer.
There is an urgent need for volunteers
since probation officers are currently
handicapped by large caseloads. If you are
interested in participating in this program
contact either Bob LaFramenta or Bill
Cooper at the Law School.
Louisville, Kentucky
The Student Bwr Association has ren­dered
a great service to the students at the
Law School. Working with an able staff
David Broderick has accomplished s&'I'M
new and maj01' achievements never bej01'e
witnessed by the student body.
SBA Seeks Grant
For Black Students
The co~picuous deficiency in the num­ber
of practicing black attorneys through­out
Kentucky has prompted a freshman
law student to initiate an effort directed
Since courage is better than fear, and
fund which would enable Black Kentucky
residents who are qualified but financially
unable to enter law school to attain a
legal education at the University of Louis­ville.
Noting the desperate need for more
black attorneys in Kentucky, William
Cooper has enlisted the support of a group
of faculty members and students in this
endeavor, and a committee, consisting of
Cooper, Harold Adams and Gery Levy,
with assistance from William B. Martin,
Terrance Fitzgerald of the law faculty, has
begun to explore the mechanics of the
initiation, solicitation and administration
of such a fund with the expectation that
a student or students entering law school
in the fall of 1972 may avail himself of
its benefits.
The necessary funding will be drawn
from the contributions of students, fac­ulty,
alumni, the University community
and the community as a whole, while the
energy required to attract these gifts will
be that of interested students and profes­sors.
Initial reactions indicate that a very
substantial sum will be forthcoming as
soon as the fun is initiated, and once it
materializes, the fund will be entrusted to
an attorney under an arrangement which
will maximize the benefits of the con­tributions.
Optimistically, the response
during the next fifteen months may be
sufficient to sustain the fund for a con­siderable
length of time, whether from
income or principal. At any rate, no
scholarship will be awarded until a stu­dent
is assured three years' tuition.
The names of eligible students will be­drawn
from information received from
the undergraduate institutions in Ken­tucky
and will be compiled early so as
to allow students sufficient time to apply
for admission to the law school. Once
admitted, the student will be afforded
any necessary assistance with housing and
employment arrangements through the
appropriate divisions of the University
and any available external sources.
Page 2 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER FALL, 1971
U of L Law School
Hosts 6th. Circuit
On September 17-19 at Stouffer's Louis­ville
Inn, the University of Louisville
School of Law hosted the Sixth Circuit
Student Bar Association Presidents
Roundtable of the Law Student Division
of the American Bar Association. Stu­dents
from law schools of Michigan, Ohio,
Tennessee and Kentucky were repre­sented.
The purpose of the meeting was to
serve many functions as an exchange of
ideas related to student activities and
programs such as Moot Court, Student
Bar Association management, clinical pro­grams,
placement, etc.
The weekend opened with an informal
cocktail party for the early arrivals, spon­sored
by the University of Louisville
jointly with the University of Toledo. The
eveming served as a good opportunity to
get to know other students on an informal
basis and to set the tone for the meetings
of the succeeding days. The function was
greatly enhanced by the presence of Pi
Beta Phi sorority, which graciously hosted
the party.
The meeting officially opened Saturday
morning with Mayor Frank Burke wel­coming
the students to the city with some
words about his own experiences and the
role of the lawyer in today's society. The
] udge Ballantine Tells
mayor presented lapel pins which sym­bolized
the city's flag as a token of Louis­ville's
hospitality.
The first speaker of the day was Ernest
S. Zavodnyik, the director of the Law
· Student Division. The director addressed
the group concerning the structure of the
Division and the purpose of the Division.
The discussion that followed lasted several
hours, only to be interrupted by an ex­cellent
buffet luncheon.
The Saturday afternoon session of the
meeting was broken into three groups:
Law Student Division representatives with
Miss Laura Horton of Duquesne Univer­sity,
the National secretary-treasurer of
the Division aiding the discussion; Stu­dent
Bar Presidents, and Moot Court par­ticipants.
'Each group concerned itself
with the problems of the activities with
which it is involved bringing forth a
healthy exchange of ideas and programs.
Saturday evening was quite eventful as
the participants moved to Louisville
Downs for a buffet dinner in the Club­house.
The organization was honored by
having a race named for it. Upon com­pletion
of the race, the national officers
present went to the winner's circle to
present the winning driver with a trophy
inscribed as the Law Student Division
Stakes.
Student Bar Association began the 1971 school year with a dance in the Red Barn
on the campus of UofL. Other SBA social functions are planned, including ·a function
in November.
After this delightful event, the students
adjourned to Stouffer's for an "after-the­races"
party, sponsored by the University
of Louisville. All in all, the evening was
very enjoyable and one of the most crea­tive
and entertaining in the Division's his­tory.
Returning to the work of the meeting,
the Sunday morning session was high­lighted
by a discussion on membership
led by National President, Jeffrey Went­worth
of Lubbock, Texas. This session was
very vocal, bringing to light many of the
problems facing the Division.
This meeting was highly successful for
the Law Student Division as the national
officers left with an understanding of the
problems concerning law students of the
Sixth Circuit. The law students went back
to their respective schools with new ideas
and new direction relating to Law Stu­dent
Division activities. Special recogni­tion
shoul go out to Fred M. Dellapa, Jr.,
Governor of the Sixth Circuit for orga­nizing
the meeting, and to David F. Brod­erick,
President of the Student Bar Asso­ciation,
University of Louisville, for his
efforts in hosting the meeting.
A One Time Deal •
Ill the 'Realms of Academe'
By Thomas Ballantine Jr.
The thought of writing any article gen­erally
causes a severe drop in the tem­perature
of my blood, but to be faced
with an assignment for a professional pub­lication
such as this one is enough to
course ice floes to form in my extremi­ties.
It was with some trepidation that I
agreed to try my hand at this.
It's no easy task to pick a topic. I con­sulted
with my colleagues of the Bench
and the realms of Academe. The general
consensus seemed to be that I ought to
choose a topic with which I was familiar.
One of my more pragmatic judicial col­leagues
suppested that my topic should
be "The Reversal and How to Accept it
Gracefully." A faculty colleague suggested,
with a degree of cynicism alarming in one
so young, that I might explain why the
University of Louisville School of Law
had never had its accerditation questioned
until I joined the faculty.
Muttering my thanks for their Well­meant
suggestions, I retired to what are
euphemistically known as my chambers.
There, surrounded by files under submis­sion,
a copy of the Acts of the 1968 Gen­eral
Assembly, several back issues of the
Kentucky Law Summary and a book of
The Best Cartoons From Case and Com­ment,
1950-1960, I set forth upon my
journalistic quest. My Holy Grail was to
be that most elusive topij:!, Something
Lawyers Don't Already Know.
I finally hit upon an idea. None of my
confreres at Fifth and Jefferson teach and
contrariwise, none of the faculty do any
judging. (If you don't count Judge Steph­enson,
who is lying fallow this semester,
this statement is true.) Why not tell the
reader about the adjustments that must
be made.
When Dean Merritt approached me
about the prospect of teaching Torts, I
responded, with commendable modesty,
that I was supremely confident that I
could handle the task. After all, I rea­soned,
don't I spend ninety per cent of
my professional time pondering the in­tricacies
of this most intricate subject.
Armed with Seavey, Keaton and Keaton
and a yellow pad, I strode into my first
class. Eager young faces were turned ex-pectantly
upward toward me. I could
hardly wait to leap into the quagmire of
Palsgraf, Sullivan, and I. de S. et nx.
Flipping open the text, I proceeded to
expound.
Immediately a murmur arose in the
back of the room which shortly swelled
to a crescendo of protest as it rolled
toward the front. There were cries of
''Not on the first day," and "For crying
out loud, nobody expects nothing from
us today." Tradition apparently becomes
ingrained early in the academic process.
Chastened, I closed my book and dis­cussed
in an off-hand manner, the matters
which I felt should be brought to their
attention.
I discussed the fact that there were cer­tain
terms and phrases which every law
student should know. I explained how the
class would be conducted and laid down
certain ground rules to be obserrved­no
smoking, no eating or drinking in
class, no snoring and above all restrained
laughter at my little sallies of wit. A
sullen silence greeted this portion of the
services. Finally, it became apparent that
nothing was to be gained from further
involuntary confinement and class was
dismissed.
As the term progressed, the class and I
reached what might be most charitably
termed an armistice. We met twice a
week at eight in the morning. By quar­ter
of nine, I had usually gathered my
wits sufficiently to field most of the
questions which were directed to me. By
the same time, most of the class was
present. I found that the questions thrown
from the class were in direct ratio to the
degree of preparedness of the members
thereof.
As the year wore on, it became gen­erally
known among the segment of the
Bar that appeared before me that I was
teaching Torts. At first, there were muf­fled
giggles that could be silenced by a
stern look from the sheriff. I assumed
that the Bar would be grateful to know
that its future members were receiving
an education from one who had been
tempered in the cauldron. My assumption
was proved baseless when a lawyer who
shall remain nameless, in response to an
unfavorable ruling, blurted out "Ye gods!
Is that what you're teaching in Law
School!" Another lawyer, upon being told
of my moonlighting, was heard to say
that it was indeed fortunate that I wasn't
teaching Evidence.
Let us return to Third and Eastern
Parkway for a ro.oment. I must admit in
all candor that I began to enjoy the class.
The students gradually shed their uncom­municative
attitudes and began to share
in class discussion. Buttressed by hard­won
prestige, I found that I had developed
a tendency to pontificate.
The class met on Tuesday and Thurs­day.
The Court of Appeals met on Friday.
On Thursday, February 19, 1970, I an­nounced
one of the few: concrete, abso­lute
and unchangeable rules of law of
this Commonwealth, to wit: The Wife
Has No Cause Of Action For Loss Of
Consortium By Reason Of Injury To Her
Husband. On Friday, February 20, 1970,
the Court of Appeals, speaking through
Cullen, C., announced its decision in Kot­siris
v. Ling, Ky., 451 S. W. 2nd 411.
It wouldn't have been so bad if the
newspaper hadn't seen fit to give the
decision a prominence that I felt was
undeserved. Nor would it have unbearable
if the catcalls could have been confined
to the classroom. However, when I ar­rived
home on what I still prefer to call
Black Friday, Nancy greeted me with a
funny look. "I thought," she said, "that
you had sixty students in your class."
I owned that she was right. "Then, how
come," she queried, "you've had either
seventy-seven or seventy-eight phone calls
from persons claimiflg to be in your
class?"
I replied, rather testily, that some of
them must have called twice.
I must say that one of the things I've
learned from my experience is the value
and importance of humility. As a candi­date
for governor of this state once said,
"When it comes to humility, I don't take
a back seat to nobody."
The value of this trait was brought
home to me during a stint as judge of the
Moot Court in Trial Practice. Through
some gross error in scheduling, the final
trial was to be held on the same Satur-day
as the N.C.A.A. basketball finals. A
jury of engineering students had been
summoned and the trial was progressing
with all due dispatch.
After a break for lunch, the foreman
of the Jury rose and said, "Hey Judge,
I want to tell you something. We're leav­ing
in time to see the basketball game."
Such a thing had never happened to me
before. After all, I usually have the full
majesty of the Law behind my rulings.
I pointed this out to the Jury. The Jury
pointed out to me that they didn't hold
much with what I was saying and what
was I going to do about it. A hasty
search of the books showed that there
has never been a case of similar character
reported. By cutting a few corners, we
managed to complete the trial in time to
allow the sports fans to return to their
TV sets.
I have tired, in the foregoing paragraphs,
to point out some of the adjustments that
must be made when one moves from one
sphere of activity with which he has at
least a nodding acquaintance into another
from which he fled almost eighteen years
ago. I guess if there's any reward other
than the material in part-time teaching,
it's reading an exam paper that shows a
woeful lack of understanding of the sub­ject
and upon reaching the end of the
paper, finding that the student has writ­ten,
"Oh well, I enjoyed the class and I
hope you have a nice summer." I raised
the grade to a C. For those presently in
the class, that's a one time proposition.
Congratulations
December Law
Graduates,
and Good Luck
on the Bar Exam!
The Staff

FALL, 1971 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER Page 3
EnvironTnental Law Unit Law. School Staff Increased II
Begins First Year Here
By Gary M. Smith
The reasonable and prudent man has
come to the realization that in previous
years he has signed multitudes of ad­hesion
contracts with such organizations
as Detroits automobile manufacturers,
strip mining companies, large petroleum
companies, and others whose activities
endanger· his well being. This realization
has spawned an attitude of change which
has brought exciting new interests to
those fields of endeavor which can do
most to bring about this change, and let
the reasonable and prudent man have a
voice in establishing the vital terms of
any such contracts. The field of law of­fers
a profession through which concrete
results can be obtained, and nowhere can
this spirit of change be felt more than
in the area of environmental law.
It was in this spirit of change that the
Envorinmental Law Society was founded
at the University of Louisville School of
Law in the spring of 1971. Since its con­ception
the Societies constant efforts have
been to offer the law student a profes­sional
organization in which to learn and
grow within an area of law that is itself
just beginning. This presents the student
with a unique opportunity of actually be­ing
instrumental in the expansion of the
very subject in which he is learning. An
asset well worth having in the seeking
the solution of the problems confronting
us in such a rapidly changing field as
environmental pollution.
Under the leadership of President Bette
Pedigo, the fall semester produced the
first organized program of activities con­ducted
by the Environmental Law So­ciety.
The Environmental Law Societies
initial speaker program offered the stu­dent
body a larger selection of guest
speakers than any other organization at
the school of law. Beginning with Mr.
Carl Schneider, chairman of Kentuckians
for Environmental Planning, and ending
with former governor Edward T. Breath­itt,
a total of nine speakers presented
their expertise on a variety of environ­mental
problems.
From air pollution to urban planning,
a broad range of topics were brought to
the attention of Environmental Law So-
Return To
School
PAD's
UL Law
By Dede Delaney
P.A.D.s are returning. This is probably
one of the most noteworthy changes tak­ing
place in the realm of legal fraternities
at the University of Louisville. The high
point this fall semester has been the
"patrol car program" in which over sev­enty-
five freshmen and actives took part.
With the help of City and County
police the P.A.D.s were able to ride in
cruisers on Friday evenings during the
month of October.
Continuing the emphasis on professional
programs, the fraternity is considering
several tours of different jails and pen­itentiaries
in early November. Putting
even more emphasis on legal programs,
Judge Edward J. Brockman, Jr., President
of the local P.A.D. Alumni Association,
has invited students to sit on the bench
with him in Quarterly Court.
The Vinson Chapter of Pho Alpha Delta
feels that there has been an excellent re­sponse
to both the professional programs
and social events.
ciety members in order to establish a basic
understanding of the environmental prob­lems
facing Kentucky. The enthusiastic
response of E.L.S. members as well as
those who spoke instilled a confidence
that the Environmental Law Society has
found a place as a major organization
within the framework of the school of
law.
Just as new precedents will be estab­lished
in the area of environmental law,
so too will the E.I.S. set new precedents
as it continues to grow. Basic to growth
and attainment of meaningful goals is an
academic understanding of the subject
matter. This is provided by the Environ­mental
Law Seminar, organized last year
by the Environmental Law Societies spon­sor,
Prof. William B. Martin. The seminar
setting a precedent itself by being the
first of its kind at the school of law.
In moving forward and establishing new
precedents as an organization it is hoped
that the Society will take an active role
in the area of environmental law. One
major objective of the Environmental Law
Society is to acquaint its membership with
those actively involved in environmental
control, thus providing an early relation­ship
between those who will be working
in the environmental field. Another ave­nue
of endeavor to be developed is in the
area of research. Working with public
officials on legislation reforms and pro­posals
in the environmental area would
not only provide a vital public service
but also would be invaluable as a learn­ing
tool for our members.
Encouraged by its beginning, the En­vironmental
Law Society of the University
of Louisville School of Law stands ready
to pursue a better understanding of the
legal aspects of the environmental prob­lems
which face Kentucky, and a willing­ness
to participate in helping to find a
solution to these problems.
The Unive1·sity of Louisville School of Law has enlarged its staff and they are
preforming an excellent job in helping both students and faculty. Pictured are: Mrs.
Ann R. Vick, Barbara E. Ayers, Joyce S. Carroll, and Phyllis M. Ohlemacher. Not
pictured are: Mary An Mimsterl, Sondra Harroff, Mrs. Adah Lovesee, Ruth C. Meves,
and Faye Welter.
Ralph Nader Wants Law School Reform
By Ralph Nader*
In all the discussion recently at law
schools about grading and curricular re­form
and student participation in faculty
and administration decisions, it appears
that one highly significant proposal could
be adopted forthwti.th. I refer to the estab­lishment
of a year-long course given by
Social events have included an opening
day beer blast at Masterson's and the Sep­tember
cookout at the Brockman's. The
Alumni Association continues to invite
fraternity members to their monthly din­ner
meetings, which are held at various
restaurants in the area.
These meetings have included many dis­tinguished
speakers, among whom have
been Dr. Carroll Witten, President of Al­dermen;
Chuck Kaplan, Legal Aid Society
attorney; and Major Russell McDaniel,
Jefferson County Acting Police Chief.
This fraternity has endeavored to close
the gap which exists between the law
school and the profession. Too often, stu­dents
find that they know few, if any,
attorneys and thus are handicapped in
finding both clerking and permanent po­sitions.
Certainly, being a member of
Phi Alpha Delta is no guarantee of get-ting
a job, but it may be of some help
when the law student graduates.
students for the benefit of the faculty.
The case for such a course is compelling
and the mechanics of conducting it fairly
simple. Students have a great deal to con­vey
to the faculty-their legal experience
in clinical work, a greater sense of the
urgencies of the times that are straining
the legal system, their frequently greater
familiarity with new techniques or bodies
of knowledge of relevance to developing
legal systems and their considered cri­tiques
of formal course work that makes
up the law school's teaching pattern. There
is substantial evidence that many profes­sors
are developing a keen appreciation
that law students have much to teach as
well as to learn. This recognition is bound
to increase as law students, organized in
investigating teams, begin producing first
rate empirical studies of legal institutions.
But even for those members of the faculty
who resist the obvious, a student course
for the faculty can be justified as a steady
feedback process that is bound to enrich
the professor's response to his classes.
Once the principle of a student course
is accepted, the mechanics could be work­ed
out to maximize participation and ef­ficiency.
Law schools have always been
good at mechanics. By way of suggestion,
a steering committee of students, chosen
by their peers, could organize the course
content, decide whether to inict an "eye
for an eye" and adopt the Socratic method
or develop another less time-consuming
procedure, determine the kinds of demon­strative
evidence to be utilized, the field
trips to be taken and the spinoff benefits
to be conveyed to other law schools and
in journals of legal education. I am sure
that many exciting innovations and bene­fits
can be derived once such a course is
adopted.
What the faculty may be realizing is
that the breakdown in the last few years
or its presumed or actual arrogance
toward the students--whether ingrained
or merely a teaching technique--is a won­derful
experience. The rewards reaped are
increasing displays of foresight-a quality
of which the law schools in the past
could rarely be accused-and a greater
infusion of impirical and normative con­tent
in course and extra-curricular work.
Some ground rules for such a course
would obtain near unanimous support.
There should be no grading and no com­pulsory
attendance. I expect that the
newspaper would welcome reactions and
suggestions relating to such a proposal.
Let us hear them.
*Editor's Note: Reprinted by permission
of Public Interest Research Group, Wash­ing,
D.C.
Page 4 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER FALL, 1971
The Louisville Lawyer
Editor-inChief ................ ................ .... ............. ... ....... ..... ........ ....................... ......... Cecil A. Blye
Assistant Editor .................... ....................................... .... ............ ......... Gillard B. Johnson III
Copy Editor ....... .......................................................... ................................ ............. Gerald Henry
Chief Photographer ......... ............................. .................................................... Dennis Hummell
Staff ................... ............. Clyde Wills, Elaine Johnson, James Smith, and David Broderick
An Editorial
A New Objective
With this issue, the Louisville Lawyer
seeks to embark upon a new course--that
of regular publication.
As is evident, publication in recent
times has been spotty, but we believe
the rudder will bear the sudden stress
of new direction.
It is anticipated that the paper will be
uublished once this fall, and two or three
times during the spring semester. This de­pends
upon money, printing experience
and student and other interest.
Should interest prove high enough, per­haps
a way can be found to publish
monthly.
An obstacle to past publication has
been the uncertain hands of the univer­sity-
system printing operation, which
seemed so swamped with other business
that ours was put off. But now, a con­tract
has been obtained with another
printer.
What will the Louisville Lawyer be?
For a start, it will be a channel for
students, faculty, the school administra­tion,
the local and even state legal com­munities
to express their views and ask
their questions.
Perhaps this issue's article by Judge
Ballantine, a respected circuit court judge
here and a part-time member of the
faculty, can be the first in a regular
column by members of the local judici-ary.
We hope so.
There'll be room for other regular fea­tures,
from law fraternity news to fac­ulty
views. There will be room for
thoughtful articles.
The Louisville Lawyer could be a paper
of record for student activities. If there
is any interest, why not print in these
pages, for all the students to read, all the
resolutions passed or considered by the
SBA executive committee; the decisions
of the student court; texts of important
speeches made at the school (such as the
recent talk by Sen. Ervin).
These are some of the things which are
possible, and Which would complement
the various other items which will be
published in the also-invigorated SBA
Newsletter.
As that publication noted, however, one
of the big questions to success is interest
of the law school community. The Louis­ville
Lawyer has no writing staff, as
such, but is pretty much held together
by a patchwork of two or three editors.
Writers or commentator sare welcome. So
are letters to the editor, which we hape
can be published in a regular letters
column.
Since the Louisville Lawyer has no of­fice,
either, the SBA has agreed to let
its office in the annex be a drop-off point
for letters, articles and suggestions.
The Dean's Forum
By Dean James Merritt
According to figures recently released
by the American Bar Association, law
schqol enrollments increased by more than
30% from 1966 to 1970. What is even more
striking is that two-thirds of the growth
took place in 1970. Law school enrollments
have been doubling every decade but the
astonishing growth in 1970 might cause
us to ask ourselves where these law stu­dents
came from and more significantly
where are they going? Part of the increase
is due to a rise in population but a good
deal of it appears to be a manifestation of
a new preference for students graduating
from college. One remarkable fact is that
while the overall enrollment was increas­ing
by about 30% the number of women
students rose by 159%, having grown from
2,600 to 6,900. Several studies are under­way
to try to explain the influx of women
into law schools. One researcher con­cluded
that he knew no more about
women law students than he did about
women in general.
In answer to a direct question by the
American Bar Association only 16 of 140
law schools reported that they could have
enrolled additional students in the first
year class. The 16 law schools reported
vacancies for only 353 day students and
306 evening students. These figures rep­resent
only 2% of the first year enroll­ment.
It would appear that law schools
are very nearly filled to capacity. During
the past year very little in additional fa­cilities
have been added.
An interesting complaint among law
school administrators last year was that
more students showed up to register than
prior experience would have lead anyone
to expect. Last year there were about
75,000 applicants for 35,000 places. This
year it appears that there will be about
110,000 applicants for the 35,000 places.
At the University of Louisville the en­rollment
picture is just as bleak as that
at the national level. With one more set
of LSAT scores yet to be received, we
have three times as many applicants as
we can accommodate. It would appear
that now is the time when law schools
can become increasingly selective and up­grade
the general quality of the student
body but that is scant comfort for pros­pective
students who would have been ac­cepted
at any other time in history.
This is a time when law students who
are enrolled in law schools may ask about
opportunities upon graduation. The mar­ket
for Ph.D's has been saturated in many
fields. Although there is some discussion
about overcrowding the bar, the require­ments
of universal representation in crim­inal
matters and the representation of
juveniles are only beginning to be filled.
With the increasing complexities of law
and society, many positions previously be­ing
filled by laymen may now become at­tractive
to lawyers. Prof. Alford F. Conard
of the University of Michigan, President
of the Association of American Law
Schools, has warned that insufficient legal
education facilities could result in a law­yer
shortage. Studies by the staff of
United States News and World Report in­dicate
that about the right number of
lawyers are being produced to keep with
present demands. There seems to be no
reason to expect anything other than an
increasing opportunity for lawyers.
II The Student Bar II
By Robert W. Keats
The Student Bar Association oegan the
1971-72 administration by providing the
Law School and its students with new
equipment and services of a magnitude
never before offered. The following major
services have already been provided to
stimulate and aid the legal education.
SERVICES TO THE STUDENT
1). In order to improve the quality of
communications directed to the student
boody from both the S.B.A. and Law
School administration, the S.B.A. has pur­chased
a large metal SIGNBOARD which
is located in the foyer of the main law
building. Only S.B.A. announcements of
events and important administrative an­nouncements
of interest to the students
will be placed on this board. Students are
encouraged to note these announcements
every day.
2). The Student Bar LOUNGE located on
the ground floor of the Law School An­nex
was completed this summer. The
lounge was provided by a special fund
donated by Ben Washer. Students are
encouraged to use this lounge.
3) After negotiations resulting in exces­sive
bids from over seven Chicago and
Louisville electronics companies the
S.B.A. decided to undertake on its own
installation of a long overdue SOUND
SYSTEM for the Allen Court Room.
4). In order to offer another long overdue
reliable service, the S.B.A. has completed
negotiations and is providing a XEROX
COPY MACHINE. The copier, which is
located in the hallway outside the Law
Library journal room, will provide copies
for a nickel (5c) per copy. Those students
who receive bad copies on the copier are
encouraged to return the bad copies to
the librarian for a full refund.
5). The SIB.A. has presented several rec­ommendations
and QUESTIONS TO THE
DEAN of the Law School. Questions and
complaints most often asked by students
this term have been answered by return
letter which is posted on the S.BA. bul­letin
board located on the lower level of
the Law School building. (The S.B.A.
makes every effort to arbitrate student
complaints and keep the student in­formed.
The S.B.A. has found the Dean
and the Law School factulty receptive and
timely in returning an answer or opinion
to the students.)
6). At the beginning of the fall semester
all law students were notified by mail of
the S.B.A. BOOK EXCHANGE. The book
exchange provided law students with the
opportunity to sell their books for a great­campus
book store. It also offered the
er amount than offered for return by the
buyer the best deal on used books that
could not be matched by the campus
store. The S.B.A. is opening negotiations
with the leading law publishing com-­panies
in order to determine the feasi­bility
of purchasing new books at a lower
cost than now offered by the campus
store. Early results of this investigation
are encouraging, and it may be possible
in the future for the S.B.A. to provide
new books to law students at a reduced
price.
7). The S.B.A. PHONE DIRECTORY is
again offered this year. It is a compila­tion
of accurate addresses and phone num­bers
of law students which will provide
greater ease in calling for that class as­signment.
In order not to discriminate,
the night students will be included with
the day students in one mass phone di­rectory.
8). Those students who type their notes,
outlines, and examinations will be pleased
to note that six new Royal TYPEWRIT­ERS
have been provided by the S.B.A.
The machines are located in the Law Li­brary
journal room. These new typewrit­ers
will relieve the frustrations of those
wjho had to type on our old W.W.II re­jects.
Students who type are asked to ex­ercise
ordinary care in order that un­necessary
service and expense will be
prevented.
9). Another first in S.B.A. history is the
offering of a PHOTO SERVICE to seniors.
In conjunctoion with the University of
Louisville Yearbook and the Shillito photo
service the senior law student will be
able to (a) include his photo in the U of
L Yearbook, (b) obtain smaller photos
for himself, and (c) be included in a
law school composite, all for only $5.00.
This service to students is recommended
by the S.B.A. since it provides the senior
with a much needed recent photo for his
resume and also provides the school with
a composite which it will hang on the
bare walls of the Ben Washer Lounge.
Complete details of this service are lo­cated
on the S.B.A. bulletin board.
10). A periodic S.B.A. NEWSLETTER
will be offered this year. After several
non-productive years, the Newsletter has
been revived by editor Ed Kagan (72).
First copies of the newsletter will be
posted on the S.B.A. bulletin board. The
Newsletter is intended to keep the law
student knowledgeable of his organiza­tions
affairs. Students who wish to in­clude
articles are encouraged to notify
the editor.
11). The BRANDEIS LECTURE SERIES
in honor of Justice Louis Dembitz Bran­deis
is sponsored by the S.B.A. and is
under the leadership of Chairman Julius
Steiner (72). The lecture series has al­ready
proved successful with its early
speakers: Senator Samuel J. Ervin, Jr.
the Senate's foremost constitutional au­thority
who spoke to an over flowing
courtroom September 24th; and Alan N.
Palasky who spoke October 15th on the
policy and practice of tax law. Other
notable lecturers who are expected to
appear in the series are Senator Marlow
W. Cook of Kentucky for November, and
Senator John Sherman Cooper, also of
Kentucky, for January 1972. Tentative
lectures for the spring semester include
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, John E.
Mitchell, and Justice William 0. Douglas.
12). The S.B.A. SOCIAL PROGRAM be­gan
the year with much to be desired.
However, a more complete effort is be­ing
made on the part of the social com­mittee
headed by Diane Donoghoe (72)
to provide improved social affairs. The
S.B.A. is proposing a cocktail party every
month and also intends to promote the
gala Barristers' Ball in honor of retiring
A. C. Russell, former ean and istin­guished
Professor of Law.
13). The University of Louisville S.B.A.
was host on September 17th and 18th to
the LAW SCHOOL DIVISION of the
American Bar Association. Representa­tives
from law schools in the 6th circuit
were present at Stouffers for two days of
concentrated discussion on problems con­fronting
law students and the LSD-ABA
organization. The S.B.A. hopes this con­vention
stimulated thought among the
delegates in order to form a stronger
national organization of law students.
1). The S.B.A. under the direction of
Wesley Gersh recently compiled the
FACULTY EVALUATION which was
conducted during the spring 1971 semes­ter.
The results of this student effort was
not intended to harass the faculty.
FALL, 1971 THE LOmSVILLE LAWYER Page 5
At LaGrange Reformatory
Dodd Tells Effects of Criminal Conviction
Editor's Note: The following paper was
presented to the Inmate Chapter of the
Jaycees at Lagrange Reformatory by
Christopher J. Dodd.
Society has provided numerous criminal
sanctions for persons found guilty of vio­lating
the law: death, incarceration, fines,
and various forms of conditional release.
However, the sanctioning process actually
begins prior to conviction and, in most
cases, continues long after the ex con­vict
has served his sentence.
These other sanctions are normally re­ferred
to as Civil Disabilities, but in re­ality
they are nothing more than what
social scientists call stigmas. In many
ways the stigma of a prior conviction is
much more devastating than the actual
sentence prescribed by law.
Not only may a person face a prison
sentence, he may also permanently lose
his right to vote, to hold office or public
or private trust, to serve as a juror or
witness in a court of law, to pursue pro­fessional
occupations, to enter contracts,
to obtain insurance and to even manage
his own property.
I am sure there are many inmates who,
if they accepted guilty please, were un­informed
of the civil rights they would
forfeit as incident to their convictions.
The cruel and hard fact is that in the
United States today when an ex-convict
walks away from prison he will be cer­tain
to suffer civil disabilities which can­not
be overcome by good works or the
passage of time.
Many of the official stigmas which exist
today are the result of ancient law based
on archaic principles of human justice.
In the Greek and Roman civilizations
a civil disability resulting from a crime
wlas called "infamy." Any person pro­nounced
"infamous" lost, among other
things, his right to appear in court, to
vote, to make speeches, to attend assem­blies,
an dto serve in the army.
With the fall of the Roman Empire and
the rise of the Germanic tribes of Europe
and England, civil disabilities became
much more primitive in practice. Pr1or
to the Norman Conquest in 1066, the An­glo-
Saxons imposed civil disabilities called
"outlawry.'~ The practice of "outlawry''
was based on the premise that a convict
had "declared war on the community,"
therefore the community had a right to
retaliate by whatever means thought rea­sonable.
So severe was this retaliation
that a man convicted of a srime rarely
escaped death. Between 1066 and 1870,
a new procedure of civil disabilities ap­peared
called "attainder." Any person
convicted of treason or a felony was de­clared
"attained." The consequences of
attainder were forfeiture of all property,
corruption of blood and loss of all civil
rights. Since the principle goals of Eng­lish
criminal jurisprudence were retri­bution
and deterence, punishments were
often extremely harsh-death being the
usual sentence. In the reign of Henry
vm 72,000 persons were hanged, and in
the reign of Queen Elizabeth vagabonds
wfere hanged in groups of three and four
hundred. Yet not only was the sentence
severe, but the manner of execution laws
frequently brutal. A death sentence could
be carried out by hanging, beheading,
burning at the stake, boiling alive, or
mutilation of the convicted man's body.
Inherant in the concept of deterence was
the belief in social degredation. The use
of stigmatic mutilations such as brand­ing,
and deforming the hands, ears, tongue
and other parts of the body made the
convicted person more easily identifiable
in society long after he had paid his
debt.
The history of early American Criminal
Jurisprudence was very similar to the
English concept. However, after gaining
our independence, the gravity of penal
sanction was reduced, yet the practice
of imposing civil disabilities continued
to play an important role in the treat­ment
of convicts.
Despite the claim of many that the
penal system in this country has be­come
too lenient--everry state has civil
disability laws on its books.
These civil disability laws can be di­vided
into two categories: civil death
statutes and specific disability statutes.
Civil death statutes are all encompassing
provisions that deprive a convict of rights
while he is serving a prison sentence.
Specific disability statutes stipulate par­ticular
disabilities that become operative
at the time of conviction and continue
throughout an ex-convicts' life unless the
right is rested by state procedure. Un­derlying
these laws is the judicial and
legislative conclusion that once a person
is convicted of a crime he is permanently
corrupt. It is indisputable that people
who are untrustworthy should be pre­vented
from holding positions that de­mand
public or private confidence, but
it is entirely fallacious to conclude that
a prior felony conviction conclusively and
permanently indicates such untrustworth­iness,
and any civil disability statutes
w\hich are based on this premise would
appear to be constitutionally defective.
KENTUCKY
Following the majority of jurisdiction
in the United States, Kentucky provides
civil disabilities resulting from criminal
conviction. In particular, a felony con­viction
in Kentucky excludes an ex-con­vict
from voting, and holding public of­fice.
In addition an ex-felon may be pro­hibited
from entering professional schools
such as law, medicine, or engineering.
He may not be able to testify in a court
of law or serve as a juror and may find
it difficult to obtain work. These dis­abilities
are statutory and for the most
part continue after a sentence has ex­pied
unless a pardon or restoration of
civil rights is procurred from the gover­nor.
Prior to the deprivation of a man's civil
rights in Kentucky two essentials must
be present: (1) there must be a convic­tion,
and (2) the conviction must be for
a felony. Kentucky adheres to the rule
that a conviction occurs only after there
has been a determination of kuilt and
a pronouncement of judgment and sen­tence.
Thus, if a court adjudicates a de­fendant
guilty and imposes a sentence,
but suspends execution of the sentence
and places the offender on probation­there
is still a conviction. However, if
the court suspends imposition of the judg­ment
and the sentence and puts the de­fendent
on probation-there is no con­viction
and civil disabilities cannot be
inflicted.
In Kentucky a felony is defined as any
offense which is punishable by death or
confinement in the state penintentiary.
Unlike the majority of states, Ken­tucky
seemingly follows the policy that
specific disability statutes are only ap­plicable
to convictions by Kentucky
(Wood vs. Wood, 264 S.W. 2d 260-Ky.
1954-) Courts. The rationale for adhering
to such a policy is based on the principle
of common law rather than on legislative
intent. The imposition of a civil disability
on the basis of a conviction in a foreign
court would constitute a penalty in Ken­tucky
for the commission of a crime else­where,
thus contravening the common
law doctrine.
This rule is not without exemptions.
In 1957 a Kentucky court held that a
conviction in a competent court of another
jurisdiction bars a person from voting
in Kentucky unless an execution pardon
from the governor restores his civil rights.
A felony conviction in a federal court
however. has the same effect on a con­vict's
civil rights as does a Kentucky con­viction.
CIVIL DISABILITIES IN KENTUCKY
RESULTING FROM A FELONY CON­VICTION
RIGHT TO VOTE
Section 145 of the Kentucky Constitu­tion
sttes that:
1. Persons convicted in any court of
competent jurisdiction of treason, or
felony, or bribery in an election, or
of such high misdemeanor as the
general assembly may declare shall
operate as an exclusion from the
right of suffrage. But persons ex­cluded
may be restored by executive
pardon.
2. Persons wjho at the time of election,
are in confinement under the judg­ment
of the court for some penal
offense . . . (shall be denied the
right to vote).
Thus not only may a person incarcer­ated
be denied voting rights, but once
his sentence expires the civil disability
will continue unless he petitions for res­toration
of his civil rights.
RIGHT TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE
Under section 150 of the Kentucky Con­stitution
a convicted felon is prohibited
from holding private or public offices
of trust unless his civil rights are re­stored.
All persons shall be excluded from of­fice
who have been, or shall hereafter
be, convicted of a felony, or of such
high misdemeanor as may be per­scribed
by law, but such disability
may be removed by pardon of the
governor.
Persons who are convicted of bribery,
forgery, perjury or any felony while
in office shall be removed, and a
subsequent pardon by the governor
will not reinstate them to their former
position.
K.R.S. 61. 040
Although of little significance in this
day and age, the state constitution also
prohibits those persons who are involved
in a duel from holding public office.
K.R.S. Section 239
EMPLOYMENT OF EX-CONVICTS
Of all the collateral effects that an
ex-convict suffers as a result of his felony
conviction, the most serious is the problem
of obtaining employment after release
from prison.
Until recently, an ex-felon found it all
but impossible to get a job. Employers,
like the majority of people, were hesi­tant
to trust anyone who had a previous
criminal record. The sigmas of prior con­victions
are still present, but recent legis­lation
has improved an ex-felons' chances
of meaningful employment.
The federal government has provided
funds to bond any ex-convict for as much
as $10,000 as an incentive to employers
to hire ex-convicts. Missouri, Illilois and
California, are states which have enacted
legislation prohibit~ employers from
inquiring as to an applicants criminal
record.
Generally, there are no limitations on
the kind of employment an ex-felon can
obtain. However, as a practical matter
conviction for certain crimes will pre­clude
an ex-felon from some kinds of
employment. For example, a person con­victed
of -arson would probably not be
employed at a munitions plant.
Former convicts can find employment
with the post office, the military and most
federal, state and local agencies. In Ken­tucky,
an ex-convict is prohibited from
being employed by the police or fire
departments. However, in some jurisdic­tions
ex-felons are actively recruited by
the police.
The Kentucky State Employment Ser­vice
has special programs to assist ex­felons
procure work by "matching'' the
applicant to the job, taking into consider­ation
the ex-con's skills, background and
record.
Ultimately, however, it is the employ­er's
choice. There are no specific lawt>
which force employers to hire ex-felons,
or prohibit employers from denying work
to former convicts due to their criminal
records.
EXECUTIVE PARONS AND RESTORA­TION
OF CIVIL RIGHTS
The Kentucky Constitution provides
two procedures by which an ex-convict
can regain his full rights as a citizen of
the Commonwealth. The first way is by
obtaining an executive pardon. The ex­ecutive
pardon is a directive issued by
(Continued on page 6)
SenatQ'/' Sam Ervin began the 1971-72 Brandeis Lecture Series discussing the issue
of "FEAR OF FREEDOM" dealing with such topics as civil rights, religious liberties,
and the D.C. crime bill. Other lectures for the first semester include Alan N. Polasky
and Senator Marlow W. Cook.
Page6 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER FALL, 19'71
Dodd at LaGrange
(Continued from page 5)
the governor returning a pernon to society.
RIGHT TO TESTIFY
According to Kentucky Revised Statutes
421.090 any person who has been con­victed
of perjury or making false state­ments
is precluded from testifying in a
court of law. Specifically the statute de­clares
that
A person convicted of any of the of­fenses
described in K.R.S. 432.160 to
K.R.S. 432.180 (perjury and false
statements) shall ever afterward be
disqualified from giving evidence in
any judicial proceeding, or from be­ing
a witness in any case whatever
except that he may testify in his own
behalf in a criminal prosecution.
Unlike other civil disability statutes,
disqualification of a witness due to a
prior conviction of perjury or false state­ments
is permanent, and a restoration of
civil rights will not restore this privi­lege.
This law, however, only applies to
perjury or false statement convictions.
A person convicted of any other felony
is competent to testify, and there is no
prerequisite of pardon or restoration of
civil rights.
RIGHT TO SERVE AS JUROR
The privilege of sitting in judgment of
one's peers is also denied to a former
felon unless he has been pardoned by the
governor.
No person shall be qualifieod as a
juror for service on a grand or petit
jury unless he is a citizen and for
the preceding year has been a resi­dent
of the country wherein called
to serve, at least 21 years of age,
sober, temperate, discreet, and of
good demeanor, not under indictment,
and, if convicted of a felony has
been pardoned. K.R.S. 29.025.
Although there is no law which ex­plicitly
excludes former felons from en­tering
professional schools such as law
or medicine, a record of previous con­viction
for a felony will in many in­stances
preclude an applicant from ac­ceptance.
At the University of Louisville
Law School if an applicant has a previ­ous
conviction-the dean will inquire of
the state bar association if the conviction
would prohibit the person from receiv­ing
a license to practice law and make
his decision accordingly. Medical schools
follow 'the same procedure. However, in
the field of engineering and land survey­ing
former felons are prohibited from
receiving a license.
No person shall be eligible for a license
unless he is of good character and
reputation, nor shall any person be
eligible if he has been convicted of
any felony .....
K.R.S. 322.050
Normally, any professional person who
is convicted of a felony will have his
license revoked, and any subsequent par­don
or· reinstatement of civil rights will
not reinstore him to his former position.
The executive pardon can be given to
persons presently incarcerated, but ex­amples
of this have been rare in recent
years. An illustration of one case was
the recent decision by the governor to
pardon a man who was suffering from
terminal cancer. The man was permitted
to return home to be with his family for
his final days. He died one month after
his release from prison. A misconception
held by many is that an executive pardon
erases a person"s record of criminal con­viction.
This is not the case.
The second way by which an ex-con
viet can recover his lost privileges is
through an executive order restoring his
civil rights. Although much more readily
obtained than the executive pardon, the
restoration of civil rights has the same
effect as an executive pardon. The only
significant difference between the twb
procedures is that the executive pardon
is awarded under exceptional circum­stances.
Restoration of civil rights is a rather
simple procedure that is rarely denied
provided the applicant meets the mini­mum
standards and requirements.
1) The applicant must have either served
his complete sentence, or be on pro­bation
or parole.
2) If the applicant petitions immediately
when released from prison or released
on probation or parole, he need only
submit his request for restoration of
civil rights through the ivision of Pro­bation
and Parole of the epartment of
Corrections.
3) If the applicant delays petitioning for
six months after being placed on pro­bation
or released on parole, or six
months after his sentence has expired;
he must submit three letters of rec­ommendation
from officials in the
county where he resides.
4) The letters of recommendation must
be sent along with his application form
to the Division of Probation and Pa­role.
5) The Division of Probation and Parole
will then verify the information on
the application, check the petitioner's
parole record, check the court records
and the letters of recommendation and
finally forward the applicant to the
governor for final appr?val.
6) In addition to a $200.00 fee, the ap­plicant
must have his petition for
restoratiton of civil rights notarized
and signed by his parole officer.
The principle of executive pardons and
restoration of civil rights goes back to
the old common law theory that a person
who violates a law of society forfeits his
right as a citizen, thus only through ex­ecutive
pardons can a man regain his
rights as a citizen. As a completely gra­tuitous
act by the chief executive, a par­don
hardly seems a cure for the statutory
deprivations of important rights.
Does it not seem unfair that once a
man has paid his . so called debt to so­ciety,
society should still penalize him
further? Should we not indulge in the
presumption that once a man has been
allowed to regain his felloW1 citizens, he
should have the rights of any other
citizen? Although it appears petitions to
restore one's civil rights are rarely if
ever denied, who can say that one day a
governor may not abuse his discretion and
deny ex-convicts their right to partici­pate
in society as full citizens?
Unfortunately, the civil disability laws
run counter to the philosophy of rehabili­tation
and belong more appropriately with
the discarded idea that convicts should
be punished and then banished from so­ciety.
In reality these laws frustrate the
rehabilitative process by increasing the
liklihood of recividism. As one commen­tator
has said, "It will be appreciated that
these disprivileges can so handicap an
individual as to make it difficult for him
to live honestly after release."
In Kentucky the civil disability laws
operate rather simply. The prosecutor
proves his case and the jury signs away
a possible military career, a professional
practice, position of responsibility and in
some instances the right to participate
in the electoral process. The effects of
the juries' decision is not erased by time;
and the heedless acts of a youth tend
to conclusively establish the bad charac­ter
of a reformed and wiser man.
Senator Ervin Addresses
Brandeis Lecture Group
(Remarks Prepared by Senator Sam J.
Ervin, Jr., of North Carolina, for delivery
to the School of Law of the University of
Louisville, in connection with the Bran­deis
Lecture Series at Louisville, Ken­tucky
on Friday, September 4, 1971.
FEAR OF FREEDOM
Freedom of the Individual
Freedom for the individual was bought
for us long ago by the blood, sweat, tears,
and prayers of multitudes of men and
women, great and small.
The Founding Fathers esteemed it life's
supreme value. They so testified by de­claring
in the preamble to the Constitu­tion
that they ordained and established
that instrument to preserve the blessings
of liberty for themselves and their pos­terity.
Freedom is hard to win or preserve,
but easy to lose. The price of its keeping
is eternal vigilance, and this vigilance
will be exercised only by those stout­hearts
who love freedom above all things
and are always ready to do battle for
it against its enemies, doubt and fear.
Doubt lacks faith in freedom and fear
is afraid of freedom. When doubt and
fear prevail, government becomes tyran­nous,
and people become tolerant of
tyranny.
Tbe Bill of Rights
The Founding Fathers apprehended
these truths. Moreover, they were aware
that history repeats itself.
For these reasons, they knew that the
tyrannies of the past would be attempted
in the future in the land for which they
were creating a government; that the
government they were creating would
undert11-ke in time of doubt and fear to
suppress by sharp measures exercises
of freedom displeasing to it; and that
freedom itself would thereby be put in
peril unless it was protected by irre­pealable
constitutional law.
And so the Founding Fathers added
the Bill of Rights to the Constitution to
place freedom beyond the reach of any
President or any Congress who might
doubt the wisdom of America's commit­ment
to freedom or fear its exercise by
Americans.
The aim of the Bill of Rights is aptly
described in these words in West Vir­ginia
State Board of Education v. Barn­ette,
319 U. S. 624, 638:
"The very purpose of a Bill of
Rights was to withdraw certtain
subjects from the vicissitudes of
political controversy, to place
them beyond the reach of major­ities
and officials and to establish
them as legal principles to be ap­plied
by the courts. One's right to
life, liberty, and property, to free
speech, a free press, freedom of
worship and assembly, and other
fundamental rights may not be
submitted to vote; they depend
on the outcome of no election."
A Time of Doubt and Fear
Ours is a time of doubt and fear.
So~e nations threaten the peace of
the world and the security of our coun-­try.
Violent crime stalks our land. In the
recent past, riotous mobs have burned
and looted in some of our cities; and dis­quieting
agitators have staged violent,
and hence unlawful demonstrations on
public streets and college campuses.
These things have frightened many
Americans, including some in high of­fices.
These Americans have lostt faith
in America's commitment to freedom.
They demand the abridgment of historic
freedoms of our people, and attempt to
justify their dem;and by the plea that
there is no other way to obtain security
for our land.
Let us reject this plea with words ut­tered
by William Pitts, the younger, in
the House of Commons in 1783:
"Necessity is the plea for every
infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants;
it is the creed of slaves."
And let us remind ourselves of the
admonition given to Americans by Ben­jamin
Franklin in even more troublous
times:
"They that can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little tempo­rary
safety deserve neither lib­erty
nor safety."
I am not among those who doubt and
fear. I hasten to affirm, however, that I
do not view the threat from abroad or
the crime at home with complacency.
They present problems of the gravest
nature.
There are, however forthright and ra­tional
ways to confront these problems
without abridging basic freedoms.
America W'ill remain the land of the
free only if it remains the home of the
brave.
Free men can confront the threat to
our national security by keeping their
hearts in courage and patience and be­ing
prepared to lift up their hands in
strength; and a free society can combat
crime effectively only by affording speedy
and fair trials to those charged with
criminal acts and imposing appropriate
sentences on the ones adjudged guilty.
Targets of Abridgm,ent
Americans of little faith and much
fear have adopted as targets of abridg­ment
the historic right of persons ar­rested
for non-capital federal offenses to
be free on bail while awaiting trial, the
ancient right of the people to regard
their homes as their castles and to be
secure against unjustifiable intrusions by
government on their privacy, their per­sonal
liberty, and their private property,
and the constitutional rights of freedom
of speech, freedom of association, and
freedom of assembly of those individuals
and groups whose thoughts and words
are displeasing to government.
Let us consider these matters in the
order of their statement.
The Right to Pretrial Release on Bail
The Bastille is history's most accursed
prison. Within its walls, the Kings of
France imprisoned without trial for pe­riods
determinable by their wills men
and women who criticized the govern­ment
or those in power. The Kings justi­fied
their tyranny by asserting that they
detained these men and women to pre­vent
them from committing future crimes.
French revolutionaries stormed and
razed the Bastille while the Bill of Rights
and the Judiciary Act of 1789 were being
formulated.
The drafters of these instruments were
determined that there should be no Bas­tilles
in America.
To this end, they provided in the Ju­diciary
Act that all persons arrested for
noncapital federal offenses shall have
an absolute right to release on bail while
awaiting trial, and they decreed in the
Eighth Amendment that excessive bail
shall not be required of them.
When Congress conferred on it power
to prescribe rules of criminal procedure
for federal courts, the Supreme Court
continued the absolute right to pretrial
release originally embodied in the Ju­diciary
Act of 1789 by expressly stipu­lating
in Rule 46 that a "person arrested
for an offense not punishable by death
shall be admitted to bail."
The Bail Reform Act of -966, which I
authored, expanded this right by estab­lishing
alternative ways for persons ar­rested
for non-capital federal crimes to
obtain release from custody pending trial
(Continued on page 7)
FALL, 1971 THE LOUISVILLE LAWYER Page 7
Senator Ervin at UL
(Continued from page 6)
if their poverty disables them to give
monetary bond.
I omit discussion of the controversial
question whether the somewhat enigmatic
Eighth Amendment guarantees to every
person arrested for a noncapital federal
offense a constitutional right to release
on bail pendi-\lg trial.
I do assert, however, that the rule es­tablished
by the Judiciary Act of 1789
and preserved in Rule 46 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure and the
Eighth Amendment itself reflect the sound
philosophy that a free society must take
certain risks in order to remain free, and
that among such risks is the risk that a
person arrested for a non-capital federal
crime may flee or commit crime if he is
released on bail while awaiting trial.
When campaigning for the Presidency,
President Nixon stressed the law-and­potency
for several reasons. The Amer­order
issue, which had much vote-getting
ican people had naturally become ap­prehensive
for the safety of their persons
and properties because of the increase
in crime. They had become appalled by
the interminable delays in the administra­tion
of criminal justice in trial and ap­pellate
courts. They had become dis­mayed,
moreover, by Justices of the
United States Supreme Court, who had
apparently forgotten that society and
the victims of crim,e are as much entitled
to justice as the accused, and who had
fashioned new rules compelling trial
courts to permit convicted criminals to
relitigate repeatedly the validity of their
convictions, and limiting the admissi­bility
in tril courts of the most convinc­the
voluntary confession of an accused
ing testimony known to mankind, namely,
that he perpetrated the crime alleged,
and the testimony of an eye witness that
he saw the accused commit the crime
charged.
After his inauguration, President Nixon
made some sound recommendations for
congressional legislation in respect to the
administration of criminal justice. Un­forttunately,
however, he obscured these
recommendations and delayed their enact­ment
and implementation by insisting that
Congress forsake the traditions of our
land and enact preventive detention laws,
'no-knock" laws, and other repressive
measures.
He specifically urged Congress to enact
a nation-wide preventive detention law.
Under his proposal, a federal judge will
be empowered to deny immediate release
on bail or its equivalent to any person
arrested for a dangerous or violent non­capital
federal offense and to imprison
him for 60 days without trial on the merits
if the judge finds in a preliminary hear­ing
where the rules of evidence do not
obtain that such person will present some
undefined danger to another person or
the community if he is granted pretrial
release from custody.
The provision requiring a preliminary
hearing as a condition precedent to the
entry of an order of preventive detention
and limiting the period of preventive de­tention
to 60 days were included inPresi­dent
Nixon's proposal in deference to the
due process clause of the Fifth Amend­ment,
Wlhich undoubtedly places severe
restrictions on the power of the federal
government to deprive a person of his
liberty because it fears he may commit
a crime in the future if he is not detained.
President Nixon has been unable thus
far to persuade Congress to adopt his
nation-wide proposal, but he has man­aged
to induce it to impose a similar pro­posal
on the crime-riden District of Co­lumbia.
Unfortunately, this even occurred be­fore
a study made by the National Bureau
of Standards was made public. The Bu-reau
studied the subsequent records dur­ing
a protracted period of time of persons
arrested in the District of Columbia for
dangerous or violent crimes and released
on bail or its equivalent during four se­lected
weeks in the first six months of
1968, and found that the facts refute the
basic asumptions which underlie the de­mand
for preventive detention laws,
-,anamely, that persons arrested for dan­gerous
or violent crimes have a high pro­pensity
to be rearrested for subsequent
offenses of a serious nature, and that
judges can accurately predict those who
wil be dangerous if released.
The study revealed that only 5 percent
of the persons arrested for dangerous or
violent crim,es were rearrested for subse­quent
serious crimes during the protracted
period covered by it; and that virtually
all of the rearrests occurred more than
four months after the original arrests.
While the advocacy of preventive de­tention
may have political value as a
symbol of devotion to law-and-order, the
study of the National Bureau of Stand­ards
and experience under the Districtt of
Columbia preventive detention law dem­onstrate
that preventive detention is
worthless as a weapon against crime.
Indeed, it will prove worse than worth­less
if employed on a substantial scale.
By adding the preliminary hearings on
the detention issue to the dockets, it will
actually delay courts in trying criminal
cases on the merits and thus impede the
prompt administration of criminal justice.
Besides, it will inevitably result in the
imprisonment of m.any innocent persons
because judges do not possess the predic­tive
power to select out of 100 persons
the 5 who will prove to be dangerous to
others or the community if granted pre­trial
release.
Because of these things and the diffi­culty
of reconciling it with the "ordered
liberty" which due process of law com­mands,
preventive detention has no ra­tional
or rightful place in our land.
Consequently, Congress ought to repeal
the shameful District of Columbia pre­ventive
detention law, spurn the Presi­dent's
request for a similar nation-wide
law, and cling to the tradition which had
its origin in the first year of our Repub­lic's
existence.
By adhering to the historic right of
persons arrested for noncapital federal
offense to be released on bail or its
equivalent while awaiting trial, America
will continue to administer criminal jus­tice
in a way which commends itself to
free men.
Such a course of action promotes the
fair and just administration of justice.
This is true because it makes the pre­sum;
ption of innocence a realitty; enables
the accused to assist his laWYer in pre­paring
his defense; permits the accused
to retain his job, support his family, and
live in his own home pending trial; saves
the taxpayers the expense of maintain­ing
the accused in jailed idleness and
suporting his family on relief pending
his trial; minimizes the overcrowding of
inadequate and already crowded jails;
insures that no innocent accused will be
stigmatized by imprisonment for a crime
he did not commit; and honors the dream
of the Founding Fathers that there shall
be no Bastiles in America.
Every Man's Home Is His Castle
The deepest hunger of the human heart
is for a home in which one ffilll.Y have
privacy, exercise personal liberty, and en­joy
safety free from unjustifiable intru­sions
by government or law-breakers.
Ages ago the Prophet Micah pictured this
hunger with eloquence by describing the
mountain of the Lord as a place where
"they shal sit every man under his vine
SEA's first dance of the year showed some encoumging signs and it is hopeful
that future parties wil draw la1·ger student participation. He?·e Pete McDonald seems
to be asking his wife when the next dance is scheduld. It wiU be in January and
Broderick is hopeful that Pete and the rest of the student body will attend.
and under his fig tree, and none shall
make them afraid."
When it was emerging from the mists
of history, the common law of England
undertook to satisfy this hunger by de­claring
that every man's home is his castle,
and that every man may resist to the
utmost unidentified persons who under­take
to enter his home against his will.
This principle of the common law was
judicially recognized and applied in Se­mayne's
Case, which was decided in 1603
and which declares:
"The house of everyone is to him as
his castle and fortress, as well as for
his defense against injury and vio­lence
as for his repose."
This principle of law is not absolute
as against government. It must yield on
rare occasions if an overriding public pur­pose
demands that government make an
entry into a home. But even on those
rare occasions, government may enter
only if it uses means which insure that its
power to enter is not abused.
In recognition of this the Court further
declared in Semayne's Case:
"In all cases where the King is party,
the Sheriff 'if the doors be not open'
may break the party's house, either
to arrest him, or to do other execu­tion
of the King's process, if other­wise
he canot enter. But before he
breaks it, he ought to signify the
cause of his coming, and to make
requests to open doors."
In opposing a proposal to collect an
excise on cider by methods which abridg­ed
the concept embodied in the maxim
every man's home is his castle, William
Pitt, the elder, expressed the veneration
of Englishmen for the principle of law
embodied in such concept by this state­ment
in the House of Commons:
"The poorest man may in his cottage
bid defiance to all the forces of the
Crown. It may be frail; its roof may
shake; the wind may blow through
it; the storm may enter; the rain may
enter; but the King of England can­not
enter. Al his force dares not cross
the threshold of the ruined tenement."
When they migraed from England to
America, the colonists brought with them
a proud attachment to this principle of
the common law. Hence, it is not sur­prising
that the people of Boston rebelled
when officers of the British Crown en­tered
and ransacked their homes and
places of business under general war­rants
to collect taxes imposed upon them
by Parliament. This outrage was one of
the tyranies which provoked the Ameri­can
Revolution.
After Independence was won, the
Founding Fathers incorporated this prin­ciple
of the common law in the Fourth
Amendment, which reads as follows:
"The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and persons or things to
be seized."
The Fourth Amendment protects the
occupant of a house from an unannounced
entry by an officer of the law. Even
though he has a legal right to enter a
house to ~ake a lawful arest or execute
a lawful search warrant, an officer is pro­hibited
by the Amendment from attempt­ing
to do so unless he first announces his
identity and purpose to the occupant and
is refused admittance by him.
This requirement has this two-fold ob­jective:
(1) To protect the privacy, per­sonal
liberty, and safety of the occupant;
and () to protect the officer from the
danger of violent injury or death at the
hands of the occupant, who might other­wise
mistake him for a burglar.
The requirement of prior announcement
of identity and purpose is subject to lim­ited
exceptions, which are stated in Jus­tice
Brennan's dissenting opinion in Ker
v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 48.
The opinion rightly asserts that the
Fourth Amendment is violated by an un­announced
entry of officers into a house,
"except (1) where the persons within al­ready
know of the officers' authority and
purpose, or (2) where the officers are
justified in the belief that persons within
are in imminent peril of bodily harm, or
(3) where those within, made aware of
the presence of someone outside (because,
for example, there has been a knock at
the door) are then engaged in activity
which justifies the officers in the belief
that an escape or the destruction of
evidence is being attempted.
Manifestly the facts which call any of
these exceptions into play cannot be
known to an officer until he arrives at the
house where the arrest or search is to be
made.
Crime and dangerous drugs present
hard problems. Hard problems are the
quicksands of sound legislation.
In 1970, Congress enacted two "no­knock"
laws. One of these is embodied
in the District of Columbia CoCurt Re­form
Act (P.L. 91-358), and regulates
arrests and search warrants for all pur­poses
in the District of Columbia; and the
other is incorporated in the Drug Con­trol
Act (P.L. 91-513) and regulates search
warrants for discovery of dangerous drugs
or controlled substances as defined in
the Act throughout the country.
The District of Columbia Act contains
two unprecedented provisions. One of
them empowers a judicial officer to con­fer
upon a law enforcem\ent officer ex-
(Contlnued on page 8)
W4t 1Jlnutnutllt 1Jlawytr
FORM 3547 REQUESTED
Senator Ervin
(Continued fTcnn page 7)
press authority to break and enter any
dwelling house or other building in the
District to execute an arrest warrant
without giving the occupants notice of
his identity and purpose if the judicial
officer finds that "such notice is likely
to enable the party to be arrested to
escape" and the other empowers a judicial
officer to confer upon a law enforcement
officer express authority to break and
enter any dwelling house or other build­ing
in the District to execute a search
warrant without giving the occupants no­tice
of his identity and purpose if the
judicial officer finds (A) that "such no­tice
is likely to result i:h the evidence
subject to seizure being easily and quick­ly
destroyed or disposed of'; or (B) that
'such notice is likely to endanger the life
or safety of the officer or another per­son",
or (C) that "such notice would be
a useless gesture."
The Drug Control Act empowers a fed­eral
judicial officer to confer upon a law
enforcement officer express authority to
break and enter any building to execute
a search warrant for the discovery of
dangerous drugs or controlled substances
without giving the occupants notice of
his authority and purpose if the judicial
officer finds (A) that "the property
sought may and, if such notice is given,
wil be easily and quickly destroyed or
d1sposed of," or (B) that "the giving of
such notice will immediately endanger
the life or safety of the executing officer
or another person."
In attempting thus to abrogate the con­stitutional
obligation of an officer to give
notice of his identity and purpose before
he undertakes to break and enter a house
to make an arrest or search, these no­knock
statutes offend the letter, the spirit,
and the purpose of the Fourth Amend­ment.
Neither Congress nor any official act­ing
under its authority can nulify a con­stittutional
requirement o nthe ground
that obedience to it "would be a useless
gesture." The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures cannot be made to hang on
such an arbitrary and brittle thread.
Moreover, these no-knock laws do not
bring the unprecedented powers they at­tempt
to create within any of the excep­tions
to the Fourth Amendment require­ment
of prior notice of identity and pur­pose.
To be sure, they pay lip service to the
Fourth Amendment by stating that the
extraordinary warrants cannot be issued
except upon probable cause.
Probable cause can only be established
by facts which exists and are made
known to a judician officer at the time
he acts on an application for an arrest
or search warrant. It cannot be predi­cated
upon prophesies or suspicions or
fears as to what the conduct of the oc­cupants
of a distant house may be at
some future time when an officer of the
law reached the premises to make an
arrest or search.
Hence, there can really be no probable
cause for the issuance of the extraordinary
warants the no-knock laws undertake to
sanction.
Apart from constitutional considera­tions,
no-knock laws are bad. If its peo­ple
are to have respect for law, a nation
must have respectable laws, and no law
is respectable if its authorizes officers to
act like burglars, and robs the people of
the only means they have for determining
whether those who seek to invade their
habitations violently or by sealth are of­ficers
or burglars.
When the Drug Control Act was under
Senate consideration, I moved to strike
the no-knock provision from it. I pre­dicted
at that time that its implementa­tion
would result in the deaths of both
law enforcement officers and household­ers.
Unfortunately, this unhappy predic­tion
has materialized on a number of
occasions.
I do not condemn no-knock laws in
ignorance of the terrible toll which crime
and daugerous drugs exact from society.
Dangerous drugs doom those who be­come
addicted to them, shatter the hap­piness
of the families of the addicts, and
provoke much of the crime that haunts
our land. The evil and selfish men who
traffic in dangerous drugs for filthy lucre
and bring these tragedies to pass deserve
the harshest punishment the law sanc­tions.
Despite these things, I cling to an abid­ing
conviction that it is beter for law­makers
to permit some wrongdoers to
escape than it is for them to sacrifice
upon the altar of fear and doubt the age­old
boast of Anglo-American law that
every man's home is his castle. A freedom
sacrificed is seldom resurrected.
First Amendment Freedoms
Time precludes detailed comment on
recent efforts to abridge the freedoms of
speech, association, and assembly of in­dividuals
or groups whose thoughts and
words offend government or a majority
of our citizens. These efforts find graphic
illustrations in President Johnson's use
of the Army to spy on civilians who ex­ercised
their freedoms of speech, associa­tion,
and assembly to express their dis­approval
of administration policies, and
President Nixon's attempt to bolster the
power of the Supersive Activities Control
Board to harass and stigiD\atize unhappy
and foolish people, who have committed
no crime.
Conclusion
The tides of fear are rising, and the
anchors of faith are dragging. It is in
such a time frightened humanity needs
freedom most.
Since courage is beter than fear, and
faith is better than doubt, let us spurn
fear, cherish faith, and dedicate ourselves
to this proposition: Freedom is life's su­preme
value and must be preserved for
ourselves and our prosterity, cost what
it may.
Henry Clay Senate Lauded
By Ronald Bogle
Reference is often made to quantity
detracting from quality. Clearly, such is
not the case with the Henry Clay Senate
of the Delta Theta Phi Law Fraternity.
Rather, the quantity has greatly added
to the quality of our Senate. At the
present time, our Senate boasts of 130
active members, and all contribute to
make our Senate what it is. Further, this
figure does not reflect the addition of our
fall pledge class. Thus, it is easy to un­derstand
why the Henry Clay Senate is
the largest student senate in the nation.
Aside from being the largest student
senate in the nation, our fraternity was
honored last year by being named the
Outstanding National Student Senate,
and was named this past summer as the
Outstanding Regional Senate. Such high
honors are not easily achieved or lightly
taken in view of the high degree of com­petition
from the 74 student senates across
the nation. Rather, they are prestigious
awards granted on the basis of high
scholastic achievement, law school ac­tivities,
campus-wide activities, fraternity
projects, individual achievements, and
activities with alumni and other student
senates. Clearly, the Henry Clay Senate
is a proven leader in all of these cate­gories.
However, the greatest achieve­ment
of our Senate would appear to be
in the category of scholastic achievement,
and law school activities.
We are especially proud of the contri­butions
of our Senate in scholastic
achievements and activities. To begin
with, the student with the highest scholas­tic
average in each class is a Delt. At
the present time, five of the six editorial
positions on the Journal of Family LaLw,
including the Editor-in-Chief, are held by
Delts. At Awards Day last spring, all
four awards granted to the students mak­ing
the most significant contribution to
overall legal scholarship went to mem-
Lex Fillies
(Continued ff'cnn page l)
Professor Ann Scott, author of The
Southern Lady and Professor of History
at Duke University, discussed the history
of the woman in America. Professor Scott
revealed that although 17th century
American women performed the same
physical work as men, 19th century in­dustrialization
resulted in removing hard
work from the home and women "allowed
themselves to be transformed from part
of the economy to status symbols." Ac­cording
to Professor Scott, notable ex­ceptions
to this raditionally defined role
for women existed but awareness of
women's contributions is limited due to
the fact that they have been overlooked by
historians.
The workshops conducted included in
part Placements Problems, Women in the
hers of the Henry Clay Senate. Of the
93 Book Awards, i.e. awards presented
to those students with the highest grade
in designated courses, 47 were presented
to Delts. Also, the ODK Award to the
Outstanding Senior Male(s) went to two
brothers. In addition, four brothers were
elected to Phi Kappa Phi.
Needless to say, we are proud of our
scholastic achievements. But we are also
proud of our accomplishments and par­ticipation
in law school activities. The
present and past Presidents of the Stu­dent
Bar Association are members of
our Senate, and Delts hold 6 of the 11
positions open to them on the SBA Ex­ecutive
Committee. Further, the present
and past Presidents of the Moot CoCurt
Club are Delts, as are 5 of the 8 mem­bers
of the Moot Court Executive Board.
The winner of last spring's Moot Court
Competitio nis a Delt, as are two of the
three members of our National Moot
Court team.
Clearly, these are impressive feats, but
our fraternity is not all work. Social
activities play a major role in our fra­ternity,
and they assist in keeping our
fraternity a close and unified body. This
includes not only activities within the
student senate, but, also, with our alumni
senate. Intramural athletics play a role
in our activities. Not only are we the
only law school fraternity, but we are
the only fraternity from any graduate
school to participate in the graduate
school intramural activities.
Certainly, we are proud of our frater­nity.
The brothers of the Henry Clay
Senate of Delta Theta Phi have contrib­uted
much to the University of Louisville
School of Law, and later to the Louisville
and Kentucky Bar Associations. With the
quality of our brotherhood, it is easy to
understand why we have contributed
much, and easier to understand why we
will contribute more.
Criminal Justice System, Recruitment and
Admission of Women to Law Schools,
Women in Politics, Women and Welfare,
Minority Women, The Professional Woman
and her Role in the Family Structure,
Abortion, and Radical Women.
The workshop on Placement Problems
was conducted by Karla Harbin, a Legal
Aid attorney in Durham, N.C. Ms. Harbin
indicated safeguards against sex discrimi­nation
in employment included Title VII
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act ( 42 U.S.C.
s 200(e)) and President Nixon's execu­tive
order forbidding sex discrimination
within the federal government, as the
federal government is exempt from Title
VII. Ms. Harbin attempted to forewarn
women law students about some of the
problems they will face in seeking em­ployment
as lawyers by presenting inter­view
questions to anticipate.