Louisville Law Examiner
Serving The University of Louisville School of Law Community
Volume 6, Number 3 Louisville, Kentucky, October 10, 1980 Circulation 4100 Photo by Scott Furkin
Pictured are, left, Ann Bailey, Plrtle-Washer winner, and Colleen McKinley, runner-up. 
Other finalists were Susan McCray, Alice Barnes, Jack Faust, Leo Smith, Don Meade 
and Lucy Helm.
 Ann Bailey wins Pirtle-Washer
Moot Court Competition
By Scott Furkin
The Moot Court Board has announced
that Ann Leslie Bailey is the winner of the
1980 Pirtle-Washer Appellate Advocacy
Competition. Ms. Bailey, a junior in the
Day Division, prevailed in six arguments
over two days to become the intraschool
champion. She will receive a full-tuition 
scholarship for one semester. Colleen Mc­Kinley,
a junior in the Evening Division, is 
the 1980 runner-up, and will be awarded a
half-tuition scholarship.
This year's competiton took place at the
Hall of Justice at Sixth and Jefferson Streets
in downtown Louisville. Elimination rounds
were conducted on Saturday, September 6,
with quarter-, semi-, and final rounds fol­lowing
on Saturday, September 13. Fifty­four
second-year students comprised the
largest field of competitors to date, and
approximately 15 third-year students assisted
as bailiffs. The judges' pool for the pre­liminary
rounds was composed of 48 local
attorneys and recent graduates of the law
school. Seventeen Jefferson County District
and Circuit Court Judges graciously donated
their time to preside over the final rounds.
Participants and observers agreed that the
high quality of judging and realistic court­room
atmosphere combined to make the
1980 competition the most valuable in re­cent
years.
The problem for argument was selected
last spring by the Moot Court Board for
presentment before the Supreme Court in
the imaginary state of Abbott. The facts of
the hypothetical case concerned the relative
rights of natural and prospective adoptive
parents and the standard to be applied in
custody battles between the two groups.
Student advocates were told to prepare
arguments for both sides and were given
initial side designations about a week before
the competition. Each advocate was allotted
15 minutes for oral argument which included
extensive questioning from the bench. Stu­dents
were evaluated on their knowledge
of the factual and legal issues, skill in rea­soning
and use of authority, and overall
forensic performance.
Moot Court Board President Bill Kenealy
congratulated all participants for their ef­forts
and expressed relief that the program
ran so smoothly after being postponed in
the spring due to scheduling difficulties.
Mr. Kenealy acknowledged, however, that
last-minute withdrawals by some students
posed unanticipated problems: "Certain in­dividuals
failed to appear without notifying
us first . . . We wish those individuals
had arrived as it forced other competitors
to argue before the court in what could
only be called a ~false round,' "he said.
Mr. Kenealy revealed that the Moot Court
Board plans to continue having competitions
at the Hall of Justice because of its conveni­ent
location and authentic judicial charac­ter.
"Each year (the Moot Court Board)
endeavors to improve upon the administra­tive
and educational value of the competition.
Despite the incredibly high number of fresh­men,
we will endeavor to make next year's
program at least as stimulating as this year's."
Near Record Freshman Class Enrolls in School of Law
By Jeff Wade
Due to an unexpectedly successful re­
·cruiting program at the law school and a
computer foul-up somewhere in the East,
this Fall's entering class is one of the largest
in the history of the school.
A total of 236 entering freshmen enrolled
in the School of Law in August. One hun­dred
seventy-three entered the Day Divi­sion
and 63 entered the Evening Division.
The class is one of the largest in the
school's history, and the number of fresh­men
in the Day Division is the largest ever.
The largest class ever was the class that
entered in 1974. However, that class was
divided among three divisions: the Day and
Evening divisions and a "Twilight Divi­sion."
Although some variation in the number
of admissions from year to year is usual,
this year's increase was both unusual and
unexpected. Nearly all of the increase oc­curred
in the Day Division, where admis­sions
were up 630Jo from last year's total
of 107.
According to Professor William Biggs,
Chairman of the Admissions Committee,
three factors seem to be responsible for the
increase.
First, the Admissions Committee set a
goal of 180 to 200 admissions. If that goal
had simply been met, there would have
been a significant increase over last year's
167.
To attain its goal, the Admissions Com­mittee
initially accepted about 300 appli­cants,
assuming that about half of those
accepted would ultimately decide to attend
law school elsewhere. According to Prof.
Biggs, that has become a fairly predictable
pattern in past years.
This year's applicants, however, did not
follow that pattern. The great majority of
them, in fact, kept their sights set on U of
L and showed up on Belknap Campus in
August, ready to begin classes.
One factor Prof. Biggs cited as causing
more applicants than usual to choose to at­tend
U of L was the recruiting program that
was initiated last year. Prof. Biggs noted
that the program has proved more success­ful
than anyone had anticipated.
The recruiting program, a project of the
Admissions Committee, was aimed at stu­dents
in various colleges throughout Ken­tucky
as well as a few in Indiana. The hope
was that some law school aspirants who had
not previously considered attending U of L
would begin to do so. That hope was ap­parently
realized.
The other factor cited by Prof. Biggs as
being responsible for U of L's sudden pop­ularity
stemmed from problems in the elec­tronic
data systems of the Law School
Data Assembly Service (LSD AS).
LSDAS for many years had its home on
the beautiful, sprawling campus of the Edu­cational
Testing Service (ETS) in Princeton,
New Jersey~ Last year, however, LSDAS
was in the process of separating from ETS
and moving to Newtown, Pennsylvania. In
doing so, it temporarily "lost" some records
that were stored somewhere in the bowels
of a computer.
The "lost" data included records of law
school applicants, upon which most law
schools depend to make their admissions
decisions. When the records had still not
been retrieved by April, law schools across
the country were faced with the question
of whether to begin accepting applicants
without having the benefit of all the LSDAS
data, or whether to wait until all the data
could be retrieved and forwarded.
U of L opted for the former course. U of K
and Chase, U of L 's biggest competitors for
new admissions, chose the latter. The result
was that many students who were accepted
to all three schools received their U of L
acceptance letters far in advance of those
from U of K and Chase.
By mid-April, LSDAS had begun retrieving
and forwarding the data, and by mid-May,
U of L had received data on nearly all its
applicants. U of K and Chase began send­ing
out acceptance letters in May. By that
time, however, many applicants who had
been accepted by U of L had made firm
decisions to enroll here.
And enroll they did!
One result of the fat enrollment is that
the first year Day students are divided into
not only an "A" and a "B" section, but a
"Z" section as well. If anyone stands to
benefit from this snafu, perhaps it is that
unique group of students who got labeled
"Z". They're natural underdogs, so maybe
they'll try the hardest.
Photn b.r Scmt IUrldn
Randy Jewell casts his vote for first year SBA representatives.
..
..
-
'·
2 Louisville l.aw Examiner, October 10, 1980
Louisville Law Examiner
EDITORIAL BOARD
Elizabeth S. Ward, Editor-in-Chief
Tom Schulz, Managing Editor
Craig Bell, Associate Editor
Frank Bush, Associate Editor
John B. Wright, Jr., Business Manager
Scott Furkin, Photographic Editor
Gerald "Bear" Schray, Artist
STAFF
Jeffrey L. Wade, Brandeis Brief Editor
Mike Brooks, Sports Editor
Scott Furkin, Projects Editor
Phyllis Malinski
Joram Salig
John Tate
Kevin Ford
Jane Atkinson
Roy Wyatt
Paul Roark
Mike Smither
Nick Riggs
Judge MARLIN M. VOLZ, Advisor Professor ALBERT T. QUICK, Consultant
The Louisville Law Examiner is published eight times during the academic year in the
interest of the University of Louisville School of Law community. Unsigned editorial opinions
are those representing a majority vote of the editorial board and do not necessarily express the
views of the School of Law or the University of Louisville.
Articles are invited from faculty members, students, and members of the bar who wish to do
freelance work, but any proposed article must be cleared in advance with the editor as to topic
and length. This is to avoid duplication of coverage and insure that the article will not be
beyond workable length for a newspaper format.
Address all communications to the Louisville Law Examiner, School of Law, University of
Louisville, Kentucky 40208. Phone 502-588-6398.
Letter to the Editor
''Brandeis Brief'' Series
Emerging Legal Issues
Legal and Personal Problems of
Surrogate Parenting
Katie Brophy is counsel for Surrogate
Parenting Associates, Inc., t.m. (S .P.A.).
She and Richard Levin, M.D., an obstetri­cian
who specializes in infertility problems,
founded S.P.A. in August, 1979. Ms. Brophy
received her A.B. and J.D . degrees from
the University of Kentucky. She has prior
legal experience as an attorney for Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Company and as As­sistant
Jefferson County Attorney for pater­nity
and non-support. She is currently with
the firm of Triplett and Greene in Louis­ville.
Mr. William L. Fang
The Law School
Somewhere, US
an investment in the firm's future, whether
we eventually hire a particular individual or
Katie Brophy
not. Others give us invaluable insight into Approximately fifteen per cent (15%) of the general population experiences
the changing nature of legal education and infertility problems. Another group of people possesses congenital traits, such as
the profession as a whole. Still others pre- Tay-Sachs disease or cystic fibrosis , which would predispose their offspring to
sent us with an opportunity for invigorating serious physical deformities. Added to the above categories are females with
and refreshing dialogue, the value of which
Dear Mr. Fang:
I was glad to have met with you recently
to discuss the possibility of a summer clerk­ship
with our firm . We appreciate your in­terest
but regret that we are not able to ask
you to continue the interviewing process.
As I am sure you realize, an attorney's
time is extremely valuable and a member of
a firm has a responsibility both to himself
and his associates to be frugal in its ex­penditure.
The immense expense of inter­viewing
the large number of job applicants
we see each year, therefore, must be justified
in somew ay. -s to th-osesruaents w ose
grades, extracurricular activities and per­sonalities
make them attractive prospective
employees, we tend to view the expense as
we feel should not be di scounted. contra-indications to pregnancy, such as heart diseases or diabetes. While this
However, on the rare occasion when we latter group may be able to conceive, the risk of carrying a full term pregnancy
interview a student whose credentials, de- may be quite high.
mean or, conversation, appearance and For many couples with the above problems, adoption was historically the
background can in no way justify the amount answer. Today, however, the number of healthy infants available for adoption
of time expended on his behalf, we are cer- cannot fill the void of childless couples in the United States and abroad.
tain that you will agree that it is only fair When it is the male who is infertile and does not produce sufficient numbers
that student b~ billed for the reasona.ble of live sperm, artificial insemination of the female partner (AID) by an anonymous
value of that ti.me. Therefore, please fmd sperm donor is often recommended by physicians. On the other hand, where
enclosed our. b!ll .for $24·68 (twenty-four the infertility is due to the female's inability to conceive or carry a full-term preg-dollars
and Sixty-eight cents), figured at an . . . . .
hourly rate or $50 (fifty dollars) and in-- nancy, no altern~tJ~e comparable to A_II~-has~~een available until recently. Now,
eluding secretarial, mailing and other costs. however, where .It IS the female who IS mfertile, the couple now can apply for
Sincerely yours, surrogate parentmg.
Fred R. Milton Surrogate parenting is the reverse situation of the donor insemination pro-cedure.*
As a co-founder of Surrogate Parenting Associates, Inc., tm., the only known
program routinely providing the surrogate service for individuals in the United
States and abroad, I have drafted a number of documents and instituted various
procedures for a model surrogate program. The program is designed to protect all
parties involved, including (unlike typical reproduction) the child. The following
safeguards are used to ensure that the surrogate is properly qualified.
1. The surrogate must be married.
2. The surrogate must have at least one healthy child from her present marriage.
You SuRtl! A~•
A Lor1 ToM.
3. She and her husband must undergo psychiatric and psychological evalua­tion
by various professionals.
4. The surrogate must produce medical records (including obstetric records).
5. The surrogate must produce all pediatric records relevant to her children to
verify that she has produced healthy children.
6. The surrogate and her husband must retain the services of an independent
attorney to review the proposed agreements and advise them on the relevant law
in Kentucky, relating to the surrogate procedure.
7. The surrogate agrees to complete physical and genetic evaluations (including
venereal disease testing).
8. The surrogate and her husband agree to terminate parental rights subse­quent
to the child's birth.
9. The surrogate, the child and the natural father undergo the following blood
tests in order to establish paternity:
a. White Cell/HLA
b. Red Cell Enzyme
c. Serum Proteins
d. Blood Group
The results of these tests provide the natural father with highly probable evi­dence
that he is in fact the biological father of the child.
~ 10. The surrogate agrees to adhere to various medical restrictions relating to
pregnancy, including a total prohibition of alcohol, smoking, and prescribed or
non-prescribed medications. In addition, a set pre-natal schedule is mandated.
II. The surrogate agrees to undergo amniocentesis if the procedure is medically
indicated.
The natural father agrees as follows:
I. To undergo complete physical and genetic evaluations (including venereal
disease testing).
2. To pay all pregnancy-related expenses of the surrogate as well as expenses
relevant to her traveling to Kentucky for purposes of insemination, psychiatric
examinations, and delivery.
3. To reimburse the surrogate for her attorney's fees. (These fees are not paid
(See Surrogate Parenting, Page 3)
l.ouisvill{' l.aw F.xamin{'r, Octob{'r 10, 1980
(Surrogate Parenting, Continued from Page 2)
directly by the natural father.)
4. To accept the child regardless of congenital abnormalities (assuming the
surrogate has complied with her medical restrictions).
5. To pay all court costs incident to the termination of parental rights of the
surrogate and the presumptive parental rights of her husband.
6. To make adequate provision either in his will or by life insurance for the
protection of the child should the natural father and his wife predecease the birth
of the child.
The surrogate program cannot guarantee that the natural father will receive
the child he desires. A variety of contingencies could prevent such an outcome:
1. The surrogate could decide to keep the child and litigate the issue of cus­tody.
One of the most serious consequences for the natural father in this event is
that a court may require him to pay child support to the surrogate if she is awarded
custody of the child. Child support is a right inherent in the child and as such is
probably not waivable by the surrogate in advance. Therefore, the contractual
agreement provides that the surrogate will indemnify the natural father for any
and all amounts of child support he is required to pay.
2. Just as with any pregnancy, the surrogate program cannot guarantee that
the child born to the surrogate will be a healthy child, free of all defects. Never­theless,
we do know that the surrogate has produced healthy children, and is her­self
healthy. Therefore, the probabilities of a healthy child exceed those for a
random selection of the general population.
3. The surrogate program does not warrant that the surrogate selected by the
natural father will in fact conceive. But once again, we do know that the surro­gate
has conceived previously. A fertility "work-up" is done prior to insemina­tion
in an attempt to rule out any secondary fertility. In the event the surrogate
selected by the natural father fails to conceive after a total of twelve (12) monthly
inseminations, the surrogate program will locate and screen a second surrogate
for the natural father.
4. The surrogate program cannot guarantee that the surrogate and her hus­band
will voluntarily terminate their respective rights to the child. The fee allo­cated
for the surrogate is placed in escrow at the time the surrogate is signed.
The surrogate's fee is not released to the surrogate and her husband until such
time as they have voluntarily terminated their parental rights. In addition, the
blood testing work must be satisfactory as to paternity prior to the release of the
surrogate's fee .
CONCLUSION
Most people would agree that the most favorable way to produce people is
from a biological union between the couple desirous of being parents. Unfor­tunately
in many circumstances that is not possible. The surrogate parenting con­cept
is for individuals who are desperate to have a child biologically related to
at least one of the parents. In addition, in this day and age when the possibility
of adopting an infant child is for most couples remote, surrogate parenting is
now a viable alternative to adoption. But there are numerous legal and personal
problems that can arise among the parties in a surrogate parenting arrangement.
It is incumbent upon the attorney who promotes such an arrangement to antici­pate
these potential problems and to prevent them to the extent possible by crea­ting
the necessary contractual safeguards.
*In surrogate parenting, the couple is matched with a woman (the surrogate)
who in essence agrees to carry and give birth to a child for the infertile couple.
The surrogate is artificially inseminated by the sperm of the infertile woman's
husband so that he will be the biological father of the child.
LEGAL PUBLICATIONS
LOOSELEAF REPORTERS
Be BOUND VOLUMES
NEW Be USED-BOUGHT Be SOLD
•TAX
• CORPORATION
• PENSION & PROFIT SHARING
• S.E.C.
• LABOR & PERSONNEL
• BANKING
• AFTR 1ST & 2ND. TCMD. USTC
& OTHER BOUND PUBLICATIONS
TERRY TULLY
PRENTICE-HALL REPRESENTATIVE
2800 FIRST NATIONAL TOWER
LOUISVILLE. KY 40202
502-585-4091
Dean's Dicta
At its meeting on Monday, Septem­ber
29, 1980, the law faculty voted to
change the limitation on outside employ­ment
by full-time students from fifteen
to twenty hours per week.
The change in the "fifteen-hour rule"
will no doubt be viewed as a victory
for the student body on national and
local levels. The precise origin of the
rule lies in an interpretation of Stan­dard
305(a)(iii) of the American Bar
Association's accreditation standards.
The Council of the Section of Legal
Education and Admissions to the Bar,
at its August 2-3, 1980 meeting in
Honolulu, upon recommendation of
the Accreditation Committee, changed
its prior interpretation of the standard,
so that it now reads:
"A student may not work in
excess of 20 hours per week while
attending a school on a full-time
basis. The law school has the
burden to show that it has adopted
and enforces policies assuring
that full-time students devote
substantially all working hours
to the study of law, including
policies relating to class schedu­ling,
attendance requirements,
and performance standards. These
restrictions also apply during the
summer in the same manner as
they do during the normal year
if the student is enrolled for
summer session."
The new rule of the University of
Louisville School of Law is now in
conformity with the ABA rule. The
faculty went on record, however, as
saying that it did not favor full -time
students working twenty hours a week.
Rather, its action was based on the
proposition that the school should not
require more of its students than the
ABA does.
During the course of the discussion,
a number of interesting points emerged:
First, some faculty members (probably,
a minority) would prefer to have no
rule at all. Second, neither the ABA
nor the law school has any rule re­stricting
the number of hours that a
student in the Evening Division may
work. Third, as the result of a student
poll, a majority of the students favored
a continuation of the fifteen-hour rule
as to first-year students, but a change
to twenty hours for second- and third­year
students. Fourth, a minority of the
faculty favored a continuation of the
fifteen-hour rule for all students, other
than those working in the law school.
The latter (research and library assis­tants)
would be permitted to work
twenty hours, on the theory working
outside the school involved some non­productive
travel time, and these stu­dents
would also be able to study on
the job.
In prior issues in this space, we have
discussed at length the importance of
balancing the fundamentals of legal
education with practical skills. A sound
training in the fundamentals of the law
is still the sine qua non of legal edu­cation.
But the faculty has also recog­nized
that some training in practical
skills is essential for one who aspires
Dean Harold G. Wren
to be an attorney. During recent years,
the introduction of the first-year course
in Basic Legal Skills, the expansion of
the requirements for graduation from
eighty-four to ninety semester credit
hours, and the introduction of a number
of advanced courses in skills training
have all been part of the school's effort
to increase the amount of professional
training that a student receives in the
pursuit of the course of study leading
to the J .D. degree.
Indeed, at the very meeting when the
twenty-hour rule was under discussion,
the faculty also approved the introduc­tion
of Judge Charles M. Leibson's
seminar, Practicum in Courtroom Law,
for the Summer of 1981. Under the new
program, students who have completed
the equivalent of four day semesters
of law school will be permitted to
enroll in the Practicum where they will
receive training and experience in the
preparation and trial of complex litiga­tion,
under the direct supervision of
outstanding trial attorneys. Comple­tion
of the course in Evidence will be
a prerequisite for enrollment in the
Seminar. Participation in the seminar
involves a full-time commitment
during the Summer Session.
A number of our students are for­tunate
in that they receive practical ex­perience
through clerking for one of
the law firms in Louisville while they
are in law school. Most of the firms
have cooperated with our school and
have recognized that, in the long run,
the student who has a solid foundation
in the theory of the law, as well as
some introduction to its practical
aspects, will ultimately make the ablest
member of the Bar. We believe that so
long as the clerking experience does
not so interfere with a law student's
studies that it jeopardizes his basic legal
education, clerking will often have a
salutory effect in developing the "com­pleat"
lawyer. The adoption of the
twenty-hour rule is a step in this direc­tion,
and it appears that just about
everyone in the community - students,
faculty, and members of the Bar -
will applaud.
Harold G. Wren
Dean
MOVING?
Please send us your new address
at least four weeks in advance.
3
4 l.ouisvillr taw F:xaminrr. Octohrr 10. 1980
Photo by S<:ott FurAin
An architect's model and an artist's concept of the School of Law's future facilities appro­priately
set the stage for Kevin Delahanty's talk to undergraduates during Pre-Law Day.
Construction project ahead of schedule
By Frank Bush
While the seemingly endless parade of
hot sunny days may have displeased some
Kentuckians, especially farmers who have
suffered crop losses as a result of the sultry
weather, it has augured well for the con­struction
project at the University of Louis­ville
School of Law, allowing workers to
devote long hours to their construction task.
"The project is now moving on or ahead
of schedule," says Dean Harold Wren. Ac­cording
to one student: "You can look at
the construction site and see how the build­ing
is going to look."
That news is a welcome message to many
U of L students who have witnessed numer­ous
delays since the planning of the new
wing began in 1976. The latest was the strike
which kept workers off the job for seven
weeks during May and June.
In an interview, Dean Wren expressed
hope that the good weather will continue at
least until the construction crew can place
a roof over the frame presently being erected.
With a roof in place, the workers can do a
great deal of inside work during the ap­proaching
winter months.
The Dean is also hopeful that a success­ful
winter's work will prevent the school
from being forced to move its staff and
faculty offices and its library out of the law
building and into other buildings on the
University's Belknap Campus while renova­tion
of the existing building is undertaken.
Summer plans called for such a move, but
the possibility now exists that needed tempo­rary
housing may be created in completed
sections of the new wing. Preventing the
move is advantageous in two ways, claims
the Dean: the functioning of the law school
would be kept together under one roof,
facilitating smooth administration of the
school during the remainder of the con­struction
project, and the space in the uni­versity
buildings to be provided to the law
school for its use would be freed for other
university purposes.
Dean Wren again expressed his belief
that the completed facility will be one of the
best in the region.
STAFF POSITIONS
are available on the Louisville Law Examiner.
If you are interested in writing or working with
us, stop by our office in the basement of the Law
Library, Room 30-8.
No previous journalism experience is required.
Increased Participation Marks
Third Annual Pre-Law Day
By Elizabeth Ward
Friday, September 26, 1980 was Pre-Law
Day at the University of Louisville School
of Law. Nineteen college students and seven
pre-law advisors from Kentucky and South­ern
Indiana were guests of the law school
as the administration, faculty, staff and stu­dents
continued the School of Law's recruit­ment
program.
Pre-Law Day has other purposes in addi­tion
to recruitment: to establish a communi­cations
network with the undergraduate
pre-law advisors and clubs, which the ad­ministration
and faculty members will be
visiting later in the school year, and to give
advisors and potential students a glimpse
Into law school life.
Associate Dean Norvie Lay was respon­sible
for planning and organizing the Day.
He and his staff contacted 24 colleges and
universities. Nine schools were represente"
for the program; advisors from six schools
were unable to locate pre-law seniors; one
school wished to come at a later date; three
colleges expressed interest in someone visit­ing
their school but were unable to attend.
Four did not respond to the invitation at all.
The program began with a welcome by
Dean Lay and a presentation by Dean Har­old
G. Wren of the plans for the new build­ing.
Dean Wren announced that the con­struction
was progressing ahead of the
revised schedule.
Student Bar Association President Kevin
Delahanty spoke next. He emphasized that
graduates of U of L School of Law have a
9307o pass-rate on the Kentucky Bar Exami­nation.
He strongly advised undergraduates
to keep their GPA's as high as possible and
to obtain LSA T study booklets for repeated
practice prior to taking the test.
Admissions Officer Adah Lovesee gave
technical advice to the students about law
school applications: deadline March 1, 1981;
do not list colleges at which the student has
completed less than 10 credit hours; and list
only two references who know the student
well or who are qualified to evaluate his
potential.
The highlight of the Pre-Law Day, ac­cording
to one undergraduate, was sitting
in on the Constitutional Law I class. (Con­stitutional
Law I classes taught by Professor
Knowles and Professor Quick were visited
by the students.) Her "Paper Chase" im­pression
of law school was not completely
dispelled as preservation of migratory birds
assumed constitutional proportions.
After a luncheon and a questions session
hosted by Associate Dean Steven Smith, the
advisors and students met with the indi­vidual
faculty members who will be visiting
their campus later in the fall for recruitment
purposes. Faculty members involved were
Ronald Eades, Robert Stenger, Leslie
Abramson, Richard Nowka and Linda
Ewald.
Pre-Law Day concluded with a tour of
the School of Law and the Law Library,
directed by law students Michael Alexan­der,
Kevin Delahanty, Barbara Hartung,
Gail Kaukus, Paul Roark and Elizabeth
Ward.
Dean Wren and Dean Lay expressed
much satisfaction with the response from
the undergraduate schools. The positive re­sponses
from 20 of the 24 schools contacted
was "exactly what we had hoped Pre-Law
Day to . accomplish - get those schools
thinking in terms of U of L."
Pre-Law Day is the first phase of a larger
plan of Dean Lay's to continue recruitment
efforts. This year faculty members as well
as the administration will travel to at least
twelve colleges or universities that have re­quested
U of L School of Law to make a
presentation to either a pre-law club or
interested students.
Lawyer Referral and Information
Service brings Legal Community
Closer to the Public
By Mike Smither
The Lawyer Referral and Information
Service, otherwise known as "LRIS", has
become firmly established as both an in­formative
and helpful service to the general
public of Louisville and surrounding areas.
Established more than a year ago by the
Louisville Bar Association in an effort to
bring the legal community closer to the pub­lic,
LRIS provides lawyer referrals to
those persons who feel they may need the
services of an attorney, yet know not where
to begin to select one.
The staff of the LRIS has condensed
the general field of law into several classi­fications
including consumer affairs, domes­tic
relations, juveniles, real estate, taxation,
torts, and wills and estates, among others.
There is also a classification designated for
Indiana cases. For a fee of $15.00 per classi­fication,
a member of the bar may be listed
on the panel in any of these classifications
for referrals. The panel in each classification
is recorded within a computer and the attor­neys
on each panel receive referrals on a
rotation basis.
The member of the public seeking a
referral is charged a $15.00 referral fee.
This fee helps to pay the operating expenses
of the service, which is located at the corner
of 5th and Market Street in the rear of the
Jefferson County Law Library. The person
paying the fee is then entitled to a one-half
hour consultation with the attorney he is re­ferred
to. Should the person choose to re­tain
the attorney, fee negotiation is strictly
left up to the attorney's discretion.
The LRIS currently has a full-time
staff attorney, two assistants and a para-legal/
legal secretary. This staff handles the
numerous phone calls the service receives
each day and provides those persons who
walk-in with information regarding the
problems they may have encountered. The
staff often refers problems to city or county
"help" agencies instead of an attorney due
to the fact that many times what the indivi­dual
needs is counseling, not an attorney.
Normally, a person calling for a referral
can get an appointment with the attorney
that same day, and in emergencies, within
a few hours. Calls are also received for re­ferrals
from out-of-town attorneys.
Another service which LRIS offers is
"Tel-Law" which is a library of tapes
on legal subjects prepared by local at­torneys.
The tapes have been written in a
manner easily understood by the general
public. Although this service is no~ to be used
to replace legal advice, it is very helpful
for information regarding everyday situa­tions
involving the law. By dialing 583-
LA WS, a person may listen to a tape con­cerning
such subjects as bankruptcy, jury
service, what to do when arrested and the
procedure of small claims court, among
others. This service was made possible partly
due to a grant by the American Bar Associ­ation,
which considers this one of its "pio­neer"
projects.
Due to the continuing efforts of the
Louisville Bar Association to bring the legal
community closer to the public, as evidenced
by its efforts in establishing the Lawyer
Referral and Information Service, the bar
may look forward to a better relationship
with the people of Louisville and surround­ing
areas.
Louisville l.aw f.'\aminer. O"toher 10, 1980 5
Legal Team Slaughtered
atLaGnmge
By Kevin Ford
As we pulled up to the entrance, my
stomach started to do flops. LaGrange State
Reformatory! I had heard stories about
what an intimidating place it was, but as my
cohorts and I were escorted through the
front gate, I quickly realized that the stories
had highlighted the prison's good points.
My stomach quit doing flops long enough
for me to utter a barely-audible "no" to
the guard's question as to whether I was car­rying
any "knives, guns, bazookas, grenades
or other contraband." The wall guard then
chuckled when his fellow guard called up
to explain that I was part of the "outside"
team that had come to bring the inmates'
softball team to its knees. Before the day
was through, I would help provide a lot
more laughter to the guards and the inmates.
"Jeeesssuuzz Christ!!" I thought as I
walked through the yard. Some of these
guys could kill people just looking at them.
Little did I know that on this day the only
killing was to be done on the softball field.
Once I started warming up, I thought
that the day wasn't going to be too bad.
First, I learned that several members of the
inmates' varsity team weren't going to play.
Then, I looked around and found that there
was some surprisingly good talent on my
team. The team members, all of whom were
attorneys (mostly legal aid) or law students,
were: Les Abramson, John Schaaf, Stuart
Alexander, Alan Schmitt, Dennis Conniff,
Joe Gutman, Bobby Butler and two recruits
-David Friedman, a legal aid attorney from
Shelbyville, and Steve Brannum (#80001),
from the prison.
The Inmates carried on the usual lawyer I
client chit-chat with us as they warmed up,
and I was thinking that maybe they were a
little overconfident. I should have realized
that when someone goes out of his way to
be nice to you before a game he is going to
try to beat your brains out on the field.
We were almost blown off the field in the
very first inning.
Here is the set up: we lead off, and our
first three hitters hit the ball right on the
nose. Three good plays by the Inmates and
we're on the field.
With Les (Abramson) on the mound, I
figure we're in good shape because (a) he
is an excellent pitcher and (b) he has faced
these guys before in an earlier Joss. The In­mates'
first hitter, a small man (small com­pared
to the rest of his team), takes one
of those moon balls that Les sets everyone
to pop up on and pops it into the alley
for a homerun. 1-0 Inmates.
Two singles later, the Incredible Hulk
steps up to the plate. The Hulk is left-handed,
and with the right field fence being only
250 feet (approximately) away, I figure he'll
plant one over the fence. Well, he planted
one about 325 feet to right, but it was straight
up. One out, thank God!
The next batter, Tiny, is 6 ft. 5 in. and
weighs 225 pounds, not including earring.
He looks formidable, but because he is
right-handed and the left field fence is 400
feet away, I figure we stand a good chance
of holding him to a triple. How wrong I was!
Tiny took an outside pitch and crushed it
over the right field fence and off the
second floor of dorm #7. 4-0 Inmates. Two
outs later it is 5-0 Inmates.
All of the above and then some was the
script for the first few innings, but lo and
behold we scratched our way back into the
game. The then-close score of 13-9 Inmates
was due to three factors: (1) we were hitting
singles like crazy; (2) the infield, especially
Dennis and #80001, was playing well; and
(3) Les had moved the outfield practically
out to Cincinnati and had refused to give
the Inmates anything they could hit near
right field. There had been some scary 325
foot fly balls, but we were in good position
heading into the sixth. ··
Well, in the bottom of the fifth, the In­mates
get a man out. Up steps the Incredible
Hulk again. Les had handled him pretty
well, so he threw him another high, very,
very short pitch. The Hulk actually ran up
in the box and hit over the right field fence
and on top of the building. The ball (a
sponge by this time) traveled at least 350
feet. We continued to battle courageously
after the Hulk's satellite, but we lost. 16-
11 Inmates.
The team comforted itself with the thought
that we had made the inmates work for
their victory, and we took the field a second
time to play a team comprised of the
warden, deputy warden, guards, and Tiny.
We had no objection to Tiny's playing for
we still had #80001 (Steve) and no one had
the guts to tell Tiny he couldn't play.
By the time the second game started,
the whole yard was watching. (It's kinda
hard not to notice people playing softball
in the only open space you have.) They were
all pro-lawyers, and the team responded
with inspired ball to take a 9-4 lead. I credit
the inspired play to a pre-game pep talk
from the Hulk and his friends. They are
very inspiring people. Unfortunately, the
team tired or just plain fell apart and the
Guards tied it at 9-9.
We got two on with one out to start the
seventh. There was a deep fly hit to right
center. Our runner would tag and make it
to third easily, right? Wrong! Your friend
and mine, Tiny, was playing right field and
he caught the ball going away from the in­field,
spun and threw a bullet to third.
Double play.
Who should lead off for the Guards?
You guessed it! Tiny, of course. He zapped
a single up the middle. A single and an out
and he's on third. We walk the bases full
to set up the force. Well, the deputy warden
hits a short fly to left-center and Robb But­ler
throws a strike to home. However, Tny
takes three strides from third and he beats
the throw. 10-9 Guards.
As we headed for the gate (lawyers and
students only), the Guards and Inmates told
us how much they enjoyed having us out.
We had to admit we did enjoy it. Why,
some of the Inmates even said we were good
enough to play for them, and with their
talent, that's a real compliment. Unfor­tunately,
my teammates and I can't or don't
want to meet their eligibility requirements.
Intramural Soccer
Team Wins
Premiere Effort
L'Eagles, the Jaw school's first time entry
in the University's Intramural Soccer League,
opened its season last Thursday with a re­sounding
9-0 victory over B.D:A.D.S., a
Speed School entry. In recording their lop­sided
win the L 'Eagles got an unexpected
boost from a player' usually associated with
sports other than soccer. Rob Hardy, whom
most people remember for his basketball
prowess, started ingoal and shut out the
opposition through the first three quarters.
After giving way to Mike Luvisi in goal,
Hardy proceeded to terrorize the BDADS
goalie with a three goal "hat trick" in the
final period. The remainder of the L'Eagles
scoring was accounted for by forward Bob
Stauble and midfielder Ken Bohnert. Each
also had three scores.
The opening action was rather scrambly
and Hardy was called upon to make several
key stops before his teammates got organized
and began to dominate the action. Although
missing several scoring chances they still
managed to hold a 2-0 halftime lead. The
offense was able to score at will in the second
half.
Organizer and team captain Dave Voisinet
encourages everyone to join the booster club
and become a part of the festivities. Maps
and schedules have been placed in the breeze­way
lounge to help fans get to the field .
L'Eagles' next game is at the Brook Street
field on Thursday, October 23 at 9 p.m.
Photo by Mtuy P«l
Front row, left to right: Tom Schulz and Elizabeth Ward; Back row, left to right: Richard
Head, Daryl Coffey, Frank Bush, Scott Furkin, and Craig Bell.
Sixth Circuit Holds
Fall Roundup
By Craig Bell
The Law Student Division of the Amer­ican
Bar Association, held its annual Sixth
Circuit "Fall Roundup" from October 3,
to October 5, of this year in Cincinnati,
Ohio. The conference, sponsored by the
Board of Governors of the American Bar
Association, attracted student representatives
from law schools throughout the Sixth Circuit.
The "Roundup" served as a means of
bringing together students from different
Jaw schools located within the Sixth Circuit
to discuss topics ranging from the general
to the specialized. Attending the "Round­up"
from the University of Louisville
School of Law were Daryl Coffey and
Richard Head, representing the Law Student
Division and Student Bar Association of
the U of L School of Law respectively,
Rhonda Richardson and Peter Ebbs repre­sented
the Louisville branch of BALSA,
while Elizabeth Ward, Tom Schulz, Craig
Bell, Frank Bush, and Scott Furkin repre­sented
the award winning Louisville Law
Examiner.
One of the more interesting topics dis­cussed
at the "Roundup" was that of the
responsibility of an attorney to provide pro
bono work for those who cannot afford to
retain counsel. Attorney Allen Brown sug­gested
that the present system has failed in
this objective and long overdue changes will
eventually be forced upon those engaged in
the practice of law. It was noted by Mr.
Brown that there is considerable debate
within the legal profession concerning the
best means of providing pro bono services
for those in need of them, but Mr. Brown
did not take a stand concerning the best
method of achieving a proper level of pro
bono work by an attorney. He noted two
distinct and different methods: to engage in
pro bono work oneself or to permit an
attorney to contribute to firms engaged in
pro bono work as a tax deduction.
Susan Sadler, of Drake Law School,
spoke on the controversial issue of a per­son's
"right to die." Ms. Sadler advocated
the position that any Jaw which makes it
illegal for a person to decide when his life
should be terminated should be repealed.
If implemented Ms. Sadler's proposals
would permit euthanasia where a person
had requested another to help him achieve
his desire to die. A sample "Living Will"
was given to all those in attendance. Ms.
Sadler would give legal effect to any docu­ment
made by a person requesting to "be
allowed to die." All penalties for any person
complying with such a request would be re­moved
if the "Living Will" were given the
force of law.
A number of seminars were conducted at
the "Roundup" of specialized interest to
law students. These included seminars on
law school honor codes, environmental
issues, how to receive grants from the
American Bar Association, women's issues,
BALSA, and the publishing of the Louisville
Law Examiner.
The representatives of the Louisville
Law Examiner conducted a workshop on
the publishing of this newspaper. The
Examiner was asked to conduct the work­shop
because of the many awards it has
received from the American Bar Associa­tion/
Law Student Division. Each of the
Law Examiner's representatives spoke on a .
different aspect in the publishing of this
newspaper. Representatives of several law
school newspapers attended the workshop
and commented favorably on the high stan­dards
and degree of professionalism ex­hibited
by the Examiner editors and staff.
"The mutual confidence on which all else depends can be maintained only by an
open mind and a brave reliance on free discussion."
-Learned Hand
Let us know your point of view.
Letters to the editors should be typed and signed. The editors reserve the right to
edit letters for space considerations and for clarity.
:J
I
.,.
------------------------------------------------""'='11
Louisville Law Examiner, October 10, 1980
July 1980 Bar Results
(Figures furnished by Kentucky State Board of Bar Examiners)
Graduates of the University of Louisville School of Law were edged out of having
the highest passing percentage by one-tenth of a percent by the University of Ken­tucky.
All three Kentucky schools of law showed a decline in the passing rate as
compared to the Spring bar results. University of Louisville School of Law gradu­ates
had a pass rate on the July, 1980 bar exam of 89.7% as compared to the Febru­arv.
1~80 bar results of93.7%.
Of those from U of L taking the bar exam:
No. No.
First-timers
Second -timers
Third-timers
Taking
112
2
3
Passed
105
0
0
Percentage
93. 750fo
0%
0%
OVERALL Number Taking 334
87.4% Number Passing 292
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE Number Taking 117
89.7% Number Passing 105
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY Number Taking 118
89.8% Number Passing 106
CHASE (NORTHERN KY. UNIVERSITY) Number Taking 56
76.7% Number Passing 43
OUT-OF-STATE SCHOOLS Number Taking 43
88.3% Number Passing 38
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS PASSED THE JULY, 1980 KENTUCKY BAR
EXAMINATION:
Karl Lynn Anderson
John Joseph Andris, Jr.
Stephen Maurice Arnett
Perry Russell Arnold
Kenneth Joseph Bader
Patricia Wilson Ballard
Frederick David Banks
Donald Albert Becher
Walter Ralph Beck
Bonnie Kay Biemer
David Alan Black
William Bertrand Blackburn
William Hartman Brammell
Thomas Raymond Brule
Robert Ezell Butler II
Walter Robbins Byrne, Jr.
Philip Harrison Cade
Samuel Brownlow Carl
Timothy Kirkpatrick Chism, Jr.
Mark Wheeler Clevenger
Tamara Todd Cotton
Grover Simpson Cox
Harry Scott Davis
Sean Robert Delahanty
Douglas Melvin Dowell
Bruce Kitredge Dudley
Douglas Edward Feldkamp
Mark Squires Fenzel
Cynthia Ann Field
Mary Frances Forrest
Joseph Dominic Fowler, Jr.
Olivia Ann Morris Fuchs
Nancy Jean Gall-Clayton
Benjamin Lee Gardner
Jan Margaret Glasgow
H. Phillip Grossman
George Edward Hafling
George Alexander Hamilton
Michael Ray Hance
Cheryl Carpenter Havens
Michael Louis Henry
Richard Wayne Hill
William Alexander Hoback
Kevin Michael Horne
Kenneth Martin Howard
Lisabeth Hughes
Rex Lee Hunt
A. Thomas Johnson
Christopher Wayne Johnson
Kenneth Stephen Kasacavage
James Donald Kenney Ill
Judith Ann Kidwell
Margaret Ruth Kramer
Patricia Lynn Larkin
Diane Gilliam LeRoy
Marc H. Levy
Maurice Reeves Little
David Todd Littlefield
Matthew George Livingood
Gordon Bruce Long
Dorin Edwin Luck
Richard Carroll McCarty
James Paul McCrocklin
Thomas Edward McDonald III
James Neal Martin
Patrick William Mattingly
Kenneth Allen Meng
James Earl Morreau, Jr.
Michael Dwight Morris
Michael Ralph Murphy
John David Myles
Mary Frances Niccolai
Peter Lucas Ostermiller
David Charles Payne
Earl Gene Penrod
Michael Louis Polio
Murray Jay Porath
Gregory Lee Price
Douglas Curtis Ragan
Robert Kenyon Rainey
David Bruce Reynolds
David Keith Rhinerson
Henry C. T. Richmond III
Henry Vernon Sanders
David Bruce Sandler
James Marion Shake
Elizabeth Rayrior Short
Larry David Simon
David Alexander Smith
John Stafford Sowards, Jr.
Scott David Spiegel
Jeffrey Robert Sturges
Kent Overton Sublett
John Edward Swain, Jr.
John Carleton Tobin
Pamela M. Corbin Trevathan
George Townsend Underhill III
Douglas Anthony U'Sellis
Chris Christian Wakild
Eileen Marie Walsh
Anna Marie Washburn
Robert Ross Waterman
Matthew Henry Welch
Thomas Benedict Wine
Lloyd Gregory Y opp
U of L Homecomers to Get ''In the Mood''
-
University of Louisville alumni and friends
will have the opportunity to get "In the
Mood" at Homecoming 1980 festivities
Oct. 17-18.
for the event, to be held in the Crawford
Gymnasium on Belknap Campus, are on a
first-come, first-served basis to alumni.
Activities begin at 2 p.m., Oct. 17 with
the annual meeting of the Alumni Associa­tion
in the Jefferson Room of the Adminis­tration
Building on Belknap Campus.
The annual Athletic Hall of Fame Din­ner
will be held at 6:30 p.m. at Executive
Inn East. Tickets are $15.
The School of Justice Administration
alumni will hold a cocktail party and dinner
at 6:30p.m. at Masterson's Restaurant.
Speed Scientific School alumni and guests
will have coffee and doughnuts at 9 a.m.,
Oct. 18 in the Faculty Dining Room of the
Student Center Building on Belknap Cam­pus.
A 9 a.m. breakfast will be held in the
Jefferson Room for School of Education
alumni and guests. College of Arts and Sci­ences
alumni will meet at 10 a.m. for coffee
and doughnuts in The Playhouse on Belknap
Campus.
Alumni and their guests will have an
opportunity to see the 1980-81 Cardinal
basketball team in action at 10 a.m. for
the first scrimmage of the season. Tickets
Football-kicking, trivia and hula hoop
contests will be a part of the fun and games
beginning at 10:30 a.m. under the Alumni
Association tent on the Main Oval in front
of the Administration Building.
A buffet lunch will be served and bever­ages
will be available. Tickets for the lunch
are $3.75.
A highlight of the tent activities will be a
concert by the ll3th U.S. Army Stage Band.
The band will be featured "live" from 11
a .m. to noon on WUOL's (90.5 FM) Band
Hour.
The festivities will conclude with ·the
WUOL Big Band Dance at 9 p.m. in the
Marriott Inn Convention Center in Clarks­ville,
Ind. Music will be provided by the Pat
Whalen Orchestra. Tickets are $8 per couple
The Student Homecoming Dance, fea­turing
"Midnight Star," will be at 9 p.m.
in Knights Hall, Bellarmine College, New­burg
Road.
For further information, or to obtain
tickets for Homecoming events, contact the
U of L Alumni Services Office at 588-6186.
Two Memorial Funds Established
Marilyn Meredith DougiiiS Ackerman
Marilyn Meredith Memorial Fund
The University of Louisville School of Law, in cooperation with the family and friends
of the late Marilyn Ann Meredith, announces the establishment of the Marilyn Meredith
Memorial Fund to aid deserving Evening Division law students at the University.
Present plans include an annual textbook stipend or legal reference book award, but
may be extended to additional forms of student assistance such as scholarships if sufficient
funds are raised. Any individual or organization desiring to contribute to the Fund should
send a check or money order, payable to the University of Louisville Foundation, Inc.,
and marked "For the Marilyn Meredith Memorial Fund'', and addressed to the University
of Louisville School of Law, Dean's Office, 2301 South Third Street, Belknap Campus,
Louisville, Kentucky 40292.
All contributions are tax-deductible and will be administered by the School of Law.
Douglas VanderHoof Ackerman Memorial Consumer Law Library Fund
A memorial fund has also been established honoring Douglas V. Ackerman, a 1967
University of Louisville School of Law graduate, who died August 1, 1980 in New York
City of complications resulting from meningitis. He was a native of Louisville and the son
of the late Robert V. Ackerman and Douschka Sweets Ackerman of Louisville.
Ackerman, noted as an expert in consumer protection, was assistant attorney general in
the Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection for the State of New York. He started his
legal career with the New York firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft but soon devoted
himself to public interest law and worked with the South Brooklyn Legal Services Corpo­ration
from 1972 to 1978.
Contributions to the memorial fund may be made to the Douglas VanderHoof Acker­man
Memorial Consumer Law Library Fund in care of Melvyn Leventhal, Director of
Bureau of Consumer Fraud and Protection, Attorney General's Office of the State of New
York, 2 World Trade Center, New York, N.Y. 10047.
Placement News
The Life Planning Center is offering a
series of job-seeking skills workshops.
Workshop will be held Oct. 16, 23, 30 and
Nov. 6. The subjects include "Defining a
Job Target," "Breaking the Hidden Job
Market," "Job Search Correspondence "
and "Successful Interviewing." Work­shops
meet on Thursday from 6 p.m. to
8:30 p.m. The workshops are free to stu­dents.
To enroll call the Life Planning Cen­ter
at 588-6927.
* * •
John Tobin has been accepted by the
Army JAG Corps in Washington, D.C.
PLACEMENT SCHEDULE_.
Oct. 23 Hart, Bell, Deem and Ewing, ·vin­cennes,
Ind.
Oct. 27 U.S. Navy Patent Office.
Oct. 28 Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs (Louis­ville).
Kent Sublett has joined the Okolona
office of the law firm of Frocket and
Klingman.
"Career Night" to Emphasize Non­Traditional
Employment Opportunities
By Nick Riggs
On Wednesday, October 22, 1980, the
University of Louisville School of Law will
sponsor its annual Career Night in the Law
School Building. Career Night is a program
which affords an opportunity for all law stu­dents
to visit and talk with representatives
from a diverse range of potential employers
of law school graduates. This is not an op­portunity
for students to apply for positions
with a particular employer, but more of an
informal way for students to become aware
of the expanding career field for law school
graduates. Career Night may also aid a
particular student in obtaining an insight into
the path his or her legal career might follow,
and to help the student become familiar
with the procedure for obtaining a position
in an area of interest.
There will be over forty representatives
present on Career Night. Each representative
will be available for over an hour to meet
with any interested student and will attempt
to answer any question, whether specific or
general, that the student might have con­cerning
a particular career field . This year
the Placement Office, under the direction
of Phyllis Leibson, is placing an emphasis
on non-traditional employment opportuni­ties
for law school graduates because of the
increasing number of graduates from law
schools across the country. In addition to
representatives from such traditional em­ployers
as law firms, corporations, and
local, state, and federal governments, there
will be representatives from the energy, in­surance,
real estate and labor fields.
The Career Night program will begin at
7:00 p.m., following a dinner at 5:30 p.m.
for all the representatives. Between 7:00
p.m. and 8:00p.m. students may visit with
any representative they wish. Each repre­sentative
will be assigned a room in the Law
School Building.
Louisville Law E"aminer. October 10, 19!!0 7
NIGHT and DAY
NIGHT STUDENTS RESENTED?
Student Legal Research Group
Receives Largest Assignment Ever
By Jane Atkinson
Some time after the shock of the first what time of day he teaches, and no night
year is over, the night student begins to student worth his salt would want a profes­realize
that his presence is resented by many sor to do so. Criticism of night-school in­day
students. This information typically struction is usually predicated on a belief in
reaches him via a former classmate who the inferiority of instruction by the night
has switched to day school and has learned school's part-time instructors.
first-hand of that resentment. If the trans- Two of my favorite instructors were part­ferring
student has made good grades in his time teachers, and I felt that they knew
evening classes, he may be told that his their subjects well, taught them thoroughly,
A's have tainted the purity of the full-time and demanded a great deal of the students.
students' A's. Any displacement of a day On the other hand, there have been some
student from his rank in his class by a for- ineffective part-time teachers. Who in the
mer night student is met with some hostility day school is not able to say the same thing
and is usually considered to be the result of about his full-time professors? I learned the
the night school's alleged lower grading least in a course taught by a full-time pro­standard.
fessor, yet others are excellent; and there
One doesn't want to be in the position of are some whose reputation makes me sorry
protesting too much in the no-win debate not to have had a class with them. It is
over grading standards. Any discrepancy in realistic to believe that while effectiveness
the averages of the two groups can be ex- may vary from teacher to teacher, the cause
plained either way: if Group A's average is of the variation is that individual's abilities,
higher it can mean that that group did a not necessarily his full-time or part-time
better job; if Group A's average is lower, status. (However, the faculty should not
then the cause could be the inflated grades shortchange night students by assuming
of Group B. anyone can teach a night course; excellent
Students best able to compare the two part-time teachers are available and should
divisions of the law school - those who be insisted on.)
The law school's Student Legal Research
Group conducted over 500 hours of re­search
this Fall for the Kentucky Depart­ment
of Justice as part of a U of L-UK­Chase
effort to analyze 6,000 court decisions
concerning the issue of probable cause, ac­cording
to the organization's Director Talia
Liebermann Arik.
The U of L students were assigned ap­proximately
3,500 case citations previously
obtained through the Lexis system using the
key words "probable cause". Their task
was to read the cases and identify those
which dealt with the issue in substance as
opposed to those which only fortuitously
contained the key words.
A law professor at the University of Ten­nessee
will assign each case a number and
"value" according to a pre-designed com­puter
program. The findings will then be
studied by a nationwide group of law pro­fessors
including U of L's Professor Albert
Quick. They hope to develop a Miranda­type
card to be consulted by police in a
checklist fashion prior to making an arrest.
It is believed that such a card will reduce
the number of dismissals due to a lack of
probable cause which results from the diffi­culty
police face in staying abreast of the
recent developments in this area.
* * *
The student Legal Research Group is
now accepting applications for the position
of Director. The Director's term runs from
January through December 1981. Duties in­clude
supervision of staff, editing briefs and
memos, maintaining contact with practicing
attorneys throughout the state, and general
administrative responsibilities.
Remuneration includes a full tuition
scholarship for the semesters of service as
well as additional sums for research done.
This is an excellent job opportunity as it
enables one to sharpen research skills, gain
exposure to various areas of law, and estab­lish
many contacts in the legal community.
Deadline for submission of applicants is
November 7. For further information, con­tact
Talia Liebermann or Professor Leslie
Abramson .
have attended both - assure me that they Another source of disunity is the differ­have
maintained their grades in both divi- ence between day students and night stu­sions
without having to study harder in dents as general types, a fact which several
either. Those. who transfer from night professors have commented about. While
school to day school may prefer the com- recognizable differences are subject to
panionship of their old nighttime friends, many exceptions and are sometimes hard
but they find the academic challenges of to describe, at other times they seem as
both divisions are comparable. obvious as the difference between night
News-In-Brief
Why does the misunderstanding and dis- and day.
trust continue? Last month's columnist Night students tend to be older, a great
pointed out that it begins with the adminis- many having families to support. Many
tration, who apparently consider night stu- have long-established careers; and they bring
dents to be stepchildren. If a student is to the classroom a diversity of experience,
properly dedicated to becoming a lawyer, it interests, and backgrounds. They are apt to
is thought, he should give up everything else participate more in class and to be less intimi­to
attain his goal. If he cannot or is not will- dated by the professor. A poll would prob­ing
to do that, then he is somehow less ably reveal that more students in the day
deserving of entering the legal profession. division have parents or relatives who are
Ideally, all students should be held to the lawyers or judges, and accordingly some
same high standards in the fulfillment of day students may be more aware than the
requirements and in class preparation and average night student of what lawyers actu­examination.
They also should be presumed ally do every day. Often such differing
capable of deciding how to spend their out- types of people do not mix well, and each
of-class hours -whether in working, study- may perceive the other's dissimilarities as
ing, loafing, or drinking beer. Working less shortcomings.
may, but does not necessarily, mean studying I don't know which group is the more
more. Many times a busy person is able to deserving, studious, or dedicated toward
effectively organize his limited time and get professional excellence. No doubt there are
more done than those with fewer com- good and bad students -dedicated and un­mitments.
dedicated, honest and dishonest - in both
The administration's preconceived ideas divisions. Why not accept the differences
Phi Alpha Delta announces October
"Coming Events":
On Saturday, October 11, Vinson Chap­ter
will send representatives to a joint meet­ing
with District XI (which consists of the
nine Ohio chapters) in Cincinnati. Members
interested in attending should contact Tim
Scott, Renona Browning, or Scott Furkin.
On Friday and Saturday, October 17 and
18 and again on Friday and Saturday, Octo­ber
24 and 25, P.A.D. will sponsor the an­nual
police car rides in conjunction with the
Louisville Police Dept. Interested persons
should sign up in the law school breeze­way.
On Friday, October 24, P.A.D. will hold
fall initiation at the Federal Courthouse
on 6th and Broadway. Prospective initiates
should return applications to Dean Smith's
secretary or any P .A.D. officer as soon
as possible.
* * *
The faculty voted on September 30, 1980
to follow the ABA guidelines on student
working by approving a 20-hour limitation
on full-time law students.
* * * are not the only cause of misunderstanding. between the two groups without charac- Results of SBA election:
Distrust between day and night students terizing it in terms of fitness to study and First Year Day Representatives are: A_
would probably remain even if all official practice law. There is room for all of us. As Wes Loy; B _ Rosemary Taft; z _ Don
prejudice were abandoned. Additional divi- long as equal and high standards are insisted Battcher. Second Year Representatives are
sive factors include prejudice toward part- upon, opening the study of law to varying R. Mark Beal and John Webb; third year
time instructors and the basic differences types of people can only result in a. strength- representatives are Kathiejane Oehler and
between day students and night students. ening, rather than a weakening, of the legal Steve Erikson.
Any full-time faculty member who teaches profession. Night Class Representatives are: 1st _
night classes will assure you that he does not (Jane Atkinson is a fourth year night Laurel Knuckles; 2nd _ Harold Storment;
alter his academic expectations based on student.) 3rd _Tom Weatherly; 4th_ Jerry Baker.
~============~~~====~~
WOODY'S TAVERN
&ALE GARDEN
brook & burnett
Please pick up one of our Special
Calendars at the Law School Library ...
Thursdays (Pitchers $1.50) All Day
Strict Dress Code (No Disco Apparel)
WOODY
The Moot Court Board and the Moot
Court Freshman Committee for the Even­ing
Division of the Law School have an­nounced
that the mandatory rounds of ar­guments
for the division will be held on
Saturday, October 25 at the school. The
hypothetical cases for this year are Con­cerned
Atheists v. Christian, concerning
whether the recognition of a Bible study
group by a high school violates the estab­lishment
of the free exercise clause of the
First Amendment, and State v. Harvey
Landfill and Development Co., concerning
whether the commerce clause precludes a
state from enacting a law that bars importa­tion
of toxic waste collected or originating
in other states.
* * *
Third year law student Talia Liebermann
was married to Tali Arik on Aug. 31. Mr.
Arik is a student at the U of L School of
Medicine.
* * *
Sally Whetzel, wife of third year student
Stan Whetzel, gave birth to twin daughters
on September 28.
Presidential Forum Announced
The Sigma Delta Kappa intercollegiate
law fraternity has been given permission
by Dean Harold G. Wren to sponsor a de­bate
between representatives of the three
major presidential candidates. This "presi­dential
forum" is intended for the benefit
of the entire law student body. The consen­sus
of the fraternity was that the demands
on the law students' time is such that stu­dents
are not able to adequately follow the
election. As future members of the Bar, the
fraternity believes it is essential that students
be well-informed of the issues involved in
this election.
Representing President Carter will be Mr.
Dale Sights, Chairman, Campaign to Re­Elect
the President in Kentucky; represent­ing
Gov. Reagan is Mr. Lawrence E. Forgy,
Gov. Reagan's Campaign Chairman in Ken­tucky;
and representing Cong. John Ander­son
is Joel Goldstein, University of Louis­ville
Professor of Political Science.
The debate will be modeled closely after
the format of that of the League of Women
Voters and will be held at 8:30 p.m. on
October 23, 1980 in Strickler Hall on Belknap
Campus. It is open to the public.
PageS Louisville Law Examiner, October 10, 1980
E!!!!l!!l
course materials
contain 1,000 PMBE Multistate
questions with fully detailed answers.
I
• 200 PMBE CONTRACTS QUESTIONS
~~:~ • 200 PMBE TORTS QUESTIONS
s~~~~' • 150 PMBE PROPERTY QUESTIONS
• 150 PMBE CRIMINAL LAW QUESTIONS
s~~~~o { • 150 PMBE EVIDENCE QUESTIONS
s~~~' • 150 PMBE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW QUESTIONS
• PMBE SUPPLEMENTAL COURSE OUTLINES
COST: $175 for the complete set of PMBE course materials (including FREE set of PMBE review cas­sette
tapes with the purchase of course materials prior to November 30, 1980) PMBE review cas­sette
tapes may be purchased separately for $49.95.
PMBE Tuition Discount Polley: All first and second year students purchasing their PMBE prepar­atory
materials will receive an automatic $175 discount on their subsequent enrollment In our PMBE
Mulfistafe Bar Review Course.
EAST COAST OFFiCE
743 Spruce Street
Philadelphia. PA 19106
(215) 925-0699
~~l!g
MULTISTATE LEGAL STUDIES, INC.
TOLL FREE
(800) 523-0777
Make 'checks payable to: MULTISTATE LEGAL STUDIES, INC.
WEST COAST OFFICE
41 Avenue 19
Venice. CA 90291
(213) 399-9367
743 Spruce Stree1, Philadelphia, PA 19106 o (215) 925-0699
41 Avenue 19. Venice. CA 90291 o (213) 399-9367
Name~-------------------------------------------------------­Address
----------------------------------------------------
Ci1y/State/Zip
Law School Attended -------------------------------------------­Represen1a1ive
(if any)·--------------------------------------------
0 1 am enclosing my $175 check/money order 1o cover the cost of the complete set of PMBE first
and second year course materials:
0 1 wish to purchase the PMBE review cassette tapes only. My checklmoney order for $49.95 is
enclosed.
--- -- ·- -
Oct. 14
Oct. IS
Oct. 16
Oct. 17
Oct. 21
Oct. 23
Oct. 25
Nov. 4
Nov. 10
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Law Forum/ Embryo Lawyers; Direct and Cross Examination of Witness in
Criminal Case; Video tape.
CLE; Appeals, Oral Arguments and Brief Writing; St. Catharine College, Spring­field,
Ky.
SBA; Boo and Brew smoker; Woody's.
Speed Scientific School; Seminar Basic Law for Engineers, Architects and Man­agers;
Breckinridge Inn.
Law Forum /Embryo Lawyers; Introduction and Use of Exhibits; Video tape.
" Retirement and Estate Planning and Coping with Inflation," a seminar spon­sored
by the University of Louisville at Executive West from 9 a.m. to 4:30p.m.
Women's Law Caucus; Olga Peers, Speaker; Allen Courtroom at 5:15p.m.
CLE; Worker's Compensation; Gilbertsville, Ky.
LBA; Irving Younger tapes.
Election Day
February Kentucky Bar Examination filing deadline.
Louisville Law Examiner
School of Law
Non-Profit
Organization
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Permit No. 769
Louisville, KY
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky 40208
----~-
John M. Harlan
1 ,·
Law Examiner
Volume6
Number 3
October 10, 1980
ABA / LSD "Fall
Roundup" held
in Cincinnati
.. . Page 5
July Kentucky
Bar Results
Announced
... Page 6
Dean Wren,
right, talks
to undergraduates
considering the
U of L School of
Law at the
Annual Pre-Law
Day.
. .. Page 4