John M. Harlan Louis D. Brandeis Louisville Law Examiner Serving the University of Louisville Law School Community 
Volume 3 Number 4 Louisville, Kentucky, November 1, 1977 
University of Virginia Team Wins
 Moot Court Regionals Held at U of L 
By Susan Barnett 
The University of Virginia Moot Court 
Team was victorious in the National Moot 
Court Region I Competition held last weekend, Oct. 28-29, 1977. The two-day c
ompetition was hosted by the University 
of Louisville School of Law.
 The University of Virginia team defeated
 a University of North Carolina 
(Chapel Hill) team in the final round held 
in the Allen Court Room. Earlier rounds 
were held in the Hall of Justice in downtow
n Louisville.
 Judge Pierce Lively of the Sixth Circuit
 Court of Appeals presided a Chief Justice 
of the three-judge panel sitting as the United States Supreme Court. Justice Scott 
Reed, member and former Chief Justice 
of the Kentucky Supreme Court, and Judge S
amuel Steinfeld, former Chief Judge of 
the Kentucky Court of Appeals, also sat on 
the panel. Local attorneys and both sitting
 and retired judges served as judges in the
 earlier rounds.
 The competition included teams from 11 
law schools in Kentucky, West Virginia 
and North Carolina. Each school sent two
 three-member teams to compete in the oral
 and written arguments. 
The University of Virginia entry defeated 
a Wake Forest team and the University of
 North Carolina entry defeated a team from 
Duke University in the semifinal rounds.
 Also competiting were Washington and Lee 
University, Marshall-Whyte School of Law 
of William and Mary College, T. C. Williams S
chool of Law of the University of 
Richmond, University of West Virginia, 
Salmon P. Chase College of Law, University 
of Kentucky and University of Louisville. 
The University of Louisville team's consisted of Barbara Gunther, Dennis Conniff,
 Nancy Laurin, Alan Schmitt, Carol Brown 
and Frank Campisano. Prof. Nathan S.
 Lord served as faculty advisor for the two 
teams. He also acted as Regional Director 
for the competition.
 The problem dealt with labor law. collec­tive
bargaining and the unionization of a
law firm. Each team was judged on both
their written brief and their 30-minute oral
argument.
Judge Lively, jn delivering the decision,
commented that the competition was ex­tremely
close and well-balanced and that
he felt that it bodes well for the future of
law practice to see this quality of work
done in law schools.
He said, "This was a difficult question
and quite different from most moot court
competitions in which I have been involved.
There is usually more authority available on
the question. All the participants can be
proud of their work. "The winners go to
e'' York to compete against other re­gional
winner . The competition is spon­sored
by The Young Lawyers Committee of
the Association of the Bar of the City of
New York.
(See Related Photos, Page 5)
U of L Graduate
_Circulation 3700
Photo by Chris Rivers
Judge Samuel Steinfeld, Judge Pierce Lively and
Judge Scott Reed heard the final arguments in
the Regional Moot Court competition.
Ballantine New Federal Judge
in the Western District
Thomas A. Ballantine, Jr. is the new federal judge for the Western District of kentucky.
by Ken Golliher
His desk top bears ample evidence of his
commitments. On one corner is a court
record about eight inches thick-a case yet
to be decided. Peering from a pile of
important looking papers is a book which,
by its title, claims to set out guidelines for
newly appointed federal judges.
Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Thomas
A. Ballantine, Jr. is busy bringing to a
close his responsibilities in the local courts.
He is to be sworn in as a U.S. District
Judge in Kentucky's Western District on
November 4. Judge Ballantine is a 1954
graduate of the School of Law, a member
of the first graduating class from the
school's evening division.
He described himself as being " ... a little
bit apprehensive," about his new
responsibilities, but l}dded, "I wouldn't
have applied for it if I didn't think I could
do it. At first, the work load will be a lot
heavier than it is here."
There is a substantial backlog of cases in
the Western District since the court has not
had a full panel of three members since
Judge James Gordon assumed senior status,
or went into semi-retirement, almost three
years ago. Judge Ballantine's appointment
was to fill a vacancy left by the death of
Judge Rhodes Bratcher in July. In the
interim a backlog of cases that would have
been heard by Bratcher's court has also
developed.
Judge Ballantine's nomination and
confirmation followed that of Edward H.
Johnstone, Judge Gordon's replacement,
by a matter of days. The fourth member of
the court is its chief judge, Charles M.
Allen.
In Kentucky the appointees for federal
judgeships are chosen by a committee of
nine persons: the Kentucky Bar
Association picks three members and each
Senator picks three members, according to
Judge Ballantine. "Their procedure was
that you submitted your name and said that
you were interested. Then you started
getting forms to fill out, biographical
material and that sort of thing," Judge
Ballantine said. According to the Louisville
Courier-Journal Judge Ballantine's ap­pointment
was heavily supported by the
Louisville bar.
Kentucky's newest federal judge
described his Senate confirmation hearing
as, "very perfunctnry. I went in and sat·
down, Senator Huddleston spoke, Senator
Ford spoke, and Congressman Mazzoli .
spoke. By the time they got through talking
I wanted to meet the guy they were talking
about." The whole procedure lasted about·
10 minutes and the only member of the
Senate Judiciary Committee prese11t,
Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), asked Judge
Ballantine three questions.
(Continued on page 8)
r
2 Lout VllleLawExaminer,"'lmemberl.l977
itouisuille 1Law i.Examiner
lB
EDITORIAL BOARD
Kenneth W. Golliher, Editor-in-Chief
Christopher P. Rivers, Managing Editor
Valerie Salven, Associate Editor
Jeannie Baker, Associate Editor
Alan Parsons, Bu iness Manager
Judge MARLIN M. VOLZ, Advisor
46
STAFF
Sara Scott More, City Editor
Christopher Seaman, Projects Editor
Susan McBeath, Articles Editor
Stephen Wolford, Brandeis Brief Editor
Jerome A. Mirabito, Executive Editor
Susan Barnett
Kevin Callahan
Mark Little
Rookie Medaris
Phillip R. Warf
Sherry Willman
Greg Yopp
Professor ALBERT T. QUICK, Consultant
The Louisville Law Exami"'er is published nine times during the academic year in the interest
of the University of Louisville Law School 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.
Address aU communications to the Louisville Law Exami"'er, School of Law, University of
Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40208. Phone 502-588-6399.
Editorial
S.ome Bar Questions
Last week the results of Kentucky's July
bar exam were 'J)ublished. We offer our
congratulations to recent alumni who are
now._ahle to begin their legal careers.
However, most of the impact here comes
from the names that were not on the
passing list. Outsiders discuss the results in
terms of percentages. We discuss them in
terms of people.
We are admittedly voicing an issue that is
of primary concern only to law students.
We take notice of the fact that not everyone
who finishes law school is automatically
entitled to bar admission.
Previously, about 90 percent of those
who took the Kentucky bar exam passed;
this time the passing rate was about 80
percent. Our concern is directed toward
that extra 10 percent or those 34.2 people
who did not pass this time who, in all
probability, would have passed in previous
years. The grapevine has it that there were
just a lot of bad tests this year. That's
plausible.
However, the qualifications of Ken­tucky's
incoming law students have grown
by leaps and bounds in the last few years.
Those same people who sported those
higher LSAT's, stronger undergraduate
records, a higher incidence of graduate
work and who were generally older than
their predecessors also utilized better
facilities, had larger libraries and better
paid faculty. But, according to the statistics,
10 percent more than usual just blew it.
Yes, that's plausible. But, is it likely?
Graduates of previous years who were
returning to home states in the east where
bar exams often dip below a 70 percent
passing rate have often remarked wistfully
about the Commonwealth's 90 percent
pass-rate and the "good ol' boy" system. It
may well be that the last good ol' boy has
just kicked the bucket.
While we haven't cornered the grapevine
mat ket, we have f~ at least one other
rumor: Kentucky is tightening up the
admissions system to the club. (If rumors
came in packages this one would be marked
PERENNIAL, but this time it come 100
close to the apparent truth.)
Recent studies have claimed that Ken­tucky,
like many other tates, may have a
surplus of lawyers within the next few
year . Demand curves are not subject to the
control of the legal profession, but supply
curves are.
Limiting the supply may eliminate the
possibility of a surplus, but where should
the limitation be' made? In admission to
law school? In completing law school? In
passing the bar?
In whose interest is the supply limited?
The public's? Those people who are
already practicing law?
At any point the determination to limit
the supply of lawyers will be subjective.
LSAT's and grade points don't predict
good lawyers any more than the pass rates
on bar exams do. Many of this state's best
lawyers wouldn't have a snowball's chance
of getting into law school today, but that
certainly doesn't interfere with the fact that
they're good lawyers. Nor does the fact
that those 34.2 extra people who did not
pass the bar this time might have been just
as good. Or better.
Much of the above is based on rumor,
but if you can't get the facts you're
obligated to guess unless you're satisfied
with merely accepting the decisions of
others without explanation.
If we've spread unfounded rumors we
seek correction from any source. If the
facts had been available we would have
used them. If Kentucky's bar admissions
are to be tightened up it's a fact of life we'll
have to live with, but we'd like to be told
the why and how in a straightforward
manner rather than find out by reading the
July and February body counts over
breakfast.
Moving?
Please s,end us your new address
four weeks in advance.
Brandeis Brief
Obscenity - Pornography Series
The Problem with Obscenity
Mr. Parrish has practiced as a trial attorney for the Federal Trade Commission
Washington, D.C., and as an Assistant United State Attorney, Memphis, Tennes~
see. Cu~rently he is in private law practice and additionally serves as Special Assis­tant
Umted States Attorney for the Department of Justice.
Mr. Par:ish specializes in obscenity law and has conducted investigations leading
to the tnd1ctment of 60 defendants in 12 seaparate cases. Forty-three defendants
have been convicted; most of the rest have yet to be tried or retried.
Mr. Parrish may be best known for his prosecution of the case United States v.
Anthony Peraino (movie, entitled Deep Throat), in which actor Herbert Striecher
a~k/a Harry Reems was one of 20 ~efenqants. Presently, Mr. Parrish is charged
w1th the prosecutiOn of the obscemty tnal United States v. Robert J. DeSalvo
(movie, entitled The Devil in Miss Jones).
The subject of numerous magazine and newspaper articles, Mr. Parrish has also
made a large number of public appearances, including interviews on the Phil Dona­hue
and Tom Snyder Tomorrow shows.
Larry E. Parrish
One of the most frustrating questions which lurks in the minds of concerned
Am_eric~ns, w~en the _issue of ?bscenity is_ raised, is how does one express himself
on It without Immediately bemg categonzed as being in league with extremists
w~o h~ve spoken on either side of the issue before him. The fear of being labeled
wtth either of t~e ~ags presents such an undesirable consequence that many
respected and thmktfo!g people have b~en restrained in devoting any productive
energy toward a senstble approach designed to produce a definitive solution. As
betwe_en the oppos!ng extr~mes in the debate, it appears to many to be a childish
s~outmg ":latch ~1th considerable muckraking, name-calling, and mudslinging
With one stde bemg made up of wild-eyed sex maniacs with no sense of moral
:esponsibility and the ot~er side being made up of Bible-thumping little old ladies
m bobby socks and tenms shoes whose blue noses light up the sky around their
red nec~s at even the mention of the w?rd "sex." All too often, as soon as any
responsible person speaks out on the Issue, the shouters on either side loudly
procl~im a "convert" and castigation from the other side becomes the battle cry.
One ~Ide s~ream~ CENSOOORSHIP!!!!; the other side shouts SMUUUT!!!!
\Yitnes~mg th1s spectacle from the si<!eline, most responsible people see it as a
soc1etal Sideshow and determine that it is a no-win debate which wisdom and
prop~iety dictat~ they _ not become i~volved in. Most community leaders,
espec1~lly those m pos1t10ns of authonty, do their best to avoid becoming so
embrOiled. Efforts on the part of interest groups to force officials to take af­firmative
action, either to enforce or to repeal obscenity laws are normally
perceived as creating potentially volatile situations which will evoke the wrath of
those on the opposite side from that_which they take. This commonly reaffirms
re o~ve on the1r part not to become mvolved at all and, at all cost, maintain as
ambtguol!s and _low profile as humanly possible. Aside from public officials, this
problem IS particular!~ acute among journalists, academicians, and professionals,
who, combmed, dommate the public forum. However, it is somewhat easier for
these yersons to make public statements, usually with the caveat that the
matenals have no appeal to them personally, in favor of obscentiy because the
worst fate imaginable for them is to risk being labeled non-intellectual or "for"
censorsh!P· !hese fa~tors have ~ombined to the demise of rationality on the part
of unpreJudiced ~e!lstble people m ~eeking a mature resolution to the problem.
M_any academicians an~ pro_fesswn~ls who have taken the time to respond to
the Issue have done so wtth httle senous thought. Few have stopped to think
thro~;~gh the logical conclu~ion of their statements to be certain that they are
~o.nst~tent and do not contam elements of absurdity. No matter how many people
JOin m and restate an absurdity, the statement remains absurd and until the
absurdity is removed, no rationality can be fashioned out of it. The house is only
·as firm as its foundation.
Perhaps the most common reaction to questions about obscenity laws when
pose~ to acade~cians and professionals, is a knee-jerk reflex. The mental process
IS this- obscemty laws equal censorship; all artists writers intellectuals scien­tists,
and "smart" people in general are against all 'censorship of any ki~d any- ·
where found and have a duty-bound obligation to the world to strike it down on
sight; I am an artist, writer, intellectual, scientist and generally a "smart" per­son;
therefore, I am against obscenity laws and must attack. Besides that the
reas<?ning goes, even if I were not against obscenity laws, I dare not say th~t in
public because all of my "smart" colleagues will no longer think I am "smart"
and I will be ostracized and this will be uncomfortable for me. It might even deny
the rest of the world access to my intellect.
. This is an ~nfortunate reacti<;m because it is bu!lt on a half truth. Though child­hke
and tendmg to gag academic freedom, there Is some truth in the ostracization
fear though, like most fears, it is blown out of proportion. However it is the
censorship cry which is the real half-truth. Hopefully, all United Stat~s citizens
a_re firmly set against traditional prior restraint censorship and literally would
ftght a wa~ rather t_han be shackled with_it. Nevertheless, being against censorship
does not dictate bemg for the non-restramt of obscenity.
Prior restraint censorship is a system under which a government censor must
have all materials submitted and passed on before they can be published. Under
such a system, the government censor has the power to deny the communication
of ideas because those ideas do not conform to the predilection of the rulers. Such
~system is ~bsolutely forbidden in the United States, and its remaining forbidden
IS f?u~datwnal to our system of government. Censorship in any form is
pu~Ishm& perso~s because of the ideas which they publish or otherwise advocate.
Thts t_oo IS forbidden under our system, and, again, this remaining forbidden is
fou~dational to o!-lr continued existence under our form of government. Ob­scemty
laws do neither of these two things, and the Supreme Court has made it
abundantly clear that any attempt to do so will be struck down.
(Continued on page 7)
Louisville Law Examiner. November I, 1977 3
Law and Love: Through the Looking Glass
by Susan McBeath
"You are old, Father William, and
your jaws are too weak
For anything stronger than suet;
Yet you finished the goose, the bones
and the beak-
Tell me, how did you manage to
do it_?"
"In my youth, he replied, "I took to
the law,
And argued each case with my wife;
The muscular strength which it gave
to my jaw
Has fasted the rest of my life."
-Lewis Carroll
The poetry of Lewis Carroll provokes a
smile for what might seem to be a
humorle s situation: when husband and
wife are both law students. In addition to
the mutual pressures of law study, the
couple must face the idea of being worthy
competitor in the same arena. Yet the
three couples interviewed instead spoke of
either gaining strength from their shared
experience or refusing to let pressures upset
the equilibrium attained in their marriage.
Competition between future
profe ionals just doesn't exist for these
married law students. As Peter and Kathy
0 termiller, first-year students, view the
t ue, "V e each have our strong points.
V e u e different methods, and have dif­ferent
fir t names for our study group.
Since we've known each other for four
year , we worked out our relationship
before we came to law chool."
Bob and Ginny Hamm are unique in that
he ju t began hi law chool career while
he i a econd-year tudent. Yet Ginny'
edge over Bob in veteran status creates no
rivalry in either environment, at law school
or at home. "Most of the competition
between us ha been of a tea ing nature,"
Ginny said. " We a lways have our fic titious
law firm, " Hamm & Hamm- We'll Get the
Egg Off Your Face," to keep the issue in
perspective.''
Bill and Dorothy O' Brien, third-year
students, married during their second year
in law school. Here agai n, no issue lies in
the competition element. " Bill and I were
accustomed to competition before we
arrived at law school, having debated in
college together," Dorothy explained.
"Our law school experience has been very
positive together, as we tend to be more
supportive than competitive."
Almost every law student has ex­perienced
the peculiar agony of being
called upon to recite in class, in addition to
experiencing a sympathetic reaction for a
fellow student's turn at bat. Suppose for a
moment, however, the situation where
both spouses are in the same class and one
is chosen to recite on a case. Wouldn't a
spouse's natural reaction involve some
element of competition?
"I felt aggravated when she was right
and sorry when she was wrong," Peter
Ostermiller commented. "The aggravation
lay in her understanding of the law where I
still felt confusion. But the gut reaction is
paternalistic, the urge for protection of
someone you care for.''
Dorothy O'Brien reported similar
feelings. "Bill felt more nervous and
inhibited in class than I did our first year,"
she said. "The natural tendency is wanting
to protect your spouse from undue em­barrassment.''
Another married law student, who
wishes to remain namele s, spoke honestly
about the situation. "There are times when
you feel more inhibited because your
spouse is in the audience. The pressure is
really high because you embarrass your
spouse as well as yourself un less you
perform well at the time."
Yet there are benefits in taking courses
together or at different stages during the
law school career. For example, the couple
can always confer on a poi-nt of confusion,
share the preparation of outlines, and
sometimes save money on textbooks. When
they are fi nancing two legal educations as
well as providing living expenses, saving
money where possible is a creature of
necessity for married law students.
All the couples admi tted to loans and
subsidies, whether originating from the
government or from their relatives. In
addition, all couples work at part-time
employment to supplement their expenses,
as well as continue to be full-time students.
As the anonymous student explained,
"Two people may share the same books,
but we still have two tuitions to pay for."
"I get nervous at times about our
finances right now," Ginny Hamm said.
"Bob doesn't react to stress like I do; I
can't help but look ahead and wonder
about those monthly and unforeseen
obligations that arise."
Law students are trained to think with
logical, unemotional precision on whatever
issue may arise. But how does this affect
the old fashioned marital argument between
law students? Surprisingly, the effect is
minimal for the couples interviewed. Both
the O'Briens and the Ostermillers pointed
to the fact that thei r relationships began
prior to the law school experience, lending
little room for interference by " legal
tactics." The Hamms agreed with the
sentiment, but added that their discussions
now always begin rationally and end.
emotionally. "Loudest and longest wins,"
Ginny laughed, "as it is with most
lawyers."
All the couples spoke of the tremendous
demands on their time due to law school, ·
marriage and employment. An active social
life figures prominently on weekends, if at
all, as whatever time remains to the couples
is usually spent together. "We are
America's dullest people, as we spend most
of our time at home," Ginny Hamm said.
"We also spend time with our families,
leaving barely enough time to see each
other,' ' Bob added.
As for coping with the bothersome
household duties, most couples described
sharing tasks as the necessity for them
arose. Dorothy O'Brien does all the
household chores, but only because Bill
works full-time at night teaching
emotionally disturbed chi ldren. No couple
interviewed found any instance of role­playing
in their marriage, whether as
spouses or as law students, due to their
schedules and to the stability of their
relationships.
"Law school is so demanding, so
structured and disciplined that it requires
an enormous well of strength. We work
toward providing that supportive strength
for each other, Dorothy O'Brien said.
"Since we both know we have to study,
we gain strength in facing it together,"
Peter Ostermiller said. "We understand,
where our relatives cannot, the extent of
the demands on our time."
"Our personal life is more important to
us. It's better to leave the pressures behind
at school as much as possible than to let it
in terfere with your life at home," Bob
Hamm concluded.
Mixing marriage with law school is not
easy. As is evident, however, the com­bination
is not lethal, nor does it destine
the couple for divorce due to isolation,
fru stration or destruction of mutual egos.
Communication, understanding, and
keeping priorities in perspective emerge
from these interviews as the vital elements
of maintaining a marriage along with a law
school career. As Ginny Hamm says, ''Try
it - you might like it. ''
Variety of Placement Services Offered
by Rookie Medaris
Of all the diver e problems that face each
law tudent the biggest and most important
problem of all is how to find a job upon
graduation. For several of our fellow
tudent there i a family law practice they
can step into upon receiving their J.D. For
tho e from Eastern and Western Kentucky
firms in those areas are eager to hire a
home-town law school graduate. However,
if you do not fall into one of these two
categories the problem can be especially
perplexing. Fortunately help is close at
hand.
University placement office director, P .C.
Sprawls.
. . .
Thanks to the tireless efforts of Dor­othy
Pitt a part-time placement office
was opened at the law school last year. Ms.
Pitt spent countless hours in and out of the
office organizing and managing it. otices
were sent to all members of the Kentucky
Bar Association and attorneys in a five­state
area with Kentucky contacts advi ing
them of the placement office opening.
The response was good and files were
opened on jobs available locally and else­where.
The office also kept a file of
resumes and letters of recommendation
given to them by graduates to be sent out
upon request.
Now in its second year the office is under
the direction of Susan Z. McBeath. The
office has brochures from government
agencies and private firms which are
available to students and alumni. One of
the most helpful publications for the job­seeker
is the . College Placement A nnual
1978. This book lists biographical data on
1300 companies in the U.S. plus a listing of
the occupational offerings of each firm
listed. This year over fifty companies are
listed as looking for law graduates in the
coming year. This list includes insurance
companies, banks, oil companies, and
government agencies to name a few . This
publication also has a geographical listing
of employers to enable the user to better
understand what opportunities a re
available at specific locations. Also
published in this annual are articles giving
tips on how to interview, how to draw up a
resume and other helpful hints for job­seekers.
The law school placement office also
maintains a complete listing of all
professional opportunities it has on file on
the bulletin board in the foyer outside the
library. This listing contains positions that
firms have informed the office of and those
which the placement office learns of
through the mail.
A third project sponsored by the
placement office is the Career Night which
is held at the school. This event was begun
several years ago by Judge Volz, another
individual who put much time and effort
into the establishment of a placement
office at the law school. On this occasion
representatives from 30-40 businesses, law
firms, and government agencies are
available to discuss job opportunities with
the students and alumni.
The newest project of the placement
school has requested fu nds for a full-time
placement officer in its 1978-80 budget
proposals.
The University Placement Office ser-ves
"any student or alumnus who wants to use
us" says Col. P.C. Sprawls, the director.
The office does require the individual to
register with them, which is simply the
filing of a resume. Menges Hall Room 107
is the location of the University Placement
Office. Available here are greater numbers
of material from industry and government
agencies on jobs than at the law school
The placement office offers tips on
how to compose a resume, uthe in­dividual's
most important tool in
seeking employment. "
office is the monthly newsletter Going
Places. This publication is available to all
alumni of the law school and lists all the
full-time positions which are on file in the
office. Any alumnus who wishes to receive
this free service should call the placement
office at 588-6368.
Ms. McBeath also noted the office can
offer tips and advice on how to compose a
resume which she called "the individuals'
most important tool in seeking em­ployment."
The office continues to
maintain its file of resumes and letters of
recommendation placed there by law
school graduates and degree candidates.
Even with the great advancements made
by the placement office it is still crippled by
a lack of funds from the university ad­ministration,
according to Ms. McBeath.
Due to this the law school administration
has been able to fund only a few specific
projects by the office such as the
newsletter. Ms. McBeath noted that the law
placement office. These materials are
available on a loan-out basis. The office
also has available forms, samples, and tips
on resumes and how to fill them out.
Col. Sprawls pointed out that most df
the positions which recruiters contact him
about are with the major accounting firms,
who sometimes need law graduates. Col.
Sprawls encouraged both students and
alumni regardless of their job goals to use
the services of his office, saying,
"Whatever contribution this office can
make we're happy t0 do so.'' ,
Members of the law fraternities Phi
Alpha Delta and Delta Theta Phi have
placement services at their disposal through
their national organizations.
The hunt for a job can be a long, tedious,
and frustrating task for an individual. The
facilities and personnel at the law school
placement office and the university
placement office are on call to lessen the
burdens of this task.
__ ,..,
4 Louisville Law Examiner, o ember 1, 1977
Attorney JoAnn Dale is the instructor for several of U of L's paralegal classes.
U of L to Graduate First Paralegal Class
by Valerie Salven
On a desk in a law office in downtown
Louisville is a sign which reads, "I am not
a lawyer, but I am your friend."
The person who occupies that desk is one
of a growing group of specialists known as
"paralegals" or "legal assistants." And a
relatively new program at U of L may soon
encourage more lawyers in Louisville to
consider the use of a paralegal in their
firms as a greater number of people trained
in the skills of a paralegal enter the local
job market.
"A paralegal is neither a glorified
secretary nor a junior lawyer" according to
JoAnn Dale, a Louisville attorney who is
an instructor in the U of L Legal Assistant
program. "A paralegal is someone who
does legal work who is neither a lawyer nor
a law student" she added, and a survey of
recent literature on the topic would appear
to indicate that a more precise definition of
"paralegal" is not yet practicable.
The Legal Assistant program at U of L
got its start a little over two years ago when
two instructors from the Business College,
Kathleen Drummond and Jerry Smith,
provided the impetus that led. to the for­mation
of an advisory committee to
consider a new program to provide
paralegal training. After a year of in­vestigation
and consideration of the
matter, the committee proposed a 63-hour
program leading to an associate degree in
applied science. This proposed ''Legal
Assistant" program was then added to the
degree programs of U of L's University
College.
A look at the curriculum for the U of L
program shows that requirements for the
Legal Assistant degree are taken from a
variety of disciplines: English,
psychology, economics, accounting, legal
ethics, legal research and writing, and a
number of legal specialty courses such as
wills, probate, real estate law, criminal and
court procedures, and data processing.
James S. Eisman, Assistant Dean of the
University College and supervisor of the
Legal Assistant program, said that the U of
L program has been structured to allow for
eventual accreditation by the ABA. The
data processing requirement, for example,
is recommended by the ABA. Mr. Eisman
sai~f that a course in data processing is
considered necessary to allow the paralegal
to deal ~ith problems regarding privacy 'of
records, and the possibility that legal
records will eventually .. be computerized
make§ the requirement a sensible one.
The ~~~uidelines for the approval of
legal assistant programs require that the
program be of at least 60 semester hours,
with 45 hours devoted to general education
and law-related courses, and the remaining
15 hours devoted to "legal specialty"
courses. The U of L program provides for
these classroom requirements, and a "legal
assistant internship" is being added to the
program.
For the internship requirement, the
student must work in a Ia office for one
semester. The work done by the student
during the semester must include contact
with the public, legal research, drafting and
legal writing (such as interrogatories,
requests for admissions, motions for
production, etc.) and judicial and other
official procedures-ftling papers and
aiding in the taking of depositions. As the
U of L program becomes more widely
known, it is hoped that local attorneys will
volunteer to accept interns for this type of
work with their law firms.
One Louisville attorney who has already
expressed an interest in hiring interns from
the U of L Legal Assistant program is
Richard D. Heideman. Mr. Heideman
already uses paralegals in his firm, and has
employed them since the time his practice
grew to the point where he had "difficulty
in handling all the details."
A paralegal was defined by Mr.
Heideman as being "a person who is
working under the supervision of a licensed
attor1,1ey performing functions in a law
office for legal clients, but which functions
are not strictly of a legal nature, or if they
are of a legal nature they don't require the
skill of a licensed attorney." The
paralegals who work for Mr. Heideman
handle tasks ranging from investigative
work to administrative matters for cor­porate
clients.
The backgrounds of the paralegals who
work for Mr. Heideman are varied, and
include people "who have been to law
school and dropped out-but it's still in their
blood." He had to replace three of his five
paralegals in September when they left his
firm in order to further their educations.
The current pursuits of those three indicate
the diversity of interests to be found among
paralegals: one is in California working on
a Master's of Business Administration
degree; one is in Florida working on a
bachelor's degree in art; and one, Gary
, Anderson, is in the first-year class at U of L
Law School.
The advantage to using paralegals in a
law practice, Mr. Heideman said, is that it
"saves the attorney time, it saves him
money, and it saves the client money,
because the attorney can work more ef­ficiently."
An advantage of the current set-up for
the U of L program, according to Mr.
Eisman, is that if the student wishes to go
on and acquire a four-year degree, in
business for example, he or she can do so
without needing to take many more ad­ditional
courses than those students who
spent their first two years in the business
curriculum. "We don't want to do the
'closed door' trick--where you have a two­year
degree and can't go anywhere with it.
We won't let that happen," Mr. Eisman
said.
The response of students enrolled in the
paralegal program tends to be enthusiastic
when asked about the subject, although
most agree that the U of L program still has
some problems that need to be ironed out.
"They still have some more shaping up
to do," said Sharon Faith, a student whose
background includes 11 years experience as
a legal secretary. "They don't let you
specialize enough ... I'm waiting to see what
the acceptance of the degree will be,'' she
said, and expressed the opinion that the
program at present is "a little too general."
Ms. Faith enrolled in the program, she
added, because she "wanted to be a step up
from a secretary, but not be an attorney.''
Shirley Daniel has also worked as a legal
secretary, and suggested that the U of L
program should "have more things offered
than just schooling ... such as seminars."
Lawyer acceptance of paralegals in
Louisville, she said, is that they tend to be
"leery ... attorneys are very leery of this.
They feel that it might be more ad­vantageous
to hire a clerk. But when the
clerks leave they take clients with them."
Ms. Daniel enrolled in the program, she
said, "to expand my field of knowledge"
of law-related matters.
An exception to the students with a legal­secretarial
background is Larry Austin,
who is a funeral director. Mr. Austin
became interested in the program when an
instructor in a class he was taking for an
office management degree mentioned the
Legal Assistant program. Mr. Austin
decided to find out what the program "is
all about," and said that he has found the
program to be interesting so far. He ex­plained
that he wanted to use the
background gained in the legal assistant
program ''to deal with the legal aspect of a
funeral director's work." He added that he
expected the degree to help him in instances
where he must take a client to a lawyer's
office to work on matters dealing with
probate.
As Mr. Austin indicated, not every
student in the program is interested in the
degree itself as much as the background
gained. Margaret Allen, who is employed
by the Law School as a senior clerical
assistant, said that she thought the U of L
Legal Assistant program is "a real good
program. But, like any other program, they
throw in a lot of things you don't need."
She said she plans to take "all courses that
have to do with the legal field" but not
necessarily the other requirements, stating
that "the degree isn't all that important to
me." Ms. Allen mentioned that her father,
who is an attorney, thought that legal
assistants were a good idea, with the one
reservation that their use "might make the
client feel that the attorney is less interested
in them."
A properly trained paralegal, however,
"can do a whole range of tasks," noted
Ms. Dale, who teaches a course entitled
"Legal System and Professional Ethics."
She said that they are "very important" in
assisting with discovery, such as with
depositions, and can help with other forms
of trial preparation. "One advantage of a
paralegal," Ms. Dale said, "is that if you
have a large operation, they (the
paralegals) can specialize. You can afford
to have them specialize in an area which an
attorney could not afford to specialize in."
Admitting that her view of paralegals ''is
different from that of most lawyers"
because of her experience with a program
involving paralegal training in Con­necticut,
Ms. Dale said that "there are
some things paralegals do better than
lawyers--such as interviewing lay people."
Although Ms. Dale observed that "a lot of
lawyers won't hire paralegals, they say they
can get a law clerk cheaper," she added
that she thinks "that is just bad economics.
Law clerks leave and take clients with
them. Paralegals stay and develop
specialties."
Paralegals work at Ms. Dale's firm, that
of Patten, Dale, Donald, Hawkins, Fit­zgerald
& Reisz, and Ms. Dale remarked
that paralegals and lawyers are members of
"simply different professions ... one is not
lower on the scale than the other." She also
observed that the Legal Assistant program
at U of L originally had a typing
proficiency requirement, but that is no
longer so. "You can be a legal assistant
without knowing what a typewriter looks
like" she explained.
One problem encountered by persons
seeking jobs as a legal assistant, Ms. Dale
said, is that they "can't open the paper and
look at the ads for paralegals. No one
knows that this is what they're looking
for." Although job prospects for graduates
of the U of L program are uncertain at this
point, since the first Legal Assistant
degrees will not be awarded until the end of
this semester, Ms. Dale said that several
students already have jobs lined up.
The ABA has attempted to take a leading
role in shaping the development of stan­dards
and guidelines for the paralegal
specialty, and the use of lay persons in the
counseling of clients was, notably, not
prohibited by the Code of Professional
Responsibility adopted by the ABA in
1969. Ethical Consideration 3-6 states:
"A lawyer often delegates tasks to
clerks, secretaries, and other lay persons.
Such delegation is proper if the lawyer
maintains a direct relationship with his
·client, supervises the delegated work, and
has complete professional responsibility
for the work product. This delegation
enables the lawyer to render legal service
more economically and efficiently.''
In addition to this, the ABA Standing
Committee on Ethics and Responsibility
issued an opinion in 1971 which found it
proper to designate a paralegal employee as
a "Legal Assistant" on a business card.
The latest information released by the
ABA shows that 29 Legal Assistant
programs across the country have received
final ABA approval. The U of L program
will be eligible to apply for approval after it
awards its first degrees to graduates at the
end of this semester. U of Lis currently the
only university in Kentucky which has both
a law school and a Legal Assistant
(Continued on page 7)
Louisville Law Examiner, November 1. 1977 5
U o[L has Two Entries
Te~ms Argue at Hall of Justice and U of L Campus
Final arguments for the regional moot court competition were held before a large
crowd in the Allen Court Room at the University of Louisville School of Law.
U of L team member Alan
Schmitt makes his final
preparations before the first
round arguinent. Also pic­tured
· are team members
Carol Brown (1), the team's
brief writer, and Nancy
Laurin.
Fog greeted contestants in
the preliminary rounds at
the Jefferson HaD of Justice.
-
Law Faculty Publishing in Several Areas
by Kevin Callahan
and
ara cott Moore
Fe\\ students realize the prolific amount
of re earch and writing that is being done
by members of the faculty at the University
of Louisville School of Law. The efforts
give national recognition to the school and
highlight the intellectual achievements of
the faculty.
"We are primarily a teaching institution
and strive very hard to achieve that goal,"
states Dean Harold Wren. "We are very
successful in that effort. We recognize that
every Professor has the responsibility to
develop as a writer and researcher. If a
professor is a good writer, he will be a good
teacher-they go hand-in-hand. The
School strives to get the faculty, par­ticularly
the younger faculty, to do all the
research and writing that they can.''
Last year, 21 professors worked on
material for publication. This year the
number is at least as high, indicative of a
dynamic faculty, concerned with the
constantly changing law.
While working in the Michigan
Prosecutor's Office and the Maine
Criminal Justice Program, Assistant Prof.
Albert Quick observed that police officers
were disgruntled by due process decisions
that restricted their official powers. These
experiences led to an article to be published
in the University of Texas American
Journal of Criminal Law, entitled "At­titudinal
Aspects of Police Compliance with
Procedural Due Process." In this article,
Prof. Quick explores the institutions that
shape a police officer's attitudes and the
effects of these attitudes, and discusses
how to do away with the · factors that
reinforce the attitudes to violate due
process. "We must change the attitudes
before gaining substantial compliance," he
concludes. Prof. Quick is currently
working on an article to be published in the
Kencucky Law Journal analyzing recent
Kentucky decisions and focusing on trends
and important changes by the Kentucky
Supreme Court.
Prof. Marlin Volz has just finished the
second edition of The Law and Public
School Operation which will be pubHshed
by Harper and Row. Prof. Volz is
responsible for most of the seven volumes
compnsmg West's Federal Practice
Manual, and is currently revising volume
two and editing three additional volumes
which include the efforts of Professors
Abramson, Levy, PetrilH, and Stenger.
Assistant Prof. Linda Ewald and Prof.
Volz are co-authoring a manual on probate
practice in Kentucky, which will include
different practices required by the new
District Court system.
Last May, Prentice Hall accepted a
manuscript from Prof. William Read for a
book entitled Corporate Officer's and
Director's Desk Book. Publication is at
least a year away.
Associate Prof. Martin Levy has recently
published two articles and is currently
working on a third and a fourth. His first
article, to be published in the Pacific Law
Journal, is titled "Constitutional Im­plication
of Adoption Revocation Statutes,"
and ~oncerns the implications of the law in
some states permitting some parents to
return an adopted child if it has some
defect, such as a mental or physical
disorder. Prof. Levy's second article is
titled "Privacy Revisited: The Downfall· of
Griswold," and will appear in the Spring
issue of the Richmond Law Journal.
The first of Prof. Levy's unpublished
articles raises the question of whether a
foster child is at liberty to choose to live
with the parent to whom he is most
psychologically attached. The second
unpublished article deals with pqrental
responsibility Jaws, asking also whether
children have a duty to support their
parents.
For the past eight years Prof. Laurence
W. Knowles and Eldon D. Wedlock of the
University of South CaroHna Law School
have nurtured and developed the Journal
of Law and Education. Today the Journal
enjoys the distinction of being considered
in the top 25 percent of law journal
publications.
The Journal is committed to dealing
with questions pertaining to school law and
assists the members of the legal and
educational professions. Prof. Knowles
states that its readers include, "school
board attorneys, teachers' unions, and
school administrators involved in all levels
of education."
An impetus behind the Journal, says
Prof. Knowles, is that, "so much litigation
now is in education." An example that
immediately comes to mind is Bakke v.
California.
Students at the law school help Prof.
Knowles survey and comment on cases
pertaining to school law. The Journal is
published commercially in Cincinnati.
Included in the editorial staff of the
Journal of Law and Education is Prof. R.
Thomas Blackburn. Prof. Blackburn, who
has published three short articles in the
Journal, is the Tax Note Editor.
In addition to his work for the Journal,
Prof. Blackburn is currently updating
Volume Five of Kentucky Legal Forms,
which pertains to Kentucky corporate law.
Prof. Blackburn states he is also "writing
two chapters to be included in an unnamed
book to be published by West Publishing
Co." The chapters are "How to Do Tax
Research'' and ''The Choice of Business
Entity."
Associate Dean Steven R. Smith of the
law school has recently published an article
in the American Psychologist, Vol. 32, No.
8, entitled "A Crisis in Group Therapy."
His article involves the legal protection of
communications made in group therapy.
"I am particularly interested in the right to
privacy area," he states. Dean Smith has
also written a book review of Biomedical
Ethics and The Law, which will be
published in the forthcoming issue of The
Journal of Family Law.
Dean Smith is currently working on two
additional articles. The possible title to one
is "The Constitutional Right to Privacy in
Psycho-Therapy." The other article, which
is in the research stage, will be a follow-up
to "A Crisis in Group Therapy" and will
involve the privilege of communication in
group therapy.
Another faculty member, Prof. Ronald
Eades has written a soon-to-be-published
article for the University of Akron Law
Review. The article is titled "The Control
of Seditious Libel as a . Basis for the
Development of the Law of Obscenity,"
and explores the similarities between the
controls of seditious libel and those of
obscenity. Prof. Eades states, "I had a
feeling the laws which concern obscenity
were being changed while the laws which
affect seditious libel were not." The article
speculates that the controls involving
seditious libel are proportionate to the
form of government a country uses.
Writing is supportive of a teacher's
capabilities, but as Dean Wren says, is
secondary to instruction. "We make our
mark here, but after we make our mark in
the classroom."
6 Loui ille Law Examiner, ovember 1, 1977
Dean's Dicta
Elsewhere in this -issue of the
Examiner i a discussion of what the
member of our faculty are doing
with regard to their individual efforts
in research and "riting. Accordingly,
it seemed appropriate that we make a
few comments about what we expect
of our faculty insofar as these
matters are concerned.
At the outset, it should be em­phasized
that we are primarily a
teaching institution. We have no
such standard as "publish or perish"
-- if such a standard exists anywhere
at all. On the other hand, every
member of our faculty is expected to
devote some of his energies to
research and also to service to the
community. A faculty member may
serve the law school, the University,
or the general public in a variety of
ways. Both the central ad­ministration
and the Dean's office
appreciate the time that faculty
members devote to serving on
University or law school committees
which advise as to the internal
policie within our institution.
Service outside the law school is of
value to the individual, the com­munity,
the University and the law
school.
Having discharged his or her
responsibilities in teaching and
service, the typical law faculty
Crime Victim Compensation
Plans Draw Criticism
This is the second of a two-part articl:: by
Chris SeamaR on Kentucky's statute of­f
rd'"~ compe sation to innocent victims
of . Part T o Mil pr orne
to I pr ram tn Jef, erson
too at other alrernative
beinf! offered in different states.
California, a leading state in social
ervice , e tabli hed the model crime victim
compen ation program in 1965. Kentucky,
long with nineteen other states, began
imilar programs in the middle 70's. A bill
n pending in the United States Senate
hi h, if pa sed, will subsidize these state­run
agen ies.
of October 10, 1977, Kentucky had
16 la1m filed by victims seeking com­pensation.
Of these claims, 41 have been
a arded compensation; 60 have been
denied and the remaining 67 are still being
e\·aluated. The total amount of com­pensation
awarded has been $98,489.54,
that being an average of $2,402.07 per
grant.
The largest award permitted under
Kentucky's program is $15 ,000.00. Two
claimants have received this amount. One
of the most generous programs is
Maryland's which has no ceiling on
awards. In 1975, it made 324 claims
totaling $1.57 million. To help finance the
Maryland program, a five dollar levy is
imposed on all persons convicted of crimes
for a total collection of $118,003 in 1975.
A conversation with Cat tie Lou Miller,
an executive director of Kentucky's
program, revealed that most claims are
from assault victims coming from the
metro areas of Louisville and Lexington.
Mrs. Miller stated that Kentucky's
program, like the majority of other states,
ci'fers no compensation for property loss
and that this has eliminated a large number
of potential claims.
Several officers of the Louisville Police
Department expressed skepticism of
Kentucky's program. A visit to the
complaint office of the Second Division of
the Police Department revealed a notice of
the program posted on the wall. However,
the officers added that they have not in­formed
an victim of the program.
The Commonwealth ttorney' office
appear to be doing it' job on notifying
poteqtial claimant . Pamphlets on the
program are available and vi ible in the
waiting room. AI o, the front desk stated
that all victims appearing to be eligible for
compensation are given a claim form to
apply for this state aid.
A limited survey of twenty attorneys in
Louisville showed a general lack of
knowledge of the program.
The attorneys who were familiar with the
program expressed some critici m with
Kentucky's and other imilar programs.
The most frequently stated issues are as
follows: many violent crimes are
precipitated by the victims; arbitrary and
capricious-selection; indemnifying the
careless; and better alternative services.
A study conducted in 1975 by the
ational A sociation of Counties Research
foundation revealed many alternative
program other than a pure dollar grant to
the victims. A rape victim, for instance,
may need medical and psychological aid,
and transportation and employment in­formation
rather than a $500.00 grant to
cover her expenses.
This study looked at five crime victim
service centers which offered integrated
services by the community rather than a
mixture of state and locally run programs.
One advantage of a community center is
that a victim would not need to go from
agency to agency in search of help. A
service center would cater to the individual
and aid them according to their particular
problem.
The report states that victim service
centers are not simply another new claim
on scarce county and state resources, but a
better organization of existing resources.
Many other states having compensation
available to innocent victims of crimes
have already integrated this into local
centers. Hopefully, Kentucky will also
expand its program in this direction.
member uses the balance of his or
her time doing research and
publishing books and articles in
areas in which he or she is primarily
interested. This research is com­monly
described as "unsponsored,"
in that the individual faculty member
is expected to perform it as part of
his or her own commitment to the
profession of legal education, and it
is not pursuant to special funding for
research purposes .
A member of the law faculty who
is a good teacher typically wishes to
look more deeply into the area for
which he or she is responsible and
express his or her views in writing.
Such research becomes a labor of
love, and the good law teacher does
not consider it a burden at all.
Conversely, the law teacher who is
actively engaged in research and
writing readily finds that the quality
of his or her teaching improves, as he
or she delves more deeply into his or
her area of special interest. Thus, the
supposed dichotomy between
teaching and research is actually
non-existent. Rather, the two go
hand-in-hand, each being supportive
of the other.
The Personnel Committee in the
law school uses the combination of
teaching, research, and service as its
talisman for determination of such
issues as contract renewal,
promotion, and the award of tenure.
At the present time, the Committee is
reviewing a number of non-tenured
faculty for all of these purposes. The
Committee will meet in late
November and early December, and
take appropriate action in each case.
Thereafter, the "triptychs" (a
special three-part file) on each
person considered will be forwarded
to the central administration for
further review and action.
In early December, the Faculty
Recruitment Committee will visit St.
Louis for the annual Recruiting
Conference of the Assosication of
American Law Schools. While the
law school does not contemplate
adding any new faculty positions
during academic year 1978-79, the
Recruitment Committee will be
looking for applicants for one or two
temporary positions which will be
created by some of our faculty being
on leave of absence.
In sum, our law school continues
to develop a faculty which will not
only be outstanding in its in­struction,
but will serve our com­munity
and provide it with the best
possible legal research and writing
which it is capable of producing.
Ronald W. Eades, a new professor at the School of Law, teaches courses in Torts
New Prof En.;"oys Teaching
by Susan Barnett
Assistant Prof. Ronald W. Eades, who
joined the faculty of the law school this
year, has found his first teaching ex­perience
to be interesting and enjoyable.
He teaches Torts in the day division and
Trial Practice at night.
The Trial Practice class is small, which
forces the students to perform in class. "I
think the students have found that trial
work requires a lot more thought than they
originally perceived. It's not like Perry
Mason. It's a good class because students
can learn from each other's mistakes, and
it's a friendly group so no one is em­barrassed.''
Torts, says Prof. Eades, covers areas
which, with students, may be at least
slightly familiar, making it one of the
easier first year courses. "I think the in­terest
level is high, partly because the fact
situations are sometimes amusing."
Prof. Eades received his B.A. in English
from Southwestern at Memphis in 1970,
and his J.D. degree from Memphis State in
1973. He spent nearly three years as a trial
attorney for the Tennessee Valley
Authority in Knoxville doing general civil
litigation.
In June of this Y.ear, Prof. Eades
completed his graduate work and received
his LL.M. from Harvard Law School.
Much of the work for his LL.M. program
was in constitutional law, primarily the
First Amendment. He has written an article
concerning free speech which is to be
published soon in the University of Akron
Law Review and has authored several
articles for the Memphis State Law Review.
Prof. Eades is intrigued by the reasons
students choose to go to law school and by
the differences he sees between students
today and those of only a few years ago.
"Students' interests change. Now students
seem to be returning to focusing on areas
such as labor law. For a while con­stitutional
law was the primary concern. I
think the cycles are interesting.''
"Because of the stiff competition for
admittance to law school, there isn't much
difference between law schools anymore,
and students here are about like students
anywhere. But there is a different at­mosphere
than a few years ago. It's
quieter, which is good. Students still show
concern for community problems, but the
irrational 'We're going to save the world'
approach is gone. I think law students now
see law as one of the few careers in which
they can do something for themselves and
for the rest of the community at the same
time."
Louisville Law Examiner, !'loveml>er I. 1''77 7
Safeguarding Our Freedom
(Continued from page 2)
On the other hand, to suggest that our system does not, or even should not,
allow for any restrictions at all on the mode or manner of any communication
whatever is an absurdity. Further, if one but seriously considers the thought, it is
abundantly clear that to try to function as a citizen where such was the rule would
be precarious at best. There could be no restrictions, under such an anarchial
system, on treason, perjury, false •• advertising, conspiracy to murder or
monopolize, extortion, blackmail, libel, slander, threatening violence, inciting
riots, violating copyrights, disturbing the peace, defrauding, making false
statements to the government, offering bribes, etc., etc. Artists, writers and
filmmakers who claim First Amendment absolutism as the basis for opposition to
obscenity laws concomitantly bite the hand that feeds them because the same
absolutism they claim for obscenity's right to exist strikes down copyright laws.
The same Constitution which protects one's right to communicate a lie to a
spouse allows for the punishment of that person if the same lie is communicated
as a witness in a courtroom. Further, both treatments of the same communication
are equally as essential to the continuation of our system of government. Thus, it
is not the communication per se or the ideas contained in the communication
which is of societal concern; rather, it is the mode, manner and context of the
communication which must be regulated. Some proclaimed First Amendment
absolutists may claim that the potential societal harm resulting from perjury is
not great enough to justify the restriction on the mode and manner of such
communications, but surely, no sensible person would dispute a legislative
determination to the contrary on the basis that it was a violation of the First
Amendment. Under current law, totally obscene communication in the context of
one's own private home is absolutely protected. On the other hand, in the context
of a commercialized setting or· outside one's own home, it has no constitutional
protection.
Thu , obscenity laws are merely restrictions on the mode and manner of a
particular genre of communication ju t as many, many other laws restrict the
mode and manner of numerous other genre of communications. To oppose ob­cenity
law is a right from which one should not retreat, but, to do it on First
Amendment absolutist grounds, one must be prepared to defend the principle of
uch absolutism across-the-board. Few, if any, persons are willing to do that
because, if the principle prevails, public order escapes in the breach.
Be that as it may, many professionals and academicians never get beyond that
knee-jerk reflex and go merrily on beating the drum in the attack on obscenity
law inging the fight ong of Fir t mendment ab oluti m without ever stopping
to look Io ely at the "enemy" called "ob enity law " or the implications of the
principl~ for \'hich they fight. The hope i that they will not one day awaken to
Jearn that the}, in their innocent valor, have thrown out the baby with the wash
water.
If these professionals would simply take time to stop and look closely at the
enit~ Ia" again t which they o vigorously fight, they would ee that their
nt llect Y.ould better ene them if u ed to educate them elve concerning the true
import of the law and its actual requirements. They could then assist those
charged with enforcing it and those concerned about obeying it with more
enlightenment. Presently, they seem content to hold forth conclusions based on
information which they would consider inadequate if any other subject matter
were involved. So long as resistance for resistance sake stands as an obstacle to
rationality, there will continue to be the confusion which always accompanies a
treet fight.
II of thi i to a~ that until the houting match i topped, nothing more than
a talemate, at be t, i going to be accompli hed. Though tht i not universally
true, mo t persons who have been the mo tout poken and who have i sued their
proclamations the loudest on both sides of this issue have done so in a manner
and context which throws their issuances into suspect. Those who are the pur­veyors
of obscenity are moved primarily by profit motive and will go to extremes
to publicize their products. One of the most effective means they can and do
employ is to rile extremists to oppose them and lure their opposition into a fight.
Unfortunately, the opposition, all too often, takes the bait and the battle rages.
The anti-porn forces begin making "demands", picketing, circulating petitions,
lambasting, marching, etc., etc. The porn folks counter putting harder materials
on the screen, opening new shops and instituting frivolous lawsuits, etc., etc.
Accusations become manifold, "outrageous", heated and, if not totally untrue,
bordering on it. Both sides go out of their way to attract press coverage and the
cameras click while the interviewers have a heyday.
All of this type of activity stifles reason and discourages rationality and
rational people. By and large, the general public sits by with an intense resolve
not to become involved. Public officials hesitate to intervene because to do so
gives them the appearance of taking sides in street gang warfare. This has the ef­fect
of stymieing enforcement of law.
In other words, the most desperate need in the resolution of this issue is new
voices of persons who cannot be justly accused of "crusading" for the "cause"
in zealot-fashion. Such persons must avoid substantive allegations of "engaging
in war" either for or against pornography. Diatribe must be avoided at all
costs. When accusations are made against the new voices, one must take care
not to respond to accusatory and inflammatory allegations lest they be lured
into a dialogue with one side or the other of the opposing factions already
identified as an "extremist." As soon as one does that, he will be deemed to be in
league with one or the other of the factions. Combining efforts with existing
interest groups embroiled in a "battle" will be a tremendous mistake. Ex­pressions
of purely personal opinions and sympathies should be avoided.
The need here is for the infusion of vast amounts of rationality in a cool and
collected atmosphere by persons who are capable of unprejudiced, non-biased,
non-politically based discussion and sensible social research. One must recognize
that there will be substantial opposition to approaching the problem from this
perspective. One set of extremists will allege soft-peddling and other muckraking.
The urge to succumb to the temptation to defend against these allegations must
be suppressed. •
Forthcoming in the
Journal of Family Law
Volume 16, Number 1
Articles
THE CHILD ADVOCATE IN PRIVATE CUSTODY DISPUTES: A
ROLE IN SEARCH OF A STANDARD
By Wallace J. Mlyniec
Noting that disputes over child custody in divorce proceedings are becoming in­creasingly
difficult to resolve, the author outlines the emergence of the use of the
child advocate in these disputes as well as guidelines for practicing as a child ad­vocate.
JEWISH DIVORCE IN AMERICAN COURTS
By Bernard J. Meislin
The author elucidates a most serious problem: to the Orthodox Hebrew, religious
rites are as crucial to the "legitimacy" of divorce as they are to the legitimacy of
wedlock. While the state recognizes the validity of a marriage solemnized by a
religious ceremony, there is no similar recognition for the religious divorce
ceremonial. The result is a myriad of legal implications for the parties to a Jewish
divorce, as well as for the state and the Orthodox Hebrew Church.
Notes
MATHEWS V. LUCAS: A SETBACK IN THE ILLEGITIMATE'S
QUEST FOR EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW
In this note the manner in which the Supreme Court has dealt with statutes
mandating discriminatory treatment of illegitimates is examined. Particular emphasis
is directed toward the recent decision in the case of Mathews v. Lucas which upheld
such a statute.
"LEGITIMATE" DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ILLEGITIMATES:
A LOOK AT TRIMBLE V. GORDON AND FIALLO V. BELL
Two of the Supreme Court's most recent cases concerning illegitimates are
examined in an effort to formulate the current standard of judicial scrutiny ap­plicable
to statutes concerning illegitimates as a class. This Note, read in conjunction
with Mathews v. Lucas: A Setback in the Illegitimate's Quest for Equality Under the
Law (also in this issue), offers the reader a thorough analysis of this constitutional
problem.
RUNYON V. McCRARY AND PRIVATE SCHOOL ADMISSION
POLICIES
The author offers an anlysis of the recent Supreme Court case of Runyon v.
McCrary which held that private schools may not deny admission to a black applicant
on the basis of his race alone. A comparison is made to the Supreme Court decision
regarding private club memberships.
Case Notes
The following are just some of the issues presented and analyzed in the Case Notes
section of this issue: a dispute over an agreement for attorney's fees in a divorce
action; the unconstitutionality of gender-based dependency distinction resulting in
different treatment of widows and widowers in the awarding of social security sur­vivor's
benefits; and statutory construction and interpretation of an abortion statute
concerning the requirement of parental consultation and consent for the performance
of an abortion on an unmarried minor.
Recent Cases
The Journal of Family Law is pleased to announce the re-instatement of this
section in the Journal. Over 60 recent case decisions are presented in this section.
U of L to Graduate Paralegals
(Continued from page 4)
j)rogram. (Northern Kentucky University
offered paralegal training in 1974 and
1975, but has since suspended the
program.)
At present, Mr. Eisman estimates that­there
are 30 students majoring in the Legal
Assistant program at U of L, with other
students enrolling in only some of the
courses offered in the Legal Assistant
program. A revision of the program is
planned in the near future, he noted, that
will add more courses to the curriculum
and allow students to specialize more easily
in a particular area of law-related work.
Although Mr. Eisman pointed out that
the Legal Assistant Associate degree "is
not a Ia w degree," he praised the
cooperation of people at the Law School in
helping to make improvements and
changes in the program. In particular, Mr.
Eisman said that Judge Marlin Volz had
readily offered advice about the program,
and Assistant Prof. Linda Ewald "has
been more helpful than she had to be."
The result of the increase in the number
of schools across the country which offer
Legal Assistant training is likely to be a
clearer definition of the paralegal's role in
the delivery of legal services and less
hesitancy on the part of attorneys to make
use of such specialized skills in the average
law practice. The predicted advantages that
will accrue to the legal profession upon the
widespread use of paralegals were stated by
Paul H. Buchanan in the Journal of the
Indiana State Bar Association (Res Gestae)
this way:
"The lawyer emerges as a true
professional when he effectively uses
trained non-legal personnel to assist him.
At last he is free to perform the skilled legal
tasks for which he has been trained, i.e.,
negotiate, try cases, take depositions, draw
complex instruments, devise strategy and
tactics, write important briefs, etc. Also, he
can devote more time to developing good
client relationships, educating himself, and
organizing and supervising his law office.
In short, he may contemplate new and
previously unrealized horizons of
professional skill and competence.''
Persons interested in finding out more
about the U of L program should direct
their inquiries to James S. Eisman of the
University College, Strickler Hall (Zip
Code: 40208). Telephone: (502) 588-5502.
8 Louisville Law Examiner, November I, 1977
U of L Graduates
Admitted to the Bar
John L. Atkins
James Morin A user
Robert E. Barnett III
Joseph Paul Blair, Jr.
Mary Walker Bledsoe
Mary Helen Bond
Charles W. Boteler, Jr.
Richard E. Bott, Sr.
Gary Neil Brown
William Moore Brown
David C. Buckingham
David Marcus Cantor
John Matthew Carey
Karen Arnett Carter
Samuel Paul Chandler
Robert Bradley Coffman
Eric R. Collis
James Jeffrey Cooke
John Anthony Curtas
Kathryn Dennis
Francis Lee Dickerson
Corneal Louis Domeck III
Darryl William Durham
Mark Craig Durst ·
Margaret L. Egginton
William J. Frakes
Alfred Frank, Jr.
John Scott Getsinger
PaulS. Gordinier
Michael R. Gosnell
Thomas Vose Haile, Jr.
Eric David Hall
David Walter Harper
Lucius P. Hawes, Jr.
Aaron Neal Herrington
Delores Hall Hill
Larry Floyd Hinton
Henry E. Hodskins, Jr.
Marion Kampmann Horner
James Delano Howes
Michael Thomas Hyrnson
Reid C. James
Dennis Franklin Janes
Franklin P. Jewell
Thomas Karageorge
Mary Ann Viola Kiwala
Anglea D. Koshewa
George W. Leach, Jr.
David Lindsay Leigh tty
John Strudwick Lewis
Nolte Scott Ament Lilly
Randy Keith Lohoff
David Frederick MacAslan
Edwin C. Mann
Cordell Graham Martin
Patrick S. McElhone
Walter H. McGee
Myra Jane McGinnis
Robert Anthony Miller
Harry Moberly, Jr.
Freeda Ann Morris
William Mitchell Nance
Ann Carol Nunn
Terrence Patrick O'Connor
Richard Collins Oldham, Jr.
Lawrence E. Osterhage
Kathleen Lynn Otto
Donald W. Pearcy
Gary Douglas Phillips
Ann Bierly Price
Ellen Rash Rudd
Rosemary Rumely
Donald Kevin Ryan
Lynda Marcene E. Sadowski
Larry L. Saunders
James Shelton Scroghan
Alan Edward Sears
William Chester Shouse
Gary Edward Siemens
Jeffrey Skora
Louis Milton Smith, Jr.
Timothy Craig Stark
Michael J. Stone
Philip Benson Swain
Floyd J. Taylor, Jr.
Herbie Gene Taylor
Andrew Meredith Thomas
H. Conner Thomas
Kerry Brooks Thomas
Michael Allen Trabue
Thomas\ illiam olk
Suzanne M. V arner
Dennis Ray Williams
John Mark Williams
John Anthony Wilmes
Robert eaJ Yarmuth
Carol Ruth Hodges Yearwood
Sheldon M. Y offe
James tephen Young
Summer 1977-Bar Results*
People Taking Number Percentage
Bar Exam Passing Passing
University of Louisville
School of Law 131 99 76
Salmon P. Chase
College of Law 39 31 79
University of Kentucky
College of Law 112 96 86
Out of State
Law Schools 60 42 70
TOTALS 342 268 79
*All figures are approximate.
Legal Services Conference
ABA- Chicago
The American Bar Association will hold
a major conference in New Orleans Dec.
16-17 on how the bar can best improve the
delivery of legal services to the public.
Conference delegates will hear speeches
by ABA President Wm. B. Spann, Jr.,
Atlanta, and former ABA President
Chesterfield Smith, Lakeland, Fla.
"This is a major conference geared for
activating the organized bar's commitment
to improve the delivery of legal services to
all Americans, not just the indigents who
g~ it for free and the rich who can well
afford it," said Thomas S. Johnson,
Rockford, Ill., chairman of the ABA's
Consortium on Legal Services and the
Public which is sponsoring the event.
The conference features workshops on
public education, lawyer referral services,
bar sponsored prepaid legal services plans,
alternatives for settling disputes,
specialization and advertising, legal
assistance to the military personnel and the
private lawyer's role in poverty law, civil
rights and public rights representation.
Yale Law Prof. Geoffrey Hazard will
present a consortium report on "Legal
Services for the Average Citizen."
Rounding out the program will be a
panel discussion featuring Mark Harrison,
Phoenix, president of the National
Conference of Bar Presidents; Grady E.
Means, vice president of a New York City
market research firm, Yankelovich, Skelly
and White, Inc., and Peter Roper,
executive director, The Bar Association of
Greater Cleveland.
For further information, please contact
Anne Draznin, American Bar Association,
1155 E. 60th St., Chicago, Ill., 60637,
phone 312/947-3559.
Disciplinary Research
Center Opens
ABA- Chicago
The American Bar Association (ABA)
today announced development of a unique
research system for the field of lawyer
discipline.
Designed by the ABA's Center for
Professional Discipline, the "Disciplinary
Law and Procedure Research System" is
composed of a storage unit for reference
materials, an index system to provide entry
to the reference materials and a regular
publication to circulate current develop­ments
in disciplinary law and procedure.
"For the first time lawyer discipline
agencies and others interested in this field
will have quick acces3 to the latest
developments as well as established case
law," said John C. McNulty, chairman of
the ABA's Standing Committee on
Professional Discipline which provides
policy guidance to the center.
Mr. McNulty said the center has been
gathering information for its Disciplinary
Brief Bank, but up .to now had no for­malized
procedure for making the material
easily available to others who need it.
Brief Bank material is being stored on
microfiche cards which will be used in
responding to inquiries, he said.
The reference materials are indexed in a
computerized word processing system
which utilizes CRT units for input. The
indexed information is disseminated as the
"Disciplinary Law and Procedure Index"
which will be continually updated, said
McNulty.
The reference materials were compiled
by Center Director F. LaMar Forshee,
Assistant Staff Director M. L. Proctor and
Assistant Director James H. Bradner, Jr.
Bradner also played the primary role in
establishing the research system as a whole.
"For more current developments," Mr.
McNulty said, "bi-monthly 'Disciplinary
Law and Procedure Advance Sheets'
annotated by subject will be published to
bring those current developments in the
field of lawyer discipline to the particular
attention of interested disciplinary
agencies, courts, respondents' counsel and
legal educators."
The advance sheets will be edited by
Herbert M. Rosenthal, general counsel for
the State Bar of California and a member
of the ABA's Standing Committee on
Professional Discipline, and Center
Assistant Director Bradner.
Funds to initiate the system were
provided by the American Bar Endowment
through grants to the ABA's Fund for
Public Education.
For further information, please contact
the ABA Center for Professional
Discipline, 1155 East 60th St., Chicago,
Ill., 60637, phone 312/947-3885.
U of L Grad New Federal Judge
(Continued from page 1)
The Senator asked Judge Ballantine if he
had made a fuJI financial di clo ure to the
Ju tice Department and Ballantine an­wered,
"Ye . "
He asked if the appointee was a director
of any public or private corporation and
Ballantine answered, ''No."
Mr. DeConcini also asked Judge
Ballantine if he was familiar with the
disqualification for conflict of interest
statute. He answered that he knew it was
there, but he could not quote it.
Judge Ballantine said, "Then he said
that he was sure that I wou dread it before
I took the oath of office and I assured him
that I would. That was it."
A 1948 Arts Sciences graduate from
the University of Kentucky, Judge
Ballantine practiced law from 1954 to
1964. During the same period he was a
deputy commissioner in the Circuit Court
for six years and a Commissioner in the
Fiscal Court for two years. He has been a
Jefferson Circuit Court Judge since March
of 1964. He also taught Torts at the
University of Louisville School of Law on a
part time basis from 1969 to the spring of
1975.
ilnutsutllt
Louisville Law Examiner
School of Law
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky 40208