Louisville Law Examiner
Serving The University of Louisville School of Law Community
Volume 5 Number 2 Louisville, Kentucky, October 12, 1979 Circulation 4100
Photo by Scott Firkin
Third-year student Susan Turner Barnett enjoys refreshments served at an SBA picnic
on the Shelby Campus, October 7.
President Matt Welch
Discusses SBA Goals
By Craig Bell
After his election last year, Student Bar
Association President Matthew H. Welch
established a number of goals for the
SBA during his tenure in office. He · feels
that his administration has since achieved
success in implementing several programs
for the law school and indicates that
other proposals for change are · also
underway. During a recent interview with
the Examiner, Mr. Welch discussed the
SBA's present posture on several issues
by commenting on the status of various
goals.
The establishment of a Committee on a
Uniform Grading System to formulate a
public policy statement on the issue of
grades is one ~.f Mr. Welch's present pro­jects.
He explained that the committee
"will hopefully be meeting whh Professor
(James R.) Merritt, who sent out a memo
on grad\ng to other faculty members, in
the hope of reaching some type of
understanding in this regard. I feel the
solution to this problem is to implement a
pass-fail grading system for all of the
courses in the law school."
According to Mr. Welch, such a
grading system would be justified because
"the probation and attrition rate at this
law school is totally disproportionate to
other law schools in Kentucky and
elsewhere: For example, UK and Chase
only have between a one and two percent
probation rate, while the probation rate
at U of L is consistently much greater.
UK and Chase also have--what is known
as a 'fat B' curve which works to the
disadvantage of students here at U of L
where we ha..,e a C curve. Personally, I
believe there should be no curves what­soever,
but the curve at U of L seems to
punish students whereas at UK and Chase
it rewards them.
"Another goal of the SBA is to abolish
the Kentucky Bar Examination for Ken­tucky
residents who attend an accredited
Kentucky law school," Mr. Welch con­tinued.
"If we granted the 'diploma
privilege,' we would upgrade legal educa­tion
in Kentucky and also encourage the
most qualified students to attend our law
schools instead of leaving Kentucky to at­tend
law schools in other states. We in­tend
to work toward this goal through
our law student division representatives to
the Kentucky Bar Association. Although
our current LSD/KBA representatives
have not pushed for this goal, hopefully
our next ones will. We are currently look­ing
for two qualified, interested students
to apply for these positions. We will work
to abolish the Kentucky bar exam by con­vincing
the Kentucky Supreme Court of
the need through introduction of legisla­tion
in the 1980 session of the Kentucky
General Assembly."
Another project announced by Mr.
Welch is a "practice test program," spon­sored
by the SBA and the Black
American Law Student Association, for
the purpose of preparing first-year
students for their first encounter with
final exams. Explaining that the program
is mandatory for all first-year students,
Mr. Welch said, "We will have students
who have done well on prior exams tell
(Continued on page 9)
Carter Natnes Alutnnus
To National Labor Post
By Elizabeth Ward
President Carter's new labor-management
chief is an alumnus of the
University of Louisville School of Law
evening division. William Pierce
Hobgood, age 40, was sworn in as the
Department of Labor's assistant secretary
of labor-management in August, a post
that puts him in charge of a staff of
1,280 and some of the departmen.t's big­gest
programs according to a recent arti­cle
in the Courier-Journal. Mr.
Hobgood's major responsibilities involve
ensuring that unions treat their members
fairly and that pension funds are properly
administered. He is also in charge of in­creasing
federal efforts to foster labor­management
committees to help the two
sides talk about their differences at times
other than during strikes.
The background Mr. Hobgood brings
to his new job is rich in arbitration and
mediation experience, much of which was
gained here in Kentucky. Prior to and
during the time he attended law school,
he was a labor arbitrator in the Louisville
area. For seven years, Mr. Hobgood
worked in the Louisville office of the
Federal Mediation and Concilation Ser­vice
before joining an independent agency
as assistant director of arbitration in
Washington, D.C., in 1973.
Last year, Mr. Hobgood helped to in­stitute
the President's Commission on
Coal, the management of which is retain­ed
as part of his new position with the
Labor Department. Although the coal in­dustry
and the ranks of the United Mine
Workers (UMW) are presently embittered
towards each other as a result of the set­tlement
of a 109-day UMW strike last
year, Mr. Hobgood expresses confidence
in the survival of the mediation and con­citation
concept. Mr. Hobgood's central
aim in labor relations is ''to promote the
whole collective bargaining process - the
more collective the better."
Recalling his law school experiences in
U of L's evening division, while at the
same time employed as an arbitrator dur­ing
the day, Mr. Hobgood expresses some
concern over the future of the evening
law school division after having read last
year's report by the ABA accreditation
team criticizing the evening program. He
expressed a view that "the night school
fills a great need. Were it not for night
school, I would probably never have gone
to law scnool. At the time I went, the ad­ministration
drew on the day professors
to teach evening courses and I don't see
how there could have been that much
academic difference."
Mr. Hobgood presently teaches Labor
Relations in the evening division at
Georgetown University School of Law in
Washington, · D.C., and states that "the
school can draw on lots of disciplines
from the D.C. area to teach one or two
courses." He theorizes that law school
professors in the arbitration/ mediation
area should bridge the gap between the
pragmatic need for labor relations and
the academic theories expounded.
"Professors still approve an adversarial ap­proach
without exception and don't
distinguish human relation demands from
the management demands of an organiza­tion.
By the time one leaves law school he
is inclined to the management side. We
need to figure out a way to bridge prac­tice
and theory without the sink-or-swim
approach. Some areas have clinical pro­
·grams for law students who handle day­to-
day inquiries on pensions, forms, or
procedure for filing grievances and retire­ment
questions. U of L could set up a
similar program or internship with the
coal industries, General Electric, Interna­tional
Harvester, Ford and other.big com­panies
who have a lot of grievance activi-
, ty and need for arbitrators, to bridge this
gap."
On November 15, 1979, a panel discussion
on labor relations concentrating on the
coal industry will be held in Louisville at
the Holiday Inn South. According to Pro­fessor
Carl Warns, who is coordinating
this seminar along with Mr. Hobgood,
this is the second annual seminar which
was developed as a spin-off from the
panel in Washington that set up the Presi­dent's
Coal Commission.
SBA President Matthew Welch confers with Angela Ford about new faculty evaluation
forms to be distributed by the SBA at the end of each semester. Ms. Ford is the academic
vice-president for the Student Government Association at U of L.
2 Louisvflle Law Examiner, October 12, 1979
Louisville Law Examiner
EDITORIAL BOARD
Sam B. Carl, Editor-in-Chief
Greg Yopp, Managing Editor
Shaun Esposito, Associate Editor
John Wright, Business Manager
STAFF
Elizabeth Ward, Projects Editor
Pat Chism, Photographer
Andy Altman
Frank Bush
Scott Firkin
Bill Kenealy
Hal Sanders
Gerald "Bear" Schray, Artist
Jeffrey L. Wade, Brandeis Brief Editor
Craig Bell, Articles Editor
Susan Turner Barnett, Special Consultant
Judge MARLIN M. VOLZ, Advisor Professor ALBERT T. QUICK, Consullant
The Louisville Law Examiner is published eight times during the academic: year in the
interest of the University of Louisville School of Law communit)·. Unsigned editorial opinions
are those representing a majority vote of the editorial board and do not net·essaril)· 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 In do
freelance work, but any proposed article must be cleared in advant·e with the editor as to topic
and length. This is to avoid duplication of coverage and insure that the artide will not be
beyond workable length for a newspaper format.
Address all communications to )he Louisville Law Examiner, School of Law, Universil)' of
Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40208. Phone 502-588-6399.
Letter to the Editor
To the Editor:
We want to · take this opportunity to
publicly thank Mr. Larry Franklin for the
time and effort which he so unselfishly
dedicated to 10 University of Louisville law
students this summer. Mr. Franklin con­ducted
a trial practice seminar for as many
students as he could work with closely.
Each of us who attended feel that the pro­gram
is potentially the most instructive
facet of our legal education. There are few
occasions when law students have an op­portunity
to blend our academic
background with practical experience in the
courtroom.
Mr. Franklin donated four full days to
us at Centre College, where the seminar
was held. It was the skill of an experienced
and successful attorney along with patience
and a willingness to help law students that
made the seminar invaluable for us. The
four days workshop culminated in a full
day of trial before Judge George B. Ryan,
Chief Judge of the Jefferson County Cir­cuit
Court. Critiques by Judge Ryan, Mr.
Franklin, Nicholas King and the Jury were
opportunities that most attorneys will
never have in their careers.
Because of Mr. Franklin's efforts and
the help of Judge Ryan, Mr. King and the
other participants, each of us will be better
practitioners. We thank Mr. Franklin for
his time and effort. It is our hope that the
Seminar will continue to be held and that
students will continue to take advantage of
the opportunity. In the end, the big winner
will be the legal community and the clients
we serve.
Sincerely,
Members of Summer Trial Practice
Seminar "79"
(See related story on page 5.)
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Law students quickly learn that they are
expected to master the drudgery of read­ing
and interpreting statutes if they plan
to be successful attorneys. Because legisla­tures
and bureaucracies strive to be pre­cise
in the terminology they employ, how­ever,
many statutory rules seem to be con­fusing
instead of illuminating and, for some
reason, . the student usually feels that the
same idea could surely have been conveyed
with less verbosity.
As an illustration of the law student's
dilemma, consider the following corrective
order issued by the Department of Com­merce
after learning that an FCC rulebook
contained an incorrect zip code:
'' 1. The U.S. Departme.nt of Commerce,
Environmental· Research Laboratories, has
·notified the commission that the zip code
for its facilities at Boulder, Colo., is not
correctly printed in sections 73.711, 73.1030
and 74.12 of the commission's rules.
2. The city address zip code in sections
73.7ll(c)(2), 73.1030(b)(2) and 74.12(c)(2)
is corrected to read as follows: Boulder
Colorado 80303
3. We conclude that adoption of the
editorial amendment shown in this order
will serve the public interest. Prior notice
of rule making, effective date provisions
and public procedure thereon are unneces­sary,
pursuant to the administrative proce­dure
and judicial review provisions of 5
U.S.C. 533(b)(3)(b), inasmuch as this
amendment imposes no additional burdens
and raises no issue upon which comments
would serve any useful purpose.
4. Therefore, it is ordered that, pursu­ant
to sections 4(1), 303(r) and 5(a)(1) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and section 0.281 of the com­mission's
rules and regulations, parts 73
and 74 of the commission's rules and regu­lations,
is amended as set forth in para­graph
2 above, effective Nov. I 0, 1978. ''
"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.
The "Brandeis Brief" Series is an exclu­sive
feature of the Examiner. Each "Brief"
in the series is authored by someone who
is particularly qualified to comment on the
topic we have chosen.
In the past, the series has focused on one
topic each year. Topics ·previously addressed
in the series include "The Changing Image
of the Legal Profession," "Obscenity and
Pornography," "Nuclear Power," and
"The Right to Privacy."
For the 1979-80 academic year, however,
our "Brandeis Briefs" will cover an array
of topics under the broad rubric of "Emer­ging
Legal Issues." By this change in our
approach to the series, we hope to avoid
·repetition and believe that this year's series
will in turn prove to be more provocative
and interesting to our readers.
We are confident that our readers will
find some interesting glimpses of the future
of the law and the profession in the 1979-80
series. If you feel inclined to comment on
any of the ideas you encounter in the
"Briefs," please do. We heartily welcome
your letters.
((Brandeis Brief)) Series
Emerging Legal Issues
Advocacy for Children:
A NeW" Challenge
Howard A. Davidson is the Director
of the ABA's National Resource Center for
Child Advocacy and Protection in Wash­ington,
D.C. A native of Milton, Massa­chusetts,
he is a graduate of Boston Uni­versity
(1967) and Boston College Law
School (1970). Mr. Davidson is a member
of the Massachusetts Bar and has served
as an attorney with the U.S. Army Judge
Advocate General's Corps and with Greater
Boston Legal Services.
By Howard A. Davidson, Esq.
Director, National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and
Protection, American Bar Association*
"Among all the injustices there are in
this world, those concerning children
are the most unjust, the most ignoble,
the most detestable. ,,
-Francois Truffaut
Throughout the United States, hundreds of lawyers in scores of programs are
becoming involved as counsel, guardians ad litem, or court-appointed "public
advocates" for children. They form the vanguard of an important new move­ment,
protecting the legal rights of young people who find themselves in the courts
through no criminal act of their own, but rather due to their family situation,
education or mental health status.
A few attorneys from Greater Boston Legal Services known as the "Children's
Law Project" have won acclaim for their vigorous representation of hundreds of
abused and neglected children, runaways, truants, and kids labeled "stubborn
children" by their parents. In San Francisco, a group of private attorneys, with
support from several foundations, have created "Legal Services for Children,"
a non-profit corporation providing comprehensive services to youth involved in
the juvenile courts. In Philadelphia, there are two outstanding programs. One is
the "Support Center for Child Advocates," a project of the Philadelpia Bar As­sociation.
It has trained and mobilized hundreds of attorneys to effectively repre­sent
maltreated children as a purely pro bono endeavor. The other program, the
"Defender Child Advocacy Unit" of the local public defenders, is regularly ap­pointed
to represent children in cases of abuse and neglect, domestic relations
disputes, adoptions, adult prosecutions where children are victims of crime, and
in mental health and mental retardation commitment hearings. In Minnesota, the
Young Lawyers Section of the state bar association has formed a child abuse
committee which has developed the first state legal manual on this subject. The
manual is a guide to the court process for lawyers, social workers, physicians,
and other professionals. At least thirteen other bar groups have initiated similar
activities. Providing technical support to these attorneys are such programs as
the National Center for Youth Law, Children's Defense Fund, National Associa­tion
of Counsel for Children, American Civil Liberties Union Children's Rights
Project, and recently, the American Bar Association's National Legal Resource
Center for Child Advocacy and Protection.
A Brief History of the Movement
Only a short time ago, lawyers representing children were rarely seen in juven­ile
court. Judges considered attorneys in juvenile proceedings as unnecessary
and undesirable, and discouraged their appearance. According to President
Johnson's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal
(Continued on page 3)
Louisville Law Examiner, October 12, 1979 3
(Continued from page 2)
Justice, prior to 1967 less than five percent of children in juvenile court received
legal representation.
This should come as no surprise. In 1942 the Supreme Court in Betts v. Brady,
316 U.S. 455, rejected the contention that the due process clause of the Four­teenth
Amendment included a flat provision of court-appointed counsel even in
state adult criminal trials. Only in the 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335, did the Supreme Court reverse itself and universally require court-appointed
counsel for indigent adults charged with serious crimes. Juveniles were still an­other
matter. It was not until1967 that the Supreme Court, in In re Gault, 387 U.S.
1, finally declared that children in delinquency proceedings had a constitutional
right to counsel. This literally created a "revolution" in the juvenile courts.
The Gault case, however, failed to answer several key questions concerning
counsel for children:
1. Are children entitled to legal representation in the estimated 150,000-200,000
annual child abuse and neglect court cases (hereinafter referred to as "de­pendency"
cases)?
2. What about representation in the estimated 1/3 to 1/2 of all juvenile court
proceedings which involve status offenses such as running away from home,
truancy, or being ''unmanageable,'' ''disobedient,'' ''ungovernable,'' or
"stubborn" (hereinafter referred to as "Children in Need of Supervision" or
simply "CHINS" cases)?
3. What is the role of court-appointed counsel for children in juvenile court?
As to the first two questions, the Supreme Court has yet to speak, but a num­ber
of state courts and legislatures have extended the right to counsel to cover
dependency and CHINS cases. The Congress has helped assure that maltreated
children are, at the very least, provided with a guardian ad litem to protect their
interests, through a provision of the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act (42 U.S.C. 5101). ·
The third question, that of the child attorney's role, has generally not been a
subject of legislation. There are, however, a number of professional journal articles
on the subject. An example is "Independent Representation for the Abused and
Neglected Child: The Guardian Ad Litem" by Brian G. Fraser (13 California
Western Law Review, 1976-77, Number 1, pp. 16-45). Fraser suggests that the
guardian ad litem in a dependency case should be a lawyer who assumes four
separate roles: an investigator, to ferret out all relevant facts; an advocqte, to
make sure they are placed before the court; a counsel, to give the court all avail­able
dispositional options; and a guardian, to ensure that the child's interests are
fully protected.
Others have recommended that the attorney adopt a pure "guardianship"
role. Under this model, the advocate assumes a unique posture in the legal pro­fession.
Instead of voicing the client's self-expressed wishes, the advocate repre­sents
what he or she believes to be in the child's best interests.
The AHA's New Juvenile Justice Standards
In what is the single most significant development in the clarification of the
appropriate role of counsel for children in the courts, the American Bar Associa­tion's
House of Delegates, on February 12, 1979, adopted the "Counsel for Pri­vate
Parties" volume of Juvenile Justice Standards (hereinafter referred to as the
"Standards"). More than eight years and $2 million have been spent on research
and drafting of the 23 volumes of the Standards by a Joint Commission of the
ABA and Institute of Judicial Administration. (This particular Standards volume
is available from Ballinger Publishing Co., 17 Dunster Street, Cambridge, Massa­chusetts
02138 for $7.95.) The Standards should serve as a model for new state
legislation, juvenile court rules, and state bar association ethical opinions. The
key sections are summarized below, but its most important provision suggests
that counsel should be furnished to every child in a dependency or CHINS pro­ceeding
as well as in any proceedings affecting his or her status, custody, or
course of treatment. The reason for this is clear. Children in such proceedings
face the possibility of removal from home or other substantial restrictions on
their liberty. Neither the parents nor the state can be assumed to have interests
in such cases which coincide entirely with the child's.
The Standards, in looking at who should be responsible for providing legal
services to children, propose a shared responsibility among all segments of the
legal community - the courts, defender agencies, bar associations, individual
practitioners and law schools. They suggest that formal continuing legal educa­tion
and enhanced law school training be made available concerning juvenile
court practice, and set forth a challenge to the organized bar to carefully and
candidly evaluate the status of child representation. Incredibly, the Commentary
to the Standards, as well as the experiences of this writer, indicate that a large
number of courts either provide no compensation to appointed counsel for chil­dren
or set limits clearly inadequate for the time and complex preparation many
cases require. This lack of adequate compensation denigrates the importance of
such representation and encourages counsel to merely go through the "routine
formalities" of their role. The Standards challenge courts to set up an effective
system for assigning counsel and to provide these attorneys ''reasonable com­pensation
for time and services performed." This challenge should be met by
cooperative action on the part of both the judiciary and the bar. Recognizing
the complexity of such cases, a further proposal states that children's attorneys
should have non-legal support services available to them, such as social services.
The most effective programs providing representation of children now provide
such support, making their assistance to the child truly multidisciplinary.
As mentioned earlier, the role of counsel in juvenile court has heretofore
lacked a clear definition. The Standards offer a precise statement on this subject:
Counsel should, after consultation with the client, be bound by the child's deter­mination
of what is in his or her best interest as long as the child is "capable of
considered judgment on his or her own behalf." When this is not possible, the
attorney should ask the court to appoint a separate guardian ad litem for the child
who will have responsibility for such determination. If this is not done, the
Standards suggest that the attorney may either maintain neutrality as to what is in
the child's interests or adopt a position requiring the "least intrusive interven­tion"
justified by the child's circumstances. The Standards make special note
of the need for counsel to actively participate in the court's disposition process
so as to assure that children actually receive treatment which suits their individual
needs. Counsel is therefore advised to be familiar with all services and resources,
public as well as private, tq review all social, psychological and psychiatric reports
on the child and family, and to secure expert assistance when needed for evalua­tion,
consultation, or testimony concerning the formation of an appropriate dis­positional
plan.
Finally, the Standards point out that counsel's role does not end with the
court's disposition order. A lawyer should help assure that the child's rights con­tinue
to be respected and assist in arranging for services which the child needs
and desires. The attorney should, if necessary, be prepared to return to juvenile
court or take other administrative or judicial action in order to challenge the
failure to provide the child appropriate treatment.
This volume of the Standards, containing ten parts, 176 pages of commentary,
and a comprehensive bibliography, provides the essential foundation for high
quality child advocacy. These Standards now must be implemented by having
states incorporate them into their juvenile court system.
Suggestions for Further Involvement
Canon 8 of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility specifically indicates
that all lawyers should assist in improving the legal system, and Canon 4 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct provides for judges to do the same. How then can the
Standards be implemented? First, a bar association or judicial committee needs
to familiarize itself with the present status and role of counsel for children in its
jurisdiction. Next, priorities should be set. Changes which require new legislation
or court rules should be determined. Much reform in this area can be accomplished
through changes in daily courtroom practice.
If the organized bar, a law school, a legal services program, or a defender
agency wishes to become more involved in improving their system, providing
specialized training or actually setting up a child representation program, assis­tance
may be obtained from the new National Legal Resource Center for Child
Advocacy and Protection, 1800 M Street, NW, Suite S-200, Washington, D.C.
20036, tel. (202) 331-2250. This program publishes a bi-monthly newsletter, "Legal
Response," as well as a monograph series on child advocacy related legal issues.
Training and support materials, as well as expert on-site consultation, are avail­able
to initiate and improve child representation activities.
In conclusion, we should recognize that the public expenses incurred in pro­viding
high quality representation to children in the courts can actually be cost­effective.
Vigorous advocacy will frequently result in removing children from ex­pensive
detention and custodial facilities, as well as freeing them from the limbo
of long-term foster care, in order to return them to their families or have them
placed for adoption. Aggressive child advocacy will help assure that the bu­reaucracy
provides services more efficiently and promptly. Pursuing the goal of
"least restrictive alternative" for every child should save countless tax dollars
in the long run.
Members of the legal community can help initiate and support good child
representation programs staffed and financed in a manner reflecting their public
importance. In short, each individual in the legal profession can take the lead
in assuring full and adequate representation for children in the courts.
* The National Legal Resource Center is sponsored by the Young Lawyers Division of the
ABA and supported by Grant No. 90-C-1690 of DHEW's National Center on Child
Abuse and Neglect.
Dean 's Dicta
As mentioned in this space in the first issue of the Examiner this year, I shall
describe various aspects of our program here at the law school during the current
academic year. One of our most active programs is Continuing Legal Education or
"CLE." During the months of September through December, we shall hold a
minimum of three seminars each month. In many ways, this degree of activity has
been in response to the demand of members of the Bar throughout the state as well
as here in Louisville. The topics to be discussed are varied, and include such impor­tant
matters as Estate Planning, Bankruptcy, Trial Practice, Probate, Child
Custody, Title Problems, and Conflict of Laws.
While most of our seminars are designed for the general practitioner, some are
geared to special needs of members of the Bar. On October 12, we are fortunate in
having Mr. J. Harris Morgan, Greenville, Texas, speak to us in connection with
Law Office Management. Mr. Morgan is a national authority in this field. On
November 15, we shall sponsor our Second Annual Seminar on Arbitration in the
Coal Industry, in conjunction with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
On December 6-7, we shall hold our Twenty-First Annual Kentucky Institute on
Federal Taxation. These conferences cater to those having special interests.
Not only do we have a comprehensive and diverse CLE program, covering many
subjects of both general and special interest, but we are particularly pleased with the
high quality of our seminars. We distribute a handbook in conjunction with each
seminar, and often receive many requests for our handbooks from lawyers who are
unable to attend.
Much of our success is attributable to the establishment by the Kentucky Bar
Association of the statewide voluntary CLE program for members of the Bar. A
lawyer may earn a certificate in Continuing Legal Education if he or she completes
sixty classroom hours of work within three calendar years. Four of these hours must
be devoted to Legal Ethics, and one hour to Law Office Management. To help us
get our program started, the Kentucky
Bar Association granted us an interest­free
loan, which we will repay during
the next few years. For many years,
Professor Marlin M. Volz has
spearheaded the development of our
strong CLE program. We wish to thank
him for his outstanding contributions in
helping us provide the best possible
seminars. In addition, this year, Mrs.
Maria C. Meuter has become our first
full-time Continuing Legal Education
Director. With the strong leadership
that both she and Professor Volz pro­vide,
our Continuing Legal Education
program will continue to grow and
develop as our law school moves for­ward
in the years ahead.
Sincerely,
Harold G. Wren ·
Dean
Dean Harold G. Wren
4 Louisville Law Examiner, October 12, 1979
Barbara Hartung Wins
Moot Court Competition
Finalists in the 1979 Pirtle-Washer Moot Court Competition pictured above are Barbara
Hartung,lef.t~ and Sharon Conyer, both second-year students. Ms. Hartung won the com­petition.
By Bill Kenealy
Barbara Hartung was announced the
winner of the 1979 Pirtle-Washer Moot
Court Competition on September 29, 1979,
and will be awarded a full-tuition scholar­ship
for one semester. Ms. Hartung ar­gued
against Sharon Conyer in the final
round to win the competition, which was
held in the Allen Court Room.
In the quarter-final round of competition
Frank Burnette opposed Bill Mautner and,
in two semi-final rounds, Mr. Mautner
faced Ms. Hartung while Kevin Ford faced
Ms. Conyer. All participants are second­year
students.
The problem for argument was presented
in a hypothetical divorce case, Mary Whit­man
v. Tom Whitman, and was before a
court in the imaginary state of Abbott.
The facts of the case concerned Mrs. Whit­man's
desire to obtain a divorce from her
husband who had a violent drinking prob­lem.
Her husband was determined to con­test
the divorce and sought representation
from a Legal Aid attorney. When Mrs.
Whitman requested the Court to appoint
counsel for her, alleging that the complex
issues involved put her at a severe disad­vantage
if counsel were not provided, the
judge denied her request and declared the
right to court-appointed counsel to be con­stitutionally
mandated only in civil cases
Marvin J. Sternburg, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Kentucky, served as chief justice for this year's moot court competi­tion.
Members of the judges' pool, who graciously donated their time, were, from left: attorney Mitchell G. Charney, Justice Stern­burg,
and Professor Martin R. Levy, judges for the semi-final round; Justice Sternburg, attorney Joseph V. Mobley, attorney Homer
Parrent III, and Professor Leslie W. Abramson, who, with Prof. Levy, judged the final round. The competition was held September
29.
WOODY'S TAVERN
&ALE GARDEN
broo & burnett
I]
where the State threatened a deprivation of
a fundamental liberty. Upon appeal, the
issue to be decided was "whether indigent
matrimonial litigants seeking divorce have a
constitutional right to court-appointed
counsel under the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment." To a great extent,
both the appellee and the appellant argued
the applicability of Boddie v. Connecti­cut,
a Supreme Court case decided in 1970,
which held that imposing filing fees upon
indigent matrimonial litigants constituted a
denial of due process rights.
Ms. Hartung and Ms. Conyer presented
their arguments and responded to questions
from the panel of judges as a courtroom
packed with first-year students looked on.
After the final round, the participants and
judges attended a luncheon at Hasenour's
Restaurant where the judges expressed
their congratulations and indicatd that they
would enjoy presiding over next year's
competition. Members of the judges' pool
were Marvin J. Stern burg, Associate Jus­tice
of the Kentucky Supreme Court; Pro­fessor
Leslie W. Abramson; Professor Mar­tin
R. Levy; Mitchell A. Charney, attor­ney;
Joseph V. Mobley, attorney; and
Homer Parrent III, attorney. Justice Stern­burg,
Mr. Charney and Mr. Mobley have
experience in matrimonial litigation and
they expressed a belief that it will be only
a matter of time before the issue presented
in the moot court competition is decided
by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Instructor James J. Ragan commented
that the competition had been organized
"with obvious competence" by the Moot
Court Board and added that he was "very
favorably impressed with the entire com­petition."
The Moot Court Board urges
any second or third-year student interested
in becoming a member of the Freshman
Moot Court Committee or a mentor for
next year to contact Gerald "Bear" Schray
or Bill Kenealy.
Career Night
Planned
On Thursday, October 18, 1979, the
Placement Office will hold the annual
Career Night presentation for all day and
evening students. Career Night has been
conducted every year since 1961 to provide
students with an opportunity to discuss
aspects of legal employment with repre­sentatives
from the fields of private and
corporate practice, judicial clerkships, and
all levels of government service. Approxi­mately
52 representatives will be present
and will be assigned to separate rooms in
the law school where students interested in
the particular field may visit and ask ques­tions
or discuss career options. All students
are encouraged to attend.
Other services offered by the Placement
Office include a listing of full and part­time
legal positions which are placed on the
office's bulletin board in the central hall
of the law school. These notices specify
the duties to be performed, qualifications
for the position, and starting salary figures .
On-campus interviews are also scheduled
throughout the year with prospective
employers.
As a service to both alumni and presently
enrolled students, the Placement Office
maintains a permanent filing service for
resumes and letters of recommendation . A
small library of informative pamphlets and
booklets explains the skills of effective
resume writing and counseling is offered
to prepare the uninitiated student for the
first interview.
A monthly newsletter, "Going Places,"
is published for free distribution to alumni
to provide information on current legal
positions.
Louisville Law Examiner, October 12, 1979 5
Louisville Bar Associlltion President Larry Franklin conducted a trial practice seminar for
law students this past summer in Danville, Kentucky.
Summer Trial Tactics Class
Extolled by Participants
By Elizabeth Ward
Not listed in the law school curriculum,
but highly recommended by the University
of Louisville law school for the fifth time,
is a seminar called Trial Tactics which is
held during August at Centre College in
Danville, Kentucky, under the direction of
Mr. Larry Franklin, a Louisville civil trial
attorney who specializes in personal injury
claims.
The first four days of the seminar are
spent in Danville where students study
cases from Mr. Franklin's own trial ex­perience.
All stages of a case are studied in
detail: the initial interview, trial prepara­tion,
game plan, trial theme, motion mak­ing,
court courtesy, voir dire, jury selec­tion,
opening statement, planning the trial,
direct examination, use of depositions, how
to make and handle objections, and closing
argument. Each student is video-taped as he
or she participates in various aspects of
a trial, such as cross-examination of a
witness. The student is then critiqued n·ot
only by Mr. Franklin and the other stu­dents,
but by himself as well. The em­phasis
is not to dwell on what was wrong in
the presentation, but on how it could be
improved to become more effective.
The last three days of the seminar are
spent back in Louisville where Mr.
Franklin assigns one case to be tried and
divides the ten students into five counsels
on each side. The students decide among
themselves which portions of the trial they
want to be responsible for.
Judge George B. Ryan, Court of Common
Pleas, 30th Circuit 4th Division, tries the
case, a court stenographer is present to
"make" a transcript, and a jury is selected
from volunteer college students. During the
trial whenever a motion or objection is
made, Judge Ryan explains his reasons for
sustaining or overruling. After all the evi­dence
has been presented and closing state­ments
made, the jury leaves for deliberation.
During this time, Judge Ryan critiques each
student, explaining what he likes and dis­likes
and how each could have been more
effective.
After returning with its verdict, even the
jury gets to critique the students. The jury
also relates its reasoning in reaching a ver­dict,
what weight was given, and the quali­ty
of presentations of evidence and cross­examinations
of witnesses.
Mr. Franklin commented up0n this sum­mer's
seminar for the Examiner. He found
the seminar's situs for the first four days at
Centre College to be very important as it
took the students away from their usual
concerns and immersed them in law and
trial preparation each day from 8:00 a.m.
to 11:30 p.m. The day was devoted to
studying the parts of a trial; the evenings to
showings, activities, and demonstrations of
the best and most efficient ways of present­ing
evidence. As a result of the video­taping,
each student could see and evaluate
his own mannerisms.
"Most students wouldn't believe how
distracting his mannerisms were to his
presentation until they saw it for them­selves
on tape.''
Some of the things studied in the even­ings
were how to use aerial photos, how to
acquire tables and accomplished research,
how to correspond effectively with other
attorneys, and how to present evidence.
"The best thing was making a four-minute
film on a home movie camera (costing
$4.00) to preserve evidence of light changes
at an intersection. Some of the most effec­tive
evidence is not expensive to preserve."
Mr. Franklin's motive in teaching the
course is basically humanitarian: "It isn't
fair to the client - a student right out of
school. I remember my first case ... When
the judge asked me if I had any questions
for the prospective jurors, I didn't know in
voir dire that as counsel for plaintiff I went
first. Needless to say, I lost my first case.
These students can't do any worse. I wish
somebody would have done this for me
when I was at U of L. Nick King, who is my
law partner now, took the seminar from
me and he said it was worth fifteen trials. I
don't know if it is or not, but he thinks so.
"Besides that I stay in touch with young
lawyers. As president of the Louisville Bar
Association, I'm trying to further the con­cept
of a law universal in this area. When I
was a student the 'real world~ of law was
remote and alien. I didn't know where or
how what I learned in law school fit in.
This seminar is one way of bringing law
school and the 'real world' closer together.
"If the demand for the seminar in­creases,
I would be glad to bring the very ·
best of attorneys to help teach the course.
As long as there's an interest in the course,
I'll teach it."
Phil Grossman, a third-year student who
attended the seminar, commented: "You
learn things never covered in law school,
such as collecting evidence, developing
theories, also routine things - you see the
reason for them. All of us were a little
shaky at first about the opening parts but
gained a lot more confidence as we went
on. It probably was worth fifteen trials. All
the students took it very seriously, com­peting.
It was really more intense competi­tion
than Moot Court, really digging. Each
student was out for himself and trying to
win for the client. Nobody wanted to lose."
Mike Hance, a third-year student who,
along with Mr. Grossman, clerks for Mr.
Franklin, attended the seminar for the
second time. When questioned about the
interest in the seminar among the student
body, Mr. Hance stated that he had a list
of thirty or more people who wanted to go
in August 1979. Some had found out about
the seminar too late to be considered. "It's
a shame they couldn't have gone. We can
only take so many - say over fourteen,
would not be a benefit to anyone."
Although there was no recruitment of
students for this seminar, interest was very
high. Students learned about it mostly
through word-of-mouth, as well as from an
announcement on the bulletin board.
Jackie Schroering, a third-year student,
described the seminar as "very helpful and
intense. The whole mind is on the trial ...
submersed in it. Larry Franklin is so good;
he's very interested in what he's doing
himself. That nibs off. He teaches us things
it took him years to learn; we get a
heads tart."
-Ms. Schroering, who has also had a trial
practice seminar with Gary Weiss, was
motivated to take this seminar because she
wants "to be able to handle myself in a
courtroom. I want to go into trial practice
and I have an aversion to making a fool of
myself in court.
''The best learning technique seems to
have been the video-taping. The visible im­provement
in people after video-taping was
amazing. In people who had been really
nervous, you could see their confidence
build.
"All the trial tactics, methods covered in
the seminar, are available to all lawyers if
they just take the time to look for them. We
learned such things as how to prove who
ran a red light, how to obtain stopping
charts, how to measure and use skid marks,
and how to assess time factors, such as
crosswalk light changes."
Mark Little, third-year student, de­scribed
the seminar as "truly outstanding
in several respects. Initially, it provided us
with an opportunity to see how a case is
developed for trial from start to finish. It
gave us a chance to actually learn by doing
throughout the seminar. We analyzed each
component of the trial separately and then
finally put the entire picture together in the
mock trial. We used video-tape equipment
which allowed us to not only analyze what
we said, but also how we said it.''
Students receive no credit for this
extraordinary seminar and pay their own
expenses ($37 .01 this summer per person).
According to Mr. Franklin, "Anyone who
is interested enough to give up a week and a
weekend to totally immerse himself in law
won't mind the small expense of the
seminar."
Other students who attended the semi­nar
were Nancy Gall-Clayton, Karl Ander­son,
Tom Hollon, Greg Holmes, Eileen
Walsh, and Pat Larkin.
Student Legal Research Group
• memoranda of law • trial • appellate briefs
For further information concerning the group's services
please write or call:
University of louisville
School of law
louisville, Ky. 40208
(502) 588-6399
MICHIE~~ ­BOBBS-
MERRILL
Bobbs-Merrill publishes the Official Edition of the
Kentucky Revised Statutes which is professionally
presented in 20 permanently bound volumes reflecting
the highest standards and tradition of law book
publishing.
Its extensive and easy to use annotations, which are
read by the judges, were written by experienced lawyer­editors
who carefully checked every statute to insure
that all cases which have cited, applied or construed
that statute are annotated under the text of the statute.
Any student who will practice law in the state of Ken­tucky
may have the entire set for no more than ten
dollars per month with no interest or carrying charge.
Similar terms are available for all attorneys.
Jim Schultz
Sales Representative
821 Skylark Drive
Louisville, Kentucky 40223
(502) 583-8874 or 425-0834
6 Louisville Law Examim
Ne"Ws-in-Brief
The Louisville Law Auxiliary was
awarded the National Lawyers' Wives
Certificate of Merit at the ABA conven­tion
held in Dallas last summer. The
group, consisting of approximately 25
wives of law students at the University of
Louisville, was presented a plaque in
recognition for its outstanding volunteer
service during the 1978-79 school year.
The organization is now in its third year
of existence.
The newly elected SBA members and
the SBA executive committee met and
chose Charlene Jones to fill the SBA night
vice-president position.
Sharon Conyer, a second-year law stu­dent,
has been appointed to the Universi­ty
of Louisville Student Senate.
James P. White, Consultant on Legal
Education to the American Bar Associa­tion,
has been named to represent the
ABA in an October audit of. the Univer­sity
of Louisville School of Law. The
representative of the American Associa­tion
of Law Schools who will also par­ticipate
in the audit has not yet been
named.
The Journal of Family Law announces
that its Editor-in-Chief, Stephanie
Hawkins Smith, gave birth to a baby boy
on October 1, 1979.
Phi Alpha Delta (PAD) legal fraternity
will again sponsor police car rides for in­terested
students who would like the op­portunity
of traveling with members of
the Patrol Division of the Police Depart­ment.
Sign-up sheets will be posted
throughout the law school.
Professor Marlin M. Volz has been re­elected
to the Board of Directors of the
American Judicature Society . The
American Judicature Society is a national
~embership organization of lawyers,
JUdges, and nonlawyer citizens founded to
promote the effective administration of
justice through judicial improvements and
court modernization.
SBA election results are as follows:
Daryl Coffey and Linda Park, first-year
representatives; Michael Brooks and
Kathiejane Oehler, second-year represen­tatives;
D. Todd Littlefield and Lucille
Bateman, third-year representatives;
Harold Storment, first-year evening divi­sion
representative; Linda Ritter, second­year
evening division representative; Randy
Dooley, third-year evening division repre­sentative;
and Buff Handley, fourth-year
evening division representative.
Alutnni News
Trustees of the Law Alumni Foundation
elected new officers for the coming year on
September 25, 1979. The officers are: Dis­trict
Court Judge Olga Peers, President;
Samuel Steinfeld, Vice-President; Willie C.
Fleming, Vice-President; Carl K. Helman,
Vice-President; Linda Ewald, Secretary;
and William C. Miller, Treasurer.
In other business, the Foundation
granted $1500 to law student Sheila Tow in
her capacity as National Coordinator of the
Women's Law Caucus. Ms. Tow intends to
apply the funds toward several projects
endorsed by the Women's Caucus, one of
which is a survey concerning sexual harass­ment
of women law students.
A special Homecoming seminar will be
held on October 12, 1979, at the Common­wealth
Convention Center in Louisville.
The seminar is approved by the Continuing
Legal Education Commission and is entitled
"Law Office Management, Legal Ethics
and Professional Responsibility." A special
discount fee of $15 is provided because the
subjects covered are required for the Ken­tucky
CLE certificate. Several distinguished
persons will be present at the seminar dis­cussions,
including Kentucky Court of Ap­peals
Judge John P. Hayes; U.S. District
Court Judge Thomas A.Ballantine; Jeffer­son
Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Revell;
and Jefferson District Court Judge Richard
J. Fitzgerald.
Topic is Announced for 1980
Environmental Essay Contest
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The topic of
the 1980 Environmental Law Essay Contest
for law students is "Opportunities for En­hancing
Public Benefit from Private Land."
The contest is sponsored by the American
Bar Association's Standing Committee on
Environmental Law and is open to any stu­dent
enrolled in an ABA-accredited law
school.
Essay entries will be judged on the basis
of originality, quality of research, and clar­ity
of style by a committee to be appointed
by the chairman of the Standing Commit­tee.
The winner will receive a $500 cash
award and a certificate at the Ninth Annual
Conference on the Environment. Topics in­dicative
of the type the committee expects
to receive, are as follows:
• Consensual public use agreements be­tween
private landowners and responsible
non-governmental organizations.
• The role of federal, state, and local
governments in providing financial i~cen­tives
or in-kind services (e.g., turnstiles,
snow fencing, general upkeep . stream
maintenance, etc.-)
•- Third-party management of private leases
for public use (e.g., Appalachian Trail
Conference, English Nature Conser­vancy).
• Comparative analysis of international
approaches.
• Organizing and operating a neighbor­hood
land trust.
• Community stewardship of unused
urban property.
• Protecting the cooperative landowners
(e.g., limiting liability, preserving pri­vate
rights from proscription, restricting
the kind and times of access, etc.).
• The use of leaseback arrangements, let­ters
of agreement or easements, and re­strictive
and affirmative covenants to
secure public enjoyment of private land.
Entrants should type their name, school,
home address and telephone number at the
lower right hand corner of the cover sheet
and send two copies of the essay to the
ABA Environmental Law Essay Contest,
1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036. The entires should be in the mail
on or before February, I, 1980.
Interested students wishing to receive
further information should contact Kate
Sullivan at the above address.
Riner, October 12, 1979
SOFTBALL .HEROICS
Top- All eyes are on the ball as Shannon
Lynch begins his cut and catcher Dave
.\"lcKenna awaits the outcome.
bove left - Frank Ballard shows his
form in delivering a high-arching pitch.
bove center - Mike Brooks follows his
hit and decides whether to run to first or
back to the bench.
Photos by Pat Chism
Louisville Law Examine
Above- Todd Underhill lofts the ball for
the Magnetic Healers.
Below - Bill Hovak slides into third only
to be called out. Shannon Lynch plays
third base as Ray Haley comes in to back up
the play.
ter, October 12,1979 ' 7
Studying Law in France
By A. David Reynolds
Assistant Professor
University of Louisville School of Law
Imagine a world where there is no LSAT;
where students attend the law school of
their choice; where students enjoy fasti­dious
French cuisine for less than a $1.25
a meal; where the SBA is controlled by
the Communist Party and students spend a
part of each academic year on strike;
where advanced law degrees are offered in
ancient Greek and Roman family law;
where bar exam questions are sometimes
unrelated to law; and where most judges
have never practiced law. If you can ima­gine
such a world, then you will begin to
get a feel for the very different climate
in which French lawyers and law students
live. I came into contact with their world
last year while I was visiting professor at
the University of Clermont-Ferrand, located
in the heart of France. Both France and the
United States are considered highly devel­oped
western nations but, despite our
similarities, I found in France a legal
culture markedly different from our own.
What follows is an overview of the major
aspects of French legal education and law
student life, ending with a brief look at the
principal career options facing the
graduating student.
There are approximately 30 to 40 uni­versities
in France that have law schools.
At least one is found in each major geogra­phical
region. All are state operated through
the "Ministere des Universites" which exer­cises
strong central control over university
operations. As a result, law school policies
and curriculum are virtually identical
throughout France.
Admission requirements for law school
are the same as for all the other units of
the university. Applicants must complete
the French equivalent of our high school
and pass the "Baccalaureat," which is a
comprehensive achievement test given to all
high school graduates contemplating uni­versity
education. In the past, this was a
very selective exam, but today it has be­come
little more than a ritual. Having satis­fied
these requirements, one is entitled to
enroll in law school. Usually one picks the
university nearest to one's home.
To most of the students, the faculty
are distant figures seen only when seated
behind a microphone delivering the so­called
"magisterial" lectures that are the
mainstay of the curriculum. Rarely can pro­fessors
be seen outside of class. In Cler­mont-
Ferrand, close to half of the pro­fessors
did not even live nearby. Some com­muted
from as far away as Paris (approxi­mately
300 miles), scheduling classes for
their convenience on Tuesdays, Wednes­days,
and Thursdays only.
Students are not expected to purchase
text books of any kind and lecture notes
are often the only thing students have to
study from. As a result, class lectures are
expected to be, and usually are, meticu­lously
structured hornbook-like expositions
of the law. Rote memorization of the lec­tures
and regurgitation at exam time is re­warded.
Critical thought is discouraged. In
fact, there is an unwritten rule that no per­son
with less than a doctorate is considered
competent to express an original thought.
Another major difference is curriculum.
Most students complete a four-year pro­gram,
the first two years being devoted
to general legal studies. During the first
phase, emphasis is on a very general study
of the Civil Code and the legal principles
which underlie it. This phase will also in­clude
generous doses of political science,
history, economics, and international rela­tions.
Upon completion of the first two
years, or first cycle, students receive a degree
called the "DEUG." This degree was cre­ated
to allow students to leave the univer­sity
or "drop out" after only two years
and have something to show for their ef­forts.
Most students who get that far, how­ever,
are likely to go on because a) the
"DEUG" is a diploma that offers virtually
no employment outlets and b) being a stu­dent
is socially and often financially more
attractive than being simply unemployed.
The second phase, or last two years, is
broken down into two parts: one year to
the "licence" followed by another year to
the "maitrise." The "licence" year is again
a general overview of the law. This time,
however, there are very few non-legal
courses and the law codes as well as the
legal system are studied in much greater
detail. In the "maitrise" year, students
must specialize in any one of several areas
depending on the offerings of the particu­lar
university. At Clermont-Ferrand, stu­dents
could select a curriculum in either:
I) private law, 2) public law, 3) business
law, or 4) litigation process. Separate de­grees
are awarded for both the "licence"
and the "maitrise." However, for the rea­sons
alluded to earlier, students are no
more likely to end their studies after a "li­cence"
than after the "DEUG."
There is also a third cycle of studies
beyond the normal four years which can
lead to advanced degrees which are the
equivalent of a masters or a doctorate. But,
as in the United States, students will gen­erally
enroll in these programs only if they
are planning careers in legal education.
Student life at French law schools is
greatly affected by the large size of the stu­dent
population. Apart from what is vir­tually
an open admissions policy, student
enrollment is further encouraged by the low
cost of higher education as well as the signi­ficant
public benefits that come with stu­dent
status. Tuition fees are nominal for all
French universities and, since textbooks are
rarely used, there are few incidental fees.
Furthermore, possession of the "carte
d' etudiant," which is proof of university
enrollment, entitles one to a number of
benefits. These include the use of subsidized
university restaurants (where very good
meals are served for a third of what they
would cost elsewhere), eligibility for sub­sidized
housing, free medical care, and sub­stantial
discounts for admission to movies,
plays, opera, symphony, and museums.
Each year as a student is also considered
the equivalent of a year of gainful employ­ment
in determining the date of one's eligi­bility
for the national pension program.
Student status is, in fact, so desirable that
some law graduates who have difficulty
finding employment will enroll as a full­time
student in another college without
ever intending to set foot in class simply
because the benefits are better than those
the government provides for the unemployed.
As one might imagine, one consequence
of the French system is perennial overcrowd­ing.
At Clermont-Ferrand, a small univer­sity
by French standards, the first-year law
school class had an enrollment of approxi­mately
1500 students. The largest classroom
seats about 700. The crush is eased some­what
by the fact that no more than two­thirds
of the students will ever attend a
given class. Many of these absentees are
the so-called "phantom students" enrolled
exclusively for the benefits and social pres­tige
that come with student status.
As well as worrying about whether he/she
will have to stand through class, the first
year law student has also to worry seriously
about failure in the final exams. At Cler­mont-
Ferrand, of those students who actu­ally
take the first year's exams, approxi­mately
half will fail so as to leave only
about 500 students to enroll in the second
year. By the fourth year, only 200 to 300
are left.
Another aspect of law student life very
different from our own is the marked politi­cization
of the French student. The student
body is factionalized from the extreme left
to the extreme right with the leftists' stu­dents
generally in the majority. Strikes are
almost an annual event with classes being
boycotted sometimes for several months.*
Elections to their equivalent of the SBA
are on the basis of party affiliation. For five
(Continued on page 8)
8 Louisville Law Examiner, October 12, 1979
Studying Law in France
(Continuedfrompage 7)
years preceding 1978 a group associated
with the Communist Party had been in
charge of Clerrnont-Ferrand. Their reign
was marked by several major strikes and at
least one bombing of the SBA office by a
rival radical group. In 1978 they were un­seated
by a group affiliated with a right
wing party - thanks in part to the tacit
support of the dean.
In good times, students can choose from
a variety of career options. First of all,
there is an initial decision about whether to
pursue a legal career at all. Traditionally,
French law schools have attracted students
who felt not gifted enough for technical or
medical studies but not satisfied with the
secondary school teaching career to which a
humanities degree will usually lead. Stu­dents
in this category will often opt for an
executive or managerial job with the gov­ernmental
bureaucracy or a similar type of
white collar job with private business. Busi­ness
schools are a relatively new phenom­enon
in France so that legal education is
still considered an appropriate founda­tion
for such positions.
If the student is set on a legal career,
there are still at least four options to select
from. First, there is the "avocat," or the
formal lawyer position. This is probably the
most lucrative and prestigious of the legal
careers. The avocat is exclusively a litigator
somewhat like the English barrister. He/she
usually practices alone or with no more
than two partners and handles virtually
any kind of litigation. In France, bar mem­bership
is required only of avocats.
Membership in the bar is dependent
upon passing an entrance exam as in the
United States. The French bar exam is
divided into two parts. The first is a written
general culture test where applicants must
demonstrate that they are sufficiently worldly
and cultured to be accepted into the pro­fession.
The subject matter tested is not
necessarily something covered in law school.
For example, candidates might be asked to
write a long essay on the effect of Twen­tieth
Century architecture on urban c-rime
rates. This is considered the most difficult
part of the bar exam and the failure rate
on this portion is quite high. Those who -
successfully complete the first part then
move on to the practical skills component
of the exam. In this second part, candidates
are presented with the file of a case which
they are given an hour to study. After that
they must present oral argument for either
plaintiff or defendant in a mock hearing
before a panel of examiners. As the second
part of the exam suggests, oratorical skills
are considered important for the practicing
lawyer and it is often quipped that the best
lawyer is the one who most often keeps
the judges awake.
A successful score on both parts of the
exam entitles the applicant to begin the
formal practice of law, assuming he/she
passes a moral character and fitness screen­ing.
Only a relatively small number of law
students ever actually sits for the bar exam.
Traditionally this has been so because it
was felt that only those students whose
families were well-connected within the
community had a realistic chance of develop­ing
a viable practice. Recently, to that con­cern
has been added the fears caused by
what appears to be a general overcrowding
of the profession similar to that suspected
here.
An alternative almost as lucrative as
avocat, but with greater security of in­come,
is the career of "notaire. ·~As well
as authenticating documents, the notaire is
by law the only one who can create certain
types of contracts including most real prop­erty
transac;:tions and transactions having
a donative intent such as wills and trusts.
The notaire will also often assume the role
of general legal advisor to his/her client
especially in family law matters. The num:
~er of notaires is fixed by law in France
and each has a given geographical juris­diction.
The position of notaire is considered
a property right of its holder and can be
sold from one person to another. It is thus
often said that the best path to financial
security for a young law student is to marry
the son or daughter of a notaire and hope
to inherit the practice.
A third career option, less prestigious
and less remunerative than either of the
first two, is to join the "magistrature" which
means simply to become a judge. Most
judges in France are career civil servants
who enter the profession right out of law
school and hope someday to work them­selves
up from traffic court to the highest
appellate courts of France. Law graduates
can take a qualifying exam for admission
into the national institute for the judiciary.
If accepted, they undergo nine months of
training before being sent out into the field.
Although the image of the sleeping judge
remains, recent reforms and the higher
quality of new recruits are beginning to
change that.
The last of the major legal professions
is the "couseil juridique." This is the for­mal
title recently given to law graduates
who work as legal advisors but fall into no
particular professional category. In France,
anyone who has a law degree can give legal
advice and it is only the-litigators who have
to be members of the bar. Thus, many
legal jobs in government and private indus­try
are held by law graduates such as these
who negotiate and draft contracts as well as
give other forms of legal advice. It is into
this general category where most of today's
law graduates fall.
As can be seen, legal education and the
practice of law in France is dramatically
different from our own experience. Exactly
why and how it evolved so differently is
hard to explain. One might say that each
system simply reflects the fabric of its soci­eties.
The societies and cultures are dif­ferent
and so are the legal institutions.
It's just like with chicken: they eat it with
wine sauce and we fry it.
• Strikes, however, have no effect on the
giving of exams. Exams will still be given
as normal and students will be expected
to know the subject matter as if there
had been classes. Students thus strike at
their own risk.
Ron. Snyder and Steven. Beshear, candidat~ for attorney general of Kentucky in the up­commg
November el-:ction, debated legal 1ssues in the Allen Court Room on October 3,
1979. Mr. Beshear, p1ctured above •. e~ph~sized his commitment to consumer protection
and Mr. Snyder, below, urged the ehmmatlon of excessive government regulation.
Law- Forum Hosts Candidate Debate
Louisville Law Examiner, October 12, 1979
Welch Discusses SBA Goals
(Continued/rom page 1)
what they have done in the way of
preparation, outlining, et cetera. We will
also have several professors tell what they
are looking for on the exams. Professors
who give practice exams to first-year
students will wait until after we have had
this exam-writing course and there will be
a follow-up on November 2nd to explain
to the students how they could have done
better on their practice exams. This
seminar will help students decide for
themselves what techniques to follow in
preparing for exams." The seminar will
be conducted on October 19 from 1:00 to
3:00p.m. in the Allen Court Room.
He exlained that "night students feel alien­ated
from the SBA and their fellow day
students, and they feel inferior to them.
The SBA is working to improve the feel­ings
of day and night students toward each
other." He further emphasized an assur­rance
that the SBA is opposed to discon­tinuing
the night school.
Mr. Welch also announced the SBA's
intention to resume publication of forms
for use by students at the end of each
semester to evaluate professors' per­formance
. He expressed a hope that the
administration "will take these student
evaluations into consideration in deter­mining
which professors to promote and
to give tenure to. The evaluations will ask
students to rate their professors on such
things as teaching ability, knowledge of the
particular subject, skills and presentation,
and willingness to talk to and communi­cate
with students. The evaluations should
also help the professors in the way they
teach their classes." Similar evaluation
forms were discontinued last year when the
executive committee of the SBA determined
that their value was minimal.
9
The Key Number System
takes you from one
case in any law book
to all cases in point
Take a cited opinion. Check the Table of Cases in your
Key Number Digest. There you'll find the Key Number
that classifies that case and all others in point. And this
method works even when you begin with cases from
books not based on the Key Number System. That's
one way the compatible Key Number System makes
your library more valuable, more useful. Find out how
you can put it to work too, today.
0. K. c.nv. «.
P.O. Box 969
BarT Street Station
Lexington, KY 40588
Phone:
le>dngton: 606/ 255-2040 ·
louisville: 502/ 584-5058
KENTUCKY I'UaLICATIONS:
South Western Reporter
Kentucky Dec1s1ons
Kentucky D1gest
Kentucky Pract1ce Senes:
Anticipating next semester's problems
of class interruptions due to construction
noises while the new building.additions
are being made, Mr. Welch admitted that
he "has no idea where classes will be held
in the day, as no action has been taken
yet." He added, "This will make it very
difficult on students needing to use the
law school library in the day and many
will have to wait until night. Unfortunate­ly,
this will be especially inconvenient to
first-year students needing to use the
library for their moot court problems,
and it puts a premium on · getting a night
librarian. Applications are now being
taken so that the position will hopefully
be filled by next semester.''
In regard to class offerings, Mr. Welch
announced a plan to poll students to
learn what courses might stimulate in­terest.
He advised any student who
desires to take a course not regularly of­fered
to petition the SBA "and we will do
our best to carry out those wishes."
.... .._....,.c.......,, Probate Practice & Procedure with Forms
Methods of Practice
Rules of Civil Procedure
One of the greatest problems Mr. Welch
views as confronting the law school is "bad
feelings" between day and night students.
Local Judges' Opinions Vary
On Judicial Evaluation System
By Shaun Esposito
ccording to articles in the Courier­Journal
and the Louisville Lawyer maga­zine,
the Louisville Bar Association is con­sidering
implementation of a system of
judicial evaluation. It is not clear who would
be able to rate members of the Bench
under the system and, in an effort to find
out how those most concerned feel, the
Examiner contacted several local judges.
The problem with that proposal, Judge
Nicholson said, is that someone is always
a loser. This may affect the accuracy of
their ratings. While he thinks the system is
in theory a good one, Judge Nicholson
believes strict safeguards must be worked
into the system to insure fairness and ac­curacy.
Judge Robert E. Delahanty, Chief Judge
of Jefferson District Court, expressed a dif­ferent
opinion. He believes that everyone
involved in the legal process should be able
to rate judges. Lawyers do not possess any
special or peculiar knowledge about judicial
performance, he said. Thus everyone in­volved
should be able to participate: clerks,
sheriffs, and litigants.
Criminal Practice & Procedare
The views of two of those contacted
perhaps best represent the divergence of
judicial opinion on the subject. Jefferson
Country District Judge James C. Nicholson
believes that if attorneys will rate judges,
judges should be able to rate the attorneys.
Judge Nicholson's concern is that the ratings
be valid and non-biased . Allowing judges
to rate the attorneys who rate them may
make for a fairer system. Judge Nicholson
expressed further concern at the suggestion
that persons other than attorneys rate judges.
Whatever system, if any, is finally imple­mented,
it is certain that all judges from
the District Court to the Supreme Court
will be ready to propound some opinion
on the subject. ~Nl:J NOW'- LET's }-lEA-'\' IT FOI( .'TUIJ6,E Nll/1/JEI( Olv'£ .1
•1
You can also join these individual
sections at special student rates
(AL) Administrative Law . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 0
(An Antitrust Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
(BA) Bar Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 0
(CL) Corporation, Banking and Business Law . 0
(CR) Criminal Law . 0
(EP) Economics of Law Practice . 0
(FL) Family Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
(G P) General Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
(IR) Individual Rights and Responsibilities . 0
(IL) Insurance, Negligence and Compensation Law . . 0
(IC) International Law 0
(JA) Judicial Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
(L~) Labor and Employment Law . 0
(LE) Legal Education and Admission to the Bar 0
(L n Litigation 0
(LG) Urban, State and Local Government Law C
(NR) Natural Resources Law . 0
(Pn Patent, Trademark and Copyright Law 0
(PC) Public Contract Law . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
(PL) Public Utility Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . 0
(RP) Real Property, Probate and Trust Law . . 0
(Sn Science and Technology .. . . . . . . . ....... . .. . . •.... . . 0
(TX) Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 0
(YL) Young Lawyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • 0
Rev. 7179
ss
$3
$3
$3
$5
$3
ss
$5
$5
$5
$5
$3
$5
$3
$5
$5
$5
ss
$3
$3
$5
S3
$8
$3
ABA/Law Student Division Application !Please Print)
Name _____ ~LA7.s~T--------------------~F~IR~ST~------------------------~M~I~DD~L~E---------------
Street._-----------,-....,.,.--~---,---------'City __________________ ;State _________ --t.ip __ _
(mailing address)
Law School------------------------------------------------------City __________________ _
Birth Date Law School Entry Graduation Date
DO DO DO DO DO DO DO
Month Day Year Month Year Month Year
As a law student member of the ABA, I will abide by its Constitution and By -laws.
Signature _________________________________________________________ IDate ________________ _
0 Enclosed is $6.50 for membership. 0 I am already a Division member.
The dues schedule includes subscriptions to the ABA Journal ($1 .50) and Student Lawyer ($2 .50).
Send check and
application to:
Membership Dept., ABA
1155 E. 60th St.
Chicago, IL 60637
Office Use Only: DO
NUMERIC
STATE CODE
DO
ALPHA
STATE CODE
Graduating students' membership expires on June 30, or graduation, whichever comes first.
DO
LAW SCHOOL
CODE
Mailing
10 Louisville Law Examiner, October 12, 1979
ABA Endorses Plan for Attorney Specialization
ByGregYopp
When the American Bar Association
gathered for its 101st annual meeting last
August, it endorsed a model plan of attor­ney
specialization for adoption by the vari­ous
states. The plan, drafted by the ABA's
standing committee on specialization,
headed by David R. Brink of Minneapolis,
sets voluntary training and conduct stand­ards
for such specialized practices as crim­inal
law, workmen's compensation, real
estate, and tax law.
Passed by the ABA House of Delegates,
the plan leaves to the the states the decision
of what areas of practice should be con­sidered
specialties. However, the plan does
set forth some overall standards, such as
a requirement that each specialist take 10
hours of continuing legal education in the
preceding three years to remain certified as
a specialist. The plan also calls for proof of
competency in the specialty "according to
some objective and verifiable standards"
and peer review through references from
lawyers and / or judges.
The adoption of the specialization plan,
though loosely worded and only advisory
in nature, places the ABA behind speciliza­tion
for the first time. Currently eight states,
Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,
Iowa, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Texas
have such programs. Since the ABA ap­proval
of the model plan, Virginia, Mary­land
and New Hampshire have proposed
plans similar to the ABA model, which does
not require an examination to be certified.
Georgia's modified version of the speciali­zation
plan was approved following the
ABA's adoption. The Indiana State Bar
Association is expected to vote on the issue
in October. In recent months, the New
York State Bar Association has voted
against a specialization program.
Attorney Les Whitmer of the Kentucky
Bar Association feels that some sort of spe­cialization
plan will eventually be adopted
in Kentucky. "The issues have been before
the Board of Governors for about seven
years now. They are keeping abreast of the
situation," said Mr. Whitmer. However,
Mr. Whitmer feels there will be no move to
a plan of specialization by the KBA in the
near future.
The specialization plans adopted to date
fall into two general categories - certifi­cation
plans and designation plans. Certifi­cation
plans require lawyers to take a test
similar to a bar exam in their area of spe­cialty.
Also, there are additional require­ments
including mandatory attendance at
continuing legal education programs and
substantial involvement in the specialty.
The usual substantial involvement require­ment
is that the selected specialty consume
at least 25 percent of the practice.
States with so-called certification plans
are Arizona, California, New Jersey, and
Texas.
Florida, Georgia, Iowa, and New Mexico
have designation plans, where no examina­tion
is required. A typical designation plan
requries a lawyer to list his areas of spe­cialty,
up to a limit (usually three). To
designate a specialty, a lawyer must have
worked in the specialty area for three years
and must take 30 hours a year of continuing
education courses in the area.
Bar Association leaders across the coun­try
have been debating how to handle lawyer
specialization on and off for several years.
But since the United. States Supreme Court
allowed attorney advertising in Bates, the
debate has picked up. Advocates of speciali­zation
feel such plans are needed to pre­vent
misleading and unfair advertising, im-prove
attorney competency, encourage
competition, and provide the public with
greater access to legal services by making
the choice of which attorney to choose
clearer. Opponents of specialization ques­tion
the effect on the sole practitioner.
Some see the move toward specialization
as a "client grab" by large firms, which
have the resources to cover numerous areas
of specialty. Other arguments offered against
specialization plans include difficulty in
meeting the 25 percent practice in the spe­cialty
requirement for those in general prac­tice
and the possibility of an increase in
malpractice insurance rates for an attorney
who takes a case outside of his specialty.
In a recent article in the National Law
Journal, Jack T. Crabtree, chairman of the
ABA General Practice Section 's committee
on specialization, said of the arguments for
specialization, "Being against those goals is
like saying you're against the American flag,
but nobody's shown me that the proposed
plans achieve those goals." The General
Practice Section supported the ABA 's
model plan proposed in Dallas, but Mr.
Crabtree's committee opposed it.
A survey by the Texas Bar Association
indicates that the sole practitioner is the one
gaining the benefits from their plan of spe­cialization.
The survey shows that 77 percent
of the state's 1,200 certified lawyers say
the program has benefited their practice in
some way; 97 percent say they will seek
recertification; 79 percent felt they had be­come
more competent; and 31 percent said
their income had increased because of the
plan.
The most unexpected statistic was the
breakdown of which lawyers decided to
specialize. It turned out that 61 percent
are either sole practitioners or work in
Examiner's Door Is Always Open
This photograph of the old Examiner office, previously located in the Annex building, could well have been taken on a day before the
paper went to the printer Instead nf during the Annex's last stand. Our new office h1 the library basement still retains this "lived-in"
look, especially as each publication date draws nearer. A:1y student desiring to participate in this ritualistic melee is invited to drop by
as staff positions are always open.
offices with five or less attorneys. Only
12 percent of those specializing work in
an office with more than 25 attorneys.
These statistics tend to show that in Texas
small practitioners really do not have trouble
meeting the substantial involvement cri­terion.
But the survey doesn't answer all
the questions. Still unknown are the effects
specialization is having on the lawyers
who choose not to specialize.
A recent development in the area of at­torney
specialization, and one disturbing to
its backers, occurred this past September.
In California, the Board of Governors
voted 12-8 to give their six-year-old pilot
program permanent status and to expand
the program from four specialties to as
many as thirteen. The vote was expected
to be approved by the state Supreme Court.
To many's surprise, only days later at the
state bar's annual convention in Los An­geles,
the conference of delegates passed
a resolution urging the bar association to
reconsider. The resolution said that expan­sion
of the plan would lead to discrimi­nation
against members of the minority
bar, higher fees to the public, confusion
among consumers, and the elimination of
the general practitioner. Responding to the
resolution, the Board of Governors
rescinded its earlier vote and decided to
give the issue more study.
It is evident there is a need to define
lawyer specialties and assure the com­petence
of those who proclaim themselves
specialists. To date, eight states have tackled
the tough issues and have come up with a
solution. That is not to say that the solu­tions
offered are perfect or even near that.
But one thing is clear; there is a definite
movement toward some sort of specializa­tion
in the legal profession.
A TLA Essay Contest
Topic to be
Three Mile Island
Washington, D.C. - All accredited law
schools are invited to participate in the As­sociation
of Trial Lawyers of America's
tenth annual Environmental Law Essay
Contest. The subject for this year's con­test
is "Damages From Three Mile Island:
Balancing Equities- Safety vs. Energy."
Three national winners will be selected by
a panel of environmental law professors
who will judge from submissions by law
schools. Only one essay from each school
will be allowed and each will be judged
for organization, practicality, originality,
quality of research, and clarity of style.
The three national finalists will receive $500
and a plaque certifying their accomplish­ment.
All entries must be sent to ATLA and
be postmarked no later than April 4, 1980.
Inquiries concerning the contest should be
addressed to: Steve Haracznak, Environ­mental
Law Essay Contest, ATLA, 1050
31st St., N. W., Washington, D.C. 20007.
White Collar Crime
Program Offered
Philadelphia - A program entitled
"White Collar Crime" will be presented in
Philadelphia, Pa. , on October 19-20, 1979.
The ABA's Committee on Continuing Pro­fessional
Education is sponsoring the pro­gram
to aid attorneys in keeping up with
recent significant developments in this field
due to an increasing number of federal in­vestigations
and prosecutions during the
past few years. Persons interested in re­ceiving
information concerning the program
should write to ALI-ABA, 4025 Chestnut
Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19104.
l '( J I "• .4 I J I Lomsville Law Examiner, October 12, 1979 11
July Bar Results
OVERALL Number Taking 336
97.30Jo Number Passing 327
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE Number Taking 93
97 .80Jo Number Passing 91
Sharon Jane Ashton
Bruce Dwain Atherton
Charlotte Jean-Marie
Baker
Steven Robert Berg
Paula Ann Bierley
Margaret Farnworth Binder
Charles Mark Blankenship
Dorothy Susan Boone
Richard Martin Breen
William Harold Buckler
Kevin Patrick Callahan
Frank Paul Campisano, Jr.
James William Chambers
Isaac Lorean Conley, Jr.
Karen Ann Conrad
Mary Bruce Cook
Mary Katherine Daugherty
William Mitchell Deep, Jr.
Pri cilia eaderman
Diamond
rr 11 urner Fowles
Ellen Gail Friedman
Kevin Lee Garvey
James Marion Gary
at han Goldman
Phyllis Sara Goldman
Kenneth Wayne Golliher
Elizabeth Ann Graham
James Perry Green
Robert Lucian Gullette, Jr.
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE
SCHOOL OF LAW GRADUATES
PASSING THE JULY, 1979
KENTUCKY BAR EXAM
Charles Curtis Hagan, Jr.
Charles Franklin Hagan
George Kennedy Hall, Jr.
Susan Margiotta Harris
Horace Edgar Hill
Dennis Patrick Hines
Hoy Poteet Hodges
Michael Grayson Johnson
William Joseph Joiner II
Danny Thomas Karem
Arthur Daniel Kelly
Debra Rowlett King
Dana Ray Kolter
Michael Kevin Lett
Joanne Seppi Linn
Robert Howard littlefield
Michael Willi Lowe
Edwin Joseph Lowry, Jr.
Margaret Anne Lyndrup
John Michael McCarty
William Thomas Mcintyre
Jo eph Henry McKinley, Jr.
Herman Joseph Marshall
Robert Lee Martin
Richard Lynn Masters
Virginia Murnane Meagher
Frank Campbell Medaris, Jr.
Gerald Thomas Mercer
Stephen Kinkead Mershon
Ralph Mitchell Mobley
Gary Lee Napier
William Louis Neichter
Sara Elizabeth Noyes
Alan Clifford Parsons
Barbara Myers-Gunther
Parsons
Jen nifer Mamie Payton
Lucy Barker Richardson
orman Lewis Roelke
Judith Ann Rosenberg
Robert Lewis Russell
Valerie Lynn Salven
Russell Harper Saunders
David Ray Schott
Christopher Brent Seaman
Robert Foley Soder
Ian Gail Sonego
Wallace Hugh Spalding III
JoAnn Spinks
Jeffrey Montfort Stiles
Thomas William Stout
Dennis Ray Tackett
Kenneth Ray Taurman, Jr.
James Henry Thomas
Barry Matthew Trifiletti
Robert Wood Turrentine
Ronald Van Stockum, Jr.
Roy Emerson Welch
Jack Allen Wheat
Joe Stewart Wheeler
Stephen Thorp Wolford
Kim Wesley Wright
William Yesowitch
Anne Ferguson, left, and Betsy Young, right, are senior secretaries who recently joined
the administrative staff at the School of Law.
JAMES P. QUEENAN
2509 Savannah Road
Louisville. K Y 40222
(502) 425·2174
THE LAWYERS
CO-OPERATIVE
PUBLISHING COMPANY
II II LCp
The Law
in Breadth
AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE 2d
- An encyclopedic A-Z text
statement of the complete body
of law - state and federal, civil
and criminal, substantive and
procedural. Here you'll find the
principles of law plus direct
leads to the supporting cases,
related annotations, forms ,
proofs, and trial techniques. Use
it as your first search source in
office consultations, solving tax
problems, trial preparation, brief
writing.
0 authoritative treatises on
431 modern legal topics
0 cases from all jurisdictions
0 practice and ·procedural
coverage
0 Uniform Laws, including the
Uniform Commercial Code
0 federal law - cases and
statutes discussed and
analyzed
0 New Topic service.
Clients' Gripes Create
Headaches for Attorneys
Bill Mautner, the author, is a second­year
student at the University of Louis­ville
School of Law.
All of us at one time or another have
probably bought a product or service
which we were dissatisfied with. When
this happens, we usually have several ave­nues
by which we seek redress, starting
with the merchant and continuing on to the
Better Busi ness Bureau or local consumer
protection office.
What many future lawyers may not
realize though, is that their lega; services
and fees will often be subject to mo.-e scru­tiny
and public suspicion than any other
profession!
This disturbing, yet realistic fact was
brought home to me this summer while
working for the Wisconsin Supreme Court
as a grievance investigator for their Board
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility.
This board (which has counterparts in all 50
states), has jurisdiction over Wisconsin at­torneys
for misconduct, unethical behavior,
medical incapacity, and review of requests
for reinstatement by disbarred or sus­pended
attorneys.
The agency functions much like a con­sumer-
protection office, although the cen­tral
purpose is imposition of discipline
for unethical conduct rather than getting
the client a monetary satisfaction and
closing the case.
In our office, the phone would ring 10-
15 times a day with new people calling in
wanting to file a complaint against an attor­ney,
not necessarily their own. (In fact,
when an attorney learns of misconduct by
a fellow attorney, he is required by the
ABA Code Of Professional Responsibility
to report it.)
You learn very quickly that an attorney
must go to great efforts to keep some
clients satisfied, and even then, there will
be some clients who you may never satisfy,
no matter how much time or effort goes
into their case.
The types of complaints received from
the public range from the "sour grapes"
heard after many a losing lawsuit to those
alleging serious criminal (not to mention
unethical) actions. The most common
type of complaint in our office had to do
with neglect, delay, or just plain indiffer­ence
on the part of the attorney. This can
range from a failure to return phone calls
to taking a retainer and then "forgetting"
about doing anything further for months.
Attorneys' fees are also the source of
many client disputes and hard feelings.
Often clients retain an attorney without
any prior understanding as to the amount
or the method by which fees are to be
charged. This can be as much the attor­ney's
fault as the client's, for the attorney
is in the better position to estimate the
time or effort a case may require. On the
other hand, I saw many people who try to
dispute a legal fee after the fact, knowing
the lawyer won''t have the time to fight
the dispute or to sue the client to collect.
Along the lines of serious unethical con­duct,
I saw allegations of trust fund use
for personal expenses, conversion of cli­ents'
property, and the failure to probate
over a dozen estates within the time limits
required to avoid federal and state penalties.
An investigatory job such as this is not
without its lighter side either. I encoun­tered
the following over the summer: An
attorney long ago disbarred for mental
incompetency visiting the office and pro­claiming
himself a "judge," a woman filing
a complaint that stated nothing more than
that 10 years ago, her attorney had been
"rude" to her, and a 90-year woman want­ing
to sleep on the office couch so she would
be sure to see me when I returned the next
day!
All in all, a job such as this is a real edu­cation
to the less glamorous side of attor­ney-
client relationships. Not only do you
learn who not to do business with when
you get out, but you learn what you must
do to keep your clients happy. The single
most important word along these lines is
... communication. Let your client know
what's going on with his case, when you see
it coming up for trial, and how you are
going to protect his interests. After all,
the most vital asset a lawyer can possess
is his reputation, and reputations are won
or lost by your client's word of mouth
in the community!
12 Louisville Law Examiner, October 12, 1979
BEAR'S CROSSING
By Gerald "Bear" Schray
Definitions Across:
I. Benjamin N. . (Associate
U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1932-38)
3. Not out
7. A person authorized to act for another
8. Forty-nine (Roman)
9. "Dead men ________ tales."
11. interest (Interest in property
arising at a later date)
12. One who bestows a gift
13. Greek letter of the alphabet used to
represent the word plaintiff
14. Current Kentucky Supreme Court Chief
Definitions Down:
1. Per ____ (Latin phrase meaning 'by
heads')
2. What all lawyers must be
4. income (Amount remaining
after proper charges are made against
gross income)
5. Failure to perform a legal duty
6. Conspicuous or striking (as a ___ _
feature)
8. pauperis (Latin phrase
describing permission to sue without
liability for costs)
10. He to whom a lease is made
Justice 12. A pickpocket (slang)
Oct. 19
Oct. 20
Oct. 25
Nov. 9
Nov. 10
Nov. 15
Nov. 30
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Continuing Legal Education, Gilbertsville, Kentucky: Handling Probate Matters
In Circuit Court, 1:00-5:00.
Continuing Legal Education, Gilbertsville, Kentucky: Handling Probate Matters
In Circuit Court, 9:00-12:00.
Last day to drop a class.
Continuing Legal Education, Louisville Gardens, Louisville, Kentucky: Child
Custody, 9:00-5:00.
Deadline for filing an application for the February, 1980 Kentucky Bar Exami­nation.
Continuing Legal Education, Holiday Inn Convention Center, Fern Valley Road,
Louisville, Kentucky: Arbitration In The Coal Industry, 9:00-5:00.
Continuing Legal Education, Commonwealth Convention Center, Louisville,
Kentucky: Real Estate Title Problems, 9:00-5:30.
Louisville Law Examiner
·School of Law
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky 40208
John M. Harlan Louis D. Brandeis
Louisville
Law Examiner
VolumeS
Number2
October 12, 1979
Alumnus is
named to
national labor
post
... page 1
Law students
engage in
softball
heroics
.•• page 6
Barbara Hartung
and Sharon
Conyer, right,
were finalists
in the 1979
Pirtle-Washer
Moot Court
Competition
... page 4
i