Louisville Law Examiner Serving the University of Louisville School of Law Community
Volume 9, Number 2 Louisville, Kentucky, October 1983 Circulation 5400
Former Congresswoman at U of L
 Chisholm Urges Lawyers:
Safeguard Minority Gains 
by Yolanda French 
Much of the social and political pro­gress
made by blacks and women in the
last decade may be lost if attorneys don't
lead the fight to save it, according to
former U.S. Representative Shirley
Chisholm.
Speaking to several hundred people in
Strickler Hall on the U of L campus,
Chisholm strongly encouraged members
of the legal community to become part
of a "watchdog team" that would
safeguard the legislative gains made by
minorities and women.
"We don't need any more legislation
in the United States of America,"
Chisholm said. "What we really need is
attorneys who have the heart, soul,
stamina, guts and audacity to stand up
and be counted because they have the
special skills necessary to help the people
who are fighting for their rights in the
courtrooms of this country."
Chisholm said it's the responsibility of
the legal community to ensure that
"multitudinous bits of legislation at the
local, state, and federal levels" are pro­perly
enforced.
"These laws must be implemented
across the board so that we come to the
fullest kind of realization of the
American dream," she said.
Chisholm was a specialist in early
childhood education and child welfare
when she entered politics in 1964 as a
member of the New York State
Assembly where she served for four
years before her election to the U.S.
House of Representatives. Her election
to the 91st Congress as the Democratic
representative from the Bedford­Stuyvesant
area of Brooklyn made her
the first black woman member of the
House.
In 1972, at the Democratic National
Convention in Miami, Chisholm became
the first black person and the first
woman to have her name put in nomina­tion
for the Presidency by a major
American political party. She received
about ten percent of the votes at the con­vention.
After her presidential bid, Chisholm
returned to her career as a member of
Congress where she served until her
retirement in 1982. She has written two
books, including Unbought and Unboss­ed,
her autobiography.
Chisholm's U of L speech was spon­sored
by several groups including the
Law Forum, the Black American Law
Students Association, and the Women's
Law Caucus. Lecturing on the "Respon­sibilities
of the Legal Community
towards Minorities and Women,''
Chisholm aimed most of her remarks at
the law students and young attorneys in
the audience.
"We are depending on the younger
lawyers to complete the dream we've
had in this country," Chisholm said.
''Take the hands of the disillusioned and
the disenchanted and march in front of
them to help them fight for their
rights. It's not enough to get your law
degree unless you're going to utilize it to
help alleviate the suffering in the human
condition."
Chisholm said the gains of the civil
Photo by Crystal Collins
On her recent visit to U of L, former Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm encouraged
students to help protect gains made by blacks and women in the last decade.
rights movement and the women's
movement were a long time in the mak­ing,
requiring the slow building of coali­tions
in Congress and throughout the
country. Many of those gains are being
eroded, according to Chisholm, and she
said attorneys have a "unique kind of
responsibility" to protect those gains.
"We need some legal 'profiles in
courage' in this country," she said.
"Change comes from those who dare
and one of the groups who should be
daring is the lawyers. The only things
you need are daring and confidence."
One of the key issues for women in the
next few years will be what Chisholm
called a "complete restructing of the
Social Security and pension systems in
America." She said women should get
actively involved in making these
systems more equitable for women
because "it's not high on the agendas of
male legislators."
Chisholm told the women lawyers and
law students in the audience that they
don't have to imitate men to be suc­cessful.
"It's not necessary, my female
lawyers, to go into anybody's courtroom
and act like a man or talk like a man,"
Chisholm said. "If feminists have made
one mistake, it has been to confuse
equality with masculinity. Why should
successful women abandon compas­sion,
scorn reconciliation, crave power,
get ulcers, maybe even start wars? Why
should we emulate the good ole boys?"
''Our goal is not to create a new
generation of female chauvinists, but to
eliminate chauvinism altogether,"
Chisholm said. "I look to the feminiza­tion
of America, where feminine values
of peace and reason will guide our daily
lives."
Eleven Circuit Judgeships Contested . in Election
by Todd Hollenbach
and Mike Schafer
Election Day is November 8 and of
particular interest to the legal
community are the Jefferson Circuit
Court division races to be decided that
day.
The Circuit Court is one of general
jurisdiction, handling all matters not
delegated to other courts; i.e., felonies,
criminal cases, divorces, civil litigation
over $2500, and labor disputes .
Jefferson County comprises one
Judicial Circuit, with 16 members sitting
in as many divisions, facilitating
allocation of cases.
Five incumbent Circuit Judges are
unopposed in their bids for re-election.
They are Joseph H. Eckert, Richard A.
Revell, John W. Potter, Olga Peers, and
the Circuit's Chief Judge Laurence
Higgins.
In an effort to help voters better
understand the candidates in the other
races, the Law Examiner has gathered
information on their education, legal
careers, and other activities:
SECOND DIVISION
ROBERT E. DELAHANTY,
Robert E. Delahanty, age 60, received
his JD from George Washington
University. Judge Delahanty served as
Louisville Police Court Judge from 1970
to 1978, when he was elected to his
present position as District Judge. He
was first Chief Judge of District Court.
Judge Delahanty has served on the
Kentucky Judicial Council, and was a
member of the Special Task Force to
Study the Commonwealth's Legal
S.ystem. He has also been a Director of
the Legal Aid Society, and was First
Vice-President of the Ohio River Valley
Safety Council. He is presently on the
Board of Directors of the University of
Louisville Alumni Association, and
Area Chairman for the American
Cancer Society.
EDMUND "PETE" KAREM
Edmund "Pete" Karem, 42, received
his JD from U of L Law School in 1968,
and practices civil trial law. Mr. Karem
has served as Special Prosecutor of the
Kentucky Department of Public Safety,
has been on the Board of Directors of
Kentucky Youth Advocates, Kentucky
Association of Trial Attorneys, and is
presently on the Board of Overseers of
Spalding College.
Mr. Karem has held several positions
in the Louisville Bar Association,
serving as President in 1980. He has also
served as Chairman of the Kentucky
Commission on Human Rights.
THIRD DIVISION
CHARLES H. ANDERSON
(Incumbent)
Charles H. Anderson has been Circuit
Judge for the Third Division since 1975.
Judge Anderson graduated from
University of Missouri Law School,
after a stint in the U.S. Marine Corps.
· Anderson, 58, was a worker's
compensation referee from 1960 to
1968. He then served as staff attorney
for Legal Aid until 1970, at which time
he was elected judge of the third
magisterial district for two terms.
Anderson served as a Director of the
Family and Children's Agency, and was
on the Organizational Committee for
the Emergency Medical Service in 1974.
He currently is a Director of Action
Now, and is a Trustee for the Lincoln
Institute in Simpsonville. In 1980 he was
honored by the National Bar
Association as a Distinguished State
Trial Judge.
MARTIN E. JOHNSTONE
Currently a Jefferson District Court
Judge, Johnstone graduated from U of
(Continued on page 7)
Page2 Louisville Law Examiner, October, 1983
Louisville Law Examiner
EDITORIAL BOARD
Judy Hoge
Editor -in-Chief
Neil Ward
Associate Editor
Crystal Collins
Associate Editor
Photography Editor
Julie A. Brown
Tim Cocanougher
John Schaaf
Managing Editor
Jon Hardy
Brandeis Brief Editor
Winnie McConnell
Night Associate Editor
STAFF
Yolanda French
Todd Hollenbach
Mike Schafer
David Taylor
Joel D. Zakem
Professor LAWRENCE W. KNOWLES, Coasulfant
The l..o•isville Law Examiner is published six times during the academic
year in the interest of the University of Louisville School of Law community.
Articles are invited from faculty members, students, and members of the bar
who wish to do freelance work. Any proposed article should be cleared with
the Editor as to topic and length.
Address all communications to The Louisville Law Examiner, School of
Law, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40208. ·
Phone: 502-588-6398.
"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.
Letter to the Editor
Editorial
We Need the New Charter
to Streamline Government
The system of dual governments
presently serving Louisville and
Jefferson County is sadly outdated and
should be reorganized to better serve this
community.
For several years, neighboring cities
such as Nashville, Lexington, and
Indianapolis have been reaping the
benefits of governments which have
been streamlined by reorganization.
Meanwhile, Louisville and Jefferson
County have plodded on like two
lumbering giants, stopping occasionally
to butt heads and knock each other
down.
It's time to get up and put an end to
the fragmentation which seems to divide
this community on every issue from
police protection to economic
development.
The governments of Louisville and
Jefferson County are roughly the same
size and serve hundreds of thousands of ·
the same constituents. The result is
duplication, wasted effort, and obvious
inefficiency. ·
When major corporations come to the
community, they're met by two
governments competing for tax dollars.
There are two chief elected officials to
get to know, two legislative bodies and
economic development offices with
which to work, and two sets of
regulations to deal with.
One government representing the
entire community appeals to business
and industry and would ultimately
benefit all of us as the evidence from
neighboring cities proves. In terms of
growth in total employment in the
1970's, Louisville grew by 16 percent in
the decade, while Indianapolis showed a
30 percent increase in jobs, Nashville a
40 percent increase, and Lexington's
employment opportunities grew by a
whopping 85 percent. While there are
other factors involved, it's obvious these
cities are working with more effective
tools than Louisville and Jefferson
County.
The opponents of the proposed new
charter have succeeded, to some extent,
in · fogging this year's debate with
erroneous information which they have
dispensed, in many cases, to insure their
own self-interests·. For example,
politicians in parts of the community
oppose the charter because they see it as
a direct challenge to their political power
bases. The new 27-member countywide
commission will give rise to a new group
of community representatives who will
be in close contact with citizens and will
be challenging the entrenched authority
of the politicans who have reigned for so
long.
The end of the fragmentation in this
community must start at the top - we
must eliminate the institutional
competition between city and county
governments. It's time to put aside the
selfish interests, acknowledge our shared
objectives, and begin working together .
Law School Committee
Revises Regulations
Concerning Probation
By Judy Ho~e
Heleringer Blasts Blackrnun, U. of L. A Law School committee,
composed of Professor Jacqueline
Kanovitz, Chairman of the
Reinstatement and Probation
Committee, Professor Carl Warns,
and students Marc Murphy and
Mike Levy, has approved a revision
of the academic regulations
pertaining to probation and
dismissal.
TO THE EDITOR:
I was shocked and dismayed (but not
really surprised) by the puff piece the
Examiner published concerning the
recent visit to the law school by Supreme
Court Justice Harry Blackmon.
With Professor Steve Smith lavishing
obsequious praise, the law school saw fit
to honor the man who wrote the most
pernicious Supreme Court opinion since
the Dred Scott case. Roe v. Wade, the
1973 decision that legalized abortion-on­demand
in this country, has resulted in
the wholly unnecessary destruction of
10,000,000 of our defenseless, pre-born
brothers and sisters . This conscience­shocking
decision allows an abortion up
until the moment of birth, depending on
the whim of the "mother" and her
physician. In some of our country's
finest hospitals, highly-skilled neonatal
teams work around the clock to save a
prematurely-born infant, while down
the hall some heartless abortionist is
dismembering and killing a 5,6, or
7-month-old pre-born infant. Is this
nightmare really the intended result
envisioned by Blackmon and his six
concurring brothers ten years ago when
they wrote that only (an undefined)
"meaningful life" had the right to due
process of law? I guess so. Blackmun
says, stubbornly, he'd do it again
"exactly the same way."
The law school should be condemning
the author of such a callous decision
instead of commending him. And what
an insulting affront to the memory of
Justice Brandeis, in whose name the
award was bestowed on this
reprehensible individual, who
throughout his long, remarkable life,
fought to protect the rights of all
citizens, especially those, like the unborn
that had no advocates in their behalf.
I suppose that , some 130 years ago,
Professor Smith would have presided
over a similar ceremony honoring Chief
Justice Roger Taney for his authorship
of the Dred Scott decision, in which the
principle that black people were nothing
more than chattel was affirmed. Justice
Taney, like Blackmun, was also
protecting "individual rights" of
privacy in his day: that between a master
and his property. To be entirely
consistent, I think next year's Brandeis
award should go to the members of the
Indiana Supreme Court who, a year ago,
affirmed the right of "parents,"
"physicians," and "hospitals" in
Bloomington to legally starve to death a
handicapped newborn infant.
When the concentration camps were
finally liberated in 1945, the citizens
from surrounding communities were
forced by Allied soldiers to view the
brutal leftovers of the Nazi holocaust.
"We didn't know," they said. The
damning indictment of Professor Smith
and law schools that give awards to the
leading proponents of the uncivilized
slaughter of our innocent pre-born is
that they do know precisely what is
occurring and, like the good German
burghers, will do absolutely nothing to
help stop the flow of so much innocent
blood.
For the first time, I am profoundly
ashamed of the otherwise outstanding
law school from which I graduated .
Robert L. Heleringer
Class of 1976
Editor's Note: The Law Examiner
considered it an honor that Justice
Blackmun visited the U of L Law
School. We would accord similar
coverage to a visit by any United States
Supreme Court Justice.
"This revision doesn't go into
effect until 1984-85; it isn't
retroactive,'' said Profes sor
Kanovitz . "The mtntmum
cumulative grade point average
necessary to stay in school has been
raised from 1.4 to 1.6. Any student
whose grade point average is below
2.0 will be on probation, as
always ."
Under the new standard, if a
student on probation is able to earn
2.0 or above the following semester,
he will then have an additional
semester to remove the balance of
his grade point deficiency. Should
all such deficiencies still not be
made up at the end of the second
semester, the student will have a
third semester, if, in the
Committee's opinion, there is a
strong prospect that he will be able
to remove all quality point
deficiencies by the end of that
period.
Louisville Law Examiner, October, 1983
NIGHT and DAY
Full-tinte Jobs Mean No Free Tinte
By Winnie McConnell according to Handy. "I find it
hampering sometimes because I run out
They say variety is the spice of life and of hours in a day and I just don't
such is the case in the night division of physically have the time with a full-time
the U of L Law School where students job," she said.
with a wide range of occupations come However, Handy believes working
together four nights a week to learn the and going to school helps her grasp the
law. "whole big apple" of law.
Most of the evening law students are "By working in a banking institution,
employed in a variety of full-time jobs -it gives me a frame of reference to study
such as nursing, accounting, teaching, cases," she said. "In other words, I am /
government and business better able to apply the legal concepts I ·
administration, public relations, learn to the real world." , 1
banking, insurance and sales. While Because of her present position, \ 1
there are many students who have Handy is interested primarily in the ; .
specialized in unusual jobs, there are areas of law related to bank trust
three law students who have made functions such as deferred compensation
noteworthy strides in exceptional law and decedents' estates. Tom Mapp
occupations and still find the energy to For Tom Mapp, a second-year
pursue legal careers. evening student, the day usually begins
Sharon Handy, a 27-year-old fourth- about 7 a.m. at the Louisville Times,
year night student, can be found writing a news story which must be
weekdays in the Employee Benefits finished by 8:30a.m.
Division of the Liberty National Bank A reporter covering urban affairs,
Trust Department. As a trust officer, Mapp reports on taxes, roads and how
Handy is responsible for the account government affects people in the
administration of certain corporate community.
retirement and profit sharing plans for He has worked for the newspaper
which the bank serves as trustee, since August, 1981. Before that, Mapp
custodian, agent or investment manager. was a reporter in Des Moines, Iowa
Handy has worked at Liberty where he grew up. The 27-year-old
National Bank since 1978 in various Mapp received his M.A. degree in
including assistant vice journalism from the University of Iowa.
Sharon Handy
president and manager of executive
banking services. She graduated that
same year from Hanover College in
Indiana with a B.A. in theology.
Handy decided to obtain a law degree
because she thought it would give her
more credibility at her present position
and provide her with opportunities for
advancement and promotion.
"Once I began law school I really
enjoyed the academic growth it offers,"
she said.
Being an evening law student has its
advantages and disadvantages,
Mapp has always been intrigued by
the legal profession and decided to give
it a try.
"My friends have persistently told me
that I should check it out, but I never
gave it much thought until a year ago,"
he said. "Now I wish I had gone to law
school instead of getting my master's
degree. I find it amazing that there are
so many areas of law which you don't
think about when you begin studying."
Though he admits it's not easy, Mapp
has adjusted to the change of pace which
comes with working and going to
school. Sometimes he has to return to
work after his last night class to be sure
his news story makes the newspaper's
deadline.
"I try to leave my work behind when I
come to school and I don't think about
law school when I'm at work," said
Mapp, explaining how he handles his
busy routine.
Mapp is undecided about his future
career in law. "It really depends on my
newspaper career and the opportunities
available in law when I graduate," he
said.
As a first-year student, Brian
Brezosky is learning to cope with the
initial frustrations of being a freshman.
"The biggest surprise to me was the
amount of time I need to study and
prepare for classes," said the 27 -year­old
Brezosky. "A change in my life was
necessary in order to stay up with the
readings."
And finding time to study hasn't come
easy for Brezosky, who is a city police
officer with the street crimes unit. His
job involves the surveillance aimed at
catching people in the act of committing
robbery, theft and assault. Many times
he is sent in as a decoy to apprehend
suspected criminals. This demands that
Brezosky work at various hours in high­crime
areas of the city.
"Sometimes I'll work ten days
straight before I get one day off," he
said. "This makes it difficult for me to
prepare for classes. If I feel I'm not
ready, I'll be forced to take a vacation
day."
But Brezosky feels fortunate to be
able to attend law school because of his
haphazard work schedule. His police
supervisor has agreed to let him work
around his assigned schedule in order
for Brezosky to go to evening classes.
"For example, if I'm assigned to work
6 p.m. to 2 a.m., I'll go into work after
my last class and work from 9 p.m. to 5
a.m.," he said.
A native of Louisville, Brezosky
received his B.S. degree from the
University of Louisville in police
administration. His interest in law
developed from his present job.
"Through my appearances in court, I
became interested in law and thought I
would enjoy it," he said.
Brezosky is uncertain about the
area of law he wants to pursue. "I
believe I will have the option of working
in a greater capacity with the police
department or going on into other
opportunities," he said.
European Jobs Open to Recent Graduates
More than 100 positions will be open
to recent law graduates in the 1984
European Law Internship Program
conducted by McGeorge School of Law
(Univeristy of the Pacific).
The post-graduate program, which
offers internships in private firms,
companies and public agencies
throughout Europe, leads to either the
Diploma in Advanced International
Legal Studies (one semester) or the
LLM-Transnational Practice (two
semesters).
Participants in the 1984 program will
benefit from a special arrangement
made by McGeorge School of Law with
the International Bar Association (IBA).
More than 3,000 members of the IBA
will convene in Vienna in September,
1984, and participants in the McGeorge
program will take part in the conference
with delegate fees, transport from the
McGeorge campus in Salzburg to
Vienna, and lodging in Vienna provided
by the school.
The law school also will offer summer
programs in 1984 in Edinburgh,
Scotland, Salzburg, Austria, and
Budapest, Hungary. The various 1984
progr~ms mark the beginning of the
school1's second decade in Europe.
Information on the various
international programs may be
requested from McGeorge School of
Law, 3200 5th Avenue, Sacramento,
California 95817.
Page3
Class Action
Send any news of Law School alumni to
the Law Examiner.
1975
---stuart Pearlman has moved his
practice from Bardstown Road to 643
West Main Street in Louisville. He
maintains a general trial practice.
1978
Stuart Alexander is associated with
the Louisville firm of Tilford, Dobbins,
Alexander, and Buckaway where he
handles workers compensation, black
lung, personal InJury, domestic
relations, and business-related litigation.
Dennis J. Conniff is a staff attorney
with the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet in
Frankfort. He is principally responsible
for oil shale litigation involving the
Cabinet and he also works on coal­related
problems and Cabinet
administrative issues such as
unemployment insurance, personnel
matters, and tort actions.
Tom Hectus is now a partner with
Gittleman and Barber in Louisville
where he does criminal trial work,
personal injury defense work for the
Transit Authority of River City, federal
post-conviction remedies, criminal and
civil appeals, child custody and domestic
relations appeals.
Ken Nevitt is now doing general
practice, including workers
compensation, with Williams and
Palmore in Louisville.
1979
Kate Daugherty is a staff attorney
with the natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet in
Frankfort. She handles surface mining
enforcement and general legal matters
for the Cabinet, including contract
review, personnel actions, and advising
department administrators on legality of
proposed actions.
Rob Littlefield is now with the Legal
Aid Society in Louisville where he is the
Managing Attorney of the Rural
Division, a staff of six attorneys who,
provide services for 14 counties
surrounding Jefferson County. He
handles landlord-tenant cases, consumer
litigation, questions involving
entitlement to government benefits, and
battered spouse actions.
1980
D. Todd Littlefield is with Western
Kentucky Legal Services in Owensboro,
which serves a seven county area. He
works on cases involving Social Security
disability payments, Unemployment
Insurance, housing problems, and
domestic relations.
1981
Nancy Osborne recently began
working with the Legislative Research
Commission in Frankfort where she is
on the staff of the Agriculture and
Natural Resources Committee and the
Cities Committee.
Randy Dooley is a corporate attorney
with Humana, dealing with general
hospital law, contracts, acquisitions,
and medical staff matters.
Jim Nitsche is practicing tax law at
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs. After
graduating from U of L, he got his
Masters in Tax at the University of
Miami.
John L. Tate is with the firm of Stites
& Harbison. He does personal injury
work and defends medical malpractice
suits.
Page4 Louisville Law Examiner, October, 1983 Brandeis Brief ••• Emplo
David Leightty is a graduate of the
University of Kentucky and the
University of Louisville School of Law.
!fe currently ser_ves the City of
Louisville Department of Law as
Assistant Director of Law for Labor and
Employment while continuing to
represent individual employees in
private practice with Tilford, Dobbins,
Alexander & Buckaway. Mr. Leightty
was previously an associate of Segal,
Isenberg, Sales and Stewart from 1977
to 1982, primarily representing unions in
the building trades.
Recent annotations, law journal
articles, and seminars have recognized
an emerging national trend in actions
based on. wrongful discharge from
employment. The LAW EXAMINER
solicited an analysis of how that trend
may affect decisions in Kentucky.
T.ditionally in Kentucky and in
other states, an individual employed
without a contract or statute to protect
him was considered "terminable at will"
in the eyes of the law. Such employees
came to be known as "at will"
employees. In Louisville & Nashville
Railroad v. Marshall, 586 S.W. 2d 274
(Ky. App. 1974), a recent statement of
that rule appears thus: "The common
law rule has always been that a contract
of employment is terminable by either
party at will, in the absence of some
statutory or contractual standard that
modifies this rule." 586 S. W .2d at 281.
Under that rule, it is often said that an
employer normally may fire his
employee for a bad reason or no reason
at all. An approximation of that
statement in Kentucky appears in
Gambrel v. United Mine Workers, 244
S.W.2d 158 (Ky. 1952). It is supported
by a long line of cases. See Western
Union ielegraph Co. v. Ramsey, 216
Ky. 657, 88 S.W.2d 675 (1936); Dysart
v. Dawkins Log & Mill Co., 222 Ky.
415, 200 S.W. 706 (1927); Louisville &
Nashville Railroad v. Offutt, 99 Ky.
427, 36 S.W. 181 (1892). Recently, new
trends in contract and tort theories in
Kentucky and other jurisdictions
throughout the nation have been eroding
the traditional view, already curtailed by
civil rights statutes expressly limiting the
grounds upon which employment
decisions may be made. See, e.g., Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 29
U.S.C. 2000e - 2000e-17 (1976);
Kentucky Civil Rights Act, Ky. Rev.
Stat. Ann. Chapter 344 (Baldwin 1979).
Individual employees generally have
little or no bargaining power with their
employers. Rarely, there will be an
individual who possesses so prized a
skill, or some other quality, that he can
bargain on equal terms with prospective
or present employers. But such
individuals are highly unusual and most
who are in such great demand do not
long remain employees; more often than
not, they form their own businesses. The
vast majority of the entertainers and
actors who are in a fierce competition
for any available jobs; the stars who can
choose their parts and hold out for large
earnings constitute but a small portion
of the entertainment market. And in
other professions such as law,
individuals who attain a status enabling
them to do so, generally either become
partners in the firms where they are
the first year an arrangement was to be
made by which the plaintiff was to
become the owner of an interest in the
business. After two years the plaintiff
would be upon an 'easy road to make
some real money.' The above
expressions are contained in the writing.
From these it may be fairly inferred that
the parties intended that the duration of
the time for the execution of the contract
should continue for at least one year, if
not for two." 221 S.W. at 244. The
Court's concern with the finding a
definite duration of the contract
stemmed from the rule then recognized
that employment contracts of indefinite
term would be found terminable at will.
In Putnam v. Producer's Livestock
Marketing Ass'n., 256 Ky. 196, 75
S.W.2d 1075 (1934), the Court found
that a letter from the employer to the
employee, confirming a telephone
conversation to the · effect that the
employee would be hired at a specified
yearly salary and be given moving
expenses from Cincinnati to Louisville,
constituted a writing which might be an
..
... Individual employees generally have little or
no bargaining power with their employers ...
employed , or leave their employment
and set up offices of their own.
The unequal bargaining position
between individual employees and
employers was a large factor in the
development of unions. Employees who
alone could be freely replaced by
employers, found that organizing in
large groups gave them substantially
increased bargaining power.
A large portion of the national
workforce is not unionized, and it is
with the individual members of that
group, and their employers, that we are
concerned here.
The recent gains of employees (and
the losses of employers) in the field of
job rights have come largely in two areas
of the law: expanded recognition of
individual employment contracts; and
growth of the tort of retaliatory
discharge contrary to public policy.
The validity of individual contracts of
employment has long been recognized.
Controversy has usually centered on
whether a given document constituted a
contract of employment at all. In Morris
Shoe. Co. v. Coleman, 187 Ky. 837, 221
S.W. 242 (1920), the Court affirmed the
decision of the trial court that an
employer's letter to a prospective
employee proposing that he move from
another state to Kentucky for a specified
annual salary and the assurance that
after two years, the plaintiff would be
making "some real money" constituted
a contract of employment for at least
one year. The contract contained no
specific reference to a duration. The
Court. however, sought to determine the
intentions of the parties, and found in
those intentions that there be a one year
duration. The Court stated: "The day
upon which the execution of the contract
came into being was definitely fix(!d. The
wage to be paid was One Thousand
Eight Hundred Dollars. At the end of
employment contract. Although the
letter did not expressly state a sped fie
duration of employment, the employee
contended that the letter showed an
intention to employ him for a definite
period of one year. The trial court had
rejected that contention and dismissed
the action. The appellate court reversed
the dismissal, holding that, "a yearly
engagement may be legitimately inferred
from this letter and the circumstance
disclosed sufficient to sustain the cause
of action." 75 S.W.2d at 1078. In effect,
the Court held the letter was sufficient to
take the case to a jury.
Any alleged contract of employment
for a period of a year must comply with
the statute of frauds. The Court in Put­nam
found that the letter, even though it
did not expressly state the contract
would endure for one year, was suffi­cient
to overcome the statute of frauds
challenge.
Reported decisions in Kentucky
continue to find that a writing contained
in a letter discussing various terms and
conditions of employment may be
sufficient to sustain a jury finding that a
contract of employment for a definite
period existed. See Humana, Inc., v.
Fairchild, 603 S.W.2d 918 (Ky. Appr.
1980).
A recent decision of the Kentucky
Supreme Court indicates an increased
willingness to find limits on employer
rights to terminate in contract language
which might in earlier years not have
been so interpreted. In Higdon Food
Service, Inc., v. Walker, 641 S. W .2d 750
(Ky. 1982), the Court fou_nd enforceable
the covenant of an employee not to
work for competitors of the employer.
Part of the consideration for the
employee's covenant, the Court
found, was an obligation on the part of
t.h·e employer to retain .· the employee
unless the employer in good faith found
the employee's services unsatisfactory.
The covenant provided that
employment would continue during
service "satisfactory to the employer"
and would terminate upon any. one of
several contingencies including the
following: "Whenever the employer in
good faith determines that the services
of employee are no longer satisfactory to
the employer or are no longer needed by
employer." 641 S.W.2d at 752. Finding
that language imposed a duty on the
employer to retain the employee unless
the employer in good faith found the
employee unsatisfactory, the Court
stated: "If the employer has an arbitrary
right to discharge the employee - that is,
in good faith or bad - what earthly
function would it serve to add that if in
good faith he determines that the
employee's work is not satisfactory he
will fire him? We think, rather, that the
sensible solution is to construe
paragraphs 2.03 and 6.01 together as
meaning that the employer's rights to
discharge the employee on the ground
that his services are not satisfactory, or
are no longer neeeded , is subject to the
requirement of good faith." 641 S.W.2d
at 752.
One of the many problems faced by
an employee who would assert a contract
protecting his employment is that courts
in Kentucky have traditionally required
any such contract to be for a definite
period. Contracts for permanent
employment or for an indefinite period
of employment were treated as
terminable at will by either party. See,
e.g., Edwards v. Kentucky Utilities Co.,
286 Ky. 341, 150 S.W.2d 916 (1941).
Under that rule, an employee who
claimed a contract in a personnel
manual with a provision forbidding
termination except for cause had an
enormous problem - the personnel
manual would contain no definite period
for employment.
In a stunning to-be-published decision
on August 3), 1983, the Kentucky
Supreme Court drastically altered that
rule. In Shah v. American Synthetic
Rubber Corporation, No. 82-SC-568-
DG, slip. op. (Ky. Aug. 31, 1983}, the
Court reversed summary judgment
against an employee alleging, among
other things, that he had been
terminated in violation of a contract of
employment. The alleged contract
entailed a promise from the employer
that the employee would become "a
permanent employee dischargeable only
for cause in accordance with persQnnel
policies and procedures" established by
the employer, after the employee had
served a 90-day probation.
The Court held that a contract of
indefinite term providing that
employment is terminable only for cause
would be enforceable, and that it was
sufficient consideration for enforcement
thereof that the employee performed his
employment services or promised to do
so. In so holding, the Court
acknowledged that the employee's claim
of permanent employment would
previously have been "fatally defective
under the 'employment at will' doctrine
to which the courts and law writers have
devoted much time." Shah, slip
opinion, p.4. But the court noted that
the parties had clearly contracted for ·
permanent employment terminable only
Louisville Law Examiner, October, 1983
~ment at Will Doctrine Examined
Appeals has clearly recognized the tort
of retaliatory discharge in a fact
situation where the tort has been
recognized nearly everywhere it has
occurred. In a decision designated to be
published, but which has not been
published because it is under review by
the Supreme Court of Kentucky as of
this writing, the Kentucky Court of
Appeals affirmed a cause of action on
the part of an employee fired because he
filed a valid Workers' Compensation
claim. In Firestone Textiles Company v.
Meadows, Ky. App., _S.W.2d_
in many other fact circumstances.
Clearly, many of these arguments will be
rejected by the courts. Others may
receive favorable consideration.
The Court of Appeals in Meadows did
not touch on discharge in contravention
of non-statutory public policy. Thus, at
this writing, there is no reported
Kentucky decision granting a cause of
action to an employee fired in
retaliation for testifying against the
employer in a court of law.
While there is movement in Kentucky
courts in the area of recognition of
for cause. Citing the protection granted
employees under collective bargaining
agreements and civil service statutes, the
Court found that employers should be
free to enter individual contracts
granting similar protection: "We join a
number of other jurisdictions which
hold that parties may enter into a
contract of employment terminable only
pursuant to its express terms - as 'for
cause' - by clearly stating their intention
to do so, even though no other
considerations than service to be
performed or promised, is expected by
the employer or performed or promised
by the employee." Shah, slip opinion,
pp. 5, 6.
The decision in Shah will make it
considerably easier for an employee
alleging breach of a contract of
employment to get his claim to a jury.
Until Shah, such claims were subject to
dismissal if they were not. based on a
contract for a definite term. Now,
contracts of considerable vagueness may
be enforceable.
... Creative counsel will no doubt attempt to
apply the Meadows decision in many other
fact circumstances ...
In addition to expansion of the scope
of enforceable contracts, courts have
recognized increasing employee rights in
the realm of torts; particularly, the tort
of "retaliatory discharge," or discharge
in violation of public policy. In other
j urisdictions, such claims have received
steadily increasing attention. Thus, an
employer who discharges an employee to
punish the employee for testifying
against the employer, or to prevent him
from doing so, may incur liability.
Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 652
P .2d 625 (Hawaii 1982). Termination for
refusal to commit an unlawful act has
been held to constitute a cause of action.
Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Oil Co., 27
Cal. 3d 167, 610 P.2d 1330, 160 Cal.
Rptr. 839 ( 1980).
... In Kentucky, the
retaliatory discharge tort
has not received the
attention it has in other
jurisdictions ...
(81-CA-2460-MR, 1982), the court, af­firming
a $25,000 jury verdict in favor
of an employee allegedly terminated for
filing a Workers' Compensation claim,
found that the Workers' Compensation
.... Act protect emplovess from retaliatory
discharge even though it contains no
express language to that effect. The
court stated: "[W je are lead to the
conclusion that by necessary implication
the Workers' Compensation Act
manifests a public policy that an
employee has a right to be free to assert
a lawful claim for benefits without
suffering retaliation by his employer in
the form of discharge. If it were
otherwise, the beneficient purposes of
the Act could often be effectively
frustrated by merely threatening
employees with discharge. A statute
need not expressly state what is
necessarily implied." Shah, slip opinion,
p.5.
It is interesting that the court
eschewed a pure tort theory, and instead
applied contract theory. It found that
the provtstons of the Workers'
Compensation Act were incorporated
into an employment at will contract, and
that the employment at will contract had
been breached by the employer's
retaliatory discharge.
The Kentucky Supreme Court has
granted discretionary review of the
decision of the Court of Appeals, and
The courts continue to recognize has received briefs and heard arguments.
limits to the retaliatory discharge cause Although the decision from that court
of action. In Pierce v. Ortho has not been rendered as of this writing,
Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58, 417 it can be expected shortly.
A.2d 505 (1980), the court found that a If the decision in Meadows is upheld
physician terminated for refusal to by the Supreme Court, and it is the
conduct experiments with a new drug opinion of this writer that it will be, the
simply because the drug was effect of the decision will extend beyond
controversial, was not terminated in fact situations involving Workers'
contravention of any public policy. The Compensation claims. For instance, it
court rendered this decision in full may be argued that discharge of an
acknowledgement of a cause of action employee for lodging a peaceful and
for termination contrary to public reasonable grievance with his employer
policy, it simply held there was no public is in contravention of Ky. Rev. Stat.
policy violated. Ann. §336.130 (Baldwin 1979), which
In Kentucky, the retaliatory discharge protects the right of employees to engage
tort has not received the attention it has in peaceful collective action.
in other jurisdictions. In Scrogham v. It is even arguable that an employee
Kraftco Corp., 551 S. W .2d 811 (Ky. who files an action in court against his
1977), the court expressly held that there employer on a non-frivolous basis
is no cause of action where an employer should be protected from retaliatory
terminates an employee because the discharge because the employee is
employee has plans to go to night merely exercising his right to a day in
school. . ·- court. Creative counsel will no doubt
But recently, the Kentucky Court of attempt to apply the Meadows decision
contracts of employment and imposing a
liability for retaliatory discharge, there
are directions recognized by courts in
other ju risdictions that have little
likelihood of recognition in Kentucky.
For instance, a federal district court in
Michigan has recognized the tort of
"negligent discharge" of an employee,
even though the employee was not fired
for a reason against public policy and
the decision was not based on contract.
In Chambe!!l!lll__ v. _ Bi~s~, l_n_c.,
31 E.P.D. (CCH) 33.,367 (W.O. Mich.
July 15, 1982), the court found that the
employer had a duty of care in providing
its employee with an incentive to reform
conduct which the employer knew would
result in termination if continued. The
court expressly found that the employee
was discharged for just cause, however'
the employer had failed to warn the
plaintiff in a job evaluation session that
his conduct could lead to discharge. The
court found that the employer had
thereby committed the tort of
negligence. Because Michigan is a
comparative negligence state, the court
considered not only the alleged
negligence of the employer in failing to
warn the employee, but also the
negligence of the employee in engaging
in the reprehensible conduct in the first
place. Because the employee had
engaged in comparative negligence, the
court reduced the award by 83 percent.
Nonetheless, the judgment for the
employee was $61,354.
The decision in Chamberlain is
extravagant and has no current analogue
in Kentucky law. It is unlikely that
appellate courts in Kentucky will adopt
anything remotely resembling the rule
there.
A few courts have recognized a tort
where an employer has discharged an
employee in an overly abusive manner.
These decisions have perhaps a greater
chance than the Chamberlain decision of
being followed in Kentucky; however,
there remains considerable doubt about
their aplicability in this state. In Agis v.
Howard Johnson Co., 331 Me. 140, 355
N.E.2d 315 (1976), the court found an
employer liable for inflicting extreme
mental suffering upon a waitress, where
the employer fired its waitresses one by
one in alphabetical order in an attempt
to coerce one or more into confessing to
theft or informing on other employees
who had been stealing. The plaintiff was
PageS
the first waitress fired. And in Contreras
v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 86 Wash. 2d
735,565 P.2d 1173 (Wash. 1977), the
employer was held liable for the mental
suffering of an employee who had been
subjected to extreme emotional trauma
by the malicious and abusive insults and
racial slurs of fellow employees, where
the employer had failed to take action to
prevent the abuse.
Under the right fact circumstances,
Kentucky courts might recognize similar
torts; however, such causes would
appear to be variations on traditional
tort theories rather than employment
law cases.
The foregoing cases have all
concerned private employment. There is
already a vast body of law concerning
termination from public employment.
Most of the cases involving public
employment have been brought under
federal constitutional or various federal
statutes. What effect wiJI increased
recognition by the courts of pri,·ate
employment rights have on litigation
concerning public employment?
Public employment litigation is likely
to be affected more by tort decisions
than by contract decisions.
Municipalities in Kentucky wiJI probably
have the same tort duties imposed upon
them that are imposed upon priYate
employers. While Kentucky law will not
impose tort liability upon a municipality
unless the municipality has dealt \\ith
the claimant in an individual capacity.
Louisville Seed Company v. City of
Louisville, 433 S.W.2d 638 (Ky. 1968)
and subsequent cases, it seems likely that
an employee or former employee of a
municipality can successfully argue that
he has been dealt with on an individual
basis by virtue of his employment and
his termination.
But it may be more difficult for public
employees to maintain claims of
employment contracts. Courts in
Kentucky have expressed reluctance to
impose contract obligations upon publi.:
entities where the contracts are other
than definite and unambiguous. See.
e.g. Boyd Fiscal Court v. Ashland
Public Library Board of Trustees, 63~
S.W.2d 417 (Ky. 1982).; Quick v. Cit)·
of Louisville, 613 S.W.2d 428 (Ky. App.
1980).
Furthermore, many municipalities
have enacted ordinances governing the
terms and conditions of employment for
their employees. Such ordinances
sometimes contain grievance procedures
or other personnel policies. These
ordinances will normally be enforceable
on their own terms. I believe that courts
will be reluctant to impose tort liabilities
which may conflict with these
ordinances. Civil Service employees, for
instance, are employed pursuant to
detailed statutes and regulations. Their
employment rights and obligations have
been legislatively determined. It is
unlikely that courts will interfere with
such legislation. ·
The practical effects of the increased
judicial recognition of employee rights
may not be universally beneficiai for
employees. Certainly, these trends have
the potential of imposing undue
hardship upon employers. Traditionally,
employment rights such .as the
requirement -...f just t ..:.:.;e for
(Continued on page 6)
Page6
Brandeis Brief
(Continued from page 5)
termination, have been granted only as
the result of bargaining, usually
collective bargaining, or as the result of
legislation. And both bargaining and
legislation provide the opportunity for
open give and take and compromise on
the parts of the two interested sides:
employers and employees. When a
personnel manual unilaterally
promulgated by an employer in an effort
to achieve good personnel relations and
maximum productivity is found to
constitute a contract binding the
employer to the terms of its own
manual, an obligation has been imposed
which was not the result of either
bargaining or legislation.
Employers, already fearful of liability
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
and similar legislation, and scrambling
to adopt personnel policies which would
avoid such liability, may argue that
employees are being given something for
nothing when their contract rights or
tort protections are expanded by the
courts.
Those who, by inclination or
ideology, applaud expansion of
employee rights and favor increased
employee protections as a matter of
social policy, may view the employer's
dilemma as something well deserved.
Regardless of the merits of the two
sides of this debate, it is predictable that
certain practical adjustments will be
made by employers, particularly large
employers, in response to these legal
trends. The first efforts by employers
will be to curtail the possibility that they
will be found to have entered contracts
with their employees. Employers will
revise or even abolish personnel manuals
which might impose obligations on
them. They will be reluctant to engage in
correspondence concerning prospective
employment. The words "just cause"
and "good faith" are likely to be .
eliminated from employee handbooks,
and replaced by terms such as ''in the .
sole discretion of the employer.''
Some employers may even require
employees to enter contracts which
expressly acknowledge the terminable­at-
will status of the employee.
Employers may engage in exhaustive
screening of applicants for employment
under the fear that, once hired, the
applicants will be difficult to terminate.
Because small employers are less likely
to have access to the extensive legal
advice available to large employers, who
may have house counsel or even house
counsel specializing in employment law,
small employers stand a better chance of
having liability imposed against them
than larger employers. The larger
employers will take organized and
carefully planned action to .limit their
liability. Smaller employers will have
less opportunity to take such action.
And employees, on an individual basis
will continue to have little bargaining
power against their employers and
prospective employers; they will usually
be helpless when employers abolish
personnel manuals, weaken unilaterally
imposed grievance procedures, and
demarid that employees or applicants
sign acknowledgments of terminable at
will status. -
Nonetheless, a large number of
employees may enjoy increased job
security as the result of the judicial
trends discussed herein-above.
Louisville Law Examiner, October, 1983
Make Your Own Outlines
How to Succeed in Law School:
Top Students Reveal Exatn Strategies
By Neil Ward
Learning how to prepare for a law
school exam is a long, agomzmg
process. For the first time in the
academic life of most students, your
success or failure depends on how well
you do on a single exam that
encompasses voluminous material from
a semester of work.
Every law student dreads final exams,
but the successful ones learn how to
manage the problem in order to attain a
high class ranking.
First-year students are filled with
doubts about how they are ever going to
learn everything that Farnsworth knows
about contracts. They stay in a state of
panic about whether to use hornbooks,
commercial study aids, old outlines or
casenotes. Second and third-year
students wonder about their study
systems. Could they get better grades by
using a different study aid or changing
their outline format?
To help law students analyze their
study habits, the Law Examiner
interviewed several high-ranking law
students to find out their "secrets of
success".
Bob Winter, a third-year student and
Brandeis Society member, advised
students to make their own outlines.
Winter pointed out that he is older than
a lot of law students, since he served in
the Navy before attending law school.
He cautioned that his study schedule
may not conform with the social lifestyle
of many of the younger, unmarried law
students. Winter outlines every
weekend. When he sits down to make his
study gems, he uses a hornbook, a
textbook and his class notes.
"I use chapter headings and
subheadings as the skeleton for my
outlines," Winter said. "I take extensive
notes in class and as I go through the
book, I'm constantly referring to my
notes."
Winter believes the commercial study
aids are too sketchy to fully explain the
points of law, so he uses a hornbook to
help him outline.
"In my outlines, I try to include what
the professor says in class, what the
textbook says the rule of law is and what
the hornbook states," Winter said. "An
example is torts; I would put down what
Eades says in class about proximate
cause, what the Palsgraf case brings out
in the text and what Prosser points out
in the hornbook."
Candace Hill, the top-ranked student
in the second-year class, also encouraged
students to make their own outlines.
Unlike Winter, Hill doesn't refer to
hornbooks when making her outlines.
"I write down everything the
professor says in class. When I make my
outline, I use my notes and the
textbook," Hill said.
Hill believes reading hornbooks is a
time-consuming procedure that she
doesn't need. She has found that by
studying the cases, the notes after the
cases; and her extensive notes from
class, she can make an excellent outline
without any other study aids.
"I believe the best thing about
outlining is that it puts the material in
your own words," Hill said.
Rosano Dolle, a third-year student
and a Brandeis Society member, also
sings the praises of making your own
outlines. But unlike Winter who outlines
every weekend, Dolle usually does her
outlines the month before exams.
"I use the textbook, a commercial
study aid like Gilbert's or Emmanuel's
and my notes to help me outline," Dolle
said. "I write down everything the
professor says and I put a lot of it in my
outline."
Dolle explained that she uses the
commercial study aids to help her
organize her outline. It usually takes her
about two days to complete her outline
and then she may make some changes as
she studies it.
Marc Murphy, well-known maker of
Murphy's Outlines which many second­year
students have relied on to stay in
school, said that while he's glad students
have utilized his work, he thinks many
students would be better off making
their own outlines. He believes the
actual making of the outline is the real
learning experience.
Murphy uses commercial study aids to
construct his highly-regarded outlines.
"There's an ari to selecting the right
study aid," Murphy said. "The best
commercial aids vary from class to class.
For example, Emmanuel's and Smith's
Review are the best for civil procedure.
You have to know a little about the
course material in order to pick the best
study aid, but the most important point
is to pick out a particular study aid early
and get to know it intimately. Don't get
paranoid and buy every outline in the
bookstore."
However, Gilbert's and Emmanuel's
aren't always the answer, according to
Murphy.
"Some ideas are too abstract to be
forced into outline form, even though
some commercial outlines try to do it,"
Murphy said. "When I'm faced with a
problem like that, I like to read a
Photo by Neil Ward
Nutshell. An example of what I'm
talking about is perpetuities. The subject
doesn't lend itself to simple rules, so by
reading a nutshell you can understand
the subject as a whole and what the
problems are."
Constitutional law is another abstract
area without concrete rules that might be
better explained by a nutshell, he said. ·
Murphy usually begins making his
outlines nine weeks before exams.
During his freshman year, he had five
classes to outline. With nine weeks to
go, he took one week and did nothing
but outline contracts. He went to class,
but he dido 't prepare for any of his
classes except contracts. The next week,
he spent the entire time on civil
procedure until he finished that outline.
With four weeks to go, Murphy had five
outlines finished. He then spent the last
four weeks updating and improving
them.
Anne Sharp, S.B.A. President, has a
unique way of preparing for exams.
Sharp gets together with a group of four
or five students and they make their
outline as a group.
"We've been doing it since our
freshman year," she said. "We all bring
our notes, then someone brings a
hornbook, someone brings a Gilbert's
and someone might have a Nutshell. I sit
at the typewriter and we go through the
book case by case. We discuss each
subject thoroughly and I type the outline
as we go. It usually takes about two
10-hour days to complete each outline."
Sharp said the group usually gets
together in mid-November to start their
outlining. After the outlining, Sharp
prefers to study alone, because studying
in •a group makes her nervous.
A.s you can see, there are more ways to
survive a law exam than there are colors
in the rainbow. Individuals have to find
what works best for them, but if you'll
follow the guidelines of some of U of L's
successful students you won't be too far
off track.
Louisville Law Examiner, October, 1983
Judicial Races - (Cont.) Directors of the Jefferson County Bar
Association, the Louisville Child Abuse
Authority and the Adult Consortium.
He has received the Continuing Legal
Education Award every year since 1979.
(Continued from page /)
L School of Law in 1975, and practiced
until his election in 1977.
Johnstone, 34, was awarded
Outstanding Young Man of the Okolona
Jaycees in 1978. The next year he was
elected Chief Judge of Jefferson District
Court and in 1980 was the Louisville Bar
Association Judge of the Year.
FIFTH DIVISION
TEDDY B. GORDON
A Louisville attorney seeking election,
Gordon has had II years experience in
general practice, and clerked for the
Kentucky Supreme Court for one year.
Gordon, 36, graduated from the night
division of U of L Law School while
teaching at Westport High School. He is
a member of the Jeffersontown
Optimists.
EARL O'BANNON, JR. (Incumbent)
Earl O'Bannon has held this
judgeship since 1976. A graduate of U of
L Law School, he went on to become a
· captain in the Judge Advocate General
Corps of the U.S. Army. O'Bannon also
served as Deputy Commissioner of the
Court .
A former Board member of the
Presbyterian Community Center and
Drug Abuse Center, O' Bannon is now a
member of the Board of Directors for
the University of Louisville Law Alumni
Association and a lecturer for the
Continuing Legal Education program .
SIXTH DIVISION
DAVID KAPLAN
David Kaplan graduated from the U
of L School of Law in 1959, and has
over twenty years experience in trial
work . Kaplan is 55 .
JACK E. MUDD (Incumbent)
Jack E. Mudd seeks re-election to the
judgeship he has held since 1972. A
graduate of U of L Law School , Judge
Mudd has practiced law for 25 years.
A former Master Commissioner of the
Jefferson Circuit Court, and past
President of the Louisville Bar
Association, Mudd is a member of the
American Legion, the 40 & 8 Society,
and is on the Board of Trustees of the
Catholic Orphan Society of the
Louisville Archdiocese.
EIGHTH DIVISION
WILLIAM E. McANULTY, JR.
William McAnulty is presently a judge
of the Jefferson District Court , and is
seeking election in the eighth division of
Circuit Court. A 1975 graduate of the U
of L School of Law, McAnulty has been
a part-time faculty member since 1976.
During 1975-76 he was Ass istant
Director of Safety for the City of
Louisv ille, and from 1975-78 a Juvenile
Court Judge. He is al so a member of the
Board of Directors for the United Way,
Bellarmine College, Brooklawn and
Spalding College. He is a recipient of the
Continuing Legal Education Award.
CURTIS G. WITTEN (Incumbent)
Curtis Witten has been a Circuit
Court Judge in Division 12 for eight
years. Judge Witten graduated from the
U of L School of Law in 1957 and
practiced general law for 18 years. In the
1960's he worked as Assistant County
Attorney, and has chaired the mental
health litigation, now under District
Court.
NrNTH DIVISION
KEN COREY (Incumbent)
Ken Corey, age 42, received his J.D.
from U of L in 1974. Judge Corey also
attended the University of Nevada
Judicial College. He has taught
Commercial Law at the U of L School of
Business and has served as Circuit Court
Judge since 1978. Judge Corey was
honored with the Distinguished Judicial
Service Award in 1981 by the Louisville
Bar Association.
HERMAN L. HUMPHREY
Herman L. Humphrey, age 62,
received his LL.B. from U of Lin 1951
and then served two years in the Navy.
Humphrey next spent seven years doing
insurance claim work and has been in
private practice since. In 1973
Humphrey was a part-time
commissioner in the Circuit Court and is
a past member of the Louisville
Exchange Club.
TENTH DIVISION
DONALD J. ECKERLE
Donald J. Eckerle, age 41, received
his J.D. from U of L in 1971. After
graduation, Eckerle went into private
practice, specializing in family law, until
taking the District Court bench in 1978.
Eckerle has served on the Board of
GEORGE B. RYAN (Incumbent)
George B. Ryan, age 68, graduated
from the U of L School of Law in 1938.
Judge Ryan was a Police Court Judge
and an Assistant Commonwealth's
Attorney before being elected Circuit
Court Judge in 1969. He has served as
Chief Judge of the Circuit Court, was
the Circuit Court Judge of the Year in
1973, received the Outstanding Alumnus
Certificate from the University of
Louisville in 1978, and received first
place in the Kentucky Bar Association
Writing Contest in 1978 and 1979.
TWELFTH DIVISION
DANIEL A. SCHNEIDER
Daniel A. Schneider, age 39, received
his J.D. from U of L in 1969 and has
attended the National Judicial College.
Schneider has been a District Judge since
1978 and served as Chief District Judge
for 1982-83. He is presently on the
Executive Committee of the Louisville
Bar Association, Chairman of the Eagle
Scouts Association, Vice-President of
the Executive Board of My Old
Kentucky Home Boy Scout Council, and
on the Council of Prevention and
Education of Substance Abuse.
EDWIN A. SCHROERING, JR.
Edwin A. Schroering, Jr., age 54,
received his LL.B. from U of Lin 1953.
Schroering has served in the Army as an
LOUISVILLE BAR AS SOCIA liON
JUDICIAL CANDIDATES' POLL
Didn "t
Circuit Court Highly Not Know Total
Division 2 Q~~alilitd QvallfiH .......... Rated (alllfidatt Ballots
Robert E. Delahanty 28% 53% 12% 3% 4% 873
Edmund " Pete" Karem 21% 47% 8% 7% 17% 863
Division 3
Charles H. Anderson* 12% 44% 36% 3% 5% 868
Martin E. Johnstone 42% 40% 4% 3% 11% 854
Division 5
Teddy B. Gordon 4% 24% 43% 9% 20% 858
Earl O'Bannon Jr. • 66% 28% 2% 1% 3% 890
Division 6
David Kaplan 3% 18% 59% 7% 13% 857
Jack E. Mudd* 36% 51% 8% 2% 3% 879
Division 8
William E. McAnulty Jr. 57% 32% 5% 1% 5% 875
Curtis G. Witten* 9% 35% 49% 3% 4% 874
Division 9
Ken Corey* 56% 36% 3% 1% 4% 872
Herman Humphrey 13% 44% 11% 5% 27% 851
Division 10
Donald J. Eckerle 13% 38% 30% 6% 13% 861
George B. Ryan* 15% 43% 36% 4% 2% 876
Division 12
Daniel A. Schneider 28% 40% 5% 7% 20% 755
Edwin A. Schroering Jr. 21% 52% 17% 5% 5% 771
Division 14
Joseph G. Leibson 39% 34% 13% 4% 10% 773
James C. Nicholson 15% 28% 43% 5% 9% 758
Division 15
William G. Colson 10% 33% 42% 5% 10% 853
. Benjamin F. Shobe* 38% 47% 10% 2% 3% 886
Division 16
Ellen B. Ewing 26% 50% 15% 3% 6% 864
George H. Kunzman* 13% 36% 42% 4% 5% 870
To.tal attorneys voting: 890.
• Denotes Incumbent
Page 7
assistant staff judge advocate, been
Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Kentucky, Assistant
Jefferson County Attorney,
Commonwealth's Attorney for the 30th
Judicial District.
FOURTEENTH DIVISION
JOE G. LEIBSON
Joe G. Leibson, age 52, received his
J.D. from U of L in 1953 and his
L.L.M. from Columbia in 1977. Since
graduating, Leibson has done much trial
work. He has taught Trial Tactics at
Columbia and U of L, and has lectured
for the American Bar Association and
the College of Judges. Leibson is a
member of the American Trial La_wyers
Association, a founding member of the
World Association of Lawyers, and a
past member of the National Criminal
Defense Bar. He is listed in the 1983
edition of the Best Lawyers in America.
JAMES C. NICHOLSON
James C. Nicholson received his J.D·.
from U of L in 1975 and has attended
the National Judicial College. Nicholson
has been an Assistant Commonwealth's
Attorney, a City Attorney, and has been
a District Court Judge and in private
practice since 1978. He has done work
with United Way and the Heart Fund.
Nicholson has received the Continuing
Legal Education Award.
FIFTEENTH DIVISION
WILLIAM G. COLSON
William G. Colson, age 64, graduated
from U of Lin 1950. Colson has been a
practicing attorney for thirty years, and
a Police Court Judge for the City of
Louisville. He has served on several
executive committees for the Louisville
and Kentucky Bar Associations.
BENJAMIN F. SHOBE (Incumbent)
Benjamin F. Shobe graduated from
the University of Michigan School of
Law in 1946. Judge Shobe has served as
a Police Court Judge, Assistant
Commonwealth's Attorney, and Trial
Commissioner before being elected
Circuit Court Judge. He has served as
Circuit Court Chief Judge and is on the
Council for Higher Education.
SIXTEENTH DIVISION
ELLEN B. EWING
Ellen B. Ewing is a second-term
District Court Judge seeking the 16th
division Circuit Court seat. A 1972
graduate of the University of Louisville
School of Law. Ewing, 39, was a
member of the Governor's Task Force
to Implement a New Judicial Code, and
is currently a board member of the
Committee for the Prevention of Suicide
Among Youth. She participates in the
Children in Placement Project dealing
with foster children, and was recently
appointed to the Governor's
Commission on Sentencing and Prison
Overcrowding.
GEORGE H. KUNZMAN (Incumbent)
George Kunzman, 66, is a World War
II veteran, and a 1954 graduate of the U
of L School of Lw. From 1961 to 1963
he worked as an assistant prosecutor and
then served as police court judge for six
years. He has served on the Circuit
Court bench for 16 years. Judge
Kunzman is a member of the Louisville
Board of Realtors.
Briefs
"Reggie" Fellowships Available
The Reginald H. Smith Community Lawyer Fellowship (Reggie) Program
provides fellowships to pay the salaries of recent law school graduates who work
as staff attorneys in various legal services programs. The program is administered
by the Howard University Law School and is funded by the Legal Services
Corporation.
The program offers its fellowship recipients one year of service in one of the
265 Legal Services Corporation funded law offices throughout the United States
(including Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Micronesia).
Beginning in August of each year, with a starting salary of about $15,000,
Community Lawyer Fellows spend up to two years in a neighborhood law office
rendering legal services to the poor.
Republicans Form Caucus
A Republican Law Caucus (RLC) has been formed at the U of L Law School.
The group consists of law students and alumni interested in local and state
political activities.
The RLC says its primary goal is to support and promote area candidates, with
an emphasis on alumni candidates. Members have been working locally on behalf
of GOP gubernatorial candidate Jim Bunning and his running-mate Gene Stuart,
candidate for Lt. Governor.
Officers of the RLC include Michael Harned, President, and Michael
Lawrence, Vice-President. Anyone interested in joining the organization can
contact the RLC at P.O. Box 2048, Louisville, 40201.
Employment Law Seminar
The Louisville Bar Foundation and the School of Law are sponsoring
"Employment Law: Individual Rights and Responsibilities in the Workplace."
The seminar, chaired by attorney D. Patton Pelfrey, will be held at the LBF
office, 717 W. Main St., Friday, October 28, from 8:30a.m. to 4:30p.m.
Homecoming
The 1983. Homecoming Program will be held in Room 175 of the School of
Law on Saturday, November 5, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The $15.00
registration fee includes lunch.
Will Drafting
The Continuing Legal Education office is offering a seminar on Will Drafting
and Probate, on November 18 at the Executive Inn in Owensboro, Ky. Contact
the CLE office for further detail s.
Arbitration in the Coal Industry
A seminar on Arbitration in the Coal Industry, sponsored by the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service and the U of L School of Law, will be held
Monday, October 31, and Tuesday, November I, at the Executive West Hotel in
Loui sville. Registration is $60. Further details are available at (502) 367-2251.
Eat, Drink and be Scary
Mark your calendar for the SBA Halloween party on October 27th at
Woody's. According to SBA Social Chairman Tom Stone, free beer, good eats,
and an array of awards for various costume categories are just a few good reasons
to forget Torts and Code I and come out and play. Live music will be provided by
Pam Murphy's group, the Whispering Pines.
The fun starts at 8, so dust off the old costume and meet your friends at
Woody's!
Louisville Law Examiner
School of Law
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky 40208
Non-Profit
Organization
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Permit No. 769
Louisville, KY
John M. Harlan Louis D. Brandeis ' .
t;ii/ -
Louisville~
Law Examiner
Volume9
Former U.S.
Respresentative
Shirley Chisholm
speaks at
U of L
.................. page 1
Background on
Judicial Candidates
.................. page 1
Merger Necessary to
Streamline
Government
................. . page 2
''Brandeis Brief'':
Employment at Will
................ .. page 4
How to Succeed in
Law School
.................. page 6
October, 1983 Number 2