The case study that will be focused in this essay, will be the case Published by UC Berkley School of law. A Judge received a public reprimand for “friending” an attorney during a trail. This case was an interesting case, at first the thought of a judge becoming friends with an attorney did not spark any form of controversy in my mind at first. Yet, the text presents us with norms in terms of conduct. These norms are Independence, Impartiality, Integrity, and accountability.
Regarding this case, which ethical conducts did the judge violated? Independence of the court would be the first violation that the judge exhibited. In our text it states that Independence is referred to “an independence from improper influences by others” (Kleinig. P.159), the judge was very much
…show more content…
They did not hold themselves accountable for their professional actions, instead they put their own concern first. The attorney had become a conflict of interest and compromised his integrity whenever he publically posted on social media that he had a wise judge. The attorney’s social connections with the judge was the main violation that I saw from the attorney. In our text it states that “If judges are known to fraternize with business people who companies are frequently involved in litigation…suspicion about integrity and impartiality may be created.” (Kleinig, p.169). That is exactly what happened in this case, however, I don’t believe that should mean that they should not have any sort of communications outside of the courtroom. Regardless of whether or not if the discussion is in person or through social media. As long as they are not discussing or even hinting at the case. As I stated before, people in the criminal justice field are continually being watched, meaning that they needed to be aware of what was being said. Yet they both failed to do so. What if they were already friends on social
Pagan writes a captivating story mingled with the challenges of the Eastern Shore legal system. This book gives a complete explanation backed up by research and similar cases as evidence of the ever-changing legal system. It should be a required reading for a history or law student.
The parole violator shouldn’t even be in the car because he should be in prison behind bars.
Roach, K. (2008). Dialogic Judicial Review and Its Critics. In D. Dyzenhaus, S. Reibetanz Moreau, & A. Ripstein, Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy (3rd Edition ed., pp. 589-644). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
In this exercise the judge was morally wrong to oversee a case if they are or has been in a relationship with either side of the legal counsel as it creates a bias in his decisions however in the case in question all the evidence can be gone over by an outside party or transfer to another judge and counsel to see if the conviction was just
Here, there is a fear that Tiller will react to The Sierra Club’s recalcitrant rhetoric in a way that biases her judging. The Court addressed a similar concern in Mayberry v. Pennsylvania. In that case, two defendants orally vilified a presiding judge, who then charged the defendants with criminal contempt. The same judge—the one who accused the defendants of contempt—was also the judge who adjudicated the case that arose from his accusation. The Mayberry Court held that the judge’s presence violated due process, saying, “[a] judge, vilified as was this Pennsylvania judge, necessarily becomes embroiled in a … bitter controversy … [such that he] is [un]likely to maintain that calm detachment necessary for fair adjudication.” So, the Court held that the Pennsylvania judge must recuse. Admittedly, there is a temptation to apply the same reasoning to Tiller, who has experienced comparable vilification courtesy of The Sierra Club, now a party in her court. But, upon closer examination, there are several outcome-swinging ways that distinguish the instant case from
The Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) was investigating the tax return of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology. As part of their investigation, The IRS sought materials such as documents and tapes that were in possession by the District Court. Their purpose seeking these documents was due to the connection to California v. Armstrong, a case involving the Church of Scientology. In the Armstrong case, there were allegations by the Church that one of their former members had unlawfully obtained materials, such as documents and tapes regarding the Church’s activities. The I.R.S. issued summons to the court and were granted access to inspect those materials. The Church of Scientology acquired a restraining a restraining order against the I.R.S. , requiring them to retain all obtained materials back to the District Court. The I.R.S. decided to fight back through the District Court. Both parties made arguments regarding the scope of attorney-client privilege. The Church of Scientology fought for the continued protection of these documents under attorney-client privilege due to the fact that they believed that the IRS did not seek these documents and tapes out of goodwill.The I.R.S., however, believed that they should be granted access to the documents
Reaching epidemic proportions and spreading like a disease, prosecutorial misconduct has cut across geographic and socio-economic areas with the effect of infecting the criminal justice system (Lawless, 2008). Prosecutorial misconduct takes place when a prosecutor breaks the law or code of professional ethics during the prosecution stage. Legal and ethical violations can weaken the conformity to the law and rules that are to be followed within the criminal justice system (Cromwell, P. F., Dunham, R. G., & Palacios, W. R., 1997). In this paper, existing research focused on factors related to prosecutorial misconduct will be presented. This paper will also examine potential remedies that exist to confront prosecutorial misconduct.
Love them or hate them, heroes or villains; there is no doubt that lawyers make good entertainment. The offerings of current television shows such as The Good Wife, Suits and Law and Order are evidence that legal dramas continue to be a favorite subject for pop culture media. While one can easily find hundreds of titles when searching for entertainment in the legal genre, the characterization of fictional lawyers varies widely from average decent citizens to crusading heroes on the positive side, and from mediocre drudges to corrupt, amoral villains on the negative side. The popularity of the legal drama and the potential impact has led to concern and scrutiny by the legal profession over the last few decades. One study conducted among first year law students found the prevalence of lawyers in pop culture to be so pervasive it had a significant influence on the student’s opinions of the law and lawyers (Asimow et al. 427-428). Although the study shows that for the most part this has been a positive influence, Law Professor Michael Asimow expresses concern that along with a host of other issues, a trend toward negative portrayals of lawyers could be drawing a different type of student into law careers than the positive role models that Hollywood used to promote in the “golden” days (16). Asimow also notes that most people do not have personal experience with lawyers and the legal system so their knowledge is gleaned from popular culture (7). When pop culture promotes lawyers as heroes there can be positive impact just as making them villains can have negative impact. Furthermore, unrealistic scenarios such as dramatic courtroom confessions and emphasis on forensic science can create unrealistic expectations of the viewing ...
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
Sandel, M. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux
d)I think this kind of public shaming is not harsh consider the nature of attorney. An attorney represents his or her clients with the trust of both the court and the clients. Thus, the integrity of an attorney should be without question. Though other attorneys might find the disciplinary record, plain public who has little knowledge about legal system might find difficult to do so. Thus, public reprimand is a good way to make this problem known and allow people to choose their attorneys
It is crucial in the legal system to keep our professionalism not only inside of the courtroom, but also outside of the courtroom. You do not bring the courtroom news and spread it all over the county. Keep trials private and only disclose information about it inside of the courtroom. Keep your character valid and honest outside of the courtroom. If your caught doing something your not supposed to do outside of the courtroom, this can hurt your credibility and this can hurt you in the courtroom. You 're only as worthy as your word itself- try keeping your character
Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343. Reynolds, S. (2009). The 'Standard'. An interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The first ethical violation is that Judges must be "patient, dignified and courteous" to those involved in the court system. In the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and under Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently. (United States Courts, 1973) This means that everyone involved should be exhibiting signs of decorum in all kinds of court proceedings. In the Canon 3A (3) it states that judges need to act in such a manner that it protects the public’s confidence in the judge’s ability to be impartial and truthful. (SCR CHAPTER 60 CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT)In all things dealing with judicial system, the judges need not be tainted with what could be interpreted as being prejudice, bias, and harassing. By this code violation, Justice Prosser was not dignified nor was he courteous. And Justice Prosser did violate the public’s trust in him to above reproach. By
Sheehan, James. The lawyer's lawyer. New York: Center Street, 2013. Print. this book tells me about lawyers about how they differ from other people