SBM Blog

Breaking: Michigan Supreme Court Removes Judge Wade McCree, Prevents Him Holding Judicial Office For Another Term

From the opinion:

The cumulative effect of respondent’s misconduct convinces this Court that respondent should not remain in judicial office, and we therefore remove him from that office and conditionally suspend him without pay for six years beginning on January 1, 2015, with the suspension becoming effective only if respondent is reelected to judicial office in November 2014.

The removal decision was unanimous, but Justice Michael Cavanagh dissented from the suspension.

The opinion is here (PDF).

Persistently Prosecuting The Legitimacy Of "Yooper"

Never underestimate the power of a fired-up Scrabble competitor. It started when Delta County Prosecutor Steve Parks’ friend challenged Parks' use of “Yooper” (an eleven-point word). When the dictionary didn't back Parks up, Parks decided to challenge the dictionary.  For more than a decade he researched his topic (George Gipp “The Gipper,” Tom Izzo, and Hon. John D. Voelker are all notable, and self-identified, Yoopers), gathered documentation, contacted at least two editors at Merriam-Webster, and lobbied for his addition. Thanks to his persistence, the upcoming edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary includes “Yooper – a native or resident of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.” Persistence pays off, you betcha.

 

HT: Mlive

Questions And Answers About Hobby Lobby and A Business's Freedom of Religion Rights

Michigan lawyer, are you prepared to answer your lay friends' and neighbors' questions about Hobby Lobby and a business's First Amendment freedom of religion rights? No? Volokh Conspiracy's Eugene Volokh at the Washington Post has a very readable "guide for the confused," written with a scholar's self-assurance but not all tricked-up with legalese. Not enough? Try David Savage's "Religious case at Supreme Court could affect Obamacare and much more" at the Los Angeles Times. 

In Memoriam: Ronni Tischler

Ronni Tischler, of Farmington Hills, died March 14, at the age of 59. She was a 1996 graduate of Wayne State Law School where she served as editor-in-chief of the Wayne Law Review.  She was a law clerk to Justice Conrad Mallett of the Michigan Supreme Court, and a recipient of the Women's Bar Association (Oakland County Chapter of WLAM) annual award. She is survived by her children, Michael Robinson and Rachel Robinson.

Feeling Bullish About The Future Of The Practice of Law

Read Keep Calm and Carry On, 27 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 55 (2014), by Rene ́Reich-Graefe of Western New England University School of Law, who takes on those who forecast a relentlessly negative future for the legal profession:

Somehow, in the current climate, it seems easier for lawyers and legal educators—to the point of complete hysteria and delusion—to embrace the purported ‘all-goes-to-hell’ status quo of legal education and the legal profession. Pessimists may love this stuff. As a collective response of our profession, however, it seems time—indeed way past time—to stop such nonsense.

Lawyer retirement, population growth, and wealth transfer, he says, are the ticket to future lawyer prosperity. Money quote: 

[R]ecent law school graduates and current and future law students are standing at the threshold of the most robust legal market that ever existed in this country—a legal market which will grow, exist for, and coincide with, their entire professional career.

Not so fast, says Bill Henderson at Legal Whiteboard. Because technology.

Tenured Law Profs Can Breathe A Sigh of Relief, For Now

The accreditation rule requiring law schools to provide tenure for full-time faculty members as a condition of ABA accreditation lives on.  ABA Journal reported that the council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, after two hours of debate this weekend, appeared "hopelessly deadlocked" on changes recommended by the section's Standards Review Committee, first voting down a motion to reject two alternative proposals that would have eliminated the requirement, then voting down each of the two proposals separately.  At one point the council had voted to eliminate the tenure requirement in favor of a  “security of position” system. 

National Law Journal reported that council chair Solomon Oliver Jr. said most council members remain dissatisfied with the current tenure standard but that the council was unable to reach a consensus on the best way to fix it. 

Proponents of eliminating the tenure requirement argue that law schools in the 21st century need more staffing flexibility than the tenure system allows, and that tenure for doctrinal professors drives up costs and comes at the expense of job protection for all law faculty, including clinicians and legal writing instructors.  

At the same meeting, the council voted to increase the practical-skills credit minimum from one to 6 hours and tentatively approved allowing students receive academic credit for paid externships. On another hot-button issue debated for years, the council voted to maintain the minimum 75% bar-passage standard and the requirement that law schools use the Law School Admission Test in admissions, but  allow schools to admit 10% of an incoming class without LSAT scores without first obtaining a waiver from the ABA.  The council also modified the interpretation of the existing pro bono standard to suggest, but not require, that law schools "aspire" to have each student perform 50 hours of pro bono work.

Just Because: Real Law And Disorder For Game Of Throne Fans

From Volokh Conspiracy comes two nonfiction book recommendations that should appeal to the legal history and crime novel fans among SBM readers. And as it turns out the author, a UCLA English professor, is a Michigan product. Eric Jager, who will be guest-blogging at Volokh this week, is Calvin College and University of Michigan-trained. The books are Blood Royal: A True Tale of Crime and Detection in Medieval Paris and The Last Duel about the last judicial trial by combat authorized by the French central government.

How Many People Responded To Supreme Court Task Force Request For Input on Mandatory Bar?

384, as of March 14. If you are a member and have not yet responded to the email request, here's a reminder:

Dear State Bar Member,

On February 13, 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court entered Administrative Order 2014-5, establishing the Task Force on the Role of the State Bar of Michigan. AO 2014-5 directs the Task Force to consider whether the State Bar's current programs and activities support its status as a mandatory bar and to make recommendations regarding changes to State Bar activities.

As a State Bar member, the Task Force seeks your input on the issues raised by the Supreme Court.

To access the Supreme Court's administrative order 2014-5, and other pertinent information about the State Bar, click on the following links.

Administrative Order 2014-5 creating the Task Force.

Administrative Order 2004-1 regulating the State Bar.

A description of the State Bar's current programs and activities.

The full opinions cited in AO 2014-5:

• Falk v. State Bar of Michigan, 411 Mich 63; 305 NW2d 201 (1981)
• Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 US 1; 110 S Ct 2228; 110 L Ed 2d 1 (1990)

Please make your response to this request no later than Friday, March 28, 2014. You may either email [email protected] or send your response by mail to:

Al Butzbaugh, Chair
Task Force on the Role of the State Bar
C/O Nelson S. Leavitt, Reporter
Michigan Supreme Court
PO Box 30052
Lansing, MI 48909

Pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Order 1997-11 you will have a further opportunity to comment on any order proposed by the Supreme Court regarding the State Bar.

Regards,

Al Butzbaugh, Chair
Task Force on the Role of the State Bar

 

Fathers Have No Legal Right To Be in Delivery Room Over Mother's Objection

In the "we needed a court decision to establish this!??" category, a judge has found that a woman has the right to keep the father of a child out of the delivery room at the child's birth. Here's the opinion, Plotnick v. Deluccia (yes, this is a New Jersey case.) Kudos to fathers who are passionate about being involved in the lives of their children, but Emily Bazelon at Slate summed it up: 

Once the baby is born, it’s about the baby. Before that, though, it’s about the mother, too—there is just no way to separate her from the fetus. ... When men can have babies, then they can decide who comes into the delivery room. Until then, the limits of biology limit their rights.

Florida Supreme Court Says Med-Mal Caps Unconstitutional

In a 5-2 opinion issued today, the Florida Supreme Court held that a statutory cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages violates the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution:

[W]e conclude that section 766.118 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution under the rational basis test. The statutory cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages fails because it imposes unfair and illogical burdens on injured parties when an act of medical negligence gives rise to multiple claimants. In such circumstances, medical malpractice claimants do not receive the same rights to full compensation because of arbitrarily diminished compensation for legally cognizable claims. Further, the statutory cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages does not bear a rational relationship to the stated purpose that the cap is purported to address, the alleged medical malpractice insurance crisis in Florida.

From the dissent:

McCall contends that the cap at issue in this case violates Florida’s equal protection guarantee because it applies on a per incident, rather than a per claimant, basis. However, the Legislature could have reasonably believed that a per incident cap would more effectively reduce noneconomic damages awards and create more stability in the insurance market than a per claimant cap would. A per incident cap leads to more predictability in the insurance market since the noneconomic damages cannot exceed the cap in any particular instance of malpractice regardless of the number of individual claimants. And the Legislature could have reasonably believed that this increased predictability would more effectively decrease medical malpractice insurance rates, thereby keeping more physicians in Florida to provide more access to quality health care (including high-risk procedures) at a lower cost to Floridians.