Editor’s Note Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Brooke J. Bowman, Editor’s Note, 21 Legal Writing iii (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Brooke J. Bowman, Editor’s Note, 21 Legal Writing iii (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Cynthia Hawkins DeBose and Jounice Nealy-Brown, The Silent Penalty: Interest Accrues on Unpaid Child Support in Florida, 40 Seton Hall Legis. J. 279 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Jason Bent, Health Theft, 48 Conn. L. Rev. 637 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Three possible approaches have been advanced for setting appropriate occupational health standards: the feasibility principle currently employed by OSHA, cost-benefit analysis, and a “soft” cost-benefit analysis that allows for qualitative considerations. This Article rejects all three and advances a fourth possible approach that would focus on counteracting “health theft” by employers — employer actions that expose workers to health risks without compensation. An anti-health theft approach recognizes that Congress’s purpose in enacting the Occupational Safety and Health Act was to maximize worker welfare, not to maximize overall total social welfare. This Article makes both the positive claim that counteracting health theft was Congress’s intent when it enacted the OSH Act and the normative claim that an anti-health theft approach sets a rational regulatory standard justified on distributional grounds. The Article urges OSHA to adopt the anti-health theft principle as a reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous Section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act.
Date of Publication:
Linda S. Anderson, Marriage, Monogamy, and Affairs: Reassessing Intimate Relationships in Light of Growing Acceptance of Consensual Non-Monogamy, 22 Wash. & Lee. J. C.R. & Soc. Just. 3 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Jason Bent, Hope for Zimmerism: Overcoming the Empathy Problem in Antidiscrimination Law, 20 Em. Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J. 277 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Luz Estella Nagle and Bolaji Owasonoye, Fearing the Dark: The Use of Witchcraft to Control Human Trafficking Victims and Sustain Vulnerability, 45 Sw. L. Rev. 561 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Will Bunting, Resolving Conflicts over Scarce Resources: Private versus Shared Ownership, 99 Marq. L. Rev. 893 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article models private ownership as a conflict resolution mechanism and contends that for the Coase Theorem (as defined here) to be consistent, private ownership must yield the Pareto-optimal use of scarce resources among all feasible conflict resolution mechanisms. Conflict over a scarce resource may be better resolved, however, by eliminating the possibility of private ownership and “forcing” parties to share ownership of a contested scarce resource. A corollary to the Coase Theorem is introduced which states: In the absence of transaction costs, the distribution of private and shared ownership is efficient. Provided transaction costs are high and shared ownership is socially-optimal, a role for the courts is suggested wherein de facto shared ownership is established by rendering private property rights random or unclear — judicial behavior that stands in contrast to the normative implications of the Coase Theorem.
Date of Publication:
Lance Long, Is There Any Science Behind the Art of Legal Writing, 16 Wyo. L. Rev. 287 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca C. Morgan, Family Matters in an Elder Law Practice, 29 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 109 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Kirsten K. Davis, Rhetorical Criticism as Essential Legal Skill: Some Thoughts on Developing Lawyers as “Public Citizens”, 16 Communication Law Review 43 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The Model Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers, upon which nearly all fifty state supreme courts base their legal ethics codes, direct lawyers to pursue the public good in their role as "public citizen[s] with special responsibility for justice." Yet, the lawyer as a public citizen is undertheorized in the literature and is not the focus of legal education. And even if this role is deemed important, questions remain of what, exactly, is the lawyer's responsibility as a "public citizen" and what skills a lawyer should possess to fulfill this role.
This essay first describes how the Model Rules of Professional Conduct — the lawyer's ethical rules — rhetorically construct the public citizen role but offer little on how the lawyer should implement this role in her professional life. It then offers how others have attempted to put flesh on the bones of the "public citizen" role so as to have as complete a view as possible of what that role means for lawyers. It explains the generally well-accepted view that law schools have largely failed to teach skills and instill values related to lawyers' roles as public citizens. And, finally, it argues that teaching rhetorical criticism skills in law school can play a central part in giving lawyers the intellectual skills to perform their roles as fiduciaries of the rule of law and participatory democracy and to understand themselves as moral actors in the public sphere.