by Eleni Christofides In the intense political climate approaching the 2016 presidential election, living in a highly contested swing state is a fascinating experience. Ohioans’ lives are saturated with political ads and political visits as Election Day approaches. Volunteers are registering citizens to vote at shopping centers and street corners, reminding Ohioans every day that their vote matters – this year more than ever before. There is no doubt that voter turnout will be crucial in deciding which candidate wins the coveted Midwestern state, meaning Ohio has been a hotbed for election law debate and lawsuits over the past several months. Most recently, some Ohio voters suffered a serious blow two weeks ago when the case to keep Golden Week – a week within the early voting time period when citizens are able to register and cast their early ballot at the same time – was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, that upheld the Circuit Court decision to allow its elimination. The state held that maintaining Golden Week was an expensive endeavor and removing it would reduce voter fraud – though there is little evidence to suggest any significant problem with voter fraud. Proponents of Golden Week said that this period is highly important and its removal will have a disproportionately negative effect on minority voters in Ohio, who use this opportunity most often. The state counters this point with very creative logic: Ohio already offers more voting flexibility than other states do, so it isn’t necessary to maintain this program as well. In reality, this should not be a reason to remove additional voting avenues but should cause alarm that many states are underrepresenting and even disenfranchising their eligible voters. After the loss of Golden Week, voter rights advocates scored a victory last week when Secretary of State Jim Husted’s attempt to “purge” old voting registration – in other words, removing registered and eligible voters from the state database if they had not voted in at least 6 years – was struck down by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Husted’s argument was that “If this is [a] really important thing to you in your life, voting, you probably would have done so within a six-year period” (The Atlantic). The Secretary of State’s office made an unimpressive attempt to warn voters of this decision, by sending out mailers that requested they confirm their address and their voting status, but not indicating that a lack of response to the mailers could result in the removal of one’s registration from the records. Once again, this rule would disproportionately affect minority voters who live in urban areas and may move more frequently – who also tend to vote Democratic. Both of these suits beg the question: in a representative democracy, is there any action more important than to preserve than the citizen’s ability and right to vote? Especially in a representative democracy, arguments revolving around cost or convenience should not be legally justified to make it more difficult for voters to have their voices heard, even if voting is already easier relative to other states. It’s especially frustrating when the changes blatantly influence particular groups of people – people who may not elect another Secretary of State from Republican Jim Husted’s party in 2018. The deadline to register to vote in Ohio is October 11th for the 2016 election. Make sure you’re registered and have a plan to get to the polls so you can make your voice heard in this critical year. Works Cited
Graham, David. “Ohio Can’t Purge Infrequent Voters from its Rolls” The Atlantic. September 23, 2016. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/ohio-voting-purge/501404/ Howe, Amy. “Justices turn down plea to preserve ‘Golden Week’ in Ohio” SCOTUS Blog. September 13, 2016. http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/justices-turn-down-plea-to-preserve-golden-week-in-ohio/ Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court Won’t Restore ‘Golden Week’ Voting in Ohio” The New York Times. September 13, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/us/politics/supreme-court-wont-restore-golden-week-voting-in-ohio.html?_r=1 Rowland, Darrel. “Ohio voters won't get Golden Week, U.S. Supreme Court rules” The Columbus Dispatch. September 13, 2016. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/09/13/US-Supreme-Court-Ohio-Golden-Week.html
0 Comments
By Zack Valdman It’s recruiting and hiring season for college students looking for internships and full-time offers. But lost in the hectic process of interviewing, bargaining, and receiving an offer sheet can be the matter of a non-compete agreement. Non-compete agreements are usually a clause in an employment contract that prohibits employees from working for a competitor within a certain length of time after leaving a job. These agreements help protect employers and businesses who invest time, training, and money in an employee from leaving their employ for greener pastures. Additionally, companies do not want confidential information or competitive advantages discovered by the company to be leaked to rivals through ex-employees, or employees using the company’s knowledge and client base to set up their own business. But what effect do these agreements have on workers? While a few states by and large prohibit non-competes, courts in Ohio do tend to enforce them. Unfortunately for the employee, these covenants not to compete can severely limit one’s job prospects, in some cases rather dramatically. For example, Nationwide Children’s Hospital here in Columbus has a non-compete agreement that limits pediatric specialists from taking a pediatric job within 100 miles of the hospital. Is this reasonable? Let’s look at some requirements for non-compete agreements to further understand this complicated issue: Many courts apply strict scrutiny when dealing with general restrictive covenants in employment contracts, meaning the law must be narrowly tailored only to achieve the desired benefit. Covenants not to compete must be narrowly tailored in three aspects, duration, geography, and scope of the restriction itself. The key to each of these aspects is whether the non-compete is reasonable in its limitations. For non-compete agreements to be enforceable, the duration should be justifiable. A typical time frame that courts usually uphold as justifiable would be 1-3 years, while 5-10 year non-competes would generally not be upheld. In terms of geography, the territorial restriction placed upon employees should not exceed the area in which the company competes. However, with the increasingly globalized and international nature of businesses in today’s world, it can be hard to draw the line as to where a business does and does not compete. Lastly, the restriction itself must be reasonable, meaning the covenant should not go beyond the relevant occupation of employment. For instance, signing on as an electrician for an electric company should not preclude an individual from leaving that job to work as an accountant in a public accounting firm. So is the Nationwide Children’s Hospital non-compete agreement illegal? In terms of duration, courts would probably deem the agreement justifiable, as it lasts for 2 years. The agreement does nothing to limit pediatric specialists from working in jobs outside the medical field, so it would most likely pass that test in court as well. However, the geographic aspect of this agreement is questionable. Nationwide Children’s contends that its main competitor is Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, which is the reason for the 100-mile radius restriction. However the practical effect of the agreement prohibits doctors from working in approximately 70% of Ohio, rather than just prohibiting them from working specifically for Cincinnati Children’s. Whether this is unreasonable or justifies a legitimate interest is up to the reader to decide, and depends on one’s point of view. Non-competes are used not only for very highly specialized and skilled employees, recently the use of non-competes has become widespread in even lower echelon occupations as well. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, one in seven Americans earning less than $40,000 a year is under a non-compete. Many people are unaware they are subject to a non-compete until they try to change jobs. So what can you do if you obtain an offer sheet with a non-compete agreement in the fine print? The best advice would be to bring it to a lawyer for further review, as they would be best suited to interpret and understand if the agreement passes the reasonability tests. Moreover, it is possible to negotiate terms of the non-compete agreement with the employer before signing the contract. Nevertheless, expecting that the employer will waive the non-compete in its entirety is usually unrealistic. If a covenant not to compete really bothers you, as a potential employee you usually do not have much choice but to either sign or not sign the contract if the employer is unwilling to negotiate. Your chances of getting a non-compete overruled by a court after signing the contract are slim in Ohio, so be cognizant of the implications a non-compete agreement can have on your work life and ability to change jobs. Works Cited
By Olivia Worthington Gun control is a raging debate within politics that will likely have prominent implications on future policy as well as the 2016 presidential election. Recent shootings such as the Orlando Nightclub massacre and San Bernardino attack have prompted more discussion on gun control. Typically, conservative voters oppose stricter gun control, and this was demonstrated when the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate voted against gun control legislation immediately following the deadly Orlando shooting. Liberal voters typically support strict gun control. Gun control legislation has had difficulty getting through the Senate even after shooting massacres occur, demonstrated by the failing of legislation after San Bernardino as well. Even compromise legislation has failed, and the gun control issue has become increasingly partisan and bitter as more lives continue to be lost to gun violence. Debate stems from the Constitution's Second Amendment, which states that all Americans have the right to bear arms. This has ignited controversy over whether this applied to only militia or to all citizens, and whether this amendment made in 1791 should be applicable to the gun situation faced in modern times. Very few Supreme Court decisions have been made on this amendment, as U.S. v. Miller (1939) merely ruled that the amendment only protects guns suited for a well-regulated militia. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does define an individual’s right to gun ownership. These two rulings have left the interpretation of the Second Amendment ambiguous and continue to fuel debate. Statistics about gun ownership in the U.S. say 40 percent of American homeowners have guns, and 91 percent of Americans say there should be at least some restrictions on gun ownership. More than 33,000 people are killed by guns in the U.S. every year, a fact often cited by those who favor gun control. Many states do have “Stand Your Ground” laws, which justify the use of a gun when being attacked. This law is particularly difficult, and was called into question after Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch coordinator. Martin was later found to be unarmed. Zimmerman was acquitted of murder, but many argue that the “Stand Your Ground” law was not justified in the case of an unarmed suspect. Massacres draw a lot of attention to gun control laws, especially when children are involved. In 1999, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris used guns at Columbine High School to kill 12 students and a teacher. They purchased the weapons through some friends illegally, and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 did little to prevent the shooters from procuring assault weaponry. The Virginia Tech shooting and Aurora massacre also sparked gun control debates, as did the Newtown shooting that killed 20 children. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook gunman, used a weapon purchased by his mother. In both the San Bernardino shooting and Orlando shooting, the guns were legally obtained by individuals who went on to murder a total of 63 people. No major national gun legislation was ever passed after these events, although different state laws were amended after some mass shootings. One proposed solution is strict background checks on gun sales. Psychological evaluations, past criminal history, and potential ties to terrorism or other extremely violent tendencies are thought to surface with a strict check of one’s background. While those who favor additional gun control advocate for background checks, those who want to stick by the current systems have pointed out the loopholes in these checks. This was true in the Columbine and Sandy Hook shootings. In both cases, an individual can have another person buy them a gun who may easily pass a background check that the perpetrator themselves would have failed. There is also the idea that a background check may not uncover one’s sociopathic tendencies or terrorist affiliations if they are well-hidden or have not yet surfaced until the day of the attack. The National Rifle Association is a well-known organization that is firmly opposed to additional gun control legislation. Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate in 2016, is supported by the NRA, and he has said he does not want gun control legislation to become more strict, following typical party lines. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, as pledged to take on the strong gun lobby to ensure no terrorists, domestic abusers, and other violent criminals ever have access to guns. Clinton wants very strict background checks and to close all loopholes. The Republicans counter that this is an impossible feat, and some extreme gun enthusiasts say the solution is for every citizen to carry a gun to protect themselves in the event of a violent attack. The debate on gun control will not die down anytime soon, especially with the 2016 presidential election looming. Entrenched American opinions on gun control have led to a bitter public and partisan debate. Meanwhile, an argument presenting a concrete solution that saves lives while protecting the Second Amendment right has yet to be heard. It is unfortunate that it seems to take the stories of heartbreak and loss resulting from sprees of gun violence to spur talks of real change within existing gun control legislation. Nonetheless, many Americans feel it is time for some sort of change, and recent events suggest that something must be done about gun control soon. Works Cited
Aljazeera. “Orlando Shooting: U.S. Senate Rejects Tighter Gun Control” June 21, 2016. http://aljazeera.org/us-senate-rejects-tighter-gun-control.html Buchanan, Larry. “How They Got Their Guns” The New York Times. June 12, 2016. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?>=0 Clinton, Hillary. “On Violence Prevention” On the Issues. June 13, 2016. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention Land, Nelson. “The Second Amendment” National Constitution Center. 2016. constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii Winkler, Adam. “Background on Gun Control” On the Issues. June 2016. www.ontheissues.org/Background_Gun_Control.html By Maddy Gledhill This past summer, I had the opportunity to extern for Magistrate Judge King in the Southern District of Ohio. Judge King has served the court for 34 years, over half her life, and will be retiring in August 2017. As a graduate of Ohio State Moritz College of Law, she has used her education to uphold and change the law for many years.
Would you mind telling us what it means to be a Magistrate Judge and what is is like to be one? Well the office of Magistrate Judge is a relatively young office, created in the late ‘60s. It is a trial judge position, intended to assist the District Court in fulfilling its duties. Because duties around the country can be quiet different depending on the needs of that court, the office of Magistrate Judge was intended to be a very nimble office to allow the Magistrate Judge to respond to the particular needs of that district Court. So a MJ has both criminal and civil duty. On the criminal side, the duties are quiet similar across the country. We handle preliminary felony matters, search warrants, arrest warrants, and if it is a misdemeanor the Magistrate Judge is the trial judge. We have no final authority to resolve a felony case. There can be quite a difference on what a Magistrate judge does across the country. In the border states, for example, where there are many immigration prosecutions, a Magistrate Judge would have very different sorts of cases before them than a Magistrate Judge from any other part of the country. When did you know you wanted to go into Law and what was it that drew you in? Well, I came of age in the ‘60s. That was a time of great upheaval in the country. And the courts were quite instrumental in effecting social change. That left an indelible inference on me. Like most teenagers, regardless of era, I wanted to make a difference in the world, and it appeared to me that this was one way to do that. I was also greatly influenced by the fact that my father was a lawyer and I was fascinated with the way lawyers thought and the sorts of things they talked about. I would often go to my father’s office, answer phones, and tag along with him to his meetings with clients. I absolutely loved hearing them talk. I was so interested in what they thought about and how they approached things. Now the downside was I didn’t know any women layers. My father went to The Ohio State University. While there was one woman in his class, if I recall correctly she never actually practiced law. My father believed that the legal profession was a man’s profession. I was a French major in undergrad and had intended to go to grad school with the idea of becoming a college professor. I took a year off after college to sort things out and at the end of that year, I decided that if I was ever going to go to law school, this was the time to do it and if I didn’t do it, I would always regret it. So I went to law school. My father became a great cheerleader for me and was very enthusiastic about it. I have four brothers and at that point none of them had gone to law school. So he was very supportive. It was at a time when women were just starting to go to law school. I certainly didn’t experience any hostility in the very early ‘70s. I think the idea of a woman going to law school was met with more curiosity rather than hostility. Over the course of my legal career, many men have been instrumental in encouraging me and helping me advance in my legal career. So, that is how I wanted to become a lawyer. Why did you choose to become a Magistrate Judge? I know you clerked for Judge Kinneary, so what about doing that, other than private practice or working at a firm, drew you in to the courts? Well, I became a law clerk perhaps too simplistically because I wasn’t sure what else I wanted to do. I had an opportunity to work for a very large firm, but I knew I did not want to make that a career. I always assumed I would end up teaching law. The clerkships were not promoted as much in law school as they are today, but I had the opportunity to clerk and I took it. I absolutely loved it. Judge Kinneary was one of those mentors whom I had who was very very supportive. I was his first female clerk. He referred to women clerks as “girl law clerks”. He was of a different era, but he was extremely supportive and holds a very special place in my thoughts, even today. The clerkship gave me time to think about things, and after I left the clerkship, I did practice with my husband, who is a sole practitioner. I found that to be very difficult. To work in private practice or even in a firm, you also have to be a business person, which I was not. I had difficultly being comfortable in billing clients, particularly clients whom I knew would have difficulty paying the bill. I also taught at Ohio State and enjoyed the teaching aspect very much, but definitely my experience with the court was the most satisfying, gratifying experience that I had. What has been your favorite part about being a Magistrate Judge? It has been the people with whom I work. I love being a trial court judge, it is both gratifying and humbling to see the faces whose lives you impact. I think temperaments lend themselves better to a trial court or appellate court level. And if that is true, I definitely have the temperament for a trial judge. The role of magistrate judge, especially for how it is used in the Southern District of Ohio, has great opportunities to work with lots of lawyers. What has been the most Challenging part of being a magistrate judge? Well, at times, the work can be stressful. There’s a lot. You can’t take the work lightly because it does impact the lives of human beings, so you do spend time thinking about issues and trying to do justice. Some problems are quite difficult and take a bit of time. You are not always completely positive that you have reached the right decision, which can be difficult. Having had children, there were times it was difficult or the demands of the job made it difficult to meet the demands of family, and those were very stressful times. Thankfully I have a wonderfully supportive husband, we had wonderful childcare, and our kids survived and are doing well. It is a great career to look back on. Is there a moment in your career that is most memorable for you? There were many memorable moments. For the first years, even decades, I was on the bench, it was an unusual morning if I didn’t wake up and think “I love my job. I can’t believe how lucky I am to have this job.” One of the most gratifying moments, and I haven’t thought about this for years. I had conducted a trial, not a jury trial in this instance, it was a trial to the court. So I ruled in favor of the defendant, and I expressed my reasons and the basis for doing so. I know it is difficult for the losing party, but after the trial was over, the plaintiff, against whom I had ruled, thanked me. He said he wanted to be heard, and he felt he had been heard, and he believed he had been treated fairly. There isn’t higher praise for a judge than to be told by someone that they had been heard and treated fairly. That has stayed with me for decades and was the first time someone had said something to me like that. It was very meaningful to me. You are on your last year of service. What are you excited about for coming to the end of your term? What is in store for you in the future? I have a lot of ambivalence; it is a bittersweet time in my life. I have absolutely loved my job, but I am looking forward to having some free time and to be somewhat free of everyday demands. I hope to have some demands on my time and intellect, but I am looking forward to having free time to spend with grandchildren, with my husband, and traveling more. I’d like to explore other opportunities for service within the community, and there is a lot to be said for embarking on something new. It is rejuvenating and can bring you excitement for a new activity. I am looking forward to being rejuvenated and hopefully continuing to make a difference. Do you have any advice for future law students or members of the court? No matter where your interests or passions take you, it begins with doing well in school. Everything flows from that. Opportunities will arise that wouldn’t otherwise be available. And one of the many great things of the legal profession is that it does provide the opportunity for service in many different ways. Private practice, public service, teaching, profit, non profit, etc. It is a tremendously versatile profession. From a students’ perspective, I think he or she should do as well as they possibly can because that is what will guarantee the most options available to the student. And then, not to limit your horizons to only what you think you can do. No one can predict what twists and turns your career will take. Life will present many different possibilities. Strategy Against Terror is, Frankly, Terrifying (and Illegal) By Spencer Dirrig Few would disagree that this U.S. presidential election has been far from ordinary. While one candidate touts her extensive experience on foreign matters as Secretary of State, she remains plagued by an “email scandal” that just seems to never go away. On the other side, there is a candidate whose entire foreign policy experience revolves around hosting the Miss Universe Competition. Buckle in – things are about to get interesting. However, moving aside the politics of the matter, there are serious legal implications to the claims made by the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump. The plan put forth by Mr. Trump, if he should become the Commander in Chief, is deeply troubling (and illegal). Which begs the question: are we about to elect a future war criminal as President? Let’s break down exactly what Trump has proposed. One of the most disturbing promises made by Mr. Trump concerns the targeting of the families of terror suspects. As Commander in Chief, Trump has promised to end what he calls a “politically correct war” by targeting, and killing, the families of ISIS members. On December 2 during an episode of Fox and Friends, Trump stated, “The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families." “You have to take out their families.” No Mr. Trump, you most certainly don’t. In fact, you can’t. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the Geneva Conventions are a “series of international treaties concluded in Geneva between 1864 and 1949 for the purpose of ameliorating the effects of war on soldiers and civilians.” The United States was a major negotiator in these international laws and are party to these conventions today. So, how exactly do the Geneva Conventions relate to Trump’s explicit statements? According to PolitiFact, Common Article 3 applies to “armed conflict not of an international character. This was further interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld to mean any “‘armed conflict not of an international character’ means a war that is not fought against a sovereign state.” According to the Council on Foreign Relations, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires the following standards. Let’s break these standards down and apply them to the statements made by the Republican nominee. First, Common Article 3 “requires humane treatment for all persons in enemy hands, without any adverse distinction. It specifically prohibits murder, mutilation, torture, cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment, the taking of hostages and unfair trial.” The mass murder of the families of terrorists, who may very well have no connections to the terrorist group or ideology, would almost certainly qualify as inhumane treatment and violates the prohibition of murder against persons without any adverse distinction. In addition to the promise to murder the family members of suspected terrorist without fair trial, Trump has also repeatedly advocated for the use of waterboarding and “other” torture tactics. The Guardian reported in July that Trump “calls for inventing ‘interrogation’ techniques that are ‘worse’ than waterboarding as well.” This practice would most certainly violate the international prohibition on torture of prisoners of war. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the importance of applying Article 3 continues to grow as most conflicts are now considered to be “non-international,” the necessary component for Common Article 3 to be applied. They implore that “full respect is required.” On March 3, The Washington Times reported that “Mr. Trump has suggested that he’d order the U.S. military to kill families of Muslim terrorists and institute interrogation techniques worse than waterboarding, itself widely condemned as torture. Torture and retaliatory executions are both war crimes under international law.” This begs the question: would the military, under orders of the Commander in Chief, willingly commit war crimes? Well, Donald Trump most certainly thinks so, boasting that “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.” As we ponder whether the military could, or would, refuse to commit war crimes ordered by the superiors, it is imperative to also consider the ever-changing dynamics of war. In 2008, Vice President Dick Cheney said that the “President is always accompanied by a military aide carrying a briefcase, called the "nuclear football," which allows the president to launch nuclear weapons. The president can launch at whomever, whenever. “He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.” (Vox) Considering the reckless, and illegal promises of a President Trump, the blatant disregard for international law and the ease with which his immense power can be wielded, are we comfortable with Trump as Commander in Chief? The world waits in suspense for our answer. Works Cited
Beauchamp, Zack. "If President Trump Decided to Use Nukes, He Could Do It Easily." Vox. N.p., 03 Aug. 2016. Web. 12 Sept. 2016. Campbell, Colin. "TRUMP: You Have to 'take Out' Terrorists' Families." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 02 Dec. 2015. Web. 12 Sept. 2016. "Donald Trump on Terrorists: 'Take out Their Families'" CNN. Cable News Network, 3 Dec. 2015. Web. 12 Sept. 2016. "Geneva Conventions." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2016. "Geneva Conventions." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2016. Morton, Victor. "Trump Says He’d Force U.S. Military to Commit War Crimes." Washington Times. The Washington Times, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2016. Subject, By. "Geneva Conventions Bar Donald Trump's Idea of Killing Terrorists' Families, as Rand Paul Says." @politifact. PolitiFact, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2016. Timm, Trevor. "Donald Trump's Anti-terror Policies Sound a Lot like War Crimes | Trevor Timm." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 01 July 2016. Web. 12 Sept. 2016. By Samuel Huryn
Recently, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 1257, which would have mandated that future lawyers “perform fifty hours of pro bono work before they could gain admittance to the state bar” (1). Senator Marty Block, D-San Diego, sponsored the bill. For those unaware, pro bono refers to “work undertaken voluntarily and without payment,” and in the legal system is usually used to help individuals who can not afford to hire an attorney to defend themselves (2). Theoretically, SB 1257 makes sense because it would benefit communities and individuals who otherwise could not afford a lawyer. In addition, the legislation provides future lawyers with hands on, real-world experience while maintaining their student status. Likewise, the American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility recommends that “a lawyer should aspire to render at least 50 hours of ‘pro bono publico' legal services per year” (3). Therefore, the bill would not be without merit nor precedent. However, California Gov. Jerry Brown, who practiced law before his career in politics, vetoed Senate Bill 1257. He argued that because “law students in California are contending with skyrocketing costs…it would be unfair to burden students with the requirements set forth in this bill’” (4). Instead, Gov. Brown argued that “the state should focus on lowering the cost of legal education” which would “‘actually expand the opportunity to serve the public interest’” (5). Ultimately, I agree with the governor’s decision to veto the bill, both because of the monetary constraints of students as well as the time requirements for those still studying for the bar. 1 http://abovethelaw.com/2016/08/california-law-students-are-too-broke-for-forced-pro-bono/?rf=1 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono#United_Kingdom 3 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_6_1_voluntary_pro_bono_publico_service.html 4 http://abovethelaw.com/2016/08/california-law-students-are-too-broke-for-forced-pro-bono/?rf=1 5 http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article98734647.html |
Archives
March 2018
Categories |