Florida A&M University - Florida State University College of Engineering
Florida State University College of LawNot a member yet
4903 research outputs found
Sort by
FSU Law Focus - 04/08/2022
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Honorable Patricia A. Seitz visits; Admitted students Visit Campus; Alum Profile: Ashley Hayes (\u2711); Student Profile: 3L Sarah Brazillhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1235/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 09/16/2022
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Florida Gubernatorial Fellows; Faculty Profile: James Parker-Flynn (LL.M. \u2714); Alum Profile: Joanna Bonfanti (\u2705); Student Profile: 3L Lani Pagehttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1109/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 06/17/2022
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Summer for Undergraduates; Faculty Profile: Afroditi Giovanopoulou; Alum Profile: Joseph M. Percopo (\u2709); Celebrating 2022 Grad Peyton Smithhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1163/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 07/08/2022
Get PDFFrom the Dean: New assistant dean of admissions Jessica Richman Dworkin; FSU Law Connects With Alumni at Convention; Alum Profile: Rochelle Brinbaum Chiocca (\u2700); Celebrating 2022 Grad Jaelee Edmondhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1181/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 5/20/2022
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Alumni receptions; PILC Recognizes Outstanding Students; Alum Profile: Jared M. Ross (\u2706); Student Profile: 2022 Grad Montana Bennetthttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1275/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 01/21/2022
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Professor David Markell memorial; FSU Law Welcomes Director of Bar Success (Tia Gibbs); Alum Profile: Hannah D. Monroe (\u2712); Student Profile: 3L Katherine Hupphttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1292/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 01/07/2022
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Celebrating New Graduates; Florida Supreme Court Honors Dean O\u27Connor; Alum Profile: Susan L. Stephens (\u2793); Student 3L Peter Meisenbacherhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1391/thumbnail.jp
Impeaching Legal Ethics
Get PDFIn the investigations, hearings, and aftermath of President Trump\u27s first impeachment, lawyer-commentators invoked the rules of professional conduct to criticize the government lawyers involved. To a large extent, these commentators mischaracterized or misapplied the rules. Although these commentators often presented themselves to the public as neutral experts, they were engaged in political advocacy, using the rules, as private litigators often do, as a strategic weapon against an adversary in the court of public opinion. For example, commentators on the left wrongly conveyed that, under the rules, government lawyers had a responsibility to the public to voluntarily assist in the impeachment, rather than recognizing that the rules rightly called on the government lawyers in question to serve the public good by preserving the president\u27s confidences while promoting lawful conduct. In misin forming the public about the nature of the law governing lawyers, these commentators made it more difficult to hold lawyers accountable in the future and undermined public confidence in the credibility of the profession. The law regulating lawyers\u27professional conduct, popularly known as legal ethics, is a critical aspect of the rule of law. To hold lawyers accountable to the public, however, legal ethics needs to be treated as a serious branch of law, not misconceived as an infinitely malleable set of soft principles. After examining how the rules were manipulated, the illegitimacy of doing so, and the resulting harms, this Article considers what role lawyers, and the legal profession more generally, should play, especially in politically charged moments. It draws on theoretical debates about the role of the profession to argue that the legal profession can play an important role in preserving democracy. To ensure that it continues to do so, however, lawyer-commentators, who represent the profession as a whole, have a responsibility to explain the law and professional conduct rules to the public in a fair and neutral way
#WeToo
Get PDFContent Advisory: This article discusses sexual violence in detail. The #MeToo movement has caused a widespread cultural reckoning over sexual violence, abuse, and harassment. \u27Me Too was meant to express and symbolize that each individual victim was not alone in their experiences of sexual harm, they added their voice to others who had faced similar injustices. But viewing the #MeToo movement as a collection of singular voices fails to appreciate that the cases that filled our popular discourse were not cases of individual victims coming forward. Rather, case after case involved multiple victims, typically women, accusing single perpetrators. Victims were believed because there was both safety and strength in numbers. The allegations were not by a me, but far more frequently by a we. The #MeToo movement is the success of #We Too. This Article assesses the implications of #WeToo for criminal law. #WeToo-multiple allegations against individual perpetrators-brings some grounds for hope about the criminal justice system\u27s treatment of sexual assault. Currently, victims face unwarranted obstacles with respect to police, prosecutors, and juries, but #We Too may spur better policing, encourage prosecution, and counteract a jury\u27s credibility discounting of an individual victim\u27s testimony. However, there are also significant reasons to worry. The rise of #WeToo risks frustrating jury expectations due to a narrative mismatch between the media\u27s coverage of sexual violence and the typical facts on the ground, the imposition of a de facto corroboration requirement wherein individual victims cannot attain justice unless another person was victimized, and the perversion of fairness commitments due to the accused through permissive joinder rules and sloppy or unjustified evidentiary arguments. This Article grapples with these impacts that #WeToo will have on the criminal justice system, including the effects of #We Too\u27s intersection with racial injustices-the over-policing of Black men and under-protection of Black women