Articles in regional publications that pertain to a wide range of North Carolina-related topics.
Search Results
18 results
for North Carolina State Bar Journal Vol. 2 Issue 4, Winter 1997
Currently viewing results 1 - 15
|
PAGE
OF 2
|
Next |
Record #:
3766
Author(s):
Abstract:
William O. King of Durham was elected president of the North Carolina State Bar on October 23, 1997. King left a prominent sportswriting career to obtain a law degree from Wake Forest University. He was admitted to the bar in 1964.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35069
Author(s):
Abstract:
Former Attorney General and Governor Easley reflection focused on two legal profession related topics: the purposes of the Attorney General for the people of North Carolina; major laws enacted during the 1990s in NC; and how litigation and mediation serves to protect the public.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35071
Author(s):
Abstract:
Senator Leslie Winner’s account reflected on the reasons why she decided to run for Senate, her experience as a Senator, and the consequences of striving to balance a public and personal life.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35072
Author(s):
Abstract:
Willis Whichard’s account of life as a public servant over a period of thirty years focused on the early family and educational influences that led him to become a lawyer and mentors that shaped his performance and perception as a representative of the legal profession.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35074
Author(s):
Abstract:
Watt’s account of his service as a United States congressman related the presence of and reasons for his perception that serving the underrepresented citizens of NC’s Twelfth District has been a rewarding and challenging experience.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35075
Author(s):
Abstract:
Dennis Wicker’s definition of the North Carolina Promise cited reasons for and importance of giving back to the Tar Heel State and its people, particularly for public servants. The former Lieutenant Governor’s reflection included a description of and influences for his legal career.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35077
Author(s):
Abstract:
Carl Horn’s reflection on the legal profession in the United States includes a description of and reasons for the present pervasive dissatisfaction of lawyers, cultural changes that have contributed to their sense of dissatisfaction, and possible solutions that can restore meaningfulness and fulfillment to the profession.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35079
Author(s):
Abstract:
Though the classic film is referenced to and inspired the author’s view of the legal profession,
The executive director of the North Carolina State Bar’s account is truly about how the State Bar contributes to the value and roles of legal representatives of the Old North State.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35102
Author(s):
Abstract:
In regards to this issue, Michael Dayton, editor of Lawyers Weekly since 1988, offered reasons why sexual relations between clients and their attorneys occur, sexual relations are more likely to involve female clients, and why this misconduct should be prohibited. As additional evidence, the author cited examples of landmark cases related to this issue.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35103
Author(s):
Abstract:
What an attorney can do in the event that he/she is aware that a client will offer false information for a case? As Jerry Parnell revealed, a lawyer has three options: privately remonstrate the client; seek withdrawal from the case; if withdrawal will not resolve the issue or cannot be done, disclose the delicate matter to the court.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35104
Author(s):
Abstract:
The Bates that Lunsford in this case referred to a United States Supreme court case that took twenty years to be resolved. The case, Bates vs Arizona State Bar, involved protection of the First Amendment to the commercial speech (as in, advertisement) of lawyers’ services. The issue was resolved by offering two proposals: proposal A, one which required certain information to be disclosed about the lawyer; proposal B, which prohibited advertising that was false, deceptive, or misleading.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35105
Author(s):
Abstract:
As Alice Mosley related, the rule prohibits knowingly communicating with a person about a subject matter of the representation without the permission of the represented person’s lawyer. With the exception of “person” being replaced by “party,” the wording remained the same. As the assistant executive director of the North Carolina State Bar proposed, though, changing one word of Paragraph (a) of Revised Rule 4.2 can change the tenor of the sentence. The author suggested that this leaves the interpretation and application of the rule open to debate.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35110
Author(s):
Abstract:
The interview with the newly elected president of the North Carolina State Bar discussed his vision of the legal profession’s future. What’s not revealed by the interview’s title was the
in-depth view of the profession today, in particular its challenges and ways they are being addressed. Necessary? Yes. As the time honored axiom says and King suggested, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35111
Author(s):
Abstract:
As lawyer Leonard Jernigan concluded, the time off was beneficial and necessary. Like any good attorney, though, the author prepared for the possibility that personal benefits and necessity wouldn’t be sufficient evidence for some readers. Accordingly, the author further supports that evidence with the grave consequences of not taking sabbaticals and proposing reasons for not doing so. Highlighted consequences were the physical (such as heart attacks) and emotional (according to one study of 104 professions, lawyers have the highest depression rate).
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
35403
Author(s):
Abstract:
The authors asserted that the revised Rules of Professional Conduct will impact the State Bar’s disciplinary process in a number of ways. Revised Rule 1.18 is the most marked revision in the text designed to create guidelines for acceptable conduct and crystalize the lawyers’ professional obligations. What the authors concluded is what’s most noticeable about the revised Rules: the Bar’s interpretation of “revised” was open for debate.
Source: