Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Public health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

Private Lives and Professional Responsibilities? The Relationship of Personal Morality to Lawyering and Professional Ethics

Abstract: This article reviews current issues of the effects of personal behavior (political scandals and other behavior)on professional responsibility from philosophical, ethical, professional responsibility and personal morality perspectives. The essay focus on a few notable examples (the Clinton-Lewinsky matter, JFK, FDR and other "presidential scandals, lawyer dishonesty and some examples from scholars and other professionals) to review how we ought to take account of what people do in their personal lives when making judgments about their professional performance (both in formal discipline and in moral judgments).

Required "volunteers" for human investigations--just say no!

Abstract: ally become available after the andings have been made public. The important point is that although it was totally appropriate for the OHRP to review the research protocol and, as was the case here, suspend the research until it fully complies with federal regulations, there must also be a public examination of the IRB process at OHSU. After all, the OHRP negotiates its “Assurance” document (which sets forth the means by which an institution will comply with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations) with the institution (in this case OHSU) because it is the institution that is ultimately responsible for compliance with the regulations. The National Institutes of Health (and speciacally NIDA) must also disclose how they arrived at the decision to give $3.6 million of taxpayer money to a research project that ultimately was suspended because the data-collection protocol violated federal human-subjects regulations. Did they engage in a review of the protocol before allocating the $3.6 million? If so, what kind of deliberation process resulted in the conclusion that the proposed research met human-subjects guidelines? If not, do they, as a matter of policy, routinely accept (i.e., rubber-stamp) the determination of local IRBs? These are the types of questions that must be addressed if we are to implement changes designed to assure the full protection of human subjects. I’d like to make one anal personal observation. By any standard the researchers’ relationship with the schools, students, and parents has to be considered a aasco. Schools participating in the study have been removed for noncompliance, and students have protested and aled class-action lawsuits against OHSU and 14 schools (Rozas-Burke 2002). I and this collapse in the relationship between the schools and the researchers most ironic in that on 4–6 May 2002 the American Psychological Association hosted a Science Advocacy Training Workshop “to establish positive working relationships with local school boards and administrators [and draft] documents to help facilitate school-based research at the local levels” (Kobor and Studwell 2002). One of 11 researchers taking part in this workshop was none other than the principal investigator (L. Goldberg) of the SATURN program. Heaven help the researchers (and the participants) if Goldberg is advocating this kind of positive working relationship with local school boards and administrators. ■

Analysis, Research, and Communication in Skills-Focused Courses

Abstract: Since the Carnegie Report and Best Practices for Legal Education were published, a new focus has emerged on building students’ traditional foundational skills through increased opportunities for experiential education, including legal research and writing instruction. Although the Carnegie Report explored legal writing pedagogy in some detail, Best Practices devoted little attention to how foundational analytical, research, and writing skills are or should be taught with specificity, which provided the impetus for more extended treatment here. This section identifies some “better practices” being used and urges adoption of best practices. In skills-focused courses, legal analysis, research, and writing should be taught as a fluid and recursive process in a client-centered context, giving students the opportunity to write, reflect, and revise. To build and retain fundamental skills, law students should have at least one significant writing experience each semester of law school. It could take the form of practice-related or “instrumental” writing, “writing to learn” exercises, or other forms. Although the ABA requires two rigorous writing courses in the J.D. curriculum, many schools require that only one be practice-related. Some schools have addressed the inadequacy of the ABA requirements by expanding their legal writing programs from two to three or four semesters. The best practice is also to offer advanced, upper-level courses in analysis, research, and writing. For maximum effectiveness, all foundational writing, research, and analysis courses taught in the first year should be taught in small classes by full-time law teachers with practice experience and equal status.

Keeping Score: The Utility of Empirical Measurements in Judicial Selection

Abstract: This paper is a response to the article authored by Professors Stephen Choi and Mitu Gulati entitled "A Tournament of Judges?", proposing that the judicial selection process for Supreme Court nominees focus on empirical measures of judicial quality. The paper first acknowledges that the judicial appointment process has become so politically polarized that vacancies go unfilled for extended period of time, delaying the administration of justice and leading to the disintegration of collegiality on a number of courts of appeals. The paper then agrees that empirical measurements may shed light on judicial qualifications and provides a number of illustrations where empirical measures do tell us a great deal about a nominee's qualifications for high judicial office. The paper then turns to the measurements identified by Choi and Gulati and explains why they are flawed in many respects. The paper concludes by encouraging further discourse on empirical measurements because the alternative, perpetual partisan bickering, is simply unacceptable.