for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help
  Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1467 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (36 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (49 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (89 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (26 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (148 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (23 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (188 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (22 journals)
    - LAW (877 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (9 journals)

LAW (877 journals)            First | 1 2 3 4 5     

Showing 601 - 354 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
Rechtsidee     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Religion, State and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Revenue Law Journal     Open Access  
Review of Central and East European Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Review of European Administrative Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Review of Finance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 55)
Review of Litigation, The     Full-text available via subscription  
Review of Politics     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Revista Acadêmica : Faculdade de Direito do Recife     Open Access  
Revista Arbitrada de Ciencias Jurídicas y Criminalísticas Iustitia Socialis     Open Access  
Revista Brasileira de Direito     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Revista Catalana de Dret Privat     Open Access  
Revista catalana de dret públic     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Revista CESCO de Derecho de Consumo     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Revista Chilena de Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Revista Chilena de Derecho del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social     Open Access  
Revista Chilena de Derecho Privado     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista Chilena de Historia del Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista Científica do Curso de Direito     Open Access  
Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista da Faculdade Mineira de Direito     Open Access  
Revista de Bioética y Derecho     Open Access  
Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista de Derecho     Open Access  
Revista de Derecho     Open Access  
Revista de Derecho     Open Access  
Revista de Derecho     Open Access  
Revista de Derecho (Coquimbo)     Open Access  
Revista de Derecho (Valparaiso)     Open Access  
Revista de Derecho de la Seguridad Social, Laborum     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Revista de Derecho de la UNED (RDUNED)     Open Access  
Revista de Derecho de la Unión Europea     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Revista de Derecho Fiscal     Open Access  
Revista de Derecho Político     Open Access  
Revista de Derecho Privado     Open Access  
Revista de Derecho Privado     Open Access  
Revista de Derecho Público     Open Access  
Revista de Direito     Open Access  
Revista de Direito Agrário e Agroambiental     Open Access  
Revista de Direito Ambiental e Socioambientalismo     Open Access  
Revista de Direito Brasileira     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista de Direito da Administração Pública     Open Access  
Revista de Direito da Faculdade Guanambi     Open Access  
Revista de Direito Sanitário     Open Access  
Revista de Direito Sociais e Políticas Públicas     Open Access  
Revista de Educación y Derecho     Open Access  
Revista de Estudios de la Justicia     Open Access  
Revista de Estudios Historico-Juridicos     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito     Open Access  
Revista de Estudos Institucionais     Open Access  
Revista de Historia del Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista de la Escuela de Medicina Legal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Revista de la Facultad de Derecho     Open Access  
Revista de la Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Políticas     Open Access  
Revista de la Maestría en Derecho Procesal     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión     Open Access  
Revista de Llengua i Dret     Open Access  
Revista de Movimentos Sociais e Conflitos     Open Access  
Revista de Processo, Jurisdição e Efetividade da Justiça     Open Access  
Revista de Sociologia, Antropologia e Cultura Jurídica     Open Access  
Revista Derecho del Estado     Open Access  
Revista Diálogos do Direito     Open Access  
Revista Digital Constituição e Garantia de Direitos     Open Access  
Revista Digital de Derecho Administrativo     Open Access  
Revista Direito Ambiental e Sociedade     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista Direito GV     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista Direitos Emergentes na Sociedade Global     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista Direitos, Trabalho e Política Social     Open Access  
Revista do Curso de Direito     Open Access  
Revista do Curso de Direito do Centro Universitário Brazcubas     Open Access  
Revista Electrónica Cordobesa de Derecho Internacional Público : RECorDIP     Open Access  
Revista Eletrônica Direito e Política     Open Access  
Revista Eletrônica do Curso de Direito - PUC Minas Serro     Open Access  
Revista Eletrônica do Curso de Direito da UFSM     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Revista Española de Medicina Legal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Revista Estudios Jurídicos     Open Access  
Revista Estudios Socio-Jurídicos     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista Eurolatinoamericana de Derecho Administrativo     Open Access  
Revista Historia y Justicia     Open Access  
Revista Icade. Revista de las Facultades de Derecho y Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales     Full-text available via subscription  
Revista Internacional de Derecho del Turismo     Open Access  
Revista IUS     Open Access  
Revista Jurídica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista Jurídica da UFERSA     Open Access  
Revista Jurídica de Asturias     Open Access  
Revista Jurídica de la Universidad de León     Open Access  
Revista Jurídica do Cesuca     Open Access  
Revista Jurídica IUS Doctrina     Open Access  
Revista Jurídica Portucalense/Portucalense Law Journal     Open Access  
Revista Jurídica Universidad Autónoma de Madrid     Open Access  
Revista Latinoamericana de Derecho Social     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revista Latinoamericana de Derechos Humanos     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Revista Opinión Jurídica     Open Access  
Revista Pedagogía Universitaria y Didáctica del Derecho     Open Access  
Revista Persona y Derecho     Full-text available via subscription  
Revista Pesquisas Jurídicas     Open Access  
Revue générale de droit     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Revue internationale de droit pénal     Full-text available via subscription  
Revue Marocaine de Droit, d’Economie et de Gestion     Open Access  
Revue pro právo a technologie     Open Access  
Riau Law Journal     Open Access  
RUDN Journal of Law     Open Access  
Russian Law Journal     Open Access  
Russian Politics & Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
SA Mercantile Law Journal = SA Tydskrif vir Handelsreg     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Santa Clara Law Review     Open Access  
Science & Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 443)
ScienceRise : Juridical Science     Open Access  
Scientiam Juris     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Scientometrics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 37)
SCRIPTed - A Journal of Law, Technology & Society     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
Seattle Journal for Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Seattle University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / Selçuk Law Review     Open Access  
Seqüência : Estudos Jurídicos e Políticos     Open Access  
Seton Hall Circuit Review     Open Access  
Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Seton Hall Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases     Full-text available via subscription  
Singapore Academy of Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription  
Singapore Journal of Legal Studies     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Social & Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Social Security Reporter     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Società e diritti     Open Access  
Sociologia del diritto     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Sociological Jurisprudence Journal     Open Access  
Soumatera Law Review     Open Access  
South African Crime Quarterly     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
South African Journal of Bioethics and Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
South African Journal of Environmental Law and Policy     Full-text available via subscription  
South African Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
South East European University Review (SEEU Review)     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Southern African Public Law     Full-text available via subscription  
Southern Illinois University Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Sri Lanka Journal of Forensic Medicine, Science & Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
St. John's Law Review     Open Access  
Stanford Law & Policy Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Stanford Law Review     Free   (Followers: 35)
Stanford Technology Law Review     Free   (Followers: 1)
Statute Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Statutes and Decisions : Laws USSR     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Studenckie Zeszyty Naukowe     Open Access  
Studia Canonica     Full-text available via subscription  
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia     Open Access  
Studia Iuridica Toruniensia     Open Access  
Studia z Prawa Wyznaniowego     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Studies in Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Suffolk University Law Review     Free  
Suhuf     Open Access  
Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi     Open Access  
Supremasi Hukum : Jurnal Penelitian Hukum     Open Access  
Supreme Court Review, The     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Sustainable Development Law & Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
Swiss Political Science Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Sydney Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Syiar Hukum     Open Access  
Tanjungpura Law Journal     Open Access  
Társadalomkutatás     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Tax Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
Te Mata Koi : Auckland University Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Teisė : Law     Open Access  
Temas Socio-Jurídicos     Open Access  
Texas Journal of Women and the Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Texas Law Review     Free   (Followers: 10)
Texas Review of Law & Politics     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
The American Lawyer     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
The Journal of Legislative Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
The Jurist : Studies in Church Law and Ministry     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
The Modern American     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
The National Legal Eagle     Open Access  
THEMIS - Revista de Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Theoretical Criminology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 40)
Theoretical Inquiries in Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Theory and Practice of Legislation     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi     Open Access  
Tidsskrift for erstatningsrett, forsikringsrett og trygderett     Full-text available via subscription  
Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap     Full-text available via subscription  
Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit / The Legal History Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Tijdschrift voor Religie, Recht en Beleid     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Tilburg Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Toruńskie Studia Polsko-Włoskie     Open Access  
Touro Law Review     Open Access  
Transactions : The Tennessee Journal of Business Law     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Transnational Environmental Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Transnational Legal Theory     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Transport Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Transportation Planning and Technology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Trusts & Trustees     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Tulane Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Tulsa Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
UCLA Entertainment Law Review     Open Access  
UCLA Law Review     Free   (Followers: 8)
UCLA Women's Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Udayana Journal of Law and Culture     Open Access  
UniSA Student Law Review     Open Access  
University of Baltimore Journal of Land and Development     Open Access  

  First | 1 2 3 4 5     

Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Suffolk University Law Review
Number of Followers: 0  

  Free journal Free journal
ISSN (Print) 0039-4696
Published by Suffolk University Homepage  [2 journals]
  • We Can Do It: Women in the Legal Field Make Huge Strides for Workforce
           Equality But More Still Needs to be Done
    • Authors: Rob Pelletier
      Abstract: While firms, large and small, have started the initiative to diversify, it is never too early for law students to do the same. Over the past century the fight has been limited to gaining access to a field that was once exclusive to white males. Now that women have finally been able to enroll in law school and find employment in firms, it is time for the next step. Women need a solution to the disparity issues that remain, so a true balance can be seen throughout all areas of the legal profession. Read more [here].
      PubDate: Wed, 16 May 2018 22:19:53 +000
       
  • We Can Do It: Women in the Legal Field Make Huge Strides for Workforce
           Equality But More Still Needs to be Done
    • Authors: sulronline
      Abstract: Graduation is just around the corner for many law students, meaning thousands of new lawyers will be entering the legal workforce. With females now making up the majority of law students, many of these new lawyers will be women.[1] Graduating female law students, however, should be concerned about more than just the bar examination this summer, as gender inequality is still a frequent issue women face in the legal world today. While leaders in the legal profession consistently make diversity a key goal, reports show there are still multiple reasons why females struggle to find equality in the legal workforce, yet solutions remain available to firms that can help alleviate the problem.   Many argue “big law” firms should be the driving force behind eliminating gender inequality in the legal profession, but placing the focus on these types of firms is not the only path to a solution, as female law students can also start to seek out a solution to the issue before they become attorneys. Women have been able to participate in legal proceedings for a far greater time than many realize. Margaret Brent was the first female attorney in the United States when she was officially labeled an executor and attorney in 1648.[2] Arabella Mansfield was the first female attorney admitted into a state bar; however, she did not achieve this through traditional means, as she did not attend law school, but instead was able to pass the bar exam by observing a male attorney.[3] Occurrences like the above were incredibly rare, as only five female attorneys were known to be practicing in the United States in 1870.[4] More often than not, women were blocked from obtaining work in the legal field. Throughout the 19th century the Supreme Court turned down attempts by females who sought protection under the 14th Amendment for the right to be admitted into state bars.[5] Gender discrimination also flowed into law schools, as women were primarily barred from admission into legal academic facilities until the turn of the 20th century.[6] Change in law school admittance only occurred as a side effect of both World Wars because many law schools were finally persuaded to admit women stemming from the need to fill in empty seats left open by men who were drafted for war, and even then, schools like Harvard University still fought to keep woman out of enrollment.[7] Even when women were able to attend law school, they still struggled to find employment after graduation.[8] Nevertheless, women have made great strides in finding access to legal employment and education since the times of Margaret Brent and Arabella Mansfield. The 1960s and 1970s were a particular time of great growth in the legal world, opening doors that were previously closed to women. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement stimulated interest in the legal profession for many women, which was further supported by a majority of law schools removing their bans on female applicants; this combination created a significant increase in new female law students who later became attorneys entering the workforce.[9] In the 1970s, the legal world profoundly changed as the demand for legal work amplified and was met by an increase in firm hiring, including the hiring of women.[10] Legislative movements also helped support the hiring and admittance of female lawyers and law students. In 1972, amendments to Title VII extended antidiscrimination rules to include smaller offices and government agencies, therefore, any firm with fifteen or more employees had to be considerably more careful with making employment decisions and fostering safe workplace environments.[11] The 1972 Amendments to Title IX also aided female law students by reinforcing antidiscrimination policies in law school admittance and scholarships, making it possible for schools to lose federal funding if found culpable of gender discrimination.[12] More recently, “big law” firms have started to set internal policies to help support female lawyers, and one of the most prominent policies is extended paid maternity leave, with some firms offering up to eighteen to twenty weeks.[13] However, even with such growth and diversification in the legal field, issues still persist. For the sizeable amount of women graduating from law schools over the past few years, there is still a stark difference in how many are actually employed in law firms.[14] The 35% of women who work in firms are consistently found to be in lower ranking positions, making up only 20% of firms’ equity partners.[15] Compensation has also become a hot topic, as there has been an increase in legal suits claiming firms support a pay disparity between genders.[16] Additionally, women are finding it difficult to break into certain legal specialties, particularly the patent and intellectual property fields.[17] Gender discrimination issues continue to extend far beyond what is seen in firms as well, including law school journals, judgeships and general counsels.[18] So, where can a solution to these issues be found' Many place the focus on “big law” and its need to diversify. In response, “big law” firms emphasize diversification and disparity as key objectives and have instituted diversity groups and hired diversity officers to ensure equality within its own practices.[19] However, the fight to stop gender discrimination can start even before students become lawyers and obtain legal employment. All law students, male and female, can make a difference if they emphasize their desire for diversity in interviews, and then firm recruiters will be forced to react to this changing law school student body. Another way gender discrimination can be fought is through law schools, where career advisors can help 1L female students by providing networking opportunities with established female professionals within the legal field at the beginning of their law school careers. Establishing these prof...
      PubDate: Wed, 16 May 2018 22:12:10 +000
       
  • Congratulations to the Volume 52 Front Office!
    • Authors: Katie Leney
      Abstract: Editor in Chief – Christopher Redd Executive Editor – Nolan Binney Senior Managing Editor – Clare Prober Managing Editor – Hanna Ciechanowski Lead Articles Editor – Eric Tollar Online Editor – Robert Pelletier Production Editor – Kristen Armstrong Content Editor – Craig Cataldo Associate Executive Editor – Kaitlyn Hansen Associate Production Editor – Patrick Sullivan
      PubDate: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:03:31 +000
       
  • Commonwealth v. Carter: Controversial Decision Sends a Warning to
           Teenagers That They Can be Held Criminally Liable for Their Words
    • Authors: sulronline
      Abstract: The old saying, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me,” may not be as true as it once was. In June 2017, a Massachusetts court found that a person’s words could be the direct cause of another person’s death, which can ultimately result in a verdict of involuntary manslaughter.  Read about the potential consequences of Commonwealth v. Carter before the Supreme Judicial Court hears the case on direct appellate review. Read more here.
      PubDate: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:43:16 +000
       
  • Commonwealth v. Carter: Controversial Decision Sends a Warning to
           Teenagers That They Can be Held Criminally Liable for Their Words
    • Authors: sulronline
      Abstract:   The old saying, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me,” may not be as true as it once was. In June 2017, a Massachusetts court found that a person’s words could be the direct cause of another person’s death, which can ultimately result in a verdict of involuntary manslaughter. In Commonwealth v. Carter,[1] a case that became national news, a teenage girl was charged for the death of her boyfriend because she encouraged and helped him plan his own suicide through phone conversations and text messages. The judge’s guilty verdict set new precedent for manslaughter in Massachusetts and raised potential constitutional issues in other states. This blog argues the reason why this case garnered so much attention was that its legal model can extend well beyond the encouragement and assistance of suicide. In particular, district attorneys across the United States may now potentially hold school bullies criminally responsible for their mean, taunting words that result in a peer’s suicide. On July 13, 2014, police found the body of Conrad Roy III after he committed suicide in his car.[2] He struggled with mental health issues for several years and had attempted suicide once before.[3] His girlfriend, Michelle Carter, was aware of his struggles and had previously advised him to seek help.[4] In the weeks and months prior to his death, Michelle and Conrad discussed when, how, and why Conrad should commit suicide.[5] Throughout the day before he died, Michelle sent text messages to Conrad encouraging him: “I thought you wanted to do this. The time is right and you’re ready, you just need to do it! You can’t keep living this way. You just need to do it like you did last time and not think about it . . . .”[6] They also had phone conversations along those same lines.[7] Afterwards, Michelle told a friend that Conrad left his car at first when the carbon monoxide started to come in, but that she then verbally told him to get back in the car.[8] Later on, Michelle told a friend that she believed, at any point throughout that day, she could have stopped the suicide from occurring, but she did not.[9] When manslaughter gains media attention, it is often due to actions such as negligent driving resulting in a fatality or providing drugs to a person whom later overdosed.[10]   Technically, manslaughter is defined in Massachusetts as when “wanton and reckless conduct… involves a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another.”[11] Such conduct can be found when: “the defendant [had] specific knowledge or . . . a reasonable person should have known in the circumstances.”[12] With this definition in mind and considering what most people consider manslaughter, Michelle Carter appealed whether she could be charged with the crime because she lacked the physical presence at Conrad’s death and did not supply him the tools to do so, insisting her words alone were not enough to be considered wanton and reckless conduct.[13] The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with Michelle; they had never before had a case where mere words were the basis of the indictment.[14] But due to her words occurring in the final moments of Conrad’s life, they therefore had a “coercive quality. . . sufficient in the specific circumstances of this case to support a finding of probable cause.”[15] After the Supreme Judicial Court’s findings, the Commonwealth could continue with their charges against Michelle in the juvenile district court. In a bench trial that consisted of more than a week of testimony and evidence regarding Michelle and Conrad’s relationship and their conversations, Judge Moniz found Michelle guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Judge Moniz explained that a combination of Michelle’s actions were the reason for her guilty verdict. First, encouraging Conrad to commit suicide was “wanton and reckless conduct by [Michelle], creating a situation where there [was] a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would result to [Conrad].”[16] Second, “[Michelle’s] failure to act where she had a self-created duty to [Conrad], since she had put him into that toxic environment, constituted . . . wanton and reckless conduct” as well.[17] Judge Moniz’s reasoning behind his decision was monumental. Many argued this finding essentially states Michelle “literally killed Mr. Roy with her words,” and goes against the traditional interpretation of involuntary manslaughter because it lacks a direct action from the defendant. It also possibly violates First Amendment rights due to the fact this type of scenario is not included in one of the exceptions to free speech.[18] Additionally, defense attorneys are now concerned this precedent will further confuse already muddled legal areas, such as assisted suicide and the duty to rescue.[19] It is likely that it will take the legislature some time to clarify this, but one of the more immediate impacts from this decision is showing the possible criminal implications of someone’s words. Bullying is hardly new; the rise of the internet and mobile communication now makes cyber bullying a pressing concern.[20] For example, in Florida, a twelve-year-old girl, Rebecca Sedwick, committed suicide due to harassing words from her peers.[21] After her death, authorities found out two young girls had been consistently harassing Rebecca through the internet, posting on message boards and text messages telling her to: “drink bleach and die.”[22] In what was a groundbreaking case for Florida, the state filed felony charges of stalking against both girls because there were no other bullying laws that could apply to Rebecca’s death.[23] However, the charges were ultimately dropped because there was no evidence of stalking, just cyber abuse.[24] If Florida...
      PubDate: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:34:46 +000
       
  • Shifting Public Opinion: Three Current Events that Prove Peoples’
           Aversion to Lawyers Should Change
    • Authors: sulronline
      Abstract: Continuing to put the focus on the positive actions of well meaning lawyers can hopefully help change the public opinion of the occupation.     Lets be honest, lawyers do not always have the best reputation in today’s society. The general public loves to hate lawyers, making them the subject of jokes, complaining about legal fees, and creating derogatory names. This aversion toward the legal profession may be due to an increasing amount of attorneys working towards self-interest instead of public interest. That blanket statement, however, only epitomizes a small cross-section of the profession, but places a stigma upon an entire occupation. Catastrophes, large and small, occur frequently, and almost all require the immediate help of emergency responders. But when the exigency fades and the first responders leave, lawyers provide long-term relief for the many people dealing with the catastrophic impact. Read more here.
      PubDate: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:50:16 +000
       
  • Shifting Public Opinion: Three Current Events that Prove Peoples’
           Aversion to Lawyers Should Change
    • Authors: sulronline
      Abstract: Lets be honest, lawyers do not always have the best reputation in today’s society. The general public loves to hate lawyers, making them the subject of jokes, complaining about legal fees, and creating derogatory names.[1] This aversion toward the legal profession may be due to an increasing amount of attorneys working towards self-interest instead of public interest.[2] That blanket statement, however, only epitomizes a small cross-section of the profession, but places a stigma upon an entire occupation. Catastrophes, large and small, occur frequently, and almost all require the immediate help of emergency responders. But when the exigency fades and the first responders leave, lawyers provide long-term relief for the many people dealing with the catastrophic impact.[3] Americans do not hold lawyers in high esteem; so much so in fact that one study found that Americans believe lawyers contribute the least to society out of all major occupations.[4] Obtaining legal help is one of the most expensive services a person may pay for in life.[5] Lawyers are composed of a highly isolated group of people, due to years of tradition and the requirement of a specialized degree.[6] Additionally, people usually only seek out a lawyer during stressful times when people need help dealing with difficult situations.[7] All of these elements not only segregate lawyers from the community at large, but also make it extremely difficult for the average person to relate and connect with lawyers, leaving a negative impression of the occupation. On top of this disconnect, the media focus tends to cover only the unethical and dramatic side of lawyering, giving society a warped perception of lawyers’ actions.[8] While there are some unethical lawyers who are the reason so many hold such negative feelings towards the occupation, there are even more hardworking lawyers who tirelessly help individuals during the worst time in their lives.[9] The billable hour expectation of most firms ensures lawyers work incredibly long hours, but they also work into the night to ensure a client’s goal is accomplished through client meetings, research, writing, and court appearances.[10] While many people remember certain historical events due to the heroic actions of emergency responders or activists, which is rightfully so as many risk their lives to help others, lawyers usually become involved later, and therefore, people are unaware of the help lawyers provide as well.[11] This past hurricane season was one for the records.[12] Hurricane Harvey dumped dozens of inches of rain on southern Texas causing devastating water levels to rise several feet.[13] When natural disasters occur, lives are threatened and property is ruined. Days after Hurricane Harvey left the area and the first responders ceased rescue operations, lawyers immediately started to set up emergency legal services. Lawyers helped hurricane victims apply for FEMA relief and find health care providers open while many in the area were still under water.[14] The Texas Supreme Court also allowed out-of-state attorneys to practice in Texas for a period after the hurricane, which allowed lawyers throughout the United States to give free and quick legal advice to those in need.[15] Over 1,600 lawyers volunteered to help solve issues that many victims did not even realize they had until after the devastation occurred, such as tenant rights in flooded apartments or child custody issues involving displaced parents.[16] Some of the lawyers who volunteered were even victims of the storms themselves, but put their own concerns aside because they wanted to help their local community.[17] In 2010, Haiti experienced a devastating earthquake flattening homes and killing almost a quarter million people.[18] The earthquake decimated the country, including the legal and government systems, causing Haitian nationals to seek relief elsewhere.[19] In order to leave the chaos Haitians fled to the U.S. in droves, and lawyers helped thousands of people apply for temporary protected status so they would not be deported from the United States.[20] After that, lawyers fought for years to encourage the government to allow the Haitians’ temporary status to remain so they could continue on with the education and jobs they had established here since the 2010 earthquake.[21]   Remaining in the United States proved essential to many earthquake victims, as despite best efforts, the revitalization of Haiti never occurred, meaning children who had lived in the United States for eight years or more would be required to go back to a country where many life essentials were not yet restored.[22] Even today, U.S. lawyers are still helping the devastated area by funding their own trips to the country to train Haitian attorneys in litigation skills and international law policies.[23] The recent releases of multiple popular exoneration documentaries over the past few years has also turned the public’s interest towards the injustice caused by the imprisonment of innocent persons. While the documentary was a form of entertainment for many, such undeserved imprisonment is not as rare as many may think, and the release of innocent individuals is due to the hard work of appeals lawyers.[24] The Innocence Project, a pro bono organization that helps imprisoned individuals appeal their convictions, has helped over 1,700 innocent people be released from prison and clear their names of harmful criminal records.[25] People are released from prison due to ineffective counsel, new DNA evidence, or technological advances.[26] In the year 2016 alone, attorneys successfully helped 170 individuals with their appeals, meaning almost every other day an individual was found innocent for a crime a jury or judge found them guilty of committing.[27] These are only three examples of how attorneys have helped thousands of people recently. Attorneys have acquired a bad reputation for years, and for...
      PubDate: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:46:51 +000
       
  • Jennings v. Rodriguez: A Year after Original Argument and the Question of
           Prolonged Mandatory Detention Still Poses a Legal Quandary for the Supreme
           Court
    • Authors: sulronline
      Abstract: Recently, on the morning of October 3, 2017, Justice Ginsburg made an important point for mandatorily detained noncitizens: “there is something in between.”  Under Chapter 8 of the U.S. Code, the government must detain certain non-citizens throughout their removal proceedings. The issue being argued in Jennings v. Rodriguez is whether it is unconstitutional to detain these individuals for a prolonged amount of time without some form of bond review. Many complicated factors, such as the plenary power doctrine, due process issues, and the congested immigration court system left the Supreme Court of the United States befuddled on when it is appropriate to require review for potential release. What has become clear, though, is that something must be done to correct the injustices thrust upon those placed in prolonged detention, even if it requires a new middle ground, much like that which Justice Ginsburg alluded to in her statement at reargument. Read more here.
      PubDate: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:40:12 +000
       
  • Jennings v. Rodriguez: A Year after Original Argument and the Question of
           Prolonged Mandatory Detention Still Poses a Legal Quandary for the Supreme
           Court
    • Authors: sulronline
      Abstract: Recently, on the morning of October 3, 2017, Justice Ginsburg made an important point for mandatorily detained noncitizens: “there is something in between.”[1] Under Chapter 8 of the U.S. Code, the government must detain certain non-citizens throughout their removal proceedings. The issue being argued in Jennings v. Rodriguez is whether it is unconstitutional to detain these individuals for a prolonged amount of time without some form of bond review.[2] Many complicated factors, such as the plenary power doctrine, due process issues, and the congested immigration court system left the Supreme Court of the United States befuddled on when it is appropriate to require review for potential release. What has become clear, though, is that something must be done to correct the injustices thrust upon those placed in prolonged detention, even if it requires a new middle ground, much like that which Justice Ginsburg alluded to in her statement at reargument. One group of non-citizens that are greatly effected by mandatory detention are convicts, as 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) orders the Department of Homeland Security must “take into custody any alien who” is convicted of certain crimes.[3] The original intention behind the provision was that it would increase the removal of dangerous criminals and improve public safety.[4] While data confirms removal rates dramatically increased since the provision was passed, the time it now takes for a detained individual to be removed from the United States also similarly increased.[5] The concern is if a non-citizen is detained under 1226(c), he or she will most likely be detained for the entire removal process, including any appeals process, and there is very limited avenues available for 1226(c) detained individuals to seek bond during this period.[6] Mandatory detainees argue this lack of opportunity to request bond is in violation of due process rights.[7] In addition, an individual review should be required no later than six months after being detained to prevent such unconstitutional detention.[8] Previously, the Court held there are two reasons for detaining removable individuals–securing appearance at proceedings and protecting the general public.[9] But if for some reason removal is impossible, then these justifications cannot logically apply, and, therefore, a “court must ask whether the detention in question exceeds a period reasonably necessary to secure the removal.”[10] To ensure consistency throughout all removal proceedings, courts should consider anytime after six months without a significant probability of removal, to be unreasonable.[11] However, in Demore v. Kim, the Court also held that if removal remains a possibility, then the justifications for mandatory detention of non-citizen criminals remain in effect, as long as it is not indefinite.[12] Unfortunately, the Court in Demore incorrectly relied on statistics showing removal proceedings averaged no more than five months.[13] Since then, there has been a split throughout the nation on how to deal with mandatory detainees. The Second and Ninth Circuit require detainees to obtain a bond review at least every six months.[14] This is due to the recently revealed data showing detainment can last well more than ninety days–typically lasting more than six months, and often lasting years.[15] The irreparable harm placed upon detainees is also a key issue.[16] Some mandatory detainees pose less of a threat to society and their removal proceedings were initiated for non-violent crimes.[17] Nevertheless, they are “often treated like criminals serving time,” causing them to miss important family and business events.[18] On the other hand, the other circuits believe the case-by-case standard should remain intact, in which bond review occurs on an individual basis whenever it naturally arises in the proceedings.[19] The courts agree reasonableness must remain a key consideration, but the fact most 1226(c) detainees can be deported within the foreseeable future still makes the justifications for detention relevant.[20] Justice Steven Breyer hit the nail on the head when he stated: “Now, that to me is a little odd, particularly when. . .we give triple ax murderers, at least people who are accused of such, bail hearings.”[21] To require immigrants, who may be of very little risk of flight or to the community no access to bond, but to automatically give bail hearings to clearly dangerous individuals, seems like a clear substantive due process violation.  This topic is particularly important due to the Trump administration’s increase in immigration enforcement and rise in ICE arrests.[22] With the now looming possibility of increased removal, it is imperative something in between is considered by the Court to ensure there is not an added amount of detainee suffering from prolonged detention. A six-month bright line rule could potentially cause chaos in the immigration system, which is already overwhelmed. In addition, to force a review every six months may cause removal proceedings to become extended even further. However, there are other options. Requiring review within a period of 12 months after the start of detention could also be deemed reasonable or exercising non-detention options, such as monitoring devices, would also provide the relief detainees are looking for, but also keep the reasoning behind detention in mind. Gathering from what the Justices asked about on October 3, it seems like a majority may be open to such a compromising option. [1] See Transcript of Oral Argument at 9, Jennings v. Rodriguez, No. 15-1204, (argued Oct. 3, 2017), https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/15-1204_m6hn.pdf [https://perma.cc/6F85-BBL6]. [2] See Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining history of prolonged detention issue). [3] See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (2012) (requiring detainm...
      PubDate: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:35:50 +000
       
  • Undue Delay: Does it Amount to Denial of an Accommodation Under the
           FHA'
    • Authors: Katie Leney
      Abstract: Can a condo board’s delay in responding to a service animal request amount to an undue delay under the Fair Housing Act' While there is no express duty for property owners to respond promptly to service animal requests, this duty may be implied under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Recently, a judge in the District Court of Massachusetts found that this duty may be implied when there is undue delay in deciding to permit or deny a reasonable accommodation, such as a service animal. Read more here.
      PubDate: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:49:57 +000
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Customise
APIs
Your IP address: 35.173.234.140
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-