Protecting the Continuing Duties of Loyalty and Confidentiality in Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims

The success or failure of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim turns largely on the testimony of trial counsel. It is therefore common for the government to communicate ex parte with trial counsel in order to formulate its response to such a claim. But even after the representation has ended, trial counsel continues to be bound by duties of loyalty and confidentiality to their former client, as well as the attorney-client privilege, subject to a limited waiver relative to information that is reasonably necessary to respond to the ineffectiveness claim. Because of their interests in the litigation, however, neither trial counsel nor the government is positioned to objectively decide what information is covered by that waiver. In order to ensure that trial counsel respects their ethical duties to their former client and to protect the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship, post-conviction courts should prohibit trial counsel from communicating ex parte with the government. These courts should instead require that all such communications take place on the record—ideally at a deposition, but alternatively through affidavits.     

The Place of Wishes and Feelings in Best Interests Decisions: Wye Valley NHS Trust v Mr B

In Wye Valley NHS Trust v Mr B the Court of Protection decided that it was not in the best interests of Mr B to receive amputation surgery against his will, notwithstanding that he would die without the treatment. The judge met with Mr B in person and his best interests decision placed significant weight on Mr B's wishes and feelings. This case note considers this influential case in the context of ongoing debate about the place of wishes and feelings in best interests decisions under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It considers the history of the best interests principle, its interpretation by the Supreme Court in Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James, ongoing debates about its compatibility with Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and recent proposals by the Law Commission for statutory amendments to the Mental Capacity Act.     

Chamber of Attorneys of the City of Moscow Disciplinary Proceedings Against Attorney B. [Spring 2008]

[Main accusation: abandoning a client in a difficult situation in the middle of civil proceedings.—Eds.]     

Fraud by Abuse of Position and Unlicensed Gangmasters

This article analyses the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the fraud by abuse of position offence in R v Valujevs. Two issues are explored: first, the Court's welcome clarification of the meaning of a relevant ‘expectation’; second, the inadequacy of the Court's reasoning in deciding that an unlicensed gangmaster ‘is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests’ of his workers.     

FAMILY DEFINITIONS AND CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN CUSTODY DECISION MAKING: THE IMPORTANCE OF A CHANGING LITIGANT CONTEXT

Recent scholarship has advocated two distinct approaches to promoting the preservation of children's attachment relationships during custody disputes between their biological and nonbiological parents. Some scholars argue that legal recognition of expansive definitions of the family is the key to protecting children's attachments, while others argue that such protection is contingent upon legal recognition of children's rights. This research examines the efficacy of these competing arguments through an analysis of 75 cases decided in 21 states and the District of Columbia between 2004 and 2005. Findings suggest that judicial attention to definitions of the family is generally confined to cases involving specific types of litigants; namely, former homosexual partners, couples who utilized fertility technologies, former stepparents, and presumptive fathers. In these instances, attention to broad conceptions of the family is associated with the maintenance of children's attachment relationships. Beyond this particular context, however, judges focus almost exclusively on balancing children's interests and rights against those of their biological parents. These findings suggest that both children's rights and family definitions influence judicial decisions, but their impact is context specific. For those scholars advocating legal change, this is an important insight because it shifts the debate from an “either/or” focus to one that recognizes the importance of the litigant context in custody decision making.     

Privacy Codes and Institutional Record Keeping: Procedural versus Strategic Approaches

Privacy codes aim at protecting individuals' interests in the treatment of data on themselves held by institutions. One can distinguish between procedural and strategic principles underlying these codes. The former aim at shaping treatment of personal information, once compiled within data systems; the latter aim at limiting and dispersing personal information from the start. A historical view of the workings of these two principles gives more reasons for optimism in the case of strategic measures. In contrast, procedural restrictions on access to personal information are evidently subject to erosion and reversal with changes in larger political climates.     

Living in a Policy State: From Trust for Sale to Trust of Land

The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996has transformed the nature of co-ownership interests in land.The trust for sale, which governed dealings in co-ownedproperty under the Law of Property Act 1925, and whichmade sale the presumptive object of co-ownership, has been replaced by a trust of land, under which co-owners retainan interest in the land itself, rather than its capital value.This article considers the likely impact of this legislativepolicy departure, particularly in relation to the court'swillingness to grant an order for the sale of co-owned propertyon application by a creditor, and against the wishes of anon-debtor co-owner occupier.     

Council of the Chamber of Attorneys of the City of Moscow Extract from Survey of Disciplinary Practice (May 15, 2006)

[Main accusation: taking on a case that is absolutely hopeless.—Eds.]

An attorney does not have the right to accept a commission to conduct a civil case that in the light of factual circumstances and acting legislation is absolutely hopeless for the client.     

Workplace Monitoring and the Right to Private Life at Work

In Barbulescu v Romania, the European Court of Human Rights clarified the application of the Article 8 right to private life in the workplace, and the extent of the state's positive obligations to protect the right against workplace monitoring. The decision establishes that there is an irreducible core to the right to private life at work that does not depend on an employee's reasonable expectations of privacy, and sets out clear principles for striking a fair balance between Article 8 and the employer's interests in the context of workplace monitoring. This article considers the nature of states’ positive obligation to protect human rights at work, the scope of the right to private life, and the impact of the decision on domestic law of unfair dismissal.     

Reporting of crime to the police in the Federal Republic of Germany: A comparison of the old and the new lands

A victimization survey of 7,026 households in the former east and west German Länder (states) carried out one year after the unification of Germany presented a unique opportunity to examine factors associated with the reporting of crime to the police. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with variation in the dependent variable, reporting of crime to the police, controlling for victimizations which occurred prior to and subsequent to unification, as well as whether the victim resided in the former east or west German Länder. The amount of loss in German Marks or seriousness of physical injury were the principle determinants of whether a crime was reported to the police.     

Assessing the best interests of the child in cases of cross-border surrogacy: inconsistency in the Strasbourg approach?

This article examines the approach of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to assessing the best interests of the child in three recent cases of cross-border surrogacy, namely Mennesson v France, Labassee v France and Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy. It is argued that these cases reveal inconsistency in the ECtHR’s assessment of the best interests of the child. In Mennesson and Labassee, the ECtHR found that the national authorities’ refusal to legally recognise the relationships between the children and the intended parents amounted to a violation of Article 8 ECHR, whereas no violation was found in Paradiso. A notable distinguishing feature of Paradiso was that there was no genetic relationship between the child and the intended parents, and it is this point that seemingly led the Court to assess the best interests of that child differently to the others.     

竞争政策区域合作机制探析

Regional economic cooperation and multilateral cooperation of competition policies are regarded as two of the most important topics in international communities, both of which have a very close relationship, i.e., the former is an important path to the latter, and the latter is usually a critical topic of the former. Among the existing regional cooperation mechanism of competition policies are the three most typical modes, i.e., APEC’s open cooperation, NAFTA’s procedural law cooperation and EU’s substantive law cooperation. While taking initiatives to participate in multilateral cooperation of competition policies, China shall grasp the situation of current multilateral cooperation of competition policies, and follow the orderliness of its development, i.e., a step-by-step process of cooperation from nonbinding to binding, from domestic law to international law, and from fundamental to procedural law and to substantive law. Qi Tong, Ph.D, was once a visiting scholar in the Amsterdam Center of International Law (ACIL) (2006–2007). Now, he is an associate professor at the Department of International Economic Law of Wuhan University. His research interests focus on international trade law, international investment law, international financial law, international competition policy. His main publications include Regulatory constraint on transnational mergers & acquisitions (2006), Antitrust legislation on foreign M&A investments: Analysis on the antitrust rules in the Interim Provisions for Foreign Investors to Merge Domestic Enterprises (2004), Evolution of the pluralistic market regulation mechanism and its legislation (2005), On the positive comity of international antitrust cooperation (2005), International regulation mechanism and the new views of international economic law (2005), A legal perspective on the development of loan securitization in China (2006), A review on the case of Chinese measures affecting financial information services and foreign financial information supplier (2008).     

Defense Attorney Plea Recommendations and Client Race: Does Zealous Representation Apply Equally to All?

Research on racism in the criminal justice system generally focuses on the role of the jury; yet, the vast majority of convictions are obtained through plea bargains. This research addresses the role of the defense attorney and proposes that disparities in sentence length and incarceration rates between African Americans and Caucasian Americans are in part due to the plea bargains that defense attorneys recommend these clients accept. Using practicing defense attorneys from around the country, findings indicate that the pleas attorneys felt they could obtain with a minority client contained higher sentences (adjusted M = 2.88) than those they felt they could obtain with a Caucasian client (adjusted M = 2.22) and were significantly more likely to include some jail time. Reasons for the disparate recommendations were not due to increased perceptions of guilt with the minority client nor to perceptions that the minority client would fare worse at trial. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed as well as possible future directions.     

Blinking Subjects; Blinking Justice? – Law,Medicine and the PVS Patient

This paper argues that in medical discourse, there is insufficient unanimity of opinion with regards to the time at which an accurate diagnosis of PVS can be made and that clearly, there is an incomplete medical knowledge of the PVS condition. The judiciary chooses neither to question medical opinion that patients can be considered to be in PVS despite a failure to satisfy the diagnostic criteria, nor medical opinion that patients in `near PVS' will never recover. It is apparent from an examination of the judgements given in PVS cases that the law does not ascribe such individuals with full human status. Such a legal position is particularly problematic in ethical terms when applied in cases involving patients who are in a `near PVS' position, and in the light of evidence that some PVS diagnoses are inaccurate. The application of the best interests test in PVS cases results in the adoption of a paternalistic, objective approach that fails to respect the former competent individuals whom PVS patients once were. If, alternatively, the substituted judgement test were to be adopted, the principle of individual autonomy would become central to the question of whether PVS patients' treatment should be withdrawn. Furthermore, the application of this test would also ensure that PVS patients continue to be viewed as `persons'.     

Re-Evaluating ‘Best Interests’ in the Wake of Raqeeb v Barts NHS Foundation Trust & Anors

In Raqeeb v Barts NHS Foundation Trust, the latest of a number of cases concerning whether a child can travel abroad for treatment that doctors in the UK do not consider to be in their best interests, the High Court held that the hospital had acted unlawfully by failing to consider the child's rights under EU law when refusing to allow her to travel. Although this derogation could be justified on public policy grounds, as such treatment was, on the facts, in her best interests, no further interference with her rights was justified. In making this finding, the court recognised the ‘stress’ that such a case placed on the best interests test, lending weight to the argument for moving instead to a risk of significant harm threshold for judicial intervention in parental decisions, which better accounts for legitimate differences of value and strikes a better balance under Article 8 ECHR.     

Presumptions,Burdens, and Best Interests in Relocation Law

The pure “best interests” approach to relocation law is a failure. It is unpredictable and expensive, increasing conflict and discouraging settlement. The “fundamental questions” proposed by Parkinson and Cashmore in their article will not reform the law. Real reform will require the use of presumptions or burdens to guide best interests. “Presumptions” are not “rules,” but only starting points. No simple presumption “for” or “against” all relocations can be justified, but there are large categories of cases that do warrant presumptions: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers. The first three involve presumptions against relocation, while the last—the largest category—warrants a presumption that relocation is in the best interests of the child, unless the contrary is proved. There will remain a small minority of in‐between cases where none of these presumptions will operate, recognizing the limits of our general knowledge. It is time to move the relocation reform debate beyond pure “best interests,” to the next stage, to a serious discussion of which cases warrant presumptions, and of what strength.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Pure best interests approach to relocation law is a failure
• Presumptions or burdens needed to reform the law, but not just “for” or “against”
• Presumptions are identified for four categories of relocation cases: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers

     

INTRAFAMILIAL COMMUNICATIONS

Although testimonial privileges undermine the general rule that all relevant evidence is admissible at trial, legislatures and courts have recognized certain privileges primarily to protect. In these cases, the courts and legislatures have balanced the competing interests of full disclosure, on one hand, and the preservation of valued relationship, on the other, and have found that the latter outweighs the former. The attorney-clint privilege, for example, exists to encourage truthful communications between attorney and client so that the client may obtain complete and accurate legal advice. Likewise, the marital privilege protects confidences between spouses to preserve the institution of marriage. The parent-child relationship, while certainly valuable to society, has not been afforded the same protection. This note argues that a parent-child privilege should exist. Basic constitutional principles, as well as comparative and social policy arguments, support the recognition of a parent-child privilege .     

Hefa Quanyi: More than a Problem of Translation. Linguistic Evidence of Lawfully Limited Rights in China

This essay addresses the legal meanings of the phrase hefa quanyi (lawful or legitimate rights and interests), an important Chinese legal phrase that is frequently found in many Chinese laws and legal documents, and whose interpretation is claimed by various scholars to affect the alienability of people’s rights. It first challenges the existing translations of the phrase into Italian and English. It secondly delves into its history and etymology, studying the legal meanings that the phrase has had in the various texts of the Constitution of China. It is suggested that hefa quanyi is not the semantic and legal equivalent of Western ‘rights and interests’, but rather that the phrase retains its etymological meaning of ‘power and negatively-connoted profit’. It is further argued that the adjective hefa (lawful) in the phrase is used to impose constraints on the rights and interests that the Chinese people are entitled to.

     

Adolescent Refusal of MMR Inoculation: F (Mother) v F (Father)

F (Mother) v F (Father) concerned a dispute between parents as to whether or not their 15 and 11 year old children should receive the MMR inoculation. Mrs Justice Theis took into consideration the wishes of both parents and the two ‘intelligent, articulate and thoughtful’ minors and held that inoculation was in their best interests. The troubled history of the MMR vaccine and its importance to public health provided the backdrop. Whilst the court's efforts to establish the views of the minors are to be commended, the decision is problematic in its assessment of the minors' individual medical interests and capacities, and in the significance placed on their views when determining whether inoculation would be in their best interests.