DOUGLAS COLBERT, University of Maryland School of Law
Email: dcolbert@law.umaryland.edu

Some rare, often catastrophic, events present in stark terms a need for careful reflection over the role of attorneys in our society and their ethical duties as members of the legal profession. The devastation caused by both Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 certainly falls within this category. Professor Colbert uses these events as a backdrop to examine the legal profession's ethical obligation when crisis compromises the most basic elements of our system of justice. Acknowledging that numerous members of the bar and thousands of volunteer law students courageously stepped forward in those challenging times to assist the many people denied basic aspects of justice, Professor Colbert examines in a more fundamental way why relatively few attorneys in fact volunteered, as well as the broader responsibilities of the legal profession during such crisis.

Tracing the century-old evolution of lawyers' ethical codes, Professor Colbert reflects upon whether the legal profession takes seriously an attorney's core value of public service. He challenges the bar to examine and to appreciate in a deeper way what the Model Rules' Preamble declares in its' opening sentence as the lawyer's role "as a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice." Professor Colbert's review of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and the September 11th attacks suggests that the "learned profession" has considerable distance to travel before it satisfies Model Rule's 6.1, pro bono duty "to provide legal services to those unable to pay." To cite just one example, he highlights the bar's limited response to the Katrina crisis by noting that the sole criminal courthouse in New Orleans remained closed for ten months and thereby denied access to most incarcerated people awaiting trial.

Professor Colbert's article poses the fundamental question that every bar association and legal educator must answer. Are we doing enough to instill public service as a core requirement of preparing people to practice law and to meet their professional responsibility when disaster overwhelms our very system of justice?

SUSAN STUART, Valparaiso University - Law School
Email: Susan.Stuart@valpo.edu

The tragic events at Virginia Tech in 2007 sent a cold wind blowing through the halls of higher education institutions: a Virginia Tech student, who had fallen through the cracks of the school's mental health services and disciplinary procedures, armed himself with firearms and murdered thirty-two students and a professor before committing suicide. In the wake of that massacre, several states and individual interest groups issued reports on campus readiness for similar catastrophes. A consistent theme throughout those reports emphasized the necessity for individual institutions to review their procedures to deal with campus violence.

This Article focuses on that institutional review and the role of lawyers in assisting colleges and universities in formulating better and more comprehensive procedures for preventing campus violence in general, but with an emphasis on preventing similar catastrophes, or at worst, minimizing their devastation. The lawyer has the best opportunity to assist by participating in the process rather than either dictating its conduct or reviewing the product after the fact. Preventive lawyering and collaborating with the academy are the only successful means for adequately addressing comprehensive plans that manage the risks raised by the needs of the new consumer student and that create a campus culture that does not tolerate campus violence. Specifically, this Article summarizes how the lawyer's collaboration with the academy should neatly incorporate the academic ends of the institution with legal ends that could minimize both the harm and the costs of campus violence.

PETER R. REILLY, William S. Boyd School of Law, UNLV
Email: peter.reilly@unlv.edu

The majority of law review articles addressing lying and deception in negotiation have argued, in one form or another, that liars and deceivers could be successfully reined in and controlled if only the applicable ethics rules were strengthened, and if corresponding enforcement powers were sufficiently beefed up and effectively executed. This article takes a different approach, arguing that the applicable ethics rules will likely never be strengthened, and, furthermore, that even if they were, they would be difficult to enforce in any meaningful way, at least in the context of negotiation. The article concludes that lawyers, businesspeople, and everyone else who engages in negotiation should learn how to carefully and purposefully implement mindsets, strategies, and tactics to defend themselves against others who lie and deceive. The article sets forth those defensive devices and offers prescriptive advice for minimizing one's risk of being exploited in a negotiation should other parties lie.

WESLEY PUE, University of British Columbia - Faculty of Law
Email: pue@law.ubc.ca

This paper explores the liberal commitments of legal education against the requirements of liberal democracy, properly understood. It addresses the distinction between liberal education and training in trade technique, assesses pressures militating against liberal education in law, explores tensions within law faculties (such as the challenges presented by religious and cultural diversity) and considers the potential of attaining "grace through skills training". The paper explores arguments developed by Roger Burridge and Juilan Webb in their scholarship on "The Values of Common Law Legal Education."

SUZANNE M. LE MIRE, University of Adelaide - Law School
Email: suzanne.lemire@adelaide.edu.au
CHRISTINE E. PARKER, University of Melbourne - Law School
Email: c.parker@unimelb.edu.au

The advice provided by lawyers in large law firms to their large commercial and government clients has a significant effect on perceptions of the fairness of the legal system and the social responsibility of large corporations and government bodies. It is likely that this advice is shaped in part by the expectations, practices, and values of the clients, and in particular the client's in-house counsel. The commercial imperatives of the client could encourage lawyers to act in ways that attract public censure. At the same time the integration of ethical content into contractual arrangements has become a common practice in government contracts for legal services. Yet the extent to which clients attempt to contribute to ethical behaviour is virtually unknown. This paper presents data gathered through interviews with in-house counsel for large commercial and government clients. It considers their perceptions of the ethics of their large law firm lawyers. It also examines the extent to which they attempt to influence the ethics of their lawyers and their assessment of the effectiveness of these attempts. We find that in house counsel select external lawyers according to their "cultural fit" with the client. The relationship is then a sustained one with the in house counsel actively monitoring the activities of the external lawyers to ensure that they are consistent with the ethical priorities of the client.