Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
OP: how do you like the questions presented?
Alderaan: the questions presented brilliantly worded to get around some of the problems we discussed last week!
Alderaan: One question I have though is how to go about the second question (specifically whether disbarment without a jury violates "fundamental fairness") since there are plenty of administrative hearings that result in de-licensing and in which juries do not participate
Triton: Great question. It puts forward the federal issue of read concern based on the downstream consequence to the bogus finding.
Tretogor: in regard to @alderaan's second point, is it worthwhile addressing--within the question--that this finding is criminal in nature
Tretogor: might make it distinguishable versus what @alderaan is concerned about
Crait: @ Alderaan the argument under fundamental fairness is that disbarment is distinct from other license revocations due to interested factfinders
Kaer Trolde: Maybe emphasize the federal nature of the second question more?
Ahch-To: The first question is super strong. In the second question, I'm having trouble with the use of "either/or" -- the two bases for this proposition are both good options, but the use of "or" makes it seem like they're in conflict with each other. Not sure how to fix it though because they're clearly two options, either (or both) of which the court could select.
Triton: I'm not so moved by the jury argument. They don't have jury trials in any disbarment hearings. Judges are likely to feel they need control of the bar.
Triton: @triton: Agree, takes some focus away from the first question. Is that important?
Proteus: @Vorash, that might be a structural issue that can be addressed by just separating out the questions and arguing both
Uranus: I think it will be important to clarify why this is a fundamental fairness issue regarding the loss of livelihood, etc., when people who are charged and convicted lose employment opportunities all the time.
DQar: Should question 1 specify that the civil findings were not made by a jury, and in fact the defendant had no option for trial by jury? Does that matter to the argument? Also, this might be a bit of wordsmithing, but in question 1, I'm partial to something like "can a state disbar an attorney" rather than "should a state be permitted to disbar"
Hyperion: I think the language could be more emotive. It is a little sterilized as is
Hyperion: Especially if we are talking about things like "fairness" and "due process."
Rhea: i think the language could be simplified a bit