The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association Law Foundation presents its 2018 Thomas Tang Northeast Regional Moot Court Competition, and is in need of volunteers. This competition provides a unique and memorable experience for student appellate advocates. The event allows law students to showcase their writing and oral advocacy skills, and also to compete for scholarships totaling $10,000. In summary, this year’s problem is on whether a state university has the right to impose disciplinary sanctions on a student for non-curricular expressive conduct, and if it may expel a law student for off-campus expressive activity. For more information on this year’s problem, click here.
The event will be held on Friday, October 19, 2018, from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. at the United States Court of International Trade, One Federal Plaza, New York, New York. NAPABA seeks volunteers for grading briefs and for day-of. Brief graders will review and score briefs submitted by the student teams before the competition, and the time commitment is flexible. Day-of volunteers are welcome to assist for either part of the event or the entire day, and will serve as bailiffs or judges for the oral argument rounds. For a complete schedule of the day’s events, click here. If you are interested in volunteering, please contact Zoe Wong, the Northeast Regional Coordinator, at ThomasTangMootCourtNE@gmail.com. For more information, please visit NAPABA’s website here.
Update from Vinoo Varghese on further developments in connection with his being subpoenaed recently as a defense attorney in a pending matter: The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NYSACDL) and the Legal Aid Society (LAS), as amicus curiae, are seeking a declaratory judgment that the act of subpoenaing a defense attorney during the pendency of an open case is per se wrong. These groups have opposed the sealing of this matter on First Amendment grounds.
Here is a quote from the article and LAS amicus brief:
“It is hard to imagine a grand jury summons with a more chilling effect on the unique constitutional role of defense counsel and on every attorney who performs it,” wrote Steven Wasserman, a staff attorney at Legal Aid.
Click on the link in the title to read the full article.
This year’s problem addresses the following issues:
I. Whether § 66.04 of the Apalsa Revised Statutes (“ARS”) precluding a public defender from withdrawing on the basis of excessive workload or lack of resource violates the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
A. Whether ARS § 66.04 is facially unconstitutional.
B. Whether ARS § 66.04 is unconstitutional as applied in this case.
II. Whether the sanctions imposed on Appellant by the Professional Ethics Board of the State Bar of Apalsa violated her rights under the Constitution of the United States.
A. Whether the sanctions imposed for refusing to comply with a court order to represent a criminal defendant violate the Fifth Amendment right to due process.
B. Whether the sanctions imposed for Appellant’s public statement regarding her refusal to comply with a court order to represent a criminal defendant violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression.