BOSTON COLLEGE
Boston College Law Review
Publications
|
BOSTON COLLEGE |
Student Publications |
| Volume 41 | December 1999 | Number 1 |
|
|
||
|
Abstract: The disciplinary rules of every state prohibit attorneys from charging “unreasonable” fees. These provisions, however, are virtually never enforced; virtually all instances where the rules are invoked involve independent forms of dishonesty or misconduct. The only two cases in which attorneys have been disciplined solely based on the size of the fee involved “blue-chip” civil attorneys who represented working-class defendants in criminal matters. In both cases, the rationale for discipline was questionable; the clients were completely exonerated of criminal charges and the fees would have been unexceptional in elite civil practice. These disciplinary prosecutions were particularly doubtful because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice prohibits the government from limiting the amount of money criminal defendants can pay their lawyers. The reasonable fee rules are either unenforced or questionably enforced because they are not designed to limit lawyer’s fees or incomes per se, but to ensure that lawyers do not take advantage of clients, and that clients understand the nature of the legal services they are buying. The mismatch between the purpose of the rules and their language should be remedied by making clear that lawyers are obligated to talk with their clients about their legal options and offer some estimate of what they might cost. But fees negotiated after appropriate disclosure should not subject an attorney to discipline. [Pages 71-101] Abstract. The automobile exception to the search warrant requirement originated in 1924, when obtaining a search warrant was a lengthy and involved process. Today, federally and in a growing number of states, search warrants can be obtained by telephone or facsimile in a matter of minutes. Yet the automobile exception, originally based upon the exigency presented by the mobility of the automobile, remains intact and was recently extended to permit the warrantless search of property belonging to passengers in automobiles. This article critically examines the development of the automobile exception and calls for a reform of that exception in light of changing technology and procedural requirements. [Pages 103-124] Abstract. The enormous success of the United States economy in producing new jobs has focused world-wide attention on the flexibility of the American labor market, and on the malleability of the legal order that regulates it. Despite our reputation for sparse public regulation of the employment relationship, however, the past decade has been a period of unprecedented judicial and legislative activity. The United States now has more formal employment regulation than ever before. The following piece places these developments in the context of a decline in the practice of private law-making, and identifies four movements that have emerged and which characterize the developments of this period. [Pages 125-152] Abstract. In 1996, Congress passed sweeping reforms aimed at overhauling the welfare system. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (“PRWORA”) included a new definition of childhood disability that, it is estimated, excluded 100,000 children from SSI benefits. This Note explains the changes implemented within the childhood disability system and explains the reasoning behind those changes. It then argues that the regulations promulgated in response to PRWORA exclude truly disabled children from receiving disability benefits. These regulations violate the Social Security Act, are inconsistent with the stated policies of the Social Security Administration and draw arbitrary distinctions, violating the legislative intent of the Social Security Act. [Pages 153-193] |
||