And the Dynasty Continues

Harvard Law School’s SALDF hosted its annual National Animal Law Advocacy competitions in Cambridge on February 5-7.  The weekend’s events consisted of Moot Court, Closing Argument, and Drafting and Lobbying competitions, all centered around developing persuasive, polished advocates for animal welfare causes.  John Marshall has been very successful in the Closing Argument portion of the competition for the past two years.  In 2008, then JMLS 3Ls Mike Bauer finished in first place and Tim Reilly finished 2nd after eliminating the rest of the field.  As if one first place victory wasn’t enough, in 2009, recent graduates Cheyne Adam and David Lipshutz both managed to take away first place victories, with identical, un-breakable tied scores. This year’s competition just continues the JMLS legacy.  

The preliminary round was electrifying; each competitor had one chance to impress the judges and make it to the finals. Several judges commented that the caliber of talent at this year’s competition was outstanding.  

3L Donyel Perry, delivered a dynamic closing argument for the prosecution.  His performance in the preliminary round was breathtaking.  Mr. Perry argued with passion that the defendant’s business was a criminal enterprise and the name of that business “Deadgame” meant one thing: “dead dogs.”  Mr. Perry’s subtle force, logical argument and commanding presence made the judge’s decision a no brainer - Perry was soon headed to the finals as the only prosecutor selected to advance.

2L Anthony Sam’s preliminary round performance was pure theatrical masterpiece.  His performances during practices were great, but when he stepped into that room with a panel of six judges, his performance turned into to something entirely new.  At almost every point throughout his delivery, one of the judges could be seen nodding along or smiling along in agreement.  Sam too, was heading to the finals as one of three defense counsel.

At the vegan banquet Saturday night it was announced for the third consecutive time in competition history that both Marshall competitors advanced to the final four.  I wondered, “Could John Marshall win the championship a third time?”  Sam and Perry promptly responded, “Yes we can and yes we will!” But the road to the championship was not going to be easy. There was new rule for the final round, the John Marshall rule.  After last year’s double first place finishes the competition format for the final round was changed.  

As an added twist to this year’s competition, the final round was changed from a traditional jury closing argument to a bench argument.  In addition, the panel of judges in the final round asked questions of the competitors, much like a moot court panel. Sam remarked that it was like giving a closing argument to a panel of appellate judges.  So now, not only did Sam and Perry have to battle with the other finalists, but they also had to contend with a bench of six inquisitive judges.

The final round decision was so difficult that the difference between the first and fourth place finish was a mere two points. Clinical Professor Susann MacLachlan coached the Marshall team to its third consecutive championship in as many years. Anthony Sam was awarded the 1st place plaque and Dontel Perry received third place honors. Congratulations, gentlemen!

Return to Top

Results Of The Negotiation Nationals Competition  

The Negotiation team consisting of Alex Dimitt and Patricia Ross traveled to Orlando, Florida this past weekend with Coach Ian Bucciarelli and alternate Jillian Ruggiero. After two rigorous rounds of competition on Friday, the team advanced to the semi-finals on Saturday morning. The confidential facts for the semi-final round, originally withheld from the teams until after the first two rounds, gave the team quite a run for their money.

In the first round, the team faced fierce competition from Fordham University School of Law. The team from the University of Oregon put up a good fight in round two. However, tough competition proved no obstacle for the John Marshall team as they advanced to the national semi-finals.

After receiving the confidential facts for the semi-finals, the team worked hard to learn the new facts and research relevant legal precedent and case law. The team also worked to come up with creative solutions to the unique problem. The first two rounds dealt with the representation of an employee involved in medical marijuana and sexual orientation discrimination. The semi-final problem consisted of a complicated scenario of a possible class action law suit for Spanish-speaking employees under the supervision of our initial client. The team competed against Touro College- Jacob D. Fuschberg Law Center. Overall the competition was a tough but great experience. Thank you Alex, Ian and Jill for such a great run!  

Return to Top

Texas Young Lawyer’s National Trial Advocacy Competition Preview

The 2010 Texas Young Lawyer’s Association (TYLA) National Trial Competition team is only weeks away from the Regional competition in Indianapolis, Indiana.  The team consisting of Lauren Davalle, Stephen Berrios, Angel Alcarez, Julia Mezher, Patrick Keegan, and Mary Scholl has been hard at work preparing the material for the case of Krista Chacona Harbour v. Southern Comfort Life Insurance Company.

The suit is over the life insurance policy of Clint Harbour for $1,000,000 issued by Southern Comfort Life Insurance Company in the fictional state of Lonestar.  Clint was found dead in his apartment with a gunshot wound to his abdomen.  A shotgun, gun cleaning kit and spent shell casing were found nearby. 

Detective Chris Jensen of the Armadillo Police Department reached the conclusion that the death was accidental, caused when Clint Harbour was attempting to remove a shell from the chamber of the gun in order to clean it.  However, Southern Comfort became suspicious after Krista Harbour cashed in the life insurance policy less than a week after Clint’s death. 

The insurance company hired Stevie Walker to further investigate the circumstances surrounding the death.  Walker spoke with a neighbor of Clint’s and determined that a few weeks before he died, Clint moved into his own apartment because he discovered that his wife of 26 years had an affair with a friend. Walker reported that in his professional opinion, the death was a suicide. 

The defense plans to call Dr. Alex B. Trevino, a specialist in suicide, who, based on his own research and publication, will state that Clint was statistically more likely to commit suicide because of his age, gender, relationship status, and access to lethal weapons.  Southern Comfort has the burden of proving that Clint committed suicide, and plans to meet that burden through the testimony of two expert witnesses, and by attacking the credibility of Krista (the lying wife) and Detective Jensen (the shoddy investigator). 

However, the Plaintiff will be able to respond by attacking the motives and qualifications of the defense witnesses.  Stevie Walker stands to make 10% on every dollar he saves the insurance company, while Dr. Trevino is being paid to testify based solely on his review of depositions.

The TYLA team will be spending the final two weeks scrimmaging with other teams, working on possible objections, and putting the finishing touches on their presentation.  With the excellent coaching skills of AUSA's Vicki Peters and Bethany Biesenthal, the team is hopeful that JMLS will be sending them on to Texas this spring for the National Competition!

Return to Top

Intellectual Property

In 1940, The John Marshall Law School offered its first intellectual property program:  a one-year class on patent practice.  At the time, it was one of very few intellectual property programs in the country.  Sixty-five years later, John Marshall’s IP program ranks 14th in the nation and offers the most IP courses in the United States.  Although the school’s IP program was founded in the technical arena, students interested in soft Intellectual Property – e.g., trademarks and copyrights - have a wealth of options to combine their interests.  

While current students interested in IP may have missed out on the LS I and II sections dedicated to writing about Intellectual Property issues, there are other opportunities to take IP writing classes that will help students better acquaint themselves with the transactional process and how transactional issues can escalate to litigation.  Copyright and Trademark Planning and Practice, taught by Professor Maureen Collins in the fall, is a writing class that focuses on protecting clients’ IP rights and delves into the negotiation process.  Professors Laura Miller and Meredith Addy team-teach IP Litigation, a course which examines both technical and soft IP cases, and discusses litigation strategies for plaintiffs and defendants drawn into court.  Accelerated IP Trial Advocacy, taught by The Chief Judge of the Northern District of Illinois, James F. Holderman, is offered both during winter break and in August and is an incredible opportunity.  Students are able to put on an IP trial and get the input of many IP practitioners in the process.  E-Discovery, taught by Keith Chval in fall, is also a great litigation class for IP students as much of the outcome of any case can depend on the success of pre-trial discovery.

Students who take at least 16 credits of IP classes and maintain a 3.25 GPA in those classes and a 3.00 GPA overall can elect to receive the Certificate in Intellectual Property law.  There are over 50 IP classes offered at John Marshall, any number of which can help litigation-inclined students gain a better understanding of court proceedings and aid them in becoming successful IP-courtroom advocates. 

Return to Top

Renee Germaine Carmody

As an associate with the firm Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell in Denver, Colorado, Reneè Germaine Carmody has seen her fair share of court rooms.  From Chicago to Denver, Reneè has practiced law in some of the most complex and sophisticated areas the law has to offer.  Reneè gratefully acknowledges that much of her success is due to her involvement in John Marshall’s Trial Advocacy program.  From competing on trial teams (and winning!) to overseeing both the Trial Advocacy and Dispute Resolution Honors Board and the Journal of Information & Computer Law, Reneè is an inspiring example of a JMLS alumna who has achieved success at the highest level and still finds time to stay in touch with the John Marshall community.  She spoke with me (from Denver) about her career.

Q. Can you tell us about your practice area and some of the tasks or assignments you are commonly asked to complete?  
A. Generally, my practice area is civil litigation while my main focus is in products liability. Also, while I was in Chicago I did a little work in my firm’s white collar crime defense and investigations practice. Now, I do a lot of asbestos defense work for General Electric who is a major client of our firm. We are the national trial counsel for GE so we also do a lot of work representing GE’s pharmaceutical subsidiaries as well. My main task is trial preparation. I conduct depositions, prepare witnesses for trial, I write direct and cross examinations for all types of witnesses including experts.

Q. How many of your cases have gone to trial?  
A. Three with Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell, of which one went to a verdict and two in Chicago, one of which went to a verdict. 

Q. I learned that you were a former associate with DLA Piper in Chicago, can you tell me about your experience there and maybe some of the differences you’ve experienced practicing in Denver versus practicing in Chicago?  
A. The resources. DLA is a huge firm with over 3,000 amazingly talented lawyers and they have endless resources. Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell is a 55-attorney boutique litigation firm, with amazing litigation and trial talent, but we are all litigators which does not leave much room to develop a uniqueness.

Q. What do you miss most about Chicago?  
A. The food! The summer and the block parties.

Q. I am big into Chicago dining, so what is your favorite restaurant?
A. Overall, I would have to say N9ne. For drinks, I like Carnivale, and for everyday food, I love Penny’s.

Q. Let’s talk about your experience in Chicago at John Marshall. Can you talk about your experience, generally, at John Marshall?
A. I had a wonderful time at John Marshall, especially with the Trial Advocacy program. I knew I wanted to be a litigator and I had the opportunity to choose from a lot of different schools. I chose John Marshall because of its strong reputation for trial advocacy. At the time, John Marshall’s trial advocacy program was ranked amongst the highest in the nation, even above schools like Harvard. I was also the editor-in-chief of JCIL. During my third-year, I would have been bored out of my mind if I wasn’t competing in trial competitions. Plus, John Marshall has a lot for resources being next to the Chicago Bar association and right across the street from the Dirksen federal building. I was very happy with my experience.  

Q. What competitions? Wins?
A. I competed in the Georgetown White Collar Competition where we won first place and I won an individual award for Best Oral Advocate the second time around. I also competed in John Marshall’s Criminal Law Competition and the ATLA (now AAJ) Trial competition.  

Q. What skills did you develop at JMLS that you think gave you an advantage over first-year associates when you began practicing?
A. The ability to get on your feet and tell a persuasive story in front of a group of people. I went to court every day with confidence which is something you can’t be taught. It’s something you just have to do.  Also, the ability to analyze a problem or a set of facts and create a persuasive story.  

Q. Favorite professor?
A. Intellectually, Professor O’Neill. Personally, either Professor Olken or Professor Hopkins.  

Q. Favorite class?
A. Dean Ruebner’s evidence class.  

Q. The legal community has experienced the worst economic downturn probably since 2001. The economy really tanked last summer when a lot of second-year law students were in the middle of their summer associate programs. A lot of my friends, myself included, fell victim to the economy’s effect on the legal profession and either didn’t receive offers, were deferred, or asked to wait around for a possible offer. What advice would you give soon to-be graduating third-year law students as we search for work?
A. To not sit and wait around. Get out and maybe do some public interest work with the States Attorney's office or the Public Defender's. I know they have had cuts too but try to get into a place where you can get started right away. Depending on your resources maybe you could start your own practice where you take on small DUI cases. Anything where you can get on your feet immediately. Also, you could maybe get your LL.M. where you can develop more skills.  Anything that will give you an edge will help.    

Return to Top

Become a fan of the Center on FACEBOOK