Alumni Relations

Program Archive

In order from most recent:

Date: May 13, 2008
Title/Topic: "Truth or Consequences: An Inside Look at the Process of Attorney Discipline."
Description: This program examines some of the ethical considerations surrounding the conduct of a District Attorney who pressures a witness to give false testimony and tampers with evidence. The conversation between the District Attorney and the witness happens to be overheard by an attorney. This attorney then acts on her obligation to report attorney misconduct.

The program examines how this misconduct might be handled by the committee of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court charged with enforcing the Rules of Professional Conduct. The script includes the witness-attorney’s initial conversation with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and then walks through the procedure from the complaint through suspension of the District Attorney’s license to practice law. The program also looks at the relationship between state and federal disciplinary action, ending with a reinstatement proceeding before a panel of federal judges.

Click here to access Materials and Resources related to this program.

Date: March 13, 2007
Title/Topic:  “Lost in Translation: Effective Use of Interpreters at Trial”
Description: Can a hearing impaired robbery victim receive justice when the government's main eyewitness only speaks Russian?  Can the accused robber receive a fair trial when he speaks only Spanish and the alibi witness understands English but still needs a stand by interpreter to testify?  What should a judge do when a juror disagrees with the language translation and contaminates the entire jury? As Justice Kennedy and Senator Kohl discussed during a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, language interpreters and jurors accepting their translation are essential to protect defendants' due process rights and guarantee non English speaking victims access to our courts.  This program engaged members in a discussion on the effective use of interpreters at trial and answered the questions listed above.

Click here to access the Reference Manual and Resource Guide.

Date: January 9, 2007
Title/Topic: “Your-Analysis – Proving Damages to a Jury”
Description: To be provided

Date: November 14, 2007
Title/Topic: “Trial by Jury: Jurors on Trial...Through the Looking Glass”
Description:  To be provided

Date: September 27, 2006
Title/Topic: “Juries and Jury Selection”
Description: To be provided

Date:  April 11, 2006
Title/Topic:  “You Are the Jury: A Debate Concerning the President’s Anti-Terrorism Surveillance Program”
Description:  The presentation focused on the constitutional, statutory and policy issues that have arisen from the Bush Administration's use of warrantless surveillance as part of the war on terror.  The format was a live Court TV program called, "You Are the Jury."  The Team presented an overview of the President's surveillance program and the relevant statutes, including the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Congress' post 9/11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.  They then offered point and counter-point presentations concerning the statutory issues, the constitutional issues and the pending bills in Congress that attempt to address issues relating to anti-terrorism surveillance.  As the program progressed, the team's moderators sought comment from Inn members and asked for show-of-hands votes on the questions presented.

Date:  March 14, 2006
Title/Topic:  “The Constitutionality of Teaching Intelligent Design as Science”
Description:  The program enabled the Inn to relive the exciting, nationally followed and highly controversial case Kitzmiller V. Dover Area School District, tried before The Honorable John E. Jones, III in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  The trial has been touted as the first legal test of the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design as science and the most significant case on religious issues in public school science classes since 1987, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the teaching of creation science.  The Inn was honored to have one of the lawyers who tried the case, Steve Harvey, Esquire, present to provide a true inside look into this landmark decision from the trial lawyer's vantage point.  The program included a reenactment of the heated debate at the Dover School Board Meeting, a reporter’s interview of Board officials, a look at the evidence presented in the case, and a moderated discussion with the entire Inn on the significance of this decision and the propriety of bringing religious issues/debate into our Pennsylvania classrooms.

Date:  February 15, 2006
Title/Topic:  A Town Hall Forum Airing Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights
Description:  The program explored the issues presented by the U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights through a mock “town hall forum.”At the time of the program, the Supreme Court was set to determine the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, which conditions the grant of federal monies to private universities allowing the military to recruit on campus and at university law and medical schools.  Rumsfeld is the Court’s first gay rights-related opinion since its 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which found a constitutional right to privacy in one’s bedroom and invalidated state anti-sodomy laws. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Third Circuit’s decision in favor of universities and the American Association of Law Schools, who argued they have a first amendment right to oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and inequality in military recruiting in view of its controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The U.S. Government argued that the Solomon Amendment is a proper exercise of the congressional powers to tax and spend for the general welfare and to raise and support the Armed Forces.  The town hall forum featured six panelists who presented their diverse views on the Solomon Amendment.  Additional pupillage team members were also positioned throughout the audience in order to pose prepared questions to the panelists to stimulate discussion.

Date:  January 10, 2006
Title/Topic: Joint and Several Liability
Description:  Until June 19, 2002, the law of Pennsylvania provided for joint and several liability among joint tortfeasors.  As such, in cases with multiple joint tortfeasors, the plaintiff was able to collect the full jury award from any liable defendant, regardless of that defendant’s percentage of liability.  However, on June 19, 2002, former Governor Mark Schweiker signed into law Act 57, the so-called Fair Share Act.  This law sought to place limitations upon the previous joint and several liability law.  Thereafter, the new law was held to be unconstitutional for being in violation of the single subject rule which prohibits the legislature from passing bills into law that contain two different subjects, as was the case with Act 57.  In January 2006, the Senate passed Bill 435, and not Bill 563.  Bill 435 is the same as Act 57 which only permits a plaintiff a full recovery from a defendant who is determined to be not less than 60% liable.  SB 563, a less restrictive bill, was not passed by the Senate.  It is expected that the House will vote on Bill 138 in January.  Bill 138 is the House version of SB 435.  Members of the pupillage team, acting as lobbyists for their respective interest groups, lobbied the Inn, which served as the legislature, to vote to retain joint and several liability without restrictions, SB 435/HB 138 or SB 563.  Actual lobbying occurred during the reception part of the program.

Date:  November 8, 2005
Title/Topic:  Necessity of Reasonable Alternative Design in a Design Defect Case
Description:  The Supreme Court of Connecticut in Potter vs. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, et al., 694 A.2d 1319 (1997) dealt with a proposal by the American Law Institute (ALI) that for a plaintiff to prevail in a prima facie case of product liability for design defect, it was necessary to present evidence of a reasonable alternative design (RAD).  That Court carefully discussed the issue and concluded that the proposal of the ALI would not become the law of Connecticut.  Later, in 1998, the ALI indeed adopted and promulgated the Restatement (Third) of Torts; Product Liability §2(b) which does include RAD as a requirement for the plaintiff to prove in a design defect case.  This proposal and its ultimate adoption were controversial and remain so today.  The pupillage team presented a case in which a flight attendant was seriously injured during turbulence while she was working in the gallery of an aircraft.  She did not present evidence of an RAD and a motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court.  She then filed an appeal to be heard by the appellate tribunal.  The team designed a mock oral argument presented by three advocates.  One presented the position of the ALI in favor of RAD.  Another argued the position of Connecticut and other jurisdictions which do not require an RAD, and leave was granted for amicus counsel to argue the Pennsylvania position with respect to this issue. 

Date:  October 11, 2005
Title/Topic:  “Twilight at Monticello: An Evening with Thomas Jefferson”
Description:  “Twilight at Monticello: An Evening with Thomas Jefferson” was a two-act theatrical presentation performed by actor and playwright J.D. Sutton.  The presentation invited the audience to return in time to 1821 for a thought-provoking evening in the company of our nation’s third president.  Set in the “twilight” of his life, Mr. Jefferson spoke candidly of the achievements by which he wished most to be remembered and his failure to bring an end to slavery.  He also spoke of his vision of what America’s independence means to those who long for freedom, as well as of the eventual spread of democracy throughout the world. He engaged attendees in an impromptu question-and-answer session before concluding the program.

Date:  April 12, 2005
Title/Topic:  “Navigating the Developing Statutory, Constitutional and Developing Case Law Issues Arising with Same Sex Marriage”
Description:  The program examined: (1) the Massachusetts Supreme Court Judicial Court Decision approving same sex marriage under its state constitution and overruling a state statute banning such marriages (What force or effect do these marriages have when the couples seek recognition of their status in other states?); (2) the Vermont Civil Union Law and its implications for state-granted benefits to same sex couples; (3) the San Francisco on again, off again gay marriages (Where does that controversy stand?); (4) what happens next in the 11 states that passed popular referenda last November opposing gay marriage or civil unions; (5) who the movers and shakers are in this highly charged political and moral debate: the ACLU, the Church, the Religious Right and Other Strange Bedfellows (How do they translate political power into favorable legal developments?); and (6) the Bush Administration agenda and the implications of a constitutional amendment granting recognition to marriage only among members of the opposite sex. The program format was designed as a news program, with a “news anchor” serving as the emcee and additional team members serving as “news reporters.”  The “news anchor” introduced the “news reporters” and each topic to be discussed, asked questions of the reporters at the conclusion of their respective reports, and moved the program along.  The “news reporters” provided background on their respective assigned topics and answered questions from the anchor and the audience.

Date:  March 2005
Title/Topic: “When the Supreme Court Brings a Song to Your Heart”
Description:  The program team provided information on the Supreme Court's decision to make the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, and led a discussion on the future of sentencing from different perspectives.

Date:  February 8, 2005
Title/Topic:  U.S Supreme Court Case: Bush v. Schiavo 
Description:  The program addressed the ethical issues raised in Bush v. Schiavo, a case which addressed force-feeding and life support for an individual in a persistent vegetative state.

Date: January 11, 2005
Title/Topic:  ERISA Program
Description:  The program focused on the United States Supreme Court cases in Aetna v. Davila and Cigna v. Calad, wherein the Court determined that the respective plaintiff’s state court claims for damages for personal injuries against the HMOs were preempted by ERISA and removable to federal court and further subject to dismissal absent any monetary recovery.

Date:  November 9, 2004
Title/Topic:  Does the Government's War Powers Justify the Curtailment of Individual Rights?
Description:  The program focused on two Supreme Court decisions, Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S. Ct. 2633 (2004), and the extent to which the government's war powers justify the curtailment of individual rights. Special attention was paid to issues concerning the lawfulness of racial profiling in times of war or conflict.

Date:  April 13, 2004
Title/Topic: “The Missing Link”
Description:  The program addressed the increasing use of technology in the courtroom and its impact on litigation.  The problem involved a young plaintiff charged with making a decision regarding his representation in a personal injury case.  He had to choose between two well-known attorneys – one who relied heavily on technology to win cases, and one who relied on his reputation.  Inn members shared their views on which attorney they felt the plaintiff would choose and why, and how the plaintiff’s decision would impact his recovery.

Date:  March 9, 2004
Title/Topic:  “A Class Action Conundrum” 
Description:  The program addressed several issues involved with class actions; including the solicitation of clients and implications for Rule of Professional Conduct 7.3a and Rule 11 sanctions, lead plaintiff incentive bonuses, the misperception that an individual must join a class action, whether or not potential class members are considered to be persons represented by counsel even before the class is certified, and the right of counsel to communicate with putative class members prior to certification.

Date:  February 2004
Title/Topic:  “The Queen Gets No Respect – A Look at the Attorney-Client Privilege from Queen Elizabeth to Martha Stewart”
Description:  The program examined the role of the attorney-client privilege through the highly publicized litigation involving Martha Stewart and the sale of her ImClone stock.

Date:  January 13, 2004
Title/Topic:  “What's Love Got To Do With It”
Description:  The course demonstrated the breadth of issues that may arise in the family law arena.  It encouraged creative thinking, as well as reminded members of their pro bono service obligations as legal professionals.

Date:  November 11, 2003
Title/Topic:  “The Dangers of Draft Dodging: Ethical Considerations When Working with Expert Witnesses”
Description:  TBA

Date:  April 8, 2003
Title/Topic:  “May I Approach the Bench”
Description:  The program was designed to focus on the role of the judge in the trial process.  The Inn looked at some unusual but realistic problems/conduct that could test a judge's patience, impartiality and wisdom.  Members expressed their views as to how to resolve the problems, and then several judges commented and added personal insights.

Date:  February 11, 2003
Title/Topic:  “From In-House to the Big House”
Description:  The program examined the ethical, legal and practical challenges facing corporate attorneys in the current environment after highly-publicized corporate fraud scandals and the far-reaching and controversial Sarbanes-Oxley legislation.  A whistleblower's letter, an internal investigation, document shredding and a criminal investigation were just a few of the challenges faced by the general counsel in this scripted program.

Date:  January 14, 2003
Title/Topic:  Alternative Dispute Resolution
Description:  The program focused on alternative dispute resolution and included some role playing, demonstrating the problems that may arise when clients first agree to engage in ADR; namely how evidence will be presented, how discovery will be handled, and what rules will apply.

Date:  November 12, 2002
Title/Topic:  “From the Boardroom to the Courtroom”
Description:  The program was based on a fictional corporation preparing for an initial public stock offering. The issues presented centered on the ethical duties and responsibilities of in-house and outside corporate counsel to the corporation, board of directors and the public.  The moderated presentation included a series of three vignettes, which were used to raise questions and spark discussion.

Date:  October 16, 2002
Title/Topic:  “The People's Ancient and Just Liberties Asserted in the Trial of William Penn and William Mead, A Drama in One Act”
Description:  In September, 1670, two Quakers, William Penn and William Mead, stood trial at the Old Bailey in London on the charge of “preaching to an unlawful, seditious and riotous assembly.” Forbidden to meet in their Friends' House, they were arrested after a meeting on Gracechurch Street in London. The trial resulted, eventually, in a decision determining in English law the absolute right of jurors to return a true verdict on the evidence in accordance with their oaths and consciences without dictation from the judiciary. In this theatrical production, Nigel Pascoe QC portrayed the intimidation from the Bench, together with the magnificent and dramatic speeches from Penn under attack.

Date:  April 9, 2002
Title/Topic:  “Expert Witnesses: A Hearing on the Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence after Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)”
Description:  The program focused on the Daubert and Frye requirements for admissibility, as well as on local practice and ongoing concerns in the civil and criminal arenas.

Date:  March 12, 2002
Title/Topic:  Effectively Representing Your Client in Mediations
Description:  The presentation addressed effective advocacy in mediations related to settlement conferences.

Date:  February 12, 2002
Title/Topic:  Issues Arising in the Interplay of Civil Litigation and Bankruptcy Law
Description:  The presentation focused on the interplay of civil litigation and bankruptcy law, with an emphasis on scenarios in which a civil litigator finds himself or herself dealing with opposing litigants who file for bankruptcy protection in the course of a pending matter. Several skits involving mock attorney-client conferences were presented, analyzing the implications of a personal injury defendant's bankruptcy on the eve of trial, an appellant's bankruptcy in the middle of a federal court appeal, a divorced woman whose spouse's company files for bankruptcy and a tenant's threatened bankruptcy on the eve of an eviction. In the course of the presentation and ensuing discussion, the group also addressed the ethical implications of a civil practitioner's decision to engage (or not to engage) the assistance of bankruptcy counsel, the risk of proceeding with an eviction when a bankruptcy has been threatened but not confirmed, and the issue of payment of legal fees by a bankrupt debtor.

Date:  January 8, 2002
Title/Topic:  Discovery in the Age of Technology
Description:  The program considered the scope of discovery of electronic records, the appropriate means of providing those records, and the attorney's obligation to review what may be voluminous electronic materials. In addition, the program examined the possibility of discovering deleted material and the ethical questions that may arise as a result.

Date:  November 13, 2001
Title/Topic:  The Do's and Don'ts of Appellate Advocacy
Description:  Two members of the pupillage team conducted a mock appellate argument before the remaining members of the team, who sat as an appellate court, en banc. The advocates made various missteps on their own and/or in response to questions from the "court," all intended to prompt a moderator led post-argument discussion with the Inn members to identify the mistakes, consider what might have been done differently and why.

Date:  October 9, 2001
Title/Topic:  Emergent Relief: Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions - Legal and Ethical Issues
Description:  The program involved a comprehensive examination of legal requirements and ethical issues associated with temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions in both federal and state courts.

Date:  April 10, 2001
Title/Topic:  Juvenile Law
Description:  The program focused on a criminal law problem involving juveniles of different ages who have had different levels of involvement in a criminal transaction.  A background on juvenile criminal law was presented, followed by a discussion on prosecutorial discretion and the right of a parent to make a key strategic decision for a child.

Date:  March 13, 2001
Title/Topic:  Taking, Defending and Preparing a Witness for Deposition
Description:  Three videotaped fictional deposition vignettes, designed to raise thought-provoking discussion concerning the taking, defending and preparation of a witness for deposition, were presented. A group discussion took place after each vignette regarding the propriety of the tactics demonstrated, which included references to the applicable rules of civil procedure, decisions from state and federal courts, and ethical rules.

Date:  February 13, 2001
Title/Topic:  An Attorney’s Ethical Obligations
Description:  The case problem involved the sale of a piece of real estate with a concealed environmental hazard. The ethical issues raised included the lawyer’s obligations in negotiations and subsequent litigation. The problem also raised questions of confidentiality, the duty of subordinate lawyers, and the duty to report misconduct.

Date:  January 9, 2001
Title/Topic:  Ethical Issues Which Can Arise When Representing a Client
Description:  The program addressed several issues, a number of them ethical, raised by an associate’s representation of the daughter of the CEO of the firm’s largest client.   The issues included: determining who the client is, defining the scope of the attorney-client privilege, representing a client who wants to lie to the court, and dealing with an unrepresented party who seeks legal advice.

Date:  November 14, 2000
Title/Topic:  Being Professional and Adversarial
Description:  The program, through four skits, discussed the dilemmas faced by an attorney when balancing ethical decisions and financial issues that could affect his/her practice.  Questions raised included: (1) To what extent does the client control how one practices? (2) How candid must one be with the court? (3) How should one respond to a vexatious motion? (3) How should one deal with yet another continuance request?

Date:  October 10, 2000
Title/Topic:  “Who Wants to be a Philadelphia Lawyer?”
Description:  In a format borrowed from the popular television game show – “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” - members of the Inn reviewed selected principals of substantive law and civil procedure in the areas of contracts, torts, criminal law, bankruptcy law, evidence and ethics. Questions and materials covered basic fundamentals, along with some less common but nonetheless relevant and important issues for those who litigate in the subject areas discussed.

Date:  April 11, 2000
Title/Topic:  Civility - Does Our Profession Have a Problem?
Description:  The program was an adaptation of an Inn Program entitled “Civility - Does Our Profession Have a Problem?” by Charles Fahy.  Three skits were presented, and discussion followed on the legal issues raised. The skits set forth issues of civility and integrity in (a) the classroom, (b) deposition and court, and (c) personal interaction between client and counsel. Civility issues involved the relationships between counsel and relationships with the court. The issues involving integrity with a client were raised in the context of counsel’s withdrawal from a case where there was the likelihood of prejudice to the client. The materials included proposed Rules of Civility and a recent ABA ethics opinion.

Back to the Top