Pro Se Boot Camp

Founder and director

Founded legal education program for homeless and at-risk individuals.

Pro Se Boot Camp

Founded law teaching program to empower women in the legal system. We teach weekly classes at the Shade Tree women's shelter on various topics such as employment law, landlord-tenant law, divorce, fundamentals of the legal system, and others. Our goal is to give these women the ability to navigate the legal system.

www.prosebootcamp.org

University of Nevada-Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law

Law Professor

Joe worked at University of Nevada-Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law as a Law Professor

Write.law

Cofounder and director

Write.law aims to teach law students and lawyers how to continually improve their writing and advocacy through cutting edge workshops and interactive online training.

King & Spalding

Associate

Joe worked at King & Spalding as a Associate

Bar Preparation Services

Teacher

Teach core law subjects to pre-law, current, and graduate students (bar preparation).

Interstate Groundwater Law Revisited: Mississippi v. Tennessee

University of Virginia Environmental Law Journal

In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory. The Supreme Court’s grant of leave raises for the first time the question of what legal doctrine applies to transboundary interstate groundwater resources. Tennessee and lower courts would subject interstate groundwater to the Court’s equitable apportionment doctrine, which divides and allocates interstate surface waters by determining the best overall utility for the water supply with a heavy emphasis on protecting existing consumptive uses. Mississippi’s bill of complaint seeks damages and declaratory relief based on property theories of absolute right, title, and exclusive possessory ownership of groundwater located within its territorial borders. This article offers a third alternative, the Supreme Court’s doctrine of interstate nuisance, which recognizes and balances competing sovereign interests in utilization and preservation of shared interstate natural resources.

Interstate Groundwater Law Revisited: Mississippi v. Tennessee

University of Virginia Environmental Law Journal

In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory. The Supreme Court’s grant of leave raises for the first time the question of what legal doctrine applies to transboundary interstate groundwater resources. Tennessee and lower courts would subject interstate groundwater to the Court’s equitable apportionment doctrine, which divides and allocates interstate surface waters by determining the best overall utility for the water supply with a heavy emphasis on protecting existing consumptive uses. Mississippi’s bill of complaint seeks damages and declaratory relief based on property theories of absolute right, title, and exclusive possessory ownership of groundwater located within its territorial borders. This article offers a third alternative, the Supreme Court’s doctrine of interstate nuisance, which recognizes and balances competing sovereign interests in utilization and preservation of shared interstate natural resources.

Bringing Counsel in From the Cold: Ethical Issues for Insurance Defense Attorneys

New Mexico Law Review

Litigators have a tough job: demanding clients, relentless deadlines, and constant pressure to get everything just right. But insurance defense attorneys deal with this and more. Because being an insurance-defense attorney means satisfying two masters: the insurance company that pays the bills, and the insured who stands to lose everything. This is not merely a matter of having to field lots of phone calls—insurance defense practice poses profound ethical dilemmas not adequately addressed by the existing rules of professional conduct. And it is into this ethical morass that we will dive. Our solution is to bring some light to the darkness in the form of specific, certain ethical rules for insurance defense attorneys. To illustrate why a drastic change is needed, this article examines at length one of the most common (and yet unanswered) ethical dilemmas in this area: conflicts among insurance companies with competing interests in a case. After thoroughly reviewing the dearth of ethical guidance on this topic, we conclude that the sensible answer is a new set of ethical rules that will give more guidance to everyone involved. We finish with a first stab: a proposed ethical framework governing the insurer conflict we explore in this article. But this is but the first step. More thought and solutions are needed to plug the cost and uncertainty in this corner of legal ethics.

Interstate Groundwater Law Revisited: Mississippi v. Tennessee

University of Virginia Environmental Law Journal

In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory. The Supreme Court’s grant of leave raises for the first time the question of what legal doctrine applies to transboundary interstate groundwater resources. Tennessee and lower courts would subject interstate groundwater to the Court’s equitable apportionment doctrine, which divides and allocates interstate surface waters by determining the best overall utility for the water supply with a heavy emphasis on protecting existing consumptive uses. Mississippi’s bill of complaint seeks damages and declaratory relief based on property theories of absolute right, title, and exclusive possessory ownership of groundwater located within its territorial borders. This article offers a third alternative, the Supreme Court’s doctrine of interstate nuisance, which recognizes and balances competing sovereign interests in utilization and preservation of shared interstate natural resources.

Bringing Counsel in From the Cold: Ethical Issues for Insurance Defense Attorneys

New Mexico Law Review

Litigators have a tough job: demanding clients, relentless deadlines, and constant pressure to get everything just right. But insurance defense attorneys deal with this and more. Because being an insurance-defense attorney means satisfying two masters: the insurance company that pays the bills, and the insured who stands to lose everything. This is not merely a matter of having to field lots of phone calls—insurance defense practice poses profound ethical dilemmas not adequately addressed by the existing rules of professional conduct. And it is into this ethical morass that we will dive. Our solution is to bring some light to the darkness in the form of specific, certain ethical rules for insurance defense attorneys. To illustrate why a drastic change is needed, this article examines at length one of the most common (and yet unanswered) ethical dilemmas in this area: conflicts among insurance companies with competing interests in a case. After thoroughly reviewing the dearth of ethical guidance on this topic, we conclude that the sensible answer is a new set of ethical rules that will give more guidance to everyone involved. We finish with a first stab: a proposed ethical framework governing the insurer conflict we explore in this article. But this is but the first step. More thought and solutions are needed to plug the cost and uncertainty in this corner of legal ethics.

Reprogramming your writing habits

TeachingLaw

Interstate Groundwater Law Revisited: Mississippi v. Tennessee

University of Virginia Environmental Law Journal

In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory. The Supreme Court’s grant of leave raises for the first time the question of what legal doctrine applies to transboundary interstate groundwater resources. Tennessee and lower courts would subject interstate groundwater to the Court’s equitable apportionment doctrine, which divides and allocates interstate surface waters by determining the best overall utility for the water supply with a heavy emphasis on protecting existing consumptive uses. Mississippi’s bill of complaint seeks damages and declaratory relief based on property theories of absolute right, title, and exclusive possessory ownership of groundwater located within its territorial borders. This article offers a third alternative, the Supreme Court’s doctrine of interstate nuisance, which recognizes and balances competing sovereign interests in utilization and preservation of shared interstate natural resources.

Bringing Counsel in From the Cold: Ethical Issues for Insurance Defense Attorneys

New Mexico Law Review

Litigators have a tough job: demanding clients, relentless deadlines, and constant pressure to get everything just right. But insurance defense attorneys deal with this and more. Because being an insurance-defense attorney means satisfying two masters: the insurance company that pays the bills, and the insured who stands to lose everything. This is not merely a matter of having to field lots of phone calls—insurance defense practice poses profound ethical dilemmas not adequately addressed by the existing rules of professional conduct. And it is into this ethical morass that we will dive. Our solution is to bring some light to the darkness in the form of specific, certain ethical rules for insurance defense attorneys. To illustrate why a drastic change is needed, this article examines at length one of the most common (and yet unanswered) ethical dilemmas in this area: conflicts among insurance companies with competing interests in a case. After thoroughly reviewing the dearth of ethical guidance on this topic, we conclude that the sensible answer is a new set of ethical rules that will give more guidance to everyone involved. We finish with a first stab: a proposed ethical framework governing the insurer conflict we explore in this article. But this is but the first step. More thought and solutions are needed to plug the cost and uncertainty in this corner of legal ethics.

Reprogramming your writing habits

TeachingLaw

Editing Alchemy

Appellate Advocacy

Interstate Groundwater Law Revisited: Mississippi v. Tennessee

University of Virginia Environmental Law Journal

In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory. The Supreme Court’s grant of leave raises for the first time the question of what legal doctrine applies to transboundary interstate groundwater resources. Tennessee and lower courts would subject interstate groundwater to the Court’s equitable apportionment doctrine, which divides and allocates interstate surface waters by determining the best overall utility for the water supply with a heavy emphasis on protecting existing consumptive uses. Mississippi’s bill of complaint seeks damages and declaratory relief based on property theories of absolute right, title, and exclusive possessory ownership of groundwater located within its territorial borders. This article offers a third alternative, the Supreme Court’s doctrine of interstate nuisance, which recognizes and balances competing sovereign interests in utilization and preservation of shared interstate natural resources.

Bringing Counsel in From the Cold: Ethical Issues for Insurance Defense Attorneys

New Mexico Law Review

Litigators have a tough job: demanding clients, relentless deadlines, and constant pressure to get everything just right. But insurance defense attorneys deal with this and more. Because being an insurance-defense attorney means satisfying two masters: the insurance company that pays the bills, and the insured who stands to lose everything. This is not merely a matter of having to field lots of phone calls—insurance defense practice poses profound ethical dilemmas not adequately addressed by the existing rules of professional conduct. And it is into this ethical morass that we will dive. Our solution is to bring some light to the darkness in the form of specific, certain ethical rules for insurance defense attorneys. To illustrate why a drastic change is needed, this article examines at length one of the most common (and yet unanswered) ethical dilemmas in this area: conflicts among insurance companies with competing interests in a case. After thoroughly reviewing the dearth of ethical guidance on this topic, we conclude that the sensible answer is a new set of ethical rules that will give more guidance to everyone involved. We finish with a first stab: a proposed ethical framework governing the insurer conflict we explore in this article. But this is but the first step. More thought and solutions are needed to plug the cost and uncertainty in this corner of legal ethics.

Reprogramming your writing habits

TeachingLaw

Editing Alchemy

Appellate Advocacy

Do states really own water?

Government Law, ABA

States have fought with each other over natural resources since the nation’s founding, and the Supreme Court has never been one to give clear answers when it comes to which state owns what. This is particularly true when it comes to water. Now, in the pending case of Mississippi vs. Tennessee, the Supreme Court stands poised to make a historical decision about the nature of the states’ relationship to water. In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory.

Interstate Groundwater Law Revisited: Mississippi v. Tennessee

University of Virginia Environmental Law Journal

In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory. The Supreme Court’s grant of leave raises for the first time the question of what legal doctrine applies to transboundary interstate groundwater resources. Tennessee and lower courts would subject interstate groundwater to the Court’s equitable apportionment doctrine, which divides and allocates interstate surface waters by determining the best overall utility for the water supply with a heavy emphasis on protecting existing consumptive uses. Mississippi’s bill of complaint seeks damages and declaratory relief based on property theories of absolute right, title, and exclusive possessory ownership of groundwater located within its territorial borders. This article offers a third alternative, the Supreme Court’s doctrine of interstate nuisance, which recognizes and balances competing sovereign interests in utilization and preservation of shared interstate natural resources.

Bringing Counsel in From the Cold: Ethical Issues for Insurance Defense Attorneys

New Mexico Law Review

Litigators have a tough job: demanding clients, relentless deadlines, and constant pressure to get everything just right. But insurance defense attorneys deal with this and more. Because being an insurance-defense attorney means satisfying two masters: the insurance company that pays the bills, and the insured who stands to lose everything. This is not merely a matter of having to field lots of phone calls—insurance defense practice poses profound ethical dilemmas not adequately addressed by the existing rules of professional conduct. And it is into this ethical morass that we will dive. Our solution is to bring some light to the darkness in the form of specific, certain ethical rules for insurance defense attorneys. To illustrate why a drastic change is needed, this article examines at length one of the most common (and yet unanswered) ethical dilemmas in this area: conflicts among insurance companies with competing interests in a case. After thoroughly reviewing the dearth of ethical guidance on this topic, we conclude that the sensible answer is a new set of ethical rules that will give more guidance to everyone involved. We finish with a first stab: a proposed ethical framework governing the insurer conflict we explore in this article. But this is but the first step. More thought and solutions are needed to plug the cost and uncertainty in this corner of legal ethics.

Reprogramming your writing habits

TeachingLaw

Editing Alchemy

Appellate Advocacy

Do states really own water?

Government Law, ABA

States have fought with each other over natural resources since the nation’s founding, and the Supreme Court has never been one to give clear answers when it comes to which state owns what. This is particularly true when it comes to water. Now, in the pending case of Mississippi vs. Tennessee, the Supreme Court stands poised to make a historical decision about the nature of the states’ relationship to water. In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory.

An Unsettled Insurer Conflict

Government Law, ABA

As a lawyer involved with any level of government, you will surely have disputes involving insurance companies. Indeed, for many government-related attorneys, insurance disputes make up a large number of their cases. There is a particular variety of conflict of interest that government lawyers should be aware of, where insurance defense counsel in a multiparty case is required, by his duty to his current client and its insurer, to bring a cross claim, third party claim, or other affirmative claim for relief, against another party who is insured by a liability insurer which is a client of counsel or his firm in one or more unrelated matters. Indeed, it may be a situation where that attorney is bringing a claim against your client, where an insurer is helping foot the bill for your defense. The insurer is not a party to the suit, so there is no clear rule saying there is a conflict. But its interests are undoubtedly implicated-if defense counsel plays his cards right, the insurer will lose real money in payment of the claim on behalf of its insured, the cross or third party defendant. Doesn’t that place counsel in a position of conflict?

Interstate Groundwater Law Revisited: Mississippi v. Tennessee

University of Virginia Environmental Law Journal

In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory. The Supreme Court’s grant of leave raises for the first time the question of what legal doctrine applies to transboundary interstate groundwater resources. Tennessee and lower courts would subject interstate groundwater to the Court’s equitable apportionment doctrine, which divides and allocates interstate surface waters by determining the best overall utility for the water supply with a heavy emphasis on protecting existing consumptive uses. Mississippi’s bill of complaint seeks damages and declaratory relief based on property theories of absolute right, title, and exclusive possessory ownership of groundwater located within its territorial borders. This article offers a third alternative, the Supreme Court’s doctrine of interstate nuisance, which recognizes and balances competing sovereign interests in utilization and preservation of shared interstate natural resources.

Bringing Counsel in From the Cold: Ethical Issues for Insurance Defense Attorneys

New Mexico Law Review

Litigators have a tough job: demanding clients, relentless deadlines, and constant pressure to get everything just right. But insurance defense attorneys deal with this and more. Because being an insurance-defense attorney means satisfying two masters: the insurance company that pays the bills, and the insured who stands to lose everything. This is not merely a matter of having to field lots of phone calls—insurance defense practice poses profound ethical dilemmas not adequately addressed by the existing rules of professional conduct. And it is into this ethical morass that we will dive. Our solution is to bring some light to the darkness in the form of specific, certain ethical rules for insurance defense attorneys. To illustrate why a drastic change is needed, this article examines at length one of the most common (and yet unanswered) ethical dilemmas in this area: conflicts among insurance companies with competing interests in a case. After thoroughly reviewing the dearth of ethical guidance on this topic, we conclude that the sensible answer is a new set of ethical rules that will give more guidance to everyone involved. We finish with a first stab: a proposed ethical framework governing the insurer conflict we explore in this article. But this is but the first step. More thought and solutions are needed to plug the cost and uncertainty in this corner of legal ethics.

Reprogramming your writing habits

TeachingLaw

Editing Alchemy

Appellate Advocacy

Do states really own water?

Government Law, ABA

States have fought with each other over natural resources since the nation’s founding, and the Supreme Court has never been one to give clear answers when it comes to which state owns what. This is particularly true when it comes to water. Now, in the pending case of Mississippi vs. Tennessee, the Supreme Court stands poised to make a historical decision about the nature of the states’ relationship to water. In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory.

An Unsettled Insurer Conflict

Government Law, ABA

As a lawyer involved with any level of government, you will surely have disputes involving insurance companies. Indeed, for many government-related attorneys, insurance disputes make up a large number of their cases. There is a particular variety of conflict of interest that government lawyers should be aware of, where insurance defense counsel in a multiparty case is required, by his duty to his current client and its insurer, to bring a cross claim, third party claim, or other affirmative claim for relief, against another party who is insured by a liability insurer which is a client of counsel or his firm in one or more unrelated matters. Indeed, it may be a situation where that attorney is bringing a claim against your client, where an insurer is helping foot the bill for your defense. The insurer is not a party to the suit, so there is no clear rule saying there is a conflict. But its interests are undoubtedly implicated-if defense counsel plays his cards right, the insurer will lose real money in payment of the claim on behalf of its insured, the cross or third party defendant. Doesn’t that place counsel in a position of conflict?

Programming your writing intuition

Law Prof Blog

Interstate Groundwater Law Revisited: Mississippi v. Tennessee

University of Virginia Environmental Law Journal

In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory. The Supreme Court’s grant of leave raises for the first time the question of what legal doctrine applies to transboundary interstate groundwater resources. Tennessee and lower courts would subject interstate groundwater to the Court’s equitable apportionment doctrine, which divides and allocates interstate surface waters by determining the best overall utility for the water supply with a heavy emphasis on protecting existing consumptive uses. Mississippi’s bill of complaint seeks damages and declaratory relief based on property theories of absolute right, title, and exclusive possessory ownership of groundwater located within its territorial borders. This article offers a third alternative, the Supreme Court’s doctrine of interstate nuisance, which recognizes and balances competing sovereign interests in utilization and preservation of shared interstate natural resources.

Bringing Counsel in From the Cold: Ethical Issues for Insurance Defense Attorneys

New Mexico Law Review

Litigators have a tough job: demanding clients, relentless deadlines, and constant pressure to get everything just right. But insurance defense attorneys deal with this and more. Because being an insurance-defense attorney means satisfying two masters: the insurance company that pays the bills, and the insured who stands to lose everything. This is not merely a matter of having to field lots of phone calls—insurance defense practice poses profound ethical dilemmas not adequately addressed by the existing rules of professional conduct. And it is into this ethical morass that we will dive. Our solution is to bring some light to the darkness in the form of specific, certain ethical rules for insurance defense attorneys. To illustrate why a drastic change is needed, this article examines at length one of the most common (and yet unanswered) ethical dilemmas in this area: conflicts among insurance companies with competing interests in a case. After thoroughly reviewing the dearth of ethical guidance on this topic, we conclude that the sensible answer is a new set of ethical rules that will give more guidance to everyone involved. We finish with a first stab: a proposed ethical framework governing the insurer conflict we explore in this article. But this is but the first step. More thought and solutions are needed to plug the cost and uncertainty in this corner of legal ethics.

Reprogramming your writing habits

TeachingLaw

Editing Alchemy

Appellate Advocacy

Do states really own water?

Government Law, ABA

States have fought with each other over natural resources since the nation’s founding, and the Supreme Court has never been one to give clear answers when it comes to which state owns what. This is particularly true when it comes to water. Now, in the pending case of Mississippi vs. Tennessee, the Supreme Court stands poised to make a historical decision about the nature of the states’ relationship to water. In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory.

An Unsettled Insurer Conflict

Government Law, ABA

As a lawyer involved with any level of government, you will surely have disputes involving insurance companies. Indeed, for many government-related attorneys, insurance disputes make up a large number of their cases. There is a particular variety of conflict of interest that government lawyers should be aware of, where insurance defense counsel in a multiparty case is required, by his duty to his current client and its insurer, to bring a cross claim, third party claim, or other affirmative claim for relief, against another party who is insured by a liability insurer which is a client of counsel or his firm in one or more unrelated matters. Indeed, it may be a situation where that attorney is bringing a claim against your client, where an insurer is helping foot the bill for your defense. The insurer is not a party to the suit, so there is no clear rule saying there is a conflict. But its interests are undoubtedly implicated-if defense counsel plays his cards right, the insurer will lose real money in payment of the claim on behalf of its insured, the cross or third party defendant. Doesn’t that place counsel in a position of conflict?

Programming your writing intuition

Law Prof Blog

Interstate Groundwater Law Revisited: Mississippi v. Tennessee

University of Virginia Environmental Law Journal

In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory. The Supreme Court’s grant of leave raises for the first time the question of what legal doctrine applies to transboundary interstate groundwater resources. Tennessee and lower courts would subject interstate groundwater to the Court’s equitable apportionment doctrine, which divides and allocates interstate surface waters by determining the best overall utility for the water supply with a heavy emphasis on protecting existing consumptive uses. Mississippi’s bill of complaint seeks damages and declaratory relief based on property theories of absolute right, title, and exclusive possessory ownership of groundwater located within its territorial borders. This article offers a third alternative, the Supreme Court’s doctrine of interstate nuisance, which recognizes and balances competing sovereign interests in utilization and preservation of shared interstate natural resources.

Bringing Counsel in From the Cold: Ethical Issues for Insurance Defense Attorneys

New Mexico Law Review

Litigators have a tough job: demanding clients, relentless deadlines, and constant pressure to get everything just right. But insurance defense attorneys deal with this and more. Because being an insurance-defense attorney means satisfying two masters: the insurance company that pays the bills, and the insured who stands to lose everything. This is not merely a matter of having to field lots of phone calls—insurance defense practice poses profound ethical dilemmas not adequately addressed by the existing rules of professional conduct. And it is into this ethical morass that we will dive. Our solution is to bring some light to the darkness in the form of specific, certain ethical rules for insurance defense attorneys. To illustrate why a drastic change is needed, this article examines at length one of the most common (and yet unanswered) ethical dilemmas in this area: conflicts among insurance companies with competing interests in a case. After thoroughly reviewing the dearth of ethical guidance on this topic, we conclude that the sensible answer is a new set of ethical rules that will give more guidance to everyone involved. We finish with a first stab: a proposed ethical framework governing the insurer conflict we explore in this article. But this is but the first step. More thought and solutions are needed to plug the cost and uncertainty in this corner of legal ethics.

Reprogramming your writing habits

TeachingLaw

Editing Alchemy

Appellate Advocacy

Do states really own water?

Government Law, ABA

States have fought with each other over natural resources since the nation’s founding, and the Supreme Court has never been one to give clear answers when it comes to which state owns what. This is particularly true when it comes to water. Now, in the pending case of Mississippi vs. Tennessee, the Supreme Court stands poised to make a historical decision about the nature of the states’ relationship to water. In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory.

An Unsettled Insurer Conflict

Government Law, ABA

As a lawyer involved with any level of government, you will surely have disputes involving insurance companies. Indeed, for many government-related attorneys, insurance disputes make up a large number of their cases. There is a particular variety of conflict of interest that government lawyers should be aware of, where insurance defense counsel in a multiparty case is required, by his duty to his current client and its insurer, to bring a cross claim, third party claim, or other affirmative claim for relief, against another party who is insured by a liability insurer which is a client of counsel or his firm in one or more unrelated matters. Indeed, it may be a situation where that attorney is bringing a claim against your client, where an insurer is helping foot the bill for your defense. The insurer is not a party to the suit, so there is no clear rule saying there is a conflict. But its interests are undoubtedly implicated-if defense counsel plays his cards right, the insurer will lose real money in payment of the claim on behalf of its insured, the cross or third party defendant. Doesn’t that place counsel in a position of conflict?

Programming your writing intuition

Law Prof Blog

Hello Judge, it's me, Lawyer

Appellate Advocacy

Interstate Groundwater Law Revisited: Mississippi v. Tennessee

University of Virginia Environmental Law Journal

In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory. The Supreme Court’s grant of leave raises for the first time the question of what legal doctrine applies to transboundary interstate groundwater resources. Tennessee and lower courts would subject interstate groundwater to the Court’s equitable apportionment doctrine, which divides and allocates interstate surface waters by determining the best overall utility for the water supply with a heavy emphasis on protecting existing consumptive uses. Mississippi’s bill of complaint seeks damages and declaratory relief based on property theories of absolute right, title, and exclusive possessory ownership of groundwater located within its territorial borders. This article offers a third alternative, the Supreme Court’s doctrine of interstate nuisance, which recognizes and balances competing sovereign interests in utilization and preservation of shared interstate natural resources.

Bringing Counsel in From the Cold: Ethical Issues for Insurance Defense Attorneys

New Mexico Law Review

Litigators have a tough job: demanding clients, relentless deadlines, and constant pressure to get everything just right. But insurance defense attorneys deal with this and more. Because being an insurance-defense attorney means satisfying two masters: the insurance company that pays the bills, and the insured who stands to lose everything. This is not merely a matter of having to field lots of phone calls—insurance defense practice poses profound ethical dilemmas not adequately addressed by the existing rules of professional conduct. And it is into this ethical morass that we will dive. Our solution is to bring some light to the darkness in the form of specific, certain ethical rules for insurance defense attorneys. To illustrate why a drastic change is needed, this article examines at length one of the most common (and yet unanswered) ethical dilemmas in this area: conflicts among insurance companies with competing interests in a case. After thoroughly reviewing the dearth of ethical guidance on this topic, we conclude that the sensible answer is a new set of ethical rules that will give more guidance to everyone involved. We finish with a first stab: a proposed ethical framework governing the insurer conflict we explore in this article. But this is but the first step. More thought and solutions are needed to plug the cost and uncertainty in this corner of legal ethics.

Reprogramming your writing habits

TeachingLaw

Editing Alchemy

Appellate Advocacy

Do states really own water?

Government Law, ABA

States have fought with each other over natural resources since the nation’s founding, and the Supreme Court has never been one to give clear answers when it comes to which state owns what. This is particularly true when it comes to water. Now, in the pending case of Mississippi vs. Tennessee, the Supreme Court stands poised to make a historical decision about the nature of the states’ relationship to water. In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the State of Mississippi leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division for wrongfully converting groundwater from the interstate Sparta-Memphis Aquifer. The dispute arises from Memphis and its municipal utility pumping groundwater within Tennessee, which Mississippi alleges has lowered the water tables within its territory.

An Unsettled Insurer Conflict

Government Law, ABA

As a lawyer involved with any level of government, you will surely have disputes involving insurance companies. Indeed, for many government-related attorneys, insurance disputes make up a large number of their cases. There is a particular variety of conflict of interest that government lawyers should be aware of, where insurance defense counsel in a multiparty case is required, by his duty to his current client and its insurer, to bring a cross claim, third party claim, or other affirmative claim for relief, against another party who is insured by a liability insurer which is a client of counsel or his firm in one or more unrelated matters. Indeed, it may be a situation where that attorney is bringing a claim against your client, where an insurer is helping foot the bill for your defense. The insurer is not a party to the suit, so there is no clear rule saying there is a conflict. But its interests are undoubtedly implicated-if defense counsel plays his cards right, the insurer will lose real money in payment of the claim on behalf of its insured, the cross or third party defendant. Doesn’t that place counsel in a position of conflict?

Programming your writing intuition

Law Prof Blog

Hello Judge, it's me, Lawyer

Appellate Advocacy

A young attorney’s most important writing: Emails

ABA Publication