1998

Piccolo v. Dobbs (February 1998, MPT-1). Applicants represent the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit arising from an automobile accident and pending in the local federal district court. Counsel for the defendant has refused to produce recordings and transcripts of two witness statements taken by an insurance investigator at the time of the accident, claiming work-product protection. Applicants are instructed to write a persuasive brief in support of a motion to compel production of the materials. The File includes a memorandum on how to write persuasive briefs and excerpts from three depositions. The Library contains an abridged version of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and two cases.

In re Gardenton Board of Education (February 1998, MPT-2). Applicants work for a law firm that represents the local Board of Education. In response to criticism about the propriety of material appearing in the high school newspaper and in student theatrical productions, the Board wants to adopt a code that will regulate all student communications at the high school. Applicants are instructed to write a memorandum in which they evaluate the constitutionality of the provisions in the draft code the Board has prepared. The File includes a transcript of a discussion with the President of the Board and a copy of the proposed Student Communications Code. The Library includes excerpts from the US and Franklin Constitutions, provisions of the Franklin Education Act, and three cases.

State v. Baker (July 1998, MPT-1). Applicants work for the District Attorney prosecuting Robert Baker for larceny by false pretense. Applicants are instructed to write a memorandum in which they identify the facts that support the indictment, determine whether the indictment is flawed, and identify what choices are available to cure the defect. The File includes a copy of the indictment and a transcript of the testimony of three witnesses in the grand jury proceedings. The Library includes excerpts from the Franklin Criminal Code, the Franklin Code of Professional Responsibility, and one case.

In re Laser Lens, Inc. (July 1998, MPT-2). Applicants work for a law firm whose business client, Laser Lens, Inc. (LLI), wants to expand its operations. Applicants are instructed to prepare a letter to the clients explaining what the legal, economic, and personal consequences would be on the goals they have for themselves and their business if they accept a proposal to raise funds by selling additional stock in the company. The File includes the letter from Industrial Security Insurance offering to purchase LLI stock, the LLI articles of incorporation, a transcript of an interview with the clients, and a newspaper article. The Library consists of excerpts from Franklin Business Corporation Law.