2005

In re Rose Kingsley (February 2005, MPT-1) Applicants’ law firm represents Attorney Rose Kingsley in a fee dispute with Attorney Karen Sheats. Kingsley temporarily hired Sheats to assist her in the Moreno case, a complex toxic tort case. The two lawyers entered into a fee-splitting agreement whereby Sheats would receive 30% of Kingsley’s final fee from the case. Sheats was also to be paid $50 an hour for her work on the case as an advance on the 30% contingency. After Sheats had devoted 600 hours to the case and been paid $30,000 for her work, she felt that the case was too time consuming and was not going to succeed, so she quit. When Kingsley recovered a $10 million fee for settling the Moreno case, Sheats demanded 30% of the $10 million settlement. Applicants are asked to draft a memorandum for the supervising partner analyzing whether, under Rule 200 of the Franklin Rules of Professional Conduct, Sheats was Kingsley’s partner or associate, and whether the correspondence between Kingsley and Moreno complied with Rule 200’s disclosure requirements for fee-splitting arrangements. The File consists of an instructional memo, a transcript of an interview with Kingsley, a letter from Sheats’s counsel, the Kingsley-Sheats fee agreement, a letter from Kingsley to Janice Moreno, and a memo from Sheats. The Library contains Rule 200 of the Franklin Rules of Professional Conduct and two relevant cases.

Reynolds v. Preferred Medical Providers (February 2005, MPT-2). In this item, applicants’ law firm represents Rowena Reynolds in a wrongful death action against her deceased father’s HMO, Preferred Medical Providers (Preferred). John Reynolds was enrolled in Elder Advantage, a Medicare health insurance plan issued by Pre-ferred. Mr. Reynolds’s physician recommended that he receive a newly developed treatment for his kidney disease, but Preferred refused to authorize it and Mr. Reynolds died of kidney disease. Shortly after applicants’ law firm filed the lawsuit in Franklin state court, Preferred’s attorney demanded that the dispute be submitted to arbitration because the Elder Advantage enrollment agreement had an arbitration clause requiring that disputes go to arbitration. While conceding that the arbitration clause violates Franklin law, Preferred’s counsel has argued that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the Medicare Act preempt Franklin law, and that therefore, the arbitration clause is enforceable. Applicants’ task is to draft a letter to Preferred’s attorney arguing that Franklin law is not preempted by federal law and that the clause is unenforceable. The File contains an instruction memo, the letter from Preferred’s attorney, an excerpt from the Elder Advantage participant handbook, Mr. Reynolds’s Elder Advantage enrollment form, and a transcript of an interview with Rowena Reynolds. The Library contains excerpts of the Franklin law, excerpts of federal statutes (McCarran-Ferguson Act, Medicare Act, FAA), the Congressional Record, and two cases.

In re Barnett (February 2005, MPT-3) Applicants work for The Open Housing Center, which represents Matt and Sarah Barnett in a housing discrimination claim arising out of their attempt to rent an apartment from Tony Gordon. Matt is white, and his wife Sarah, who was born and raised in England, is dark-skinned. Matt saw a flier for an apartment that seemed well suited for his family. He went to view the apartment by himself and was encouraged by the owner’s sister, who was showing it to him, to rent the apartment. After Sarah and Matt went to view the apartment together, though, it became evident to them that the apartment owner, Tony Gordon, would not rent to them notwithstanding their ability to pay the rent and their interest in the apartment. Applicants are asked to draft a memo explaining how the facts support the claim that (1) Tony Gordon violated two civil rights sections of the Franklin Administrative Code; (2) Matt has recourse to bring an action against Gordon; and (3) Matt and Sarah are entitled to recover damages from Gordon. The file contains an instructional memo, notes from separate interviews with Sarah and Matt, the apartment flier, and a property and ownership report of Gordon’s properties. The Library is composed of Title 8 of the Franklin Administrative Code and two relevant cases.

In re Brigham (July 2005, MPT-1) Applicants represent Dr. Barbara and Len Brigham before the Bay County Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) regarding their petition for a use variance to move Barbara’s dental office into the Brigham’s home. Dr. Brigham specializes in geriatric dentistry, devoting 20-25% of her practice to serving pro bono patients. She will be unable to maintain her pro bono commitment and stay in her current office due to a substantial rent increase. She has just learned that the County Supervisors recently passed an ordinance rezoning a parcel near the Brighams’ home from R-1 to R-R (multi-family, catering to senior citizens).  The Brighams are seeking to move Barbara’s dental office into their home, located in a R-1 (single family residential) zoned neighborhood. They have asked applicants’ law firm to file the letter brief to the ZBA in support of their petition for a use variance.  The File consists of the instructing memorandum, notes from the partner’s interview with the Brighams, a neighborhood map, letters from neighbors, and a newspaper article about the rezoning ordinance passed by the County Supervisors. The Library contains excerpts from a Treatise on Franklin Land Use Planning and the Bay County Code, as well as a case bearing on the subject.

In re Clarke Corporation (July 2005, MPT-2) Applicants’ law firm represents Clarke Corporation (Clarke).  In 1990, Clarke purchased a division of Santoy Enterprises (Santoy) that manufactured pharmaceutical products, including Pure View, an X-ray enhancing contrast dye.  The sale was an arm’s-length transaction that did not involve the transfer of any corporate stock or any overlap in officers, directors, or shareholders.  Clarke briefly continued to manufacture Pure View and is now being threatened with a products liability suit for the death of Thomas Regan, who allegedly died from doses of Pure View administered to him more than two decades ago.  Applicants are asked to draft an opinion letter to Jasmine Clarke, Clarke’s president, addressing whether liability can be imposed on Clarke under the product line successor rule, a judicially created doctrine that applies only in the products liability area.  The File contains instructions on writing opinion letters, notes from an interview with Jasmine Clarke, excerpts from the 1990 Asset Purchase Agreement between Clarke and Santoy, and the demand letter from Mr. Reagan’s widow’s attorneys.  The library contains two relevant cases.