2006 MPT Summary

Harris v. CBL (February 2006, MPT-1) Applicants' law firm represents Steve Harris, a graphic artist, in a copyright dispute with Columbia Biotech Laboratories, Inc. (CBL). Harris won a competition to develop a cartoon character for use in marketing CBL’s new computer chip, the i-Chip. Harris then entered into a six-month contract (the letter agreement) with CBL, during which time he was to use his character, “Blinky,” in developing marketing materials for CBL in exchange for $7,000/month. The contract contained a “work made for hire” clause stating that all work performed under the contract belonged to CBL. Shortly after they entered into the contract, CBL cancelled it, but paid Harris the remainder due thereunder. CBL continued to use Blinky in its own i-Chip marketing campaign. Applicants’ task is to draft an objective memorandum analyzing (1) who owns the copyright to Blinky, (2) if Harris owns Blinky, whether he granted CBL an implied nonexclusive license to use it, and (3) if there was a license, whether CBL’s use of Blinky is within the scope of any such license. The File contains the instructional memorandum from the partner, notes of an interview with Harris, a series of e-mail messages, and excerpts from the Harris/CBL letter agreement. The Library contains excerpts from the U.S. Copyright Act and two cases bearing on the subject.

State of Franklin v. Butler (February 2006, MPT-2) The Franklin State’s Attorney’s Office has subpoenaed Flora Hernandez, a mediator, to testify in its felony case against John Butler for illegally dumping chemical waste. Hernandez presided at a mediation between Butler and his former business partner, Lynn Long, during which Butler admitted to dumping the chemical waste into the Green River. Hernandez and Long were the only witnesses to Butler’s admission, and Long has since died. Hernandez has filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that her testimony is protected by the mediation privilege of the Franklin Uniform Mediation Act (FUMA). However, there are several exceptions to FUMA’s mediation privilege, and applicants, assistant state’s attorneys, are asked to write a brief in opposition to the motion to quash. The File contains an instructing memorandum from the Senior Assistant State’s Attorney, case notes, notes from a police officer’s interview with Long, a copy of the agreement to mediate, and a copy of the motion to quash. The File also contains instructions for drafting persuasive briefs. The Library consists of portions of FUMA and two relevant cases.

Larson Real Estate File (July 2006 MPT-1) Applicants are associates at a law firm that represents Karen Larson, who has contracted to sell her home in Banford, Franklin, to Pierre and Lisa Meridien, residents of the neighboring state of Columbia. When they entered into the sales contract, the Meridiens had not seen Larson’s house in person; now, after traveling to Banford to view the property, they are unhappy about the condition of the house and have concerns about the neighborhood. The Meridiens are demanding a $60,000 reduction in the purchase price as compensation for the condition of the house and the environs that Larson allegedly failed to disclose, contrary to Franklin Real Property Law § 350, which requires sellers to disclose “material facts” to future buyers of residential real estate. Section 350 was recently enacted; previously, Franklin was a strict “buyer beware” jurisdiction. Thus, this is a developing area of the law in Franklin. Applicants’ task is to draft an objective memorandum (1) discussing the disclosure requirements imposed on sellers of residential real estate by Franklin Real Property Law § 350 and the common law; (2) analyzing whether, with respect to disclosing the specific items listed by the Meridiens’ attorney, Larson complied with § 350 and the common law; and (3) identifying what relief, if any, the Meridiens are entitled to. The File contains the task memorandum, the transcript of the client interview, the letter from the Meridiens’ attorney, the real property disclosure statement, and an article from The Banford Courier regarding a proposed neighborhood group home. The Library contains a Banford city ordinance on historic districts, Franklin Real Property Law § 350, and two cases.

Parker v. Essex Productions (July 2006, MPT-2) Applicants’ law firm, Brown Scott & Mayer (BSM), represents the pop star Sylvia Parker in her lawsuit against Essex Productions (Essex), a company that promotes and manages concert tours. Parker has claimed that, in connection with her last concert tour, Essex breached a contract to procure singing performances for Parker, that it was unjustly enriched as a result of the breach, and that it violated state law by operating without an employment agency license. Essex’s counsel in Parker v. Essex asserts that BSM’s representation of Parker creates a conflict in violation of the Franklin Rules of Professional Conduct and has filed a motion to disqualify BSM because of a supposed conflict arising from work Peter Alexander, a BSM associate, did for Essex while working at his former law firm, Tansy & Pipe. Essex’s motion claims that, while employed by Tansy & Pipe, Alexander advised Essex on a variety of music business matters, including licensure issues and negotiation of contracts similar to the one under scrutiny in Parker v. Essex. Applicants’ task is to draft the supervising partner’s argument in opposition to Essex’s motion to disqualify BSM, setting forth every available point that supports the conclusion that BSM should not be disqualified from representing Parker. The File contains the task memorandum, the motion for disqualification filed by Essex’s counsel, a transcript of the supervising partner’s interview with Peter Alexander, and a memorandum from Carol Scott, another BSM partner. The Library contains three rules from the Franklin Rules of Professional Conduct and two cases.