2008 MPT Summary

In re Velocity Park (February 2008, MPT-1) Applicants’ law firm represents Zeke Oliver, a local entrepreneur who is building Velocity Park, which will soon open as the first skateboarding park in Banford, Franklin. Zeke has asked the law firm to advise him on an appropriate liability waiver to be signed by skate park customers, many, if not most, of whom will be teenagers. Applicants are asked to review the draft waiver that Zeke has brought in and to draft a memorandum analyzing whether the waiver in its current form is legally enforceable under Franklin law. In completing this task, applicants are expected to address both the language of the document and its format and suggest specific revisions. In addition, applicants must grapple with the issue of whether liability waivers signed only by minors will be enforced to bar actions for negligence arising from injuries suffered by those minors while engaging in recreational activities. The File contains the instructional memorandum from the supervising partner, a transcript of the client interview, a liability waiver Zeke assembled by taking language from a triathlon liability waiver, and a newspaper article about the risks associated with skateboarding. The Library includes a Franklin statute regarding civil actions and two cases, one from Franklin and one from the state of Columbia.

In re Lisa Peel (February 2008, MPT-2) Applicant’s law firm represents Lisa Peel, a private citizen who operates an Internet blog on which she posts news stories about local government, as well as movie reviews and items about her family activities. Following her post about a local school official taking $10,000 in audiovisual equipment for personal use, the district attorney subpoenaed Peel to testify before the grand jury and to produce all of her interview notes in an effort to get her to reveal the identities of the sources for her story. Peel seeks the law firm’s advice on whether she can resist the subpoena. Applicants’ task is to draft a memorandum analyzing whether Peel would be considered a “reporter” under the Franklin Reporter Shield Act and would therefore be protected from being compelled to reveal her confidential sources. The File contains the instructional memorandum from the supervising partner, the transcript of the client interview, a copy of Peel’s school-corruption post, a copy of the subpoena, and a news article about the development of blogs as the newest form of journalism. The Library contains excerpts from the Franklin Reporter Shield Act, various dictionary definitions, and two cases.

Bohmer v. Bohmer (July 2008, MPT-1) Applicants are associates at a Franklin law firm, which has agreed to represent Jessica Bohmer, mother of a six-year-old daughter, in a child custody dispute with the child’s father, Alex Bohmer. Jessica and Alex are still married, but Jessica has recently relocated from Franklin to Columbia with their daughter because of Jessica’s concerns about Alex’s violence. Alex has filed for custody in Franklin. Applicants’ task is to draft an objective memorandum analyzing the provisions of the Franklin Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and discussing whether the UCCJEA, and the Franklin cases interpreting the statute’s home-state jurisdiction and inconvenient forum provisions, will permit the firm to persuade a Franklin court that the state of Columbia is the preferable jurisdiction to address the Bohmers’ child custody dispute. The File contains the instructional memorandum, a transcript of a telephone call between the partner and a legal services attorney in Columbia who is helping Jessica in that jurisdiction, the legal services intake form, a civil protection order, and an e-mail from Alex to Jessica. The Library includes the relevant provisions of the Franklin UCCJEA and two Franklin cases.

Williams v. A-1 Automotive Center (July 2008, MPT-2) The client, Robert Williams, took his minivan to A-1 Automotive Center (A-1) for a routine oil change. After being told by the repair shop’s owner that the minivan’s transmission was in imminent danger of failing, Williams agreed to have a rebuilt transmission installed for approximately $1,700. Williams subsequently found out from a local dealership that A-1 had not performed the agreed-upon work but had in fact reinstalled the original transmission. He now wants to file suit against A-1. Applicants’ task is to analyze several potentially actionable statements made by A-1’s owner and to determine which statements are actionable and which are not. Next, applicants are to draft a cause of action for fraud based on those statements determined to be actionable. In doing so, applicants are expected to follow the firm’s drafting guidelines, which provide an example of a well-pleaded cause of action. The File contains the instructional memorandum from the supervising attorney, the law firm’s guidelines for drafting causes of action, client interview notes, a memorandum from the supervising attorney identifying four potentially actionable statements, and Williams’s receipt from A-1 for the alleged repair. The Library contains three cases discussing the pleading requirements for a cause of action for fraud.