2009 MPT Summary

Phoenix Corporation v. Biogenesis, Inc. (February 2009, MPT-1) The law firm of Amberg & Lewis LLP represents Biogenesis, Inc., a large biotechnology company that is the defendant in a breach-of-contract suit regarding payment of patent royalties. A jury trial is set to begin in a month and is expected to last six weeks. The plaintiff in that suit, Phoenix Corporation, has filed a motion to disqualify the Amberg firm as Biogenesis’s attorneys, arguing that Amberg inadvertently received a letter covered by the attorney-client privilege and that Amberg’s actions with respect to that letter violate the Franklin Rules of Professional Conduct and will incurably prejudice Phoenix’s case. Applicants are associates at the law firm that has agreed to represent the Amberg firm in defending it against the motion to disqualify. Applicants’ task is to prepare an objective memorandum evaluating the merits of Phoenix’s argument for the Amberg firm’s disqualification. The File contains a task memorandum from the supervising attorney, the transcript of the client interview, the privileged letter that is the subject of the motion to disqualify, and Phoenix’s brief in support of its motion for disqualification. The Library contains the text of the Franklin Rules of Professional Conduct at issue and two cases.

Ronald v. Department of Motor Vehicles (February 2009, MPT-2) In this performance test, applicants work for a sole practitioner who represents Barbara Ronald in an administrative proceeding before the Franklin Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The DMV suspended Ronald’s driver’s license for allegedly operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level of at least 0.08 percent, the legal limit. Ronald requested an administrative hearing to challenge the suspension. Because this is an administrative proceeding, and not a criminal prosecution, the DMV must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ronald drove a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood-alcohol content. The administrative hearing officer has heard the evidence and has directed the parties to submit written briefs. Applicants’ task is to draft a persuasive memorandum arguing that the police officer did not have a reasonable suspicion warranting the stop of Ronald’s car, that the hearing officer cannot rely solely on the blood test report to find that Ronald was driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more, and finally, that in light of all the evidence, the DMV has not proved that Ronald was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The File contains the memorandum from the supervising attorney, the administrative hearing transcript, the police report, and the blood-alcohol test results. The Library contains a selection of Franklin statutes and three cases.

Jackson v. Franklin Sports Gazette, Inc. (July 2009, MPT-1) The client, the Franklin Sports Gazette, a weekly tabloid sports newspaper, has been sued by Richard “Action” Jackson, a star baseball player, for an alleged violation of Jackson’s right of publicity under Franklin’s recently enacted right-of-publicity statute. The Gazette ran a photograph of Jackson, only partially visible, sliding into home plate as part of its coverage of a baseball game. Jackson’s complaint arises from the Gazette’s use of that same photo in a print advertisement soliciting subscriptions. The Gazette seeks the law firm’s assistance in defending against the suit. Applicants’ task is to draft an objective memorandum analyzing whether there is a cause of action under Franklin’s right-of-publicity statute and identifying the Gazette’s possible legal arguments to oppose such a cause of action. The File contains the instructional memorandum from the supervising attorney, a summary of the client interview and background research, an internal memorandum from the Gazette approving the advertisement, and a copy of the advertisement itself. The Library contains the Franklin Right of Publicity Statute, excerpts from its legislative history, and three right-of-publicity cases decided under the previous common law in Franklin.

In re City of Bluewater (July 2009, MPT-2) Applicants are employed by the Bluewater City Attorney’s Office. The City plans to provide water and sewer services to a proposed 500-acre subdivision and to collect the corresponding revenue for such services. However, the City has just received a demand letter from Turquoise Water Supply Corporation (TWS), threatening to sue the City if it proceeds with its plan to provide water and sewer services to the subdivision site, which has not yet been annexed by the City. TWS claims to have the exclusive right under federal and state law to provide such services to the site. This presents an issue of first impression in Franklin. Applicants’ task is to draft a response to TWS’s demand letter, addressing TWS’s contentions and persuasively setting forth the City’s right to provide the services in question. The File contains the instructional memorandum, a preliminary research memorandum, the TWS demand letter, a newspaper article about the proposed subdivision, and a copy of the City’s draft service plan. The Library includes the relevant provisions of the federal statute and the Franklin Code regarding water utilities, and two Columbia cases.