August 25, 2019

Archives for August 30, 2011

Volunteer Attorneys Needed for Mock Congressional Hearings

On Thursday, October 13, 2011, mock congressional hearings will be held at Noel Middle School middle school in Denver, and volunteer attorneys are needed to help judge the proceedings.

A Congressional Hearing is a meeting or session of a Senate, House, Joint, or Special Committee of Congress, usually open to the public, to obtain information and opinions on proposed legislation, conduct an investigation, or evaluate/oversee the activities of a government department or the implementation of a Federal law. In addition, hearings may also be purely exploratory in nature, providing testimony and data about topics of current interest, and to obtain opinions on those issues.

Students prepare investigative responses to questions dealing with the major concepts concerning our government.  Volunteers for the event will be given training and prep materials – no prior experience is required.

Attorneys available to judge should report to Rachel B. Noel Middle School, 5290 Kittridge St., Denver, Colorado 80239, at 7:15 for orientation. Judging will take place from 7:45 to 9:45.

Please contact for more information or to volunteer.

Denver Attorney Kenneth Eichner Publishes First Novel: D.A. Diaries

Local attorney and author Kenneth F. Eicher published his first novel this summer. D.A. Diaries is set in the courtrooms of our nation’s Capitol and explores the explosive combat zone of urban trial law through the eyes of Clay Franklin, an experienced homicide prosecutor. A high-profile murder trial is assigned to Clay, who is equally dedicated to chasing women as bringing criminals to justice. As Clay confronts his new assignment, he reconnects with the woman of his dreams and struggles unsuccessfully to keep his demons at bay. His efforts are further threatened when witnesses go silent and a corrupt clan of police officers seeks to protect the prime suspect – and Clay’s own indiscretions continue to plague the superstar of the homicide unit.

The author has worked as a prosecutor and defense attorney for the past thirty years. He is principal of The Eichner Law Firm and has tried over 135 jury trials, including a number of high-profile cases. He earned his law degree from the Antioch School of Law in Washington, D.C. and has lectured in trial advocacy at the University of Denver and Georgetown University. He has been published in The Colorado Lawyer, The Washington Post, and The Huffington Post and his cases have been covered by The Washington Post, The Rocky Mountain News, The Denver Post, and 60 Minutes. Eichner lives in Denver, Colorado, with his wife, Janjuree, and daughter, Kinaree.

Read an excerpt from the novel below, and click here for more information about the book and author.

DA Diaries Excerpt

Tenth Circuit: Opinion Amended to Omit References to the Panel’s Improper Discussion of the Dismissal of the Cross-Appeal

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals amended its opinion in James River Ins. Co. v. Rapid Funding, LLC on Monday, August 29, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit reviewed a Petition For Limited Rehearing filed on behalf of James River Insurance Company, as well as a Petition For Rehearing En Banc filed on behalf of Rapid Funding, LLC. The Petition For Limited Rehearing was reviewed by the panel members and was denied. The panel also reviewed the Petition For Rehearing En Banc, which was granted in part and denied in part. The Court granted limited rehearing about the portion of the petition that noted that the panel addressed the dismissed cross-appeal in error. The Court amended its original decision to omit those references. The amended version was attached to the new order and the remainder of the petition was denied in full. The en banc request was also denied.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/29/11

On Monday, August 29, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and one unpublished opinion.


United States v. Rincon-Torres

No case summaries are available for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

American Bar Association Issues Formal Ethics Opinions Regarding Email Confidentiality

On August 4, 2011, the ABA released two ethics opinions. The first, Formal Opinion 11-459, discusses the Duty to Protect the Confidentiality of E-mail Communications with One’s Client:

A lawyer sending or receiving substantive communications with a client via e-mail or other electronic means ordinarily must warn the client about the risk of sending or receiving electronic communications using a computer or other device, or e-mail account, where there is a significant risk that a third party may gain access. In the context of representing an employee, this obligation arises, at the very least, when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client is likely to send or receive substantive client-lawyer communications via e-mail or other electronic means, using a business device or system under circumstances where there is a significant risk that the communications will be read by the employer or another third party.

Whenever a lawyer communicates with a client by e-mail, the lawyer must first consider whether, given the client’s situation, there is a significant risk that third parties will have access to the communications. If so, the lawyer must take reasonable care to protect the confidentiality of the communications by giving appropriately tailored advice to the client.

Click here to read the full opinion.

In conjunction with that opinion, the ABA also released Formal Opinion 11-460, entitled Duty when Lawyer Receives Copies of a Third Party’s E-mail Communications with Counsel:

When an employer’s lawyer receives copies of an employee’s private communications with counsel, which the employer located in the employee’s business e-mail file or on the employee’s workplace computer or other device, neither Rule 4.4(b) nor any other Rule requires the employer’s lawyer to notify opposing counsel of the receipt of the communications. However, court decisions, civil procedure rules, or other law may impose such a notification duty, which a lawyer may then be subject to discipline for violating. If the law governing potential disclosure is unclear, Rule 1.6(b)(6) allows the employer’s lawyer to disclose that the employer has retrieved the employee’s attorney-client e-mail communications to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to comply with the relevant law. If no law can reasonably be read as establishing a notification obligation, however, then the decision whether to give notice must be made by the employer-client, and the employer’s lawyer must explain the implications of disclosure, and the available alternatives, as necessary to enable the employer to make an informed decision.

Click here to read the full opinion.