The Future of Legal Services: Legal and Ethical Implications of the LSC Restrictions - Address: Interpretations of LSC Restrictions

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Sep 2017

The purpose of this talk is to set a framework for the discussions on the four panels. I will begin by discussing what has happened in the 104th Congress, describe what can and cannot be done under the restrictions imposed by that Congress, and then frame the context for the later discussions.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1969&context=ulj

The Future of Legal Services: Legal and Ethical Implications of the LSC Restrictions - Address: Interpretations of LSC Restrictions

Thi s Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The F ordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The F ordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information The F uture of Legal Ser vices: Legal and Ethical Implications of the LSC Restrictions - Address: Interpretations of LSC Restrictions Matthew Diller Alan W. Houseman Counsel to the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and the Project Advisory Group Part of the Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons Recommended Citation Matthew Diller and Alan W. Houseman, Th e Future of Legal Services: Legal and Ethical Implications of the LSC Restrictions - Address: Interpretations of LSC Restrictions, 25 Fordham Urb. L.J. 285 (1998). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol25/iss2/6 - Article 6 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj The F uture of Legal Services: Legal and Ethical Implications of the LSC Restrictions - Address: Interpretations of LSC Restrictions Cover Page Footnote Thi s conference grew out of a course taught by Professor Pearce and myself, a seminar of ethics and public interest law, in which the students worked in groups with different public interest organizations around the City on particular topics and projects. One group focused on the recent enactment of restrictions on organizations that receive funding through the Legal Services Corporation. Th at student group took the lead in organizing this conference, both from the conceptual start of what issues should be discussed, down to the smallest details of will there be water on the table for the panelists. I want to acknowledge their fabulous contribution in making this event happen. They a re Steve Epstein, Eric Fields, Staci Rosche, and Jack Pace. The re are three of them there. Eric is probably outside - he's up in the booth. Staci and Steve you will hear from in actually just a few minutes, as they moderate two panels on today's program. I also want to thank Helaine Barnett for really helping this collaboration between Fordham Law School and The L egal Aid Society take off. Thi s is our second year in working with The L egal Aid Society on this course. Last year, the students organized a very successful conference on representing tenant groups. We are thrilled with this collaboration and hope that it deepens and develops. Thi s article is available in Fordham Urban Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol25/iss2/6 SECURITIES ARBITRATION: A CLINICAL EXPERIMENT Constantine N. Katsoris* Introduction Disputes between the securities industry and its customers are generally resolved in arbitration, which is designed to be simpler, cheaper, and faster than courtroom litigation.' Such arbitrations between brokers and customers have been held at the New York Stock Exchange since 1872.2 Thereafter, other securities industry self-regulatory organizations ("SROs") have also provided a forum for the arbitration of such disputes. However, before 1978, the various SROs had differing rules governing such arbitrations. In 1977, the Securities Industry Conference on Arbitration ("SICA") was created to develop a Uniform Code of Arbitration ("Uniform Code") to be used by all the SROs.4 The Uniform Code was largely in place at all the participating SROs by 1980. 5 After the adoption of the Uniform Code, SRO arbitrations grew * Wilkinson Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law; Public Member of Securities Industry Conference on Arbitration since its inception, 1977-1997. Public Member of National Arbitration Committee of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) 1975-1981; Public Arbitrator at New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) since 1971; Public Arbitrator at NASD since 1968; Arbitrator for First Judicial Department in New York since 1972; Private Judge, Duke Law School's Private Adjudication Center since 1989; Arbitrator at the American Arbitration Association (AAA) since 1992; Instructor, Arbitrator and Chair Training Programs at NYSE and NASD since 1994: Mediator at NASD since 1997. The author would like to thank: John D. Feerick, Dean of Fordham Law School; Professors James A. Cohen, Jacqueline Nolan-Haley, and Ian Weinstein of the Fordham University School of Law; Louis A. Korahais, former Director of Arbitration at the NASD and original participant at the Securities Industries Conference on Arbitration (SICA); Paul Andrews of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); Robert Clemente, Director of Arbitration at the NYSE; and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York for their invaluable assistance and counsel. 2. See PHILIP J. HOBLIN, SECURITIES ARBITRATION PROCEDURES, STRATEGIES, CASES 1-2 (2d ed. 1992). 3. See Katsoris, supra note 1, at 427. 4. See id. at 427-28. 5. See id. at 429. steadily from 830 in 19806 to 7271 in 1995.7 Moreover, before 1987, these (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1969&context=ulj

Matthew Diller, Alan W. Houseman. The Future of Legal Services: Legal and Ethical Implications of the LSC Restrictions - Address: Interpretations of LSC Restrictions, Fordham Urban Law Journal, 2018, Volume 25, Issue 2,