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)