Author Archives: Admin

ALR Student’s Corner: And Justice for All – A Review

Posted on by

We often become too familiar with our jobs. That along with losing passion, fatigue, personal issues, and conflicts may cause us to bring down our standards. Laws form the boundaries of our society, structure our government, maintain order, guarantee our rights and the freedom of private enterprise, regulate complicated affairs, and punish wrongdoers. However, what drove most of us, or at least many, to pursue a career in law is the idea of justice. Justice can be defined as the truth pursuant to the evidence, what is right under the totality of the circumstance, or what the law interprets as permissible based on the facts presented.

In “And Justice for All,” Al Pacino plays defense attorney, Arthur Kirkland, who has a reputation for having a high moral standard. He is also known to have bad blood with an authoritative judge named Henry Fleming, who is accused of raping and assaulting a woman. Unfortunately, Kirkland is forced to represent Fleming because the judge threatened to disbar him for breaking client confidentiality unless he takes the case. Because he is tied up with the big case, Kirkland asks a friend to fill in for him on a case involving a gullible transgender defendant who is accused of robbery and is petrified of how other inmates will treat him if he is convicted.

The lines quoted at the beginning of this article are from the scene where Kirkland finds out that his friend has neglected to request probation before judgment and the transgender defendant has committed suicide after being sentence to serve time. Not knowing all the facts, the friend yells, in response, that it’s just nickel and dime.

Defense attorneys make deals with prosecutors to request a favor in return, prosecutors want to be a star by convicting a judge, defense attorneys and prosecutors both fabricate or hide evidence to win the case. Kirkland says in his opening statement that the intention of justice is that the guilty people are proven guilty and the innocent are freed. He adds that the only problem is that both sides would like to win regardless of the truth, regardless of who’s guilty, because winning is everything.

The adversarial system has its merits. The procedural laws have its merits. If anyone’s been in an actual hearing or a trial in session, they would realize that nothing would be done without the strict rules governing the process, and the truth is often revealed during the cross-examinations and the presentation of evidence by the adverse parties. The courts also rule not only based on the law but on equity. The law is not only prescribed and remedies are ordered according to what is reasonable.

Then what is it that makes people fear the law yet not respect lawyers? Why do we entrust so much power to a profession that is not so trusted? Is it because lawyers are not honest?

Sam, Kirkland’s grandfather asks him if he’s a good, honest lawyer. Kirkland answers with a sarcastic tone that being honest doesn’t have much to do with being a lawyer. Sam replies back, “if you’re not honest, you’ve got nothing.” However, if all attorneys are completely honest, many defendants will not get a fair trial. We don’t want that. The issues and disputes that end up in court may be extremely complicated and confusing. Anyone can be the defendant – whether they meant to or not, and more importantly, judges will be more prone to be wrong if they only hear one side of the story. In that sense, although TV ads make you feel otherwise jaded, thank God there are plenty of defense attorneys.

If it’s not the law, and if it’s not the lawyers, why is it so difficult to achieve justice? Is the blindfold on lady justice getting in the way when she reads the scale and strikes that sword? I believe that regardless of how we might feel about the justice system we are on the right track and it’s a process in which we will ultimately build the most ideal system to achieve justice. Developments in technology, open public discussions, political debates, and new laws protecting individual rights are all examples of how we can and are advancing to construct a better justice system.

In “And Justice for All,” the defendant judge passes the polygraph although he later admits that he raped and assaulted the victim. Today’s DNA testing technology, and more advanced polygraph tests could have helped the prosecutor in cases like the one in “And Justice for All” where there were no witnesses other than the one planted by the defendant. Forensic use of DNA technology in criminal cases began in 1986, whereas the movie took place in 1979. North Carolina also permits the use of DNA evidence. As for polygraph (aka lie detector) test results, in many states including New York, Texas, Illinois, and the District of Columbia they are generally inadmissible. Some states do recognize them as admissible evidence and some permit them only to support probable cause for warrants.

Although I’m not sure how the law was back then, now no one in a courtroom would be able to shout things out, make comments, laugh and whistle without being held in contempt.

Human history is not that lengthy. Yet even after including prehistoric times, humans have been on this earth for only about 30 seconds out of a day in Earth’s time. Although we have achieved so much during the past few millennia, we are only discovering what we can do with what we have, not only with tangible materials but also with the products of our minds. As one of the greatest inventions and tools that was essential to our development and prosperity, the law and the justice system have evolved greatly, and will continue to change to one day achieve justice for all.

Charlotte School of Law Hosts Inaugural Queen City Mock Trial Competition

Posted on by

Charlotte School of Law, along with the University of North Carolina Charlotte hosted the inaugural Queen City Mock Trial Competition on Saturday, January 24, 2015.

The Competition consisted of over 60 undergraduate students divided into eight teams from Davidson College, Washington & Lee University, University of South Carolina, University of North Carolina Charlotte, and Wake Forest University. The format of the competition was four rounds where teams tried a very complex wrongful death action.

Among the awards were five top witness awards, five top attorney awards and a top team award. Washington and Lee won the top team with a perfect score, followed by second place Washington and Lee team and USC placed third. The top witness was Jordan La Pointe from Washington & Lee and the top attorney award went to Nicole Provax, a sophomore from USC. In addition to a certificate, Nicole has won a $20,000 Charlotte School of Law scholarship.

According to Mindy Sanchez, assistant professor at Charlotte School of Law, “We were very pleased with our first competition and credit the interdependencies within the CSL faculty, staff, and students as well as UNCC for a successful event.”

Staff Spotlight: Aithyni Rucker – Does “Cultural Fit” have a Negative Impact on Diversity & Inclusion?

Posted on by

In this day and age, company culture is of extreme importance to both corporations and employees. Corporations, law firms, and organizations go through great lengths to ensure that the personalities, work styles, and ideologies of new hires and current employees, fit defined cultural models. These models touch every facet of business, from hiring to retention practices, including evaluations of employee performance and productivity, communications, and how employees are treated.

By definition, diversity means difference and difference causes conflict. Diversity includes the acceptance and respect of individual differences and backgrounds. This means that hiring managers and partners must understand the fundamental notion that every individual is unique and differences should be celebrated and recognized. By avoiding conflict, is hiring for “cultural fit and chemistry” causing companies to create homogeneous teams with diminishing diversity? In global community, where a good number of C-suite executives, law-firm partners, and hiring decision makers are likely to be white males, this begs the question, are we unconsciously sacrificing diversity and inclusion to build corporate and law firm culture?

Removing Bias from Cultural Fit Evaluations

When we seek to have everyone “fit in” we lose the diversity of thought, background, and opinion. To combat this, companies must take active steps to avoid falling into a virtual black hole of employee “similarity”. Hiring and retaining employees who are “similar” opens the door for bias to rear its ugly head. If culture fit is code language for “looks like us, acts like us, and talks like us,” this is an uncomfortable reality that firms and corporations must face. The message of similarity sends a message to current and prospective employees that they are not welcomed and may not “fit in,” essentially depriving the organization from the benefits of a diverse team.

Whether you call it unconscious, implicit, or unintentional bias, it’s all prejudice just the same. In reality, perceptions of differences may not be based in reality. Unconscious bias stems from how you were raised and how you see the world without realizing it. Biases are born from gut reactions. These biases, prejudices, and perceived differences create a negative impact when placed in motion when hiring and evaluating employees. A true effective culture depends on how differences and perceptions of differences are managed.

Appropriate training and an understanding of biases can aid in hiring and employee retention. However, failure to ensure the selection process is based on standard criteria, with trained interviewers, can result in unintentional bias in the spirit of looking for someone who’s a perceived ‘‘good fit.’’ Many cultural evaluations have little to do with potential job performance. Popular interview questions like “What is the last book you read for fun?” and “What types of movies do you like?” can have a reverse effect and turn exclusionary. Additionally, many organizations make the mistake of assuming that those tasked with selecting new hires, during peer evaluations, are equipped to do so fairly because they are nice people or good workers. However, instead of serving as a litmus test of whether or not the candidate would work well and be comfortable in the company, these interviews run the risk of excluding candidates because many employees still work from their own biased perceptions of other groups.

Steps to Merge Culture Fit Evaluations with Diversity and Inclusion

Diversity and inclusion and cultural fit do not have to be mutually exclusive, it is up to managers and organizational leaders to attack levels of bias within institutions while hiring for and embracing the traits needed for success in a position.

Companies should hire employees committed to organizational purpose, values, and vision, while seeking to diversify. Instead of hiring for “like,” differences should still be sought out, celebrated, and cultivated within a team environment.
Get deep with bias training – Companies and firms should include unconscious bias training within employee onboarding, processes, and human resource and management training.
Extend the search process beyond referrals – 50-70% of all hires stem from personal referrals, and many employees hold an implicit bias in favor of their own race and gender, ensuring that a culture of similarity continues to grow.
Push for Holistic Fit – Companies should stress to employees that “hiring for being like me” is not an organizational goal. Instead encourage managers and leaders to find employees who embody a holistic fit with the position, work environment, management, and business.