Ethics

This week is big for lawyering cases on the Supreme Court's docket.  The Court heard oral argument this morning in Astrue v. Ratliff, a case challenging the Eighth Circuit's determination that fees awarded to a prevailing party under the Equal Access to Justice Act belong to the attorney, not the client.

Tomorrow the Court will hear Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.  At issue in this case are provisions of an anti-terrorism statute that prevent lawyers from offering advice to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations, even if the advice is for lawful and humanitarian peace-making endeavors.  For example, as the Ninth Circuit pointed out in finding the provisions void for vagueness, the filing of an amicus curiae brief in support of such an organization could violate the statute.  The president of the Humanitarian Law Project, civil rights lawyer Ralph Fertig, was featured last week in an article about the case by NYT's Adam Liptak.  As David Savage also notes in writing about the case for the ABA Journal this month:

And the Court continues to add lawyering cases to its docket, now fifteen in total.  Today the Court granted certiorari to Harrington v. Richter, an ineffective assistance of counsel case challenging the issuance of habeas corpus relief by the Ninth Circuit based upon counsel's reliance on cross-examination and other methods to create reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt rather than expert-opinion testimony.  The Ninth Circuit's opinion is available here, and John Elwood of the Volokh Conspiracy offers an interesting overview in his post last week speculating on whether the Court would review the case.