Virginia Live CLE Bundle 2021

Attorneys who encounter legal ethics problems can use this course to learn a methodology for solving them. Although no methodology is perfect, there is a methodology known by the acronym "MORALS" for solving legal-ethics problems or dilemmas. This seminar focuses on such methodology. 

The format of this course is a blend of the lecture method with the Socratic method, extensively involving a high degree of interactive participation and critical analyses of a wide range of issues relevant to the subject of the seminar in a manner not limited to mere chronological description of particular topics and sub-topics. Depending on the number of participants in a particular seminar, the format usually results in most, if not all, participants verbally engaging in conversational-styled interactive discussion and/or analysis of particular topics in the seminar and also permits interruptions, questions, challenges, etc. throughout the seminar. Think of collegially enjoyable and enlightening round-table discussions. It's a form of learning by thinking in the course of interactively participating rather than learning solely by listening (the latter of which is the lecture method).

Any attorney desiring to learn how to analyze legal ethics problems or dilemmas to maximize the likelihood of an ethically proper solution is encouraged to attend this program.

Learning Objectives: 

• Refresh what should be every lawyer's common knowledge of unique aspects of the legal profession in contrast to all other professions, occupations, etc.: It's the effect of the Constitution's (and each state constitution's) vesting of "the judicial power" of the sovereign in its "Supreme Court" and its thereby incorporation of the evolutionary nature of the judiciary's common law inherent judicial power (i.e., sui generis power) to define, prescribe, and enforce educational, moral, ethical and civil standards for the practice of law and the status of lawyers as officers of the courts
• Analyze how exercising such common law inherent judicial power (sui generis power) in an adversarial system created under common law, the supreme court of the sovereign (i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court and each state supreme court) creates structural and functional tools for the administration of justice -- i.e., rules of evidence, burdens of proof, procedural rules, and regulatory control over the conduct of attorneys
• Participate actively in regulatory control over the legal profession generally and the conduct of lawyers individually, as is generally encouraged by the judiciary. Therefore, each attorney has a duty to keep abreast of such disciplinary and regulatory activities and, as much as possible, actively participate (pro bono, of course) in and support such activities
• Maximize one's objectivity by seeking a thorough analysis of all relevant and material facts, issues, and laws when determining how to solve an ethics problem or dilemma
• Recognize intrinsic conflicts between "justice" (or what's "morally right") on the one hand and legal, ethical duties on the other and then analyze them to determine when attorneys must, or sometimes must not, implement an ethically correct solution that is a polar opposite of "justice."
• Assess the best way to prevent a legal professional’s self-interests in desiring to avoid damage to the legal professional’s standing in solving an ethical problem and the professional responsibility to derive an ethically proper solution

Course Time Schedule:

Eastern Time: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM
Central Time: 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Mountain Time: 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Pacific Time: 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Alaska Time: 12:00 PM - 2:00 PM
Hawaii-Aleutian Time: 11:00 AM - 1:00 PM

This course is also being presented on the following dates:

Monday, June 2, 2025
Monday, June 9, 2025
Monday, June 16, 2025
Monday, June 23, 2025
Monday, June 30, 2025

Once a niche practice area, antitrust has been making headlines seemingly nonstop for the last few years. In a rapidly changing political environment, what do attorneys need to know to stay current in this dynamic area? This CLE provides a foundation in selected emerging issues.

First, we will start with a sleeper hit. Once a mainstay of antitrust enforcement asserted in hundreds of cases per year, the Robinson Patman Act (RPA) has been largely abandoned by federal enforcers since the 1980s. Now several high-profile cases– including a plaintiff-side jury verdict– have brought this price discrimination law back into the spotlight. We will cover the core elements and defenses relating to RPA claims, as well as recent case law trends. 

Second, we will review the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) resurrection of Section 8 of the Clayton Act, which seeks to promote competition by preventing “interlocking directorates.” A rare “per se” rule in a sea of judge-made “rule of reason” antitrust jurisprudence, Section 8 categorically prohibits directors and officers from simultaneously serving on a competitor’s board. Exceptions are limited– but are there nonetheless gray areas relating to this bright line rule? 

Finally, we will turn to efforts to revive a long-lost remedy: structural separations. Legendary breakups of Standard Oil and AT&T, and even the attempted breakup of Microsoft can seem like fables from distant eras dominated by completely different technological paradigms. Have the Big Tech cases brought us any closer to revitalizing one of the most powerful tools in antitrust law in a lasting way? What about a divestiture order targeting an obscure door and window manufacturer? We will cover recent outcomes as well as doctrinal developments.

This CLE provides a foundation that equips attorneys of all experience levels with a background on core legal frameworks and an understanding of emerging issues. 

Learning Objectives: 

• Identify core elements of selected federal antitrust laws
• Analyze trends in federal and private claims
• Spot issues that arise when adapting lesser used authorities to modern contexts
   

Course Time Schedule:

Eastern Time: 6:30 PM - 7:30 PM 
Central Time: 5:30 PM - 6:30 PM
Mountain Time: 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM
Pacific Time: 3:30 PM - 4:30 PM
Alaska Time: 2:30 PM - 3:30 PM
Hawaii-Aleutian Time: 1:30 PM - 2:30 PM

This course is also being presented on the following dates:

Monday, June 23, 2025
Monday, July 28, 2025
Monday, August 18, 2025
Monday, September 22, 2025
Monday, October 20, 2025

The Justice Department has initiated the process for marijuana to be rescheduled from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Once completed, this will create major shifts in the cannabis industry for those working in it or considering getting involved. This course will discuss this policy shift in-depth, giving attendees critical information about how it might impact cannabis businesses nationwide. 

Attendees will learn about the difference between rescheduling and descheduling, the state-level implications of rescheduling, and potential conflicts between state and federal law. The course will also explore changes to the way cannabis businesses file taxes and additional research that can be completed on cannabis and cannabis derivatives after rescheduling. Finally, attendees will learn about the future possibilities of cannabis regulation.

This course is ideal for attorneys of all levels who currently work with clients in the cannabis industry or are interested in the subject.

Learning Objectives: 

• Define the difference between rescheduling and descheduling
• Analyze the conflicts between state and federal law
• Discuss how rescheduling vs. descheduling would cure or continue those conflicts
• Explore potential future state and federal regulation of cannabis
• Analyze business and tax impacts of rescheduling

Course Time Schedule:

Eastern Time: 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Central Time: 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM
Mountain Time: 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM
Pacific Time: 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM
Alaska Time: 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM
Hawaii-Aleutian Time: 6:00 AM - 7:00 AM

This course is also being presented on the following dates:

Tuesday, June 24, 2025
Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Tuesday, August 26, 2025
Tuesday, September 30, 2025
Tuesday, October 28, 2025

Most lawyers (if not all but a tiny percentage) would say, "I'd never even consider, much less engage in, sexual activity with a client, so why should I take a seminar titled 'Sexual Ethical Issues'"? The ethically responsible answer would be, "Even though you're certain you'd never engage In sexual activity with a client -- and thus have no need to learn about the 'ethics' or lack thereof concerning it, others may construe your ordinary behavior, conduct or attitude as manifesting sexual discrimination, harassment, intimidation, etc. or even as overtures for sexual activity, so taking the seminar would be useful even though it also includes material pertaining to sexual activity." 

The anti-discriminatory, anti-harassment aspect of the seminar focuses on ABA Model Rule 8.4 (or equivalent state-supreme-court rules), defining as "misconduct" any conduct evincing "harassment or discrimination based on… sex …, sexual orientation, [or] gender identity." Those rules are relatively uniform from state to state, but of course, their interpretation is generally a state-law issue rather than a federal-law issue. The sexual activity aspect of the seminar focuses on ABA Model Rule 1.8(j) (or equivalent state-supreme-court rules) governing sexual conduct by a lawyer with (or towards) a client. The content of this latter category of Rules varies quite a lot from one state to the next and a number of states have declined to adopt a rule specifically regulating sexual "activity."

The format of this program is a blend of the lecture method with the Socratic method, extensively involving a high degree of interactive participation and critical analyses of a wide range of issues relevant to the seminar subject in a manner not limited to mere chronological description of particular topics and sub-topics. In other words, the content of each seminar (and the order and extent of emphasis upon particular topics and sub-topics) will be substantially influenced by the nature and extent of interactive participation regarding specific aspects thereof. Depending on the number of participants in a particular seminar, the format usually results in most, if not all, participants verbally engaging in conversational-styled interactive discussion and/or analysis of particular topics in the seminar and also permits interruptions, questions, challenges, etc. throughout the seminar. Think of collegially enjoyable and enlightening round-table discussions. It's a form of learning by thinking in the course of interactively participating rather than learning solely by listening (the latter of which is the lecture method).

This course is designed for attorneys at any level who want to explore ethical issues regarding sexual conduct and discrimination.

Learning Objectives: 

• Refresh what should be every lawyer's common knowledge of unique aspects of the legal profession in contrast to all other professions, occupations, etc.: It's the effect of our Constitution's (and each state constitution's) vesting of "the judicial power" of the sovereign in its "Supreme Court" and its thereby incorporation of the evolutionary nature of the judiciary's common law inherent judicial power (i.e., sui generis power) to define, prescribe, and enforce educational, moral, ethical and civil standards for the practice of law and the status of lawyers as officers of the courts
• Recognize that in exercising such common law inherent judicial power (sui generis power) in an adversarial system created under common law, the supreme court of the sovereign (i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court and each state supreme court) creates structural and functional tools for the administration of justice -- i.e., rules of evidence, burdens of proof, procedural rules, and regulatory control over the conduct of attorneys
• Review that the judiciary generally encourages lawyers to participate actively in the regulatory control over the legal profession and the conduct of lawyers individually. Therefore, attorneys must keep abreast of such disciplinary and regulatory activities and, as much as possible participate (pro bono, of course) in actively and supporting such activities
• Examine types of conduct by an attorney that would constitute (or that might be construed as) harassment or unlawful discrimination regarding sex, gender, or orientation. Generally, there are not wide variations in the content (or interpretation) of the state-by-state versions of ABA Model Rule 8.4, defining as "misconduct" any conduct evincing "harassment or discrimination based on… sex …, sexual orientation, [or] gender identity."
• Explore types of conduct that would constitute (or that may be construed as) "misconduct" involving sexual activity with or towards a client under ABA Model Rule 1.8(j) or under varying state-by-state versions of such Rule (or in states that have declined to adopt any Rule specifically regulating the subject matter)
• Assess how assuming that any Rule or law governing "sex" and/or "sexual orientation" or "gender" ought to be construed by whatever is the current state of medical knowledge on matters such as "XY" and "XX" chromosomes, does the intrinsically pliable nature of terms such as "orientation" and "gender" thereby somehow render such chromosomal terminology pliable (rather than empirical, scientific descriptions of the biological status of males and females) even though the statistical variations (in XY and XX chromosomes) comprise incredibly tiny percentages of deviations from the norm? So, how should we view deviations from that norm? For example, under the Americans With Disabilities Act, such deviations prohibit different treatment unless it were to be reasonably warranted in the context of such treatment. For example, disqualification of a person with a severe peanut allergy from employment requiring close proximity to peanuts would not constitute an illegal form of "discrimination." Could the XX or XY status of a lawyer warrant different treatment without such treatment being deemed violative of the Rule 8.4 prohibition against sexual discrimination?

Course Time Schedule:

Eastern Time: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM
Central Time: 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Mountain Time: 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Pacific Time: 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Alaska Time: 12:00 PM - 2:00 PM
Hawaii-Aleutian Time: 11:00 AM - 1:00 PM

This course is also being presented on the following dates:

Tuesday, June 3, 2025
Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Tuesday, June 24, 2025
Tuesday, July 1, 2025