INSURANCE DEFENSE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: THE FLORIDA BAR’S PROPOSED STATEMENT OF INSURED CLIENT’S RIGHTS—A UNIQUE APPROACH TO THE TRIPARTITE RELATIONSHIP
Katherine E. Giddings And J. Stephen Zielezienski
There has been much debate and discussion about the insurance “tripartite” relationship during the past few years, as well as a lot of misunderstanding about the role of attorney ethics within that relationship. The authors would like to let the readers in on a secret: other than the fancy term used to describe it, the tripartite relationship is really no different from any other multiple-client representation in which the clients agree to allocate among themselves the responsibilities of managing the litigation and decision-making.
PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSIONS CANNOT LIVE IN THE PAST
Douglas D. Mcfarland
While earlier commentators, codes, and cases hinted or suggested that the statement of a witness describing an event while perceiving it should be admissible over a hearsay objection, the present sense impression was not generally recognized as an exception to the hearsay rule until the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975.
MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES: EXEMPLIFYING THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Mandatory minimum sentences, once rare in the criminal law system, have experienced a dramatic increase in popularity. This political phenomenon has enjoyed wide bipartisan support: since the mid-1980s, Congress has routinely passed new crime measures containing mandatory minimum sentences. In spite of the political popularity of this sentencing tool, many commentators are concerned about the social and economic effects resulting from the proliferation of mandatory minimum sentencing statutes. Chief Justice Rehnquist has commented that these measures are “perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences.”
DEFEATING THE SELF-SETTLED SPENDTHRIFT TRUST IN BANKRUPTCY
Low- and middle-income Americans benefit little from recent developments in trust laws enabling the wealthy to shelter assets from creditors. Many foreign nations allow Americans to establish asset protection trusts abroad, purportedly making it impossible for American creditors to collect from American debtors. While bankruptcy courts rarely face cases involving these foreign trusts, the few cases on point have been decided unanimously against the debtors on public policy grounds. Not to be outdone, several American states have now modified their trust laws to compete with foreign nations. These recent amendments facilitate continued social stratification by discouraging wealthy debtors from repaying their debts even when they have the ability to do so. The unresolved question is how bankruptcy courts will treat those trusts.