Identify a sanction for the violation in your scenario, and explain why it is appropriate; and Explain whether or not ABA Model Rule 1.6 needs additional clarification, or whether it is suff
law discussion question and need a reference to help me learn.
There are 3 prompts in Total, each prompt should be answered in about 350-450 words, citing APA. Use the attached 19th Amendment file for the 19th amend instructions, not the VA reps
Requirements: 1200 total, 350-450 words per prompt
2589 Foreword Glass Ceilings, Glass Walls: Intersections in Legal Gender Equality and Voting Rights One Hundred Years After the Nineteenth Amendment Jessica Szuminski* The Nineteenth Amendment was a milestone for womens rights but has often been criticized for being passed at the expense of people of color.1 Though a significant milestone, the Nineteenth Amendment was certainly not an endpoint for equality for women and in voting rights. In the one hundred years since it was ratified on August 18, 1920, a lot has changed in the ways of improving gender equality and increasing access to voting. However, much is still left to be achieved, and this Symposium dove deep into the questions of what we can learn from history and what we can do moving forward. The 2020?21 Minnesota Law Review Symposium assembled lead-ing legal scholars and practitioners in the fields of gender equality and voting rights. On April 1 and April 2, 2021, our Symposium looked back on the one hundred years since women were given the right to vote using a rough chronological approach.2 The first day of the Sym-posium opened with a historical overview of the Nineteenth Amend-ment, discussing who contributed to its ratification and who was left out after its passage. This background created a foundation for our * Lead Symposium Articles Editor, Minnesota Law Review, Volume 105. I would like to thank Professor Jill Elaine Hasday for her constant guidance and support throughout the development of this Symposium. An abundance of thanks is also due to Olivia Kurtz, University of Minnesota Law Schools Event Manager, for her attention to detail throughout the planning process and Abby Oakland, Minnesota Law Reviews in-comparable Editor-in-Chief, who was always willing to bounce ideas around with me. Copyright ? 2021 by Jessica Szuminski. 1. See The 19th Amendment: A Crash Course, NATL PARK SERV. (Feb. 22, 2021), https://www.nps.gov/wori/learn/historyculture/2020-crash-course.htm [https:// perma.cc/6EFW-YVBV]. 2. The Volume 105 Symposium was originally intended to occur in the fall of 2020, the year of the centennial anniversary. Due to the uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Executive Board determined that postponing the Symposium until spring of 2021 was necessary.
2590 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [105:2589 subsequent gender equality conversations, focusing on gender iden-tity and sexual orientation on day one and the modern legal feminist agenda on day two. The second day opened with keynote speaker Des-mond Meade, who presented about his role in fighting for legislative change in Florida to restore the right to vote to 1.4 million Floridians. Day two culminated in a panel discussing the current state of voting rights. Following the presentations during each panel, the speakers took questions from the audience. Professor Jill Elaine Hasday, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Centennial Professor in Law at the University of Minne-sota Law School, helped launch the Symposium with opening remarks. She positioned the audience in womens history and explained how women have attempted to situate themselves in stories of Americas history for a long time. She identified two primary ways in which they did so. The first was to link their activism to foundational expressions and symbols of Americas democratic ideals, such as the Declaration of Independence or the Statue of Liberty. The second was to dissemi-nate knowledge of womens history, such as the National American Woman Suffrage Organizations desire not only to achieve womens suffrage but to have their fight for suffrage be remembered. Professor Hasday urged that the project of making sure womens history is re-membered is still ongoing. Following Professor Hasdays opening remarks, the first panel, Analyzing the 19th Amendment in a Historical Context, dove deeper into analyzing womens role in history. This panel was moderated by Barbara Young Welke, Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Professor of History and Professor of Law, and Co-Director, Program in Law and History, at the University of Minnesota. This panel featured Jill Elaine Hasday; Phylicia H. Hill, Counsel, Economic Justice Project, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Martha S. Jones, Soci-ety of Black Alumni Presidential Professor and Professor of History and the SNF Agora Institute at John Hopkins University; and Tracy A. Thomas, Seiberling Chair of Constitutional Law and Director of the Center for Constitutional Law at the University of Akron School of Law. Professor Hasday based her presentation on her forthcoming book We the Men, addressing how Americas stories about itself too often exclude womens struggles for equality. She encouraged listen-ers to reflect on the way America represents its history?how almost every statue of an American hero depicts a man; how monumental speeches in Americas history focus on the experience of men; and how the Supreme Court, historically dominated by men, often leaves
2021] FOREWORD 2591 women out of its narrative. She rejected the notion that sex equality has already been achieved in America, despite what some anti-womens rights advocates proclaim. She cited anti-Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) opponents as an example of a group that claims that equality has already been achieved and argues that the ERA is therefore unnecessary. Professor Hasday argued that incorporating a richer and truer history of womens struggles for equality into our col-lective memory can sharpen our understanding of how reform takes place, focus our attention on the battles that are still not won, and for-tify our determination to push for a more equal future as we shape the next chapter in this American story. Ms. Hill brought the discussion specifically to the role of Black women in the movement for suffrage. In her talk titled ?Aint I a Woman?: The Exclusion of Black Women from the Voting Rights and Suffrage Movements and the Early Origins of Contemporary Political Intersectionality Theory, Ms. Hill explored how Black women an-chored two movements for access to the ballot, despite their access to these same rights not being a priority for either movement. She dis-cussed how Black women, who exist at the intersection of two op-pressed identities, faced unique challenges accessing the ballot and the lessons current voting rights activists can learn from their political intersectionality. Professor Jones recounted the history of several key Black women in the time surrounding the Nineteenth Amendment to ques-tion whether it was ever intended to extend the vote to Black women. Based on her recently published book Vanguard,3 Professor Jones first discussed Fannie Lou Hamers activism and her work with the Free-dom Democratic Party. She noted how Hamer would criticize the Thir-teenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments as failing to provide any of the protections they were meant to provide for Black women. However, Hamer would never invoke the Nineteenth, as she never saw that amendment as protecting her, especially given its historical ties to white supremacy. Professor Jones also highlighted Josephine St. Pierre, Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, Anna Julia Cooper, and Maggie Lena Walker in recounting the measured and intentional exclusion of African American women from the right to vote under the Nineteenth Amendment. The first panel ended with Professor Thomas speaking based on her Article in this Issue, Reclaiming the Long History of the 3. MARTHA S. JONES, VANGUARD: HOW BLACK WOMEN BROKE BARRIERS, WON THE VOTE, AND INSISTED ON EQUALITY FOR ALL (2020).
2592 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [105:2589 ?Irrelevant Nineteenth Amendment. Professor Thomas explored how the Nineteenth Amendment has been unfairly labeled an irrelevant amendment, assumed to have little importance beyond its literal ef-fect of prohibiting disqualification in voting based on sex. Her work reclaims the long history of the Nineteenth Amendment from the be-ginning of womens first voting in colonial times, through federal and state suffrage campaigns, to modern restrictive interpretations of its meaning. Professor Thomas ultimately argued for a better under-standing of the historical depths of the structural legal shift demanded by the Nineteenth Amendment and incorporation of that understand-ing to gender discrimination cases today. The second panel, titled Modern Intersections with Gender Equality and LGBTQ+ Rights, featured Jessica Clarke, Professor of Law and FedEx Research Professor and Co-Director of the George Bar-rett Social Justice Program at Vanderbilt Law School; and Kyle C. Velte, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kansas School of Law. This panel was moderated by Cooper Christiancy, ?21, Senior Articles Editor, Minnesota Law Review, Volume 105. Professor Clarke spoke on LGBTQ Rights as Gender Equality: The Upsides and Downsides of Bostock v. Clayton County and mapped out where LGBTQ rights fit into the landscape of gender equality fol-lowing the Supreme Courts decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.4 Professor Clarke began by explaining Bostock and its reasoning and addressing the tremendous upside of the decision for gay, lesbian, and trans employees. Her main argument criticized how Bostocks formu-laic reasoning fails to capture how discrimination on the basis of LGBTQ status is a threat to gender justice; offers uncertain protection for bisexual, non-binary, and queer individuals; and leaves all rights to sex equality vulnerable to religious carve-outs and exceptions. She concluded with the hope that an alternative vision of LGBTQ people as full and equal citizens, inspired by and expanding on the activism be-hind the Nineteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act, might one day replace Bostocks sterile formalism. Professor Velte addressed The Nineteenth Amendment as a Gen-erative Tool for Defeating LGBTQ Religious Exemptions, her Article published in this Issue. She connected todays battle over religious ex-emptions for sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination to the Nineteenth Amendment, using sex discrimination law from the in-tervening period as the bridge between the two. She combined the norm-generative potential of the Nineteenth Amendments history 4. Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
2021] FOREWORD 2593 with the holdings of Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees5 and Bostock v. Clayton County.6 She argued that together, they defeat one of the central argu-ments of todays religious exemption seekers, namely that states do not have a compelling state interest in eradication of sexual orienta-tion and gender identity discrimination through public accommoda-tion laws. This panel concluded the first day of the Symposium. The second day of the Symposium began with the keynote ad-dress. Our keynote speaker was Desmond Meade, President and Exec-utive Director of Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (FRRC). Mr. Meade presented about his role in fighting for legislative change in Florida to restore the right to vote to 1.4 million Floridians. As Presi-dent and Executive Director of FRRC, which is recognized for its work on voting and criminal justice reform issues, Mr. Meade led the FRRC to a historic victory in 2018 with the successful passage of Amend-ment 4,7 a grassroots citizens initiative that restored voting rights to over 1.4 million Floridians with past felony convictions.8 Amendment 4 represented the single largest expansion of voting rights in the United States in half a century and brought an end to 150 years of a Jim Crow-era law in Florida. While responding to questions from the audience moderated by Carol L. Chomsky, Professor of Law at the Uni-versity of Minnesota Law School, Mr. Meade used his experience to in-spire the possibilities for voting reform moving forward. The third panel, moderated by Maria Ponomarenko, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, brought together Serena Mayeri, Professor of Law and History at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania Carey Law School; and Joan C. Williams, Distin-guished Professor of Law and Hastings Foundation Chair and Director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings Law. Professor Mayeri built on her expertise in legal history to discuss Voting Rights as the Future of Feminism. She began with a recount-ing of Pauli Murrays role in the womens suffrage movement and the victories achieved by women legislators in the twentieth century. Pro-fessor Mayeri followed this history to explain its impact on 5. Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984). 6. Bostock, 140 S. Ct. 1731. 7. See generally Voting Rights Restoration Efforts in Florida, BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUST. (May 19, 2019), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/ voting-rights-restoration-efforts-florida [https://perma.cc/PD52-VCLH], for back-ground about Amendment 4s passage and subsequent limiting legislation. 8. See generally DESMOND MEADE, LET MY PEOPLE VOTE: MY BATTLE TO RESTORE THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF RETURNING CITIZENS (2020).
2594 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [105:2589 achievements in sex equality, such as informing the late Justice Gins-bergs constitutional strategy in litigating landmark sex discrimina-tion cases. Professor Mayeri traced this strategy through historical feminist accomplishments (and setbacks). She explored structural is-sues, such as the electoral college and overwhelming power of the Senate, that give power to a political minority that do not reflect the progressive policies that the majority of Americans support. To rem-edy this, Professor Mayeri argued that voting rights and the project of rescuing democracy must be at the center of todays feminist agenda in order to build the foundation needed for achieving every other goal. Professor Williams responded to Professor Mayeris presenta-tion, exploring where their opinions converge and where they differ on the question of what feminist strategy should focus on moving for-ward and how it interacts with popular political ideologies. With a fo-cus on operationalizing intersectionality, Professor Williams empha-sized the way gender inequalities have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as by stark fairness gaps between mens and womens household contributions. She then explored the way economic inequality plays a large role in perpetuating sex inequality and how the focus on wealth accumulation divides the elite from the non-elite workers that they exploit. Professor Williams addressed the ERA and admitted that she does not find pursuing it a wise use of our time?that it would have little effect and would not be very helpful since it would only affect state actors when we need to be more con-cerned with private actors. Our final panel focused on the The Current State of Voting Rights, featuring Kat Calvin, Founder and Executive Director of Spread the Vote and Co-Founder and CEO of the Project ID Action Fund; and Terry Ao Minnis, Senior Director of Census and Voting Pro-grams, Asian Americans Advancing Justice ? AAJC, and Senior Fellow, Democracy Fund. This panel was moderated by Professor June Car-bone, Robina Chair in Law, Science and Technology at the University of Minnesota Law School. Ms. Calvin provided an overview of legal movement in voting law in her presentation, SCOTUS, Congress, and the States: Action in Vot-ing Law in 2021. She focused on four of the main actions happening right now. First was the influx of proposed bills surrounding voter ac-cess issues?bills both attempting to suppress access to voting (such as the one passed in Georgia) and those to improve access to voting. She views these bills as setting the grounds for an epic battle to deter-mine the future of democracy. The second action she highlighted was HR 1, or the For the People Act of 2021. Though she doubts the bill will
2021] FOREWORD 2595 successfully pass in the Senate, she views it as a dream voting rights bill. Third, Ms. Calvin focused on activity in the Supreme Court about the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Following the Supreme Courts gutting of Section 5 in 2013,9 she identified that the next provision on the ta-ble for the Supreme Courts debate is Section 2. Finally, she covered the Biden Executive Order about voting, which addresses issues con-cerning disability discrimination at polling places, improves access to voting ID and registration for formerly incarcerated individuals, and allows federal agencies to make improvements to employee IDs so that they can satisfy voting ID requirements. With all these actions in play, the next two years are sure to be full of litigation surrounding voting rights. Mrs. Minnis presented on her Article in this Issue, Voting Is a Universal Language: Ensuring the Franchise for the Growing Lan-guage Minority Community in Minnesota. She addressed the lan-guage barriers that result in depressed voter participation, especially among Minnesotas large limited-English proficient population. She explained how these barriers have only been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic despite the increase in absentee ballot availabil-ity. Mrs. Minnis offered several possible solutions for remedying this barrier to enfranchisement, such as increased legislative protections at both the state and local levels. Minnesota Law Reviews Volume 105 Symposium highlighted the efforts of those who have largely been left out of historical narratives and explored where reform efforts can be focused today. Each panelist brought forth her own expertise to highlight a nuance in the realms of gender equality and voting rights. The following Articles expand upon the remarks shared and further the discussions started during each panel. Our keynote speaker used his unique journey to offer an opti-mistic perspective of what work can be done in the future. One hundred years after the Nineteenth Amendments ratifica-tion, many necessary reforms have yet to be accomplished. We hope Mr. Meades optimism and the ideas presented at this Symposium pro-vide a foundation for solutions and progress moving forward in the sake of equality. 9. See Shelby Cnty. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013).
CopyrightofMinnesotaLawReviewisthepropertyofMinnesotaLawReviewanditscontentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithoutthecopyrightholder’sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,download,oremailarticlesforindividualuse.
Search for any bills introduced in Congress by the U.S. Senators or U.S. Representatives from the state of Virginia in the last five years. First, find the names of the senators and representatives for your state at Govtrack. Members of Congress.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members.
Then, choose the name of one of the senators/representatives from your state in the drop-down menu under Sponsor in the left column under Search and select one bill from the results. Use the search feature on Govtrack. Advanced Search for Legislation
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse#sponsor%3d400253
What did you find? Give a summary of the bills purpose and whether it became law. Cite all source APA
Use attached 19th amed document
This topic is an interesting one–the duty of confidentiality is the cornerstone of the attorney-client relationship! It is also important to understand the different sanctions that may be used to punish attorneys who violate these duties. Finally, do you think the rule is clear? How might it be improved, if you think it is not sufficiently clear?
This week, you will demonstrate your understanding of the duty of confidentiality. After reviewing ABA Model Rule 1.6 and its comments:
Create a scenario that illustrates a violation of ABA Model Rule 1.6;
Identify a sanction for the violation in your scenario, and explain why it is appropriate; and
Explain whether or not ABA Model Rule 1.6 needs additional clarification, or whether it is sufficiently clear.
A secondary source is often used to research a legal issue the researcher is not currently familiar with. Using Westlaw, research any legal topic of your choice. Search for a secondary sources discussing your topic. Identify the type of secondary source selected. Provide a summary of the source, quote a relevant portion of the source, and cite to it.
Information on
Glass Ceilings, Glass Walls: Intersections in Legal Gender Equality and Voting Rights One Hundred Years After the Nineteenth Amendment.
By: Szuminski, Jessica. Minnesota Law Review. 2021, Vol. 105 Issue 6, p2589-2595. 7p. , Database: Business Source Ultimate
The article examines that the Nineteenth Amendment was a milestone for women’s rights but has often been criticized for being passed at the expense of people of color. Topics include reports that…
Subjects: United States. Constitution. 19th Amendment; Women’s rights; Civil rights; People of color; Suffrage
See attached 19th document
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
