Michael Ariens—Law School Class of ’82—Is a Deep and Deft Thinker

This is the first in a series of three blog posts this week by Marquette law faculty on a new book.

The Lawyer's Conscience - A History of American Lawyer EthicsOver a distinguished career Professor Michael S. Ariens of St. Mary’s University has made rich contributions to the scholarship devoted to American constitutional law, legal history, his adoptive home state of Texas, navigating the challenges of law school, and, central for our purposes, the practice of law and the American legal profession.

Professor Ariens’s new volume—The Lawyer’s Conscience: A History of American Legal Ethics (University Press of Kansas 2022)—continues a theme that animates much of his recent scholarship. Put succinctly, that theme is this: The American legal profession has veered off course. It has done so, according to Ariens, in a host of ways. Among them, he contends, are these:

  • Commitment to clients has supplanted commitment to the public good.
  • The pursuit of profit-maximization has transformed the enterprise from a profession into a business.
  • The day-to-day touchstones of (first) honor and (then) conscience that impelled lawyers up through the middle of the twentieth century have melted away, replaced for the typical lawyer by an impoverished set of minimum standards of conduct promulgated by the American Bar Association in the early 1980s.
  • Independence from client interests—independence that enabled lawyers and their firms to both be and be perceived as being separate from those client interests—has been supplanted by a sort of shotgun marriage that leaves today’s law firms unable or unwilling to maintain appropriate distance from client interests.
  • A profession whose members once shared a common vision of what it means to be a lawyer and found ways to speak in something of a unified voice has “fractured,” creating the sorts of factions James Madison described in Federalist 10. Such fracture, Ariens submits, has dissolved this once-unified vision and rendered it virtually impossible to achieve meaningful consensus on principles that matter.
Continue ReadingMichael Ariens—Law School Class of ’82—Is a Deep and Deft Thinker

Reruns? Should Biden or Trump run in 2024

Who wants a rerun in 2024?

A look at overall opinion shows that the public is not keen on either Biden or Trump running for president again in 2024. Of all registered voters interviewed in the November 2022 and January 2023 Marquette Law School Poll National surveys, 34% would like Biden to run and 29% would like Trump to run.

CandidateYesNo
Biden3466
Trump2971

Among only registered voters who consider themselves Democrats or independents who lean Democrat, 49% would like Biden to run. Among registered voters who are Republican or independent but lean Republican, 53% would like Trump to run.

Table 2: Like Biden or Trump to run by party (including leaners)

Party, with leanersYesNo
Republican/Lean Republican1981
Independent2476
Democrat/Lean Democrat4951

Party, with leanersYesNo
Republican/Lean Republican5347
Independent3466
Democrat/Lean Democrat694

This even split in both parties comes despite generally favorable views of both Biden and Trump among registered voters of their party. Biden is viewed favorably by 82% of registered Democrats and Trump is viewed favorably by 68% of registered Republicans.

Table 3: Favorability ratings of Biden and Trump by party (including leaners)

Party, with leanersFavorable opinionUnfavorable opinionHaven’t heard enough
Republican/Lean Republican6931
Independent355411
Democrat/Lean Democrat82162

Party, with leanersFavorable opinionUnfavorable opinionHaven’t heard enough
Republican/Lean Republican68302
Independent27666
Democrat/Lean Democrat3961

While Democrats are more favorable to Biden than Republicans are to Trump, there is reluctance among Democrats for a Biden run in 2024 even among those with a favorable opinion of him, 57% of whom wish him to run. Among Republicans who are favorable to Trump there is higher support for a run, 72%.

Table 4: Like to run by favorablity by party (including leaners)

FavorabilityYesNo
Favorable opinion5743
Unfavorable opinion1189

FavorabilityYesNo
Favorable opinion7228
Unfavorable opinion1090

Strength of partisanship also plays a role with Democrats more supportive of a Biden candidacy than are independents who lean Democrat, and likewise for Trump among Republicans compared to independents who lean Republican.

Table 5: Like Biden and Trump to run in 2024 by party identification, among registered voters

Party IDYesNo
Republican1882
Lean Republican2179
Independent2476
Lean Democrat3268
Democrat5644

Party IDYesNo
Republican5743
Lean Republican4159
Independent3466
Lean Democrat892
Democrat694

Among all registered voters, 42% say they would like neither Biden nor Trump to run in 2024, 28% would like Biden but not Trump to run and 24% would like Trump but not Biden. And only 5% would like to see a rerun of 2024.

Like Biden to runYesNo
Yes528
No2442

About the Marquette Law School Poll

The Marquette Law School poll interviewed 1716 registered voters nationwide November 15-22, 2022 and January 9-20, 2023. The combined sample has a margin of error of +/-2.8 percentage points. The sample of 775 Democrats and independents who lean Democrat has a margin of error of +/-4.1 percentage points. The sample of 750 Republicans and independents who lean Republcian has a margin of error of +/-4.3 percentage points.

Continue ReadingReruns? Should Biden or Trump run in 2024

When Claude Got Shot

Marquette Law School’s Andrew Center for Restorative Justice hosted a viewing of the Emmy award winning documentary When Claude Got Shot on February 1, 2023. The next day, February 2, the Center hosted a “talk back event” with Andrew Center Director Janine Geske moderating a discussion with co-producer and impact campaign advisor Santana Wilson Cole, and Claude Motley.

Claude discussed his experiences of being shot by Nathan King and his journey after the shooting which led to his restorative justice advocacy. Santana shared her experience filming the documentary, her relationship with Claude, and empathy towards Claude’s shooter, Nathan. Claude’s friend, Brad Lichtenstein directed and produced When Claude Got Shot. Santana joined the documentary team as an intern. The film highlights Claude’s journey and Nathan’s criminal justice proceedings.

Claude’s journey began when Claude returned to his hometown of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for a high school reunion only to become a victim of gun violence. When two cars pulled up, Nathan, a 15-year-old, attempted to carjack Claude. Nathan got out of his car and while attempting to carjack Claude, shot Claude in the jaw. Claude fled in his vehicle, not realizing he was shot. The next day another victim shot Nathan while he was attempting yet another carjacking. As a result of those injuries, Nathan ended up being paralyzed from the waist down. Nathan and Claude ended up being treated at the same hospital, at the same time.

Claude and Santana described how the film follows Nathan’s juvenile court proceedings, which resulted in Nathan’s eventual transfer to be tried as an adult. Claude discussed how he was torn between his empathy and his anger. Nathan was given numerous chances to avoid being tried as an adult but absconded twice which resulted in his transfer to adult court.

Claude gave an impact statement asking the court to give Nathan a lighter sentence; however, despite that, the Judge gave him 12 years. Claude recalled conflicting emotions at Nathan’s sentencing. Most impactful for Claude was when Nathan was taken into the custody of the State and Nathan’s mother was prohibited from giving Nathan a hug because he now belonged to the State.

Claude eventually realized he wanted to sit down and talk to Nathan to express his forgiveness so; he reached out to Professor Geske. Claude was inspired by going through the restorative justice process with Nathan and, since the documentary, Claude opened his own non-profit for restorative justice reform in Charlotte, North Carolina. He wants to be a father figure for those struggling and wants to help others find peace. Despite push back from the community, Claude maintains his resilience in trying to advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves.

Despite Santana’s anger toward Nathan for hurting Claude, she empathized with Nathan during the victim offender meeting. Santana reasoned that Nathan was only a kid, a kid who truly struggled, who likely felt alone, who did not have positive role models in his life, and who was lost. She has been inspired to advocate and assist juveniles as much as she can.  Santana advocates and helps educate communities on the impacts of gun violence.

Professor Geske ended the talk-back session with discussing Santana’s new projects all involving racial impact themes. Santana is currently managing and advising for multiple impact campaigns, filming, and directing her own short film, and writing a comedy series.

In 2021, Marquette University Law School established the Andrew Center for Restorative Justice, recognizing the generosity of Louis J. Andrew, Jr., and Suzanne Bouquet Andrew. The Andrew Center is intended to continue into the future the work of the Hon. Janine P. Geske, former justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who led the Law School in establishing its former Restorative Justice Initiative in 2004. Restorative justice seeks particularly to help support victims and communities in the process of healing from the effects of crime.

Continue ReadingWhen Claude Got Shot