Feed on

AAA 2016 team

Our congratulations go to the Pace 2016 New York State Bar Association/AAA Arbitration Competition team that competed on November 13-14, 2015 in New York City. Matthew Arpino (2L), Emily Bendana (2L), and Bryan Kelly (2L) represented Pace Law School. The team was coached by New York Attorney Jay Bielat.

This year the problem was a contract dispute between a pharmaceutical company and their storage and sales distributor. Both sides claimed the other had breached the contract. The team also argued violations of good faith and fair dealing and alter ego liability.

In the first round, Matt and Emily were co-counsel for the claimant and Brian was the client. The team competed against Cornell and won that round. In the second round, Brian and Emily were co-counsel for the respondent and Matt was the client. They competed against Buffalo Law School and won that round as well.

The team and coach were honored to represent Pace Law School in this competition.

Congratulations to Matt, Emily, and Bryan. ​


Our congratulaEthics Photo 2 (002)tions go out to the Pace 2016 National Ethics Trial Competition team that competed at the Tenth Annual National Ethics Trial Competition. The team competed at the Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse in Sacramento, California (March 17-19, 2016). The competition was established by the McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific. This year’s case file, Parry v. Dominick, involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Cato Parry, who filed a malpractice action against the defendant firm, Daltry & Dominick, alleging that Daltry’s flawed mental and physical condition affected his ability to properly represent Mr. Parry in his criminal case.

Cassandra Castellano (3L), Ashley Kersting (3L), Elizabeth Perreca (3L) and Sarah Lusk (3L) represented Pace Law School at the competition. They were coached by local ethics attorney Deborah Scalise, of Scalise & Hamilton, LLP in White Plains, New York.

Cassandra and Elizabeth represented the plaintiff, Cato Parry, and Ashley and Sarah represented the defendant, the firm of Daltry & Dominick. In the first round, the Defendant’s team argued against American University Washington College of Law. In the second round, the Plaintiff’s team argued against the Chicago-Kent College of Law. In the third and final preliminary round, the Plaintiff’s team argued against Fordham Law School.

The team and coaches were honored to represent Pace Law School in this national competition.

Congratulations to Cassandra, Ashley, Elizabeth and Sarah on their performance!​

Pace team members Robert Foster (3L) and Brian Byrne (3L) did an outstanding job at the prestigious Jerome Prince Evidence Moot Competition, which was held at Brooklyn Law School from Thursday, March 31st through Saturday, April 2nd. Rob and Brian wrote an excellent brief on three issues: whether police use of long-term cell phone geolocation data requires a warrant; whether an “ancient document” (a document at least 20 years old) is admissible per se or only if shown to possess indicia of reliability; and whether the admission of a testimonial dying declaration of the victim in a murder case should be recognized as an exception to a defendant’s right to the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.

Rob and Brian advanced twice in the competition, at which 36 teams participated. The Pace team advanced first to the round of 16 teams and then again to the round of eight teams.

The team was ably assisted by Michael Pesin-Virovets (3L) and Wilfredo Lopez (2L).

Congrats to Rob and Brian on this excellent achievement!

IEMC team shot 2Our congratulations go out to the Pace 2016 International Environmental Moot Court Competition team that competed in Stetson’s Twentieth Annual International Environmental Moot Court Competition this past weekend, April 14-16, in Gulfport, Florida.

The Pace team advanced to the International rounds in Florida after placing as a top 2 finalist in the North American Regional Round, February 19-21 in Washington D.C.

The competition is hosted annually by Stetson University College of Law. This year’s competition problem involved a dispute submitted before the International Court of Justice, concerning the illegal trafficking of cultural property.

Conor Strong (2L), James Patrick Logan (2L) and Leigh Wellington (2L) proudly represented Pace Law School at the competition. The team was under the direction of Cassandra Castellano (3L).

During Thursday’s first preliminary round, Pace competed against the Law Society of Ireland. During Friday’s second preliminary round, Pace competed against West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. Then in Friday’s third preliminary round, Pace competed against the National University of Singapore. Pace prevailed in the fourth preliminary round against Pontificia Universidad Javeriana of Colombia.

The team was honored to represent North America among the 17 other teams from around the globe in attendance at the International Rounds.

stetson group shot 2016

Congratulations Conor, Patrick and Leigh on their outstanding performance, and their dedication for the past eight months.

POST WRITTEN BY: Cassandra Castellano (J.D. Candidate 2013-2017, Pace Law School)

Pace Law School hosted its Third Annual Louis V. Fasulo 1L Moot Court Competition this past weekend April 9-10, 2016. 160 first year law students argued before over 80 judges, including many Pace Alumni. The students argued the merits of a fictitious case Coburn v. Martinez before the fictitious Thirteenth Circuit, in an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Tennessee. The Court dismissed a diversity action below for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff Mary Jo Coburn, a citizen of Tennessee, sued for injunctive relief against the defendant, Wally Martinez, a New York Journalist.

The case of Coburn v. Martinez, the subject of their 1L brief, concerned two issues:

  1. Whether Martinez was validly served with process in Tennessee so that the District Court had personal jurisdiction based on presence; and
  2. Whether the District Court had personal jurisdiction based on Martinez’s minimum contacts with Tennessee.

Professors Barbara Atwell, Carol Barry, Alissa Bauer, Francis Carroll, Linda Fentiman, Vicky Gannon, Tamar Gribetz, Cynthia Pittson, Gail Whittemore, and Peter Widulski worked with and guided the students throughout the spring semester in writing their first appellate brief and in their preparation for their first oral argument. The students were presented with challenging questions from great and lively panels of experienced judges and attorneys.

The comradery and intensity of the competition provided for a stimulating weekend. After Saturday’s preliminary rounds, the top 71 students advanced to the next round and argued on Sunday. Congratulations to the top 71:  Andrew Restivo, Andrew Tadrous, Aris Rotella, Ashley Brimm, Ashley Ratcliffe, Brenna Fitzpatrick, Brizeyda Parada, Casandia Bellevue, Caysee Kamenetsky, Chanel Noblin, Christian Radoi, Christina Desrosiers, Christopher Cech, Christopher Matcovich, Christopher Peticca, Christopher Zamlout, Courtney Dunn, Crystal Dilone, Danielle Meyer, Danny Amaisse, David Solimeno, Delonie Plummer, Dylan Rupp, Emily Rawdon, Eric Romanowski, Erin Novak, Estelle Mitchell, Gloria Okirie, Howard Schilsky, Jaclene Troisi, James Creech, James Greer, Jared Shababb, Justin Martinez, Justin Verzillo, Katelyn Squicciarani, Kevin Bazur, Kristyn Francese, Lisa Lazzaro, Luke Sostarecz, Lydia Rainey, Mackenzie Ferguson, Marina Stinely, Mary Kerrigan, Matthew Sotomayor, Melissa Duque, Michael Jasper, Michael Saba, Michael Viteritto, Michelle Greene, Natalie DeRyder, Nicholas Douglas, Nicolas Salviano, Nicole Boeckle, Nicolette Pellegrino, Ollia Pappas, Quinn McLoughlin, Rachel Baughman, Rachel Kesten, Rebecca King, Rosella Morabito, Roshni Mody, Ryan Memoli, Sara Aronbayev, Sarah Cinquemani, Sarah Sachmer, Thomas Persico, Tiffany Jacobsen, Timothy Henesy, Tyler Martin and Valentina Scirica.

The students argued well in Sunday’s advanced rounds making it difficult for the judges to choose the top 32. Nevertheless, the following are this year’s top 32: Ashley Ratcliffe, Chanel Noblin, Christian Radoi, Christina Desrosiers, Christopher Cech, Christopher Matcovich, Christopher Zamlout, Courtney Dunn, Danielle Meyer, Danny Amaisse, Delonie Plummer, Emily Rawdon, Erin Novak, Gloria Okirie, Howard Schilsky, Jaclene Troisi, James Creech, Kristyn Francese, Lisa Lazzaro, Lydia Rainey, Mackenzie Ferguson, Mary Kerrigan, Nicolas Salviano, Nicole Boeckle, Nicolette Pellegrino, Rachel Kesten, Rosella Morabito, Sara Aronbayev, Sarah Cinquemani, Sarah Sachmer, Tiffany Jacobsen, Valentina Scirica.

It was a challenge 1l moot 2for the judges to pick the top 8. However, Christopher Zamlout, Courtney Dunn, Danny Amaisse, Erin Novak, Gloria Okirie, Lydia Rainey, Mackenzie Ferguson and Sarah Cinquemani rightfully earned their spot in the top 8 final round.

The final eight students did a superb job in the final round making it an exciting event for the judges and the spectators. Mackenzie Ferguson won the competition as Best Advocate and received a $750 Themis Bar Review Certificate; Erin Novak placed second receiving a $500 Themis Bar Review Certificate; Courtney Dunn placed as the first runner-up receiving a $250 Themis Bar Review Certificate; Gloria Okirie placed as the second runner-up receiving a $250 Themis Bar Review Certificate.

Moot 1l_

Special Thanks to: Advocacy Administrator Loretta Musial, Director of Advocacy Programs and Professor Louis V. Fasulo, the judges, the 1L Legal Skills professors for their work with the first year class and for coming to support the students at this event, Themis Bar Review for donating the first, second, third and fourth gift certificates prizes, Dean David Yassky, Chartwell Food Services for providing refreshments throughout the day, the Advocacy Honor Board Directors and its Board, including Executive Director Cassandra Castellano, Managing Director Brianne Cunningham, External Competitions Directors Vittoria Fiorenza & Michael Giordano, Internal Competitions Director Washington Paul Alvarez and Skills Development Director Michael Pesin-Virovets, who managed the competition.

Congratulations to Mackenzie Ferguson, Erin Novak, Courtney Dunn and Gloria Okirie on this wonderful achievement!

The U.S. Department of Labor announced important new rules on April 6, 2016, that will impose fiduciary responsibilities on investment professionals managing retirement accounts, or investments that may be part of retirement funds.

When consumers hear the advertising of investment firms promising that the customer always comes first, they assume the individuals and firms investing their money are professionals, operating under the same legal and ethical standards as a doctor or lawyer — the obligation to provide advice most advantageous to the customer.

However, investment professionals are legally required only to recommend “suitable” investments, a much lower standard that does not require them to act as fiduciaries. As a result, investment advisers and brokers have rarely been penalized for placing a customer in, for example, an expensive mutual fund that pays higher commissions to the adviser, when an otherwise identical fund charging lower fees would be an equal or better alternative for the customer. As a result, conflicts of interest are created between the investment advisers’ financial incentives and their customers’ investment returns.

Those conflicts of interest will be prohibited with respect to retirement investments when the new rules become effective next year (or whenever potential court challenges to the rules are resolved).

Related Reading:

Final Rule: “Definition of the Term ‘Fiduciary’; Conflict of Interest Rule – Retirement Investment Advice” (to be published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2016, 29 CFR §§ 2509 – 2510.

U.S. Department of Labor Fact Sheet on Proposed Definition of the Term “Fiduciary” (links to proposed rule, hearings, and comments).

“Labor Department Rule Sets New Standards for Retirement Advice,” Jonnelle Marte, The Washington Post, April 6, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2016/04/06/labor-department-rule-sets-new-standards-for-retirement-advice/


POST WRITTEN BY: Cassandra Castellano (J.D. candidate 2013-2017, Pace Law School)

Pace Law School hosted its annual Grand Moot Court Competition this past Thursday, March 31, 2016. The four finalists of the Grand Moot Court Semi-Final Competition, Sarah Main, Alex Lowell, Samantha Hazen and Andrea Osgood, argued before prestigious U.S. District Court Judges: The Honorable Loretta A. Preska, The Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, The Honorable Cathy Seibel and U.S. Magistrate Judge, The Honorable Judith C. McCarthy.

Grand Moot 2016 2

The students argued the merits of a fictitious case Brendan Smith v. Luis Peralta, concerning two constitutional issues:

1. Whether subjective malice is one of the elements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 malicious prosecution claim based on the Fourth Amendment; and

2. Whether Peralta was the subject of an unreasonable seizure that lacked probable cause for purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 malicious prosecution claim based on the Fourth Amendment.

The class, Advanced Appellate Advocacy, is under the direction of Professor Louis Fasulo, coordinated by Professor Alissa Bauer and supported by the team of Professors Jennifer Arlin, Elyse Moskowitz and Danielle Shalov.  The Professors guided the students throughout the fall semester in writing their appellate briefs and preparing for oral arguments. The students were presented with challenging questions from a challenging bench of Judges.

Grand Moot 2016 3

The Gerber Glass Courtroom was packed with observers eager to watch the arguments, followed by a wonderful reception in the Tudor Room.

Congratulations to the competitors! Sarah Main received the award for Best Advocate and Andrea Osgood received the award for Best Brief.

Sarah Main, Alex Lowell and Samantha Hazen, will now move on to compete in the New York City Bar’s National Moot Court Competition. Andrea Osgood, will compete at the Dean Jerome Prince Evidence Moot Court Competition.

Special thanks to: Advocacy Administrator Loretta Musial, Advocacy Program Director and Professor Louis V. Fasulo, the guest Judges, the Advanced Appellate Advocacy Professors for their work with the class and for supporting the students at this event, Dean David Yassky, Chartwell Food Services for providing refreshments throughout the day, the 1L class for supporting the event, Pace Law Advocacy Honor Board Directors: Cassandra Castellano, Brianne Cunningham, Vittoria Fiorenza, Michael Giordano, W. Paul Alvarez and Michael Pesin-Virovets, along with the Board Members who all once again managed an excellent competition.

Congratulations to Sarah Main, Alex Lowell, Samantha Hazen and Andrea Osgood on this impressive achievement! We look forward to following your competitions next Spring!​

Study Aids 2016_Page_1Not only is the Pace Law Library staff here to answer any of your questions, but we also have a variety of study aids that can be helpful with exam preparation. Our collection includes Examples & Explanations, Nutshells, Questions & Answers, Understanding Series, Emanuel’s Strategies & Tactics, and a number of audio recordings. Current editions of study aids are generally part of the Reserve Collection and are shelved behind the Circulation Desk. Please visit our staff at the Circulation Desk for assistance.

And don’t forget about the collection of past exams available on Law Library TWEN Course.

Good Luck!

OInformation on summer access to Lexis, Bloomberg Law, and Westlaw for students who are NOT graduating in May:

Lexis has no restrictions on use over the summer, and you do not have to do anything to extend your password.

Bloomberg Law has no restrictions on use over the summer, and you do not have to do anything to extend your password.

Westlaw requires that you extend your password for the summer to have full access to Westlaw. If you don’t extend your password, you will only have access to Westlaw for 10 hours in June and 10 hours in July.

Summer password extension is available only if a student has a permissible academic use for the password this summer (a summer associate position is not considered a permissible use). Permissible uses include:

  • Summer classes / study abroad
  • Law review and journal, including write-on competitions
  • Moot court
  • Research assistant positions
  • Unpaid internships / externships

Information on access to Lexis, Bloomberg Law, and Westlaw for students who ARE graduating in May:

Lexis gives full access to students graduating in May 2016 for six months through the Lexis Law School Graduate Program. Graduates working for a public interest organization may sign up for the Lexis ASPIRE Program, which permits job-related access to Lexis Advance for the duration of the public interest work.

Bloomberg Law allows access to graduating students for six months after graduation. You do not need to do anything to extend your access.

Westlaw allows graduating students to extend access while studying for the bar by registering for its Grad Program. Registered May graduates will retain access to Westlaw for a limited number of hours through November. Graduates  also retain access to a number of career-related databases for 18 months following graduation.

Should food products be required to indicate on their label that they contain genetically modified (“GMO”) ingredients?

Proponents of mandatory GMO labeling say consumers should have the right to know what’s in their food. Opponents claim compliance with patchwork state labeling requirements would result in food price increases.

A bill sponsored by Kansas Republican Sen. Pat Roberts would have created a voluntary national labeling standard for foods containing GMOs. Because of federal preemption, if passed, this bill would have blocked Vermont from implementing its first-in-the-nation mandatory GMO labeling law, currently set to take effect on July 1, and subsequently prevented any state from requiring GMO labels on food.

The Roberts bill failed to get the 60 votes needed to move forward in the Senate. Negotiations will carry on, however, and a deal on a national GMO labeling standard could still be reached by the end of the week.


Related Reading: Senate blocks bill that would override state GMO labeling laws– Reuters.com



Older Posts »