Paula A Monopoli

American Probate: Protecting the Public, Improving the Process

Paula A. Monopoli — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:26:37 PST

New Hampshire judge and probate attorney John Fairbanks, a court-appointed executor and trustee, stole thousands of dollars from the estates of his trusting elderly clients. Successful Virginia lawyer David Murray misappropriated nearly four million dollars from estates entrusted to him in one of the largest financial swindles by a lawyer in U.S. history. Enterprising attorney James Gunderson drafted wills and living trusts for many residents of Leisure World in Orange County, California, who named him the sole trustee and major beneficiary.

These are just some of the cases examined by Paula A. Monopoli to illustrate the unsettling prevalence of fraud and abuse inherent in American probate law. Probate courts are intended to provide a vehicle for the orderly disposition of property after death, to balance the interests of creditors, the government, and heirs, and to protect the rights of the elderly and others with special needs. In this insightful work, Monopoli shows how an array of flaws in the system allows corrupt and unethical lawyers to take advantage of the nation's most vulnerable citizens. She delves into such subjects as the history and purpose of probate, procedural complexities, lack of regulatory oversight, inadequate judicial resources, and the growth of non-probate alternatives, concluding with a blueprint for reform that emphasizes deterrence, detection, and compensation for the victims.

This informative account casts new light on the intricacies and failures of a legal process that affects millions of Americans every year.

Contemporary Approaches to Trusts and Estates

Susan N. Gary et al. — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:26:34 PST

This book uses cases and statutory materials along with exercises and problems to integrate legal analysis and practice skills. The book can be used in a three- or four-credit course with or without the exercises, and sample syllabi are included in the Teacher’s Manual.

"What Do You Crave?" Developing Young Lawyers' Ability to Know Themselves

Paula A. Monopoli — Fri, 06 May 2011 05:49:33 PDT

Marriage, Property and [In]Equality: Remedying ERISA's Disparate Impact on Spousal Wealth

Paula A. Monopoli — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:37:53 PST

Why So Slow: A Comparative View of Women's Political Leadership

Paula A. Monopoli — Tue, 12 May 2009 04:59:56 PDT

The Global Advancement of Women: Barriers and Best Practices - Foreword

Paula A. Monopoli — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:13:59 PDT

In a Different Voice: Lessons from Ledbetter

Paula A. Monopoli — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:12:54 PDT

Women in academia—among some of the best educated women in America—suffer from the same salary inequities as other women in society. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has found that women faculty “earn lower salaries on average even when they hold the same rank as men.” Thus, the recent United States Supreme Court decision on pay equity, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, holds a number of important lessons for women in academia. This article explores the intersection of these findings with the Court’s opinion in Ledbetter. The article examines the revealing rhetorical choices in the majority opinion, written by one of the Court’s newest members, Justice Samuel Alito, and the dissent, written by the Court’s only remaining woman, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It explores the question of whether former Justice O’Connor might have come to a different conclusion had she still been a member of the Court. It also explores existing norms in academia for setting salaries, negotiating for increased pay, and determining what factors constitute merit. In considering these norms, it evaluates how academic recruiting practices like competing offers and market forces have a disproportionately negative effect on women’s pay. Finally, it explores how academia can effectuate voluntary change in such norms and concludes that through such normative change women in academia may fare better in terms of pay equity in the future.

The Sway of the Swing Vote: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and her Influence on Issues of Race, Religion, Gender and Class: Foreword

Paula A. Monopoli — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:36:33 PDT

Free Speech Rationales After September 11th: The First Amendment in Post-World Trade Center America

Marin R. Scordato et al. — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:36:30 PDT

Allocating the Costs of Parental Free Exercise : Striking a New Balance Between Sincere Religious Belief and a Child's Right to Medical Treatment

Paula A. Monopoli — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:36:27 PDT

Fiduciary Duty: A New Ethical Paradigm for Lawyer/Fiduciaries

Paula A. Monopoli — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:36:24 PDT

Title IX: Women, Athletics and the Law

Paula A. Monopoli — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:36:22 PDT

Drafting Attorneys as Fiduciaries: Fashioning an Optimal Ethical Rule for Conflicts of Interest

Paula A. Monopoli — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:36:16 PDT

The American Bar Association recently revised the ethical rules that govern lawyers. Its Ethics 2000 Commission proposed a number of changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including revisions to the rules that affect how the profession handles conflicts of interest in the area of attorneys who draft instruments that name themselves as fiduciaries. The intersection of these changes, with their subsequent clarification by an ABA opinion issued in May 2002, has broad implications for attorneys practicing in this area. Given the increasing elderly population, the trillions of dollars that they are transferring to their baby-boomer children, and the shrinking number of banks willing to assume the role of fiduciary, there is an argument that the profession should be encouraging its members to take on this role for clients. However, the financial interest that the drafting attorney has in the fiduciary fee and the information asymmetry between lawyers and most clients create a conflict of interest. This article explores the ethical norm that resulted from the Ethics 2000 revisions to the Model Rules and the issuance of the ABA opinion interpreting those revisions. It explores the flaws in this norm and how it might be revised to better minimize the agency costs that exist while remaining consistent with the fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship.

Gender and Constitutional Design

Paula A. Monopoli — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:36:12 PDT

Does the allocation of power between the legislative and executive branches, and the way we define the scope of the executive affect whether women ascend to executive office? In this article, Professor Monopoli argues that the constitutional process of boundary-drawing between the legislative and executive branches of government has implications for how successful women will be in ascending to executive positions. She posits that the Hamiltonian vision of an expansive executive with plenary power is the model least likely to result in women’s ascending to executive office. The essay traces the philosophical heritage of Hamilton’s vision and outlines the empirical research that links voter perceptions about competence to the gender of candidates. It explores the stagnating progress of women in American politics in a post-September 11th environment and concludes that the choice of a more communal executive model, rather than an exclusively agentic one, may help reverse that trend and may actually result in a more effective executive.

Nonmarital Children and Post-Death Parentage: A Different Path for Inheritance Law?

Paula A. Monopoli — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:36:09 PDT

Historically, nonmarital children were treated as “filius nullius,” the child of no one. American jurisprudence has evolved to embrace these children and to err on the side of treating them in the same manner as marital children. Much of inheritance law is concerned with establishing a parent-child relationship in order to determine one’s eligibility to inherit. The 1970s saw several United States Supreme Court cases address the issue of state inheritance statutes that imposed a higher burden on nonmarital children in establishing a parent-child relationship for purposes of inheritance. Some of these state statutes incorporated “surrogate” rules for divining whether a man was the father of a child for purposes of inheritance. Courts can now efficiently and reliably determine a biological link between father and child with genetic testing. This raises the question of whether the underlying analysis in the United States Supreme Court cases still makes sense in light of scientific developments. Secondly, it raises the question of whether there is any reason to maintain these “surrogate” rules or whether inheritance law should simply use genetic linkage as means by which to establish the parent-child relationship in the case of a nonmarital child, if legal parentage has not been established during life. Finally, this article explores the possibility of using a different paradigm for determining post-death legal parentage for purposes of inheritance law as opposed to family law, given the different goals and policy concerns of these two substantive areas.

Foreword: A Symposium Exploring the Role and Impact of Women in a Changing Corporate Environment

Lisa M. Fairfax et al. — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:36:07 PDT

Gender and Justice: Parity and the United States Supreme Court

Paula A. Monopoli — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:36:03 PDT

There is a deep concern among many American women that only one woman remains on the United States Supreme Court. When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was sworn in on September 25, 1981, most people never imagined that twenty-five years later there would still be only one woman on the Court. It appears that it will be many more years before there is a critical mass of women sitting on the high court. Given its central role, the Court should better represent the gender balance in American society. In a number of other countries, voluntary or involuntary parity provisions have been used to achieve gender balance when the rate of women elected to legislatures and parliaments has been seen as too slow. There are fewer examples of parity provisions with regard to the judiciary. While mandatory parity provisions may be arguably characterized as quotas, which can be anathema to liberals and conservatives alike, there is no adequate “market solution” to this issue since there are so few seats on the Court. This suggests the need for a thought experiment that contemplates alternative means to achieve representative balance on the Court.. Without a more proactive approach, the United States Supreme Court may well be an all-male bench in the year 2050. This article proposes a conceptual framework for achieving parity on the Court through statutory reform or, in the alternative, by constitutional amendment. This would ensure that this important power center of government becomes gender balanced over the next generation. My normative argument for parity is grounded in the historic views of the Framers and the early leaders of the Republic, the significant value of symbolic representation, the instrumental value of women judges, and a political theory that embraces the dual nature of society and rejects a “monosexual democracy” as inconsistent with our values as a nation. The article looks to historic evidence in favor of geographic diversity, empirical evidence as to the effect of women judges on decision-making, affirmative action jurisprudence and an expansive reading of the Nineteenth Amendment as the bases for a judicial parity provision.

Legal Ethics & Practical Politics: Musings on the Public Perception of Lawyer Discipline

Paula A. Monopoli — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:36:00 PDT

Teaching Lawyers to be More Than Zealous Advocates

Paula A. Monopoli — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:35:58 PDT

"Deadbeat Dads": Should Support and Inheritance be Linked?

Paula A. Monopoli — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:35:52 PDT