Contracts Keyed to Calamari
In Re James H. Himmel, Attorney
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
On January 22, 1986, a complaint was filed against an attorney by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (the "Commission") for violation of Rule 1-103(a) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the "Code"). Rule 1-103(a) concerns the failure to disclose to the Commission an act of attorney misconduct. Specifically, it is alleged that the Respondent, James H. Himmel (the "Respondent") failed to disclose to the Commission that another attorney, John R. Casey ("Mr. Casey") was illegally converting Tammy Forsberg's ("Ms. Forsberg") funds. The Respondent was retained by Ms. Forsberg in an attempt to reacquire the funds from Mr. Casey. The Hearing Board found the Respondent "received unprivileged information that Casey converted Forsberg's funds, and that respondent failed to relate the information to the Commission in violation of Rule 1-103(a) of the Code." The Respondent spoke to and in the presence of many individuals about this matter including Ms. Forsberg's mother, her fiancé, Mr. Casey an insurance company's representatives and lawyer. The Respondent did not receive a fee in this matter although he reached a settlement agreement with Mr. Casey. However, the Respondent could have received a large fee if Mr. Casey had satisfied the judgment against him.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.