November 13, 2025 • 38 mins
Bradley Jay fills in for Dan Rea. Does Massachusetts’ highest court have the authority to raise the salary of public defenders? That’s the question that is being argued in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Beginning in May, many court-appointed lawyers stopped taking new cases to try to force state lawmakers to raise their starting salaries of $65 an hour. There is concern over the number of criminal cases dismissed due to a lack of representation. Michael Coyne, the Dean of the MA School of Law joined Bradley to discuss.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Nice Eyes with Dan Ray ongoing Easy Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Here we go again. It is Bradley Jay in for
Dan Ray on night Side, and our guest right off
the bat is Michael Coin, the excellent Dean of the
Massachusetts School of Law and a fan favorite. Thanks for
being with.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Us, Always a pleasure, Bradley.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Oh, you brought some interesting topics to the table today,
some interesting cases, and both of you out there, I'd
love to invite you to give your opinion on any
of these. There's going to be a lot to opine
on interesting stuff. This first case has got it all,
and that doesn't have it all. It has a lot.
It's juicy, it's weird, it's from North Carolina. Why don't
(00:44):
you outline it unless you'd like me to outline it,
but I'd rather have you do it, Frank, Okay.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
I mean it's an interesting case because it's the wife
is suing for alienation of affection and what's called criminal
conversation with her now ex husband's girlfriend that he ultimately
left her for. And so it's not the case in
(01:09):
every state that you can actually sue under those circumstances
civilly to recover your damages. But what she's done is
she brought suit after her husband left her for this
other woman, and ultimately then is successful in obtaining a
judgment of nearly two million dollars one point seventy five
million dollars. And this was in North Carolina, which is
(01:30):
one of the states that allows such a suit because
he committed adultery while he was married to her. And then,
as she sees it, and as the law ultimately saw it,
with respect to the jury's verdict, that this other woman
took her husband away and therefore owes her damages as
a result of the effect it had on her marriage
(01:52):
and her financial status and her children's lives.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Well, folks, I find this. It's kind of ridiculous, right,
it ridiculous. Perhaps Dean Cooin can show me where I'm wrong,
and I want to break it down further, because even
as well as you describe it, it's still confusing. So,
once upon a time, there was an TikTok influencer, correct, right,
(02:15):
and that TikTok influencer had a marriage, and then she
is alleged that she had an affair with the husband
of the manager, yes, okay, and that caused that marriage
to break up, and that breakup turns out is worth
one point seventy five million bucks.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Well, but that's not it. I mean the number is
is how we get to the damage that the individual
and her children have suffered as a result of that,
in essence breach of contract. Now it's interesting as you
think about it that, well, the breach contract really is
with the husband, not this third party, but none of
(02:59):
the les less this person has interfered with that contract,
and in some states only a handful they allow damages
under those circumstances.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Okay, the ridiculousness gets comes from the details. For me,
what is the actual not charged because it's civil? What
does this fall under?
Speaker 3 (03:18):
It's called criminal conversation and alienation of affections. Criminal conversation
is another phrase for adultery. An alienation of affections is
its name. Should should indicate means that this third person
has taken her affections that were rightly her and her
(03:40):
husband's away from her, and therefore, since she has affected
that relationship, the law in some jurisdictions allows for recovery
for the damages.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
It seems to me there's so many gray areas that
it would be hard to come up with a number
like this hard to assign culpability end all. For one
thing here, this doesn't assign any fault to the husband.
That seems strange to me, folks. If you'd like to
(04:12):
tell me I'm right, or if you'd like to tell
me I'm all what let me know at six one, seven, two,
five thirty. I just think this is the most interesting
and and a difficult case. This is, as thean Coin said,
not a case that can be brought in many states.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
North Carolina is one, but it used to be in Massachusetts.
You a long time ago you had the right as well.
And you know the fact is adultery is a crime
still in some jurisdictions. And so what they're looking at
here is the ability for the party to be able
to recover damages when someone else has, in essence interfered
(04:47):
with that contractual relationship. And and you know that is
the case in business situations and elsewhere. If you interfere
with my right to whatever I have for rights under
its terms of the contract, I have the right to
sue you civilly for the damages that flow from it.
In essence, that's what's going on here. It's just as
(05:08):
you point out, well, where's his level of responsibility for
what took place. He's the one that made these promises
to her.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
So one hundred percent of the culpability and this is
a sign to the person who had to pay.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
That's correct, because.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Right out of the gate, that seems fair, and it
also seems impossible to ascertain who was more at fault.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Well, and you're absolutely right, there's no doubt. The problem
is he's not a party to the litigation. She's the
only party because she's the one that interfered with their
marriage contract. So I understand what you're saying is, how
do we know she wooed him away from her as
opposed to him running out and looking for someone else.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
So he could have interfered our breached that marriage contract
just as much.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
That's correct. Well, the likelihood is he did, no matter what,
whether he was enticed to or not, he's the one
who breached the contract. But the fact is is that
that's going to be handled as part of the divorce,
and oftentimes conduct of the parties is not seen as
such a big deal as it once was when you
looked at that as a significant factor in the distribution
(06:17):
of the marital assets.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Okay, that said, are there states you're aware of or
what's the deal? In Massachusetts? Can you be sued for
breach of a marriage contract? In and over and above
the trouble you can just get in for committing adultery.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Well again, you know you're not likely to find recovery there.
Simply because there are times where engagements and ultimately things
don't work out. That doesn't necessarily give you the right
to sue civilly for that right. That's why we have
probate courts to try and resolve the various assets and
(06:56):
questions about what should happen post the divorce.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Some of the other reasons some of the claims were
that the victim was caused mental anguish. Okay, that's common,
damage to her health and well damage to her health
that they have to go into court and say I
have an ulcer or for example, and it was caused
by this. How can you say that it was caused
(07:24):
by that?
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Oh, but you know whatever that you're you're highly skeptical
of the claims to begin with, But reckon me me
personally or yes, you you personally here, but understand you know,
having handled some divorces early on in my career. The
fact is is that it's an incredibly emotional time and
(07:47):
that people do have all sorts of physical difficulties with
it that manifests itself to lack of sleep, gaining weight,
losing weight. You point out questions about ulcer, migrant or
all of this. Those are medical issues that relate to,
as they see it, to this new trauma that's now
(08:09):
visited on them. We do this all the time in
civil suits, is try to connect to determine causation for
the physical issues that follow whatever the injury is.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
I guess my point is, say you go to a
I don't know, a bowling alley and then you claim,
oh my arm is store or I twisted my ankle.
In order to get damages, you would have to prove
that the bowling alley he was responsible and be neglatent,
but mostly the responsibility part. How do you and I
(08:44):
apply that to this situation. How do you ascertain for
sure that the physical problem and what percent of the
physical problem was the result of distress from this situation?
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Well, you've got a couple things linked there that I'm
not so sure should be the bowlin alley. You're going
to have a much more difficult time showing the liability
aspect of it. You know, you twisted your ankle, your hurt,
your arm hurts now from lifting the ball. Well, that
sort of should be expected if you're going to engage
in a physical activity, and neither of those really indicates
(09:19):
any significant damage. So that I think your liability in
that example is how to determine here this relatively clear liability.
They had a contract, someone interfered with that contract. That
contract has now been dissolved by the courts, so we're divorced.
The question is now what are the damages for it?
(09:39):
And can you, as you see it, we put the
damages and show they were caused by this third person
breaking up their marriage. Well, I'm not so sure it's
going to be as difficult, certainly not as difficult as
a Bowlin Alley example.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Okay, there's one other angles of this that it will
get to after this break, and I'll tell you what
the angle is. Part of her damages, the damages arose
from being deprived having her children be deprived of a
two parent household. We will address that and see if
that's legitimate in the eyes of our guess. Michael Coyn
(10:14):
on WBZ.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
That is correct. Bradley Jay here, and we're with Michael coyn,
dean of the Massachusett School of Law, talking about this
case down in North Carolina where a plaintiff is out
of a correct phrase.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
That's correct.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
A plaintiff was ordered one point seven five mili four
having for the pain of suffering, et cetera, involved with
having someone else bust up her marriage. And one of
the elements in deciding this was And I want to know, folks,
if you think this is legitimate, and if you have
any idea, and I have some thoughts on why the
(10:57):
judgment was so high, and we'll get to those legs.
And when we do, I want to know if you,
if you were on the jury, would you feel the
same way. Now, part of this was depriving the household
of two parents, depriving her children of a two parent household.
How do you put a money value on that?
Speaker 3 (11:18):
We'll jet you have to figure. You have to provide
evidence to show how that would have affected the children,
Whether the children then are more likely to prosper in
school and the like, and there are likely statistics I
would support that version of the events, and also the
loss of that father in the home. The fact is
(11:40):
is that there it is harder to try and raise
a child if you're by yourself, as opposed to having
another set of hands.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
All right, but if I were the defense attorney, why
wouldn't I argue in it hear that this person was
a detriment to the marriage. After all, he did sheat
and you could find other things. If that guy happened
to drink or go out to the can't whatever, You
could find all kinds of attractions on the person, bring
(12:10):
them back to court and say, you know, this guy
wasn't helping things out at all. A matter of fact,
the kids are going to be better without this father around.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Well, I think you would argue that, right. I mean,
if he's already shown himself to be untrustworthy. So how
do we know that the children would have benefited from
having him there? How do we know she would have
benefited from having him there?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
So you wonder about the high award and Mike, you
have some information there that might.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Have irritated I think the colorful facts would likely influence
the jury against the defendant. The language here that it
says in the lawsuit, the wife accused Kennard of having
a sexual relationship with their husband, and that she engaged
in behaviored designed to seduce him and then flaunted her
(13:00):
fair and romantic relationship in public and private places. I
would expect that there will be people on the jury,
people in our audience that would find that then this
third person who introduces themselves into the marriage is not
one that's worthy of sympathy. In fact, she very well
(13:22):
may encourage a level of anger, and that in part
could attribute to the size of this verdict.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Right, that's interesting stuff. What do you want to talk
about next? We have the Supreme Supreme Court, the SJC
balking at paying more to public defenders.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Yep, there was still we can talk about booling around
with that. Yeah, Bryan Wallash, you have got Lindsey Clancy.
You got a hold a ton of stuff that.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
So let's do the public defenders. As I understand it,
public defenders were making sixty five bucks an hour in Massachusetts.
They jumped it up over two years to twenty dollars
more than that ten dollars each year. But in New
Hampshire they're making one twenty five and he Main one
fifty and hour. So the Massachusetts public defenders, if I'm right,
(14:13):
are making a lot below other states even nearby.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
Well not necessarily, and some of the public defenders have
spoken to me about this is that you can look
at New Hampshire and Main's hourly rates and say, yes,
they're much higher, but there are also greater caps on
how many hours they can build it well, so at
the end of the day the net may not be
as sufficient. But the bottom line is whether you start
(14:37):
to look at that hourly rate, it's low compared to
what private attorneys are and that's the problem because the
public defenders are saying, we're not taking more cases until
that rate make I'm sorry, makes it worth it for
us to be able to take cases and pay all
our bills and pay all our overhead. And so what
(14:58):
you have right now is an in number of public defenders.
So cases are still being dismissed because those indigent clients
don't have lawyers and that is a constitutional right to
have that lawyer help represent them. So it's still a mess,
and that's why the Supreme Court is taking another look
at it, because it's what the legislature did is not
(15:22):
enough is it the.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Court's job to do that or is it even something
they can do now.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
I think the Court is troubled at least by the
idea that this is not something necessarily that is in
the court's domain. This is the body of the legislature
should be trying to figure out a better solution than
they have now. In fairness to the legislators, they came
up with a solution. They raised the rate in part significantly,
(15:52):
they would argue, and also created a structure going forward
so there'll be more full time lawyers working for the
Committee for Public Council Service so that they won't have
to depend on the private lawyers who are quot appointed counsel.
That's frankly, I don't think it's a good thing. It's
certainly not a good thing necessarily for young lawyers, because
(16:15):
a lot of new lawyers have used this process of
working with at least in part for Committee for Public
Council Service as court appointed lawyers and then built their
own practices over time. So it was a way to
subsidize younger, newer lawyers and their knowledge of the criminal
defense system, as well as then being able to build
(16:37):
their own practices. So I hope it's not restricted that
much with respect to everyone's going to be full time
moving forward in the future at some point.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
So what do you think, folk, should we pay our
public defenders more?
Speaker 3 (16:50):
It? Does?
Speaker 2 (16:50):
You know it costs money? Do you want to pay
them more? Remember that there are people charged with serious
crimes that are not going to trial because of this.
I understand there were at one point was a backlog
of three thousand cases and it got down to two
thousand and about nine hundred now. But still that's a
(17:11):
pretty big deal. By the way, what does it give
me a ballpark figure on what an average private lawyer
would cost if someone had to get one instead of
a public defender per hour per hour with five hundred bucks.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
Right these days, you're probably looking at three fifty north
of three point fifty. But also what you also you
find in the district court where a lot of these
cases are, you would see a flat fee arrangement where
instead of an hourly basis I want twenty five hundred,
I want five thousand, it's ten thousand dollars to represent
you in the district court. Whatever the obviously, partly depending
(17:47):
on the complexity of the chargers and the like, and
the likelihood of going to trial. But our an hourly
rate is going to be expensive, but so is a
flat fee.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
I'd rather pay a flat fee. I just would anytime
I had a question. I just I could see the
dollar signs reckon, we'll do the flat fee and say,
I can call you as much as they want, right
for the flat flat if.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
I don't know you yet, So I don't know, then
I will have a blizzard of questions.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
So where do you fall on that? How much do
you think they should be paid more? How much do
you think would be fair? Are you good with the
what is it now? What will it be in twenty
twenty six? Eighty five bucks an hour?
Speaker 3 (18:23):
Yeah, I think I think the legislature made a reasonable
attempt to increase the rate with the recognition that these
are difficult times. People don't want their taxes raised. We
need to look for other avenues of revenue for these
folks because they are still underpaid and will be. But
(18:46):
at the end of the day, the legislature has to
balance where are we going to get the revenue while
also recognizing the constitutional protections the defendants are entitled to.
So I think it's a really tough call. I'm not
prepared to say that the legislature is absolutely wrong. I
wish that they could get together and reach a compromise
(19:06):
on it as would be reasonable for all all involved,
and especially I think that you could make a proposal
where it steps up over time, over a three year
period to make it a little higher.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Perfect. All right, we'll continue with Dean Mike corn in
a moment on WBZ.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's
news Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
All right, let's continue on night sid on Bradley Jay
And for Dan, we're with Dean Michael Corner, the master,
she said, school of law. He is an educator, So
now I'm going to ask him an educator question on
the a in here house on the Orange Line coming
on in I read an article that said a lot
that said a lot of Harvard students are upset that
(19:52):
they're even though they worked hard, they're not getting a's,
And I thought, hmm, I'll have to ask Dean Coin
about this is working hard, what it takes to get
an A? I thought you had to get the answers right,
but maybe things have changed, and they kind of have,
I guess. And you're an educator, this is a thing
for you.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
Yeah, I mean things have changed some places, but not everywhere.
I mean, you know, I'm old enough that I remember
starting at Boston Latin School where they really did tell
us look to the right, look to the left, one
of you will be left. That's cool. Well, it it
scares you, and it tells you. You bet, you better
work hard so that you get to stay here. I
(20:35):
think in many places now that's not the attitude at all.
Is that you know, it's harder to get into places
like Harvard than to get thrown out of places like Harvard,
and so a lot of schools want to validate their
admissions process by saying they're taking the best and brightest
and therefore they all do well. But but part of
it is, you know, I don't want to sound like
(20:56):
the old guy again, but it's generational, right, this is
in part these are the kids who everyone got trophies
at the end of the season and no matter what
you did, it was okay. And we didn't even keep
scoring a lot of the game. Yes, just because we're
old doesn't make it not true. It's true, no, and
it does. So that's the problem is that this now
starts in even in the middle school. My son teachers
(21:20):
middle school. And the fact is is that everybody wants
to get those a's, and the question is do they
want to work hard enough that that is required to
get it? You know, I tell my own students, everyone
wants to go to heaven. No one wants to die
to get there. Well, there's a price that you have
to pay if you really want to do well, and
(21:40):
it's it's sacrifice.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Now, I thought that that there was a curve, and
if there were too many a's, then that meant that
the teacher had to make it harder. That there should
be certain percent of a's is mostly ces and a
few ds and these a few a's be most sees,
and then it tails off and that's how you can
(22:02):
judge if the course is of appropriate difficulty.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
Yeah, well, we still look at the curve when you
think about it and that and I try to explain
that to the students as well. You know, when you
if C C plus is an average grade, then most
people are average, right, I mean that's the way the
world is, right, So we need to make a see
the average grade, right, so that then for superior performance,
(22:27):
you're in the A and the B range, and for
deficient performance you're in the D and F range. And
that's I think the way. Still many schools do it.
I know there are colleges where when we look at
the transcripts to admit them to law school, there's still
a lot of rigor in those programs in the same
vein there are other schools, other programs when you do
(22:50):
see the transcripts and the grades are very high, it's
not uncommon that that's what you're likely looking at is
high grades from this and you do make it does
make you wonder we really is this exceptional performance or
is this just you know, the grades that are now
expected by the students for less than superior work.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
So do you your instructors run into this that people
are saying, hey, I worked very hard, I should get
an A. Does that happen at your school?
Speaker 3 (23:22):
It happens, I think yes, And it happens a lot
of places. Is that? And I tell again, I tell
my students, I know you all want a's. Okay, meet
me halfway, study hard, get the right answers and be
able to put all of this together, because that's what
it takes if you want an A. That's that should
be close to perfection, and it's going to be hard
(23:43):
to achieve perfection.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Are the exams primarily munthiple choice or essay questions? What
kind of exams do you give? No, we still do
law students get.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
We use still sort of the classic blue book, where
you've got essays. You also may have I'm shorty answers,
and you may have some a few multiple choice questions.
But even though the buyer exam uses multiple choice questions,
the study of law doesn't lend itself well to that
because when you study law, you find out there's an
awful lot of gray. It's not really black and white.
(24:17):
The students love when there really are some very clearly
defined outside parameters, but most of what happens in law
is it's gray and you have to argue it. You know.
The fact is they quickly learn when you ask a
question that the answer in law school is almost always it.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
Depends maybe yeah, so they can argue their case.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
But that is the idea everyone.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
If they can successfully change.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Oh no, we do not change grades unless there's a
mathematical mistake.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
No, can they get you to change the correctness of
their answer? They say, well, I said this because and
if they make a good case where you go, hmm,
I see your point. Okay, No, they can't overturn that
X mark.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
We grade blindly and so and the idea is that
you don't know who it is, Okay, once you do
the idea of changing a grade at that point means
that you may be changing it because you like the student,
or changing it because you are grading it because you
didn't like them. They're not studying hard, they're not in
(25:22):
class or whatever. You just it makes it easier that
the old that did grade blindly. And then the only
way you can change your grade is if there's a
mathematical eraror so.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
It does seem that some schools are they don't want
to kick people out, they want to coddle the students.
Is that? Why is that? Is it because the goal
has gone from educating to making money. We want that
student's tuition, how much we even need to make that
student happy? They're a client, Well, they're not a student.
(25:57):
They're a client.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
And the student in many places seize themselves as a
consumer and they want to get value for their money.
And the value will be the higher grade, as you're
pointing out, So yes, listen, let's be clear, higher education,
the revenue matters. As we can see, and especially as
we now see the federal government pulling back some of
(26:20):
their money at a lot of these institutions. What you
have is you do have some money crunch at places
where you're saying, you know, are we are the students
getting value? Are they getting what they intend to get
out of their education? And so, yeah, revenue matters, and
how this all shakes out absolutely matters, and especially at
today's prices for higher education. Uh, people legitimate, legitimately want
(26:45):
to know that that what they're getting for their money
is in fact what they expected. But the great inflation
and all of that, that's a that's a significant part
of it. What you know, we we lament ass that.
You know, it does seem like and I've been doing
this now for almost four decades. That you know, twenty
(27:09):
years ago, thirty years ago, people made up for what
they didn't know through a lot more hard work. And
I do think that that work ethic is slightly less
at times, and that's why you do need to push
people harder so that they can achieve everything they wanted
to achieve.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
As your educational set up such that you need to
be careful about AI and shoosion. Do any students write
papers that could be written by AI?
Speaker 3 (27:36):
Oh yeah, we have. They are papers submitted. We have
a policy with respect to artificial intelligence. You know, when
I gave them their one of the exams or one
of the mid term or take home question and the
like to work on, I said, you can use ra
real intelligence, don't use AI, because then they're learning how
(27:57):
to use AI. Even as Aly is high school now
and then it carries into college. The fact is is
that this is this is a game changer, and people
have to be realistic that people are going to take
not even shortcuts. It's not an unavailable means of research,
and it's not even an unwise means of research. As
(28:21):
a first step. Now, you still got to recognize that
it needs to be cited if you're using it, and
it's a first step. You know, there are ways. Lawyers
have always used forms and things like that to help
shape their work, but you've got to recognize that things
need to be changed. Just because it says this or
that that doesn't make it so. One of the questions
(28:43):
that we were going to talk about tonight, I used
Google AI, I guess it is. It gives you a
little summary. And the second bullet point was just clearly wrong,
clearly wrong. And I looked and I hesitated for a minute,
and then I went just double checked. What's I wrong
or was AI wrong? And AI was wrong? And it
(29:05):
was you know, it says it like, it says it
like it's God talking to you that this is the answer,
and it You got to be careful because you can't
rely on anything exclusively. You got to use the thing
on top of your shoulder.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Yeah, by the way, everybody, do not ever have some
symptoms and try to figure out what it is and
try to look it up online and do you really
it's a terrible idea, and you can ask it about
drug interactions. Yeah, maybe it's probably right factually, but if
you give it a couple of symptoms, three or four symptoms,
(29:37):
it's going to come up with every horrible thing that
it could possibly possibly be, where your doctor would no, no,
it's not that, not that. Don't worry about that. He
I doesn't know that.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
So it gives you a doctor uses his computer to
check yourself, please too, they do.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
And I asked, where do you get I asked, my doctor.
I wanted to know what is it you look stuff up?
What is your what is your source? Because I asked
a question and they went type type type type, Oh
what is your source? That's so great? And they told
me and I forgot. I don't even know if I
had access to I don't know if any any old
(30:12):
person like myself can have access to it. I wouldn't
think so. I would think they would pay for some
special medical one.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
But there's a couple of good sites. Mayo Clinic has
a terrific was the one they recommend, and web md
is really not bad. I know it's you know it's
one of the early ones, but at least to give
you some indication should I really be worried about this
or my gonna be old gifts?
Speaker 2 (30:33):
But AI doesn't know you that well, doesn't do your raige,
doesn't know you. Can't look at you to see the
see if your skin is I'll pale, if you're sweating.
Whereas if you go into doctor's office, they see that
there's a lot of stuff not going wrong with you.
So I can eliminate a bunch of stuff that a
I cannot eliminate.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
But half the time you don't even get to see
a doctor anymore. I know you really don't. You're going
to see someone hopefully, so I'll bet most people actually
start out googling and checking to see before they run
to the minute clinic or the urgent care nearest them
and the like.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
Yeah, don't you know, don't get me started in uninsurance.
I'm going through an insurance and PCP wilderness now, but
don't get me started on that because it is it's grueling.
Let's take a break and get to some of the
other topics that Dean Coin and I plan to get to,
(31:30):
and we'd love to hear from mu six one, seven
to five, four, ten thirty is our number any old
comics likes. WBZ.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on wb Boston's news radio.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
That is right.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
We are here with Dean Michael Coin, Dean of Massachusetts
School of Law, and we're heading into the next topic.
We're going to talk about a case that's going to
be in the news a lot, probably pretty soon. Why
don't you talk about the Waltz Yeah, well, outline that case.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
Brian Walsh has been charged with the murder and dismemberment
of his wife. They were living in Cohasset and New
Years a couple of years ago. She went missing the
next day. He was arrested ultimately after they examined his
(32:23):
computer devices and found a bunch of searches that were
very incriminating with respect to how to dispose of a
body and various things along those lines. There's also video
that supports him buying things in home depot that would
help to dispose of a body. Because what's interesting about
it is the body has never been found, and usually
(32:46):
in a murder case, the easiest thing to prove is
that the person is dead. But so that's the backdrop
on it. And so what's happened now more recently, and
this is why it's going to have a competency here
tomorrow morning, is that he was stabbed while in through
a waiting trial in prison and from Norfolk County where
(33:10):
he went. Is his lawyer ask the court to schedule
a competency assessment to determine whether he's competent to assist
with his defense, whether he's competent to understand the seriousness
of the charges against him and really be able to
make some very difficult decisions. Do I testify, Do I
(33:31):
not testify the fact is that you have a constitutional
right to assist with your defense and to be able
to cooperate with your lawyer. But if you are mentally
ill to the point where you are unable to do
those things, then you can't stand trial until such time
as you are, assuming that there be some point where
(33:53):
you are.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Is somebody leging that being stabbed because mental illness.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
No, I think. I think what they're saying, or at
least what it appears there saying, is posts that his
mental health has taken a significant decline, which to me
is understandable that if you were on trial for the
murder of your spouse and now your fellow prisoners are
(34:19):
trying to kill you, that that would lead to some
serious anxiety and stress and the rest of it. So
I think what the concern is is there from the
lawyer's standpoint is well, we need to know that he's
capable and competent to make these decisions, because if he's
not and he's making decisions that later on he's going
(34:41):
to challenge that he wasn't in the right state of
mind to be able to do this, well, then we're
going to start all over again. As he looks to
raise those issues on appeal. You know, the most common
charge in a criminal case once someone is convicted is
in effective assistance accounts. So I think it's almost a
(35:01):
belt and suspendus approach. Let's make sure that he's sufficiently
competent that we can go forward here.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
That happens all the time, right people. Judges won't make
sure they will air on the side of caution in
these sorts of situations. Absolutely, Okay, let's go to Jane
and Shrewsbury. Thanks for calling. Six one seven two five,
Hi Jane.
Speaker 4 (35:24):
Hi Bradley High Professor. Good, how are you doing? Good
to hear you in prime time? Used to hear you
on the midnight hour, I like, j Yeah, that was
kept us up late, but it was.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
So.
Speaker 4 (35:43):
I don't want to get too specific, but I had
a couple of questions about when they're well, I'll just
outline that there's a question of a forged will, a
poorly forged will. I would say that affects my family,
and I'm just curious if the person who's got the
(36:04):
forged will, who's you know, trying to defraud in the state,
if her attorney has liability, if if they ask her
or even if they just look at the will and say,
this thing is so obviously bogus. Do they have any
liability or cult ability if I could sue them? And
(36:27):
also if they know that the person destroyed an original
because my family has a copy of a will, but
no original, and the original was probably at the deceased
person's house, which is where the person who got the
forged will lives. So allegedly, yes, all allegedly, and litigators
(36:49):
on both sides. The person is too, you know, a
primary attorney when she filed the will, and then a
litigator after my family objected.
Speaker 2 (37:00):
Yet I'm in the weeds, but a little bit me.
Speaker 3 (37:04):
I'd tell the basic issue. And this happens a lot.
What's interesting about the question is, Uh, we had the
appeals court argue had arguments for on six cases at
the law school last Wednesday, maybe Thursday, Thursday, and one
of the cases dealt with this. This is not unusual
where there's a question of the forged instrument and whether
(37:26):
there was undue influence and really what happened with the
original document that some people have. So this this happens
a lot more often than you'd realize. I don't think
the lawyers have any culpability. At that point, you would
almost have to say that they were, you know, in
essence coke and spirators here and assisted with the fraud.
(37:46):
So a you haven't even proven fraud yet. Which you've
got is a highly suspect document that's been executed, and
so they're entitled to have the lawyer defend him in
as long as the lawyer is done their sufficient investigation
that they're satisfied under what we call rule eleven, that
there's a valid basis to move forward. They're going to
(38:08):
represent the client. So the question really becomes what does
that person know and what did they do? Because assuming
you can show that they have in fact forged the document,
well then you would have recourse against them obviously as
well as likely invalidating the instrument.
Speaker 4 (38:28):
The question yeah pretty much one other thing though, So
the person inherited money outside of the will, outside of
the probate, a state could if they're found to have
used a fraudulent will and they've perjured testimony and what
have you, and there's a forgery, can my family sue
(38:50):
them for the money that they already inherited outside of
the will.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
That make question So if you can hold on, and
I hope you can. We'll answer that after this on
WBZ
It's Nice Eyes with Dan Ray ongoing Easy Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Here we go again. It is Bradley Jay in for
Dan Ray on night Side, and our guest right off
the bat is Michael Coin, the excellent Dean of the
Massachusetts School of Law and a fan favorite. Thanks for
being with.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Us, Always a pleasure, Bradley.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Oh, you brought some interesting topics to the table today,
some interesting cases, and both of you out there, I'd
love to invite you to give your opinion on any
of these. There's going to be a lot to opine
on interesting stuff. This first case has got it all,
and that doesn't have it all. It has a lot.
It's juicy, it's weird, it's from North Carolina. Why don't
(00:44):
you outline it unless you'd like me to outline it,
but I'd rather have you do it, Frank, Okay.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
I mean it's an interesting case because it's the wife
is suing for alienation of affection and what's called criminal
conversation with her now ex husband's girlfriend that he ultimately
left her for. And so it's not the case in
(01:09):
every state that you can actually sue under those circumstances
civilly to recover your damages. But what she's done is
she brought suit after her husband left her for this
other woman, and ultimately then is successful in obtaining a
judgment of nearly two million dollars one point seventy five
million dollars. And this was in North Carolina, which is
(01:30):
one of the states that allows such a suit because
he committed adultery while he was married to her. And then,
as she sees it, and as the law ultimately saw it,
with respect to the jury's verdict, that this other woman
took her husband away and therefore owes her damages as
a result of the effect it had on her marriage
(01:52):
and her financial status and her children's lives.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Well, folks, I find this. It's kind of ridiculous, right,
it ridiculous. Perhaps Dean Cooin can show me where I'm wrong,
and I want to break it down further, because even
as well as you describe it, it's still confusing. So,
once upon a time, there was an TikTok influencer, correct, right,
(02:15):
and that TikTok influencer had a marriage, and then she
is alleged that she had an affair with the husband
of the manager, yes, okay, and that caused that marriage
to break up, and that breakup turns out is worth
one point seventy five million bucks.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Well, but that's not it. I mean the number is
is how we get to the damage that the individual
and her children have suffered as a result of that,
in essence breach of contract. Now it's interesting as you
think about it that, well, the breach contract really is
with the husband, not this third party, but none of
(02:59):
the les less this person has interfered with that contract,
and in some states only a handful they allow damages
under those circumstances.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Okay, the ridiculousness gets comes from the details. For me,
what is the actual not charged because it's civil? What
does this fall under?
Speaker 3 (03:18):
It's called criminal conversation and alienation of affections. Criminal conversation
is another phrase for adultery. An alienation of affections is
its name. Should should indicate means that this third person
has taken her affections that were rightly her and her
(03:40):
husband's away from her, and therefore, since she has affected
that relationship, the law in some jurisdictions allows for recovery
for the damages.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
It seems to me there's so many gray areas that
it would be hard to come up with a number
like this hard to assign culpability end all. For one
thing here, this doesn't assign any fault to the husband.
That seems strange to me, folks. If you'd like to
(04:12):
tell me I'm right, or if you'd like to tell
me I'm all what let me know at six one, seven, two,
five thirty. I just think this is the most interesting
and and a difficult case. This is, as thean Coin said,
not a case that can be brought in many states.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
North Carolina is one, but it used to be in Massachusetts.
You a long time ago you had the right as well.
And you know the fact is adultery is a crime
still in some jurisdictions. And so what they're looking at
here is the ability for the party to be able
to recover damages when someone else has, in essence interfered
(04:47):
with that contractual relationship. And and you know that is
the case in business situations and elsewhere. If you interfere
with my right to whatever I have for rights under
its terms of the contract, I have the right to
sue you civilly for the damages that flow from it.
In essence, that's what's going on here. It's just as
(05:08):
you point out, well, where's his level of responsibility for
what took place. He's the one that made these promises
to her.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
So one hundred percent of the culpability and this is
a sign to the person who had to pay.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
That's correct, because.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Right out of the gate, that seems fair, and it
also seems impossible to ascertain who was more at fault.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Well, and you're absolutely right, there's no doubt. The problem
is he's not a party to the litigation. She's the
only party because she's the one that interfered with their
marriage contract. So I understand what you're saying is, how
do we know she wooed him away from her as
opposed to him running out and looking for someone else.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
So he could have interfered our breached that marriage contract
just as much.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
That's correct. Well, the likelihood is he did, no matter what,
whether he was enticed to or not, he's the one
who breached the contract. But the fact is is that
that's going to be handled as part of the divorce,
and oftentimes conduct of the parties is not seen as
such a big deal as it once was when you
looked at that as a significant factor in the distribution
(06:17):
of the marital assets.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Okay, that said, are there states you're aware of or
what's the deal? In Massachusetts? Can you be sued for
breach of a marriage contract? In and over and above
the trouble you can just get in for committing adultery.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Well again, you know you're not likely to find recovery there.
Simply because there are times where engagements and ultimately things
don't work out. That doesn't necessarily give you the right
to sue civilly for that right. That's why we have
probate courts to try and resolve the various assets and
(06:56):
questions about what should happen post the divorce.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Some of the other reasons some of the claims were
that the victim was caused mental anguish. Okay, that's common,
damage to her health and well damage to her health
that they have to go into court and say I
have an ulcer or for example, and it was caused
by this. How can you say that it was caused
(07:24):
by that?
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Oh, but you know whatever that you're you're highly skeptical
of the claims to begin with, But reckon me me
personally or yes, you you personally here, but understand you know,
having handled some divorces early on in my career. The
fact is is that it's an incredibly emotional time and
(07:47):
that people do have all sorts of physical difficulties with
it that manifests itself to lack of sleep, gaining weight,
losing weight. You point out questions about ulcer, migrant or
all of this. Those are medical issues that relate to,
as they see it, to this new trauma that's now
(08:09):
visited on them. We do this all the time in
civil suits, is try to connect to determine causation for
the physical issues that follow whatever the injury is.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
I guess my point is, say you go to a
I don't know, a bowling alley and then you claim,
oh my arm is store or I twisted my ankle.
In order to get damages, you would have to prove
that the bowling alley he was responsible and be neglatent,
but mostly the responsibility part. How do you and I
(08:44):
apply that to this situation. How do you ascertain for
sure that the physical problem and what percent of the
physical problem was the result of distress from this situation?
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Well, you've got a couple things linked there that I'm
not so sure should be the bowlin alley. You're going
to have a much more difficult time showing the liability
aspect of it. You know, you twisted your ankle, your hurt,
your arm hurts now from lifting the ball. Well, that
sort of should be expected if you're going to engage
in a physical activity, and neither of those really indicates
(09:19):
any significant damage. So that I think your liability in
that example is how to determine here this relatively clear liability.
They had a contract, someone interfered with that contract. That
contract has now been dissolved by the courts, so we're divorced.
The question is now what are the damages for it?
(09:39):
And can you, as you see it, we put the
damages and show they were caused by this third person
breaking up their marriage. Well, I'm not so sure it's
going to be as difficult, certainly not as difficult as
a Bowlin Alley example.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Okay, there's one other angles of this that it will
get to after this break, and I'll tell you what
the angle is. Part of her damages, the damages arose
from being deprived having her children be deprived of a
two parent household. We will address that and see if
that's legitimate in the eyes of our guess. Michael Coyn
(10:14):
on WBZ.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
That is correct. Bradley Jay here, and we're with Michael coyn,
dean of the Massachusett School of Law, talking about this
case down in North Carolina where a plaintiff is out
of a correct phrase.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
That's correct.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
A plaintiff was ordered one point seven five mili four
having for the pain of suffering, et cetera, involved with
having someone else bust up her marriage. And one of
the elements in deciding this was And I want to know, folks,
if you think this is legitimate, and if you have
any idea, and I have some thoughts on why the
(10:57):
judgment was so high, and we'll get to those legs.
And when we do, I want to know if you,
if you were on the jury, would you feel the
same way. Now, part of this was depriving the household
of two parents, depriving her children of a two parent household.
How do you put a money value on that?
Speaker 3 (11:18):
We'll jet you have to figure. You have to provide
evidence to show how that would have affected the children,
Whether the children then are more likely to prosper in
school and the like, and there are likely statistics I
would support that version of the events, and also the
loss of that father in the home. The fact is
(11:40):
is that there it is harder to try and raise
a child if you're by yourself, as opposed to having
another set of hands.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
All right, but if I were the defense attorney, why
wouldn't I argue in it hear that this person was
a detriment to the marriage. After all, he did sheat
and you could find other things. If that guy happened
to drink or go out to the can't whatever, You
could find all kinds of attractions on the person, bring
(12:10):
them back to court and say, you know, this guy
wasn't helping things out at all. A matter of fact,
the kids are going to be better without this father around.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Well, I think you would argue that, right. I mean,
if he's already shown himself to be untrustworthy. So how
do we know that the children would have benefited from
having him there? How do we know she would have
benefited from having him there?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
So you wonder about the high award and Mike, you
have some information there that might.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Have irritated I think the colorful facts would likely influence
the jury against the defendant. The language here that it
says in the lawsuit, the wife accused Kennard of having
a sexual relationship with their husband, and that she engaged
in behaviored designed to seduce him and then flaunted her
(13:00):
fair and romantic relationship in public and private places. I
would expect that there will be people on the jury,
people in our audience that would find that then this
third person who introduces themselves into the marriage is not
one that's worthy of sympathy. In fact, she very well
(13:22):
may encourage a level of anger, and that in part
could attribute to the size of this verdict.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Right, that's interesting stuff. What do you want to talk
about next? We have the Supreme Supreme Court, the SJC
balking at paying more to public defenders.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Yep, there was still we can talk about booling around
with that. Yeah, Bryan Wallash, you have got Lindsey Clancy.
You got a hold a ton of stuff that.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
So let's do the public defenders. As I understand it,
public defenders were making sixty five bucks an hour in Massachusetts.
They jumped it up over two years to twenty dollars
more than that ten dollars each year. But in New
Hampshire they're making one twenty five and he Main one
fifty and hour. So the Massachusetts public defenders, if I'm right,
(14:13):
are making a lot below other states even nearby.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
Well not necessarily, and some of the public defenders have
spoken to me about this is that you can look
at New Hampshire and Main's hourly rates and say, yes,
they're much higher, but there are also greater caps on
how many hours they can build it well, so at
the end of the day the net may not be
as sufficient. But the bottom line is whether you start
(14:37):
to look at that hourly rate, it's low compared to
what private attorneys are and that's the problem because the
public defenders are saying, we're not taking more cases until
that rate make I'm sorry, makes it worth it for
us to be able to take cases and pay all
our bills and pay all our overhead. And so what
(14:58):
you have right now is an in number of public defenders.
So cases are still being dismissed because those indigent clients
don't have lawyers and that is a constitutional right to
have that lawyer help represent them. So it's still a mess,
and that's why the Supreme Court is taking another look
at it, because it's what the legislature did is not
(15:22):
enough is it the.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Court's job to do that or is it even something
they can do now.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
I think the Court is troubled at least by the
idea that this is not something necessarily that is in
the court's domain. This is the body of the legislature
should be trying to figure out a better solution than
they have now. In fairness to the legislators, they came
up with a solution. They raised the rate in part significantly,
(15:52):
they would argue, and also created a structure going forward
so there'll be more full time lawyers working for the
Committee for Public Council Service so that they won't have
to depend on the private lawyers who are quot appointed counsel.
That's frankly, I don't think it's a good thing. It's
certainly not a good thing necessarily for young lawyers, because
(16:15):
a lot of new lawyers have used this process of
working with at least in part for Committee for Public
Council Service as court appointed lawyers and then built their
own practices over time. So it was a way to
subsidize younger, newer lawyers and their knowledge of the criminal
defense system, as well as then being able to build
(16:37):
their own practices. So I hope it's not restricted that
much with respect to everyone's going to be full time
moving forward in the future at some point.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
So what do you think, folk, should we pay our
public defenders more?
Speaker 3 (16:50):
It? Does?
Speaker 2 (16:50):
You know it costs money? Do you want to pay
them more? Remember that there are people charged with serious
crimes that are not going to trial because of this.
I understand there were at one point was a backlog
of three thousand cases and it got down to two
thousand and about nine hundred now. But still that's a
(17:11):
pretty big deal. By the way, what does it give
me a ballpark figure on what an average private lawyer
would cost if someone had to get one instead of
a public defender per hour per hour with five hundred bucks.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
Right these days, you're probably looking at three fifty north
of three point fifty. But also what you also you
find in the district court where a lot of these
cases are, you would see a flat fee arrangement where
instead of an hourly basis I want twenty five hundred,
I want five thousand, it's ten thousand dollars to represent
you in the district court. Whatever the obviously, partly depending
(17:47):
on the complexity of the chargers and the like, and
the likelihood of going to trial. But our an hourly
rate is going to be expensive, but so is a
flat fee.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
I'd rather pay a flat fee. I just would anytime
I had a question. I just I could see the
dollar signs reckon, we'll do the flat fee and say,
I can call you as much as they want, right
for the flat flat if.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
I don't know you yet, So I don't know, then
I will have a blizzard of questions.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
So where do you fall on that? How much do
you think they should be paid more? How much do
you think would be fair? Are you good with the
what is it now? What will it be in twenty
twenty six? Eighty five bucks an hour?
Speaker 3 (18:23):
Yeah, I think I think the legislature made a reasonable
attempt to increase the rate with the recognition that these
are difficult times. People don't want their taxes raised. We
need to look for other avenues of revenue for these
folks because they are still underpaid and will be. But
(18:46):
at the end of the day, the legislature has to
balance where are we going to get the revenue while
also recognizing the constitutional protections the defendants are entitled to.
So I think it's a really tough call. I'm not
prepared to say that the legislature is absolutely wrong. I
wish that they could get together and reach a compromise
(19:06):
on it as would be reasonable for all all involved,
and especially I think that you could make a proposal
where it steps up over time, over a three year
period to make it a little higher.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Perfect. All right, we'll continue with Dean Mike corn in
a moment on WBZ.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's
news Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
All right, let's continue on night sid on Bradley Jay
And for Dan, we're with Dean Michael Corner, the master,
she said, school of law. He is an educator, So
now I'm going to ask him an educator question on
the a in here house on the Orange Line coming
on in I read an article that said a lot
that said a lot of Harvard students are upset that
(19:52):
they're even though they worked hard, they're not getting a's,
And I thought, hmm, I'll have to ask Dean Coin
about this is working hard, what it takes to get
an A? I thought you had to get the answers right,
but maybe things have changed, and they kind of have,
I guess. And you're an educator, this is a thing
for you.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
Yeah, I mean things have changed some places, but not everywhere.
I mean, you know, I'm old enough that I remember
starting at Boston Latin School where they really did tell
us look to the right, look to the left, one
of you will be left. That's cool. Well, it it
scares you, and it tells you. You bet, you better
work hard so that you get to stay here. I
(20:35):
think in many places now that's not the attitude at all.
Is that you know, it's harder to get into places
like Harvard than to get thrown out of places like Harvard,
and so a lot of schools want to validate their
admissions process by saying they're taking the best and brightest
and therefore they all do well. But but part of
it is, you know, I don't want to sound like
(20:56):
the old guy again, but it's generational, right, this is
in part these are the kids who everyone got trophies
at the end of the season and no matter what
you did, it was okay. And we didn't even keep
scoring a lot of the game. Yes, just because we're
old doesn't make it not true. It's true, no, and
it does. So that's the problem is that this now
starts in even in the middle school. My son teachers
(21:20):
middle school. And the fact is is that everybody wants
to get those a's, and the question is do they
want to work hard enough that that is required to
get it? You know, I tell my own students, everyone
wants to go to heaven. No one wants to die
to get there. Well, there's a price that you have
to pay if you really want to do well, and
(21:40):
it's it's sacrifice.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Now, I thought that that there was a curve, and
if there were too many a's, then that meant that
the teacher had to make it harder. That there should
be certain percent of a's is mostly ces and a
few ds and these a few a's be most sees,
and then it tails off and that's how you can
(22:02):
judge if the course is of appropriate difficulty.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
Yeah, well, we still look at the curve when you
think about it and that and I try to explain
that to the students as well. You know, when you
if C C plus is an average grade, then most
people are average, right, I mean that's the way the
world is, right, So we need to make a see
the average grade, right, so that then for superior performance,
(22:27):
you're in the A and the B range, and for
deficient performance you're in the D and F range. And
that's I think the way. Still many schools do it.
I know there are colleges where when we look at
the transcripts to admit them to law school, there's still
a lot of rigor in those programs in the same
vein there are other schools, other programs when you do
(22:50):
see the transcripts and the grades are very high, it's
not uncommon that that's what you're likely looking at is
high grades from this and you do make it does
make you wonder we really is this exceptional performance or
is this just you know, the grades that are now
expected by the students for less than superior work.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
So do you your instructors run into this that people
are saying, hey, I worked very hard, I should get
an A. Does that happen at your school?
Speaker 3 (23:22):
It happens, I think yes, And it happens a lot
of places. Is that? And I tell again, I tell
my students, I know you all want a's. Okay, meet
me halfway, study hard, get the right answers and be
able to put all of this together, because that's what
it takes if you want an A. That's that should
be close to perfection, and it's going to be hard
(23:43):
to achieve perfection.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Are the exams primarily munthiple choice or essay questions? What
kind of exams do you give? No, we still do
law students get.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
We use still sort of the classic blue book, where
you've got essays. You also may have I'm shorty answers,
and you may have some a few multiple choice questions.
But even though the buyer exam uses multiple choice questions,
the study of law doesn't lend itself well to that
because when you study law, you find out there's an
awful lot of gray. It's not really black and white.
(24:17):
The students love when there really are some very clearly
defined outside parameters, but most of what happens in law
is it's gray and you have to argue it. You know.
The fact is they quickly learn when you ask a
question that the answer in law school is almost always it.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
Depends maybe yeah, so they can argue their case.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
But that is the idea everyone.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
If they can successfully change.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Oh no, we do not change grades unless there's a
mathematical mistake.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
No, can they get you to change the correctness of
their answer? They say, well, I said this because and
if they make a good case where you go, hmm,
I see your point. Okay, No, they can't overturn that
X mark.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
We grade blindly and so and the idea is that
you don't know who it is, Okay, once you do
the idea of changing a grade at that point means
that you may be changing it because you like the student,
or changing it because you are grading it because you
didn't like them. They're not studying hard, they're not in
(25:22):
class or whatever. You just it makes it easier that
the old that did grade blindly. And then the only
way you can change your grade is if there's a
mathematical eraror so.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
It does seem that some schools are they don't want
to kick people out, they want to coddle the students.
Is that? Why is that? Is it because the goal
has gone from educating to making money. We want that
student's tuition, how much we even need to make that
student happy? They're a client, Well, they're not a student.
(25:57):
They're a client.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
And the student in many places seize themselves as a
consumer and they want to get value for their money.
And the value will be the higher grade, as you're
pointing out, So yes, listen, let's be clear, higher education,
the revenue matters. As we can see, and especially as
we now see the federal government pulling back some of
(26:20):
their money at a lot of these institutions. What you
have is you do have some money crunch at places
where you're saying, you know, are we are the students
getting value? Are they getting what they intend to get
out of their education? And so, yeah, revenue matters, and
how this all shakes out absolutely matters, and especially at
today's prices for higher education. Uh, people legitimate, legitimately want
(26:45):
to know that that what they're getting for their money
is in fact what they expected. But the great inflation
and all of that, that's a that's a significant part
of it. What you know, we we lament ass that.
You know, it does seem like and I've been doing
this now for almost four decades. That you know, twenty
(27:09):
years ago, thirty years ago, people made up for what
they didn't know through a lot more hard work. And
I do think that that work ethic is slightly less
at times, and that's why you do need to push
people harder so that they can achieve everything they wanted
to achieve.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
As your educational set up such that you need to
be careful about AI and shoosion. Do any students write
papers that could be written by AI?
Speaker 3 (27:36):
Oh yeah, we have. They are papers submitted. We have
a policy with respect to artificial intelligence. You know, when
I gave them their one of the exams or one
of the mid term or take home question and the
like to work on, I said, you can use ra
real intelligence, don't use AI, because then they're learning how
(27:57):
to use AI. Even as Aly is high school now
and then it carries into college. The fact is is
that this is this is a game changer, and people
have to be realistic that people are going to take
not even shortcuts. It's not an unavailable means of research,
and it's not even an unwise means of research. As
(28:21):
a first step. Now, you still got to recognize that
it needs to be cited if you're using it, and
it's a first step. You know, there are ways. Lawyers
have always used forms and things like that to help
shape their work, but you've got to recognize that things
need to be changed. Just because it says this or
that that doesn't make it so. One of the questions
(28:43):
that we were going to talk about tonight, I used
Google AI, I guess it is. It gives you a
little summary. And the second bullet point was just clearly wrong,
clearly wrong. And I looked and I hesitated for a minute,
and then I went just double checked. What's I wrong
or was AI wrong? And AI was wrong? And it
(29:05):
was you know, it says it like, it says it
like it's God talking to you that this is the answer,
and it You got to be careful because you can't
rely on anything exclusively. You got to use the thing
on top of your shoulder.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Yeah, by the way, everybody, do not ever have some
symptoms and try to figure out what it is and
try to look it up online and do you really
it's a terrible idea, and you can ask it about
drug interactions. Yeah, maybe it's probably right factually, but if
you give it a couple of symptoms, three or four symptoms,
(29:37):
it's going to come up with every horrible thing that
it could possibly possibly be, where your doctor would no, no,
it's not that, not that. Don't worry about that. He
I doesn't know that.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
So it gives you a doctor uses his computer to
check yourself, please too, they do.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
And I asked, where do you get I asked, my doctor.
I wanted to know what is it you look stuff up?
What is your what is your source? Because I asked
a question and they went type type type type, Oh
what is your source? That's so great? And they told
me and I forgot. I don't even know if I
had access to I don't know if any any old
(30:12):
person like myself can have access to it. I wouldn't
think so. I would think they would pay for some
special medical one.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
But there's a couple of good sites. Mayo Clinic has
a terrific was the one they recommend, and web md
is really not bad. I know it's you know it's
one of the early ones, but at least to give
you some indication should I really be worried about this
or my gonna be old gifts?
Speaker 2 (30:33):
But AI doesn't know you that well, doesn't do your raige,
doesn't know you. Can't look at you to see the
see if your skin is I'll pale, if you're sweating.
Whereas if you go into doctor's office, they see that
there's a lot of stuff not going wrong with you.
So I can eliminate a bunch of stuff that a
I cannot eliminate.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
But half the time you don't even get to see
a doctor anymore. I know you really don't. You're going
to see someone hopefully, so I'll bet most people actually
start out googling and checking to see before they run
to the minute clinic or the urgent care nearest them
and the like.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
Yeah, don't you know, don't get me started in uninsurance.
I'm going through an insurance and PCP wilderness now, but
don't get me started on that because it is it's grueling.
Let's take a break and get to some of the
other topics that Dean Coin and I plan to get to,
(31:30):
and we'd love to hear from mu six one, seven
to five, four, ten thirty is our number any old
comics likes. WBZ.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on wb Boston's news radio.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
That is right.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
We are here with Dean Michael Coin, Dean of Massachusetts
School of Law, and we're heading into the next topic.
We're going to talk about a case that's going to
be in the news a lot, probably pretty soon. Why
don't you talk about the Waltz Yeah, well, outline that case.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
Brian Walsh has been charged with the murder and dismemberment
of his wife. They were living in Cohasset and New
Years a couple of years ago. She went missing the
next day. He was arrested ultimately after they examined his
(32:23):
computer devices and found a bunch of searches that were
very incriminating with respect to how to dispose of a
body and various things along those lines. There's also video
that supports him buying things in home depot that would
help to dispose of a body. Because what's interesting about
it is the body has never been found, and usually
(32:46):
in a murder case, the easiest thing to prove is
that the person is dead. But so that's the backdrop
on it. And so what's happened now more recently, and
this is why it's going to have a competency here
tomorrow morning, is that he was stabbed while in through
a waiting trial in prison and from Norfolk County where
(33:10):
he went. Is his lawyer ask the court to schedule
a competency assessment to determine whether he's competent to assist
with his defense, whether he's competent to understand the seriousness
of the charges against him and really be able to
make some very difficult decisions. Do I testify, Do I
(33:31):
not testify the fact is that you have a constitutional
right to assist with your defense and to be able
to cooperate with your lawyer. But if you are mentally
ill to the point where you are unable to do
those things, then you can't stand trial until such time
as you are, assuming that there be some point where
(33:53):
you are.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Is somebody leging that being stabbed because mental illness.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
No, I think. I think what they're saying, or at
least what it appears there saying, is posts that his
mental health has taken a significant decline, which to me
is understandable that if you were on trial for the
murder of your spouse and now your fellow prisoners are
(34:19):
trying to kill you, that that would lead to some
serious anxiety and stress and the rest of it. So
I think what the concern is is there from the
lawyer's standpoint is well, we need to know that he's
capable and competent to make these decisions, because if he's
not and he's making decisions that later on he's going
(34:41):
to challenge that he wasn't in the right state of
mind to be able to do this, well, then we're
going to start all over again. As he looks to
raise those issues on appeal. You know, the most common
charge in a criminal case once someone is convicted is
in effective assistance accounts. So I think it's almost a
(35:01):
belt and suspendus approach. Let's make sure that he's sufficiently
competent that we can go forward here.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
That happens all the time, right people. Judges won't make
sure they will air on the side of caution in
these sorts of situations. Absolutely, Okay, let's go to Jane
and Shrewsbury. Thanks for calling. Six one seven two five,
Hi Jane.
Speaker 4 (35:24):
Hi Bradley High Professor. Good, how are you doing? Good
to hear you in prime time? Used to hear you
on the midnight hour, I like, j Yeah, that was
kept us up late, but it was.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
So.
Speaker 4 (35:43):
I don't want to get too specific, but I had
a couple of questions about when they're well, I'll just
outline that there's a question of a forged will, a
poorly forged will. I would say that affects my family,
and I'm just curious if the person who's got the
(36:04):
forged will, who's you know, trying to defraud in the state,
if her attorney has liability, if if they ask her
or even if they just look at the will and say,
this thing is so obviously bogus. Do they have any
liability or cult ability if I could sue them? And
(36:27):
also if they know that the person destroyed an original
because my family has a copy of a will, but
no original, and the original was probably at the deceased
person's house, which is where the person who got the
forged will lives. So allegedly, yes, all allegedly, and litigators
(36:49):
on both sides. The person is too, you know, a
primary attorney when she filed the will, and then a
litigator after my family objected.
Speaker 2 (37:00):
Yet I'm in the weeds, but a little bit me.
Speaker 3 (37:04):
I'd tell the basic issue. And this happens a lot.
What's interesting about the question is, Uh, we had the
appeals court argue had arguments for on six cases at
the law school last Wednesday, maybe Thursday, Thursday, and one
of the cases dealt with this. This is not unusual
where there's a question of the forged instrument and whether
(37:26):
there was undue influence and really what happened with the
original document that some people have. So this this happens
a lot more often than you'd realize. I don't think
the lawyers have any culpability. At that point, you would
almost have to say that they were, you know, in
essence coke and spirators here and assisted with the fraud.
(37:46):
So a you haven't even proven fraud yet. Which you've
got is a highly suspect document that's been executed, and
so they're entitled to have the lawyer defend him in
as long as the lawyer is done their sufficient investigation
that they're satisfied under what we call rule eleven, that
there's a valid basis to move forward. They're going to
(38:08):
represent the client. So the question really becomes what does
that person know and what did they do? Because assuming
you can show that they have in fact forged the document,
well then you would have recourse against them obviously as
well as likely invalidating the instrument.
Speaker 4 (38:28):
The question yeah pretty much one other thing though, So
the person inherited money outside of the will, outside of
the probate, a state could if they're found to have
used a fraudulent will and they've perjured testimony and what
have you, and there's a forgery, can my family sue
(38:50):
them for the money that they already inherited outside of
the will.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
That make question So if you can hold on, and
I hope you can. We'll answer that after this on
WBZ
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.