The Experts below are selected from a list of 147 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Avrom Sherr - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • practicing lawyers and professional Legal Competence an articulation episode
    Social Science Research Network, 2008
    Co-Authors: Marc Mason, Avrom Sherr
    Abstract:

    What do practicing lawyers think about issues of Competence? Do they have a lexicon or a vernacular which allows them to describe professional Competence and to use this in a didactic way to raise levels of Competence? How does any such approach of practicing lawyers match up with what has been written by researchers or professional course trainers on this subject? The work of Peer Review has provided an important set of opportunities to begin considering these questions. In this paper we address the content of the Guides written by peer review panels as a means of describing to their peers what would be the ingredients of good work in their subject areas.

  • Legal education Legal Competence and little bo peep
    Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, 2001
    Co-Authors: Avrom Sherr
    Abstract:

    Inagural lecture by Professor Avrom Sherr as Woolf Chair in Legal Education at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

  • the value of experience in Legal Competence
    International Journal of The Legal Profession, 2000
    Co-Authors: Avrom Sherr
    Abstract:

    (2000). The value of experience in Legal Competence. International Journal of the Legal Profession: Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 95-124.

  • the value of experience in Legal Competence
    Social Science Research Network, 2000
    Co-Authors: Avrom Sherr
    Abstract:

    This article considers the importance of experience in providing Competence for Legal practitioners in the skill of client interviewing and counseling. Previous research carried out within a laboratory setting developed a system of assessment, which is used in this research to monitor the work of a number of lawyers across a range of experience carrying out real client interviews in their own offices. It is then possible to compare the performance of experienced practitioners against the inexperienced. Experience does not seem to enhance this form of Competence beyond a threshold or basic level of attainment, although it does provide a level of confidence in one’s own ability. Experience needs to be worked with and reflected upon in order to make it useful in accruing Competence. Training can assist with incorporating reflection into practice and this can take place in early training or in CPD for more senior staff.

  • the value of experience in Legal Competence
    Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, 2000
    Co-Authors: Avrom Sherr
    Abstract:

    Preprint of a paper by Avrom Sherr, Woolf Professor of Legal Education, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London

Marshall B Kapp - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Legal issues arising in the process of determining decisional capacity in older persons
    2010
    Co-Authors: Marshall B Kapp
    Abstract:

    There is an increasing incidence of dementia, depression and other affective disorders, delirium, and other mental health problems such as psychoses among older individuals in the United States. Because the severity of mental illness, in terms of cognitive and behavioral impairment and therefore the illness’ impact on functional ability, varies for different patients at different times along a continuum, there is not an automatic correlation between an older person’s clinical diagnosis and a dichotomous determination that the individual does or does not possess sufficient present capacity to personally make various sorts of fundamental life decisions. Decisional capacity assessment in the aged carries important implications both for the official adjudication of Legal Competence and for patient/client management in the vast majority of cases involving “bumbling through.” There exists many salient, but generally overlooked, Legal and ethical concerns immersed in the health care or human services provider’s attempt to evaluate the decisional capacity of a particular older patient/client. This article surveys the most important of those concerns, which arise before we ever get to the point of applying assessment data to the relevant Legal and ethical standards of decisional capacity.

  • older clients with questionable Legal Competence elder law practitioners and treating physicians
    William Mitchell law review, 2010
    Co-Authors: Marshall B Kapp
    Abstract:

    Issues frequently arise in Elder Law practice concerning the cognitive and emotional ability of an older individual to make Legally significant decisions. The physicians who have treated the person whose Competence is being called into question, and/or the medical records generated by the treating physicians, often are sought by attorneys as sources of factual evidence regarding the patient’s symptoms and behaviors, clinical diagnoses, and treatments offered and dispensed. The attorney/physician interaction in this arena may be less than ideal. This essay examines some of the reasons for such interprofessional friction and makes suggestions for productively addressing the tension in a manner likely to benefit the allegedly incompetent person.

  • Legal issues arising in the process of determining decisional capacity in older persons
    Care Management Journals, 2010
    Co-Authors: Marshall B Kapp
    Abstract:

    There is a high and increasing incidence of dementia, depression and other affective disorders, delirium, and other mental health problems, such as psychoses, among older individuals in the United States today (Luijendijk et al., 2008; Rosenberg, Woo, & Roane, 2009). Accurate and timely clinical diagnoses of these illnesses is essential for the development of optimal treatment and management plans (Kapp, 2002b). Nevertheless, because the severity of mental illness, in terms of cognitive and behavioral impairment and therefore the illness' impact on functional ability, varies for different patients at different times along a continuum (Hachinski, 2008; Okonkwo et al., 2007), there is not an automatic, precise correlation between an older person's clinical diagnosis and a simple, dichotomous determination that the individual definitively does or does not possess sufficient present capacity personally to make various sorts of fundamental life decisions. Such matters include medical care, Legal transactions like executing a will or entering into a contract (Streisand & Spar, 2007), financial transactions (Hebert & Marson, 2007; Moye & Braun, 2007), living location and arrangements, and research participation (Karlawish et al., 2008). "Neuropsychological tests do not map directly on to Legal constructs" (Wood, 2007, p. 202). Put differently, there frequently is a huge difference between a general psychological assessment done for diagnostic and/or therapeutic reasons on the one hand and an evaluation done for purposes of determining a person's capacity autonomously to make specific kinds of decisions on the other (Moye, 2007). Thus, a large amount of well-funded psychological and psychiatric research has been undertaken over the past few decades aimed at developing instruments useful for the specific purpose of reliably measuring decision-specific decisional capacity among older individuals (e.g., Lai et al., 2008). Decisional capacity assessment in the aged carries important implications both for the official adjudication of Legal Competence and for patient/client management in the vast majority of cases involving "bumbling through" rather than formal invocation of the guardianship or conservatorship process (Kapp, 2002a); because of those tangible Legal and practical consequences, this corpus of research and its resulting output have received tremendous attention in the gerontological and geriatric literature. A nice summary of the leading work in this arena has been gathered and commented on in Changes in Decision-Making Capacity in Older Adults: Assessment and Intervention (Qualls & Smyer, 2007), a volume in the Wiley Series in Clinical Geropsychology comprised of papers emanating from a conference of clinical and academic geropsychologists held at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs on this subject. This book explicitly addresses the complicated and nuanced topic of capacity as one at the "intersection of Legal doctrine, behavioral science research, and clinical practice" (Smyer, 2007, p. 5) and involving "three interacting elements: the person, the process, and the context" (Smyer, 2007, p. 6). Changes in Decision-Making Capacity in Older Adults illustrates an interesting phenomenon. Almost all the organized attention that has been devoted to the creation and study of emerging tools and methods for assessing decisional capacity among older individuals and to the Legal ramifications of these capacity evaluations begins with the implicit assumption that a mental capacity/ Competence assessment of the older person utilizing available appropriate assessment instruments will be done as a primary means of generating the necessary data going into a conclusion about the patient/client's actual and Legal ability - and right - to make personal decisions. The assumption appears to be, "First, assume a proper assessment has been done." However, this assumption is not in every case borne out factually. …

Michael J Trebilcock - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • regulating Legal Competence
    Social Science Research Network, 2001
    Co-Authors: Michael J Trebilcock
    Abstract:

    As the Law Society of Upper Canada's Special Committee on Professional Competence stated in 1978: "Possibly no aspect of the practice of law or for that matter of other professions such as medicine and accounting is of more immediate importance or raises more difficult questions than that of maintaining the Competence of the practitioner." I believe that that statement was true then, and remains true today. In this article, I will briefly review a range of regulatory instruments that are available and widely invoked as means of providing quality assurances in the Legal and other professions.

Torben Spaak - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the concept of Legal Competence
    THEMIS: Revista da Esmec, 2016
    Co-Authors: Torben Spaak
    Abstract:

    In this article, I argue that to have Competence is to have the possibility, by performing a special kind of act, to change Legal positions. To gain a better understanding of the nature of this possibility, we may distinguish between (i) Competence as permission, (ii) Competence as a practical possibility, and (iii) Competence as (what we might call) a hypothetical possibility. I defend a version of (iii), which has it that to have Competence is to have a in the following sense: if the agent (in an adequate situation) performs a C-act (and thus goes about it in the right way), he brings about the intended change of position. And this is fully consistent with his not having the practical possibility to perform the C-act, perhaps because of physical impediment. I therefore suggest the following definition of the concept of Legal Competence: A person, p, has the Competence to change a Legal position, LP, if, and only if, there is an action, a, and a situation, S, such that if p in S performs a (and thus goes about it in the right way), p will, through a, change LP.

  • explicating the concept of Legal Competence
    Social Science Research Network, 2009
    Co-Authors: Torben Spaak
    Abstract:

    In everyday language the term ‘Competence’ can mean proficiency or authority. A person can be a competent decision maker in the sense that as a rule he makes good and right decisions, but he can also be competent in the sense that he has the authority to make certain kinds of decision. My concern here is with Competence in the sense of authority.1 The concept of Legal Competence, thus conceived, is a normative concept, in the sense that a person has Competence by virtue of a norm, and that the exercise of Competence changes a person’s normative position.

  • the concept of Legal Competence
    Social Science Research Network, 2006
    Co-Authors: Torben Spaak
    Abstract:

    In everyday language the term 'Competence' has at least two different meanings: 'Competence' can mean proficiency or authorization. A person can be a competent decision maker in the sense that as a rule he makes good and right decisions, but he can also be competent in the sense that he has the authority to make certain kinds of decision. 'Competence' understood as authorization is a normative concept, in the sense that a person has Competence by virtue of a norm and that the exercise of Competence changes a person's normative position. My concern here is of course with Competence in the sense of authorization. I suggest the following definition of the concept of Legal Competence: A person, p, has the Competence to change a Legal position, LP, if, and only if, there is an action, a, and a situation, S, such that if p in S performs a, and thus goes about it in the right way, p will, through a , change LP.

  • the concept of Legal Competence an essay in conceptual analysis
    1994
    Co-Authors: Torben Spaak
    Abstract:

    The neeed for a concept of Competence analysis and definition of concepts Competence and (in)validity to have Competence to exercise Competence different types of Competence Competence norms.

Henry J. Steadman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Enrollment in Mental Health Courts: Voluntariness, Knowingness, and Adjudicative Competence
    Law and Human Behavior, 2010
    Co-Authors: Allison D. Redlich, Steven Hoover, Alicia Summers, Henry J. Steadman
    Abstract:

    Mental health courts (MHCs) are rapidly expanding as a form of diversion from jails and prisons for persons with mental illness charged with crimes. Although intended to be voluntary, little is known about this aspect of the courts. We examined perceptions of voluntariness, and levels of knowingness and Legal Competence among 200 newly enrolled clients of MHCs at two courts. Although most clients claimed to have chosen to enroll, at the same time, most claimed not to have been told the court was voluntary or told of the requirements prior to entering. The majority knew the “basics” of the courts, but fewer knew more nuanced information. A minority also were found to have impairments in Legal Competence. Implications are discussed.