Tribal In-House Counsel Association

Who Won American Indian Law and Policy, 2014, Second Round, Bracket 4 of 4

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Now we move onto the Category 4 hurricane, groups.

#1 1491s v. #9 Cobell settlement beneficiaries

The 1491s love Jim Thorpe (I think) but not his captor, winning with 93 percent of the vote. Potheads didn’t get out of bed yesterday, so the Cobell settlement beneficiaries had an easy time garnering 73 percent of the vote.

I guess I forget, being in Michigan, that Cobell’s billions are pretty influential. This will be an interesting match-up. The 1491s better hope the beneficiaries aren’t out there buying votes.

#4 Gray wolves v. #5 Cohen Handbook

Ma’iingan feasted on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, with 63 percent of the vote. The entire state of New Mexico was no match for the Cohen Handbook leviathan, barely netting 29 percent of the vote.

Are the law profs hunters? Or will the wolves outthink them? Whozit gonna be?

#2 Tribal Supreme Court v.#10 Tribal In-House Counsel Association

TLPI nearly pulls off the largest upset of the tournament by defeating the Supreme Court Project but fades late, garnering only 44 percent of the vote. The young upstart TICA wins over NABA by one vote!

#3 Law Reviews on Adoptive Couple v.#6 Carcieri challengers

Well, sheer numbers mean something, plus an extra year to deliberate. Adoptive Couple defeats Bay Mills with 62 percent of the vote. Controversy reigns in the Carcieri v. payday lending crowd, but Carcieri must scare (or excite) voters more, winning with 59 percent of the vote.

 

 

Who Won Indian Law and Policy 2014? First Round Bracket — 8 of 8

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Last one for the day!

Still on category 4, groups.

# 2 Tribal Supreme Court Project

They’ve need a win, and Bay Mills was a biggie! While they were unable to persuade SCOTUS not to take the case in the first (even the SG failed there), and they were unable to persuade the tribe not to bring this case in the first place, but that said, they did help tribal interests avoid problems in a lot of other cases (here, here, here, here, and here). Actually, I have no idea if they helped or not but we’ll give them some credit anyway.

v.

# 15 Tribal Law and Policy Institute

Always been a big fan of Jerry Gardner and his crew. One of the funniest men around. Did amazing work on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence Report this year.

#7 Native American Bar Association

NABA will be releasing a report arising out of a survey that over 500 Indian lawyers completed this year, so maybe this posting is a year early.

v.

#10 Tribal In-House Counsel Association

New organization that has the potential to revolutionize the practice of law in Indian country. I’m hoping that TICA members will be able to cut through a lot of this in the coming generation.

#3 Authors of law review articles on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Yes, there’s a lot, lot, lot of these out there. Some are brilliant and inspiring, some are, well, kinda scary.

v.

#14 Authors of law review articles on Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

Not as many, and most are less scary. Here, here, here, here. Some are just weird.

# 6 Carcieri challengers

The people, groups, tribes, and states and state subdivisions that want to use a poorly-reasoned Supreme Court decision to stop Indian gaming at all costs are legion. Samples here, here, here, here, here, here, and elsewhere (just type Carcieri into TT’s search engine). Interior has opined about it here.

v.

# 11 Tribal sovereign lenders

Yep.

Tribal In-House Counsel Assn. & MSU ILPC Announce 2015 Conference — Call for Proposals and Save and Date — November 5-6, 2015

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

tica_logo_comp2

CALL FOR PAPERS & SAVE THE DATE

***

12th ANNUAL MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY INDIGENOUS LAW CONFERENCE

&

INAUGURAL TRIBAL IN-HOUSE COUNSEL ASSOCIATION LAW CONFERENCE

@

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

INDIGENOUS LAW AND POLICY CENTER

NOVEMBER 5-6, 2015

EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN

KEYNOTE SPEAKER:

VENUS McGHEE PRINCE, TICA Co-Founder

***

TICA members interested in presenting on the following topics are invited to submit proposals:

  • Tribal regulatory structures: Indian nations operate tribal employment rights offices, gaming commissions, natural resource commissions, and other regulatory structures.
  • Federal-tribal relations: Indian nations deal with the federal government through self-determination (638) and self-governance contracting, legislative and agency lobbying, fee to trust applications, administrative appeals, and numerous other ways.
  • State-tribal relations: Indian nations negotiate and execute intergovernmental agreements over a wide variety of issues.
  • Indian child welfare: Indian nations develop child welfare codes and court structures, litigate ICW matters in tribal and state courts, and advocate for Indian children in other ways.
  • Internal conflicts of interest (ethics panel): Tribal in-house counsel are confronted with issues relating to client conflicts of interest, internal tribal government conflicts, and inter-branch conflicts.
  • Working with outside counsel: Indian nations engage outside counsel on a variety of matters that tribal in-house counsel supervise.
  • Internal control systems: Indian nations have developed a wide variety of administrative structures to govern employment, finance, procurement, and other matters.
  • Jurisdiction: Indian nations’ assertion of jurisdiction of nonmembers is highly controversial. Tribal in-house counsel advise tribal clients on strategies to regulate nonmembers and litigation strategies as appropriate.

Deadline for formal proposals is February 1, 2015. Please keep proposals to 300 words or less.

Want to present but aren’t a member? Become a TICA member at www.tribalinhousecounsel.com.

MSU will cover reasonable travel expenses for speakers selected for the conference. We will be applying for CLE credits for the conference and so speakers must prepare written materials. MSU can provide research support for speakers in preparing materials, if requested.

Primary contacts:

Doreen N. McPaul, TICA President (Doreen.McPaul@tonation-nsn.gov)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher (matthew.fletcher@law.msu.edu)

Kathryn E. Fort (fort@law.msu.edu)

MSU LAW ILPC LOGO

Resources Related to FBA 2014 Ethics Panel — Later Today

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

I will be talking about many of the ideas expressed in a draft paper, “Bullshit and the Tribal Client.”

I also highly recommend Carpenter and Eli’s paper on tribal lawyering.

I will also pitch membership in the Tribal In-House Counsel Association.

Fletcher: “Bullshit and the Tribal Client”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher9 Comments

I’ll be presenting aspects of a draft paper, “Bullshit and the Tribal Client,” at Federal Indian Bar next week. Here is the abstract:

While it is well established that lawyers may not lie to their clients, it is not well established whether counsel can bullshit their potential and active clients. I do not mean bullshit as a term of abuse, but rather as philosopher Harry Frankfurt meant it. Frankfurt identified politicians and public relations professionals as examples of modern day bullshitters. Politicians and PR professionals care only about reaching their goals, and while that may include telling lies, it definitely includes making statements that no one can possibly know is true or not. All that matters is the outcome. Lawyers are bullshitters, too. And lawyers utilize bullshit for the same reason politicians do – to persuade someone to select them. Politicians want a vote; lawyers want a client. In American Indian law and policy, lawyers are not the only bullshitters – elected tribal officials are politicians, too, and many of them are bullshitters as well.

While there is a lot of bullshit going around, I am mostly (but not entirely) concerned about bullshit from outside counsel, often specialized counsel, directed at tribal clients. This paper is intended to identify areas where counsel employs bullshit when dealing with tribal clients. By counsel I mean both outside counsel and in-house counsel, and by clients I include both in-house counsel and tribal leadership. The relationship between in-house counsel and most, if not quite all, tribal government clients renders tribal clients uniquely vulnerable to bullshit by outside counsel. I offer suggestions, mostly for the benefit of in-house counsel, on how to deal with bullshit from both outside counsel and tribal officials. However, I will be the first to acknowledge that in-house may be placed in a no-win scenario, especially once appellate specialists take control of a case involving tribal interests.

Substantive comments welcome.

On another note, I recommend learning more about and perhaps joining the Tribal In-House Counsel Association.

Tribal In-House Counsel Association Announcement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This is BIG! Application here: TICA Application001

Announcing the Formation of a National Association of Tribal In-House Counsel The Tribal In-House Counsel Association is a national association that seeks to protect and promote tribal sovereignty and self-determination through the sharing of diversified knowledge and experience by in-house counsel who work for tribes and tribal entities. The Board of Directors includes in-house legal representation from tribes throughout Indian country:

(1) Bidtah N. Becker, Attorney, Water Rights Unit, Navajo Nation Department of Justice
(2} Carol J. Brown, Tribal Advocate/General Counsel, Association of Village Council Presidents
(3} Aaron Loomis, General Counsel, St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
(4} Doreen N. McPaul, Assistant Attorney General, Tohono O’odham Nation
(5} Peter Ortego, General Counsel, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
(6} Venus McGhee Prince, Attorney General, Poarch Band of Creek Indians
(7) Julie R. Wilkerson, Tribal Attorney, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians

The new Board welcomes you to join our new association as a full or associate member. Full individual membership is available to lawyers serving as in-house counsel to  tribes and tribal entities for annual dues of $75. Associate individual membership is available to any other individual that the Board of Directors determines has a demonstrated interest in furthering the goals and purposes of the Corporation for annual dues of $150. The website is currently under construction. For additional information or to submit an application for membership, please contact Venus McGhee Prince at {251) 368-9136 Ext. 2525 or vprince@pci-nsn.gov.