Legal Estoppel Legal estoppel consists of estoppel by deed and estoppel by record. Under the doctrine of estoppel by deed, a party to a property deed is precluded from asserting, as against another party to the deed, any right or title in derogation of the deed, or from denying the truth of any material fact asserted in the deed. For example, suppose a father conveys a plot of la nd to his son by deed. Unbeknownst to the son, the father actually does not own the plot of land at the time of the conveyance; the father acquires title to the property only after the conveyance. Technically, the son is not the legal owner of the property because his father did not own and did not have the right to transfer the real estate at the time of the conveyance. But under the doctrine of estoppel by deed, the court may “make good” the imperfection of the poorly timed convey ance by finding the son to be the rightful owner of the plot of land (Zayka v. Giambro, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 748, 594 N.E.2d 894 [1992]). The doctrine of estoppel by record pre- cludes a party from denying the issues adjudi- cated by a court of competent jurisdiction (collateral estoppel) or any matter sp elled out in a judicial record (judicial estoppel). Collateral estoppel, sometimes known as estoppel by judgment, prevents the re-argument of a factual or legal issue that has already been determined by a valid judgment in a prior case involving the same parties. For example, suppose Ms. Jones, who owns a business next to Mr. Smith’s, sues Mr. Smith for damage to her property caused by the digging of a hole. Mr. Smith defends by arguing that the hole is on his land. After considering all the evidence, the court determines that Mr. Smith owns the land. Later that year, after a late night at work, Mr. Smith cuts across the back lot, falls into the hole, and is injured. He then sues Ms. Jones for negligent maintenance of her property. In this situation, the court will apply collateral estop- pel, preventing Mr. Smith from re-litigating an issue that was already decided between the same parties in the prior proceeding. The related doctrine of judicial estoppel binds a party to his or her judicial declaration s, such as allegations contained in a lawsuit complaint or testimony given under oath at a previous trial. Judicial estoppel protects courts from litigants’ using opposing theories in the attempt to prevail twice. For instance, a tenant trying to avoid liability to a property owner may not, in the tenant’s BANKRUPTCY case, successfully represent to a court that the property agreement is a lease and then later, when the property owner sues for nonpayment of rent, declare that the agreement is a mortgage rather than a lease (Port Authority v. Harstad, 531 N.W.2d 496 [Minn. Ct. App. 1995]). Estoppel by record is frequently confused with the related doctrine of res judicata (a matter adjudged), which bars re-litigation of the same CAUSE OF ACTION between the same parties once there has been a judgment. For example, if Mr. Chen sues Ms. Lopez for breach of contract and the court returns a decision, Ms. Lopez cannot later sue Mr. Chen for breach of the same contract. Ms. Lopez has the right to appeal the first decision, but she cannot bring a new lawsuit that raises the same claim. FURTHER READINGS Coale, David S. 1999. “A New Framework for Judicial Estoppel.” Univ. of Texas School of Law Review of Litigation 18 (winter). Cooke, Elizabeth. 2000. The Modern Law of Estoppal. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Lundquist, John W. 1997. “They Knew What We Were Doing: The Evolution of the Criminal Estoppel Defense.” William Mitchell Law Review 23 (winter). Shapiro, David L. 2001. Civil Procedure: Preclusion in Civil Actions. New York: Foundation. ET AL. An abbreviated form of et alia, Latin for “and others.” When affixed after the name of a person, et al. indicates that additional persons are acting in the same manner, such as several plaintiffs or grantors. When et al. is used in a judgment against defendants, it means that the quoted words are applicable to all the defendants. CROSS REFERENCE Court Opinion. ET SEQ. An abbreviation for the Latin et sequentes or et sequentia, meaning “and the following.” The phrase et seq. is used in references made to particular pages or sections of cases, articles, regulations, or statutes to indicate that the desired information is continued on the pages or in the sections following a designated page or section, as “p. 238 et seq.” or “section 43 et seq.” GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ET SEQ. 249 The abbreviation et seq. is sometimes used to denote a reference to more than one following page or section. CROSS REFERENCE Court Opinion. ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978 Passed in 1978 in the shadow of the WATERGATE scandal, the Ethics in Government Act affects many different aspects of federal government employment. Its most famous provision was the INDEPENDENT COUNSEL Law, which gave impetus to very public investiga tions of officials in three presidential administrations and resulted in the IMPEACHMENT trial of President BILL CLINTON in 1999. That provision has since been allowed to lapse, but many other provisions of the act remained valid through 2003. Conflict of Interest Provisions CONFLICT OF INTEREST was one of the chief areas dealt with by the Ethics in Government Act. The act sets forth financial disclosure requirements for federal personnel. (5 USCA Appx 4 § 101 et seq). The applicable provisions detail which persons are required to file financial reports, the informa- tion which must be provided in the reports, the requirements for filing the reports, and custody of, and public access to, the reports. CIVIL ACTION and civil liability provisions allow actions to be brought for the failure to file the reports required or for the filing of false report s. When Congress first debated the Ethics and Government Act in the late 1970s, it seemed as if the nation had been through a long nightmare of ethics scandals, with Watergate being only the most prominent and devas tating. The purpose of the act was to increase public confidence in the level of integrity of federal government officials, to deter conflicts of interest from arising, and to stop unethical person from entering public service. Generally, the act made provisions for the authority and functions of the Office of Government Ethics, and set up administrative provisions, rules and regulations, and appropriations to enforce federal govern- ment ethics. It became law in 1978. The act also sets up the Office of Govern- ment Ethics with a directory appointed by the president, with consent of the Senate for a term of five years. (5 U.S.C.A. App. 4 § 401). The director provides, in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, the overall direction of executive branch polici es related to preventing conflicts of interest on the part of officers and employees of any executive agency. Upon the request of the director, each executive agency is obliged to make its services, perso nnel, and facilities available to the director to the greatest practicable extent for the performance of functions under this act; and except when prohibited by law, furnish to the director all information and records in its possession which the director may determine to be necessary for the performance of his duties. The act also sets government-wide limita- tions on outside earned income and employ- ment. (5 U.S.C.A. app. 4 § 501) It sets specific income limits based on the government offi- cial’s level of pay. It also prohibits honoraria, but that prohibition was called into question by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454, 115 S. Ct. 1003, 130 L.Ed.2d 964 (U.S.Dist.Col.,1995). In that case, the High Court determined that the honoraria prohibition imposed a significant burden on expressive activity and was the kind of burden that abridges speech under the FIRST AMENDMENT ; and that the government’sinterestin assuring that federal officers not misuse or appear to misuse power by accepting compensation for their unofficial and nonpolitical writing and speaking activities was not served by the prohibi- tion. However, the Court also limited relief to parties before the Court, i.e., lower level executive branch employees, and said the ruling would not be extended to seniorexecutivebranch employees. The Court reasoned senior employees received salary increases to offset an honoraria ban disincentive to speak and write, and, furthermore, government might advance a different justifica- tion for an honoraria ban limited to senior executives. Thus, the honoraria ban still applies to senior executive branch employees. Finally in regards to conflict of interest provisions of the act, it sets up an office of Senate Legal Counsel (2 U.S.C.A. § 288). Among other duties, the Senate Legal Counsel is charged with defending the Senate as a whole, or a committee, subcommittee, member, offi- cer, or employee of the Senate, in a court of law or against any action taken against them. The counsel also enforces Senate SUBPOENA or orders and serves in an advisory role on various LEGAL PROCEEDINGS . GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 250 ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978 Many state statutes have been passed that follow the Ethics in Government Act in regard to disclosure by government officials. New York and California have particularly strict laws. States such as Florida, Alabama, Hawaii and Pennsylvania have also enacted ethics in gov- ernment laws. The state laws generally have similar provisions to the federal government laws, though some are stricter in their require- ments and penalties. Independent C ounsel Provisions Perhaps the most controversial section of the Ethics in Government Act was the provisions for inde- pendent counsel (28 U.S.C.A. § 591). This provided in certain limited circumstances for a panel of judges to appoint an independent counsel to investigate and, if necessary, prose- cute high-ranking federal officials. It was done to prevent another “Saturday Night Massacre,” the name for what took place in 1973 when President RICHARD NIXON fired Special Prosecutor ARCHIBALD COX to try to stifle his Watergate investigations. The independent counsel sections were the only provision of the Ethics in Government Act that had to be reauthorized. A sunset claus e provided that the entire chapter of the U.S. code dealing with the Independent Counsel expired within a certain time frame. Thus the act w as reauthorized in 1983 and again in 1987, with slight changes made to its provisions each time. The chief criticism made of the independent counsel statute was that because the president could not directly fire the independent counsel, the attorney general could only remove the counsel for GOOD CAUSE, physical or mental disability, or any other condition that sub- stantially impaired the performance of the independent counsel’s duties. The independent counsel had too much power and resources for investigating the target, thus leading to long and involved inquiries which were expensive for the target of the investigation even if no wrongdo- ing was found. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court upheld the independent counsel provisi on in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 108 S.Ct. 2597, 101 L.Ed.2d 569 (U.S.Dist.Col. 1988). In 1992, following strong Republican criticism over the investiga- tion of the Iran-Contra scandal by independent counsel Lawrence Walsh, the independent counsel provision was allowed to lapse. However, it was revived in 1994 by a Demo- cratic controlled Congress. This decision led to the most controversial independent couns el in vestigation of them all: independent counsel Ken Starr’s inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s involvement in the WHITEWATER real estate scandal. Starr’s investiga- tion led to the unsuccessful impeachment trial of Clinton and became the longest and most expensive independent counsel in vestigation in history. The results of the Clinton case were divisive to both Republicans and Democrats and led to much criticism of Starr and his methods. Perhaps because of this episode, the inde- pendent counsel provision of the Ethics and Government Act was allowed to expire in 1999. The duties of the independent counsel were taken over by the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.Asof 2003, no attempt to revive the provision had been made. FURTHER READINGS Cox, Archibald. Winter, 1991–92. “Ethics in Government: The Cornerstone of Public Trust.” West Virginia Law Review 94. Koffsky, Daniel L. Spring, 1995. “Coming to Terms with Bureaucratic Ethics.” Journal of Law and Politics 11. Mears, Walter. “Independent Counsel Law’s Quiet Death.” Los Angeles Times (June 20, 1999). Available online at http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/20/news/mn-48324; website home page: http://articles.latimes.com (accessed July 22, 2009). Waldman, Mitchell. 2002. “Public Officers and Em- ployees.” In American Jurisprudence 2d. ed. Eagan, MN: West. CROSS REFERENCES Watergate; Whitewater. ETHICS, LEGAL The branch of philosophy that defines what is good for the individual and for society and establishes the nature of obligations, or duties, that people owe themselves and one another. In modern society, ethics define how individuals, professionals, and corporations choose to interact with one another. The word ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos, which means “character,” and from the Latin word mores, which means “customs.” ARISTOTLE was one of the first great philosophers to study ethics. To him, ethics was more than a moral, religious, or legal concept. He believed GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ETHICS, LEGAL 251 that the most important element in ethical behavior is knowledge that actions are accom- plished for the betterment of the common good. He asked whether actions performed by individuals or groups are good both for an individual or a group and for society. To determine what is ethically good for the individual and for society, Aristotle said , it is necessary to possess thre e virtues of practical wisdom: temperance, courage, and justice. The need to control, regulate, and legislate ethical conduct at the individual, corporate, and government levels has ancient roots. For example, one o f the earliest law codes devel- oped, the Code of Hammurabi, made bribery a crime in Babylon during the eighteenth century B.C. Most societies share certain features in their ethical codes, such as forbidding MURDER, bodily injury, and attacks on personal honor and reputation. In modern societies, the systems of law and public justice are closely related to ethics in that they determin e and enforce definite rights and duties. They also attempt to repress and punish deviations from these standards. Laws can be neutral on ethical issues, or they can be used to endorse ethics. The prologue to the U.S. Constitution states that ensuring domestic tranquility is an objective of government, which is an ethically neutral statement. CIVIL RIGHTS laws, on the other hand, promote an ethical as well as legal commitment. Often laws and the courts are required to resolve strong ethica l dilemmas in society, as in the controversial issues of ABORTION (ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147), AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S. Ct. 2733, 57 L. Ed. 2d 750), and SEGREGATION (BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873). Laws also permit many actions that will not bear ethical scrutiny. In other words, what the law permits or requires is not necessarily what is ethically right. For instance, laws allow disloyal- ty toward friends, the breaking of promises that do not have the stature of legal contracts, and a variety of deceptions. Laws sometimes require gross immoralities, as did the FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT OF 1850, which required citizens to return runaway slaves to their masters, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which in 1857 declared that slaves were not citizens but property (60 U.S. 393, 19 How. 393, 15 L. Ed. 691). Local, state, and federal regulatory acts influence the conduct of some professions. Business executives are faced with two types of ethical issues in conducting their day-to-day affairs, and the law holds them accountable for their actions in these areas. Micromanagement issues include conflicts of interest, employee rights, fair performance appraisals, SEXUAL HARASSMENT , proprietary information, discrimi- nation, and accepting or offering gifts. Macro- management issues include corporate social responsibility, PRODUCT LIABILITY, environmental ethics, COMPARABLE WORTH, layoffs and down- sizings, employee screening tests, employee rights to privacy in the workplace, and corpo- rate accountability. Although the law does influence the con- duct of some professions, many ethical issues cannot be settled by the courts. The ethics of a particular act is many times determined inde- pendently of the legality of the conduct. In fact, decisive answers cannot always be given for many ethica l issues because there are no enforceable standards or reliable theories for resolving ethical conflicts. The response of many professions to the challenging and demanding problem of institu- tionalizing business ethics is to implement codes of ethics, develop statements of corporate goals, sponsor training and educational pro- grams in ethics, install internal judiciary bodies that hear cases of improprieties, and create telephone hot lines through which employees can anonymously report possible ethical Medical professionals must adhere to a high standard of ethics. The American Medical Association has an enforceable, written code. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 252 ETHICS, LEGAL violations. A code of ethics provides members of a profession with standards of behavior and principles to be observed regarding their moral and professional obligations toward one an- other, their clients, and society in general. The primary function of a code of ethics is to provide guidance to employers and employees in ethical dilemmas, especially those that are particularly ambiguous. A code of ethics is often developed by a professional society within a particular profes- sion. The higher the degree of professionalism required of society members, the stronger and, therefore, more enforceable the code. For instance, in medicine, the behavior required is more specific and the consequences are more stringent in the code of ethics for physicians than in the code of ethics for nurses. In addition, professions that require licensure from a state-authorized board, which guaran- tees both the competency and the moral efficacy of its members, place a duty on the licensed professional to help prevent UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE by unlicensed providers as a means of protecting the public. Decisions in ethical situations can be made more easily if the code is specific, gives detailed directions on what actions should or should not be taken, and spells out explicit penalties for unethical behavior. Therefore, some large and influential professional associations have devel- oped highly detailed and enforceable codes for their membership. The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) Principles of Medical Ethics has seven provisions, supplemented by numerous interpretive opinions of a judicial council. The Model Rules of Professional Con- duct of the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (ABA) contains eight sections, construed according to 138 ethical considerations and implemented by a comparable number of parallel DISCIPLINARY RULES. The Rules of Conduct of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants has six major principles, each with numerous specifications. The American Psychological Association’sEthical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct contains six principles, with several provisions under each. Other professions with codes of responsibil- ity include dentistry, social work, education, government service, engineering, journalism, real estate, advertising, architecture, banking, insurance, and human resources management. However, because some of these professions are not licensed, anyone can claim their title and perform their function—thus making it difficult to find legal recourse to claims of UNETHICAL CONDUCT. All professional codes can be considered quasi-public because of the effect they may have on legal judgments during litigation. Many states adopt accrediting associations’ codes of ethics, thereby establishing those standards as public codifications. Failure to comply with a code can, in some professions, result in expulsion from the profession. The AMA’sPrinciplesof Medical Ethics, for example, are not laws per se, but the maximum penalty for violation of the principles is expulsion from the AMA. In addition, the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide evidence of professional stan- dards of loyalty and care, and they become directly enforceable PUBLIC LAW when they or their variants are adopted as binding upon lawyers admitted to practice within a state. The most common violations of ethics codes that are brought before state professional associations and the legal syste m are breach of contract, including that resulting from incom- petent behavior or decisions or from failure to exercise GOOD FAITH; fraud, or an intent to deceive; and professional malpractice, or NEGLI- GENCE , which include incompetence and the performance of unnecessary services. Because the legal profession is more self- regulating (i.e., regulated by attorneys and judges themselves rather than by government or outside agencies) than most professions, every state supreme court or legislature has a committee authorized to enforce the state rules of profes- sional legal conduct. The state conduct commit- tees make factual determinations on whether to privately reprimand a lawyer, publicly censure him or her, suspend the attorney’s license to practice, or permanently revoke the license (i.e., disbar the attorney, or permanently disqualify the attorney from practicing law in the state). Specific procedures on discipline in the legal profession vary from state to state, but every state allows for court review of the conduct committee’s recommendations. If a license is revoked, the lawyer may petition the committee for readmission to the bar after a period of time specified by the state rules. Not every violation results in disbarment. This drastic measure is GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ETHICS, LEGAL 253 most commonly reserved for THEFT or misuse of client funds. Besides laws based on professional bar association codes of ethics, separate federal and state laws define ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT and empower judges to discipl ine unethical conduct by attorneys. For example, rule 11 of the Federal Rules of CIVIL PROCEDURE (28 U.S.C.A.) requires sanctions for lawyers and clients who file frivolous or abusive claims in court. Courts may restrict lawyers in some cases from making public statements that would otherwise be protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT. A U.S. court of appeals held in the case In re Morrissey, 168 F.3d 134 (4th Cir. 1999) that lawyers, under certain circumstances, may be constitutionally prohibited from making pre-trial statements to the press in criminal cases if there is a “reasonable likelihood” that those s tatements would interfere with a fair trial. The appeals court continued a line of cases holding that similar restrictions upon a lawyer’sspeechareconstitu- tional in the appropriate circumstances. The attorney in Morrissey was convicted of criminal contempt for his out-of-court public statement, which violated a local court rule prohibiting certain statements during potential or imminent criminal litigation. Other circuit courts of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have reached similar results when reviewing similar restrictions, but some, such as the Seventh Circuit in Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1975), have reached opposite results. Accordingly, the permissible bounds for the restriction of a lawyer’sspeech remain somewhat vague. Although every state has adopted either the ABA’s Model Rules or one of its predecessors, the interpretation of each state’s law regarding lawyer conduct is left to the courts and ethics commissions of the various states. Like other areas of laws, these interpretations vary from state to state. In 1999 the American Law Institute (ALI) approved the RESTATEMENT OF LAW Governing Lawyers, which was designed as a codification of the rules derived from decisions of state courts, ethics commissions, and similar agencies. The Restatement is not binding upon any court, but like other Restate- ments, such as those governing contracts and property, it is a highly persuasive body of work. The Restatement includes provisions re- garding the regulation of the l egal profession, the relationship between lawyer and client, civil liability of lawyers, treatment of confiden- tial client information, representation of cli- ents, and conflicts of interest. Development of the Restatement’sprovisionstookseveral years, and the ALI considered a number of drafts before approving the final draft in 1999. State courts have already begun to interpret its provisions. For example, in Levine v. Bayne, Snell & Krause, Ltd., 40 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. 2001), the Texas Supreme Court looked to the Restate- ment to determine whether an attorney’s fee under a contract that provided for a CONTINGENT FEE arrangement should be offset by a counter- claim against the client. The Restatement resolved the dispute, and the Texas Supreme Court held that the law firm in the case should only recover a percentage of the amount recovered by the client after the counterclaim. Similarly, other state courts have applied the Restatement to resolve disputes regarding, for instance, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. Judges must comply with the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT , which was formulated by the ABA in 1972. This code is not considered law; however, federal and state governments have adopted it, and its violations are used as the basis for punitive action against judges. Any person may lodge a complaint of misconduct against a judge with the appropriate JUDICIAL REVIEW council. Punitive actions include public or private reprimand and suspension from office. New fields of ethics, such as bioethics, engineering ethics, and environmental ethics, have arisen with the rapid social change and technological developments of modern society. New areas of concern have also opened up, not just for the professions involved but for society as well. For instance, physicians, who have taken the Hippocratic Oath to save life, cure disease, and alleviate suffering, are now faced with whether to use medical devices that can prolong life at the cost of increasing suffering or to follow patients’ requests to be allowed to die without extraordinary lifesaving precautions or to be provided with medications or devices that will end life. As such professions grapple with expanding their codes of responsibility to keep up with technological advances and societal pressures for stricter business ethics, changes in laws governing business ethics are bound to change too. Since societal ethics has evolved GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 254 ETHICS, LEGAL through the law, it mirrors the ethical no rms agreed on by the majority. FURTHER READINGS Callahan, Joan C., ed. 2009. Ethical Issues in Professional Life. 2d ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Gorlin, Rena A., ed. 1999. Codes of Professional Respon- sibility. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs. Kaufman, Andrew L., and David B. Wilkins. 2009. Problems in Professional Responsibility for a Changing Profession. 4th ed. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic. Madsen, Peter, and Jay M. Shafritz. 1990. Essentials of Business Ethics. New York: Meridian. McDowell, Banks. 1991. Ethical Conduct and the Profes- sional’s Dilemma: Choosing between Service and Success. New York: Quorum. Morgan, Thomas D., and Ronald D. Rotunda. 2008. Morgan and Rotunda’s Professional Responsibility, Problems and Materials. 10th ed. St. Paul, MN: Foundation. Salbu, Steven. 1994. “True Codes versus Voluntary Codes of Ethics in International Markets: Towards the Preserva- tion of Colloquy in Emerging Global Communities.” Univ. of Pennsylvania Journal of International Business Law 15 (fall). CROSS REFERENCES Death and Dying. v ETTELBRICK, PAULA LOUISE Paula Louise Ettelbrick is a longtime public advocate for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. As a lawyer, law professor, writer, and speaker, Ettelbrick has fought for social justice and public service for nearly 30 years. Until the spring of 200 9, Ettelbrick was the executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian HUMAN RIGHTS Commission. She is a known speaker and commentator on trends related to LGBT legal and human rights, and consults with nonprofit organizations and businesses on policy develop- ment and implementation regarding the rights of LGBT people. Ettelbrick was born October 2, 1955, on a U.S. Army base in Stuttgart, Germany. Growing up in a devoutly Catholic family, she was taught by her parents that each person has an obligation to society and to the greater world, Paula Ettelbrick. COURTESY OF THE INTERNATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Paula Louise Ettelbrick 1955– ▼▼ ▼▼ 1955 2000 1975 ◆ ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆◆◆ ◆ ◆ 2003 Appointed executive director of International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) 2002 Appointed adjunct professor at NYU Law School 1999–2001 Served as family policy director for the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force 1993–94 Hired as director of public policy at the National Center of Lesbian Rights 1993–95 Bottoms v. Bottoms case 1988–93 Appointed Lambda’s legal director; opened office in L.A. and created network of cooperating attorneys all over U.S. 1984 Graduated from Wayne State Law School 1981 AIDS epidemic first identified 1990 Began teaching at NYU Law School 1998 Drafted NYC’s domestic partnership law ◆ 2009 Resigned as executive director of IGLHRC 1978 Graduated from Northern Illinois University 1973 Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund founded 1955 Born, Stuttgart, Germany 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War WE’RE TALKING ABOUT OVERHAULING A WHOLE SYSTEM THAT WAS BASED ON THE 1930S FAMILY CONSISTING OF A MALE WAGE -EARNER, A NONWORKING WIFE, AND SOME KIDS. —PAULA ETTELBRICK GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ETTELBRICK, PAULA LOUISE 255 and that all people should be treated equally. Ettelbrick’s convictions led her to social work, and after she graduated from Northern Illinois University in 1978 with a bachelor of arts degree in history, she held several social services positions, working primarily as a social worker for the women’s shelter at Boston’s Harbor Light Center. Through her work, in which she sought public benefits, housing, and employ- ment for low- and no-income women, Ettel- brick came to recognize the lack of support available for the underrepresented—in this case, poor women. Ettelbrick’s interest in women’s labor and EMPLOYMENT LAW led her to enroll in law school at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, where she was on the Wayne Law Review and clerked for several legal employers, including the United Auto Workers (UAW) Union. Working for the UAW, Ettelbrick was exposed to a variety of labor law and PUBLIC POLICY issues, and she helped draft a statement from the union’s vice president to Congress on why the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT should be reintro- duced. In 1984 she graduated cum laude and took an associate position doing commercial litigation at one of Detroit’s premiere law firms, Miller, Canfield, Paddock, and Stone. In keeping with her original desire to devote her career to public interest work, Ettelbrick left the law firm to take the position that would identify her as a leading LGBT rights advocate. She joined Lambda Legal, a test-case litigation organization founded in New York City in 1973, to advocate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans- gender CIVIL RIGHTS. When she accepted the position in 1986, the number of lawyers dedicat- ed to the r ights of LGBT people was extremely small. Ettelbrick was the first staff attorney hired in-house by Lambda and was charged with developing a national-impact litigation docket. Two years later, she was appointed legal director, a position she held until 1993. Hoping to challenge legal and social bias against gay and lesbian people, Ettelbrick litigated a variety of constitutional and CIVIL RIGHTS CASES , many related to the heightening legal crisis accompanying HIV/AIDS. Within a year, Lambda hired a second staff attorney to handle the AIDS work, freeing Ettelbrick to develop what Lambda called its Sexual Orien- tation Docket, working with cases involving LGBT families, employment, and the military. Ettelbrick advocated for legal recognition of domestic partners, unmarried couples, same-sex co-parents, and family caregivers. She was the first Lambda lawyer to testify before the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE regarding a U.S. Supreme Court nominee. Under Ettel- brick’s leadership, Lambda opened its first regional office in Los Angeles in 1990, its legal staff multiplied, and the network of cooperating attorneys willing to work with Lambda grew to more than 400. After seven years with Lambda, Ettelbrick was ready for a change, and in March 1993, she left the organization to join the National Center for Lesbian Rights as its first director of public policy. In that position, Ettelbrick concentrated on promoting social policy and legislative reform in the areas of employment rights, lesbian health policy, and lesbian and gay FAMILY LAW . Her work contributed to a substantial redrafting of the federal civil rights bill banning sexual orientation discrimi nation and met notable success with the Clinton Administration in addressing the health issues of lesbians. Ettelbrick continued to litigate on behalf of lesbians, and in 1993 and 1994 she was involved in the high-profile custody case Bottoms v. Bottoms, 18 Va. App. 481, 444 S.E. 2d 276 (Va. App. Jun 21, 1994). The case involved a lesbian, Sharon Lynne Bottoms, whose mother, Pamela Kay Bottoms, had petitioned for custody of Sharon’s child owing to Sharon’s admitted homosexuality. After Sharon lost custody of the child at the trial court level, she and Ettelbrick appealed and won custody in the Court of Appeals of Virginia. The appeals court held that the mere fact that Sharon was a lesbian and had a live-in female companion did not render her an unfit parent. In a SPLIT DECISION, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the court of appeals, reinstating custody in the child’s grandmother (457 S.E.2d 102 [1995]). This growing hostility to the rights of lesbian and gay parents prompted Ettelbrick to leave the National Center for Lesbian Rights and devote herself to advocating for LGBT rights at the state level. As the first legislative counsel for the Empire State Pride Agenda, New York’s statewide LGBT political group, Ettel- brick created model legislation for use by advocates around the country, founded the Federation of LGBT Statewide Political Organi- zations, and continued to write and promote local domestic partnership laws. Most notably, Ettelbrick drafted and helped pass New York GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 256 ETTELBRICK, PAULA LOUISE City’sfullDOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP LAW, signed by then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. In 1999 Ettelbrick was recruited by the Policy Institute of the NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE to fill a new position as its family policy director. In addition to continuing her work with state legislative groups to halt passage of anti-LGBT adoption and foster care laws, Ettelbrick spearheaded the first major public information campaign encouraging same-sex couples to complete the 2000 Census forms, so as to help researchers identify same-sex couples throughout the United States. In 2003 Ettelbrick became the executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), a New York-based group that advocates internationally against torture, discrimination, and mistreat- ment of LGBT people around the world. Under Ettelbrick’s leadership, the IGLHRC grew from a U.S only organization to an international leader in advocacy, with staff on four continents and increased representation in the UNITED NATIONS and other international human rights bodies. Ettelbrick began her 20-year tenure as an adjunct law professor in 1990 with a course on Sexuality and the Law at New York Law School, which was, at the time, one of barely a dozen law schools offering a course devoted to the issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. She also teaches at Barnard College and regularly speaks at universities, conferences, academic symposia, workplace venues, and other public forums. Ettelbrick’s “marriage debate” with former Lambda Legal colleague Tom Stoddard has become a classic within LGBT studies and was recently the focus of a 20-year retrospective symposium of the Rutgers Law Review. Ettelbrick’s professional successes are many, as a teacher, a litigator, and an advocate for a segment of the population that has been historically marginalized and denied rights taken for granted by the rest of society. FURTHER READINGS Berry, Dawn Bradley. 1996. The 50 Most Influential Women in American Law. Los Angeles: Contemporary Books. Coles, Matt (panelist), et al. 1999. “Roundtable Discussion: Where Do We Go from Here? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Civil Rights into the Next Millen- nium.” Fordham Urban Law Journal (December). “Domestic Relations Law: Visitation Rights of Lesbian Companion.” 1991. New York Law Journal (May 7). Eskridge, William N. 2001. Equality Practice: Civil Unions and the Future of Gay Rights. New York: Routledge. Ettelbrick, Paula. Forthcoming. “From Criminals and Psychopaths to the Family Next Door: The Amazing Struggle for Lesbian and Gay Inclusion.” Race, Class, and Gender. Edited by P. Rothenberg. New York: Worth Publishers. ———. 2001. “Domestic Partnership, Civil Unions, or Marriage: One Size Does Not Fit All.” Albany Law Review 64 (March). ———. 1994. Custody/Visitation Issues (Legal Issues Facing the Non-Traditional Family). Practising Law Institute Tax Law and Estate Planning Course Handbook series (April-May). ———. 1993. “Who Is a Parent?: The Need to Develop a Lesbian Conscious Family Law.” New York Law School Journal of Human Rights 10 (spring). “Litigating for Lesbian and Gay Rights: A Legal History.” 1993. Virginia Law Review 79 (October). “On the Prudence of Discussing Affirmative Action for Lesbians and Gay Men.” 1993. Stanford Law & Policy Review 5 (fall). “Same-Sex Marriage and the Right of Privacy.” 1994. Yale Law Journal 103 (April). “Symposium: Updating the LGBT Intracommunity Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage.” 2009. Rutgers Law Review 61 (spring). CROSS REFERENCES Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome; Gay and Lesbian Rights. EUTHANASIA Euthanasia comes from a Greek word, meaning good death. The term normally implies an intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who wishes to die. Euthanasia is generally defined as the act of killing an incurably ill person out of concern and compassion for that person and in an effort to limit that person’s suffering. It is sometimes called mercy killing, but many advocates of euthanasia define mercy killing more precisely as the ending of another person’s life without his or her request. Euthanasia, by contrast, is usually separated into two categories: passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. In many jurisdictions, active eutha- nasia can be considered murder or manslaughter, whereas passive euthanasia is accepted by profes- sional medical societies and by the law under certain circumstances. Passive Euthanasia Hastening the death of a person by altering some form of support and letting nature take its course is known as passive euthanasia. Examples include such actions as turning off respirators, halting medications, discontinuing food and water (so as to allow a person to dehydrate or starve to death), and choosing not to resuscitate. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION EUTHANASIA 257 Passive euthanasia also includes giving a patient large doses of morphine to control pain, in spite of the likelihood that the painkiller will suppress respiration and cause death earlier than it otherwise would have happened. Such doses of painkillers have a dual effect of relieving pain and hastening death. Administering such medication is regarded as ethical in most political jurisdic- tions and by most medical societies. These procedures are performed on term i- nally ill, suffering persons so that natural death will occur sooner. They are also commonly performed on persons in a persistent vegetative state; fo r example, individuals with massive brain damage or in a coma from which they likely will not regain consciousness. Active Euthanasia Far more controversial, active euthanasia involves causing the death of a person through a direct action, in response to a request from that person. A well-known example of active euthanasia is the death of a terminally ill Michigan patient on September 17, 1998. On that date, Dr. JACK KEVORKIAN videotaped himself administering a lethal medication to Thomas Youk, a 52-year-old Michigan man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. CBS broadcast the videotape on 60 Minutes less than a week later. Authorities subsequently charged Kevorkian with first-degree premeditat- ed MURDER, criminal assistance in a SUICIDE,and delivery of a controlled substance for administer- ing lethal medication to a terminally ill man. There was no dispute that the dose was admini- stered at the request of Mr. Youk nor any dispute that Mr. Youk was terminally ill. A jury found Kevorkian guilty of second-degree murder in 1999. He was sent to prison. Upon his release in 2007, Kevorkian promised to stop assisting with suicides, although he would continue to work for passage of legislation that would legalize physician-assisted suicide. Physician-Assisted Suicide Something of a hybrid of passive and active euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide (PAS), also known as voluntary passive euthanasia. In this case, a physician supplies information and / or the means of committing suicide (e.g., a prescription for lethal dose of sleeping pills or a supply of carbon monoxide gas) to a person, so that that individual can successfully terminate his or her own life. Physician-assisted suicide received greater public attention after Dr. Kevorkian, a retired pathologist from Michigan, participated in his first such procedure in 1990. Kevorkian set up a machine that allowed a 54-year-old woman suffering from Alzheimer’s disease (a degenera- tive neurological condition) to press a button that delivered a lethal poison into her veins. Kevor- kian went on to assist in the suicides of dozens of individuals suffering from terminal, debilitating, or chronic illnesses. In 1992 Michigan passed an assisted-suicide bill (Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.1021) that was specifically designed to stop Kevorkian’s activities, but technicalities and questions as to its constitutionality delayed its implementation, thus allowing Kevorkian to continue assisting suicides—often in direct opposition to court injunctions. Kevorkian was charged with murder several times but was not initially found guilty. When murder charges were brought against him for his first three assisted suicides, for example, they were dismissed because Michigan, at that time, had no law against ASSISTED SUICIDE. In 1994 Kevorkian was tried and found not guilty of assisting in the August 1993 suicide of Thomas W. Hyde Jr. In December 1994, however, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in People v. Kevorkian (447 Mich. 436, 527 N.W. 2d 714), that there is no constitutional right to commit suicide, with or without assistance, and upheld the Michigan statute that made assisted suicide a crime. The following year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Kevorkian’s appeal from the state supreme court’s ruling. Observers disagree about the humanity of Kevorkian’s activities. Some see him as a hero who sought to give suffering people greater choice and dignity in dying. Others point to his lack of procedural precautions and fear that the widespread practice of assisted suicide will lead to the unnecessary death of people who could have been helped by other means, including treatment for depression. Many opponents of assisted suicide find the same faults in the practice that they see in other forms of euthanasia. They envision its leading to a devaluation of human life and even to a genocidal killing of vulnerable or so-called undesirable individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court has made two important rulings on assisted suicide. In Washington v. Glucksberg (521 U.S. 702, 117 S. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 258 EUTHANASIA . enforceable, written code. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 252 ETHICS, LEGAL violations. A code of ethics provides members of a profession with standards of behavior and principles. a designated page or section, as “p. 238 et seq.” or “section 43 et seq.” GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ET SEQ. 249 The abbreviation et seq. is sometimes used to denote a reference. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ETHICS, LEGAL 253 most commonly reserved for THEFT or misuse of client funds. Besides laws based on professional bar association codes of ethics, separate