Law_School_and_Plagiarism

2 acknowledge any paraphrase of someone elses words 3

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: rect use of someone else’s words. 2. Acknowledge any paraphrase of someone else’s words. 3. Acknowledge direct use of someone else’s idea. Careful scholarship, which is especially important in an academic setting, requires adhering to two additional rules: 4. Acknowledge a source when your own analysis or conclusion builds on that source. 5. Acknowledge a source when your idea about a legal opinion came from a source other than the opinion itself. ELECTRONIC DATABASES Material obtained through any source must be attributed, including material obtained from electronic databases such as LexisNexis®; Westlaw®; and the Internet. Review the ALWD Citation Manual Rules 38, 39, and 40, and The Bluebook 17.3 for the rules on properly citing electronic sources. 4 EXERCISE First skim the following materials, which are excerpted from primary and secondary sources. Then read the excerpted sample student memorandum that attempts to incorporate those sources. For each paragraph in the student memorandum, determine whether the student has avoided committing plagiarism and explain why or why not. Answers follow. Primary Source (as downloaded from Westlaw) Sample Student Memorandum Whiteside v. Griffis & Griffis, P.C., 902 S.W.2d 739, 744 (Tex. App. 1995). ¶1 Although agreements anticipating competition, like the one at issue, may The rationale behind the majority view is clear. The purpose of DR 2- ultimately prevent client grabbing, the 108 is to protect the public’s courts often hold that the agreements are right to select the attorney of unenforceable. Kirstan Penasack, Student their choice. Anderson, 461 N.W.2d at 601; Jacob, 607 A.2d at 148; Author, Abandoning the Per Se Rule Cohen, 550 N.E.2d at 411; Spiegel, Against Law Firm Agreements Anticipating 811 S.W.2d at 530; see 2 Geoffrey Competition: Comment on Haight, Brown C. Hazard, Jr. & W. William Hodes, The Law of Lawyering § 5.6:101 & Bonesteel v. Superior Court of Los (1990); Terry, supra, at 1072; Angeles County, 5 Geo. J. Leg....
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 01/15/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online