To search California and other state and federal cases for free, you can use Google Scholar. Google Scholar can be reached from the Google.com home page by clicking the Apps icon, selecting the More tab from the pop-up, then selecting Even More and finally  selecting Scholar.  Better yet, you can go directly to Scholar with this URL: http://scholar.google.com (we recommend you bookmark it if you use if often). 

The cases come from a variety of sources, such as Cornell LII, Justia, Public.Resource.org, and official court sites. Scholar contains opinions from the following courts:

• All U.S state appellate and state supreme courts back to 1950
• U.S. federal district, appellate, tax, and bankruptcy courts back to 1923
• Court of Claims from 1929 to 1982 (when the court was abolished)
• Court of Customs and Patent Appeals from 1929 to 1982 (when the court was abolished)
• Customs Court from 1949 to 1980 (when it was replaced by the Court of International Trade)
• Court of International Trade from 1980 (when it replaced the Customs Court) to the present
• Board of Tax Appeals from 1924 (when it was established) to 1942 (when it became the Tax Court)
• Tax Court from 1943  (when it replaced the Board of Tax Appeals) to the present
• U.S. Supreme Court back to 1791

Google states that it does not guarantee its coverage to be complete or accurate.  The Customs Court and Tax Court, for example do not appear to be complete for all years, especially for older years.  It would be a good idea to double-check your research, especially for older cases, in another database if possible.  If a particular case is not available online for free in full-text format, Google Scholar search results will only include a citation. 

There are three ways to search case law using Google Scholar.  To use any of the three methods, first select the Case law (radio button under the search box. Three pre-filtering options will then appear—a Federal Courts radio button, a radio button for the state you are in (or the jurisdiction you have saved in a previous search), and a Select courts link.

After you have selected Case law, you can search in one of three ways:

1. enter your search terms directly into the search box, which will search all jurisdictions;
2. enter your search terms into the Advanced search feature, which we will explain below; or
3. pre-filter your search by selecting certain courts to search, such as Federal courts or Illinois courts, or by using the Select courts link, as in the illustration above. If you use the first or second methods (and enter your search terms now), you may still want to filter the results by court or other criteria afterward.  We will discuss how to do this below.  

If you click Select courts, a screen containing all the courts Google Scholar covers will appear.  You can then use the checkboxes to choose any combination of courts to search.  

For example, for a customized all federal court opinions search, you would click the Select all link just to the right of the Federal courts heading to select all federal courts. This will include the U.S. Supreme Court, all federal appellate courts, the 1st Circuit Appeals and District (through the 11th and D.C.), the Federal Circuit, the Tax Courts and Board of Tax Appeals, Bankruptcy Courts, etc. Or, you could search one federal court or multiple (instead of all) federal courts. You could also mix and match federal and state courts.

For a customized all-state court opinions search, you would click the Select all link beside the State courts heading. To search only the state courts of Nebraska, on the other hand, click the Clear all link beside the State courts heading (as well as the one beside Federal courts, if you had selected any) and then check the box next to Nebraska.  If you only want the Nebraska Supreme Court but not the Nebraska Court of Appeals, simply click the Court of Appeals checkbox to uncheck it.  (This will also uncheck the main Nebraska box, as well.)  When you are finished making your court selections, click Done to close the courts screen.

When you click the Select courts link to use the check boxes to select jurisdictions before entering a search , clicking Done takes you to a screen with a single Google Scholar search box and the instructions “Please enter a query in the search box above.”  If you wish to use the Advanced search feature at this point (which we recommend), you may click the small arrow to the right of the My Citations button.  A drop-down menu will appear, and you can select Advanced search.  (My Citations is a recently added feature that helps authors track citations to their own publications.)

You can also access the Advanced search from Google Scholar’s home page (in one of two ways, depending on your browser).  Most users can access the Advanced search option by clicking a small downward-facing arrow in the right side of the search box.  This arrow does not always appear, however, and some users may need to access the feature by clicking an Advanced search link at the top of the Google Scholar home page.  Regardless of how you access the Advanced search, the menu will look the same. Before selecting the Advanced search, be sure you have changed the Articles default to Case law if you want to search case law.

Google frequently updates its features, and one of these recent updates includes the removal of the separate Advanced search page with four sections, which was known as the “old venerable” look.  Researchers must now use the “modern” version which essentially consists of a pop-up box containing two of the four sections that had been available with the venerable look.  Despite its simplified format, however, you can still create better and more targeted searches with the Advanced search than without it.

Searching Google Scholar is similar to searching Google.com as far as Boolean, keyword, and phrase searching are concerned, but proximity searching does not seem to work all the time. Although there are some Google Scholar-specific search tips (http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/help.html#searching), which explain how to use the Advanced Search menu, they focus primarily on how to search for articles. To compensate for Google’s lack of documentation about how to search the case law portion of Google Scholar and its Advanced search, we have run a number of test searches to offer searchers some guidance.

The Google Scholar Advanced search menu is labeled Find Articles, but it should be labeled “Find Articles and Opinions” because this is where researchers enter words and phrases to also search Google Scholar’s opinions database. The first four search boxes in this section are similar to the Google.com Advanced Search page but there are some differences, such as he the drop-down menu labeled where my words occur. You can use this drop-down menu to select either in the title of the article (this should really be labeled “in the party names of the case”, such as roe wade to search for Roe v. Wade) or anywhere in the article (this should really be labeled “anywhere in the case”).

The Find articles section provides keyword/Boolean connector field boxes for you to enter your search terms into and a phrase field box.

In addition these fields allow you to create searches that are unique to opinions. For example, to force a search by citation, enter the citation (in Bluebook style) into the exact phrase search box. Even though a case citation is not an “article,” the results will include cases.

To force a case search by party name, first limit the results to a specific court (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court) if you know which court decided the case. Next, enter the party names (e.g., Roe v. Wade) into the exact phrase search box, making sure to use “v.” and not “versus” or “vs.” Finally, from the where my words occur drop-down menu, select in the title of the article. This search brought back one opinion. It did not bring back any articles because choosing a court eliminates articles in the search results.

The remainder of the Advanced search box provides search fields for Author, Publication, and Date. The label “Judge” could be substituted for the “Author” label because this is where a judge’s name can be entered when researching opinions.  Test searches indicate that this field does not necessarily return opinions (or concurrences or dissents) authored by the judge searched, however. Any case in which the judge’s name appears (i.e., if he or she heard the case, but did not author the opinion) can appear in the search results.

Once you have selected which courts to search and entered your search terms, you will receive the list of results, much like any other list of search results.  However, Google Scholar now provides search result filtering options for legal document searches, and you can use these to refine your research even more.  You will find the filtering options in a sidebar on the left side of the search results page.

After you have executed a search and refined your results, you will begin reviewing the cases by clicking any search result link to view a full-text opinion with Google Scholar.

Keywords are automatically highlighted in pale yellow, but you can remove the highlighting by clicking the small “x” in the upper right corner of the screen. Page numbers in the left-hand margin and throughout the text of the opinion correspond to the pages in the printed reporter (usually the official reporter), as shown in the Federal Reporter in the illustration above. The upper left corner of the screen contains three links—Read, How cited, and Search.  The Read link is inactive on this screen because you are already reading the case. Clicking How cited will show other cases that cited this case and can help you conduct a rudimentary citation check of your case.

Google Scholar allows you to create alerts to receive regular e-mail alerts about cases on any chosen topic emanating from any chosen court.  If your search included articles, legal journals, or patents, those would be included in your alert results. You can also set up alerts using a citation or keywords, such as a party, judge, or attorney name. The alert defaults to your current search, but you can revise the alert by typing in other keywords/phrases and selecting up to 10 or up to 20 results at a time. You do not have to have a Google account to set up an alert, although if you don’t, Google may require you to click a verification link in order to begin receiving alerts.

FindLaw’s “Powered By ACCESSLAW” California Case Law Database

FindLaw.com offers a free California case-law database, powered by ACCESSLAW, which provides coverage of California case law back to 1934 (http://www.findlaw.com/cacases/index.html#dirsearch2). California Appellate and the California Supreme cases can only be searched together. To use the FindLaw.com California case law database (http://www.findlaw.com/cacases/index.html#dirsearch2), scroll down the page to “Powered By ACCESSLAW.”

After you run your search, there will be a results list displaying the summary of the case. Click the case name and then click the Read link to view the full text of the case. Note that you must be logged into your free FindLaw account to view the full text. (To register for a free account, see http://linkon.in/csv4n0.)

You can search by:

• Citation by clicking on the Citation tab or
• by Advanced Search by clicking on its tab.

The Advanced Search menu allows you to search by the following criteria:

1. Keywords and Phrases (full text)
   1. The Boolean operators AND, OR, and the proximity operator NEAR (which places words on the same page, “close together,” according to the help page) can still be used to connect keywords and phrases. Note that the above operators must be in all capital letters; otherwise the search engine will treat them as regular search terms. Even when the connectors appear to be functioning correctly, FindLaw often highlights them in results, as if they were regular search terms. 
   1. To search for an exact phrase, enclose it in quotation marks. (Although this technique will locate cases containing the phrase, the individual terms will also be highlighted in the cases.)
2. Docket Number
3. Party Name
4. Judge Name
5. Attorney Name
6. Cite Check (for an explanation of Cite Check, see the later section with the heading “Is it “Good Law”?).

Cases can also be browsed by date or volume if you scroll down the Advanced Search page. Some other helpful navigational features on FindLaw are the hyper-links that link to any of the California cases that are cited in the case being viewed. This assists a researcher to expand his or her research to related cases. FindLaw’s ACCESSLAW database uses the Boolean connectors “and”, “or” and “not.” If you leave a space between words, it will not understand your request—you must use one of the Boolean connectors. To search for an exact phrase, enclose it in quotation marks.

Once you click on a case result, notice the links labeled Do Another California Case Law Search and Cases Citing This Case. CAVEAT: The Do Another California Case Law Search link does not always appear to work, however, and we have informed FindLaw, so hopefully there will be a fix by the time you read this. 

FindLaw's U.S. Supreme Court, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and         Other State Online Case Law Databases

FindLaw also offers U.S. Supreme Court cases back to 1893 (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html, U.S. Courts of Appeals cases back to 1995 or 1996 (but the First Circuit goes back to 1984), and all fifty state courts’ cases dating back to 1997 (for most states). NOTE: FindLaw has two separate databases for California cases: one that is part of the fifty-state court case law database (which only goes back to 1997) and the ACCESSLAW one discussed in the prior paragraph. You will want to use ACCESSLAW, not only because it goes back further in time (1934), but because it offers more search capabilities.

To find FindLaw’s U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit Courts of Appeals case law databases and all fifty states’ case law databases select the “Cases & Codes” tab on the upper-left side of FindLaw’s home page at http://lp.findlaw.com and then:

Scroll down to “Browse Cases and Codes”

For the U.S. Supreme Court or any of the Circuit Courts of Appeals, scroll down to “US Courts of Appeals - Opinions & Resources” and select one of the courts.

For one of the state’s courts, scroll down to “State Resources” and select a state. Then, scroll down to “State Court Opinions” and choose the database labeled “From FindLaw.”

FindLaw’s U.S. Supreme Court cases (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html) are searchable by Citation, Full-text, or Party name. For an explanation of how to cite check U.S. Supreme Court cases, see the later section with the heading “Is it “Good Law”?

FindLaw’s Circuit court cases and state cases are searchable by Free Text Search—also known as a full-text search (keywords and phrases-see the explanation of how to search in the section about ACCESSLAW), Party Name Search (although the  Party Name Search states it includes Counsel and Judge Names, only a party name search worked for us), and Docket Number (instead of the Citation search found at the U.S. Supreme Court database). A Date Range can also be added to the preceding searches (the U.S. Supreme Court database does not offer this option). The Circuit and state courts case law search menu also contains a Browse by Court tab, which displays opinions in reverse date order by year/month.

FindLaw adds cases to its database on a daily basis and FindLaw highlights your search terms.

Lexis' Free California Case Law Database Provided at the Court’s Official Site 

A free California case law database is provided by Lexis at the court's California Official Reports Public Access Web site  http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts), with coverage back to 1850.

The home page defaults to a Search By Terms page where the researcher uses natural language words or phrases to search for published or unpublished cases (see next illustration).  California Appellate and Supreme Courts can be searched together or separately and a date restriction can be added to the search.  The Search by Terms page is very basic and does not accept Boolean connectors or truncation symbols. Researchers type their research issue into the search box using terms (keywords), phrases, lists, or a “natural language”  sentence (e.g., Where can I find cases about “negligence per se” and also products or goods?).

Although there is a warning that a search will only retrieve the 25 most relevant cases, test searches retrieved varying numbers of results higher than 25 and up to 100. Results are displayed in the Cite View, which shows the citation and our search terms highlighted within partial sentences.  This view can be switched to Full, KWIC (KWIC stands for “keywords in context” so each case result will be displayed with 25 words on either side of our keywords), or Custom.  (For example, case results could be displayed with a citation only or with a citation and the counsel names only.  There are over twenty custom display options.) Results can be Sorted By either Relevance or Date. The Focus search allows a researcher to enter one or more keywords or phrases to re-run the search within the current search results (to narrow down the search further).

When a case is being viewed, colored “treatment” flags indicate how other cases have treated your case (e.g., positive, negative, etc., treatment). The green plus sign indicates there is positive treatment of this case.  If researchers click the plus sign, however, they are shown this message: “ERROR: Shepard’s is not available to you under your current subscription agreement.”  Nevertheless, the treatment flags are a valuable editorial enhancement to this database, as they let a researcher know whether a case is likely to be good law. 

On the left-hand column of the search page for both Terms (natural language) or Terms and Connectors, there are additional search options: By Citation (official only), By Party Name (plaintiff or defendant or both), By Judge, and Advanced.  The Advanced search link will take you to a Search By Terms & Connectors page that looks almost identical to the Search by Terms (natural language) screen.  The only difference is that the search box, now labeled Search for Opinions by Terms & Connectors, will accept Boolean operators with your search terms. 

Although Lexis has provided some helpful tips for Terms and Connectors searching, you must first run a search to view them (by clicking Advanced), so we will provide a brief overview here.  The Terms and Connectors searching on this site functions similarly to the pay Lexis databases.  The basic connectors and, or and and not are available, as are several proximity connectors, such as w/n (within n words of the next word or phrase) w/s (within the same sentence as), w/p (within the same paragraph as), and w/seg (within the same segment as).  And not can also be combined with the proximity connectors for even more advanced searching.  In addition, several search commands, such as atleast, allcaps, caps, nocaps, plural and singular are available to researchers.  And finally, the wildcard symbols ( ! ) and ( * ) can be used in Terms and Connectors searching (but not in a natural language search).  The Boolean and proximity connectors and the search commands are case insensitive.  Note: Although you are not required to enclose phrases in quotation marks in the Terms and Connectors searches (but you are in Terms--natural language searches), our test searches show that it is a good idea to always put them in quotation marks, both in natural language and Terms and Connectors searching. 

Lexis displays the list of case results in reverse chronological order and includes both the case name and the date of the case. Most researchers prefer to look at recent cases first rather than older cases first, thus the reverse chronological order display makes navigating through the list easy.

Is it “Good Law”?

Note that the cases found at these free sites (and even at a court's own official site) are “slip opinions" and may not yet be final. They are subject to clerical corrections, modifications and rehearing. California Court of Appeal slip opinions are subject to a grant of review or to a de-publication order by the California Supreme Court. And, of course, opinions can be overruled or reversed. Thus, before relying on a case, attorneys need to verify that the case is still “good law.” To verify a California ACCESSLAW case at FindLaw, use the Advanced Search menu (http://www.findlaw.com/cacases/index.html#dirsearch2) and enter a citation into the search box labeled “Cite check: Find Cases which cite another case." In the alternative, while reading a California ACCESSLAW case at FindLaw, you can click the link labeled "Cases citing this case." While reading a U.S. Supreme Court case at FindLaw, you can click the link labeled "Cases citing this case: Supreme Court" or "Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts" to learn how your case has been treated by other cases. There is no free FindLaw citator service for the U. S. Courts of Appeals or states other than California.

Google Scholar, however, has a citator feature for all courts. It is the "How cited tab" (displayed to the right of the "View this case" tab) when viewing a Google Scholar case.

None of these free citator services provide editorial treatment. Instead, you will need to read the case to learn how your case has been treated by other cases and whether it's still good law. And, none of the free citators will tell you if an included unpublished case was later affirmed or reversed by a published case. 

Official California State Court Dockets

Case information (dockets) for California Supreme and Appellate Courts can be searched at the official state court site (http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov). To locate information about specific cases, select the Supreme Court or an individual district (or county if you don’t know its district number) and then beneath "Select a function" click the "Search" button. You can search by docket number, attorney name, law firm, case name, or case caption. From the case summary screen, you can link to docket entries, future scheduled actions, briefs, trial court information (including the name of the trial court judge), request automatic e-mail notification of case actions, etc. You may select which case actions to be notified of including “record on appeal filed, brief filed, calendar notice, disposition, and remittitur issued.”

Justia's Free Federal Docket Web Site 

Justia’s U.S. District Court’s civil case filings and dockets database (http://dockets.justia.com) provides free searching of the federal district court’s civil filings and dockets and and the U.S. Courts of Appeals’ dockets from 2004 to present. This database is updated multiple times per day. This Justia database can’t be searched by keywords and phrases. Instead, it is searched by one or more of the following “field” options: party name, court, date, or lawsuit type. “Lawsuit type” refers to the Nature of the Suit (“NOS”), which is assigned by the court. For example, in the Lawsuit Type search box, you could search by the NOS Airplane Product Liability to search all cases relating to that one topic. You would leave the party name search box empty, but you could narrow down the search with dates or specific federal district courts (e.g. all California Federal District Courts or only the California Federal Central District Court). The database can also be browsed by state, NOS, or case name.

While the opinions and orders noted on the docket sheet are available from Justia, only select underlying pleadings (complaints, answers, etc.) are. Researchers are directed to the government’s pay database, PACER. At PACER, one can also search the dockets of the Bankruptcy Court—something that Justia does not offer.

California Court Forms

Court forms can be browsed by Category, Number, or Name  or searched by Keyword or by Number (http://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm). Also, you can view a list of recently changed forms by clicking Latest Changes from the left-hand side column. Most forms are interactive and can be saved and printed.

This article was adapted from the book, “Internet Legal Research on a Budget” by Carole Levitt and Judy Davis (ABA LPD 2014). Reprinted with permission of the American Bar Association. All rights reserved.

The post Free California Internet Legal Research appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

How many hours of MCLE credit do California lawyers need to earn?

California attorneys must earn 25 hours of MCLE credit every three years. 

A California attorneys' MCLE compliance deadline is dictated by the first letter of their last name. (See below.)

What are the specialized categories/requirements for California lawyer MCLE compliance?

The 25 hours of MCLE that California attorneys must earn every three years must include:

• Legal Ethics - 4 hours
• Substance Abuse - 1 hour
• Elimination of Bias - 1 hour

What's the difference between Participatory and Self-Study MCLE credit?

In order to qualify for participatory MCLE credit in California, the provider must be able to verify the attorney's participation and completion of the MCLE exercise and keep appropriate records of such that must be available to the Bar upon request.

The California State Bar MCLE rules require a minimum of 12.5 of an attorney's 25 MCLE hours to be Participatory.

California attorneys can earn all of their MCLE credit online.

• Group 3 (N-Z) California MCLE Compliance Period: 2/1/2011 - 1/31/2014 
  • California MCLE Reporting Deadline 2/1/2014
• Group 2 (H-M) California MCLE Compliance Period: 2/1/2012 - 1/31/2015 
  • California MCLE Reporting Deadline 2/1/2012
• Group 1 (A-G) California MCLE Compliance Period: 2/1/2013 - 1/31/2016
  
  • California MCLE Reporting Deadline 2/1/2016

California attorneys are required to report their MCLE compliance by February 1 online via their "My State Bar" profile.

California Attorneys can earn all of their required 25 hours online with Internet For Lawyers' interactive MCLE exercises. Internet For Lawyers' exercises are designed to help Attorneys locate information on the Internet that can be useful to the cases they handle in their practices. We offer a total of 26 hours of California MCLE exercises from which lawyers can choose. Of these MCLE credit hours, 16 hours qualify for Participatory California MCLE credit and 10 qualify for Self-Study California MCLE credit.

For more information on our MCLE exercises and special package prices for multi-hour bundles, see http://www.netforlawyers.com/online_mcle_catalog.htm.

Internet For Lawyers is a California State Bar approved MCLE provider (number 9836).

The post California MCLE appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

FOUR HOURS - LEGAL ETHICS

Add exercises below to your cart, create your own bundle of any 4 hours or more, and save 25% with discount code 2015MCLE25.

Add exercises below to your cart and create your own bundle.

SIX HOURS - LEGAL ETHICS, ELIMINATION OF BIAS & SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Add exercises below to your cart, create your own bundle of any 4 hours or more, and save 25% with discount code 2015MCLE25.

ANY FOUR HOURS

Add exercises below to your cart, create your own bundle of any 4 hours or more, and save 25% with discount code 2015MCLE25.

ANY SIX HOURS

Add exercises below to your cart, create your own bundle of any 4 hours or more, and save 25% with discount code 2015MCLE25.

ANY EIGHT HOURS

Add exercises below to your cart, create your own bundle of any 4 hours or more, and save 25% with discount code 2015MCLE25.

Add exercises below to your cart, create your own bundle of any 4 hours or more, and save 25% with discount code 2015MCLE25.

The post Online Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Catalog for California Attorneys & Paralegals appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

By Roy S. Ginsburg, JD

During the past three-four decades, achieving diversity in the legal profession has been the goal of many within, as well as outside, of the profession. If you google the terms “diversity” and “legal profession,” there are over a million and half results. Many of them describe the efforts of the American Bar Association (ABA), numerous state and local bar associations, law firms, corporate legal departments, law schools, court systems and others to increase the number of minority and women attorneys.

Progress has certainly been made for both groups and much of it is likely attributable to those efforts. However, few would deny that progress has been somewhat stalled, especially for minority lawyers. African-Americans make up 13.4% of the U.S. population, but less than 4% practice law. Latinos comprise 14%, but only 3.3% practice. The statistics in private law firms are even more discouraging. According to the Association for Legal Professionals (NALP), only 6% of partners at firms are minorities and a mere 2% are minority women.

The future looks even bleaker when one looks at demographic trends. The percentage of minority law school graduates has remained relatively constant over the past decade at around 20%. Yet according to the U.S. Census Bureau, by the year 2042, minorities will constitute a majority of the population in the U.S. In other words, in almost 30 years, our country will be a “majority minority” one. If law school graduation of minorities does not increase significantly during that time, the legal profession will become even less representative of the diverse communities that it presently serves.

“Pipeline” efforts are the newest trend within the legal profession’s diversity realm to address this issue. Pipeline programs are designed to reach out to minorities early and throughout their educations. Because of long standing socioeconomic inequalities, there are many “leaks” in the pipeline that create an insufficient number of minority college graduates with in interest in pursuing a legal career. Some examples of leaks include:

• Minorities graduate from high school at lower rates that whites
• Those minorities who do graduate from high school are less likely to attend college than whites
• Once in college, minorities are less likely to graduate on time when compared to whites
• The test score gap between minorities and whites begins as early as elementary school and continues throughout college and graduate levels

Once in law school, leaks continue. Law students of color have a disproportionately lower application, enrollment and graduation rate than whites.

A substantial number of potential minority law students are lost as a result of the leaks. Pipeline programs are intended to plug those leaks.

The ABA has studied this problem and in its “Collaborating To Expand the Pipeline” report, has identified three strategies to tackle this difficult and persistent problem. They include:

• Breaking down institutional and systemic barriers that impede the educational success of minorities
• Developing meaningful mentoring and networking opportunities for minorities
• Providing quality academic assistance to minorities

Barriers

Perhaps the biggest barrier is insufficient funding for education and it usually exists throughout the pre-K - 12 levels. Suggestions by the ABA include:

• Implementing special programs designed to inspire at-risk students to stay in school
• Providing career awareness services to encourage students to consider law as a career
• Design law-related workshops, mock trials and debate programs, or other activities that expose students to a variety of aspects of the legal system
• Offer college preparatory coursework and standardized test preparation

Furthermore, at the college level, minorities need to have a better understanding of selecting proper courses, as well as intensive LSAT preparatory classes.

Mentoring and Networking

Programs are needed throughout the pipeline continuum that enable minorities to develop and sustain relationships with mentors and role models. These individuals can then help minorities stay focused on their goals. In addition, they can provide introductions, recommendations and access to their networks. Other means where mentors can help include:

• Workshops that encourage students to make positive life choices
• Activities such as job shadowing, that provide students with exposure to the legal system
• Job interviewing workshops

Academic Assistance

Educational support is crucial to achieve higher graduation rates and standardized test scores. Such assistance can take the form of:

• Tutoring services in core academic subjects and test-taking skills
• Summer school programs
• Extra-curricular activities
• Career planning services

Stakeholder Groups

Just as the initiatives noted above are numerous and varied, so too, are the providers of them. They include:

• Schools, school districts and state education agencies
• Parents, guidance counselors, mentors, PTOs and PTAs
• Community colleges, universities and law schools
• Law school minority student organizations
• Local, state, national and minority bar associations
• Law firms and corporate legal departments
• Judiciary
• Local, state and federal agencies
• Private foundations

The Importance of Collaboration

While the ABA has identified institutional barriers that pipeline programs need to break down, pipeline efforts, in and of themselves, face a major barrier. That barrier is the failure of individual program leaders to collaborate with one another. Put simply, the left hand at times, has no idea what the right hand is doing. It is not unusual to find communities with a wide variety of programs addressing the issues noted above, but their efforts are not sufficiently coordinated in any formal or informal manner.

Collaboration is a must. As an initial matter, it is important to ensure that the programs do not duplicate efforts or even worse, trip over one another and impede progress. Furthermore, when efforts are collaborated, leaders may be able to identify opportunities where working together can jump-start certain types of initiatives. Under certain circumstances, one plus one could equal three.

More fundamentally, the pipeline is a continuum of efforts that span almost twenty years during the life of a theoretical minority youth who hopefully will enter the legal profession. No component of the pipeline can be truly successful unless earlier components were effective. If one link in the chain breaks, earlier efforts may have been wasted. In order to make sure the chain remains unbroken, pipeline program leaders need to first, make sure that efforts exist throughout the continuum. Moreover, there needs to be a smooth transition among the initiatives. Handoffs need to be carefully planned or there will inevitably be fumbles. The only way to ensure a winning game plan is through collaboration.

Collaboration is easier said than done. One would think that since all pipeline efforts share the same goals, collaboration should not be problematic. In reality, it is. While the overall goal may be common, the underlying motivating factors driving the individual pipeline efforts may differ. Furthermore, resources and expectations will vary from initiative to initiative. Human nature is such that it is far easier for leaders to build walls around their programs than to share resources and information with others. In short, collaboration can feel threatening and stressful to some program leaders and supporters. Instead, collaborating parties need to set goals together when appropriate and develop trusting relationships. This is no easy task, but imperative if pipeline programs are to work effectively.

Show Me the Money

Finally, it should come as no surprise that funding of all pipeline efforts can frequently be challenging, especially in this uncertain economy. Predictable funding sources are crucial, but more difficult than ever to find both in the public and private sectors. Moreover, while projects routinely rely on volunteers, most programs require some paid staff in order to maintain continuity and momentum. In order to sustain adequate funding, all collaborators must place a high priority on educating communities and funding resources of the benefits of pipeline diversity efforts and a diverse legal profession as a whole.

Reasons to be Optimistic

If you google the terms “legal profession,” diversity and pipeline, more than 200,000 results appear. Work is being done, but there remains plenty to do.

If you are interested in submitting an article for consideration for a future issue of the Internet For Lawyers newsletter, send it as an attachment (in Microsoft Word) to editor@netforlawyers.com.

Share this artice:          

The post Pipeline Programs Enhance Diversity Efforts in the Legal Profession appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Our online MCLE exercises are text-based and accessible via any computer with an Internet connection.

After your payment was completed, you should have received two e-mails:
•  a receipt for your purchase, and
•  instructions/links to access your exercises.

Follow the directions and links in that second e-mail to access the exercises. (If you purchase multiple exercises use the individual "Download" buttons to access each exercise. Do not use the "Download All" button.)

If you cannot locate the instructions e-mail , send us a message at MCLE@netforlawyers.com with the e-mail address and name used to submit your exercises and we will re-send the instructions e-mail to you..

Note that these exercises each for Self-study credit. Each of the Legal Ethics, Substance Abuse, and Elimination of Bias exercises qualify for 1 credit each. Note that some of the General Credit exercises qualify for 1 hour of credit and others qualify for 2-hours of credit. (Credit-hour and category designations are listed on this page http://www.netforlawyers.com/page/access-page-online-participatory-legal-ethics-general-elimination-bias-and-substance-abuse-onli.)

Once you select your exercise(s) you would read the associated article(s), answer the quiz questions, and click the submit button. (Some exercises have a separate article while others have the reading material integrated into the quiz or the web resources referred to in the quiz.)

What if I paid for MCLE exercises prior to January 20, 2015 - and now I can't access the quizzes?

We have updated our MCLE system to automatically generate Certificates of Completion immediately upon successful completion of an exercise.

You can still access those exercises in our old system here. These quizzes require us to manually review your submission to issue your Certificate of Completion. Close to the MCLE deadline, it can take 5-7 days for us to certify your submission and send those Certificates of Completion. (Your Certificate of Completion reflects THE DATE ON WHICH YOU SUBMITTED THE EXERCISE.

You can also e-mail us at MCLE@netforlawyers.com with the name(s) of any exercises you paid for prior to 1/20/15 but have not yet completed. We will send you links (in the new system) to access the exercise(s) you have paid for but not completed. Please also include the name and e-mail address used to to originally purchase the exercises.

How do I receive my Certificates of Completion for these online MCLE exercises once I complete them?

Our new Online MCLE system automatically generates your California MCLE Certificate of Completion immediately after you successfully complete an exercise.

These California MCLE Certificate of Completion are sent as an e-mail attachment and include the date/time you successfully completed the exercise, along with the title/credit category/credit hours for the MCLE exercise. The forms are customized with your name and Bar Number (or Paralegal title). Your California MCLE Certificate of Completion serves as your "proof of completion" in the event that your MCLE compliance is audited by the Bar at some later date. You are required to keep it in your records for four years.

If you did not receive your California MCLE Certificate of Completion, send us a message at MCLE@netforlawyers.com with the e-mail address and name used to submit your exercises and we will re-send it to you.

Thank you for completing a portion of your MCLE requirement online with Internet For Lawyers.

The post Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Submitting, Completing, and Certifying Online MCLE Exercises Completed with Internet For Lawyers appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Lawyers looking for evidence need to start thinking about looking "virtually." With increasing amounts of "paperless" information being added to the Internet every minute of every day, there is an increasing chance lawyers could find potentially relevant evidence there. Evidence to prove or refute a point in contention, get the upper hand in a settlement conference, or decide whether to even take a client’s case, might be found in both the near and far reaches of the Internet. Taking a virtual look at the "near reaches" of the Internet means searching the Website of the person or company being researched. More often than not, useful information will be posted there that can be used as evidence. For example, after being attacked by skin-heads, a client learned that his name, address, and picture, along with a call to action to attack him, had been posted on a skin-head organization’s website. When the lawyer accessed the website, the information about his client had been removed. Not willing to give up, he turned to his teenaged nephew who advised him that the old web pages might be stored at the Internet Archive Way Back Machine (archive.org), a non-profit organization that stores old Web pages to preserve virtual history.

Archive.org

While this lawyer did find the incriminating pages at Archive.org, if he had not, this would not have necessarily proven they had never appeared on the skin-head site because: (1) the Internet Archive does not archive every page of every Web site; (2) there is a six to 18-month (or more) delay before pages are archived on the Internet Archive site; and (3) Web site owners can request their site not be archived. If a Web site owner has requested that their site not be archived, this fact appears in the search results at Archive.org. In that case, the lawyer at least would surmise that the site owner had something to hide and could attempt to subpoena the pages from the site owner.

Getting Archive.org Pages Admitted into Evidence

Once a lawyer finds evidence on an Internet Web site, the next step is to get the pages admitted into evidence. Getting Internet evidence admitted should be no different than getting other traditional evidence admitted: it must be (1) relevant; (2) authentic; and (3) admissible. But, getting pages into evidence from the Archive.org, in particular, may prove more difficult than getting pages from other Web sites (which are currently on the Web), into evidence.

In the skin head beating case, it would seem obvious that the evidence is relevant. Showing that the evidence was authentic could be accomplished by pointing to an unreported case, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, Case No. 02C3293 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004), available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/45878902/Telewizja-Polska-Internet-Archive-Case (see pages 13-15 of the document), where federal court Magistrate Keys, in a motion in limine, rejected defendant’s claim thatWweb pages from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine were unreliable. Instead, the Magistrate found that Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 901 "requires only a prima facie showing of genuineness and leaves it to the jury to determine the true authenticity…"of the archived Web pages. The Magistrate also explained that the Internet Archive Web pages were: 

• not hearsay
• not “statements” but merely images and text showing what the Web site once looked like
• admissions by a party-opponent.

Everything we have read about the Telewijza Polska case cites to the Magistrate's reasoning, except for one article that asserts that District Court Judge Ronald Guzman overruled Magistrate Keys' findings at the actual trial, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, Case No. 03293 (N.D. Ill. 2004). Strangely enough, the article is from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_Machine#Telewizja_Polska), not necessarily considered a trusted source. The Wikipedia article offers no citation to back up its assertion that Judge Guzman overruled Magistrate Keys. In fact, the only citation is to an article in the Journal of Internet Law that only cites to the Magistrate's decision.

After sifting through many documents at Pacer, we were unable to find the judge's overruling opinion, but we were informed by an attorney at one of our seminars that he had confirmed the Wikipedia assertions by phoning one of the attorneys involved in the case.

This is what the Wikipedia article stated Judge Guzman held:

• The Internet Archive employee’s affidavit and underlying Web pages (Telewizja Polska Web site) were not admissible as evidence.
• The employee's affidavit contained hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements.
• The purported Web page printouts were not self-authenticating.

Be Sure to Authenticate Evidence From the Internet

As an attorney attempting to authenticate evidence from the Internet, it is important to prove when the research was done. This can be accomplished by having the researcher sign a declaration explaining how, and on what date, the researcher found the Web page evidence on the Internet. To further authenticate the evidence from a Web site, the web page should be printed out--with the URL listed. It would also be advisable to print any page on the Web site that indicates who owns the site. This is usually found on the "About Us" page. (Searching a domain registry, such as Betterwhois.com, to verify ownership is not necessarily going to yield the true owner of the Web site because domain registries do not verify that real names are used.)

Admissability of Archive.org Pages

Because Telewizja Polska is an unreported case (and not binding on other courts) and because the Judge and the Magistrate came to opposite conclusions as noted above, we do not have a definitive answer as to whether pages from the Archive.org could overcome hearsay objections. As to the admissibility of pages other than Archive.org being admitted into evidence, it will vary from judge to judge.

Even Judges are now Using the Internet to Make Judicial Decisions

As recently as 1999, a district court cautioned against relying on data from the Internet as "voodoo information." St. Clair v. Johnny’s Oyster & Shrimp, 76 F. Supp. 2d 773, 775 (S.D. Tex. 1999). Fortunately, today, not only are judges admitting information from the Internet into evidence (as illustrated by the Telewizja case), but judges are even conducting their own Internet research to help make judicial decisions. For example, in a recent Indiana decision, the court was incredulous that the plaintiff failed to "Google" the missing defendant as part of his due diligence process. The court noted that the investigative technique of merely calling directory assistance to find a missing defendant has gone "the way of the horse and buggy and the eight track stereo" as a consequence of the Internet. The court upheld the defendant’s claim of insufficient service of process and affirmed the dismissal of the case. The court stated, "We do note that there is no evidence in this case of a public records or Internet search for Groce…to find him. In fact, we [the judge] discovered, upon entering 'Joe Groce Indiana' into the Google™ search engine, an address for Groce that differed from either address used in this case, as well as an apparent obituary for Groce’s mother that listed numerous surviving relatives who might have known his whereabouts." Munster v. Groce, 829 N.E.2d 52 (Ind. App. 2005) available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/indianastatecases/app/06080501mpb.pdf. On appeal, the plaintiff could argue that there was no proof that the data found by the judge had been available on the Internet at the time plaintiff searched for the defendant.

In Dubois v. Butler, Case nos. 4d04-3559 and 4d04-3561 (FL App, 2005) available at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1028016.html, the court noted as a consequence of the internet that the investigative technique of merely calling directory assistance to find a missing defendant has gone "the way of the horse and buggy and the eight track stereo." The court quashed the service of process and dismissed the case.

In another recent case, the Louisiana Appeals court upheld a decision in which the trial court nullified a government tax sale because the original tax-delinquent owner would have been "reasonably identifiable" and locatable if the government had run a simple "Internet search" to "locate the named mortgagee." It was the trial court judge who conducted an Internet search and determined that the owner was "reasonably identifiable." Part of the basis of the appeal was whether or not it was appropriate for the judge to conduct such a search at all to determine this. The Appeals court dismissed this argument, saying "Nevertheless, we find any error the trial court may have committed by conducting the internet search is harmless, because the trial court's ultimate conclusion that the tax sale violated Dr. Weatherly's due process rights is legally correct." Weatherly v. Optimum Asset Management, 928 So.2d 118 (La. App. 2005), available at http://www.la-fcca.org/Opinions/PUB2005/2005-12/2004CA2734Dec2005.Pub.10.pdf.

Look Beyond the Near Reaches of the Internet: Social Networking Sites, Blogs, Podcasts & Videos

To find potentially relevant evidence, lawyers also need to look beyond the near reaches of the Internet, which would be a person or company’s Web site, and into the far reaches of the Internet. Some of the "far reaches" could include new types of Web content such as social network sites (myspace.com or facebook.com) or blogs (http://blogsearch.google.com), podcasts (Podcast Alley), and videos (youtube.com).

People often drop their guard when they are posting to these types of sites. Not only can their written words be readily displayed to a jury, but so can their behavior, attitude, or tone of voice, all heard or viewed from an audio or video tape, or a still picture placed on the Internet. For instance, Hugh Foskett might have had a better chance at winning the Seattle’s 43rd district state house seat in 2006, if pictures from his facebook.com page, showing behavior unbecoming to a candidate, had not been publicized. (Social networking sites are no longer “just for kids.” All ages are beginning to add their profiles and pictures.)

Look Beyond the Near Reaches of the Internet: Dating & Reunion Web Sites and Google Groups

Lawyers should also look to other far reaches of the Internet not traditionally thought of as useful to serious researchers, such as dating sites (match.com), reunion sites (classmates.com) and discussion groups such as those searchable at Google Groups—all places where people post personal information. A divorce lawyer shared an incident where, at a settlement conference, they were proffered embarrassing information that their client had posted to a dating Web site. Admissibility was not at issue, since the parties were not at trial, and in fact, admissibility was not really the husband’s goal. Simply gaining the upper hand or unsettling the wife was the goal, which apparently was met.

Learning that your client was on methadone might be an important piece of evidence in a case where your client allegedly caused an accident. If your client failed to inform you of this, searching the client’s name at Google Groups might reveal this interesting fact if the client participated in online discussions and divulged such information (in our case, the person was on a migraine headache discussion group and mentioned his methadone maintenance in passing).

Do People Post Using Their Real Names?

It's important to remember that many people do not use their real names when posting to discussion groups. In those cases, searching by the poster's e-mail address might yield more useful results, assuming you know their e-mail address (or addresses). In contrast, people posting profiles at classmates.com do tend to use their real names—since they are trying to hook up with former friends. Thus, classmates.com is a perfect place to search for evidence. At Classmates.com, people often post information about where they work (or worked), attended school, or served in the military. These are the bits and pieces of information that might be the very evidence a lawyer is looking for.

Finding Information From Different File Formats Posted to the Web

Lawyers can sometimes unearth evidence from a PowerPoint presentation, an Excel spreadsheet, or a Word document posted to the Internet. By using Google.com’s advanced search page, a search can be limited to one of these file formats. While evidence from a PowerPoint presentation might show up in the PowerPoint slide, be sure to view the presentation in the “editing” mode to read the presenter’s outline and notes—where more evidence might be lurking.

Have Potential Evidence Automatically Collected and Delivered to Your E-mail In-box

Attorneys can even have potential evidence automatically collected and delivered to their email in-box by using Google's Alert service (http://www.google.com/alerts). While Google Alerts originally monitored only news based on the researcher’s key words (e.g., a topic, a company name, or a person’s name), monitoring has been expanded to Web sites, Google Groups, and most recently to Blogs. Thus, if the topic, the person, or the company one is gathering evidence about is mentioned in the news, on a Web site, in a Google Group discussion e-mail, or on a blog, attorneys will be automatically alerted and can add the information to their pot of evidence.

Conclusion

As useful as the Internet is in helping to find evidence, it cannot be expected to show how the evidence is relevant or how to authenticate it and get it admitted into evidence. That’s still your job!

The post Looking For Evidence in Virtual Places Admissibility of Internet Evidence appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

by Carole Levitt J.D., M.L.S.

California Attorneys and Paralegals can earn one hour of Self-Study Legal Ethics MCLE credit by submitting this quiz after reading this article.

Most attorneys are familiar with the term “neti-quette,” which is the code of proper behavior online. Basic netiquette applies as much to the legal professional as it does to a lay person, but more specific rules have been crafted to guide the online behavior of attorneys. As early as 1996, many state bar associations began issuing opinions on Internet ethics, often focusing on law firm Web sites. Most of the rules and opinions relating to online communications apply the advertising rules that already exist for print advertising. The State Bar of California has issued only one opinion on Web site ethics. The principles behind the opinion, which was issued in 2001, may be applied to other online forms of communication, including e-mail, URLs and domain names, e-mail addresses, online articles, discussion groups, and chat rooms.

Share this artice:       
  

Formal Opinion No. 2001-155 of the State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct deals specifically with the ethical issues attorneys must address when creating and displaying Web sites relating to their law practice. The specific question that COPRAC addressed was, “What aspects of professional responsibility and conduct must an attorney consider when providing an Internet website containing information for the public about her availability for professional employment?”

In a nutshell, the opinion views Web sites as a “communication” under Rule 1-400(A) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct and an “advertisement” under Business and Professions Code Sections 6157 to 6158.3. Consequently, the text, images, and sounds on an attorney’s Web site cannot be false, misleading, or deceptive. Surprisingly, Web sites are not considered to be a solicitation under Rule 1-400(B), even in a situation in which a potential client can e-mail a specific attorney directly from the site. Attorneys are warned, however, that their Web sites may be subject to another jurisdiction’s regulations and may also be considered the unauthorized practice of law in that jurisdiction. To avoid being regulated by another jurisdiction or facing an accusation of unauthorized practice of law, COPRAC suggests that attorneys use a disclaimer on the site stating that they are advertising only in California and that they do not seek to represent someone based solely on that person’s visit to the Web site. The disclaimer should include a statement indicating where the attorney is licensed, what the attorney practices, where the attorney maintains an office, and in which courts the attorney is willing to appear. Even with these precautions, California attorneys who are licensed or have offices in another state may still may be subject to that state’s rules on Web sites. For this reason, a California firm should know if anyone in the office is licensed outside of California. If someone is, the firm should review the rules of the state or states in which the attorney is licensed. Most of the rules will be found in ethics rules relating to attorney advertising, solicitation, and marketing. (For links to the rules of each state, users may go to http://www.abanet.org.)

To augment the one opinion from the State Bar of California, it is helpful to look to the American Bar Association and other state opinions for guidance. For example, the ABA’s Formal Opinion 99-413 holds that sending unencrypted e-mail does not violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Additionally, COPRAC’s opinion No. 2001-155 does not address whether an attorney’s domain name or e-mail address is also a communication or advertising; other states, however, have answered this question in the affirmative. In Arizona, State Bar Opinion 2001-05 holds that while a firm’s domain name does not have to be identical to the firm’s actual name, the domain name must not be false or misleading. Furthermore, a law firm’s domain name cannot state or imply any special competence or unique affiliations unless the claim is factually true (http:/ /www.azbar.org/EthicsOpinions /Data/01-05.pdf). The opinion also indicates that a for-profit law firm domain name should not use the .org suffix or use a domain name that implies that the law firm is affiliated with a particular nonprofit or governmental entity. Thus, a private firm’s request to call itself arizonalawyer.org was rejected.

It is likely that the California bar would agree with these holdings if presented with the question. For example, if a California attorney were to use domain names such as bestresults.com or bestattorney.com, the act may be considered unethical under Section 6157.2 of the Business and Professions Code, which prohibits any guarantee of outcome, or Section 6157.1, which prohibits false or misleading advertising. It is possible that a naive consumer may assume that an attorney with these domain names is promising to be the best or is guaranteeing the best results. Using the domain name bestattorney.com may also violate ABA Model Rule 7.1, which prohibits using superlatives to distinguish one law firm from another without factual proof. A bankruptcy attorney who uses the domain name paynobills.com can expect to face ethical problems if, for example, the domain name misleads a client who is reorganizing instead of declaring outright bankruptcy.

ABA Model Rule 7.1 also prohibits communications that contain “guarantees, warranties, or predictions regarding the result of the representation.” Thus, advertising past client successes on an attorney’s Web site may be deemed unethical because it may indicate to a potential client that he or she can expect similar results. Personal injury attorneys who use their sites to detail past successes or advertise damage awards may therefore want to reconsider.

What type of graphics or images on an attorney’s site could be considered unethical? Placing a picture of a person on your site that implies that the person is either a member of your firm or is an actual client, when in fact the person is not, may be considered mis-leading. This would violate Rule 1-400, Standard 13, unless you label the photograph as a dramatization.

Keep Copies of Web Pages

Many attorneys do not realize that Rule 1- 400(F) (which dictates that attorneys must retain for two years copies or recordings of any communications they have made by written or electronic media) applies to their Web sites and any revisions of their sites. The easiest way for attorneys to comply with this rule is to simply print a copy of each new or revised page that is added to the Web site and keep all the printouts in a chronological file. Attorneys who prefer less paper could save the HTML files that constitute the Web site on a separate disk or in a separate folder on a hard drive. Attorneys may thereafter make a habit of transferring pages as they are created or revised. For those who have not kept copies of each earlier version of their sites, the omission might be rectified with a visit to the Internet Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/collections/web.html). The Internet archive, dating back to 1996, recently made its collection of outdated Web pages available to the public. By entering the firm’s URL into the wayback machine’s search box and clicking the Take Me Back button, attorneys can determine if their Web sites are included in the archive. Attorneys who locate the desired site there can print their old pages and keep them in a paper file in order to satisfy Rule 1-400(f).

Since Web sites are considered communications and advertisements, other online communications may be too. Attorneys’ online communications that do not appear on their Web page could pose ethical problems. For example, many attorneys send e-mail invitations for seminars or e-mail newsletters about an area of law. Should they label the e-mail as an advertisement in the subject line? Probably yes, if one is to extrapolate from regular mail to e-mail. With print materials, attorneys are instructed under Standard 5 of Rule 1-400 that “[n]ewsletters, recent legal development advisories, and similar materials…transmitted in an envelope…shall bear the word ‘Advertisement,’ ‘Newsletter’ or words of similar import on the outside thereof.” A cautious attorney would also apply Rule 1-400 to e-communications. A Tennessee attorney was disbarred when he e-mailed an advertisement about the firm’s immigration services to more than 5,000 Internet groups and thousands of e-mail lists without the required words: “This Is an Advertisement” (see http://www.legalethics.com/?p=355). He also violated several other professional responsibility rules in the same matter.

Attorneys should also consider the ethics of their e-mail signature line or tag line (a signature block that includes “King of Torts,” for example, is probably not a good idea). An attorney’s e-mail signature should not include anything that could be interpreted as false, deceptive, or tending to confuse or mislead the public.

Another ethics issue for attorneys online is giving legal advice or soliciting clients in chat rooms or discussion groups. The Florida Bar Standing Committee on Advertising held (http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBETOpin.nsf/ca2dcdaa853ef7b885256728004f87db/2636a9893f38296385256b2f006c8a6b?OpenDocument) that “[a]n attorney may not solicit prospective clients through Internet chat rooms, defined as real time communications between computer users.” Thankfully for attorneys who write for magazines, articles that are published online—with or without the author’s knowledge—are probably protected by the First Amendment. If someone in or out of state reads the article and relies upon the information to his or her detriment, the attorney author may not be liable for either the unauthorized practice of law or malpractice. This ethical area becomes more problematic, however, when attorneys begin expressing their opinions in chat rooms or discussion groups that feature, as most do, two-way communication.

The ethical principles that apply to attorney advertising and communications in older media may serve as a guide for attorneys seeking to avoid ethics difficulties online. Attorneys and firms should keep copies of their Web sites (including every different page) and consider the ethical ramifications of their e-mail content, domain names, e-mail addresses, and discussion group and chat room posts. Finally, it pays to observe common netiquette. The Tennessee attorney, for example, violated it by spamming (i.e., sending out an unsolicited e-mail message to many recipients), thus drawing complaints from offended computer users. One’s manners online can matter just as much as they do in person.

The post Internet Ethics and Netiquette for Attorneys and Law Firms appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

How to Research the U.S. Code Online

Locating Government Documents on the Internet

Corporate Research

Public Records

Free California Internet Legal Research: Cases, Dockets, and Forms

Finding Entertainment Law Resources Online: From Scholarship to Scandal

Admissibility of Internet Evidence*

1 hour of self-study credit

Continuing Legal Education Online*

1 hour of self-study credit

New York and Arizona attorneys may also claim MCLE credit when completing these quizzes. (See below for more information.)

How to Research the U.S. Code Online

There are three web sites that offer free access to searchable databases of the United States Code (U.S.C.).

Even though all use the same Code (prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives), the House site is more up-to-date than the GPO or Cornell site (and also goes back further in time) often making the House’s web version of the Code the preferred choice. Being "more up to date," however, does not mean current as of today. The U.S. Code is published only every six years by The Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives and is then supplemented on a regular basis.

Clear explanations and hyperlinks to Internet research resources lead you on a search for real-life answers to to real-life research scenarios. Read the companion article to learn how to put these resources to work for you.

Go to the quiz.

Government Document Research

Locating Government Documents on the Internet

There are literally thousands of Federal, State, and local government agencies generating documents on innumerable topics important to lawyers in their practices.

The questions in this quiz, and the accompanying fact patterns, highlight three sources for this diverse and useful data, and feature hyperlinks and explanations of the sites' search functions to take you directly there so you can learn to dig up this information for yourself.

The reading material and fact patterns are integrated into the quiz. There is no separate article that accompanies this exercise.

Go to the quiz.

Corporate Research From Due Diligence to Corporate Intelligence

Say you're working on a big case, and you need as much information on the opposing company as possible. Or perhaps you're pitching a potential new client, and want to know everything about their business for your presentation. Maybe your clientâs competition is developing a new product or you want to read all the news stories about some development that will affect your business or your clientsâ. Do you know how to get that information quickly online? And for free?

Clear explanations and hyperlinks to Internet research resources lead you on a search for a real-life answer to questions about a real-world companies.

Read the companion article to learn how to put these resources to work for you.

Go to the quiz.

Public Records

How Public Are Public Records?

The term "public record" has always been VERY misleading. Even though a record is "public" and available for public scrutiny in the strictest sense, in reality it may not be readily available. The availability of numerous public records online via the Internet has addressed some of the accessibililty issues, but just as it's always been in the "offline" world, access to free public records via the web is a hit or miss proposition.

Each question in this quiz, and the companion article, feature, an outline of the type of information included in each specific resource discussed, and a hyperlink to take you directly there so you can see for yourself.

Read the companion article to learn how to put these resources to work for you.

Go to the quiz.

Back to the top of this page.

Free California Internet Legal Research: Cases, Dockets, and Forms

On July 6, 2000, Lexis debuted LexisONE.com, the first web site to offer a FREE, FULL TEXT searchable California case-law database (back to 1996). The free LexisONE site offers almost the same robust search engine for constructing searches as the pay Lexis site. One month later, FindLaw.com (now owned by West Publishing) debuted its free California case-law database (back to 1934). The Daily Journal Corporation also offers case-law research resources free online to subscribers of its print newspapers.

Read the companion article to learn how to put these resources to work for you.

Go to the quiz.

Finding Entertainment Law Resources Online: From Scholarship to Scandal

Type “entertainment” into the Google search engine, and "about 162,000,000" results appear with E! Online topping the list. Type “entertainment law” into the Google search engine, and about 40,000,000 results are listed, with a Beverly Hills entertainment attorney's site listed first, and the Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal (COMM/ENT) not far behind. From the lowbrow to the highbrow, these searches offer an excellent summary of the range of online sources that entertainment attorneys use to stay informed. More specific questions can be addressed by refining one’s search techniques.

Read the companion article to learn how to put these resources to work for you.

Go to the quiz.

Back to the top of this page.

Admissibility of Internet Evidence

Looking For Evidence in Virtual Places

Lawyers looking for evidence need to start thinking about looking “virtually.” With increasing amounts of "paperless" information being added to the Internet every minute of every day, there is an increasing chance lawyers could find potentially relevant evidence there. Evidence to prove or refute a point in contention, get the upper hand in a settlement conference, or decide whether to even take a client’s case, might be found in both the near and far reaches of the Internet.

Read the companion article to learn how to put these resources to work for you.

Go to the quiz.*
This exercise is eligible for 1 hour of SELF-STUDY credit.

Continuing Legal Education Online

Online MCLE Update: CLE To Go

If you are an attorney or paralegal, probably no day goes by in which you do not receive e-mail about online continuing legal education. As recently as 2000, however, you would not have received any, because the State Bar of California did not approve online continuing education courses until then. Since 2000, online continuing education offerings have evolved to meet increased demand. This article and quiz outline how legal professionals can meet their Continuing Legal Education requirements online.

Read the companion article to learn how to put these resources to work for you.

Go to the quiz.*
This exercise is eligible for 1 hour of SELF-STUDY credit.

NEW YORK: Any of these courses exceeding 60 minutes in length (Corporate Research, Conducting Free California Case Law Research, Finding Entertainment Law Resources Online) are eligible for the amount of CLE credit indicated on each respective quiz under New York's approved jurisdiction procedures. Newly admitted New York attorneys may not earn CLE credit for non-traditional course formats such as this during their first two years of admission to the New York Bar.

ARIZONA: The State Bar of Arizona does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement. This activity may qualify for the amount of "Interactive" Continuing Legal Education credit indicated on each respective quiz toward your annual CLE requirement for the State Bar of Arizona, when used in conjunction with materials available on this site to actively search the Internet for exam solutions.

The post Online Law Practice Management & General Self-Study MCLE Quizzes appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

California Attorneys and Paralegals can satisfy all of their required MCLE credits by completing any four of the following (ten) self-study MCLE quizzes.

Internet For Lawyers offers California Attorneys & Paralegals who wish to complete all of their Legal Ethics MCLE requirement online a package price of only $60.00 to complete all four hours here. You may elect to complete any of the four exercises listed below. (This is a $20.00 savings over the regular price of $20.00 per hour.) Click here for more information.

Completing any of the exercises below earns you one hour of California self-study Legal ethics Continuing Legal Education credit.You can select any four of the following self-study MCLE exercises to complete your entire California Continuing Legal Education requirement of four hours of Legal Ethics credit and pay only $15/credit-hour.

(Note that some of these Legal Ethics MCLE exercises have reading material included in the quiz, while others have a separate article associated with them.)

Legal Ethics Considerations for Lawyers' Use of Cloud Computing Services

We often get questions about the security of "cloud computing" services like Google Apps and whether that security is tight enough for lawyers to use them. Google Apps, for example, meets the security standards put in place for the online storage of government agencies' information set out in the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2000 (FISMA 44 U.S.C. § 3541, et seq.). The ABA recently adopted changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct dealing with the question of whether and how lawyers might deal with "confidentiality issues arising from technology." The changes were, "designed to give lawyers more guidance regarding their confidentiality- related obligations when using technology." This excercise provides a compilation and overview of the existing Ethics Opinions produced, to date, by Bar Associations around the country.

Read the Article | Go to the Quiz

ABA Formal Opinion 10-457 Dealing With Lawyer Websites
As early as 1996, many state bar associations began issuing formal (or advisory) ethics opinions on the ethical uses of Internet technology. Many of those opinions relating to Web sites and online communications apply the advertising rules that already exist for print advertising. In the late Summer of 2010, the American Bar Association issued its Formal Opinion 10-457 discussing ethical concerns for lawyers who maintain Web sites.

Go to the Quiz

Client Service: The Ethical Case for Keeping Clients Satisfied
If you ask most attorneys whether their clients are satisfied, the vast majority would, of course, say "yes." If you then ask them "what makes you so sure?" the responses would typically range from "They don’t complain" and "They’re nice to me" to "They pay their bills" or "They continue to do business with us." A closer examination of these reasons, however, reveals that such client behavior hardly indicates satisfaction.

Read the Article | Go to the Quiz

How to Network Comfortably and Ethically
Everyone knows that, much like diet and exercise, networking is good for you and that, similarly, there are lots of excuses for avoiding it. This exercise applies specific Rules of Professional Conduct to effective networking strategies.

Read the Article | Go to the Quiz

Contacting Unrepresented Persons via Social Networking Sites - New York State Bar and Philadelphia Bar Ethics Opinions
More and more attorneys and judges are using social media. Some use it for its intended purpose of social networking (and, for the lesser intended purpose of marketing). Others take advantage of the information contained in these sites for an unintended purpose - investigative research. Legal pundits have argued (online and in print) about the ethical issues for attorneys utilizing this information in the matters they handle. Few Bar Associations have opined on the topic. Two exceptions are the Philadelphia Bar and the New York State Bar. They addressed the specific questions of whether it is ethical for an attorney to ask a non-lawyer assistant to "friend" an unrepresented witness even if the non-lawyer uses her real name but without also disclosing the reasons for making the request? Learn which ethics rules that these Ethics Opinions point out for potential violation by this activity.

Read the Article | Go to the Quiz

Contacting Unrepresented Persons via Social Networking Sites - New York City Bar Ethics Opinion
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York considered a question similar to the one presented to the New York State Bar and the Philadelphia Bar. The New York City Bar's Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics' Opinion 2010-2 (Sept. 2010) concluded that there would be no violation of the rules of professional conduct if an attorney or her agent uses her real name and profile to send a "friend request" to obtain information from an unrepresented person's social networking website without also disclosing the reasons for making the request. Learn the New York City Bar's reasoning behind their decision.

Read the Article | Go to the Quiz

California Legal Ethics Quiz; Legal Advertising Should You or Shouldn't You?
There are numerous ethical considerations one makes in the day to day practice of law. While some seem to follow simple common sense, others are a bit less clear.

This ten question quiz will help you learn where to easily find answers to your ethical questions utilizing free State Bar and academic resources on the Internet.

Go to the quiz

The Ethics of Attorney Web Sites in California
The Bar's standing Committee on Professional Responsibility & Conduct has issued a Formal Opinion addressing ethical issues related to attorneys announcing their services via Internet web sites. Whether you already have your own web site or are just beginning to consider launching one, this ten question quiz will help you learn where to easily find answers to ethical questions regarding your web site.

Go to the quiz.

Back to the top of this page.

Adhering to the CA State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct
The California State Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct lay out very specific guidelines to regulate the professional conduct of its members - through discipline. These rules have been adopted by the Board of Governors of the Bar and approved by the Supreme Court of California pursuant to Business & Professions Code Sections 6076 and 6077 to protect the public and to promote respect and confidence in the legal profession.

This quiz is designed to give you an overview of some of the highlights of these rules to keep in mind as you build your practice.

Go to the quiz.

Ethical Requirements of Attorney Oversight & Supervision of Paralegal Staff in California
Recent changes to the California Rules of Professional Conduct spell out VERY specific requirements for minimum continuing legal education for Paralegals AND the responsibilities of Attorneys with whom they work.

This quiz is designed to give Paralegals AND Attorneys an overview of how these rules affect EACH of them.

Go to the quiz.

Back to the top of this page.

The post Online Legal Ethics MCLE Quizzes for California Lawyers & Paralegals appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

GROUP 2 - California attorneys with last names H-M
Next California MCLE compliance deadline for period 2/1/12 - 1/31/15 is Feb. 2, 2015

GROUP 1 - California attorneys with last names A-G
Next California MCLE compliance deadline for period 2/1/13 - 1/31/16 is Feb. 1, 2016

GROUP 3 - California attorneys with last names N-Z
Next California MCLE compliance deadline for period 2/1/14 - 1/31/17 is Feb. 1, 2017

Answers to other frequently asked questions about California MCLE compliance and requirements can be found at https://www.netforlawyers.com/page/california-mcle.

The California Business and Professions Code and the State Bar of California require active attorneys, except those statutorily exempt, to take 25 hours of continuing legal education courses (MCLE) every three years, including four hours of legal ethics, and one hour each of elimination of bias and detection and prevention of substance abuse or mental illness. Lawyers must keep documentation for at least a year after their compliance is due.

Historically, California attorneys have submitted affirmation of their compliance with their MCLE requirements on a paper California MCLE Compliance Card. Now, in lieu of submitting a paper compliance card, California attorneys are encouraged to report their compliance online through their online  My California State Bar Profile.

Every month the Internet For Lawyers' free newsletter delivers Internet legal research and marketing information to your e-mail inbox, as well as updates to our calendar of upcoming seminars and events.

The post California Bar MCLE Compliance Deadlines appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.