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.

By Roy S. Ginsburg, JD

Everyone knows that, much like diet and exercise, networking is good for you and that, similarly, there are lots of excuses for avoiding it. 

Understanding Networking-An Attitude Adjustment

When coaching lawyers or conducting CLEs on business development, I hear a lot of resistance to incorporating networking as a means of building a book of business. Here are the most common excuses:

* I don't have the time.

* I'm a professional; networking is like being a salesperson.

* It is outside my comfort zone.

A better understanding of what networking really is will convince you that most anyone can learn to do it comfortably. A better understanding will also lead to a realization of how indispensable it is. 

Let's discuss first what networking is not. Networking is not showing up at a conference or reception glad-handing and distributing business cards to strangers. Who wouldn't feel uncomfortable doing that?

Networking is a straightforward concept. It's building a network of people for the purpose of mutual assistance. Put the emphasis on mutual. It's not "I want your legal business." Rather, it's developing relationships among those who can help one another in professional, as well as personal, ways. In its simplest form, networking presents a platform for exchanging information that is mutually beneficial. It may be about a legal advice, but it could even be about a baby sitter or plumber if the need is expressed.

Further, and this is key to building a network, it's more about giving than receiving. Only when you give (advice, praise, recommendations, etc.) do relationships grow and develop. Once that occurs, it's only a matter of time before you get something back. 

It's human nature; people like to reciprocate. Developing trusting and dependable relationships, however, doesn't happen in one meeting. It is a process, and it requires persistence and patience to reap the benefits. 

Getting Past the Excuses

No more excuses! Below, I discredit the attitudes that stand in the way of networking progress:

I don't have the time.

Once it's understood what a well-developed network can accomplish, it can actually be a time saver. For instance, everyone who is part of your network is a potential resource, with access to information, opportunities, or ideas that could otherwise require hours of your time to gather. With an established network, it's possible the answer to a practice management issue is only a phone call or two away. 

However, the main reason lawyers should network is for business development. Attorneys have a tendency to overestimate the importance of their technical skills when, in fact, prospective clients are weighing more "human" considerations, such as "Is this someone I get along with?" and "Can I trust this person?" 

Think about the successful lawyers you know. Are they the most exceptionally skilled or technically competent legal professionals? If not, then what is it that sets them apart and sparks their success? Undoubtedly, it's the number of people they know and the quality of the relationships they have with them. Building meaningful relationships, over time, is the key to a robust practice; and effective networking is the genesis for developing those relationships.

I'm not a salesperson.

If there's a consistently common objection to networking that I hear, it's "I didn't go to law school to be a salesperson!" 

Don't confuse networking with a sales call. Remember, networking is about sharing information and listening for ways to be of mutual assistance. 

Letting people you meet know that you practice law in a firm that offers a range of services is information, not sales.  Most people are grateful to know where to find a lawyer when they need advice about estate planning, protecting a company's intellectual property, completing a business transaction, or trying to keep someone out of jail. And all lawyers can be proud of the fact that they earn their living by helping people. 

It's out of my comfort zone.

Just as networking is not handing out business cards at receptions, it is also not cold calling complete strangers. Rather, think of it as developing relationships with people with whom you may be acquainted, but would like to know better. 

Is a cup of coffee or lunch out of your comfort zone? I have coached well over one hundred lawyers from across the nation who practice at firms of all sizes. Rarely have I worked with an attorney who could not carry on a pleasant conversation in a one-on-one setting. 

Start with people you already know, professionally or personally, to create a contact list. Think about people who can benefit from an enhanced relationship with you. Here's a starter list of prospects:

*   Law firm (cross-sell) 

*   Clients   

*   People from bar association or trade/industry organizations 

* People from organizations where you volunteer

* Opposing counsel from past cases

*   Extended family members

* Friends (and their friends)

* Neighbors (do you ever wonder what to talk about at the annual block party?)

* People you went to college or law school with

* People from previous jobs

* Members of your church or synagogue

Then what?  

It's called a contact list for a reason. Prioritizing the list, contact these people to set up a casual get-together. Be prepared that not everyone will accept your outreach, so don't take it personally. They are either too busy or are too shortsighted to see the benefits of networking. 

Building a network is a numbers game. It's not about having the best personality or leading the popularity chart. To be successful at it, you must continuously circulate, adding new names to your contact list.  Building your network within groups where prospective clients or referral sources are likely to be found. You can do that by attending conferences, becoming active in professional and community organizations where you interact with many individuals and where your contributions to the organization are visible. Networking doesn't happen in your office: Get out and meet someone new. 

Practical Tips for Effective Networking

If I have achieved my goal, I've made the case for the value of networking and that it doesn't have to be an uncomfortable exercise. Here are some general tips to make those networking efforts more effective:

1.      Network systematically. Make a contract with yourself that you will spend a certain amount of time networking. For example, your contract could be a commitment to have a certain number of coffees, lunches, or association gatherings per month. Keep the commitment realistic. The goal is eventually to make networking a seamless habit.

2. Listen. Remember the ears-to-mouth ratio. You have two ears and one mouth. Listen at least twice the amount of time you talk. If you don't listen, you will not learn how you can help this person. 

3. Be enthusiastic. Few people hire lawyers who don't enjoy what they do. When I was an in-house attorney, I wanted lawyers who truly loved what they did. I was once involved in a First Amendment case and was seeking counsel. I obtained three referrals. On paper, they all had the necessary credentials and experience. I then interviewed all three. One lawyer in particular simply exuded a passion for the First Amendment when we talked. Guess which one I hired? 

4. Be confident, not arrogant. Many lawyers find it difficult to strike the proper balance. Of course, I always wanted to hire lawyers who sounded like they knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, there were many who crossed the line, boasting about themselves or their law firm. I was never impressed, but I was always incredibly bored.

5. Be patient. How many people do you know who got married after only one date? Then why expect to be hired after one lunch? Remember, networking is a process of building relationships. It may take years of staying in contact before being retained. 

The ROI

There's the cliche, "it's not what you know that counts, it's who you know." Well, in the legal industry, we know for sure that what you know is of primary importance. But it doesn't do much good if others don't know you know it.  

Investing the time to develop a wide network of informational resources, advisors, and prospects yields a return that exponentially increases over the years. And that's because just about all the contacts you make, at some point in their personal or professional lives, will need legal services. Wouldn't it be great if you popped into their minds? Networking effectively will assure that outcome. 

The Ethics Rules Surrounding Networking

While there are no specific rules that have the word "networking" in them, certainly one of the primary goals of networking is business development. All lawyers seem to know the "rule" that attorneys are not supposed to ambulance-chase. But what does that really mean? According to Rule 1-400(C), an in person or by telephone solicitation "shall not be made ... to a prospective client ... with whom the member or law firm has no family or prior professional relationship ..."  

Of the three biggest misunderstandings many attorneys have about this rule, the first is that the rule applies only to hospital emergency rooms. In fact, the rule applies in any room in any type of building. 

The second common misunderstanding is that it's appropriate to solicit a "sophisticated" client -- for example, a corporate executive. There is no such exception in the rule. While the origin of the rule was likely intended to apply to environments such as hospitals where "unsophisticated" clients may be present, the rule is not written that way. If a lawyer reads in the newspaper about a company being sued and calls the CEO and asks to be considered as defense counsel, that is unethical unless the CEO falls within the exceptions noted above. If not, Rule 1-400(C) is violated. 

The third frequent mistake lawyers make concerns referrals. Those who are successful at networking frequently receive calls saying, "My friend's company really needs your help. Call so and so right now. Here's the phone number." Many lawyers think that it's permissible to make the call since, presumably, the potential client has somehow consented to being contacted. The rule, however, contains no such consent exception language. Unless the potential client falls within the rule's specific exceptions, the rule is violated. 

Then what do you say to the person who has been nice enough to provide your name to someone who may become a new client? You say something like "Thank you so much for thinking of me. However, I hope it's not too much of an inconvenience for you to have your contact call or email me. The ethics rules prohibit me from contacting your friend. I could get disciplined for doing that."

Besides the solicitation rules, lawyers should also be familiar with the rules regarding referral fees. After all, if your networking efforts are successful, you hopefully will be getting referrals. Do you know how to handle them?

Referral fees are strictly prohibited by the ethics rules for non-lawyers by Rule 1-320. Subdivision (A) states that lawyers are not permitted to "directly or indirectly share legal fees with a person who is not a lawyer." In addition, the rule provides that a lawyer "shall not compensate, give or promise anything of value to a person or entity for the purpose of recommending or securing employment."  

As for lawyers, referral fees are allowed, but you must follow certain requirements. Rule 2-200 states that they are permissible under these conditions:

*   Client consents in writing and is advised how fee is divided

*   Total fee is not increased by because of fee sharing

One final word of caution about networking. Many of your efforts may involve a meal or perhaps taking a potential client or referral source to a sporting or some other entertainment event. Is there anything unethical about picking up the tab? If you recall, Rule 1-320 states that "shall not compensate, give or promise anything of value to a person or entity for the purpose of recommending or securing employment."  Are $1000 courtside seats at Staples Center "anything of value?"  Under most circumstances, the answer is no. Most regulators would simply view client entertainment expenses as an accepted form of business development efforts and leave it at that. However, if there was ever any evidence that there was an explicit quid pro quo for the entertainment, i.e., "Client X, thank you very much for that case. Since you were so kind to give me that business, my firm will take your entire family to event Y," that would be a problem. 

After reading this article, attorneys can earn one hour of self-study "Legal Ethics" California MCLE credit by completing and submitting this associated exercise.

The post How to Network Comfortably and Ethically 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 & Mark E. Rosch

(formerly published as "How to Use the Internet for Legal & Investigative Research: A Guide for Legal Professionals" - ISBN 978-0-9713257-4-6)

Much of the information that was once only available to professional researchers from expensive, fee-based sources is now available for free on the Internet, if you know how to find it. There’s more to conducting a comprehensive search for information on the Internet than just relying on the results returned by search engines, though. The Cybersleuth’s Guide to the Internet will show you how to be your own cyber-detective and unearth this information FREE (or at low cost!) on the Web.

The Cybersleuth’s Guide to the Internet includes numerous examples based on real world research scenarios. Whether you’re just starting to use the Internet for serious research or you’re a seasoned online research veteran, this book can help you find what you’re looking for fast and free.

For the beginning searcher, the book covers many overlooked features of Web browsers, the "mechanics" of navigating the Internet, and basic research strategies and tools. For "power searchers," The Cybersleuth’s Guide to the Internet covers more advanced search strategies, and uncovers tip and tricks for getting the most out of many of the sites.

Learn How To Use Some Of The Same Tools as Skip Tracers & Private Investigators:

• Find out How to Dig Up "Dirt" About Anyone
• Uncover Information to Attack Someone’s Credibility
• Seek out the Smoking Gun
• Mine the Web for Missing People
• Discover Addresses (Home and Email)
• Find Phone Numbers (Even Cellular)
• Locate Someone’s Aliases, Employer’s Name, Political Persuasion
• Glean Personal Information From Usenet Postings
• Unearth Property Records
• Identify Low Cost Public Record and Investigative Databases
• Discover Quick and Easy Methods to Access Free Public Records
  • Birth & Death Records
  • Social Security Numbers
  • Liens, Judgments, UCCs, Bankruptcies and Dockets
  • Business Ownerships
  • Criminal Backgrounds

Find the Quickest Routes to Free Legal Research:

• Full-Text Case Law Databases
• Online Alternatives for Updating Cases
• Elusive Government Documents
• Federal, State and Local Primary Law
• Secondary Legal Resources (law review articles, legal news, etc.)
• Legal Practice Materials (court forms, transactional forms, briefs, dockets, etc.)

Price: $59.95 Availability: Title is currently available and usually ships within 2 business days.	Buy This Book From Internet For Lawyers Click here for information to purchase by check. To order this book by check, one should send their check to the following address:   Internet For Lawyers 7820 Enchanted Hills Dr. Suite A-215 Rio Rancho, NM 87144   New Mexico Residents: $71.57 ($59.95+$4.12 tax+$7.50 shipping)   Other States' Residents: $67.45 ($59.95+$7.50 shipping)   E-mail invoice_request@netforlawyers.com if you require Internet For Lawyers to send you an invoice prior to your submitting your order, or for information on ordering multiple copies. Close this   To inquire about discounts on larger quantity orders e-mail Research_Guide@netforlawyers.com.
	View the Index* View the Table of Contents*
	(*requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)

Binding: Paperback binding allows for use as a computer-side reference. IFL Press; ISBN: 978-0-9713257-4-6; Pages: 402; Dimensions in inches: 1.0 x 8.5 x 11.0 Revision Date: August 2009

COMPREHENSIVE & UPDATED

The all new expanded 10th edition of the Cybersleuth's Guide to the Internet features the best federal legal research resources, as well as comprehensive information for locating state and local resources for all 50 states. This new edition also includes detailed reviews of the newest Internet resources such as Justia.com and Social Networking sites. It also includes extensive recommendations for free public records, investigative and people finder resources available for free on the Internet, as well as low-cost pay services, such as Merlin and Accurint and free sources for case law such as Justia, PLoL, and PreCYdent.

FULLY INDEXED

Even if you're not exactly certain what site you're looking for, finding a site you need is easier than ever with this edition's updated and expanded index. Whether you're looking by jurisdiction, type of information (e.g. real estate records), or by web site name, you will find it quickly in the guide's comprehensive index which includes more than 1500 entries.

WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH (NOT COMPUTER JARGON)

Levitt is a lawyer, law librarian and legal educator – she is not a computer technician. This guide is based on her more than 20 years in the legal field and is written the way legal professionals actually search for information. She has also been a regular contributor to the "Computer Counselor" column for the Los Angeles Lawyer magazine. Levitt is active in Bar activities at the state and national level, currently serving on the Executive Council of the American Bar Association's Law Practice Management Section and previously serving and Chair and a member of the Executive Committee of the California State Bar Law Practice Management & Technology Section.

Rosch is a frequent speaker on the topics of Internet research and using technology more effectively in the practice of law. He has also written on computer-related topics for numerous publications including Law Office Computing, Law Practice, Small Firm Business, FindLaw and LLRX.com among many others, and is also a regular contributor to Los Angeles Lawyer magazine's "Computer Counselor" column.

Together, Levitt & Rosch are also the authors of The Lawyer's Guide to Fact Finding on the Internet (3rd Ed.) - published by the American Bar Association, and have recently conducted hundreds of in-person MCLE programs for numerous Bar associations, law firms, corporations and other professional organizations.

Thousands of copies of the books nine previous editions are helping legal professionals all over the country save time and money as they conduct legal and investigative research. This guide has also been added to numerous county, academic and corporate libraries. Add this book to your collection and put the authors' years of research and training experience to work for you.

The post “The Cybersleuth’s Guide to the Internet: Conducting Effective Free Investigative & Legal Research on the Internet” 10th edition appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

FAQs | Accessing Materials | What if I've Already Paid? | MCLE Video & Webinars | Information for Lawyers | Information for Paralegals | Deadlines

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Click here to read answers to Frequently Asked Questions regarding completing and certifying California MCLE exercises completed with Internet For Lawyers.

ACCESS ALL MCLE EXERCISES AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS

Click here to access the entire list of online MCLE exercises and associated reading materials.

California, Arizona & New York attorneys can also view the list of Online MCLE Quizzes

Select individual Continuing Legal Education exercises below, or visit our online MCLE catalog for money-saving multi-course bundles.

IF YOU HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR MCLE CREDITS

If you have already purchased individual exercises or multi-hour MCLE bundles, check your e-mail for a message containing instructions/links to access the exercise. Click here to visit a page with links to all of the associated reading materials. Note that the exercises themselves also include links to the reading materials.

Or, to locate MCLE exercises in particular categories, click subject areas below to locate quizzes, or click here to access the entire list of online MCLE exercises and associated reading materials.

• Elimination of Bias
• Prevention, Detection & Treatment of Substance Abuse
• Legal Ethics
• Law Practice Management
• General

RECORDED VIDEO & LIVE WEBINAR PROGRAMS

• See our new California MCLE video site CaliforniaVideoMCLE for video MCLE courses based on our books and live presentations.
• See our new CLEseminars.com MCLE webinar site law practice management, technology, and legal ethics webinars presented by some of the leading authorities in these areas.
  • MCLE credit for attending these webinars is currently available in the following jurisdictions:
  • Alabama | Alaska | California | Kansas | Missouri | Oklahoma | Wyoming

CALIFORNIA MCLE INFORMATION FOR LAWYERS & ATTORNEYS

California Legal Ethics, Elimination of Bias in the Practice of Law, Prevention, Detection & Treatment of Substance Abuse, Law Practice Management, or General Self-Study Continuing Legal Education credit may be earned online for only $20.00 per hour (when reading accompanying articles or code sections when applicable and answering related quiz questions). The exams can be viewed online for free prior to taking them by clicking the links above. For Attorneys or Paralegals requiring multiple hours, we have created a number of money-saving multi-course bundles. Save over $60 when completing 13 hours of our Continuing Legal Education courses online.

Additionally, these quizzes qualify for CLE credit for Arizona Attorneys. Courses offering two hours of credit also qualify for credit for New York lawyers. Attorneys in other jurisdictions may be able to submit the California MCLE Certificate of Completion for MCLE credit if they can claim credit for credits in their home jurisdictions from exercises earned from California MCLE providers. Internet For Lawyers is a California State Bar approved MCLE provider (California MCLE provider number #9836). 

Internet For Lawyers also custom-designs in-person MCLE training seminars for individuals, your practice group, law firm or professional organization. For more information, contact us at seminars@netforlawyers.com or 310/559-1632 - or view our online continuing legal education seminar calendar for our schedule of upcoming live MCLE events.

CALIFORNIA MCLE INFORMATION FOR PARALEGALS

*In the year 2000, the California State Assembly passed a bill (AB 1761) outlining, among other things, new MANDATORY continuing legal education requirements for Paralegals. The Bill provides under Business & Professions Section 6450 paragraph d that "all continuing education courses shall meet the requirements of [Business & professions Code] Section 6070.

Per Section 6070 only courses offered by State Bar of California approved MCLE providers are recognized when considering MCLE credit hours earned.

Additionally, the State Bar has gone on record stating that "If an activity is geared toward Paralegals or attended only by Paralegals, the activity DOES NOT qualify for MCLE credit and therefore does not meet either the Attorney's or the Paralegal's requirements."

When taking live or online MCLE courses, Attorneys and Paralegals should be certain that the provider is certified by the California State Bar.

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

Also in 2000, the California State Senate passed a bill (SB144) instructing the State Bar to "ensure that by July 1, 2000, any member possessing or having access to the internet or specified generally available computer technology shall be capable of satisfying the full self-study portion of his or her MCLE requirement [online] ... " (Paragraph d).

The Bar also allows Self-Study CREDIT online MCLE if the provider keeps record of the attorneys' usage of the materials. Internet For Lawyers keeps these records, and therefore our quizzes are eligible for Self-Study credit.

For a full list of the upcoming California State Bar MCLE deadlines visit click here.

For the full text of California Senate Bill 144 (2000) click here.

The post Online MCLE 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.