The post California Passes Law Governing Attorney Use of Generative AI appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

By Mark Rosch

As the legal profession grapples with the continually-shifting landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), the State Bar of California has taken a first-of-its-kind step forward to help lawyers use the technology in their practices by issuing comprehensive ethics guidance for attorneys who choose to use this powerful technology. This landmark document, titled "Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law," provides a roadmap for lawyers to navigate the ethical implications of AI and ensure that its use aligns with their professional obligations.

The Significance of Ethical Guidelines for AI in Legal Practice

The rapid advancement of AI is transforming the legal profession, offering a plethora of tools and resources to enhance efficiency, accuracy, and legal research. However, this technological revolution has also brought about a host of ethical concerns, particularly with regard to the potential for AI to perpetuate bias, infringe on client confidentiality, blur the lines between human and machine judgment, and introduce non-factual information.

The State Bar of California's new ethics guidance addresses these concerns head-on, providing a framework for lawyers to responsibly integrate AI into their practice while upholding their ethical duties to their clients and the legal system. The California Bar stopped short of creating binding standard of conduct that all California attorneys must adhere to when using AI - rather, the Bar advises that "[t]his Practical Guidance should be read as guiding principles rather than as 'best practices.'"

Key Principles of the State Bar's AI Ethics Guidance

The State Bar's AI ethics guidance is anchored in five fundamental principles:

• Competence: Attorneys must possess a thorough understanding of the AI tools they employ, including their capabilities, limitations, and potential biases.
• Client Confidentiality: Client information must be protected with utmost consideration, and lawyers should only use AI with vendors that have robust data security measures in place.
• Diligence: Attorneys must exercise due diligence in selecting, implementing, and monitoring AI tools, ensuring that they are appropriate for the specific legal task at hand.
• Supervision: Attorneys should establish clear policies regarding the permissible uses of generative AI in their practices. Those attorneys must also supervise their attorney and non-attorney staff to assure their use of AI tools conforms to those policies. 
• Communication: Attorneys should clearly communicate to their clients the role of AI in their representation, including the benefits, limitations, and potential risks of using this technology.

Specific Ethical Considerations for AI Use

The State Bar's ethics guidance delves into specific ethical considerations for the use of AI in various aspects of legal practice, including:

• Legal Research: AI can be a powerful tool for legal research, but attorneys must carefully evaluate the trustworthiness and accuracy of AI-generated results.
• Document Review: AI-assisted document review can expedite the review process, but attorneys must remain actively involved in reviewing key documents and ensuring the accuracy of AI-generated summaries.
• Legal Drafting: AI can assist in drafting legal documents, but attorneys must exercise judgment and expertise to ensure that the final product is tailored to the specific legal context and adheres to applicable legal standards.
• Client Communication: AI can be used to enhance client communication, but attorneys must ensure that AI-generated communication is clear, accurate, and tailored to the individual client's needs.
• Billing and Fee Arrangements: Attorneys should not charge clients for time saved by using AI, and billing practices should clearly reflect the human expertise and judgment involved in legal representation.

Conclusion: A New Era of AI-Powered Legal Practice

The State Bar of California's new ethics guidance marks a significant step forward in helping lawyers how they might use AI in their practices and guide them on how AI can be used responsibly and ethically within the legal profession. By providing a framework for attorneys to navigate the ethical implications of AI, these guidelines empower lawyers to harness the power of technology while upholding their fundamental obligations to their clients and the justice system.

As AI continues to evolve and become more prevelant in the legal landscape, the State Bar of California's ethical guidance on the use of Artificial intelligence will serve as an invaluable resource for attorneys, helping the profession to adapt to the changing technological landscape while maintaining its commitment to the ethical foundations of legal practice and commitment to client service.

The post Navigating the Ethical Landscape of Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice: A First Look at the State Bar of California’s New Guidelines appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

The site allows you to search its collection of Tentative Rulings simultaneously through multiple counties. It allows you to further refine your search with filters, by county, judge, or tag. The cost to access the collection is $39.00 per month. Since most Tentative Rulings are not available anywhere else, Bench Reporter has the potential to be a very useful site. **Readers of this site can save $10 off their first month's subscription using the discount code ifl.

Coverage: Dates and Geographic

The site is vague about its date coverage range, saying, “We began collecting tentative rulings many years ago. Having invested countless resources over that span, we amassed more than 10,000 tentative rulings.*” The asterisk leads to a disclaimer that reads, “not all 10,000 rulings are available at this time, but more are added nearly every day.” Most of the Tentative Rulings we found are from recent years. We did retrieve a few from as far back as 2008.

Bottom of Form

Currently, the site includes Tentative Rulings from the following California counties:

·      Contra Costa County Superior Court

·      Los Angeles County Superior Court

·      Orange County Superior Court

·      Sacramento County Superior Court

·      San Diego County Superior Court

·      San Francisco County Superior Court

·      Santa Clara County Superior Court

·      Sonoma County Superior Court

Why Tentative Rulings Could Be Useful

As most California attorneys know, it is NOT acceptable to cite to a Tentative Ruling, absent exceptionally rare circumstances. So if Tentative Rulings cannot be cited as authority (and might not even become the final ruling), why research them you might ask, as I did in an e-mail interview with the co-founder of the site, Benjamin Berger (from the law firm of Berger Harrison, APC in Irvine, California)? He explained that:

·      The purpose of studying tentative rulings is to gain insight as to how judges evaluate certain issues.  Whether a tentative becomes final or not, it will provide insight you cannot get anywhere else. [Note from author: Bench Reporter does not indicate whether a Tentative Ruling became the final ruling.]

·      While a tentative ruling will set forth the court’s analysis, a final ruling (even where the tentative is adopted) is often boiled down to a short and simple order.  For example, a judge may issue a tentative ruling that spends several pages examining the facts and law, then issue a final ruling as short as this:  “Motion granted as to the 3^rd and 4^th cause of action.  20 days leave to amend.”  Critically, in most counties, the tentative ruling vanishes soon after the hearing and is not available anywhere thereafter (except for Bench Reporter).  For this reason, far more can be learned from the tentative ruling than from the final ruling. 

·      Most tentative rulings do become the final ruling.  For the small minority of instances where the tentative was not adopted, it is unlikely that the change would upset the analysis set forth in the tentative.  All this being said, our site provides a supplemental method of research. 

In addition, the site explains the usefulness of Tentative Rulings this way:

•  illustrate how a particular judge has handled specific issues in the past

•  reveal which cases your judge finds most persuasive on a given topic

• address issues for which there is little or no appellate authority

•  provide a quick overview of issues you’re not familiar with

•  help you prepare an opposition to a motion you’ve never faced

•  lead you to copies of moving papers that will be vital to your research

•  provide insight regarding a judge’s interpretation of ambiguous precedent

How To Search

The site is best-formatted for use from a desktop/laptop computer or some larger tablets. It’s not made for small screens. The search panel is divided vertically, with the search column on the left and the list of search results in the right-hand column. The search panel allows you to set a variety of search criteria which can be mixed and matched. For example, you can search using free-text, and/or you can filter by judge/county, and/or tags (e.g., demurrer), and/or date. 

Full-Text “Search Term” Search

The search function searches the body of the rulings, as well as the case names. It works similarly to the Google Web Search. You can search with one or more words, or exact phrases, or you can search by mixing an exact phrase and one or more additional words. The default will be to connect multiple words with an “AND” Boolean connector, so the site will return rulings which contain all of the words.  

Judge/County Filters

If your goal is to read every available ruling by a particular judge, regardless of topic, you could search without any search terms by filtering first by county and then by selecting a judge from the list. To search rulings on a particular topic by a particular judge, enter words/phrases into the “Search term” Search box and filter by judge. Sometimes a ruling may be attributed to a judge who did not actually write the ruling; this would happen when another judge fills in for a vacationing judge.  

Tag Filters

You can also filter by Tags, which are pre-defined labels assigned by the site owners to help you locate a ruling when the judge hasn’t used the same word or phrase that you are using in your search.  As explained by the site owners, “Ideally, tags categorize rulings which may be hard to find otherwise.  A ruling may deal with a topic but never use the term or phrase you might search for. For example, a ruling may say ‘slip and fall’ or ‘landlord liability’ but never use the term ‘premises liability.’  By tagging the ruling with ‘premises liability,’ the user is more likely to find it.”  The tags that apply to each ruling can be viewed in the footer of each ruling.

The Bench Reporter site owners note that, “Tagging rulings takes a great deal of attorney time.  We’d like to crowdsource this task.  If you think one or more tags are appropriate for a given ruling, please enter your suggestions in the comments section of that ruling (found at the bottom of the page for every ruling).” The site owners also welcome submissions of Tentative Rulings from other lawyers, which they will add to the database.

Date Filters

You can enter a specific range of dates by entering dates into both the Start box and the End box. If you enter a date into only the first box, it will return rulings dated that date and later and if you enter a date into only the second box, it will return rulings dated that date and earlier. Once you retrieve your list of results, you can sort alphabetically or by date.

Will Tentative Rulings Be Useful To You?

Bench Reporter’s founders explain that, “No matter what county you are in, there is much to be learned from trial court judges applying California law.  Much like sitting through several hearings waiting for your own case to be called, a California litigator simply cannot explore these rulings without gaining valuable insight.”

**Internet For Lawyers does receive a commission for each subscription started using this doscount code. However, this article was written prior to this arrangement being reached and in no way influenced the content of this article.

The post Bench Reporter Archives California Tentative Rulings Into a Searchable Database appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Although you can search civil (http://linkon.in/lasupernumber) and criminal (http://linkon.in/lasupercrimdefname) case summaries (dockets) free by case number using the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s official website, searching by party name requires a fee, as shown in the fee schedule below (civil:http://linkon.in/lasupparty and criminal:http://linkon.in/lasupercrimdefname).

Even if you receive no results, you are still charged for the search.

• Per search fee for search number 1 to 10    $ 1.00
• Per search fee for search number 11 to 99    $ 4.75
• Per search fee for search number 100 to 999    $ 4.50
• Per search fee for search number 1000 to 10000    $ 4.25
• Per search fee for search number 10001 and above    $ 4.00

What You Can Do Now: Use Plainsite for Free Name Searching

Fortunately, we now have a free party name search (and also attorney and judge name) thanks to Plainsite.org (http://www.plainsite.org/courts/superior-court-of-california-county-of-los-angeles/). The results only include the docket sheet, not the case documents. The following is an announcement by Aaron Greenspan at Plainsite:

Just wanted to let you know that we have completed indexing our initial batch of Los Angeles County [civil] dockets, beginning with BC and EC. There are about 630,000 dockets available: Note that this means that you no longer need to pay Los Angeles County Superior Court to search the index by name for any BC- or EC- case before 2015. As with all dockets on PlainSite, we also recognize entity names where possible and link them together to create comprehensive profiles. Google should start picking up the pages shortly, as well.”

We tested out the site and found it fairly easy to use. We were surprised by two things: The first surprise was some of our results included dockets outside of the L.A. County Superior Court, such as dockets (and even pleadings) from the USPTO TTAB [decisions issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board] and some from PAIR [Patent Application Information Retrieval]. According to Greenspan, “For certain PACER filings we do have pleadings, which come largely from the RECAP browser plugin, and we have them for a lot of USPTO data as well.” The second surprise was when our party name search results also returned attorney and judge name results, until we realized that’s what Greenspan meant by “entity searches.”  However, we did have some strange results when we tested the search for a Los Angeles attorney we know. His results included USPTO dockets, but when we viewed the details his name was nowhere to be found. And, he has never practiced before the USPTO.

As to retrieving civil case documents from PlainSite for free, that’s not an option because Greenspan said, “Los Angeles County are *extremely* expensive.” He continued, “If you already have any documents you would like to share on PlainSite, you can either sign up and use the upload function that appears when you sign in, or you can e-mail documents to help@plainsite.org.” (This seems somewhat similar to the RECAP model, where you add a plug-in to your browser to automatically add every docket or document that you retrieve from PACER.)

Purchasing Civil Case Documents from the Los Angeles Superior Court Site

Because PlainSite does not include the actual case documents, you will still need to pay for civil case documents at the official Los Angeles Superior Court site (http://linkon.in/lasupdocs), searching by either a case number or a party name.   (Other pay databases might also have these case documents.) The Los Angeles Superior Court allows you to download scanned images of General Jurisdiction Civil (lawsuits greater than $25,000) Case Documents, but only from the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.  The Fee schedule is shown below.

• Civil Documents 1-5 pages per document (fee per page)    $1.00
• 6+ additional pages per document (fee per page)    $0.40
• Maximum per document    $40.00

The site states that, “Most, but not all documents filed with or generated by the Court since January, 2008 are included; additional documents, both newly-filed and previously captured, will be added on a daily basis.” On another part of the site, there is more up-to-date date range chart showing that you can search cases back much further than 2008 and not just General Jurisdiction Civil cases greater than $25,000 (http://linkon.in/lasupercivpartydatechart).

• Unlimited Civil (lawsuits greater than $25,000)
• Probate
• Family Law    1983 - Present
• Limited Civil (lawsuits $25,000 or less)    1991 - Present
• Small Claims (lawsuits $5,000 or less)    1992 - Present

Searching Criminal Cases by Name from the Los Angeles Superior Court Site

Plainsite does not offer access to Los Angeles Superior Court Site criminal cases (but does offer some federal cases). The court imposes a fee to search criminal cases by defendant name, using the Court’s online Index of Defendants in Criminal Cases (http://linkon.in/lasupercrimdefname). The search fees are the same as the civil search fees noted earlier. The Index displays a list of case numbers, filing dates, and filing locations of cases that match the defendant name you submitted.  The Index includes felony cases records from 1980 to the present and misdemeanor case records from 1988 to present, but some could go back to 1983 if any of the former Municipal Courts had automated their criminal records back to then. The Criminal Case Summary site, which can be searched for free if you know the case number (or have retrieved it from your Index search results), provides more extensive information about the case than the index, such as: case information (the count, charge section, charge statute, plea, disposition, and disposition date), events, bail, and sentencing. However, case documents are not available.

Aaron Greenspan’s Plainsite.org free name search should prove useful to researchers who need to conduct a litigation search by party, attorney, or judge name, saving them both time and some money.

The post Los Angeles Superior Court Civil Cases: Finally, Free Party Name Searching Option appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) refers to the approved continuing legal education required, by statute, of California attorneys.

California Attorneys are required to complete a total of 25 hours of approved credit every three years.

California Attorneys can earn up to 12.5 of their required hours via self-study activities. All of these self-study activities can be earned online. Internet For Lawyers has updated all of its online California self-study MCLE exercises for the current reporting period.

Internet For Lawyers offers online California MCLE exercises that satisfy the:

• Legal Ethics MCLE requirement
• Elimination of Bias MCLE requirement
• Substance Abuse MCLE requirement
• General MCLE Requirement

The company's online California MCLE activities are priced as low as $15.00 when purchased in bundles.

California attorneys are divided into three compliance groups based on their last names. Compliance periods and reporting dates for the three groups are staggered so that each group reports compliance in a different year. Compliance periods for all California Attorney Compliance Groups are 36 months (three years) in length. Reporting deadlines for each compliance group are listed at https://www.netforlawyers.com/page/california-bar-mcle-compliance-deadlines.

To ensure that lawyers receive quality legal education, the State Bar approves MCLE providers and education activities.Internet For Lawyers is a California State Bar approved MCLE Provider.

The post California Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Deadline is January 31 appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

FindLaw and Google Scholar offer free California state and Ninth Circuit federal case law databases (in addition to free case law databases to all other states, circuits, and the U.S. Supreme Court).

For California-only free case law databases, you can use FindLaw’s ACCESSLAW database and the Lexis-provided database at the California Official Reports Public Access Web site.

To search select federal Ninth Circuit court (and other federal courts) dockets for free, there are two sites: Justia and RECAP.

Each of the sites noted above differ in the courts they cover, the degree of user friendliness, date coverage, and currency.

Free court forms are provided at the California Court’s official site.

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

FindLaw.com (owned by Westlaw) offers a free California case-law database, powered by ACCESSLAW (http://www.findlaw.com/cacases/index.html#dirsearch2), with coverage back to 1934. 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 the search boxes below “Powered By ACCESSLAW.”

You can search by:

(1) Citation by clicking on the Citation tab or

(2) Advanced Search by clicking on its tab.

Cases can be searched by the following criteria:

(1) Keywords and Phrases (full text)

(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.

Other FindLaw 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), 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 uses the Boolean connectors “and”, “or” and “not” and offers only one proximity connector, “near” (which means “one word within 50 words of another word”). To search for an exact phrase, enclose it in quotation marks. The single asterisk ( * ) wildcard is used to expand the root of a word. For example, fly* would bring back results with the word fly or flying. The double asterisk ( ** ) wildcard is used to include variations of a word. For example, fly** would bring back results with the word fly or flying, but also flown or flew.

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.)

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

Google Scholar Case Law Database

Late in the evening of November 17, 2009 a Google employee tweeted that something was new at Google Scholar and challenged readers to figure out what it was ... One of the authors of this article, a well-known late-night type, visited Google Scholar that evening and learned that Google had launched a free case law database Legal Opinions and Journals. You can reach Google Scholar with this direct URL: http://scholar.google.com/.

Google Scholar contains opinions from: all U.S. state appellate and state supreme courts back to 1950, the U.S. federal district, appellate, tax, and bankruptcy courts back to 1923, and the U.S. Supreme Court back to 1791. Also included in this database are legal (and non-legal) journal articles. Google Scholar has no documentation about its currency. 

Google Scholar can be searched with the same Boolean connectors that you use to search at Google.com. You can enter your search into the large search box on the Scholar home page. A space between words indicates "and," the minus sign indicates you are excluding a word, and "OR," which must be in upper case, indicates you want one or the other or both words. Google's proximity connector "AROUND(n)" is similar to Lexis' "w/" connector. AROUND must be in upper case and you replace the "n" with the number of words you want one word to be within another word.  Thus, a search can be constructed to find cases with the keywords “negligence” within 4 words of “automobile” by typing: negligence AROUND(4) automobile.  You will be searching all cases and articles together but you will be able to narrow down once you receive your results by using the left-hand side bar. This is where you can narrow your search to Articles or Case Law. If you choose Case law, then you can further narrow your search to specific courts (click the Select Courts link).

Keywords are highlighted (in light yellow), but highlighting can be removed. Cases seem to be displayed in random date order in Google Scholar results.

If you want to begin your search with a specific court (or courts), you would click into the “Case law” radio button. Then, you are given a choice of “Federal Courts” or “Select Courts” (or the last court you searched). After selecting your court(s), click “Done” and then you are offered a search box. Enter your search here, using the same Boolean connectors noted above.

You can also use the Advanced Search, which gets shifted around from time to time. Currently, it is located at the top of the page, above the large search box. If you choose the Advanced Search, you will be searching all cases and articles together but you will be able to narrow down once you receive your results.

You can enter words into one or more of the following Advanced search boxes:

• with all of the words
•  with at least one of the words
•  without the words

You can enter one or more phrases into the following Advanced search box:

• with the exact phrase (note that if you enter one phrase, do not use quotation marks but if you enter more than one phrase enclose each phrase in its own quotation marks)

You can restrict your words/phrases to appear:

• Anywhere in the article* or
• In the title of the article*

You can also restrict your search to:

• Return articles* authored by
• Return articles* published in
• Return articles* dated between

There are no separate search boxes to search by citation, party name, counsel, or judge, so use the "all of the words" search box or the "exact phrase" search box OR *you could enter a judge’s name into the authored by search box or a reporter name into the published in search box. In other words, “articles” could also include “cases” even though it’s not labeled as such. Entering dates into the Return articles* dated between search box will also work for cases.

Once you have entered your search into the search boxes, notice the left-hand side bar. This is where you can narrow your search to Articles or Case Law. If you choose Case law, then you can further narrow your search to specific courts (click the Select Courts link).

Google Scholar offers a “Create alert” feature (at the bottom of the left-hand column on the results page), which allows researchers to receive alerts about cases, on any chosen topic emanating from any chosen court (or alerts for articles on any chosen topic). The alert defaults to your current search and current court choices, but you can revise the alert by typing in other keywords/phrases.

California Court’s Official Site: Lexis California State Case Law Database

A free California case law database is provided by Lexis at the court's official site (http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts), with coverage back to 1850. The search default is “Search for Opinions by Natural Language Word or Phrase” which means you would not be using Boolean or proximity connectors. To search your keywords and phrases with Boolean and proximity connectors, notice the left-hand column where you are offered an Advanced Search. In addition to the Advanced Search you can also search by field searches: By Citation, By Party Name, and By Judge.

Lexis uses the Boolean connectors “and”, “or” and “not.” Lexis also offers proximity connectors (e.g. “one word within x words of another). Thus, a search can be constructed to find cases with the keywords “negligence” within 4 words of “automobile” by typing: negligence w/4 automobile.   Lexis updates its California database once a month at the court's web site.

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 depublication 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 citator service for the U. S. Courts of Appeals or states other than California.

The "How cited tab" displayed to the right of the "View this case" tab in a Google Scholar case will help you conduct a citation check to ascertain whether your case is still good law.

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.

 Registration and Log-On

Google Scholar and the Lexis California databases do not require registration, but FindLaw requires registration (free). 

Number of Cases Displayed

FindLaw results are limited to the first 100 cases while Lexis' California case results are limited to the first 25 cases. Google Scholar does not seem to have a limit.

California State Court Dockets

Case information (dockets) for California Supreme and Appellate Courts can be searched at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/. To locate information about specific cases, click into the "Appellate District" or “Supreme Court” radio button in the "Please Select" section on the right-hand side. If you select "Appellate District," you will then need to select an individual district (or county if you don’t know its district number). 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.”

California State Court Judicial Biographies

The Court’s site also has biographical information for many of California's justices at http://www.courts.ca.gov/. To find Court of Appeals biographies, use the link bar (on the top of the home page of the California Court’s official site) and click on the button labeled "Courts." Then choose a district and then click “Justices” and then browse the Division list for the judge’s name. To find biographical information about Supreme Court justices, use the link bar (on the top of the home page of the California Court’s official site) and then click “Justices.”

California Court Forms

Court forms can be viewed by number, name, or category (http://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm). Also, you can view a list of recently changed forms only. If a form is interactive, it will be labeled “fillable.”

Free Federal Docket Web Site-Justia

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 the U.S. Courts of Appeals’ dockets from 2004 to present. You can limit your search to a Circuit (e.g., Ninth) or to a District Court (e.g., all California Federal District courts or just the C.D. of California). 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.

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

Don't get caught short of MCLE hours. Internet For Lawyers is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. California Attorneys can earn all 25 of their required California MCLE hours online from Internet For Lawyers.

In 2012, the California State Bar Association's random selection of 635 attorneys in MCLE Compliance Group 3 (last names ending in letters N-Z) resulted in 27 attorneys being referred to the Bars' Office of Chief Trial Counsel, with formal charges being filed against three of them. Later that year, the California Bar expanded its audit to include 2600 attorneys in Compliance Group 2 (last names ending in letters H-M) - roughly 5% of that group. Results of that audit have not yet been made available.

The post Expanded California MCLE Audit of Attorney Continuing Education Compliance Planned by California Bar Association appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Share this article:       
  

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] at a cost of fifteen dollars ($15) per hour or less, ... " (Paragraph d).

California attorneys can earn all of their MCLE credits online - this includes (up to a maximum) 12.5 hours of Self-Study credits. Internet For Lawyers' California MCLE bundles meet the educational, access, and low price parameters of the Bill.

Attorneys can earn up to 22 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. Of these MCLE credit hours, 15 hours qualify for Participatory California MCLE credit and 7 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).

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 California MCLE Deadline Approaching for Attorneys in Group 2; Continuing Legal Education Compliance Must be Completed by January 31, 2012, Reported by February 1 appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

The MCLE (Minimum Continuing Legal Education) compliance deadline for California attorneys in Compliance Group 3 is January 31, 2011. Compliance Group 3 includes all licensed California attorneys whose names end with letters N through Z. California attorneys are required to report their MCLE compliance by February 1 by submitting the California State Bar's affidavit form or online via their "My State Bar" profile.

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] at a cost of fifteen dollars ($15) per hour or less, ... " (Paragraph d).

California attorneys can earn all of their MCLE credits online - this includes (up to a maximum) 12.5 hours of Self-Study credits. Internet For Lawyers' California MCLE bundles meet the educational, access, and low price parameters of the Bill.

Attorneys can can earn up to 20 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. Of these MCLE credit hours, 15 hours qualify for Participatory California MCLE credit and 5 qualify for Self-Study California MCLE credit.

For more information on our MCLE exercises and special package prices for multi-hour bundles, see https://www.netforlawyers.com/online_mcle_catalog.htm. Internet For Lawyers is a California State Bar approved MCLE provider (number 9836).

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 California MCLE Deadline Approaching for Attorneys in Group 3; Continuing Legal Education Compliance Must be Completed by January 31, 2011, Reported by February 1 appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

The MCLE (Minimum Continuing Legal Education) compliance deadline for California attorneys in Compliance Group 3 is January 31, 2011. Compliance Group 3 includes all licensed California attorneys whose names end with letters N through Z. California attorneys are required to report their MCLE compliance by February 1 by submitting the California State Bar's affidavit form or online via their "My State Bar" profile.

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] at a cost of fifteen dollars ($15) per hour or less, ... " (Paragraph d).

California attorneys can earn all of their MCLE credits online - this includes (up to a maximum) 12.5 hours of Self-Study credits. Internet For Lawyers' California MCLE bundles meet the educational, access, and low price parameters of the Bill.

Attorneys can can earn up to 20 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. Of these MCLE credit hours, 15 hours qualify for Participatory California MCLE credit and 5 qualify for Self-Study California MCLE credit.

For more information on our MCLE exercises and special package prices for multi-hour bundles, see https://www.netforlawyers.com/online_mcle_catalog.htm. Internet For Lawyers is a California State Bar approved MCLE provider (number 9836).

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 California MCLE Deadline Approaching for Attorneys in Group 3; Continuing Legal Education Compliance Must be Completed by January 31, 2011, Reported by February 1 appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.