The post New Mexico Attorney Disciplined for Improper ‘Supervision’ of Generative AI Output appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

The CLE at Sea 2018 educational programs have been approved for CLE credit in the following jurisdictions:

• Alaska
• California
• Pennsylvania
• South Carolina

Continuing Legal Education credit is also available in: 

• Arizona
• New Jersey (via reciprocity)
• New York (via reciprocity)
• West Virginia

Texas attorneys may individually apply for CLE credit for the conference using this form.

CLE at Sea 2018 conference registration is $350. Separate arrangements must be made for ship-board accomodations.

The conference will be held aboard Royal Carribean's Liberty of the Seas, February 18-25, 2018. The ship's itinerary is:

• February 18    Welcome – Galveston, TX
• February 19    At Sea – 5.0 Hrs of CLE Programs
• February 20    Cozumel, Mexico
• February 21    Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands
• February 22    Falmouth, Jamaica
• February 23    At Sea – 4.0 Hrs of CLE Programs
• February 24    At Sea – 3.0 Hrs of CLE Programs
• February 25    Galveston

The CLE at Sea 2018 educational conference schedule is:

February 19

9:00–11:00 a.m.

• Mutiny in the Boardroom: Walking the Plank of Board Rights, Responsibilities, Fiduciary Duties and Managing Conflict in Closely Held Organizations
  • Presented by Cheryl McKay | 2.0 General CLE Credits

1:30–2:30 p.m. 

• If It’s Tuesday This Must Be Phoenix
  • Presented by Nelson Page | 1.0 Ethics CLE Credits

4:30–5:30 p.m. 

• Cruisin’ Through Social Media
  • Presented by Carole Levitt and Mark Rosch | 1.0 General CLE Credit

5:30–6:30 p.m. 

• Cruisin’ Through Social Media Research, Ethically
  • Presented by Carole Levitt and Mark Rosch | 1.0 Ethics CLE Credit

February 23

9:30–11:30 a.m.

• Self-Care for Lawyers: Carpe Diem. Using Cognitive Behavioral Techniques & Mindfulness Skills for Self-Care
  • Presented by Nancy Nolin | 2.0 Ubstance Abuse/Mental Health/Wellness CLE Credits

4:30–5:30 p.m. 

• Cruisin’ Through Public Records
  • Presented by Carole Levitt and Mark Rosch | 1.0 General CLE Credit

5:30–6:30 p.m. 

• Cruisin’ Through Free Legal Research
  • Presented by Carole Levitt and Mark Rosch | 1.0 General CLE Credit

February 24
 
8:30–11:45 a.m.

• Heavy Sailing: Avoiding the Rocks and Shoals That Can Sink Your Practice
  • Presented by Nelson Page | 3.0 Ethics CLE Credits

The post 2018 CLE at Sea Cruise Offers 12 Hours of Credit in Multiple States 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.

California Attorneys and Paralegals can earn one hour of General California MCLE credit by reading the article "How to Search Congressional Legislative Materials at Thomas and FDSys" and successfully completing this MCLE quiz. 

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.Individual California MCLE exercises are only $20 each. Multiple hour bundles can bring the cost down to less than $15 per California MCLE credit hour.

For more information about California MCLE compliance deadlines and the revamped reporting process process click here.

The post New California MCLE Exercise Focuses on Locating Congressional Legislative Materials at Thomas and FDSys 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.

Internet For Lawyers 2012 Ohio MCLE Tour

	Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 9:00am Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association http://www.clemetrobar.org/PV/Core/Events/eventdetails.aspx?iKey=S12CYBER
	Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 9:00am Dayton Bar Association http://www.daybar.org/calendar/2012-11/541
	Friday, November 16, 2012 at 9:00am Cincinnati Bar Association http://www.cincybar.org/calendar/2012-11-16/657

In this fast-paced and entertaining educational program, attendees learn how the Internet is changing the way legal professionals need to research and run their practice to competently represent their clients. They will find out if failing to "Google" as part of the due diligence process could keep you from winning a case or successfully completing a transaction. The program will uncover the best research strategies and learn to master Google. Lawyers, paralegals, firm administrators, and other law office staff will discover how law firms are using free public record sites and sites with free "publicly available" information, including social networking sites (Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Google Plus, and LinkedIn) for discovery, trial preparation, background checks, and locating missing persons.

Don't be left behind in exploiting this gold mine of information that will assist you in meeting your investigative research obligations. Join Carole Levitt and Mark Rosch, internationally recognized Internet trainers and American Bar Association authors of five American Bar Association books, who will show you how to be a cybersleuth to unearth information FREE (or at low cost!) on the Net. Each attendee will receive a copy of their 500 page book, The Cybersleuth's Guide to the Internet, 12th edition (2012) (a $64.95 value).

The post Continuing Legal Education Seminars 2012 Ohio Tour; Cincinnati, Dayton, Cleveland appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Share this artice:          

California Attorneys and Paralegals can earn one hour of Self-Study Legal Ethics MCLE credit by submitting this quiz after reading the ABA's Formal Opinion 10-457.

ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 10-457 Covering Attorneys' Use of Web Sites to Market Their Practices

The post American Bar Association Formal Opinion 10-457 | California Legal Ethics MCLE appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

More and more attorneys and judges are using social media. Some use it for its intended purpose of social networking (and, for the lesser intended purpose of marketing). Others take advantage of the information contained in these sites for an unintended purpose - investigative research.

Legal pundits have argued (online and in print) about the ethical issues for attorneys utilizing this information in the matters they handle. Few Bar Associations have opined on the topic. One exception is the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. They addressed the following specific question:

Is it ethical for an attorney to send a "friend" request to an unrepresented person if the attorney uses her real name and profile without also disclosing the reasons for making the request?

The Association of the Bar of the City Of New York Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics - Opinion 2010-2 (Sept. 2010) available at http://www.abcny.org/Ethics/eth2010.htm, concluded that there would be no violation of the rules of professional conduct if an attorney or her agent uses her real name and profile to send a "friend request" to obtain information from an unrepresented person's social networking website without also disclosing the reasons for making the request. However, the Committee noted that a, "lawyer may not attempt to gain access to a social networking website under false pretenses, either directly or through an agent." The Committee said:

Rather than engage in "trickery," lawyers can -- and should -- seek information maintained on social networking sites, such as Facebook, by availing themselves of informal discovery, such as the truthful "friending" of unrepresented parties, or by using formal discovery devices such as subpoenas directed to non-parties in possession of information maintained on an individual's social networking page. Given the availability of these legitimate discovery methods, there is and can be no justification for permitting the use of deception to obtain the information from a witness on-line.

Accordingly, a lawyer may not use deception to access information from a social networking webpage. Rather, a lawyer should rely on the informal and formal discovery procedures sanctioned by the ethical rules and case law to obtain relevant evidence.

It's important to note that this opinion is specific to the New York City Bar. Furthermore, not all Bar Associations are in agreement. Read this article for information on the Philadelphia and New York State Bar Association's position on similar questions. Finally, consider that while the New York City Bar's opinion is more permissive, the New York State Bar controls an attorney's license in that jurisdiction.

Lawyers can earn one hour of MCLE credit for reading this article and the related Legal Ethics opinion by completing this quiz.

The post New York City Bar Association Ethics Opinion Addresses Use of Social Network Sites for Investigative or Background Research appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

More and more attorneys and judges are using social media, either for its intended purpose of social networking (and, for the lesser intended purpose of marketing) or for its unintended purpose of investigative research.

There has been much discussion online amongst legal experts about what sorts of investigative activity is ethical for lawyers to engage in. Most Bar Associations however, have not yet addressed this topic. Two exceptions are the Philadelphia Bar and the New York State Bar. They addressed the following specific questions:

Discovery/Evidentiary Issues: Ethics Opinions

Is it ethical for an attorney to ask a non-lawyer assistant to "friend" an unrepresented witness even if the non-lawyer uses her real name but without also disclosing the reasons for making the request?

An attorney at one our seminars recently pondered how she could access a witness's private (open only to "friends") profile on a social networking site to use it as evidence. The Philadelphia Bar Association's Professional Guidance Committee Opinion 2009-02 (March 2009) available at http://tinyurl.com/cgwgwr, addresses a similar question from a lawyer who wished to gain access to an unrepresented witness' private profile to use the profile information against the witness during litigation.

The inquiring attorney asked if he would be in breach of professional conduct rules if he asked a non-lawyer assistant to "friend" the witness, without the assistant explaining the reason for the request or disclosing that the assistant worked for the attorney.

The opinion concluded that this conduct would violate several rules of professional conduct:

• First, the "proposed course of conduct contemplated by the inquirer [the lawyer] would violate Rule 8.4(c) because the planned communication by the third party [the assistant] with the witness is deceptive. It omits a highly material fact —namely that the third party who asks to be allowed access to the witness's pages is doing so only because he or she is intent on obtaining information and sharing it with a lawyer for use in a lawsuit to impeach the testimony of the witness."

• Second, even though the attorney is not making the actual "friend" request, because of Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), the attorney is in violation of Rule 8.4(c) because he is responsible for the "violative conduct" of the person he supervises.

• Third, the proposed conduct violates Rule 4.1 because it, "constitutes the making of a false statement of material fact to the witness."

• Fourth, because "the violative conduct would be done through the acts of another third party, this would also be a violation of Rule 8.4(a)."

Would any of the above ethical dilemmas arise if an attorney was trying to access a public profile to use the information contained in the profile as evidence? We’ve always said, “Probably not” when this question has been posed to us. After all, if the profile is open to the public, there would be no actual contact or exchange with the profile's owner.

Could a lawyer representing a client in pending litigation access the public pages of another party's social networking website for the purpose of obtaining possible impeachment material for use in the litigation?

A recent New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics validated our above supposition in Opinion 843 (September 10, 2010) available at http://linkon.in/nyethicop843. There, the Committee said, “A lawyer representing a client in pending litigation may access the public [emphasis added] pages of another party's [emphasis added] social networking website (such as Facebook or MySpace) for the purpose of obtaining possible impeachment material for use in the litigation.” Further, the Committee explained:

New York’s Rule 8.4 would not be implicated because the lawyer is not engaging in deception by accessing a public website that is available to anyone in the network, provided that the lawyer does not employ deception in any other way (including, for example, employing deception to become a member of the network). Obtaining information about a party available in the Facebook or MySpace profile is similar to obtaining information that is available in publicly accessible online or print media, or through a subscription research service such as Nexis or Factiva, and that is plainly permitted.¹ Accordingly, we conclude that the lawyer may ethically view and access the Facebook and MySpace profiles of a party other than the lawyer’s client in litigation as long as the party’s profile is available to all members in the network and the lawyer neither “friends” the other party nor directs someone else to do so.

While these opinions are specific to the jurisdictions from which they were decided, the precedents set in them may offer guidance to Bar Associations around the country on the topic. It’s also useful to note that not all Bar Associations are in agreement. See information on the Association of the Bar of the City of New York’s position on a similar question.

Lawyers can earn one hour of MCLE credit for reading this article by completing this quiz.

The post New York State and Philadelphia Bar Association Legal Ethics Opinions Address Lawyers’ Use of Social Media Sites for Investigative or Background Research 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.