legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society legal counsel legal help legal information
Friday, November 1, 2013
BU School of Law’s Semester-in-Practice Program
Boston University School of Law’s Semester-in-Practice Program has provided some great opportunities to law students who are looking to prepare themselves for the legal world. Host David Yas, a BU Law alum, former publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and a V.P. at Bernstein Global Wealth, talks with Professor Sean J. Kealy, director of the Government Lawyering program in Washington D.C, and Michael Greenwald, an alum of BU School of Law, who spent a semester in Washington working for the U.S. Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Sean and Michael talk about the benefits of the program, the hands-on training, and share their personal experiences.
Some Things You Just Can’t Say To A Judge
Judges are generally an understanding lot. But there are some things you just can’t say to a judge. Mr. Harry Elias found this out the hard way. As reported by kamloopsnews.ca:
Harry Elias was in a family court proceeding on Monday when he allegedly told provincial court Judge Stella Frame to f-off during a heated family hearing, several people familiar with the matter said.
Allegedly? It was in open court!
Frame then cited Elias for contempt of court and ordered he be held at Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre overnight.
It turns out the timing of the outburst could not have been worse.
Veteran lawyers at the courthouse said they’ve never seen anyone jailed overnight for contempt of court, but had seen warnings from judges accompanied by a cooling-off period.
The incident came at the end of the day, however, giving no time for Elias to be brought back up after spending time in sheriff’s cells in the basement of the courthouse.
No worries though. Mr. Elias has been released, and is now free to drop f-bombs again, although it’s safe to say none will be directed at a judge. Here’s the source.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/4TrMElrVLN8/dd-2.html
Future Law Office: Top Technology Trends Reshaping the Legal Field
In this video podcast of The Robert Half Legal Report, Charles Volkert, executive director of Robert Half Legal, and Robert Ambrogi, co-host of Lawyer2Lawyer on the Legal Talk Network discuss how law firms and corporate legal departments are leveraging technology to improve services and streamline workflow. They share key findings from Future Law Office, Robert Half Legal’s annual research program that examines important developments in the legal profession.
Prop 34, The Death Penalty Initiative Statute
On November 6, 2012, Proposition 34 will be one of the initiatives on the ballot in the state of California. If approved, Prop 34 will eliminate the death penalty in California and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Lawyer2Lawyer host Craig Williams joins Attorney Donald H. Heller to discuss Proposition 34, support and opposition and ultimately the impact on our prison and justice system.
criminal lawyer criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer
BP Settlement and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
In March of 2012, BP Oil reached a proposed class action settlement with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee which BP has valued at about $7.8 billion. The court will consider final approval of the settlement at a Fairness Hearing scheduled for November 8, 2012. On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen and Ringler colleague, Wayne Wagner join guest, Attorney Paul Sterbcow from the firm Lewis, Kullman, Sterbcow & Abramson, to give a behind the scenes look at the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee and provide updates on a potential settlement for the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney find attorney
Thursday, October 31, 2013
IP Industries: Part Two
Professor David L. Lange, Melvin Shimm Professor of Law at Duke University Law School, concludes his two-part discussion on IP Industries. Learn more about Professor Lange at http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/lange.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/06/ip-industries-part-two/
employment attorney employment law employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego
F. Lee Bailey and Kenneth Fishman Discuss Excellence in Cross Examination
Cross-examination is a skill that every trial lawyer hopes to master, but few do. In the new book, Excellence in Cross Examination, published by Thomson Reuters, two giants of the trial bar, F. Lee Bailey and Judge Kenneth J. Fishman, share their insights and lessons on how to excel in cross-examination. In this edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, host Bob Ambrogi invites Bailey and Fishman to discuss their newest book and the key skills lawyers need to be effective in cross.
Having represented high-profile names such as O.J. Simpson, Dr. Sam Sheppard, and Captain Ernest Medina, F. Lee Bailey is known for his successful career as a trial lawyer in criminal and civil cases. He has been a licensed attorney for more than 50 years, authored and co-authored 21 books, and is a licensed private investigator. In addition to his legal career, he has worked as a designated naval aviator with the U.S. Marine Corps.
The Honorable Kenneth J. Fishman was a practicing attorney for nearly 30 years before he moved to the bench. This marks his tenth year as an associate justice for the Massachusetts Superior Court. A former law partner with Bailey, he is a frequent speaker and lecturer for the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and The Massachusetts Bar Institute.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.
Having represented high-profile names such as O.J. Simpson, Dr. Sam Sheppard, and Captain Ernest Medina, F. Lee Bailey is known for his successful career as a trial lawyer in criminal and civil cases. He has been a licensed attorney for more than 50 years, authored and co-authored 21 books, and is a licensed private investigator. In addition to his legal career, he has worked as a designated naval aviator with the U.S. Marine Corps.
The Honorable Kenneth J. Fishman was a practicing attorney for nearly 30 years before he moved to the bench. This marks his tenth year as an associate justice for the Massachusetts Superior Court. A former law partner with Bailey, he is a frequent speaker and lecturer for the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and The Massachusetts Bar Institute.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.
Political Bickering Over Judges Returns to Nation’s Capital
When it comes to Republicans and Democrats and judicial nominations, the answer to whether they can ever get along is time and time again a resounding no.
absolute power of attorney attorney attorney at law attorney definition attorney directory
Remote Working Options for Lawyers
The convergence of technology has created a “tipping point” for remote work options for attorneys. Law Technology Now, host and editor-in-chief of ALM’s Law Technology News, Monica Bay analyzes the key advantages of remote work options, which is also June’s Law Technology News’ cover story, Unleashed, with Albert Barsocchini, senior director, strategic consulting at NightOwl Document Management Services and Marc Osborn, senior director, communications for LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/law-technology-now/2012/06/remote-working-options-for-lawyers/
criminal defense criminal defense attorney criminal defense attorneys criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers
Maritime Injuries and Structured Settlements
You don't hear much about maritime law until a huge disaster like the Costa Concordia cruise ship, which ran aground off the coast of Italy earlier this year. But the fact is, maritime accidents happen frequently and people are often left severely injured. On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen and co-host, Keith Christie join guest, Attorney Charles Leche, a partner at Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, as they take a look at maritime law and how injured parties can have a financially secure future through structured settlements.
copyright lawyer corporate law corporate lawyer criminal attorney criminal defence lawyer
DOJ joins suit against US contractor charged with performing background checks
[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] on Wednesday announced [press release] that it joined a lawsuit filed against United States Investigations Services LLC (USIS) [corporate website], the company charged with performing background investigations on potential employees of various federal agencies. The suit before the US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama [official website] was brought by a former USIS employee more than two years ago under the False Claims Act [LII backgrounder] alleging that the...
Sound The Retreat (Update)
Remember when the word "wilding" was introduced into the general lexicon so that we would have a word to capture the "super-predator" gangs of youths who were intent on destroying society? It came out of the Central Park Five case, and produced a huge shift in our approach to juvenile prosecution and punishment.
"Justice," people cried. They demanded justice. Don't let these super-predator kids destroy our world with wilding.
Except it didn't happen. The kids never beat and raped a woman in Central Park, and were coerced into false confessions. Of course, we didn't learn that until much later, after the wilding scare had done its damage to our laws, procedures and psyches, to save us from the super-predators and give us justice.
The New York Times has a post-Zimmerman-verdict editorial today that threatens to do the same. It's titled "Trayvon Martin's Legacy," a blatant appeal to emotion. Invoking the name of a dead child has proven one of the most utilitarian methods of manipulation available, and the Times unabashedly uses it to further its point.
But the point of the editorial is just plain wrong:
Stand Your Ground laws apply to one aspect of the larger concept of self-defense, and only one: they eliminate the requirement that a person retreat if he can safely do so. To be clear, I believe that Stand Your Ground laws are fundamentally wrong. The balance is a human life, on the one hand, and some machismo principle that a person should not have to endure the humiliation of retreat on the other.
The argument is that they have a right to stand their ground and fight rather than be forced to run away in the face of an attack, even if they can safely do so. Life is not so cheap that it should be taken to protect ego. Many disagree with me, and they're allowed. This isn't a legal judgment, but a moral balance. I come out in favor of life, and have no plans to change.
But that's not how the Times plays the game in its editorial. While blaming Stand Your Ground, they are attacking the basic concept of self-defense having absolutely nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. It's not merely intuitive, which is used to suggest the inherent fight or flight instinct in human beings, but characterized by the Times as some unnatural shift imposed by law to empower "self-deputized" gun nuts with "a grudge."
This is an artfully crafted diversion from the law that existed long before anybody came up with the cool phrase, Stand Your Ground. We always had the right to defend our lives when threatened with death or serious physical injury. If we could safely retreat, then that was the best option and we were required to do so. If not, then we defended our lives.
The underlying gripe is twofold, neither of which have anything to do with Stand Your Ground. The first is playing the race card. Like most people, I can't let go of the assumption that race influenced perceptions here, even though I have no basis for the assumption. But there is no law, nor can there be, that requires us to behave one way when the interaction is black and white versus white and black, or people of the same race. Does the Times suggest we start writing two sets of laws, maybe more, to accommodate the races of participants?
The second is the gun card, as reflected in the "Kel-Tec 9 millimeter" language. New York, not being at all gun-friendly, is easily shaken by words that make guns sound particularly vicious and high tech. And again, I'm no personal fan of guns, having no interest in strapping one on. But a great many other people are fans, and the Second Amendment protects their right to be fans. It's irrelevant whether that's my favorite amendment, just as it's irrelevant whether cops like the Fourth.
The same Constitution we invoke to protect the rights we favor protects some things that we don't. Either we honor the Constitution or not, and that includes all the parts, even the ones that aren't as dear to us as others.
A guy is cornered, there is no escape. The other guy is big. Huge. Strong. And is about to bash his head in. The cornered guy has a gun (give it whatever nasty gun-type name you want). Should the law prohibit him from using it to save his life? But that's not the facts in Zimmerman, you say. True, but laws don't exist for every conceivable set of facts and circumstances people can come up with, and the law of self-defense applies to this scenario the same as it did in Zimmerman. Would it make you feel better to have the cornered guy die because the law prohibited him from using his gun to save his life?
While the New York Times editorial may fairly argue for racial tolerance and the evils of guns, Second Amendment be damned, what it cannot do is lie to people by claiming that Trayvon Martin would not be dead but for Stand Your Ground laws, and then call for the evisceration of our basic, age-old right to self-defense. The alternative to self-defense when one cannot safely retreat is to die.
While it's painfully hard to know whether a person's fear of harm was "reasonable," especially when there is only one side to the confrontation who is alive to tell the story, it's a necessary evil in distinguishing whether force can be lawfully used. The choice was made hundreds of years before anyone ever heard of Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman, and it's been the right choice for all those years since.
As much as many feel that it played out poorly here, it was always understood that some variations in fact on the same theme would touch our sensibilities differently than others. But the flaw was never with the law. The flaw is that we're human and subject to feelings that may defy reason, and not every application of sound and neutral law will make us feel good about what happened. It's what we must suffer in a society of laws. And the New York Times should know this and be ashamed of itself for engaging in this deception.
Update: In an interview on Anderson Cooper 360, one of the jurors spoke:
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
"Justice," people cried. They demanded justice. Don't let these super-predator kids destroy our world with wilding.
Except it didn't happen. The kids never beat and raped a woman in Central Park, and were coerced into false confessions. Of course, we didn't learn that until much later, after the wilding scare had done its damage to our laws, procedures and psyches, to save us from the super-predators and give us justice.
The New York Times has a post-Zimmerman-verdict editorial today that threatens to do the same. It's titled "Trayvon Martin's Legacy," a blatant appeal to emotion. Invoking the name of a dead child has proven one of the most utilitarian methods of manipulation available, and the Times unabashedly uses it to further its point.
But the point of the editorial is just plain wrong:
The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute. Under that law, versions of which are on the books in two dozen states, a person may use deadly force if he or she “reasonably believes” it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm — a low bar that the prosecutors in this case fought in vain to overcome.It's been explained, calmly and rationally, over and over. It's impossible to believe that the editorial board of the Times, a smart bunch of folks, didn't hear it or grasp it. If so, then what's written here can only be attributed to disingenuousness and a deliberate effort to deceive.These laws sound intuitive: who would argue that you may not protect yourself against great harm? But of course, the concept of “reasonable belief” is transformed into something deadly dangerous when firearms are involved. And when the Stand Your Ground laws intersect with lax concealed-carry laws, it works essentially to self-deputize anyone with a Kel-Tec 9 millimeter and a grudge.
Stand Your Ground laws apply to one aspect of the larger concept of self-defense, and only one: they eliminate the requirement that a person retreat if he can safely do so. To be clear, I believe that Stand Your Ground laws are fundamentally wrong. The balance is a human life, on the one hand, and some machismo principle that a person should not have to endure the humiliation of retreat on the other.
The argument is that they have a right to stand their ground and fight rather than be forced to run away in the face of an attack, even if they can safely do so. Life is not so cheap that it should be taken to protect ego. Many disagree with me, and they're allowed. This isn't a legal judgment, but a moral balance. I come out in favor of life, and have no plans to change.
But that's not how the Times plays the game in its editorial. While blaming Stand Your Ground, they are attacking the basic concept of self-defense having absolutely nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. It's not merely intuitive, which is used to suggest the inherent fight or flight instinct in human beings, but characterized by the Times as some unnatural shift imposed by law to empower "self-deputized" gun nuts with "a grudge."
This is an artfully crafted diversion from the law that existed long before anybody came up with the cool phrase, Stand Your Ground. We always had the right to defend our lives when threatened with death or serious physical injury. If we could safely retreat, then that was the best option and we were required to do so. If not, then we defended our lives.
The underlying gripe is twofold, neither of which have anything to do with Stand Your Ground. The first is playing the race card. Like most people, I can't let go of the assumption that race influenced perceptions here, even though I have no basis for the assumption. But there is no law, nor can there be, that requires us to behave one way when the interaction is black and white versus white and black, or people of the same race. Does the Times suggest we start writing two sets of laws, maybe more, to accommodate the races of participants?
The second is the gun card, as reflected in the "Kel-Tec 9 millimeter" language. New York, not being at all gun-friendly, is easily shaken by words that make guns sound particularly vicious and high tech. And again, I'm no personal fan of guns, having no interest in strapping one on. But a great many other people are fans, and the Second Amendment protects their right to be fans. It's irrelevant whether that's my favorite amendment, just as it's irrelevant whether cops like the Fourth.
The same Constitution we invoke to protect the rights we favor protects some things that we don't. Either we honor the Constitution or not, and that includes all the parts, even the ones that aren't as dear to us as others.
A guy is cornered, there is no escape. The other guy is big. Huge. Strong. And is about to bash his head in. The cornered guy has a gun (give it whatever nasty gun-type name you want). Should the law prohibit him from using it to save his life? But that's not the facts in Zimmerman, you say. True, but laws don't exist for every conceivable set of facts and circumstances people can come up with, and the law of self-defense applies to this scenario the same as it did in Zimmerman. Would it make you feel better to have the cornered guy die because the law prohibited him from using his gun to save his life?
While the New York Times editorial may fairly argue for racial tolerance and the evils of guns, Second Amendment be damned, what it cannot do is lie to people by claiming that Trayvon Martin would not be dead but for Stand Your Ground laws, and then call for the evisceration of our basic, age-old right to self-defense. The alternative to self-defense when one cannot safely retreat is to die.
While it's painfully hard to know whether a person's fear of harm was "reasonable," especially when there is only one side to the confrontation who is alive to tell the story, it's a necessary evil in distinguishing whether force can be lawfully used. The choice was made hundreds of years before anyone ever heard of Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman, and it's been the right choice for all those years since.
As much as many feel that it played out poorly here, it was always understood that some variations in fact on the same theme would touch our sensibilities differently than others. But the flaw was never with the law. The flaw is that we're human and subject to feelings that may defy reason, and not every application of sound and neutral law will make us feel good about what happened. It's what we must suffer in a society of laws. And the New York Times should know this and be ashamed of itself for engaging in this deception.
Update: In an interview on Anderson Cooper 360, one of the jurors spoke:
COOPER: Because of the only, the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?
JUROR: Right. Well, because of the heat of the moment and the stand your ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.
This mention of stand your ground gave rise to an apology from Eugene Volokh, who had also written about this Times editorial subsequent to this post.
It thus appears that at least one of the jurors did “consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of the ... Stand Your Ground provision in Florida’s self-defense law,” and on that the Times editorial was right, and I was wrong to criticize it; my apologies to the editorialists, and to our readers.
While there is no issue that stand your ground had no legal bearing on the case, Eugene apologized for arguing that the aspect of the editorial suggesting that the jury somehow relied on it in reaching its verdict. My view is that these were empty words to the juror, having been uttered too many time in the media before trial, and she offered them in the interview either without any grasp of what they meant or inadvertently.
It was a loose phrase, not a reflection that an unrelated legal concept, mentioned in passing as part of pattern jury instructions, and never argued to the jury, played a role. Loose language shouldn't be taken too seriously and serve as a basis for assuming scholar-like attention to something that scholars universally agree had no place in the case.
While it was gracious of Eugene to apologize, it was both unnecessary and, perhaps, a mistake to feed misguided understandings about a law which is being blamed for a role it never played.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/15/sound-the-retreat.aspx?ref=rss
labor attorney lafayette attorney law law enforcement law firm
Third-Party Risk Spotlight: Anti-Corruption
This podcast focuses on managing the risks associated with third party relationships, in particular risks related to potential violations of anti-corruption laws — the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the UK Bribery Act, and looks at what might be learned from recent publicly-announced allegations against UK pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC.
Learn best practices for mitigating third-party risk, informed by latest Department of Justice guidance, and explore tools to help implement those practices.
Learn best practices for mitigating third-party risk, informed by latest Department of Justice guidance, and explore tools to help implement those practices.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/tech-experts/2013/08/third-party-risk-spotlight-anti-corruption
bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law
Guest post: Lawyers on the move
Nicole Black is an attorney in Rochester, New York, is the Director of Business Development at MyCase, a web-based law practice management platform, and is the ABA-published author of “Cloud Computing for Lawyers” and the co-author of “Social Media for Lawyers.”
There’s no doubt about it--21st century lawyers are on the move and are embracing mobile devices more than ever. In fact, according to the ABA’s 2013 Legal Technology Survey Report, the vast majority of lawyers have now gone mobile, in one form or another.
Not surprisingly, smart phones lead the way, with 91 percent of lawyers reporting that they used smartphones in their law practices, up from 89 percent 2012. Tablet use also increased at an impressive rate, with nearly half of all lawyers surveyed reporting that they used tablets in their law practices. According to the survey results, 48 percent of lawyers now use tablets, up from 33 percent in 2012.
The reason lawyers are going mobile? Because it offers them flexibility and the ability to practice law and manage their law firms no matter where they happen to be. So, whether it’s using a tablet to pull up a case in court or accessing client files using their smart phone while on vacation, mobile computing is making it easier than ever for lawyers to practice law on the go, 24/7.
But is this necessarily a good thing? Especially with the recent release of Google Glass and the expected release of smart watches, which offer the prospect of virtually erasing the barriers created by devices and making people the new interface, as described in this recent GigaOM blog post: “Today many of these automatic interactions are dependent on a user’s mobile device, but we will be able to remove even that degree of separation between the individual and their home in the future. Through a combination of machine learning and a growing ecosystem of sensors placed within every day objects, we envision an interface that truly feels natural and intuitive to users no matter their level of technology literacy.”
It’s an interesting concept, but is it a healthy one--especially for lawyers, a group that has one of the highest rates of depression, substance abuse and suicide in the United States? Does 24/7 connectivity make sense for the mental health of most lawyers?
Clearly, for lawyers, the next stage of mobile technologies may present difficulties not previously experienced. And for many lawyers, it will be a delicate balance of meeting client expectations of constant availability while maintaining their sanity. In order to maintain this balance, lawyers will need to carefully choose new technologies for use in their practices with the end goal of reducing, not increasing, the non-stop barrage of information.
For example, one of the best ways to do this is to empower your clients by expanding their access to information, making it easy for them to obtain the information that they need about their case, no matter when they need it. In other words, by using tools such as online client portals that are accessible using any Internet-enabled device, you can ensure that your clients can get the information that they are seeking without having to contact you.
Like it or not, the world is changing and lawyers--and their clients--are more mobile than ever. And while this newfound mobility offers an array of benefits, it also creates new problems. Fortunately, selective use of emerging and mobile technologies can help to curb the influx of data and reduce the noise, making it easier than ever for lawyers to reap the benefits of a mobile law practice while simultaneously maintaining their sanity.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/Lw6SqnPwUsw/
dumb laws dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Competitive Branding and Website Development for Lawyers
Clients have an abundance of options when hiring an attorney. Often, it is a firm’s website that determines who they ultimately hire. On this episode of The Legal Toolkit, hosts Jared Correia and Heidi Alexander talk to Jeff Lantz about building an Internet brand and website that differentiates you from your competitors and attracts clients.
Jeff Lantz is the founder and CEO of Esquire Interactive. His company is an attorney-run marketing firm that specializes in website development, Internet marketing, and branding for law firms and attorneys. Lantz was a practicing attorney for more than 12 years before he delved into Internet marketing. He has authored two books: The Essential Attorney Handbook for Internet Marketing, Search Engine Optimization, and Website Development Management, referred to as “The bible for building law firm websites,” by host Alexander, and Internet Branding for Lawyers: Building the Client-Centered Website published by the ABA Law Practice Management Section.
Tune in to hear from the author of Internet Branding for Lawyers on the basics of branding, website development, and marketing for attorneys.
Jeff Lantz is the founder and CEO of Esquire Interactive. His company is an attorney-run marketing firm that specializes in website development, Internet marketing, and branding for law firms and attorneys. Lantz was a practicing attorney for more than 12 years before he delved into Internet marketing. He has authored two books: The Essential Attorney Handbook for Internet Marketing, Search Engine Optimization, and Website Development Management, referred to as “The bible for building law firm websites,” by host Alexander, and Internet Branding for Lawyers: Building the Client-Centered Website published by the ABA Law Practice Management Section.
Tune in to hear from the author of Internet Branding for Lawyers on the basics of branding, website development, and marketing for attorneys.
Nourishing Creativity with Constraints
Hosts Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell are exploring a new social media outlet called Vine where users create videos, constricted to six-seconds in length. This inspired the discussion of nourishing creativity with a length constraint. Twitter limits users to 140 characters, Instagram allows only one photo per post, and Snapchat limits users to sending a photo for 10 seconds or less before it disappears from both the sender and the recipient’s device. On this episode of Kennedy Mighell report, your hosts will discuss how technology constraints can produce surprising results for lawyers, whether they participate in social media or not.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/2013/04/nourishing-creativity-with-constraints
criminal law criminal law cases criminal laws criminal lawyer criminal lawyers
Paralegal Proofreading Tips
In this episode of The Paralegal Voice, Paralegal Mentor Vicki Voisin chats with Kathy Sieckman about the importance of proofreading and specific proofreading tips for paralegals.
Kathy Albrecht Sieckman, PLS, PP, ACP developed an interest in proofreading when she sat for a certification exam. Since then she has become known by her family and her co-workers as the go-to person when they have grammar questions. She has worked as a paralegal and a secretary for more than 30 years, where she can apply her extra curricular interest in grammar – You’ll find tips on her blog: www.proofthatblog.com. She is also the marketing director for NALS.
Learn from the experts: Voisin and Sieckman discuss why proofreading is difficult, which proofreading tools you can rely on and those that are unreliable, approaches to proofreading on your own, and common proofreading errors paralegals should avoid.
A special thanks to our sponsor, NALA.
Kathy Albrecht Sieckman, PLS, PP, ACP developed an interest in proofreading when she sat for a certification exam. Since then she has become known by her family and her co-workers as the go-to person when they have grammar questions. She has worked as a paralegal and a secretary for more than 30 years, where she can apply her extra curricular interest in grammar – You’ll find tips on her blog: www.proofthatblog.com. She is also the marketing director for NALS.
Learn from the experts: Voisin and Sieckman discuss why proofreading is difficult, which proofreading tools you can rely on and those that are unreliable, approaches to proofreading on your own, and common proofreading errors paralegals should avoid.
A special thanks to our sponsor, NALA.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/paralegal-voice/2013/08/paralegal-proofreading-tips/
local solicitors mold attorney need a lawyer patent lawyer personal injury
NLRB's recent significant decisions
The NLRB this week made public a number of significant decisions, most reached in the final days of the term of Member Brian Hayes, which ended on December 16. The Board continues with three members, Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce and Members Richard F. Griffin, Jr. and Sharon Block.
The decisions touch on a variety of issues including social media postings, charter school jurisdiction, backpay awards, the chargeability of certain union lobbying expenses, and an employer’s responsibility to continue dues collection after the expiration of a contract.
Hispanics United of Buffalo
The Board found that the employer unlawfully fired five employees because of their Facebook posts and comments about a coworker who intended to complain to management about their work performance. In its analysis, the Board majority applied settled Board law to the new world of social media, finding that the Facebook conversation was concerted activity and was protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Member Hayes dissented.
Alan Ritchey, Inc.
In a unanimous decision that resolved the last of the two-member cases returned following the 2010 Supreme Court decision in New Process Steel, the Board found that where there is no collectively-bargained grievance-arbitration system in place, employers generally must give the union notice and an opportunity to bargain before imposing discipline such as a discharge or suspension on employees. Member Hayes was recused.
Latino Express
In a decision that will affect most cases in which backpay is awarded, the Board decided to require respondents to compensate employees for any extra taxes they have to pay as a result of receiving the backpay in a lump sum. The Board will also require an employer ordered to pay back wages to file with the Social Security Administration a report allocating the back wages to the years in which they were or would have been earned. The Board requested briefs in this case in July 2012. Member Hayes did not participate in the case.
Chicago Mathematics & Science Academy
Rejecting the position of a teachers’ union, the Board found that it had jurisdiction over an Illinois non-profit corporation that operates a public charter school in Chicago. The non-profit was not the sort of government entity exempt from the National Labor Relations Act, the Board majority concluded, and there was no reason for the Board to decline jurisdiction. Member Hayes dissented in part.
United Nurses & Allied Professionals (Kent Hospital)
The Board, with Member Hayes dissenting, addressed several issues involving the rights of nonmember dues objectors under the Supreme Court’s Beck decision. On the main issue, the majority held that, like all other union expenses, lobbying expenses are chargeable to objectors, to the extent that they are germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment. The Board invited further briefing from interested parties on the how it should define and apply the germaneness standard in the context of lobbying activities.
WKYC-TV, Gannet Co.
Applying the general rule against unilateral employer changes in terms and conditions of employment, the Board found that an employer’s obligation to collect union dues under a check-off agreement will continue after the contract expires and before a bargaining impasse occurs or a new contract is reached. Member Hayes dissented.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/12/nlrbs_recent_si.html
legal news legal services lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney
Innovations in Legal Technology: The Changing Landscape and How to Keep Up.
Adam Ziegler was a practicing attorney for ten years when he decided to leave his partnership at a Boston litigation boutique and become an entrepreneur. He is now co-founder and CEO of Mootus, a platform for open, online-legal argument. Lawyers and law students can open up legal discussion questions to their peers, who must provide the sources they use to validate their responses. “I always wanted something to exist like Mootus,” Ziegler said, “Since it didn’t, I figured I had to try.” Mootus was a success, and the driving force behind his pursuit in advancing legal technology.
• Adam Ziegler began his career as a law clerk for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. He practiced at two large firms before becoming a partner at the aforementioned litigation boutique. Since launching Mootus, he has also started the Boston Meetup group for legal innovators and begun blogging for the site www.smallfirminnovation.com. Ziegler’s career focuses on how technology can help practicing lawyers do more, better and faster for their clients.
On this episode of The Legal Toolkit, host Heidi Alexander chats with Ziegler about how to use technology to maintain an efficient legal practice, keep up with legal-tech innovations, and launch a legal technology startup.
• Adam Ziegler began his career as a law clerk for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. He practiced at two large firms before becoming a partner at the aforementioned litigation boutique. Since launching Mootus, he has also started the Boston Meetup group for legal innovators and begun blogging for the site www.smallfirminnovation.com. Ziegler’s career focuses on how technology can help practicing lawyers do more, better and faster for their clients.
On this episode of The Legal Toolkit, host Heidi Alexander chats with Ziegler about how to use technology to maintain an efficient legal practice, keep up with legal-tech innovations, and launch a legal technology startup.
The Fiscal Cliff: Impact of the Deal
Before the New Year, we did a show on how the fiscal cliff and how it could potentially impact the structured settlement industry and legal clients. Since then, a deal was reached averting a financial crisis for now and has been signed into law by President Obama. In this podcast, Ringler Radio host Larry Cohen and co-host, Bill Wakelee, follow-up with Dr. Christopher Coyne, Economist and Associate Professor of Finance at St. Joseph’s University, on the specifics on the fiscal cliff deal, general reaction and its overall impact on Americans and the structured settlement industry.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2013/01/the-fiscal-cliff-impact-of-the-deal/
criminal defense criminal defense attorney criminal defense attorneys criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)