Monthly Archives: May 2014

When You Share Files, Are They Secure?

31 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Clouds, Confidentiality, Cybersecurity, Dropbox, Emails, Encryption, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Technology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

File Sharing by Lawyers Largely Insecure, Survey Suggests, by Robert Ambrogi, Robert Ambrogi’s Law Sites

http://tinyurl.com/pr3apcc

If I were to leave a document on a table entitled, ‘My Deepest, Darkest Secrets,’ under which I wrote, ‘Please do not read this unless you are someone I intended to read this,’ how securely would you think I’d protected myself?

That, effectively, is all the majority of lawyers do to protect confidential documents they share with clients and colleagues, according to a LexisNexis survey published this week. . . .

An Unique Response to Texas Center for Legal Ethics’ Opinion 642.

31 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Management, Marketing

≈ Comments Off on An Unique Response to Texas Center for Legal Ethics’ Opinion 642.

Tags

, , , , ,

The Depths T’Which Ethics Reaches: or, The Origin of Opinion 642, by Greg Lambert, Three Geeks And A Blog

http://tinyurl.com/oz7hb6v

 Inspired by recent events.

Dewey said to Cheatum, ‘What ever shall we do?
Our book is getting slimmer and I haven’t got a clue
How to run a proper business, you know, one that still makes money?
We can’t just raise our rates… stop your laughing. It’s not funny!’

‘Silly Dewey, how you worry!’ chortled Cheatum through his drink.
‘There’s no problem we can’t tackle with a good and proper think.
We’re the brightest and the smartest and by far the best paid too,
We’ll just put our heads together and we’ll figure what to do.’ . . .

The Secret Of How To Ask For What You Want.

31 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Jury Persuasion, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on The Secret Of How To Ask For What You Want.

Tags

, , , , ,

Ask For What You Want, posted by Elliott Wilcox, Trial Theater Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kkrtqwo

Mr. Wilcox’s suggestions on how to verbally ask for what you want can also be translated into a persuasive legal writing technique. The logic works either way. -CCE

How many times a day do you ask judges, clients, or co-workers to do something or to give you something? During any given week, you probably make hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of requests. You ask your co-worker to work on a project, you ask your assistant to handle a client issue, you ask your kids to help with the dishes. . . . The number of requests that you make each week is staggering. But how many of those requests are actually granted? Have you ever had a problem with someone not doing not what you asked?

Why?  You’re a lawyer. Shouldn’t you be the master of persuasion who can get what you want, when you want it, and how you want it, every single time?

Unless your name is ‘Svengali the Master Manipulator,’ chances are that many of your requests are not being granted, or at least not being carried out exactly the way you’d like to see them handled.  But it’s not because your requests are falling on deaf ears.  In fact, your listeners are probably hearing exactly what you’re saying.  The problem is that you’re asking for the wrong thing. . . .

Plain Language Jury Instructions.

31 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Jury Instructions, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Plain Language Jury Instructions.

Tags

, ,

Plain Language and Jury Instructions, PlainLanguage.gov

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before_after/jury.cfm

Most jury instructions — long winded collections of complex sentences, arcane definitions and Talmudic distinctions — are all but impenetrable to lay people. So bad are some jury instructions that Court TV Anchor and former Prosecutor Nancy Grace reports having seen jurors turn to one another while listening to instructions and mouth the question, ‘What are they saying?’

Echoing such observations was a recent description in The National Law Journal of a judge who told jurors that a murder conviction required ‘malice aforethought.’ Unfortunately though, the jury interpreted this instruction to mean that the murder had to be committed with a mallet.

Many studies support anecdotal criticism of legalese jury instructions. For example:

• Forty percent of capital jurors wrongly believed that their jury instructions required them to accompany a conviction with a death sentence, according to a study by the Northeastern University’s Capital Jury Project.

• More than fifty percent of jurors defined ‘preponderance of the evidence’ as a ‘slow and careful pondering of the evidence,’ according to a study of Washington DC jurors. The same study found that more than 50 percent of jurors could not define ‘speculate,’ and about 25 percent did not know the meaning of ‘burden of proof,’ ‘impeach’ or ‘admissible evidence.’ . . .

Primer and Comment on The Defense Trade Secrets Act.

31 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Defense Trade Secrets Act, Intellectual Property

≈ Comments Off on Primer and Comment on The Defense Trade Secrets Act.

Tags

, , , ,

Guest Post: Defend Trade Secrets Act — A Primer, an Endorsement, and a Criticism, Guest Post by David S. Almeling (partner of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, specializing in patent and trade secret litigation), Patently-O Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kdmurjf

It’s been an exciting month for trade secret law. Senators Christopher Coons (D-Delaware) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced the Defend Trade Secrets Act, a bill that would, for the first time, provide a federal right of civil action for trade secret theft. And the Judiciary Committee held a hearing during which speakers expressed support for the DTSA, including Eli Lilly’s VP and General Patent Counsel, Douglas Norman, who stated that the DTSA ‘will establish the gold standard for national trade secret laws globally.’

The DTSA is a game changer. If enacted, it would constitute the most dramatic rethinking of trade secret law since 1979, when the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved a model statute called the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Since then, 48 states have adopted the UTSA in some form, replacing their common-law regimes with statutory ones.

The DTSA isn’t perfect — I’ll explain why in a moment — but it’s the best bill of its kind introduced to date, and it should be enacted. . . .

Mailtracker – A New iPhone App That Monitors Email Analytics.

28 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by in Apple, Apps, Cell Phones, Emails, iPhones, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Link Rot

≈ Comments Off on Mailtracker – A New iPhone App That Monitors Email Analytics.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

App of the Week: Mailtracker – See When and Where Your Email Was Read, by Lisa Pansini, Legal Productivity Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nwctft6

‘Hey, did you get that email that I sent you?’

With the Mailtracker app from Answerbook, you’ll never have to utter those words again.

It’s not a mail client in itself, but rather a tracking application for monitoring email analytics. It integrates with the native mail app on your iPhone, so it doesn’t impede your current email sending/receiving workflow. The service is compatible with emails sent via Gmail, Yahoo, Outlook.com and iCloud (with additional account support on the way!).

The Mailtracker app will deliver real-time analytics directly to your phone. You’ll be notified as soon as an email had been read. You can also see how many times the email was viewed, how much time was spent reading the email, the recipient’s location information, and device details. . . .

Lowering the Bar Calls for Deposition Transcripts.

28 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by in Depositions, Discovery, Litigation

≈ Comments Off on Lowering the Bar Calls for Deposition Transcripts.

Tags

, , ,

Call for Transcripts, by Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/05/call-for-transcripts.html

I doubt your clients would approve of sharing a deposition transcript from their case with Kevin, regardless of how hilarious it might be. Don’t worry. Kevin already has quite a collection. -CCE

Last month the New York Times did a fantastic video reenactment of some truly ridiculous deposition testimony. See ‘What Is a Photocopier? (Deposition, Dramatized),’ Lowering the Bar (Apr. 28, 2014) (direct link here). They are looking for more of that kind of thing, which I think is great news, and they asked me for help, which I also think is great. The posts linked below are the ones I recommended as mentioning possible candidates for reenactment, although I unfortunately don’t actually have all of the transcripts. . . .

ProPublica Update Report On Guns In America.

28 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Gun Control Laws, Recent Links and Articles, Second Amendment, Stand Your Ground Law

≈ Comments Off on ProPublica Update Report On Guns In America.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Best Reporting on Guns in America, by Blair Hickman, Lois Beckett, Cora Currier and Suevon Lee, ProPublica

http://tinyurl.com/k9defcv

Update: With last weekend’s shootings in Santa Barbara, this collection, first published July 24, 2012, unfortunately seems relevant again. We’ve re-organized our roundup and added new reporting about guns and gun violence in America—looking at mass shootings and mental health, as well as other kinds of gun violence.

Please include your suggestions of other stories in the comments.

Are Mass Shootings Increasing? Depends on How You Count Them

Criminologists have made the same point again and again: the number of mass shootings in America is not increasing. Experts told the Los Angeles Times that mass shootings represent only a small fraction of the annual deaths due to gun violence, and that police data indicate that the overall count of mass shootings per year has not shown any significant increase over time. This conclusion is based on the FBI’s broad definition of a mass murder: four or more people murdered in the same incident, typically in the same location. . . .

U.S. Supreme Court’s New Pleading Standards For Qualified Immunity.

27 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Excessive Force, First Amendment, Governmental Tort Claim Act, Qualified Immunity, United States Supreme Court

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

SCOTUS Decision in Wood v. Moss: Guidance on Pleading Standards?, by Adam Steinman, Civil Procedure and Federal Courts Blog 

http://tinyurl.com/pvgjemj

Today the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Wood v. Moss, with Justice Ginsburg authoring the opinion for the Court. As covered earlier here, Wood v. Moss is a Bivens case brought by plaintiffs who had been protesting against President George W. Bush during his 2004 visit to a restaurant in Oregon. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants, who were secret service agents, violated their First Amendment rights by moving them farther away from the President than a similar group that was expressing support for the President.

In today’s decision, the Court unanimously rules that the defendants are protected by qualified immunity. To most, this conclusion did not come as a surprise. For many proceduralists, however, the case was of particular interest because of its potential effect on pleading standards in the wake of Twombly and Iqbal. . . .

Best Strategies for Arbitration.

27 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by in Arbitration

≈ Comments Off on Best Strategies for Arbitration.

Tags

, , ,

The Best Strategies to Present Your Case In Arbitration, by Derek Ryan, Cogent Legal Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kpoutzw

Arbitrations are a great forum for the use of the graphics, animations and trial technologies. Depending on the arbitrator(s)’ familiarity with technologies, attorneys can often submit briefs, exhibit lists and other critical documents electronically.

Consider, too, the fact that arbitrations are usually held in meeting rooms smaller than most courtrooms. Having 70 boxes of exhibits in the arbitration room will make you feel surrounded by paper. The more you can digitize and display this material electronically, the better.

This post walks you through steps that will help you prepare and succeed at arbitration. The advice is based on my decade-plus experience working with attorneys and neutrals in mediation and arbitration. . . .

Why Are U.S. Employees The Weakest Link In America’s Cybersecurity?

27 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by in Cybersecurity, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Malware, Office Procedures, Technology, Trojans, Using Social Media

≈ Comments Off on Why Are U.S. Employees The Weakest Link In America’s Cybersecurity?

Tags

, , , , , ,

U.S. Employees Are Weakest Link In America’s Cybersecurity – Part One, by Ralph Loosey, e-Discovery Team®

http://tinyurl.com/kkltm9p

The Chinese army knows this vulnerability and attacks American employees every day to steal trade secrets and gain commercial advantage for Chinese businesses.

Criminal hackers can cause tremendous damage, whether trained in China or not. If a high level expert, such as any member of China’s elite Unit 61398, aka Comment Crew, gets into your system, they can seize root control, and own it. They can then plant virtually undetectable back doors into your systems. This allows them to later come and go as they please. . . .

Supreme Court Judges Really Use Dictionaries To Determine Legislative Intent?

26 Monday May 2014

Posted by in Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Dictionaries, Legal Writing, Legislative History, References, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Supreme Court Judges Really Use Dictionaries To Determine Legislative Intent?

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Look It Up! Or Not…, by Tiffany Johnson, Good Legal Writing

http://goodlegalwriting.com/2014/04/14/look-it-up-or-not/

I always encourage my students to look up any words that confuse them as they read opinions.  But this 2011 New York Times article  cites a few scholars who don’t think it’s the most judicious practice to undertake from the bench.  Check out this excerpt:

In May alone, the justices cited dictionaries in eight cases to determine what legislators had meant when they used words like ‘prevent,’ ‘delay’ and ‘report.’ Over the years, justices have looked up both perfectly ordinary words (‘now,’ ‘also,’ ‘any,’ ‘if’) and ones you might think they would know better than the next guy (‘attorney,’ ‘common law’).

All of this is, lexicographers say, sort of strange. . . .

U.S. Supreme Court Practice of Secretly Editing Its Published Opinions.

26 Monday May 2014

Posted by in Recent Links and Articles

≈ Comments Off on U.S. Supreme Court Practice of Secretly Editing Its Published Opinions.

Final Word on U.S. Law Isn’t: Supreme Court Keeps Editing, by Adam Liptak, The New York Times

http://tinyurl.com/lgpsqwe

Corrections to typos or bad citations do not bother me. But I did not realize that any court could make substantive changes in already published, official opinions. Perhaps I wrongfully assumed that mandate had issued? Regardless, the practice of making substantive changes to published opinions creates a significant legal research problem. -CCE 

The Supreme Court has been quietly revising its decisions years after they were issued, altering the law of the land without public notice. The revisions include ‘truly substantive changes in factual statements and legal reasoning,’ said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard and the author of a new study examining the phenomenon.

The court can act quickly, as when Justice Antonin Scalia last month corrected an embarrassing error in a dissent in a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency.

But most changes are neither prompt nor publicized, and the court’s secretive editing process has led judges and law professors astray, causing them to rely on passages that were later scrubbed from the official record. The widening public access to online versions of the court’s decisions, some of which do not reflect the final wording, has made the longstanding problem more pronounced.

Unannounced changes have not reversed decisions outright, but they have withdrawn conclusions on significant points of law. They have also retreated from descriptions of common ground with other justices, as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did in a major gay rights case.

Justice Antonin Scalia corrected his recent dissent in a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency. Credit Alex Wong/Getty Images

The larger point, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, a law professor at Stanford, is that Supreme Court decisions are parsed by judges and scholars with exceptional care. ‘In Supreme Court opinions, every word matters,’ he said. ‘When they’re changing the wording of opinions, they’re basically rewriting the law.’ . . .

 

Searching Social Media | Part 2: Twitter

26 Monday May 2014

Posted by in Recent Links and Articles

≈ Comments Off on Searching Social Media | Part 2: Twitter

iBraryGuy

This series focuses on methods of improving the relevancy of your results of social media searches, while not being logged into the services themselves. Again, social media searching is clearly trending upward in the law librarianship profession, as attorneys are increasingly making these requests while conducting informal discovery. In Part 1 of “Searching Social Media” we examined how to use Google’s advanced search features to retrieve relevant Facebook results. In Part 2, we will examine methods of conducting higher-relevance Twitter searches.

Twitter is currently the 8th most popular website on planet earth, according to Alexa. And, luckily for our purposes, Twitter provides an advanced search screen that does not require the user to log in! This is accessible here: https://twitter.com/search-advanced

And it looks like this:

SM_twitter_AdvancedSearch

Name Search

Typically, our requestors are trying to locate an individual’s Twitter account. The first and easiest search presumes the user has a portion of…

View original post 645 more words

Searching Social Media | Part 1: Googling Facebook

26 Monday May 2014

Posted by in Recent Links and Articles

≈ Comments Off on Searching Social Media | Part 1: Googling Facebook

iBraryGuy

GoogleFacebook

Have you experienced an increase in social media search requests? As attorneys become more likely to turn to social media during their informal discovery processes, I have found an uptick in questions like: “could you please do a social media background check on this person?” This is a growing information need I believe law librarians are excellently suited to fill, and really the next generation of public records search requests. Through conducting these searches and by leaning on the expertise of others I have put together my own toolkit on tricks to use. Below I list methods incorporating Google advanced search terms to conduct searches on Facebook quickly and with high relevancy.

Granted, results for social media searches are completely dependent on privacy settings. If a user has set their privacy settings very high, it doesn’t matter what type of tool you use to try to find them, the results will not populate, and the results will not be open to…

View original post 1,106 more words

A Collection of Online International Law Sources.

26 Monday May 2014

Posted by in International Law

≈ Comments Off on A Collection of Online International Law Sources.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Electronic Information System for International Law

http://www.eisil.org/

International Law Institute

http://www.ili.org/

International Law, HierosGamos.org

http://www.hg.org/international-law.html

and International Law Articles, HierosGamos.org

http://www.hg.org/law-articles-international-law.asp

International Law, Cornell Legal Information Institute

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/international_law

Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/djcil/

Sources of International Law, Northwestern Law, Pritzker Legal Resource Center

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/library/research/international/gettingstarted/sourcesofintllaw/

Google, Mutuality, and Wrap Contracts – Something Doesn’t Seem Quite Right . . .

25 Sunday May 2014

Posted by in Contract Law, Wrap Contracts

≈ Comments Off on Google, Mutuality, and Wrap Contracts – Something Doesn’t Seem Quite Right . . .

Tags

, , , , , ,

Mutuality and Wrap Contracts, by Nancy Kim, ContractProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/m8d9f3s

As I’ve noted in a prior post, there is a lawsuit pending against Google for email scanning which was recently denied class status.  Something that’s puzzled me about wrap contracts generally, including Google’s, is that many of them don’t seem to be contracts at all – and not simply because of the (lack of) consent issue.  They typically contain modification at will clauses and termination at will clauses.  In contracts class, I teach students that generally (with the exception of employment contracts) these clauses lack mutuality unless constrained in other ways, such as a notice period.  While there may be consideration (use of service in exchange for…data?  eyeballs?  not clear), there is no consideration if the promises are illusory and don’t actually bind a party.   Google’s terms of use, for example, state:

‘You can stop using our Services at any time, although we’ll be sorry to see you go. Google may also stop providing Services to you, or add or create new limits to our Services at any time.’

and this unilateral modification clause:

‘We may modify these terms or any additional terms that apply to a Service to, for example, reflect changes to the law or changes to our Services. You should look at the terms regularly. We’ll post notice of modifications to these terms on this page. We’ll post notice of modified additional terms in the applicable Service. Changes will not apply retroactively and will become effective no sooner than fourteen days after they are posted. However, changes addressing new functions for a Service or changes made for legal reasons will be effective immediately. If you do not agree to the modified terms for a Service, you should discontinue your use of that Service.’

Google then isn’t bound to actually provide anything according to its Terms of Use.

In the email scanning case, Google is making the argument that consent to email scanning was obtained in the context of ‘consenting’ to the Terms of Use.  But if these ‘contracts’ are not really contracts because they lack mutuality, then can Google really claim that their users ‘consented’ to the email scanning?  Is there blanket assent to terms outside of the context of a contract?

What The Heck Does “SS” In An Affidavit Mean Anyway?

25 Sunday May 2014

Posted by in Affidavits, Legal Writing, Notary Jurat

≈ Comments Off on What The Heck Does “SS” In An Affidavit Mean Anyway?

Tags

, , , ,

After Seven Centuries, The True Meaning of SS, by Thomas Selden Edgerton, Plain Language, Michigan Bar Journal (February 2014)

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article2333.pdf

I always wondered what that “SS” meant. -CCE

How To Remove “The Fluff” In Legal Writing.

25 Sunday May 2014

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Motions

≈ Comments Off on How To Remove “The Fluff” In Legal Writing.

Tags

, , , , ,

A Standard Motion Revised, by Judge Lynn N. Hughes, Plain Language, Michigan Bar Journal (May 2014)

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article2367.pdf

Judge Hughes eliminates unnecessary words, what he calls “the fluff.” In a simple, direct example, Judge Hughes clearly marks which words are meaningless, useless fillers.

You see this language used every day by lawyers and legal professionals. It is common as dirt. Some writers insist that archaic legalese is “required,” although there is no court rule, case law, or statute to support that opinion. It is not a “legal term of art.”

The point of legal writing is to persuade the reader – the court. Why do we add “the fluff”? Beats me. -CCE

Five Excellent Search Engines That Do Not Track Or Collect Your Data.

25 Sunday May 2014

Posted by in Legal Technology, References, Research, Search Engines

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

5 Alternative Search Engines That Respect Your Privacy, by Chris Hoffman, How-To-Geek Blog

http://tinyurl.com/c3trrdn

Recently I posted about DuckDuckGo, a search engine that did not collect data about you like most major search engines. This post also mentions DuckDuckGo but four others as well that will not track you:  Start Page™, ixquick™, Blekko, and Ask.com.

I admit that DuckDuckGo is my favorite, but the others are well worth your time and attention. -CCE

Google, Bing, Yahoo – all the major search engines track your search history and build profiles on you, serving different results based on your search history. Try one of these alternative search engines if you’re tired of being tracked.

Google now encrypts your search traffic when you’re logged in, but this only prevents third-parties from snooping on your search traffic – it doesn’t prevent Google from tracking you. . . .

Law Guru – Free Internet Legal Research.

25 Sunday May 2014

Posted by in Case Law, Federal Law, Internet, Law Libraries, Legal Dictionaries, Legal Directories, Legal Directory, Mandatory Law, Primary Law, References, Research, State Law, Statutes

≈ Comments Off on Law Guru – Free Internet Legal Research.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Law Guru

http://www.lawguru.com/research.html

Another free Internet legal research tool. Law Guru have over 535 search engines. You can search state and federal case law, statutes and codes, and more.

It has some other nice features, too. It has a database of over 500,000 legal questions and answers. I know that sounds tempting and it may point you in the right direction. But if you are not an experienced legal researcher, please do not rely on these answers as you sole source of legal information. These questions and answers are generic – the facts of your situation may mean that the answer you get here is not the right one for your problem.

Law Guru also has a legal dictionary, links to legal articles, the Internet Law Library, and legal forms (there is a charge for these forms). -CCE

The Public Library of Law.

25 Sunday May 2014

Posted by in Case Law, Constitutions, Court Rules, FastCase, Internet, Law Libraries, Mandatory Law, Primary Law, References, Regulations, Research, State Law, Statutes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The Public Library of Law

http://www.plol.org/Pages/Search.aspx

The Public Library of Law is free. Actually, it’s one of the largest free law libraries on the Internet. It gives you access to case law from the U.S. Supreme Court, all U.S. Circuit Courts, case law for all states (from 1997 to date), the United States Federal Code (federal statutes), states for all 50 states, regulations, court rules, state and federal constitution, and more.

One of the more interesting things about PLoL is that it provides free links to paid content on Fastcase®. If you are not familiar with Fastcase®, check it out at http://www.fastcase.com. If you need help learning how to use it, you will find free tutorials at http://www.fastcase.com/support/. -CCE

ClearView Social App – Sharing Social Media or Spam?

24 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Advertising, Law Firm Web Sites, Law Office Management, Legal Blogs, Technology

≈ Comments Off on ClearView Social App – Sharing Social Media or Spam?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Pseudo Social Sharing Isn’t Smart, It’s Spam, by Robert Ambrogi, Robert Ambrogi’s LawSites Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mkqjkpu

I have to admit I was taken aback by the premise of ClearView Social, the new app being developed by social marketing consultant Adrian Dayton. Targeted at medium and large firms, the app ‘helps attorneys more easily share content with their professional networks through LinkedIn, Twitter and other platforms,’ according to the press release last February.

That sounds harmless enough. But further reading reveals more about what the app does:

ClearView Social allows one person in the firm – for example, a designated marketer – to create a queue of content to be shared in an email template. When attorneys receive the email, they can click a link, which launches the application for sharing the content via various social media platforms, including LinkedIn and Twitter, which are integrated in the tool. This allows attorneys to share on those networks without leaving ClearView Social. It’s as easy as responding to an email.

So the app doesn’t actually help attorneys share content they find worthwhile. Rather, it makes the attorneys the conduits or redistributors of content someone else chooses to share. . . .

Deposition Objections – What’s Proper and What’s Not.

24 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Depositions, Discovery, Objections

≈ Comments Off on Deposition Objections – What’s Proper and What’s Not.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Proper Deposition Objections, by Susan Minsberg, Lawyerist Blog

http://lawyerist.com/16801/proper-deposition-objections/

Whether you are defending (or taking) your first or your hundredth deposition, you must be ready to handle objections. That means knowing which objections are proper and which are not. Once you know, you can keep the deposition proceeding smoothly — and avoid embarrassing yourself. . . .

Judges Share Tips With Attorneys About What They Like and What They Don’t.

24 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Animations, Closing Argument, Jury Selection, Legal Technology, Motion in Limine, Opening Argument, Presentations, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Judges Share Tips With Attorneys About What They Like and What They Don’t.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

5 Key Tips for Trial: Judges Tell Attorneys What They Do and Don’t Like In Court, by Morgan Smith, Cogent Legal Blog

http://cogentlegal.com/blog/2011/05/5-key-tips-for-trial/