• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Monthly Archives: January 2015

Time For Some Levity. Here’s The Case Law Hall of Fame.

31 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Orders, Courts, Humor, Judges, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Time For Some Levity. Here’s The Case Law Hall of Fame.

Tags

Case Law Hall of Fame, Legal Humor, Lowering the Bar Blog

Case Law Hall of Fame, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/lowering_the_bar/case-law-hall-of-fame.html

Cold wet day here. (Hey, not complaining – we need the rain!) Others digging out from monster snow banks. Time for a giggle or two provided by Lowering The Bar. Each of these is worth a snicker, and some might evoke a full belly laugh. It is hard to find one favorite. Which one is yours? -CCE

Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp. (S.D. Tex. 2001) (‘Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact . . . to draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefing would go unnoticed.’).

Brown v. Swindell (La. Ct. App. 1967) (holding plaintiff could not recover damages for emotional distress allegedly due to embarrassment of owning a three-legged dog).

Bruni v. Bruni (Ontario Super. Ct. 2010) (‘Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment . . . . I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts.’)

Collins v. Henman (S.D. Ill. 1987) (dismissing case because, even accepting petitioner’s claim that he was the Prophet Muhammed, he was still required to exhaust remedies in state court before filing federal habeas action).

Denny v. Radar Industries (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)(‘Appellant [tried to distinguish his case.] He didn’t. We couldn’t. Affirmed.’)

Fisher v. Lowe (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) (‘We thought that we would never see/A suit to compensate a tree’). Bonus points: Westlaw did the summary and headnotes in verse, too.

Lodi v. Lodi (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (‘This case started when plaintiff Oreste Lodi sued himself in the Shasta County Superior Court.’).

Miles v. City Council (S.D. Ga. 1982) (relating the story of Blackie the Talking Cat).

Moore v. Moore (Mo. Ct. App. 1960) (recognizing husband’s right to fish without female interference, but ruling that minor infringements on it are not grounds for divorce; also finding that the term ‘hillbilly’ is not an insult, at least when used in Southern Missouri).

Nance v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1962) (‘How do you know it was me, when I had a handkerchief over my face?’)

Noble v. Bradford Marine Inc. (S.D. Fla. 1992) (ruling, not long after ‘Wayne’s World’ was released, that ‘very excellent’ authorities showed that removal to federal court was ‘most bogus and way improvident’; ordering defendants to ‘party on in state court.’).

Norman v. Reagan (D. Or. 1982) (dismissing case against former President Reagan for allegedly causing plaintiff’s ‘civil death’ and also certain unspecified claims regarding a suspicious mailbox).

Pardue v. Turnage (La. Ct. App. 1980) (‘An exhaustive reading of the entire record convinces this court that Kenneth Turnage did give his stuffed bear to the Lessards.  For the trial court to find otherwise was manifest error.’).

People v. Foranyic (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (ruling that there was probable cause for police to detain someone they see riding a bike at 3 a.m., carrying an axe)

R. v. Duncan (Ontario Ct. Justice 2013) (‘There is an ancient proverb to the effect that ‘those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.’‘)

Stambovsky v. Ackley (N.Y. 1991) (holding that a homebuyer could seek recission of sale contract based on his claim that he did not know house was allegedly haunted by poltergeists; based on estoppel, court ruled that ‘as a matter of law, the house is haunted’).

United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and His Staff (W.D. Pa. 1971) (dismissing case against Satan and unidentified staff members for lack of jurisdiction and uncertainty as to whether case could properly be maintained as a class action).

Washington v. Alaimo (S.D. Ga. 1996) (ordering plaintiff to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for ‘filing a motion for improper purposes,’ such as those hinted at in the title of the pleading, ‘Motion to Kiss My Ass.’)

In re Marriage of Gustin (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (holding that wife’s chopping through door of marital residence with a hatchet was not ‘marital misconduct’ sufficient to affect distribution of property).

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

William P. Statsky’s Legal Thesaurus/Dictionary.

31 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Editing, Legal Analysis, Legal Dictionaries, Legal Writing, Primary Law, Proofreading, References, Research, Spell Checking

≈ Comments Off on William P. Statsky’s Legal Thesaurus/Dictionary.

Tags

Common Law, Justice Marian P. Opala, Legal Dictionary, Legal Reference, Legal Terminology, Legal Thesaurus, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Statsky’s Legal Thesaurus/Dictionary, William P. Statsky

Recently, I saw a Dictionary of Legal Terms advertised on Amazon. I am sure there are many excellent dictionaries, including Black’s, that are useful. I have for many years now relied on Statsky’s Legal Thesaurus/Dictionary, which was a gift from a former boss. 

At one time, I worked for Justice Marian P. Opala at the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Justice Opala was simply brilliant – I can think of no other description. He was precise in his choice of words, and worked diligently to craft his formal opinions for the Court. He was absolute stickler for legal writing perfection in every way imaginable, and he abhorred legalese.

One of my tasks was to proofread and make editing suggestions for his draft opinions. I found Statsky’s book to be invaluable. In one instance, I used it to find an alternate clause to edit an old common law phrase.

When Justice Opala asked how I had come up with the suggestion, I sweated bullets and expected to be chastised for my choice. Instead, he explained that he wanted to know how I had been able to come up with an alternative that did not change the legal meaning of his original phrase. He was impressed. I was relieved.

It would have been wonderful if I could have truthfully said that I came up with it completely on my own. Instead, I shared how I had found it in Statsky’s book.

Over time, Justice Opala got the notion that the book belonged to him. When I left his chambers for another position, Justice Opala protested when I packed it with my other belongings. I had to show him the flyleaf where my former boss had written a message to me to assure Justice Opala that it was indeed my book, and not his.

I can think of no greater endorsement than Justice Opala’s opinion. I take the book with me to legal writing seminars as a recommended addition to anyone’s reference library. And I keep a copy at the house and at the office. If you are looking for such a resource, I can endorse it without hesitation. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Write Contracts That Avoid Confusion When Circumstances Change.

30 Friday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law

≈ Comments Off on Write Contracts That Avoid Confusion When Circumstances Change.

Tags

Adams On Drafting, Contractes, Ken Adams, Legal riting

Being Specific in Contracts Can Help Avoid Confusion When Circumstances Change, by Ken Adams, Adams On Contract Drafting

http://tinyurl.com/q7wma8d

Recently Eric Goldman (otherwise know as @ericgoldman) alerted me to In re SuperMedia, Inc., an opinion by the Delaware U.S. Bankruptcy Court. (Go here for a PDF copy.) It has a lesson to offer regarding how to avoid confusion over whether contract terms apply to changed circumstances. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Another Kimble Legal Writing Example – This Is How You Do It.

29 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Editing, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Another Kimble Legal Writing Example – This Is How You Do It.

Tags

Joseph Kimble, Judith D. Fischer, Legal Writing, Legal Writing Prof Blog, Legalese, The Green Bag

Lawyers Are Poor Drafters, by Judith D. Fischer, Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwriting/2015/01/lawyers-are-poor-drafters.html

Most lawyers are poor drafters, writes Professor Joseph Kimble of Western Michigan University-Cooley Law School. In a recent article, Kimble identifies two key reasons for this: law schools have tended to neglect legal drafting, and lawyers often mimic the antiquated language in form books and poorly drafted statutes. To illustrate the problem, Kimble offers a court order prepared by lawyers and judges at a recent symposium. Displaying the order and his revised version side by side, he points out, among other things, that the original has 125 words more than the revision; the original includes several legalese phrases, such as pursuant to; and the original includes unnecessary cross-references. For his full analysis, see You Think Lawyers Are Good Drafters? in the autumn 2014 issue of The Green Bag.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Non-Lawyers Practicing Law? Washington’s Limited License Legal Technician.

28 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Limited License Legal Technician Program, Paralegals/Legal Assistants, Regulation, Unauthorized Practice of Law

≈ Comments Off on Non-Lawyers Practicing Law? Washington’s Limited License Legal Technician.

Tags

Access To Justice Gap, Law Sites Blog, Legal Technicians, Limited License Legal Technician Program, Non-Lawyers, Robert Ambrogi

Debating The Pros and Cons of Non-Lawyers Practicing Law, by Robert Ambrogi, Law Sites Blog

http://www.lawsitesblog.com/2015/01/pros-cons-non-lawyers-practicing-law.html

As I noted here recently, I have an article in the current issue of the ABA Journal about the use of non-lawyers to help close the access to justice gap by allowing them to provide legal advice in limited circumstances. A particular focus of the article is Washington state’s limited license legal technician (LLLT) program.

The article prompted two posts last week at Above the Law that considered the pros and cons of allowing non-lawyers to practice law.

In the first, Can Nonlawyers Close The Access-To-Justice Gap?, Sam Wright, a ‘dyed-in-the-wool, bleeding-heart public interest lawyer,’ couldn’t quite decide how he feels about the idea. ‘It’s easy to see how this could be a win for low- and middle-income people who currently find themselves floundering in the access-to-justice gap,’ he writes. But then he goes on to say that it is ‘also easy to see how this could be a blow to the present-day legal profession with its hordes of underemployed lawyers’ and that it is ‘also easy to see how programs like Washington’s could do a poor job closing the access-to-justice gap.’ Wright’s bottom line is to take a wait-and-see position: ‘Regardless, the LLLT program is an interesting approach to a real problem, and I’ll be watching to see what comes of it.’

From everything I’ve learned about this issue, it is clear to me that this is not about displacing lawyers. The magnitude of the A2J gap is so enormous that lawyers can never close it alone. There could never be a sufficient level of pro bono or reduced-fee services to meet the needs. Study upon study has concluded that 80 to 90 percent of low and moderate income people with legal problems are unable to obtain legal representation. That is an enormous problem.

You may have noticed that, even with a glut of lawyers, the problem isn’t getting fixed. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Litigator Mac and iOS Resources, Websites, and Blogs.

27 Tuesday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Apple, Apps, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, Mac

≈ Comments Off on Litigator Mac and iOS Resources, Websites, and Blogs.

Tags

American Bar Association, Apps, iPads, iPhones, iTunes, Legal Technology, Macs, Podcasts, Solo Small Firm and General Practice Division, Victoria L. Herring

MAC USER: Mac/iOS Resources for Litigators, by Victoria L. Herring, Vol. 31 No. 5, Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division, GP SOLO, American Bar Association

http://tinyurl.com/pv5ozal

Most litigators are good researchers. Or they should be. We could all use a little help, however, so I’m presenting here a collection of Mac/iOS-based resources I’d suggest to other litigators. Each is accompanied by a link so you can explore further on your own.

One caution: Websites, blogs, etc. on the Internet frequently ‘die’ or fail to be updated. When you follow these links, or conduct your own research on a search engine, try to limit your searches within the last one or two years. This is not to say that older resources aren’t useful or valuable—sometimes they are even better than the newer ones. But, particularly in the realm of technology, you need to use the most up-to-date resources possible.

First Stop: iTunes

Before I present my list, I should note that when I need to explore and find resources on any topic, I tend to start with Apple’s iTunes application (apple.com/itunes). iTunes, which can be used both on Macs and on Windows machines, is a store of free and paid items that can be quite useful. So, first off, I open iTunes on my computer (or iPad, although usually for this I’m sitting with my laptop or desktop Mac). In all the cases discussed below, I sometimes put the term ‘law, ‘constitution,’ ‘justice,’ ‘trial,’ and such in the search box to narrow the field. Skipping over the entertainment choices (Music, Movies, TV Shows), I head straight for iTunes U.

iTunes U is a collection of presentations, seminars, classes, and the like from universities and colleges, associations, and galleries all over the world—even from schools in the K-12 range. There are all sorts of categories, and one of them is ‘Law & Politics,’ with topics such as ‘Legal Writing,’ ‘Constitutional Law,’ etc. There’s a wealth of information there. It’s free (really!) and downloadable and playable on your iPad, iPhone, iPod, or computer.

After that, still searching in iTunes, I head to Podcasts. As with iTunes U, there are all sorts of providers of podcasts on a variety of topics—and they’re free. Not all are worth listening to, and there’s no similar topic breakdown, but there are podcasts on ‘Government & Organizations,’ ‘Business,; and, of course, ‘Technology’; you can search all topics if you want to see if there’s something more focused on trials and litigation.

There is also, of course, iTune’s App Store. There are loads of categories, and any number might include a relevant and helpful application for your iDevice related to trials and litigation. On my iPad are apps for the following general topics: reading (Kindle, Zinio, iBooks, Instapaper), messaging (Messages, Skype, Google Voice), access/storage (Files Pro, CrashPlan, USB Disk), writing (Pages, Penultimate, Notability), scanning (JotNotPro, AT&T Code Scanner, RedLaser), signing documents (SignEasy, SignNow, DocuSign), printing (Cloud Printer, Printer Pro), conversion (myConvert, Units, Ruler Plus, iHandy Level), and law (Fastcase, FedCtRecords, LawBox, Iowa Lawyer magazine). It seems everyone has an app these days, which is good, and they’re either free or inexpensive enough to test. And there are apps that follow the whole topic of applications and scout out other apps to try for a day or two, which is good to know.

Finally, the Books topic on iTunes includes many free books, mostly those long copyright-free, but a few that are recent and especially helpful (iPad at Work, business and finance topics, etc.). There are both e-books (readable on iOS devices or computers using iBooks) and some audiobooks (which tend to cost between $10 and $20, but that might be worth it for a long trip).

Now for That List

Over the years I’ve collected a list of numerous websites, blogs, and online articles that might provide helpful information for lawyers involved in trial work, particularly related to working with Macs and iOS devices. Here are the ones I’ve found most useful: . . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

iWrite Legal – Free iPhone App For Legal Writers.

26 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Apple, Apps, Editing, iPhones, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Proofreading, Readability

≈ Comments Off on iWrite Legal – Free iPhone App For Legal Writers.

Tags

iPhone App, Kathleen Vinson, Law Sites Blog, Legal Writing, Legal Writing App, Legal Writing Tips, Robert Ambrogi, Writing Checklist

Can An iPhone App Improve Your Legal Writing?, by Robert Ambrogi, Law Sites Blog

http://www.lawsitesblog.com/2013/03/can-an-iphone-app-improve-your-legal-writing.html

Can an iPhone app improve your legal writing? Kathleen Vinson thinks so. A professor of legal writing at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, Vinson has developed iWrite Legal, a free iPhone app designed to help legal writers improve their writing skills.

The app consists of three sections — Legal Writing Tips, Legal Writing Checklist and Additional Resources — all aimed at providing advice and guidance on writing, editing and proofreading a legal document.

The first section, Legal Writing Tips, is simply that — a collection of tips, no doubt gleaned from Vinson’s own experience teaching legal writing. Each tip occupies its own screen, with a heading such as ‘Finding the Time to Write,’ ‘Be Consistent’ and ‘One Point at a Time,’ followed by a paragraph that elaborates on the point. For example, under the heading, ‘Writing Efficiently,’ the app offers this tip:

Do you feel that it is taking a long time to draft a document? Good writing takes time but often what slows writers down is trying to edit while you write. Don’t edit/revise while you write or stop to think of the perfect word. Write quickly and then once you have completed a draft, edit slowly. If you have to, cover the screen while you type so you can fight the urge to edit while you write.

The second part of the app consists of four legal writing checklists. They cover the initial stages of writing, revising, editing and proofreading. For example, the checklist for the initial stages of writing lists items such as, ‘What is the purpose of the document?’, ‘What relief do you want from the court?’ and ‘Why is your client entitled to this relief?’ As you satisfy yourself that you have covered each element, touch that element in the app to check it off.

The final component of the app, Additional Resources, simply provides links to the Suffolk Law Legal Practice Skills program’s Twitter feed, YouTube video and Legal Writing Tips podcasts.

So will this app make you a better writer? . . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Why Is Workers’ Compensation An Exclusive Remedy In Employee’s Death Case?

25 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Damages, Employment Law, Litigation, Torts, Workers' Compensation

≈ Comments Off on Why Is Workers’ Compensation An Exclusive Remedy In Employee’s Death Case?

Tags

Breach of Contract, Employer Liability, Employment Law, Remedy, Torts, Workers' Compensation, Wrongful Death, Zalma on Insurance Blog

Workers’ Compensation Is Exclusive Remedy, by Barry Zalma, Zalma On Insurance Blog

http://zalma.com/blog/workers-compensation-is-exclusive-remedy/

Tort Judgment Against Employer Is Only Good for Wallpaper

The workers’ compensation system across the United States provides benefits to injured workers without regard to fault. When the injury is serious or results in death the workers’ compensation benefits do not feel sufficient to indemnify the injured worker or his or her estate for the loss incurred. As a result, the injured worker or his estate will attempt a tort action and then try to collect that judgment by means of a suit against the employer’s insurer.

Employers and employees make a bargain: the employer will not require proof of negligence if the employee is injured and the employee agrees that he or his estate will accept the statutory benefits provided by state law and give up the right to sue the employer for tort damages.

In Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co., — F.3d —-, 2015 WL 265445 (C.A.11 (Fla.) 1/22/15) the estate of an injured worker successfully sued an employer and sought to recover by means of a breach of contract claim filed by plaintiff-appellant Leticia Morales, on behalf of herself, the Estate of Santana Morales, Jr., and two minor children against Zenith Insurance Company (‘Zenith’).

FACTS
Santana Morales, Jr. was crushed to death by a palm tree while working as a landscaper for Lawns Nursery and Irrigation Designs, Inc. (‘Lawns’). At the time of Morales’s death, his employer Lawns maintained a ‘Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance Policy’ with Zenith. The policy contained two types of coverage: (1) workers’ compensation insurance under Part I and (2) employer liability insurance under Part II. After Morales’s death, Zenith began paying workers’ compensation benefits to the Estate in accordance with its obligation under Part I of the policy.

Under Part II, Zenith was obligated: (1) to ‘pay all sums [Lawns] legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury to [its] employees, provided the bodily injury is covered by this Employers Liability Insurance’; and (2) to defend lawsuits for such damages. In relevant part, Part II contained an exclusion barring employer liability insurance coverage for ‘any obligation imposed by a workers compensation … law’ (the ‘workers’ compensation exclusion’).

On December 3, 1999, the Estate filed a wrongful death action against Lawns in Florida circuit court and obtained a default jury award to the Estate of $9.525 million in damages against Lawns. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Can Plaintiff Defeat Defendant’s Motion In Limine To Exclude Facebook Evidence?

25 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Admissibility, Evidence, Rule 403, Social Media

≈ Comments Off on Can Plaintiff Defeat Defendant’s Motion In Limine To Exclude Facebook Evidence?

Tags

Admissibility, Bow Tie Law’s Blog, Evidence, Facebook, Joshua Gilliland, Motion in Limine, Social media

Swabbing the Decks of Admissibility, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law’s Blog

http://tinyurl.com/koeyrb5

Working as a deckhand can be extremely dangerous. There are plenty of reality TV shows with fishermen, tugboats, and salvage crews to highlight the risks professional mariners face daily.

What is also risky in litigation is posting on social media information that could hurt your case.

In Newill v. Campbell Transp. Co., a former deckhand brought motions in limine to limit social media evidence and other testimony in what apparently was a trial over a shipboard injury.

Red Skies in the Morning

The Plaintiff attempted to preclude the Defendant from introducing Facebook posts that showed the Plaintiff could engage in physical activities, despite his claimed injury. Newill v. Campbell Transp. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4350, 1-2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2015).

The Defendant sought to introduce Facebook posts that the Plaintiff engaged in ‘painting, landscaping, flooring, going to the gym, undercoating a truck, and going physical.’ Newill, at *2. The Plaintiff further offered his skills as a handyman on social media. Id.

The Court held that the Facebook posts that reflected physical capabilities that were inconsistent with his claimed injury would be allowed at trial. Id. However, if during the trial the Plaintiff felt a social media exhibit was overly embarrassing, the Plaintiff could challenge that specific post under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 at that time. Newill, at *3.

Red Skies at Night

The Defendant had a witness [presumably an expert] who was to testify that the Plaintiff’s Facebook posts ‘probably [were] not giving the employers a good impression,’ was simply speculation and thus not admissible. Newill, at *4. This might have been different if there was some evidence that the connected the Plaintiff’s employment status to his social media posting, but none was offered. Id.

Bow Tie Thoughts

I am an Evidence geek. Love it as much as the Rules of Civil Procedure. The difference is Evidence goes to the heart of a trial: What is admissible? . . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Trouble With Typos? Ten Tips To Help Get Rid of Them.

25 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Editing, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Spell Checking

≈ Comments Off on Trouble With Typos? Ten Tips To Help Get Rid of Them.

Tags

Grammar Girl Blog, Legal Writing, Mignon Fogarty, Proofreading, Typos, Writing Errors

10 Tips to Banish Typos, by Mignon Fogarty, Grammar Girl Blog

 http://tinyurl.com/kavzl5t

Funny Typos

Typos can seem funny after the fact. A couple of years ago I told you about someone who accidentally recommended a friend as a ‘fat and accurate typist’ instead of a ‘fast and accurate typist’ and another person who wrote to tell a friend he had written an excellent report and instead called it an ‘excrement report.’

Costly Typos

Some typos are more than embarrassing; they’re costly. Contracts, for example, are not good places for typos. A Canadian utility company became famous for the ‘million dollar comma‘ lawsuit when they had to pay another company more than $2 million because of a misplaced comma.

Old Typos

Typos aren’t a new problem either. There are a few old editions of the King James Bible that have typos. A 1612 edition known as the ‘Printers Bible’ reads ‘Printers have persecuted me without a cause’ instead of ‘Princes have persecuted me without a cause,’ and another one from 1635 is called the ‘Sinner’s Bible’ because it reads ‘Thou shalt commit adultery’ instead of ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ Whoops.

When you want to avoid embarrassing yourself, incurring costly lawsuits, and leading believers astray, here are 10 tips to help.

  1. Have someone else read your work. The best way to find typos is to have someone else read your work. They don’t know what you meant to say, and their fresh eyes will almost always catch things you missed. Since that’s not always possible, here are some other solutions.
  2. When you’re writing on your computer, use the auto-correct feature.I also call this the ‘know thyself’ trick. For example, I always type ‘pateint’ instead of ‘patient.’ Always. But with the auto-correct feature in my word-processing software, I can tell the computer that every time I type ‘pateint’ it should insert ‘patient.’ Problem solved!

The best way to find typos is to have someone else read your work.

  1. Run your work through your computer’s spell-checking tool. It’s amazing how many people don’t do this. Don’t think the computer is infallible though. The first choice it gives you may not be the right one, and spell-checkers often think correct possessives such as children’s and someone else’s are wrong. The computer can highlight things you should check yourself, but it isn’t perfect.
  2. Print your work.Always proofread a printed version of your work. Many people find that if they try to proofread on a computer monitor, they miss more errors than when reading a printed copy of their work.
  3. Give yourself some time.If possible, let your work sit for a while before you proofread it. If you are able to clear your mind and approach the writing from a fresh perspective, then your brain is more able to focus on the actual words, rather than seeing the words you think you wrote.
  4. Read your work aloud.This forces you to read each word individually. I write a script for each Grammar Girl podcast, and when I read it to record the show, I almost always find an error I missed when proofreading it other ways. A long time ago, a listener told me that he felt uncomfortable reading his writing aloud at work, so he does it while pretending to talk on the phone so people don’t know what he’s doing.
  5. Force yourself to view each word.If you don’t want to read aloud, you can force yourself to consider each word by using the tip of a pencil or pen to physically touch each word. You can also force yourself to focus on smaller sections of the document by putting a ruler under each line of text as you are reading or by cutting out a small rectangular window on an index card and sliding it over your copy as you read.

[[AdMiddle]8. Read your work backward, starting with the last sentence and working your way in reverse order to the beginning. Supposedly, this works better than reading through from the beginning because your brain knows what you meant to write, so you tend to skip over spelling mistakes when you’re reading forward.

Philip Corbet recently reviewed some of his favorite proofreading tips in his New York Times column ‘After Deadline,’ and I picked up a couple of new ideas there.

  1. Separate proofreading tasks.Read the article through once to just check the spelling, and then read it through again to just check the punctuation. By separating tasks, you’ll be able to focus better on each one.

(He also showed an example of a sentence that looked like a revision gone awry–as though the writer had rewritten the sentence but forgotten to remove remnants of the earlier version–and that really struck a chord with me. Almost every time I post a terrible typo to Twitter or Facebook, it’s because I was repeatedly editing the post to make it shorter and didn’t see that something got left in from an earlier version. So the advice is to be especially careful when you’re revising things at the last second.)

  1. Print your work in a different font with different margins.Bryan Garner, the author of Garner’s Modern American Usage, posted this tip to his Twitter feed: ‘When you’re sick of editing your own work, you should print it in a different font with different margins. It works!’ I’m going to try that one on my next book.

If you want to raise a happy dog who loves to play and cuddle–but still comes when called and doesn’t chew up your favorite shoes–you need Jolanta Benal’s The Dog Trainer’s Complete Guide to a Happy, Well-Behaved Pet: http://bit.ly/upuIhO

Distractions

VIDEO: ‘The Impotence of Proofreading‘ by Taylor Mali.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email Etiquette.

24 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Emails, Legal Technology

≈ Comments Off on Email Etiquette.

Tags

Email Etiquette, Judge Gerald Lebowitz, Legal Prof Skills Blog, Louis J. Sirico Jr.

Advice on Email Etiquette, by Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Legal Skills Prof, Legal Skills, Legal Skills Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/ksgmsd7

If you are looking for a short article for your students on email etiquette, you might consider “Email Netiquette for Lawyers,” republished in “Senior Lawyer” by the New York State Bar Association (here). Judge Gerald Lebowitz offers sensible and sound advice that should help the reader use email effectively and avoid pitfalls.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

iPhone and iPad Tips, Apps, and Podcasts.

24 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Apple, Apps, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology

≈ Comments Off on iPhone and iPad Tips, Apps, and Podcasts.

Tags

CarPlay App, iOS8, iPhone J.D. Blog, Jeff Richardson, Overcast App, Safari, Stylus

In The News, by Jeff Richardson, iPhone J.D. Blog

http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2015/01/in-the-news275.html

As usual, Mr.Richardson has shared a variety of tips and apps for iPhones and iPads well worth noting. I must find time to listen to more podcasts. There is so much great info there, and I’m missing it! -CCE

CI’ve long been a fan of using a stylus to take handwritten notes on the iPad. There are a lot of nice styluses on the market, and I’ve tried a ton of them, but in my opinion there is still no one perfect stylus because the iPad just isn’t designed to detect something smaller than a fingertip. Of course, Apple could change this, an there are now rumors that Apple might be creating a stylus for the iPad. Serenity Caldwell of iMore explains why this would make sense, and I would also love to see a stylus designed by Apple to work well with an iPad. And now, the other news of note from this week:
• If you listen to podcasts, I strongly encourage you to check out Overcast, a fantastic app that I use every day. California attorney David Sparks explains why he likes the app.
• New York attorney and iPhone J.D. reader David Rosen asked me to share that he started a new blog on New York civil procedure called Arguments & Demonstrations. In his latest post, we learn that, according to a recent New York opinion, chimps are not people with legal rights. Those damn dirty apes!
• CarPlay is a technology that is just starting to be included in new cars. In theory, it should be the best way to connect your iPhone to your car. In practice, the technology is still pretty new and rough around the edges. Jason Snell of Six Colors explains how it works, and also what doesn’t yet work.
• One of the more sophisticated features of iOS 8 is that apps can include action extensions, so that you can use features of one app from within another app. Allyson Kazmucha of iMore rounds of 11 good examples of action extensions on the iPhone.
• Rene Ritchie of iMore has some great tips for using Safari on an iPhone.
• And finally, what is a device that you use every day and every night? No, not your iPhone, I’m talking about your toothbrush. But don’t you wish that you could get those two critical devices to talk to each other? If that has been keeping you up at night, then you’ll want to learn about the Oral-B Electric Toothbrush with Bluetooth Connectivity, a toothbrush that pairs with your iPhone to make sure that you brush your teeth long enough and in the right way. You can get it on Amazon for only $125. Here is a video from Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal explaining why the Bluetooth in your iPhone and the white teeth in your mouth might work well together: [See post for video.-CCE.]

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Drugs Found During Search of Luggage. Was Consent Sufficient?

22 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Civil Rights, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure

≈ Comments Off on Drugs Found During Search of Luggage. Was Consent Sufficient?

Tags

Consent for Search, Fifth Circuit Blog, Kristin Connor, Search & Seizure, Traffic Stop

Driver on Cross-Country Trip Did Not Have Authority to Consent to Search Passengers’ Luggage in Trunk, by Kristin Connor, Fifth Circuit Blog

http://circuit5.blogspot.com/2014/10/driver-on-cross-country-trip-did-not.html

United States v. Iraheta, No. 13-30545 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2014) (Stewart, Dennis, Gilstrap)

The panel affirms suppression of drugs found during a traffic stop in Louisiana. The car with a California license plate was occupied by three people on a cross-country trip from California to Miami. Out of the hearing of the other two occupants, the officers asked Iraheta for consent to search the car, and he consented. Based on this consent, the officers searched the luggage in the truck and found drugs in one of the bags.

Typically, consent to search a vehicle applies to any unlocked containers within it. However, ‘[t]he sole fact that luggage is located in a car’s trunk is insufficient to show joint control over those items.’ ‘Iraheta clearly did not have actual authority to consent to the search of multiple pieces of luggage in the trunk of a vehicle occupied by him and two passengers.’ The officers were on notice of this because the car was occupied by three people on a cross-country roadtrip and there were multiple unmarked bags in the trunk.

While the defendants did not object to the search or assert ownership of the bags, the panel found this not to be determinative, particularly since the other defendants did not hear Iraheta consent and were not informed about it. Furthermore, the defendants had standing to challenge the search because they did not abandon the bag prior to the search.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Over-Delegation? Something Was Bound To Go Wrong!

22 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Supervising Support Staff

≈ Comments Off on Over-Delegation? Something Was Bound To Go Wrong!

Tags

Above the Law (blog), General Motors, J.P. Morgan, Joe Patrice, Legal Ethics, Mayer Brown Simpson Thatcher, Paralegals, Supervision of Support Staff, Synthetic Lease, UCC

Mayer Brown Simpson Thatcher Make Epic Screwup, by Joe Patrice, Above The Law Blog

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/01/mayer-brown-simpson-thacher-make-epic-screwup/

Mistakes happen. It’s why pencils have erasers. But it’s also why law firms install tier after tier of increasingly senior professionals to second-guess every ounce of work product. It’s remarkably effective — and fairly lucrative on an hourly basis.

Unfortunately, the flip side of a tiered system is a tendency toward over-delegation. And that’s how an unwary paralegal ends up costing a bank millions.

era; loaned a good chunk of cash to General Motors as part of a $300 million synthetic loan. It also, in a completely unrelated agreement, joined other lenders in loaning GM $1.5 billion. When GM paid off the first loan, it prepared documents to release J.P. Morgan’s interest in GM property used to secure the $300 million. And that’s when this happened, according to the Second Circuit’s opinion:

A Mayer Brown partner assigned the work to an associate and instructed him to prepare a closing checklist and drafts of the documents required to pay off the Synthetic Lease and to terminate the lenders’ security interests in General Motors’ property relating to the Synthetic Lease. One of the steps required to unwind the Synthetic Lease was -to create a list of security interests held by General Motors’ lenders that would need to be terminated. To prepare the list, the Mayer Brown associate asked a paralegal who was unfamiliar with the transaction or the purpose of the request to perform a search for UCC‐1 financing statements that had been recorded against General Motors in Delaware. (emphasis added)

The paralegal passed the assignment on to one of the dudes in the mailroom and the cheese stands alone. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Research and Drill Down Into the Invisible Web.

21 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Databases, Legal Directory

≈ Comments Off on Research and Drill Down Into the Invisible Web.

Tags

Catalogs, Guides, Invisible Web, Legal Databases, Legal Directories, Science Research, Search Engines, Social media

99 Resources to Research & Mine the Invisible Web, originally from College Degee.com, posted by Marcus P. Zillman at LLRX.com

http://tinyurl.com/6g5768

Be warned. Not all resources listed here – and there are many more at the link above — are sometimes fee based. You may need to sort and give each a test run to see whether it performs as you wish. Still, it includes some interesting search engines, databases, and other resources that are not usually found. If you are a serious researcher, you will find these useful. -CCE

College researchers often need more than Google and Wikipedia to get the job done. To find what you’re looking for, it may be necessary to tap into the invisible web, the sites that don’t get indexed by broad search engines. The following resources were designed to help you do just that, offering specialized search engines, directories, and more places to find the complex and obscure.

Search Engines

Whether you’re looking for specific science research or business data, these search engines will point you in the right direction.

  1. Turbo10: On Turbo10, you’ll be able to search more than 800 deep web search engines at a time.

  2. Agrisurf: If you’re searching for information related to agriculture and farming, check out this engine.

  3. IncyWincy: This search engine canvasses the deep web.

  4. Direct Search: Direct Search covers the invisible web, offering results in books, government, and much more.

  5. SurfWax: The SurfWax search engine taps into the deep web and offers search tools for feeds, news, blogs, and more.

  6. ZoomInfo: Get information about corporations and job searchers here.

  7. Internet Archive: Here you’ll be able to find movies, music, text, and more, even including sites and pages that no longer exist.

  8. TenKWizard: This business search engine covers Forbes, specific industries, and exchanges.

  9. ZabaSearch: This search engine serves up public records like phone numbers and addresses.

  10. Clusty: Perform your search across a number of engines at once with Clusty.

  11. BusinessResearch: This deep web search scours the business web.

  12. The Online Books Page: Here you can search for more than 25,000 full-text works.

  13. E-Print: Check out E-Print to find sites and databases for scientists and engineers from one search engine.

  14. Guggenheim Museum: Search for artists through this database.

  15. Kompass: On this search engine, you’ll find entries for products, services, and companies.

  16. Scirus: Search journal sources and more with this scientific information search.

  17. TechXtra: On TechXtra, you’ll be able to search for resources in engineering, mathematics, and computing.

  18. Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery: Find portraits for more than 80,000 people in this database.

  19. Science Research Portal: In this research portal, you can search the deep web for scientific topics.

  20. Infoplease: Infoplease offers a search engine that combines reference tools like an encyclopedia, atlas and almanac.

  21. Pipl: Pipl brings together profiles, public records, and documents to serve up relevant information about people. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Link Rot – How To Archive The Internet?

21 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Footnotes, Legal Technology, Link Rot

≈ Comments Off on Link Rot – How To Archive The Internet?

Tags

beSpacific Blog., Content Drift, Footnotes, Internet, Jill Lepore, Link Rot, Reference Rot, Sabrina I. Pacifici, URLs

The Cobweb – Can The Internet Be Archived?, by Sabrina I. Pacifici, BeSpacific Blog

http://www.bespacific.com/cobweb-can-internet-archived/

This is not my first post on “link rot.” There are groups who are looking for solutions, but I cannot in confidence say that there is yet a definitive answer. -CCE 

The New Yorker – Annals of Technology. January 26, 2015 Issue. The Cobweb Can the Internet be archived? By Jill Lepore

‘…The Web dwells in a never-ending present. It is—elementally—ethereal, ephemeral, unstable, and unreliable. Sometimes when you try to visit a Web page what you see is an error message: ‘Page Not Found.’ This is known as ‘link rot,’ and it’s a drag, but it’s better than the alternative. More often, you see an updated Web page; most likely the original has been overwritten. (To overwrite, in computing, means to destroy old data by storing new data in their place; overwriting is an artifact of an era when computer storage was very expensive.) Or maybe the page has been moved and something else is where it used to be. This is known as ‘content drift,’ and it’s more pernicious than an error message, because it’s impossible to tell that what you’re seeing isn’t what you went to look for: the overwriting, erasure, or moving of the original is invisible. For the law and for the courts, link rot and content drift, which are collectively known as ‘reference rot,’ have been disastrous. In providing evidence, legal scholars, lawyers, and judges often cite Web pages in their footnotes; they expect that evidence to remain where they found it as their proof, the way that evidence on paper—in court records and books and law journals—remains where they found it, in libraries and courthouses. But a 2013 survey of law- and policy-related publications found that, at the end of six years, nearly fifty per cent of the URLs cited in those publications no longer worked. According to a 2014 study conducted at Harvard Law School, ‘more than 70% of the URLs within the Harvard Law Review and other journals, and 50% of the URLs within United States Supreme Court opinions, do not link to the originally cited information.’ The overwriting, drifting, and rotting of the Web is no less catastrophic for engineers, scientists, and doctors. Last month, a team of digital library researchers based at Los Alamos National Laboratory reported the results of an exacting study of three and a half million scholarly articles published in science, technology, and medical journals between 1997 and 2012: one in five links provided in the notes suffers from reference rot. It’s like trying to stand on quicksand…’

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Craig Ball on E-Discovery, Litigation Holds, and Evidence Preservation.

20 Tuesday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Relevance, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball on E-Discovery, Litigation Holds, and Evidence Preservation.

Tags

Ball in Your Court, Craig Ball, Discovery, E-Disocvery, E-Mail, ESI, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Request for Production of Documents

The Path to E-Mail Production II, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

http://tinyurl.com/q4uozfh

This is the seventh in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations. As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

The Path to Production: Retention Policies That Work

(Part II of IV)

[Originally published in Law Technology News, November 2005]

We continue down the path to production of electronic mail. Yesterday, I reminded you to look beyond the e-mail server to the many other places e-mail hides. Now, having identified the evidence, we’re obliged to protect it from deletion, alteration and corruption.

Preservation
Anticipation of a claim is all that’s required to trigger a duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence, including fragile, ever-changing electronic data. Preservation allows backtracking on the path to production, but fail to preserve evidence and you’ve burned your bridges.

Complicating our preservation effort is the autonomy afforded e-mail users. They create quirky folder structures, commingle personal and business communications and — most dangerous of all — control deletion and retention of messages.

Best practices dictate that we instruct e-mail custodians to retain potentially relevant messages and that we regularly convey to them sufficient information to assess relevance in a consistent manner. In real life, hold directives alone are insufficient. Users find it irresistibly easy to delete data, so anticipate human frailty and act to protect evidence from spoliation at the hands of those inclined to destroy it. Don’t leave the fox guarding the henhouse. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Verizon Zombie Cookies Must Die!

20 Tuesday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Android Phones, Cell Phones, Consumer Contracts, Consumer Law, Contract Law, Cybersecurity, Legal Technology

≈ Comments Off on Verizon Zombie Cookies Must Die!

Tags

Electronic Frontier Foundation, Online Privacy, Smart Phones, Tracking Cookies, Turn, Verizon, Zombie Cookies

Zombie Cookies Slated to be Killed, by Julia Angwin and Mike Tigas, ProPublica

http://tinyurl.com/n9d7ago

Tech company Turn said it would stop using tracking cookies that are impossible to delete. The decision came in response to a ProPublica article this week that revealed the controversial practice.

‘We have heard the concerns and are actively re-evaluating this method,’ Max Ochoa, Turn’s chief privacy officer, wrote in a blog post.

He said the company plans aims to suspend the practice by ‘early February.’

Turn’s zombie cookie was exploiting a hidden undeletable number that Verizon uses to track its customers on their smartphones on tablets. Turn used the Verizon number to respawn tracking cookies that users had deleted. The company said it will now re-evaluate its practices.

Turn’s decision to suspend the practice was a sharp reversal from its previous stance. It had previously argued that ‘clearing cookies is not a reliable way for a user to express their desire not to receive tailored advertising.’

Critics across the Web vocally disagreed. Jason Kint, CEO of a trade association for digital content companies, wrote that ‘this kind of surreptitious behavior does nothing to build trust between consumers, advertisers and publishers.’ The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights organization, said Turn’s action made it ‘ impossible for customers to meaningfully control their online privacy.’

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Deposition Advice for Witnesses.

20 Tuesday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Depositions, Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Objections

≈ Comments Off on Deposition Advice for Witnesses.

Tags

Depositions, Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Leading Questions, Objections, Persuasive Litigator, Witness Preparation, Witnesses

Don’t Be Led (in Deposition), by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator

http://tinyurl.com/lbeehbe

The name ‘Discovery’ doesn’t quite do justice to the litigation phase it describes. When it’s done well and with purpose, the point of discovery isn’t so much to discover evidence as it is to create evidence. In deposition, for example, the deposing attorney’s fondest wish is not to discover the witness’s view of what happened, but instead to get that witness to confirm the attorney’s version of what the case requires. For that reason, taking a deposition is all about control. The deposing attorney would just testify on his own if he could, but the process doesn’t allow that, so the next best thing is to fully control the witness. And the best way to fully control the witness is to lead. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Tax Time Is Coming – Again.

19 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, State Appellate Courts, Tax Law

≈ Comments Off on Tax Time Is Coming – Again.

Tags

Accounting, Federal Taxes, IRS, Payroll Deductions, Retirement Taxes, Self-Employment Tax, State Taxes, Tax Law, U.S. Tax Court

A new year. New tax laws. Regardless of whether you do your own taxes or use a trusty accountant, it’s time to start getting your ducks in a row. -CCE

Bankrate – Tax Laws and the IRS
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-law.aspx
Calculator for all types of things: taxes, payroll deductions, self-employment taxes, retirement plan tax deductions, and 125 cafeteria plans.

Income Tax – Cornell Legal Information Institution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/income_tax
Federal statutes, regulations, U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Courts, and U.S. Tax Court cases, and references to other sources.

TaxCites.com
http://www.taxsites.com/
Tax, Accounting and Payroll Sites Directory

IRS – Tax Law Questions
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Law-Questions

Tax Law: Guide to Taxation Law
http://www.hg.org/tax.html

IRS – Tax Code, Regulations and Official Guidance
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/Tax-Code,-Regulations-and-Official-Guidance

TaxProfBlog
http://taxprof.typepad.com/

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Time For A New Office Computer?

19 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Apple, Computer Forensics, Confidentiality, Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, PC Computers, Technology, Technology

≈ Comments Off on Time For A New Office Computer?

Tags

Ball in Your Court, Client Files, Computers, Confidentiality, Craig Ball, Hard Drives, Personal Data

Give Away your Computer, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/give-away-your-computer-revisited/

This is the fourth in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations. As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

Give Away Your Computer 

[Originally published in Law Technology News, July 2005]

With the price of powerful computer systems at historic lows, who isn’t tempted to upgrade? But, what do you do with a system you’ve been using if it’s less than four or five-years old and still has some life left in it? Pass it on to a friend or family member or donate it to a school or civic organization and you’re ethically obliged to safeguard client data on the hard drive. Plus, you’ll want to protect your personal data from identity thieves and snoopers. Hopefully you already know that deleting confidential files and even formatting the drive does little to erase your private information—it’s like tearing out the table of contents but leaving the rest of the book. How do you be a Good Samaritan without jeopardizing client confidences and personal privacy? . . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Pro Bono Isn’t Charity – It’s A Duty.

19 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Pro Bono

≈ Comments Off on Pro Bono Isn’t Charity – It’s A Duty.

Tags

ALM, Aric Press, Kevin O'Keefe, Legal Ethics, Pro Bono, Scott H. Greenfield, Self-Regulation, Simple Justice Blog

Half Court Press, by Scott H. Greenfield, Simple Justice Blog

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/01/18/half-court-press/

That law is a profession, not just a business, has long been a theme here, and I haven’t been shy about pounding that theme whenever possible. And yet, I’m particularly wary when the theme is used in ways that blow beyond professionalism as a weapon against lawyers.

Aric Press, retiring from his 16 years as Editor in Chief of ALM (formerly American Lawyer Media), offered his parting thoughts in a paywalled post that was partially copied by Kevin O’Keefe. Among his ‘lessons’ learned while getting his ALM big guy paycheck was this:

Pro bono isn’t charity. I cringed recently when I heard a longtime public interest lawyer refer to pro bono work as what big-firm lawyers do so they’ll have something to put on their tombstones. I’m not that cynical. I think it’s work that lawyers do because they belong to a profession, and professions have obligations to the broader society in which they operate. Otherwise they don’t deserve the privilege of self-regulation and the honor of a special status in our courts. Part of the price for that status is serving those who can’t afford legal services. It’s a duty, in my view, but also an act of self-protection. With outside investment money beginning to slosh around the legal world, the question of bar regulation will be visited again in your futures. If you want to maintain the current framework, you have to pay the dues. It’s a profession, if you choose to keep it one. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Attorney Discipline For Drunk Driving. Agree or Disagree?

19 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney Discipline, Ethics Opinions, Legal Ethics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Drunk Driving, Lawyer Discipline, Legal Ethics, Legal Ethics Opinions, Legal Profession Blog, Mike Frisch

A Not-So-Golden Oldie, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Prof, Legal Profession Blog

http://tinyurl.com/m4y2erx

The most overdue District of Columbia hearing committee report (perhaps ever) has finally been filed.

Attorney Wayne R. Rohde was convicted of felony hit and run in Virginia way back in 2005.

After a night of heavy drinking at a D.C. bar called Rumors, he drove home to Virginia. En route, he caused a head on collision that seriously injured a woman, backed his car away from the collision and drove home.

His effort to avoid detection failed in part because he had left his car bumper (with license plate affixed) at the scene.

He managed to convince the Court of Appeals to not suspend him pending the disciplinary proceedings, a departure from the court’s usual (indeed, nearly invariable) practice for felony convictions.

The hearing was competed on January 15, 2008.

The report was filed last Friday – seven years and a day after.

And it stinks.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Honey Pot of Federal Court E-Discovery Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines.

18 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bankruptcy Court Rules, Court Rules, Courts, Discovery, E-Discovery, E-Filing, Federal District Court Rules, Local Rules

≈ Comments Off on Honey Pot of Federal Court E-Discovery Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines.

Tags

Bankruptcy Court Rules, E-Discovery, E-Discovery Court Rules, E-Filing, ESI, K&L Gates, Local Court Rules, U.S. District Court Rules

Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines of United States District Courts Addressing E-Discovery Issues, Electronic Discovery Law Blog, published by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/p3d6srx

No doubt many of you have already have bookmarked this site. K&L Gates compiled this comprehensive list of local rules, forms and guidelines for U.S. District Courts and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts. At the bottom of their post, you will find a link that will take you directly to the U.S. Court’s website of all federal court rules. Thank you, K&L Gates. -CCE

Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines of United States District Courts Addressing E-Discovery Issues

Many United States District Courts now require compliance with special local rules, forms, or guidelines addressing the discovery of electronically stored information. Below is a collection of those local rules, forms and guidelines, with links to the relevant materials. Please note also that many individual judges and magistrate judges have created their own forms or have crafted their own preferred protocols for e-discovery. These are generally available on the website of the individual judge or magistrate judge and care should be taken to ensure you are aware of any such forms or guidelines in any court you may appear in.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

E-Discovery Is Scary!

17 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Native Format, Preservation, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on E-Discovery Is Scary!

Tags

Discovery, E-Discovery, ESI, Facebook, Molly DiBianca, Native Format, Social media, The Delaware Employment Law Blog, Wellin v. Wellin

How NOT to Produce Facebook Evidence, by Molly DiBianca, The Delaware Employment Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/l8tvv2c

Electronic discovery, the collection and production of electronic documents in litigation, is a scary thing to many lawyers. Some are so scared by it, in fact, that they just deny that it exists and continue to produce only hard-copy documents. Of course, that is a terrible idea. And not at all in compliance with the rules of procedure. But, alas, it is what it is.

There are times that a lawyer will want to produce electronic records, such as text messages, emails, and, heaven forbid, social-media content, but simply not know how to do it. I had an opposing counsel call me once and say that he was willing to produce his client’s relevant Facebook posts if I would show him how to do it. Ummmm, no.

My point, though, is that lawyers are ethically bound to understand and comply with the applicable e-discovery rules but, as a matter of practical reality, that does not mean that they comply.  Which is why e-discovery continues to be a predominant subject for discussion in the legal profession.

A recent case from South Carolina gives a pretty good example of how not to produce electronically stored information (ESI). In Wellin v. Wellin, the defendants moved to compel the production of certain ESI, including emails, text messages, and Facebook posts in ‘native format.’ (Native format means, in the most basic sense, that if it was originally in electronic form, you must produce it in electronic form, as opposed to paper form).

The plaintiffs apparently had attempted to produce the requested items but, instead of producing the responsive material in native format, they . . . [wait for it, wait for it] . . .  .-

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 486 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: