• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: Legal Analysis

Legal Research Finally Demystified.

26 Sunday Apr 2020

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Case Law, Court Rules, Federal Law, Internet, Law Journals, Law Reviews, Legal Encyclopedia, Legislative History, Mandatory Law, Primary Law, Regulations, Research, Secondary Resources, State Law, Statutes

≈ Comments Off on Legal Research Finally Demystified.

Tags

Eric Voight, Legal Analysis, Legal Research

Legal Research Demystified, by Eric Voight, Professor of Legal Research and Writing, Faulkner University

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3354594 (table of contents and a sample chapter)

I have a new favorite legal research textbook and reference guide for law and paralegal students — Legal Research Demystified.  In my opinion, it offers a fresh approach to finding and understanding the law. It guides a student in a logical process to research common law and statutory issues. It minimizes the chances that students will miss an important step or forget a necessary tool, such as the digest system or a citator.    

I like the way this book uses hypotheticals and visual aids, including screen captures from online databases, checklists, and charts. It does what a book on legal research should do – it shows and tells you how to do legal research rather than discussing finding research tools in a vacuum.

Everyone learns in a different way, but I think the opportunity to practice what you have learned is one of the strongest ways to teach. I was impressed to see that both students and professors have access to online exercises for each chapter using Core Knowledge for Lawyers (https://coreknowledgeforlawyers.com).

Each self-guided exercise walks students through the steps identified in the textbook and teaches them to research on Westlaw and Lexis Advance, again using visual aids, tips, and hypotheticals. As students electronically answer each question, Core Knowledge instantly provides feedback and an explanation of the right anwer.  It is my understanding that additional exercises should be available May 2020. -CCE

 

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

SCOTUS Notes Has the Supreme Court Justices’ Handwritten Notes!

18 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on SCOTUS Notes Has the Supreme Court Justices’ Handwritten Notes!

Tags

Joe Hodnicki, Law Librarian Blog, Legal Analysis, SCOTUS Notes, U.S. Supreme Court

SCOTUS Notes transcribes notes written by Supreme Court justices during conference meetings, posted by Joe Hodnicki, Law Librarian Blog (with hat tip to BeSpacific Blog)

http://bit.ly/2EA7cvK

We can read the U.S. Supreme Court justices’ handwritten notes during their deliberations? What will this mean for legal analysis and where do I sign up? -CCE

SCOTUS Notes is the newest crowdsourcing project under the Zooniverse platform originated at the University of Minnesota. ‘In this project, members of the public transcribe handwritten notes from U.S. Supreme Court justices. Unlike members of Congress, justices cast their votes in complete privacy during weekly conference meetings. Only justices are allowed in the Chief Justice’s conference room when they discuss, deliberate, and make initial decisions on cases that focus on some of the nation’s most pressing legal issues. The only record of what has been said, and by whom, is provided by the handwritten personal notes the justices themselves take during conference. These crucial documents detail the discussions and debates that took place in thousands of cases spanning multiple decades.’

[Emphasis added.]

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Excellent Example of Appellate Court’s Use of Persuasive Legal Writing Tools.

04 Tuesday Apr 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Civil Rights, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Second Amendment

≈ Comments Off on Excellent Example of Appellate Court’s Use of Persuasive Legal Writing Tools.

Tags

Lady (Legal) Writer Blog, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Megan E. Boyd, Second Amendment

Contrasting Introductions in Kolbe v. Hogan, by Megan E. Boyd, Lady (Legal) Writer Blog

http://ladylegalwriter.blogspot.com/2017/03/contrasting-introductions-in-kolbe-v.html

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act (FSA), which bans AR-15s, other military-style rifles, and certain large-capacity magazines, is constitutional and does not violate the Second or Fourteenth Amendments.

This decision is controversial for a number of reasons (aren’t all cases involving guns?), but the introductions in the majority and dissenting opinions are particularly interesting. You’d expect an opinion about the constitutionality of a firearm-related statute to start with an exposition of Second Amendment law or a discussion of the specific language of the statute itself.

Not this majority opinion. It starts with a literal bang . . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Dump This Common Legal Writing Phrase!

09 Sunday Oct 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing

≈ Comments Off on Dump This Common Legal Writing Phrase!

Tags

Law Skills Prof Blog, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Louis J. Sirico Jr.

Avoid Beginning Sentences with “The court held that . . . .” by Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Law Skills Prof Blog (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)

http://bit.ly/2d5b89q

Busted! I use this phrase all the time. Here’s a way to take your legal writing to another level. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

What Does “Shall” Really Mean?

05 Wednesday Oct 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on What Does “Shall” Really Mean?

Tags

Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Legal Writing Prof Blog, Professor Joe Kimble, Professor Mark E. Wojcik

Shall Means “Must.” Unless it Means “Should.” Mark E. Wojcik, Professor of Law, John Marshall Law School (Chicago), Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://bit.ly/2dg7M46

In the legal writing world of contracts, legislation, and case law, legal writers debate about the meaning of the word “shall.” Many legal writing scholars have argued that “shall” means “must” without exception, and that is what I was taught in paralegal school. Professor Wojcik makes a convincing argument for dropping the ambiguous “shall” in favor of words that leave no question about what they mean. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Supreme Court Writing Analysis – Whose Briefs Win and Why.

22 Saturday Aug 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Grammar, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Readability, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Supreme Court Writing Analysis – Whose Briefs Win and Why.

Tags

Appellate Briefs, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Persuasive Legal Writing, Plain English, U.S. Supreme Court

Who Wins in the Supreme Court? An Examination of Attorney and Law Firm Influence, by Alan Feldman, University of Southern California, Political Science, SSRN.com (Date posted: August 18, 2015 ; Last revised: August 21, 2015)

http://tinyurl.com/q48ywgq

This paper is a detailed analysis of what type of legal writing and briefs from 1946 through 2013 have been the most influential  with the United States Supreme Court and the lawyers who write them. Interestingly, lawyers who write short sentences in the active voice and who use fewer words than the majority of brief writers are the most successful. It is a fascinating read, and strongly recommended. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Abandon Weak Points To Bolster Your Stronger Legal Arguments.

13 Wednesday May 2015

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

≈ Comments Off on Abandon Weak Points To Bolster Your Stronger Legal Arguments.

Tags

ABA Journal, Brief Writing, Bryan A. Garner, Daniel Kahneman, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing

First Impressions Endure, Even In Brief Writing, by Bryan A. Garner, ABA Journal

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/first_impressions_endure_even_in_brief_writing

We have a long history of judges saying that (1) little errors in a brief betoken bigger mistakes, (2) less is more, and (3) good briefs demand little physical or mental effort from the reader. Even so, briefs in most courts are astonishingly ill-proofread, they are rarely tight, and lawyers seldom confine themselves to two or three points. There’s a disconnect between what judges say they want and what lawyers give them. Curious.

There’s also a tendency to disbelieve things that can’t be scientifically proved. Hence I’ve heard lawyers say they don’t care so much about what judges say they find persuasive in written arguments. Those judges might not actually know what motivates them, the skeptical lawyers say. They want proof.

So let’s take the three points mentioned at the outset and see whether, when it comes to judging, there’s any scientific evidence to back up the anecdotal evidence that good writing enhances persuasion. We’ll use the findings of Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, the Princeton psychologist and economist who wrote a superb book: Thinking, Fast and Slow. What he says is most illuminating. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Art of Well Written Judicial Opinions.

17 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on The Art of Well Written Judicial Opinions.

Tags

Judicial Opinions, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Legal Writing Pro Blog, Legalese, Ross Guberman, Trial Judges

The Seven Writing Strategies of Highly Effective Trial Judges, by Ross Guberman, Legal Writing Pro Blog

http://legalwritingpro.com/blog/the-seven-writing-strategies-of-highly-effective-trial-judges/

Asked to name the world’s best opinion writers, traditionalists might rattle off Lord Denning, Learned Hand, or Oliver Wendell Holmes. Modernists often prefer Antonin Scalia or Richard Posner. And the trendy might cite new kids on the block like Lord Sumption or Elena Kagan.

Those august names all deserve heaps of praise. But the fame that these judges enjoy raises questions of its own: Can you write a ‘great’ opinion if you’re a judge who’s not a household name, or even especially influential? And can you write a ‘great’ opinion in a case that’s not a high-profile constitutional crisis, but just another run-of-the-mill dispute in an overflowing docket?

I say ‘yes’ on both counts. No matter how routine a case, and no matter how little time you have, you can write a great opinion. It may not be ‘great’ for the ages, but it can offer readers a clear, accessible, and easy-to-follow analysis of your reasoning, with even a bit of flair or personality for good measure. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Have Law Schools and Bar Exams Dropped The Ball On Legal Research?

04 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Recent Links and Articles

≈ Comments Off on Have Law Schools and Bar Exams Dropped The Ball On Legal Research?

Tags

Advanced Legal Research, James B. Levy, Legal Analysis, Legal Research, Legal Skills Prof Blog, Professor Patrick Meyer, State Bar Exam, Thomson Reuters

The Legal Research Skills New Attorneys Need For Practice, by James B. Levy, Legal Skills Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kjgceba

Knowing how to use book s is still one of them according to a new article by Professor Patrick Meyer, Director of the Law Library at Detroit Mercy School of Law.  The article, called Law Firm Legal Research Requirements and the Legal Academy Beyond Carnegie, is available at 35 Whittier L. Rev. 419 (2014). From the introduction:

According to quantitative research conducted by Thomson West (now Thomson Reuters), new associate attorneys can expect to spend 45% of their time conducting research. Yet despite this high percentage, criticism of the research abilities of new associates persists. . . .

There have been a handful of important recent studies on practice skills that post-date the Carnegie Report, and they are reviewed in this article. All of these studies support a stronger emphasis on legal research training in law schools, and all but one either suggest, or directly call for, an integrated approach where some tasks are taught in both the online and print formats. All but one of these studies surveyed practicing attorneys. . . . All of these studies show that legal academia must devote more time to teaching legal research, and all but one support my conclusions: that attorneys still use books to conduct research, book usage occurs much more than most people think, and law schools need to teach both online and print-based research for some tasks.

New attorneys frequently lack basic knowledge of how to use research resources, yet this knowledge is the link between legal research and legal analysis. . . In short, law schools can do a better job at teaching legal research.

Part II of this article begins with a brief review of the history of legal research deficiencies in the law firm setting and progresses to a summary of several new studies on law firm research practices and abilities. . . . In Part III, I propose a three-part plan to remedy the lack of research acumen amongst new attorneys. First, law schools must assure that all students receive an appropriate amount of basic research instruction in the first year curriculum, to include some print-based research instruction. Second, Advanced Legal Research must be a required course. Finally, I would like to renew the call to include a research component on each state’s bar exam. [Emphasis added.]

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Garner’s Ten Legal Writing Tips.

05 Sunday Oct 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Briefing Cases, Citations, Editing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Public Domain Citations, Readability, Spell Checking, The Bluebook

≈ Comments Off on Garner’s Ten Legal Writing Tips.

Tags

ABA Journal, Bryan Garner, Computer Legal Research, Editing, Legal Analysis, Legal Citations, Legal Writing, Proofreading

Ten Tips for Legal Writing, by Judith D. Fischer, Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pwlxeyt

Bryan Garner’s latest article in in the ABA Journal is titled Ten Tips for Better Legal Writing. Some Garner of his tips are especially appropriate for law students, who could appropriately paste ‘Don’t rely exclusively on computer research’ on the wall by their work space. That would serve as a reminder that unfocused computer searches are like a box of chocolates–you never know what you’re going to get.  Garner also advises legal writers to be neither too tentative nor too cocksure in their conclusions, both of which are hazards for beginning law students. And Garner’s tenth tip would improve the professionalism of many a student paper: ‘Proofread one more time than you think necessary.’

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Fine Tune Legal Interpretation and Analysis of Precedent and Stare Decisis.

10 Sunday Aug 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Fine Tune Legal Interpretation and Analysis of Precedent and Stare Decisis.

Tags

Legal Analysis, Legal Research, Michigan Law Review, Precedent, Randy J. Kozel, Rule of Law, Stare Decisis

The Rule of Law and the Perils of Precedent, by Randy J. Kozel, Michigan Law Review

http://tinyurl.com/jvqd3y3

Introduction

In a world where circumstances never changed and where every judicial decision was unassailably correct, applying the doctrine of stare decisis would be a breeze. Fidelity to precedent and commitment to sound legal interpretation would meld into a single, coherent enterprise. That world, alas, is not the one we live in. Like so much else in law, the concept of stare decisis encompasses a series of trade-offs-and difficult ones at that. Prominent among them is the tension between allowing past decisions to remain settled and establishing a body of legal rules that is flexible enough to adapt and improve over time.[1]

Notwithstanding pervasive disagreement over the application of stare decisis to particular disputes, the doctrine is well established in American jurisprudence.[2] Indeed, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to describe stare decisis as indispensable to the rule of law.[3] But as Jeremy Waldron skillfully reminds us, justifying the doctrine requires more than platitudes.[4] Even a proposition as fundamental and seemingly intuitive as the ability of stare decisis to promote the rule of law conceals a considerable amount of analytical nuance. Professor Waldron concentrates on developing what we might think of as the rule-of-law case for precedent. Central to his project is the recognition that rule-of-law benefits arise at several distinct points along the path from initial ruling to subsequent application. The touchstone is the principle of ‘generality,’ pursuant to which individual jurists subjugate their personal beliefs to the vision of a unified court working across space and time to fashion generally applicable norms.[5]

In this Essay, I wish to build on Professor Waldron’s thoughtful analysis by saying something more about the other side of stare decisis. The rule-of-law benefits of stare decisis are invariably accompanied by rule-of-law costs. In light of those costs, the ultimate question is not whether there are ways in which stare decisis promotes the rule of law. Rather, it is whether stare decisis advances the rule of law on net. Some departures from precedent can promote the rule of law, and some reaffirmances can impair it. Even if the rule of law were the only value that mattered, excessive fidelity to flawed precedents would be cause for concern.[6] That rule-of-law ambivalence, I will suggest, should be brought to bear in calibrating the strength of deference that judicial precedents receive. . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

How To Brief A Case.

28 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Briefing Cases, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on How To Brief A Case.

Tags

Briefing Cases, Christopher Pyle, John College of Criminal Justice, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing

How To Brief A Case, created by Christopher Pyle, 1982 and revised by Prof. Katherine Killoran, Feb. 1999, Lloyd Sealy Library, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html

A nice breakdown on how to brief a case (not to be confused with writing a legal brief for the court) for paralegal and law students. I would add “judgment” at the end of the steps – the decision made by the court (e.g., affirmed, reversed and remanded, etc.).  If you are interested in legal writing and have never learned how to brief a case, I recommend it. It will help you learn how to identify the key facts of the case and how the court applied those facts to the law to reach its ruling. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Judge Posner Critique on Structuring Statutory-Interpretation Books.

28 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Case Briefs, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legislative History, Statutory Interpretation

≈ Comments Off on Judge Posner Critique on Structuring Statutory-Interpretation Books.

Tags

Above the Law (blog), Bryan Garner, David Lat, Judge Richard Posner, Justice Scalia, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Professor Amar, Statutory Interpretation

Judge Posner on Statutory Interpretation: This Is How We Do It, by David Lat, Above The Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nba842o

[J]udge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit delivered the Madison Lecture on Judicial Engagement at Columbia Law School. The lecture series, sponsored by the CLS chapter of the Federalist Society, brings distinguished jurists to Columbia to discuss topics relevant to the federal judiciary and the administration of justice.

(Perhaps we should put ‘at’ Columbia Law in quotation marks; Judge Posner actually appeared via video conference. That shouldn’t surprise, coming from a judge who lists The Matrix as one of his favorite films.)

In his talk, entitled ’How I Interpret Statutes and the Constitution,’ Judge Posner was his usual candid self. He offered commentary on two recent books about statutory and constitutional interpretation — books that he’s not a fan of.

Yes, readers. There will be benchslaps….

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Legal Analysis & Writing Links.

05 Monday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Acronyms, ALWD, Bad Legal Writing, Citations, Internet, Legal Analysis, Legal Directory, Legal Writing, Legalese, Quotations, References, Research, The Bluebook

≈ Comments Off on Legal Analysis & Writing Links.

Tags

ALWD Citation Manual, Grammar, Legal Analysis, Legal Citation, Legal Writing, Lewis & Clark Law School, Punctuation, The Bluebook, Writing Resources

Legal Analysis and Writing, Grammar & Writing Resources, Lewis & Clark Law School

http://bit.ly/1kFtlHk

A nice assortment of writing resources.  -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Appellate Judges Give Advice On Winning An Appeal.

06 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Citations, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Appellate Judges Give Advice On Winning An Appeal.

Tags

Appellate Briefs, Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Chad M. Ruback, Dallas Bar Association Judiciary Committee, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Texas, Texas Supreme Court

Appellate Judges Tell Dallas Lawyers How to Handle an Appeal, By Chad M. Ruback, Appellate Lawyer

http://tinyurl.com/ousooh9

The Dallas Bar Association Judiciary Committee recently hosted a panel discussion with three prominent appellate judges.  Catharina Haynes is the only federal appellate judge in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.  After years of sitting as a Dallas state trial court judge, she was appointed to sit on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Debra Lehrmann is the only Texas Supreme Court justice from Fort Worth.  Along with Chief Justice Nathan Hecht, she is one of only two Texas Supreme Court justices who began judicial service in North Texas.  After a distinguished career in a large Dallas law firm, Elizabeth Lang-Miers serves as a justice on the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which reviews the cases from Texas state trial courts in Dallas County and five other counties.

The three panelists offered a number of helpful tips for lawyers practicing before appellate courts. . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

A Judge’s Biting Response to Bad Briefs.

08 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corps, Briefs, Good Legal Writing, Judge Samuel B. Kent, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Tiffany Johnson

The Bench Strikes Back, by Tiffany Johnson, Good Legal Writing

http://goodlegalwriting.com/2013/01/10/the-bench-strikes-back/

A judge does not like the quality of writing and analysis in attorneys’ briefs and tells them so. It isn’t pretty. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...
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 454 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: