SCRIBE

San Diego Public Law Library Offers Free MCLE

2011-06-28T12:24:00.000-07:00

F-r-e-e MCLE

Integrating Technology into your Practice

Law Practice is changing fast and today's lawyer is mobile and more efficient, able to respond to clients 24/7. The use and understanding of technology allows solo and small firm attorneys the ability to compete with larger firms. But with unprecedented products and services available including mobile devices and web-based applications it is challenging to know what technologies would be best. Get an overview of some of the latest and most cost-effective equipment and services you can integrate into your law practice.

Integrating Technology into your Practice
by Jeff Allen and Tony Vittal

Friday, July 8th, 2011
10:15- 2 pm (check-in 10 am)
Esquire Solutions
Emerald Plaza Building
402 West Broadway
16th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101

This is an online streaming video class good for 3 hours MCLE general participatory credit, including 1 hour in Legal Ethics. Sign up by emailing refdesk@sdcpll.org or by calling (619) 531-3900.

There will be a half hour lunch break. Lunch generously provided by CEB.

This free community event is sponsored by the San Diego Law Library and CEB

Everything You Need to Know to be Ready for Trial
by William C. Acevedo, Esq., Jayson T. Javitz, Esq., Karen P. Kimmey, Esq.

This seminar will guide you through the steps you should take before you enter the courtroom to try your case. Expert trial attorneys will share their pretrial strategies and useful tips on how to proceed smoothly during the last days before your trial begins. They will emphasize how to organize your case for trial and offer helpful advice that you can immediately use in your practice

Tuesday, July 12, 2011
10:15 am - 2:00 pm (check-in 10 am)
San Diego Law Library- South Bay Branch
500 3rd Avenue, Suite 150
Chula Vista, CA 91910

This is an online streaming video class good for 3 hours MCLE general participatory credit. Sign up by emailing refdesk@sdcpll.org or by calling (619) 691-4929.

There will be a half hour lunch break. Lunch generously provided by CEB.

This free community event is sponsored by the San Diego Law Library and CEB

Using Lexis
by Eronda Taylor, Esq.

Get research assistance from a Lexis expert! Learn how to quickly uncover rich content related to your search. This one hour class will cover search techniques, finding databases, Shepardizing, emailing and printing, etc. Take advantage of a Lexis representative’s knowledge and become a more efficient and productive researcher.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011
12:00 -1:00 pm
Esquire Solutions
402 West Broadway, 16th floor, San Diego, CA
1 hour MCLE credit, General Participatory

This class is free. Sign up by emailing refdesk@sdcpll.org or by calling (619) 531-3900.

The Law & Comics

We are celebrating the second year of our popular Law & Comics event!

Our Guest Panelists, attorney Stu Rees, artist Batton Lash, artist-developer Mark Irwin, and moderator George Brewster, will discuss how the digital revolution impacts the art, business, and law of comics. If you’re an artist, designer, author, or student, our panelists will inform you about legal issues important to you and your craft. Attorneys will gain valuable IP legal knowledge and earn MCLE credit.

Attendees will be entered into a drawing for a chance to win one of three prizes:
1) the collector’s edition book: Comic-Con, 40 Years of Artists, Writers, Fans and Friends, produced by Comic-Con and designed and published by Chronicle Books;
2) a Mophie Juice Pack Powerstation;
3) a Mophie Pulse.

Friend or Foe? The digital revolution and comics

Monday, July 18, 2011
1 - 2 pm
820 E Street
San Diego Public Library auditorium
San Diego, CA 92101
1 hour MCLE credit, General Participatory

RSVP to: (619) 531-3900 or Register Here to ensure your attendance.

These are free community events sponsored by the San Diego Law Library and the San Diego Public Library.

Success By the Book

2011-05-31T15:35:00.000-07:00

Reposted by request:

As an LDA I employ my paralegal skills and experience and follow ALDAP's business practices model to remain in compliance while helping my clients.

I received a follow-up phone call today from a client who came to me several months ago with a desire to file an appeal of his Superior Court case. He had formerly been represented by counsel and that counsel failed to show up at a MSJ hearing and my client was sanctioned and the defendants prevailed.

This is a client I blogged about previously ("Bo") as he had, prior to meeting me, hired a rogue document preparer who held himself out as an unlicensed attorney, to prepare his appeal. After learning that his designation had been rejected three times and after a review of the San Diego Superior Court's file, my client realized that the rogue had forged his signature on legal documents filed with the court, and that the guy was basically taking him for a ride having charged him $1,200 for a notice of appeal and the designation documents.

Since his case concerned his home and his mortgage, I was uncertain if I could legitimately help him, at least to the extent he required. My first concern was whether or not he could withstand the pressure of preparation of an opening brief complete with case law, etc.

We discussed his level of competence and comprehension and we agreed that I would provide him with the procedural information which he would read and then we would see where to go from there. I did so and he was ready to commence preparation of his brief believing that he was able to adequately represent himself and write his own brief.

During the next few days my client realized that self representation was not as easy as it appeared on television and that the brief he was to create was not a simple task. He called and asked me questions like "Can you do the introduction, I don't know what to put?" He asked me to pull cases that match his particular situation. He called several times a day always asking for me to do the brief for him or start it for him or to help him write it. This, I explained, I cannot do.

Finally, I recommended that he pay an attorney to write the brief. He did not want to hire yet another attorney, but I admonished him that the writing of the brief was obviously not within his ability and it was definitely not within the scope of services I could or would provide. I explained that paying legal counsel to help now would be better than losing and then retaining counsel to figure out why or to help repair any damage self representation could bring. I referred him to legal counsel who was willing to assist him with the brief and not kill him with a $300 an hour rate.

A few weeks later I received a call from my client who had been instructed by the attorney to file a motion to augment the record. I once again provided him with the rules of court and procedural information so that he could reasonably fashion his motion. He fashioned; I typed, filed, and served the motion - he prevailed!

He was overjoyed and ready to take on the big guys. I warned him that this was merely a battle in the war and not to get too cocky about the win, "One must not tempt fate."

I received the rough draft of the brief from his "ghost writing" attorney and after edits, formatting and preparation of the TOC and TOA, we sent it off to all. OC filed its responsive brief some time later and we waited. My client decided, against counsel's advise, to request oral argument. He appeared, argued and we waited some more.

Today the email notification from the court dropped into my inbox. It stated that my client's case was remanded back to Superior Court and he shall receive another turn at bat. I called my "now former" client and we discussed the win. I told him how proud I was of him taking on the big law firm on principle and that his drive and determination were the main factors in his win. He thanked me yet again for all my help and said that he would not have won if he would not have met me; that I helped him find counsel to write the brief and that my support and the information I provided to him in the form of rules, procedures, samples, etc. allowed him to adequately and properly represent himself. He said that he knew he didn't have a chance at prevailing until he met me - the person who convinced him that the case involved his life savings and his home and that he needed more help than what I alone could provide.

This is a duty of a legal document assistant. We are not attorneys. We might have a grasp of legal issues and remedies, but ABSOLUTELY NOT to the extent that we should be advising our clients on how to proceed or write their materials for them. It is our obligation - and it is the law - that we advise potential clients of any need for legal counsel. It is morally proper and any non-attorney legal service provider who acts independently on behalf of a client lacks integrity and is flirting with loss of bonding which is a requirement of registration.

As I always tell any callers who are confused about what to do or where to go - get yourself the legal advice from a licensed attorney who is competent, then return to me when you can provide instruction. Front-load the legal advice - do not wait until after you file documents and appear at a hearing and then learn all your money, time and trouble were for naught. Do it first so that you are not spinning your wheels. I tell them, "I will take your money - heck anyone will take your money - but spend it wisely. Use forethought and prudence and talk to an attorney who will advise you properly before undertaking serious legal matters."

This I know to be true: An educated client is a successful litigant. A successful litigant/client is a perfect source of enthusiastic referrals.

San Diego County Public Law Library Offers Free MCLE Course on Socal Media

2011-05-31T13:39:00.000-07:00

Social Media For Law Firms - Wednesday, June 8th, 2011

Social media, an easily accessible, low-cost marketing vehicle for lawyers to market their practices, can be overwhelming. Learn how to put together a social media strategy to reach the right audience with the right message. Join the San Diego Law Library and Luce Forward to hear from law firm marketing experts about best practices as well as traps to avoid.

Speakers:
Heather Milne, Senior Marketing Manager, Cooley LLP
Ramona Cyr, Director of Marketing & Business Development, Luce Forward
Debra Baker, Law Firm Services Group Chair, Legal Vertical Strategies

Social Media for Law Firms: What firms of any size can learn from large firm experiences

Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 12-1 pm (check-in 11:45)
Luce Forward
600 West Broadway
2nd Floor Conference Room
San Diego, CA 92101

1 hour MCLE general participatory credit

Lunch provided!!! Thank you Luce Forward!

Sacramento County Public Law Library Expands Pro Bono Attorney Consultation Hours

2011-05-24T13:13:00.000-07:00

NOW EVERY MONDAY!

Volunteer attorneys offer FREE 20-minute consultations to low-income patrons.

Arrive at 5:15 pm to participate in a lottery for an appointment between
5:30pm and 7:30pm.

www.saclaw.org

813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 874-8541 or (916) 874-6012

San Diego County Public Law Library Honors John Adam's Legacy With Free Legal Clinics During Law Week

2011-04-28T11:19:00.000-07:00

In partnership with the San Diego County Bar Association, Foothills Bar Association, and North County Bar Association, volunteer attorneys will be available for free consultations at the San Diego Law Library. The free legal clinics will be held:

o May 2 (Monday), 12:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m., South Bay branch
o May 6 (Friday), 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., East County branch
o May 6 (Friday), 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m., North County
branch

Free legal advice in specialty practice areas may include criminal law, family law, estate and probate, real estate and general civil law. Consultations will be on a first come, first served basis and will not include ongoing attorney representation.

Draft Model California LDA Legislative Changes

2011-04-25T11:27:00.000-07:00

Tom Gordon, of Responsive Law, met with myself and Suzanne Bowlby to discuss changes to California's B&P 6400 - the LDA law. We provided our input as to the seeming "failures" in the existing code and Mr. Gordon later provided us with the following rough draft of proposed model legislation drafted using Arizona's existing statute and input from our meeting and from legal document preparers in other states. At this time, there is no set target date for introduction of proposed legislation, but we are hoping to have it (in some form) before the legislators in time for the 2012 session. We are asking for comments from anyone interested in legislation so that we may prepare a written and comprehensive response to Mr. Gordon's request for input from California LDAs and Paralegals.

We would like to know what you think. Should we make an effort to change the legislation? Is this playing with fire? Do you have any comments, modifications, additions or deletions you would like to see? What are your thoughts?
________________

DRAFT MODEL STATE LEGAL TECHNICIAN LEGISLATION

NOTE: This rough draft of model legal technician legislation is based largely on the Arizona Legal Document Preparer (LDP) statute, with input from the California statute and the proposed Washington state framework as well. We have chosen the term “legal technician” for ease in drafting, and because it may impute some additional respect to the profession.

Purposes

The purpose of the legal technician program is to expand low-cost services in non-contested legal matters in which parties are unrepresented by providing opportunity and fair administration for legal technicians, while affording a high degree of consumer protection through accountability and quality of service.

Section 1: Legal Technician

A. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply:

“Board” means the Board of Legal Technicians.

“Designated principal” means the individual associated with a certified business entity, on file with the board, who is a certified legal technician and is responsible for supervising all certified legal technicians, trainees and staff working for the business.

“Legal technician” means an individual or business entity certified pursuant to this section to prepare or provide legal documents, without the supervision of an attorney, for an entity or a member of the public who is engaging in self-representation in any legal matter. An individual or business entity whose assistance consists merely of secretarial or receptionist services is not a legal technician.

“Trainee” means a person who would qualify for certification as a legal technician but for the lack of required experience, and who is seeking to gain the required experience to qualify as a certified legal technician by working under the supervision of a designated principal, on behalf of a certified business entity, to perform authorized services, as set forth in this section.

B. Applicability. In order to qualify to provide legal document preparation services under this section, legal technicians and business entities that provide legal document preparation services shall hold valid certification and perform their duties in accordance with this Chapter.

C. Administration.

1. The Board of Legal Technicians is established. (1) The board shall certify and recertify qualified applicants and shall make determinations regarding disciplinary proceedings. The board shall oversee a staff to administer the program. (2)

2. Establishment and Administration of Fund. The board shall establish a legal technician fund consisting of monies received for certification fees, costs and civil penalties. The board shall administer the legal technician fund and shall receive and expend monies from the fund.

D. Certification. The following requirements apply:

1. Eligibility Individual Standard Certification.

a. The board shall issue certification to an applicant for Individual Certification who provides or shows proof of each of the following: (3)

i. Age. An applicant must be at least eighteen years of age;

ii. Good standing. An applicant must show that he or she is not an individual whose application has been denied or whose individual certificate has been revoked by the board, except that the board may grant the application of such an individual if the board reviews the application of the applicant during a board meeting and is satisfied the applicant meets the requirements of this section, and by majority vote of the board, allows certification of the applicant. (4)

iii. Education or Experience. The applicant shall also possess one of the following combinations of education or experience:

1. Option 1. A two-year associates degree from an accredited college or university and a minimum of two years of law-related experience under the supervision of a licensed attorney; under the supervision of a certified legal technician; or as court employee; or completed independently before this law took effect; or in a combination of any of the above.

2. Option 2. A four-year bachelor of arts or bachelor of science degree from an accredited college or university and a minimum of one year of law-related experience under the supervision of a licensed attorney; under the supervision of a certified legal technician; as a court employee; or completed independently before this law took effect; or in a combination of any of the above.

3. Option 3. A minimum of three years of law-related experience under the supervision of a licensed attorney; under the supervision of a certified legal technician; as a court employee; or completed independently before this law took effect; or in a combination of any of the above.

4. Option 4. A certificate of completion from a paralegal or legal assistant program approved by the American Bar Association or that is institutionally accredited, that requires successful completion of a minimum of 24 semester units, or the equivalent, in legal specialization courses, with a grade of “C” or better, or a pass in a pass/fail program;

5. Option 5. A certificate of completion from an accredited educational program designed specifically to qualify a person for certification as a legal technician under this section;

6. Option 6. The successful completion of eight semester units from a law school institutionally accredited or accredited by the American Bar Association or the bar association of this state, with a grade of “C” or better, or a pass in a pass/fail program.

b. An applicant who is denied certification by the board may exercise the right to a hearing by the board.

2. Eligibility for Business Entity Standard Certification.

a. All corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, and all sole proprietorships that offer authorized legal document preparation services to parties and employ more than one certified legal technician, or supervise trainees, shall obtain certification as a business entity.

b. The business entity shall designate a certified individual legal technician as a principal pursuant to this section. The designated principal shall have the following duties and responsibilities:

i. Prepare and submit, with the business entity application, and by [Month] [Date] (5) of each year, a list of all certified legal technicians and trainees acting on behalf of the business entity;

ii. Actively and directly supervise all other certified legal technicians, trainees, and staff working for the certified business entity; and

iii. Represent the business entity, at the discretion of the entity, in any proceeding under this section.

c. In the event a designated principal is no longer able or willing to serve as the principal, a certified business entity shall immediately designate another certified individual legal technician as the new designated principal and file an updated designated principal form with the division staff.

d. If the status of an individual certificate holder changes from being associated with a business entity, the legal technician shall notify the division staff in writing.

e. The owner or officers of a certified legal technician business entity are not required to hold individual certification, provided the business entity has a designated principal who holds valid individual certification as a legal technician. (6)

f. A person whose individual application has been denied or revoked by the board without being later granted or reinstated may not hold ownership interest in a certified legal technician business.

3. Trainees. A certified business entity may employ a person who would qualify for certification as a legal technician but for the lack of required experience. A designated principal may train the employee to perform services authorized by this section until such time as the trainee meets the minimum eligibility requirements for individual certification. (7) Any designated principal who undertakes to train an employee shall:

a. Supervise the quality of and guide the trainee’s work;

b. Ensure the trainee is familiar with and adheres to this Chapter;

c. Provide the designated principal’s name and certificate number on any documents prepared by the trainee under the designated principal’s supervision; and

d. Prepare and submit to the board the name, address, start date of the trainee, and the anticipated date the trainee will meet the minimum eligibility requirements to seek individual certification. (8)

4. Eligibility for Online Legal Technicians.

a. To provide legal technician services to any customer in [this state], an online provider of legal technician services must:

i. Establish a designated principal who is a certified individual legal technician under this Chapter and who is responsible for receiving service of process in the state and ensuring that the online legal technician service provider complies with all applicable provisions.

ii. Comply with all applicable codes of conduct ethical and professional responsibility standards under this chapter, including that an online legal technician service must:

1. Clearly and unequivocally state in prominent locations throughout the website and on every downloadable form that an attorney-client relationship is not created, nor is any privilege associated with that relationship.

2. Provide on the website in clear and simple terms the nature of the services provided, and the role of all attorneys, legal technicians, other personnel and automated systems in providing, preparing and submitting legal documents.

3. Provide clearly and prominently the current certification and legal technician certification number for [this state].

E. Role and Responsibilities of Certificate Holders.

1. Authorized Services. A certified legal technician is authorized to provide all of the following services for any individual or entity:

a. Prepare, provide, or select legal documents for customers;

b. Provide general legal information pertaining to legal rights, procedures, or options available, but may not provide any kind of specific advice, opinion, or recommendation to a consumer about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, or strategies;

c. Review forms and filings for completeness, spelling and grammar, as well as internal consistency of names, addresses and other similar information. A legal technician may not review forms for legal sufficiency, draw legal conclusions, or apply the law to the facts of a particular situation.

d. File and arrange for service of legal forms and documents for a person in a legal matter.

2. Code of Conduct.

a. Identification. All documents prepared by a legal technician shall include: the legal technician’s name; the title “Certified Legal Technician;” the legal technician’s certificate number; and the business entity name and certificate number where applicable.(9)

b. Ethics and Professionalism. (10)

i. A legal technician shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, shall respect and comply with the laws, and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the legal and judicial systems.

ii. A legal technician shall refrain from knowingly making misleading, untrue, or fraudulent representations while assisting a consumer in the preparation of legal documents, and shall observe the highest standards of integrity and truthfulness in all professional dealings.

iii. A legal technician shall treat information received from the consumer as confidential, yet recognize and acknowledge that the privilege of attorney-client confidential communications is not extended to certified legal technicians.

iv. A legal technician shall not represent that they are authorized to practice law in [this state], nor shall the legal technician provide legal advice or services to another by expressing opinions, either verbal or written, about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, or strategies, or by representing another in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceeding, or other formal dispute resolution process.

v. A legal technician shall inform the consumer in writing that a legal technician is not a lawyer, is not employed by a lawyer, and cannot give legal advice, and that communications with a legal technician are confidential but not privileged.(11)

vi. A legal technician shall not use the designations “lawyer,” “attorney at law,” “counselor at law,” “law office,” “JD,” “Esq.,” or other equivalent words, the use of which is reasonably likely to induce others to believe the legal technician is authorized to engage in the practice of law in this state.

c. Fees and Services.

i. A legal technician shall provide in writing an itemization of all rates and charges to that consumer.

d. Skills and Practice.

i. A legal technician may consult and involve other professionals in order to assist the consumer, while protecting the confidentiality of his or her consumers to the extent possible. (12)

ii. A legal technician shall provide completed documents to a consumer in a timely manner, and shall meet document preparation deadlines in accordance with rules, statutes, court orders, or agreements with the parties. A legal technician shall provide immediate notification to the consumer of any delays.

iii. A legal technician shall accept only those assignments for which the legal technician’s level of competence will result in the preparation of an accurate document.

iv. A legal technician shall not at any time engage in the unauthorized practice of law.

F. Renewal of Certification. All standard certifications expire at midnight, on [Month][Day] of each odd numbered year.(13) Renewal fees are due before this date.

G. Complaints, Investigation, Disciplinary Proceedings and Certification and Disciplinary Hearings.(14)

1. Grounds for Discipline. A certificate holder is subject to disciplinary action if the board finds the certificate holder has:

a. Failed to perform any duty to discharge any obligation in the course of the certificate holder’s responsibilities as required by law or has failed to comply with any ethical or skills and practice standards;

b. Aided or assisted another person or business entity to provide services requiring certification if the other person or entity does not hold the required certification;

c. Been convicted of a criminal offense while certified by final judgment of a felony relevant to certification or failed to provide information regarding a criminal conviction;

d. Exhibited gross negligence or incompetence in the performance of duties;

e. Evaded service of a subpoena or notice or failed to cooperate with or supply information to the staff or board.

2. Filing of complaint. Any person may(15) file a complaint with the division staff if it appears a certificate holder has violated statutes, court rules, or this Chapter. The complaint shall be in writing with sufficient specificity to warrant further investigation. The complaint form shall provide the name, telephone number and address of the complainant.

3. The division staff shall immediately dismiss any complaint lacking any of the above information, or if a complaint fails to establish jurisdiction of the board.(16)

4. Standing of Complainant. A complainant does not have standing regarding any proceedings and is not a party to any proceedings. The complainant may, upon request, receive notice of public proceeding concerning the complaint. Failure by division staff to provide the complainant with information as required by this subsection shall not affect the ultimate disposition of any proceedings.

5. Investigative Subpoenas. Upon a demonstration of good cause, the board may issue an investigative subpoena to any person or entity for documents or information related to a pending investigation over which the board has jurisdiction.

6. Resolution of Complaints and Investigations. The division may resolve a complaint by:

a. Dismissing the complaint.

b. Resolving the complaint through a formal discipline proceeding. Formal Disciplinary Proceedings:

i. Provide the certificate holder the right to a hearing;

ii. May result in sanctions, including costs and civil penalties; and

iii. Are not confidential.

7. Public Availability of Certification and Discipline.

a. The board shall maintain an accurate, up-to-date list of all currently certified legal technicians and the disciplinary records of each available to the public.

H. Fee Schedule.

1. Certification for each two year certification period $[] (17)

2. Business Entity Certification for Two Year Certification Period $[]

3. Inactive Status $[]

4. Late Renewal $ []

______________________________
Notes:
(1) In Arizona and Washington (proposed), the Supreme Court oversees the administration of LT programs, but LTs are not providing legal services, so it is not clear that the SC in any state should have jurisdiction over them. Some administration is necessary, but it seems that a competent board should be sufficient. In Arizona, the SC serves as the last review board for certification decisions, but it seems that applicants and LTs will have adequate due process through a board procedure and the typical redress to courts. It may be necessary to include in the law that the “final” decision from the board is the necessary final step in exhausting administrative remedies before any claim can be brought in court.
(2) In Arizona, the board is comprised of an attorney, a judge and a member appointed by the Supreme Court; that level of detail seems unnecessary in model legislation.
(3) Arizona also requires an applicant to furnish fingerprints for a criminal background investigation, have good moral character, and be a citizen or legal resident. As far as the moral character and criminal background check go, including them adds to the complexity and cost of administration, and requires further regulations to determine what constitutes “moral character,” and what in a criminal background check would be disqualifying, unless these decisions are left to the board without additional guidance. Requiring legal citizenship or residency injects a political message without consumer benefit, so it has also been omitted here.
(4) Arizona also requires that an applicant show that he or she is not an individual who has been disbarred by the highest court in any state, without reinstatement, except that the board may grant the application of such an individual if: The board reviews the application of the applicant during a board meeting and is satisfied the applicant meets the requirements of this section, and by majority vote of the board in public session, allows certification of the applicant. Given the various possible reasons for disbarment, not all of which may be relevant to competence as an LT, and given a preference for autonomy of the LT profession from the bar, this requirement has been omitted.
(5) As with its recertification standards, which are required on the same date each year for all LTs, regardless of when they became certified, Arizona’s single deadline for other administrative requirements is a smart move that conserves resources for the state and results in clarity for LTs.
(6) This provision allows out-of-state businesses to operate within the state; it also allows large entities run by non-LTs to provide services.
(7) Arizona allows a trainee to work as a trainee for only two and a half years, which seems designed to prevent the creation of a permanent “trainee” position. Allowing more than the six month leeway they allow might be a more balanced approach and, for example, allow women to enter the field and count their training, even after they have left for maternity leave or other reasons. There are analogous provisions under the ABA for completing law school within a certain number of semesters, but there do not appear to be analogous provisions in California for apprenticing attorneys (those who do not go to law school before taking the bar exam), which seems to be a more applicable analogy.
(8) Arizona also requires a certificate holder who has been disbarred from the practice of law in any state since original certification as a legal technician to tell the board within 30 days of service of the notice of the disbarment. Arizona also requires a certificate holder who has been denied admission to the practice of law in Arizona since original certification as a legal technician to provide the information regarding the denial to the board within 30 days of service of the notice of the denial. These requirements correspond to Arizona’s requirements that someone who has been disbarred in any state, or who has been denied admission to the AZ board must have a special hearing before being certified as an LDP.
(9) Arizona requires that an LDP shall provide their name, title and certificate number to any person upon request, which seems odd and overbroad. I also think the nonjudicial agency language is quite odd, and am unsure of a case in which this would be applicable. It’s also strange to expressly require for a nonjudicial agency to prohibit the posting of a name and ID number, but not to include a court, which presumably an LT would have to listen to.
(10) Arizona has a number of detailed ethics requirements that are summed up in this shortened list.
(11) The reference to confidentiality is new.
(12) This reference to confidentiality is also new.
(13) Establishing deadlines may reach a level of detail we don’t need to incorporate in our model legislation. If we do want to incorporate it, it seems like establishing one date per year rather than a rolling admissions/recertification system minimizes the level of bureaucracy throughout the year and results in clarity for LTs.
(14) Legal technician professional associations may provide much of the needed oversight and structure for disciplinary proceedings, as will general market forces. Arizona’s complaint and disciplinary proceedings provisions are exceedingly detailed. This section is designed to provide a loose framework for such proceedings, that state can work into its existing structures.
(15) Arizona requires all judicial officers, court employees and certificate holders to file complaints with the board; we removed that requirement, as it is nearly impossible to monitor, and in the hopes that an aggrieved consumer would stand up for themselves and file a complaint if other mechanisms (such as a refund) are not sufficient to remedy any wrongs. One could envision a situation in which a consumer is wronged by inadequate services provided by an LT, and the consumer does not realize or is otherwise unable to report on the LT’s failures. In such a case, it is possible a court employee’s reporting would be valuable. To address this, the model legislation does not bar such reporting, but simply don’t require it. In general, allowing the market and private interactions to solve disputes seems like the more efficient and likely more satisfying option, and one that uses fewer state resources.
(16) Arizona allows the board to retain authority after expiration of a certificate, to initiate a complaint, direct division staff to investigate a complaint, or take disciplinary action regarding the certification of a certificate. This is unnecessary; if a person has a claim for damages against an LT whose license has expired, the person can bring a claim against them. The board should not retain jurisdiction over someone whose certification has expired.
(17) In 2009, Arizona’s fee was $650 every two years, or $325 per year. California’s was $175 plus the bond requirement. Since we require a bond in the model legislation, a smaller fee seems warranted. However, for model legislation purposes, including an actual number does not seem necessary.

CYA by Appointing a Committee?

2011-04-21T18:35:00.000-07:00

A while ago, I commented on the criticisms of a number of California's Judges with respect to the Association of Courts and the Judicial Council's rather expensive endeavor to centralize California's court system via computer.

Prior to writing this article, I sat next to a woman who was flying from Hawaii to California in order to work on glitches in the system. During our five hour flight, she shared with me that she, on an almost weekly basis, flew back and forth to work on the new system. I again, thought about all the money that was being spent on this new system that remained basically, inoperable with few exceptions.

I found it very interesting to note by the press release below that the newly appointed Chief Justice acted quickly in an apparent attempt to stem the criticisms of a large number of the judiciary by appointing a committee to oversee the now over-budget and failing California court centralized computer system operations. I suppose when met with dissension it is prudent to hand over the reins to the those who would object and perhaps even to "shift the blame."

In any event, it will be a lark to learn of the findings of the new committee. We at ALDAP will keep you informed.

______________

Chief Justice Appoints New Judicial Council Internal Committee to Oversee Case Management System

San Francisco—Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye today announced the appointment of a new Judicial Council internal committee that will oversee the council’s policies on the California Court Case Management System (CCMS). It will also oversee the council’s recently established CCMS governance and advisory committees.

“The new committee will be responsible for ensuring that council policies are complied with and the project proceeds on schedule and within budget,” said Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye. “This oversight committee and the new governance structure of CCMS will help ensure that the case management system will bring court technology into the 21st century and deliver great benefits to the justice community and the public.”

“This new internal committee will ensure that the Judicial Council is not only kept informed and up-to-date on the case management system, but that the deployment of CCMS is completed in a way that is consistent with the policies and priorities established by the council,” said William C. Vickrey, Administrative Director of the Courts. “This reflects the importance of CCMS and provides the council with the time and attention that this project merits for the next 5 to 10 years.”

The 10-member committee will seek reports and recommendations from the CCMS Executive Committee and the Administrative Director of the Courts and will ensure that reports to the council are clear, comprehensive, and provide relevant options so that the council can make effective final policies about CCMS. The committee will advise the council on CCMS policy decisions and report on CCMS at Judicial Council business meetings, which are open to the public. Like other internal council committees, the panel will be made up of Judicial Council members, as follows:

• Chair: Judge James E. Herman of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County;
• Vice-chair: Assistant Presiding Judge Ira R. Kaufman of the Superior Court of Plumas County; Associate Justice Harry E. Hull, Jr., of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (Sacramento);
• Assistant Presiding Judge David S. Wesley of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County;
• Judge Stephen H. Baker of the Superior Court of Shasta County;
• Judge Teri L. Jackson of the Superior Court of San Francisco County; an advisory member of the council;
• Ms. Edith R. Matthai, an attorney who practices law in Los Angeles;
• Mr. James N. Penrod, an attorney who practices law in San Francisco;
• Mr. Michael M. Roddy, court executive officer of the Superior Court of San Diego County, an advisory member of the council; and
• Ms. Kim Turner, court executive officer of the Superior Court of Marin County, an advisory member of the council.

The new committee will make its first report on CCMS at the next business meeting of the Judicial Council on Friday, April 29.

CCMS is an integrated court and case management system designed to eventually support trial courts of all sizes on a statewide level. Its development was triggered by the actions and business demands of superior courts that found themselves with failing or inadequate case management systems that needed replacement in order for courts to continue operations.

Earlier this year, a new governance structure was established for CCMS. That structure is overseen by the Judicial Council’s CCMS Governance Executive Committee, chaired by Associate Justice Terence L. Bruiniers of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District (San Francisco).

LDAs & Legislation

2011-03-29T14:43:00.000-07:00

We have all experienced difficulty of some degree during the LDA registration process. I have encountered staff at the County Clerks' offices who have no knowledge of the LDA registration processes, or even just what an LDA is. I learned early on in my LDA entrepreneurial ventures that it was prudent to take copies of the code with me when I performed registration so that I could easily refer to actual language of the law rather than any one person's, or agency's interpretation. Today, I was refused an LDA employee card by my local County Clerk's office.

The explanation: In 2009, AB620 was chartered and it removed or changed, among other things, the allowance of employee cards and contained other provisions concerning LDAs, Professional Photocopiers, Process Servers and Immigration Consultants. When the clerk mentioned the 2009 bill I was floored. How come I did not know of this in 2009? Talk about being late!

Admittedly, I was not ALDAP's Director of Legislation during 2009, but I do believe I stay current with legislation affecting our profession. I argued my point with the clerk but she remained steadfast, and she then read me the language of the bill. I thanked her and then began my own investigation as I was completely shocked that this would have slid by my nightly bedtime reading of legislation.

My investigation proved that in 2009 a bill was chartered decreasing the minimum size of the LDA registration card. The bill also created changes to the cards of the other professions listed above, and changed a bit of County Recorder business, but DID NOT change the allowance and requirements for LDA employee cards. Those statutory provisions remain in CA B&P Code section 6405.

I called my favorite clerk and explained that the bill as chartered did contain language decreasing the minimum dimensions of the registration card but that the removal of language concerning allowance of employee LDA cards had itself been deleted from the final version of the bill. We agreed that her informational materials required update and I thanked her for her time.

ALDAP caught and implemented deletion of prohibitive language in AB 590 four days prior to the last day to amend - a late discovery. We need to review all legislation, not just that having to do with 6400 et seq. AB 590 had nothing at all to do with LDAs, but was a Civil Access to Justice Bill. And yet, contrary language concerning our profession was included in its text. I remember saying this back on August 26, 2009 and today's "rush" to the codes was a gentle reminder. We must watchdog legislation in order to protect ourselves and the consumers we serve.

AB1208 "The Trial Court's Rights Act of 2011."

2011-03-19T23:35:00.000-07:00

The Alliance of California Judges is a group challenging the authority of California's judicial leadership. The group of 300 to 400 judges is basically taking the Judicial Council and the Association of Courts (AOC) to task. Their main concern? That the AOC and Judicial Council have overtaken the courts and are acting in self-interest rather than in the interest of the community. An example? The planning and installation of the court's "centralized" computer system allowing court users to log in and check case status and which is currently functioning in only 7 of California's 58 counties.

The Alliance points out that among other issues, the computer system is one of the biggest mistakes of the administration, a $330 million mistake with projections that the cost will increase to $1.9 billion before the project is finalized. This is while the courts are laying off and furloughing employees and closing its doors during business hours to save money.

This computer system was envisioned ten years ago and spearheaded by former Chief Justice Ron George as bringing nation's largest court system into the 21st century by linking every courthouse in the state’s 58 counties.

In a March 12, 2011 New York Times article, Judge Steve White of the Sacramento County Superior Court was quoted as saying, “The idea of having all of the courts connected through a case-management system is appealing in the abstract — all of us favor the concept.” Judge White (the leader of the Alliance) went on to say, “But that has turned into an ill-conceived, mismanaged and failed experiment. It simply has not worked.”

The computer system coupled with other missteps and mistakes of the AOC has the Alliance up in arms and ready for a fight. The Alliance would like for the judges and court personnel to gain more control over its own budget and use of funds thereby effectuating a balance in power. Many judges expressed concern that giving unfettered power to the Judicial Council and the AOC would erode the ability of the courts to respond to the needs of local communities and would foster a centralized bureaucracy, whose chief goal would be to serve itself.

The Alliance feels that these concerns have been proven. It is now sponsoring AB1208, "The Trial Court's Rights Act of 2011." This bill clarifies the powers and responsibilities of the Judicial Council, AOC and the 58 trial courts.

The bill would provide that, except as otherwise provided by law, all funds allocated for trial court operations, once appropriated, shall be fully allocated among the trial courts, and that no deductions shall take place without the consent of the affected courts. The bill would authorize each trial court to move funds, once budgeted and allocated, between functions or line items or programs as directed by that court's trial court management.

The bill would require the trial court management's written consent to impose, implement, or share any case or accounting information system, or to contribute any portion of the trial court's budget to a statewide information system, or to undertake the construction of a court facility in that county. The bill would require the Judicial Council to consider, and revise or adopt, rules and policies consistent with these provisions.

Sunshine Week at McGeorge School of Law

2011-03-17T16:14:00.000-07:00

Open Government
What Does This Mean and Why Should You Care?

Without open government we wouldn’t know about the issues occurring with our city and state government. With open government we keep informed and we can make educated decisions on matters of interest to each of us. Recent events in California demonstrate the importance of open government.

By filing petitions under the California Public Records Act, the Sacramento Bee and the Los Angeles Times exposed information that would not have come to light otherwise. For example, the sprinklers being turned off during the Westfield Galleria fire in Roseville, and the exorbitant salaries and compensation paid to the Bell city government employees – all information that should be accessible because of open government.

On March 23, all individuals interested in learning more about open government and their role in assuring that government information is open to the general public will be gathering at Pacific McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

Thomas W. Newton of the California Newspaper Publishers Association and Prof. John Cary Sims of Pacific McGeorge School of Law will be discussing open government during the Sacramento-Area “Sunshine Week” event at McGeorge School of Law on March 23, 2011, sponsored by Northern California library groups and the League of Women Voters of Sacramento County. Taking place after the national Sunshine Week, this local event will feature a panel discussion and will allow audience members to view the national Sunshine Week web-cast sponsored by the American Society of News Editors. The general public is invited to discuss open government issues with the panel and area librarians.
You may view a PDF version of our tri-fold brochure at: http://is.gd/oc2PlY

Registration will be $20.00 / Students: $15.00.
Registration includes a continental breakfast & boxed lunch.
Register online
Registration deadline is March 20, 2011.

When:
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
8:30 am -1:30 pm
Where: Pacific McGeorge School of Law, Classroom D
3285 Fifth Avenue
(NW corner of 5th Ave & 33rd St)
Sacramento, CA 95817
Parking is free.

San Diego County Public Law Library Offers Free MCLE

2011-03-14T14:38:00.000-07:00

F-r-e-e MCLE March 17, 2011

Upside Down House, in Debt, Oh My!

This week The San Diego County Public Law Library - South Branch is offering a fabulous class on debtors’ rights at our South Bay branch. Learn what options debtors have when dealing with a house that is upside down and how to evaluate the best approach. In this class we will explore options for loan modification, short sale, foreclosure, bankruptcy and litigation.

The class is free to Law Library members and $5 for non-members. Pre-registration is required as seating is limited. Please sign up by calling (619) 691-4929.

Foreclosure, Bankruptcy and Litigation: Understand your Rights!
by Ajay Gupta, Esq.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
12:00 -1:00 pm

1 hour MCLE credit, General Participatory

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers MCLE

2011-03-10T15:20:00.000-08:00

Microsoft® EXCEL 2007 for
Legal Professionals: PART B:
Large Worksheets, Charts/Graphs and Advanced Formulas & Functions

April 1, 2011 (Friday) 1:30pm to 4:00pm
Instructor: Cheri Boyer

This 2.5 hour advanced course will cover the more sophisticated features found in Excel 2007. You will learn how to link pages in worksheets, create charts and graphs, and how to work with advanced functions and formulas to help calculate values for settlement offers, outline damages, and even generate potential business deals.

2.5 hours MCLE credit Register online

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers Course on Intellectual Property

2011-03-09T11:10:00.000-08:00

Ins & Outs of Intellectual Property Law

March 30, 2011 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM
Instructor: Jim H. Salter, L O of Jim H. Salter

Intellectual property is a property right protected under federal and state law. IP includes copyrightable works, ideas, discoveries, and inventions related to intangible property such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.
Jim H. Salter, expert witness and litigation support counsel, will address legal issues surrounding the rights of ownership of patents, trade secrets, trade dress, service marks or trademarks, and the legal or illegal use of this property.

2-hours MCLE credit Register HERE: $55.00

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online at www.saclaw.org. Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance on G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers 2 Hours MCLE

2011-02-24T15:31:00.000-08:00

Legal Forms and Pleadings

"How To"

March 16, 2011 (Wednesday) 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm

Instructors: SCPLL Law Librarians

This hands-on computer course will cover preparation of pleadings and other legal forms, and will demonstrate how you can locate these resources in the Sacramento County Public Law Library.

2 hours MCLE credit $30.00 Register at www.saclaw.org

ALDAP Seeks Comments on Proposed Amendments to LDA Statutes

2011-02-17T16:10:00.000-08:00

ALDAP is seeking your comments on California Business and Professions Code section 6400 et seq. (California's LDA statutes). It is our desire to create an open discussion related to the statutes governing non-attorneys in the State of California. What needs changing? What should remain the same? Are there any portions that should be struck? Added? After ten years, we wish to re-examine the legislation surrounding our industry and seek improvements to the existing laws.

Since its inception, ALDAP's main focus and efforts have been on issues related to compliance associated with the failure to comply with B&P 6400 by non-attorney document preparers ("rogues") and a common lack of compliance with the regulations by registered legal document preparers.

Our efforts has proven that grievous harm to consumers by these individuals and companies has gone and will remain ignored by law enforcement.

For the past ten years, LDAs have regularly questioned just how to enforce the statutes governing LDAs. LDAs are governed by the Department of Consumer Affairs pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 101.6 which provides that the DCA is “established for the purpose of ensuring that those private businesses and professions deemed to engage in activities which have potential impact upon the public health, safety, and welfare are adequately regulated in order to protect the people of California.”

Toward this end, the DCA is to “establish minimum qualifications and levels of competency and license persons desiring to engage in the occupations they regulate upon determining that such persons possess the requisite skills and qualifications necessary to provide safe and effective services to the public, or register or otherwise certify persons in order to identify practitioners and ensure performance according to set and accepted professional standards. They (DCA) provide a means for redress of grievances by investigating allegations of unprofessional conduct, incompetence, fraudulent action, or unlawful activity brought to their attention by members of the public and institute disciplinary action against persons licensed or registered under the provisions of this code when such action is warranted. In addition, they conduct periodic checks of licensees, registrants, or otherwise certified persons in order to ensure compliance with the relevant sections of this code.” (emphasis added).

ALDAP has noted that its complaints have been pushed aside by the DCA with referrals to local law enforcement. ALDAP has also received correspondence from local law enforcement denying responsibility for enforcement. Local District Attorneys have ignored complaints and the California State Bar responded that it is "maintaining a file." Now, these complaints were not of a minor nature, but rather, included forgery, UPL, transfer of real properties for no apparent reason other than to charge fees, exorbitant fees for the work performed, and failure to use the required LDA contract. One such case even included fraudulent statements by the rogue that he was, indeed, an attorney, just not licensed in California.

ALDAP's complaints were supported by client declarations, reams of documented proof and our own declarations based on office sting operations. Apparently, legislated consumer protections are merely a ruse.

California's economic downturn created burdens and challenges. Local district attorneys offer that there are much more egregious crimes to be investigated and that the statute of limitations on fraud is short. Time and budget constraints limit law enforcement investigation. However, ALDAP frequently receives calls and emails from harmed consumers begging us to help them. There is nothing we can do, aside from guiding the harmed consumer to the proper authorities. Unfortunately, with the exception of a civil suit, consumers are left with little recourse. Reputable LDAs also suffer as a result of consumer skepticism and distrust.

ALDAP intends to change up its methodologies in order to enforce the regulations governing the LDA industry and to attain the level of professionalism that we deserve. ALDAP is working with other state and national associations to create proposed amendments to the current legislation to enhance the role of the LDA and to clear up the “gray” provisions that exist and cloud efforts to enforce the laws. It appears that if we do not do it ourselves, we may never receive professional recognition. As a matter of fact, the Elkins Family Law Task Force reported that until LDA compliance is assured, it could not recommend use of LDAs to our court users.

Many states are reviewing non-attorney document preparers as a viable alternative to the high cost of attorney fees. Hawaii, after a failed attempt to broaden its definition of the practice of law to exclude document preparers and other legal document professionals, will soon be reviewing proposed legislation allowing for legal document preparers, but with strict guidelines.

ALDAP believes California should be THE model for other states. Unfortunately, existing legislation leaves much to be desired. Violators are commonplace. Consumers continue to be harmed. Compliant LDAs are also harmed by those who fail to pony up the fees for a bond and registration. Consumers and reputable competent LDAs are harmed by those who have little knowledge of the preparation and processing of legal documents, knowledge of ethics, confidentiality, or the definition of UPL. It has commonly been acknowledged in the legal profession that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. An LDA should have complete comprehension of how to assist a client without stepping on or over the line.

The following comprises a brief view of changes to existing legislation ALDAP's board has discussed:

Qualifications:

At present the minimum qualifications are that a person must have a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma, and either a minimum of two years of law-related experience under the supervision of a licensed attorney, or a minimum of two years experience, prior to January 1, 1999, providing self-help service – or a baccalaureate degree in any field and either a minimum of one year of law-related experience under the supervision of a licensed attorney, or a minimum of one year of experience, prior to January 1, 1999, providing self-help service.

ALDAP believes that in order to provide appropriate services, an LDA should have a legal background, including appropriate legal document preparation experience and knowledge of the rules of ethics and confidentiality in order to assist non-attorneys with their paperwork. With the current legislation, any person with a two year degree can work as a file clerk in a law firm and will therefore, qualify to assist consumers with legal document preparation. Consumers are not protected from LDAs who do not know what they are doing and who are taking advantage of consumers who may not know what they are doing. This can result in mistakes which could cost consumers rights and remedies. A paralegal or a legal secretary with a minimum of five years experience should have knowledge of published information and the court processes and in that regard, could properly assist a pro per court user on the finer nuances of procedure and document preparation through the use of published information and practice guides. This is ALDAP's Advantage(TM) business model which has proven over time to assist a pro se client by educating that client on the court rules, procedures and requirements. ALDAP would like to see the two minimum provisions deleted with additional qualifications to be added:

To be eligible to apply for registration under this chapter as a legal document assistant, the applicant shall possess at least one of the following:

(a) A certificate of completion from a paralegal program that is institutionally accredited but not approved by the American Bar Association, that requires successful completion of a minimum of 24 semester units, or the equivalent, in legal specialization courses.

(b) A certificate of completion from a paralegal program approved by the American Bar Association; or

(c) Five years documented experience working as a legal secretary or paralegal in a law firm.

Registration:

At present, the statutes require that “A legal document assistant, including any legal document assistant employed by a partnership or corporation, may not provide any self-help service for compensation, unless the legal document assistant is registered in the county in which his or her principal place of business is located and in any other county in which he or she performs acts for which registration is required. A legal document assistant or unlawful detainer assistant shall be registered pursuant to this chapter by the county clerk in the county in which his or her principal place of business is located (deemed primary registration), and in any other county in which he or she performs acts for which registration is required (deemed secondary registration). Any registration in a county, other than the county of the person's place of business, shall state the person's principal place of business and provide proof that the registrant has satisfied the bonding requirement of Section 6405. No person who has been disbarred or suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 6100) of Chapter 4 may, during the period of any disbarment or suspension, register as a legal document assistant or unlawful detainer assistant. The Department of Consumer Affairs shall develop the application required to be completed by a person for purposes of registration as a legal document assistant. The application shall specify the types of proof that the applicant shall provide to the county clerk in order to demonstrate qualifications and requirements of Section 6402.1.”

ALDAP intends to propose that LDAs be required to follow registration requirements similar to those of notaries or immigration consultants. LDAs should be required to register with the State of California Secretary of State and the SOS should govern the acts of LDAs. Further, LDAs should be required to undergo background reviews via the DOJ as is required of notaries and immigration consultants. The SOS has proven itself diligent in its compliance procedures. LDAs should not be required to hold multiple registrations to operate within the state of California. The SOS should maintain on online register of LDAs, to include name, business contact information, registration number and expiration date. The bond information should be included as well as a photo of the LDA. Identification cards should be issued. The LDA contract should be changed to reflect the location of this information in order for a consumer to independently research the LDA.

Outside Scope of Authority:

Existing language clearly employs the unlawful practice of law as follows: “A legal document assistant may not provide service to a client who requires assistance that exceeds the definition of self-help service in subdivision (d) of Section 6400, and shall inform the client that the client requires the services of an attorney.”

This language would suggest that an LDA make a determination that clearly requires the application of legal acumen. The language should be amended as follows: "A legal document assistant must inform each client that he or she cannot exceed the definition of self-help service and that the client should always consult with a licensed attorney prior to hiring a legal document assistant." The contract should also specify language to this effect in boldface, large font.

Legal Education:

ALDAP supports use of an ethics and basic legal document examination prior to issuance of a registration. ALDAP also supports the requirement that once an LDA is registered he or she must complete 12 hours minimum continuing education with 4 hours to be on the topic of ethics to be performed every two years. Documentation of CLE should be submitted with an application for re-issuance of registration.

Of course, ALDAP would include in its proposed amendment a "grandfather" clause for those LDAs who already maintain registration. The sunset date shall be upon the date of any proposed amendments becoming law.

Before we begin writing proposed amendments, ALDAP would appreciate your comments and questions. This is a huge task and ALDAP would appreciate input from others who may have comments concerning amending current legislation. Some LDAs may not wish for any changes to the statutes; others may wish for dramatic change. Please comment publicly here on The Scribe, or if you prefer, you may email your comments to Kathleen Mountjoy at Legislation@aldap.org or to Anna Taylor at Compliance@aldap.org.

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers MCLE Course on Appellate Law (Emphasis in Family Law)

2011-02-15T02:39:00.000-08:00

Appellate Law MCLE Credits: 1

Date: 03/04/11 Start Time: 2:30 PM End Time: 3:30 PM

Registration: $45.00

After receiving a final order in a client's case, challenging that decision or working to uphold the decision requires a thorough understanding of the Appellate Law process. This presentation will cover appellate law with an emphasis on appeals in the family law context. Topics will include appellate jurisdiction, i.e., when is an order appealable and what types of orders are appealable; the function of appellate courts; procedures and time frames; standards of review; and costs, which may vary depending upon the number of issues appealed, the complexity of the issues, the length of the trial court's record and the hearing transcript. You will learn how to identify important factors to represent your client in an appellate proceeding.

813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA
Phone: 916.874.8541 Fax: 916.874.5691
www.saclaw.org

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers Course on Legal Research 2.5 Hour MCLE at $15.00

2011-02-09T15:59:00.000-08:00

Legal Research Part A - California Statutes

February 26, 2011 (Saturday)
9:30am to 12:00pm
Instructor: SCPLL Law Librarians
2.5 hours MCLE credit
Registration fee: $15.00

This course will cover Statutes. Learn how to recognize and locate California laws, in print and online, and how to use the Annotated Codes. This class will also cover secondary sources, which provide interpretation and context, and are often used as “side doors” into the official statutes.

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online. View our Schedule of Available Classes. Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance on G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.874.8541
www.saclaw.org

San Diego County Public Law Library is Throwing a Party!

2011-02-09T15:45:00.000-08:00

Last chance to party at the old law library. The books are gone. The building is empty. Join us for this once-in-a-lifetime event to celebrate and raise money to support the renovation of the Main Library. This is going to be a great evening with casino games, live music, food, silent auctions, Eveoke Dance Theatre, and more! We hope you can make it to our Empty House Party and be a part of the transformation.

EMPTY HOUSE PARTY

Be as loud as you want * Drinking & eating in the Library are encouraged * We promise not to shush you!

Date: Thursday February 10, 2011
Time: 5:30-8:30 p.m.
Location: 1105 Front Street, Main Law Library, Downtown

Buy tickets online: $75 in advance / $85 at the door
Discounts: Discounts are available to students and law firm groups of 6 or more.
• Students: Cost $45
Enter 6 tickets and the discount code "Education Group" to purchase tickets at $45 per person.
• Law Firm Groups: Cost $65
Enter 6 tickets and the discount code "Law Firm Group" to purchase tickets at $65 per person.
Proceeds go to the LLJF Renovation Fund.

First 100 registrants receive a Fabulous Swag Bag!
Food hosted by Origano, Ostera, Panevino & Greystone Steakhouse. Wine tasting hosted by One Hope Wine.
Watch the Law Library's renovation live at http://tinyurl.com/WatchLawLibraryRenovation

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers Low Cost MCLE

2011-02-03T15:57:00.001-08:00

Lexis II Course - 2 hours MCLE $30.00
Building on the techniques learned in the LEXIS I class, this hands-on computer class will emphasize time efficient and cost-effective searching tips. Skills include how to bypass menu screens using short cuts, narrow searching with segments, focus on a specific word(s) within an original search, and refine searches with advanced connectors.
February 22, 2011 (Tuesday)
2:00pm to 4:00pm
Instructor: Shannon Downs, Solutions Consultant with LexisNexis www.lexis.com

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 2nd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.874.8541
www.saclaw.org

The Myth of the "Independent Paralegal"

2011-01-24T13:29:00.000-08:00

This article originally appeared in the Spring 2010 issue of The Scrivener, as "The LDA's Bookshelf: The Independent Paralegal’s Handbook."

First published in 1986, The Independent Paralegal’s Handbook (1) has spawned a misnomer that, to this day, serves only as a barrier to acceptance of the legal document assistant (LDA) profession by members of the traditional legal community.

As a new LDA, I purchased a copy of the Handbook, with the hope that it would help me sort out who I was, what I did, and for whom I did it. I was a formally trained, experienced paralegal; but totally in the dark about the logistics of LDA contracts, questionnaires, and business practices designed to give UPL a wide berth.

The Handbook includes general information regarding establishing a new business, and an overview of the history of UPL (from 1967-2003) and many states’ positions regarding non-attorney legal services. However, most of this information is skewed toward the misnomer that is the subject of this article.

The misnomer? It’s contained in the book’s very title itself. It is ALDAP’s position that using the term “independent paralegal” to describe non-attorney, self-help legal services is not – and never has been – accurate, proper, or in the spirit of consumer protection.

Reading the Handbook as someone new to the profession left me somewhat unclear about the passage of SB 1418 (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6400 et seq.) and AB 1761 (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6450 et seq.). I had previously read the Code and, I thought, had a pretty good handle on it – I would register as an LDA to assist consumers, and would pick up freelance paralegal gigs to diversify my income and give my brain some room to exercise. But after reading about all of the “independent paralegals” in the Handbook, I was left facing a severe identity crisis.

Even the book’s Introduction states, “In fact, in California, IPs are prohibited from referring to themselves as paralegals.” How is this a fact? If so-called “independent paralegals” are prohibited by law from calling themselves “paralegals,” then they aren’t really paralegals (independent or otherwise) in the first place, now, are they? This sort of cognitive dissonance is difficult to resolve, even for the most sophisticated legal mind.

As I became more involved in the LDA profession, and ALDAP in particular, I began to intuitively understand what I have since researched and verified. Throughout the text of the Handbook, the references to this improper terminology come from the Handbook’s authors; and not the judges, legislators or reports to which the authors cite. The book contains numerous parenthetical references to the term “independent paralegal” immediately following the actual, proper terminology stated in a statute or court opinion (i.e. “legal technicians,” “nonlawyers,” or a similar term). Similarly, the Handbook’s claim that in 1976, Colorado began allowing “the preparation of divorce forms by an independent paralegal,” is erroneous and misleading. In fact, the court case the authors cite (2) contains absolutely no mention of the term “paralegal”; but the authors took certain editorial liberties to push their “independent paralegal” agenda, which conflicts with what they describe as “organized lawyerdom,” as well as several public policy concerns.

The California Paralegal War – An (Un)Civil War

The paralegal profession emerged in the 1970s, when consumer demand to reduce legal fees drove many attorneys to start giving their legal secretaries more substantive assignments. “In response to this need, the terms ‘paralegal’ and ‘legal assistant’ were created,” wrote Sue Sullivan, Director of the University of San Diego Paralegal Program, in an article for SCRIBE. “With additional educational background and practical training, these new professionals were able to work more directly with clients; assist with forms, procedures and paperwork; and free the attorney to go to court, give legal advice, set fees and make legal decisions. Up to that point, many attorneys were their own paralegals.”

Around the same time, individuals – many without any formal legal training – began working directly for the public, with some practitioners calling themselves “paralegals” and raising serious issues concerning the unauthorized practice of law. Worse still, some of these establishments were operated by disbarred attorneys or other questionable characters.

From day one, the lack of differentiation between the bona fide paralegal and the self-help document preparer confused and, in some instances, legally harmed consumers. Members of the public did not know the difference between the two, and many believed they were getting someone with formal legal training or attorney oversight (and the consumer protections that accompany licensure). Immigrant communities were particularly susceptible to fraud, as members of these communities often believed “paralegal” to be synonymous with “lawyer.”

The enactment of Business & Professions Code § 6450, et seq. in 2000 righted that wrong. “It took 20 years before we got AB 1761 through the Legislature,” said Carolyn Yellis, ACP, past president of the California Alliance of Paralegal Associations (CAPA). “Ultimately it was successful because of the differentiation argument and the need to protect consumers.”

At the time, many LDAs raised strong opposition to AB 1761, and some of their remarks remain published today, as position statements on websites targeting the LDA community. There were claims that the bill would not protect consumers, and that, “The only reason CAPA introduced AB 1761 was to protect its turf.”

However, we need only look within the Handbook itself for evidence that, as early as 1988, California governing bodies refused to refer to non-attorney legal document preparers as “independent paralegals,” instead defining them as “legal technicians”; yet the authors’ bias toward this improper terminology shines through, with a parenthetical reference, “(IP),” presumably to “clarify” for the reader that what the California Public Protection Committee (3) really meant was “independent paralegal” rather than the terminology it actually used.

This Handbook, however, is not the sole cause of confusion regarding the differences between self-help legal service providers and legitimate paralegals. Other significant confusion-inducing elements have come from exactly the same source. Around the same time the Handbook was published, one of its authors co-founded the California Association of Independent Paralegals (CAIP); which was finally forced to change its name to California Association of Legal Document Assistants (CALDA) upon the passage of AB 1761. One person is behind both of these far-reaching, long-standing, public “statements” that non-attorney, self-help legal service providers are – or should be – called “independent paralegals.” This individual may not have known what she was talking about, but she said it with a megaphone; leaving generations of LDAs to clear up confusion that has held the profession back, and made us all vulnerable to the “rogue” paralegals.

It appears that the enactment of section 6450 was in direct response to exactly this misinformation, and the stubborn refusal to correct it voluntarily. AB 1761 may never have passed, absent the loud proclamations from non-paralegals that they should be allowed to call themselves “paralegals.”

LDAs and “independent paralegals” are not the same. They never have been the same. And those who continue to insist that they are – or were – the same, do nothing but a disservice to our profession and the clients we serve.

As written, sections 6400 and 6450 would have – and should have – afforded at least some measure of consumer protection, if they were enforced and dutifully followed by members of both professions. But far too many LDAs continue to muddy the waters by insisting on defining themselves as, “formerly known as independent paralegal.” A more accurate statement might be, “sometimes erroneously referred to as independent paralegal,” or “don’t want to give up any perceived competitive advantage I get by advertising as a paralegal.”

In the Handbook’s chapter on naming your business, the authors claim that “paralegal can mean almost anything.” This statement could not be more false. The same year that this book was first published, the American Bar Association adopted its model definition of legal assistant/paralegal – which did not include the provision of self-help services to consumers. While this erroneous information may have been caused by the delay between the time of writing to date of publication, these statements certainly should have been corrected on one of the five subsequent editions.

The decades-long confusion created by the inappropriate application of this term to describe non-attorneys who assist self-represented litigants is a direct result of misinformation such as that contained in this Handbook. How many new practitioners were just like me, desperate for information and thrilled to find such a Handbook? This book is now out-of-print, but new LDAs will continue to scour eBay or Amazon for used copies, only to learn an improper vocabulary and outdated or erroneous historical context for the consumer protections afforded under today’s Business & Professions Code.

Until such time that we, as a profession, cast aside this improper, confusing title in favor of proudly proclaiming our rightful distinction as bonded and registered legal document assistants, our own businesses, the paralegal community, and the general public will continue to be harmed by rogue paralegals – who are neither paralegals nor LDAs. It’s been ten years. Let’s take back our titles and put the rogues out of business.

Notes:

Ralph Warner, Stephen Elias & Catherine Elias-Jermany, The Independent Paralegal’s Handbook, (6th ed., Nolo 2004).
Colorado Bar Ass’n v. Miles, 192 Colo. 294 (1976).
The California Public Protection Committee was appointed in 1986 by the California State Bar to investigate public harm from nonlawyer legal services, and to determine if regulation of the nonlawyer providers would be appropriate.

ABA Blue Ribbon Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System - Survey

2011-01-19T18:14:00.000-08:00

The American Bar Association has convened a blue-ribbon Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System. This Task Force is charged with exploring the extent and impact of the underfunding of the judiciary on access to justice for all. It is vital that your opinions are included. It will take you less than 10 minutes to complete the survey which will allow the ABA to better understand the current economic tsunami and advance solutions to address it.

Take the Survey by visiting the ABA website (cut and paste the following link into your address bar):

http://maestro.abanet.org/trk/click?ref=zpqri74vj_3-106edx311ef8x1378617&

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers Low Cost MCLE

2011-01-19T18:09:00.000-08:00

Civil Litigation Calendar Procedures & e-Discovery (2011)

MCLE Credits: 2
Date: 02/04/11
Start Time: 2:00 PM
End Time: 4:00 PM
Registration: $55.00

This course will cover calendaring and e-discovery in civil litigation cases. We will review amended Rules 26 (on expert witnesses) and 56 (on summary judgment motions) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure effective December 1, 2010. State calendaring topics will include electronic service, the Expedited Jury Trials Act, and an analysis of new Code of Civil Procedure section 12c on computing due dates before a hearing. Electronic discovery in general also will be covered.

www.saclaw.org

PRO PER OBTAINS AWARD OF LEGAL FEES IN ORANGE COUNTY

2010-12-20T15:28:00.000-08:00

Today one of my clients telephoned me to advise that he received his order in a trust litigation action. The client found accounts that had not been provided in previous filings and brought a pro per a petition to compel trust accounting in Orange County Superior Court.

After a couple of telephonic hearings and the filing of subsequent declarations and a settlement conference statement, the order arrived today. The Judge awarded the pro per party sanctions of $800.00 against the trustee's attorney pursuant to a request for reimbursement of legal document assistant fees.

I am feeling pretty good today -- so is the client.

Merry Christmas!

Bankruptcy Petition Preparer, Legal Document Assistant and Paralegal Prevails Against U.S. Trustee

2010-11-30T20:04:00.000-08:00

You think it will never happen to you, yet you fear one day it could. You do everything you can to make certain it won't and then, it does, despite your good efforts.

Bankruptcy Petition Preparers are strenuously regulated by the Trustees and for good reason - consumer protection. Legal Document Assistants and Paralegals suffer risk as BPPs due to the nature of their experience and alternate use of titles. The code was written to protect consumers from non-attorneys who could be construed as sharing their "legal knowledge" which is unlawful. Non-attorneys do not have adequate education or credentials to provide legal advice.

A motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 110 was brought by a Trustee against me, personally, and my legal document assistant and paralegal service, Catalyst Legal, concerning the use of the term "legal" as a component of my business name. The Trustee claimed that a business name is a form of advertisement and that Catalyst Legal sold bankruptcy petition preparation services in violation of the statute which sets forth at (f) "A bankruptcy petition preparer shall not use the word "legal" or any similar term in any advertisements, or advertise under any category that includes the word "legal" or any similar term."

What the Trustee refused to acknowledge is that I also own and operate Catalyst Bankruptcy, a debt relief agency, a completely separate business entity.

Today was the scheduled motion date. I thought about retaining counsel, but then realized that I really couldn't afford to hire an attorney. Two attorney friends offered to help, but one wanted me to pay for his travel and the other would have had to lose a day at her "other job" and I did not want for her to take time off just to speak on my behalf. An internet review of past BPP/Trustee cases with circumstances seemingly similar to mine which were heard with "benefit" of legal counsel proved that many of these cases were lost by the BPP with an additional waiver of personal civil rights. I figured I could do as poorly as the so-called "defense" attorneys in this type of case. So I decided to appear pro se'.

Last night I could not sleep and I absolutely had to be at the airport by 5 a.m. After shuttling to the rent-a-car lot and navigating my way to and through downtown Los Angeles in my little economy car, I finally found parking and I made my extremely tired way to the courtroom. It was packed with people - standing room only. Somebody said there were 68 cases to be heard! Since I was late, I figured that I would trail to the end of the calendar. This pleased me as this "Nervous Nellie," afraid to speak in front of a packed courtroom.

My case was the 8th or 9th case called and I introduced myself and wished the Judge "Good morning your Honor."

The Judge began to speak stating that he was inclined to deny the Trustee's motion inasmuch as the evidence and statements in my opposition proved that Catalyst Legal and Catalyst Bankruptcy were two separate and distinct business entities. The attorney for the Trustee argued his points and the Judge spoke again, reiterating the contents of my opposition and his agreement therewith. At one point I attempted to speak and the Judge directed me to wait for my turn. My response: "Yes sir."

The Judge and attorney argued back and forth while I listened. I realized that opening my big mouth could result in my saying something that could be deemed an admission or detrimental to my position. After all, this type of court hearing is not something for which I have expertise. I did manage to sit still and maintain a straight face. I so just wanted to grin and clap my hands and perhaps do a little jig as I listened to the Judge. It was obvious that he did not view the facts or the law through the same lens as the attorney. The Judge agreed with my position that Catalyst Legal and Catalyst Bankruptcy are two distinctly separate business entities and therefore, no violation existed. The Judge stated that he did not think that any other individual could go to any further lengths to maintain a petition preparation service separate from a legal document preparation service. He said that it was clear that I put a lot of work into maintaining the two businesses as separate and distinct entities.

The Judge then ruled "Motion Denied." I smiled and stood up saying "Thank you your Honor" and I was out of there in a flash.

All in all I believe I learned that I do way better on paper and by keeping my big mouth shut than I do trying to impress others with "my great oratory skills" and, that when the Judge is arguing your case 100% to your benefit you should absolutely NOT interrupt. I also came away from today's hearing fully believing that I should never be afraid to stand up for what I believe is right.

After the hearing I spoke to the attorney explaining that if he had any further issues with my business practices or model that I would like to be informed. He did say that the telephone number for Catalyst Legal is the same phone number for Catalyst Bankruptcy. He had argued this point with the Judge but the Judge said that phone numbers and addresses do not matter as they are not a form of advertising and they are not the business name. I responded to the attorney that Just Believe!, BFP Cruises, BFP Events, Katalicious, Adult Store to Your Door, and Missionary Legal all utilize the same number as Catalyst Legal and Catalyst Bankruptcy - but that I would obtain a new number for Catalyst Bankruptcy today. And I did.

Sometimes you have to throw them a bone.

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers Judgment Recovery Course - One Hour MCLE

2010-11-01T12:21:00.000-07:00

Judgment Enforcement 101: There’s Gold in that Turnip, or is there?

November 30, 2010 (Tuesday) 2:30pm to 4:00pm
Instructor: Jean-Pierre Rushing, Interwest Judgment Recovery

The successful enforcement of a judgment requires in-depth research and investigation to get to the “facts” standing in the way of the assets. Listen to a judgment recovery expert identify how to look into a debtor’s background, locate addresses, follow job history, and identify assets, e.g. computers, vehicles, luxury items, tools of the trade, etc. Topics to be discussed include: Writ of Execution, Abstract of Judgment, Levies on Financial Institutions, Earnings Withholding Orders (EWO), Affidavit of Identity, Debtor Examinations (OEX), and more.

1.5 hours MCLE credit Registration Fee: $55.00

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online at www.saclaw.org. Parking validation is available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure; entrance on G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and the Library will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 6th St
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 874-6011

Unraveling the “Ribbon” in Microsoft® WORD 2007

2010-09-13T11:36:00.000-07:00

Using the “Ribbon,” Tools & More for Legal Documents & Forms

September 29 , 2010 (Friday) 5:30pm to 8:00pm

Instructor: Cheri Boyer

In this hands-on computer class you will learn about the new features in Word 2007. You will learn how they can make your tasks easier and faster with the new Ribbon, contextual tabs, galleries and live preview. You will learn how to apply styles and add building blocks in creating letters, agreements, and pleading forms. You will learn how to insert headers and footers; insert dates and numbering; search and replace within a document; create envelopes and labels; and the use of shortcut keys. You will also learn about the new PDF and XMS features that are included in Word 2007.

2.5-hours MCLE credit
Register at www.saclaw.org $75.00

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online. View our current Schedule of Classes. Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.874.8541

Self Defense Law for Lawyers

2010-09-09T14:40:00.000-07:00

Self Defense Law for Lawyers

September 23, 2010 (Tuesday) 2:00pm - 4:00pm
Instructor: Jonathan G Stein, Law Offices of Jonathan G. Stein

What is your legal right to self-defense? More than ever before, lawyers must cope with difficult people both at court and in the office. This presentation will cover current law and practical methods you can utilize to become aware of your environment and maintain your personal safety as well as that of your staff.

2 hours MCLE credit Registration: $55.00

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online. View our current Schedule of Classes. Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance on G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.874.8541
www.saclaw.org

Sacramento County Public Law Library MCLE - Use of Summations®

2010-09-07T13:25:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, September 14, 2010 2:00pm to 4:00pm
Speaker: Ron Bodenmann, Capital Digital Document Solutions

This hands-on computer software class will take you through the tools and techniques of effective case management using Summations®. You will learn how to use the Form Editor, look up tables, load and search documents, edit transcripts, and work with production tools, export, and more.

2-hours MCLE credit
Register at www.saclaw.org Cost: $55.00

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online. View our current Schedule of Classes. Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance on G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.874.8541
www.saclaw.org

Judicial Council Court Forms Now Savable Online

2010-07-23T11:43:00.000-07:00

Thanks to the efforts of the Superior Court of Orange County, 937 Judicial Council forms can now be filled out online and saved on computers without the need for users to purchase any software.

“All court users – especially self-represented litigants – will benefit from having savable forms online,” stated Presiding Judge Kim G. Dunning of the Superior Court of Orange County.

Judicial Council forms assist court filers in many areas of the law including civil, family, juvenile, small claims, and traffic matters. Forms are also available for persons requesting protective orders and name changes.

In the past, form users were able to fill out a form online, but had to print it out immediately because it could not be saved. The new savable format allows users to take their time in filling out forms, gather additional information as needed, make corrections, and then save the document.

The new capability will help litigants and the courts because forms that are printed out and filed with the court will be better prepared. Filers also will be able to save digital copies of the forms that they have kept for their records.

With the savable forms, self-help and other service centers will be able to work with clients over several sessions without losing any work performed online.

Judicial Council forms may be found at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms. Over the last 90 days, the forms have been downloaded more than 1.8 million times from this web site.

The new savable forms can be filled out and saved using the free Adobe Acrobat Reader, version 7.0 or later. On the last page of each form, a “Save” button prompts the user to save the form. “Print” and “Clear” buttons have also been provided in those cases where users may fill out a form on a public or shared computer.

Sacramento Family Law Court Branch Law Library Closing May 28, 2010

2010-05-26T13:30:00.000-07:00

Due to Sacramento County's financial crisis the branch law library located in the Family Relations Courthouse (3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA) will close for business on May 28th. Most of the branch's collection will be transferred to the Main law library at 813 6th Street.

Hours:

8am-8pm Monday - Thursday
8am-5pm on Friday
9am-4pm on Saturdays

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers Courses for Non Attorneys

2010-05-06T17:00:00.000-07:00

June 5, 2010 (Saturday)

Instructors: SCPLL Law Librarians

This two-part series of classes is for the non-lawyer to introduce you to the Law Library and its resources.

Registration Fee: $15.00

Part A - Statutes 9:30am to 12:00pm

Learn how to recognize and locate California laws, in print and online, and how to use the Annotated Codes. The class will also cover secondary sources, which provide interpretation and context, and are often used as “side doors” into the official statutes.

Registration Fee: $15.00

Part B - Cases 1:00pm to 3:30pm

This class covers how California case law is developed and organized. Learn how to locate cases in printed reporters and online. Secondary sources will be included in the demonstration of methods researchers use to find relevant judicial opinions.

Pre-payment is required. To register online using Master Card® or VISA® go to WWW.SACLAW.ORG and select the “Classes” tab at the top of the page. Locate a class by date and complete the registration process online.

Weekend parking is free at the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance 7th & G St.

New Statewide Report Proposes Major Reforms for Family Law Court

2010-04-23T15:33:00.000-07:00

Judicial Council Today Accepts Elkins Task Force Report; 117 Recommendations to Increase Fair and Efficient Justice for California Family Law Litigants

San Francisco—The Judicial Council of California today accepted a sweeping report designed to increase access to justice for the thousands of Californians who appear in family law court every year.

The report by the council’s Elkins Family Law Task Force results from a comprehensive two-year study that seeks to ensure fairness and due process in family law courts and provide more effective and consistent family law rules, policies, and procedures.

Developed by a 38-member task force, the recommendations are aimed at improving all aspects of family law court—from securing more judicial officers for historically underresourced courts with overwhelming caseloads to expanding legal services for the many litigants who cannot afford to hire an attorney.

“California’s family courts are struggling with enormous caseloads, complex legal issues, and increasing numbers of self-represented litigants,” stated Chief Justice Ronald M. George, chair of the Judicial Council. “I am pleased that the Elkins Family Law Task Force has developed comprehensive recommendations to provide greater access to justice, improve processes and procedures, and address the critical resource needs of these important courts.”

Court of Appeal Justice Laurie D. Zelon, chair of the Elkins task force, said: “Family law touches the most central aspects of people’s lives: their children, their safety, and their finances. The task force recommendations reflect the vital importance of these cases and the need to increase the resources available to meet them. I am deeply grateful for the task force’s unwavering commitment to positive change to dramatically improve the courts’ handling of these cases in the short- and long-term.”

The task force’s recommendations fall into five general categories:

1. Create efficient and effective procedures to help ensure justice, fairness, due process, and safety. These recommendations would enhance the right of parties to present live testimony before a judicial officer; protect the safety of children and litigants; and create a caseflow management system to better regulate the timely consideration of family law cases. Unlike other civil cases, family law cases are not generally governed by caseflow management rules.

2. Provide more effective child custody procedures for a better court experience for families and children. The proposals would set standards for determining when and how children should meaningful participate in family law matters; develop statewide rules to govern the appointment, responsibilities, and training of minor’s counsel; and develop mediation pilot projects.

3. Ensure meaningful access to justice for all litigants. The proposals would increase the availability of legal services and representation, especially for self-represented litigants; expand services to help litigants resolve their cases through settlement assistance]; improve litigant education about the family court; provide interpreters when needed; and improve court facilities.

4. Improve the status of, and respect for, family law litigants and the family law process through judicial leadership. The recommendations would help ensure that family law courts have adequate financial resources through court rules that would enhance the status of family law supervising judges. The recommendations also would encourage experienced family law attorneys to become judges; promote the assignment of judicial officers to family law; improve judicial branch education for judicial officers and court staff; and create a public information program to educate the public about family court services.

5. Encourage future innovation. The proposals would establish a California Family Law Innovation Project to encourage continual improvement in the state family courts. The recommendations also advocate for more empirical research on family law courts; improved statewide statistical reporting; the development of performance measures for the family courts; and expedited appeals in child custody cases.

The task force was appointed in response to a California Supreme Court opinion, Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1337, which held that marital dissolution trials should “proceed under the same general rules of procedure that govern other civil trials.” The ruling recommended that the Judicial Council establish a task force to study and propose measures to assist courts in improving efficiency and fairness in family law proceedings and ensuring access to justice for all family law litigants.

In other action today, the Judicial Council approved the establishment of a committee that would implement the task force’s recommendations. The full report of the Elkins Family Law Task Force is posted on the California Courts Web site at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/documents/reports/20100423itemj.pdf.

Elkins Family Law Task Force to Present Final Recommendations on April 23

2010-04-19T11:22:00.000-07:00

The Elkins Family Law Task Force has released its response to public comment on its Draft Recommendations.

The Task Force was appointed in May 2008 to conduct a comprehensive review of family law proceedings and recommend to the Judicial Council of California proposals that will increase access to justice, ensure due process, and provide for more effective and consistent court rules, policies, and procedures.

The Task Force has held 12 in-person hearings. At the February meetings in San Francisco, the Task Force reviewed and considered public comments on the Draft Recommendations. ALDAP participated in the hearings on October 27, 2009 in Los Angeles and February 23, 2010 in San Francisco. On December 3, 2009, ALDAP submitted its comments on the Task Force's Draft Recommendations which were issued on October 1, 2009.

The Elkins Family Law Task Force's Final Recommendations will be presented at the April 23, 2010 meeting of the Judicial Council in San Francisco. The meeting agenda includes the committee's responses to each written comment and includes reference to oral testimonies made before the committee by the public.

A large percentage of the responses by the committee concerning the legal document assistant profession involve the committee's concerns surrounding lack of consumer protections. ALDAP agrees that the protections presently afforded under Business & Professions Code section 6400 et seq. lack enforcement, particularly in light of budgetary restrictions in most counties. The fundamental principle underlying the formation of ALDAP and its programs was, and still remains, a focus on consumer protections and professional integrity.

ALDAP agrees that there is more work to be accomplished within our profession before court administrators will accept LDAs as a viable resource. Much of the testimony concerning LDAs was not beneficial to our profession and, in fact, created cause for concern. Merely publishing a directory of LDAs will not cure the issues inherent in our profession and does not afford consumer protections. It is clear the committee agrees and finds the requests for such a directory to be premature.

The Task Force responded to ALDAP's comments as follows:

ALDAP lobbied the commission for a placard notice stating that document preparers must be bonded and registered pursuant to 6400 which could have included a link to ALDAP's online directory of all California Legal Document Assistants. ALDAP disagrees with the committee that a directory as a resource could be inappropriate, and insists that signage of this nature is very much needed.
The Task Force agrees with ALDAP that AB 590 will expand self-help services. Their response to our comments does not mention that LDA services can also help expand self-help programs and services.
The Task Force repeatedly stated that, while it was "mindful" of the benefits that many LDAs provide to unrepresented litigants, it does not believe a recommendation that the court refer services via a LDA directory is appropriate in light of the current lack of enforcement of consumer protections. The committee frequently distinguished such a directory or LDA referral program from Lawyer Referral Services, which must be certified and, therefore, offer "extensive consumer protections."
The Task Force agrees with ALDAP that LDAs enjoy a beneficial relationship involving limited scope respresentation (LSR) and adds that these relationships do afford consumer protections as attorneys are responsible for accuracy of work product, and that attorneys may become members of a certified lawyer referral service.
The Task Force disagrees with ALDAP that LDAs should receive copies of notices or court correspondence relative to cases inasmuch as LDAs do not represent consumers. The Task Force suggests that LDAs address this issue with their clients to ensure that clients forward notices and correspondence received from the court to the LDA.
The Task Force believes that it is important that LDAs review court order procedures with clients and requests LDAs consider not charging for orders after hearing, as the court regularly refers self representing litigants to the self-help clinic for the same services at no cost.
The Task Force agrees with ALDAP's recommendation that court advocates should be appointed on behalf of children in family law matters.
The Task Force agrees with ALDAP that educational resources should be provided to self-representing litigants regarding a variety of options concerning their cases including the role of LDAs. (emphasis added)
The Task Force partially agrees with ALDAP that implementation of a universal form providing for disclosure of non-attorney assistance, after review as to scope, should be considered for implementation.
The Task Force agrees with ALDAP's recommendation for consideration of uniform adoption of processes concerning rejected filings and self-representing clients who utilize the services of an LDA.
Finally, the committee commends ALDAP and its members for providing resources and tools to self-representing litigants so they may successfully navigate the court system.

The only issue ALDAP believes outstanding concerns the placement of placards containing LDA statutory regulations within the courthouse. ALDAP believes this approach would resolve a large percentage of the committee's concerns regarding consumer protections, as it is clear that educating consumers is paramount. Consumer education creates a self protection. Combining placard placement with mandatory filing of non-attorney disclosures would result in consumer protections right at the source - the clerk's office.

ALDAP agrees 100% with the committee's remarks concerning consumer protections. It has long been ALDAP's goal to institute stricter consumer protections. We shall continue with our campaign for enforcement of existing consumer protections while further defining professional integrity. For the past 10 years others have tried to sweep noncompliance under the rug in an effort to yield harvest, yet the fruit of those (non) efforts lies upon the ground spoiled and reeking of the stench of rogues. In the past three years ALDAP has established itself as the leader in consumer protections and professional integrity. Our work is not yet done.

Sacramento Public Law Library To Close May 28 Due to Financial Crisis

2010-04-14T11:20:00.001-07:00

Due to Sacramento County's financial crisis the branch law library located in the Family Relations Courthouse will close for business on May 28th. Most of the branch's collection will be transferred to the Main law library.

The Main law library at 813 6th Street is open 8am-8pm Monday - Thursday; 8am-5pm on Friday; 9am-4pm on Saturdays.

Creative Merger II: Justice and Peace

2010-04-12T15:34:00.000-07:00

Please join us for the Opening Night Gala and Exhibition
Creative Merger II: Justice and Peace

Wednesday, June 9, 2010
5:30 – 8:00 pm. @ The Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

The Show is on view from June 9 – September 9, 2010

A benefit for California Lawyers for the Arts

Art created by Lawyers, Therapists, Mediators, Musicians and Artists highlighting images related to justice, peace and conflict resolution. A creative collaboration by California Lawyers for the Arts, Therapists for Social Responsibility, The Sacramento County Public Law Library and The Sacramento Philharmonic.

Juried by Michael Solomon of the Solomon Dubnick Gallery.

Food and Wine by Opening Doors Inc. and Revolution Wines

Tickets are $15 in advance and $20 at the door.
To purchase tickets go to http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/96843
For more information visit www.calawyersforthearts.org or call 916-442-6210

Free Lecture on Social Media and the Legal Profession

2010-04-12T15:31:00.000-07:00

COMMUNITY: Sacramento Social Media Club & Friends
LOCATION: THE URBAN HIVE, 1931 H Street, Sacramento, CA 95811
EVENT: Tuesday, April 20, 2010, from 6:30pm to 8:30pm
RESERVATIONS: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/607072771

Hosted by The Urban Hive in Midtown Sacramento. From studying law in the classroom to class action lawsuits, utilizing social media has become commonplace for students and attorney’s alike. Privacy, social sharing at the speed of fiber optics and server farms in the "cloud" are changing the legal landscape. Be a part of the conversation that is shaping what we can and can't do online.

Agenda:
• 6:30-7:00: Registration and socializing
• 7:00-8:15: Web of Justice: Social Media & Law
• 8:15-8:30: Wrap-up

Topics to Be Covered:
• How the legal profession is using social media
• How to use social media for legal and business research
• How law school students are using social media
• Social media and liability--a lawyer's perspective

Speakers:
• Jonathan G. Stein, Personal Injury & Insurance Attorney
• Kate Fitz, JD, MLIS, Public Services Librarian, Sacramento County Public Law

Library
• Sharon Lovell, Law Student, Lincoln Law School of Sacramento

There is no cost to participate. Light appetizers and drinks will be provided.

Social Media Club brings together journalists, publishers, communications professionals, artists, amateur media creators, citizen journalists, teachers, students, tool makers, and other interested collaborators. The Sacramento chapter was founded in March of 2009 by local users of social media.

There IS Such a Thing as "Bad Publicity"

2010-04-07T16:52:00.000-07:00

As a crusader for compliance in the delivery of non-attorney legal services, I was shocked and dismayed to discover that I was “advertising” as an attorney – without my knowledge and most certainly without my consent. I urge all LDAs and freelance paralegals to do a little research to make sure you have not been caught in the same trap.

I periodically research my personal web presence and my company’s exposure on the internet; I want to see where my name appears, what people are saying, what websites refer to my content as a resource, etc.

In the past, this practice has helped me tremendously: I have identified – early on – infringement of my copyrighted material, and I have discovered many legal websites and resources which I have since incorporated into my practice. Recently, I discovered my LDA business, Red Sky Legal, was listed under “Attorneys – Estate and Probate” in AOL’s online yellow pages directory for several communities within San Diego County. I was in good company, however, with many LDAs (including a handful of ALDAP members) also listed on the same page, with “Attorneys” emblazoned across the top of the screen. I found this to be quite disturbing.

I have never advertised myself as an attorney or Red Sky Legal as a law firm. How could this happen?

The aforementioned AOL yellow pages directory “features” AT&T’s directory at www.yellowpages.com (changing to www.yp.com). It appears that AT&T is the source for the content displayed on AOL’s directory; my business has an enhanced profile in the AT&T directory and the artwork on AOL’s site matched the artwork from my AT&T listing.

Of course, I am not an attorney, and can be criminally prosecuted and have my business shut down for advertising that I am. One of the categories I chose for my listing in AT&T’s directory (the only advertisement I have actually placed or even consented to) was “Estate Planning, Probate and Living Trusts,” a category that includes a number of non-attorney service providers in addition to many traditional estate and probate lawyers. This seemed like a safe choice; it represents the work I do but clearly is NOT an “attorney” category.

However, when AOL pulled the data from AT&T over to their own directory, they took it upon themselves to change the category name to “Attorneys – Estate and Probate.” Ouch.

I started with my AT&T rep; I provided a lengthy explanation about how this simply cannot happen, particularly for an officer in an association that focuses its efforts on consumer protection and professional integrity! “This association investigates, collects consumer complaints, and forwards them to the authorities for prosecution – for doing things like illegally advertising as an attorney,” I explained. “How can I preside over an association that rails against fraud in the legal industry when my own ads are fraudulent and illegal?”

“AOL absolutely MUST change the heading for that category, to remove the word ‘attorney,’ lest my colleagues and I face potential criminal prosecution and seizure of our businesses (by the California State Bar), and certain harm to our reputations for engaging in what is perceived as fraudulent activity, which we never actually engaged in, never attempted to engage in, and never authorized.”

I also submitted this information via the “Send Feedback” form on the AOL yellow pages site.

I asked my AT&T ad rep for contact information for AT&T’s legal department, and independently located contact information for AOL’s legal department. I had hoped someone in the legal department would understand that it is in their best interest to rectify this situation immediately. They would understand that there are hungry lawyers out there who would like nothing more than to sue an LDA for unfair business practices; and that if I were served with such a complaint, the first thing I would do is cross-complain against AOL and AT&T.

Initially, the recommended “solution” was to change the categories of my AT&T listing – an unacceptable option. I pressed my AT&T rep further and he involved someone on the tech side to resolve it. A week later, I had not heard back from the tech contact but I did another search and noted that my business has been removed from AOL’s “attorney” category. Unfortunately, I don’t yet know what “worked.” Was it my AT&T rep’s efforts? The tech contact at AT&T? The email to AOL’s legal department? The two feedback form submissions directly to the AOL site? I may never know, but I am relieved that the message somehow got through to the right person.

My “attorney” listing has not yet been fully removed from Google’s cache, but I am confident that it will be shortly. When I Google my phone number, I get hits for AOL’s attorney categories in the various communities I serve; however, when I click on the links to the current pages I see that my company (and the other LDAs who were listed right there with me) no longer appears on the page.

I urge all LDAs to “audit” their internet presence. Google your phone number. Or Google your number plus the word “attorney” or “attorneys” and see if you discover that you have been unwittingly advertising as an attorney. If so, contact your ad rep immediately or the webmaster of the site displaying the offending listing. Most importantly, document every step of this process. Keep a record of your email correspondence; PDF those web-based “Feedback” form submissions before you click “Send”; keep a journal of dates and times you communicated (or attempted to communicate) with the website’s publisher; and if you have to send snail-mail, which may be necessary if electronic communications are ineffective, use Certified Mail and keep copies of the receipts.

If the DA or State Bar comes sniffing around (or that hungry lawyer sends his process server your way) you have documentation of your attempts to be a diligent and compliant member of the LDA profession.

HALT - Moving Forward with Alternative Legal Services

2010-04-01T11:57:00.000-07:00

ALDAP received a request to meet with Tom Gordon, Senior Counsel and Policy Director for HALT (Help Abolish Legal Tyranny), to discuss the delivery of non-attorney, self-help legal services to consumers. (To be clear, there has been some confusion among our membership regarding HALT's proposed name change to CLEAR in 2009; that name change did not take place. HALT is HALT, and HALT is here to stay.)

Gordon and ALDAP's Executive Committee met last Friday to discuss a cooperative effort to enhance consumer protections in California and to bring appropriate business model practices to the attention of other states which soon will follow California's example in bringing access to justice to consumers. ALDAP is a step ahead, having developed the ALDAP AdvantageTM - a business practice model that allows for consumer education while guaranteeing absolute compliance with the statutes governing legal document preparers. We discussed how ALDAP's LDA Roundtable events enable the association to present this practice model, which focuses on consumer protections and professional integrity, throughout the state at no cost to attendees.

ALDAP looks forward to working with other legal professionals to further the Access to Justice Movement on behalf of all consumers.

How Are You Honoring Law Day 2010?

2010-04-01T11:52:00.000-07:00

San Diego Public Law Library Presents Law Day Legal Clinics

Law Day 2010: FREE Legal Clinics

The East and North County Branches of the San Diego County Public Law Library will be celebrating Law Day 2010 by offering free, walk-in legal clinics on Friday, April 30th.

During this public service event, volunteer lawyers will provide legal advice and referrals. Attorneys will not provide on-going representation. Consultations are on a first-come, first-served basis.

The areas of law covered may include estate and probate, family law, landlord/tenant, criminal law, real estate and general civil law, but will vary depending on location and availability of attorney volunteers.

East County Branch
In partnership with the Foothills Bar Association
• Place: 250 E. Main St., El Cajon, CA
• Time: 10:00am - 3:00pm
• Questions: (619) 441-4451

North County Branch
In partnership with the Bar Association of North San Diego County
• Place: 325 S. Melrose Drive, Suite 300, Vista CA
• Time: 9:00am - 12:00pm and 1:00pm - 4:00pm
• Questions: (760) 940-4386

Success - By The Book

2010-03-09T17:49:00.000-08:00

As an LDA I employ my paralegal skills and experience and follow ALDAP's business practices model to remain in compliance while helping my clients.

I received a follow-up phone call today from a client who came to me several months ago with a desire to file an appeal of his Superior Court case. He had formerly been represented by counsel and that counsel failed to show up at a MSJ hearing and my client was sanctioned and the defendants prevailed.

This is a client I blogged about previously ("Bo") as he had, prior to meeting me, hired a rogue document preparer who held himself out as an unlicensed attorney, to prepare his appeal. After learning that his designation had been rejected three times and after a review of the San Diego Superior Court's file, my client realized that the rogue had forged his signature on legal documents filed with the court, and that the guy was basically taking him for a ride having charged him $1,200 for a notice of appeal and the designation documents.

Since his case concerned his home and his mortgage, I was uncertain if I could legitimately help him, at least to the extent he required. My first concern was whether or not he could withstand the pressure of preparation of an opening brief complete with case law, etc.

We discussed his level of competence and comprehension and we agreed that I would provide him with the procedural information which he would read and then we would see where to go from there. I did so and he was ready to commence preparation of his brief believing that he was able to adequately represent himself and write his own brief.

During the next few days my client realized that self representation was not as easy as it appeared on television and that the brief he was to create was not a simple task. He called and asked me questions like "Can you do the introduction, I don't know what to put?" He asked me to pull cases that match his particular situation. He called several times a day always asking for me to do the brief for him or start it for him or to help him write it. This, I explained, I cannot do.

Finally, I recommended that he pay an attorney to write the brief. He did not want to hire yet another attorney, but I admonished him that the writing of the brief was obviously not within his ability and it was definitely not within the scope of services I could or would provide. I explained that paying legal counsel to help now would be better than losing and then retaining counsel to figure out why or to help repair any damage self representation could bring. I referred him to legal counsel who was willing to assist him with the brief and not kill him with a $300 an hour rate.

A few weeks later I received a call from my client who had been instructed by the attorney to file a motion to augment the record. I once again provided him with the rules of court and procedural information so that he could reasonably fashion his motion. He fashioned; I typed, filed, and served the motion - he prevailed!

He was overjoyed and ready to take on the big guys. I warned him that this was merely a battle in the war and not to get too cocky about the win, "One must not tempt fate."

I received the rough draft of the brief from his "ghost writing" attorney and after edits, formatting and preparation of the TOC and TOA, we sent it off to all. OC filed its responsive brief some time later and we waited. My client decided, against counsel's advise, to request oral argument. He appeared, argued and we waited some more.

Today the email notification from the court dropped into my inbox. It stated that my client's case was remanded back to Superior Court and he shall receive another turn at bat. I called my "now former" client and we discussed the win. I told him how proud I was of him taking on the big law firm on principle and that his drive and determination were the main factors in his win. He thanked me yet again for all my help and said that he would not have won if he would not have met me; that I helped him find counsel to write the brief and that my support and the information I provided to him in the form of rules, procedures, samples, etc. allowed him to adequately and properly represent himself. He said that he knew he didn't have a chance at prevailing until he met me - the person who convinced him that the case involved his life savings and his home and that he needed more help than what I alone could provide.

This is a duty of a legal document assistant. We are not attorneys. We might have a grasp of legal issues and remedies, but ABSOLUTELY NOT to the extent that we should be advising our clients on how to proceed or write their materials for them. It is our obligation - and it is the law - that we advise potential clients of any need for legal counsel. It is morally proper and any non-attorney legal service provider who acts independently on behalf of a client lacks integrity and is flirting with loss of bonding which is a requirement of registration.

As I always tell any callers who are confused about what to do or where to go - get yourself the legal advice from a licensed attorney who is competent, then return to me when you can provide instruction. Front-load the legal advice - do not wait until after you file documents and appear at a hearing and then learn all your money, time and trouble were for naught. Do it first so that you are not spinning your wheels. I tell them, "I will take your money - heck anyone will take your money - but spend it wisely. Use forethought and prudence and talk to an attorney who will advise you properly before undertaking serious legal matters."

This I know to be true: An educated client is a successful litigant. A successful litigant/client is a perfect source of enthusiastic referrals.

Chief Justice Praises Court Reforms in "State of the Judiciary" Address

2010-02-24T13:51:00.000-08:00

State Courts Affected by Fiscal Crisis, but Remain Focused on Delivering Equal Justice

In his 15th annual State of the Judiciary Address to the California Legislature, Chief Justice Ronald M. George yesterday praised the Legislature and Governor for their support in achieving fundamental reforms in the judicial branch’s structure that have left courts “better able to deliver on the promise of equal justice under law than at any other time in my service as Chief Justice of California, and perhaps than at any other time in our state’s history.”

These historic structural reforms began with breakthrough legislation in 1997 that provided for statewide funding of the courts. Trial court unification followed in 1998 and the historic Trial Court Facilities Act was enacted in 2002.

Chief Justice George observed that the reforms “have enabled us to provide better service to the public, have strengthened the fundamental role of the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government, and have resulted in a greater degree of accountability to you – the legislative branch of government – and to the public.”

Although courts are fundamentally strong, the state’s current fiscal crisis leaves the courts “increasingly hard-pressed to meet their obligation to provide accessible justice,” the Chief Justice noted.

The Chief Justice urged the Legislature to maintain the essential infrastructure projects already under way – including the statewide Case Management System (CCMS) and the court facilities construction and management program.

Impact of Fiscal Crisis on State Courts

“We managed to get through this difficult year with a combination of spending reductions, redirections of one-time funding, and the use of reserves – which will not continue to be available,” Chief Justice George stated. “But at this critical juncture I can report that although the state of the judicial branch is significantly challenged, the branch remains robust and resilient.”

At an emergency meeting last July, the Judicial Council instituted a one-day-per-month closure of all state courts for a total of ten days during the fiscal year. The decision to close the courts was made with “great reluctance” by council members, but it was the only feasible option available to address year-end budget reductions while providing statewide consistency for the public, protecting court employees from major layoffs, and avoiding other piecemeal cutbacks in service.

“The unintended yet inevitable symbolism of ‘Closed’ signs on our courthouses – institutions that embody our nation’s revered democratic ideals – is a graphic indication of the severity of California’s economic crisis,” Chief Justice George declared. “These statewide closures must not continue into the next fiscal year.”

“For many Californians the courts represent their primary — and sometimes their most important —interaction with state government. Yet the entire judicial branch budget accounts for only about two percent of the state budget,” he stated.

“The current budget now proposed for the courts includes triggers related to federal funding and new revenue from traffic violations — contingencies that are uncertain,” he stated. “We look to you not for increases, but for sufficient and secure funding in the coming fiscal year, including an extension of temporary revenue enhancements that are due to sunset next year.”

Judges Voluntarily Waive Portion of Salaries

The Chief Justice last July pledged to reduce his own salary and requested that other state jurists do the same to acknowledge the sacrifice that was asked of the 20,000 court employees who were forced to take a pay cut equivalent of one day a month, as a result of state court closures.

“I am pleased to report that the vast majority of judges and justices in California – between 80 and 90 percent – have pledged to participate in a voluntary salary waiver program amounting to a 4.6 percent pay reduction, or have otherwise made equivalent donations to their courts to help preserve access to justice in their communities,” Chief Justice George stated, noting that 100 percent of the Supreme Court justices are participating.

Cost-savings measures also were implemented by the California Supreme Court, which closed its Los Angeles Clerk’s Office at the end of 2009, and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), which instituted a hiring freeze on all except critical positions and reduced operating expenses.

Court Technology Moves into the 21st Century

Chief Justice George told legislators that “we cannot retreat from our mutual commitment to investing in the judicial branch’s infrastructure” – specifically, the California Case Management System (CCMS) and the court facility construction and management program.

“These endeavors cannot be shelved when we encounter bad times – the welfare and safety of Californians depend upon proper investment in the long-term future of our state, and our plans will enhance California’s economy to benefit us all,” he declared.

As a result of severely outdated case management systems in most courts, judges and law enforcement officers are often unaware of the past criminal history of violent offenders, of outstanding warrants, and of domestic violence restraining orders.

Chief Justice George reported that development and testing of CCMS, undertaken at the urging of two governors and the legislature and in partnership with our justice system partners, is nearly complete.

“When fully deployed, the new system will deliver the services, efficiencies, and access to information that the public has a right to expect.”

Building Safe and Secure Courthouses

Chief Justice George also reported that as of December 29, 2009, all of state’s 532 courthouses and other facilities had transferred from the counties to state governance under the historic Trial Court Facilities Act, marking the “successful conclusion of one of the largest real estate transactions in our state’s history.”

“Judicial branch oversight of court facilities provides significant benefits for the public: increased safety and security, greater operational efficiencies, savings through statewide purchasing power, and enhanced delivery of programs and services,” he noted.

The critical task before the judicial branch now, the Chief Justice stated, is to begin repairing and replacing the most dilapidated and dangerous court facilities under Senate Bill 1407, legislation that created funding for this purpose with lease revenue bonds – without using a single dollar from the state’s general fund.

The bill authorizes the expenditure of up to $5 billion to construct or renovate 41 courthouses in 34 counties – the most critically needed projects required to remedy seismic, asbestos, mold, and security deficiencies.

“This homegrown stimulus package ... could not have come at a better time for the California construction industry and the men and women employed in the building trades,” Chief Justice George observed. “Estimates are that as many as 105,000 jobs will be created by the projects authorized by this measure.”

The Chief Justice responded to suggestions by some that the fees designated for the court construction program be redirected to day-to-day court operations for the duration of the economic downturn:

“For many reasons, I – and at least 54 of the state’s 58 superior court presiding judges – believe this shortsighted approach would have severe negative consequences for public safety and the well-being of the men and women who work in our courts. It also would be financially costly to the state in the long run.”

In closing, Chief Justice George noted, “Courts are not a luxury to be funded in good times and ignored in bad times. Justice cannot be available only when it is convenient to pay for it. We shall attempt to address and absorb the reductions in our budget during these difficult times. But all of us – in each of the three branches of government – must remain committed to continuing the progress we have made toward meeting the goal of a fair and accessible system of justice.”

The Chief Justice’s 2010 State of the Judiciary Address to the California Legislature is available on the California Courts Web site at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/.

Sacramento Public Law Library Offers Judgment Recovery Seminar

2010-02-16T11:14:00.000-08:00

1.5 Hours MCLE $55.00 March 3, 2010

There's Gold In That Turnip - Or Is There?

The successful enforcement of a judgment requires in-depth research and investigation to get to the “facts” standing in the way of the assets. Listen to a judgment recovery expert identify how to look into a debtor’s background, locate addresses, follow job history, and identify assets, e.g. computers, vehicles, luxury items, tools of the trade, etc. Topics to be discussed include: Writ of Execution, Abstract of Judgment, Levies on Financial Institutions, Earnings Withholding Orders (EWO), Affidavit of Identity, Debtor Examinations (OEX), and more.

1.5-hours MCLE credit
Registration: $55.00

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online. Go to “News & Events” from our home page at www.saclaw.org to view our Schedule of Available Classes. Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance on G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers Legal Research Skills Geared Toward the Non-Attorney

2010-02-09T13:35:00.000-08:00

Introduction to Legal Research & Law Library Basics

February 27, 2010 (Saturday)
Instructors: SCPLL Law Librarians

This two-part series of classes is for the non-lawyer to introduce you to the Law Library and its resources.

Registration Fee: $15.00

Part A - Statutes

9:30am to 12:00pm

Learn how to recognize and locate California laws, in print and online, and how to use the Annotated Codes. The class will also cover secondary sources, which provide interpretation and context, and are often used as “side doors” into the official statutes.

Registration Fee: $15.00

Part B - Cases

1:00pm to 3:30pm

This class covers how California case law is developed and organized. Learn how to locate cases in printed reporters and online. Secondary sources will be included in the demonstration of methods researchers use to find relevant judicial opinions.

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online. Go to “News & Events” from our home page at www.saclaw.org to view our Schedule of Available Classes.

Parking validation available for SCPLL classes at the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure; entrance on G Street & 7th.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.874.8541
www.saclaw.org

ALDAP President Kathleen Mountjoy Speaks at Elkins Family Law Task Force Meeting

2010-02-02T20:50:00.000-08:00

On February 1, 2010 the Elkins Family Law Task Force met to review revisions to its draft Recommendations. Gail Hahn, ALDAP's Director of Education is ALDAP's point of contact with regard to the committee's recommendations, which are to be delivered to the California Judicial Council on April 30, 2010.

The public comment period ended in December 2009. However, Gail noted that the committee was scheduled to meet for two days beginning February 1st at the Administrative Office of the Courts in San Francisco and was offering a public comment period for those who wished to preregister. At the December Task Force meeting, Gail Hahn had made a presentation on behalf of California's Legal Document Assistants which was met with the committee's request for additional information which we addressed in ALDAP's responses to the recommendations. Gail explained that she had a previously scheduled appointment which conflicted with the meeting schedule. She asked me if anyone else could attend on her behalf. I am a few hours away from the City by the Bay so I agreed to attend and to make a presentation on behalf of ALDAP and ALL California Legal Document Assistants. We could not let an opportunity to, once again, appear and speak of what we know to be true.

In an effort to focus on the salient points we wished to present to the committee, I worked on a short presentation which at completion consumed four single-spaced pages. We initially thought we would have seven minutes. Imagine my surprise when I noted the time limit - three minutes! It is extremely difficult to get one's point across in three minutes - that is how long it takes to introduce oneself.

During our three hour drive, I worked on our presentation, whittling it down to the bare essentials while trying to make certain it would be comprehensible to those committee members who might not be aware of the Legal Document Assistant.

I am not an experienced public speaker and I do not enjoy the butterflies and nervousness that overtake me when I have to speak in front of a group. I practiced with the stopwatch function on my cell phone almost all the way to San Francisco.

Upon arrival, I was impressed to be directed to the Office of the Judicial Council of California. Not knowing what to expect I was delighted and thrilled to be led into a paneled room with a large circular bay of desktop surrounding four wide screen televisions which faced in each direction. The circle consisted of several stations at which the committee members sat. The peons (me) sat around the edge in the audience area.

Many of the committee members came out into the public area and introduced themselves with a cheery good morning and a friendly smile. At that point, I started feeling a bit less nervous about speaking in front of the committee.

I tried to lose my inherent perception that these people are Gods (as my mother, the 50-yr legal secretary/paralegal had taught me) and that many were the very people who relied upon me to make their work lives less complicated and to do their work for the past 30 years. I also started thinking that some of these people aren't too much older than 30. What did I have to be intimidated about?

The committee got down to business and after a few revision reviews, those of us who stuck around to present made our pleas. I was the fourth person and as I strode to the podium I kept thinking I wish I could just submit a declaration in lieu of testimony. So that is what came out of my mouth. The entire room broke into laughter and my nervousness abated. I felt like I was in my old law firm making a presentation to the managing attorneys. All of a sudden it was easy, I just had to remain inside of my three minute allowance.

I started out slow and then sped up. I explained that ALDAP members are paralegal/LDAs and as such we provide our clients with educational information, rules of court, etc. I explained that California's Legislators created our profession 10 years ago with built in compliance provisions, but that enforcement was almost non-existent. I asked the committee to please provide for civil access by providing a list of all California registered and bonded LDAs in each courthouse. I explained about rogues and the "black eye" given our profession by the lack of enforcement and failure of many to comply with the regulations. I requested the committee consider mandatory pro per declarations at initial filing re LDA identification and compensation; and I requested that the court's assist consumer protections, and those of us who do comply, by posting (beware of) fraud notices in the courthouses and in the court's resource referral materials.

Finally, I advised the committee that it should not overlook the immediate and positive impact LDAs could have on court efficiency at negligible cost. I closed asking the committee to consider a statement made by Kevin Baker, the Deputy Chief Counsel, Assembly Judicial Committee, who was the writer of AB 590 (2009 Access to Justice) recently approved and signed by our Governor. Mr. Baker had stated to me during a telephone conversation that "Legal Document Assistants perform a much needed service for California's consumers."

When the last presenter was finished, the committee broke for a much needed lunch. I had a ton of work waiting at the office and while I could have sat and listened for the entire two-days, I knew my driver would not be too happy with me if we stayed.

So we headied back to Sacramento and when the comment was made that the drive home was so much faster than the drive to the City, I figured it best not to mention that we drove for almost five hours in one morning just so I could speak for three minutes. I do have to say though, that to me, it was time well spent.

2010 Family Law Conference

2010-01-29T17:11:00.000-08:00

The Legal Aid Association of California, Judicial Council of California and the Administrative Office of the Courts: Center for Families, Children & the Courts are presenting the 2010 Family Law Conference February 18-19, 2010 in Los Angeles. The cost for non attorney, non-LAAC attendees is $125. MCLE credit is provided by the LAAC, an approved provider. Attendees can earn up to 10.5 hours of MCLE including 1.5 hours legal ethics and 3.0 hours of Elimination of Bias.

The LAAC, a statewide membership organization of legal services nonprofits, serves and strengthens its members through advocacy, training, and support in their efforts to provide critical legal assistance to low-income Californians and ensure equal access to justice.

The LAAC was founded by legal services programs in the early 1980s, in response to a community-wide resolution that a statewide legal services organization was needed to help programs collaborate and coordinate on issues of mutual concern. Over the past two decades, LAAC has remained true to its core mission to act as the unified voice for the legal services community, ensure a forum for legal services programs to coordinate, and provide high-quality training for legal services advocates. In 2009, LAAC's membership includes over 75 organizational members and over 50 individual members.

The conference offers seminars on a variety of family law issues unique to legal aid non-profits that for-profit companies often share. Topics include: Bringing the Best Out of People, Non-English Speakers - How to Reach Them, How to Serve Them, How to Effectively Serve Clients with Disabilities and Request Accomodation From the Courts, Modifing Support Orders, Intro to Basic Adoption, and many others.

To view the program and register please visit: http://www.calegaladvocates.org

Elkins Family Law Task Force to Meet on February 1-2 in San Francisco

2010-01-25T11:32:00.000-08:00

The task force will meet for 2 days from February 1-2, 2010 in the Judicial Council Conference Center of the Administrative Office of the Courts in San Francisco.

If you would like to address the task force at an upcoming meeting, please submit your request to elkinstaskforce@jud.ca.gov or the address or fax below at least 4 business days before the meeting. Please include the following information in your request:

Presenter's name (Your name)
Title/position (i.e., Party, Attorney, Mediator, etc.)
Contact information (i.e., address, telephone number, e-mail, etc.),
County of residence;
Organization or affiliation, if any (i.e., Are speaking for yourself and/or an organization?); and
Brief description of presentation (i.e., What are you suggesting?).
If you have a pending family law case in any California court, please specify which court(s).

The Task Force cannot hear comments on specific cases so please do not include your court case number, court department, names of any parties, attorneys, court staff, judicial officers, mediators, or any individual names or references to the specifics in your case.

Please feel free to e-mail, send, or fax your written statement in advance. You may address the task force for up to 3 minutes, as time permits.

Contact Information
Elkins Family Law Task Force Center for Families, Children & the Courts AOC
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
fax: 415-865-7217
e-mail: elkinstaskforce@jud.ca.gov
Web site: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/elkins.htm

Court Closures to Continue Through June 2010 In Response to Judicial Branch Budget Cuts

2010-01-21T19:15:00.000-08:00

Report Shows Estimated Savings of $63 Million

San Francisco—At a public meeting today, the Judicial Council of California approved the continuation of one-day-a-month court closures through June 2010, in response to severe budget reductions in the judicial branch budget for fiscal year 2009–2010.

“Today’s action to continue court closures through June 2010 reflects the severity of the state’s economic crisis and the unprecedented reductions in the judicial branch budget,” stated Chief Justice Ronald M. George, chair of the 28-member council, the administrative policymaking agency for state courts.

“The council’s decision does not lessen our longstanding goal to provide access to justice for Californians, he continued. “For this reason, the council today reaffirmed its commitment to seek adequate resources from the Governor and Legislature to avoid statewide court closures in the next fiscal year.”

History of Court Closures

The court closures are designed as a uniform cost-saving tool to assist California courts in absorbing substantial budget reductions imposed in fiscal year 2009–2010. The closures were authorized by Government Code section 68106, passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor as part of this year's state budget.

At a public meeting on July 29, 2009, the Judicial Council designated the third Wednesday of each month from September 2009 through June 2010 as a uniform statewide court closure day. The council directed that on that day, all superior courts, Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court would be closed. The Administrative Office of the Courts closes on the same day as the courts.

Impact of Court Closures

At the time the court closures were approved, the Judicial Council directed that an evaluation be conducted of the impact of closures on the courts, the public, and justice system partners. The evaluation included statewide survey responses of 54 superior courts, all 6 Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court, and 275 justice system partners.

The evaluation report included the following findings:

By June 2010, it is estimated that the total cost reductions achieved as result of statewide court closures will be approximately $63.3 million.
This figure includes estimated savings for the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) that will exceed the initial partial year savings estimate of $8.5 million by about 13 percent.
The impact of the court closures varied considerably from court to court. Although a few courts reported that there was no discernible impact or minimal impact, many courts reported there was some real impact on court operations and court users, as the council anticipated.
There were mixed findings on the selection of Wednesday as the court closure day. Many trial courts disagreed with the selection of that day, although others felt differently. Some courts asserted that the selection of Wednesday had no greater or lesser impact than any other day of the week; others found Wednesday to be the best day. Justice system partners also expressed mixed views.
By a margin of nearly three to one, trial courts believed it would be more confusing for court users if the closures occurred on different days of the month. Courts reported that the statewide uniformity of the court closure day made the delivery of the message to the public easier and prevented confusion among court users.
Justice system partners generally reported that if the courts are going to close one day a month, it is best that the day be uniform statewide.
The Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal reported considerably less impact on court operations and calendaring. The selection of Wednesday was not seen as problematic, and one-third believes it was the best day to select.

In addition to continuing court closures through June 2010, the council also reaffirmed that keeping courts open and accessible to the public remains a top priority and renewed its commitment to advocate for sufficient resources in the next fiscal year to avoid the need for further court closures. The council directed that recommendations and uniform guidelines be developed for limited closures of courts, on a court-by-court basis, if the Legislature and Governor do not provide sufficient resources for the judicial branch in fiscal year 2010-2011. That plan will be presented to the council for consideration at its April 2010 meeting.

E-Filing Eliminates Hassles/Delays

2010-01-10T14:59:00.000-08:00

Clients do not always understand that it takes time to file documents, particularly if you file documents in courts in other areas of the country. E-file allows for almost instant filing and return of your court documents. The cost is minimal and certainly can be passed on to your clients. I offer my clients the advantage of e-filing over US Mail or delivery by runner. It's their choice if they wish to pay the cost. Sometimes, sending documents to the court through the mail delays filings and I have even had documents lost in the mail! This can result in an unhappy client.

I sent a dissolution to Ventura Superior Court last night (Saturday) and it will be filed first thing Monday with instant access to the filed documents. The cost was $15 for the e-filing, $12 service charge, plus the actual filing fee. Total cost: $382.00. Cost to me: ZERO The cost of the client's happiness: PRICELESS!

Client satisfaction is just one of the benefits of e-filing. Filing cases electronically reduces the cost of filing, eliminating much of the paper handling involved, and allows the courts to function more efficiently. In addition, E-Filing.com's electronic filing process makes it possible for documents to be submitted to the courts twenty-four hours a day from any location with Internet access.

Of course, you should check the local rules to make certain that e-filing is allowed at a particular court. You can check directly court rules directly on the e-file website. One day soon, e-filing is sure to be the only method of filing in all courts.

https://www.e-filing.com/

JC AND OTHER STATE/FED FORM LEGAL SOFTWARE $15 PER MONTH

2010-01-09T13:20:00.000-08:00

I have been using Cal Court Forms for a few months now, having changed over to this vendor rather than pay increased Legal Solutions costs for its new forms program. Now that I am familiar with the environment of CCF I find the program extremely convenient and wish to share with you.

CalCourtForms™ is a complete online legal forms solution that lets you share editable forms with anyone, whether they are across the globe or just across the hall. CalCourtForms frees your data and lets you share it seamlessly with Adobe Acrobat Reader. There is no software to buy and nothing else to install. Our fillable Judicial Council, Secretary of State and Local County, Federal and Bankruptcy forms are free to all.

QuickSave + QuickPDF = Free Forms Workstation
Our QuickSave and QuickPDF features turns your computer into free, online forms workstation (see system requirements). Just click the QuickSave or QuickPDF button on any form to instantly save your data or create a flattened PDF on your own computer. Working with PDF forms and PDF form data (FDF) doesn't get any easier than this.

Cross-Platform Windows, iMac and Linux - It's your choice
Whether you use Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Firefox on Windows, Safari on iMac, or Firefox on Linux, CalCourtForms gives you true cross-platform compatibility. CalCourtForms works with Windows, Mac and Linux. So you can use a PC at work, Linux at home and your Mac on the go - the choice is yours. Your forms workstation is wherever you are and on whatever platform you're using.

Professional Features - Just $15
For just $15/month, CalCourtForms delivers the advanced features legal professionals and power users expect to find in a desktop forms program - and so much more. Compare your current desktop forms program and save!

One-click updates of captions and common case information
MyForms - Advanced online forms manager keeps your forms and cases organized
My Favorite Forms - Create multiple lists of your most often used forms
Proof of Service wizard creates proofs of service with just a few clicks
Create Service Lists for each case
Supports multiple cases, multiple form versions and form templates
Set passwords to control access to PDFs
Combine and Merge multiple forms into a single or multiple PDFs
Upload your PDF documents and combine them with other PDFs
Download multiple zipped forms
Real-time, encrypted backup of user data to Amazon S3
Password security, encrypted server-side data, and 128 bit SSL encryption
Advanced Form Features
Advanced search features including Google Enterprise site search
Always current - no maintenance or updating required
Rapid support on a form-by-form basis
Compatible with Acrobat Reader, Full, and Professional.
Share your forms and editable data with anyone
Work anywhere
Store your forms and data anywhere
3 standard court typefaces - Courier, Helvetica and Times
Type size choices from 8pt to 13pt, including autofit
4 way form field highlighting

How It Works
CalCourtForms works with Acrobat form data. There's no need to exchange large PDF documents. A small packet of data is all it takes to deliver a ready-to-edit form to your recipient. When you're done sharing, CalCourtForms lets you create and send a ready-to-file PDF document that can be flattened and password protected.

Professional Class Support
We support our forms, our application and our development platform. All of our forms and classes are thoroughly designed, tested and approved before publication. We constantly strive to make our forms the best they can be. We welcome your feedback and respond quickly to customer requests, suggestions and problems. Our form building technology lets us edit, re-build and re-deploy a form quickly, in as little as just a few minutes. There's no need to wait weeks or months for updates.

Streamlines Forms Workflow
CalCourtForms streamlines forms workflow by opening up new avenues of collaboration among lawyers, staff, clients, courts and self-represented parties. Work anywhere, collaborate everywhere. Isn't this what you've been waiting for?

For a free trial:

http://calcourtforms.com/forms/home.aspx

THERE'S AN APP FOR THAT!

2010-01-06T02:14:00.000-08:00

MCLE Credit - Now on Your iPhone

by Tina J. of the San Diego County Law Library.

Introducing West's new CLE Mobile - a free iPhone app for downloading West LegalEdcenter CLE programs for credit. Now you can get MCLE credit on the go, anytime, anywhere using your iPhone.

Simply download the free West CLE Mobile app onto your iPhone, create a free account if you don't already have a LegalEdcenter account, sign in, and you're off. You receive one free CLE just for downloading the app, Ethics in Client Development, a one-hour program immediately available.

If you need more credits, West offers over 2,000 audio CLE programs, and according to Jeff Richardson, Esq. of "iPhone J.D.," a site for lawyers using the iPhone, most offerings appeared to be "Mobile Compatible," meaning available for download to your iPhone. He reports that prices vary for programs, but that a majority of the one-hour courses cost approximately $135.00.

Purchasing a course makes it instantly available for download to your iPhone, including the audio and all offered materials. Downloading takes just a minute or two, but there is an expiration date posted that requires you to play the program any time before then.

Playing the programs is fairly straightforward with many familiar features of most audio programs. West, however, has added a "verification" feature assuring that you're actually paying attention to the course. Throughout the program, you will hear a bell ring requiring you to tap the "Now Playing" button, then the "Verify" button to ensure you're still conscious. This means that if you think you can try to skip over the course without really listening by simply moving the slider to the end, you'd be wrong. The slider will only go as far as the last "verified position" marked.

You can also review the program materials while listening to the course, stop and resume your play at a later time, rate the program when you finish, and electronically "Submit for Credit" any programs you complete. West will then email you a link for a "Certificate of Completion" that you're able to forward to your state bar if required to do so.

2010 New and Revised California Court Forms

2010-01-02T11:09:00.000-08:00

New Year = New Forms

A list of the new and revised California Judicial Council forms can be accessed by clicking here. This list includes forms effective January 1, 2010 and July 1, 2010.

To access the actual forms, visit this page.

If you are still using Legal Solutions, please note that the software is no longer supported by the publisher, and your forms may be outdated.

Empowerment

2009-12-17T15:01:00.000-08:00

There is so much stuff on the internet about empowerment and life changing events. I almost groan when I come across another website or blog with rah rah new age, empowerment materials and a call for positivity. I do not mean to demean the practice of positive thinking, self care, and other new age retrends. I am just stating honestly, that I am pretty much over it all, having employed some practices and letting others fade away. I am better for it and so are those who associate with me by virtue of having to spend time with me. So, now you are probably wondering what this has to do with my business as a contract paralegal and LDA.

Legal documents have everything to do with empowerment.

My clients are taking care of their various problems/legal business in an effort to better their lives and the lives of those they love. Because I prepare their legal documents, I get to be a part of that growth. Today, I received an annual holiday report from one of my former clients. Her message forced me to reflect upon the changes this particular young lady has effected and the joys of life that she now experiences daily.

Without going into detail, this confident, well adjusted, successful and determined young lady took the steps to change her life. She did not cringe or whine about her situation - she took action. She went against the grain and against the advice of those who would deter her from her goals. She wanted a happier and peaceful life and to provide her son with the same. So, she educated herself and followed through on handling her own complex legal mattters. And, she did very well, not only in the courts, but her personal life has, as a result, florished. She is happy, always full of mirth and flirty with a sarcastic wit that is absolutely engaging. She is beautiful and kind, a loving mother and good friend. She is independent and capable and her future will be whatever she chooses it to be. She now knows who she is and loves herself and it is obvious to all. She is empowered.

I am delighted that I was able to be a small part of her process. This is one of the things I love about what I do. During this holiday season, please think about those you have helped, even a little, and how they have advanced because of your influence. Give yourself the credit you deserve and please, enjoy your holiday season - with peace, love and understanding. ~ Kat

New Public Access Rules for Judicial Branch to Take Effect January 1, 2010

2009-12-15T17:49:00.000-08:00

At Meeting Today, Judicial Council Takes Other Actions on Legislative Priorities, Judicial Benefits

San Francisco—The Judicial Council of California today approved new court rules that set forth comprehensive public access provisions applicable to judicial administrative records maintained by state trial and appellate courts, the Judicial Council, and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).

Effective January 1, 2010, the rules implement Government Code section 68106.2(g), which was added by Senate Bill X4 13 as part of the State Budget Act.

“The rules adopted today acknowledge the judicial branch’s strong support of the public’s right of access to information about its activities,” stated Chief Justice Ronald M. George, chair of the Judicial Council. “They grant broad access to judicial administrative records, and at the same time recognize the unique role and function of the judicial branch of government.”

The rules are based on the California Public Records Act, applicable to state executive branch agencies, and also include concepts drawn from the Freedom of Information Act, applicable to federal executive branch agencies. New rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court includes the following:

Provides that judicial administrative records, as opposed to “adjudicative records,” are open to the public unless specifically exempt. The rule does not apply to “adjudicative” court records—such as those prepared for or filed or used in a court proceeding or in the judicial deliberation process—which are already governed by a large body of case law.
Exempts from disclosure the same information that is exempt from access under the California Public Records Act—such as personnel, medical, and similar records—and modifies these exemptions and includes others where appropriate to address the specific functions of the judicial branch.
Clarifies the fees that a judicial branch entity may charge in responding to requests for copies of judicial administrative records. A judicial branch entity will be able to recover a fee representing its direct costs of duplication. In the case of requests for records for commercial use, a judicial branch entity will be able to recover a fee representing the costs of document search and review.
Sets standards for response times to requests for administrative records that reflect the requirements of the California Public Records Act. A judicial branch entity will be required to respond to a request for administrative records within 10 calendar days from receipt of the request by providing a determination as to whether records will be available or the reason they will be withheld. Once a judicial branch entity has determined that it has records that are responsive to a request, that entity must make the records available promptly.

The rules were drafted in consultation with a judicial working group that included representatives from the appellate courts, trial courts, and California Judges Association. The rules also reflect input from legislative staff, trial court employee labor unions, and groups advocating open access to government information.

At its meeting today, the Judicial Council directed the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to compile and present to the council by December 31, 2011, branchwide information about the impact of the new rules on the courts. The report on the new access rules is available on the California Courts Web site at this link: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/documents/reports/121509item14.pdf .

The complete agenda is available at this link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/documents/age121509.pdf .

OTHER ACTIONS

Legislative Priorities: The council voted to seek sufficient funding from the Legislature to avoid statewide court closures. The council also decided to continue to seek legislative authorization for a third set of 50 judgeships due to the urgent need for new judgeships in the trial courts. In 2005, the council received funding for the first set of 50 judgeships, which were appointed by the Governor. The second set of judgeships was approved in 2007 but was not funded. The third set of judgeships, if approved, would be allocated based on the 2008 Judicial Needs Assessment.

Disparities in Judicial Benefits: The council accepted a report to the Legislature that analyzes the historical disparities in supplemental judicial benefits in state trial courts. About 90 percent of superior court judges serve in courts where some form of supplemental benefits is provided, the report concludes. The disparity among judges can be significant: some judges receive no supplemental benefits while others receive a supplemental benefits package worth approximately $50,000 a year. The report responds to Senate Bill X2 11, which requires the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature on this issue by December 31, 2009. The report recommends that the council study this area further.

Court Management Compensation: The council accepted an interim report on the salaries and benefits of court executive officers in the state trial courts, in addition to recommendations that will ensure appropriate accountability. The council directed the AOC to prepare the report following the release of a special audit in 2008 to the Superior Court of Placer County. The report contains data collected from the courts and a model personnel policy that courts can use when setting, reviewing, and modifying court executive salaries and benefits. Proposed amendments to the California Rules of Court will be circulated for public comment in mid-December and submitted to the Judicial Council in April 2010.

California Supreme Court to Close Los Angeles Clerk’s Office

2009-12-07T10:37:00.000-08:00

San Francisco – Chief Justice Ronald M. George has announced that the California Supreme Court will close its satellite Clerk’s Office in the Ronald Reagan Building at 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, at the close of business effective December 31, 2009.

The decision to close the office was made for budgetary reasons, following a review of the work processed by the office and the cost of operations.

“The Supreme Court regrets making this decision, but it is important during tough economic times to carefully scrutinize the court’s filing practices and procedures and find cost savings and efficiencies where possible,” stated Chief Justice George. “I give many thanks to our Los Angeles employees who staff the Clerk’s Office for their loyalty and dedication to excellent public service.”

The Los Angeles Clerk’s Office is staffed by a supervising deputy clerk and two deputy clerks. Like the court’s headquarters office in San Francisco, the Los Angeles office receives Supreme Court filings and documents from court users. After the initial case data is entered into the automated system, all case files and documents are shipped to the San Francisco Clerk’s office where additional clerical work is performed before the cases are assigned to the court’s legal staff.

Effective January 1, 2010, all petitions for review, writs, and legal briefs must be filed directly with the Clerk’s Office at the Earl Warren Building, First Floor, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco. The closure of the Los Angeles Clerk’s Office will not change the Supreme Court’s practice of regularly holding oral argument in Los Angeles (typically in April, June, October and December).

Elkins Family Law Task Force: Comments on the Draft Recommendations

2009-12-04T22:55:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, ALDAP submitted these comments in response to the invitation to comment on the Elkins Family Law Task Force Draft Recommendations to increase access to justice for all family law litigants, ensure fairness and due process, and provide for more effective and consistent family law rules, policies, and procedures. We appreciate the opportunity to familiarize task force participants with the LDA profession, and to voice our strong support of these efforts to simplify and standardize procedures in the family law courts.

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers Low Cost MCLE

2009-12-01T12:12:00.000-08:00

Economic Analysis in Personal Injury Cases

December 8, 2009 (Tuesday) 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm
Instructor: George Jouganatos, Ph.D.
www.jouganatos.com

2 hours MCLE credit
Fee: $55.00

This class will cover valuation in a personal injury case. Topics on compensatory damages to be discussed include: future life care expenses, loss of household services, impaired earning capacity, salary base, wage growth rate, discount rate, retraining costs, pension loss, loss of benefits, present value of future loss, 'lost years,' worklife expectancy issue, and brief overview of valuation in a wrongful death case.

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online. Go to “News & Events” at www.saclaw.org to view the complete Schedule of available Fall '09 classes.

Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and receive validation for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.874.8541
www.saclaw.org

Google Scholar Offers Free Case Law

2009-12-01T12:03:00.000-08:00

Google Scholar now offers free case law. You can find and read full-text legal opinions from U.S. federal and state courts, including district, appellate, and supreme court opinions, through Google Scholar. Opinions can be searched by case name, subject topics, or other queries that you are interested in.

To conduct a search, go to Google Scholar, click on the "Legal opinions and journals" button, then enter your query. Your search results will include links to complete opinions.

The "Advanced Scholar Search" options allow you to set your default search on your computer to: all legal opinions and journals; only US federal court opinions; or whichever state(s) you wish, such as "only California."

You can explore cited and related cases using the "Cited by" and "Related articles" links on the search result pages, too. As you read an opinion, you can even view other cases to which it refers by clicking on the linked citation within the opinion.

You can also see how individual cases have been quoted or discussed in other opinions and in articles from law journals. Browse these by clicking on the "How Cited" link next to the case title.

http://scholar.google.com/

The above information was provided by Tina at the San Diego County Public Law Library. Law librarians work diligently to assist us in the pursuit of resources on behalf of our clients. Show your thanks to the courts and library personnel during this holiday season by showing your support their fundraising and book/food/clothing drives.

San Diego County Public Law Library Children's Book Drive

2009-12-01T12:00:00.000-08:00

Holiday Children's Book Drive

By Barbara T.

San Diego Area Law Libraries (SANDALL) and SDCPLL are partnering for a children's book drive to benefit UPLIFT's "Kids at Heart" program.

UPLIFT offers tutoring and mentoring for low income and racially diverse children in grades K-12. Many of these children struggle in school because of language barriers and poverty. Through UPLIFT's tutoring programs, their overall reading levels have increased an average of 83.5% in the last two school years.

Bring your new or gently used children's books to any branch of the San Diego County Public Law Library during the month of December.

Sacramento Public Law Library Offers MCLE

2009-11-20T11:04:00.000-08:00

Economic Analysis in Personal Injury Cases

December 8, 2009 (Tuesday)
2:00 pm to 4:00 pm
Instructor: George Jouganatos, Ph.D.
www.jouganatos.com

2 hours MCLE credit
Register HERE: $55.00

This class will cover valuation in a personal injury case. Topics on compensatory damages to be discussed include: future life care expenses, loss of household services, impaired earning capacity, salary base, wage growth rate, discount rate, retraining costs, pension loss, loss of benefits, present value of future loss, 'lost years,' worklife expectancy issue, and brief overview of valuation in a wrongful death case.

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online. Go to “News & Events” from our home page at www.saclaw.org to view the complete Schedule of Fall '09 Classes Available Now. Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.874.8541
www.saclaw.org

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers MCLE Course on Outlook Calendaring and Task Management

2009-11-19T13:37:00.000-08:00

Microsoft® Outlook 2003 for Legal Professionals

Part A Managing Calendars & Tasks

December 2, 2009 (Wednesday)

6:00 pm to 8:00 pm

Instructor: Joani Nicholson, Legal Secretary to Christopher Miller of Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnsen, APC

This hands-on computer class will cover how to manage your calendar, tasks, create legal search folders, sort, and categorize email messages.

2 hours MCLE credit
Register HERE: $65.00

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online. Go to “News & Events” from our home page at www.saclaw.org to view the complete Schedule of Fall '09 Classes Available Now.

Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

CAPA Leadership Conference: “CliffsNotes™” & Kudos

2009-11-17T13:21:00.000-08:00

On Saturday, November 7, we attended the 7th bi-annual leadership conference presented by the California Alliance of Paralegal Associations (CAPA). “Surf, Sun and Sand: Making Waves with Strong Leadership,” hosted by the San Diego Paralegal Association (SDPA), was top-notch in every respect – with engaging dialogue, cautionary tales related to fiduciary duty, inspirational ideas, and practical “how-to” tips to move our organization – and the profession – forward.

Presentations included team-building exercises, interactive “conflict” creation and resolution, proper parliamentary procedure, financial accountability for non-profit organizations, membership development and retention, social networking, and a lively discussion of Juror #8’s (Henry Fonda) dissent, courage and leadership in the 1957 classic, "12 Angry Men." Click here for photos from the event.

We came away from this event energized and inspired, and I eagerly look forward to implementing the ideas that evolved out the subsequent brainstorming discussion! I envision a day when the LDA community has truly educated the bench, the bar and the general public about the proper role of LDAs in the efficient delivery of legal services and court operations. If you share the same vision, please join us to make it a reality – our reality. Fill a vacant board position. Join a committee. Or simply log on to Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn and share your $.02!

“As leaders in our community, it is imperative that we constantly strive to improve ourselves and add to our skill sets in order to keep a fresh vision and to feed our passion to benefit those we serve,” wrote CAPA President Mel Irvin. I could not have said it better myself. Kudos to CAPA and SDPA for a great event!

Note: CliffsNotes™ is a trademark of Wiley Publishing, Inc. in the United States and other countries.

Sacramento Public Law Library Offers MCLE and Insight into Sacramento Superior Court's Case Management System

2009-11-10T13:13:00.000-08:00

Sacramento Superior Court’s Court Case Management System

November 20, 2009 (Friday)
2:30pm to 3:30pm
Instructor: Kim Kohler,
Civil Support Manager, Sacramento Superior Court

1 hour MCLE credit Register HERE: $10.00

Listen to the Sacramento Superior Court’s Civil Support Manager discuss the best practices of the Court Case Management System process (CCMS). You will learn how many copies are required for your filing; how to handle multiple case filings with less stress; and more.

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online. Go to “News & Events” from our home page at www.saclaw.org to view the complete Schedule of Fall '09 Classes Available Now. Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.
________________________________________

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
916.874.8541
www.saclaw.org

Sacramento Public Law Library Offers Google Course

2009-11-10T11:02:00.000-08:00

Getting More from: GOOGLE Tips for Legal Professionals
November 18, 2009 (Wednesday)
2:30pm to 4:30pm
Instructors: SCPLL Law Librarians

Regular Google users will learn new tips and tricks for conducting sophisticated searches and how to use Google to attract clients.
Register at www.Saclaw.org: $30.00

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online. Go to “News & Events” from our home page at www.saclaw.org to view the complete Schedule of Fall '09 Classes Available now. Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 2nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.874.8541

We Like the Practising Law Institute for MCLE

2009-11-08T13:47:00.000-08:00

Knock Off Your Requirements Without Leaving Your Home or Office

There are thousands of MCLE providers in California. If you are diligent and do your research you can find many pro bono offerings of MCLE programs. As we near the end of 2009, many of us are searching for the last hour or few hours of required legal education. PLI offers MCLE at cost, but also offers a variety of pro bono courses in many subjects, including ethics. Maintaining your MCLE credits is mandatory for paralegals in California. Don't lose your paralegal standing by falling short. Register at PLI and take advantage of its offerings.

Practising Law Institute is a non-profit continuing legal education organization chartered by the Regents of the University of the State of New York.

Founded in 1933, PLI is dedicated to providing the legal community and allied professionals with the most up-to-date, relevant information and techniques which are critical to the development of a professional, competitive edge. We achieve these goals through the highest quality Seminars held annually in locations across the United States, annually supplemented Treatises, Audio CDs and DVDs, MP3s, Live Webcasts, Course Handbooks, CLE Now web programs, Private Label Solutions and PLI XChange, all with the guidance of practice specific Advisory Committees.

San Diego Begins Negoiations for New Superior Court

2009-11-02T19:04:00.000-08:00

New Courthouses Are In the Works for the State of California

County officials want to give the State of California a city block so the state can replace the old county courthouse originally built in 1961 with a 17-story Superior Court complex that would consolidate services in a new downtown San Diego high-rise courthouse building. The building would include 71 courtrooms — of which there is a great need. If the deal is approved the $550 million construction project could be completed by 2015.

The newer Hall of Justice, just west of the old courthouse, would be unaffected.
The site for the new courthouse is known as the “Stahlman Block” which is bounded by Union, West B, State and West C streets. The county has been buying parcels there since supervisors realized they eventually would need more space. The block was appraised last year at about $36 million.

The high-rise would be built using a portion of the $5 billion in state bond money approved for new courthouses. The money would be repaid through parking and court fee increases.

The San Diego project is considered critical by state officials, and the county is getting a larger share of the state bond money than usual as a result. In exchange for giving the state the Stahlman Block, the county would regain ownership of two nearby buildings that supervisors gave to the state last year.

The two facilities that would return to county ownership are the Madge Bradley Building on Fourth Avenue and the Family Court Building on Sixth Avenue. The state would keep using them until the new courthouse is opened.

Many other counties are looking at upgrading court facilities. The courthouses are outdated and crowded. New facilities are needed throughout the state.

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers MCLE and Writing Course

2009-10-27T16:36:00.000-07:00

Legal Writing from Basics to Blogging

November 4, 2009 (Wednesday)
6:00 pm to 8:00 pm

Instructor: Jonathan G. Stein & Christine McKenzie, Attorneys at Law

This seminar will encompass the essentials of legal writing, including a survey of grammar, citations, titles, word usage and formatting specific to the legal arena. The program will also cover the issues involved with writing a legal blog, website or other Web 2.0 application. What works for court does not necessarily work for the Internet! The program will cover the basics of who, what, where, when, why and how, as well as whether you should be on the Internet (yes) and under what circumstances.

2 hours MCLE credit
Register at www.SacLaw.org: $55.00

Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and obtain validation.

Sacramento County Public Law Library, 813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.874.854

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers MCLE

2009-10-21T11:05:00.000-07:00

Consumer Fraud & Debt Relief

October 30, 2009 Friday
2:30pm to 4:00pm
Speaker: Stuart Talley, Partner, Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP

Listen to a legal expert on consumer fraud and debt relief discuss how to deal with illegal debt consolidation and mortgage loan modification scams. You will learn how to identify firms that break the law with a focus on the Check Sellers, Bill Payers, and Proraters Law, B & P Code 17200, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and more.

1.5 MCLE credits Fee: $50.00

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online at www.saclaw.org to view the complete Schedule of Fall '09 Classes Available Now.

Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Reminder: California State Courts Closed Wednesday, October 21

2009-10-20T17:22:00.000-07:00

All California state courts will close Wednesday, October 21, 2009, as a cost-saving measure to help courts cope with unprecedented budget reductions in the judicial branch of government.

Authorized by Government Code section 68106, which was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, the Judicial Council approved the court closures on the third Wednesday of the month starting in September 2009 and continuing through June 2010.

“The mission of the Judicial Council is to improve access to justice, so it was extremely difficult for us to make any decision that results in closing our courts,” stated Chief Justice Ronald M. George, chair of the Judicial Council, the 27-member policymaking body for the state courts.

In the face of severe budget reductions, however, the Chief Justice stated that the council approved the closures as a way to partially offset the budget cutbacks while seeking to protect court employees and critical court programs that provide services to the public.

Court Closure Days

All state courts will be closed on October 21, 2009: the Supreme Court of California, the Courts of Appeal, and the superior courts in each of California’s 58 counties. The Administrative Office of the Courts will be closed on the same day as the courts.

This is the second day that state courts have closed. The remaining court closure days are November 18, 2009; December 16, 2009; January 20, 2010; February 17, 2010; March 17, 2010; April 21, 2010; May 19, 2010; and June 16, 2010.

Closing state courts one day a month may result in savings of about $94.3 million statewide. In addition to court closures, the Judicial Council took other actions to reduce the impact of the judicial branch’s $414 million budget reduction.

The council reallocated $165 million in special funds to offset cuts to the trial court operations budget. The special funds address a portion of the court funding cuts and unfunded growth costs for court security, dependency counsel for children in neglect and abuse cases, court interpreters for those who speak little or no English, and employee retirement costs. The council also allocated $46.7 million in projected new fee revenues to the trial courts.

Court closure days are to be counted as holidays for the purpose of computing time for statutory deadlines. See the full report approved by the Judicial Council at this link: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/documents/age072909.pdf.

National Freedom of Speech Week 10/29-10/25

2009-10-19T13:34:00.000-07:00

Celebrate National Freedom of Speech Week With ALDAP

October 19-25, 2009

The American Bar Association Division for Public Education provides national leadership in educating the public about the law, legal issues, and legal institutions. It works in partnership with bar associations, courts, educational institutions, civic organizations, and others to reach diverse public audiences. Its programs, publications, and resources are designed to educate and inform youth, undergraduate students, and adults.

This week the ABA asks all Americans to participate in National Freedom of Speech Week. The 1st amendment of the US Constitution allows all Americans freedom of speech and reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
- First Amendment, US Constitution

Join ALDAP in celebrating National Freedom of Speech Week by taking a moment to reflect upon the military service people who defend our rights daily on foreign soil, far from home and hearth.

Sac Law Library Offers MCLE and Legal Writing Course

2009-10-19T11:10:00.000-07:00

Persuasive Writing for the Legal Professional: Demand Letters and Motions

October 28, 2009 (Wednesday)
6:00 pm to 8:00 pm

Instructor: Christine McKenzie, Attorney at Law

Want to enhance your legal writing skills? This seminar will emphasize persuasive, descriptive and succinct writing, and the organization and execution of an effective demand letter and motions in particular.

2-hours MCLE credit

Register HERE: $55.00

Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and Sac Law will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.874.8541
http://www.saclaw.org/

Placer Superior Court Posts January 2010 Rule Amendments

2009-10-19T09:49:00.001-07:00

Placer County Superior Court has posted a copy of new rules to go into effect January 2010. To view a copy of the Rules including revisions, go to: http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/fees/Local-Rules-Effective-1-1-10-(Draft).pdf

$500 Million Courthouse to be Built in Sacramento

2009-10-16T23:52:00.000-07:00

Nacht & Lewis Architects and HOK have been chosen to design a new courthouse in Sacramento, the Judicial Council of California’s Administrative Office of the Courts announced Friday.

The $500 million project is scheduled to start in 2012, though no location has been set.

The new courthouse would take pressure off the overcrowded Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse on 9th Street in downtown Sacramento. The plans call for building 35 courtrooms in the new facility. Twenty-six of the 44 criminal courtrooms at the existing courthouse would be relocated to the new facility.

The new courthouse will be funded under Senate Bill 1407, which was passed by the Legislature last year and established a lease-revenue bond fund of up to $5 billion to rebuild courthouses in California.

Nacht & Lewis was founded in Sacramento in 1922 by Leonard Starks. The company’s portfolio includes the U.S. Federal Courthouse in Sacramento and the Sacramento County Jail.

HOK is an international design firm founded in 1955 by George Hellmuth, Gyo Obata and George Kassabaum.

Reprinted from the Sacramento Business Journal

Trust Mills Busted for UPL

2009-10-16T11:02:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court in Ohio recently fined two companies for the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). The defendants, Heritage Marking and Insurance Services Inc and American Family Prepaid Legal Corporation have been banned from doing business in the state and were fined $6,387,990 in penalties.

The Columbas Bar Association pursued the case in which sales were made to elderly residents persuading them to pay $1,995.00 for living trusts instead of making wills.

Although the payment supposedly included various legal services, the court says in its written opinion, "almost exclusively ... the only legal service that the plan members received was the preparation of a living-trust document and related estate-planning instruments such as powers of attorney and a living will."

Let us hope that all "trust mills" and other related companies will someday cease to exist.

ALDAP Helps California Make History

2009-10-14T15:17:00.000-07:00

On October 11, 2009, California's Governor signed AB 590 California's "Right to Counsel" legislation, scheduled to go into effect July 2011 as a pilot project.

ALDAP directly assisted Kevin Baker, Deputy Chief Counsel of the Judicary Committee and the writer of California's "Right To Counsel" legislation, with the revision of the bill in the Senate. ALDAP was the first to learn of contradictory provisions and alert Assemblyman Feuer of potential harm to California's consumers, the bar, and California's Legal Document Assistants.

Kathleen Mountjoy, President of ALDAP, discovered the then-pending legislation just prior to the last day for amendment and ALDAP immediately set about correcting the language of the proposed bill - language which would have effectively outlawed most services currently provided by LDAs and other self-help legal service providers. "It seemed strange to me that nobody else in our profession seemed concerned and when I mentioned the language, others thought my interpretation was erroneous - I wrote to Feuer anyway, and the next day Kevin Baker phoned me expressing his gratitude for our catch and apologizing to 'the good people, like you, who provide much needed services to Californians.' I am just glad that we decided to act rather than sit on our hands. This proves ALDAP's dedication to California's consumers and to our profession."

ALDAP, the leading association for California's self-help legal service providers, is non-profit, mutual benefit corporation serving registered Legal Document Assistants (LDAs) and freelance paralegal/LDA dual-professionals. ALDAP’s mission is to promote the LDA profession by providing seminars for continuing legal education, strengthening professional status by establishing and promoting support for professional standards and regulatory compliance, and communicating with the legal community and the general public.

AB 590 Assembly Bill - History

Sacramento Public Law Library Offers Internet Legal Research Course

2009-10-13T16:08:00.000-07:00

Legal Research on the Internet

October 21, 2009 (Wednesday)
1:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Instructors: SCPLL Law Librarians

This hands-on computer class will concentrate on California sources for case law, statutes, regulations and more!

3-hours MCLE credit
Register HERE: $50.00
Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online. Go to “News & Events” from our home page at www.saclaw.org to view the complete Schedule of Fall '09 Classes Available Now.

Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 2nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.874.8541
www.saclaw.org

Schwarzenegger Vetoes SB 641

2009-10-12T17:08:00.000-07:00

State Bar Dues Bill For 2010 Vetoed by Governor

The California State Bar regulates more than 220,000 lawyers who practice in the state and is facing uncertainty following the governor’s veto of its annual dues bill for 2010.

Senate Bill 641 by Democratic state Sen. Ellen Corbett from San Leandro would have allowed the State Bar to continue to collect membership dues of $410 next year. The veto serves to pull the plug on the organization next year unless there is some action to remedy the situation.

The veto follows a critical report by the State Auditor in July that cited numerous problems, including:

• The cost of its disciplinary system increased by $12 million from 2004 to 2008, while the number of disciplinary inquiries declined.

• A lack of internal controls allowed a former employee to embezzle almost $676,000 from the organization.

• Recent actions by the State Bar’s Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission call into question the organization’s impartiality in considering judicial appointments.

“There is no question the State Bar has an essential role in the state’s justice system and must continue to oversee the licensing, education and discipline of California lawyers. However, I am returning this bill without my signature because the State Bar cannot continue with business as usual,” Schwarzenegger said in his veto message. “I urge the State Bar to resolve these issues as soon as possible so the Legislature can reintroduce this measure early next year.”

State Bar president Howard Miller called the veto “regrettable,” but said the organization must take the concerns seriously.

“Many of them are justified,” Miller said in a prepared statement. “There have been serious management and financial issues at the State Bar, starting with the embezzlement by a single employee over an eight-year period of $675,000. . . . Events such as (the ) veto message can challenge the State Bar to renew itself as an institution and its service to the public and the legal profession. I am confident the Board of Governors is up to that challenge.”

Former Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed the annual dues bill in 1997, citing concerns the organization had become overly political, unresponsive to its membership and inefficient. The cash-strapped bar had to lay off almost 500 employees and essentially shut down its disciplinary system before former Gov. Gray Davis revived the organization when he signed a new dues bill in 1999. It specified reforms and required the organization to submit regular financial and performance audits.

Federal Rule Change Re Computation of Time

2009-10-11T22:33:00.000-07:00

On December 1st, when the amendments to the Federal Rules become effective, a day will be counted as a day, whether it is a weekend day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, or any other recognized holiday day. That will be true regardless of the number of days allowed for the response.

New Rule 6(a)(1)(B) states: "to count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays." The Report of the Judicial Conference states that the reason for the change was to "make the method of computing time consistent, simpler, and clearer." If a deadline is measured in hours, The new Rule says hours are counted the same way. Every hour is counted.

Counting Is Different Depending On Whether You Are Counting Forward Or Backward

The basic rules of when to start counting days, and when to stop, won't change under the new Rule. The day of the act or event that triggers the count still isn't included. You start counting the following day. If the last day of the count falls on a weekend day or on a state or federal holiday, the count still extends forward to the next day that is not a weekend day or holiday.
The count also gets extended if the final day falls on a day that the court is "inaccessible," to the first accessible day. The term "inaccessible" isn't limited, as it is currently, to lack of accessibility caused by "weather or other conditions." The new advisory committee notes to Rule 6 suggest that inaccessibility might include "an outage of the electronic filing system.

Things are also different if you are counting backwards. The new Rule 6 allows you to get to the "next day" when counting backwards, you continue to count backwards if the last day of the count is a weekend or holiday. So if your last day is Saturday, the filing is due the Friday before that Saturday.

Holidays are treated differently between a backward count and a forward count. If you are counting backwards, and the last day is a state holiday (not a federal holiday), then the count ends on the state holiday. If you hit a federal holiday, however, you continue counting backwards to the next business day. But forward counts treat state and federal holidays in the same way.

New Definition Of The "Last Day"

There's now specific definition of the meaning of "last day," contained in new Rule 6(a)(4). For paper filings, the last day ends "when the clerk's office is scheduled to close." For electronic filing, the last day ends "at midnight in the court's time zone."

What About Three Days For Mailing?

Rule 6(d), which gives lawyers an additional three days if served by mail or e-filing, remains the same. That seems odd, given the definition of "last day" taking into account e-filing procedures and the widespread use of electronic filing.

Response Periods For Discovery Responses, Summary Judgment, And Other Matters

The change in counting methodology resulted in the adjustment of a number of different response time periods set out in the Rules.

The time for responding to a complaint, formerly 20 days, will be 21 days.

As for summary judgment, there is a new version of Rule 56(c)(1)(A), which says that in the absence of local rule, a party can move for summary judgment at any time up until thirty days after the close of discovery. The response is due 21 days later, and the reply is due 14 days after that.

The time for responding to interrogatories and document requests isn't affected by the rule changes and are still thirty days. Learn more from an powerpoint from the federal judiciary website, titled "The Days Of Our District Court Lives."

Sacramento County Public Law Library Offers 2 Hours MCLE

2009-10-08T11:32:00.000-07:00

California Homeowners' Associations: Discrimination, Civil Rights and Foreclosure

October 16, 2009 (Friday)
2:00pm to 4:00pm
Instructors: Marjorie Murray, President, Center for CA Homeowner Association Law and Michael L. Johnson, Attorney at Law

State law lets California's 46,000 homeowner associations foreclose - just like banks - when a homeowner falls behind on paying assessments. Do associations foreclose disproportionately against seniors and the disabled? This class will cover association foreclosure and its intersection with fair housing, civil rights and discrimination issues.

2-hours MCLE credit
Register HERE: $55.00

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online.

Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance G Street 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 2nd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
916.874.8541
http://www.saclaw.org/

Sacramento Public Law Library Offers Low Cost MCLE

2009-10-05T12:18:00.000-07:00

1.5 Credits $10.00

LEXIS I

In this hands-on computer class you will learn how to develop a search request, find cases and other documents by topic, by citation, or by party name using the LexisNexis services. In addition, you will learn how to use the SHEPARD'S Citation Service.

October 14 , 2009 (Wednesday) 2:30pm to 4:00pm
Instructor: Shannon Downs, Solutions Consultant withLexisNexis www.lexis.com

1.5-hours MCLE $10.00

Use your MasterCard® or VISA® to register online. Go to “News & Events” from our home page at www.saclaw.org to view the complete Schedule of Fall '09 Classes Available Now.

Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance G Street & 7th.
Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.
Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 2nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.874.8541
www.saclaw.org

San Diego Public Law Libraries offer low cost MCLE

2009-10-01T14:17:00.000-07:00

Upcoming Classes for October & November

Pre-registration is required for all classes, as seating is limited.

The following classes are free to Law Library members and $5 for non-members.

OCTOBER
North County Branch (760) 940-4386
Using Westlaw* by Westlaw Representative Trevor Covington, Esq. Thursday, October 8, 2009 12:00 - 1:00 pm
South Bay Branch (619) 691-4929
Using Lexis* Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:00 - 1:00 pm
Main Branch (619) 531-3900
Child Support and Custody* by Michele S. Lowenstein, Esq. Monday, October 26, 2009 12:00 - 1:00 pm
Law Made Public Saturday, October 17, 2009 2:00 - 3:00 pm
Legal Research Using Free Websites* Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:00 - 1:00 pm

NOVEMBER
Main Branch (619) 531-3900
Practical Legal Research Saturday, November 14, 2009 2:00 - 4:00 pm
Using Westlaw* Monday, November 16, 2009 12:00 - 1:00 pm
Using Lexis* Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:00 - 1:00 pm*MCLE Participatory Credit hour(s) available for these classes.

The San Diego County Public Law Library is a State Bar approved MCLE provider.

(Penny) wise Justice For California

2009-09-25T21:21:00.000-07:00

Reprinted from the Los Angeles Times September 25, 2009 Editorial

A legislative bill offers a smart, cost-effective way to provide civil case legal counsel to those who can't afford it.

It would be a mockery of justice and a waste of resources to force criminal defendants to trial without counsel. Not knowing rules of evidence, not realizing they are waiving their rights, unaware of the pitfalls of pleading to lesser charges, lawyerless defendants would be lost in a system that purports to grant equal justice. They would needlessly consume jurors' time as they flounder through trials, then would clog appellate courts while pursuing the justice they were denied in lower courts.

But society, as well as the accused, is protected by the 6th Amendment right to counsel. Ever since the Supreme Court, in the historic case of Gideon vs. Wainwright, extended the right to counsel to state as well as federal trials in 1963, courts have supplied lawyers for defendants who can't afford them. It has proved to be quite a bargain all around.

Yet, on any given day, more than 4 million Californians who can't afford lawyers stand in jeopardy of losing their homes, the custody of their children, even the power to make their own decisions. Their fundamental rights are at stake, but in civil court. They are not charged with crimes, so the 6th Amendment does not guarantee their right to counsel.

Seniors without lawyers are too often cornered into guardianships by unscrupulous caregivers; unwary homeowners end up on the street; parents lose their children. Proceedings grind to a halt as judges try simultaneously to retain their neutrality and to ensure that the unrepresented are not improperly fleeced. Every Californian pays for this foolishness in higher costs for courts and county services.

Political activist and innovator Sargent Shriver helped launch the movement to provide legal services to those who can't afford them, but current programs and funding cover only about a third of indigent Californians who need lawyers. Now Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has the opportunity to remedy the problem while making the state a national leader in innovative and cost-effective ways to guarantee access to the justice system. He should sign AB 590 by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles).

Schwarzenegger helped champion the idea, only to see it founder when the fiscal crisis compelled him to redirect the funding -- from modest increases in filing fees for various court papers -- to the courts'operating budget. Those increases already are in place; this bill leaves them untouched for two years, then directs the proceeds to two three-year cycles of pilot projects providing legal representation. Then, importantly, it sunsets the fee increases.

Money would not be spent haphazardly; it could be used only in matters involving housing, restraining orders, elder abuse, child custody, conservatorships and guardianships. The bill mandates that courts develop criteria for providing counsel and evaluation of the program's effectiveness. It includes flexibility for course corrections if warranted. It offers a smart, creative way to protect the rights of litigants and preserve the resources of the courts -- while making the best use of scarce tax dollars.

Roundtable Recap: Helping Your Clients Be the Best Lawyers They Can Be

2009-09-25T14:29:00.001-07:00

ALDAP's LDA Roundtable Discussion on September 11 enjoyed an unprecedented turnout, with standing room only. Many of us arrived early - and stayed quite late - chatting, exchanging ideas and sharing tips with one another.

We have made the printed handouts available for download by clicking this link. View more photos on ALDAP's Facebook page.

Stay tuned! LDA Roundtable Discussion: Helping Your Clients Be the Best Lawyers They Can Be: Tips to Enhance Your LDA Practice and Successfully Carve Out Your Niche as the Go-To Resource for Do-It-Yourselfers is going on the road. Watch for northern California dates in the near future.

California State Bar 82nd Meeting Recap

2009-09-15T21:42:00.000-07:00

ALDAP was well represented at the 82nd Meeting of the California State Bar held September 10th through the 13th at the Hyatt Manchester in San Diego, California.

The Hyatt is an overwhelmingly beautiful hotel and is quite new. The two towers rise above downtown San Diego as the tallest buildings in the area. The grounds are tastefully opulent, with a fresh breezy renaissance décor, lots of marble, windows and columns. We found areas to hide and even found our way into the hotel’s very own floral room where the flower shop personnel design arrangements. Parking is adjacent to the hotel with elevators that descend directly into the lobby area. The meeting registration was a breeze even though we arrived during the height of activity.

The hotel sits adjacent to Seaport Village, a lovely bayside park-like area full of shops and restaurants with places to sit and people-watch. Along the pier is an art and crafts fair with booths of all kinds. We spent a great deal of our “off” time between and after classes sitting and talking at the tables and benches that line the walkways. Seaport Village boasts five-star restaurants and we took advantage of early dining pricing to sample the food from some of the more expensive menus.

Besides the opportunity to complete our CLE requirements, the meeting allowed for ample networking and discussion of non-attorney legal service providers. The Exhibitors Hall was full with booths and representatives dealing their various products and subscriptions. We were pleased to find that we were well received not only by the other attendees, but also by the vendors who of course realize that we also have buying power. We were buried in handouts and little chotchkies. The exhibitors hall was the source of complimentary cupcakes, cookies and drinks as well as ice creams and other goodies, and provided attendees with a one-stop shopping for their professional needs. Handel on the Law broadcasted directly from the meeting on Saturday and the day proved to be lively. We made a lot of friends and contacts throughout the entire event.

While some courses left a bit to be desired, many were excellent. We availed ourselves of every technology class we could possibly attend, meeting to evaluate our choices and promising to share the handouts for those courses that the others could not attend. During the meeting it was brought to our attention that West was giving away thumb drives so that attendees could download all of the program materials. Small State Bar kiosks were arranged strategically throughout the hotel with laptops so that attendees could download materials at their convenience. I downloaded only the materials of interest to my practice and it took an hour and a half – that is how extensive the course offerings were.

Suzanne selected Martin Dean’s course on technology which I skipped only to learn later that Martin Dean, himself, was the lecturer and has been for several years. Suzanne related that the seminar was enjoyable and quite entertaining. She found it to be the most interesting of all of the technology courses she attended. Many of the courses were interactive and I was proud to participate in many question/answer sessions, proving my knowledge of the legal system and its processes, particularly in a course on new legislation.

I walked away with 9 CLE credits, 3 of which were in ethics. I wanted to knock off the last Ethics hour by attending Sunday morning’s "What Would Lincoln Do?" Suzanne later reported that the course was interactive and quite enjoyable. Unfortunately, Sunday morning found me to be completely exhausted and unwilling to give up sleeping in and hitting the beach to earn one more hour of credit. I awoke late and enjoyed fresh squeezed OJ and a lobster and shrimp omelet at the beach, taking time out to just sit and relax in the sun. After four full days of classes and crazy evenings, I was due for some time to myself. It felt marvelous.

The cost of the meeting was an affordable $275 for the four day event and I have to say I certainly got great value for my money.

Next year’s meeting is scheduled to take place in Monterey and we have already promised all our new friends that we see them there – I can hardly wait!

Sac Law Library MCLE - Internet Marketing/Research

2009-09-15T13:30:00.000-07:00

WEB 2.0 for Lawyers: Reposition Yourself on the Internet

September 30, 2009 (Wednesday) 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm

Instructor: Kate Fitz, SCPLL Law Librarian

2-hours MCLE credit Cost:$30.00

“Web 2.0" tools abound - blogs, social networks, Wikis, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, RSS feeds, and much more. Many of these tools are free. This session will show you how to use these tools to keep up-to-date, enhance your research and collaborative work, network with colleagues, experts, and others, and even gather information related to cases. Participants will receive handouts including links to the featured web tool images.

Parking validation available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
916.874.8541

www.saclaw.org

Sacramento County Law Library MCLE

2009-09-14T10:25:00.000-07:00

Efficient Paper Document Management, Review & Production

September 29, 2009 (Tuesday)
2:00pm to 3:00pm

Instructors: Ron Bodemann and Alan Humason, Mirror Imaging Document Solutions

Legal documentation: copy...copy...scan!? This class will cover electronic document imaging, including the importance of Tif v. Pdf formats, resolution options, and redacting capabilities; integrating paper collections into databases from different document sources; using online repositories, e.g., iConectNxt, Catalyst, and kCura Relativity; and incorporating trial presentations e.g., Trial Director and Sanction, and more.

1-hour MCLE credit

Cost: $30.00
Register online at http://www.saclaw.org/

State Courts To Close One Day a Month Starting 9/16/09

2009-09-08T12:54:00.000-07:00

Closures Result of Unprecedented State Budget Cuts

All California state courts will close Wednesday, September 16, 2009, as a cost-savings measure to help courts cope with unprecedented budget reductions in the judicial branch of government.

As recently authorized by Government Code section 68106 which was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, the Judicial Council approved the court closures on the third Wednesday of the month starting in September 2009 and continuing through June 2010.

“The mission of the Judicial Council is to improve access to justice, so it was extremely difficult for us to make any decision that results in closing our courts,” stated Chief Justice Ronald M. George, chair of the Judicial Council, the 27-member policymaking body for the state courts.

“However, in the face of severe budget reductions, the council approved the closures as a way to partially offset the budget cutbacks while seeking to protect court employees and critical court programs that provide services to the public,” he continued.

All state courts will be closed: the Supreme Court of California, the Courts of Appeal, and the superior courts in each of California’s 58 counties. The Administrative Office of the Courts will be closed on the same day as the courts.

Court Closure Days

The court closure days are September 16, 2009; October 21, 2009; November 18, 2009; December 16, 2009; January 20, 2010; February 17, 2010; March 17, 2010; April 21, 2010; May 19, 2010; and June 16, 2010.

The closures of state courts one day a month will result in savings of about $94.3 million on a statewide basis. In addition to court closures, the Judicial Council took other actions to reduce the impact of the judicial branch’s $414 million budget reduction.

The council reallocated $159 million in special funds to offset cuts to the trial court operations budget. The special funds address a portion of the court funding cuts and unfunded growth costs for court security, dependency counsel for children in neglect and abuse cases; court interpreters for those who speak little or no English; and employee retirement costs. The council also allocated $46.7 million in projected new fee revenues to the trial courts.

In addition to approving the monthly closures, the council also directed that information on monetary savings from the court closures and the impact of the closures on court users, county justice partners, and court operations be reported to the council in January 2010. Based on that information, the council may reconsider whether to continue or reduce the number of monthly closures for the remainder of the fiscal year.

The Judicial Council considered other alternatives to court closures, but none would have resulted in as much savings as the statewide monthly closures but instead would have further reduced services to the public.

Court closure days are to be counted as holidays for the purpose of computing time for statutory deadlines. Click here for the full report.

It's "Official" - Amendments Have Been Incorporated into the Proposed AB 590

2009-09-07T18:02:00.000-07:00

As promised, AB 590 has been formally amended to our satisfaction. The objectionable proposed sections 6159.52(b) and 6159.52(c) have been stricken in their entirety, as of September 4, 2009 (the last day for amendments). These two proposed subsections would have effectively outlawed self-help legal service providers; so this is a tremendous victory for the LDA profession.

On behalf of all LDAs and the consumers we serve, I extend my heartfelt thanks for all of you who contributed to the effort to ensure the availability of a variety of low-cost legal services for the consumers who so desperately need our help, and of course the continued livelihood of LDAs throughout the state.

Sacramento County Public Law Library MCLE

2009-09-04T18:51:00.000-07:00

Just added...SECOND CLASS!

How to Make Ethical and Winning use of California Legislative History in Your Case

September 16, 2009 (Wednesday)

12:15pm to 1:15pm

Instructor: Carolina Rose, J.D. , Pres., Legislative Research, Inc.

The California courts take judicial notice of legislative history records. In this class you will learn how to use legislative history to present potent legal arguments and how to recognize potential misuse of legislative history records by opposing counsel. You will explore ethical implications of the use and misuse of legislative history and how to comply under the Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 3-110 and 5-200).

1 - hour MCLE "Legal Ethics" credit

Registration Fee: $30.00

To register online with your Master Card® or VISA® go to http://www.saclaw.org/ and select the “Classes” tab at the top of the page. Locate a class by date and complete the registration process online.

Parking validation is available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance on G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.874.8541

www.saclaw.org

LDA Roundtable Discussion - Only Two Spots Left!

2009-09-03T16:06:00.000-07:00

Helping Your Clients Be the Best Lawyers They Can Be: Tips to Enhance Your LDA Practice and Successfully Carve Out Your Niche as the Go-To Resource for Do-It-Yourselfers

The LDA Roundtable is right around the corner! Whether or not you are attending the California State Bar’s 82nd Annual Meeting, on September 10-13 in San Diego, you won't want to miss the LDA Roundtable on Friday, September 11 at 6:30 p.m.

The Bar’s daytime MCLE sessions will seamlessly transition into a lively LDA discussion of Helping Your Clients be the Best Lawyers They Can Be: Tips to Enhance Your LDA Practice and Successfully Carve Out Your Niche as the Go-To Resource for Do-It-Yourselfers.

Rarely does the typical LDA client need assistance solely with legal form preparation. They often have a host of questions about both substantive and procedural law. This LDA Roundtable discussion will help you take your LDA practice to the next level by sharing the tools and techniques necessary to turn your document preparation business into a comprehensive self-help legal service.

Professional integrity or client satisfaction? Why should you have to choose one over the other? Learn how to put your paralegal skills to work, providing your clients with exceptional informational and educational services in addition to the mere typing of legal documents. Streamline your practice and boost your own personal efficiency. Increase your revenue by raising prices for enhanced self-help legal services. And best of all, avoid those awkward moments when the client asks (or insists) that you provide legal advice.

You can do all of this – and more – while simultaneously guaranteeing you remain in compliance with all laws governing non-attorney legal service providers. In fact, many of these tools will actually insulate you from even the appearance of giving legal advice, and implementing these practices will help to support a defense should anyone ever question whether you are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL).

Attendance at the Bar events is not required to participate in ALDAP’s LDA Roundtable. So be sure to take advantage of this opportunity to establish yourself as an experienced professional on the cutting edge of the self-help legal movement. There is no charge to attend the LDA Roundtable, just pay for your own dinner and drinks. The event will take place at El Torito located at 445 Camino Del Rio South in San Diego’s Mission Valley. Seating is limited and we only have two spots left, so be sure to RSVP as soon as possible. For more information or to RSVP, contact Suzanne Ervine at VicePresident@aldap.org or (619) 567-5176.

ALDAP created the LDA Roundtable as a forum to discuss topics related to the LDA and contract paralegal professions, and to enable self-help legal service professionals to get the answers they need and share their knowledge in a pleasant environment.

AB 590 Update: September 2, 2009

2009-09-02T17:32:00.001-07:00

From Sacramento:

We note that the proposed AB 590 remains unchanged since August 20th, yet the bill was sent for a third reading just this week. Today we phoned Kevin Baker, Deputy Chief Counsel, who advised that the amendment removing 6159.52(b) and 6159.52(c) in their entirety is "in the works" and will be "completed in the next couple of days, before it is taken up for a vote on the Senate floor."

We understand that we will be notified once this task has been accomplished. While we are sympathic to the complexities of amendment at this late stage; we remain watchful until we receive assurance that the specific language has, in fact, been removed from text of the bill. We will post an update here on Scribe once we have been notified and confirmed the amendment to AB 590. We have been told that may happen on Monday.

We would like to thank everyone who wrote letters to ALDAP and its officers. We appreciate your support as we work to effectuate a change in California's Legal Document Assistant profession.

AB 590 Language Issue Resolved for the Benefit of Self-Help Legal Service Providers

2009-09-01T12:19:00.000-07:00

This morning, ALDAP received correspondence from Deputy Chief Counsel Baker, of the House Judiciary Committee.

After consideration of the concerns raised by ALDAP, regarding the provision of self-help legal services by a variety of professionals - in addition to registered legal document assistants and unlawful detainer assistants - it appears that the recommendation is to amend AB 590 by striking subsections 6159.52(b) and 6159.52(c) in their entirety.

The Legislature is, appropriately, concerned with striking a proper balance with regard to public policy, and the implications of hastily drafting an exception for LDAs or any other self-help legal services provider. The issues surrounding 6159.52(b) and 6159.52(c) may be revisted in the future, when there is more time available to craft language that will have the desired effect.

I believe we can rest easy. ALDAP will participate in Friday's hearing just to make certain that the bill, should it move forward, does so absent the restrictive language. We are pleased that ALDAP was able to bring our issues to the legislators and that they responded quickly and affirmatively to our inquiry.

Further Discussions with DCC Baker on AB 590

2009-09-01T00:14:00.001-07:00

Suzanne and Mr. Baker discussed AB 590 and the provision of self-help legal services this afternoon. Baker, not having had a chance to review Saturday's correspondence, requested further clarification which we have provided below, for your information. ALDAP continues to work directly with Baker to ensure California's legal document assistants - and other professionals - continue to provide the self-help services authorized under 6400 et seq.

"Dear Mr. Baker:

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this afternoon. Attached is a copy of the letter Kat sent on Saturday, directed to Assemblyman Feuer, as that is the only email address she had. As I mentioned on the phone and as stated in the attached letter, we would like to ensure that the proposed exception to 6159.52 is not crafted so narrowly that it impedes the efficient provision of self-help legal services from a variety of providers, including LDAs, UDAs, Bankruptcy Petition Preparers (regulated under 11 USC §110) and others who may lawfully offer self help legal services to consumers.

As the law currently stands, consumers generally have five options, which range from extremely costly to free-of-charge: 1) attorney representation; 2) self-help services provided by an attorney offering limited scope services; 3) self-help services provided by a registered legal document assistant; 4) no-cost legal aid through a non-profit organization, court clinic, or other agency; or 5) completely on their own with no assistance. It is not uncommon for a consumer to seek advice from an attorney, while retaining the services of a legal document assistant to prepare and process their paperwork. We recognize the Legislature’s desire to avoid crafting a broad exception to the proposed 6159.52, which could undermine the very purposes of AB 590. However, we also believe that the provision of unbundled services (limited scope representation) is an asset to consumers, and indeed the entire judicial system.

For more information about ALDAP’s position regarding these limited scope services provided by attorneys, please visit http://www.aldap.org/unbundled.htm. Presumably, there will be many consumers whose finances will preclude them from qualifying for the “legal aid” programs. Additionally, citizens taking advantage of the available legal aid services may face significant delays when demand is high.

A blanket prohibition on attorney assistance in the form of limited scope services within the “self help” context could put consumers in the unfortunate predicament of having to choose between the high cost of full attorney representation (which they cannot afford), or the pro bono services offered by the legal aid organization. We would like to ensure that the final language of AB 590 does not limit the choices of consumers, by eliminating the mid-range options – limited scope services from an attorney, or self-help services from a legal document assistant.

We propose the following language for your consideration as you draft the amendments we have discussed:

This chapter does not apply to any person engaged in any of the following occupations:

(a) A legal document assistant or unlawful detainer assistant, as defined in Chapter 5.5 (commencing with Section 6400) of Division 3.

(b) A person who provides services that are regulated by federal law.

(c) An immigration consultant, as defined in Chapter 19.5 (commencing with Section 22441) of Division 8.

(d) A person registered as a process server under Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) or a person registered as a professional photocopier under Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 22450) of Division 8.

(e) A member of the State Bar of California, or his or her employee, paralegal, or agent, or an independent contractor while acting on behalf of a member of the State Bar, engaged in the provision of limited scope representation, or the provision of self help services, as defined in Chapter 5.5, section 6400(d), of Division 3.

On behalf of ALDAP and the clients we serve, I thank you very much for your time and consideration."

AB590 - Suggested Revisions

2009-08-29T07:57:00.000-07:00

ALDAP has been working with the drafters of AB590 to modify the language of the proposed legislation, for the protection of all self-help legal service providers and the clients we serve.

Regardless of whether those services are provided by a legal document assistant (LDA), unlawful detainer assistant (UDA), attorney, governmental employee, or other individual who is exempt from the LDA registration requirements contained in Business & Professions Code section 6401, ALDAP believes all self-help services that are lawfully performed pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6400 et seq. should be fully protected under the new legislation.

A copy of ALDAP's correspondence follows:

August 28, 2009

Kevin Baker
Deputy Chief Counsel
Assembly Committee on JudiciaryState of California
1020 N Street, Room 104
Sacramento, California 95814

Re: Recommended revision to AB 590

Dear Mr. Baker:

ALDAP appreciates your quick response to our August 26, 2009 correspondence, wherein we requested that AB 590 be modified to contain exclusionary language pertaining to self-help legal service providers. Your call, made on behalf of the Judiciary Committee to our association, proves that there are legislators who listen to their constituents, and for that we are extremely appreciative.

You advised me that you would be rewriting the provisions of the proposed Business and Professions Code sections 6159.52(b) and 6159.52(c), concerning the provision of legal forms and self-help services, over the weekend and that you would provide proposed amended language for review Monday.

We are in receipt of an email from the California Association of Legal Document Assistants that advises of suggested language apparently sent to you as follows:

“This chapter does not apply to a Legal Document Assistant or Unlawful Detainer Assistant as defined in Section 6400.”

It is our understanding that this language was drafted by Richard Lubetzky, CALDA’s pro bono counsel. Unfortunately, Mr. Lubetzky ‘s recommendation fails to include those otherwise exempt from 6400, and is limiting to those who lawfully provide self-help services as described in Business and Professions Code section 6400(d), but who are exempt from the registration and bonding requirements contained in the remainder of that chapter of the Code.

These exempt individuals are identified in section 6401, and include governmental employees, attorneys, immigration consultants, real estate brokers, and other professionals who provide self-help services to consumers.

ALDAP therefore requests that the language be amended to exclude all self help legal service providers who lawfully perform services pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6400 et seq., including attorneys providing limited scope representation and governmental employees otherwise exempt from 6400, but who provide self help services. We believe this to be in the best interests of consumers and the judicial system, rather than simply carving out an exception solely for LDAs and UDAs, which could undermine the ability of attorneys to offer limited scope services or for other professionals to effectively assist their clients.

On behalf of ALDAP’s membership, and indeed the entire LDA profession, I thank you and Assemblyman Feuer for your efforts. I look forward to reading the revised language of AB 590, and would like to again extend my offer to assist your efforts to improve consumer protection and access to justice for all. I am looking forward to attending Friday’s session and meeting you.

Very truly yours,

Kathleen Mountjoy, LDA
President

ALDAP Did It! AB 590 to be REWRITTEN!

2009-08-28T14:37:00.000-07:00

In working directly with Kevin Baker (Deputy Chief Counsel of the Assembly Judiciary Committee), the actual writer of AB 590, ALDAP has resolved the issues we have with the proposed language. After reading ALDAP's letter opposing the proposed legislation, Mr. Baker called me directly this afternoon. He thanked ALDAP for bringing the obvious oversight to his attention. While Feuer is the author of AB 590, Baker is the writer. He apologized for overlooking B&P 6400 (c) - the legal self-help statutes - and assured me that the legislators "in no way, meant to prohibit LDAs from doing the much necessary and good work" that we do for California's consumers.

Mr. Baker requested that ALDAP review the amendment to AB 590 that he will be writing over the weekend and will provide to me Monday via email.

By the way, ALDAP members can stand proud. Mr. Baker complimented ALDAP on bringing the oversight to his and Feuer's attention. We may be small but we are mighty!

AB 590 We Need Your Help - Letter Campaign - Sample Letter

2009-08-28T12:20:00.000-07:00

Time is Short, the Last Day for Amendments is September 4th!

Use the sample below and write a letter to your representatives today to ensure they support the inclusion of exlusionary language of AB 590 as it relates to LDAs. If you are unsure who your representative is, visit http://www.assembly.ca.gov/, or check the front of your local phone book! Due to the limited amount of time (bill passed appropriations 8/27) email and fax are the best way to communication quickly.

Senators:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/sen-addresses.html (does not allow email attachments so paste the body of your letter into your email.

Email addresses of Judicary Committee members:

Mike Feuer
(author of the bill)

Van Tran

Julia Brownley

Noreen Evans

Dave Jones

Steve Knight

Paul Krekorian

Ted Lieu

Bill Monning

Jim Nielson

And finally - the Governor:

Submitting an email to the Governor is a two-step process. Go to http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email. Select the purpose of your email, fill in preliminary contact information, and select a subject prior to submitting a message in step two. If your correspondence requires assistance with a specific agency or department, please include the appropriate case or claim numbers so that we may assist you in a more timely fashion. Please note that they are unable to accept e-mail attachments because of the risk of Internet viruses; please send your attachments via traditional mail.

Governor's Office:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160 (new number)

District Offices:

Fresno Office
2550 Mariposa Mall #3013
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: (559) 477-1804
Fax: (559) 445-5328

Los Angeles Office
300 South Spring Street
Suite 16701
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213) 897-0322
Fax: (213) 897-0319

Riverside Office
3737 Main Street #201
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: (951) 680-6860
Fax: (951) 680-6863

San Diego Office
1350 Front Street Suite 6054
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 525-4641
Fax: (619) 525-4640

San Francisco Office
455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 14000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 703-2218
Fax: (415) 703-2803

Washington D.C. Office
134 Hall of the States
444 North Capitol Street NW
Washington D.C. 20001
Phone: (202) 624-5270
Fax: (202)624-5280

Sample letter

For your convenience, you can download a copy of the sample letter in MS Word or PDF format by clicking here.

The Honorable ________
California State Assembly
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0001

Dear _____:

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to AB 590, and any future legislation which would serve to prevent consumers from choosing among a variety of legal service providers, including California legal document assistants who provide self-help services to self-representing litigants pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6400, et seq.

I am concerned about specific language contained in AB 590 as follows:

6159.52 (b) would provide that is “unlawful for any person to sell or charge a fee for any legal form or other documents created by a legal aid organization or by a court or other public agency of the state regarding or for use in a court action or proceeding if the form or other documents is available to the public without charge from the legal aid organization, court or other public agency.”

6159.52 (c) would provide that it is “unlawful for any person for a fee to assist or offer to assist in the provision of self-help services that are provided without charge by a court or legal aid organization.”

While this proposed statute would be included in the “attorney” chapter of the code, the language (“any person”) would prohibit legal document assistants from the service of preparing legal documents on behalf of California’s consumers, and on its face appears to limit the range of choices from which consumers may choose in resolving their legal matters.

As the law currently stands, consumers generally have five options, which range from extremely costly to free-of-charge: 1) attorney representation; 2) self-help services provided by an attorney offering limited scope services; 3) self-help services provided by a registered legal document assistant; 4) no-cost legal aid through a non-profit organization, court clinic, or other agency; or 5) completely on their own with no assistance.

The language of bill appears to limit the choices of consumers, by eliminating the mid-range options – limited scope services from an attorney, or self-help services from a legal document assistant. Interpreted this way, the ultimate result is that consumers must choose between full attorney representation – which many cannot afford – and free services from a legal aid organization – which could be back-logged for weeks or even months.

As a registered legal document assistant, I see clients every day who can afford to pay for some assistance, and do not qualify for free legal aid services. I also see clients who can afford full attorney representation, but choose not to because they want to handle their own legal matters and utilizing the self-help services of a legal document assistant meets their needs. To force these individuals to either hire a high-priced attorney for full representation, to wait weeks for free assistance from a pro bono legal aid organization, or to go it alone with no assistance whatsoever, is patently un-American. Furthermore, those who choose to go it alone and those who get limited self-help assistance from Legal Aid will undoubtedly bog down the judicial system with basic questions, rejected documents, and general unfamiliarity with court rules and procedures.

I request that the language in AB 590 be modified to make clear exceptions which permit attorneys and registered legal document assistants to provide self-help services to those who can and choose to pay for “mid-range” self-help legal services. The proposed language, at present, appears to conflict with the provisions of California Business and Professions Code section 6400(c), which authorizes the provision of self-help legal services, including document preparation and the provision of legal information and published legal documents for consumers who wish to handle their own legal matters without attorney representation.

I respectfully request that you vote NO on AB 590 until the language states a clear exception for California’s self-help legal service providers, and preserves the ability for consumers to make their own choices.

Very truly yours,

(Include your name, address and phone number)

Legislation To Fear

2009-08-26T12:48:00.001-07:00

I Was Once Blind But Now I See

Honestly challenged when it comes to legislation, it never dawned on me until recently that proposed changes to the statutes governing non-attorney, "self-help" legal service providers would not necessarily occur in Business and Professions Code section 6400, et seq. I subscribe to a daily LegisWatch, but only in the areas of law concerning LDAs, paralegals and the practice of law.

With the recent increase in court fees and diminishing court programs and services, I decided that I wanted to learn more about why and how these new conditions might affect pro per litigants and access to justice. I decided to read up on Senator Thomas Harkin's S.718, The Civil Access to Justice bill. Of course, as research is a never-ending path to knowledge, I limited futher research to legislation within the state of California.

Imagine my surprise - and concern - when I learned of pending legislation: AB 590, authored by Mike Feuer, Assemblyman and Chair of the Judiciary Committee, which presently contains language which could potentially limit the services provided by California's legal document assistants.

The bill itself is well intentioned. It is fashioned to bring more access to self-representing litigants. Our court system is less than perfect, as it was designed as an adversarial process; however, it is the oldest, most recognized system. Those who support the bill contend, quite accurately, that justice is denied to those who do not have the knowledge and legal acumen to competently represent themselves in a court of law; a reality that results in confusion, delays, increased costs to litigants and the courts, and a great deal of wasted time, energy and funds. One would think an overhaul of our justice system is needed, but failing that, our legislators are trying to level the playing ground.

Generally speaking, AB 590 would require attorneys to provide pro bono services to litigants meeting a certain poverty level. The bill also provides that use of the (now) common trademark, "Legal Aid," by anyone other than a non profit would be a crime. It also would provide that the court charge fees to prevailing parties to fund additional programs and services provided by court clinics.

None of this seems too troubling until you read further and note that this legislation seemingly would restrict "anyone" from providing any forms, documents or self help services provided by a legal aid non-profit organization or court clinic. To do so would be punishable by law. This provision, as written, restricts LDAs and attorneys who perform limited scope representation from charging for their services.

AB 590 should contain additional language in the form of an exclusion as to those of us authorized under section 6400, who perform self help services on behalf of consumers.

ALDAP has researched Mike Feuer and found him to be an advocate for access to justice and consumer protections. Mr. Feuer has always supported consumer protection oriented legislation. He was, at one time, the executive director of Bet Tzedek - The House of Justice, a non profit human and poverty rights organization which is internationally known for its work in providing unique advocacy and support for people living in poverty, and for communities victimized by discrimination and civil rights abuses. Feuer seems to be an all around good guy.

ALDAP wrote to Feuer, asking for clarification of the intention of the writers and for exclusionary language to be included in AB 590. We also requested his leadership to enhance the existing consumer protection statutes associated with section 6400, a project ALDAP has been working on for more than two years. We are publishing our letter to Feuer and hope to hear from him soon. We will keep you apprised.

Sac Law Library Offers 1 Hour MCLE - Ethics

2009-08-24T12:06:00.000-07:00

How to Make Ethical and Winning use of California Legislative History in Your Case

September 16, 2009 (Wednesday)1:30pm to 2:30pm
Instructor: Carolina Rose, J.D. , Pres., Legislative Research, Inc.

The California courts take judicial notice of legislative history records. In this class you will learn how to use legislative history to present potent legal arguments and how to recognize potential misuse of legislative history records by opposing counsel. You will explore ethical implications of the use and misuse of legislative history and how to comply under the Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 3-110 and 5-200).

1 - hour MCLE "Legal Ethics" credit
Registration Fee: $30.00

To register online with your Master Card® or VISA® click here or go to http://www.saclaw.org/
and select the “Classes” tab at the top of the page. Locate a class by date and complete the registration process online.

Parking validation is available for the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure, entrance on G Street & 7th. Bring your parking receipt and we will validate for time spent in this class.

Sacramento County Public Law Library
813 Sixth Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.874.8541

Pro Bono Legal Clinics - San Diego County

2009-08-18T18:05:00.000-07:00

Legal Aid Society of San Diego

The Association of Corporate Counsel - San Diego (ACCA-SD) and the Legal Aid Society have entered into an informal partnership to encourage pro bono work by in house counsel. For more information on the numerous and valuable opportunities visit http://www.LASSD.org/.

Five programs involving youth at risk: a. Victim/youth offender mediation; b. Family intervention mediation; c. Peer mediation training; d. Group conferencing mediation; and e. Representation at school disciplinary hearings.

Family law programs: Domestic violence TRO's; and Show cause hearings.

Economic Impact Program: a. Pro bono corporate legal matter assistance to 501 (c) (3)'s. Tax advice re fundraising. b. High impact litigation.

Homeless Prevention Advocacy: Advice to defendants with unlawful detainer issues.

Immigration matters.

Consumer credit matters.

Basic estate planning and guardianship.

For all of its volunteer lawyers the Legal Aid Society offers training, training materials, experienced lawyers as mentors, prescreening of cases and malpractice insurance.

Contact: Clare Maudsley, Esq. (619) 262-5557

Law Library Project

The Law Library Project is a collaboration of SDVLP and the San Diego Public Law Library to assist unrepresented litigants in obtaining legal information and advice. A general advice legal clinic is conducted every Monday evening from 6 - 8 p.m. and a second legal clinic is offered on Wednesday afternoons from 1 - 3:30 p.m. at the Law Library's downtown San Diego branch. Members are not expected to take on a client for on-going representation but are there to help issue spot, assist individuals in legal research and filing procedures, and refer clients to other legal resources from a list compiled by SDVLP. For more information, please call Jerry Polansky at (619) 235-5656, ext. 113.

Guardianship Clinic Program

In cooperation with the Probate Court and Probate Examiner's Office, SDVLP operates weekly clinics to assist self-represented, responsible adults who are residents of San Diego County in obtaining guardianship of children who have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their parent(s). There is a short hands-on training session for volunteers at the clinics and SDVLP attorneys are available to assist.

For more information, please call Jerry Polansky at (619) 235-5656, ext. 113.

Elder Law

SDVLP provides advice and representation to senior citizens throughout the San Diego County. SDVLP conducts periodic meetings throughout San Diego County at various senior centers and ACCA members are needed to help counsel seniors in various legal matters. Eligible seniors seek assistance on a variety of matters including consumer protection and landlord-tenant issues, estate planning and trust administration, insurance issues, conservatorship, elder-fiduciary abuse and other civil law matters. Members are not expected to take on a client for on-going representation but are there to help issue spot, and refer clients to SDVLP and/or other legal resources from a list that is compiled by SDVLP. Information concerning the specific clinic locations, dates and times will be available shortly. For more information, call Jerry Polansky (619) 235-5656, extension 113.

Domestic Violence Prevention Project

Victims of domestic violence receive assistance in completing and filing restraining orders, related legal relief, and referrals to social support agencies and shelters. Services are provided at project clinics located throughout the County. No prior substantive law knowledge is required to volunteer at the Domestic Violence legal clinics. A short hands-on training session is provided at the clinics and experienced SDVLP staff are available to assist volunteers. For more information please call Jerry Polansky at (619) 235-5656, ext. 113.

AIDS Legal Services Project

The AIDS Legal Services Project provides comprehensive legal services to HIV positive individuals who meet certain income and asset ceilings. Direct representation is limited to those situations where no contingency fee arrangements are available through the private bar. When appropriate, the AIDS Legal Services Project will refer individuals to other agencies throughout San Diego County.

Staff and volunteer attorneys provide assistance in a variety of subjects including, but not limited to, estate planning, landlord/tenant disputes, bankruptcy and other debtor/creditor problems, insurance difficulties, family law questions, employment discrimination situations, guardianship and conservatorship matters, SSI appeals, tax issues, confidentiality concerns and traffic tickets. The Project does not handle criminal matters nor does it typically provide on-going representation on matters that are unrelated to the client's diagnosis, e.g., most personal injury actions.

The AIDS Legal Services Project provides such services through satellite legal clinics held periodically throughout San Diego County, as well as referrals to volunteers. Members who attend one of the legal clinics are not required to take on clients for on-going representation but are there to help issue spot, provide advice, and refer clients to SDVLP and/or other legal resources from a list that is compiled by SDVLP. Though there are satellite clinics held periodically throughout the county, the main clinic is held at the following location:

For more information, please call Jerry Polansky at (619) 235-5656, ext. 113.

San Diego Performing Arts League

Contact: Julie Fry(619) 238-0700 ext 16

The Lawyers for the Arts program is an alliance of attorneys willing to donate their time and expertise on volunteer legal projects with arts organizations in San Diego County. Areas of expertise in demand are contracts, copyright, patent, trademark, leases, nonprofit incorporation, insurance, immigration, labor/employment, tax and trusts.

San Diego Law Library Offers Low Cost MLCE

2009-08-18T12:59:00.001-07:00

ALDAP receives a large number of inquiries on a daily basis from new LDAs or paralegals. Many of these calls result in requests for mentoring or the opportunity to "help for free while I learn." This is a perfect class for new LDAs or for paralegals who are in need of refresher course on legal documents.

Focus on Forms

September 10th, 2009 (Thursday), 12:00 - 1:00 p.m.

Instructor(s): SDCPLL Law Librarians

For anyone involved in a business dealing or law suit, finding out where to find the correct forms can be a harrowing process. This 1 hour class will try to provide information to assist you in finding forms, both through online sources and from print resources. The focus will be on litigation forms (California and Federal) and business (transactional forms). A resource list will be provided with the class.

Prerequisites: none

MCLE Credit: 1 hour general participatory credit

Registration Fee: Free - SDCPLL Members

$5 - Non-members

Location / Registration: Main Library
Call 619-531-3900, or sign up at the circulation desk.

Sacramento County Law Library Offers Legal Research Seminar

2009-08-17T12:22:00.000-07:00

Introduction to Legal Research and Law Library Basics Series: Part A - Statutes

Date: September 12, 2009 Start Time: 9:30 AM End Time: 12:30 PM

Location: Training Center
Instructor: SCPLL Law Librarians

Cost: $15

Class Description:

This the first half of a two-part series designed for the non-lawyer to introduce you to the Sacramento County Public Law Library and its resources.

Part A, will cover Statutes.

You will learn how to recognize and locate California laws, in print and on-line, and how to use the Annotated Codes. This class will also cover secondary sources, which provide interpretation and context, and are often used as "side doors" into the official statutes.

This course will cover Statutes. Learn how to recognize and locate California laws, in print and on-line, and how to use the Annotated Codes. This class will also cover secondary sources, which provide interpretation and context, and are often used as "side doors" into the official statutes.

Weekend parking is free at the City of Sacramento two-story parking structure; entrance on G Street and 7th Street.