Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/law/video/283442625?client_source=feed&format=rss
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The Controversial War on Drugs
Back in 1971, Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs" claiming "America’s Public Enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse". Forty years later, we are still waging a war against drugs. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance and Judge Jim Gray, author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, as they spotlight the controversial war on drugs including: the legalization of Marijuana, the rise in prescription drug use, sentencing reform and what needs to happen legally to eliminate this growing problem.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/07/the-controversial-war-on-drugs/
free legal aid getting power of attorney government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney
Monday, March 4, 2013
Bahrain female activist sentenced to 3 months in jail
[JURIST] A court of appeals in Bahrain overturned the acquittal [BNA report] of Zainab al-Khawaja, who is accused of insulting a government employee, and sentenced her to three months of imprisonment on Friday, according to the Bahrain State New Agency (BNA). Al-Khawaja is the daughter of prominent Bahraini human rights activist Abdulhadi al-Khawaja [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], and has served previous jail terms [JURIST report] for tearing up a picture of Bahrain's king, destruction of government property and organizing...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/03/bahrain-female-activist-sentenced-to-3-months-in-jail.php
The AAPD in 2013 and the Fight for People with Disabilities
The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), is the nation's largest disability rights organization, helping many individuals since its inception. In this podcast, Ringler Radio host Larry Cohen joins co-host, Randy Dyer, and special guest, Mark Perriello, the President and CEO of the AAPD, to talk about AAPD’s mission for 2013, all the great things the organization is involved in and the continued fight for people with disabilities.
The American Association of People with Disabilities 2013 Leadership Awards Gala will be held on Tuesday, March 5, 2013. The AAPD is the nation’s largest "Cross Disability" organization and has raised over $1.7 Million for the 2013 Gala-an all-time record! In addition, over 25 members of Congress plan to attend.
The American Association of People with Disabilities 2013 Leadership Awards Gala will be held on Tuesday, March 5, 2013. The AAPD is the nation’s largest "Cross Disability" organization and has raised over $1.7 Million for the 2013 Gala-an all-time record! In addition, over 25 members of Congress plan to attend.
lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers legal legal advice
Legal Talk Network Live at LegalTechNY 2012-Onit’s Eric Elman Spotlights Onit Apps
Eric Elfman spotlights "Onit Apps" for the legal marketplace which solve very specific problems for legal departments. Be sure to watch the interview, hosted by Legal Talk Network producer, Kate Kenney.
Lawyer2Lawyer: A Retrospective
We started Lawyer2Lawyer back in August of 2005 with the idea of providing quality content and discussion of timely legal news and information for the legal profession with regularly published podcasts and often videos too. Since our inception, we have set the precedent for legal podcasting in numbers of listeners globally, but more importantly, we’ve been one of the leaders in great content - our priority over the past 7 years. On this final edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, talk about their personal experiences over the years with this legal podcast.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/10/lawyer2lawyer-a-retrospective/
Turn Your Solo Practice into a Highly Utilized Business
Looking to get your solo practice off the ground but aren’t sure how? Learn about the tools you need to turn your solo practice into a highly utilized business when New Solo host and solo practitioner, Attorney Kyle R. Guelcher, talks to Alex Vega ,a law firm consultant with The Vega Firm. Alex shares his great insight on the basic human skills a lawyer needs for a successful practice, how a solo can develop an effective word of mouth campaign and the importance of a realistic marketing plan.
federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney find attorney
Lawyer2Lawyer: A Retrospective
We started Lawyer2Lawyer back in August of 2005 with the idea of providing quality content and discussion of timely legal news and information for the legal profession with regularly published podcasts and often videos too. Since our inception, we have set the precedent for legal podcasting in numbers of listeners globally, but more importantly, we’ve been one of the leaders in great content - our priority over the past 7 years. On this final edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, talk about their personal experiences over the years with this legal podcast.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/10/lawyer2lawyer-a-retrospective/
House Passes Expansion Of Violence Against Women Act
The House finally took up an extension to the Violence Against Women Act on Thursday. There were a number of roadblocks to what many saw as an uncontroversial bill.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
immigration lawyers injury attorney injury attorneys injury lawers injury lawyer
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Warning: This Will Gross You Out
Please, if you are prone to being grossed out, stop here. Remember, The Juice warned you. So, it started with what appeared to be a routine suspected DUI. Then it got weird, and gross. As reported by The Durango Herald (Colorado):
According to an arrest affidavit, the events began at 11:59 p.m. Feb. 11 when a Durango Police Department officer observed a vehicle turn right onto 32nd Street from Main Avenue without using a turn signal.
The officer, Chad Langley, pulled Kausalik [a 31-year veteran of the U.S. Postal Service who has been in Durango since 1982] over ...
While speaking to Kausalik, the officer detected alcohol on his breath, according to the affidavit. Kausalik said he had not been drinking.
Kausalik performed voluntary roadside maneuvers, but not to Langley’s satisfaction, the affidavit says.
A preliminary breath test indicated he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.142, almost three times the 0.05 legal driving limit in Colorado.Fairly routine stop thus far. Man appears to be drunk, smells of alcohol, denies drinking, fails field sobriety test, fails initial BAC test.
Langley arrested Kausalik and took him to the Durango police station ... for a formal breath test.Please, not the formal breath test...
At the station, Kausalik asked to use the restroom. Officer Langley twice found Kausalik asleep in the restroom.
He told Kausalik he could not stay in the restroom all night to avoid the breath test, and he needed to either take the test or choose a refusal.Actually, there is another option, which could be considered a refusal of sorts ...
Kausalik eventually left the bathroom looking at the floor, walking toward the officer.
Langley asked Kausalik what was in his mouth, and he continued to walk toward the officer, head down and expressionless.
When Kausalik was about 4 feet from the officer, Kausalik looked up, opened his mouth and took a deep breath.
“As I observed what he had in his mouth, I took a step back and began turning my head as he violently spit the contents of his mouth toward my face,” officer Langley wrote in the affidavit. “I felt the matter [FECES!!!!!] strike the left side of my face and head.” Kausalik also had feces on his hands, the affidavit says.If you're not completely grossed out, check your pulse. You can read the full story, and see the mug shot here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/nvNJRmIoYVA/post_607.html
A Fun Dose of Paralegal Ethics
Can paralegal ethics be fun? On The Paralegal Voice, co-hosts Lynne DeVenny and Vicki Voisin join lawyer/humorist Sean Carter, founder of Lawpsided Seminars, to share his comedic approach to legal education, the biggest challenges for legal staffers today and his thoughts on his popular talk, Thou Shalt Not Lie, Cheat and Steal: The 10 Commandments of Legal Ethics.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/paralegal-voice/2012/01/a-fun-dose-of-paralegal-ethics/
criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer discrimination lawyers
Deadline Looms for Obama on Gay-Marriage Brief
- AP
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/02/27/deadline-looms-for-obama-on-gay-marriage-brief/?mod=WSJBlog
Civic Virtue: Teach Your Children Well
There's a discussion brewing at Concurring Opinions around a book by lawprofs James Fleming and Linda McClain entitled Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues, which has raised a troubling question. Should the federal government be allowed to compel schools to teach children to be patriots? No, not your kind of patriots. Not my kind either. The kind of patriots who yell "America, love it or leave it."
Kent Greenfield questions the propriety of forced patriotism:
While some of us view Constitution Day as an opportunity to remind people that it protects individual rights and liberties from the government, schools tend more toward banners and platitudes about the great glory of the nation, filling the minds of innocent children with faith that government is our friend.
Sitting through a high school awards ceremony last year, I noted how many prizes and awards were handed out for various flavors of civic virtue. Whether called citizenship or patriotism, the point (together with a very directed incentive system) was to foster the belief that our government is good and their support of the government, no matter what, wins a prize.
In response, the author Fleming writes:
Values? Like critical thinking? Like understanding how to assert the rights protected? Like voting? The problem isn't that there are civic virtues worthy of being fostered, but that left in the hands of the government, the obvious fear is that they will be the values the government wants us to have: obedience, passivity toward government abuse, blind faith and "America, love it or leave it."
While many here are busy arguing about the nuts and bolts of how the interests of the government, particularly law enforcement, conflict with the rights of the people, we rarely give much thought to what those other folks are telling our children about how they should think and behave. As parents, we naturally assume that we are the most significant influence on our children's world view, and therefore waste little time thinking about what others offer. And indeed, this is probably the case.
At the same time, does the government really have a role to play in teaching our children to be good little citizens? Should they be dangling federal funding in front of school district's noses, theirs for the taking if only they throw a party for the government on command? How many public school superintendents are disinclined to embrace the whole civic virtue concept anyway? Like our civic leaders in Washington, local school bosses are very much in tune with a student body that adores and appreciates their prominence.
Is civic virtue a bad thing? That depends. Are we teaching children the good and bad, the right and wrong, the rights and responsibilities, of being an American? Are we teaching it accurately or are we instilling a religious belief that our government can do no wrong and the highest virtue is to trust and support the government no matter what?
The problem is that there are no prizes given out to students who are the best at asserting their right to counsel or their refusal to consent to a search. The Constitutional Day mandate is a government project. The compelled celebration is one of the greatness of our government and our system. It may be the same Constitution that the rest of us read, but it's tied up in the government's bow.
For those who believe that nothing short of revolution will salvage our freedoms, there's nothing about civic virtue that will bring a smile to your face. For those who believe that the concept of republicanism can only survive with a knowledgeable and informed citizenry, then civic virtue has its merit. But is it best left in the hands of government to foster its own adoration? There's the rub.
Like the other Greenfield, the notion of the government, an entity that should putatively exist to serve the needs of the citizenry, throwing itself a party and coercing (or encouraging, if one prefers such rhetorical distinctions) our youth to join in the fun, isn't nearly as worthwhile as a government earning the appreciation of its citizens, who then show spontaneous appreciation for the good it does.
But that would require the government to worry less about how to get the public to become obedient patriots, making the job of people who were once called public servants but now call themselves our Leaders far more difficult and much less satisfying. Civic virtue is a wonderful thing. Just not theirs.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Kent Greenfield questions the propriety of forced patriotism:
[Fleming and McClain] use as an opening foil an op-ed I wrote in the New York Times in 2011 arguing that Constitution Day is a bad idea and “probably” unconstitutional. In that essay and in a couple of others, I have revealed Constitution Day to be a bete noire of mine. Constitution Day, as you probably know if you’re an academic, is a federal mandate dating from 2005 that any school receiving federal funds — public or private, kindergarten or law school — conduct some kind of educational program on the constitution on or about September 17 of each year. My basic argument is that it operates as a federal content-based mandate on those schools and thus amounts to coerced speech under the First Amendment. More broadly, I argue that coerced patriotism is a Bad Thing, using as my text Justice Jackson’s admonition in West Virginia v Barnette: “To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.”
While some of us view Constitution Day as an opportunity to remind people that it protects individual rights and liberties from the government, schools tend more toward banners and platitudes about the great glory of the nation, filling the minds of innocent children with faith that government is our friend.
Sitting through a high school awards ceremony last year, I noted how many prizes and awards were handed out for various flavors of civic virtue. Whether called citizenship or patriotism, the point (together with a very directed incentive system) was to foster the belief that our government is good and their support of the government, no matter what, wins a prize.
In response, the author Fleming writes:
Greenfield poses the question, “Does our judgment of what constitutes a valid exercise of the federal government’s power to encourage civic virtue depend on the content of what is being encouraged?” Our answer is, yes, it most certainly does. As we put it, quoting the Supreme Court, government may “inculcate fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system.”
Values? Like critical thinking? Like understanding how to assert the rights protected? Like voting? The problem isn't that there are civic virtues worthy of being fostered, but that left in the hands of the government, the obvious fear is that they will be the values the government wants us to have: obedience, passivity toward government abuse, blind faith and "America, love it or leave it."
While many here are busy arguing about the nuts and bolts of how the interests of the government, particularly law enforcement, conflict with the rights of the people, we rarely give much thought to what those other folks are telling our children about how they should think and behave. As parents, we naturally assume that we are the most significant influence on our children's world view, and therefore waste little time thinking about what others offer. And indeed, this is probably the case.
At the same time, does the government really have a role to play in teaching our children to be good little citizens? Should they be dangling federal funding in front of school district's noses, theirs for the taking if only they throw a party for the government on command? How many public school superintendents are disinclined to embrace the whole civic virtue concept anyway? Like our civic leaders in Washington, local school bosses are very much in tune with a student body that adores and appreciates their prominence.
Is civic virtue a bad thing? That depends. Are we teaching children the good and bad, the right and wrong, the rights and responsibilities, of being an American? Are we teaching it accurately or are we instilling a religious belief that our government can do no wrong and the highest virtue is to trust and support the government no matter what?
The problem is that there are no prizes given out to students who are the best at asserting their right to counsel or their refusal to consent to a search. The Constitutional Day mandate is a government project. The compelled celebration is one of the greatness of our government and our system. It may be the same Constitution that the rest of us read, but it's tied up in the government's bow.
For those who believe that nothing short of revolution will salvage our freedoms, there's nothing about civic virtue that will bring a smile to your face. For those who believe that the concept of republicanism can only survive with a knowledgeable and informed citizenry, then civic virtue has its merit. But is it best left in the hands of government to foster its own adoration? There's the rub.
Like the other Greenfield, the notion of the government, an entity that should putatively exist to serve the needs of the citizenry, throwing itself a party and coercing (or encouraging, if one prefers such rhetorical distinctions) our youth to join in the fun, isn't nearly as worthwhile as a government earning the appreciation of its citizens, who then show spontaneous appreciation for the good it does.
But that would require the government to worry less about how to get the public to become obedient patriots, making the job of people who were once called public servants but now call themselves our Leaders far more difficult and much less satisfying. Civic virtue is a wonderful thing. Just not theirs.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/02/27/civic-virtue-teach-your-children-well.aspx?ref=rss
divorce lawers divorce lawyer divorce lawyers download power of attorney dui attorney
Securing Electronic Law Firm Data for Big and Small Firms
Law firms are increasingly being targeted by hackers seeking to access confidential business and personal information. On The Un-Billable Hour, host Attorney Rodney Dowell, Executive Director at Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and Director of LCL’s Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program welcomes Digital Detectives co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, to discuss a variety of issues including: computer security, why attorneys are targeted and malpractice and ethics risks related to having inadequate security.
civil attorney colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law
Deadline Looms for Obama on Gay-Marriage Brief
- AP
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/02/27/deadline-looms-for-obama-on-gay-marriage-brief/?mod=WSJBlog
So, Does That Mean The Wedding Is Off?
On Valentine's Day, this is how you treat your fiancee? The Juice hopes they did not put any wedding-related deposits down. From The Union Leader:
Gary Cormier, 41, of 515 Hall St., is accused of first threatening his fiancee on Valentine's Day and, after being released on bail, stalking her.Yikes.
Cormier is accused of jumping out in front of the woman's vehicle on Hall Street and pounding on the hood and when she put the vehicle in reverse, opening the door and trying to pull her out, scaring her.
After his release on bail, he is accused of returning to the Hall Street address. Police prosecutors then filed a motion to revoke Cormier's bail on the first charge. "Because I went home," Cormier said.
Cormier will be held without bail until a hearing Tuesday in Circuit Court, Manchester District Division.To Mr. Cormier's credit ...
At his arraignment Friday in Circuit Court, Cormier said: "I'd like to pleady guilty and get it over with." Told each charge carries a sentence of up to one year, Cormier said: "If I go to jail for a year, I go to jail."To the judge's credit ...
The judge refused to accept a guilty plea, telling Cormier he needs to talk to a lawyer. Cormier agreed and trial was set for March 21.You'll find the source here.
The Juice is a personal injury lawyer, practicing in Maryland, Washington, DC, and Virginia.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/YCKwSn9LVwA/post_601.html
cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer discrimination lawyers district attorney
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Using Document Assembly Tools to Improve Your Firm
Find out how document assembly tools can increase efficiency and profits at your firm on The Un-Billable Hour. Host and Attorney Rodney Dowell, Executive Director at Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and Director of LCL’s Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program and Diane Ebersole, practice management advisor for the State Bar of Michigan explain how document assembly applications have advanced in the last few years and how these applications can increase the bottom line for your law firm.
Weighing The Future Of The Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's been called the most effective civil rights law in U.S. history, but plaintiffs say it's time to throw out some key provisions. Host Michel Martin speaks with law professor Spencer Overton and the Heritage Foundation's Hans Von Spakovsky.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
Source: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/01/173244624/weighing-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act?ft=1&f=1070
lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer
A Fun Dose of Paralegal Ethics
Can paralegal ethics be fun? On The Paralegal Voice, co-hosts Lynne DeVenny and Vicki Voisin join lawyer/humorist Sean Carter, founder of Lawpsided Seminars, to share his comedic approach to legal education, the biggest challenges for legal staffers today and his thoughts on his popular talk, Thou Shalt Not Lie, Cheat and Steal: The 10 Commandments of Legal Ethics.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/paralegal-voice/2012/01/a-fun-dose-of-paralegal-ethics/
cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer discrimination lawyers district attorney
What Sam Ponder Said
You've got African-Americans, you've got Hispanics, you've got a bag full of money. Does that tell you — a light bulb doesn't go off in your head and say, This is a drug deal?
Tell the truth. There are plenty of you out there who are thinking to yourselves, "well, yeah. Duh." It's just like that old joke, "what do you call four black men in a Cadillac? Grand theft auto!" Because that's what blacks and hispanics do. They're mostly criminals. And welfare cheats. And lazy. And violent. Not all, of course. Some of your best friends are black and Hispanic, but those are the 'good" ones. They're different.
Some white folks try their best to recognize their inherent prejudice and fight it. They realize that the black and Hispanic experience is very real. They aren't proud of themselves for their inability to think of others with different skin color or ancestry, or gender or sexual preference, without imposing some degree of bias, but they are sufficiently aware to make the effort to not let their prejudice manifest itself in a statement like the quote that starts this post. They try to be better. They hope that the day will come when these ideas no longer exist in the deep recesses of their mind.
But the fellow who uttered these words didn't see the problem. When Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sits on the Hispanic seat, read these words, she was sufficiently offended that she wrote about it.
It is deeply disappointing to see a representative of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into the 21st century. Such conduct diminishes the dignity of our criminal justice system and undermines respect for the rule of law. We expect the Government to seek justice, not to fan the flames of fear and prejudice.
She was not so offended that she voted for the court to hear the case, however. Nor was she sufficiently offended as to include the name of the offending government official. As Jeff Gamso notes, so much for there being any consequences for doing wrong. Well, at least if you're a government official. Otherwise, there are consequences aplenty.
Rather than merely bemoan the grievous wrong of such an inflammatory and prejudices statement, Ken at Popehat did what no one in the media or on the Supreme Court (or any lower court, for that matter) was willing to do. He typed the letters that spelled out a name and identifying information of the person who uttered those offensive words.
Assistant United States Attorney Sam L. Ponder of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio
While Sam Ponder isn't the only man in America who lacks the metacognitive skills to recognize his prejudice, or the interest to overcome it, the fact that he's a federal prosecutor and exercises the power of his office in furtherance of his prejudice is a matter of great public concern. It should be important enough that the media identify the prosecutor who said it, that the courts identify the person who said, that the Supreme Court Justice who was so offended identify the person who said it.
Yet, no one did except Ken.
At the juncture of guts and media, former fuzzy-slipper wearing blogger turned Huffington Post media celebrity, Radley Balko, was moved by Ken's boldness.
Ken at Popehat is right -- those of us who cover these issues need to do a better job of identifying prosecutors who cross the line. But this is also information that should be readily and publicly available. These are public officials. They work for us. And they have incredible power -- the power to ruin lives. There's really no good reason why their misconduct should be obscured.
To that end, I'm going to start a recurring feature at this blog that will -- as Popehat puts it -- "name and shame" misbehaving prosecutors.
Radley points out, correctly, that questions and statements uttered in the course of a prosecution that play upon the incipient prejudice that remains at the core of whites is just one aspect of the wrongdoing that gives rise to Gamso's "no consequences."
Distasteful as Ponder's question was, prosecutors frequently get away with far more damaging misconduct -- withholding or even manufacturing evidence, for example -- and thanks to this habit of not naming them in appellate opinions, they not only escape professional sanction, but public accountability.
The problem goes even further than this, extending to the remedies provided by courts in those rare instance where misconduct is found. Forget naming the evil-doer. Forget the evil-doer suffering real-world consequences, whether getting fired or suffering financial liability for his conduct. The typical remedy is a do-over, where the government gets a second chance to do it the way it should have been done in the first place. The message is if you do wrong and get caught, a big "if" to begin with, the worst that will happen is that you will have to do it again the right way.
Those of us who type out words while wearing a bathrobe may not be considered serious by those who get paid to type out words on subjects about which they know little, but we have one thing going for us that more important voices lack. We have an appreciation of the fact that the courts protect those who do wrong while receiving a government paycheck. They may speak ill of their conduct, like a parent chastising a child for the 397th time to not put his elbows on the table, but never imposing any more of a punishment than making them get their darn elbows off the table.
Ken did what a Supreme Court justice lacked the fortitude to do. Gamso made the point that a Supreme Court justice failed to do when, despite her offense, she completed a unanimous denial of certiorari. Radley did what journalists who write for widely read "legitimate" media are loathe to do, compromising their access to power by taking a stand that will anger important government officials.
Putting Sam Ponder's name into the title of this post isn't sufficient. He should no longer be in the government's employ, but he is. The best the blawgosphere can do is impose our own brand of incentive to prevent prosecutors who do wrong from never suffering any consequences, not even the most minor of public exposure.
But at least we're trying and doing something. Otherwise, you would never know the name of Sam Ponder, the guy who thinks that blacks and Hispanics plus a bag of money equals drug dealing. And Sam's name deserves to be known, at the very least.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/02/26/what-sam-ponder-said.aspx?ref=rss
lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers
Brainless Blunders in E-Discovery Searches
Are you guilty of making big mistakes when it comes to e-discovery searches? On Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc., and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, welcome guest Attorney Craig Ball, one of the country’s leading computer forensics technologists, to share his insights on brainless blunders in e-discovery searches. Craig also talks about recall and precision as mortal enemies, data volume rather than data quality and tips on looking at data as data rather than as documents.
Medicare Set-Aside Professional Administration
On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen welcomes colleague and co‑host, Brian J. Fillion and guests, Sandra O'Sullivan, President of Ametros Financial Corporation and Tom Ash, Chief Executive Officer of Ametros Financial, to discuss the professional administration of Medicare Set-Aside funds and Medicare Set-Aside trusts. Sandra and Tom talk about the benefits of Professional Administration, managing the fund as a professional administrator and how professional administration works in a structured settlement.
free lawyer free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california free lawyers
Friday, March 1, 2013
Predictive Coding: A Rose by Any Other Name
One of e-discovery’s hottest topics today is predictive coding. So what exactly "is" predictive coding? On Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, welcome guest Dan Gallivan, one of the founders and Chief Technology Officer for Gallivan Gallivan & O’Melia , to discuss technology-assisted review, also known as predictive coding. Dan shares his thoughts on this new technology replacing keyword search, common areas of misunderstanding and Judge Peck’s role as a flag bearer for predictive coding.
Ethical Obligations within E-Discovery
On The ESI Report, host Michele Lange, Attorney and Director of Thought Leadership at Kroll Ontrack welcomes special guest, Judge Lisa Margaret Smith, from the Southern District of New York, to take a look at ethical obligations within the field e-discovery. In addition, on the Bits & Bytes Legal Analysis segment, Kroll Ontrack Legal Correspondent, Elliot Westman, takes a glimpse at e-discovery frameworks adopted in 2011 in the state of Utah and the Federal District of Delaware.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/esi-report/2012/03/ethical-obligations-within-e-discovery/
lawyer colleges lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys
Search Plus Your Legal World
Google's new "Search Plus Your World" represents a new direction in Internet search where social elements become part of our search results. Bringing our social media world into search results indicates both the growing importance of social media and the need to find new ways to get relevant results. Can we make use of what our friends and connections find on the web to get us better search results? In this episode, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell take a look at Search Plus Your World, whether bringing social into search might help us, and whether this approach might work for you. After you listen, be sure to check out Tom & Dennis’ co-blog and book by the same name, The Lawyers Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2012/02/search-plus-your-legal-world/
free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california
Canada Supreme Court upholds hate speech laws
[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Canada [official website] ruled [judgment] Wednesday that limitations on free speech with regards to hate speech are constitutionally valid. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [text], every Canadian is entitled to "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." This provision is limited by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code [PDF], which imposes specific prohibitions on publication and expression of speech "that exposes or tends...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/02/canada-supreme-court-upholds-hate-speech-laws.php
dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law employment law courses
Top Legal Blogs & State of the Blawg-osphere in 2013
There seems to be a resurgence in law-related blogging. But which blogs will have a significant impact on your practice this year? In this episode Dennis and Tom discuss recently-published lists of notable blogs, briefly chat about Dennis’s own “Blawggie Awards” and share their recommended blogs, why they enjoy them and how they might affect your practice. Dennis and Tom will also share their own, personal technology resolutions for 2013 and as always, give their parting shots… that one tip, website or observation you can start using immediately after this podcast.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2013/02/best-legal-blawgs-blawgosphere/
Judge: Prosecutors botched service on defendant company
U.S. District Judge Robert Payne of Richmond rebuked federal prosecutors for failing to get proper service on a South Korean company accused of stealing trade secrets for making body armor.
The judge’s Feb. 22 ruling means a delay in the criminal case against Kolon Industries Inc. as the government must try again to properly notify Kolon about the criminal charges it faces.
Payne presided over a civil trial against Kolon in which DuPont Co. won a nearly $920 million verdict on claims that Kolon used DuPont technology to make a competing high-strength para-aramid fiber. The product is used in body armor, military helmets, tires and fiber-optic cables.
Kolon has appealed the civil verdict.
In the criminal ruling, Payne rejected what he depicted as at least eight efforts by the U.S. government to serve Kolon, including attempted service under a bilateral treaty on legal proceedings.
internet lawyer labor attorney lafayette attorney law law enforcement
Federal Gay Marriage Ban Hurts The Bottom Line, Businesses Argue
Google, Apple, Facebook and other big names are wading into the same-sex-marriage debate, which will come before the Supreme Court next month. They argue the federal government's ban on recognizing gay unions causes "unnecessary cost and administrative complexity."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)