Facebook Post as Alibi: Teenager's Facebook Status Saves Him - Strange Crime - Legally Weird
Posted using ShareThis
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Practicing Law in a Virtual World
The Second Life Bar Association is holding a free mini-conference on "Practicing Law in a Virtual World" on Saturday, November 14:
Practicing Law in a Virtual World
I haven't been in-world in a long time, but I might sign back in for this one.
Practicing Law in a Virtual World
I haven't been in-world in a long time, but I might sign back in for this one.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Time to learn how to preach it and teach it ...
On Friday and Saturday I'll be attending a refresher Collaborative Practice Training. I originally took the training in Rochester, NY in September 2005, but haven't been able to take any collaborative cases because no one in my area was doing this. Now there are finally some attorneys in the greater Capital District area who will be accepting collaborative cases. There is even a new Collaborative Divorce Association of the Capital District, so I can finally get started with something I've wanted to do for a long time.
I was trying to explain collaborative law to the other attorneys in the Family Court conference room, but I guess I'm not explaining it well because all they could say was "sounds like a sure way to go bankrupt - why would clients pay for this? I'm not interested." After this training, maybe I'll do a series of posts here and at my other blawgs to try to explain more effectively what collaborative practice is all about and why it is a good idea both for attorneys and for clients.
I was trying to explain collaborative law to the other attorneys in the Family Court conference room, but I guess I'm not explaining it well because all they could say was "sounds like a sure way to go bankrupt - why would clients pay for this? I'm not interested." After this training, maybe I'll do a series of posts here and at my other blawgs to try to explain more effectively what collaborative practice is all about and why it is a good idea both for attorneys and for clients.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Neat idea ....
I'm now following the Untethered Lawyer blog - sounds like an interesting approach to the challenge of working from home.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
And in the "whew, it's about time" department ....
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has handed down a decision which puts reasonable limits on data searches and sets specific guidelines for the use of electronically stored information seized under a warrant.
In order to execute a warrant for the retrieval of specific data from a computer, entire hard drives and other electronic storage media are often seized and then browsed at will for other incriminating evidence against those who are not even the specific targets of the investigation.
In USA v Comprehensive Drug Testing the court firmly slapped down the "plain view exception" claim which has been used to justify the use of other computer evidence observed while searching through electronically stored information for the specific data sought under a warrant.
Both a summary of the case and the full text of the decision are available at the above link. It's worth the time to take a look. These guidelines actually make some sense.
In order to execute a warrant for the retrieval of specific data from a computer, entire hard drives and other electronic storage media are often seized and then browsed at will for other incriminating evidence against those who are not even the specific targets of the investigation.
In USA v Comprehensive Drug Testing the court firmly slapped down the "plain view exception" claim which has been used to justify the use of other computer evidence observed while searching through electronically stored information for the specific data sought under a warrant.
Both a summary of the case and the full text of the decision are available at the above link. It's worth the time to take a look. These guidelines actually make some sense.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
"Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see"
In the lecture which includes the famous "wise Latina woman" quote, Judge Sonia Sotomayor was addressing the same basic issue that many of us have been arguing about for years: how do our life experiences affect our perceptions, and to what extent can we correct for that, and to what extent should we TRY to correct for that?
She went on to say: "I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."
I can't argue with that premise, and the more I read the entire speech from which the "wise Latina woman" quote was taken, the more I see Judge Sotomayor as someone who has given exactly the kind of thoughtful and careful consideration to this issue that we need from our judges and other policymakers. Yes, a judge is a policymaker. Anyone who deals with trial-level judges in courts like Family Court sees that judges on the trial level bring their individual experiences, beliefs and philosophies to the application of the law to the facts. How can they not? Look at the obvious struggle, for example, of the justices of the California Supreme Court to separate out their personal views on a social issue from the narrow legal question which was before them for decision on the Proposition 8 case. It's not an easy thing to do. Whether one agrees or disagrees with a particular court ruling, the process of recognizing one's own values and how they affect one's opinions is an ongoing one for all human beings in general, and most powerfully and significantly for those whose decisions affect others.
She went on to say: "I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."
I can't argue with that premise, and the more I read the entire speech from which the "wise Latina woman" quote was taken, the more I see Judge Sotomayor as someone who has given exactly the kind of thoughtful and careful consideration to this issue that we need from our judges and other policymakers. Yes, a judge is a policymaker. Anyone who deals with trial-level judges in courts like Family Court sees that judges on the trial level bring their individual experiences, beliefs and philosophies to the application of the law to the facts. How can they not? Look at the obvious struggle, for example, of the justices of the California Supreme Court to separate out their personal views on a social issue from the narrow legal question which was before them for decision on the Proposition 8 case. It's not an easy thing to do. Whether one agrees or disagrees with a particular court ruling, the process of recognizing one's own values and how they affect one's opinions is an ongoing one for all human beings in general, and most powerfully and significantly for those whose decisions affect others.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
My first blog post at cuttingedgelaw.com
Just signed up at Cutting Edge Law, a really interesting-looking legal community. Here's my first blog post there.
**************************
Today at Family Court, I found myself running out of patience with a client who was reluctant to accept the best settlement that I could negotiate under the circumstances. That may sound to many lawyers like an everyday occurrence, but for me it is a distress signal and wake-up call. I felt that I was doing my best, in the circumstances handed to me by "the system," and the client felt that "the system" was inherently skewed. The problem is that both of us were right. I was doing the best that I could with the options available to me, but the options which were available to me to present to the client were far more limited than I would have liked to offer. I wasn't conspiring against my client, but when my client complained that what was happening was not fair, the client wasn't completely wrong, either.
In Family Court, more than in any other forum, the "system" needs to maintain a sensitivity and flexibility that goes beyond sifting differing versions of the facts to reach a conclusion about what really happened. We need to go beyond who is right and who is wrong, beyond fact-finding and finger-pointing, to a view toward a solution that is best for all the individuals involved.
Twenty years ago, when Stephen Covey's "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" was published, everyone was talking about win-win thinking and about paradigm shifts, but now the topic seems so yesterday to most people that they will no longer listen. Unfortunately the need to change our thinking in the legal system has not gone away. Many of us are still thinking in terms of winners and losers, good guys and bad guys.
It has been over three years now since I attended a collaborative law training, and I have yet to handle a collaborative case because no one in my somewhat rural area is interested. It takes at least two to collaborate, and it takes a community to make real changes in the philosophy and attitude of the court system. None of us can do it alone, and trying to change the system alone is a surefire recipe for burnout: keep it up and you're toast. Only by working together on changing our goals, for our clients, for the system, for ourselves, can we achieve any deep or lasting change.
**************************
Today at Family Court, I found myself running out of patience with a client who was reluctant to accept the best settlement that I could negotiate under the circumstances. That may sound to many lawyers like an everyday occurrence, but for me it is a distress signal and wake-up call. I felt that I was doing my best, in the circumstances handed to me by "the system," and the client felt that "the system" was inherently skewed. The problem is that both of us were right. I was doing the best that I could with the options available to me, but the options which were available to me to present to the client were far more limited than I would have liked to offer. I wasn't conspiring against my client, but when my client complained that what was happening was not fair, the client wasn't completely wrong, either.
In Family Court, more than in any other forum, the "system" needs to maintain a sensitivity and flexibility that goes beyond sifting differing versions of the facts to reach a conclusion about what really happened. We need to go beyond who is right and who is wrong, beyond fact-finding and finger-pointing, to a view toward a solution that is best for all the individuals involved.
Twenty years ago, when Stephen Covey's "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" was published, everyone was talking about win-win thinking and about paradigm shifts, but now the topic seems so yesterday to most people that they will no longer listen. Unfortunately the need to change our thinking in the legal system has not gone away. Many of us are still thinking in terms of winners and losers, good guys and bad guys.
It has been over three years now since I attended a collaborative law training, and I have yet to handle a collaborative case because no one in my somewhat rural area is interested. It takes at least two to collaborate, and it takes a community to make real changes in the philosophy and attitude of the court system. None of us can do it alone, and trying to change the system alone is a surefire recipe for burnout: keep it up and you're toast. Only by working together on changing our goals, for our clients, for the system, for ourselves, can we achieve any deep or lasting change.
Monday, March 2, 2009
The FTC weighs in on virtual worlds
Virtual Worlds and Kids: the FTC advises parents on the potential risks
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Reading an article by Nathaniel T. Noda
I'm just reading an article from the Sturm College of Law Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, Fall 2008 issue (you can "log in as guest"), entitled "When Holding On Means Letting Go: Why Fair Use Should Extend to Fan-Based Activities," by Nathaniel T. Noda, 5 U. Denver Sports & Ent. L.J. (2008)[26]. This one's a keeper.
My thanks to the "Fandom Lawyers" community at LiveJournal for pointing me to this one.
My thanks to the "Fandom Lawyers" community at LiveJournal for pointing me to this one.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Attorney marketing and online social networking
I've been recommending to others (including someone who is running for Family Court judge this year) that it's time for attorneys to start using Facebook and Twitter as part of our professional identities, so I guess it's time to put my identity where my mouth is and start using my Facebook and Twitter accounts accordingly. It's easier with Twitter to separate the personal and the professional because I already have two Twitter accounts, a personal one and a professional one. I only have the one Facebook account, and there's "fun" stuff there, too, not just my professional face. So, I'm thinking about how best to accomplish for myself what I have been recommending to others.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Broadening the scope ....
I think I've been limiting myself too much with the "Second Person Legal" concept. I'm interested in a lot of interrelated techno-law/cyberlaw issues which go beyond just virtual worlds, so I haven't really used this blawg (or the WordPress version of the blawg, or the associated Ning). I'm going to broaden the scope of this and I'm working on a few more ideas, so .... hope to be back here with some of those ideas under development soon.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)