Friday, January 30, 2015

The Bad Clients You Don't Take Will Be the Best Money You Never Made

See - The Bad Clients You Don't Take Will Be the Best Money You Never Made





"x x x.

If you are not ready to live and die by your gut, here are some other warning signs that trouble could be brewing down the road:
That is not an exhaustive list by any means. Those are just some of the red alerts I have encountered. As noted above, if your gut says something is not right, something is probably amiss. That is the perfect opportunity to bounce the case off another attorney and get some feedback. But never try and convince yourself that any client is a good client. It’s not that simple.
x x x."

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

How to Give Feedback - Attorney at Work - Attorney at Work

See - How to Give Feedback - Attorney at Work - Attorney at Work





"x x x.

Be Heard and Be Effective
Because of anxiety-provoking systems like the annual performance review, many people perceive “feedback” as code for “blaming.” But, as explained in “How to Ask for Feedback,” feedback isn’t blame, or flattery, or one-sided, dead-end information — and it’s not just more noise in the system.
Real feedback is constructive information about work product, personal performance or some other output of a system, used to identify problems to correct and strengths to build on. It can also be the source of new ideas to improve firm systems or services, and your law practice overall.
Keeping this definition in mind will help you give feedback that’s more likely to be heard, and more likely to be used to make improvements.
Learning to give useful feedback is a lot like learning to ask for feedback. You begin by asking yourself the right questions.
1. Who’s the recipient of your feedback? The kind of feedback you give depends on the person who’s receiving it. Research has shown that novices respond best to encouragement because they’re still unsure of themselves, while experts want corrective feedback as a way of advancing their development. This doesn’t mean, however, that you explain away the problems with a novice’s performance, or that you ignore the best parts of the expert’s work. Instead, for novice attorneys or staffers, point out something they did skillfully that has some parallels with the problem area, and show them how they can use that skill to improve the part they’re struggling with. For the experienced lawyer or staff member, explain how certain areas could be improved, but also acknowledge excellent work when you see it.
2. When are you giving feedback? Tailoring your feedback to the experience of the person receiving it works better when you give feedback regularly. Whenever you see good work, express your appreciation and encourage more of it. When you see a problem that needs to be corrected, point that out, too, with suggestions for how to fix it. If you have difficulty doing this on the fly, consider scheduling regular “check-in” meetings with staff or attorneys you supervise. Or, consider having a “debriefing” meeting when a representation or project ends. The purpose should be to review both positives and negatives, consider how to build on strengths and correct weaknesses, and see if anyone has ideas for making other improvements.
3. What are you saying? Before you say a word, remember your goal in giving feedback: To help the person do better work. “You are a bad writer” merely tells the new lawyer something negative about himself and gives him nothing he can use to improve his work. Instead, show him the weak points in the research memo he wrote and how it can be better supported. By the same token, “You did a great job!” is nice to hear, but it doesn’t give useful information that can be applied in the future. Specify which elements of the work were particularly successful, so they can be repeated.
4. How are you saying it? The answer should be “directly, specifically and kindly.” Directly identify the particular problem or strength; give specific suggestions for correcting the problem, or building on the strength; and don’t be unkind or get personal. Again, it’s about the work, not the person. A lot of people will use the “sandwich” approach — putting negative feedback between two pieces of positive feedback to cushion the blow. Mostly, this is to make everybody feel better, but it doesn’t help people work better. The recipient is left thinking she’s done a good job, even if a major problem exists. It’s not kind to mislead people into thinking their work is great when it’s not, though it’s also not kind to act like a jerk when you’re bringing it to their attention. Put yourself in the person’s shoes, and talk the way you would want to be talked to.
Fundamentally, getting and giving feedback is all about good communication skills. Some people have an easier time learning the art of feedback than others do. But with thought and practice, any lawyer can put feedback to work in the office, for everyone’s benefit.
Mary Taylor Lokensgard is a recovering attorney with over 15 years of experience in private practice, including plaintiff’s personal injury litigation, estate planning and administration, and elder law. She’s now working as an independent writer, and she tweets @marylokensgard.
x x x."

How to be the best lawyer possible in 2015 | Lawyers Weekly

See - How to be the best lawyer possible in 2015 | Lawyers Weekly





"x x x.

The Law Institute of Victoria’s immediate past president, Geoff Bowyer, lists his top tips for being a better lawyer this year.

1.    Have an organised, manageable inbox

I started 2014 with an overwhelming, 4,000-plus emails in my inbox. However, after cutting down the emails I receive (subscriptions, alerts), setting up folders and committing to respond to difficult emails promptly, I’m pleased to say I have an organised inbox of less than 1,500 which I intend to whittle down to 200 by year’s end. It reduces my stress and makes it much easier to find what I need. I recommend you try cleaning up your email before the year gets fully underway.

2.    Commit to being happier at work

I’m lucky in that I love my job – but the reality of commercial law can be less inspiring for some. At the recent LIV Christmas party, I quizzed young lawyers on how much they enjoyed their job using a rating of one to 10. For those who gave a score lower than seven, I urged them to change either to a new role, or to challenge their organisation to change their roles or the way in which they operate. I actively work at emphasising the positives of what I do, including embracing the fantastic human interactions I am privileged to have every day, always striving to master new skills, keeping in mind the future I’m striving towards, and trying to be generous with my time and advice when it can help. While we can’t be happy all the time, I believe we can all be that bit happier at work in 2015.

3.    Focus on breaking bad habits

Talking in legalese; not keeping detailed file notes or documenting client instructions; or, a common one, avoiding the cost question, are all common bad habits of lawyers. Check my blog on lawyers’ bad habits and see if you are guilty of any – then make a commitment to break it in 2015.

4.    Slow down your life

You’ve identified that you are just too busy and it’s making you sick and miserable. This year, simplify your life by learning to say no, cutting down on unnecessary activities, delegating more and making sure you prioritise important things like family and exercise. Trust me, your family and friends will thank you for it.

5.    Find a job you love

It’s hard to be happy at work if you hate your job – or even if you’re simply bored and unchallenged by it. So whether you have a new boss you don’t get on with, you can’t seem to get that promotion, or toxic colleagues are making you sick with stress – 2015 is the time to move on. So start polishing your resume, get some advice from trusted colleagues, update your LinkedIn profile and start reaching out to your network. Don’t let fear or apathy be your enemy – a job you can love may be just around the corner.

6.    Download a new app to improve your productivity

There are so many apps out there that can help you to do your job better – you just can’t afford to ignore them. Why not pick at least one that can make you a more productive lawyer and start using it. You just might find (like me) that you are left wondering how you lived without it.

7.    Mind your Ps & Qs

Believe it or not, this year’s most popular blog was about lawyers’ etiquette. Let’s face it, the legal profession has its fair share of unwritten rules: everything from how to address the judge, dress (in court and office) and technology manners to client relationships is a potential minefield. I think having a good understanding of lawyers’ etiquette can make you a more confident and effective lawyer, so it’s worth a refresher every now and then.

8.    Show your appreciation for a job well done

I don’t think we take enough time to thank those around us, and show our appreciation for a job well done. So, to all those members who got involved through a committee, assisted with a submission, volunteered in community projects, provided advice or who engaged with their local member, I say a heartfelt thank you.

But wait, there’s more! I leave you with one final tip: believe in yourself more this year. If you dare to dream, more often than not you can make your dreams a reality.



Geoff Bowyer (pictured) is the managing director of Bendigo firm Beck Legal and the immediate past president of the Law Institute of Victoria.



x x x."

Over 30 million people enslaved worldwide today | Blas F. Ople Policy Center & Training Institute

See - Over 30 million people enslaved worldwide today | Blas F. Ople Policy Center & Training Institute





"x x x.

Based on a report by the International Labor Organization (ILO), there are 29.8 million or more people working as modern-day slaves today.
Statistics revealed that three out of every 1,000 persons worldwide are in forced labor at any given time. Despite the awareness on the issue, it is still rampant because of one reason – it is lucrative. Modern-day slavery is a $150-billion-per-year business.
Here are other findings generated from the ILO report:
  • Adults are more affected than children – 74% (15.4 million) of victims fall in the age group of 18 years and above, whereas children aged 17 years and below represent 26% of the total (or 5.5 million child victims).
  • Women and girls represent the greater share of the total – 11.4 million (55%), as compared to 9.5 million (45%) men and boys.
  • Of total number of 20.9 million in forced labor, 18.7 million (90%) are exploited in private economies, by individuals or enterprises. And out of these, 4.5 million (22%) are victims of forced sexual exploitation, and 14.2 million (68%) are victims of forced labor exploitation in economic activities, such as; agriculture, domestic work, construction, manufacturing… The remaining 2.2 million (10%) are in state-imposed forms of forced labor, for example; in prisons, or in work imposed by the state military or by rebel armed forces.
  • The Asia-Pacific region by far is the largest hotbed for exploited laborers, accounting for 11.7 million (56% of the global total). Africa comes in at number two, accounting for 3.7 million (18%), while another 1.8 million (9%) of exploited laborers are in Latin America, Caribbean. The ‘Developed Economies’ and ‘European Union’ account for 1.5 million (7%), while countries of Central, South-Eastern and Eastern Europe (CSEE) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) have 1.6 million (7%). An estimated 600,000 exploited workers, meanwhile, are believed to be in the Middle East. These men, women and children are virtually invisible, hidden behind wall of coercion, threat, economic exploitation.
  • Almost 21 million people are victims of forced labour – 11.4 million women and girls and 9.5 million men and boys.
  • Almost 19 million victims are exploited by private individuals or enterprises and over 2 million by the state or rebel groups. Of those exploited by individuals or enterprises, 4.5 million are victims of forced sexual exploitation.
  • Domestic work, agriculture, construction, manufacturing and entertainment are among the sectors most concerned.
  • Migrant workers and indigenous people are particularly vulnerable to forced labour.
The Blas F. Ople Policy Center and Training Institute is against all forms of modern slavery. If you know of cases or victims of human trafficking, please contact us at (02) 833 – 5337 or 0948-808-OPLE (6753). You may also message us on Facebook (www.facebook.com/blasoplepolicycenter) or on Twitter (www.twitter.com/oplecenter).
x x x."

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Aquino appoints new judges | Inquirer News

See - Aquino appoints new judges | Inquirer News





"x x x.

The following are the newly appointed judges:

Manila Regional Trial Court
Branch 21 – Judge Alma Crispina Collado Lacorte
Branch 24 – Judge Maria Victoria Soriano Villadolid
Branch 31 – Judge Maria Sophia T. Solidum-Taylor
Makati RTC
Branch 60 – Judge Cesar L. Aganon

Sorsogon
Judge Maximino R. Ables
Antique RTC
Branch 12 – Judge Francisco S. de Guzman
Branch 64 – Judge Mario G. Andres Jr.

Capiz RTC
Branch 15 – Judge Alma N. Banias-Delfin
Branch 17 – Judge Lorencito B. Diaz
Branch 20 – Judge Judith Orendain-Tanogbanua

Iloilo City RTC
Branch 25 – Judge Rose Edith Gautier Togonon
Branch 33 – Judge Ma. Theresa N. Enriquez-Gaspar
Branch 38 – Judge Juana Judita Panigbatan-Nafarrete

Bacolod City RTC
Branch 46 – Judge Edgar Tupas

In the first level courts, the newly appointed judges are Judge Joselito A. Benedito of 1st MCTC, Pidigan-San Quintin-Langiden, Abra, and Judge Camilo A. Oliva of MTC, Claveria, Masbate.

RELATED STORIES
x x x."


Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/663458/aquino-appoints-new-judges#ixzz3OPmIdqYc
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Conde: Relieving the Philippines’ overcrowded jails | Sun.Star

See - Conde: Relieving the Philippines’ overcrowded jails | Sun.Star





"x x x.

THE Supreme Court of the Philippines has ordered 286 people to be released from jail because they had already spent the same amount of time behind bars as the minimum penalties for their alleged offenses. The court’s long-overdue action is designed to address the country’s serious problem of lengthy pretrial detention and is part of what the court called its “Judgment Day” program that, along with “Justice on Wheels” and “Hustisyeah!,” aims to decongest the Philippines’ notoriously overcrowded detention facilities.
The Supreme Court deserves credit for taking the initiative to address the problem of lengthy pretrial detention in the Philippines. But the release of these detainees is nothing more than a symbolic drop in the bucket in comparison to the estimated more than 70,000 people currently in detention awaiting trial for often extremely lengthy periods. Many spend decades in jail waiting for their case to go before a judge.
A June 2014 report by the International Center for Prison Studies noted that the Philippines has the highest number of pretrial detainees in Southeast Asia and the sixth highest in the world. Prolonged pretrial detention violates international human rights law that the Philippines has agreed to uphold. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for instance, states that everyone detained on a criminal charge is “entitled to trial within a reasonable time or release.”
Advertisement
Prolonged pretrial detention is often the result of the Philippines’ inefficient judicial system, which is hobbled by corruption, clogged dockets, and an inadequate number of court facilities and judges to oversee them. Police and prosecutors often file charges despite inadequate preliminary evidence or an absence of probable cause. The passage of the country’s tough anti-drug law in 2002 resulted in a sharp rise in arrests that have added to the pressure on the country’s already overcrowded detention facilities.
Reducing the large numbers of people in lengthy pretrial detention will require more than occasional mass-releases of individuals whose trial was overdue. Instead it will require much more wide-reaching justice system reform to address the systemic issues that create such injustices. The Supreme Court has highlighted the problem but now it is up to the government to step up and take serious action.
x xx ."

HRW lauds Supreme Court move to free 286 prisoners | BusinessMirror

See - HRW lauds Supreme Court move to free 286 prisoners | BusinessMirror





"x x x.

THE Supreme Court (SC) deserves praise for ordering the release of 286 people from prisons after the minimum periods of their sentences.
In a statement, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said that the action, while overdue, merits support from all quarters, particularly the families of the prisoners and officials of the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor), the agency that oversees the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa City under the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The problem of overstaying prisoners, the late journalist, newspaper columnist and former political prisoner Julius Fortuna said, was so serious in Muntinlupa that he had to help those in the minimum-security and medium-security areas to be released.
Fortuna had to write letters on behalf of the prisoners addressed to the BuCor, the DOJ and even up to the Office of the President (OP) during the martial-law period to secure the freedom of the prisoners.
A former leader of the Movement for a Democratic Philippines (MDP) who was arrested in the mid-1970s, Fortuna spent more than eight years in various prisons and in the National Penitentiary before he was finally released. Another former prisoner, activist Alfonso Sabilano, who was convicted of double murder in the early 1970s, said, “Those who should have been released continue to stay in the penitentiary simply because their papers do not move.”
“The court’s long-overdue action is designed to address the country’s serious problem of lengthy pretrial detention and is part of what the Court called its ‘Judgment Day’ program that, along with ‘Justice on Wheels’ and ‘Hustisyeah!,’ aims to decongest the Philippines’s notoriously overcrowded detention facilities,” HRW said.
The releases of detainees and prisoners got a push during the incumbency of  Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who supervised Justice on Wheels declogged dockets and freed inmates found to have served their sentences.
However, the HRW is mainly concerned about the detainees who are in the pretrial stage, claiming that up to 70,000 people belong to that category of inmates who should be in municipal, city or provincial jails, all because their cases are nonbailable or they could not raise bail at all.
“The SC deserves credit for taking the initiative to address the problem of lengthy pretrial detention in the Philippines. But the release of these detainees is nothing more than a symbolic drop in the bucket in comparison to the more than 70,000 people currently in detention awaiting trial for often extremely lengthy periods. Many spend decades in jail waiting for their case to go before a judge,” the group noted.
In June 2014 the International Center for Prison Studies noted that the Philippines has the highest number of pretrial detainees in Southeast Asia and the sixth highest in the world.
Marvyn N. Benaning / Correspondent.
x x x."

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Affirmative Defenses to Criminal Charges: Self-Defense, Necessity, Entrapment, Insanity & Intoxication | David J. Shestokas

See - Affirmative Defenses to Criminal Charges: Self-Defense, Necessity, Entrapment, Insanity & Intoxication | David J. Shestokas





"x x x.

In some criminal cases the defendant admits committing a criminal act. A legal excuse or justification may exist. This is an affirmative defense.
For a person to be guilty of a crime, there are two things that must exist. The person must perform an action that is prohibited by law, and do so with an intent or mental state that is described by law. These two things taking place at the same time give rise to criminal liability. The law recognizes that there are times when criminal liability can be proven, but society believes it is not proper to punish the accused.
When a defendant admits that he has done a prohibited act, and he intended to do that act, but puts forward as a reason that it was done under a recognized exception to punishment, he is claiming an affirmative defense.
Requirements of the Generally Accepted Affirmative Defenses
To claim an affirmative defense a defendant typically must meet several requirements. First, he must admit that he did the act that he is accused of doing, and second evidence of the legally recognized exception to holding him responsible must be introduced.  This evidence may be part of the state’s case, or the defendant may introduce such evidence himself.
Throughout the United States, each state has rules that may differ in the details of when a situation qualifies for a particular affirmative defense, but the principles involved are universal. The typically recognized affirmative defenses are:
  • Self-Defense or Defense of Others
  • Necessity Defense
  • Entrapment Defense
  • Insanity Defense
  • Intoxication Defense
Self-Defense or Defense of Others as an Affirmative Defense
George ZimmermanSelf-defense is an affirmative defense used by individuals charged with crimes against the person of another such as assault and battery, and in some cases murder. The actions are admitted but claimed to be legally justified by the danger presented by the alleged victim.
There are typical elements to the successful use of self-defense to charges of a violent crime:
  • the belief of the threat was reasonable
  • there was no reasonable alternative
  • the force used was no greater than necessary to end the threat
Each jurisdiction varies a bit on the elements, or how they are measured. In most jurisdictions if there is some evidence of self-defense raised, it becomes the prosecution’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim of self-defense is not justified.
As a legal defense to criminal charges, self-defense is hundreds of years old.  John Locke called self-defense “the first law of nature”.
The George Zimmerman murder trial brought issues of self-defense into the national spotlight.  The jury instructions in the Zimmerman matter reflect the traditional law of self-defense.
Necessity as an Affirmative Defense
In some situations a defendant will argue that while he knowingly engaged in the prohibited conduct, the purpose of his doing so was necessary to prevent a harm worse than the harm caused by his violation of law. This is the affirmative defense of necessity.
To be successful in using the Necessity Defense, typically a defendant must produce evidence that:
  • The harm to be avoided was greater than the danger posed by the prohibited conduct.
  • There was no reasonable alternative.
  • The prohibited conduct ceased as soon as the danger passed.
  • The defendant did not create the danger to be avoided.
This may arise when there is a medical emergency such as a pregnant woman in labor, or a significant injury occurs. An individual may break traffic laws in an effort to get a distressed individual to proper services when it reasonably appears there is no alternative method to do so. There may be a decision to drive by someone whose license has been suspended to get help for another and no other reasonable means exist.
Entrapment as an Affirmative Defense
There may be an instance where an individual admits he committed a crime, but claims he did so because he was enticed to do so by an agent of the government. This is the affirmative defense of entrapment.
Government participation alone will not give rise to entrapment, such as undercover agents buying drugs from someone and then charging them with delivery of a controlled substance. Generally for this defense to be effective, it must be shown that if not for the government’s participation, this individual would not have engaged in such activity.
Insanity as an Affirmative Defense
John Hinckley, Jr. Attempt to Kill President Ronald ReaganThe concept that it takes a particular mental state to commit a crime is at the heart of the Insanity and Intoxication defenses. The theory is that if someone was incapable of forming criminal intent then he is not guilty of criminal activity.  There are many variations on the Defense of Insanity from the possibility of not guilty to a finding of guilty but mentally ill. It is an incredibly complex area of law, as the human mind is a very complex entity. 
A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity does not necessarily mean freedom for a defendant.  John Hinckley, Jr. shot President Ronald Reagan in 1982.  Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity.  He remains in a mental hospital 31 years later.
Intoxication as an Affirmative Defense
Intoxication by either drugs or alcohol may be a defense to certain actions; however there are strict limits on its use. If the state of intoxication was self-induced, the defense is rarely effective, in that a person has diminished his own faculties and so is responsible for the actions that follow. Involuntary intoxication is another matter, and conduct that follows when a person has been drugged by another may be found to be legally excused.

x x x."


- See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/general-law/affirmative-defenses-to-criminal-charges-self-necessity-entrapment-insanity/#sthash.DfDiIvco.dpuf

Legal Solutions Blog: Nine times Facebook can get you in ethical trouble

See - Legal Solutions Blog Nine times Facebook can get you in ethical trouble





"x x x.

Here are several of the scenarios that were discussed along with the panel’s opinions on ethicality:
  1. Accessing an opposing party’s public Facebook page. If the opposing party’s Facebook page is public, the panel agreed that you can feel free to access and make copies of what is posted to use in your case.

  2. Adding an opposing party as a “friend.” While an attorney may be tempted to add an opposing party as a friend on Facebook to gain access to a private page, the panel said this is considered unethical behavior if the person is unrepresented.  The situation is explained in depth by the Massachusetts Bar Ass’n Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, Op. 2014-5.
Even if the opposing party was represented, the panel concluded it would still be unethical under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct*Rule 4.2 because accessing a private Facebook account can be considered communication “with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter.”
  1. Having a colleague add the opposing party as a “friend.” Asking a paralegal, office assistant or another colleague to add the opposing party as a friend is still unethical, the panel agreed. See Rule 5.3(c) on the “responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants.”
Additionally, it could also be considered a violation of rule Rule 8.4(c), which prohibits an attorney from engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
  1. Accessing an opposing party’s private Facebook account through someone who already had access. If it comes out that, say, a paralegal already had access to an opposing party’s Facebook account, it would be wise to avoid using the page as a source of evidence, the panel concluded after some debate.
It was also suggested that the opposing counsel should be made aware of the Facebook relationship so that the opposing client could have the option to “unfriend” the paralegal during the duration of the case.
  1. Creating a false Facebook account to gain access to an opposing party’s page. Again, this would be a violation of rule Rule 8.4(c), which prohibits an attorney from engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”

  2. Contacting an opposing party via Facebook message. Sometimes when an opposing party cannot be reached, attorneys may consider sending a Facebook message to him or her in effort to get a response. The panel concluded that this was likely ethical so long as the message made clear from the very beginning that the lawyer was representing an opposing party in a lawsuit that was seeking an outcome not favorable to the person being contacted.
The key is to make sure the opposing party knows who is contacting them and to give them the opportunity to ignore the communication. The panel also recommended getting an advisory opinion before making contact via Facebook.
  1. Evidence obtained through snooping on a spouse’s Facebook account during a divorce. Ultimately, the panel agreed that this common scenario comes down to whether the spouse was authorized to access the account. If not, the spouse who snooped may have broken federal and/or state privacy laws and the evidence gathered may not be allowed in court.

  2. Responding to a former client’s bad reviews on Facebook. If an attorney has a Facebook page for his or her practice that takes customer reviews, there is a possibility that some of the reviews may not portray the attorney very favorably. When that is the case, the panel said that it’s best to ignore the reviews and avoid getting into a debate with the client on a public forum, which could potentially raise client confidentiality problems.

  3. Posting work-related comments on Facebook. Many people use Facebook as a forum to vent about their jobs. However, if you are an attorney it’s best to keep your gripes off of Facebook. Posting something negative about a judge, client, opposing party or opposing counsel online can lead to reprimand.

x x x."

- See more at: http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/practice-of-law/nine-times-facebook-can-get-ethical-trouble-2/?adbid=552657172262166528&adbpl=tw&adbpr=15307378&cid=social_20150107_38326187#sthash.h3ZgLziU.dpuf

How Technology Is Changing an Attorney’s Duties Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct | Law.com

See - How Technology Is Changing an Attorney’s Duties Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct | Law.com





"x x x.

Prior to the technology boom, attorneys could sit idly back and claim tech-ignorance.  Since November 21, 2013, that is simply no longer the case.  On November 21, 2013, the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct were amended to require that all attorneys keep apprised of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with technology and their case.
The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct added amendments to Rule 1.1 “Competence” and Rule 1.6(d) “Confidentiality of Information.”  Together, these amendments provide better safeguarding of client information across all modes of technology, from emails to social networking.
Rule 1.1 – Competence
The new amendment to Rule 1.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct appears in a Comment.  The amendment to Rule 1.1 addresses an attorney’s obligation to be competent in the area of technology. The comment specifically states:
To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.
PA. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.6, cmt. 8 (new matter emphasized).  Most Courts interpret this amendment as requiring all attorneys to at least possess an email address.
Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Client Information
This is the most sacred duty an attorney can owe to a client – safeguarding their information.  The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct place strict limits on what information an attorney can reveal.  Recently, with the explosion of social networking and blogging, the limits set forth in Rule 1.6 have to be imported into the involving world of technology.  Rule 1.6 has to apply to social networking and blogging so attorneys do not reveal their client’s information electronically unless it specifically comports with Rule 1.6.
A new section was added to Rule 1.6 to ensure that client confidentiality applied to various technologies.  Rule 1.6(d) states that “a lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.” PA. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.6(d).
Comment 25 of new Rule 1.6(d) elaborates on the protections lawyers must consider.  Comment 25 specifically states that:
Paragraph (d) requires a lawyer to act competently to safeguard information relating to the representation of a client against unauthorized access by third parties and against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure by the lawyer or other persons who are participating in the representation of the client or who are subject to the lawyer’s supervision. See Rules 1.1, 5.1 and 5.3. The unauthorized access to, or the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, information relating to the representation of a client does not constitute a violation of paragraph (d) if the lawyer has made reasonable efforts to prevent the access or disclosure. Factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the lawyer’s efforts include, but are not limited to, the sensitivity of the information, the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to represent clients (e.g., by making a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to use). A client may require the lawyer to implement special security measures not required by this Rule or may give informed consent to forgo security measures that would otherwise be required by this Rule. Whether a lawyer may be required to take additional steps to safeguard a client’s information in order to comply with other law, such as state and federal laws that govern data privacy or that impose notification requirements upon the loss of, or unauthorized access to, electronic information, is beyond the scope of these Rules. For a lawyer’s duties when sharing information with nonlawyers outside the lawyer’s own firm, see Rule 5.3, Comments (3)—(4).
PA. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.6, cmt. 25 (new matter emphasized).  The new amendments do not specify what types of technology are covered simply because technology is constantly evolving.  However, the main purpose of these new amendments is to further safeguard client information.  Attorneys can no longer claim technology ignorance when safeguarding client information.  The new amendments specifically spell  out an attorney’s duties when it comes to technology and client information.
Michael Kraemer is a partner with Kraemer, Manes & Associates, a law firm headquartered in Pittsburgh, serving all of Pennsylvania, with attorneys focusing on business law, employment law, litigation and civil issues. For more information please visit www.lawkm.com.
More by | Michael Kraemer Michael Kraemer , Law.com Contributor
x x x.



Read more: http://www.law.com/sites/michaelkraemer/2015/01/06/how-technology-is-changing-an-attorneys-duties-under-the-pennsylvania-rules-of-professional-conduct/#ixzz3O6AwewLf

Detention: the black hole at the heart of British justice - Crime - UK - The Independent

See - Detention: the black hole at the heart of British justice - Crime - UK - The Independent





"x x x.

It has been described as the “black hole at the heart of British justice”. Thousands of people, most of whom have been convicted of no crime, detained for as long as government officials wish.

Britain is the only country in Europe to allow the indefinite detention of migrants – leaving them in a legal limbo condemned as “barbaric” and abhorrent” by critics.

But ministers are now facing the biggest ever challenge to the draconian powers, as a growing coalition of campaign groups, civil society organisations and religious leaders demand that the maximum length of immigration detentions be capped.

In the run-up to the election, Citizens UK, the largest alliance of civil society organisations in the country, is to call on all prospective MPs to pledge a time limit on the detention of migrants.

Jonathan Clark, the Bishop of Croydon who is backing the drive, said: “Detaining people indefinitely in prison-like conditions without judicial oversight is unjust, ineffective and inhumane.That’s why Citizens UK are calling on people of goodwill across the country to join them in taking this issue to their parliamentary candidates.

“We will ask politicians to pledge their support for a time limit on the detention of adults – and to work with us… to make it happen.”

Separately, more than 30 charities and organisations are now calling for a time limit of 28 days’ detention.

The calls are being led by the Detention Forum, whose members range from the Migrants’ Rights Network to the Prison Advice Service. Eiri Ohtani, coordinator, Detention Forum, said: “Barbaric and uncivilised, the practice of locking up migrants indefinitely has no place in Britain.”

The backlash against the Home Office’s approach comes after The Independent revealed this week how 20 people have been held for more than two years.
A security officer walks down one of the corridors of Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal CentreA security officer walks down one of the corridors of Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre (Reuters)
They are among more than 3,300 people kept in detention “solely under Immigration Act powers” in removal centres such as Yarl’s Wood, which has faced allegations of abuse and mistreatment of inmates by staff. Hundreds of others are held in prisons under the same immigration powers. Jerome Phelps, the director of Detention Action, said: “Immigration detention is a black hole at the heart of British justice. Suspected terrorists can only be held without charge for 14 days, yet asylum-seekers are routinely held for years, simply because a civil servant has failed to arrange their deportation.”

He added: “Most long-term detained migrants return to their communities in the UK, bearing the scars of indefinite detention. It is quite simply a dysfunctional practice that wastes taxpayers’ money and human lives.” Dr Lisa Doyle, head of advocacy, the Refugee Council, said: “It’s utterly abhorrent that at the stroke of a pen a Government official can deprive someone of their freedom indefinitely, without them having being charged with or convicted of any crime.”

The cost of the “Immigration Detention Estate” to the taxpayer is more than £164m a year. And millions more are spent on compensating people who have been unlawfully detained. More than £75m annually is wasted on detaining migrants who are then released, say campaigners.

Britain is the only European country where migrants can be detained indefinitely, having opted out of the EU Returns Directive, which sets a maximum time limit of 18 months. The UN Committee against Torture, in May 2013, urged Britain to “introduce a limit for immigration detention and take all necessary steps to prevent cases of de facto indefinite detention.”

Yet the number of people being locked up is at record levels, with more than 30,000 put into detention at some point each year. At any one point in time, several thousand people are in detention under immigration rules.

Most of those are failed asylum-seekers, while others may be those whose visas may have run out, or who had indefinite leave to remain until being given a deportation order. In many cases, those who are held for long periods are from counties with barriers to removal, such as Somalia, Iran, and Eritrea. Others are detained because they are ex-offenders and regarded a “flight risk.”

The call for a time limit on how long people can be held is likely to be a key recommendation in a report to be published next month by the first ever cross-party parliamentary inquiry into immigration detention.

A Home Office spokesman said: “No one is held in immigration detention indefinitely. Individuals are detained for the shortest period necessary and all detention is reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it remains justified and reasonable. We have a duty to protect the public from those who pose a risk of harm and, in particular, those who have committed serious criminal offences. It is open to any individual held in immigration detention to apply for bail or challenge the decision in the courts.”

In limbo: Detainees stories

One former detainee, Souleymane, from Guinea, said: “I was in detention for three-and-a-half years... Lots of people around me collapsed mentally. They cut their wrists or hung themselves. They couldn’t take the endless not-knowing. They couldn’t take the sense of hopelessness that is the younger brother of indefinite detention – it’s always following it around, the two come together.” The 51-year-old, who was released three years ago and lives in Reading, has since received compensation for unlawful detention. 

Mukala, 33, from Uganda, said: “I came seeking freedom, yet I was locked up for over a month in Yarl’s Wood detention centre. I had committed no crime, yet I was put in a cell in what was essentially a prison... The worst part was not knowing when I would be released; it felt like I would being detained forever. It was scary and at times difficult to cope.” Mukala was detained in 2010 before being released on medical grounds, and now has indefinite leave to remain. 


Jonathan Owen

x xx."

California Bar Exam Results By Law School: Open Thread (July 2014) | Above the Law

See - California Bar Exam Results By Law School: Open Thread (July 2014) | Above the Law





"x x x.

The only information we’ve had until now has been the 
overall, shockingly low pass rate of 48.6 percent (down a 
woeful 7.2 percentage points fromJuly 2013’s results). 
We also knew about the overall pass rates for first-time 
takers who attended ABA-accredited law schools, 
both in-state (69.4 percent) and out-of-state (59.9 percent).
x x x.

xxx. How did everyone else do? Here’s a chart of the
July 2014 bar performances for all 21 ABA-accredited
California law schools (gavel bang: TaxProf Blog):
Cal Bar July 2014 Results
x x x."