Menu
Log in

  SAN FRANCISCO PARALEGAL ASSOCIATION

Log in:

SFPA is a Proud Affiliate Member of NALA



News

  • 11/09/2017 4:29 PM | Deleted user

    California Courts Newsroom

    November 8, 2017

    Judicial Council Public Affairs / 415-865-7740

     

     

    SAN FRANCISCO—The California Supreme Court today announced the reappointment of two current members and the appointment of a new member to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO), an independent committee that helps inform the judiciary and the public on judicial ethics topics.

     

    Judge Kenneth K. So of the Superior Court of San Diego County and Judge George J. Abdallah, Jr. of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County were both reappointed to serve additional four-year terms as CJEO members. Commissioner Belinda Handy of the Superior Court of Riverside County was appointed to serve a four-year term. The reappointments and appointment are effective January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2021.

     

    As the newest member of the committee, Commissioner Handy will fill a vacancy required to be held by a subordinate judicial officer. (Rule 9.80(c).) She brings to the committee a strong interest in judicial ethics. Prior to joining the bench, Commissioner Handy was an active member of legal communities across the state, having practiced as a public defender in Riverside and Placer counties, and having practiced civil and criminal law in Los Angeles and Fresno counties. As a commissioner on the Riverside Superior Court, her judicial assignments have included family law and domestic violence matters.

     

    Information on CJEO members can be found at http://www.judicialethicsopinions.ca.gov/members/.

     

    The Supreme Court established the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) to help inform the judiciary and the public concerning judicial ethics topics. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80.) CJEO publishes formal advisory opinions, issues confidential written opinions, and provides oral advice on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities. In providing its advisory opinions, the committee acts independently of the Supreme Court, the Commission on Judicial Performance, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(b).)

     

     

    https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/supreme-court-makes-appointments-to-committee-on-judicial-ethics-opinions

     

     

  • 11/09/2017 7:55 AM | Deleted user

    The Bar Association of San Francisco

     

    The Criminal Law & Government Investigations and Litigation Sections of the Barristers Club present:

     

    Fighting Back: Getting Justice for Clients Hurt by Police

     

    November 14, 2017: 5:30 pm - 7:15 pm


    MCLE Credits - 1.5 H

     

     

    Register for this Event

     

     

    Speakers:
    John Burris
    Law Offices of John Burris

    Sanjay Schmidt
    Law Offices of Sanjay Schmidt

    Moderator
    Audrey Siegel
    The Cartwright Law Firm

    Topics:


    • How criminal defense attorneys can assess and preserve their client’s civil rights claims
    • How criminal defense attorneys and civil rights attorneys can work together to advance their mutual clients’ interests
    • When to bring the civil claim—must you wait until the criminal proceedings are finished?

    Criminal Law Section Co-Chairs: Maria Belyi, Law Office of Maria Belyi and Kirsten Haigh, Hamasaki Law

     

    Litigation Section Co-Chairs: Evangeline Burbage, Lewis & Llewellyn and Audrey Siegel, Cartwright Law

     

    Location:

    BASF Conference Center
    301 Battery Street
    3rd Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94111

    Directions

     

    Schedule:

    MCLE Registration: 5:00 - 5:30 p.m.


    Program: 5:30 - 7:15 p.m.

     

    Cost:

    BASF Student Member  Complimentary
    Section Member $30.00
    BASF Member $40.00
    Government $40.00
    Nonprofit $40.00
    Non-Member $55.00

     

    Note: All prices increase by $10.00 on the day of the program.

     

    Event Code: B171233

     

    Questions about our seminars and the registration process?

     

    Register for this Event

     

    Fax or Mail your registration: Registration Form ( PDF)

     

     

  • 11/09/2017 7:53 AM | Deleted user

    Sonoma County Bar Association

     

     Discussion will Include:
    ~ Where to Start
    ~ Methods of Collecting
    ~ Dealing with the Sherriff
    ~ What Not to Do

     

    Steve Beckwith

     

    Stephen M. Beckwith
    The Law Office of Stephen M. Beckwith

     

    Mr. Beckwith’s practice includes representation of creditors such as contractors, financial institutions, auto dealerships and material suppliers to the construction industry. Further, he has incorporated many Sonoma County businesses and is general counsel to several of these businesses focusing on administrative and contract matters. Mr. Beckwith has an extensive practice in business and personal collections of various clients.

     

    Mr. Beckwith is a member of the California and Sonoma County Bar Associations. In addition, Mr. Beckwith was a teacher at Sonoma State University in the Paralegal Program, teaching enforcement of judgment techniques at the school. He also currently sits on the Sonoma County Assessment Appeals Board hearing disputes between taxpayers and the Sonoma County Assessor’s Office. From 2001 through 2012, Mr. Beckwith was a Pro Tem Judge for the Sonoma County Superior Court hearing Small Claims Cases.

     

    Mr. Beckwith is a graduate of UCLA (Class of 74) with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and received his law degree from Empire College School of Law. Mr. Beckwith held a license as a real estate appraiser from 1989 through 1995.

     

    Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017

     

    Time: Check-In: 11:45 am; Presentation: 12:00—1:00 pm

     

    Presenter(s): Stephen M. Beckwith, The Law Office of Stephen M. Beckwith

     

    Place: SCBA Office, 111 Santa Rosa Ave., Ste. 222, Santa Rosa, CA 95404

     

    Registration Fee: $55–SCBA Members; $70–Public;

     

    MCLE:1.0 Unit Participatory Credit in General Law

     

    Student: $20 (The student discount is now available online for SCBA Student Members. Students who are not members of SCBA may utilize the student discount by downloading the registration form and submitting it with proof of current enrollment to the SCBA Offices. For more information on becoming a member of SCBA, please contact Susan Demers at (707) 542-1190 ext. 18.)

     

    Click Here to Register


    Click Here to Download Registration Flyer

     

  • 11/09/2017 7:51 AM | Deleted user

    Santa Clara Bar Association

     

     The SCCBA Real Property Section presents an MCLE Seminar:

     Acquiring Investment Property: Strategies and Tactics

     

     

    This seminar will address:

    (1) considerations in the choice of entity, tax issues, and practical issues for entity formation for holding and conveying title to these investments, including acquisition and post-acquisition re-titling in an entity, (2) matters to consider in the negotiation, documentation, due diligence and closing the acquisition of real estate investments, and (3) considerations in the choice of title insurance policies and endorsements for these investments.

     

     

    When: November 16, 2017
    12:00PM-2:00PM
    Where: SCCBA Seminar & Conference Center
    31 North Second Street, 4th Floor
    San Jose, California  95113
    United States
    Presenter: Real Property Section
    Contact: SCCBA
    info@sccba.com
    408-287-2557

     

     

    Pricing:
     In-Person [INCLUDES LUNCH]  
    SCCBA Member: $89  
    SCCBA New Admittee:
    (Under 5 years in practice)
    $79  
    Non-Member Event Attendee: $129  
    Honorary: $29  

     

     

     Attend Online

    SCCBA Member: $95
    Non-Member Event Attendee: $135
     
    Registration: 11:30Am

    Program: 12:00pm - 2:00pm


    MCLE CREDIT:
    2.0 General Substantive Law

     

  • 11/09/2017 7:49 AM | Deleted user

    Marin County Bar Association

     

    Labor and Employment Law / Section Meeting

     

    Tax Implications of Employment Case Settlements: The Latest Information Plaintiffs and Defendants Must Have

     

    General taxation issues related to settlement agreements, and specifically issues related to employment litigation for both the plaintiff and defendant, will be addressed. Topics will include tax treatment of damages generally alleged in employment matters, damages excluded from taxation, avoiding potential malpractice issues, drafting damage allegations in the complaint, and settlement drafting issues.

     

    These issues arise whenever a case is settled; recent updates are essential. Do not miss.

     

    1.0 CLE | General

     

    Brown Bag Lunch 

       

    Registration:

     

    Member Registration

     

    Non-member Registration

     

    Registration ends Nov 14, 2017

     

    Members: $10


    Non-Members: $20

     

    $20 for non-MCBA Labor/Employment section members

     

    Date and Location:

    Tuesday | November 14, 2017
    12:00-1:30P

     

    Ragghianti Freitas LLP
    1101 Fifth Avenue
    Suite 100
    San Rafael, CA 94901

     

    Contact:

    Nancy McCarthy | Email
    Karen Howard | Email

     

     

  • 11/09/2017 7:47 AM | Deleted user

    Alameda County Bar Association

     

     

    Running a Business in Bankruptcy: The View from Chapters 7, 11 and 13

    What happens when the business entity or the owner of a business is forced to file bankruptcy?  This program explores what a debtor must do to succeed in operating the business under chapters 7, 11 or 13.  It examine the risks, costs and pitfalls of operating a business in bankruptcy and how the business must be financed, how it accounts for receipts and disbursements, the debtor’s duties and how creditors are affected.

     

    The program will be presented by Paul Mansdorf, a panel chapter 7 trustee for Oakland Division of the Northern District of California United States Bankruptcy Court, Martha Bronitsky, the standing 13 trustee for the Oakland Division of the Northern District of California United States Bankruptcy Court, and Iain MacDonald, a lecturer on bankruptcy and chapter 11 debtor’s counsel.  The program will be moderated by Mark Bostick, chair of the Bankruptcy Section for the Alameda County Bar Association. 

     

    Light lunch provided.If you have dietary restrictions, please plan to bring your own food.

     

    Cost:

    FREE for ACBA Members

    $115 for Non Members

     

    Please note: there will be a $10 administrative fee if you cannot make the program, and do not cancel in advance. A $10 fee will also be assessed for day-of and walk-in registrations.

     

    If you have trouble registering, please contact the Membership Coordinator at staci@acbanet.org.

     

    Speakers:


    Iain MacDonaldMacdonald Fernandez LLP
    Iain Macdonald has practiced bankruptcy law for over 40 years, primarily in the courts of the Northern and Eastern Districts of California, specializing in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. He attended the University of San Francisco School of Law and has taught bankruptcy and commercial law at the Law School since 1984. He practiced with the well-regarded firm of Goldberg Stinnett & Macdonald from 1977 to 1993, when he opened his own office, and then partnered with Reno F.R. Fernandez III to form the current firm. His practice emphasizes the following areas: Reorganization & Business Bankruptcy
     
    Martha G. Bronitsky, Chapter 13 Trustee
    Martha G. Bronitsky, has served as the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee for the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division since July 1995. She currently administers over 10,050 open cases.

    Paul Mansdorf, Chapter 7 Trustee 
    Paul is a member of the panel of chapter 7 trustees for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division.


    Moderator:

    Mark Bostick, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP   
    Mark has specialized in insolvency law for more than 30 years.  He represents trustees, debtors, creditors and other interested parties in all forms of insolvency proceedings and out-of-court workouts. He currently serves as the Chair of the Bankruptcy Section for the Alameda County Bar Association and Co-Chair of the Committee of Lawyer and Trustee Representatives of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. 

     

    Event Information
    Provider: Alameda County Bar Association
    Location: Alameda County Bar Association
    1000 Broadway, Suite 480
    Oakland, CA  94607
    Phone: 510-302-2222
    Date:

    11/13/2017

    12:00 PM - 01:30 PM


    Credits:
    1.5 HR General
    Event Registration

    Available seats: 9

     

    Login now to access your discounted rates and for faster sign up (Members only).

    If you are not a Member and want to signup for this Event, Register below.
    Later you will be able to create a Login Account for future Events.

             

     

  • 11/05/2017 10:10 AM | Deleted user

    Aids Legal Referral Panel 

     

     MCLE: End of Life Planning 101

     

     

    End of Life Planning 101 – A Review of the Fundamentals of End of Life Planning

     

    When: 07 Nov 2017  17:30 - 19:00

     

    Where:The Bar Association of San Francisco, 301 Battery St Fl 3



    Presented by Jim Wood, Esq. – Law Offices of James M. Wood (woodlaw-oakland.com)

    Overview: "It will never happen to me . . . at least not for a while". Learn the fundamentals of end of life planning long before they are needed including drafting wills, trusts, guardianships, and health care directives. Discover the opportunities not only to plan for end of life but also consider the positive outcomes of speaking to those who are important to you in your life about your life wishes.

    1.5 General CLE Credits

    To RSVP for a FREE MCLE training, email mcle@alrp.org or call (415) 701-1200 ext 303.

     

    The State Bar of California has certified ALRP, Provider #2485, to provide MCLE credit for all trainings listed.

     

     

  • 11/05/2017 5:57 AM | Deleted user

    Bankruptcy 101A: Fundamentals For Non-Bankruptcy Litigators

     

    Bankruptcy 101A: Fundamentals For Non-Bankruptcy Litigators

    Virtually every litigator will encounter bankruptcy at least once in his or her career, whether filed by an opposing party or your own client, sometimes without your knowledge. There are traps here as well as opportunities.

    • When a bankruptcy trustee is appointed, do you lose your client? Not necessarily, but you must act quickly if you want to avoid giving back your fees!
    • Does bankruptcy stop the entire litigation? Not necessarily, and there are opportunities for essentially free discovery in bankruptcy for the sharp-eyed litigator.
    • If bankruptcy is inevitable, can it be folded into a litigation strategy? Absolutely, and indeed the proceedings should be coordinated. Address this early while there are more options!

    Light lunch provided. If you have dietary restrictions, please plan to bring your own food.

     

    Cost:

    FREE for ACBA Members

    $115 for Non Members

     

    Please note: there will be a $10 administrative fee if you cannot make the program, and do not cancel in advance. A $10 fee will also be assessed for day-of and walk-in registrations.

     

    If you have trouble registering, please contact the Membership Coordinator at staci@acbanet.org

     

    Speakers:

     

    Reno F.R. Fernandez III, Macdonald Fernandez LLP

    Reno Fernandez is a partner with Macdonald Fernandez LLP, a law firm focusing on wills and trusts, estate planning, probate, business matters, commercial litigation, reorganization and bankruptcy. Reno has experience representing debtors, creditors and trustees in bankruptcy, receiverships, fraudulent transfer suits, preference actions and lien avoidance actions.

     

    Michael Shklovsky, Anderson Zeigler

    Michael Shklovsky's practice focuses on representing both plaintiffs and defendants in business, employment, real estate and intellectual property disputes. He has successfully obtained verdicts in both jury and bench trials, and has prevailed in mediation and arbitration. Michael is actively involved in the Bay Area legal community. He regularly teaches MCLE classes on the mechanics of civil litigation to less experienced attorneys. Since 2014, Michael has served as the Chair of the Alameda County Bar Association’s Trial Practice Section. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of the Section’s Newsletter. In October of 2016, Michael was appointed to the Business Litigation Committee of the Business Law Section of the California State Bar Association. 

     

    Bankruptcy 101A: Fundamentals For Non-Bankruptcy Litigators:

     Event Information
    Provider: Alameda County Bar Association
    Location: Alameda County Bar Association
    1000 Broadway, Suite 480
    Oakland, CA  94607
    Phone: 510-302-2222
    Date:

    11/08/2017

    05:30 PM - 07:00 PM


    Credits:
    1.5 HR General

     

    Questions:

    510-302-2222

  • 11/05/2017 5:55 AM | Deleted user

    ABA Journal News

    @LawScribbler

    November 2, 2017

    By Jason Tashea

     

     

     Jason Tashea

    Jason Tashea

     

     Social science research is “sociological gobbledygook,” at least according to Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice made this comment during the Oct. 3 oral argument for the political redistricting case Gill v. Whitford


     The gobbledygook in question is a theory called “the efficiency gap,” a standard used to measure partisan gerrymandering that is at the core of the plaintiff’s case.

     

    In response to Roberts’ comment, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, the president of the American Sociological Association, a national organization of sociologists, wrote an open letter to the Chief Justice offering examples of how social science data has informed the law. Social science was at the heart of the court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Additionally, social science has been used to find terror suspects and detect credit card fraud, among other accomplishments. Bonilla-Silva went so far as to offer to have a panel of experts come to the U.S. Supreme Court and provide background information on a variety of issues pertaining to social science. As of publication, the Chief Justice has not responded to the offer.

     

    Indeed, the Chief Justice’s view that social science data is gobbledygook is not a new lament in the legal community. The importance of quantifiable data, math and science in informing the law has had mixed results when it comes to admitting evidence. While the Chief Justice is misguided in his criticism of social science, he does reveal a legitimate issue: Lawyers and judges often do not have the background to correctly assess data, scientific research or technology.

     

    As the zeitgeist of “fake news” and “alternative facts” haunts all aspects of society, the legal profession’s willful rejection of math and science—shown in how courts admit evidence, practitioners’ misuse of scientific terms and how legal research is conducted—diminishes the rule of law. Not only does the profession’s often-hostile relationship with scientific issues imperil the ability to provide zealous representation, this dearth of knowledge is compounded by technology’s rapid advance.

     

    To provide better representation and bolster the rule of law, the legal profession needs to acknowledge its limitations on these issues and create structures that provide help from scientific experts, like Bonilla-Silva.

     

    DAUBERT’S SHORTCOMINGS

    The law’s inability to keep junk science out of court is a foundational problem. Nearly 25 years ago, the Supreme Court decided Daubert v. Dow Pharmacuticals, which has fallen short of its intended goal to improve the standards used to admit scientific evidence in federal court.

     

    The case created a four-factor test for the reliable determination of scientific evidence. The factors are whether a scientific technique “can be (and has been) tested;” was subjected to peer review and publication; whether there is a “known or potential rate of error” and “the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation;” and whether the technique has “general acceptance.” This approach was later applied to all expert testimony in Kumho Tire v. Charmichael.

     

    The Supreme Court in 2000 called the Daubert standard “exacting.” Ultimately, Daubert, Kumho and General Electric v. Joiner were codified as the Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Since then, nearly 40 states have adopted a version of the Daubert standard.

     

    While affecting civil and criminal proceedings, Daubert’s shortcomings are acutely felt in the admission of forensic science. Professor Paul C. Giannelli writes in a recent Case Western Law Review article that Daubert has failed to strengthen the standards of scientific validity of evidence used in criminal proceedings.

     

    Over the past decade, Giannelli writes, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Commission on Forensic Science, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the Texas Forensic Science Commission have found that numerous well-known and admitted forensic science techniques—including bite-mark analysis, microscopic hair comparison, and arson evidence—are discredited and lack the scientific foundation that Daubert purports to require.

     

    The 2009 NAS report (PDF) said: “The bottom line is simple: In a number of forensic science disciplines, forensic science professionals have yet to establish either the validity of their approach or the accuracy of their conclusions, and the courts have been utterly ineffective in addressing this problem.”

     

    Just one example of this ineffectiveness regards the interpretation of “peer review,” one of Daubert’s factors. The committee found forensic science bibliographies, judges and attorneys were unclear about this term. As Giannelli notes, the “peer review” standard in some courts has been interpreted to mean that someone double-checked a lab analyst’s work and not a “rigorous peer review with independent external reviewers to validate the accuracy … [and] overall consistency with scientific norms of practice,” which was Daubert’s intent.

     

    Beyond the misapplications of terms, courts mistakenly apply forensic science’s use in trials over time as a stand-in for the scientific testing that federal rules require. In U.S. v. Havvard, latent fingerprint matching was challenged under Daubert. The court called fingerprint testimony the “archetype” of reliable expert testimony. It confirmed this conclusion by saying that fingerprinting techniques “have been used in ‘adversarial testing for roughly 100 years,’ which offered a greater sense of the reliability of fingerprint comparisons than could the mere publication of an article.”

     

    This conclusion was in spite of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. The 2009 report added that a common fingerprinting method used by the FBI was without “particular measurements or a standard test protocol” where “examiners must make subjective assessments throughout.” Yet fingerprinting methods have not suffered a sustained challenge in federal court in nearly 100 years.

     

    This failure of courts to act as arbiters of science comes at the cost of human life. In a review of hair sample testimony by the FBI laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit between 1980 and 2000 that was published in 2015, the FBI, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Project found that FBI testimony contained errors in “at least 90 percent of trial transcripts” of the 268 trials reviewed. Of those 268 trials, at least 35 defendants were sentenced to death. FBI testimony errors were found in 94 percent of those cases. As of April 2015, 14 of those defendants had been executed or died in prison.

     

    The New York Times editorial board also wrote in 2015 that of the 329 exonerations due to “DNA testing since 1989, more than one-quarter involved convictions based on ‘pattern’ evidence—like hair samples, ballistics, tire tracks, and bite marks—testified to by so-called experts.”

     

    This indicates that the law’s ability to interpret and judge science is systemically imperfect at best, and fatal at worst. Daubert’s failure to apply scientific rigor is one reason why junk science has been allowed to propagate in the legal system.

     

    SCOTUS AND STATISTICS

    This is not just a Daubert issue. Recent reporting shows that the Supreme Court has wrongly used statistics when writing opinions. An investigative journalist from ProPublica found seven errors when taking a “modest sampling” of Supreme Court decisions from 2011 to 2015.

     

    Not just affecting criminal justice, errors included a labor rights decision that relied on a wholly made up statistic about the national use of background check services to make a central point. A case that struck down a part of the Voting Rights Act “used erroneous data to make claims about comparable rates of voter registration among blacks and whites in six southern states.” And to allay fears in a Fourth Amendment case, the Court cited material about false positives being a part of the certification process of drug-sniffing dogs from a trade group’s amicus brief. However, none of the certification groups for drug-sniffing dogs test for false positives.

     

    The errors found, some which were minor, were primarily pulled from briefs supplied to the court by interested groups. The article quotes ex-clerks saying that these errors could have been made without malice or intent. When asked for comment, the Chief Justice and the four other justices who included factual errors in their written opinions all declined. A spokeswoman for the court said the opinions “speak for themselves.”

     

    In 2000, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the science and technology magazine Issues: “The search [for law that reflects an understanding of the relevant underlying science] is not a search for scientific precision. We cannot hope to investigate all the subtleties that characterize good scientific work. A judge is not a scientist, and a courtroom is not a scientific laboratory. But the law must seek decisions that fall within the boundaries of scientifically sound knowledge.”

     

    To that end, the Supreme Court and state and federal judges have shown their ability to correctly apply science to the law. Perhaps there is no better recent example than the Supreme Court’s trilogy of decisions (Roper v. SimmonsGraham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama) that banned the juvenile death penalty and life without parole.

     

    In Roper, Justice Anthony Kennedy relied in part on sociological and scientific research that showed a youth’s brain is still developing and different from an adult’s brain in three distinct ways: developmentally youth are prone to reckless decisions, more susceptible to peer pressure and their character traits are less fixed, which means it is impossible to call a youth irretrievably depraved and deserving of the criminal justice system’s harshest punishments.

     

    In Graham and Miller, the court expanded the Roper opinion by recalling these studies. In Miller, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court: “Our decisions rested not only on common sense—on what ‘any parent knows’—but on science and social science as well.”

     

    Even with this example of the court correctly applying science to the law, as Justice Breyer wrote in 2000, judges are not scientists, and courtrooms are not laboratories. In some cases courts get the science right, and in others they do not. In part, this reflects the challenges of judging scientific research, which requires a nonlegal skill set to competently do.

     

    WHAT SHOULD BE DONE

    Instead of relying on chance or a persuasive amicus brief, the legal system should create structures that improve its understanding of science and technology, which will enhance the rule of law.

     

    Currently, Federal Rule of Evidence 706 allows judges to appoint independent experts to fill gaps in information while not relying on experts provided by the case’s adversaries.

     

    However, judges are weary to use this option for a number of reasons. In a law review article, D.C. Circuit Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg called the practice “unworkable” in many cases. This is reflected by a 1993 survey of sitting federal judges conducted by the Federal Judicial Center, which found that only 20 percent of respondents had appointed at least one independent expert during their time on the bench. Of that 20 percent, over half had appointed an expert on only one occasion.

     

    The judges who responded to that survey stated that they did not appoint experts for a number of reasons, including a difficulty finding suitable experts, the financial cost and the failure to recognize early enough that the appointment would be needed.

     

    With these challenges in mind, academics and federal commissions have recommended independent research institutions to bolster the judiciary’s ability to understand and rule on legal issues as they relate to science and technology. It is time to reconsider those recommendations.

     

    Independent research services are necessary, and not just because new technologies like machine learning and blockchain can be confounding to the uninitiatied. While tech literacy varies among judges, in recent memory, Supreme Court Justices have shown confusion regarding how text messages work and whether HBO is a free channel over public airwaves. A research service could provide a needed bridge between the worlds of science, known for its quantitative reasoning, and law, known for its reliance on logic and analogy. This would help diminish misunderstanding and improve the use of scientific information.

     

    Since at least the Reagan administration, Professor Kenneth Culp Davis has written about the need for a research entity for the Supreme Court that is like the Congressional Research Service. It would be an independent body that provides nonpartisan research on questions that justices have. This is not an organization to upend the adversarial system, but rather one to create the knowledge base required to actively and informatively partake in oral arguments and opinion-writing. At the state level, one could envision a consortioum of courts banding together to create a similar entity.

     

    Regarding forensic sciences specifically, both the National Academy of Sciences and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommended an independent federal agency, the National Institutes Standards and Technology, to conduct rigorous research on forensic sciences. The NAS report was clear that “advancing science in the forensic science enterprise is not likely to be achieved within the confines of DOJ,” because they have not “recognized” the need for change in the field.

     

    In both cases, the emphasis on independent, rigorous research is key to improve legal understanding and decision-making. Law and science are two pedantic fields with different standards and language. Without assistance and interpreters standing between these groups the law, people and science and technology will suffer.

     

    By embracing these solutions, the scientific research can be de-gobbledlygooked and the legal system will be better able to admit what it does not know.

     

     

     http://www.abajournal.com/lawscribbler/article/courts_need_help_when_it_comes_to_science_and_tech

     

     

     

  • 11/05/2017 5:53 AM | Deleted user

    The Bar Association of San Francisco

     

    The Litigation Section presents:

    Amicus Briefing on the Front Line

     

    November 8, 2017: 12:00 pm - 1:15 pm


    MCLE Credits - 1 H, Lunch will be provided by Twitter

     

     

    Register for this Event

     

     

    Inside and Outside Counsel, Government, and Non-Profit Perspectives on Current Amicus Briefing Strategies, Impacts, War Stories
    #SFBarAmicusCLE

     

     

    Speakers:
    Michele Lee
    AGC, Litigation and Competition, Twitter

    Aaron Schur
    AGC, Litigation, Yelp

    Corynne McSherry
    Legal Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation

    Christine Van Aken,
    Chief of Appellate Litigation, San Francisco City Attorney's Office

    Moderator:
    Zachary Alinder
    Sideman & Bancroft, LLP

    Topics:


    • Overview of amicus briefing procedural requirements
    • Strategy/process on how and when to solicit amicus support both internal support for third party cases and external support for party cases
    • Strategies/process for effective amicus brief writing
    • War stories or favorite anecdotes from the panel on the importance and impact of persuasive amicus briefing

    Section Chair: Holly House, Paul Hastings


     

    Printable Flyer ( PDF)

     

    Location:

    Twitter
    795 Folsom Street
    Suite 600
    San Francisco, CA 94103

    Schedule:

    MCLE Registration: 11:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
    Lunch/Program: 12:00 - 1:15 p.m.

     

    Cost:

    BASF Student Member $30.00
    Section Member $40.00
    BASF Member $50.00
    Government $50.00
    Nonprofit $50.00
    Non-Member $65.00

     

    Note: All prices increase by $10.00 on the day of the program.

     

    Event Code: G173118

     

    Questions about our seminars and the registration process?

     

     

     

     

    Fax or Mail your registration: Registration Form ( PDF)

     

     

     

     



@2024 San Francisco Paralegal Association

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE EMAIL US:

INFO@SFPA.COM

San Francisco Paralegal Association

1 Sansome Street, Suite 3500

San Francisco, CA  94104

(415) 946-8935