San Francisco Paralegal Association

News

  • 08/23/2017 7:00 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    The Sacramento Bee

    August 22, 2017

    By Angela Hart 

     

    California’s Supreme Court chief justice has forcefully called on federal immigration agents to stop looking in California’s courtrooms for people they suspect are living in the country illegally, a move some have criticized as politically motivated.

     

    But state Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said Tuesday she feels it’s her duty to speak out on federal policy that allows Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials to detain people in and around courtrooms, a practice she said has been “in full force.”

     

    “If no one ever speaks out, then we can never be the land of the free and the home of the brave,” Cantil-Sakauye said at a panel discussion hosted by state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara.

     

    Since President Donald Trump took office in January, people – those here legally and undocumented immigrants – are less likely to report crimes, to come forward as witnesses to crimes and to seek help if they are victims of crimes, Cantil-Sakauye said. That impedes public safety, infringes the constitutional rights of individuals and their access to justice and has led to a “tide of rising violence,” she said.

     

    “This is a national concern...that deserves more attention,” she said. “We’re seeing people not coming to court, not reporting to court, not coming for services (and) not coming to testify...this has an effect not only on the immediate case and the safety of communities, but people who live in the communities.”

     

    Cantil-Sakauye first reported an increase in immigration agents in courtrooms across the state in March, when she told them to “stop stalking undocumented immigrants.”

     

    “Courthouses should not be used as bait in the necessary enforcement of our country’s immigration laws,” she wrote in a March 16 letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, now the president’s chief of staff. “Enforcement policies that include stalking courthouses and arresting undocumented immigrants, the vast majority of whom pose no risk to public safety, are neither safe nor fair. They not only compromise our core value of fairness but they undermine the judiciary’s ability to provide equal access to justice. I respectfully request that you refrain from this sort of enforcement in California’s courthouses.”

     

    Cantil-Sakauye acknowledged Tuesday that she, nor California, has the authority to force immigration authorities to stay away.

     

    Federal Homeland Security and immigration officials say enforcement actions should be deterred at “sensitive locations,” such as schools, places of worship and hospitals. Courthouses are not considered sensitive locations.

     

    In response to her letter, Sessions and Kelly blamed sanctuary city laws that limit cooperation between the federal government and local officials.

     

    “Because courthouses are typically screened upon entry to search for weapons and other contraband, the safety risks for the arresting officers and persons being arrested are substantially decreased,” Sessions and Kelly wrote in March.

     

    Angela Hart: 916-326-5528, @ahartreports

     

     


    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article168714487.html

     

     

  • 08/22/2017 7:42 PM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    Chautauqua Institution

    August 16, 2017

     

     

    Judge Jon O. Newman:

    United States Circuit Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit  

     

     

     https://youtu.be/iRO1u4Dl5KA

     

     

  • 08/21/2017 6:45 PM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    ABA Journal

    August 21, 2017

    By Debra Cassens Weiss

     

     

    The number of securities class action filings this year has reached the highest point since the information was first tracked in 1996.

     

    In the first six months of the year, 131 securities class actions were filed in federal court, the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) reports, citing information from Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. The firgures don’t include suits challenging mergers and acquisitions.

     

    If merger suits are considered and the current pace continues, 9.5 percent of U.S. exchange-listed companies will be sued for alleged securities violations this year, the highest percentage since 1997.

     

    The article notes a difference in the types of cases being filed. The most lucrative cases are based on alleged misstatements in audited financial statements. But now, smaller law firms are filing suits based on business disruptions or disasters, failed pharmaceutical trials and earnings that don’t meet expectations.

     

    Researchers believe the increase in filings may be driven by “emerging” law firms that file a higher amount of lower-quality cases. Those firms are more likely to settle cases early, for lower amounts. The emerging firms tend to represent individual investors, while more established firms often represent institutional investors such as pension funds with higher losses.

     

    In the early pleading stage, the median settlement is $2.6 million for emerging firms, compared to $8.75 million for more established firms. After a case reaches discovery, the median settlement is $3.1 million for emerging firms, compared to $13.9 million for established firms.

     

    The emerging firms include Pomerantz, the Rosen Law Firm and Glancy Prongay & Murray, according to researchers. Representatives from those firms told the Wall Street Journal that securities laws apply even when the loss is smaller, and targeted smaller companies often have fewer protections in place to prevent wrongdoing.

     

     

     http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/securities_class_action_filings_reach_high_point_are_weaker_cases_being_bro

     

     

     

      

  • 08/21/2017 7:02 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    The Bar Association of San Francisco

     

    August 23, 2017: 12:00 pm - 1:30 pm


    MCLE Credits - 1.5 H

     

    Challenging Unlawful Government Conduct in Immigration Court

     

    Speakers:


    Francisco Ugarte
    San Francisco Public Defenders Office

     

    Holly Cooper
    University of California, Davis School of Law

    Helen Lawrence
    Law Office of Helen Lawrence

     

    Raha Jorjani
    Alameda County Public Defenders Office

     

     

     

    Topics:


    • Case strategy and investigation
    • Evidentiary challenges in specific types of cases, such as unaccompanied minor cases, asylum cases, and bond hearings
    • Evidentiary challenges and consequences of criminal records for removability and discretionary decisions

     

    Location:

    Online Only

     

     

    Schedule:

     

    Program: 12:00 - 1:30 p.m.

     

    Event Code: R170079

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • 08/21/2017 7:00 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    The Bar Association of San Francisco 

     

    August 22, 2017: 12:00 pm - 1:30 pm


    MCLE Credits - 1

     

    Challenging Unlawful Government Conduct in Immigration Court

    Speakers:


    Francisco Ugarte
    San Francisco Public Defenders Office

    Helen Lawrence
    Law Office of Helen Lawrence

      

     

    Topics:


    •Case strategy and investigation considerations
    • General rules of evidence in immigration court
    • Authentication, hearsay, and interplay between federal regs, ICPM, and common law
    • Challenging law enforcement conduct
    • Constitutional rules and federal regulations

     

    Location:

    Online Only

     

     

    Schedule:

     

    Program: 12:00 - 1:30 p.m.

     

    Event Code: R170082 

     

     

    Registration Questions:

    Please call (415) 982-1600 and ask for the Continuing Legal Education department.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • 08/20/2017 7:30 PM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    Duke University School of Law

    February 19. 2007

     

    A discussion with Jim Newton, author of the well-reviewed biography, "Justice for All : Earl Warren and the Nation He Made". Newton served as reporter, editor, and bureau chief of the LA Times for close to twenty years.

     

     

     https://youtu.be/1L8rVD9a6e4

     

     

     

     

     

  • 08/19/2017 5:04 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    The University of Chicago Law School

     

    The University of Chicago Law School's "Shakespeare and the Law" conference brought together thinkers from law, literature, and philosophy to investigate the legal dimensions of Shakespeare's plays. Participants explored the ways in which the plays show awareness of law and legal regimes and comment on a variety of legal topics, ranging from general themes, such as mercy and the rule of law, to highly concrete legal issues of his time. Other papers investigated the subsequent influence of his plays on the law and explored more general issues concerning the relationship between law and literature.

    The keynote session of the conference featured Justice Stephen Breyer, Judge Richard Posner, Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics Martha Nussbaum, and Frank L. Sulzberger Distinguished Service Professor Richard Strier (English, University of Chicago). It was recorded May 15th, 2009.

     

     

     https://youtu.be/FR4UIiDX2Ug

     

     

     

  • 08/19/2017 5:02 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    Library of Congress Webcasts

     

    On October 20,2016, Monica Youn read from her new book, "Blackacre" and participated in a discussion with Martha Dragich, professor emerita of law at the University of Missouri School of Law.

     

    Previously, Monica Youn was the Brennan Center Constitutional Fellow at NYU School of Law, where she focused on election law and First Amendment issues. She holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal, an M. Phil from Oxford University in English Literature, and a B.A. from Princeton University. 

     

     

    https://youtu.be/Crqs-fF8FFY

     

     

     

     

  • 08/19/2017 5:00 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    ABA Journal

    August 18, 2017

    By Jason Tashea

     

     patents

     

                             

    In the past five years, there has been a 484 percent increase in legal technology patents globally, according to new numbers from Thomson Reuters.

     

    “Technological innovation across the financial and professional services industries has grown rapidly over the last few years, and the legal sector is investing to stay ahead of the curve,” said Charlotte Rushton, managing director of U.S. Large and Midsize Law Firms for Thomson Reuters, in a statement.

     

    Property Foundation, Thomson Reuters found 579 patents relating to legal service technologies filed in 2016, up from 99 in 2012. Thirty-eight percent of the 2016 patents were filed in the U.S., 34 percent were filed in China, and 15 percent were filed in South Korea.

     

    Thomson Reuters reasons that the patent-filing boom is being driven by law firms in the U.S., United Kingdom and East Asia outsourcing their work, as well as by global competition and regulatory changes allowing for unconventional business models. Specifically, the media company points to the Legal Services Act in the UK, which allows lawyers and nonlawyers the ability to form businesses together.

     

    “Law firms expanding into sectors such as management consultancy are being exposed to new practices and implementing technology changes as a result,” added Rushton in the press release.

     

    The Thomson Reuters analysis did not show what types of products were being patented or which areas of law were the most affected.

     

     

     http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/legal_technology_patents_have_increased_484_globally_in_last_5_years

     

     

     

  • 08/18/2017 5:02 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    The San Diego Union-Tribune

    August 17, 2017

    By Greg Moran

     

     SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, USA -- FEBRUARY 6, 2017 MANDATORY CREDIT: PHOTO BY NELVIN C. CEPEDA, SAN DIEG

    Nelvin C. Cepeda /

    SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, USA -- FEBRUARY 6, 2017 MANDATORY CREDIT: PHOTO BY NELVIN C. CEPEDA, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE San Diego Superior Court Judge Gary Kreep listens to testimony at a February hearing in his judicial misconduct case.

     

     

    The state judicial discipline agency issued a “severe public censure” against San Diego Superior Court Judge Gary Kreep on Thursday, stopping just short of removing him from the bench.

     

    The punishment is the second most-serious that the Commission on Judicial Performance can assess against a judge. Kreep came close to losing his seat on the bench, with four of the 10 commissioners — including all three active judges who are part of the commission — voting for removal.

     

    The commission leveled 29 charges of misconduct against Kreep, most of which related to his judicial campaign and his first year on the bench in the downtown San Diego Superior Court. Lawyers for the commission had argued he should be removed from office because the misconduct was so serious.

     

    Despite the large number of violations the commissioners did not kick him off the bench, because it said in its decision that most of the violations occurred during his 2012 campaign for the seat and in his first year or so as a judge.

     

    But the decision harshly rebuked him for his conduct, and how it damaged the perception of the court system.

     

    “Judge Kreep has engaged in a pattern of misconduct that demonstrates a lack of judicial temperament” Richard Simpson, the vice chairman of the commission wrote. “During his campaign for judicial office he conducted himself in a manner that created an appearance of lack of impartiality and demonstrated a disregard for adhering to election laws and assuring the accuracy of his public representations. After taking office, he often ran his courtroom in a manner that was undignified and suggested bias or prejudgment.’

     

    The 67-year-old Kreep, who is up for re-election next year, did not respond to a request for comment on the decision. His attorney James Murphy said the judge was traveling and would be relieved to know that the commissioners did not agree with the staff lawyers who sought his removal.

     

    He said Kreep has listened to the criticism of his early conduct and taken in the advice from fellow judges on how to change his behavior and has become a productive judge since his rocky start.

    “He’s looking forward to getting back to work and discharging his judicial duties,” Murphy said.

     

    Kreep was elected to the bench by a narrow margin in 2012. He had spent decades as a prominent lawyer in conservative legal causes, and was perhaps best known for his work on “birther” lawsuits that challenged the citizenship of former President Barack Obama and his eligibility for office. The claims have been discredited and proven false.

     

    The charges alleged that Kreep made a string of inappropriate comments to lawyers, litigants and court staff while on the bench, including some aimed at women attorneys with the San Diego County Public Defender's Office and San Diego City Attorney's Office. He commented on their appearance, ethnicity, and used nicknames to refer to them.

     

    In one instance he commented on the accent of a Latina deputy Public Defender, then asked her if she was a Mexican citizen. When she said she was not, Kreep responded “I wasn't planning on having you deported.”

     

    He used nicknames for lawyers, including referring to one African-American woman lawyer as “Star Parker,” an African-American celebrity. The lawyer testified at a hearing on the charges in February the nickname made her uncomfortable and was not flattering.

     

    Another lawyer was dubbed “Bun Head.” a second “Ms. Dimples,” and a 6-foot-7-inch male lawyer Kreep called “Shorty.” The comments showed a lack of decorum and could “undermine confidence in the judiciary.”

     

    Kreep’s fraught relationship with the City Attorney’s office was the basis of the most serious charge against him of willful misconduct. The office was both upset about his decision in some cases and his use of nicknames and other comments he made to city lawyers.

     

    In September 2013, the office instituted a "blanket challenge" on Kreep. That is a tactic where prosecutors can boycott a judge's courtroom from getting new cases. It generally results with the court quietly reassigning the judge for a period of time to another courtroom.

     

    Kreep reacted angrily when informed of the challenge and told that he was being sent to Traffic Court. He told some public defenders in his downtown San Diego courtroom during a break, "If they are coming for me, they are likely coming for you, " according to the report.

     

    The commission said that Kreep improperly expressed “hostility” to the challenge, a violation of judicial ethics, and he had “no legitimate reason” to comment on it.

     

    The commission also contended Kreep misrepresented his role in three organizations on his campaign website during his 2012 campaign for the bench, and violated judicial rules by engaging in political campaigning for a nonjudicial office when he solicited support and money opposing President Barack Obama's re-election.

     

    Len Simon, a San Diego lawyer who was among a group 16 people who filed a complaint with the commission in 2013 over his campaign activity, welcomed the decision.

     

    “I’m pleased they found he acted improperly,” he said. “I would have thought the proper remedy was removal given the number of counts of wrongdoing they found he had committed. But, he’ll have to face the voters if he wants to stay on the bench much longer.”

     

     For the past several years, Kreep has been assigned to a courtroom dealing largely with landlord-tenant disputes. The commission credited him with working hard in that courtroom and earning plaudits from lawyers who appear before him.

     

     

     http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/

     

     

San Francisco Paralegal Association • 1 Sansome St., Ste. 3500 • San Francisco, CA 94104-4448 • (415) 946-8935 • info@sfpa.com