San Francisco Paralegal Association


  • 08/26/2017 7:32 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    Contra Costa Bar Association


    Tuesday, August 29, 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm


    Event provided by CCCBA




    Michael Meinert—Consumer Attorney



    Stops Along the Route:

    Credit Bureaus / Credit Reporting
    Identity Theft
    Collection Agencies / Collection Practices
    Foreclosures / Homeowner's Bill of Rights
    Homeowner's Associations
    Construction / Contractors


    Get the real untold stories about the pressing and yes, sometimes confusing issues and entities we as consumers face every day. Your consumer savvy will hit new heights after this program.



    Michael Meinert is an experienced litigator and Owner of Meinert Law.  Prior to opening his own solo-practice, Michael was an Associate at two major firms in the Bay Area, interned at the Washington Attorney General’s Office and Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office during law school and was a paralegal prior to attending law school.  He focuses on Consumer and Construction law.


    Michael R. Meinert
    Meinert  Law
    2950 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 300,
    Walnut Creek, CA 94597




    Members: When you register, we’ll calculate the best price based on your membership level and section membership. Not a member? Join today to take advantage of discounted pricing on all CCCBA events.

    Full Price Early Bird Price
    Section Member Special Pricing
    Barristers Section (10 yrs or less) $10.00
    Special Member Pricing
    Law Student $10.00
    New Admittee Attorney (1st yr of practice only) $10.00
    Members $15.00
    Non-Members $20.00



    Court Staff $5.00



    Contra Costa County Bar Association - Building Conference Room
    2300 Clayton Road, Suite 510
    Concord CA 94520

    Main Phone: (925) 686-6900



  • 08/26/2017 7:30 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    California Courts Newsroom

    August 25, 2017



    Judicial Council Public Affairs



    Today, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye joined Governor Jerry Brown, Senator Bob Hertzberg and Assemblymember Rob Bonta in a joint statement commiting to work together on reforms to the state's bail system "that prioritize public safety and cost-efficiency." 


    Said Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye: “During my State of the Judiciary address last year I suggested that the current bail system may not effectively serve its intended purpose of protecting public safety and ensuring court appearance without disproportionately impacting low-income Californians. I subsequently appointed a Pretrial Detention Reform Work Group to study current pretrial detention practices and provide recommendations for potential reforms. I look forward to sharing these recommendations with the Governor and Legislature as we work together to improve our bail system."


    Discussions will continue throughout the fall on Senate Bill 10 – the California Money Bail Reform Act of 2017 – which is authored by Senator Hertzberg and Assemblymember Bonta. The bill will be revisited in early 2018.



  • 08/25/2017 4:00 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    Bar Association of San Francisco


    August 27, 2017: 2:00 pm - 4:00 pm


    Meet the judges of San Francisco Superior Court during a free community forum and reception. Judges and representatives from several San Francisco Superior Court departments will be on hand to explain their departments and answer your questions about the Court, processes and more. After the moderated discussion, there will be light refreshments and a time to meet the judges.

    These court departments will be represented: Civil Harassment/Restraining Orders, Family Law, Housing, Traffic, Small Claims, Access Self-Help Center and the Jury Service Department.



    Third Baptist Church of San Francisco
    1399 McAllister Street
    San Francisco, CA 94115



    Program: 2:00 - 4:00 p.m.


    Event Code: P178408


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



  • 08/24/2017 7:04 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    Bar Association of San Francisco


    The Arbitration Section


    August 24, 2017: 5:00 pm - 6:15 pm


    MCLE Credits - 1 H, Reception to follow.


    Mediating Commercial Disputes: Preparation and Best Practices:

    Knowing the rules and conventional approaches for commercial mediation, and preparing to use that knowledge to help your client obtain the best results from mediation.



    Ralph Zappala
    Busby Zappala & Sanchez LLP



    • Why Mediate?
    • Contractual Provisions for Mediation
    • How to Assist your Client in Mediation
    • Selecting the Mediator
    • Letting Mediation Work


    Section Chair: John Worden, Schiff Hardin LLP



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



    MCLE Registration: 4:30 - 5:00 p.m.
    Program: 5:00 - 6:15 p.m.



    BASF Student Member $35.00
    Section Member $45.00
    BASF Member $55.00
    Government $55.00
    Nonprofit $55.00



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



    Event Code: G174106



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












  • 08/24/2017 7:02 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    ABA Journal

    August 24, 2017

    By Jason Tashea



    Screenshot from meetyourda



    Prosecutors in California are about to receive a lot more mail.

    The ACLU of California released Hey, Meet Your DA!, an interactive website where people can learn about and directly contact any of the state’s 58 county prosecutors. The intent is to bring the criminal justice reform movement to district attorneys’ offices around the state.


    “District attorneys are among the most powerful elected officials in local government,” Ana Zamora, criminal justice policy director with the ACLU of Northern California, said in a statement. “The decisions they make impact the lives of millions of people, including families and entire communities.”


    The project is active in all 58 California counties and provides background on the role of DAs, a portal to contact the prosecutor’s office and the public positions DAs took on criminal justice ballot initiatives. Collectively, this project shines a light on a democratically elected, but often overlooked role.


    “Bringing a community organizing ethic to what has previously been a blind spot of the movement — the role of DA’s — we are going to be able to imagine larger systemic changes that can change the trajectory of California’s addiction to incarceration,” Raj Jayadev, executive director of Silicon Valley De-bug, said in and emailed statement.


    Accompanying the website is a report from the ACLU of California and the Fair Punishment Project at Harvard Law School. The report looked at four criminal justice ballot initiatives that became law in California since 2012. These initiatives included reforming the three-strikes law, increasing youth access to parole and the legalization of recreational marijuana for adults.


    While the user can drill down to the positions taken by individual DAs, the juxtaposition between an initiative’s outcome and the public position of the prosecutors is stark. For example, the report shows that Prop 36, which narrowed the state’s three strikes law in 2012, passed with nearly 70 percent of the vote, however only three of the 58 DAs publicly supported the initiative.


    “It’s a simple and catchy way to see what DAs do,” says John Pfaff, professor of law at Fordham University School of Law and author of Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform.


    Pfaff says that the focus on all counties, and not just population centers, increases the value of this project. “Smaller community DAs are becoming more punitive, or at least no less aggressive,” he argues. “Making it easy to understand what these smaller county prosecutors are doing is incredibly important.”


    The website reflects a national trend in the criminal justice reform movement to elect DAs interested in systemic reform. Due to the discretion given to prosecutors, advocates see these elections as a key way to achieve change without the longer slog associated with legislative lobbying and impact litigation.


    Philanthropist George Soros, for example, funneled more than $3 million into seven races in six states during the 2016 election cycle, according to Politico. He continues to spend money in local prosecutor races, including the one for district attorney of Philadelphia in which Larry Krasner won the Democratic nod this past spring.


    As for the new project in California, it is too early to know what the impact will be. However, the increased national focus on elected prosecutors seems to be working, says Pfaff.


    “It used to be that DAs would almost never lose a race … Now, we are starting to see incumbents getting ousted in primaries and general elections,” he says.






  • 08/24/2017 7:00 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    ABA Journal

    August 23, 2017

    By Lee Rawles





    The ABA has reaffirmed its opposition to breaking up the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.


    The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law has scheduled a hearing for Thursday in Phoenix titled “Rebooting the Ninth Circuit: Why Technology Cannot Solve Its Problems.”


    “Contrary to the conclusory title of your hearing, the ABA believes that technological and procedural innovations have enabled the Ninth Circuit to handle caseloads efficiently and maintain a coherent and consistent body of law,” wrote Patricia Lee Refo in a policy letter (PDF) to the subcommittee on behalf of ABA President Hilarie Bass. Refo is a partner with Snell & Wilmer in Phoenix and has held many positions within the ABA, including as chair of the House of Delegates from 2014-2016.


    Earlier this month at the ABA Annual Meeting, the delegates voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution that opposed a split of the 9th Circuit.


    A report submitted along with the resolution provided some historical context for the proposal to split the 9th Circuit. The Hruska Commission, whose recommendations led to the split of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit and creation of the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, had recommended in 1975 that the 9th Circuit also be split. Although the ABA initially supported that recommendation, it was technological advances made by the 9th Circuit that led the association to change its position on a split in 1990. The ABA made that decision “on the basis that procedural changes and court management innovations allowed the circuit to manage its rising caseload without sacrificing quality or timeliness,” the report stated.


    Widespread opposition to breaking up the circuit by lawyers, judges and businesses within the 9th Circuit were pointed out during the House’s deliberation, and Refo mentioned that opposition in her letter. Refo also pointed out that the past three chief judges of the 9th Circuit have all vocally opposed a split.


    Refor quoted a statement by former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski to a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee last March: “Our geographic size has forced us to experiment and innovate. The size of our judicial corps has given us the resources to develop and deploy innovative techniques.”


    Refo urged the subcommittee to “refocus its efforts on assuring that the Ninth Circuit (and the entire federal judiciary) has access to the best technological resources available to perform its adjudicatory functions efficiently and impartially and in a manner that offers litigants timely access to the courts.”





  • 08/23/2017 7:02 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    Bar Association of San Francisco  


    The Mediation Committee 


    August 24, 2017: 12:00 pm - 1:15 pm


    MCLE Credits - 1 H



    What every mediator should know about forgiveness and the pivotal role it can play in resolving legal disputes



    Honorable Roy Chernus
    Marin Superior Court

    Dr. Fred Luskin
    Director & Co-Founder
    Stanford University Forgiveness Project

    Barbara Monty
    Monty White LLP

    Eileen Barker
    Founder, The Path of Forgiveness




    • What Forgiveness is and Is Not - Dispelling Common Myths and Misconception
    • Two types of forgiveness and when each applies
    • Creating the conditions for apology and forgiveness
    • Examples of legal disputes and mediations in which forgiveness has been used successfully
    • Tools that can be helpful not only to our clients, but to ourselves

    Section Chair: Mark Petersen, Farella Braun + Martel LLP




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




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




    BASF Student Member Complimentary
    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: G174107


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




  • 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





  • 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  





  • 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.







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