Menu
Log in

  SAN FRANCISCO PARALEGAL ASSOCIATION

Log in:

SFPA is a Proud Affiliate Member of NALA



News

  • 09/01/2017 8:00 PM | Deleted user

    ABA Journal

    September 1, 2017

    By Lorelai Laird

     

     

    Judge Richard Posner

     

    Judge Richard Posner of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is retiring effective Saturday, the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin and Chicago Sun-Times reported late Friday.


    Posner, 78, is one of the most widely cited appellate judges in the United States, the Law Bulletin said, and “a teacher and prolific writer on and off the bench.” In a statement cited by the Law Bulletin, he said he looks forward to continuing those tasks, “with a particular focus on social justice reform.”

     

    “I am proud to have promoted a pragmatic approach to judging during my time on the Court, and to have had the opportunity to apply my view that judicial opinions should be easy to understand and that judges should focus on the right and wrong in every case,” Posner said in a statement.

     

    Posner’s retirement at age 78 comes a few weeks after he wrote in Slate magazine that he believes in “mandatory retirement for all judges at a fixed age, probably 80.” He argued that even those judges whose performance doesn’t suffer with age can easily be replaced from the 1.3 million lawyers in the United States.

     

    Posner’s pointed opinions have brought him notoriety, at least within the legal community. He was appointed in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan and considered conservative at the time. Some of his opinions reflect that; he’s written an opinion opposing gun control; an opinion in favor of a law that barred citizens’ rights to record police carrying out their duties in public; and an opinion limiting class certification in class-action lawsuits.

     

    But Posner hasn’t always hewn conventional Republican positions, especially in recent years. He has struck down restrictions on abortion; criticized the criminalization of drug possession; and ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.

     

    Posner could also be biting to litigants he thought were dishonest or unprepared. In 2011, an opinion of his criticized attorneys for ignoring or downplaying applicable precedent; the opinion included a picture of an ostrich with its head buried in the sand, followed by a man in a suit in the same position. “The ostrich is a noble animal, but not a proper model for an appellate advocate,” he wrote.

     

    And he was not afraid to criticize institutions within the law. He has called the U.S. Supreme Court “not a real court,” but “a political court” that he had no interest in joining; criticized some of the individual justices; and described the Bluebook as “560 pages of rubbish.” Sitting by designation in a trial court this year, he put his belief in clearer legal language into practice by altering jury instructions; that decision was overturned last week by a panel of the 7th Circuit.

     

    The 7th Circuit’s Chief Judge, Diane Wood, told the Daily Law Bulletin that Posner was one of the most distinguished people ever to occupy a federal judgeship.

     

    “For more than 50 years, Judge Posner has been one of the leading public intellectuals in the United States—indeed, in the world,” Wood said in a statement. “He has produced an unparalleled body of scholarship—books, articles, and public commentary—covering virtually every legal topic that can be imagined.”

     

    Posner holds degrees from Yale University and Harvard Law School, and clerked for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. His later career connected him to a future Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall, when he was an assistant to Marshall in the Solicitor General’s office. Prior to joining the 7th Circuit, he taught at Stanford Law School and the University of Chicago Law School, where he is still a senior lecturer in law.

     

     

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_richard_posner_retires_from_the_7th_circuit_after_36_years?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=navigation&utm_campaign=most_read

     

     

     

     

  • 08/31/2017 6:30 PM | Deleted user

    California Courts Newsroom

    August 31, 2017

    Judicial Council Public Affairs

    415-865-7740

     

     

    Today, Justice Kathryn Werdegar—the current court's longest-serving justice—retires.

     

    Werdegar's retirement, after 23 years on the California Supreme Court bench, gives Gov. Jerry Brown the opportunity to appoint a fourth justice to the seven-member court. Brown appointed Justice Goodwin Liu in 2011, and Justices Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar and Leondra Kruger in 2014.

     

     

    Here's a primer on how a state Supreme Court appointment is made:

     

     

     

      

    For more information about how justices are selected, go to http://www.courts.ca.gov/3162.htm.

     

     

     

  • 08/31/2017 6:28 PM | Deleted user

    The New York Times

    The Opinion Pages  | Contributing Op-Ed Writer  

    August 31, 017

    By Linda Greenhouse

     

     

     

    Immigrants in the women’s wing of a detention facility in Arizona. Credit John Moore/Getty Images

     

      

    Yes, I recently went to Casper, Wyo., to see the total eclipse, but this column isn’t about that. It’s prompted by something else I saw in Casper after the sun reappeared.

     

    A few hundred yards from the hillside where we watched the eclipse is a museum called the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center. A cooperative venture of the federal Bureau of Land Management, the city of Casper and a local foundation, it tells the story of the nearly half-million people who passed through Casper in the mid-1800s on their way west to what they dreamed – or, more like it, desperately hoped — would be a better life.

     

    Included there are artifacts and accounts of the pioneers’ Oregon Trail; the route the Mormons took after they were driven from Illinois and Missouri; and the path to California followed by those drawn by visions of gold nuggets.

     

    Never having lived more than shouting distance from the East Coast, I had little sense of this history or of the “torrent of humanity,” as a National Park Service brochure puts it, that followed trails with wheel ruts still visible across the West. The museum’s exhibits are engaging, with ample commentary and interactive maps. On the wall near the entrance is a plaque with these words:

     

    “The westward urge was a human instinct, like the need to love or to taste spring air and believe again that life is not a dead end after all.”

     

    Those words were written not by a federal bureaucrat, but by a mid-20th-century Western writer, David Sievert Lavender, in a 1963 book called “Westward Vision.” Still, a federal agency put them up in a visible position, and keeps them there. Earlier in the day, I had seen one example of nature’s power when the sky went dark. Now here, under federal auspices, was a testament to and celebration of another force of nature: the human instinct that compels people to leave where they are and go, even at their peril, to someplace new, someplace safe.

      

    The words lingered in my mind as anomalous, even subversive, as I emerged from the museum into the bright sunlight of another day in the age of Trump. I actually hesitated before quoting the words here, in case Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke or one of his minions learns about them and decides they’re too off-message to remain.

     

    After all, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (admittedly part of Homeland Security, not Interior) parks its vans outside schools to catch undocumented parents picking up their children, or at the Saratoga racetrack to catch undocumented backstretch workers, or outside courthouses (where California’s chief justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, has accused I.C.E. agents of “stalking” undocumented immigrants), nothing seems out of bounds. As President Trump, with Republican governors egging him on, considers stripping immigration protection from 800,000 “dreamers,” whose parents brought them here hoping for a better life, it’s obvious that these politicians would recklessly discard enough human capital to fill the city of Casper 12 times over for the pleasure of eradicating another trace of President Obama’s legacy.

     

    Immigration will be a highlight of the Supreme Court term that begins on Oct. 2; President Trump’s appeal of two separate rulings against his Muslim travel ban will be argued on Oct. 10. But there is another immigration case that has passed nearly completely under the radar in the more than a year that it has been on the court’s docket, a case with important implications for the constitutional rights of noncitizens who get caught up in any kind of immigration enforcement proceeding.

     

    I don’t want to romanticize President Barack Obama’s immigration legacy. His administration’s immigration enforcement was aggressive. True, it maintained that it was limiting its enforcement to immigrants with criminal records. But the kind of crime with which immigration officials might be concerned is a judgment call, and during both the Obama and the George W. Bush administrations, the definition was capacious and unforgiving. A minor drug offense for which no jail time was imposed? A teenage “joy ride” in someone else’s car? Those two offenses combined were what earned Alejandro Rodriguez, a lawful permanent resident who was brought to the United States as an infant, more than three years in immigration detention awaiting deportation before he finally won an administrative appeal in 2008.

     

    In the meantime, he became the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against federal immigration officials. The lawsuit claimed that individuals held in immigration detention awaiting deportation are entitled to a periodic review by an immigration judge of whether they present either a threat to public safety or a flight risk. If neither, the plaintiffs argued, they are entitled to be released on bond. 

     

    The case made three trips through the federal courts in California as it faced various procedural complexities before a final ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor in October 2015 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Affirming a ruling by the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, which the Obama administration had appealed, the appeals court held that immigrants in civil detention had to be released on bond unless the government could persuade an immigration judge by “clear and convincing evidence” that they posed a danger or flight risk. In cases of “prolonged detention,” the court held, such hearings had to take place every six months.

     

    Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Kim Wardlaw, obviously exasperated by the government’s unyielding position, took pains to explain the limits of what the court was holding.

     

    “While the government falsely equates the bond hearing requirement to mandated release from detention,” she said in a highly unusual accusation for a judge to make, “bond hearings do not restrict the government’s legitimate authority to detain inadmissible or deportable noncitizens.” Rather, she continued, the ultimate disposition of any case “remains soundly in the judgment of the immigration judges the Department of Justice employs.”

     

    Judge Wardlaw also noted that immigrants, more than half of whom are held for more than a year, pay a high price for their inability to get before a judge.

     

    “This lack of review has proved especially problematic when immigration officers have denied parole based on blatant errors,” she wrote. “In two separate cases identified by the petitioners, for example, officers apparently denied parole because they had confused Ethiopia with Somalia. And in a third case, an officer denied parole because he had mixed up two detainees’ files.” At the end of her 57-page opinion, she repeated, “We are not ordering immigration judges to release any single individual; rather, we are affirming a minimal procedural safeguard.”

     

    The Ninth Circuit stopped short of ruling that a failure to provide hearings was unconstitutional. Rather, it interpreted federal immigration law itself to require the hearings, under a doctrine known as “constitutional avoidance” that courts invoke to interpret statutes in a way that avoids the need for a constitutional ruling. If the statutory structure didn’t require hearings, the court suggested, the Constitution’s guarantee of due process might well do so.

     

    The Obama administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court, Jennings v. Rodriguez, reached the justices in April of last year. Its tone was fevered. The appeals court’s decision was “fundamentally wrong in numerous respects” and “oversteps the proper judicial role,” the solicitor general’s office told the justices. The court accepted the case for review two months later, and the eight justices who were then sitting heard argument last November. The argument revealed a fair amount of confusion about the extent and implications of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Two weeks later, with the court in its winter recess, the justices ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs directly addressing the constitutional issue that the Ninth Circuit had avoided. In January, each side filed briefs of more than 60 pages.

     

     Months passed with no word from the court. Finally, on June 26, the last day of the term, without further explanation, the justices ordered the case “restored to the calendar for reargument.” It’s easy to suppose that the justices were tied four to four, and that Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the court in April, is now in a position to break the tie. That’s not necessarily the case. Because cases in which the court is clearly tied are usually disposed of quickly, it strikes me as more likely that while there may have been five justices on the government’s side, there were not five who subscribed to the same analysis or were willing to join the same opinion. From the post-Thanksgiving argument period during which the justices heard the Jennings case, six cases were decided, and all but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. produced a majority opinion. So it’s likely that either of those two tried his hand at writing a majority opinion in Jennings v. Rodriguez and failed.

       

    The passage of time has only increased the stakes in this case, as the Trump administration’s dragnet picks up noncitizens at a growing rate. (I say “noncitizens” rather than “undocumented” or “illegal,” because Alejandro Rodriguez, the lead plaintiff, had permanent legal status — which did not then, and does not now, protect a person from deportation. Only citizenship can do that.)

     

    When Judge Wardlaw wrote her opinion for the Ninth Circuit, I.C.E. was detaining more than 429,000 individuals a year, with 33,000 in detention on any given day. The number is surely higher today. According to an article in The Houston Chronicle this month on the boom in private prisons to accommodate the administration’s growing detention needs, I.C.E. released 2,400 immigration detainees a month in 2016, but only 100 a month this year.

     

    On Oct. 3, the scheduled date for the new argument, Jennings v. Rodriguez is likely to be overshadowed once more, this time by Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin gerrymander case that is one of the most important election-law cases in a generation. The Gill case has the 10 a.m. slot, and the courtroom may well empty out when a lawyer representing the Trump administration approaches the lectern to argue Jennings v. Rodriguez at 11 a.m. It would be unfortunate if the Jennings case is eclipsed. We all have a stake in fair political representation, obviously. We all also have a stake in how we treat the most vulnerable among us, those who have made this century’s dangerous passage following the instinct and sharing the hope of earlier pioneers, more naïve now than it was then, that “life is not a dead end after all.”

     

     

     https://nyti.ms/2wq6uht       

     

      
  • 08/31/2017 10:26 AM | Deleted user

     

     

     

     

    Thursday

    September 14, 2017 5:00pm - 7:30pm

     

    Sens Restaurant

    4 Embarcadero Center San Francisco

     

    Complimentary Champagne and

    Hors d'oeuvres

    will be served

     

     

    Contact:

    Rachelle Carrier
    info@sftla.org
    415-956-6401

     

     

     

  • 08/28/2017 9:00 PM | Deleted user

     Image may contain: flower and text

     

     

     

  • 08/28/2017 8:51 PM | Deleted user

     


     

    TICKET SALES END FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 1!


     

    SEPTEMBER 14, 2017

    SCOTTISH RITE CENTER

    1547 LAKESIDE DRIVE, OAKLAND, CA 94612

    6 PM - 10 PM

    *Dancing 9 PM - 10 PM

    Visit centrolegal.org/gala for the latest information on this year's event.

     

     

    BUY TICKETS

    KEYNOTE SPEAKER

    ZAHRA BILLOO is a civil rights attorney and the executive director of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). At the onset of 2017, Zahra joined the speaker lineup at the Women's March on Washington and sued Donald Trump to challenge his "Muslim Ban" Executive Orders.


     

    In the course of her work at CAIR, Zahra is frequently seen at mosques and universities facilitating trainings and workshops as a part of CAIR's grassroots efforts to empower the American Muslim community and build bridges with allies on civil rights issues. She also provides direct legal services for victims of law enforcement targeting and Islamophobia. Her work has been highlighted in local and national media outlets including the Christian Science Monitor, KTVU, MSNBC, NPR, and the San Jose Mercury News.

     

    BUY TICKETS

    LIVE AUCTION

    PAUL REED SMITH LIMITED EDITION "SANTANA IV SE" GUITAR (SIGNED BY CARLOS SANTANA)


     

    Own one of only 60 guitars in existence made to commemorate Carlos Santana's latest studio album, Santana IV! The autographed guitar includes a carrying case and a letter of authenticity.

     

    ONE NIGHT AT THE HOTEL TRITON HAAGEN-DAZS SWEET SUITE AND TICKETS TO THE SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS


     

    If you're a fan of Haagen-Dazs ice cream and the San Francisco Giants, this night-in-the-city package is for you! The package includes a one night deluxe accommodation stay for two in the "Sweet Suite" and 4 Club tickets to the Giants vs Padres on September 29.

     

    2 NIGHTS IN A DELUXE ENSUITE AT KASBAH DU TOUBKAL IN MOROCCO


     

    Book your dream vacation to Morocco's majestic Kasbah du Toubkal this year! Explore some of the best views in North Africa from your ensuite located in the Atlas mountains and only 65 Km from Marrakech.

     

     THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS!

    Visionary Level

    Kazan, McClain, Satterley, &  
      Greenwood
    Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP 

    Partner Level

    Dan Purcell and Heather Hanly
    Fenwick & West LLP
    Law Offices of John E. Hill
    Outten & Golden LLP
    Advocate Level

    Beneficial State Bank
    Boxer & Gerson, LLP
    Cooley LLP
    Durie Tangri LLP
    Kazan McClain Partners' Foundation
    Kirkland & Ellis Foundation
    Law Office of Andrew Wolff, P.C.
    Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
    Morrison & Foerster
    Sergio and Amelia Garcia Family Foundation
    Shartsis Friese LLP
    Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
    Steve and Lori Taylor
    Sundeen & Salinas
    Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP
    Winston Strawn LLP

    To become a sponsor click here or contact Gemma Estrella at gestrella@centrolegal.org

     

     

     

  • 08/27/2017 6:45 AM | Deleted user

     Sample alt tag.

    Former California Supreme Court Associate Justice and long-time UC Hastings Professor Joseph Grodin

     

     

     

     https://youtu.be/e_ZniNMAsmY

     

     

     

    Produced by Peabody Award winning filmmaker Abby Ginzberg '75, this short film celebrates the distinguished career and work in the law of former California Supreme Court Associate Justice and long-time UC Hastings Professor Joseph Grodin. 

     

     

    In Pursuit of Justice: The Life & Legacy of Joe Grodin, premiered on Thursday, November 12, 2015 at a university event marking the year of Grodin’s 85th birthday and the release of the latest edition of his book on California constitutional law. The tribute was part of a Conference on Advancing Equal Access to Justice, a cause close to Grodin’s heart, which UC Hastings and Stanford Law School cosponsored. At the premiere, UC Hastings raised money to establish a fund in Prof. Grodin’s name that will support legal access for low-income workers.

     

  • 08/26/2017 5:40 PM | Deleted user

    Alameda County Bar Association


    Tuesday, September 5, 2017, 12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.


    This program is designed to assist attorneys who are not familiar with the landscape of immigration law to identify and understand basic immigration legal issues. Come learn how to recognize and address immigration-related issues that might arise in your practice. Issues related to the current political climate will also be highlighted.


    Speaker:

    Jonathan McNeil WongJonathan McNeil WongDonahue Fitzgerald, LLP

    Jonathan McNeil Wong heads the firm’s immigration and nationality law practice, advising and representing domestic and international companies that are hiring foreign nationals to work in the United States. He recommends immigration strategies to employers and represents them before the Departments of State and Homeland Security. He has handled the immigration process for U.S. companies seeking the services of foreign engineers, scientists, technical specialists, and marketing and operations personnel in diverse business sectors ranging from architecture to zoological science. He is also experienced in the transfer of foreign executives, managers, and other key personnel to American branches of foreign companies. In employment circumstances involving access to trade secrets and other proprietary information, he assists employers in evaluating the foreign worker’s background and structuring a relationship that protects his clients’ interests. Jonathan obtained his Juris Doctorate from the University of California Davis.


    Register Here

    Date:
    Tuesday
    September 5, 2017
    12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.

    Location:
    ACBA
    1000 Broadway, Suite 480
    Oakland

    MCLE:
    1.5 hrs general credit

    The Alameda County Bar Association is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider.

    Cost:
    FREE for ACBA Members
    $115 for Non Members

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

    Please note: There is a $10 fee for day-of and walk-in registrations

    The ACBA does not provide refunds for MCLE/event registrations, but registrations are transferable to another attendee for the same program.
    To Register:
    Visit www.acbanet.org/calendar/
    Call 510-302-2201
    Mail check (payable to “ACBA”) to:

    ACBA, Attn: MCLE
    1000 Broadway, Suite 480, Oakland, CA 94607

  • 08/26/2017 7:32 AM | Deleted user

    Contra Costa Bar Association

     

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


     

    Event provided by CCCBA

     

     

    Speaker

    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
    925-708-6223

     

     

    Cost

    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

     

    Discounts

    Court Staff $5.00

     

    Location

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

    Main Phone: (925) 686-6900

     

     



@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