San Francisco Paralegal Association


  • 05/01/2017 9:59 PM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)


    The Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to providing free, public access to primary legal materials, has announced plans to download all of the free opinions and order available on PACER, the federal courts’ system for electronic access to court records.


    Although PACER charges fees for downloading case documents and dockets, it does not charge for access to judicial opinions and orders.



    Why We Are Downloading all Free Opinions and Orders from PACER: 


    Today we are launching a new project to download all of the free opinions and orders that are available on PACER. Since we do not want to unduly impact PACER, we are doing this process slowly, giving it several weeks or months to complete, and slowing down if any PACER administrators get in touch with issues.


    In this project, we expect to download millions of PDFs, all of which we will add to both the RECAP Archive that we host, and to the Internet Archive, which will serve as a publicly available backup.1 In the RECAP Archive, we will be immediately parsing the contents of all the PDFs as we download them. Once that is complete we will extract the content of scanned documents, as we have done for the rest of the collection.


    This project will create an ongoing expense for Free Law Project—hosting this many files costs real money—and so we want to explain two major reasons why we believe this is an important project. The first reason is because there is a monumental value to these documents, and until now they have not been easily available to the public. These documents are a critical part of America’s legal system, and yet there is no easy and free way to access or analyze them except through expensive third party vendors whose tools are out of reach for many people. This inhibits researchers, journalists, and the public, and is in conflict with the spirit of PACER itself, which was formed at Congress’s request precisely to provide “Public Access to Court Electronic Records.”


    Our work with Georgia State University is a good example of the kind of work that this project will enable when it is complete. In this project, Free Law Project will provide opinions and orders to GSU researchers so that they can study how different courts have interpreted employee classification laws. This will provide legal guidance to courts, government agencies, employers, and employees about where courts draw the line between independent contractor and employee status. As the “gig economy” continues heating up this is an important area of law, but to do this research, the first step is to have the raw data in bulk. This new initiative will create that kind of bulk data, and we predict that it will enable numerous other studies.


    The second important reason why we are undertaking this initiative is that it should provide a mechanism for getting a fairly representative sample of cases from PACER. Our current collection of PACER content only has information about a case when the case is downloaded by a RECAP user. This tilts the RECAP Archive towards cases our users download, leaving out a vast swath of important content. This initiative will open up our collection so that we should have basic information about many more cases in the federal district courts. Any case with an opinion or order will be in the RECAP Archive.


    This initiative will be a very important one as we further expand our collection of PACER content and tools, and we hope that you will support our work as we expand it into this new area. Downloading, extracting, and hosting all these files will not be easy, but these documents are a critical element of the American legal system. Making them easily available will create measurable impacts on our access to and understanding of the law.

    1. For years Internet Archive has been a great partner in the RECAP initiative, and we are thrilled to continue partnering with them for our biggest collection of PACER data yet.   


    © 2017 Free Law Project · 

  • 05/01/2017 9:30 PM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)


    LSC, Microsoft, and Pro Bono Net to Partner with Alaska and Hawaii to Create Statewide Legal Access Portals


    April 24, 2017


    WASHINGTON – The Legal Services Corporation (LSC), Microsoft Corporation, and Pro Bono Net have named Alaska and Hawaii as state partners in a pilot program to develop online, statewide legal portals to direct individuals with civil legal needs to the most appropriate forms of assistance.


    These portals will use cutting-edge, user-centered technology to help ensure that all people with civil legal needs can navigate their options and more easily access solutions and services available from legal aid, the courts, the private bar, and community partners.

    LSC President James J. Sandman, Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith, and Pro Bono Net Executive Director Mark O’Brien will make the formal announcement and discuss the project April 25 at an LSC forum on increasing access to justice at Georgetown University Law Center.


    “Many people find it difficult to access legal services,” said LSC President James J. Sandman. “The goal of the portals is to simplify that process by providing a single, statewide point of access to effective help for people needing civil legal assistance. Each user will be guided to available resources based on the nature of the matter and the user’s personal circumstances.”


    Alaska’s proposal was submitted by the Alaska Access to Justice Commission and Hawaii’s proposal was submitted by Legal Aid Society of Hawaii with support from the Hawaii state judiciary and other justice community partners.

    Alaska and Hawaii were selected because of their demonstrated track records in establishing new and collaborative resources for meeting civil legal needs; their embrace of technology’s potential to expand access to legal assistance; and their vision of partnering with allied non-legal networks such as social services, public libraries, and health care institutions to help people identify and resolve their legal issues and related social needs.


    This broad-based view of how and where the law intersects with people’s lives is central to the portal project’s vision. Alaska and Hawaii, like many other states, also face geographic challenges that can present barriers to accessing and delivering legal services through traditional methods. This creates a rich environment for fostering new, technology-enabled solutions that can be adapted to other states in the future.


    “We are delighted to have found legal aid, court, and community partners in Alaska and Hawaii who are committed to innovation designed to help individuals find the appropriate level of assistance to meet their legal needs, and that will allow state justice communities to deliver services more efficiently and effectively,” said Pro Bono Net Executive Director Mark O’Brien.


    Christine Johnson, Administrative Director of the Alaska Court System, said they “are excited to work with Microsoft, the Legal Services Corporation, Pro Bono Net and our statewide partners to build an electronic gateway for Alaskans to access the range of critical information and services necessary to creating just, healthy and safe communities. Being able to use a portal to access legal and non-legal resources, regardless of your location, is a great solution to meet Alaska’s diverse needs."


    "For an island state, the statewide justice portal will play an important role in helping people navigate the court system and find solutions to their legal problems despite distances over the ocean,” said M. Nalani Fujimori Kaina, Executive Director of the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii. “We are very excited for this opportunity to work closely with Microsoft, LSC, and Pro Bono Net and our local partners--the Hawaii State Judiciary, the Hawaii Access to Justice Commission, the Hawaii State Bar Association, and legal service organizations--to create a modern, efficient and innovative approach towards expanding meaningful access to justice for all."


    There is no right to counsel in civil disputes in the United States, and each year as many as 80% of low-income people who face civil legal problems that threaten their homes, family stability, and livelihoods are unable to obtain legal assistance. Many other individuals living on moderate incomes are unable to afford an attorney, or aren’t sure where to start their search for help. The portals are intended to help the legal aid community, courts, the private bar, and other state justice partners collaborate in new and creative ways to provide some form of effective assistance to everyone with a civil legal problem.


    “If you can’t afford a lawyer, then you can’t solve crippling housing, child custody, or civil litigation disputes,” said Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith.  “Technology can help bridge this justice gap by empowering people with the advice and services they need to lead fruitful lives.”


    Microsoft is contributing technical and staff resources and additional funding to this project. Pro Bono Net, a national nonprofit dedicated to increasing access to justice through innovative technology solutions and expertise in building and mobilizing justice networks, will help convene local partners and provide service design expertise to execute the pilot.


    The announcement of the pilot portals will be made at the beginning of the Forum on Increasing Access to Justice at Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey Avenue NW, on April 25. The Forum runs from 1:30-4:30 p.m. EDT. Members of the press are invited to attend.


    The forum will also be live-streamed via Facebook Live. To view the forum, visit LSC’s Facebook page.


    Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is an independent nonprofit established by Congress in 1974 to provide financial support for civil legal aid to low-income Americans. The Corporation currently provides funding to 133 independent nonprofit legal aid programs in every state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories.


    Relations and Public Affairs


    Contact Us Contact

    Carl Rauscher

    Director of Communications and Media Relations

    Office of Government


  • 05/01/2017 7:16 PM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)




    Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami

    Consolidated with: Wells Fargo & Co. v. City of Miami

    Amy Howe Reporter and Independent Contractor

    Posted Mon, May 1st, 2017 12:38 pm


    Opinion analysis: Five justices keep city’s discriminatory lending lawsuit alive

    Posted Mon, May 1st, 2017 12:38 pm by Amy Howe


    The Supreme Court handed a partial but significant victory to cities today, holding that the Fair Housing Act allows the city of Miami to bring a lawsuit alleging that two banks, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, violated the law when they issued riskier but more costly mortgages to minority customers than they had offered to white borrowers. But it was hardly a complete win for the city, as the court also ruled that the lower court should have applied a tougher test to determine whether the city can recover compensation for its losses. This means that the case will now return to the lower court for it to decide whether there is enough of a connection between the banks’ lending practices and the city’s economic injuries to hold the banks liable.

    Sketch by Art Lien


    Miami filed its lawsuit in 2013, arguing that the banks had violated the FHA, a 1968 civil rights law that bars discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing, in several ways. First, the banks allegedly made loans to minority borrowers that – as the court today described them – included “excessively high interest rates, unjustified fees, teaser low-rate loans that overstated refinancing opportunities, large prepayment penalties, and—when default loomed—unjustified refusals to refinance or modify the loans.” This, the city contended, not only led to higher default and foreclosure rates among minority borrowers than their white counterparts, but also imposed significant burdens on the city: More foreclosures meant lower property values, which led to a drop in property tax revenues and an uptick in demand for city services like police and fire protection.


    The banks asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. First, they contended that the city does not fall within the group of individuals or entities – known as the “zone of interests” – that Congress intended to protect when it passed the FHA. By a vote of 5-3, the court today rejected this argument. Writing for a majority that also included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Justice Stephen Breyer explained that the FHA allows anyone who “claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice” to bring a lawsuit. The Supreme Court, Breyer emphasized, has consistently ruled that this definition should be interpreted broadly; relying on that language, he added, the court has allowed similar lawsuits – including one by a “village alleging that it lost tax revenue and had the racial balance of its community undermined by racial-steering practices” – to go forward. Moreover, he noted, in the wake of those cases, Congress made changes to the FHA but left its definition of who can sue largely intact – effectively reaffirming the justices’ expansive reading of that definition.


    The banks fared better on the second question they asked the court to address: whether the harms that Miami suffered are sufficiently related to a violation of the FHA that the banks should have to pay for them. In allowing the city’s lawsuit to continue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that the city could make that showing because the effects of the banks’ allegedly discriminatory lending practices were foreseeable. But that, the court held today, was too low a bar. Explaining that the “housing market is interconnected with economic and social life,” the court reasoned that an FHA violation could “be expected to cause ripples of harm to flow far beyond the defendant’s misconduct.” “Nothing in the statute,” the court continued, “suggests that Congress intended to provide a remedy wherever those ripples travel” – particularly when “entertaining suits to recover damages for any foreseeable result of an FHA violation would risk massive and complex damages litigation.”


    Instead, the court explained, plaintiffs suing under the FHA must show a direct connection between the injury and the violation. Although the court suggested that damages would not be available when the injury is more than one step removed from the conduct at issue, it declined to provide any more specifics and sent the case back to the lower court, directing it to take a stab at defining the required direct connection and then determining whether the city can meet that requirement in this case.


    Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part, which was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito. (The court’s newest justice, Neil Gorsuch, joined the court after the case was argued and did not participate.) In Thomas’ view, the majority was wrong to conclude that Congress intended the FHA to protect cities like Miami, because the injuries that the city cited in its lawsuit are too remote from the act’s purpose. The FHA was intended to protect victims of discrimination or – perhaps – someone whose neighborhood remains segregated as a result of that discrimination, Thomas observed. “But nothing in the text of the FHA,” he stressed, “suggests that Congress was concerned about decreased property values, foreclosures, and urban blight, much less about strains on municipal budgets that might follow.”


    Thomas agreed with the majority on one point: its conclusion that, as a general matter, a plaintiff suing under the FHA must show a direct connection between the injury and the violation in order to recover damages from the alleged violator. But he disagreed with the majority’s decision to send the city’s case back to the lower court for it to make that determination. Even the majority’s opinion, he contended, “leaves little doubt that neither Miami nor any similarly situated plaintiff can satisfy the rigorous standard” established today, when even Miami’s own pleadings demonstrate “that the link between the alleged FHA violation and its asserted injuries is exceedingly attenuated.”


    Today’s ruling was reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s decision nearly two years ago in another FHA case, in which the justices agreed, by a vote of 5-4, that the statute allows lawsuits based on “disparate impact” – that is, allegations that a policy or practice has a discriminatory effect even if it was not necessarily intended to discriminate – but appeared to place new restrictions on when and how those lawsuits can be brought. Like the “disparate impact” lawsuit, today’s decision seems to have all the hallmarks of a compromise: It will allow Miami’s case (and those of the other cities that have brought similar lawsuits) to go forward, but it also establishes a fairly stringent test for damages that could put the brakes on many, if not most, cities’ lawsuits.



  • 05/01/2017 9:00 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    Select a Location:


    Choose: Webcast

                   May 1, 2017

                   9:00am PST



                   San Francisco

                   May 1, 2017

                   9:00am PST 

    • Why You Should Attend
      You should attend this training if you would like to provide pro bono services to immigrant clients in the areas of housing, immigration, or domestic violence or you would like to improve your representation of immigrant clients generally.  Many immigrant clients require assistance with a constellation of related yet distinct issues.  This day-long program attempts to address these particular areas of overlap.  Experienced practitioners in the areas of immigration, family law, and housing will share their expertise by providing insight into cultural issues that arise when working with immigrant clients, how these areas of law overlap to provide special protections and remedies to immigrants and domestic violence survivors, and how immigration status impacts eligibility for federally subsidized housing.
    • What You Will Learn

    • Cultural competency issues to be aware of when working with immigrant clients generally and specific issues that arise in housing and domestic violence cases
    • What is domestic violence and how does it impact immigrant and LGBT communities
    • How immigration status affects eligibility for federally subsidized housing
    • Fair Housing laws that protect immigrants and domestic violence survivors
    • Special housing protections for domestic violence survivors in the Violence Against Women Act and other California laws
    • What family law issues are implicated when working with immigrant survivors of domestic violence
    • How to get your client legal immigration status based on domestic violence

      Who Should Attend
      Legal aid and private practitioners who work with immigrant clients or who would like to provide pro bono services to immigrant clients in the areas of immigration, housing, or domestic violence would benefit from attending this program.

    • 9:00 Program Overview and Introductions
      Brenda Star Adams, Linda Tam

      9:15 Client Counseling & Advocacy: The Role of Race, Class and Culture in the Elimination of Bias
      The goal of this session is to explore the lawyer-client relationship with a focus on the role of race, class and culture.  The session will look at the nature of discrimination and how culture operates on the cognitive, affective, and behavior levels in order to increase our own cultural literacy and empathy in order to address and eliminate bias experienced by minority and foreign-born clients (and advocates) in legal counseling and representation.
      (Bias credit for CA attorneys)

      Tirien Steinbach

      10:15 Networking Break

      10:30 Orientation to Domestic Violence
      This session provides an overview of what is domestic violence, types of abuse, the cycle of violence, why individuals stay in abusive relationships, cultural contexts of domestic violence, and special considerations relating to same-sex domestic violence relationships.
      Amanda Case, Nancy K.D. Lemon

      11:30 Housing and Immigration
      This session covers cultural competency and fair housing issues that arise when representing immigrant clients on housing issues in addition to how immigration status affects eligibility for subsidized housing.
      Lauren DeMartini, Ubaldo Fernandez   

      12:30 Lunch

      1:45 Domestic Violence and Housing
      This session covers how the Violence Against Women Act and Fair Housing laws protect survivors of domestic violence from evictions and denial of housing with a special emphasis on working with immigrant clients.
      Brenda Star Adams, Karlo Ng

      2:45 Family Law and Immigration (TRO, Custody, Divorce)
      This session addresses common family law issues that arise when immigrants are dealing with domestic violence, such as restraining orders, custody, and divorce matters.
      Trina Chatterjee, Nicole Ford

      3:45 Networking Break

      4:00 Getting Legal Status Based on Domestic Violence
      This session will cover the most common forms of immigration relief for undocumented survivors of domestic violence to gain legal status: political asylum, U visas, T visas, and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) applications.  
      Eunice Lee, Cindy C. Liou, Catherine Seitz




      San Francisco Seminar Location

      PLI California Center, 685 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105. (800) 260-4754.

      San Francisco Hotel Accommodations

      Park Central Hotel, 50 Third Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. 415-974-6400. When calling, please mention PLI and SET#287179. In addition, you may book online at Park Central Hotel PLI.

      Omni Hotel San Francisco, 500 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94104. 415-677-9494.  When calling, please mention Practising Law Institute.  You may also book online at PLI Omni Hotel 2017.

      Due to high demand we recommend reserving hotel rooms as early as possible.



      Item# 182485

      Location: San Francisco, CA


      Need help? Call (800) 260-4754

    •  CLE-CA Credits
       Credit Status: Approved
      Total Credits:  6.00:  Elimination of Bias:  1.00 /  General:  5.00


  • 05/01/2017 12:00 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    In advance of Law Day, the ABA Young Lawyers Division announced the winners of its annual Law Day Art Contest on Friday. “The Law Day Art Contest provides an opportunity for high school students to consider legal concepts and use their creativity to express their ideas,” Latia Ward, chair of the Public Education Committee of the Young Lawyers Division, said in a press release. The contest was open to all U.S. students from ninth through 12th grades, and called on students to create artwork around the theme of the 14th Amendment. Cortnie Phillips of Beaver Area High School in Beaver, Pennsylvania, won in the individual category for the painting “Take It Into Your Own Hands,” depicting a protest march. Jose Ruiz and Hassan Saleh of Bell High School in Bell, California, won the group category for their collage “Equality to All.”



    "Take It Into Your Own Hands" 


     Painting of a protest march.





    "Equality to All"



  • 05/01/2017 12:00 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)


    Every May 1, the American Bar Association celebrates Law Day with activities and programs, based around a single theme and intended to celebrate the rule of law in American society. President Dwight Eisenhower declared the first Law Day in 1958, and in 1961, Congress made May 1 the official Law Day going forward.


    The ABA has chosen “The 14th Amendment: Transforming American Democracy” as the focus for its Law Day 2017 activities, in advance of the 150th anniversary of the amendment’s ratification next year. The 14th Amendment has become one of the most important sources of modern-day civil rights, with its guarantee of equal protection and due process. For its May edition, the ABA Journal produced a cover story and photo gallery devoted to how the 14th Amendment was drafted and how it has been interpreted over its 149 years.



  • 04/28/2017 10:00 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)





    • Sponsors:

    • About:

    Litigators know that maintaining an overall theme is the key to a case’s success. But in the fog of litigation, lawyers can lose sight of the big-picture. They become so focused on specific facets of a case that they risk missing the forest for the trees. Technology is partly to blame. The technology tools litigators use are often so specific in their purpose that case work necessarily gets segmented and siloed.

    With careful planning and the right tools, however, it is possible to take a more “holistic” approach to litigation and litigation technology. Different technology tools can be used in ways that complement each other so that you can more effectively connect the dots.

    In this webinar, three former practicing lawyers will discuss the problems they faced as lawyers, the technology companies they have built to address these problems, and how their different platforms can be used in integrated ways to streamline everything from docket management and delivery to legal research and writing to case and knowledge management.


    Note: This is not a CLE program




    Robert Ambrogi, J.D.
    Robert Ambrogi is a lawyer and consultant who has been writing and speaking about the Internet, social media and legal technology for nearly 20 years. Bob is the author of multiple books, including The Essential Guide to the Best (and Worst) Legal Sites on the Web. Bob has written a nationally syndicated column since 1993. Bob has also written the award-winning Web Watch column in Law Technology News since 1999, and founded the first Internet newsletter for lawyers in 1994. Since August 2005, Bob has co-hosted the award-winning podcast, Lawyer2Lawyer, the longest-running legal podcast, available through the Legal Talk Network. Bob also writes the blog Media Law.




    Alma Asay, J.D., CEO of Allegory
    Alma Asay is the Founder and CEO of Allegory ( Allegory is a cloud-based collaborative litigation platform used by many of the most prestigious law firms, corporations, and government agencies in the United States. Before founding Allegory, Alma was a litigator at Vault 10 law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Alma is one of the first and only female BigLaw lawyers to found a legal technology startup. She was recently named to the Fastcase 50 and by the ABA’s Legal Technology Resource Center as one of 50 “Women of Legal Tech.” She earned her J.D. from New York University School of Law.


    Gavin McGrane, J.D., CEO of PacerPro
    Gavin McGrane is the founder and CEO of PacerPro. He is a California litigator with seven years' experience in complex litigation. Gavin founded PacerPro in 2011 to address key challenges in accessing and managing PACER data. Since launching to the public in 2014, PacerPro has been adopted by attorneys at all of the Am Law 100. Enterprise clients include DLA Piper, Hughes Hubbard & Reed, Kramer Levin, Latham & Watkins, Morrison Foerster, Orrick, Quinn Emanuel, Reed Smith, and Susman Godfrey.


    Jake Heller, J.D., CEO of Casetext
    Jake Heller is the founder and CEO of Casetext (, a legal technology service that provides novel information solutions to litigation practices. Jake was president of the Stanford Law Review and a managing editor of the Stanford Law & Policy Review. He clerked for the Honorable Michael Boudin, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Jake then became a litigation associate at Ropes & Gray. He's been programming since he was 9 and worked full-time as a web developer before law school.

  • 04/28/2017 8:30 AM | Anonymous

    The Changing Dynamics of Family Law


    When:  Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 8:30 AM PDT -to- Friday, April 28, 2017 at 5:00 PM PDT


    Fenwick & West LLP

    Silicon Valley Center

    801 California Street

    Mountain View, CA 94041

    Pro Bono Project Silicon Valley is proud to present:

    The Changing Dynamics of Family Law - A Comprehensive Training on the Fundamentals and Fine Points of Domestic Violence, Custody, Visitation, Intake, Discovery, Contempt, Paternity, Best Practices, and more!  Including 13 MCLE hours and presentations by experts in the field.

    Speakers include:

    Judge Philip Pennypacker, Commissioner Edward Mills, Constance Carpenter, Sally Cooperrider, Tracy Duell-Cazes, Thao Do, Lilian Epstein, Robert Evans, B.J. Fadem, Mary Feldman, Nicole Ford, Kenneth Grant, Jillian Laxton, Nancy B. Marshall, Eloise Rosenblatt, and Ruchita Sethi.

    Historically the Pro Bono Project has offered scholarship opportunities in exchange for pro bono service. If you are interested, please contact Mary M. Feldman at

    We look forward to seeing you there!


    Sandra Madrigal

    Pro Bono Project Silicon Valley

    Pro Bono Project Silicon Valley


  • 04/27/2017 12:00 PM | Anonymous

    April 27, 2017. Boundary Disputes: The Role of Surveys and Surveyors

    1.5 Hours of MCLE Participatory Credit

    Registration & check-in: 11:30 am - noon

    Presentation: Noon - 1:30 pm

    $35.00 Advance registration

    $45.00 Day of Event

    Register online at 

    By phone, call 510-272-6483. 

    In person, ask for a registration form at the reference desk.

    Among the topics to be discussed:

    Paper to dirt: What is a survey?

    Basic surveying vocabulary

    Establishing a boundary: How surveyors do their job

    The surveyor as expert witness

    About the Speakers:

    David L. Roth, co-author of chapters in the CEB publications California Easements and Boundaries: Law and Litigation and Neighbor Disputes: Law & Litigation.

    Jeffrey Black is a professional land surveyor with Moran Engineering, Inc. in Berkeley.

  • 04/26/2017 2:33 PM | Anonymous

    Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (LCCR) is a nonprofit law firm founded in 1968 that works to advance, protect and promote the legal rights of communities of color, low income persons, immigrants, refugees, and other historically disadvantaged groups. Their offices are close to the Embarcadero Bart station in San Francisco.

    Volunteer Paralegals are needed to perform Intake Interviews at their office for the Immigration Justice Program. After the interview, an intake memorandum summarizing the interview will be completed and submitted to an LCCR staff attorney for review. This is an exciting opportunity to hone your interview and critical thinking skills while volunteering to support a well know civil rights organization.

    LCCR asks that the volunteer commit to either a full day, or a minimum of four hours on Fridays. Office hours are 9 - 5 pm. Training will be provided. The ideal candidate will be able to commit to at least two Friday days a month and volunteers must commit to performing the Intake duties at least 6 times.

    Interested applicants are asked to complete the online volunteer application on the LCCR website. Go to

    Spanish speaking skills are a plus but all are welcome to apply. If you are bi-lingual please check the box for Foreign Language Proficiency and list the 2nd language in the text box below.

    When completing the form please be sure to follow the instructions below:

    Areas of Interest: Direct Services - check the box for Asylum Program.

    Areas of Interest: Impact Litigation- check the box Immigrant and Refugee Rights

    What types of Volunteer opportunities are you interest in?- check the box Volunteer in-office.

    Text Box: Enter that you are a paralegal and want to help with intake interviews and indicate how often you can volunteer.

    Please also send your resume to Carlos Mojica, at

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