This news is so important to me – and most likely, to you as well – that I actually dropped what I was working on so I could bring it to you asap! I wanted to make sure you’re aware of the implementation of these new ESI guidelines, which took effect yesterday. Here’s the press release, and here’s a direct link to the guidelines page which includes a checklist and model stipulated order.
"The State Bar of California Board Committee on Member Oversight seeks
to amend the definition of what qualifies for proper MCLE credit in the
state of California. Apparently, some confusion has arisen regarding
whether CLE programs may only contain substantive law versus whether they may encompass other ares of law practice and/or law practice management."
On November 15th, 2012, the Board of Member Oversight voted to amend the education standards in MCLE rules 2.52(A) and 3.601(A), effective January 1st, 2013. To be specific, they voted to change one
word, as illustrated below:
“The activity must relate to legal
subjects directly relevant to members of the State Bar and or
have significant current professional and practical content.”
This is great news for MCLE providers in the State of California – and my Law Practice Management and Technology Section, specifically – because effective January 1st, 2013, we may provide to you,
State Bar membership at large and the public:
- Topics related to business or financial management of a law firm;
related to law office operation, including but not limited to facilities, staffing,
systems and equipment;
related to creation and improvement of legal case work and work flow
management, including time management of attorneys and support staff, and
delegation of responsibility;
related to the competent delivery of legal services and/or the establishment
and maintenance of effective law office management;
related to communications by and between attorneys and support staff
related to the use of computer and/or Internet technology in the practice of
law or the management of a law office.
related to the lawful and ethical management of a law office’s financial
accounts including client trust accounts.
relating to lawful and ethical client fee agreements, fee sharing and referral
My favorite is highlighted; considering this is a law technology blog, of course. It's a win-win for all concerned.
Welcome back, all. I hope you had a nice holiday and are fully rested so that you may now spend the rest of the season…at the mall! We're getting close to the New Year and as is true each time we approach January 1st, we have a bunch of new laws taking effect. California employers and post-secondary institutions should take note of two of them; AB 1844 and SB 1349. Both were signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown back on September 27th, 2012.
Although the language in each bill is different, essentially, AB 1844 prevents employers (also potential employers) from demanding, using or exploiting an employee's (or potential applicant's) social media passwords and information.
SB 1349 is substantially similar, except that it applies to post-secondary institutions; both public and private.
There is speculation in the media about the necessity of these types of regulations. Many believe that a substantial risk of invasion of privacy doesn't exist. Maybe not; but moving forward, I believe the risk will increase exponentially.
What's next – bionic mannequins???
I always chuckle when I hear people refer to California as the 'land of fruits and nuts' and loudly proclaim that it's a 'liberal state'. I concede, the state is blue – at least when one examines it at surface level – but when you drill down a little further, it's not quite that simple.
Example? As far as privacy is concerned, you'd have better luck in Ohio (State v. Smith)…
Based on two events that took place this week, it's clear that California (or more accurately, the Governor of California) and the Federal government appear to be in lockstep re their attitude toward location privacy; they don't believe you're entitled to it.
Politics? Of course, that always plays a role. Lack of understanding of technology? Let me put it this way; a lot of the arguments I see in support of the position against requiring a warrant go something like this:
"People are aware that their cellular devices disclose their location and, therefore, have no expectation of privacy." Yes – in the same way that people who drive cars know how to rebuild the engines. It's a self-serving argument, at best. For the average Joe, a more honest side-by-side comparison is that people know how to plug in a charger about as well as they know how to insert a gas nozzle.
If you're worried about location privacy, I have two words for you – coarse location.
Here's the official statement from Attorney General Kamala D. Harris' Office.
I only have one question? Why do people always feel the need to crap on everything before they give it a chance? Would it be better if public officials didn't at least try to address existing privacy concerns?
I suppose this is why they say, success has many parents; but failure is an orphan…