Thursday, July 23, 2015

When "Friending" Facebook People Might Be Misconduct..........

Top state court to hear case of lawyers accused of asking paralegal to 'friend' litigant on Facebook

This is in a case where defense counsel had a paralegal "friend" to person's Facebook page .......

The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether legal discipline officials have jurisdiction in an ethics case accusing two lawyers of directing their paralegal to friend a litigant on Facebook.
The lawyers, John Robertelli and Gabriel Adamo, claim the Office of Attorney Ethics had no jurisdiction to charge the lawyers with ethical violations after a district ethics committee found there was no unethical conduct, the New Jersey Law Journal (sub. req.) reports.
The lawyers, who worked for Rivkin Radler in Hackensack, are accused of directing a law firm paralegal to search online for information about a plaintiff who was struck by a police car. Robertelli and Adamo represented the defendants, the borough of Oakland and its police department. The lawyers were interested in learning about the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries.
The lawyers acknowledged asking the paralegal to monitor the plaintiff’s Facebook page but denied asking her to friend the plaintiff. They said they thought the friend request was an automatic process.
[all emphasis added by this blog........]

Just another new case where Facebook asserts right to block subpoenas but the Court says Facebook has NO standing to block??  

Issues such as these continue and will keep arising as far as Facebook goes.........we do not participate in Facebook and believe for most part, it is very dangerous unless you are seeking people who brag about things and others are hunting down information about them.  In which case, be careful in "friending" people. We hate Facebook regardless. For us, Facebook is the World's Largest Jerry Springer Show-- on Steroids. Judges and some attorneys should not be on Facebook but they do use it, and as we have seen, some even became disbarred from alleged errant use of such social media.
Just because Linked in and Facebook EXIST does not mean one has to be ON it or USE it.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Child Support+ Family Law Modifications; Civil Litigation+More

  1. Attorneys - family law roseville

    FAMILY LAW ROSEVILLE ... An attorney who actually cares about your case, and has years of experience on litigated issues can ... Aggressive, affordable + fair.
Sacramento Family Law Court Link

Child Support

Obtaining an Order for Support

Our document processing service is affordable and generally, you will not have to stand in line if you use the drop box unless personally handing your documents for motion setting is required.
In most cases we use fax and file and then will obtain the hearing date; yes there is a charge for this but it beats standing in line and taking off of work. We can usually meet most other paralegal's pricing for processing motions on support.  The costs (such as filing fees, fee waiver prep or fax/file charges) are separate from the actual work to produce the motion.  

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Affordable Sacramento Paralegal- 916.877.5297 Experience 24yr + Results

We help those working on their own cases, or who just want help with certain documents. Replies, answers, request for production, mediation process, raise and lower support, modification of visitation and or custody, and more complicated asset/debt issues, or set aside of judgments, etc.
All work is supervised by legal counsel in good standing in California.

Call today 916 877 5297 for help!

Legal Zoom: North Carolina Case says Unauthorized Practice of Law?


LegalZoom hits a legal hurdle in North Carolina

Posted May 19, 2014 5:27 PM CDT
By Terry Carter
While the purveyor of online self-help documents LegalZoom was still probably celebrating the South Carolina Supreme Court’s approval of its business model in March, two weeks later, just over the border in North Carolina, a judge breathed extended life into a case claiming the company engages in the unauthorized practice of law, Robert Ambrogi's Lawsites reports.
Judge James L. Gale, a Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases, issued an order and opinion March 24 concerning various motions in a suit involving claims and counterclaims between LegalZoom and the North Carolina State Bar, which argues that the company engages in unauthorized practice of law and also failed to meet filing requirements in seeking approval to run a prepaid legal services plan in the state.
Gale ruled (PDF) that the company had not exhausted administrative remedies for the prepaid legal services plan, and said the UPL issue is so complex he wants to know more before deciding.
Gale looked at a variety of screenshots of LegalZoom’s website provided by both parties, and at North Carolina statutes concerning the unauthorized practice of law. LegalZoom’s digitized self-help document preparation has been compared to TurboTax for consumers doing their own tax returns, with a series of questions taking users step-by-step along logic trees. What becomes the next branch depends on the answer given at the last one.
Gale notes, for example, the statutory right to self-representation (including with purchased documents) but asks “does its premise require only that the unlicensed individual make choices in drafting a legal document, and that the choice or risk of an incorrect choice about which portions of a form to include must belong exclusively to the individual? Is there then a legally significant difference between how on engaging in self-representation uses a form book versus LegalZoom’s interactive branching software?”
Acknowledging “a current policy-oriented dialogue” over deregulating the practice of law because many or most people can’t afford lawyers for basic matters, Gale wrote that unless those arguments become a necessary part of a constitutional analysis for him to undertake, “such policy changes are more appropriately addressed to the legislature and are not now before the court.
But concerning the issues presented to him on LegalZoom’s self-help technology, Gale wrote: “The court is not yet comfortable that it understands the overall process of preparing more complex documents.”
Just about two weeks earlier, the South Carolina Supreme Court had determined that LegalZoom’s logic-tree documents worked just like ones already offered by various state and local agencies, and thus were approved. The court signed off on a report and recommendations by Judge Clifton Newman, an at-large judge for the state’s circuit courts who considered arguments and expert testimony.
LegalZoom offers online, self-help legal documents in all 50 states and has faced a number of legal challenges along the way. Besides North Carolina, the company still faces challenges in Arkansas and Alabama, Ambrogi reports, and is registered to operate prepaid legal plans in 41 states and the District of Columbia.
[all emphasis added by blog]

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Paralegal Contacts

About 30,600 results (0.54 seconds) 

Tuesday, November 12, 2013