We've recently updated our page with an item for Ventura Superior court. Click here to take a look, especially if you have a court filing in this jurisdiction!
photo credit: khawkins04
eFiling clerks at the Orange County Superior Court have been asking Electronic Filing Service Providers, such as One Legal, to raise awareness among the eFiling community about the size of documents uploaded for eFiling.
Users often upload large files that take longer to review and file by the court, significantly complicating and delaying the filing process.
The Court's FAQ states "if you have a question about submitting a large filing please contact your electronic filing service provider for assistance" - and the Training team here at One Legal would be more than happy to assist you with this issue.
Here are some basic tips:
- When scanning your documents, set the scanner setting at a lower resolution.
- After scanning, use Adobe Acrobat to ‘Optimize’ the document.
- If using Save as PDF or Print to PDF, select the ‘smallest file size’ setting.
- Keep PDFs black and white. Use color images only when court ordered.
- Use the ‘reduce file size’ function if your software has it.
- Use the ‘combine files’ feature rather than printing and scanning.
We offer further training free of charge through our one-hour "Adobe Acrobat for the Law Office" course. We offer both webinar and in person training. Our curriculum includes Optimization and Size Reduction instruction, in conjunction with other useful tips and tricks that will allow you to significantly reduce your document size.
Learning and implementing this will reduce the upload/download time of your documents all while allowing the court staff to review and file your documents faster.
We may even offer a joint session with our MCLE accredited course Oranges the Year Round: eFiling and eService in Orange County. Please contact our Adobe Acrobat expert Mikhail Globus or check out and sign up for one of our courses by visiting our One Legal University / Product Training website.
We've recently updated our page with items for Los Angeles, Orange and San Benito Superior courts. Click here to take a look, especially if you have a court filing in one of those jurisdictions!
And, speaking of the California courts...Click on the image above to listen to Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye's State of the Judiciary Address (from March 17th, approx. 22 minutes long).
Spring is just around the corner, which means it's time for the quarterly update to our Loyalty Program. And now, purchasing some of our most trusted services will help you load up on points.
Photo credit: hdwallpapers
Do you know we offer Urgent Service for most of our California-based transactions? What is Urgent Service? Check it out here!
During the second quarter, you can score 50 points by adding Urgent Service to any California-based transaction.
We offer Process Serving for Summons, Complaints, and Subpoenas nationwide! We employ only licensed and bonded servers so you can rest assured that your serve will be done efficiently and professionally.
This quarter, get 25 points with any Process Serving purchase.
Court Research and Document Retrieval
Also available nationwide is our Research and Retrieval service. We'll go to any court, anywhere, and provide the documents you've requested in a professional and courteous manner.
Try out our service and receive 25 points this quarter.
Whether you choose hand-delivery or electronic-delivery, we'll give you points with each and every transaction you place. One Legal's court filing service sets the bar for service. No job is too challenging. If it's messy, we clean it up.
You'll receive 5 points with each and every transaction.
If you haven't redeemed your 1st quarter points, be sure to send in your loyalty forms before April 30, 2014. First quarter points cannot be redeemed after April 30, 2014.
Please visit our updated Loyalty Program site here.
At the Los Angeles County Bar Association civil litigation walk-through program at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse on March 15, Assistant Presiding Judge Carolyn Kuhl told lawyers that the court is still dealing with the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis. The court has cut 25% of its staff since 2008, resulting in longer wait times and lines and an increased workload for judges. Court locations have been consolidated as courthouses had to close as a result of the budget crisis. Judge Kuhl stated that the court “desperately” needs a new case management system to handle the workload and the court will have to move staff around to deal with a backlog of cases.
Eight courthouses closed in fiscal year 2012-2013 and the court had to shut 12 criminal courts. Traffic courtrooms were reduced as well, and all juvenile referees were laid off. Small claims cases were consolidated into six locations and unlawful detainer cases into five. Two locations in Chatsworth and Norwalk each handle 45,000 limited civil collection cases.
Supervising Judge Daniel Buckley said that although the court will continue to seek out ways to save, the Superior Court has financially hit "rock bottom." He said that the court has taken steps to invest in new cost-cutting technology, but the court’s computers still use a DOS operating system. In 2 to 3 years they hope to have a new eFiling system and a modern case management system.
To read more on this, click here.
In an article posted by Christy Roseveare of Strasburger & Price, L.L.P., on Mondaq.com, we are reminded that electronic notification from any court is just that, a notification. Practitioners and their staffs need to be diligent on follow-up and confirmation of any notice from the court.
The article points to a denied motion for appeal on a $40 million dollar patent infrigement judgement. The attorneys simply did not read the orders issued by the court, they took the electronic notice as confirmation of communication from the court. The article is a gentle reminder to always read and confirm all communication from the courts and it speaks to something that we here at One Legal remind our customers about often: even when eFiling, you still have to do your homework.
A recent blog post by impactnews.com speaks to the potential paper savings that eFiling in Texas could realize.
"The switch to digital is transcending into the Texas judicial system. Progress continues throughout the state of Texas as a new electronic filing, known as e-filing, mandate picks up momentum," writes Renee Hansen, author of the post.
Photo credit: Ray Bodden
My team and I, as many of you know, speak often and fervently about the paper (and time) savings that eFiling and eService can bring to California's legal professionals, and so it's gratifying to see that Texans also realize the potential impact that eFiling can have.
As I write this post, our development team is hard at work putting the final touches on our updated eFiling application and we expect to be certified by the Texas Office of Court Administration at any time.
More to follow on that so stay tuned! In the meantime, please bookmark our Texas page as it contains a lot of helpful information, including applicable orders, implementation deadlines by county, and news and updates.
On February 25, I had the unique opportunity to participate as a courtroom monitor in the San Diego High School Mock Trial competition. The event was held downtown at the San Diego Superior Court. What a great experience! All of the students involved put on an impressive mock trial and it was apparent that they had spent a significant amount of time preparing for the big day.
The defendant on trial was accused of second degree murder. She was a high school student involved in the marching band who was diagnosed with ADHD. As a result of her diagnosis, she was prescribed the drug Adderall. She allegedly sold her Adderall to other students, and, tragically, one of the students to whom she gave the drug died. And so a courtroom trial filled with drama unfolded as each side presented their case in the hopes of either convicting the defendant or returning a verdict of "not guilty."
The excitement started from the very beginning, when the defense presented a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence they deemed to have been obtained unconstitutionally. Both the prosecution and the defense presented their arguments, but in the end the defense prevailed and the judge ruled that evidence was in fact inadmissible because the method by which it had been found violated the defendant's constitutional rights.
Despite this blow to the prosecution, the team rallied and presented their witnesses. The student witnesses played their roles incredibly well and actually took on their fictitious identities in such a believable way. The defense cross examined the witnesses and I was amused and impressed by the number of objections delivered by both teams. They cited case law, presented the judge with compelling arguments as to why their line of questioning should be allowed, and showed passion and conviction. It was pretty easy to believe that I was viewing an actual courtroom trial rather than a mock trial!
The defense then presented their witnesses and with a surprise twist they tried to convince the court that the defendant did not commit the crime but was in fact framed by a fellow student and band member! This student had always been jealous of the defendant, had been expelled from his previous school and had a blue backpack that matched the one filled with drugs found in the defendant's car. I found myself eying that student suspiciously as I began to believe the defense's theory. Could he have been that conspiratorial? I was glad I wasn't on a real life jury, as I wasn't sure what to believe! It's a good thing I was only in charge of collecting the score cards from the judges.
During the trial, the defendant stayed in perfect character as well. She played the part of a shocked student surprised to find herself in this position and saddened to have lost her classmate and friend to a drug overdose so well that I began to believe that she was just a victim in this senseless crime.
The time came for the closing arguments, and then the Judge Amador presented the verdict. Not guilty! The courtroom erupted.
The four attorney scorers who judged the competition provided the student teams with feedback. They had some advice and constructive criticism but were overall very impressed with all of the students participating in the mock trial.
Congratulations to all those who competed in the San Diego High School mock trial! The level of confidence it took to stand up there in front of a real life judge and play out a courtroom trial filled with evidence, witnesses, twists and turns is truly impressive. It was so apparent that these students spent countless hours practicing and preparing and it truly was amazing to sit back and watch them in action. Thank you for giving One Legal the opportunity to be a part of such a fun event!
Guilty or Not Guilty? I can hardly stand the suspense!
We've recently updated our page with an item for San Bernardino Superior court. Click here to take a look, especially if you have a court filing in this jurisdiction!
We've also done a bit of clean up and removed many outdated items. If you have any questions about any items that have been removed, please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
On February 13, I attended meeting for MCLE providers at the California State Bar in Los Angeles. As you may have read, there will be amendments made to the current MCLE rules effective July 1 of this year. Below are some of the highlights from the meeting:
The required number of MCLE hours will remain 25 hours over a 36 month compliance period. There is still some discussion about increasing these hours, but for now the rule remains as is.
Written materials will now be required for all MCLE programs lasting 1 hour or more. It is acceptable for these materials to be listed online rather than printed out.
The "Elimination of Bias" rule has been expanded. Programs designed to satisfy this requirement will now be approved if they offer content relating to both the "recoginition and elimination" of bias in the "legal profession and community."
The Substance Abuse rule will be changed to include competency issues. Programs will be approved if substance abuse or other "physical or mental issues that impair a member's ability to perform legal services with competence." This specifically targets aging members and their competency to still practice law and represent their clients properly.
The definitions for participatory and self-study credits have changed (Rule 2.251). A “participatory activity” is an MCLE activity for which the provider must verify attendance. Participatory activities may be presented in person or delivered by electronic means. A “self-study activity” is any MCLE activity identified in Rule 2.83. Self-study activities may be presented in person or delivered by electronic means.
In addition to the rule amendments, the CA State Bar will be increasing their member audits. In past years, they have audited around 1% of their members. They are hoping to increase these audits to 10%. These audits are random and providers may be asked to verify attendance if there happens to be any discrepancies during the audit. The Bar is asking providers to maintain attendance records for up to 4 years. Attendance sheets are acceptable. Auditors may also be attending provider courses to ensure that the program material meets their standards for MCLE credit.
The California State Bar will be posting the rule amendments once they are finalized. Stay tuned for more information!
If you are interested in attending any of our MCLE accredited courses, click here to sign up.