LawLibCon regulars, Rich Leiter, Roger Skalbeck and Marcia Dority Baker, along with today’s guests, Ken Hirsh, Sarah Glassmeyer and Elizabeth Farrell, will be discussing last year’s developments in legal bibliography and law librarianship as well as prognosticating about about what…
Posts Tagged ‘set’
Questions a Publishing Industry Futurist is Mulling Over for 2012
04
Jan
One would expect a publishing industry futurist to issue a set of predictions for 2012. But for 2012, Mike Shatzkin writes: Rather than predict the future for the industry’s biggest players, I am posing what I think are the biggest…
The 6 Types of Lawsuit Complaints
09
Dec
Know the 6 types of lawsuit complaints.
Every lawsuit starts with a complaint.
See how easy it is?
- The plaintiff in the chart sues Defendant A and Defendant B.
- Defendant B counter-claims against Plaintiff.
- Defendant A cross-claims against Defendant B.
- Defendant B counter-cross-claims against Defendant A.
- Defendant A files a third-party complaint against Third Party Defendant.
- Third-Party Defendant counter-claims against Defendant A.
That’s all there is to it!
See how easy it is?
Lawsuits are “ridiculously easy-to-understand” once the Jurisdictionary step-by-step self-help course shows you how the parts fit together.
If you have a lawyer, you’ll know what your lawyer should be doing!
If you don’t have a lawyer, you’ll know what it takes to win!
The course offers many diagrams just like this plus charts, sample forms, simplified explanations, and practical tactics that give you power to win … with or without a lawyer!
It’s not rocket science.
It’s straight-forward once you see the step-by-step procedures and how they’re controlled by a simple set of rules an average 8th grader can understand.
Everyone knows a baseball game has at least 9 innings.
Everyone knows the visiting team is first to bat.
Everyone knows the batter goes back to the dugout after 3 strikes.
It’s simple.
It’s baseball.
It’s America!
Lawsuits are just as easy as baseball, once you see them with the explanations and examples the course provides.
Not many people know how simple lawsuits really are. My profession has kept this knowledge secret from you on purpose!
It shouldn’t be that way!
Now YOU can know how to win … with or without a lawyer!
Intellectual Freedom across the Globe: ALA Webinar Series Set for November
28
Oct
Registration is now open for “Intellectual Freedom across the Globe,” a series of webinars on international issues related to free speech, censorship and access to information in libraries and beyond. The webinars will be held during November 2011 and feature…
How to Cite Controlling Law
09
Aug
| Jones v. Smith, 287 So.2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1998)
Do you want to win in court? You must learn citation rules! What are all those numbers? What do they mean? Does it seem complicated? It’s really simple. Simple, that is, once you see how we explain it for you. I’l tell you a few things today in this Tips & Tactics and leave the rest for you to learn with my affordable, official, 24-hour Jurisdictionary“How to Win in Court” step-by-step self-help course. The first part is easy, of course. The names of the parties are separated with a “v.” This means “versus” (as you already know), just as it will be Yankees v. Boston Red Sox in the 2011 World Series. Right? There may be other parties (more than just “Jones” and “Smith” in the fight) but a citation is still good if it names the prominent parties. Now, what about “287 So. 2d 543”? This is also simple (just like everything I explain in my affordable,official, 24-hour Jurisdictionary “How to Win in Court” step-by-step self-help course you should order today, if you haven’t already). The first number is the page where the “Jones v. Smith” written appellate court opinion appears. Tough? Not at all. It’s just a page number. Nothing more. See? It’s easy! And, “So.2d”? That’s just an abbreviation for a particular set of books known as “reporters” (i.e., books that “report” opinions of appellate court justices that control trial judges and their lower level decisions). In this example it stands for the “Second Edition” of the Southern Reporter. These contain written opinions of appellate courts in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. A complete set of the Southern Reporter, Second Edition will cost you around $14,566 but you don’t need to buy all those books once you know what I teach in my affordable, official, 24-hour Jurisdictionary “How to Win in Court” step-by-step self-help course. And that’s just the Second Edition. If your case were in one of these states (before the internet) you’d have to have access to the First and Third Editions. And, in addition (no pun intended) you’d need nearly $50,000 worth of National Reporters to have complete access to all federal cases, including U.S. Supreme Court cases, to be “in the know”. Ahhh. How sweet the internet, because today we have access to all of this for pennies … and it’s all searchable using Boolean operators(also explained in my course). Alright, what about “(Fla. 4th DCA, 1998)”? That’s even easier! The case is clearly in the appellate courts of Florida. It is from the Fourth District Court of Appeal (operating from West Palm Beach). The case was decided in 1998. See? I do know how to make this stuff easy! Right? Who said law is too hard for pro se people to learn? If someone said that to you, it’s probably because they just didn’t know that my course exists and is affordable! YOU WILL LOSE … if you don’t learn how to cite “legal authority” as explained clearly in my official step-by-step, 24-hour Jurisdictionary“How to Win in Court” course! The only opinions that count in court are the recorded opinions of appellate justices who stand in judgment over trial level judges and have power to reverse them if they disagree with the appellate courts’ decisions in any way! Your opinions of law count for nothing in court. You must know how to (1) find appellate court opinions that control your judge and (2) know how to properly cite those cases in the papers you file and the statements you make in open court. Show the judge the law so he knows the appellate court will reverse his decision if he rules against YOU! This is how smart pro se people win! |
What Every Lawyer Should Know About Document Automation
18
Jun
For years some law firms, but not all, have used some form of document automation in their law offices. Ranging from an MS Word macro to long standing programs such as HotDocs, as well as automated forms distributed by legal publishers such as Willmaker by Nolo, some law offices have incorporated some form of document automation in their law practices. Document automation of legal documents that are generated in high quantity by a law firm is an indispensable process for increasing law firm productivity and maintaining profit margins in an era of intense competition.
Legal Document Creation the Old Way
The manual process of cutting and pasting clauses from a master MS Word document into a new document, is a productivity process which is fast becoming out dated. It reminds me of the time before there were automated litigation support programs, and legal assistants would duplicate a set of case documents three or four times. The next step was filling one file cabinet with a set of documents in alpha order, filling another filing cabinet with a set of documents in date order, and finally, filling another filing cabinet with a set of documents in issue or subject order to enable "fast" retrievable of relevant paper documents. It took awhile, but almost all litigation lawyers now use automated litigation support methods.. This is not true of transactional lawyers, many of whom still use out-dated methods of creating legal documents, as if each legal document were a unique novel, poem, or other work of fiction.
Barriers to Change
An obstacle to wider use of automated document assembly methods, is typically the lawyer’s insistence on crafting the words in each clause to their own satisfaction. Because most lawyer’s do not have the requisite programming skill to automate their own documents, law firms by default will opt to use their own non-automated documents, rather than risk using the legal documents automated by an independent provider, because by definition the content of the documents is "not their own." As a result, many law firms do not even use desk-top document assembly solutions when the forms are published by an independent provider or publisher, remaining stuck using more time consuming and less productive manual methods.
Typically, when a law firm does use document assembly methods, a paralegal inputs answers from a paper intake/questionnaire into a document assembly program running on a personal computer. This results in the extra time-consuming step of inputting data from the intake questionnaire to the document assembly program, but it is still more efficient than manual methods.
Web-Enabled Document Automation
Now comes, "web-enabled legal document automation" methods." Web-enabled document automation is a process whereby the intake questionnaire is presented on-line to the client through the web browser to be completed directly.
.gif)
When the client clicks the "Submit" button the document is instantly assembled, ready for the attorneys further review, analysis, revision, and customization if necessary. The result is a further leap in productivity because the client is actually doing part of the work at no cost to the lawyer, freeing the lawyer up to focus on analysis and further customization of the document.
This is what the work flow looks like when using web-enabled document automation methods:
Unfortunately, lawyers have been slow to adapt to this process as well, because of their reluctance to use legal documents drafted or automated by someone else. However in order to automate their own documents they must either acquire the skill to do the job, or commit the capital to have a skilled professional automate their documents for them. For solos and small law firms these two constraints create formidable obstacles to using more efficient methods.
Since neither condition is common within smaller law firms (programming skill, investment capital), the result is that the law firm gets stuck using older less productive methods of document creation.
Vendors that provide web-enabled document platforms include, our own Rapidocs, and Exari, Brightleaf, HotDocs, DealBuilder, and Wizilegal, to name only a few, all claim that their authoring systems are easy to use, but I have yet to see lawyers without any kind of programming skill create their own automated legal documents in any quantity. Thus, law firms become stuck in a negative loop of their own creation which reduces productivity (and profitability) :
"My legal documents are better than yours; I can’t automate them for the web because I don’t know how; thus I will be less productive and be required to charge you more because of my own inefficiency."
Competition
In the consumer space, now comes the non-lawyer providers to take advantage of the solo and small law firm’s competitive disadvantage. Research by companies like Kiiac provide support the conclusion that 85% of the language in transactional documents is actually the same. In more commoditized areas, where legal forms have been standardized, the legal form content is 100% the same in all documents. Taking advantage of this consistency of legal form content, companies like LegalZoom, Nolo, CompleteCase, SmartLegalForms, and LegacyWriter , with their superior on-line marketing and branding machines, now sell legal forms by the thousands at low cost which provide a "good enough" legal solution for consumers who would do any thing to avoid paying the higher fees to an attorney.
Its true that the consumer doesn’t get the benefit of the attorney’s legal advice and counsel, and the accountability and protection that dealing with an attorney provides, but consumers don’t seem to care.
What can be done?
The "web-based legal document automation solution" , used by non-lawyer providers, is a disruptive technology that is eating away at the core business base of the typical solo and small law firm practitioner.
What can solos and small law firms do to compete in this challenging competitive environment?
The American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center reported last year in their Annual Technology Survey that only 52.2% of solo practitioner’s don’t have a web site. Even if this number is underestimated, it is shockingly low compared with web site utilization by other industries. If you don’t even have a web site, the idea of "web-enabled document automation" is still a "light year" away.
What can be done to encourage more wide-spread use of web-enabled document automation technology by law firms, particularly solos and small law firms? A follow-up post will explore some solutions, but I am open to ideas from anyone.
On Jim Cramer, hitting an alltime high
An article in the NY Times magazine caught my eye. All about the clown antics of a certain Booyah Bozo by the name of Jim Cramer. You will be aware of him if you have hours to kill in front of the TV set, and own a set of securities of diminishing value.
In the old days, we used to go down to our broker (most often Merrill Lynch), and waste hours watching the tape go by, with a cup of coffee and a newspaper. And, of course, trade information and rumors. Outright promotion by the broker was a no-no.
So what’s changed? We still become transfixed by the tape, and allow ourselves to be entertained by a clown who should be doing standup in the boondocks. He is technically ignorant, doesn’t analyze charts, and won’t suggest shorting when the time is right. He’s for straight gambling on the long side, and bets on the truthfulness of fundamental valuations, which is a sure way to lose the house, and to the house. As for broker promotion, that’s been replaced by CNBC promotion. Opinions? Well, they’re free, and you know what values attach to free.
It’s best to accept the fact that a stock is worth exactly what it’s selling for, at any given moment. The price contains all known and unknown details, where the devil usually lurks. To be bullish on anything in a down market, or bearish in an up market requires skill and guts. It also requires a knowledge of the workings of the market, as portrayed in squiggles on a chart. You are not an “insider”, but you just might make an educated guess after studying trendlines and classic patterns of tops and bottoms for a roadmap. Just be aware that the smart money already holds the stock, and needs to unload on to a gullible public. Mr. Cramer’s job appears to be to set them up.
The game is very serious, and to have fun using other people’s hard earned money is contemptible. And to interview CEOs pretending to reveal inside information while they promote their company’s products has to be for the entertainment of very gullible people.
Stock commentators should be forced to reveal their portfolios, even just a paper portfolio. The record would then speak for itself for all to see. And they should be registered and conform to Blue Sky laws, like other money managers. And the SEC should come out. Where are they hiding?
Posted in "fundamental analysis", "head and shoulders", "Jim Cramer", "stock market", "technical analysis", "trend lines", boohah, charts, clowns, COMMENTARY-Passing parade, MSNBC, MY STOCK MARKET