'Diversity' has been a buzzword in the legal profession for decades. However, a  recent article in GP Solo, published by the American Bar Association, asserts diversity efforts have largely been aimed at law schools, large law firms and corporate counsel, thereby ignoring small law firms and solo practitioners.

Many small firm attorneys and private practitioners often wonder why or how they play a role in the diversification of the legal profession, according to Sandra Y. Yamate,  the Executive Director of the ABA Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession, and the author of that article, 

"It is misguided, however, to think that sole practitioners and small firm lawyers cannot do as much to advance diversity as their colleagues in larger organizations. Nothing could be further from the truth," she writes.

In an attempt to get some answers, Above the Law recently released a Small Law Firm Diversity Survey. Respondents were asked to consider several general statements pertaining to diversity, then provide long-form answers.

An example of the statements includes "'Having attorneys or staff from diverse backgrounds is a competitive advantage for small law firms.'" Of the more than 300 respondents who participated in the survey, nearly half strongly agreed with the contention. Just over 21% indicated they agreed and 19% stated they had no opinion. The remaining responses were divided between 'disagree' and 'strongly disagree.'

One response in favor of the statement asserted that a diverse workforce encourages a range of attitudes and potential solutions. The author concluded that “can only help client service.” Conversely, a comment from a respondent against the proposition indicated there is no evidence to support the contention.

Ambrose Moses, III, an African-American solo practitioner in Columbus, expressed dismay with the survey. "Some of the attitudes and mindsets illustrated by some of the comments included in the report are disappointing because it appears that some trained and licensed lawyers are ignorant of American history or have no desire to remedy the societal and individual harm caused by bias, discrimination and injustice."

He labeled some of the comments as "troublesome hindrances to our nation achieving legal, social and economic justice for all." He also express dismay that some of the responses might have been made by judges, court personnel, government attorneys (such as county prosecutors and their assistants), attorneys general (and their assistants), U.S. attorneys and their aides, general special counsel and more.

"This is not to ignore the impact of such attitudes and mindsets held by private attorneys in large and small firms. Rather, it is essential to recognize that when such attitudes and mindsets infect the ranks of our judges, government attorneys, and court personnel, then the bias, discrimination, and injustice continues to be systemic and, I submit, both de facto and de jure,” sums Moses.

Steve Smith, President and Founder of Los Angeles-based GrowthSource Coaching, mentors business people from a myriad of professions, including law. He too dismissed much of what was highlighted in the survey, although for different reasons than Moses.

"Most of what I’ve experienced runs counter to these findings but that could be the legal crowd I’m running around with," says Smith. “Small firms and solo practitioners are usually only focused on a few things: can I find someone I can work with; can I afford the best person I can find; will they stay with me after I teach them all my secrets,” he says.

That’s not to say Smith dismisses the importance of diversity for small firms or solo practitioners. However, he says, "I’m not sure it leaks into the daily practice of running a law firm."

The general consensus in the business world is to be "considered inclusive," says Smith. However, "when it comes to running a business, diversity isn’t usually the first consideration when deciding who to employ. Most of the time, a law firm’s first consideration is whether the candidate fits with the brand and whether they will get along."

Another school of thought in the business world, he says, is that "unless a person has a degree from a name university, maybe (the employer) can pay them less. They won’t pay top dollar unless the (candidate) is bringing a big pedigree.”

According to Smith. "Diversity is fine unless it creates big inconveniences for me and my business." In expressing support for diversity, in general, Smith urges people to be honest when discussing the topic.

"I’m not down on diversity but I want the discussion to be real. It’s one thing to say it but another to live it," he says.

Tami Kamin Meyer is an Ohio attorney and writer.

There's nothing more annoying than a deadbeat client. But, there are steps you can take to make this situation less onerous or to even avoid such situations altogether.

Identifying Problematic Clients Before You Get Stiffed

“The best time not to represent a client is at the beginning,” says Terry Zimmerman, a collections attorney from Akron, Ohio, who recently retired after 39 years of practicing law. Although the adage of ‘not judging a book by its cover’ might be appropriate when selecting reading material, there are telltale indications a would-be client may not pay his or her bill, Zimmerman says.

“If a client tells you they went to an attorney who has a good reputation but that attorney did not take the case, consider there’s probably a good reason why," he says. "The client might not be a good risk.”

A client who admits to have spoken with other lawyers prior to coming to you is likely shopping for the best price. "That’s another red flag,” Zimmerman says. Another clue is “when they ask the cost of a ‘simple divorce’ or a ‘simple bankruptcy,’” he says. The general public doesn’t generally appreciate what truly constitutes a case as ‘simple’ or ‘complex,’ so asking for a price upfront without explaining the variables of the matter are a red flag they won’t pay, Zimmerman suggests.

Robert B. Walker, an estate planning, collections and creditor’s rights bankruptcy attorney in Reston, Virginia, says he “worries about the ones who have been paying regularly but suddenly become slow pay.” When that happens, the client is generally not happy with the representation they are receiving or perhaps believe they are being overcharged.

Another clue a client isn’t likely to pay their legal fees? “If a client nit-picks your bill, you probably have a problem,” Walker says. One way to minimize financial exposure, Zimmerman says, is to “get some money up front.” Besides, he says, that’s a great way to learn where the client banks, useful information in case the lawyer pursues a collection matter against the client in the future.

What to Do When a Client Doesn’t Pay

It might seem elementary, but before initiating any type of litigation, it’s imperative to know who the actual defendant is. If, for example, a lawyer represents Joe’s Autobody, but not Joe himself, it’s wrong to pursue an action against Joe rather than the business, Zimmerman says.

Therefore, when representing a company, Zimmerman says it’s imperative the lawyer obtain a personal guarantee in writing that Joe has the authority to hire the attorney on behalf of the business. Once a determination is made as to whom the defendant is, the next step is to review the fee agreement signed by the client and the attorney.

According to the Code of Professional Responsibility, written agreements are only required in contingency fee cases, “but it’s a good practice” to use them in all matters, Zimmerman says.

Walker says “he comes and goes” on the use of written fee agreements. On one hand, they spell out the terms governing the professional relationship between the lawyer and client. However, they can also lengthen the attorney’s malpractice exposure in states like Virginia, where the statute of limitations for collecting fees and pursuing legal malpractice matters differs depending on whether a written fee agreement was used or not.

Zimmerman also cautions lawyers contemplating legal action against deadbeat clients to consider whether it might also expose them to a malpractice claim initiated by a disgruntled client. Another matter to consider is whether the debt in question is consumer-oriented or not, Walker says.

“There should be a determination made as to whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and any state version, govern such collection by one attorney for a client attorney,” he says. When a lawyer tries to collect legal fees owed, such legislation does not apply. However, an outside collection agent might be deemed a ‘collector’ subject to Federal and state laws. Other rules govern the collection of past due legal fees, says Steve Smith, President and Founder of GrowthSource Coaching, a California company that educates business owners and other professionals about improving their companies.

For example, ABA Model Rule 1.5 governs fee types and fee arrangements. “One of the overriding principles is the concept of the reasonableness of fees. The overwhelming, number one reason why people avoid paying their bill is the client has decided the fees were unreasonable for the service they received,” he says.

Absent exigent circumstances, such as being up against a statute of limitations, Walker likes to send a demand letter to the client, now potential defendant, when legal fees are overdue. If nothing else, doing so helps determine whether the lawyer has the debtor’s correct address.

Smith’s approach is similar. First, he suggests sending a pleasant letter reminding or informing the client of their past due account. If a week passes with no response, he advises placing a personal call to the client to try to determine why they haven’t paid their bill or responded to the letter.

“Get them on the phone to discuss installments or even reduce the overall balance,” Smith says. No matter what is said during the conversation, he implores the lawyer to maintain a “good business decorum.” Follow up with one email a week for the next three weeks, imploring the client to pay their bill. Each missive should communicate the “increasing severity” of the matter so the client understands the gravity of the situation.

If, after 30 days, payments are still not forthcoming, it’s “time to make an assessment,” about whether to sue the client for the fees they owe, Smith says. Factors to consider include the size of the past due balance and the costs involved with hiring an outside agency or lawyer to collect the debt, assuming the case will be farmed out.

Walker cautions lawyers about handling their own collection matters. “The ability to be objective is not as great when you are representing yourself," he says. "When your professionalism is challenged, it’s hard to be objective.” 

What Not to Do

There are several steps to avoid when seeking to collect an overdue client balance. According to Smith, do not:

• Contact the client’s family members or friends to discuss
• Contact an employer to seek the garnishment of wages, since a judgment is needed to initiate a garnishment
• Allow the situation to impact your effectiveness in representing other clients

It’s also not wise to argue with the client over the past due account. Not only is that unprofessional, such behavior will likely infuriate the client and increase the likelihood he or she might file a malpractice claim. Lastly, if a lawyer seeks to hire you to collect his or her past due accounts, be sure to conduct a conflicts search before taking on the case. Do not pursue a collections case against a defendant if you represented him or her or a related entity in the past, Zimmerman advises.

Tami Kamin Meyer is an Ohio attorney and writer.

With three groups of attorneys leaving BigLaw to start their own boutique firms in January alone, legal industry experts are predicting that 2016 might be a year of major big firm-to-boutique migration. So reports Bloomberg BNA.

In the first month of the year, when there’s typically a flurry of lateral movement between big law firms, groups of lawyers from Arent Fox in California, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, and Schiff Hardin have all instead opted to form of new, small firms.

Legal industry experts note that while former BigLaw attorneys often do find that a small firm partnership is better suited to their personal needs, business development challenges and day-to day administration duties can make small firm life challenging.

Read the full article from Bloomberg BNA.

Bigger might be better in some things in life, but not necessarily when it comes to employment opportunities for attorneys.

Small law firms are coming up big as places for lawyers to find work, according to a recent article on Law Crossing. The article cited the National Association of Law Placement as saying small law firms are providing “the majority of law firm jobs taken by recent graduates.”

Economic uncertainties continue to inject volatility in the legal landscape, making large law firms wary of over-hiring. There is also tremendous fear the number of clients capable of affording or willing to pay big firm rates is dwindling.

Meanwhile, there continues to be an escalating need for legal services among the general population, who not only can’t afford huge hourly fees but who are also uncomfortable in the swanky downtown offices of The Bigs. So where do these clients turn? Small law firms or solo practitioners whose rates are usually lower than those charged by big law firms and whose lawyers are generally more accessible.

View from the Trenches

Joseph Dreitler didn’t always practice law in the small firm setting. In fact, he spent 17 years in-house at Procter & Gamble and Anheuser-Busch and another 14 toiling in various large, general practice firms. However, for the past four years, he has practiced law in a two-person trademark, copyright and patent law firm in Columbus, Ohio. The namesake of Dreitler True says his current situation is “the most fun” he’s had while practicing law, for a few reasons.

They include:

• Lack of bureaucracy
• No conflicts of interest
• Lower overhead
• The lower fees he can charge due to reduced overhead costs
• No need to try and ‘leverage’ associates to bring in revenue for the firm

Dreitler also relishes the fact he doesn’t feel pressured to bill an astronomical number of hours yearly like he did when he worked in a big firm. Something else he doesn’t miss about big firm life is partners who are supposed to behave like a team but who are really out for their own best interests.

“I don’t feel the disappointment in other partners not cross-selling my services to their client,” he says, adding that in every firm he worked, the consistent mantra was that everyone was on the same team. However, eventually Dreitler became dismayed when he finally realized that was not really the case in any of the firms where he worked. “Partners hoarded work. They did not want any other partner to even meet their clients for fear they would screw something up. Partners who had no idea of the difference between a trademark and a copyright would take on that kind of work and never call partners who specialized in that work because they wanted the hours and could care less about the clients getting the most qualified lawyers on the matter,” Dreitler laments.

Early in Evan Schwartz’s legal career, he was a small fish in a very large pond. In actuality, he was more like a guppy in a huge sea of the gigantic law firm where he worked for several years. In those days, he toiled in a firm with 300 to 500 lawyers nationwide. When he left, he was a solo practitioner for a time. His firm grew to ten lawyers, including a law partner, but today he is the namesake of Schwartz Law PC.

His firm, with offices in Manhattan and Garden City, NY, is comprised of six lawyers whose work focuses on disability law and other insurance-related matters. There are several aspects of practicing in the small firm setting that Schwartz finds appealing. He enjoys the collegiality of working in a small group, which also means attorneys have the opportunity to accept greater responsibility for their cases and clients than occurs in large firms.

“Large firms can also be collegial but are frequently more regimented and both pay and responsibility are typically more lockstep,” says Schwartz. Like Dreitler and Schwartz, Caroline Z. Worley didn’t always practice law in the small firm setting. After the namesake of Worley Law LLC, a small firm in Westerville, Ohio, graduated law school, she toiled as a staff attorney for a Common Pleas Judge.

Following that, she joined a large law firm in Columbus. Since then, everywhere she has practiced law has employed five or fewer lawyers. Worley cites the “team and family atmosphere” with all employees, both attorneys as staff, as what she enjoys most about the small firm setting.

She also relishes the lack of bureaucracy and the flexibility that working in a small group engenders. “Also, since our overhead is lower, an attorney can offer the same or better services for half the cost. There is also plenty of time to get out and serve on nonprofit boards and to give back by volunteering your time,” she says.

Those experiences differ greatly from what she underwent in the big firm setting. For example, “you usually have to run all ideas up a chain of command and change is harder and slower,” she laments. Working for a small firm, especially her own, offers Worley the flexibility to work different hours and at locations other than her brick-and-mortar location.

Pitfalls of Small-Firm-Life

While all three lawyers agree their professional lives are happier as small firm attorneys, they do admit there are pitfalls to working in such an environment. For Worley, working with a small “marketing and business development budget” is challenging. She would also like to hire additional support staff, but that is cost-prohibitive.

While he wouldn’t trade his current situation for a return to big-firm life, Schwartz says there are challenges working in a small firm. For example, the small firm scenario affords “less predictability of the business,” he says. In other words, says Schwartz, running a small firm is “more risky.”

Another pitfall of the solo and small firm environment is that, typically, attorneys receive less training before they are thrown into the fire. According to Schwartz, there is “typically less training and supervision, which can be exhilarating or disastrous, depending on the person you are and the particular circumstances of the matters you are handling.”

While certainly no one is saying Big Law is dead, there is no doubt small and solo law practices are gaining increasingly popularity among lawyers. At least that’s what Schwartz thinks. “In general, small firms help make the legal system more accessible to the general public by offering lower fees and more direct contact between attorneys and their clients. When I weighed the pros and cons of big firm life versus working in a small firm, I decided I wanted to own my own firm and control my own destiny. I have more autonomy and greater job security because I develop my own book of business,” Schwartz says.

Tami Kamin Meyer is an Ohio attorney and writer.

General Electric's general counsel's 2012 compensation package afforded him almost $11 million in cash, making him the highest paid general counsel on Corporate Counsel magazine's latest list of the nation's 100 highest paid GCs. So reports Law.com.

At $1,853,671, the average take-home pay enjoyed by the lawyers on the list this year is the highest it has ever been.

Read the full article from Law.com here.

After entering a guilty plea, John Farahi, founder of Newpoint Financial Services Inc., was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison on March 20, according to a National Law Journal story. The Beverly Hills businessman admitted his role in a $20 million Ponzi scheme and the plea could have ramifications for former Nixon Peabody securities partner David Tamman, who was found guilty for his role in the scheme.

Tamman’s lawyer, though, insists the two instances are different and “suspect the judge will listen to what we have to say and make a decision accordingly."

Read the full article from the National Law Journal here.

A Los Angeles nutrition company is locked in a legal battle with billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, who has accused the company of perpetuating a pyramid scheme. Herbalife officials said the company will up their legal defense costs from $25 million to $40 million in the wake of Ackman’s accusations, according to a Los Angeles Times article.

Ackman, who reportedly bet $1 billion the company is a sham, has said most of the company’s sales people lose money and expects the company’s shares to fall to zero.

Read the full article from the Los Angeles Times here.

Food and Drug Administration logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When attorney F. Lee Bailey was indicted for mail fraud in 1973, he quoted a popular aphorism referencing the difference between how England and the U.S. treat their criminal defense lawyers.  “In England they are apt to be knighted; in the United States they are apt to be indicted.”  There is quite a bit of truth in the saying and the dangers inherent in practicing law in the U.S. are not only faced by defense lawyers.  Sensing an opportunity, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently set its sights on corporate in-house counsel.

In November, 2010, Lauren Stevens, a former vice president and general counsel for pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, was indicted on federal charges of making false statements and obstructing a federal investigation.  Stevens was accused of making false and misleading statements in a series of letters to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on behalf of her employer.  Despite it having been obvious from the beginning that Stevens was only relaying information furnished by her client and had no intent or motive to mislead federal investigators, she was enthusiastically pursued by the DOJ.  “Where facts and law allow, the Justice Department will pursue individuals responsible for illegal conduct just as vigorously as we pursue corporations,” Tony West, assistant attorney general for the civil division, said in a statement.  It should be noted that despite the DOJ’s stated commitment to pursue corporations, GlaxoSmithKline’s name was noticeably absent from the Stevens indictment.  West continued, “Criminal charges are appropriate when false statements such as those alleged here are made to the FDA.”

Read the full article here...

Attorney Carrie LeRoy started the Cyber Dignity Program in 2012 to educate teenagers on the possible legal consequences of cyberbullying, and now she hopes to take the Bay Area program national. So reports Bloomberg.

LeRoy was moved to action after a teen, who had been sexually bullied, committed suicide in Saratoga, California. LeRoy has partnered with other attorneys to spread information about cyberbullying litigation, and her program has already reached 13,000 high school students.

Read the full article from Bloomberg.

A new report from Exterro and FTI Consulting projects the e-discovery industry is going to hit $19 billion by 2023, up from $10 billion last year, as demand for technology and services is soaring.

The report also shows robust activity across the industry, noting that the number of investments, mergers and acquisitions in the space jumped from 24 to 44 between 2017 and 2018. The study, titled 'The State of E-Discovery 2019 Report,' examined the state of the emerging legal sector and highlighted trends, relevant legislation and case law.

“The challenges facing legal and e-discovery teams are broadening as the intersection of e-discovery, data security, and data privacy increases,” reads the report. “But embracing technologies and effective business processes can give legal teams exciting new capabilities to address these challenges.”

Globally, two landmark pieces of legislation, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which governs how organizations collect and use data of citizens of the European Union, and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which has bolstered residents rights with respect to their data, are likely to be key factors influencing the direction of the industry, according to the report.

Further, 10 additional states have introduced similar legislation, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has introduced a draft “Consumer Data Protection Act” as “a growing number of US technology giants are calling for a domestic version of GDPR.” But, striking a balance between users’ rights and protecting sensitive information may require a good deal of finesse. “Despite the major risks of non-compliance with privacy regulations, cybersecurity still remains the top concern for information governance teams,” reads the report.

From Twitter
HaystackID @HaystackID
“While the challenges of document review vary from day-to-day, six fundamental challenges appear to be common to all legal departments dealing with the discipline of #eDiscovery during document reviews.” https://buff.ly/2PSaq8i #LegalTech

Another key trend in e-discovery is an increased reliance on alternative legal service providers over law firms. According to the report, legal services providers are pulling in more money spent on e-discovery than law firms to the tune of 33% to 23%. In that vein, lawyer management of e-discovery is also down, with attorneys managing the process for only 34% of in-house legal departments, a number down 8% between 2017 and 2018.

Where Do Judges Stand?

According to the report, more than 1 in 5 judges reported feeling they should “act as an ‘active e-discovery case manager.’” As such, 56% said a separate case manager who promptly addresses issues as they arise is preferable. Another report from earlier this year found judges have reported an overall improvement in e-discovery “competence,” perhaps reducing the need to mitigate conflicts altogether. Reportedly, “lawyers who have appeared before the judges in the past year exhibited ‘an adequate level of knowledge’ 56% of the time, with only 18% lagging,” according to previous coverage of that survey from Progressive Law Practice.

Georgetown Law and Exterro Partner in e-Discovery Education Initiative

A new “legal thought leadership educational initiative” called edTalks, will feature discussions surrounding best-practices and cutting edge ideas and concepts, according information from Exterro. The 15 minute talks will be moderated by Mollie Nichols of Hogan Lovells, Nancy Patton at Exterro and David Greenwald of Jenner & Block. The next webcast is set for September 18, at 1 p.m. EST.

The law does not always keep pace with reality. In the instance of deepfakes, it’s the law’s ability to keep pace with virtual reality that’s being called into question.

On Thursday, June 13, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence took a deeper look at the deceptive chaos the emerging technology might bring and convened a panel of experts to look at ways to prevent its abuse. Deepfakes are hyper-convincing videos doctored to show something that never actually happened.

Per the committee, the meeting took place regarding manipulated media, national security and artificial intelligence components associated with the deepfake” technology. The law and technology panelists lined up to offer testimony included:

• Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland’s Francis King Carey School of Law and an Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) board member
• Jack Clark, the policy director for OpenAI
• David Doermann, a professor at SUNY Empire Innovation and a director at the Artificial Intelligence Institute for the University at Buffalo
• Clint Watts, a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a Senior Fellow for the Alliance for Securing Democracy, German Marshall Fund

More Than One Approach to Exposing Deepfakes

Citron said a combination of factors, including the law, will be needed to combat the malicious intent of the doctored information. "We need a combination of law, markets, and societal resistance," said Citron, according to information from EPIC, adding that "the phenomenon is going to be increasingly felt by women and minorities."

EPIC has called for the “Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence” as the foundation of any federal laws governing its use. Artificial intelligence is a key component in the spreading of misinformation. The guidelines include several tenants such as the:

• Right to Transparency
• Right to Human Determination
• Identification Obligation
• Fairness Obligation
• Accuracy, Reliability, and Validity Obligations
• Public Safety Obligation
• Termination Obligation

At the hearing, Clark called for funding, education and “institutional intervention” in order to mitigate the confusion caused by misinformation spread through the tech.

From Twitter:
Ashley Pilipiszyn ‏ @apilipis 
"@jackclarkSF calls for institutional interventions, increased funding, measurement, norms, and comprehensive AI education as pathways to address the national security challenges of AI, manipulated media, and 'deepfakes': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLS9MlIWOk …

House Committee’s Purview is Expansive, Scope Wide

According to information provided by the Congressional committee, topic associated with deepfake technology will cover the law, politics, security and human interest. They include:

• Future advancements
• Detecting and tracking
• How deepfakes might allow individuals to deny media
• Its psychological impact
• Counterintelligence fears
• Internet platforms’ role in mitigating fake information
• Legal challenges
• The appropriate role of the federal government.

“Deepfakes raise profound questions about national security and democratic governance, with individuals and voters no longer able to trust their own eyes or ears when assessing the authenticity of what they see on their screens,” reads information from the committee.

Promotional materials for the hearing state this is a first-of-its-kind hearing as there has not, to date, been a House committee meeting dedicated specifically to deepfake technology and other AI-generated faux data.

More than 260 federal judges weighed in on e-discovery as Exterro and EDRM Duke Law partnered to generate the 5^th Annual Federal Judges Report.

The survey measured the thoughts, perspectives and practices of the participating judges, according to the survey administrators.

“Examining the data, the message to e-discovery practitioners was clear: Stay on top of e-discovery. Request judicial assistance when needed, as most judges will wait for a request before they get involved in discovery disputes,” the report reads.

The report found competence in dealing with e-discovery is improving. Lawyers who have appeared before the judges in the past year exhibited “an adequate level of knowledge” 56% of the time, with only 18% lagging, according to the survey. Digging deeper, the survey specifically asked judges to measure their feelings about lawyers in their court:

“In the past 12 months, the lawyers appearing before you have shown an adequate level of knowledge and expertise in e-discovery matters.”

• Strongly disagree: 3%
• Disagree: 15%
• Neutral: 26%
• Agree: 52%
• Strongly agree: 4%

Other takeaways from the report show judges are slow to sanction counsel on e-discovery matters, with 13% of the judges surveyed reporting taking such action. However, 74% of those asked said they have taken “affirmative action,” such as requiring conferences or issuing warnings, to address problems in the past 12 months.

Says one judge surveyed in the report: “Ideally parties should be required to make a real effort to resolve issues on their own. Judicial resources should not be expended on resolving discovery disputes until the parties have first made a substantial effort on their own.”

The report also suggests it is important to “understand your client’s IT infrastructure and cooperate with opposing counsel to make sure you can manage e-discovery without judicial intervention.”

Further, 63% of judges said they, themselves, need additional education or training in some areas of e-discovery, while 70% called for a “modest” boost in education or training.

Cicayda Announces New Production Capacity for Cloud-based eDiscovery

As e-discovery grows in popularity, capacity and innovation are likely to follow. Recently, legal technology company Cicayda boasted its cloud-based e-discovery platform, Reprise, can produce more than 2.4 million documents in less than a day. The new solution does not charge by volume of gigabytes or per page, as its costs are included.

“One of the most stressful events in the eDiscovery process is production time. We attempt to reduce client stress by providing real time quality control checks, incredible production speeds, simple processes and we don’t charge extra for it, so there are no additional charges or surprises,” said Billy Hyatt, CEO of Cicayda in a statement. “We are committed to providing the most comprehensive and innovative solutions with a Discovery ecosystem for this and other cumbersome processes.”

The platform is designed to provide flexibility for single use and rolling production, according to an announcement from the company. The platform:

• Includes text, document endorsements, placeholder documents, a customer production load file, and natives;
• Includes “easily” produced data redacted and stamped with applied Bates numbers; and
• Is capable of producing PDFs with “embedded text, TIFF image, or JPEGs as the ESI agreement dictates.”

The 2019 International Humans Rights Day brought with it messages of hope, calls to action and economic sanction. Celebrated each year on December 10, the day marks the anniversary of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly adoption of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Human rights and equality are indispensable to human dignity but must be fought for at times, said Judy Perry Martinez, president of the American Bar Association (ABA). “This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall uprising, which sparked the modern LGBTQ equality movement that in recent years has won major gains in the United States. Through the grit and determination of individuals who care about equality and dignity asserting their rights in America’s robust democratic institutions, struggles became victories.”

Martinez said some of the critical tenets of the day include freedom of the press, an independent judiciary and protecting the rule of law. The ABA, she said, will continue to fight for “diverse and vulnerable populations in America and around the world,” including immigrants, the homeless, those with disabilities and sexual and domestic violence victims.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a milestone document delineating “inalienable rights which everyone is inherently entitled to as a human being regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,” according to the U.N.

Martinez noted a number of budding democracies are fighting against leadership intent on weakening the judicial system, jailing journalists and disparaging minority populations. As such, she called on legal professionals across the globe to recommit to dignity and equality on the annual advocacy day.

The U.N., this year, also gave special recognition to the rights of children, and highlighted the power of the youth as an agent of action. “The campaign, led by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), is designed to encourage, galvanise, and showcase how youth all over the world stand up for rights and against racism, hate speech, bullying, discrimination, and climate change, to name a few,” according to the U.N.

U.S. Takes Aim at Human Rights Violators on International Humans Rights Day

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced action against 18 individuals in Libya, South Sudan, Slovakia, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Burma on International Human Rights Day. OFAC cited Executive Order (E.O.) 13818, which relates to the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act and deals with individuals who are deemed serious human rights abusers, according to the Department of the Treasury.

“The United States will not tolerate torture, kidnapping, sexual violence, murder, or brutality against innocent civilians,” said Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin in a statement. “America is the world leader in combatting human rights abuse and we will hold perpetrators and enablers accountable wherever they operate.”

As a result of the sanctions, the property and interests in property of those named, as well as entities they have ownership interests in that are in the U.S., or are under the control of someone in the U.S., are “blocked and must be reported to OFAC.”

“Treasury’s action focuses on those who have killed, or ordered the killing of innocents who stood up for human rights including journalists, opposition members, and lawyers,” said Deputy Secretary Justin G. Muzinich in a statement.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the House of Representatives will move forward drafting Articles of Impeachment against President Donald Trump. In a speech recalling the words of the Founding Fathers and invoking the spirit of the nation’s formative years, Pelosi laid the groundwork for the House’s case against the President.

“When crafting the Constitution, the Founders feared the return of a monarchy in America. And, having just fought a war of independence, they specifically feared the prospect of a king president corrupted by foreign influence,” said Pelosi. “ … During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison–the architect of the Constitution–warned that a President might ‘betray his trust to foreign powers… which might prove fatal to the republic.’”

Broadly, Trump’s actions surrounding a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and pressuring him into announcing a investigation into political rival Joe Biden–an investigation that many argue is not only baseless, but is solely designed to taint Biden's image–are at the heart of the impeachment proceedings. The initial stages of the process is complete, including an investigation from the Intelligence Committee, Oversight Committee and Foreign Affairs Committees as well as testimony from a number of principals.

Parsing Through a Sparsely Used Procedure with the National Center for Constitutional Studies

According to the National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS), the House Judiciary Committee will forward the complaint to its Subcommittee on the Constitution, which investigates the matter and, if there is merit to it, prepare the Articles of Impeachment outlining the specific charges the President will face. After that, the Judiciary Committee will vote on those Articles, and if approved, the full House will vote as well.

“A simple majority of the House either approves or disapproves the Articles. If disapproved, the issue is terminated. Approval, however, is, in effect, the equivalent of a grand jury indictment against that official,” according to information from the NCCS. “The approved Articles of Impeachment are then delivered to the Senate. With this action, the House’s role in an impeachment is finished." The Senate would then decide if the President is guilty. A vote of guilt by two-thirds of the Senate is required to strip the President of his office. The Senate may also bar the indicted official from holding all future offices. “This is the extent of the Senate penalty; it can withhold political positions, but it cannot impose civil or criminal penalties,” reads the NCCS explanation.

From Twitter

Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney

NEWS: SCHIFF says Pence aide Jennifer Williams submitted additional tetimony Nov. 26 that Pence's office deemed classified. He's asking for it to be declassified and says it's relevant to corrobrate other Ukraine/impeachment evidence. Schiff's letter.

Pelosi, for her part, has made her stance on the President’s actions clear during her announcement that the impeachment proceedings would continue. “The facts are uncontested: the President abused his power for his own personal, political benefit at the expense of our national security, by withholding military aid and a crucial Oval Office meeting in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival,” she said.. “Our Democracy is what is at stake. The President leaves us no choice but to act, because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit. The President has engaged in abuse of power undermining our national security and jeopardizing the integrity of our elections.”

The Georgia Secretary of State’s Office is facing, separately, a number of lawsuits from Democratic leadership and scrutiny from watchdog groups like the American Civil Liberties Union over its voting procedures.

The Democratic Party of Georgia, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DCSC) filed one suit (PDF), which names Secretary Brad Raffensperger, among others, in response to that state’s absentee procedures. Democrats also filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s ballot ordering statute, which they said gives Republicans an “arbitrary and unconstitutional advantage in their placement on general election ballots.”

According to information from the DCCC, the absentee voting procedures in Georgia “lack enforceable standards and disenfranchise voters who cast absentee ballots.”

"Despite a series of reforms following the 2018 elections, Georgia has not standardized how election officials notify voters that their ballots were rejected,” according to information from the DCCC. “The lack of standards for both time and method mean voters are not given sufficient notice to correct or ‘cure’ their ballots—and their votes are not counted.”

Additionally, the ACLU of Georgia took issue with the state’s effort to purge its voting rolls of inactive voters, claiming it found “discrepancies” in the list of those to be removed. According to the group, the list was supposed to include voters who missed the last two general elections, but the ACLU said it found “a number of citizens documented to have voted in the November 2018 elections” on the list. The ACLU sent an open records request in order to determine the voting history and other documentation related to 70 people it claims actually voted in the 2018 election.

“The voter registration of one Georgia citizen canceled in error is one citizen too many,” said Andrea Young, executive director of the ACLU of Georgia. “We call on the Secretary of State to stop removing citizens from the voter rolls and focus on serving the citizens of Georgia by ensuring access to the ballot and free and fair elections.”

However, an independent analysis from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution found there “aren’t many obvious errors in Georgia’s cancellation list.”

From Twitter 
Adam Schiff @AdamSchiff
Ahead of the 2018 elections, Georgia purged hundreds of thousands of voters from the rolls and held back applications for tens of thousands more. Now, with two Senators on the ballot in 2020, they’re doing it again. This is why we must keep fighting to defend voting rights.

In the days leading up to Election Day, Raffensperger’s office pointed out its “routine and legally required” voter purge yielded a 4% reduction in the roll and that is on par with other states facing outmigration like Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, Arizona, Vermont and Maryland.

According to the Secretary of State’s Office, the Georgia General Assembly passed a law this year requiring officials to send personalized notices to the last known address of those about to be removed from the voter rolls due to an address change. Raffensperger said that information will also be posted online. “Election security is my top priority,” he said. “Accurate and up-to-date voter rolls are vital to secure elections, but at the same time I want to ensure that anyone potentially affected by this routine process has notice and opportunity to update their information. That is why my office is releasing the full list to ensure that people who are still eligible voters can update their information.”

The procedures are laid out under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, a federal law signed by then-President Bill Clinton, according to the secretary’s office. Additional laws were also passed in Georgia the next year under a Democratic-led General Assembly and signed by a Democratic Governor.

A number of advocacy organizations are looking at ways to leverage the experiences of inmates as well as legislative remedies to, among other things, end "extreme" sentences like life in prison.

Among those groups are The Sentencing Project and Initiate Justice. Recently, The Sentencing Project published its State Advocacy Update highlighting some of the work being done to that end.

"Challenging life imprisonment started with persons sentenced to extreme prison terms and their loved ones," reads the update. "Raising awareness about the realities of lifelong prison terms has surfaced new activism in dismantling mass incarceration. This awareness can build on years of advocacy that aligns the lived experiences of those sentenced to life prison terms to activists on the outside."

According to the advocacy group, a Michigan chapter of National Lifers of America recently rallied at the state capitol to call for the elimination of life sentences in the state. The rally piggy-backed off the efforts of the Good Neighbor Project, which facilitates a partnership between incarcerated individuals and community partners. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania also had similar pushes by protesters to change life-long sentencing, the group noted in its report.

Initiate Justice Looks to the Constitution in Justice System Reform Efforts

Additionally, Initiate Justice, in California, uses member-led "peer advocacy" campaigns in state prisons to drive reforms. One of their chief legislative priorities is the “Free the Vote Act,” which would restore voting rights for all of the state's parolees. According to Initiate Justice, both an Assembly Constitutional Amendment and Assembly Bill would need to pass in order to put the measure on the 2020 ballot.

"Nearly 50,000 people on parole in California are working, paying taxes, and positively contributing to their communities, yet they are unable to vote at any level of government," according to a statement from the group. "This system operates as 'taxation without representation,' which is antithetical to the founding of this country."

From Twitter

Prison Policy Init. @PrisonPolicy

NEW REPORT:

231,000 women in the U.S. are behind bars, more than any other country. Where are they locked up and why? See the most recent national data: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019women.html

According to The Sentencing Project, there were a number of other criminal justice reform updates from around the country:

• California: Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 136, "which removes a 1-year enhancement added at sentencing for each prior felony jail or prison term served."
• Colorado: Legislation was introduced phasing out "for profit prison contracts" by 2025.
• Iowa: Gov. Kim Reynolds created a task force to "examine reentry policies and racial bias in the criminal justice system."
• Florida: Lawmakers pre-filed SB 486, which if passed, would "allow judges to depart from the mandatory minimums in cases where the defendant did not engage in a continuing criminal enterprise, used a weapon, and the crime did not result in death or bodily injury."
• Michigan: Senate approved House bills to ‘Raise the Age’ and categorize 17-year-olds as minors, instead of automatically trying them as adults.
• New York: Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez is planning to propose legislation allowing prosecutors to reduce extreme sentences for those convicted of felony offenses.