Annotating Your Electronic CLE Materials on the IPad

Last week I wrote about a paperless initiative of the State Bar of Arizona. As part of it, the Bar will no longer print hard copies of CLE materials.

As you might guess, I got an earful—though a good number of Arizona lawyers told me they supported the move.

One question that arose in the blog comments (where the good stuff usually lies) was in regard to the ability to annotate the electronic materials. After all, we’re all used to marking up our printed materials during the CLE presentation. What do we do if we are gazing at a PDF, and we con’t happen to own Adobe Acrobat Pro?

A blog post by Nicole Black this week provides some solutions for those accessing the PDFs on an iPad. She points to a few rather inexpensive tools that will have you commenting and noting before you know it. As she says, the four tools “are just a few of the many apps available for reading, storing, organizing, and marking up PDFs and other documents on your iPad.”

You can read her post at Lawyerist, here.

Follow @azatty

 

Green Initiative by @AZStateBar Includes No More Printed CLE Materials

Recently, the State Bar of Arizona made the paperless plunge—declining to provide written materials at continuing legal education seminars.

What do you think of this paperless initiative as it applies to CLEs? I’ve heard from a few attorneys who think it’s a way for the Bar to offload printing costs to members. But, in my experience, that view is in the minority. The mass of people I’ve spoken with said things like, “About time” and “No big deal.”

Do you agree? Is the Bar correct to get on the sustainability bandwagon? The move has to save thousands upon thousands of printed pages every year. Is that positive enough to offset a few inconvenient negatives?

What follows are a few of the Bar’s frequently asked questions. Be sure to read all of them here.

1.     Since there are no hard copies to pick up, how will I get my materials?

You will receive an email prior to the seminar containing a link to your materials. If you prefer to take a printed copy to your seminar, please print it before you arrive at the seminar. No hard copies will be available for pick up at the seminar. 

2.     Which email address will materials be sent to?

Materials will be sent to your email address on file with the Bar.  Please make sure your email is updated with the Bar to ensure receipt of the materials.

3. What if I want a hard copy of the seminar materials?

A limited number of hard copies will be available for an extra charge.

4. I’m already paying to attend the seminar, so why do I need to pay for printed materials?

As a cost-saving measure, as well as to move forward with the SBA’s green initiatives, the CLE department is providing registrants their seminar materials in an electronic format. The advantage of “going green” serves multiple benefits:

• Allows the Bar to keep registration fees at the 2008 price;
• No more lugging around materials;
• Easy access to materials.

5. If I want to purchase a hard copy of the seminar materials, how much will it cost?

Prices for hard copy materials will be between $20 – $40, depending on the manual.

Follow @azatty

 

Batter Up: CLE in the Diamondbacks Bleachers

One of the more unique CLE offerings I’ve seen will occur tonight. It is hosted by the Arizona Diamondbacks and will be held—where else—at the ballpark.

The impressive panel is comprised of sports law attorneys (including the talented Nona Lee, whom we covered here in Arizona Attorney Magazine).

After the 5:30 CLE, the first pitch in the game against the Phillies is at 6:40, and legal learners are encouraged to stick around for the matchup.

Here is more about the CLE series. And the complete form is below (click to make it larger).

Follow @azatty

 

Diversity and the Bench

Arizona Bar members—and State Bar of Arizona staff—were treated to a unique presentation on Monday afternoon. It was a CLE that examined a topic that is often a lightning rod, but that is enshrined in the state Constitution.

The CLE was called “Diversity Considerations in Judicial Merit Selection.” Appropriately, the headliner (if we may use that term) was Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch. She shared her perspectives on the role that the “D” word plays in establishing who may don the judicial robe.

Other panelists were Doug Cole of HighGround Public Affairs, Assistant United States Attorney John Tuchi and lawyer (and former aide to then-Gov. Janet Napolitano) Tim Nelson.

Each of the panelists has had experience with one or more of the commissions on judicial court appointments. As such, they could explain and reveal a little about how commissioners weigh applicants’ diversity, along with many other areas of experience.

The panel was ably moderated by Senior Bar Counsel David Sandweiss.

Sandweiss and the Chief Justice explained the founding documents that enshrine diversity as a value—both in the state Constitution and in a set of principles that the State Bar adopted in 1992. As Chief Justice Berch recalled, Sandra Day O’Connor had once said that she would hope a wise old man and a wise old woman would come to the same conclusions. But data have shown that there may be significant differences in the weight evidence receives, the Chief said, depending on whether a judge is a woman or a man. Neither is necessarily correct, but diversity on the bench helps assure that multiple viewpoints are represented.

Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch

As Chief Justice Berch said, “Decisions we make in life are part and parcel of all that we are.” Because of that, she said, lawmakers—and the State Bar—decided to value diversity.

Doug Cole echoed the position that commissioners are charged with looking at the whole applicant, not just a narrow slice of their resume. He amused the audience with some responses that he has found most surprising to Question 64—the query found on the judicial application in merit-selection jurisdictions that requires applicants to describe their experience with diversity—again, a constitutional requirement.

• “I am white and male.” (That was the complete response.)
• “I have friends who are diverse.” (I shortened the actual response, but not by much.)
• “Not applicable.”

Cole said that such responses miss the point, because diversity and facing adversity may occur in anyone’s life.

“The best applicants’ answers may be moving and touching, including life experiences and important turning points in people’s lives.”

So yes, Cole said, if you’re a white male, you still may have a good understanding of diversity.

John Tuchi agreed with Cole, but spoke also about the uncertainty of a word that has been given no delimited definition. Therefore, the assessment of what diversity means may vary among and between commissions and commissioners.

Tim Nelson described the statistics that reveal some strides have been made in increasing the ranks of minority judges. The bench is currently comprised of judges who are 71 percent male, 29 percent female and 16 percent minority. Those numbers nearly mirror the membership of the Arizona Bar—though they trail the breakdown of state residents.

“Right now, we have a bench that matches the profile of our Bar.” Whether that is sufficient is a broader and more challenging question.

Panelists also spoke of the obstacles they face encouraging lawyers to apply for a judgeship. For instance, Cole said that there is a shortage of private lawyer applicants, which is likely related to the pay cut that an experienced law firm partner would see if she applied.

Chief Justice Berch added that she has reached out to former law students who are minority to encourage their application. But they have responded, “You don’t get it.” Many of them may be the first child in their family to attend college, let alone law school. Now that they have reached a pinnacle of law firm partnership, the sacrifice to become a judge may be just too great.

“We may put too much on their shoulders,” she said. “And that can be unfair.”

Here are some more photos from the event (they also may be found on the Arizona Attorney Magazine Facebook page.)

Follow @azatty

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

Constitution Seminar Tomorrow

Today I bring you a nearly-last-minute reminder about a great event where you may listen, learn and mingle. Best of all, it includes a terrific panel of people who are coming to town to talk to you about the U.S. Constitution.

I wrote about tomorrow’s event before, but one or two of you may have missed it, so click here for more information (and some great photos of the panelists).

And you really do need to click here to register for the seminar. Go ahead; I’ll wait.

Please, PLEASE, don’t tell me “It’s way out in Peoria.” That is a wee bit annoying, for a few reasons. First of all, many people (including Bar members) live in or around Peoria. As our Founders would say, those people are pursuing their own version of happiness, and they don’t need anyone to tell them otherwise.

Cookies may be present tomorrow, but no promises.

There is another reason that comes to mind for why complaining about a little drive to your CLE is weak sauce. Let’s see: The Hohokam built the canals, probably with their own hands. (Cue the violins.) The pioneers lived in dusty shacks that let in the heat and the cold when neither was welcome. (Enter bass drum.) The state’s industrialists and laborers both did their part to carve the sixth-largest metropolitan area out of rock and worse. (Crescendo.)

And we? We must drive an extra 10 minutes in our air-conditioned vehicles to hear wise people speak on stimulating topics, and where lunch and cookies will be served.

(OK, I am totally guessing on the cookies part, but roll with me.)

In summary: You could attend for yourself and the pleasure and knowledge it will give you. Or you can attend for the Hohokam.

Your choice. See you tomorrow.

Follow @azatty

 

Dan McAuliffe Celebrated In Best Way

Just last month, I took a moment to wish Dan McAuliffe a happy birthday. Though he passed away a year ago, he is still on the minds of many in the Arizona legal community.

That was clear yesterday, as a remarkable CLE commemorated his life—and his love for the intersection of media and ethics.

Throughout the morning, a packed audience sat in the State Bar of Arizona CLE Center—named in honor of McAuliffe—and watched selections of the man’s favorite legal movies and TV shows. All of the clips were taken from his own collection, some of which, the moderator told us, appear to have been videotaped with a handheld device while the TV broadcast a show.

Peppered among the clips, of course, was discussion about what was professional or, more likely, unprofessional, in the clips.

Shirley Wahl McAuliffe speaks as Pat Sallen (center) and Ed Novak listen, April 27, 2011

Panelists were selected for their knowledge of ethics and of Dan.

Larry Cohen recalled how he had offered his own version of ethical lessons from the movies, only to be heckled by a fellow he later came to know was Dan. They met and “agreed it would be a lot more fun to do the programs together.” All that Dan required, Larry said, was that programs had to contain clips from “My Cousin Vinny” and the opening statement from “And Justice for All.”

“Dan made ethics accessible to people by making it fun,” Larry added.

Also on the panel were lawyers Lynda Shely, Ed Novak and Jim Lee. It was moderated by the State Bar’s Ethics Counsel, Pat Sallen. Each was adept at seasoning their ethical lessons with stories of Dan and his influence on the profession.

The event opened with clips from McAuliffe’s favorite lawyer movie: “My Cousin Vinny.” As Dan’s widow Shirley Wahl McAuliffe said, “Any movie that can take a pro hac vice application and turn it into a running joke” would earn Dan McAuliffe’s love.

If you haven’t seen it, get out there and rent it. But until then, enjoy this clip from a courtroom scene.

 

 

Economic Loss Rule Focus of CLE

Arizona Attorney Magazine, March 2011

Sometimes you plan. And sometimes you’re lucky.

This week, the latter strategy benefited us here at the State Bar of Arizona. And I think it benefits Arizona lawyers too. It is the wonderful coincidence of Arizona Attorney Magazine articles and a pending CLE on the identical topic.

My confession of fortune’s guiding hand has to do with what looks like a terrific CLE tomorrow (yes, tomorrow!). It is on the topic of the economic loss rule.

Wait, WAIT! Don’t hit the Back button. Bear with me. The ELR is seriously cool stuff, especially here in Arizona. And especially when it is illustrated by experts.

The CLE comes on the heels of our March issue coverage of the ELR case that arose in Flagstaff and went all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court: Flagstaff Affordable Housing LP v. Design Alliance Inc. The CLE panelists will be:

• Arizona Vice Chief Justice Andrew Hurwitz
• Hon. John Gemmill, Arizona Court of Appeals
• Hon. Eddward Ballinger, Superior Court for Maricopa County
• Hon. Sam Thumma, Superior Court for Maricopa County
• Professor Ellen Bublick, Univ. of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law

Here is the link to the seminar. Click it now, while the ELR rapture has you in its talons. To hesitate and perhaps surf away would be to condemn yourself to forever misunderstanding the odd admixture of tort and contract that the Supreme Court had to address. Don’t do that to yourself. Click. Click. Click.

Our magazine stories were not written by any honorables, just by practicing lawyers: Tom Lordan and Craig LaChance. But I still urge you to read their take on the ELR. I think their articles are the kind that you rip out of the magazine and save for a rainy, ELR day, when your client is faced with a similar situation. They are just that good.

(I can hear you asking now: Which came first—the magazine articles or the CLE? Tsk tsk; that is not the point. This is not a competition. We are not engaged in a ragtag dash to an educational finish line. Sure, I could note that our articles’ genesis was long ago, back to last summer or fall. And that our authors drafted and redrafted until their work achieved a certain gem-like quality. And only then were we agreed that publication would serve Arizona’s legal profession. I’m sure the CLE Department could say the same about Friday’s blockbuster program. So please, do not sow rancor between a record-breaking CLE Department and an award-winning magazine. It’s unseemly.)

To help you understand the ELR, here is our introduction to our March issue special feature. And don’t forget to CLICK.

Contract 1, Tort 0

Flagstaff Affordable Housing and Certain Design Defects

An Arizona city was the location for last year’s noteworthy development in how courts will construe the economic loss rule. 

When a unanimous Arizona Supreme Court decided Flagstaff Affordable Housing Limited Partnership v. Design Alliance, Inc.  last February, it applied the economic loss rule to bar a construction-related claim for the first time. 

In the case, an owner set out to construct affordable residential housing that would comply with accessibility guidelines established in the Fair Housing Act. The owner hired an architect to develop plans that met the guidelines. Upon review, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development determined that it failed to comply, and sued the owner. 

HUD and the owner eventually settled—which is when the owner sued the architect for negligent design, seeking recovery of its costs in complying with HUD’s requirements.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Superior Court to determine whether the contract preserved tort remedies. The Court reasoned that in construction defect cases involving only repair and replacement of the construction work itself—not personal injury, death or other property damage—there are no strong policy reasons to impose common law tort liability in addition to contractual remedies.

The following articles describe the case in more detail, and they point to business consequences that may flow from it.

 

Snark de Résistance

I’m heading over to the Minority Bar Convention today, where Arizona lawyers hope to learn something valuable at a good price. And that simple but elusive concept takes me to today’s “Change of Venue.”

Krusty's searching for great CLE

As a reminder, Change of Venue is our weekly (Friday) left-turn where we examine the non-legal—or at least aspects of life that lawyers may be good at, but did not learn in law school.

This week, I point you toward a Web site—OK, a blog—where the writer seeks the mother lode: the good and inexpensive continuing legal education.

Let’s have her describe her mission:

“Welcome to The Cheapskate Lawyer!

“As the title banner says, this blog is all about your author’s quest to fulfill her yearly MCLE requirement without spending an arm and a leg. Along the way, we just might learn a thing or two, but mostly we’re just having fun here, so don’t take anything too seriously.

“Every Monday, a new credit hour will be reviewed, including whatever food may have been served. Fridays are usually poll days, so be sure to stop by and let your voice be heard.”

Yes, that’s right: The Cheapskate Lawyer.

It is written by someone extremely well connected to our very own Arizona Attorney Magazine (dare I reveal her name?!). And it conveys a marvelous combination of humor, actual valuable information, and fearless reporting. In her effort to locate (nearly) free CLE and good food to boot, she pulls no punches.

If she keeps it up, she might never eat lunch in this town again. And that’s just the kind of reviewing we most appreciate.

Get started here, reading, lunching and learning.