May 21, 2013

Finalists Selected to Fill Magistrate Vacancy in Larimer County District Court

The Eighth Judicial District Nominating Commission has nominated three candidates for an open magistrate position in Larimer County.

Nominees for the bench are David Ayraud and Carolyn Pannell, both of Fort Collins, and Holly Panetta, of Severance. All finalists were selected in a meeting at the Larimer County Courthouse on July 21, 2011.

Eighth Judicial District Court Chief Judge Stephen Schapanski will make the final decision on which candidate to appoint, but is asking for public input on the candidates.

Comments regarding any of the nominees may be sent to Eighth Judicial District Administrator Janelle Brunin via e-mail or by mail sent to her attention at 201 LaPorte Avenue, Suite 100, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521.  Public comment on the nominees will be taken until Friday, August 5, 2011 at 5:00 pm.

A complete job description for a magistrate employed by the Colorado Judicial Department is posted here.

State Judicial Issues More Revised Forms Regarding the Sealing of Criminal Conviction Records

The Colorado State Judicial Branch has issued two more revised forms regarding the sealing of criminal conviction records. Practitioners should begin using the new forms immediately.

All forms are available in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) and Microsoft Word formats. Many are also available as Word templates; download the new form from State Judicial’s individual forms pages, or below.

District Civil/Criminal

  • JDF 611 – “ Instructions to Seal Criminal Conviction Records” (revised 7/11)
  • JDF 612 – “Petition to Seal Criminal Conviction Records” (revised 7/11)

Denver District Court has specific requirements for filing Petitions to Seal Arrest Records and/or convictions.  Please review filing information located on the Denver District Court website.

Erin Blaskie: Five Reasons to Consider a Virtual Assistant

Most law offices are set up quite traditionally. Plenty of lawyers still use fax machines and many law offices still contain that ancient beast known as a stenograph. So it’s no surprise that lawyers tend to hire people traditionally as well. But there’s an alternative route to traditional hires that may benefit your practice: the virtual assistant.

What is a Virtual Assistant?

A virtual assistant—also known as a VA—is someone who performs work for you or your firm virtually, using their own office and their own equipment. VA’s are responsible for their own taxes and do not get paid vacation or sick days. Most VA’s bill by the minute (just like lawyers do) and some have flexible payment options such as retainer, pay-as-you-go or pay-per-project.

VA’s have a wide range of skills (though not every VA will be well versed in all skill sets). In addition to virtual assistants who specialize in law-specific support, VA’s can handle general administrative tasks, basic web design and graphic design, social media items, Internet marketing and more.

Now that you know what a VA is, let us discuss how you can benefit from hiring one.

  1. You only pay for what you need. Employing someone in-house means that you will pay for downtime, sick days, vacation days and you will be responsible for holding back taxes and filing extra paperwork. You may also be responsible for providing medical benefits. With a VA, you don’t have to worry about any of that. The virtual assistant will charge you only for the time spent working on their project—when they aren’t working on your project, they aren’t billing you.
  2. No extra office space or equipment needed. Hiring a virtual assistant means that they will not require space in your office. If you spend most of your time working from home or on the road, having a VA means you never have to worry about accommodating someone else. You can come and go as you please and know that work is getting done. Your assistant will have his or her own software and equipment, too. If something breaks, you are not responsible for the maintenance or replacement of that equipment.
  3. For solo lawyers, much-needed support. Whether for cash flow or space reasons, solo lawyers often feel they have to do it all themselves. A virtual assistant can take some of that load off you without the usual risk and burden of an employee. And if you’re a solo you know it is often difficult to find time to spend on marketing your services. A VA can both lighten your workload so you have more time for marketing and help you with marketing tasks.
  4. You can tap into current marketing for your firm. A lot of lawyers tend to stick to the more traditional marketing route, possibly because they don’t have the time to explore new online marketing options. A virtual assistant can help you tap into social media such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, create or maintain a website or blog, and help you build an e-mail list to market your services to. Without these things, you end up missing out on huge opportunities to engage with clients and referral sources.
  5. You get strategy, too. The number-one benefit of using a virtual assistant is that you get more than just support with your to-do list. You also get someone who understands the business world, the online world and the administrative world. You get to tap into their experience and expertise. Most virtual assistants will be able to guide you through the world of the online collaboration tools, for example, and make sure that you are taking advantage of  any new opportunities. Getting timely, up-to-date insight on what is working and what isn’t can give you the edge over other firms.

Can I Feel Safe Working with a VA?

One of the biggest concerns lawyers have when considering a VA is the issue of confidentiality. You may not meet the VA in “real life,” and you may not know if his or her setup is secure, so should you trust your client’s information with someone outside of your space? Most virtual assistants take great pride in ensuring that their client files and the information shared between client and VA is 100 percent secure. They use project management tools that incorporate SSL security and they backup their information regularly, and most Va’s are also willing to sign confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements. In addition to checking references, the best thing you can do is ask the VA questions about their setup and get specifics about how they will protect your information. If they don’t have a good answers, continue your search to find a virtual assistant who does take security seriously.

Erin Blaskie is the brainpower behind Entrepreneur DIY, a new site that offers tutorials and resources for business start-ups, and BSETC, a professional outsourcing firm. Erin has been an online video host and has been involved in large-scale social media activations. She contributes to the Attorney at Work blog, where this post originally appeared on July 7, 2011.

Trial Skills Training Series: Delivering a Killer Cross-Examination with Larry S. Pozner

For this Trial Skills Training Series of Programs, CBA-CLE has engaged the most experienced and successful Colorado and nationally known litigators to teach you the skills and knowledge it takes to achieve their level of success in the courtroom. Each half-day program is dedicated to a particular aspect of the trial to give you in-depth coverage of just what it takes to win at every stage of the litigation process. Whether you attend one, several or the complete series of programs, your level of skill, knowledge, and competence will improve with each course you attend. Take advantage of this most excellent and unique training experience.

Delivering a Killer Cross-Examination

Wednesday, July 27, at 9 am

Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

This program sets out the fundamental techniques of advanced cross examination using the chapter method. We will discuss the concepts of constructive cross examination, the architecture of question-based control, and the elements of page preparation systems.

With more than 35 years experience in courtrooms and before juries, Larry S. Pozner, Esq., is well-known among fellow trial attorneys as the co-author of Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques – America’s best-selling publication on the subject of cross-examination. Larry focuses his practice on complex civil and criminal litigation – as well as the lecture circuit. He is litigation counsel for the Denver Broncos Football Club. In the area of complex commercial litigation, Larry represents both plaintiffs and defendants in cases involving fraud (including healthcare fraud), professional malpractice, breach of contract, environmental matters, theft of trade secrets, and copyright and trademark infringement. In 1998, he was elected president of the 10,000 member National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Larry supplements his civil and criminal practice with publishing, television and radio legal commentary, and lecturing on trial practice.

CLE Program: Delivering a Killer Cross-Examination

This CLE presentation will take place on Wednesday, July 27, at 9 am. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live program or webcast, the program will also be available as a homestudy in three formats: video on-demand, mp3 download, and audio CD recordings.

Tenth Circuit: Challenges to Northern San Juan Basin Drilling Project Not Ripe under the National Forest Management Act until Improper Construction of a Well is Approved

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in San Juan Citizens Alliance v. Stiles on Thursday, July 21, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision. This appeal concerns the Northern San Juan Basin Coal Bed Methane project (the Project), which has been approved by the Forest Service and the BLM. The Project contemplates the construction of numerous gas wells within the San Juan National Forest and on other federal lands. Petitioners filed suit against the Forest Service, the BLM, and four government officials for alleged violations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and NEPA. The suit contends that the 2007 record of decision approving the Project was unlawful; several companies holding valid leases in the area and interested in drilling for gas were permitted to intervene as additional defendants. The district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.

Petitioners argue on appeal that the Project violates the NFMA because it is inconsistent with provisions of the San Juan National Forest Plan protecting old-growth ponderosa pine forests, wildlife habitat, and riparian areas, and that the record of decision approved individual wells under the Project that violate the Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines protecting riparian areas. It further argues that the Federal Defendants violated NEPA in two respects when they prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) assessing the Project’s environmental consequences.

The Court concluded that the ripeness doctrine precludes it from addressing the merits of any of Petitioner’s challenges to the Project under the NFMA. A claim that the Project is inconsistent with the Forest Plan is not ripe until that inconsistency leads to the improper approval of a specific well (or associated construction). If that causal connection is present, the challenge to the well can encompass a challenge to the defective Project provision under which the well is approved. Because these NFMA claims are not ripe, the Court remanded them to the district court to vacate its judgment on those claims and to dismiss them without prejudice.

As for Petitioner’s NEPA claims, the Court rejected them on the merits. “First, the EIS’s discussion of riparian-area mitigation measures is more than adequate to satisfy NEPA. An EIS assessing environmental consequences at the programmatic stage of a multi-step development project can properly discuss mitigation measures in general terms when the specifics of possible well locations are still uncertain, leaving for later a more complete analysis of environmental consequences associated with permitting a particular well site. Second, the Federal Defendants’ decision on which public lands to include in the cumulative-impact analysis of air quality was a reasonable choice involving technical and scientific matters within their areas of expertise.” The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s decision regarding the NEPA challenges.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 7/21/11

On Thursday, July 21, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and three unpublished opinions.

Unpublished

Wauford v. Richardson

Chapman v. Barcus

Leo v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.

No case summaries are available for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Protected

2013-05-21 02:57:01