April 15, 2014

Hanging Your Shingle: Turning Your Plan Into Your Practice

You might be going out on your own, but that doesn’t mean you have to do everything solo.

Opening your own law firm can be the most rewarding and most challenging endeavor you’ll encounter in your career. So why go it alone?

The popular CBA-CLE program is back this year, and learning about the ins and outs of going solo has never been easier!

Our experienced faculty is made up of attorneys and professionals who have either been in your shoes or who have helped attorneys just like you, and they will walk you through the process – from deciding to hang your shingle to actually doing it – with valuable ethics lessons and precautions all along the way.

The keynote presentation, Solo by Choice, will be given by Carolyn Elefant, Esq.. Carolyn has been a resource, an advocate, and an inspiration to lawyers around the country who are either currently solo or considering solo. Her blog, My Shingle, is one of the most popular resources for solo lawyers online and she’s grown it while practicing energy law – as a solo, of course!

Topics of the program will include:

  • Setting Up Your Office
  • Choice of Entity
  • Developing a Business Plan
  • Managing Your Malpractice Exposure
  • Ethics
  • Practice Management
  • Marketing
  • Bookkeeping, Record Keeping, and Billing
  • Trust Account Management
  • And a Panel Presentation “From the Trenches” – Let these attorneys tell you what they wish they had known when starting out – benefit from their experience and advice!

Also, back by popular demand is the half-day Saturday session on technology – your first partner in hanging your shingle.

Don’t miss this excellent opportunity to learn not only the fundamentals of going solo, but how to develop your practice into a success!

CLE Program: Hanging Your Shingle

This CLE presentation will take place Thursday, August 18 through Saturday, August 20. 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. The course materials will also be available.

Judge Jackson Peters to Retire from the Teller County Court Bench

The Fourth Judicial District Nominating Commission will meet Friday, September 2, 2011 at the Teller County Courthouse (101 W. Bennett Ave., Cripple Creek, Colorado 80813) to interview and select nominees for appointment by Governor Hickenlooper to the office of county judge for Teller County.  The vacancy will be created by the retirement of the Honorable Jackson L. Peters, Jr. on October 1.

Eligible applicants for appointment to fill the vacancy must be qualified electors of Teller County. The appointed county court judge will serve an initial provisional term of two years before facing a retention election. Retained judges serve four-year terms.

Further information about the retirement of Judge Peters and applying for the vacancy is available from the Colorado Judicial Branch.

Department of Transportation Amends Rules Regarding Practice and Procedure Before the Tranportation Commission

The Colorado Department of Transportation has amended the rules of practice and procedure before the Transportation Commission. The Transportation Commission Rules have not been revised in twenty years. The proposed revisions were made to correct statutory references and to bring the rules in line with current Commission practice.

A hearing on the amended rules will be held on Wednesday, August 31, 2011 at 4201 E. Arkansas Avenue, Shumate Building, Mt. Evans Conference Room, Denver, Colorado 80222, beginning at 9:00 am.

Full text of the proposed changes with line edits to the rules can be found here. Further information about the rules and hearing can be found here.

Malia Reddick: Colorado Legal Community Invited to Participate in National Judicial Performance Evaluation Conference on August 11-12

When the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) at the University of Denver launched in 2006, judicial performance evaluation was among its first initiatives.

This month, IAALS will continue its commitment to improving existing processes for evaluating judicial performance and informing voters of the evaluation results by hosting a conference that will address evaluation issues specifically at the appellate level… and we hope you can join us.

On August 11 and 12, judges, journalists, noted scholars and others from around the country will gather in Denver to consider how we might improve the evaluation process for appellate judges.

The conference features a presentation by Chief Justice Mark Cady of the Iowa Supreme Court, as well as panels on:

  • What makes a good appellate judge?
  • Is it possible to capture these qualities in an evaluation process?
  • Are the existing methods of evaluation working, and if not, what could be improved?
  • Not everyone agrees on the best evaluation process, so what are the areas of disagreement and alignment among judges, activists, journalists and scholars?

When: August 11-12, 2011

Where: Sturm Hall, University of Denver, (optional August 11 dinner will be held at Loews Denver Hotel)

Click here to learn more about the conference or to register now.

Malia Reddick is Director of Judicial Programs at the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver. Sign up to receive her monthly email newsletter, Selection Snapshots, which surveys judicial selection news from around the country.

Department of Health Care Policy and Financing Amends Rule Regarding Medicaid Redeterminations

The Department of Health Care Policy and Financing has amended the rule regarding Medicaid redetermination forms and notices. The Medicaid redetermination form will now direct Medicaid clients to review their current information and direct them to take no action if there are no household changes to current information. The proposed rule also removes language regarding sending a second redetermination notice when the first is not received. If the first notice is not received, it is attestation from the client that information is correct and no changes have occurred in the household.

These amendments are designed to assists in streamlining the eligibility process and reduce the administrative burden to eligibility sites and clients.

A hearing on the amended rule will be held on Friday, September 9, 2011 at The Capitol Center, 225 E. 16th Ave., 6th Floor, Denver, Colorado 80203, beginning at 9:00 am.

Full text of the proposed changes with line edits to the rule can be found here. Further information about the rule and hearing can be found here.

State Board of Health Amends Rules Regarding Community Clinics

The Colorado State Board of Health has proposed comprehensive revisions to community clinic requirements, including authorizing community clinics to be off-campus locations of general hospitals.

The new proposed rules have been amended as follows:

  • change the name of “community clinics” to “primary care clinics” and the name of “community clinics and emergency centers” to “community emergency centers.”
  • amend the definitions of “primary” and “emergency” care to update and clarify the existing language.
  • exempt Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) from community clinic regulation, in accordance with recently enacted legislation – specifically HB 11-1101 and HB 11-1323, respectively.
  • require facilities that provide emergency care to always be open during a given 24-hour period; current regulation allows for temporary service interruptions during a 24-hour period.
  • require primary care clinics to have signage as to when they are open and how consumers can obtain services when the facilities are closed.
  • limit seasonal closures to community emergency centers in non-metropolitan areas that experience seasonal population influx (such as centers in ski areas); and requires such facilities to report closures to the Department of Public Health and Environment, use certain signage during the closure and conduct fire drills and review procedures to be following in case of fire or evacuation emergency within specified time frames.
  • authorize community clinics to be off-campus locations of a general hospital, which is prohibited under current regulation.

A hearing on the amended rules will be held on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at the Department of Public Health and Environment, Building A, Sabin-Cleere Conference Room, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80246, beginning at 8:00 am.

Full text of the proposed changes with line edits to the rules can be found here. Further information about the rules and hearing can be found here.

Battle of the Young Professionals: Join the Young Lawyers Division for a Kickball Showdown

Come join the Colorado Bar Association Young Lawyers Division (CBA YLD) at the Colorado Society of CPAs Young Professionals Summer Kickball Showdown at Clement Park in Littleton. The CBA YLD is hosting one team of attorneys to complete against the CPA Young Professionals.

The all-day tournament will be held on Saturday, August 13, 2011 beginning at 9:00 am and wrapping up around 4:00 pm. All teams will receive event t-shirts and are guaranteed at least two games, food, drinks, and a ton of fun. Games will be organized by Western Alternative Sports Association. The organization sets up every event to be laid back and social, so anyone can come out and have a great time regardless of age or ability.

Spots are still available, but are filled on a first come basis. Please let James Garts know if you are interested in joining the team. Email your interest to garts@pelegrinradeff.com or benc@m-s-lawyers.com. Don’t miss out!

Tenth Circuit: Court Erred in Sentencing Defendant for Identity Theft by Calculating “Intended Loss” as Total of Credit Limits Possibly Reached and Not as Loss Purposely Sought to Inflict

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Manatau on Monday, August 1, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s sentence and remanded for further proceedings. Petitioner was in the business of stealing identities, including social security numbers, credit cards, and checks. When finally indicted by the government, the district court looked at Petitioner’s conduct regarding “convenience checks,” which allow the holder to write a check against their line of credit. Along with two of the checks, Petitioner had a statement revealing a credit limit of $30,000. Two other checks, however, did not state the limit to which they could be drawn, even though it was $10,000; Petitioner only negotiated those two for $1,800. When determining an appropriate sentence, the Guidelines suggest lengths based on actual or intended victim losses, whichever is greater. The district court agreed with the government that the intended losses should equal the amount of the credit limits, despite what was actually negotiated by Petitioner; whether or not Petitioner ever intended to reach those credit limits does not matter, and the appropriate consideration is the loss up to the credit limits that was both possible and potentially contemplated by the scheme.

The Court disagreed with the government and district court. Instead, the Court agreed with Petitioner that the appropriate inquiry requires an analysis of Petitioner’s mens rea when determining his intended loss. Such an inquiry in his case shows that he didn’t intend to reach the available credit limits on at least some of the convenience checks, because he had no knowledge regarding those credit limits. “‘Intended loss’ means a loss the defendant purposely sought to inflict. ‘Intended loss’ does not mean a loss that the defendant merely knew would result from his scheme or a loss he might have possibly and potentially contemplated.” “The available credit limits on the convenience checks in question and the defendant’s knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of them may well be relevant evidence bearing on what loss a defendant did (or didn’t) intend. But a court cannot simply calculate ‘intended loss’ by toting up credit limits without any finding that the defendant intended to inflict a loss reasonably approaching those limits.”

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/1/11

On Monday, August 1, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and seven unpublished opinions.

Unpublished

Winfrey v. Rudek

United States v. Molina

Adkins v. Marten

Adkins v. Crow

Adkins v. Sanders

Hill v. Williams

Adkins v. Sapien

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