May 19, 2013

Hearsay, the Confrontation Clause, and the Colorado Rules of Evidence

Hearsay is governed by Article VIII of the Colorado and Federal Rules of Evidence. In criminal cases, the use of hearsay by the government against the defendant is also governed by the Confrontation Clause. Colorado Rule of Evidence 802, the hearsay rule, provides that “[h]earsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by the civil and criminal procedural rules applicable to the courts of Colorado or by any statutes of the State of Colorado.” The general ban on hearsay is premised upon the same beliefs that underlie the Confrontation Clause in the federal and Colorado constitutions, namely, that the reliability of a statement can be most accurately determined when the declarant comes before the fact-finder in person, testifies under oath, and is tested by cross-examination.

Most hearsay testimony is admitted under one of the hearsay exceptions. The exceptions to the general ban are usually premised on a belief that the circumstances surrounding the making of certain types of statements satisfy the reliability concerns that gave rise to the general ban.

CRE 803 enumerates 23 exceptions to the hearsay rule for which the availability of the declarant is immaterial. These include spontaneous present sense impression, excited utterance, recorded recollection, records of regularly conducted activity, public records, and more. Statements can fall under multiple exceptions, such as excited utterance and spontaneous present sense impression.

Rule 804 lists hearsay exceptions that apply when the declarant is unavailable. “Unavailable” is defined and the exceptions are listed, including previous testimony, statements against interest, and statements of personal or family history.

CRE 807 is the “catch-all” or “residual” hearsay exception. It was developed after a 1984 Colorado Supreme Court decision, W.C.L. v. People, 685 P.2d 176 (Colo. 1984), in which the statements of a child victim of sexual assault did not fall into any of the specifically enumerated hearsay exceptions. Rule 807 was carved out of CRE 803(24) and 804(b)(5). The residual exception contained in CRE 807 is an under-utilized tool for admitting hearsay statements that do not fit neatly into any of the specific exceptions set out in the rules of evidence.

It is important for every litigator to know and use the hearsay rules, both as the proponent of the hearsay testimony and in opposition. Visit the CLE offices on Tuesday, October 23, when Pat Furman, law professor at the University of Colorado, will present on “Using, Misusing, and Abusing the Hearsay Rules.”

CLE Program:Using, Misusing, and Abusing the Hearsay Rules

This CLE presentation will take place on Tuesday, October 23, at 12:00 p.m. 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 two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

CBA-CLE Business Law Institute with Plenary Speakers Tom Clark and Nat Stoddard

The CBA-CLE 2012 Business Law Institute is happening on October 18-19 at the Four Seasons Denver. The Business Law Institute will feature Tom Clark, CEO, Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation, who will present on “Denver’s Economic Climate and Business Outlook,” and Nat Stoddard, Chairman, Crenshaw Associates, New York, who will discuss “M&A Risk Reduction, Post-Deal Integration Success and Long-Term Value Recognition for You and Your Clients.”

Tom Clark is Chief Executive Officer of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation and the Executive Vice President of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. He has more than 30 years of economic development experience at the state, regional, county and city levels. Tom’s career spans four decades from Director of Commercial and Industrial Development for the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, through positions with the Fort Collins, Colorado Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Denver Corporation, the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, the Jefferson Economic Council, and the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. Tom was the founder and first president of the Metro Denver Network, the Metro Denver region’s first economic development program, for which he received the Arthur D. Little Award for Excellence in Economic Development. He was chosen as one of the nation’s top economic development professionals by the Council on Urban Economic Development.

Nat Stoddard is the author of The Right Leader: Selecting Executives Who Fit, which establishes the importance of cultural fit between companies and leaders. The Right Leader shows how companies can reduce the risks and costs of leadership failure by defining their culture and picking leaders with cultural fit in mind. Nat leads the Forward Assessment Consulting™ practice at Crenshaw Associates, serves as an Advisor to CEOs and Lead Directors/Board Chairs, and is an Executive Mentor to Transition Clients. Nat is the former Chairman, President, and CEO of several public and private companies ranging from $300M to $1B including World Kitchen, Camco (GE’s Canadian affiliate) and Garden Way, Inc. He holds an MBA from the University of Denver and a BS from Denison University.

The Business Law Institute will also feature an exceptional faculty of over twenty leading Colorado business law practitioners includes general counsel from top Colorado companies, experienced business attorneys from Colorado law firms, and professors from the University of Colorado Law School and the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. The institute also offers two tracks this year, a Basics Track for attorneys newer to business law, and an Advanced Track for the more experienced practitioner. For the complete agenda and faculty, go to: http://business.annualcle.com/.

Book Review — “Losing Twice: Harms of Indifference in the Supreme Court”

Losing Twice: Harms of Indifference in the Supreme Court
by Emily M. Calhoun

In Losing Twice, University of Colorado Law School Professor Emily Calhoun argues that the way judicial opinions are written can cause losing stakeholders to suffer additional, unnecessary harms. Given the topic, the book will be of interest to judges and others who write judicial opinions; however Professor Calhoun’s intended audience is “ordinary citizens.”

Calhoun’s thesis is non-ideological. Debates about originalism, minimalism, and activism are refreshingly absent from her book. Instead, Losing Twice focuses on people—most narrowly the non-prevailing parties in Supreme Court constitutional-rights disputes, and broadly, an array of stakeholders affected negatively by court decisions. These stakeholders come to the court in good faith, with much at stake, making the judicial choice to rule against them “essentially [a] tragic choice.”

Judicial opinions can be written in a way that honors losing stakeholders’ status as citizens or that demeans them; that acknowledges their continuing role in constitutional democracy or that shuts them out; or that respectfully articulates their views on an issue or that trivializes those views. For Calhoun, properly honoring losing parties and positions in judicial opinions is more than just a nice thing for judges to do. Opinions that demean losing litigants, that ignore them (willfully or inadvertently), or that hide behind hyper-technical rationality or “the doctrine made me do it” rhetoric create real harms, not only to the immediate parties but also to judicial legitimacy and democracy.

Calhoun offers the judicial opinions for two abortion cases, Roe v. Wade and Gonzales v. Carhart, as examples of opinions causing harm. Although the outcome in the first case is viewed as a pro-choice victory and the outcome in the second a pro-life one, Calhoun argues that both opinions show an indifference to the constitutional stature and autonomy of women.

Held up as an example of a well-written opinion is retired Denver Judge Jeffrey Bayless’s opinion in Romer v. Evans. According to Calhoun, Judge Bayless carefully laid out the arguments of each side and made a “special effort to address all citizen stakeholders,” not just those identified in the parties’ briefs. Judge Bayless also acknowledged the difficulty and impermanence of his decision and “put himself and his judgments about the legitimacy of the decision at the mercy of his audience.”

Calhoun’s claims are not beyond critique. Given how seldom lawyers—let alone “ordinary citizens”—actually read judicial opinions (something Calhoun seems to acknowledge in her discussion of Roe), the composition of opinions may have little effect on our public knowledge of their meaning, or on how their language is paraphrased and summarized by the media or by other instant and historical intermediaries. Nevertheless, judges, lawyers, and armchair Supreme Court enthusiasts will find Losing Twice to be a thought-provoking read that sheds new light on famous constitutional law decisions and that may inform their own written expression.

Derek Kiernan-Johnson is a legal writing professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder. He teaches legal writing, appellate advocacy, and judicial-opinion writing — (303) 492-5863, derek.kiernan-johnson@colorado.edu.Reproduced by permission. ©2011 Colorado Bar Association, 40 The Colorado Lawyer 114 (August 2011). All rights reserved.

CLE Program: Losing Twice – Harms of Indifference in the Supreme Court with Emily Calhoun

This CLE presentation took place on Monday, October 1. The program will be available as a homestudy in two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

ABA House of Delegates’ Ethics 20/20 Commission Approves Changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct

The dawn of the information age has changed life as we know it. Our personal lives and businesses have been affected, and the practice of law is no exception. The ABA House of Delegates’ Ethics 20/20 Commission met in August to decide how best to advise attorneys of their ethical obligations in the global marketplace. The top ten issues addressed by the House of Delegates were:

  1. Protecting client information in electronic communications;
  2. Cloud storage and properly safeguarding protected client information;
  3. How to set up an ethical screen for a new attorney with a shared electronic network;
  4. The importance of competency in a multi-jurisdictional practice;
  5. How attorneys who frequently change jurisdictions can practice law without undergoing rigorous admittance procedures;
  6. Outsourcing to other lawyers and non-lawyers, and potential hazards;
  7. What types of online behaviors could potentially create an attorney-client relationship (including social media, communications on law firm websites, etc.);
  8. The ethical propriety of advertising on the internet, and whether pay-per-click ads constitute improper referral services;
  9. The importance of competency in technology, including some understanding of electronically stored information; and
  10. Advising clients on technology, such as maintaining electronically stored information.

The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to provide guidance to the states, and to encourage adoption of a standard procedure throughout the country for attorney regulation and discipline. However, although resolutions on the above topics were passed by the ABA, they are not binding on Colorado attorneys absent amendments to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.

Join us at CBA-CLE on Wednesday, September 12, for a breakfast seminar where Troy Rackham, a representative of the House of Delegates, and Alec Rothrock, from the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct committee, will present on the changes adopted by the ABA and what this means for attorneys in Colorado.

CLE Program: Competency and Confidentiality in Lawyers’ Use of Technology – New Changes to Model Rules of Professional Conduct

This CLE presentation will take place on Wednesday, September 12, at 8:30 a.m. 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 two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

Colorado Revised Statutes Now an eBook for Mobile Devices

We are excited to announce that Circuit Media, in partnership with CBA-CLE, has developed a 3-volume, digital version of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). An essential part of any attorney’s work day, the C.R.S. eBook will be available for purchase and download on any eReader (this includes your iPad, iPhone, Droid, and Kindle) for research on the go.

Benefits of using the C.R.S. eBook:

  1. Officially sanctioned version using the official text of the C.R.S. – ensuring accuracy and integrity
  2. Access anywhere, any time – no Internet connection needed
  3. Provides you with productivity tools to make your work easier including highlighting, copy and paste, bookmark and note creation
  4. Keyword and text search capabilities
  5. All 43 Titles accessible at your fingertips without the headache (and backache!)

The C.R.S. eBook will be utilized by thousands of attorneys daily. Looking for attorney referrals to increase your brand awareness or your business? Advertising within the C.R.S. eBook is an easy and cost-effective way to expand your net.

For all the details, email info@circuitmedia.com.

The complete eBook information guide and advertising order form can be read below, or click here to download or print it.

Colorado Revised Statutes Now an eBook

Abuse of Power in Arizona: The Colorado Attorneys Who Successfully Prosecuted the Largest Attorney Ethics Case in History

On July 18, 2012, Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel John Gleason and Chief Deputy Jamie Sudler will be in the CBA-CLE classroom to share their experiences from their two-year investigation and prosecution in Maricopa County and what became the “most significant attorney discipline case to ever go to hearing.”

Their story begins with years of intimidation and retaliation by the former Maricopa County Attorney. His targets were sitting judges, County Supervisors, County administrators, and private lawyers. After years of prosecutorial misconduct, the Rule of Law in Maricopa County was fast disappearing. As the elected head of the fourth-largest county in the United States, his misuse of power led to the largest lawyer discipline prosecution in history (chronicled in a 33-count, 247-page opinion).

Over the course of their investigation and prosecution, Gleason and Sudler were subject to shocking levels of harassment and intimidation as they worked to bring down a web of abuses at the highest levels. This program will allow them to speak directly to attorneys so that their extensive investigation into the ethical abuses in Maricopa County can serve as a lesson about prosecutorial misconduct, the Rule of Law, and professional conduct. You won’t want to miss this opportunity to hear first-hand about their experience in Arizona and their attempt to return justice to Maricopa County.

Law Week Colorado recently ran a story, Into The Shadows, which documented Gleason’s and Sudler’s investigation. Read an except below, followed by registration information.

The Arizona Bar Association, which licenses and regulates attorneys, . . . asked the Supreme Court to appoint an independent investigator to look into possible ethical violations by [Andrew] Thomas and two subordinates — Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander. The court reached out to a trusted name, the person who’d just helped revamp the state’s attorney ethics system. Regulation counsel Gleason and his team would be paid by Arizona, set up shop in that state’s Supreme Court building and somehow still manage the Colorado office.

When the chief justice first called, Gleason was far from certain of a positive outcome.

Either way, he and Sudler knew from the beginning this was a career case. As Thomas’ own attorney put it in the weeks leading up to the decision, “This was the largest and most significant attorney discipline case to ever go to hearing.”

It would also be the toughest. In a sense, Gleason and Sudler carried on their backs the hopes of a legal community long frustrated with what Phoenix’s mayor termed a “reign of terror.” Numerous ethics complaints had been filed against Thomas in the past, but none came to fruition.

The case was a piñata waiting to burst open. And when it did, the two attorneys had to deal with more than the legal soap opera. They became targets themselves. As Sudler would later say, “I never thought we’d get through it.”

CLE Program: Prosecutors on Trial – The Rule of Law or Unfettered Discretion

This CLE presentation will take place on Wednesday, July 18. 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 two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

No Higher Calling, No Greater Responsibility with Attorney General John Suthers

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has never shied away from tackling the tough issues surrounding the powerful role of public prosecutors in the United States. In 2008, he published a book, No Higher Calling, No Greater Responsibility, that drew on his personal experiences as a local, state, and federal prosecutor, with insights on how to make the system better for everyone involved. The book also explored some of the more controversial calls for reform, including drug legalization. Written in straightforward terms, it provides a fascinating look at the intricacies of crime and punishment.

On May 22, 2012, Suthers will speak at a special 1-hour Literary Lawyers CLE presentation on the issues in his book and thoughts on recent cases and experiences. He will not only speak to the immense and unique power that prosecutors have, but the effects on the victims, perpetrators, and the public. In addition, prosecution ethics will be discussed, including zealous prosecution and the effects of advancing technology.

Public scrutiny has also increasingly come into play for prosecutors, as high-profile cases like the Hayman fire are played out in the press and public arena. Don’t miss this opportunity to hear Attorney General Suthers’ insights first hand. All attendees will also receive a copy of his book.

CLE Program: No Higher Calling, No Greater Responsibility with John Suthers (Literary Lawyers Series)

This CLE presentation will take place on Tuesday, May 22. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

 

The Top Ten Mistakes Companies Make in Online Advertising: How to Comply with the FTC Act

Have you ever done an internet search and clicked on what appeared to be a likely answer, only to find yourself staring at a fake news site advertising some product? Or conversely, have you ever thought that you might get more search hits if you made your firm’s web page look like a news website? Learn about the pitfalls to this approach on Wednesday, May 16, 2012, as Scott R. Bialecki and Claude C. Wild, III, discuss the FTC’s advertising laws at CLE’s lunchtime program, “The Top Ten Mistakes Companies Make in Online Advertising.”

In addition to fake news sites, Mr. Bialecki and Mr. Wild will address such topics as website testimonials, endorsements in social media, online disclaimers, use of competitors’ names on websites, and related enforcement considerations. They will also examine common advertising and trademark infringement missteps associated with online advertising.

This program is a must-see for all attorneys with an internet presence. Don’t miss it!

CLE Program: The Top Ten Mistakes Companies Make in Online Advertising

This CLE presentation will take place on Wednesday, May 16. 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 two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

Successfully Resolving Your Clients’ Legal Problems: Choosing the Right Model

Over the last several decades, alternative methods for addressing conflicts among private citizens have received increasing attention. This movement has been driven by a number of factors inherent in the public court system: (1) delays, (2) expense, (3) formality, and (4) uncertainty. As a result, alternatives to the public court system continue to develop.

These alternatives include Adjudication, Negotiation, and Evaluation, each with their own pros and cons and each suited better for particular clients and cases.

Jean Stewart will be in the CBA-CLE classroom on Monday, May 7, 2012 to discuss the various forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that have been most successful and that offer the most promise. Attorneys will benefit from understanding these alternatives, and will learn:

  • How to prepare for the various kinds of ADR;
  • How they work and when they are viable;
  • How to counsel clients on each kind; and
  • How to use them successfully.

Whether you are new to ADR or a seasoned professional, Ms. Stewart will provide useful information and insider tips to build your practice and better serve your clients.

CLE Program: Successfully Resolving Your Clients’ Legal Problems – Choosing the Right Model

This CLE presentation will take place on Monday, May 7. 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 two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

Discounted Legal Services — Do You Really Want to Be the Daily Deal?

The number of internet-based “Deal of the Day” websites has multiplied exponentially in recent years—Groupon, Living Social, Eversave, and Get My Perks are only a small sample. Even more numerous than the discount sites are the types of goods and services that are available for purchase. You can get deals on sports tickets, gardening supplies, kids’ birthday party packages, spas, restaurants—practically everything you can think of. But what about legal services?

Advertising is key to a successful practice for most attorneys, and a chance to spread the word about a legal practice to the wide audience that services like Groupon reaches is hard to pass up. The question arises, however:

Is it ethical to discount legal services?

What types of legal services can be discounted? Is profit sharing ethical in an advertising context? How are fees handled if the discount is never redeemed?

On Monday, April 16, Amy DeVan and Ericka Englert of the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel will be in the CBA-CLE classroom to discuss the ethical implications of using Groupon or other daily deal websites to advertise legal services. Potentially implicated Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct will be discussed, including perspectives from other jurisdictions and implications for Colorado attorneys. Join us on Monday to hear answers to your questions about the ethical implications of daily deals.

CLE Program: Ethics of Daily Deals and “Groupon” Marketing

This CLE presentation will take place on Monday, April 16. 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 two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

Cyber Insurance: An Efficient Way to Manage Security and Privacy Risk

Practically every company in our modern economy has information security and privacy risk. There is no way to completely eliminate it. Whether it is your firm or your client, most companies of all shapes, sizes, and wealth profiles use information technology and handle sensitive information including personal information and credit card numbers. That means organizations face potential direct losses, lawsuits, and liability due to data, security, and privacy breaches.

The frequency and magnitude of data breaches by hackers has only been increasing. We read about security and privacy breaches practically every day in the newspaper. As the world continues to change at seemingly light-speed and cyber risks increase, the need for risk transfer with cyber insurance is also growing. Relying on a general liability or property policy to provide the coverage is no longer a wise choice (if it ever was), and companies could be well-served to get peace of mind and relative predictability by learning more about cyber policies that are actually designed to address the risk.

CBA-CLE will be hold a program on Thursday, March 29 to address the impact of data breaches and the trend toward cyber insurance. The program presenter, David Navetta, Esq., has written several articles about data security and cyber insurance. Read some of his insights below, and then join us to learn more about protecting sensitive information with cyber insurance, an option that may be of great importance to your clients or law firm.

In the early 2000s, just around the “DotCom Bust,” some insurers began developing a product designed to address the financial loss that might arise out of a data breach. This was a time where most “brick and mortar” companies were just beginning to leverage the economic potential of the Internet. At that time, insurers wanted to target the big “dotcom” companies like Amazon, Yahoo, eBay, Google, etc., and other companies pioneering e-commerce and online retailing. At some point, somebody dubbed this type of insurance “cyber insurance.”

The early cyber policies included liability and property components. The liability coverages addressed claim expenses and liability arising out of a security breach of the insured’s computer systems (some early policies only covered “technical” security breaches, as opposed to policy violation-based security breaches). The property-related components covered business interruption and data asset loss/damage arising out of a data breach (during the holiday season many online retailers suddenly developed a tasted for business interruption coverage after realizing just how negatively their business would be impacted by a denial of service attack).  Additional first party coverages included cyber-extortion coverage and crisis management/PR coverage.

Unfortunately for the carriers, it was not easy to get people to understand the need for this coverage (and that is still a challenge today, but certainly a lesser challenge with all of the security and privacy news constantly streaming). Early on there were very few lawsuits and regulators were just beginning to consider enforcement of relatively new statutes like GLB and HIPAA.

Two things changed that made cyber insurance much more relevant. One was a rather sudden event, and the other more gradual.

First, in 2003, California passed SB1386, the world’s first breach notification law. The reality then (as now) is that companies suffer security breaches each and every day. Prior to SB1386, however, breaches of personal information simply went unreported. With SB1386 and the subsequent passage of breach notice laws in 45 other states (and now coming internationally), the risk profile changed for data breaches. Instead of burying the breaches, companies were required to incur significant direct expenses to investigate security breaches and comply with applicable breach notice laws, including the offering of credit monitoring to affected individuals (which is not legally required by existing breach notice laws, but is optionally provided by many companies or “suggested” by state regulators). As a result, the plaintiffs’ bar now had notice of security breaches and began filing class action lawsuits after big breaches (usually involving high-profile brand name organizations). As such, cyber insurance coverage went from coverage addressing a hypothetical risk of future lawsuits, to a coverage addressing real-life risk (and now we have lawsuits getting deeper into litigation and public settlements of these types of cases). Moreover, shortly after the passage of SB 1386 many cyber insurance policies began covering the direct costs associated with complying with breach notification laws, including attorney fees, forensic investigation expenses, printing and mailing costs, credit monitoring expenses and call center expenses.  Breach notification costs are direct and almost unavoidable after a personal information breach.  Regardless of lawsuit activity, a direct financial rationale for cyber insurance coverage now existed.

The other change that occurred more gradually over time, but which has had a significant impact concerning the frequency and magnitude of data breaches, was organized crime. In the early 2000s, hacking was more of an exercise in annoyance or a used for bragging purposes. Hackers at that time wanted their exploits talked about and know. They wanted credit for hacking into or bringing down a sophisticated company (or better yet a division of the Federal Government or military). As such, when an attack happened it was discovered and remediated, and that would be the end of it.

True criminals, of course, are less interested in such notoriety. In fact, when trying to steal thousands/millions of records to commit identity theft or credit card fraud it is much better to NOT be detected. Lingering on a company’s network taking information for months or years is a much more profitable endeavor. Recognizing that this type of crime is low risk (it can be performed from thousands of miles away in Eastern Europe with almost no chance of getting caught) and high reward, organized crime flooded into the space. And in this context the word “organized” is truly appropriate – these enterprises retain very smart IT-oriented people that use every tool possible to scale and automate their crimes. They leverage the communication tools on the Internet to fence their “goods” creating, for example, wholesale and retail markets for credit cards, or “eBay”-like auction sites to hawk their illicit wares (e.g. valuable information). The change in orientation described above has essentially resulted in a 24/7/365 relentless crime machine constantly attacking and looking for new ways to attack, and always seeming to be one step ahead of those seeking to stop them. That is why we read about security and privacy breaches practically every day in the newspaper.

Fast-forward to present time. Cyber insurance is a much more established market with more carriers entering on a regular basis. There are primary and excess markets available for big risks, and companies of all sizes are looking at cyber more as a mandatory purchase rather than discretionary. As the world continues to change at seemingly light-speed and cyber risks increase (with the advent of hacktivism, social media and the consumerization of IT/BYOD ) the need for cyber is also growing. With competition pushing cyber insurance prices down, and significant security and privacy risk being retained by organizations, risk transfer is becoming very attractive (and from an overall big picture systemic point of view, spreading risk is also attractive). The price may be right, and the peace of mind priceless.

Click here to read the full article. Program registration information below.

CLE Program: Is Your Sensitive Data Secure? Cyber Insurance for Your Firm and Your Clients

This CLE presentation will take place on Thursday, March 29. 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 two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

Are You Up to Date? Torts: 2011 Annual Survey of Colorado Law

A lot happened in 2011 in the area of Tort Law, especially in the appellate courts. Are you familiar with all the case law and developments?

CBA-CLE is offering a number of one-hour CLE classes covering major updates from the past year in a number of practice areas, as well as publishing a full 2011 Annual Survey book for practitioners. Our upcoming Torts program will cover updates in numerous areas of tort law that should interest almost any civil litigator, including:

  • The Dram Shop Statute
  • The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
  • The Civil Theft Statute
  • The Punitive Damages Statute
  • Res ipsa loquitur doctrine and sudden-emergency instruction
  • Medical malpractice
  • Legal malpractice and negligent misrepresentation
  • Constitutionality of significant punitive-damages award
  • Burden of proof
  • Certification of class actions
  • Proof necessary for but-for causation
  • Recreational-liability claims
  • Negligent infliction of emotional distress
  • Trade-secret status of proprietary computer databases

Also, take a look below at this segment of the Torts: 2011 Annual Survey of Colorado Law chapter by the presenter of the program, John Grund, Esq.

Torts: 2011 Annual Survey of Colorado Law

CLE Program: Torts – 2011 Annual Survey of Colorado Law

This CLE presentation will take place on Tuesday, March 6. 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 two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

Protected

2013-05-19 06:57:21