September 22, 2018

Archives for December 21, 2011

Barron Henley: Microsoft Word’s AutoCorrect Feature

Word’s AutoCorrect feature automatically corrects commonly misspelled words on the fly and with no intervention on your part.

To Create an AutoCorrect Entry

Even though Word includes hundreds of commonly misspelled words in AutoCorrect, you might want to add a few of your own.  To do this, follow these steps:

1.  In Word 2007, click Office Button → Word Options → Proofing → AutoCorrect Options button.  In Word 2010, click the File Menu → Options button → Proofing → AutoCorrect Options button.  The following dialog will appear.

2.  In the Replace box, type the word as you commonly misspell it.  In the With box, type the correct spelling of the word.

3.  Click Add and then hit OK.

4.  Test it by typing the keys, followed by a space.  The keystrokes should be replaced by the AutoCorrect text.

Legal Tip – Use AutoCorrect Proactively

Passively, AutoCorrect is very useful, but we recommend using it proactively.  In other words, try creating AutoCorrect entries which automatically insert words or phrases which you frequently type and/or which are annoying to type.  However, remember to use non-word acronyms for the “replace” word.  An easy way to handle this is to add “/” in front of your “replace” words.  For example, I created an AutoCorrect entry that replaces “/aff” with “Affinity Consulting Group, LLC.”  Using this technique has the potential to significantly increase your typing speed.

AutoCorrect Smart Tags

The AutoCorrect Options button first appears as a small, blue box when you rest the mouse pointer near text that was automatically corrected, and changes to a button icon when you point to it.  For example, assume that I use an AutoCorrect entry of “/irc” which converts into “Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended”.  The thin rectangle under the word “Internal,” below, is the AutoCorrect Options button.

If you hover over the rectangle above, it changes into a button and presents you with the following options:

As you can see, the option to undo the auto-correction is included.

Adding AutoCorrect Entries while Spell Checking

During a spell check, if you encounter a word that you often misspell, you can simultaneously correct it and create an AutoCorrect entry for the misspelled word by clicking the AutoCorrect button, which appears at the bottom right hand corner of the Spelling and Grammar dialog.

Barron K. Henley is an attorney, legal technologist, and founding member and president of Affinity Consulting Group LLC, Columbus, Ohio, which has provided legal technology consulting to more than 500 law firms nationwide. He is a member of the ABA Law Practice Management Section and the Technology Committee, (General Practice, Solo and Small Firm Section) as well as a member and former chair of the Ohio State Bar Association Law Office Automation and Technology Committee. Mr. Henley is a frequent continuing legal education speaker on legal-specific technology issues for state and local bar associations and CLE providers.

Join Mr. Henley at CBA-CLE from January 18-19, 2012. He will be presenting 4 half-day programs – come for one or come for all!

1. Adobe Acrobat for Law Firms

Click here for registration information. Call (303) 860-0608 for homestudy information.

PDF files are everywhere and have become the format of choice when trading documents with other lawyers and clients, including e-filing requirements in Colorado state courts. We will teach you legal-specific features of Acrobat that will not only improve office efficiency, but protect your work product and clients’ information. Topics to be covered include:
  • Automatic Bates Numbering & Redaction
  • OCRing PDFs (making them text-searchable)
  • Electronic Document Security & Metadata Removal
  • Splitting Pages, Combining Pages, Removing Pages, and Reducing File Sizes
  • Review, Commenting, and PDF Collaboration
  • Adding Signatures and Stamps
  • The Snapshot Tool
  • Archiving Your Email
  • PDF Creation & Scanning Tips
  • How to Create Trial Notebooks, Document Binders, and Deal Books

2. I’m Buried in Paper – What Can I Do? Paper Reduction Strategies for Law Offices

Click here for registration information. Call (303) 860-0608 for homestudy information.

Technology has fundamentally changed the way lawyers draft documents, gather and manage case information, conduct research, communicate, and render services. In spite of these changes, many of us still manage paper today the same way it was done 50 years ago. It’s time to upgrade that approach. This seminar covers everything you need to create your own digital filing system, get your paper under control, and take full advantage of Adobe Acrobat and PDFs. Going digital means collecting all documents you’ve created and received, plus all related faxes, email messages, and attachments in one electronic system, organized by client and matter. It sounds complicated and expensive, but you’ll see that the tools you need are off-the-shelf, easy to use, and inexpensive. We’ll explain and demonstrate how scanners can be used in the law office to reduce paper, lower operating costs, and significantly improve efficiency. We will also discuss document organization and storage techniques that will allow you to locate any document (sent or received) in seconds.

3. Legal Drafting with Microsoft Word 2007/2010 – The Basics

Click here for registration information. Call (303) 860-0608 for homestudy information.

If you’re tired of wrestling with Word’s formatting every time you have to draft something more complex than a letter, this is your course. Word courses designed for the general public just don’t address the issues legal professionals face when drafting legal instruments. By contrast, this course is designed by legal professionals, for legal professionals. We’ll cover legal drafting issues such as automatic paragraph numbering, complex page numbering schemes, tables of contents, footnotes, and paragraph number cross-referencing. Not only will you learn how to control Word’s complex formatting attributes, but as part of this course you will also receive sample Word templates for pleadings, contracts/agreements, trusts and leases–all with the complex formatting built in and ready to go. This class assumes basic familiarity with Word and focuses exclusively on issues inherent to legal drafting. Topics include:
  • Explanation of the interfaces, ribbons, galleries, contextual tabs, the quick-access bar, and other new conventions.
  • How to fix the program default settings, most of which are inappropriate for legal documents and actually make the program more difficult to use.
  • Fundamentals of Word including advanced navigation and editing tips and tricks.
  • How to copy text from one document to another without formatting nightmares.
  • Create legal clause libraries with Word’s Quick Parts feature.
  • Understand once and for all how Word handles formatting. Learn how Word works and you’ll start controlling Word rather than the other way around.
  • Paragraph formatting including tabs, indents, auto paragraph spacing, keeping paragraphs connected and the right way to build signature lines and acknowledgments.
  • Get page numbering to work for you, even in complex, multi-section documents (like an appellate brief).
  • Controlling headers and footers in legal documents.

4. Microsoft Word 2007/2010 – Advanced Techniques

Click here for registration information. Call (303) 860-0608 for homestudy information.

If you want to master Word, there are certain concepts and features you must understand. This seminar will teach you what is going on behind the curtain so you’ll know exactly how to attack drafting issues and fix or avoid the formatting problems plaguing you now. We’ll cover styles (which grant you full control of formatting), macros (which allow you to automate repetitive tasks), and templates (which are the starting point for the legal documents you draft). Understand these topics and take your word processing to the next level of efficiency. Drafting complex documents in Word shouldn’t feel like punishment. Don’t get mad, get even — and learn to control Word. Topics include:
  • What styles are and why they’re the most important feature in word processing.
  • How to use styles to fix common problems, including: eliminating random font changes while editing, fixing formatting glitches when copying text from one document to another, adding automatic paragraph numbering to a document which has been manually numbered, cleaning up documents that were converted from WordPerfect, and fixing documents someone else sent you.
  • Using styles to quickly fix even the biggest formatting mess.
  • Using templates to streamline your document generation and creating model documents with fill-in fields.
  • Using templates to store and share styles, content, macros, auto text entries and toolbar modifications.
  • How to create “public” templates and share them with others on your network.
  • What macros are and when to use them.
  • Differences between AutoText, AutoCorrect, Quick Parts (new to Word 2007), and Macros.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 12/20/11

On Tuesday, December 20, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and five unpublished opinions.


United States v. Sanchez

Griffin v. FNU LNU

In re Bakay

Hackford v. State of Utah

Trujillo v. Ledezma

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

Tenth Circuit: Information Available to Officers Immediately Prior to Entering Motel Room Supported Probable Cause

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Hendrix on Tuesday, December 20, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Oklahoma City Police Officers were investigating methamphetamine activity at an Oklahoma City residence. During their investigation, they encountered an individual who told them he purchased methamphetamine from a man who was staying at a motel. When the officers arrived at the motel, knocked on the door, and identified themselves, they heard people moving inside the room, doors opening and closing, and a toilet flushing. “These sounds, based upon the officers’ training and experience, indicated the occupants of the room were attempting to destroy evidence. After the occupants of the room refused to open the door, the manager opened it with his electronic key.” When the officers then entered the room, they saw in plain view several incriminating items. “The officers arrested both occupants of the room, secured the room, and obtained a search warrant. The next day, officers conducted a search of the room pursuant to the warrant. During the search they seized additional drugs and paraphernalia, $32,160.00 in currency, two revolvers, a box of ammunition, and items of dominion and control reflecting the name [of Petitioner].

Petitioner reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a search of his motel room, but the district court concluded the search was supported by probable cause, and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the motel room. The Court agreed. The relevant probable cause inquiry encompasses all of the information available to the officers immediately prior to their first opening the door to the motel room. “All of this information provided sufficient independent corroboration of the informant’s tip that methamphetamine-related activity was likely occurring in the motel room. [Petitioner]’s challenge to the search of the motel room on the basis that it lacked probable cause must therefore fail.” Additionally, the district court properly determined the warrantless entry and subsequent search of the motel room was justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, and the officers did not create the exigency.

Tenth Circuit: Court Lacked Equitable Jurisdiction because Petitioner Failed to Challenge FBI Forfeiture through the Administrative Process

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Shigemura on Tuesday, December 20, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner was pulled over by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, who searched the car he was driving and found, among other things, five loaded handguns, a rifle, and $62,368.93 in cash. Petitioner was found guilty of being a felon in possession of firearms. Before trial, the federal government obtained a seizure warrant for the cash as money furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance. The FBI sent, and Petitioner received, notice of the administrative seizure, including information regarding how and when to contest the forfeiture and how and when to file a petition for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture. Petitioner did not file a claim to contest the forfeiture, and the FBI issued a Declaration of Forfeiture. Petitioner did not appeal this Declaration. Petitioner did file a petition for remission or mitigation, which the FBI denied. The FBI advised Petitioner he had ten days to seek reconsideration of its decision, but Petitioner did not seek reconsideration. Fourteen months later, Petitioner filed the current F.R.C.P 41(g) motion seeking return of $44,853.39, the portion of the money he now claims as his, plus other personal property seized at the time of his arrest.

The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Petitioner had failed to challenge the forfeiture through the administrative process, and the court therefore denied the motion. The Court agreed with the district court and found that because Petitioner failed to file an administrative claim, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear his 41(g) motion as it related to this issue. “Defendant’s 41(g) argument that the government failed to prove a connection between the forfeited property and the alleged crime does not show the type of procedural defect that would warrant an exercise of the district court’s equitable jurisdiction. As for Defendant’s request for return of his personal property seized on the day of arrest, the government concedes such items were not included in the forfeiture action and might be recoverable under Rule 41(g).” The Court therefore remanded for the district court to consider the legal and factual issues relating to this claim.

Tenth Circuit: District Court Wrongly Analyzed Issues of Officer Immunity; Exigent Circumstances and Probable Cause Justified Officer Actions

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Kerns v. Bader on Tuesday, December 20, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. Petitioner was an initial suspect in the downing of a police helicopter by a sniper. During their investigation, suspicious activity and evidence was present at Petitioner’s home, leading officers to enter the premises and later arrest Petitioner. After the charges against Petitioner were dismissed, he sued the officers, alleging they had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by briefly entering his house on the night of the crash. Second, he sued the sheriff, arguing his efforts to obtain Petitioner’s psychiatric records violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment privacy rights. Finally, he accused several deputies of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. All the defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, but the district court denied relief, and the defendants now appeal.

The Court disagreed with the district court’s analysis. “The relevant question the district court needed to address . . . wasn’t whether we all have some general privacy interest in our homes (of course we do). It was instead whether it was beyond debate in 2005 that the officers’ entry and search lacked legal justification. In addressing this question the district court needed to address the officers’ claim that exigent circumstances existed (based on a belief that someone who had just shot down a police helicopter might be hiding in or near the home) and their claim that their intrusion was justified in part because of the consent [an occupant] supplied (at least after the incursion was first made). And these questions the district court simply left unanalyzed.”

Additionally, the Court reversed the district court’s entry of summary judgment against the sheriff and ordering the entry of summary judgment in his favor because Petitioner “failed to identify clearly established law rendering beyond debate that the Sheriff’s conduct was unlawful.”

Lastly, the Court reasoned that each suspicious fact known to the officers does not require any speculation on their behalf. “Probable cause to arrest often arises from circumstantial evidence when the weapon responsible for the crime cannot be found or identified.” The totality of the circumstances and information available to the officers at the time created the existence of probable cause, and disposes of all of Petitioner’s claims against all the deputies.