March 22, 2019

Archives for June 2015

Colorado Supreme Court: Announcement Sheet, 6/29/2015

On Monday, June 29, 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court issued eight published opinions.

Stackhouse v. People

People v. Hassen

Taxpayers for Public Education v. Douglas County School District

St. Jude’s Co. v. Roaring Fork Club, L.L.C.

San Antonio, Los Pinos and Conejos River Acequia Preservation Association v. Special Improvement District No. 1

People v. Elmarr

People v. Wilson

People v. Rodriguez

Summaries of these cases are forthcoming, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Tenth Circuit: Conviction Stands Despite Jury’s Lack of Instruction on “Discharge” of Firearm

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Mann on Monday, May 18, 2015.

Clay Mann threw a firework into a neighbor’s bonfire at the neighbor’s peaceful gathering on an Indian reservation, and when members of the gathering approached the fenceline to confront Mann, he shot nine times, killing one man and grievously wounding one other man and the neighbor. For these acts, he was indicted on eight counts by a federal grand jury. Two weeks after the jury’s verdict, Mann filed a “motion to arrest judgment” based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), arguing that his conviction on Count 5 (a firearms offense based on the assault of the neighbor under § 924(c)) must be vacated because the jury did not find “discharge” of a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court conducted a plain error inquiry and determined it had erred by failing to instruct the jury on the element of discharging the firearm and the error was plain. The district court, however, found the error had not prejudiced Mann, because he had never contested that he fired shots. The district court sentenced Mann to three concurrent 51 month sentences for the involuntary manslaughter and two assault convictions, and a consecutive 120 month sentence for the § 924(c) conviction regarding the assault of the neighbor. Mann appealed.

The Tenth Circuit conducted a plain error review. Mann argued on appeal that the district court constructively amended count 5 of his indictment by not instructing the jury that, to convict, it needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly discharged his firearm in relation to the assault. Finding that the district court properly instructed the jury on the elements of a § 924(c) violation, the Tenth Circuit could discern no error, much less plain error. The Tenth Circuit found that the Alleyne error (failure to instruct the jury that it must find discharge beyond a reasonable doubt) did not qualify Mann for any relief in light of the overwhelming evidence that he discharged a firearm several times during the assault, including Mann’s own FBI interview in which he admitted discharging the firearm. Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of this evidence.

The Tenth Circuit likewise concluded Mann could not use the error from the Alleyne analysis on his constructive amendment claim, since he was not required to show constructive amendment for his Alleyne claim. Although the government endorsed Mann’s “shortcut,” the Tenth Circuit did not. Turning to the merits of Mann’s argument, the Tenth Circuit noted the case law on which he relied for his claim of error had been rejected by the Supreme Court. The Tenth Circuit, relying on good case law, found that Mann failed to show any error and rejected his constructive amendment claim.

The district court’s conviction was affirmed.

Tenth Circuit: Insurer Who Failed to Reserve Rights Responsible for Default Judgment

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Cornhusker Casualty Co. v. Skaj on Monday, May 18, 2015.

Vincent Rosty, an employee of R&R Roofing, Inc., drove a company dump truck to the home of Shari Skaj, his ex, to drop off roofing supplies and see if his kids were there. At some point after Vincent stopped in an alley behind the Skaj residence, the truck was accidentally knocked into second gear and rolled forward, pinning Ms. Skaj against a parked motor home and causing serious injuries. A lab test performed later in the day confirmed the presence of marijuana and methamphetamine in Vincent’s bloodstream.

Cornhusker Casualty provided commercial liability insurance to R&R at the time of the accident, and R&R and Randy Rosty (0wner of R&R, along with Steven Rosty) were the named insureds. Within days of the accident, Cornhusker hired AmeriClaim adjuster Charles Brando to investigate the incident. Brando’s report noted that Vincent had driven off-route on personal business despite an unwritten company policy prohibiting personal use of company vehicles.

After receiving notice of Ms. Skaj’s forthcoming claim, Cornhusker wrote to R&R, Steven Rosty, and Vincent to notify them of potential excess liability exposure and to inform them of the right to retain independent counsel. Cornhusker specifically stated it would continue to defend the claim. The Skajs filed suit in Wyoming county court, asserting several claims based on negligence and requesting punitive damages since Vincent was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Cornhusker’s counsel filed an answer to the complaint as to Steven and R&R only, asserting she did not represent Vincent. Cornhusker determined Vincent was not entitled to a defense. However, Cornhusker did not attempt to inform Vincent it was no longer defending him. Default issued against Vincent, the non-defaulting defendants were dismissed, and eventually the Wyoming trial court set a default judgment hearing. Cornhusker hired separate representation for Vincent for that hearing, who opposed the default judgment, and after the hearing default entered against Vincent for $897,344.24.

One week after the default judgment hearing, Cornhusker sent Vincent a letter purporting to deny coverage for the first time. In support of its coverage denial, Cornhusker stated Vincent was not a permissive user of the truck, was not acting within the course and scope of his employment with R&R, was intoxicated, and had misappropriated roofing materials from R&R, also stating he had not cooperated with Cornhusker during the Skajs’ lawsuit. Shortly after, Cornhusker sent another letter to Vincent, characterizing its representation of him at the default judgment hearing as “pursuant to a reservation of rights” and for the limited purpose of having the default set aside. Meanwhile, Vincent’s counsel appealed the default, and eventually the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the judgment except insofar as it awarded punitive damages. Cornhusker refused to pay, maintaining Vincent was not covered by the policy.

Cornhusker filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, seeking a declaration that the policy did not provide coverage for Vincent because he was not an insured and had not cooperated in the investigation. Vincent counterclaimed against Cornhusker, asserting theories of negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract. The Skajs also counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that Cornhusker was required to pay the judgment in the underlying action and seeking attorney fees based on Cornhusker’s refusal to pay. Vincent and the Skajs jointly counterclaimed that Cornhusker should be estopped from asserting the defense of noncoverage because of its unconditional defense of Vincent in the underlying action. All parties filed motions for summary judgment. After a hearing, the district court declared Cornhusker was estopped from denying coverage to Vincent because it represented it would provide a defense, never reserved its rights, and did not advise Vincent of its decision to deny coverage until more than 16 months after entry of default. The court granted summary judgment to Cornhusker on Vincent’s various claims and denied the Skajs’ motion for attorney fees. The district court ordered Cornhusker to pay the full amount of the default judgment. Cornhusker appealed the district court’s finding of estoppel. The Skajs cross-appealed the court’s denial of their attorney fees. Vincent also appealed, seeking reversal on his bad faith and punitive damages claims.

After quickly dismissing Cornhusker’s standing argument, the Tenth Circuit evaluated the estoppel claim. Prior circuit precedent established estoppel where an insurer defended a claim without reserving its rights. Although the question had not been reached in Wyoming, the Tenth Circuit construed Wyoming law and determined the insurer must accept the consequences of its decision to assume full control of the litigation without a reservation of rights, because the insured was induced to relinquish control of the defense. In this case, Cornhusker never explicitly reserved its rights as to Vincent. Even Vincent’s counsel “found it odd” that Cornhusker would take the approach of providing a full defense to Vincent without a reservation of rights, but the Tenth Circuit found that since that was the path Cornhusker chose, it should face the consequences of its action and pay the judgment. The Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court’s order for Cornhusker to pay the default judgment.

Next, the Tenth Circuit considered Vincent’s bad faith and punitive damages claims. Vincent characterized the bad faith as Cornhusker’s retention of counsel who refused to defend him and allowed entry of default against him. However, the Tenth Circuit found neither substantive nor procedural bad faith in Cornhusker’s conduct. Because Cornhusker had a reasonable basis for its denial, there was no substantive bad faith. And, because Cornhusker did not fail to investigate the claim, there was no procedural bad faith, and certainly not enough to satisfy Wyoming’s “high bar” for conduct constituting procedural bad faith. The Tenth Circuit similarly disposed of the punitive damages claim since it was based on the same conduct as the bad faith claim. Finding that punitive damages are only to be awarded for conduct so egregious it is nearly criminal, the Tenth Circuit could discern no such conduct here.

The Tenth Circuit then turned to the Skajs’ counterclaim for attorney fees. The district court had determined that Wyoming’s “unreasonable or without cause” standard for refusal to pay losses covered by insurance was so similar to the standard for bad faith that the same analysis applied. The Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court’s finding and affirmed its denial of attorney fees. Although the Skajs sought to introduce supplemental material to the Tenth Circuit to bolster their attorney fee claim, the Tenth Circuit denied the motion, finding the Skajs could have introduced the evidence in district court but failed to do so. Likewise, Cornhusker’s motion to seal the Skajs’ supplemental index was denied as moot.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court in full, denied the Skajs’ motion to file a supplemental index, and denied as moot Cornhusker’s motion to seal the supplemental index.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 6/29/2015

On Monday, June 29, 2015, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and six unpublished opinions.

Maestas v. Colvin

United States v. Bergman

United States v. Madkins

United States v. Vazquez

United States v. Beckstrom

Love v. Raemisch

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Tenth Circuit: Totality of Circumstances Provides Reasonable Suspicion for Extended Traffic Stop

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Pettit on Wednesday, May 13, 2015.

Michael Pettit was pulled over in Utah after crossing a highway’s fog line multiple times. During the traffic stop, Pettit seemed excessively nervous, produced a suspended Missouri driver’s license after passing over a California license, and reported unusual travel plans to the trooper. The trooper asked permission to search the trunk of the car, which Pettit granted, and conducted a cursory pat-down search of the luggage, finding nothing. The trooper checked Pettit’s licenses, discovered they were both suspended, and completed the citation paperwork, but instead of returning the citation and license to Pettit, the trooper decided to question him further. He requested consent to search the entire car, which Pettit granted, and soon a drug-sniffing dog arrived and alerted to the presence of drugs. Over 2.5 kilograms of cocaine was found hidden in a spare tire in the trunk. Pettit was indicted on one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was found guilty by a jury. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment followed by eight years’ supervised release. He appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence uncovered after the trooper completed the citation.

Pettit contended the trooper unlawfully extended the traffic stop based on “hunches and unjustified generalizations.” The parties agree that the initial traffic stop was lawful since Pettit crossed the fog line multiple times, and they agree that the initial stop ended when the trooper returned with the completed citation. However, since the trooper did not return Pettit’s license and registration at that time, the encounter did not become consensual. The parties disagree about whether there was reasonable suspicion justifying the continuation of the traffic stop at that time. The Tenth Circuit evaluated each factor supporting reasonable suspicion separately and in aggregate.

Pettit first argued his nervousness could not form the basis for reasonable suspicion. However, the Tenth Circuit examined the record and found that the trooper testified with particularity about the excessive nature of Pettit’s nervousness, including that his lower body would not stop shaking, Pettit said twice within 25 seconds that the officer was making him nervous, and his hand was shaking as he gave the trooper his license. The Tenth Circuit next addressed Pettit’s unusual travel plans. Although travel plans in themselves may not necessarily form the basis for reasonable suspicion, the court found that prior to the citation’s completion, the trooper had discovered Pettit was driving cross-country in a vehicle registered to an absent third party, which is consistent with drug trafficking. Next, Pettit argued that the two suspended licenses could not have given rise to reasonable suspicion, but the Tenth Circuit again disagreed, finding the licenses alone could have contributed to the formation of an objectively reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, and could also have heightened the officer’s suspicion about Pettit’s unusual travel plans. Finally, Pettit argued that the officer’s initial fruitless search militated against a finding of reasonable suspicion, but the Tenth Circuit again disagreed, finding the search was only cursory and occurred before much of the officer’s questioning.

Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court’s denial of Pettit’s motion to suppress, and found the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 6/26/2015

On Friday, June 26, 2015, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued four published opinions and three unpublished opinions.

Teufel v. Department of the Army

United States v. Funez

United States v. Miller

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Colorado’s Lawful Activities Statute Does Not Protect Employees’ Medical Marijuana Use

Lipinsky-PrattBy Lino Lipinsky and Joel Pratt

On June 15, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in Coats v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 13SC394, 2015 CO 44 (2015), that employers with a drug-free workplace policy have the right to take adverse action against employees who test positive for marijuana, even if the employees fully comply with the state’s medical marijuana laws, do not use marijuana at the workplace, and are not impaired on the job. This landmark decision affirms the right of employers to require that their employees comply with all federal drug laws, regardless of their states’ marijuana laws.

The plaintiff, Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic as a result of an automobile accident, failed a random drug test required by his employer, Dish Network. Mr. Coats argued that his use of medical marijuana was the only means by which he could control his leg spasms. Dish Network did not contest that Mr. Coats had no work-related problems other than the failed drug test. There was no dispute that Mr. Coats used marijuana only at home and had a valid Colorado medical marijuana card.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the Colorado lawful off-duty activities statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-402.5, protected his use of medical marijuana at home. That statute bars employers from taking adverse employment action against employers for “lawful” activities conducted away from work.

The Colorado Supreme Court narrowly focused on the definition of “lawful” in the statute and declined to reach any other issue. Mr. Coats’s attorney argued that the definition encompasses activities legal under state law, regardless of their status under federal law. Dish Network disagreed, arguing that the word “lawful” referred to activities legal under both state and federal law.

A unanimous court, with Justice Márquez not participating, agreed with Dish Network. The court held that the word “lawful” should be interpreted according to its generally accepted meaning, and that the Colorado legislature included no language indicating that the word should refer to state law alone. Colorado’s lawful activities statute thus only protects employees engaged in activities that are legal under both state and federal law.

Because the federal Controlled Substances Act lists marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance and prohibits its possession, manufacture, sale, or use, medical marijuana remains illegal under federal law. Accordingly, Colorado’s lawful activities statute does not protect an employee using medical marijuana because such use is prohibited by federal law.

The trial court dismissed Mr. Coats’s claim against Dish Network. A split panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that Colorado’s lawful activities statute incorporated both state and federal law, and therefore, does not protect activity illegal under federal law. Judge Webb dissented, arguing that the reach of “lawful activities” should be determined exclusively by state law, under which marijuana use is considered lawful. The supreme court affirmed the court of appeals’ ruling.

The Coats decision reaffirms the right of employers to manage and to enforce drug-free workplaces. Employers will not have to make individualized decisions about whether a particular employee’s marijuana use is “lawful” under state law for bona fide medicinal purposes; instead, employers can institute and enforce broad drug-free workplace policies.

Further, the Coats decision avoids potential problems with the conflict between state and federal law. Colorado employers who contract with the federal government generally must comply with the federal Drug-Free Workplaces Act, which requires drug-free workplaces. Similarly, employers engaged in the transportation industry may be required to comply with the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, which mandates drug testing of certain transportation workers.

Had the court ruled in favor of Mr. Coats, employers subject to federal drug-free workplace regulations would have faced conflicting obligations. Colorado law would have demanded that employers tolerate certain employee drug use, while federal law would have demanded that employers take action against those same employees. The court avoided that problem by clarifying that Colorado law only protects employees engaged in activities that are lawful under state and federal law.

Employers also need to recognize the limits of this decision. Importantly, the court did not hold that employers have unfettered rights to fire or to discipline employees for the use of marijuana. Employers must still follow the law. Dish Network likely prevailed because it had adopted a clear and broad drug-free workplace policy, engaged in random drug testing, and applied its policies neutrally. An employer that selectively applies a policy could be vulnerable to discrimination claims.

Additionally, the Coats decision does not resolve the preemption issues surrounding Colorado’s medical and recreational marijuana amendments. A number of other pending cases, including Nebraska’s and Oklahoma’s challenge to Colorado’s marijuana laws filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, raise the preemption issue head-

Lino Lipinsky de Orlov is a litigation partner in the Denver office of McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP.  He represents clients in all aspects of commercial litigation, mediation, arbitration, and appeals.  He has developed particular experience in complex business cases, particularly those involving creditor’s rights, real estate, trade secrets, and employment disputes.  Mr. Lipinsky also frequently speaks and writes on legal issues relating to technology, employment law, and ethics.   He is a member of the Colorado Bar Association’s Board of Governors and serves on the Board of the Colorado Judicial Institute.  He is a former President of the Faculty of Federal Advocates.  Among his honors, Chambers USA has recognized Mr. Lipinsky as one of Colorado’s leading general commercial litigators, and he has been included in The Best Lawyers in America.  He received his A.B. degree, magna cum laude, from Brown University and his J.D. degree from New York University School of Law, where he was a member of the New York University Law Review.

Joel M. Pratt is a member of McKenna Long & Aldridge’s Government Contracts Department in the Denver office. Mr. Pratt graduated, magna cum laude, from the University of Michigan Law School in 2014 where he served on the Michigan Law Review as the Executive Notes Editor and an Associate Editor. While earning his J.D., Mr. Pratt served as a judicial intern for the Honorable Alan M. Loeb, was a student attorney for the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Project and the Child Advocacy Law Clinic, and published several articles in legal academic journals across the country. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Pratt worked as a law clerk for the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel of the University of Michigan. Mr. Pratt graduated with distinction in 2009 from the University of Colorado with a Bachelor of Arts in English Literature.  Mr. Pratt was also the winner of the University of Colorado Alumni Association Scholarship.

The opinions and views expressed by Featured Bloggers on CBA-CLE Legal Connection do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of the Colorado Bar Association, the Denver Bar Association, or CBA-CLE, and should not be construed as such.

Colorado Supreme Court: Fees and Costs Appropriately Imposed Against Non-Party for Frivolous Defenses

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Concerning the Application for Water Rights for Cherokee Metropolitan District in El Paso County: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District v. Cherokee Metropolitan District on Monday, June 22, 2015.

Ground Water Rights—Parties Rights Under a Stipulation.

Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District (UBS) appealed from an order of the water court interpreting an earlier stipulated decree, to which UBS and Cherokee Metropolitan District (Cherokee) were parties, concerning Cherokee’s rights to ground water in the Upper Black Squirrel Basin and, particularly, Cherokee’s right to export water for use outside the basin. UBS sought a declaration that a provision of the stipulation requiring Cherokee to deliver wastewater returns back into the basin for recharge of the aquifer barred Cherokee and Meridian (another metropolitan district with which Cherokee had entered into an intergovernmental agreement) from claiming credit for these wastewater returns as replacement water, for purposes of acquiring the right to additional pumping from Cherokee’s wells in the basin. The water court ruled instead that nothing in the stipulation, and particularly not its use of the word “recharge,” implied abandonment or forfeiture of any right Cherokee might otherwise have to claim future credits with the Ground Water Commission.

Although the water court found that Meridian, as a nonparty, was not bound by the stipulation, it assessed costs and attorney fees against Meridian for pursuing frivolous defenses. Meridian cross-appealed the water court’s order imposing costs and attorney fees.

Because the water court properly interpreted the stipulation, and because it did not abuse its discretion in ordering costs and fees, its orders as to which error has been assigned on appeal and cross-appeal respectively were affirmed.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: No Error in Allowing Government to Use Rule 410 Evidence Against Defendant Who Withdrew Plea

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Jim on Tuesday, May 12, 2015.

K.T. had a get-together with some friends at her home on the Navajo Nation, and one of her friends invited Derrick Jim. The group drank alcohol and socialized under K.T.’s carport. Around 1 a.m., K.T. went inside to sleep on her couch. Jim followed her inside, turned off the interior lights and locked the doors, dragged her down the hallway, and forcibly raped her vaginally and anally while K.T. tried to fight him off. As a result of these events, the United States charged Jim with one count of aggravated sexual abuse—vaginal intercourse by force, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a)(1) and 2246(2)(A). Jim initially entered into a plea agreement with the government. He pleaded guilty, but before the district court could accept the plea agreement, Jim sent a pro se letter to the district court requesting new counsel because he felt pressured into accepting the plea agreement and did not realize that by entering a plea he would not be allowed to go to trial. The district court appointed new counsel, allowed Jim to withdraw his guilty plea, and allowed him to proceed to trial, where he was found guilty of two counts: the original count plus aggravated sexual abuse—anal penetration by force. He received two concurrent 360-month sentences. On appeal, Jim argued the government should not have been allowed to use FRE 410 evidence against him because his plea was not knowing and voluntary. The government cross-appealed, arguing the district court should have applied a two-level sentence enhancement for causing serious bodily injury.

The Tenth Circuit addressed the Rule 410 contention first. Jim’s argument was that because his plea was not knowing and voluntary, the Rule 410 waiver he signed (allowing the government to use evidence from the plea agreement process during trial) was not valid. Although Jim was required to prove his plea was not knowing and voluntary, he asserted he should be held to a lesser burden based on a line from a Supreme Court decision. Reading the decision as a whole, the Tenth Circuit rejected his argument, finding that Jim offered no proof that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Jim signed the plea agreement, which adequately apprised him that by doing so he waived his Rule 410 rights, he had a high school education with some college credits, and he had previously signed two other plea agreements related to drunk driving. The Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court’s decision to allow the government to use Rule 410 evidence against Jim.

Next, the Tenth Circuit evaluated the government’s contention that the district court erred by disregarding a two-level sentence enhancement for crimes causing serious bodily injury. The district court, relying on the application note for U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1(b)(4)(B), decided it was not allowed to consider serious bodily injuries caused during sexual assaults in applying the sentence enhancement. The Tenth Circuit, however, analyzed the definition of “serious bodily injury” and determined that the application note referred only to the second definition. If the prosecution proved serious bodily injury under the first definition, the two-level enhancement could still apply. The Tenth Circuit remanded for the district court to determine if Jim’s actions caused serious bodily injury and to resentence if appropriate.

The district court’s judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for consideration of whether Jim’s conduct caused serious bodily injury to the victim.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 6/25/2015

On Thursday, June 25, 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 24 unpublished opinions.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 6/25/2015

On Thursday, June 25, 2015, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and five unpublished opinions.

United States v. Argueta-Mejia

United States v. Rosemond

Billy v. Curry County Board of Commissioners

Torres-Ledesma v. Lynch

Medina v. Falk

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

The Future of Law (Part 24): The Future Couldn’t Wait Finale

rhodesQuestion: What do mindfulness and meditation, hackers, crowdfunding, a law school offering masters degrees for non-lawyers, and techno-speak all have in common?

Answer #1: They’re all the future of law.

Answer #2: And that future is already here.

Mindfulness and Meditation must be all the rage when The Wall Street Journal features “Lawyers Go Zen, With Few Objections.” Check this trend out for yourself next week at the Better Lawyering Through Mindfulness Workshop with bankruptcy lawyer Jeena Cho, who’s quoted in the WSJ and is on a national tour promoting her book The Anxious Lawyer: An 8-Week Guide to a Happier, Saner Law Practice Using Meditation.

Hacker Law. Legalhackers.org proclaims, “We are explorers. We are doers. We are Legal Hackers.” Legal hacking, it says, is “a global movement of lawyers, policymakers, technologists, and academics who . . . spot issues and opportunities where technology can improve and inform the practice of law.” Here’s how one legal hacker pursues justice. And, in the interests of equal time, here’s a skeptic’s take on the topic.

Crowdfunding Lawsuits. It’s not just about raising money to hire a lawyer, it’s about equal justice for all. CrowdJustice is on a mission to “make justice accessible.” “Sometimes petitions are not enough,” its website declares, “The law should be available to everyone, big and small. CrowdJustice gives you the tools to raise funds, mobilise your community and publicise your issue.” (Yes, they’re British.) LexShares is “revolutionizing access to the justice system” while giving you the chance to do well by doing good: you can “earn a return from litigation finance” by taking a piece of the judgment/settlement.

Legal Mastery for Non-Lawyers. This Los Angeles Times article from last month describes a new masters degree program:

“Everyday business and regulatory transactions are becoming increasingly complex,” said Sean M. Scott, senior associate dean at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. “That is particularly true in Los Angeles, where the areas of technology, entertainment, healthcare and policing face new legal challenges.”

The new Master of Science in Legal Studies (MLS) is designed for those who want to improve their legal fluency in areas related to industry regulations, compliance, deal making and more without committing to three or four years of law school. “The goal is to provide legal literacy,” Scott said.

“Loyola is uniquely poised to pivot its JD offerings to a new audience because of its nimble culture. Students may design their own program, pursuing a course of study such as healthcare law or fashion law with classes selected from a wide array of law school course offerings.”

Pivoting and nimbleness are key entrepreneurial concepts, and Loyola takes them to heart: i.e., students can benefit from the kind of narrow mylaw.com focus they’ll be able to give their business clients of choice. And the best part is, they’ll learn without suffering the brain-numbing stresses of law school.

Techno-Speak:

Our technology infrastructure . . . features multi-homed, fully redundant connectivity and power management controls, providing superior physical and electronic security for your data. Our scalable compute power, architected by industry technology experts, is built on high-performance, high-availability systems. Fully redundant servers, enterprise-class storage, and market-leading infrastructure monitoring and management solutions ensure the integrity, security, and responsiveness of your data.

Um… that’s a good thing, right?

That bit of garble is from this ediscovery company’s website. Let new lawyers learn the litigation ropes by grinding through discovery? No. Call in the data pros instead. They have an office right here in Denver, as some of you know already.

Okay, we get the point: anything we can possibly imagine about the future of law is already happening. Can we move on? Yes, of course. Our next series will take a fresh look at the culture of law.

A collection of Kevin Rhodes’ Legal Connection blog posts for the past three years is now available in print from Amazon. Also available from Amazon as a Kindle, and as an ebook from Barnes & Noble, iTunes, Smashwords, and Scribd.