Legal Technology | Michael Reiter, Municipal Attorney. Partner with Cole Huber, LLP in Ontario, Roseville California

Filed under County of San Bernardino, Inland Empire, Law Practice Management, Legal Technology, San Bernardino Superior Court Tagged with San Bernardino Justice Center

Why are legal pads canary yellow?

April 18, 2013 Leave a comment

There are a few short answers. They don’t have to be canary yellow, they don’t have to be legal size, they do have to 1.25 inch side margin, and no one knows for sure. The best researched article on the subject is Old Yeller, The Illustrious History of the Yellow Legal Pad, Suzanne Snider, Legal Affairs, May/June 2005. This has the best answers to the question.

I am transitioning away from canary legal pads because they don’t scan right. The yellow comes out blurred for some reason, and if I ever have to convert my scanned notes into printed notes, it doesn’t make sense to use that much yellow ink.

Jay Foonberg, in his seminal How to Start & Build A Law Practice, 5th Edition, relates “Carry a yellow legal pad with you whenever you go to a public place. When you have a yellow pad with you, you are loudly, but nonintrusively, proclaiming to every one who can see the pad that you are a lawyer. Everyone knows that lawyers use yellow pads and very few people who are not lawyers use yellow pads.” Id. at pg. 142.

Anecdotally, and with all due respect to the amazing Jay Foonberg, I have not found that to be the case. The only time that people ask me if I am a lawyer is when I am in the courthouse hall and they have a question. Though I sometimes have a yellow legal pad, I am being asked because I am wearing a suit and tie and I am standing in front of a closed courtroom looking at the day’s calendar. Those contacts are not new business, but people needing assistance with the calendar.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

Filed under Law Practice Management, Legal Technology Tagged with Attorney at Law, canary legal pads, legal pads, legal-sized pads, Michael Reiter, yellow legal pads

More Great Moments in City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council Meeting History: More Anti-Christ Spiritual Leader of the House of Ying

January 4, 2013 Leave a comment

Yesterday, I posted this appearance by “the Sword” on August 21, 1989 at the Mayor and Common Council hearing:

PUBLIC COMMENTS – THE SWORD
A citizen identifying himself as the Anti- Christ Spiritual
Leader of the House of Ying, also known as the Sword, appeared
before the Council with a mask. He stated that the mask is to
prevent a robbery, not to commit one. He spoke regarding time
allotted at Council Meetings for public comments.

City Attorney Penman stated that under the Brown Act, public
comments can be heard any time of the day.
The Sword requested an opportunity to give the Invocation at
the next Council Meeting.

What more could I learn of this enigmatic speaker from the late 1980s, no one in particular asked?

From the October 24, 1988 Council Meeting, apparently no mask, also known as “Roger”:

PUBLIC COMMENTS – THE SWORD
A citizen, identifying himself as Roger, also known
as the Sword, Commander- in- Chief of the House of Ying
during the battle of Armegeddon, stated his true identify
is that of the Anti- Christ.

He next shows up at the February 6, 1989 San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council Meeting (from the minutes:)

PUBLIC COMMENTS – THE SWORD

A citizen, identifying himself as the Anti-Christ, also known as the Sword, Commander-in-Chief of the House of Ying during the battle of Armageddon, stated that the taping of all meetings of the Mayor and Common Council is [sic] required to be announced according to the Supreme Court decision of Davis v. Mississippi.

He requested an opportunity to give the Invocation at the next Council Meeting, or that cause be shown why he cannot do so.

The very next speaker said the following:

PUBLIC COMMENTS – SUSAN L. ROGERS – AKA SUSAN HARTMANN

Susan L. Rogers, a citizen identifying herself as a member of the House of Wrath, requested that the Mayor and Common Council present the agenda items in a professional manner.

The Sword next appears at the February 20, 1989 Mayor and Common Council Meeting:

PUBLIC COMMENTS – THE SWORD

A citizen identifying himself as the “Anti-Christ” True Lord and Scripture, spoke concerning the Holy Scriptures.

The Sword finally got to give his invocation on March 13, 1989:

PUBLIC COMMENTS – THE SWORD

A citizen identifying himself as The Sword, Sweetpea, The Anti-Christ and True Lord of Scripture, requested to use his alloted [sic] five minutes provided each public speaker to give an invocation.

City Attorney Penman answered questions, stating that a member of the public is allowed five minutes at the beginning of Council Meetings in order to speak.

The Sword gave his Invocation.

The Sword gives a little more information about his identity on May 1, 1989:

PUBLIC COMMENTS – THE SWORD

Roger Dumas, a citizen who identified himself as the Anti-Christ of Revelations True Lord of Scripture, defined the three beasts of scripture. He stated that he has begun the restoration of the Garden of Eden by recycling approximately 30 to 40 thousand pounds of debris into two gardens at 231 E. 9th Street and 1182 7th Street.

All the previous appearances (except that discussed yesterday) had been during the Wilcox Administration. Mayor Holcomb was sworn in (again) on Monday, June 5, 1989. Soon after the swearing in, The Sword spoke again:

PUBLIC COMMENTS – THE SWORD

Roger Dumas, who identified himself as “The Anti-Christ of Revelations, True Lord of Scripture,” asked that a resolution be passed recognizing him as the City of San Bernardino’s mascot.

The Sword did not make public comments again until August 21, 1989, the appearance listed yesterday. That was his last known appearance.

I was unable to find any mention of him in Google’s News archives, and there does not appear to be any other internet mention of The Sword, except, yesterday’s post.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Law Practice Management, Legal Technology Tagged with Facebook, San Bernardino

Great Moments in City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council Meeting History: Anti-Christ Spiritual Leader of the House of Ying Speaks on August 21,1989.

January 3, 2013 Leave a comment

I was going to write about a particular part of the City of San Bernardino’s ordinance pertaining to property maintenance. However, the hours have dragged by in researching the 1989 genesis of the predecessor of the modern Chapter 15.24 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, and it will take enough research for a fifty-six part series. However, in researching the 1989 minutes, I stumbled upon this gem:

PUBLIC COMMENTS – THE SWORD
A citizen identifying himself as the Anti- Christ Spiritual
Leader of the House of Ying, also known as the Sword, appeared
before the Council with a mask. He stated that the mask is to
prevent a robbery, not to commit one. He spoke regarding time
allotted at Council Meetings for public comments.

City Attorney Penman stated that under the Brown Act, public
comments can be heard any time of the day.
The Sword requested an opportunity to give the Invocation at
the next Council Meeting.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino, August 21, 1989, Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North “D” Street, San Bernardino, California by Deputy City Clerk Sandra Medina, Pages 19-20.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Law Practice Management, Legal Technology Tagged with Facebook

What Facebook is Revealing About You When You Visit My Facebook Profile

January 2, 2013 Leave a comment

I reluctantly joined Facebook at the very late date of late 2010 after I opened my firm. In my former practice as a government attorney, I believed that the less information that was there about me, the better. However, I now use Facebook to amplify my other social media offerings, primarily the blogs. However, anyone who is interested in their privacy needs to mind the settings on Facebook, and consider not being on Facebook.

Facebook suggests friends not only based on your friends’ friends, but also on viewers of your profile. Here’s some anecdotal evidence from my experience: all my pages are work-related and public. Facebook suggests current, former and potential clients and even opposing parties and counsel, that have viewed my profile but have not contacted me. I think people forget that they are logged in Facebook when they are browsing.

To paraphrase what other people have said, the reason that Facebook is free is because you are the product being sold.

Happy New Year to my regular reader(s), no doubt 2013 will be more productive than 2012 at this site.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Filed under Law Practice Management, Legal Technology Tagged with Facebook

Using a Bluetooth Keyboard WIth an iPad 2: First Impressions

January 14, 2012 Leave a comment

I have written before about the iPad 2 about whether it was a serious legal tool. I concluded that it was not particularly because you couldn’t touch type on the screen. I had meant to buy a case keyboard combination for the iPad 2, but I neglected to do so. Until today.

I bought the Logitech / ZAGGmate case keyboard combination at Costco. It was on sale with an instant rebate for about $50.

First, the good. There are a few special iPad tools, such as cut and paste, but like special keys on a regular keyboard, you usually have to look down to find them. The best feature are cursor keys.

You can touch type on it, but it’s only about as good as a keyboard on a netbook. Good, but not as good on a full size keyboard. But it is light years away from the keyboard version. However since it is a case combination, my palms tend to rest on the somewhat hard aluminum of the case

I am used to a trackpad and find myself reaching for one. However, since the touchscreen capabilities of the iPad still work, I think that I can find a work around for it.

The keyboard is good enough for a quick blog post (which was so difficult with the keyboard), for a medium size email. There appears to be some redundancy that makes typing really quickly problematic. Wordpress seems to have some problem with cutting and pasting, but that’s probably a WordPress problem.

I can see it would be good to take notes at a deposition, but I don’t have an app right now that does that. I’m not sure I would write a summary judgment motion on it, even if you could rig it up.

In short, probably worth $50, don’t expect miracles, makes it easier to write email and short blog posts.

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

A: 300 E. State St. Suite 517

Redlands CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Email: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

Website: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Filed under Friday Aside, Law Practice Management, Legal Technology Tagged with iPad 2, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, Word 2.0 for Windows 3.1

Is the Apple iPad a Serious Legal Tool?

September 16, 2011 2 Comments

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

I have had my iPad 2 for about six months now. I do not use it much for work. It has its plusses. The Westlaw Next app works as well as the web version. Email is much easier than on the iPhone. This post is being mostly created on the iPad, but I am going to add the HTML on a real computer.

However, it is next to impossible to type anything but a short note. The keyboard does not give the right feedback, and even a netbook gives you a better typing experience. I have considered a Bluetooth Keyboard, but isn’t the Leading feature of the iPad its size? I also don’t understand the people buying a massive iPad protector. For one, it is pretty durable. But once again, you lose some of its agility

The iPad 2 does some things great (video, amazing battery life, the calendar [September 19, 2011 update from a computer: instant on]) other things well ( reading, the web), and some things not well (syncing, backup, printing, multitasking, copying, and multi-touch sometimes is not a precise as I would like), but I have not even bothered to try to do the one thing that I need the most: word processing. Yes, I know there are a few apps out there.

When I started my own practice, I finally abandoned WordPerfect. I had tried before, but pleadings were more difficult, and I always had support staff or colleagues who were resistant. I started off using WordStar before I even learned to type. When I switched from MS-DOS to Windows 3.1, I had to switch out to do word processing. If only there was a better way. Through the miracle of academic pricing, I discovered the best piece of software ever designed, and never bettered: Microsoft Word 2.0. It did everything.

But I digress. What I need is Word (and Excel) for iPad. I don’t want an emulator, because I cannot have any glitches that take an hour to get out of a pleading. Until that moment arrives, the iPad cannot “party seriously.”

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Address : 300 E. State St. #517

Redlands, CA 92373

Telephone: (909) 296-6708

Email: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

Website: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Filed under Friday Aside, Law Practice Management, Legal Technology Tagged with iPad 2, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, Word 2.0 for Windows 3.1

Requesting Electronic Mail Records Under the California Public Records Act

June 27, 2011 Leave a comment

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

The California Public Records Act is a tool residents can use to monitor the goings on of the government. Does electronic mail (email) constitute public records under the California Public Records Act?

Government Code section 6252 reads, in pertinent part:

(e) “Public records” includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. “Public records” in the custody of, or maintained by, the Governor’s office means any writing prepared on or after January 6, 1975.

(g) “Writing” means any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.

So, for electronic mail to be a public record, it has to be 1) a writing 2) containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business 3) prepared, owned, used, or retained 4) by any state or local agency 5) regardless of physical form or characteristics.

Is electronic mail a “writing” under Government Code section 6252(e)? Writing is defined two subsections later in section 6252(g). “Writing” includes “transmitting by electronic mail.”

Specifically, for electronic mail to be a disclosable public record, it has to contain information relating to the conduct of the public’s business. This is a low threshold, perhaps only exempting the use of official electronic mail by a public employee to send a grocery list to a relative. That scenario opens a variety of other issues, and arguably, the use of public resources for purely private matters is arguably “information relating to the conduct of the public’s business.”

The records has to be prepared, owned, used, or retained by a public entity. Some public entities have record retention policies that are relatively short for electronic mail. Therefore, the public needs to vigilantly request information near the events so that routine electronic mail is not deleted. However, some entities, though they have policies for the deletion of electronic mail, may retain the electronic mail beyond the retention period.

Even if electronic mail is a public record, it may be subject to some exemptions. Electronic mail protected by a privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege may not be subject to disclosure. Some public entities claim that electronic mail are “preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency memoranda that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of business, if the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure” under Government Code section 6254(a). I will let the reader judge the appropriateness of that theory.

As I discussed before, electronic documents can be requested in their electronic form. The electronic version can have additional information in the email’s metadata that may be useful to the requester.

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104, Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 708-6055

Filed under California Public Records Act, City of Redlands, City of San Bernardino, Code Enforcement, County of San Bernardino, Legal Technology, Municipal Law Tagged with California Public Records Act Request, electronic mail, metadata, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law

Modern Technology in the Law Office – The Place of the Typewriter in Today’s Legal World

June 23, 2011 Leave a comment

Attorneys are often early adopters of technology, often to their detriment as technology advances, gets cheaper or goes obsolete. However, there is one piece of old-fashioned technology that refuses to die – the typewriter.

I own two typewriters. When I started law school in 1995 at Santa Clara University School of Law, notebooks and laptops were almost as fully-featured, if not as powerful, as they are today. However, the California Bar Examination, in 1995, did not allow for the use of computers. At the time, only typewriters with no more than one line of memory were allowed. The idea was that you could put some valuable information into the device to gain an advantage in taking the bar exam. I purchased a Smith Corona Memory Correct 400.

I typed all of my law school examinations on the Smith Corona. I learned to touch type in 1987 thanks to the Norman Feldhym Public Library and a host of Apple II GS computers (and some forgotten software). In the summer of 1998 while studying for the July 1998 bar examination, I was able to procure a second, back-up typewriter just in case the Smith and Corona broke.

By the time I took the bar exam, laptops were allowed with the use of a special program designed to lock out the hard drive. It was new technology, and though I had about a year’s notice, it was not time to switch horses in the middle of the race.

The Smith Corona still bears a sticker that says “July 1998 California Bar Examination” and my applicant number. I didn’t have to use the back-up typewriter, and the convention center did not lose power. I received my successful bar results in November 1998 and was sworn in the first week of December 1998.

When I arrived at Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino, at least one of the typists was still using an IBM typewriter to fill out Judicial Council forms. Not some of the forms, or some of the information, but everything. I always used a computer there, unless I had to type a form not included in Legal Solutions.

In the cities of San Bernardino and Redlands, the City Attorney’s Offices still have typewriters for forms that need to be typed, and envelopes and that sort of thing. I would occasionally borrow the IBM Selectric at a secretary’s station.

When I started my own practice, I dragged out the Smith Corona for government claims provided by entities as non-fillable PDFs. Sometimes, it is easier to use a typewriter on an address then to print it from the computer.

The Smith Corona is holding up pretty well. It was manufactured in the United States, just before Smith Corona moved its typewriter manufacturing to Mexico. I think it will survive for auxillary tasks in the law office for a long time, even if it is not state-of-the-art technology.

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104, Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 708-6055