DOCSLIB.ORG

Conference Rosters

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conference Rosters ACLEA's 49th Annual Meeting Faculty ‐ Alpha by Last Name First Name Last Name Company Name City Lynn Adams Georgetown Law Center CLE Washington Juliet Aiken Georgetown Law Washington Maria S. Alkiewicz Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP New York Sigalle Barness Lawline.com New York Mark Behrens Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. Washington Peter Berge Minnesota CLE St. Paul Lori Berman Hogan Lovells US LLP Washington Heather Bock Hogan Lovells US LLP Washington Lucas Boling The Missouri Bar Jefferson City Evan A. Brown Colorado Bar Association Denver Sean Carter Lawpsided Seminars Mesa Jill Castleman Georgetown Law Center CLE Washington Scott Castleman Cvent, Inc. McClean Lawrence J. Center Georgetown Law Center CLE Washington Lynn Chard Institute of Continuing Legal Education Ann Arbor Janet Cook USPS Baltimore Roger Curlin III Carlton Fields, P.A. St. Petersburg Vanessa Davies Bar Standards Board London Frances Donovan Continuing Education of the Bar - California Oakland Ron Friedmann Fireman & Company Arlington Tommy Galan The People's Improv Theater Brooklyn Sandra Geller Practising Law Institute New York Ronald Goodstein McDonough School of Business- Georgetown University Washington Betsy Hults Jones Day Atlanta Pamela J. Jester Continuing Education of the Bar - California Oakland RJ Jewell Bloomberg BNA Arlington Donna Kramer Sullivan & Cromwell LLP New York Lawrence Krieger Florida State University College of Law Tallahassee Linda Kruschke Oregon State Bar Tigard Bernadette Lawson Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. Kansas City Karen Lee Oregon State Bar Tigard Daniel Levering PA CLE Harrisburg Carole Levitt Internet for Lawyers Bernalillo Josh Lindblad National Business Institute Altoona Jan Majewski Holland & Knight LLP Tampa Jill McCall American Bar Association, Center for CLE Chicago Kevin McCormack West LegalEdcenter Eagan Mary McDonald Texas Bar CLE Austin Thomas Morgan The George Washington University Law School Washington Diane Morrison State Bar of Texas Austin Monica S. Mosley Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Atlanta ACLEA's 49th Annual Meeting Faculty ‐ Alpha by Last Name First Name Last Name Company Name City Nancy Mulloy-Bonn ALI-CLE Philadelphia Susan Munro Continuing Legal Education Society of B.C. Vancouver Patrick Nester State Bar of Texas Austin Colleen Nihill Dechert LLP Philadelphia Vincent O'Brien Minnesota CLE St. Paul Kevin O'Keefe LexBlog, Inc. Seattle Julia L. Orzeske Indiana Commission for CLE Indianapolis Andrew Ottiger Practising Law Institute New York Donna Passons Texas Institute of CLE Austin Mitch Peck Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Baltimore Milton Regan Georgetown University Law Center Washington Peter Roane Virginia CLE Charlottesville Gina Roers West Professional Development Eagan Mark Rosch Internet for Lawyers Bernalillo Tanina Rostain Georgetown University Law Center Washington Sharon Sandle State Bar of Texas Austin David Schnurman FurtherEd New York Rob Seto Continuing Legal Education Society of B.C. Vancouver Gregory Smith The University of Texas School of Law Austin Lisa Smith-Crissey FastCase Charlottesville Kathryn E. Story Story Consulting Memphis Shelley Sutton Kansas CLE Commission Topeka Stuart Teicher CLE Netshows, LLC East Brunswick Wyndolyn Tongee Norton Rose Fulbright Houston Antony Townsend Solicitors Regulation Authority Birmingham Alan Treleaven Law Society of British Columbia Vancouver Paul J. Unger Affinity Consulting Group LLC Columbus Mark Vesley Minnesota Continuing Legal Education Saint Paul Peter Vogel Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP Dallas Carole Wagan Advanced Legal Studies - Suffolk University Law School Boston Marliss Weber Parados Communications Edmonton Donette Welch South Carolina CLE Commission Columbia Michelle Windsor National Institute for Trial Advocacy Boulder Paul Wood Legal Education Society of Alberta Edmonton Donna Wren Dechert LLP Philadelphia ACLEA's 49th Annual Meeting Boot Camp Registrants ‐ Alpha by Last Name (as of 7/24/13) First Name Last Name Company Name City Emily Barnes Pennsylvania Bar Institute Mechanicsburg Donna Braman American College of Trust and Estate Counsel Washington Andrea Cole Association of Law Offices of the Crown Toronto Maisha Elonai Pennsylvania Bar Institute Mechanicsburg Camille Escobedo Pennsylvania Bar Institute Mechanicsburg Kim Francis New York State Bar Association Albany Barbara Hannon Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association Kansas City Beverly Hendry Pennsylvania Bar Institute Mechanicsburg Conor Jensen TexasBarBooks Austin Schenley Kent Pennsylvania Bar Institute Mechanicsburg Judy Lee Investment Company Institute Washington Megan McNall Washington State Bar Association Seattle Patrick Nathan Singapore Institute of Legal Education Singapore Suhana Rai DC Bar Association Washington Tina Schlegel Lorman Education Services Eau Claire Demond Smith Institute for Continuing Legal Education - Loyola University New Orleans - College of Law New Orleans Stevia Walther Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Westminster Angie Zandstra The College of Law Sydney ACLE 's 49th Annual Meeting First‐Time Attendees ‐ Alpha by Last Name (as of 7/16/13) First Name Last Name Company Name City Stephanie Ball Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Santa Barbara Emily Barnes Pennsylvania Bar Institute Mechanicsburg Zakiya Boyd Georgetown Law CLE Washington Donna Braman American College of Trust and Estate Counsel Washington Kimberly Brussow Visit Vail Valley Seminole Raquel Cabading Bar Association of San Francisco San Francisco Andrea Cole Association of Law Offices of the Crown Toronto Marley Douglas South Carolina Bar - CLE Division Columbia Maisha Elonai Pennsylvania Bar Institute Mechanicsburg Camille Escobedo Pennsylvania Bar Institute Mechanicsburg Kimberly Francis New York State Bar Association Albany Jason Hamilton InReach Austin Barbara Hannon Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association Kansas City Beverly Hendry Pennsylvania Bar Institute Mechanicsburg Ellie Hunter Skillsdox Inc Ottawa Joanna Jefferson The University of Texas School of Law Austin Conor Jensen TexasBarBooks Austin Schenley Kent Pennsylvania Bar Institute Mechanicsburg Heather King State Bar of Arizona Phoenix Albert Lee American Bar Association Washington Brad Loiselle Skillsdox Inc. Ottawa Meghan Maddigan Courthouse LIbraries BC Vancouver Jill Mayer Ontario Bar Association Toronto Megan McNally Washington State Bar Association Seattle Nadia Myerthall Continuing Legal Education Society of BC Vancouver Patrick Nathan Singapore Institute of Legal Education Singapore Patrick Oot Electronic Discovery Institute Davidsonville Fiona Palmer New Mexico State Bar Foundation Albuquerque Kate Peteet UT Law CLE Austin Suhana Rai DC Bar Association Washington Tanesha Readom American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education Philadelphia Ellen Roeder State Bar of Wisconsin Madison Ashley Saba Alston & Bird LLP Atlanta Jerry Saccardo Peach New Media Marshfield Hills Christina Schlegel Lorman Education Services Eau Claire Demond Smith Institute for Continuing Legal Education -Loyola University New Orleans - College of Law New Orleans Douglas R. Smith Douglas Smith Seminars Myrtle Beach Morgan Smith Dykema Gossett, PLLC Chicago Erin Tate Pennsylvania Bar Institute Mechanicsburg Caitlin Underwood ViaTech Publishing Solutions Bay Shore Mark Vesley Minnesota Continuing Legal Education Saint Paul Stevia Walther Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Westminster Keyanna Watson-BlackmonBlue Cross Blue Shield Association Washington Amy Weinberg ALI CLE Philadelphia Mara Weinstein International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution New York Kristen White Boston Bar Association Boston Angie Zandstra The College of Law Sydney ACLEA's 49th Annual Meeting Registrants ‐ Alpha by Last Name (as of 7/16/2013) First Name Last Name Company Name City Lynn Adams Georgetown Law Center CLE Washington Sarah Anderson LexisNexis Miamisburg Lisa Armanini Mecklenburg County Bar Charlotte David W. Ashmore State Bar of Texas Austin Douglas Ashworth ICLE of Georgia Athens Maurice Baggiano lawBookEditors Ellicottville Stephanie Ball Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Santa Barbara Sigalle Barness Lawline.com New York Joyce Bartlett InReach Legal Austin Peter Berge Minnesota CLE St. Paul Susan Billington QC The Law Society of Alberta Calgary Susan Blair Nashville Bar Association Nashville Lucas Boling The Missouri Bar Jefferson City Melanie Bostic North Carolina Bar Association Foundation Cary Zakiya Boyd Georgetown Law CLE Washington Donna Braman American College of Trust and Estate Counsel Washington Helene Breene Bar Association of Queensland Brisbane Evan A. Brown Colorado Bar Association Denver Kimberly Brussow Visit Vail Valley Seminole Terry Burnett South Carolina Bar - CLE Division Columbia Raquel Cabading Bar Association of San Francisco San Francisco Brittany Cain Georgetown Law CLE Washington Mark Carroll ALI-CLE Philadelphia Jill Castleman Georgetown Law Center CLE Washington Lawrence J. Center Georgetown Law Center CLE Washington Martin Chait State Bar of Texas Austin Lisa Chamberlain State Bar of Texas Austin Lynn Chard Institute of Continuing Legal Education Ann Arbor Andrea Cole Association of Law Offices of the Crown Toronto Rebecca L. Copeland CLE Alabama Tuscaloosa Lana A. Corll Loyola University College of Law New Orleans Roger Curlin III Carlton Fields, P.A. St. Petersburg Jennifer Dabson American University Washington College of Law Washington Jay DeDoussis Bingham McCutchen LLP Lexington Marc Dizon Georgetown Law CLE Washington Frances Donovan Continuing Education of the Bar - California Oakland
Load more

Recommended publications
  • November 2004
    November 2004 John P. Macy, Chair Members: James M. Brennan Heather Marie Hunt R. George Burnett Robert John Lightfoot, II Michael L. Eckert Benton C. Strauss G. Jeffrey George Jo A. Swamp Beth Ermatinger Hanan Albert E. (Ted) Wehde Staff Liaisons: Daniel Rossmiller & Cathleen Dettmann 0 FOREWORD “The dictionary defines "justice" as fairness. The system for administration of our laws is called the justice system because the single most important principle upon which that system is premised is fairness. Our laws, however, are complicated. They are created by local, state, tribal and federal legislative and administrative bodies. They are interpreted and enforced by local, state, tribal and federal courts, administrative and other agencies. The volume and complexity of the laws and the procedures for their administration have made it increasingly difficult to effectively utilize the justice system without the help of a lawyer. That means for those who cannot afford a lawyer, access to the system does not necessarily mean access to justice. “Publicly funded legal services, or "legal aid," evolved in an effort to insure that poverty was not an insurmountable barrier to justice. Financial and political support for this effort has been inconsistent over the years.” — Washington State Access to Justice Board, Introductory Paragraph, Hallmarks of an Effective Statewide Civil Legal Services System, Revised February 20, 2004 “The question has been raised, should we regard the provision of civil legal services for the poor as part of the central mission of state courts? My answer is, how can we not? We have progressive statutes providing legal remedies for many of the problems experienced by people who responded to our survey — for example, landlord-tenant disputes, domestic violence, and consumer fraud.
    [Show full text]
  • Bostonbarjournala Publication of the Boston Bar Association
    FALL 2009 BostonBarJournalA Publication of the Boston Bar Association Timely Justice Threatened by Fiscal Challenges A Move to Streamline the Civil Justice System Crawford Comes to the Lab: Melendez-Diaz and the Scope of the Confrontation Clause Residual Class Action Funds: Supreme Court Identifies IOLTA as Appropriate Beneficiary Challenges and Opportunities for New Lawyers Maintaining Client Confidences: Developments at the Supreme Judicial Court and First Circuit in 2009 If Pro Bono is Not an Option, Consider Volunteering GROW YOUR 401(k) WISELY Six things you won’t hear from other 401(k) providers... We were created as a not-for-profit 1. entity, and we exist to provide a benefit We leverage the buying power of the 2. ABA to eliminate firm expenses and minimize participant expenses Our fiduciary tools help you manage 3. your liabilities and save valuable time Our investment menu has three tiers to 4. provide options for any type of investor, and our average expense is well below the industry average for mutual funds We eliminated commissions, which erode 5. your savings, by eliminating brokers We have benefit relationships with 29 6. state bar and 2 national legal associations.* LEARN HOW No other provider has more than one. YOU CAN * Alabama State Bar Illinois State Bar Association State Bar of Nevada Rhode Island Bar Association GROW YOUR State Bar of Arizona Indiana State Bar Association New Hampshire Bar Association State Bar of Texas Arkansas Bar Association Iowa State Bar Association State Bar of New Mexico Vermont Bar Association
    [Show full text]
  • Paralegal Regulation by State
    Paralegal Regulation by State Updated October 2019 NFPA Regulation Review Committee Tom Stephenson, ILAP; Coordinator 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Regulation by State ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Alabama ................................................................................................................................................................3 Alaska ....................................................................................................................................................................3 Arizona ..................................................................................................................................................................4 Arkansas ................................................................................................................................................................4 California ...............................................................................................................................................................5 Colorado ................................................................................................................................................................6 Connecticut ...........................................................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Task Force Work ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Mandatory versus Voluntary ......................................................................................................................... 5 Recommendation 1: Continue the State Bar as a Mandatory Bar. ........................................................... 5 First Amendment Issues ................................................................................................................................ 6 Recommendation 2. Provide better protection of the First Amendment rights of State Bar members through more rigorous processes and a new Supreme Court administrative order. ................................. 7 Governmental Relations Program Recommendations ..................................................................... 7 Section Advocacy Recommendations ............................................................................................ 13 Justice Initiatives Program Recommendation
    [Show full text]
  • A Reassessment of Mandatory State Bar Membership in Light of Levine V. Heffernan Peter A
    Marquette Law Review Volume 73 Article 6 Issue 1 Fall 1989 A Reassessment of Mandatory State Bar Membership in Light of Levine v. Heffernan Peter A. Martin Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Peter A. Martin, A Reassessment of Mandatory State Bar Membership in Light of Levine v. Heffernan, 73 Marq. L. Rev. 144 (1989). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol73/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A REASSESSMENT OF MANDATORY STATE BAR MEMBERSHIP IN LIGHT OF LEVINE V. HEFFERNAN I. INTRODUCTION Legal and political divisiveness has been the hallmark of the integrated bar' since its initial appearance over a half-century ago.2 Integrated bar states3 have frequently encountered opposing viewpoints from lawyers who have objected to the constitutionality of compulsory membership in an as- sociation. In no place has this debate been more vigorous than in Wiscon- sin. In fact, shortly after Wisconsin established its own integrated bar,4 furor by attorneys over compelled financial support of the bar resulted in a lawsuit which challenged its constitutional validity. In Lathrop v. Dono- hue,5 the United States Supreme Court held in a plurality opinion,6 that 1. The phrase "integrated bar" has been used synonymously with terms such as "unified bar," "mandatory bar," or simply "state bar." Two characteristics are germane to every inte- grated bar association: First, dues-paying membership is a precondition to practicing law in a state that has such a bar; and second, the bar is created by court rule or by legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Legal Research on Fastcase 2018
    1/5/2018 Introduction to Legal Research on Fastcase 2018 What is Fastcase? Founded in 1999 The mission Democratize the law Make legal research smarter Embraced by market Partners with 29 state bar associations Over 800,000 subscribers. 1 1/5/2018 29 States and Two‐Thirds of All Lawyers Bar Partners The Arkansas Bar Association The New York State Bar The West Virginia State Bar The D.C. Bar Association; Virgin Islands Bar Association The Delaware State Bar The North Carolina Bar The San Fernando Valley Bar Association Association Association The Florida Bar The Oklahoma Bar Association The Kern County Bar Association The Hawaii State Bar Association The Oregon State Bar The Social Law Library (14,000 The Illinois State Bar Association The South Carolina Bar members in Massachusetts) The Iowa State Bar Association The State Bar of Arizona The National Association of The Louisiana State Bar The State Bar of Georgia Consumer Bankruptcy Association The State Bar of Montana Attorneys The Massachusetts Bar The State Bar of Nevada The American Immigration Lawyers Association The Maryland State Bar The State Bar of New Mexico The Jenkins Law Library Association The State Bar of South Dakota The Minnesota State Bar The Cincinnati Law Library The State Bar of Texas Association Association The State Bar of Wisconsin The Missouri Bar The Los Angeles County Law The Tennessee Bar Association Library The New Jersey State Bar The Virginia State Bar Association; 2 1/5/2018 What’s in the Fastcase Database? Free Materials New York Court of Appeals Decisions A.D. Decisions Miscellaneous Decisions N.Y.
    [Show full text]
  • Blowing – Pending First Amendment Challenges to Mandatory Bar Association Membership and Attorney Professional Licensing Fees by Mark Johnson © 2019
    The Winds of Change are Definitely (Probably, Possibly) Blowing – Pending First Amendment Challenges to Mandatory Bar Association Membership and Attorney Professional Licensing Fees By Mark Johnson © 2019 Abstract and Issues Given the important role that lawyers play in our democracy’s justice system, the practice of law is by necessity a highly regulated profession. States have an imperative interest in ensuring high quality legal services by admitting, and permitting, to practice law only those who have demonstrated, and who maintain, competence and commitment sufficient to comply with both our representational responsibilities and our professional ethical prescriptions. Over thirty states, including Washington, require lawyers to be members of the state’s bar association as a condition of practicing law. These “mandatory” bar associations require lawyers to pay an annual professional licensing fee to fund both core regulatory functions, such as admissions and discipline, and discretionary programs found by the regulatory authority to be reasonably or necessarily incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services. To the extent that there had been tension between mandatory bar membership and the constitutionally protected rights of free speech and association, which include the rights not to associate and not to be forced to speak through the compelled funding of activities perceived by some to be ideologically motivated, the issue, until recently, was thought to have been resolved. This article addresses recent First Amendment constitutional challenges to the requirement that lawyers pay professional licensing fees to bar associations for activities which they contend constitute ideological and political activities and challenges to the requirement of compulsory bar association membership as a condition of practicing law.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______
    No. 19-831 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _______________ ADAM JARCHOW AND MICHAEL D. DEAN, Petitioners, v. STATE BAR OF WISCONSIN, ET AL., Respondents. ________________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ________________ RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ________________ ROBERTA F. HOWELL COUNSEL OF RECORD FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 150 East Gilman Street Madison, WI 53703 608.257.5035 [email protected] Counsel for Respondents i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820 (1961), and Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990), upholding the constitutionality of integrated bars like Wisconsin’s, remain good law. ii RULE 29.6 STATEMENT Because Respondents are not corporations, a Rule 29.6 disclosure is not required. STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin, No. 19-cv-266, United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Judgment entered December 13, 2019. Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin, No. 19-3444, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Judgment entered December 23, 2019. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... v RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................... 3 I. The State Bar of Wisconsin ............................. 3 II. Proceedings Below ......................................... 10 THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED ................. 12 I. Lathrop and Keller Remain Consistent With This Court’s Precedents. ....................... 14 a. Janus did not undermine Keller and Lathrop. ........................................ 14 b. This Court’s “freedom-to-exclude” cases do not apply here. ...................... 18 c. The quasi-governmental nature of integrated bars distinguishes them from the unions discussed in Janus.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    No. _________ ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- DANIEL Z. CROWE; LAWRENCE K. PETERSON; and OREGON CIVIL LIBERTIES ATTORNEYS, an Oregon nonprofit corporation, Petitioners, v. OREGON STATE BAR, a Public Corporation, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- LUKE D. MILLER JACOB HUEBERT* MILITARY DISABILITY TIMOTHY SANDEFUR LAWYER, LLC SCHARF-NORTON CENTER 1567 Edgewater Street NW FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PMB 43 LITIGATION AT THE Salem, Oregon 97304 GOLDWATER INSTITUTE 500 E. Coronado Road Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 462-5000 litigation@ goldwaterinstitute.org *Counsel of Record Counsel for Petitioners ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has held that “exacting” First Amend- ment scrutiny applies to laws that force public employ- ees to subsidize the speech and political activities of public sector unions. Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2477 (2018). The Court has also made clear
    [Show full text]
  • Sue Unto Others Outline and Handouts
    SUE UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM SUE UNTO YOU A One-Hour Webinar Covering: Professionalism Presented by: Sean Carter CA Bar# 200356 OVERVIEW Increasingly, lawyer civility and congeniality is becoming a thing of the past. Yet, it doesn’t have to be that way. In this presentation, veteran attorney and legal humorist Sean Carter will remind lawyers that zealous advocacy does not require them to be zealots. In particular, Mr. Carter will discuss practical ways to: • Reduce the hostility in interactions with even the most difficult opposing counsel; • Increase camaraderie among colleagues; • Diffuse tensions between warring clients; • Secure accommodations from opposing counsel; • Structure more mutually beneficial arrangements with clients; • Maintain proper decorum before the court; • Assist in providing pro bono legal services; • Serve the bar and the legal profession; and • Provide service to the community at large. TIMED AGENDA (60 minutes) 0:00-0:05 General Overview of State Professionalism Creeds 1. Genesis of the creeds 2. Aspiration nature Six Suggestions for Professional Behavior 0:05-0:15 Suggestion #1: Show Some Respect 1. Avoid undue familiarity with members of the judiciary 2. Avoid unfounded, unsubstantiated, or unjustified public criticism of members of the judiciary 3. Show respect by attire and demeanor 0:15-0:25 Suggestion #2: Behave Yourself 1. Consider the effect of our individual conduct on the image of the law and the profession 2. Work to improve the law 3. Defend profession against unjust criticism 4. Respect and honor the traditions of the profession and those lawyers who best uphold those traditions 0:25-0:30 Suggestion #3: Don’t Run Up the Bill 1.
    [Show full text]
  • • Time to Submit Award Nominations • New
    Volume 79 u No. 13 u May 10, 2008 ALSO INSIDE • Time to Submit Award Nominations • New Lawyers Admitted GROW YOUR 401(k) WISELY OBA/CLE Presents Building Your Million Dollar Practice And Six things you won’t hear Law Practice Phase Two: Building a Plan for the Next Era of Your from other 401(k) providers... Career May 29 & 30 We were created as a not-for-profit Oklahoma Bar Center, Oklahoma City 1. entity, and we exist to provide a benefit Building Your Million Dollar Practice Dustin Cole Are you ready to – President We leverage the buying power of the Double your revenues over the next five years? Attorneys Master Class 2. ABA to eliminate firm expenses and Transform your practice into a highly efficient, client-focused minimize participant expenses legal business? Speaker Dustin Cole is a Master Reduce stress and hours in the office? Practice Advisor, and is President of Lay the operational and financial groundwork for your dream Attorneys Master Class, one of the Our fiduciary tools help you manage retirement? nation’s leading attorney practice your liabilities and save valuable time – Then don’t miss this program! development organizations. Mr. Cole 3. Part One: Building the Million-Dollar Operations has trained over ten thousand Cole provides a truly unique view of how practices grow and evolve, attorneys across the United States in how to build more successful Our investment menu has three tiers to from the sole practice to the attorney with efficient, profitable legal practices and develop their dream 4. provide options for any type of investor, teams serving client needs, and provides step-by-step advice on how to retirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Aliquot Portion of Their Dues: a Survey of Unified Bar Compliance
    "AN ALIQUOT PORTION OF THEIR DUES: " A SURVEY OF UNIFIED BAR COMPLIANCE WITH HUDSON AND KELLER By Ralph H.Brock" I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 24 II. THE LABOR UNION-UNIFIED BAR ANALOGY ................. 27 A. Prologue.: "only the duty to pay dues."................... 28 B. The Use of Mandatory Duesfor Politicalor Ideological A ctivities .......................................... 36 C. Chargeableand NonchargeableActivities ............... 40 1. ChargeableActivities ............................ 41 2. Nonchargeable Activities .......................... 43 D. Epilogue: The DissentingMembers' Remedies ............ 45 III. HUDSON/KELLER PROCEDURES AMONG THE UNIFIED BAR A SSOCIATIONS ......................................... 47 A. Post-KellerLitigation ............................... 48 1. The Puerto Rican Litigation ...................... 48 2. The Wisconsin Litigation ......................... 48 3. The FloridaLitigation ........................... 50 4. The New Mexico Litigation ....................... 50 B. Common Misinterpretationsof Hudson and Keller ......... 51 IV. STATE-BY-STATE SURVEY .................. ............. 53 A. The Alabama State Bar .............................. 53 B. The Alaska Bar Association ........................... 53 C. The State Bar ofArizona ............................. 55 D. The State Bar of California ........................... 56 E. The District of Columbia Bar ........................ 57 F. The FloridaBar .................................... 58 G. The State Bar of Georgia ............................
    [Show full text]