I'm back in the swing of things after sitting for July 2013 Bar Exam. In the weeks after the bar, one thing I've realized as a post-law school, post-bar taker is that describing your current status to people you meet is pretty challenging. The not-quite-a-lawyer but already-graduated-law-school is a mouth full to explain in casual conversation and most bar-takers are undoubtedly met with many comments along the lines of "you definitely passed." Law School Graduate, Post-3L, J.D., however you put it, I am in post-bar limbo with many across the nation as we are anxiously awaiting the results. Most law school graduates take the July bar exam in the state they'd like to practice after graduating in May, but the waiting period for bar exam results can range from one month to six months depending on the state and the number of takers.
Unsure of what to call themselves, many begin to list their occupation as an attorney. During the waiting period, recent law school grads and post-bar takers should tread lightly in how they describe themselves in order to not run afoul of the Professional Rules of Conduct.
According to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading communication including material misrepresentations of fact or law. Attorney-hopefuls may violate this rule simply by updating their LinkedIn profile to indicate they are an attorney prior to receiving their bar results.
In 2006, Above the Law discussed how Author, and Yale Law School Graduate, Elizabeth Wurtzel who stated in an interview with BitterLawyer.com how much she enjoyed being a lawyer. The problem was that at the time, she hadn't yet passed the bar exam. Her statements were the topic of discussion regarding post-bar titles for law school graduates on Gawker.com. The ABA also published an article in 2009 discussing law school graduates who haven't yet passed the bar but are using the title attorney. Interestingly, the article point out that others who misuse titles include "lawyers who are on inactive status or licensed only in another state, and lawyers engaged in a business or profession other than the practice of law."
A simple word of caution to those who are in limbo waiting for bar exam results, be patient. I understand your are ready for your legal career to officially begin but be careful to not hold yourself out as an attorney until its official or you'll find yourself in front of an ethics committee even before your swearing in ceremony. For now, refer to yourself as a Post-Bar J.D. or something similar, and be patient, when the bar exam results come back you can shout it from the rooftops that you are an attorney.
** UPDATE: I want to be clear that, unfortunately, even after receiving bar results you should not present yourself as an attorney until you have been officially sworn in at your licencing ceremony. It would still be a violation of the ethical rules until the official ceremony occurs.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Friday, April 12, 2013
Your Online Life After Death
Take a second and think about all your online accounts. If you include email accounts, banks, dating sites, social networking, sky miles accounts, credit cards, memberships, rewards cards, etc, there are simply too many accounts to keep track of. Tech Radar reported that people have an average of twenty-six to forty online accounts. Now think about what would happen to those accounts if something happened to you.
This week Google unveiled its Inactive Account Manager, a new feature which allows its members to indicate what they would like to happen to their accounts after a period of inactivity. Users can set their online data to self-destruct or assign their data to trusted loved ones who will be contacted after the period of inactivity with access to the account. This new feature has been likened to an online will and its about time Google address this issue of what happens to our online lives after death.
Our online lives often continue on after death because of the issues of access. Imagine how daunting it is be for someone to track down all your online accounts and profiles without personal knowledge of where you have created them. Obviously, for accounts that are shared with your significant other, access is not an issue but friends and families face a huge problem for personal accounts, especially for peripheral membership. Loved ones are often left to manage or close accounts on their own without much direction of how many and where they are.
One woman resorted to seeking help from ABC News to get her late husbands profile removed from Facebook. Facebook refused to provide her access to the account and would only agree to "memorialize" the account; in effect leaving it up but making it private to friends only. Even after sending Facebook her husband's death, birth, and marriage certificates, and even a portion of his will to prove he had died, only after ABC's involvement was his profile actually deleted.
Facebook's policy hasn't changed with the procedures for members who have died still being fairly complicated. It still opts to memorialize profiles of its deceased members, it will not provide password information, but now with the proper documentation Facebook will delete an account.
States are beginning to slowly catch up; in February, Virginia's legislature joined five other states by passing a law that gave parents of deceased minors access to their social media accounts.
HOW TO MANAGE YOUR ONLINE PROFILE AFTER DEATH
Preparing for this if the best solution. Tell your loved ones whether you want your profiled deleted and create a creating an inventory of online accounts and passwords for loved ones to use to make accessing your accounts easy. There are many online services that provide a solution for this problem. While it may be easy to sign up, register or join as a member on many websites, the challenge comes when loved ones want to delete those accounts. Make it as easy as possible by treating your online life as part of the estate planning process. Take a look at this great site that explores more of these issues: http://www.digitalpassing.com/about/
This week Google unveiled its Inactive Account Manager, a new feature which allows its members to indicate what they would like to happen to their accounts after a period of inactivity. Users can set their online data to self-destruct or assign their data to trusted loved ones who will be contacted after the period of inactivity with access to the account. This new feature has been likened to an online will and its about time Google address this issue of what happens to our online lives after death.
Our online lives often continue on after death because of the issues of access. Imagine how daunting it is be for someone to track down all your online accounts and profiles without personal knowledge of where you have created them. Obviously, for accounts that are shared with your significant other, access is not an issue but friends and families face a huge problem for personal accounts, especially for peripheral membership. Loved ones are often left to manage or close accounts on their own without much direction of how many and where they are.
One woman resorted to seeking help from ABC News to get her late husbands profile removed from Facebook. Facebook refused to provide her access to the account and would only agree to "memorialize" the account; in effect leaving it up but making it private to friends only. Even after sending Facebook her husband's death, birth, and marriage certificates, and even a portion of his will to prove he had died, only after ABC's involvement was his profile actually deleted.
Facebook's policy hasn't changed with the procedures for members who have died still being fairly complicated. It still opts to memorialize profiles of its deceased members, it will not provide password information, but now with the proper documentation Facebook will delete an account.
States are beginning to slowly catch up; in February, Virginia's legislature joined five other states by passing a law that gave parents of deceased minors access to their social media accounts.
HOW TO MANAGE YOUR ONLINE PROFILE AFTER DEATH
Preparing for this if the best solution. Tell your loved ones whether you want your profiled deleted and create a creating an inventory of online accounts and passwords for loved ones to use to make accessing your accounts easy. There are many online services that provide a solution for this problem. While it may be easy to sign up, register or join as a member on many websites, the challenge comes when loved ones want to delete those accounts. Make it as easy as possible by treating your online life as part of the estate planning process. Take a look at this great site that explores more of these issues: http://www.digitalpassing.com/about/
Monday, March 11, 2013
Social Media Use by Attorneys and Law Firms
The
internet has fundamentally changed the way we interact on a daily basis. Though
relatively new, social media has become a tool many businesses and individuals use
in their professional lives. Platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, vary but all
have a common purpose of facilitating interactions between users. The legal
community has struggled with how to address the ethical concerns associated with
the use of social media sometimes debating whether social media should be used
within its profession at all.[1]
Utah’s Ethics Advisory
Committee recently issued an unofficial
advisory opinion to provide judges with guidance in their use of Social
Media. The opinion provides some help to attorneys as well. Attorneys and judges should be cautious but they should not immediately shy away from using social media as part of their practice.While social media has been
associated with a younger generation, it has expanded to include people of all
ages and professions, including attorneys and judges[2].
The nature of how one may “use” social media varies extensively. Many individuals in the legal community, lawyers and judges alike, are not members of any social media platform. Others may have an account or membership on multiple websites. For those who do have social media accounts, the level of individual participation on social media can vary vastly. Use on social media can range from those who have an account per se but are inactive users rarely visit the social media website; while active users may visit and participate regularly online.[3] “Active observers” may regularly visit their social media account but never actually engaging others on it; rather they use it as a tool to monitor or keep updated on the activity of others.[4] Moreover, a social media account may also serve different purposes for different individuals. Some users may limit their interactions to close family and friends as a way to keep in touch, while others use social media as a networking and business development tool to meet new people and potential clients.
The nature of how one may “use” social media varies extensively. Many individuals in the legal community, lawyers and judges alike, are not members of any social media platform. Others may have an account or membership on multiple websites. For those who do have social media accounts, the level of individual participation on social media can vary vastly. Use on social media can range from those who have an account per se but are inactive users rarely visit the social media website; while active users may visit and participate regularly online.[3] “Active observers” may regularly visit their social media account but never actually engaging others on it; rather they use it as a tool to monitor or keep updated on the activity of others.[4] Moreover, a social media account may also serve different purposes for different individuals. Some users may limit their interactions to close family and friends as a way to keep in touch, while others use social media as a networking and business development tool to meet new people and potential clients.
There
is nothing inherently inappropriate about social media use, but how you use it. Attorneys
conduct is no more acceptable if it takes place online, it is just another form
of technology. Social media use is not for everyone, but
a basic understanding will allow you to
know why it is or is not useful for your practice. It’s important to
identify your goals and understand the fundamental aspects social media; only
after learning the tool, can it become useful.
[1]
Steven Seidenberg, Seduced, A.B.A. J., Feb 1, 2011, at 48 available at http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/seduced_for_lawyers_the_appeal_of_social_media_is_obvious_dangerous/.
[3]
See generally, Mary Madden, Older Adults and Social Media, Pew
Internet & American Life Project (2010) available at
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Older-Adults-and-Social-Media.aspx.
[4]
See e.g. Stephanie Francis Ward,
Justice Breyer’s on Twitter & Facebook, But Don’t Count on Him Friending
You, A.B.A. J. (Apr 14, 2011) available at http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/breyer_on_facebook_but_dont_count_on_him_friending_you/ (explaining that he has an account of
Facebook and Twitter); James Vicini, U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Breyer on Twitter, Reuters
(April 14, 2011) available at http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2011/04/14/u-s-supreme-court-justice-breyer-on-twitter/
(explaining that he has a twitter account but he does not actively engage with
the public on it and uses it as an “active observer).
Monday, January 7, 2013
Arizona Law Graduates will leave Law School as Attorneys
Arizona Supreme Court issued its approval to amend a rule eventually allowing 3L's to take the February Bar Exam. The amendment to Rule 34 of the Supreme Court Rules were approved on an "experimental basis," until December 31, 2015. Arizona 3L's would be required to file a petition in November prior to sitting for the exam.
The amended rule is part of a pilot program to take place in Arizona Law Schools. Graduating 3L's would receive their diploma and bar results in the spring rather than having to take the exam two months after graduating. This would eliminate the additional wait until the fall that most graduates endure before finding out whether they can practice law. The third year of law school is considered a waste by many. The first two years are considered the most valuable and the third year of law school is often referred to as the year they "bore you to death."
Arizona schools are not the first to try and fix the problem with the third year of law school. NYU recently announced that they are revamping their third year curriculum to address this issue. Stanford Law school lead the way with changes to its third year of law school designed to allow students to pursue joint-degrees.
AboveTheLaw.com weighed in on the debate regarding whether 3L students should be allowed to sit for the Bar. All three Arizona Law schools had supported the change arguing that students would have a head start entering the job market. The National Law Journal discusses that a financial benefit accompanies the cahnge by helping students enter the job market as they graduate rather than have a six month lag. In this economy, many employers no longer consider law students for employment until after they have received their bar exam results and know they will have a license to practice law. Prior to the economic downturn the legal field was thriving and jobs were easily obtained before students actually knew they had passed the test.
The pilot program has been given two years to evaluate the effectiveness of this change in Arizona while legal educators will continue to evaluate ways to help students get jobs as quickly as possible in this slow economy.
The amended rule is part of a pilot program to take place in Arizona Law Schools. Graduating 3L's would receive their diploma and bar results in the spring rather than having to take the exam two months after graduating. This would eliminate the additional wait until the fall that most graduates endure before finding out whether they can practice law. The third year of law school is considered a waste by many. The first two years are considered the most valuable and the third year of law school is often referred to as the year they "bore you to death."
Arizona schools are not the first to try and fix the problem with the third year of law school. NYU recently announced that they are revamping their third year curriculum to address this issue. Stanford Law school lead the way with changes to its third year of law school designed to allow students to pursue joint-degrees.
AboveTheLaw.com weighed in on the debate regarding whether 3L students should be allowed to sit for the Bar. All three Arizona Law schools had supported the change arguing that students would have a head start entering the job market. The National Law Journal discusses that a financial benefit accompanies the cahnge by helping students enter the job market as they graduate rather than have a six month lag. In this economy, many employers no longer consider law students for employment until after they have received their bar exam results and know they will have a license to practice law. Prior to the economic downturn the legal field was thriving and jobs were easily obtained before students actually knew they had passed the test.
The pilot program has been given two years to evaluate the effectiveness of this change in Arizona while legal educators will continue to evaluate ways to help students get jobs as quickly as possible in this slow economy.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Yale Announces Ph.D. in Law
Yale Law announced earlier this week that is was going to launch a Ph.D. in Law. The announcement has picked up buzz in the legal community because this would be the first legal program in the United States to offer a doctorate program in Law. The program endeavors to appeal to students who seek to stay in academia often building careers as Law Professors.
This is a smart move for Yale. Believe it or not, there are many law students who don't want to be big law attorneys after earning their legal degrees. Moreover, law school has traditionally been used by some students as a stepping stone to other fields, attending law school with no intention of staying the legal field after graduating. There is a small group of law students, however, who enter law school with the specific goal of becoming a law professor.
Yale's program recognizes that it is difficult to transition from legal practice to teaching. The program will focus "in-depth scholarly training." I personally know one of these students whose goal is to become a law professor. He has expressed frustration in the lack of resources available to him at the law school level with most of the attention going to students who are planning on entering firm life upon receiving a J.D.
Yale has developed a program to serve and unmet need. There is no question that with this program, Yale's great reputation and prestige will accompany its graduates as they enter the world of legal academia after completing this program. As the school itself recognizes, “Yale Law School’s Ph.D. in Law will offer a new, alternative route into a career in law teaching and legal scholarship,” said Dean Post. “Some students will no doubt seek advanced degrees in cognate disciplines, but for those who wish to concentrate on law, we expect that the Ph.D. in Law will provide an attractive option.”
Only time will tell how many more programs will develop a doctoral degree, admittedly some will wait to see how Yale's new program is received.
This is a smart move for Yale. Believe it or not, there are many law students who don't want to be big law attorneys after earning their legal degrees. Moreover, law school has traditionally been used by some students as a stepping stone to other fields, attending law school with no intention of staying the legal field after graduating. There is a small group of law students, however, who enter law school with the specific goal of becoming a law professor.
Yale's program recognizes that it is difficult to transition from legal practice to teaching. The program will focus "in-depth scholarly training." I personally know one of these students whose goal is to become a law professor. He has expressed frustration in the lack of resources available to him at the law school level with most of the attention going to students who are planning on entering firm life upon receiving a J.D.
Yale has developed a program to serve and unmet need. There is no question that with this program, Yale's great reputation and prestige will accompany its graduates as they enter the world of legal academia after completing this program. As the school itself recognizes, “Yale Law School’s Ph.D. in Law will offer a new, alternative route into a career in law teaching and legal scholarship,” said Dean Post. “Some students will no doubt seek advanced degrees in cognate disciplines, but for those who wish to concentrate on law, we expect that the Ph.D. in Law will provide an attractive option.”
Only time will tell how many more programs will develop a doctoral degree, admittedly some will wait to see how Yale's new program is received.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Coachella 2012: Right of Publicity
Rapper Tupac was back from the dead and back on stage at Cochella 2012 with the help of some new technology. The technology surprised many and had concertgoers thinking they were seeing a ghost. Holographic technology made the performance possible and quickly gained a lot of buzz at and after Cochella.
The technology allowed a hologram of the deceased rapper which was projected on stage to preform with Snoop Dogg, who later talked about the experience. While some celebrities reacted with enthusiasm, while others didn't care much for the hologram. The hologram has caught the attention of other deceased celebrity estates who will be looking into this new ability with a strong interest. Can you imagine Michael Jackson or Bob Marley back on stage? Or Dick Clark ringing in the New Year with us one last time? Various legal considerations play a role in the possibilities of deceased legends going on tour as holograms.
Intellectual Property Attorney's will be looking at the Right of Publicity when considering this technology in licensing deals. Some commentators discuss the copyrights and trademarks also associated with the hologram, while other look at the creation of an independent public performance copyright. Whatever the future, the performance at Cochella has been the buzz of Tinseltown, and many are talking about the impact the technology can have on the entertainment industry.
The technology allowed a hologram of the deceased rapper which was projected on stage to preform with Snoop Dogg, who later talked about the experience. While some celebrities reacted with enthusiasm, while others didn't care much for the hologram. The hologram has caught the attention of other deceased celebrity estates who will be looking into this new ability with a strong interest. Can you imagine Michael Jackson or Bob Marley back on stage? Or Dick Clark ringing in the New Year with us one last time? Various legal considerations play a role in the possibilities of deceased legends going on tour as holograms.
Intellectual Property Attorney's will be looking at the Right of Publicity when considering this technology in licensing deals. Some commentators discuss the copyrights and trademarks also associated with the hologram, while other look at the creation of an independent public performance copyright. Whatever the future, the performance at Cochella has been the buzz of Tinseltown, and many are talking about the impact the technology can have on the entertainment industry.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
YouTube v Viacom: Round 2
YouTube and Viacom are in for a legal battle. I haven't read much yet but below I've listed the conclusions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which sent the case back to disctrict court. The district court was instructed to re-consider issues surrounding whether YouTube was liable for infringement when its users uploaded copyrighted video's and songs online. Google's, who owns YouTube, saw a slight fall in stock prices after the news spread. For those legal nerds out there here's the Second Circuit Courts decision.
Here are some other articles covering the reversal:
Reuters: Viacom wins reversal in landmark YouTube case
The Wall Street Journal: Viacom Advances in YouTube Suit
The New York Times: Judge Sides With Google in Viacom Video Suit
If you need to catch up on whats been going on here is a PBS story from 2010 which covered the original decisions and the implication: What the Viacom vs. YouTube Verdict Means for Copyright Law
In an interesting side note, YouTube and Paramount did come to an agreement recently where YouTube will provide movies for rent online for $5. Maybe its the fact that I can get a movie at Redbox for $1 and pay a bit more for Netflix which gives me unlimited movies but, $5 seems a bit steep to me. Then again, if the content is more along the lines of the recent blockbusters, the price may fit the bill.
I look forward to the day where we can see movies on opening weekend from the comfort of our own homes, though its not likely to happen since that would effectively cut a studios profits down dramatically.
Here are the courts CONCLUSIONS:
To summarize, we hold that:
(1) The District Court correctly held that 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A) requires knowledge or
awareness of facts or circumstances that indicate specific and identifiable instances of
infringement;
(2) However, the June 23, 2010 order granting summary judgment to YouTube is VACATED because a reasonable jury could conclude that YouTube had knowledge or awareness under § 512(c)(1)(A) at least with respect to a handful of specific clips; the cause is REMANDED for the District Court to determine whether YouTube had knowledge or awareness of any specific instances of infringement corresponding to the clips-in-suit;
(3) The willful blindness doctrine may be applied, in appropriate circumstances, to demonstrate knowledge or awareness of specific instances of infringement under § 512(c)(1)(A); the cause is REMANDED for the District Court to consider the application of the willful blindness doctrine in the first instance;
(4) The District Court erred by requiring “item-specific” knowledge of infringement in its interpretation of the “right and ability to control” infringing activity under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B), and the judgment is REVERSED insofar as it rests on that erroneous construction of the statute; the cause is REMANDED for further fact-finding by the District Court on the issues of control and financial benefit;
(5) The District Court correctly held that three of the challenged YouTube software functions—replication, playback, and the related videos feature—occur “by reason of the storage at the direction of a user” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1), and 35 the judgment is AFFIRMED insofar as it so held; the cause is REMANDED for further fact-finding regarding a fourth software function, involving the syndication of
YouTube videos to third parties.
On remand, the District Court shall allow the parties to brief the following issues, with a view to permitting renewed motions for summary judgment as soon as practicable:
(A) Whether, on the current record, YouTube had knowledge or awareness of any specific infringements (including any clips-in-suit not expressly noted in this opinion);
(B) Whether, on the current record, YouTube willfully blinded itself to specific infringements;
(C) Whether YouTube had the “right and ability to control” infringing activity within the meaning of § 512(c)(1)(B); and
(D) Whether any clips-in-suit were syndicated to a third party and, if so, whether such syndication occurred “by reason of the storage at the direction of the user” within the meaning of § 512(c)(1), so that YouTube may claim the protection of the § 512(c) safe harbor.
Here are some other articles covering the reversal:
Reuters: Viacom wins reversal in landmark YouTube case
The Wall Street Journal: Viacom Advances in YouTube Suit
The New York Times: Judge Sides With Google in Viacom Video Suit
If you need to catch up on whats been going on here is a PBS story from 2010 which covered the original decisions and the implication: What the Viacom vs. YouTube Verdict Means for Copyright Law
In an interesting side note, YouTube and Paramount did come to an agreement recently where YouTube will provide movies for rent online for $5. Maybe its the fact that I can get a movie at Redbox for $1 and pay a bit more for Netflix which gives me unlimited movies but, $5 seems a bit steep to me. Then again, if the content is more along the lines of the recent blockbusters, the price may fit the bill.
I look forward to the day where we can see movies on opening weekend from the comfort of our own homes, though its not likely to happen since that would effectively cut a studios profits down dramatically.
Here are the courts CONCLUSIONS:
To summarize, we hold that:
(1) The District Court correctly held that 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A) requires knowledge or
awareness of facts or circumstances that indicate specific and identifiable instances of
infringement;
(2) However, the June 23, 2010 order granting summary judgment to YouTube is VACATED because a reasonable jury could conclude that YouTube had knowledge or awareness under § 512(c)(1)(A) at least with respect to a handful of specific clips; the cause is REMANDED for the District Court to determine whether YouTube had knowledge or awareness of any specific instances of infringement corresponding to the clips-in-suit;
(3) The willful blindness doctrine may be applied, in appropriate circumstances, to demonstrate knowledge or awareness of specific instances of infringement under § 512(c)(1)(A); the cause is REMANDED for the District Court to consider the application of the willful blindness doctrine in the first instance;
(4) The District Court erred by requiring “item-specific” knowledge of infringement in its interpretation of the “right and ability to control” infringing activity under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B), and the judgment is REVERSED insofar as it rests on that erroneous construction of the statute; the cause is REMANDED for further fact-finding by the District Court on the issues of control and financial benefit;
(5) The District Court correctly held that three of the challenged YouTube software functions—replication, playback, and the related videos feature—occur “by reason of the storage at the direction of a user” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1), and 35 the judgment is AFFIRMED insofar as it so held; the cause is REMANDED for further fact-finding regarding a fourth software function, involving the syndication of
YouTube videos to third parties.
On remand, the District Court shall allow the parties to brief the following issues, with a view to permitting renewed motions for summary judgment as soon as practicable:
(A) Whether, on the current record, YouTube had knowledge or awareness of any specific infringements (including any clips-in-suit not expressly noted in this opinion);
(B) Whether, on the current record, YouTube willfully blinded itself to specific infringements;
(C) Whether YouTube had the “right and ability to control” infringing activity within the meaning of § 512(c)(1)(B); and
(D) Whether any clips-in-suit were syndicated to a third party and, if so, whether such syndication occurred “by reason of the storage at the direction of the user” within the meaning of § 512(c)(1), so that YouTube may claim the protection of the § 512(c) safe harbor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)