The Oregon Secretary of State is offering free notary seminars statewide in May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December. Dates, times, and locations are available here. Get comprehensive training on what a notary is, responsibilities and liabilities, how to notarize, notary certificates, and how to maintain a notary journal. Learn more about electronic notarization and ask questions about procedures and practices.
I’m a member of Slideshare, a site where users “share what they know and love through presentations, infographics, documents and more.”
This article first appeared in the Oregon State Bar Bulletin in June 2000. At a time when practitioners feel compelled to go digital and store data in the cloud, why would an article addressing organization of paper files remain in high demand? It must be that many still prefer tangible documents and folders.
If you are a legal professional who likes paper, but struggles with how to organize files, here is an up-to-date redeux of an oldie, but a goodie:
All Rights Reserved  Beverly Michaelis
I first wrote about Oregon’s social media law when HB 2654 was passed by the Senate in May 2013.
A year later, Dan Webb Howard has penned an interesting article for the May 2014 issue of the Oregon State Bar Bulletin, “A Cure Worse than the Disease? Oregon’s New Social Media Law.”
The idea behind HB 2654 was to protect the social media privacy rights of employees and job applicants. But as Howard describes, the law may have unintended consequences:
The “Employer Account” Exception
Social media accounts that are “provided by” or “used on behalf of the employer” are an exception to the non-disclosure provisions of HB 2654. Howard points out that the exception is “so broadly worded that it could have the perverse effect of forfeiting an employee’s control over personal information contained in a social media account that he or she created.”
Employees Cannot be Compelled to Permit “Shoulder Surfing” or add the Employer as a Social Media Contact
Next Howard discusses the meaning of the term “compel.” HB 2654 fails to provide a definition, which opens the door for speculation. Why does this matter? Because two of the key provisions of the law prohibit compelling employees or applicants to (a) add the employer as a social media contact or (b) access password protected social media content in the presence of the employer.
When are “Supervisors” also “Employers” under HB 2654?
The last murky detail concerns vicarious liability for actions of supervisors. Howard suggests preparing for the worst-case scenario: “that even the lowest-level supervisor might ultimately be deemed an ‘employer’ for purposes of HB 2654.”
Read the Hypotheticals and Suggested Solutions
Throughout the article, Howard provides a series of hypotheticals to illustrate his points. He also offers spot-on advice for employees and employers. Read the full article here.
In today’s legal economy, developing business and marketing to prospective clients is the centerpiece of nearly every lawyer’s existence. Whether you are a sole practitioner, an associate or a seasoned partner, you will most likely need or be expected to cultivate and grow your own clientele.
Some firms lean heavily on web design and search engine optimization to attract prospects. Others rely on referrals. Both approaches are effective, but incomplete. The next step is to deliver top-notch client service, starting with understanding and meeting client needs. Continue reading
Are you tired of dragging messages to Inbox folders? Try using an email filing assistant to speed up the process!
How do Email Filing Assistants (EFAs) Work?
Email filing assistants help “automate” filing of email into folders by using algorithms to learn and adapt to your email filing habits. After you “train” the assistant for a time, filing email in the correct folder is a simple process.
Whether you are sending a message or replying to a message, the filing assistant “guesses” which folder the message belongs in. (Accuracy rates are 80-90%). There are no configuration wizards, no set-up, and no rules to maintain.
EFAs for Mac Users
I’ve written before about electronic filing assistants for PC/Outlook users, but what about Mac?
Option One – EFA Lite 2 or EFA 3 from Schulz
The first contender is the Email Filing Assistant from Schulz Software. The company offers a free version – EFA Lite 2 and a pro version for $6.99 - EFA 3. Both are compatible with Apple Mail and require Mac OS X or later. This chart explains the differences between the two versions. EFA Lite 2 is unrated in the App Store. EFA 3 (the pro version) has a three-star rating from 8 reviewers.
Option Two – Msg Filer
A second option is MsgFiler. From the outset, MsgFiler seems to be a more tried and true brand – touting a rating of 4.5 mice from Macworld and 4.5 stars from 130 reviewers on the App Store. The testimonials are numerous. Support appears to be more robust than EFA and the documentation section of the MsgFiler site has helpful screenshots and detailed how-tos. The app is $9.99 in the Mac App Store, and from all appearances is well worth it.
All Rights Reserved – Beverly Michaelis 
This is the final post in my week-long series on Oregon eCourt. Today we take note of a small, but potentially important detail: case numbers are not unique in the eCourt system.
After logging on, eCourt users have an option to search case records, court calendars, or find judgments with money awards. If you elect to search Civil, Family and Probate Case Records, the following search screen appears:
The first option is to search by Case Number. Here is an actual search result that generated three listings in three different jurisdictions for the identical Case Number. Identifying information has been redacted for privacy reasons:
Identical case numbers across judicial districts do not pose a problem so long as you are aware of the possibility.
Other Options when Searching Case Records
Searching by Case Number is the first option presented when searching case records. Users may also search by Party, Attorney, or Date Filed.
All Rights Reserved  Beverly Michaelis.
Today we explore how to search court calendars in the Oregon eCourt system.
There are two options for searching calendars. The first uses a publicly accessible link from the Oregon Judicial Department home page. The second approach requires logging in to the eCourt system. The search methods are identical regardless of the approach used.
The following search criteria are available when searching eCourt calendars:
- Judicial Officer
- Party or Defendant Name
- Date Range
Search by Case is the default search method. To search by any other criteria, click the drop-down arrow.
When searching by Attorney, use the attorney’s last name and first name or bar number.
When searching by Judicial Officer, the search screen offers a pull-down menu of all judicial officers in the state in ascending order, beginning with Abar, Donald and ending with Zuver, Julie:
When searching by Date Range, you can filter your search by Case Category. Case categories include: Criminal, Family, Civil, and Probate/Mental Health. By default, all four are selected. De-select categories you do not wish to include in your search.
Phonetic Searches Using Soundex
Phonetic searches are available when searching by Party or Defendant Name or by Attorney if using last name and first name criteria. Check the Soundex box in the upper right portion of the screen to retrieve calendar dates for search names that sound alike.
eCourt Calendar Searches Limited to 90 Days in the Future
When searching the calendar, date ranges cannot be more than 90 days in the future. If you attempt to search more than 90 days out, the following message will appear:
Searching OJIN Circuit Court Calendars
Search OJIN Circuit Court Calendars here. Search criteria are limited to Date, Party Name, and Attorney. Note these conditions:
The (OJIN Circuit) Court Calendar allows entering up to four identifiers to locate an event occurring on a specific court docket. A minimum of at least one identifier is required. Providing more information will result in more accurate search returns.
The Party Name and Attorney fields are case-insensitive and can be all or part of a name. For example, entering “John” in the Party Name field will give results of all the cases with “John,” “Johnson,” and “Van Johnson.”
Names are stored in the same manner as in the OJIN system “Last First Middle” with no commas and one space between names. For example, Michael Jay Smith is actually stored as “Smith Michael Jay.” Searching for “Michael Jay Smith” will not find any results; however, searching for “Smith Michael” or “Smith M” or “Smith Michael Jay” will include the desired results.
You can only search for the first plaintiff and defendant on a case. You can only search for the first three attorneys on a case, with the system first looking for attorneys on the scheduled event and then for active attorneys on the case. Search results will return the first 500 entries on the docket.
OJIN Online subscribers have access to more functionality.
Beverly Michaelis  All Rights Reserved.
Using debit or credit cards to pay eCourt filing fees raises a number of potential concerns – some ethical, others practical. For example, is it permissible to obtain a debit card connected to the IOLTA account? If yes, what can practitioners do to protect client funds? Alternatively, if a firm decides that an IOLTA debit card is too risky, what are the logistics for getting reimbursed if the firm advances eCourt filing fees? Is a credit card a better alternative?
Here is some guidance on these issues. Continue reading
If you are a paperless practitioner who has embraced Oregon eCourt with open arms, beware. eCourt filers are required by rule to retain certain documents in their original paper form. UTCR 21.120, effective May 1, 2014, provides:
“(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, if a filer electronically files an image of a document that contains the original signature of a person other than the filer, the filer must retain the document in its original paper form for 10 years.
(2) On reasonable notice, the filer must provide a paper copy of the original for inspection by another party, the clerk, or the court.”
See Chief Justice Order 14-012 dated March 31, 2014 adopting out-of-cycle amendments to the Uniform Trial Court Rules.
“Filer” means a person registered with the electronic filing system who submits a document for filing with the court.” UTCR 21.010(6).
Other Statutes and Rules May Require Retention of Original Paper Documents
Paperless practitioners should take note of other statutes or rules that require retention of original paper documents. Examples include the Affidavit of Custodian executed when a settlement agreement is reached on behalf of a minor (ORS 126.725(2)) and certain documents filed in US Bankruptcy Court (see Oregon Local Bankruptcy Court Rule 5005-4(e)). For more information, consult the PLF practice aids, File Retention and Destruction and Checklist for Scanning Client Files, available on the PLF Web site.
This is not an exhaustive list. Conduct your own appropriate legal research to identify other instances where original paper documents must (or should) be retained.
All Rights Reserved  Beverly Michaelis