4 Reasons a 24/7 Legal Repository Is a Must

Having a 24/7 repository at your fingertips is crucial because wasted time (like waiting for a physical repository to “open”) means wasted money and potentially harm to your legal case. It’s why cloud storage has turned even major entities like the Department of Defense into a paperless office, and if it’s secure enough for the DOD and other major players like Amazon, it’s secure enough for top ranked legal firms. However, there’s no need to set up and manage a cloud yourself-dealing with maintenance, constantly changing who can view and edit what, and basically playing IT guru isn’t your job.

Instead, relying on around the clock repository access that’s managed by a crew of professionals is a much better approach. It doesn’t matter if you’re part of a law firm that only works with local personal injury clients. There will come a time when you need to access documents at 3am, and when that happens you need to be ready.

Here are the major reasons why 24/7 repositories aren’t just a good idea, but necessary in the legal field:

1. When anyone involved in the case travels

Is your partner on a business trip to Shanghai, but you both need to access documents at the same time? Not only is physical distance an issue, but it won’t be necessary for one of you to get up in the middle of the night when relying on a repository that has no business hours. It’s convenience at its best.

2. When you need to know about upcoming jobs

All your upcoming jobs and calendars are in one location, so you don’t have to worry about your smartphone syncing to your calendar or whether or not you’ve double booked. Simply check the managed online system and instantly see what’s coming up on your schedule. At the same time, you can download any documents you’ll need for this afternoon’s job.

3. When you need to take care of invoicing

Is there an outstanding balance you’re not sure about, or do you need to send an invoice that’s overdue? Take care of it all in one simple location that’s intuitive, user friendly and designed with convenience in mind.

4. When you’re in cat herding mode

Keeping track of those witnesses, dates and case names can be a nightmare. Fortunately, an online repository sorts and organizes on a case by case basis. Well before mediation, you can check in on your expenses, change proceedings as necessary and basically have a virtual personal assistant at your beck and call.

Even better, there are no additional fees, no software to install and no need for an engineering degree in order to take advantage of all these perks. From deposition to deposition, every legal professional can use a hand keeping things on track and well maintained. Don’t add another task to your agenda (like researching cloud options) when it’s already taken care of for you. Now if only connecting with witnesses and the actual depositions themselves were this easy.

Jill Smith is a writer and researcher. She is the Director of Digital Content Marketing for Be Locally SEO where she enjoys helping clients expand and improve their businesses through articles, blogs, website content and more.

California Power of Attorney for Financial Affairs

A power of attorney for financial affairs in California is the topic of this article. The basic law governing California powers of attorney is found in Sections 4000 through 4545 inclusive, of the California Probate Code. This article will discuss the use of a durable power of attorney for financial affairs (POA). The term refers to the fact that the powers given to the agent will continue to exist even if the person who signed the durable power of attorney becomes incapacitated and can no longer make their own decisions regarding the management of their finances and property unless the durable power of attorney provides otherwise.

A durable power of attorney for financial affairs can also be drafted to become what is known as a “springing power of attorney” meaning that it will not take effect until the person who signed the durable power of attorney becomes incapacitated as defined in the document.

The document can also be customized for most situations and can grant broad and sweeping powers to the agent such as the power to manage, dispose of, sell, and convey any real and personal property, run a business, for security and financial transactions and to use the property as security if the agent borrows money on behalf of the principal. It can even grant the agent the power to prepare and file tax returns on behalf of the principal and nominate a conservator of the estate of the principal if desired.

The law in California states that a durable POA in California must be dated and must be acknowledged before a notary public or signed by two witnesses. If it is signed by two witnesses, they must witness either (1) the signing of the power of attorney or (2) the principal’s signing or acknowledgment of his or her signature. A durable POA that may affect real property should be acknowledged before a notary public so that it may easily be recorded with the County Recorder in all counties where any real property is located.

A durable POA can be amended or changed only by executing a new document or by executing an amendment observing the same exact same formalities as an original. The principal retains the right to revoke or terminate any durable POA at any time, so long as the principal is competent.

Executing a durable power of attorney makes good sense when a person has a trusted person whether a friend, relative or spouse whom they trust and can rely on to protect their interests in the event they become incapacitated.

To view the entire text of any Probate Code sections cited in this article or any other California code visit: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml


The author of this article, Stan Burman, is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this article is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

Request for New Trial In United States District Court

A request for a new trial in United States District Court is the topic of this article. Rule 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the filing of a motion for a new trial on some or all of the issues for civil cases in United States District Court.

However there are statutory restrictions in that a motion for a new trial can be only be filed using certain grounds and must also be filed within 28 calendar days after the judgment is entered. However in situations where the stakes are high enough filing a motion for new trial can be very useful. Another advantage is that a timely-filed new trial motion extends the time to file a notice of appeal under the provisions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) until the entry of the order disposing of the motion for new trial.

The main grounds for a motion for new trial under Rule 59(a) after a jury trial are (1) the verdict is against the weight of the evidence; (2) newly discovered evidence: (3) prejudicial conduct by the court or opposing counsel, and (4) juror misconduct although other grounds might apply in certain situations.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b) states that,

“(b) Time to File a Motion for a New Trial. A motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.”

However I want to point out that because each individual case is unique a party may in face have more than 28 calendar days to file the motion for new trial as in order to start the clock running on the 28 day deadline requires a final judgment requiring a separate document under Rule 58(a) which is considered entered when the judgment is both entered in the civil docket under Rule 79(a) and either (a) it is set forth on a separate document or (b) 150 days have run from entry of the judgment in the civil docket, whichever occurs first. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(c)(2).

Numerous decisions of the United States Courts of Appeal including the Ninth Circuit have outlined the burden that the party moving for a new trial must meet.

The moving party must meet their burden of showing sufficient facts and evidence to support their grounds and must show that a miscarriage of justice will result if the judgment is not vacated and a new trial granted.

A party requesting a new trial on the grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence for example has the burden of convincing the judge that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or is based on evidence which is false or will result in a miscarriage of justice.

And a party requesting a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence must show that the evidence in question was discovered after the date of the trial; that the moving party exercised due diligence to discover the evidence before the end of the trial; the evidence is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and the new evidence would likely have changed the outcome of the case.

A party requesting a new trial on the grounds of prejudicial conduct by the judge or opposing counsel must show that they were so severely prejudiced that they were prevented from having a fair trial. For example it is improper for a judgment to comment on any ultimate factual issues such as the issue of which party was negligent, which party breached the contract, etc. And a new trial can be ordered in cases where the opposing counsel committed misconduct at the trial that made it reasonably certain that the verdict was influenced by the prejudicial statements. An example would be an opening or closing statement that incorrectly expands any potential grounds of liability or takes away any benefit the aggrieved party may have won on a prior motion such as a motion for partial summary judgment or violating an in limine order or the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The party requesting a new trial on the grounds of juror misconduct must show that the juror misconduct resulted in them suffering prejudice which could include extraneous information obtained by a juror from friends or relatives or a juror introducing facts or evidence acquired outside of the courtroom during jury deliberations.