KiMformation

While I'm away for a few days, I thought the timing right to lay the groundwork for my first Open Forum, or Forensis Publicus, by inviting any and all paralegals out there who might be "listening" to my Radio, tuning in from time to time, or just scanning the channels, to e-mail to me articles of interest to appear in this space next week.  This can be something written especially for the occasion, or a tried-and-true gem that you'd like to share, as long as it's an original work.  I'd especially welcome posts from Larry and Connie, two experienced paralegals and blogophiles who happened by here via Ernie the Attorney and were kind enough to leave their supportive comments.

So, put on your blogging caps and carpe diem!

- Posted by Kim Plonsky - 6:04:07 PM - radio comments (past)  []

I have a paralegal philosophy that makes perfect sense to me, but I never cease to be amazed that most lawyers just don't get it.  As a paralegal, I consider it my primary job to gather and organize information related to a case, from all relevant resources.  What that information means or how it applies to any given case is the lawyer's domain.  I gather it; you decide what it means.  Simple, right?  But you'd be surprised how many lawyers don't understand this.  They want information, all right, but usually they want just what's needed today, for the issues they're working on at that very moment.  And, heaven forbid, if you were to gather information that could be construed as detrimental to their cases!

I believe that the paralegal's information-gathering techniques remain basically the same in every case, no matter what's going on in the litigation at any given time.  (My work primarily involves civil litigation.)  But I find that my efforts are often thwarted by the attorneys, for such reasons as "the case is about to settle," or "that's not relevant."  And then, when the case doesn't settle, or a supposed non-issue suddenly becomes relevant, there's a mad, last-minute dash to gather information, some of which takes weeks, or even months, to obtain (for example, tax records from the Internal Revenue Service, or Social Security earnings records), and sometimes it's simply too late and the information is unattainable.  Anyone care to venture a guess who gets the blame when this happens?

But when a paralegal is fortunate enough to work with an attorney who does get it, everyone wins -- the paralegal, the attorney, and the client.  I'll give you an example.  I was working on the defense of a personal injury case with an attorney who allowed me, as a paralegal, to do my thing.  I duly gathered all of the pertinent records, right away, including criminal and civil records checks on each of the defendants.  Some interesting things turned up, but in the early stages of the litigation, such things as arrests and divorce proceedings seemed like just so much -- well, gossip.  About eighteen months down the road, when the real issues for litigation had shaken out, both the plaintiffs' criminal and civil backgrounds came into play.  And while other defense counsel were scurrying around trying to gather pertinent records at the last minute, before an important deposition, I simply walked to the filing cabinet and handed my boss the files.

And then there's information that's potentially damaging to your case.  Why, you ask, would a paralegal want to go there?  But what better way is there to defend against a position or argument than being informed on the subject?  (Would a good lawyer write a legal brief without reading the other side's cases?)  Isn't it better for the attorney to have had time to roll the information around in his or her brain, for weeks or even months, before taking a position?  If I were an attorney, I wouldn't want to learn the gory details of damaging information for the first time in a deposition or at a hearing.  If the attorney is not informed, isn't there a chance that the damaging testimony of the witness, or argument to the court, will go unchallenged, which could adversely affect the outcome of the entire case?  Isn't the client better served when the attorney is in a position to dispute or minimize damaging testimony or arguments?  Doesn't this make sense?  But my experience is that, by and large, most attorneys get that deer-in-the-headlights look when you bring up the subject of exploring this potentitally damaging territory, refusing to even discuss it -- not even casually.

Just as lawyers are the experts in the law, paralegals are the experts in gathering and organizing information and documentation.  Let us practice our expertise.  Mentor us, guide us, lead us, give us assignments, let us know your preferences, but let us do our jobs the way our experiences have shown us is best.  And you might find that your job as a lawyer gets a whole lot easier and more productive, and that your clients get better results.

- Posted by Kim Plonsky - 7:13:22 AM - radio comments (past)  []

Take A Tour of Google [Google News and Updates]  Have you Googled lately?  I'm not talking about running an internet search, I'm talking about using some of Google's ever-expanding array of new features and tools, such as the Google Toolbar, Google Groups, Google News, Google Images, Google Catalogs, and even something new called Froogle, where you can find information about products available online.  Take the Google Tour, and find out what you've been missing (if itta been a snake, itta bit ya).  And the coolest new Google tool . . .

Keep track of new search results.  "Credit searchengineblog.com for this one. Googlert is a new utility built around the Google API that lets you stay informed on new search results for whatever terms or phrases you want to keep tabs on."  [Google News and Updates]  Great, you say, but how can this be applied to legal work?  Well, bookmarks can become stale over time, and if you're like me you have a tendency to rely on sites you've located and bookmarked through earlier searches.  Using out-of-date bookmarks may cause you to miss out on better, newer, or more up-to-date sources of information.  And even if you wanted to manually re-run the same search that turned up your old, trusty bookmark, you'd have no way to know for sure (at least, I wouldn't) what search string led you to that site in the first place.

With Googlert, you receive e-mail notifications of changes to selected search string results as they occur.  How you get it is a two-step process:  First, get a license key* here (by providing your e-mail address and selecting a password); then, subscribe to the service here, by entering your e-mail address and the license key.  You can sign up for up to 5 searches, choosing for each how many results you want to receive (with up to 100 results allowed--it's not clear whether this is 100 per search string, or 100 total).  I signed up and can't wait to try this out.

*This also entitles you to some other Google services, including Google Groups.

- Posted by Kim Plonsky - 5:31:10 AM - radio comments (past)  []