FeE-Filing?

Interesting article by Tom O'Connor at law.com: "Forward Movement for E-Filing?" The piece mostly discusses new .Net/LegalXML efforts from Microsoft and BearingPoint (press release), and mentions that surcharges for paper court filings may be on the horizon:

Some suggest that the best way to push e-filing to reality is to start charging for filing paper, as banks are doing with checks, and airlines with tickets. Courts may eventually have to do this to discourage paper filings and pay for electronic filing systems.

A 2001 article from the same author, "It's Still Slow Go For E-Filing," provides more context.

Law Is A Conversation

My firm's head of Web marketing will be coming to the ClickZ Weblog Business Strategies Conference.

Ready, Set...

TiVo. Tomorrow's The Screen Savers features Professor Lessig, Buffy, an iTunes tour and the Blog Report. (Cognitive dissonance my hiney.)

Cool link, same source, America 24/7: "an all-digital event that will capture extraordinary pictures of an ordinary American week." I want to see some of Shelley's masterpieces in there.

As long as we're talking telly, I must note that our TiVo—you know how they do that creepy mind-of-their-own thing, right? 'cause we certainly never would program it to seek out such intellectually desiccated fare—seems unable to get enough, by turns, of Trinny and Susannah, and Cousin Stevie. (Hmm, supposing Trinny and Susannah were to give wardrobe advice to Cousin Stevie?)

Flurrious Blawging

This batch comes to us from the Blawg Ring:

• Soon to be second year law student Bekah of Mixtape Marathon just finished exams and seems to have some interesting transcendental traits such as channeling the consciences of law professors and shifting Chinese animal signs at will.


• Meg of babybluebubbles is pursuing her Bachelor of Laws at the University of Hong Kong and has the photos (and surgical mask) to prove it.


• Justin's background is in politics, policy and economics, and he'll return to law school this fall after having taken a break for, y'know, life.


• Luke's a law student at Deakin University. (From the "learn something new every day" department: .tk is the domain for Tokelau.)


• Rich Zmijewski is cramming for the LSAT on June 9, but that didn't keep him from catching Matrix Reloaded last night.


• Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation is an Objectivist but not a Randian. (Just so we're clear.)


• Daniel Goldberg is a law clerk for a judge in Austin, Texas, and enjoys light reading and writing on the subjects of "health policy, medical ethics, philosophy of science, hermeneutics, Kafka, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein." (He's more proof too of the strange but strong correlation between fans of hermeneutics and fans of Buffy.)


• Bart at The Limits of its Logic analyzes legal decisions, commentary, and issues. (And since he arranged that list using a serial comma, I have followed suit.)


• The Ambulance Chaser recently finished 1L exams.


• Aaron at Spicy Sashimi also is a law student somewhere in the wide world.

And yet more to come...

Catch Me Up If You Can

I've just been finishing an article for next month's issue of the CEB Civil Litigation Reporter, all about the joy and wonderment that is California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6. Truly. In the meantime, I've been updating the blawgroll in the background and will try to sprinkle the new links at you throughout the day. The first batch is courtesy of Howard Bashman:

• James Carruth studies law at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at BYU.


• The oft-cited Professor David Bernstein teaches law at George Mason University School of Law.


• The American Constitution Society is revving up a group blog for its members nationwide.

Also, following up on my earlier post about AB 1165, a reader mentioned the separation of powers difficulties that arise when legislatures seek to enact laws that may usurp the constitutional authority of the courts. This issue is addressed in the L.A. County Bar Appellate Court Committee's April 17 letter to the bill's author (available here), and the California Office of the Attorney General wrote the legislators that:

It is our opinion that AB 1165 as enacted most likely would be found to be an impairment of the core power of the Supreme Court in violation of the separation of powers clause of the California Constitution (Cal. Const. art. 111, 3).

[via the CA Assembly Committee on Judiciary's analysis of AB 1165]