Legal assistance on-demand: The pros and cons of being a virtual paralegal

A paralegal is a person who assists a lawyer in the performance of various legal tasks and activities related to the representation of clients. Under the supervision of an attorney, paralegals do everything from intensive legal research to drafting complex pleadings, interpreting legalities with and for clients, and sometimes, supporting clients through the overwhelming legal process.

Image Source: schools-training.com

One increasing career option for paralegals nowadays is the opportunity to work from home as a digital legal assistant, conversely known as a virtual paralegal. Banking on the mobile nature of today’s technology and the knowledge and expertise gained from education, training, and experience, a virtual paralegal can assist an attorney from a remote location. This career option, considered to be a logical move in the evolving practice of law, is preferred primarily for cost-effective reasons – both for solo practitioners and small firms.

Image Source: thejansenlaw.com

Paralegals consider working remotely as advantageous as it allows them to set their work hours, transact with different attorneys, and diversify scope of their support by being able to work with several areas of law and accommodate a variety of job opportunities. A virtual paralegal, being more self-sufficient, maximizes the use and accessibility of technology in efficiently and effectively completing the job wherever he or she is located.

Image Source: halosecretarialservices.com

Contrariwise, working from home guarantees no benefits as in insurance, paid sick and vacation leaves, retirement, and many other employment benefits. In working independently, a digital legal assistant becomes responsible for filing and paying his or her taxes. Those who want to become virtual paralegals may also have concerns particularly with privacy, confidentiality, and security of transactions, despite having the same legal and ethical constraints being applicable. Furthermore, the saturation in the field increases competition – making it harder to acquire attorney-clients for business stability and expansion.

Becoming a virtual paralegal is both challenging and rewarding. But so long as the paralegal is self-motivated and disciplined, works from a secure location, and continually upgrades competencies, he or she is sure to remain marketable despite competition.

Sheila Cartwrightis a self-employed contract paralegal in Arizona. Proactive and highly-motivated, Ms. Cartwright is consistently ranked among the top paralegals in the state. Learn more about the paralegal practice through this Google+ page.

REPOST: Arizona gets an F on ‘family-friendly’ workplace policies

Since its passage in 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act of Arizona has afforded several employees with job-protected leaves for events and matters like giving birth. But the statute, among other similar federal laws across the U.S., has been found lacking in benefits that can genuinely help working parents, as this AZ Central article reported.

Angela and Matt Warren of Glendale are expecting their fifth child. With them are their children Jude Mitchell (from left), 5; Daphne Dugan, 12; Eve Mitchell, 8; and Shannon Dugan, 17. Warren family

Image Source: azcentral.com

WASHINGTON — Thirty-eight weeks pregnant and on bed-rest with her fifth child, Glendale resident Angela Warren has to rely on her other four children to help run the household.

Her husband, Matt, can’t break away from his full-time job right now — and their budget can’t take the hit of losing both his salary and hers.

Even though the federal Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees most workers 12 weeks of leave for events like the birth of a baby, that leave is unpaid. And that can put Arizona working families like the Warrens in a bind.

“The FMLA even in itself is not super comprehensive or adequate,” Warren said. “It’s not necessarily realistic for people to be able to take 12 weeks unpaid. I don’t know a lot of people that can do that.”

Although other states may grant more generous protections, Arizona is one of many that does not expand the benefits of FMLA — one reason it earned a grade of F on a recent report card on “family-friendly” workplace policies.

But Arizona was not alone.

In “Expecting Better,” a recent report from the National Partnership for Women and Families, 17 states got an F for their family-leave policies, their protections against pregnancy discrimination and some nursing mothers’ rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

California got the highest grade, an A-, for its “first-in-the-nation paid family-leave law.” Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey and the District of Columbia all got a B+ for their policies giving workers access to paid sick days, paid family leave and paid medical leave for pregnancy.

“But right now, Arizona doesn’t do any of those things, nor does it guarantee leave rights or the right to reasonable accommodations for pregnant women in the workplace,” said Vicki Shabo, vice president of the National Partnership for Women and Families.

Businesses can offer such provisions and should be allowed to make the decision to do so, said Garrick Taylor, spokesman for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The chamber would prefer letting businesses in the state deal with workplace policies internally rather than reacting to a government mandate.

“The chamber has supported policies that leave these sorts of workplace issues, such as family and medical leave, in the hands of the employer to work out with their employees,” said Taylor.

The FMLA applies to businesses that have at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius. To be eligible for leave under the act, a worker at such a business must have worked there at least one year and must have clocked at least 1,250 hours in the year before starting a leave.

The guidelines apply to 59 percent of the workforce nationally, excluding about 4 in 10 workers, according to the report.

Rick Murray, chief executive officer of the Arizona Small Business Association, said he thinks of FMLA guidelines as the floor for businesses with 50 employees or fewer to build upon.

“From our standpoint, it is really about letting the market dictate what those policies are going to be,” Murray said.

He said competition plays a role for small businesses in establishing workplace policies that are going to attract quality employees. There is much more attention given to employees in small businesses because of their close-knit work environments, he said.

“When companies have to compete for employees, typically what you’re going to find is that they are going to be offering more than what is the minimum in regards to benefits,” Murray said.

The companies that choose not to meet the “floor” for benefits, he said, are the “businesses that perhaps are not competing very well.”

“They just want to know what the minimum is, and they’ll provide that,” Murray said.

But even at the FMLA level of protection, Shabo said, families can be forced to choose between work and family when faced with the birth of a child or an unexpected family emergency.

“(Arizona’s) private-sector workers and its public-sector workers are often forgoing pay, living paycheck to paycheck,” Shabo said.

“If they are not covered by the FMLA, they risk losing their jobs when they have a baby or need to take care of a family member,” she said.

Warren said her husband has seven days of paid leave he plans to use for the week after the baby is born, which “will wipe out his ability to take any days off if he does get sick sometime in the next year.”

Warren said she hopes state policymakers will make family-friendly workplace policies a priority — even if they won’t help her family right now.

“You think that you’re going to get to this point where it’s going to get easier, and the policies don’t allow for it to get easier,” she said. “There is a lot of work to be done.”

Sheila Cartwright lends years of solid academic background and paralegal expertise to clients who need assistance especially in family law matters. Know the latest in American law by subscribing to this blog.

REPOST: 13 Years for Two Joints? Louisiana Gov. Jindal Needs to Correct Injustice With Clemency

As cases like that of Bernard Noble demonstrate, legal sanctions meted out for people found guilty of nonviolent drug crimes like illegal possession have remained disproportionately punitive. In this article, Anthony Papa argues for radical but much-needed changes in drug policies.

Image Source: huffingtonpost.com

As a former prisoner who served 12 years of a 15-to-life sentence for a nonviolent drug crime in New York, I know all too well the draconian nature of the war on drugs.

I was lucky enough to be granted executive clemency in 1997. Since my release I have continued to advocate for prisoners who are stuck in prison, sentenced to tremendous amounts of time for small amounts of drugs.

This year, one case in particular stands out and cries for justice — the case of Bernard Noble who was sentenced to 13.3 years of hard time for the possession of two marijuana cigarettes.

Earlier this year the Drug Policy Alliance tried to help by filing a friend of the court brief in the Louisiana Supreme Court, calling for judicial relief for Bernard Noble.

After Noble’s appeal was denied, many are calling on Louisiana’s Gov. Bobby Jindal to grant Noble executive clemency.

Bernard’s sentence is a prime example of the draconian nature of the marijuana laws in many states across the country. In stark contrast to Louisiana, many states have decriminalized possession of marijuana for personal use, with the offense being punishable by a fine and with no threat of jail time.

Also, four states and the District of Columbia have outright legalized, taxed and regulated the cultivation, sale, possession and use of marijuana by and for adults.

A range of important people are calling for justice for Bernard Noble.

One of them is retired Orleans Parish Criminal Court Judge Calvin Johnson who said, “[t]he mere fact our law is structured such that a defendant can be sentenced to 13.3 years in jail for possession of two marijuana cigarettes speaks volumes about our antiquated sentencing structure. It is imperative that we change the sentencing structure.”

Noble’s original sentencing judge considered the 13 and a third-year sentence egregious and imposed a sentence of five years of hard labor. But the Orleans Parish District Attorney wasn’t satisfied with this punishment and appealed the sentence.

Ultimately, the district attorney sought and obtained a prison term of close to triple the sentence imposed by the original sentencing judge.

Noble has never been convicted of anything more serious than possession of drugs for personal use. Because of two prior low-level, nonviolent drug offenses, Noble fell within Louisiana’s Habitual Offender Statute, which brings his sentence for his marijuana possession offense to thirteen and one-third years and has deprived him of the opportunity for earlier release on parole.

To be sentenced under unjust laws to a tremendous amount of time is unconscionable. I know because it happened to me. This holiday season, Bernard Nobel’s family will be praying that Governor Jindal will show some compassion and grant Bernard executive clemency so he can be reunited with his family. It is surely the right thing to do.

Shiela Cartwright has decades of expertise as a paralegal. Subscribe to this Tumblr page for legal updates and insights.

REPOST: Ethics Tip: Bonuses and Non Lawyer Employees

Did you know that non-lawyers in a law firm do not receive bonuses from winning cases or client referrals? The following article from the American Bar Association explains why this is so:

Image Source: americanbar.org

Bringing in business is essential for law firms and lawyers thusly associated are evaluated on their prowess in this area as well as their practice skills. But nonlawyer employees can also be valuable in this regard, and have access to networks of individuals that may or may not be available to the lawyers in a firm. The question arises if a lawyer’s compensation is based in part on how much business they bring to the firm, why not likewise motivate and reward a nonlawyer employee?

Bonus Based on Fees in Cases Worked on By Non-Lawyer

It is a long standing tenet of legal ethics that lawyers may not share legal fees with non lawyers. See, ABA Model Rule 5.4 Professional Independence of a Lawyer. The reason for this prohibition is set forth in Comment (1) to the Rule that states, “The provisions of this rule express traditional limitations on sharing fees. These limitations are to protect the lawyer’s professional independence of judgment….”

However, nonlawyers are allowed to be compensated in part through a general bonus plan based on how well the firm did in a given time period. See ABA Informal Opinion 1440 Compensation of Lay Office Administrator (1979) (Compensation proposed for office administrator relates to the net profits and business performance of the firm and not to the receipt of particular fees and so does not violate the rules.) Subpart (a)(3) of Rule 5.4 acknowledges this exception to the Rule stating that:

A lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit sharing arrangement…

Several state bar opinions address the circumstances under which non lawyers can participate in such plans. See, e.g. New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 887 (2011) (a law firm may pay a marketing employee a bonus based on the firm’s profits, or those of a particular department, or a percentage of the marketer’s salary. The bonus may not be based on referrals of specific legal matters, or on firm profits that come from cases that the marketer brought to the firm); District of Columbia Ethics Opinion 322 (2004) stated that a nonlawyer employee may not be paid a bonus based on fees the firm receives from a specific case or series of related cases, but may be paid a bonus contingent upon the firm’s overall profitability.

However, in what is arguably a departure from earlier precedent on this issue, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in In re Weigel, 342 Wis.2d 129, 817 N.W.2d 835 Wis. (2012) found that a bonus program that is based on a percentage of the revenues derived from a distinct area of the firm’s practice in which the non lawyer works does not violate the rule so long as it does not interfere with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment:

…We do not have specifics about the number of cases this paralegal works on, but the record indicates this is a high volume legal practice. Based on the evidence presented we find no indication that the paralegal would be interfering with the lawyer’s independent judgment. We emphasize that the law firm has a general duty, and the paralegal’s lawyer-supervisor has a specific duty, to ensure that the paralegal’s conduct is compatible with the ethical obligations of lawyers. However, we conclude that the rule, as drafted, does not preclude the bonus structure described in this case. In Re Weigel at 846.

The court, quoting from D.C. Bar Opinion 322 (2004) noted that “the line between the prohibited sharing of legal fees with a nonlawyer and a permissible compensation plan based on profit-sharing is not clearly demarcated.”

Bonuses based on Referrals to the Firm

Unless one of the exceptions to subpart (b) of Rule 7.2 Advertising applies, non lawyers may not be awarded a bonus based on the referral of specific clients to the firm. Rule 7.2(b) states:

…(b) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services except that a lawyer may

(1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule;

(2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service. A qualified lawyer referral service is a lawyer referral service that has been approved by an appropriate regulatory authority;

(3) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17; and

(4) refer clients to another lawyer or a nonlawyer professional pursuant to an agreement not otherwise prohibited under these Rules that provides for the other person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer, if

(i) the reciprocal referral agreement is not exclusive, and

(ii) the client is informed of the existence and nature of the agreement.

State bar ethics opinions on this issue include New York State Bar Association Opinions 902 (A lawyer who contracts with a marketing firm to introduce the lawyer to its network of doctors as prospective clients may not compensate the firm with a fee for each introduction and meeting with one of the doctors, nor with a fee if and when a doctor retains the attorney in a certain number of collection cases.) and 917 (2012) ( If marketing by non lawyer employee is advertising as opposed to solicitation, a law firm may pay a nonlawyer marketing employee a bonus based on the number of clients he obtains, but may not base the bonus on the fees the clients pay or on the referral of a specific client).

Are Gifts or other Items in Exchange for a Referral Permitted?

Gifts, perks or other items are not a way around the Rule and may be considered to be “something of value” under Rule 7.2(b) and thus are prohibited as well. See Pennsylvania Bar Association in Opinion 2005-81 (undated) (lawyer may not give a non lawyer employee a paid day off for referring a new client to the firm), Connecticut Informal Ethics Op. 92-24 (1992) (lawyer may not give indirect benefits, including gifts, to client who referred business to lawyer) and Maryland Ethics Op. 2000-35 (2001) (lawyers who participate as panelists in seminars offered by accounting and financial services company, in exchange for referrals, could be interpreted as giving “something of value” to accounting firm).

Sheila Cartwright is an experienced paralegal who has worked with top lawyers in Arizona. Know more about American laws on this blog.

REPOST: Law Professor Claims Any Internet Company ‘Research’On Users Without Review Board Approval Is Illegal

Where one draws the line on Internet companies’ dispensation of user data for business ends, for instance Facebook’s happiness experiment, is a matter of legal dispute that also drags in ethical problems for law firms in pursuing Internet data for research. The commentary below hotly contests and dissects a famous legal opinion regarding the matter:


Image Source: abovethelaw.com

For many years I’ve been a huge fan of law professor James Grimmelmann. His legal analysis on various issues is often quite valuable, and I’ve quoted him more than a few times. However, he’s now arguing that the now infamous Facebook happiness experiment and the similarly discussed OkCupid “hook you up with someone you should hate” experiments weren’t just unethical, but illegal. Grimmelmann, it should be noted, was one of the loudest voices in arguing (quite vehemently) that these experiments were horrible and dangerous, and that the academic aspect of Facebook’s research violated long-standing rules.

But his new argument takes it even further, arguing not just that they were unethical, but flat out illegal, based on his reading of the Common Rule and a particular Maryland law that effectively extends the Common Rule.

The Common Rule basically says that if you’re doing “research involving human subjects” with federal funds, you need “informed consent” and further approval from an institutional review board (IRB), which basically all research universities have in place, who have to approve all research. The idea is to avoid seriously harmful or dangerous experiments. The Maryland law takes the Common Rule and says it applies not just to federally funded research but “all research conducted in Maryland.”

To Grimmelmann, this is damning for both companies — and basically all companies doing any research involving people in Maryland. In fact, he almost gleefully posts a letter he got back from Facebook concerning this issue and alerted the company to the Maryland law. Why so gleeful? Because Facebook’s Associate General Counsel for Privacy, Edward Palmieri, repeatedly referred to what Facebook did as “research,” leading Grimmelmann to play the “gotcha” card, as if that proves that Facebook’s efforts were subject to that Maryland law (making it subject to the Common Rule). He further then overreacts to Palmieri, noting (accurately, in our opinion) that the Maryland law does not apply to Facebook’s research as Facebook is declaring that the company “is above the law that applies to everyone else.”

Except… all of that is suspect. Facebook is not claiming it is above the law that applies to everyone else. It claims that the law does not apply to it… or basically any company doing research to improve its services. Grimmelmann insists that his reading of Maryland’s House Bill 917 is the only possible reading, but he may be hard pressed to find many who actually agree with that interpretation. The Common Rule’s definition of “research” is fairly broad, but I don’t think it’s nearly as broad as Grimmelmann wants it to be. Here it is:

Research means a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.

I think it’s that last bit that may be problematic for Grimmelmann. It focuses on academicresearch “designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” That wording, while unfortunately vague, really appears to be focused on those who are doing research for the purpose of more publicly available knowledge. And while perhaps the Facebook effort touches on that, since it eventually became published research, it still seems like a stretch. Facebook wasn’t doing its research for the purpose of contributing to generalizable knowledge — but to improve the Facebook experience. Based on that, the company also shared some of that data publicly. Similarly, OkCupid’s research was to improve its own services.

But under Grimmelmann’s interpretation of the law, you’d have some seriously crazy results. Basic a/b testing of different website designs could be designated as illegal research without IRB approval or informed consent. I was just reading about a service that lets you put as many headlines on a blog post as you want and it automatically rotates them, trying to optimize which one gets the best results. Would that require informed consent and an IRB? Just the fact that companies call it “research” doesn’t make it research under the Common Rule definition. How about a film studio taking a survey after showing a movie. The movie manipulates the emotions of the “human subjects” and then does research on their reactions. Does that require “informed consent” and an IRB?

How about a basic taste test — Coke or Pepsi? Which do you prefer? It’s research. It’s developing knowledge via “human subjects.” But does anyone honestly think the law for running a taste test means that any company setting up such a taste test first needs to get an IRB to approve it? The results of Grimmelmann’s interpretation of the law here are nonsensical. Grimmelmann is clearly upset about the original research, and certainly there were lots of people who felt it was creepy and potentially inappropriate. But Grimmelmann’s focus on actively punishing these companies is reaching obsession levels.

For one thing, many academic journals require Common Rule compliance for everything they publish, regardless of funding source. So my colleague Leslie Meltzer Henry and I wrote a letter to the journal that published the Facebook emotional manipulation study, pointing out the obvious noncompliance. For another, nothing in Facebook’s user agreement warned users they were signing up to be test subjects. So we wrote a second letter to the Federal Trade Commission, which tends to get upset when companies’ privacy policies misrepresent things. And for yet another, researchers from universities that do take federal funding can’t just escape their own Common Rule obligations by “IRB laundering” everything through a private company. So we wrote a third letter to the federal research ethics office about the Cornell IRB’s questionable review of two Cornell researchers’ collaborations with Facebook.

And that’s before the letters to Facebook and OkCupid — and, of course, to Maryland’s attorney general, Doug Gansler. Of course, if Gansler actually tried to enforce such an interpretation of the law (which is not out of the question, given how quick many attorney generals are to jump on grandstanding issues that will get headlines), it would represent a very dangerous result — one in which very basic forms of experiments and modifications in all sorts of industries (beyond just the internet) would suddenly create a risk of law-breaking. That’s a result incompatible with basic common sense. Grimmelmann’s response to that seems to be “but the law is the law,” but that’s based entirely on his stretched interpretation of that law, one that many others would likely challenge.

Sheila Cartwright is an experienced paralegal recommended for her incisive research and analysis skills. Visit this LinkedIn profile to see her experience in legal research.

REPOST: Things can get ugly when family and money mix, especially over child support

Whether as a post-divorce settlement or in out-of-wedlock arrangements, court-ordered child support for parents in custody of a couple’s children is common. This Washington Post article discusses the struggles of custodial parents in collecting child support payments from former spouses or partners.

I’ve periodically invited readers to write me about family feuds that involve their personal finances.

You certainly don’t want to fight with anyone over money, especially not with your family. Yet when you mix money and family, the fights can cause deep divides and years of resentment. Such is the case of one mother who wrote to me about her relationship with her adult son over child support his father was not paying.

Image Source: meddinlaw.com

The background:

When those payments became $40,000 in arrears, the reader said she decided to take the father to court.

“The judge said if he did not pay up, then she would arrest him,” wrote the woman, who asked not to be identified. “She asked me if I wanted him to go to jail and I said ‘no.’ I needed him to work.”

The issue of non-payment continued over the years. “I don’t know how many times he was in contempt of court,” she wrote.

Failure to pay child support is a big problem nationwide. A report released last year by the Census Bureau showed that in 2011, more than $14 billion in child-support payments to custodial parents were not received. Astoundingly, only 43 percent of the parents got all the money they were due.

“In 2011, the 6.3 million custodial parents who were due child support under the terms of legal awards or informal agreements were due an annual mean average of $6,050, or approximately $500 per month,” the Census report said.

The overwhelming majority of custodial parents were women, with many living in poverty.

Image Source: info.legalzoom.com

In 2012, 26.1 percent of all custodial parents had at some point contacted a child support enforcement office or other government office for child support-related assistance, down from 42.2 percent in 1994, according to the Census Bureau.

The conflict:

“What makes me so sad is that my son is very antagonistic toward me for involving the court so much,” she wrote. “I had to do it quite often because the amount owed would build up and it was very difficult to go without the money for very long.

The mother added: “I did not believe at the time it was appropriate to discuss these kinds of things in detail with the children, only generalities. . . . But I acknowledge the pain my son/children felt growing up in two households with parents who could not get along. I cannot correct anything that happened so many years ago. I love my son very much and want to have a healthy relationship with him. How can I reconcile my actions of the past with what he is carrying in the present?”

I’ve worked with a number of parents, all women, who were reluctant to seek court intervention for child support for fear of what happened to the mother who wrote me. Or they were concerned that whatever civil relations they did have with their ex would deteriorate if courts became involved. Sometimes they were right. Things got ugly when they pursued formal child support agreements.

One thing everyone involved in child support cases should keep in mind — parents and especially the courts — the more contact a child has with the noncustodial parent, the more likely full child support payments are made, the Census report found.

The bottom line:

If you’re in a fight with an ex over child support, you shouldn’t involve the children. And yet we know, even in situations where the parents try to keep their fiscal issues and conflicts off to the side, the kids will sense the tension. They are often damaged by the battles. And sometimes they pick sides.

Image Source: floridalicensurelaw.com

But this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t fight for the money you need to support your children, whether you are the father or mother. You shouldn’t feel guilty for doing what you needed to do to provide for your child’s basic needs.

Despite your best efforts, perhaps your frustration wasn’t kept in check. If you didn’t get family counseling then, get it now. You and your son should talk things out with a professional. He’s hurt and needs help.

Children may not understand the need for court intervention to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. However, you can expect them to have a better understanding of why you needed to pursue child support.

If you are having a financial conflict with a family member, tell me your story. I may be able to help. Send your story to colorofmoney@washpost.com. Put “Family Feud” in the subject line, and be sure to include your full name, city and state.

A top paralegal who has been providing exceptional legal management services to diverse clientele in Arizona for almost 20 years, Sheila Cartwright is an expert in family law, divorce, parental rights, child support, adoption, and juvenile court cases. For more information on her professional background and areas of expertise, visit this Facebook page.

REPOST: Court ruling offers hope for juvenile lifers

A court ruling provided a light of hope for juveniles who were sentenced a lifetime in prison.  Read more about this decision in this article from USA Today.

Image Source: www.usatoday.com

DETROIT — She sometimes dreams of idly sitting on the porch of a house, any house.

Or lying on green grass, watching the clouds float by.

“A simple life,” she said.

But life has never been simple for Jennifer Pruitt. Her 37 years have been punctuated by turmoil — a tough upbringing, a life sentence for murder, repeated rapes in prison and glimmers of hope that quickly got dashed.

She is one of more than 350 Michigan prisoners sentenced as juveniles to life in prison.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sentencing juveniles to a lifetime behind bars is cruel and unusual punishment, but the Michigan Court of Appeals said the decision was not retroactive and applies only to new cases.

On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled the high court’s decision is indeed retroactive, renewing hope for Pruitt and her fellow juvenile lifers. Judge John Corbett O’Meara said those imprisoned as children for life are eligible for parole, and to not allow it would create “an intolerable miscarriage of justice.”

The ruling gives ammunition to hundreds of defense attorneys statewide who are challenging the appeals court decision and are preparing to take their cases to circuit courts.

Pruitt’s attorney and longtime advocate — Robyn Frankel — plans to petition the Oakland County Circuit Court, where Pruitt was convicted, to resentence her. A judge there will look at her crime, her record in prison, and decide whether to impose a new sentence — possibly to time served.

Trying to survive

As she waits in the Huron Valley Women’s Correctional Facility in Pittsfield Township, Pruitt does the math in her head, every day. Twenty-one years behind bars.

She has few connections with family and has been forgotten by almost everyone since her arrest at age 16. Everyone except Frankel, who has been fighting for her freedom for almost two decades.

Frankel first encountered Pruitt in 1994 while working for the State Appellate Defender Office, which reviews and sometimes appeals convictions for indigent residents. As she read the file, Frankel — the daughter of a surgeon who was raised in an upper-middle-class family — was touched by the story of an impoverished and troubled teen whose life was so different from her own.

“Her life just felt like a tragic and sad example of a system that didn’t work,” Frankel said. “She was abused as a child, and she spent a lot of time on the streets trying to fend for herself. She was just a kid who had been trying her best to survive.”

Pruitt also has some other unlikely allies in her bid for freedom: a prison warden, a civil appellate attorney, the judge who sentenced her and some family members of the victim.

Court records, police reports, sworn testimony and interviews show the odds were stacked against Pruitt from the beginning.

Born into a dysfunctional family in Pontiac, her father drank and abused her, according to court records.

Pruitt, the middle child of three, started running away when she was 10. By the summer of 1992, she was mostly living on the streets of Pontiac — a tall, skinny and awkward kid who drank beer when she could find it and stayed with neighbors or slept outside.

Donnell Miracle, 24, was renting a room in a nearby house where wayward kids hung out. Herself a drug addict, Miracle gave them marijuana and alcohol. And she offered Pruitt shelter.

On Aug. 29, 1992, Miracle was desperate for money. Pruitt told her about Elmer Heichel, 75, a man she had known since she was 6. Heichel kept money in his house, which was nearby, Pruitt told Miracle.

The pair knocked on Heichel’s door after midnight, and he let them in. Pruitt went to his bedroom to look for his wallet and then went to the bathroom. When she came out, Miracle was stabbing Heichel with a kitchen knife.

“I walked back in the bathroom and locked the door,” she later told police.

The pair left with Heichel’s watch and wallet but then returned with a 13-year-old girl who also was staying at the house because Miracle insisted they try to clean up fingerprints.

Later, when Miracle fell asleep, Pruitt ran to a nearby neighbor for help and called police.

She was hysterical and said she had witnessed a murder, the arriving officer reported. Miracle was quickly arrested.

Days later, on Sept. 9, 1992, while under the care of a psychiatrist, Pruitt was arrested and charged as an adult with first-degree felony murder.

Under Michigan law, a person who commits a felony — such as robbery — that ends in death is guilty of murder, even if that person did not carry out the killing.

1993 trial

Pruitt and Miracle went on trial together on July 12, 1993, although they had separate juries.

Prosecutors stressed the brutality of the crime. They pointed out that although Pruitt didn’t wield the knife — Miracle had confessed to that — she led Miracle to Heichel’s door.

Both were convicted of first-degree murder at the conclusion of the eight-day trial. Miracle, then 25, automatically faced life in prison without parole.

Judge Fred Mester had to decide whether to sentence Pruitt as a juvenile — meaning she would be free at 21 — or as an adult to a life sentence without parole.

He sentenced her as an adult.

“There must be reasonable concern for those consequences of our acts,” Mester said in court at the time.

Assaults by guards

Pruitt arrived at the Scott Correctional Facility in November 1993.

Within days, shortly before her 18th birthday, a guard pulled her from her cell and forced her to perform oral sex on him, according to court records.

Another guard began taking her from her cell at night and raping her in a utility closet. Other women were being routinely assaulted all around her, according to court records.

Pruitt said she was depressed and suicidal for years.

“I thought I deserved it,” she said. “I didn’t think I was worth anything, and that this was how it was going to be. I just felt empty.”

In 1996, Ann Arbor civil rights attorney Deborah Labelle and a team of attorneys filed a class action against the Michigan Department of Corrections on behalf of 500 female inmates who said they were being systematically sexually assaulted by prison guards.

Pruitt testified when 10 of the cases, including hers, went to trial. Jurors awarded the women $15.5 million.

In total, juries awarded almost $50 million to 18 women, and the MDOC eventually settled the other cases for $100 million.

“Of all the testimony, those jurors were most moved by Jennifer,” Labelle said. “She showed remarkable strength and courage.”

Pruitt said her decision to testify — and the fact that jurors believed her — was a turning point in her life.

“For the first time, I felt like somebody listened to me, that I was heard,” she said.

In the ensuing years, she became a model prisoner, getting her GED, studying bookkeeping and business management, working as a mentor in prison programs for troubled inmates, sitting with inmates on suicide watch and giving inspirational speeches.

Second chance

Her supporters say it’s time to give Pruitt another chance.

The most vocal is Frankel, who now represents Pruitt for free as a private attorney.

“She was a kid, tossed out in the streets, and she hooked up with somebody she thought would keep her safe. That was her mistake,” Frankel said. “Jennifer Pruitt does not belong in prison.”

The judge who sentenced her agrees.

“We are a redemptive society,” said Mester, who is retired. “Considering her progress, the way she has conducted herself, she deserves to be heard, to give her a chance to participate in our society.”

Scott Correctional Warden Heidi Washington heard Pruitt give a speech in 2009 about her life’s struggles. She was so moved she sought a commutation on Pruitt’s behalf, but the commutation board turned the request down.

Even the some members of the victim’s family support setting her free. Although one family member has filed a lawsuit seeking monetary restitution from Pruitt, Heichel’s grandson supports her.

Carl Heichel, 52, wrote to Frankel in October, saying family members had discussed the case often and believe she deserves a second chance.

“Jennifer’s age, abuse and lack of love and guidance played a major role in this horrific murder,” wrote Heichel, who himself is serving a life sentence for second-degree murder. “We have and do believe if Jennifer has made strides while in prison.….that reflect a changed life, that she should be given a new start and that she would take full advantage of a life of love and compassion.”

Pruitt said she hopes to someday to start a nonprofit for troubled kids.

“I know what it’s like,” she said. “And I can help. I can help in here or out there, but I can help.”

Known for her outstanding performance in delivering legal assistance, Sheila Cartwright consistently ranks as one of the top paralegals in Arizona.  Her expertise are mostly used in family law and juvenile court cases.  Follow this Twitter page for more updates about her practice.

REPOST: N.Y., N.C. consider changes to juvenile justice laws

A national movement is sweeping New York and North Carolina that aims to initiate changes in juvenile justice laws. The two states are considered the last in the country to provide adult punishment to offenders age 16 and 17. Jim St. German wants to end this destructive trend as he tells his story to USA Today.

Image Source: www.usatoday.com

BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Jim St. Germain does not remember the day he decided to sell drugs.

At the time, it was an unremarkable turn for the 11-year-old whose Brooklyn neighborhood was filled with young men dealing temporary highs.

“It was like a family business,” St. Germain, 24, said. “It wasn’t like I woke up and said I’m going to sell. It was a natural thing to me. You just think I can’t wait to get to the next level.”

But, St. Germain’s criminal ascension was cut short. In 2004, he was arrested at 14 and charged with a felony drug charge as a juvenile and sent to a group home that he says saved his life. Now, St. Germain and others are lobbying that 16- and 17-year-olds who make similar mistakes will have the same opportunities — in juvenile court.

Their efforts are part of a national movement to make New York and North Carolina treat 16- and 17-year-olds as juveniles rather than adults in the criminal justice system. The two states are the last in the country that automatically treat those in their late teens, regardless of their crimes, as adults.

In a years-long trend, states have been changing their laws to keep young offenders away from adult prisons. Teens treated as adults live in violent settings without rehabilitation where more experienced criminals can take advantage of them, advocates say. Some, however, are cautious about the changes because they say doing so will be expensive and may strain the juvenile justice system.

A deep frown envelops St. Germain’s face as he thinks about the dozens of friends who have recounted their experiences in adult jails and prisons. They talk about grown men raping and intimidating isolated and suicidal young boys, he said.

The young man is convinced he is the incredibly lucky one among a band of friends who made bad decisions together. Had he been 16, St. Germain would likely have been sent to an adult prison for several years, he said.

“I’m really good at adapting so if I had been sent to an adult prison I would have become a better criminal,” St. Germain said. “I have a lot of friends who are still locked up.”

Across the state of New York, there are 53,898 people in adult prisons — 130 of them are minors. Of the 37,148 people in North Carolina’s adult prisons, 64 are minors. Advocates add that thousands of young people are arrested, charged and convicted as adults. Some may avoid prison time but still carry the stigma and consequences of being treated as adults.

In New York and North Carolina, coalitions have been working for several years to get the age of adult criminal responsibility raised. This year, the New York groups got welcome news from New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in his State of the State Address in January.

“Our juvenile justice laws are outdated,” Cuomo said. ” Under New York state law, 16- and 17-year-olds can be tried and charged as adults. Only one other state in the nation does that; it’s the state of North Carolina. It’s not right, it’s not fair — we must raise the age. Let’s form a commission on youth public safety and justice and let’s get it done this year.”

Cuomo has yet to announce the members of the commission but has budgeted $250,000 for the new group to come up with a way to implement the change. Likely, law enforcement officials, service providers and legislators will be part of those tasked with hammering out the details including how much such a change would cost and how it would affect the infrastructure of the juvenile justice system.

When older teens are sent to the adult system, they receive mainly punishment and are denied access to many alternative programs that work on changing behavior early, said New York City Department of Probation Commissioner Vincent Schiraldi.

“Kids drop off a cliff when they go into the adult system,” Schiraldi said. “Research consistently shows when you keep similarly situated young people together, they do better, they get arrested less frequently and for less serious crimes,” he said.

Part of the debate around raising the age deals with whether young murderers and other violent offenders should be treated as adults. Melanie Hartzog, executive director of Children’s Defense Fund-N.Y., said based on studies, all minors, despite their crimes, should be treated as juveniles.

“We are not saying young people should not be incarcerated,” Hartzog said, explaining that instead her group believes young people should be housed with people their age and with similar offenses.

Whatever the commission decides, it’s clear the change will require putting new cash into the juvenile justice system, said Abby Anderson, executive director of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance.

Between 2010 and 2012, Connecticut began sending 16- and 17-year-olds to its juvenile system. Still, Anderson points out that it took years to make that happen.

“It’s about money,” she said, explaining that in tough fiscal years some won’t want to invest in young people who get in trouble.

But, Anderson and others say the key to getting the change passed is explaining the crippling and long-term effects on teens and society.

Reginald Dwayne Betts, who spent eight years in a Virginia adult prison after carjacking someone at 16, knows about those effects.

The 33-year-old is a first-year law student at Yale University but has been denied countless jobs and has been turned away from apartments because of his record. He also had a full undergraduate scholarship to Howard University but couldn’t receive it because he had a felony conviction.

Before that, he had come of age amid chaos. In prison, he became paranoid and callous after seeing people get stabbed and beat to death.

“I was 5-foot-6 and 125 pounds, and I was in prison with men,” Betts said. “My perception of the world was sort of governed by violence and desperation for a long time.”

Betts’ experiences and others like it are why Brandy Bynum has been lobbying for North Carolina to raise the age of adult criminal responsibility for seven years.

“This is a policy whose time has come,” said Bynum, director of policy and outreach for N.C. Child: The Voice for North Carolina’s Children, a child advocacy group. “We are creating tax burdens not taxpayers.”

Some, however, are cautious about the changes.

Officials with the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association and the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys have expressed concern about the cost and consequences of raising the age in their state. Both organizations and the office of North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory did not return multiple requests by USA TODAY for comments about the issue.

Dean Skelos, a Republican and majority co-leader of the New York state Senate, hasn’t decided whether to support raising the age in New York.

“In the coming weeks, we will consult with and seek feedback from the state’s district attorneys on this proposal,” said Scott Reif, a Skelos spokesman.

The biggest pushback will likely be from Upstate New York politicians who will be leery of doing anything that seems soft on crime, said Jeffrey Fagan, a Columbia University law professor. He also doubts whether Cuomo, who will face re-election in November, will stick by the plan if too many view it as being easy on young criminals.

“The bread and butter for politicians is to be tough on crime,” Fagan said. “I think fears of crime will trump any rational argument based on science.”

Studies show that at 16 and 17, people’s minds are still developing and behaviors are much more malleable, said Mishi Faruqee, a juvenile justice policy strategist for the American Civil Liberties Union. Recognizing this, several states over the past few years have adjusted their laws to deal with the differences between teens and adults.

Faruqee added that such changes can drastically impact young people of color who are overrepresented in the adult system. In both New York and North Carolina in 2011, the ratio of young people of color to white youths in adult prisons was 4 to 1, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

“This is in a way a racial justice issue,” Faruqee said. “Almost all the young people on Rikers Island are people of color.”

One of them could have been St. Germain, who was born in Haiti and moved to New York when he was 9. His mother abandoned the family when he was 3. His father, who moved the family to the United States, was addicted to drugs and rarely around.

St. Germain and his siblings were being raised by their grandmother in Brooklyn when he was arrested. After his conviction, he spent three years living in a group home with a couple and five other boys. There, he fought then flourished.

Now, St. Germain, a college graduate, spends much of his time speaking and lobbying for juvenile justice rights. He hopes to possibly go to law school and one day run for public office.

“It’s a blessing that I got caught at an early stage,” he said. “I wouldn’t have stopped unless my whole neighborhood changed overnight.”

Sheila Cartwright is an Arizona-based paralegal recognized for her work in juvenile court cases and family law matters. See her impressive career profile here.

REPOST: Local filmmaker sheds light on family law

First-time writer and director Joseph Sorge worked on a documentary called “Divorce Corp,” which featured US divorce and the country’s Family Law industry.  Learn more about this topic in this article from Jackson Hole News and Guide.

Nearly 44 percent of all marriages in the United States end in divorce, according to the Centers for Disease Control. And for many couples whose marriage vows turn sour, the lengthy battle to say “I don’t” sends them to bankruptcy court.

First-time writer and director Joseph Sorge, a part-time Jackson Hole resident, saw firsthand the frustrating, painful and expensive process so many were facing. With a group of researchers, Sorge began studying the $50 billion U.S. family law industry, eventually creating his first documentary, “Divorce Corp.”

Sorge will host a screening of his documentary at 6 p.m. Sunday at the Center for the Arts. A Q&A with the filmmakers will follow.

“I had been through a situation myself,” Sorge said of his inspiration for the film. “It turned out fine, but while I went through it I saw what a nightmare it was for so many people. Many people couldn’t get lawyers, the laws were so complicated, and there [are] so many forms. It really is a nightmare for people.”

Narrated by Dr. Drew Pinsky, of HLN network’s “Dr. Drew On Call,” the documentary explores the inner workings of an industry that includes attorneys, mediators, judges and litigants. At the same time the film shares stories of people who whose cases ended in bankruptcies or loss of child custody.

“Family law, which barely existed for most of our country’s history, has morphed into a gigantic industry over the past several decades,” according to the film’s website. “These facts piqued our interest, but when we began making our documentary film in 2011 we had no idea we were about to uncover the last vestige of lawlessness in America.”

Sorge hopes the film sheds light on the need for reform, while giving people who may go through this process insight into how to avoid the downward spiral.

One tip, he said: “Use a mediator.”

The film compares the U.S. family law system to that of Scandinavia, where Sorge and his team traveled to explore the much less legally driven system — one he hopes will influence the future of our courts.

“We went to Scandinavia to compare the way they process divorces versus the U.S.,” he said. “It is so different and so much more humane: no courts, no lawyers. Typically they just use an accountant to divide up the assets.”

Sorge happened upon filmmaking and the entertainment industry after deciding to switch gears from his biotech company. He has worked in reality television and splits his time between Jackson Hole and Los Angeles.

His documentary has received mixed reviews, he said, explaining that viewers praised how it helped raise awareness about the topic, but critics wondered if he and his team proved their case thoroughly enough.

The LA Times wrote in its review, “The director could have better argued aspects of his brief, but his healthy outrage illuminates the ways an offshoot of the legal system has become a profit-driven industry.”

But Sorge’s purpose remains shedding light and touting the need for reform, a point he makes quite clearly. He has even authored a book with the same title that is due to come out in two weeks.

“Anyone who is considering divorce or marriage should see the film,” Sorge said.

Tickets for the screening cost $14 and are available at the center box office at 265 S. Cache, at 733-4900 or online at JHCenterForTheArts.org.

Sheila Cartwright is one of Arizona’s top paralegals with years of experience working with diverse industries.  She is recognized for her extensive experience on juvenile court cases and family law matters backed by her solid academic foundation and broad-based knowledge of law.  For more details, visit this Facebook page.

REPOST: Changing Perspective: 6 Ways to Find New Solutions, Energy and Zeal for your Personal and Professional Life

The article below offers surprising ways to increase productivity, find inspiration, and reduce burnout in the fast-paced legal industry.

Image
Image Source: digitalparalegalservices.com

I am writing this article from my hotel room overlooking the city of Denver and the beautiful snow-capped mountains of Colorado.  This business trip with my husband has reminded me how important it is for legal professionals to frequently step out of our normal every day perspective.

  • Get out of town!  This was a business trip, and our first flight was canceled due to the blizzard and 14 inches of snow which visited Oklahoma City.  Unfortunately, it was not canceled until we had made our way from the country into the city on the snow and ice.  We spent the night locally at our daughter Stacey’s home because she lives closer to the airport.  It was a wonderful evening with both of our daughters.  We spend lots of time with them, but staying in their home gave us a different kind of opportunity to truly appreciate the women they have become.  The next morning we caught a 6:00 a.m. flight for Denver.
  • Make specific plans and just do it! I think we have great expectations for dream vacations.  Sometimes we are guilty of just waiting for those trips — dream vacations or any vacation — to magically happen.  Making memories and experiencing times of renewal rarely happen without planning and stepping out to take action.
  • Make your personal Bucket List! Life can be much shorter than we plan.  Don’t rob yourself of life’s joys by simply saying, “Someday, I’ll…!”  Have you made that personal Bucket List?  No one knows exactly how many days are left in this life.  Imagine the quality of life you might enjoy if you begin doing some of those things on the List now.  The new perspective, energy and zeal you gain could totally change the direction of your personal and professional life.
  • Capitalize on the ebb and flow changes in normal daily activities!  The first day our Denver temperature was in the teens.  The clerk at the hotel registration counter excitedly told us we would have a view of the mountains from our room.  For nearly 24 hours, the clouds and snow blanketed the city so my field of vision was limited to immediate surroundings only.  Today is a totally different story.  It’s a beautiful, clear day and the view is breath-taking.
  • Frequently change your altitude!  We all experience frequent altitude changes in our emotions as we daily embrace the challenges of the legal profession.  I’ve learned a valuable lesson this weekend.  Physically changing my altitude gives me an opportunity to get a new perspective, new focus and new motivation.  I’ve traveled in a car going up, down and around slick snow-packed local roads allowing me to see that other people were experiencing greater challenges than my own.  I do not frequently travel by air, but every time I do, I feel the weight of everyday challenges lift from my shoulders as that aircraft climbs upward.  Somehow, my true priorities and life balance come back into focus through this experience.  When the aircraft descends back to earth, and the wheels touch that runway, I’m ready to embrace life again with new excitement.  By the time I experience this process again on the return flight home, all those internal thought patterns and emotions which sometimes prevent me from moving forward have been replaced with new energy and zeal.
  • Look for patterns! I experienced this same dynamic on a secondary level during this trip.  Our hotel room was on the 22nd floor.  Each time I rode the elevator down to street level and then up again to the beautiful view of the mountains, I recognized new things in my surroundings.  The first time I looked out that 22nd floor window, I was totally oblivious to the beautiful church and steeple in the distance snuggled at the foot of the mountains.   I think I was more shaken though that I did not even see the tall slender clock tower which was located in the forefront of my view.  It was even eye-level, but I had totally missed it!

It’s been a wonderful trip, but I am looking forward to returning home to apply these same principles to my daily work as a virtual paralegal and business owner.  I’m going to look at the tasks at hand from different perspectives.

Sheila Cartwright is a paralegal in Arizona who previously served at Boates & Crump and Gillespie and Shields & Durrant (formerly Gillespie, Shields & Associates, PA). Visit this Facebook page for more paralegal news, articles, and career tips.