Michael Mansfield

Requesting business records in California can be challenging and involves key deadlines, especially when serving consumer/employee notices. This guide helps paralegals track the main steps and deadlines. 🎥 Watch the step-by-step video: ▶️ YouTube https://lnkd.in/gKPNzfCz #LegalGuid #ParalegalTips #LitigationSupport #CivilProcedure #LawPractice #Subpoena #BusinessRecordsSubpoena #CaliforniaSubpoena #SubpoenaGuide #SubpoenaProcess #SubpoenaTips #RecordsRequest #CaliforniaLitigation #ConsumerRecords #EmployeeRecords #LegalCompliance #LegalProfessionals #LegalResources #ParalegalLife

2

2 Comments

California Supreme Court Just Drew a Line on Fine‑Print in Arbitration Clauses. Did It Draw the Right One? In Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, the California Supreme Court refused to let “tiny, unreadable” arbitration clauses do double duty as both procedural and substantive unconscionability. The court’s message: bad formatting is about how the contract was imposed, not what it says. That sounds tidy in theory, but I’m not convinced it works in practice. When an arbitration agreement is visually impenetrable, adhesive, and presents take‑it‑or‑leave‑it conditions of employment, why isn’t that alone enough to call it unconscionable? Do we really need to find a second, separate defect in the terms before we’re willing to say, “this is too unfair to enforce?” By insisting on both procedural and substantive unconscionability, the doctrine treats each incident of unfairness as if it were somehow incomplete on its own. Yet a single, serious abuse—like hiding life‑altering dispute‑resolution terms in near‑illegible font—may be precisely the kind of conduct that should invalidate an agreement standing alone. Fuentes tries to split the difference: illegible clauses don’t automatically die, but they trigger “heightened scrutiny” of the terms and a willingness to read every ambiguity against the drafter. That’s a real risk for employers who rely on dense, unreadable forms—and a real opportunity for advocates to attack lopsided carve‑outs and remedial limits buried in that fine print. For in‑house counsel and management lawyers, the takeaway is simple. If your arbitration clause only survives because a court is willing to rescue it on a technical distinction between “procedure” and “substance,” you’re already in dangerous territory. Make it readable, balanced, and explain it. For plaintiff‑side and worker advocates, the path is just as clear: don’t stop at the font size. Use the illegibility as a spotlight and then ask the harder question—why did this need to be so hard to read, and what, exactly, was being hidden? I’m curious where others land: Is it time to rethink the idea that we must have both procedural and substantive unconscionability? Or is the two‑prong test a necessary brake on courts rewriting private agreements?

1

Regenerative shame is a thing. A Nevada judge recently gave two lawyers who had submitted filings with phony AI-generated citations an unusual disciplinary alternative: Specifically, according to the Reno Gazette Journal article, he ordered them, within 60 days, to: “Send a letter to the Nevada State Bar president and vice president, informing them of what they did in this case. Also, make themselves available as a resource or mentor to a committee that analyzes AI policies, volunteer to speak at continuing education classes on the topic, and maybe write an article for a legal publication about their mistakes and lessons learn. “Send a letter to the deans of their respective law schools about their actions. Also offer to be guest lecturers at an ethics course on professional conduct and the use of AI.” Further sweetening the offer, he added that if those deans and ethics professors choose to invite the lawyers to speak, “I would be proud to join you on a panel to share my perspective as a judge.” As to why he took this approach to sanctions, Hardy said: “I think it reflects the greatest possibility of system improvement and redemption.” “My main objective is not to shame, not to punish gratuitously, but to help our profession progress,” he said. H/T to Robert Ambrogi for posting about the case & Jennifer Wondracek for drawing it to my attention. https://lnkd.in/eYgiXf-D

16

2 Comments

Advanced Courtroom Presence: Litigation Authority & Ethical Composure, has been approved for credit by the Washington State MCLE Board. The program has been approved for: • 1.0 General CLE • 0.5 Ethics CLE The focus is on how attorneys maintain courtroom authority, persuasive clarity, and ethical discipline under adversarial pressure, particularly during moments of visible scrutiny such as objections, judicial interruption, and contested arguments. I’m looking forward to working with litigation teams interested in strengthening persuasive impact while protecting credibility and professional standards in high-stakes proceedings. I’m looking forward to working with litigation teams interested in strengthening persuasive impact while protecting credibility and professional standards in high-stakes proceedings. If you lead litigation training or attorney development, I’d be glad to connect. #CLE #Litigation #TrialLaw #LegalEducation Dana Weller

9

1 Comment

Arizona’s no-fault divorce law means infidelity alone doesn’t determine property, parenting, or support outcomes. However, misuse of marital funds, known as marital waste, can change the division of assets. In this video, I discuss how adultery is handled in Arizona divorce and how to prepare your case with clarity and compassion. #ArizonaLawyer #FamilyLaw #ArizonaDivorce #AdulteryLaw #ProvidentLaw #DivorceAdvice #LegalEducation #SpousalSupport

1

PacifiCorp Asks Oregon Court to Overturn $500M Wildfire #Verdict PacifiCorp urged the Oregon Court of Appeals to throw out a 2023 jury verdict holding it liable for massive Labor Day 2020 wildfires, arguing that class certification and “broad-brush” evidence deprived the utility of due process. Company attorney Ted Boutrous said no court has ever certified multiple wildfires as a single class action and that plaintiffs failed to link PacifiCorp’s conduct to each property’s damages. Plaintiffs countered that the negligence was uniform, the company’s failure to shut off power amid high winds, and accused PacifiCorp of destroying key physical evidence. #LaborDayFire #PacifiCorp

1