September 1, 2001 Regular News Computer Law Committee joins Business Law Section Computer Law Committee joins Business Law Section The Computer Law Committee has relinquished its position as one of the Bar’s substantive law standing committees, but it hasn’t disappeared. The committee has become part of the Business Law Section and is now accepting members. “The Business Law Section had been courting us for a couple of years to come over and join them,” said Stephen Krulin, chair of the committee. And thanks to the hard work of people like Sam Lewis, the immediate past chair, and Jose Rojas, another former chair, the committee did just that. Prior to becoming an official committee of the Business Law Section, the committee was governed by Bar guidelines which limited the membership to 50 people and imposed a six-year term limit for members. Because the committee was created in the early 1980s, many of its more experienced members were forced to step aside, according to Krulin. The committee also was financially limited, which allowed it to conduct only one CLE offering per year. Krulin said this made it hard for members to present information about current trends in the ever-changing field of computer law. The committee has always been comprised of people who know a great deal about computers and computer law, and who are, for the most part, at the cutting edge of computer-related arbitration, litigation, and mediation, Krulin said. “We approached our CLE efforts as an opportunity to open this experience to the Bar in general. Now, with the section, we’ll be open to providing additional programs,” Krulin said. With the reorganization, the committee will have access to the section’s CLE funds. The committee may also accept as many members as they’d like, including those seasoned members who previously left the committee. “We’re very happy to have them join our section,” said Business Law Section Chair David Felman. “We’re going to invest some money to help them do whatever they want.” Krulin likened the committee’s previous situation to a large plant in a small pot. “The more that we bloomed, the tighter it got. We wanted to expand, and the only way left to us was to become a section, which became impossible,” he said. The Computer Law Committee had sought section status for several years, but a lack of sufficient funding hampered its progress. Many members of the Business Law Section represent technology companies, and some were among the early Computer Law Committee members, which makes for a good pairing, according to Felman. The committee leaders weren’t nearly as confident about the match early on in the process, though. “We’ve got people who teach computer law, who work for businesses, who work for Internet companies, who work in the criminal sector. There’s a wide variety of people who aren’t strictly business lawyers,” Krulin said. “We polled the old-time members, the former chairs, former vice chairs, and posed the question.” The majority of committee members agreed it was a good idea, and when it came down to the final vote, the committee was unanimous. The Computer Law Committee’s first meeting as part of the section commenced at the section’s retreat in Naples in late August. Plans to offer the committee’s experience and knowledge to benefit the legislature’s consideration of upcoming technology and privacy issues were presented.
Notice: Proposed Rule of Judicial Administration Notice: Proposed Rule of Judicial Administration August 1, 2002 Notices The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Committee proposes an amendment to the Rules to add a rule governing the appointment of interpreters in certain cases. After reviewing the comments received in response to this publication, the Committee may submit its proposal to the Florida Supreme Court. Please send all comments to the Honorable Peter D. Webster, Chair, First District Court of Appeal, 301 S. Martin Luther King., Jr. Blvd., Tallahassee, FL 32399-1850. You may fax your comments to Judge Webster at (850) 488-7989. Your comments must be received by August 15, 2002, to ensure that they are considered by the Committee. Rule 2.073. APPOINTMENT OF INTERPRETERS FOR NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING PERSONS (a) Criminal or Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings. In any criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding in which a non-English-speaking person is the accused, an interpreter for the non-English-speaking person shall be appointed. In any criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding in which a non-English-speaking person is a victim, an interpreter shall be appointed unless the court finds that the victim does not require the services of a court-appointed interpreter. (b) Other Proceedings. In all other proceedings in which a non-English-speaking person is a litigant, an interpreter for the non-English-speaking litigant shall be appointed if the court determines that the litigant’s inability to comprehend English deprives the litigant of an understanding of the court proceedings, that a fundamental interest is at stake (such as in a civil commitment, termination of parental rights, paternity, or dependency proceeding), and that no alternative to the appointment of an interpreter exists. (c) Witnesses. In any proceeding in which a non-English-speaking person is a witness, the appointment of an interpreter shall be governed by the applicable provisions of the Florida Evidence Code. (d) Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In making determinations regarding the appointment of an interpreter, the court should ensure compliance with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (e) Qualifications of Interpreter. (1) Appointment of Interpreters when Certified or Duly Qualified Interpreters Are Available. Whenever possible, a certified or duly qualified interpreter, as defined in the Rules for Certification and Regulation of Court Interpreters, shall be appointed. (2) Appointment of Interpreters when Certified or Duly Qualified Interpreters Are Unavailable. If, after diligent search, a certified or duly qualified interpreter is not available, an interpreter who is neither certified nor duly qualified may be appointed if the judge or hearing officer presiding over the proceeding finds that: (A) good cause exists for the appointment of an interpreter who is neither certified nor duly qualified, such as the prevention of burdensome delay, the request or consent of the non-English-speaking person, or other unusual circumstance; and (B) the proposed interpreter is competent to interpret in the proceedings. (3) On the Record Objections or Waivers in Criminal and Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings. In any criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding in which the interpreter is neither certified nor duly qualified, the court shall advise the accused, on the record, that the proposed interpreter is not certified or duly qualified pursuant to the Rules for Certification and Regulation of Court Interpreters. The accused’s objection to the appointment of a proposed interpreter, or the accused’s waiver of the appointment of a certified or duly qualified interpreter, shall also be on the record. (4) Additional on the Record Findings, Objections, and Waivers Required at Subsequent Proceedings. The appointment of an interpreter who is neither certified nor duly qualified shall be limited to a specific proceeding and shall not be extended to subsequent proceedings in a case without additional findings of good cause and qualification as required by subdivision (e)(2) of this rule, and additional compliance with the procedures for on the record objections or waivers provided for in subdivision (e)(3) of this rule. (f) Privileged Communications. Whenever a person communicates through an interpreter to any person under circumstances that would render the communication privileged and such person could not be compelled to testify as to the communication, the privilege shall also apply to the interpreter.
1SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr The House Financial Services Committee plans to hold a hearing Sept. 29 on Wells Fargo’s creation of more than 1.5 million unauthorized consumer deposit accounts and 500,000-plus credit card accounts.Wells Fargo will pay some $185 million in fines – $100 million of it imposed by CFPB, the largest amount the bureau has ever assessed – due to this activity, also being looked at by the FBI and Justice Department.John Stumpf, Wells Fargo’s chairman and CEO, faced hours of intense grilling and criticism during a Senate Banking hearing earlier this week. The San Francisco Fed announced Thursday that Stumpf has resigned from an advisory panel to the Federal Reserve.The bank’s scandal invoked numerous comments from speakers throughout NAFCU’s Congressional Caucus this week, with lawmakers stepping up to the podium to discuss the good relationship credit unions have with their members and their support for the member-owned cooperatives. continue reading »
Miami Heat’s LeBron James, right, reacts as he talks with official Michael Smith during the second half of an NBA basketball game against the Indiana Pacers, Friday, April 11, 2014, in Miami. The Heat defeated the Pacers 98-86. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)MIAMI (AP) — LeBron James’ jersey remains the most popular in the NBA.The league announced Thursday that the Miami Heat star topped the list of jersey sales in the NBA for the sixth time. With teammate Dwyane Wade — whose jersey number hasn’t changed in 11 years — at No. 7, the Heat also had the top spot on the team-merchandise sales list.“It means a lot to know that I have so many fans that want to wear my jersey because they respect the way I play the game and respect who I am as a man,” James said. “Thanks so much to all that ‘Strive for Greatness.’”Kevin Durant of Oklahoma City is No. 2 on the list, followed by the Los Angeles Lakers’ Kobe Bryant, Chicago’s Derrick Rose, Golden State’s Stephen Curry and New York’s Carmelo Anthony.Wade was next, followed by Chris Paul of the Los Angeles Clippers, Cleveland’s Kyrie Irving, Houston’s James Harden, the Clippers’ Blake Griffin, Oklahoma City’s Russell Westbrook, Boston’s Rajon Rondo, San Antonio’s Tim Duncan and Indiana’s Paul George.It was Duncan’s first appearance on the season-ending list since 2007.Following the two-time defending champion Heat on the team-merchandise sales list were the Lakers, Bulls, Thunder and Knicks.The NBA based the rankings on overall retail sales on NBAStore.com since the start of the season. The league’s playoffs begin Saturday.