Web Sites For Lawyers

Lawyers Pay People To Be A Juror Online

Greensboro, NC -- The internet is playing a larger role in court cases before it even goes to trial.  Attorneys want to hear from ordinary people before they pick a jury and they're willing to pay them for it.

You can participate online from the comfort of your own home. Lawyers use this mock jury strategy to figure out what their strongest arguments are before the real trial.

Websites like Ejury.com , Onlineverdict.com , and TrialJuries.com allow you to sign up. The website then contacts you to a review a case, and depending on the case, you might have to deliberate with other online jurors.

Once you are finished giving your opinion, you can get paid anywhere from $5 to up to $60.

Some lawyers across the Triad disagree on whether the online concept is more effective than the traditional in-person mock jury.

"It is relatively inexpensive," said Winston Salem Lawyer Mike Lewis with Mike Lewis Attorneys. "It enables you to put together the focus group information rather quickly and thirdly and perhaps the most important, it really allows the attorney to get the insight from as many as 50 different people on how they view your case."

"With a live group, you can get an idea of what they're actually discussing, what they're arguing about, what the different jurors think is important as opposed to one person," expressed Greensboro based criminal trial lawyer Robert O'Hale.

There is a big difference in the price these companies charge lawyers. If an attorney uses the online features, it's about $1,500.

Having a mock trial in person can run attorneys to $20,000.

Lawyers: Protect IP Act would align U.S. Internet policy with ...

A group of Internet and intellectual property law professors have penned a letter to congressional lawmakers in opposition to the Protect IP Act, which would give the government sweeping new powers to take websites offline, censor search engines and sue Internet publishers accused of infringing activities.

In the letter, they warn that the act would “undermine” U.S. leadership on freedom of speech issues, cautioning that provisions within the legislation are more closely aligned with “repressive regimes” than the traditional American stance on Internet freedom.

They also predict that the Protect IP Act would threaten the security of the Internet at large, as it would give U.S. officials the authority to literally break the Internet’s domain name system (DNS), which links servers to web domains for easy access to pages around the world.

The bill, sponsored and heavily promoted by the entertainment industries , would require Internet service providers and search engines to de-list whole domains on the basis of a copyright claim by a content provider. The claim does not have to be proven to an independent body for a site to be taken offline.

Sites that link to domains accused of hosting infringing activities could also be targeted for domain take-downs or other criminal penalties, and servers outside the U.S. are not exempt from the powers the Protect IP Act seeks to cement into law.

Because of the Internet’s highly interwoven architecture, the bill’s broad language would “make it extraordinarily difficult for advertisers and credit card companies to do business on the Internet,” the lawyers warned.

That point was echoed by Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, who said in May that the search giant would fight any order to break the Internet’s addressing system over copyright claims.

The lawyers also suggested that removing websites without so much as a hearing conflicts with standing constitutional law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, cautioning that the act would undermine America’s defense of free speech and “dramatically reduce” the Internet’s usefulness in mass communications.

“At a time when many foreign governments have dramatically stepped up their efforts to censor Internet communications, the [Protect IP Act] would incorporate into U.S. law — for the first time — a principle more closely associated with those repressive regimes: a right to insist on the removal of content from the global Internet, regardless of where it may have originated or be located, in service of the exigencies of domestic law.

Concise Guide to Paralegal Ethics, Third Edition

What Every Woman Should Know about Divorce and Custody, Judges, Lawyers, and Therapists Share Winning Strategies on How to Keep the Kids, the Cash, and Your Sanity

The essential guide to the best (and worst) legal sites on the Web

Plain language for lawyers

ABA Journal