LSNC published its technoloy plan here last year when it first became an LSC grant requirement. LSNC’s latest iteration, submitted with its recent grant renewal application, is the LSNC 2011 Technology Plan, posted here as a viewable Google document.

The 2011 plan will read familiar to those who saw last year’s plan. It is essentially an updated version of that plan, and like it parallels the 12-part structure of the LSC baseline technology guidelines commonly used by Legal Services field programs to assess their overall technology needs and implementations.

Since last year’s plan, LSNC’s tech vibe focused very heavily on two major infrastructure elements: First, We cracked the code on integration of our Google Search Appliance with our Pika case management system, something we accomplished a few months back. (LSNC now targets and indexes 800,000+ Pika activity records with its GSA, and we have plans to ramp up our database targeting even further, in that regard.) Second, LSNC also evaluated and deployed a new telephone system, a process which still involves work on our end but is near completion. We never quite got around to the other five major “special attention” elements identified in last year’s plan, but you can see what those are and how they are stated in the new plan.

As the classic listserv valediction would say, HTH.

The Art Institute of Sacramento recently, and graciously, produced a pro bono, professional-quality PSA for LSNC. Kudos to Joey Gonzalez, the student assigned to the project, who provided the creative drive behind the result. And for the record, that is real-life LSNC staff attorney Steliana Schmidel of our Sacramento office who allowed herself to be royally baked under hot lights for most of a Saturday to help get the project done. Bravissimo! The video is hosted on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia5OJygzxaM.

As promised, here is a set of 15 representative screenshots of Legal Services of Northern California’s most recent customization of Pika 4.0. To view a larger image, right click on it and open the image in a separate window. (Needless to say, none of the data field entries in the screenshots are real.) It shares obvious design elements with LSNC’s shared portal, which serves the “news and resource” purpose of the original Pika home page.

Yes, that’s right. Just (mouse) click our Pika home page three times and you are magically transported back home.

This is a cross post from a LSNC sister site, but a well worthy share at this site: Mapping Out Success, an article from the current issue of California Lawyer, features Legal Services of Northern California as an example how California lawyers are increasingly relying on mapping to better analyze data, to get the job done. “One example is when LSNC in 2007 began using maps to show how a proposed gas-storage area in Sacramento would place a ‘disproportionate environmental burden’ on a densely populated minority neighborhood. … Similarly, LSNC has targeted its foreclosure-outreach program by mapping foreclosure data.”

The examples cited in the article are both products of LSNC’s Race Equity Project. For more information about mapping, visit the LSNC GIS Mapping Resources page.

One always remembers the “first time” and citing a Google search in an appellate brief is no exception. At least for me.

The context has to do with my day job as a practicing lawyer. One of the myriad things I do is represent a special “long-term care ombudsman” program that investigates and mediates allegations of abuse, neglect and mistreatment of nursing home patients and other long-term care residents. The investigations are highly sensitive and highly confidential, and under California constitutional and statutory law are also highly privileged. Predictably, the ombudsman investigations are viewed as a target-rich repository of potential evidence by some, and so the ombudsman program frequently gets served with subpoenas to compel disclosure.

That’s where I come in. In the normal course, discovery attempts are readily deflected once counsel and the court are appraised of the claims of privilege and confidentiality that shield the ombudsman—always a non-party to the litigation—from discovery.

But not always, and in a major way not in a recent case in which a California trial court ruled against the ombudsman program and entered an unprecedented, sweeping order requiring the disclosure of all the ombudsman’s investigatory records in a particular nursing home. Yipes! But LSNC was all over it and pursued an extraordinary writ from the appellate court to get a stay order stopping the discovery cold. Done! But it ain’t over ’til it’s over, right? As it turns out, there is no reported decision in any jurisdiction in the country on this particular type of ombudsman claim of privilege and confidentiality, and the discovery dispute has come to a head with full-on briefing and oral argument in a case of national first impression.

We had already briefed this puppy to the max, but the appellate court a few weeks ago requested a supplemental “letter brief” (code: keep it short … really short) from all involved about whether the case is moot and even if so whether the public interest character of the case warrants the court proceeding to decision. Well, not surprisingly, from our point of view as the “non-party” being dragged constantly into this case and so many others like it there was a very practical argument to be made: The issue is one of broad public impact because, among other things, there is this huge number of attorneys motivated to attempt this type of discovery. Fair enough observation, but how do we actually establish that fact as a non-party appearing before the appellate court in an extraordinary proceeding without a conventional record?

That’s where Google comes in. Here’s the single footnote we dropped into our letter brief:

There is a very large segment of the plaintiffs’ bar, not to mention any number of defense counsel, that would jump at the opportunity to compel disclosure of ombudsman records. Should the Court have any lingering doubts about the potential for recurrence of the type of discovery attempted in this case, petitioner invites the Court to do a simple search at Google using these six keywords—california attorneys nursing home abuse neglect mistreatment—and view the search results.

Ya gotta love the Google!

A typical result, via Google Analytics, for top-level content traffic at the LSNC.net main website. The site flatlines every weekend.

Whatever happened to 24/7, people?

Welcome to the world of the Webogs, courtesy of Legal Services of Northern California.

Basic orientation: If you are familiar with our progenitor, the now-dormant OpenPika, then you know whom and what you’re dealing with. For those who are new to the Webdogs cult, all basic aspects of its ethos are revealed by the purpose-driven Webdog.

Satisfaction is not guaranteed. It will be a slow, steady but exciting build. It’s a given that bad puns and strained metaphors will abound. Sober up and lock it down, people, because you’re about to enter the Webdogs zone. And there is no way out but to keep your head up and read forward.