On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Pro Bono Litigation Skills 2016

Released on: Feb. 26, 2016
Running Time: 03:09:20

Running Time Segment Title Faculty Format
[01:05:09] Complaint and Motion Practice Nelson Goodell ~ The Goodell Law Firm
Scott Maurer ~ Associate Clinical Professor in Consumer Law, Katharine & George Alexander Community Law Center
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[02:00:25] Discovery, Summary Judgment, Trial and Settlement Nelson Goodell ~ The Goodell Law Firm
Scott Maurer ~ Associate Clinical Professor in Consumer Law, Katharine & George Alexander Community Law Center
Elizabeth S Letcher ~ Law Offices of Elizabeth Letcher
On-Demand MP3 MP4

If you want to litigate a pro bono case, then this is the program you have been waiting for.  In this program, panelists will discuss pro bono litigation practice with examples from consumer cases.  We will cover what you need to do in litigation from both plaintiff and defense perspectives, including drafting and responding to a complaint, motion practice, discovery, and trial. The training is designed for advocates with limited trial experience, but lawyers at all experience levels would benefit from this program.

Legal services and non-profit attorneys and pro bono volunteers who want to be well-prepared for their first case or more experienced attorneys who want to be better prepared for the next one, should view this program.

Looking for more programs on pro bono topics? Please visit our On-Demand webcast library.


Lecture Topics [Total time 03:09:20]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:03:46]
    Kent Qian
  • Complaint and Motion Practice [01:05:09]
    Nelson Goodell, Scott Maurer
  • Discovery, Summary Judgment, Trial and Settlement [02:00:25]
    Nelson Goodell, Elizabeth S. Letcher, Scott Maurer

Presentation Material


  • Pro Bono Litigation Skills 2016 Complete Course Handbook
  • 1. Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof, Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al, No. RG15765576, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (2015)
    Nelson Goodell
  • 2. First Amended Complaint, Thurrell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al, No. CIV531332, Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo (2015)
    Nelson Goodell
  • 3. Plaintiff’s Notice of Opposition and Opposition to Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, Thurrell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
    Nelson Goodell
  • 4. Order Overruling Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Demurrer to Complaint and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Wells Fargo Banks, N.A.’s Motion to Strike Thurrell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
    Nelson Goodell
  • 5. Second Amended Complaint for Damages and Other Relief, Green et. al v. Central Mortgage Company, No. C14-04281LB, United States District Court, Northern District of California (2015)
    Nelson Goodell
  • 6. California Fair Debt Buyer Practices Act Checklist
    Nelson Goodell
  • 7. Sample State Court Complaint
    Scott Maurer
  • 8. Sample State Court Answer
    Scott Maurer
  • 9. Sample Federal Complaint
    Scott Maurer
  • 10. Sample Federal Answer
    Scott Maurer
  • 11. Sample Collateral Attack on Default Judgment
    Scott Maurer
  • 12. Sample Motion to Set Aside Default
    Scott Maurer
  • Pre-filing Cases PowerPoint Slides
    Nelson Goodell, Scott Maurer
  • 14. Checklist for Rule 26(f) Meet and Confer Regarding Electronically Stored Information, United States District Court, Northern District of California (December 2015)
    Sharon Djemal, Nelson Goodell, Elizabeth S. Letcher
  • 15. Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, United States District Court, Northern District of California (December 2015)
    Sharon Djemal, Nelson Goodell, Elizabeth S. Letcher
  • 16. A Practical Guide to Achieving Proportionality Under New Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, The Federal Courts Law Review, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2015)
    Sharon Djemal, Nelson Goodell, Elizabeth S. Letcher
  • 17. Areas of Inquiry on Which Examination is Requested
    Sharon Djemal, Nelson Goodell, Elizabeth S. Letcher
  • 18. Sample Plaintiff Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
    Nelson Goodell
  • 19. Sample Stipulated Order Re: Discovery of Electronically Stored Information for Standard Litigation
    Sharon Djemal, Nelson Goodell, Elizabeth S. Letcher
  • 20. Sample Motion to Compel
    Nelson Goodell
  • 21. Sample Order Granting Motion to Compel
    Nelson Goodell
  • 22. Sample Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff’s Declaration
    Sharon Djemal
  • 23. Sample Motion in Limine to Exclude Conversations
    Nelson Goodell
  • 24. Sample Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion in Limine
    Nelson Goodell
  • 25. Sample Motion in Limine to Exclude Hearsay Testimony
    Nelson Goodell
  • 26. Sample Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed and Disputed Materials Facts
    Elizabeth S. Letcher
  • Discovery, Summary Judgment, Trial and Settlement PowerPoint Slides
    Sharon Djemal, Nelson Goodell, Elizabeth S. Letcher
Chairperson(s)
Kent Qian ~ Staff Attorney, National Housing Law Project
Speaker(s)
Nelson Goodell ~ The Goodell Law Firm
Elizabeth S. Letcher ~ Law Offices of Elizabeth Letcher
Scott Maurer ~ Associate Clinical Professor in Consumer Law, Katharine & George Alexander Community Law Center
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

IIEI Recertification:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may qualify for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs) necessary to fulfill the Certified U.S. Export Compliance Officer® (CUSECO) continuing education requirements.

 

Print Share Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2016 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.