On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

California Public Benefits: The Basics for Nonprofit and Pro Bono Advocacy 2018 (Free)

Released on: Mar. 29, 2018
Running Time: 06:27:15


Low-income clients need your help to protect their rights to potentially life-saving benefits. Many low-income clients have difficulty navigating the confusing and bureaucratic processes to establish and maintain eligibility for public benefits. Without legal assistance and advocacy, large numbers of clients go without the benefits to which they are entitled, which can often lead to unnecessary hunger and homelessness. Attorneys who work with low-income people or pro bono attorneys interested in working on these types of cases can learn the basics of public benefits law.

Lecture Topics [Total RunTime: 06:27:15]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Opening Remarks* [00:02:46]
    Steven Weiss, Joanna Parnes
  • CalWORKs [01:05:56]
    Antionette Dozier, Cynthia L. Chagolla
  • CalFresh [01:01:53]
    Lisa M. Newstrom, Antionette Dozier
  • General Assistance [01:00:30]
    Steven Weiss, Joanna Parnes
  • Health Care for Low-Income Californians: A Primer on Medi-Cal and Covered California [01:01:50]
    Corilee Racela, Barbara Texidor
  • Social Security Disability Insurance, Supplemental Security Income and CAPI [00:58:40]
    Jessica Redditt, Joanna Parnes
  • Writs & Appeals in Public Benefits Cases [01:15:40]
    Stephanie Haffner, Alex Prieto

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK

  • California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs): Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) Increase to the Minimum Basic Standard of Adequate Care (MBSAC) Levels, June 2, 2017, All County Letter (ACL) No. 17 44, State of California—Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social Services
    Cynthia Chagolla, Antionette Dozier
  • Impending Legislation Impacting the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) and CalFresh Programs, December 21, 2017, All County Welfare Directors Letter, State of California—Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social Services
    Cynthia Chagolla, Antionette Dozier
  • CalWORKs Benefits Levels
    Antionette Dozier
  • Immigrant Benefits Referral Letter
    Cynthia Chagolla, Antionette Dozier
  • Where to Get More Information About CalWORKs
    Antionette Dozier
  • CalWORKs 101: An Overview of Cash Aid for Poor California Families Outline
    Antionette Dozier, Cynthia Chagolla
  • CalWORKs 101: An Overview of Cash Aid for Poor California Families (PowerPoint slides)
    Cynthia Chagolla, Antionette Dozier
  • CalFresh & SNAP: What Advocates Need to Know
    Stephanie Haffner, Lisa M. Newstrom
  • Food Stamp Calculator—FFY 2018 (Blank)
    Lisa M. Newstrom, Stephanie Haffner
  • Food Stamps Calculator: Appendix 2018
    Lisa M. Newstrom, Stephanie Haffner
  • Food Stamp Calculator—FFY 2018 (Sample Calculation)
    Lisa M. Newstrom, Stephanie Haffner
  • Sample Position Statement on Jurisdiction
    Lisa M. Newstrom, Stephanie Haffner
  • Sample Claimant’s Position Statement on Overissuance
    Lisa M. Newstrom, Stephanie Haffner
  • Federal vs. State CalFresh for Noncitizens
    Stephanie Haffner, Lisa M. Newstrom
  • Federal Guidance on Public Charge: When Is it Safe to Use Public Benefits? Last Updated August 2014, National Immigration Law Center
    Lisa M. Newstrom, Stephanie Haffner
  • Providing Adequate Notice, November 23, 1982, All County Information Notice I-151-82, State of California—Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Social Services
    Stephanie Haffner, Lisa M. Newstrom
  • CalFresh Student Work Rule—Federal Law Restrictions & Recent State Law Provisions, Updated January 2016, Western Center on Law & Poverty
    Stephanie Haffner
  • CalFresh Program: Student Eligibility, December 31, 2015, All County Information Notice No. I-89-15, State of California—Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social Services
    Stephanie Haffner, Lisa M. Newstrom
  • CalFresh Student Eligibility, September 17, 2015, All County Letter (ACL) No. 15-70, State of California—Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social Services
    Lisa M. Newstrom, Stephanie Haffner
  • Lilley v. County of Alameda, Stipulated Permanent Injunction and Order, Case No. 3:15-cv-04475-JD (N.D. Cal. 2016)
    Lisa M. Newstrom, Stephanie Haffner
  • Riojas v. United States Department of Agriculture, Order Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, Case No. 15-cv-03592-JST (N.D. Cal. 2016)
    Lisa M. Newstrom, Stephanie Haffner
  • You Could Be Eligible for CalFresh Even If You Received SSI in the Past Fact Sheet, Updated November 29, 2016
    Stephanie Haffner
  • Definition of Fleeing Felon and Probation Parole Violators for the CalFresh Program, October 14, 2015, All County Letter (ACL) No. 15-82, State of California—Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social Services
    Stephanie Haffner, Lisa M. Newstrom
  • CalWORKs and CalFresh Semiannual Reporting—What Do Advocates Need to Know? Updated April 21, 2016, Western Center on Law & Poverty
    Stephanie Haffner
  • 2017 Chaptered Bill Summary and Local Advocacy Suggestions
    Stephanie Haffner
  • Mandatory and Optional Verification for CalFresh Eligibility, November 2017
    Stephanie Haffner
  • CalFresh Policy Changes 2011–2017
    Stephanie Haffner
  • CalFresh & SNAP: What Advocates Need to Know (PowerPoint slides)
    Lisa M. Newstrom, Stephanie Haffner
  • Advocacy Checklist for County General Assistance Programs
    Steven Weiss, Lauren Hansen
  • California Statewide General Assistance and General Relief Advocacy—Unreported Cases
    Steven Weiss, Lauren Hansen
  • California Public Records Request Letter
    Lauren Hansen
  • Sample Position Statement (1)
    Steven Weiss, Lauren Hansen
  • Sample Position Statement (2)
    Steven Weiss, Lauren Hansen
  • Sample Demand Letter, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.
    Steven Weiss, Lauren Hansen
  • Sample Request for Administrative Record
    Lauren Hansen
  • Sample Petition and Application for Issuance of a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory Relief
    Lauren Hansen
  • Summary of Mankinen v. County of Orange Consent Decree
    Lauren Hansen
  • San Benito County General Relief Program—Time Limit Letter, March 25, 2014
    Lauren Hansen
  • General Assistance/General Relief (PowerPoint slides)
    Steven Weiss, Lauren Hansen
  • Application for Health Insurance, Covered California
    Barbara Texidor, Corilee K.A. Racela
  • Request for a State Fair Hearing to Appeal a Covered California Eligibility Determination
    Corilee K.A. Racela, Barbara Texidor
  • Fact Sheet on Medi-Cal and Managed Care: Questions and Answers to Help You Get the Best Health Care for You, Health Consumer Alliance
    Corilee K.A. Racela, Barbara Texidor
  • Countable Income Chart—March 2014, Health Consumer Alliance
    Corilee K.A. Racela, Barbara Texidor
  • Independent Medical Review (IMR) Application/Complaint Form, Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Managed Health Care
    Corilee K.A. Racela, Barbara Texidor
  • Hearing Request Form, California Department of Social Services, State Fair Hearing Division
    Corilee K.A. Racela, Barbara Texidor
  • California’s Health Programs (PowerPoint slides)
    Corilee K.A. Racela, Barbara Texidor
  • Sample Representative’s Brief Before Hearing
    Jessica Redditt
  • Sample Appeals Council Brief
    Joanna Parnes
  • Sample Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities
    Joanna Parnes
  • Sample Plaintiff’s Reply Brief to Defendant’s Opposition and in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
    Joanna Parnes
  • Social Security Disability Grids, United States Social Security Administration
    Joanna Parnes, Jessica Redditt
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 06-03p: Titles II and XVI: Considering Opinions and Other Evidence from Sources Who Are Not “Acceptable Medical Sources” in Disability Claims; Considering Decisions on Disability by Other Governmental and Nongovernmental Agencies
    Jessica Redditt, Joanna Parnes
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 85-15: Titles II and XVI: Capability to Do Other Work—The Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating Solely Nonexertional Impairments
    Joanna Parnes, Jessica Redditt
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 11-2p: Titles II and XVI: Documenting and Evaluating Disability in Young Adults
    Jessica Redditt, Joanna Parnes
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 13-1p: Titles II and XVI: Agency Processes for Addressing Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination by Administrative Law Judges
    Joanna Parnes, Jessica Redditt
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 13-2p: Titles II and XVI: Evaluating Cases Involving Drug Addiction and Alcoholism
    Jessica Redditt, Joanna Parnes
  • Appointed Representative Guide to Requesting Appeals Council Review and Submitting Additional Evidence to the Appeals Council Guide
    Jessica Redditt, Joanna Parnes
  • Civil Cover Sheet Form (JS 44)
    Jessica Redditt, Joanna Parnes
  • Sample Complaint for Judicial Review of Decision of Commissioner of Social Security
    Joanna Parnes, Jessica Redditt
  • Summons in a Civil Action (AO 440)
    Jessica Redditt, Joanna Parnes
  • Sample Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Non-Prisoner Cases Only)
    Jessica Redditt, Joanna Parnes
  • Bay Area Legal Aid Fee Agreement and Assignment of Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act
    Jessica Redditt, Joanna Parnes
  • Procedural Order for Social Security Review Actions
    Jessica Redditt, Joanna Parnes
  • Policy Interpretation Ruling—SSR 11-1p: Titles II and XVI: Procedures for Handling Requests to File Subsequent Applications for Disability Benefits
    Joanna Parnes, Jessica Redditt
  • Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 242, December 16, 2016, Ensuring Program Uniformity at the Hearing and Appeals Council Levels of the Administrative Review Process, “5-Day Rule”
    Joanna Parnes, Jessica Redditt
  • Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11, January 18, 2017, Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence
    Joanna Parnes, Jessica Redditt
  • Social Security Disability Benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Advocacy (PowerPoint slides)
    Joanna Parnes, Jessica Redditt
  • Writ Statutes—Excerpts, Updated January 2018
    Stephanie Haffner, Alex Prieto
  • Writ of Mandate Outline
    Stephanie Haffner, Alex Prieto
  • Sample Writ Petition—CalWORKs, Section 1085 & 1094.5
    Stephanie Haffner, Alex Prieto
  • Sample Writ Petition—CalWORKs Stolen Benefits, Section 1085
    Alex Prieto
  • Administrative Record Request Template
    Alex Prieto, Stephanie Haffner
  • Sample Requests for Admission Re: Agency Policies
    Stephanie Haffner
  • Sample Opening Brief—Weight of the Evidence, Section 1094.5
    Alex Prieto
  • Order Re: Petition for Writ of Mandate—Buena Vista MHP Residents Association v. Palo Alto
    Stephanie Haffner, Alex Prieto
  • Sample Legislative History Request
    Stephanie Haffner, Alex Prieto
  • Strategies and Procedures for Litigating Writ Petitions (PowerPoint slides)
    Stephanie Haffner, Alex Prieto

Presentation Material


  • CalWORKs 101: An Overview of Cash Aid for Poor California Families (PowerPoint slides)
    Cynthia Chagolla, Antionette Dozier
  • CalFresh & SNAP: What Advocates Need to Know (PowerPoint slides)
    Antionette Dozier, Lisa M. Newstrom
  • General Assistance/General Relief (PowerPoint slides)
    Lauren Hansen, Steven Weiss
  • California’s Health Programs (PowerPoint slides)
    Corilee Racela, Barbara Texidor
  • Social Security Disability Benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Advocacy (PowerPoint slides)
    Joanna Parnes, Jessica Redditt
  • Strategies and Procedures for Litigating Writ Petitions (PowerPoint slides)
    Stephanie Haffner, Alex Prieto
Co-Chair(s)
Joanna Parnes ~ Staff Attorney and SSI Project Coordinator, Bay Area Legal Aid
Steven Weiss ~ Regional Counsel and Regional Social Security & SSI Advocacy Coordinator, Bay Area Legal Aid
Speaker(s)
Cynthia L. Chagolla ~ Staff Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid
Antionette Dozier ~ Senior Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Stephanie Haffner ~ Director of Litigation, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Lisa M. Newstrom ~ Managing Attorney, Santa Clara County, Bay Area Legal Aid
Alex Prieto ~ Senior Litigator, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Corilee Racela ~ Senior Attorney, Western Center on Law & Poverty
Jessica Redditt ~ Staff Attorney and Project Coordinator, Bay Area Legal Aid
Barbara Texidor ~ Staff Attorney and Project Coordinator, Bay Area Legal Aid, Health Consumer 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.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’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 9 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 “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded 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:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

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

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay 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:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

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 15 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.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. 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 plicredits@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 plicredits@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.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

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.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

California Public Benefits: The Basics for Nonprofit and Pro Bono Advocacy 2018 Steven Weiss, Bay Area Legal Aid
Joanna Parnes, Bay Area Legal Aid
 
Share
Email
"Extremely helpful, thank you."
- Sydney Pickern
Equal Justice Works Fellow
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF)

"Thank you for an excellent presentation."
- Bruce W. Haupt, J.D.
Chairman Emeritus
Budget & Policy Subcommittee
Drug Advisory Commission
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

"Written materials excellent.  Very impressed with competence & communication skills of all presenters.  Although most content was California-specific, it was presented in a way which displayed reasoning & thought patterns that transfer readily to other jurisdictions."
- Marianna R. Burt, Law Office of Marianna R. Burt, Apex, NC


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.