On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

California Family Law Basics: Pro Bono Representation in Low-Income Family Law Cases

Released on: Feb. 13, 2017
Running Time: 12:23:40

Millions of Californians are unrepresented in Family Court matters (estimated 80% of litigants are unrepresented). Low-income clients are in desperate need of your pro bono help. Attend this free two-day PLI program for an introduction to family law practice and then volunteer with your local legal services agency to represent low-income family law litigants in need.

Anyone interested in providing pro bono assistance to low-income family law clients in California (whether limited scope family law matters or full representation in a dissolution matter) would benefit from attending. The program is appropriate for new attorneys and more experienced practitioners looking to volunteer with non-profit legal services agencies who can provide ongoing mentorship and support.


Lecture Topics [Total time 12:23:40]

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


  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:02:47]
    Stephanie E. Bilinski
  • Family Law 101/Overview in Low-Income Family Law Cases [03:11:13]
    Stephanie E. Bilinski, Dia Montecillo, Yasmine S. Mehmet
  • Basic Overview of Child Custody and Visitation [01:29:30]
    Commissioner Josanna Berkow (Ret.), Sharon M. Braz, Stephanie E. Bilinski
  • Child Custody and Visitation Procedure [01:30:25]
    Commissioner Josanna Berkow (Ret.), Sharon M. Braz, Stephanie E. Bilinski
  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:02:25]
    Elizabeth A. Hom
  • Obtaining Child and Spousal Support in Low-Income Family Law Cases [02:12:30]
    Elizabeth A. Hom, Janice Cho, Sandra Roberts-Stokes
  • Property Issues in Low-Income Family Law Cases [02:00:30]
    Janet L. Frankel, Justyn Lezin, Elizabeth A. Hom
  • How to Finish a Dissolution Case: Case Settlement and Trials [00:56:50]
    Erin Orum, Kimberly Parker, Elizabeth A. Hom
  • How to Finish a Dissolution Case: Judgments [00:57:30]
    Elizabeth A. Hom, Kimberly Parker, Erin Orum

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


  • Working with Pro Bono Low-Income Clients Outline
    Dia Montecillo
  • Family Law 101/Overview in Low-Income Family Law Cases, Part I (PowerPoint slides)
    Stephanie E. Bilinski, Dia Montecillo
  • Introduction to Family Law Outline
    Stephanie E. Bilinski
  • Dissolution/Legal Separation Flow-Chart
    Genevieve L. Richardson
  • Sample Pleadings: Initial Dissolution Pleadings
    Genevieve L. Richardson
  • Family Law 101/Overview in Low-Income Family Law Cases, Parts II and III (PowerPoint slides)
    Stephanie E. Bilinski
  • Elkins v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, 41 Cal.4th 1337, Supreme Court of California (August 2007)
    Stephanie E. Bilinski, Yasmine S. Mehmet
  • Reifler v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 39 Cal.App.3d 479, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California (May 1974)
    Stephanie E. Bilinski, Yasmine S. Mehmet
  • Child Support Facts, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa
    Sharon M. Braz, Commissioner Josanna Berkow
  • Basic Overview of Child Custody and Visitation (PowerPoint slides)
    Commissioner Josanna Berkow, Sharon M. Braz
  • Family Code Sections §3020, §3011, §3044
    Genevieve L. Richardson
  • How to Get a Custody Order
    Genevieve L. Richardson
  • Obtaining Child and Spousal Support in Low-Income Family Law Cases Overview
    Janice Cho, Sandra Roberts-Stokes
  • Obtaining Child and Spousal Support in Low-Income Family Law Cases (PowerPoint slides)
    Sandra Roberts-Stokes, Janice Cho
  • Sample Pleadings: Motions
    Genevieve L. Richardson
  • Family Code Sections §760, §2640
    Genevieve L. Richardson
  • In re the Marriage of Elena and Aaron Feldman, 153 Cal.App.4th 1470, Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California (July 2007)
    Janet L. Frankel, Genevieve L. Richardson, Justyn Lezin
  • In re the Marriage of Judy and Clarence Haines, 33 Cal.App.4th 277, Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California (March 1995)
    Justyn Lezin, Janet L. Frankel, Genevieve L. Richardson
  • Property Issues in Low-Income Family Law Cases (PowerPoint slides)
    Janet L. Frankel, Justyn Lezin
  • Sample Pleadings: Disclosures and Discovery
    Genevieve L. Richardson
  • Request for Case Resolution Conference Form (ALA FL-050)
    Erin Beavers, Genevieve L. Richardson, Kimberly Parker
  • At Issue Memorandum—Family Law Form (Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa)
    Erin Beavers, Kimberly Parker, Genevieve L. Richardson
  • Stipulation and Order for Voluntary Settlement Conference Form (ALA-FL-045)
    Erin Beavers, Kimberly Parker, Genevieve L. Richardson
  • How to Finish a Dissolution Case: Case Settlement and Trials (PowerPoint slides)
    Erin Beavers, Genevieve L. Richardson
  • Bifurcation Handout (FL-300-Request for Order, FL-315-Request for Separate Trial)
    Kimberly Parker
  • Family Code #2336 Checklist
    Kimberly Parker
  • Declaration of Parentage Form
    Kimberly Parker
  • Family Law Judgment Checklist, San Francisco County Superior Court
    Elizabeth A. Hom
  • Sample Pleadings: Finishing a Dissolution: Default, Uncontested, Contested Judgments
    Genevieve L. Richardson
  • How to Finish a Dissolution Case: Judgments (PowerPoint slides)
    Kimberly Parker

Presentation Material


  • Family Law 101/Overview in Low-Income Family Law Cases, Part I PowerPoint Slides
    Dia Montecillo, Stephanie E. Bilinski
  • 2015 Update: Initial Dissolution Pleadings Samples
    Stephanie E. Bilinski
  • Family Law 101/Overview in Low-Income Family Law Cases, Parts II and III PowerPoint Slides
    Stephanie E. Bilinski, Yasmine S. Mehmet
  • Basic Overview of Child Custody and Visitation PowerPoint Slides
    Sharon M. Braz, Commissioner Josanna Berkow (Ret.)
  • Obtaining Child and Spousal Support in Low-Income Family Law Cases PowerPoint Slides
    Janice Cho, Sandra Roberts-Stokes
  • Property Issues in Low-Income Family Law Cases PowerPoint Slides
    Janet L. Frankel, Justyn Lezin
  • How to Finish a Dissolution Case: Judgments PowerPoint Slides
    Kimberly Parker, Erin Orum
Co-Chair(s)
Stephanie E. Bilinski ~ Family Law Supervising Attorney, Justice & Diversity Center of The Bar Association of San Francisco
Elizabeth A. Hom ~ Program Developer, Office of Legal Services, The State Bar of California
Genevieve L. Richardson ~ Managing Attorney Contra Costa, Marin and Napa Regional Office, Bay Area Legal Aid
Speaker(s)
Commissioner Josanna Berkow (Ret.) ~ Certified Specialist in Family Law, Judicial Settlement
Sharon M. Braz ~ Certified Family Law Specialist,
Janice Cho ~ Founder, Law Office of Janice Cho
Janet L. Frankel ~ Certified Specialist in Family Law, Law Offices of Janet L. Frankel
Justyn Lezin ~ Cabello & Lezin LLP
Yasmine S. Mehmet ~ Certified Specialist in Family Law, Law Office of Yasmine S. Mehmet
Dia Montecillo ~ Staff Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid
Erin Orum ~ Staff Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid
Kimberly Parker ~ Family Court Settlement Officer, Superior Court of California - County of Santa Clara, Family Resources Division
Sandra Roberts-Stokes ~ Department of Child Support Services - Alameda County
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:  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 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.


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 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.

 

Share
Email
"Extremely informative and left me wanting to hear more."
2014 Webcast Attendee

“The speakers were excellent on this program. Very engaging..."
2014 Webcast Attendee


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

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.