Would I give out my username/password? When elephants roost in trees. It's a security issue with me-not privacy. If I give out that, then I could be giving out THEIR company passwords! Wonder if their HR has considered THAT part of the equation? Oops. As far as married v unmarried men being "more stable"-don't know about you, Ms. Estrin, but I've certainly seen my fair share of the married variety who were "sowing their oats" far and wide. Stable? Hardly. In fact, one was engaged in a three-way that I know of-and very nearly got caught doing it. The other participants? Also married. Let's hear it for some more-erm, objective measures of competence rather than looking at social media webpages, please. Those things are just so high school. Could we grow up, please?

Dang, here I am-a Boomer with a Millennial mindset? Now I don't know where I belong! Gee, thanks, Estrin...

Chere, This whole situation is analogous to what happened when some women got erroneous Pap smear results and died of cervical cancer. This was back in the early 80's. There was a huge uproar about the "pap smear mills" that read 100's of smears a day and all the mistakes that were being made. "Women's lives at stake" read the headlines. Well-in truth, they were. The cytotechnologists were being forced to review more than they could possibly do in order to keep up with Lab XYZ down the road and bring in as much money as possible. So the politicians jumped in and mucked around and they came up with something called the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1988. You want to know the joke here? Yes, ma'am, there's a joke. Remember those pap smears? They STILL are not regulated. The rest of the laboratory industry is, but not cytology or histology. After 35 years, they still haven't figured out a way to do that. It has improved, yes, but it still is not regulated. However, because of CLIA 88, costs of doing lab work escalated enormously. You have to be careful when you bring in this stuff-somebody has to monitor and supervise all the standards and did you or didn't you's. It gets messy-and costly. I'm not saying that licensure/certification isn't a good thing-I think it is. I'm just saying to be very careful how you set it up. It can bite you in the butt and both ankles-and it's those little nips in the ankles that really are the devil. Paralegals/legal assistants are relatively "late to the party". Other professions have already been down this road. It would likely behoove those interested to contact veterans of those wars to share their insights. It could save a great deal of pain and suffering! Ellen Wright, CRP

Lord, have mercy me, I'm right in there with you, Miz Chere. Maybe I'm just old or old-fashioned, but darned if I see the point in trying to be so doggoned devious. It's just too much WORK!

If you can't make the onsite version, do check out the Virtual LegalTech. Since I haven't attended the onsite, I can't give a comparison, but it is a complex experience. Just going through the virtual exhibit halls (yes, plural!) takes about an hour to just skim through-more if you find some interesting to you. The "booths" are attended with people on very active "chat" rooms. There's a lecture hall-quite good, btw-and some have CLE's for those interested. There's a lounge for chatting with friends and colleagues if you wish. Oh, and, sure-you can "pick up" those papers you always seem to get at these things. Door prizes, too. And you never left that office chair! Sweet.

Any "generously endowed woman" who shows up in court showing cleavage opens HERSELF up to this kind of thing (and I am one of you so don't go there). Displays of mammaries, long legs, high slit skirts, etc. are only there for the purpose of distraction. Whether acknowledged openly or not, displays of sexuality are just that-displays-and they are out of place in the courtroom. If you want to parade yourself in public, go to the barroom and I'm quite sure you'll cause the appropriate stir there. But before the bar, no, ma'am. Cover up those ta-tas, and mind those hemlines.

She probably is honest-but- and those "buts" will kill the relationship....BTDT, Cheri. You want to give her a chance, feel guilty if you don't, but-let's face facts here-in your spot-you can't afford somebody who is so mesmerized by a broken chair leg that she forgets a job interview appointment. I mean-REALLY, Cherie. Let's get real here. In the greater scheme of things, which one should be more important? I would think the potential for making the money to REPLACE the faulty chair! Not the broken chair leg! Plus-that was an obviously hurried email-and one that she apparently did not take the time to proof. Do you want someone who would do that to your clients? NO-absolutely not. If she'd do it to you, she most certainly would do it to someone else. Thing to do here-thank your lucky stars and move on. You were saved. It happens. Dogs do eat homework, but cats dance on computer keyboards. End result is pretty much the same. Ellen Wright (who happens to be one of your students in e-discovery 101A!)