Most people who find this page will, by now, be familiar with markdown syntax.

Created by John Gruber, and extended as “multimarkdown” by Fletcher Penney, markdown allows writing for the web without unreadable code. Headings are indicated by a number sign (#), and asterisks turn on and off emphasis. A simpler parser spits out the text in HTML format (or Latex, or ODF). The size of the font, the weight of the emphasis, the layout of the text. All of those things are handled separately. Markdown forces you to structure your text and focus on writing. It prevents you from fiddling with the fonts and margins. If you use three number signs, the text will be in the third layer of the outline.

This comes as a relief after using Microsoft Word for the better part of 25 years. Today, cutting and pasting outlines into Word is still an adventure. I am fairly sure text will appear at the cursor, but I have no idea what font or weight will result. I can carefully delete every sanserif style in my document, only to see 48 point blue Arial appear, and be applied to the next three paragraphs. It can take 30 minutes to untangle the outline, which controls the table of contents and other authorities.

The frustration of outlining in Word, I suspect, is the reason few lawyers use “stylesheets.” In theory, so long as the style is applied correctly, the author could ignore the grotesque default suggestions. But lawyers, who are trained to focus on details, can hardly put off that kind of fiddling. I can count on one hand the number of true outlines I’ve received in 8 years of collaborating with other lawyers, and the same goes for paralegals using stylesheets. I have never seen a lawyer in private practice use styles correctly in a Word document.

This means lawyers spend an inordinate amount of time adjusting the format of word processing documents, or reviewing an assistant’s formatting. For now, lawyers are forced to spend much of their time in formatting. Courts have formatting rules, and cases can be won or lost on formatting minutiae. If bad editing can lead to a malpractice claim, lawyers can’t avoid the task.

I suspect that, in the future, computers will enforce formatting, so that it appears on a judge’s tablet the way the judge likes it.

But today, markdown helps me write now and format later. I can brief in markdown, in plain text, on any platform (desktop, laptop, even iPad or iPhone) confident that my simple formatting and structure choices will survive. I can automate some of the court imposed formatting rules with markdown, and handle the others at the end.

This little project is beginning with three documents: This README, a style sheet, and a markdown template for a “motion” or “brief.” The html output can be transferred to Word or WordPerfect. It’s released under GPL v. 3, so others are free to add or tinker. I hope it starts a conversation about the way lawyers write and publish to courts.

According to the Court, “Gashland, a local Presbyterian congregation, terminated its affiliation with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (“PCUSA”), a national religious denomination, and with the PCUSA’s Heartland Presbytery. Heartland initiated this action against Gashland, claiming that Gashland held title to its church property in trust for the denomination. The circuit court dismissed Heartlands first amended petition for failure to state a claim. Because Heartland’s petition fails to allege facts which could establish a trust relationship under Missouri law, we affirm.”

In examining the legal issues, the Court of Appeals agreed that under Missouri law, “fundamental principles of Missouri law required some effective expression of intent by [the congregation]” to create a trust in favor of the denomination. This contradicted Heartland’s stance that local congregations are automatically bound by a 1983 “Property-Trust Clause” in the PCUSA’s Book of Order.

The opinion is available at this link [pdf] to the Court of Appeals’ website. Gashland was represented by G. Stanton Masters of the Masters Law Firm; Michael Whitehead of the Whitehead Law Firm; and Jonathan Whitehead of the Law Offices of Jonathan R. Whitehead.

Is the newer law better? Not always. In some ways, Chapter 352 is more ideal for a group. There are fewer statutory restrictions. A Benevolent Corporation does not have to file an annual report or maintain a registered office in Missouri. A church or membership association could easily find that Chapter 352 is preferable to Chapter 355.

The decision will depend on the structure and operation of your organization. If you are forming a Missouri nonprofit, we would be happy to talk with you about the trade-offs between Benevolent and Nonprofit corporations.

Which is just a reminder: keywords aren’t always the best way to find things. In a world where audio and video are becoming commonplace, the evidence you need might not be in easily-searchable text format. Your witness won’t type in a search request, he or she will speak it. Starting now, you’re looking for the ‘Assistant’ audio searches, not just e-mails and texts.

Keywords continue to be the most common way to find data, but they’re just the beginning, not the end, of e-discovery.

But do we have that much time? Take a look at Redfin’s new “Scouting Report” for real estate agents. It shows the listings and recent sales statistics for individual real estate agents, based on MLS listings. Some agents are upset about this level of disclosure, perhaps understandably; would you pick an agent that last sold a house in 2008?

It doesn’t seem like it would take more than a couple of weekends for a young entrepreneur to string together something similar from PACER or one of the many electronic dockets across the country.

Imagine a world where a lawyer’s win-loss records, filings, and experience are on display. Would it affect consumers to know how often their lawyer wins? How often a firm wins summary judgment motions? How long it’s been since a jury ruled in your favor? And would it change a lawyer’s willingness to take risky cases? Or brief risky issues?

I am the first to admit that law practice is complex, and that statistics may say far more about your clients than a particular lawyer’s ability.

But I wouldn’t count on living in a world without such statistics for much longer.

They timeline is a new profile feature that allows you to document your life. Moreover, Facebook introduced new “open map” features that allow you to share “casual” information in a stream. Both have profound implications for human relations, IT, and legal departments across the country.

Facebook and Google are locked in a fevered battle to monetize the streams of social data we are throwing off every day. But for most people, lots of life happens at work. Much of our business life depends on social relationships. Facebook and Google+ are trying to let us filter the data sent to professional and social contacts. But at the end of the day, both Facebook and Google are working toward platforms where all of our interpersonal interactions use a single platform.

We’ve been talking about these trends for a while, but the time to think about them has run out. The future is here. Consider: • These social platforms, already, are a method for conducting business. Previous generations used personal conversations, letters, and e-mail, but a building wave of future business leaders will use integrated social communication platforms like Facebook or Google to handle all communication. • For those doing business this way, it will be virtually impossible to separate personal and business communication. • While you can limit the display of this information in Facebook to others, the data will continue to accumulate in a limited number of places. • Under the current rules of discovery, your entire account, your entire timeline, your entire “open map” will be discoverable. • Listening to the post-introduction webcasts on Facebook’s developers conference, individuals asked questions like “will my timeline contains all of my relationships, even ex-boyfriends?” The answer is yes. Indeed your entire calendar, phone call history, purchase history, could be discoverable in one fell swoop. • These platforms will become incredibly valuable bottlenecks in E discovery. The most valuable vendor contract available in today’s market is the Facebook subpoena response team. In every case, every dispute, every arbitration, every traffic ticket defense, Facebook will be the first stop for discovery.

Some people will be upset about the level of information gathered by these social media platforms. But so long as “it’s about who you know not what you know,” social platforms will be able to offer valuable tools for no upfront cost. So far, it has been a nearly irresistible offer for millions of consumers and companies.

A Missouri benevolent corporation is a corporation formed under Chapter 352 of Missouri’s Revised Statutes. Benevolent Corporations are also referred to as “Pro Forma” corporations.

Missouri has another kind of not-for-profit corporation, addressed in Chapter 355. Chapter 355 is called the “Nonprofit Corporation Law.” So we have two kinds of not-for-profit corporations: Benevolent Corporations and Nonprofit Corporations.

Benevolent Corporations do not operate under Chapter 355. For example, Benevolent Corporations must have their charter approved by a local court, and then file that charter with the Secretary of State. Nonprofit (Chapter 355) groups do not have to obtain court approval to change their charter, but must have a registered agent and file annual reports with Missouri’s Secretary of State.

Both Chapter 352 and Chapter 355 corporations can be recognized as tax exempt by the IRS.

There are benefits and drawbacks to both Chapter 352 and 355. It takes a careful analysis to determine the best fit for a particular group.

Some of the sites mentioned:

klout.com flowtown.com(Update: flowtown seems to have changed business models; I am searching for a good replacement). govtwit.com (seems to be having problems this morning). cazoodle