{"id":8,"date":"2026-07-08T18:54:34","date_gmt":"2026-07-08T18:54:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/paralegalcalifornia.online\/?page_id=8"},"modified":"2026-07-13T17:50:03","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T17:50:03","slug":"paralegal-california","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/paralegalcalifornia.online\/","title":{"rendered":"Paralegal California"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Paralegal California<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Qualifications and Experience<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Qualified paralegal per California Business & Professional Code \u00a76450(a)(3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experienced case researcher using LexisNexis, FindLaw, and other tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experienced Internet and legal records researcher for county Superior Courts and Federal Courts (has PACER account for case research and attended PACER training course at Federal District Court with attorney).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experienced writing draft motions and other legal filings for attorney review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experienced with evidentiary technical issues such as computer forensic practices, computer evidence spoilation, and computer evidence admissibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experienced with case management and presentation software, computer networking, database management, legal website development, and email systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No AI tools are used unless explicitly requested by the attorney.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Success Stories<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Civil Case<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiff, a woman in Northern California, had an unsuccessful breast augmentation procedure by an unlicensed physician who operated out of a beauty supply store. The plaintiff subsequently sued the unlicensed physician, the beauty supply store, and the manufacturer of the breast implants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds they were not liable for the botched operation by a third party. The plaintiff’s attorney asked the paralegal to review the entire case file and research the liability question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A initiating party can be liable for the actions of a third party or subcontractor when the initiated action is negligent, inherently dangerous, or regulated by law. For example, a building owner who hires a subcontractor to demolish a structure with asbestos has a duty to hire a qualified hazardous materials subcontractor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paralegal’s research found that the FDA classifies an implant as a Class III medical device because implants are inherently dangerous and therefore the outcomes of all implant procedures must be tracked and reported to the FDA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paralegal’s research also found that the manufacturer knowingly sold the implants to a beauty supply store and the sales agreement did not incorporate any of the FDA requirements<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paralegal prepared a draft opposition to the motion for summary judgment, which plaintiff’s attorney carefully reviewed and modified before filing, serving, and arguing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment was denied, the plaintiff and manufacturer settled the case for a substantial amount.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Criminal Case<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

A college professor was accused by the University of possessing child pornography on his office computer. The campus police investigated the case and forwarded their file to the county district attorney’s office. The professor was immediately suspended with pay and told to stay away from the campus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The defense attorney requested the paralegal to review the case file and informed the paralegal that the professor has recently won an administrative discrimination action again the University for a promotion denial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paralegal’s research found that the professor’s employment agreement gave him privacy rights to his work computer since many professors write academic articles and non-published work is considered the property of the professor. Therefore, the search of the professor’s work computer by the campus police required a court ordered search warrant with a proper statement of probable cause. Several potentially illegal images were found on the work computer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the campus police did obtain a search warrant, the attached statement of probably cause was legally insufficient, basically stating only that the work computer was going to be searched.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A second search was conducted by the campus police at the professor’s home, where no potentially illegal images were found.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paralegal’s research uncovered that it is the written policy of the University IT department that all work computers be secured with user names and passwords. However, after the professor won the administration discrimination action, the IT department removed the username and password security on the professor’s work computer while all other faculty maintained their user names and passwords.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paralegal’s research also uncovered that construction in the professor’s office building has been ongoing for several months, and that no records were kept of who was in the building and who had keys to the professor’s office with the unsecured work computer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The defense attorney then scheduled an in-person meeting with the assistant district attorney who was assigned to review the campus police case file. Based upon the lack of any admissible evidence, plus the other irregularities in the case, the district attorney’s office declined to file charges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a subsequent civil proceeding the University agreed to reinstate the professor’s employment status, full salary, health benefits, and retirement benefits until his retirement date. The University and the the professor also agreed that the professor would not be required to be perform any work in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Criminal Case<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

A disgruntled customer accused a business owner of fraud and filed a police report. The police opened an investigation and contacted the business owner who declined to be interviewed and retained an experienced defense attorney.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About three months later the police obtained an arrest warrant for the business owner and also a search warrant for the business location including physical and computer records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The police arrested the business owner at the business location at about 7:00 a.m. on a work day, placed the business owner in the back of a patrol car, and proceeded to search the business location.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While in custody in the back of the patrol car, the business owner overheard officers talking about searching the computers. About an hour later, the business owner and the seized evidence, including computers, were taken to the police station.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The business owner contacted the defense attorney, who then asked the paralegal to review the case file.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paralegal’s research uncovered that the contents of the computers had been modified by police officers after the business owner had been arrested and placed in the back of the patrol and before the computers were placed into the police evidence locker for subsequent forensic examination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The accepted policies and procedures for the collection of computer evidence require that a computer must be immediately turned off at the time of seizure and then booked into evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At at later time, a qualified law enforcement forensic examiner can then remove the storage media, such as disk drives, and create read-only copies of the storage media using “write blocking” hardware to protect the integrity of the data within the storage media. The read-only copies can then be analyzed without changing any data from the seized computers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paralegal’s draft motion to exclude evidence provided to the defense attorney presented two significant grounds for exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first ground for exclusion was the delay of about three months from the initial police report and the seizure of the computer evidence. Every day that a computer is in use, data is continuously being written and deleted, which means that the reliability of the evidence is being continuously degraded. This is complicated by how most computers store and delete data. Files are typically stored in many smaller blocks of data. When is a file is deleted, the blocks are made available for new files (or file changes), which means that some blocks may be written over and some blocks may remain readable. The police delay of about three months made the seized computer evidence unreliable, and arguably, not admissible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second ground for exclusion was that the police manipulated the computers for about an hour, rather that protect the integrity of the evidence and immediately shut off the computers. Whether the police action was the result of poor training, negligence, or nefarious intent, the objective fact remains that the evidence analyzed in the forensic lab was not identical to the evidence collected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The significant grounds raised about the admissibility of the computer evidence, and the questionable conduct of the police who modified the evidence, appear to have played a role in resolving the case via a plea agreement for a lessor charge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Independent Contractor<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Work is typically performed as an independent contractor on a 1099 basis at my location in California.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arrangements can be made for work to be performed at the attorney’s location for trial preparation and trial assistance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rate is $95\/hour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contact Information<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Call or text (661) 281-0123.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Email Dean@ParalegalCalifornia.online<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Paralegal California Qualifications and Experience Qualified paralegal per California Business & Professional Code \u00a76450(a)(3). Experienced case researcher using LexisNexis, FindLaw, and other tools. Experienced Internet and legal records researcher for county Superior Courts and Federal Courts (has PACER account for case research and attended PACER training course at Federal District Court with attorney). Experienced writing […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"paralegal-california-page-only","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-8","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/paralegalcalifornia.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/paralegalcalifornia.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/paralegalcalifornia.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paralegalcalifornia.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paralegalcalifornia.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/paralegalcalifornia.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34,"href":"https:\/\/paralegalcalifornia.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8\/revisions\/34"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/paralegalcalifornia.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}